HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Kaplan Rezoning.A130-00A01
2735-124-00-003 A130-uj
OF Ptual PUD
Kaplan Rezoning, Conce,
4
600 Block of W. Hol)kins A�A -L,
PI
Ul
9 0
CASE NUMBER
Al 30-00
PARCELID#
2735-124-00003
CASE NAME
Kaplan Rezoning, Conceptual PUD
PROJECT ADDRESS
600 Block of W. Hopkins
PLANNER
Nick Lelack
CASETYPE
Rezoning, PUD
OWNER/APPLICANT
Aspen GK LLC. And Burton Kaplan
REPRESENTATIVE
Joe Wells
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
2/12/01
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Reso. #19-2001
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
Approved
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED
7/5/01
BY
J. Lindt
9
�71
PARCEL ID: 12735-124-00003 DATE RCVD: FT757TO # COPIES: F CASE NOfTTT -00
CASE NAME: I Kaplan Rezoning, Conceptual PUD PLNR: I Nick Lelack
PROJ ADDR:1600 Block of W Hopkins CASE TYP]Rez7ng� 76 1 STEPS: F
OWN/APPIAspen GK LLC. And ADRJ 19 Union Square West C/S/Z: I New York/NY/1 0003 PHN:1(212)255-1876
REP:1j1e Wells ADR: 1 602 Midland Park Plac C/S/Z:jAspen/C0/81611 PHN:1(970)925-8080
FEES DUE] 231 OD 330E 330EH FEES RCVD:j 2860 (Put in Timeslips) STAT: F
REFERRALS1
REF:1 BYF- DUE]
MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED
DATE OF FINAL ACI�10�N:,,
REMARKS CITY COUNCIL:
PZ:
BOA:
CLOSED: BY: DRAC:
PLAT SUBMIT'D: PLAT (BK,PG): ADMIN:
RESOLUTION NO. 19
(SERIES OF 2001)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING OF THE NEW
WEST HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735-124-00-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Aspen GK, LLC, owner, represented by Joe Wells, for Conceptual Planned Unit
Development approval for an affordable housing project at the 600 block of West
Hopkins Avenue, City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 53,187 square feet, is located
partially in the City of Aspen and partially in Pitkin County, and is located in the R- 15
Zone District in both jurisdictions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a
Conceptual Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public meeting after
considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a
duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from
the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral
agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a public meeting on January 2, 200 1, the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted, by a six to zero (6-0) vote, to recommend City Council
approve the New West Hopkins Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission also voted by a six to zero (6-
0) vote to recommend the Applicant pursue the possibility for shared access to this site
with the Boomerang Lodge along the east property boundary; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority voted unanimously on
December 6, 2000, to find that the project meets the requirements for an exceptional
project as set forth in the 2000 Affordable Housing Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the project meets the requirements for an
exceptional project as set forth in the 2000 Affordable Housing Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Community Development Director, the applicable
referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
0 0
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development
proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL as foHows:
Section 1
The New West Hopkins Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development is
approved, with the following conditions:
The Final Application shall include detailed descriptions of two (2) trails across the
property to be dedicated public trail easements. One trail shall be across the lower
portion of the property connecting the existing trail to West Hopkins Avenue and the
other across the upper portion of the property. The Parks Department shall approve
the trail easements.
2. The Final Application shall show a shared access along the east property boundary
between this property at the Boomerang Lodge expansion property.
3. The Final Application shall demonstrate how the project will implement Green
Development Strategies as required by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
a. Use of gas log appliances. Pollution reduction and energy conservation.
b. Occupant recycling. Areas for glass, metal, plastic and newspaper.
c. Waste management. Identify ways to recycle materials where possible, and
minimize trips to the landfill, including separate dump containers for wood and
other potential recyclables.
d. Destratification fan systems. Fans recycle hot air at roof and recirculate to living
areas to decrease heating loads.
e. Attic fan systems. Naturally ventilate building, reducing the need for air
conditioning from solar gain.
f. Comply or exceed energy code requirements.
g. Landscaping. Utilize native vegetation to reduce water use.
h. Bike storage areas.
i. Trail. To be made permanent fixture of town system by way of easement.
j. Erosion control. Measured specified by licensed geotechnical engineer to
minimize damage to vegetation and ground stability.
k. Site preservation and restoration. Topsoil to be preserved for re -use in areas of
disturbance. Site disturbance limited. Intensive restoration plan to ensure proper
re -growth and stabilization of disturbed areas.
0 9
4. The Final Application shall address the Housing Authority's requirement to
investigate additional Green Development Strategies, including:
a. Building Commissioning.
b. Asbestos -free building.
c. CFC-free building products, including refrigeration systems and carpeting.
d. Recycled materials.
e. Building materials.
f. Water conservation.
g. Certified wood products.
h. Human comfort.
i. Energy efficient lighting.
j. Light pollution.
k. Indoor air quality.
1. Construction air quality plan.
5. The Final Application shall include a long-term hazard mitigation and containment
plan to protect the development from rock falls, snow slides, and other natural
hazards. The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
6. The site contains an old abandoned septic system. The Applicant shall comply with
Pitkin County Environmental Health Department requirements for abandonment of
the system and properly disposing of waste material.
7. The Applicant shall develop traffic reduction measures for the project prior to final
submission in order to comply with the City's Municipal Code requirements. The
traffic reduction measures shall be approved by the City's Environmental Health
Department.
8. The landscape plan shall indicate that the native areas will be treated with the Parks
Department's recommended seed mix.
9. A 5-foot buffer to accommodate snow storage and removal on each side of sidewalks
and trails shall be indicated on the final site plan.
10. The final site plan shall show the areas of the dedicated public trail easements,
approved by the Parks Department.
11. The buildings shall include an adequate fire sprinkler system and alarm system,
approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall.
12. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines or outside of
the approved building envelope and access envelope.
13. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not
within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department.
14. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to
the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
15. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed
rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
Z:�
9 0
16. All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation
and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to
utilities.
17. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes,
including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall 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 conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution 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.
Attest:
4���AA�z
Kathryn S. 1�kh, eity Clerk
411--Ilc�-1
Richards, Mayor
51
MEMORA-NDU.N COIL-V
TO: Mayor and City Council ID
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Juhe Ann Woods, Community Development Director Ve V3
Joyce OhIson, Deputy Director
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
RE: New West Hopkins Affordable Housing — Conceptual Planned Unit -
Development — Public Hearing
DATE: February 12, 2001
APPLICANTS
Aspen GK, LLC
Peter Gluck
Burton B. Kaplan
REPRESENTATIVE:
Joe Wells
LOCATION:
West Hopkins Ave. at 5" Street
(Nvest of the new Boomeranc,, site)
CITY& COUNTY ZONING:
R- 15, 'Moderate Densitv Residential
(subject to annexation)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Affordable HousingTUD
LOT SIZE:
53,187 square feet
FAR:
ALLOWED IN R- 15: 7,965 sq. ft.
PROPOSED (TOTAL).- 27,218 sq. ft
AH: 10,724 sq. ft.
FREE.NL-\RIaT: 16,494 sq. ft.
LAND USE:
E\istinz: Vacant
Proposed: 15 Residential Units
11 Affordable Housing Units
4 Free Market Units
L4.o,,3 n-
�"yo ,,<
TO
ccl�
The site as viewed from W. Hopkins and .5*11 St.
Ase-k
SU-vI.%LXRY: 37 e QL C.4 C_ CAr
This application requests approval for 11 3 h ao�
affordable housing units and four (4) free market
units on a parcel located at the end of .3'h Street,
next to the Boomerang Lodge expansion site. The
property is partly located in the City and partly
W ra
in the County. If the project gains conceptual
PUD approval, the Applicant will apply for
annexation, rezonina, 8040 Greenline Review,
Subdivision, and final PUD approval.
vr-
The Planniniz and Zoniniz Commission and r
HousinE 612
� Board unanimously recommended 0 ell 0/1J
approval. The Housina Board also recommended
that the project be deemed an "exceptional"
affordable housing project.
t,
r1i
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Conceptual Planned Unit DeL,elojyment: City Council shall approve. approve with
conditions, or deny the Conceptual Planned Unit Development request.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Aspen GK, LLC, Applicant, represented by Joe Wells, has applied for a Conceptual
Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a parcel located on West Hopkins Avenue at
the end of 5,h Street.
The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted two (2) public meetings on this
project. Public notices were not required and not provided for the Commission's
meetings, so only one neighborhood resident attended. Council should be aware
that the public has been noticed for this meeting and will likely attend, seeing the
project for the first time.
At the Commission's first meeting on December 5. 2000. the Commission, staff, and
one resident identified several main issues to discuss at the second meeting on
January 2, 2001. Staff prepared a memo discussing these issues, and this
discussion is provided below. The main issues to focus on for the purposes of this
Conceptual PUD are: (1) site access; (2) densitv; (3) traffic: (4) trail connections-, (5)
size. scale. and mass of buildings: (6) the Colorado Midland Rlzht-of-Way; (7)
parking: and (8) site plan.
NLXIN ISSUES
1. SITE ACCESS.
Site access was the one kev issue
discussed at the Planning and
Zoning Commission. One driveway
is proposed for vehicular and
emergency access from West
Hopkins Avenue at the east end of
the parcel. The proposed access
appears to meet Municipal Code
dimensional requirements,
including a 16-foot width to allow
emergency vehicle access to the
property with turning radii of 25
feet and 31 feet at the appropriate
locations.
However, the location of the access
along the east property line is not adequate,
Mr. Adeh strongly recommends that the acce
reasons.
accordinc, to Citv Engineer Nick Adeh.
t, -
ss be aligned with 5,h Street for safety
According tolMr. Adeh, driveways that serve five (5) or more residential units must be
designed to function as a minor residential road because of traffic volumes serving the
2
I MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner � v
RE: New West Hopkins Affordable Housing — Conceptual Planned Unit
Development — Public Hearin
DATE: February 12, 2001
APPLICANTS
Aspen GK, LLC
Peter Gluck
Burton B. Kaplan
REPRESENTATIVE:
Joe Wells
LOCATION:
West Hopkins Ave. at 51h Street
(west of the new Boomerang site)
CITY& COUNTY ZONING:
R-15, Moderate Density Residential
(subject to annexation)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Affordable Housing/PUD
LOT SIZE:
53,187 square feet
FAR:
ALLOWED IN R- 15: 7,965 sq. ft.
PROPOSED (TOTAL): 27,218 sq. ft.
AH: 10,724 sq. ft.
FREE MARKET: 16,494 sq. ft.
LAND USE:
Existin Vacant
Propose 15 Residential Units
11 Affordable Housing Units
4 Free Market Units
The site as viewed from W. Hopkins and 51h St.
SUMMARY:
This application requests approval for 11
affordable housing units and four (4) free market
units on a parcel located at the end of 51h Street,
next to the Boomerang Lodge expansion site. The
property is partly located in the City and partly
in the County. If the project gains conceptual
PUD approval, the Applicant will apply for
annexation, rezoning, 8040 Greenline Review,
Subdivision, and final PUD approval.
The Plannina and Zoning Commission and
Housing Board unanimously recommended
approval. The Housing Board also recommended
that the project be deemed an "exceptional"
affordable housing project.
0 0
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Conceptual Planned Unit Develoument City Council shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the Conceptual Planned Unit Development request.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Aspen GK, LLC, Applicant, represented by Joe Wells, has applied for a Conceptual
Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a parcel located on West Hopkins Avenue at
the end of 5th Street.
The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted two (2) public meetings on this
project. Public notices were not required and not provided for the Commission's
meetings, so only one neighborhood resident attended. Council should be aware
that the public has been noticed for this meeting and will likely attend, seeing the
project for the first time.
At the Commission's first meeting on December 5, 2000, the Commission, staff, and
one resident identified several main issues to discuss at the second meeting on
January 2, 2001. Staff prepared a memo discussing these issues, and this
discussion is provided below. The main issues to focus on for the purposes of this
Conceptual PUD are: (1) site access; (2) density; (3) traffic; (4) trail connections; (5)
size, scale, and mass of buildings; (6) the Colorado Midland Right -of -Way; (7)
parking; and (8) site plan.
MAIN ISSUES
1. SITE ACCESS.
Site access was the one key issue
discussed at the Planning and
Zoning Commission. One driveway
is proposed for vehicular and
emergency access from West
Hopkins Avenue at the east end of
the parcel. The proposed access
appears to meet Municipal Code
dimensional requirements,
including a 16-foot width to allow
emergency vehicle access to the
property with turning radii of 25
feet and 31 feet at the appropriate
locations.
However, the location of the access
along the east property line is not adequate, according to City Engineer Nick Adeh.
Mr. Adeh strongly recommends that the access be aligned with 51h Street for safety
reasons.
According to Mr. Adeh, driveways that serve five (5) or more residential units must be
designed to function as a minor residential road because of traffic volumes serving the
F�
0 0
property. He contends that minor residential roads must either be aligned with an
intersection or located 200 feet from an intersection. Because the property's frontage is
less than 200 feet, Mr. Adeh recommends that the driveway be aligned with 5th Street.
In addition, the Entrance to Aspen Plan includes placing stop lights at 7th Street, 51h
Street, and 3rd Street, and street closures at 7th Street, 6,h Street, and 4th Street, as
shown in Exhibit C. Therefore, limited vehicular access between Main Street and West
Hopkins Avenue at 71h, 6th, and 41h Streets, will cause an increase in traffic impacts on
5th Street, particularly at the 51h Street and West Hopkins Avenue intersection.
Community Development Staff does not share the concern to the same degree as the
City Engineer because West Hopkins is expected to continue to only serve the local
neighborhood and not serve as a thru street. Community Development Staff and the
City Engineer agree that the driveway should not be relocated to run along the west
property line because of the potential for increased conflicts with pedestrians.
The Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning Staff support the proposed access
on the condition that it be combined with one shared access to the Boomerang Lodge
extension. Staff understands that the neighboring property owners are discussing the
issue.
At least two access alternatives exist.
0 0
One alternative is to require the access to be aligned with 51h Street. Such an
alignment would require the two (2) affordable housing buildings to be separated
into four (4) buildings or to reduce the number of affordable housing units on the
site because of the narrow space remaining between the aligned access and eastern
property line. The City Engineer strongly believes this alignment would provide for
the safest intersection.
A second alternative is to approve the access as proposed. This may allow for the
sharing of driveways with the new Boomerang Lodge, which received PUD approval
from City Council for a driveway on the western edge of its site. The timing for the
potential of sharing a driveway is fortuitous because the Boomerang Lodge is
seeking an amendment to its approved PUD concerning the number of underground
parking spaces provided. However, even if the property owners do not share a
driveway, Community Development Staff believes locating the driveways side -by -
side would provide a focal point for traffic accessing these sites, thus providing a
safe intersection for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic to the neighborhood.
A stop sign currently exists on 5th Street at the intersection with West Hopkins Avenue.
Staff believes this intersection may require stop signs on West Hopkins Avenue as well
as because of neighborhood traffic circulation resulting from the Entrance to Aspen
Plan.
In addition to vehicular access to the site, pedestrian and bicycle access would be
provided on a trail parallel to the driveway. Moreover, a sidewalk along W. Hopkins
Avenue would provide pedestrian access across the front of the property; each
affordable housing unit fronting West Hopkins Avenue would connect to the street via a
path from the front door to the sidewalk.
Staff recommends the Conceptual PUD be approved with the condition that
the final application show a shared access between this site at the Boomerang
Lodge site, meeting the Parks Department's approvals for the important
Shadow Mountain trail connection.
2. ExCEPTIONAL PROJECT.
The Land Use Code requires affordable housing projects to include a minimum of
70% of a project's total number of bedrooms to be deed restricted affordable housing.
However, a project may be eligible for a reduction of the minimum affordable
housing bedroom mix if the project is deemed "exceptional" by City Council. The
Applicant may propose a project consisting of 60% of the total bedrooms deed
restricted to affordable housing if City Council finds that the project meets the
requirements for such a project as set forth in the Affordable Housing Guidelines.
On December 6, the Housing Board recommended City Council am)rove the i)roiect
as "excei)tional" finding that the Affordable Housing Guidelines review criteria have
met, with several conditions contained in the resolution.
The following tables summarize several project features:
4
0 0
UNITS.
Affordable
Housing Units
Number of
Units
Category
Total
Number of
Bedrooms
Sq. Ft.
per unit
Total
Sq. Ft.
3-bedroom
4
4
12
1,384
5,536
2-bedroom
1
2
2
956
956
2-bedroom
2
3
4
956
1,912
1-bedroom
2
1
2
685
1,370
Studio
2
2
2
475
950
Sub -Total
11(73%)
22(61%)
10,724
Free Market
3-bedroom
1
3
3,711
3,711
3-bedroom
1
3
3,964
3,964
4-bedroom
1
4
4,380
4,380
4-bedroom
1
4
4,439
4,439
Sub -Total
4(27%)
14(39%)
16,494
TOTAL
15
36
27,218
Community Development staff is not making a recommendation on whether the
project is exceptional; rather, this recommendation is directly from the Housing
Board to City Council.
3. DENSITY
The R- 15 Zone District in the City would allow a single family residence or duplex,
and one accessory dwelling unit per residence, for a total of up to 4 dwelling units
on this site.
The Affordable Housing (AH)/Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zone District
allows density based on lot size. This lot is approximately 53,187 square feet; steep
slopes reduce the size of the lot for purposes of calculating density. According to the
application, the steep slopes on this lot reduce the lot area to 26,916 scluare feet for
i)urposes of calculating density.
Units
# of Units
Lot Area
Required
Per Unit
Total Lot Area
Required (Sq. Ft.)
Affordable Housing
3-bedroom
4
1,200
4,800
2-bedroom
3
800
2,400
1-bedroom
2
400
800
Studio
2
300
600
Free Market
3-bedroom
2 1,200
2,400
4-bedroom
2 1,600
3,200
TOTAL
15
14,200
0 0
The proposed density for thiA site requires a lot area of approximately 15,000 square
feet. The Code requires 300 square feet of lot area per studio unit; 400 square feet
of lot area per 1-bedroom unit; 800 square feet of lot area per 2-bedroom unit; 1,200
square feet of lot area per 3-bedroom unit, and 400 square feet of lot are per
bedroom for 3 and more bedroom units.
Staff believes the proposed density complies with the 2000 Aspen Area Community
Plan. The Plan states: "To conserve resources, an Aspen Community Growth
Boundary has been identified. The City agrees to accept greater density within the
boundary in exchange for preservation of important open space in outlying County
and key parcels in the City, maintaining the separation between communities, and
prevention of sprawl." This parcel is clearly inside the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary.
In addition, the Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan calls for developing
citizen housing within the metro area, near available public mass transit, in areas
that will not promote additional development or sprawl, and in a location with
available public facilities and urban services. This site and project meet all of these
criteria.
The Plan also calls for the development of citizen housing to be compatible with the
existing neighborhood character and environment. The Applicant proposes to build
15 residential units — 11 affordable housing units and 4 free market units — on a
53,187 square foot parcel. Based on other residential and lodge developments in
this neighborhood (listed below), staff finds the proposed density is appropriate for
the site.
* The Boomerang Lodge expansion was approved for five (5) chalet -style lodge
units, two (2) lodge condominiums, and two (2) affordable housing units
immediately east of this property. The existing Boomerang Lodge is adjacent to
this property.
* The Madsen apartments across the street include 9-10 residential units.
* Several duplexes are located in the immediate vicinity of this parcel.
* The Christiania Lodge is one block north.
* The L'Auberge Lodge is about 1.5 blocks northeast.
* The UUr Commons — 25 affordable housing units — is located about 1.5 blocks
north.
* The West Hopkins Affordable Housing units are located about 1.5 blocks west.
4. TRAFFIC.
The Applicant has not provided a traffic study for this proposal; instead, the
Applicant proposes to complete a study if the project receives conceptual approval.
The study would be submitted with the final PUD application.
Staff believes it is important to consider potential traffic impacts caused by this
proposal during conceptual review because the extent of the impacts could affect the
project's density.
R
0 0
Staff has attbmpt-,ed to gather the best possible data to evaluate potential traffic
impacts caused by this project. Three methodologies are used to determine
potential traffic impacts.
1) The City's Environmental Health Department contends that the residences
within one-half mile of a bus stop generate about 8 automobile trips per day.
2) The 1995 Shadow Mountain Affordable Housing Development Conceptual
Submission, submitted by T. Craig Glendenning, provides a traffic study
prepared by Banner Consulting Engineers & Architects. This study states
that the average weekday generation rate of a free market residence in this
location is approximately 6.9 daily trips, and 3 trips per day for an affordable
housing residence.
3) Jay W. Hammond, P.E., of Schinuesser Gordon Meyer, Inc., evaluated traffic
impacts of the proposed Boomerang Lodge expansion on the parcel to the
immediate east. Mr. Hammond's findings indicate that condominium and/or
townhomes in this location would generate approximately 5.86 automobile
trips per day based on the 1997 Trip Generation by the Institute of Traffic
Engineers.
The following table shows possible traffic generation scenarios.
Banner
Banner
Aspen
Aspen
Schmuesser
Number
Average
Total
En v.
Total
Schmuesser
Gordon
Units
of Units
Daily
Average
Health
Average
Gordon
Meyer, Inc.
Trips
Daily
Dept.
Daily
Meyer, Inc.
Total Trips
per unit
Trips
Trips
Affordable
11
3
33
8
88
5.86
64.5
Housing
I
Free
4
6.9
27.6
8
32
5.86
23.4
Market
Total
Traffic
60.6
120
87.9
Generated
I
I
These figures indicate that the development could generate between 60 and 1.20
automobile trips per day. Mr. Hammond's report, dated March 17, 2000, stated that
the best available traffic counts on West Hopkins Avenue in this neighborhood are
between 500 and 1,000 vehicle trips per day; this data is contained in the existing
conditions section of the 1987 Aspen Area Community Plan: Transportation
Element.
Mr. Hammond's recent report also stated that West Hopkins Avenue "does not
function as a through street and serves only the immediate neighborhood
properties. Current traffic volumes remain low through most of the day based on
my observations during various site visits." He further stated that the 53 trips per
day that the Boomerang expansion might generate would be a "negligible impact to
surrounding streets."
7
0 0
Staff concurs that increased automobile traffic in the neighborhood would be
negligible due to the site's close proximity to downtown, transit, trails, and
community amenities.
5. TRAIL CONNECTIONS AND EASEMENTS.
The Applicant and City Parks Department are working out the details of two trails
crossing the property. A trail currently enters the property from the east behind
the Boomerang expansion site, and then continues through the site to its end at the
5th Street/West Hopkins Avenue intersection.
The proposal keeps this trail in a modified form, and provides a second trail higher
up on Shadow Mountain behind the free market units. The Parks Department
supports the conceptual trail alignment. Resolving the site access issue may impact
the location of the trail, subject to the Parks Department's approval.
6. SIZE, SCALE, & MASS/VOLUME OF BUILDINGS.
The size, scale and mass of buildings, measured by floor area (basically above
ground square footage) and height are determined by the zone district and lot size.
Floor Area
This parcel is 53,187 square feet. Similar to the density discussion above, the Land
Use Code requires the lot area to be reduced for the purposes of calculating floor
area based on the steepness of slopes. However, this calculation is different from
the density calculation in that the maximum reduction in lot area for the purposes
of calculating floor area is 25%. This maximum reduction creates a net lot area of
39,906 square feet.
The R-15 Zone District would allow approximately 7,965 square feet of floor area
(5,615 square foot duplex, 750 square feet for two garages, and 1,600 square feet for
2 accessory dwelling units). This figure does not include sub -grade space.
The Affordable Housing (AH)/Planned Unit Develoi)ment (PUD) Zone District
allows the floor area ratio to equal 80% of the lot area. Therefore, 80% of 39,890
square feet results in 33,906 scivare feet of floor area. The Applicant is proposing
27,218 square feet of floor area in three buildings, including garages. The square
footage is about double the amount approved for the Boomerang Lodge expansion
(approximately 13,000 square feet above grade and 3,000 square feet below grade).
However, the Boomerang site is 19,287 square feet.
Height
The R-15 Zone District allows the maximum height of buildings to be 25 feet,
measured to a flat roof or to the mid -point of a pitched roof. The AH/PUD Zone
District allows height to be determined during the PLM review.
The Applicant is proposing the height of the building closest to West Hopkins
Avenue to be 21 feet high to a flat roof. The proposed height of the middle structure
is 25 feet high. The proposed height of the third building, set behind the affordable
8
0 0
housing buildings, is proposE d to be 30 feet high. The first two buildings comply
with the R-15 Zone District's height limit, and the third would require a 5-foot
height variance.
Staff believes that locating the shortest structures on the street, followed by taller
structures in the middle and back of the lot, preserves views for existing
neighborhood residents, visitors, and passers-by, and respects the scale of the
neighborhood's buildings.
MWOM MW
. . . . . . . . . .
NLI(-Isell Apartment,- Boomerang Lodge
t*A.
Structures located next to the Madsen
ADartments
A duplex west of this site on West
The Cisneros house located immediately
west of the site in Pitkin County.
A duplex east of the site.
9
0 0
Staff believes that, based on the model and representations in the application, that
the square footage has been distributed on the site in a manner that is in keeping
with the neighborhood character and in compliance with the AACP goals to provide
quality affordable housing in town. The photographs above show some structures
located near this site.
7. COLORADO MIDLAND RIGHT-OF-WAY.
The Colorado Midland Right -of -Way across this property is not on the City's
inventory of historic sites and structures. During the 1995 update of the list of
historic sites and structures, the Historic Preservation Commission voted to include
this right-of-way on the list, but City Council did not act on this recommendation.
According to Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, City Council did not
consider the right-of-way as a historic landmark on this site because the integrity of
the right-of-way in the area had been compromised by other structures built on top
of it. Maps of the right-of-way are included in Exhibit B.
Staff does not believe this issue should impact this proposal because the right-of-
way is not currently on the inventory.
8. PARKING.
The Applicant is proposing to provide 23 covered parking spaces on site, including
eight 8 parking spaces for the four (4) free market units and 15 spaces for the 11
affordable housing units. The number of parking spaces provided may be
determined during the PUD review. In addition, Special Review is required to
determine the number of parking spaces designated for affordable housing units.
The Land Use Code requires two (2) parking spaces for free market units with 2 or
more bedrooms, and one (1) parking space for studios and 1-bedroom units.
On -Site Parking Spaces:
Unit Type
Total Number of
Covered Parking
Spaces Proposed
Affordable Housing
15
Free Market
8
TOTAL
23
Staff believes the proposed parking is appropriate for the site and neighborhood.
9. OVERALL SITE PLAN.
Staff believes the proposed site plan is appropriate for the parcel and location. The
Applicant has proposed to locate the affordable housing units on and near the street
in two buildings. These units, which will be lived in year around, will bring life to
the street and provide convenient pedestrian and bicycle access for these residents.
H111
0 0
The site plan includes appropriate pedestrian circulation. Connecting the units
fronting West Hopkins to a new side walk, as well as dedicating public trails
parallel to the access and behind the free market units provides pedestrian access to
all points on and off the property.
Parking is proposed to be accommodated entirely on -site and mostly out of public
view in covered parking spaces. Adequate turning radii also appears to meet the
City Code; this will be verified during the final review. Emergency access also
appears to be acceptable to the Aspen Fire Marshall and City Engineer.
The site plan meets several City goals discussed above, including the provision of
affordable housing and increased density within the community growth boundary.
The remaining issue to be resolved is access to the site, which is discussed above.
10. ANNEXATION
The annexation process is administered through the City Attorney's Office. City
Attorney John Worcester has determined that the property is eligible to be annexed
into the City based on its location and contiguity with the City of Aspen boundary.
City Council makes all decisions concerning annexation.
The annexation application is on hold until City Council considers this land use
application. City Council will consider annexation at the same it considers the final
application for this proposal.
11. ZONING.
This Application proposes to re -zone to Affordable Housing (AH)/Planned Unit
Development (PUD); this issue will be considered during final review. This up -
zoning allows for much higher density than the existing R- 15 Zone District permits,
as well as the size, scale and mass of buildings. As discussed in the previous and
following sections, this site is across the street from the Madsen Apartments and
Boomerang Lodge, next door to the Boomerang Lodge expansion site, and within a
couple of blocks of the West Hopkins Affordable Housing site, Christiania Lodge,
L'Auberge Lodge, Ullr Commons, as well as several duplexes and other large
structures.
Staff believes the proposed AH/PUD zoning of the property is compatible with the
existing neighborhood and approved development plans.
12. ROCK FALL HAZARDS.
The Applicant has not provided a geologic report with this application; instead, the
Applicant proposes to complete a study if the project receives conceptual approval.
The City Engineer recommends a condition of this approval is that the Applicant
11
0 0
shall develop a long term hazard mitigation and containment plan to protect the
proposed development.
The City Engineer's referral comments state that this site is directly below the
rockfall area as identified in the 1972 US Geological Survey map. This map also
indicates potentially unstable slopes adjacent to the rockfall area. Mr. Adeh
recommends that the Applicant be required to develop a long-term hazard
mitigation and containment plan to protect the proposed development.
Staff recommends two conditions of approval. One is that the Ay)])hcant provide a
comr)lete geologic repoit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Parks
Dei)artment. The second is that the Am)licant prepare a long term hazard
mitigation and containment plan to protect the proposed development.
It must be noted that Pitkin County would not permit development on slopes
exceeding 30% at the rear of this parcel. The City does not have similar regulations.
SUMMARY:
Staff believes the conceptual project meets City goals for providing density within
the community growth boundary, and affordable housing units in the metro area.
Important trail connections would also preserved. Staff further believes that the
density and size of the project are compatible with the existing neighborhood and
approved plans for new developments. The remaining question is over the
appropriate location for site access.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit
Development for the subject property, with conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 4, Series of 2001, approving the Conceptual
Planned Unit Development."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B Referral Agency Comments
12
0 0
FAHIBIT A
NEW WEST HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual PUD
A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or
Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with Conceptual Reviews and properties eligible for Minor
PUD Review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest
upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its
conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Findin
Staff believes the proposed development is consistent with the 2000 Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP). The Applicant is proposing to build 11 affordable housing
units and 4 free market town houses on a 53,187 square foot lot.
The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan calls for increased density within the
community growth boundary. Specifically, it states: "To conserve resources, an Aspen
Community Growth Boundary has been identified. The City agrees to accept greater
density within the boundary in exchange for preservation of important open space in
outlying County and key parcels in the City, maintaining the separation between
communities, and prevention of sprawl." This parcel is clearly inside the Aspen
Community Growth Boundary and has not been identified as a key preservation parcel
in the City.
In addition, the Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan calls for developing citizen
housing within the metro area, near available public mass transit, in an area that will
not promote additional development or sprawl, and in a location with available public
facilities and urban services. This site meets all of these criteria. The housing proposed
is in the metro area, within a block and half of public mass transit, in an area that will
not promote additional development or sprawl (up against Shadow Mountain), and in an
area served by all public facilities and urban services.
The Plan also calls for the development of citizen housing to be compatible with the
existing neighborhood character and environment. Staff believes the density and size of
the buildings are compatible with the existing neighborhood and approved development
plans based on other residential and lodge developments in this neighborhood (listed
below).
* City Council approved the Boomerang Lodge expansion for five chalet -style
lodges, 2-lodge condominiums, and 2 affordable housing units immediately east
of this property. The existing Boomerang Lodge is located across the street from
this site.
* The Madsen apartments across the street include 9- 10 residential units.
0 0
* Several duplexes are located in the immediate vicinity of this parcel.
* The Christiania Lodge and its associated affordable housing are one block north,
and the L'Auberge Lodge, including a manager's unit, is about 1.5 blocks
northeast.
* The UUr Commons — 25 affordable housing units and one (1) free market unit —
is located about 1.5 blocks north.
* The West Hopkins Affordable Housing units are located about 1.5 blocks west.
Staff believes this criterion is met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of
existing land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Findin
The proposed development for multi -family housing on this site would be consistent
with the character of existing land use in the surrounding area. Land uses in the
surrounding area include: lodge; residential — detached single family, duplex, and
multi -family; park; and office.
Staff believes this criterion is met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
Staff Findin
Staff does not believe the proposed development would adversely affect future
development of the surrounding area. The surrounding area is mostly built out,
consists of trails, steep slopes, or is in the county and would be subject to county land
use regulations which severely restrict development on steep slopes and in wildfire
areas.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS
allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available
to accon-unodate the proposed development and will be considered
prior to, or in combination with,final PUD development plan review.
Staff Finding
The free market residential development in the Affordable Housing/PUD zone district is
exempt from growth management competition and scoring procedures, pursuant to
Section 26.470.070 Growth Management Quota System — Exemptions.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements.
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional
requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General
Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the
appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed
dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
0 0
existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed
dimensional requirements shall comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the
property:
Staff Finding
The final development plan shall show all of the dimensional requirements proposed.
Staff will evaluate the dimensions during the final review.
The Conceptual PUD application presents the following approximate dimensional
requirements:
Maximum allowable densit : 15
Maximum height: 21 feet for the affordable housing building fronting West Hopkins
Ave.; 25 feet for middle building on the lot, and approximately 30 feet for the free
market building at the rear.
Maximum allowable floor area: approximately 27,218 square feet.
Minimum number of off-street parking places: 23
a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and
expected future land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
Overall, Staff believes the proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate and
compatible for the site and neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed density on the site
is similar to the Madsen apartments, West Hopkins Affordable Housing, Boomerang
Lodge, Christiania Lodge, L'Auberge Lodge, and Ullr Commons.
The size, scale and mass of the project appear compatible with the neighborhood as
well. The Applicant is proposing approximately 27,218 square feet of floor area.
This is comparable, in terms of lot size, with the Boomerang Lodge, Boomerang
expansion, Christiania, and Ullr Commons.
The height of the buildings are compatible with the neighborhood. The building
closest to West Hopkins Avenue is proposed to be 21 feet high, measured from the
ground to a flat roof. Behind this structure is a proposed second building, which
would be 25 feet high: The third building, set near the rear of the property into the
side of Shadow Mountain, is proposed to be approximately 30 feet from the ground to
the top of a flat roof. Existing and approved neighborhood buildings appear to be
within this height range.
The Applicant is proposing to provide 23 covered parking spaces on site, including 8
parking spaces for the four (4) free market units and 15 spaces for the 11 affordable
housing units. Additional parking may also be provided on -site in a landscape
shielded area near the center of the parcel. This proposal exceeds the ratio of units
0 0
to parking spaces on most other lodge and multi -family residential sites in the
neighborhood and throughout the City.
b) Natural or man-made hazards.
Staff Finding
Site hazards — both natural and man made (mining) — will be identified during final
review in the geologic hazards report. Staff will address this criterion at that time.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and
surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and
significant vegetation and landforms.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the units have been appropriately clustered in the lower portions of the
lot. However, the geologic report will be important to determining whether the
proposed free market town homes on the slopes at the rear of the property are
compatible with the site's existing natural characteristics.
Staff will address the compatibility with existing natural characteristics of the property,
and specifically address the steep slopes, underground water flow, and significant
vegetation and landforms during the final review.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the
property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic,
transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical
resources.
Staff Findin
Staff does not believe the properties dimensions will have an adverse affect on existing
and proposed man-made characteristics of the property or on the surrounding area. The
Colorado Midland Right -of -Way has been considered in the past as a historic resource,
but not included on the City's inventory of historic sites and structures. The proposed
site plan includes structures across the Right -of -Way.
The dimensional requirements for pedestrian circulation are appropriate for the site.
Pedestrian circulation is provided through the provision of two trails across the
property, a new side walk along the property's frontage on West Hopkins Avenue, and
paths between the affordable housing units and sidewalk.
The proposed density on the site could generate between 60 and 120 automobile trips
per day; many of those trips would likely be from the site to Main Street via 5th Street,
thereby reducing the noise and traffic impact on the surrounding area. This issue will
be further evaluated during the final review.
Please see 1(a) above for the parking discussion. Staff believes adequate parking is
being provided on -site.
0 0
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing,
and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and
favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The proposed scale and massing appear compatible with the surrounding area, as well
as quantity of open space and site coverage. The specific dimensions will be identified
and reviewed during the final review.
As previously discussed, staff believes the proposed density, floor area, height, and open
space are comparable to those of the neighborhood's multi -family buildings and lodges,
particularly in relation to lot size. In addition, the proposed height of the structures
preserves views from all neighboring properties and respects the scale of neighborhood
buildings. Open space and site coverage on the lot also appear to be similar to the
amounts provided on other neighborhood lots. According to the application,
approximately 55% of the site will remain undeveloped.
Staff will further study this issue during the final review, but believes that the
conceptual dimensions permit scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site
coverage appropriate for the site and neighborhood.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be
established based on the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common
parking is proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation
facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the
commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the
proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial
core and general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is proposing 23 on -site covered parking spaces off of West Hopkins
Avenue, and may provide additional on -site spaces if in a level area near the center of
the property. The Applicant is proposing to provide two (2) spaces for each free market
town home, and 15 parking spaces for the 11 affordable housing units.
The Land Use Code requires Special Review to consider the provision of the affordable
housing parking spaces; this review will occur during the final plan review.
The Applicant's parking proposal exceeds the ratio of units to parking spaces on
most other lodge and multi -family residential sites in the neighborhood, including
the Boomerang Lodge, Christiania Lodge, Madsen Apartments, and Ullr Commons,
and throughout the City.
Staff believes the Applicant has proposed an adequate number of parking spaces for this
site, which is located one-half block from public mass transit, adjacent to the
pedestrian/bike way into town (West Hopkins Avenue), trails, and downtown. Off -site
parking is also available along West Hopkins Avenue.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if
there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the
maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if -
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities,
or other utilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow
removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Findin
The Applicants are not proposing to develop the site at the maximum allowable density
under the AH/PUD Zone District.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if
there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features.
Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because
of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls
or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to
the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion,
and consequent water pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air
quality in the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road,
driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not
compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to
critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding
At this time, Staff does not recommend reducing the allowable density within the PUD.
Geologic reports of the site must be submitted in the final application to determine the
density impact on the site; the final review will specifically address the impact of
natural hazards on the site such as snowslides, rock fall, and underground water flow,
as well as the density impact on critical natural site features.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if
there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through
such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its
surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical
constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be
increased if -
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the
community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan
0 0
(AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is
subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional
density and there exists no negative physical characteristics
of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those
areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development
pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the
surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land
uses, and characteristics.
Staff Finding
The applicant is not requesting an increase in density beyond what is allowed within
the PUD.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public
spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features
and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and
safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique,
provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or
contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in
an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
The proposed development appears to comply with the natural features of the site to the
greatest extent. possible. The final review will include a geologic report that may
confirm or contradict this finding. Notable site features include steep 'slopes and dense
vegetation, but these features are avoided to greatest extend possible.
The Colorado Midland Right -of -Way provides a specific reference to the past and
contributes to the identity of the town, but is not on the list of historic sites and
structures. In addition, this Right -of -Way crosses through the middle of the property
and would be difficult to avoid in any affordable housing project.
Part of the base of Shadow Mountain is located on this property, which is unique,
provides visual interest, and contributes to the identify of the town. Staff believes that
the site plan respects the natural features of the mountain in an appropriate manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve
significant open spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant
open spaces and vistas. Vistas would be preserved by limiting height to 21 feet for the
building fronting West Hopkins, 25 feet for the middle structure, and 30 feet for the
structure at the rear of the development. The free market units span across the rear of
0 0
the property, but in a town house configuration that preserves additional open space
that could have been consumed by detached residences. Staff believes this criterion has
been met.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to
the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual
interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the structures are appropriately oriented to West Hopkins Avenue and 5th
Street. The affordable housing buildings are parallel to the street and contribute to the
urban context of the neighborhood. The free market units are designed to blend into the
side of Shadow Mountain and contribute to the rural context of the mountain and trails.
The modern architecture should provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular
and pedestrian movement, especially as it represents a completely different style than
that of the approved Boomerang Lodge expansion.
Staff believes this criterion has been met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow
emergency and service vehicle access.
Staff Finding
Access to the property is from West Hopkins Avenue. Staff believes the dimensions of
the proposed access are appropriate for the site.
The Aspen Fire Marshall has reserved comment on the access until the City has
received a final application, but believes that the proposed site plan provides adequate
emergency access to the site. The Applicant conducted preliminary discussions with the
Fire Marshall. During these discussions, it was determined that a minimum of a 16-
foot wide access must be provided to accommodate fire trucks with at least a 25-foot
turning radii at the entrance and 31-feet by the free market units.
A condition of approval is that the Aspen Fire Marshall shall approve emergency access
to the property prior to the issuance of a building permit. A second, related condition of
approval is that the buildings be sprinkled and equipped with fire alarms, which the
Applicant has agreed to include.
Staff believes the dimensional requirements have been met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Findin
Pedestrian and handicapped access will be provided via a proposed new sidewalk along
West Hopkins, paths connecting the affordable housing units to West Hopkins, as well
as a trail beside the driveway. The revised application proposes one ground level
affordable housing unit, which would accommodate handicapped access.
0 0
Staff believes this criterion has been met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a
practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact
surrounding properties.
Staff Finding
A condition of approval is that a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan,
prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris
on -site during and after construction, be approved by the City's Engineering
Department prior to the issuance of building permits. If a ground recharge system is
required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year
storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. The City
drainage criteria needs to be implemented.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are
appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic
functions associated with the use.
Staff Findiny
This is a residential land use.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding
parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject
property. The proposed development shall comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of
exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and
provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant
species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which
provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved
or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other
landscape features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
According to the application, landscaping will preserve existing on -site vegetation in the
rear, native shrubs (lilac, serviceberry, honeysuckle) in the middle of the lot, and
traditional street trees (cottonwood and crabapple) along the street right-of-way. The
plantings are designed to contribute to the urban fabric of the neighborhood at the front
of the site and native vegetation at the rear.
A landscape plan will be required for review as part of the final application. This plan
must comply with the Housing Authority's recommendations concerning landscaping to
deem this project "exceptional."
0 0
3. Accon-unodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a
safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant
maintenance.
Staff Findiny
According to the Applicant, adequate room has been provided for snow plowing and
snow storage on site. The flat roofs will not shed snow or water. This criterion will be
reviewed during the final review when detailed plans are submitted and reviewed by
the City Engineer.
F. Lighting.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the
development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both
public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards
shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of
site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an
appropriate manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor
Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the
final PUD documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings,
landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the
property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Findin
All new lighting for the proposed residence must be in compliance with the City's
lighting code adopted in November 1999 and Uniform Building Code for safety.
A hylitiny plan must be submitted with the final PUD application. According to the
application, glare from lighting will be minimized through the use of shades and other
screening devices. Minimal exterior lighting will utilize shielded, down- directional
fixtures to minimize impact on the trails and sidewalks in the area and Shadow
Mountain.
G. Common Parh, Open Space, or Recreation At -ea.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or
recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the
proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park,
open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the
proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures
and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief
to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of
the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
0 0
Staff Finding
Staff recommends a condition of approval be that the owner(s) mitigate any public
impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and
sanitary sewer and water lines.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are
provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed
proportionately for the additional improvement.
Staff Findin
It has not yet been determine whether oversized utility stubs will be required for this
project; this decision will be made during the final review.
L Access and Circulation.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily
accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network,
provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and
minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation
of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate
access to a public street either directly or through an approved
private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or
private use.
Staff Findin
One driveway is proposed for vehicular and emergency access from West Hopkins
Avenue at the east end of the parcel. The proposed access appears to be meet Municipal
Code dimensional requirements, including a 16-foot width to allow emergency vehicle
access to the property with turning radii of 25 feet and 31 feet at the appropriate
locations.
However, the location of the access along the east property line is not adequate,
according to City Engineer Nick Adeh. Mr. Adeh strongly recommends that the access
be aligned with 5th Street for safety reasons.
According to Mr. Adeh, driveways that serve five (5) or more residential units must be
designed to function as a minor residential road because of traffic volumes serving the
property. He contends that minor residential roads must either be aligned with an
intersection or located 200 feet from an intersection. Because the property's frontage is
less than 200 feet, Mr. Adeh recommends that the driveway be aligned with 5th Street.
In addition, the Entrance to Aspen Plan includes placing stop lights at Th Street, 5th
Street, and 3rd Street, and street closures at Th Street, 6th Street, and 4th Street, as
shown in Exhibit C. Therefore, limited vehicular access between Main Street and West
Hopkins Avenue at Th, 6th, and 4th Streets, will cause an increase in traffic impacts on
5th Street, particularly at the 5th Street and West Hopkins Avenue intersection.
0 0
Community Development Staff does not share the concern to the same degree as the
City Engineer because West Hopkins is expected to continue to only serve the local
neighborhood and not serve as a thru street. Community Development Staff and the
City Engineer agree that the driveway should not be relocated to run along the west
property line because of the potential for increased conflicts with pedestrians.
In addition to vehicular access to the site, pedestrian and bicycle access would be
provided on a trail parallel to the driveway. In addition, a sidewalk along W. Hopkins
Avenue would provide pedestrian access across the front of the property. And, each
affordable housing unit fronting West Hopkins Avenue would connect to the street via a
path from the front door to the sidewalk.
Staff proposes a condition of approval that the final PUD application show a shared
access with the Boomerang Lodge expansion site.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads
surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads
are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed development, access roads, and parking
arrangement will create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the 'site. As
previously stated in B(3) above, staff believes that adequate parking is being provided
on site and out of public view to avoid congestion. Only one access will further limit
traffic congestion and conflicts in the neighborhood.
Staff believes, many residential trips to and from the property will be by alternative
transportation — bus, bike, or on foot — because of the site's close proximity to downtown,
further reducing traffic congestion in and around the area.
The Applicant has not provided a traffic study for this proposal; instead, the
Applicant proposes to complete a study if the project receives conceptual approval
and then submit a traffic study with the final PUD application.
Staff has attempted to gather the best possible data to evaluate potential traffic
impacts caused by this project. Three methodologies are used to determine potential
traffic impacts.
The City's Environmental Health Department has found that residences within
one-half mile of a bus stop generate about 8 automobile trips per day.
The 1995 Shadow Mountain Affordable Housing Development Conceptual
Submission submitted by T. Craig Glendinning provides a traffic study prepared
by Banner Consulting Engineers & Architects which states that the average
weekday generation rate of single family residence in this location will generate
6.9 daily trips for a free market house and 3 trips per day for an affordable
housing unit.
0 0
Jay W. Hammond, P.E., of Schmuesser Gordon Meyer, Inc., evaluated traffic
impacts of the proposed Boomerang Lodge expansion on the parcel to the
immediate east. Mr. Hammond's findings indicate that condominium and/or
townhomes in this location would generate approximately 5.86 automobile trips
per day based on the 1997 Trip Generation by the Institute of Traffic Engineers.
The following table shows two possible traffic generation scenarios.
Banner
Banner
Aspen
Average
Total
Aspen
Total
Schmuess-
Schmuess-
Units
Number
Daily
Average
Env.
Average
er Gordon
er Gordon
of Units
Trips per
Daily
Health
Dept.
Daily
Trips
Meyer, Inc.
Meyer, Inc.
unit
Trips
per unit
Affordable
11
3
33
8
88
5.86
64.5
Housing
Free
4
6.9
27.6
8
32
5.86
23.4
Market
Total
Traffic
60.6
120
87.9
Generated
These figures indicate that the development could generate between 60 and 120
automobile trips per day. Mr. Hammond's report, dated March 17, 2000, stated that
the best available traffic counts on West Hopkins Avenue in this neighborhood are
between 500 and 1,000 vehicle trips per day; this data is contained in the existing
conditions section of the 1987 Aspen Area Community Plan: Transportation
Element.
Mr. Hammond's recent report also stated that West Hopkins Avenue "does not
function as a through street and serves only the immediate neighborhood properties.
Current traffic volumes remain low through most of the day based on my
observations during various site visits." He further stated that 53 trips per day
would be a "negligible impact to surrounding streets."
Staff concurs that increased automobile traffic in the neighborhood would be
negligible due to the site's close proximity to downtown, transit, trails, and
community amenities.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements
of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and
adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are
provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed
for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
Staff Finding
A historic pedestrian and recreation trail exists through the property, providing
access to a trail system along Shadow Mountain and to Aspen Mountain. The trail
0 0
currently enters the property from the east behind the Boomerang expansion site,
and then continues through the site to its end at the 511, Street/West Hopkins Avenue
intersection.
The proposal is to keep this trail in a modified form, as well as to provide a second
trail higher up on Shadow Mountain behind the free market units. The Parks
Department is supportive of this conceptual trail alignment. The Applicant and the
City Parks Department are working out the details of two trails crossing the
property. A condition of approval is that this trail become a dedicated public trail.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and
adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in
an appropriate manner.
Staff Findiny
Based on the Parks Department's recommendations at the conceptual review, Staff
believes the AACP's recommendations would be implemented in an appropriate manner
with this project.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be
retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to
public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access.
Staff Finding
The PUD only proposes a driveway for private and public emergency service access, not
public use.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the
PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent
practical.
Staff Finding
No security gates or guard posts are proposed.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD
applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do
not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding
property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated
adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase
shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The
phasing plan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function
as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent
phases.
0
0
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent
practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later
phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -
in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents
of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and
any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the
respective impacts associated with the phase.
Staff Findiny
Phasing will be reviewed as part of the final application.
E. Architectural Character.
It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest,
variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and
within the City while promoting efficient use of resources.
Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for
its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed
massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other
buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly
represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be
approved as part of the final development plan an architectural
character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed
development. The proposed architecture of the development shall:
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city,
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the
property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the
intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby
historical and cultural resources.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the architectural character of the proposed buildings will enhance the
visual character of the City, appropriately relate to the existing architecture of the
neighborhood, and represent a character suitable for the location at the base of the
mountain. The architectural style incorporates features similar to the Boomerang
Lodge and Madsen apartments such as low horizontal rooflines and balconies.
The low staggered roof heights — lower at the street level and increasing toward the rear
of the property — will preserve views of Shadow Mountain while providing quality living
space for the residents.
Specific architectural character will be reviewed during the final review of this project.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by
taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and
vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems.
Staff Finding
It is difficult for the property to incorporate any natural heating because of its location
at the base of Shadow Mountain; similarly, natural cooling is accomplished by the shade
provided by the mountain. According to the application, all units will use highly
efficient radiant heat with highly rated efficient boilers. Walls and roofs win be well
insulated and sealed. And, ample windows will increase the use of natural over
artificial light.
The project must also comply with the Housing Authority's recommendations to
implement Green Development Practices to be deemed an "exceptional" project. This is
included as a condition of approval.
0
Staff Findin
No common park or dedicated open space is included in this application for this lot.
However, the Applicant proposes to retain 55 % of the site as undeveloped open space.
In addition, Applicant plans to maintain the native vegetation on the steep slopes at the
rear of the property, replant native vegetation in the middle of the site and traditional
street trees in the right of way.
Common areas are located around and between the structures as well as on the hillside
behind the free market units. Preserving the hillside in its natural state to the greatest
extent possible will continue to provide visual relief to residents of this site and the
surrounding area, as well as lodge visitors staying in the immediate area.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and
recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years)
to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is
proposed in a similar manner.
Staff Finding
According to the Application, a proportionate interest in the common areas will be
deeded in perpetuity to the dwelling unit owners on each lot within the site.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument
for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation
areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against
future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Staff Findin
The Applicant has committed to provide adequate assurances for the permanent care
and maintenance of open spaces and other shared facilities on the property through
protective covenants or other legal means acceptable to the City of Aspen.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not
impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and
that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The
proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development
shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
All appropriate utility agencies and the City Engineer were referenced on this
application and reported the ability to serve this project.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the
developer.
0 9
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2001)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING OF THE NEW
WEST HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735-124-00-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Aspen GK, LLC, owner, represented by Joe Wells, for Conditional Planned Unit
Development approval for an affordable housing project at the 600 block of West
Hopkins Avenue, City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 53,187 square feet, is located
partially in the City of Aspen and partially in Pitkin County, and is located in the R-15
Zone District in both jurisdictions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a
Conceptual Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public hearing after
considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a
duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from
the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral
agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a public meeting on January 2, 200 1, the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted, by a six to zero (6-0) vote, to recommendg City Council
approve the New West Hopkins Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission also voted by a six to zero (6-
0) vote to recommend the Applicant pursue the possibility for shared access to this site
with the Boomerang Lodge along the east property boundary; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority voted unanimously on
December 6, 2000, to find that the project meets the requirements for an exceptional
project as set forth in the 2000 Affordable Housing Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the project meets the requirements for an
exceptional project as set forth in the 2000 Affordable Housing Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Community Development Director, the applicable
referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development
proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL as follows:
Section 1
The New West Hopkins Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development is
approved, with the following conditions:
The Final Application shall include detailed descriptions of two (2) trails across the
property to be dedicated public trail easements. One trail shall be across the lower
portion of the property connecting the existing trail to West Hopkins Avenue and the
other across the upper portion of the property. The Parks Department shall approve
the trail easements.
2. The Final Application shall show a shared access along the east property boundary
between this property at the Boomerang Lodge expansion property.
3. The Final Application shall demonstrate how the project will implement Green
Development Strategies as required by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
a. Use of gas log appliances. Pollution reduction and energy conservation.
b. Occupant recycling. Areas for glass, metal, plastic and newspaper.
c. Waste management. Identify ways to recycle materials where possible, and
minimize trips to the landfill, including separate dump containers for wood and
other potential recyclables.
d. Destratification fan systems. Fans recycle hot air at roof and recirculate to living
areas to decrease heating loads.
e. Attic fan systems. Naturally ventilate building, reducing the need for air
conditioning from solar gain.
f. Comply or exceed energy code requirements.
g. Landscaping. Utilize native vegetation to reduce water use.
h. Bike storage areas.
i. Trail. To be made permanent fixture of town system by way of easement.
j. Erosion control. Measured specified by licensed geotechnical engineer to
minimize damage to vegetation and ground stability.
k. Site preservation and restoration. Topsoil to be preserved for re -use in areas of
disturbance. Site disturbance limited. Intensive restoration plan to ensure proper
re -growth and stabilization of disturbed areas.
0 9
4. The Final Application shall address the Housing Authority's requirement to
investigate additional Green Development Strategies, including:
a. Building Commissioning.
b. Asbestos -free building.
c. CFC-free building products, including refrigeration systems and carpeting.
d. Recycled materials.
e. Building materials.
f. Water conservation.
g. Certified wood products.
h. Human comfort.
i. Energy efficient lighting.
j. Light pollution.
k. Indoor air quality.
1. Construction air quality plan.
5. The Final Application shall include a long-term hazard mitigation and containment
plan to protect the development from rock falls, snow slides, and other natural
hazards. The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
6. The site contains an old abandoned septic system. The Applicant shall comply with
Pitkin County Environmental Health Department requirements for abandonment of
the system and properly disposing of waste material.
7. The Applicant shall develop traffic reduction measures for the project prior to final
submission in order to comply with the City's Municipal Code requirements. The
traffic reduction measures shall be approved by the City's Environmental Health
Department.
8. The landscape plan shall indicate that the native areas will be treated with the Parks
Department's recommended seed mix.
9. A 5-foot buffer to accommodate snow storage and removal on each side of sidewalks
and trails shall be indicated on the final site plan.
10. The final site plan shall show the areas of the dedicated public trail easements,
approved by the Parks Department.
11. The buildings shall include an adequate fire sprinkler system and alarm system,
approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall.
12. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines or outside of
the approved building envelope and access envelope.
13. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not
within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department.
14. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to
the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
15. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed
rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
0 0
16. All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation
and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to
utilities.
17. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes,
including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall 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 conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution 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.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Rachel Richards, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 12"' day of February, 200 1.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Rachel Richards, Mayor
0 0
Approved as to form:
John Worcestor, City Attorney
0 0 E �(�t ig rF -9
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Planner
From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: November 9, 2000
Re: West Hopkins Avenue Housing
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Aspen GK, LLC West Hopkins
Avenue Housing application at their October 25, 2000 meeting and has compiled the
following comments:
General
Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe
that the submitted site plan is conceptually accurate, that it shows all site
features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as
written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department.
2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way,
the encroachments must either be removed or are subject to current
encroachment license requirements.
Site Review
Site Drainage — Requirement — A drainage report was not submitted with the
application. The site development approvals must include the requirement
meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.580.020.A.6.a
and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage
mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the
requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must
be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The
mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and
containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable
solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test
to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below
depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must
contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property
owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be
placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage
system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on
site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit.
The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage
report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the
design storm.
Page 2 of 5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
Information — The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This
includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation
disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow
and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow.
2. Fire Protection District — Requirement — As of the request of the Fire
Protection District revisions need to be made as follows:
a. There needs to be an access area large enough for a proper turnaround for
emergency vehicles as required by AFPD.
b. The building needs to be sprinkled pursuant to the Fire Code.
c. A fire alarm system needs to be installed pursuant to the Fire Code.
3. Building Department — Requirement — The following requirement has been
provided by the Building Department:
a. The building is subject to the following:
0 97 UBC
0 97 UMC
0 97 IPC
0 97 NEC
0 97 APECC
4. Parking — Requirement — The following requirement has been provided by the
Parking Department:
a. NONE
5. Engineering Department — Requirement- The following requirements have
been provided by the Engineering Department:
a. The site is directly below the rockfall area as identified in the 1972 USGS
map. This map also indicates potentially unstable slopes adjacent to the
rockfall area. The applicant must develop a long-term hazard mitigation and
containment plan to protect the proposed development.
b. The entrance to the development must line up with 5 th Street to avoid
accident vehicular movement.
6. Streets Department — Requirement- As of the request of the Streets
Department revisions need to be made as follows:
a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A
washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
7. Housing Office — Information — The following information has been provided by
the Housing Office:
a. NONE
0 9
Page 3 of 5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
8. Community Development — Requirement — The following requirements have
been provided by the Community Development Office:
a. A neighborhood compatibility study needs to be verified. The project appears
to have a massive density that is not a characteristic of the neighborhood.
b. A housing office review on the bedroom mix needs to be completed.
9. Emergency Management Disaster Coordinator — Requirement - The
following requirement has been provided by the Pitkin County Disaster
Coordinator:
a. NONE
10. Parks — Requirement- The following comments have been produced by the
Parks Department:
a. The applicant must implement a site visit regarding the trail reconfiguration
and layouts.
b. A trail easement that is currently in existence is not shown on the proposed
site plan.
c. The Parks Department needs a 5 foot buffer to accommodate snow storage
and removal on each side of sidewalks and trails.
d. The native areas must be treated with the Parks Department's recommended
seed mix.
12. Utilities: A utility plan was not submitted with the application. For the utility
departments to properly comment, a utility plan must be submitted.
- Water:
City Water Department - Requirement — As a request of the City of Aspen
Water Department, revisions need to be made as follows:
a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water
Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as
they pertain to utilities.
b. A water service agreement is required.
c. Additional fees may be assessed based upon development and dedication of
water rights.
d. There needs to be a utility access easement of 10' on either side of the
centerline of the driveway.
e. The site layout needs to show individual unit metering and service.
- Wastewater:
Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Requirement — As a request of the
Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows:
Page 4 of 5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
a. Detailed plans including TV line inspections and wastewater line components
need to be submitted to ACSD to assess fees before issuance of a building
permit.
b. The needs to be an easement for a sewer line that is a minimum of 20 feet
wide. A total easement for water and wastewater shall be 30 feet wide.
c. Landscaping plans must have enough details in order to avoid conflict with
sewer lines including services.
d. There needs to be detailed plans for the storm drainage system to verify
potential conflicts with the sanitary system.
- Electric:
City Electric Department - Requirement — As a requirement of the City of
Aspen Electric Department, revisions need to be made as follows:
a. Street light upgrades may be needed pursuant to the City of Aspen Municipal
Lighting Code.
b. The location of transformers needs to be identified.
c. Electrical loads need to be determined.
- Construction. -
Work in the Public Right of Way
Requirement — Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the
applicant as follows,
Approvals
1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering
Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including
grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and
encroachments within public right of way.
2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-
5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance.
3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department
(920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on
streets, and alleyways.
4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving
street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department
Page 5 of 5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
DRC Attendees: Applicant's Representative
Nick Adeh
Phil Overynder
Tom Bracewell
Denis Murray
John Krueger
Nick Lelack
Ed VanWalraven
Becca Schickling
Joe Wells
NOV.29.2000 11:24AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
MEMORANDUM
To- Nick Lelack
FROM: Cindy Christensen
THUR; Mary RobWs
DATE' November 29, 2000
RE.- NEW WE5T HCPCNS AVENUE HOUSING PROTECT
NO.125 P.---)
ISSUE, The applicants are Aspen CK LLC and Burton 8, Koplan. T he applicants are
proposing to construct a multi -family project of seven (7) affordable housing units
and four (4) free-market dwelling units in three structures on the property. The
affordable housing units are located in the two two-story buildings on Lot One,
closest to West Hopkins Avenue. The free-market units are located on the upper
two levels of the building on Lot 7wo, at the base of Shadow Mountain, behind the
of fordable housing,
BACKVIOUND; 7he site is presently undeveloped, although in the late ISCO's, a
number of miner's cottages were located on the property, The site is located across
Hopkins Avenue from the Boomerang Lodge and the Madsen Apartments. The
expansion proposal for the Boomerang Lodge, which was recently granted City
approval, is an a site adjacent to and to the cost of this proposal, A third contiguous
parcel of 1,616 square feet, located in the County and owned by Peter L. Vuck, is
being omitted from this application because of a Code technicality, This is not
subject to the Housing Board's review,
ne Board will need to make a recommendation to the City Council on this project.
The recommendation will be based on mitigation requirements, unit mix, unit size,
categories of the units, overall layout of the project, and if the project is an
exemplary project to waive the 70/30 AH/PUD requirement.
The project is to contain the following-,
NOV-29.2000 11:2541 ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.125 P.3
No. Category No. of Bedrooms Sq. Footage Min. Sq. Ft.
3 Category 2
2 Category 3
2 Category 4
2 Free -Market
2 Free -Market
Three -bedrooms
three -bedrooms
three -bedrooms
three -bedrooms
four -bedrooms
1,134 I,=
1,384 1,200
1,384 1,200
3,711 & 3,9 6 4
4,380 & 4,439
The total number of units is 11 - with 7 dead restricted and 4 free market. This
calculates to 64% affordable and 36% free-market. This is under the 70%/30%
requirement stated in Section 26,710,110, Affordable AlousinglPlanned Unit
Development (AHIPLID), As to the bedroom mix, the project contains a total of 35
bedrooms - 21 deed restricted and 14 free-market. This calculates to 60%
af f arcloble and 40% f ree-market.
-Section 26,710.110 states that a minimum of 70% of the project' s total bedrooms
shall be deed restricted affordable housing consistent with the Affordable Housing
Guidelines. A project may be eligible for a reduction of the minimum affordable
housing bedroom mix requirement to a level of 60% of the project's total bedrooms
if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the
project meets the requirements for an exceptional project as set forth in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines.
is this an exemplary pro�ject? There are eight standards stated in the 2000
&Wdelines that should be considered by City Council in making a determination
regarding the appropriateness of exemplary status for a project. All eight
standards must be 'satisfactorily met," They are as follows, with the applicant's
response:
'The qualit-1 of the proposed development substantially exceeds that
established In the minimum thrwhold for the scoritV established in the
SMQ5 Scoring section of the Aspen Municipal Code. "
Revitalizing the permanent community. Adding seven affordable housing
units for qualified employees by providing high -quality, on -site affordable
housing,
2
NOV.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
0 0
NO. 125 P. 4
Providing site -appropriate mixing of free market and affordable housing
for efficient provisions of services such as transit, and for discouraging
site planning that segregates affordable and free market units, The free-
market units are sited in close proximity to the affordable housing units. The
owners of the free market units and af fordable housing units will be governed
by separate homeowners' associations and will retain ownership of the land
within their lot in common with the other owners separate and apart f rom the
owners of the free-market units.
Providing transportation alternatives, The site's proximity to the commercial
core and essential shopping and services should allow for walking, Also, a new
store is being built in the 7" and Main project that could also accommodate
this project. There is also a provision of a public trail easement through the
property to encourage year-round pedestrian transportation. The applicant
also states that they are willing to provide seasonal bus passes, upon request,
to any full-time employee of the Homeowners' Association for the free
market lot by the Association at no cost to that employee.
Promoting environmentally sustainable development, 1-he natural environment
is one of the communit-/s greatest assets. The site is shaded by Shadow
Mountain, which makes solar heating impractical. However, all units will use
highly efficient radiant hect with highly rated ef-flicient boilers,
Promoting community -recycling efforts. -rhe applicant is proposing to
provide recycling containers on the property.
Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character.
Entry porches have been incorporated into the design of the north elevation
of the affordable housing units that are closest to West Hopkins. The
orgonizction of the units also promotes neighborly outdoor use. The
affordable housing units are organized to form a paved communal courtyard
where communal cohesion can occur.
3
.,,.2-9.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING 0FC NO.125 P.5
9 0
2. 'The pm�ws& maximizes affotVability, consistent with housing weds
establIshed as pm�arffy th1vugh these Suidelims. ' All of the seven units
are to be category units,
3. 774 pmposal Integrates a mixtwv of ecommic levels MCI 1WS0_0 tor a
variety of lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors aAd families). " The project
contains three -bedroom Category 2, 3 and 4 units. The affordable housing
units will be restrived to a range of income restrictions and will be equally
available to singles, seniors and families who qualify under the Guidelines.
4. "The Pmposd/ MInImIzes Impacts on InfMstrwture by Incorporating
#mvat/w, eneryy-saving x1te design, str%xtural design characterlstks or
other techniques that minimize the use of water, beating and semve
dikposal. ' The proposal will comply with the City's building code in eff act at
the time of construction, and does include energy efficient heating systems
and on -site recycling.
5. O'ne ptvposal Incorporates or Integrates with an existing local based
economy 6. e,, mistainable local businesses).' The seven units are to house
a portion of the workforce, which supports the existimg local -based economy.
6, 'The proposal accomplishes a level of desi
4n and site plan ireenuity that
advances the community goals expmsied in the Aspen Area Community
Plan. " 7he proposal's design and site plan characteristics intended to
advance the community goals as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan
and discussed on page 27 of the application.
7. '774 pvposed pvjecr mptys"fs at? exceptybnal commiftent to advaming
the visions, goals, and.�peciflc action Items of the Aspen Area Communify
Plan particularly those oddmssed In the scoring criteria under the &vw-th
Management Qwfa 5ystem as stated In the City of Aspen Muni;�ipal
Code. ' The applicants believe that the proposed project represents an
exceptional commitment to advancing the visions, goals and specific action
items of the Aspen Area Community Plan and discussed on page 39 of the
application.
4
NOV.29.2000 11:25Pti ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.125 P.6
0 0
8. "Ab RO U/111V tire included /n I*e project, Only C&7ft9VrY (ffllft arC included
ij7 the pmject. " The applicant is proposing only Category 2, 3 and 4 units.
Staff concurs that Standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been satisf ied. However,
Standard #3 does not provide for a variety of lifestyles. The priority for three -
bedroom units is a household of three with at least one of them a dependemt,
Therefore, singles and seniors are not in the top priority. In Standard #4, the
applicant has only indicated energy efficiency regardimg the heating system. Staff
feels there is not enough information to assess how this project minimizes its
infrastructure, water and sewage disposal impacts. The applicant states that each
residential unit will contain (a gas -log fireplace, but staff is unsure, at this time if it
includes the affordable housing units.
Other Positive Aspect, S to the Pro ject*
The unit sizes are greater than the minimums required. Under the 2000
Guidelines, price per square foot for the Category 2 units as proposed would
be $104,300 - 1,134 : $91.98 per square foot; Category 3 units would be
$149,OCO + 1,384 $107.66 per square foot; and Category 4 units would be
$228,600 + 1,384 $165.17 per square foot.
The architecture for the project utilizes the second story for the living arw,
kitchen, etc., with the bedrooms located an the main level.
There will be two parking spaces provided for each unit, with one additional
quest parking space, Most of the parking spaces are covered spaces located
within the buildings themselves. There are a total of 23 off-street parking
spaces proposed on -site.
It is presently anticipated that separate homeowners' associations will be
created for the owners on each of the two proposed lots and that the owners
will retain an undivided interest in the land on each of the lots. This is a plus
on the off ordable housing side as they can deal with costs associated with
their deed restricted units, and not with additional things that can be added
by the f ree-mcrket owners.
r,
NOV-29.2000 11:25PM RSPLN HOUniNG OFC NO. lc�� t-1. (
0
Issues,
All the units are three -bedroom units, it is a goal of the community to
encourage a mixed unit project.
Is the project exemplary enough to approve a 60/40 mix instead of the
required 70/30 mix.
RECOMMENDAT7ON: The Housing Board met on this application November 15,
2COO, and will meeting again with the architect, Peter Gluck, an December 6. The
:oard requested tome additional work to possibly make this a 70/30 project, 5ome
suggestions that Board members made are as f ollows:
Less parking to add more units to make this a 70/30 project (addition of 3
more units would create a 70/30 project)
Different mix of unit types (instead of all three -bedroom units, make some
one- or two-bedroem units)
The Board will further discuss the above two issues with the architect on
Wednesdoy, December 6, At that time, a f ormci recommendation will be f orwcrded
to the Community Development Department for the City Council to take into
consideration. The Board, overall, was impressed with the project and especially
liked the idea of two separate homeowners' associations - one for the free-market
units and one for the deed -restricted units.
rJc:hkward\refwaMYAi.1cc
6
0 0
MEMO
TO: NICK LELACK
FROM: BEN DODGE
RE: TRAIL COMMENTS, KAPLAN PARCEL
DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2000
CC: REBECCA SCHICKLING
The City of Aspen Parks Department is strongly in favor of the lower trail alignment as indicated
by the applicant. This trail will allow improved access to Hopkins Avenue from Koch Lumber
Park and the Barbee Trail. We request that this trail match specifications of the existing trail
from Koch Park to Fourth Street.
The City of Aspen Parks Department would like to continue discussions with the applicant in
regards to another, upper trail alignment. This proposed alignment would be located on the
southern end of the lot at an elevation ranging from approximately 7,964 feet to 7,996 feet, as
indicated in Exhibit "A". The trail as indicated on this exhibit ranges in elevation from 7,974 to
7,986 feet:
This indicated trail alignment is only a proposed alignment, intended to show the general area of
trail alignment, and should not be construed as necessarily being the precise, preferred, final
alignment. The Parks Department would like to negotiate with the applicant towards obtaining an
"as -built" easement for the final, preferred trail alignment.
This proposed trail alignment is one of the missing segments of a trail along the side of Aspen
and Shadow mountains that will eventually connect the eastern part of Aspen (Ute Trail) to the
Castle Creek corridor (Marolt Pedestrian Bridge.)
It is believed that this trail can be located such that it will not be perceived as an intrusion of the
uppermost free-market homes. The trail would have a natural surface, be approximately four feet
in width, and would be open to but not limited to pedestrians and bicyclists. There would be no
motorized use of this trail, except for maintenance purposes by the City of Aspen Trails
Department.
We thank the applicant for the continued cooperation in discussing these easement issues.
Lance Clarke, 03:02 PM 10/31/00 -0700, referral - West Hopkins Housing Page I of I
X-Sender: lancec@comdev
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:02:26 -0700
To: Nickl@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Lance Clarke <Iancec@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: referral - West Hopkins Housing
Nick- A few comments on the proposed annexation /rezoning/PUD:
-It appears the development will infringe on 30% slopes. This would not be permitted were the property
to be developed in Pitkin County.
-This general area can be subject to rockfall hazard, avalanche hazard and slope instability. A geologic
hazards analysis and proposed mitigation should be part of any review of this property for development.
Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 2/2/01
0 0
Aspen ConsolidatedSanitation District
Sy Kelly * Chairman
Paul Smith * Treas
Mic6ael Kelly * Secy
November 9, 2000
Nick Lelack
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: New West Hopkins Housing
Dear Nick:
John Keleher
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr
F
`-f---N/P!T;(IN
COMMU14ITY IDEVELOPMENT
The proposed development lies within the service area of our District and service would be
provided by extending the West Hopkins main line. Service is contingent upon compliance with
the District's rules, regulations and specifications which are on file at the District office.
A line extension request and collection system agreement will need to be approved by our Board
of Directors. Easements will be required for the main line extension and they must be granted
according to standard district form. All of the required forms and agreements are available at the
District office. The developer will be required to deposit funds with the District to cover the costs
of reviewing the collection system plans, line extension construction observation, and closed
circuit inspection of the line extension. Shared service line acknowledgments will be required for
multiple units sharing a common service line. The covered parking areas will be required to have
oil and sand separators. We will need to review the landscape and drainage plans once they
become available.
The total connection charges for the project can be estimated once detailed plans are available for
the project. There are downstream constraints that will be eliminated through a system of
proportionate additional fees. We request that all District fees be paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Separate agreements to cover billing and common utilities may be needed for
each of the two associations that would be created.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537 - 1. -�� - -Y
0 0
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department
From: Lee Cassin, City Environmental Health Department
Date: November 30, 2000
Re: NEW West Hopkins Ave. Housing Project
Parcel ID #2735-1...
The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under
authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 "It shall be unlawful for the owner or
occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -
site sewage disposal device."
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department.
The site has an old abandoned septic system that recently served a restaurant. The contents of a
septic tank, vault, or seepage pit, the use of which has been terminated, must be properly disposed
of. Then the emptied tank, vault, or pit must be filled with soil or rock, or the CountV
Environmental Health Department may require the tank or vault to be removed and disposed of
properly.
A condition of approval should be that the applicants comply with County
Environmental Health Department requirements for abandonment of the system and
properly disposing of waste material.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities,
parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental
Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen water supply meets all
standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. A letter of agreement
to serve the project must be provided.
0 0
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its
municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction
within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal
water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted."
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be
evaluated by the City Engineer.
AIR OUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve
the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and
techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to
"lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be mee as well as to "provide clean air by
protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project.
PM-1 0 (83 % of which comes from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern in
Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that are
health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical
degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. The applicant
needs to implement measures that will minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset the
en-dssions from the project with PM10 reduction measures elsewhere.
Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and
reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Tri]2 Generation Report, Fifth Edition. Housing units use the trip
generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210, which is 9.55 trips per day per unit. Residential units
located within one half mile of a transit stop are allowed a reduction of 1.5 trips per day. The
project would generate 105 trips/ day without any reductions, and would generate 88 trips/ day
with the reduction for its location within 1/2mile of transit. This site is ideally located close to mass
transit so vehicles would not be needed for shopping or skiing.
This is a significant number of trips given the air pollution problems the community has been
dealing with for the last thirty years, the vast majority of which comes from cars. Additional
measures are required to mitigate these trips to comply with the requirements of the Municipal
Code. Since this project is partly affordable housing, we recognize the need to limit costs, so we
recommend the applicant consider additional measures from the list below, many of which have
low or no cost to the applicants. As an example, some of the market incentives cost the applicant
nothing and could provide a significant financial benefit to single parents and families tying to
purchase an affordable unit.
Mitigation measures proposed by the applicant are provision of seasonal bus passes to employees,
and provision of secure bicycle parking and lockers at the affordable housing lots. These facilities
should be provided prior to issuance of a CO. The applicant also proposes to provide a legal
easement for the pedestrian/ bike trail across the property that has been used historically. The
0 0
applicant proposes two parking spaces/ unit. It would be desirable if the applicants believe there
will be very few trips, to provide long-term car storage instead of this number of spaces onsite, but
it is beneficial that additional spaces are not provided.
Examples of mitigation measures that have been employed in the past by developers include
providing carpool/vanpool financial incentives to employees, providing free bus passes,
providing vanpools, providing dial -a -ride service, paying for additional RFTA buses and service,
providing private bus service for employees, limiting parking, allowing residents to pay for
parking spaces if they choose and giving discounts to those who don't, having homeowners
association fees on a sliding scale depending on the number of cars, providing connecting bike
path links in populated areas, plowing bike paths in populated areas, paving dirt shoulders or
high -use parking lots, providing covered and secure bike storage, providing free bike fleets for
residents, building sidewalks to adjacent commercial areas, donating connecting bike path links,
and other measures. Whatever combination of measures the applicant chooses to mitigate PM-10
emissions and trips generated, is acceptable as long as it prevents additional traffic that would
significantly impact air quality. The City Environmental Health Department has no preference for
which trip reduction measures are used, and typically an applicant chooses measures that provide
an ancillary benefit to the project.
It is very important for the City's efforts to provide easy bicycle/ pedestrian access throughout
town, to maintain the West Hopkins Pedestrian/ Bikeway. With additional development along
this corridor, there could be pressure to open this street to vehicle through -traffic. It is hoped that
the applicants will work to ensure this street continues to serve as a connecting bicycle/ pedestrian
link. The separate trail easement and trail are an added amenity, as is the easement for continued
pedestrian/bike use of the old railroad right of way trail.
A condition of approval should be that the applicant develop additional traffic
reduction measures for the project prior to detailed submission, in order to
comply with code requirements. The applicant should work with the
Environmental Health Department to determine whether the measures are
sufficient.
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant commits to installation of gas fireplace
appliances and to no woodstoves or gas log fireplaces. This will prevent the emissions that would
occur if woodstoves were used, or if gas log fireplaces were installed and used with wood by
owners unaware of city and county regulations.
FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to
fencing, watering of dirt roads and disturbed areas, daily or more frequent cleaning of adjacent
paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary
to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. Dust control
will be crucial due to the closeness of existing homes to the site.
0 0
CARPORTS The applicant must consult with an engineering firm about design of the carport
parking ventilation system to ensure that ventilation is adequate to prevent carbon monoxide
from reaching high levels inside the carports or in the units above them. This is a concern because
the carports are under overhanging units with bedrooms immediately above the parking spots, so
that fumes might collect beneath sleeping areas in areas where air circulation is poor. An engineer
who specializes in design of heating and ventilation systems must certify that the proposed design
will prevent excessive levels of carbon monoxide from concentrating inside the carports or in
buildings above.
ECOLOGICAL BILL OF RIGHTS
The only energy efficiency feature appears to be use of efficient boilers. The applicant should use
other inexpensive options and we recommend they contact the CORE office for assistance.
We recommend the applicant amend the provision related to recycling to state that the containers
will be maintained as long as public or private pickup services are available. We recommend the
applicant specify that facilities will be provided for recycling of at least cardboard, glass, plastic,
0
cans, office paper, newspaper and magazines. We encourage the applicants to also provide a
backyard composting facility for use by the complex.
The applicant could make this a project that is a model of goals contained in the Ecological Bill of
Rights at minimal cost to the project. Recycled -material decking could be used, compact
fluorescent or other high -efficiency lights could be used outside (and inside), setback thermostats
could be provided, low -flow faucet fixtures could be provided... the list is endless, but we
encourage the applicant to incorporate some of these or other features.
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of
environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety
and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors . ..... Accordingly, it is the policy of council to
provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit
noise in excess of those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and
construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No construction is allowed on Sundays.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some
negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to
n-dnin-dze the predicted high noise levels.
It If
.I L111L
Lr
It
J U
rTl I
I'AW 11 111, 11
Li
"DIN
(jil It
In
IN 9z Z--i
ir
III LL I- Z
- j4
In
n
fIN
LJ,
Ij
ir
uj
r
6 Will
P.-M!
Z. Ln
A.b
A
'o r, rl
E
4-a 9 E m
E E
9
M Ln 0
u cz
Fi -3
> 13 Ij
r= .2
U
0
9
Downtown Alignr
Alignment and Stop Local'
The LRT system, would enter Aspen acros: %
Marolt-Thomas property and a new Castle Cret-
Brid2e alisined with Main Street. Light rail vel
would travel on Main Street between Castle Cr
% N01-- an as
Monarch Street. At Ivlonarch. rhe LRT system--
south alonsz Monarch to Durant. where the trac
cast to terminate at the Rubev Park Transit Cer7—
LRT stations have been located on Main S;2:!�—
Seventh Street and Second Street. on Nlonarch—
tween Hopkins and Hyman. and at Rubev Park7
acinLy is based
tion location and sp upon the cle�--
maximize the number of downtown and west et�2-11 a
Ile i---
locations within a maximum one-quaner m, at
a station. The design team also reviewed static
location and spacing in light of SkiCo studies t--
show its customers will readily walk up to one, —
thousand feet in ski boots to a transit stop.
:at
at
21
at
01
C,
]EJ
0
Q, rLl�
'Oft dW
%
Entrance ro Aspen Main 5treet Design Repi
Page j
N
PU13LIC * Wo-rICE
DATE—E�4�-�
TIME
P L A C E -,'-fl 'M, �,o 't/-'.
PURPOSE�k
AV Re AWOV"M:�r
(30
,OR FWT�- Age&
130 SaflH GAU"
a
County of Pitkin AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado SECTION 26.304.060(E)
being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of prope y within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
al .4— 1
on the attached list, on the day of 'Y200-Awhich is '_�o days prior to the pt�blic
hearj*pg, date of
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the s;u Ject Wprope as it cduld be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the L, day
of /�iOlzlZwf , 20OZ , to the /Z,/"�Ly of 0 r:��e 200 4. (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
7S*
(Attach photograph here) signe! before me this day of
200_4 by
51A7PW Pete_s
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires: 31-2
Y P1
J
Q�
Notary Publi USA J.
C�_ KLONOSKI
4p
C
C,P
0 0
L"W OFFICES OF
OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C.
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
LEONARD M. OATES
Imoasst(ttokglaw.com
RICHARD A- KNEZEVICH
rak@okg1aw_.com
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ
TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700
tdg@okglaw.com
DAVID B. KELLY
FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121
dbk@okglaw.com
OF COUNSEL:
MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM
mbf@okglaw.com
JOHN T. KELLY
jtk@okglaw.com
mail@okglaw.com*
February 12, 2001
As en City Council
13E South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: New West Hopkins Affordable Housing
Dear Council Members:
This office represents Shadow Mountain Corp. which is the owner of property on the south westerly
side of Hopkins Avenue. The purpose of this letter is to express our concern as to certain aspects of the
above referenced project which we feel will greatly impact and change the nature of the south side of West
Hopkins Avenue.
Initially, we would point out that our clients concerns arise primarily from the density of the project
as opposed to whether the Units are affordable housing units or free market units. Our client feels, however,
that the density proposed will have certain negative effects on the neighborhood. Our concerns with the
project are as follows:
1. Density. According to the staff memo, a maximum of four dwelling Units would be permitted
under the existing R- 15 zoning, with a maximum of 7,965 square feet. The applicant has proposed 15 Units
totaling 27,218 square feet. This is more than a threefold increase over the development currently permitted
under the R- 15 zone. It should also be noted that no development would currently be allowed on slopes in
excess of 30%. In any event, the density increase is excessive.
2. Parking. It is our client's position that all parking should be provided on site. The parking for
the affbrdal�e Units is inadequate. It would be more approximate to require two spaces for each Unit with
more than one bedroom. This would increase the affordable parking to 18 and the total on -site parking to
26. In addition, some provisions should be made for guest parking. Our client feels strongly about this based
on the West Hopkins Affordable Housing Project where the on -site parking is clearly inadequate. In
addition, the new housing project at 7" and Main has no parking, which will no doubt exacerbate the West
Hopkins Street parking situation even further. Finally, it should be noted that West Hopkins is a designated
pedestrian and bikeway. Having the street lined with vehicles will only detract from this experience and raise
safety issues.
0 0
OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C.
Aspen City Council
February 12, 2001
Page 2
3. Traffic. While no traffic study has been presented by the applicant, staff estimates is 60.6 trips per
day seems optimistic. Even if correct, it would certainly create negative impact, along with on -street parking,
on the pedestrian and bikeway experience. This project, along with other projects which have been
previously approved will undoubtedly radically change the nature of the West Hopkins neighborhood.
4. Potential Geologic Hazards. While no geologic report has been submitted by the applicant at this
time, it is our client's position that there is certainly the potential for geologic hazards, including but not
limited to rockfall. We question the wisdom of granting any approval, albeit conceptual, until potential
hazard issues are addressed. This could, in fact, be one of the most controversial aspects of the project. Any
development in the heavily forested, steep slopes of Shadow Mountain should be given the most rigorous
review, both in terms of visual impact and hazard concerns.
In closing, we would ask counsel to seriously consider the issues of density, traffic, parking and
potential geological hazards. Finally, we would ask that Council recognize that while there is considerable
high density development on the north side of Hopkins and on Main Street, there is virtually none on the
south side between 5t' and 7h. This area, which is in close proximity to the heavily forested Shadow
Mountain. It should also be noted that the density requested by this application will certainly affect the
dedicated walkway/bikeway as a result of increased traffic and the inevitable on -street parking.
Thank you for your kind consideration of these matters.
Very truly yours,
OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C.
By:
John T. Kelly
JTK/jr
enc.
a.
If
E
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
RE: West Hopkins Avenue Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD
Review, Rezoning
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
DATE: December 5, 2000
APPLICANTS
LOT SIZE:
Aspen GK, LLC
53,187 square feet
Peter Gluck
Burton B. Kaplan
ExiSTING LAND USE:
Vacant
REPRESENTATIVE:
Joe Wells PROPOSED FAR:
TOTAL: 26,119 sq. ft.
LOCATION: AH: 8,938 sq. ft.
West Hopkins Ave. at 5th Street Free Market: 16,494 sq. ft.
(west of the new Boomerang site)
CITY & COUNTY ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING:
R-15, Moderate Density Residential Affordable Housing/PUD
(subject to annexation)
SUMMARY:
The Conceptual PUD and rezoning application for the West Hopkins Avenue
Housing Project is currently being reviewed by the Community Development
Department and has been scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission
review. Staff has requested the applicant present an overview to the
Commission at this meeting. This is being done for two reasons:
1. The project has several components that are intended to complement a
"larger picture." Understanding that larger picture initially will make the
topic reviews more efficient and less confusing.
2. Major threshold issues that need to be addressed during the conceptual
review can be identified up -front and either requested of the applicant to
further address or staff to further research/analyze.
Staff intends this session as primarily an informative meeting with a more in-
depth substantive review public hearing occurring on January 2, 2001. Staff has
0 0
requested the applicant presentation be approximately 15-20 minutes with 10-15
minutes for Commission clarification questions. Issue identification could take
approximately 10- 15 minutes as well. A conceptual PUD only requires a public
meeting at the Planning and Zoning Commission; the Land Use Code does not
require notification to neighbors, and the Applicant did not provide this
voluntary notice. However, Staff recommends that the public should be given an
opportunity to ask clarification questions and/or request further exploration into
certain issues to ensure that all important issues are identified and discussed.
Staff is suggesting that there are a number of threshold questions to be
answered during this conceptual review. These are summarized below. As part
of this overview, the Commission should determine if these are indeed the
threshold issues or if the list needs to be amended to add or delete issues.
As the Commission is aware, this project has a wide range of components and
staff is distributing the application to the Commissioners prior to the first
meeting to allow greater time for review. A summary of the current program for
the project is attached.
Referral comments from other City departments and the Pitkin County Planning
Staff are attached.
Staff recommends the Commission ask the applicant team clarification
questions about the application, establish the threshold issues to be
addressed during this Conceptual Review, and continue the public
hearing to January 2, 2000.
WEST HoPKINs AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
TTMTT.Q-
Affordable
Housing Units
Number of
Units
AH
Category
Total
Number of
Bedrooms
Sq. Ft.
per unit
Total
Sq. Ft.
3-bedroom
4
4
12
1,384
5,536
2-bedroom
1
2
2
956
956
2-bedroom
2
3
4
956
1,912
1-bedroom
2
1
2
685
1,370
Studio
2
2
2
475
950
Sub -Total
11(73%)
22(61%)
10,724
Free Market
3-bedroom
1
3
3,711
3,711
3-bedroom
1
3
3,964
3,964
4-bedroom
1
4
4,380
4,380
4-bedroom
1
4
1 4,439
1 4,439
Sub -Total
!A!70/.l
lip gom
16,494
TOTAL
15
36
27,218
Oin-qitp Pnrki-no Rnnet-.w
Unit Type
Total Number of Covered
Parking Spaces
Affordable Housing
15
Free Market
8
THRESHOLD ISSUES
,t Density. Number of units and bedrooms proposed for the site.
-t Size, Scale, & MasslVolume of Buildings. Neighborhood compatibility.
t Trail Connections. Compliance with 2000 AACP and Shadow Mountain trail
system.
-k Intersection and site access. Includes access alignment with 51h Street.
4- Traffic. Vehicular traffic in neighborhood and on pedestrian/bike way.
-t Rock Fall Hazards. Unstable slopes in excess of 30% grades.
4, Parking. Meets code requirements; no guest parking provided.
-t Exceptional Project. A 60-40 AH-free market mix is proposed where a 70-30
mix is required.
* JANUARY 02. 2001
determine the configuration for the pools; he said they were consulting with the
best authorities that they could find. Cohen asked to review some of the
recommendations from those organizations. Blaich asked that the key issues be
delineated on why to do it one way or another. Blaich asked for the experts to be
provided for the information requested.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting to 7:30 p.m.
Eric Cohen second. APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
NEW HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PUD
Ron Erickson noted that Martha Madsen was in attendance for this hearing but
wasn't at this time. Bob Blaich opened the public hearing with no public in the
audience.
Nick Lelack stated that technically it was a public meeting and not a public hearing
because it was conceptual land use development. Joe Wells, applicant planner,
stated the architectural issues should be addressed since Charlie Kaplan, architect,
came from New York to attend this meeting.
Lelack noted that the density for the site was proposed at 15 units (I I affordable
housing units and 4 free market units) which met the lot area requirements from
the code for this size lot. The lot was about 53,000 square feet; after slope
reduction it was about 26,000 square feet.
Lelack used the 1995 Shadow Mountain Affordable Housing Proposal for a traffic
study and the current Boomerang traffic studies. He said that the trail connections
and easements were a critical to the project. He said that one trail design crossed
above the property and the other coming down through the property terminating at
5t" Street connecting with the pedestrian bikeway. Lelack stated that exact trail
easement location would be decided by final review with the Parks Department
recommended approval.
Lelack stated the R- 15 zone district allowed almost 10,724 square feet of
affordable housing buildings and 16,494 square feet of free market housing. The
allowed height would be 25 feet and the proposal was for 21 feet for the closest
structure to West Hopkins with a flat roof and 25 feet for the one behind it with the
free market structure in the back, which would be between 30 and 32 feet in height.
Staff felt the proposal was comparable to the other projects in the neighborhood.
13
ASPEN
*JANUARY 02. 2001
Jeff Woods replied that a million dollars was not cheap to put in with a drainage
and irrigation system on the ball fields.
Jasmine Tygr agreed with everything that Ron said and added that so rn,66
money was be' g spent on this facility so why not do it right. She said to call in
whatever expe needed to be called in to create the facility that w" I really needed.
Tygre said that t e testimony was heard from people with speciaIji ed knowledge in
certain areas that ere meant to be addressed by this building 4i�d the experts were
needed for input. uettow agreed.
Eric Cohen asked if t SPARC group did not support thk International size. LJ
Erspamar replied that it as about a 50/50 deal and in e beginning they went that
direction but the costs w e prohibitive at a million d a half more. LJ said that
he could not represent eve one in the group and t ey would re -review the plans,
Jonathan Lewis stated that t e concern was for t entirety of the project and the
overall plan rather than the ic specificall ' ev hough they were classified as
" "y
"the ice people". Cohen said t ere had been trong emphasis on growth out
towards Highlands. Cohen said hat from muggler Mountain at night you can see
the lights going all the way to the ighla s, so the development will be there. He
said the tennis courts were part of de struck with the neighborhood but it seems
that the golf and tennis area were alf dy set. He said that it did seem that it would
be expensive to maintain these ten is ourts and seem to be an impediment for a
special interest. Cohen stated tha a in h better use for the space would be
employee housing. Larry Slate respond d that Council agreed on those tennis
courts remaining in the CC&' S. Slater s 'd it did not make sense that everybody
in the Highlands area had to/ rive out to the irport to play tennis. Blaich said that
if there was an agreement ith the city then t e commission would have to factor
that into it but it did not ange the opinion of is commission for affordable
housing somewhere o the site. Woods reiterate that the site for the tennis courts
was a landfill site an it was not easily built upon nd realistically could not have a
building on it.
Cohen said so of the points that Toni brought up illt\strated some of the problem
areas of the d ign and said that he would be interested � hearing from the people
from Summ* County on the size, design and length of th(\Pool.
Erickson�sked staff to review the concerns on this project a�conceptual level and
to be pr ared to address the concerns. Bossart responded thk architects and
c su
I �11 .
on tn s were hired as experts in this field and that there was input from users,
neighKO-r's, council and competitive groups. Bossart said that he consulted with US
Swimming, the NCAA, the Colorado Athletic High School Association to
12
ASPEN PLANNING*ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02,2001
Lelack stated that site access was the key with internal disagreement (community
development and engineering). The applicant proposed the access be off -aligned
with 5th Street; city engineering felt the access should directly align with 5"' Street
because 4th and 6 Ih Streets would be closed. Blaich noted those streets would be
closed if light rail were to become a reality. OhIson responded that the streets
would be closed anyway with the Entrance to Aspen plan. The commissioners
requested clarification of the street closures to Main Street. Lelack stated that
there was a lot of pedestrian traffic year round but not that much automobile traffic.
He said that this was an opportunity to combine the Boomerang access with this
project's east access.
Lelack said that he researched the Colorado Midland right-of-way and in 1995
HPC recommended that this property be placed on the historical preservation
inventory but it was never forwarded to City Council. He said that much of the
Midland right-of-way had been built upon and therefore the integrity had gone
away; this was not on the historic list.
Lelack stated that 20 on site parking spaces were being provided and recommend
approval with the conditions listed. Wells stated that conditions were acceptable.
Buettow asked if 5 th Street were to be aligned to the site, could the buildings be
moved to accommodate that change. Kaplan responded that the site plan would be
compromised; the first two affordable buildings would be split (2 units in front).
Kaplan stated that this plan seemed like a better solution.
Erickson asked if they considered using the roof as roof deck space; he said it did
not affect his thoughts on the overall project. Wells responded that they would
look at that possibility in more detail for the next submission as well as the ADU.
Tonight's approval was only for conceptual.
Blaich asked staff that if Engineering did not want to do this project in this way,
could they be over -ruled. OhIson responded that the staff was up front with the
Engineering Department about their plans. She said that she felt that this was not
an additional street as much as it was an entrance to a parking court; a technical
engineering fix was not applicable to this situation. OhIson said that the trip
generation from this development doesn't warrant it be considered as a street.
Kaplan said that some housing would be lost if 5'h Street had to be straightened
through the project. The commission noted that should be brought up to City
Council. Cohen stated that the alternative to making the street straight and lose
some affordable housing would be to put in some speed bumps and a four way
stop. Erickson noted this alignment was a lot like Spring Street on the way to the
14
F6
0 JANUARY
Aspen Alps but traffic was about 10 times more at the Alps. Erickson stated that
there would be one road cut if both projects used the same entrance. Haneman said
that moving the stop sign back 5 feet for visibility would aid in safety.
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to recommend City Council approve
the New West Hopkins Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit
Development as it meets the criteria set forth in the staff memo, with the
following conditions: 1. The Final Application shall include detailed descriptions of
two (2) trails across the property to be dedicated public trail easements. One trail shall be
across the lower portion of the property connecting the existing trail to West Hopkins
Avenue and the other across the upper portion of the property. The Parks Department
shall approve the trail easements. 2. The Final Application shall demonstrate how the
project will implement Green Development Strategies as required by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority. a.) Use of gas log appliances. Pollution reduction and energy
conservation. b.) Occupant recycling. Areas for glass, metal, plastic and newspaper. c.)
Waste management. Identify ways to recycle materials where possible, and minimize trips
to the landfill, including separate dump containers for wood and other potential recyclables.
d.) Destratification fan systems. Fans recycle hot air at roof and recirculate to living areas
to decrease heating loads. e.) Attic fan systems. Naturally ventilate building, reducing the
need for air conditioning from solar gain. f.) Comply or exceed energy code requirements.
g.) Landscaping. Utilize native vegetation to reduce water use. h.) Bike storage areas. i.)
Trail. To be made permanent fixture of town system by way of easement. j.) Erosion
control. Measured specified by licensed geotechnical engineer to minimize damage to
vegetation and ground stability. k.) Site preservation and restoration. Topsoil to be
preserved for re -use in areas of disturbance. Site disturbance limited. Intensive restoration
plan to ensure proper re -growth and stabilization of disturbed areas. 3. The Final
Application shall address the Housing Authority's requirement to investigate additional
Green Development Strategies, including: a.) Building Commissioning. b.) Asbestos -free
building. c.) CFC-free building products, including refrigeration systems and carpeting.
d.) Recycled materials. e.) Building materials. f.) Water conservation. g.) Certified wood
products. h.) Human comfort. i.) Energy efficient lighting. j.) Light pollution. k.)
Indoor air quality. 1.) Construction air quality plan. 4. The Final Application shall include
a long-term hazard mitigation and containment plan to protect the development from rock
falls, snow slides, and other natural hazards. The plan shall be approved by the City
Engineer. 5. The site contains an old abandoned septic system. The Applicant shall comply
with Pitkin County Environmental Health Department requirements for abandonment of
the system and properly disposing of waste material. 6. The Applicant shall develop traffic
reduction measures for the project prior to final submission in order to comply with the
City's Municipal Code requirements. The traffic reduction measures shall be approved by
the City's Environmental Health Department. 7. The landscape plan shall indicate that the
native areas will be treated with the Parks Department's recommended seed mix. 8. A 5-
foot buffer to accommodate snow storage and removal on each side of sidewalks and trails
shall be indicated on the final site plan. 9. The final site plan shall show the areas of the
dedicated public trail easements, approved by the Parks Department. 10. The buildings
shall include an adequate fire sprinkler system and alarm system, approved by the Aspen
Fire Marshall. 11. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree
driplines or outside of the approved building envelope and access envelope. 12. All
construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within
public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department.
13. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the
hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 14. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets
15
A QDrW DY A %TWIVA 7fll%JINJC- CnX4X4TQQ1nW
during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during
construction. 15. All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water
System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation
and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 16.
The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including
but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. Ron Erickson
second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes;
Buettow, yes; T�gre, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved for the approval of a shared entrance
with the Boomerang and the New West Hopkins project. Jasmine Tygre
second. APPROVED 6-0.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. Steven
Buettow second. APPROVED 6-0.
Yckie Lothian, Depu"ty City Clerk
Eel
9
Joseph Wells Land Planning
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970.925.8080
Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary)
e-mail Address: WeHsAspen@aol.com
November 30, 2000
Ms. Mary Roberts
City of Aspen Housing Department,
600 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE; New West Hopkins Avenue Housing Project
Hand Delivered
Dear Mary:
In response to comments made by some Housing Board members at their last
meeting, the Applicants have re-examined the mix of deed -restricted units for
the project and are prepared to offer as an alternative to the original proposal for
the New West Hopkins Avenue Housing Project (which was for seven three -
bedroom deed -restricted units) the following mix of units:
1. First Row of Affordable Housing (4 Units):
a. Four Three -Bedroom Units @ approximately 1,384 sq. ft. ea.
4�4
2. Second Row of Affordable Housinz WUnits):
a. Two Studio Units @ approximately 475 sq. ft. ea.
b. Two One -Bedroom Units @ approximately 685 sq. ft. ea.
c. Three Two -Bedroom Units (d- a1212roximately 950 sq. ft. ea.
Total, Eleven Units (Compared to Seven in the Original)
Total, Twenty-two Bedrooms (Compared to Twenty-one in the Original)
The Applicants are still considering the category designations to propose for this
revised mix of units, but they have asked me to assure you that their proposal
will continue to include a mix of categories, with no resident -occupied units. The
revisions to the architecture and site planning are clearly a matter for
consideration in deciding whether this is an appropriate alternative to the
original proposal. The architects are still studying the revisions to the design and
it is our plan to have Peter Gluck present the revisions to the Board at next
week's meeting. The architects are also investigating further the sustainability
issue with consultants in the valley and will have additional information shortly.
In the meantime, I will keep you informed of any further decisions regarding
this alternative.
0 0
November 30, 2000
Ms. Mary Roberts
Page two of two
Please contact me at 925-8080 if you have any questions or need additional
information.
yours,
Wells
cc: Nick Lelack
Charlie Kaplan
0
0
= WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
(0, V-"
Petu L. (Muck and Paftas, kchitect
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY 10003 Fax: 212.633.0144
ASPEN CK III
Project Number: 9915
Drawing scale: 1 *=50'0*
Date: 12.1.00
NEW SCHEME
LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN
= WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
F-
Petff L. Gluck od Partffs, Architects
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY 10003 Fax: 212.633.0144
ASPEN GK III
Project Number: 9915
Drawing scale: 1"=50'0"
Date: 7.1.00
LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN
0 0 0 0
Peter L. Gluck and Partners, Architects
PLAN KEY:
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY 10003 Fax: 212.633.0144
1
PARKING
2
FOYER
ASPEN CK III
3
4
BATHROOM
KITCHEN
Project Number: 9915
5
LIVING ROOM
Drawing scale: 1
6
DINING ROOM
Date: 12.1.00
7
BEDROOM
Affordable Housing
8
TERRACE
Second Row, Parking Level
3 TWO- BEDROOM -UNITS
Fetff L. Cluck and Partem, Aichitects
PLAN KEY:
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY I OOOJ Fax: 212.633.0144
1 PARKING
2 FOYER
ASPEN CK III
3 BATHROOM
Project Number: 9915
4 KITCHEN
5 LIVING ROOM
Drawing scale: 1
6 DINING ROOM
Date: 12.1.00
7 BEDROOM Affordoble Housing
8 TERRACE Second Row, First Floor
0 0 0 0
2 ONE- BEDROOM -UNITS 2 STUDIOS
4
Peter L. Guck and Partners, Architects
PLAN KEY:
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY 10003 Fox: 212.633.0144
1 PARKING
2 FOYER
ASPEN CK III
3 BATHROOM
Project Number: 9915
4 KITCHEN
5 LIVING ROOM
Drawing scale: 1 /8.= 1 1-0.
6 DINING ROOM
Date: 12.1.00
7 BEDROOM Affordable Housing
8 TERRACE Second Row, Second Floor
b
9
Ll
0
404
IJ -JIT
nq �(l
91
F"� 'N u
I \[GD )u t
S, 1�1 "n 1
E�� rl �&C'� 4;1
�'Jlj 0
CJ
It I
rT
E% 3
P-3
Fn—
C,
C2
t—j Lrxi CS
Lj cl C30
i J7,1Fs—
4-0
C
0 PM14
P-"
T-r'-
0
U=
0
5
C)
cl
g
o
4-
>
C/)
tb
m
u
"�S,
to
0
0
Ln
:5F
�;_
8)
0
Lun
0
00
42
--tg
.2
ro— E
CIS 0 -0
.0
-�04, cr-)
ju
V CJ
>
C) C', U u 0 0
10
10
w
It i z
D < 0
V) z
L)
u
0
LL _j
w LL I
Ir < 0
(n
w
w
0
u
z
0
U)
F-
Fn
z
w
z
0 _j
0
t
lz�
14
lZ
County of Pitkin AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado SECTION 26.304.060(E)
1, - '�) 0�_ L__1 ,A A , being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
I By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
�'�J .........
Mail to I �os of property within three hundred 3 o the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on
200_ (which is _ days prior to the public
2. `���na si�gnm a �consp�iicuous �place �onthe subject �property (as it could be seen from
ig i
st vi
d and visible continuously from the day
the nearest public way) and tha sted �and siblpe I
of e — day of 20Q_. tMust be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
3. C)V\ 1( / 46c
(Attach photograph here)
Signature 90AA4A�-- C&��
Signed before me this — day of
200_. by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
Saturday -Sunday, November 18-19, 2000 * The Aspen Times 19-8
F% 141111.1(� NO I WE
RF: SAVANNAH CONCEPTUAL PLANNED 11Nrr
DEVELOPMENT& REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY CAVEN that ;I public hearing
will be. field im December 5,2(XX),nI a meeting 10
begin at 401 P , M. before the Aspeii Plaollifig it : III
Zoning Commission, Sister Citivs Room, C ly
[fall 1:10 South Galena, Aspen. it) consider a
Coiturpitial Planned Unit Development A
Rezoning to Lodge/Tourist Residential applica-
tion submitted by Savannah Limited
Partnership for the Mine Dumps Apartment par-
cel. the Aspen Skiing Company Parking [.of, and
a portion of the Barbee PUD located on S. Aspen
StrerligMis public hearing date will primarily
C( C.-W, resen t Tion of the proposed pro-
p
1, 1 fifflicitnt. The land Is legall
described as Lots 7-12. Eames Addition. Lots IT
20, Eames Addition, and Block fi, Eames
Addition.
For further Information contact Nick Lelack at
the Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO.
(970) 920-5095.
s/Rob Blalch, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published In The Aspen Times on November 18,
2000. (75277)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Notice Is hereby given to the general public of
the approval Ma site specific development plan.
and the creation of a vested property right pur-
suant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen
and Title 24, Article fig, Colorado Revised
Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: Lots 1-11, Block 21, Riverside
Addition, by resolution of the Planning and
Zoning Commission numbered 57 series of 20l
For furthe. Information contact little Ann
Woods. at the Aspeti/Plikin Community
C�vf,Wm(en' Dept. 130 S - Galena St, Aspen.
970) 920-5090.
P In The Aspen Times on November 18,
2(�W52 79)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Notice Is hereby given to the general public of
the approval of a site specific development plan,
and the creation of a vested property right pur-
suant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen
and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised
Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: Unit E2, Durant Mall, 720 E. Durant, by
resolution of the Planning and Zoning
Commission numbered 56 series of 2000.
For further Information contact Julie Ann
Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St , Aspen,
Colorado (970) 920-5090.
Published In The Aspen Timeson November 18,
20W00. (75 1)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Notice is hereby given to the general public of
the approval of a site specific development plan,
and the creation of a vested property right pur-
suant to the Land Use Code of the (,*fly of Aqpeii
and 'Title 24. Article 69, Colorado Revitted
Statutes, pertaining to the following described
V10pe'ly. L-tz E-1, BI.C." 90, ef tho Ciiv I.W
Townsite of Aspen, by Resolution of the Historic
Preservation Commission numbered 51 series of
21)(110. %
For further information contact Julle Ann
Woods, at the Aapen/Pitkin Community
Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St,- Aspen,
Colorado (970) 920-5090.
Published In The Aspen Times on November 18,
2000.(75282)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Notice Is hereby given to the general public of
the approval of a site specific development plan,
and the creation of a vested property right ptir-
suant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen
and Title 24, Articie 68, Colorado Revised
Statutes. pertaining to the following described
property: Lot 7. SlIverlode Subdivision. by reso-
lution of the Planning and Zoning Commission
numbered 58 series of 2000.
For further Information contact Julie Ann
Woods. at the Aspen/Plikin Community
Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen,
Colorado (970) 920-5090.
Published In The Aspen Times on November IR,
2000.(75290)
PUBLIC NOTICE
11WOSTE RANCH HOMESITE GMQS EXEMP-
LW1 041 HAZARD REVIEW, SCENIC/RlDGE-
AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION (P123-M)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 at a
meeting to begin at 3:00pm or as soon thereafter
as the conduct of business allows, before the
Pitkin County Hearing Officer, Commissioners
Meeting Room, 51% East Main Street. Aspen to
consider an application submitted by Peter
Droste requesting to establish all access evive-
lope and a building envelope for a new single
family home. GMQS involved as applicant
intends to provide parcel of at least 500 acres to
be deed restricted against further subdivision.
The property Is located along Brush Creek Road,
approximately I mile south of Highway 82 and Is
described as a tract of land located In Section
33. Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
P.M.
For further Information contact Gabe Preston at
the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, (970) 920- 5092. s/Lance Clarke,
Pitkin County Hearing Officer
Published In The Aspen Times on November 18,
20M. (75274)
PUBLIC NOTICE
AMDROSTE RANCH ROAD 1041 HAZARD
�W & CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION (P 12XW)
MTTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a ptiblic hearing
will be held on Tuesday, December 19' 2000 at a
meeting to begin at 3:00 pm or as soon there-
after as the conduct of business allows, before
the Pitkin County Hearing Officer,
Commissioners Meeting Room. 506 East Mal"
Street. Aspen to consider an application submit-
ted by Peter Droste requesting to establish an
access envelope Inr a new roadway Ili extend
from the Brush Creek Road to the top of the
Droste property. The properly is located ailing
Brush Creek R�ad, approximatriv I mile s-olh
of Highway R2 and is described as paris of Lots
12. 1.. 20 In leclion 2k: All pf Lots 14 and 16 and
the SW 11 and the SE 1 4 of �ectloln 29: k1l of
LA)t s 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 9. 9. If', 13 1 4. 1 T. I R and I q In
Section 29: all of Lots 1. 2. 3. 5. A. and 9. anti the
Nt 1/4 of the NE I itt. the SE 1; 4 of the NE 1, 4. the
SW 1/4 of the NE 1 4 th- SE 1: 1 n1 the NW 11.
tM NE " of the MN I r 1. and the XW I A of the
SE 114, in Section 31 All of Likis 2. 3. S. 7. 9. 11
wW. 12. and the W 112 ol it,-. SW 114 it,- "if. I i
,If 6 1! 11 in Section 33: Ali it LiA 2, in
Sectitorl 34 and a parcel of land being rt of Lot
f; in Section 32: Township q. Rang &5!5 West of
the filth PM.
Fcir fityther Inforiviallmi c,itilat I Galm- Pri-sloii ;it
lie A%peii/Pilkin Commonity Dvvelopmeirl
lelinrlinviii. (970)920- 50'1�!.
s/Latice Clarke,
Pitkin Cminty Hearing Officer
Ptiblished III I'll(, A%peti'linies oil November 1.4,
2101111. ( M27S)
PUBLIC Nffrin-,.
ACTION CONCERNING SMUGGLER MOUNIAIN
ROAD IN THE UNITED STATES , DIS 111icr couRT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO). Civil Action
No. 00-M-1296. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS�
SIONERS OF PfTKIN COUNTY COLORADO.
Plaintiff,
V.
GEORGE M. "WILK" WILKINSON, a/k/a GEORGE
MARSH WILKINSON, a/k/a WILK WILKINSON.
a/k/a G.M. WILKINSON, d/b/a ECHO FILMS;
TULASI WILKINSON: JAYA WILKINSON: FIDELITY
TRUST BUILDING INC.. an Idaho Corporation
authorized In Colorado; THE NEW CONSOLIDAT-
ED-STANDARDIFULTON/DELLA S/REALIZATION/
FREE SILVER/MINERAL FARM/AI.TA
ARGEN-T-A/HOMF--,TEAI)/SNOWSI-ORM/Sl'. JOE.
/CHAMPION/EMPIRE/ALPINE BUSHWACKER/
COWENHOVEN MINING TUNNEL AND
DRAINAGE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation;
SHELLEY SCOTT; ROBERT A. AND GAIL CRAIG
STANGER; WRIGHT & PRUESCH MINING LTD.;
MICKIE FLANIGAN STATESMAN MINING COM-
PANY; CYNTHIA SATEL ALLISON; MARJORY
KEPHART; THE UNITED STATFS OF AMERICA;
GAARD HIOPKINS MOSES ; I IARI.EY A. BALDWIN
11; MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN; EDWIN J.
SMART; RAY LEF WALL still PARK TRUS,r iyul.,
Defendants.
SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFEN.
DANIS EDWIN J. SMART AND SIWrESMAN
MINING COMPANY:
Yoit are. herebysummonedand required to
serve upfin Deborah 0iiinn, Assistant Comity
Attorney. Pilkin Counly Attorney's Office.
Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is 5:10 East
Main itreet. Suite 302. Aspen. Colorado RIfil I.
an answer to the complaint which is herewith
served upon you, within twenty (20) days after
service of this summons upon you, exclusive of
the date of service. If you fall to do so, judgment
by default will be undertaken against you for the
relief demanded In the complaint.
James R. Manspeaker
fSEAL OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT)
Clerk of the Court
Date: August 11, 2000
Published in The Aspen Times In November 4.
11, 18,25,20DO. (#75212)
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: GAVETTE 1041 HAZARD REVIEW & CONCEP-
TIJAL SUBMISSION (P122-00)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 at a
meeting to begin at 3:00 pm or as soon there-
after as the conduct of business allows, before
the PItkin County Hearing Officer
Commissioners Meeting Room, 506 East Main
Street, Aspen to consider an application submit-
ted by William Gavette requesting all update to
a 1041 Hazard Review received In 1992 and an
amendment to the building envelope for the
construction of a single-farrilly residence. The
property Is located on Crystal Circle and is
described as Lot :34). Block 2, Crystal River
Country Estates.
For further Information contact Taninra Pregi at
the AsipeniPilkIn Community Developmenk
Department, (970) 920- 5103.
Pitkiii County Hearing Officer
Published In The Aspen Times on November 18,
2000.(75276)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Maroon Valley Bus Shelter, Interpretive Design,
and Resource Rehabilitation Proposal
The Aspen Ranger District, White River National
Forest. is Initiating a formal public scoping
process to solicit comments on specific ele-
ments contained in a revised resource and facil-
ity upgrade plan for (lie Maroon Bells Recreation
Area. The modified proposal was developed as a
result of recent public comments and involve-
ment requesting that the size and scope of the
previous plan be reassessed as Ili it's app")pri-
ateness and functionality within the Maroon
Lake area.
The new proposal was dralled by the USFS
Rocky Mountain Regional Office's Center for
Design and Interpretat loll after analyzing both
internal and external comments, and reevaluat-
ing the goals and objectives for the desired final
outcome of the area.
The main element of the new plan. file bits shel-
terand Interpretive staging area, has a proposed
footprint of approximately 1,(XX) square feet, sig-
nificantly smaller than the originally proposed
4,SM square feet. The main sales and Interpre-
five element of the plan is being proposed to be
relocated to Aspen Highlands base area, which
Is slated to become A major Maroon Bells bus
staging areas for the summer 2001 season.
Other significant elements of the new proposal
Include the allocation of a yet to be determined
am( tint of money to 1) enhance the facade of
the newly constructed toilet facility, including
mature vegetation plantings; 2) rehabilitate por-
tions of the old Mar(mn [.site Campground to
bring It back to it a natural contour and vegeta-
tive condition; and 3) develop a viable Interpre-
five plan for both the Maroon Lake Area and the
Aspen Highlands base area. IncludiFig the pro-
duction and final procurement of interpretive
exhibits. displays, and programs.
Additional ImprovLmenIs not listed above, as
well as a detailed map of the proposal and other
project specific data, can be reviewed at the
Aspen Ranger District Monday through Friday,
November 20 through December 15, 8:30 am to
4-30 pm.
To resprorid to this request for commetits, please
send specific written comments it) the Aspen
Ranger District, 806 W. Hallam, Aspen, CO 81fil 1,
no later than December 15, 2000.
Published in The Aspen Times November 18.
2(WX). (75273)
PUBLIC NOTICE
COUNTY COURT. PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 0OC266, DIV. I
ORDER FOR PUBLICATION AND CHANGE OF
NAME
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
I HE CHANGE OF NAME OF Susan Be.th I like-;,
Petitioner
(IRDER FOR PI:BLI(�ATION
The (ourt having mad and t onsidt-md the
Petitinn I-r Change of Name and the ti�.titi,,n-r*s
affidavil. and the Court being milli, i�nllv
advised.
FIND%� That the alleitsti,ms mtjei� In %Alrl
petiti,m and Affidavit gatlqt% all stallit"ry
!kNp IHE COURT FUR10ER FINDS. That
the desired change of name Is proper anti not
detrimental to the interestsof any,fth-r p-rn,in
IT 5 THEREFORE ORDERED,
I That iiiirviAnt to stal-ite TiMill"ti�r
vi... n,,*,,.: .4 io, to , bawg- 4 own,-
puhli, ationof Publi, NO,, . I h,-- (3) tim" in
The Aspen rim". a i^gAl new4ipap�r pliblisher!
in m c,,unly Tbl� mit,14-all- 11 ", b- ITIA"le
within 210 days of fill- date of this Order, Pri)Iwe
proof of be filed with III(- CIvrk
of (liv Cotirf op-i linal publication.
2. 1 hal tipoo Inoot d pithlicalloti behig
filed with III,- Clerk (if the Court. lite name of
Susall fit -III I likv.q will be changed Io S11%all BvIII
S 'Iml,
III Ill I f-ruiuldt-7-11y. C01111ty .111119V
(donila L. Mehilck,
I, lerk of the Cotirt/Deputy Clerk
I I /g/m
Ptiblished fit The Aspen'Times oil November 19,
25, December 2,2(X)O. (75272)
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF FINAL PAYMENT
Notice is hereby given by the City of Aspen
Parks Department that City of Aspen Project No.
20M.04M (Rio Grande Skateboard Park
Construction -Part 2) will be closed and
retainage will he released to Team Pain
Enterprises. Inc. All persons having claims for
labor. rentals, services, or materials furnished
under this Contract, wh(i have. not been paid
therefims, shall present a verified claim III wril-
Ing to the CIly of Aspen Parks Department. at
130 South Qilena Street, Aspen, CO 91611, prior
to December 1, 2(XK). or file City of Aspen shall
be free (if all obligations and liabilities Ifir
attempting to withhold payment to the
Contractor.
Subject to the terms of the Contract
Documents file Final Payment will be attached
and forwarded III the amoistil of two Ilimisand
five luindred dollars ($2,500,01)). Acceptance (if
which file Contractor thereby warrants that all
persims doing work upon or furnishing materl-
,it% for work tinder this Agreement have been
paid In (till. Failure Ili sign, approve and return
out- copy of fill% form. or It) prolest, within It-ii
(10) consecutive calendar days conslibiles
proof of receipt still acceptance by the
Cmilracifir (if flip final arnoinit (file mider the
Agreenieril.
Please acknowledge by your signaltire
below that the final amount of the Contract was
paid and the terms and conditions 't forth
SL
above and in the Contract Documents relating to
final payment are understood and accepted.
By: sl
Team Pain Enterprises, Inc.
Published In The Aspen Times November 18. 25,
2000.(75286)
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE TO CREDITORS
Estate of MARGARET A. CONNER, also known
as MARGARET ANN CONNER, Deceased, Case
No. 00 PR 35.
All persons having claims against the
above -named estate are required to present
them to the personal representative or to the
(District Court of COUNTY OF PITKIN.
Colorado) on or before March 5. 2001, or the
claims may be forever barred.
Personal Representative: CLAUDE M. CONNER.
Box 345, Aspen, Colorado 81612, Telephone:
(970) 925,7667
Published in The Aspen Times on November 4.
11. 18,2000. (#75224)
PUBLIC NOTICE
ORDINANCE NO 51
(SERIES OF 2000)
AN ORDINANCE OF TI IE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING IIIE ASSIGNMEN[T OF THE R-15
(MODERATF,DENSITY RNSIDFINI-TIAL) ZONE DIS,-
TRICT TO LOTS I Atli) 2 OF TIIr. SANDUNES L.P.
ANNEXATION I 017ATED AT 41JN Wr-ST MAXI
STREFT. CITV OF ASPEN. PITKIN courrry, coi,
ORADO
Copies of this ordinance are available In the
office of the city clerk, 1.30 S. Galena, Aspen,
Colorado.
Finally, adopted, passed and approved this 13th
day of November, 2000.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Rachel Richards. Mayor
Published In The Aspen Times November 18,
20DO.(75283)
PUBLIC NOTICE
ORDINANCE NO. 52
(Series of AM)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING GENERAL
FUND EXPENDITURES OF $&54,217; TRANSFER-
RING $50,0W FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND; TRANSFERRING
$250.(M FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE
PARKS AND RECREATION BONI) FUND; APPRO-
PRIATING WHEELER FUND EXPENDITURES OF
$96.fK)O; TRANSFERRING $50,01)[11 FROM THE
WHEELER FUND 'To THE GENERAL FUND;
APPROPRIATING PARY-S A OPEN SPACE FUND
EXPENDITURES OF $1.077,290: APPROPRIATING
AFFORDABLE HOLISING/DAYCARE FUND EXPEN-
DITURES 01' $925,.%2; TRANSFERRING $50,000
FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING//DAYCARE FUND
TO THE GENERAL FUND; APPROPRIATING
WATER FUND EXPENSES OF $191.150; TRANS-
FERRING $99.000 FROM THE WATER FUND TO
THE GENERAL FUND; APPROPRIATING TRANS-
PORTATION/PARKING FUND EXPENDITURES OF
$45,000; APPROPRIATING GOLF FUND EXPENDI-
TURFS OF $285,000; APPROPRIA`IING EXPENDI-
TURES OF $21,100 IN THE RED BRICK CAPITAL
PROJECT FUND; TRANSFERRING $25010 FROM
THE ELECTRIC FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND;.
WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the
Home Rule Charter, the City Council may make
supplemental appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified
that the City has unappropriated current year
revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund
balance available for appropriation In the
General Fund, Parks & Open Space Fund,
Wheeler Fund, Affordable tioxising/Daycare
Fund, Water Fund. Electric Fund,
Transportation/ Parking Fund. Red Brick Capital
Project Fund and Goll Fund.
WHEREAS. the City Council is advised that
certain expenditures, revenues all(] transfer.-;
must be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
Crff COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. COI,
ORADO:
Section I
Upon the City Manager's certification that there
are current year revenues and/or prior year
fund balance available for appropriation In the
General Fund, Parks & Open Space Fluid.
Wheeler Fund, Affordable Housing/Daycare
Fund. Water Fund. Parking Improvement Fund.
Flectric Ftind. Tran%portationif Parking Finirl,
Pod Bri, I, (,alinal Pr,41 Finill aitfil (iolf I sind,
if,,. (ity (,,on, 11 h-r-by mak" koppl-mefital
alip-priations 'is iternized It, Exhibit 'I"
Exhibit '2- and Exhibit '3- atta,hed
Section 2
it any sotme,tion, sent,-n,e. Iau%,:
lit,viso or IP,rti,,P to thi% -rfllnow� h 1,,r anN
rpan InNalid (,r iinn�litotirmal tiv Any .,mrf
,,f onipp.tPot jurhtfitti,-ri sivb leirlit,ri than te-
deemed a %eparate. distinct and inti-p-Ttil,!rot
PTO-09olf)" And su(h holding diliall not aft-t thP
vali,fitv of whe remaining fyjrti,,n th"-,,f
".itrm 3
b-, ring ort th,- ,rdifian, e O-Al le.
11-2711. -A 0114fPal , Olt 1, 11,
jiv Irl,il (,bamber. As,", (�Jty flail. At,lwo
I R, -I)I'f Fit). R1 �%D %ND 0MAJ11 I I ip,,,l -I
as provided by law 15Y 1114. (*fly 011111cil of Ihe
City tit Aspen, Colorado. at It's regular ineeting
held at Ihe City (if Anpen, Novviviber Fith. 2000.
Rachel R. Richards,
Mayor
ATn-,.,;T:
Kathryn lotich, ('fly Clvr�
FINALLY, adopted. passe
,)It I I le - day (if -, 20(14)�
Rachel R. Richards,
Mayor
ATTEST Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times November 18,
2IX)0. (75284)
PUBLIC NOTICE
ORDINANCE NO. 54
(SERIES OF 20W)
AN ORDINANCE OFTHE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) FOR ST. MARY'S CHURCH, LOCATED AT
104 SOUTH GALENA STREET, LOTS A-1, BLOCK
93, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PrrKIN
COUNTY. COLORADO).
Parcel ID: 2737-073-:11-801
WHEREAS, the Community Development
Department received all application from the
Archdiocese of Denver, represented hyl
Reverend Michael Glenn and Olsen / Kelly
Architects, for Planned Unit Development (PUD)
for St. Mary's Church located at 104 South
Calena Street, Lots A-1, Block 93, City 'and
Townshe of Aspen: and
WHEREAS, ptirstiant to Seclimis 26.415.
the (:fly Council may approve a Planned Unit
Pevelopment. during a duty iioticed Imbliv bear-
ing, comments from the general public, a TCCorn-
niendatinii from the Planning and Zoning
011111111-Woll, it recollinlelldallon from the
Community Development Director, and recom-
inendallons from relevant referral agencies: and
Will -TEAS. file Community Development
Department reviewed the St. Mary's Church
Planned Unit Development and recommended
approval; and
WHEREAS, during a duty noticed publi(
hearing on October 24th, 2(W, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval of
the PUD to the City Council, by an unanimous
four to zero (4 - 0) vote; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed
and considered the development proposal
under the applicable provisions of the Municipal
Code as Identified herein, has reviewed and con-
sidered the recommendation of the Planning
and Zoning Commission, the Community
Development Director, and the applicable refer-
ral agencies, and has taken and considered pub-
lic comment at a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards and that the
approval of the development proposal. with
conditions, Is consistent with the goals and ele-
ments of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS. the City Council finds that this
Ordinance furthers and Is necessary for the pro-
motion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
ASPEN Crff COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Ptirsiiant to the procedure-; and standards set
forth III TItle 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
tile Planned Unit Development (PUD) for St.
Mary's Church located at 104 South Galena,
Street, Lots A-1, Block 93, City and Townsite o(
Aspen It, approved �Itb U.- coiW;-
tions:
I . 'That a shared service line acknowledgement
shall be required and obtained from the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) for the
existing development and a new separate ser-
vice line shall be required for the new tw�bed-
room unit / garage addition prior to the applica-
tion of building permits; and
2. The St. Mary*s Church complex Is currently
served by the public wastewater system. The
addition of a two -bedroom single-family unit and
the conversion of the employee unit to an acces-
sory dwelling unit will have a minor Impact
upon the public wastewater system. The appli-
cant shall pay all connection fees to the ACSD
prior to the application of building permits for
the project. The applicant may obtain a fall per -
mil once detailed plans have been submitted to
ACSD:
:4. The satellite dishes on the rectory and church
shall be removed and/or an appropriate location
shall be determined by HPC:
4. That the Historic Preservation Commission
denied the request by the applicant to replace
two original windows on the south side o( the
rectory with doors;
5. That, as required by the. Fire Protection
District, theapplicant shall provide an adequate
driveway access width of at least 10 feet along
Main Street. This can he achieved by trimming
back the existing bushes;
6. That the applicant shall obtain a single
Temporary Revocable Encroachme"t License
front the City of Aspen Engineering Department
to cover existing encroachments for the St.
Mary's Church building which Include: 1) a ve.n-
illation duct in the alley, 2) a root overhang Into
the alley; 3) the heat melt system In the side-
walk, and 3) the front entrance it( the building.
This license must be obtained prior to the appli-
cation o( building permits;
7. That the applicant shall submit a letter certi-
fying that there are no known problems with the
existing buildings and lot drainage In order to
exempt them from submitting drainage report
for review by the Engineering Department;
R. That the applicant shall not track intid onto
('fly streets (luring demolition. A washed rock
0r other style imid rack must be insialled (luring
co structioii as a requirement of the City of
Aspen Streets Department;
9. *That If the applicant decides to Install a sprin-
kler system In the new building, the existing
water system will need to be upgraded pursuant
to Fire District requirements; and
10. That the applicant shall enter into a common
water service agreement with the City Water
Department for the new building which will
need to Include separate meters in an accessible
spac�.
.Section 2.
This Resolution shall not effect any existing liti-
gation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending tinder or
by virtim tit III#- tirdinarift-, tr,-Io-alotl or anov-nd.
ed ;I% lwrelti provielpil, Awl lho %,*ITT,$- -11,311 1,,'
,n,lwtI ArA solb vril,r
,,rdinaw ..
Sectloa 3.
11
phrA%,- ,r l,,,rtion to fill% i� for any
r&ns,,n t-101 invM11" - 'in, '000 it'll I "'IMI In it
rwirt it rn;�tlt joirintlif-tirm, -;wh porti,in
- 1.�ll 1,. 0. 1--1 , lli%filll I awl I'A'.
le-rid,-nt lortivi-lion arid iliall not Ali- I the valld.
uv,d the rr-mPoining loorti,int, ih"�Pf
I*,-ft,001'f I.[) READ A -if) ORI)IJIf.f)
4q pr"vid"'I by law fly Ill.- I ity I ,,M.
ity if Atop-, ,,, fbil. I �,Ih day if N1041-111b"t
Attest, Kathrys, 1, K t, 1 -1
PA, fg-f pi, fi;, "I
pas�i Al"I �1,1
I Ith day of Devember, 2(100.
Attest: Kathryn S. K(wh, ('fly Clerk
Rachel Richards. Mayor
Approved as fit form:
John Worcester, City Attorney
PtiblIshed fit The Aspen Times November 19.
2(100. (75285)
IE: WEST HOPKINS AVENUE CONCEPTUAl'
LANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on December 5,2000, at a meeting to
begin at 4:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City
Hall 1.30 South Galena: Aspen, to consider a
Conceptual Planned Unit Development &
Rezoning application submitted by Aspen GK
LLC and Burton Kaplan for the 600 Block of West
Hopkins. This public hearing date will primarily
consist of a presentation of the proposed pr-
ject by the applicant. Parcel I Is described as
the M.W. Mining Claim #19640. Parcel 2 is
described as U.S.M.S. Mining Claim #5739 still Is
known as the Martha Washington Mining Claim.
Parcel 3 Is described as Lot 18. and M.S. 7329,
Section 12, Township 10 South. Range R5W and
is located at the south end of the intersect Ion of
West Hopkins and South Fifth Street.
For further Information contact Nick Lefack at
the Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO.
(970) 920-5045.
s/Bob Blalch, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissirin
Published In The Aspen Times on November 19.
2(XX). (75279)
LEGALS
DEADLINE
NOON
ON
TUESDAY
I st insertion
- .5060/line;
2nd insertion
- .3680/line
Proof of
publication
- $2x
Copy must
be clearly
typed.
No
FAX
transmissions
accepted for
publication.
FROM : O'DONNELL 0 PHONE NO. : 970 925 369C0 Dec. 05 2000 12:37PM P1
Joseph Wells Land Planning
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone- 970.9Z5-8080
Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary)
e-mail Address: WellsAspen@aol.com
December 4, 2000
Ms. Mary Roberts
City of Aspen Housing Department
600 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: New West Hopkins Avenue Housing Project
Delivered by Facsimile to 920.5580
Dear Mary:
As a follow-up to my November 30 letter outlining an alternative mix of units
for the new West Hopkins Avenue project, the Applicants have now completed
their analysis of the categories of deed -restrictions and the square footages
which would apply to the alternative mix of deed -restricted units for the project.
The Applicants would like to propose for the New West Hopkins Avenue
Housing Project the mix of bedrooms, categories and unit square footages as
shown on the following page.
Please contact me at 925-8080 if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Cc. Nick Lelack (by Facsin-dle to 920.5439)
Charlie Kaplan (by e-rnail to pgluck@inch.com)
P.J
79
Joseph Wells Land Planning
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970.925.8080
Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary)
e-mail Address: WellsAspen@aol.com
December 4, 2000
Ms. Mary Roberts
City of Aspen Housing Department
600 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: New West Hopkins Avenue Housing Project
Delivered by Facsimile to 920.5580
Dear Mary:
As a follow-up to my recent letters regarding alternatives for the new West
Hopkins Avenue project, the Applicants have been investigating the "green
development" concept since our last meeting with the Housing Board. Charlie
Kaplan has spoken with a number of people including Schmueser Gordon
Meyer, RMI, Gert Van Morsel at Aspen Skiing Company, Valley Lumber and
Eco-Build in Boulder.
As you may be aware, this is a rapidly -changing area of construction, with new
products becoming available regularly. As demand has increased, it is also
difficult to obtain some of these products at times, or, if they are available, they
are extremely expensive compared to other products.
At the present time, the Applicants are confident that they can commit to
implement a number of strategies for conservation purposes, as listed on the
following page. In the meantime, the Applicants will continue their investigation
of additional techniques, to determine whether additional commitments are
appropriate. Some ideas that have come out of Charlie's investigations to date
are listed on the third page.
Please contact me at 925-8080 if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph Wells
cc: Nick Lelack (by Facsimile to 920.5439)
Charlie Kaplan (by e-mail to pgluck@inch.com)
0
Green Development Strategies to be Implemented:
1. Use of Gas Log Appliances.
Pollution reduction and energy conservation.
2. Occupant Recycling.
Areas for Glass, metal, plastic and newspaper.
3. Waste Management Plan.
Identify ways to recycle materials where possible, and minimize trips to the landfill,
including separate dump containers for wood and other potential recyclables.
4. Destratification Fan systems.
Fans recycle hot air at roof and recirculate to living areas to decrease heating loads.
5. Attic Fan systems.
Naturally ventilate building, reducing need for air conditioning from solar gain.
6. Comply or exceed energy code requirements.
7. Landscaping.
Utilize native vegetation to reduce water use.
8. Bike storage areas .
9. Trail.
To be made permanent fixture of town system by way of easement.
10. Erosion control.
Measures specified by licensed geotechnical engineer to minimize damage to vegetation
and ground stability.
11. Site Preservation and Resoration.
Topsoil to be preserved for re -use in areas of disturbance. Site disturbance limited.
Intensive restoration plan to insure proper re -growth and stabilization of disturbed
areas.
Green Development Ideas to be Investigated:
1. Building Commissioning.
Balance and performance -check all building mechanical systems for proper functioning.
Proper balancing can significantly reduce energy consumption. Applicability to our
project has to do with whether we use any forced -air systems.
2. Asbestos -free building.
Use products free of asbestos products or that comply with OSHA standards, part 1926.
3. CFC-free building products, including refrigeration systems and carpeting.
4. Recycled Materials.
Use of recycled materials where possible.
a. Trex decking material.
b. Carpets that are CFC-free.
c. Use renewable products —cork, bamboo, etc.
5. Building Materials.
Adhesives, sealants and paints used in the building are all low or no "VOC" products
(volatile organic compounds).
6. Water Conservation.
Use water -conserving fixtures in all buildings. Lead free plumbing fixtures.
7. Certified wood products.
Implementation would require efficient ordering (i.e. full truckloads), and capability to
store material on site. There might be a way to team up with the city of Aspen
affordable housing projects and make a certified wood 'store' somewhere in town. If
this could be done, price for products might only be 10 percent upcharge over
traditional material.
8. Human Comfort.
Comply with ASHRAE standards for human comfort.
9. Energy Efficient lighting.
Complete EPA's Green Lights Program or California's Title 24 lighting requirements.
10. Light Pollution.
Reduce light pollution with certain fixture types only.
11. Indoor Air Quality.
Comply with Ashrae Standard 62-1989 with the provison that the ambient air quality
standard requirements shall be site -specific and not region -specific (air quality at the
proposed point of fresh air intake). Building fresh air intake shall be located away from
loading areas, building exhaust fans, cooling towers and other point sources of
contamination.
0 0
12. Construction Air Quality Plan.
Guidelines for the use of the building's mechanical system during construction would
be followed to avoid contamination and to provide for clean ventilation pathway for
occupancy. Filters used during construction to be replaced prior to occupancy.
4 The Aspen Times * 77zursday, November 16, 2000
New housi*ng proposed
for Shadow Mountain
By Janet Urquhart
Aspen Times Staff Writer
Plans for a combination of
affordable and free-market hous-
ina at the base of Shadow Moun-
tain were sent back to the drawing
board by the Housing Board
Wednesday, though members
lauded most elements of the
proposal.
The developers, Aspen GK,
LLC and Burton B. Kaplan,
have proposed seven afford-
able housing units and four
free-market units on two lots at
West Hopkins Avenue and
Fi�th Street. The 53,187-
square-foot site is across Hop-
kins from the Boomerang
Lodge and the Madsen Apart-
ments.
The development will be
spread between three build-
ings. New Yorkarchitect Peter
Gluck is the designer.
The affordable housing, as pro-
posed, consists entirely of three -
bedroom sale units targeted at a
mix of income categories. At
1. 134 square feet and 1,384 square
feet, all of them exceed the mini-
mums required by the Aspen-
Pitkin County Housing Authority,
noted Joe Wells, planning consul-
tant for the developers.
But board members said they'd
rather see some variety to attract a
variety of owners.
"It's a very gentle
use of the land. The
positives here are
gigantic."
- Tim Semrau,
Housing Board member
I would prefer not seeing all
three -bedrooms," said board
chairwoman Jackie Kasabach.
"Basically, that means all fami-
lies."
The . free-market housing
would include two three -bedroom
units, the biggest of which would
be 3,964 square feet; and two
four -bedroom units, the largest of
which would be 4,439 squareTeet.
Underground parking is pro-
posed to serve all of the units.
Board members suggested the
developers reduce the number of
three -bedroom units and sacrifice
some of that parking to gain some
one- and two -bedroom affordable
housing.
They suggested on -street park-
ing to serve some of the project's
needs.
Overall, though, the board
IM
praised the plan.
"On a scale of zero to ten,
you're a nine -something," said
board member Tim Semrau. "This
is a big, parcel of land — it's not
maxed out by any means. It's a
ye.ry gentle use of the land. The
positives here are gigantic."
The plan will go to the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
for a first look on Dec. 5. Board
members suggested the develop-
ers tweak the project and bring it
back to them on Dec. 6.
No,pk /vs
4 V
ku
MAR 0.
co
co
SUBD
L I TTLE
LU G 4
Q w /V. 4 q-
CLOU CO
Or
COPPEROPOLIS
COO 4 VE
z I
MIT
li'* p vopmw li -.5 Fe On - S, N vo a a
r L -
I ri
9 Er
i� . �.
Ij
I 1 1.1 r 1 40'
rl
40
1
r
L - I A
A 4f
.41
I u I-J
L A
Ij
13
Ld i z z
D
7<
j3
-03
Lo w
a u Of
LL z
w LL
Ln
U's in
I M
T30
.77-7 -
<
0
40P
U)
El 7�
CL
di
00
1:14
C4
S tj V)
ti
o
ou -18H — >.
CF11 r- o 0
En 1 �: E 7; Z
":1 'r.4 — Cj
=3 ol)
:01 c 'a 2 c
E ICUL 'S
E bb
2
o
E
0 bl) b=') 0,
0
4-
GPM of v v
r �
P-GlI 0 > 0 , 0
Stanford H. Johnson
P.O. Box 416
Aspen, Colorado
Mr. Nick Lelack
Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 South Galena
Aspen CO 81611
RECEIVED
OCT 0" 1999
AbPE14i PITKIN
InMMUNiTY I)EVELOPMEN-r
P.O. BOX 416
ASPEN, COLORADO
(520) 749-4081
(520) 405-7771 (cell)
October 7, 1999
Mr. Nick Lelack
Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 South Galena
Aspen CO 81611
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Johnson/Reeder Lot Line Adjustment, and Your October 1, 1999 Letter.
Dear Nick- 0
For over a year now Ove been attempting to accomplish a simplat line adjustment that would
benefit the City, the neighborhood and the property owners by accomplishing an orderly layout of
lot lines that would enable a normal house to be built instead of an ugly triangular dwelling —one
of the main purposes of planning. As a precaution to make certain that all requirements were met
and that the application was complete, I first prepared a draft application along with a survey plat
complete with legal, before and after, legal descriptions, existing vegetation, and topographical
elevations. Several weeks later, the Planner wanted additional information, which was included in
the final application filed on September 24, 1999. The staff recommended that the Planning
Director deny the lot line adjustment based upon misrepresentations and irrelevant speculations
obviously intended to obstruct the application.
Over a year later on October 6, 1999 at a meeting with you and Assistant City Attorney, David
Hoefer, I was informed of a conjecture of merger between the two referenced tracts of land which
have always been in separate jurisdictions —one in the City of Aspen the other in Pitkin County —
that would stymie the proposed lot line adjustment. I did not receive a satisfactory answer as to
why the Planning Department took my fee money and allowed me to proceed with the application
in good faith without informing me of this conjecture. I should have been so informed up front.
We relied upon the Planner's review of the Lot Line Adjustment Draft Application and
accordingly postponed marketing the properties for a basis to begin retirement —the owners are
both 70 years old. In the meantime, we have been damaged by the approximate amount of
$ 10,000 extortionate property taxes and loss of a year of the benefits of retirement.
In order for your conjecture that: "The township boundary line does not automatically subdivide
property and does not necessarily create two legal lots of record" requires legal proof. 1, and on
the behalf of Mr. Reeder, am requesting a prompt letter from the both the Aspen and County
Attorneys setting forth the existing law and citing relevant case law to support this conjecture. In
addition, We require a similarly legally based document proving that that the existing separate
City of Aspen merger ordinances and the Pitkin County merger resolutions are legally able to
cross over into each others jurisdictions. If I do not receive a reply in ten days, then it will be
established that that this conjecture is without legal merit.
Very truly yo 71S11
son
S ford
cc: Tom McCabe, City Council Member
Suzanne Wolff, 01:32 PM 11/29/99, Reeder/Johnson parcel
X-Sender: suzannew@comdev
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:32:43 -0600
To: juliew, johnw
From: Suzanne Wolff <suzannew@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Reeder/Johnson parcel
lyle applied to the county for an extension of vested rights that was
denied
by bocc last december because the previously approved building
envelope does
not comply with the current code,
slopes in
excess of 30% and within rockfall
requested a taking hearing, which
hearings
which prohibits development on
and avalanche hazard areas. he then
the bocc considered at numerous
over many months, and then determined that the denial of the vested
rights
extension was not a taking. that action just occurred (11/17). the
letter
he sent out about the driveway and the trail was a response to one of
the
issues raised at a bocc hearing, but the reality at this point is that
lyle
will have to submit a new application to the county to obtain a new
approval
before he can do anything on his property.
>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:50:46 -0700 (MST)
>X-Sender: lancec@comdev
>To: suzannew@co.pitkin.co.us
>From: Lance Clarke <Iancec@ci.aspen.co.us>
>Subject: Reeder/Johnson parcel
>Suz -could you please bring JAW up to date.
>>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:19:40 -0700 (MST)
>>X-Sender: juliew@comdev
>>To: Lancec@ci.aspen.co.us
>>From: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us>
>>Subject: Reeder/Johnson parcel
>>Cc: Johnw@ci.aspen.co.us
>>>Do you have a case pending, Lance? JA.
>>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:58:59 -0700 (MST)
'iniinted_for_Julie A-nn—Wo-o-d-s—<-j-u--l-iew—@ci-.a---s--p-e--n—.-c-o-.-u-s>---------- 1
40
Suzanne Wolff, 01:32 PM 11/29/99, Reeder/Johnson parcel
>>>X-Sender: johnw@commons
>>>To: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us
>>>From: John Worcester <johnw@ci.aspen.co.us>
>>>Subject: Reeder/Johnson parcel
>>>What's happening with this parcel? I received a
about some
>>>land use approvals he is attempting to get from
haven't heard
>>>anything about his matter in some weeks since he
Hall.
>>>Thanks, John W
>>Julie Ann Woods
>>Aspen Community Development Director
>>phone: (970)920-5100
>>fax: (970) 920-5439
letter from Lyle
the County. I
was all over City
�Printed for Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> 2 �
r
0 - -vk
THIS LIST IS PROVIDED AS GENERAL INFORMATION. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT
STREET ADDRESS NUM13ERS HAVE BEEN ALTERED, YOU SHOULD CALL AMY
GUTHRIE, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, AT 920-5096 TO CONFIFtM THE
STATUS OF ANY PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY WHEN IN DOUBT.
CITY OF ASPEN
"INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND
STRUCTURES99
Auaust 2000
THE 1992 r4VENTORY O� NON -LANDMARK HISTORIC SITES AND
STRUCTURES FORTHE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AS ADOPTED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 34 (SERIES OF 1992), ORDINANCE NO. 4 (SERIES OF
1995)AND ORDINANCE NO.— (SERIES OF 1996)
720 S. Aspen
Aspen Brewery Ruins
Aspen Grove Cemetery
720 Bay Street
110 E. B leeker
209 E. Bleeker
227 E. Bleeker
232 E. Bleeker
121 W. Bleeker
129 W. Bleeker
205 W. Bleeker
217 W. Bleeker
2'33 W. Bleeker
635 W. Bleeker
303 S. Cleveland
Colorado Midland Right -of -Way (not adopted yet)
124 E. Cooper
824 E. Cooper
935 E. Cooper
1000 E. Cooper
1020 E. Cooper
42 1 N. Fifth
308 N. First
311 S. First
120 W. Francis
126 W. Francis
202 W. Francis
522 W. Francis
523 W. Francis
533 W. Francis
712 W. Francis
209 S. Galena
304-308 S. Galena
860 Gibson
980 Gibson
990 Gibson
314 Gillespie
330 Gillespie
405 Gillespie/707 N. Third
515 Gillespie
M
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
RE: Rezoning Yellow Brick School to Public Zone from Medium -Density
Residential (R-6) Zone, and Code Amendment — Public Zone and
Definitions of "Non -Profit Organization" and "Essential Public Facility"
- Public Hearing
DATE: November 30, 1999
SUMMARY:
The City of Aspen Recreation Department submitted a 2-part application that requests (1)
rezoning the Yellow Brick School from Medium -Density Residential (R-6) to Public, and
(2) a Land Use Code amendment to the Public Zone District.
The code amendment would add private school and public and private non-profit uses
providing a community service to the list of permitted uses in the Public Zone District,
and child care center as a conditional use.
The Definitions section would add the following definition for a non-profit organization
and delete duplicative text from the essential public facility definition that is contained
in the essential public service definition:
Non-profit organization. An entity which has received a favorable determination letter
from the United States Internal Revenue Service regarding their tax exempt status, and is
incorporated, subject to or in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Colorado
Revised Statutes (CRS) Corporations and Associations articles 121 to 137.
Essential public facility. A facility which serves an essential public purpose, is
constructed or its use changed in response to the demands of growth, is not itself a growth
generator, is available for use by the general public or used for the benefit of the general
public, and serves the needs of the community. Tho dovolopmsiu Q;,;4wi,44Q14aAGQ of
Gomme;Gial 4-4;61622 sap.,iGas faG;1i4;@r. aad�@; aquipw4ei4t is i4lot 2A
ORROAtial. wi-vir.0, but tho 4ewQ1QP1;4QRt Or- M21AtQA2AGQ QC;A';r.Q1QQQ 4010GOMMI114 *GA4Q14
riap.dQss 1 i&;os and1g; equipment 6sad vxGkisiwaly for. poliQc, f4w and-4Q; othQ;
r-esponso GommiiA;Gatioa syswms shall be. -QQQidQFQd
ISSUES:
The Commission raised a number of issues during the first part of this public hearing and
asked staff provide information on the following items:
664 VPP-Vts
U, 4-e-- �,
,(o IlAkpoc" 4SA
— IxAv ppk�� k�,� V-eycb,� .
't4—
AAII LA-� "gj�
yNbvd��(- Av
O-Ccm
EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Application Packet; and, Exhibit B - Referral Comments
APPROVED BY:
Stan Clauson,
Community Development Director
0
a419
Pu-/Q-T. bA JA-,C—,
Lr
cce tx- s -
�, I- S2—.
0 0
Resolution #99 -
(SERIES OF 1999)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR
VOLUME, AND APPROVING A SUBDIVISION VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE
WIDTH OF THE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT FROM 20 FEET TO 16
FEET, LOCATED ON THE SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION LOTS 6
AND 7,870 AND 866 ROARING FORK DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735-121-04006
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Laura and Gary Lauder, owners, represented by Alice Davis of Davis Horn, Inc., for a
variance from the Residential Design Standards and Special Review for a Subdivision
Variance for Lots 6 and 7 of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision, at 870 and 866
Roaring Fork Drive, City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, Lots 6 and 7 of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision together are
approximately 65,027 square feet, located in the Moderate -Density Residential (R- 15) Zone
District, and are currently vacant parcels; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's application for
compliance with the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 of the Aspen
Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with
Standard 26.410.040(D)(3)(a), Windows, of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to the
street facing principal window on the South elevation of the proposed single family house;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if
an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with
any item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may either amend the
application or appeal staff s findings to the Design Review Appeal Board pursuant to Chapter
26.222, Design Review Appeal Board; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(D)(3)(a) of the Aspen
Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Board as it applies to the street facing
principal window on the South elevation; and
WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of
Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design
Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an
exception, namely the proposal must:
14
-6�VdA,
us�
AUkA,
� ��A 4vj��
0 0
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan;.
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds
to; or
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant requested Special Review for a subdivision variance to reduce
the emergency access easement from 20 feet to 16 feet; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.430.020, Special Review, the Planning and
Zoning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a subdivision variance,
after recommendation by the Community Development Director; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Engineer and Fire Marshal reviewed the subdivision
variance request to reduce the emergency access easement from 20 feet to 16 feet and
recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on November
16, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission, which also served as the Design Review
Appeal Board, approved a variance from the Volume standard of Section
26.410.040(D)(3)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to the street facing principal
window on the South elevation, and approved the subdivision variance to reduce the
emergency access easement from 20 feet to 16 feet for the Second Aspen Company
Subdivision Lots 6 and 7, with conditions, by a vote of to — (— - —).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
Section I
That the proposed design of a si gle-family residence -at 870 and 866 Roaring Fork Drive,
atariance from Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(a), Windows, of the
Aspen, Colorado, is approved .7,
Residential Design Standards as it applies to the street facing principal window on the South
elevation of the single family house because a variance is clearly necessary for reasons of
fairness related to unusual or site specific constraints.
Section 2
That the subdivision variance to reduce the emergency access easement is approved because
the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) with
the following condition: (,V%-Yf lj�
LA ('Y' C�
d �/�.
I binding agrepTqnt in the owner of Lot 7A to-pmvide a 50 foe turning radius
If a , -P��
)uiWiftg-siK a LTI fire truck turri-around`)M����, and upgrade �te
required 13D fire sprinkier system to a 13R system. 19,C— 0-
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 16, 1999.
15 r r
CVN.A
42,
41
�V-tLL (AefU'-�G� �W ak-e�SVJDZ C�,_
uc t- mp 4- -- -------
k�f, 4,
_rrv- -�, t, kL rv--;�W --
----------- Wive,
AJ-S.
= WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
I- -
Petff L. Gluck and Partm, Arcl&cts
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY 10003 Fax: 212.633.0144
ASPEN GK III
Project Number: 9915
Drawing scale: 1 "= 5 0'0"
Date: 7.1.00
LANDSCAPE/SIT#LAN
I
PLAN KEY:
1 PARKING
2 FOYER
3 BATHROOM
4 KITCHEN
5 LIVING ROOM
6 DINING ROOM
Jft�EDROOM
WERRACE
PeLer L. (Gluck md Paitnem, Architects
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY 10003 Fax: 212.633.0144
ASPEN CK III
Project Number: 9915
Drawing scale; 1
Date: 12.1.00
Affordable Housi
Second Row, Piing Leve
3 TWO- BEDROOM -UNITS
0
PLAN KEY:
I PARKING
2 FOYER
3 BATHROOM
4 KITCHEN
5 LIVING ROOM
6 DININC ROOM
7,JEDROOM
8 RRACE
Peter L. (Muck md Partera, Architects
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY 10003 Fax: 212.633.0144
ASPEN CK III
Project Number: 9915
Drawing scale; 1 /8.= 1 1-0.
Date: 12.1.00
Affordable Housinq
Second Row, FireFloor
PLAN KEY:
1 PARKING
2 FOYER
3 BATHROOM
4 KITCHEN
5 LIVING ROOM
2 ONE- BEDROOM -UNITS 2 STUDIOS 6 DINING ROOM
7 A&ROOM
8 JPRACE
Petff L. (Gluck wd Partem, Anhitects
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633,0144
New York, NY 10003 Fax: 212.633.0144
ASPEN CK III
Project Number: 9915
Drawing scale: 1/8"= I' — 0"
Date: 12.1.00
Affordable Housin
Second Row, Sec14 Floor
= WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
F-
F
Petff L. Gluck md Parlmem, Architects
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY 10003 Fax: 212.633.0144
ASPEN CK III
Project Number: 9915
Drawing scale: 1 *=50'0"
Date: 12.1.00
NEW SCHEME
LANDSCAPE* PLAN
= WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
F-
Peter L. Gluck and Parters, kchitects
19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY 10003 Fax: 212.633.0144
ASPEN CK III
Project Number: 9915
Drawing scale: I "= 5 OT
Date: 7.1.00
LANDSCAPE*E PLAN
Peter L. Guck, and Pariners, Arcltects
PLAN KEY: 19 Union Square West Tel: 212.633.0144
New York, NY 10003 Fax: 212.633.0144
1 PARKING
2 FOYER ASPEN CK III
3 BATHROOM Project Number: 9915
4 KITCHEN Drawing scale: 1/8 .=11—C
5 LIVING ROOM
6 DINING ROOM Date: 12.1.00
7 BEDROOM Affordable Housing
8 TERRACE Second Ro4orking Level
I
Wj
Vv Hop
S
M
New %Vest Hopkins
/ If
1]
Boomerang
Expansion
Ix,
cit
1AW
co
4#K