The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ex.Benedict Bldg. 2737-181-32-020 .<<~ / ~, CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET ci ty olf Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 02/16/93 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737-181-32-020 A8-93 STAFF MEMBER: KJ PROJECT NAME: Benedict Buildinq SPA Desiqnation/Development Plan and GMOS Exemption Project Address: 1280 Ute Ave. Legal Address: Lot 16. Callahan Subdivision APPLICANT: Fritz & Fabienne Benedict Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann. Vann Associates Representative Address/Phone: 230 E. Hopkins Aspen. CO 81611 925-6958 -------~------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING ENGINEER HOUSING ENV. HEALTH TOTAL $2041. 00 $ 93.00 $ $ $2134.00 # APPS RECEIVED # PLATS RECEIVED 5 5 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: --2L- P&Z Meeting Date 1//0 PUBLIC HEARING:~ NO VESTED RIGHTS: S NO CC Meeting Date 1!Zfo PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO ~;J6 VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- REFERRALS: City Attorney >( Parks Dept. School District ~ City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas ~ Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other ,X Zoning Energy Center Other DATE REFERRED: !'/I INITIALS: 50 DUE: ~! 2- '-i ;;;~~=;;~;;;~7=~~~=========;~;;=;;;;;;7=~'T;tT9~=;;;;;~~7~ ___ City Atty ___ City Engineer ___Zoning ___Env. Health ___ Housing ___ Open Space Other: , FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: /-"// ~\r, #~....4504 12/14/93 09:52 Ree $1, )0 ElK 735 F'G 40 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doe $.00 HwL~ !Jot;:1' '-., ./ RESIDENT OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION UNIT 25. POWDER HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS ~ /- ~j THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this p;lL- day of lJec-#/lIfAGit:... , 1993, by and between FREDRIC A. BENEDICT, FABIENNE BENEDICT, and BENEDICT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation (collectively "Owner"), and THE ASPEN/PITXIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, a mUlti-jurisdictional housing authority established pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement recorded in Book 605 at page 751 of the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado (the "APCHA"), WIT N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of a one-bedroom residential unit which contains approximately 690 square feet of net livable area and which is shown and designated as unit 25 on the Condominium Ma~ of Powder House Condominiums recorded in Plat Book 3.3.- at page W- of the Pitkin County records (the "Unit"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Aspen city council Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1992, recorded in Book~ at page ~ of the Pitkin County records, Owner is required to deed restrict the Unit pursuant to the APCHA's guidelines for Resident Occupied units. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the adoption of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1992, by the Aspen City Council, and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner covenants and agrees as follows: 1. The unit is hereby designated as a "Resident Occupied Unit", as defined by the APCHA. 2. The occupant of the unit must be a resident of Pitkin County and/or employed in Pitkin County for a minimum of thirty (30) hours per week at least nine (9) months of the year. 3. Prior to the initial occupancy of the Unit, and again prior to each change of occupancy of the Unit, written verification ~f the Pitkin County residency and/or employment of the proposed /occupant shall be filed by the Unit Owner with the APCHA, and such verification must be acceptable to the APCHA. 4. Subject always to the foregoing occupancy requirements, , the Unit may be freely rented or sold, without restriction as to rent or sales price. provided, that if the unit is rented, the minimum lease period shall be six (6) months, with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per calendar year. 1"""'0, ,-'" #3645',"+ 12/14/93 09= ~52 Rec: $15.0, A< Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty_ Clerk, 00(: 735 PG 41 $.00 5. Owner and APCHA mutually acknowledge that Owner has the right at any time to terminate this Deed Restriction by paying the "Affordable Housing Impact Fee" then in effect under the Aspen Land Use Regulations. If at the time Owner elects to terminate this Deed Restriction the Aspen Land Use Regulations do not contain an "Affordable Housing Impact Fee", Owner shall have the right to accomplish the termination by paying the "Affordable Housing Impact Fee" that was last in effect under such Regulations. APCHA agrees to cooperate with Owner if Owner elects to terminate the Deed Restriction, and to execute whatever documents may be appropriate to accomplish such termination as a matter of public record. 6. Should this Deed Restriction ever be terminated as above provided, the Unit shall revert back to free-market status, and the provisions set forth in Paragraphs l(a) and l(b) of the Subdivision Exemption Agreement recorded in Book 7~ at page j'~ of the Pitkin County records shall automatically go into effect upon and apply to the Unit. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Deed Restriction as of the day and year first above written. Owner: 7~ 4rlk-~ Fredric A. Benedict ~!h ~e/ k5euect:.cf Fabienne Benedict Benedict Land and Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation By: q~q~ Fredric A. Benedict, President STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The Af>regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this p~ day of 'isj,fLR:.p~ ' 1993 by Fredric A. Benedict and Fabienne Benedict, ~nd~v~dually, and by Fredric A. Benedict as President of 9132.1 -2- ~, ,!"""-, #364504 L_/14/93 09:52 Rec $15.00 B~ 35 PG 42 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc ..00 Benedict Land and Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation. 'Witness my hand and official seal. 1'.. . , ' , 'v"" ",~'\ ".~I" ". ~".... .'~. ,'_f,; 'J, .:'", (il r, ') t<<<9;, commission ,i, . 4.1. ..Y:f>., '; ~ ': ,~: f;;.c :\', -,(/J ...... \~, \ ~# .'-';.""" ,~\'~' {"': C0\~~V expires: ACCEPTANCE BY APCHA The foregoing Deed Restriction and its terms are here~ accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority this /0 day of /),pr,p"""b-e.-- , 1993. By: STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was ackno~ledged bef~re me this day of 'J).no "",h...-- , 1993 by P,,-,,\cl( :::r;. \V\<A ~v Chairman of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authbrity. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 9132,1 -3- hority Cha:Lrman ,o~ as ~i <,,';. ,,?,). . U.",. , c., .' :", -', ". "'~,' ~ ::~~\. v4,.[ " 0;:......." .,coLe 'u.""", I:"'. r"\ ."....." #3645v3 12/14/93 09:50 Rec $20.C Bf< Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 735 PG 36 $.00 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT FOR POWDER HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS J THIS AGREEMENT, made. and entered into this ,f Jt.Jv' day of Bt:.GM6~.e.- , 1993, by and between FREDRIC A. BENEDICT, FABIENNE B NEDICT, and BENEDICT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation (collectively "Owner"), and the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Colorado municipal corporation ("city"), WIT N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of Lot 16, Callahan SUbdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at page 7 as Reception No. 183889, City of Aspen, Pitkin county, Colorado, together with the existing Benedict Office Building thereon (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1992, as recorded in Book 716 at page 610 of the Pitkin County real property records, the City has granted subdivision exemption approval for the condominiumization of the Property,to be known as Powder House Condominiums; and WHEREAS, as a condition to such approval, Owner has agreed to enter into certain covenants and agreements with the City. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the granting of condominiumization approval by the city and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner hereby covenants with the city to restrict the Property, and does hereby restrict the property, as follows: 1. Residential Unit. The Powder House Condominiums contain an existing one-bedroom residential unit, which is shown and designated as Unit 25 on the condominium Map of~~e Powder House Condominiums recorded in Plat Book ~ at page of the Pitkin County records (the "Residential Unit"). By Resident Occupancy Deed Restriction recorded in Book at page of the Pitkin County records, Owner has deed restricted the Residential Unit pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority'S guidelines for Resident Occupied Units. Owner hereby agrees that in the event the Residential Unit is ever converted back to free-market status by the termination of the Deed Restriction, the fOllowing provisions shall automatically go into effect upon and apply to the Residential unit, to wit: (a) If and when the Residential Unit is rented, the minimum lease period shall be six (6) months, with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per calendar year, as r" #364503 12/14/93 09,50 Rec $20.00 BI< 1)~Vl'S, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc Silvia = r", 7:"'_ PG $.00 37 provided in Section 7-1007(A) (1) (b) of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations; and (b) If and when the Residential Unit is to be offered for sale, the existing tenant (if any) shall be given written notice thereof, including the proposed sale price. Said existing tenant shall have a 90-day nonassignable option to purchase the Residential unit at this preliminary market value. In addition, said existing tenant shall have a 90-day exclusive nonassignable right of first refusal to purchase the Residential Unit, which shall commence when a bona fide purchase offer is made by a third person and accepted by Owner. If such offer is made while the initial 90-day option period is still in effect, the tenant may purchase the Residential unit for the amount of the initial sale price or the amount of the bona fide offer, whichever is less. 2. Dedication of Fisherman's Easement. Owner hereby 5- dedicates to the use of the general public, for fishing purposes ~~ only and not as a public trail, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement and right-of-way along that portion of the Property lying between the centerline of the Roaring Fork River and a line which is 5 feet (measured horizontally) above the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. Owner reserves to itself and its successors and assigns forever the right to use and enjoy the easement area for all purposes which do not interfere with the public fishing rights dedicated hereby, and shall have no responsibility or liability in connection with the use of the easement by the fishing public. 3. Amendment. The provisions of this Agreement may be changed, modified or amended only by the recording of a written instrument signed by an authorized officer of The Powder House Condominium Association, Inc. and by the Mayor of the City of Aspen pursuant to a vote taken by the City Council. 4. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall run with the title to the property and shall be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the Property or any part thereof, and their heirs, representatives, successors and assigns, for the period of the life of the longest-lived member of the presently- constituted Aspen city council plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years from the date this Agreement is recorded, whichever is less. 5. Release or Waiver. None of the covenants contained herein shall be released or waived in any respect during the period they are binding without the prior consent of the city of Aspen reflected by resolution of the City Council of the City of Aspen. -2- r-., ,-., #364503 1.2/14/93 09: 50 Rec $20.00 BK 'j _.i PG 38 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 6. Attornev's Fees. In any legal proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, restrictions and conditions, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and fees therein, including its reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. Owner :::;~~ ~~ Fredric A. Benedict Sia0'~eV ~d'Y- Fabienne Benedict Benedict Land and Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation By: -::;~~ 4. 'B-~~ Fredric A. Benedict, President City: The city of Aspen, Colorado By: ~ ,>, i7~ Mayor ATTEST: ~~ 9109.1 -3- .r-., ,...... #:36450~, .,2/1.4/93 09:50 Rec: $20.00.735 PG 39 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty CI.~k, Doc ..00 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) uA The fOre~ing instrument was aCknowledged before me this rfT<--- day of G'CGI';1A&tC- ,1993 by Fredric A. Benedict and Fabienne Benedict, ~ndividually, and by Fredric A. Benedict as President of Benedict Land and Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation. ",It'" /<:'\~..~~~sess my hand and official seal. :2~/o' ,(~~~iSSiC>n eXPires~_", I' /"1/ /97\--' n.:~ ' j. ' : ~ o.D. .....: '(:; · ~, ,,\~\./': :(~'~ ~ JJ \J\).pun. .>' ~ "'f~""".'. ~\S' (Nota~~ ~ ~O"~, . J,~ \.,.' " STATE. OF COLORADO ) )ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foreiing instrument was acknowledged before me this I ~--+<-. day of ' " , ~ ,1993 by -..jOt+F...) <S t::.Sr-.J UE:rt1- as Mayor and tlrll+e-Y~ S - ICoCoL-t- as City Clerk of The City of Aspen, colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation. t C '., Wit~~s my hand and official seal. '~'. r""", ~ . ' JMy;c~fumission expires: ~ !,:?1 /q!i ,'.."..... -r It lU.U:;!.L C rJY'~J frota'i! Public 9109,1 -4- r,. 1366301 011ZB/94 16:03 Rec $30.00 BK 740 PS 150 ~!ilvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 .'-" SPECrALLY PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LOT 16. CALLAHAN SUBDrVrSrON (BENEDrCT OFFrCE BUrLDrNG TO BE KNOWN AS POWDER HOUSE CONDOMrNrUMS) d d . . 1.rh THrS AGREEMENT, ma e and entere ~nto th~s - day of January, 1994, by and between FREDRrc A. BENEDrCT, FABrENNE BENEDrCT, and BENEDrCT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation (collectively "Benedict"), and THE CrTY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home rule city (the "city"), J! 1. ~ If 11 !i !i 11 ~ II: WHEREAS, Benedict was the record owner of ot 16, Callahan Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded May 19, 76 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7 in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, colorado, together with the improvements thereon known as the Benedict Office Building (collectively the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Benedict Office Building was legally constructed in 1974 pursuant to a valid building permit, and was subsequently rezoned to RR (Rural Residential) PUD, thus becoming a grand fathered non-conforming use; and WHEREAS, the Benedict Office Building has historically been used for business and professional offices; and WHEREAS, for purposes of removing such non-conformity, Benedict applied to the City to designate the Subject Property as a Specially Planned Area and to vary the uses permitted in the RR Zone District to allow business and professional offices as a use by right on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, under and pursuant to Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 25, recorded in Book 716 at Page 615 of the Pitkin County records, the City designated the Subject Property as a Specially Planned Area, granted Final SPA Development Plan approval for the Subject Property, and granted a variation to the uses permitted in the RR Zone District to allow business and professional offices on the subject Property, subject to the conditions set forth in the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, under and pursuant to Aspen City Council Resolution No. 89, Series of 1993, the City granted an extension of the recordation requirements contained in section 7-804.0.4. of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the city of Aspen to and until January 31, 1999; and /"""". .--' 1366301 01128/94 16:03 Rec $30.00 BK 740 PG 151 " Si~viaDavis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 WHEREAS, under and pursuant to Aspen city council Ordinance No. 13, recorded in Book 716 at Page 610 of the Pitkin county records, the City granted subdivision exemption approval for the condominiumization of the Benedict Office Building, to be known as Powder House Condominiums, subject to the conditions set forth in the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Benedict and City desire to memorialize the conditions to SPA approval by entering into the following SPA Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, Benedict aCknowledges and agrees that the following matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the granting of an SPA designation and Final SPA Development Plan Approval by the City and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Benedict hereby covenants with the city as follows with respect to the SUbject Property: 1. Future Improvement District. Benedict agrees to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for purposes of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way that serves the Subject property. 2. SUbject Planned Zonina Classification. The City confirms that the Property is zoned RR (PUD) (SPA), Rural Residential, Unit Development, Specially Planned Area. 3. Applicable Zonina Reaulations. The applicable regulations that govern the permitted and conditional uses, dimensional requirements, and off-street parking requirements with respect to the Subject property, are those of the RR, Rural Residential zone district, as such regulations may be amended from time to time. Under and pursuant to Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 93-25, business and professional offices are permitted uses within the Benedict Office Building. 4. Open Space Desianation. Benedict hereby designates as open space those portions of the Subject Property which are not presently occupied by the Benedict Office Building, any other improvements, or parking areas, all as more particularly shown on the Final SPA Development Plan recorded in Plat Book at Page of the Pitkin County records. Provided, thatthe area designated "Area Reserved for Affordable Housing" on the Final SPA Development Plan (as said Plan may be amended from time to time) may in the future be developed and used for affordable housing purposes, if all applicable city land use approvals are obtained 2 ,-" ,1"""\ therefor. Nothing herein shall obligate the city to grant such approvals. 5. Perpetual Non-Profit Space. Benedict is donating Powder House Office Condominium units 21 and 22, and Storage Condominium Unit 35, comprising approximately 882 square feet of the improvements on the Subject property, to the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association. Benedict covenants and agrees that said Condominium Units shall be and hereby are forever restricted to occupancy by a non-profit organization or organizations. If said Condominium units or any of them are ever reconfigured, the resulting Condominium units which are sUbject to this occupancy restriction shall not contain less than 1,259 square feet. 6. Condominiumization Permitted. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 13, the Aspen City Council granted subdivision exemption approval for the condominiumization of the Benedict Office Building, to be known as Powder House Condominiums, subject to the conditions set forth in the Ordinance. 7. Vested Riahts. Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, a Vested Property Right is hereby established for all development activities permitted, approved or confirmed by this Agreement and, accordingly, for the three-year period next succeeding May 24, 1993, no zoning or land use action by the City, legislative or otherwise and no citizen initiated zoning or land use action shall in any manner alter, impair, prevent, diminish or otherwise delay any development activities or use of the SUbject Property permitted, approved or confirmed by this Agreement, except: (i) with the consent of the owner of the SUbject Property affected by such action; (ii) Upon the discovery of natural or man-made hazards on or in the immediate vicinity of the Subject property affected by such action, which hazards could not reasonably heretofore have been discovered and which hazards, if uncorrected, would propose a serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare; or (iii) Nothing by the establishment of this Vested Property Right shall exempt the development activities or use of the Subject Property contemplated in or by this Agreement from subsequent reviews and approvals which may be required by other provisions of this Agreement or the general rules, regulations and ordinances of the City, provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with the development activities or uses of the Subject Property contemplated in or by this Agreement. Moreover, the 3 1366301 01128/94 16:03 Rec $30.00 BK 740 PG 152 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 ,-", ,'-", " establishment of this Vested Property Right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all properties subject to land use regulation by the city, including but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and in connection with any such development activities or use of the Subject Property, the owner(s) of the Subject Property involved shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless such owner(s) shall have been granted an exemption therefrom in writing. Nothing by the establishment of this Vested Property Right shall preclude judicial determination, based upon common law principles, that a vested property right exists with respect to any development activity or use of the Subject Property approved or not approved by this Agreement, or that any subsequently enacted or citizen initiated zoning or land use action has resulted in a compensable taking of all or some portion of the Subject Property. In the event of a final determination by the City council of a non-compliance with the terms of this Agreement by Benedict, then so much of the Vested property Right hereby established as relates to the condition of this Agreement not complied with, shall from, then and thereafter no longer exist; provided that if such determination is ever judicially invalidated, the Vested Property Right formally extinguished shall, ipso facto, thereupon be revived nunc pro tunc to the time of the Council's determination of noncompliance. 8. Severabili tv. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section of the application thereof in any circumstance is invalidated, such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section shall be severed from the Agreement and the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 9. Release of Waiver. None of the covenants contained herein shall be released or waived in any respect without the prior consent of the City reflected by resolution of the City Council of the City of Aspen. 10. Attornevs' Fees. In any legal proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and fees therein, including its reasonable attorneys' fees and expert witness fees. 11. Amendment. The provisions of this Agreement may be changed, modified or amended only by the recording of a written instrument signed by an authorized officer of Powder House Condominium Association, Inc., and by the Mayor of the City of Aspen pursuant to a vote taken by the City Council. 4 1366301 01128/94 16:03 Rec $30.00 BK 740 PB 153 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 ,-" .-., 12. Bindina Effect. This Agreement shall run with the title to the Subject property and shall be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the SUbject Property or any part thereof, and their heirs , representatives, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. BENEDICT: ;:f~c:l~ Fredric A. Benedict 9ahMtm,-/ 1dlfu",d2c~ Fabienne Bened~ct BENEDICT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation By: "9~~ Fredric A. Benedict, President CITY: THE CITYtPF ASPEN, rr ~. By: ~~~- Mayor ;;~.~g~it ~r4ti( STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /' ~ day of January, 1994, by Fredric A. Benedict and Fabienne Benedict, individually, and by Fredric A. Benedict as President of Benedict Land and Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation. ~'J'"." ~~~:(W)TNESS my hand and official seal. _ :..,~,.. '" ""''f~,c' ommission expires: '-l/' ~/7'1 /9Cjf' . '.~ARy\<;\" , ~ij; :~o~f!b~M.; "'."j'-';.u.."~.... (". S?Oll CO v 11839.1 5 1366301 01l2B/94 16:03 Rec $30.00 BK 740 PB 154 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 ,-' .-.. . STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument w s l~ ged before me this 2:fl!!: day of Jd!.ll.ary, 1994, by ." as Mayor and by -"-. ~. --'-a C~ty, erk of The City of Aspen, Colorado, a Co orado municipal corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: My CommIaalon expires 9/'Z1196 ( SEALl.,c_ .." jj/t)';...,-.....:-. "'",1"..~~~~~.~1.;~>.. ' ~~"'\'" .......(1' "/\\ OTA f/ r\"< , . . : .: ..... :.:: . -, U IJ L \ C/ " ..y' ~ .. ~/I' , ~,~ r:r tt\ fffi'6301 01l2B/94 16:03 Rec $30.00 BK 740 PB Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc $.00 ~/~~, !h4y No ary Publi ' 155 11839.1 6 ~ '" MEMORANDUM ~ ~ '-i-o ~/1J ~ , TO: Mayor and city council THRU: Amy Margerum, city Manager Diane Moore, City Planning Direc~~~ THRU: FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: May 24, 1993 RE: Benedict Building - SPA Designation (map amendment), SPA Development Plar ~ Second Reading of Ordinance 25, 1993 \Je"Ju ~\IbH-h ' ==========:====================================================== SUMMARY: The Planning and zoning Commission recommends approval of the following as proposed: 1) the map amendment to designate the Benedict Office Building parcel as a Specially Planned Area (SPA); and 2) the SPA development plan as submitted in the application; and 3) an SPA use variation for professional and business offices. \tA~~,~~15 The comma~on also' recommended approval of GMQS Exemption for a proposed deed restricted cabin to be moved onto the site. However, the Applicants have withdrawn this element from the SPA proposal for the time being in order to explore another option to provide a housing unit on the property. The Applicant will submit an amendment to any SPA approval at such time that the avalanche and construction issues have been resolved. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council approved condominiumization of the office building in March of 1992. The condominium plat has not yet been recorded. First reading of Ordinance 25, 1993 was approved by a 5-0 vote on April 26, 1993. BACKGROUND: The 2 acre parcel is located at 1280 ute Avenue (Lot 16, Callahan Subdivision). Fritz and Fabi Benedict (the Applicants) seek to amend the Official Zone District map to add SPA designation to the underlying RR-PUD zoning of the Benedict Office Building parcel. This will allow the non-conforming office building use to be legalized pursuant to an SPA use variation approval. As an SPA, a Final Development Plan must be approved. The Applicants propose to establish as the Final Development Plan the existing buildings' footprints, parking, and open spaces. The application originally called for a Benedict-designed cabin to ,I"'- I"'- be relocated onto the parcel and be deed restricted for use by the 10th Mountain as housing for their personnel or other qualified residents. Recent consultation with avalanche specialist Art Mears has indicated that relocation of the log structure will not meet recommendations for structural safety in the identified avalanche zone. Therefore, the applicant has withdrawn the affordable housing/GMQS Exemption element from this SPA Plan review. The 10th Mountain organization will continue to explore other construction options for a housing unit on this property and may return with an amendment proposal. Please refer to Exhibits "A" and "B" for the original application information and the letter regarding the withdrawal of the cabin from the application. STAFF DISCUSSION: At first reading, Councilman Peters expressed concern that the proposed SPA designation and use variation is a mechanism to increase the property's value for resale purposes. The applicant will address this issue at second reading. Attached for Council's consideration is the applicable non-conformity section from the land use regulations, Exhibit "F". Staff was asked to present at second reading a detailed history of the structure. This information was contained in the original application and has since been added to Exhibit "A". The Benedict Office Building is a grandfathered non-conforming use in RR (Rural Residential) zone district. Please refer to Exhibit "F" for code regulations affecting non-conforming uses, specifically paragraphs Band C regarding normal maintenance and extensions. As the MAA and 10th Mountain Division Hut Association are being gifted portions of the building, the non-conforming status apparently affects financial aspects of their occupancy or future sale of space. The property received city Council approval to condominiumize the building in 199~, in anticipation of the new non-profit ownerShips. staff considered the situation of the non-conformity and any alternatives to an SPA overlay. The only apparent option would be to try to rezone the parcel O-Office. This was a less desirable option for one principal reason: by changing the zoning, any changes to the site could be made without P&Z or Council review as long as the use or dimensional requirements were permitted by the Office zone. The SPA overlay ties the parcel to an approved site plan. Any changes, major or minor, must be processed as an SPA amendment. This is somewhat of a burden to the owner(s), but assures the neighborhood that changes will receive appropriate review. The referral memo from Engineering is attached as Exhibit "C". Map Amendment to designate the Benedict parcel as an SPA (Speciallv Planned Area: Per section 24-7-801 of the Municipal Code, the 2 ,-.. ,-.. purpose of an SPA is to: "A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its historic significance, natural features, unique physical character, or location, and where potential exists for community benefit from comprehensive development. B. Allow the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional requirements. C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public benefit." The Applicant proposes to legitimize thebusinessjprofessional office use through an SPA overlay and variance approval. Any changes to an SPA property can only occur via established amendment procedures. A similar SPA variance for offices was approved in 1992 at the old Aspen Savings and Loan structure. Section 24-7-1102 establishes the criteria which must be addressed when considering a Map Amendment (rezoning). Please refer to Exhibit "D" fOr these criteria and staff response. In summary, the Planning Commission and ,staff believes that the proposed map amendment to overlay the Benedict parcel as an SPA meets the applicable criteria. . Consolidated SPA Review: The Benedict application was accompanied by a request to amend the Land Use Code to allow consolidated SPA review if the Planning Director determines that "a full four step review would be redundant and serve no public purpose". The text amendment is presented to Council under a separate memo and ordinance. The Planning Director and the Planning and zoning commission recommend consolidated review for this application. SPA Final Development Plan: The review criteria for consideration of a Final SPA Plan are attached as' Exhibi t "F". Staff and the Commission recommend approval of the proposed SPA Plan as it is simply a recordation of the existing development on the site. Use Variations permitted within an' SPA: Section 24-7-804 D. 2. allows variation the uses permitted by the underlying zoning based on the standards of section 24-7-804 B (the review standards addressed above). Any variations allowed shall be specified on, the SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan. If the SPA overlay is approved, and the office use is deemed appropriate via variation to the underlying RR zone, the SPA Agreement shall state 3 t""', .~ the variation. As mentioned in this memo and Exhibits, the business and professional offices on the parcel need this use variation to insure their existence. The Commission and staff recommend approval of the use variation to allow business and professional offices in the Benedict Office Building. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning Commission voted 6-0 at their regular meeting on April 6, 1993 for approval of: 1) the zoning map amendment to overlay the Benedict Office Building parcel as a specially Planned Area (SPA); and 2) an SPA use variance for business/professional office use; and 3) approval of the Benedict Office Building Final SPA Plan. ALTERNATIVES: The property could remain a non-conforming-use in the RR (Rural Residential) zone. The non-conformity could be eliminated by rezoning to O-Office.' PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have second reading of Ordinance 25, Series 1993, approving the zoning map amendment to overlay the Benedict Office Building parcel as a Specially Planned Area (SPA), an SPA use variance for business/professional office use at the Benedict Office Building, and approval of the Benedict Office Building Final SPA Plan'~~k ~e.4d KI&trrs CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibit "Aft "B" "c.. "0" "E" ifF" ,,~ o r1 Tj) 'vJ/~~ +y'S~A'l"~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~r~~'*-~t\..4- ,'~~V\.~~,cc~~ ~,~10 ID~~~j $~~~ ~ -/<J ~,~ 'IW'-r1*\k~ - Application Information - Letter Regarding Withdrawal of Cabin from Application - Referral Memo - Rezoning Criteria and Responses - SPA Plan Review Criteria and Responses - Non-Conformity Use Regulations from Land Use Code Attachments: Ordinance 25, 1993 4 /""". :-;'ty Council Exhibit It w~ ,lg ., Qrdiunce , V ANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants February 12, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Benedict Office Building SPA Designation/Development Plan and GMQS Exemption Application Dear Kim: Please consider this letter an application for specially planned area (SPA) designa- tion and SPA development plan approval for the Benedict office building property which is located at 1280 Ute Avenue in the City of Aspen (see Exhibit 1, Pre- Application Conference Summary, attached hereto). A growth management quota system exemption is also requested for a single-family dwelling unit which is pro- posed to be relocated to the property. Vested property rights status is requested for all approvals granted pursuant to this application. The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 6-207, 7-803.B., 7-804, 7-1103 and 8-104.C.1.c. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by Fredric A. and Fabienne Benedict and the Benedict Land and Cattle Company, the owners of the property (see Exhibit2, Title Commitment). Permission for Vann Associates to represent the Applicants is attached as Exhibit 3. An executed application fee agreement and a list of owners located within three hundred (300) feet of the property are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively. Background A building permit was issued for the Benedict office building on March 12, 1973 (see Exhibit 6. Building Permit No. 71-73). Construction apparently commenced later that spring, and the building was completed and ready for occupancy, with the exception of the south wing, in April of 1974 (see Exhibit 7, Inspection Record). The building permit indicates that the building was to be used for office purposes, and that a one (1) bedroom dwelling unit was to be included in the structure. (~~ th~ accompanying improvement survey illustrates, the property on which the Venedict building is located is legally described as Lot 16 of the Callahan Subdivi- 230 Eas! Hopkins Avenue. Aspen, ColoradO 81611 .303/925-6958. Fax 303/920-9310 '1 r", ,,,,",,, Ms. Kim Johnson Februal)' 12, 1993 Page 2 sion. It should be noted, however, that Lot 16 was created in connection with the approval of the Callahan PUD/subdivision, and the recordation of the subdivision's final plat on May 19, 1976. At the time the original building permit was issued, the southern portion of the lot was located in the County. This area was annexed to the City on October 27, 1975, in connection with the so-called Callahan Annexation (see Exhibit 8, Ordinance No. 64-75). While the property's early zoning histol)' is difficult to trace, the zoning map adopted by the City on April 28, 1975, depicts the portion of the property on which the building was constructed (Le., the northern portion) as being zoned R-15, Residen- tial, mandatoI)' Planned Unit Development. This area, and the previously annexed southern portion of the property, were rezoned to RR, Rural Residential, mandatoI)' PUD, on Janual)' 12, 1976, in connection with the approval of the Callahan POO/s- ubdivision (see Exhibit 9. Ordinance No. 96-75). Both of these rezonings are depicted Oll an amended zoning map which was adopted on March 23, 1976. A review of the Planning Office's caseload files indicates that the RR zone district categol)' was specifically chosen to permit the development of the Aspen Qub on what is now Lot 15 of the Callahan PUD/subdivision. While recreational clubs are a conditional use in the RR zone district, office uses are prohibited. Apparently, little if any consideration was given to the faCt that the initial rezoning of the Applicants' parcel to R-15, and its subsequent rezoning to RR, resulted in the Benedict building becoming a non-conforming use. The subsequent Callahan Subdivision and PUD Agreement simply acknowledged that Lot 16 was to accommodate an "existing office building for such uses as have heretOfore been approved by the City." On March 9, 1992, the City Council granted subdivision exemption approval for the condominiumization of the Benedict building (see Exhibit 10, Ordinance No. 13-92). The approval was conditioned upon the recordation of a condominium map and subdivision exemption agreement, and the deed restriction of the building's one (1) bedroom unit to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority's resident occupancy guidelines and six (6) month minimum lease limitation. While these documents have been prepared in draft form, they have yet to be recorded. The annexation, rezon- ing and subdivision histol)' of the Applicants' property is summarized in Table 1, below. Table 1 Annexation/RezoninglSubdivision History Benedict Office Building Property March 12, 1973 Building permit issued for Benedict office building. ('-'\ ,,....., Ms. Kim Johnson February 12, 1993 Page 4 bicycle trail has been constructed within the trail easement. The sUlvey also depicts a twenty-four (24) foot access and utility easement which was conveyed to the City by the Applicants, and which provides access to the property from Ute Avenue. The building is served by all major utilities. It should be noted that the property is located within a historic avalanche path. As the attached report prepared by Arthur 1. Mears, P.E., indicates (see Exhibit 11, Snow-Avalanche Hazard Analysis), portions of the Applicants' property lie within the mapped "Blue Zone" of the so-called Ute Trail avalanche path. According to Mr. Mears, the Blue Zone is an avalanche area of both low frequency and moderate energy. He also notes that development is traditionally permitted within the'Blue Zone, provided that construction will withstand avalanche forces. In the alternative, avalanche defenses can be installed to prevent interaction of the avalanche with the structure. Pro.posed Development The Applicant's primal)' purpose for condominiumizing the Benedict office building was to permit the conveyance of a significant portion of the building to the Music Associates of Aspen and the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association as charitable gifts. The remainder of tbe building will eitber be marketed to prospective pur- chasers or retained by the Applicants for rental purposes. WI1ile the City Council's March 9, 1992, subdivision exemption approval permits these conveyances, the building's status as a non-conforming use imposes significant difficulties on the future owners of the office condominium units. The Aspen Land Use Regulations define a non-conforming use as "... any use of land, building or structure which was established pursuant to the zoning and building laws in effect at the time of its development, but which use is not a permitted or conditional use under the regulations imposed by this Code for the tone district in which it is located". As tbe Benedict building was legally constructed pursuant to a valid building permit for office purposes, and office uses are prohibited in the underlying RR zone district, the building meets the definition of a non-conforming use. Pursuant to Section 9-102 of the Regulations, non-conforming uses are allowed to continue subject to certain restrictions. More specifically, non-conforming uses cannot be expanded, and normal mainte- nance is limited to ten (10) percent of the building's current replacement cost in any given twelve (12) month period. In addition, such uses must be terminated if abandoned or discontinued for a period of twelve (12) consecutive mOnths, WI1ile buildings containing such uses may be reconstructed following their demolition or destJ1,jction, the non-conforming uses may only be restored if less than seventy-five (75) percent of the building is demolished or destroyed. An exception to this rule, !""'\ ,-, Ms. Kim Johnson February 12, 1993 Page 5 however, exists for uses which are demolished or destroyed by an act of God. In such cases, the use and building may be restored regardless of the extent demolished, provided that a building permit is issued within one (1) year of the demolition. As the Music Associates intend to sell the office condominium units which are being given to them by the Applicants' to raise money for improvements to their Meadows and Castle Creek facilities, the above restrictions may significantly impact the units' marketability. In addition, such restrictions may affect the ability of potential purchasers to obtain mortgage financing, as lenders typically view non-conforming uses as risky investments. The ability to remodel, repair and maintain their respec- tive units is also constrained given the building's non-conforming use status.' To resolve these problems, the Applicants propose to designate the property as a specially planned area, ang to obtain approval of an SPA development plan for the existing improvements and office uses located thereon. No expansion of the building is anticipated at this time. It is possible, however, that portions of the building's interior may be remodeled by individual tenants and/or owners. Appropriate permits for such activities will be obtained by these individuals as may be required. In addition, the Applicants wish to relocate the so.called "Ball" residence from its present location at 332 West Smuggler Street to the Benedict property, and to deed restrict the residence as an affordable housing unit for the use and benefit of the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association. The two (2) bedroom, two (2) bath residence contains approximately twelve hundred and thirty (1,230) square feet of net livable area, and is proposed to be deed restricted to APCHA's Category 4 income and occupancy guidelines. Photographs of the existing Ball residence are attached hereto as Exhibit 12. The residence, which is the former home of Ralph "Gus" Ball, was designed by Mr. Benedict in the late 1940's. Although the residence is not listed on the City's inventory of historic structures, it is considered to be an excellent example of Aspen's early "mountain chalet" style of architecture and, as such, is considered by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee to be worthy of preservation. The pres- ent owner of the residence, Gene Siegel (d.b.a., Maven Real Estate Company), has received a permit to demolish the structure. Mr. Siegel, however, has agreed to allow the Applicants to relocate the residence to the Benedict office building property (see Exhibit 13, Agreement for Donation and Removal of Ball House). As the attached site development plan illustrates (see Exhibit 14), the Applicants propose to locate the unit adjacent to Ute Avenue in the southeast comer of the property. The unit will be placed above a new basement/garage which will be accessed from the existing parking lot. The garage area will be used to store the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association's maintenance vehicle, snow mobiles and ,-.. ~ Ms. Kim Johnson FebruaI)' 12, 1993 Page 6 ,f~1? ~ ~ equipment. One (1) off-street parking space per bedroom will be provided for the residence in the existing pullout located adjacent to Ute Avenue. The use of this area for parking purposes will provide more convenient pedestrian access to the residence, and will eliminate the need for a new curb cut. Existing utilities will be extended to serve the residence as may be required. The residence has been located so as to comply with the setback requirements of the RR zone district, and to avoid the existing ten (10) foot gas line easement which traverses the parking lot. As the property will contain only one (1) dwelling unit for density purposes, sufficient land area is available to meet the RR zone district's two (2) acre, minimum lot area requirement. The existing dwelling unit located within the Benedict office building will be deed restricted to APCHA's resident occupancy guidelines. As a result, this unit can be considered to be an "accessoI)' dwelling unit" which is exempt from the ~alculation of density. Review Requirements To accomplish the Applicants' objectives, the property must first be designated as a specially planned area. SPA development plan approval is also required, as is a GMQS exemption for the proposed relocation of the Ball residence to the property, and its deed restriction to APCHA's affordable housing guidelines. Each of these review requirements is discussed in detail below. 1. Specially Planned Area Designation Pursuant to Section 7-803.A. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, the City Council may designate any parcel as a specially planned area if, "because of its unique historic, natural, physical, or locational characteristics, it would be of great public benefit to the City for that land to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multiple use development". As Section 7-801 of the Regulations indicates, one of the purposes of the SPA regulations is to "establish a procedure by which land'upon which multiple uses exist, or are. considered appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public benefit". As I believe a significant public benefit would accrue from removing the limitations which presently encumber the Benedict office building, the designation of the property as a Specially Planned Area, and the legalization of its office use, are consistent with the purposes of the City's SPA regulations. Most importantly, the removal of the building's non-conforming use status would allow the unencumbered sale of the office condominium units, thereby permitting the Music Associates to fully realize the value of the Applicants' gift. Similarly, the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association would benefit from the additional flexibility which would result from being a conforming use. ,1""'\, ,,-,., . , , Ms. Kim Johnson Februm)' 12, 1993 Page 7 The Benedict building was legally approved in its current location, and has historically provided office space for a variety of local business and professional office uses, As it is highly unlikely that these uses will be abated through attrition or demolition of the building, no public purpose would appear to be selVed by continu- ing to treat the building as a non-confOlming use. To the contral)', the removal of the building's non-conforming use status would ensure its continued existence as a valuable source of office space, and facilitate the intent of the Applicants' charitable contributions to both the Music Associates and the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association. 2. SPA Development Plan A parcel of land designated specially planned area must also be designated on the City's zoning map with. an appropriate underlying zone district. As the immedi- ate site area. is zoned primarily for residential use, the Applicants propose to retain the propeny's existing Rural Residential zone district classification. To resolve the building's non-conforming use status, the Applicants wish to val)' the use require- ments of the RR zone district pursuant to Section 7-804.0.2. of the Regulations to allow business and professional offices as a use permitted by right. No other variations in the use or dimensional requirements of the RR zone district are either requested or required. Pursuant to Section 7-804,A., development within a specially planned area requires the review and approval of both a conceptual and final development plan by the P&Z and the City Council. This process typically involves four (4) distinct steps. The Applicants, however, propose to consolidate their conceptual and final develop- ment plan submissions so that SPA development plan approval can be obtained in two (2) steps. This approach is appropriate given the limited nature of the Applica- nts' proposed development, and will permit the relocation of the Ball residence and the conveyance of the condominium unit gifts to the MAA and 10th Mountain Division Hut Association in a timely manner. Public hearings can be held at both P&Z and City Council to meet applicable regulatol)' requirements. Pursuant to Section 7-804.0.2. of the Regulations, the use requirements of the propeny's underlying zone district may be varied provided, however, that the variation complies with the standards of Section 7-804.B, The specific standards for conceptual and final development plan review, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized as follows. a) "Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcels in terms of land lise, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space." ~ ~ 1 ) Ms. Kim Johnson February 12, 1993 Page 8 The Benedict office building was legally constructed in an area which contained existing single-family residential uses. The diversity of uses in the immedi- ate site area was increased with the approval of the Callahan PUD/subdivision and the development of the Aspen Club townhouses and recreational facilities. All of these uses have coexisted with few if any problems for at least fifteen (15) years. The building's architecture, landscaping and open space are compatible with sur- rounding development. The relocation of the Ball residence to the Applicants' property is also compatible with existing development in the immediate site area. The strocture is relatively small and has been located to minimize its impact on neighboring development. b) "Whether sufficient pubIicfacilities and roads exist to service the proposed development." All utilities and the public road system are believed to be adequate to serve the existing Benedict office building and the relocated Ball residence. c) "Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for the development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards." No development of the Applicants' property is proposed other than the relocation of the Ball residence. As noted previously, the property is located within the so-called "Blue Zone" of the Ute Trail avalanche path. The Blue Zone is characterized as an avalanche area of low frequency and moderate energy in which construction is typically allowed subject to the incorporation of appropriate ava- lanche mitigation techniques. To mitigate potential avalanche hazards, the Applicants propose to retain Arthur Mears to provide site specific mitigation recommendations for the proposed building envelope. As an existingstrocture will be relocated, avalanche mitigation will most likely take the form of an earthen berm as opposed to direct protection via reinforced construction. Mr, Mears recommendations will be incorpo- rated in the building permit application to be submitted in connection with the relocation of the residence. d) ''Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant viewplanes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large." . As discussed under the preceding criteria, the relocation of the Ball residence is the only development presently proposed for the property. The resi- ,1""'\ ^ t " Ms. Kim Johnson February 12, 1993 Page 9 dence has been located to take advantage of the property's existing topography and in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the RR zone district. Appropri- ate mitigation will be incorporated in the relocation of the residence to minimize potential avalanche hazards. No adverse visual impacts are anticipated as a result of the relocation. Open space, trails access and similar amenities are presently provid- ed on the property, e) ''Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." The July 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan depicts the property, and.the immediate site area, as being within the "Single-Family Residential" land use category. The construction of the Benedict building, however, predates the adoption of the this plan. While the property's early zoning history is difficult to trace, the property was most likely rezoned to R45 following the adoption of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. This assumption is supported by the depiction of the property as zoned R-15 on the City's April 28, 1975, zoning map. To the best of my knowledge, the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan contains no recommendations which specifically impact the Applicants' property or the proposed relocation of the Ball residence. t) ''Whether the proposed development will require the expendi- ture of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding area." No public expenditure will be required as a result of the proposed elimination of the Benedict building's non-conforming status or the relocation of the Ball residence. g) "Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meets the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 7- 903(B)(2)(b)." This criteria is not applicable, as no expansion of the existing building is proposed. The proposed relocation of the Ball residence does not trigger the City's slope reduction requirements. t) ''Whether there are sufficient GMQS aIlotments for the proposed development." As no expansion of the Benedict office building is proposed, no grow!h management quota system allocation is required to accommodate the building's existing office use. The relocated Ball residence will be deed restricted to 1""0, - , ' f " Ms. Kim Johnson February 12, 1993 Page 10 APCHA's affordable housing guidelines and, therefore, is exempt from growth management. Based on the above, I believe that the proposed elimination of the Benedict building's non-conforming status via SPA designation and the adoption of an SPA development plan will have no adverse impact upon surrounding land uses or the intent or purpose of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Similarly, the relocation of the Ball residence to the property, and its deed restriction to affordable housing guidelines, will result in the preservation of a valuable historic resource and increase the community's supply of affordable housing units. Upon the receipt of final SPA development plan approval, the Applicant will prepare a SPA plat which meets the requirements of Section 7-804.D.g. of the Regulations for review anq approval of the City Engineer. An SPA agreement will also be prepared to memorialize any conditions placed upon the proposed business and professional office use, and the relocation of the Ball residence. 3. GMQS Exemption (D6l..ETGb") Pursuant to Section 8-104.C.1.c., deed restricted affordable h<>.ysing units are exempt fr growth management subject to the approval of the.CitY Council. The applicable r iew criteria with respect to the proposed relocation of the Ball resi- dence include e City's need for such housing, the unit's {&:ation, its size, and the proposed income ategory to which the unit will be restricted. ,J'" ./" As discussed pr iously, the unit is to u . zed by the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association. The tw 2) bedroom, tw ) bath unit contains approximately twelve hundred and thirty ( , 30) square et of livable area, and is proposed to be deed restricted to APCHA's ego income and occupancy guidelines (see Exhibit 15, original Floor Plans a levations). The unit will provide much needed housing for the employees of th Association, and its proposed relocation is consistent with the Council's licy to ncourage the dispersal of such units through- out the City's neighborh Please note tb t APCHA's minimum et livable square footage requirement for Category 3 an .4 single-family detached u . s is fourteen hundred (1,400) square feet. This requ' ement, however, may be reduce by APCHA upon the demonstra- tion that the it "satisfies, or is required to adjust t other physical factors or consider- ations incl ing, but not limited to, design for livability, ammon storage, other ameni- ties. loca, On or site design". A Category 4 deed restrict! p is requested to permit maxi m flexibility in the use of the unit, which may be~cupied from time to time by ei. er the Association's director or various staff emploVees. Given the Ball residence's historic status, a minor reduction in minimum' ui\it size appears justified. ~ ,r-. , , , Ms. Kim Johnson February 12, 1993 Page 11 4. Vested Property Rights In order to preserve the land use approval which may be obtained as a result of this application, the Applicants hereby request vested property rights status pursuant to the provisions of Section 6-207 of the Land Use Regulations. It is understood by the Applicants that, to establish such status, final approval of the proposed SPA development plan must be granted by ordinance of the City Council. It is also the Applicants' understanding that no specific submission requirements, or review criteria other than a public hearing, are required to confer such status. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. As the Applicants must relocate the Ball residence by June 1, 1993, any assistance which you can provide in the timely review of their application would be sincerely appreciated. Yours truly, SV:cwv Attachments c:\bus\city.applapp20192,spa r-, r\'12 .Jit:y CoulIICil ft:J>Jhit P ApprOV8cl , 19 _ By Ord1nan~' V ANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants p,PR 2 I \993 April 21, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Benedict SPA Designation, SPA Development Plan and GMQS ExemptiQn Application Dear Kim: As required by the Planning and Zoning Commission (Condition #4, P&Z's recommend- ed conditions of approval), Art Mears has reviewed the Applicant's proposal to relocate the Ball residence to the Benedict office building property. Art has recommended that the structure not be relocated as proposed, due to the inability to adequately protect it from avalanche forces. If affordable housing is to be provided in the proposed location, Art recommends that a new structure be specifically designed to address avalanche concerns. Based on Art's recommendations, we wish to amend our application to eliminate the proposed relocation and the related request for a GMQS exemption. A separate application will be submitted in the event the Applicant decides to pursue the construc- tion of affordable housing on the property in the future. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. .Yours truly, SV:cwv c:\bus\City.ltrUtr20192,kj3 230 East Hopkins Avenue' Aspen, ColoradO 81611 . 303/925-6958' Fax 303/920-9310 "'"' , City ~uncil Exhibit c,. Approv8et , 19 By Ordinance -' MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer (].1f- Date: March 25, 1993 Re: Benedict Building SPA Designation, Development Plan, and GMQS Exemption Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. Up,per Ute Avenue Improvement District - The applicants are commended for improvements in the public right-of-way to the roadway, drainage, and streetscape which were approximately one third funded by their participation. 2. SF A Designation a. Perhaps in conjunction with rezoning, the City could obtain an upgrade, of Ute Avenue from an access and utility easement to a fully dedicated public right-of- way. 3. Development Plan a. Any excavation for construction shall be protected such that no storm runoff from exposed soils reaches the Roaring Fork River or public rights-of-way. b. Trails - Current trail specifications are for a 10' paved trail with 2' drainage shoulders on each side. This fully utilizes the 14' easement without allowing any construction activity beyond the 14'. This may be impractical and the City should consider seeking a wider easement for construction purposes with a final 14' constructed trail easement. The trail is in place at this time, but if it were reconstructed in the future, a construction easement may be useful. c. Indicate the use of the one story firebrick building. d. Street light - Given the high traffic volume of commercial building driveways, it may be advisable to require the installation of a street light to illuminate the driveway. 1 ~ I'""- e. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on utility easements on private property, not in the public right of way. Any utility work requiring the cutting of newly paved Ute Avenue should be designed to minimize cutting of new pavement. This may be more fully addressed at excavation permit time. f. Indicate the dimension of the full right-of-way width for Ute Avenue along the frontage of the property. g. "Sidewalks" - Although there is a trail on this property, and although concrete sidewalks would be inappropriate to require in this instance, the City still should consider requiring provision of a pedestrian walking space in a usable location between the edge of pavement and the property line. In this reviewer's opinion, the City is experiencing pedestrian problems at the New Meadows Road where pedestrians are walking on the road surface even though there were trails installed in the development to provide for pedestrian needs. Actual uses at the Meadows suggests that wherever there is a road, there should also be an adjacent pedestrian walking surface on at least one side of the road. h. Trash area - Indicate a designated trash storage area on the applicants' property. i. Indicate the high water line, the lOO-year floodplain line, and the fisherman's easement. j, Off-street parking - The existing off-street parking is proposed to be used for the relocated "Ball" residence. The curb cut width is non-conforming and may not be enlarged. 5, GMOS Exemption - No comment. 6. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights- of-way, we would advise the applicants as follows: The applicants shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets department (920-5130). Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. The applicants shall provide a storm drainage plan prepared by an engineer registered 2 ~ ,-. to practice in the State of Colorado. The plan shall meet the requirements of Section 24- 7-1004.CA.f. 2. If possible, the applicants shall upgrade the access easement by dedicating a public right-of-way for Ute Avenue. 3. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide a final development plan for approval by the Engineering Department. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director Jack Reid, Street Superintendent (item 3.e) M93.77 3 f"", ,-., City Council Exhibit b Approved , 19 By Ordinance Benedict Office Buildina Map Amendment for SPA (Speciallv Planned Areal Overlav: Pursuant to section 7-1102 the standards of review for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as follows: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: There ,are no conflicts with the zoning code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan has set forth goals to maintain and enhance the balance between resort functions and community oriented functions. While this site was not specifically identified in the Plan, this proposal will allow the established office uses to remain into the future. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: ' Currently the zoning on the parcel is RR (PUD), as is the Aspen Club, located directly to the east of the subject property. The ute Park Subdivision (10 units) was approved for the parcel across ute Avenue in 1992. To the west is parkland. The subject property has been used for offices since its construction in the mid 1970's. The surrounding uses have developed around it, in full ,knowledge of its impacts. The proposed SPA Plan and use variation will not change the impacts to the vicinity, except for limited activity associated with the one additional deed restricted residential unit. If the non-conforming possibility exists that should. Yet the demand likely remain high. status of the property continues, the the structure will not be maintained as it for office space proximal to downtown will D. The effect of the proposed amendlnenton traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The only increase in trip generation will result from the relocated cabin being proposed concurrent with the SPA overlay. A.s Ute Avenue has recently been overhauled, this increase will have minimal traffic impacts. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such pUblic facilities, inclUding but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: It will be necessary. for the relocated cabin up to connect to the water and Sanitation District service lines which 1, ,~ ,-., are already on the property. However the map amendment is not expected to substantially increase the demand for public services beyond the current uses or services capabilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. ' RESPONSE: Th .t.--i's~elll.Em~e--oab'Nl ~ Any applicable vegetation being removed shall.obtain tree removal permits. stream margin review is not necessary for this proposal. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: The proposed application of the SPA overlay is consistent with the existing uses of the site and will not negatively impact the surrounding area. Any changes to an approved SPA Plan must receive approval through appropriate land use reviews. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood w~ich support the proposed amendment. ' RESPONSE: As mentioned in the application, the building was constructed pursuant to legal building permits in 1973/4. The property was rezoned R-15 PUD and RR PUD during 1975/6 as an accommodation to the developing Callahan Subdivision and the Aspen Club facilities. According to the application, no mention of the non-conformity was found in the record when the Benedict property was rezoned to R-15 and RR. The existing office use predates nearly all residential uses in the neighborhood, including the intensely used Aspen Club. The most important change to the subject property is that Fritz and Fabi Benedict have condominiumized the building and conveyed a substantial portion of it to the Music Associates of Aspen and the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association. The Land Use Code tightly restricts what maintenance and improvements can be made to a non- conforming structure (see page 4 of the application). This creates a difficult situation to current and prospective owners of the building for both maintenance, remodeling, and mortgage financing aspects. r. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The Benedict Office Building is a valuable asset to the community by providing much needed office space relatively close to the commercial core. Maintaining this use via SPA Plan approval and SPA use variation does not conflict with the community'S interest. .2. ,-" , ,-" city Council Exhibit E Approved , 19 By Ordinance Benedict Office Buildina Review standards for development in a special1v planned area (SPAI. The following review standards are set forth in section 24-7-804 B. of the Aspen Municipal Code: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Response: The current office uses, along with the one residential unit, has co-existed with the Aspen Club, park, and residential uses along ute Avenue since the mid 1970's. Since the site will remain virtually the same, compatibility is maintained. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Response: ute Avenue has recently been improved by an .improvement district, and can service the existing office building and proposed residential unit. 3. Whether t~e parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Response: The cabin has been withdrawn from the application, so little hazard exists for the existing office building. The recent snowslide across ute Avenue from the Benedict building is an example of a wet, slab type slide indicated as line #1 on the sketch provided in your packet. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Response: property. Plan. Open space and trails are already provided on the No other impacts will result from approving this SPA S. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The Benedict Building predates the 1973 Land Use Map which established this area as single family residential. The current Aspen Area Community Plan does not make site specific recommendations, but does recognize the loss of local-oriented business locations, and loss of funky character in Aspen. 1, ""'" ^ '- Providing for the continued viability of this office building supports the objectives of the AACP. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Response: No public expenditures are needed for this project. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Sec. 7-903 (B) (2) (b). Response: This standard does not apply. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Response: No allocations or exemptions are needed for the amended application. ~ , _tlld~ r , It .. ...'". ........,.......a..:.. OJ. .......... ~ ~ '-''V'... ....... '" ..."............. A. ,,-,,<J 1"""'\"""'" Cit:y 0-.1"011 Sec. 8-1.1. Purpese, ' , AftlI.WM . . ,. " . .y enlinance Wlthm the zene .hstncts estalahshe. lay thIs chapter, there eXIst uses of land, buildings and structures that were lawfully established before this chapter was adopted or amended which would be in violation of the terms and requirements of this chapter. The purpose of this article is to regulate and limit the continued existence of those uses, buildings, and structures that do not coriform to the provisions of this chapter or any amendments thereto. It is the intent of this article to permit these noncoriformities to continue, but not to allow noncoriformities to be enlarged or expanded, The provisions of this article are designed to curtail substantial investment in noncoriformities in order to preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this chapter but should not be construed as an abatement provision, Sec. 8-112. Nencenferminc uses. A. A uth.rity t. t>>ntinue. Noncoriforming uses of land or structures may continue in accordance with the provisions of this article and this section. ~ormal maintenance. NOJ'lW!.I mahitenance to permit continuation of nonconforming ~; be performed in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months, to an exte~t not exceeding ten (10) percent of the current replacement cost of the structure. ~xtenswns. Noncoriformjng uses shail not be extended. This prohibition shall be co~d so as to prevent: 1. Enlargement of noncoriforming uses by additions to the area of the structure in which such noncoriforming uses are located; Or 2. eccupancy .f a..iti.nallanis, >>. lte/ecctr.n. A structure h.usine a 'n.nc.nf.rmine use may n.t Ite m.ve. te an.ther location on or off the parcel of land on which it is located, unless the use thereafter shall coriform to the limitations of the zone district into which it is moved. E. Chcnte in use. A n.ncimf.rmine use shall n.t Iae chance. te any .ther \lse unless the new use coriforms to the provisions of the zone district in which it is located. F. Aicnunment ,r discontinu.ance. The intent of the owner notwithstanding, where a noncoriforming use of land or noncoriforming use of structure is discontinued or abandoned for twelve (12) consecutive months, then such use may not be reestablished or resumed, and any subsequent use must coriform to the provisions of this chapter. . 'G. De11Ullitwn or destructwn.. 1. Ability to restore. Any noncoriforming use which is demolished or destroyed to the extent ofless than seventy.five (75) percent of the floor area or exterior wall area of the entire structure may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition. Any noncoriform- ing use which is demolished or destroyed to the extent of seventy-five (75) percent or more of the floor area or exterior wall area of the entire structure shall only be restored in coriformance with the provisions of this chapter. 2. Non-willful destructwn. Any noncoriforming use which is demolished or destroyed by an act of God or through any manner not willfully accompli,shed by the owner may be restored as of right, regardless of the extent of demolition or'destruction, if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction. ) /J .....-~ r ,.,......, ~ MEMORANDUM ~j I fM"''' V\\ tJ/ /I TO: Mayor and city Council Amy Margerum, city Manager Diane Moore, City planning THRU: FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner Dh.ecto@ THRU: DATE: May 24, 1993 Text Amendment for to Allow Consolidated (two-step) SPA Review - Second Reading of ordinance 24, Series 1993 RE: SUHHARY: ~he Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed code amendment which allows ce:rtain SPA (Specially Planned Area) reviews to be streamlined from the current four-step mandatory reviews to two-step reviews. This proposed amendment is being made concurrently with the Benedict Office Building's request to designate that parce~ as an SPA. First reading of Ordinance 24 was approved on April 26, 1993. BACKGROUND: When Fritz and Fabi Benedict submitted the application for SPA designation and SPA Plan approval, staff indicated that the code only allows for four-step SPA review. Since the proposed SPA Plan only calls for approval of the existing structures and improvements, four steps seemed a lengthy and cumbersome process. Staff suggested 'that the Benedict application be amended to include a text amendment to allow consolidated two-step review as currently allowed through PUD (Planned Unit Development) reviews. CURRENT ISSUES: The Land Use Code currently requires that SPA developments be reviewed through a four step process - Conceptual Plan (P&Z and council) and Final Plan (P&Z and Council). However, under the PUD (Planned Unit Development) review requirements, the Planning Director can determine that a 'consolidated" PUD review can occur if it is determined that "a full four step review would be redundant and serve no public purpose". SPA and PUD overlays have a similar purpose in reviewing various functional aspects of a development, ie. neighborhood compatibility, parking, open space,' natural hazards, public facilities impacts, and slope density reductions. The main difference between PUD and SPA review is that within an SPA, a project can receive a variation to the uses allowed in the underlying zone district. Both SPA and PUD approvals require recordation of a development agreement outlining the future responsibilities of the developer and the city. 1 ~, r-. staff and the Planning Commission believe that adopting the PUD consolidation language for review of SPA projects makes sense because of its limited applicability and that there is always the option for P&Z or City council to require full four step review if either body deems it more appropriate for the project. The proposed language for SPA consolidated review is: "An applicant may request and the Planning Director may determine that because of the limited extent of the issues involved in a proposed specially Planned Area in relation to these review procedures and standards, or because of a significant community interest which the project would serve, it is appropriate to consolidate conceptual and final development plan review. The Planning Director shall consider whether the full four step review would be redundant and serve the pUblic purpose and inform the applicant during the pre- application stage of whether consolidation will be permitted." "An application which is determined to be eligible for consolidation shall be processed pursuant to the terms and procedures if Final Development Plan review. The commission or the City council may, during review, determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur." The review standards for text amendments and staff responses are contained in Exhibit "A". FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No impacts are anticipated because of this text amendment. RECOMMENDATION: On April 6, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of this text amendment. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could elect to deny the requested text amendment. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve second reading of Ordinance 24, Series 1993 for an amendment, to Section 24-7-804.A. of the Aspen Municipal code to allow consolidated two-step reviews for SPA Developments at the discretion of the Planning Director:" CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Ordinance 24, Series 1993 Exhibit "A" - Text Amendment Review Criteria and Responses 2 .. . ."'" "'" . 1 lty CouncJ. Approved By Ordinance Exhibit A , 19 Text Amendment to A110w consolidated SPA Review Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code establishes the review standards for amendments to the code: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: No land use code conflicts are evident for this proposed text amendment. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The adopted Aspen Area Community Plan does not address text amendments. Individual SPA projects are subject to consideration of community impacts. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Compatibility issues will be addressed pursuant to the Review standards. Response: Final SPA D. The effect of the proposed amendment generation and road safety. Response: Per se, this proposed amendment has Individual applications would be considered via Final on traffic no effect. SPA review. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: These items will be addressed via Final SPA criteria. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: Final SPA review would still be required. Impacts will be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: This amendment is not site specific, so this criteria does not directly apply. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the SUbject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. 1 "'...! ,-.., ^ Response: This amendment affects all parcels with an SPA overlay, thus is not specific to any particular location. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: This amendment allows for streamlined review in appropriate situations, which is in the public interest. A complete review under the Final SPA Review standards is still required to evaluate a project's impacts. 2 1"--. .-. . \( MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner Benedict Building - SPA Designation (map amendment), SPA Development Plan, Text Amendment for Consolidated SPA Review, and Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing RE: DATE: April 6, 1993 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the fOllowing as proposed: 1) the map amendment to~ the Benedict Office Building parcel as a Specially Planned. Area ..-); and , ","".': ":...,,,:.~:','ii.>~;."<:y''''y:':' ) the_~i,?'<~f'lMe.:!'9Pme-r.it!,;'.Pl;~i:l! as submitted in the application; and J 1!\1fi . l. .~ I/O \D 3) the proposed te~t~Il1f3~dmel1twhich will allow a SPA project to be~~p~~.+,:h~~:f;.~d}t.9.~Wg';~~~~~ (P&Z ~nd city Council) from the required four steps when the Plann~ng Director deems that a two step review is appropriate; and 4) ~~~~on for the proposed.:deed'restri, ctedcid'rfll' to be move"'5~~"the site..'.'" " """'"c.." .........= APPLICANT: Fritz and Fabi Benedict and the Benedict Land and Cattle Company, represented by Sunny Vann LOCATION: 1280 ute Avenue (Lot 16, Callahan SUbdivision). The parcel is 2 acres (87,120 s.f.) ZONING: RR (Rural Residential) PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicants seek to amend the Official Zone District map to ~~p~.aesiqfiat!':tofi'€6'€neUnderly.ifiifAAi.::~ 2~~~!~i. ,This will allow the non-confo~mi~g office buildin~ use to be legal~zed pursuant to an SPA use var~at~on approval. As an SPA, a Final Development Plan must be approved. The Applicants propose to establish as the Final Development Plan the existing buildings' footprints, parking, open spaces and the relocated cabin. . The approximately 1,200 s.f. cabin, designed by Fritz Benedict in the late 1940s, is currently located on a parcel in the west end. The new owners have a demolition permit for the cabin, but will allow the structure to be moved to the Benedict Office Building site. REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1 ,-, ^ Enaineerina: 1. Any excavation for construction shall be protected such that no storm runoff from exposed soils reaches the Roaring Fork River or public rights-of-way. 2. The City should consider seeking a wider trail easement for construction purposes. The trail is in place at this time with a 14' wide easement, but if it were reconstructed in the future, a wider construction easement may be useful. 3. Indicate the use of the one story firebrick building. 4, street light - Given the high traffic volume of commercial building driveways, it may be advisable to require the installation of a street light to illuminate the driveway. 5. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on utility easements on private property, not in the public right of way. 6. Indicate the dimension of the full right-of-way width for Ute Avenue along the frontage of the property. 7. The city should consider requiring provision of a pedestrian walking space in a usable location between the' edge of pavement and the property line. a. Trash area - Indicate a designated trash stora~e area on the applicants' property. 9. Indicate the high water line, the 100-year floodplain line, and the fisherman's easement. 10. The existing off-street parking is proposed to be used for the relocated "Ball" residence. The curb cut width is non- conforming and may not be enlar~ed. Housina Office: Tom Baker responded that the proposed Category 4 deed restriction is acceptable, and that the minimum 1,400 s.f. requirement will be waived for the 1,230 s.f. cabin because of the voluntary nature of the proposal. ST~rC~M!(EN'TS: , The "Bene<iict::g,t,tlQg",~H,i;~<iil'l~ ,is, a. gJ:'~nd,f;atherep. ~9tl6Ql!1Jlf.Qrming. ,us,einRR(RuraIResidenthil) 'i6ne'a.ts;::t'~i~~' ThJ:s non-conforming status restricts maintenance or upgrades for current and future owners. As the MAA and 10th Mountain Division Hut Association are being gifted portions of the building, the non- conforming status also affects financial aspects of their occupancy ,or future sale of space. The property received City Council approval to condominiumize the building in 1992, in anticipation of the new non-profit ownerships. Staff considered the situation of the non-conformity and any alternatives to an SPA overlay. The only apparent option would be to try to rezone the parcel b Office. This was a less desirable option for one principal reason: by changing the zoning, any changes to the site could be made without P&Z or Council review as : long as the use or dimensional requirements were permitted by the Office zone. The SPA overlay ties the parcel to an approved site 2 r-., r-. plan. Any changes, major or minor, must be processed as an SPA amendment. This is somewhat of a burden to the owner(s), but :assu~es the ne~ghborho?d and the community th~,t 1 changes will k L . rece~ ve appropr~ate rev~ew. 91-JJ, ~ ~.AftoA. '/D . Text Amendment for SPA Consolidated Review: The ~J~nd Use ~~de ~'~O currently requires that SPA developments be reviewed through a four ~. step process - Conceptual Plan (P&Z and Council) and Final Plan (P&Z and council). However, under the PUD (Planned Unit Develo~ment) review ~~c;l~;i,.f~!1)~!1t.e;l,~ t~~~,.~l.~!1!1i!1g ,".' Direqt:;2r,c';ln, determ~ne that a ~$ol~dated" ,pl:!i:I:J:lav~ecWL9an <occur ~f ~t ~s determined" that '~p.f'\lll, four step review would be redundant and "serV'~,"!lgpl.lblic purpo~~II; Consolidated PUD reviews typically take place about once every year or two. SPA and PUD overlays have a similar purpose in reviewing various functional aspects of, a development" ie. ' neighborhood compatibility, parking, open space, natural hazards, public facilities impacts, and slope density reductions. The main dif~erence b€otwee~ PUD and ~PA. rElviEl~.te;,.~~~t. ,:,,~thJ.1'). ,;aQJ$~a proJect ~r"'l:'~e~;re a, vanabon_toc~the.:'use~?llQ~:~n"the underlying'zorie- distric't;. Both SPA and PUD approvals require recordation of a development agreement outlining the future responsibilities of the developer and the City. staff believes that adopting the PUD consolidation language for review of SPA projects makes sense because of its limited applicability and that there is always the option for P&Z or City Council to require full four step review if either body deems it more appropriate for the project. The proposed language for SPA consolidated review is: "An applicant may request and the Planning- Director may determine that because of the limited extent of the issues involved in a proposed specially Planned Area in relation to these review procedures and standards, or because ofa significant community interest which the project would serve, it is appropriate to consolidate conceptual and final development plan review. The Planning Director shal1 consider whether the fu11 four step review would be redundant and serve to public purpose and inform the applicant during the pre- application stage of whether consolidation wi11 be permitted." "An application which is determined to be eligible for consolidation shal1 be processed pursuant to the terms and procedures if Final Development Plan review. The Commission or the city council may, during review, determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur." Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code establishes the review 3 ,-., ,-., standards for amendments to the code: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: No land use code conflicts are evident for this proposed text amendment. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Pl~n. Response: The adopted Aspen Area Community Plan does not address text amendments. Individual SPA projects are subject to consideration of community impacts. c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing 'land use and neighborhood,characteristics. compatibility issues will be addressed pursuant to the Review standards. Response: Final SPA D. on traffic The effect of the proposed amendment, generation and road safety. Response: Per se, this proposed amendment Individual applications would be considered via has no effect. Final SPA review. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to, which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: These items will be addressed via Final SPA criteria. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: Final SPA review would still be 'required. impacts will be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the"City of Aspen".. Response: This amendment is not site specific, so this, criteria does not directly apply. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the SUbject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: This amendment affects all parcels with an SPA overlay, thus is not specific to any particular location. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with 4 r- r, the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: This amendment allows for streamlined review in appropriate situations, which is in the public interest. A complete review under the Final' SPA Review standards is still required to evaluate a project's impacts. Hat) Amendment for SPA (St)ecial1v Planned Areal' Overlav: Per Section 24-7-801 of the Municipal code, the purpose Of an SPA is to: "A. Provide design 'flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those c~rcumstances ~Gre ""t?i:td'itional z on.ingtechniqueS"-j!d(>'1"tiC)tadeg:Qa.tely,=?it.dr~ss its historic significCl,I'lge,. natural' features, unique physical character, or, 'J:QQation f. 'and where potential exists for community benefit from comprehensive development. . B., -lrlJ:9,.,the development of ,;nrrxgCj ~il.I}R- H~7g<:through the ei1c:6uragem~tit , of 'innoyative desr:rgii^'practIces which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional requirements. C. Establish a procedure by Which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public benefit." As mentioned earlier in this me;nro,the~~~n':Ii(C):rming&:ta,t.u.~ of the existing, uses on this parceI1~QPardi~s-e:l're useful future ,()ftlJ.e 15u11ditig to its 'curr.e~~"il.~dfuture.occupant~, a~d the~\mjf~~;iI The best way to ~t~;nr.1;l!!Ea. the bus~ness/profess~onal off~ce use, as staff sees it, ~~(~hrough an SPA overlay and variance approval. Any changes to an SPA property can only occur via established amendment procedures. A similar SPA variance for offices was approved in 1992 at the old Aspen Savings and Loan structure. Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as follows: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: There are no conflicts with the zoning code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan has set forth goals to maintain and enhance the balance between resort functions and 5 t""'\ t""'\ community oriented J;unctions. While this sit'e was not specifically identified in the Plan, thi~ proposal will allow the established office uses to remain into the future. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and ne~ghborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: Currently the zQning on the parcel is RR (PUD), as ,is the Aspen Club, located directly to the east of the subject property. The ute Park SUbdivision (10 units) was approved for the parcel across ute Avenue in 1992. To the west is parkland. The subject property has been used for offices since its construction in the mid 1970'S. The surrounding uses have developed around it, in full knowledge of its impacts. The proposed SPA Plan and use :variation will.riot change the impacts to the vicinity, except for limited activity associated with the one additional deed restricted residential unit. If the non-conforming status of the property continues, th2 possibility exists that the structure will not be maintained as it should. Yet the demand for office space proximal to downtown will likely remain high. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The only increase in trip generation will result from the relocated cabin being proposed concurrent with the SPA overlay. As Ute Avenue has recently been overhauled, this increase will have minimal traffic impacts. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: It will be necessary for the relocated cabin up to connect to the water and Sanitation District service lines which are already on the property. However the map amendment is not expected to substantially increase the demand for public services beyond the current uses or services capabilities. F. Whether and, the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The only new development is the placement of the cabin on the site. Any applicable vegetation being removed shall obtain tree removal permits. Stream margin review is not necessary for 6 /""", 1"""\ .... this proposal. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: The proposed application of the SPA overlay is consistent with the existing uses of the site and will not negatively impact the surrounding area. Any changes to an approved SPA Plan must' receive approval through appropriate land use reviews. ' H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the sUbject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: As mentioned in the application, the building was constructed pursuant to legal building permits in 1973/4. The property was rezoned R-15 PUD and RR PUD during 1975/6 as an accommodation to the developing Callahan SUbdivision and the Aspen Club facilities. According to the application, no mention of the non-conformity was found in the record when the Benedict property was rezoned to R-15 and RR. The existing office use predates nearly all residential uses in the neighborhood, including the intensely used Aspen Club. The most important change to the sUbject property is that Fritz and Fabi Benedict have condominiumized the building and conveyed a substantial portion of it to the Music Associates of Aspen and the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association. The Land Use Code tightly restricts what maintenance and improvements can be made to a non- conforming structure (see page 4 of the application). This creates a difficult situation to current and prospective owners of the building for both maintenance, remodeling, and mortgage financing aspects. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The Benedict Office Building is a valuable asset to the community by providing much heeded office space relatively close to the commercial core. Maintaining this use via SPA Plan approval and SPA use variation does not conflict with the community I s interest. Review standards for development in a speciallv planned area (SPA). The following review standards are set forth in Section 24-7-804 B. of the Aspen Municipal Code: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or 7 r-., r"'\ enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Response: The current office uses, along with the one r,E!sidential unit, has co-existed with the Aspen Club, . park, and residential uses along ute Avenue since the mid 1970's. since the site will remain virtually the same, except for the proposed relocated cabin, compatibility is maintained. , 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Response: Ute Avenue has recently been improved by an improvement district, and can 'service the existing office building and proposed residential unit. ' 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, roc:: falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Response: The only new development will be the cabin on the south side of the property. As indicated in the application, this location is within a "blue zone" rating for avalanches. According to Art Mears, avalanche specialist, a blue zone indicates that structures are sUbject to low frequency, moderate energy slides, typified as loose powder-type slides. Construction is not prohibited in blue zones, but certain construction methods must be employed to relieve avalanche impacts to the structure and its surroundings. Art Mears is expected to make an inspection soon at the cabin site to prepare his recommendations for construction. A suggested condition of approval is that his recommendations shall be followed when siting and constructing the cabin/foundation, and must be attached to any building permits for the cabin. Prior to consideration by City Council, the Applicant shall provide Mr. Mears' finding for this site ' The recent snowslide across Ute Avenue from the Benedict building is an example of a wet, slab type slide indicated as line #1 on the sketch provided in your packet. 4. Whether the proposed development creati vely employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space", trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Response: The cabin is proposed to be located in a sensitive manner on the property, taking advantage of the slope in order to excavate the storage garage. The setbacks required of structures in the underlying RR zone are being honored. Open space and trails are 8 .-, ,.-" already provided on the property. S. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response:' The Benedict Building predates the 1973 Land Use Map which established this area as single family residential. The current Aspen Area Community Plan does not make site specific recommendations, but does recognize the loss of local-oriented business locations, and less of funky character in Aspen. Providing for the continued viability of this office building, and the relocation of a classic log cabin supports the objectives of the AACP. 6. Whether the 'proposed development,will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Response: No public expenditures are needed 'for this project: 7. Wl}ether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Sec. 7-903(B) (2) (b). Response: This standard does not apply. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Response: restricted necessary. The applicant is seeking GMQS exemption for the deed cabin, so a growth management allocation is not Use Variations permitted within an SPA: section 24-7-804' 0.2. allows variation the uses permitted by the underlying zoning based on the standards of section 24-7-804 B (the review standards addressed above). Any variations allowed shall be specified on the SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan. If the SPA overlay is approved, and the office use is deemed appropriate via variation to the underlying RR zone, the SPA Agreement shall ~tate the variation. GMOS ExemDtion for Affordable Housinq: Pursuant to section 8-104 C.l(C) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a 9 I""". ,,-. determination of the city's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed developm~nt, ~nd the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. Response: The' Housing Office and Planning staff recommends approval of growth management exemption for the category 4 deed restricted single family home to be relocated to this parcel. Please refer to the Housing Office referral, Exhibit "B". RECOMMENDAT10N: Staff recommends approval of the SPA Designation ,of the Benedict Office Building, SPA Development Plal'l( ,text amendment allowing consolidated SPA review, an~,~~ for .'the Category 4 deed restricted cabin~wi,t~., ~ t~ho fOI,l.owlng conditions: ' , ' '~~~ r.k- 1. Prior to issuance of any building ermitsill,the applicants shall provide a storm drainage plan repa ed by an engineer registered to practice in the State of Co rad. The plan shall meet the requirements of Section 24-7-1004. 4. . _~ ~ C+:_______/ 2. The applicants shall agree to join any future-rmprc,.ve~nt dis- tricts which' may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide a final development plan for approval by the Engineering Department. 4. Prior to review by city council, the applicant shall determine which avalanche mitigation techniques will be employed to protect the relocated cabin, as recommended by Art Mears or suitable avalanche expert. Such mitigation techniques shall also be attached to the relocation and/orbuilding per~it for the cabin. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall record the, Category 4 deed restriction for the relocated cabin. The restriction shall be approved by the Housing' Office prior to recordation. Copies or the recorded document shall be forwarded to the Planning Office. 6. The Final SPA Development Plan and SPA Agreement (including use variation for prOfessional and business offices) shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval of both the Commission and City council is obtained . .1._ (l 10 1\ '.IA (' "0'" ~0M$ C~fU\.(l,Ci~ 0'1' {';o"''''\4~\k f~ -\;\l;\t.~.r ~ 11'\ 't"l" . J r, ' '<J 1"'. ~ , , before their acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver. is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. 7. All material repres19ntations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and city Council shall be adhereq to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. EXHIBITS A - Proposed site Plan and Application Information 'B - Referral Memo~ 11 ,....., PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSIOI ,~ EXHIBIT ----tl:-, APl'ROVBD _ 19 BY RESOLtn'IOR ,~ , , \ '-", ~'l -.;-,\. <0 "'I -----------'\,- . ~ ""...",,- <.' ,."'. ',' '. ., ,. -~:--------- C\I ij ", .' .",. ,'.. J4 ~T:.W(qL'.r~_'1/t.'''if:.' -_ ______ '<T y"" , ,"IA_.~~.. (>...i /'Jj" .' "...-------------___. . '.. ~'.-,,;;;'Nr.t8(.; / ,t:'.;/... . -----~.:~~ . . ; . .' I ""A' /:/ /', " ~ ,I ~ ~ 'I LOT' 16 CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION ~RK \ ~ ~ I., ... l {l '< I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I fl', " ttt $ '" !} >i '" 1 -'''f'&N'fttIe PAP/</#J6 't .; !Lor 15 , 11:zo~S€P . a.~r!CIJ5scveP, .~~, ~ :=l' .... \I- o ,!D I' 5'7E rtAN/fItJt,(fe~. '2(5/13' 1"'l\?'4 t N . 25 E f;ETWEEN A , RED ~AND6TONE: :tCl--l, "- " y~~ -':':','i ":.\~ .,1..'7 ...::Si" :;! ~ ..... " .:, ~,:.....~'.. //'''''--1 / r-: (-...- ,r' I ----'... , ) .-c . --...--' \ ....... \ ~.. ('" ----/:1' ,'-... /" I i ,Ii t,'. ,I ~'., . ;,..;{ 1 .. ~"( x;,' '."!'", ;..~~; ^~~'l' ~,.. .. , :~, \..... , " :\'l . .,~~ . . -: ....,~,. D -. .. ';...... ....,,) i \ , , , " ~. ,.... ..:.....- - ~ ~ ~ r-.. , EJ .',. \. ""': t~ !.'Jo.'.:,." ............ ~5. .... . ~ .:t: ~; 1- ~. ~ , ~ '" ~ ~,. -, ".. ~~. 'to ',., :.~: !Y~ \~<t r.:" : ~. , , I "i~ " [ ;:- . -'-' , . '. I I' ....--r' " "','" '., .~. 1', !', ,~ . ft. ~, ~ '\- It) 1 '~~ '~~ ~~ ~ '\) ~ '~ ~ ~ \ - ,~ : ll, \. ! , ~ \ .J- , ; 1 '~ _I l~ L\ .~ ~') $ Ow \J,~ ...1' u.~ ~ ,-.., , < <::' <:! '" " " (\ ,a,q ;J. ,,\ " \ .{ ~ .,' ~~ i. <(.:-~ ., l;: ~ ..I :;: a <;:: t ~. ';:! LU ,g ,co(~d !.Q ~ ~ <:0, ;. j2,.lJJ '~ : {,. ,C] .... i,l . ~ '~i' . I.. \01 '" 1- ... 0 ' t ul-.o;:' ....<:11- J\2\b':5~:;:""< :z.a',J; .a.::) Q!O<,P'2 ,~tJJ~, .1, ,-\' <! <~~ ,"'" <::::! J..L -"',.l. ~ '> u.. <Jl oj r=:- '0l'M" 1P . , " I \ : .Y looj o , ~~ \': <: < OJ .... "" " <, 1- J c;' UJ ~(; : :(i .. : :);. ,0.,- i . <\' ! ,<:;! ;~ 11I 1Jof. ),C :c:: 4.' ~ <;:! , ,<( . tU t9 ~'I .......... . i I I I I... j , 1 ..J , j , , ! -::. I- '" -, r I ; , ,-'\" 1-1 I I-I I , I i "1 I I-i- .-i. ! . , i : , " i i, j j ! I I r i ! I i J ~ ' I;"'" ~~~".':~~ :[, ',. .. .. ') ,.i( 'j I' ______:__.__.., _...,_.~. .3~dl 'I ,,....,, '-:} ,w :..1 -1 '~ ~ltJ..!> <(01 0 ;<::::' 2../1 '0 . 1.1), \<r: ':-;z:..t"~'<~ :... _: ' ill' 0 , .J ",' ~ Co. -.J . d. c.l /VI "'0 ;e::~tI\..:!<""; i ! I I . I , l.j 'i i L .1 '" o , J ..".~ ::...0 \l 7' ~--1 O !~,~ ,~).:~ ! . l'; t, j 001, ; t 1 · ~~. '- ~ . 1 j ;--rro~ i , I , .j ! j .J i " " .i I - ~~j- ; I: i i, l. i I I" I " :J \ I ;1 II I p. d I ", II i I (I i- i I .~II 'f\., .1 , f. . . '. I . I. I ;1 I : i" ' 1 J r ! , j' ' i f. ! . ... 'l~ TT', " , 13 . II ...' I , " I . . , , -i EXHIBIT 15 ' "<:" >- !.II !::!. 10 , lJ.,t;: <0 ~I-\ c-~:z -...0 E..s \'S'" t:'ll.!! '-"\ -4;,\{1 -., L1 <'" < , IJ. 0 U - . /... U1 _ 'VI'''' . ,/j " " .a,,-=- IJl 1/1;.- o uf Q.<l!. O<l c,d- c..\/' ~ S ':t' '.1""\ '" .... \- ill ' Cl ~ - . "0 () :3::> . ~ .:> () =t:C!~.a b.4~<r.< l(,lIIo 0 Cl,Cl 0 :;J ul r ~-b Ifl u III ~'~ ct ')'0' ~ ~ <!.. ,'., -J1ll..!,,1 VI .... _ - 'r' 4: ~ <:: t -'s: :1~!l.- '<1:Q,.'<{v1\fl $::> /.C <:-~;- , c" Q ., T ..., 0 - fO ::r r -.) i T' ~ I 1 I: ~ ..... -z /'-.. '^ ('l ,\1' b<> x , : \1 "1' N '^ v "" >- \.L >< (') '-~ ,-' \Xl {"I ~ ,. ,../.1" i :" j I Lw ::? ./ i: . i.I..i.".j I' I'; 'T ' r-\.J'., ,.Cl ~'.";-i i . 1"4-,~,.'.'.~.:;::J:I; , '-h 'a -"-") : i : J,; :. I I' .' ...J.. .,-' " :, :'I~:r:=."':I;~.' .":.--;....;.."....-."--'1 I ' '.:J r VI - ..1.':'_..1 J..i :-'~--'; -J \::5 .. ::-..,~,-..:-t-,'1',. !.: r:I"~:'rll:"'J:::~!::.i.: :<(~:~. ""',.~.,o.a-il: I I.' j I . . '~' . .; ~.'--,..-i.'~11 ; ',I... j. , i . 1. . L'I .! 1 ! ~ =< VI '-' ,-, <; ., .1.. ; ~ ~ I I I' .: u\ ''E!'' !4:"'()":-~J:1 ! -,. ',' , ' !'" , ., t.": :> ..... '.: ..\.1,- t::!.1 :..j -j-.J._ ,'-. ,;..J i ;, , :;J:,.o ; < O!. . U1 "'1 .;,:.+ ~..L.~i:;..l". .!.,_~:~:I ... ia-; "w'o c--V''''-;-jl : ~ l :.,..! I I'''' _I' . .... ..~...~ I .........'......1... ';...4 I 'J 0 a.......J \",!) . 'I ; ! ! I'J-':"'" . ..,' . :.1..: ;',..,....;...c:.._, r, I" <t '" M V'lO o-U-' ;! :': I :. ."'l'-i- !rv N . _.:....:1 .l..!~..f j' . 1 i ; ~,bM.4.<..I. _'0 ':1. i .,:.,1--...1........,1. :.. j':.F..j "J :.' i-Lf' . ' " ...~:I .,...... I' i... : i T-7i ; : i I: .' : ;', ; ';,;,:.....i:..:,; .,i , .: ~F!.'-~:"r '. ,,,,"i'-lJ ,.....l..~ :l;"J: l.J.Jj-'"== :. ;.. .-'1 iLLL",.I-' : I :.U,' ., ,.~. . i.1 ' , ,,'I :...:__!. L ;,L;....;". ,-Ii' ';'_'_,," : J i. TT';'T: I 'oo._-, . .!~ -; .'_:".:L'_.i '*'. _1- . ; '-~ 1" ''1' ., I ~ :~. T..~::i , ill 1 I T I I ,,-. ..?h"f'..r""tl ' !.. :.. . tIt'" ~ "'. :i: ;:..:' r-:"~" '~" I ,...1.i.:f".L,!..i, ':"';':~~f ,.;' ,i.; i..-I.'loot. L. ,!,'cL~~.~di : H ..+ .1':' -1" ,j..! . I .' ;.i.~... i--~-il' \..0---..1 '0 I 'IT-:~"~~"j _L:~r!-'; .: . ',;.' ;"!-i! . 'n:!f.l'" ....j:.;.,.:. " : ":p' · ! .:-:t~;. ~'::.. :.' . ....f . : . ~ . i'",,: l. t . ;..._: __! :L . =-=--: ". .-" I. I "..1 _t.J i i.. 'j '.T-;- .~; j - ;'~:-{I' ~ . : ,:'. j'" :"".1.; '\ * c< ,. c:.. <0,) ,I , :-'~''':-l' , I ......,~_..J ' .. ..-----. ---, l I r-.... I' . " . 1 ~ = '---',\ I " ~ 4'"' "'l<=>@ '~I T- ~;, telE>~ .:- - ~L. ' \ i ' +. I i .! ! j j i !.J 1-- . "., Ill-i. ; ..ii'i~11i.,": i .!::.:;. .!..1. J... i"'I .. :. :. ":~"~"4! ;..h.LJ' , I ': ~ ~...,:.....L";l . . f.l ..: ~* ~. .~-'11 . ..,', u:}.~i '.3i .:. j :; .._~_..l--:. ; I {I ... ";' -;:1, .; r-.; '.i'~ ~ T . :.._.1. . ,I /'.' .' t '-"1:'-:-~;~1" .~ _'00 ...L:.-i " ; "it . .: "; -i"1 , , . ... ;. ;_....~..t . I' . ......~ ._J..,: '1-" , ./ "^ C'I\ - U .z- ': ,I' .~., . ' ;':-'~~;'.~.r.~J.. -; . Y<';'. '.1 :'1 i :! i'- :! .. ; : '~i' l . j' , ......... ... ..j.. '! ! ~, '0 ,. 1 " .1'" . j" . '.. ,. ... -"'- -.-:-.-.-- .~..- '. " ~, '. 1. .- \ -- N I""-. PLANNI~&AONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT ~ , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer (!.,e. Date: March 25, 1993 Re: Benedict Building SPA Designation, Development Plan, and GMQS Exemption Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having'made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: . 1. Upper lIte Avenue Improveinent District - The applicants are commended for improvements in the public right-of-way to the roadway, drainage, and streetscape which were approximately one third funded by their participation. 2. SPA DesilIDation a. Perhaps in conjunction with rezoning, the City could obtain an upgrade of Ute Avenue from an access and utility, easement to a fully dedicated public right-of- way. 3. Development Plan a. Any excavation for construction shall be protected such that no storm runoff from exposed soils reaches the Roaring Fork River or public rights-of-way. b. Trails - Current trail specifications are for a 10' paved trail with 2' drainage shoulders on each side. This fully utilizes the 14' easement without allowing any construction activity beyond the 14'. This may be impractical and the City shol,lld consider seeking a wider easement for construction purposes with a final 14' constructed trail easement. The trail is in place at this time, but if it were reconstructed in; the future, a construction easement may be useful. c. Indicate the use of the one story firebrick building. d. Street light - Given the high traffic volume of commercial building driveways, it may be advisable to require the installation of a street light to illuminate the driveway. 1 .tI""\ '-', e. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on utility easements on private property, not in the public right of way. Any utility work requiring the cutting of newly paved Ute Avenue should be designed to minimize cutting of new pavement. This may be more fully addressed at excavation permit time. f. Indicate the dimension of the full right-of-way width for Ute Avenue along the frontage of the property. . 'g. "Sidewalks" - Although there is a trail on this property, and although concrete sidewalks would be inappropriate to require in this instance, the City still should consider requiring provision of a pedestrian walking space in a usable location between the edge of pavement and the property line. In this reviewer's opinion, , the City is experiencing pedestrian problems at the New Meadows Road where pedestrians are walking on the road surface even though there were trails installed in the development to provide for pedestrian needs. Actual uses at the Meadows suggests that wherever there is a road, there should also be an adjacent pedestrian walking surface on at least one side of the road. h. Trash area - Indicate a designated trash storage area on the applicants' property, i. Indicate the high water line, the lOO-year floodplain line, and the fisherman's easement. j. Off-street parking - The existing off.street parking is proposed to be used for the relocated "Ball" residence. The curb cut width is non-conforming and may not be enlarged. 5. GMQS Exemption - No comment, 6. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights- of-way, we would advise the applicants as follows: The applicants shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department, (920-5120) for vegetation species; and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets department (920-5130). Recommended Conditions of Al'Jlroval 1. The applicants shall provide a storm drainage plan prepared by an e;ngineer registered 2 I"""': ,~ . to practice in the State of Colorado. The plan. shaH meet the requirements of Section 24- ' . 7-1004.CA.f. ' 2. If possible, the applicants shaH upgrade the access easement by dedicating a public right-of-way for Ute Avenue. 3. The applicants shall agree to join, any future improvement districts which may be formed for, the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right~of-way. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide a final development plan for approval by the Engineering Department. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director Jack Reid, Street Superintendent (item 3.e) M93.77 3 ~ ~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BENEDICT BUILDING SPA DESIGNATION/DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A TWO-STEP (CONSOLIDATED) SPA REVIEW PROCESS AND GMQS EXEMPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pUblic hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 6, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning and zoning commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Fredric and Fabienne Benedict and the Benedict Land and Cattle company, 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO requesting SPA designation and SPA development plan approval, and a GMQSExemption for a single family dwelling unit proposed to be relocated to the property. Also requested is an amendment to Section 24-7-804.A of the Aspen Municipal Code to allow a two-step (consolidated) SPA review processed pursuant to the terms and procedures of Final Development Plan review criteria. The property is located at 1280 ute Avenue, I,ot 16, Callahan Subdivision. For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5100 s/Jasmine Tvqre, Chairman planning and zoning commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 19, 1993 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of Aspen Account . ,,,...., 1""\ ~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BENEDICT BUILDING SPA DESIGNATION/DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A TWO-STEP (CONSOLIDATED) SPA REVIEW PROCESS AND GMQS EXEMPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, May 24, 1993 at a meeting to begin at,5:00 pm before the Aspen city Council, council Chambers, city Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Fredric and Fabienne Benedict and the Benedict Land and Cattle company, 1280 ute Avenue, Aspen, CO requesting SPA designation, SPA development plan approval, and an SPA use variation to allow business and, professional offices. Also requested is an amendment to Section 24-7-804.A of the Aspen Municipal Code to allow a two-step (consolidated) SPA review processed pursuant to the terms and procedures of Final Development Plan review criteria. The property is located at 1280 ute Avenue, Lot 16, Callahan Subdivision. For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5100 s/Jasmine Tvgre. Chairman ' Planninq and Zoninq Commission PUblished in the Aspen Times on May 7, 1993 ==~============================================================== City of Aspen Account -1r ~P-'~ , '1 /;(~ f"*"\, ,-, MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Plannin~.~Jfice Baker, Housi~~ FROM: Tom MAR L 4 /993 DATE: March 24, 1993 RE: Housing Office Referral: Benedict Building Designation/Development Plan and GMQS Exemption SPA REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Housing Office supports the use of the Ball Residence restricted to Category #4. Further, the Housing Office waives the minimum 1,400 s.f. requirement an will allow the Ball Residence (1,230 s.f.) to qualify as a Category #4 unit, due to the voluntary nature of this proposal. 1 ~ ,'"; ," ,......., V ANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants 111\\ ;L1 L., .'5_ March 15, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson AspenJPitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Benedict Office Building/SPA Procedural Text Amendment Dear Kim: Please consider this letter an addendum to the Benedict Office Building SPA designation, SPA development plan and GMQS exemption application. To facilitate the application's timely review, the Applicants wish to include a request for a text amendment which would permit a two (2) step, SPA review process. Background On February 16, 1993, the Applicants submitted an application for SPA designation and development plan approval for the Benedict office building. Pursuant to Section 7-804,A. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, development within a specially planned area requires the review and approval of both a conceptual and final development plan by the P&Z and the City Council. This process involves four (4) distinct steps. The Applicants, however, proposed to consolidate their conceptual and final development plan submissions so that SPA development plan approval could be obtained in two (2) steps, The Planning Office has concluded that no ability presently exists within the Regula- tions to consolidate the various steps of the SPA development plan review process. To resolve this problem, the staff has recommended that the Applicants pursue a text amendment. The proposed amendment is described in detail below. Proposed Amendment The Applicants propose to amend the requirements of Section 7-804.A. of the Regulations to provide for a discretionary, two (2) step, SPA development plan review process, The following language is proposed to be added to the existing text of paragraph A. 230 East Hopkins Avenue' Aspen, Colorado 81611 . 303/925-6958 . Fax 303/920'9310 f'"', .~ Ms. Kim Johnson March 15, 1993 Page 2 '~n applicant may request and the Planning Director may detennine that because of the limited extent of the issues involved in a proposed Specially Planned Area in relation to these review procedures and standards, or because of a significant community interest which the project would serve, it is appropriate to consolidate conceptual and final development plan review. The Planning Director shall consider whether the full four step review would be redundant and serve no public purpose and infonn the applicant during the pre-application stage of whether consolidation will be pennitted. " '~n application which is detennined to be eligible for consolidation shall be processed pursuant to the terms and procedures of Final Development Plan review, The Commission or the City Council may, during review, detennine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur. " Please note that the above language is identical to the language of Section 7-903.C.3. of the Regulations, i.e., the two (2) step, consolidated PUD review process. Review Requirements Pursuant to Section 7-1103, a private application for an amendment to the text of the Aspen Land Use Regulations may be submitted at any time during the year. The review criteria for such applications, and the proposed amendment's compliance therewith, are discussed below, 1. ''Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter." The proposed text amendment complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, aka, The Aspen Land Use Regulations. 2. 'Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." As discussed in the 1991 Phase One Report which was prepared by the Planning Office in connection with the current Aspen area community planning effort, there is no single document which constitutes the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Instead, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan consists of a variety of individual elements and neighborhood plans which have been adopted since the preparation of the original Aspen Area General Plan in 1966. The proposed amendment does not conflict with any such element or plan, ,,-., ,'-" Ms. Kim Johnson March 15, 1993 Page 3 3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics." This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for rezoning, and is therefore not applicable to the proposed amendment. 4. safety." "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on traffic generation or road safety. 5. 'Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities." The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on the City's public facilities. 6. 'Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment." The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on the natural environment. 7. 'Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen." This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for rezoning, and is therefore not applicable to the proposed amendment. 8. 'Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment." This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for rezoning, and is therefore not applicable to the proposed amendment. 9. 'Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter." i""""', i""""', Ms. Kim Johnson March 15, 1993 Page 4 The public interest would be served in that the proposed amendment would provide additional flexibility in the review and approval of SPA development plan applications which are limited in extent and/or impact. This flexibility is consistent with, and would significantly further, the intent of the Land Use Regulations. As any consolidation of the review SPA process approved pursuant to the amendment would be discretionary, no adverse impact would occur merely from the amend- ment's adoption. As noted previously, the ability to consolidate review steps presently exists within the PUD regulations. Where appropriate, such consolidations significantly reduce the time required for staff, P&Z and City Council review. As we have discussed, the Applicants' request for a text amendment should track concurrently with their SPA application. Should either the P&Z or Council deter- mine that a consolidated review process is inappropriate, the full four (4) step SPA process can be resumed. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, SV;cwv c:\bus\Ci.y.applappZ0192,ca , . , ~ <:'< ~ '. .:: " ~I -----------~ ~ -- iJl /""'. . , \ , ~RIJ( \ ~ ~ "- .., I :; " ~ i::: ~ >i ... nj, ~ ", -'f'5N.ti;Ve .. F'AFI<IN6i . " 8 ==T ..... IL.. o .'0 I 'S7ER.AN/~~ '215/15' INcft?'_O' 25'E.. e>EiWEEN A \ f(E'O ~ANO~TONE: :fGt-j , "- '-- ;I ~! .'~!' / / / I lOT 15 , ' ,,......, ..-., , i\ --- ...::--. _.- N - \.Jt e. rex, /T-lD. \a'Och e ,~ ,I", '1- , , EXHIBIT 3 February 12, 1993 HAND DELIVERED ..-.."-. - ._-~.- :--~-'-:.-~.:--.::- ""':"--:-- . -. . "/ i.~ T~'i -,' Ms. Kim Johnson AspenJPitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 FEB j 5!C Re: Pennission to Represent Dear Ms. Johnson: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vailn of Vann Associates to represent us in the processing of our application for SPA designation/development plan approval for the Benedict office building which is located at 1280 Ute Avenue in the City of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with re- spect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, BENEDICT LAND AND CATILE COMPANY ~<<~sr Fredric ft Benedict rgJ.,'WAAI" _~ ~>>,nt:4) Fabienne Benedict SV:cwv c:\bUS\cily.ltr~lr20192,kjl 0;,'. .'. "'" ~ EXHIBIT 4 , . , ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Allreement for PlQ'JIlent of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ~/7'/C:; 1. /!6</B?~/ (hereinafter APPUCANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPUCANT has submitted to CITY an application for ~ ~77a.</.-1H/? ~~~-I~//fE?4// (hereinafter; THE PROJECT).. 2. APPUCANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 44 (Series of 1991) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPUCANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPUCANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPUCANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPUCANT on a monthly basis. APPUCANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPUCANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPUCANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing ,or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. , , r-, , ,1'""\ . ......... ~ 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees, prior to a determination of application e::Q completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $~~/- which is for /~ hours of Planning Office time, and if actual' recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shaI1 pay additional monthly billings to ' CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay . such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT 8r.~ ~ DI e Moore City Planning Director' ~~ ~ By:" -I."'l . ~, '. Date: -q'J 12, /19'3 ./ ./ For Planning Office Use ===================================== Case Number Case Name Deposit or Flat Fee Amount: Referral Fees: Engineer: Housing: Environmental Health: ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- 2 , . sse , ,,.....,, ,-., SCHEDULE A ORDER NUMBER: 00018715c2 1. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 02. 1991 AT 8:00 A.M. 2. POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: AMOUNT OF INSURANCE A. ALTA OWNER'S POLICY $ TBD PROPOSED INSURED: TO BE DETERMINED B. ALTA LOAN POLICY $ TBD PROPOSED INSURED: TO BE DETERMINED C. ALTA LOAN POLICY $ PROPOSED INSURED: D. $ 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND TITLE THERETO IS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN: FREDRIC A. BENEDICT. FABIENNE BENEDICT AND BENEDICT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: I Lot 16. CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION. according to the recorded Plat thereof. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado OWNERS: MORTGAGEE: TAX CERT. TBD TBD 10.00 I , $ STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. 602 E. HYMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 303 925-3577 FAX 303~1W~RT TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY AUT ORIZED ,........., &0... toU......IN'" 11'\::'1"1:1:1101'\ DI:l-A~ 1...'11:,/'\1 fXl CITY I""" .SPEN - COUNTY OF PITKINO,~- ORADO I GENERAL. I CONS'1'RUCTION PERMIT EXHIBIT 6 ,,,.-_.- 11 i , loiDOlESS OF J08 )Zc,() . li+C- A .~~. (professional Bldg.) CLASS OF WORK: OWNER NAME WMtN ~IGN!.lJ AND VA\.ICAHD !Sy tlUI\.OING INSpECTION DEPAR.TMf'.NT THIS P!.RMIT AuTHORIZES T~E WOIotK DESCI<IBED BEl-OW. A?6 -2-73 28085' ***15al REPAIR CJ MOVE 0 WRECK '" NEW EC ADDITION CJ ALTERATION CJ I ... LICENSE LICENSE i 0 NAME (AS LICENSED) Joe Zanin CLASS NUMBER 4096 ! l- I U INSUKA~(~ : < , '" ADDRESS Bx 1408 Aspen PHONE 57'/2- . , i ... - :z: 0 SUPERVISOR , v FOR THIS JOB NAME D....,TE CERTIFIED i LEGAL : DESCRIPTION LOT HO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION , SURVEY Stewart ritle ATTACH'D 01 DESIGN A L1C. ! BY IBY Benedict Assoc PE ~C' ! , ARlA (S.'.) \,HUGHT rrom Ilang.;;!'loe I TOTAL .l .l~V. ,L OCCUPANCY F , 5760 "EETI 31' I'TOR'" 2 -> I> T GRADC UHITS 2 offices GROUP Drv. ..~ I 16_ F2 I FIR. BAS-MFNT "N ti I GARAG~lO SINC,U 0 ATTACHEC' 01 TOTAL ! TYPE -, N ap t . ! CON,TR, I - :3 t: ... IUeSJNFIN DOUBLE. 0 OET ACHED ot ROOMS 2 ~ 1 .. . ZONt 1 DEPTH L FIRST ~! z: SPACING {~A;' II ALiTHORiZED I BelOW 3 ' 2x12 12 AGENCY BY I D.t.7E ! :z: GRACE FLOOg , 2 'i BUILDING ! , EXTERIOR Iln REVieW : I- FOOTINGIO 16 t01~Ox 101 (fILING deck ; i j , 00( SIZE X Beams & II ZONING Q "'" <; , Z EX'fERIOR CONC.l[] I Ii , ! :::l !=DN. WALL 8"' 1::0-:>. PARt:~NG 0 THICKNESS MAS'V 0 ... I I' ~r~~K 0 CAISSON$ 0 ROOFING COR_ten " pusue HEALTH " 8.GJ:.BfAMS MATERIAL !! Benedict Assoc. Incorp.,DDRESS PO 40 "J,v 10-7~HONf 1~~5_~MCl.S( I i MASONRV A80VE AEOVr I=XTERIOP THICKNE'SS 1ST FLR 2ND FL~ rvv ALL I SlUO SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ! t. SPACE 1ST FLR. 2NC' FL;::: !REMARKSOffice Bldg. wi Ibed. apt. i new cons~ruc~ion I I I I AEO\'~ 3RD FL:: I; ENGINEERING I' ABOVE 3kr- FU, . , I I I ~OTES TO APPLICANT: I FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALi. 9:!5 ~ 7:J,3i Ii FOR Al.l. WORK DONE UNDEF. THI!PERMi'l' THE PERMITTE:: Ac.:eFTS FU:':' RESPONSIBILITY FOP. COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOl.UTION OR CITY i ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALl. OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR c!n ORDINANCES WHICHEVEF. ! APPLIES. . SEPAAATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBIN(3 AND HeATING. SIGNS, SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. PERMIT EXPIRES 60 OAYS FROM DAn: ISSUED UNL.ESS WORK IS STARn:;:.. REQUIRED INSPECTIOHS SHAU BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANce I ALL FINAL INSPECTIOHS SH MADE ON ALL. ITEMS OF WORt<: BEfORt OCCUPANCY IS PERMliTED. ~THIS BUILDING SHAL.~.-NOT BE OCCUP 0 UNTIL ^ CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUEO. [] PERMIT SUBJEC .. ~EVOCATlON OR USPENSION FOR VIOLATION OF ANY lAWS GOVERNING SAME. SIGNA TUIt OF \ . APPLICANT: ' I. i, I' I' !' ; 'I' VA_:"'UATION $ "::k WORK 175,000. I: PL....,N ' I - TOT A:'" FEE !-l'''''''''' T P ~ I'C,~C....' , 301.50 ii' DCUO" I CHEC,K --: I $ 150 75 lc k FEE ,- I CASW ,I . p I , --', 115~ ~5 I BUILDING DEPARTMENT .. '( en '~N / Y't{)'.J . ?: OS -I'j - 73 A"ROVAL BY ~( DATE NLY DATE PERMIT NO. LICENSE 1:/ RECEIPTS CUSS .-.MOUNT ) 3-12_73 71_73 INS?::CTOR'S COpy " ,-' i~ CI rY OF ASPEN BUILDING INSPECTIOI, ..JEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 7 CITY HALL, PHONE 925.2020 INSPECTION RECORD ADDRESS OWNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR BUILDING PERMIT NO. 1280 Ute Ave. Benedict Assoc. Joe Zanin 71-7, DA TE ISSUED S-Q-7, POST THIS CARD AT OR NEAR FRONT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS WILL NOT BE MADE UNLESS THIS CARD IS POSTED ON THE SITE TYPE OF DATE Of INSPECTION SUB.CONTRACTOR INSPECTION INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE IMO. DAY, YRI I SPREAD FOOTINGS :3/~~-c-::L:~~ c;, -I' Z - 7 :, /~,', <:: Q z Z 0 CASSIONS OR OTHER ::> ;:: 0 "- DO NOT POUR CONCRETE UNTil INSPECTED AND APPROVED ~ GROUNDWORK C ~'n ',s, I'- J " i ~,\ \-: \('" (.1 y \..... <:: !:! ROUGH , . " 0: ... I u TEMP. SERVo i' " W ~ 4-C/-'74- I.(~ w FINAL " " I SEWER S....\~\'-: .\..\~'S.'~ 0. .10, ',)\ h., I , , WATER " I ~ "' I - GROUNDWORK " Ii: I :E ROUGH (sraCk!___,:~_'!J !)r4~~\ (.\ 'S V\(~( + \-\" '1 d~, -........ ;.-2-7-7'-'- I ? - ::> I~~ ~ <- FINAL I \-\ +d . l; 4- Cf--7 r I- I ~)\,,"\I)_\-"'.,,(\ ( t" \ r.J.~ \ , , , ) " fL.1 r" <::,-,r GAS PIPING ,. , , ";' .- ~~.. :~ " , .!:i.j::;", r, ,.' ,",,,~. , ~ \1 i I I ,. iC."""'( ~ ROUGH -I" , L ., < / .") _: ",-.71..: ' , - Z I v>'" "-- I , , .. ... TEMP. SERV, ., , i '" !: FINAL I q -a-7'-,-i. " to , '" Fr:,AMIN'~ !~SPE':~!O"" -~ B~ r>.',,~2:: \vr-lE "-.. A.__ ;:,~,:)u,::.;...; LTiL:""'~' !NST';'~L...A.-:-IO~S ......."'v: E~E" :~5P:C7::: A r..,; [ " .' C FRAME ! '\ Li:","r....' (-<...1'....."-\ ( . \\ '.:';;::....., \"'-l \ v.J.}"2-i 1\ 7q.. .,;. :.::-n ... w .:-~::.\ z ---- ~(:: <:: i I ~ ~ ... \~ c(' ~" . J '\ .....~c.. U ROOFING '" :;: Lath or Wallboard .~c,,_. 0,,~,,\\ '" <.: , ::: Q - ::> c:c I FlrliAL - Buiidins Ready for Occupancy 4-- r 7'i- . E! r, 02 - J~ : - j~ u0 ~ ~ ~ Ce-......).f tJ t-G....P/ t?d a..J. ~' c:f)==~ - I ~ THIS CARD MUST BE COMPLETELY FILLW OUT WITH NAMES OF CONTRACTORS AND ALL INSPECTIONS SIGNED BY It BEFORE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CAN BE ISSUED OCCUPANCY OF THIS BUilDING PRIOR TO FINAL INSPEC' ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS NOT PERMITTED. SEE BACK SIDE FOR COMMENTS ANO CORRE " -- . : . ~ ~ .'1.'" ',,7'v " .,.\.1,....", ,~...,..,,;... '''. '.-',". ';;~~ ~ ," , >,/:."".; ,..>=Xli/S/fl7 . "'~~ " . .,... "/~ ..{. ;,i~f:~t.:i;" ....:j..:::.:~i:.;..... . ~.'..'~ "7;:'" .~.L,.'.:.._,::~_".... -"-"'~?;;:: .:....~. "', ',"'" -'~";.:'~' ....:.~.~..:-,...::--:-.. .: .,-;~,:~.. ,. _"'_"":'~_h. '............ ..-, , , .PARCeL NO; I .',"r .. <:::i~'1i.;:;}:, ", :-i: ,:,,~,'.,;.. A '!l(ACTOl" LANe> ~rlJ'l,TEO l~l THl!. NW V4 5e:. ~~ 'Ot' ~E:C1JQN 'Ie., TIO'.>, . '-. . It: &.4 Vol a. I!1 PM, PITJ</N COVN1Y, CCI.O~, ~o 'Itv'GT 1-:> MORe F<.lL.L.Y .,,:.. De=:'.RI= Ab FOl..L.OW6 " ' , ,..",:,: ", ' ee6INNlN,., A1" CO~~ NO, '" Of 1HE. ~vr::~OlOe:. I'\.Ac.eR(M,~. ~~)/ """,-,_.,:,," '1I-lfN::-E !>8<;)'Ob';!4'f! 546,'014 FE.E.T'Al..ON,.,UNE 9-1 Cl' ~ID ~VER!>IOE PlAcER ((,-,"T'N" CJ1'(.@t-IT't' L.INfO.) '1HENcE. t> 0',)'209' 2.1' W 417.2.2. FEE.I; ..,."....:..'1'\.lENCt:. N f}4'CO'W"W 2000.00 /'fEr; ',.:; .','!HENce N 4~'CO'CO" W ;!:;.o.{".o rE.E:".T; ..~.,.. :.~""; 1HlOl'>::e NMj'{):)'CO" W 120.00 FEET; , !.",.,..:/;:,:, ",'!HeNce: N~.II':Z~" E I~."!~ ,I'E'ET 11:>,1l-1E. r:t:>INTa"~E6INNJr-t:r" ,.." ':i';~':,::' "GaNTAlN'NC:l 4,1I~ A=.e..~ /ollO,:.'.0. OR L.e~. ,'-C:":" .' o .' . .... " ~ " ; .~: _'": ~ . ; ~ij,f,.:i;0;;~'~;f~r~;':A,;~;>:;~:,X:;?;"~4s~,~}}t'~:i;:;~;~:~t;!;;}].:,:}i,~;~;~;{l~;-::~ .;"" . "', ~,:,:;,: :.' q'.:",'., ',.,~, ...~;.'....."... '--:-:1:,;',:., '::I'.~ :..;..:...~, ,. .."',. " ... ",. :..;.:..: . " \ :~~~~'~ ::' :: :........ ..,':;:",:'.:,. , :::. '~~.Ji.:..~~:;;'~,':' ..:...~;.::;-:,::.:.;'> " .~. " . .~i."h....... ;:...'.:..~-, j~;: . "',:':.' '~.. ~: . "~' ~ " , '. ,~ :' :1; , "<., , ',"," ~"". ',- ~. . . (' ." ".;.; ,.i..... .....') ." :-':f.'~' '. .~,~;~~iy/i. ::'.~'~',v.. ........-,.;, ~,:;:i:;~.~'Yt;:'~0'~::S'.~' :.-.k-' ':.'~' ;~t~:....,>:...;... "',.r_,: ." ".,.," ~:~r~+: :df~tf~~ ':':E:~:F~k~i~;Ci~~J~~~{?~t~~~ijlL;~~i~r?ift::~.;~>~t~L:f."::' :'.:y.:, "A 1/(pCT Cf' LAND ~I'TU".T"-O I:-l THE ~E V4 NE. '!/'4 AND 11-01 11-le NE!4 .::;:~;;:. ~ ~ OF ~TICN It:., no!:>,., r.: E:l<l W ~ 1H P.M. PI11<JN =UNrr,CDW~ " .,.';...' ~'O iT<'AC.T I"" MORE FUl..l..Y o.::~=Ie,= AI:> FOl..L.OW6: " . , . ,:::c:;.-".:"" . ,ee6:NNIN0 AT CDFU..;E~' NO.1 OF 'fI-le ~VeR5<De. ftAc.E.R.. (M.". :390S) . .':;:i::':",:' , '-n-leNc.e H ocr:04' CO" Eo 5<..-:O..~7 AL.O.Je;. L.INE. 1 -2, OF ~ID . ':y;. RJv~':>!DE. f'L.A('..ER (r.,(I?"N<. CJT'f-c.<.......lY UNfO.) W A POINT ON -n-u=. =nJNI';.6T"""-L.Y ;.':.":' ="- Of' T,./", CO'..O:~Aro .,JAj~ HIC,MW..W NO. lOt. ~"'HT -OF - WAY; ':c' 'll-lfONc.e: '30'=>.08 FEe.T AI.oN0 11-1l:. />-RL CIi' A CURVa 10 THE <..eFr HAVIN.'.;> A R.AD'UIi> OF ~.OO Fr::ET AND W..lO?~ =~ BCA~ ?44'455?"E. . :105.71 Fee1', =0 N<c. eE:J"'eJ> THE. ~rnwe~~L,( =e OF 6<>JD RI6<-lT- ,:::.."OF.WM;. ' ;"";;", . 1l-<~~S')'207'='E. ; ~,:,'.. !:O:S>E Cf' ~"D ~IolT -C\' - WAY, .;",:f:";';:;<;'J'1l-IeNCE N OO'4G>'a::>' W 2o'5~.~ FE.E.T/, .:.:~::-~:I::;?'.~',;~;::~ENC.E. 6C:OC>,~'ro. w .1.~I. 76 fEET,. '. '".,;'....., ".:,'., :1!-1EN= e> (,;,7' :31' 04 "e Z~7. 70 feeT; :,~.:: -::'''':_';'''1HENCe. "CO'I4'OO'W 1,'10.CO FEE.T; ;.,,;:.-",..;.;.....,;.'1'-lEI,'CE, N e","4G>'CO'IV 2,70.00 FEEl' /, ,;:,."",:,')"1l-lE.NCE NCO'~1'CO'E 2.'30.COFEe,lD'THE'. POiN, Of"eeGtNNIN"" ;:;'.""".:.UNTAJNI""" Z,2Z3 ACJ'.L':> ~ =1..EI.:>6. ".' . ,. .' ",', . . . '. '"""ll._._~,.... _'-0 .. . , :.."A'_'~,.~,~.:.'~,~~.'.:~~. ",:"~:'-:,"::-~,,,~;'-"."" :..' ,.) .. ';';it::~?:;~::: /, ;;:' ",:' :D:'~"::~~l~:::.C,::Z~~~ir: t;:L";:~:, ':.,:,....),'.; '~:: ,.':'/:' ;::::':':., :.' _,'.:: '~. " '04.10 FeE::[ ALONe.1>-<E. =....'f}.lweTeRl-'( . . . " ~ . . ',>::~;1;j~:{;r.l:i.r;,:;,;~j:>~T ,':~'~: ',' . ", ~'," ,"?~.. .:.....~ " '. ',- """.," "':,',i,. .',. ,"; ..... :'1'" ,,' .,,' .....,. ,': " i .' j-" " I '\"';"-" ~,", .'f :; .1."",.." " . '. ,.,' ..' ",1 . ~,' . PARJ"IiL A/O. J . '~"',' ::.. "':: -~----~~....,.._...,.,._, , , i - L;r'~"~~~~~'~~ L;;;-~'I'l'~;;~~"~N'T~~-~~ ';/4';~'1;r~0~'7'"'''':''' :':1;:11'1 TIIE.SW 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 18; TONNSHIP ~O SOUTH,'..,: "', !'nANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIlIN, '. :.,,",;'" .' : PITKIN COUNTY; COLOr-llDO. ':',~,,;,'::'.:;.'" .'...,'. ;:', "~.<;~.t.;.< ;-',': (SAID' PMCEL -IS PART;FT~ RIVERSIDE PLACE~:" ::'.i':'7':::::~\, :"M.S. 3.905 A.}I., lINO IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS J::OLLO\1S',. ' . . k '. . .~ . .. " ':...?;-:~' , ',JjEGINNING AT CORNER NO. 9 OF SAID RIVERSIDE PLACER, . '::;::..; : A .IlED SANDSTONE IN PLP.CE; . . . '.:',..;' ~;);, 'I:THENCE N~RTH 242. 86 FEET.ALO;~G LINE.:S:-9 OF,,' SAID," '. , "':',';2;:..,',:: :'. ,lUVERSID", PLACER;, :,' ',:....;. .,..",'... .'.', '''~'';",',_.':__ ," 'THENCE 1'1 89~,53',46" E,149.71 FEET;' " .. . ;.,."..,.':,.:',':,:<,~.:;\::..::,< ','THENCE EAST 2.54 FEET TO ]I POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY" "': ':": , I BANK OF Tf:E ROARIHG FORK RIVER" ,'- ,...:..,.,'."<, ..A'; ~ , TIIENCE N 15.13' 00" E 137.22 FEET; ',' ,,".~:'":;':7:..{:.,',~,:',,',::,.<~';/\~:;:; . THENCE N 28.30'00" N 132.58 FEET;:.. '.',' '.~,:(,:':.;;:~:,.,,:.-:....;.";i-....: UrHENCE WEST 44.82 FEI::Ti '. .':'y...~(':' .:-.~~~::: ...;:.;7.',..:.";....}i-r. ...~..:::~..,~.,':.';;.~ 'ITHENCE 1'125.45'00" E 27.46 FEET;";>'" ':;::,:::-: ",":' ",' "';';".'.'7":, . THENCE'I77.04 FEET ALONG THE'ARC OFA"CURVE TOOJ;HE :... ;:,,:: 'RIGHT !lAVING A, RADIUS OF 162.00 FEET;' . ,. ,,: ,.;.,.... TIlENCE 35.5 B FEET AJ"ONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE '.,. , : TO THE LEFT rrl.vING A R."DIUS OF'S8.00 FEET; ::, ,; TIIENCE 191. 08 FEET ALONG TilE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE . ..,'. i,TO T!lE nIGHT HAVING A RAOIUS OF 112.00 FEET; ., " "'~,' ,_THENCE 47.19 FEET ALOllG THE .1\RC OF A REVERSE CURVE r TO'TIlE LEFT !lAVING A RADIUS OF 63.00 FEET; , ' ,-,', "THENCE 129.74 FEET ALONG' TilE ARC OF A COHPOUND,:':-<:::-' CURVE TO TRE LEF1' IlAVING 1\ MOIUS OF 213.00 FEET ....T!IE C!lORD OF NIUCIlBEARS S 77.24'59" E127.75 FEET; ..,. ','.THENCE S04,.52'OO" E 200.00 FEET; . ",...~.:~.'-. :' THENCE S 46000'00" \'1 105.52 FEET TO TIlE CENTERLINE ,~.'.'...,.. ;:' OF THE ROl,RING FORK RIVER; , .' '.. .:. "THENCE S 59.12'00" E 104.03 FEET Al'"mw S1\IO CENTERLINE; "THENCE S 52.05'29" E 183.36 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINI:: ' ,'TO TIlE INTERSECTION IHTII LINE 9-1 OF 51\ID RIVERSIDE ";:';~~~;;N 89008'24" W 692.87 F~E; ~ONGSAIO UNE 9-1' ;f "'-'~,' TO TIlE POIN'! OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.363 1\CRES ... " ." .......0 ,~~!1~~ ~ ~~ . ~I::SS; ~. :_.:.~.: :..... '"~';.';;~':~:''_:''''__'''''''_';::''' ';, ...~..~.:;...,~':,..:_.,~.:'..~... .}.,....i~,'.,.~,.._.~.~~..,','.:...~,..:~.~::.,'.:,:'.:.,,~;"._; . ';'_''''''''''.~':'~''.--=:,'_''_'___''._' ." .,~_.,:...,__,.._.:..:' . "-'.._'t..~.. " ....'... . ""." .. :, ..,..... " .' ~...\ :~,",', " \~'" ,._~\ \ \ " ~f'r.:", Cf<.:-"/E CEMC.TEk'(' . '... ~ \ PROPOS~D ~', RR a, R-U3 ,3 RR ZONING CHN-JGE~ . n' -:.. " A"~. .... .. "., . :, ",: ,: _,_ '_' . n'."' .. "' ~:__..:: ':- 'NOV. II, 1~7S f-t ::is: 1J.. i b i "t. .. B" ''';~'':'"f\ .' -~....... . . '::7::-.:.';'~ 'r::"~:':' ,. ::-:,.~:,"";'~~: ""Tii';:;1:''; , ' "",,"".:.,'..' "'7~~.'~,' -~ "~7'- . ....-,7~... ',:"'" "'::" ,. I '\ ,''-': :j . , ,\ I " i ..,' . ."" ;..:".: "",:"..'." .r..... . ...,.;:.,':.... ~(~.",; :.. ....-::. ,,-.. . : . " ~",,!,- "', . , . ,.,.,', ..,-..;.:;.... ..... ...:.... . '~. \ :....;.....:. ".f'.'::': . ';~": . ....;,:'h.::.... .""'" .. .....' :"', . ',' '..:".... .",. ;. .', ';:, ":'" . ,. . .. ,",. . " ;' . ",,' " .\ \ ;.. " I!J..;o... '(' , " , ' ' , . .;~'. ~,' )' .' .'~ ] J I I ) I J 1 I ) I I I J I I J I 1 , i"""" ,~ EXHIBIT 11 SNOW-AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS BENEDICT PROPERTY, ASPEN, COLORADO Prepared For Mr. Fritz Benedict Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado May, 1988 ,......., ,-- , . ARTHUR I. MEARS. P.E.. INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 222 Eat Gothic Ave. CUIlIUson. Colorado 81230 303 - 641.3236 May 19, 1988 Mr. Fritz Benedict 1280 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Benedict: The enclosed study of potential avalanche hazard on your property near Aspen was completed in accordance with our discussions a few weeks ago. Although the avalanche areas are fairly continuous, structural avalanche protection is feasible at many locations within the Blue Zone, as discussed in the text. I very much enjoyed working with you on this project. contact me if you have any questions. Please Sincerely, Q~ J n1RCLw Arthur I. Mears. P.E. Encl. Ma.v wa.!ting . Avalanches . Avalanche Control Eng;nuring , I 1'""'0, 1'""'0, , I I OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS I This study of snow-avalanche hazard analysis and mapping has been requested by Mr. Fritz Benedict of Aspen, Colorado and has the following specific objectives: I a. Mapping of potential snow-avalanche runout zones from desiqn-magnitude ("lOO-year") avalanches; b. Subdivision of the avalanche runout zones into Red and Blue zones of hazard intensity; c. Discussion of the avalanche hazard with respect to various land uses; and I ] d. General discussion of avalanche mitigation (defense) possibilities. ) I The hazard analysis presented here is site specific. Therefore the results and recommendations cannot necessarily be applied to other locations. Snowpack and terrain conditions vary greatly from one location to another strongly affecting avalanche behavior and possibly changing acceptable land uses. I 2 DESIGN-AVALANCHE MAPPING ) I The analysis presented in this report maps runout distances associated with Wdesign-magnitude" or "design" avalanches. Design avalanches, when applied to land-use purposes in the United States traditionally have return periods of approximately 100 years, although return periods of 300 years are considered in Switzerland and Norway. The 100 year return period is used to define the design avalanche here with the understanding that 1 1 a. The lOa-year avalanche has a constant 1% probability of occurring in any given year; this probability does not change after the design avalanche occurs; and I I b. The lOa-year return period is an order-of maqnitude estimate; the "true" return period may actually lie between 50 and 200 years, approximately, but data are not available by which the return period can be specified more precisely. I There exist few direct observations of lOa-year design avalanches because these are, by definition, rare events. For example, there exists only a 39% chance that a lOa-year avalanche will occur during any 50-year observation period. Therefore, this study has followed the traditional approach of using indirect procedures to calculate the stopping positions and avalanche- hazard intensity of design avalanches. I J I 1 1"""'1 .-, , . The procedures followed to compute design avalanches here are as follows: , .j a. The runout distances or final stopping positions of design avalanches were computed by applying a statistical model of runout distance which was derived from a sample of 130 "lOO-year" avalanches in Colorado; b. Given the runout distance defined in "a," a dynamics model was applied to the avalanche-path profile to compute the velocities at various points along the profile; and c. Dynamic velocities boundaries. pressures were then computed from the to determine the Red Zone/Blue Zone The methodology outlined above determines the downslope positions of hazard zones and runout distances; the lateral boundaries were determined by evaluating the effect of terrain irregularities through study of air photos and topographic maps, and by considering the importance of various features in the field. Avalanche frequency was estimated by extracting cores and dating Douglas fir trees within the avalanche boundaries. Each of the trees thus sampled had suffered at least one avalanche impact, (some had received several impacts), and none exceeded 80 years old. The fact that all of the trees sampled were located below 8,200 feet elevation (within 200 feet vertical of the main access road), provided convincing evidence that avalanches will reach the road at frequencies of approximately 20-to-50 years. This implies that 100-year avalanches will reach well beyond the road, as consistent with the results of the statistical analysis outlined above. In addition, air photographs taken in 1951 and 1957 were studied to determine old avalanche boundaries prior to disturbance of the area by recent construction. The air photos indicate that avalanches had run into the area of the "Aspen Club" during the first half of this century, and had approached the location of the "Benedict Building." 3 THE AVALANCHE TERRAIN Six distinct avalanche areas or avalanche paths were identified for this study. The general terrain setting with respect to major topographic features is shown in Figure 1; details of the avalanche runout and hazard zones are shown in Figure 2 (the Avalanche Hazard Map). Each of the avalanche paths have distinct characteristics that govern behavior of the design avalanche. These characteristics are discussed below. 2 > . j . , 1 I i i I ) I J J I I J 1 I I ) 1 I t"""\ t"""\ UTE TRAIL AVALANCHE. This avalanche path is located across the access road from the Benedict Building and has been observed to reach approximately to the road during the past decade. During the 1987/88 winter a small avalanche reached to within approximately 300 feet south of the road. During extreme snow conditions, avalanches will release from open areas in the forest and from within the forest itself at elevations between 8,600 and 9,000 feet. Clear evidence of avalanching within the forest is visible at the 9,000-foot elevation level, near the upper end of the Ute Trail. As with all of the avalanche terrain identified in this study, the fastest and longest-running avalanches will consist of dry flowing snow. The Ute Trail Avalanche will impact the access road at over 30 mph and will spread laterally into the upper and lower parking lots. Light flowing snow and powder blast will reach the Benedict Building (intervals of 50-to-lOO years), but damage to the building will be minor and should not endanger persons within the building. The parking lots will be reached at intervals of 20-50 years, consequently the greatest hazard from this avalanche is in the parking lot, an area that tends to concentrate activity, particularly during the mornings and afternoons on working days. ASPEN CLUB AVALANCHE. This path is similar to the "Ute Trail Avalanche" discussed above. Unstable snow can release as a widespread slab at elevations of approximately 8,600-to-9,200 feet elevation. The released slabs will combine to flow across the colluvial fan which is populated with aspen trees up to approximately 30 years old, flow across the access road, and will reach the Aspen Club. As noted above, inspection of 1951 and 1957 air photos indicates that avalanches probably reached the building location during the first part of this century. As indicated on Figure 2, a narrow hazard-free area exists between the Ute Trail Avalanche and the Aspen Club Avalanche. However, during periods of widespread snow instability, access to this area will be dangerous. NORDIC TRAIL AVALANCHE. This path consists of a broad, open face immediately east of the Aspen Club Avalanche. This face is actually fed by 4 small topographic depressions (bowls), that tend to collect snow at 8,700-to-9,000 feet elevation. Avalanches releasing from these small bowls will spread laterally on the unconfined colluvial fans above the road, but during optimum snowpack conditions will flow across the road. OLD SWITCHBACK AVALANCHE. This is the largest and potentially most powerful avalanche evaluated in this project. The starting zone is a steep, east-facing slope beginning at 9,700 feet elevation. During optimum snowpack conditions avalanches releasing from this upper starting ZOne will dislodge additional snow from the steep gully and cross the alluvial fan and access road. Douglas fir trees immediately above the road show evidence of avalanche impact. 3 1 1 ,I , I 1 ! J I I I I I I I J I I .. r-. ~ THE EAST FACE. This short, steep triangular face will release a va lanches from 8, 600-to-8, 800 feet elevation. Avalanches from the East Face can release independently of the "Old Switchback Avalanche" or can be triggered by it. Avalanche behavior will be similar to that produced by the "Nordic Trail Avalanche." THE EAST GULLY. Avalanches here will result primarily from unstable snow in the steep gully, although inspection of air photographs indicates that open slopes immediately west of the gully may also produce avalanches. During design-avalanche conditions, avalanches from the East Gully will cover the entire alluvial fan and may combine with slides from the East Face. 4 AVALANCHE MAPS AND HAZARD-ZONE DEFINITIONS The avalanche map included with this report is provided on a 1"=100' scale base map with 5-foot contour intervals. For land- use and engineering purposes, avalanches have been subdivided into 2 zones of hazard intensity: (a) Red Zones, and (b) Blue Zones. These two zones were defined in terms of expected frequency and avalanche energy. Experience with avalanche zoning and engineering problems also suggest certain land uses that are appropriate (of inappropriate) within each zone, as defined below. 4.1 RED-ZONE DEFINITION AND LAND USES The Red Zone is defined as an area of either (a) high-frequency avalanches, (b) high-energy avalanches, or (c) both "a" and "b" and is subject to the following conditions: Frequency - Avalanches occur once, on the average, in every 10-year period (a 10% annual probability). Due to the "order-of-magnitude" nature of the return-period estimate, the actual return period lies between 3 and 30 years. Avalanche areas of high frequency are particularly hazardous because the probability of encounter with avalanches is high. Energy - Avalanches within the Red Zone may produce a dynamic pressure on a large, flat, rigid surface normal to the flow of 600 Ibs/ft2 or more. The actual pressure on an exposed object may be more or less than 600 Ibs/ft2 depending on object shape and orientation. The pressure on a flat surface is given as a reference pressure for standard, simple impact conditions. These areas are considered high hazard because of the difficulties associated with practical design for loads. The Red Zone has an "either/or" definition. Either high frequency (lO-year or less), or high energy (600 Ibs/ft2 or more) 4 L 1 ~ ,-" define the Red Zone. Therefore, large, destructive avalanche zones qualify as Red even though they may occur only every 100 years. Furthermore, small, high-frequency avalanches zones also qualify even though they do not produce large pressures. 1 } Traditionally, residential construction, public buildings, and other activities that concentrate human activities are excluded from Red Zones. Areas of intermittent exposure, such as roads or ski trails, or facilities that are not used during the avalanche season may be permitted in the Red Zone. The tolerance to risk must be carefully considered in the design of an avalanche "risk management" policy. 4.2 BLUE-ZONE DEFINITION AND LAND USES ! 1 The Blue Zone is an avalanche area of both (a) low frequency and (b) moderate energy. The Blue Zone is located at the lower end of the design-avalanche runout zone and is defined as follows: I Frequency - Avalanches reach the Blue Zone with return periods of 10-to-lOO years. As with the Red Zone, the return periods are order-of-magnitude estimates. I Enerqy - within the Blue Zone, avalanches produce dynamic pressures of less than 600 Ibs/ft2 on large, flat surfaces normal to the flow direction. Actual pressures at a given location are strongly dependent on object shape and orientation, and must be determined on a site-specific basis. I 1 I 1 ) I I I I 1 As noted above, the Blue Zone is always defined in terms of both frequency and energy. The avalanche conditions must satisfy both criteria at a given location or it will automatically satisfy one of the Red-Zone criterion and be disqualified as a Blue Zone. Traditionally, residential construction has been permitted in Blue Zones provided construction will resist design-avalanche forces. Alternately, avalanche defenses may be built to prevent interaction of the design avalanche with the residential construction. As shown on the Avalanche-Hazard Map (Figure 2), avalanche hazard is nearly continuous below the slopes studied. There is a small area free from avalanche hazard between the "Ute Trail" and "Aspen Club" avalanches. The Red Zone is generally confined to the steeper portions of alluvial fans and to the slope above (south of) the access road below the "Nordic Face." The presence of the nearly continuous avalanche hazard zones does not imply that all construction within this area must be avoided. As discussed in Section 5, avalanche risk can be substantially reduced through application of various avalanche mitigation procedures. 5 , . . I i j ~ I ! r I J I I I I I , I I .-, r---, 5 AVALANCHE MITIGATION As discussed in Section 4, construction within the Blue Zone is generally acceptable when appropriate mitigation procedures are used. Although a detailed discussion of avalanche mitigation is beyond the scope of this report, the following steps are recommended when avalanche protection is required. 5.1 HAZARD ASSESSMENT. If the building site is in the Blue Zone, structural mitigation is generally feasible because the probability of avalanches is small and the avalanche forces can be accommodated in design. The avalanche velocity and energy (impact-pressure potential) must be determined at the proposed construction site in order for engineered design to proceed. 5.2 AVALANCHE-MITIGATION OPTIONS. Many engineered avalanche- mitigation "avalanche-control" options are generally available, however, only those forms most likely to be useful on this property are discussed here. a. Direct Protection. This involved reinforcing buildings for avalanche impact and deposition loads. Specially-shaped buildings that tend to deflect snow laterally or vertically are most practical and can be used when several closely-spaced buildings must be protected. Large, flat surfaces directly exposed to the avalanche flow are undesirable because avalanche interaction generates large forces on such surfaces. Building shapes commonly used include splitting wedges and ramp roofs, both designs making use of the fact that avalanches generate reduced forces when deflected through small angles. Direct protection is generally considered to be the most reliable avalanche-protection measure (with the exception of avoidance) because it provides complete protection inside the buildings. This is probably the most common form of structural protection used in the United States. b. Earthen deflectors and enerqy dissipators. Earthen structures are useful when sufficient room is available to deflect snow. Design must ensure structures are sufficiently high to prevent avalanche overtopping, are stable against avalanche forces, and do not deflect snow such that a hazard is created elsewhere. Large earthen structures are very useful in locations where avalanches can be deflected laterally and a large area can be made hazard free. They are particularly useful on alluvial fans. Regardless of the avalanche-mitigation procedures used, current design requires careful site-specific study that defines avalanche velocity, enerqy, flow dimensions, and depositional effects. 6 FIGURE 1. Location Map Generalized outline of avalanche paths ) I "." 00 rJ' ~ ....... r-- ~ '" < cr- '. uJ <J :z Uj ~ lJJ uJ cl 0 P. .J <t ...J c: <t 0 C!l ..J 0 u :r "- ~ .J Z a: uJ ~ C", .n <( I;l l- e:: <: uJ 0 ...J ~ 0 f- 0 :J A r: ~ lfl <( Pi uJ UJ o Q.. o ~ f'1 P- f') . t oil ,-, , ,-- . .. : :$ S ~..., >, . ~. . ,~ .., ",1t- '." j ~ )I. ~3 I;~ ~ ' O~ ,~ 0 !A ct. ,~~ ~ ..... N N \ ... '. . !~$ ,. r I- c! " 0 " " '" " d- " I." , n .l " '" ," ~ '" '" (C. - ,.. :: ~ 1:- t " n " " '" .... ,;: I t-"<r---1 - r1"" ' ~,- '""'J ' '::-'7l ,,'.'.1(': '!i~r" )'':),\ A In:;L ':- ' ! ii," p.' ~ -....; .,:',....1 :f..((,' " , " "',, : ;:';~','':;';: , ''',' ""'(jr,' ",~-,rS"J ", ' '''>~i''''C\\ \"V,..\ , -11, ,,' I 1'1 i'iTrl'rn 'l1l" .. IS. I ! 1'-11.1.. J1' ~ H " , '- ',:" "J~.: ~; r:":---"'~'-: ;', l,~ 'I, " I .:.o-::--..:~..... I I ~ ~, ;1 1'-';>"-', ~.. I ' " 1 1 ',/ :: Z' "". I I ~ '" '~\ o.~ :,,,, '; I ' !I ' 1, ,.0',0 -O~ 'I .' II q I "9'~,,,;, i _~,! I~ ; . '1 ~ 1 ,I I '," , -,-' 'j' "~ ,I" /\'~lll "!;l:'! I ' '\ ' I ' " l ' " 11 ,I . / rl ' " :t. I. 1 I' ~ - ,rv...,r" I " " " " , I ~--""j ILl. J" Ill, er -~l'i I tnTlli 'I ! II ,. '.. ,~. 1,[.u..JJJLLlj,' !8,u, i i .c:_,...._.._,_....,I' ..... '~~"~;' ~ P,i,'! I! ~ ~, ~ I :,;, i' ! r.l , .. I 'I! I ~ 'I " ~ 1:1, "',', 1 ~ : i ~ii' !.l i~1 ., .1:1 .D 0 ,~, .:1,' ~)J~}J", :,' 1,' ;1 ;i, I ~'I 'i ir"~iA~ r ; ~lJ:ii \11 ' "'.: /'1 ~n~! I iljii:/ \CI\ 1 i ", I, I ;d ' I' \ I,Ll ~ ! \! 1 . , . , 111 i ,I I . 6-;tx'" ' :: I! 'I, ; I , " I' , ~ I: ..... ,0 ""-'-"~'," I" .. : ", 1 " ' ~ I ~~ ....' y- \ i \ I; . : ~ t ~, 'J I )' . I. I , . : I. ~', '..; .! 1; !f I' I ~ill' ;' '; .-- :d Ii :l ".],:: : II ~ i , 'i ' " "I -~"I' '1 ~'><:X:, ~~I: Ii i ;,~i II' '",:: : ii, ili i:J ~'JI:""~I" 'I"II~:I' i 1 i~:'I:.II.III:lll>,'j. , ,i :l!lJ~ i-lX'X 'I! Ii i IJ! ~;, ::'11 il :,1'1 t' , -" -:-u - , ,.., :i i;;] H tJ In :1' (, ,. L I :..... j '" - ;O'..:.n:=I1:jL..f- ~ . ..A .. - '. ~ ~ - k :1 '1"\ I ,- "\\'" , l \. - -\\..: _ '('J~ .~ . '" , 7' !l- -.-r-;. --ffi~ ,.-I '~' 7, ""W"~" ", ,- . 1.-'1' '--' v" ]j - i I ",; ,"!!.. . S; J~A;~ 7 l' , , 'i' )) 1M ,:" \ , , / I V) '" J '" 1 ('l , L.. to I- <( " r' oj , ,J .lJ I I- ::> o Vl ~ . ",J.> -' c-- ,",', . ,..1 .. .~ +~~-~:~, ... .T:.J.t~.; 0, ii' . i j.. i.a: .;W~ ..:~; I \J: _".' C! :.., r--'l Of' . ~, ' . " ' (.U: ,.J!' ~: -, ! .~.. ~ ~..;. 0 : _, .V' l' "...; IV"l: : .Wl ';' ., C!iT..,r _,' ...,.,"'1' . .; LU' .- ; ,,~- .- I . Q.' ,-1, ,"1' : -J_I<( : 4:,' ~ i ' 1<1:" ; ..[="1.. i ; t .., '-.;:~-_"":.. r":';' --i.c.~''''; r\"'" ':"",.. t" I '-J" I :! ' .' <ti ,. i ..~.~;~"i' 't , ~,,"r T j~1~F'i" ;,.. .. r ,-'- , !C!t: - '-1 : "',.. : Wi ,..0 ,-..J , ' ,-.!> ' , 'f-' \.!> , I :~.~-;~; i~I:::J'T " _L .~~\-I, 7" '~'~r.-f':'"'' ,_~V1: I~: .~d-t ';,. ,.'," 'I"~'" - "I' . . . ' - . .~.._c..' . I , :.;.~~='r~: 0... )"l" !"""\ ,!,,",,\ ,. ....: 'i i: 'I," .., '0,' ! , 'i" r 1\':~~-.l';T i 1.1 ; i ..:.::.-1 ... !'. , .-j - ~l , " . :i , ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ .!' .. '~ '" I 'i' I 1,,1.: I -- j "r:~~'.: !~.: . : ,. j._ I' "j- \nT+: '[' 1.:..,.. I :; " :' i .:.::'i:.;'.. ' ..,.u.!. I . .__: I ., .!. " - ..... 1 : i ..-." \ ;. .. il. '- u .;- .{ ,. )0 :.!.l -' , ' Ii" . ~ i- , ,I '" < III I .\ , , ",! ..i \ ,I' .:, , j "1 ,. " '''1 .. __.1 " --'''I . ' : ,...-r " , , .. . I , -;'i' , ' " ---~. .: f ~ .! -.~ ~.CI ::...1 " '--'".f l' ..p J :uj ~ ~:... : i \) , , :: '::1 ; j'''' uJ :-_...: . . ~ L.! (:.\, '1 i-, 1..'..-, )'; ; VI ....... ! \ iW ..t...... .I, ~ H...: ., , : I : I j' , I , ,,J , L, _." :.J ; :. _J.d: "! C2 I, i--i- ! ~. ; -. ; 1; T:t: 'I! ~ C- ' ! r '-l I. . (......,. ,.. ,I 1<(- 'L:~: t i i I! ! I <:) " j--..; '. : : l- I f i 1'";--.'1 i;. .; I r~ '0 L.., f-: A I' :A 't..... " t '.a:. I i"'-i , 1. !.._~. :. II ' . . , , t I IT ! ! i -'A' 'i ~_. ; !UJ. '</I .,--.--. ! ;0 t'- '" a- o ,:J -t ~ \:> J <:> V ~ L1I Q.. VI 4 I- VI w. 3 ,-- ~. <, r.' ... :1 11 " r 'I' . I, i, ,j 'i l:1 .ii I'; ,i:1 ,I ",II 1 Ii II i j i 1 I ~ I ' '/ i II, j~':'1 ; II iliL lilt ) i ! fc ~,tlL', .-~ :", , UV\~i , ": " o ~'.,'",' .: : , , (I ' ~i~11 -- i '" "::::::<Jl " "I I ! , , I , . II ,J-~ , I it' ..~ 1 I , O!~ r I ! " III ,~ IL", ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ,- , "u! , , ~ ' . ::i :t. t:I.l 4 J, 10 ":! ,,, >! ~~ :J , ''':1/, j. . i.!I..J f:O .. . '" "' J .-, 1 ,J\ ^ }1 ~...,:..; '~-'..(;t -"',- ~::r. "-:.'..... ,,; !l ,! :' ii' .: f!; :~ -,i j~-,. ~:1 ! I ""j:.l I! 'I ,~ !! ' : 'I 'dl"':"';'" 1 H,: ~ Ii 1- : I! I II 1 i ~ I d I J' ! 1 ' I ;j II " .1 " 111 / ..:l , , '. :,. I () ,~ , , ,- / " .., ,. / :.J , ~ ,', ,~ I , -.,.-. ..' I- '" :!l :; , " .. , :/~ ..) '" <r l:l v ..., ~ '" D Ij1 !JJ c;. -J -J <r.. d) :t C. ,J <t L.!: c:: "- if' < 0 f- ~ 2 u () ..1 '" I- '" :l A - L c::> <f) "" A U 1.01 o c.. o Q< 0- , - ! : " " I' 1'-' H i " ,i I ,I " 1: r ~-! I " '-' " ! II il I , Ii 'I I ' , -. !,-.J . J I <---;; " , '.. ~-.~ r I ! ~, i1, ,I,; :' c \: ' i: 1-; \ ) I;' I ~ " I' ; I II', i' \ \. i I' I ::: I. , I . ~ 1 : ~ \""'____ , _",_ ,~~~~I~V31j~.J~~t.:~\,-:~J,-;,;'ubL'V~_':-J : ".M \ --::;. .~). \ "', I tJ ~ \ I, i .....:~ .- ~-~. .",,,-~, (-' . ~, _ \..;' y, I' . ~r ~ \ ,. -:;., I,' ',,' '-\ J(-. I :; '-: "., :---,/-. ~ '--~":-.:-L-~~_,:(. -~V'. ~.../ - ~:~.r..._:'-';;,~_~ , 'I . i , 1 I I f--~ -----l 1 I I .-.. 1 " , , I ~ , , , -' v; ~ ;;" , ,.' c . ~ , r7 I , ~/Y~1-- ;1-;: --t ; /\:,'1'" J;\:l'il-r!m' \rjI "'lr,1 /' ",III ,I If'! r.' , ~ 'I 'I,' j I ~ " , ,: 1- I tll : ,( I . I ~ III, I ,I ~ I ( I' I > ~ I II d . 1 . j /1'111'" "I'" "I" I', 'I" ,'I I Ii I I. I, 'I' ~ I: i I, ! i.:...:5 f1 Ii ~ j, i i: ' . ': ,-- .;1111....,......-.- 'I I " d ',! I .'~ '~,~ I!' I I' 'I , Ig..') ":~ i I . :.!.,I.:~~" ~1TlT7i1; 'i 'I' 'l'li III" " ' ,'~I: 'I II I I: -I" ,..I J": ",, J "'I (:1 1'~""':__"'IJt !. '! I ~ "(j>\ .,,\ : I ,I :;~..... '.~ 1 ,,:! ':TT':lr"if'1:;: 'i,':'! ii I: :i: 'ii; :jd ii, i!::ji !!i! '.Ii! . '. I ~! i Ii:,:::!: I :! 'II j: l!i 'i ,;:: Ij:' r~'- -- ,.._-~..~-!, i: i: ;:-;l~.v< ~ -i 1] i I'~.'o <::f 'I,' l; N~___,~~!;. !:i , ;ij'::1 I.:, : 1 !~ i i ,il'!i .': illi :1 ]1; I'. ",.' :!!. """:<jiL Ie ~,~ ~.,.l ';1 : [ '.0 l<.:~ Il:; ,fiN I"l :', ----:-...;,:,1 I: ?l ~. <:: I.J ..J o V A / - ,.j " (; ;'./ ' r ---I ""~, \\, i , , \. '1 )! t ; I ~ "'\~", , {; " ~:! .. \ \ f- " 8 ~ ~ ; 0 (i D " "I ,.,., '3 , ~ J '" 0 ':,/ , v " 1 ^ ',-~.:- I' .- i " :.---:."\ :''1i 'lU, i,l .l i I -.Jj , r I i .JT 1-, :~~ . ..,'-,j '......- '....... - i '--' " ..c.~_~. .1."..... ,..... ( / \ I, ! (' (';. '- ,\1 -' l~l ,- ('> ~ A, MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson cc Leslie Lamont From: Postmark: Leslie Lamont Nov 24,92 9:36 AM Subject: Benedict SPA Message: GMQS Exemption for fully deed restricted unit, the unit will comply with R-15 dimensional requirements SPA will spell out multi-use aspect of property and parental lot will still be required to comply with Ord. 1 regs. potential for the 1 story log cabin as deed restricted housing. parking may be an issue and access to the dwelling units may be an issue. -------========x========------- ~ "'. , - .. ,"-" ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL ATTN: DIANE 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD ASPEN CO ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL C/O MARK OVERSTREET 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD ASPEN CO BARBARA O. FLECK 1/2 LISA BETH FLECK 1/2 1525 SOUTH LODGE DRIVE SARASOTA FL CHARLES MADDALONE MARLENE MADDALONE TRUSTEES P.O. BOX 635 ASPEN CO CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO FREDERICO LONGORIA DENNIS E. NIXON BOX 1359 1200 SAN BERNARDO LAREDO TX PHYLLIS S. HOJEL C/O ELECTRO COM AUTOMATION 2910 AVENUE F ARLINGTON TX POWDERHOUSE ENTERPRISES 1280 UTE AVENUE ASPEN CO T. RICHARD BUTERA JULIE ANTHONY BUTERA 520 E. DURANT AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 81611 34239 81612 81611 81611 78042 76011 81611 81611 /~ uOT 14A, CALLAHAN SUB LOT 15, CALLAHAN SUB LOT 7, CALLAHAN SUB SOUTHERN MOST LOT, GORDO~ CALLAHAN SUB UTE CEMETERY UTE CHILDREN'S PARK LOT 8, GORDON/CALLAHAI LOT 15, UTE PLACE SUE LOT 16, CALLAHAN SUE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT 14E, CALLAHAN S . /"""" THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL 5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE SUITE 1000 TULSA OK A '\.- .~ - LOT 2A, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB 74135 THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS C/O R.M. INTERNATIONAL 5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE SUITE 1000 TULSA OK LOT 2B, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB 74135 THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL 5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE SUITE 1000 TULSA OK LOT 2C, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB 74135 THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL 5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE SUITE 1000 TULSA OK LOT 9, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB 74135 UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP METES AND BOUNDS 215 SOUTH MONARCH ASPEN CO 81611