Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.831 Ute Ave.108A-89 .."''''',. . " .... February 7, 1990 Leslie Lamont Aspen-Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Billings Affordable Housing Development Dear Leslie: By this letter, I certify to you that I mailed a copy of the attached notice to each of the persons listed on the attached list of names and addresses on December 21. 198CJ, 1989. Very truly yours, o v.d a ~ S .ALn.1.JJ .A -JiJ JEE ch L5/2l Enclosures Brenda S. Beairsto NELSON/ZEEB CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. P.O. Drawer 5400 Avon, CO 81620 State of: (~) (z'iu.clo County of: ~ this /3 f,,-- day of J~hl.uu'l Do:?,!; {c CUCle!;' no", ;/.,a Ie', fJ,LL'''1 W' , , 19 C/o CcJ Subscribed and sworn to before me Notary Public: -K i1~H_ }~u Ltc My Commission expires: 7 -,2 /' 'ID ~. ......... < PUBLI C NOT! CE RE: BILLINGS AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 8, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 5:00PM before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Nelson/Devore Partnership, represented by Joseph Edwards, III. The applicant seeks Conceptual PUD approval for the development of 4 free market units and 7 deed restricted units on a 17,975.50 square foot parcel located at 831 Ute Avenue. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitken Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, 920-5090. s/William L. Stirling, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on December 21, 1989. City of Aspen Account. ~ . '0uI.::l G ~ Cl..., Cl..D ~ 6\ tLsL 't).....L d.cLLL \.;.Q.. ~~ Db ~ ~ct ~ ~ ~ <6,IQQa ~ ~I\q<(q) ~ (~cu1 -t:t, ~ .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BILLINGS AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 8, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm. before the Aspen city Council, City council Chambers, ~30 S. Galena street, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Nelson/Devore Partnership, represented by Joseph Edwards, III. The applicant seeks Conceptual PUD approval for the development of 4 free market units and 7 deed restricted units on a 17,975.50 square foot parcel located at 83~ Ute Avenue. ( For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, CO, 920-5090. ...- s/William L. Stirlinq. Mayor Aspen City Council ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Published in The Aspen Times on December 21, 1989. City of Aspen Account. ,,' "r.' DEe 13 '89 16:4Z"FoE'EDWR"DS '-RTTOR~,El' P.2 - - ROBERT N. NOYCE ANN S. BOWERS 11 LAS BRISAS AUSTIN, TX 78746 CLARENCE A HERBST, JR. 3445 HOWARD ST. SKOKIE, IL 60076 DONALD E. DOU1ER 1614 WEST LAFAYETTE JACKSONVILLE, IL 62650 D. KENNEDY FESENMYER DELORES J. FESENMYER PO BOX 952 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 RICHARD H. CONANT RUTH H. CONANT 9301 -INGLEWOOD CT. POTOMAC, MD 20854 DEAN L. GREEN BERT PO BOX 129 NEWPORT, MN 55055 ANN S. flOWERS ROBERT N. NOYCE 11 LAS BRISAS AUSTIN, TX 78746 LEE GLADSTONE GERTRUDE F. GLADSTONE 2222 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD WOODSTOCK. IL 6009B MONTE SMITH PEGGY SMITH 525 HIGHLAND TERRACE BRICKTOWN. NJ 08723 JAMES A. SHIRK LINDA S. SHIRK C/O BEER NOTS, INC. R.R. #13, BOX 529 BLOOMINGTON, IL 6170~ JEROME P. EPSTEIN DEBORAH R. EBSTEIN 25 MT. LAUREL RD. HAINESPORT, NJ 03036 ~ARL M. LATr~~MA~ ~ 230 SOuIRREL eLL Av~. PITTSBURGH, PA l~~lf ~xtended page 2. 1 - DEe 13 '89 16:42'jOE"EDTiRRDS cRhoR~1E'y 1-',,, - " . C.L. EQUITIES, INC. PO BOX 75010 HONOLULU, HI 96836 KENNETH D. MERNSTEIN 1105 SEMINOLE RICHARDSON, TX 75080 EDGAR STANTON, JR. ROSAMOND STANTON 2320 CALLO LUSTRE TUCSON, AZ 85718 C.C. CHANG ILING S. CHANG C/O CURlS SIEH 2775 GLENDOWER AVE. LOS ANGELES, CA 90027 LORNE LEIBEL 16 TUDOR GATE WILLOWDALE, ONTARIO CANADA M20 1N4 PATRICK J. NORTON GAYLE NORTON KEVIN M. NORTON JOHN A. ELMORE, II PO BOX 381 WRIGHTSVILLE, Ne 28480 SAMUEL C. SILVERSTEIN JO ANN SILVeRSTEIN 325 EAST 79TH ST. # 6B NEW YORK, NY 10021 ROBERT W. PAULIN MARY T. PAULIN 4930 EAST OAKMONT DR. TUCSON, AZ 85718 LANE N. MELTZER C/O JOHN LYNOTT 927 ST. PHILIPS ST. NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116 BERTEL!NE BAIER DALE FOREST KNOLLS GREENWOOD LAKES, NY 10925 KENT W. SHODEEN 13 SOUTH 7TH ST. GENEVA, IL 60134 DAVID FAIN RUTH FAIN c/o ASPEN ALPS PO eox 1228 ASPEN, co 816:2 ....... ......11101... '" I Io'~'" ..,. I DON M. SII<tECHECK 741 WEST CREEKSIDE-. HOUSTON, TX 77024 -.. DEe 'rg- "8u9"'lb:4~""'...i1'jt-urWHk:1jS'H( i-UKI~t.:y- r.""t - .- . ,. ALEXANDER B. SLATER PO BOX 491 LOCUST VALLEY LONG ISLAND, NY 11560 LOUIS MARCUS 601 OLD CROSSING DR. BALTIMORE, MD 21208 STEPHfN ABRAMSON RUTH C. ABRAMSON C/O LA~RENCE M. ABRAMSON 1860 FOREST HILL BLVD. STE 200 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406 DR. R. VERNON COLPITTS, M.D. 7515 SOUTH MAIN STE 480 HOUSTON, TX 77030 BARTELINE BAIER DALE FOREST KNOLLS GREENWOOD LAKES, NY 10925 REAL PROPERTIES LTD. MATTERHORN PRDPERTIES, LTD. BEAR PROPERTIES. LTD. 1072 S.E. BRISTOL STE 105 SANTA ANA. CA 92707 STEWART MACO STEWART MACOL 9641 INWOOD RD. DALLAS. TX 75220 MACNEE ENERGY CORP. 1850 MT. DIABLO BLVD. STE 640 WALNUT CREE, CA 94596 JOSEPH T. VERDESCA 1250 MAJESTY DALLAS, TX 78247 JAIME PARIS 2021 SANTA MONICA BLVD. NO. 3615 SANTA MONICA, CA 90406 . RONVRA REALTY N.V. C/O THE ASPEN ALPS PO BOX 1228 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROBERi E. FOWLER, TRUSTEE 4837 PRICKLY PEAR LANE SCOTTSDALE. AZ 35253 LILIA F. HE~PH;L_ C/O ASPEN ALPS PC 80~! 1223 H~I"'C.N, I"U OJ-OJ." Ext end e d P age .['f - GARY FRED THOMPSON TOM WILBUR THOMPSON . - - -L't..L"'I3--' ;'8g"Tbi44-:rVr-'Ew~'HnJ::irll'~C::\ r.~ -, ....... c/o DONNA GORMAN PO BOX 190 COL TON. CA 92324 BASLO C/O MR. W. D. EBERLE C/O TERTIARY 53 MOUNT VERNON ST. BOSTON. MASS 02108 CONSTANCE HARVEY 421 D ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER ASPEN, CO 81611 MARJORIE S. RHODES TRUST 1401 AVOCADO AVE. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 ALVIN DWORMAN 645 FIFTH AVE. NEW YORK. NY 10022 GUILLERMO OSUNA DORIS OSUNA 234 PARK AVE. DEL RIO, TX 78840 BEAR PROPERTIES. LTD. MATTERHORN PROPERTIES, LTD. 17662 IRVINE BLVD. #4 TUSTIN. CA 92680 HENRY P. MCINTOSH IV DBA MCINTOSH ENTERPRISES 124 VIA BETHESDA PALM BEACH. FL 33480 EDWARD M. O'HERRON. JR. TRUSTEE 425 WORTH AVE. PALM BEACH, FL 33480 HELEN ROGAL CAN DE 147 DUNBAR ROAD PALM BEACH, FL 33480 NOLAN K. BUSHNELL NANCY N. BUSHNELL 3869 WOODSIDE RD. WOODSIDE, CA 94062 WILLIAM E. TROTTER, II 3340 SEVERN AVE. STE 230 METAIRIE, LA 70002 TRUSTEE MCGUIRE LIQUIDATING TRUST LJt..~ J..=l 0:; .i.Q':"....~-.'7v~.::..~"Mr-"::'jJ:5"'~~l:-y-' 5200 RENAISSANCE TO~ DALLAS, TX ALBERT SMALL SHIRLEY S. SMALL STE 444 WASHINGTON SQUARE 1050 CONNECTICUT AVE. WASHINGTON, DC 20036 ARTHUR ROCK STE 1220 #1 MARITIME PLAZA SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 L. RODMAN DRAKE RODMAN L. DRAKE JOAN D. FOX JOAN O. FOX 515 CAMBRIDGE S.E. GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49506 HERBERT J. WINTER 3321 S. PULASKI RD. CHICAGO, IL 60623 ") JEROME A. KAPLAN STE 403 6001 MONTROSE RD. ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 MARVIN LOll LINDA LOTZ 611 NORTH SIEFFA DR. BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 CHESTER B. SALOMON ROSALIND S. SALOMON 975 PARK AVE. NEW YORK CITY, NY 10028 SAXON PAINT & HOME CARE CENTERS. INC. 3849 WEST FULLERTON AVE. CHICAGO, IL 60647 JOHN MCLEAN TAYLOR C/O CARL B. LINNECKE, C.P.A. SH 101 215 sourH MONARCH sr. ASPEN, CO 81611 DOROTHY ADAMS 9319 B BURTON WAY BEVERLY HILLS. CA 90210 JOHN V. POLK P"GGY J. POLK 24C ~UGARBE~RY :;RC_~ ~~USTCNj TX 7702~ LJi:..l. 1:.:: '::::~ l::::;'"4'S-'..,J"l/t. t..))l<Ji-i!-<Li':::l H: I Ui'(I'"H:.. I r. .. o ') JEFFREY L. KENNER 168 EAST 74TH ST. NEW YORK CITY, NY 10021 DARLENE M. MCCLUSKEY TWO COVENTRY COURT PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208 F.L. FABIAN, JR. 43 MONARCH BAY SOUTH LAGUNA, CA 92677 DOROTHY S. .HINES C/O AD VALOREM TAX MANAGER 2800 POST OAK BLVD. HOUSTON. TX 97056 WILLIAM FEICK. JR. 641 FIFTH AVE. APT 380 NEW YORK, NY 10022 BETTY G. AMOS 13724 S.W. 92 CT. MIAMI, FL 33176 HALGLENN CORPORATION STE 105 1428 BRICKELL AVE. MIAMI, FL 33131 CLARISSA H. CHANDLER 902 NORTH GREEN BAY RD. LAKE FOREST. IL 60045 GEORGE C. HOUSTON 1510 wICHITA PLAZA BOX 638 WICHITA, KS 67201 ISAAC ARNOLD. JR. ANTONETTE ARNOLD C/O JAMES A. HALL & ASSOC. STE 412 9494 SOUTHWEST FREEWAY HOUSTON. TX 77074 MARGARET T. PHILPS #503, 80 NORTH EUCLID PASADENA, CA 9110: LEON C. HIRSCH TURI L. H. HIRSCH 150 GLOVER DP.. NCRWALK, CONN 06850 CANTERBURY COMPAhY ASSOC. C/O BARSARA J. RCSS 205 N. MICH~CMN AVE. ~ Of':: ';/("Jnf'.l -'--~T3. ;8g.-.-rb;4b''-''Jl)~ t.!...!vJHk'1JS""HI~'TUR1~"y' '-.0 - .' . . MAUREEN M. REIN 1225 WESTMOOR RD. WIPPETKA. IL HERBERT M. GELFAND 9171 WILSHIRE BLVD. STE 610 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 JOHN H. FIGI, JR. M & I MARSHALL ISLEY BANK MARSHFIELD CO. TRUSTEES CENTRAL PLAZA 630 SOUTH CENTRAL AVE. MARSHFIELD. ES 54449 JAMES M. TROTTER, III 3340 SEVERN AVE. METAIRIE, LA 70002 JOSEPH C. HARRIS NANCY M. HARRIS 386 SOUTH MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD. ST. PAUL, MN 55101 JOHN R. RIDDELL. JR. JOHN M. P. THATCHER. JR. PO BOX 231 SEA ISLAND, GA 31561 CHRISTINE FORSYTH PETERS 10540 CLEARWOOD SOURT LOS ANGELES, CA BURT SUGARMAN C/O WVMAN. BAUTZER. ROTHMAN ET AL 14TH FLOOR 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 JOHN HAROLD LOSSING JANE BLACKMAN LOSSING 3301 NEW MEXICO AVE. NORTHWEST WASHINGTON. DC 20016 DARRELL F. HOOVER 17821 MITCHELL IRVINE, CA 92714 JAMES C. GIANULIAS MARILYN H. GAINUL!AS C/O CAMEO HOMES 1105 QUAIL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MARGARET R. SPENCER . cxten1ea ~ige'tJ""T .- .' . LJt...i... l..:I ""7tf:;l .Le. "ib '''JVE.-'"t:UWHI''UI':)'HT'-(v~,l.:-1 - , . ' .. 1011 NASHVILLE AVE. NEW ORLEANS, LA.70115 PAUL R. HAMWI PO BOX 350 ASPEN, CO 81612 JAMES F. STEWART SHIELA E. STEWART PO BOX 4154 ASPEN, CO 81611 MACa STEWART C/O WOOO BRANCH OFFICE PARK 11931 WICKCHESTER LANE STE 302 HOUSTON, EX 77043 THOMAS C. PECKHAM PO BOX 9766 ASPEN, CO 81612 JAMES R. PAUL PO BOX 1505 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90295 JAMES PAUL PO 80X 1505 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90295 IRWIN WINKLER MARGO A. WINKLER 10125 WASHINGTON BLVD. CULVER CITY, CA 90230 HOWARD ABRAHAM 1340 ASTOR ST. CHICAGO, IL 60610 BERNARD SACKS 2424 SOUTH WABASH AVE. CHICAGO, IL 60616 MEYERS MAKERIES, INC. PO 80X 7498 LITTLE ROCK, ARK 72217 ASPEN-CHANCE HOMEOWNERS Assec., INC. (NO RECORD ADDRESS) LINDA D. EDWARDS FKA LINDA EDWARDS WOERNER 990 VAN NUYS ST. SAN DIEGO, CA 92109 CHASPEN ASSOCIAiES <:/0 ,~. CHASE STE 304 4S~ NF~pn~T rrNTFR ~p , " ' . NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92~ SPAR CONSOLIDATED MIN1NG & DEVELOPMENT CO. C/O EDWIN J. SMART -- .. Extended Page ~,1 . --,--- ~^_. .- .....:....... .:..~ ;;.= _-=~:-;:;;.:'"i"- -_......~,_..._-,"<.__.,--._~,', ~ ...'~ ~;.,.r.~........_. r"""". " , . " ~.,",.., - . PO 80X 799 AS?EN~ co 8!612 ASP~~ CHA~;E,_ :NC. ATT~:- EO DA~ENHAUE~ 11255 NORTH TORREY PINES RD~ LA JOLLA, CA 92037 W!L~rAM WESLEY HEWITT PO BOX 15155 ASPEN, CO 81612 UTE CHALET, INC. PO 60X 1284 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN SKIING CORP. PO BOX 1248 ASPEN, CO 81612 BAARD MOSES PO BOX 21 ASPEN, CO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER 506 E. MAIN ASPEN. CO 81611 JAMES C. BLANNING, JR. PO BOX 43 ASPEN, CO 81612 GEORGE P. MITCHELL STE 260 2002 TIMBERLOCK PLACE THE WOODLANDS, TX 77380 . MARY ANN HYDE PO BOX 1557 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROBERT D. KLINEMAN & BERNARD E. SINGER, TRUSTEES PO BOX 11782 ASPEN, CO 81612 EDWARD PATTON IRENE PATTON PO BOX 264 ST JOHN, VT 00830 DR. EUGENE W. ROBINSON MARY ALICE ROBINSON 231 PADDOCK ST. WATERTOWN, NY 13601 DAIVD A PARKER ~L!ZAGETh ~. PMRKE, 1507 ~ALDEN DR. MCLEAN, VA 32101 - , . -- SYL V IA SURAR S 1 L VERfl..,.._ 3150 LAKE SHORE DR. CHICAGO, lL 60601 . . ....-.n ....., ,... "...-, ..."... " -- . ,.- " .. DONALD B. CAFFRAY ANN I. CAFFRAY 5TH FLOOR HARBOR BANK BUILDING 11 GOLDEN SHORE DR. LONG BEACH, CA '0802 MICHAEL C. DRAVITZ C/O K & S PARTNERSHIP 6406 BRENTFIELC DR. DALLAS, TX 75248 OKENA FAMILY CONDOMINIUM 1704 BURNETT AVE. AHES, IOWA 50010 EMILY L. WHITE 2010 SWANSON AVE. LAKE HAVASU CITY, AZ 86403 MARTIN H. SILTON RITA PICKER SILTON PO BOX 12189 ASPEN, CO 81612 RUSSELL T. LUND LUNDS, INC. 905 TONKAWA ROAD LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Levant American c/o Colonial Navigation Co., Inc. 2240 17 Battery Pl. New York,City, ~~ Resort Hotel Development a/k/a Woods tone Associates 709 E. Durant Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Kent W. Shodeen 13 South 7th St. Geneva, IL 60124 777 Ute Limited 777 Ute Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 ,.., .-. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Bill Efting, Acting city Manager FROM: Leslie Lamont and Amy Margerum, Planning RE: Billings - Conceptual PUD/Conceptual Rezoning DATE: January 8, 1990 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: conceptual approval. The Planning and Zoning commission recommends PUD approval wi th amendments to the conditions of The applicants are seeking conceptual PUD approval, and conceptual review of rezoning as a threshold issue. This is the second step of a four step PUD review process. Conceptual PUD review requires a public hearing at Council. COUNCIL GOALS: This application is consistent with Council's goals to encourage growth that will reinforce our sense of community, and ensure that an adequate amount of affordable housing is available. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council is familiar with this property. The Council had an opportunity, in early summer, to meet with Deane Billings and several of his tenants to discuss development alternatives for his property. Council also amended Ordinance 58 to enable the submission of development applications that would replace 100% of bedrooms and 100% of floor area with deed restricted units after demolition. Finally the Council adopted a scheduling policy giving priority to affordable housing projects that replace 100% of existing floor area and bedrooms with deed restricted units. The Billings redevelopment proposal complies with both of these criteria. BACKGROUND: At their December 19 meeting, the Planning and Zoning commission reviewed and recommends approval of the conceptual PUD for the Billings property. The P&Z did, however make recommendations regarding the conditions of approval and the development program itself. These remarks are discussed under the P&Z Committee Vote section of this memo. This property has been the subject of much discussion. Deane Billings has, for many years, provided de facto affordable housing for twelve families on this property. A recent attempt to wi th concern. The recent demolition sell the property for redevelopment was future of the site became unclear with moratorium. Potential displacement met the of ,.,.... ........ residents and redevelopment of the parcel residents to create a development package the bedrooms and 100% of the floor area affordable housing. has mobilized several that replaces 100% of with deed restricted There are twelve units on the site, only four of which are legal. The applicants, a partnership including several existing residents, propose to redevelop the property with three free market units and seven deed restricted units. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The property is currently zoned R-6. It is necessary to rezone the property to RMF/PUD. A PUD review is a four step process. This is the second step of that process. Review of rezoning is technically done at steps 3 and 4 of a PUD review process, however staff is of the opinion that this is a threshold issue and should be conceptually reviewed at this point. The applicants are also seeking subdivision, special reviews for parking and FAR increase, GMQS Exemptions for replacement housing and affordable housing, condominumization and vested rights. Please see the attached memo to the Planning and Zoning commission for a thorough review of conceptual PUD and conceptual rezoning. Included in that memo is an outline of the full review process for this project. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST KEY ISSUES: 1. Variances - The applicants are seeking several variances through the PUD review process. Those are: height (25 to 30), sideyard and rear yard setbacks, and open space. Parking and external FAR will be determined by special review. a. The Commission expressed strong concern for a height variance, believing that variances are intended to enhance site design if a reduction in height was implemented elsewhere on site. The applicants responded with a new massing design that eliminated one of the free market units (4 to 3) and reduced the amount of building area that requires a height variance up to 30 feet. b. The Commission directed the applicants to determine the development potential on the sites behind the Billings property to better evaluate the impact of reduced side yard and rear yard setbacks. c. A variance for open space was not discussed at length. 2. Parking - Although special review for a reduction 2 (' \. - in parking is not until step 3, the P&Z suggested a further reduction in the amount of parking available for the free market units. P&Z felt that the location of the development lent itself to automobile disincentives and perhaps a better site plan or height reduction may be accomplished with a reduction in garage space. 3. Amendments to the Conditions of Approval - Commission and the Applicants suggested amendments condi tions of approval. Those have been incorporated December 19 P&Z memo. both to into the the the 4. Amendments to the Development Plan - in response to concerns identified by staff during review of the application, the applicants have altered some aspects of the development plan. Primarily there are three free market units instead of 4, more parking for the affordable units, and a reduction in the amount of building area that is over the 25 foot height limit. These changes will be outlined at the applicants presentation to Council. Also for your review is an attached project update from the applicant and their engineer. 5. Rezoning - the P&Z did not discuss, at a conceptual level, rezoning the property. staff believes that this is a threshold issue and should be preliminarily reviewed. If the Council finds for one reason or another that rezoning is a problem, staff recommends the project be tabled until the issues can be resolved. This will prevent the premature submission of a final application. . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Conceptual PUD for the Billings Affordable Housing Development Plan with condi tions as approved and amended by the Planning and Zoning commission. Those conditions of approval are provided in the attached Planning and Zoning December 19 memorandum. ALTERNATIVES: the proposal; a) denial of the project as proposed; b) amend c) denial rezoning to RMF/PUD; d) rezone to AH. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the conceptual PUD with conditions as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENT~ : Planning and Zoning December 19 memo Applicant Revision Sheet billings.cc 3 MEMORANDUM r TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: Billings Conceptual PUD Review/ Conceptual Rezoning DATE: December 19, 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicants seek Conceptual PUD review for the development of 4 free market units and 7 deed restricted units on a 17,975.50 square foot parcel. The applicant also seeks a GMQS exemption for replacement of the four legal residential units that exist on site. This is a Planning Director sign-off. Please see attached memo. staff recommends approval, wi th conditions, of the conceptual PUD. APPLICANT: Nelson/Devore Partnership, represented by Joseph Edwards, III LOCATION: 831 ute Avenue, Aspen ZONING: R-6, mandatory PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants request a Conceptual PUD approval for the reconstruction for 4 free market townhomes and 7 deed restricted affordable dwelling units. REFERRAL COMMENTS: A. Fire Marshal: The project is within a four minute response time from the Fire station. There is an ample water supply by fire hydrant to supply the required fire flow. B. Environmental Health Department: Environmental Health Department has reviewed submitted the following referral: The Aspen/Pitkin the proposal and 1. Sewer - The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer. 2. Water - The current domestic water supply for the property is an informal system that consists of surface water that originates at the Durant Mine. When the new project is connected to the Aspen Water Department distribution system, there shall be no direct connection between the municipal system and the informal system, to preclude the possibility of back siphonage or potential contamination. .-.....---.....-..-- ~ r \~ 3. Air Quality - The application states that there will be no wood-burning fireplaces and any wood-burning stoves will be certified. 4. Noise - No long term noise impacts are anticipated on the immediate neighborhood as a result of the approval of this proj ect. It is predicted that short term noise impacts on the neighborhood will occur during the construction phase of this project. Should complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be the document used in the investigation. 5. Contaminated Soils - The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. C. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company, Inc.: In a referral letter, dated November 13, 1989, the company has indicated that they have the capacity and capability to serve the project as long as the appropriate forms are filled out, the necessary costs are paid and the local and company codes for installation of gas lines are met. D. Engineering: Having reviewed the application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The applicant will need to submit a plat for the final development plan which meets the requirements in section 7-1004 (D) (1) (a) (3) and (D) (2) (a) of the Land Use Code. Since the conceptual site plan which was submitted did not have the required utility meter locations, these will need to be shown on the above mentioned plat. 2. The design for the off-street parking spaces shows substandard widths. These spaces need to be redesigned to allow for an 8 1/2 foot width. 3. The applicant needs to follow the recommendation by Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon and Meyer that there be no placement of habitable space below existing grade because of the hazardous impact by off site drainage. 4. The 6 foot easement for the Aspen Mt. Rd. which has been proposed needs to be increased an additional 4 feet. The 771 Ute Townhouse development previously granted a 10 foot easement so this additional 4 feet will bring the width of this road up to the 20 foot standard that is required for emergency access. 5. The relocation of the Durant Mine water channel to a different 2 ",-.e' <.~____.,..",~~__...--"" ,.-.. alignment entering Glory Hole Park is not recommended due to the impact this would have to the park. Bill Ness of the Parks Department indicated that this new alignment would require a new channel through the park which in turn would impact the underground irrigation system. 6. The Public Right of Way on ute Avenue at this location is adequate. 7. The city requests that, in the event of major excavation on the site, any boulders larger than 36" which are not needed by the developer be provided to the city. 8. The applicant has shown a sidewalk and curb along the ute Avenue frontage on his site plan. At the present time we have direction from Council to postpone any sidewalk, curb and gutter construction until they make a decision on it this spring. We would, however, request that the applicant make an agreement to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter along ute Avenue when directed to by City Council. E. Housing: The Housing Authority has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: 1. The affordable housing component will consist of two studios of 500 square feet, four two-bedroom units of ~,OOO square feet per unit, and one three-bedroom unit of 1,500 square feet (to be restricted as a resident occupied unit). A total of thirteen bedrooms will be reconstructed in the A.H.U. (Affordable Housing Unit) component in a cluster of two buildings located at the rear of the parcel for a total floor area of 6,500. 2. The four two-bedroom units will rent for $890.00 per month, as according to the 1989 Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines. This rent is based on a charge of $.89 x 1,000 s.f.= $890.00 per month. 3. The owner shall provide an approved and recorded copy of deed restriction indexing the two studios and four two-bedroom units to the current affordable housing moderate income price and rental guidelines and the "Resident Occupied" three bedroom unit to the allowable current guidelines applicable to "Resident Occupied". 4. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the A.H.U.'s must comply with the current moderate income price and rental guidelines for the studios and two-bedroom units. Verification of employment and residency will be provided to the Housing Authority for the "resident occupancy unit". Verification shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by Owner prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the APCHA (Aspen pitkin County Housing Authority). 3 ,r \ 5. Leases for these units will need to supply a minimum of six (6) consecutive months. 6. Present tenants will need to be given first option for occupancy of the A.H.U.s to avoid further displacement of our working community. 7. Parking will need to be addressed with additional information as to possible present tenancy requirement in steps three and four for the A.H.U.s. STAFF COMMENTS: A. proiect Description The parcel, located at 831 ute Avenue, is zone R-6/PUD. The site area is 17,975 square feet. Currently, there are twelve dwelling units on the site for a total floor area of 5,655. The Zoning Officer has determined that four of the units are legal units. The property is adjacent to the L/TR zone district. A private road separates the 777 ute development to the north (L/TR) from the project property and a dedicated trail easement runs behind the property. The Aspen Alps are up the hill from the property on the other side of the trail easement. The applicants propose to develop four, three-bedroom, free market units and seven deed restricted dwelling units ranging from studios to three-bedroom units. This property has a long history of providing affordable housing to residents who are employed in the community. Approximately one year ago, Deane Billings, the prior owner of the property, attempted to sell. In an effort to preserve their housing, tenants formed a partnership to redevelop the property in a manner that preserved local/affordable housing and was sensitive to the goals of the community. In order to support this type of development, a mixture of free market and deed restricted units are proposed for this site. Although a rezoning to the Affordable Housing Zone District will not work for this project, the applicants are confident that the proposed mixture of free and affordable units, made possible by a rezone to RMF/PUD, can work. Not only is the proposal intended to replace existing long-term community housing, it also incorporates affordable housing in an area that has become primarily second homes and meets the goal of integrating employee housing in all neighborhoods. The redevelopment of the parcel requires demolition of the existing units. As you are well aware, there is a moratorium 4 ~ --- preventing the demolition of mUlti-family buildings which precludes the submittal of any application requiring demolition of mUlti-family. However Council, at their October 9 meeting, amended the moratorium resolution to allow the submittal of an application, that required demolition, but which proposes to replace 100% of the existing floor area and 100% of existing bedrooms on site. This proposal accomplishes those two criteria. The proj ect also requires a rezoning of the property. The property is now zoned R-6/PUD. The allowed uses for this site are either: two, detached single family; 1 duplex; or one single family. This lot is not eligible for a lot split. It has already been divided. Thus, for the proposes of this project, it is necessary for the applicant to rezone the property to RMF/PUD. Zoning requires a map amendment. The review process for a rezoning technically begins at the third step of PUD review. However, staff believes that rezoning the parcel is a threshold issue that determines the viability of this proposal. To facilitate a more thorough review, this memo will cover the general criteria of rezoning. B. Review Process Many facets of review are required for this application. The process is as follows: step 1 - P&Z conceptual PUD; inclusion of Planning Director sign-off for GMQS exemption for replacement housing; and review of rezoning as a threshold issue. step 2 - Council conceptual PUD, public hearing; review of rezoning as a threshold issue. step 3 - P&Z final PUD, public hearing; rezoning, first step, public hearing; sUbdivision, first step, pUblic hearing; special review reduction in parking; and special review FAR increase 1:1 to 1.1:1. step 4 - Council rezoning, public hearing; final PUD; subdivision; GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing; condominumization; and vested rights and PUD/Subdivision Ordinance, first reading. 5 -- step 5 - Council second reading Ordinance, public hearing. C. POD Review section 7-903 B. outlines the review standards for a conceptual PUD as follows: 1. General requirements a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The 1973 plan identifies this area as mixed residential. The intent of the project is to replace existing employee housing with permanent housing that is affordable. This is made possible through the sale of the four free market units to be built along ute Avenue. Affordable replacement housing has been a primary goal of the City Administration for some time. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: The project is consistent with the surrounding land uses as they are all mUlti-family, except for one single family residence on Original street. Glory Hole Park which is across the street. This is a high density area of the City. The parcel is adjacent to the L/TR zone. A more detailed review of the surrounding land uses will be given in the formal rezoning review. c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: Future development shall not be affected as the surrounding property is high density development and consistent with the proposed, except for Glory Hole Park. The rear of the property is bounded by a dedicated trail easement. This trail may be impacted by the reduction of the rear yard setback. The land on the other side of the trail easement is very steep and potential development, if any should occur, should not be affected. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: GMQS exemption is requested for the reconstruction of the four legal units on site. GMQS exemption is also requested for the seven affordable housing units on site. 6 r \, 2. Density a. General - the maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying Zone District and may be reduced. RESPONSE: the proposed density of the project is consistent with that permitted in the underlying zone district when rezoned to RMF/PUD. According to the Code, the necessary lot area for the proposed unit/bedroom configuration is 12,500 s.f. The lot area exceeds what is required as the parcel is 17,240 square feet. It is unnecessary to propose a reduction in density. Water pressure utilities are sufficient to service the project and the project is easily accessed by ute Avenue and Original. A soils report has found the land suitable for development and the buildings are being built on grade instead of being lowered by five feet due to occasional water runoff in the area. There will be no wood-burning fireplaces in the project and any wood- burning stoves will be certified. The design and location of the development is compatible with the terrain which is gradually sloping and void of vegetation. b. Reduction in Density for Slope Consideration RESPONSE: Reduction in density for slope consideration is unnecessary as the site has no slopes over 20%. 3. Land Uses The applicant proposes to rezone to RMF/PUD from R-6. Multi- family residential is a permitted land use in the RMF/PUD Zone district. 4. Dimensional Requirements The project complies with all dimensional requirements, (including lot area), except height, side and rear yard setbacks, and open space. The applicant is also requesting an increase in external FAR. PUD review enables variations in dimensional requirements. a. The height limit in the RMF zone is 25 feet. RESPONSE: The applicant requests a five foot variance for the four free market units and one of the two A.H.U. clusters for a proposed height of 30 feet. Because of occasional runoff, as addressed in the letter from Jay Hammond of Schmeuser Gordon, it is unadvisable for any living or storage space to be constructed below grade. This includes the garage spaces for the free market units. Therefore, what is usually a below grade third floor in most Aspen buildings, must 7 ",,,,...~ be accommodated above grade for this project. The roofs are flat with internal drains to minimize runoff and erosion. To minimize the impact of increased height on the units along ute Avenue, the applicants have increased the front yard setbacks, for three of the units, from the required 10 feet to 20 feet along ute Avenue. As is diagramed by the height study on the site plan, the view plan is less impaired with increased setbacks. The cluster of A.F.U.s that are proposed to be 30 feet are built into the hill at the rear of the parcel. Above the project is the Aspen Alps. A very dense development with large buildings. It is unlikely that the increased height of the rear building would impact any development to the rear of the property. Adj acent to the proj ect, to the southeast, is the Black Swan residential units. The side of the Black Swan that faces the proposed project is predominantly windowless. The increased height is of concern to staff, specifically the ute Avenue units and their impact upon the adjacent 777 ute development. However, this site is fairly constrained by drainage and the inability to provide underground parking, requiring ramps. Ramps would eliminate the parking area for the A.F.U.s. b. Side yard setback - the required side yard is 5 feet. RESPONSE: In two locations the design requires a side yard variance. The requested variations are approximately 20 feet long and a maximum of three feet into the side yard. The lot is very oddly shaped. The lot varies in width from 142.39 feet to zero in the rear. The locations of the reduction in setbacks are next to the dedicated trail easement that runs behind the property. It does not impact the private road that separates the project from 777 ute Avenue. c. Rear yard setback - the required rear yard setback is 10 feet. RESPONSE: Because of the odd shape of the lot the design requires a setback variance of approximately 20 feet long and maximum of 7 feet into the rear yard. As previously discussed, the rear boundary of the property is a dedicated trail easement with a steep slope rising up from the trail to the Alps development. Thus impact should be negligible. d. Open space - 35% open space is required. 8 ...- RESPONSE: Approximately 35% of the site is uncovered space. Most of the open space is the interior of the lot between the free market units on ute Avenue and the A.F.U.s clustered at the rear of the property. Although the property is bordered on one side by the trail easement, open to view cannot be counted from pedestrian routes. If this were not the case then the project would comply with the open space requirement. The applicants seek a variance from 35% open space to 29% open space. It is important to note that Glory Hole Park is directly across the street from the project thereby lending the perception of openness to the project. e. External FAR - a 1: 1 FAR is required in the RMF zone for mUlti-family dwellings. RESPONSE: The FAR may be increased to 1.1:1 by special review. The project is at 1:1 but the applicants will request an increase to 1.1:1 in steps 3 and 4 in order to accommodate architectural amenities which will enhance the project. 5. Ofr Street Parking NOTE: Special review for reduction in parking occurs at Step 3. The off-street parking requirements in the RMF zone are one space per bedroom for free market units and to be determined by special review for A.H.U.s. The applicants propose two garage parking spaces for each three-bedroom free market unit and seven to eight spaces for the seven A.H.U.s. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying Zone District based on the fOllowing project-related considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. RESPONSE: Currently the site is devoid of parking except for 2 spaces. The applicants propose approximately 16 spaces on site. The free market units are targeted toward the second home owner which, the applicants suspect, will not have more than ~ or 2 cars. Many residents now living on the property average one car. Because of the location of the site the use of the automobile is unnecessary for in-town oriented activities. b. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. RESPONSE: The project site is within roughly 1500 feet of the Ruby Park Transportation Center. Cooper Street is two blocks away providing bus transit services. There is a pedestrian/bike trail that extends up and down ute Avenue. In addition, there is 9 ~~ a dedicated trail easement behind the property. c. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the city. RESPONSE: The project is within one and one-half blocks of the Gondola and the commercial core. As required by PUD review for the reduction of parking the applicant can assure the City that the nature of the occupancy will not change. The seven A.H.U.s will be deed restricted pursuant to the Housing Authority Guidelines. 6. Open Space According to the Code, a variation in the minimum open space may be permitted if: a. such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD: RESPONSE: The variation in open space enables an effective separation of the free market units and A.F.U.s. The provision of the well defined, interior open space, separating the two A.H.U. clusters, prevents a crowded feeling and provides relief by drawing the wooded hillside down into the center of the project. Fortunately, the proj ect designers have been able to draw upon Glory Hole Park, directly across the street from the free market units, to enhance the perception of openness. b. the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: i. is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes: RESPONSE: The interior open space has a prominent water feature and is to be used for scenic landscaping. ii. is accessible and available to all dwelling units for whom the common area is intended: RESPONSE: All the A.F.U.s open onto the interior courtyard. The free market units have access to the courtyard from the rear of the units and are across the street from Glory Hole Park. The condominium declaration, to be reviewed at steps 3 and 4 if necessary, will provide for the permanent care and maintenance of the open spaces. 10 ~ - .,.....". 7. Landscape Plan The landscape plan shall be reviewed at steps 3 and 4. 8. Architectural site Plan The applicant has provided a conceptual site plan with locations of the building and an overview of the site. As part of steps 3 and 4 the applicant will provide an architectural site plan. 9. Lighting The lighting for the site shall be incorporated within the architectural site plan and shall be designed to reduce glare. 10. Clustering dwellings are clustered to the rear and sides of the site. interior open space is an important feature that enables the designed clustering of the A.H.U.s on the site. All the market units are joined together along ute Avenue. The The well free 11. Public Facilities As exhibited by the referral comments, this project can be serviced at no additional cost to the public. It is necessary to connect the project to the public water system. There is sufficient water available and pressure to service this project. The applicant will seek a tap fee waiver but will pay all hard costs for hook up to the City water system. All the buildings are arranged as to be accessible to emergency vehicles. 12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the Planned unit Development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. RESPONSE: The free market units have pedestrian access directly onto ute Avenue. By vehicle, both the free market units and the A.H.U.s must access ute Avenue via a 12 foot private roadway. This is the road that separates the 777 ute development from this project. Pursuant to the Subdivision (Exception) Agreement for 777 ute Avenue, the owners shall pave the private road. The private road has been dedicated to public use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by 11 ~ through traffic. RESPONSE: Al though the application states that the vehicular access into the center of the project is wide enough to permit smooth traffic flow into and out of the parking area, staff is concerned that this area is too tight. Although the demand for vehicles should be reduced, due to the location of the project, the parking spaces are small and the width between the two free market units and A.H.U.s is somewhat cluttered. Pedestrian access from the A.H.U.s appears confined as all walks lead to the parking area verses onto a pedestrian oriented circulation pattern. This seems unfortunate as the project is gearing toward the pedestrian via reduction in numbers of parking spaces. c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. RESPONSE: The project is reducing the current congestion on ute Avenue by providing 14 new off-street parking spaces. Two off- street spaces currently exist. Again the project is designed around auto disincentives. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60 ') feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: Every residential building is within 60 feet of the central parking area, which provides vehicular access to a public street. e. All non-residential land uses within the Development (PUD) shall have direct access to a arterial street without creating traffic hazards or any street. Planned unit collector or congestion on RESPONSE: The trash area, garage and storage areas are first accessed by the private roadway and their use should not cause traffic congestion on the public streets. The design of the trash service area may constrain efficient piCk-up. f. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. 12 RESPONSE: The private roadway along the north west border is to be improved by the owners of the 777 ute development within the City regulations and ordinances. D. Rezoninq Review It is necessary for the applicants to seek a rezoning of the parcel from R-6 pun to RMF PUD. Typically rezon~ng is not reviewed until steps 3 and 4. However, because rezoning is vital to the success of this project, staff believes that preliminary review of the rezoning criteria should take place at steps 1 and 2. If the Commission finds for one reason or another that rezoning is a problem, staff recommends the project be tabled until the issue can be resolved. This will prevent the applicant from prematurely preparing a final application. Pursuant criteria specific to section 7-1102 of the Code, the following are for a map amendment (staff has only responded criteria that we perceive as pivotal at this point): the to a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: To the north and west of the project is the L/TR zone. To the south and east of the project is R-6 PUD, to the north and east directly across ute Avenue is the park zoned P and across the park to the north and east is a large area zoned RMF. The L/TR zone is more intensive than RMF. The RMF zone is a more transitional zone between the L/TR and the R-6 extending to the R-15 which extends along ute Avenue. d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 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. f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. 13 , g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Rezoning of the parcel will enable a proposal that is intended to preserve the community character of this parcel with the provision of affordable units on site. h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: Although the parcel is zoned R-6, there is one single family home, diagonally across ute Avenue from the project that is consistent with this zoning. The property is surrounded by mUlti-family development. The underlying zoning no longer reflects the changes that have occurred. This parcel is surrounded by multi-family development. 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: Staff has some concern regarding other property owners seeking a rezoning to RMF/PUD. However, no other applicant in town has yet to submit a development proposal that replaces 100% of the bedrooms and FAR on site with deed restricted affordable housing. This proposal will provide more than 50%, of the total proposed units, deed restricted units on site in a manner that champions the primary goals of this City Administration. Because of these unique characteristics, staff is comfortable in recommending a rezoning for this parcel. Staff also believes that this project is setting a strong precedent for differentiating this proposal from other rezoning requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that P&Z recommend to Council conceptual PUD approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will need to submit a plat for the final development plan which meets the requirements in section 7-1004 (D) (1) (a) (3) and (D) (2) (a) of the Land Use Code. Since the conceptual site plan which was submitted did not have the required utility meter locations, these will need to be shown on the above mentioned plat. 2. Off-street parking spaces shall be redesigned to allow for an 8 1/2 foot width. 3. There shall be no placement of habitable space below existing grade because of the hazardous impact by off site drainage. 4. An additional 4 foot easement for the Aspen Mt. Rd. is required to bring the width of this road up to the 20 foot 14 .' standard that is required for emergency access. 5. The relocation of the Durant Mine water channel to a different alignment entering Glory Hole Park is not recommended due to the impact this would have to the park. 7. The city requests that, in the event of major excavation on the site, any boulders larger than 36" which are not needed by the developer be provided to the city. 8. The applicant curb and gutter Council. shall make an agreement to construct sidewalk, along ute Avenue when directed to by City 9. There shall be no direct connection between the municipal water system and the informal water system, to preclude the possibility of back siphonage or potential contamination. 10. There shall be no wood-burning fireplaces and any wood- burning stoves will be certified. 11. The four two-bedroom units will rent for $890.00 per month, (moderate) as according to the 1989 Affordable Employee Housing ~'--Guidelines. ~ 12. The owner shall provide an approved and recorded copy of deed restriction indexing the two studios and four two-bedroom units to the current affordable housing moderate income price and rental guidelines and the "Resident Occupied" three bedroom unit to the allowable current guidelines applicable to "Resident Occupied". 13. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the A.H.U.'s must comply with the current moderate income price and rental guidelines for the studios and two-bedroom units. Verification of employment and residency will be provided to the Housing Authority for the "resident occupancy unit". Verification shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by Owner prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the APCHA (Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority). 14. The units shall be leased a minimum of six (6) consecutive months. 15. Present tenants shall be given first option for occupancy of the A.H.U.s. 16. The applicants should continue to work with the design of the buildings to lower the exceeded height. 17. Staff is concerned that the vehicular circulation area is too confined. The applicants should continue to work with the configuration of the parking area. 15 r" \., . ~8. The applicants should attempt to improve the pedestrian access and circulation from the A.H.U.s. 19. The applicants shall provide evidence that the trash service area enable efficient pick-up. ATTACHMENTS: GMQS Exemption, Planning Director Sigh-off site Plan Zoning Summary and Setback & Height Study Applicant Rezoning Request Referral Comments billings.pz 16 , '" MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont RE: Billings GMQS Exemption for Replacement units DATE: December 13, 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption for the reconstruction of existing residential units at 831 ute Avenue, Aspen. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to section 8-104, the Planning Director shall exempt the reconstruction of an existing building which does not create additional dwelling units or involve a change of use. An applicant may also propose to delay reconstruction of existing dwelling units. The number of legal units must be verified and reconstruction will be pursuant to the applicable review process. FINDINGS: The applicants propose to demolish 12 residential units. Four of those units have been determined legal units. Please see attached memo from the Zoning Officer. The redevelopment of the parcel includes four free market units and seven deed restricted affordable units. The affordable units are subject to GMQS exemption from Council. The applicants have submitted an application for review and rezoning. PUD review is a four Reconstruction cannot occur until all the review been completed. conceptual PUD step process. processes have RECOMMENDATION: replacement of 4 condition: Staff recommends GMQS exemption for the residential units by 4 new 3-bedroom units with 1. prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall have received Final PUD, Subdivision, and rezoning approval. I hereby approve the above Growth Management Quota exemption pursuant to section 8- 4 A.1 & 2 of the Aspen U irector ~ ;:J . z ~ > . <C . ~ Eo-< ~-" ~ ".--- w ... ::> ~ r..Ll VJ ... '>l;:)"''CI.1.~S O"llv.l.. 11000.,1 ,01 0, , -- -- 7 === = - ~ " I I tD.~ ~. .1 - , . t , _.", ..~ !:J........~~~~I~..",. f,i~ ,. Q J <.: ~~ e~ ~ ~ i0 ne -....=:.,- ~ / , I c ~ ~". , ~ ) ~ <, ....0 ^ -I ..' c r " )- / < < . , - / j " .,/ :/ . r ~. o 0 o ~ I o ~ >.. \oI~; ~ "0 :- .t f ~ ~ o ~ 0 i " v, Z .J. ~ < ~ 7 'f <. i: G ~,;. z <( -l ~ W,] r- I C/J U.) U.)C/J E-<;:J ;:JO ::c r---Z r---;::: r---O ...... C/J E-" z- w.:l~ :2:7 " - o ....l w.:l > w.:l o + r , ,,}~-. .: (, ~i,;: '1' " r. <i,' I (: AVENUE / NmE: " ;IGH BUILDING SET BACK 10', AS OFF MORE VIEW TIlAN 30' BUILDING SETBACK 20' t: ~ t: Ii! :t 'on~b ~ :ACK & HEIGHT STUDY ':l scale: I" = 10' \\ ZONING SUMMARY _,SITE COVERAGE ...\ P SITE AREA: EASEMENTDEOUCTION AEMAINING SITE AREA (RMF ZONE) 17.97550$1 7350051 11.2.05011 AFU1.1sl@400S1 ]510,", j.2bt(i:l800sl AFU1.1SI@400., lIte.., '.2b,@IlOOsl AFU\'2b,@IlOOSl 2s10'}' "FU12b!@800s1 25\Ory FOOTPRIH1" <'0'10 4oooos1 '" 1)000011 20.20 4000011 \200.0011 20.20 1000011 80000.' <'0.20 4000011 8oooo.! AFU1'3b'@1,llOOsl 3510ry AFU Garage & 510,age1 slOry FMU'S4.39A@3.000 ]$101)' 245.245 25.25 25.15 60000.1 62500.1 'f",~,OO $1 1,'OOOO.lfn,o.~1<x"uJ:'''':.'''' ''''' 13.50000.1 '2.00000Il~,..""el:"JSOO".-<iuC,," FOOTPRIN1'.TOTALAREA: 7,32(.00 TOTAL FAR: 17,XlO.00 ~ 0. ele I il"<:l..c:led in !~,. 1'''''' OPEN SPACE: pa,.ingCo...'''9'' Su".......CourtyarO$ Trash"'.. Foot in! 'n SITE COVEAAG .Sybll>l.-I 3.771.0051 e....Hu'$.5"MUl;A'S-16~~IC,.1 0,00$1 7000sl (7,10) , """ 11,1",0011 6,0:M.Usl ..,""fIOs! lI'lllSOK AEOU1AEO 35% O,"EN S,"ACE ACTUAL O,"EN S,"ACE. No'-~""'O$Ie"spIla>came' ~llinparlu"'il.n."'O<COyrryl~I""" o'mo _.. ..de MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREME"'TS P.MFZ_ (lSs"","~!oO%AHrepl8Ol-d) ""''''' 1,00000 1,~00 OC I ,~OO 00 1.000 00 SI 1.0000011 ',fIOOOO 6000OC'sl 125<":' OV $I.I~ .0551 OK' FAI{ '~,!-:,4 5~ ., .. "Spr<olIl ..r"..... ';JNIOC'sl.1ew..5 , 1I""....~1e fill; . ~.". ~"'d' , , ACly"IF"R FAR (HABITABLE) REPLACEMENT IJEDROOI\1S " I>.H O,,,,nlr>e:e calli 10' ,epl..,.,... '0""", h<sr~ ~..O'OOrT"; ~,('5~ $' 1'(" '1'11<,' GI'I9M O"P'~lngl, elC ..,lyOl'O _72s'meoc;l'l 'n(:'yOP<' ~ eO('1'1 ",on .~ ~5~~1 O!<- ~a~~nl 110< /. "",c~an"'.1 I'lCL 'nc:lyon~ A.S Fl I~e..o II.. I" or "'III . y""",n" JlEIGHT PARKING 3 Slor1 Slryc\u'ei 130.) ..ill 'f'Qy". ,"UO appro~II...1'lO l>elowll,aoe ~~'f1ll unn~ t*o;.;Iu'-" 0' pOle~'I; 'u"C" ~'ct,~-, IF~U'S " 1 splCe~.cl<oom.'Kluce 10 i beUIIII 2nd tlOmeli ~.Soecial~,,"," -".-- G.MQ_S .~. SETBACKS . uiSI'!J ~al ynil$ IhuS uempll.om CoMOS A,lyal " , , Aeqyi.lIO " , " 1l;..e5 elly rror.open s.pac:e onUleA~'r\ye nHOPUO...mplion nppoPUC... bon FronlVlrO SlOI!Yercls Ro.a,Ya.cls ",.,., LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE ..JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO Bleil .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, ..JR. TELEPHONE (303) Q2!5.7I1e FAX 13031 Q2!5-eeOe .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS. III November 2, 1989 Welton Anderson, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Rezoning of the Billings Property (831 Ute Avenue) Dear Mr. Anderson: Our office represents the Nelson/Devore Partnership which purchased the property known as the Billings Property on November 1, 1989. It is the intent of the Nelson/Devore Partnership to redevelop the Billings Property with four free-market units and approximately seven affordable housing units. The affordable housing component of the project will have more F.A.R. than the existing habitable F.A.R. currently on that property and will have more bedrooms than currently exist on that property. In order to redevelop the property, the Nelson/Devore Partnership will require that the property be rezoned. The property is currently zoned R-6, mandatory P.U.D.; and, on advice of the Planning Department, we will request that the property be rezoned to RMF, mandatory P.U.D. I will appear at your next P & Z meeting and, during citizens' comments, request the commission approve sponsorship of the Billings property for a rezoning in order that the Nelson/Devore Partnership may file its ,.~.,. . " .~ Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 1989 Page 2 application for rezoning with its application as soon as possible. questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, L/38 cc Amy Margerum Leslie Lamont / .... conceptual P . U. D. I f you haye any ,.... - w~ ~~VA~ pj)~ 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925,2690 TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Wayne Vandemark RE: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 DATE: November 20, 1989 This project is within a four minute response time from the Fire Station. There is an ample water supply by fire hydrant to supply the required fire flow. --- C ASPEN.PITKIN --.., ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont Planning Office From: Carolyn Hardin, Environmental Health OfficeItJ~ Environmental Health Department 0 Date: November 28, 1989 Re: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Aspen/pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Requlations On Individual Sewaqe Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers". ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici- pal water utility system". The current domestic water supply for the property is an informal system that consists of surface water that originates at the Durant Mine. When the new project is connected to the Aspen Water Department distribution system, there shall be no direct connection between the municipal system and the informal system, to preclude the possibility of back siphonage or potential contamination. AIR QUALITY: In a review of the application, there was no comment made regarding the effect of this proposal on air quality issues. 130 South Galena Street; Aspen. Colorado 81611 303/920-15070 -. V ASPEN.PITKIN ',/ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT - with that understanding the following is offered. The applicant shall comply with all regulations that pertain to air pollution. applicable laws and Currently they are: Aspen Municipal Code, Ordinance 88-20 which requires the registration of all gas and woodburning devices in a building. Ordinance 86-5 which describes types and numbers of woodburning devices that can be installed. Regulations 1,3 and 8 of the Colorado Air Ouality Control Requlations and Ambient Air Ouality Standards. These regulations address fugitive dust control plans, emission control permits, and demolition of buildings which may contain asbestos containing material. NOISE: No long term noise impacts are anticipated on the immediate neighborhood as a result of the approval of this project. However, it is predicted that short term noise impacts on the neighborhood will occur during the construction phase of this project. Should complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be the document used in the investigation. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Not applicable. CONTAMINATED SOILS: The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a requirement, but simply a experience in dealing with mine waste impacts to humans. request based on past and possible negative 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado a161., 303/920-15070 ,....., November 13, 1989 To: Nelson/Zeeb Construction CO INC. Drawer 5409 Avon, CO 81620 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Rocky Mounta!n Natural Gas Division of K N ENERGY, Inc. has the capacity and capability to serve the Project at 831 Ute Ave in Aspen Colorado as long as the appropriate forms are filled out, the necessary costs are paid and the local and company codes for instalation of gas lines are met. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, call me at 1/925-2323. Sincerely, ~y~~c~ ~ uJJJh District Manager cc: John Wilson File 113 Atlantic Ave. AA.B.C Aspen. Cnlor,l(lll XIflIl (;)0;;1 !iJ;";.:!:)~:) t;J:.u'..:i-.... ,. Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation cJJistlfict 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537 December 18, 1989 Les lie Lamont Planning Office 130 S. Galena St. Aspen. CO 81611 Re: Bil lings Conceptual PUD Dear Leslie: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient treatment capacity at the present time to serve this project. The project will necessitate a collection system upgrade downstream of the project, which we estimate to cost approximately $9000 and this will be added to the applicant's connection costs. All of the abandoned service lines on site must be removed and capped. A line extension will be required in order to connect units E through K to our system. The alignment for the connection of units A through D can only be determined once it is know whether these units will be townhomes or condominiums. If this project is completed under the auspices of affordable employee housing, then it may be in the applicant's best interest to have the on-site collection system engineering completed by the District's engineer in order keep costs to a minimum. Sincerely, ~~~ -kcq~'z5 Bruce Matherly cc: Nelson/Devore Partnership MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: December 11, 1989 RE: Billings Conceptual PUD --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The applicant will need to submit a plat for the final development plan which meets the requirements in section 7-1004 (D) (1) (a) (3) and (D) (2) (a) of the Land Use Code. Since the conceptual site plan which was submitted did not have the required utility meter locations, these will need to be shown on the above mentioned plat. 2. The design for the off-street parking spaces shows substandard widths. These spaces need to be redesigned to allow for an 8 1/2 foot width. 3. The applicant needs to follow the recommendation by Jay Hammond of Schnueser, Gordon, and Meyer that there be no placement of habitable space below existing grade because of the hazardous impact by off site drainage. 4. The 6 foot easement for the Aspen Mt. Rd. which has been proposed needs to be increased an additional 4 feet. The 771 Ute Townhouse development previously granted a ~O foot easement so this additional 4 feet will bring the width of this road up to the 20 foot standard that is required for emergency access. 5. The relocation of the Durant Mine water channel to a different alignment entering Glory Hole Park is not recommended due to the impact this would have to the park. Bill Ness of the Parks Department indicated that this new alignment would require a new channel through the park which in turn would impact the underground irrigation syste~. 6. The Public Right of Way on ute Avenue at this location is adequate. 7. The city requests that, in the event of major excavation on the site, any boulders larger than 36" which are not needed by the developer be provided to the City at the Marolt Property or the 8. The applicant has shown a sidewalk and curb along the ute Avenue frontage on his site plan. At the present time we have direction from Council to postpone any sidewalk, curb and gutter construction until they make a decision on it this spring. We would, however, request that the applicant make an agreement to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter along ute Avenue when directed to by City Council. jgAi~ '----_./ cc: Bob Gish Chuck Roth ". , MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning FROM: Yvonne Blocker, Housing RE: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 DATE: December 2, 1989 --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Applicant requests GMQS exemption, map amendment to R/MF zoning, and conceptual PUD approval for a project located at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Applicant requests exemption pursuant to 8-104A.l.a., Land Use Regulations, for the reconstruction of the four units on the property to comprise the F.M.U. component of the project. The project will have a free market component consisting of four three-bedroom units. Each three bedroom free market unit will be a three story structure to be a total of 3,000 square feet. Applicant is required to provide one parking space per bedroom in the rezoned R/MF zone district. Applicant is requesting a variance of this requirement as to his proposal of providing two parking spaces below the F.M.U. 's in a private garage for each unit Applicant requests exemption by City Council for the A.H.U. component pursuant to 8-104C.l.c., Land Use Regulations. The affordable housing component will consist of two studios of 500 square feet, four two-bedroom units of 1,000 square feet per unit, and one three-bedroom unit of 1,500 square feet. A total of thirteen (13) bedrooms will be reconstructed in the A.H.U. component in a cluster of two (2) buildings located at the rear of the parcel. The Applicant is supplying eight (8) parking spaces for the seven (7) units which contain thirteen (13) bedrooms. Applicant has requested special Review pursuant to 5-301B of the Land Use Regulations. The Applicants have requested (1,500) square foot unit be occupied". the three bedroom fifteen hundred restricted to use as "resident 1 APPLICANT: Nelson/Devore partnership, 1280 ,ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado represented by Joseph E. Edwards, III. ZONE: R-6 STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicants have been notified that they have four "legal " units with a total of twelve bedrooms in these units. These units contain an existing habitable floor area of 5,655 square feet. The Applicants request for exemption pursuant to 8-104A.l.a. of the Land Use Regulations which states: (1) The remodeling, restoration, or reconstruction of an existing building which does not expand commercial or office floor area or create additional dwelling, hotel or lodge units or involve a change in use. No bandit unit shall be remodeled, restored or reconstructed unless it has first been legalized pursuant to section 5-510. The Applicant is proposing to reconstruct the four F .M. U. 's as luxury town homes of approximately 3,000 square feet each, providing at least three bedrooms and two parking spaces per unit. The Applicant is requesting G.M.Q.S. exemption by City Council for the A.H.U. component pursuant to 8-104C.1.c. of the Land Use Regulations which state: " All housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a 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 development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted." The Applicant is proposing to build an Affordable Housing component to consist of two studios with five hundred (500) square feet each, four two-bedroom units with one thousand (1,000) square feet each, and one three-bedroom unit to consist of fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. 2 Seven (7) units are proposed to include thirteen (13) bedrooms with a total of six thousand five hundred (6,500) FAR. The square footage proposed for the two studio units at 500 square feet and the four two-bedroom units at 1,000 square feet will be restricted to the allowable moderate income rental guidelines as adopted by the APCHA on annual basis. The three-bedroom fifteen hundred (1,500) square foot has been requested by Applicant to be a "resident occupied unit". This unit will be restricted to occupancy of a "qualified resident" which shall mean an resident working a minimum of 30 hours per week and nine months per year. Parking has been proposed at eight spaces for the seven units. These seven units will contain total of thirteen bedrooms. Parking has been stated by applicant for the A.H.U. 's to be provided as " the need for more than one car per household as doubtful". In the recent lease up of Truscott Place a 100% employee housing project, parking was provided at one space per unit. The proximity of the golf course facility provides additional parking for overnight/guest parking. This location will not allow off- site parking to accommodate overnight/guest parking as the access road to the property is insufficient for the requirements of emergency vehicles at a width of twelve (12) feet and therefore, cannot accomodate off-site parking of any kind. The four two-bedroom units will rent for $890.00 per month, as according to the 1989 Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines. This rent is based on a charge of $.89 X 1,000 S.F. = $890.00 per month. Rent at $890.00 will prove to be supplied by two tenants, a married working couple, or joint tenancy Single parent households can not provide this amount our community at this time. individual in common. of rent in The proximity to the downtown core area can accommodate the lack of parking for this project, however, this project would have to be designed to accommodate a specific target group to be two working tenants with one or no vehicle. Parking will need to be addressed in steps three and four of this application as to the realistic needs of the community at large. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: reconstruction of the this property based on Staff recommends approval of the four F.M.U. 's and the seven A.H.U. 's on the following conditions: 3 1. Owner provides an approved and recorded copy of deed restriction indexing the two studios and four two-bedroom units to the current affordable housing moderate income price and rental guidelines and the "Resident occupied" three bedroom unit to the allowable current guidelines applicable to "Resident Occupied". 2. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the A.H.U's must comply with the current moderate income price and rental guidelines for the studios and two-bedroom units. Verification of employment and residency will be provided to the Housing Authority for the "resident occupancy unit". Verification shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by Owner prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the APCHA. 3. Leases for these units will need to supply a minimum of six (6) consecutive months. 4. Deed restriction will need to be approved and recorded by the APCHA prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. Present tenants will need to be given first option for occupancy of the A.H.U. units to avoid further displacement of our working community. 6. Parking will need to be information as to possible present three and four for the A.H.U. 's. addressed with additional tenancy requirements in steps 4 . , " ", ./ MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont RE: Billings GMQS Exemption for Replacement Units DATE: December 13, 1989 ================================================================= SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption for the reconstruction of existing residential units at 831 ute Avenue, Aspen. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to section 8-104, the Planning Director shall exempt the reconstruction of an existing building which does not create additional dwelling units or involve a change of use. An applicant may also propose to delay reconstruction of existing dwelling units. The number of legal units must be verified and reconstruction will be pursuant to the applicable review process. FINDINGS: The applicants propose to demolish 12 residential units. Four of those units have been determined legal units. Please see attached memo from the Zoning Officer. The redevelopment of the parcel includes four free market units and seven deed restricted affordable units. The affordable units are subject to GMQS exemption from Council. The applicants have submitted an application for review and rezoning. PUD review is a four Reconstruction cannot occur until all the review been completed. conceptual PUD step process. processes have RECOMMENDATION: replacement of 4 condition: Staff recommends GMQS exemption for the residential units by 4 new 3-bedroom units with 1. prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall have received Final PUD, Subdivision, and rezoning approval. I hereby approve the above Growth Management Quota exemption pursuant to section 8- 4 A.1 & 2 of the Aspen U irector ~':.. , , ; Estimated Cost $--3.~,C""Slf------- Building Fee $___mulC1..Q(L~~':-':u /,'''- 'f. -- '71=c 1 Date c.:. :,__1'.l!I'_Uu.:u....,J.9.2!L___ ~,~___ APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Permission is hereby requested to perform and do the work. repairs, construction, alteration or development described as follows: Ute Ava. Lt. 14, &0 e strip 68x58 to tho rear in Ute Add. ~ Location by Street No, and Lot and Block No. Zoning Classification: Trn11'1st Name and address of owner Deane Billinl!8 lit... ~VA"nA IIsr"'", Colo. Name and address of contractor, architect or builder ........ Estimated Cost $3500.00 Type Construction stone and masonry Intended use and purpose rental apartments Number living units '3 No. Rooms . 6 Height 12 ' Distance from iot lines Width 24' N- 112 ' Length 55 ' ; S- 6' Sq, Feet 1080 E- 6' w- 6' Distance from finished grade to bottom of footings Size of footings Thickness of 1st story walls Curb-cut (Width and location) Style and pitch of roof Joists, floor supports and rafters: (Give size, distance apart, and materials:) FIrst Floor Thickness of Foundation Walls . Thickness of 2nd story walls Alley bond: Second Floor Rafters Floor supports Additional particulars and remarks: (U above data is inapplicable, describe In detail here the work or construc- tion contemplated) This Application is made with the specific understanding that it is subject to suspension or revocation for failure to comply with the terms and conditions (if any) upon which it is approved; for unauthorized deviation from the terms of the application, or laws of .Colorado. Applicant hereby warrants that he is authorized to make this application and agrees that the same shall be binding upon the owner, the applicant, their ,agents, heirs and assigns. All documents attached hereto are incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. Applicant agrees to notify the Building Inspector at least 24 hours in advance for inspection of footings, foundation" frame, lath, and roof; such inspections to be approved in writing before pro- ceeding further. The Building Inspector, or his agent or representative, is authorized to inspect the premises. (over) , ~ , " ~I ~ "= ('V1' II e. " I I ....--.-- "- 1 lI) :1 () I' 2- .(;- ...... <:::.. >;iI ~,* ----..- i ~ .---1 I;) T - ~ r i ( 112. ' -"- ::;~:,'Sfu_' ~~ .. 'k~, ~' L ~_!r" ~f~ .- ......-- "t'-'.4>"~"- __ ~__<lo. -~,;!.t:-- (: t- o + "" t-. <:- -r - ~ \'-..... *- ~ I ~ j: ..J"~ .. - ~ ~ '70' \ 1 \~ is'' .sh k ~ /,.,,,,J' 0$, I \ _ J( ,5 d J , T' \ L~Q~\J ! ., l "it v..l .." " <: !., \, \ I . ' \ 5.J;~'" ~' G j-; ~. , "-' ~ .'l\ "l .. ... "" ~'~'I:O >f~'" ,- ',' '~:..~ , " ~ Xi / Z /' ~ City of Aspen, Co!\. . ado ~,~.,= =,~ /~~o'~1 LD IN G ::~:,I~:~.l:~.... \ 7),/ /~ "L \.;t. (,-' PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED\.__~.6!..o,~____~.L"_,t, .'l.llL'J-____'_____''_____________'______'__n__'____ AS___,D-"'./:~~,________________\ TO_k~i:L___,.A,___~_I.______ STORY~-c:...{LlLe:.LC.,JLg ON LOT ,iL-tl2_____ BLOCK______~----d-----. ADDITION,LLL.:=____..i_[cJJ_______Q.1JL0_______ -'I . - I' "'? . -- ZONE,.."L2__L11-}.J_____________ tE DIST.___~_____=:--,-=_ OCCUPANCY -------~-~"---,-----,---"--. ADDIlESS_,,'_,~,~,~_____~~~_____~-~----~~~,",'--""'--",-"-,,,--,,--,-,-,,---,-------'--'-- - \ ~ "- TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION _______~ ~_____..lttt_--------,----dd--------------d------'------------~-~c-~-: . ~ , , ~--~ , . SIZE",__~,~---,J(-~--~----------~-----~-------~-~--"'-"-"--"'-------------,----------,-,--,--,--,-~-----. NUMBER LIVING UNITS--_______Ld__________________" NO, ROOMS_,_.d______d______~____L2L7~_.------ STYLE OF ROOF__n1.1___L.-r.il.PL...P..hiIL.ROOFING MATERIAL__g..;.LZ_j1/-__hj!U~ ARCHITECT _"_,______.,j~~_"'~________,d____'_______ ADDRESS,___d_________________________________________ r- ~ L/ I' .-A/ C". P CONTRACTOR___________J~_.:.1.l.i----------------------- ADDRESS___ _.J._.t:=....L:_..:~______~_C7_+__-------- ./ . . ~'P6/( If/ S#,/LL LE ~g->.-e-- O--:-.-("~'-A /. ~ ~, -;; c. tJ(),r. c!/LL h iZ YFs j?ec//t;/;/5 i' ~J k 1 -f' h//Y::-I? ff 5/ /;fE /?",/,,/',I'~cI , REMARKS: //L odft=~f-J22{~L:=;=LL2~-----d---- v City Clerk '.p "i. .... "f - ~. .,-.-.~ ~ , " $ty-dd -~...57d ~-1.1?TIate . i <!9--, f 9l0~ Filedd~nLL2K~__ Estimated Cost BUilding Fee $ - \ APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO THE B-; !~-AIIIJ~) '~'AI'iKltl[R~ PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO C'JT' a.f. 5?e:.i7. Permission is hereby requestc to perform and do the work, repairs construction alteration or development described as follows: B/LL /N G-S SeLf, 4..5~O 0 b;j Location by Street No. and ot and Block No. Zoning Classification: '/ d u If' ;.s / Name and address of owner 7),.1.1 E Name and address of contractor, architect or builder Estimated Cost ~ ~{7J tJ. ~ Type Construction Intended use and purpose G 7- // Number living units / Height Distance from lot lines !/TF )tJ8 !JiJ/ B.D. Sq, f/9'ct (tY / W-.f;:1g"'.. ; ; E- Size of footings Thickness of 1st story walls Curb.cut (Width and location) Style and pitch' of roof 0, :J /3i. Thickness of Foundation 'Valls ,f"'/ t&t':V /)~ss../>f~.st*,wa,y" .?- LZ:tr r..f!"..A" _00 L)~- , Joists, floor supports and rafters: (Give size, distance apart, and materials:) First Floor .f/ l' ~ ~ PtrdJ ,S.<UIlU Noor /0 p ~""';"'..j/ /$1' / ~) Rafters ~ supports Roof Material ~. 6f >f 2"4' B/b_ Alley bond: - ,g. h /1/ GJ L2b q< Q Additional particulars and remarks: (If above data is inapplicable, describe in detail here the work or co truc- tion contemplated.) ffi:r~dt?4 fnJ~, f{:r 7~ IS, 9JILf ~~ .& t1/~ 11 54,. ") ~~ w~/2. !d 31. ) ~ 11 ~f~ \ (over) ~~, ~~6,r _I _ r;- y- V- /~ &d~! I - "". ,. " -'j'. . or ' ,-i; '~-'lL-_~_~ tlIfI !t.. 3it 'liih ."'" 'fu ~ .'<0 ) .~- ~ Estimated' - jS<~'i}~(), - r".:3 ,,-r.' j4~t~~:~~ FO~~ILDING PERMIT /91'/~-? . . l:i ...l... {!l;/f /9 TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. CITY 010' ASPEN, I'ITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO D..tc FilcJ. II .J ,. D F~ S.. Permission is hereby requested to perform and do the work, repairs construction alteration or development described as follows; (ll,. //C' L.rl It SUD Div. (/7.;,::; . Location by Street No. and Lot and Block No. ~J '. . -'-. Zoning- Classification: _ ~ Name and address of owner --U..-t"""'.--r> ~ fj II <C'A..-..... ~ ~l r' . Name and address of contractor, or builder :\amc and address of arehitect Type Conslructio Intended use and purpos Sq. Feet w-iIZ >---- Number living unit '7' l'io. Room~ , No. of bath"" '?S--::' /1, 2.2:- Height Length Distance from lot lines K h. Ji-() S 1.2....~ ; E- Distance from finish,c,d grade.~ lIottorn,of footing~ . !if" Size of footing~ ~ X It, x. If? F- Thickness and Type of Foundation Wall~ Size and Type of 1st story wal1~ , y.:/ \' -) _ f" ~ .. (!c c.... ; R.O.W. tj y {; jJ,ffi / 9 ('...LAJ (&. ..J..,V I Size and Type of 2nd story wall" -+ 1",+ Style and pitch of roof Joists, floor supports and rafters: (Give size, distance apart, and materials:) First Floor F O>~, . Second Floof 3 f /(y" Floor support" s:: ~ Roof Materill1 1~~ u ,.;.+ ~p 7 ~J ~...I1.~ ~J. Additional particulars and remarks: (If a ove data IS mapphcable, descnbe In det;u! here the work or constructiOn contemplated.) Draw plot plan on reverse side. I( C'C Rafter~ :3 ~I the UJJ';':Pf..~~&k.aJtj,~f:: =~~io""~:i':lr;~e:h:;ndrcr,,~~':;n~n;':.t.i:~iI"iUb~::"'~ !:i:"~~".:'f::::~:.!:.l~J:.. ~~:':e:d,": aa::Ii~ti~:i=~h~ law. of Colorado. / -- /"'?-\ ....... v:J---- ~..,> Dat" and ,ign" thiLl'" . . .L-da:_~;~~~:7.?:/T~A~'~~~' Capacity:...... .....O..W..~__.._.__.______._.____.____.,_.__.. (Agent. Owner, Contractor, etc.) BUILDING PERMIT The aOO", and fO'~:i7Uil~~t:' :C np~rov", ,ubi~t to "'mplinn~ with the following eondition" /@J:t1..daYOf~..~~~~~9 Building Inspector. BUILDING PERMIT ED C'" .......~ Dated this The above and foregoing application for a Building Permit is hereby denied and rejected for the following reasons: Dated this _.dayof.. ....19. Buildinl;" Inspector. '1Il, "'ff" '1< 'l~; .' . I ." . r .,' i .1' T ,- .,'~.~ ............ '\I. .4"_ .-.- -~\ ..,.- ~.~- ".-. ~.*"'. .--:/ ~~M-rJ - y!;'~~N S .-- ~.lIJl*t ~ , t ~"f ;;"11 ~I'']J - 7-/-/ e~ .-,y- ~. G--/- /~ .3. t-I-~I( NIJS,'fN"'tF - dl,4..I...:...-..o- ""~ .-fe.. ~ (.)..1- H..~ c;J... - C,t .lnhQc/'.;c.. Jl.;Ji;"'\J~F 4-. vrf~. -~../ rI"/co/ - 5_,1.r~d__,t/ ~Q.v.' - .. la. /'I.>>"':""" ,4/1,.. e~ .,.c. Itn ,..:...... r; c. II ~" " (") - ..4v 10 I 4~- d. .".,11- .. 'f'e.l! ...... """".tIi-..... (c)(~) Jso #/f;t!)/ (4') r,.) T t r , ,. " ,.., ~ City of~pen, Colorado '!.;} , Street And Alley Excavation Permit "_~~._.___, QIl... \...x.. l.(J &.., . Addresll and Loeat1oD of Excav"on: \ -.J A.l"Qo<,,"-^-ur uiC Av",.O;2.t('I"t'.L~/~ PI.tot I I 0;1/1 - - r;;"'f 1- I ... ", .. . Type of Surface: I D LlliITITT r , t--AsPhalt Gravel o ~ , -~ Dirt 0 Ij) Y ') , ..J L I Intended Use of Excavation: 'Fo,," Opening Date. Dc ~ . "'I .1:.-1 Cl..ure Dat.. !)ec.. 8, , & " JI iEt. CPBu.-. I ,- .' " .. t This Permit is issued with the specific understandJn& that it 18 subject to suspension OJ' revocation for faUure to comply with the terms and conditiona of OrdJna.nce No, 7.1959 and all other ordinances governing excavation, ete,. within the City of Aspen and upon any other conditiODl (if any) upon which it is approved; or for unauthorized deviation from terms of the appllcatioD. or laws of Colorado, ~ Applicant hereby warrants that he .IJ authorized to make this application and agrees that the same shall be binding - upon the owner, the appllcaDt, their agents. heJn and uaJgna, All documents attached hereto are incorporated by reference 1fIiII<"'" and made a part hereof. Applicant aereu to DOUty the Building Inspector at least 24 hours in advance for inspection of Excavation, .f ' The BuUding IDapector. or b1J agent or representative. is authorized to inspect the excavation site, F Dated and algned lbla m'___? -;;'-~l mn.m~Z!I~'/cn7~' 19 ~~. /10 ~ . .. .;;C ;//' F!;", \:" -,.. X.. ...;;;'n~7~'~~'~~~ r. Cap"lty. '7'~~[:;';~r;C;~t;.?:i'~~~)-, . If' EXCAVATION PERMIT ! r The above and foregoing application for Street and Alley Excavation Permit is hereby approved. SUbject to compliance with the following conditions: f ,.~,. 7 Dated this ________________ '-e<:. G~ day of ------_________________., .._____ _______ 19___~~ It~~~~~_..mm_______ ~' I '~~:~:r~.~~::.~~~.g=::~ ~lfl~ , . ' . . /, /'" BUILDING DEPARTMENT Permit No . [)"t~' ....2 /(J, ) Owner f)t!.--!":.. .a,,-..,..-,.~--~-~---------- AcId... (ItrMtJ ___l.tI./.L.,_jJ ~ ---'--~-------.~ ~' ' Type of Bldg. __~n<'.,S__..n_ .q.uu~__n__n_u_ Lot ___._n___.. Block _u__o.____.. ^ddn._~.___,__u_ Contrector ____Q On_A __~__nu__u__..nu,__ Inst.... __.n_u___u....... Add.... _...u__u__ ., I -- Domestic & Com_reiel Applience. - No. description & BTU 11 GAS _ __.. .... ,__. n. __ ..____-; _..___'uu_.u. __ u ___u,,___uu:_____ u_ .....___ ,___ . -- __u___~- . . / - ,-'" ~ U - 'r.-- ' ./; Ge. L,ne: (Ien9~ & liel .-----------~--m-4-.z-jtI';F-,-:jum------n----~n//. -- . :,"f ~ Pre..ure Te.t . . Q..._.u pounds. On.t _uu_____.. Off et. _____...__u D.te ..u./!.;l , Fumece .rod/or Boiler . o..cription . BTU HEATING Hot Weter Werm Air -- ------------------------------------ - ..----- - ----------------- u_uu__n__. FEEuu____ PLUMBING Desc:tiption & No. of Fixture. _LAV _TOI _TUB -5H _KS __OW _GO .. .___ u.n '..__.__ FEE_____u, ------- .----------------------------------- -------" -- ---- - No. of Circuits, Size of Service & Feeder.. Moton. & Equipment ELECTRICAL ____uAMP Service Ent. ..' .. - - -- - - -- -- - .------- - ---------- -- -- --. - -- .-.------- -- -- --- - - --- - - ---- - - --- - -- - _. - ----..----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEL___m o Conduit o Romaa o I\tmor o..cription: (such e. Dryer, Dishw.....r. Softner. Wesher, Disposal. etc.) APPLIANCES REMARKS erod/or CORRECTIONS to be macIa before .pproval ------- , h ------------- ereby cerlify Ihal I h ,-----"--""""'tbw ~ fuI NIpOlllibility V I (2 aYe Inspect d h ------ en work at &',/ /' //\ e t e Gas and/or appo...d. done ~c e G *? ") r as & V ond Ih,1 il ",II enl Permil No - w k f pass th . - Or u der th4e n:k sa requirements fa G ~ Dot // :>"orm ~g Co~ r os & Vent e 7; "'~ U'/ --L..~ - -. - Bui/ding Inspector - _ . COunfy of P't~. . . ." 1st Inspection uuu.::_:..:_:_'"______.. ''" 2rod Ihspectioh ___n_u_.._uu____uu______uu__.u__ ~c:rti~'fy :~':i':::'= the waft ~ ~. 't -! that if wllI pall the requi.......1II of .... 1uiId''''9 ., \\VV""'. ~ W. )~~...... .... o.le;,~--. \ \ \ ~ ___u _u_uu__..__Uu ___u_n_uu... u _u_'u____u_u___ 1 I~~ . ~.-1 j'~ l(f . c:ampliance wi'" the Buildi"9 Code end ell - ?--U----'T/-Ir--m-m--_----- w____u~_.(..}--. ,-,'--7'-;/'--m---u , -. , - '>/c City oCpenr Colorado Street And Alley Excavation Permit Name and Addreu of Person or Finn Making Excavation: ~. ~~i~ 'leQ~. . Addreu and Location of Excav~on: \ ....J iH . Qo... N..I\.-'~'r u iG' Ave... 1; o,'ZtC"II"t.L -; '- I I .;-ilf - - l/( ~ II Intended Use of ExeavaUon: ~\t. \'1:1.., eM~.. Ope,lniDate: De....? ./;,4 CI.'ure Date: 'Dee.. 8.)", " , ~ . . if (. Type of Surface: I - Asphalt 0 -j6I!i<". Gravel ~ Dirt 0 . ~ . ~ .. . . . ~ Plot of IT D~ UlIJIIJll ~ I ~"/ ,," ~ . ~~ . I 1- I , L ,- This Permit is issued with the specific understanding that it is subject to suspension or relocation for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of Ordinance No, 7.1959 and aU other ordinances governing excavation, etc., within the City of Aspen and upon any other conditions (H any) upon which It is approved; or for unauthorized deviation from terms of the application or laws of Colorado, Applicant hereby warrants that be is authorized to make this application and agrees that the same shaU be binding upon the owner, the applicant. their agents, belrs and assigns, All documents attached. hereto are incorporated by reference and made a part bereof, Applicant agre:a to notify the Building Inspector at lesst 24 hours In advance for inspection of Excavation. f . The Building Inspector, or bia agent or representative, is Jauthorized to inspect the excavation site. f_,. .";.. ,;"<1l- , , . B: <J Dated and oIped thla n~~~~J"~~. capaclty:~~.~ ..~1:~7"'" (Agent. Owner, Contra~t;:~.) ... EXCAVATION PERMIT pc The above and foregoing application for Street and Alley Excavation Pennlt is hereby approved, SUbject to compliance with the foUowinc conditiona: ~'"'- .,'"",," Dated this 7 '. ~...,.- day of ___._m.t'.~~u,______. 19(2:7 ~~~~~-.....,.,",.".. I No. 7/:J //)/ Owner DC~n,8/.L,,,",,.',C____,~7,Sn'n'n'_ Address (street) 'nU/>Z.nn'.{[_~___"__"__'h___~ Type of Bldg, n/Z'-::'Snnnnnnn__'.uu__u'n Lot .'__u__nu Block __00_00____00 Addn. ,nnnnnn Contractor un,O'~C.__nnunnn'nnn Installer .n.n,n,__nn'''' Address 00'000000__'___00' .,. o Heating Permit No. ..,., 'l!,...-;' [" " Pltimbing o Electrcal .Fil€ :.~("". '? T ~ ,~, \ t. ~~_\". ~;~ -~. ""~. -, tzl ~City of Aspen! o Pitkin County BUILDING DEPARTMENT " - i j -r(f~~--"~~ .. " .~ Date , 1 \ Domestic & Commercial Appliances - No. description & BTU ~ GAS 00 00 noon' n __.00 00' n. '/r __ 00 00 00 n 00 __ 00 __ __ nun 00 00 00' n' 00 __ __ n n __ 00 n 00' 00 __ 00 __ 00 00 00 ~h i . . e I - Zu" ~ ~ ,- - '7 ~ . .Ih. Gas L ne. (lengt; ~Ji I mmhu,nnm",'I"Z'P;?3.nLmn________,m;m;__' ry'mr:~/,1 Pressure Test n__'nnn' pounds. On at ____'00'____ Off at __nunnn Date 00004.2/,,)'00______ Furnace and/or Boiler. Description & BTU v<V '5 HEATING ' Hot Water FEE,nnn' Warm Air Description & No. of Fixtures PLUMBING _IAV _TOI _TUB _SH _KS __DW _GD FEE____uu No. of Circuits, Size of Service & Feeders, Motors, & Equipment ELECTRICAL ..,nhAMP -----------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------ Service En!. .__nnn,__nnn__'nnnnnnn.__n'n ____uuun'nnnn__n a.n~n'nnuh FEE,nnn' o Conduit 0 Romex 0 Armor Description: (such as Dryer, Dishwasher, Soltner, Washer, Disposal, etc.) APPLIANCES REMARKS and/or CORRECTIONS to be made before approval INSPECTION compliance with the Building Code and alt For all work done under this permit the permittee accepts full responsibility other applicable regulations. Installer must sign Permit before approved. Date: 'n"n'__n'n___un__n Installer (sign) 'u.n_Unn.nnn._nnUnnnnn, 1st Inspection 'nn____n.nn__nnn____,nn_______ 2nd Inspection n'n____'nUuu__nn'nn.__un'''h :::::d'~t 7~t1~:"~::~ .h. ~. :v'm'\r~~;j(::~t~.":d.=~'"m" , '\ Inspector /', /0 '--' /.", ; '>'j ,,~ ~ ,...- '<- - .... ~ , ~ - ....." Dat~ lie] H. 19;1 Dear Homeowner ar Occupant: The Municipal Code of the City of Aspen requires the Building Inspector to keep a record showing the proper Street number of every building site in the City. It further provides that the owners and occupants of every house in the City to place thereon figures at least two and one_half inches (2~) high visi~le from the Street showing the number of the house. The Building department is in the process of assigning house numbers to all existing houses in the City in order to eliminate the confusion that now exists in the City. We have determined by the map in the Building department that your house number should be: Address 231 Uto ~".ve. Legdl Description l~ Lot Block Subdivision Ut:G !lcaitiOR lIJe appreciate your cooperation in placing the. above number ('lU your house. Thank you. ~~ H tYV" !1 Clay to H. Heyrins r Chief Building Inspecto CHl'l:jgm f ...11'..... ,', ; . (.: : i ~ !i' .1;, '~ \ ,. 1: , ~ . AVENUE NOffi: ~ .t-:f-"~ ~ "~J :ACK & HEIGHT STUDY ~. scale: 1" c 10'. . .IGH BUILDING SET BACK 10', CUTS OFF MORE VIEW TIlAN 30' BUILDING SETBACK 20' ~ l;: '" '" l;: g 1- ZONING SUMMARY _ _.SITECDVERAGF: (R~IF Z.O.....EJ "."-,,, SITEA,,"eA: EASEMEN"TOEOUCTlON AEMAININ(;SITEAAf.1I AFU1.hl@tOO.t ~ II0ry 1.2t>t0'800sl A"UI'\ll@(OO.1 3 liD,,\, \.0'1><(11800., AFU1.2t>'iZll800IT 2110')' AFU12t11!i'BOOsI 2s:ory 1>.FU1.3b'iill.lIOOI13sI0')' AFUGlta9'" 8 S10rl9l'1 "Ory FMU"I..3B~3,OOO 3.1cry 11.e755011 n~oo.1 17.2.05011 FOOTPfUNl 20.20 .000011 ." 12000011 20.20 .00,0011 1,200,0011 2~,20 .00 00 II 10000.1 2'0.20 .0000s! 800001' 2. ~.2. ~ 2~12~ 2~,.~ &ooooSI t2$OOs' ~,5"'DOO ,I 1,80000 .1'ntO<.~Loe:u~__.'" .00 13,!oOOOO'1 -2.1)00 00 &I po..... ~.:';lS.O'.... c' 7,)1(.00 TOTALFAFL 17,)OO.OCIl OPEN SPACE: FOOTPRINT.TOT"l,o,II.E.I.: 0.,11I' or .,: ,.." if'o::l Pc" '" T~, F.: "'1'~"'9 CO......ll9" Sun"'nCOIl'ty.'dS T'n~"'n FOOl 1tIl"',n SIT~ COV~AAG~.SublDlIl AEOUIREO 35'1:0 OPEN SP",CE ",CTU",LOPENSP"'CE ,\ MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMEJ\TS 2.SIUCIlOS"''''U ..2b'''''''U 1.3b,O_ f>eOol~ (.3b,FI.IU lOlN F;\H AIIO,..bl<> ~I\'" . $"'. ~"~. I , "tlU~l ~...R FAR OlAIHTAIlLE) RF.PL.....CEMENT IlEDROO~1S ~"S""9 FI\R N'.....FU"..1l EAlSI,nge"n 8"hl'lI'IAFi'd 3';71.0011 1......u<l.bFMUu".H...."...,., 0.00$1 70.ooal p.10) 00001' \1, 1".00 ~i 60301.1&1' ~Cl14SOsf C'lusOK Nolll ~...., O~~ _... l:arroc. lXlf'l1"'1p,atIlln;.nSl\C<CIO"""'.":I"~ 0'="_" raoe AMF Z...- j'$I,,"," ~SO"l, "'1-1 'f'P*-d] ""00 1,00000 l,!>ooiX' 1,!>OOClO 1.0000011 ..000.001' \,SOOoc. ~~O':'II 1 2 !>I.~,. 0(, $1, ~~ .(l !>.' ('l~' I~.~.' !>~ ~1 ..'SP<"C"I !'.r..... 17 3('1(1 lX, 11, \ e Of-' ~ ' ~.6~!> I' l'll" '''II'' GoI"9<'l' O''''~.'"9'.,IC ..FhXlK .~i's' moo(t, II.C'''....: ~ iiX' $1 OOl'!"! ,~~~!>~, Qor ~.""mr."IIC<aor 6 .....:"..'''c~, n:' >rI(:'~On~ 1, ......vO.nf,fIF'UIl'ICll'.OIA/:'.... 10~"..osr~D""'oo"" " O~.'''''''''' '1l"'1Il P' <I" ....."..... HEIGHT PARKING FI.IU, '" 3 Slorr 1l'''FI".n (3~') ..,II 'Pllu'" PUO '0010""-"" btlO.. ~,.Ot~......; """f CIC'...u~ 0' 00""''''' ,u""" ~.~:.o-: '5P"..'btlllO_.'C"Cl",..IC2Nou.,..2r(ll'>OmtS bS.iall'l...", ...i.!"'l~ 1eV.1 ""'llo I....' ...~lll_ GMOS --:-.. -- G~.1Q.s SETBACKS F,onlV.fC1 S;o.,.V"dS Re~' Valets Ae<;lurrod " , " "'tIU.1 " , , g","O'r""".o~n,po...onUIe""'nu. MedPUO...rrot"'" ~"iJO""'o(11'1 - -- ~ LAW OFFICES ~OSEPH E, EDWARDS, ~R. JAN , " THE ,JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO alell ,JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, ,JR. TELEPHONE (303> 925.7116 FAX (.303) Q25.6608 .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III January 3, 1990 Leslie Lamont Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Billings Development, 831 Ute Avenue Dear Leslie: At the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) review of the aboye development proposal on December 19, 1989, several changes to the proposed development were discussed and were preferred by P&Z. These include the following. 1. A requirement that the five-foot side-yard setback along the northwest side of the front portion of the property between Ute Avenue and the parking area entrance not be obstructed by any trees, boulders or other landscaping amenities. 2. The free-market unit (FMU) component of the project is to be reduced from four units to three units while the total square footage of the FMU component is to remain approximately the same. 3. The westerly most of the three FMUs will be built to a maximum of 25 feet. The front (approximate one-third) of the two easterly FMUs will be built to a maximum height of 25 feet, and the rear two-thirds of those two units will still require a five-foot height yariance through the P.U.D. process to 30 feet. 4. The front portion of the FMU component of the project be sunk five feet in accordance with Jay Hammond's reyised recommendation. , eO, " ./ Leslie Lamont January 3, 1990 Page 2 5. The pedestrian access median from the center of the affordable housing unit (AHUl parking area will be removed to allow the parking spaces to be widened from eight feet to eight and one-half feet. 6. A pedestrian access corridor or walk was added to the northeasterly side of the AHU component of the project to allow pedestrian access directly from the street. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, ~[pj~ E. Edwards, III JEE ch L4/l8 cc Karinjo and Nicholas Devore Chupa Nelson Bill Lipsey LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E, EDWARDS, JR. THE .JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109. eOI NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO au,.. JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, ,JR. TELE",HONE (303) QZ,!5,-7110 FAX 1303> g2~.oeoe .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III November 2, 1989 Welton Anderson, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Rezoning of the Billings Property (831 Ute Avenue) Dear Mr. Anderson: Our office represents the Nelson/Devore Partnership which purchased the property known as the Billings Property on November 1, 1989. It is the intent of the Nelson/Devore Partnership to redevelop the Billings Property with four free-market units and approximately seven affordable housing units. The affordable housing component of the project will haye more F.A.R. than the existing habitable F.A.R. currently on that property and will have more bedrooms than currently exist on that property. In order to redevelop the property, the Nelson/Devore Partnership will require that the property be rezoned. The property is currently zoned R-6, mandatory P.D.D.; and, on advice of the Planning Department, we will request that the property be rezoned to RMF, mandatory P.D.D. I will appear at your next P & Z meeting and, during citizens' comments, request the commission approve sponsorship of the Billings property for a rezoning in order that the Nelson/Devore Partnership may file its "'"" Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 1989 Page 2 application for rezoning with its application as soon as possible. questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, L/38 cc Amy Margerum Leslie Lamont /" conceptual P . U . D. I f you have any """,, ,~... ~~ @!~VA~ !Pff~ 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925,2690 TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Wayne Vandemark RE: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 DATE: November 20, 1989 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This project is within a four minute response time from the Fire Station. There is an ample water supply by fire hydrant to supply the required fire flow. ,.- ASPEN.PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont Planning Office From: Carolyn Hardin, Environmental Health Officere~~ Environmental Health Department 0 Date: November 28, 1989 Re: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 ================================================================ The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Requlations On Individual Sewaqe Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers". ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici- pal water utility system". The current domestic water supply for the property is an informal system that consists of surface water that originates at the Durant Mine. When the new proj ect is connected to the Aspen Water Department distribution system, there shall be no direct connection between the municipal system and the informal system, to preclude the possibility of back siphonage or potential contamination. AIR QUALITY: In a review of the regarding the effect application, there was no comment made of this proposal on air quality issues. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colol"'sdo 81611 303/920-5D70 '. ASPEN.PITKIN EN\. .AONMENTAL HEALTH DEPrRTMENT . , with that understanding the following is offered. The applicant shall comply with all regulations that pertain to air pollution. applicable laws and Currently they are: Aspen Municipal Code, Ordinance 88-20 which requires the registration of all gas and woodburning devices in a building. Ordinance 86-5 which describes types and numbers of woodburning devices that can be installed. Regulations 1,3 and 8 of the Colorado Air Quality Control Requlations and Ambient Air Qualitv Standards. These regulations address fugitive dust control plans, emission control permits, and demolition of buildings which may contain asbestos containing material. NOISE: No long term noise impacts are anticipated on the immediate neighborhood as a result of the approval of this project. However, it is predicted that short term noise impacts on the neighborhood will occur during the construction phase of this project. Should complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be the document used in the investigation. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Not applicable. CONTAMINATED SOILS: The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a requirement, but simply a experience in dealing with mine waste impacts to humans. request based on past and possible negative 130 South Galena Stl'eet Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-6070 "'""' , .I November 13, 1989 0: Nelson/Zeeb Construction CO INC. rawer 5409 von, CO 81620 o WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Division of K N ENERGY, Inc. has the apacity and capability to serve the Project at 831 Ute Ave in Aspen olorado as long as the appropriate forms are filled out, the necessary osts are paid and the local and company codes for instalation of gas ines are met. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, call me t 11925-2323. incerely, ?y~~c~ 'Y ~ istrict Manager c: John Wilson File ]];) Atlantic A\"l'. ,\.A.H.C. AspeTl. Cplor,\(ll.' IWill "., (" ,.. '. I.... \.. ',",., , (\Lc. ,. '.' ,-, f ..n":;, '1./ ~ .1-::')'::. ~. , MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: December 11, 1989 RE: Billings Conceptual PUD --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The applicant will need to submit a plat for the final development plan which meets the requirements in section 7-1004 (D) (1) (a) (3) and (D) (2) (a) of the Land Use Code. Since the conceptual site plan which was submitted did not have the required utility meter locations, these will need to be shown on the above mentioned plat. 2. The design for the off-street parking spaces shows substandard widths. These spaces need to be redesigned to allow for an 8 1/2 foot width. 3. The applicant needs to follow the recommendation by Jay Hammond of SChnueser, Gordon, and Meyer that there be no placement of habitable space below existing grade because of the hazardous impact by off site drainage. 4. The 6 foot easement for the Aspen Mt. Rd. which has been proposed needs to be increased an additional 4 feet. The 771 Ute Townhouse development previously granted a 10 foot easement so this additional 4 feet will bring the width of this road up to the 20 foot standard that is required for emergency access. 5. The relocation of the Durant Mine water channel to a different alignment entering Glory Hole Park is not recommended due to the impact this would have to the park. Bill Ness of the Parks Department indicated that this new alignment would require a new channel through the park which in turn would impact the underground irrigation syst~~. 6. The Public Right of Way on Ute Avenue at this location is adequate. ,.- -""..... . ~ 7. The City requests that, in the eyent of major excavation on the site, any boulders larger than 36" which are not needed by the developer be provided to the city at the Marolt Property or the 8. The applicant has shown a sidewalk and curb along the Ute Avenue frontage on his site plan. At the present time we have direction from Council to postpone any sidewalk, curb and gutter construction until they make a decision on it this spring. We would, however, request that the applicant make an agreement to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter along ute Avenue when directed to by City Council. jg/~ ........._--~.-. cc: Bob Gish :::huck Roth -' , \ MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning FROM: Yvonne Blocker, Housing RE: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 DATE: December 2, 1989 --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Applicant requests GMQS exemption, map amendment to R/MF zoning, and conceptual PUD approval for a project located at 8Jl Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Applicant requests exemption pursuant to 8-104A.l.a., Land Use Regulations, for the reconstruction of the four units on the property to comprise the F.M.U. component of the project. The project will have a free market component consisting of four three-bedroom units. Each three bedroom free market unit will be a three story structure to be a total of 3,000 square feet. Applicant is required to provide one parking space per bedroom in the rezoned R/MF zone district. Applicant is requesting a variance of this requirement as to his proposal of providing two parking spaces below the F .M. U. I S in a private garage for each unit Applicant requests exemption by city Council for the A.H.U. component pursuant to 8-104C.l.c., Land Use Regulations. The affordable housing component will consist of two studios of 500 square feet, four two-bedroom units of 1,000 square feet per unit, and one three-bedroom unit of 1,500 square feet. A total of thirteen (13) bedrooms will be reconstructed in the A.H.U. component in a cluster of two (2) buildings located at the rear of the parcel. The Applicant is supplying eight (8) parking spaces for the seven (7) units which contain thirteen (lJ) bedrooms. Applicant has requested Special Review pursuant to 5-301B of the Land Use Regulations. The Applicants have requested (1,500) square foot unit be occupied". the three bedroom fifteen hundred restricted to use as "resident 1 .- .~~. APPLICANT: Nelson/Devore Partnership, 1280 ,ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado represented by Joseph E. Edwards, III. ZONE: R-6 STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicants have been notified that they have four "legal " units with a total of twelve bedrooms in these units. These units contain an existing habitable floor area of 5,655 square feet. The Applicants request for exemption pursuant to 8-104A.1.a. of the Land Use Regulations which states: (1) The remodeling, restoration, or reconstruction of an existing building which does not expand commercial or office floor area or create additional dwelling, hotel or lodge units or involve a change in use. No bandit unit shall be remodeled, restored or reconstructed unless it has first been legalized pursuant to section 5-510. The Applicant is proposing to reconstruct the four luxury town homes of approximately 3,000 square providing at least three bedrooms and two parking unit. F.M.U. 's as feet each, spaces per The Applicant is requesting G.M.Q.S. exemption by city Council for the A.H.U. component pursuant to 8-104C.l.c. of the Land Use Regulations which state: " All housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the city Council and its housing designee. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a 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 development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted." The Applicant is proposing to build an Affordable Housing component to consist of two studios with five hundred (500) square feet each, four two-bedroom units with one thousand (1,000) square feet each, and one three-bedroom unit to consist of fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. 2 - .'~ '" -' Seven (7) units are proposed to include thirteen (lJ) bedrooms with a total of six thousand five hundred (6,500) FAR. The square footage proposed for the two studio units at 500 square feet and the four two-bedroom units at 1,000 square feet will be restricted to the allowable moderate income rental guidelines as adopted by the APCHA on annual basis. The three-bedroom fifteen hundred (1,500) square foot has been requested by Applicant to be a "resident occupied unit". This unit will be restricted to occupancy of a "qualified resident" which shall mean an resident working a minimum of JO hours per week and nine months per year. Parking has been proposed at eight spaces for the seven units. These seven units will contain total of thirteen bedrooms. Parking has been stated by applicant for the A. H. U. 's to be provided as " the need for more than one car per household as doubtful". In the recent lease up of Truscott Place a 100% employee housing project, parking was provided at one space per unit. The proximity of the golf course facility proyides additional parking for overnight/guest parking. This location will not allow off- site parking to accommodate overnight/guest parking as the access road to the property is insufficient for the requirements of emergency vehicles at a width of twelve (12) feet and therefore, cannot accomodate off-site parking of any kind. The four two-bedroom units will rent for $890.00 per month, as according to the 1989 Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines. This rent is based on a charge of $.89 X 1,000 S.F. = $890.00 per month. Re:-.t at $890.00 will prove to be supplied by two tenants, a married working couple, or j oint tenancy Single parent households can not provide this amount our community at this time. individual in common. of rent in The proximity to the downtown core area can accommodate the lack of parking for this project, however, this project would have to be designed to accommodate a specific target group to be two working tenants with one or no vehicle. Parking will need to be addressed in steps three and four of this application as to the realistic needs of the community at large. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: reconstruction of the this property based on Staff recomTh~nds approval of the four F.M.U. 's and the seven A.H.U. 's on the following conditions: 3 -~ 1. Owner provides an approved and recorded copy of deed restriction indexing the two studios and four two-bedroom units to the current affordable housing moderate income price and rental guidelines and the "Resident Occupied" three bedroom unit to the allowable current guidelines applicable to "Resident Occupied". 2. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the A.H.U's must comply with the current moderate income price and rental guidelines for the studios and two-bedroom units. Verification of employment and residency will be provided to the Housing Authority for the "resident occupancy unit". Verification shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by Owner prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the APCHA. 3. Leases for these units will need to supply a minimum of six (6) consecutive months. 4. Deed restriction will need to be approved and recorded by the APCHA prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. Present tenants will need to be given first option for occupancy of the A. H. U. units to avoid further displacement of our working community. 6. Parking will need to be information as to possible present three and four for the A.H.U.'s. addressed with additional tenancy requirements in steps 4 REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES Incorporated January 8, 1990 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado, 81611 Dear Councilmen: I represent George Mitchell and Buddy Bornefeld who are adjacent landowners, to the south, to the Billings project. They have reviewed the proposal and have no problem with the proposed development including the set-back and height yariances requested in the application. Sin ce~rel~.' , .--/ .. ......./-L. . -,~ Ij.- C.A. Vidal JI7 South Monarch P. O. nox ~159, A.peo. Colorado 81612 T Ncphoofl': f303} 9~5 - 4530 July 2, 1990 Amy, I have attached the GMQS Exemption memo dated December IJ. That memo identifies the section of the Code that enables the Planning Director to approve a GMQS Exemption. I have also attached the documentation from the building department that led Bill to the decision that there were four legal units on the site. I also replied to Jed regarding this manner and indicated to him that all this information is in the files that I have just organized. Leslie ~~;0{\ G0V ~ ~ rif \;/\ )'1\..0 ,~(Jf\ b oQQO (' ~ 'jJQjff\,_ ~ ~ ~"2> C'. V"f'- C9"" \~ J?\~~S .\'~ ~ 0 c...b3-- 0Y'\ )(0" '0-\ \ ~ '~C/ . O~ ~~ 'V O{' Reqular Meetinq Aspen city council January 9, 1990 BILLING CONCEPTUAL PUD (Mayor Stirling left the room due to conflict of interest). Leslie Lamont, planning office, said this is an application for redevelop- ment of approximately 18,000 square feet on Ute Avenue. This parcel is currently zoned R-6/PUD; the applicant would like to rezone the property RMF/PUD. The applicant are proposing to demolish the existing 12 units, 4 of which are legal and replace this with 3 free market units and 7 deed restricted unit. Ms. Lamont told Council this is the second step of a 4 step process. P & Z conceptually approved the development plan with conditions. Ms. Lamont told Council the rezoning will not occur until steps 3 and 4; however, this is a threshold issue and Council should address it conceptually. Ms. Lamont told Council under PUD the applicant are requesting variances to vary the height from 25 to 30 feet at certain portion; to vary open space from 35 percent to 29 percent, and to vary side yard setbacks. Ms. Lamont told Council there are two special reviews in step 3, parking reduction and FAR increase to 1.1:1 from 1:1 which is a bonus for providing affordable housing on site. The applicants will be seeking a GMQS exemption for affordable housing on site and condominiumization. Ms. Lamont told Council GMQS exemption for replacement of the legal units on site is a planning director sign off. Karinjo Devore, applicant, told Council her family has lived on this property for 30 years; all of the residents have lived there at least 10 years. The owner decided to sell the property and gave all the tenants notice. The potential buyer was going to replace this was a luxury second home. There was a reprieve because of the mUlti-family demolition moratorium. Ms. Devore told Council the residents discussed with the planning office how they might saye their property and were able to buy the property last November. Ms. Devore said she feels their proposal is the best solution to a very critical problem. Bill Lipsey showed the plan presented to P & Z which had 4 free market units along Ute avenue. These units are going to generate 9 Reqular Meetinq Aspen citv Council Januarv 9. 1990 the ability for the rest of the project. Lipsey said the height was 30 feet but the buildings were set back an extra 10 feet. Lipsey said at that point they did not want to put any habitable space below grade because they had not had a chance to do any soils studies. The affordable units are on the back of the site with access off ute avenue off the road that goes up to the Aspen Alps. There is a 2 story structure with 2 two-bedroom units and a 3 story structure with some studio units of 400 square feet and two-bedroom units of 800 square feet and a resident occupied unit which will be about 1800 square feet. Lipsey said there was sensitivity of the height on ute avenue and some criticism of parking and pedestrian access to the back of the units. Lipsey said the revised the plans to have 3 free market units on ute avenue with a split level scheme with some habitable space below grade. This allowed the buildings to be dropped to 25 feet in some places and 30 feet in others. The width of the parking spaces for the affordable units was increased. Lipsey said they are requesting some flexibility in the rear yard setback and the side yard setback. Lipsey said the plan was received well by planning and P & z. Ms. Lamont told Council P & Z did not feel the open space issue was a problem. Ms. Lamont said P & Z was concerned about the setback because of the potential for development behind the Billings property. Councilman Gassman opened the public hearing. Charlie Tarver asked about the parking. Ms. Lamont told Council P & Z wanted the applicants to explore reducing the free marking if it could help reduce the height. Lipsey said he is studying this; it is not an easy solution to remove one parking space and expect the height of residential space will drop. Ms. Devore told Council currently there are 2 parking places at the project; this proposal is for 16 off-street spaces. Molly Campbell, Gant, said when the Gant was built in 1974, Council then tried to disincen- tivize the auto an granted 105 parking places for 140 units. parking over there is very difficult. Ms. Campbell said a substantial amount of parking has been eliminated on ute avenue. Pam cunningham, Aspen Alps, told Council the Board is generally very much in favor of the proj ect; however, they are concerned about the height and setback variances. Ms. Cunningham pointed out no one currently maintains the Aspen Mountain road. Rick Neiley, representing the Black Swan, told Council the owners have concerns regarding the extent of this redevelopment. Neiley said the project may be over sized for this site. Neiley said there may be 10 ... Reqular Meetinq Aspen city council January 9. 1990 some potential negative consequences. There are currently 4 legal units with 12 legal bedrooms; the applicants are proposing 10 units and 24 bedrooms. The applicants are seeking reductions in setback, open space, increase in height and an increase in FAR. Neiley said this project addresses some of the city's goals regarding housing; however, it may be too much for the site. The applicants should consider a reduction in some. features of the site so that it is less intrusive on the neighborhood. Bill Hewitt said he feels there will be a parking problem whether these are part time residents or not. Hewitt said he does not feel Councilor P & Z should make up new rules when there are rules for this applicant to follow. Hewitt said the project is too big and should be scaled down. The set of rules in the community should apply to everybody. Councilman Gassman said this is a PUD, which allow some things to be varied. Ms. Lamont told Council the RMF zone allows a FAR of 1:1. A special review allows in the RMF zone with affordable housing on site an increase in floor area of 1.1:1. This does not represent anything outside the existing code. Mary Gleason, 861 ute avenue, told Council she favors this project. Councilman Gassman closed the public hearing. Councilman Peters said he favors this project and is an appropriate use of the site. Councilman Peters said he feels it is great someone would come forward with a project that closely resembles the affordable housing zone district but is doing it without the AH zone. Councilman Peters said he supports the rezoning. This property is right next to the LTR district, which has a bigger density. Councilman Peters said he would like the applicants present an 1/8" scale massing model. Councilman Tuite said he cannot think of a better project in which to allow some variances. Councilman Tuite pointed out these height variances would not cut off any views of the mountain. The project is trying to generate as much employee housing as possible. Councilman Crockett said he feels this is an excellent application of a PUD. Councilman Gassman said this project is being proposed without any public subsidy and is the type of project Council hoped would happen when they started talking about an affordable housing zone. Councilman Gassman moved to approve the conceptual PUD for the Billings affordable housing development plan with conditions recommended by P & Z; seconded by Councilman Peters. Ms. Lamont pointed out the applicants have already increased the width of the parking spaces to 8.5 feet so condition #2 can be 11 , Reqular Meetinq Aspen city council January 9. 1990 eliminated. Ms. Lamont said conditio ddresses no habitable space below and their engineer has revised his en ation. Ms. Lamont said she would like this condition ub' ct to uatio nd a roval b erin de artment. Condition #1 should have added "qas log fireplaces" shall e certified. s. Lamont told Council she :LS gO:Lng to replace conditio~ #11, 12, IJ, and .L4.:)wil1 be one condition stating, l'The owner sha .L proV:Lde an approved and recorded copy of the C1eed restriction of the affordable units subject to review and approval by the housing author~'t ". 1 Councilman Peters said he would like to add a condition th t the applicants provide a massing model of 1/10" to the foot scale.. Councilman Gassman asked about the Aspen Mountain road and if this can be included in the ute avenue ~'mprovement district. Councilman Gassman said he would like to see the ownership of and maintenance of the Aspen Mountain road by esearch added into condition #4. All in favor, motion carried. 12 --, " LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE ,JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COL.ORADO BIOIl .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, .JR. TELEPHONE (303) 925.7110 FAX {3031 025-0e08 .JOSEPH E. EDWAROS, III 0\ - November 2, 1989 Welton Anderson, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Rezoning of the Billings Property (831 Ute Avenue) Dear Mr. Anderson: Our office represents the Nelson/Devore Partnership which purchased the property known as the Billings Property on November 1, 1989. It is the intent of the Nelson/Devore Partnership to redeyelop the Billings Property with four free-market units and approximately seven affordable housing units. The affordable housing component of the project will have more F.A.R. than the existing habitable F.A.R. currently on that property and will have more bedrooms than currently exist on that property. In order to redevelop the property, the Nelson/Devore Partnership will require that the property be rezoned. The property is currently zoned R-6, mandatory P.U.D.; and, on advice of the Planning Department, we will request that the property be rezoned to RMF, mandatory P.U.D. I will appear at your next P & Z meeting and, during citizens' comments, request the commission approve sponsorship of the Billings property for a rezoning in order that the Nelson/Devore Partnership may file its r-, "'-.. ,) Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 1989 Page 2 application for rezoning with its application as soon as possible. questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, cc L/38 Amy Margerum / Leslie Lamont conceptual P . U. D. I f you have any .", ~] , , ~1 r /'<-""". r"".... ~ ',. .),. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:32pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Herron, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Mari Peyton arrived immediately after roll was excused. Bruce Kerr, Michael Richard compton and call and Roger Hunt COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Amy: city council met last night on the Hwy 82 EIS. They did not make any decision as to what route they prefer into town. They continued' it to Wednesday November 15th and that is contingent on whether we get an extension from the Hwy Dept for our official comments. Council met last night in executive session on the Ritz and will meet again on that in open session on the 13th. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jody Edwards: I represent the Nelson DeVore Partnership. Edwards asked P&Z to sponsor our application for rezoning. Wel ton: I would entertain a motion to sponsor rezoning of the Billings property on ute Avenue. Mari: I move to sponsor a rezoning of the Billings property on ute Avenue from R-6 to RMF mandatory PUD. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. There was no further public comment. MINUTES JULY 5. SEPTEMBER 19 AND OCTOBER 24. 1989 Bruce made a motion to approve these minutes. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 11/13/89 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2737-182-95-101 108A-89 STAFF MEMBER: L l... PROJECT NAME: Billinqs Conceptual PUD. GMOS Exemption and Rezoninq Project Address: 831 ute Avenue Legal Address: APPLICANT: Nelson/Devore Partnership Applicant Address: 1280 ute Avenue. Aspen. CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: JodY Edwards Representative Address/Phone: 201 N. Mill Aspen. Co 5-7116 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $-1. 1!iJ.!i9 KO. .;;Jf ;(;1. 5".00 I STEP: OF COPIES RECEIVED: 2 STEP: .....-/ 7 TYPE OF APPLICATION: P&Z Meeting Date 1- 2-."1; ., PUBLIC HEARING: YES ~--; CC Meeting Date I - ~~ '::-'. j VESTED RIGHTS: YES ,.~ PUBLIC HEARING: /YES.. i~../ VESTED RIGHTS: @ NO NO J ::Y'\ " ( NO Planning Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Paid: Date: /- ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 1JO S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (JOJ) 920-5090 November 17, 1989 Joseph E. Edwards, III Law Offices of Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. 201 North Mill street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Billings Application Dear Jody, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application is complete. We have scheduled your application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission at a public hearing on January 2, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4: JO pm. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, f)~~ Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant MEMORANDUM TO: city Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshal FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: Billings conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 DATE: November 17, 1989 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Jody Edwards on behalf of his client, Nelson/Devore Partnership, requesting Conceptual PUD approval for the Billings property. Please review this material and return your comments no later than December 15, 1989. Thank you. ~ .1""' \../ --- LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E, EDWARDS, JR, THE ,JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO Btell .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, .JR. TELEPHONE (303) 925-711<<5 FAX (303) 92!5-eeOe .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, lit November 15, 1989 Leslie Lamont Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Billings Affordable Housing Application Dear Leslie: Today I noticed I made an error on page 30 of the Billings Affordable Housing Development Plan Application which was submitted November 13, 1989. I failed to deduct the 735-foot dedicated road easement from the total field area to determine the total "uncovered" space on the site. Also, Bill Lipsey and I made a preliminary calculation of the site area which fits the strict definition of open space. Our calculations indicate 29% of the site area is open space. Thus, the variation requested for percentage of open space through the P. U. D. process should be specified to be from 35% to 29%. As a result of this error and this additional information, several of the pages in the Application should be changed. Enclosed are seven copies of the revised pages. I would appreciate it if you would insert these in place of the pages with the same numbers in the current Applications. Also, I haye included for your reference one copy of the changes which were made. Very truly yours, ~~I' JEE ch L2/25 Enclosures " " ,.." r. , :, I . I .. ,I fi-[ '. t- ,-''',- ,. ,~ A.H.U.s will be in two clusters behind the parking area. The open space is divided between the F.M.U. and A.H.U. clusters. Oyer 3,000 square feet of open space is in front of and on the sides of the F.M.U. cluster, and the remaining open space creates a landscaped courtyard for the A.H.U. clusters. D. Variances Requested. In large part, the project can be constructed within the parameters of the R/MF zone district. However, a few minor variances through P.U.D. will be requested; and an external F.A.R. bonus is requested through special reyiew. A height yariance of fiye feet is requested for the F.M.U. cluster and one of the A.H.U. clusters. Two variances of two feet (for a distance of approximately 20 feet) on the side-yard setbacks and a variance of seYen feet (for a distance of approximately 20 feet) on the rear-yard setback are requested. Additionally, the location of approximately one-half of the open space is proposed to be with and around the A.H.U. component of the project which is located towards the rear of the project and off of Ute Avenue. The strict definition of open space includes a requirement that open space be open to view from the street at pedestrian leyel. The definition of street in the Land Use Regulations includes priyate streets such as the access easement along the northwest boundary of the property. The project.h~s wt.klr. VUJ ~r., S~-ts~ more tl.an SUffiSiQR~O- ncovered spaceAt9 satJ.lify the zone . "fll 1.l~...tI'V#.\,~J district requirement ~ome of ~ space may not satisfy the D20/04 -7- I I I . . . . I - I . . . . , . . . . ,,",. ,/ strict definition of open space~and a variance through the P.U.D. process for the percent of "open space" is reqUested.~ to the cHtcnL ueces&ar:y. Pursuant to S 5-206D .10., Land Use \ Regulations, the external F.A.R. in the R/MF zone may be increased for multifamily dwellings from 1: 1 to 1.1: 1 by ) I special reyiew. Although the floor area of the liying / / / F.A.R. bonus will be requested to accommodate porches, / oyerhangs and other architectural amenities which gre~ ,..../" spaces is considerably below the 1:1 ratio, the external enhance the quality of the project. /,....'. // //r/r. / ;:;'~Ir:";~<>-<,~ I I r 7~ -I.?......r.-;. V~C< tfw- 5':.-?,. 0- 2':Z tJtll t~ ;N.~Q D20/04 -8- /""'''' , review application will be provided at steps three and four of the review process for the A.H.U. parking. R-/II/l j:. The R.N.r. 4. Open Space. zone district -/v~.f ~ The /l si teA is requires 35% of the site be open space. 17,975.5 square feet, and 6,291.43 to be open space. The project proyides 3'1-:1..0 This is -3-!r% of the square feet is required (, i?- <'-1 6,9S6.25 square feet as uncovered space. site area. We have calculated uncovered space as follows. Total field area 17,975.5 s. f. K<lCAtl care~-r 7~S. " Free-market footprint 4,500.0 s.f. A.H.U. footprint 1 800.0 s.f. A.H.U. footprint 2 2,025.25 s. f. Parking area 3,624.0 Trash area 70.0 h 2.z.../. z<; Total uncovered space 6 , 956'.n s. f. The uncovered space is apportioned between the two components of the project. Directly across ute Avenue from the proj ect is Glory Hole Park, which enhances the open feeling on Ute Avenue and the front of the #'- project. Approximately one-half of1 uncovered space is proYided on Ute Ayenue and along the sides of the F.M.U. component of the project. The remainder of the uncoyered space is used for a courtyard for the A.H.U. component of the property. The courtyard is a tremendous addition to the A.H.U. component. As a result of the two-component nature of this project, some of the uncovered space in the A.H.U. D20/04 -~" ",,- courtyard is not "open space" within the strict definition provided in the Land Use Regulations. The definition of open space in the Land Use Regulations provides that open space areas "shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, which yiew need not be measured at right angles. " Street, as defined in the Land Use Regulations, includes private streets such as the street along the northwest property line used to access the parking area. Since some portion of the uncovered space on the project does not meet the definition of open space, the applicant requests a variation from the required percentage of open space through the P.U.D. process. fY'~ (,;.~.J~ c~l ~--C~ I~. - -- - 5. Summary. The unusual shape of the parcel presents unique design challenges and opportunities. The P.U.D. process makes possible efficient development of this parcel by encouraging flexibility and innovation. The requested variations of height, setback and percentage of open space would make possible private-sector development which creates dignified affordable housing for the City of Aspen in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. C. "A statement conceptually outlining how the proposed P.U.D. deyelopment will be served with the appropriate public facilities, and how assurances will be made that those public facilities are ayailable to serve the proposed deyelopment." D20/04 -31- ,.-- 1 21'. cB 7'L -/l;1;,/ ~it( ~~ ~~if~ -I~ ./+r+~ /6 " ~ _~r~' :;:: -I- ~ tA---f. &- rf~ 7Z-- ~l~7' t-fl"t( r.lr 1. ~ V~~ ~ o~ .(I'~ tf-- ! r"2. 7<> 2- 5' ~ . .~ ; , ) . .1 ~ ~ , j . ,1 ,.IC ;..~ I ,-... '""< 1,,1 I requests a variation of five feet for two of the three I clusters. The F.M.U. component of the project is proposed to be 30 feet, and one of the two A.H.U. clusters is I proposed to be 30 feet. This is considered advisable by the I project engineers because of occasional water runoff. It is usual in the Aspen area to build a three-story townhouse and I build the first story of the house five feet below grade. However, since it is not advisable to construct below grade I on this site, a five-foot height variation is requested. I The buildings will have flat roofs with internal drains to minimize runoff and erosion. I 8. The minimum distance between buildings on lots in the R/MF zone is ten feet. The three separate I clusters on this sLte are considerably more than ten feet I apart, and no variation is requested. I 9. The percent of open space required for a jJPI'~x,:";:f.,f~ building site in the R/MF zone is 35%. M&rc Lhah ~5% of the site is uncovered space. Due to the nature of the project I having an F.M.U. component and an A.H.U. component, the open I space is apportioned between those components. I f this I parcel had a street on the rear side instead of being backed up against Aspen Mountain, the entire ~ of the site which is uncovered would qualify as open space. Due to the I unusual site location and shape, the 're~aiYe~percent the applicant requests a r!Yrrl'''' ? ';--~" fZl of open spac~ . '" e.~ ,2./ ....-~ variation in I 10. The external floor area ratio I requirement in the R/MF zone for multi-family dwellings is I 020/04 -37- ,.- "-",, ~ - LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE .JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO alOl1 .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, .JR. TELEPHONE 1303l 925-7116 FAX (303) 925-6606 ,JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, HI November 27, 1989 Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Nelson/Devore Development Application--Billings Property Dear Leslie: Enclosed is a copy of a letter we received from Rocky Mountain National Gas concerning capacity and capability to serve the proposed project at 831 Ute Avenue. Please add this to our development application. Very truly yours, ~~~ JEE ch L3/07 Enclosure ,,-.. \"../ ....- .- LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE .JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109. 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO BI511 .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS. .JR. TELEPHONE (3031 925~7H6 FAX (303) 925-6606 .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III December 29, 1989 ~..~ Leslie Lamont ~...... ~ l:>..- - - Aspen-Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 .... -_._"- ...-,". -- - - ..... - .--~- Re: Billings Development--Final P.U.D. Application Dear Leslie: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of December 27, 1989, in which I spoke to you and you spoke to Jim Gibbard. It is my understanding that !; 7-903C.2.a. (12), Aspen Land Use Regulations, which requires that a plat with the information required by !;!; 7-1004D.l.a.(3) and D.2.a., Aspen Land Use Regulations, be submitted as a part of a final P.U.D. application, merely requires a draft plat so that the Engineering Department can get a sense of what is proposed and verify that all of the necessary information is included. That section does not require that such plat be a final plat with permanent ink on mylar. Please let me know if this is not consistent with your understanding of that section. Very truly yours, 22P-J~ Edwards, IIf cc Chupa Nelson Karinjo and Nicholas Devore Bill Lipsey .----,--'~".' SCHMUESER GO!... ..iN MEYER INC. P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-6727 r January 6, 1 990 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS Mr. william Lipsey, Archtect P.O. Pox 3203 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Update of Billings Property Drainage Dear Bill: '!his letter is to provide a written follow-up to our discussions and my verbal comments to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Cornnission on December 19, 1989, regarding the potential off-site drainage impacts to the Billings property. Subsequent to our meeting in November, I wrote a letter, dated November 10, 1989, expressing initial concerns regarding the location of the property with regard to off-site drainage flow. As I noted in the let- ter, this concern was related to my observations of the site vicinity over the past several years as well as a... "cursory review of basin characteristics...... As I indicated to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Cornnission on December 19, and as you and I had discussed prior to that hearing, I have since undertaken a more detailed review of adjacent drainage as well as planned and constructed drainage improvements in the sorrounding area. This review reveals: - A commitment by the adjacent 777 Ute Avenue 'Ibwnhome project to install an intercepting catch basin on the Aspen Mountain road to the southwest of .the site. Installation of several minor berms and storm routing improvements along the upper Alps road along the IDwer Spar corridor to the south of the site. Improvements to an intercept drain installed by the Aspen Skiing Company on the upper Aspen Mountain road to the west. '!he City of Aspen I s rommitment to drainage improvrnents in IDwer Spar Gulch. While I remain of the opinion that the Billings site is in a location subject to off-site drainage impacts, I have rome to the ronclusion that a rombination of on-site design features (grading, drainage, etc. ), as well as planned or implemented off-site improvements, ro longer suggest the need for a design which precludes habitable space below grade. Clearly, the elimination of sUbgradelliving space is an extreme measure with significant implications to unit design and heights appropriate to sites subject to a "high" risk of flooding. Further review, in my opinion, reveals improvements and rommitments that will reduce the risk to this site significantly. 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 . Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 . (303) 945.1004 . . ,.....--~- " ",' . January 6, 1990 Mr. William Lipsey, Archtect Page tv.o I hope this letter is helpful. Feel free to contact me for further comment or detail. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER CDRJX)N MEYER, INC. CJ; ffj ~ '--- ? Jay W. Harrrnond, P.E. Principal - Aspen Office JWH:lec/9296 cc: Joseph E. Edwards, III T / --::. (\ ^ A -, I 01 ~~~~~\K~'G? V _-~o"U1e...~ ;; _ =' \j2-~ f-.)D r~ .(..,('~ ---to ~~ -900 c !...-. 1~-'-"-1"'''- (~~ \ Cf 0/ - C> n~^,- \ Q -.J~.::lJ \ ~~ r u;~ l.;,'../...-JI- ' .>- u-*i",-- 3 ::;-.....L.J.. J1' J~Ju:;fJt/hrv;Jo '"7-; n-"J~ rp~r-H~ \j~ , Lf '^" I' . - ?-i,- a '- J -S-+.ey ~<9\J1QuD ~ --ft. -~ ~ r -O:s"-~ ~11. Co>\apr-~ ~ Qu 0 "' pA) I v.....N th \ ~[ 'fp:TA~1 ft'~. ~ P!-3 v1 D~6,L~r I --- b. LW- '-r C"',f" -CJ.SJV" - ().~ ......,.... (YUJ.Y ~ 0 {' <:, ::: I ~ fe~ \Yo CJ....+~~ c:" ....J ~ ~ ~'''~~.".11 A r- ~',- b'-<-~ ^ A'~ r. t JA_- - -J - f '-" 1-0 $ ~ ~. = ~ c - '-I ~\;. \-';~)L ~)YL.. . CO * V . '" '...-Ji.-\.-~r I ~"";,~ )() "-~~ <'.. t- I - . ..)J)..~ I- t .J!../' j .:A v <::..lc.. ....p!., ~ f\ "'- . I \!---;cJ- A-~ r ~,p'1..c:<' 1.0 \ ; v S. 'Ie - y (pt..uJ ~ ::Sf o--c..-L ~_~ &;'~ .;)1'7= - '\[ GY-::). . S' J~ :~f'~ ~ ~ ~-~~ Cj~$ (e.o'~S -~--V~fY~~ <!).J--H.A, 8' h. ~,< Sf"~ 1 -~o~ r~R. b. },;:/ 0--, a.b<!j'fl.JS l.'::'1f ~ ~-H ~ ~YY\C~ '-' I ~s. Jr-r r. rJ)/..f 1 ~~1, j ) J" - 0~ r' S ' ,,- U/t-. . c:. @ C1~():. ;').-.... .I'.~,,,,"', ~_~ I "\?" I ^ I /, . . I f,;,)'-><. .:; C> , I v I I' , , E) ~ :>,1': J :; r ~-:;; /.Y' I ~1~ (' '- '-i.71~~~ cr-Y\ ^ ~i> I~ ,) .~ -.rd- (;_ ~ .~\\\)'& ~ J~' \ u . , ...J..J\J"........--\i o )jcsJqo .~~~ - ;J^{J- ~ I ~ / 05 fC~ ~h ~-V~ ~"x.. F-/D 0~ . .\.'Ct~ . b) ~ 1&f,_N..-' .).-L)-.f' ~. 0 do-'i~U. ~ ~--1)xD -A ..) ~JU ~} /ft{};uJ ) . V " / 1; /; ~'~-0 ' l{ ..A.A.-n'J ;5dd~ sr ,I) f~ \Z\C j~I'~ SI~O"~ I 0 .)e.>u ,:J c:r" .::.. ~ ~ " 7if L a:s ( - ~ ~0~/rJ...&J I , ~s; A p-, \ . C\~ , ): r- \..),\~~ JC'0 \ ~ . J'. . ~ - ----;;01- d ~., I ') = I .J~ /11 - ~ , , \ ." ---+-~ I ' I 6'0 l\j. lr~~ ~ 11 n , ~~..'. 11 6fl~.-' J(J b eX '--' 2:&/ ~ ~ i ,~~ I r?JJL. rQ.,cr~/~ . I'~~ ( I . I , I 1'8 0~ I. J; il4" V . l',-f'.1- ':"~ f~ 1(6; j 1: I~j.))il tJ-. j, cl-JS ~~ I , 8 ~ @ .~tD tcDf . ~'II\..l -1\ 'I jl~~3 ,1[ ~~2 - ~~I~__- - ~~ o01o~J~~ ' ,~~ ."._D~~:,:l~: '~"'.'u~""'" ~~,l"U _fOl\~<;L.LJ.L.I . . /~~S'~~ cffJ~ ~~J- , 6'~ ~Qt:\J ~\~~L)o..~ . 6~~ "!,. ~~\~'-'. ~~:::~q~yl~~-P '~D.-O - 'd;)v1J'~. .r. . .... . -+ ,\1\ I _ h~ ;l;- -f ::, . _J'~.. Ye.:s~ r~~iIo""D u.~ "I ,..,.,.~.~.. I,l' H II :11. 'Ii i~" " ; 4- ::!\C-~ I 111 , ,I " I 'lk ;1 ,I ,.',.. .....,. -,.~=.:;-,...""., "rr~""--" '" iil il~ 'I (J,~ "I "-A.l" , I ill. , II . .. .1>- il . '.. ,'i _c:o:,;",' .: ,iV~ C)PC1\ 0~'--'-.~-{'~~~'~-~'" "0 j:J~~+ ~bn~~ "'-""'~".'" 'C'~~.""', ',,~~&~,.' -','.....__...._~... ~"""_f _~ -.'--' ~ _"'~'-"'.~'.'W".=~"-""""""-,-"",,.-,,,.~~'_'-'. . r:--' - ,.,.... ii! . .~f:!J=,)~~;ytr~f1p(;~ rJUMY - . ,;1 . Hi . . ",'''- .- . .L....". ..~........;,~~~ =::;)s\~ .. .. ..'8~:- ;;:~;s.~~~~ 1--- '.' .....-,. ..... ., . . ~~ ..,. . . "'111" ,~~<st~ '2ti - M ~ . ... ~\-\- Q..C.,~;X> ~0D .m 111_" '. . . .Pi ~ ~ ,,:~~ r:.~. . . -/b ~ s - . c:..c.- "Zt-{ ? ~~~ ~~uO ....SlQ\~ .~...l~-.h~~.,.., ... !i ". iii "1"-- ..i~:f~\ - C1('_~Sr~\::P.Jk r-€flJy~y4_. . ..,..... II'-~' . ,aJ~\/\'~if,;;..J. ~Q~\\L~ I . ' ". .... ...,:._..... . ' , . . ~.ua~)tn -. "..._._.......m.....~~Xl.LD_... ,......._._......_.. ~9..\, ~ . .. 1/' \1.-, ~.-h. . .L t. 1 r; n ._ I; :;..a.....~ .~'_... . ---n:-~w\~"e..~~ e.uJ 1).~lwv'.:i ,~_~._IIJ ---..... .,'......~ ..~.=._~-:~..?\5L:l~tr'J~.~-. . ,--~~ ,.""">~~.~.~ ........,-.."...,.., ~-, ..... . -., - . I/M..~' ~ ~ ~ ~J1~-s " , . / ..~. "-'_""'''_ ._.Q.. .C?-_... ._..;~.. ~ )J2___~.1D._..,._.._-_...,~.,......_,...~ ~...... ..._:.~--'-_.*c~,~4:';:~~~ : I ! ! i ,.."_._.'"....._.'.~. --, - _..,-_.~..,. -. .,~.~ -- - ~\ \\\l'CJS /d-,/ d, ~~~~~~~~~ ) (\N~~~ct+~~j Q)~\\\ Df'D~~ ~~ r~. LJYUt~ ~ f\C5:>D - ~~ c1ct:M ~ .t~ \f~~~U - ;)6 - ~ 5J+. vw~ e~~-r6&d~ ('YV\\J6 +8f-cD!.. 3 <S~ 6Ji , S'\6s... ~ 1~'Cl~ ~ - ~ ::>; G~ 'f;12 ~ :t, j)/ ~ J ~.~-+fl, ) }~N JS-73CJ 5#. V~ iPcc~ - 25 o~ A ::t v,.;k (~.; ,..-.- - LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE .JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, .JR. TELEPHONE (303) 925-7116 FAX (303) 925-eeoe .JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III W.R I 3 1900 March 12, 1990 Leslie Lamont City Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Ute Trail Townhouses Dear Leslie: Enclosed for your file is a letter from BFI Waste Systems which states that they have reviewed the plans for the trash area proposed for the Ute Trail Townhouses and the trash service area is more than satisfactory. This should comply with condition number 15 to the conceptual P.U.D. approval as addressed on page 27 of the application filed February 26, 1990. Also enclosed is a letter from Brenda S. Beairsto of Nelson/Zeeb Construction Company, Avon, Colorado, stating that she certifies that she mailed a copy of the notice attached thereto to each of the persons listed on the attached list of names. This should demonstrate compliance with the mailing of notice requirements. If you would like a copy of the certificate from Stewart Title which states that those names are the names of the owners listed within 300 feet of the Ute Trail Townhouses property, I can provide that also. Please contact me if you have any questions. V~ry truly n:9J4I>~ ( E. Edwards, III JEE ch Enclosures _._--....,..~~~"~..,.,....,..,.~_._-~--_.."'~.__.__.. .1,.".;) t ,';. ... ~17 ()j MYLER. STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER. P.e. SANDRA M. STULLER. P.C. ALAN E. SCHWARTZ 106 S. MILL STREET. SUITE 202 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 920.1018 FAX 920-4259 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City council and Board of Directors of sister City Housing, Inc. FROM: David J. Myler DATE: January 24, 1995 RE: Billings Place - Final Report As of completed. addressed. satisfactory this date, the Billings Place proj ect is essentially A few relatively minor "punch list" items remain to be We are holding $20,000 in retainage to insure completion of those items. Sale of all units has been completed and all of the units are presently occupied by the purchasers. A condominium association has been formed and the initial meeting with the purchasers was held on January 19, 1995. At that time, operating control of the association was turned over to a board of directors elected by the current owners. The Japanese Investment Notes have been paid in full and $50,000 will be set aside to create an educational fund on behalf of Mayor Kannon. Along with John Worcester and Bob Hughes, I am engaged in settlement negotiations with the Black Swan Hall owners, primarily relating to their claim for damages in connection with the removal of a large cottonwood tree during construction, and hope that this matter will be resolved quickly. Funds have also been set aside in order to satisfy any potential obligations that we may have in that regard. The only remaining issue of any consequence involving our contract with Mr. Pugh ~s the possibility of additional compensation based upon the resale value of the free market units. As you may recall, . Sister City Housing is entitled to a "bonus" equal to the difference between $1,300,000 and 25% of the sale price or appraised value of the three free market units. Based upon current estimates of value, we expect that some additional compensation will be forthcoming. It would, however, be premature to estimate the amount of that compensation at this time. s .__._.._-----~_._..,....--------~._--'----.. .._._._.~---_.._._--~... ...-. --"'>",~:;rp' "wi t .,1\ W MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Memorandum to Aspen City Council and Board of Directors of Sister City Housing, Inc. January 24, 1995 Page 2 Without including any additional "bonus" compensation, the revenue and expenses for the project for the period December 1, 1992 through January 15, 1995 can be summarized as follows: Revenue: A. Loans 1. 2. 3 . Aspen Kannon Japanese Investors $ 776,000 50,000 600,000 $1,426,000 B. Income Expenses: 1 . 2 . 3. 4. 5 . 6. 7. 8. 1. 2 . 3 . Sale to Pugh Sale of Completed units Interest $1,300,000 651,762 34.000 $1,985,762 TOTAL REVENUE $3,411,762 9 . Purchase of Billings Property Interest Expense (Billings Note) Cost of Sale to Pugh Cost of Construction and Re-purchase - Units 0 through J Cost of Sale - Units D through J Operating Expenses Reserve for Black Swan Settlement Pay Off Japanese Investment Notes Principal $600,000 Interest 25,041 Cost of Yen 171.830 Reserve for Kannon Fund $1,300,229 76,100 66,490 882,164 8,926 .- ~.~' : ;YI~) " / r.:( '(j)> .'6(. 796,871 50.000 TOTAL EXPENSES $3,254,533 FUNDS AVAILABLE TO REPAY ASPEN LOAN $ 157,229 s-- / \..) u MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Memorandum to Aspen City Council and Board of Directors of Sister City Housing, January 24, 1995 Page 3 Inc. In an August 15, 1994 memo, I estimated that $345,900 would be available to repay the City of Aspen loan, resulting in a loss/subsidy of $430,100. I noted, however, that that amount would in all likelihood be reduced by the cost of purchasing yen in order to repay the Japanese Investment Notes. Due to the severe decline in the value of the dollar, that cost was $171,830. Were it not for this unforeseen problem, the funds available to repay the City of Aspen would have been $329,059 or $16,841 less than projected. In the final analysis, the project itself came in on budget although a little late and, if market conditions in Aspen continue, we should be able to make up a substantial portion of the exchange rate loss through the "bonus" payment due from Mr. Pugh. siater\counc14.mem S-L -----------_._._~....~_.__..._...- - _.-.....----~--_.-- MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER, p,e. SANDRA M. STULLER. p.e. ALAN E. SCHWARTZ 106 S, MILL STREET. SUITE 202 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (970) 920-1018 FAX 920-4259 October 16, 1995 Steve Barwick City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Billings place - Final Accounting Dear Steve: I have enclosed a check in the amount of $151,452.00, which represents the total funds available for repayment of the Promissory Note by Sister City Housing, Inc. to the City of Aspen. Since my report of January 24, 1995 (copy attached for reference) , the following additional circumstances of significance have occurred: 1. The Board of Directors has not yet determined whether additional compensation is due to Sister City Housing from James Pugh pursuant to the terms of the 1993 Contract for Sale. If additional compensation is due, it will be paid to the City upon receipt. 2. The Black Swan lawsuit has been settled, resulting in the payment of $15,803.88 from Sister City Housing funds. 3. The Kannon Educational Fund, in the principal amount of $50,000.00, has been established_ 4. Additional interest income has been earned. 5 . filed. The 1994 tax returns for Sister City Housing have been The amount paid on the note is $5,777.00 less than anticipated in the January 24th memo. Please note, however, that the Black Swan settlement required $1,803.88 more than anticipated; the 1994 tax return cost $1,525.00, an expense not included in the January 24th memo; and I have retained $2~500.00 to cover additional expenses associated with the corporate tax return for 1995 (total - $5,828.88). With these adjustments, we are within a hundred dollars of the amount projected on January 24th, not considering any additional funds which may be due from James Pugh. I MYLER. STULLER & SCHWARTZ Steve BarW1CK City of Aspen November 16, 1995 Page 2 Sister City Housing, Inc. will remain in existence with a new Board of Directors to serve as the vehicle for administration of the Kannon Educational Fund. Otherwise, its initial purpose has been achieved. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MYLER, By: DJM:caw Enclosures cc: Aspen City Council Sister City Housing Directors sister\city2.1tr l~___ . .._---~-. NAME 5(s nm.. ~ "r- llA-<- .s.3 IdA 19 9~ 82-32611021 PAYTOTH~ -,.d $/si ~s-I~ 0'; ~~ ~tttr(4'.,pf:".j~..&~ ~O~~;'.,--' ~ 'V-~~'V ACCOUNT NO, MEMO I: ~o 2 ~O:l 2b ~I: "loa a :1511" ~~~Ij,~~1lll~~!!~i~W~~1l\~#I~~~,.i~,'l~!I~I~_i)!~~~~W~~i ~~~ -') ,!r.'Pi"'" , , , ... -',.'>-!' "- -. ' . ".- .)~ Y'. '. - - - - - - - .. BILLINGS AFFORDABLE · HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN - - - - .. - .. - - .. - .. - .. - .. - .. .. APPLICATION FOR GMQS EXEMPTION, MAP AMENDMENT AND CONCEPTUAL PUD . .. . .. III November 13, 1989 .. III .. lIII ... lIII - ... .. APPLICATION FOR G.M.Q.S. EXEMPTION, MAP AMENDMENT AND CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. FOR THE BILLINGS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - November 13, 1989 - - Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 920-5090 - - - - OWner/ Applicant: 'iIIiIlI Architect: - - - "- Civil Engineer: - Attorney: - ... .. - - - - - .... - - - 020/02 Nelson/Devore Partnership 1280 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-1744; 925-2317 william Lipsy & Associates Box 3203 Aspen, Colorado 81612 210 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-3734 Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Inc. Suite 204, 601 East Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-6727 Joseph E. Edwards, III Law Offices of Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. Suite 109, 201 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-7116 ... .. .... .. TABLE OF CONTENTS - Page # .. ... I. INTRODUCTION 1 .. II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 4 - A. Project Goal 4 ... B. Request for Fee Waivers 5 - C. Architectural Overview 6 .. D. Variances Requested 7 - III. REQUEST FOR G.M.Q.S. EXEMPTION (F.M.U.) 9 IV. COMMON REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 10 ... V. MAP AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS 13 VI. MAP AMENDMENT REVIEW STANDARDS 15 ... VII. CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. REQUIREMENTS 24 A. General Information 24 B. Conceptual Description 24 - l. Introduction 24 2. Free-Market Units 25 - 3. Affordable Housing Units 28 - 4. Open space 30 .... 5. summary 31 ... C. Public Facilities 31 - D. Conceptual Site Plan 32 .. VIII. CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. REVIEW STANDARDS 33 .... .. A. General Requirements 33 ... B. Density 33 .. C. Land Uses 35 ... Dimensional Requirements 35 D. .. ... .. - .. - ... - .. .. .. - .. - .. - - - 1. .. - 2. .. 3. - ... 4. 5. ,- - 6. ... 7. E. Off-Street Parking 38 F. Open Space 39 G. Landscape Plan 41 H. Architectural Site Plan 41 1. Lighting 41 J. Clustering 41 K. Public Facilities 41 L. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation 42 EXHIBITS Land Use Application Form and Pre-Application Conference Summaries Letter from Applicant Regarding Habitable F.A.R. and Number of Bedrooms Letter of Authorization from Applicant Title Certificate 8t"xll" Vicinity Maps Letters Regarding Availability of Public Facilities Letter from Engineer Regarding Drainage ... 8. 8t"xll" Site Plan 9. Soils Report .. .. - 1. .. 2. - .. - .. - .. - - 020/03 BACK POCKET Improvement Survey Full-Size Site Plan -2- z o ~ U ::J o o 0:: ~ Z - .. ... ... I. INTRODUCTION .. .. This application is for a G.M.Q.S. exemptiop, map ... amendment and conceptual P.U.D. approval for a project on .. the property at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, and is ... submitted by the owners of the property, the Nelson/Devore .. Partnership (applicant). The project will have a free- ... .. market component and an affordable housing component. The ... application for G.M.Q.S. exemption is for the free-market .. --- ~mponent. The property is currently zoned R-6, mandatory .. P.U.D.; and the applicant requests an amendment to the .. Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen (rezoning) .. .. to R/MF, mandatory P.U.D. Also, the applicant requests .. approval of the conceptual P. U . D. application for the .. property. Attached as Exhibit 1 is the Land Use Application ... form and a copy of the two Pre-Application Conference - Summaries. - Because there is involved a mandatory P.U.D., a "four- .. .. step" process is required by S 6-205 of the Aspen Land Use .. Regulations, Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (here- .. inafter Land Use Regulations). Section 6-205A.8.c., Land .. Use Regulations, requires that approval of a rezoning be .. simultaneous with review of the final P.U.D. application; .. the applicant is submitting the application for rezoning for - .. reference by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City - Council at the conceptual level. The applicant requests the .. necessary public hearings and formal consideration and .. approval of the rezoning be contemporaneous with .. - .. - .. ... .. consideration of the final P.U.D. application in accordance .. .. with the Land Use Regulations. At its meeting on Novem- f ber 7, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved sponsorship of the rezoning application. ... .. ... In the first two steps of the four-step process, the applicant seeks approval ofCJ2})an application for G.M.Q.S. ~ exemption by the Planning Director pursuant to .. ... .. - S 8-104A.l. a., Land Use Regulations, for the free-market component of the project and~ a conceptual P.U.D. appli- cation. Also, for reference, the applicant has filed its - - .. application for rezoning. In steps 3 and 4 of the four-step .. process, the applicant will by separate application seek approval of ~ a ~M.Q.S. exemption by City Council pursuant to S 8-104C.l.c., Land Use Regulations, for the ... .. affordable housing component of the project, ~,an ---- - application to rezone the property from R-6, mandatory P.U.D., to R/MF, mandatory P.u.D.~a final P.U.D. application, @ a subdivisio~ application, and ~ a special review application for parking for the affordable - - ... .. ... h.Qusing component pursuant to S 5-301B., Land Use Regu- lations, and for an external floor area ratio (F.A.R.) .. ... increase from 1:1 to 1.1:1 pursuant to S 5-2060.10, Land Use .. Regulations. Additionally, the applicant intends to apply ... .. for conn,-,m; Qi'l':vi '7"t-i '-'n of the project as a component of the - subdivision application and, after final approval, to apply .. for ~~T;ng of property development rights. since there is ... involved a rezoning and a P.U.D. approval, the applicant .. ... .. 020/04 -2- - "" - ... ~ requests that all final approvals be adopted by the ordinance procedure pursuant to the requirements of the City Charter. The applicant requests, pursuant to S 6-202C., Land Use Regulations, that the Planning Director waive any overlap- ping application submission requirements and allow the applications to be submitted and considered as a consolidat- ed development application. This application for G.M.Q.S. exemption, rezoning and conceptual P.U.D. is exempt from Ordinance 58 (Series of 1989) by Section 4 of that ordinance, because the applicant will reconstruct as affordable housing not less than 100% of the existing habitable floor area and not less than 100% of the existing bedrooms of the currently existing residential dwellings on the subject property. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a letter from William Lipsey, Architect, and Karinjo Devore, General Partner of applicant, stating they have examined the premises existing on the property, the "existing habitable FAR" is 5,655 square feet and the total number of bedrooms is 12. - .. ... - - .. .. .. - .. ... .. ... ... ... - ... - .. ... ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. 020/04 -3- l- e.. u - C 0 0 c u U C C C C C u C "" 3"" C - f- c - C l U LJ c: - .. - .. ... II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. Project Goal. The applicant views the proposed development as an exciting and unique opportunity. This property has a long history of providing affordable housing to residents who are employed in the community. Karinjo and Nicholas Devore are general partners of the applicant and have resided on the property since 1961. There are currently three generations of Devores living on this property. Deane Billings, the prior owner of the property, moved to California and, approximately one year ago, determined to sell the property. Due to spiraling real estate prices in the Aspen area, the fair market value of the underlying realty reached a level which could not be supported by rental of affordable housing. Thus, it became apparent the property would go the route of many other affordable housing projects in the Aspen area--sale, demoli- tion and reconstruction of very expensive second homes for non-residents. This has already happened on the neighboring parcels. Consequently, the current residents would be displaced--very likely down valley. This is a problem which has plagued Aspen of late and which the current City Council is struggling to solve. See, for example, Ordinance 47 (Series of 1988), Ordinance 23 (Series of 1989), Ordinance 58 (Series of 1989) and Ordinance 59 (Series of 1989). This project arose out of the desire of the Devore family to remain on the property and retain the history of .. .. .. .. - - - .. - - .. - - .. - ,- .. .. ... - ... .. ... .. .. .. .. 020/04 -4- . .. - - providing affordable housing at this location; the proposal - - is an effort to help solve instead of further exacerbate the ... problems currently faced by the City of Aspen. The goal of - the project is to reconstruct affordable housing which - replaces more than 100% of the existing habitable F.A.R. and - more than 100% of the existing bed~ooms while paying fair - market value for the underlying real estate. Thus, Deane .. - Billings has received full fair market value for the - property; and the qualified long-term residents will have - the opportunity to continue living on the property. In .. order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to develop a - project with a free-market unit (F.M.U.) component and an - affordable housing unit (A.H.U.) component. In essence, the - F.M.U. component will subsidize the A.H.U. component and thereby allow affordable housing to remain in this desirable - location. This property is one and one-half blocks from the Gondola; if affordable housing can be successfully retained - on this property, it can be done on almost any property in - .. town. Through developments such as this, ~fordable - resident housinq can be disbursed throughout the City and - ... County without current landowners suffering losses in the value of their properties. .. B. Request for Fee Waivers. - - In order to help make this project financially ... 1 feasible, the applicant requests the waiver by the City Council of application fees, the park development impact fee, water tap fees, plan check fees and permit fees. The .. . .. .. - 020/04 -5- - .. ... - ... applicant feels the waiver of these fees is justified since the goal of the project is to preserve in-town affordable housing without any up front (e.g., land buy-down) subsidy from the City. If financially and otherwise successful, this project can serve as a model for future retention of in-town affordable housing. Another significant cost faced by the applicant is the carrying cost of financing the project. Thus, the City could be of tremendous assistance in ensuring the viability of the project by expediting the scheduling of the meetings for the processing of the development applications. The applicant will assist in any way possible to expedite the scheduling of the processing of the applications. C. Architectural Overview. The physical shape of the land in large part dictates the architectural layout of the project. As designed, the project will be constructed in three clusters. One cluster will be comprised of four F .M. U. s and the remaining two clusters will be comprised of five and two A.H.U.s. The F.M.U.s will be in a townhouse format along the Ute Avenue (front) side of the property. In order to avoid the feeling of a large wall along Ute Avenue and to protect the views from Glory Hole Park and Ute Avenue, the proposed front yard set back for three of the four F.M.U.s is 20 feet instead of 10 feet as required by the zone district. Behind the F.M.U.s will be an entrance to the F.M.U. garages and open parking for the A.H.U.s. The - - .. .. - - - .. .. - - .. - - - - - .. - .. .. .. - .. .. .. - .. - 020/04 -6- - .. - .. A.H.U.s will be in two clusters behind the parking area. '. . The open space is divided between the F.M.U. and A.H.U. . clusters. Over 3,000 square feet of open space is in front .. of and on the sides of the F.M.U. cluster, and the remaining - open space creates a landscaped courtyard for the A.H.U. .. clusters. ... .. D. Variances Requested. In large part, the project can be constructed ... .. within the parameters of the R/MF zone district. However, a ... few minor variances through P.U.D. will be requested; and an . external F.A.R. bonus is requested through special review. ... - ~ height variance of five feet is requested for the F.M.U. cluster and one of the A.H.U. clusters. Two variances of ... - .. two feet (for a distance of approximately 20 feet) on the - side-yard setbacks and a variance of seven feet (for a ---- - - distance of approximately 20 feet) on the rear-yard setback are requested. Additionally, the location of approximately .. - one-half of the open space is proposed to be with and around .. the A.H.U. component of the project which is located towards ... the rear of the project and off of Ute Avenue. The strict - definition of open space includes a requirement that open ... space be open to view from the street at pedestrian level. . The definition of street in the Land Use Regulations .. .. includes private streets such as the access easement along . the northwest boundary of the property.. The project has mere tfiaR saffisisRt uncovered spac~~~~~e -+.~ uo~o~ 1"'-$ district requirement, some of ~~space may not satisfy the - - .. ... - 020/04 -7- - .. - ... strict definition of open space; and a variance through the .. '. P.U.D. process for the percent of "open space" is requested. ... ~e ~kQ Q][~ R~ ~--~g~~PY Pursuant to S 5-2060.10., Land Use - Regulations, the external F.A.R. in the R/MF zone may be ... increased for multifamily dwellings from 1:1 to 1.1:1 by ... special review. Although the floor area of the living - ... spaces is considerably below the 1:1 ratio, the external - F .A. R. bonus will be requested to accommodate porches, - overhangs and other architectural amenities which greatly ... enhance the quality of the project. - - - - ----+ Re ~ ~S-32 ~ ~ O~J91, ~~'o~ ~~ q~ r~ - - .. - ... .. ... ... . - - - - ... - ... - 020/04 -8- - z o I- 0- r: LJ...I X LJ...I (f) o r: (.!) a: o I..L.. I- (f) LJ...I ::J o LJ...I a: - ... ,- ... ,'111 III. REQUEST FOR G.M.Q.S. EXEMPTION (F.M.U.) The applicant has been informed by Bill Drueding, Chief Zoning Official for the City of Aspen, that the applicant has four "legal" residential units on the property. Pursu- ant to ~ R-I04A.l.a., Land Use Regulations, the applicant requests exemption by the Planning Director from the G.M.Q.S. requirements of the Land Use Regulations for the four units to be reconstructed on the property to comprise the F.M.U. component of the project. The applicant will request G.M.Q.S. exemption by City Council for the A.H.U. component pursuant to ~ 8-104C.l.c., Land Use Regulations, with the second submission of applications (steps three and four) . - .. - .. - .. .. .. - - - .. - .. .. - - - - .. - .. - . - - .. .. - - .. .. 020/04 -9- (j') I- Z L.J...J L L.J...J ~ - :::l 0 L.J...J ~ 3 L.J...J > L.J...J ~ Z 0 L L 0 - u . > - ~ '. ,," ,~ IV. COMMON REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Section 6-202B., Land Use Regulations, provides the five common review requirements to be contained in all development applications. These five requirements are provided below for both the rezoning application and the conceptual P.U.D. application. A. "The applicant I s name, address and telephone number contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant." Attached as Exhibit 3 is the required letter from the applicant. B. "Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur." The street address for the project is 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. The legal description for the property is Lots 14 and 15A, Ute Addition, Original Aspen Townsite, and a tract of land being parts of Lots 33 and 38, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth P.M. lying northeasterly of an existing roadway which roadway abuts the southwesterly boundary of the said tract which is more particularly described as follows. Beginning at the most southerly corner of Lot 14, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, thence S45042' OO"W 81. 71 feet; thence N27009'OO"W 34.27 feet; thence N13051'OO"W 47.51 feet; thence N28034'OO"E 57.60 feet; thence southeasterly '.. .. '.. - . .. . .. .. - .. .. . ".. .. - .. .- ... - .. ... .. .. .. - .. - .. .. .. ... - 020/04 -10- - '4 '" along line 1-9 of the former boundary of the City of Aspen to the point of beginning. C. "A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the development application." Attached as Exhibit 4 is a copy of a current title certificate from Pitkin County Title showing ownership of the property in the applicant and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel. As owner of the property, the applicant has the right to file these development applications. D. "An 8~"xll" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen." Attached as Exhibit 5 is a copy of an 8~"x11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. E. "A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application." The specific review standards for rezoning and for conceptual P.U.D. include a written description of the ,~ "IW ,-, '. - - - - .. - ... - - - - ... ... - - - - - - - . - .. - - 020/04 -11- - .. - .. - proposal and are addressed in separate sections later in this application. .. ... .. .. .. - .. ... .. ... .. - .. - - - .. - - - .. .. .. ... .. - .. - .. - .. 020/04 -12- (f) f- Z LL.J L: LL.J 0:: - :::J o LL.J 0:: f- Z LL.J L: o Z LL.J L: <( 0.. <( L: ..,,, "'> - - '" i,... ..~"'" V. REZONING REQUIREMENTS Section 7-1104C., Land Use Regulations, provides the three requirements (in addition to consideration of the specific review standards) for an application for rezoning. Each of these is addressed. A. "The present zone district classification and existing land uses of the real property proposed to be amended." .. ... - ... .. ... - ... - The present zone district classification of the subject property is R-6, mandatory P.U.D.; and there are two residential buildings on the property with an existing ~abitah'p fleer ULca vI S,95~ square feet- These residences are not deed restricted. However, they have historically been rented as affordable housing. There are currently two parking spaces on the property. There are four "legal" units and 12 bedrooms in these residences. B. "The area of the property proposed to be amended, stated in square feet of acres, or a major fraction thereof." .. - ... ... - - - ... ... ... - The entire parcel is proposed to be amended from R-6, mandatory P.U.D., to R/MF, mandatory P.U.D. The total square footage ()f thi s parcel is approximately 17,975.5 square feet. See the survey in the pocket at the back of this application. C. "An accurate survey map of the real property proposed for amendment." ... - ... ... .. ... .. ... - .. . 020/04 -13- - ... - - - Included with this application in the pocket in the back of the application is a copy of a current improvements survey of the real property. - - ... - ... - . ... - ... . - . - ... - ... - - - - ... ... . ... . ... . ... . - . 020/04 -14- - ~I 0::: <( Cl Z <( f- (f) 3 UJ > UJ 0::: f- Z UJ L Cl z UJ L <( Q. <( L - ~- - ., .~. ..., VI. REZONING REVIEW STANDARDS -. The nine standards of review for a rezoning are provid- .. -, ed in S 7-1102, Land Use Regulations. Each of these stan- .. dards is addressed. -. A. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict .. with any applicable portions of this chapter." The proposed rezoning from R-6, mandatory P.U.D., .. to R/MF, mandatory P. U. D., is not in conflict with any - ... applicable portion of the Land Use Regulations. ~. B. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with .. all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." ... To date, four elements of the Aspen Area Compre- .. hensive Plan have been adopted by the City Council. The .,... .. Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element was adopted by Resolution No. 18 (Series of 1985); the Historic Preserva- '.. tion Element was adopted by Resolution No. 25 (Series of 1986); the Transportation Element was adopted by Resolution ". No. 19 (Series of 1987); and the Annexation Element was .. adopted by Resolution No. 31 (Series of 1988). The proposed - amendment is not inconsistent with any element. With - respect to the Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element, - Glory Hole Park is directly across the street from the - proposed development, and there is a paved trail along the ... - northeast side of Ute Avenue. The project will have open - space consistent with the RM/F zone requirements, although ) some of it is located near the rear of the parcel to create a courtyard for the A.H.U. component and, therefore, may not - - - ~ ... 020/04 -15- - - meet the strict definition of open space because it is not open to view at pedestrian level from Ute Avenue or the private street along the northwest property line. with respect to the Historic Preservation Element, the dwellings currently on the property, while old, are certainly not historic in an architectural or any other sense. Most of the other developments on Ute Avenue are developed in a scale and character similar to that proposed for this project. This project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the Transportation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan because the project is providing additional off-street parking and not displacing resident employees. The two current parking spaces will be replaced with 16 parki~g spaces. Further, resident employees who would undoubtedly be displaced down valley or, at a minimum, out of the downtown area, and, thereby, forced to commute will be retained in the center of town within walking distance of most employers and essential facilities. The proposed project is not inconsistent with the Annexation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The project has long been a part of the townsite of Aspen. C. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses considering exist- ing land use and neighborhood characteristics." - - - - - - .. - - - - - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. - .. 020/04 -16- The purpose of the R/MF zone district is stated at ~ 5-206A. .. ... The purpose of the R/MF zone district is to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term residential purposes, with customary accessory uses. . . . Lands in the R/MF zone district are typically those found in the original Aspen Townsite, within walking distance of the center of the city, or include lands on transit routes, and other lands with existing concentrations of attached residential dwellings and mixed attached and detached residential dwellings. - ... ... .. - .... - The proposed amendment and the project proposed - - for the property fit squarely within the purpose of the R/MF zone. The proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding ... zone districts. - To the north and west of the project is the L/TR ... zone. To the south and east of the project is R-6, mandatory P.U.D. zoning (of which the subject property is - currently a part). To the north and east directly across - Ute Avenue is Glory Hole Park, which has a P zoning; and across Glory Hole Park to the north and east is a large area ... zoned R/MF. The L/TR zone neighboring the property is '- slightly more intensive than the proposed R/MF zone: there - ... are more permitted uses; the allowable height is three feet - higher; and the minimum percent of open space required is - ten percent less for L/TR than for R/MF. Compare ~ 5-206 - and ~ 5-215, Land Use Regulations. The R/MF zone is an ... appropriate transitional zone from the more intensive L/TR - ... ! zone to the less intensive R-6 zone. This property is one and one-half blocks from the Gondola and within a few - - .' 020/04 -17- ~ - ... minutes walking distance from the commercial core of the ) town. ~n intensive residential use of this property is approprJ.ate. ... .. The front of the property abuts Ute Avenue. .. Directly across Ute Avenue is Glory Hole Park, and across .". Glory Hole Park is a large area zoned R/MF. Directly behind - the property is a ten-foot-wide dirt road. Directly behind .. ~~.~ this small roadway is a steep hillside which is very likely /70 too steep for development. - - On the two sides of the property (northwest and ." southeast) are multi-family townhouse-style condominium ... developments. To the northeast of the property are the 777 - - Ute Townhomes and the Ajax Condominiums. To the southwest - of the property is Black Swan Hall. The 777 gte Avenue Townhomes are constructed in the L/TR zone. According to - the recorded plat, these townhomes are on a lot with an area of 21,475 square feet and consist of nine free-market - condominiums each three stories high. This project is - constructed on an odd-shaped lot with the bulk and mass of - the project clustered on Ute Avenue adjacent to the .. Nelson-Devore property. A large portion of the open space - for that project is on an odd-shaped parcel in the rear. - ,~ According to the G.M.P. application for that project, the .. floor area for the nine free-market units on that project is .. 28,700, of which 19,689 is attributable to F.A.R. Assuming - these numbers are accurate, the external F.A.R. for that project is .93:1. This project provided no affordable - - 020/04 -18- -' '.. housing but instead made a cash payment of $300,000.00 in lieu of construction of affordable housing. The Ajax '... ... Condominiums are a two-story nine-unit condominium project ,- which also provided no affordable housing. .. Black Swan Hall is constructed in the R-6 zone and ~ - is a four-unit condominium complex. According to the - recorded plat, each unit is three stories high with four ... ...... bedrooms and is built on approximately 18,730 square feet of - land. According to the file at the City Clerk's Office, the - total floor area of the project is 7,600 square feet. The .. affordable housing was provided by .41:1. Once again, ~ this project. no external F.A.R. of the project is - - An R/MF rezoning is compatible with the - surrounding zone districts and land uses and would provide an appropriate transitional zone from the L/TR zone to the ---------- - R-6 zone. The proposed project and the proposed rezoning are consistent with the existing land use and neighborhood '. characteristics. '~ ... D. "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic - generation and road safety." - There will be no effect on traffic generation and - road safety other than the avoidance of potential adverse - effects caused by displacing resident afforable housing. - - This project is within walking distance of the Gondola and '. all essential services. State Highway 82 has been made .. increasingly dangerous in recent years due to the - displacement of affordable resident housing down valley - - - 020/04 -19- - since most of the jobs are in the Aspen area and most of the .,. affordable housing is down valley. This project seeks to .... retain 100% of the existing habitable F.A.R., which - currently is affordable resident housing, and more than 100% - of the bedrooms which are currently affordable housing. ... ) This project will replace the two existing on-site parking spaces with 16 new parking spaces. .,. - ... E. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed .. amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and - whether and the extend 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 rezoning from R-6, mandatory P.U.D., to R/MF, - mandatory P. U. D., will not affect demand on any public ",.4 facili ty except water supply. There are currently two - ? {/Ii .. residences divided into 12 units on the property, and the - neighborhood is already intensely developed. The only - jinCrease in water. The demand on public facilities is with respect to .. two residences currently on the property obtain - water directly from the Durant Mine. The new project will - tap onto the City water lines. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a .. .. letter from Jim Markalunas, Director, Aspen Water ... i Department, which confirms that adequate water supply is available to service the proposed project. Also attached as Exhibi t 6 are letters from Aspen Consolidated Sanitation .. .. .. - - 020/04 -20- - ,.. - District, Holy Cross Electric Association and the Fire Department stating that adequate facilities are available to service the proposed project. The project is within easy walking distance of the Rubey Park transportation facility, and the project will provide 14 new on-site parking spaces. F. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment." There will be no adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site is practically flat and treeless. There is a steep, heavily wooded slope directly across the road behind the project which will be undisturbed. The applicant anticipates the addition of trees and other landscaping amenities to enhance the property. G. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character and the City of Aspen. " .. .... "'" - - ... ... ... - ... - - ... .. ... .., ... The proposed amendment from R-6 to R/MF will allow a transition zone from the L/TR zone to the R-6 zone. Development of clusters of multi-family dwellings such as the proposed development for this project is consistent and compatible with the community character in this area of town. The project is one and one-half blocks from the Gondola and within easy walking distance of the commercial core and all essential facilities. ~lustered multi-family dwellings are appropriate for this neighborhood. ... - '" .. ... .. .. .. ... - ... - - 020/04 -21- H. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment." ""111 Since this area of town was originally zoned R-6, mandatory P.U.D., there have been considerable changes in '''- - ithe neighborhood. Black Swan Hall, a multi-family condominium development, was built next to this project in 1977; and the 777 Ute Townhomes project on the other side of ... - this property is currently under construction. There has - been considerable new development on Ute Avenue, including a [large residential project at 1010 Ute Avenue. The most significant change to the neighborhood was the addition of the Gondola, Gondola building and Little Nell Hotel. These - - ... ~ ~ - additions and the increased use of Aspen Mountain caused by - the Gondola have made this area of town considerabely more . intensive. More important is the recent dislocation of - resident employees. Aspen has reached an almost crisis - .. level with lack of affordable housing. Due to spiraling - real estate values, affordable housing throughout the City .. of Aspen has been largely replaced with second homes priced - far beyond the reach of the majority of the employees in .. town. As a result, the employees which service the town's ... .. tourist industry are now forced to commute from down valley - or simply leave the area. As a result, there is a shortage .. of employees; and those employees who have stayed in the ... area are generally bitter and angry. This rezoning is .. .- - 020/04 -22- '>0' ,. proposed in an attempt to prevent the displacement of additional employees from the Aspen area. 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." The proposed amendment is clearly in harmony with the public interest and the intent of the Land Use Regulations. The Land Use Regulations have been amended extensively within the last few years in an attempt to stimulate reconstruction of affordable housing as is proposed by this project. This project is not in conflict with the public interest since it proposes to retain in the Aspen area affordable housing. - ,- - - ....... ,.. ... - .. 'If ,.... - - ,.. '" - - - - - ... .. " .., ... "" .. - 020/04 -23- en f- Z u.J L u.J a ::J o u.J a o ::J 0- .....J <( ::J f- 0- w U Z o u """- ,- - - ... VII. CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. REQUIREMENTS The requirements for submission of a conceptual P.U.D. development plan are set forth in 5 7-903C.l.a., Land Use Regulations. Each of these is addressed below. A. "The general application information required in common procedures, 5 6-202." This information is provided above in Section IV, Common Review Requirements. B. "A conceptual description of the proposed P.U.D. This shall include but not be limited to a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the planned unit development and a conceptual description of proposed land uses, building heights and locations, landscaping, open space, natural features and access ways." 1. Introduction. This development plan mixes two very different housing types: affordable housing units and free-market units. Four F.M.U.s in a townhouse style are clustered on the Ute Avenue frontage in order to maximize views of Glory Hole Park and Red Mountain. They are on the least constrained portion of an extremely tapered site. The seven A.H.U.s, covering less ground than the F.M.U.s, are clustered on the Aspen Mountain side of the site, the most constrained portion of the site. Parking for the A.H.U.s and the entrance to the F.M.U. garages are located between these two components on the middle portion of the site. Access to the parking is by a dedicated access easement on the northwest property line. Pursuant to the ..... - - ... - .. - .. .. - . .. ... - ... - ... f(II - .. .. .. ... .. "" .. ... .. .... ., - - 020/04 -24- '- .. Subdivision (Exception) Agreement for 777 Ute Avenue - Townhomes between the City of Aspen and the developer of .. - that project, which agreement is recorded in Book 575 at - Page 82 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk an - Recorder, the developer of 777 ute Avenue Townhomes is to - pave a l6-foot surface along the access easement on the - northwest property line of this site. See paragraph B.2. of .. that agreement. ... The objective of this development plan is to produce !dignified I replacement housing for the affordable housing now on the site. This housing is made - - - possible through sale of the four F.M.U.s to be built on the Ute Avenue portion of the site. lThe P.U.D. process creates the needed flexibility for development of this odd-shaped .. ~ parcel with an unprecedented mix of high end and low end ..~ .. housing types. ... 2. Free-Market Units. The F.M.U.s are '" necessary to make this project financially feasible. The - . four F.M.U.s will be developed as luxury townhomes. The - applicant's marketing research indicates it is necessary for ., these townhomes to be approximately 3,000 square feet each, .. provide at least three bedrooms and provide garage parking .. for two cars. The proximity of this site to the Gondola and .... ., all essential services in town makes this location prime for - development of luxury townhomes, as is evident by the nine . luxury townhomes being constructed on the 777 Ute project ... next to this proposed development. The applicant requests "" - - 020/04 -25- - - ... variations in height and parking for the F.M.U. component. No variation in setbacks is requested for this component of '" the project. - a. Setbacks. Three of the four - F.M.U.s are set back twice the required ten-foot front-yard - setback. This reduces the apparent height and bulk of the - Ute Avenue facade. The fourth unit is set back only the .. - required ten feet due to a tapering of the site along the ... access easement on the northwest side of the site. Also, by - not being set back the same number of feet as the other .. three units, the Ute Avenue facade is broken up and appears - less bulky. ... b. Height. The underlying R/MF zone - - requires a minimum front yard of ten feet and allows a - maximum height of 25 feet. The proposed three-story F.M.U.s ~ ... - have flat roofs and ar~t high when measured from grade. Because 75% of the Ute Avenue facade is set back 20 "., feet, the apparent height of this part of the facade, when - .. viewed from a passing car on Ute Avenue, is exactly the same ... as a 25-foot-high facade set back only ten feet. The .. F.M.U.s are not sunk five feet below grade, as is usual for - .. this type CJW There of ~evelopment. is a history of occasional spring surface water There are two reasons for this. .. ... runoff from Aspen Mountain (particularly since installation - of new snowmaking facilities and the Gondola) through this - site, which suggests that below-grade areas may be subject " to occasional flooding. This problem is mitigated by not ." - - 020/04 -26- - - " - constructing sub-surface spaces. c ~ from Jay Hammond, c~v~l eng~neer, See Exhibit 7, a ~ which explains letter the .. - potential problem and the suggested solution. (2) Sinking - the F.M.U. garages five feet below grade would require a - minimum of a 20-foot-long ramp at the rear of the townhomes - - to allow the cars to access the below-grade garage. The ------ langle of these ramps would be 25%, far steeper than the recommended standard maximum of 15% for vehicular ramps. - - ... These 20-foot-long ramps could be accommodated only by .. eliminating all of the parking for the A.H.U.s. ... In order to lessen the feeling of a - large wall on Ute Avenue, to avoid drainage problems and to .. - from the underlying zone height maximum of 25 a variation -----.7 feet to 30 - provide A.H.U. parking, the applicant requests - feet. '-------- - c. Parking. Pursuant to ~ 5-206E.l., - Land Use Regulations, required parking for the F.M.U. </II component is one parking space per bedroom. As proposed, - ,. the F . M. U . s have three bedrooms. However, off-street - parking may be varied pursuant to !i 7-903B. 4., Land Use - Regulations, through the P.U.D. process based on several - factors. These factors are addressed in Section VII, .. .. Conceptual P.U.D. Review Standards, below. The applicant - requests a variation in required parking from three spaces - to two spaces for each three-bedroom F.M.U. This reduction - is justified for two reasons. (1) These luxury townhomes ... tend to be second homes which do not generate the usual one '" - 020/04 -27- - - ... .,,,, .. car per bedroom, and there is no need to encourage auto use for second homes in the downtown area. (2) These units are a very short walk from the downtown Aspen area, all essential services and the Gondola, which greatly reduces the need for vehicular transportation. 3. Affordable Housing Units. The A.H.U.s are arranged in two clusters fronting a central courtyard with views toward the wooded slope of adjacent Aspen Mountain and toward Red Mountain across the valley floor. The smaller structure is to the southwest portion of the rear side of the tapered site and is two stories high to allow light into the courtyard and to allow the other A.H.U. structure to have views of Red Mountain. The larger A.H.U. structure is along the southeastern boundary of the rear of the property. A man-made waterfall and creek using water from the Durant Mine (the current domestic water supply for the residences on the property) meanders down the middle of the courtyard providing a wonderful landscaping amenity for the A.H.U.s. Through the P.U.D. process, setback and height variations from the underlying zone dimension requirements are requested. Parking is to be provided through special review. ,- ... - - - - - - - .. .. .. - ... - - - .. - ,., - .. - - .. . .. .. a. Setbacks. The A.H.U. clusters encroach into the side- and rear-yard setbacks as defined by the underlying R/MF zone district in three places. This is necessary to accommodate a site that tapers to zero on the Aspen Mountain side. None of these encroachments borders an - - .. ,- ,~ 020/04 -28- '. ... ,'"' existing building or a potential building site. These - - encroachments border a dirt road. Across this road is a steep, wooded hillside which is not a pr~cal building site. Requested are two side-yard setback variations of a - ... - maximum of three feet deep (for a distance of less than 20 - feet) and one rear-yard setback variation of a maximum of - seven feet deep (for a distance of less than 20 feet). - - These variations and setback encroachments are depicted on - the site plan included herewith. '.. b. Heiqht. The three-story A.H.U. - structure borders the southeast corner of the site in order " to minimize height and bulk impacts and to make possible - creation of the waterfall/courtyard open space--the - - humanizing focal point of the A.H.U. cluster. Further, the ~ height variation helps minimize the footprint of the ~ ~ building, maximize the open space of the project and prevent . ~ j. the need for sinking the cluster below grade. Thus, a height variation of five feet from 25 feet to 30 feet is .. .... . - .. requested for one of the A.H.U. structures. No views are '. impacted by this requested variation. - c. Parking. Pursuant to !l 5-301B., - Land Use Regulations, the parking for the A.H.U. component ... ... is to be determined by special review. Eight parking spaces - are provided for the seven A.H.U. units. The project is within a few minutes' walk from downtown Aspen, and the need - for more than one car per household is doubtful. A special , - - 020/04 -29- - ... ... review application will be provided at steps three and four - - of the review process for the A.H.U. parking. Jl 4. Open Space. The R.M.F. zone district - requires 35% of the site be open space. The site is - 17,975.5 square feet, and 6,291.43 square feet is~quired ~6QI.;;,),S to be open space. The proj~OVides 6,936.25- square feet as uncovered space. This i~of the site area. We have --'3<1 calculated uncovered space as follows. . ~ 0'(;) - ,. ... - .- Total field area 'f()~~ Free-market f~otprint 17,975.5 s.L l-3S.(S S.+'. 4,500.0 s.L - - A.H.U. footprint 1 800.0 s.L ... A.H.U. footprint 2 2,025.25 s.f. - Parking area 3,624.0 - Trash area 70.0 ~ ~J.:16I1 . 25 Total uncovered space 6,956.25 s.f. The uncovered space i~tio~ between the two components of the project. Directly across ,- - ute Avenue from the project is Glory Hole Park, which ... enhances the open feeling on Ute Avenue and the front of the - project. Approximately one-half of uncovered space is - provided on Ute Avenue and along the sides of the F.M.U. component of the project. The remainder of the uncovered ... - space is used for a courtyard for the A.H.U. component of - the property. The courtyard is a tremendous addition to the - A.H.U. component. - As a result of the two-component nature " of this project, some of the uncovered space in the A.H.U. ow - 020/04 -30- ,... As a result of the two-component nature - of this project, some of the uncovered space in the A.H.U. ... courtyard is not "open space" within the strict definition - provided in the Land Use Regulations. The definition of - open space in the Land Use Regulations provides that open - - space areas "shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, which view need not be measured at right - angles." Street, as defined in the Land Use Regulations, - includes private streets such as the street along the - northwest property line used to access the parking area. - Since some portion of the uncovered space on the project does not meet the definition of open space, the applicant - requests a variation from the required percentage of open space through the P.U.D. process.~reliminary calculations indicat~ the total site area satisfies the definition of open space. It is anticipated the applicant will request - - - 5. to shape of the ~ a variation in open space fr Summary. The unu parcel presents unique design challenges and opportunities. - The P.U.D. process makes possible efficient development of - this parcel by encouraging flexibility and innovation. The - - requested variations of height, setback and percentage of - open space would make possible private-sector development - which creates dignified affordable housing for the City of - Aspen in a manner compatible with the surrounding - neighborhood. - - - - 020/04 -31- - ~ '" '''''.~ . courtyard is not "open space" within the strict definition provided in the Land Use Regulations. The definition of open space in the Land Use Regulations provides that open space areas "shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, which view need not be measured at right angles." Street, as defined in the Land Use Regulations, includes private streets such as the street along the northwest property line used to access the parking area. .Since some portion of the uncovered space on the project does not meet the definition of open space, the applicant requests a variation from the required percentage of open space through the P.U.D. process. 5. Summary. The unusual shape of the parcel presents unique design challenges and opportunities. The P.U.D. process makes possible efficient development of this parcel by encouraging flexibility and innovation. The requested variations of height, setback and percentage of open space would make possible private-sector development which creates dignified affordable housing for the City of Aspen in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. C. "A statement conceptually outlining how the proposed P.U.D. development will be served with the appropriate public facilities, and how assurances will be made that those public facilities are available to serve the proposed development." - .- .... - - ... - .. '. - ... "'" ... - - ~.. - - .. . ... - - , ... - - 020/04 -31- - ... .~ ".. - The proposed P.U.D. is adequately served with all appropriate public facilities except water. The applicant has requested a waiver of water tap fees. If the water tap fees are waived, such waiver provides assurance that the public facilities will be made available. D. "A conceptual site plan, illustrating: (a) existing natural and man-made features; (b) general configuration of proposed land uses, access ways, and .existing and proposed utilities; (c) a general landscaping plan and elevations or other architectural renderings of the proposed improvements, which, at a conceptual level, depict general site design features, building mass and height, and relation to natural features of the site." Included in the back pocket of this application is a copy of the conceptual site plan for this project. A reduced version of this site plan is attached as Exhibit 8. - - - - - - ,"'~ - . ... - - - - - - - - ... ,,," ... - ... .. .", - - ... .. - - 020/04 -32- (f) o 0: <( o z <( I- (f) 3 LJ.J > LJ.J 0: . o :::J 0..' --1 <( :::J I- 0.. LJ.J U Z o u > VIII. CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. REVIEW STANDARDS The 11 review standards for P.U.D. are provided in - S 7-903B., Land Use Regulations. Each of these is addressed '.. below. .- A. General Requirements. The proposed - development is consistent with all elements of the Aspen - Area Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area, as is set - forth in Section VI, Map Amendment Review Standards. The proposed development does not adversely affect the future - development of the surrounding area. The only possible area '- of future development which could affected is along the rear .,. and side yards where setbacks are requested. However, there - is a dirt roadway which abuts the property and is in no way - affected by the development. Also, the land across this roadway is a steep hillside which is ;ery un.Llli-' v to be ~--- ~ deve~d. ~.a~.s. exemption is requested herein for the reconstruction of the four legal units; and, in steps three ,,'" .- - ~ - and four of the approval process, a G.M.Q.S. exemption will be requested for the A.H.U. component. - B. Density. 1. General. The proposed density of the - '" project is consistent with that permitted in the underlying - zone district. The R.M.F. zone allows an external floor area ratio of 1: 1, which may be increased to 1.1: 1 by - special review. See S 5-2060.10., Land Use Regulations. - The applicant will file a special review request for the - - 020/04 -33- - - 'ow increase in density in steps three and four of the four-step - - process. There is sufficient water pressure and other - utili ties to service the proposed development. See the - letters provided in Exhibit 6. There are adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to - the proposed development. In Exhibit 6, the fire marshall - - states there is adequate and ample water for the required - fire flow to protect the property. The land is suitable for - the proposed development. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a copy of the soils report prepared by Chen & Associates, Inc., for - this property. Further, the structures are being built on ,,- grade instead of being lowered by five feet, as is - traditional. This is due to occasional water runoff in the - area. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the natural water shed due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion - and consequent water pollution. The buildings, as proposed, - - have f~at roofs with internal drains, thereby minimizing the soil erosion and runoff. J There will be no wood-burning fireplaces in the project, and any wood-burning stoves will be certified. J There will be no deleterious affect on air quali ty in the surrounding area caused by the proposed - ... - - development. The design and location of all structures are - - compatible with the terrain, which is very gradually - sloping. 2. Reduction in Density for Slope - Consideration. The existing site has no slopes over 20%; therefore, no slope reduction applies. ..., - 020/04 -34- - "OJ' C. Land Uses. The multi-family residential use - of land is permitted by the R/MF zone district. D. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional - requirements of the underlying zone district are met except \ for (1) the maximum height of the F.M.U. component and one of the A.H.U. component buildings, (2) a less than 20-foot - - - segment of the rear-yard setback and two less than 20-foot ,- segments of the side-yard setbacks, and (3) the required tpercentage open space. To assist in review of this project, we have included area and bulk tables on the site plan. - - - There are 11 dimensional requirements for the R/MF zone - district. Each of these is addressed and, where necessary, - - variations are requested. The 11 dimensional requirements - are addressed in the order presented in S 5-2060., Land Use Regulations. - 1. The minimum lot size in the R/MF zone is - 6,000 square feet. This lot is considerably larger than the - minimum lot size. - 2. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit - for multi-family dwellings on lots of 27,000 square feet or - less when at least 50% of the units built on site are - restricted as affordable housing are as follows: studio, - - 500 square feet; one bedroom, 600 square feet; two bedrooms, - 1,000 square feet; three bedrooms, 1,500 square feet. The - proposed development is comprised of two studio units, four - two-bedroom units and five three-bedroom units, which C';'h-o - ~Y(Jo\) 5: 0 ~ - a\,] results in a minimum lot area requirement of ~,500 square 020/04 -35- - - - feet. Thus, the minimum lot area requirements are ----- satisfied. See Lot Area Tables on the Site Plan. - - 3. The minimum lot width requirement in the - R/MF zone is 60 feet. The lot varies in width from 142.39 - feet to zero due to its odd shape. The average lot width is - considerably more than 60 feet. See the survey included - - with this application. - 4. The minimum front-yard requirement in - the R/MF zone is ten feet for principal buildings. Three of - the four principal buildings along the front of this lot are - set back 20 feet, and the fourth unit is set back the minimum ten feet due to the tapering of the lot on the - northwest side. - 5. In the R/MF zone, the minimum side yard - for multi-family dwellings is five feet. As stated above, - the applicant requests variation for the side-yard setback in two locations as depicted on the site plan included with - - this application. The requested variations are - approximately 20 feet long and a maximum of three feet into the side yard. - 6. The minimum rear yard for a principal - building in the R/MF zone is ten feet. As stated above, the .. - applicant requests a variation for one area as depicted on - the Site Plan included herewith. This variation is approximately 20 feet long and a maximum of seven feet deep. - 7. The maximum height for buildings in the - R/MF zone is 25 feet. As stated above, the applicant -- - 020/04 -36- - - ... requests a variation of five feet for two of the three - - clusters. The F.M.U. component of the project is proposed - to be 30 feet, and one of the two A.H.U. clusters is - proposed to be 30 feet. This is considered advisable by the - project engineers because of occasional water runoff. It is - usual in the Aspen area to build a three-story townhouse and - - build the first story of the house five feet below grade. - However, since it is not advisable to construct below grade ... on this site, a five-foot height variation is requested. .... The buildings will have flat roofs with internal drains to - minimize runoff and erosion. - 8. The minimum distance between buildings ... .- on lots in the R/MF zone is ten feet. The three separate - clusters on this site are considerably more than ten feet - apart, and no variation is requested. - building site The percent of open spa~~~uired for a ~Ppl':>)ll~ in the R/MF zone is 35%. _Mor~ tQQB 35% of the 9. - ... .. site is uncovered space. Due to the nature of the project -- having an F.M.U. component and an A.H.U. component, the open - space is apportioned between those components. If this - - parcel had a street on the rear side instead of being backed ss--' up against Aspen Mountain, the entire ~ of the site which - is uncovered would qualify as open space. Due to the - - unusual site location and shape, the applicant requests a - The external space~ 35% ~dq% area ratio - variation in the re~air~ percent of open 10. floor - requirement in the R/MF zone for multi-family dwellings is ... - 020/04 -37- ,- - '" - "1: 1, which may be increased to 1.1: 1 by special review." Although the living space of the project is less than a 1:1 F.A.R., the applicant will request an increase to 1.1:1 by special review in steps three and four of the application process in order to accommodate architectural amenities which greatly enhance the project and are included in F.A.R. calculations. - - - - - - - - 11. There is no internal F.A.R. requirement in the R/MF zone. E. Off-Street Parking. The off-street parking requirements in the R/MF zone are one parking space per bedroom for the free-market units, 5 5-206E.1., Land Use Regulations, and to be determined by special review for the affordable housing component pursuant to 5 5-301B., Land Use Regulations. As noted above, the applicant requests a variation in the required number of off-street parking spaces for the F.M.U. component. There are three bedrooms in each of the F.M.U.s. The applicant requests the required number of parking spaces be reduced from three to two. Section 7-90 3B. 4., Land Use Regulations, provides the criteria to be considered for variation of off-street parking through the P.U.D. The relevant considerations are addressed. - - - - ... - - - - - ",. - - ... - 1 . "The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development." The F.M.U. component will be developed as high-end luxury units which have historically been sold in Aspen as second homes for - - .... - 020/04 -38- trail sy~~es along the opposite si?l of Ute Avenue. . ~{~('~aI!c-/~.~ 3. "The proximity of the proposed ~,zy ~ - - .. non-residents. The property is located within one and '. - one-half blocks of the Gondola and within a few minutes' walk to all essential facilities and restaurants and - shopping. It is doubtful that more than two cars would be needed or used by any second-home owner in this location. - 2. "The availability of public transit and - other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize ,- automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development." The public transit facilities are within a - four-block walk of the project, and there is a pedestrian - - development to the commercial or public recreational core ,,,,* As stated above, the proposed facilities in the City." development is in very close proximity to the commercial - - core and the primary public recreational facility, that is, "\the Gondola. As required by the Land Use Regulations, the applicant is willing to assure the City that the nature of the occupancy will not change. ---..:.. .... - - - F. Open Space. Section 7-903B.5., Land Use - - Regulations, provides that the open space requirement of the - underlying zone district may be varied. - [A] variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed P . U .0. and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in - ... - 020/04 -39- .. ." - the proposed P.U.D. through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it (1) is to be used and is suitable for scenic landscaping, or recreation purposes and (2) is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the area is intended. - - - - The requested variation would not be detrimental to the - character of the proposed P. U .0. since the proposed variation would allow the open space to be divided between - the F.M.U. cluster and the A.H.U. clusters. This is consistent with the dual nature of the project. The open - space of the project will be for the mutual benefit of all - development in the P.U.D. While called a courtyard instead - of a common park or recreation area, the open space is to be - used (1) for scenic landscaping and (2) is accessible and available to all dwelling units. The requirements for a 'w variation are satisfied. The Land Use Regulations require that the - development plan be accompanied by a legal instrument which - insures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces. - It is the applicant's intention to prepare and record - condominium declarations for the project which will provide - for the perman care and maintenance of he open spaces. - If necessary, e condominium declaration will be available - - for review and approval at steps three and four of the - - application process. ~ "'" - - - 020/04 -40- '..;" G. Landscape Plan. The lann~~ape plan is to be ~ - filed and approved as a part of steps three and four of the --- - review process with the final P.U.D. development plan. - H. Architectural Site Plan. As a part of steps three and four of the review process, the applicant will - provide an architectural site plan with the final P.U.D. - plan as required by the Land Use Regulations. The applicant - has provided with this application a conceptual site plan - giving the locations of the buildings and an overview of the .",. site. - I. Liqhting. All lighting will be arranged to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference and will be - provided on the architectural site plan filed with the final - P.U.D. development plan. J. Clustering. As is encouraged by the Land Use ... Regulations, the dwelling units are clustered. - K. Public Facilities. Adequate public .. facilities are available to accommodate the proposed - ... development. The current development onnected to all sufficient water availability and press nd there is necessary public facilities except fo "" this ~ project. See Exhibit 6. There will be no net public cost .. - for the provision of water to this proj ect. While the ... applicant has requested a waiver of tap fees, the applicant - will pay all hard costs for hook up to the City water - system, such as laying and connecting any pipes. The buildings of the P. U. D. are arranged such that all ..... - 020/04 -41- - - ... structures are accessible by emergency vehicles. There is a - - roadway along the rear of the property, and a parking area - is provided in the center of the property. - L. Traffic and pedestrian Circulation. Section - 7-903B.l1, Land Use Regulations, provides six areas to be - addressed for traffic and pedestrian circulation. Each of these is satisfied. - 1. Every dwelling unit in the P.U.D. has - access to a public street through the parking area to the dedicated access easement along the northwest property line - which is to be paved by the owners of 777 Ute Townhomes pursuant to the Subdivision (Exception) Agreement between - the owner of that project and the City. This access - easement has been dedicated to public use. 2. The principal vehicular access into the .. - parking area on the center of the project has been designed c: to be wide enough to permit smooth traffic flow into and out (OJ of the parking area as well as into and out of each of the - - .. parking spaces. There is no hazard to vehicular or - Eedestrian traffic created by this parking area. - 3. The proposed development does not create ~ traffic congestion on the arterial and connector roads. By providing~ addition~off-street parking spaces, the proposed development helps mitigate the congestion on the .. ,- ... - arterial and connector roads. - ,- - .. 020/04 -42- - - ... .. 4. Every residential building is within 60 feet of the central parking area, which provides vehicular access to a public street. 5. Other than the trash, garage and storage areas, there are no non-residential land uses within the P.U.D. .. - - - - 6. The dedicated private access easement along the northwest border of the property is to be improved by the owners of the 777 ute Townhomes within the parameters of the City regulations and ordinances. - - - - ;NII/ - .. - - - - .. ^'. - - - 020/04 -43- en f- co :r: x L.u 1 ATrAQlMENr 1 i.AND USE APPLICATION rom e1)Project Name -2) Project Location 831 Ute Avenue. Aspen; See ~IV.B. of Application for legal description (inlicate street adlress, lot & bloclc l1I.IIDber, legal description 'Where appn:priate) ~J) Present Zoni.n:J R-6. manda tory P. U. D. 4) Lot Size 17.975.5 s.f. .. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone , Nelson/Devore Partnership, 1280 Ute Avenue, - Aspen, Colorado 81611, 925-1744, 925-2317 ./5) Represt!l1tative's Name, Address & Phone If Joseph E. Edwards, III. Suite (09. 201 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, 925-7116 '" -7) ~ of Application (please check all that apply): .. Coalitional Use <:l::n::eptual SPA . Final SPA Cooceptual Historic ~. Final Historic ~. _ Speci;,l Review 8040 Greenline ,~ Con;eptual IUD Minor Historic ~. .. stream Mal:gin Final IUD Historic Denolition - ~,View Plane. Subdivision ...,- ., - _ nistori~ Designation _ <nrrlanini.mni7.ation ~ -'l'elf1:VMap. 1IDEIrlment _ Gl-QS Allotment -1L. Gl-QS Exaiption '!L- Lot Split,/IDt Line . Adjustment ~ ,.J) . Des=iption approximate p:tqJerty) . of ExistinJ Uses (rurrl'l&" am type of exist.inJ structures; sq. ft.; rurrner of bedrocms; any previaJs approvals granted to the .. Two residential structures; 5,655 habitable F.A.R.; 12 bedrooms .. ..,,/) D=:::ription of ~elcp1Ellt Application, ,G.M.Q.S. exemption by Planning Director; Map Amendment from R-6, P.U.D.. to R/I1F, P.U.D. (for reference only); Conceptual P.U.D. ... - 10) Have yo.t attad1ed the follCMirg? X Respcuse to Attachment 2, Mini1Ium Sl1hni~<;ion O::nt:ents X Respcuse to Attachment 3, Specific Sl1hn;~<;ion O:ntents X Respcuse to Attachment 4, Review starrlards for YaIr Application - ". CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: b) \ ),f\J-S r..ilif0j APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: .~ i e ftJ lJ,.)(). ,ets REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: ~ OWNER'S NAME: 2. SUMMARY Type of APplication:ffia{1 fJAl\...W\10'hl~ ~ ro1cJjiJ poD/rnhl~ s &7 . Describe action/type of develop~ent ~eing re~ested:rP~.. . Q;t - '" ~ . vi, . ' e. I d-lfl1;;;1 V I I I' , e 11J1 - L - - 3. A eas types .~. ~~,uJ respond, - - Policy Area/ Referral Aaent Comments -Q;..'\.~II\Q ~~ .. Clc.sD ~ \Aldu-J \\^'-\ t/')A~~~ .. - 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) Up&Z then to ~ ... ~ 5. Public Hearing: (NO) . :::; 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: - Y{p1~1'I2-('f rO)~::;;:;- 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: - 8. Anticipated date of submission: - - -..-- ". ~ ... - .. - ... - ... ,- ,~ ,- ,- - - - "" - - - .( ) CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT:nill, Y\,~ S }(e'30n; ~ APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE;-\Cl "(J t~ \.I,)!1.,.rt!..f, ) \.\",/ REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNER'S NAME: D.p Q/Y', ~\\\ir\3S SUMMARY } 1. Type of APp1ication~:f yf\if\5 -tk\ l-m \= pUn / 2. Describe actionl.type of development being requested: ..L I nL n C' hr\c.t,,/p { I j,_:_ ex { q )1 ^ ~f)\ 2-",/, 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Aaent Comments 6l,s;',\w~ 6 \ r ---;::) '(:yy, r', C-;:l.- , - , ~71~tr '/I .Ie ' (J- 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC OnlY~&Z then t~ Hearing: C ((YEW (NO) - of copies of the application to be submitted: ~ 5. Public 6. Number 7. /':;00 r'K ()...:;15~O 1 I ; i ! " I , f'. frm.pre_app 1 "~ )Jlrw kH r1!-r ~-I;.~ Z CJ,)~ What fee was applicant requested to submit: 8. Anticipated date of submission: 2 - - - - November 7, 1989 - - - - Aspen-Pitkin Planning and Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 831 Ute Avenue Dear Planning Department: ,~ We have examined the residential dwellings at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and the total existing habitable FAR for the two residential dwellings on that property is 5,655 square feet and the total number of bedrooms in the two residential dwellings on that property is 12. Very truly yours, ~ .~) ,1 J./ . V t[(14~'I;r11: Bill Lipsey hitect Devore )j;C~OI45 General Partner, Nelson/Devore Partnership ch L/12 - ~ "" - ... - - 3 ~ November 7, 1989 Aspen-Pitkin Planning and Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 .~ Re: Land Use Applications for 831 Ute Avenue Dear City of Aspen Planning Department: - The Nelson/Devore Partnership is the record owner of the following described property: Lots 14 and 15A, Ute Addition to the Townsite of Aspen, and a tract of land being parts of Lots 33 and 38, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth P.M., lying northeasterly of an existing roadway, which roadway abuts the southwest boundary of the said tract which is more particularly described as follows. Beginning at the most southern corner of Lot 14, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, thence S 45042' W 81.71 feet, thence N 27009' W 34.27 feet, thence N 13051' W 47.51 feet, thence N 28034' E 57.60 feet, thence SE along line 1-9 of the former boundary of the City of Aspen to the point of beginning, pitkin County, Colorado. .".. .ow The street address for this property is 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. - . The Nelson-Devore Partnership, whose address is c/o Nelson/Zeeb Construction Company, Inc., Drawer 5400, Avon, Colorado 81620, and whose telephone number is (303) 949-5152, authorizes the law offices of Joseph E. Edwards, Jr., Suite 109, 201 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, whose telephone number is (303) 925-7116, to file with you any applications under the Aspen Land Use Regulations they shall deem necessary for the above-described property. - .. .. '. Very truly yours, - .. - evore- r0"c\"ill~5 General Partner .. ch L/lO ... 4 ~, PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Vincent J. Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins. Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925-6527 FAX Christina M. Davis Vice President .- .~ CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP ,- - PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., A DULY LICENSED TITLE INSURANCE AGENT FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT : NELSON/DEVORE PARTNERSHIP ARE THE OWNERS IN FEE SIMPLE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO TO-WIT: .. - REFER TO DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO - - ,- ... .- DEEDS OF TRUST, MORTGAGES. ENCUMBRANCES APPARENTLY NOT RELEASED: DEED OF TRUST IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,080,000.00 PAYABLE TO DEANE BILLINGS ... ,- ,.. LIEN AND JUDGEMENTS APPARENTLY NOT RELEASED: NONE ... - ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THE FACTS STATED ARE TRUE, THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, NOR AN OPINION OF TITLE, NOR A GUARANTY OF TITLE, AND IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., NEITHER ASSUMES, NOR WILL BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY WHATEVER ON ANY STATEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN. CERTIFIED TO: 11/01/89 BY: , INC. .d '. ,- - - .. - ... - .. ... ,< P....-,:orded.~ o'c1ock_M., ~~-_._-------_._---------+ ij.,:i ':' WARRANTY UEE~ " 16+ d.y or .1~IEfI1' =0 THIS DEED, Made this I"vv tl~ r"'\ betwcen ' ': DEANE BILLINGS Recorder. _._------- d' ,19 89, .'i' 'I'; ff ,- 'j " '. , ;' " , .,... .... ,," ~ .- ... / /1 - ,,~~ J _J , , , , , County or Pitkin urlhe . Sl3lc of Colorado. 8ranlorl~) and NELSON/DEVORE PARTNERSHIP whose Jegal address is c/o Nelson/Zeeb Construction Compan , Drawer 5400, Avon, Colorado 81620 mlhe County of Eag Ie . Slate or Colorado. tranleels): WI1'1I:1::55ETII. That the ~ralll(lrl~). fot llnJ in c(lI1~idct:lIion of lilt sum of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration ~Q~^r.~ the rcceipland 5unicicnq of which is hctt'hy 3ckl1owlcd~cJ. 113 S ,Framed. t>3tg:lilll.'d. StIlt) and cnll\"C~l.'J. nnd b)"lhese prcscllIs dOes flnlnl, bar&ain. sell, con,"c~'. and confirm, unlo Ihe ~ranlecl~), '1 ts heirf PIll.ID~d!!n~ fl,lren:r. ulllhe rCiJl prorerly, together with impro\"Cmcnls. if an}', ~iIUiJIC, Ilin~ nnd l:>rill~ in lhe 'I '.1 COUnl)' of Pi tkin . Stale or Culorad\l. dc~crjl>cd lIS IUllows: PARCEL A All of Lot 14, Ute Addition to the TO\'1n~.~~~ of:.~;,. Aspen, except mineral .interest. ' .;/ r I: ~ .,,.. . ._~ .{. :> ~~{1.1 L' .: '.l"," ~'. -~" 'j- Ute Addition to the TO""J'rJi.;" ., ~ ' c:,.: . ..~, ''''''~ , PARCEL B All of Lot 15 A, of Aspen, except mineral interest. PARCEL C , A tract o~ land being parts of Lots 33 and 38, Section 18,' Township 10' South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying Northeasterly of an existing roadway, which roadway abuts the southwesterly boundary of the said tract more' particularly describedjas follows. Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Lot l4,'Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen; thence S. 450.2'00. W. Bl.7l feetf thence N.27009IOO" W. 34. 27feet; thence-N."130S1tOO"lw. I-i., 47.51 feetl thence N. 28034'00. E. 57.60' feet, 'thence '"I Southeasterly along Line 1-9 of the former boundary of the;CIty of Aspen to the point of beginning. ;, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: Right of of the recorded 96828. way for ditches Unl ted S ta tes, August 26, 1949 or canals constructed by as reserved in United in Book 175 at Page 2~9 as the authority States Patent Reception No. ..,. Mineral interests reserved in Deed recorded April 28, 1961 'in , Book 193 at Page 595, Reception No. 111295, of records for Pitkin /l ' , County, Colorado (Affects Parcel C). .. \ " The right and privilege to reloc~te the present existing water line, other than at its terminal point as reserved by Kenneth N.C.B. Moore and Betty Moore In Deed to Deane Billings :recorded' March 23,' 1964 in Book 206 a~ Page 263 as Reception No.' 117341.''''',' I . ',:'I'I"":I!I'W;' . ,J'i "Offsets" as shown on the Plat of Ute Addition recordedl~inIPlat" Book "} at Page 15 as Reception Ho. 602225 and identified as'l ~'':'''!, "Setback lines. on the survey dated October 11, '1988' preparpd'by" ,', Alpine Surveys, Inc. as Job No. 88-134. !:. . I' Development Covenant and 5 foot Utility easement foot roa~ e..ement as shown on the replat of Lot Recorded in Plat Book 10 at Page 91 as Peception lying within a 6 ",,' lS Ute Addition "I No. 229657~II"illl'l' PI-'!"fl"l I! ' .lCinl.>cn\'cr.ln~crl'"Cil)'lmr. Nil. .cu. Rn. .1.117. \\AlI.lI..I,Nn' t1~:lm l""~ l.h.II....."hl~ M.......I .....,".."j 1'"lIh.hl_,. ~_!~ W 6,h "',. . Laol......",. ('U \111214 -1.111.\1 !).','91~1 ).If \ 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 I :1: " ,,-! .ii., lid " 'I!: j , ~. 'I' II 1 ",il ,I " II " ,j II ',I I' I '!:"' I ~ I L ii I I, also known by !\tn:..:lllnd numb..:r a~: ( 'I 'fOOETIIER with all and 51n[lular the h..:rcdlloments IInd oppurlen:mcc' Iherelo belon[llng, or In anywise apperlalnln,. and Ihe r..:\..:rsion ami rc\'Crsions, r~nlainl.ler and remainJer1. relll!, is~ucs i1nJ profits t~reor, lIntI all the estale, righl.litle,lnlcresl. claim and 1" dcmand whatsuc\er III' Ihe granlorh). chhcr In I..w or e4uily, ur, In and 10 lhe above b:ar.alned premises, with Ihe'hcrcdilllmenlS and I" ! appUrlenOlncts, ' "Cn IIAVE A;"iU TO 1I0ll' lhe said prcmhes abo\'c bargained and deseribo.:d whh the appurlenances. unto Ihe ,r:lOtce(s), t" its heirs untlllssigns lon:v..:r. Ami the l;ranlOr(sl, for him sd f ,his! - , I heirs and pern'llal ro:prCNenlOllhes, dc) eSCll\cnanl, IIranl, burgain, and aj:rce loand with thc crantec:(sl, its" heirs and a!lSigns.lhat allhc timc or the cDscllllng and deli\'ery of Ihue presenlS, he was \\tll seized or Ihe premises above conve)'ed, hI I ~Ih":, " ~rfeel, absolute and indcfe;Jsiblc estllte of inheritance, in law. in fee simple. and h:a S goOtJ right. full po\\erand 3ulhOl:", .1 I!r:ml. b:lrl!llin. sell ami con\'c}'lhe same in nl;lnner oml fOfm:a! :aforesaill, :anll th:1I the samc are free nndclear rrom all formcrnnd lJlId:f srants, bargains, 5ales, liens. Ia.,<<s, ass.essmenls, cncumbr:ances. bOO re:mictinll~. or whate\er kiOO or n:alure 5OI:\1:r, e:u:epll 1 ' : " ' 1989 Real Property Taxes payable in 1990. , :.'1 I I I: , , r1' ;1 - ,'" J The P'lRtor(s) shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises In the quiet :tnd pellceablc posscnion or the grlinl.:.:ls). its his heirs nOO assigns, againsl all and every pcrson or persons IlIwruJlycl:dminl the whole or IInypal11hcror. \ ";:1'''' I IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the granlorCslba 5 execuledlhistlcedonlhedateselrorlbnbove. .j! t'l \.'t1. ,.,.. ',,~ , ~e? ~~ <]3,)!in'i?' I DEANE BILLINGS" . t ~, l:""~' .., -, day of No~EIIII:,EI\.. " . ,a,rjlOJ <# ~,'" ,., '" 0 Q . ',.>I'~~,..."",,'..'" /.;ll~ql) '."':. ~, ~ f!It~rT.':'" \ \1,\ -(QIr.LO II · . ," 19 8" " ~'~ ;"rJ, -, ..' .~. 'i' ~~,1'(~':r,l'f~~';1 l'i"I",. '" , , ,~ ST.-\TE OF COLORADO Cnllnl)uf Pitkin 'rile fUI':;'ling inslrUllt.:nl \\a~ ;Id.nn\\'ltJ~.:\1 bdufC'me Ihis b)' DEANE BILLINGS I~ ) "" Vincent J. HlgentlNotary Public My Commlselon .llp',., 12/211I80. 601 E. HopkIn' Aspen. Colorado 11811 Wjln~'ss my hand (lnd orlic . I seal. ,'j."'" '. n", ';I'! ~l~' .;ummi~..~illn ~.'pires " ,~~" PublL.: " r .~ ,,\ti. :-:' \ -) / I: . ~ 'is ~ ~ I Ii ~ ,S $ . , ~ ! . 'I I . " ~ I r'!:.1 I ~ i. " r.:: '" l (,;l , 0 ~ r. .~ , I ::i e 1 " - a i ~ >- < 9 ~ . [-< I g a I I :J Z u , ~ " ~ .. .~ ~ . -< a ~ " ~ ~ .. "' . :e i. 0:: ;;: .3 , J! " ~ t; ~ . ~ f .. r ~ i. Ji ~ " ~ " . '" . . E ~ .. .. \ ,A - ,~ - - ... . - ."... - / 11 .. - - ,.. ,'- - _J [te(Old..dll Receplion No. , o'c1\ock_M.. ReCtlldel -~----------_._-_._-_._----- .. -----.------.-- --------- ~ it" .Ii DEED OF TRUST TH~S INDENTURE, Made this I if' ..)or.tbv'I>^1~~" 89 . b.:hlecn , '!. I :1 , ! . NELSON/DEVORE PARTNERSHIP I ;i wh05e IddteU !sc/o Nelson! Zeeb Construction Company, .!,I' Inc. Drawer 5400, Avon, Colorado 81620 " hefClnlflcr refened 10 IS ,rlnlor. IInd lhe Public Tru~lec "f Ihe .C"lm.,.uf 'I t. Pitkin . SI:lIe of Colol:!do. h~lein:lrlelld~m:d I.. ii' rublic TIU~lec. I WITNESSETII, THAT. WHEREAS. I NELSON/DEVORE PARTNERSHIP 'I ' has C/lcCUlcd I plominor)' TlOle or nolc~. hereln3fler Icfcm:d 10 in Ihc ,ln~ubr, dnlcd 11 printlpllsumofONE MILLION EIGHTY THOUSAND AND NO/lOO :I,DEANE BILLINGS H whoseIlddrenll 4662 Saratoga, Av~nue, San Diego, CA. " lI11~r 1111: dale l1el,'"f. \\llh In":I.:~llhere('ln fR>f11lhe d:lle Ihcr(..f 1 ullhe rille "r 1 0 1/2 per('.:nl pcr IInnU"I. p;~;lhlc \ .; Interest shall be due and payable monthly on December 1, 1989 and 'i each month thereafter until Principal fl,nd. InteJ::'est are paid in full.. i! p~~ncip~l shall be due and payable on Novembe~'.1';l"1990.., ",1,. ;! 'ANI) \\'I{EIU~^S. The &r~nlUf l~dc.-~inrtl~"r ~ceurinl! r;lllll~nl.'llt"'I"jll.il'~1 and j'Il~I~.1 ,.1' ~ui,J rTUII,IM.tt'~' ",>1(' In \\ 11I"~ h~n.l, MI,;'I'o:Ilhc f,:li,1 nttlcnrnn)'C1flh"mll1:I~'Ioc, ' NOW. TIlERErullt. The j!ranlor. In (ollsidcr:lliulI ..I' Ih.: p''''''';'''' ~IlJ ""110"'1'1111""1.' :.f"I':~:Iid. JIlt', lll:rd')' I!r3111. toal~:.IIl..o.:1I and (tlO\(Y uol\'llhc ~aid Puhlic Tru,lee Il1lru~t fllfC\.:r. Ih.: fullO'\;n\! .ksnihed rnll'':''~-. shual': in th.: .,_. ~ Counh' ul Pitkin .SulleofCllt"t:loJ".lu"il: ;._<:-\.~.'i'::'.,I.,' PARCEL A -- .,-,' ",' .' ,-r-r' A 11 of Lot 14, Ute Add i tion t.o the ,'jo.l'nsit" of minet"al interests. - : ':..o~:...... "', ,'11 (:.'.) ~ to "tlte' Towns it.e . ". QA':~.i~ ~ ,.~l 'i 'i , , November 1, 1989, .rorlhe ($1 ,080.000.00)Oull31'I. p1l)orble 10 Ihe older of ,j " il H l :1 i , Aspen', except PARCEL B Ute Addition A,ll of Lot 15 A, mineral interests. of Aspen, except PARCEL C \ A tract, of land heing parts of Lots 33 and 38, Section 18, ,T.ownship 10 South, Range 84 West .of the 6th Principal ~eridian~, lying N.ortheasterly of an existing ..roadway"whichroadway, abuts the southwesterly boundary of said tract more. particularly described as follows. ' I ,., " 'Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Lot 14, ute Addition to the City and Townsite .of Aspen: thence S. 45042'00' ~. 81.71 feet, thence N.27009'00" W. 34.27 feet; thence N. 13051'00" W. 47.51 feetr thence N. 28D34'00" E. 57..60" feet, . thence Southeasterly.along Line 1-9 of the former boundary of ,the City of Aspen to the point of beginning. lisoknO\\'nb)'llreCllndnumbcra! 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado:"81611;:', =i , I' I' j: '. I: I , L i ! ., , " :i " ! , '< '. ;j I " :1 d :: !, I: Ii q '1 ,. ., Ii TO HAVE AND 1'0 HOLI) Ihe S~ll1e,lll~ether I...ilh D1I3nd ~ill~U';lr Ihe pl,,'ik~e' and appurtenance\ Ihel('\lnhlbch.nll;n~: In Tru~t nC\"('rlhde~\, Ihat In case or deraultln Ihe pa)'!n('nt of Slid nule or an)' of Ihem. III an~' parllhereuJ, (11 in Ihe papnenl olthe inlel~~1 thereon. .cel'rdin!:! '0 Ihe lenor am.! e freel of said note or In)' oflhem, or In Ihe p~ymenl nf any pliOT encum"rance~. plincipal"r inler.:~I. if unr.1tl' inea'-C deralllt ,hall be nlade in or in (I\e "r,iolalion Dr brel('h of any oflhc ternls. eondilions, eon\eTlanlS or arn:emenr~ helein cun.uin,'d, Ihe hfndiciar)' hc!Cunller ollhe ICI'II h..lder nf Ihe indel;lledness secured herdl)' mal decllre II vlolalion of an)' of Ihe ('o,'(:nanlS herein ('I,nlaincd and cleclltl ad\'Cnio.e ,aid propelly for sale Ind dcmDnd such nle .Ihen. upon filing TlOliee of ~Il('h eleclion IInd dcmand for \alr \lith Ihe !'ublic Trll~lee, 1\ h" ~h;ln up\'n I.:ceipl uf such nu,ke or elcelion Ind demand fOf sale cuuse .eopY oflhe same to be re('orded In the reclllder'solliee ofthc eOlln')' in" hid, .aid rea' e~':lle is ,ilualed. h shallllld nl;!)'11f JlIwful fOllhe Publk l'IU~lee '! (osell and dis~oflhc IlIme leTl muse m in sepllrllle pafccl~. a) th.: r.aid I'uMi(' TIU~I~ nlll)'lhinl; bc\IL and IlIlh,~~hi: Ulle Ind inlere" of the ~Iantor. .: ( his heirs or Issipnslherein. II rublic lluclion Illhe SOU th 'runl ulIllr\,llhe CllUrl Huu1ot. in Ihe Ctlun" Ilf Pitkin " ' . Stale ofClllorado, or on ~aid premi\es. ollln)" pari Ihertt,r a~ ma~' he 'r,,:eiticd in Ihc m'lkc Ilf ~aitl ~31e, f..r Iht hirhcslllnd oc~1 prke Iht . I 11!f'C will bring in cash, rOuf ....eeh public nuliee hlll'in,lteen pn:viou)I)' gh'cn of Ihc limt :lnd plllee?f such ~Ic. b}' .du~llisemenl.. "tekl)". in some '1 ne\\'sp~pel ofrcTlerlll dlnrlatiuiI allhallirne I'lItlli<hcd in ~ai'" C,'llnlY l'f Pitkin .. cnp)' Ilf\\hich nOli~e ~ha" he ",ailed :! WilhiTllen dars fll1tn Ihe dale Ilf Ihe lil\l putllkllli"n I"cII:"II" II,e l!r~ntor Illhe Id.1r.:" hnein rilen ~nd III such f'I.'lsun m perMll" lIPrenrinl! t.. I,a,e Icquircdl,uh.cqnenllcn",' inlne.tln.'aitlreale\lnle PI Ihe ad,he\'ril'en inlheree\"ded ilhtlu",,:nl: ",hel'C'..ulyll1l"cl1unl",""d~tnlel\rh.:nA\lhe . i .ddress Ihen 5ueh nOlke shall he mniled hJ Ihe ('(\unty ~...al. anll 111 ma~e ,ond rhe In Ihc I,urcha'el '" pllrcl'a~el~ 1.11 \lIdl p"'rell~' AI 'lIeh \3'e. 1 celtihrale , (Ircenifiealn in '\lilin!! d,:'(litlin!! )ueh P"'l'l.rt~. rnreh",ed. a"d the ,umlll sunl' paid Ihe.d"r.llnd Ihe tin>e "hen Ihe purchll'erm pureha.cr.lorolher ~o;on ('ntilled Ihen:to! ~hllll he enlilled In 11 ,ked nr deed. Ihelefor. un"''' Ihe ~:Il"C ~h,,1t he redeemcd 11' l~ I'""ided h~' law: ,,"d.aid Putllie T "'\Ice \h1l11, ,I upon demand b)" the pel'on or ptnons h..ldin, Ihe uid rcrtiliellle nr e('rriricnle\ ('Of pureh,,'e. "hen .aid dem~nd i. nl;,de. or to!"'" dem"nd by Ihe pcIS"'" I .cnlhled 10 Ideed '0 Ind rllr Ihe pr..ptr1~' pUI.:ha,ed, III Ihe Iltne,uch demund h made.lhe tlm(' f", redempliun hll\'ln, tlplrcd, ma~e ande~e('ule ItHUeh ref\on IIr peullns I deed Ilr dced, tn Ihe ,~id pl1'pcll~' pu.eh",ed, "hieh .",d deed ,or deed~ ~h'll1 he In Ihe nldin.1l~ fIlm' III /I ('n'l\"e~';ll1CC, .nd ~hull t>c .lpoed. ,,'Lllll'" rellFtd Dnd tlc1h'ered h)' Ihr: ~;li,II'uhlle '''",ree 11I1t1 ~h"t1 1','nH'~' Olll! \lui.dailll h. 'Ut'h pel~...n III 1"'''''"' Crnilled h' ,n,h de\'d, lht 'ili,1 , .' p"'perIY purchl~ed u~ Ir"lI:,aid /llld alllh.: rl~hl. lilk,llllCII:\I, to..'H~nt alll! e4uh} "11..de1l11'Ii"n II' Ihe rranhlr,I'I~ II.:h~ Ind ",,11'"' Ih\'ldll, nlld ~hall " reelle the sum(lf slim' fnr which Ihe ~Did pr"I'~lly \\/1' ~uh' ~nd ~1r~lIlder It' Ihe I"",er "r ~~Ie Ihcn:in('on'alned. /llId hllhe ~ale \It ,ales n'ad~ tly ,.lrlOe thcreor; and In (':1st or:m I~~i~nl"elllllf \uch ('cllilieat,'..r eellilicat\.~ "'I'Uldl~'':. or in ClI,e Ilf the rellernplil1T1 1'1 'ueh pfl1pcl1~'. h,' I ~1I1"e\lllenl encumbranccr, ~u('h "drnmenl "r rede"'I'lil," ~hlll1 "I,,, h.: rr:fe".:.1 ,,, in .uch deed or dr:~,h; 1'-111 ,he n"lite 01 ."k lIeed 11,,1 tie sel nlllln ,ueh deed or deeds and Ihe Puhric Ton.ce ,hall.utlt \,r I Ie I'n,eee," "r u'ail~ ", \u,h ,,,Ie. aher 1i,,1 flayirl~ nOli lelaininl! DII fo:e~, (h/lr~n Imd CU'l' I" m~kin!! '/I;d ~alc. pi)' 10 lho bIlmllltlDr)' horounder (1T lhe leua! hllldef Ilf ~uhl TII'l~ Ihl' Jllln,i,,~lllld inl~I~'1 tlu~ nn ~uid nnle leemtlin~ Illlhe 1Cnllt anti clf~cll"cn:llr. Ind 1111 . . mone)"adVlllnced l;lr ,uch heneAelnrY('lr le~/I1 hulderof<uld n"'e r"II/I.urnn"1!, IIU. Ind "",,,,,'enl<. ",lIh Inle..:,' 'her~..n lit 1S 1/2 per eenl J1t'r Innum, ....ndcrillr Ihe ol'erplu~. if un)'. unltolhe rllnlm. hi. ll'~,,1 rqllr:<entJlhn "I a<~ip'~; "hith ~ak \'r ~alC5lnd 'aid deed or derd~ '(lmll'e ,h311 he I perpelOal bar, hUlh in 1"\0." /ltld equiry, a~/Iil1<llhe rr~nl"r. h.\ hei" "".1 u,~,,'n~, /lnd :,lIolhel rer,,,r" ebiminr Ihe .;rid prl1pell)'. m /In~ I'/lrllhctl'of. hy. from, Ihfllllph or vnder lhe ~Ian(m. or Iny (lllhel1l. lln'I1l11dcf "I hulde.. III ~/Iid nllle or nl1'C~ mJ~ rur\ha~c ~;,id r'\lrcfl~ III ;111> rall thelcof; IIltd II 5hall nul be ubllllol0r)' uJl<l" Ihe IllIlchuer ur rurtho~m at ~n~' ~u(h ~tllc In ~~e Il1lhc IppllCUII"n ur Ihe pUI(ha~t mone)'.' If I rcleD~~ tleed N rcqulrcd. IIll .'I"I.dlhlllh',IITlIUr,hllhalllllrlul,nl.wlllpll)'lhll'!\IIIlII.aIh~","r. . .", ' 'IrlnDcn\'cr.ln~cr'''CII)'llItI.'' tin. J.n.\. Ue\". 2.1i~. lJu:n 01" lnl'SI ,"~hll.. '1....1",1\11I, I"or ,," ~;h' t'I.'",,", Ih,dl.."Il'.lo1i_l,i"r.nHW...',St.I'",' '"" ,'''11:':::'''' \ \ , .....i .. - - - - - - ... .. -) / III I . ... .. - ... ... ..',. ::':,1';"''',':';,111' ,i:' :"'1:: II":''',I!II,'I''!}!: 'I': ~ I' , ' , Ii,,,I,,;I,I,,, ,,' ",'I' ',:,' I' , ^l1lf the Ilfunl\lf, rUr hltll~ulr 11l1d hI_ hl/lr" I"lr.'l1l111l'\1llf\1\~ntmh'u_ IIr ~,_IUI1~ U'l\l/l"lt1I~ 11m. U,""~ lit .nll Wllh lh', Putltht TnJ"V'\ lh.. 11th. Itnl' ur i lh. cnleQUn, ur.nu 1l~lhlry Ilr Ih~.q rrtll!nll hI: I. \\dll~IL,.1i ur,h~ 1:1111 Iund ~nli I.:nllm.:llllln rill Ilmrle, and hl1llOOll rl,hl. rill P.\lwcr Ind IllwfuI I lIulhlltllY Id If:lnl. b:u}!lIln. !I!II :llllf cun\'~~ lht Unh! In thlllllJnnU :In,l (,\llll:l~ ~r,lrmIJ: hlln!by rully lInd lIbsolul~ly \.\'ulvln, IIl1d ,tlc:uln, 1I11 rl,htlllnd : cbim. hI: may ha\'c in tit III laM 1,lIlth. tl:ncnlf:nl'l. :amI p"'po:fly a. a I h'm",,,!,,,a'" E"clIll'liu". lI' vlhcr t:lCnlplion, un..II:, and by vllllle III an)' #lCI 01 Ihe ' (jencrl1l Aue111bl)' or the Slate or CllluraJo, Ilr:lS an)' c,cmrUUll unJc, an,1 h)' virlue "r an) 01<:1 "r the Unllcd Slates COI1(t~s" n~,e.i.li~l~r,whlch ~)', i hcrellrtcr be paneJ In rlIhlliun ,hlln:ll,llIntJ Ihlll th.: Aal1l11 aN Illle an'" (lellr III IIl1licn_ lInlS ..mcumb,altl;.:. 'Whllhl~"ellcllrt,:1 t, 'Hl'h~'~ ,'1(' ~:l!li :'!~) ,,'! ,', ,'","i'~" ," ,t,:, ,',:. 1- ,I "l'.', J.,1",!I~.IC~J~,j(11?' ~1;1:I;'lljl!iIt"i11~,'.i~It:'~H:lli,';': Il:!~: , ,p .'I"J1 ',' "tlll"i:1.~'" HV'f"1'~:I" \~; .,1'1 rl,! SUBJECT TO RIGHTS OF WAY, MINERAL INTERESTS, EASEMENTS, SET-BACKS AND'COVEN~TS'OF RECORD. 1989 Real P perty Tax payable in 1990 ',,'or J-''''lt''''Jl~'III''~r::~~I'I'II' "-'1" ro es . . "I"ltl"'>I!'I"l'I:'~' 1111\' 1~\I'i'l'lll " " tl 'fl.' II II' ", fiJI' I~' 11,1'.1111 n iiI "":, ' , . ~. fl.' ''III' ~., 11 <' ,hI ~ 11/1 11,." '1'1'1 'I r . I ' '1 ,,~ .. If', I "1"'''' I I 'J ". d,' , , I I antllhe a"u"e barl!aincd prurcrl)' In lhe 4Uld anJ rc3\:eablc ",,'se.\iun Ilrthc PubllcTruSlee. hi. succenon anti :usll!n,.Il,ain" IlIlIndrrFry penon or,1 pc::rll.lntlllwlully dahmnlJ Of tu e!ahulhe \!ollule 111 allY pllrt Itl\:lo:ul. Ihe ,r~"lor Shllll untl WIll Wlln~nl ami Fun:~er p.:,reotl'l ".; ll~ '!,':j' ",I 'J It It' I I . "Unlll p~)'nll:nlln rull ",flhe 'ntl...bl...Jnul, Ihe ,,:tnlur shall 11md I'D)' all t:l.'I." ami :,t\enmelllt levletl on'lh~ ~;..,.,:.;~~~ ~~Y a~d.lI a~ollnll dlleon" .ecounl of prlno:lp:ll DUlJ Inre'O:~1 or Olher IUIllI on Iny Io:nlllr encurllhrDneel. If Iny: lAd ....UIlo:cp IlIlmpru.ernenll Ihal m~y be on ultllllntllln,lIrctl , 1l111ln,' :IOY cuu"'ll)' ItllS, IlIdut.lj"~ 1:,'I~"tleJ co\'Cralll!. In II ~umruny or comr.l1nlu nlCO:lin, the nl!l....tlllh NllulflUllo:nu of the benelldllfY hereu! In In,:! llOlount nut kl~ Ihan Ihe Ihelllulal indo:blo:tlneu. E:I.:h polic)' ~hall ClIlltlllll' ,}SI ru~"blc d~lI.e numlnl! the bcnd1clar)' U 1ll0rt,l1ge!! :lnd shl1l1 fUllher rrllviJe lhalLhe h1>U'llO,e m~y nul be cllllceletl UP"" leu lhall leo J~)'~ "'rillen nolice ltllll.: licncliciary. Allh.: option orlllll bcndicla')', Ihe orlllin~1 polic)' 01 polidc, tlf Insurlln.:e sh~1I bc tldi\'creli 10 Ihe bcndici;lI)' al further I(curily ror Ihe in\!ebletlnesl. ShlluhJ Ihe (l'anltlt rllillo inlure In\! tlelhcr Ihe polil:ills or 10 JlllY IlL'el or :useumr:nlsllllhe sallie rail tlue. or lu p~)' an)' umuunls pa)'Ible upon scnillf e(\(umbrlnces. It' 1m)', Iho: bt:netici.U)' '!lay m.le.a.ny i such pa)'nlCnlll1f plUl:U~ IIny such insurance. anti ull lII<1nies sO paiJ wilh inte'c.llhcrcun allhe fale uf15 1/2 per an"~m shall ~ atlded to and become a pari uHhe indebledness .o:~u'cJ b)' lhis Dectl III Tru,t anJ III11Y he pllitl uul oflhc p"lCectls oflhe Slll<: uflh.: pmpeft)' ir nul paid br.lhe ,rani or. In' uddilion. anJ III ill upllun, Ihe bcnclicilry mil)' Jeclan: Ih.: indebletlncn ~UR:tI hereb)' IInd Ihit [),:I:d of TnI~t to be in delault 101 fllllun:, to, ~ure: , insuranceormak.:anYl,lllhepaYn1en"lllljuirctlbyl.hisp~ra!,rllph, ' , I' tllIl " '\ I~ all or an,)' p~rl uflhe properl)' or an !ntcrollh~rdn i\ sultl or transrertCtI b)' ,'he }:fanlur wilhoul belleticiarfs pfior w,illen consenl. e,c1~din! (allhe crealton uf a hen or encumbrll1ce \ubtlrtlrnale IU tlus O~ctll,rTr\Jsl.tb, Ihe .:reallon ur. purcha.e muney ~~l:Urlly IIllcrcS! fOf hou\eholdlpplrances, fe) iI tunsfer b)' devise. Jestenl ur by npe,alivn of law Ul"'lllhe tleath or iI joinl tenant or hllthe granl of any leaseholtl inten:st 01 three }....al1 or Ill" not conlaining an oplion lu pUlChllse. beneficial)' IlI11Y. al bencliciar)"s option. declare alllhe sums )etured by Ihis Deed ufT,uslto be immctlhllcly due and payable, Beneliciar)' Shlllt ha.ve waived ,uch option IOllccdcralc if. prlUllU the ~ale or Iransfer. benelichu)' lInJ Ihe penon to ....hom Ihe prope'l)' is 10 be ,ultl or trundertCtI reach at!reemenlln wrilin(llhl1llhe credil uf wch penon is talblaclor)' 10 IM:ncl\cIlU)' and th;l.llhe intere$! pa)'llble on the suml secured b)'lhisDcedorTnlSlshllllbealsllehraleubenelicia.ryshallreqllol. , I';'" : ':1",,: ,.,1,;: ., .1, .", ANn THAT IN CASE OF ANY DEFAULT, \\!hereby Ihe ,i~ht of fureclosure occurs hereunder. Ihe Public Trustee or Ibe holtler of said noie or cel1ifiealeorplllt:h..e,shll1tllluncllbccollu:cnlillctltUlhepussenion. use lIntlCnjuynlcnluflhcJruperlYllforclllid. lImJlolhc Illnll. issues an dprolilS Ihe"lUr.frullllhellccruinl!ursuchrilhlllnddLldn~lhcp..:ndcn':)'olf"n:c1osulllprOl:cetlinpan rhcperlotlofrcdempliun.ifan)'lhelllbe:andsuch ptJsscnionshallalonecbctlclhctctl IUlhe PubticTru,lccuflheholJcr lIt.llidnotcorceflihcaleofpurchaseonrcquCSI.Dn,Jonre(U'ial.lhedeliveryor such possession mOl)' be enfurced by Ihl: Pubhc TIllSlee 0' Ihl.' holtlcr of nltl nole Of cetliric:lll: ur purchnse b)' an)' .ppropriale civil suil or proceeding, anti lhe Public Trustee, or the holder ur saitl nolc or cefUticatc of purchase. ur any thereof. ~hal1 be cnlillctllO. RecelVl~r for said properl)'. anti of thl: rents, Issues anti prulilllhcreur, aner such deraull, Inchi,Jinp Ihe lime c",,-cretl by foreclosure procccdin~s anti the periotiof n:\!emplion. if In)' Ihcn: be, and Iha11 be enthled rhelclu liS Ill11allerllf ril;hl wirhuut n:~ll,tI 10 the s"lvenc)'ur in>ulvene)'lIrlhe (tranrorGr of Ihe Ihcn o....nerof uid prupel1)' lInd wilhoUI fep11t110 the Vl11uc Ihereuf. unll such Reeehcr ma)' be IIpp"illl.:tI by an)' ,'UlIIT ur c""'I'CICI11 jurbdkliun upun c. pllllc appliCllliun IIntl wilhuul noTice - nolite bl:in, ho:n:by upn:ssly IOIllh'ed _ Ulltl all renn, i.~lIcs anJ pmtils. income anti revenue Ihw;frmllshllll be applietl b)' tuch Receiver 10 Ihe p.ymcnl of lhe Intlebtednelllu.:n:b)' seeun:d. :I<:curdinllu lhe I~w ~ntllhll oltlersand tlirecliunl ur lhe COlII1. I I 'I 1 _ AND, Thllln CII\~ ur tleflult in un)' IIf 111t1 payments o( p,incipal ur inLercsl. aCCOIdin(t lOlhe lenor and o:UecI of ,;Jid PlUml~s~ry nole aforeSllid. Ollny olthem.ollln)'pl1rlll-/ereuf,ururllb'llllChorviHlalionufanyofthccOVC'nanlsllra~rceIHt'nlShcrein,b)'lhe~rantor.hispc:rsonlln:pn:lelllarive\otl1ssigns, Ihen Indln lhal case Ihe whll!e tlf saiJ principal sum h~n:hy securetl. anJ Ihe inleresllhe,cun 10 Ihe lime or the ~alc. may al oncc.llllheoplion oflhe Ie!al holdo:rthel'tol. become tlue anti 1'1I)'1I"lc, Intllhe saitl p"I~I1)' be $uld in tht manner anll wilh the samedfeelll$ if said Indebledness lta~ rnlllured,llnd Ihat Irful'tclosorebemlltlebYlhePub'kTru~lec.lnallumeY.lree'QHlTMmn"rin 8 reasonable amount. llott2rr , fur $Crviccs Inlhc ~lIflClvhiun of laitl r"'edll~Llre pmceetlinp )hall be ull\\\\etl by Ihe f'ublic T,USlee alII pal1 ollhe CUll of (oreclosul~, and II loreclosure ::: be made Ihmll,h~lhe euurlS IIIll11SOnllble IItlorne)'"s fee Ibllll hi: laud by Ihe cullrl '" 11 plln of the cost 01 such forcelo,ure proc<<dlnl'.: , II' The: singular number shall include Ihe plural. Ihe plurallhc sinpular. IIntllhe use of IIn)' lender shall be applicllble tu all.entletl. Exllt:utel!lhis ,iff:" dll)'O( I..JJI/~8E~ 1989. ' , ATrEST. NELSON/DEVORE By: r~---, lSL\ll 1,: SI:lte"fCul,>r:ltJu ('"Ullly Ill' l',llkl ~ I" ~he R~hn,;;~~rn/r;;;;/~~~e~;;~~1 ," Wilne'>>lIl)'hlllltlllntl>C:lll. '.;1 '.: 'r :Il~ , 'l~; ., ;' 1.;~' ill) 11 ~ !' ~, , ~ ! :.' , '.'., i 1",.',j:III;!. .,.' , Ii! "'.~ .1,1'1'. ~I' ~'.t'. "'I I h t.. '!'!~I'jt';i ",I' "ti' ,',', ' I~ 'I ;'< ,'II .lfJ'B: ":irIIM ,n~'h'. 11~!: '"rT liT i..:;!: I:':,. ".1,1 ."U' :; My cummissionll,'rirlll '~ ..." Vlnc.nt J. Hlg.nt/Notary Publlo My Commllllllon 'lIplr.. 12/261110. e01 E, Hopkin. Asplln, Colorado 8111i11 . ~ I ~ <: ; ;.' H."~'! . " - .. ;E ~ a , " ~ . I~ 2 0 .. 0 ~ ~" ~ 0 " a '" < ~ ~ '" ,g " ~ 0 0 u 0 ~ 0 c: to - !;! -' 0 :s ..., 0 ~ to U 2 Q ~ '" .. . ~ !:l g 0 0 u Po. '" f Q ~ !( t; ~ ~ ] \ I,: 'f: >i ~ .. ~ " I ~ ~ ,.. j I . . I!' J . d Id a % . I ,g " if . .:! ~ .8 ,g 1l d 1! % 0 E . Ii: ~ . o " '0 J . . E o E ,g ~ B . d % ~: .. "":.) " j', !: , 5 '.. ... . ... ... .. .. - ... ;.~. ,~~ ': - ... '~ITY \c $"t.{~c.., "fAR-C.EL Lldl :'3 R -15) . . ~ (PUD) j / "0 / "14 \J ",", ,.-~:.> .. (:'o~~).~\ "',' ...-,." "\, , '.., '>., .... ,-.. ~,~. . ". '\,"- R:- ,\~ ,',- t, :. '. II " 2 . I lR~III1i{ II el.1111 1 . "1\ I, ......,.... I ~~ I ~~ 1 ' ..-.. 1 l:;; E, HYMAN , I", AVE." '0. 1 1 ~----~~ ~ -' ~. , ~; i LJ).I;I-"I I .. r ...J . . ',' ....,~, 't: ~ -----_..._-~(?) . 0- ~..,~ I 1 \p I ' - I "'P:..~ I '~I ". ~_, 1 .;.~_ 1 '~..... ....1 ~I I"~ I:..X~' ...__1 . ~--;~~ I..... ,--~1...- ,........ , ~'-~, ", \ ~I'~~ " ',' ~1 ..... .5U:-e.:rE C\ _~I 1'r1~CEL .:\ '~ \~ '\. ~k1\ (~\II l) ~~ .., 1 Ul I" 1 1 I I ___~_~___~____~_1 , I ' I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I : I '~ KC .., ,..,-- ., ., c ~. '<1,. "II. ~. " .. - ... r' IIIH~IIIII ~ L ~',[ "I~ '---" ffi\ , , /g <( 'r I' ...J !.o w K3\ . ~ L \, 1\ t:-. f\ ,r,+ I 111111 \ :.FB* "Kl riiiJ) 1 i'. ' .., ~ 'I;; . 0 z w Iii w ,~ v , rt\ - :} L :;IA !, I- d i' Jl" ., It ,~.!"'---"I" ' I R-15.i " t B II '" \ ~ Ii CIT PEN ,~ November 10, 1989 ,.. Karinjo Devore Attn: Jody Edwards 1280 Ute Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 '. - Re: 831 Ute A venue/Dean Billings Project ... Dear Karinjo Devore: - This letter is to confirm my telephone comment that water supply is available in sufficient capacity to provide service for your anticipated housing project, which I understand to be 11 units. Therefore, this letter is to advise you that water will be made available to the project upon application for the required tap permits. ... - ,. _. .. It must be understood that eXisting service lines must be disconnected if they are to be abandoned. This is a routine condition of permits for new service lines. I am assuming you plan to put in a new service line for the project. .. .. - i~"~, .. .. JI Markalunas, Director pen Water Department .. JJM/kw ~ - .. MEMORANDUM - From: KarinJo Devore 1280 Ute Ave. vi Aspen, Co. 81611 Wayne Vandemark,[ Fire Marshal To: . .. -- ... Date: November 8, 1989 - He: Fire Protection .. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - The above mentioned property is within a four minute response time from the fire department. There is a fire hydrant on the corner of Ute and Original Ave. This hydrant will supply the complex with ample water for the required fire flow. - - - c.c. Jody Edwards - - ,- ... '.... - - .. - ... - .. '. .. - ,- ~ ~ - ,.".. w .- - .. - .. - .. ... .. - .. - .. - - .. - - - w IIU./ UU-- '...J.) .1..........1. IJ,.l. nuL.. I ....""'u=':J C.Ll:.....l""'lL Il:.L I IU; "':"U..:;.-,::,--.::r-"HJOl HUdb r:'<;J..6..... I...IOLY CROSS ELEC'rRIC ASSOCIA1~ION, INC. "'9 HIOIIWA V U II, o. UnhWIi.R 21$0 (lOJ) '45.54" rAX. '45-4011 OLf.NWOOIJ SrRINOS. COLORAIJO 81602 , November 8, 1989 Ms. Karinjo Devore Box 0-3 1280 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado REI Billings Project at Ute and original Dear Ms. Devorel The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. has adequate resources to provide electric power to the development, SUbject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and wichin the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. ~'2- Buzz Quaco, Staking Engineer BQlrjm Aspen r9onsolidated Sanitation (Disilrict 565 NOI.th Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. 1303) 925-2537 11-9-89 Wi II iam Lipsey 210 S. Galena Aspen Co. 81611 - RE: Bi I I ings Project -- Dear Mr. Lipsey, ... Mr. Larry Mullin was in our office to briefly discribe this project. This letter is to confrim that the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District can service this project. We do have several conments and requirements that we will detail uhen we see the entire application during the approval process. ,.. - ~IY'7/7 ~ I ~".I( !r;(~-~L/d Thomas R. Bracewel I Collection Systems Superintendent 'W - - '. - ... .. .. '.. .. '. - - 1 SCHIllUESER GORDON IllEYER INC. P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-6727 r CONSUL TlNG ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS I: r November 10. 1989 I lilll I , Mr. William Lipsey Architect P.O. Box 3203 Aspen, Colorado 81612 r .,'. Re: Drainage at Billings Property Dear Bill; r , .. I am writing in follow-up to our meeting and discussion of yesterday regarding drainage and potential off-site impacts to the Billings property at Ute and Original. r '. We reviewed topographic mapping related to the site and discussed the potential impacts of off-site drainage. The property sits at the confluence of two drainages including lower Spar Gulch to the southeast and a minor basin to the southwest which follows the Aspen Mountain road to the site. The City of Aspen, through our firm, is proceeding with design of a diversion structure to intercept lower Spar which should significantly reduce the hazard of most major runoff and storm events from that source. r . r .... T . Given the possibility, however, of a major event exceeding the capacity of the Spar structure or the more likely possibility of a major storm impacting the smaller basin to the southwest and given the history of drainage impacting this site, it is my recommendation that structures designed for the property seek to avoid the placement of habitable space below existing grades. - f r .. I offer this recommendation based on a fairly cursory review of basin characteristics as well as my observation of the site over several years as Aspen City Engineer. Should you wish our firm to provide additional comment or detail, please feel free to contact me. I { Respectf~l~ ~rd, ~~o~~ y . Hammond, PE Principal, Aspen office Schmoeser, Gordon. Meyer Inc. T ( .~ 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 . Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 . (303) 945-1004 8 ~ .., J OFF'~1()RE\'TEWll ING SETBACK '."_ 1,\:\ _10 i"J~g?:.c CU~vt:"'l II .~ ......... PoI'<D I ? " ."" C Zz ~<e: ~~ o~ ~ ~ ~ffi (/)~~ Coo Z~~ :J o~- ~~> ~~~ ~<e:o -.' ., ~ ~ ~ '... ~ - - - 'W - ~ ~ ",' ::J- , (~~,~::::;.::;- \'~ " ;;;;--j ~ ,,:=J - ". 777 UTE TOWNHOUSES . "''''''''"- ... ~ ~ - (AVENUE .~ ----- ~~~~ --------.._-//" ~~ ~ ~ DEVELOPME:Ks~ ,c.leOMINIUMS ~ ,.', ~ :~' / I ' i. Vi fA: <,<;;:f~-"-- '~?'", ~ ,/ , " , _ DAft'" ~ '- ""l'~'~_ - ...."'IAMI~',~!,V"A'~O( An(HITf(1~ (A,,"'A\l n,~,,,, "' ) '" - " DP ,"01'0' ~ 9 ~~I~I Cr'Mrox leleCOpler 'IU~U in-'I.1-ti~ l1;~U ; NelSon/Leeb Const, .. 925 6606;# 2 .. Chen~Northern,Inc. Conlulhng Engineer, and SC:ilnllllS lOBO ~OId 154 G!.n~OOCl SOtI/"gl, ColoradO 81601 30394S.loSB 3031145.2363 Flo"m;tt ,~,I SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DFSIGN PROPOSED TOWNHOME AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS 831 UTE AVENUE ASPEN I COLORADO . .. Prepared For: .. Nelson-Zeeb Construction Attn: Larry Mullen P,O. Box 5400 Avon CO 81620-5400 .~ Job No. 4 504 89 September 25, 1989 .. '-"---"--""~~-~"~"- ... ~ , " ", '\' ~h1' . . ' -l O-J ~:::l Be e-l CIltT1 tT1 CIl ., o. 'I W " ,- ,~ " ~r ( , U tT1 -< tT1 t""' o "0 ~ tT1 Z -l CIl - -l tT1 "0 t""' >- Z e -l tT1 , :;1 ; ~ ~ >- -< tT1 Z e tT1 _ ~.-r. - ~., !~~ ....... N o z Z o <n c: s: s: >- '" -< CIl ~ >- () i" Pi> ::r:: t::l Cl ::r:: -l CIl -l e' u -< c . m . < m z c m 0 ~ . . @ ~H; , , I! nli ~r: i i r U Il~ ". , !1I iii I I !I I" . .. .. -, ! I" " .' ~'!t I Hi . 1 i i ~ ! , . ", , , I , ;\ ~6:~ ~ ~ ! .. ~~<j,,~ il! ! ! ! !. " ~: L~~~ '" , , , " ....... . " . I ] , ~ , . ~H :11 ~ ii.! I ! ~ ~. 8 8888 , , ~ '" aH . "n " ~I , . j' . , i :~ I I I' i \ ",' ... I . ~ ': . :~ \ \\ 0 ~ ~ a~ ~~ " . > ~ 5 ~ . z ~ g 8~ ~ " 0 ~~ ~ . z ~ ~ " > ~,z ~ <i~ l' 'i j " I' I 7",'" >- c -l ~ ~ii ; j ;~ .~~;l ~ ~~-< . . , " ~~t. ~ -\\-0 ( , p ., j . . ! % ~ Ii ~ / 'l' --~ I j i . o__~ i " ~ '. ,.,f ! ! ~ ~~ /~ I I " " i 'I J ii 0 .. ,.. ; .. ! liy "tl[ , a! X". I ! I -, I ~ !l . ! " 'I iill I '"' i ji B '" .- ." . ! .! ! I '! it I, , 8888 ; III . . 'I I I i. '~iii i I j } n , I :i " , 888 I ! .1 Ii .. .... ! ! II i i II I I I II \ ~ 0' o .' .' 0: ~: .' 0' ., m < " ~ ~ > < o 25FT ~FT ~ ;~ " . ! " ~ ~ BILLINGS AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT HOUSING PLAN _~'_~.'''~''~''C.,....."...'''"__ TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONCLUSIONS , ... PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY , - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2 - SITE CONDITIONS 2 - FIELD EXPLORATION 2 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS 3 - FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 11 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WAl.L.S 5 FLOOR SLABS 7 . UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 1 o. SITE GRADING 8 SURFACE DRAINAGE 9 UMITATIONS 9 - - FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGUR~2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 _ SWEl.L-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS w FIGURES 5 AND 6 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS , TABl.E I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESUl.TS - - : ",,: ,t.....~:::!'\ '1.11'.~f.!'" :\' \ \, .;.....= _. (., ...,..... .1..1..... ..n';'lll UI'Ai;lV^ 1~1~I..VtJl~1 IV'V '11-1"-0::1 111'':1 I 1~t:I~UlllL.eerJ \"oonSli. ... ~,o OUUUill 4 - - .. - - - - ,~ - - CONCLUSIONS The proposed structures should be.founded with spread footings bearing on the natur.al granular soils and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Other design and construction criteria relating to geotechnical aspects of the proposed struo- tures are presented in the body of the report. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a SUbsoil study for two proposed structures to be looated at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown'on Fig., 1. The study was conducted in acoordance with our agreement for geoteohnioal engineering servioes letter to Larry Mullen of Nelson-Zeeb Construction, dated August 17, 1989. A fhld exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was con- duoted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their engineering charaoteristics. The results of the field exploration and labora- tory testing were analyzed to develop recorrunendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressu.res for the prop.osed building foundation. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in the . ... report. This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtsined during this study and to present our conclusions and recorrunendations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. Design parameters snd a discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction .w of the proposed structures are included in the report. ... '" .~ SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ;11-13-69 : 1':31 Nelson/Zeeb Const, ~ -2- 925 6606:# 5 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The two proposed buildings w~~l be three stories, of wood frame construc~ . tion, with .bel~w grade psrking. Ground. floor will likely. be slab-on-grade. . . . .. Grading for eaoh structure is expected to have cut depths between about 8 to 10 feet. We assume moderate foundation loadings, typioal of the proposed type construction. ...' ., ., When' building loadings, location and grading plans have been determined, ... we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations oontained in thill report. SITE CONDITIONS Two residences were located on the projeot site at the time our field work was conducted. We understand that both will be razed for construction of the new struotures. Vegetation in the area consists essentially of grasses and trees (backside of the existing two-story house). Topographically, the ~ property is relativelY flat towards the north, but steepens upward signifi- oantly toward the south. Some minor past site grading may have been done, and the srea possibly contains remnants or waste from past mining activity. FIELD EXPLORATION . The field exploration for the project was oonducted on August 31, 1989. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the looations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with Ii-inoh J diameter continuous flight augers powered by' a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Chen-Northern, Inc. d Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1 3/8-1nch and 2-inch 1.0. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with ,~ ~~lll CT'Mrox leleCOpler IU~U ,II-I~-~~ l1;H 11eISOn/'eeo ~onSt. .. -oJ ~,o ~~U~i# ~ blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D- 1586. The penetration resistance values' sre an'indication of the relative density or. consistency of ,.,.;; the subsoils. Depths at which the' samples' were taken and the penet.rat.ion resistanae values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The '.. ... - - _;'.,1 - .., .... samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the projeot engineer and testing. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS The subsoil conditions enoountered at the site are shown graphicslly on Fig.. .2. The subsoils consist of 4 to 5 1/2 feet of man-plaoed fill of olayey silts ancl sands overlying natural loose to medium dense silty sands and gravels. The rill is expected to be variable in depth and composition, and oould contain debris. Drilling in the lower dense granular deposit with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit at all three locations. Laboratory testing performed on selected samples obtained from the bor- ings inoluded natural moisture content, dry density and gradation analyses. The results of swell-consolidation tests conducted on a sample of the upper natural sandy soil indicate a moderate to high compressibility under light to modera'te loadini and wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 1/2-1nch fraotion) of the natural granu- lar soils are shown on Figs. 5 and 6. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of dri+ling and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. ,. "".. ~..... ;':"9, .... .... '" ~ ._, "" 'I "'. , ""...1.1 IJI "~...I...." 1...1..........1-'.1;;1 11,1"1,,1 111 ,'''-V; , I tt"" I !'f'=1~1J11/4'C~lJ \"IUI1:;i\" ..., - -~~ ~,o OOVOIlI '( ,:..,. 3) The footings should have a ,minimum width of 18 inohe5 for oontinuous walls and 24 inches for isolated pads. ~ 4) Exterior footings and 'footings beneath unheated areas should. be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protec- tion. Placement of foundations at least 42 inohes below exterior grade .... .. - is typically used in this area. S).. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining struotures should a150 be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of - .''''.~' this report. 6) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excava- tions prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures whioh are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backfill oonsisting of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the bui1d- 4 . lngs and oan be expected to deflect suffioiently to mobilize the full aotive earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for back- fill consisting of the on-site granular soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropri- ~ ate surcharge pressures such as adjacent buildings, traffic, construction .. materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained _,' '0' .:""'"... \,. ..._ ... ~ '.. . ~~:l OCUC,IJ C w~nl ~1'f\'I;I\J'" 11,;!l;;....IJIJ.l;i1 ,.....,1,1 lll-I~-U;l I 11'~'" I 1~t:I~V11/L.~t\J I..olJll::il,. ... , ' . conditions behind the walls ,and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of wat.er behind a \~all or an upward sloping backfill surface. will increase the lateral. pressure imposed on a foundation wall or'retaining struct~re.' The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a oombination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation mate- rials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coeffi- oient of friction of 0.45. Passive pressure against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf. The w - - "' ". -6- coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ul~imate soil str~ngth. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particu- larly in the case of passive resistance. Compacted fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular material. Fill should be placed and compacted to at least 95~ of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. We recommend granular soils for backfilling foundation walls and retaining structures because their use results in lower lateral earth pressures. The natural on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized ~ rook can be used as backfill. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90~ of the lIIaximulll standard Proctor density at. a moisture content near optiwm. w Care should be taken not to overcompact the bsckfill since this could cause .. - - excessive lateral pressure on the walls. Subsurface drainage recommendations are discussed 1n mere detail in the "Underdra1n System" section of this report. - ~~I~I bl'i\erOx lelecoPler 'fU,U ;11-13-59 925 6505i# 9 - - - - ~ - .. - - - " : 33 Ne I son/Zeeb Const, .. -7- FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site ,soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly to moderately loaded . slab-on-grade construction. To reduoe the effeots of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and oolumns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertioal movement. Floor slab oontrol joints should be used to reduoe dsmage due to shrinkage oracking. We suggest joints be provided on the order of 15 feet on center. The requirements for slab reinforoement should be estab- lished by the designer based on experienoe and the intended slab use. A minimum ~-inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level :slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should oonsiat of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 50~ passing the No. ~ sieve and less than 2$ passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture oontent near optimum. Required fill can oonsist of the on-site gravels devoid of vegeta- tion, topsoil and oversized rook. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Althcugh free water was not encountered during our exploration, it bas " been our experience in mountainous areas that looal perohed groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff oan create a perched condition. We recommend below grade construction I such as retaining walls, crawl space and basement areas be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdra1n system. ",...111 UI 'Al;;11J1\ ll;;ll;;....VlJ.l;;1 /1.11.1.1 111-1~-U~ I II'oJ,+- I 11jt:I~Url/Lt:t:U \"d.,lf1:n" .., -8- ... '. .. '. .. - .. - ~o OOUOilnu The drains should consist of drain tile placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular mate- rial. The drain should be placed at least 1 foot below lowest.adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1~ to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 2 feet deep. SITE GRADING Fill material used inside building limits should consist of s granular material. Fill should be plaCed and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum - standard Proctor density near the optimum moisture content. Fill should not - - contain concentrations of organic matter or other deleterious substances. The soil engineer should evaluate the suitability of proposed fill materials prior to placement. In fill areas, the natural soils should be scarified, adjusted to a moisture content near optimum and compacted to provide a uniform base for fill placement. Site grading should be planned to provide positive surf~ce drainage away from all building and parking areas. The buildings and parking areas should ~ w .be placed as high as possible on the site so that positive drainage away from these features can be prcvided. Surface diversion features should be provided M - ... .- .. c;'" around parking areas to prevent surface runoff from flowing across the paved surfaces. Excavation of the soils at the site should be feasible with oonventional heavy-duty equipment. Boulders and large cobbles encountered in the excava- tion near bearing elevation should be removed as carefully as possible to - -~. , . reduce disturbance to the' bearing soils. Cavities resulting from boulder and large cobble removal below foundation bearing elevation should be backfilled with compacted fine gravels' or concret.e. If peroned groundwater - is en-, countered in the excavation, it should be removed prior' to foundation - oonstruction. - SURFACE DRAINAGE - The following drainage preoautions should be observed during construotion ,_ and maintained at all times after the buildings have been oompleted: 1) Inundation of ,the foundation exosvations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. .~ 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compaoted to at least 95~ of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90~ of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the buildings should be - sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet. in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inohes in the first 10 feet .in'paved areas. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all . baokfill. - LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil I ," and foundation engineering practices in this srea for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at. the ,. "''':t\t'''~?'' I.~I"','I"" ',""1,\ ..... _ I I _ \'.. ....1 .,,: 1,'-. ""'.111 WI "H"'I V,", 1...'......10'''''....1 ''''~\J 111 loJ """ t I !'oJ'" , 111:; 1 ~""rll lol;l;1rJ .....urr~\o. ..... ~,~ UUVU,"I' -10. - . locations indicated on Fig.. 1 and the proposed type of construotion. The nature and extent.. of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil, rook or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, . this offioe should be advised at onoe so reevaluation of the reoommendations . .- may be made. We reoommend on-site observation of exoavations and foundation . bearing strata and testing of struotural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. ." Very truly yours, CHEN-NORTHERN, INC. BYSf;:;:;:. ~.;J J~ Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Reviewed By ~ SLP/eo - ".. ~ - .. .. - ~ ~ APPROXIMATE. SCAL.E ..I\_I~I Ul'AlOilV" 1l;;llit....VI.l,U;1 11.11,1,,1 'II-I,,-g~, Il'.J~ ,1't~I:ifJfl/LeeU lJons'W. .. HJ OOUO,III~ HOLE ~ r----I 1------.--.1 I I I I --I . -I .\ I I r L ' '- ..J- -\ .. 'I I L.___ _I '," .. 30' ~. .. - .. UTE AVENUE - -. , -- 'BUILDING SETBACK l.INE I I \ I ---- HOLE ,--I . \ \ - , - -- .... ..- -- \ - ..........., \" ....... \..... \ \. \ \ \ ".;t \ \... EXISTI NG \ \ eUIL.DING , ~ \ \ , \ \ , - . I \ '--- \ \ - \ ..-- - .... --- ~ .. .. - EXISTING BUILDING --I I I I \ - 4 504 89 Chen~Nonhem.lnc. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORV BORINGS Fig, I ;,t111 ~Y;l\erox lelecopler '1020 :"-'3-89 ":35 . .. - - .. ~ ,;4JI .;., - '. - . aD'; all Ne I son/Zeeb Canst, .. Hule 1 Elev. a 10S.8'. Hu 18 2 Elev. . 101. 8 '. Hule 3 E'lev. . 101.3' 8S 50/6,20/0 . 32/6,20/0 Nute: Explanation uf symbuls presented un Fig. 3. Ch~maN6ril"lE!mJnc. '., LUlU uf IiIol.luP&t....~ I.."l.,u 925 6808:#14 110 8S Fl.. l ,.n_I~1 \"II 'A\;I V^ I I;; I I;; \"VU J"l;:1 nay 111-1"'-0:1 I I ['''0 I 1'4~'~Url/L.t;n:1.l ....Ul1~l". .., ~,~ 00\,10,;'10 LEGEND: l'5<'I Fill: mixed sand, clay and 'silt with svme grayeh, cuntains sume vrganics, suft, ~ mulst ur very mulst, bla~K and brown. , ....l o Si 1t (ML); sandy, stiff, muist, dark bruwn. ~ Gravel and Sand (GM-SM); silty, luuse tu med!um dense, very muist, bruwn, silt I52l zunes. ~ Gravel (GP-GM); sandy and slightly silty with cubbies and pussible buulders. very ~ ~ense, very muist, light bruwn. Relatively ~ndist~rbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. Califurnia liner sample., Drive sample; standard penetrat1un test (SPT), 1 3/8-inch I.D. split spoon sample. ASTM 0-1586,. Drive sample bluw eo~nt: indicates that 4 bluws uf a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches wero required tu drive the California ur SPT sampler \2 inches. NOTES: 1. Expluratury burings were drilled un August 31, 1989 with a 4-inch diameter continuuu$ flight puwer auger. - 2. Locatiuns uf expluratory borings were measured appruximately by taping frum features shown un the site plan pruvided. ".it 3. Elevations uf expluratury burings were meas~red by instrument, level and refer tu , the Bench Mark on Fig. 1. ' - ~ _ 4. The expluratory boring lucations and elevations shuuld be eunsidered accurate unly to the degree implied by the method used. - - S. The lines between materials shuwn on the expluratory buring logs represent the appruximate, buundaries between material types and transitiuns may be gradual. 6. Nu free water was eneuuntered in the burings at tho time uf drilling. Fluctuations in water level may uccur with time. .. .. - 7. Laburatury Testing Res~lts: _ we a Water Cuntent (\) DO . Dry Density (pef) .4 = Percent retained un Nu. 4 sieve -200 . Percent passing N~. 200 sieve 4 504 89 I Chen~Northem.Inc.1 Legend and Nutes Fig, 3 - ~tl~1 ~Y;)(erox ieleCOpler 'IU2U :11-13-69 11:36 : NelsonlZeeb Const, .. 1~ w APPLIED PRESSURE - ksl 4 504 89 Chen-Northern, Inc. SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 ~ ~ - ~ <It'.: 0 I c:: Q .... 1 III III III '"' ~ ,2 Q u .~ .. .. .. .. .w - ~25 66U6i#16 MOi"Uft Contini. 20.9 percent Dry Unl1 Wt;ght . 104.5 pct Sampl. of: gravelly. sand From: Hole 1 atS feet - - . t- - - itiona co pr s i 1--- er con tan p e 5 '" to we Un '\ l\- I \ 1\ - . ~ 3 4 5 0.1 '00 ~~r1r OT'i\erOX leleCOpler 'fU~U ;l1-n-~~ ; 11:3'1 Ne I sonl Leeb Canst, .. ~,o 6608;#1'1 Hv:>MMnE~ ANALVSIS IMt. ""'''DINGS u SIEVE ANAlySIS A""Cl"A SAlt ~Q""A~' Nl 24 MA 1 !'lIt , 100 I $MIN UM1Foi eo ~UN ,. MI~ . MIN , M1N ',00 "00 'SO '40 '30 -'. ,-" lo" ~t" "1" ~,. S'8' '" . , I . . . , , . .001 ,Q' 01' I" .., .00. QOt .Q, .,.. 201 ... UI '3.l '.71 .,U II,t ~I,' IU '" ". 'I. 110 . .. . '..w i.. ~5 ~. " ~ ~ )0 "'; :r lO~ .. is IO~ .. . 20 to 10 GO Cl....v TO SILt 4t to CIAMETE~ OF PA~TICle IN MILLIMETeRS '.NO FHd M!OtUM COARSl ,n GRAVE-L. FIN! CO...~SE. COULU aMVEl 24 lIOr./IC1 LIMIT \0, SANO Ilo 36 110 $Il T ANC CLAY 40 .. \40 PLASTICITY INOEX ~ SAMPLE OF silty gravelly sand FROM Hole 1 at 10 feet . i ~ ~ ~ I HYOROMETEA ANAL YSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS I I,'H. IHO, TIM' AbQINOl VB S"NOA"O SiAliS CIoI". SQu~AE Ol'eNINGS s.... I "'MIN\SMIN. eo MIN l' MIN .. MIN , t.4IN " 10 "DO 'eo "0 ':10 'I' ',q, ." '.~ 1 ~.~ 3' .. . .. '. eo 10 I. :lO '" 110 ~ '" :lQ " 2Q .. " .. . , " , .00' ,00' ClOt ,0" .OJ1 ." ,ut .lIf ''10 UI .31- ,trl 912 .'tt 31.' 71.2 12' '110 iil I :! oj SO" !i ..11 " Ir " ,"" - - .. ... ~ - . 00 .. .2 '0 OIAMETER OF P"~TICLE IN MILLIMUE~S '51 C\.."T TO IlL T FINE SAND MEClIUM COA"St CiPlAV!L ~INE COM'\SE COI!II!ILU ,- GR"VEL 34 'llo SANO \40 41 'llo SIL T ANO CLAY 2S .. \40 LIOUIO liMIT PLASTICITY INOEX SAMPLE OF si It)' sand and gravel F~OM Hole 2 at S feet 0"" 4 504 89 Chen.Northern, Inc. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. S ~"'" U"^"'n 1.1.,Upler 'IU~U ;ll-l~-~~ 11 : 37 Ne I sonlZeeb Const, .. 925 6808;#18 - ~ M~DROM~T~R ANAL ~SIS 11"" """CliNGS SIEVE ANAL YSIS \J SUf'IIOARQ SE.Fl:lE. Cl.lAR ~\oI40l.' 0 U~INC. , . 2~ 1'411a 1 H~ " 100 10 MI'" 'S~IN l\OMIN 't~r~ .MIN 1 MIN ':,1l'I "00 '$0 "0 '30 '" ',".. ., ~.. ,,. l~' ,. 5'1 I' . , 7 , 002 .00' ,001 ,Q1I .0' -, , .''''- .2.r 110 ut III ..71 ..~2 It.' 3'_' lU 12 10' . - 10 10 10 30 <O~ e 50'" lO~ .. o ioo :g f ..50 z !l,o '" t :lC '" 10 I. iO o ... 00 c.-no BIL T 0" 2.Q OIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLlMfTliRS AND ''''oj! MEDIUM COARBi ... GRAvEL PINE CO""U COULES GRAVEL 41 It SANO '" S4 II liLT ANC CLAY S 1'0 II LIQUIQ LIMIT PLASTICITY INDi.X SAMPLE OF slightly silty sand and gravel FROM Hole 3 at 9 feet HYDROMETER ANAL VSIS T IMi "'A:)INaa SIEve ANAL YSIS U. ST ""'O"'~Cl SEAIU GioiA'" SOUA-Al OPINI~GS "Q - 24 ~". 1Mlt 'I '00 - I. hAIN'$~IN 10 MI~ ,t 1iA1N .. MIN f MIN '100 .'00 'SO '.0 '30 "1 ,'I " ~.. .,. ,..... 3' ,--.. . , , , 00' .00' .00' ,ClOt .01. ." ."14 .,.. .201 ... UI 0,. ... tll 1'.1 ,., 7U '7 , o - lID - 10 10 30 - i.. i r ~.. 10 .. ..~ e so'" ~ ..~ .. . .. - .. .. 10 50 - '0 10 .. . 00 - C\,,,V TO 51\.T d 10 DIAMETER OF P,o,RTICLE IN MILLIMETERS S.-.ND MI!CIUM 2,!ti FIN! CO"'''1l QRA\'E.L 'INl COAPt!E t081LU QRAVEL '" LIOUID LIMIT S,o,ND 1'0 '" SILT AND CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX .. .. ..~ SAMPLE OF FROM - -. . . ., , I. I tA N - e I. ~ ! .. I . , ! - l!i! ., '" '" 0 .... <>~ ..,1 I.. 1~il .... ... N C1> co 0 f' . . . 0 \/I '" i ~ ""I ... c: 0 11~1 ~ . III .. 1..111 11 A tA N ... l>o J>- ," I - c '" A tA 1i .... .... '" ... I N A ~n~ ~. '" lJ1 c::> I"" I... I~' ?~e ~ ~;; ~ I :d~ C 5 ..8 :( L !l~~ I~~ i ~!:li %~ .. .. I. ( ~~ III III III ", ". ~ 0..... ... ... - I>a~ ~ .. 0. '< '< . . . ~.~ ui' ~ 'I~~ c \II <,< OJ ", Ib ::S' ~ ...... . , -III 0.. < .... : ~ (1). 4n ... ill ... ... I .. '< ~ '< III III III g < ~ (1) .... 0. . en c: ~ ~ > " ~ 0 on r- 9 > en (!) :J 0 -4 I ::c > ~ > ll) "'I -l ,.. 3=- m 0 (1) " - 3 ... -< :J -l f'\ tr1 en -l :0 m en c r- -l en .... '" Q .... 00 III UJ I- ::) ~ ~ r.iJ r:/) .'~ ~/' ""', ...'-'..,....k.'~-'"""'...-,.. - ..-~. ., ~:. . ~:.. " c. /-) ~'..". .':-. $:'.- i' .. ,~. . ....:>'<tQ.L.:lf, ()-d"~ l"OlI~ ,01 ,01 _~.::::;;::::;.__-::::;;a- ..-= _....-~--- :,.&..-......-------- ~ ::J Z ~ ;> < w . ~ lir" ,', ", ' ..~1n*.~, .. \ . " I , I " . . I . . , , - I J I I I ~i I e~ I I ~~ I ~ . I ~lD I ~g I I ~ .1 :::::::~ :. ~, ; ~.' .' \ ~. ,:. ~: . i"!ji...;\.',.".... .'.. . ," , ,~ . ,. ....;.."J: ~ <, ... o 'I !) , \.,~)v o~v di , j,- 'tI\.~ ~.:, . ~ ,OJ - ) . 1 ,&1 o r ., . . <L L-j " <.L " .. " ') 1:-1. " .:.~ t. 0- 0 o v. '-- ) _<D Vi Ill;;;- ~ ~ l ;;- - \!l o ~ 0 - .. Vl Ii ,. >- Z J. ,. ~ <( UJ ~ Z ci .. J. l => <( llJ o Q ~ '> u '-' o . . z <r: ~ 0..., r.L) E-- 1--\ [/) E--~ Z;... r.L)i! ~~ ~ o ~ ~ > ~ Q \ 1 0. :J"~ :r. . g . f [/) ~w ~r./) ~g ~~ 8 , ,..,...., ".':4,." if' ~.'h,\ ,:,.,. :A:', ~; ~t.~~ J~!',,/ ;i'~1__'_ .. ~- J"\< '; ~.,~~ , i:,~ ,. '. '" .. .~ j , AVENUE :; t.'" ....~. ",<,co ",' 0' . . ,'i.,' <. " ':'. ; ',,'0- '11 " ,';, :.it '~~- "~;',.'~ ,-"i", .:' <, ~ACK & HEIGHT S'TUDY j-Jif""."'."'-' .,' scale: 1"= 10" ," ,\' '. ',.:' .. ,,',.', ,....~-'-.. ,; '. c' , t.~ '---r .~ ., '-1 ....".-.. . ~ ";.1 NOTE: 25' HIGH Bun.DING SET BACK 10', CUTS OFF MORE VIEW TIiAN 30' BUD.-DING SETBACK 20' ,. ,..,,' / ;'4.1 .. '. :.l\ '.:~ },.., r". \ '.1 ,. Ii: ~ Ii: i {',<i" 10FT < ZONING SUMMARY _ _SITE COVERAGE '~<~\-';:"\~~\~'-~<Io;:. SITE'AREA: .'., I", EASEMENT OEOUCTION REMAINING SITE AREA "t OPEN SPACE: \ (RMF ZONE) -~,,- 17,975.50 sf 735.00 51 17.240.50 51 " , AFU '-1st@400s1 ;} SIOry Hbr@800 sf AFU '.ISI@400sl 3 Slory '.2br@800sl AFU 1.2br@800 51 2 SIOry AFU I 2br@800s1 2 story FOOTPRINT 20x20 400,00 51 FAR 1.200.00 51 20,20 400.00 51 1.200.00 51 20x20 400.00 51 800.00 sf 20x20 400.00 sf 800.00 sf AFU '-3br@1,BOOsl 3 story AFU Garage & Storage 1 SIOry FMU's 4-3BA@3,00Q 3 SIOry 24.5x245 25x25 25x45 600.00 51 625.00 51 ~",C.OO 51 1 ,800.00 sf resident occupied unit 0.00 13,500.00 51 -2,000.00 sf garage exclusion-4 units FooTPRINT.TOTAL AREA: 7,32{.00 TOTAL FAR: 17,300.00 sf Overha S orches elc. no11ncluded in this FAR. Parking Coverage Sunken Courtyards Trash Area Foot rint Area SITE COVERAGE.SublOlal REQUIREO 350/. OPEN SPACE: ACTUAL OPEN SPACE: B AH carS...8 FMU cars.16 cars Iolal 3,771.00 sl 0.00 sl 70.00 sl 6200.00 sf 11,1..005f 6,03ol.18 sf "0J'4.5O sf lt1us OK (7"0) . Nole: Required Open space carnal contain parking, trash or courtyard areas 2' or more below rade 'r MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMEJI.'TS RMF Zone (assumes ,.50-;. AH replaced) FAR FAR (HABITABLE) REPLACEMENT BEDROOMS HEIGHT PARKING '. .~'_:.t:t~ - " . . I(~' GMQS ~'}::;:"":~--""""~r -----:-- SETBACKS' 2-SludioS AHU 4.2 br AHU 1.3blown OCCUP 4.3 hr FMU TOTAL 2 4 I 4 500 00 1.00000 1 .500 00 1,50000 1,000,00 51 4.000.00 51 , ,500,00 600000 51 12500,00 sl<1';' 240 551 OK' , , , , Allowable FAR "' Stlf' al~a ) 1 I AClual FAR U!.,64 5~ s! 'W,'Sp('clal ReVIew 1730000 sl<1e 9&4 5 51 5.655 sl 0(>1 tnler Garages ovprhanas ete excluOPO .72s1 mKh tr.;luded 5,800 ~I aro~S >5 655s1 OK basement slolaof' & mechanIcal no' included AH Ordinance calls fol replacing 100% e-.tSfg bpdrooms Existing SA's 12 BR's Re laced 13 OK--meeIS ordinancf' r uir€:'lTl4?ntsll , 3 slory Slruclures (30') will reqUIre pun approval...no below grade living units because 01 pOlenltal funofl problems FMU'S AH 1 spacetbedroom-reduCe 10 2 because 2nd homes b S cial Reyiew ~'"" . .--i!xi5ting..!981 units lhus exempl hO~~Ma~_ Front Yard Sickl Yards Rear Yards Required '0 5 10 Actual 20 3 3 gives ci1y mors open space on Ute Avenue oped pun exemplion need pun exe tion