HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Ute Park Subdivision.A29-90
oJ,
t"'""'
~
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 4/27/90
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737-184~00-009 A29-90
STAFF MEMBER: ~
PROJECT NAME: ute Park Subdivision Conceptual Submission
Project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: ute Park Partnership
Applicant Address: 2J:5S.Monarch. Aspen. CO
REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Stevens. The Stevens Group
Representative Address/Phone: 230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen. CO 81611 5-6717
PAID: YES
NO
AMOUNT:
$2210.
NO. OF COPIES
P&Z Meeting
Date -=f-/ 3 ['j PUBLIC
I' .J..~J tJl,K .
~Vl~ VESTED
HEARING:
2 STEP:
~
YES
RECEIVED: ~2
-/
NO '",,")l~5 3--,
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
1 STEP:
RIGHTS:
NO
Sfe.p Ql J.j
PUBLIC HEARING:
@5
CC Meeting Date
NO
.il~ /
VESTED RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Planning Director Approval:
Insubstantial'Amendment or Exemption:
Paid:
Date:
-------------------------------
REFERRALS :
V--City Attorney
~ity Engineer
ousing Dir.
, Aspen Water
/ City Electric
>d' /'Envir. Hlth.
~ Aspen Consolo
S.D.
..Mtn. Bell
(JY Parks Dept.
. .A!oly Cross
t!!I Fire Marshall
Building Inspector
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
Other
DATE REFERRED:
sj;r/~
INITIALS:
-!lr-
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED:
INITIAL:
___ City Atty ____ City Engineer ___ Zoning
___ Housing Other:
Env. Health
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
.-'
~
,. .\
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Carol O'Dowd,
ci ty Manager . V
Planning Directo~
THRU:
Amy Margerum,
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE:
August 3, 1990
RE: vte Park Subdivision Rezoning, Conceptual PUD,
Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption
---------------~--~-----~~---~-----------~-----------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval
of the Conceptual PUD development plan with amendment to the
conditions.
The applicant seeks Conceptual PUD approval and conceptual
review of rezoning as a threshold issue.
This Public Hearing is the second step in a. four step PUD review
process. The proposal includes the development of 7 free market
units and 16 affordable units on a 3.8 acre site on Ute Ave.
Please see the Conceptual Submission from.Vte Park Partnership.
COUNCIL GOALS: This proposal supports Council's goai 41 1 to
ensure an adequate amount of !lffordable housing, and goal 41 2 to
encourage growth that will reinforce our sense of community.
BACKGROUND: The Vte Park Subdivision .Affordable Housing project
is the first to be processed under the . provisions of the A.H.
zone district, which is being requested by the applicant.
Review Process:. Many facets of review are required for this
application. The 4 step process is as fOIIOW~:r:\ ~
Step 1 - P&Z Conceptual PUD (approved ~n 7/3); and review
.of rezoning as a threshold :L.ssue.
Step 2 - Council
Conceptual PUD, public hearing; and review of
rezoning as a threshold issue.
Final, PUD, public hearing; rezoning, first
step, public hearing; SUbdivision, first
step, public hearing; 8040 Greenline Review,
one step. '
Rezoning, pUblic hearing; Final PUD;
Subdivision; GMQS Exemption for Free Market
Units; and PUD/Subdivision Ordinance, first
reading.
Step 3 - P&Z
Step 4 - Council
.-."
,
At this review the Council is asked to consider' the Conceptual
PUD Development Plan. Please see 6/22/90 P&Z memo from Planning
Attachment "A".
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On ,J'uly 3, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved the Conceptual Development Plan with an
amended condition by a 5-1 vote. The amended condition is to
include pedestrian ways in condition #1 regarding upgrading ute
Ave.
KEY ISSUES: Major topics of concern by the commission were
the substandard~ondition of ute Ave. and the av~]~~~he hazards
on t:he site. There was also s.ome discussion regarding A:H.
rezoning as a threshold issue and the increased density that will
result from this project. See minutes from 7/3;90 meeting
Attachment "B".
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
Council should discuss as a threshold issue the A.H. rezoning
request and the density resulting from this designation. The
existing RR zoning would allow the development of one residential
unit. This project proposes a total of 23 units. Although the
proposed density is more than what occurs in the immediate
vicinity, the 4 block long ute Ave. neighborhood is comprised of
mixed uses: single and multi~family residential, office
commercial, park, and the Aspen Club. Vacant private property is
to the east and Forest Service land is'uphill from the site.
'The intent of the AH zone is ,to provide a mix of housing within
close proximity to the downtown area to promote non-vehicular
modes of travel. As incentives to develop affordable housing
within this zoning designation, free market units are allowed as
exemptions from Growth Management. Greater density is also a
bonus to promote this type of development.. This density issue
was discussed at Commission, but it was agreed that the AH
concept must be given a chance to be implemented before densities
are cause for criticism.
The substandard condition of ute Ave. is a critical issue
surrounding the density concern for this project. As it is now,
the pavement width is inferior even for existing uses. There is
no room for snow storage along the sides. Poor drainage exists
in the right of way which will require construction of culverts
under the road in several locations. The Commission wanted
attention given to pedestrian needs when the road system is
upgraded. This would reinforce city-wide efforts to promote non-
vehicular travel.
The commission wishes to forward to council a request to "budget
improvements to ute Ave. as necessarY or implement an improvement
district basically to dovetail with this project. "The
2
...,~
(y w:,):;' f0" O"~
Q6N-~~wM:t Ir1\ ~
~1W\ vU~':' 1J~ ~.~
#n~ s~d~ G~ tV-~A
Engineering Department is in the proces~ of estimating costs for
the improvements and will update the Council at the meeting. The
ute Park Partnership acknowledges its financial obligation for
part of the road improvements, based on a pro-rata . formula .
others in the ute Ave. neighborhood have expressed interest in
road and sidewalk improvements.
-.,
The avalanche issue caused much discussion at the Commission and
within the Planning Office. As'more and more marginal properties
are proposed for development, this discussion will reoccur. The
applicant has hired Art Mears, an engineering consultant who
specializes in avalanche study and .mitigation techniques. Mr.
Mears presented information to the project designers on physical
conditions, event occurrence, and mitigation techniques. The
buildings are designed towithsta.nd moving and resting forces of
an avalanche. Concern arises with the potential for persons
outside the structures being inundated by an avalanche. Based on
statistical information presented to staff at a meeting last
week, Mr. Mears feels that the building locations proposed are
acceptable. He plans to be at the meeting to address the Council
regarding his findings.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Of.fice recommends approval of the
ute Park Cenceptual pu. with conditions approved and. .amended by kI....:. '"
the Planning and Zoning Commission. These conditions are: '~f~,
'1 tf~Jr;1
1. Th~ applicant m,ust ~rovide a current traf~ic ;;J~or~ for I .1
evaluat10n by the Eng1neer1ng Department. Conclus1ons w1th1n the .
report shall reflect existing traffic volumes -and conditions of
~e street. A program for upgrading and widening ute Ave.
Uj1cluding pedestrian wayrlmust be developed in order to provide
. safety for current and ~ojected traffic loads. The applicant
shall work with and maintain contact with the Engineering
Department in order to facilitate the development of this
improvement plan.
Prier te Final pu. su.missien:
2. The slope reduction information must be recalculated and
submitted for approval to the Engineering Department in order to
verify allowable floor area ratio.
3. All gas fireplaces or wood burning devices designed into the
dwellings must be noted on Plan. Permits must be obtained from
Environmental Health prior to issuance of ANY Building Permits.
4. The head-in parking off of ute Ave. must be redesigned.
Also, consideration shall be given to consolidating the two
driveways into one.
5. A plan check is verified by the Housing Authority staff to
ascertain net livable calculations of 1,100 net livable square
3
.~
feet for the two bedroom sales deed restricted units.
inspection will determine the allowable income and
guidelines for these units through the Housing Authority.
6. A subdivision plat must be submitted for review by. the
Engineering Department.
. This
sales
7. The Subdivision Plat must delineate the hiking and cross
country trail easement which is being discussed with the Nordic
Council.
8. A revegetation plan must be submitted in
submission. This plan shall indicate disturbed areas,
schemes and, schedules, and plant varieties.
9. The Final submission shall include specific avalanche
mitigation information from the avalanche consultant in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney. A map of the avalanche hazard
zones on this site shall be included.
the Final
treatment
ALTERNATIVES: planning also recommends including avalanche
hazard notification on the subdivision plat, deed restrictions,
and posted on the property or along the street. Fencing off the
area above the structures will lessen personal exposure to slides
and will limit the possibility of someone starting an avalanche.
PROPOSED MOTION:. I move to approve the Conceptual PUD with
conditions as approved by the Planning and zoning commission and
adding condition #10 to read:
'10. Avalanche hazard notification must be noted on the
sUbdivision plat, deed restrictions,' and posted on the property
or along the street. Fences must be placed in the area above the
structures to lessen personal exposure to snowslides.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments:
"A" - 6/22/90
"B" - Minutes
Conceptual
Partnership
Planning memo to P&Z
of 7/3/90 P&Z Meeting
PUD Submission Package,
ute
Park
jtkvj/vte.ccmemo
4
. .
\ 1""""\
""" '
.~
"
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION/PUD CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION,
REZONING, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, August 13,1990 at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 pm before
the Aspen City Council, City Council ChaIl\bers, 130 South Galena
street, Aspen, COlorado to consider an application submitted by
Tom Stevens on behal.f of Ute Park Partnership requesting
approvals for Ute Park Subdivision. The applicant proposes to
develop seven free market townhomes and 16 deed restricted
condominium units. The applicant requests rezoning from Rural
Residential to Affordable Housing Zone District for this 3.8 acre
parcel which is located on Ute Avenue across from the Aspen Club
and Ute Park.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, CO 920~5090.
sIC. William L. stirlinq. Mavor
Aspen City Council
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------~-----------------------------------------------------
Published in The Aspen Times on July 16, 1990.
city of Aspen Account.
~.
?t>>~
~"-
/"""'..
r-
. .
,~:. ...'.,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 3. 1990
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Richard Compton, ,Bruce
Kerr, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Mari Peyton
was excused.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Wel ton: Concerning the Shadow Mountain Trail: Apparently a
recommendation to preserve the railroad ROW didn't quite get
across to the County commissioners and they approved the
development to happen on the old Midland ROW.
I would support any motion you might have that we send directly
to the County Commissioners to have them reconsider relocating
development up higher in order to preserve the historic railroad
ROW.
MOTION
Roger: I move to have the Planning Office create a resolution
for us to pass on to the County Commissioners directly inflowing
Coity Council with our dismay of allowing a development in a
location that the community has identified as a potential down
valley ROW.
Jasmine seconded the motion.~
Graeme:
think a
order.
The trail has been roped off by a property owner and I
broader motion that attaCks the whole problem might be in
Welton:
I think they are two separate issues.----
Roger: And basically the end result is to request procedure that
they reconsider that action.
Baker:
P&Z has amended theplan to include them in the ROW.
7 . .<<fKl-"'fhey didn I t like that so I request..{ltotable
and come back to them.
the item
Roger:
So oit is still in theair aat this point)
Baker: The terms of the plan are still up in the air. _T ~~"
,.tlut. Ll...i~ ""'~~Q---
Roger: Here is one of our paoblems. It is Coujnty right
adjacent toh the Cityu and it certainl~/seems to me that the City
should progress to annexing the Shadow~~Ae~i<: Mountain area where
\
I t ~
/j";--- '\
r',
~.
there is any potential development involved so that the City can
address these issues as the City should~ Maybe we need a'
separate resolution to City Council recommending that as well.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.---
We1to9n: Does anyone feel uncomfortable starting discussion on
annexation of County areas--the investigation of County areas
immediately adjacent to the City line and ShadOW/Aspen Mountain
area?
Roger: I am concerned developable areas up to the 8040 line
along the.. Shadow Mountain/Aspen Mountain, even up to Difficult !
Creek to ; wherever the City hits it. The County is making-+
decisions that impact the City very adversly and as it happens in i
the past the city ends up just being a party submitting
information to the County in their decision making and many times
they don't heed it.
Jasmine: I agree with Roger.
Richard: Likewise.
MOTION
Roger: I move to request the Planning Office draft a resolution
to the City Council requesting they immediately look into
annexation of potential developable properti3es adjacent tot he
City limit on the south side east of Castle Creek and west of the
eastern City limits.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: As far as the roping off of the trail, I have had
discussion with the Sheriff and the County Attorney and everybody
else I could think of to talk to about it--basicallythe owner is
tryuing to preserve his property. He traded for that land 4
years ago. The Sheriff assures me that if any pedestrians think
that they have access rights, they are welcome to excercise those
rights without a Sheriff taking any action against peopld
excercising those rights across that land. I have been doing
.that myself and encourage anybody else who has been using that
for a long period of time to preserve their rights as well.
STAFF COMMENTS
i
i
There were none.
PUBLIC' COMMENTS \
There were none.
~
.1""""\
of structure that we .need to provide for this project without the
free market units.
In terms of the public improvements that will be required: Right
now one of the big concerns is Vte Avenue. It is substandard
prior to the development of this project and will be even more
substjandard upon the development of this project. Some of the
areas of concern are pavement width and drainage. What it is
really going to come down to is we are going to have to
participate on a pro rata share. The extent of the design, the
extent of the costs that are implied by that design have not been
identified yet. We are going to take itupon Ourselves to proceed
so that we know internally approximately what those costs are so
that we are prepared to. participate in the Upgrading of ute
Avenyue.
We see those upgrades right now revolving primarily around
pavemebnt width and drainage improvements. We will probably have
to be loo9king at culverts along driveways down to at least the
Children's Park prior to reaching ute Avenue. In terms of
pavement width thereseemn to be a lot of different measurements
floating around right now. But we recognize we willha.ve to
participate in the upgrading Vte Avneu and we don I t have a
problem with participating in that to accomplish what we can.
All utilities are either on site or adjacent to site. The City
Water, sanitary, sewer ,cable, gas and electric. It will be on
our shoulders to negotiate an easement to pick up the 18 feet to
get to the sewer. Everything else is fairly simple as far as
servicing the project.
Roger: At this point it appears to me. that ute Avenue is
substandard. I don't like the concept of adding on top of a
problem without a solution in the works and that solution is
,.-i.ncumbant a lot upon the City in this case. Along with the
{. i" . /' imporvements along ute Avneue we must include attention to the
d7U," '----. needs of the pedestrians in that area. Whether it is some
[,WiriYsidewalks to the point where they cross over to the trail--
/'iP.9J.d "[...5omething has to be done along that line.
r''-
I think it is necessary by separate resolution to City Council to
point this problem out and as much as you can be in favor of an
AH project can you live with it without the satisfactory service
to it? We should recommend that they ;mmediately either budget
tmprovgm.Eln:t::~'"_:t::fl","J]t:e Avenue . as . neceS'S'ary-or-TInpTe!lll:!nt an
~n-e'-aist-r-4ct....b.iis;rc:a1:!Y E~__.!!gy~tail with -tn1s pr-o'jEfct7-
Kim: Tom said it would prObably be best to develop
first so that during the construction process
imporvement to ute Avenue doesn't get torn up.
the project
any recent
Roger: We just need to know
and that it is going to
thisproject coming on line.
how these will be staged and meshed
be within a reasonable time of
1""""\
, '
~
Kim: Staff does recommend approval of this conceptual PUD plan
with 9 conditions. (attached in record)
Roger: 4/1 I recommend the inclusion of a program for widening
and grading ute Avenue and inserting ",including pedesJ;ci.an...ways
_muEL'LJ2.~__MYe.:tQR!'!s!..._!.I1,.,.l:!:r;:q!..r,. '1:~~.I2.:rQ;\lide:=sa,tety-::t:Qr-':::C.ur.r.~nd
proj:c!=,~_!_raffic loads". ,'.,..
~ .. - --'."'"'-_""",._~,"e"""",..".^.~,,_,
Richard: How far does that go? Does that go all the way out to
Durant or just out to Original?
Jim Gibbard, Engineering: The area we are most concerned with
was the curve just east of 1010 Vte on up to the proposed
development. There are problems further on down. The drainage--
very serious drainage problems all along ute Avenue. Tne W1dth
in that area is adequate. Chuck Roth has been trying to
establish some kind of improvement district in that portion of
. ute Avenue but has not had a lot of luck in getting this thing
going. There has been a lot of resistance from some of the
residents along that area to do anything.
":\'
We thought wefwould concentrate on this area since this area has
substandard' widths .We have no areas fe,r hsn~w . st~e on the
sides of the street and when we have a 19 snow year that
essentially becomes a one lane street. So we not only have to
address the width of the street but the width of the shoulders
which may include pedestrian walkways too.
Richard: In general as an AH plan, I like it. I am concerned
with this particular site with this density.
Graeme: I agree with Kim in that it is important to see the
resul ts of the avalanche survey. We are not avalanche experts
and we think we are going to be starting to see very many
developments in avalanche zones it would be a good idea for the
City to determine what kind of avalanche z?nes we should be even
considering . SQmebo~.a:d-reH'"1Ile"-a71()'E"abou,€"'avalaiiChe and I
still wouldn't understand it but I am being asked to approve a
building in an avalanche zone and .:L,".g,QnLt...,f.eel,,,,~"'''''i;Qr.t~l::ll e
~i:-FKj p11ildings' in_,_C!,y_\tl!!:ns::b.!....~~.I1~S. I don't have the
expertise to say OK.
Bruce: I am curious as to why it is necessary to dividethisinto
2 lots.
Tom: We wanted to establish 2 ditferent homeowner's
associations. What the free market homeowners want they may be
able to afford whereas the deed restricted units might not. They
are 2 completely economic portions of the project and therefore
we wanted them to be ruled by different agencies.
Bruce: Is there a possibility that this project could be a
phased ocnstruction so perhaps the free market could be built and
1""""\
,-.,
osmehow the affordable housing not be built?
Baker: That is a good point. He then mumbled something about
issuance of CO. And with the outside noise it was not clear.
Bruce: I can see the developer could say "Well conditions have
changed. It is no longer economically feasible to build the 16
affordable units".
Baker: Th.at would clearly violate the zone district.
Tom: Right now we are looking at a one shot construction
schedule. The subdivision improvements agreement really ties
down what is getting built and when.
Welton asked for public comment.
Fritz Benedict: I would like to support the project. I think
the AH Zone is very exciting. With the City buying these very
expensive lots at $2 million an acre--that is not going to go
very far and I think it is pretty remarkable--I own land next
door. You. would think I would be against it because it is very
pretty with the trees there. But I have been observing the
avalanche slides for the last 30. years. I used to own that
property. I live across the river from that land. And I don't
think there has ever been any avalanches during that time either
here or here. About 20 years ago there was a wet slide that came
down all the way across the road into here. There have been some
other spring time valanches that were short right here.
I have ssen the model of this in Dick Fa~len's office. I think
the fact that the free markets are going to look the same as the
restricted units I think is good.
Bill Dunaway: Regarding the avalanche dangers: In the past few
years there has been 1 death in Crested Butte and 2 or 3 injuries
outside of Vale from avalanches hurting people just outside their
condominiums--not in the condominiums. They didn't damage the
buildings but the people outside the buildings. So you need more
than just strong walls in the building. You have to be sure the
surrounding play areas and access areas are protected too.
Welton: I agree with what GJ:'aeme said. Those concerns are
shared by me that we don't know enough or had enough experience
regarding avalanche problems. Can you have alarms that are
tripped off when an avalanche happens that people know enough to
go for cover? What is the technology?
Tom: You can effectively cobntrol an avalanche in an avalanche
zone.
r
/Graeme: I have heard at every avalanche seminar I have been to
I the lead speaker has always said "All the experts are dead.
^' Nobody is an expert in avalanches". And I have also b.een in
\...
1""",
.'-".
(\
;' ,\ Europe and I have seen the snow fencing carried thousands of feet
l and just in a tangled mess in the valleys. I caution yoyu not
( to--and I don't think if Art Miers were here he would be as
1\,.'. positive as you seem to be that you can contyrol or deflect it.
In Europe they have many, many deaths each year and they don't
have the liabilities and the kinds of things we have here.
I don't feel comfortable giving approvals of buildings in
avalanche areas until we have some guidelines. I. have seen
avalanches and I know you are not going to corral them and you
are not going to stop them.
Tom: By the time we make final submission we anticipate
providing essentially construction documents for the structure of
the building a,s well as all of the reports from Art Miers for the
desingn of that so that you know that it works. Right now at a
conceptual level the way this building is designed it can
withstand whole hit avalanche. You can go down the corridor,
down the elevater into the parking garage and drive to work.
Fritz: You mentioned a warning system. That slide that occured
about 25 years ago there was about 3 ahd 1/2 feet of snow in a 24
hour period and I think if you had a house there that you would
evacuate the building and shoot it down with that snow build up
which was probably a 100 year slide.
Welton: That is
theproperty. And I
to the very ridge.
in the line of controling ituphill from
don't know what ownerhsips there are going up
Fritz: That is the National Forest.
There was no further public comment and Welton closed the pUblic
portion of the hearing.
Welton asked the applicsant if they had any concerns with the
conditions of the Planning Office.
Graeme: I think in the future there might be in our packet a
little analysis of whether the project is indeed doing what the
AH Zone is trying to do. That is to relieve these employee
housing situations. Or is it creating more need for employees
and what type of employees are they and are they going to be the
type of employees that can afford the particular types of units
that are going in. I think it ought to be a threshold issue in
these AH Zone applications to try and think about that right out
of the gun.
Tom: The AH Zone specifies a a specific mix in bedroom and in
unit mix and we are on the mark with both.
Welton: I just want to remind the Commission that long ago we
had something called REO and it was the. same thing as AH. It was
just a different name for it. It allowed for higher density than
~.
.-,
. .
the zond district would allow. This is the first AH. We never
had an REO. It was on the books for 8 or 10 years and it never
got past the first step' because every time it was like "Well you
know this is R-6--much lower density and never had one housing
unit generated or created by REO. I think we at least want ot
hgive it a fighting changce for the first one oyut of the gate to
see how it does work and if it does accomplish wh~t we wanted to
accomplish 12 years ago with REO and last year with AH.
Jasmine: The other thing I wanted to point out was that when an
AH project comes by' and there is a free market component it is
not necessarily assumed that the employuee housing portion of
that projelct goes to satisfy that specific free market componant
either but more to address an employee housing situation in
general.
We have to look at what the Housing Authority says in terms of
what is needed generally in the community.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend approval of theVte Park Subdivision
Conceptual PUD development plan with the following conditions to
be dealt with prior to final PUD submission:
Condition #l--in the 3rd sentence after Ute Avenue add the.words
including pedestrian ways.
I mOdify my motion to indicate/~oncurrent or ~9or to final PUD
~ubmission the following conditiOns will be met:J
\/condition #1 we hav ealready gone through.
/
"dnbditions #2 through #9 sdhall be the same as on Planning
~ffice memo dated June 22, 1990.
Jasmine seconded the motion.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Richard.
Richard: I just think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves
with having dealt with ute Avenue and haven't figured out on a
City level whether it can take this kind of extra developmenttha
tcomes in. I think at the end it is going to be kind of run
over. And I am not Comfortable with that much up zoning with
something right on the edge of the forest like that.
801 EAST. HYMAN AVENUE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION
Welton opened the public hearing.
Roxanne. made presentation. Attached in record.
After short discussion:
'-',
-.
"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
RE:
ute Park Subdivision Rezoning, Conceptual PUD,
Subdivision, 8040 Greenline Review, and GMQS Exemption
DATE:
June 22, 1990
------------~~--------------~-------------------~--------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Conceptual PUD development plan with conditions.
APPLICANT: ute Park Partnership, represented by Tom Stevens of
the stevens Group.
LOCATION: The site is 3.8 acres located on ute Ave. across from
the Aspen Club, the ute Children's Park, and the Benedict Office
Building.
ZONING: Current Zoning is
rezoning will be requested
designation will remain.
RR (PUD). During Final PUD
to AH Affordable Housing.
review,
The PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: At this time, the applicant seeks
Conceptual PUD approval.
During Final PUD review, the applicant will seek 8040 Greenline
approval, Subdivision approval, and rezoning from RR PUD to AH
PUD. Because of the affordable housing component, the project is
eligible to receive from counc.i1 GMQS exemption for the 7 free
market units as allowed in the AH zone district.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing multi-family development on
two lots consisting of 7 free market dwellings and 16 deed
restricted dwellings. The free market units will be 3 bedrooms,
3,000 square foot each, for a total of 21,000 square feet. The
affordable units will be 2 bedrooms, 1,100 square feet each,
totaling 17,600 square feet. Total livable area for the project
will be 38,600 square feet.
This project involves rezoning 3.8 acres from RR PUD to AH PUD.
Subdivision from one to two lots is proposed. Lot 1 will be
135,366 s.f and will contain the 7 free market townhomes. Lot 2
will be 30,000 s. f. and will contain 16 deed restricted sales
units within. Underground parking will be provided for 20
vehicles. Surface parking will be provided for 12 vehicles.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: Having reviewed the above application and made a
1""""\
-.
site visit, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. A portion of ute Ave. which is
proposed development will need to
before approval of this prdj ect.
which need to be resolved:
the only access to this
be improved Substantially
The following are problems
a. The width of this street is substandard according to design
standards given in "Institute of Transportation Engineers".
The widths range from 16 to 18 feet and do not allow for two
lanes of traffic according to these standards.
b. There are no shoulders on this section of street which is
not only a safety hazard but also does not allow for snow
storage when the street is plowed.
c. There is a serious drainage problem on this street which
creates a safety hazard when water sheets across and freezes.
2. The conclusions offered in the traffic report submitted in
this application are not based on up to date information but
rather on studies that are four years old. There has been
significant development on ute Ave. in the last four years and
traffic volumes have increased dramatically. The applicant must
submit mOre recent traffic studies of ute Ave. and the
conclusions not only need to consider the existing traffic
volumes but also the existing conditions of the street.
3. A preliminary check of the' submitted slope reduction
calculations found what appears to be a significant inaccuracy.
The applicant must demonstrate that these calculations are
accurate so it can be determined to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department and Planning Office that the constructed
living space is within the allowed floor area ratio. Attachment
"A"
Fire Marshal: The project will be sprinklered per N.F.P.A.
standard 13R. A fire hydrant will be placed near the structur~.
These items will appear on future prints. Attachment "B"
Environmental Health: Water and sewage for the project will be
served by the City's systems.
- Permits for allowed gas fireplaces or certified woodstoves will
be required if used within this development.
- Prior to construction, an approved fugitive dust control plan
must be obtained by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division.
- Paving of the road to the east end of the property will have a
beneficial impact on air quality.
- Commitment to provide a trail easement for
trail will facilitate alternatives to auto use.
this site to the downtown area will promote
benefit air quality.
- A mechanical/ventilation engineer must be consulted in the
the nordiC/hiking
The proximity of
walking and will
2
1""""\.
1""""\
design of the underground parking garage to insure adequate
ventilation of fumes inside and outside of the structure.
- The applicant should agree to install compact florescent lights
in the project which reduce electric consumption, thus reducing
air pdllution associated with power production. It costs less to
install these lights at the onset ofa project than it does to go
back and install them later.
.;,. Construction noise will occur, but no long term noise should
impact the surrounding neighborhood.
- If mine wastes or dumps are encountered on this site, the
applicant is advised to contact this department for comment on
disposal of this material. Off-site disposal is discouraged due
to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the
soil. Attachment "C"
Sanitation District: Sufficient capacity is available to serve
this project. Some minor point repairs will be required
downstream of this project prior to connection onto the system.
THe applicant's engineer should contact Tom Bracewell of this
office for more information on this and other District
requirements. Further comments will be made as the application
moves through the various levels .of'review. Attachment "0"
Housing Authority: A plan check is verified by the Housing
. Authority staff to ascertain .net livable calculations of 1,100
net livable square feet for the 2 bedroom sales deed restricted
units. This inspection will determine the allowable income and
sales guidelines for these units through the Housing Authority.
- The A.D.U. component is provided parking spaces of 1 space per
bedroom for a total of 32 spaces. The applicant has stated that
parking will be provided by 20 spaces in the project parking
garage and twelve off-street spaces. Attachment "E"
Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council: This group has been working with
the project representative to establish a cross country ski trail
across the upper portion of the site. Attachment "G"
STAFF COMMENTS: There are numerous approvals which must be
granted for this proj ect. Typically, some of these approvals
would come in the form of a one-step or two-step process before
either the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council, or
both. As the PUD approval process is four-step (Conceptual and
Final reviews at commission and Council,) the one and two-step
reviews will take place at the final presentations before these
two bodies.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission's first review, the
Commissioners will see and be asked to recommend approval of the
Conceptual PUD development plan.
During the Commission's second look at the proj ect, they. will
3
1""""\,
.~
review:
- 8040 Greenline Review
- Subdivision Review,
step); and
- FinalPUD Development
(one-step);
and Rezoning
(Map
Amendment) (two-
Plan
CONCEPTUAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PUD REVIEW STANDARDS
1. General Reauirements.
a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan indicates this site is within a "Mixed Residential" land
use area. This proposal supports Council's goal no.l of
.providing an adequate amount of affordable housing. By
developing a project within the AH zone parameters; infill
affordable units will provide a pleasant, convenient housing
stock for local employees. The Open.Space/Trails element 'of the
Plan identifies the need .for a pedestrian/nordic trail linking
Shadow Mountain and Ute Ave. The applicant will dedicate a
pUblic easement for this use.
b. The proposed develop~ent shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
The multifamily nature of this project is consistent with the
mixed use character of the neighborhood. There are several
condominium' projects along ute Ave. as well as single family
homes, the Benedict office building, and the Aspen Club.
Because of the intensities of these uses and the condition of ute
Ave., . the Engineering Department has significant concern about
needed improvements to road width and surfacing (see conclusion
section. )
c. The proposed development sha11 not adversely affect the
future deve10pment of the surrounding area.
Those undeveloped parcels in the vicinity of this project should
not be adversely affected by this. development.
d. Final approval sha1l only be granted to the development to
the extent to which GMQS a1lotments are obtained by the
applicant.
The affordable housing component is exempt from GMQS competition.
In addition, the 7 free market units will be exempt under the
provisions of the AH zone district. These exemptions shall be
formally requested at Final PUD.
2. Densitv. Maximum density is calculated by the land area
requirements of the AH zone being requested for this project.
Density reduction due to steep slopes has been calculated and
results in a smaller build-out. The conceptual PUD proposes a'
4
t""",
,-.
F.A.R. of .32:1. The AH zone limits F.A.R. to .33:1. The
Engineering Department has requested further information from the
applicant reg~rding the submitted slope calculations and density
reductions, as Engineering's review revealed different numbers.
3. Land Uses The
affordable and free
requested AH zoning.
muitifamily residential use with mixed
market units are consistent with the
4. Dimensional Reauirements The Conceptual site plan meets the
lot size and setback requirements of the AH zone. The Conceptual
building section sketches appear to meet height limits, but
detailed drawings will be required for Final approval.
5. Off-street parkina The project is located within a few
blocks of the Commercial Core. This should help reduce
dependence on personal auto travel. Residential parking
requirements are 1 space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit,
whichever is less. 32 spaces (20 underground, 12 above-ground)
are provided for the 16 affordable units. Two spaces are
provided for each of the 7 free market units in a separate
underground garage. Ute Ave. paving and dedicated right-of-way
shall be extended to facilitate access to the parking on this
site. The applicant will participate in an Improvement District
if the roadway is widened.
6. Open SDace The percent of open space is determined by
approval of the Final Development Plan. Planning staff feels
there is ample open space on this site.
7. Landscape Plan The Conceptual PUD includes a landscape plan.
The intent of landscape improvements is to preserve the natural
character of the site. Non-native plant materials such as
flowering trees, shrubs and groundcovers will be confined to the
courtyard areas. Staff feels this is a good proposal.
8. Architectural site Plan The Conceptual proposal groups the
affordable units on the eastern portion of the site 1n one
structure. The building will be stepped up and into the hillside
in order to stay within height limitations. The free market
units will be in two buildings centered in the parcel. They will
also conform to the slope to stay within height limits. site
constraints of slope and avalanche hazard limit buildable
locations. The applicant states that the building materials will
be wood, non-reflective metal, and masonry stone to help blend
into the hillside environment. Parking will be under the
structures. for the most part, limiting visual impact of vehicle
storage.
9. Liahtina Low level lighting is proposed and will be designed
to prevent direct glare to adjoining properties or the street.
5
r'\
.r'\
10. Clusterinq The building arrangement has been discussed in
the Architecture section above.
11. Public Facilities Improvements will be required for ute Ave.
Sewer service will be available from the Sanitation District. No
other negative impacts on other facilities are foreseen.
12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation Improvements to ute Ave.
are of critical importance. The application states that Ute Ave.
currently has adequate capacity to serve this development. The
Engineering Department feels that this is not correct, and cites
that the traffic analysis has used out of date traffic
information. Current information must be considered for use in
examining this proposal.
The Engineering Department has conferred with the streets
Department and the two are discussing design options. At this
point, the ute Ave. upgrade is a critical issue to this project.
The application states. that the. Ute Park project will participate
in an improvement district if one is formed. .
Access to the two parking structures are via separate driveways
off of the street. There has been some discussion by the
commission during a pre-submission presentation of trying to
access both parking garages with one entry drive. Twelve parking
spaces for the affordable units are "head-in" off of the street.
This is typically not allowed in the city.
Pedestrian circulation within the site is fairly simple. The
free market units share a paved courtyard situated between the
two buildings. There is no proposed pedestrian link between tbe
affordable and free market components. The applicant is working
with the AspenjSnowmass Nordic council to determine an
appropriate alignment for a pedestrianjnordic trail which will be
locateq uphill from the structures.
8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
8040 Greenline Review is a one-step approval before the
Commission. Formal ,approval will be requested at Final PUD plan
review. However, Staff feels that the 8040 issues should be
presented at this time to provide an important backdrop for
evaluating the Conceptual PUD site plan.
Section 7-503 requires that any developmept proposed to be
located at or above, or within 150 I below the 8,040 I elevation
line must receive approval from the . Planning and Zoning
commission. Eleven standards comprise this review:
1.
The parcel on which the proposed development
located is suitable for development considering
ground stability characteristics, including mine
is to be
its slope,
subsidence
6
1""""\
,1"""\
and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche
dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or
toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate
the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed
from the site to a location acceptable to the City.
response: There are two avalanche paths on this site. According
to the avalanche consultant retained by the applicant, the
affordable housing structures are exposed to the "Aspen Club
Avalanche" with a Red Zone avalanche ha2:ard designation.
Avalanche frequency here appears to be greater than 30 years.
The aff.ordable units will have a "shed" roof design to minimize
impact loads with small deflection angles. other exposed
building surfaces will be designed to withstand the applied
static and dynamic loads.
The free market units are within proximity of the "ute Trail"
avalanche. The units will be exposed to primarily pOWder-blasts,
with the western-most two units possibly being exposed to flowing
avalanche conditions. Reinforced walls will be designed into
exposed walls Of these units.
NO other site hazards have been indicated in this application.
'2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil
erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
response: Increased run-off will be routed to a detention pond
for release to the ute Ave. ditch at historic rates. Erosion
and sedimentation mitigation techniques must be employed during
and after construction.
3. The proposed dev~lopment does not have a significant adverse
affect on the air quality in the city.
response: The proposal will not have a significant impact on air
quality. The Environmental Health Department must issue permits
for any wood-burning or gas devices.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road,
or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on
which the proposed development is to be located.
response: The structures are within avalanche hazard zones. The
proj ect I s avalanche consultant suggests certain building design
elements to withstand the conditions arising from an avalanche.
staff has concern that the driveway area for the free market
units is unprotected in the event of an avalanche. It is also
staff's concern that anyone outside of the structures would be at
risk if an event occurred.
7
1""""\
,-,
5.
Any grading will minimize,
disturbance to the terrain,
features.
to the extent practicable,
vegetation and natural land
response: The application states that the buildings are stepped
into the hillside to minimized grading disturbances. In
addition, all areas will be revegetated with native plants after
construction.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the
need for roads, limi t cutting and grading, maintain open
space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
response: This proposal
buildings, road, and open
the architectural concepts
does a good job in laying .out the
spaces on the parcel. Sensitivity in
is evident.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the
structure will be designed to blend into the open character
of the mountain.
response:
ute Ave.
impact as
A good bit of open
The buildings are
much as possible.
space separates the structures from
designed to minimize their visual
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available
to service the proposed development.
response: At this time,
Department has not been
indicated that service will
a specific response
submitted. other
be available for this
from the
utilities
project.
Water
have
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
response: The ,inadequacy of ute Ave. has already been'discussed.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
response: The Fire Marshal has indicated that fire protection
measures are being designed to his satisfaction.
Any trail en the parcel designated on
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open
map is dedicated for public use.
response: The applicant is working with the Nerdic Council in
aligning a trail uphill from the structures. This will be
finalized with a dedicated easement on the subdivision plat.
11.
the' Aspen Area
Space/Trails Plan
8
~4,l~,,"",.l<h- ~~~~~
'. 1.W 5ej~ ,A:vrrrft, cc - !;!Av.'~ l~ T~
------------------------------------------------------------
MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING) Map Amendment is a two-step process.
The Commission will be asked to make a formal recommendation to
Council during the Final PUD approval phase.
This is the first project ever to request rezoning to AH-
Affordable Housing. The purpose of AH zoning accomplishes 3
affordable housing objectives. First, it is hoped that
affordable housing will be initiated by the private sector by
allowing a free market component to provide economic viability
necessary for the entire project. Secondly, the Housing
Authority is' promoting development of low and moderate income
units with the AH zone while allowing private developers to
create middle income housing stock. Lastly, smaller AH
developments help create a better quality of life and less impact
on the community. Affordable housing is dispersed throughout
town, avoiding large "project" type developments.
GMOS . EXEMPTION FOR FREE MARKET HOUSING IN THE AH ZONE DISTRICT
SUBDIVISION
Up to 14 free market units in the City are exempt from Growth
Management per year as per Section 8-104 (C) (1) (e) which was
amended by Ordinance 59 / 1989. This proposal includes 7 free
market units. There will then be 7 units remaining of the
allowed 14 exempted units. The actual exemption will be a
Council action at Final PUD.
CONCLUSIONS: Planning staff feels that this Conceptual proposal
is a basically a good one. It is exciting to be in the process
of developing the first AH project in the City.
~l
The major obstacle to overcome is determining necessary
improvements for Ute Ave. and scheduling the work to dovetail
with this project. The applicant should keep in close contact
with the Engineering Department. The Engineering and Streets
Departments are in the process of reviewing right-of-way issues,
drainage, and design options. It may be necessary for the
Commission to recommend that the City Council fund a Ute Ave.
renovation and upgrade project or initiate a special improvement
district.
<-
~\D The avalanche hazard on the site concerns Planning staff,
~ especially any dangers to persons outside of the structures or in
~~the free market component driveway. If this project is intended
o house families, children playing outside are at increased
\), ~ oQ risk. Perhaps consideration should be given to provide a play
~ ~~ area in a low risk part of the site. .
, Engineering's concern with the accuracy of the slope and density
~
I' ~
9
,-..
r-'
reduction calculations must be resolved as soon as possible in
case the F.A.R. changes significantly.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of I
the Conceptual PUD Development Plan with the fOllow:l.ng....,,!,
conditi:;~ 6/~
priortfo Final PUD submission: ~~
1. The applicant must provide a current traffic rep rt: (~)
evaluation by the Engineering Department. Conclusions wi hin he :
c-. report shall reflect existing traffic volumes and condit s of I
Lt' the street. A program for upgrading and widening ute Ave st I
'( "\" rrJ.' be developed in order to provide safety for current and projecte '
l\~\r1d"traffiC loads. The applicant shall work with and maintain
v5 . v contact W..ith the Engineering Departme.nt in order to facilitate
'. 9Q> ~'\ ,the development of this improvement plan. .'
~I)fK~\~ 2. The ! slope reduction information) must be recalculated and
':'I~ '(~ ~ submitted'" for approval to the Engineering Department in order to
~~(i~ verify allowable floor area ratio.
\",.ft ~ ..
v~ 3. All gas fireplaces or wood burning devices designed into the
dwellings must be noted on Plan. Permits must be obtained from
Environmental Health prior to issuance of ANY Building Permits.
4. The head-in parking off
Also, consideration shall be
driveways into one.
5. A plan check is verified by the Housing Authority staff to
ascertain net livable calculations of 1,100 net livable square
feet for the two bedroom sales deed restricted units. This
inspection will determine the allowable income and sales
guidelines for these units through the Housing Authority.
of Ute Ave. must be redesigned.
given to consolidating the two
6. A Subdivision plat must be submi tted for review by the
Engineering Department.
7. The Subdivision Plat must delineate the hiking and cross
country trail easement which is being discussed with the Nordic
Council.
8. A revegetation plan must be submitted in the Final
submission. This plan shall indicate disturbed areas, treatment
schemes and schedules, and plant varieties.
9. The Final submission shall include specific avalanche
mi tigation information from the avalanche consultant in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney. A map of the avalanche hazard
zones on this site shall be included.
10
~~ ~-€e~d-/ ~ ~~~, t S~
,
,
~ f!{f4~
i
Attachments:
jtkvj/ute.memo
r-...
~
. '
"A" - Engineering referral
"B" - Fire Marshal referral
"c" - Environmental Health referral
"0" - Sanitation District referral
"E" - Housing Authority referral
"F" - Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council letter
j ~ , (i' ,J ')
I CtA/CtM~Jt~. /
1
11
-)
"',.;;;
f""'''';.
";::"':::'.-,
~{::";:~{
)
1""""\
-.
PZM7.3.90
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION. CONCEPTUAL PUD AND REZONING
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
Kim Johnson made presentation.
(attached in record)
This is the first affordable housing. project that we have
able to process so far. It is a private sector development
mix of affordable housing units and free market units.
breakdown is 7 free market and 16 deed restricted.
been
of a
The
Tom stevens, architect for applicant:
regarding the placement of the buildings
danger, architecture, vegetation impact
and the neighborhood.
There was discussion
with regard to avalanche
of the plan on the site
We do not have room for surface parking. We will have
underground parking for the units. As we get deeper into the
hillside with the parking garage we cut it off at 20 underground
parking spaces for the deed restricted units with the remaining
12 on surface. ..
One of the recommendations of the Planning staff is that we re-
work the surface parking. I agree with them. I can do a better
job with the design of that parking so that it does not back'
right out onto ute Avenue.
20 is a realistic number because what it does is anything past 20
we get into structural gymnastics on the parking structure itself
and gets beyond the point to where it is economically feasible.
20 provides 1 space per unit for each one of the deed restricted
units and there are 4 they can fight over for a second car. All
of the parking for the free market units has been designed in the
parking garage. And we have now added 6 guest spaces.
The free market element of this is now designated for 7 3,OOOsqft
,units. ' They are now in a 3 bedroom configuration. The deed
restricted units will need to be in the upper end of the middle
income classification which right not is $124sqft,which comes out
at $136,000 per unit.
3
,""",
,-".
PZM7.3.90
Without the free market eleme~t in this
restricted units do not get built. They
There is no way that we can provide a parking
of structure that we need to provide for this
free market units.
proj ect,. the deed
require a subsidy.
garage and the type
project without the
Public improvements: Right now .one of the big concerns is Ute
Avenue. It is substandard prior to the development of this
project and will be even more substandard upon the development of
this project. Some of the areas of concern are pavement width
and drainage. What it is really going to come down to is we are
going to have to participate on a pro rata share. The extent of
the design, the extent of the costs that are implied by that
design have, not been identified yet. We are going to take it
upon ourselves to proceed so that we know internally
approximately what those costs are so that we are prepared to
participate in the upgrading of Ute Avenue.
We see those upgrades right now revolving primarily around
pavement width and drainage improvements. We will probably have
to be looking at culverts along driveways down to at least the
Children I s Park prior to reaching ute Avenue. In. terms of
pavement width there seems to be a lot of different measurements
floating around right now. But we recognize we will have to
participate in upgrading ute Avenue and we don 't have a problem
with participating in that to accomplish what we can.
All utilities a.re either on site or adjacent to site--City water,
sanitary, sewer, cable, 'gas and electric. It will be on our
shoulders to negotiate an easement to pick up the 18 feet to get
to the sewer. Everything else is fairly simple as ,far as
servicing the project.
Roger: At this point it appears to me that ute Avenue is
substandard. I don I t like the. concept of adding on top of a
problem without a solution in the works. That solution is
incumbent a lot upon the City in this case. Along with the
improvements along Ute' Avenue we must include attention to the
needs of the pedestrians in that area. Whether it is some
sidewalks to the point where' they cross over to the trail--
something has to be done along that line.
I think it is necessary by separate resolution .to City Council to
point this problem out and as much as you can be in favor of an
AH project can you live with it without the satisfactory service
to it? We should recommend that they immediately either budget
improvements to Ute Avenue as necessary or implement an
.improvement district basically to dovetail with this project.
)
4
1""",
-.
----",
)
PZM7.3.90
Kim: Tom said it would probably be best to develop
first so that during the construction process
improvement to ute Avenue doesn't get torn up.
the project
any recent
Roger: We just need to knowhow these will be staged and meshed
and that it. is going to be within a reasonable time of, this
project coming on line.
Kim: staff does recommend approval of this conceptual PUD plan
with 9 conditions. (attached in record)
Roger: #1 I recommend the inclusion of, a program for widening
and grading ute Avenue and inserting "including pedestrian ways
must be developed in order to provide safety for current and
projected traffic loads".
Richard: How far does that go? Does that go all the way out to
Durant or just out to Original?
,4C"\
\i,J/
Jim Gibbard, Engineering: The area we are most concerned with
was the curve just east. of 1010 Ute on up to the proposed
development. There are problems further on down. The drainage--
very serious drainage problems all along Ute Avenue. The width
in that area is adequate. Chuck Roth has been trying to
establish some kind of improvement district in that portion of
Ute Avenue but has not had a lot of luck in' getting this thing
going. There has been a lot of resistance from some of the
residents along that area to do anything.
We thought we would concentrate on this area since this area has
substandard widths. We have no areas for snow storage on the'
sides of the street and .when we have a high snow year that
essentially becomes a one lane street. So we not only have to
address the width of the street but the width of the shoulders
which may include 'pedestrian walkways too.
Richard: . In general as an AH plan, I like it.
with this particular site with this density.
Graeme: I agree with Kim in that it is important to see the
resul ts of the avalanche survey. We are not avalanche experts
and we think we are going to be starting to see very many
developments in avalanche zones it would be a good idea for the
City to determine what kind of avalanche zones we should be even
considering. Somebody could tell me a lot about avalanche and I
still wouldn't understand it but I am being asked to approve a
building in an avalanche zone and I don't feel comfortable
approving buildings in avalanche zones .1 don't have the
expertise to say OK.
I am concerned
5
/"""
i.....'
\
I
PZM7.3.90
Bruce: I am curious as, to why it is necessary to divide this
into 2 lots.
Tom: We wanted to establish 2 different homeowner's
associations. What the free market homeowners want they may be
able to afford whe~eas the deed restricted units might not. They
are 2 completely economic portions of the project and therefore
we wanted them to be ruled by different agencies.
Bruce: Is there a possibility that this project could be a
phased construction so perhaps the free market could be built and
somehow the affordable housing not be built?
Baker: That is a good point.
Bruce: I cah see the developer could say "Well conditions have
changed. It is no longer economically feasible to build the 16
affordable units". '
Baker: That would clearly violate the zone district.
"",
J Welton asked for public comment.
---./
Tom: Right now we are looking at a
schedule. The subdivision improvements
down what is getting built and when.
one shot
agreement
construction
really ties
-)
6
)
,...,).
f!'''''>:
i:::,':;',/i
-'
J.
.,"
,-.
1""""\
PZM7.3.90
than just strong walls in the building. You have to be sure the
surrounding play areas and access areas are protected too.
Welton: I agree with what Graeme said. Those concerns are
shared by me that we don't know enough or have enough experience
regarding avalanche problems. Can you. have alarms that are
tripped off when an avalanche happens that people know enough to
go for cover? What is the technology?
Tom:
zone.
You can effectively control an avalanche in an avalanche
Graeme: I have heard at every avalanche seminar I have been to
the lead speaker has always said "All the experts are dead.
Nobody is an expert in avalanches". I have also been in Europe
and I have seen the snow fencing carried thousands of feet and
just in a tangled mess in the valleys. I caution you not to--and
I don't think if Art Meiers were here he would be as positive as
you seem to be that you can control or deflect it. In Europe
they have many, many deaths each year and they don't have the
liabilities and the kinds of things we have here.
I don't feel comfortable giving approvals of
avalanche areas until we have some guidelines.
avalanches and I know you are not going to corral
are not going to stop them.
buildings in
I . have seen
them and you
Tom: By the time we make final submission we anticipate
providing essentially construction documents for the structure of
the building as well as all of the reports from Art Miers for the
design of that so that you know that it works. Right now at a
conceptual level the way this building is designed it can
withstand whole. hit avalanche. You can go down the corridor,
down the elevator into the parking garage and drive t? work.
Fritz: You mentioned a warning system. That slide that occurred
about 25 years ago there was about 3 and 1/2 feet of snow in a 24
hour period and I think if you had a house there that you would
evacuate the building and shoot it down with that snow build up
which was probably a 100 year slide.
Welton: That is in the line of controlling it uphill from the
property. And I don't know what ownerships there are going up to
the very ridge.
Fritz: That is the National Forest.
There was no further public comment and Welton closed the pUblic
portion of the hearing.
7
.
,~,
.......\,
<-'
)
,~
,-.
\
}
PZM7.3.90
Welton asked the applicant if they had any concerns with the
conditions of the Planning Office.
Graeme: I think in the future there might be in our packet a
li,ttle analysis of whether the project is indeed doing what the
/I.H Zone is trying to do. That is to relieve these employee
housing situations. Or is it creating more need for employees
and what type of. employees are they and are they going to be the
type of employees that can afford the particular types of units
that are going in~ I think it ought to be a threshold issue in
these AH Zone applications to try and think about that right out
of the gun.
Tom: The AH. ,Zone specifies a specific mix in bedroom and in unit
mix and we are on the mark with both.
Welton: I just want to remind the Commission that long ago we
had something called EEO and it was the same thing as AH. It was
just a different name for it. It allowed for higher density than
the zone district would allow. This is the first AH. We never
had an EEO. It was on the books for 8 or 10 years and it never
got past the first step because every time it was like "Well you
know this is E-6--much lower density" and never had one housing
unit generated or created by REO. I think we at least want to
give it a fighting chance for the first one out of the gate to
see how it does work and if it does accomplish what we wanted to
accomplish 12 years ago with REO and last year with AH.
Jasmine: I wanted to point out that when an AH project comes by
and there is a free market component it is not necessarily
assumed that the employee housing portion of that project goes to
satisfy that specific free market component either but more to,
address an employee housing situation in general.
We have to look at what the Housing Authority says in terms of
what is needed generally in the community.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend approval of the. ute Park Subdivision
Conceptual PUD development plan with the following conditions to
be dealt with prior to final PUD sUbmission:
,Condition #l--in the 3rd sentence after ute Avenue add the words
"including pedestrian ways".
I modify my motion to indicate concurrent or prior to final PUD
submission the following conditions will be met:
Condition #1 we have already gone through.
8
/""'>
\
I
i'}'"
,~ >:-
....-.:-
)
...-.
PZM7;3.90
Conditions #2 through #9 shall be the same as on Planning Office
memo dated June 22, 1990. (attached in record)
Jasmine seconded the motion.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Richard.
Richard: I just think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves
with having dealt with. Ute Avenue and haven't figured out on a
City level whether it can take this kind of extra development
that comes in. I think at the end it is going to be kind of run
over. And I am not comfortable with that much up-zoning with
something right on the edge of the forest like that.
801 EAST HYMAN AVENUE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION
Welton opened the public hearing.
Roxanne made presentation. Attached in record.
After short discussion:
MOTION
Jasmine: I would like to make a motion that we recommend
landmark designation for the historic outbuilding structure and
portion of the parcel immediately associated with 801 East Hyman
Avenue for the purpose of adapting the ally structure to provide
a deed restricted employee dwelling unit.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT STUDY
Welton opened the public hearing.
Roxanne: Main Street Historic District is it's own micro
neighborhood with uses ranging from retail to lodge and
residential and architectural styles represent nearly every
decade of Aspen's history which is very unique. This is the only
area that actually occurs;
For a number of years the district has been neglected and the
property and business owners have been very interested in
improvements to the district.
Baker: We have been talking about pedestrian walkway program,
the Hwy 82 design effort and the guidelines revision which
Roxanne will be undertaking.
9
",
r-.
,-,
.
"..-..
PZM7.3.90
Conditions #2 through #9 shall be the same as on Planning Office
memo dated June 22, 1990. (attached in record)
Jasmine seconded the motion.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Richard.
Richard: I just think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves
with having dealt with ute 1\.venue and haven't figured out on a
City level whether it can take this kind of extra development
that comes in. I think at the end it is going to be kind of run
over. And I am not comfortable with that much up-zoning with
something right on the edge of the forest like that.
.
,~
~
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION/PUD CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION,
REZONING, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pUblic hearing will be held on
Tuesday, July 3, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by Tom Stevens on behalf of ute Park Partnership
requesting approvals for Ute Park SUbdivision. The applicant
proposes to develop seven free market townhomes and 16 deed
restricted condominium units. The applicant requests rezoning
from Rural Residential to Affordable Housing Zone District :eor
this 3.g acre parcel which is located on Ute Avenue across from
the Aspen Club and Ute Park.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
sIC. Welton Anderson. Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
=================================================================
Published in The Aspen Times on June 14, 1990.
City of Aspen Account
"
1""""\
.
."-'
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
RE: VTE PARK SVBDIVISION/PUD CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION,
REZONING, 8040 GREENLINE AND GMQSEXEMPTION
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of June, 1990, a true
and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
deposited in the United States mail, firsb-class postage prepaid,
to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list
of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning
Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the Public
Notice.
frm.mailing
By: Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
,.., ASPEN.PITKIN '-', Attachment "e"
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: June 12, 1990
Re: ute Park Subdivision Conceptual Submission
Parcel ID# 2737-184-00-009
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office by the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
~~
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with pUblic sewer
as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This
conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Reoulations On
Individual Sewaoe Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of
public sewer systems Wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit
the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to
areas that are not feasible for public sewers".
Regulations:
i
~
ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
0~
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".
AIR OUALITY:
Each of the buildings (it appears that there will be three) is
allowed one gas log fireplace and a second device which may be
either a certified woodstove or a 2nd gas log fireplace. Permits
are required from this office for each device.
U
V The plans show no fireplaces or woodstoves, but the application
does not mention whether they will be left out. If the applicant
agrees to deed restrict the units so no gas log fireplaces,
appliances or woodstoyes are to be installed, the applicant would
be going beyond the law in minimizing air pollution.
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 8161"1
303/920...15070
,~'V
~ ASPEN+PITKIN ,~
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTMENT
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
June 12, 1990
Page 2
Prior to construction, an approved fugitive dust control plan
must be obtained from the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division. The plan must include such measures as cleaning paved
roads where dirt is carried onto them from construction vehicles,
wetting of disturbed areas and access roads, and installation of
fencing to prevent dust from blowing onto nearby properties and
roads.
Paving of the road to the East end of the property will have a
beneficial impact on air quality.
Commitment to provide a trail easement for the portions of the
nordic/hiking trail going through the property will benefit air
quality by making alternatives to car use more available.
A mechanical/ventilation engineer will need to be consulted in
the design of the underground parking garages to ensure that
ventilation will be adequate to prevent high levels of carbon
monoxide inside the structure, and to prevent significant
contributions to ambient carbon monoxide levels in the area
outside and around the garages.
The location of this site within easy walking distance of
shopping and downtown is a significant air quality benefit.
The applicant should agree to install compact fluorescent lights
which reduce air pollution throughout the project. It takes more
energy to power an incandescent bulb than a fluorescent bulb.
Therefore, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide
pollution are reduced by many pounds over lifetime of the bulbs.
(The Housing Authority has recently been asked to spend much more
money to upgrade conventional lights to compact fluorescents in
one of its housing projects, than it would have had to spend to
install them in the first place.)
NOISE:
Noise impacts are anticipated during the construction phase of
this project. However ,long term noise impacts on the
neighborhood are not expected once construction is complete.
Should this office receive noise complaints
project, Chapter 16 Aspen Municipal Code - Noise
be the document used in the investigation.
regarding this
Abatement, will
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
~ None that are enforced by this office.
r(4'V
CONTAMINATED SOILS:
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/920-15070
ASPEN.PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CEPARTMENT
1""'\
.,,-.,
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
June 12, 1990
Page 3
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 81611
3D3/920-SD70
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Craig Ward. President
Too..... ~orse, Vice President
Roger Moyer. SecretaryITreasurer
Mkbe! Gassrnan
Peter Looram
Jons Milnor
George Nevvman
Mark Pearson
Jeff T:ppett
James True
Raoul Willie
TRl'STEES
Executive Committee
Tom Blake
Jim Chaffin
ArtnurPfister
Fre<leric Benedict
Run: Humphreys Brown
D.\"', Edmundson
Eliz<::beth Fergus
Jack Frishman
C\LKittrell
Charles Marquesee
3arry ~Iink
Ken ~loote
Rob~:rt Oden
Tilg2 Pedersen
Ma:;orie Stein
AD\ T~ORY BOARD
Bob t>~ attie
Biill\,x:h
t""\
t""\
Attachment "F"
ASPEN SNOWMASS
NORDIC COUNCIL
June 12, 1990
Mr. Tom Stevens
.Stevens Group
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Cross Country Ski Easement
Dear Tom,
On behalf of the AspenlSnowmass Nordic Council, thank you for
taking the time to meet with Fritz Benedict and myself on the proposed
Ute Park Subdivision site last week. Your willingness to grant a
perpetual trail easement is extremely appreciated.
If it is acceptable to you, let's follow the procedures that you outlined:
o You will have the suggested trail easement flagged before
9/30/90;
o Members of the AspenlSnowmass Nordic Council will ski or
walk the suggested alignment during the 90/91 winter;
o The AspenlSnowmass Nordic Council will cut the trail next
summer and the developer will assist with earth work to provide
a fairly horizontal cut for the trail;
o You will show the easement on the plat map for recording,
Thanks again for the set:\sitivity shown both by Jim Martin and yourself
for the concerns of the AspenlSnowmass Nordic Council. I believe
Fritz Benedict also shares that appreciation since your proposed
alignment fits well with any future plans for Cross Country trail
alignment on the Benedict Ranch, .
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Peter Looram, V.P.
AspenlSnowmass Nordic Council
PC:sa
cc: Fritz BenedictlKim Johnson
j'J~1 >;G90
',.A !'; .J
P.O, BOXI0815 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612
.
t>
,"
Attachment "D"
Tele. (3031 925.3601
Rspen !9onsoJidated Sanitation iDistvict
56.~ North Mill Slret>!
Aspen, Colorndo 81611
TeJe. 1303) 92-~.Z537
JU"lOS.I..90
:BI-81l1!1J
Kim Jol\necn
Pl8nnjn~ Department
130 5. Galen,.
"..pen, CO 816il
Re: Ute Perk conceptual
[leark!m:
The Aapen
coll..cticn
time.
Consolidated
and t,....t..."t
Sanitation
capacity to
Di"trict
serV,," this
he. ""ttlol.."t
proJeot at this
There wll I be some mfnor point repair. required on our collection
syste", downstream of the project prior to connection to our
ay"t... I encoursge the applloant'. engineer to contaot Tom
St."ewel I of the District for eore Intormation '.ierdlng th...
minor downatream constraints end other Distr1ct requ\renents.
We will
various
OOIll",..,.,t further
lev","l. of review.
"" th..
application
",ov..~ th~oua:h
'Oo
Sln"..r..ly,
"'-- "''''-21
Bruce Mlltherly-
Dl..trlct Manager
cc' Banner A.."o"iate"
.
. ^
. i"""
THE STEVENS GROUP, I
,~ .
[U~lTlnL~ @[F u[ffi~&!J~[K1]OlTlT~lL
i
(303) 925-6717
DATE 6/7/90 I JOB NO, !
ATTENTION ,
RE: Ute Park ,
i
. '" ,
,
!
,
.JfJN - f /990 ,
'.. ,
,
TO Aapelil/Pitkill. COUll'Uy PlamU:ag
WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 Attached 0 Under separate cover via
the following items:
o Shop drawings
o Copy of letter
o Prints
o Change order
o Plans
o
o Samples
o Specifications
COPI ES DATE NO, DESCRIPTION .
1 List of adjacent property OWl'lerll for 1ilte Park !
1 Addreued iHlvelope. with pOlltage for _ilill.g i
for Public Notices ,
,
i
I
i
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
0 For approval 0 Approved as submitted
0 For your use 0 Approved as noted
0 As req uested 0 Returned for corrections
0 For review and comment 0
o Resubmit____copies for approval
o Submit_copies for distribution
o Return____corrected prints
REMARKS
o FOR BIDS DUE
Plea.e call with any question..
19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFT-ER LOAN TO US
'!hank you.
COPY TO
SIGNED:
Laurie Stevelll.
PROOOC124OJ fNifflil:Ilne.,G/olon,Ma01471.
It enclosures are not as noted, kindly notjfy us at-once.
='- ._. - ......... -~ -:c
'0
,....,
..-I\.ttachment "A"
"" '11-
MEMORANDUM
===============================================================
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. A portion of ute Ave. which is the only access to this
proposed development will need to be improved substantially
before approval of this project. The following are problems
which need to be resolved: .
a. The width of this street is substandard according to design
standards given in "Institute of Transportation Engineers".
The widths range from 16 to 18 feet and do not allow for two
lanes of traffic according to these standards.
b. There are no shoulders on this section of street which is
not only a safety hazard but also does not allow for snow
storage when the street is plowed.
c. There is a serious drainage problem on this street which
creates a safety hazard .when water sheets across and freezes.
2. The conclusions offered in the traffic report submitted in
this application are not based on up' to date' information but
rather on studies that are four years old. There has been
significant development on Ute Ave. in the last four. years and
traffic volumes have increased dramatically. The applicant must
submit more recent traffic studies of ute Ave. and the
conclusions not only need to consider the existing traffic
volumes but also the existing conditions of the street.
3. A' preliminary check of the submitted slope reduction
calculations found what appears to be a significant inaccuracy.
The applicant must demonstrate that these calculations are
accurate so it can be determined to. the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department and Planning Office that the constructed
living space is within the allowed floor area ratio.
jg/utepark
cc: ChuCk Roth
3
-,
.
1"""'\
JUN 01 '90 14:56 TITLE iBSTRACT COMPANY
^
P.2
~(J .
~vJ ~{V\ ...ACENT ""..'IIIP ....'..em
ASPEN TITLE CORPOR~TION, a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the state of Colorado,
te,I!(:O.'",
1:I0311l2004012
ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION
.VNN M, OVOIO
MONAOIlI
TIo41 AlPIN PFlQFI$$\ONA, IUIUllNO, 8lJITI'oa
100 IAIT MO.KINIOVENUE
.IPIN, COI.OAAOOI'."
'II,E.HONE:
AlPEN
1103J~OIO
tAIII,T
1:103)811"'"
OENVER glAICT
Order No. A90-0f9lIIN'-
NOPMAN I, I.MKlNI
'AillOENT
HEREBY CERTIFIES
';(SEALi . '..,
.jj:(?;::-:'~; .::~>~~::;
\,~~':"r~: ~~, .;~/}/
-"':: '.". . . .....
1A0.. coum-i: "'.. ' "
EAGLE CoUNTY TITLE CoRPOAATYON"
'Hie "Al\. PAOt:Q$$IONAl. B\,lII.DIN(J, $U\Ti 301
1631lOU'1H FPONTOOI ROOO WEST
VM~ CO,OAAOO 816&7
1103) ',H/o23
That It hilS mllde a careful Ilnd dl I I gent search of the records 1 n "'he
office of the Clerk Ilnd Recorder for PitkIn County, Colorado, and hilS
determined "'hilt those persons, firms or entItles set forth on the Exhibit "A"
ettached hereto Ilnd by thIs reference Incorporated hereIn end made II part
hereof, reflect "'he apparent owners of lots, treets, or parcels of lend (other
then IndivIdual cemetery or burlel ploh) lying wIthIn 300 feet of the
following described real property In "'he O:>unty of PItkIn, State of ColoradO,
ta-Wltl
A parcel of land sItuated In the NW1/4 of the SE1/4 of SectIon 18,
TownshIp 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., more partIcularly
descrIbed e8 follOWSI
BeginnIng et II poInt whence Corner No.9 of RIversIde Plecer, MS
390SAM beers North 38"11'26" Ellst 1 'e. 0' feet,
thence South 68"00'00" East 120.00 feet,
thence South 49"00 '00'1 Eas'" 350.00 feet,
thence South 41"00'00" West 361.82 feet,
thence North 49~00'00" West 330.37 feet,
thence North 00"49'21" Ellst 390.96 feet,
thenee South 60"24'26" Ellst 121." feet to the Point of BegInnIng.
Th Is Certl f Ice"'e hes been prepered for "'he use and benef It Of the above
named Ilppllcllnt and the City or Town of Aspen, In the ~unty of Pitkin, Stete
of Colorll<lo. llIE LIABILITY OF llIE OO/oPANY HfREUNDER IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO
THE AJ<<)UNT OF llIE fEE P~ID fORllIlS CERTifiCATE PlUS WO.OO.
DATE I May 25, 1990, at 7100 A.M.
ASPEN TlT\.E CORPORATION,
.tbl~'''.=~:, /
BYI .:J~Pv~
AflFll..lAnC OFFICE&:
GRANO COUNTY,
THB TITLB CoMPANY, INC,
"A^t1E~ VAI.I.EY eEN'l'EflllFMISEA
POSTO"~loe eox 41&
WINTER IIAFlIK. COI.OFl.AOQ eo4e2
(303)126.8077
IUMMIT COUNTY,
SCMMlT CoUNTY ABSTRACT CoMPANY
loa NORTH RIOOB ITABrr
POIT OFFIOB lOX 510
IRBOKSNRICO!, CO,OIlADO 1_
130:!1 ~63.e120
.
.
1""'\.
JUN e1 'ge 14:56 TITLE 0, ABSTRACT COMPANY
.
^
P.3
We-- ~C-
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
ADJA~NT O"N~SHIP I];RTIFICATE NO. A90-0tOS
....es and AdclrA~_JI:
Aspen Club InternatIonal, Inc., a Colorado corporatIon
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, Coloredo 61611
FredrIc A. BenedIct
(NO ADtRESS ON RECXlRDED DOWMENT)
1280 ute Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
48 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Feblenne BenedIct
(NO ADtRESS ON RECXlROED OOWMENT)
1280 ute Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
48 Crystal lake Roed
Aspen, Colorado 8161 I
BenedIct lend & Cattle Company
(NO ADIRESS ON RECORDED DOWMENT)
1280 ute Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 8161 I
CIty of Aspen
(NO ADIRESS ON RECXlRDED OOWMENT)
130 South Galena street
Aspen, Coloredo 8161 I
Bureau of Land Management
(NO ADIRESS ON RECORDED DOWMENT)
sC>'-o~,\ \..l...~ ~~ ,,-,,~~
~'-'-=> '!::. \ CO, \0 c:> ,
Aspen Grove Cemetery AssocIatIon,
a non-prof It toloredo corporation
(NO AOtRESS ON REOORDED DOaJMENTl
624 North Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
~16-<04, ';'0
~.
i"
J4:11
H I~ l. h:';U:.,l :f;';' hi.-I l ri.,,*"'::~.J.:' ~.=.:12J ::1~'dl:::J
o .
r. ,,-'.:..
,-...
I""".
Attachment "E"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kiln Johnson, Plan11ing
FRON:
Yvonne Blocku', Housing Authority
RE:
Ute per'.';' Subdivision,
Greenline, Subdivision.
GlVIQS Exemption,
parcel I,J, # 2737-184-00-009
Conceptual submission,
planned Unit 'Development,
8040
and
DATE:
June I. 1990
=:::tQ:;;==~.=:;;==M_=:=;'='='~;';::= ::";">Z~;:;::::,~__;;;::::::;Jilli,,,,;;;;:;;:':::~_Oli:i;;:::==,,"_::::==$lQ==~ ~~l!lfI;::l="::==-ollQ.~;==-
SUI.'IMARY: Applicant requests Conceptual SubmJ.ssion approval
of Rezoning, 8042 G!'eanlinB, SUbdivisicm, planned unit Dsve:oprnent
and G~lQS :::xamptio;\ to permit the construction of the Ute Park
Subdivision. Th~ Applicant proposes to develop Seven (7) three-
bedroom fre" market. units in tovnhome configuration and sixteen
(16) two-bedr'ocrr, dsed restricted unite: in condoninium
oonfiguration.
APPLICANT:
colorado.
The ute Partnership,
215 S.
r--lonarch I
Aspen,
APPT,ICANT'S REPRESENTA!'!VE: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group, 230
E. Hopkins, Aspen, ColoradO.
LOCATION: LocatE<d on Ute Avenue \,ithin Aspen city limits. The
north-easterlY p01"::ion being directly acr'oss from the Aspen Club,
The ute Children'!; park, and the Benedict office building.
ZONING:
Rura: Residential Zone
APPLICANT'S REQ:;ES':.': The Appli<:ant is request.ing a rezone to
the Affordable Bousing 20ne District which would require subsequent
development. of fre<'.' lnarket and deed rastricted tot,'.'nhome un1 ts.
The AH zone vlould r.i!'quire the develop!i\snt of 30% free marKet units
and 70% deed restricted units. This 20ne district requires 60%
deed restricted bedroo~8 as co~pared to 40% free marke~ bedrooms.
The parking ::;-"q'.\irel1,ents for the AH zcne die~rict are one
space./bedroom.
The Applicant's land area is a total of 3.e acres which yield 2.8
acres of land fer the d~velopment of the .Ute Par% SUbdivision, The
development wi:l rGquire a tot.al of 38,600 square feet for the free
market and deer: rest,7ioted units. The 38,60') square feet \lill
provide a FA!"- c:f ,32: 1 "hieh is slightly less than the allo',.'able
.33: 1 FAR ratk :0':: -r.,~,'" AH zone district.
D6.'.C~4.'90
14 ~~12
APe rlUJ3 H~C. RUTh. 3t~3 '::ldJ:::.l ~.;./:SC.C.l I~;
r.uS
.'
~
~
STAFF CO}~ENTS: Applicant m~st meet the following requirements
for ~he AH zone district:
1. The development of 30% free market units and 70% deed
rest-deted utlits, The tc..tal units developed will be t\ienty-three
(23) units of. which seven (7) are' free market (::: 0.4 %) and sixteen
(16) deed restricted units (69.56%).
2. The devel0Pl~Etn\:. of 60% deed restricted bedrooms and 40% free
rearket bedrooms for the total project, The total bedroom count is
fifty-three (53) bedroom$ of which twenty-one (21) are free market
(39.6%) and thirty-tWO (32) are deed restricted (60.3%).
3. The AH zone district requires for multi-familY dwelling units
a m1ni:l'.um lot area ot 21, QOO sq1.<are feet or less to provide a
minil1ium of 800 square feet for a two bedroom unit and a minimum of
1,200 square feet fol:' a threebedrcom unit.
ute park SUbdivision proposes to build 1,100 net livable square
feet two bedroom sales units and 3,000 net livable square feet
three bedroom sales units.
4. The Appllc;!;,m:. has stated that he will EH,\l?ply one parking
spaca/bedroom aE\ required il, t.he AH zone dietric'.::., The parking
requirement. ',.;ill bra met by providing tvlel,ty (20) spaces in "he
parking garaglil that -.,ill be :O\.\'ll t undergrot\l'\d and twelve (12)
spacas will be provi,ded off-street,.
STAFF RECOMNENDAT!ON: Staff recommends approval of Ute Park
Subdivision for' rezoning to the AH Zone di':,trict at conceptual
SUbmission based upon the following conditions:
.
.
1. A plan che';;k is verified by the Houeing Authority staff to
ascertain net livable calculations of 1,100 net livable square feet
for the two bedroom $ale6 deadreetricted units. This inspection
will determine the allowable income and sales guidelines for these
unite thtougl', .the Hous:!.ng Authority.
2. The A.D.w, component i~ provided parKing spaces of one
space/bedroom for ~ total of a thirty two spaces.
Applicant has stat.ed t,hat parking -,!ill be provided by twenty spaces
in the parking garage O~ site and twelve spaces loc~ted off-street.
,-.
130
asp
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 2l, 1990
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jed caswall, city Attorney
-.,
PEN
reet
611
RE: ute Park Subdivision Conceptual Submission
EMC/mc
We have no comment on this application at this time.
1"1
\"\1-"\ .
ill
.1"""\.
,~
Attachment "B"
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO kim johnson
From: Wayne Vandemark
Postmark: May 16,90 10:38 AM
Subject: ute Park Subdivision
,
,
--------------------------------------------------------~-------------------~-
Message:
I have communicated with planner Tom Stephens (925-6717) on this
project in regards to fire protection. Tom stated that the project
will be sprinklered per N.F.P.A standard 13 R. There will also be a
fire hydrant placed near the structure to assist in fire fighting.
These items will appear on future prints.
-------========x========-------
1""""\
1""""\.
. .
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE:
DATE:
ute Park Affordable Housing Zone District
March 20, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an attempt to expedite the review of affordable housing zone
district proposal, staff recommends that applicants present
conceptual AH proposals to the commission. We consider this a
pre-application conference with the Commission.
Attached is a brief description of the Ute Park proposal, 7 free
market units and 16 deed restricted units. staff and the
applicants are looking for general recommendations and any red
flags that the Commission should identify.
If
.
;'15 ~t'It&'.9-tI'tP'.
I ,.. ( (I ~ I' () K \ J I l)
1
,
,
'1:
,
Ma:rch 9, 1990
Leslie LUIIlont:
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning DepartMent
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO. 81611
,
RE, Ute Park Subdivision
Planning snd Zoning C~1..1Qn Work Se..ion
"
Dear Lelill1e.
The Applicant ot the Ute Park Subdivision project currently owns
3.B acres at the end at ute Avenue which 1. zoned Rural
Residential. The anticipated development program calls for
rezoning the property to the newly adopted Affordable Housing
Zone and subsequent development at free market and deed
restricted townhollle units. SpecUic.Uy, the AH zon.. allows tor
the development of 30% tree market unite and 70' deed restricted
units.
Upon test1ng the slte tor its holding capacity based on geolog1c,
slope, and Visual constraint$, it Wa$ deter.ined that a program
of 7 free market units and 16 deed restricted unlts was best
suited to the slte. The e~isting site is encumbered by 30'
slopee higher on the eite and is lees steep on the lower portion
of the site. Addltionally, the site is encumbered by avalanche
and rockfall hazards. To ~itigate these geologic hazards the
Applicant has consulted Art Mears, an avalanche expert, Mears
has identified the actual areas of the site which are encu~bered
as well as the intensity and frequency of potential avalanches.
This information hee driven the location of the units as
represented on the attached Site Oeveloplllflnt Plan. _I
The free Market units are to be in a three bedroom configuration
and consist of approxi~ately 3,000 equare feet. Parking tor the
units will be underground while access to the garage will be by
Ute Avenue. The deed restricted units are to be a two bedroom
and two bathroom configuration and conoist of epproximately 1,100
square feet. Parking tor these units will also be underground
but in a separate garage located under the deed restricted units.
Again, the access will be by Ute Avenue. The current ~rklng
plan if! for 1 space per bedroo.. as per code requir....ents.
.'
~1tlf.>;opl<;"..^Ij>ei.,C".".0d081M1 JOJ ~ll h71'-
,
"
()
t")
March 9,
Page Two
1990
As proposed. the deed restricted units would 8811 under the
current Affordable Housing Guidelines tor Middle Income. The
construction of-the units will require a subsidy In order to be
built at a quality level comparable to the free market units. In
essence, the deed restricted units sust he of the same
architectural. character and us. comparable materials so as to not
detract troa the value of the tree market units. The subsidy
required to ....ccoapllllh this will CQale trolll the sale of the free
market units.
The project has gone through.... preapplication conference with the
planning department and review before the Housing Authority
Board. Upon review before the Planning snd Zoning Commission. we
will submit for Conceptual Review. If the project is allowed to
go through a two step process, it is possible to begin
construction this tall tor a mid-sulllmer, 1991 cOllpletion. Given
a four step process, construction will begin next spring for a
completion during the winter ot 1991/1992.
It you have
contact lIle.'
any questions or cOlllments on this
Thank you tor your a.si"tance.
information, please
Sincerely.
7C11~
Thoma. G. Stevens ASLA
President
./,
1
j
j
,
),
,
',1
,
,
I
I'
,
1
I
I
l
,
'1
I
I
I.
1
I
I
1
I
,
115 ~e.-w-&/tO'p-.
I \i. ( 0 R !' 0 R '\ 1 f n
UTa PARK SOBDXVISIOK
DKVBLOPMmfT SOMIIARY
FEBRUARY 13. 199O
i
L
Total Land Are.
Land Area Atter Slope Reduetion
3.8 .cr.s/165.5~8 S.P.
2.3 acrea/l01.e40 S.P.
2. Proposad Program:
Deed Restricted Units - 16 unite at 1,100 S.P._
Two bedroOfll/two bath configuration
Parking - 20 parking garage/14 aurface _ 34
11.600 S.F.
n 8R
lo1/Bft
Fr.. Market Units - 7 units at 3,000 S.P. _
Three bedroom eonfiguration
Parking - 24 parking garage/S surface . 30
21,000 S.F.
21 8R
i.'/8R
3,
Ploor Area Ratio:
Allowed - 165,528 S.P. at .33
Proposed
Under by
!,
54,528 S.F.
38,600 S.F.
16.024 S.F.
,
,
". Surface Area:
Total 165.528 S.P.
Aftar elope 101,840 S.P.
Proposed 53.9U S.F. m
3, 8ft Mix: 60/tO 32/21
6, Unit Mix: 70/30 16/7
I
1
,
,
I
,
r
.
11t>'._"i,.~C""",,,",8f"!llN,.n"1'1
,-
"..<
'I
.
1"""\
.-,
'/
I
I
I'
/
/, '
/
I
{
I
..: "
\ r \'.
' \.., \ ,',
'0\ " .
'~\~:, "
. \<("'"
, '\ " ,
. '}~.'. .
'--- -
r
'__...J
~;I
.
,
.
,
\ .
! is:
~ ~~
~""
,,;;';
~
Ow
"I-
;,';11::>
"'
,
o
~
"
"