Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1001 Ute Av.0025.2007.ASLU.~, x. City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0025.2007.ASLU 2737-182-00-063 1001 Ute Ave. Jessica Garrow Appeal of Planning & Zoning Decision Jennifer Hall 11/2/07 (approval denied) CLOSED BY Amy DeVault ~.. [fit gecord !_¢avigate Form Reports Format Tab HNp aX s I.> .~ ~ ~-; ~ _I - --- - ~ _3- as a :: ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 :,~ 9 ~ _ _ _ ., L- - -- --- - I Man Cull Fields ~ ~.PaceLs iRoying Status Fee Summary ~~Routmg inlay Agachnrents i ~. Feey 8chons ...... _. _.._ . j 3 ',. Pemd Type aslu Aspen Land Use Perms # 0025.N07.ASLU ', Adders 1001 UTE AVE ~ Apl/$upe ~~ City ASPEN Stale CD - ~ 81611 ~ '', ~~ i -Pmmi lNorma6on_ _._ .. _ Maslw Pemit 0001. ZOO7,A6LU J ~~ Rautig Dua» aslu07 Ayp4d 05/08!2007 ~ Project ~ status pendng Approved ~,..'~ '4 ,; '! Desaiption APPEAL OF P6Z DECISION ON 0001.2007.ASLU ~ Issued ~~ j Fnd ~ Submitted JENNIFER HALL 9253476 Click Running Days Ezpres OS/02j2005 Owrex_ _~ Last Name '.:'ELLS J Fret Name RICHARD 101 KENNONDALE LN ; j ' Phone [804j 28(3-5550 RICHMOND VA 23226 , f i rOwnerlspppicaM? -.. :.... _.:- -: 4 . Appicant ~ Last Name HOLLAND 9HAR7 ~ o~E MAIN j Frsl Name ~~_ ~ 1 __._~ ~ ASPEN C081611 Cust# 27163 ~ Phoro ~ ~ Lerch:. ... .. ~. Last Name ~J ... .. . Post Name ~ ~ j I Phone I I i !I _.. Arpen6okXbf _.- ~ Record2d2 [-le J a I~~ /~~ ins A Note to File Case: 1001 Ute Ave Appeal, 0025.2007.ASLU Planner: Jessica Garrow Date: November 2, 2007 Resolution: The City Council denied the appeal, and the case was not further appealed to District Court. No impact on the approvals for 1001 Ute Avenue. ,.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION MADE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL OF AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE, AND A PUD AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1001 UTE AVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS MINE, 1741 MINE NAME: ONE THOUSAND ONE PERCENT: 100 ACRES: 0 DESC: ALL SURFACE & MINERAL RIGHTS DESC: SECTION 18-10-84 WEST OF THE 6TH, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. RESOLUTION N0.41, SERIES OF 2007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Ute Mesa LLC, owners, represented by Leathern Steam; and Glenn Hom of Davis Hom, Inc. and Jack Miller of Miller Associates, requested approval of an 8040 Greenline Review, a Residential Design Standard Variance from Secondary Mass, and a PUD Amendment to construct two (2) free-mazket homes at 1001 Ute Ave; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission met and discussed the project at a regulazly scheduled meeting on April 3, 2007, which met the proper noticing requirements of Section 26.304.060.E of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, all Land Use Requests were granted approval after the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the application met the review criteria for an 8040 Greenline Review, Residential Design Standazd Variance, and a PUD Amendment; and WHEREAS, no abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious conduct, nor denial of due process occurred during the above mentioned hearings; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Ciry Council affirms that the proper procedures were followed and wishes to confirm the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission as rendered in their Resolution #9, Series of 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: City Council affirms the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission that granted an approval for an 8040 Greenline Review, Residential Design Standard Variance, and a PUD Amendment approval for the property located at 1001 Ute Ave, legally described as Mine, 1741 Mine Name: One Thousand One Percent: 100 Acres: 0 Desc: All Surface & Mineral Rights DESC: Section 18-10-84 West of the 6th, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, finding that there was not an abuse of discretion or a denial of due process by the Commission. APPROVED by the City Council at its regulaz meeting on this 14th day of May, 2007. A TEST: MAY ~~ Kathryn c , Ci Clerk `-' Hele K nderud .~ :, MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council J iXa FROM: Jessica Garrow, PlannerJ~ THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director DATE OF MEMO: May 8, 2007 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2007 RE: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #9, Series 2007 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Richard and Susan Wells, represented by Jennifer Hall of Holland and Hart, have appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision in Resolution 9, Series 2007, granting an 8040 Greenline Review, Residential Design Standard Variance, and a PUD Amendment. APPLICANT: Ute Mesa LLC, owner, represented by Leathern Stearn. The owner is represented by Davis Horn Inc, and Jack Miller and Associates. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-00-063. ADDRESS: 1001 Ute Ave, legally described as Mine, 1741 Mine Name: One Thousand One Percent: 100 Acres: 0 Desc: All Surface & Mineral Rights DESC: Section 18-10-84 West of the 6th, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado ZONING: R-] 5 PUD, Moderate Density Residential with a PUD overlay. BACKGROUND: On April 3, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution 9, Series 2007, granting an 8040 Greenline Review, a Residential Design Standard Variance from Secondary Mass, and a PUD Amendment for the construction of two (2) free- market homes at 1001 Ute Ave. This decision has been appealed by Richard and Susan Wells. An appeal is decided based only on the record established at the Planning and Zoning Commission. DISCUSSION: The Staff discussion is divided into two parts; the 8040 Greenline Review, and the Residential Design Standard Variance. Page I of 5 ._-. ..., ~. ...' 8040 Greenline Review: On August 14, 2006, the City Council approved Ordinance 24, Series of 2006, approving with conditions the 1001 Ute Ave Subdivision and PUD. (Ordinance 24, Series 2006 is attached as Exhibit E) As part of that approval, the Applicant received an 8040 Greenline Review for a proposed road/driveway from Ute Ave to the proposed free-mazket lots located on the upper portion of the property. The approval stated that a separate 8040 Greenline Review was required for the two (2) free-market residences. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 9, Series 2007 granted an 8040 Greenline approval for the residences, as required in Ordinance 24, Series 2006. Section 12 of Ordinance 24, Series 2006 (Exhibit E) also included conditions relating to Mine Waste. The conditions, known as Institutional Controls because they have been approved by the EPA in consultation with area residents and the local and state government, have been approved by the Environmental Health Department for use in all Resolutions and Ordinances related to approving development on a property with significant environmental concerns related to mining activities. These Controls aze consistently included in all Ordinances and Resolutions relating to mine waste. The Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution 9, Series 2007 included these conditions, as well as additional conditions agreed to by the Applicant and included based on initial requests by the Wells' via Jennifer Hall. The additional conditions required that the Applicant test the soil for 8-heavy metals as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Further, the Resolution states that the leachability of the metals will be tested via a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. These aze additional tests that will indicate where lead concentration exist and will guide the Applicant in ensuring the Construction Management Plan appropriately addresses these azeas. The fact that these tests aze being performed will not lower the requirements imposed by the Institutional Controls. At the hearing, Jennifer Hall made a comment on behalf of Richard and Susan Wells during the citizen comments portion of the hearing. These comments are included in the Minutes, attached as Exhibit D. These comments state that the Wells would like to know how soils are to be handled during construction and how those soils will be permanently left on site. These issues aze addressed in Section 12 of Ordinance 24, Series 2006 (Exhibit E) and in Section 10 of Resolution 9, Series 2007 (Exhibit C). Further, Jennifer Hall stated that a Construction Management Plan (CMP) and a Fugitive Dust Control Plan would be required to ensure soil is not on trucks as they leave the site and to ensure dust does not become airborne. A CMP and a Fugitive Dust Control Plan are required for this project, as outlined in Section 3 of Resolution 9, Series 2007. Staff believes all the concerns raised by the Appellant are addressed in the Resolution Approving the project. Residential Design Standard Variance At the original heazing Staff recommended against the requested Residential Design Standazd Vaziance for Secondary Mass. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the variance request based on the applicable review standazds. These are: A) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular Page 2 of 5 ^. w ., .. standard In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, B)'Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The Planning and Zoning Commission, as indicated in the Minutes attached as Exhibit D, granted the requested design variance based on Criterion A above, that the proposed design is appropriate for the site given the neighborhood setting and context. No comments were made by the public relating to this variance. Staff believes the Planning and Zoning Commission appropriately used the review criteria in granting the requested variance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Environmental Heath Department reviewed this application through the DRC process and proposed Resolution language to ensure proper environmental controls were used on this site. Further, when the Applicant proposed additional language to the Resolution dealing with the RCRA test, the Environmental Health Department reviewed it and determined it was not in conflict with the language they had requested, and that the language would go beyond what the city could request of an applicant. Further, the controls outlined in Resolution 9, Series 2007 aze the same controls approved by the EPA for the Smuggler Superfund Site. Levels found on the 1001 Ute Ave property aze also Found on residential properties in the Smuggler Superfund Site, including Fox Crossing. The approvals for the Fox Crossing subdivision follow the same EPA approved controls. Through numerous studies and meetings with residents, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and the State government, the EPA decreed that by following the Institutional Controls individuals living on azeas affected by mine waste and mining activities would be protected. The Appeal letter from Holland and Hart references a letter from NewFields, an environmental consulting firm, which states that exposure of the mine waste by wind, rain, and snow "could result in dispersal of lead to neazby residential areas in wind and/or runoff, where the residents may come into contact with lead." This could occur if the Institutional Controls were not included in the Resolution. Because these controls aze included in the Resolution, and will be addressed in the Construction Management Plan, the Community Development Department Staff and the Environmental Health Department Staff believe this concern has been adequately addressed. Further, this letter represents new information presented by the Appellant -Staff advises Council to not use this information when making a decision on this appeal, as a decision should be based only on the record established at the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPEAL REVIEW PROCESS: Section 26.316.030.E, Standard of review, of the Municipal Code establishes the criteria by which the City Council shall decide an appeal. There are three criteria upon which the City Council has to decide an appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission decision. Based solely upon the record established by the original decision, the Page 3 of 5 .-. ~, .~,~ ~. City Council shall consider whether 1) there was a denial of due process; 2) the administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction; or, 3) the administrative body abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. Afftrming the decision. 3. Mod~ing the decision. The review of the 1001 Ute Ave. Application followed all of the Municipal Code requirements and procedures for a public hearing. Appropriate public notice and affidavit of notice were provided. Staff, the applicant, and the public were permitted to make sufficient presentations. The hearing record, including the staff memo, application, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution, and minutes are attached for Council review. Staff finds that the Planning and Zoning Commission objectively reviewed the proposal with the correct and applicable criteria with which it has authority; and P&Z acted to approve the 8040 Greenline Review, a Residential Design Standard Variance, and a PUD Amendment because they found that the standazds for such reviews were met. The boazd members have been appointed by Council to provide their expertise related to land use decisions and to follow the Review Criteria related to land use decisions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff finds that the proper and legal procedures were followed in this case. Staff recommends Council uphold the Commission's decision, however sample resolutions upholding and overturning the decision aze attached. ALTERNATIVE: If Council finds that the proper and legal procedures were not followed, Council can approve the attached resolution overturning the decision. Further, if Council would like to modify the decision a motion to that effect can be made. Staff will need to draft a Resolution following the hearing that would indicate the specific modifications made. A motion for this option is below, but a Resolution is not attached. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #~, Series of 2007, uoholding the decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 3, 2007, to approve an 8040 Greenline Review, Residential Design Standard Variance, and a PUD Amendment." OR "I move to adopt Resolution #~, Series of 2007, overturnine the decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 3, 2007, to approve an 8040 Greenline Review, Residential Design Standazd Vaziance, and a PUD Amendment." OR Page 4 of 5 ,-,. --~ '~.. ~ ,r "I move to adopt Resolution #_, Series of 2007, modi in the decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 3, 2007, to approve an 8040 Greenline Review, Residential Design Standard Variance, and a PUD Amendment." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Appeal Letter from Holland and Hart Exhibit B: Staff memo and Exhibits to the Planning and Zoning Commission Exhibit C: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 9, Series 2006 Exhibit D: P&Z minutes, dated Apri13, 2007 Exhibit E: Ordinance 24, Series 2006, approving the 1001 Ute Ave PUD Exhibit F: Application to the Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 of 5 ~xlnib~- ~ ~ ~ HOLLAND&HART -. n E L0.~n ;) U'f .. . May 2, 2007 Ms. Jessica Garrow Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Jennifer Hall Phone (970) 925-3476 jhal I @hollandhart.com Re: 1001 Ute Avenue Aaoeal: Appellants, Richard and Susan Wells Dear Jessica: Please consider this letter as a supplement to the Notice of Appeal dated April 17, 2007. Please include this letter in the packet going to the City Council for the hearing currently scheduled for May 14, 2007. Appellants request that the City Council overturn the Apri13, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission's decision regarding 1001 Ute Avenue based on the following reasons: 1. 8040 Greenline Review. Section 26.435.030.0.7 requires that "building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain." Staff objected to the proposed design concluding that it "maximizes the bulkiness of the building and that the building fails to blend with the open character of the mountain." Staff recommended that the developer be required to follow the secondary mass design standards. The Commission ignored this recommendation even though it had already granted an excessive size variance for this development. The proposed design exacerbates the fact that the buildings are too large for the lots and should be rejected. The developer should be at least required to comply with the secondary mass requirements as outlined in the staff report. 2. Toxic Soils. The 8040 Greenline Review also requires that toxic soils be considered and that the proposed development not have significant adverse impacts on air pollution or air quality in the City. As noted in the developer's submission to the Planning and Zoning Department, the site is heavily contaminated with lead at levels well above what is considered dangerous. As noted in the attached letter from a lead expert, the Planned Ute Mesa Subdivision will require the disturbance of significant amounts of mine waste rock containing levels well in excess of those documented as posing a risk to human health]. It is inappropriate ' Appellant respectfully requests that the Council consider the attached letter even though it was not submitted to the Commission. This is an issue involving life and safety and should have a complete and comprehensive review prior to approval and construction. Holland & Hart un Glc~nx. [970] 925-3476 Faa [970] 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street Suite 104 Aspen,CO 81611 Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D.C. ~. HOLLAND&HART THE LAW OUT W E 5 T Ms. Jessica Garrow May 2, 2007 Page 2 to excavate into these soils in a densely populated residential azea. Once disturbed, lead dust could spread through the air, contaminating the neighborhood. The developer should revise its plan and cap the tailings with soil rather than excavate into them, disturbing and possibly spreading the contaminants. Sincerely, ~~ ~. ~~~ Jennifer Hall for Holland & Hart ~~P JH:cem enclosure 3704695_I.DOC April 30, 2007 Mr. Christopher J. Heaphey Holland and Hart 600 East Main Street Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Potential Effects of Lead Releases Ute Mesa Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Heaphey: Based ou our discussions and the information you provided, I understand that the planned Ute Mesa Subdivision will be constructed at 1001 Ute Avenue in Aspen in an area known to be covered with mine waste rock. The mine waste rock was placed on the site by historic mining activity and has been documented to contain over 16,000 milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg) of lead. The planned constniction will necessitate excavation the mine waste rock and its subsequent exposure to wind, rain, and snow. Such exposure could result in dispersal of lead to nearby residential areas in wind and/or runoff, where the residents may come into contact with the lead. Lead originating from mining and mineral processing wastes, including waste rock, tailings, and smelter emissions, is a primary human health driver at numerous environmental cleanup sites in the United States, including the Smuggler Mountain Superfund site in Aspen; the Butte/Anaconda and East Helena areas in Montana; the Bunker Hill Superfund Site/Coeur d'Alene Basin in Idaho; and the Omaha Lead Site in Nebraska. Environmental studies and remediation activities have been underway at most of the aforementioned sites for over a decade. Soil cleanup levels at these sites typically range from 400 mg/Kg to 1,200 mg/kg. There are many other sites where lead is the primary clean up driver because of risks to human health. According to the lLS. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), lead is a highly toxic metal that was used for many years in products found in and around our homes. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death. Children 6 years old and under are most at risk, because their bodies are growing quickly. EPA's research suggests that lead contaminated dust and residential ~Exhibi~ ~ Mr. Chris Heaphey April 30, 2007 Page 2 soil are primary sources of lead exposure for most children. Typical lead exposure pathways and health effects, according to EPA, are as follows: ~ People can get lead in their Uody if they: o Put their hands or other objects covered with lead dust in their mouths. o Eat paint chips or soil that contains lead. o Breathe in lead dust (especially during renovations that disturb painted surfaces). • Lead is even more dangerous to children than adults Uecause: o BaUies and young children ofren put their hands and other objects in their mouths. These objects can have lead dust on them. o Childreri s grow-ing Uodies aUsorU more lead. o Children's Drains and nervous systems are more sensitive to the damaging effects of lead- s If not detected early, children with high levels of lead in their bodies can suffer from: o Damage to the Drain and nervous system o Behavior and ]earning problems (such as hyperactivity) o Slowed growth o Hearing problems o Headaches Lead is also harmful to adults. Adults can suffer from: o Difficulties dm ing pregnancy o Other reproductive problems (in Uoth nten and women) o High Ulood pressure o Digestive problems Nerve disorders o Memory and concentration problems o Muscle and joint pain The planned Ute Mesa Subdivision will require the disturbance of a significant amount of mine waste rock containing lead levels well in excess of those documented as posing a risk to human health. Given the close proximity of the planned subdivision to existing residential areas in Aspen, it is imperative that appropriate measures Ue implemented during construction to eliminate the dispersal of lead in wind and runoff. letter. Please contact me if there are questions regarding the information contained in this Very truly yours, NewFields ~hQO''/w~~weuasovrlci ih;};-,i,hnla.Mm~hudd~ ~xhibi~-~ ~, Mr. Chris Heaphey April 30, 2007 Page 3 Brian G. Hansen, P.E., P.G.- Senior Engineer/Hydrogeologist P.E. registration in AR, ID, MT, NV, and WA; P.G. registration in WY. .. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner RE: Ute Mesa PUD (1001 Ute Avenue), Residential Design Standards Variance, 8040 Greenline Review, PUD Other Amendment Resolution No. 9, Series of 2007 -Public Hearing DATE: Apri13, 2007 APPLICANT /OWNER: PROPOSED LAND USE SL ZONING: Ute Mesa, LLC No Change REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Glenn Horn of Davis Horn, Inc., Staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment and and Jack Miller, of Miller denial of the Residential Design Standard Variance and Associates 8040 Greenline Review. LOCATION: 1001 Ute Avenue. The property is legally described as MINE, 1741 MINE NAME: ONE THOUSAND ONE PERCENT: 100 ACRES: 0 DESC: ALL SURFACE & MINERAL RIGHTS DESC: SECTION 18-10-84 WEST OF THE 6TH . CURRENT ZONING & USE R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) with a PUD REVIEW PROCEDURE: The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any variance requests from the residential design standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020(D), Variances. 1 ~ ~1 ~x bra ,~.. --. . ~ .:.i The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030(C), 8040 Greenline Review. The Planning and Zoning may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100(B), Other Amendment. STAFF COMMENTS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: Secondarv Mass The proposed development is located within the Aspen Infill Area, and therefore must comply with the secondary mass requirement in the Residential Design Standards. The elimination of a secondary mass contributes to the bulky nature of the development. Staff finds the requested variance does not create a better design in the context, and in fact creates a development with little ,visual or azchitectural variation or relief. Staff finds that the inclusion of a secondary mass would improve the overall design and would help the proposed development better match the character of the area. Staff finds this review standazd is not met. Compliance with this standard is also attached as Exhibit A. 8040 GREENLINE: The property must obtain 8040 Greenline Review approval prior to applying for a building permit. The review ensures development within one hundred and fifry (150) feet of the 8040 elevation line is required to go through an 8040 Greenline Review to ensure development is provided with adequate utilities, have a minimal impact on runoff, air pollution, and reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slopes, rock falls, and mud slides. The review also ensures development at this elevation blends with the open chazacter of the mountain. The Applicant has addressed the natural hazard potential on the site, and conditions have been included to ensure the potential for avalanche, unstable slopes, rock falls, and mud slides is minimized. Further, adequate ingress and egress is provided to the development. However, Staff finds that the proposed design maximizes the bulkiness of the building and that the building fails to blend with the open character of the mountain. The Applicant has chosen to primarily use stone materials for the development. These materials are heavy and bulky, and create a massive structure that does not blend in with its surroundings. The fact that there is little to no material differentiation between the two proposed structures further contributes the sense of bulkiness of the building. The Applicant could remedy this by decentralizing some of the mass through the use of a secondary element. This would do a great deal in ensuring the development blends with the mountain character. 2 ~xhl~b~ ,., ,--, ~,,, ~. Staff finds the development does not meet the review standazds for an 8040 Greenline Review based on Criteria 7, minimizing bulk of the structure and blending the structure into the open character of the mountain. Compliance with this standard is also attached as Exhibit B. PUD OTHER AMENDMENT: The Applicant has proposed that three-hundred seventy-eight (378) square feet of FAR be transferred from Lot 2 to Lot 1. The original PUD approval, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series 2006, limited each lot to 5,040 squaze feet of FAR, for a total of 10,080 square feet of FAR. The Applicant has requested the FAR transfer to assign 5,418 square feet of FAR to Lot 1, and 4,662 squaze feet of FAR to Lot 2. The overall total FAR would remain at 10,080 squaze feet. Staff finds this request is consistent with the approved PUD, as it maintains the approved overall FAR. The Applicant has also proposed a PUD Amendment to permit a zero lot line development along the internal property line between Lots 1 and 2. This Amendment request has been made to accommodate the development of shared below grade gazage access. Staff finds that this request is consistent with the approved PUD, as it enables the Applicant to minimize the amount of impermeable surfaces associated with above-grade gazage access. Staff finds this review standazd is met. Compliance with this standazd is also attached as Exhibit C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this application meets the applicable review standards for granting a PUD Amendment for the transfer ofthree-hundred and seventy-eight (378) square feet of FAR from Lot 2 to Lot 1 and to allow for development along the internal lot lines of Lot 1 and Lot 2. Staff recommends against the requested variance from the residential design standazds, and recommends against the 8040 Greenline Review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. 9, Series of 2007, approving vaziances to the residential design standazds for secondary mass; approving an "8040 Greenline Review"; and a PUD Other Amendment for the Ute Mesa PUD located at 1001 Ute Avenue. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Residential Design Standazd Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- 8040 Greenline Review and Staff Findings Exhibit C -- PUD Other Amendment Review and Staff Findings Exhibit D -- Development Review Committee Comments Exhibit E -- Application, Dated December 29, 2006 Exhibit F -Addendum to Application, Dated March 23, 2007 3 ~xh,~~ L~ ~.,.i ,~. a:./ EXHIBIT A: REVIEW CRITERIA aXc STAFF FINDINGS The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant variances from the Residential Design Standazds if the proposed application meets the following: a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The following are Staffs findings in regards to the vaziance being requested by the Applicant. Variance Requested 1 Secondary Mass (26.410.040(B)(1). All new single family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten (10%) percent of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen Infill Area pursuant to Section 26.410.010 (B)(2). Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. ~<. .~ ~- i~~.~-. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of secondary mass shall be defined as an element not more than ten (10) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Linked pavilions six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length shall be exempt from Section 26.575.020(A)(8). a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, Staff Finding: The proposed development is located within the Aspen Infill Area, and therefore must comply with the secondary mass requirement in the Residential Design Standazds. The elimination of a secondary mass contributes to the bulky nature of the development. Staff finds the requested variance does not create a better design in the context, and in fact ~xh~3 creates a development with little visual or architectural variation or relief. Staff finds that the inclusion of a secondazy mass would improve the overall design and would help the proposed development better match the character of the azea. Staff finds this criterion is not met. b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specifu constraints. The site includes a number of slopes, but Staff does not find that the slopes require the requested variance. This is a new development, meaning that there exist no built conditions on the site that would require this variance. The site is not rendered undevelopable by the requirement to meet this Residential Design Standazd. Staff finds this criterion is not met. ~xh~b~t~ 2 ~ --~, ... ,~ EXhlbit B -- 804 GREENLINE REVIEW: According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. STAFF COMMENT' Staff believes there are rockfall, mudflow, and avalanche hazards on the site. The Applicant's engineering team has proposed a number of mitigation measures to deal with these dangers. Environmental analyses of the property indicate contaminants in soil on site. The Applicant has proposed a number of conditions to deal with these toxic soils: Conditions of approval are included in the Resolution that address these concerns. If the Applicant complies with all conditions of approval, Staff finds this criterion is met. 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. STAFF COMMENT' Staff does not believe the proposed development will have an adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion, or have adverse effects on water pollution. A condition of approval has been added requiring the Applicant to submit a grading and drainage plan to the Community Development Engineer. The plan will be required to demonstrate that the development does not result in an increase in the historic runoff from the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. STAFF COMMENT: Staff finds that the proposed development will not have a significant air quality impact. A Construction Management Plan (CMP), approved by the City Engineering Department, will be submitted as part of the Building Permit Application. The CMP, will address any pm 10 concerns, will include controls to control engine idling, and will include a fugitive dust plan. Further, the proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2 shall not include coal burning heating devices or woodburning flreplaces.Staff finds this criterion to be met. ~Xh-b~"~ ,~., ..~ 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. STAFF COMMENT' The driveway was approved as part of the original PUD approval, and received 8040 Greenline approval as part of the PUD review process. The location of the Lots 1 and 2 was also established as part of the original PUD approval. Staff recommended approval of the lot locations at that time because they represented the flattest portions of the site. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with this previous finding and that the proposed location of the residential development is appropriate. A condition of approval has been included in the Resolution requiring a retaining wall or berm four (4) feet in height be placed on the Lots to protect the south side of the development from potential environmental hazazd related to the surrounding terrain. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. STAFF COMMENT' As stated above, the proposed development is located on the flattest portion of the site. Further, a condition of approval has been added requiring the Applicant to submit a grading and drainage plan to the Community Development Engineer. This plan will ensure the grading will minimize impacts to the terrain, vegetation, and natural land features. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. STAFF COMMENT: The location of the lots was determined in the original PUD approval. The Applicant has proposed to use a common driveway, approved by Ordinance 24, Series 2006, to provide access to Lots 1 and 2. Further, the Applicant proposes shazed access to individual gazages. These gazages aze located below grade. Staff finds that by using a common access point for the garages and by placing the gazages below grade, that the Applicant helps minimize the need for roads and limits the cutting and grading needed to accommodate vehicle access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. STAFF COMMENT' ~xh~~~~~ ~/ Massing controls were included as conditions of approval in Ordinance 24, Series 2006. These included limiting the ridge height and length of the two (2) single- family structures. While the proposed development meets these massing control requirements; it fails to meet the secondary mass requirement in the Residential Design Standazds. Staff finds that the proposed design maximizes the bulkiness of the building and that the building fails to blend with the open character of the mountain. The Applicant has chosen to primazily use stone materials for the development. These materials are heavy and bulky, and create a massive structure that does not blend in with its surroundings. The fact that there is little to no material differentiation between the two proposed structures further contributes the sense of bulkiness of the building. The Applicant could remedy this by decentralizing some of the mass through the use of a secondary element. This would do a great deal in ensuring the development blends with the mountain chazacter. Staff finds this criterion is not met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. STAFF COMMENT: The proposed development received utility services as part of the original PUD approval. Conditions of approval from the City Water Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District were included in the original PUD approval, and have been included in this Resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. STAFF COMMENT: As was discussed above, a common driveway has been approved that will provide access to the residences from Ute Ave. This driveway was reviewed by the Fire Mazshall as part of the original PUD, and the Fire Marshal determined the proposed access plan met all Fire Department requirements for emergency service access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. STAFF COMMENT' As noted above, the Fire Mazshal has reviewed the proposed access plan and has determined appropriate ingress and egress is provided to the proposed development. Further, snow removal equipment is able to access the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. The recommendations of the Aspeu Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical ~Xh~ b~3 •°• ,^~ . , .,,r STAFF COMMENT' Staff finds that the proposed development meets the goals of the AACP with respect to Pazks/Recreation/Trails. A trail easement is provided over the lot, and the upper portion of the site is preserved as open space, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series 2006. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ~e a,.. ~/ EXHIBIT C: REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public heazing pursuant to Section 26.445.030(C) Step 3. The action by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered the final action, unless the decision is appealed. Staff Findine: The Applicant has proposed two (2) PUD Amendments. First, the Applicant requests that three-hundred seventy-eight (378) square feet of FAR be transferred from Lot 2 to Lot 1. The original PUD approval, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series 2006, limited each lot to 5,040 square feet of FAR, for a total of 10,080 square feet of FAR. The Applicant has requested the FAR transfer to assign 5,418 square feet of FAR to Lot 1, and 4,662 square feet of FAR to Lot 2. The overall total FAR would remain at 10,080 square feet. Staff finds this request is consistent with the approved PUD, as it maintains the approved overall FAR. Second, the Applicant has request a PUD Amendment to permit a zero lot line development along the internal property line between Lots 1 and 2. This Amendment request has been made to accommodate the development of shazed below grade garage access. Staff fmds that this request is consistent with the approved PUD, as it enables the Applicant to minimize the amount of impermeable surfaces associated with above-grade gazage access. The Staff finds this criterion to be met. ~X~II b~t~ ~ ~ ~. .,. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARANCES, A PUD OTHER AMENDMENT, AND AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR 1001 UTE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS MINE, 1741 MINE NAME: ONE THOUSAND ONE PERCENT: 100 ACRES: 0 DESC: ALL SURFACE & MINERAL RIGHTS DESC: SECTION 18-10-84 WEST OF THE 6TH, CITY OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2737-182-000-63 Resolution #07 - 9 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ute Mesa, LLC, represented by Glenn Horn of Davis Horn Inc., and Jack Miller of Miller and Associates, for a vaziance from the residential design standards for secondary mass; a PUD Other Amendment for building on a lot line and to permit the transfer of three-hundred and seventy-eight (378) square feet from Lot 2 to Lot 1; and an 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-15 PUD; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standazds, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standazd variance, and recommended approval of the PUD Other Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the all references in the application to Ute Mesa PUD or Ute Mesa Subdivision shall be construed to mean 1001 Ute Avenue; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 3, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 9, Senies of 2007, by a four to one (4-1) vote, approving a variance to the residential design standazds for secondary mass; approving an "8040 Greenline Review"; and, approving a PUD Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Flanning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution fiuthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance to the ~xh~b~+~ -ti ... Residential Design Standazds for secondary mass, an "8040 Greenline Review," and a PUD Other Amendment; on the property located at 1001 Ute Ave, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: Buildine Permit Aaalication The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final P&Z Resolution. b. A Construction Management Plan approved by the City Engineering Department. The plan shall outline how construction shall address, and minimize the negative impacts of, potentially hazard materials on-site. c. An Access and Infrastructure Plan d. A fugitive dust control plan e. A detailed grading and drainage plan to be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. Soil from the site will be tested for 8-heavy metals as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) standazd. To determine leachability of the metals, a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test will be performed on all 8-heavy metals. As well as TCLP analysis, total concentrations of the 8-heavy metals will also be determined. £ A landscaping plan detailing landscape improvements associated with the avalanche walls Section 4: PUD Other Amendment for Allowable Floor Area The total allowed external Floor Area on Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to 10,080 square feet, pursuant to the PUD approval in Ordinance 24, Series 2006. A PUD Other Amendment is hereby granted that transfers three-hundred and seventy-eight (378) squaze feet from Lot 2 to Lot 1, and therefore assigns 5,418 square feet of Floor Area to Lot 1, and 4,662 squaze feet of Floor Area to Lot 2. Floor Area shall be calculated based on the City land use code methodology in effect on August 14, 2006, the date of passage for Ordinance 24, Series 2006. Pursuant to the PUD approval, 1,400 square feet of Floor Area is allocated for the development of a "for sale" Category 4 affordable housing unit on Lot 3. Section 5: PUD Other Amendment for Development Alon¢ a Lot Line A PUD Other Amendment is hereby granted, which permits below grade structures to be built with a zero minimum side yard set back along the shazed lot line of Lot 1 and Lot 2. This shall allow for the development of a structure to accommodate the proposed sub- grade parking garage, basement, and driveway, pursuant to plans submitted December ~xh-b~ ~ `Yr ~ \~/ 29, 2007 and representations made at the Apri13, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The only part of the two structures permitted to share a common wall shall be the sub-grade structures. A minimum distance of twenty (20) feet shall be required between the two dwellings above grade. Section 6: Residential Design The two (2) single-family residences and the one (1) accessory dwelling unit shall be required to meet the applicable City of Aspen Residential Design Standazds pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. A variance is granted from the Residential Design Standazds requirement for the two (2) free-market single-family residential structures that ten (10) percent of the mass be located in a secondary mass (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(B)(1)). Section 7: Massing Controls Pursuant to PUD approvals received as part of Ordinance 24, Series 2006, the following shall apply to the two (2) free-mazket single-family residential structures: the width of the north-facing facades shall be limited to 120 feet; the overall ridge-height shall be limited to twenty-seven (27) feet above finished grade; twenty (20) percent of the width of the front facades shall be limited to a ridge height of twenty-two (22) feet above finished grade; and non-reflective materials shall be used in construction of the structures. Section 8: Fire Mitigation Fire sprinkler and alarm systems that meet the requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be installed in each of the single-family residences to be constructed within the subdivision/PUD. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. The residences to be designed and constructed within the subdivision/PUD shall meet the Colorado Defensible Space Standazds. Section 9: Landscaping The Applicant shall install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping plan that is proposed in the application for screening of the retaining wall. The Applicant shall receive a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any existing on-site trees. Further, the Applicant shall work with the Pazks Department The Applicant shall provide a financial security to ensure the completion of the landscaping as shown on the landscaping plan in the application is completed prior to a building permit application being submitted on any of the residential units within the subdivision. The site shall be landscaped in the first fall or spring after completion of the site development. Section 10: Toxic Soil Controls and Mine Waste The Applicant shall provide prior to submitting a building permit application on either of the residences, the City with a mine waste testing and handling plan that complies with ~XV~~bItC, the following conditions of approval as memorialized in Ordinance No. 25, Series 1994 regarding the handling of any contaminated soils encountered on the property: a. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely contained on and covered with anon-permeable tarp or other protective barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material need not be removed if the City's Environmental Health Department finds that: 1) the excavated material contains less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total lead, or 2) that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site. Disturbed soil and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon acceptance of the material at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility. Soils identified as non-toxic in the RCRA test outlined above in Section 3, part e do not fall under the toxic handling plan, and are not subject to the above enumerated requirements. b. Non-removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. c. Dust suppression. All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to minimize the creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air. d. Vegetable and flower gardening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shall be planted or cultivated within the boundazies of the site except in garden beds consisting of not less than twelve (12) inches of soil containing no more than 999- ppm lead. e. Landscaping. The planting of trees and shrubs and the creation or installation of landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of more than one cubic yard of soil shall require a permit as provided in Section 7-143 (4). f Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on-site shall be placed under structures or pavement. Soils used in landscaped azeas or engineered fills shall be covered by a minimum of 1 foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm lead. g. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock that is either disturbed or exposed shall be contained on the property such that runoff does not exit the property or contaminate clean soils existing elsewhere on the property. ~~ t~~-~ Section 11: Mudflow Rocldall, and Avalanche Protection A wall or berm at least four (4) feet in height that can withstand forces of at least two- hundred (200) pounds per square foot shall be constructed in conjunction with development on Lot 1 and Lot 2. The wall or berm shall protect the south-facing facades of the development from rockfall and avalanche danger. Section 12: Water Department Regulations The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units. Section 13: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No cleaz water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. The sanitary sewer lines serving the residential properties within the subdivision shall be constructed out of a yellowmite material since adequate separation between the water and sewer lines cannot be maintained under the common driveway. If a glycol heating and snowmelt system is to be installed, the glycol storage azeas shall be reviewed and approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to installation. Glycol heating and snowmelt system must be designed to prohibit and dischazge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitazy sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) aze not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. All ACSD fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line extension request and collection system agreement aze required. Easements for main sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future ownership and maintenance shall be dedicated and conveyed to the district using standard district form and language. xh br~~- .~ Sectionl4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Sectionl5: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 16: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3rd day of April, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Ruth Kruger Chair Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk G:\cityUessica\Cases\1001 Ute\P&ZUOOIUte_PZReso_04.03.doc ~n~librfi~- ., ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 3.2007 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD ........................................ 2 1001 UTE AVENUE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE and PUD AMENDMENT .......................................... 4 1 s \./' ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 3 2007 the bin was the only historic portion of the site excluding th . that was MOTION.• Brian S moved to a Resolution #32, series of 200, recommending t ity Council approve P '4 gler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD with g addressed in the covenants a mendment to Section 2; second ohn Rowland. Roll call: Erspamer, yes, 'e, yes; Speck, yes; Ro d, yes; Kruger, yes; APPROVED 5-0. "~ adde,~, q o the cabin. °';f~" ~, ~.-". No publis,c~o ents on the affordable housin : ' rtion. The commissioners orted the co al application. Joyce Allgaier asked if there would be covenan r the of parking. Sarpa responded that would be covered with the covenants. PUBLIC HEARING 1001 UTE AVENUE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE and PUD AMENDMENT Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for 1001 Ute Avenue. Jessica Garrow provided the notice to Jim True. Jessica Garrow provided a revised Resolution with the additions in green and deletion in red. Garrow explained the required reviews were Residential Design Standazds for secondary mass; 8040 Greenline and 2 PUD amendments. Garrow said the 8040 Greenline Review was required for any development proposed within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation. This was for rock fall dangers and avalanche dangers that have been appropriately addressed and there were enough utilities to service any development that goes on these properties and the design of the buildings blend in with the mountain character recognizing that these buildings will be visible to lower elevations as well as various mountains around town. Staff and the referral city agencies have reviewed this 8040 application to make sure those toxic soils, rock fall and avalanche dangers have been dealt with. The referral agencies and staff felt that all the criteria have been met with the exception of one. Garrow said that staff felt Criteria #7 has not been met, which was located in Exhibit B in the packet. Garrow said that when this development went through the original PUD in August of last year with council some massing controls were put into place to ensure the mass was minimized and the applicant has limited the width and height of the structures. There were two single family free-market residences proposed on Lots 1 and 2, which were limited to 5,040 square feet in the original PUD. Garrow said that secondary mass has not been met and that does not 4 ~xh~b~~~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 3, 2007 satisfy the review criteria for the 8040 Greenline; staff recommends denial of the 8040 because if the design. Garrow said the Residential Design Standards Variances requested a variance from the secondary mass, which staff recommended against because it would help the building if the mass was minimized and broken up a little more. Garrow said there were 2 PUD Amendments that staff supports. The first would move 387 feet from Lot 2 to Lot 1, which would change the FAR allowed on each lot; this internal change would not effect the massing of the building. The second amendment would allow building on the lot line between lots 1 and 2, which would accommodate the garage that was proposed underground and would minimize the mass and staff supported the zero lot line setback. Glenn Hom, planner for applicant, introduced Latham Stern, owner, who intended to live in one of the houses and Jack Miller the architect; Greg Mosley and Ben the landscape architects and the former owner, Alan Chosen, who was a neighbor. Horn provided the history of the property and photographs of the site from Smuggler Mountain during the winter and summer. Hom said the only part of the lots that would be developed would be below the old railroad right-of--way. Horn said that they were trying to emulate the Aspen Chance Subdivision. Horn said there would be open space located in the county the 2 residential units and an affordable housing units. Horn questioned whether the design standards should apply on this property. Horn provided a visual interpretation of what the 2 houses would look like and said that they would fit into this neighborhood. Hom said that there was discussion at Council during the PUD review about the massing; the houses would sit down and the garage was completely underground and from the street this would read as a one story building. The massing was broken up to the East. Horn used a map to show adjacent properties with the visible mass above grade. Horn said the lots were 111 feet wide and 91 feet on lot 2 reducing the heights to the ridge at 22 feet and below; the allowable was 27 feet and the original proposal was 30 feet. The materials were mixed shown on an illustrative. Horn said the issue was secondary mass and read the standard as applicable in the infill area; this was considered an infil] site even though there was no alley. Horn noted the intent of the building form standard doesn't really apply that much to this site because the standards apply to preserving neighborhood scale; ensuring that Aspen Streets are public places conducive to walking; fostering neighborhood ~Xh-~~ ~ __ _-- _ ~, ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 3.2007 character by establishing a relationship between front facades of buildings and streets they face; orient buildings parallel to the street; maintain consistency and front setback patterns; avoiding building materials with no relevance to Aspen history; construct parking to the rear or side of residences; encourage accessory structures and dwellings to be located along alleys inspired by the tradition of outbuildings in the Aspen area. Horn said that on Ute Avenue the building scale varied with little compliance with the secondary mass standard; front building facades were not consistently orientated to Ute Avenue because the street was curvilinear with mixed uses of single family, duplexes and tennis courts. Horn provided photos of the neighborhood showing the different uses. Horn felt the secondary mass was not appropriate for this project. Garrow provided the changes to the application beginning with the first page of the Resolution with the WHEREAS being reflected as the property located on Ute Mesa, which was an address change that never occurred. A construction management plan approved by the city engineer was required for the building permit application process; the plan shall include how potentially hazazdous materials will be minimized on site. Part E changes the testing procedures regazding the grading and drainage plan deleted is the LEACHE test and adding the RECRA for S heavy metals; the applicant and staff felt that this is more accurate for this site and address what parts of the site are contaminated and which parts are not. Section 4 changes the acronym FAR to floor area ratio to make it clearer. Section 9 deleted the second paragraph. Section 10 A is added "lab unidentified non-toxic soils" do not fall under the handling plan topic and were not subject to the requirements; Section A provides a detailed test to determine what soils are and aren't contaminated. Section G should have been put into the Resolution based on the ordinance language; a standard language for any mine waste (a clarification). David Guthrie asked about the "lab identified". Garrow said that would be clarified. Ganow said the final change was to Section 11, which clarifies that they 4 foot berm or wall helps protect against rock fall and avalanche dangers. Guthrie asked who determined the avalanche protection. Horn replied there was a straight wall approved by the geotechnical engineers. Kruger asked who would inspect and control the toxic soils. Garrow replied the Environmental Health Department and another agency, which would be addressed in the construction management plan. Erspamer asked if this was part of the mine site. Horn replied that it was not part of that mine site but has to comply with state and federal law; they hired Tom 6 ~X~ 1 ~+~ ~ , ~ ,~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 3, 2007 Dunlop to do specific testing in a grid. Horn said the key was the construction management plan for monitoring. Erspamer asked for the definition of massing. Garrow replied that any building was a mass; staff felt this site would be a better diffused building. Horn said that they felt they addressed the mass with the variation of materials and reduction in the width and height of the buildings. Guthrie asked why the variance criteria were not met. Garrow replied that in Exhibit A provides the criteria and secondary mass was not hard to obtain. Guthrie asked how close they were to meeting secondary mass. Allgaier said that it was P&Z's role to evaluate the context; secondary mass was a building broken up. Public Comments: 1. Donnie Lee, Gant General Manager, stated support for this project; he said that the homes in Ute Place were very similar to these buildings. 2. Jennifer Hall, attorney for Richard and Susan Wells owners of 970 Powder Lane, share a property line with this project. Hall said that their concerns were for their three children and two dogs with the lead concentrations on this site. Hall said that they wanted to know exactly how the soils would be handled during the construction and how it would be stabilized and left permanently after it. Hall said that construction management plan would address trucks coming on and off the site and the fugitive dust plan to make sure the lead contaminated soils do not become air home. 3. Alan Chosen, 971 Ute, stated that he previously owned 1001 Ute, which he offered to Rich prior to Latham buying the property. Chosen said that he cared about the neighborhood. 4. Cathy Crum, neighbor to the property, stated that they had a tiny house and times have changed since they bought their house. Crum said the neighborhood has been very kind and protective and she supported this project. 5. Connie Holcomb stated that she lived at Ute Place and some of the owners wanted to voice concern regarding the retaining walls; that they be visually pleasing. Kruger asked if the retaining walls were visible. Horn said that they were committed to screening'the 4 foot wall with conifers so even in the winter the wall would be screened and the tennis courts were in front of the wall. _ 7 ~~((~11~J~~~ ___. --- _. _ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 3 2007 Erspamer said that he would go with staff recommendations on the secondary mass and would ]ike to see aesthetically pleasing wa]ls. Guthrie wanted the construction management plan be more specific with fencing, an erosion plan, monitoring, remediation plan, soils disposal and other categories. Guthrie said that he could support the variance. Rowland said that he struggled with the secondary mass but the design guidelines were a problem. Rowlarid could support the variance because of the neighboring structures. Speck agreed with John. Kruger said she found the massing a bit overpowering but the site constraints were a concern; the context of the neighborhood supported that type of massing. Latham Stem said that he was a community person and the construction management plan would do anything possible to contain the material on the property; the massing was under the neighborhood massing; none of the houses in the neighborhood contained secondary mass. Kruger stated that she would like to see some variation in the roof line for less of a vistial impact. Guthrie said that it was extraordinary to have so many neighbors in support of the project. MOTION: John Rowland moved to approve Resolution #9, series 2007, approving variances to the residential design standards for secondary mass; approving an 8040 Greenline review and a PUD Other Amendment for the Ute Mesa PUD located 1001 Ute Avenue; seconded by David Guthrie. Roll call vote.' Speck, yes; Erspamer, no; Guthrie, yes; Rowland, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 4-1. Adjourned. kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ~X~~~t~ g --..._ .. _._ y ....__.. `v/ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 53 74990 i•as~ ORDINANCE N0.24 (SERIES OF 2006) u AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBDIVISION REVIEW, CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD, AND A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE PARCELS FOR THE 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVSION, CITY AND TOWNSTTE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO Parcel !D: 2737-I82-00-063 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Leathern Steam, owner, represented by Davis Horn Incorporated, requesting approval of Subdivision, Consolidated ConceptuaUFinal Planned Unit Development, 8040 Greenline Review, Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels to divide the pazcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential properties and fow (4) separate common azeas, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(1), Detached Single family and Duplex Dwelling Units, the Community Development Director approved a Growth Management Review for the construction of one single-family dwelling unit, conditioned upon approval of the other associated land use actions requested; and, WHEREAS, pwsuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)(2), Consolidated '" Conceptual and Final Review, the Community Development Director consented to allow for the development application to be reviewed as a consolidated PUD review because of the anticipated limited scope of issues involved with the review; and, WHEREAS, pwsuant to the applicable sections of the land use code, the Community Development Director has reviewed the requested land use actions and recommended denial of the growth management review for the preservation of significant open space parcels and that a maximum floor area of only 3,830 square feet be allowed per residential lot; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public heazing on April 4, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on this application to Apri] ] 8, 2006; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on April 18, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on this application to May 2, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the development application to include the development of a Category 4 affordable housing unit to mitigate for the second free-market residential unit in the subdivision; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on May 2, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 16, Series of 2006, by a six to zero (6-0) vote, approving with conditions an 8040 Greenline Review, a Growth Management Review ~xh~~ ~~ Il1',uII ~I INN' III ,uNI N 531499 I II,III~III I~III IIII II~IIIIII,I IIIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIII 0 0 3 0/27 /02 90 00 1.361 Ji1NICE for the Development of Affordable Housing, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, Subdivision Review, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and a Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision to divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential properties, a parcel for the development of a Category 4 AH unit and four (4) separate common areas, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 10, 2006, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposal and continued the hearing until July 24, 2006; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on July 24, 2006, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposal and continued the hearing until August 14, 2006; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on August 14, 2006, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposed 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision and approved Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, approving with conditions, the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels; and, WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section ]: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves with conditions, a Subdivision Review, Consolidated Conceptual/Fina] PUD, and a Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Pazcels for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision to divide the pazcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) single-family residential properties, a property for the development of a "for sale", three-bedroom, Category 4 affordable housing unit and four (4) separate common azeas, subject to the conditions contained herein. Exhib~ ~ r°....---- _ '~ ,--- +.. IIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIlI059z 4990 gaol Section 2: Aooroved Develoument Development of two (2) tree-mazket single-family residential dwelling units, and the development of a "for sale", three-bedroom, Category 4 affordable housing unit, the relocation of the existing tennis courts approximately thirty (30) feet to the west of their current location, along with the necessary road improvements to access the residential lots are hereby approved subject to the terms of this ordinance. Section 3: Dimensional Requirements The approved dimensional requirements are as follows: Dimensional Approved Requirement Dimeusional Re uvements Minimum Lot Size Lot 1= 24,850 SF Lot 2= 30,060 SF Common Area 1 Open Space= 20,860 SF Cotmnon Area 2 Open Space= 24,860 SF Common Area 3 Access Easement= 15,290 SF Common Area 4 Open S ace= 920 SF Minimum Lot Width 25 Feet for Common Area 2 n S ace Minimum Lot Area 31,655 SF in PUD Per Dwellin Unit Minimum Front Per Building Envelope Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Per Building Envelope Setback Minimum Reaz Yard Per Building Envelope Setback Maximum Height 25 Feet as measured from finished grade and 27 Feet to the rid e Allowable Ex[emal 5,040 SF per each of the FAR two (2) single-family residential dwelling units as calculated based on the City land use code methodology in affect at the time of building pemrit subminal. Additionally, 1,400 SF is allocated for the development of a "for sale", Category 4 affordable housin unit. Minimum Off-Street 2 Spaces per Residential Parkin Unit r~~~b~~ .- _ ___ ~., _ IIIInIiIIIIIIIIIII~iIIIIIiIHN~IIIInIIIIIIIIIIIINa59,p990 t:3a~ Section 4• Sabdivision/PUD Plat and Agreement ~- The Applicant shall record a subdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code within 180 days of approval. The Plat shall contain the property boundaries, easements, and the building envelopes. Section 5: 8040 Greenline Review The 8040 Greenline approval granted herein is only for the road serving the single-family residence parcels and the relocation of the tennis courts. Prior to applying for building pemtits on the two (2) free-market residential units or the associated accessory dwelling units within the subdivision/PUD, an 8040 Greenline Review on the specific residence designs shall be applied for and approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline Review. Section 6: Residential Design Standards The. two (2) single-family residences to be constructed within the subdivision shall be required to meet the applicable City of Aspen Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standazds. Section 7: Affordable Housing Mitigation A "for sale", three-bedroom, Category 4 affordable housing unit consisting of a minimum of 1,400 square feet of net livable space shall be constructed in combination with providing a conservation easement on the southern 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to mitigate for the Gee-market residential dwelling units to be constructed within the subdivision. The affordable housing unit shall be excluded Gom the homeowner's association for the subdivision so that it will not be responsible for maintenance and association fees common to the subdivision. The homeowner's association documents shall not contain any language that prohibits the owners of the affordable housing units from having dogs. Section 8: Conservation Easement The Applicant shall deed the 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to be placed under a conservation easement to the City of Aspen. Subsequently, the City of Aspen shall record a conservation easement to be held by a third party on the 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to remain in Pitkin County, that will be sterilized in perpetuity against future development in exchange for one of the two (2) single-family development rights within the subdivision. The property shall be deeded to the City prior to submission for an access/infrashvcture permit on the common driveway improvements within the subdivision/PUD. The wnservation easement document shall be prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the Pitkin County Community Development Department prior to recordation. Section 9: Scbool Lauds Dedicatioa Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication in conjunction with any residential development in the subdivision. Prior to building permit issuance on any residential development within the subdivision, the Applicant shall pay the school lands dedication fee associated with the "' subdivision as calculated by the City Zoning Officer using the dedication schedule in effect ... ~~n~br~~ _._ _ ~> ~.. II II IuI INI 53.1499 i lull VIII VIII IIII IIBI Iulll IIIIII III VIII IHI IIII 00 1927 D2 0000 1 : 36i at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.630.030, School Lands Dedication: Dedication Schedule. Section 10: Park Develoument Imoact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a pazk development impact fee at the time of building permit issuance for any construction within the subdivision that adds new residentiaUlodge bedrooms and/or commercial/office square footage. The City Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Park Development Impact Fee: Fee Schedule. The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified, licensed engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development in conjunction with the 8040 Greenlin0 Review applications for the individual residences proposed within the subdivision/PUD. The designs for the single-family residences within the subdivision/PUD shall comply with the recommendations of the Applicant's Avalanche Specialist, Peter Lev, and Applicant's Geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, by providing an engineered four (4) foot tall retaining wall on the south side of the residences. Section 12: Mine Waste The Applicant shall provide a mine waste testing and handling plan to the City prior to submitting a building permit application on either of the residences, that complies with the following conditions of approval regazding development in an Environmentally Sensitive azea and handling of any hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the property pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code: a. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely contained on and covered with anon-permeable tarp or other protective bamer approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material need not be removed if the City's Environmental Health Department finds that: 1) the excavated material contains less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total lead, or 2) that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site. Disturbed soil and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon acceptance of the material at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility. b. Non-removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. c. Dust suppression. All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to minimize the creation and release of dust and other particulates into the aii. ~~hi~t F rt l 111111 IIIN IIII IIII INII111111 ~hll III IIIII IIII IIII `1~10/27/200~01 :36{ ~. / d. Vegetable and flower gazdening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shall be planted or cultivated within the boundaries of the site except in gazden beds ~~ consisting of not less than twelve (12) inches of soil containing no more than 999- ppm lead. e. Landscaping. The planting of trees and shrubs and the creation or installation of landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of more than one cubic yazd of soil shall require the same measures outlined in sub-sections a, b, c, f and g. f. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock that is either disturbed or exposed shall be contained on the property such that runoff does not exit the property or contaminate clean soils existing elsewhere on the property. g. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on-site shall be placed under structures or pavement. Soils used in landscaped azeas or engineered fills shall be covered by a minimum of 1 foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm lead. Section 13: Fire Mitieation Fire sprinkler and alarm systems that meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be installed in each of the single-family residences to be constructed within the subdivision/PUD. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. The residences to be designed and constructed within the subdivision/PUD shall meet the Colorado Defensible Space Standazds. Compliance with the Colorado Defensible Space Standazds shall be verified as part of the 8040 Greenline Review process on the individual residences. Section 14: Driveway Construction The driveway shall be constructed to the grades that are proposed in the application and shall not exceed twelve (12) percent at any point. A hammerhead fire truck turnaround meeting the requirements of the Fire Mazshal shall be installed as proposed in the application. The Applicant shall enter into a recorded road maintenance agreement with the City that is to be reviewed and accepted by the City Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of an access/infrastructure permit to construct the road. An access/infrastructure permit shall be applied for and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to commencing any grading or construction activities related to the installation of the common driveway to the residential pazcels. A geotechnical report shall be submitted as part of the access/infrastructure permit application. Section 15: Landscaoina The Applicant shall install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping plan that is proposed in the application for screening of the retaining wall. A tree removal permit and tree protection plan shall be submitted and approved by the City of Aspen Pazks Department prior to commencing construction activities related to the subdivision access improvements. Additionally, individual landscaping plans for the residential parcels shall be submitted and reviewed by the City Pazks Department as part of the 8040 Greenline '°"' Review applications for the individual residences, The Applicant shall provide a financial +..r r-, .~ .._w IIIHIIVIIIIIIIIUIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 592 499 et:aer JNNICE K VOS CNUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 40.00 D 0.00 __ security to ensure the wmpletion of the landscaping as shown on the landscaping plan in the application is completed prior to a building permit application being submitted on any ~~ of the residential units within the subdivision. Section 16: Relocation of Tennis Courts The Applicant shall relocate the existing tennis courts prior to or in conjunction with the installation of the common driveway to the residential pazcels within the subdivision/PUD. An access/infrastructure permit shall be applied for and approved prior to the commencement of construction activities related to relocating the tennis courts. The pathway from Ute Avenue to the relocated tennis courts shall be improved to comply with applicable ADA accessibility requirements. A deed restriction shall be recorded on the Common Area 2 Open Space (pazcel to contain the tennis courts) that preserves the parcel against future development. Section 17: Trail Easement The Applicant shall grant a public trail easement to accommodate the existing Ajax Trail if it is found to be located outside of the existing trail easement in azeas. Additionally, the Applicant shall grant a permanent public trail easement meeting the approval of the City of Aspen Parks Department along the eastern comer ofsingle-family residential Lot 1 in order to accommodate a pedestrian trail from the Ajax Trail down to Ajax Pazk prior to recordation of the final subdivision/PUDptat. Section 18: Water Department Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units. Section 19: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. The sanitary sewer lines serving the residential properties within the subdivision shall be constructed out of a yellowmite material since adequate separation between the water and sewer lines cannot be maintained under the common driveway. If a glycol heating and snowmelt system is to be installed, the glycol storage azeas shall be reviewed and approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to installation. Section 20: Massive Controls The specific designs of the two (2) free-market residential dwelling units that are to be submitted for 8040 Greenline Review pursuant to Section 5 of this ordinance shall be substantially consistent with the revised massing drawings presented to City Council on August 14, 2006. A substantial subdivisiott/PUD amendment review would be necessary to substantially vary from the massing drawings presented to City Council on August 14, 2006. The width of the north-facing facades of the free-mazket residential units shall be `"` limited to 120 feet. The overall ridge height of the free-market, single-family residential ti G,~~11~1`~ 1= ~ _. ti. IllulillNlINNIINIINIIIIIIIIIIIh11111111NINll 592 89901:38` JQNICE K VOS C{K10ILL PITKlN COUNTY CO R 46.00 D 0.00 structures shall be limited to twenty-seven (27) feet above finished grade, and twenty (20) percent of the width of the front fagades shall be limited to a ridge height of twenty-two (22) feet above finished grade. Non-reflective materials shall be used in the construction of the proposed single-family residences. Section 21: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (l4) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 1001 Ute Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006, of the Aspen City Council. Section 22: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 23: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 24: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of July, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12a' day of June, 2006. Helen K in anderud, Mayor 4.. ~~ibi-t ~ ,.... 531499 ~..~ IIINIIIIIIIhN1111111111111111111~111111111111111U10019T7 z0 ~ 1:361 ~, Attest. ~~~/ Kathryn S. Koc ity Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14th day of August, 006 ele in and d, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. h, City Clerk Approved as to form: L...John .Worcester, City Attorney ~~~bl f r „~~ ~ ~y Standing and Continuing Objection and Request for Definitive Evidentiary Ruling IN RE MATTER OF APPLICATION DATED DECEMBER 29, 2006, REGARDING THE UTE MESA SUBDIVISION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BUD-8040 GREEN LINE REVIEW, PUD AMENDMENT AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEWI OWNER: UTE MESA, LLC LAND PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE: DAMS HORN, INC. (GLENN HORN) OWNER'S ATTORNEYS: GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. (DAVE LENYOI DATE: MAY ll, 2007 The Applicant, by and through his attorneys, Garfield & Hecht, P.C., pursuant to Section 26.316.030 of the Aspen Land Use Code, objects to the offer, admission or consideration of new or supplemental evidence not included in the record before the Planning & Zoning Commission at the hearing dated April 3, 2007, from which the appeal is taken. In particular, the Applicant objects to the offer, admission or consideration of the hearsay report by "NewFields" dated April 30, 2007, and any related evidence or testimony not presented before the Planning & Zoning Commission. In order to maximize efficiency at the appeal hearing scheduled for May 14, 2007, the Applicant requests a definitive ruling at the outset of the hearing that such evidence cannot be offered, admitted, received or considered at the May 14, 2007, appeal. In the event that City Council does not provide a definitive ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence not included in the record before the Planning & Zoning Commission at the May 14 2007, hearing or allows the admission of evidence outside the record, the Applicant states its ~. objection as a continuing and standing objection to avoid the need to continually repeat said objection throughout the hearing in order to avoid interruption of the presentations in order to preserve its objection in connection with any future appeals. May 14, 2007 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ~~~~ David L. Lenyo 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-1936 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true and correct copy of Standing and Continuing Objection and Request for Definitive Evidentiary Ruling was hand delivered May 14, 2007, to the following. Jennifer Hall Holland & Hart LLP 600 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 James R. True, Esquire 215 South Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 Chris Benden; Jessica Garrow City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 ~~~ 182192-1 2 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 7, SERIES 2007- APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, May 14, 2007, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to hear an appeal of Aspen Planning and Zaiing Commission Resolution 7, Series 2007 by Richard and Susan Wells, represented by Jennifer Hall of Holland and Hart. For further information, contact Jessica Garrow at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429-2780, (or iessicag~cilci.aspen co us). s/Helen Klanderud Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on April 29 2007 City of Aspen Account \,~~i ]k 130G~'C!CG'1^A -„ 1 P 4'~ S: C..! zea ~ .. v L~ tdl ~ na ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspea, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARWG DATE: 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. CounTy of Pitkin ) I, ~~y, i e.u/ ~ ~t,vr r r ivy (name, please print) be g or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspea Land Use Code in the following mammer. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official 'paper or a paper of general C'u~ulau0n m the Ciiy Of Aspen at least ui`iiea (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posring of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Departnent, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide ~ and twenty-six (26) inches high, and whicfi was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) day prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted no8ce (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing o{notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Co**~?*~u*iity Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (16) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeazed no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies sa noriced is attached hereto. (continued on next page) __ Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in ~Y way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use r e°ulahon, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of'reaI property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency dig ~ business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" w of , 200~by PUBLIC NOTICE RE' APPEAL OF PLANNING ANO ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ], SERIES 20W - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be M1eltl on Montley, May 14, 200i, at e meeting to be9in a 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Coun I Chambers, Clty Hell, 130 B. Galena Sf , Aspe '~ fo hear an appeal of Aspen Planning antl Zonin ommission Resolution ], Series 200] by Richa tl antl Susan Wells, repre- senfetl by Jennifer Hall f Hollantl antl Hatl. For furtM1er information, onfacf Jessica Garraw of the City of Aspsn Community Development Dept, 130 5. Galena St, Aspen, CO (970) 429-2]80, (or jessiwg~ci.aspen.co.usi. s/Helen Klantleru4 Mayor Aspen City Council zow9~aoszeeje Aapen rimes weakly on April z9, ,4'j°pAC HMIJNTS: COPYOFTHEPpgLI~TTON PHOTOGR qpH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGl~ , LIST OF THE O WNERS A1VD GpvF~EN,I,AL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMfLIL WITNES S IvII' HAiv'D Ai~'D OFFiCiAL Sr 4 T, Aspen Reprographics ~.•. ~ ti,,, ,, Invoice 120 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-1771 970-925-9411 Fax Bill To Holland & Hart 600 F.. Main Street Aspen, CO 8161 1 Date Invoice # 5/8/2007 65950 P.O. Number Terms Account# ~, 1001 ore Net 30 36400 Item Code Quantity Description Price Each Amount 0015-8.5x1 l Color 70 Color Copies 8.5x11 0.99 69.30T 0025-11x17 Color 63 Color Copies 11x17 1.98 124.74T 0010-8.5x11 1,015 Copies 8.5 x l l 0.10 IOI.SOT 0090-000 7 Cover Sock 8.5 X 1 I" 1.00 7.OOT 0091-000 7 Clear Cover 8.5X l l" L00 7.OOT Binding - M 7 Binding -Medium 6.50 45.SOT S U i7tOta i $355.04 Sales Tax (8.6%) $3o.sa TOtai $385.58 Balance Due $385.58 -~ ..1 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 (970)920-5090 (970) 920-5439, fax To: Chris Lacroix From: essica Garrow Fax: 25.3008 Pages: Phone: 25.2811 Date: May 3, 2007 Re: 1001 Ute Ave. Appeal CC: ^ Urgent For Review ^ Please Comment ^ Please Repty ^ Please Recycle • Comments: Dear Chris - Please find the attached material from Holland and Hart regarding the 1001 Ute Mesa Appeal. I will be working with the Environmental Health Department to respond to the Toxic Soil issues brought up in the letter. As soon as I have a completed staff memo I will forvvard it on to you for your review. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance in the mean time. Cheers, ~` ess~ arro 429-2780 HOLLAND&HART,~ -r rl e ~ n. ^~ ;~ u i - May 2, 2007 Ms. Jessica Garrow Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ]ennifer Hall Phone (970) 925-3476 jhall@hollandhart.com Re: 1001 Ute Avenue Appeal• Appellants Richard and Susan Wells Dear Jessica: Please consider this letter as a supplement to the Notice of Appeal dated April 17, 2007. Please include this letter in the packet going to the City Council for the hearing currently scheduled for May 14, 2007. Appellants request that the City Council overturn the April 3, 2007'Planning and Zoning Commission's decision regarding 1001 Ute Avenue based on the following reasons: 1. 8040 Greenline Review. Section 26.435.030.0.7 requires that "building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain." Staff objected to the proposed design concluding that it "maximizes the bulkiness of the building and that the building fails to blend with the open character of the mountain." Staff recommended that the developer be required to follow the secondary mass design standards. The Commission ignored this recommendation even though it had already granted an excessive size variance for this development. The proposed design exacerbates the fact that the buildings are too large for the lots and should be rejected. The developer should be at least required to comply with the secondary mass requirements as outlined in the staff report. 2. Toxic Soils. The 8040 Greenline Review also requires that toxic soils be considered and that the proposed development not have significant adverse impacts on air pollution or air quality in the City. As noted in the developer's submission to the Planning and Zoning Department, the site is heavily contaminated with lead at levels well above what is considered dangerous. As noted in the attached letter from a lead expert, the Planned Ute Mesa Subdivision will require the disturbance of significant amounts of mine waste rock containing levels well in excess of those documented as posing a risk to human healthl. It is inappropriate 1 Appellant respectfully requests that the Council consider the attached letter even though it was not submitted to the Commission. This is an issue involving life and safety and should have a complete and comprehensive review prior to approval and construction. Holland & Harc «r Phm~e. [9707925-347fi Fax [9701925-9367 arww.hollandharc.eom 600 East Main Street Suite 104 Aspen,CO 81611 Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson HOle Salt Wke City Santa Fe Washington, D.C. ~~ HOLLAND&HART..o T H E LAW OUT W E S T Ms. Jessica Garrow May 2, 2007 Page 2 to excavate into these soils in a densely populated residential area. Once disturbed, lead dust could spread through the air, contaminating the neighborhood. The developer should revise its plan and cap the tailings with soil rather than excavate into them, disturbing and possibly spreading the contaminants. Sincerely, ~~ ~. ~~~ Jennifer Hall for Holland & Hart ~~P JH:cem enclosure 3704695_LDOC t. r April 3Q 2007 Mr. Christopher J. Heaphey Holland and Hart 600 East Main Street Suite 104 Aspen, CO 8161 1 RE: Potential Effects of bead Releases Ute Mesa Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Heaphey: Based on our discussions and the information yon provided, I understand that the planned Ute Mesa Subdivision will be constructed at 1001 Ute Avenue in Aspen in an area known to be covered with mine waste rock. The mine waste rock was placed on the site by historic mining activity and has been documented to contain over 16,000 milligrams per kilogrwns (mg/kg) of Icad. ~Ihc planned construction will necessitate excavation the mine waste rock and its subsequent exposure to wind, rain, and snow. Such exposure could result in dispersal of lead to nearby residential areas in wind and/or runoff, where the residents may come into contact with the lead. Lead originating Rom mining and mineral processing wastes, including waste rock, tailings, and smelter emissions, is a primary human health driver at numerous environmental cleanup sites in the United States, including the Smuggler Mountain Superfund site in Aspen; the Qutte/Anaconda and East Helena areas in Montana; the Bunker Hill Superfund Site/('oeur d'Alene Basin in Idaho; and the Omaha Lead Site in Nebraska. Environmental studies and remediation activities have been underway at most of the aforementioned sites I~or over a decade. Soil cleanup levels at these sites typically range from 400 mg/Kg to 1,200 mg/kg. There are many other sites where lead is the primary clean up driver because of risks to human health. According to the U.S. Cnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), lead is a highly toxic metal that was used for many years iu products found in and around our homes. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death. Children 6 years old and wider are most at risk, because their bodies are growing quickly. EPA's research suggests that lead contaminated dust and residential ~~. ~,~. Mr. Chris Heaphey April 30, 2007 Page 2 soil are primary sources of lend exposure for most children. Typical lead exposure pathways and health effects, according to EPA, are as follows: ~ People can get lead in their body if they: o Put their hands or other objects covered with lead dust in their mouths. o Eat paint chips or soil that contains lead. o Breathe in lead dust (especially during renovations that disturb painted surfaces). Lead is even more dangerous to children than adults because: o Babies and young children often put their hands and other objects in their mouths. These objects can have lead dust on them. o Children's growing bodies absorb more lead. o Children's brains and nervous systems are more sensitive to the damaging effects of lead. If not detected early. children with high levels of lead in their bodies can suffer from: o Damage to the brain and nervous system o Behavior and learning problems (such as hyperactivity) o Slowed growth o Hearing problems o Headaches bead is also harmful to adults. Adults can suffer from: o Difftculties during pregnancy o Other reproductive problems (in both men and women) o High blood pressure o Digestive problems o Nerve disorders o Memory and concentration problems o Muscle and joint pain The planned Utc Mesa Subdivision will require the disturbance of a significant amount of mine waste rock containing lead levels well in excess of those documented as posing a risk to human health. Given the close proximity of the planned subdivision to existing residential areas in nspen, it is imperative that appropriate measures be implemented during construction to eliminate the dispersal of lead in wind and runoff. Please contact me if there are questions regarding the information contained in this letter. Very truly yours, NewFields ~httu://www c~~~o,~~dl~ i i n~ n~ Izu~lmta him'rhealtPi l Mr. Chris Heaphey April 30, 2007 Page 3 Brian G. Hansen, P.L-., P.G.- Senior Engvreer/Hydrogeologist .nM ~.+ ' P.E. registration in AR, ID, ~T, NV. and WA; P.G. registration in WY. r~ ~~ RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARANCES, A PUD OTHER AMENDMENT, AND AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR 1001 UTE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS MINE, 1741 MINE NAME: ONE THOUSAND ONE PERCENT: 100 ACRES: 0 DESC: ALL SURFACE & MINERAL RIGHTS DESC: SECTION 18-10-84 WEST OF THE 6TH, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2737-182-000-63 Resolution #07 - 9 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ute Mesa, LLC, represented by Glenn Horn of Davis Horn Inc., and Jack Miller of Miller and Associates, for a variance from the residential design standards for secondary mass; a PUD Other Amendment for building on a lot line and to permit the transfer of three-hundred and seventy-eight (378) square feet from Lot 2 to Lot 1; and an 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-15 PUD; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standard variance, and recommended approval of the PUD Other Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the all references in the application to Ute Mesa PUD or Ute Mesa Subdivision shall be construed to mean 1001 Ute Avenue; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 3, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. , Series of 2007, by a to _ (_- ___) vote, approving a variance to the residential design standards for secondary mass; approving an '`8040 Greenline Review"; and, approving a PUD Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance to the Residential Design Standards for secondary mass, an "8040 Greenline Review," and a PUD Other Amendment; on the property located at 1001 Ute Ave-i^ *~° r *~ ~,r~_.~.., nr ~ r, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. c ~ -~"c-~ © 4 Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final P&Z Resolution. b. A Construction Management Plan approved by the City En ing Bering Department. The plan shall outline how construction shall address, and minimize the negative impacts of, potentially hazard materials on-site. c. An Access and Infrastructure Plan d. A fugitive dust control plan e. A detailed grading and drainage plan to be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. ~,~,;~. ~.~„>>> ,.~,,,a~ „ r o ,.~,~*o .o~+ , „+;,-,,,;,,g +~,.,, ;,,,..,,, ,- „f~+~ +,-,,.,, *i,o ~;.o , ,:ii ~.o ~,,, o ooa ., a~+oa v a.,t.,i ~;.,,:,~. Soil trom the site will be tested for 8-heavy metals as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) standard. To determine leachability of the metals, a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test will be performed on all 8-heavy metals. As well as TCLP analysis, total p(1'~~'~\ concentrations of the 8-heavy metals will also be determined. ~W! £ A landscaping plan detailing landscape improvements associated with the (~ avalanche walls Section 4: PUD Other Amendment for Allowable F~I~Floor Area The total allowed external I=Floor Area on Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to 10,080 square ~' feet, pursuant to the PUD approval in Ordinance 24, Series 2006. A PUD Other Amendment is hereby granted that transfers three-hundred and seventy-eight (378) square ~,~~ _l feet from Lot 2 to Lot 1, and therefore assigns 5,418 square feet of I~=AI~Floor Area to Lot ~~'(\\` 1, and 4,662 square feet of f=~R-Floor Area to Lot 2. t~AI~-Floor Area shall be calculated based on the City land use code methodology in effect on August 14, 2006, the date of passage for Ordinance 24, Series 2006. Pursuant to the PUD approval, 1,400 square feet of F AI~Floor Area is allocated for the v `('_ development of a "for sale" Category 4 affordable housing unit on Lot 3. ~ V 1 C~~ Section 5: PUD Other Amendment for Development Along a Lot Line A PUD Other Amendment is hereby granted, which permits below grade structures to be built with a zero minimum side yard set back along the shared lot line of Lot 1 and Lot 2. ¢,7~ This shall allow for the development of a structure to accommodate the proposed sub- ~~ grade parking garage, basement, and driveway, pursuant to plans submitted December 29, 2007 and representations made at the April 3, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission ~ meeting. The only part of the two structures permitted to share a common wall shall be the sub-grade structures. A minimum distance of twenty (20) feet shall be required between the two dwellings above grade. © 4 Section 6: Residential Design The two (2) single-family residences and the one (1) accessory dwelling unit shall be required to meet the applicable City of Aspen Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. A variance is granted from the Residential Design Standards requirement for the two (2) free-market single-family residential structures that ten (10) percent of the mass be located in a secondary mass (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(B)(1)). Section 7: Massing Controls Pursuant to PUD approvals received as part of Ordinance 24, Series 2006, the following shall apply to the two (2) free-market single-family residential structures: the width of the north-facing facades shall be limited to 120 feet; the overall ridge-height shall be limited to twenty-seven (27) feet above finished grade; twenty (20) percent of the width of the front facades shall be limited to a ridge height of twenty-two (22) feet above finished grade; and non-reflective materials shall be used in construction of the structures. Section 8: Fire Mitigation Fire sprinkler and alarm systems that meet the requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be installed in each of the single-family residences to be constructed within the subdivision/PUD. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. The residences to be designed and constructed within the subdivision/PUD shall meet the Colorado Defensible Space Standards. Section 9: Landscaping The Applicant shall install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping plan that is proposed in the application for screening of the retaining wall. The Applicant shall receive a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any existing on-site trees. Further, the Applicant shall work with the Parks Department : n a~~~e}~te~--~-~1}e-E ~}{ -- - D la 2 .~7 .., r .,,.r ., ~tl 1 D gvi~ ~ p T c c a ~e- rc The Applicant shall provide a financial security to ensure the completion of the landscaping as shown on the landscaping plan in the application is completed prior to a building permit application being submitted on any of the residential units within the subdivision. The site shall be landscaped in the first fall or spring after completion of the site development. Section 10: Toxic Soil Controls and Mine Waste The Applicant shall provide prior to submitting a building permit application on either of the residences, the City with a mine waste testing and handling plan that complies with the following conditions of approval as memorialized in Ordinance No. 25, Series 1994 regarding the handling of any contaminated soils encountered on the property: a. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely contained on and covered with anon-permeable tarp or other protective barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material need not be removed if the City's Environmental Health Department finds that: 1) the excavated material contains less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total lead, or 2) that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site. Disturbed soil and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon acceptance of the material at a duly lic used and authorized receiving facility. y~l~v~t-iii-~(~ I~-'~ IZC IZft fi~S~- b. Non-removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. c. Dust suppression. All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to minimize the creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air. d. Vegetable and flower gardening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shall be planted or cultivated within the boundaries of the site except in garden beds consisting of not less than twelve (12) inches of soil containing no more than 999- ppm lead. e. Landscaping. The planting of trees and shrubs and the creation or installation of landscaping features requiring the dislocation or~ disturbance of more than one cubic yard of soil shall require a permit as provided in Section 7-143 (4). f. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on-site shall be placed under structures or pavement. Soils used in landscaped areas or engineered fills shall be covered by a minimum of 1 foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm lead. g. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock that is either disturbed or exposed shall be contained on the property such that runoff does not exit the propert~or contaminate clean soils existing elsewhere on the property •" --~, ~, Section 11: Mudflow Rockfall, and Avalanche Protection A wall or berm at least four (4) feet in height that can withstand forces of at least two- hundred (200) pounds per squaze foot shall be constructed in conjunction with development on Lot 1 and Lot 2. The wall or berm shall protect the south-facing facades of the development from rockfall and avalanche danger. Section 12: Water Department Reeulations The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units. Section 13: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No cleaz water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. The sanitary sewer lines serving the residential properties within the subdivision shall be constructed out of a yellowmite material since adequate sepazation between the water and sewer lines cannot be maintained under the common driveway. If a glycol heating and snowmelt system is to be installed, the glycol storage azeas shall be reviewed and approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to installation. Glycol heating and snowmelt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) aze not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. All ACSD fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Where main sanitazy sewer lines aze required to serve this new development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line extension request and collection system agreement aze required. Easements for main sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future ownership and maintenance shall be dedicated and conveyed to the district using standard district form and language. Secdonl4• This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. r .•. t~ ., . Sectionl5: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 16• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3rd day of April, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Ruth Kruger Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk G:\cityUessica\Cases\1001 Ute\P&ZUOOIUte_PZReso_04.03.doc HOLLAND&HART Apri125, 2007 Ms. Jessica Garrow Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena Street Aspen, CO 8161 I re: 1001 Ute Avenue Appeal Appellants: Richazd and Susan Wells Deaz Jessica: ~.,.r Jennifer Hall Phone (970)925-3476 jhall@hollandhart. com R~~/!~~ `19gY , C C!I` 4 ~00j Co~~~GNT~~f F ~~,~,b FNT Further to our telephone calls regarding the above-referenced appeal, enclosed please find our executed Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees together with our check in the sum of $705.00 representing an initial deposit against the costs of the appeal process. Thank you for your assistance with this process. Since e , Assistant to Jennifer Hall for Holland & Hart ~~N JH:cem Enclosures Holland & Hart tv ~'hom~ 1970]925-3476 r..; [970]925-936] www.hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street Suite 104 Aspen,CO 81611 Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson HOle Salt lake Ciry Santa Fe Washington, D.C. ~.:, CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Aereement for Paymeat of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Richard and Susan Wells (hereinafer APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an appplication for Appeal of April 3, 2007 Planning and Zoning Approval of Ute Mesa Subdivision PUD, 1001 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 (hereinafer, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 48 (Series of 2006) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing [he application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for projec[ consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY'S waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 705.00 which is for 3 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthl}' billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY foz the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $235.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN ~p~~,pp Richa>~a usan Wells By: ChrisBendon Ar hur C. Daily Community DevelopmentDuector Date: April 25, 2007 Billing Address and Telephone Number: RFTk:~I ~.^,R 4'vRlt~;?,",C'dT RECOiiD R? Anllanri ,G Kart TT,I,t 600 E. Main Street, Ste 104 Aspen, CO 81611; 970 925 3476 C:\Documents and Settings\johannahr\Desktop\LUFeeAgree.doc 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 (970) 920-5090 (970) 920-5439, fax ~. ~... To: lenn Hom From: essica Garrow Fax: 25.5180 ages: Phone: 25.6587 Date: pril 23, 2007 Re: 1001 Ute Ave Appeal C: ^ Urgent ^ For Review ^ Please Comment ^ Please Reply ^ Please Recycle • Comments: Hi Glenn - Attached is the appeal filed by Jennifer Hall. The letter was hand delivered to Chris's attention on the 17"', exactly 14 days after the action took place. The appeal will be scheduled for City Council, but I am not certain when that will occur. We will likely be requesting additional information from her regarding the basis for the appeal. I will be in touch with you as any changes occur and as we get additional information. Let me know if you have any questions, or need anything from me at this time Cheers, ~_ ~, ~;~^~" ~/9(~l~~~Zfi~U ~essica Garro~nner 97029-2780 iessicaaCrDci.aspen.co.us -23-2007 11:26 FROM: ^ ~~ HOLLA; t .{ C Monday, To JD&HART _;ALW C:, ~, Sv C 67 J rill 2'3, 2007 i Jessica Garrow T0:,,970 920 5439 Fax : 970.920-5439 P.1~3 Froth: Carolyn Miller Fax : (970) 925-9367 Assistant to Jennifer Hall Phone: 970-925-3476 ~I I Please find attached Jennifer Hall's letter to Chris 13cndon regarding the appeal of lJtc Mesa Subdiv>js'on PUl) etc. dated April 17, 2007. ~~ I ~~~ i! C'~ns ~a c~` l~V~lla~fl~~t. No Con firma[iot Nutt: if this fax by the attorney-e disclose this info (970) 925d47(i; %lttornzy Number: Operator Initials[ noltand &nart us At oho n> (9%U) 925-9<]6 600 Easa Main Srreet $~ arDen tlIII1n OS 8015! i Number of pages including cover shout: 3 illegible or incomplete pletlsc call us. 'this fax may contain conlidcntial information protected nt privilege. If you u.re nut the named recipient, you may not use, distribute or otherwise anon without our cunsenl. Inslcad, please call will nrrange fur ils deslnl elion or return. 5244 Clicnt/Mancr 48478-0005 Timc Ucadlinc Cent Date Tnulsmiucd: Mime'fransmiuzd~ eya at law (970) 97'-9)G7 www.Aolla ndhart.yom AU< ASDOn, Colara0o 81611-1991 Ier CIIlyavb (Olarad0 SDrlnys Denver D¢nv¢r Tech Center )ac454n NUI¢ Salt lade Gly Santa F¢ WDShlnyt9n, O.C. HOLLAND &HART..P ~ Jennifer Hall Phone (970) 925-3476 r H e y a w our w e s r jhall@hollandhart.com April 17, 2007 Chris Bendon Community Developemn City of Aspen 130 South Galena, 3rd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Notice of Appeal -April 3, 2007 Planning and Zoning Approval of Ute Mesa Subdivision Planned Unit Development (PUD) - 8040 Greenline Review, PUD Amendment and Residential Design Review - 1001 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, 81611 Dear Chris: This office represents Richard and Susan Wells (the Wells), residents of 970 Power Lane, Aspen, olorado, 81611 and neighbors to 1001 Ute Avenue owned by Ute Mesa, LLC (the "Applicant") This letter constitutes a notice of appeal submitted on behalf of the Wells pursuant to Section 26.316.030 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. I hereby appeal the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval on April 3, 2007 of the Applicant's December 29, 2006 application for Planning and Zoning Approval of Ute Mesa Subdivision Planned Unit Development (PUD) - 8040 Greenline Review, PUD Amendment and Residential Design Review for 1001 Ute Avenue. as amended. The action of the Planning and Zoning Commission in approving the application is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the City of Aspen's regulations relating to these matters as well as Colorado law. Furthermore, the action is not supported by the evidence in the record at the time the decision was made. The denial constitutes an abuse of discretion and the action exceeds the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Commission. In a written memorandum and through testimony and argument to be presented at the required hearing before the City Council, I will present an analysis of the facts and circumstances relevant to this appeal, as reflected in the record before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the legal principles that support this appeal. Holland&Hart uv Phone 1970] 925-3476 Fax 1970] 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver DenverTech Center Jackson Hole Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D.C. p C HOLLAND&HART.~o T H E LAW OUT W E S T :1 Chris Bendon April 17, 2007 Page 2 If there is anything in addition to this notice that is required in order to pursue an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's action, please contact me. Otherwise, I will contact you to determine the date for the appeal hearing before Che City Council. Sincerely yours, ~i`.-1 Jennifer Hall for Holland & Hart ~~r