HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1275 Ute Ave.A94-95CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 9 /14/95 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPL TE: 2737- 181 -58 -002 A94 -95
� Q I q l STAFF MEMBER: LL
PROJECT NAME: WINNERMAN INSUBSTANTIAL AMEND TO GREENLINE
APPROVAL
Project Address: 1275 UTE AVENUE
Legal Address: LOT 2 UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: WIN WIN ENTERPRISES
Applicant Address: 317 PARK AVENUE
REPRESENTATIVE: TED GUY ASSOC. JACK PALAMINO
Representative Address /Phone: 23280 HWY. 82 927 -3167
BASALT CO 81621
-----------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING $ 475 # APPS RECEIVED 2
ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 2
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $ 475
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: XX_ 1 STEP: _ 2 STEP: _
P &Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
DRC Meeting Date
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
Parks Dept.
School District
City Engineer
Bldg Inspector
Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir.
Fire Marshal
CDOT
Aspen Water
Holy Cross
Clean Air Board
City` Electric
Mtn. Bell
Open Space Board
Envir.Hlth.
ACSD
Other
Zoning
Energy Center
Other
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
DUE:
-----------------------------------------------------
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED:
INITIAL
City Atty _ City Engineer
Housing _ Open Space
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
_Zoning _Env
Other:
Health
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clausen, Community Development Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
RE: Winnerman /Oudt 8040 Greenline Review Amendment
DATE: February 26, 1997
SUMMARY: An insubstantial amendment to the 8040 Greenline was approved on November 6, 1996,
which allowed the applicant to construct a deck within the "conditional" building envelope, which is
within the "blue" avalanche zone and, therefore, requires site specific design for avalanche forces. The
applicant is now requesting to modify the approved deck design to add an additional 31 square feet on
the south (uphill) side and an additional 120 square feet on the north (downhill) side. The approved and
proposed decks are attached, as is a copy of the administrative approval.
APPLICANTS: John & Lisa Oudt
REPRESENTATIVE: Jack Palomino, Ted Guy Associates
LOCATION: Lot 2, Ute Park Subdivision
STAFF COMMENTS: Increasing the proposed deck by 151 square feet complies with the 8040
Greenline Review Exemption criteria in Section 26.68.010.13 of the Land Use Code.
The additional deck area does not add more than 10% to the floor area of the existing structure
and will not increase areas exempt from floor area calculations by more than 25 %.
2. No trees will be removed.
3. The additional 31 square feet of deck space on the uphill side of the deck will create minimal
additional disturbance to the slope. The uphill side of the deck will still be constructed on- grade,
which will allow avalanches to flow over the deck. The applicant is required to design the deck
to withstand avalanche forces as recommended by Nicholas Lampiris. As noted previously,
since the proposed structure consists of deck area and not living space, structural mitigation
seems adequate.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to amend the 8040 Greenline Exemption to allow
an additional 151 square feet of deck area, subject to the conditions of the previous administrative
approval dated November 6, 1996, and the Planning and Zoning Commission dated June 21,
1994. n PpR pv C�VV
I hereby approve an amendment to the 8040 Greenline Exe ption to allow an dditional 31 square feet
of deck area within the "conditional" building envelope on Lot FU ta ivision.
r' lvn
C_
Stan Clauso Community Development Dir
ctor Date
02/24119 02:53 979927421`_; PAGE 92
h ✓'+ V
ES �r
Q
7
4%
QjA)Q Q
w�da
3 �
�3 'nF
-0C ~ N
l /
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clausen, Community Development Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
RE: Winnerman /Oudt 8040 Greenline Review Amendment
DATE: February 13, 1997
SUMMARY: An insubstantial amendment to the 8040 Greenline was approved on November 6, 1996,
which allowed the applicant to construct a deck within the "conditional" building envelope, which is
within the "blue" avalanche zone and, therefore, requires site specific design for avalanche forces. The
applicant is now requesting to modify the approved deck design to add an additional 31 square feet. The
approved and proposed decks are attached, as is a copy of the administrative approval.
APPLICANTS: John & Lisa Oudt
REPRESENTATIVE: Jack Palomino, Ted Guy Associates
LOCATION: Lot 2, Ute Park Subdivision
STAFF COMMENTS: Increasing the proposed deck by 31 square feet complies with the 8040
Greenline Review Exemption criteria in Section 26.68.010.13 of the Land Use Code.
The additional deck area does not add more than 10% to the floor area of the existing structure
and will not increase areas exempt from floor area calculations by more than 25 %.
No trees will be removed.
The additional deck space will be located on the uphill side of the deck and will create minimal
additional disturbance to the slope. The uphill side of the deck will still be constructed on- grade,
which will allow avalanches to flow over the deck. The applicant is required to design the deck
to withstand avalanche forces as recommended by Nicholas Lampiris. As noted previously,
since the proposed structure consists of deck area and not living space, structural mitigation
seems adequate.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to amend the 8040 Greenline Exemption to allow
an additional 31 square feet of deck area, subject to the conditions of the previous administrative
approval dated November 6, 1996, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval dated June 21,
1994. ^P ?B OVep
I hereby approve an amendment to the 8040 Greenline Exemption to allow an a ditiool 1 square feet
of deck area within the "conditional" building envelope on Lot 2, Ute Parl?��Sdviy "sion.
E`UVME 01REG�
GMMUNI� �0 OF ASPEN
St munity Development Director Date
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff
RE: Winnerman/Oudt 8040 Greenline Review Amendment
DATE: November 6, 1996
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval of an insubstantial amendment to the 8040
Greenline approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 21, 1994. The
applicant proposes to construct a deck within the "conditional' building envelope, as delineated
on the Final PUD plan. The application is attached as Exhibit A.
APPLICANT: John & Lisa Oudt
REPRESENTATIVE: Jack Palomino, Ted Guy Associates
LOCATION: Lot 2, Ute Park Subdivision
ZONING: AH1/PUD
BACKGROUND: The Ute Park Subdivision was approved by City Council on February 19,
1993. The subdivision includes three free - market lots and seven deed - restricted townhomes.
8040 greenline approval for Lot 2 was granted by the Planning Commission on June 21, 1994, by
Resolution No. 94 -14. At the time of the subdivision approval, Arthur Mears provided an
avalanche analysis that designated "red ", or high hazard, and "blue ", or moderate hazard,
avalanche zones on the property. Based on his analysis, both an "unconditional' building
envelope and a "conditional' building envelope were established for each lot. The
"unconditional" envelopes are outside of the boundaries of the avalanche zones. The
"conditional" envelopes are within the "blue" avalanche zones, and structures proposed within
these envelopes would require site - specific design for avalanche forces. The residence on Lot 2
was subsequently constructed within the "unconditional' envelope.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to construct a deck within the "conditional'
envelope on the north side of the residence, which requires an amendment to the 8040 greenline
approval.
Section 26.52.060.A. Ld. allows the Community Development Director to review an application
for an exemption of development from the 8040 Greenline Review.
Section 26.68.010.13, 8040 Greenline Review Exemption: The expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction of an existing development shall be exempt from 8040 greenline review if the
following standards are met:
1. The development does not add more than ten (10) percent to the floor area of the existing
structure or increase the total amount ofsquare footage ofareas of the structures which
are exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty -five (25) percent; and
Response: The proposed deck is approximately 255 square feet. Decks are excluded
from the calculation of floor area, unless the area is greater than 15 percent of the
maximum allowable floor area of the building, which is 5,800 square feet. 626 square
feet of deck/patio space has been constructed; with the additional 255 square feet of deck
space, the project will be 11 square feet over the maximum allowable exempt deck area
of 870 square feet. This 11 square feet will increase the floor area by less than 1 %. The
existing areas which are exempt from floor area calculations total 1,073 square feet; the
additional deck space will not increase that total by more than 25 %. A sheet verifying the
existing FAR is attached as Exhibit B.
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be
required pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to
said section; and
Response: No trees larger than 6 inch diameter will be removed.
3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will
not result in increased erosion and sedimentation.
Response: The applicant has provided a report from Nicholas Lampiris, Consulting
Geologist (Exhibit C), which notes that the deck may be subject to periodic avalanches
and addresses design of the deck to withstand avalanche forces. The uphill side of the
deck will be constructed on -grade and the downhill side will be on log piers. Avalanches
will be able to flow over the deck, which will minimize the possibility of materials from
the deck being knocked loose and endangering other structures below Lot 2.
Construction of the deck will require minor grading on the uphill side of the deck, but
will create a minimal disturbance. A drystack retaining wall of approximately 2 feet will
be constructed to retain the uphill cut slope. A wall could be constructed to divert the
flow to the east of the deck, however, this would create more disturbance to the slope.
Since the proposed structure consists of deck area and not living space, structural
mitigation seems adequate.
Alignment of a nordic trail easement across the property has been an outstanding issue. The
Nordic Council apparently cut a trail that did not correspond with the conceptual trail alignment
shown on the Final Plat. This incorrect trail has been revegetated and John Oudt, the current
owner of the property, the City of Aspen Parks Department and the Nordic Council have staked
and agreed on a new location for the nordic trail easement (letters accepting the alignment are
2
attached as Exhibit D). Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992, which approved the subdivision and
rezoning of the property, requires the City of Aspen to survey and amend the plat to show the as-
built trail easement upon completion of the trail.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for exemption from 8040
Greenline Review to construct a deck within the "conditional" building envelope on Lot 2, Ute
Park Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
The deck shall be designed to withstand avalanche forces as recommended by Nicholas
Lampiris in his report dated October 13, 1995 (attached).
The City of Aspen Parks Department shall record an amended plat showing the as -built
alignment of the nordic trail, upon completion of the trail, as required by Ordinance No.
19, Series of 1992.
I hereby approve the exemption from 8040 Greenline Review to construct a deck within the
"conditional' building envelope on Lot 2, Ute Park Subdivision, subject to the conditions noted
above.
__ cr�
��• l4• l
Stan Cla ommunity evelopment Director Date
Exhi its: NpV Q 6 �gg6 Gtoi�
A. Application REV „MoFNuKc
B. FAR calculations C��
C. Report from Nicholas Lampiris, October 13, 1995
D. Letters from John Oudt and the Nordic Council
E. Site Plan
'i
i
WINNERMAN
RESIDENCE
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
TO 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL
AUGUST 28, 1995
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1640
BASALT, COLORADO 81621
13031 927-3167
Table of Contents:
Letter of Submittal 1
Minimum Submission Requirements:
Land Use Application Form 2
Letter of Consent from Owners 3
Legal Description 4
Certificate of Title (Warranty Deed) 5
Vicinity Map 6
Specific Submission Requirements:
Insubstantial Amendment -
Description of Development Application 7
Previous Development Approvals 8
Drawings -
Sheet Description
A1.1 Site /Landscape Plan
A2.5 Proposed New Deck Plan, Foundation Plan and Section
Appendix of Recorded Documents: 9
Ordinance 18 (1992)
Plat of Ute Park Subdivision - Recorded Documents
828 -399, Sht. 1 of 2
828 -399, Sht. 2 of 2
rC
THEODORE K GU \SSOCIATES PC
ARCHITECTS AND STB. CTURAL ENGINEERS
August 28, 1995
Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
130 S. Galena Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Winnerman Residence
Lot 2, Ute Park Subdivision
Aspen, CO
SUBJECT: Insubstantial Amendment
8040 Greenline Approval
Dear Leslie:
Herewith, please find the Insubstantial Amendment submitttal package to the 8040 Greenline
Approval for the Winnerman Residence.
Please notify us of our scheduled hearing date and the required fee for the requested develpoment
application.
Sincerel
ck Palomino, AIA Architect
0 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
931721A1
JP /JP
o RR CTATE HIGHWAY 02 P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 1303) 9273160
A4't7U7FffNP 1 .. .
LAND USE AIyMCATION IC%d4
1) Project Name �r'rna n°/' I e S/ (/ 66
2) Project Ze2
.. .. , n. it
3)
' 5)
6)
. • 11 • •I
y_
Repmesen ative's Nam, Address & Phone #
o
7) Type of Application (please check all $gat apply)
— conditional use — Carxxptual. SPA T _ Conceptual Historic Dev. i
— Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
_ 8040 Grneenli ne — dal. PUD — Minor Hi st aL i c Dev.
— Stream. Margin Final POD (ie(a tern Historic Demolition
— M=*ain View P lane — Subdivision _ Histori Designation
— 0cndcminiL=i2aticn — Text,/Map Amendment GHQS Allotment
— Iat Split,/Iat lane — GK�S I Ezeuptim — Vested Ri4i s
Adjustment
8) Description of Existing Uses (amber and type of existing stnctiaes: approximate
sq. ft-;
Umber of bedrooms; any Previous approvals granted to the property)
9)
10) H the followiur3?
Response to Attachment 2, Minimm SUbMiss Cmtents
RespaLSe to Attadmpnt 3, Specific Submission Oxhtents
Response to Attadmhetnt 4, Review Standards for Yotu' ApPIicatien
2
& block mmber, legal desar-t rf 5 n Ular e
1
,4) Ipt Size
� S'U�cCi ✓rsiar� f�prcva/ �ruarh / %,/9R'3
February 3 1993
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is to inform you that Win Win Enterprises authorizes
Ted Guy Associates at 601 East Sleeker, Aspen Colorado to
represent Win Win Enterprises in the 8040 Site review for Lot 2,
Ute Park Subdivision, Plat Hook 30 at Page 86 in Pitkin County.
Sinc
rry Wil�Lrman
3
STREET ADDRESS:
1275 Ute Avenue
Aspen, Co 81611
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 2, Ute Park Subdivision,
according to the Plat thereof, filed February 22, 1993, in Plat Book 30 at Page 86.
r
Recorded at +f 36bwbb i? 1 i 1 (! `:' + 1 1.::51. Re t i:'_ �. 1 li h k;_ '39 PU 30
f.3ilvia is, 1'itl :trl t:nt•y t:lerl:, D ;bi;.6.'
Reception No. _. r
WARRANTY DEED
�1—.�
C�
kes E-. g'f
O H R
H W
U E
�I
9
aa
LL r W
Q�
i
TIIIS DEED, Made this 12th day of January
19 94, between Ute Park Partnership, LTD., a Colorado
limited partnership
or rile • County of Pitkin - and sLUC of
Colorado, grantor, and Win Win Enterprises, L.L.C.
whose legal address is 317 Park Avenue, Aspen, CO 8161.1
of the County of Pitkin and State of C'olmodo, grantee:
WiTNESSET'11, Thal dte grantor for and in consideration of the sum of SIX HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY AND NO/ 100 ---------- ($606, 250. 00)---------------------------------
DOLLARS, it
the recegn and sid icleacy of which Is hereby acknowledged, loo giamcd. trogaincd. sold and con,ovd. mul b.� these piexm, does grant, bargain. sell.
convey and confirm, unto doe grantee, his heirs and assigns lorescr, all the read proper y t vith improvements. it:ury, situate. lying and being in the
County of Pitkin and Slate of Colorado de,cribed as follows:
Lot 2,
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION,
according to the Plat
30 at Page 86.
thereof, filed February 22, 1993, in Plat Book
Z �
ru
y, OF
its to
- s fit
roer,iuns. remainder and remainders. reins. issues and pndos drereol. and all dte eete0., mg uI C. acre. .
gr: law unor. either in w ur equity. mil in to and th abo h;u
e ve eaincd premises. will the hcredmmnenls and appurtenances.
1 f '1'0 HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described. scith the mppunenal ccs. urea, the grantee, his heirs and assigns
jI forever. And the grantor, forhimxenf, his heirs, and personal representatives, dta:scovenanl. grant in bargain, and agree and with the grantee. his heirs and
assigns, that at the tine of the ensealing end delivery of these presents. he is well seized of dtc premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect. absolute
and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, Indicts good right, fill power and lawfulauthority m grant, bargain, sell and convey the sane
in manner �anJ form es aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear Innu all Conner :urJ mhcl plants. bargains, soles, liens; ma mnt
taxes, as,essez,
encumbrances and restrictions t1I whatever kind or nattlm s1eYCL "cell, those � easements, reservations, restric-
tions and other matters of record; AND EXCEPT general real estate taxes for 1994
and subsequent years.. which, after adjustment and proration as of the day hereof,
Grantee assumes and agrees to pay.
The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above- bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee.
Iris heirs asd assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural.
the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. K :
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor has executed this deed on the date set ill above.
f
4 TrName red Address of Person Crotinl Newly Crcmed 4W percriDlion II IB.75- IDd.S, C.R.SJ
No. 932A Rev. 7 - WARRANTY DEED Wor Photognaphlc R...rdl ATC 903158
m known by street and number as: 1275 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
�i
TOGETHER with all :nut singula the hereditament ;aid appmmnanccs thereto hcFayne. or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and
''I 1: r • I claim and demand whatsmver of the
O
iD
n
�b
r+
r
D
T
IU
r:
ID
ID
11
ii
Bradford PuNkidiat. 1741 Warcc Sr. Mom CO an]IC — 13111 Pal- ?$(RI — 12.91 t i'.'i
r
"'� Vicinity Map;
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
The application is requesting an Insubstantial Amendment to the 8040 Greenline Approval for the
purpose of constructing a fifteen (15) foot by seventeen (17) foot above grade deck in the
avalanche Conditional Zone. The construction of the deck will require some minor grading on the
uphill side of the deck. A drystack retaining wall of approximately two (2) feet will be constructed
to retain the uphill cut slope. Construction of the deck will not involve removal of trees larger than
six inch (6 ") diameter.
7
PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
Subdivision Approval - February 19, 1993
8040 Greenline Approval - June 21, 1994
Variance Approval, Case #94 -11 - September 1, 1994
N]
APPENDIX OF RECORDED DOCUMENTS
Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 1992)
Plat Of Ute Park Subdivision, 828 -399, Shts. 1 & 2 of 2
I
ORDINANCE N0.18
1 (SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM
(RR) RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUBDIVISION,
FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR FREE MARKET HOUSING IN
AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED
HOUSING, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, VESTED RIGHTS, AND WAIVER OF THE
WATER14AIN EXTENSION MORATORIUM FOR THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, A FOUR METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL
THE NW /4 1 /4 OF SECTION TOWNSHIP 0 SOUTH, RANGE
OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, in September 1989, the (AH) Affordable Housing zone
district was created to promote private sector development of deed
restricted affordable housing. by allowing limited free market
residential development within a project; and
WHEREAS, in 'April 1990 the Ute Park Partnership (Applicant)
submitted an application for rezoning of a 3.8 acre parcel on the
east end of Ute Avenue from (RR) Rural Residential to (AH)
i
Affordable Housing in conjunction with an application for
Conceptual PUD review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of a Conceptual PUD Plan with conditions on July 3, 1990;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the conceptual PUD Plan and
the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, discussed
rezoning of the parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing as a threshold
issue, and approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on August
13, 1990; and
WHEREAS, in December 1991, the Applicant submitted an
application for Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, Growth
y •� Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and
1
N
for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special
Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, 8040 Greenline
Review, waiver of Park Development Impact Fees, and Waiver of the
Waterline Extension Moratorium for the development of seven deed
restricted affordable townhome units and three free market lots for
single family residences; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also requested an extension to the one -
year filing deadline for submission of a Final PUD Plan; and
WHEREAS,.on January 13, 1992, upon staffs recommendation, the
City Council granted a 160 day filing extension effective
retroactively from August 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having reviewed the
development proposal for the Ute Park Subdivision and the
J recommendations from the Planning and zoning Commission and
Planning staff, approved Rezoning from (RR) Rural Residential to
(AH) Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, Growth
Management Exemption for free market residential development and
affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested rights, and waiver
of the waterline extension moratorium. ,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1•
That it hereby grants the following approvals for the Ute Park
Subdivision pursuant to the applicable sections in the Aspen
Municipal Code: Rezoning from RR (Rural Residential) to AH
(Affordable Housing) (Chapter 24, Section 7, Division 11);
2 ,,
Subdivision (Chapter 24, Section 7- 1004) ; Final PUD Plan (Chapter
24, Section 7, Division 903) ; Growth Management Exemption for Free
Market Development in an AH Zone District, and Affordable Housing
(Chapter 24, Section 8- 104.C.) ; and Subdivision Exemption for
Condominiumization (Chapter 24, Section 7- 1007).
Section 2: The following conditions shall apply to the approvals:
1. The Applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement
financial assurances for the construction of the affordable
housing component of the project. This shall consist of
placement of First Deeds. of Trust of $10.00 value on Lots 1,2
and 3 in the name of the City of Aspen. Upon the sale of the
first free market lot, the deed to Lot 4 will be placed in
escrow for the City of Aspen. In addition, a letter of credit
payable to the City of Aspen shall be provided by the
Applicant which covers. the construction costs of the
townhomes. Upon delivery of the letter of credit and
placement of the Lot 4 deed in escrow, the City shall release
the remaining First Deeds of Trust. If construction of the
townhomes by the Applicant has not begun within two years of
recordation of the Final Plat, the City shall take possession
-- -- of �f �;�.he arcFi ural p7-ans ofd ie �wnTiomes sfia�z - 6e
turned over to the City, and the City shall redeem the letter
of credit in order to construct the townhomes within one year.
2. The applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement
specific provisions for the mitigation of avalanche dangers
3
for the seven deed restricted townhome units. Protection of
the townhouses (by retaining wall or residential structure)
must extend the entire length of the "conditional zone" on Lot
1 unless the unprotected townhouses are designed to standards
established by Art Mears or similar avalanche expert.
Avalanches shall not be deflected onto neighboring properties.
3. The home on Lot 1 shall be constructed prior to or
simultaneously with construction of the seven townhouses. If
built simultan - eously, the structural framing of the Lot 1
house and any necessary retaining walls must be complete and
approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy for the townhouses.
4. In the event that the Final Plat and Subdivision agreement
have not been filed prior to issuance of any Building Permits
for the Ute Park lots, the financial assurance and avalanche
protection documents must be approved by the City Attorney and
recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to
issuance of any building permits on Ute Park parcels.
5. The applicant will continue to coordinate roadway design,
drainage, snow storage, etc. with City staff. Any improvement
work must be done in accordance with City specifications.
Alternative on -site parking locations for the townhomes shall
be noted on the PUD Plan and Final Plat.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
townhomes, the applicant shall satisfy the City Engineer
regarding storm drainage calculations. storm drainage
calculations must be provided for the free market homes at the
time of individual building permit application.
7. The applicant shall indicate the entire avalanche zones on the
Final PUD Plan.
8. Avalanche warning signs shall be indicated on the plat along
the property boundaries along Ute Ave. and along the nordic
trail.
9. Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized and
revegetated or removed to a site acceptable to the City.
lo. Prior to constructions, a fugitive dust control plan must be
obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and this
office.
11. If the water line in the proposed utility corridor is
dedicated to the City of Aspen a water main easement must be
executed between the Applicant and the City prior to issuance
of any excavation.or building permits.
12. The Final Plat and PUD Plan shall indicate that the homes on
Lots 1 and 2 must be sprinklered for fire protection. The
Applicant shall satisfy the Fire Marshal regarding emergency
access prior to filing the Final Plat.
— IT —TFie Su�Tivi`sion Fihal�Tat�h - aTl iisdi� ate ttr�conaeptu�traZ - - --
alignment. The County open Space and Trails Program (COSTP)
may act as assignee of the City of Aspen for the construction
and maintenance of the trail. Upon completion of this trail,
the COSTP will be responsible for surveying and filing the as-
built trail easement. Plat note 07 shall be amended to:
S
M
remove the one year deadline for trail construction; state r�
that conceptual trail alignment and subsequent trail easement
will run with the land and bind future heirs and assigns of
the developer; the trail alignment may be amended by mutual
consent of both parties (lot owners and City /COSTP). The
year -round trail easement shall be 15' wide with side slopes
not to exceed 6 %. The Nordic Council and the applicant shall
work together and verify the trail alignment as shown on the
Plat and PUD Plan complies with the most workable alignment
for skiing and trail connections. signage shall indicate
avalanche and rockfall hazards to trail users. These signs
shall be installed prior to commencement of any site work.
14. The seven townhomes shall be deed restricted as four Category
4 units and three Category 3 units in accordance with Housing
Authority Guidelines. The restrictions shall be approved by
the Housing Authority and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder prior to issuance of City approval of the Final
Plat.
15. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
16. The Subdivision Plat and Subdivision / PUD Agreement be
recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the
• y
6
Plat and Agreement within a period of one hundred and eighty
(180) days following approval by the City Council shall render
the Plat and PUD Plan approval invalid and reconsideration and
approval of both by the Commission and City Council will be
required before their acceptance and recording, unless an
extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing
of good cause.
Section 3: An exemption from the moratorium on expansions to the
City's municipal water system as imposed by Resolutions 12 and 45
(Series 1991) be and is hereby granted so as to allow the extension
of the municipal water delivery system for three single family
residences in the Ute Park Subdivision.
Section 4: Pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code, the
City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the
Ute Park Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this ordinance shall remain, vested for three (3)
years from the date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
E
-- - vested pfopeYty ri�jF�ts —E'ai ure - to 1imeTy and properly reco - rte - --
all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the
Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
7
3. Nothing in the' approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including,
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and
all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
I
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 5
The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen shall be
and is hereby amended to reflect that rezoning" as set forth in
Section 1 above and such amendment shall be promptly entered on the
Official Map in accordance with Section 24 -5 -103 B. of the
MllnlClpa1 Code.
Section 6•
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and
shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
8
N
�I
i
II
under such prior ordinances.
Section 7•
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 8: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City
of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 9•
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this
._ ordlnance .,to_r.ecorrLa_c.op_y__Of this — ordinance in the office of t he
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 10•
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 13 day
of 1992 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
_,)
/ 9
` public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of
I
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 �� day of
19 9 2 .
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn 9. Koch, City Clerk
y� FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ado day of
1992. '
John gennett, Mayor
Att st:
Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk
�I
10
THEODORE K OUV(:�BBOC1ATEB PC
ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
February 13, 1996
Suzanne Wolff
Aspen /Pitkin Community
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Development Department
Re: Winnerman (Oudt) Residence
Aspen, Colorado
Subject: Winnerman 8040 Green Line Review Amendment
Deck Addition
Dear Suzanne:
FEB 1 G y�4
I am forwarding a copy of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations for the above mentioned
residence to facilitate your analysis of the requested Amendment review.
Since the initial submittal, Larry Winnerman has sold the residence. The new owners are John and
Lisa Oucit. I will continue to refer to the Amendment review as the Winnerman Residence unless you
think we should change the Owner's name to avoid confusion. I have been in contact with the Oudt's
and they want to proceed with the Amendment review as submitted by the Winnermans.
With respect to an 8040 Greenline Review, I believe we are exempt from such a review because
we are proposing to add a deck of only two hundred fifty five (255) square feet. The property
development allows a maximum of eight hundred seventy (870) square feet of exempt deck area,
of which, six hundred twenty six (626) square feet of deck/patio space has been permitted and
constructed. With the proposed addition of two hundred fifty five (255) square feet of deck we
will be eleven (11) square feet over the maximum allowable exempt deck area. The eleven (11)
square feet will increase the building FAR, but only by %,which is less than the 10% maximum
floor area increase exempted from the Greenline review, tndards. The total proposed building
FAR of 4,096 square feet will still be below the maxil9arn allowable FAR of 5,800 square feet for
the lot. All of the existing FAR information can be verd on the enclosed sheet "FAR ", dated
8/25/94. III <t tt
The Nordic Council and the Winnermans have reached an agreement as to a revised alignment for
thr trail easement across the property. The present incorrect alignment of the trail has been
revegetated and the revised alignment has been staked further uphill from the Building Envelope
area for development at a future date.
I hope this summary clarifies our request for an exemption from further 8040 Greenline Review
Standards. Please call me if you have any questions or comments.
Si*ely ours,
Ja n00 AIA
Enclosure
cc: John and Lisa Oudt
JP /jp
9317207
23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 [970) 927 -3167
F 93n-z.
�sucTi4NT
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
P.O. BOX 2`� A
SILT. COLORADO 81652
(303) 876 -5400 (24 HOURS)
October 13, 1993
Jack Palomino
Ted Guy & Associates
23280 Highway 82
Basalt CO 81621
OCf 17 isyS
THFODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES, P,M
REs Avalanche Appraisal, Winnerman Deck Addition
Dear Jacks
I have visited the site of the proposed deck addition to the
Winnerman home, and have reviewed the report of Art Mears on the
avalanche hazard at the site. The deck, as proposed, will be on
the Aspen side of the home well away from the more dangerous
chute further along the slope.
There is, however, the potential for small slides into the rear
of the home, as detailed in the Mears report. These forces can
be mitigated with proper design strengths. The deck is to be
just below grade on the uphill side and therefore will be subject
from tine to time to avalanches and snow slides. Two factors
enter into the design of the decks one is that, depending on the
type of railing around the deck, some snow will fall off the deck
even if the rails are not over - topped; second, the forces will
not act on the deck in a vertical sense as they would on a ten
foot wall (total forces will be less).
However, the deck must be designed to hold a significant load on
its horizontal surfaces; this is different than the situation at
a rear wall. The preceding applies to a deck without any
mitigation such as a protective wall which could be designed to
deflect snow to the east around the deck. Also, it is
theoretically possible to restrict usage of the deck to times
that avalanches are not likely or possible. This may not be
practical.
One last consideration is that if a deck is damaged, it is not
likely to be very expensive to repair it. The important
objective would be to minimize the potential for human injury on
the deck but this potential is there, to a lesser extent perhaps,
even if there is no deck.
The parameters detailed in the Mears report should be utilized to
most effectively design and build the deck. If there are further
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, r�
t.
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
JOHN F. 0UE) T
7200 WESTERN Avffm UE
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76,107 1�
817- 737- 4815 FAX 617. 737. 7700 -
October 18, 1996
Ms Suzanne Wolff
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Winnerman ( Oudt ) Residence, 1275 Ute Ave., Aspen, CO.
Subject: Winnerman 8040 Green Line Review Amendment, Deck Addition
Dear Suzanne,
Prior to my purchase of the above captioned property on October 23, 1995, the
Winnermans and the Nordic Council reached an agreement to revise the trail alignment
easement across the property. The then existing incorrect location of the trail has now
been vacated and revegetated. A revised alignment has been staked further uphill from
the Building Envelope area for development at a future date by the Nordic Council.
As the present owner of the property, I hereby accept the revised alignment for the trail
easement as currently staked by the Nordic Council and the Winnermans just prior to my
purchase of the property
cc: Jack Palomino
Theodore K. Guy Associates
08/08/1996 13:24 9709274,813 THEODORE K GUY ±c�SOO PAGE 02
�uuziu[r3
AM 22 1 95 fH: mp ASK � ".... ESTWE 00- P.1
iL
4
MMMOFSNML Obi
R" M^ No hmw"
i
T.Awl ..
vmr&Ai .
Mo ~
140 mdm
oft90 r
tti+.w
mftvod .
cfriwr
L�W
M=
mmwvAk
MIowe+aw
Ic bob"
A chins
^WAN MMOM
rr9.nr
fox"
A"" 22, 1995 0111W'C' BY FACSULlW 72AMball=
W Jd m Lalo % Al mmw it Law
1183 PWdm 1tm& Ddit
Ava. co llbll
RE: 1T1$ PARK SET 12AIL
I)lw jdm,
?be Raft allgnia mf d/pd wi* o m p mmrwy up an FfAsy, Anewt 111. 1993
by =yW . Jim lot&, Gem p Xd mw (City of Am", and RL* Amd U m
aopWmbdm oUpwi at ft thm 19m CmmttdL
a..
Cmis C. W"
Pawident
CC" tv 8 Robtm
John Wttaxtm
71m'L mldtt
PAM lined
AM blanw
P.O. SM 2� A M. COLORADO GUM
`'A
I
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE
APPROVAL OF 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE WINNERMAN RESIDENCE
LOCATED ON LOT 2 OF THE UTE PARR SUBDIVISION AT THE EAST END OF
UTE AVENUE
Resolution 94 -�
WHEREAS, Section 24 -7 -503 of the Aspen Municipal Code requires
Planning and Zoning Commission approval of all development within
100 feet of the 8,040 foot elevation line; and
WHEREAS, Larry Winnerman submitted an application to the Planning
office for 8040 Greenline review of his proposed residence; and
WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Engineering
Department and the Parks Department; and
WHEREAS, the site contains red and blue avalanche hazard areas as
identified by consultant Art Mears, and the platted building
envelope established a conditional building area and an
unconditional building area based on the avalanche concerns; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the
referral comments, the Planning
conditions; and
proposal, a site inspection, and
office recommended approval with
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on June 21, 1994 the Planning
and Zoning Commission reviewed the project pursuant to the criteria
of Section 24 -7 -503, and voted 5 -2 to approve the Winnerman 8040
Greenline review with thirteen conditions amended from staff's
recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Commission also approved by 7 -0 votes two additional
motions:
1) to direct staff to notify the Nordic Council that the trail
cut on Lot 2 (Ute Park Subdivision) is a violation of the 8040
Greenline regulations, and the Council must submit an
application for 8040 Review within 30 days of notice; and
2) to direct staff to have on -going inspections of the
Winnerman project by appropriate City departments.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION that it grants approval for the Winnerman 8040 Greenline
Review for a residence of 4,852 s.f. (plus 540 s.f. garage and 774
s.f. deck) as represented by the application subject to the
following conditions:
1) Run -off from the site during construction must be prevented
by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be
1
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permits.
2) The lowest level of the structure on the north (west) side
shall not be excavated or exposed except for minimal egress
windows which may be required for bedrooms per the Building
Code.
3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the downhill
side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of
the building envelope.
4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a
sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building
envelope lines on the east, south and west to protect the
existing grades and vegetation.
5) only native vegetation species as typically found on this site
shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the
east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or
disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted
immediately.
6) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must
be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits.
7) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and
approved prior to the issuance of any building permits.
8) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal
permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree
6 11 diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated.
Application for tree removal permits must occur no less than
two weeks prior to submittal for the building/ excavation
permits.
9) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building
compatible with the hillside.
10) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040
review. The open area to the west of the residence shall
remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests
as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and
Pitkin County Land Management Department.
11) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding
fire access and building sprinklers (required for Lot 2 as a
condition of subdivision approval).
12) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry
driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the
wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to
2
the issuance of any building permit shall show this
treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon
of the wall when revegetation takes place.
landscape
completion
13) All representations made by the applicant within the
application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
be considered conditions of approval for this project.
Y, � �/' A�' /,/ '/
W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman
( 14) (�-PIA,
Jan CaLey, Deputy ity Clerk
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Suzanne Wolff
From: Jane Hamilton
Postmark: Jan 18,96 9:33 AM
Subject: Reply to: Ute Park Subdivision
---------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Reply text:
From Jane Hamilton:
WE HAVE NO INVOLVEMENT! Open Space is prohibited from participating
in any deals where we don't "acquire" the property; since a land use
exaction is not an acquisition, we never get involved in land use
matters. Unfortunately, Mark Fuller ignored this prohibition and
caused problems like this one. I'm happy to talk to you about it,
Friday p.m. would be best, but essentially all reference to open
space should be deleted and we should have no involvement in this
matter at all. Anytime Friday after 2:30 is good for me. Thanks.
Preceding message:
From Suzanne Wolff:
I am processing an amendment for the Winnerman residence, and Stan
has requested that we amend the subdivision plat at the same time to
establish the permanent centerline of the trail easement. Would you
have any time tomorrow or Friday to fill me in on Open Space's
involvement with this - I understand from Leslie that it's a bit
"funky ".
ARTHUR 1. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Hazards Consultants
222 Eau Gothic Ave.
Gumui . Colorado 81230
303 - 641-3236
November 1, 1991
Mr. Jim Martin
Aspen Properties
215 South Monarch
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Jim:
I have reviewed the final site development plan for the Ute Park
Subdivision. This plan is undated but I refer to the version
sent to me on October 28. The following comments refer to that
plan and to issues discussed during my site visit of October 23.
a. Building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3 are located
outside the "Red," or high hazard avalanche zones.
b. Portions of the building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3
are within the "Blue," or moderate - hazard avalanche
zone, however building within the blue zone will
require a conditional use permit, as indicated on the
plan. Structures in the blue zone will require site -
specific design for avalanche forces.
c. The building envelop on Lot 1 is located within
both "Red" and "Blue" avalanche zones and is partially
outside of avalanche zones. This building must be
specially designed to stop avalanches at the uphill
end, thus modifying the Red zone and preventing
avalanches from reaching Lot 4. Such design is
technically feasible, but design specifications have
not been developed.
d. The access road to the development passes through
the "Ute Trail" avalanche path. Portions of the access
road will probably be reached by avalanches every 5 to
10 years, approximately. Hazard to road users will be
small because traffic is light.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
Avalanche - control engineer
cc: Tom Stevens
M= Watling • Aoalanches • Awlanche ConimlEmineering
unit. One space will be garage while the other will be exterior surface parking. All parking
has been relocated so that no spaces access directly onto Ute Avenue in response to City
of Aspen Planning staff directive at Conceptual Submission.
The three free market lots have been assigned building envelopes. These envelopes have
been designed to be substantially more restrictive than the lot setbacks as defined by the
zone district. The primary criteria for the establishment of these envelopes was geologic
hazards, slope and access. Secondary criteria included views, orientation, privacy and
vegetation. The envelopes have been divided into two area designations which respond to
the mapped snow slide zones. The "unconditional" zones are not affected by the slide zones
as they are outside of their boundaries and therefore considered safe with no mitigation
required. The Site Development Plan graphically delineates these zones. The "conditional"
zones are within the mapped slide areas which have been designated on the Existing
Conditions Map. These slide areas have identified as blue and red zones. The red zone
are frequent but not intense slides while the blue zones are "powder blast" zones. As is
represented on Lots 2 and 3, the majority of the lot is contained in "unconditional" zone.
A small portion of "conditional" zone, which is only located in the blue zone, has been
added to the envelope to give buyers added flexibility. In the event a buyer decides to build
in this "conditional" zone, adequate construction mitigation will need to be included in the
design of the house. In the case of Lot 1, the line of "unconditional" and "conditional"
divides the lot equally. This has been done intentionally. As a result of an on -site review
with snow slide consultant Art Mears, this envelope has been designed to protect the units
below by creating a slide "shadow" eliminating the units below from danger. This house will
require the structural modifications specified by Mears (which will need to be provided by
each applicant for a building permit).
As contrasted by the approved conceptual submission plan, all building locations can now
be located out of the designated slide paths with the exception of Lot 1 which will require
structural mitigation.
7
16:36 Rec $2 B' \ '04 PG 222
Silvis DZ .s, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Qoc :..Op
TABLE 1
SCHEDULE OF SECURITY PAYMENTS
IMPROVEMENT FEE TIMEFRAME
Sanitary Sewer and Water System $45,000.00 Prior to issuance of any building permits.
Private Utilities $15,000.00 Prior to issuance of any building permits.
Common Access Driveway $20,000.00 Prior to issuance of first building permit for free market lots.
Grading and Drainage $15,000.00 Prior to issuance of any building permits.
Landscaping $12,762.50 Prior to issuance of any building pemmts.
TOTAL $ 107,762.50
12. Dust Control Plan. Prior to construction, and as a condition of building permit
issuance, a fugitive dust control plan must be obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and
the Planning Office.
13. Trail Easement Dedication. The Owner will dedicate a year -round public trail
easement to be fifteen (15) feet wide. The Nordic Council and the Owner shall work together and verify
the trial alignment as shown on the Plat and PUD Plan to comply with the most workable alignment for
skiing and trail connections. Signage at property boundaries shall indicate potential avalanche and
rockfall hazard to trial users. These signs shall be installed prior to commencement of any site work.
The Subdivision Final Plat shall indicate the conceptual trail alignment. The County Open Space and
Trails Program (COSTP) may act as assignee of the City of Aspen for the construction and maintenance
of the trail. Upon completion of this trail, the COST? will be responsible for surveying and filing the
as-built trail easement. The conceptual trail alignment and subsequent trail easement shall run with the
land and be binding on the Owner, its successors and assigns. The trial alignment may be amended by
mutual consent of both the City, its successors and assigns and the Owner, his successors and assigns.
14. Park Development Impact Fee. Pursuant to Section 5-601, et.seo. of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the City is entitled to a park development impact fee for construction of the new
residential townhome units. In the event the City establishes this fee is warranted, the Owner agrees to
pay a park development impact fee indexed prior to issuance of any building permits for the free market
lots.
15. Affordable Housing Impact Fee. Pursuant to Section 7-1007 (a)(c)(2), of theAspen
Municipal Code, the affordable housing impact fee applies to condominiumization of new residential
units. The townhome units on this Project are to be condominiumized. However, the Owner has
demonstrated the net effect of the Project is to increase the square footage number of bedrooms available
as affordable housing in the community and, therefore, the condominiumization of this Project will have
no negative impact on the availability of affordable housing in the community and the City has exempted
the Project from the affordable housing impact fee.
16. Exemption from Ordinance I. Series of 1990. Pursuant to Ordinance 1, Series of 1990,
it is the determination of the City Planning Director that the proposed AH development will have already
Pao r SrA-
1
ri
r
MEMORAT
To: Planning and Zoning Comm
FROM: Kim Johns Planner
DATE: June 21, 1994
Re W i n n e r m a n 8 0 4 0
Post -V b� . fax transmittal memo 7 KO P.A9 ,
G r e e n 1 1 n e R e v i e w
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Winnerman
8040 Greenline review with conditions. This review is being held
in conjunction with the Nathanson 8040 review as both parcels are
neighboring lots which share - private access driveway.
Applicants Lamy winnerm-
Location / Zoning: This
Ute Park Subdivision on *_
across from the Aspen Club.
Request: The applicant wishes
family residence of approximate
ented by Jack Palomino
arcel (Lot 2) is located in the
.aide of the east end of Ute Ave.
zoning is AH Affordable Housing.
construct a four - bedroom single
5,621 s.f. _ 5ei,2
Pronaes: The Planning Commission makes final determinations on
8040 Greenline reviews.
Background: This parcel is one of three free market lots created
in the Ute Park AH Subdivision approved in 1992. Each of the free
market lots must receive individual 8040 Greenline approval. The
Winnerman review has been submitted in conjunction with one of the
other free market lots in the subdivision, the Nathanson 8040
review. The deed restricted townhomes in the development have been
completed and are occupied at this time.
The Ute Park Subdivision is impacted by two avalanche chutes. The
original subdivision review noted red zones (greater hazard) and
blue zones (lesser hazard) on the created parcels. The Winnerman
parcel includes a platted building envelope which identifies a
portion of the envelope in the blue zone. Within the application,
avalanche consultant Art Mears submitted comments on appropriate
building and site design to mitigate avalanche hazards. A revised
site plan was submitted on May 27 showing the structure to be
located outside of the blue zone area.
Referral Comments: Referral comments were requested from Parke,
Engineering and Water Departments. Referral memos are attached as
Exhibit "A ". The summaries of comments received are as follows:
Engineering: Chuck Roth forwarded the following comments:
1) Run -off from the site during construction must be prevented by
1
HUG 24 ' 94 !_ITV OF H °_•PEN P.2/15
II. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil
erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
Response: The development must comply with drainage requirements
which call for an engineered drainage plan stamped by an engineer
and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building
permits. Hay bales, detention areas or similar methods must be
used downslope of any soil disturbance to stop loose or waterborne
soils. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and
mulched immediately.
III. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the air quality in the City.
Response: This development will not affect air quality in
significant levels. No wood burning fireplaces are allowed.
IV. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or
trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which
the proposed development is to be located.
Response: As mentioned in the Engineering referral, the regrading
above the entry road seems excessive. Planning staff has met with
Hans Brucker, the subdivision's design engineer, to explore methods
of reducing the significant backslope cut for the private driveway.
Hans understands staff's concerns about visual impacts and
revegetation concerns. He will work on minimizing the slope cuts.
This may entail raising the retaining wall somewhat. The original
representation in the subdivision review stated that the retaining
wall would be 4' -6' tall. Staff continues to recommend that
landscaping be planted in front of the wall to reduce the visual
impact of the wall. This should be done upon completion of the
wall when revegetation takes place.
Last summer, a trail was cut through this parcel by the Nordic
council which created much damage to the hillside and vegetation
and strayed away from the alignment as platted. Although not the
responsibility of this applicant, staff recommends that the
Commission direct staff to notify the Nordic council that the trail
out is a violation of the 8040 regulations. The Nordic Council
should be required to submit an application for 8040 review for the
trail, and correction of the errors should be made as soon as
possible.
V. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
Response: A grading plan was not submitted in time to fully
address this criteria. Several mature evergreens and even more
HLlic c4 '94 11:57k C11 - uF HJF4J1
Fl. 3i 15
middle aged aspens are being lost because of their central location
on the site. Staff questions why the 21 inch fir at the southeast
corner is shown to be removed - it is approximately 10 feet uphill
from the structure. Due to the loss of other sizable trees on
site, this tree should remain as a condition of approval.
The patio on the southwest corner of the house requires the removal
of four 4" aspen trees. This patio also faces uphill in an area
subject to avalanche flow through the trees (see Art Mears' letter
dated January 11, 1994) . Because of these reasons and the
excavation concerns expressed below, staff recommends that this
patio be deleted from the plans, and protective barricades be
erected to help save two of the trees.
VI. 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.
Response Staff has already discussed the private driveway design
concerns. The residence as proposed makes excessive cuts into the
hillside to accommodate the exposed northwestern wall and the semi-
circular patio at the rear of the house. Without a landscaping
plan which includes the boulder retaining wall for the private
entry road, it is difficult to know how much of the structure will
be screened from below. However, staff recognizes that due to the
location of the building envelope /structure on the Nathanson
parcel, specific landscaping of the front of the Winnerman house
is not as critical as the other three sides. Prior to issuance of
any building permit, Planning and Parks staff must review a
landscaping plan which adds screening vegetation along the front
and sides of the structure as well as the retaining wall for the
private entry driveway.
VII. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure
will be designed to blend into the open character of the
mountain.
Response: The maximum FAR for Lot 2 is 5,770 s.f. The proposed
FAR is 5,621 s.f. The home stretches completely across the
"unconditional" portion of the building envelope, approximately 70
feet. The slope adjacent to the entry road requires a lot of
excavation for access to the garage. This "exposes" much more of
the building facade, although the heights (from the front view)
appear not to exceed the 25' limit of the AH zone district. Staff
is concerned however, that the north (west) elevation shows a
massive amount of exposed facade and building height. Without a
grading plan and height measurements, it cannot be determined that
this facade is in compliance with height limits. It is recommended
that the north elevation is not excavated to the extent shown (the
Whole lower level is exposed). Window wells can permit light and
egress without as much visual impact. Exposed walls count toward
FAR. Zoning staff will make final calculations of FAR.
4
HUB �-J "7 11 : _,CHH Li I I t Her -ti 1
As with the Nathanson residence, staff recommends a condition of
approval requiring medium or darker earthtones for any exterior
materials or paint.
VIII. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
Response: "Will serve" letters had been provided by the water and
sanitation utilities during subdivision review.
IX. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
Response: The Ute Park Subdivision participated in the Ute Avenue
Improvement District for road upgrades.
X. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
Response: The private entry road must be constructed in accordance
with the City's driveway requirements. At the time of subdivision
review, the Fire Marshal requested that the driveway be snowmelted,
but this did not become a condition of approval for the
subdivision. The structure on this lot must be sprinklered per the
Ute Park Subdivision approval. The Fire Marshal must review the
building permit prior to its issuance.
XI. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
Response: An easement to accommodate a hiking and nordic trail
was obtained through subdivision approval in 1992.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
8040 Greenline review with the following conditions:
1) Run -off from the site during construction must be prevented
by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any
i grading or building permits.
2) The lowest level of the structure on the north (west) side
shall not be excavated or exposed except for minimal egress
windows which may be required for bedrooms per the Building
Code.
3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the downhill
5
AUG G4 '94 11.5tiH19 C I T" OF HSFEI i
F. 5i 15
side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of
the building envelope.
4) Prior to any grading or storage
sturdy, visible barricade shall be
envelope lines on the east, south
existing grades and vegetation.
11 5) The patio on the so th est
the plans.
activity on the site, a
erected along the building
and west to protect the
be eliminated f
6) only native vegetation species as typically found on this site
shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the
east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or
disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted
immediately.
7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must
be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits.
8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and
approved prior to the issuance of any building permits.
9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal
permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree
V diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated.
Application for tree removal permits must occur no less than
two weeks prior to submittal for the building/ excavation
permits. )
r t� Tr
10) Colors shall lie% to {snf�PcifGcQ� earth tones to make the
building-1 the hillside.
11) There shall a no future grading on the site without 8040
review. The open area to the west of the residence shall
remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests
as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and
Pitkin county Land Management Department.
12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding
fire access and building sprinklers (required for Lot 2 as a
condition of subdivision approval).
13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry
driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the
wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to
the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape
treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion
of the wall when revegetation takes place.
The 21 inch fir tree at the
" remain. A barricade shall
C '�f* Y""
southeast corner of the house must
be placed no less than seven feet
6 `
��Q11ti L 6R. uia
., V 7✓1ti�a C ''j ht
V
HUb c4 '94 11:'9HH f- IT . VF it PL P.E /15
from the trunk along the side facing the construction. Two
aspens at the southwest corner (where the patio was originally
shown) shall also be protected by barricades no less than 5
feet from their trunks, as shown by the Planning Office's
proposal.
15) All representations made by the applicant within the
application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
be considered conditions of approval for this project.
----------------------------
Recommended Motions: "I move to approve the Winnerman 8040
Greenline Review with the 15 conditions listed in the
June 21, 1994 Planning Office memo."
"I also move to direct staff to notify the Nordic Council that the
trail cut on Lot 2 is a violation of the 8040 regulations. The
Nordic Council must submit an application for 8040 review for the
trail within 30 days of notice."
Attachments: � G�
" A " Application Information
"8" Complete Referral Agency Memos
7
":14 1C;LLiFhI
PLAM ,.4 i APNING COMKISSION
EXHIBIT r APPROVED r
19 BY RESOLUTION
MU a i7:"ZI- 0lii�i
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: June 14, 1994
RE: Nathanson/Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review
We have reviewed both applications submitted for the Nathanson and Winnerman 8040 Orecnline
reviews. The major impacts of both of these projects involve tree removals and landscaping.
,...,...... .
Tihex'sting landscape of Lot 1, the Nathanson property, is,primarlly aspen grove. A vegetative
protection should be maintained between the bullding" envelope and the 10 foot right of way
parallel to Ute AVenue.. No vegetation should be removed from this area and the contractor should
be encouraged to put up siibw.fgl Jng or similar type fencing to protect this area. Additionally,
several significant aspens are shoWh'on the,porth west comer of the property which are proposed
to be relocated for. the deck construction. We Would recpmmend reducing the deck on that side in
order to save those trees. A tree permit must be submitted* — o we4 s prior to an excavation permit
to insure an acceptable mitigation plan for other tree relocations and/ or removals.
The Winnerman lot, lot 2, is primarily sub alpine forest with many significant fir, aspen, and other
pines proposed to be removed. The proposed plan shows 87 + caliper inches of coniferous trees
to be removed and 18 + caliper inches of deciduous tree to be removed. These trees are a
significant loss to the area and mitigation will be required on a comparable worth basis either on
site or dedicated monetarily to the City of Aspens tree management program. Additionally, a 21
inch fir tree close to the 8070 elevation line is shown to be removed of which I can see no necessity
for its removal. This tree should be saved and protected during construction, including setting up
any protective fencing around the tree so no digging occurs within five feet of the dripline of the
tree. Protective fencing should also be provided for other significant trees close to the construction
areas and no stock piling of dirt or other debris should occur around any trees. A tree permit
should be applied for at least two weeks prior to granting an excavation permit.
�w(r
HLh, ---4 '94 12:LJUP111 X11 r uF H'DrLJl
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
Thru: Cris Caruso, City Engineer
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department tl?r -P
Date: April 1, 1994
Re: Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review
P.8 /15
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The existing PUD approvals that pertain to this property are contained in the
agreement on file at Book 704, beginning at Page 216, at the Pitkin County Clerk &
Recorders Office. The approvals for the subdivision in which this site is located apply
to this application.
2. Storm Runoff During Construction - The application makes reference to providing for
protection of the site during construction from damage due to erosion. A requirement
that was lacking during the PUD review that should be included at this time is that
protection must be provided during construction so that no runoff from soils exposed by
excavation be permitted to leave the site. This is typically accomplished as suggested in
the application letter by detention ponds and hay bales.
3. Vegetation & Scenig Resource - The application is incomplete in responding to review
standards 5 and 6. The applicant should be required to install construction fencing to
define the limits of construction activity and to protect the existing vegetation, natural land
features, and scenic resource. The applicant is encouraged to preserve as much of the
native vegetation as possible, but in any event, the fencing should protect at a minimum,
the area outside of the approved building envelope. As with the Herron Park Place
condition of approvals, it is suggested that it be stated that "the Zoning Enforcement
Officer shall periodically inspect the site to determine compliance with" construction
fencing, vegetation preservation, and erosion control measures.
Item number 5 of the supplemental materials is unclear. Regrading of the site
outside of the approved building envelope is not permitted. Stairways and retaining walls
are indicated outside of the approved building envelope. Since this is an area between
�:t
HUG 24 '54 12 :01PI4 CJ' OF HJF'LH P. 9.1115
the driveway and the approved building envelope, it is probably not unreasonable to
permit the variance.
4. Extent of Cut Slone a - The information contained in the application is unclear. The
drawings show the structure set into the hillside as though there were no cut slopes used
to accomplish the construction. Current technology does provide techniques capable of
such construction, but the application does not discuss the details. The construction
process is called "tied back walls," and the walls can be constructed from the top down so
that no laid back cut slope is necessary for constructing foundation walls.
The limit of grading shown on sheet AS for the driveway appears to be much
greater than necessary. The grading should not need to exceed the space needed for the
proposed rock retaining wall. The building permit drawings should include one or more
sections through the proposed driveway.
S. Reta Wna Wall - The plans show a retaining wall alongside the driveway. The plans
are inconsistent with the wall which appears to be a concrete wall in some drawings and
a rock wall in other drawings.
6. Avalanche Warning Siuos - The signs required by item 8, Section 2 of Ordinance No.
18 (Series of 1992) have not been installed. It should be a condition of approval that
the avalanche and rockfall warning signs be installed prior to the issuance of any further
permits.
7. Hazardous or Toxic Soils - Item number 1 of the supplemental materials states that
"no hazardous or toxic soils 'exist on the site (see attached soils report)." I did not find
this information in the soils report. At the same time, it is not a requirement that an
applicant conduct a hazardous or toxic soils survey for the property. The building permit
drawings should contain a general note based on review standard number 1 stating, "If
the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the property owner shall stabilize
and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to
a location acceptable to the city."
8. Fire Department Access Easement - This is shown on one set of plans but not on the
other. It appears that proposed development would restrict the use of the easement. The
fire marshal should be required to approve the final building permit plans.
9. Please note that concerning the approvals for the entire Ute Park Subdivision, the
drainage improvements have not yet been completed for Lot 4, and the escrowed funds
for those improvements should be maintained until such time as those improvements have
been completed.
M9A164
L
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920 -5090 FAX (970) 920 -5439
January 19, 1996
Jack Palomino
Ted Guy Associates
Box 1640
Basalt, CO 81621
RE: Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review Amendment
Dear Jack:
I am working on the amendment, and need some more information on the following.
Please address the following standard from the Code for review of an exemption to the 8040
Greenline Review.
"The development does not add more than ten (10) percent to the floor area of the
existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structures
which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty -five (25) percent."
I assume the deck complies with this standard, but I do not have the specific floor area
information.
Also, has Mr. Winnerman reached an agreement with the Nordic Council regarding the location
of the trail easement across the property?
If you have any questions, please call me at 920 -5093.
Sincerely,
5 LI�
Suzanne Wolff
ASPEN /PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920 -5090
September 19, 1995
Ted Guy Associates
Jack Palomino
Box 1640
Basalt, CO 81621
RE: Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review - Insubstantial Amendment
Case #A94 -95
Dear Jack,
The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review of the captioned
application. We have determined that this application is incomplete. The application will not
be scheduled for review until the following items are submitted.
1. Please provide a new analysis from Art Mears regarding the deck/patio in the avalanche
conditional zone.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the Planner assigned to this case, at 920-
5101. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Suzanne L. Wolff
Administrative Assistant