Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Victoria Square. Agate court 025-84-85 ( ac),,),Dl1_:, l_i: h CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen , colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 December 17, 1984 Douglas P. Allen, Attorney at Law Courthouse Plaza Bldg. 530 East Main Street, 1st Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Doug, In regards to your letter of November 20, please accept my apologies for the delay. However, I did not receive this letter until December 10. The property in question is the old Agate property now presently owned by C.M. Clark and the existing facilities are presently serviced by the City of Aspen Water Department. We now have water mains located in Bleeker, Hallam, and 6th Street and you may access the existing City water main at any of these locations. Water will be available to you for any new development upon application and payment of any necessary tap fees. We will of course credit you with any existing facilities now connected to the mains in accordance with our established policy. Should you install any new water services or abondon any existing services, you must agree to physically disconnect any old services from the main in accordance with our policy for the abandonment of old service lines. If these conditions are met, I see no problem with your and your clients obtaining water for your development. Vim Markalunas, Director Aspen Water Department JM:ab December 12, 1984 Douglas P. Allen Courthouse Plaza Bldg. 530 E . Main St. Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Sir, In reply to your letter dated November 20th concerning the provision of telephone service to block 17 in the City of Aspen I submit the following information. Mountain Bell is the serving telephone company in this area and will provide telephone facilities for this location. 1 nk you, P Ra mond L. Carpent Assistant Manager Mountain Bell ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. 0132 ATLANTIC AVE, • ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, ASPEN, COLORADO •'°11 PHONE (303) 325-2323 December 18, 1984 Douglas P. Allen Courthouse Plaza Bldg. 530 East Main Street, First Floor Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern; In reference to the availability of Natural Gas for your project at Block 17 in Aspen. We have a 4" gas line at the east end of your project on North 6th Street. We also have a 2" gas line that runs through your project in a gate court. At this time, the line serves the Agate and a portion of the Villas project accross 7th Street. I feel we can adequately serve your project and will look forward to supplying gas to your project. S. erely, Willard C. Clapper District Manager Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co. , Inc. 1 1■1 canyon cable tv December 19 , 1984 Mr. Douglas P. Allen Attorney at Law Courthouse Plaza Bldg. 530 East Main St. First Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Block 17 , City and Townsite of Aspen , CO. Subdivision Application Dear Sir: This letter will confirm the availability and adequacy of CATV service facilities pur- suant to the provision of such service to the above referenced subdivision. Any facility extensions , relocations, or connections shall be provided for according to Canyon Cable policies in effect at the time of work. Sin erely, . Ka/ ly Bloomer JKB/mjs cc : George Ryerson, Chief Engineer Division Of United Artists Cablesystems Corp. 50 Ventnor Avenue Aspen Colorado 81611 n 303 9254098 CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen , colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 December 21 , 1984 Douglas P. Allen Courthouse Plaza Bldg 530 E Main St, First Floor Aspen, Co 81611 Dear Mr. Allen, In reference to Block 17 of Aspen, availability of single phase or three phase is there and is more than adequite to serve the site. The present utility service is of the overhead type, but the new utility service will have to be of the undergound type. Sincerely, i ,Gyj,t. litzr,l et II/7 Jim C77a�/pperalla Acting Head City Electric Dept. } tf : E-1 ASPEN*PITKI& -REGIONAL BUILD.. •G DEPARTMENT Nov 4 t9,11r Nobember 3 , 1983 Jon Seigle Sachs , Klein & Seigle Attorneys at Law 201 North Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Unit Verification Agate Lodge Dear Jon: This letter contains an inventory of what I observed during our site inspection on September 30 , 1983 , at the Agate Lodge property. This will appear similar to the format of your letter of October 4 , 1983 , with additional comments on my part. I will not comment as to whether these units are "lodge units" or "multi-family units" , but I feel my comments will allow the planning department to make that determination. I also cannot comment as to whether all the units were constructed legally. I feel the time of construction of some of the units may proceed our records . Basically, the following pages contain observations that I made regarding present conditions . I hope this is the verification you need. Sincerely, i W William L. Drueding / Zoning Enforcement Officer cc : Planning Paul Taddune , City Attorney Wayne Chapman, City Manager Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official WLD/ar offices: mail address: 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 -5- Unit #1 Cabin Unit, containing kitchen facilities . (Sink, range, refrigerator) Unit #2 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator, hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) . Unit #3 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath , refrigerator, hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) . Unit #4 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator, hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) . Unit #5 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator, hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) . Unit #6 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath , refrigerator, hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) . Main Lodge - First Floor Unit #7 I considered a studio containing: kitchen, bath, illegal loft, illegal sleeping room. Unit #8 Studio containing kitchen and bath. Unit #9 Studio containing bath , stove , refrigerator, but no kitchen plumbing. Unit #10 Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but no kitchen plumbing. Unit #11 Contained bath and kitchen. Two rooms appeared to be combined into one unit. Unit #17 Studio containing range , refrigerator, but no kitchen sink or plumbing. Main Lodge - Second Floor Unit #12 One bedroom containing kitchen and bath facilities . Unit #13 One bedroom containing bath and kitchen facilities. Cabin #14 Various chopped-up rooms containing kitchen and bath facilities . Cabin #15 Two small bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities . Cabin #16 Two bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities . -6- Page 2 Unit #18 House containing three bedrooms , bath and kitchen. Unit #19 Converted chicken coop - studio with kitchen and bath . This unit also contains a loft and fireplace that should be considered highly dangerous . I cannot see that this unit was ever a legal dwelling unit. Unit #A20 A three bedroom house containing one kitchen and two baths . Fourplex: House Unit #A21 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath. Unit #A22 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath. Unit #A23 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath. Unit #A24 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath. I feel it should be noted that the lower units A22 and A24 do not contain proper egress from the bedrooms and should be considered dangerous as sleeping rooms . I would have to question whether these units were constructed legally. Garage - contains a woodworking shop and availability for undetermined parking. -7- Fite No. A84-227 Clark Aspen, Block 17, Lts. A-S ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD. 530 East Main Street Courthouse Plaza Building Aspen, Colorado 81611 File No. A84-227 OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE Aspen Title Company, Ltd. hereby certifies that title to: Lots A through S, both inclusive Block 17 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO is vested in: C.M. CLARK and that the above described property is subject to the following: 1. Deed of Trust from C.M. Clark to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado, for the use of The Empire Savings, Building, and Loan Association, to secure $1 ,170,000.00, dated June 16, 1982, recorded June 16, 1982, in Book 427 at Page 992. Said Deed of Trust assigned to the Public Employees Retirement Association of Colorado, PERA, as Nominee, by instrument recorded March 16, 1983, in Book 442 at Page 36. Said Deed of Trust modified by Note and Deed of Trust Modification Agreement dated June 1, 1983, recorded June 16, 1983, in Book 447 at Page 190 A. 2. Financing Statement from C.M. Clark, Debtor, to The Empire Savings, Building, and Loan Association, Secured Party, recorded June 16, 1983, in Book 427 at Page 997, File No. 06931. 3. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any and all tax sales which have not been properly redeemed or cancelled. NOTE: Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion or title, nor a guarantee of title, and it is understood and agreed that the liability of Aspen Title Company, Ltd. is limited to the amount of the fee charged hereunder. ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD. 2 i BY: /' j«!� Fee: $100.00 GRANT CRENSHAW Manager Dated: June 29, 1984 at 8:00 A.M. _q_ r I • • RESOLUTION OF TIM ASPEN PL PG AND 7,,ONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION/PUD APPROVAL • FOR THE AGATE COURT PROJECT — PS A"^-e C '\ c o .-,.:1 kV -° J \ Resolution No. 85-10 o r \ \gS- WHEREAS, C . M . (Butch ) Clark (hereinafter "Applicant" ) is the • owner of record of Block 17 , City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly known as "The Agate" ; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested conceptual subdivision/PUD approval to reconstruct the existing dwelling units on the site as six • single--family residences and two duplexes ; and WHEREAS, the Applicant ha requested a traditional form of subdivision along original townsite lots, rather than using a clus- ter.ed design typically associated with a PUD, and also is not request- ing variations from the zoning requirements of the P.-6 zone district ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission supports the efforts of the Applicant to upgrade this site, ithich is at the entrance to Aspen ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is concerned that the Applicant has not used the flexibility offered by the PUD. overlay and that the ref ore the Applicant has been unwilling to provide an adequate buffer between the new units and the highway, and also has not avoided all of the large trees on the site with the proposed house locations . NOT-I, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recom- mend that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual subdivision/PUD approval to the Agate Court prof t, subject to the following con- ditions : 1 . The Applicant shall provide a landscape plan meeting the requirements of Sections 24 -8 . 9 and 20-12 of the Code . Included within said plan shall be a design which shall significantly increase the landscape buffer along 7th Street so as to provide relief from the noise of traffic for the residents anc so c to better screen the view of the units from thQ highway aPp\.�.* s\�\\ a ,>:�+Ly �-o�� 41,A Mpl.�as .FF Lak k 4 v. n ""'.Y 'M4k se* v4Q.ki•.tt$ -ko ►t-a.oY•.Q\�. '-t. ••.1••d .F r.o v¢l. ..t o.,. t\.Q 1...„\...N s , •4 A }.a,\ .G 1p.., vw'4$ At•.� it.r- o..1 t,-�t . 2. Trio Applicant shall relocate any structure which wouwd have required the removal of. a tree which cannot he replanted and demonstrate that all trees considered significant by the Parks Director are retained in place or shall be relocated on the site. aC 4 owlet s\.w\\ z\ P4 Q\.._ �v-\��...�� A k sk" - . 3 . The Applicant shall provide for alley access for all ten units within the project, and alley access for trash removal, and the project shall have no curb cuts on either Hallam or Bleeker Streets . lcaw ••lt t, s\..\l nt g.,a• -‘n no o.., of D t".■ � \o,:,lr.o..) 41 [\t. (tea. .....M..t �Lt1 t�4y� .c .� c... ,•S� a.iw.o.`"";ty-Sak..0 l�.a ` c..,-3.. 04,.%4,\,\Y s ••.1y ••,•‘-ke w.kt.. sV��t .-p., „s t^as� .E 4 . The Applicant shall contact the Fire Department to determine the necessity of keening the alley open onto 7th St reet If the department indicates in writing that the alley must be kept open, then the Applicant shrill agree to place a no left turn sign at the exit to 7th Street . In the absence of`. • a • Resolution No. 85-10 Page 2 such a written statement, the Applicant shall alter the design to show no exit or entrance for cars along 7th Street , a properly designed turn around at the end of the cul-d-sac, and a contini us landscaped berm in this loca- tion . 5 . The Applicant shall revise the design of the "auto courts" such that the driveways are narrowed to approximately 26 ' , in accord with the recommendations of the Engineering Department, but shall also insure that the alley continues • to provide adequate area for service vehicle access . 6. The Applicant shall provide details on the internal makeup of the two duplexes so as to insure that one parking space is provided for each bedroom within the project . 7 . The Applicants shall provide a bus stop at the corner of Seventh and Sleeker meeting the specifications of RFTA, and shall provide a sidewalk for the length of Seventh Street . 8 . The Applica shall provide adequa guarantees to the satisfacti • of the City • ttorney th . the two duplex units will not •e condominiu• zed for a eriod o - five ( 5) ears from th- date of th r occupan • . The easons f this requi -ment are th. the Plann '. g Commit ion is no requi.r- . ing . ny miticatio ' of the l . ss of e • loyee hot. i.ng as a rer at of this pr. oj ect , d that etention the units u. er single • 'nership ma facilit. te highway planning by educing th • number of landown- s td be co tatted in the event addit ' anal, right-•f�-way is required. �P\1/4"3 4tik\ M \ a'R "--e\""""t s• SCI O.. to-1j. C0.. , Jw.;S �� •. 9. The Applicant ^sh- all underground all utilities within the �° pro ect. vw' t..a •( hpp\.s•.•!. ,\..h saw.Jc c..a,9.,.� C-o,• y...9. 0 ..l..•+� `�^ .r t—c�..�ls A\...4-I •F N. (-.hy.a4a .i.-9.t w,,. C..o o sue..\\ 'Se G.•O.o..a_sk- w..\.�J.Sl •G A.�a ■ A.4. (,.�\ t•-• p..•�. s A �..:% .Q•.wC•/^• as\.: 1 10 . The Applicant thall meet the setback and height limitations s.�r\y of the City Code as indicated by Bill Drueding in his review w.k of this project. A 'Awtri F•R 4 11 . The Applicant shall meet the conditions for water service r.i outlined by Jim tiarkalunas in his letter to Douglas Allen °wti"S dated December 17 , 1984 . •a�aJ 'S 12. The Applicant shall submit a preliminary plan within six months of the date of conceptual approval by Council , as required by Section 24-8 . 9 of the Code or this conceptual approval shall expire. r APPROVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting on June 4, 1985 . ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING a COMMISSION . Perry .arvey, Chairman ATTEST: A (i)?c GU-eil /e Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk AR. 2 2 • ) MEMORANDUM To : Colette Penne From: Elyse Elliott ] Date: February 12, 1985 Re: Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision In reviewing the above application and making a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments : 1 . R-6 zoning requires the setbacks in the front and rear yards to be 10 feet and 15 feet respectively. The site plan indicates a front yard setback of 15 feet and -a rear yard setback of 10 feet. This is the opposite of the requirements . 2 . Since the driveway is located in the alley, section 19-10 on curb cuts does not apply. However , this department feels that the cut for the driveway is excessive. The plans propose a curb cut of 66 feet on a 90 feet wide lot. We recommend that the curb cut be narrowed as shown to provide for more open space and accessibility to the trash dumpster. \�. AwTDPORT i RODITI6NAL OPEN .5� ACE \ kr' 6b ALLE) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council 1 ,<,-- THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manager . FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Agate Court Project - Conceptual Subdivision/PUD DATE: August 12, 1985 SUMMARY: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Agate Court Conceptual PUD subject to twelve conditions. The Planning Office recommends additional conditions if this conceptual PUD is to be approved. LOCATION: All of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen (Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S) . ZONItG : This 54, 000 square foot parcel is zoned R-6 PUD. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of concep- tual subdivision and PUD for the redevelopment of Block 17 . This proposal is for the demolition of all existing structures and the resubdivision of the property into six single-family lots and two duplex lots. Conceptual PUD requires that the applicant demonstrate the conformance of the proposal with the purposes of the PUD article. Section 24-8.1 of the Municipal Code states that the purpose of the Planned Unit Development article "is to encourage flexibility , innovation and variety in the development of and to provide perfor- mance criteria for PUD' s which will : " (a) Promote greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings ; (b) Improve the design, character and quality of new develop- ment ; (c) Promote more efficient use of land and public streets, utilities and governmental services; (d) Preserve open space as development occurs; (e) Provide procedures so as to relate the type, design and layout of residential development to a particular site and thus encourage the preservation of the site ' s unique, 11 natural and scenic features; and (f) Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding area. " The conceptual presentation requirements include a statement by the applicant as to the planning objectives to be achieved by the planned unit development through the particular approach chosen, including any specific advantages that a PUD offers as opposed to a conventional subdivision . In addition, future ownership of all portions of the property is to be projected. Other conceptual requirements include a description of approximate location of structures, density, use and types of buildings, and location of common open space, park and recreation areas. Finally, you are to be provided with general landscaping renderings of the proposed improvements which, although preliminary, are of sufficient detail to apprise the Council of the exterior design, bulk and mass of the development and its relationship to terrain features of the site. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council held a work session to review this application on July 15, 1985. No action was taken at that time, but the applicant did present you the attached memo outlining various concerns about the P&Z conditions. BAC/G ROUND: The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion have been reviewing proposals to redevelop the Agate property since early in 1984. The original proposal to construct six single- family and two duplex structures was submitted by another applicant . After several meetings with P&Z, during which the applicant ' s request for variances in FAR and height were not well received, the applica- tion was withdrawn and the property reverted to its owner, C. M. (Butch) Clark. The present proposal was brought forward last fall when the applicant indicated his intent to develop the property simply as a land sub- division along townsite lot lines, rather than to cluster the units as a PUD, and without designing the units prior to lot sales. In fact, P&Z was asked to either remove the PUD designation from the parcel or to allow its subdivision without architectural review, as required by PUD. The Planning Commission gave great attention to the fact that the site is zoned Mandatory PUD and we advised the Commission as to why the site might have originally been given this designation. We know that in the last major rezoning of Aspen in the 1970s, the PUD designation was applied to hillsides, streambanks and similarly sensitive environ- mental features. In this case, the site is flat and the only key features on the site are its large trees . We have, therefore, inferred that the probable reason for the site ' s PUD designation is its prominence at the entrance to town and the desire of the community to achieve a beneficial relationship between plans for State Highway 82 and this site ' s redevelopment . PUD flexibility could also be 2 useful in avoiding the removal of trees from the site. Based on these considerations, P&Z required the applicant to submit designs for the two duplexes along the Highway frontage and to portray the landscaping which would soften the views along the Highway and shield residents from traffic and noise. The applicant has responded to these requirements, but as demonstrated in the attached P&Z Resolution 85-10, recommending conceptual approval, P&Z is as yet not totally satisfied with these designs. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Based on the reviews performed by the Planning Office and the Planning Commission, there appear to be three key issues with respect to this development, which can be characterized as follows: 1 . Lot line subdivision versus clustered PUD; 2. Circulation issues/highway interface; and 3. Employee housing mitigation. Each of these problems is discussed further below. 1. Lot Line Subdivision Versus Cluster PUD. As noted above, the applicant ' s concept for this block is to subdivide the lots along original townsite lines, to design only the duplex structures and to leave construction up to each of the lot purchasers. The Planning Office feels that this concept has merit and that this design approach satisfies the criteria of achieving a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding areas and the criteria of promoting greater variety in the type and design of buildings. The West End neighborhoods to the east, north and south of this parcel are all subdivided along original townsite lot lines and a variety of architectural styles exist on each block. Allowing the Agate block to be developed without a totally planned concept is an interesting approach that we support, particularly since no variations from R-6 Area and Bulk Requirements are being requested. In our opinion, the lack of a unified architectural theme is not the real problem with respect to this concept . Instead, as will be argued below, the applicant ' s unwillingness to use PUD design flexibility in the development of the block has led to a variety of other technical site problems. For example, there are several large trees on the site which fall within the lots which have not clearly been demonstrated to be avoided by house locations . These four trees range from 12" to 20 " in diameter and are approximately 30 ' to 60 ' in height. The Planning Commission has recommended that the structures avoid the location of any tree which cannot be relocated. The applicant has indicated a willingness to replant those trees which can be moved and to 3 avoid those trees which can't be moved, but has not submitted a landscaping plan demonstrating any such commitments. This plan should be required at the Preliminary PUD stage. We support the applicant ' s request for flexibility in driveway design and footprint location to attempt to avoid the largest trees which we would prefer not be moved. 2. Circulation Issues/Highway Interface. The more important design problems with respect to this proposal fall into the circulation category. First, the applicant has followed our advice and shown vehicle access for the duplex structures through the alley into "auto courts" with parking spaces off these entrances. The alley access is preferable, in our opinion, to curb cuts. The Engineering Department feels that the cut for the driveway into the auto court is excessive, and they propose in a drawing we have attached that it be narrowed to 26 feet (from 66 feet ) so that additional open space is provided and access to the dumpster is still maintained. Access to the single-family residences is as yet undefined. The applicant intends to "encourage the purchasers of the lots to utilize the Agate Court roadway for automobile access, thus further minimizing additional curb cuts. " The Planning Office feels that since the alley is being proposed as the access to the duplexes, the six single-family lots should be limited to alley access and trash access for these homes should also be in the alley. Six curb cuts are unnecessary, and do not represent "efficient use of land and public streets " as noted in the criteria above. Use of the alley will permit additional land within the block to be kept in open space and should be an improvement on both Hallam and Sleeker Streets. The site plan appears to propose that the alley be accessible from both Sixth and Seventh Streets . We feel that the alley should be closed at Seventh Street. The landscaped strip along Seventh Street should continue unbroken and the alleyway should terminate at the duplex driveways. Interaction of vehicles turning into the development or entering onto the highway from the alley could be a hazardous situation and should be avoided. The P&Z concurred with this conclusion, but also recognized that the Fire Department might want the alley left open for access purposes. Therefore, the applicant has been required to contact the Fire Department and, if the alley is to be left open, to place signs at the Seventh Street exit prohibiting left turns. The most extensively debated issue by the P&Z was the project ' s interface with State Highway 82 . As you know, one alternative still under consideration for the entrance to Aspen is to four- lane the highway in place . According to the best information available to the Planning Office, four-laning of the existing alignment will result in a decibel level produced by traffic that 4 makes homes on Lots A, B, K and L "uninhabitable" by federal standards. Therefore, if the duplexes are built and the Highway is expanded in place, the project may have to compensate the owners of these units. The Planning Office feels that the placement of two duplexes within a proposed Highway alignment is contrary to good community planning and could reduce our options to meet our public safety and general welfare needs. Through the use of POD techniques, the applicant could easily achieve the ten unit density requested and yet avoid this sensitive location. The lack of such a plan is, in our opinion, the most significant failing of this con- ceptual submission. The Planning Commission agreed with this conclusion in part, by requiring "a significant increase in the landscape buffer along Seventh Street " , but fell short of requiring the structures to be moved off of the four most sensitive lots. Please note that it is our understanding of this condition that P&Z was looking for an increase in the width and density of the buffer, not just an increase in the density of the plantings as the applicant has suggested. 3. Employee Housing Mitigation. This reconstruction proposal is exempt from the growth management system since it represents a net decrease in unit density and not an increase. The Building Department has verified that 24 units currently exist at the Agate, and the applicant only intends to rebuild ten units. All 24 units at the Agate have been used for long-term rentals for some time, and five ( 5) of the units, containing eleven bedrooms, fall within our employee housing guidelines. However, the Housing Authority has confirmed that since no condominiumiza- tion is being proposed, our regulations provide no basis to require replacement of any employee housing units. Replacement is only required if condominiumization takes place within 18 months of the date a unit is rented within the guidelines . However, P&Z has recommended a condition that none of the duplex units be condominiumized for five years from the date of their occupancy since no employee housing mitigation is being requir- ed. The applicant has objected to this condition in the attached memo to Council , and, based on our conversations with the City Attorney, we concur that condition 8 should not be a requirements of this project . ALTERNATIVES: To understand the alternatives available, it is first necessary to summarize the principal pros and cons of this proposal. Favorable aspects of this proposal include the fact that it will upgrade what is one of the most run down, highly visible blocks in the City ; reduce the number of units on the block to a much more accept- able density; provide the opportunity for a variety of designs, in keeping with the West End development pattern; and require the use of 5 no variances. Negative aspects of the proposal are its conflict with planning for State Highway 82; lack of detail with respect to tree removal, housing siting and landscaping; and displacement of long term rental housing without mitigation. Based on these considerations, Council has at least four possible alternatives available at this time : 1 . Require the applicant to fully comply with the PUD provisions. The applicant would have to come in with a clustered PUD plan, avoiding the Seventh Street conflict , and showing building footprints, elevations and landscaping. The PUD would also probably require the applicant to condominiumize the units so that employee housing mitigation would take place. 2. Require the applicant to further elaborate on the design before you take any action or as a condition of conceptual approval. At a minimum, an increased buffer on Seventh Street and footprints for the single-family houses should be shown. Alternatives would include moving the houses off Lots A and R (two front lots) , Lots A, B, R and L (four front lots) or simply expanding the buffer but allowing housing on all of the lots in the block. 3 . Approve the conceptual plan with P&Z ' s conditions, which defer the detailed design issues to preliminary PUD review. 4. Deny the proposal as inconsistent with the intent of placing a PUD on the property. The Planning Office' s recommendation to PO was to deny the conceptual plan and to direct the applicant to resubmit a PUD on the lines suggested by alternative #1 or #2 above. Though we see a great deal of merit to upgrading this block, we feel that this proposal does not meet the intents and purposes of PUD. The landscaping and architec- tural plans are sketchy and incomplete (cover only part of the site) and the applicant has entirely ignored the statement in Section 24-8.2 that "A PUD is a subdivision wherein there is a departure from the usual design of regularly platted lots and blocks devoted to a single classification of land use. A PUD may be characterized by . . . a combination of the following design approaches : . . . (a) Averaged lot area . . . (b) Clustering of development . . . (c) Architectural cluster . " By proposing a design which uses none of the above methods, we believe that the project does not serve the City' s long term planning in- terests particularly due to the placement of two new duplexes which 6 conflict with highway planning. Should the Council agree with the Planning Commission rather than the Planning Office, we recommend that you add to their conditions a requirement that footprints or building envelopes be shown for the six single-family lots. The addition of this information at the prelimi- nary stage will insure that future purchasers avoid the large trees with their houses and provide a framework for a more integrated PUD plan. The applicant has no objection of this condition. Furthermore, we recommend that prior to conceptual approval, you require that the applicant move the duplexes off Lots A and K, at a minimum and preferably off of Lots A, B, K and L, and use a modified clustering technique (i . e. , reduce the setbacks between houses but retain the traditional lot line approach proposed by the applicant ) to avoid the impacts of the Highway on these residences. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 85-10 on June 4 by a vote of 5-2. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Presuming that the Council is generally in agreement with the Planning Commission ' s approach to this project , following is the appropriate motion : "Move to approve the Agate Court Conceptual PUD, subject to the conditions of P&Z Resolution 85-10, with the following changes : 1 . Add the requirement that building envelopes be shown for the six single-family lots. 2. Add the requirements that the duplexes be moved entirely off of Lots A and K and that setbacks between buildings can be varied to achieve this desired result. (Note: The Planning Office continues to prefer no development on Lots A, B, K and L and even greater reductions in setbacks than would otherwise be needed, but offers this proposal as a compro- mise solution to the issue) 3 . Add language to the effect that flexibility will be given in the review of driveways and footprint locations at the preliminary plat stage if it can be demonstrated that said flexibility will permit the retention of the most signifi- cant trees on the site. 4. Eliminate Condition # 8. 5 . Clarify Condition # 9 to insure that the applicant is not "double-taxed" for the cost of undergrounding utilities on the site . " AR.13 7 RI ELUTION OF TILE ASPEN PLANNING A" 'ZONING COMMISSION • 1 ..ECOTIMENDItZ CONCEPTUAh suanIV3. )N/PUD APPROVAL FOR TIUE AGATE COURT PROJECT 1 Resolution No. 85-10 a 4.. WHEREAS, C. M. (Butch) Clark (hereinafter "Applicant") is the • { owner of record of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly- , known as "The Agate"; and 1 WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested conceptual subdivision/PUD approval to reconstruct the existing dwelling units on the site as six single-family residences and two duplexes; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a traditional form of subdivision along original townsite lots, rather than using a clus- tered design typically associated with a PUD, and also is not request- Iing variations from the zoning requirements of the R-6 zone district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission supports the efforts of the Applicant to upgrade this site, which is at the entrance to Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is concerned that the Applicant has not used the flexibility offered by the PUD overlay and that therefore the Applicant has been unwilling to provide an adequate buffer between the new units and the highway, and also has not avoided all of the large trees on the site with the proposed house locations. NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recom- mend that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual subdivision/PUD approval to the Agate Court project, subject to the following con- ditions: 1. The Applicant shall provide a landscape plan meeting the requirements of Sections 24-8 . 9 and 20-12 of the Code . Included within said plan shall be a design which shall significantly increase the landscape buffer along 7th Street so as to provide relief from the noise of traffic for the residents and so as to better screen the view of the units from the highway. 2. The Applicant shall relocate any structure which would have required the removal of a tree which cannot be replanted and demonstrate that all trees considered significant by the Parks Director are retained in place or shall be relocated on the site. 3. The Applicant shall provide for alley access for all ten units within the project and alley access for trash removal, and the project shall have no curb cuts on either Hallam or Blocker Streets. 4, The Applicant shall contact the Fire Department to determine the necessity of keeping the alley open onto 7th Street . If the department indicates in writing that the alley must hr. knnt nnnn. then the Applicant shall agree to place a nc, Resolution No. 85-10 Page 2 such a written statement, the Applicant shall alter the design to show no exit or entrance for cars along 7th Street, a properly designed turn around at the end of the cul-d-sac, and a continuous landscaped berm in this loca- tion. 5. The Applicant shall revise the design of the "auto courts" such that the driveways are narrowed to approximately 26' , in accord with the recommendations of the Engineering Department, but shall also insure that the alley continues • to provide adequate area for service vehicle access. 6. The Applicant shall provide details on the internal makeup of the two duplexes so as to insure that one parking space is provided for each bedroom within the project. 7. The Applicants shall provide a bus stop at the corner of Seventh and Sleeker meeting the specifications of RFTA, and shall provide a sidewalk for the length of Seventh Street. 8. The Applicant shall provide adequate guarantees to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the two duplex units will not be condominiumized for a period of five (5) years from the date of their occupancy. The reasons for this requirement are that the Planning Commission is not requir- ing any mitigation of the loss of employee housing as a result of this project, and that retention of the units under single ownership may facilitate highway planning by reducing the number of landowners to be contacted in the event additional right-of-way is required. 9. The Applicant shall underground all utilities within the project. 10. The Applicant shall meet the setback and height limitations of the City Code as indicated by Bill Drueding in his review of this project. 11. The Applicant shall meet the conditions for water service outlined by Jim t tarkalunas in his letter to Douglas Allen dated December 17, 1984. 12. The Applicant shall submit a preliminary plan within six months of the date of conceptual approval by Council, as required by Section 24-8.9 of the Code or this conceptual approval shall expire. APPROVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting on June 4, 1985. - - 1 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CONIIISSION . Perry .arvey, Chairman ATTEST: / 004//f Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk AR.2 . 'i MEMORANDUM • TO: ASPEN MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: APPLICANT FOR AGATE COURT PROJECT SUBJ: AGATE COURT PROJECT - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION DATE: JULY 15, 1985 This Memorandum is written in response to the Planning Office Memorandum of June 24, 1985 and P & Z Resolution 85 - 10. The purpose of this Memorandum is to hopefully simplify the consideration of conceptual approval of this project by stipulating and agreeing to most of the conditions for approval of both the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The recommendation of the Planning Office is for one of two alternates and the one that the Applicant is pursuing is to deal with P & Z { Resolution 85 - 10. The Applicant is willing to comply with the additional requirement of the Planning Office that building envelopes be shown for the six single-family lots and would accept approval subject to that requirement. Regarding Resolution 85 - 10 which contains 12 conditions, the Applicant has no objection to conditions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12. Regarding condition 2, this needs to be considered in connection with condition 3. In order to maintain the appearance of a traditional West End block which concept the Planning Office states: "has merit and that this design approach satisfies the criteria of achieving a beneficial land use with surrounding areas and the criteria of promoting greater variety in the type and design of buildings." The Applicant does desire to retain the flexibility especially on the northeast and southeast lots to be able to locate both the dwellings and the driveways so as to be most compatible with the existing trees. Relative to condition 9, the Applicant would point out that the proposed bonding program to underground utilities in the west end of town will be paid for by increased ad valorem taxes and to require the Applicant to pay for undergrounding utilities within the project would cause the owners of this block to pay twice for such services.lf this { is done the cost would be paid in cash up front by the Developer and then again paid by virtue of taxes required to retire the bonds. The requirement of condition 8 is a requirement that the Applicant seeks to have modified. The Applicant is willing to covenant in accordance with Section 20-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code that the duplex units will not be condominiumized for a period of 18 months. The existing rents are more than those maximum rents allowed by the Employee Guidelines. Relative to the facilitation of the highway planning, the Applicant agrees to work with the applicable authorities to facilitate the planning so as not create an additional burden as the result of the number of landowners to be contacted in the event additional right-of-way is required. THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 314 SOUTH MILL STREET ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303 925-7817 November 19, 1984 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Members: Enclosed herewith are ten copies of the development plans for PUD application for the Agate Court project, block 17, Aspen, owned by Mr. C. M. Clark. The plans are based on the agreement reached in our preliminary meeting in October. As requested, we are submitting detailed- proposals for the two duplex lots adjoining Seventh Street. The six remaining parcels will be unrestricted R-6 single family parcels. Please note that there are no curb cuts on any of the duplex lot frontages. Although we are not restricting the single family lots in any way, we intend to encourage the purchasers of the lots to utilize the Agate Court roadway for automobile access, thus further minimizing additional curb cuts. Since there are no changes requested to the underlying R-6 zoning by way of density, FAR, height limits, etc. , all of the impacts defined in the PUD ordinance will be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. In particular, water, sewer, gas, electric, and telephone utilities for each proposed lot are existing with sufficient capacity, and will require no relocations or extensions of any kind. An additional detail to notice is that the additional setback and angled building lines along Seventh Street will be bermed and heavily landscaped by the developer of the duplex projects. The low profile of the buildings, the angled facades, together with the berms and landscaping will soften the impact of developing this sensitive entry corner to town. V ry truly yours, Thomas 0. Wells Architect Art At. syk■IA,IrC sue—s=s °- - �n.o�^ `-�d�R. 4.5 rU of \ ._L tLw9k:c. % Leek %-'3- .4 o `„f,y. S J{h+t ars, S-12^- t o o(-LA.... I G N(.cw..rt t c. k`c . .(i -e CW p S L- 4CUL L 4 S--4 F 4c \n.Q— •/1G ..,.%\ a.- • o.. _ ••teS`` (( 11 �. .'C A,C.t.l-.S 4c-o Art c.A.DLC.. AIL-4 — o .\* esec.wE 9 - L-lL••••/al h - .".owe —ot p 1 V 11��.. f�Loc.K. - c-o....�....7C ..... Q\ S 4 S -z . j — LAN t of S■• - e-- • ^ `--1 -- 4+r1 y- l 40 . ., gQ Llot000 s _F. 06 ctia , space Cen.0■alec.-J %LAC -1 r^~wu- a C- Q u c� .rws a CA2 siLA QC" N,."1 Q �d. -•-wA,L,FAr* - �Jn4,..o�� wM RC fct 11.-6xa14t Lark 6.0...•-• %. V\16A1 X f1/2 MSS O F v)L1544•• �"1.�, 11 1� 6L'�` /k VL" �,.��-•- o A e .-. 5�•.GJvL1w1 cLk 9 l ` c.; t 44111 Regular -Meeting --- - - - Aspen City Council ikuquS t 12 , _ 985 CONCEPTUAL PUD - Agate Court Alan Richman, planning director, reminded Council at a previous work session they reviewed the issues of this project. Richman said a PUD is to achieve certain purposes ; promoting more efficient use of land and public streets , preserving open space , preserving the site ' s unique features, and a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding properties. Richman said this plan could promote more efficient use of land and streets if access is limited to the alley and the alley is closed at 7th street. There would be more efficient use of land and streets if there was not the inter-relation with the highway, which is a problem here. Richman said he does not feel this PUD preserves open space . This project is preserving the site' s unique features in attempt- ing to preserv-e trees. Regarding the beneficial land use relationship with surrounding properties, Richman said there is concern about the location of the duplexes. Richman presented a map with the proposed state highway alignment and the lot lines. P & Z discussed increasing the buffer along 7th street. The buffer is presently 8 feet wide. Richman suggested the duplexes come off a lots A and K as a compromise. This would preserve open space, move the duplexes away from the highway and create a beneficial land use relationship. Richman told Council his preferred approach is to not build on Lots A and B and K and L. Richman said if the applicant moves the duplexes off lots A and K, it should not affect the density of the project, which is proposed 10 units. Richman said he does have a problem with the proximity, but he feels it would be acceptable to vary setbacks between buildings , which is appropriate in a PUD. P & Z has recommended approval with 12 conditions. Richman has identified 5 areas where the conditions can be amended or improved. One is the suggestion for building envelopes on the other six lots, which the applicant does not have a problem with. The applicant has requested flexibility in driveway and footprint locations at the preliminary plat stage toward the benefit of saving the trees. Richman said giving the flexibility resulting in preservation of the trees is a worthwhile trade off. Richman told Council P & Z condition Q8 was that the duplexes not be condominiumized for 5 years. Richman told Council staff cannot support that condition, and recommend it be eliminated. The applicant has requested condition t9 be clarified so that the applicant is not double taxed for the cost of undergrounding utilities. • 19 Regular--Meeting -- -- ---Aspen City Council August 12, 1985 Doug Allen, representing the applicant , told Council they are in agreement with conditions 3 , 4 , 5 in the planning office memorandum. Allen said they do not agree to sterilize 2 or 4 lots in the project. Allen submitted the study of Mach 1985 regarding the highway with the costs of the alternatives. The cost of aligning the highway by the Agate is $5,000 ,000 versus $1 ,600 ,000 for the "straight shot". Allen said everyone agrees the "straight shot" is the preferred alternative; it costs less and makes more engineering sense. Allen said it is not realistic to believe the highway would come by the Agate. Allen said it is not fair to deal with this property and steril- ize 2 or 4 lots when there is a development the planning office concedes has merits and retains the character of the west end. Allen said if the developer has to pull back , they lose two units. This property is allowed 12 units; the developer is only asking for 10 units, and presently there are 24 units on the property. This _would be reducing the density and there will be about 40 , 000 square feet of open space . Allen told Council there are 31 trees on the lot; they can preserve 27 trees and are asking permission to move 2 trees and transplant 2 trees. Allen told Council the applicant would prefer alternative 0 in the planning office-memo, which is approve the conceptual plan with P & Zs conditions, which defer the detailed design issues to preliminary PUD review. Allen said the condition regarding the building envelopes is appropriate at preliminary plat rather than conceptual . Richman agreed to that. Allen said the applicant is opposed to sterilizing the lots, which destroys the project. Councilman Collins said he thought the applicant had an alterna- . ti_ve plan. Richman said the applicant originally was going to market the lots with no design of the two duplexes, to create complete individuality of the 10 units. The P & Z insisted on seeing the design of the front two duplexes because of the visual questions and the extent of the setbacks. Councilman Collins said even if the highway comes straight in, there will be a lot of traffic here from Cemetery Lane and the Institute. Councilman Collins said he would prefer to see the duplexes moved back and give some concessions with the footprints. Butch Clark said this street would cease to be the entrance to Aspen. The state is not going to spend $5 ,000 , 000 to build a highway. Clark agreed 7th street will be a key street but will • not be any different than any other arteries. Councilman Collins said he would like to keep the options open. Richman said the point of PUP is to preserve open space for the benefit of the public, not just for private open space. Richman said PUD is a subdivision wherein there is a departure from the usual 20 Regular --Meetin-g---- --- ---- -;Aquen City Council ' August 12 , 1985 design of regularly platted lots. Richman said he feels the city has the right to ask for these lots for the benefit of the public and the surrounding neighborhood , not just for the benefit of the purchasers of the lots. Councilwoman Walls said - the purpose for the PUD on this property was to have control over some proposed large project. The applicant just wants to revert to single lots like the rest of the west end. Council- woman Walls said she feels this is an excellent project for this parcel. Councilwoman Walls said the city is not requiring other property owners in the west end to provide a lot of open space for the public. Mayor Stirling said he feels the PUD is appropriate for this block. In a PUD there needs to be a sense of a benefit to the �. general public. This is a unique block. Clark said this block would be the only block that had to move back . Councilman Collins pointed out the city made the Villas move back. Mayor Stirling agreed with pushing back the lots on 7th street. ME,yor Stirling said there is still the potential to do duplexes on 7th street. Allen said when you take 30 feet out of a lot, you have substandard lots and the character of the west end is not maintained. Mayor Stirling urged the Council to require all 5 conditions, which would give the best combination of a PUD with -single family and duplex units and would provide benefits for the community. Mayor Stirling said he feels 10 units works and will continue to work with the buffer along Main street. Allen said this buffer will not be used as a park even if it is 30 feet. Allen said when you make the lots smaller, it will impinge on every property on the block. Allen said they are not asking for any variance in FAR. Allen said to sterilize two lots will crowd the houses together . Councilman Collins said he would like the city to have the opportunity for the 30 foot setback. Richman told Council it is clear if the units abut the blue line, and the highway is constructed on this alignment, the units will have to be taken. Clark said no one believes the highway will be on this alignment ; it is not reasonable. Councilman Isaac moved to approve the conceptual PUD for the Agate Court subject to conditions 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 in the planning office memorandum of August 12, 1985; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. Mayor Stirling said it is a bad precedent not to have a buffer along 7th street for all the reasons that have been discussed. Clark said a precedent is being set by picking out one property and treating it entirely differently. Mayor Stirling said this block is unique in its character and different from other blocks in the west end. 21 Regul ar Meeti nT - - - -_--Aspen City Con:ci t. August 12 , 1985 Councilmembers Isaac and Walls in favor ; Councilmembers Fallin, Collins and Mayor Stirling opposed. Motion NOT carried. Mayor Stirling moved to approve the Agate Court conceptual PUD subject to conditions in the P & Z resolution 85-10 and condit- ions 1 through 5 in the planning office memorandum; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Allen said Council is using the PUD in an extractive manner. The applicant is not tryixg to build something offensive on the land, but to offer for sale traditional west end lots. If the city wants the two end lots, th .:y should buy the lots and not take them with no compensation . Barry Edwards , attorney ' s office, disagreed and said the city is not taking anything. Mayor Stirling reiterated a FUD is a subdivision where there is a departure from the usual design characterized by a combination of the following desian approaches, averaged lot area, clustering of development, architectural clustering as well as open space and benefits to the general public. Mayor Stirling said this recommendation comes the closest to combining good potential for the developer and a general benefit to the community. Richman said the Council is approving the density, not taking away, but suggesting locations of the buildings Councilwoman Walls asked if it would be possible to put a duplex on the other two lots. Richman said with an innovative design, it would be possible. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Isaac and Walls. Motion carried. CONS Ell AGENDA. Councilwoman Walls moved to approve the consent agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. The consent agenda is Liquor License renewals ; Roaring Fork & Spoon, Aspen Art Museum; MEAN Resolu- tion. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Fallin moved to continue the meeting to 3: 45 p. m. Monday, August 19 , 1985; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. All in favor , motion carried. Council left Chambers at 10: 30 p. m. Kathryn S 2Koch, City Clerk • • 22 -g a r& Cr a �4.e � . Smir a Yaw. 5590 era dirar c_igcra, tficLe`„W Jon, cwx, (909) .925-d'00 �2 (sat) .92'5-999, June 10, 1985 Pl. Alan Richman 0 NI— Planning Director �. 1177s11I![1 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 JUN I O N Re: Agate Court Conceptual Subdivision Dear Alan: As a result of the comment by one of the Planning and Zoning Commission members at the meeting approving the conceptual subdivision, I had a portion of the tree survey re—done. I enclose a copy of that revision as well as a Surveyor's Certificate dated June 6, 1985 reflecting that the trees in question on Lot 4 are not over 40 feet high and that the diameters are slightly less than previously shown. au ly yours, ou b 1s P Allen DPA/p Enclosures cc: C. M. Clark ALREGISTERED IN COLO.,NEW MEXICO AND UTAH GERARD H . PESMAN, P. E., L. S. �. ` ASSOCIATED WITH �, ��� SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. ELKS BLDG-21 COLO.- / P.O.BOX 3816 ASPEN,COLD.81611 JOHN TILIEY,ASSOC. PHONE 303-925-3816 °aslirr 41'1 June 6, 1985 Job I 13276 Doug Allen 530 E. Main Aspen, Co . 81611 Dear Doug, On Tuesday, June 4, 1985 , a field survey was conducted to determine the location and height of certain fir trees loca- ted on Lots 3 & 4, also known as Lots F,G ,H, & I , Block 17, Aspen original townsite, as per the accompanying plat of a previous survey conducted by Survey Engineers , Inc . The locations are as shown on the attached plat with the trunk diameters measured at a height of 4. 5ft . off the ground, and measured with a tree diameter tape borrowed from the Forest Service. The heights are as follows : Lot 4 14"dia. spruce. . . 40 .0 ' Lot 4 12"dia. spruce. . . 31 . OT Lot 3 20"dia. spruce. . . 58. 7' Lot 3 14"dia. ponderosa. . . 32.9 ' If we may be of any additional service feel free to con- tact us . Thank you. 42SiFerely, Richard Dickman R.L. S. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Agate Court Project - Conceptual Subdivision/PUD DATE: May 7 , 1985 LOCATION: All of Block 17 , City and Townsite of Aspen (Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, and S) . ZONING: This 54 , 000 square foot parcel is zoned R-6 PUD. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of conceptual subdivision and PUD for the redevelopment of Block 17 . This proposal is for the demolition of all existing structures and the resu division of the property into six single-family lots and two duplex lots. PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: Background In April of 1984 , you reviewed a proposal by the Stevenson Building Co. to redevelop the Agate property. That proposal was also for six single-family homes and two duplexes. The applicant also intended to request variances in height and floor area ratios. After a few meetings with you, they decided not to exercise their option and the property remained in the ownership of C. M. (Butch) Clark. In October of 1984 , you reviewed a request presented by Tom Wells to either remove the PUD designation from the parcel or to allow its subdivision (and review as a PUD) without architectural review as required by Article VIII, Planned Unit Development. Your response to that request was that the most visually sensitive area is along Seventh St. (Hwy. 82) and that you wanted to review the design of the first two units to be placed in proximity to the highway and the landscaping which would be placed between these houses and the highway. You also denied the applicant ' s request to remove the PUD designation from the property. At your meeting of March 19, 1985 , concern was expressed about the placement of structures along Seventh Street. The ongoing planning work for a new Highway 82 alignment proposes the four-laning of the segment of the Highway along the west border of this block as a secondary alternative. It was suggested that the Planning Office meet with the applicant and his legal counsel to explore alternative development patterns for the Agate block. Colette Penne and Tom Baker held this meeting with the applicant and found that no alternative was acceptable to both the Planning Office and the applicant. The purpo.;e of this memo is, therefore, to provide you with an updated review of the project from which you should take a recommending action to Council on this conceptual proposal. Purposes of PUD Section 24-8.1 of the Municipal Code states that the purpose of the Planned Unit Development article "is to encourage flexibility, innovation and variety in the development of land to provide performance criteria for PUD' s which will : (a) "Promote greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings ; (b) Improve the design, character and quality of new development; (c) Promote more efficient use of land and public streets, utilities and governmental services ; (d) Preserve open space as development occurs; (e) Provide procedures so as to relate the type, design and layout of residential development to a particular site and thus encourage the preservation of the site ' s unique, natural and scenic features ; and (f) Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding area". Conceptual Presentation The conceptual presentation requirements include a statement by the applicant as to the planning objectives to to be achieved by the planned unit development through the particular approach chosen, including any specific advantages that a PUD offers as opposed to a conventional subdivision. In addition, future ownership of all portions of the property is to be projected. Other conceptual require- ments include a description of approximate location of structures, density, use and types of buildings, and location of common open space, park and recreation areas. Finally, you are to be provided with general landscaping renderings of the proposed improvements which, although preliminary, are of sufficient detail to apprise the commission of the exterior design, bulk and mass of the development and its relationship to terrain features of the site. This proposal is for six single residences and two duplex structures. The duplexes will be placed on 9,000 sq. ft. lots which border Seventh Street. These lots will be made up of original townsite lots A, B, C, and K, L, M. The six single family lots are proposed to be 6 , 000 sq.ft. lots formed along original townsite lot lines. The applicant wants to subdivide these lots, but does not want to design or build the structures. He intends to market the lots so that each purchaser can design his or her own structure. The Planning Office feels that this concept has merit and that such an approach satisfies the criteria of achieving a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding areas and the criteria of promoting greater variety in the type and design of buildings. The West End neighborhoods to the east, north and south of this parcel are all subdivided along original townsite lot lines and a variety of architectural styles exists on each block. Allowing the Agate block to be developed without a totally planned concept is an interesting approach that we support. The design of the two duplexes will be as shown on the submission. The architectural concept for these structures appears to be suitable for this site. No variances are being requested for these structures and the single-family houses to be designed are intended to conform to R-6 area and bulk requirements. Vehicle access will be from the alley into "auto courts" with parking spaces off these entrances. The alley access is preferable, in our opinion, to curb cuts. The Engineering Department feels that the cut for the driveway into the auto court is excessive, and they propose that it be narrowed to 26 ' (from 66 ' ) so that additional open space is provided and access to the dumpster is still maintained. In addition, Engineering recommends that under- grounding of utilities be a condition of approval. Access to the single-family residence is as yet undefined. The applicant intends to "encourage the purchasers of the lots to utilize the Agate Court roadway for automobile access, thus further minimizing additional curb cuts". The Planning Office feels that since the alley is being proposed as the access to the duplexes, the six single-family lots should be limited to alley access and trash access for these homes should also be in the alley. Six curb cuts are unnecessary, and do not represent "efficient use of land and public streets" as noted in the criteria above. The site plan appears to propose that the alley be accessible from both Sixth and Seventh Street. We definitely feel that the alley - 2 - should be closed at Seventh Street. The landscaped strip along Seventh Street should continue unbroken and the alleyway should terminate at the duplex driveways. Interaction of vehicles turning into the development or entering onto the highway from the alley would be a hazardous situation and should be avoided. The current situation with the alley behind the Hickory House should not be repeated one block away. This portion of Seventh Street is also a bus route and a bus stop should be provided at the corner of Seventh and Bleeker. The current proposal is for 10 units and a unit verification completed by the Building Department and Planning Office indicated that 24 units currently exist in the Agate. All the units have been used for long- term rental. Five units (with a total of 11 bedrooms) fall within employee housing price guidelines. Since no condominiumization is being proposed, the Housing Authority has no jurisdiction to require replacement of any employee housing units. There are several trade- offs in this situation. One of the most unsightly and visually important blocks in town is proposed to be upgraded in return for the loss of some employee housing without replacement. Additionally, the project represents a net decrease in units on the block to a density more in keeping with the West End, which is also a desirable result. The landscaping proposal is very sketchy at this point. It is our opinion that you can require more information at this conceptual stage or defer your review of the proposed landscaping to the Preliminary stage. The applicant mentions in the text that six trees are slated for removal . The comments of the Parks Department have been re- submitted and Jim Holland pointed out in a recent discussion that large trees like several of the ones growing on this property are the reason that the ordinance to protect them was adopted. He recommends that the applicant try to design around them. Many of the trees are too large to be successfully transplanted. Attention to these questions of tree removal and replacement of landscaping elements must be addressed in greater detail by the applicant. We do not feel that this site planning element should be left unaddressed simply because a standard lot-line subdivision is being proposed. In addition, the parking shown for the duplex units is two spaces per unit. Since the requirement in the R-6 zone is for one space per bedroom, we assume that each unit in the duplex structure will have only two bedrooms. An indication of a parking configuration or limitation on bedrooms in the single-family residences is important to assure that a high-level of on-street parking is not being encouraged by an approval of this concept. The critical planning issue affecting this site is the analysis of planning alternatives for the entrance to Aspen. As you are aware, the message that the City Council sen to the Highway Department is that both the "direct approach" and existing alignments should be reviewed in the update of the SH 82 EIS. Given this action, the Planning Office feels that our planning and land use review activities must respect both potential alignments. Four laning of the existing alignment will result in a decibel level produced by traffic that makes homes on Lots A, B, K and L "uninhabitable" by federal standards. As is explained more fully below, since this site is designated as a PUD and not simply subject to subdivision review, this impact must be considered in relation to the intent and purposes of PUD. CONCLUSION: In our opinion, the key to reviewing the conceptual PUD for the Agate Court is to measure how well it achieves the intents and purposes of PUD. This site was zoned PUD some time ago, and differs from many other PUD sites in that it is flat and does not contain natural hazards such as floodplains or steep slopes. We have, therefore, had to infer the reason the site may have been designated for planned unit review from its location and current use pattern. When we initiated the review of this project, we felt that the rationale for the PUD designation was likely its visibility from SH 82 and the - 3 - desire of the community to see an integrated plan for this prominent block at the entrance to town. We felt that proper landscaping along Seventh Street and a theme for the block, including setbacks, would probably meet the Community' s needs for the site and upgrade what is clearly an unsightly property. During the review process we have become convinced that a single design theme for all the units in the project is probably not necessary and that the applicant ' s proposal to leave their design to the eventual owners is acceptable. However, during the review process we have also learned that the PUD could have been placed on the property in recog- nition of the potential for highway expansion onto this site. The time of the last Citywide rezoning (mid 1970 ' s) followed a period of intense transportation planning, not unlike that which we are presently undertaking. It is not hard to imagine that the planners at that time were aware of the potential development conflicts on this site and applied the PUD designation to permit flexibility in design to achieve community goals, yet allow the property to be developed. The applicant ' s proposal does not take advantage of the flexibility offered by the PUD regulations. By ignoring the PUD flexibility, the applicant is unable to meet the following PUD intents and purposes: 1. The project does not efficiently use land and public streets, nor does it "achieve a beneficial land use relationship with the surrounding area". The placement of two duplexes within a proposed highway alignment is contrary to good community planning by reducing our options to meet the public safety and general welfare needs of residents and visitors . Through use of PUD techniques, the applicant could easily achieve the density requested and yet achieve beneficial public purposes. Improvements could also be made to the access plan to eliminate the curb cuts to the six single family units and to reduce the width of the alley so as to better utilize the land within the site. 2. The project does not demonstrate "preservation of the site' s unique natural and scenic features ". House placement results in the removal of six trees on the site. Jim Holland feels that the design should avoid this significant impact. Once again, use of PUD flexibility could greatly enhance the development, without loss of requested density. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above conclusions, the Planning Office recommends that you recommend that City Council deny the applicants proposal and encourage the submission of a new conceptual application which conforms to PUD procedures and purposes. - 4 - ' E E 9J h 1[� MEMORANDUM I , TO: Colette Penne, Planning FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer DATE: March 21, 1985 RE: Agate Construction Project (a) Setbacks in R-6 Zone (Area & Bulk) Frontyard 10' Sideyard 6.66' (Section 24-3.7(f)3) Rearyard 15' Site plan indicates a wrong rear setback, front setback and side if applicant wants to build to allowable setbacks. (b) Applicant should remember that height is measured from existing grade (Section 24-3.7(g)) (c) (Section 7-141(g) (1)) Applicant should be aware that on corner lots, berms, fences, shrubs, etc. , can only be 42" high for a distance of 30' from the corner of the property. (d) A landscape plan should be provided for any tree removal per Section 13-76 WD/ar MEMORANDUM D g15 Min To: Colette Penne 2211116 1g / From: Elyse Elliott ti Date: February 21, 1985 Re: Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision Jinx Caparrella of the Electric Department recently sent us a memo describing the steps necessary for undergrounding the utilities in Block 17 . We recommend that this be one of the conditions for approval for this project. M E M O R A N D U M 5 TO: Colette Penne, Planner PI FROM: J. Lucas Adamski , Housing Director DATE: February 13 , 1985 SUBJECT: Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision/PUD OVERVIEW: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Subdivision approval pursuant to Section 20-10 and Conceputal PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.7 and 24-8.13 . for the redevelopment of the Agate property, which is located at Block 17, City and Township of Aspen. The Block currently consists of eighteen 30 ' x 100 ' Tots. The resub- division proposed would consist of two 90 ' x 100 ' , each developed with a duplex residence and six 60 ' x 100 ' residential lots, each developed with a single family residence. All of the units are exempt from the provisions of Section 24-11 , .2 . (a) of the growth management quota system by virtue of 24 units having been verified by letter dated November 3 , 1982 , from the Zoning Enforcement Office (Appendix A) and thus may be recon- structed without GMP review. HOUSING AUTHORITY REVIEW: The Housing Authority is in favor of the redevelopment of the existing area which is a main entrance into town although the potential benefits are not under the Housing Authority' s purview. The applicant has represented that he will creat a landscaped irregular and naturally appearing berm and buffer area along the entire most westerly lot lines of the subdivision to enhance the visual impression of the redevelopment. The Housing Authority agrees with the applicant' s representation that no employee housing is required by the City Code as the duplex lots are not going to be condominiumized. Therefore, the Housing Authority does not request conditions for the approval of this application. However, the Housing Authority is concerned the possible displacement of employees who may be housed at the Agate Lodge. The attached rental rates for persons currently living at the Agate fall within the employee rental guidelines and may indicate some employees are living at the Agate Lodge. The Housing Authority would strongly recommend working with the Planning Office to consider a Code Amendment to address the issue of employees that are being displaced when redevelopment of this nature occur. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 03 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, David White, Roger Hunt, and Mary Peyton present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Harvey commented on the letter sent to the commissioners whose terms have expired. Harvey encouraged Hunt, Tygre, and Pardee to definitely reapply. The city is now following proper procedures; when a term expires the opened position is publicly noticed and new applications are encouraged. Hunt requested a reaffirmation of his position now. Is he allowed to sit as a commissioner until he is reappointed or relieved? Harvey replied that Hunt can sit on the Commission until relieveti. (Jasmine Tygre arrives in the chambers. ) Harvey reminded the commissioners there is a joint meeting with City Council on October 15th at 5: 00 p.m. in the council cham- bers. This will be a work session on SPA. Alan Richman, planning office , remarked that Council has many questions about the resolution. He preferred the commissioners as opposed to the staff answer the councilmembers' questions about the resolution. He wanted the councilmembers to see that the commissioners support the resolution. Harvey asked Tygre if she has reapplied. Tygre replied yes. White reminded the commissioners that tomorrow at 4 : 20 p. m. in the council chambers Council will resume its discussion over splitting the planning department. MINUTES September 18. 1984: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of September 18, 1984; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. pRE-APPLICATION MEETING AGATE LODGE Harvey said this is a pre-application meeting on the Agate Lodge. The problem is that the PUD requires architectural review. The applicant requests an approach to mandatory PUD that does not require the review of the architectural design. Colette Penne, planning office , reminded the Commission it reviewed the application on the Agate which was submitted by 1 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 Stevenson and his group a few months ago. They had the property under option from Butch Clark . Stevenson' s group presented a plan which had some problems. The Commission defined those problems and suggested revisions in certain areas of the plan. Stevenson' s group did that, but the Commission still had problems with certain fundamental areas in the site planning. The Commission again directed the group to address the issues. The Stevenson' s group decided it did not want to work with the city; the group decided not to purchase the property. The property is still owned by Butch Clark. Clark wants the Commission to discuss why the mandatory PUD was imposed on the property. Is there an approach which would not require the design of the houses and would not require the review of the architectural design. Could the Commission just review a site plan? Would the Commission support the removal of the PUD so that the parcel is zoned R-6? The R-6 zone would be in conjunction with the west end neighborhood. Clark does not want to design and build the entire project. Clark wants to go through full subdivision, divide the parcel into into single family and duplex lots , and sell those subdivided lots to individuals who would design their own houses. Penne reviewed the requirements of the PUD and the feelings of the planning office. Remember this is only a pre-application conference and discussion. One Question the Commission needs to answer is whether or not to amend the code in the PUD section. Would the Commission support removing a PUD through a rezoning? Architectural design and landscaping plans are required under the preliminary PUD plan. The code reads that the plans should be in sufficient detail to enable the planning commission to re-evaluate the architectural and landscaping design features of the develop- ment. The plans should show the location of floor area of both existing and proposed buildings, the maximum heights, the types of dwelling units, etc. The Commission is provided a commencement and completion construction table. The Commission is provided preliminary elevation and perspective drawings of all structures and improvements. The proposal by Tom Wells, representative for Mr. Clark , is for full subdivision of the property. Those lots would be sold as raw land for the development of single family units or duplex units without architectural design. There possibly would be a site plan. This proposal is difficult. The division is along original townsite lots. Wells has indicated his client would be flexible about lot arrangements offered under a PUD. But the applicant does not want to design houses. The PUD can be utilized 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 in terms of the land planning. But, the applicant does not want to go through all the requirements of PUD. Planning office believed that the PUD overlay was placed on that particular property because of its visual sensitivity. The property has a real impact on the entrance to Aspen. Therefore, it is important to review more than a site plan for the property. There are no slope or viewplane problems. Wells did mention in his letter of application, which is included in the commissioners ' packet, that originally the property was used for a lodge. But, during the L-3 rezoning process the property was used for long term residential accommodations. The argument by Wells is that things have changed and therefore the PUD is not appropriate anymore. Planning office disagrees. Nothing has changed. The use on the property is not as important as its exterior , visual impact. Penne recommended a solution to accomplish what the applicant wants. Perhaps the parcel should be zoned R-6 without a PUD overlay. The disadvantage with that solution is it does not provide the flexibility to be innovative with the property. R-6 has a certain amount of compatibility with the neighborhood. Many R-6 neighborhoods exist along the original townsite lots . The houses in those neighborhoods are heterogeneous ; there are Victorians next to contemporary structures. Harvey understood the Commission' s concerns during the original application process was the visibility of the property (it is the first piece of property that one sees as one comes into town) ; the trees; and the elimination of the alleys. If a PUD land plan were done then the city might end up with a proper design. Deal with regular townsite lots then. Hunt remarked given the greater amount of setback on Seventh Street there would be more natural landscaping needed to buffer the noise from the dwelling units. That corner is noisy. An audio type barrier is needed. The PUD discussion anticipated the development of the property into a semi-commercial use. He did not have a problem with a straight subdivision. But there will be problems subdividing along the straight existing lot lines, especially for the lots along Seventh Street. Tom Wells , representative for the applicant, investigated what was meant by "more creativity allowed within a PUD. " He misunder- stood the PUD process in Aspen. He assumed that PUD could be used either for full blown developments or only for land subdivi- sions. Most communities provide the options. Usually one could take advantage of the mixing and matching of density and/or land 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 uses allowed in the process. In Aspen one has to go through steps A to Z , there are no interim steps . The system is built into the PUD ordinance. An applicant has no choice to not fully develop a project . The PUD ordinance will not accept Clark ' s intentions of designing a buffer and using some lot lines. The PUD requires review of a development through the entire process. Wells did not suggest eliminating the PUD. The PUD is the one chance for the city to look at a very sensitive lot. He agreed with certain points in the planning office memo dated October 2, 1984. The block is one of the most visually sensitive in Aspen and should be developed in a manner which enhances the image of the community. The PUD overlay will allow for innovation in the site plan, retention of some major trees , a provision for a buffer along Seventh Street, and clustering of lots or structures. He agreed with that statement 100% . The lot is very sN�. ial. The Agate Lodge is certainly substandard and has been that way for a long time. A PUD was imposed on the assumption that the property would be developed as a lodge. The city wanted to make sure a good project was developed there. Meanwhile , the owner voluntarily engaged in long term rentals . The property was under long term rental when the L-3 zone which preserved lodge zoning was established. The property did not qualify for the L-3 status. The PUD still exists. Clark can develop the property himself. He can hire an architect to design a total development plan. He can find another developer who would accept that design. Or he can sell the property to another developer who would provide an alternative design. The extreme solution is to break the property along the lot lines into normal patterns of the R-6 zone and not respect the fact that the lot is special. House sites could be established and sold as residential lots, either as single family units or duplex units, with no change in density, no change in unit count. But the code does not address this. These individual lots could be designated with a PUD overlay, similar to Castle Creek Drive. He encouraged the varied natural textures of the west end community over a homogeneous development like the Villas. The west end is picturesque : new and remodeled Victorians side by side with contemporary architecture. He preferred to go through the PUD process as a land plan process. The R-6 underlying zoning establishes the density, therefore, there is no change in the density. Creativity can be established under a PUD. Perhaps berms and walls and landscaping can be established on Seventh Street to protect the visually sensitive area before the development is 4 RECORD OP PROCEEDINGS Reaular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 built. He cannot detail the exact conditions. But, it is not realistic to establish building envelopes or driveways or to determine which trees to save under the individually owned concept . He cannot dictate to everyone how to design their houses. He envisioned many small duplexes , similar to the project for Doremus on Smuggler between Seventh and Eighth. He preferred a design of quiet small buildings. An entire block of similarly designed structures would not be interesting . He favored the varied textures of the west end along that visually vulnerable block. Harvey quoted from the planning office memo dated October 2, 1984, page one, paragraph one: "sufficient detail to enable the planning Commission to evaluate the architectural, landscaping, and design features of the planned unit development. . . the plan should show the location and floor area of all existing and proposed buildings, structures . . . including maximum heights, types of dwelling units. . . " Harvey asked why certain requirements cannot be waived within the PUD process. Richman replied the code does not allow the Commission to waive those requirements. Harvey argued the code allows for variances within a PUD. Perhaps an architectural control committee can be established for the project. Pardee reasoned there is a PUD overlay because the site is visually critical. Many times mandatory PUD is placed on a property for slope reduction without requiring architectural plans. The critical reason mandatory PUD is imposed on some properties is because of the slope. The area reduced by the slope affects the density. The critical reason the PUD is imposed on this lot is because of its visual vulnera- bility. Therefore, he does see a problem with a site or land PUD. Penne explained there is a problem. The only thing that is exempt under a mandatory PUD is a single family house. Even the owners of duplexes , like Roush, had to come in with a request for exemption from mandatory PUD. Pardee suggested an exemption from PUD if the applicant were to agree to restrictions defined on the property by the Commission. Penne argued a PUD may be desirable for the buffer zone. Harvey interpreted Pardee ' s recommendation: blackmail an applicant from an exemption from PUD with an approved land plan. Pardee said the Commission is not so concerned with the area to the east. He would insist there be a buffer on Seventh Street. He would insist the design plans for the first two homes on Seventh Street be reviewed. Exempt the other lots from PUD . Under PUD he would be willing to grant the allowed 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 maximum FAR for a 6 ,000 square foot lot even though each lot may be less than 6,000 square feet. The lots may lose land, approxi- mately 500 square feet, to the buffer zone. Wells commented that Clark ' s original preliminary layout included two duplex lots on Seventh Street, which provided 90 feet to play with. That layout provided flexibility to create a meandering buffer. Pardee requested the trees be saved and the alley be maintained. Harvey interjected the issue is not what the Commission wants to see in the PUD, but the issue is how can Clark ' s request be done legally within a PUD. If there is not a legal solution, then should the PUD be removed. Richman explained this request can be accomplished through an exemption from mandatory PUD. If the Commission were to find the development meets the intents and purposes of PUD then the applicant would not have to go through all the rigorous requirements of PUD. However , the applicant would still have to go through full subdivision. This project would have to go before the Commission and Council twice . He did not know if Council would agree to this concept. The Commission is entrusted with exemptions from mandatory PUD. If the project were consistent with PUD intent then the project might not have to meet the PUD requirements. From the perspective of design and results Wells said he did not have a problem with Pardee' s recommendation. However, that solution still forces Clark into either designing or developing the two duplexes on Seventh Street. Perhaps there could be an agreement that the city maintains total control. With the understanding that their is PUD, that their is a buffer, the Commission can review those two duplexes as they come along as a neighborhood PUD overlay. Wells specified that Clark' s original plan included two duplex lots 90 feet from Seventh Street, and three single family units on each side of Sixth or a total of six single family units. White remembered the Commission' s concern during the review of the original application was the buffer , the trees , and the alley. There was a concern about the homogeneity of the houses. He favored the varied textures. If there were someway the city could have its concerns on Seventh Street mitigated and the applicant could accomplish his goals then he would be willing to work out a system whereby free enterprise was not limited in the less critical portion of the entire site. Perhaps an easement is the answer. Wells assured the Commission that the R-6 zone spells out height, 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 setbacks, floor area, parking , everything. It is only the aesthetics of the design concept that the Commission is required to review. White encouraged the solution be as simple as possible. He would be willing to remove the restrictions of a PUD on much of the site if the city were to receive what it wants on Seventh Street. Wells remarked the city does not have an architectural review committee. Hunt recommended that the Commission establish the preconditions which the Commission has stated before. If lot iLi were to stay within those prior stated conditions for the entire PUD then the Commission would define the lot for FAR purposes as 6 ,000 square feet even though the lot was only 5 ,500 square feet. If all the prior conditions were met by the individual lots then what would be the problem. If the lots were to maintain the precondi- tions then the lots would be exempt from the PUD. Require that the two lots on Seventh Street have a full PUD. Richman suggested the Commission come to a consensus as to whether the applicant ' s approach is acceptable. Do not design the legal solution, let the planning office discuss a legal solution to the problem with the city attorney. If the Commission were not worried about consistent architecture across the entire PUD then that would be all the planning office needs to know to work with the applicant. Tygre noted the PUD overlay will have to remain. If the buffer zone were created the PUD would have to remain to address the changes in the sizes and arrangements of the houses. Harvey said the site plan indicates conforming lots ; the con- figuration is six thousand square feet, six thousand square feet, six thousand square feet, and nine thousand square feet. The buffer area would be some kind of easement. The difficulty is creating the mechanism which would provide for permanent maintenance of the buffer zone, whether it be a stonewall with ivy or whatever . If the owner of this particular lot were to grant an easement to the city, then how would the buffer zone be maintained by future property owners. There is no incentive to maintain the buffer. The buffer zone generates nonconforming lots on Seventh Street. The critical question is should the city require a PUD on those two duplex lots fronting Seventh. Should the city require the owner or developer to create the buffer the way the city wants? If so, should the buffer become a common element in an homeowners organization even though those two duplex lot owners would maintain the buffer? On the other hand, if an easement were given to the city, then the city could create and maintain the buffer area as it wants. 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 Pardee asked if a duplex or a single family structure is going on the duplex lot . If a duplex were built there, then it would occupy a greater portion of the extra lot. The city would not gain that much. The concern is the size, description, and looks of the two duplexes or single family homes. The other concern is the appearance of the buffer. He would not release anything until the city has reviewed those two lots. Wells repeated he still does not want to design the buildings. The city is forcing Clark to develop something he does not want to develop. Design flexibility is important. Flexibility is much greater with a duplex on 90 feet rather than with a single family house on 60 feet. Pardee opposed the development of the six family units without addressing the two most critical lots. He did not want to see the most critical lots developed or reviewed last. Pardee would not release any PUD until the Commission has reviewed those two parcels and reviewed the mitigations. Wells commented that the original layout by Clark included a buffer. But the original plan did not consider who would maintain the buffer. It would be advantageous if the city maintained the buffer . The city could coordinate the buffer with the island. The city could define and maintain the kinds of trees and shrubs in area. Then Commission can review the design when the duplexes come up for development. Pardee asked if the same setbacks would be maintained for a duplex. How much would be given to the city? Harvey answered that would be determined through the process of negotiation. Harvey asked if the Commission favored an approach to enable the Commission to do a PUD land plan for the critical Seventh Street frontage and if the Commission favored retaining the PUD overlay on those two lots . Richman interjected that PUD involves a minimum of 27 ,000 square feet. This solution is not workable. Harvey asked the Commission ' s position about exploring a thirty foot easement. Harvey concluded the solution will probably be some agreed upon land plan and easement granted to the city. The city would then maintain that sensitive part of the property. Penne remarked the Commission may not want to extract the maximum density for the property. Even if the Commission were to want a buffer without a PUD there might not be room for maximum allowed density. The suggestion to allow the maximum FAR that the block will absorb is not necessarily a good solution. If houses with 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 maximum FAR were allowed and if the houses were grouped more closely together, then there might result a tighter grouping of larger houses. The visual impact would be massive. Wells maintained that the lot sizes did not have to be limited. Keep the full PUD process for the two sensitive lots on Seventh. Richman reiterated that cannot be done, PUD requires 27 ,000 square feet. Hunt said keep the PUD on the entire block but exempt the lots which comply with the preconditions from the PUD requirements. Richman supported the exemption approach. Keep the PUD on the entire property. Go through PUD review procedures. The Commission could determine that full architecture was not appropriate and could exempt the individual owners from the full architectural procedures if the applicant were to demonstrate the alleviation of the Commission' s concerns with sufficient detailed information. If the Commission were to agree with this concept then planning office with the city attorney could try to design a program to make that happen. Pardee asked the Commission if it wants to review the architectural design of the two houses on Seventh Street. Seven commissioners favored this ; one opposed. Pardee commented that it was a mistake to impose the PUD on the entire block. But he would not support removing the PUD until the two most critical parcels are reviewed. Fallin did not support carte blanche exemption nor did she support the request by the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE CONCEPTUAL GMP SUBMISSION AND SCORING SESSION Harvey opened the public hearing. . Penne provided the commissioners a project profile and the score sheets. There is only one application. It is for 4 ,500 square feet of commercial space. The space is part of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. The applicant came through the original lodge competition with a proposal for 8 ,500 square feet of commercial space. The commercial space has been reduced to 4, 500 . The commercial space is on the ground floor of the hotel. The space is for retail space for permitted uses in the cl zone; the same uses permitted in cc with the provision that the space is at street level with lodging above. The quota available in the cl and other zones is 3,000 square feet. The request is for a year and one-half quota. Harvey acknowledged that 3,000 square feet is available in the 1984 quota. But, how many square feet did Council eliminate in 1983? 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Agate Court Project - Conceptual Subdivision/PUD DATE: March 19, 1985 LOCATION: All of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen (Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P,Q, R, and S) ZONING: This 54,000 square foot parcel is zoned R-6 PUD. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of conceptual subdivision and PUD for the redevelopment of Block 17. This proposal is for the demolition of all existing structures and the resubdivision of the property into six single-family lots and two duplex lots. PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: Background In April of 1984, you reviewed a proposal by the Stevenson Building Co. to redevelop the Agate property. That proposal was also for six single-family homes and two duplexes. The applicant also intended to request variances in height and floor area ratios. After a few meetings with you, they decided not to exercise their option and the property remained in the ownership of C. M. (Butch) Clark. In October of 1984, you reviewed a request presented by Tom Wells to either remove the PUD designation from the parcel or to allow its subdivision (and review as a PUD) without architectural review as required by Article VIII, Planned Unit Development. Your response to that request was that the most visually sensitive area is along Seventh St. (Hwy. 82) and that you wanted to review the design of the first two units to be placed in proximity to the highway and the landscaping which would be placed between these houses and the highway. Purposes of PUD Section 24-8.1 of the Municipal Code states that the purpose of the Planned Unit Development article "is to encourage flexibility, innovation and variety in the development of land to provide performance criteria for PUD' s which will : (a) "Promote greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings ; (b) Improve the design, character and quality of new development; (c) Promote more efficient use of land and public streets, utilities and governmental services ; (d) Preserve open space as development occurs; (e) Provide procedures so as to relate the type, design and layout of residential development to a particular site and thus encourage the preservation of the site ' s unique, natural and scenic features; and (f) Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding area". Conceptual Presentation The conceptual presentation requirements include a statement by the applicant as to the planning objectives to be achieved by the planned unit development through the particular approach chosen, including any specific advantages that a PUD offers as opposed to a conventional subdivision. In addition, future ownership of all portions of the property is to be projected. Other conceptual requirements include a description of approximate location of structures, density, use and types of buildings and location of common open space, park and recreation areas. Finally, you are to be provided with general landscaping renderings of the proposed improvements which, although preliminary, are of sufficient detail to apprise the commission of the exterior design, bulk and mass of the development and its relationship to terrain features of the site. This proposal is for six single residences and two duplex structures. The duplexes will be placed on 9, 000 sq.ft. lots which border Seventh Street. These lots will be made up of original townsite lots A, B, C, and R, L, M. The six single family lots are proposed to be 6,000 sq.ft. lots formed along original townsite lot lines. The applicant wants to subdivide these lots, but does not want to design or build the struc- tures. He intends to market the lots so that each purchaser can design his or her own structure. The Planning Office feels that this concept has merit and that such an approach satisfies the criteria of achieving a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding areas and the criteria of promoting greater variety in the type and design of buildings. The West End neighborhoods to the east, north and south of this parcel are all subdivided along original townsite lot lines and a variety of architectural styles exists on each block. Allowing the Agate block to be developed without a totally planned concept is an interesting approach that we support. The design of the two duplexes will be as shown on the submission. The structures appear to be suitable for this site. No variances are being requested for these structures and the single-family houses to be designed are intended to conform to R-6 area and bulk requirements. Vehicle access will be from the alley into "auto courts" with parking spaces off these entrances. The alley access is preferable, in our opinion, to curb cuts. The Engineering Department feels that the cut for the driveway into the auto court is excessive, and they propose that it be narrowed to 26 ' ( from 66 ' ) so that additional open space is provided and access to the dumpster is still maintained. In addition, Engineering recommends that undergrounding of utilities be a condition of approval. Access to the singly-family residences is as yet undefined. The applicant intends to "encourage the purchasers of the lots to utilize the Agate Court roadway for automobile access, thus further minimizing additional curb cuts". The Planning Office feels that since the alley is being proposed as the access to the duplexes, the six single- family lots should be limited to alley access and trash access for these homes should also be in the alley. Six curb cuts are unnecessary, and do not represent "efficient use of land and public streets" as noted in the criteria above. The site plan appears to propose that the alley be accessible from both Sixth and Seventh Streets. We definitely feel that the alley should be closed at Seventh Street. The landscaped strip along Seventh Street should continue unbroken and the alleyway should terminate at the duplex driveways. Interaction of vehicles turning into the development or entering onto the highway from the alley would be a hazardous situation and should be avoided. The current situation with the alley behind the Hickory House should not be repeated one block away. This portion of Seventh Street is also a bus route and a bus stop should be provided at the corner of Seventh and Sleeker. The work presently underway on a new highway alignment for the entrance to Aspen could greatly affect this property. Depending on the alter- native finally chosen, it is possible that development on Lots A, B, R, & L, might be a problem. If the existing alignment is four-laned, the decibel level produced by traffic would make these lots "uninhabitable" by federal standards. Since the highway alternative work will not be - 2 - completed during the course of the review of this project, we can only advise that our preferred solution is that options be kept open. To move this development back from those lots would allow for a much wider buffer between the traffic and the houses, which in any scenario, would be a positive result. Since the PUD designation exists on the property and is not being taken advantage of in the current proposal, it could be implemented to redesign the site plan if the same number of units is important. It is also possible that the floor area ratio attributable to the affected lots could be transferred to the remaining build-out and fewer units would be built. If these four lots were left open in the plan, each side of the block would still contain 21,000 sq. ft. Lots could be varied in size under the PUD so that the 10 units desired could still be accommodated on the block. Another alternative if standard lots are to be formed, is to reduce the development to 8 units. The current proposal is for 10 units and a unit verification completed by the Building Department and Planning Office indicated that 24 units currently exist in the Agate. All the units have been used for long- term rental. Five units (with a total of 11 bedrooms) fall within employee housing price guidelines. Since no condominiumization is being proposed, the Housing Authority has no jurisdiction to require replacement of any employee housing units. There are several trade- offs in this situation. One of the most unsightly and visually important blocks in town is proposed to be upgraded in return for the loss of some employee housing without replacement. Since an abundance of units exist, their replacement with 10 units is exempt from Resi- dential Growth Management Competition. The Building Department has not commented on this proposal . In an earlier review, they cited Section 24-3 .7 ( f) ( 3) and Section 24-3 . 7 ( f) ( 6) which deal with corner lots and yards adjacent to arterial roadways and made a deter- mination that 6th and 7th Streets require 10 foot setbacks while Hallam, Bleeker require a 6 2/3 foot setback. Also, if the alley is not vacated, the rear yard must be 15 feet. The landscaping proposal is very sketchy at this point. it is our opinion that you can require more information at this conceptual stage or defer your review of the proposed landscaping to the Preliminary review. The applicant mentions in the text that six trees must be removed, however it is unclear exactly which trees are slated for removal. The comments of the Parks Department have been re-submitted and Jim Holland pointed out in a recent discussion that large trees like several of the ones growing on this property are the reason that the ordinance to protect them was adopted. He recommends that the applicant try to design around them. Many of the trees are too large to be successfully transplanted. Attention to these questions of tree removal and replacement of landscaping elements must be addressed in greater detail by the applicant. We do not feel that this site planning element should be left unaddressed simply because a standard lot-line subdivision is being proposed. In addition, the parking shown on the duplex units is two spaces per unit. Since the requirement in the R-6 zone is for one space per bedroom, we assume that each unit in the duplex structure will have only two bedrooms. An indication of a parking configuration or limitation on bedrooms in the single-family residences is important to assure that a high-level of on-street parking is not being encouraged by an approval of this concept. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: In light of the highway planning work currently underway and the lack of detail on landscaping and our inability to discuss new options before the meeting with the owner or architect because they are both out of town, we recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission discuss the concepts of the proposal and give the applicant some direction on those points we raised that you request for further revision of the site plan to more fully address access, landscaping, parking and accommodation of a more extensive buffer to Highway 82 . - 3 - Specifically, the changes we recommend be made are as follows: 1. Accommodate the proposed highway alignment within the design for the site. 2. Revise the landscaping plan to provide the needed detail regarding tree removal and replacement. 3. Revise alley access as regards size (66 ' to 26 ' ) and con- figuration (close Seventh Street Entrance, provide access to single-family units) . - 4 - CITY OF ASPE 130 south galena street D [E@MOVE aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 - 81985 v MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7 , 1985 TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office FROM: City Attorney RE : Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision/PUD The City Attorney's office is of the opinion that the conceptual submission for the Agate Subdivision meets the requirements of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. MU/mc 7C ASPENQPITKIN d4EGIOIVAL. ttsu►e_uu NOV 4 m3 Nobember 3 , 1983 Jon Seigle Sachs, Klein & Seigle Attorneys at Law 201 North Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Unit Verification Agate Lodge Dear Jon: This letter contains an inventory of what I observed during our site inspection on September 30 , 1983 , at the Agate Lodge property. This will appear similar to the format of your letter of October 4 , 1983 , with additional comments on my part. I will not comment as to whether these units are "lodge units" or "multi-family units" , but I -feel my comments will allow the planning department to make that determination. I also cannot comment as to whether all the units were constructed legally. I feel the time of construction of some of the units may proceed our records. Basically, the following pages contain observations that I made regarding present conditions . I hope this is the verification you need. Sincerely, VJ I " 1 William L. Drueding , Zoning Enforcement Officer • cc: Planning - Paul Taddune, City Attorney Wayne Chapman, City Manager Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official WLD/ar mail address: 110 Ea st Hallam Street 506 East Main Street 110 East Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 -5- ' I Unit #1 Cabin Unit, containing kitchen facilities. (Sink, • range, refrigerator) a Unit #2 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator, hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) . Unit #3 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator, hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) . Unit #4 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator, hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) . Unit #5 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator, hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) . Unit #6 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator, hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) . Main Lodge - First Floor - Unit #7 I considered a studio containing: kitchen, bath, illegal loft, illegal sleeping room. Unit #8 Studio containing kitchen and bath. Unit #9 Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but no kitchen plumbing. Unit #10 Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but no kitchen plumbing. Unit #11 Contained bath and kitchen. Two rooms appeared to be combined into one unit. Unit #17 Studio containing range, refrigerator, but no kitchen sink or plumbing. _ ,_-- Main Lodge - Second Floor Unit #12 One bedroom containing kitchen and bath facilities. Unit #13 One bedroom containing bath and kitchen facilities. Cabin #14 Various chopped-up rooms containing kitchen and bath facilities. Cabin #15 Two small bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities. Cabin #16 Two bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities . -6- Page 2 Unit #18 House containing three bedrooms , bath and kitchen. Unit #19 Converted chicken coop - studio with kitchen and bath. This unit also contains a loft and fireplace that should be considered highly dangerous. I cannot see that this unit was ever a legal dwelling unit. Unit #A20 A three bedroom house containing one kitchen and two baths. Fourplex: House Unit #A21 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath. Unit #A22 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath. r Unit #A23 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath. Unit #A24 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath. I feel it should be noted that the lower units A22 and A24 do not contain proper egress from the bedrooms and should be considered dangerous as sleeping rooms. I would have to question whether these units were constructed legally. Garage - contains a woodworking shop and availability for undetermined parking. -7- SCHEDULE OF RENTS • Effective February 12, 1985 APPROXIMATE AGATE LODGE MONTHLY RENT SQUARE FEET A-1 $340.00 320 A-2 $300.00 216 A-3 $300.00 216 A-4 $300.00 216 A-5 $300.00 216 A-6 $300.00 216 A-7 $565.00 f 672 A-8 $375.00 380 - A-9 $355.00 300 A-10 $335.00 280 A-11 $400.00 364 A-12 $420.00 494 A-13 $400.00 312 A-14 $375.00 (Keaveny) 416 A-15 $390.00 320 A-16 $750.00 740 A-17 $315.00 304 A-18 $950.00 980 A-19 $420.00 400 A-20 $1120.00 2,217 A-21 $700.00 870 A-22 $640.00 870 A-23 $700.00 1,040 A-24 $640.00 962 13/MISC2/2.12.84 SCHEDULE OF RENTS Effective February 12, 1985 APPROXIMATE AGATE LODGE MONTHLY RENT SQUARE FEET A-1 $340.00 320 A-2 $300.00 216 A-3 $300.00 216 A-4 $300.00 216 A-5 $300.00 216 A-6 $300.00 216 A-7 $565.00 0 672 A-8 $375.00 380 A-9 $355.00 300 A-10 $335.00 280 A-11 $400.00 364 A-12 $420.00 494 A-13 $400.00 312 A-14 $375.00 (Keaveny) 416 A-15 $390.00 320 A-16 $750.00 740 A-17 $315.00 304 A-18 $950.00 980 A-19 $420.00 400 A-20 $1120.00 2,217 A-21 - $700.00 870 A-22 $640.00 870 A-23 $700.00 1,040 A-24 $640.00 962 13/MISC2/2.12.84 p ���o �,� ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT taws MEMORANDUM J TO: COLETTE PENNE, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: AGATE COURT PROJECT CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION/PUD DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1985 We have reviewed the above referenced project and have no additional comments at this time, other than those outlined in our correspondence to Doug Allen on December 17 (see attached) . JM:ab MEMORANDUM TO: ty Attorney ..0 Engineer viclq.ursing Director vKkpen Water Dept. jilpen Consolidated San. District Parks Dept. Holy Cross Electric Fire Chief Building Dept. FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE : Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision/PUD DATE : February 5 , 1985 Attached for your review is an application submitted by Tom Wells , Architect, and Doug Allen, Attorney, for their client C. M. Clark, for the redevelopment of the Agate property which is located at Block 17, City and Township of Aspen. The Block currently consists of eighteen 30 ' x 100 ' lots. The resubdivision proposed would consist of two 90 ' x 100 ' duplex lots, each developed with a duplex residence and six 60 ' x 100 ' residential lots, each developed with a single family residence. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than March 1, 1985 , in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before the P&Z on March 19th. Thank you. AGATE SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION Applicant: C. M. Clark Post Office Box 566 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-6969 Attorney for Applicant: Douglas P. Allen 530 East Main Street, First Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8800 Land Planner: Thomas 0. Wells Thomas Wells & Associates Architects 314 South Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-7817 TABLE OE CONTENTS Page 1.0 Project Description 3 2.0 Project Site 3-4 3.0 Application Requirements 4 4.0 Conceptual Subdivision 4 4. 1 Vicinity Map 4 4.2 Sketch Plan 5 4.3 Tabulation of Data 5 4.4 Disclosure of Ownership 5 5.0 Other Considerations 6-7 Appendices A. Verification of Units B. Sketch Plan B-1. Vicinity Map C. Ownership Certificate D. Utility Letters -2- 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The Agate Subdivision is a residential redevelopment of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen, a site bounded by Sixth Street, Seventh Street, Bleeker and Hallam. Block 17 is typical of the City and Townsite of Aspen Subdivision and consists of eighteen 30' X 100' lots. The resubdivision will consist of two 90' X 100' duplex lots developed each with a duplex residence and six 60' X 100' residential lots developed each with a single family residence. Not only will the proposed Subdivision yield several sub- stantial public benefits, but it is a significant improvement over the existing 24 unit Agate Lodge. The Applicant feels that some of the public benefits are: (a) The redevelopment and cleaning up of one of the most significant blocks of land in the West End of Aspen. It is truly the entrance to town as all traffic is forced to slow signifi- cantly when approaching the site. (b) The creation of a landscaped irregular and naturally appearing berm and buffer area along the entire most westerly lot lines of the subdivision to enhance the visual impression of the redevelopment of what is now a prominent eyesore at the entrance of our town. (c) Removal of existing visual vehicular and building pollution, (The Agate) . (d) The creation of a subdivision of homes entirely compat- ible with the residential character of the West End rather than continuing the encroachment by apartments and condominiums into the traditionally detached single family and duplex dwelling character of the surrounding neighborhood as originally platted. The angle design of the duplexes as shown on Appendix A softens the building facades resulting in improved visual impression at this entrance. (e) Creation of an orderly and adequate parking plan replacing the existing vehicular mess. 2.0 PROJECT SITE. The site is totally urban in character consisting of 18 townsite lots containing 54,000 square feet. Because of the sensitive nature of the site and its unique- ness, although the site is R-6 mandatory PUD, the Applicant is asking for no special consideration or flexibility allowed by the PUD desig- -3- nation. The Applicant feels that the highest and best use, both from a compatibility and esthetic point of view because of the sensitive nature of the lots, is to maintain the residential character which predominates east of Seventh Street. However, the Applicant will intensively landscape the West End of the site as shown on the enclosed site plan to enhance the visual appeal of the Subdivision, both for the benefit of the Applicant, proposed lot purchasers and the community in general. This has been determined to produce a much better result than a wider, less intensively landscaped buffer as well as complying with the PUD concept. This will result in a visual impression to persons entering this gateway to Aspen of a conventional West End neighborhood in keeping with the desired character of the area to the east as well as significant upgrading of the site. 3.0 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. The Applicant seeks approval of Conceptual Subdivision pursuant to Section 20-10 and Conceptual PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.7 and 24-8. 13. All of the units are exempt from the provisions of Sec- tion 24-11, the growth management quota system, by virtue of 24 units having been verified by letter dated November 3, 1983, from the Zoning Enforcement Officer (Appendix A) and thus may be reconstructed without GMP review. 4.0 CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION. In order to facilitate Planning Commission and Council review, this portion of the submission is organized to coincide with Code Section 20-10(b) (1) - (4) . 4. 1 VICINITY MAP. A 1" = 400' scale vicinity map is included as Appendix B-1. The map shows the project location, all adjacent lands owned by or under option to the applicant, commonly known landmarks, and zoning on and adjacent to the project. The project's close-in neighborhood location will encourage more pedestrian and bicycle use and fewer auto trips. Also a transit stop is located on the southwest corner of the site providing the most convenient access possible to public transportation. All public safety support systems have ready access to the site by both arterial streets, collector streets and alley abutting the property. -4- 4.2 SKETCH PLAN. A sketch plan of the proposed Subdivision is included as Appendix B. This details the conceptual design of the two duplexes in conformity with the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission at the Planning and Zoning meeting in October of 1984. Illustrated on the sketch plan are the proposed Subdivision lots. The proposed development is of six single family residences on the lots 3 through 8 and duplexes on lots 1 and 2 on Appendix B. There will be no curb cuts on either of the duplex lot frontages, the curb cuts which exist presently being eliminated in this plan. Although the single family lots are not restricted as to access, the subdivision plan encourages the purchasers of the single family lots to utilize Agate Court for automobile access, thus further minimizing additional curb cuts. Applicant will request removal of six trees necessary for development of the Subdivision, but will covenant to save the remain- ing trees in the Subdivision and to transplant as many of the trees to be removed if feasible. The number of trees which will have to be removed under this development proposal does not exceed those which would be removed under any other reasonable development pursuant to an alternative P.U.D. proposal. 4.3 TABULATION OF DATA. Subdivision name: Agate Subdivision Land area: 54,000 square feet Number of lots: eight Number of structures: eight Number of dwelling units: ten (six single family and two duplexes) Total floor area allowed: 28,440 Total projected population: 25 Open space: 39,780 4.4 DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP. The owner of the site is C. M. Clark. An ownership certifi- cate is included as Attachment C. No adjacent lands are owned or under option by Applicant. -5- 5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. 5. 1 The applicant's plan not only eliminates the existing eyesore on Block 17, but creates an orderly development in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal allows each individual purchaser to design their individual single family residences, (with the exception of the two duplexes) in keeping with the character of the West End neighborhood. The two duplexes are as shown on the attached plans (Appendix B) , thus creating a known plan upon which you may base your approval. The applicant believes this is the highest and best use of the site so that a row house or appearance similar to the Villas of Aspen is not created on this property, but rather a variety of architectural design. 5. 2 Although the site is mandatory PUD, the Applicant feels that the purposes set forth in 24-8. 1 are better achieved for the site by not taking advantage of all of the flexibility allowed by PUD. The Applicant feels that the purposes of Section 24-8. 1 (a)-(f) are entirely met by this proposal and that a highly beneficial land use relationship is achieved with the surrounding area. This design plan certainly promotes a greater variety in the type, design and layout of the buildings when compared to that of the existing buildings and does improve the design, character and quality of Block 17. This proposal allows considerable open space as shown on Appendix B, which will be preserved in a park-like manner. The parking will be controlled, rather than parking allowed in the haphazard manner that presently exists. All of the measures taken by the applicant in connection with this development will relate the type, design and layout of the residential development to the existing neighborhood and thus preserve the site's unique character and achieve a beneficial land use relationship with the surrounding West End areas. 5.3 The Applicant will make special reference in both the Subdivision Agreement and the Covenants that will alert prospective purchasers to the floor area ratio and height limitations of the zone so as to meet the area and bulk requirements of the zone. The building envelopes will be those of the R-6 zone in accordance with the desires of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5.4 The Applicant commits to an intensive landscaping plan, especially on the west end of the subdivision, as generally shown on Appendix B, subject to further specific approval upon preliminary and final plat approval, for the west boundary of the site to address the concerns of the Planning Office, Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council and the Historic Preservation Committee. 5.5 Applicant proposes to require through the covenants that access to the trash disposal be from the alley. -6- 5.6 Documentation of adequacy of utility service to the site is enclosed as Appendix D consisting of letters from: 1. Jim Markalunas, City of Aspen Water Department, dated December 17, 1984. 2. Raymond L. Carpenter, Mountain Bell, dated December 12, 1984. 3. Willard C. Clapper, Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company, Inc. , dated December 18, 1984. 4. J. Kelly Bloomer, Canyon Cable TV, dated December 19, 1984. 5. Jim Capperalla, City of Aspen Electric Department, dated December 21, 1984. 07/MISC2/1.30.85 -7-