HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1001 Ute Ave.87A-78 v
lir
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 0-926/89 t PARCEL ID AND CASE N®.
DATE C@MPLETE: 2737-182-00-063 $7A-78
STAFF MEMBER: o`f1;
PROJECT NAME: 1001''8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use &
GMOS Exemption
Project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: 1001 Ute Avenue Partnership, c/o Rick Neiley
Applicant Address: 600 East Hopkins, Suite 3, Aspen, CO 81611
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates
Representative Address/Phone: 230 East Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611 5-6958
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $950.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 9
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: Y 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date ///7 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
—---
REFERRALS: - --
City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
✓ City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
✓ Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
V Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Consol. Energy Center
S.D. (�
DATE REFERRED: -6 I x`81 INITIALS: IM''
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 4)v-iv INITIAL:el/
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other: 71
44-1
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ;j
(r
, � C . •
ATTACHMENT B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue PUD/Lot Split/8040 Greenline review
DATE: i November 22, 1988
REQUEST: Approval of a conceptual PUD submission.
This application involves a 4 step PUD application. The Planning
Commission will be reviewing the first step (conceptual
submission) at tonight's meeting. In addition, the application
involves a Lot Split application which is reviewed by the City
Council at the final step of the PUD review. The Planning
Commission is also responsible for the final approval of an 8040
greenline review which is to be acted on at the third step of the
review. The following chart will hopefully clarify the review
process for this project:
Step 1 - Conceptual PUD review by the Planning Commission.
Step 2 - Conceptual PUD review by the City Council.
Step 3 - Final PUD anmd 8040 Greenline review by the Planning
Commission.
Step 4 - Final PUD anmd Lot Split review by the City Council.
APPLICANT: The applicant for the project is Peter Coventry who
has a contract to purchase the property from Aspen Development
and Construction Company.
LOCATION: 1001 Ute Avenue; across Ute Avenue from the 1010 Ute
Avenue PUD and bordered on the west by the Aspen Chance PUD.
ZONING: The area proposed for development is in the R-15 PUD zone
district. A portion of the property is located in the City' s
Conservation Zone district and the most southerly portion of the
parcel is located in the County and is zoned AF-l.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is an old mine dump area for the
Smuggler Durant Mines. In more recent years the northern portion
of the site has contained 3 tennis courts adjacent to Ute Avenue.
The southern portion of the site is heavily wooded and appears to
be the natural, undisturbed terrain of Aspen Mountain, while the
mid-portion of the site is piled with mine tailings.
411
410
DESCIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
The applicants wish to create two single family homesites on the
6. 73 acre parcel. These homesites are to be sold to individuals
who will construct the homes. In addition, the application
proposes an open space parcel which would be in the common
ownership of the two proposed lots. This parcel would be deed
restricted against any further development.
The application before the Planning Commission tonight is a
conceptual PUD review. The property is zoned R-15 PUD which
requires that any development other than a single family
residence be reviewed under the PUD provisions of the Land Use
Code. The main reason this site was zoned PUD is because of its
steep slope considerations.
Regrading of the property is required in order to develop the
site. In addition, the existing tennis courts located on the
northern boundary of the parcel, adjacent to Ute Avenue are
proposed to be moved 30 ' to the west. The relocation of these
tennis courts is subject to an agreement with the Gant
Condominiums. The Gant has leased the land for the courts for a
number of years pursuant to the agreement found as an appendix to
the application.
The southerly portion of the site is located above the 8040
greenline and the proposed development is within the boundaries
of the 8040 greenline review.
HISTORY:
This site was considered in 1986 for a GMQS allotment. The
proposed development of a (4) Lot Subdivision was denied after
not meeting the threshold scoring under the Growth Management
scoring system.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Engineering: In a memorandum dated November 16, 1988, Jim
Gibbard of Engineering Department makes the following comments:
1. A general plan should be submitted which shows the building
height for any future development and relation to natural
features of the site. .
2 . The applicant should be aware that in the final development
plan, the following will need to be submitted:
a. A slope analysis which has been prepared by a .
registered land surveyor.
b. A more detailed drainage plan which would show how the
2
k
historic runoff rate would be maintained. This plan
should also address the impact to drainage along Ute
Avenue by the crossing of the access road to this
development.
c. A plan that shows how the applicant will address the
recommendations by Chen and Associates in their
geotechnical study of this parcel on November 21, 1986.
2. Parks: In a memo from Bill Ness of the Parks Department dated
October 28, 1988, drainage from the site appears to be the
greatest concern. Drainage through open .ditches through the Ute
Children's Park presents a safety problem, however, piped ditches
are impossible to maintain.
3. Water Department: In a memorandum from Jim Markalunas he
notes the committment by the applicant to provide a future
interconnect with the Aspen Chance water lines. In addition the
Water Department recommends that the applicants install the water
line as show in the application in accordance with the City of
Aspen main extention policy, ie, 8"or 6" ductile iron pipe. They
also recommend that a hydrant be installed at the terminus of the
water line or between lots one and two.
4. Environmental Health: In a memorandum dated October 24, 1988
Tom Dunlop notes that the applicants may be required to obtain a
fugative dust permit for air quality concerns. In addition he
advises the applicants to work with the Environmental Health
Department regarding toxic mine waste. It is not a requirement
that the applicants deal with the Environmental Health
Department, but it is a request based on past experience in
dealing with hazardous waste and its possible negative impacts to
humans. Precautions should be taken by anyone working on this
site given the Chen and Associate report which indicates high
levels of lead. The report noted that the levels ranged from 213
ppm to 16, 600 ppm. The applicants should become familar with the
remediation standards of the EPA for the Smuggler Mountain Site.
STAFF COMMENTS:
As explained earlier in this memorandum, this application will
require a (4) step review. These staff comments, however, will
focus on the project as a whole. We feel that it is impossible
to separate the various reviews and still present an adequate
picture of the proposal.
The applicants are requesting a lot split in order to create two
single family homesites. A lot split is an exemption from the
GMQS and automatically exempts the applicant from the GMQS review
process. The review criteria for a Lot Split, pursuant to
Section 7-1003 of the Code, are listed below with the applicant
and staff response to the proposal. In addition the application
3
is subject to the PUD review criteria in the code which is geared
more towards the site specifics of the development (steep slopes,
massing, architectural design, etc. ) . The 8040 greenline review
also contains another set of criteria which is very site specific
in nature and will be reviewed in detail the next time the
Planning Commission reviews the project (step 3) .
LOT SPLIT
The City Council is the body which has complete review authority
for a Lot Split application, however, the staff feels that the
Planning Commission should be a part of the review process for
the entire proposal. Therefore we have included the following
information.
Section 7-1003 explains that a lot may be created through the Lot
Split process for a single family detached dwelling if the
following conditions are met:
a. CRITERIA: The land is not located in a subdivision approved by .
either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the
City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds
parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of
subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24 , 1969 ;
and
RESPONSE: The parcel is a metes and bounds parcel and meets the
above criteria.
b. CRITERIA: No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot
split, and both lots conform to the requirements of the
underlying zone district; and
RESPONSE: The application proposes to create no more than two
lots. The parcel however will be developed consistent with the
PUD regulations which allow open space parcels within the
development. The proposed open space parcel is to be retained in
common ownership between the two newly created parcels and is
proposed to be deed restricted against further development.
c. CRITERIA: The lot under consideration, or any part thereof,
was not previously the subject of an exemption under the
provisions of this article or a "lot split" exemption pursuant
to Sec. 8-104 (C) (1) (a) ; and
RESPONSE: To the best of the applicants and staffs knowledge this
parcel was not the subject of a prior subdivision exemption
approval.
d. CRITERIA: A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded after
approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted
for these lots nor will additional units be built without
4
. .
. •
receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Article and
growth management allocation pursuant to Art. 8 .
RESPONSE: The applicant agrees to file all necessary plats upon
final approval. The plat required in this case will be a plat
which meets the subdivision and PUD platting requirements of the
Land Use Code.
SUMMARY:
In summary the application meets all the basic code requirements
for a lot split application and thus, an exemption from the GMQS.
PUD
Section 7-907 of the Land Use Code refers to the standards and
requirements of a PUD. These are as follows:
la. CRITERIA: The proposed development shall be consistent with
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The 1973 Comprehensive Plan designates this site as
"Mixed Residential" . The Plan notes that the intention of this
designation is to allow for a mix of residential, office and
tourist accommodations and to reduce density as projects are
developed further and further away from the central core of town.
This application is consistent with the plan in that the
allowable density on the site is reduced by over 50 %. The
adjacent parcel to the west contains 7 single family homesites.
The property directly to the east has been dedicated to the City
for use as a park. (This parcel was dedicated as part of the
1010 Ute Avenue development. ) Further to the east is the Hoag
Subdivision which is platted for single family lots of which
several are developed.
The Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element of the
comprehensive plan identifies a pedestrian/nordic trail along the
base of Aspen Mountain. Two summers ago a trail was constructed
on this property to the south of the Midland Railroad right-of-
way. Upon approval of the application a twelve foot public
easement along this trail alignment will be dedicated to the
public by the applicant. In the past, the Nordic Council has
negotiated a temporary easement for this trail.
The Midland Railroad right-of-way easement will also be dedicated
to the public as a 30 ' wide drainage easement consistent with the
drainage plan for the area.
b. CRITERIA: The proposed development shall be consistent with
the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
RESPONSE: The proposed residential use and the proposed density
5
•
are generally consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods along
Ute Avenue.
c. CRITERIA: The proposed development shall not adversely
affect the future development of the surrounding area.
RESPONSE: The proposed residential use of the property does not
appear to have any adverse effects on the future development
potential of the surrounding property since the surrounding
property has been developed as residential homesites. The
application, however, requests that the future homes for this
parcel be allowed to measure height from finished grade rather
than natural grade. The applicants argue that natural grade has
been distorted over the years and existing grade does not offer a
suitable solution since the topography is created by a mound of
mine tailings.
In general the Planning Office agrees with the applicants
analysis. However, we feel that the 8040 green line review will
give us the direction required to determine heights of structures
on the site. In addition, other criteria in this PUD section
which relate to design are the appropriate areas in which to
discuss the heights of the homes. The Planning Office question
whether allowing the height to be measured from finished grade
will create an undesirable precedent on parcels which have been
re-graded over the years. Recently the City Council allowed the
Galena Place project to be measured from the finished grade of
Galena Street since the project would work better relative to the
regraded topography.
d. CRITERIA: Final approval shall only be granted to the
development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained
by the applicant.
RESPONSE: The application does not require a Growth Management
allocation if it receives approval as a Lot Split.
e. CRITERIA: The density of a parcel shall not be greater than
what is permitted in the underlying zone district. In addition
densities may be reduced if certain conditions exist. The
criteria that apply in this case are as follows:
(1) The land is not suitable for the proposed development
because of its slope, ground instability, and the
possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers;
(2) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to
the natural watershed,, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion
and consequent water pollution;
RESPONSE: The potential areas of concern identified by the
applicants geotechnical engineers are, avalanche, unstable
6
soils, toxic waste, debris flow, subsistence due to underground
mines and soil erosion. In addition to these concerns the Parks
Department has expressed concerns relative to additional drainage
in the direction of the Ute Children's Park and to the Glory Hole
Park area.
The applicants feel that with proper design and by following the
recommendations of the geotechnical engineering report that the
project can be built and the concerns can be mitigated.
The Chen and Associates report is attached as Exhibit 1 of the
application. This report generally calls for more detailed plans
to be developed by the applicant relative to the stated concerns.
The applicants feel that this can be adequately accomplished at
the final submission stage. The Planning Office would like to
see more specifics at this level of the review in order to
determine if mitigation of the concerns is possible.
The Chen & Association geotechnical report makes the following
recommendations:
- That an avalanche expert be consulted,
- A site specific geotechnical investigation be conducted
to evaluate the stability of proposed cuts and fills
that are planned above the tennis court area,
- There is no recommendation regarding subsistence due to
underground mines since the probability of this
occurring is believed to be very low,
- The potential for debris flow/flood should be
evaluated by a surface water hydrologist and that high
sediment concentrations be analyzed in connection with
such events,
- All areas stripped of vegetation should be revegetated
and erosion control measures should be made part of the
overall development plan,
- The mine waste materials present a hazard with regard
to lead concentration. Some of the natural soils below
the mine waste in this area could also be classified as
hazardous material. The specific mitigation plan and
level of protection should be coordinated with the
local environmental authorities. An appropriate level
toxicity plan should be included as part of the
development plan.
The Planning Office agrees with the recommendations of the
consultants and feels that it is difficult to conceptually
approve a development plan if these issues are not addressed at a
7
f
more specific level at this time. At a minimum, the applicants
P PP
should be required to produce a map which indicates the potential
areas of concern and illustrates how the proposed building
envelopes can mitigate the concerns.
f. CRITERIA: The density of a site is reduced if steep slopes
exist.
RESPONSE: The applicants have done a slope reduction study
which indicates that the sites land area is reduced (within the
City Limits) from 115, 314 sq. ft. to 75, 211 sq. ft. The
following Floor Area Computation is taken directly from the
application to show the proposed and allowed density and FAR for
the site.
FLOOR AREA COMPUTATION
1. Site Area Within City Limits (Sq. Ft. ) 115, 310
2. Land Area After Slope Reduction (Sq. Ft. ) .75, 210
3 . Land Area After Subtraction of Gant 51 , 820
Leasehold Parcel (Sq. Ft. )
4. Land Area Per Dwelling Unit (Sq. Ft. ) 25, 910
5. Allowable Floor Area for 15,000 Square, 4 , 500
Foot Lot (Sq. Ft. )
6. Additional Floor Area @ 7 Square Feet 760
Per 100 Square Feet of Additional
Lot Area (Sq. Ft. )
7. Allowable Floor Area for 25, 910 Square 5 , 260
Foot Lot (Sq. Ft. )
8. Maximum Allowable Floor Area for 10, 520
Proposed Development (Sq. Ft. )
Note: All calculations rounded to nearest ten ( 10 )
square feet. -
As noted in the referral comments, the Engineering Department
requires that a slope analysis be prepared by a registered land
surveyor rather than an architectural firm.
8
. .
411 111
g. CRITERIA: The proposed land uses of the development shall be
those of the underlying zone district.
RESPONSE: Residential units are an allowed use in the R-15 zone
district.
h. CRITERIA: The dimensional requirements of the development
shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that ,
some variations are allowed.
RESPONSE: The only variation being requested by the applicants
is the way in which the height of the structures are measured.
The Code requires that the height of a structure is measured
from the natural undisturbed ground slope and natural grade. The
mine tailing produce an interesting situation for this site.
Either we require that the land is reclaimed to the natural
grade (which is debateable) , we allow the structures to be
measured from existing grade, or we allow the structures to be
measured from finished grade. The proposed grading plan shows
the elevation of the two lots at 8017 and 8021. The existing
elevation of that portion of the site is roughly the same. The
Planning Office feels that this determination should be made when
a more detailed elevation plan is presented to the Commission for
review.
i. CRITERIA: Off street parking in the R-15 zone district is one
space per bedroom.
RESPONSE: The applicants propose to meet this requirement. The
Planning Office would like clarification,however,that these
spaces will all be provided within the proposed building
envelope. The applicants also propose to provide 4 guest
parking spaces at the tennis courts off of Ute Avenue.
J. CRITERIA: A landscape plan is required as part of the final
development plan.
RESPONSE: The applicants have provided a plan at this time which
addresses the landscaping of the tennis court area and the
driveway area. The application states that the lots are to be
landscaped by the purchasers of the individual lots. The
Planning Office would like to point out that the code states that
a plan for the exterior spaces will be provided at final
submission. We feel that it is important to see a landscape plan
for the entire site since portions of both lots will be see from
the public ROW and from the Aspen Chance PUD. This plan should
be submitted with final PUD submission.
K. CRITERIA: An architectural site plan is required to be
provided at the initial submission stage of the application.
RESPONSE: The applicant has provided an illustration of the
9
•
111 111
footprints of the structures but offers very little information
regarding the design of the houses stating that the lots are to
be sold as undeveloped lots. The application does state that
architectural character will emulate the neighboring Aspen
Chance Subdivision. The application notes that the building
materials will be restricted to wood, non-reflective metal and
masonry stone and other materials compatible with the
surrounding structures and the adjacent hillside. The Planning
Office feels that elevations or some elevation guidelines should
be presented as part of the final PUD submission or 8040
greenline submission in order for the Planning Commission to be
able to adequately review the proposal.
1. CRITERIA: The open space requirement of the development
shall be that of the underlying zone district.
RESPONSE: The R-15 does not have an open space requirement. The
application, however, does provide a significant amount of
undeveloped land. This land does not necessarily meet the
definition of open space in the city yet it provides protection
of the southerly most portion of the parcel, the steep hillside.
The applicant estimates that approximately 81 percent of the site
is undeveloped. Sixty-six percent of the open space is located
within the City Limit and fifteen percent in the County.
m. CRITERIA: All lighting shall be arranged to prevent direct
glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets
or land.
RESPONSE: The application has not addressed a lighting plan for
the project. The staff would like to point out that any lighting
of the driveway entrance should be low, baffled lighting.
n. CRITERIA: Clustering of dwellings is encouraged.
RESPONSE: The applicants have placed the building envelopes
adjacent to each other utilizing the same access in a central
portion of the site.
o. CRITERIA: The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the
proposed development at the time development is constructed, and
that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these _
public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such
that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles.
RESPONSE: Public facilities are available to the proposed site.
Any upgrades or extensions of service lines will be at the cost
of the developer.
p. CRITERIA: Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
10
• . (_ •
RESPONSE: The proposal provides each lot with access to a
public ROW. The application provides sidewalks internal to the
project but does not provide sidewalks along the public ROW.
The proposed driveway to the building envelope is at a 12%
grade. It is proposed to have a concrete type surface and to be
snowmelted for safety reasons (emergency vehicles and general
safety conditions) .
SUMMARY: In summary, the application appears to propose the most
suitable level of development given the natural and manmade
constraints of the site. The Planning Office feels, however,
that a more detailed analysis of the environmental considerations
is required at this stage in the review process. The basic site
plan and layout of the development is consistent with the
surrounding area, although it is difficult to visualize since
significant regrading of the site is required. The staff feels
it is important to see a schematic drawing of elevations of the
site including the proposed homes. We are not asking for a final
architectural drawing of the houses, but merely a massing and
scaling relative to the site and the adjacent Aspen Chance homes.
The Code requires that this and the landscape plan be provided at
the final PUD submission stage and upon 8040 greenline review.
8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
The application does not address the 8040 greenline criteria at
this time. This will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at
the third step of the review process. The staff, however, has
inserted the criteria from this portion of the code in order for
the Planning Commission to know what other areas of interest will
be addressed later in the application process. In addition the
Planning Commission members may be able to provide the applicants
with some direction relative to the criteria.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located is suitable for development considering its slope,
ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence
and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche
dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or
toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate
the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed
from the site to a location acceptable to the City.
2 . The proposed development does not have a significant
adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage,
soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
3 . The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the air quality in the City.
4 . The design and location of any proposed development, road,
11
• •
or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on
which the proposed development is to be located.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the
need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open
space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the
structure will be designed to blend into the open character
of the mountain.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available
to service the proposed development.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the 1001 Ute
Conceptual PUD submission be tabled until more site specific
studies are conducted which assure the Planning Commission that
the proposed building envelopes are suitable for development
relative to the concerns expressed by the Chen and Associates'
report. At a minimum, the applicants should be required to
create a map which indicates potential areas of geologic concern
and how the proposed building envelopes can mitigate the
concerns.
If however, the Planning Commission feels that these concerns can
be addressed at the final PUD submission stage then the
following conditions of approval of the conceptual PUD plan are
recommended:
1. All site specific studies and plans recommended by the
Chen & Associates ' report shall be submitted as part of
the final PUD submission.
2 . The slope analysis shall be prepared by a registered
surveyor.
3 . The final PUD submission shall indicate how all parking
12
(- 111 (-
spaces required for each home are located with the
proposed building envelope.
•
4 . A landscape plan shall be submitted with the final PUD
plan which addresses all exterior spaces, specifically
the areas adjacent to and within the proposed building
envelopes.
5. Elevations and schematic drawings of the 'site as seen
from Ute Avenue shall be submitted with the final PUD
plan. The intention of this conditoin is to illustrate
the proposed regrading and structures relative to the
site and adjacent parcels.
6. The final PUD plan shall provide a sidewalk along Ute
Avenue.
7 . The Planning Commission shall reserve the right to
determine how the rights of the structure will be
measured until review of the final PUD submission.
8.. The water line shall be installed in accordance with
the Aspen Water Main Extention Poicy, ie. , 8" or 6"
ductile iron pipe.
9 . The applicants shall install a fire hydrant between
Lots 1 and 2 or at the terminus of the line.
ch. 1001
13
-faTTACHMENT A 411 ,
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
:si
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0793 VALLEY ROAD
CARBONDALE,COLORADO 81623
(303)963-3600(24 HOURS)
I
RE: 1C:01
D r
Iabe.ve
..s4cunt.air on :,...=....7:;rtpanyihg map.•I ihen ..:- Pressec! th2 other issues. ,
This f:;5pen within
the 7 Clrao.
• The ens-- 1 .7:1De 7r • -rs at the base a steep ,
111
111
. , .
_ .
'
\ �N� ���
�� �+ ���y ���V
�m ~+�` �� ~�' `�'
.
ii
I
Rock :fall ��r rc��'...r �r :.:.his location from the rutcrops above
i but they are , `7:+ ::._:.ch /,'acred and therefore not likely to
contribute �roru�nt lr� e 'ocs to the hillside. The low
elevatich ef ���e c'�tero�s and the significant tree cover will
�� not al lo rcc to :::.Eih nuch momentum. Nevertheless , the. '
rear fourdatinh wa1 ls shoUld be designed to protrude at least
our fnigrade and be withouIF indos on ts pslope-facing side pf the proposed homes• They should �e strcng enough to withstand forces of at least
200 pounds oer square foot. This should provide a large •
I measure of zrntection from either rolling rocks or snow
slides that may -each the site.
which can 6e done at
An alternative is �ositive landscaping w c
�� the rear ��f �hs ho�e �uring or soon after construction. This
should 17,e • � the form of a three -Foot high rock garden or
well consoIidated (85 % Proctor Density) berm of the same •
it . heigth�, wit� vegetation , in fron+ of each area where windows
cr glass wi l. l .:)e within four feet of the finished grade on
the uphill side of the home The low angle 'of the glassed
wall to the hillside is also a mitigating factor , as snow
m� e up - .
will tend t;.:.: he �e� | ected .
If there �re furt,er ouestions, please do not hesitate to
k contact me
IISincerely ,
, '
w-'
~ --ww
il Nicholas Lempzrzs
Consulting Geologist
I
I •
I
.
N��
��
�
a
II
1 �
SUMMARY CLOSE-OUT FOR
1001 UTE AVENUE 8040 GREEN LINE AND
CONDITIONAL USE
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Resolution for
8040 Greenline and Conditional Use approval for an accessory
dwelling unit.
.. (-
MEMORANDUM
TO.: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use
& GMQS Exemption
DATE: ;:_November 7, 1989
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks a 8040 Greenline and a GMQS
Exemption for the development of a single family residence, and a
Conditional Use approval for an accessory dwelling unit. PUD
review is not required for the development of single family
homes. The Planning staff recommends approval.
APPLICANT: 1001 Ute Avenue Partnership, c/o Rick Neilley
LOCATION: 1001 Ute Avenue, Aspen
ZONING: The area proposed for development is in the R-15 PUD
zone district. Approximately 109, 110 square feet is zoned R-15
(PUD) . Approximately 6, 200 square feet is zoned conservation.
The remaining 4 . 08 acres of the site is located in unincorporated
Pitkin County and. zoned AF-1.
SITE DESCRIPTION: As stated in the application: the project site
contains a total of 6.73 access, only the lower 2 . 65 acres are
located within the Aspen City limits. The site is an old mine
dump area for the Smuggler Durant Mines. It is bounded on the
north by Ute Avenue and Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Ute Addition
Subdivision, on the east by Lots 1 and 3 of the Hoag Subdivision,
and on the west by the Aspen Chance Subdivision. Three tennis
courts, which are leased to the Gant, are located on the northern
portion of the site. The southern portion of the site is heavily
wooded and appears to be the natural, undisturbed terrain of
Aspen Mountain, while the mid-portion of the site is piled with
mine tailings.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a revised application. The
applicant proposes to build a single family home with an attached
accessory dwelling unit on top of the existing mine tailings.
The height of the mine tailings will be reduced by 6 feet to
enable the same building height as the upper most home in the
Aspen Chance Subdivision. The mine tailings will be regraded
down the hillside side to create a stepped topography down to Ute
Avenue and will be revegetated. Regrading is also intended to
compliment the topography of the Aspen Chance Subdivision
directly west of 1001 Ute Avenue: The three tennis courts
adjacent to Ute Avenue will be relocated 30 feet to the northwest
to accommodate a driveway along the southern boundary. The
t
••
driveway will enter the garage below the residence to avoid an
extensive road cut up the hill.
The maximum allowable floor area is 7,440, 540 of which will be
devoted to the accessory dwelling unit. Eight resident parking
spaces are proposed, and 4 guests spaces.
HISTORY: This site was considered in 1986 for a GMQS allotment.
The proposed development of a (4) lot subdivision did not meet
the threshold under the Growth Management scoring system.
In November 1988 and January of 1989, this site was considered
for a lot split, conceptual PUD review and 8040 Greenline review
in two steps of the four step process by the Commission and
council respectively. The applicants received conceptual
approval but abandoned the application before going forward with
reviews for final PUD, lot split, and 8040 Greenline.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: Having reviewed the above application and made a
site visit, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. The applicant has agreed to follow the recommendations which
have been submitted in a report done by Chen & Associates (Chen-
Northern) . The report is based upon the original application for
a lot split. Although the current proposal is a reduction in
density the excavation plans have changed, including but not
limited to, the new driveway with the large underground garage.
This Department needs a confirmation from Chen that the original
report is applicable to this new proposal.
2 . The Engineering Department will require that a detailed
stormwater drainage plan be submitted before the issuance of a
building permit.
3 . The applicant shall to agree to join a special Improvement
District, if one is ever formed.
4 . The applicant needs to grant an easement for the Spar Gulch
Drainage Project. The design for this project has not been
completed and the exact alignment of this easement will be
determined when that is completed.
Environmental Health: The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health
Department has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal
for the following concerns. The authority for this review is
granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as
stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
2
r • l • ` •
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer
as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This
conforms with Section 1-2. 3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of
the public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to
limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only
to areas that are not feasible for public sewers" .
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided
by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This
conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring
such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici-
pal water utility system" .
AIR QUALITY:
Construction:
The applicant has indicated in the submittal that there will be
major reconstruction of the site. This will involve
redistribution of mine tailings and relocation/rebuilding of the
existing tennis courts.
The applicant may be required to develop a fugitive dust control
plan to address windblown dust since the site is larger than 5
acres (one of the criteria for developing such a plan as defined
in the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air
Quality Standards, Regulation 1) . Prior to construction the
applicant shall contact this office for a final determination of
this requirement.
Solid Fuel Burning Devices:
The application states "The proposed residence will contain no
wood burning devices. Gas fireplaces and/or certified gas
appliances, however, may be installed. " As of the date of this
review, such a commitment will offer compliance with current
solid fuel burning ordinances.
As of this date each building can have one certified wood stove,
one gas log and unlimited gas appliances. Further, all such
devices must be registered with this office. Prior to
development of the dwellings the project proponents should review
the status of applicable laws since they have changed frequently.
NOISE:
Short term noise impacts can be anticipated to be felt in the
immediate neighborhood during excavation and construction. Long
term negative noise impacts are not anticipated after
construction. However, should noise complaints be received by
this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise
Abatement will be the document used in the investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS:
3
41,•
•
None that are applicable from this office.
CONTAMINATED SOILS:
The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment
should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during
the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials
off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past -
experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative
impacts to humans.
The soil report from Chen-Northern, Inc. revealed lead levels in
the soil ranging from 213 to 16, 600 parts per million (ppm) .
This, is not uncommon given the concentration of mine waste
present on the site. Given that, precautions should be taken by
anyone working, and ultimately living on the site to not inhale
or ingest soils containing such high levels of lead (those over
1, 000 ppm) . It will be the suggestion of this office that the
applicant become familiar with the remediation standards
recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency for the
Smuggler Mountain Hazardous Waste Site. Similar lead
concentrations in soils exist at Smuggler Mountain which
generated toxicological reports and remedy suggestions. '
The observation by Chen-Northern Geologist to retain all
"contaminated soils and mine waste on-site and providing an
imported noncontaminated soil to cap the materials" to a depth of
2 to 3 feet, is in conformance with recommendations of this
office.
STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 7-503 this proposal is
subject to the 8040 Greenline review. Section 5-502 permits an
accessory dwelling unit pursuant to a conditional use review and
a GMQS exemption by the Commission.
8040 Greenline Review-
Section 7-503 outlines the review criteria for an 8040 Greenline
review as follows:
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located is suitable for development considering its slope,
ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence
and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche
dangers. If the parcel' is found to contain hazardous or
toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegatate
the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed
from the site to a location acceptable to the City.
RESPONSE: The mine tailings have been examined by Chen &
4
(- (-
Associates. The applicant has agreed to follow the specific
recommendations of Chen' s report.
Snow avalanche, soils toxicity, soils erosion and subsidence are
of concerns but have been addressed by the Chen study. Mitigation
measures to reduce the risk from soils toxicity, from mining
waste, have been recommended by the Environmental Health
Department which the applicant has agreed to follow.
To limit the potential from slope instability retaining walls are
to be incorporated above the residence. According to the
application, cut and fill sections will be graded to a 2 : 1
profile or flatter. All the disturbed areas will be covered with
topsoil and revegetated to prevent erosion and to reduce
potential soil toxicity.
The dense vegetation above the building site should reduce the
hazard of debris flow from Spar Gulch. In addition, the building
envelope is above the area that could be impacted by flooding.
Diversion swales around the residence and above the cut slopes
will be used to control surface runoff.
Regarding snow avalanche and rock fall, please see attached
letter from a consulting geologist (attachment A) .
2 . The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil
erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
RESPONSE: The applicant proposes to maintain the historic flow
rates of surface water runoff and groundwater recharge. The site
will incorporate drywells and surface detention facilities to
intercept water from the roofs and impervious areas. All
disturbed areas will be revegetated and stabilized to prevent
erosion. Because the applicant proposes to regrade a significant
portion of the site, the Engineering Department is requiring a
detailed stormwater drainage plan to be submitted.
3 . The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the air quality in the City.
RESPONSE: The residence will contain no wood burning devices.
Gas fireplace and/or certified gas appliances may be installed.
The applicant has agreed to adhere to fugitive dust controls
measures during construction as recommended by the Environmental
Health Department.
4 . The design and location of any proposed development, road,
or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on
which the proposed development is to be located.
RESPONSE: Although the application states that no other portion
5
•
of the site could possibly be developed, the lower portion, which
is being leased to the Gant for use as tennis courts is, in
staff's opinion, a premier site for development. Given an
option, development near the 8040 is should be discouraged.
However, staff does recognize that the lease, due to end in 2083,
restricts the development of the site to on top of the mine
tailings.
If ever the courts are construed to be another building site,
before the year 2083, staff would oppose any future development
application for the tennis court site during the life of the
lease.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
RESPONSE: The most significant land features are the mine
tailings from the Lower Durant Tunnel. There is very little
vegetation on the building site. A majority of the site will be
regraded to provide for a stepped approach and revegetated. The
application states that recommendations from the Chen report,
regarding soil stability and retention of slope cuts, will be
strictly adhered to.
Excavation of the site is necessary for foundation work. The
grading plan is intended to mitigate visual impact upon the lower
lot in the Aspen Chance Subdivision and enable the development to
rest at a similar grade with the upper most lots of the
Subdivision.
The location of the driveway does preclude the necessity to cut
up into the hillside to access the home.
Moving the tennis courts, approximately 30 feet to the west, will
eliminate several cottonwood trees. Tree permits will be
necessary for any significant trees. Relocation of these tress
should be a priority.
Except for the Midland Railroad right-of-way and the nordic
trail, the upper portion of the wooded slope will remain
untouched.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the
need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open
space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
RESPONSE: The proposed residence is designed to compliment and
appear as an extension of the Aspen Chance Subdivision. The home
is at the same elevations as the upper lots at the Chance. The
proposal has been reviewed by the Aspen Chance residents.
6
(- (-
This proposal represents a reduced density from the proposed lot
split, that was conceptually reviewed by the Commission and
Council (please see attached memo regarding the lot split,
attachment B) . The maximum allowable floor area for the lot
split was 10, 520 and the maximum allowable floor area for this
proposal is 7,440.
7 . Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure
will be designed to blend into the open character of the
mountain.
RESPONSE: As stated before, the proposed residence has been
designed to compliment the Aspen Chance subdivision. The steep
wooded slope above the building site will not be disturbed. If
the building was sited further back on the site, visual impact ,
may be reduced and the home may blend into the hillside more
effectively.
The height of the tailings will be reduced by 6 feet and the
regrading effort will create a bench that connects into the
topography of the Aspen Chance Subdivision. The proposed height
of the building is to be 25 feet.
The applicant proposes that the height be measured from the
finished grade verses the natural grade because the mine tailings
have significantly altered the site. During conceptual review
both the Commission and Council were receptive to this type of
proposal. However, the Commission did not want to make a
decision until a specific building proposal was presented. Staff
recommends measuring from the finished grade and recording this
on the plans.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available
to service the proposed development.
RESPONSE: The applicant has provided a detailed discussion
regarding the provision of services. Both . the Engineering
Department and Water Department have reviewed the proposal and
approve of the measure the applicant proposes to provide serves
to the project. The applicant will install a hydrant at the
terminus of the (8) inch water main extension.
Both departments agree that a connection with the Aspen Chance is
not feasible at this time. The applicant has also agreed to
provide an easement across the project site to permit the future
extension of the proposed eight (8) inch main. The applicant
has also agreed to participate in the cost of that extension.
With regard to servicing the project, the applicant should work
with the Engineering Department and the Water Department to
complete all that is represented within the application
7
•
9 . Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
RESPONSE: A single family residence with an accessory dwelling
unit is not anticipated to impact the existing traffic along Ute
Avenue. The applicant has agreed to join a Special Improvements
District.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
RESPONSE: Access to the residence is being provided by a 20 foot
private driveway. The driveway will be snowmelted. As stated
above, the applicant is going to install a fire hydrant at the
terminus of the eight (8) inch water main.
11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan proposes a
pedestrian/nordic trail along the base of the Aspen Mountain ski
area linking Shadow Mountain to Ute Avenue. The trail is
proposed to traverse the project site above the building
envelope. A trail has been cut above the Midland right-of-way by
the Nordic Council. The applicant has agreed to dedicate a twelve
foot wide public easement for the new trail.
Conditional Use Review
An accessory dwelling unit is a conditional use in the R-15 zone.
Section 7-304 outlines the criteria for a conditional use review
as follows:
•
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it
is proposed to be located; and
RESPONSE: The proposed one bedroom accessory dwelling unit will
be approximately 540 square feet and comply with the provisions
of the Housing Guidelines. The unit will be deed restricted as a
resident occupied unit for residents of Pitkin County. The
applicant is also providing one parking space for the unit.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the
mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development;
8
(- 111 (-
and
RESPONSE: The surrounding land uses are residential. Across the
street are the Gant and the Clarendon multi-family developments.
The Aspen Chance is a single family development. A single family
with an accessory dwelling unit is quite compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts , impacts on pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery,
noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
RESPONSE: A parking space will be provided for the unit. the
unit is contained within the primary structure, thereby reducing
the visual impact on top of the hill.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve
the conditional use including but not limited to roads,
potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire
protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical
services, drainage systems, and schools; and
RESPONSE: There are adequate facilities for this proposal use.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by
the conditional use; and
RESPONSE: The proposal includes an affordable unit for employees
of Pitkin County. An increase in employees is not expected by
the provision of an accessory dwelling unit.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposed unit complies with the goals of the city
to provide affordable housing. The proposed unit will meet the
criteria for an accessory dwelling unit as defined by the Aspen
Land Use Code and the Housing Guidelines.
GMQS Exemption
Pursuant to Section 8-104 A. 1.C. the Planning Director may
exempt, from GMQS, the development of a single family home on a
vacant lot which was subdivided or was a legally described parcel
prior to November 14 , 1977, which complies with the provisions of
Section 7-1004 (A) (5) . This proposal meets that criteria.
9
. ,
•
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission approve the 8040 Greenline and Conditional
Use review for 1001 Ute avenue with the following conditions:
1. Before the issuance of an excavation permit the applicant
shall submit to the Engineering Department confirmation from Chen
that their Supplemental Geotechnical Study is applicable to this
new proposal .
2 . Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, the applicant
shall submit, to the Engineering Department, a detailed •
stormwater drainage plan.
3 . The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District, if one is ever formed.
4 . Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall grant an easement for the Spar Gulch Drainage Project.
5. The applicant shall service project with public sewer as
provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and
water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system
as represented in the application.
6. Prior to issuance of an excavation permit the applicant shall
contact the Environmental Health office for a final determination
regarding the criteria for the development a fugitive dust
control plan addressing windblown dust since the site is larger
than 5 acres.
7. The proposed residence shall not contain wood burning devices
as is represented in their application. Gas fireplaces and/or
certified gas appliances, however, may be installed.
8 . The applicant shall contact the Environmental Health office
regarding the potential mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps
which may be encountered during the excavation phase of the
project. The applicant shall adhere to recommendations by the
Chen-Northern Geologist to retain all contaminated soils and mine
waste on-site and providing an imported noncontaminated soil to
cap the materials in conformance with recommendations of the
Environmental Health Department. _
9 . The applicant shall follow the specific recommendations of
the Chen-Northern report regarding soil stability and retention
of slope cuts and shall be reviewed by the Engineering
Department.
10. Before the issuance of an excavation permit tree permits
shall be required for any tree 6" in caliper. Relocation of
these tress should be a priority.
10
c� • •
11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall install a hydrant at the terminus of the (8) inch water
main extension.
12 . Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall provide an easement across the project site to permit the
future extension of the proposed eight (8) inch main. The
applicant shall also to participate in the cost of that
extension.
13 . The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and
the Water Department to complete all that is represented within
the application regarding the provision of services to the site.
14 . Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall dedicate a twelve foot wide public easement for the new
nordic trail.
15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a deed restriction
shall be filed with the Housing Authority for the accessory
dwelling unit which shall comply with the provisions of the
Housing Guidelines.
16. If ever the courts are construed to be another building site,
before the year 2083 , the Planning Department shall not accept
any development application for the tennis court site during the
life of the lease.
11/1001 ute
11
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1001 UTE AVENUE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE
REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND GMQS
EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, IPTOvemb* XTN9-5925at a meeting to begin at 4 : 30 P.M.
before the ..,, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor
Meeting Room, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO to consider an
application submitted by Sunny Vann on behalf of his client, 1001
Ute Avenue Partnership, requesting 8040 Greenline Review,
Conditional Use Review for an accessory dwelling unit and GMQS
Exemption approval for one single-family residence with an
attached accessory dwelling unit. The property is known as the
1001 Mining Claim and is located_ Ute Avenue between The Aspen
Change and Hoag Subdivisions.
For further information, please contact the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, (303) 920-5090.
s/C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
•
•
•
ASPEN - CHANCE, INC .
• Nov 6
Novemb6.21 fig-
City of Aspen
Planning Office •
Gentlemen:
We have been working with Peter Coventry on his plan for development of
the 1001 Claim.
The plan he is presenting to you is a result of those efforts. Originally, he
wanted to place two or three houses on the property. However, through much
discussion, he finally agreed to one large home centrally located on the property.
The house design he is proposing along with the underground parking and
landscaping has a positive effect on our property as well as the surrounding
neighborhood.
We support his development plan and would encourage you to approve it as
proposed. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincer ,
H.O. Myers
President
• . Aspen Chance Homeowners Association
HOM/sg
•
1201 Louisiana•Suite 3150•Houston, Texas 77002.713/655-1800
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE:cOctobe25;---1-9 8.9
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use
Review for Accessary Dwelling Unit and GMQS Exemption
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The applicant has agreed to follow the recommendations which
will be submitted in a report done by Chen & Associates (Chen
Northern) which will be a revised version of the originally
submitted study. This revised report needs to be submitted
before approval.
2 . The Engineering Department will require that a detailed
stormwater drainage plan be submitted before the issuance of a
building permit.
3 . The applicant needs to agree to join a special improvement
district, if one is ever formed.
4 . The applicant needs to grant an easement for the Spar Gulch
Drainage Project. The design for this project has not been
completed and the exact alignment of this easement will be
determined when that is completed.
jg/1001Ute
cc: Bob Gish
Chuck Roth
I
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planner
Planning Office �.C�
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director %
Environmental Health Department
Date: LOctober 18_,_198.9)
Re: 1001 Ute Ave. 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use
Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit and GMQS Exemption.
Parcel ID# 2737-182-00-063
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office by the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer
as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This
conforms with Section 1-2 . 3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of
public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit
the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to
areas that are not feasible for public sewers" .
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided
by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This
conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring
such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici-
pal water utility system" .
AIR QUALITY:
Construction:
The applicant has indicated in the submittal that there will be
major reconstruction of the site. This will involve
redistribution of mine tailings and relocation/rebuilding of the
existing tennis courts.
The applicant may be required to develop a fugitive dust control
plan to address windblown dust since the site is larger than 5
acres (one of the criteria for developing such a plan as defined
in the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air
Quality Standards, Regulation 1) . Prior to construction the
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-6070
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
Septem10er-179 ::19N89—"
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
230 East Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 1001 Ute Ave. 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use .
Review and GMQS Exemption
Dear Sunny,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application is complete.
We have scheduled your application for review by the Planning
Commission at a public hearing on Tuesday, November 7, 1989 at a
meeting to begin at 4 : 30 pm. The Friday before the meeting date,
we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to
your application is available at the Planning Office.
Public hearing notice requirements need to be followed. A notice
for adjacent property owners is enclosed.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
• es
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department 9
Date:; N:ove a)er 164 "1988
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue PUD/Lot Split
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1 . A general plan should be submitted which shows the building
height for any future development and relation to natural
features of the site.
2 . The applicant should be aware that in the final development
plan, the following will need to be submitted:
a. A slope analysis which has been prepared by a registered land,
surveyor.
b . A more detailed drainage plan which would show how the
historic runoff rate, would be maintained. This plan should also
address the impact to drainage along Ute Avenue by the crossing
of the access road to this development.
c .: A. plan that shows how the applicant will address the
recommendations by Chen and Associates in their geotechnical
study of this parcel. on November 21, 1986.:
jg/1001PUD
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
411 41,
John T. Nickel
P.O. Box 7941
Aspen, CO 81612
„Noueriiber--�"'3, 198�8°�
City Council of Aspen
130. South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Sirs:
I am a property owner neighboring the 1001 Ute project
(Lot 4, Aspen Chance) . I am writing to support the project
as planned.
I think it is an excellent improvement over the previous
application, and urge you to approve the lot split
application.
Sincerely,
John T. Nickel
sme
• •
• TD: Cindy ndy Houben, Planner
FROM: Bill Ness, Parks Superintendent
DATE it obey
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue PUD/Lot Split
Parcel ID S 2737-182-00-063
The portion of the project with respect to the off site drainage. The City's
Urban Runoff Management Plan recommends that this runoff be collected in a
drainage ditch to be constructed along the old Midland Railroad right-of-way
and through the Ute Children's Park to the Roaring Fork River.
The Parks Department does not agree with the direction of the drainage
ditch.
When the Runoff Management Group conducted their study several years ago,
foot and bike traffic was not as great as today.
* To install a open drainage ditch along the bike/jogger path poses a
potentially hazardous situation.
* The installation of a open drainage ditch through the Ute Children's
Park is unacceptable, another hazardous situation.
To culvert the drainage system will not work, because of the large amounts
of gravel, silt and sand that will deposit through out the culvert. An open
ditch is the only system that will work, because the ditch will demand
frequent cleaning.
• I
_1
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT ' O'rrr 2 5 )egg
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Houben
FROM: Jim Markalunas
SUBJECT: 1001 Ute Ave.
DATE: 10=24=88:♦ . `°
The Water Dept . has reviewed a application of 1001 Ute Ave. and
notes the commitment by 1001 Ute to provide for easement, and
participation in the future interconnect with Aspen Chance.
The site development plans (sheet 3, pg. 8) shows a water line
centered in the access driveway and in a utility easement
adjacent to Lot 2 Bldg envelope. The size of the water line has
not been specified, but reference is to a "proposed 8" main" .
Since it is the intent of all parties concerned to interconnect
at some future point, the Water Dept. recommends that the
applicant be required to install the proposed water line as shown
on the site plan in accordance with City of Aspen main extension
policy, ie. , 8" or 6" ductile iron pipe, as approved by the City
ngineers office.
We would also suggest that a hydrant be installed at the terminus
of the water line, at or near the fire access corridor location,
between lots 1 and 2.
ASPEN*PITKIN S
ENONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Cindy Houben , Planner
Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director °
Environmental Health Department
Date: obe-r 24-,---1-198.8
Re: 1001 Ute Ave. PUD/Lot Split
Parcel ID# 2737-182-00-063
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office by the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer
as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This
conforms with Section 1-2 .3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the. use of
public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit
the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to
areas that are not feasible for public sewers" .
. .
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant has agreed to. serve the project with water provided
by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This
conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring
such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici-
pal water utility system" .
AIR QUALITY:
Construction:
The applicant has indicated in the submittal that there will be
major reconstruction of the site . This will involve
redistribution of mine tailings and relocation/rebuilding of the
existing tennis courts.
The applicant may be required to develop a fugitive dust control
plan to address windblown dust since the site is larger than 5
acres (one of the criteria for developing such a plan as defined
in the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air
Quality Standards, Regulation 1 ) . Prior to construction the
applicant shall contact this office for a final determination of
this requirement.
•
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
ASPEN*PITKIN •
ENONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
1001 Ute Ave. PUD/Lot Split
October 24, 1988
Page 2
Solid Fuel Burning Devices:
There is no definition in the submittal concerning the
installation of fireplaces, wood stoves or gas logs. Without
that information provided , the applicant must become aware of
local and State regulations governing such devices.
As of this date each building can have one certified wood stove,
one gas log and unlimited gas appliances. Further , all such
devices must be registered with this office . Prior to
development of the dwellings the project proponents should review
the status of applicable laws since they have changed frequently.
NOISE:
Short term noise impacts can be anticipated to be felt in the
immediate neighborhood during excavation and construction. Long
term negative noise impacts are not anticipated after
construction. However , should noise complaints be received by
this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise
Abatement will be the document used in the investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS:
None that are applicable from this office.
CONTAMINATED SOILS:
The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment
should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during
the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials
off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past
experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative
impacts to humans.
The soil report from Chen and Associates revealed lead levels in
the soil ranging from 213 to 16 , 600 parts per million (ppm) .
This is not uncommon given the concentration of mine waste
present on the site. Given that, precautions should be taken by
anyone working, and ultimately living on the site to not inhale
or ingest soils containing such high levels of lead (those over
1,000 ppm) . It will be the suggestion of this office that the
applicant become familiar with the remediation standards
recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency for the
Smuggler Mountain Hazardous Waste Site . Similar lead
concentrations in soils exist at Smuggler Mountain which
generated toxicological reports and remedy suggestions.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020