HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1001 Ute Ave.A68-90CA`. AD SUMMARY SHEET
tiA City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 11120/90
DATE COMPLETE: J 1 e4 Cr
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737- 182 -00 -063 A68
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: 1001 Ute Avenue PUD /'Lot Split/8,04'0"/`Conditional-
'Use-
Project Address: 1001 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Address: Same
APPLICANT: Neal Myers
Applicant Address: 910 Powder Lane, Aspen, CO 81611
REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn - -DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
Representative Address /Phone: 300 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
PAID: YESXXNO AMOUNT: 2410 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 8
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Da
te,.�c; 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
using Dir.
Holy Cross
State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water
�� Fire Marshal
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric
Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth.
Roaring Fork
Other
Aspen Con.S.D.
Energy Center
DATE REFERRED:
3 9 y INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING: J Q `DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
V1. d
MEMORANDUM .
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: May 13, 1991
RE: 1001 Ute Ave. — Subdivision, Subdivision Exemption. for
a Lot Split, and Final PUD Development Plan Review;
Second Reading of Ordinance 10, Series 1991
SUMMARY: The Planning and.Zoning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision and Final PUD Development Plan with conditions. The
Planning Office recommends approval of Subdivision. Exemption for
a Lot Split with conditions. First Reading of Ordinance 10, Series
1991 was approved on April 22, 1991.
COUNCIL GOALS: This process addresses goal #14 which stresses
consistent and fair government process. .
BACKGROUND: This parcel has been reviewed for various land use
applications in the last several years including a 8040 Greenline
review, GMQS,for a four lot subdivision, PUD and lot split. The
only approval granted was for 8040 Greenline for the construction
of one residence. No development has occurred at the site
resulting from this approval. When this current application was
submitted for a lot split, the City Attorney determined that the
longterm lease on the tennis courts held by The Gant Condominiums
constitutes a defacto subdivision under the language of the land
use code. Therefore, staff has processed this project using the
two -step Subdivision criteria to legitimize the three lot proposal.
However, the one -step Lot Split process is also being pursued in
order to allow for exemption from growth management for only two
residences as provided in Section 8 -104 A.l.c.
The applicant seeks only two single family development rights, so
the third lot (tennis courts) will be deed restricted against any
future development as a Growth Management Exemption by the Planning
Director.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission held
a public hearing on April 2, 1991 and voted 7 -0 to recommend
approval of Subdivision and the consolidated Final PUD Development
Plan. In addition, the Commission approved with conditions 8040
Greenline Review and Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units.
Resolution #91 -11 documents these approvals and recommendations.
See Attachment "B".
I) • ) .
KEY ISSUES: Pursuant to the 8040 Greenline approval, the
Commissioners want the applicant to provide further information
regarding rockfall mitigation and avalanche potential. They also
want Lot 2 reconfigured below the tennis courts and an access
easement between the road and the courts. The applicant accepts
the conditions approved by the Commission.
STAFF COMMENTS: As mentioned, this project is rather unique in
that the applicant only seeks to develop two residences, but must
follow the more detailed Subdivision process because of the
existence of the 99 year tennis court lease. Because a typical
lot split process secures two development rights for single family
dwellings without Growth Management competition, staff and the
applicant decided to include a lot split request to accomplish this
goal. Section 7 -1003 A.2 establishes review criteria for Lot
Splits:
a 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 title commitment show that this parcel is a portion
of the 1001 mining claim and is an unplatted parcel created before
the City's subdivision regulations.
b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both
lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone
district and the applicant commits that -any lot for which
development is proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling
Unit. When there is demolition on the property which makes
it subject to the provisions of Art. 5, Div..7, Replacement
Housing Program, the standards of that program shall supersede
these requirements; and
Response: As discussed earlier, the proposal creates two lots for
residential development and one lot for the tennis courts which
will be deed restricted against any future development. The
Subdivision process will accomplish the division for the third lot.
The applicant commits that each lot will contain an accessory
dwelling unit and the Planning Commission approved these proposed
units with conditions (see Resolution #91 -11.)
c 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: In 1988, a previous owner proposed a PUD Plan with a
Lot Split but abandoned the project before final approvals were
granted. Therefore the current proposal meets this criteria.
2
d 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 receipt
of applicable approvals pursuant to this Article and growth
management allocation pursuant to Art. 8.
Response: The applicant has submitted a draft plat and will make
final corrections to it as required by the Engineering Department
and any conditions resulting from Council's Subdivision approval.
As a single family residence is proposed for each lot resulting
from this split, growth management allocations are not necessary.
The Planning Office recommends the following conditions specific
to the Lot Split application:
1. An Accessory Dwelling Unit must be included on each lot for
which a residence is proposed as a requirement of this Lot
Split.
2. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for a residence on
either lot, the Accessory Dwelling Unit must be deed
restricted and comply with the conditions of approval
contained in the Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution
#91 -11.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the Subdivision and Final PUD with conditions. In
addition, the Planning Office recommends approval of the
Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split for the development of two
residential parcels with conditions.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council could elect to not approve the Lot
Split, requiring the applicant to compete for two residential
development rights.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have Second Reading of Ordinance 10
for approval of the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision, Final PUD
Development Plan, and Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments:
"A" - 3/22/91 Staff Memo to Planning Commission including
graphics and referral comments
"B" - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #91 -11
Ordinance #10, Series 1991.for consideration
jtkvj /ute1001.ccmemo
3
•
1.1 Div •0 •�
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: 1001 Ute'Avenue
Conditional Use
Subdivision /PUD
step review)
DATE: , March 22, 1991
Attachment "A"
- 8040 Greenline Review,
for Accessory Dwelling Units, and Final
Development Plan (as consolidated two-
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the 1001 Ute
8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling
Units, and Final Subdivision /PUD Development Plan with
conditions.
Applicant: Peter Coventry, represented by Glenn Horn
Location: 6.73 acres on Ute Avenue. , uphill from and including
the tennis courts leased by the Gant Condominiums. To the East
is the Aspen Chance Subdivision and to the west is Lot 3 of the
Hoag Subdivision and City -owned park land.
Zoning: Land below the 8040 elevation is zoned R -15 PUD (109,110
s.f.). Land above the 8040 line is zoned C Conservation (7,480
s.f.). The portion of the parcel extending uphill from the city
limits carries the county zoning of AF -1. -
Applicant's Request: This project requires several land use
reviews. The Commission will be called upon to act on 8040
Greenline review and Conditional Use for the accessory dwelling
units. The. Commission will also forward a recommendation for
GMQS Exemption for the affordable housing (A.D
Subdivision /Planned Unit Development (PUD) to City Council. The
applicant has requested that the PUD review; normally a four step
process, be consolidated into two steps.. In addition, the tennis
court lot must receive GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director
under Section 8 -104 A.l.e. For the two residential lots, GMQS
Exemption for Lot Split from City Council is needed under Section
8 -104 C.l.a.
Proposal: The applicant seeks to divide the portion of the parcel
within the city. limits into three lots, two to each contain a
single family residence and accessory dwelling unit, and the
third containing three tennis courts held in a long term lease by
The Gant. The existing tennis courts will be moved to the west
approximately 50 feet to accommodate the access drive to the
homesites. The tennis courts are proposed to be deed restricted
against further development and will be available for use as
common open space by the two residential lots. This court area
i
0 . .0
is not used to calculate density, floor area nor open space. The
property outside of the city limits is proposed to be deed
restricted against future development also. Please. see
Attachment "A" for application information,' site and elevation
sketches.
Referral Comments: Attachment "B" contains the complete referral
submissions. Highlights of these are as follows:
Engineering:
1) The subdivision plat still lacks certain information
about monuments, bearings, rebar, and Planning Director
signature block. -
2) Easements are required and shall be shown on the plat for
the following: a 15' Spar Gulch :drainage easement, aligned
with the Midland r.o.w.; a waterline easement for the
pipeline to the Linda Edwards property; trail easement as
proposed by the applicant; and a 20' water easement proposed
through Lot 1 to Aspen Chance.
3) Water pressure is adequate to this property. When this
property is connected to the City's water system, any water
rights associated with this property shall be conveyed to
the City.
4) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join
the Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to
address the roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow
removal /parking problems.
5) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the
Engineering Department.
6). Parking space locations must be identified on the site
plan /final plat.
7) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested
by Nick Lampiris must be followed and inspected.
8) The USGS Avalanche Hazard map indicates the possibility
of small avalanches occurring within the proposed building.
envelopes. Further study by an avalanche specialist is
required in addition to Mr. Lampiris's information.
9) Recommendations by Chen- Northern concerning construction
impacts on slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining
walls must be followed and inspected during construction.
10) The driveway curb cut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18'
in width.
V,
11) The proposed cul -de -sac is inadequate for fire trucks
turning radius. A 50' minimum radius is required. If
parking is located on the cul -de -sac, more radius is
required. If the radius cannot meet the appropriate
dimension, the structures must be protected by fire
sprinkler systems.
12) A trash service area must be shown on the plan.
13)_ There is a question regarding the tennis court. as a
separate lot because a 99 year lease exists for that area..
Previous legal interpretation indicated that a 99 year lease
constitutes a lot split in the intent of the Code..
City Attorney: As per discussions with Jed Caswall, the existing
lease for the tennis courts constitutes 'a subdivision under the
definition in the Land Use Code. Therefore, .the applicant has
had to amend the proposal to include full Subdivision review.
Please see Attachments. "C" and "D" for Glen Horn's change of
request.
County Planning: In discussions with Cindy Houben, the situation
regarding the land in -the County does not represent'a problem,
especially considering the owner's intent to deed restrict the
land against any future development.
Fire Marshall: As discussed in Engineering comments,- the
proposed radius of the cul -de -sac does not meet minimum turning
requirements for fire trucks. Additional radius is required,
otherwise the buildings must be sprinklered.
Environmental Health:
1)- By granting an easement for a nordic /bike trail,
alternative transportation modes are encouraged, with
potential benefits to air quality.
2) The Snowmelt driveway is not recommended because. the
energy required to operate it adds to global pollution and
warming. If snowmelt is insisted upon, a solar powered
system should be used.
3) Each home may contain two gas log fireplaces or one gas
log and one certified woodstove, and unlimited numbers of
natural gas fireplace appliances.
4) "The applicant should contact this office for comment
should mine waste or mine dumps be ;encountered. Proper
handling on -site, as proposed by Chen - northern, is
acceptable.to this office. Two to three feet of clean fill
material shall cover contaminated soils.
Water:
3
1) In order to comply with the criteria contained in Aspen's
Water Main Extension Policy, this proposed addition should
be looped into the existing water system. The applicant
should work with the adjacent Aspen Chance subdivision to
obtain an easement to allow a looping to.occur in connection
with the 6" line on Aspen Chance. If the looping effort
.fails, the Water Department would accept the proposed "dead
end ", 8" installation.
2) The fire hydrant at 1010 Ute can supply sufficient flow,
pressure and volume to this proposed development.
Sanitation District.:
1) Minor downstream constraints will require the applicant's
financial participation of approximately $6,000 in addition
to the regular connection fees.
2) Two 4" service lines individually connected to the main,
or a manhole ,installation at the top, of the driveway
connecting the two 4" lines with a 6" shared service line to
the main is acceptable. A shared service line agreement
would be required for the latter option. Either option will
require maintenance by the owner.
3) All clear water connections such,as roof and foundation
drains cannot enter the District's system. Surface _run-off -
must be handled on -site or by the City's storm water system,
if available.
4) All associated fees and agreements must be paid /recorded
prior to connection onto the District's system.
Staff Comments:
8040 Greenline Review
As the proposed development is within 150 feet of the 8,040
elevation line, it,must satisfy the standards of the Greenline
review:
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.
Response: The proposed location of the two homes is on a
mine dump from the Lower Durant Tunnel. Upon final grading,
the 'toxic soils will have to be capped with 2 -3 feet of
• r
clean soil fill and revegetated to' help prevent wind and
water erosion. According to the Chen - Northern report
submitted with the application, the possibility of mud and
debris flows, mine subsidence, and major landslides is
small. Nick Lampiris, in his 1989 letter, suggests designs.
for the rear walls to protect against occasional rock fall
(see conditions of approval).
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: A sizable increase of impervious surface results
'from - -this proposal. Historic drainage rates must be
maintained through a drywell system or other detention
methods. It appears that along the eastern side of the
site,.,,grading is carried onto the adjacent property and the
swale created takes -run -off away from the subject parcel.
This situation must be changed. The applicant proposes
granting to the City of Aspen a drainage easement uphill of
the homesites -to accommodate Spar Gulch run -off. During
construction and revegetation periods, soil erosion
techniques must be used to limit sediment deposition off-
. site.
3) The proposed development, does not have a significant adverse
affect on the air quality in the City.
Response: The residences shall comply. with all regulations
pertaining to woodburning /gas devices.
4) The design and location of any proposed development, road, or
trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the
proposed development is to be located.
Response: The proposed building sites will be on a graded;
level area on the top of the mine tailings. The existence
of the tennis courts precludes the homesites being located
on the lower shelf. The proposed driveway serves the two
residences, and is steep (10% to 12% grade). There is staff
concern about the height and appearance of retaining walls
required above the cul -de -sac and tennis courts. The visual
impact of the wall behind the tennis courts is especially
important as it is nearly at street level and will be highly
visible. It will be up to 17 feet tall at the rear. Site
sections and detailed drawings be submitted specific to
these referenced walls. A trail easement is offered by the
applicant and needs to be shown on the plat and development
plan.
5) .Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features.
Response: As previously mentioned, the retaining walls
required for the tennis courts and cul -de -sac are major
impacts to the terrain. Consideration should be made to
.5
0 0
raising the floor
landscape screening
impact of the walls.
of the slope above
shrubs and drooping
This would help to
to the topography.
level of the courts, terracing, and
along the street to reduce the visual
Landscape treatment of the full length
the tennis courts is suggested., with
formed plants cascading over the., wall.
reduce the impact of the abrupt changes
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 existing conditions on the site (tennis
courts, atypical shape, steep slopes) are real problems.
.The placement of the two homes'is pretty much dictated to be
on the upper shelf.* The paved and landscaped entry to the
tennis court seems too urban for this site, but the basic
idea is a good one. Would a cinder path work as well?
Also, it is. questionable whether a.5' paved sidewalk along
the'20' wide driveway is really necessary.
7) Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure
will be designed to blend into the open character of the
mountain.
Response: The• applicant proposes. that the architectural
controls contained in the deed restrictions be those which
are in effect for the neighboring Aspen Chance Subdivision.
Materials allowed are wood siding, wood shingles, stone, and
glass, in earth tones, with cedar shingles. for pitched
roofs. Elevation sketches of the north sides of the homes
are provided but they are too conceptual to provide much
insight to- design. The application states that the level of
the mine tailings will be .significantly lowered, thus
lowering the buildings on the hillside. It is unclear what
the net impact will be as the application does not contain
existing and proposed site sections. The height is proposed
to be 25' from new grade, and will not exceed the height of
the house at Lot 6 Aspen Chance. Maximum height in the R -15
zone is 251.
8) Sufficient water pressure and.other utilities are available to
service the proposed development.
Response: ' Referral. comments from the Water Department
indicate that water pressure and volume are adequate. Sewer
is available with certain improvements to the main line as
previously discussed.
9) Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
Response: Ute Avenue is in poor condition. The Engineering
Department requires that the applicant commit to joining the
Ute Ave. Improvement District which is being formed to
address necessary road widening, drainage improvements,
6
lighting, etc.
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: A 20' wide snowmelt driveway, is proposed. This
will satisfy the Fire Marshal's office, but there is
question as to the adequacy of the cul -de -sac radius for
fire, equipment. If both structures are protected by .fire
sprinklers, the 20' driveway and larger cul -de -sac are not
required. The Engineering Department stated that the curb
cut on Ute Ave. can only be 18' wide.
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 applicant commits to dedicating a 12' wide
public trail /nordic ski easement corresponding with the
existing nordic /pedestrian trail. This easement will be
located on the land in the county which will be deed
restricted against future development.
Conditional Use
As this proposal includes a subdivision exemption for a Lot
Split, accessory dwelling units- must be included in any
development occurring, on these lots (Section 7 -1003 A.2.c.)
Accessory dwelling units are Conditional Uses in the R -15 zone.
Section 5 -508 establishes review standards for these. units.
Exact building design and floorplans have yet to be developed.
For the purposes of this review, the units are proposed to -be
located within the two residences. The following responses apply
to these units:
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: Accessory dwelling units are consistent with the
residential uses allowed in the R -15 zone. The City . deems that
affordable housing be provided when the impact of new development
occurs.
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;
and
Response: Caretaker units will compliment the residential uses in
the neighborhood.
VA
I
0 . I . 0
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: No additional visual impacts will result as the units
will be located inside the residences. Each unit will be
provided with one off - street parking space. The Engineering
Department is working on implementation of an improvement program
for Ute Ave., so any increase resulting from this development
will be calculated and provided for. The site is approximately 5
blocks from the commercial core. --
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.
Response: The proposed units will not increase needs for public
facilities above and beyond the single family development.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by
the conditional use.
response: The accessory units will compensate for any employee
generation resulting from the residential uses.
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: These units comply with Council's goals for provision
of affordable housing in residential areas.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW STANDARDS
The following standards. shall be applied to proposed
subdivisions.
1.- General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: ^This area is described as low density residential in
the AACP.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
Response: Existing uses in the neighborhood are low to medium
density. This proposal is consistent with this pattern.
C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect. the
future development of surrounding areas.
Response: No adverse affects should occur as a result of -this
subdivision. One of the .aspects of this proposal is to deed
restrict both the tennis court lot and the sloped area within the
County against any further development as a measure to protect
the.character and environment of the surrounding area.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: The proposal is seeking PUD, 8040, and Conditional
Use /GMQS approvals as required by the Land Use Code.
2. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The. proposed subdivision shall not be
located on land unsuitable for development because of
flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to
the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the
proposed subdivision.
Response: Please see 8040, review discussion above for this
information.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall
not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause
.inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Response: No public inefficiencies will result from this
proposal. Access to the homes are via private drive. The
applicant must commit to participate in any improvement district
if formed.
3. Improvements.
a. Required improvements.
Response: The improvements such as property pins, water lines;
fire. hydrants, etc. as listed in this Code section shall be
provided for the proposed subdivision.
b. Approved plans. Construction shall not commence on any of
the improvements required by Sec. 7-1004 (C) (3) (a) until a
plan, profile, and specifications have been received and
approved by the City Engineer and, when appropriate, the
relevant utility company.
Response: Any required plans for the necessary improvements in
Section 7 -1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of any excavation or building permits.
4. Design standards. The following design standards shall be
required f or all subdivisions. Except as discussed
_specifically below, the entire series of standards do not
apply to this project, or have been addressed on the site
plan.
kE
0 1 0
a. Easements..
(3) Potable water and sewer easements.
Response: The Engineering Department will require a Spar
Gulch drainage easement and two waterline easements to be
shown on the plat. See referral comments.above.
(4) Planned utility or drainage system.
Response: The applicant commits to dedicating an easement
for .drainage system traversing the south side of the
property.
(6) Fire lanes and emergency access easements. Fire lanes
and emergency access easements twenty (201) feet in
width shall_ be provided where required-by the City Fire
Marshal.
Response: The Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal and.
states that the cul -de -sac radius is not adequate. Unless
the radius can meet his requirement, all residences must be
sprinklered.
(8) Planned trail system. Whenever a subdivision embraces
any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski
trail or hiking trail designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails
Plan Map, an easement shall be provided to accommodate
the plan within the subdivision.
Response: As discussed, a 12' trail easement shall be
dedicated on the part of this parcel in the county.
c. Lots and blocks.
Response: The plat shall include three lots: Lots 1 and 2 as
residential, and Lot 3 being the tennis courts (deed restricted
against any future development.)
b. Utilities.
Response: The applicant commits to complying with the easement
and construction requirements of the utility agencies which serve
this parcel. See referral comments. Also, historic drainage on
site will'be maintained.
Upon submission of. a Final Plat for City approval, all of the
standards of Section 7- 1004(c) must be met, or it, shall be
denied.
Sec. 7 -1006. Subdivision Agreement.
The following,Code sections describe the elements required within
a Subdivision Agreement.
A. General. Prior to approval of Plat for a subdivision, the
applicant and City Council shall enter into a Subdivision
10
Agreement binding the, subdivision to any conditions-placed
on the development order.
B. Common Park and Recreation Areas. The Subdivision Agreement
shall.outline any agreement on the part of the applicant, to
deed public lands, open space, public facilities,. and other
improvements to the City or other entity.
C. Landscape Guarantee. In order to ensure implementation,, and.
maintenance of the landscape plan, the City .Council may
require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no Tess
than one hundred twenty -five: percent (125 %). of the current
estimated cost of the- landscaping improvements in the
approved landscape plan, as estimated by the City Engineer,
to ensure the installation of all landscaping shown and the
continued maintenance and replacement of the landscaping for
a period of'two (2).; years after installation. The guarantee
shall be: in the form :of a cash escrow with the City, or a
bank or savings and loan association,, or an irrevocable
sight draft or letter of commitment from a financially
responsible lender and shall give the City the unconditional
right upon.demand to partially or fully complete or pay for
any improvements. or pay any outstanding bills, or to
withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete or
pay for any improvements. or pay for any improvement or pay
any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party.
As portions of the. landscaping improvements are completed,
the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and
acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed
estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except
that ten percent (10 %) shall be withheld until all proposed
improvements are completed and approved, and, an additional
twenty -five percent (25 %), which shall be retained until the
improvements. have been maintained in a satisfactory
condition for two (2) years.
D. Public Facilities Guarantee. In order to ensure
installation of necessary public facilities planned to
accommodate the subdivision, the City Council shall require
the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one
hundred percent (100 %) of the current estimated cost of such
public improvements, as estimated by the City Engineer. The
guarantee shall be in the form specified in Sec. 7-1006(c)
and maybe drawn upon by the City as specified therein. As
portions of the public facilities improvements are,
completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon
approval and acceptance, shall authorize the.release of the
agreed estimated cost for-that portion of.the improvements,
except ten percent (10 %) which shall be withheld until all
proposed improvements are completed and approved.
11
E. Recordation. The Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be
recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record
the Plat within a period of one hundred and eighty (180)
days following approval by the City Council shall render the
Plat invalid and reconsideration and approval of the Plat by
the Commission and City Council will be required before its
acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is
granted by City Council for a.showing of good cause.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
The subject parcel has a PUD overlay and is subject to the
following purpose and standards contained in Section 7 -901.
Section 7 -903 C.3. allows for a two -step consolidated review. At
the time the applicant and staff conducted the pre- application
conference, it was staff's determination that the applicant
should request the consolidated process. The reasons were that a
four step review for a project with minimal community impact
would be redundant and serve no public purpose.
The purpose of Planned Unit. Development (PUD) designation is to
encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land
which:
A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and layout of
buildings.
B. Improves the design, character and quality of development.
C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and
governmental services.
D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable.
E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and
F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of
development encourages the preservation of natural and
scenic features.
. I /.11 .11-
1. General Requirements.
Response: As the PUD General Requirements are nearly the same as
Subdivision, please see Subdivision General Requirements above.
In addition, PUD General Requirements expect that:
"Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the
12
r
0 •
extent to which GMQS.allotments are obtained by the applicant."
Response: Although the project is going through a Subdivision
review, the net result is to obtain development. rights for two
single family residences. Originally the applicant only sought a
Lot Split (GMQS Exemption) to' develop the two residences. The
City Attorney ruled that the presence of the long -term tennis
court lease constituted an existing subdivision, and only a Lot
Split would therefore not be applicable. In light of this
decision, it was' decided by Planning staff that if a three lot
subdivision was processed (two residential, one deed restricted
against any future development rights) , the Planning Director
would grant a GMQS exemption for the project- under Section 8 -104
A.l.e. This language reads:
All development not - limited: All development not limited by the
provisions of Section 8 -103. (This section sets forth the Growth
Management Quotas for Commercial, Lodge, and Residential uses.)
In. effect, the Planning Office recognizes the intent of the
application to acquire two single family development rights and
the problems encountered because of the tennis court lease.
Staff acknowledges that as part of the proposal 4.05 acres of
land in the county that are part of this parcel will be deed
restricted against future site development (see 3/13/91 letter
from Glenn Horn) . The tennis court area (proposed Lot 3) will
also be restricted against any future development. 'This solution
appears to be a win /win proposition which will benefit both the
applicant and the citizens of the community.
when this application is forwarded to City Council, they will
consider a GMQS Exemption for the two residential lots based on
the 'standards for Lot Split. Although this appears to be a
redundancy, staff wishes to consider the spirit of the owner's
request as well as the. intent of the growth management sections
of the Code.
2. Density. The maximum density shall be no greater_ than that
permitted in the underlying Zone District.
Response: The R -15 zone allows one house per 15,000 s.f. of lot
area. -Densities do not have to.be reduced for this proposal for
steep slopes as per the consulting Landscape Architect. There
are no other density reductions required for this parcel.
3.. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those .of the
underlying Zone District.
Response: Detached residential units are permitted in the R -15
zone. They may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line
or row house configuration, but that is not a request of the
applicant.
13
• •
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements
shall be those of the underlying Zone District except
through a PUD variation process. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated on the final development plan.
Response: A variation to the R -15 side setback is being
requested for the east side of Lot 1. 10 feet is .required, 5
feet.is requested. Staff feels that since the lot line is being
established as part of a new subdivision, the line "should
adjusted now rather than allowing a variation.
5. Off- street parking.
Response: 14 spaces are being provided on site. These must be
identified on the recorded PUD plan. No variations are being
sought.
6. Oven Space.
Response: No open space requirement exists in the R -15 zone.
However, this proposal calls for the lot containing the tennis
courts to be used by the residents as open space. It.shall be
deed restricted against any future development. Additionally,
of the 6'.7 acres in this parcel, 4.05 acres -are in the County.
The applicant commits to deed restrict this land area against any
future site development.
As required by the Code, "any plan for open space shall also
be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation
areas, and communally owned facilities."
7. Landscape Plan.
Response: The applicant submitted a landscape plan as part of
this application. Please see discussion of landscape treatment
in the 8040 section above. A less urban treatment of the
pedestrian entry at the tennis courts is recommended by staff.
8. Architectural Site Plan.
Response: As discussed in the 8040 standards, the designs of the
two homes will use the architectural guidelines for the Aspen
Chance Subdivision. This will steer designs toward use of
appropriate materials, roof pitches, etc. to harmonize with the
surrounding area.
9. ` Lightinc;. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent
direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to
adjoining streets or lands.
Response: The applicant commits to.complying with this standard.
10. ClusteringT. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Response: The two homes are both set on the shelf created by the
tailings pile. This is a relatively clustered arrangement.
11. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall be
14
9
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: According to comments from Engineering, the Fire
Marshal and utilities, basic needs are met except where noted and
conditioned.
12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation.
Response: As discussed in referral comments, vehicular access is
acceptable with conditions. Staff would like a reconsideration
of pedestrian access, that being a less "urban" treatment on the
entry, and even removal of the sidewalk along the driveway. The
additional pavement. seems excessive given the width of the
private drive. It will also require plowing in the winter to
keep it useful.
13. Final Development Plan.
Response: The applicant has
review purposes. Staff has
section information from the
available at the meeting if not
provided an acceptable plan for
requested some additional site
architect and this should be
sooner.
Sec. 7 -904. PUD Agreement.
The following information is required to be filed concurrently
with the PUD Development Plan and Subdivision Plat. As the
Subdivision Agreement is a similar document, the Agreement could
be a ' consolidation of the two as long as all required information
and commitments are contained within.
A. General. Upon approval of a Final Development Plan for
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) , the applicant and
City Council shall enter into a Planned Unit Develop-
ment (PUD) Agreement binding the PUD to any, conditions
placed on the development order.
B. Common Park and Recreation Areas. The PUD. Agreement
shall outline any agreement on the part of the ap-
plicant, to deed to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the Planned Unit Development (PUD), an undivided
interest in all common park and recreations areas,
together with a deed restriction .against future
residential, commercial, or industrial development.
C. Landscape Guarantee. In order to ensure implementation
and maintenance of the landscape plan, the City Council
may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no
less than one hundred twenty -five percent (125 %) of the
current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements
in the approved landscape plan, as estimated by the
15
City Engineer,, to ensure the installation of all
landscaping shown and the continued maintenance and
replacement of the landscaping for a period of two (2)
years after installation. The guarantee shall be in
the form of a' cash escrow with the City, or a bank or
savings and loan association, or an irrevocable sight
draft or letter of commitment from a financially
responsible lender and shall give the City the uncon-
ditional right upon; demand to partially or, fully
complete or pay for any improvements or pay any
outstanding bills, or to withdraw funds upon demand to
partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements
or pay for any improvement or pay any outstanding bills
for work done thereon by any party.
As portions of the landscaping improvements are
completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and
upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the
release of the agreed estimated cost 'for. that portion
of the improvements, except that ten percent- (10 %)
which shall be withheld until all proposed improvements
are completed and .approved, and an .additional twenty -
five percent (25 %), which shall - be.retained until the
improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory
condition for two (2) years.
D. Public Facilities Guarantee. In order to ensure
installation of necessary public facilities planned to
accommodate the development,, the City Council shall
require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no
less than one hundred percent (100 %) of the current
estimated cost of such public improvements, as es-
timated by the City Engineer. The guarantee shall be
in the form specified in Sec. 7- 904(c) and may be drawn
upon by the City as therein specified. As portions of
the public facilities. improvements are completed, the"
City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and.
acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed
estimated cost for that portion of the improvements,
except that. ten percent (10 %) which shall be withheld
until all proposed. improvements are .completed and
approved
Staff Recommendations:
GMOS Exemption /Conditional Use: The Planning Office Recommends
approval of Conditional Use for one Accessory Dwelling Unit in
each residence with the following conditions:
1. Each accessory dwelling unit shall contain not less than 300
16
and not more than 700 square feet of net livable area and be
located within or attached to a principal residence. It shall
meet the housing designee's guidelines for such units, is
required to be deed restricted by Owner, to meet the definition
of a Resident Occupied. Unit and be rented for period of six
months or longer. The Owner of the principal residence shall
have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his
or her choosing in the accessory dwelling-unit - Occupancy of the
accessory dwelling unit is not mandatory. The tenant shall meet
the definition of a working resident and is qualified by the
Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority prior.to occupancy. For
purpose of this provision, a unit shall.be considered rented if
it is occupied pursuant to a lease or rental agreement which
requires a payment by the tenant of more than a nominal amount of
rent.
2. Prior to issuance . of any building permits for construction . of
each residence, the applicant shall provide a deed restriction to
the Housing Authority for approval. The restriction shall state
that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such
units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and shall'
be rented for periods of six months or longer. Upon approval of
the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, the applicant
shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorders Office.
3. A copy of the recorded deed restrictions must be forwarded to
the Planning Office.
8040 Greenline: The Planning Office recommends approval of 8040
Greenline review with the following conditions:
4) The grading plan must be changed so that any grade alterations
must be completely contained within the property lines of this
parcel.
`S) When this property is connected to the City's water system,
any water rights associated with this property shall be conveyed
to the City.
6) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the
Engineering Department.
7) Construction .techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested by
Nick Lampiris must, be followed and inspected. These techniques
include: the rear foundation walls should be designed to protrude
at least four feet above finished grade and be without doors or
windows on the up -slope sides; they should be able to withstand
200 lbs /s.f.. Positive landscaping should be done at the rear of
the homes during or shortly after construction.
8) Further study by an avalanche specialist is required in
17
•
0
addition to Mr. Lampiris's information.
9) Recommendations by Chen - Northern concerning construction
impacts on the slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining
walls must be followed and inspected during construction.
10) The mine waste /tailings must be capped with 2 -3' of clean
soil fill.
Subdivision: The Planning Office recommends. approval of
subdivision with the following conditions:
11) All plat requirements as stated in Section 7 -1004 C. and D.
shall. be shown on,plat prior to approval by the Engineering
Office.
12) Any required plans for the necessary improvements in Section
7 -1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of
any excavation or building permits.
13) Easements for Spar Gulch drainage, 121 nordic /pedestrian
trail, and two waterlines, as described in.Engineering's referral
comments must be shown on the plat.
14) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join the
Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to address the
roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow removal /parking problems.
15) The Subdivision Agreement.and Plat must be recorded with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by
City Council. Failure to do so will render the approvals
invalid.
PUD Development Plan: The Planning Office Recommends approval of
this development plan with the following conditions:
16) The lot line separating Lots 1 and 2 shall be moved to the
east approximately 5 feet so that the Lot 1 side setback can be
achieved without a variation.
17) Fourteen parking spaces must be ,identified on the Final
Development Plan.
18) The driveway curbcut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18' in
width.
19) A trash service are must be shown on the plan.
20) Gas Fireplaces and wood stoves must be certified and approved
through the Environmental Health department.
21) A_50' minimum radius for the cul -de -sac is required. If the
18
• s
radius cannot meet the appropriate dimension, the structures must
be.protected by fire sprinkler systems.
22) The pedestrian access shall be redesigned to be less urban in
character. The sidewalk adjacent to the driveway shall be
eliminated.
23) The applicant shall participate in improvements in the
Sanitation Department's lines by a payment of $6,000.00 (in
addition to the regular connection fees.
24) All clear water connections such as roof and foundation,
drains cannot enter the District's system. Surface run -off must
be handled, on -site or by the City's storm water system, if
available.
25) Sewer lines /connections shall meet the approval of the
Sanitation District. All associated fees and agreements must be
paid and recorded prior to connection onto the District's system.
26) The tennis court lot shall be reconfigured to remove the
extraineous area to the west of the pedestrian access point.
27) A Final Development -Plan and PUD Agreement must be filed with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval
by City Council or the approval will be rendered invalid.
Attachments:
"A "- .Proposed PUD Development Plan, Plat,
"B"- Comments from Referral Agencies
"C"- 3/13/91 letter from Glenn Horn regarding Subdivision process
"D "- 3/18/91 letter from Glenn Horn to Tim Whitsitt /Cindy Houben
19
_ � � /iii / ✓/ ���- �� ,wro
"All
ATTACHMENT Ci
H0
• � / �... � ter' � ��,� � /
— 1 - - -- -� � _ �' _ � ' �'• ice/ '.�z -- � - . .
\� . -_ • - -- � - -- _ - _ __ -may. /, �/� � /. /,� /, �\ \ \ \. .
I
a '
S
3• 1 IZ• � �iy_ -J '
4
1
I/
� 1
i 1 11
11
0
/ / I
I
1
1 '
1 to
\
1
1
I;1 j I 1 i ; *mo�•—
\
e �E
• t 1g
F > 0
D O
7 0 Z
• m —+ /•
/
/• i o
• ,-cs` E --� I
c <
' .std`' a �{' • '' R7 tTJ
�:. v z
it
rri
yl iy
r- -- :. ��,--------- - - - - -- a $ s
-
I I
i If 0 m 3 i
I N ;:o
I Ir �s� ► m -, cn m rl;
I I
I I
i I Ir
�l
LI. i
. UTE AVENUE "
ATTACHMENT
V '
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department'
DATE: January 3, 1991
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split,
Consolidated PUD, 8040 .Greenline.Review,, Conditional Use Review
and GMQS Exemption
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department -has the following comments:-
1. The draft of the final subdivision plat which .was
submitted still needs the following information:
a. A description of all survey monuments both found and
set.
b. A statement explaining the basis for bearings.
` c. A certificate showing approval by the Planning
Director.
d.. The statement about the No. 4 rebar must read that
it must be set prior to recording of the final plat
or prior to issuance of any building permit, depending
on the timing.
2. Water and Fire Departments confirmed that there will be
sufficient water pressure. When water service.is connected, `
it is required that the applicant convey to the City any
water rights that are included with the ownership, of this
property. The Engineering Department utility location map
indicates there. is access to all other utilities at this
location.
3. The applicant needs to agree to join the Ute Avenue
Improvement District that is presently being formed. This
district will address road widening, street lighting,
parking as it relates to snow removal and drainage problems
which relate to road maintenance. This agreement needs to
be shown on the plat.
4. The Engineering Department has a question about the
portion of this parcel that is in the County. Is this part
of the lot split? Also, should the area of the tennis court
lease be a separate lot? In previous instances, legal staff
has advised that a 99 year lease constitutes a lot split in
the.-intent of the Code.
5. The report by Robert Fletcher indicates that the proposed
drywell will maintain the historic drainage. The
Engineering Department will need the calculations which
support that report.
6. The Spar Gulch drainage easement the applicant proposes
to grant to the City needs to be shown on the plat. . This
easement needs to be 15, feet in width and needs to be
aligned with the Midland railroad right -of -way.
•7. The Engineering Department recommends a water easement
across the northwest corner of the property for 1" pipeline
to the-Linda, Edwards property.
8.-The slope density reduction analysis calculations done by
a registered surveyor which were submitted meet" the
requirements of this section..
9. The existing traffic circulation on Ute Avenue is poor,
'especially in the winter time. If the applicant agrees to
join the Ute Avenue Improvement District, this problem will
be addressed.
The applicant has given a conceptual outline of how. the
development will be served by the appropriate public
facilities to the satisfaction of the. Engineering
Department.
11.• The. detailed plan submitted by the applicant needs to
show the .location of proposed off- street parking. The
applicant has proposed 14 off - street parking spaces but the
location 'of all of these. spaces is not shown. This should
be done prior to final plat approval.
12. The applicant needs to show the trail easement he is
proposing to grant on the plat.
13. The applicant needs to show the 20 foot water. easement
that is being proposed through lot 1 to the Aspen Chance on
the plat.
14. The recommendation made in the report by Nick Lampiris
on rock fall mitigation must be followed and this must be
substantiated before final inspection.
t, 15. The USGS Avalanche Hazard map shows that the proposed
building envelopes are located within an area where there is
potential for .small avalanches. The Engineering Department
requires a recommendation on avalanche potential for this
area from a consultant specializing in this field in
addition to the one submitted by Nick Lampiris.,
16. The following recommendations made in the report by
,,Chen-Northern, Inc. need to be followed and this must be
substantiated at appropriate times during the building
permit and inspection process:
a. Mitigation of construction induced slope
instability.
b. Mitigation -of flooding and debris flow potential.
c. Drainage for the proposed driveway and the two
structures.
d. Revegetation for erosion control.
e. Concerning cut and fill of the driveway and for the
structures.
f. Construction of the retaining wall for the driveway.
17;. The Engineering Department confirms that there is
adequate ingress and egress. The applicant has - proposed to
construct a 20 foot wide driveway which is what the
requirement is'for emergency access. However, Code requires
that there can be only an. 18 curb cut for this driveway, so
it is recommended that the 20 foot wide.drive be necked down -
at Ute Avenue.
18' The proposed cul -de -sac has an inadequate turning radius
for fire trucks.. This must be increased to 50 .feet. If the
applicant proposes the additional off - street parking for
this cul -de -sac, then the radius needs to be increased even
more.. Because the location of this cul -de -sac would make it
difficult -to make this size increase, it is recommended that
` the structures have fire protection sprinkler systems
installed which would eliminate the need for fire truck
access.
19. The applicant needs to show the location of proposed a
trash area.
jg /1001ute
cc: Chuck Roth
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning
FROM: Yvonne Blocker,, Housing
DATE: December 28, 1990
RE
1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for A Lot Split;
Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use Review, and GMQS
Exemption
Parcel ID # 2737- 182 -00 -063
i
SUMMARY: Applicant propioses to subdivide a.portion of the project
site which consist of approximately 293,160 sq. ft. into two single
family lots. The proposed lots are to be located in the portion of
the site currently occupied by mine tailings from the Lower Durant
Tunnel.
APPLICANT: Neil Myers
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Horn Incorporated
LOCATION: Site is bordered by Ute Avenue to the north, City of
Aspen Park and Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision to the-east, Aspen Mountain
to the south, and Aspen�Chance Subdivision to the east.
ZONING: Portion located in Pitkin county is AF -1 and the Portion
located in the City :of Aspen is zoned R -15 (PUD) and C
(Conservation) .
REQUEST: Applicant requests Residential GMQS Exemption for a Lot.
Split pursuant to Section 8- 104(C)'(a), Residential GMQS Exemption
for the Accessory Dwelling Units as per Section 8- 104(B)(d),
Subdivision Exemption fora Lot Split as per Section 7 -1003 (A) (2) ,
Consolidated Planned Unit Development as per Section 8 -903,
Development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) 8040 Greenline
Review as per Section 7 -503, and Conditional Use Approval for the
Accessory Dwelling Units as per Section 5 -508.
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT SPLIT -
Applicant requests subdivision exemption for a lot split pursuant
to Section 8- 104(C)(a) which allows the development of one (1)
detached residential dwelling. on a vacant lot formed by a lot split
granted subsequent to November 14, 1977 pursuant to Section 7 -1003
(a)(2). In order to be eligible for this exemption the property
need not contain any development on the original lot.
Section '7 -1003 (a) (2) requires .that the split of a lot for the
purpose of the development of only one detached single - family
dwelling on a lot by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14,
1977, were all of the following conditions are met:
a. 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;
Applicant has provided information that the lots as proposed for
the split are undeveloped land with no prior approvals from either
City of County. \
b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split; both
lots= conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district
and the applicant commits that any lot for which development is
proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Applicant has. requested approval for the development of an
accessory dwelling unit for each lot to be constructed within the
main residence.
Applicant provides information on page 47 of the submission that
" the data in Table 2 indicate that 10,270 square feet may be
constructed in the PUD distributed between the two lots ". Also,
applicant provides information- that the requirements of one
space /bedroom will be met for a total of fourteen spaces which
would indicate that the two lots will contain a combined total.of
fourteen bedrooms. However, other then this information, applicant
does not provide the actual .proposed square footage of the two
residential dwelling units to determine that the underlying zone
requirements are met as to square footage not• to exceed 6,600
square feet of floor area for a lot of 15,000 - .50,000 sq. ft.
Applicant requests approval be granted for the construction -of one
accessory dwelling unit per lot as per Section 5 -508 which requires
that the accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject to the
minimum lot area requirement of Art. 5, Div. 2., but shall be
subject to all other underlying zone.district.`
Parking shall not be required if the unit is a studio or ,one
bedroom unit,' but one (1) parking space shall be prgvided on -site
if the unit contains two (2). bedrooms and one (1) additional space
shall be required for each additional two (2) bedrooms in the unit.
The.Accessory Dwelling Units shall contain not less than 300. square
feet of net livable area and be located within or attached to a
principal residence. It shall meet the housing designee's
guidelines for, such units, meet the definition of a Resident
occupied Unit and be rented for periods.of six months or longer.
The owner of the principal residence shall have_the right to place
a• qualified employee or employees of his or her ,choosing in the
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Applicant has not provided any information as to the net livable
square footage of the accessory dwelling units.
HOUSING RECOMMENDATION: Housing requests approval. for one
accessory. dwelling unit per. lot for the 1001 Ute Avenue PUD
Subdivision application based on the following conditions .
1. Applicant shall be required to provide actual floor plans of
the accessory dwelling units to determine location, net livable
square footage, and bedroom count.
2. The Accessory Dwelling Units shall be required to meet the
definition of "dwelling unit" as per Aspen City Code to be a
separately enterable, self - sufficient room or combination.of rooms
which contain a kitchen and bath facilities and which are designed
for or used as.a residence by a single family or residents. The
-dwelling units shall be independent of other, family or guests.
3. * A site inspection shall be-performed by representatives of the
Housing and Zoning offices to determine that all above requirements
are met prior to final inspection by Building department.
4. Applicant shall be required to provide a.deed restriction as
to form as per Section 5 -508 of the Aspen City Code for approval by
the Housing Office and shall be required to record approved deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders. - Office prior
to issuance of any building permits for,the approved lots.
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont., Planner
Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director
Environmental'Health Department
Date: October 18, 1989
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 Regglations 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 4UALITY•
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.
0 . . 0
1001 Ute 8040 Greenline Review
October 18, 1989
Page 2
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:
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 givefi 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
0
1001 Ute Subd Exemption
December 12, 1990.
Page 2
•
However, use of a driveway snowmelt system has a large negative
air quality benefit. This is due to the contribution of natural
gas to global warming (or electricty generation if an electric
snowmelt system were used). Snowmelt systems use a very large
amount of .energy to accomplish a task which can-be done in other,
more environmentally beneficial ways. We would strongly
encourage the applicant to forego the use of such a system. If a
snowmelt system is insisted on, we urge the applicant to use a
solar snowmelt system instead of a gas or electric one. While
this site does not have good sun exposure, the applicant should
investigate the use of solar collectors or solar panels to melt
the snow on driveways.
Another measure which would minimize the air quality impacts of
this-project would. be use of high- efficiency compact fluorescent
lights both inside and outside the project. These lights use so
much less energy that they result in less air pollution from
'electricity generation.
Each of the two buildings (containing a single family home and
attached caretaker• unit) is allowed two gas log fireplaces (or
one gas log fireplace and one certified woodstove) and unlimited
numbers of natural gas fireplace appliances.
NOISE•
Noise generated during construction will. have an impact on the
immediate neighborhood. However, long term impacts are not
anticipated given the residential use of the property.
Should this, office receive complaints, Chapter 1.6 of the Aspen
Municipal Code. - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in
the investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
None that are enforced by 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.
1001 Ute Subd Exemption
December 12, 1990
Page 3
This office has had conversations with the applicant regarding
the proper handling of soils on the site which contain greater
than 1000 parts per million. (PPM) lead. The applicant is
familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency recommended
remedy for soils with similiar contamination at the base of
Smuggler Mountain. The remedy proposed in the Chen - Northern, Inc
reports which recommends the retention on -site of all
contaminated material, and covering the contaminated soils with
clean fill material to a depth of between 2 and 3 feet .is
acceptable to this office. Clean fill shall not have
concentrations of lead above 250 PPM. This is the same remedy
suggested in. the October 18, 1989 8040 Greenline Review done by
this office on the same property.
1001,Ute 8040 Greenline Review
October 18, 1989
Page 3
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.
M E M O R A. N D U N3
TO: KIM JOHNSTON, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
l
FROM: LARRY BALLENGER, WATER DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990
SUBJECT: 1001 UTE AVENUE
I have reviewed the Planned Unit Development /Subdivision. Exemption
Application from FMG Incorporated. The Water Department has the
same concern with this application as it has with the 1986 and 1988
Submittals. If a developer is going to extend a water main within
the City of Aspen "or the Aspen,Water Service Area, that water main_
extension must follow the criteria established - -in Aspen's Water
Main Extension Policy. Spec ifi.cally., looping the new system into
} an existing system.
In the'past, the developer was not able to reach agreement with the
neighboring property, "The ,Aspen Chance ",,. to obtain an easement to
effect a connection with the existing'6" installation on their
property.' FMG President,. Neal Myers, developed the Aspen Chance
property. Since he is developing the 1001 Ute property, maybe a
way can be found, to now loop this proposed system.
Kim, if this water system looping would be the only hold on this
property, I would permit the proposed" "dead end ", 8" installation.
The Water Department would like to see the looped system, but we
also appreciate the hassals of obtain "ing easemen "t /right -of -ways on'
private property.
Fire. hydrant 742, located at 1010 Ute Avenue, flows at 2986 gallons
per minute with a static head. of 82.0 PSI. There would be."
sufficient flows, pressures, and volumes to supply this
development.
LB : 11
0 0
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 22, 1991
GRANBTING SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A LOT
SPLIT, AND FINAL PUD PLAN APPROVAL AND VESTING OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT FOR 1001 UTE AVENUE was read by the
city clerk
Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council the applicant is seeking
development rights for two single family residences and to
establish a third lot to encompass tennis courts occupaying a long
term lease by the Gant. P & Z is recommending approval of final
PUD and subidiviosn. P & Z approved 8040 greenline reivew and
conditional use for addessory dwelling units. Ms. Johnson said the
lease on the tennis courts constitutes a de facto subdivison
already and this project cannot come back for a lot split as
intended. Staff included the two -step subdivision process to allow
for a 3 lot division and subdivison exemption for 2 development
rights for the single family dwellings. In 1988 this lot was
reviewed under 8040 greenline for one single family house. Before
that this was taken through conceptual but was abandoned before
final approval. glenn Horn told Council in 1985 an applicant came
in for a GMP allocation for 4 free market and 4 employee units.
This was denied after it failed to meet the threshold.
Rich Neiley, representing the applicant, told Council the tennis
court lease was in place in the late 1970's when other applications
were filed. The interpretation was that this lease constituted a
lot split. The tennis courts will be deed restricted as will a
separate parcel in the county against further development rights.
Horn pointed out the mine tailings start behind the tennis courts
and go up steeply. The houses will sink down into the tailings
rather than sit up on top of them. The tailings will be covered as
required by environmental health department. The tailings will be
dug out and regraded. Horn told Council they would like to
understand how the sanitation district has come up with the $6,000
charge before second reading.
Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 1991, on
first reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Peters, yes; Pendleton, yes; Tuite,
yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried.
10
•
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE FOR
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF'
SUBDIVISION AND FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 1001 UTE
AVENUE PROJECT
Resolution No. 91 -11
WHEREAS, Peter Conventry submitted an application for 8040
Greenline review, Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units,
Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan, and Subdivision
Exemption for a Lot Split for the parcel located at 1001 Ute
Avenue, a metes and bounds parcel which is a portion of the 1001
mining claim; and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Department, Environmental Health
Department, Sanitation District, Fire Marshal, Pitkin County
Planning, and the City Attorney reviewed the application and
forwarded referral comments to the Planning Office; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office reviewed the referral comments
and forwarded to the Commission a recommendation for approval
with conditions; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission met on April 2,
,1991 at a noticed public hearing and having considered the
Planning Office's recommendation and referral comments, voted 7 -0
to approve 8040 Greenline review- -and Conditional Use pursuant to
Sections 7 -503 and 5 -508 of the Aspen Land Use Code with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, with the same 7 -0 vote the Planning and Zoning
Commission also recommended to City Council approval of
Subdivision and Final PUD Development Plan with conditions
pursuant to the standards in Division 9, and 10 of the Aspen Land
Use Code.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission approves
8040 Greenline review for 1001 Ute Avenue with the following
conditions:
1) The grading plan must be changed so that any grade
alterations must be completely contained within the property
lines of this parcel.
2) When this property is connected to the City's water system,
any water rights associated with this property shall be
conveyed to the City.
3) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the
Engineering Department.
4) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested by
Nick Lampiris must be approved and inspected by staff.
Positive drainage should' be done at the rear of the homes.
1
during or shortly after construction.
5) Prior to issuance of any building permits, further study by
an avalanche specialist is required in addition to Mr.
Lampiris's information.
6) Recommendations by Chen- Northern concerning construction
impacts on the slopes, drainage, erosion control, and
retaining walls must be followed and inspected during
construction.
7) The mine waste /tailings must be capped with 2 -3' of clean
soil fill.
ALSO BE IT.RESOLVED that the Commission approves Conditional Use
for an accessory dwelling unit on each of the two proposed
residential lots with the following conditions:
1) Each accessory dwelling unit shall contain not less,than 300
and not more than 700 square feet of net livable area and be
located within or attached to a principal residence. It
shall meet the housing designee's guidelines for such units,
is required to be deed restricted by Owner, to meet the
definition of a Resident Occupied Unit and. be rented for
period of six months or longer. The Owner of the principal
residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee
or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory
dwelling unit. Occupancy of the - accessory dwelling unit is
not mandatory. The tenant shall meet the definition of a
working resident-and is qualified by the Aspen /Pitkin County
Housing Authority prior to occupancy. For purpose of this
provision, a unit shall be considered rented if it is
occupied pursuant to a. lease or rental agreement which
requires a payment by the tenant of more than a nominal
amount of rent.
2) Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction
of each residence, the applicant shall provide a deed
restriction to the Housing Authority for approval. The
restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the
housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of
Resident Occupied Unit, and shall be rented for periods of
six months or longer. Upon approval of the deed restriction
by the Housing Authority, the applicant shall record the
deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders
Office.
3) A copy:of the recorded deed restrictions must be forwarded
to the Planning Office.
ALSO BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission forwards a recommendation
to City Council for approval -of Subdivision and Final PUD
Development Plan approval.
2
APPROVED by the. Commission at its regular meeting on April
8, 1991.
Attes - P1 g d i Commission:
Jan C 94ney, Deputy Ci Clerk Welton Ande , Chairman
jtkvj /ute1001.reso
3
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2 1991
Chairman Welton Anderson call meeting,to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton,, Bruce
Kerr, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson.
MINUTES
MARCH 12, 1991
Bruce Kerr made a motion to approve minutes of March 12, 1991.
Mari Peyton seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine
who was not in attendance at that meeting.
There were none.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
STAFF COMMENTS
Kim: Clarification on Seymour project: I haven't brought back
a reso to you yet so that technically there is an approval in
place but no documentation of that. I was wondering ;if the
Commission had any feelings about allowing a permit to be pulled
specific to improving the small miner's cottage prior Ito the
platting efforts that would then be tied to the building permit
for the main residence.
There was general concensus of.approval for this.
Kim: I would just amend the language in the resolution to
reflect this clarification.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION /PUD
CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW OF 8040.GREENLINE REVIEW
Kim.Johnson made presentation as attached in record.
Roger: On this I see there are 2 lots in the same parcel.
Kim: The applicant realizes that extension right along Ute Ave
is an awkward situation. What they propose is moving the
PZM4.2.91
pedestrian access -- erasing that little spur off of Lot 2 there
and making it contiguous to the real Lot 2 which contains the
building envelope. It will end up being all of one Lot 2.
What they had to do was provide pedestrian access through here so
what they had left was this little thing which they call Lot 2.
What they are going to end up doing most likely is move the
access somewhere along in here so that Lot 2 actually comes
around and wraps down around here.
Roger: In other words you are surrounding the tennis courts
which I assume is Lot 3?
Kim: That will need to be called Lot 3. We will have to apply a/
legal description to it.
Welton: Is there a place in the conditions where we can add
"That easement shall exist and is not going,to run next tot he
adjoining property but will run, adjacent to the roadway or
adjacent to a 45 degree roughly from the tennis courts ".
Kim: Condition #26 on page 19 of the memo describes the tennis
court lot being reconfigured to remove extraneous areas to the
west of the pedestrian accessway. We could add another sentence
that says "An access easement shall be including along the entry
drive or adjacent to the entry drive ".
Glenn Horn, representative for applicant: That sounds great.
MOTION:
Glenn: We have a few comments. Condition #7. This is our
recommendation from Nick Lamparis who is the consulting geoligist
for us. He suggested that there be foundation walls that
protrude Oft above finish grade and there be no doors or windows
on the up -slope side of the house. That is going to present
problems for us. What we would like to do is try to work with
Nick to come up with some other way to retain potential rock fall
that might come down the hillside into this yard.
We would like to be able to have access from the house out the
back door into the back yard and we are thinking that perhaps we
could come up with another way to mitigate the potential rock
fall through a retaining wall or rock wall up in this area here
above the yard.
We are asking for some flexibility to come up with some other
recommedation that would take care of this potential rock fall
problem.
6
•
C]
PZM4.2.91
Welton:. Does anybody have a problem with allwoing them the
flexibility to work with their engineer to come up with
additional techniques for rock fall?
Kim: I would prefer not to see major wall structure. If they
are talking about access at the rear of the house perhaps some
kind of entry court with a brick wall or something that might
look more part of the structure. That is major construction to
put walls all along the back there.
Rick Neiley, representing applicant: Certainly if we were
proposing to put in a major rertaining wall I think we have. to
come back in for reconsideration on the 8040 because that would
be an additional improvement. That is not our intention. Our
intention is to have the flexibility and may be that when they
look at it and the letter from Nick says it is a minimal hazard.
He may say if we are Oft up, you can put windows up there.
We don't .want to preclude thepossibility of having ingress and
egress back there or having some light come into the back of the
house. We don't mind compying with the engineer's
recfommendation as far as construction techniques and mitigation.
But we don't want to be stuck with one alternative.
Sara: I feel strongly about that look of that retaining wall. I
think that would be unfortunate.
Rick: My understanding would be if we proposed additional
improvements which would require a building permit that is
different from what is approved that we would have to come in for
reconsideration of the 8040 Greenline Review.
Kim: That is true. What about eliminating -the second sentence
describing those specific techniques.. And then Nick can submit
that to you and you can forward to us his updated report.
Bruce: So we would add after the word "inspected" add something
like "And approved by staff" and eliminate the second sentence
and keep in the third sentence about the landscaping.
Kim: Right. Should we change landscaping to drainage?
Glenn: That would be fine with us. Then Condition #8- -this
request about the avalanche study has come up before when this
application was looked at.
Nick says in his letter that there is very minor chance of
avalanche on this site. Showed pictures of very old Spruce trees
right behind the mine tailings. You can see from the Spruce
3
PZM4.2.91
trees there is certainly little likelyhood of an avalanche on
this site.
It doesn't seem to make sense to do an avalanche study when it is
obvious the avalanche shute is not avbove this property.
Welton: I don't want to delete #8 because you never can tell
when an avalanche is going to prove us to be fools.
Roger: It wouldn't hurt'for an avalanche expert to write off on
the thing saying there is no avalanche problem
Richard: It is right on the edge of the shute that we discussed
when we were talking about the Hoag application. So I think it
would be worth having somebody inspect it and make a statement
about any danger.
Kim: We would need thatbefore building permit issuance.
Glenn: On item #13 - -the Spar Gulch drainage for the Nordic Trail
and the water lines. We would have described on the plat, but we
didn't know where the City line is. °
Kim: I think it would have to be to their satisfaction so you
need to get back with them when you have some, conceptual things
worked out.
Glenn: Then on #17 - -we don't think we can get 14 off street
parking spaces. We think we can get 12 on there.
There was agreement on 1 per bedroom or 12 parking spaces.
Glenn then presented evidence of public notice. (attached in
record)
Welton opened thepublic hearing and asked for public comment.
There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing.
Roger: I am still unhappy with the ammended 26. You got .rather
specific as to where that trail was going to be on that northern
flag of Lot 2. I would prefer that be left open saying that
easement shall be provided across the northern flag of Lot 2 to
provide for access to the tennis courts.
Rick Neiley: That is all right with us.
4
0
PZM4.2.91
MOTION
Welton: I will entertain a motion to approve conditional use for
' one accessory dwelling unit in each residence with the conditions
of #1 through #3 in accordance with the Planning Office memo
dated March 22, 1991. (Attached in record)
Approve 8040 Greenline Review with th4e conditions #4 through #10
as amended. #7 from the same memo.
Approve Subdivision with the conditions #11 through #15 from the
same memo.
Approve PUD Development plan with the conditions #16 through #27
with #17 and #26 being revised as amended.
Richard: I so move.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
ASPEN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL GMOS, FINAL SPA AND REZONING
Welton opened the public portion of the hearing.
Amy Margerum, Planning Office: Made presentation as attached in
record.
Parry Harvey: The Masterplan that yu have seen before with the
access and the single families - -this evolved basically from
analyzing the perspective of what it is like when you are inside
the dampus. To keep everyting up ont he bluffs, on theedges of
the property and to keep thisopen feeling when you are moving
back and forth between the meeting facilities, music tend the
lodge facilities. To keep the residential to the edge of the
campus to thepaved area here and as an attachment maintaining the
same architectural style there and the sam ething with the new
lodging facilities.
This needs the Conceputal approval and meets the Masterplan in
that 7th St is now the access. It,comes through North St ROW,
comes across part of Charlie Marquesee's land. We will give back
to Charlie the required land so that his non - conforming lot
doesn't get any morenon - conforming. It comes up and paralells
the row of Cottonwoods.
The existing Meadows Rd will be saw cut and re -into a 12 ft wide
trail with vegetation on the side of it. Thises driveways are
going to be combined so that there is fewer driveways coming
across than there are currently accessing Meadows Rd.
5
PZM4.2.91
The new road then re -joins the existing Institute and Meadows Rd
at this point at the beginning of the property on the west side.
The Institute will go throught he parking structure and their new
buildings will go through the tennis townhomes and give you site
plans and elevations on that. We will go through the additions
to the Trustee Houses and how the parking is laid out in the site
plan.
The City is purchasing 25 acres referred to as the Conservation
Land. We are suggesting that we create 4 SPA's. The reason for
this - -when you have an SPA youy have to ave every one of the land
owners in the SPA agreeing to an application for any change. For
example if Physics 5 years down the road wanted to do a research
library and they wanted to add a new building
A
y,h$h-- .Sf.SYT .7.1�1yS�R'�- °""'•�i. �1,..��': di9`- _-565 1V O1111.1V1i1� SLL GG1,,,ir.,
a f,,.
C616 rado ~81611 -`:��~
ele. (303) 925 -3601 - Tele. (303).925 -2537
ti jJ ,
��December
%j s t ttt
S, Kim Johnson
_. arining:.Office ,rte
130 S. Galena St..
Aspen,.CO'81611, _
� ? Re: :10001 UteVAvenue;- Lot ' : Spl f t �` -^ d z ms`s �� 3 ,K��• * `=
Dear Kim:
. i
The Aspen`.Consolidated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient 11ne- and treatment "capacity to serve this pro ec .
;, a The re are - minor- downs tream. °;constraints in the. -Ute Avenue main
that = would; require the applicant 'snancial'participation. The
applicant's share of this . expense �x.= is estimated `' to be
approximately $6000 This cost would be in addition to our.
'.,J re:guaar'connection.fees.
The District would normally require the development to be served
by a short 8" line extension terminating somewhere near-the
building footprints, . but due to the significant surface
improvements that are being considered within and adjacent to the
private.-, driveway, we will - approve,. connection by either_.,_bringing.........,_
two service lines down the driveway,..each .individually. tapped
into our collection system located in Ute.Avenue, or, installing a
manhole at the top of the driveway with two.4" service -lines
tapped into the manhole and. the manhole connected to our main in
U;te Avenue by way of a.6" shared 'service .line. In..the.;latter case'...:..
the" District requires the completion''of a shared service line
agreement,.copies of which are available at the.District offices.
I.n both cases the lines would be considered private service lines
maintained by the owner.-
.till clear water connections such as roof and foundation drains
cannot be connected to the District's system. Surface run: -orr
must be collected and treated on -site or handled by the City's
storm' watery 40611`ection'"lsystem, i:fA�:avaitable
All associated "fees must be ^paid and agreements recorded prior to
connection.to. the District system `
j rtip-
-
S i n c e'r e i y,] i s• r' \ rl
Bruce Mathely
-
District Manager
cc: Glenn Horn. 300 E. Hyman, Aspen, COQ �^ J
'�,,rt
r •
i.IN CO) ".AZ10l1l110i
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City ManagerC
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: April 22, 1991
RE: 1001 Ute - Subdivision, Subdivision Exemption for a Lot
Split, and Final PUD Development Plan Review
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision and Final PUD Development Plan with conditions. The
Planning Office recommends approval of Subdivision Exemption for
a Lot Split with conditions.
COUNCIL GOALS: This process addresses goal #14 which stresses
consistent and fair government process.
BACKGROUND: This parcel has been reviewed for various land use
applications in the last several years including a 8040 Greenline
review, GMQS for a four lot subdivision,.PUD and lot split. The
only approval granted was for 8040 Greenline for the construction
of one residence. No development has occurred at the site
resulting from this approval. When this current application was
submitted for a lot .split, the City Attorney determined that the
long term lease on the tennis courts held by The Gant
Condominiums constitutes a defacto subdivision under the language
of the land use code. Therefore, staff has processed this
project using the two -step Subdivision criteria to legitimize the
three lot proposal. However, the one -step Lot Split process is
also being-pursued in order to allow for exemption from growth
management for only two residences as provided in Section 8 -104
A.1.c.
The applicant seeks only two single family development rights, so
the third lot (tennis courts) will be deed restricted against any
future development as a Growth Management Exemption by the
Planning Director.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission held
a public hearing on April 2, 1991 and voted 7 -0 to recommend
approval of Subdivision and the consolidated Final PUD
Development Plan. In addition, the Commission approved with
conditions 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use for
Accessory Dwelling Units. Resolution # documents these
approvals and recommendations. See Attachment "B ".
0 0
further information regarding rockfall mitigation and avalanche
potential. They also want Lot 2 reconfigured below the tennis
courts and an access easement between the road and the courts.
The applicant accepts the conditions approved by the Commission.
STAFF COMMENTS: As mentioned, this project is rather unique in
that the applicant only seeks to develop two residences, but must
follow the more detailed Subdivision process because of the
existence of the 99 year tennis court lease. Because a typical
lot split process secures two development rights for single
family dwellings without Growth Management competition, staff and
the applicant decided to include a lot split request to
accomplish this goal. Section 7 -1003 A.2 establishes review
criteria for Lot Splits:
a 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 title commitment show that this parcel is a
portion of the 1001 mining claim and is an unplatted parcel
created before the City's subdivision regulations.
b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both
lots conform 'to the requirements of the underlying zone
district and the applicant commits that any lot for which
development is proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling
Unit. When there is demolition on the property which -makes
it subject to the provisions of Art. 5, Div. 7, Replacement
Housing Program, the standards of that program shall
supersede these requirements; and
Response: As discussed earlier, the proposal creates two lots for
residential development and one lot for the tennis courts which
will be deed restricted against any future development. The
Subdivision process will accomplish the division for the third
lot. The applicant commits that each lot will contain an
accessory dwelling unit and the Planning Commission approved
these proposed units with conditions (see Resolution # .)
c 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: In 1988, a previous owner proposed a PUD Plan with a
Lot Split but abandoned the project before final approvals were
granted. Therefore the current proposal meets this criteria.
d 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
2
0 0
these lots nor will additional units be built without
receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Article and
growth management allocation pursuant to Art. 8.
Response: The applicant has submitted a draft plat and will make
final corrections to it as required by the Engineering Department
and any conditions resulting from Council's Subdivision approval.
As a single family residence is proposed for each lot resulting
from this split, growth management allocations are not necessary.
The Planning Office recommends the following conditions specific
to the Lot Split application:
1. An Accessory Dwelling Unit must be included on each lot for
which a residence is proposed as a requirement of this Lot
Split.
2. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for a residence on
either lot, the Accessory Dwelling Unit must be deed
restricted and comply with the conditions of approval
contained in the Planning and Zoning.Commission's Resolution
#91-
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the Subdivision and Final PUD with conditions. In
addition, the Planning Office recommends approval of the Lot
Split for the development of two residential parcels with
conditions.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council .could elect to not approve the Lot
Split, requiring the applicant to compete for two residential
development rights.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have First Reading of Ordinance /0
for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan,
and Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments:
"A" - 3/22/91 Staff Memo to Planning
graphics and referral comments
"B" - Planning and Zoning Commission
Ordinance /'0 for consideration
3
Commission including
Draft Resolution #91-
jtkvj /ute1001.ccmemo
TO.:
FROM:
IVINV CO) 0141 Z10 I1V1
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE:" 1001 Ute Avenue
Conditional Use
Subdivision /PUD
step review)
DATE: March 22, 1991
Attachment "A"
- 8040 Greenline Review,
for Accessory Dwelling Units, and Final
Development "Plan (as consolidated two-
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the 1001 Ute
8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling
Units, and Final Subdivision /PUD Development Plan with
conditions.
Applicant: Peter Coventry, represented by Glenn Horn
Location: 6.73 acres on Ute Avenue. uphill from and including
the tennis courts leased by the Gant Condominiums. To the East
is the Aspen Chance Subdivision and to the west is Lot 3 of the
Hoag Subdivision and City -owned park land.
Zoning: Land below the 8040 elevation is zoned R -15 PUD (109,110
s.f.). Land above the 8040 line is zoned C Conservation (7,480
s.f.). The portion of the parcel extending uphill from the city
limits carries the county zoning of AF -1.
1
Applicant's Request: This project requires several land use
reviews. The Commission will be called upon to act on 8040
Greenline review and Conditional Use. for the accessory dwelling
units. The Commission will also forward a recommendation for
GMQS Exemption for the affordable housing (A.D
Subdivision /Planned Unit Development (PUD) to City Council. The
applicant has requested that the PUD review, normally a four step
process, be consolidated into two steps. In addition, the tennis
court lot must receive GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director
under Section 8 -104 A.l.e. For•the two residential lots, GMQS
Exemption for Lot Split from City Council is needed under Section
8 -104 C.l.a.
Proposal: The applicant seeks to divide the portion of the parcel
within the city limits into three lots, two to each contain a
single family residence and accessory dwelling unit, and the
third containing three tennis courts held in a long term lease by
The Gant. The existing tennis courts will be moved to the west
approximately 50 feet to accommodate the access drive to the
homesites. The tennis courts are proposed to be deed restricted
against further development and will be available for use as
common open space by the 'two residential lots. This court area
is not used to calculate density, floor area nor open space. The
property outside of the city limits is, proposed to be deed
restricted against future development also. Please see
Attachment "A" for application information, site and elevation
sketches.
Referral Comments: Attachment "B" contains the complete referral
submissions. Highlights of these are as follows:
Engineering:
1) The subdivision plat still lacks certain information
about monuments, bearings, rebar, and Planning Director
signature,block.
2) Easements are required and shall be shown on the plat for
the following: a 15' Spar Gulch drainage easement, aligned
with the Midland r.o.w.; a waterline easement for the
pipeline to the Linda Edwards property; trail easement as
proposed by the applicant; and a 20' water easement proposed
through Lot 1 to Aspen Chance.
3) Water pressure is adequate to this property. When this
property is connected to the City's water system, any water
rights associated with this property shall be conveyed to
the City.
4) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join
the Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to
address the roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow
removal /parking problems.
5) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the
Engineering Department.
6). Parking space locations must be identified on the site
plan /final plat.
7) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested
by Nick Lampiris must be followed and inspected.
8) The USGS Avalanche Hazard map indicates the possibility
of small avalanches occurring within the proposed building
envelopes. Further study by an avalanche specialist is
required in addition to Mr. Lampiris's information.
9) Recommendations by Chen - Northern concerning construction
impacts on slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining
walls must be followed and inspected during construction.
10) The driveway curb cut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18'
in width.
2
•
11) The proposed cul -de -sac is inadequate for fire trucks
turning radius. A 50' minimum radius is required. If
parking is located on the cul -de -sac, more radius is
required. If the radius cannot meet the appropriate
dimension, the structures must be protected by fire
sprinkler systems.
12) A trash service area must be shown on the plan.
13) There is a question regarding the tennis court as a
separate lot because a 99 year lease exists for that area.
Previous legal interpretation indicated that a 99 year lease
constitutes a lot split in the intent of the Code.
City Attorney: As per discussions with Jed Caswall, the existing
lease for the tennis courts constitutes a subdivision under the
definition in the Land Use Code. Therefore,-the applicant has
had to amend the proposal to include full Subdivision review.
Please see Attachments "C" and "D" for Glen Horn's change of
request.
County Planning: In discussions with Cindy Houben, the situation
regarding the land in the County does not represent a problem,
especially considering the owner's intent to deed restrict the
land against any future development.
Fire Marshall: As discussed in Engineering comments, the
proposed radius of the cul -de -sac does not meet minimum turning
requirements for fire trucks. Additional radius is required,
otherwise the buildings must be sprinklered.
Environmental Health:
1) By granting an easement for a nordic /bike trail,
alternative transportation modes are encouraged, with
potential.benefits to air quality.
2) The Snowmelt driveway is not recommended because the
energy required to' operate it adds to global pollution and
warming. If snowmelt is insisted upon, a solar powered
system should be used.
3) Each home may contain two gas log fireplaces or one gas
log and one certified woodstove, and unlimited numbers of
natural gas fireplace appliances.
4) The applicant should contact this office for comment
should mine waste or mine dumps be encountered. Proper
handling on -site, as proposed by Chen - northern, is
acceptable to this office. Two to three feet of clean fill
material shall cover contaminated soils.
Water:
3
0 0
1) In order to comply with'the criteria contained in Aspen's
Water Main Extension Policy, this proposed addition should
be looped into the existing water system. The applicant
should work with the adjacent Aspen Chance subdivision to
obtain an easement to allow a looping to occur in connection
with the 6" line on Aspen Chance. If the looping effort
fails, the Water Department would accept the proposed "dead
end ". 8" installation.
2) The fire hydrant at 1010 Ute can supply sufficient flow,
pressure and volume to this proposed development.
Sanitation District:
1) Minor downstream constraints will require the applicant's
financial participation of approximately $6,000 in addition
to the regular connection fees.
2) Two 4" service lines individually connected to the main
or a manhole installation at the top of the driveway
connecting the two 4" lines with a 6" shared service line to
the main is acceptable. A shared service line agreement
would be required for the latter option. Either option will
require maintenance by the owner.
3) All clear water connections such as roof and foundation
drains cannot enter the District's system. Surface run -off
must be handled on -site or by the City's storm water system,
if available.
4) All associated fees and agreements must be paid /recorded
prior to connection onto the District's system.
Staff Comments:
8040 Greenline Review
As the proposed development is within 150 feet of the 8,040
elevation line, it must satisfy the standards of the Greenline
review:
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.
Response: The proposed location of the two homes is on a
mine dump from the Lower Durant Tunnel. Upon final grading,
the toxic soils will have to be capped with 2 -3 feet of
4
clean soil fill and revegetated to' help prevent wind and
water erosion. According to the Chen - Northern report
submitted with the application, the possibility of mud and
debris flows, mine subsidence, and major landslides is
small. Nick Lampiris, in his 1989 letter, suggests designs
for the rear walls to protect against occasional rock fall
(see conditions of approval).
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: A sizable increase of impervious surface results
from this proposal. Historic drainage rates must. be
maintained through a drywell system or other detention
methods. It appears that along the eastern side of the
site, grading is carried onto the adjacent property and the
swale created takes run -off away from the subject parcel.
This situation. must be changed. The applicant proposes
granting to the City_of Aspen a drainage easement uphill of
the homesites to accommodate Spar Gulch run -off. During
construction and revegetation periods, soil erosion
techniques must be used to limit sediment deposition off-
(site.
3) The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the air quality in the City.
Response: The residences shall comply with all regulations
pertaining to woodburning /gas devices.
4) The design and location of any proposed development, road, or
trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the
proposed.development is to be located. ,
Response: The proposed building sites will be on a graded,
level area on the top of the mine tailings. The existence
of. the tennis courts precludes the homesites being located
on the lower shelf. The proposed driveway serves the two
residences, and is steep (10% to 12% grade). There is staff
concern about the height and appearance of retaining walls
required above the cul -de -sac and tennis courts. The visual
impact of the wall behind the tennis courts is especially
important as it is nearly at street level and will be highly
Y isible. It will be up to 17 feet tall at the rear. Site
sections and detailed drawings be submitted specific to
these referenced walls. A trail easement is offered by the
applicant and needs to be'shown on the plat and development
plan.
5) Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features.
Response: As previously mentioned, the retaining walls
required for the tennis courts and cul -de -sac are major,
impacts to the terrain. Consideration should be made to
raising the floor level of the courts, terracing, and
landscape screening along the street to reduce the visual
impact of the walls. Landscape treatment of the full length
of the slope above the tennis courts is suggested., with
shrubs and drooping formed plants cascading over the wall.
This would help to. reduce the impact of the abrupt changes
to the topography.
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 existing conditions on the site (tennis
courts, atypical shape, steep slopes) are real problems.
The placement of the two homes is pretty much dictated to be
on the upper shelf. The paved and landscaped entry to the
tennis court seems too urban for this site, but the basic
idea is a good one. Would a cinder path work as well?
Also, it is questionable whether a 5' paved sidewalk along
the.20' wide driveway is really necessary.
7) Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure
will be designed to blend into the open character of the
mountain.
Response: The applicant proposes that the architectural
controls contained in the deed restrictions be those which
are in effect for the neighboring Aspen Chance Subdivision.
Materials allowed are wood siding, wood shingles, stone, and
glass, in earth tones, with cedar shingles for pitched
roofs. Elevation sketches of the north sides of the homes
are provided but they are too conceptual to provide much
insight to design. The application states that the level of
the mine tailings will be .significantly lowered, thus
lowering the buildings on the hillside. It is unclear what
the net impact will be as the application does not contain
existing and proposed site sections. The height is proposed
to be 25' from new grade, and will not exceed the height of
the house at Lot 6 Aspen Chance. Maximum height in the R -15
zone is 251.
8) Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to
service the proposed development.
Response: Referral comments from the Water Department .
indicate that water pressure and volume are adequate. Sewer
is available with certain improvements to the main line as
previously discussed.-
9) Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be.properly maintained.
Response: Ute Avenue is in poor condition. The Engineering
Department requires that the applicant commit to joining the
Ute Ave. Improvement District which is being formed to
address necessary road widening, drainage improvements,
2
lighting, etc.
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: A 20' wide snowmelt driveway, is proposed. This
will satisfy the Fire Marshal's office, but there is
question as to the adequacy of the cul -de -sac radius for
fire equipment. If both structures are protected by fire
sprinklers, the 20' driveway and larger cul -de -sac are not
required. The Engineering Department stated that the curb
cut on Ute Ave. can only be 18' wide.
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 applicant commits to dedicating a 12' wide
public trail /nordic ski easement corresponding with the
existing nordic /pedestrian trail. This easement will be
located on the land in the county which will be deed
restricted.against future development.
Conditional Use
As this proposal includes a subdivision exemption for a Lot
Split, accessory dwelling units must be included in any
development occurring on these lots (Section 7 -1003 A.2.c.)
Accessory dwelling units are Conditional Uses in the R -15 zone.
Section 5 -508 establishes review standards for these units.
Exact building design and floorplans have yet to be developed.
For the purposes of this review, the units are proposed to -be
located within the two residences. The following responses apply
to these units:
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: Accessory dwelling units are consistent with the
residential uses allowed in the R -15 zone. The. City deems that
affordable housing be provided when the impact of new development
occurs.
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;
and
Response: Caretaker units will compliment the residential uses in
the neighborhood.
7
9 .1 0
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: No additional visual impacts will result as the units
will be located inside the residences. Each unit will be
provided with one off- street parking space. The Engineering
Department is working on implementation of an improvement program
for Ute Ave., so any increase resulting from this development
will be calculated and provided for. The site is approximately 5
blocks from the commercial core.
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.
Response: The proposed units will not increase needs for, public
facilities above and beyond the single family development.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by
the conditional use.
response: The accessory units will compensate for any employee
generation resulting from the residential uses.
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: These units comply with Council's goals for provision
of affordable housing in residential areas.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW STANDARDS
The following standards. shall 'be applied to proposed
subdivisions.
1. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: This area is described as low density residential in
the AACP.
b.' The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
Response: Existing uses in the neighborhood are low to medium
density. This proposal is consistent with this pattern.
C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
Response:. No adverse affects should occur as a result of this
•
•
subdivision. One of the aspects of this proposal is to deed
restrict both the tennis court lot and the sloped area within the
County against any further development as a measure to protect
the character and environment of the surrounding area.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: The proposal is seeking PUD, 8040, and Conditional
Use /GMQS approvals as required by the Land Use Code.
2. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be
located on land unsuitable for development because of
flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to
the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the
proposed subdivision.
Response: Please see 8040 review discussion above for this
information.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall
not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Response: No public inefficiencies will result from this
proposal. Access to the homes are via private drive. The
applicant must commit to participate in any improvement district
if formed.
3. Improvements.
a. Required improvements.
Response: The improvements such as property pins, water lines,
fire hydrants, etc. as listed in this Code section shall be
provided for the proposed subdivision.
b. Approved plans. Construction shall not commence on any of
the improvements required by Sec. 7-1004 (C) (3) (a) until a
plan, profile, and specifications have been received and
approved by the City Engineer and, when appropriate, the
relevant utility company.
Response: Any required plans for the necessary improvements in
Section 7 -1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of any excavation or building permits.
4. Design standards. The following design standards shall be
required for all subdivisions. Except as discussed
specifically below, the entire series of standards do not
apply to this project, or have been addressed on the site
plan.
0J
a. Easements..
(3) Potable water and sewer easements.
Response: The Engineering Department will require a Spar
Gulch drainage easement and two waterline easements to be
shown on the plat. See referral comments above.
(4) Planned utility or drainage system.
Response: The applicant commits to dedicating an easement
for drainage system traversing the south side of the
property.
(6) Fire lanes and emergency access easements. Fire lanes
and emergency access easements' twenty (201) feet in
width shall be provided where required by the City Fire
Marshal.
Response: The Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal and
states that. the cul -de -sac radius is not adequate. Unless
the radius can meet his requirement, all residences must be
sprinklered.
(8) Planned trail system. Whenever a subdivision- embraces
any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski
trail or hiking trail designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails
Plan Map, an easement shall be provided to accommodate
the plan within the subdivision.
Response: As discussed, a )12!' trail easement shall be
dedicated on the part of this parcel in the county.
c. Lots and blocks.
Response: The plat shall include three lots: Lots 1 and 2 as
residential, and Lot 3 being the tennis courts (deed' restricted
against any future development.)
b. Utilities.
Response: The applicant commits to complying with the easement
and construction requirements of the utility agencies which serve
this parcel. See referral comments. Also, historic drainage on
site will be maintained.
Upon submissions of a Final Plat for City approval, all of the
standards of Section 7- 1004(c) must be met, or it shall be
denied.
Sec. 7 -1006. Subdivision Agreement.
The following Code sections describe the elements required within
a Subdivision Agreement.
A. General. Prior to approval of Plat for a subdivision, the
applicant and City Council shall enter into a Subdivision
10
Agreement binding. the subdivision to any conditions placed
on the development order.
B. Common)Park and Recreation Areas. The Subdivision Agreement
shall outline any agreement on the part of the applicant, to
deed public.lands, open space, public facilities, and other
improvements to the City or other entity.
C. Landscape Guarantee. In order to ensure implementation /and
maintenance of the landscape plan, the City Council may
require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less
than one hundred twenty - five percent (125 %) of the current
estimated cost of the landscaping improvements in the
approved landscape plan, as estimated by the City Engineer,
to ensure the installation of all landscaping shown and the
continued maintenance and replacement of the landscaping for
a period of two (2) years after installation. The guarantee
shall be in the form of a cash escrow with the City, or a
bank or savings and loan association,, or an irrevocable
sight draft or letter of commitment from a financially
responsible lender and shall give the City the unconditional
right upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for
any improvements or pay any outstanding bills, or to
withdraw funds upon demand to partially or.fully complete or
pay for any, improvements or pay for any improvement or pay
any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party.
As portions of the landscaping improvements are completed,
the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and
acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed
estimated cost for that. portion of the improvements, except
that ten percent (10 %) shall be withheld until all proposed
improvements are completed and approved, and an additional
twenty -five percent (25 %), which shall be retained until the
improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory
condition for two (2) years.
D. Public Facilities Guarantee. In order to ensure
installation of necessary public facilities planned to
accommodate the subdivision, the City Council shall require
the. applicant to provide a_ guarantee for no less than one
.hundred percent (100 %) of the current estimated cost of such
public improvements, as estimated by the City Engineer. The
guarantee shall be in the form specified in Sec. 7-1006(c)
and maybe drawn upon by the City as specified therein. As
portions of the public facilities improvements are
completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon
approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the
agreed estimated cost for that portion of the.improvements,
except ten percent (10 %) which shall be withheld until all
proposed improvements are completed and approved.
11
E. Recordation. The Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be,
recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and,
Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record
the Plat..within a period of one hundred and eighty (180)
days following approval by the City Council shall render the
Plat invalid and reconsideration and approval of the Plat by
the Commission and City Council will be required.before its
acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is
granted by City Council for a showing of good cause.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
The subject parcel has a PUD overlay and is subject to the
following purpose and standards contained in Section 7 -901.
Section 7 -903 C.3. allows for a two -step consolidated review. At
the time the applicant and staff conducted the pre - application
conference, it was staff's determination that the applicant
should request the consolidated process. The reasons were that a
four step review for a project with minimal community impact
would be redundant and serve no public purpose.
The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to
encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land
which:
A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and layout of
buildings.
B. Improves the design, character and quality of development.
C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and
governmental services.
D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable.
E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and
F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of
development encourages the preservation of natural and
scenic features.
PUD REVIEW STANDARDS
1. General Requirements.
Response': As the PUD General Requirements are nearly the same as
Subdivision, please see Subdivision General Requirements above.
In addition, PUD General Requirements expect that:
"Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the
12
extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant."
Response: Although the project is going through a Subdivision
review, the net result is to obtain development rights for two
single family residences. Originally the applicant only sought a
Lot Split (GMQS Exemption) to develop the two residences. The
City Attorney ruled that the presence of the long -term tennis
court lease constituted an existing subdivision, and only a Lot
Split would therefore not be applicable. In light of this
decision, it was decided by Planning staff that if a three lot
subdivision was processed (two residential, one deed restricted
against any future development rights), the Planning Director
would grant a GMQS exemption for the project under Section 8 -104
A.l.e. This language reads:
All development not limited: All development not limited by the
provisions of Section 8 -103. (This section sets forth the Growth
Management Quotas for Commercial, Lodge, and Residential uses.)
In effect, the Planning Office recognizes the intent of the
application to acquire two single family development rights and
the problems encountered because of the tennis court lease.
Staff acknowledges that as part of the proposal 4.05 acres_of
land in the county that are part of this parcel will be deed
restricted against future site development (see 3/13/91 letter
from Glenn Horn). The tennis court area (proposed Lot 3) will
also be restricted against any future development. This solution
appears to be a win /win proposition which will benefit both the
applicant and the citizens of the community.
When this application is forwarded to City Council, they will
consider a GMQS Exemption for the two residential lots based on
the standards for Lot Split. Although this appears to be a
redundancy, staff wishes to consider the spirit of the owner's
request as well as the intent of the growth management sections
of the Code.
2. Density. The maximum density shall be no greater than that
permitted in the underlying Zone District.
Response: The R -15 zone allows one house per 15,000 s. f. of lot
area. Densities do not have to be reduced for this proposal for
steep slopes as per the consulting Landscape Architect. There
are no other density reductions.required for this parcel.
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the
underlying Zone District.
Response: Detached residential units are permitted in the R -15
zone. They may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line
or row house configuration, but that is not a request of the
applicant.
13
• .
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements
shall be those of the underlying Zone District except
through a PUD variation process. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated,on the final development plan.
Response: A variation to the R -15 side setback is being
requested for the east side of Lot 1. 10 feet is required, 5
feet.is requested. Staff feels that since the lot, line is being
established as part of a new subdivision, the line should
adjusted now rather than allowing a variation.
5. Off - street parking.
Response: 14 spaces are being provided on site. These must be
identified on the recorded PUD plan. No variations are being
sought.
6. Open Space.
Response: No open space requirement exists in the R -15 zone.
However, this proposal calls for the lot containing the tennis
courts to be used by Ithe residents as open space. It shall be
deed restricted against any future development. Additionally,
of the 6.7 acres in this parcel, 4.05 acres are in the County.
The applicant commits to deed restrict this land area against any
future site development.
As required by the Code, "any plan for open space shall also
be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation
areas, and communally owned facilities."
7. Landscape Plan.
Response: The applicant submitted a landscape plan as part of
this application.. Please see discussion of landscape treatment
in the 8040 section above. A less urban treatment of the
pedestrian entry at the tennis courts is recommended by staff.
8. Architectural Site Plan.
Response: As discussed in the 8040 standards, the designs of thee
two homes will use the architectural guidelines for the Aspen
Chance Subdivision. This will steer designs toward use of
appropriate materials, roof pitches, etc. to harmonize with the
surrounding area.
9. Lightinq. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent
direct glare or hazardous interference of .any kind to
adjoining streets or lands.
Response: The applicant commits to complying with this standard.
10. Clusteringr. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Response: The two homes are both set on the shelf created by the
tailings pile. This is a relatively clustered arrangement.
11. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall be
14
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: According to comments from Engineering, the Fire
Marshal and utilities, basic needs are met except where noted and
conditioned.
12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation.
Response: As discussed in referral comments, vehicular access is
acceptable with conditions. Staff would like a reconsideration
of pedestrian access, that being a less "urban" treatment on the
entry, and even removal of the sidewalk along the driveway. The
additional pavement seems excessive given the width of the
private drive. It will also require plowing in the winter to
keep it useful.
13. Final Development Plan.
Response: The applicant has provided an acceptable plan for
review purposes. Staff has requested some additional site
section information from the architect and this should be
available at the meeting if not sooner.
Sec. 7 -904. PUD Agreement.
The following information is required to be filed concurrently
with the PUD Development Plan and Subdivision Plat. As the
Subdivision Agreement is a similar document, the Agreement could
be a consolidation of the two as long as all required information
and commitments are contained within.
A. General. Upon approval of a Final Development Plan for
the Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant and
City Council shall enter - into a Planned Unit Develop-
ment .(PUD) Agreement binding the PUD to any conditions
placed on the development order.
B. Common Park and Recreation Areas. The PUD Agreement
shall outline any agreement on the part of the ap-
plicant, to deed to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the Planned Unit Development (PUD), an undivided
interest in all common park and recreations areas,
together with a deed restriction against future
residential, commercial, or industrial development.
C. Landscape Guarantee. In order to ensure implementation
and maintenance of the landscape plan, the City Council.
may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no
less than one hundred twenty -five percent (125 %) of the
current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements
in the approved landscape plan, as estimated by the
15
City Engineer, to ensure the installation of all
landscaping shown and the continued maintenance and
replacement of the landscaping for a period of two (2)
years after installation. The guarantee shall be in
the form of a cash escrow with the City, or a bank or
savings and loan association, or an irrevocable sight
draft or letter of commitment from a financially
responsible lender and shall give the City the uncon-
ditional right upon demand to partially or. fully
complete or pay for any improvements or pay any
outstanding bills, or to withdraw funds upon demand to
partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements
or pay for any improvement or pay any outstanding bills
for work done thereon by any party.
As portions of the landscaping improvements are
completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and
upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the
release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion
of the improvements, except that ten percent• (10 %)
which shall be withheld until all proposed improvements
are completed and approved, and an additional twenty -
five percent (25 %),which shall be retained until the
improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory
condition for two (2) years.
b. Public Facilities Guarantee. In order to ensure
installation of necessary public facilities planned to
accommodate the development, the City Council shall
require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no
less than one hundred percent (100 %) of the current
estimated cost of such public improvements, as es-
timated by the City Engineer. The guarantee shall be
in the form specified in.Sec. 7- 904(c) and may be drawn
upon by the City as therein specified. As portions of
the public facilities improvements are completed, the
City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and
acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed
estimated cost for that portion of the improvements,
except that ten percent' (10%) which shall be withheld
until all proposed improvements are, completed and
approved.
Staff Recommendations:
GMQS Exemption/ Conditional Use: The Planning Office Recommends
approval of Conditional Use for one Accessory Dwelling Unit in
each residence with the following conditions:
1. Each accessory dwelling unit shall contain not less than 300
16
and not more than 700 square feet of net livable area and be
located within or attached to a principal residence. It shall
meet the housing designee's guidelines for such units, is
required to be deed restricted by Owner, to meet the definition
of a Resident Occupied Unit and be rented for period of six
months or longer. The Owner of the principal residence shall
have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his
or her choosing in the accessory dwelling-unit. Occupancy of the
accessory dwelling unit is not mandatory. The tenant shall meet
the definition of a working resident and is qualified by the
Aspen /Pitkin County, Housing Authority prior to occupancy. For
purpose of this provision, a unit shall be considered rented.if
it is occupied pursuant to a lease or rental agreement which
requires a payment by the tenant of more than a nominal amount of
rent.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction of
each residence, the applicant shall provide a deed restriction to
the Housing Authority for approval. The restriction shall state
that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such
units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and shall
be rented for periods of six months or longer. Upon approval of
the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, the applicant
shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorders Office.
3. A copy of the recorded deed restrictions must be forwarded to
the Planning Office.
8040 Greenling: The Planning Office recommends approval of 8040
Greenline review with the following conditions:
4) The grading plan must be changed so that any grade alterations
must be completely contained within the property lines of this
parcel.
5) When this property is connected to the City's water system,
any water rights associated with this property shall be conveyed
to the City.
6) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the
Engineering Department.
7) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested by
Nick Lampiris must be followed and inspected.' These techniques
include: the rear foundation walls should be designed to protrude
at least four feet above finished .grade and be without doors or
windows on the up -slope sides; they should -be able to withstand
200 lbs /s.f.. Positive landscaping should be done at the rear of
the homes during or shortly after construction.
8) Further study by an avalanche specialist is required in
17
addition to Mr. Lampiris's information.
9) Recommendations by Chen - Northern concerning construction
impacts on the slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining
walls must be followed and inspected during construction.
10) The mine waste /tailings must be capped with 2 -3' of clean
soil fill.
Subdivision: The Planning Office recommends approval of
subdivision with the following/conditions:
11) All plat requirements as stated in Section 7 -1004. C. and D.
shall be shown on plat prior to approval by the Engineering
Office.
12) Any required plans for the necessary improvements in Section
7 -1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of
any excavation or building permits.
13) Easements for Spar Gulch drainage, 12' nordic /pedestrian
trail, and two waterlines, as described in Engineering's referral
comments must be shown on the plat.
14) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join the
Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed_to address the
roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow removal /parking problems.
15) The Subdivision Agreement and Plat must be recorded with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by
City Council. Failure to do so will render the approvals
invalid.
PUD Development Plan: The Planning Office Recommends approval of
this development plan with the following conditions:
16) The lot line separating Lots 1 and 2 shall be moved to the
east approximately 5 feet so that the Lot 1 side setback can be
achieved without a variation.
17) Fourteen parking spaces must be identified on the Final
Development Plan.
18) The driveway curbcut on Ute. Ave. shall not exceed 18' in,
width. L
19)'A trash service are must be shown on the plan.
20) Gas Fireplaces and wood stoves must be certified and approved
through the Environmental Health department.
21) A 50' minimum radius for the cul -de -sac is required'. If the
18
•
•
radius cannot meet,the appropriate dimension, the structures must
be protected by fire sprinkler systems.
22) The pedestrian access shall be redesigned to be less urban in
character. The sidewalk adjacent to the driveway shall be
eliminated.
23) The applicant shall participate in improvements in the
Sanitation Department's lines by a payment of $6,000.00 (in
addition to the regular connection fees.
24) All clear water connections such as roof and foundation
drains cannot enter the District's system. Surface run -off must
be handled on -site or by the City's storm water system, if
available.
25) Sewer lines /connections shall meet the approval of the
Sanitation District. All associated fees and agreements must be
paid and recorded prior to connection onto the District's system.
26) The tennis court lot shall be reconfigured to remove the
extraineous area to the west of the pedestrian access point.
27) A Final Development Plan and PUD Agreement must be filed with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval
by City Council or the approval will be rendered invalid.
Attachments:
"A"- Proposed PUD Development Plan,
"B"- Comments from Referral Agencies
"C"- 3 /13 /91.letter from Glenn Horn
"D "- 3/18/91 letter from Glenn Horn
19
Plat,
regarding Subdivision process
to Tim Whitsitt /Cindy Houben
,Ills .. �i • .._ ' — \ / � - \ �
foso
olo
IJ ti"
�J.
t . fN ? \
'• L
� I
t�l
ATTACHMENT "A"
0
0
zz
wwI /'• //i ,/ �___ --� // __ �i � /' Vii/ jam/
// / ice- I/ �•_ % i / / /I/ // /�
X /
/
I
i �/
Jill
Hai
I
I
I Ili
I
I
I •
u-
1
J4e0
'
^O
j
\
�
v
I
i �/
Jill
Hai
I
I
zb
B aF
. 8
v n it
D O
! i n z
• m -4 /
yy i t
B•tYM C C
Xft
,�.�i s r I •-3
y r /•+
9 K m C
m
I I J --- &�"i1 - -- -- ---- - - - - --� E a S
v 4 i IT1
r F'r I I y
• I I -' �. i j� a K o
Is Iy I E n
m o z m
N? z
j i31 j• ► m w o ch
'= I
Ll,..•�1..,•_i � as �; . _
I I I
I L_J $L
I I
j
I `8 ti
•N'1.1
UTE AVENUE
• ATTACHMENT "B"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department'
DATE: January 3, 1991
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split,
Consolidated PUD, 8040 Greenline, Review, Conditional Use Review
and.GMQS Exemption
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department <has the following comments:
1. The draft of the final subdivision plat which was
submitted still needs the following information:
a. -A description of all survey monuments both found and
set.
b. A statement explaining the basis for bearings.
c. A certificate showing approval by the Planning
Director.
d. The statement about the No. 4 rebar must read that
it must be set prior to recording of the final plat , or prior to issuance of any building 'permit, depending
on the timing.
2. Water and Fire Departments confirmed that there will be
sufficient water pressure. When water service is connected,
it is required that the applicant convey-to 'the City any
water rights that are included with. the ownership.of this
property. The Engineering Department utility location map
indicates there. is access to all other utilities at this
location.
3. The applicant needs to agree to join the Ute Avenue
_Improvement District that is presently being formed. This
district will address road widening, street .lighting,
parking as it relates to snow removal and drainage problems
which relate to road maintenance. This agreement needs to
be shown on the plat.
4. The Engineering Department has a question about the
portion of this parcel that is in the County. Is this part
of the lot split? Also, should the area of the tennis court
lease be.a separate lot? In previous instances, legal staff
has advised that a 99 year lease constitutes a lot split in
the intent of the Code.
5. The report by Robert Fletcher indicates that the proposed
drywel -1 will maintain the historic drainage. The
Engineering Department will need the calculations which
support that report.
.6. The Spar Gulch drainage easement the applicant proposes
to grant to the City needs to be shown on the plat. This
easement needs to be 15 feet in width and needs to be
aligned with the Midland railroad right -of -way.
7.r The Engineering Department recommends a water easement
across the northwest corner of the property for 1" pipeline
to the-Linda Edwards property.
-. _____8._•The slope density reduction analysis calculations done by
a registered surveyor which were submitted meet the
requirements.of this section..
9. The existing traffic circulation on Ute Avenue is poor,
'especially in the winter time. If the applicant agrees to
join the Ute Avenue Improvement District, this problem will
be addressed.
____10. The applicant has given a conceptual outline of how_ the
development will be served by the appropriate public
facilities to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department.
11.- The detailed plan submitted by the applicant needs to
show the .location of proposed off - street parking. The
applicant has proposed 14 off - street parking spaces but the
location of all of these. spaces is not shown. This should
be done prior to final plat approval.
12. The-applicant needs to.. show the trail easement he is
proposing to grant on the plat.
13. The applicant needs to show the 20 foot water easement
that is being proposed through lot 1 to the Aspen Chance on
the plat.. -
14. The recommendation made in the report by Nick Lampiris
on rock fall mitigation must be followed and this must be
substantiated before final inspection.
x,15: The USGS Avalanche Hazard map shows that the proposed
building envelopes are located within an area where there is
potential for .small avalanches. The Engineering Department
requires a recommendation on avalanche potential for this
area from a consultant specializing in this field in.
addition to the one submitted by Nick Lampiris.
16. The following recommendations made in the report by
Chen- Northern, Inc. need to be followed and this must be
substantiated at appropriate times during the building
permit and inspection process:
a. Mitigation of construction induced slope
instability.
b. Mitigation_of flooding and debris flow potential.
c. Drainage for the proposed driveway and the two
structures.
d. Revegetation for erosion control.
e. Concerning_ cut and fill of the driveway and for the
structures.
f. Construction of the retaining wall for the driveway.
'1.70. The Engineering Department confirms that there is
adequate ingress and egress. The-applicant has-proposed to
construct a 20 foot wide driveway which is what the
requirement is for emergency access. However, Code requires
that there, can be only an. 18 curb cut for this driveway, so
it is recommended that the 20 foot wide drive be necked down
at Ute Avenue.
18. The proposed cul -de -sac has an inadequate turning radius
for.fire trucks._. This must be increased to 50 .feet. If the
applicant proposes the additional off - street parking for
this cul -de -sac, then the radius needs to be increased even
more. Because the location of this cul -de -sac would make it
difficult to make this size increase, it is recommended that
the structures have fire protection sprinkler systems
installed which would eliminate the need for fire truck
access.
19. The applicant needs to show the location of proposed a
trash area.
jg /1001ute
cc: Chuck Roth
•
MEMORANDUM
C�
TO: Rim Johnson, Planning
FROM: Yvonne Blocker, Housing
DATE: December 28,.1990
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split;
Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use Review, and GMQS
Exemption
Parcel ID # 2737- 182 -00 -063
SUMMARY: Applicant proposes to subdivide a. portion of the project
site which consist of approximately 293,160 sq. ft. into two single
family lots. The proposed lots are to be located in the portion of
the site currently occupied by mine tailings from the Lower Durant
Tunnel.
APPLICANT: Neil Myers
.APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Horn Incorporated
LOCATION: Site is bordered by Ute Avenue to the north, City of
Aspen Park and Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision to the-east, Aspen Mountain
to the south, and Aspen Chance Subdivision to the east.
ZONING: Portion located in Pitkin. county is AF -1 and the Portion
located in the City of Aspen is zoned R -15 (PUD) and C
(Conservation).
REQUEST: Applicant requests Residential'GMQS Exemption for a Lot:_
Split pursuant to Section 8- 104(C)•(a), Residential GMQS Exemption
for the Accessory Dwelling Units as per Section 8- 104(B)(d),
Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split as per Section 7 -1003 (Ay (2)
Consolidated Planned Unit Development as per Section 8 -903,
Development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) 8040 Greenline
Review as per Section 7- 503,.and Conditional Use Approval for the
Accessory Dwelling Units as per Section 5 -508.
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT SPLIT
Applicant requests subdivision exemption for a lot split pursuant
to Section 8- 104(C)(a) which allows the development of one (1)
detached residential dwelling. on a vacant lot formed by a lot split
granted subsequent to November 14, 1977 pursuant to Section 7 -1003
(a)(2). In order to be eligible for this exemption the property
need not contain any development on the original.•lot:
Section-7 -1003 (a) (2) requires that the. split of a lot for the
purpose of the development. of only one detached single- family
dwelling on a lot by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14,
1977, were all of the following conditions are met:
a. The land is not located in .a subdivision approved by either
�th( 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;
Applicant has provided information that the lots as proposed for
the split are undeveloped land with no prior approvals from either
City of County.
b.' No more than two (2.) lots are created by the lot split; both
lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district
and the applicant commits that any lot for which development is
proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Applicant has requested approval for the development of an
accessory dwelling unit for each lot to be constructed within the
main residence.
Applicant provides information on page 47 of the, submission that
" the data in Table 2 indicate that 10,270 . square feet may be
constructed in the PUD distributed between the two lots ". Also,
applicant provides information• that the requirements of one
space /bedroom will be met for a total of fourteen spaces which
would indicate that the two lots will contain a combined total.of
fourteen bedrooms. However, other then this information, applicant
does not provide the actual proposed square footage of the two
residential dwelling units.to determine that the underlying zone
requirements are met as to square footage not• to exceed 6,600
square feet of floor area for a lot of 15,000 - 50,00o.sq. ft.
Applicant requests approval be granted for the construction of one
accessory dwelling unit per lot as per Section-5-508 which requires
that the accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject, to the
minimum lot areal requirement of Art. 5, Div. 2., but hall be
subject to all other underlying zone district.
Parking shall not be required if the unit is a studio or one
bedroom unit, but one (1) parking space shall be provided on -site
if the unit contains two ( 2,)- bedrooms and one (1) additional space
shall be required for each additional two ( 2 ) bedrooms in the unit.
The Accessory Dwelling Units shall contain not less 'than .300, square
feet of net livable area and be located within or attached to a
principal residence.' It shall meet the housing designee's
guidelines fora such units, meet the definition' of a Resident
Occupied Unit and be rented for periods of six months or longer.
The owner of the principal residence shall have the right to place
•
C7
a. qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Applicant has not provided any information as to the net livable
square footage of the accessory dwelling units.
HOUSING RECOMMENDATION: Housing requests approval. for one
accessory. dwelling. unit per lot for the 1001 Ute Avenue PUD
Subdivision application based on the following conditions:*
1. Applicant shall be required to provide actual floor plans of
the accessory dwelling units to determine location, net livable
square footage, and bedroom count.
2. The Accessory Dwelling Units shall be required to'meet the
definition of "dwelling unit" as per Aspen City Code to be a
separately enterable, self- sufficient room or combination of rooms
which contain a kitchen and bath facilities and which are designed
for or. used as a residence by a single family or residents. The
.dwelling units shall be independent of.other family or guests.
3. A site inspection shall be-performed by representatives of the
Housing and Zoning offices to determine that all above requirements
are met prior to final inspection by Building.department.
4. Applicant shall be required to.provide a deed restriction as
to form as per Section 5 -508 of the Aspen City Code for approval by
the Housing Office and shall be required to record approved deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office prior
to issuance of any building permits.for, the approved lots.
To: Leslie,Lamont,, Planner
Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director
Environmental*Health Department
Date: October 18, 1989
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 UALITY•
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
Ouality Standards, Regulation 1) . Prior to construction the
applicant shall contact this office for a final determination of
this' ' requirement .
•
1001 Ute 8040 Greenline Review
October 18, 1989
Page 2
is
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:
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 givefi the - concentration of mine waste
present on the site. Given that, 'precautions should betaken 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
1001 Ute Subd Exemption
December 12,-1990
Page 2
However, use of a driveway snowmelt system has a large negative
air quality benefit. This is due to the contribution of natural
gas to global warming (or electricty generation if an. electric
snowmelt system were used). Snowmelt systems use a very large
amount of energy to accomplish a task which can be done in other,
more environmentally beneficial ways. We. would strongly
encourage the applicant to forego the use of such a system. If a
snowmelt system is insisted on, we urge, the applicant to use a
solar snowmelt system instead of a gas or electric one. While
this site does not have good. sun exposure, the applicant should
investigate. the use. of solar collectors, or.solar panels to melt
the snow on driveways.
Another measure which would minimize the air quality impacts - of
this project would be use of high- efficiency compact fluorescent
lights both inside and outside the project. These lights use so
much less -energy that they result in less air pollution from
electricity generation.
Each of the two buildings (containing a single family home and
attached caretaker. unit) is allowed two gas log fireplaces (or
one gas log fireplace and one certified woodstove) and unlimited
numbers of natural gas fireplace appliances.
NOISE•
Noise generated during construction will have an impact on the
immediate 'neighborhood. However, long term impacts are not
anticipated given the residential use of the property.
Should this office receive complaints, Chapter 16 of the Aspen
Municipal Code — Noise Abatement, will be the document used in
the investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
None that are enforced by 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.
1001 Ute Subd Exemption
December 12, 1990
Page 3
This office has had conversations with the applicant regarding
the proper handling of soils on'the site which contain 'greater
than 1000 parts per million- (PPM) lead. The applicant is
familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency recommended
remedy for. soils with similiar contamination at the base of
Smuggler Mountain. The remedy proposed in the Chen - Northern, Inc
reports which recommends the retention on -site of all
contaminated material, and covering the contaminated soils with
clean fill material to a depth of between 2 and ,3 feet .is
acceptable to this office. Clean fill shall not have
concentrations of lead above 250 PPM. This is the same remedy
suggested in the October 18, 1989 8040 Greenline Review done by
this office.on the same property.
1001 Ute 8040 Greenline Review
October 18 ", 1989
Page 3
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.
M E M 0 R A N.D U M
..
TO: KIM JOHNSTON, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: LARRY BALLENGER, WATER DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990
SUBJECT: 1001 UTE AVENUE
I have reviewed the Planned Unit Development /Subdivis ion .Exemption
Application from FMG Incorporated. The Water Department has the
same concern with this application as it has with the 1986 and 1988
Submittals. If a developer is going to extend a water main within
the City of Aspen or the Aspen Water Service.Area, that water main.
extension must follow the criteria established - -in Aspen's Water
Main Extension Policy. -Specifically., looping the new system into
an existing system.
In the. past, the developer was not able to reach agreement with the
neighboring property, "The Aspen Chance "., to obtain an easement to
effect a connection with the existing 6" installation on their
property.. FMG President, Neal Myers, developed the Aspen Chance
property. Since he is developing the 1001 Ute property, maybe a
way can be found to now loop this proposed system.
Kim, if this water system looping would be the only hold on this
property, I would permit the proposed "dead end ", 8" installation.
The Water,Departm6nt would like to see the looped system, but we
also appreciate the hassals of obtaining easement /right -of -ways on
private property.
Fire hydrant 742, located at 1010 Ute Avenue, flows at 2985 gallons
per minute with a static head of 82.0 PSI. There would be
sufficient flows, pressures, and volumes to supply this
development.
LB: 11
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient - line'and treatment' capacity' to:serve= •.this:•projec .
kY sthate'would:re uire'the app 1 "icant s financial'. artic Avenue main
:minor downstream.• constrafnts,in the
9 . ...._ P tici at n The
P io
applicant's share. of,. `th.is,... expense is estimated ' "to... be
approximately $6000. This cost. would be in addition to our
J.
r,egu.1 "ar' connection fees:
The District would normally require the development to be served
by a short. 8" line extension terminating somewhere near-the
building footprints, but due to the significant surface
improvements that are being considered within and adjacent to the
pr ivate.;.driveway, we will approve,: "connection by, either bringing
two" 4" service lines down the driveway,:::.each individually.tapped
into our collection system located in Ute Avenue, or installing a
manhole at the top of the driveway with two 4" Service lines
tapped into the manhole and. the manhole connected to our main in
Ute`Ave.nue'by,way ofa 6" :" shared - service: Line..I.n.,the_,.latter case.
the' District` requires the completion-of °` a shared service line
agreement,,copies of which are available at.the District offices.
In both cases the lines would be considered private service lines
"
FF
maintained by "the owner.
All clear water connections such as roof and foundation drains
cannot be connected to the District's sysLer. Sur:iace run -cif
must be collected and treated on -site or handled by the City's
r,t wry' : -{ •. t .:. i. i+
'.'s'to�em °' water" co- 11`e,.tionYsystem,if:a;va
f�Kr, Al.l associated `fees must be paid and agreeme
nts recorded prior to
connection to :the District system
n
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient - line'and treatment' capacity' to:serve= •.this:•projec .
kY sthate'would:re uire'the app 1 "icant s financial'. artic Avenue main
:minor downstream.• constrafnts,in the
9 . ...._ P tici at n The
P io
applicant's share. of,. `th.is,... expense is estimated ' "to... be
approximately $6000. This cost. would be in addition to our
J.
r,egu.1 "ar' connection fees:
The District would normally require the development to be served
by a short. 8" line extension terminating somewhere near-the
building footprints, but due to the significant surface
improvements that are being considered within and adjacent to the
pr ivate.;.driveway, we will approve,: "connection by, either bringing
two" 4" service lines down the driveway,:::.each individually.tapped
into our collection system located in Ute Avenue, or installing a
manhole at the top of the driveway with two 4" Service lines
tapped into the manhole and. the manhole connected to our main in
Ute`Ave.nue'by,way ofa 6" :" shared - service: Line..I.n.,the_,.latter case.
the' District` requires the completion-of °` a shared service line
agreement,,copies of which are available at.the District offices.
In both cases the lines would be considered private service lines
"
FF
maintained by "the owner.
All clear water connections such as roof and foundation drains
cannot be connected to the District's sysLer. Sur:iace run -cif
must be collected and treated on -site or handled by the City's
r,t wry' : -{ •. t .:. i. i+
'.'s'to�em °' water" co- 11`e,.tionYsystem,if:a;va
f�Kr, Al.l associated `fees must be paid and agreeme
nts recorded prior to
connection to :the District system
MEMORANDUM DEG _ 4 19%
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen-Water Department
Environmental Health Department,
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department -
Fire Marshal
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning office
RE: 100¢1 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split,*
Consolidated 'PUD, 8040 Greenline. Review, Conditional
Use Review and GMQS Exemption
Parcel ID# 2737 - 182 -00 -063
DATE: December 3, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application from Neal''
Myers requesting approval for a Lot Split etc..
Please return your comments to me 'no later than December .28,
1990. Thank you.
• ASPEN *PITKIN •
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
DEC 1 31990
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date:. December 12, 1990
Re:_ 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split,
'Consolidated PUD, 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional
Use Review 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 municipal
water utility system ".
AIR QUALITY•
cl- Provision of two accessory dwelling units.(if.,deed restricted for
L
employees)-will have a beneficial potential air quality benefit
by providing employee housing so close to the downtown area.
Provision of employee housing so close to-downtown is one of the
best air ,quality measures that can be employed, by making it
uneccessary to use a car.
Granting of an easement for the nordic /bike trail also has an
potential air quality benefit by encouraging alternative types of
transportation.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920 -5070
• ATTACHMENT "C"
inc
Davitstlorn,,.�-`I i 4
PLANNING • APPRAISING • REAL ESTATE CONSUUING
March 13, 1991
Kim Johnson
Amy Margerum
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Amendment to the 1001 Ute Avenue Application
Dear Kim and Amy:
I apologize for taking so long to get back to you regarding the
status of the 1001 Ute Avenue application. Neal Meyer's (FMG
Incorporated) option to acquire the property from Peter Coventry
has expired. He was unsuccessful in negotiating a new agreement
and Peter Coventry has retained all rights to the property.
Peter Coventry has decided to continue to process the application
originally submitted by Neal Meyers. Peter has authorized me to
officially amend the-application as suggested in your February 7,
1991 letter and described below.
1. Full Subdivision /PUD-- Please process the application as
a full subdivision /PUD pursuant to Sections 7 -1004 C and
7 -9 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The applicant will
be seeking, approval for three lots. Lots 1 and 2 will
each be developed with a single- family dwelling and an
accessory unit. Lot 31 the tennis court; will be deed
restricted against any future development and serve as`:
the common open space for the subdivision.. The land area
within Lot 3 shall not be utilized to calculate lot area
for the PUD.
We considered bisecting the tennis courts with the lot
line for Lots 1 and 2 as Amy suggested, however. the Aspen
Land-Use Regulations prohibit the lease of the tennis .
courts *to the Gant unless they are subdivided from Lots
1 and 2.
2. Growth Management Quota System Exemption pursuant •to
Section 8 -104 A.1 [e] - The applicant requests a GMQS
exemption to create the tennis court lot (Lot 3). The
lot will be deed restricted against any further
development, owned by the homeowners and leased to the
Gant.
ALICE DAMS, RM S GLENN HORN. AICP
300 EAST HYMAN . SUITE B • ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 • 303/9256587
Kim Johnson and Amy•Margerum.
March 13, 1991
Page 2
3. Residential Growth Management Quota System Exemption
(GMQS) fora Lot Split pursuant to, Section 8 -104 C.1. (a] -
The applicant request a lot split GMQS exemption for Lots
1 and 2.
4. Unincorporated Land - The applicant commits to deed
restrict the unincorporated land against any _future
development. The unincorporated land will not be used to
calculate maximum potential site development. Since the
land will be deed restricted against future development
it should not be .necessary to process a subdivision
exemption wi%_ tha County.
We have discovered a two foot survey discrepancy on the east
property line bordering the City Park. Rick .Neiley, Peter
Coventry's. Attorney, will contact Jed Caswall to resolve this
problem.
David Finholm is preparing a north elevation drawing of the
subdivision as viewed from Ute Avenue. I will cortact you to let
you know.whon the drawing will be completed.
Thank your for being so cooperative with this application. Give me
a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
U
GLENN HORN AICP
cc: Rick Neiley
*ATTACHMENT "D"
Davis Horny.
PLANNING • APPRAISING • REAL. ESiATE CONSULTING
March 18, 1991
Tim'Whitsitt
Cindy Houben
Pitkin County
506 E. Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision /PUD
Dear Tim and Cindy:
Isla II I
11i V
I represent Peter Coventry, the applicant..for the 1001 Ute Avenue:_
Subdivision /PUD. The subject site is split by the Aspen City
limits. Approximately -4.7, acres are located within the City and
the remaining 4.05 acres are located in unincorporated Pitkin
County.
Within his land use application to the .City of Aspen, the applicant
has committed to deed restrict the unincorporated portion' of the
site against any future development. This restriction would be
noted on the-City approved subdivision plat..
Previously,, the applicant had contemplated conveying the
unincorporated parcel to a third party, perhaps Park Trust Ltd.
The staff felt. that it may be appropriate for the applicant to
obtain a subdivision exemption from the County prior to conveying
the parcel to a non- profit organization. In light of the
applicant's decision to deed restrict the unincorporated. land
rather than conveying it to a third party, I do not believe that it'
is necessary to obtain County land use approvals for this site.
Do you concur me? The City Planning and Zoning Commission will be
considering the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision /PUD on April 2, 1991.
It would be very helpful it-you could let me know what you think
about this situation prior to the City public hearing.
Thanks for your help. Give ire a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
GLENN HORN AICP
cc: Rick Neiley
ALICE DAMS, RM S GLENN HORN, AICP
300 EAST HYMAN • SUITE B • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 303/925 -6587
•
IN; CO , z11 I1�
•
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Planning Office
RE: Upcoming Meetings
DATE:- March 28, 1991
This is a list of your scheduled upcoming meetings.
Special Meeting, April 9th
* The Aspen Meadows (continued)
Regular Meeting, April 16th
* Gordon Ctrem R e-lew- and Conditional Use Review for
an Accessory Dwelling Unit (PH) (KJ /LL)
Lily Reid Special Review and GMQS Exemption (KJ /LL)
* 716 West Francis, 620 West Hallam & 214 Wesat Bleeker
Historic Designation (PH) (RE)
* The Aspen Meadows (continued)
Regular Meeting, May 7th
* Aspen Villas PUD Amendment for Trash /Mail Enclosure (KJ)
* Clarendon PUD Amendment (PH) (LL)
* Christiania Lodge GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing (LL)
* Messiah Lutheran Church Amended Conditional Use and GMQS
Exemption for Affordable Housing (PH) (KJ)
* Square Footage Code Amendment (PH) (LL)
a.nex
ORDINANCE NO. /0
(SERIES OF 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING
SUBDIVISION AND FINAL PUD PLAN APPROVAL AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS FOR 1001 UTE AVENUE
WHEREAS, Peter Coventry submitted an application for a
Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, 8040 Greenline review,
Conditional Use and PUD Development Plan Review (as consolidated
Final review) to the Planning Office; and
WHEREAS, referral comments were received from Engineering
Department, Environmental Health Department, Sanitation District,
Fire Marshal, Pitkin County Planning, and the City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney made an interpretation based on
the definition of "Subdivision" in the Aspen Land Use Code that
the existing long term lease held by The Gant Condominiums for
the area containing the three tennis courts already constitutes a
subdivision and therefore this project was not eligible for
processing only as a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant amended his application to add a two -
step Subdivision process for three lots, with development review
for two single family lots and the tennis court lot deed
restricted against any future development. -The applicant also
retained his submittal for a Lot Split for the development rights
for the two single family residences; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 19.91, a public hearing was held before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning-Commission and having reviewed the
application pursuant to the applicable code sections, the
Commission voted 7 -0 to approve with conditions the Conditional
0 0
Uses for an Accessory Dwelling Unit in each single family
residence and 8040 Greenline Review. Resolution #
memorializes these approvals; and
WHEREAS, with the same vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended to City Council approval with conditions for the
Subdivision and Final PUD Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Aspen Land Use Code, the City
Council may grant approvals to PUD (Division 9), Subdivision and
Subdivision Exemption (Division 10) and Vesting of Development
Rights (Section 6 -207); and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the
Planning Commission's recommendations for Subdivision and Final
PUD approval does wish to grant these approvals for the 1001 Ute
Avenue Project and vest the development rights for a period of
three years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant Subdivision and Final PUD Approval
for the 1001 Ute Avenue project with the following conditions:
1) All plat requirements as stated in Section 7 -1004 C. and D.
shall be shown on plat prior to approval by the Engineering
Office.
2) Any required plans for the necessary improvements in Section
7 -1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of any excavation or building permits.
3) Easements for Spar Gulch drainage, 12' nordic /pedestrian
trail, and two waterlines, as described -in Engineering's
referral comments must be shown on the plat.
4)
The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join the
Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to
address the roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow
removal /parking problems.
5)
The lot line separating .Lots 1 and 2 shall be moved to the
east approximately 5 feet so that the Lot 1 side setback can
be achieved without a variation.
6)
One space per bedroom or twelve parking spaces must be
identified on the Final Development Plan.
7)
The driveway curbcut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18 in
width.
8)
A trash service are must be shown on the plan.
9)
Gas Fireplaces and wood stoves must be certified and
approved through the Environmental Health department.
10)
A 50' minimum radius for the cul -de -sac is required. If the
radius cannot meet the appropriate dimension, the structures
must be protected by fire sprinkler systems.
11)
The pedestrian access shall be redesigned to be less urban
in character. The sidewalk adjacent to the driveway shall
be eliminated.
12),
The applicant shall participate in improvements in the
Sanitation Department's lines by a payment of $6,000.00 (in
addition to the regular connection fees.
13)
All clear water connections such as roof and foundation .
drains.cannot enter the District's system. Surface run -off
•
•
must be handled on -site or by the City's storm water system,
if available.
14) Sewer lines/ connections shall meet the approval of ,the
Sanitation District. All associated, fees and agreements
must be paid and recorded prior to connection onto the
District's system.
15) The tennis court lot shall be reconfigured to remove the
extraneous area to the west of the pedestrian access point.
Access to the tennis courts shall be by easement across Lot
2.
16) The Subdivision Plat, Final PUD Development Plan, and
Subdivision /SPA Agreement must be recorded with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder within 180 -days of approval by
City Council. Failure to _do so will render the approvals
invalid.
Section 2.
The City Council of the City of Aspen pursuant to Section 7-
1003 A.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen, wishes to
grant Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split with the following
conditions:
1. An Accessory Dwelling Unit must be included on each lot for
which a residence is proposed as a requirement of this Lot
Split.
2. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for a residence on
either lot, the Accessory Dwelling Unit must be deed
restricted and comply with the conditions of approval
contained in the Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution
0 . .9
#91-
Section 3:
The City Council of the City of Aspen pursuant to Section 6-
207 of the Land Use Code of the City of.Aspen, wishes to vest
development rights for a period of three (3) years from the
effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of
the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result
in forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Section 4•
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of.this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of 1991 at 5:00 P.M.-in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
. 1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
411 . 9
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
jtkvj /ute1001.ord
Davits Morn, JAN 2 9 I
PLANNING • APPRAISING • REAL ESTATE CONSWING
January 29, 1991
Kim Johnson
Amy Margerum
Jed Caswall
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Second Follow -up to 1001 Ute Avenue Meeting
Dear.Kim, Amy and Jed:
t I have researched the Little Nell and Aspen Club City of Aspen land
use files. This letter summarizes my findings.
The Aspen Club was developed on land owned by Fritz Benedict and
the Little Nell Hotel was developed on land owned by the Aspen
Skiing Company. Both Benedict and the Aspen Skiing Company owned
unincorporated contiguous land and applied for subdivision approval
from the City for only the incorporated portion of their land. The
status of the contiguous unincorporated land was not an issue of
discussion in either land use application.
It is also my understanding that during the City's review of the
Aspen Chance Subdivision the unincorporated land was not addressed.
Based upon this research it does not appear that there is a
precedent for the City to require County land use approvals for the
unincorporated lands associated with the 1001 Ute Avenue
Subdivision.
s- Please consider this information in developing your position
`., regarding the pending 1001 Ute Avenue land use application.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
)J_L,Y*Z�L�
GLENN HORN AICP
Neal Meyers
ALICE DAMS, RM f GLENN HORN, AICP
300 EAST HYMAN • SUITE B • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 303/925 -6587
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565-North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925 -3601
May 6, 1991
Kim Johnson
City /County Planning
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Tele. (303) 925 -2537
D
� MAY 71991
RE: Clarification of ACSD Comments on 1001 Ute Ave. Application
Dear Kim,
The $6000.00 downstream impact fee for this project is based
on the development of future projects that will impact this section
of the wastewater collection system. Instead of making this
applicant bear the total burden of the $80,000.00 cost of replacing
two sections of the collection system, we determine the cost of the
total project, divide the number of EQRs that could be developed in
the future on this section of intercepter line, and then determine
the appropriate share of the total cost that each applicant must
contribute.
Since we have not seen a set of plans to determine the tap
fees for this project, the impact fee at this time is an
approximate figure.
Please let me know if y u need additional information.
Sinc ely, ,r
f
Thomas R. Bracewell
Collection Systems Superintendent
mt. Fv) SWa�V V.
TO I 'AK: I I m
rRom I
P, 021
S
DATE! I a m- bo 0- 421 141,
L t lit
alp I
OMM 4 t,** cm. and QXQS
C
gxahlvitlon
ka-"Oeil XTAl' 4
2 t M a
-f t
BUY RY T i �
&I
K- if IT
-ad
girl t
into tw o mingle
A 04'a
%0�_s DX C
J C
mt. Fv) SWa�V V.
TO I 'AK: I I m
rRom I
P, 021
S
DATE! I a m- bo 0- 421 141,
L t lit
alp I
OMM 4 t,** cm. and QXQS
C
gxahlvitlon
ka-"Oeil XTAl' 4
2 t M a
-f t
BUY RY T i �
&I
of the proJ ct
-ad
girl t
into tw o mingle
A 04'a
%0�_s DX C
J C
tO n
the portion of
the e',
---A I I I -*'t
n fr.vt the Lower Durant
t a.: t nc
ait'.6-
1 %
m. u n rL -7 'J. .
and the
Portion
loc-ated in t 1116,'
m L� j tpt'_ on for a Lot
REQUIE'S"17 t
g
_1, XeM tio
S It t U r a U a "J94., S7,10 S 8 1: o n JM S E P
Lf =,i as e r , 8".--c4 t n 8 ®104 ( B d
f o t? h * A 6 4 '--� IS,
Subdi:vlsian Elv�-;Afr 't", -4-
-903,
Con 5 -c 1 'AL -a 4"' ad P, a r I e 4:I! t-Ini",= 1,
r Section 8
6' q72;
4 A��' A,v s z 'ES; 8040 Greenline
A I A.
Ravicw am vlsv 51_ac,,.Aoi-i 'Jma Ipproval for the
.Z
FOR 110T 9'91,31"L"
Applicant, stfbodiallvi 'A lot, loil'-- split pursuant
C1. a 0 one
e& g,* �Z pw,.ant f
t o ss 4 c t t o n -81 - I G 4
detlalc'hed _-Ivialldla�' ,rhFe1]L4J"Jrxjr iD.n a vaczr± �ot Vormal by a lot split
granted 84b8q!qu , 14., p'uormieunt to, Section 7-1003
(a) (d" t in of fa,' to '04 G" 4,gJ'b1,.6t '."IAs axeniption the property
In n
need not acnt'airlt ny 'aw'valopite ,)rz the- oz,iginal 'ot.
j Pl J. V
-ad
, A L r 1 m
Oe"' 0H
Asper� Pe--�k N tl'd, 1- 0
to the, so ut- -and
6, ad z)y TJ t 6� A'nv; �r'm* �Ui,,
a
Fubd.,u A. �n ;I tht
A
-tin
wamt,
'10.'he
north, City of
Agp Mountain
en
aast.
1 %
Ak'
and the
Portion
loc-ated in t 1116,'
0,_ o,�
Acv,-n a z oL, �ed
R-1 I-'
(PUD)
and C
(Conner - at 1003
m L� j tpt'_ on for a Lot
REQUIE'S"17 t
g
_1, XeM tio
S It t U r a U a "J94., S7,10 S 8 1: o n JM S E P
Lf =,i as e r , 8".--c4 t n 8 ®104 ( B d
f o t? h * A 6 4 '--� IS,
Subdi:vlsian Elv�-;Afr 't", -4-
-903,
Con 5 -c 1 'AL -a 4"' ad P, a r I e 4:I! t-Ini",= 1,
r Section 8
6' q72;
4 A��' A,v s z 'ES; 8040 Greenline
A I A.
Ravicw am vlsv 51_ac,,.Aoi-i 'Jma Ipproval for the
.Z
FOR 110T 9'91,31"L"
Applicant, stfbodiallvi 'A lot, loil'-- split pursuant
C1. a 0 one
e& g,* �Z pw,.ant f
t o ss 4 c t t o n -81 - I G 4
detlalc'hed _-Ivialldla�' ,rhFe1]L4J"Jrxjr iD.n a vaczr± �ot Vormal by a lot split
granted 84b8q!qu , 14., p'uormieunt to, Section 7-1003
(a) (d" t in of fa,' to '04 G" 4,gJ'b1,.6t '."IAs axeniption the property
In n
need not acnt'airlt ny 'aw'valopite ,)rz the- oz,iginal 'ot.
01,'14/91
11 h"YD N F PCII_ISIPICA PILITH.
'LCKJ �
lots
P. 03
J a-vien, ts oi.!,
-tn,�v trld r2yIng zone district
J.k �n a -1
and
0
tyja-.. a.,,,,,,v
Section
7-101CAJ (d.) 1_21)
.hat
t-I's aplit O_f
a lot for the
ptzrp*se
of §C is d,evalopmart. of
only
i!
orle de`,_-�Ached_
single - family
dwelling
or, ca lop ',�,lv ia Lot apl.ii-
to November 3.4
19711le Wlf-lra
thO, 11"0 0 W i n
a 7 1h IL a d n, - ', I , , , .4
"D , cx�atod in a apporoved by eith ®r
the -it in i, 0A.', i1i.* Y S4-M J 0f n 14 r,63 or the City
Covkncil, Cut' 1,�hfs eut�. matois. &Z)d bounds parcel
whic'n has rx,1; t-ats'-p- so,',hdivide,,d aelcplion of subdivision
c)41 P.,, 5p,,m%n on 24i 191.59?
N
Applicanint, hatt.a I'Mfor-matLon t-hk;,J'Vn the lots as proposed for
A
the & a p P ,royals a
�I octo_,J lkjj�d no -ri r val from either
City of Coun ay
b
No nkor;-a
t2'-,kmar-, lots ar-e 12y the lot split; both
lots
c-014-for-M,
J a-vien, ts oi.!,
-tn,�v trld r2yIng zone district
J.k �n a -1
and
the
tyja-.. a.,,,,,,v
1.(v.. f-ur wlll h development is
pronoBed Will T.,]k0_�',An aP., ur."'I.t.
APPIAC&MA' t.pprcval the davelopment of an
acces,,iory ted within the
main residGne::a.
Applicant pr,Fvi-dias 1.111 -.pclt,a4a 411 off the submission that
11 -ICIDW dw-,,a In 2: indicaite 1.0 j 270 iqqaare feat may be
W
cons tru.c--ad In :11,i'- diqtribuatedl "o'. �*n 1."no,'a two lots". Also,
f
-ion� that UIq recT.Ureriants. of one
applican p2:o4v a
space/bed-room lwr L 11. Y,* ,mot for a tot-e.IL r)f ftAl,rtatgn spaces which
would tre -hai-', t'i.leik two lotF; wti`l ;I enc-Mbined total of
fourteen badro-nI14. Howa-ver, cthcar, j,�hiri ii 1 mation, applicant
does not P-avirJ'A th,-,, raoltual j-qustra foo�age of the two
residantial 611wn* 1 -1,'9 units to dAto,L irka, thalftr, the anderlying zone
requireme-n-ICI• &.rriq squa,.-r not to exceed 6,600
square feat of. �crOh for �i 15,000 - 501000 Sq. ft.
Applica,,,'It Val be qrr,,antedi -Por cor.atruction of one
acctcaory gar lot-, as 1per .5-50's which requires
that the a441e�
t" 14A()�"Y Ing-I und-t rlot-- be subject to the
mirjir,ijpj "llot al,-ea I,,- e qu JL namerit ,-,f Art, 5,� Div, 2.. , but shall be
subject to &J,J �_tltjae�4 -i-xi"Iderlying i;,crie d-la-tt,
Parking shfal nol: �;.s L-$!' thc unit. la a studio or one
bedroon unit, bilt; one, (1) parhlnq ape-ce s!=-A1&2_' bt provided on-site
i and oria `1) additional space
if the unit two (2' bed:foons
shall be re p # :i_ oV Ohc-h. addi4ZI-iovia-I ti,-o (2) lradroams in the unit.
The ,ccessofy ILM-i- U'ilitS shalgl com, --n riot 14 aa than 300 square
feet of rst livab.11.6 al., a &nd be witl.,)in or attached to a
principal raj e- f, ri a It s h a 11. n ea fa , I,- hoxi�iinq designee's
quiclelints for s,!L�ch Pefft the clef i1n.iLt ion of a Resident
Occupied Unit &n-I bo rro)-ited for of ailx 'Inonths or longer.
The owner of thn prirx,�lpal. residfaiv-,R �Ihall ha
- I L� "_I Ve the right to place
qualiftad aitplayata =I)f Ilia or h4,1- choosing in the
Accesaory "444alling UAnito
Applicant Ma not a,=,Ay In-gorrit- tion 8.8 to the net livable
Y ' -J-. !1:.4 lt-q
Square footi.4g4 of tho acceasor*v dTiM-0-111--- IIAal _
HI ou a it anfl r +1 s approval for one
IV
acca-taory 6val"Us.-tv 1*4%., 1-.1or Fli t :.ate Avenue PUD
Subdivigian applica.t.!,c�In ;based ont t1nit
i . Applica"nt
he
A F I IAG
AL-M', _2
ZU dj
P.
units tCX) dgittr!-F'Vne-
location, net livable
Oquare, foot;,%ge,
arld Ibo r Cola couix-
qualiftad aitplayata =I)f Ilia or h4,1- choosing in the
Accesaory "444alling UAnito
Applicant Ma not a,=,Ay In-gorrit- tion 8.8 to the net livable
Y ' -J-. !1:.4 lt-q
Square footi.4g4 of tho acceasor*v dTiM-0-111--- IIAal _
HI ou a it anfl r +1 s approval for one
IV
acca-taory 6val"Us.-tv 1*4%., 1-.1or Fli t :.ate Avenue PUD
Subdivigian applica.t.!,c�In ;based ont t1nit
i . Applica"nt
he
to pr,0%11itis
actlla* floor plane of
the accessory theelliviq
units tCX) dgittr!-F'Vne-
location, net livable
Oquare, foot;,%ge,
arld Ibo r Cola couix-
2. 1-ho Acceseor, L k a tra -4. r a
4 y Ott!o'Lling Unit,-P hP4 '-a IV d to meet the
defi I VL oft 0 J! - I -
�,dwvl lingf iariitl� per XRA_ipan City, Code to be a
separately. &s CIA
oir, ar a .M.-,ination of rooms
which, ct-.yn,,talay a Ik,4 ' tchtn said bWi and whl,��-.h are designed
for %,r udked a"A d by a si-ngliti 1,41"and-1,21 czr residents. The
dwelji,nq 1xnii-.,s ahall he indept,'�-16kent ot,"her ?,e;nftiiy or guests.
i
3. 1. by cqr*�tnttives of the
1 ste ill sh a r eb a
ll
Houairigy and zo ,.na to &1,1 above requirements
I
are met pivi 11-0, lneyat,4tlot by r
Al
4. APPI 4�.Cant &I, aI I k�e reTuirr,(]. p�rr_mill-da em doe .--d' restriction as
-oval by
r-M, as per lie I. A.
too , S on of Qit-�T m3ppe-ar y Co&, for approval
the, Housing QM"os jalnd f1ha'11 b) -Ito _racord approved dead
restriction writsh Lhis PiAt.kin CCun�._,y Cli ar'�_, 't 1. c"A Peooroii re Office prior
to -Issuance 4:I ,Yny bi,,.XLdin,:e f cr -h c, appruvred lots.
DEC 2 7 1990
Davisflora�-
PLANNING • APPRAISING • REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
December 27, 1990
Jim Gibbard
City of Aspen Engineering
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 1301 Ute Avenue
Dear Jim:
Attached for your files is a legible copy of Nick Lampiris' letter
addressing the 1001 Ute Avenue parcel. I will get you a new copy
of the plat as soon as Dave McBride is done with it. Please call
if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HO N INCORPORATED
G NN HORN AICP
cc: Kim Johnson
ALICE DAVIS, RM j GLENN HORN, AICP
300 EAST HYMAN • SUITE B • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 303/925 -6587
MEMORANDUM DEC _-4 1990
,-TO: City -Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen-Water Department'
Environmental Health Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District,
Parks Department
Fire Marshal
-` FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
l •
RE: 100¢1 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split,'
Consolidated PUD, 8040 Greenline. Review, Conditional
Use Review and GMQS Exemption
Parcel ID# 2737- 182 -00 -063
DATE: December 3, 1990
Attached for, your review and .comments -is an application from Neal,
Myers requesting approval for a Lot Split etc.
Please return your. comments to me 'no later than December .28,
1990. Thank you.
C
0
r�
u
n
U
Davis I IornI,.nc-
PLANNING • APPRAISING • REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
January 29, 1991
Kim Johnson
Amy Margerum
Jed Caswall
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Second Follow -up to 1001 Ute Avenue Meeting
Dear Kim, Amy and Jed:
JAN 29i9gi
I have researched the Little Nell and Aspen Club City of Aspen land
use files. This letter summarizes my findings.
The Aspen Club was developed on land owned by Fritz Benedict and
the Little Nell Hotel was developed on land owned by the Aspen
Skiing Company. Both Benedict and the Aspen Skiing Company owned
unincorporated contiguous land and applied for subdivision approval
from the City for only the incorporated portion of their land. The
status of the contiguous unincorporated land was not an issue of
discussion in either land use application.
It is also my understanding that during the City's review of the
Aspen Chance Subdivision the unincorporated land was not addressed.
Based upon this research it does not appear that there is a
precedent for the City to require County land use approvals for the
unincorporated lands associated with the 1001 Ute Avenue
Subdivision.
Please consider this information in developing your position
regarding the pending 1001 Ute Avenue land use application.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
GLENN HORN AICP
cc: Neal Meyers
ALICE DAMS, RM I GLENN HORN, AICP
300, EAST HYMAN • SUITE B • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 303/925 -6587
Inc.r
Davis Morn,_..
PLANNING • APPRAISING • REAL ESTATE CONSULTING ,
January 24, 1991 'v!J�`�
Kim Johnson �l
Amy Margerum
Jed Caswall
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Follow -up to 1001 Ute Avenue Meeting
Dear Kim, Amy and Jed:
Thank you for meeting with me on Tuesday, January 22 to discuss
options for addressing the procedural subdivision problems
associated with the 1001 Ute Avenue land use application. During
the meeting we discussed several options for addressing the Gant
tennis court lease and the unincorporated portion of the subject
site. At the end of the meeting Amy suggested a procedural
approach to the tennis court problem and indicated that she would
discuss the problem of the unincorporated section of the site with
Francis and Cindy.
A Procedural Approach to the Tennis Court Parcel��'
The City will process the application as a Residential Growth
Management Quota System exemption (GMQS) for a Lot Split pursuant
to Section 8 -104 C.1.[a]. The Lot Split application will be,<<r
processed as a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption pursuant to Sectiont�;.
7 -1003 A.2.. The applicant will agree that the tennis court parcels
will not be included in lot area for the purpose q ur ose of calculating g `€
Cr�: ' f
density and floor area. i €,
Simultaneously with the consideration of the preceding requests, ;'''�'
r nr�
the City will process a full subdivision application for the
creation of a lot to accommodate the tennis courts. The applicant ^`
will also request the Planning Director to grant a Growth
Management Quota System Exemption pursuant to Section 8 -104 A.1 [e]
to create a legally subdivided parcel for the tennis court.
I have carefully reviewed the referenced sections of the Aspen Land
Use Regulations andlit appears to me that this procedural approach
may be justified.
The Unincorporated Portion of the Site
I indicated that the fathering parcel for Aspen Chance Subdivision
is the only parcel I can recall that was split by the Aspen City
limit line at the time of subdivision. Since our meeting I have
been trying to think of similar parcels. The fathering parcel for
ALICE DAMS, RM { GLENN HORN, AICP
300 FAST HYMAN • SURE B • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 •303/925 -6587
Kim Johnson
January 24, 1991
Page 2
•
the Little Nell Hotel is located in the City of Aspen and
unincorporated Pitkin County. I also think the fathering parcel
for the Aspen Club crossed the City limits. I will research the
procedure followed for these two subdivisions.
Summary
Please consider the procedural approach to the tennis court parcel
summarized in this letter and let me know as soon as possible if it
will be acceptable. Also see what Francis and Cindy think about
the jurisdictional problems affecting the site. I will research
the Little Nell Hotel and Aspen Club land use applications and let
you know what I find.
My client, Neal Meyers, is anxious to resolve the procedural issues
affecting the 1001 Ute Avenue land use application so that the
application may be considered by the City Planning and Zoning
Commission on February 5, 1991. Please let me know if I can be of
any assistance in resolving this matter.
Thanks again for your cooperation in developing a solution to the
problems affecting this land use application.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
GLENN HORN AICP
cc: Neal Meyers
Nicholas LBOlpihs, Ph.D.
.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
`
0793 VALLEY ROAD
' CARBONDAiE COLORADO 81623
' mo» 963-3600 (24 *ounm
.`
�
February 13, 1989
Sunny Vann
210 Sbuth Galena
Aspen CO 81611
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision
Dear Sunny:
I have completed my limited geologic investigation concerning
only the potential for rock fall and snow sliding on the
above referenced property on the north-facing slope of Aspen
Mountain above Ute Avenue as shown on the accompanying map.
Chen and Associates has already addressed the other issues.
This is along the southern edge of the Town of Aspen within
the Aspen 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
' I ` ' ' ' -'� � ^ ``'' `` ' `'''^ � ~ .. -.-� ,� _--``_'
. ` , ' ' � ^ ',�
The dual envelope or proposed site'i s�' at the base of�' a steep,.
conifer-covered hillside on a largetailing Pile which wiil
be modified. There are two rights-of-wav above the sites as
shown. The ridge line just above the property is held up by
bedrock.
The geology above the site (which will be located on mine �
,/tailings) consists of. a thin veneer of colluvial deposits
containing angular blocks of limestone, sandstone and some
granitic rocks. The matrix is mostly silty sand. This
surficial deposit has been mapped by Bruce Bryant, 1971, as a
�talus deposit but I believe that the term colluvium is more
accurate at thislocation. The underlying bedrock could not
be determined because of lack of nearby outcrops, but is
probably the Cambrian age Sawatch Quartzite or one of the
Lower Paleozoic carbonate units. Because of the steep
attitude of bedrock units in this'area and the faulting
present, the bedrock could even be the Precambrian age quartz
monzonite.
Snow sliding and minor rock fall is a possibility on this
property and there is a well established chute on the
northwest side of the site. This small chute can be well
seen and � its relationship to thd site evaluated from across
the valley in the Smuggler area. It appears to be directed
more toward the neighboring property to the northwest. Snow
sliding can occur elsewhere as well but will be minor. The
extensive tree cover above the sites should minimize the
potential hazard. There is simply not enough relief or
catchment area above the sites to produce a major avalanche.
' Rock fall can occur at this location from the outcrops above
but they are not much fractured and therefore not likely to
contribute frequent loose rocks to the hillside. The low
elevation of the outcrops and the significant tree cover will
not allow rocks to gain much momentum. Nevertheless, the
rear foundation walls should be designed to protrude at least
four feet above finished grade and be without doors or
windows on this upslope-facing side of the proposed homes.
They should be strong enough� to withstand forces of at least
200 pounds per square foot. This should provide a large
measure of protection from either rolling rocks or snow
slides that may reach the sites. Any positive landscaping
which can be done at the rear of the homes during or soon
after construction iould also be helpful. If there are
. further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
`.
�
Sincerely,
..
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
(303) 920 -5090
Glenn Horn
Davis Horn, Inc.
300 East Hyman Suite B
Aspen, Co. 81611
RE: 1001 Ute Project Schedule Change
Dear Glenn,
February 7, 1991
As I had told you on Friday Jed Caswall, Amy Margerum and I
met to discuss the appropriate process for seeking approval for
two homesites at 1001 Ute. Aspen Land Use Code Section 3 -101
defines Subdivision as: "Land which is divided into two or more
lots, tracts, parcels, sites separate interests (including
leasehold interests)..." As a long term lease exists for. the
tennis courts, the 1001 Ute parcel is already subdivided under
this definition.
Lot Splits, as exemptions from full Subdivision review by
Section 7 -1003 A.2. require that "...land 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 "No more than two lots are created by the lot
split..." The existence of the tennis court lease and the
portion of the parcel in the county in effect would create a four
parcel division, making the Lot Split process inapplicable.
The history of previous approvals for the parcel has been
colorful to say the least. We are all anxious to have your
application follow the most appropriate' process given your
client's goals and the current Land Use Code. With this thought
in mind, Jed, Amy and I feel that the full Subdivision Process
applies in light -of the existing tennis court lease. This will
require a two -step review instead of the one -step review required
by the Lot Split Process. The Planning Commission can hear the
Subdivision request concurrently with the 8040 Greenline and
Final PUD reviews. The Council will then hear the Subdivision
and PUD requests.
Another outcome of our meeting was discussion of the lot
configurations resulting from the subdivision effort. The City's
concern is that the tennis court area not contain any future
development potential. In order to accomplish this, Amy feels
that the lot line separating the two residential lots should
bisect the tennis courts. The land area of the courts will be
excluded from the land area for FAR calculations as, your
application already proposes. Please call me when you get back
to town so we can discuss this idea in more detail.
.I also brought this project before Tim Whitsitt and Cindy
Houben. They both feel that the Board of County Commissioners
should review a subdivision exemption for the one lot resulting
in the County. "Both are anticipating hearing from you and
expediting your application.
At this time, due to some major projects already, scheduled
before the Aspen Planning Commission, the earliest we can get
1001 Ute to public hearing is April 2. Debbie Skehan will be
sending your updated notice of public hearing to reflect the date
change and adding the Subdivision review. Please contact me at
920 =5090 if I can be of service to you in the meantime.
Sincerely,
Kim Johnson
Planner
1
cc:,Chuck Brandt, Holland and Hart
Jed Caswall, City. Attorney
Cindy Houben, County Planner
Amy Margerum, Planning Director
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
SUBMITTED APRIL 1990
OWNER:
UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP
215 S. Monarch
Aspen, CO 81611
SITE PLANNING/
LAND USE APPROVALS:
THE STEVENS GROUP, INC.
230 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925 -6717
ENGINEERING:
BANNER ASSOCIATES
605 E. Main
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925 -5857
ARCHITECTURE:
DAVID FINHOLM & ASSOCIATES
111 Aspen Airport Business Center
_Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925 -5713
AVALANCHE CONSULTANT:
ARTHUR MEARS
222 E. Gothic Ave.
Gunnison, CO 81230
(303) 641 -3236
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PROJECT SITE
A.
Location
B.
Existing Use
C.
Vegetation
D.
Slope
E.
Geology
F.
Existing Utilities
G.
Access
H.
Easements And Restrictions
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
A.
Rezoning
B.
Site Capacity
0
Table 1 - Slope Reduction Analysis
C. Program Description
D. Deed Restricted Sales Rates
E. Architectural Description
Table 2 - Development Summary
PAGE NUMBER
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
F. Hazard Mitigation
17
G. General Site Improvements /Public Facilities
19
IV.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
23
A. Text /Map Amendment (Rezoning)
23.
B. 8040 Greenline Review
30
C. Subdivision
30
D. Planned Unit Development
34
E. Growth Management Quota System Exemption
38
EXHIBITS:
1.
Land Use Application Form
2.
Letter of Authorization to Represent
3.
Commitment For Title Insurance
4.
Soils Report
5.
Art Mears, Avalanche Consultant, Report
6.
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Service Letter
7.
Holy Cross Electric Association Service Letter
8.
US West Service Letter
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED:
9. Canyon Cable TV Service Letter
10. Aspen Water Department Service Letter
11. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Service Letter
12. Transportation Study Prepared By Banner Associates
PLAN INDEX:
1. Existing Conditions Plan
2. Site Development Plan
3. Landscape Plan
4. Grading & Drainage Plan
5. Slope Reduction Plan
6. Water & Sanitary Sewer Plan
7. Private Utilities Plan
8. Architecture
I
INTRODUCTION
The following application requests Conceptual Submission
approval of Rezoning (Text /Map Amendment) , 8040 Greenline,
Subdivision, Planned Unit Development and GMQS Exemption to
permit the construction of the Ute Park Subdivision. The Ute
Park Partnership, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant,
proposes to develop seven free market units in townhome
configuration and sixteen deed restricted units in condominium
configuration. The deed restricted units will -be designed,
constructed and sold in conformance with the Aspen /Pitkin
County Housing Authority guidelines for Middle Income.
As stated above, the Applicant is requesting a rezone of the
property from its existing Rural Residential Zone District to
the recently established Affordable Housing Zone District.
In recognition of the fact that the AH Zone District is
essentially untested, the Applicant has met with the planning
staff, the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the Housing
Authority for input. Although this process has been time
consuming, it has given the project team a more accurate
representation of the expectations placed upon this zone
district.
1
Throughout this application, the Applicant will demonstrate
compliance within the parameters of the AH Zone District as
well as the regulations as set forth by the City Land Use
Regulations. While the application has attempted to address
all relevant provisions of the Land Use regulations, and to
provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation
of this application, questions may arise which may result in
the staff's request for additional information and /or
clarification. The Applicant would be pleased to provide such
information as may be required in the course of the
application review.
2
II. PROJECT SITE
A. LOCATION:
The 3.8 acre project site is located on Ute Avenue within
the Aspen City limits. The north- easterly portion being
directly across from the Aspen Club, the Ute Children's
Park and the Benedict office building. Due to its
location and close proximity to the central business
district this site provides easy pedestrian access to
town.
B. EXISTING USE:
No existing uses are associated with this site and there
are no existing structures on site.`
C. VEGETATION:
Vegetation on site consists primarily of aspen and
douglas fir. Those trees which are in excess of 6 inches
in diameter have been shown on the Existing Conditions
Plan /Site Survey. The entire site is covered with native
field grasses.
3
D. SLOPE:
A slope analysis has been provided in the drawing
package. In summary of this analysis, the site is made
up of moderately sloping hillsides at the lower portion
(slopes in the 10 to 15% range). These slopes transform
into steeper slopes approximately half way up the site.
Towards the uppermost portion of the site, the slopes are
in excess of 30 %.
E. GEOLOGY:
Chen Northern Inc. has prepared a soils report for the
project site and it is included in this application (see
Exhibit 4). In summary of that report, the site offers
no substantial constraints on development.
Recommendations of that report on foundation design for
the specific soils types will be followed in the design
and construction of the units.
The most prevalent geologic feature of the site which
must be mitigated by any development is the avalanche
danger. The Applicant has retained the services of
Arthur Mears P.E. Inc. of Gunnison, Colorado for the
preparation of a detailed report of existing conditions
as well as consulting services for the mitigation
4
requirements specific to this project. The Site Survey,
as prepared by a licensed surveyor, represents an
avalanche zone in the southwest portion of the property.
At the initiative of the Applicant, Art Mears, a
consulting engineer and widely regarded avalanche expert,
was asked to examine the site and determine if this
surveyed zone. was accurate. Upon examination of the
site, Mr. Mears determined that this zone was inaccurate
and the zone was in fact substantially larger and
included two portions of the site instead of just the
one. In addition, his findings identified two zones of
frequency for the identified areas.
The results of this report, which are included in this
application (See Exhibit 5), determined the developable
areas of the site as well as the level of precautionary
mitigation that would be required. Two developable areas
emerged. The first is the area which is being developed
as free market units. This area is free from any mapped
avalanche /rockfall activity in the past and is in an area
which. is free of potential avalanche /rockfall activity
in the future. The second area is being developed as
deed restricted units. This area shows signs of
infrequent avalanche / rockfall activity (none within the
last fifty years), however, does represent potential for
activity. Due to the unpredictability of activity, all
5
F
units, both deed restricted and free market, are being
engineered, under the supervision of Mr. Mears, to
mitigate any avalanche/ rockfall. This is discussed later
in this application (see.Section III).
EXISTING UTILITIES:
Currently, all required utilities exist in close
proximity to the proposed development. Gas is available
in Ute Avenue within the property boundary.
Additionally, a 12 inch water line which reduces to 8
inches approximately one half the way across the property
and is a part of a loop system is located within Ute
Avenue and within the property boundary. There currently
exists a sanitary sewer manhole approximately 25 feet off
the property line and Ute Avenue of which the manhole is
located at the entry to the Benedict Building driveway.
Telephone and cable are located along Ute Avenue just
west of the property boundary. All utility companies
have been contacted regarding capacity to serve this
proposed development (see Exhibits 6 -11).
G. ACCESS: Access to the site is by way of Ute Avenue.
The majority of Ute Avenue is asphalt pavement
approximately 22 feet in width with gravel shoulders.
The asphalt pavement ends and turns to gravel
approximately 165 feet into the project property. For
proposed improvements to Ute Avenue, see Section III.
H. EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS: A 24 foot utility access
and service easement. (book 312, pages 154 and 200)
parallels the north property line (Ute Avenue).
Additionally, a 60 foot wide non - exclusive easement and
right -of -way (book 363, page 887, Benedict lots 15 and
16, Callahan Subdivision) parallels the north property
line. No other restrictions apply to this property.
7
0
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
A. REZONING:
The project property is currently zoned Rural
Residential.' In order to facilitate this development,
the Applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to
Affordable Housing. This is a threshold issue which must
be dealt with by staff, the Commission and City Council.
Although the specific review criteria are dealt with
later in this application (see Section IV.) the purpose
for requesting this rezoning will be reviewed at this
time.
The Council adopted the Affordable Housing Zone District
recently to initiate the development of affordable
housing units while recognizing the reality that, for
private developers to build these units, they must be
accompanied by a portion of free market units to create
an economically viable project. Additionally, the
Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority is currently
pursuing the development of Low to Moderate Income units,
again recognizing the economics of development, and
leaving the Middle Income units for development by
private developers. Lastly, the Housing Authority, as
well as the Applicant, believe that this type of
8
N
development represents less community impact as well as
creates a better living environment when done in smaller
"pocket" developments. This type of development
disburses housing inventory around the community and does
not create the "large project" neighborhood.
This proposed development fits these goals precisely.
The program complies with the zone district requirements
exactly with no need for any type of variance. The
development of free market units allows an internal
subsidy to be applied to the deed restricted units which
increases their quality and livable space without
increasing the end sales price. It should be noted that
the deed restricted units could not be constructed and
sold under the Housing Guidelines on this site without
subsidy from the free market portion. To this extent,
the free market units provide the subsidy to make the
deed restricted units a reality. Additionally, the
proposed development is located in an area in which it
will be compatible in terms of size and density with the
surrounding structures.
9
B. SITE CAPACITY:
Reviewing this site for its development capacity required
analysis of geologic hazards, zones of potential
avalanche hazard and reduction in density for slope
consideration. Geology and avalanche hazards are
addressed) later in this section. The PUD process
requires a slope reduction analysis which is addressed
in the following table.
This development program proposes to divide the subject
parcel into two lots. Lot 1 consists of 135,528 square
feet and shall be developed for free market sales units.
Ownership of this parcel will be by a separate
Homeowner's Association. Lot 2 consists of 30,000 square
feet and shall be developed for deed restricted sales
units. Ownership of this parcel will be by a separate
Homeowner's Association.
10
11
GROSS
SF
100,190
16,080
5,570.5
0
121,840.5 SF
TABLE 1
SLOPE REDUCTION
ANALYSIS
CATEGORY
PERCENT AREA
ALLOWABLE
1
0 -20 100,190 x
100
2
21 =30 32,160 x
.5
-3
31 -40 22,282 x
.25
4
41+ 10,734 x
.0
165,366 SF
11
GROSS
SF
100,190
16,080
5,570.5
0
121,840.5 SF
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
To summarize this table, the site consists of
approximately 3.8 acres or 165,366 square feet. After
slope reduction as per the Land Use Regulations,
121,840.05 square feet remain available for development.
The proposed development program calls for a total of
38,600 square feet of constructed livable space. This
yields a floor area ratio of .32:1 while the zone
district allows for a slightly higher .33:1.
C. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
As stated above, the proposed development calls for the
construction of 7 free market units in three bedroom
configuration consisting of 3,000 square feet each for
a total of 21,000 square feet. Additionally, 16 deed
restricted units are to be constructed in two bedroom
configuration at 1,100 square feet each for a total of
17,600 square feet, and a project total of 38,600 square
feet of livable space. This program yields the zone
district requirement of 70% deed restricted units to 30%
free market units as well as 60% deed restricted bedrooms
as compared to 40% free market bedrooms.
Parking for the free market units complies with the code
maximum requirement of 2 spaces per unit. These spaces
have been located in an'underground parking garage with
12
a
direct access to each unit. Access to Ute Avenue is by
means of a private access road /driveway. Additional
parking has been provided for guests and has been located
in an earth sheltered carport at the entrance to the
parking garage.
Parking for the deed restricted units is handled'in much
the same manner., A separate parking garage with a
separate private entry /access has been provided. The
parking ratio i's again 2 spaces per unit which
corresponds to one space per bedroom. There are
currently 20 spaces located in the parking garage while
1
the remaining 12 spaces have been located off - street.
Access to the garage will be by means of a private
road /driveway.
Although private, all access drives will comply with the
design standards as set forth by the Pitkin County Road
Standards in terms of maximum gradient, horizontal
alignment and minimum site distances at intersections.
DEED RESTRICTED SALES RATES:
As mentioned prior in this application, it is requested
that this project be classified in the Middle Income
category of the current Aspen / Pitkin County Housing
13
t
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
a
t
Authority Guidelines. Prior to this application, the
Applicant met with the Authority to review this
classification. It was the consensus of the .Board in a
formal vote, that this project should be classified under
the Middle Income Guidelines. In the event the Authority
will not be a review agency for this project, the
Applicant will be pleased to provide a letter from the
Authority in regard to this matter.
Under the Middle Income classification, the sale price
of the 1,100 square foot units would be $136,400.00.
Deed restrictions will apply to these units which will
ensure the units remain affordable. The Applicant and
its attorney will work with the Housing Authority to
draft these deed restrictions and will present them for
review at Final Submission. It is the current intention
of the Applicant that these restrictions will not vary
from the Authority's standard restrictions.
E. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
The units have been located on the site to take best
advantage of the views and solar exposure while
mitigating the site specific hazard potential. The
design of the deed restricted units allows them to step
up the slope to minimize excavation.
14
i
In general, the architectural character of the proposed
development will emulate that of the surrounding
neighborhood. To ensure visual compatibility, building
materials will be limited to wood, non - reflective metal
and masonry stone which will also enhance the
development's ability to blend into the natural hillside.
The size and height of the proposed structures will be
similar to that in the surrounding area with the
exception of the Aspen Club. As Table 2 indicates, the
total floor area of the proposed development will be
limited to 38,600 square feet. Roof forms will be
predominantly hipped with dormers and will conform to the
height limitations of the Land Use Regulations.
Fire protection will be provided by means of an internal
sprinkler system as well as centrally located fire
hydrants (see the Water and Sewer plan) and internal
stand pipes with siamese fittings.
15
TABLE 2
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
1.
Total Land Area
3.8 acres /165,528 S.F.
Land Area After Slope Reduction
2.8 acres /121,840 S.F.
Lot 1:
135,528 S.F.
Minimum Lot Area @ 1,200 S.F./
3 BR unit
8,400 S.F.
Lot 2:
30,000 S.F.
Minimum Lot Area 800 S.F./
2 BR unit
12,800 S.F.
2.
Proposed Program:
Deed Restricted Units - 16 units at
1,100 S.F.= 17,600 S.F.
Two bedroom /two bath configuration
32 BR
Parking,- 20 parking garage /14 surface
= 34 1.1 /BR
Free Market Units - 7 units at 3,000
S.F. = 21,000 S.F.
Three bedroom configuration
21 BR
Parking - 24 parking garage /6 surface
= 30 1.4 /BR
3.
Floor Area Ratio (after density reduction
for slope):
Allowed - 121,840 S.F. at .33
40,207.2 S.F.
Proposed
38,600 S.F.
4.
Surface Area:
Total
165,528 S.F.
Proposed Impervious Surface
33,944 S.F. 21%
5.
Open Space
131,534 S.F.
6.
BR Mix: 60/40 32/21
7.
Unit Mix: 70/30 16/7
16
F. HAZARD MITIGATION:
1. GENERAL-
Avalanches affecting the development are subdivided
into 3 zones of intensity: (a) Red zones, (b) blue
zones, and (c) powder -blast zones. These are
defined as follows:
RED: Area of high pressure potential (>600 psf),
or high frequency (< 30 -year return period).
BLUE: Area of moderate pressure potential (<600
psf), and low frequency ( > 30 -year return period)
POWDER- BLAST: No flowing avalanche debris, but low
density powder blast may sweep through area.
These area of relative avalanche- hazard intensity
have been shown on Ute Park topographic survey and
roof plan.
2. AVALANCHE MITIGATION:
Avalanche mitigation is achieved by direct
protection, which, in this case will take the form
of reenforcement of building surfaces exposed to
17
avalanche loads. The employee housing units are
exposed to the "Aspen Club Avalanche" and-will be
designed with "shed" roof surfaces facing into the
avalanche. These surfaces will minimize impact
loads because of small deflection angles. Other
exposed surfaces will be designed to withstand the
applied static and dynamic loads. Although precise
load magnitudes have not been determined at this
time, they will be within the range of loads
typically accommodated in avalanche- reinforced
design in other North American and European
locations. Avalanche frequency at the employee
units appears to be greater than 30 years; the Red -
zone designation results from the loading potential,
which will be, accommodated in mitigation.
The "free- market" units are exposed primarily to
powder -blast which results when small, dry -snow
avalanches flow through the forest between the
conspicuous avalanche paths. The powder -blast
forces will be resisted in design by southern walls
of the uphill units. The western most 2 free -
market units are exposed to flowing avalanches from
the "Ute Trail" avalanche. Exposed walls of these
buildings will be reinforced for avalanche loads.
Magnitudes of these loads can be minimized by
18
F
building exposed walls at small angles to the
avalanche flow. As with the employee- housing units,
the final design loads are yet to be determined, but
they will not exceed loads common in avalanche
design at many other locations.
GENERAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS /PUBLIC FACILITIES:
1. ACCESS:
Currently, Ute Avenue is paved only to within the
first third of the property. To facilitate the
proposed development, Ute Avenue will be paved to
the east end of the property with asphalt to match
the existing paved section. The existing width of
the roadway will be maintained with the" proposed
paved section, however, land will be preserved in
a dedicated right -of -way in the event a Ute Avenue
Improvements District is actually formed and elects
to widen the existing road. Should this occur, the
Applicant will participate on a pro -rata basis as
to the improvements.
19
11
1
t
J,
1
1
2. GRADING AND DRAINAGE:
Due to the existing slope of the site and the
proposed architecture which steps with the slope,
regrading of the site will be minimal. That
regrading which is required will generally return
the land to it's original grades. Drainage will be
routed around all proposed structures by means of
surface swales and collected in a detention basin
where it will be released to the Ute Avenue barrow
ditch at historic rates.
3. LANDSCAPING:
As mentioned previously, the site is predominantly
vegetated with aspen and fir trees and native
grasses. In an effort to preserve the natural
character of the site, the Applicant proposes to
landscape the areas disturbed by construction with
the same native materials. The introduction of such
material as flowering trees and shrubs and ground
covers will be confined to the courtyard areas.
20
4. OPEN SPACE /EASEMENTS:
The majority of the site will remain as open space
and be maintained by the respective homeowners
associations. In addition to the existing access
and utility easements which will be preserved, the
Applicant is granting a trail easement which will
traverse the site -from east to. west and will be
located above the units providing an uninterrupted
trail system along the base of the mountain. At
this time, the alignment of this easement is not
set. The Applicant will walk and flag an alignment
prior to Final Plat to establish the best alignment.
This alignment and the subsequent easement will be
granted on the Final Plat.
Easements to accommodate the proposed utility
service extensions will be provided as may be
required. All easements will comply with the width
requirements of Land Use regulations and will be
depicted on the Applicant's Final Plat.
Lastly, a 20 foot wide utility easement will be
required from the subject property approximately 18
feet to the existing 20 foot wide utility easement
for the sanitary sewer line to the north of the
21
subject property.' The applicant will be responsible
for obtaining this easement which will be
represented in final form on the Final Plat.
5. UTILITIES:
The project will be served by the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District, the City of Aspen Water
Department as well as Canyon Cable Television, Rocky
Mountain Natural Gas, U.S. West Communications, and
Holy Cross Electric Association. Banner Associates,
Inc. has contacted each of these utilities and
verified that service exists for this project.
Letters of confirmation have been written to each
of these entities and are included in the Exhibit
portion of this submission. Services will be
provided from the existing facilities in the Ute
Avenue right -of -way by extensions to the individual
buildings. A conceptual design of the utility
improvements is shown on the Water and Sewer Plan
and the Private Utility Plan of the plan seta It
is proposed to provide adequate easements for each
of utilities by dedication on the Final Plat. It
is also intended to design both the water system and
sanitary sewer system to a sufficient standard to
facilitate dedication of the improvements to the
respective districts.
22
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
A. TEXT /MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING - As stated previously
in this application, in order to facilitate the proposed
development, the property which is currently zoned Rural
Residential must be rezoned to Affordable Housing. This
application requests that the project site in its
entirety of 3.8 acres be rezoned. The specific review
requirements, and the proposed development's compliance
therewith, are summarized as follows:
1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with
any applicable portions of this chapter."
To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, this
request for amendment is not in conflict with any
portion of Division 11, the chapter of reference.
2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with
all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
Two elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
appear to be applicable to the Applicant's proposed
development. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan indicates
that the project site is within the "Mixed
Residential" land use category. The intent and
23
The Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails element of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan identifies a
pedestrian /nordic trail along the base of the Aspen
Mountain ski area linking hadow Mountain ntain to Ute
Avenue. This project site currently represents a
missing link to this overall trail. The Applicant
will dedicate a twelve (12) foot public easement
' corresponding to a new trail alignment upon final
approval of the proposed development.
1
24
1
purpose of this category is to allow a mix of
residential uses interspersed with limited amounts
of professional office and visitor accommodation
uses.
'
As
stated previously, the ro osed development P P p calls
for a mix of deed restricted units and free market
units all in multi - family configuration.
Additionally, the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing
Authority has identified an interest in disbursing
deed development
restricted around the Aspen area
in as close proximity as possible. The proposed
development accomplishes this
P P goal.
The Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails element of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan identifies a
pedestrian /nordic trail along the base of the Aspen
Mountain ski area linking hadow Mountain ntain to Ute
Avenue. This project site currently represents a
missing link to this overall trail. The Applicant
will dedicate a twelve (12) foot public easement
' corresponding to a new trail alignment upon final
approval of the proposed development.
1
24
1
To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, no other
element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
contains recommendations which preclude, or
otherwise pertain to the proposed development.
3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses,
considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics."
The surrounding area consists of mixed use
residential, including the Gant Condominiums, the
Aspen Chance Subdivision and 101
P 0 Ute Avenue
residential development. Additionally located in
the immediate area is the Benedict Building
(professional offices) and the Aspen Club
(commercial athletic club). From both a use and
density standpoint, this proposed development is
. compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
4. "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety."
Provided in this application is a traffic analysis
_ (see Exhibit 12) for the Ute Avenue area. The
tresult of this analysis states that the existing
25
5. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed
road system has the capacity to serve this
proposed
development. Additionally, the Applicant
believes
amendment
that due to, the proximity to the central
business
district. and the shortage of parking
in that
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water
district, residents will walk to town. In
the case
medical facilities."
of the deed restricted units whose residents
must
be employed, this nearly represents the
closest
impacts on the existing utility facilities, and all
parking available for workers in the
central
business district. Conceptually, this will
increase
26
the number of pedestrians and decrease the
number
of motorists.
5. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in demands on public
facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
amendment
proposed would exceed the capacity of such
facilities including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water
supply, parks, drainage, schools, and- emergency
medical facilities."
'
As noted above in Section III. 5, Banner Associates
has contacted the utility companies in regard to
impacts on the existing utility facilities, and all
facilities do have adequate capacity to serve this
26
project. Due to the limited size of this proposed
development, no significant impacts on the remaining
above referenced facilities will result from this
development.
6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in significantly adverse
impacts on the natural environment."
Due to the architectural character of the proposed
development with all buildings being clustered and
stepped into the hillside, minimal disturbance will
occur on site. Additionally, once the development
is completed, all areas of the site which are
disturbed will be revegetated with native plant
material. No other impacts to the natural
environment are anticipated.
' 7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City
of Aspen."
The surrounding neighborhood is made up of mixed
' residential, commercial, and professional office as
well as parks, trails and open space. These uses
' establish the character of this neighborhood. The
27
L
11
proposed development blends with the mixed
residential in not only density but architectural
character. More importantly, however, is the
employee housing element of this proposed
development. As noted earlier in this application,
it is the goal of both the Housing Authority and the
Affordable Housing Zone District to disburse
development in the community. The ultimate result
of this will not only be additional inventory for
employee housing but a more balanced community.
8. "Whether there have been changed conditions
affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment."
In recent years residential development has taken
place along Ute Avenue which has changed the
character of, the neighborhood. With the development
of the Gant Condominiums, the Aspen Chance
Subdivision and 1010 Ute Subdivision, to mention a
few, the area has grown into a mixed density
residential community. The Benedict office building
and the Aspen Club are existing non - residential uses
which make up the neighboring community. This level
of existing mixed density and mixed use support the
compatibility of this development proposal.
28
9. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict
' with the public interest, and is in harmony with the
purpose and intent of this chapter."
I� -
�J
1
r
Due to the extreme lack of affordable employee
housing
in and around the Aspen area, this project
will serve the public interest rather than be in
conflict with public interest. The availability and
cost of land in the Aspen area, and specifically
.within the City limits, limits the potential for
'
housing
affordable development. With the adoption
of the AH Zone District, the mechanism is in place
to spur the development pment of affordable housing. The
'
benefits to the community go beyond providing
inventory. This type of development literally
brings employees back
up valley, lessening the
traffic on State Highway 82, placing voting
employees back in the City here they y work, and
'
keeps tax dollars in the area in which they work.
The positive impacts to the community for this type
of development are far reaching.
1
r
B. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW:
The proposed project will be reviewed in a four (4) step
process due to Subdivision and PUD. Pursuant to Article
6, Division l of the Land Use Regulations, applications
for development in environmentally sensitive areas (i.e.,
8040 Greenline applications) are considered by the
Planning and Zoning Commission concurrent with their
review of final PUD development plan applications.
Consequently., the specific requirements of 8040 Greenline
review will be addressed by the Applicant in the final
PUD application for the proposed project.
The review criteria however, have been addressed in the
context of Section III., Proposed Development of this
application.
C. SUBDIVISION:
The proposed development establishes two separate lots
for ownership by the respective homeowners associations.
These lots have been identified as Lots 1 and 2 (see Site
Development Plan, Sheet 2 of the plan set). This
division of /- ownership requires review under, the
subdivision regulations.
30
The minimum submission contents have been included within
this application. The specific review standards are as
follows:
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
A. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent
with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
See Section IV.A.2 above.
B. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent
with the character of existing land uses in the
area."
See Section IV.A.3 above.
C. "The proposed subdivision shall not adversely
affect the future development of surrounding
areas."
Although the area is approaching it buildout
capacity, this proposed development will not
adversely affect the potential for future
development. All public facilities such as
utility line are immediately adjacent to the
31
2.
subject parcel and are of a size to adequately
serve the proposal. Adjacent parcels will not
be affected in terms of access as no
significant modifications to Ute Avenue (only
repaving the gravel section along the subject
parcel) are proposed.
D. "The proposed subdivision shall be in
compliance with all applicable requirements of
this chapter."
See following text.
"Suitability of land for subdivision ".
A. "Land Suitability ": The proposed subdivision
shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding,, drainage, rock
or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche
or snowslide, steep topography or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be
harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of
the residents in the proposed subdivision."
As noted in Section I. of this application, the
existing conditions of the site reflect certain
32
hazards. Specifically, avalanche and rockslide
potential as well as steep slopes. The
proposed development has been located on
portions of the site .which are free from these
hazards as well as lower on the site free from
slopes in excess of 30 %. In addition, the
structures have been designed to mitigate and
avalanche or rockslide activity (See Section
II.E).
B. "Spatial Pattern Efficient "_ The proposed
subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies,
duplications or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
As proposed, this project requires no extension
of any public facility and therefore represents
no expense to the public. All services to this
project are in the form of secondary service
lines which are to be constructed at the sole
expense of the developer.
33
3. "Improvements ".
For a description of all proposed improvements
resulting from the development of this project, see
Section II. Proposed Development.
D. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
As previously noted in the application, the program for
development complies with all aspects of 'the AH zone
district. For this reason, no variance to the Permitted
Uses, Conditional Uses or the Dimensional Requirements
as specified for the AH Zone District are being
requested.
It is the Applicant's understanding that although not
currently stated, PUD as a policy will be required of
proposals. Consequently, the review contents have been
included in this application. The minimum submission
contents have been included in this text as have items
1.a.(1),(2) and (3) of the specific submission contents.
Item i.a.(4) of the specific submission contents is
contained within the drawing package attached hereto.
34
The review standards as set forth by Article 7, Division
9 are addressed as follows:
1. General Requirements: See Section IV.C.1 above
2. Density:
The proposed density for the project is in
compliance with the AH zone district requirements
in terms of number of units, number of bedrooms and
ratio of deed restricted to free market.
Additionally, included herein is a slope reduction
analysis for the subject parcel. The result of
this analysis was an actual reduction in overall
project square footage to that proposed in this
application.
3. Land Uses:
Multi- family development ratio parameters specified
within the AH zone district are considered a
"permitted use ". Therefore this multi - family
- -:. development proposal complies with the permitted
uses of the underlying zone district.
35
4. Dimensional Requirements:
No variation is dimensional requirements is being
requested.
5. Off Street Parking:
No variation of off - street parking requirements is
being requested.
6. Open Space:
The majority of the site shall remain as open space
as per the development program (see Table 2). This
open space shall be deeded in perpetuity to each
owner as part of the homeowners association. This
land shall be accessible to all owners in the
homeowners association.
7. Landscape Plan:
See Section II.G.3 and sheet 3 of drawing package.
36
8. Architectural Site Plan:
Although not required for approval until the Final
Development Plan, conceptual architecture has been
presented at this level. The reason for this is the
architecture plays a significant role in hazard
mitigation on the subject parcel. To facilitate
the review of the rezoning and the subdivision, this
information has been provided herein (see Section
III.E. and sheet 8).
9. Lighting:
All project outdoor lighting will be low level and
will be designed to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining
streets and lands.
10. Public Facilities: See Section III.G.
11. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation:
A traffic analysis has. been provided herein (see
Exhibit 8) stating that the existing Ute Avenue has
capacity to serve this. proposed development. Access
to Ute Avenue has been designed to allow each
37
E.
dwelling unit direct access. Intersections have
been designed to permit smooth traffic flow while
minimizing hazards. Additionally, the existing road
is gravel and will improved as per Pitkin County
Road Standards to 22 feet of. asphalt pavement with
road base shoulders.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION
Pursuant to Ordinance 59 establishing the Affordable
Housing zone district, deed restricted units shall be
exempt from GMQS. Additionally, an annual allotment of
14 free market units exempt from GMQS will be available
when proposed in compliance with the AH zone district.
There is no scoring system outlined for the selection of
these 14 units.
The Applicant encourages to City Council to allot all
seven free market units and subsequent development of 16
deed restricted units described in this development
application. The subject parcel is unique in that it is
one of the few sites available within City limits, and
consequently walking distance to the central business
district, that is still out of the primary impact area
in terms of roads, parking and scenic impacts.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Applicant that this
38
1
development proposal best accomplishes the intention of
the AH Zone District while resulting in the least amount
of impact to the general community.
39
1
TOM STEVENS. 230 R. HOPKIN , ASPEN, CO 925 -6717
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply) :
M
8)
• 9)
D
Conditional Use
Special Review
Final SPA
_ 8040 Greenline X C mceptual PUD
Stream Margin Final FUD
Mamta.in . View Plane X Subdivisicn
��.:� man• . � � .r �_:.►
Final historic Dev.
Minor historic Dev.
Historic Demolition
Historic Designation
C7ondaminiumi.zation X TPxt/Map Amendment X _ CM2S Allotment
Ivt Split,%ILOt Idne CK�S E}oempticn
Adjustment
Description of EKdsting Uses (umber and type of existing stnmtmes;
approximate mate sq. ft. ; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
Prey) -
NO EXISTING USES.
Description of Development Applications
7 FREEFE MARKET TOWNHOMES
16 DEED RESTRICTED CONDOMINIUMS
REZONE TB AFFORDABLE HOUSING
10) Have you attached the following?
X Response to Attadment 2, Miniman & ,ti m micn omtents
X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Coocttents
X Respmse to Attactment 4, Review Standards for your Application
imD �m =oN EXHIBIT 1
1)
Project Name UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
2)
Project location UTE AVENUE: NW 1/4 SE
1/4 SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10,
SOUTH. R_ -'NGE 84W
(indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where
appropriate)
�.
3)
Present Zoning RR
4) Lot Size 3.8 ACRES
•
5)
Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # UTE
PARK PARTNERSHIP,
•
MARTIN,' 215 S. MONARCH, CO
81611 925
.TIM r"_SPEN.
-8310
6)
Representative's Name, Address & Phone #
THE STEVENS GROUP, INC.,
TOM STEVENS. 230 R. HOPKIN , ASPEN, CO 925 -6717
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply) :
M
8)
• 9)
D
Conditional Use
Special Review
Final SPA
_ 8040 Greenline X C mceptual PUD
Stream Margin Final FUD
Mamta.in . View Plane X Subdivisicn
��.:� man• . � � .r �_:.►
Final historic Dev.
Minor historic Dev.
Historic Demolition
Historic Designation
C7ondaminiumi.zation X TPxt/Map Amendment X _ CM2S Allotment
Ivt Split,%ILOt Idne CK�S E}oempticn
Adjustment
Description of EKdsting Uses (umber and type of existing stnmtmes;
approximate mate sq. ft. ; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
Prey) -
NO EXISTING USES.
Description of Development Applications
7 FREEFE MARKET TOWNHOMES
16 DEED RESTRICTED CONDOMINIUMS
REZONE TB AFFORDABLE HOUSING
10) Have you attached the following?
X Response to Attadment 2, Miniman & ,ti m micn omtents
X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Coocttents
X Respmse to Attactment 4, Review Standards for your Application
r
1
1.
1
t
1
1
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE— APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT:
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE : L C'� vv� 5 Q�t
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
OWNER'S NAME:—
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: &C'U'v)(tt-A.
2. Describe action /type of development being requested:
c�
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
p Referral Agent Comments
C cro n _
4. Review is: (P &Z Only) (CC Only) (P &Z then to CC)
5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)
6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted:
pp
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:d 'u ins AIL",-)
8. Anticipated date of submission:
9. COMMENTS /UNIQUE CONCERNS:
frm.pre_app
EXHIBIT 2
QjM
FAR. - XY l ! loll l i;.:
April 18, 1990
Planning & Zoning Dept.
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to confirm that Tom Stevens and his company, The
Stevens Group, is authorized to act on behalf of the Ute Park
Partnership for all matters concerning our application for
rezoning under the "Affordable Housing" guidelines.
Sincerely, ti
U
games T. Martin
General Partner
Howard G. Stacker
General Partner
0
(303)925 -8310 • 215 S. Monarch • P.O. Box 10502 • Aspen, Colorado 81611
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Countersigned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, -INC. Schedule A -PG.1
601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid
ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring
303- 925 -1766 Provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Authorized officer or agent
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
LTIC 100-0000/2
EXHIBIT 3
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
1.
Effective date: 06/28/89 at 8:00 A.M.
Case No.
PCT- 3633.C5
2.
Policy or policies to be issued:
(a)ALTA Owner's Policy -Form B -1970
Amount $
401,500.00
(Rev. 10 -17 -70 & 10- 17 -84) or 10/21/87
Premium $
1,194.25
PROPOSED INSURED: UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP,
A COLORADO
GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
(b)ALTA Loan Policy,
Amount $
351,050.00
(REV. 10- 21 -87)
Premium $
50.00
PROPOSED INSURED: r s
PITKIN COUNTY BANK AND_TRUST COMPANY
(c)Alta Loan Construction -- Policy', ";1975
Amount $
(Rev. 10- 17 -84) _
Premium $
PROPOSED INSURED: -
-or
Tax Cert.
$ 10.00
3.
Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate: interest
in the land
described or
referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof
vested
in:
ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Countersigned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, -INC. Schedule A -PG.1
601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid
ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring
303- 925 -1766 Provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Authorized officer or agent
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
LTIC 100-0000/2
1
1
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
,r
Schedule B- Section 1 PG.1
Commitment No. PCT -3633
Lawyers Title Insurance (grporation
ITIC 100-0000/2
v'
EXHIBIT "A"
A parcel of land situated
in the NW -1/4 SE 1/4
of Section 18, Township
10 South, Range 84 West
of.thP,, :Sixth'.Principal
Meridian, Pitkin County,
Colorado. Said Parcel
is more`fully.;_descr•ibed
as follows:
Beginning at a point whence--C'orne'r
"- No: °::9 of Riverside Placer, MS 3905
AM bears North 38 °11'25"
East` 15805`;f'eet;
thence South 68 °00'00"
East'" 120.00'�,,feet;
thence South 49 °00'00"
East 350.00 .fe'e't;-'
thence South 41 °00'00"
West- 361.82`P fee
thence North 49 °00'00"
.,
West_.330.37rfeet;
thence North 00 °49'21"
East-390.96 ".feet;
thence South 60 24 26'
East -.1. fee C to the
point of beginning.
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO
1
1
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
,r
Schedule B- Section 1 PG.1
Commitment No. PCT -3633
Lawyers Title Insurance (grporation
ITIC 100-0000/2
NOTE: In the event that the Partnership Agreement fails to
contemplate the acts necessary to consumate the instant
transaction, the Company requires the joinder or
ratification of all partners pursuant to '73 CRS 7 -60 -109
(3) (b)•
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B- Section 1 PG.1
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT -3633
A and B are attached.
L
uryem Title Insurance Orporation
LTIC 100-0000/2
SCHEDULE B- SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
The
following are the requirements to be complied with:
ITEM
(a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors
of the
full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
ITEM
(b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured
must be executed and duly filed for record to -wit:
1.
Deed from : Robert S. Goldsamt
To : Ute Park Partnership, A Colorado General Partnership
2.
Release by the Public T rid stee_; 'of';
Deed of Trust from Robe - -. Goldsamt
}rt
To the Public Trustee`:'of the:,Count`y of Pitkin
For the use of N Wi1ner` J:' :Thomas
To secure :; $200',006 00
Dated : ": Mardh ;2`4,. 1987
Recorded :` August31,;:1987 in Book 544 at Page 904.
Reception No. :-- 292413`'_<
3.
Evidence satisfactory to the'ComP anY that the Real Estate Transfer
Tax as established by Ordinance:No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been
paid or exempted.
4.
Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer
Tax as established by Ordinance No. 14 (Series of 1989) has been
�.
paid or exempted.
5.
Certificate of Nonforeign Status of Individual Transferor signed
by Robert S. Goldsamt.
-_.
6.
Deed of Trust from : Ute Park Partnership, A Colorado General Ptr.
To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
For the use of Pitkin County Bank and Trust Company
To secure : $351,050.00
i7.
Trade Name Affidavit of Ute Park Partnership, A Colorado General
Partnership, disclosing the names of the partners, and the other
information required by '73 CRS 7 -71 -101 (1) (1) evidencing the
existence of said partnership on , or prior to its
acquistion of title to the land herein.
NOTE: In the event that the Partnership Agreement fails to
contemplate the acts necessary to consumate the instant
transaction, the Company requires the joinder or
ratification of all partners pursuant to '73 CRS 7 -60 -109
(3) (b)•
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B- Section 1 PG.1
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT -3633
A and B are attached.
L
uryem Title Insurance Orporation
LTIC 100-0000/2
10. A perpetual, non - exclusive easement and right of way, for access
in vehicles and otherwise and /or utility service lines over,
upon and across a strip of land sixty feet wide along the
northeasterly boundaury of said property as set forth in
instrument recorded in Book 363 at Page 887.
11. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Restrictions as
to employee housing and /or.ret;eational use as set forth in
instrument recorded inBool 363 'at Page 887.
8 •.
3 x l
k b
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B- Section 2 PG.3
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT -3633
A and B are attached.
Lawyers Title Insurance (�rporation
LTIC 100.0000/2
SCHEDULE B- SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public
records.
!.�
2. Easements, or claims of:'eade_ments,,not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary;= lines, shortage in area
encroachments, and any--facts= -'which:-.a correct survey and inspection
of the premises would disclose and,,which are not shown by the public
records. �_ s
4. Any lien, or right to a' lien, `for services, labor or material
heretofore or hereafter, furnished , ;.,imposed by law and not shown by
the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, matters" if
claims or other matters if
any, created, first appearing -in the'--public records or attaching
subsequent to the effecti- ve=date hereof but prior to the date the
proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest
r or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or
lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special
taxing district.
7. Reservations and exceptions as
Patent recorded June 17, 1949
the following:
set contained in United States
in Book 175 at Page 246, including
The premises may be entered by the proprietor of any vein or lode
of quartz, or other rock, or other rock in place bearing gold,
silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits,
for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such vein,
or lode should the same, or any part thereof be found to penetrate,
intersect, pass through, or dip into mining ground.
(affects parcel A and B)
8. A Right of Way 10 feet in width for pipeline flume, ditch or
waterway as set forth in instrument recorded in Book 93 at Page
527.
9. Terms, conditions, obligations and covenants as set forth in
Easement Agreement between Fredric A. Benedict, et al., and Robert
S. Goldsamt, recorded May 19, 1976 in Book 312 at Page 200.
continued
Lawyers "Title Insurance Gi- poration
LTIC 100.0000/2
SCHEDULE B- SECTION 2
CONTINUED
Exceptions numbered NONE are hereby omitted.
Owner's/Mortgage Policy to be issued, if any, shall contain the
lowing items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B- Section 1.
�(2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents
or in Acts authorizing issuance thereof; water rights, claims or
title to water.
r
his commitment is invalid unless
he Insuring Provisions and Schedules
and B are attached.
i
Schedule B- Section 2
Commitment No.PCT -3633 C3
Lawyers Zitle Insurance Ggrporation
ITIC 1000000/2
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable
consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the
proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land
described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions
of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or
policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this
Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and
obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or
policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the
fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is
effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date."
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1 . The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved
from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if
the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall
not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and
Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss
incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or(b)toeliminate
exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies
committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the
Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are
hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company
arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
Ll purrs Title I M co?"allm
1
Niev
President
Attest:
.tA) U �
Secretary.
EXHIBIT 4
3 �
Chen ONorthern, I r,%,. E ,<,, ,r .:: r: sc' e:, slS
1
5080 Road 154
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 8160
303 945 -7458
303 945 -2363 Facsimile
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING
SOUTH OF UTE AVENUE
ACROSS FROM ASPEN CLUB
ASPEN, COLORADO
a
Prepared For:
Aspen Properties
Attn: Jim Martin
P.O. Box 10502
Aspen CO 81612 -7344
Job No. 4 188 90 January 30, 1990
A member of the $j$ group of companies
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONCLUSIONS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS
FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
FLOOR SLABS
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
SURFACE DRAINAGE
LIMITATIONS
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1
2
2-
3
3
4
5
5
6
7
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed multi - family housing should be founded with
spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils and.designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Other design
and construction criteria relating to geotechnical aspects of the
proposed building are presented in the body of the report.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed
multi - family housing to be located across from the Aspen Club on Ute Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the
study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was
conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering ser-
vices to Aspen Properties, dated November 22, 1989.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was con-
ducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained
during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their
engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and labora-
tory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types,
depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. The
results of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in the
�4
report.
This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this
• study and to present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed
construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. Design parameters and a
discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction
of the proposed project are included in the report.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed multi - family housing will be a two -story wood frame. struc-
ture with a building footprint of approximately 60 feet by 80 feet. The
ground floor level will be structural over a crawl space or slab -on- grade.
Gradin g for the structure is expected to be relatively minor with cut depths
between about 4 to 8 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings,
typical of the proposed type construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from
those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations
contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
At the time of our field work, the site was vacant and covered with about
2 feet of snow. The topography of the building envelope is moderately sloping
down to the northeast at grades of 15 to 20 percent. The slope steepens to
the south of the building area. The steep slopes above the site have been
characterized as having snow avalanche potential on the Pitkin County Snow
Avalanche map by Colorado State University (1974) and on the Environmental and
Geologic Constraints map prepared for the Colorado Geological Survey (1974).
There are historic avalanche tracks located on the Hoag Subdivision to the
west of the subject site. We are not aware of historic avalanches that have
impacted the project site.
The proposed building area is vegetated with small aspen trees, brush and
weeds. An old overgrown cart path crosses the building area from east to
west.
FJ
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 21
and 22, 1989. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on
Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with
- 4 in ch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck - mounted CME -55
drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Chen - Northern, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1 3/8 -inch I.D. spoon sampler.
The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a
140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard
�1 penetration test described by ASTM Method D -1586. The penetration resistance
values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the sub-
soils.' Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance
values'are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were
returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
The subsoil conditions encountered at the site are shown graphically on
i
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 2 to 4 feet of topsoil overlying mainly
medium dense, silty sand and gravel containing cobbles and possible boulders.
Drilling in the gravels with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles
and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings
included natural moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of grada-
tion analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 1/2 -inch
fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Fig. 4. The
laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
-4-
No free 'water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and
the subsoils were slightly moist to moist.
FOU14DATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings
and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be
founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed
for a spread footing foundation system. The construction criteria should be
considered when preparing project documents.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Based on
experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as
discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less.
2) All existing topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed
and the footing bearing level extended, down to relatively dense natural
granular soils.
3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
4) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protec-
tion. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade
is typically used in this area.
5) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as
retaining structures should also be 'designed to resist a lateral earth
pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf.
o —5—
6) Sliding resistance of the footing on the bearing soil can be taken as 0.4,
times the dead load weight on the foundation.
7) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excava-
tions prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on -site soils exclusive of topsoil are suitable to support
lightly to moderately loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the
effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from
all bearin g walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained
vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage
due to shrinkage cracking. 'The requirements for control joints and slab
reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and
the intended slab use. A minimum 4 -inch layer of free - draining gravel should
be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material
should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the
No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at
least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near
optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-:site sand and gravel devoid of
vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has
been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater may
develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground
during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below grade
r s
construction, such as retaining walls, crawl space and basement areas be
protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain
system.
The drains should consist of drain tile placed in the bottom of the wall
free-draining backfill surrounded above the invert level with fr g ranular mate-
rial. rial. The drain should be placed at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish
grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free - draining
granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2%
passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a
maximum size of 2 inches. The drain g ravel backfill should-be at least 2 feet
deep.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction
and maintained at all times after the building has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and com-
pacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend
a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a
minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. It may be
necessary to create a swale on the uphill side, of the building to route
surface water around and away from the development.
-7-
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backf ill.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil
and foundation engineering practices in this area for use by the client for
design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report
are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the
locations indicated on Fig. 1 and the proposed type of construction. The
nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become
evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil,
rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein,
this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations
may be made. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil
engineer.
-,� "01"I nay
0 REG /,p ii,
Sincerely,
E �Nq� F��ry'
CHEN- NORTHERN, INC.
�•� / r
ffi
24443 2
�i
�o,,�•.��������,e��.�\1
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
Reviewed By
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
DEH /ec
cc: David Finholm & Associates, Attn: David Finholm
i
+r
An00nVIh- -TE SCALE
"ASPS. LUB'j
PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES
UTE AVENUE -
RIGHT OF WAY 81 EASEMENT LINE
BORING '2
i
BUILDING / ` BORING I
ENVELOPE
i
jeo4O / -_ ` �
4 188 90 I Chen @Northern, Inc. I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Fig. I
16'
i
i
i
i
"ASPS. LUB'j
PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES
UTE AVENUE -
RIGHT OF WAY 81 EASEMENT LINE
BORING '2
i
BUILDING / ` BORING I
ENVELOPE
i
jeo4O / -_ ` �
4 188 90 I Chen @Northern, Inc. I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Fig. I
Boring 1
Boring 2
F.lev. = 8040'
F.lev. = 8028'
8040
OILO
8040
•.o
8035
00
8035
24/12
•.o
PVC = 4
. +4= 13
.o —200=16
v
8030
8030
a
25/5,20/0
ai
u-
u.
�
o
o
ro
°
ro
a,
8025
8025
w
32/12
r,
U.
8020
' C
WC /32
8020
•• +4 =51
- 200 =12
o•
8015
8015
Note: Explanation of symbols presented on Fig. 3,
4
1R8 00
ChenONorthern,Inc.
Logs of Exploratory Borings
Fig. 2
LFGFND:
Topsoil; organic silty sand and gravel, with cobbles, loose to medium dense,
moist, black.
Sand and Gravel ((;M); silty, with cobbles, possible boulders, medium dense to
dense, moist, brown.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 13 /8 -i.nch I.D. split spoon
sample, ASTM D -1S86.
24/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 24 blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling
30 inches were required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches.
—T Practical rig refusal.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on December 21 and 22, 1989 with a 4 -inch
diameter continuous flight power anger. _
2. locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by taping from
features shown on the site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours
on the site plan provided.
I 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate
only to the degree :implied by the method used.
S. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the
approximate locations between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Fluctu-
ations in water .level may occur with time.-
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
wC = water Content (o)
. +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
4 188 90 ChenONorthern,Ine. legend and Notes Fig. 3
V/
J
D
U)
LLJ
cc
vI
W
r
_ cc
w
0
J Q
m M
Q LL
0M
W
Q
J
La
}
Q
GC
G
U)
W
a�
ro
W
C—
C
W
W"
Y
C X
b
b
N �
td
CO
W
(7
V)
N
T
p.�
1-I
�
�
W
N
LL
LL2_
z
OL-`-
v"
z im � V)
Y
N
~ X
JW;t
�
LZ-
J
LJ
G
m
G
<
J
UV: y>
�
cli
LLoZN
-4
L�
2 .
,-4
t�
LO —
M
O
e
W
r-4
C�
Ln
Z
JWQZ
Q F W
2�
O
2
W
00
Q
G�
J�
1�0
J
W
G
<
0
N
=_
0
O
O
r
N
EXHIBIT 5
ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Hazards Consultants
222 Eaet Gothic Ave.
Gtmniwn, Colorado 81230
303 - 641.3236
March 16, 1990
Mr. David Finholm
Finholm Associates
P.O. Box 2839
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Mr.. Finholm:
As requested, I. have reviewed the proposed location of employee housing
on the proposed Uto Park project, above the Aspen Club. The purpose of
my review was to evaluate the feasibility of structural avalanche mitiga-
tion at this location, and to consider the risks involved in building at
this location.
TYie building site is near the downhill limits of a snow- avalanche "Red"
zone. The Rod -zone definition applies because his i.s a location in which
avalanche impact pressures may exceed 600 lb*/ft on flat surfaces normal
-Lo the flow direction. Avalanche frequency, however, is probably less than
once in 30 years; this is not an area of high avalanche frequency.
Building can take place provided aval an<::he-loading criteria are incorporated
into desig2. Special design may reduox-. the loads to much less than the
600 lbs/ft figure used to define the Red zone because walls normal to the
flow could be avoided.
As noted above, avalanche., frequency should not, in my opinion, be a factor
at this site. The vegetation and historic data both suggest that this
area is rarely reachod by avalanches. Consequently, the risk to persons
using the area is very small, and in fact is acceptable in usual land--use
practices in avalanche areas.
PJ.e,,.ise contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
� tv vam Arthur .. cars, Y.F.
Avalanche - control engineer
Mass Waiting • Atvlanches • Aw1anrhe Con1rd 1'nglneering
i
SNOW - AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS
BENEDICT PROPERTY, ASPEN, COLORADO
Prepared For
Mr. Fritz Benedict
Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
May, 1988
ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Hazards Consultants
222 East Gothic Ave.
Gunnison, Colorado 81230
303 - 641.3236
May 19, 1988
Mr. Fritz Benedict
1280 Ute Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Benedict:
The enclosed study of potential avalanche hazard on your property
near Aspen was completed in accordance with our discussions a few
weeks ago. Although the avalanche areas are fairly continuous,
structural avalanche protection is feasible at many locations
within the Blue Zone, as discussed in the text.
I very much enjoyed working with you on this project. Please
contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Akth I. Mears. P.E.
Encl .
i
Mau Wasting • Avalanches • Avalanche Control Engineering
1
1 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
This study of snow- avalanche hazard analysis and mapping has been
requested by Mr. Fritz Benedict of Aspen, Colorado and has the
following specific objectives:
a. Mapping of potential snow - avalanche runout zones
• from design- magnitude ( 11100- year ") avalanches;
F
b. Subdivision of the avalanche runout zones into Red
and Blue zones of hazard intensity;
C. Discussion of the avalanche hazard with respect to
various land uses; and
d. General discussion of avalanche mitigation
(defense) possibilities.
The hazard analysis presented here is site specific. Therefore
the results and recommendations cannot necessarily be applied to
other locations. Snowpack and terrain conditions vary greatly
from one location to another strongly affecting avalanche
behavior and possibly changing acceptable land uses.
1 2 DESIGN - AVALANCHE MAPPING
tassociated
The analysis presented in this report maps runout distances
with 'design- magnitude" or "design" avalanches.
Design avalanches, when applied to land -use purposes in the
United States traditionally have return periods of approximately
'
100 years, although return periods of 300 years are considered in
Switzerland and Norway. The 100 year return period is used to
define the design avalanche here with the understanding that
.
a. The 100 -year avalanche has a constant 1%
probability of occurring in any given year; this
probability does not change after the design avalanche
occurs; and
b. The 100 -year return period is an order -of magnitude
'
estimate; the "true" return period may actually lie
between 50 and 200 years, approximately, but data are
not available by which the return period can be
'
specified more precisely.
There exist few direct observations of 100 -year design avalanches
because these are, by definition, rare events. For example,
'
there exists only a 39% chance that a 100 7year avalanche will
occur during any 50 -year observation period. Therefore, this
study has followed the traditional approach of using indirect
procedures to calculate the stopping positions and avalanche -
hazard intensity of design avalanches.
1
The procedures followed to compute design avalanches here are as
' follows:
a. The runout distances or final stopping positions of
design avalanches were computed by applying a
statistical model of runout distance which was derived
from a sample of 130 11100- year" avalanches in Colorado;
b. Given the runout distance defined in "a," a
dynamics model was applied to the avalanche -path
profile to compute the velocities at various points
along the profile; and
.c. Dynamic pressures were then computed from the
velocities to determine the Red Zone /Blue Zone
boundaries.
The methodology outlined above determines the downslope positions
'= of hazard zones and runout distances; the lateral boundaries were
determined by evaluating the effect of terrain irregularities
through study of air photos and topographic maps, and by
considering the importance of various features in the field.
2
Avalanche frequency was estimated by extracting cores and dating
'
Douglas fir trees within the avalanche boundaries. Each of the
trees thus sampled had suffered at least one avalanche impact,
(some had received several impacts), and none exceeded 80 years
'
old. The fact that all of the trees sampled were located below
8,200 feet elevation (within 200 feet vertical of the main access
road), provided convincing evidence that avalanches will reach
the road at frequencies of approximately 20 -to -50 years. This
implies that 100 -year avalanches will reach well beyond the road,
as consistent with the results of the statistical analysis
outlined above. In addition, air photographs taken in 1951 and
1957 were studied to determine old avalanche boundaries prior to
disturbance of the area by recent construction. The air photos
indicate that avalanches had run into the area of the "Aspen
'
Club" during the first half of this century, and had approached
the location of the "Benedict Building."
3 THE AVALANCHE TERRAIN
1
Six distinct avalanche areas or avalanche paths were identified
for this study. The general terrain setting with respect to
'
major topographic features is shown in Figure 1; details of the
avalanche runout and hazard zones are shown in Figure 2 (the
Avalanche Hazard Map). Each of the avalanche paths have distinct
characteristics that govern behavior of the design avalanche.
These characteristics are discussed below.
2
UTE TRAIL AVALANCHE. This avalanche path is located across the
access road from the Benedict Building and has been observed to
reach approximately to the road during the past decade. During
the 1987/88 winter a small avalanche reached to within
approximately 300 feet south of the road. During extreme snow
conditions, avalanches will release from open areas in the forest
and from within the forest itself at elevations between 8,600 and
9,000 feet. Clear evidence of avalanching within the forest is
visible at the 9,000 -foot elevation level, near the upper end of
the Ute Trail. As with all of the avalanche terrain identified
in this study, the fastest and longest- running avalanches will
consist of dry flowing snow. The Ute Trail Avalanche will impact
the access road at over 30 mph and will spread laterally into the
upper and lower parking lots. Light flowing snow and powder
blast will reach the Benedict Building (intervals of 50 -to -100
years), but damage. to the building will be minor and should not
endanger persons within the building. The parking lots will be
reached at intervals of 20 -50 years, consequently the greatest
hazard from this avalanche is in the parking lot, an area that
tends to concentrate activity, particularly during the mornings
and afternoons on working days.
_,.� 3
ASPEN CLUB AVALANCHE. This path is similar to the "Ute Trail
■' I
Avalanche" discussed above. Unstable snow can release as a
widespread slab at elevations of approximately 8,600 -to- 9,200
feet elevation. The released slabs will combine to flow across
Ithe
colluvial fan which As populated with aspen trees up to
approximately 30 years old, flow across the access road, and will
reach the Aspen Club. As noted above, inspection of 1951 and
1957 indicates that avalanches probably reached the
air photos
building location during the first part of this century. As
indicated on Figure 2, a narrow hazard -free area exists between
the Ute Trail Avalanche and the Aspen Club Avalanche. However,
_I
I
during periods of widespread snow instability, access to this
area will be dangerous.
!� +,
NORDIC TRAIL AVALANCHE. This path consists of a broad, open face
immediately east of the Aspen Club Avalanche. This face is
actually fed by 4 small topographic depressions (bowls), that
tend to collect snow at 8,700 -to -9,000 feet elevation.
Avalanches releasing from these small bowls will spread laterally
on the unconfined colluvial fans above the road, but during
optimum snowpack conditions will flow across the road.
OLD SWITCHBACK AVALANCHE. This is the largest and potentially
most powerful avalanche evaluated in this project. The starting
L
zone is a steep, east - facing slope beginning at 9,700 feet
elevation. During optimum snowpack conditions avalanches
releasing from this upper starting zone will dislodge additional
,.
snow from the steep gully and cross the alluvial fan and access
road. Douglas fir trees immediately above the road show evidence
of avalanche impact.
_,.� 3
The avalanche map included with this report is provided on a
1" =100" scale base map with 5 -foot contour intervals. For land -
use and engineering purposes, avalanches have been subdivided
into 2 zones of hazard intensity: (a) Red Zones, and (b) Blue
Zones. These two zones' were defined in terms of expected
frequency and avalanche energy. Experience with avalanche zoning
and engineering problems also suggest certain land uses that are
appropriate (of inappropriate) within each zone, as defined
below.
4.1 RED -ZONE DEFINITION AND LAND USES
The Red Zone is defined as an area of either (a) high- frequency
avalanches, (b) high- energy avalanches, or (c) both "a" and "b"
and is subject to the following conditions:
t :1
�1
Frequency - Avalanches occur once, on the average, in
every 10 -year period (a 10% annual probability). Due
to the "order -of- magnitude" nature of the return - period
estimate, the actual return period lies between 3 and
30 years. Avalanche areas of high frequency are
particularly hazardous because the probability of
encounter with avalanches is high.
Energy - Avalanches within the Red Zone may produce a
dynamic pressure on a large, flat, rigid surface normal
to the flow of 600 lbs /ft2 or more. The actual
pressure on an exposed object may be more or,less than
600 lbs /ft2 depending on object shape and orientation.
The pressure on a flat surface is given as a reference
pressure for standard, simple impact conditions. These
areas are considered high hazard because of the
difficulties associated with practical design for
loads.
The Red Zone has an "either /or" definition. Either high
frequency (10 -year or less), or high energy (600 lbs /ft2 or more)
4
THE EAST FACE. This short, steep triangular face will release
avalanches from 8,600 -to -8,800 feet elevation. Avalanches from
the East Face can release independently of the "Old Switchback
Avalanche" or can be triggered by it. Avalanche behavior ,will .be
similar to that produced by the "Nordic Trail Avalanche."
THE EAST GULLY. Avalanches here will result primarily from
unstable snow in the steep gully, although inspection of air
photographs indicates that open slopes immediately west of the
gully may also produce avalanches. During design - avalanche
- I conditions, avalanches from the East Gully will cover the entire
alluvial fan and may combine with slides from the East Face.
._.
- 4 AVALANCHE MAPS AND HAZARD -ZONE DEFINITIONS
The avalanche map included with this report is provided on a
1" =100" scale base map with 5 -foot contour intervals. For land -
use and engineering purposes, avalanches have been subdivided
into 2 zones of hazard intensity: (a) Red Zones, and (b) Blue
Zones. These two zones' were defined in terms of expected
frequency and avalanche energy. Experience with avalanche zoning
and engineering problems also suggest certain land uses that are
appropriate (of inappropriate) within each zone, as defined
below.
4.1 RED -ZONE DEFINITION AND LAND USES
The Red Zone is defined as an area of either (a) high- frequency
avalanches, (b) high- energy avalanches, or (c) both "a" and "b"
and is subject to the following conditions:
t :1
�1
Frequency - Avalanches occur once, on the average, in
every 10 -year period (a 10% annual probability). Due
to the "order -of- magnitude" nature of the return - period
estimate, the actual return period lies between 3 and
30 years. Avalanche areas of high frequency are
particularly hazardous because the probability of
encounter with avalanches is high.
Energy - Avalanches within the Red Zone may produce a
dynamic pressure on a large, flat, rigid surface normal
to the flow of 600 lbs /ft2 or more. The actual
pressure on an exposed object may be more or,less than
600 lbs /ft2 depending on object shape and orientation.
The pressure on a flat surface is given as a reference
pressure for standard, simple impact conditions. These
areas are considered high hazard because of the
difficulties associated with practical design for
loads.
The Red Zone has an "either /or" definition. Either high
frequency (10 -year or less), or high energy (600 lbs /ft2 or more)
4
i
define the Red Zone. Therefore, large, destructive avalanche
zones qualify as Red even though they may occur only every 100
years. Furthermore, small, high- frequency avalanches zones also
qualify even though they do not produce large pressures.
Traditionally, residential construction, public buildings, and
I other activities that concentrate human activities are excluded
from Red Zones. Areas of intermittent exposure, such as roads or
ski trails, or facilities that are',not used during the avalanche
1 season may be permitted in the Red Zone. The tolerance to risk
must be carefully considered in the design of an avalanche "risk
management" policy.
1 4.2 BLUE -ZONE DEFINITION AND LAND USES
The Blue Zone is an avalanche area of both (a) low frequency an
(b) moderate energy. The Blue Zone is located at the lower end
of the design - avalanche runout zone and is defined as follows:
Traditionally,, residential construction has been permitted in
Blue Zones provided construction will resist design - avalanche
forces. Alternately, avalanche defenses may be built to prevent
interaction of the design avalanche with the residential
construction.
As shown on the Avalanche- Hazard Map (Figure 2), avalanche hazard
is nearly continuous below the slopes studied. There is a small
area free from avalanche hazard between the "Ute Trail" and
"Aspen Club" avalanches. The Red Zone is generally confined to
the steeper portions of alluvial fans and to the slope above
(south of), the access road below the "Nordic Face."
The presence of the nearly continuous avalanche hazard zones does
not imply that all construction within this area must be avoided.
As discussed in Section 5, avalanche risk can be substantially
reduced through application of various avalanche mitigation
"� procedures.
Frequency - Avalanches reach the Blue Zone with return
As with the Red Zone, the
periods of 10 -to -100 years.
return periods are order -of- magnitude estimates.
Energy - Within the Blue Zone, avalanches produce
dynamic pressures of less than 600 lbs /ft on large,
flat surfaces normal to the flow direction. Actual
pressures at a given location are strongly dependent on
object shape and orientation, and must be determined on
a site - specific basis.
As noted above, the Blue Zone is always defined in terms of both
frequency and energy. The avalanche conditions must satisfy both
criteria at a given location or it will automatically satisfy one
of the Red -Zone criterion and be disqualified, as a Blue Zone.-
Traditionally,, residential construction has been permitted in
Blue Zones provided construction will resist design - avalanche
forces. Alternately, avalanche defenses may be built to prevent
interaction of the design avalanche with the residential
construction.
As shown on the Avalanche- Hazard Map (Figure 2), avalanche hazard
is nearly continuous below the slopes studied. There is a small
area free from avalanche hazard between the "Ute Trail" and
"Aspen Club" avalanches. The Red Zone is generally confined to
the steeper portions of alluvial fans and to the slope above
(south of), the access road below the "Nordic Face."
The presence of the nearly continuous avalanche hazard zones does
not imply that all construction within this area must be avoided.
As discussed in Section 5, avalanche risk can be substantially
reduced through application of various avalanche mitigation
"� procedures.
5 AVALANCHE MITIGATION
As discussed in Section 4, construction within the Blue Zone is
generally acceptable when appropriate mitigation procedures are
used. Although a detailed discussion of avalanche mitigation is
beyond the scope of this report, the following steps are
recommended when avalanche protection is required.
5.1 HAZARD ASSESSMENT. If the building site is in the Blue
Zone, structural mitigation is generally feasible because the
probability of avalanches is small and the avalanche forces can
be accommodated in design. The avalanche velocity and energy
(impact - pressure potential) must be determined at the proposed
construction site.in order for engineered design to proceed.
5.2 AVALANCHE - MITIGATION OPTIONS. Many engineered avalanche -
mitigation "avalanche- control" options are generally available,
however, only those forms most likely to be useful on this
property are discussed here.
I
j a. Direct Protection. This involved reinforcing
buildings for avalanche impact and deposition loads.
Specially- shaped buildings that tend to deflect snow
r , laterally or vertically are most practical and can be
used when several closely- spaced buildings must be
protected. Large, flat surfaces directly exposed to
J the avalanche flow are undesirable because avalanche
J interaction generates large forces on such surfaces.
Building shapes commonly used include splitting wedges
and ramp roofs, both designs making use of the fact
that avalanches generate reduced forces when deflected
through small angles. Direct protection is generally
considered to be the most reliable avalanche-protection
measure (with the exception of .avoidance) because it
provides complete protection inside the buildings.
This is probably the most common form of structural
protection used in the United States.
b. Earthen deflectors and energy dissipators. Earthen
structures are useful when sufficient room is available
to deflect snow. Design must ensure structures are
sufficiently high to prevent avalanche overtopping, are
•� stable against avalanche forces, and do not deflect
snow such that a hazard is created elsewhere. Large
earthen structures are very useful in locations where
avalanches can be deflected laterally and a large area
can be made hazard free. They are particularly useful
on alluvial fans.
Regardless of the avalanche- mitigation procedures used, current
design requires careful site - specific study that defines
avalanche velocity, energy, flow dimensions, and depositional
effects.
w 6
I EXHIBIT 6 BANNER
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6 ARCHITECTS
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
-� 2777 Crossroads Boulevard
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
(303) 243 -2242
FAX (303)243 -3810
605 East Main, Suite 6
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925.5857
dM April 23, 1990
Ray Patch
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
113 Atlantic Avenue
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear Ray:
As we discussed, we are presently completing our application
for conceptual submission. The project will be an employee
housing development with seven free market units and sixteen
employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this
project is a start -up date in the fall of 1990 or the spring of
1991
We will contact you again pending conceptual submission
approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need
any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or
Bob Daniel.
Sincerely,
(A�v'
Libby . Cowling
Desi Engineer
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group
LJC /clk
ws /d10 /8203util.rmg
1
This is
written in confirmation of our discussion
regarding
natural gas
service for the
subject project. There is
a 411 gas
line which runs
through the
south side of Ute Avenue,
adjacent to
the proposed
development.
We anticipate providing gas
service to
this project
by tying into
this existing gas line. According
to
Mike, your locator,
gas service
this 4t1
to this development.
line should be adequate to
provide
As we discussed, we are presently completing our application
for conceptual submission. The project will be an employee
housing development with seven free market units and sixteen
employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this
project is a start -up date in the fall of 1990 or the spring of
1991
We will contact you again pending conceptual submission
approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need
any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or
Bob Daniel.
Sincerely,
(A�v'
Libby . Cowling
Desi Engineer
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group
LJC /clk
ws /d10 /8203util.rmg
1
EXHIBIT 7 BANNER
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6 ARCHITECTS
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
2777 Crossroads Boulevard
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
(303) 243.2242
FAX (303)243.3810
605 East Main, Suite 6
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -5857
April 23, 1990
Alex Kiess
Holy Cross Electric Association
P.O. Drawer 2150
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602
RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear Alex:
This is written in confirmation of our discussion regarding
primary electric service for the subject project. There is a
HCEA vault located on the south side of Ute Avenue on the subject
parcel. A tie into this vault will enable a line to be run and
transformers set on the project, thereby providing adequate
electrical service for the proposed development.
As we discussed, we are presently completing our application
for conceptual submission. The project will be an employee
housing development with seven free market units and sixteen
employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this
project is a start -up date in the fall of 1990 or the spring of
1991•
lie will contact you again pending conceptual submission
approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need
any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or
Bob Daniel.
Sincerely,
�
Libby Cowling
Desig Engineer
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group
Cc: Jeff Franke, HCEA
LJC /clk
ws /d10 /8203util.hce
[71
1.
1
i I
i
1
MIBIT 8 BANNER
CONSULTING ENGINEERS V. ARCHITECTS
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
2777 Crossroads Boulevard
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
(303) 243 -2242
_ FAX(303)243 -3810
605 East Main, Suite 6
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 9255857
April 23, 1990
Wayne Johnson
U.S. West Communications
P.O. Box 220
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602
RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
ASPEN, COLORADO
Dear Wayne:
This is written in confirmation of our
telephone service for the subject.project.
pedestal approximately 250 feet to the west
Ute Avenue. This pedestal will provide a t
line can be run, thereby providing adequate
proposed development.
discussion regarding
There is a U.S. West
on the south side of
ie onto which a new
phone service for the
As we discussed, we are presently completing our application
for conceptual submission. The project will be an employee
housing development with seven free market units and sixteen
employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this
project is a start -up date of the fall of 1990 or spring of 1991.
We will contact you again pending conceptual submission
approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need
any additional information, please feel free'to contact myself or
Bob Daniel.
Sincerely,
Libby Cowling
Proje Engineer
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: Tom Stevens; The Stevens Group
LJC /clk
ws /d10 /8203util.usw
U
t
t
1 . -
t
EXHIBIT 9 BANNER
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6 ARCHITECTS
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
2777 Crossroads Boulevard
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
(303) 243 -2242
FAX (303)243 -3810
605 East Main, Suite 6
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -5857
April 23, 1990
Mark Campbell
Canyon Cable TV
201 AABC
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear Mark:
. This is written in confirmation of our discussion regarding
cable television service for the subject project. There is a
Canyon Cable pedestal approximately 400 feet to the west on the
south side of Ute Avenue. This pedestal will serve as a tie onto
which a new line can be run, thereby providing adequate TV
service for the proposed development.
As we discussed, we are presently completing our application
for conceptual submission. The project will be an employee
housing development with seven free market units and sixteen
employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this
project is a start -up date in the fall of 1990 or the spring of
1991.
We will contact you again pending conceptual submission
approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need
any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or
Bob Daniel.
Sincerely, �Q
Libby . Cowling
Desi Engineer
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: Tom Stevens,
LJC /clk
ws /d10 /8203util.cc
The Stevens Group
I EXHIBIT 10 BANNER
` April 23, 1990
Jim Markalunas
City of Aspen Water Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear Jim:
® We are presently completing our application for conceptual
submission on the subject project. The project will be an
employee housing development with seven free market units and
sixteen employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on
this project is a start -up date of fall, 1990 or spring, 1991.
As I discussed with John McDermott on Wednesday, April 18,
there is in place a looped water line running through. Ute Avenue
directly adjacent to the subject parcel. This is a 1211 line
reduced to 8t1 half way down this project. We anticipate tying
into this line with an 811 DIP looped line to provide adequate
water to this development.
We will contact you again pending conceptual submission
approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need
any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or
Bob Daniel.
Sincerely,
' Libby Cowling
Proje Engineer
_ BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: Tom Stevens; The Stevens Group
LJC /clk
ws /d10 /8203util.h2o
1
1
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6 ARCHITECTS
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
2777 Crossroads Boulevard
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
(303) 243 -2242
FAX (303)243 -3810
605 East Main, Suite 6
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -5857
` April 23, 1990
Jim Markalunas
City of Aspen Water Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear Jim:
® We are presently completing our application for conceptual
submission on the subject project. The project will be an
employee housing development with seven free market units and
sixteen employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on
this project is a start -up date of fall, 1990 or spring, 1991.
As I discussed with John McDermott on Wednesday, April 18,
there is in place a looped water line running through. Ute Avenue
directly adjacent to the subject parcel. This is a 1211 line
reduced to 8t1 half way down this project. We anticipate tying
into this line with an 811 DIP looped line to provide adequate
water to this development.
We will contact you again pending conceptual submission
approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need
any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or
Bob Daniel.
Sincerely,
' Libby Cowling
Proje Engineer
_ BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: Tom Stevens; The Stevens Group
LJC /clk
ws /d10 /8203util.h2o
1
1
j
EXHIBIT 11
BANNER
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6 ARCHITECTS
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
2777 Crossroads Boulevard
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
(303) 243 -2242
- FAX (303)243 -3810
605 East Main, Suite 6
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 9255857
April 23, 1990
Tom Bracewell
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 N. Mill Street
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear Tom:
This is written in confirmation of
our discussion regarding
sanitary sewer service for the subject
project. There is a 1011
sanitary sewer line directly to the north
of the project in the
entrance road to the Benedict Building.
We anticipate tying into
this existing line with an 811 line running
up Ute Avenue
approximately 280 feet to a new manhole,
then turning south, with
the new line placed so as to adequately
serve all the proposed
buildings in this development.
As we discussed, we are presently
completing our application
for conceptual submission. The project
will.be an employee
housing development with seven free market
units and sixteen
employee housing apartments. The projected
timeline on this
project is a start -up date in the fall
of 1990 or the spring of
1991.
We.will contact you again pending
conceptual submission
approval, prior to preparing our final
design. Should you need
any additional information, please feel
free to contact myself or
Bob Daniel.
Sincerely,
'I
Libby 0�*Yngin,er wling
Desig
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc:. Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group
LJC /clk
ws /d10 /8203util.ss
EXHIBIT 12
I= Y_1►1t1"'ki
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Prepared For:
Jim Martin
Ute Park Partnership
215 S. Monarch Suite G -101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Prepared By:
Banner Associates, Inc.
605 E. Main'St. Suite 6
Aspen, Colorado 81611
April, 1990
BANNER
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The proposed Ute Park Subdivision is located at the eastern end
of Ute Avenue. Immediately to the north of the proposed
subdivision lies the Aspen Club Building and the Callahan
Subdivision, as well as a portion of the Ute Children's Park.
Access to the site is via existing Ute Avenue along the northern
property line which is an approximately twenty two foot (221)
wide roadway which turns into a gravel roadway approximately
three hundred and fifty feet (3501) from the northwest property
corner. There is a sixty foot (601) wide non - exclusive easement
and right -of -way which extends along the northern boundary of the
parcel to serve this parcel, Lots 15 and 16 of the Callahan
Subdivision and the rear of the Aspen Club Building. Each of
these described characteristics of the parcel are shown in
Exhibit One - "Existing Conditions, Topographic Survey."
The proposed project consists of sixteen (16) employee housing
units and seven (7) free market units. The employee housing
units are clustered toward the eastern half of the parcel, while
the free market units are situated in the middle portion of the
site. Parking will be provided for both clusters below grade in
a structural garage that will be a part of the construction for
the units. Additionally, surface parking will be provided for
visitors and guests. The parking provided will conform to the
requirements of the City of Aspen zoning regulations.
e BANNER
The total average daily traffic (ADT) calculated for this project
is 135 vehicles per day (VPD). The estimated peak hourly trip
generation associated - with this project is estimated to be
thirteen (13) vehicles per hour (VPH). This calculation is based
upon the data shown in Exhibit Two - "Traffic Generation
Analysis." Again, these ADT's were calculated using the project
information and the referenced ITE data.
The existing section of Ute Avenue has driving lanes
In terms of specific traffic generated by this site,
this
study
type of
has been performed to analyze the existing road
conditions
and
the proposed section of roadway along the northern
property
line.
•
The vehicle trips generated in this report are based
upon
data
from the Fourth Edition of the "Institute of
Transportation
relative
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual" published
in 1987.
This
as other documents pertaining to previous transportation
manual was prepared based upon sample data from
specific
land
"the
uses, classified according to zoning.
estimated capacity of the intersection is in the range of
1300 to
The total average daily traffic (ADT) calculated for this project
is 135 vehicles per day (VPD). The estimated peak hourly trip
generation associated - with this project is estimated to be
thirteen (13) vehicles per hour (VPH). This calculation is based
upon the data shown in Exhibit Two - "Traffic Generation
Analysis." Again, these ADT's were calculated using the project
information and the referenced ITE data.
The existing section of Ute Avenue has driving lanes
of
approximately eleven feet (111). The capacity of this
type of
roadway is characteristically 1,000 VPD. Since access
to this
project is from the Durant Street and Original
Street
intersection, consideration in this study should be the
capacity
•
of this intersection. According to review of literature
relative
to the "Transit and Transportation Plan" for this area,
as well
as other documents pertaining to previous transportation
studies
jalong
the Ute Avenue corridor, it has been documented that
"the
estimated capacity of the intersection is in the range of
1300 to
2
BANNER
1400 VPH." The current traffic flows in the area are estimated
to be approximately 500 VPH on the Durant Street section, and
approximately 200 VPH on the Ute Avenue section. These
estimates, coupled with the minimal addition of the peak VPH
created by this project, show there is adequate capacity on the
existing roadways and intersections to support this project.
A predominate amount of traffic in this development is
theoretically generated by the sixteen (16) employee units. As a
part of this study, it is necessary to look at the practical
implications of these units relative to vehicular transportation.
The approximately 5.8 ADT's generated by a typical residential
condominium should be reduced in a study of this development, due
to the proximity of the project to the central core of Aspen.
This should prove true for the employee housing units by the very
nature of the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority guidelines,
which specify the qualifications required to live in an employee
housing project. Given the current parking restrictions within
the City of Aspen, this project is approximately as close to the
central core as the non - restrictive parking spaces. Therefore,
it is reasonable to adjust the ADT's generated by the employee
housing units by two trips per day to account for the practical
assumption that employees will often walk or ride a bicycle to
and from work. The two trips is based upon the ITE definition
for a trip being "a single or one direction vehicle movement
with either the origin or destination being inside the study
3
BANNER
site."
The adjustment is shown in Exhibit Three, "Adjusted
Traffic
Generation Analysis," for the employee housing units.
It is
proposed as a part of this development to carry the
1
existing
section width of Ute Avenue along the northern portion
of the
project. This will provide an improved, hard surface road
to the
eastern limits of the project. Additionally, the existing
sixty
foot (601) right -of -way will remain in place should there
be a need
for road improvements in the future.
In conclusion,
the following points should be reiterated:
1)
Given the proximity of the project to the central core
area, and the nearly seventy percent (70 %) employee
housing ratio, this project will provide a large auto
1
disincentive to its full time residents.
2)
The traffic generated by this project will not push the
beyond their
existing access routes capacity.
3)
The proposed development will pave a currently
unimproved roadway to match the existing section west
of the project.
4)
The existing sixty foot (601) right -of -way will remain
in place should there be a need for future
improvements. _
4
nn co
z
z 0
O Ln
? -�o
cD Z5
0
<
< C c—,
0
V
�E HILT I- EXISTING
CONDITIONS, TOPO
SURVEY
F. _7 Rt F
%5,9
-L PINE- 2
UNUERMOU MU E MO*i
,,
U
nn co
z
z 0
O Ln
? -�o
cD Z5
0
<
< C c—,
0
V
�E HILT I- EXISTING
CONDITIONS, TOPO
SURVEY
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1•
1
1
1
1
BANNER
EXHIBIT TWO
TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
Description
Number
ITE
ADT/
Total
of ,Units
of Units
Designation
Unit
ADT
Free Market
(peak) =
== (peak)
Condominimums
7
230
5.86
41.02
Employee Housing
7
230
.561
3.93
Condominiums
16
230
5.86
93:76
TOTAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATED
134.78
Description
Number
-------------------
ITE
VPH/
Total
of Units
of Units
Designation
Unit
VPH
(peak) =
== (peak)
Free Market
Condominiums
7
230
.561
3.93
Employee Housing
Condominiums
16
230
.561
8.97
TOTAL ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR VOLUME (VEHICLES) 12.90
EXHIBIT THREE
ADJUSTED TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
BANNED
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Description
Number
ITE
ADT/
Total
of Units
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
of Units
Designation
Unit
ADT
Free Market
(peak)
Free Market
Condominimums
7
230
5.86
41.02
Employee Housing
Condominiums
Condominiums
16
230
3.86*
61.76
TOTAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATED 102.78
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Description
Number
ITE VPH/
Total
of Units
of Units
Designation Unit
VPH
---------------------------------------------------------
(peak)
(peak)
Free Market
Condominiums
7
230 .561
3.93
Employee Housing
Condominiums
16
230 .369 **
5.90
TOTAL ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR VOLUME (VEHICLES)
9.83
* Based upon
the assumptive reduction of two trips per day
generated by
the employee
housing condominiums.
** Based upon a
ratio of the
assumptive reduction of two
trips
per day generated by the
employee housing condominiums and
the given peak VPH.