HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1010 Ute Ave.49B86-87CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET x737- /8a- oO- o�/St
City of Aspen • - x-737- i8a- oo - 07.?
� :�7-
P TE RECEIVED: �3Is'%'7 CASE N
`6ATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: STAFF: G
PROJECT NAME: /O /O GLte A v er7 u e
NPPL ICANT - 2 W 2 ey 640 m co `S
Applicant Address/ /Phone: 13 9 S- 53
REPRESENTATIVE:
Representative Address /Phone : 3/S E. A�/ y Sac t e .3oS 5 -,F/6�
Type of Application:
I. GMP /Subdivision /PUD
I . Conceptual -Submission -20
2. Preliminary Plat. 12-!
3. Final Plat 6
II. Subdivision /PUD
1. Conceptual Submission-- "14- -
2. Preliminary Plat 9
3. Final Plat 6
III. All "Two Step" Applications
IV. All "One Step" Applications
V.
Referral Fees - Environmental
Health, Housing Office
1. Minor Applications
2. Major Applications
Referral Fees -
,Engineering
Minor Applications
Major Applications
11
5
2
$2,730.00
1,640.00
820 .00
$1,900.00
1,220.00
820 .00
$1,490.00
$ 50.00
$ 125.00
80.00
200 .00°
P &Z CC MEETING DATE: / 1 YES NO
PUBLIC HEARING: Y NO
DATE REFERRED! ril�il; /,I� ,/tL1 TN ITIALS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS: ` /
City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District
City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Dir. ✓ Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
Aspen water Holy Cross Electric State Ilwy Dept (Gr. Jtn)
City Electric_ ✓ Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning /Inspectn
Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other:��
Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center
?INAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: "0"1 INITIAL:v
City Atty City Enigi neer BuiI di ng. Dept _
Other ( Other- �o f1 C) moo`^' �
FILE STATUS A14D LOCATION:' -S Q C mot`"( C y�'r�
s• •s
Caseload Disposition for 1010 Ute Avenue preliminary plat /PUD
Planner Glenn Horn
The preliminary pplat was approved with a series of conditions.
the conditions are not relevant because they were all incorporat-
ed into the final plat and appear in that file.
THE GANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
610 W. END ST.
P.O. BOX @ IE OWE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 D
(303) 925 -5000
April 20, 1987 1 AR 2 1 M
Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 1010 Ute Avenue Development
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have recently reviewed the various walking /biking
trail options (A, B, and C) for the 1010 Ute Avenue
development with Lowe Development Corporation and Skip
Behrhorst. We still support the alignment of the walking/
biking trail along its present path down Ute Avenue and
beside Ute Park to the Bennedict buildin , then north along
the river to the proposed Gordon bridge option A), for the
various reasons which were expressed in our letter to Mr.
Steve Berstein dated November 19, 1986 (copy attached).
With regard to options B and C, it is difficult for us'
to understand why three residential subdivisions should be
separated by a walking /bike path. A bike path through
residential back yards does not seem to be pleasing
aesthetically, and I am certain that you would not appreciate
this lack of privacy. There have been numerous incidents of
motorcycles using the trails in our area. One can adopt
regulations to discourage that, but absent effective
enforcement it appears bike trails are in fact misused - -with
noise and privacy problems for neighbors. Further, by
creating a bike path through these residential areas, Gant's
eastern most pool would be exposed to view by anyone wanting
to swim and the risks inherent therein. This pool is
currently only fenced along the area where it abuts
Calderwood subdivision, and even if it is fenced due east
past the G building, it is only as safe as someone's lack of
determination to enter the area. The pool has no lifeguard.
Knowing the foregoing. I question whether you would want
your small children using this path.
Between options B and C, the latter is obviously better,
due to the additional space, landscaping, and mounding
created between the end of the G building and the eastern
most swimming pool and the bike trail. In preparation for
your meeting on Tuesday, April 21, 1987, we have been working
with Lowe Development to satisfy our concerns. I have
Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 1987
Page 2
included a copy of sheet 10b prepared by Sutherland Fallin,
Inc., dated April 10, 1987 titled Addendum to Trail Option C
which is substantially acceptable to us. If you approve
option C, we request that you make the newest amendments to
option C a condition-of your approval.
In summary, our preference is still for option A which
is safer and has less potential for inherent liability.
Thank you for considering our request.
Very truly jyours,
c lewh 3 J Ct8
/JNM
Glenn B. Jeffers, President
cc: J. Nicholas McGrath, Esq.
Mr. George W. Bartlett
gangj415.ltr
C'
THE GANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
610 W. END ST.
P.O. BOX K -3
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925 -5000
November 19, 1986
Mr. Steve Berstein
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Berstein:
The Board of Directors of The Gant Condominium Association,
Inc. have recently had the opportunity to review both the bike
and Nordic trail alignments for the conceptual plan of the
1010 Ute Avenue development. We felt that it was important to
notify you in writing as to the position of this Board, repre-
senting the Gant owners, regarding these two plans..
We strongly object to any alignment of a bike /Nordic trail
through the 1010 Ute Avenue development from Ute Avenue to the
Roaring Fork River. We do favor the alignment of this pro-
posed trail extension along Ute Park from the existing bike
path at the Benedict Building and along the river to the
proposed Gordon Bridge.
We feel that the alignment from Ute park is far superior to
any trail alignment through the 1010 Ute Avenue development
for the following reasons:
1. There is already an existing bike path adjacent to
The Gant which serves The Gant and the neighborhood
very adequately.
2. Any bike trail through the 1010 Ute Avenue develop-
ment to the river would conflict with the neighbor-
hood backyards and privacy of The Gant and Calderwood
Subdivision. There continues to be an increased
security problem in Aspen, and to encourage easier
public access and traffic through the middle of pri-
vate property is inviting additional security prob-
lems for us and others.
Mr. Steve Burstein
November 19, 1986
Page Two
3. There is greater public benefit of the Ute Park
alignment because the trail goes by and through a
public park and down along the river.
4. The Ute Park trail alignment is a more logical -
connection with the existing and expanded Nordic
trail system.
5. The Ute Park alignment meets the objectives of the
July 1985, Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/
Recreation /Open Space /Trail Element.
6. The developer's willingness to pay for the cost of
the new trail bed along Ute Park and along the river
to the proposed bridge saves the City money which
they can spend elsewhere for construction of new
trails or acquiring additional rights -of -way.
7. The Ute Park trail alignment along the park and river
is a greater expression of the open space concept,
and a far superior experience for the pedestrian,
biker, fisherman and Nordic skier.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the plan, and hope
that you and the public reviewing bodies will seriously
consider the points we have made in this letter.
Sincerely,
The Gant Condominium Associates, inc.
By:
Glenn B. Jeffers, President
GBJ /bn
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director
RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision PUD /Preliminary Plat
DATE: April 21, 1987
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Lowe Development Construction Corporation, Skip
Behrhorst.
LOCATION: Northside of Ute Avenue, just east of the Gant
Condominiums, west of Ute Cemetery and south of Roaring Fork
River.
ZONING: R -15 PUD.
SIZE: 7.6 acres, 332,880 square feet.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision /PUD- Preliminary Plat, 8040
Gre�enline, Stream Margin Review. .
PAST ACTIONS
In February, the City Council granted the 1010 Ute Avenue
Subdivision Conceptual Subdivision /PUD approval and an allocation
for 16 free market residential dwelling units. Several condi-
tions were associated with the conceptual approval which the
applicant was required to address as part of the preliminary plat
review. The applicant has addressed all of the conditions which
are discussed in this memorandum. We also provide you with an
evaluation of the preliminary plat submission based upon Muni-
cipal Code criteria.
When the Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z) reviewed the
conceptual submission, 8040 Greenline and Stream Margin Reviews,
were postponed until the preliminary plat review, and so these
are also reviewed herein.
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE
Sections 20 -11 (Preliminary Plat - Procedures) and 20 -12 (Prelim-
inary Plat - Contents) establish the procedure and contents of
the preliminary plat review. Because the 1010 property is a
mandatory PUD, Section 24 -8.9 of the Land Use Code is also
applicable to the review. Architecture, landscaping and design
features are considerations based upon this section of the Code.
Additionally, slope density reduction must 'be calculated based
upon Section 24 -8.18.
Due to the location of the subject property in proximity to the
Roaring Fork River and the 8040 elevation line, the application
is required to address code sections 24 -6.2 (8040 Greenline
Review) and 24 -6.3 (Stream Margin Review).
REFERRAL COMMENTS
Engineering Department - Major concerns stated in Jay Hammond's
April 10, 1987 memorandum include:
1) Preliminary approval should be conditioned upon:
a. Submission of final plat in conformance with
Section 20 -15.
b. Inclusion of drawing index on final plat.
C. Note on final plat indicating roadway with a
public utility easement.
d. Notations on final utility plan, to indicate that
where water and sewer lines cross, separation
shall be maintained or lines will be encased per
city standards.
e. The final grading plan should more clearly define
the limits of cut and fill areas within the
development.
2) Review of the proposed- grading plan for the proposed
trail linking Ute Avenue to the nordic trail above the
park site with final plan submission.
3) The stream margin review
continued involvement b,
Engineer and adherence
particularly regarding
temporary protection of
ditch and river.
approval should be subject to
Chen Associates or another
to Chen's recommendations,
construction techniques and
natural slopes, the Wheeler,
4) The Engineer also recommends that the applicant
guarantee the completion of utility /road /trail and
landscaping improvements to Ute Avenue in the form of a
cash escrow with the City or a bank in accordance with
Section 20- 16.(C). The guarantee should be negotiated
with the City Engineer and Attorney as part of the
subdivision improvements agreement.
2
Water Department - The replacement and relocation of fire hydrant
#742 on Ute Avenue is to be coordinated in the field between the
developer and water department. A new mueller fire hydrant is
recommended.
Parks Department - Parks Superintendent, Bill Ness, comments that
the Parks Department prefers trail option C because it is the
best trail alignment to the proposed pedestrian bridge.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS
Ms. Valerie Richter, Gant Condominium owner, comments in the
attached letter that she would like to preserve the views from
the Gant of the west meadow. She is particularly concerned about
visual impacts of buildings located on lots two and three.
PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS
Stream Margin Review
As :requested by the staff, the applicant has provided us with a
letter from a professional engineer attesting to the fact that
construction will not interfere with the 100 year floodplain of
the Roaring Fork River. The City Engineer has also reviewed the
application and recommends approval of the Stream Margin Review.
The Planning Office recommends approval of the stream margin
review.
8040 Greenline Review
The Code requires the City to review all development within 50
years of the 8040 elevation line. Lot 1 of the Hoag Subdivision,
a portion of this application, is proposed to be dedicated to the
City as a public park. A parking lot, which constitutes develop-
ment., is proposed to be constructed in the proposed park within
50 yards of the 8040 contour line. Consequently, the 8040
greenline review is required.
During the conceptual plan review, a representative of the
property owner just to the east of the proposed park, objected to
the location of the proposed parking lot adjacent to the east
\� property line. At the time, City Council determined that the
design of the proposed park should be addressed during the 8040
\0 greenline review. The landscaping plan shows that the parking
lot has been relocated twenty -feet from the property line, bermed
and landscaped. On Wednesday of last week, Skip Behrhorst told
us that he- -had met with representatives of the adjacent landowner
and agreed to relocate the parking lot another 10 feet to the
west. This conversation has not been confirmed by the adjacent
property owners representatives, but it is anticipated that they
will be in attendance at your meeting.
3
0 * 00
The Planning Office has no problems with the 8.040 Greenline
Review request and recommends approval.
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
The Preliminary Subdivision Plat satisfies section 20 -17 of the
Land Use Code. Minor changes in accordance with the City
Engineer's comments should be made prior to final plan submis-
sion.
a
N
liminary PUD Plan
Architectural /Review /Design
Since the 1010 Subdivision will be��(
developer does not intend to build`'thE
land subdivision, the
residences, However,
the application contains architectural covenants and a
proposal for a design committee to guide the construc-
tion of houses. The staff has reviewed the proposed AYT- -,
covenants and find them to be comprehensive and adequate to Cameo --5
meet the City's PUD requirements. The covenants address
site plans, floor plans, exterior elevation, cross- sections,
color samples, exterior lighting, landscaping and grading,
and will be presented in detail at your meeting.
Landscaping Plan
Section 24 -8.16 requires the applicant to submit a land-
scaping plan. The proposed landscaping plan seeks to
preserve as much existing vegetation as possible and enhance
the attractiveness of the site with some new vegetation
particularly adjacent to the Gant, and the construction of
three ponds. The landscaping is scheduled to occur over a
period of two years. It is anticipated that additional
landscaping will occur on individual lots as they are
developed. In our opinion, the landscaping plan is more
than adequate and if implemented will be very attractive.
Certain aspects of the landscaping and improvements plan
affects the public. The staff recommends that a guarantee
be negotiated as part of the subdivision agreement to insure
that improvements to public areas such as landscaping on Ute
Avenue, trail and Mtility location, Ute Avenue recon-
struction and narks improve t occur in a timely manner,
and that financial resources are available to the public to
complete the improvements in the unlikely event that the
project should be unable to do so.
C. Development Schedule
All improvements are anticipated to be completed during the
summer of 1987 and 1988 with the exception of the actual
construction of residences. Pursuant to the applicant's GMP
�(.Aa _k-
C) -p
"re
AJe.
f"bl .L
\ ex 1"
allocation, the residences must be under building permit
review within 33 months of the original -GMP submission date
corresponding to September 1., 1989, unless an extension is
granted by Council at that time. 5 e y_ X1,'1
Outstanding Issues /Conditions From Past Approval G�e-
a. Trails
The applicant was required to return at preliminary plat
submission with three trail options for the proposed trail
which will link Ute Avenue to the proposed pedestrian bridge
over the Roaring Fork River. Three options have been
prepared and are attached for your review. The applicant
has committed to provide a trail easement for trail. options
B,C or D in lieu of constructing trail option A on City
property. It is the staff position that the acquisition of
trail easements across private property are more valuable to
the City than commitments to construct trails on City K�
property. The City may budget to build trail option A at fy -•1
any point in the future, however, after the 1010 Subdivision C--
is approved, the City will permanently lose their oppoi
tunity to provide a trail easement at no cost across the
subdivision. \
In evaluating trail options B, C and D, the staff has
considered the potential trail experience and privacy for
subdivision residents and neighbors. Based upon these
considerations, the staff believes that trail option C is
the best trail alignment.
b.
City Raw Water Use Agreement
The applicant has finalized a raw water use agreement with
the City of Aspen for use of irrigation water from the
Wheeler Ditch, consistent with City Council's condition of
'
approval.
C.
Building Envelopes /Bedroom Counts
Building Improvement Envelopes have been specified as
requested. Bedroom counts were requested in order to
determine park dedication fees. Since the proposal is to
55
subdivide lots and not build houses, it is difficult to
estimate the proposed number of bedrooms. -The park dedica-
Qv� \�j,
tion fee is calculated based upon a maximum of four bedrooms
c.
per residence. The applicant proposes to pay the maximum
fee conditioned upon the City refunding fees in the event
that less than four bedrooms per unit are built.
5
• . • •
Lots 13,14 and 15
The applicant has prepared an elevation drawing of roof
heights on Lots 13, 14 and 15 from the perspective of the
east side of the Roaring Fork River. The purpose of the
drawing is to demonstrate the visual impact on the east
ridge of the site. At conceptual submission, it was the
staff opinion that Lots 13, 14 and 15 should be relocated to
the west side of the east ridge. The P &Z and City Council
did not concur with our position. Instead, the applicant
was asked to prepare and present east elevation perspect-
ives.
Although we continue to believe that no building should be
located on the east side of the ridge and that the drawings
indicate the negative visual impact of the structures, we
recognize that, at least conceptually, you do not concur
with our findings. The applicant has committed to restrict
the building heights of Lots 13, 14 and 15 to 12 feet above
the ridgeline. Unless your feelings about the development
have changed, we find this representation to be consistent
with the condition established by P &Z and the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office recommends approval of Preliminary Plat and
PUD Subdivision, 8040 Greenline, and Stream Margin Review subject
to the following conditions: k 0
1) A subdivision /,PUD agreement shall be submitted in conjunc-
tion with the -final plat submission. The agreement shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney, City Engineer and Planning
Office prior to final plat presentation to City Council.
The agreement shall include the following provisions:
5 0 0.7r
ex'
a. An open space and common facilities agreement in
accordance with Section 24 -8.19.
b. commitment to join all improvement districts affecting
subj ect property,,,. � <�\ TN%e e kcY P -�v — - F �.��l� c .� f,
r .r r ° 15' 'Pr,9,r a S c4 y-4 C , " C o •n rC : 1 YL e-g o \� r" LO A I.
C. Necessary documents to-convey open space to the City of
Aspen.
d. Employee housing restrictions consistent with concep-
tual subdivision approval.
e. Commitment that representatives made during conceptual
and preliminary plan submissions will be adhered to.
f. Commitment to adhere to recommendations of `Chen
Associates regarding construction techniques and
M
oSL� Q 51 c..(J uA( a'(`r C4-5 5 1 `j J .x..4,1
'Y\ 4-,\ C' ( A �.c 'A � �rl 0
temporary protection of natural slopes, the Wheeler
p ditch and river.
g. A guarantee for the completion of utility /road /trail
° ��`� and landscaping improvements to Ute Avenue in the form
V V of cash escrow or bank bond or other alternative in
S
Q accordance with Section 20-16(c).
J
,r
W a
Or
S a
J
U �.
v
383 �.
V �
a �
� � Y
V V
h. Architectural covenants as proposed in submission.
i. Commitment to submit working drawings of water system
to Water Department for approval prior to construction. ,0/ 'A\
j . Commitment to replace and relocate to the satisfaction/
of the Fire Marshall existing fire hydrant #749 prior
to the issuance of a rmit i
house in the subdivision e_( ` «tc �1= �cc.�,��r,�� ��� �e
k. Commitment to develop air pollution control plan to
mitigate construction impacts shall be approved by
Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
1.
M.
Rew
2) The
the
a.
b
d.
e.
Commitment that all buildings comply with Ordinance 86-
5 regarding solid fuel burning devices.
Commitment to comply with noise abatement Ordinance 81-
12.
Commitment that in the event mine tailings are uncov-
ered during excavation, the applicant shall have the
soil tested for toxicity and the tests will be reviewed
by Environmental Health prior to removal of any soil
from the site.
\�v
IN
final plat shall be'in the following form and /or inclue J,Ve(
following information:
Dedication of trail option C to the City of Asper�t�
wScGo d l'�'f�J�i�'
Of IMe- iovroiJn ���aKt C.l�`^ -�Jl�� f��kT 'f' S1-t
Note restricting building heights on lots 13,14 and 15
to 12 feet above east ridge.
Preparation of plan in accordance with Section 20 -15.
Drawing Index on first page.
Note indicating that Ute Circle is a private roadway
with public utility easements.
Note on final utility plan to indicate that locations
where water and sewer lines cross separation shall be
7
f.
Commitment that all buildings comply with Ordinance 86-
5 regarding solid fuel burning devices.
Commitment to comply with noise abatement Ordinance 81-
12.
Commitment that in the event mine tailings are uncov-
ered during excavation, the applicant shall have the
soil tested for toxicity and the tests will be reviewed
by Environmental Health prior to removal of any soil
from the site.
\�v
IN
final plat shall be'in the following form and /or inclue J,Ve(
following information:
Dedication of trail option C to the City of Asper�t�
wScGo d l'�'f�J�i�'
Of IMe- iovroiJn ���aKt C.l�`^ -�Jl�� f��kT 'f' S1-t
Note restricting building heights on lots 13,14 and 15
to 12 feet above east ridge.
Preparation of plan in accordance with Section 20 -15.
Drawing Index on first page.
Note indicating that Ute Circle is a private roadway
with public utility easements.
Note on final utility plan to indicate that locations
where water and sewer lines cross separation shall be
7
maintained or be encased per City standards.
g. A final grading plan which shall more clearly define
the limits of cut and fill areas within the develop-
ment.
h. A more precise grading plan for the proposed trail
linking Ute Avenue to the Nordic Trail above the park
site on Ute Avenue.
3) In preparing for final plan submission, the applicant shall
adhere to the provisions of Section 24 -8.12 of the Code.
GH.1010
;r t"
V, v :
P y\ Z3
' �' /.Y, .i ' ;' - \\ '�_ •.i ��'� Lit
' J
r; SAW
r.' ;,' � _ - ` ___ --__ � •``\ `_�__ � \ �.. m ```�\ \ \!1-- l';i:` 1. _' 'v
Z
1� N .._o
ROA N -,
/j
s •
I1i�1 ni PRELIMINARY PU.D.JBUBDIVISION
b ►:I' 1010 UTE AVENUE Sutherland �^- �. °:;a......•°�°,...° .�
ASPEN. COLORADO i,,, .r. •.c cr :arooe .wowna..t
O O O
y � _
m
y n 1 A
z � ! O 1 2
O i 2 I j•
i I
p ;o
A r Q O
0
m i n 0
5
i O O z
N y
is
7 Y
I. r
! Y O �.. \Yq410
m
Oj o o F
Z O Z i z O Or
o z Z i
Ch
Z ; I;
;Cl) I
L
PRELIMINARY P.UD./SUBDIVISION
g'
. A
.
��_
a.w [rr[[p� ww[o aaoo. rnn, c
X010 UTE AVENUE •
f
`
_��
ASVEN, COLORADO ."r[["ra Mc"rlet]M1[O�[[o0[ YfOCY1tf.R
Elm
im
tee
;
V "f
'3� f o
Zp
IL
+ q$
8 N ROARING
a
4
o`
A
i"
%
f
[ j
i,1
PRELIMINARY P.U.D./ SUBDIVISION
UTE AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO
'
PRELIMINARY PU.D./SUBDIVISION oe.no.e" ""u'i co.ro"•tO ,�
... »~
UTE AVENUE K.
O
E `S
;1010
. GA tw0"1[!q: Kww111M11 00"OW Y[�0,
ASPEN. COLORADO — fall �' �•—T_~
a.wu..e ..c+neer:"ewoa .aocunMre
• —'
j j
PRELIMINARY PU D. /SUBDIVISION
!'
`?
1010 UTE AVENUE . �•- •--- •..:.•- ..•.•..�
ASPEN. COLORADO i..,�..• ..�w.
�c.. •[w.x� .ssocu�m�wc.
! 1�
d/ , � _ _ app• " � -- "
IJ
c'f v o-J d Rv
8 ..... NR O A R I N G
%:
1
PRELIMINARY P.U.D./SUBDIVISION
1010 UTE AVENUE
E Ne�
ASPEN. COLORADO
MEMORANDUM
T C, Glen Horn., Planning Cif f ice
FR(--,M.- Dill Ness. Pa-1-•1's Superintendent
E11,11 T E: f -, r i1 6, 1 9,'_3 71
RE 10 10 Ut& Subdivision /PUD Preliminary Plat
After" vie vnnf -all trail options I believe Option.'(='tf) be my first. choice. I feel
this rnak_-�_:lcs the most st�.ns-A_ and Cr:?at,,_-s the best trail bv aiving the
public a rnore logical approach U) the pr0pose-d bridge. Option 'A' has. the
interruption of .-foinrf around the proposed Ute )ubdivision and riot beirv,--, a
Ver— s i
diri::,ct approach to the bridge. If we go ,%ritli Trail Option 'C t 1
I ;71
have the option to add the trail along the river twhich irill crezi.te a river-
-1 the proposed Utc, Subdivision. I feel if we go
jogging loop aroun( 8
v e.
Trail Option 'A' find that some of the trail users will take. a -short
cut throu,,_-!h the Ute Avenue. Subdivision to get to the bridge. Plus, we Twon't
ID
have the option t) creat the jogging loop.
BN:mjm
Mr. Glen Horn
Aspen - Pitkin Planning and Zoning
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
ti
6214 North 34th Street
Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253
February 26, 1987
Dear Mr. Horn:
I wish to present my concerns reaardinq the Lowe Construction Company
development project, which is presently under review by the City of Aspen.
I urge the City to safeguard views towards the cemetary and the Ever-
greens on its Western ridge from the vantage point of the Gant "K" Building
and the adjacent Ute Avenue path.
It would be -,an eyesore for the buildings to be placed towards the
crest of that ridgy— or for two -or -more level buildings to be allowed at
that location.
Several Gant buildings; several houses; and that section of Ute Avenue,
have for years afforded one of the more pleasant in -town vistas in Aspen.
In the Gant "K" Building, alone, over twelve units have picture windows
directly displaying that area. Each unit offers this view to their rental
guests. Over the course of a year, hundreds of Aspen visitors occupy those
units. They get an impression of Aspen, during their stay in those units,
and many have developed a preference for that location because of the un-
obstructed view of the surrounding area.
Unnecessary placement of buildings might be at the expense of current
property owners, who contribute to Aspen's economic and general welfare. I
urge that the structures—especially multi -level structures, be located on
t he development in a less obtrusive v< a".. d viewe-obs tructi n
location.
Sincerely,
Valerie Richter
Owner, Gant K -301
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Pars epartment
Fire/
Zoning Official
FROM: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision /PUD Preliminary Plat
DATE: March 20, 1987
Attached for-your review and comments is an application submitted
by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of his client, Lowe Development
Corporation requesting approval for Preliminary Plat Subdivision,
Preliminary P.U.D. Plan, 8040 Green Line Review and Stream Margin
Review. The applicant is proposing a 16 unit subdivision, plus
one employee unit. The property is located on Ute Avenue and is
bordered by The Gant, Calderwood Subdivision, Ute Park and Ute
Cemetery as well as Lot.l, Hoag Subdivision. The land is located
within the R -15 P.U.D. zone on a total of 332,875 square feet, or
approximately 7.64 acres.
Please review this material and send your comments to this office
no later than April_ 7, 1987 in order for this office to have
adequate time to prepare for its presentation.before P &Z on April
21st.
Thank you.
MEMORANDUM
TO: GLENN HORN, PLANNING
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: 1010 UTE AVENUE/ UD PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: MARCH 25, 1987
----------------- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - --------------- - --
Per your memo of March , we have again reviewed the
1010 preliminary application, in particular the utility plan,
sheet 5. Such utility plan is acceptable to the Aspen Water
Department, which in essence consists of an 8" cast iron water
main off Ute Avenue to the intersection of lots 6 and 10 at the
cul -de -sec, at which point such line is interconnected with a 6"
ductile water line to the existing water line located in the
Calderwood Subdivision, thereby creating a loop system as
recommended by this department.
We wish to note the existing fire hydrant *742 is to be relocated
or moved out of the bicycle path. We recommend (as being more
practical) that the hydrant top of the existing hydrant be
dismantled and the remainder of the hydrant be abandoned and a
new mueller type hydrant be located off the 8" main at or near
the intersection of the subdivision roadway in Ute Avenue; actual
location of the hydrant is to be agreed upon and verified in the
field between the project engineer and the Water Department.
JM: ab
cc: Jay Hammond, Public Service Director
Gideon Kaufman
0
MEMORANDUM
1 -87
TO: Glen Horn, Planning Office
FROM: Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal
RE: 1010 Ute Ave. PUD Preliminary Plat
DATE: March 23, 1987
I have review the above ment
is .6 of a mile from the Fire
The distance was measured by
# 742. The response time will
is adequate water in the area
addition of the new hydrants.
ioned Plat. The proposed subdivision
Department by the shortest route.
vehicle from the station to hydrant
be less than three minutes. There
to service fire protection with the
ER INC. 1 Grand Avenue; Suite 212
•�_� �
GlTrwood Springs, Colorado 81601
! L7 (303) 945 -1004
~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8 SURVEYORS
March 171 1 °R7
Mr. Glenn Dorn
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorar'o P1611
PF: Pelationshin Retv.een Floodplain and Pedestrian Trail
1010 Ute Avenue
Dear Glenn:
I have reviewyed the drawings for 1010 Ute Avenue as it relates to Trail
C'otion A and the proposed pedestrian bridge crossing of the Roaring
For]: River and the floodplain elevation adjacent to the nrorerty. This
is to certifv that, if the trail and bridge are constructed as shown on
the drawing, they will not interfere with the 100 -year floodplain of
the Pbarina Fork River. 'I"he elevation of the trail and.bottom of the
bride are at least three feet to four feet above the 100 -year eleva-
tion at any given location.
I trust that the above certification is adequate to address the condi-
tion of the Planning and Zonina Corrrission. I would be happy to pro-
vide anv additional information at your request.
Pespectfully submitted,
SCH TTESF -P e>^MON' MEYEP, IINC.
p Iec /614A
xc: -Mr. Skip £,ehrhorst, Lowe DevelorTnent
-Mr. Dick Fallin, Sutherland Fallin, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
DATE: April 10, 1987
RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Preliminary P.U.D.
Having reviewed the above application for Preliminary Plat
Subdivision, Preliminary P.U.D. Plan, 8040 Greenline, Stream
Margin and building on slopes in excess of 40% for the 1010 Ute
Avenue project, I would offer the following comments:
PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDIVISION
Generally the submission is quite complete for preliminary plat
purposes. Preliminary approval should be contingent in:
1. Submission of a final plat in conformance with the
requirements of Section 20.
2. Inclusion of a drawing index.
3. Indication that Ute Circle is a private roadway and public
utility easement as well as separate easement agreements for
public utility purposes.
4. Notations on the utility plan to indicate that locations
where water and sewer lines cross they shall maintain separation
or be encased per City standards.
5. The grading plan should more clearly define the limits of cut
and fill areas within the development.
PRELIMINARY P.U.D. PLAN
The preliminary plan seems to show some changes to the proposed
site grading plan. I would recommend preliminary approval be
contingent on:
1. Designation of areas of 0 to 20, 21 to 30, 31 to 40 and 40 +%
slope as used in the slope- density reduction calculation. While
the developer has indicated that these reductions have been
calculated, I have not seen the working drawing of the topo on
which they were designated. While it may not be necessary to
include this information in the plat documents, we would simply
like to review the slope analysis.
u
9 •
Page Two
1010 Ute Avenue Preliminary P.U.D.
April 10, 1987
8040 Greenline
I would reiterate that the Engineering office has no significant
concerns related to 8040 review on Lot 1 of the Hoag subject to
specific review of the grading requirements of the proposed
trail.
Stream Margin Review
We would support stream margin approval subject to continued
involvement by Chen and Associates and adherence to their
recommendations particularly regarding construction techniques
and the temporary - protection of natural steep slopes, the Wheeler
ditch and river.
Steep Slopes
Again, construction on steep slopes would seem achievable from a
design and soil stability standpoint. Approval should be subject
to the continued involvement and adherence to the recommendations
of a soils engineering consultant.
JH /co /101OUtePrelPUD
architecture
& planning
1280 ute avenue
aspen 81611
colorado
303/925 -4252
suthe, end, fallin, inc.
April 21, 1987
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
FR: Richard A. Fallin
RE: Building Heights Limit on Lots 13, 14, and 15
1010 Ute Avenue - #87 -08
No roof shall exceed 12 feet above the centerline of the
existing ridge, starting at the south property line of lot
15 and extending northerly through lot 15, lot 14 and a
portion of lot 13, determined by an overall distance of 180 feet
from the south line of lot 15. The height limit will not exceed
12 feet above the ridge centerline starting at elevation 8020.5
at.the south line of lot 15 to elevation 7990 on lot 13.
/lb
C,
11 1
Q/&Ole- ���
�s
lo.o U4e �
j,QQL
11-1
toA-40
� 4� �G�- �-u,"
J. 0� OJ-
•
��� , k, R W,-�Ja, ,
ct co4,-
: w 4 =(� c ems, , Fe t�v�,ati 1a'
`f- /° e� �Sed vL
le-
cu t ouz Alm -
O h
LOA- oic
t"t or m& � oji cyorQ��4z, o�--
-� co"t ( -
�-� F,,J,
C�Zokk, ��;�� , ow�.a. �hsG�2n,c -C� 't-o `��. ►�' c�C.
E
0.i -►k- � eo-���� c�.� o�-,� �,�. s
a o own
`%a =40
Q. 0t1 I -, .& 0.��
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director GVA
RE: 1010 Ute Ave /Conceptual Planned Unit Development Review
DATE: February 18, 1987
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office and Planning and.Zoning Commission (P &Z) have
reviewed the Lowe Development Corporation's request for concept-
ual Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subdivision approval for the
1010 Ute Avenue proposal and recommend approval with conditions.
Copies of the proposal have already been distributed to you. It
is recommended that you review the applicants submission prior to
the meeting on Monday.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 0
APPLICANT: Lowe Development Corporation, Skip Behrhorst.
LOCATION: Northside of Ute Avenue, just east of the Gant
Condominiums, west of Ute Cemetary and south of Roaring Fork
River.
ZONING: R -15 PUD (see attachment 1)
SIZE: 7.6 acres, 332,880 sq. ft.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD).
8040 Greenline Review, Stream Margin Review, Special Review for
Exempting Employee Housing from GMP process.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The site consists of two parcels of land
separated by Ute Avenue (see attachment 1). The southerly
parcel is Lot 1 of the Hoag Subdivision. This parcel is approxi-
mately 1.6 acres in size and is characterized by steep slopes on
the southside of the parcel and a relatively flat area adjacent
to Ute Avenue. An existing City trail traverses the steep part
of the property on the Old Midland right -of -way.
The northerly parcel is approximately 6 acres in size. The site
is characterized by a open meadow on the west side of the parcel
which gently slopes from west side.of the parcel by the Gant to
the east side by the hill at Ute Cemetary (see attachment 2).
This site was the proposed base area for the Little'Annie Skiing
Area gondola. East of this open meadow is a ridge which bisects •
the property and visually screens a second "low meadow to the east
of the ridge which is bordered by yet another ridge on its
eastern side. The eastern meadow is not visible from Ute Avenue
on the west and the Callahan, Riverside and Gordon Subdivisions
on the east, however, it is visible from the Calderwood Subdivi-
sion. The second ridge on the far eastern side of the parcel
overlooks the Roaring Fork River and provides outstanding views
of the Sawatch Range at the top of the Roaring Fork Valley. This
ridge is highly visible from the Gordon, Riverside and Callahan
Subdivisions but visually screens the eastern meadow. At the
southern end of the ridge is a knob which has previously been
dedicated as open space. Topography on the east side of the site
varies from 7,990 feet on the far eastern ridge to 7,970 feet in
the eastern meadow. Topography on the western portion of "the
site varies from 7,980 feet on the western edge to 7,970 in the
western meadow (see attachment 2).
Overall, the 1010 Ute Avenue parcel is a unique site within the
City of Aspen due to its rolling topography, views and river
frontage. The existing characteristics of the site, including
the coverage of small Aspen trees and rock outcropping, are also
site features to consider. The unusual features of this site
present opportunities for site planning techniques which are
uncommon in most of the City.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: 0
The subject site is bordered by the Gant Condominiums (multi-
family residential) to the west, Calderwood Subdivision (single
family duplex and fourplex housing) to the north, the proposed
Gordon Subdivision, Callahan and Riverside Subdivisions to
(single- family) the east across the Roaring Fork River and Ute
Cemetary.to the south. The subject site is considered to be a
transitional area from higher densities on two )sides to lower
densities on the other two sides. Attachment 1 shows that the
zoning in the area varies between R -6, R -15, C and RR.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The development team for the 1010 subdivision has spent more time
than most applicants in working with the City staff, neighbors
and community groups to develop a conceptual site plan for the
parcel which seeks to respect the unique features of the land and
is consistent with community planning concepts. The applicant
has attempted to respect the existing topography, create privacy
for future residents, maximize views and minimize visual impacts
on surrounding areas.
As shown in Attachment 3, the site plan incorporates a "meadows"
and "ridge" concept. Ten proposed residences are clustered in
2 0
pairs around the east and west meadows. Seven homesites are
located on the western ridge above the Roaring Fork River and
have views of Independence Pass. Homesites 13, 14, and 15 are
located on slopes of approximately 40 percent but are proposed to
be restricted to only one -story above the ridge line. A deed
restricted low - income three - bedroom house is also proposed. The
overall density of the project is 35% below the maximum allowable
of 26 units.
Particular care has been taken by the applicant to preserve the
west and east meadows. The applicant has attempted to minimize
the visual impact of developing the meadows on the Gant Condomin-
iums and Calderwood Subdivisions.
The 1.6 acre parcel located on the mountain side of Ute Avenue is
proposed to be dedicated as a City Park and public parking for
ten vehicles. The remaining 6 acres will be developed as
described. The application proposes the development of two ponds
in the westerly meadow and one pond in the easterly meadow. The
applicant and the City of Aspen have reached a tentative agree-
ment in concept to divert raw water from the. Wheeler Ditch for
decorative /storage ponds and irrigation.
Landscaping in the open meadow is proposed to be minimal, with
concentrations of landscaping .along the edges of homesite. A
landscaped entrance is proposed at Ute Avenue, along with the
construction of landscaped landforms contiguous with Ute Avenue •
which will be designed to screen the relocated and improved Ute
Avenue Trail. Additionally, the proposed public park will be
improved and irrigated by the applicant. A large landform is
proposed on the northwest side of the parcel to screen the Gant
from the subdivision and vice - versa.
The applicant proposes to construct and dedicate a trail conec-
tion from the City trail on the toe of Aspen Mountain to the
proposed public park. Additionally, it is conditionally proposed
that Trail A which is located on City of Aspen property-and links
the proposed Gordon Bridge to Ute Childrens Park will be improved
by the applicant (see attachment 3). In the event that the City
requires the dedication of a trail traversing the property from
west to east (Trail option B) as shown in the Aspen Area:
Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Element, than the applicant
will not improve the trial by the river (see attachment 4). It
should be noted that the applicant has gone to great lengths to
study the possibility of developing an alignment for Trail option
B. The applicant has told the staff that he is seeking to
develop a subdivision which features privacy and the location of
a trail through the subdivision may be inconsistent with his
concept for the subdivision. The applicant is opposed to a trail
through the subdivision, does not believe that it would be a
pleasant trails experience and does not believe that such a trail
alignment is needed. The applicant is, however, committed to
0
providing the trail along the river, as long as the easement for
Trail B is not required. •
The applicant will comply with the City's off - street parking
requirements. The main access drive and interior roads have been
carefully designed to follow the topography and avoid existing
vegetation and rock out croppings. The applicant proposes
significant improvements to Ute Avenue, including re- alignment,
reconstruction and widening.
The site data listed in Table 1 summarize the proposal for this
development.
TABLE l
SITE DATA
AREA
SIZE
North side of Ute Avenue
263,920
s.f.
South side of Ute Avenue
68,950
s.f.
Adjusted area after slope reduction
267,570
s.f.
Adjusted area after easements
260,910
s.f.
Average lot areas
15,340
s.f.
Total permissable FAR
76,806
s.f.
Proposed FAR limits
68,900
s.f.
Average Proposed House size
4,050
s.f.
Proposed common open space
149,800
s.f.
Source: Lowe Development Corporation as rounded off by
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
REFERRAL COMMENTS
The Planning Office has received referral agency comments from
the City Engineer, Housing, Water, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District, Fire, and the Roaring Fork Energy Center, Environmental
Health, Zoning and Parks. The City Attorney, and RFTA did not
provide written comment on this proposal but have discussed their
concerns with the Planning Office. Referral comments for each
agency are summarized below.
1) City Engineer: The City Engineer had no particular
concerns relative to the conceptual PUD but notes that
issues of concern later in the process will be;
parceling and easements, resolution of appropriate
drainage, right -of -way on park dedications and utility
alignments.
2) Housing: The Housing Authority recommends approval of
4 0
• •
the proposed three bedroom low- income employee unit and
cash -in -lieu payment of 460,000 to be paid at issuance
of building permit for each free market unit on a pro-
rata basis. Conditions cited in the Housing Depart-
ments December 10, 1986 memorandum and listed in the
recommendation section of this memorandum should be
adhered to.
3) Water: The Water Department will provide service to the
proposed subdivision. However, approval is conditioned
upon the following:
o Applicant must submit working drawings for
approval prior to construction.
o The applicant will replace and relocate existing
fire hydrant #741 adjacent to the Gant.
4) Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: The District
will be capable of providing service to the develop-
ment.
5) Fire Department: The Fire Department will be capable
of providing service to the development.
6) Environmental Health: Approval of this project should
be conditioned on the following:
o Air pollution control plan to mitigate construc-
tion impacts shall be approved by Environmental
Health prior to the issuance of a building permit.
o All buildings shall comply with Ordinance 86 -5
regarding solid fuel burning devices.
o The applicant will comply with noise abatement
Ordinance 81 -2.
o In the event mine tailings are uncovered during
excavation, the applicant shall have the soil
tested for toxicity and the tests will be reviewed
by environmental health prior to removal of any
soil from the site.
7) Zoning: The Zoning Official had the following comments:
o The floor areas for each parcel should be presen-
ted.
o The City will need to know the number of bedrooms
per free - market unit to calculate the cash -in-
lieu.
5
•
o Building envelopes and setbacks should be estab-
lished.
8) Parks: The Parks Department had the following comments:
o The best trail alignment in this vicinity is from
Hoag Subdivision, Lot 1 (proposed park) through
the 1010 Subdivision to the proposed Gordon
Subdivision. Later on the City can use capital
funds to develop the trail by the river.
o Questions have been raised regarding safety on the
Nordic Trail due to conflicts with ski home Alpine
skier traffic.
o More information will be required regarding
irrigation of the proposed City park. Addition-
ally, the final agreement regarding the use of
City water for irrigation should have provisions
for the City to have first priority to use water
for Glory Hole Park and the Mall in the event of a
drought year.
9) Roaring Fork Energy Center: The Roaring Fork Energy
Center will comment in more depth pending a more
detailed plan for the subdivision.
LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS OR OTHERS
Gant Condominium Association: The Gant Condominium Association
sent a letter to the Planning Office which is attached with the
referral comments. The Gant objects to any trail alignment
through the 1010 Ute Avenue development. The Gant Condominium
Association feels that a trail through the project would conflict
with the privacy of the Gant Condominiums and Calderwood Subdivi-
sion and affect security. Also attached for your consideration
are letters from the Hoyt and Hayes families.
Aspen /Snowmass Nordic Council
The Nordic Council wrote a letter which is attached in support of
a trail by the River rather than a trail traversing the 1001 Ute
Avenue Subdivision from Ute Avenue to the river.
PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS
The Planning Office's comments regarding this project relate to
the Master Plan for this area, the trails plan and the site plan.
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS: THE 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan
6
.f
t � t. •
proposed this area for mixed - residential development. The text
of the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan calls for a reduction in
densities in areas located on the fringe of the City of Aspen.
The development below allowable density proposed by this subdivi-
sion is consistent with both Plans. Given the regulations of the
land use code for the R -15 PUD district, a maximum of approxi-
mately 26 dwelling units could be developed on the site if a
duplex style development was utilized. Therefore, the proposal
represents development 35 percent below the allowable density,
which is appropriate in this location.
TRAILS PLAN: As depicted in Attachment 4, four trails are an
issue as part of the 1010 Subdivision. The proposal to construct
and dedicate a trail from the Aspen Mountain Trail to the
proposed park is a good idea which was not envisioned by the
adopted Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open
Space /Trails Element (hereinafter Trails Element). Likewise, the
relocation of the Ute Avenue was not proposed in the Trails
Element but, nevertheless, is a good idea.
Our principal problem with the site plan is with respect to trail
options A & B (see attachment 4). Figure 9 of the Trails Element
proposes that both trail options.A & B be constructed in order to
develop a trail loop in this area. It may be worthwhile to the
P &Z to review the logic behind planning for two trail alignments
and the reason why two trails were proposed in the Trails
Element. •
In preparing the Trails Element, the staff, P &Z and City Council
sought to design a trails system which offers a mix of urban and
rural experiences for trails system users. Consequently, some
trails are located beside streams and in pristine areas while
other trails may traverse developed residential areas. We
believe it is the constrast of the built and natural environments
which creates interest and makes the Aspen trails system a unique
attraction for visitors and residents. Interesting buildings and
architecture may be as important to some trail users as a
pristine river setting. A loop from town out Ute Avenue, through
the Aspen Club trail, back along the river along trail option A
and then to Ute Avenue on trail option B is the type of recrea-
tional experience which makes Aspen's trail system such a great
diversified experience.
Additionally, it should be noted that the trails system is
designed to serve both recreational. activities and commuters.
The applicant has argued to the staff that trail option A is a
better trails experience because it meanders along the river. We
contend that someone who lives in Aspen Grove, the Gordon or
Riverside Subdivisions that has to get to work at the major
activity center surrounding the proposed Little Nell development
or wants to walk to the gondola to go skiing would be more
interested.in the most.direct walking route that the trail system
7 40
1 � i � •
•
can offer. This route would be across the proposed Gordon Bridge
and a long trail in the proposed 1010 Subdivision to the Ute
Avenue trail. Objectives D2 and D17 from the trails element
support this concept.
Objective D2 Provide trail connection to all major
activity centers especially recreational,
cultural, commercial and educational center.
Objective D17 Identify trails which are intended to move a
large number of people to an activity center
and develop them so that they are an attrac-
tive alternative to the automobile.
The Trails Element recommends general trail alignments and not
precise corridors for trails. At the time when a trails easement
is dedicated or a trail is constructed, the optimum corridor
should be used.
It is not surprising to us that the Gant Condominiums Association
has objected to trail option (see attachment 3) because the
applicant has proposed that the trail be constructed as close as
five feet from the Gant Condominiums and the residences in
Calderwood. In our view, this is a completely deficient trail
design to which almost anyone would object.
Section 20 -18(c) of the Code states that "whenever a proposed .
subdivision embraces any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross
country ski trail or hiking trail as designated on the Aspen
Trail System Plan, the subdivider shall plat and grant public
easements in compliance with the Plan." Based upon this Code
requirement and the general trail alignment proposed in the
Trails Element, the Planning Office recommends that the applicant
be required to redesign trail option B in a manner acceptable to
neighboring parcels and dedicate the easement to the City. It is
suggested that the trail alignment be relocated to the east of
that shown on Attachment 3 so that it links to the trail -on Ute
Avenue and the proposed City Park. The trail should be internal-
ized within the subdivision so that it does not impact neighbor -
ing properties and can provide an amenity for residents of the
1010 Subdivision.
The applicant has objected strenuously to internalizing the trail
within the subdivision. This is not uncommon with developers
seeking to create exclusive, private, developments. In fact, the
same arguments were raised by the developers of the Preserve
Subdivision just east of this site. In the case of the Preserve,
the County staff worked closely with the developer to select a
trial alignment acceptable to the developer and the County.
Access to the trail system is an amenity to be marketed as part
of an innovative PUD plan. Potentially, future residents of the
1010 Subdivision could be able to access a trial at their door
8 •
•
i
and ski all the way to Snowmass Village. As part of the prelim-
inary plat submission to P &Z, the applicant intends to prepare •
two or three options for Trail B.
SITE PLAN: The applicant has sought to create small single -
family residential lots via the PUD provisions of the Land Use
Code. In our opinion, the applicant has incorporated good site
planning techniques to maximize common open space areas and
minimize private lots as proposed in, this application. We
believe that the applicant has an excellent concept for the
parcel and that the 1010 Subdivision will be a good development
for the City of Aspen. However, the staff has a basic philo-
sophical difference of opinion with the applicant regarding which
natural features of the site should be preserved. The applicant
strongly believes that the east and west meadows and the internal
open space are the most critical natural features to be pre-
served. The staff concurs that the west meadow should certainly
be preserved due to its visibility from Ute Avenue, but believes
the east ridge, not the east meadow is the second outstanding
natural feature on the site which should be preserved.
In our opinion, the east ridge is the pre- dominant physical
feature of this site as viewed from the Callahan, Riverside and
particularly the Gordon Subdivision. At the applicants urging,
we visited the west side of the Roaring Fork River again on
Friday to study the visual importance of the ridge from the other
side of the river. Despite the contention by the applicant that
Aspen Mountain, not the ridge, is the predominant physical
feature from the west side of the river, we strongly believe that
the ridge should remain undisturbed to minimize visual impacts on
the surrounding neighborhood. We suggest that you visit the site
to better understand this issue.
The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the following
sections of the Code for the reasons described below:
o Section 24- 8.1(f) "Achieve a beneficial land use
relationship with surrounding areas ".
o Section 24- 8.13(a)(6), "the design and location of any
proposed structure, road, driveways or trails and their
compatibility with the terrain ".
o Section 24- 8.13(a)(8), "the placement and clustering of
structures and reduction of building height and scale
to increase open space and preserve natural features of
the terrain ".
In our opinion, the proposed plan is flawed because it clusters
residences on the eastern ridge of the property due to the
outstanding views. Despite the applicants commitment to restrict
these buildings to one story, in our opinion, the location is a
9 0
•
major design flaw. These building sites will have significant
visual impacts on the Callahan, Riverside and proposed Gordon
Subdivisions as well as Lot 12 of the 1010 Subdivision. The top
of the ridge has been dedicated as open space already by a
previous property owner. This concept should be continued by
maintaining the roof lines below the ridge or effectively
clustering Lots 13, 14 and 15 below in the east meadow. By
clustering in the east 'meadow or building below the ridge line,
The "Natural terrain features" will be preserved and the negative
visual impact on surrounding land uses will be minimized. In any
case, the City Council should request that the applicant prepare
for preliminary plat reviews west elevation drawings of ridgeline
to demonstrate the proposed visual impacts.
Similarly, it is the staff opinion, that at least Lot 2 but
preferably Lots 2, 3, and 4 should also be relocated from the
highest ground on the western meadow to the lowest ground in-the
eastern meadow. This relocation will preserve the gentle
hillside adjacent to the Cemetery and preserve the meadow which
is visible from Ute Avenue and properties on the side of Aspen
Mountain. To relocate these building sites, as suggested it may
be necessary to more effectively cluster housing via the develop-
ment of some duplexes and remove the large pond on the east side
of the site. As an alternative to relocating all of these lots
or one or two of them, the applicant should pursue innovative
building designs such as patio homes, townhouses, duplexes or
zero lot line development. In our opinion, such changes are
essential to achieve the applicants goal of preserving the west
meadow. During the preliminary plat submission, the applicant
should present an alternative based on these comments.
The 14 foot high berm proposed for the north end of the. parcel
adjacent to the Gant will have negative visual impacts on the
condominiums. The building next to the berm is already approxi-
mately 8 feet below the existing grade of the 1010 site. There
is in existence a large retaining wall. If a berm is placed on
top of the retaining wall, there will be a canyon effect on four
ground floor Gant units. Despite our concerns, the applicant has
indicated to us that he has worked with the Gant in developing
plans for the Berm and the Gant likes it.
Finally, as mentioned in the previous section, the proposed
location of trail option B is not acceptable due to the severe
impacts on neighboring properties. The trail should be inter-
nalized within 1010 Subdivision so that it is an amenity for the
residents and is consistent with the purposes of the Trails
Master Plan.
In summary, it is the staff's position that the applicant has
been successful in meeting much of the basic intent of the
conceptual PUD sections of the Code and with some changes, the
1010 Subdivision will be consistent with the Code and a highly
successful subdivision. Prior to preliminary plat submission the
10 0
0 6
applicant should rework the site plan consistent without recom-
mendations to further utilize the clustering provisions of this
Code, reduce impacts on neighboring properties, preserve natural
terrain and improve trail alignments.
P &Z RECOMMENDATION
The P &Z recommends that the City Council grant the applicant
conceptual PUD Subdivision approval subject to the conditions
cited below. Other reviews such as 8040 Greenline reviews,
stream margin review and special review for exempting employee
housing from GMP appear conceptually to be in order and will
officially be considered at the preliminary and final plat
stages.
1) The large berm on, the north boundary of the property
should be designed so that it is acceptable to the
Gant.
2) The trail traversing the parcel west to east from Ute
Avenue to the Roaring Fork River should be redesigned
prior to preliminary plat review it
so that it is accessible to
1010 residents and negative impacts on neighboring
properties are reduced. Alternatives will be presented
at preliminary review.
%&j �.� . cJv. _s Vvz c�ST S . -ru ?� le_�v r S vr e
3) As part of the preliminary, plat submission, the
applicant will present drawings depicting building
envelopes and east elevations for building sites 13, 14
and 15. The drawings shall demonstrate the proposed
visual impacts of the proposed structures from across
the Roaring Fork River. *(Please note this condition
differs from the condition recommended by staff).
4) The owner of 1010 Ute Avenue covenants with the City of
Aspen that the employee units shall be designated in
terms of use and occupancy to the low income
sale /rental guidelines established and indexed by the
City Council's designee for low income employee housing
at the time or prior to issuance of the building
permit. Such low income guidelines may change annually
on April 1st of each year and the owner may adjust the
rents or sale price accordingly.
5) Verification of employment those employees living in
the low income units shall be completed and filed with
the Housing Office by the owner or his manager com-
mencing on the date or recording hereof, and at time of
change of occupancy thereafter. These covenants shall
be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for
the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by
11
the City or its designee by any appropriate eviction of
noncomplying tenancy during the period of life of the
last surviving member of the presently existing City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty -one
(21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years from
the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real
property records, whichever period shall be greater.
6.) The owner of 1010 Ute Avenue or his manager shall have
the right lease the employee units to qualified
employees of his own selection. Such employees may be
employed by the owner, or employed in Aspen /Pitkin
.County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements
of a qualified employee. "Qualified Employee" as used
herein shall mean any person currently residing in and
employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a
minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out
of any twelve -month period, who shall meet low income
and occupancy eligibility requirements established and
then applied by the Housing Authority with respect to
employee housing.
7) No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the
employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of
less than size consecutive months.
8) If a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be .
sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may
be maintained on each unit.
9) Should the unit be sold, a deed restriction shall be
approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing
Authority Board or by the Housing. Authority Director
prior to recordation defining terms of occupancy and
resale and a copy of the recorded instrument shall be
provided to the Housing Authority Office after recorda-
tion.
10) Applicant must submit working drawings of the water
system to the Water Department for approval prior to
construction.
11) The applicant will replace and relocate to the satis-
faction of the Fire Marshall existing fire hydrant #741
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
first house in the subdivision.
12) Air pollution control plan to mitigate construction
impacts shall be approved by Environmental Health prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
13) All buildings shall comply with Ordinance 86 -5 regard-
12 is
s �
ing solid fuel burning devices. •
14) The applicant will comply with noise abatement ordi-
nance 81 -2.
15) In the event mine tailings are uncovered during
excavation, the applicant shall have the soil tested
for toxicity and the tests will be reviewed by environ-
mental health prior to removal of any soil from the
site.
16) Prior to preliminary plat submission the applicant
should specify areas building envelopes, and estimate
bedroom counts.
17) Prior to preliminary plat submission the applicant
should finalize an agreement with the City regarding
irrigation of the proposed park and provisions which
establish the City's first priority for Wheeler ditch
water in drought years.
18)_ Within the preliminary plat submission the applicant
should prepare plans showing details for parceling,
easements, drainage plans, right -of -way, utility
alignment and park dedications.
19) The applicant shall be required to submit preliminary •
plans within six months of the City Council approval of
the conceptual submission.
20) All representations made by the applicant in the
conceptual submission shall be adhered to.
21) In the event that the City does not require the
applicant to grant Trail option B, the applicant will
be required to submit detailed plans for the construc-
tion of Trail option A at preliminary plan review and
V submit to a, stream margin review for the trail. The
applicant shall provide an engineers report regarding
impacts on the Roaring Fork River Floodplain from the
trail.
22) In the event that the applicant does not receive a
growth management allocation, as part of the prelimin-
ary plan review, the applicant shall amend the site
plan to reflect the number of dwelling units for which
he has received an approval.
1
24) In preparing the preliminary plan submission the
applicant shall, adhere to the provisions of Section
24.8.9 of the Code.
3 �k or �tirK� �V 1�1— l� «non IF
cC
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office recommendation is the same as P &Z's with the
exception of two conditions. Condition 3 should read as shown
and condition 23 should be added.
3) Prior to preliminary plan submission, building sites
13, 14 and 15 should be moved below the ridge in the
westerly direction to such an extent that the rooflines
of the homes do not protrude above the top of the
ridgeline. The applicant will present elevation
drawings from the eest side of the river which demon-
strate that the buildings are below the ridgeline. As
an alternative to this proposal, the applicant may
relocate building sites 13, 14 and 15 to the west
meadow and utilize innovative building techniques such
as duplex, townhome, zero lot line, or patio home
development to effectively cluster the homesites.
23) Building site 2 d preferably bui ing sites 2, 3 and
4 should be relo at d outside of the est meadow to the
east meadow to pres rve the gentle 'llside on the
s utheast side of the est meadow. Thi may necessi-
tat the elimination of the pond in the ast meadow.
In t alternative, the licant should alyze and
presen an effective cluste g plan for lot 2,3, and
4 which ilizes innovative bu ding technique such as
duplex, to ome, zero lot line patio home d velop-
ment to minim' e impacts on the adow. If building
does not occur in the meadow ho sites shoul be
limited to one sto and floor areas sh uld be restric-
ted below 3,000 squar eet per dwelling unit.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
GH.021
-t-o Z -A--3
0
0
14 0
—Mill•
s
E AVENUE stAhedand.'.-
falllrlm anitecture&planning .
Li{a.tLMM Iy1.. LL �Ntt7W tifLJf2
.t
.
ig
"..-
t: � a
�_ � -•N
Y�
LIB.
1'
r _,. �r� m
'. � �� �
�.
//
� .. � Q�_._ `'ice � .n ° ... •' � -
Ln
Ln
Ln
om
D i
C
z m
—Mill•
E AVENUE stAhedand.'.-
falllrlm anitecture&planning .
Li{a.tLMM Iy1.. LL �Ntt7W tifLJf2
a
7 df a 9 %� + e' i 1 .d .1.�!/; ff _ .'� �'•�
r ti� e..
,
/ N.
fj
—�
i., �.J —�"`- \ T _ ' �� - -- - "" � jig._-;:_.- -�_ __- --- -- °•. -- � -
m
C 0
.1 O
Z
M 0
i
Z
EcA)
m
l m
I III II °
Mau
1010 E AVENUE sutherland =
fallin., ,mm architecture &planning •:
Ell
•
• -
Y
/ <
LEGEND '
cr
\'/ \ 1� � � J -�, �'?�' � �.r. sl sl jl ,i" r �` r—_. _ laj•:3' <a rcra. .. a.w<1
ny \ t/a at aa,.r ` ' , +^ • fUfU +C U SUG[
+.� \r/ � •:� - [ % .' _ � __ � •Van a(<aroa . o•utf <•
' _•):. ..` raw a'F. ' 6,
iN •�.�MrNio , -I• y - ly .
< \ . J"� / : _ ,. ern � ` \ `.+ •,^ ,` r
,w`4 j`i •� �.rouc ` +� __ - r 1"j�Y , I \`_ _ \(,cam -, . ""� �-+f a� .. ao. <.n.
,rte A:. ) { a , �','• \ .``4 � � � -
.1�, ! - \' ( _ \ `•_ 1 mac. i �7E
• y� \1 '-\„`. _�L(1T . -'1'•. ~ \`�:'•- `: '--� 1 PARK
/' • `yo _�\ �` YAK `-� � `� '\ •- -
SITE/ LANDSCAPE PLAN
' BERRIDGE AND ASSOC.
l �- -r7 mac, V-\ rv-, e. r\, -T-.5
5
c
c
c
t:Nti:�)� _ •11,1 I fr ��
G - -- II r \
cn
♦. II I
I III• I I ,� � ,
i a
x
e• � � r I�!I� I I 'TI I � a s —
'1 I m H
—
m
D
I- D
i IIII. III• -•��� "'
-
• III I I I I r Fes` ,flIl,
_ � I
f
- -1 -
t r cx C- -1'z r r, t y
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Offic
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforceme fficer
RE: 4 GMP Submissions
DATE: January 14, 1987
I realize these are conceptual submissions and therefore a
lot of detail normally looked at and verified at later stages
will be sparse or unable to calculate with early stage drawings.
For example methods of calculating height, open space, floor
area often differs when working plans are submitted to the
Building Department. Applicants should be aware that
representations must be adhered to at the Building permit stage.
I will comment now where I feel there may be a potential problem.
Should Park Dedication fees be considered at this point? Some of
my questions may.have already been answered to the Planning
Department.
1001 Pro,iect (PUD)
1) Does this project also require an 8040 Greenline Review?
Sec. 24 -6.2 "all development. 50 yards below the 8040 greenline."
2) Should the applicant be more specific in regard to
setbacks and should building envelopes be required?
3) I would like to see a definite manner of determining
"grade" for the 25 ft. height. At this point, the Building
Department would have to consider the current grade as the
"existing" or "natural undisturbed" ground, slope, not the 30 ft.
of tailings beneath.
4) Page 38 of application states:
3 duplexes x 4,749 sq. ft. = 14,247
1 single family x 4,329 sq. ft. = 4,329
Total allowable building sq. ft. = 18,576
The total building square .footage for the project will not
exceed this figure. Does this mean that some of the structures
may exceed the allowabl.e'for a 15,000 sq. ft. job, as long as the
total for.the 4 structures does not exceed 18,576 square feet?
5) New Duplex Code- -What will the size and configuration be
of the employee units. Will this meet the "Common Wall" and �-
"percent of floor space" portion of the code? Under current code
they might appear to be more of a single family house with a
smaller "caretaker" unit, and not a duplex.
700 E. Hyman
1) Project appears straight forward.
2) Stairways in setbacks must be less than 30 inches in
height or they become an encroachment.
1010 Ute Ave
1) What will the size of
Will the applicant divide the
will some units get more allo,
again, will 14 or 15 units be
available for the last unit?
F.A.R. size per parcel.
the 16 free market unit parcels be?
requested.68,900 sq. ft. equally or
4able F.A.R. than others? Once-
built leaving no floor area
I would like to see a definite
2) Are the free market units restricted to the number of
bedrooms permitted? How are we going to figure the Park
Dedication fee? This is not included in the cash in lieu of
employee housing.
3) Will there be building envelopes? Are the setbacks and
height clear? What and when will these variances be requested?
Mountain View •
1) If the land available as developmental is as stated
72,500 square feet and the projected F.A.R. is 72,500 square
feet. That's cutting calculations awfully close and again the
applicant should be made aware that their representatives should
be verifiable at future G.M.P. stages.
2) From the information submitted to me, the buildings
appear to be over the maximum-28 ft. height limit. It's hard to
see that a 4 story building can be kept under 28 ft height.
3) The parking garage specification for space size, turning
radius, etc., should be verified by the Engineering Department.
WD:lo
4gmp. bd
cc: Alan Richman
Peggy Seeger
Jim Wilson
i-
t� DEC 1 6 EN
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: GLENN HORN PLANNING OFFICE
STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
( 601 S. ASPEN)
1010 UTE AVENUE APPLI ATION
DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1986
At the request of your of ice, we have reviewed the following
projects:
1. Mountain View (aka 601 S. Aspen) - We have no further
as part of
comments to make other than those already submitted
correspondence, including our
the record. See our previous
24th to Mr. Small which is included in the
letter of Nov.
application.
.
2. 1010 Ute Avenue - We have reviewed the 1010 application and
the pertinent section pertaining to water supply (aa. Water
the statements made
System, page 2) and based upon applicant's
this the Water Department will provide service to
under section,
the development. However, our approval is conditioned upon the
following:
(a) Submittal of working utility drawings in accordance
the City of Aspen specifications, prior to construction, for
with
our approval. Such working drawings shall include size of pipe,
number of fittings and locations of valves and fire hydrants.
The applicant commits to certain improvements as outlined in
In the
(aa). Water System and (dd). Fire Protection. addition,
of the
Water Department recommends the replacement or relocation
the
existing fire hydrant #741 adjacent to the Gant at or near
be by the
entrance to the subdivision, such hydrant to supplied
to servicing the
new 8" loop, the Water Department will commit
Such water system facilities installed for the
subdivision.
development will improve the neighborhood reliability and
capacity, since such work will accomplish an interconnect or loop
between Ute Avenue and
Waters Avenue, via Calderwood.
JM: ab _
cc: Fire Marshall
. .................. .
__. _.— ._ -,��� ...�r.rT..R.T Khh�1�11•IfT'yhYHM.rwwnti.O•wOS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, City Engineering
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
DATE: January 5, 1987
RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP, Conceptual
Subdivision, Conceptual P. U. D. , Special Review, 8040_
Greenline and Stream Margin
RESIDENTIAL GMP
The attached evaluation sheet suggests recommended scoring for
those areas pertinent to Engineering concern. Scores of
particular note include:
1. Water; Recommended score ?. points.
The projects provides for creation of a loop main to the
Calderwood subdivision which is currently served by a dead -end
line. In addition, the project proposes use of raw water from
the Wheeler ditch for irrigation purposes thus reducing demand
for treated water and protecting raw water rights.
2. Storm Drainage; Recommended score 1 point.
Once again, I would stress that the optimum solution for storm
water is the maintenance of historic conditions with regard to
groundwater and off -site flow. Please refer to my concurrent
memo on 700 E. Hyman for further explanation in this regard. In
the instance of 1010 Ute, an additional point might be available
subject to certification by a registered engineer indicating that
additional runoff could be discharged on -site without detrimental
impact to the groundwater on adjacent properties.
3. Fire Protection; No recommended score.
We are not, due to the presence of the new Fire Marshal, Wayne
Vandemark, recommending scores for fire protection. I would note,
however, that the looping of water mains to the Calderwood
increases the reliability and availability of fire flows for both
1010 Ute and the Calderwood neighborhoods.
4. Roads; Recommended score 2 points.
The applicant proposes significant improvements to Ute Avenue,
including additional right -of -way, realignment and significant
landscaping.
(I*
Page Two
1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP, Conceptual Subdivision,
Conceptual PUD, Special Review, 8040 Greenline and Stream
Margin
January 5, 1987
5. Bonus Points; Recommended score 3 points.
Once again, we are recommending bonus points related only to
Engineering matters. The 1010 Ute project offers significant
public improvements to the water system, Ute Avenue and public
parking.
CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION
The Engineering Department has no particular concerns relative to
Conceptual P.U.D. and subdivision subject to submission of
appropriate platting and agreement documents.
Issues of concern through the process include:
a. Parceling and easements.
b. Resolution of appropriate drainage.
C. Right-of-way and park dedications.
d. Utility alignments.
8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
8040 concerns would appear to be minimal although we would be
inclined to review the alignment and grading requirements of the
proposed trail alignment in keeping with 8040 criteria.
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
As with 8040, this would not appear to be a major concern subject
to the specific grading and revegetation associated with proposed
trail construction.
JH /co /Ute
Enclosure
0
• ' ASPENobPITKIN
•
ENV HEALTH 0EPARL0ENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 15fl
Environmental Health Dept.
Date: December 18, 1986
Re: 1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP
,This office has reviewed the above - mentioned submittal for the
following environmental concerns.
Air Pollution:
Construction: The applicant shall provide the means to monitor
and remove any dirt and or mud carryout from the project onto
City streets or State highways. This, shall involve daily
monitoring of the haul routes of equipment entering and leaving
the site during the construction period. Further, daily removal
of mud or dirt will be- required with the dirt being deposited
back on.the applicants property. Removal of mud and dirt shall
be accomplished with a mechanical sweeper that uses water to
minimize dust. •
During actual construction the applicant shall provide an
approved means to control wind blown (fugitive) dust from leaving
the property should it become a problem. This may take the form
of watering, use of dust suppression chemicals. fencing the site
or shrouding the work area. Note: the applicant mentions that
"fugitive dust will be controlled" on page 8 of the PUD /Subdivis-
ion section of the submittal.
The applicant shall file a fugitive dust control plan with this
office prior to construction. The applicant shall also submit an
Air Pollution Emission Notice and an Air Pollution Permit
application to the Colorado Health Department. The Colorado
Health Department will review the permit application and deter-
mine if a permit is actually needed. Should it be determined
that a permit is not needed the filing fee will be returned to
the applicant. Send the information to: Colorado Health Depart-
ment, Mr. Scott Miller, 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232, Grand
Junction, Colorado 81501.
The authority for the above request can be found in Regulations
l and 3 of the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Solid Fuel Burning Devices: The applicant states in the submit-
tal under Review Criteria #5 (5) that "All fireplaces will meet •
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
ASPEN6PITKIN •
ENVIR. NMENTAL HEALTH OEPAR ..RENT
1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP
December 18, 1986 •
Page 2
the strict City requirements..." To be more exact it will be a
requirement that all proposed dwellings and structures comply
with City of Aspen Ordinance 5 series 1986 commonly known as the
Solid Fuel Burning Ordinance.
Noise Abatement:
The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
Ordinance 2, series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All construct-
ion noise related activities will be covered under the maximum
decibel levels as directed by the ordinance.
Contaminated Soils:
If mine dumps, mine tailings or mine waste rock are uncovered
during the excavation phase of the project it will be the
responsibility of the applicant to have the material tested to
determine the heavy metal content of the sample. The test
results shall be submitted to this 'office for review prior to
removal of the soil from the site.
There is no actual requirement to force the applicant to perform
these tests. However, as the result of past involvement with
Federal legislation governing the Handling and disposition o.f
mine waste, this department wants to have an accounting of all
"hazardous waste" should the Federal government decide they want
to become further involved in the Aspen area.
Sewage Disposal:
Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Districts public sewage collection system is in conformance with
policies of this office.
Water Supply:
Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by
the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with
policies of this office.
General:
The applicant can visit this office to obtain copies of all
codes, rules and regulations or laws referred to in this review.
Fl-
L_M
130 South Galena Street Aspen. Colorado 01611 303/925 -2020
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE,
December 22, 1986
1,
i nil 2 % aap)
TO: Glenn Horn and Steve Burstein: Planning Office I
FR: Steve Standiford and Stephanie Ouren L______--
RE: GMP Review Comments on 1010 Ute Avenue Residential Submission
------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Subdivision covenants require the units to have insulation levels above
code, 25% energy savings beyond minimum requirements of the UBC and to
submit an energy conservation report with the building permit. Beyond
this, the applicant can only give suggestions. The encouraged techniques
listed are all appropriate, but they are just suggestions and cannot
be evaluated since some, none,or all could be used in each unit.
Solar Energy
Good southern exposure is possible for all sites it appears. There is
no mention of considering passive or active solar heating systems.
Nothing further can be deduced without specific site plans for each
house.
Mechanical Systems
The new homeowners will be encouraged .to utilize high- efficiency boilers
and furnaces. This is a great idea.
Water Conservation
Using untreated ditch water for irrigation and requiring flow restrictors
on all plumbing fixtures gives the proposal strength in the water
conservation area.
Comments
Without more specific regulations, these units could range very widely
in energy efficiency. At this stage, we can only say they are heading in
the right direction.
�i
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
GLEN HORN AND STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DECEMBER 10, 1986
RE: 1010 UTE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
ISSUE: Has the applicant met the requirements for the employee
generation in this residential project?
BACKGROUND: The applicant seeks an allotment for sixteen (16)
free - market residential units to be built in conjunction with one
(1) three - bedroom low income restricted employee unit on two (2)
adjoining parcels of land separated by Ute Avenue. The property
is bordered by The Gant Condominiums, Calderwood Subdivision, Ute
Park and Ute Cemetery. This land is located within the R -15 PUD
zone on a total area of 332,874 square feet or 7.641 acres.
The proposed development consists of sixteen (16) single - family
homesites and one (1) caretaker home. Individual homesites vary
considerably in size depending on terrain. Five (5) of the homes
overlook an open meadow /pond area. Four (4) of the homes are
situated in a wooded area. The remaining seven (7) homes are
situated in a wooded area overlooking the Roaring Fork River.
The applicant is concurrently applying for conceptual PUD,
Conceptual Subdivision, 8040 Green Line Review, Stream Margin
Review, and Special Review for Exempting Employee Housing from
the GMP Process.
Employee Housing: will be satisfied by one three - bedroom low
income restricted unit to be built. Three (3) parking spaces
will be provided for the employee unit. Cash -in -lieu payments
for twenty -three (23) low income employees in the amount of
$460,000 will be made on a pro -rated basis.
The calculations for the employee housing commitment are as
follows:
Free Market Units -16 units @ 3.0 per unit = 48 = 64%
Employee generation = 26 = 35% = 7 GMP pts.
74 100%
The employee housing commitment for the 26 emp. shall be as
follows:
10
0
0-
11
MEMORANDUM
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
Eli
L DEC 16 286
TO: GLENN HORN PLANNING OFFICE
STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
(601 S. ASPEN)
1010 UTE AVENUE APPLI ATION
DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1986
At the request of your of ice, we have reviewed the following
projects:
1. Mountain View (aka 601 S. Aspen) We have no further
comments to make other than those already submitted as part of
the record. See our previous correspondence, including our
letter of Nov. 24th to Mr. Small which is included in the
application.
2. 1010 Ute Avenue - We have reviewed the 1010 application and
the pertinent section pertaining. to water supply (aa. Water
System, page 2) and based upon the applicant's statements made
under this section, the Water Department will provide service to
the development. However, our approval is conditioned upon the
following:
(a) Submittal of working utility drawings in accordance
with the City of Aspen specifications, prior to construction, for
our approval. Such working drawings shall include size of pipe,
number of fittings and locations of valves and fire hydrants.
The applicant commits to certain improvements as outlined in
(aa). Water System and (dd). Fire Protection. In addition, the
Water Department recommends the replacement or relocation of the
existing fire hydrant #741 adjacent to the Gant at or near the
entrance to the - subdivision, such hydrant to be supplied by the
new 8" loop, the Water Department will commit to servicing the
subdivision. Such water system facilities installed for the
development will improve the neighborhood reliability and
capacity, since such work will accomplish an interconnect or loop
between Ute Avenue and
Waters Avenue, via Calderwood.
JM: ab
cc: Fire Marshall
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Bob Wade. President
Toby Morse. Vice President
Jim Mollica• Secretary/Treasurer
Peter Forsch
Skip Hamilton
Tom Isaac
Peter Loor m
George Madsen
Carolyn Moore
Jeff Tippett
N
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Craig Ward
TRUSTEES
Executive Committee
Toni Blake
Jim Chaffin
Arthur Ffister
Frederic Benedict
Ruth Humphreys Brown
D.V. Ed:nundson
Elizabeth Fergus
Jack Frishman
C.M. Kittrell
Charles Marqusee
Barry Mink
Ken M,x)rc
Robert Oden
Taqe Pedersen
Marjorie Stein
ADVISORY BOARD
Bob Beattie
Bill Koch
1A Z.
•
ASPS N/SNOWMASS
NORDIC COUNCIL
7 1 r 1
.7
r e -v to vii! r he -.r:-, `
ar
31'_ ill 1.0veimu,
U'i
i-n A 7n, C,
Ali vv h
at
Access rrit7 n e w 1 ei a t. e d N o u n t a in E:
and
Park
aion*c o ar n c Fn,
I Y a'_e
I i.' ILI
!t -1.. VV ferata 'Tiu-7' 1 t-' SS
L) e r
I
7 s fill v
fj
ir
ine ;.,ry IffK':-1-'v' 1; 0 VVI 1, JI f 10 e!-
a p 1 ta; rn x- rove rn an rs tl be rn iij a
I v V, V,
r
F,j) I-I a v 1 n n, thic f-r-nil in oiace —;,;,v force the
cire, -r.reo-jje"�ja -,r
riece�_ssary traj I downsrrearn of the L:
rn.--,,S e r p% 11 an n e td river corridor.
1f i can i0e of further assistance to the
pl,--?--e contact me.
Sincerely,
vid
r d
P.O. BOX 10815 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 303/925-4790
r
THE GANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
' 610 W. END ST.
P.O. BOX K -3
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925 -5000
November 19, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Burstein
The Board of Directors of The Gant Condominium Association,
Inc. reviewed Lowe Development Corporation's plans for its
proposed subdivision development known as 1010 Ute Avenue at
its recent Board of Directors meeting. We studied the plans
considering density, residential unit type, landscaping, road
access and the proposed park. Based upon this review, the
Board voted to support the proposed project. We feel it is
consistent with the development in the surrounding neighbor-
hood and is superior to the higher density uses proposed
previously for the property.
The Board also considered the proposed bike and Nordic trail
system. I am enclosing a separate letter on this subject.
Sincerely,
The Gant Condominium Association, Inc.
By: �' (
Gle ,nn B. Jeffers, President
GBJ /bn
Enclosure
THE GANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
610 W. END ST.
P.O. BOX K -3
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925 -5000
November 19, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear fir. Burstein:
The Board of Directors of The Gant Condominium Association,
Inc. have recently had the opportunity to review both the bike
and Nordic trail alignments for the conceptual plan of the
1010 Ute Avenue development. We felt that it was important to
notify you in writing as to the position of this Board, repre-
senting the Gant owners, regarding these two plans.
:4e strongly object to any alignment of a bike /Nordic trail
through the 1010 Ute Avenue development from Ute Avenue to the
Roaring Fork River. We do favor the alignment of this pro-
posed trail extension along Ute Park from the existing bike
path at the Benedict Building and along the river to the
proposed Gordon Bridge.
We feel that the alignment from Ute park is far superior to
any trail alignment through the 1010 Ute Avenue development
for the following reasons:
1. There is already an existing bike path adjacent to
The Gant which serves The Gant and the neighborhood
very adequately.
2. Any bike trail through the 1010 Ute Avenue develop-
ment to the river would conflict with the neighbor-
hood backyards and privacy of The Gant and Calderwood
Subdivision. There continues to be an increased
security problem in Aspen, and to encourage easier
public access and traffic through.the middle of pri-
vate property is inviting-additional security prob-
lems for us and others.
r .
f
Mr. Steve Burstein
November 19, 1986
Page Two
3. There is greater public benefit of the Ute Park
alignment because the trail goes by and through a
public park and down along the river.
4. The Ute Park trail alignment is a more logical
connection with the existing and expanded Nordic
trail system.
5. The Ute Park alignment meets the objectives of the
July 1.985, Aspen Area Comprehensive Dian: Parks/
Recreation /Open Space /Trail Element.
6. The developer's willingness to pay for the cost of
the new trail bed along Ute Park and along the river
to the proposed bridge saves the City money which
they can spend elsewhere for construction of new
trails or acquiring additional rights -of -way.
7. The Ute Park trail alignment along the park and river
is a greater expression of the open space concept,
and a far superior experience for the pedestrian,
biker, fisherman and Nordic skier.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the plan, and hope
that you and the public reviewing bodies will seriously
consider the points we have made in this letter.
Sincerely,
The Gant Condominium Associates, Inc.
By: _1 .
Glenn B. Jeffers, President
GBJ /bn
RAW WATER TAP AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered this day of ,
1987 by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (hereafter
City) and 1010 Ute Corporation (hereafter Ute), a Colorado
Corporation.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the ditch and water
rights described on Exhibit A hereto and may authorize the
use of the ditch and water rights at the location set forth
herein; and
WHEREAS, the City has been and is presently beneficially
using the above - described water rights for their decreed pur-
poses by diversions from their decreed points of diversion
and particularly for the irrigation.of city parks and open
space, and
WHEREAS, the City has determined as a part of its Water
Management Plan that the use of these water rights for the
irrigation of other lands within and without the City will
further the maximum beneficial use of these rights and will
reduce the demand for treated water for such purposes; and
WHEREAS, Ute needs water for outside irrigation, .
decorative and aesthetic and other uses on property located
-1-
at 1010 Ute Avenue which is the subject of a GMP application
and subdivision approval; and
WHEREAS, Ute desires, to secure the right to use the
water from the City for the irrigation of 7.5 acres and in a
series of decorative ponds all within the subdivision; and /
WHEREAS, the City desires to allow Ute to have the
right to use some of the water rights of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and
the following terms and conditions, the City and Ute agree
as follows:
I. The City hereby grants to Ute a raw water tap onto
the City raw water system allowing Ute to use so much of the
water rights set forth on Exhibit A flowing through the
Wheeler /East Aspen City Ditch as may reasonably be necessary,
without waste, to . irrigate no more than 7. 5 acres and for use
in a series of decorative ponds within the subdivision.
2. This raw water tap shall be for a term for so long
as the water is used for the above stated purposes by Ute and
its successors and assigns. Minor periods of interruption in
use shall not terminate the raw water tap.
3. Ute shall divert the water from the Wheeler /East
Aspen City Ditch near the boundary of the subdivision at a
-2-
0 s
turn -out to be installed iri or near the ditch, and after use
within the subdivision the water shall be returned to the
ditch by a lateral.
4. The turn -out and lateral shall be considered to be
part of the wheeler /East Aspen City Ditch and shall be the
property of the City.
5. Ute shall be responsible for and bear all costs of
constructing, maintaining, replacing, operating and cleaning
the turn -out and lateral and any sump, water pump,
transmission and storage structures and facilities- within the
subdivision.
6. The City shall have sole, exclusive and total
ownership and control over the operation of the Wheeler /East
Aspen City Ditch, including the turn -out and lateral.
7. Ute shall construct at its own cost the lateral
and all pumping, transmission and storage facilities in the
subdivision. Ute shall have the right to operate the turn-
out and lateral and .shall have sole, exclusive and paramount
control and operational right and responsibilities over all
diversion, transmission and storage facilities and structures
within the subdivision.
8. Ute shall construct at its own cost, all pump,
transmission and storage facilities necessary to serve Lot #1
-3-
•
of the Hoag Subdivision. The City shall be the owner of
these facilities and shall be responsible for the operation,
maintenance and control.
9. Ute shall pay no raw water tap fee or annual raw
water service charge in exchange for paying the entire cost
of installation, operation and maintenance of the irrigation
system including the turnout, sump, pumps, pipeline, ponds
and lateral for the 7.5 acres which includes Lot #1 of the
Hoag Subdivision and for the dedication of the irrigation
system within the Hoag Subdivision to the City. The facili-
ties constructed by Ute are shown on Exhibit B.
10. Ute and the City shall share the cost of draining,
cleaning, repair and replacement of the pumps and main
distrubution lines used for pumping the irrigation water to
the land within the subdivision on a proportional basis
arrived at by comparing the acreage of the land irrigated
within the subdivision to be platted and the acreage within
Lot #1 of the Hoag Subdivision to be dedicated to the City as
part of the subdivision /GMP approval process.
11. On a dollar for dollar basis, Ute may reduce the
utility connection cost of acquiring treated water service
from the City for one or more units built within the sub-
division in direct relation to the amount spent by Ute in
performing all work necessary to upgrade and improve the
-4-
•
0
Wheeler /East Aspen City Ditch from the diversion dam in the
Roaring Fork River, through and including the headgate,
wa steg a to and along the ditch up to the point where the
_ ti
lateral to be built by Ute returns water to the Wheeler /East
Aspen City Ditch after use in the subdivision.
12. Ute shall install the turnout from and the return
lateral to the Wheeler /East Aspen City Ditch in Lot #9. of the
Calderwood Subdivision. The City will cooperate with Ute in
securing any easement necessary for this purpose, but Ute
shall bear the cost of and work necessary to secure any ease-
ment not within the right-of-way held by the City for the
Wheeler /East Aspen City Ditch.
13. All work to or in the ditch necessary for the
installation of the turnout, lateral, sump or pump and all
work on. the irrigation, pump equipment or ponds within Lot 1
of the Hoag Subdivision shall be approved by the City
Engineer. -if Ute constructs facilities in accordance with
City plans and specifications and damage results to others
due to the inadequacy of those plans and specifications and
not the construction or Ute's operation, the City shall
indemnify Ute from any liability.
14. Ute may divert and use water under the above
described water rights only for the purposes and in the
manner specifically described herein, and no other use of
-5-
• 0-
water by Ute under these water rights shall be permitted. No
other water service shall be supplied by the City to Ute
under this Agreement, and all other water service by the City..
shall be supplied only after full compliance with all appli-
cable provisions of the Code and with all applicable poli-
cies, regulations and rules of the City.
15. Ute only acquires hereunder the right to use the
above described water rights as provided herein, and all
interests and claims in and to said water rights shall ter-
minate after the use of the water as set forth herein such
that no-right-or benefit shall remain by virtue of this
Agreement or the use of water hereunder by Ute its successors
in interest, or any individual purchasing land from Ute or
their successors in .interest.
16. Ute may divert and use water from the Wheeler /East
Aspen Ditch only at such times and to the extent water is
permitted to be taken from the above described sources by the
Division Engineer, Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado
under the priorities established by law. The parties also
recognize that the supply of water under the above described
water rights is dependent on' sources which are variable in-
quantity or quality and which are beyond the control of the
City. No liability shall attach to the City hereunder on
account of any failure to accurately anticipate the availabi-
I.
0 0.
lity of water supply or because of an actual failure of water
supply due to inadequate run -off, poor quality, or other
occurrence beyond the reasonable control of the City. This
Agreement pertains to the supply of raw water only, and the
City has no obligation in any way to treat the water supplied
to Ute hereunder and makes no warranties whatsoever as to the
quality of water supplied.
17. The City reserves the right to reuse, to the extent
permitted by law, the water which is diverted by Ute under
this Agreement. Except as is reasonably necessary within the
boundaries of the subdivision, Ute shall have no right what-
soever to reuse the water diverted by Ute under this
Agreement.
18. In the event an emergency need of the City arises,
the City, in its total discretion, may suspend the raw water
tap granted herein for the duration of that emergency and
utilize any and all of the water which is the subject of this
agreement. In the event the City exercises the power granted
in this paragraph, the City shall inform Ute, orally and
follow up in writing, of the nature of the emergency necessi-
tating such exercise and the estimated duration thereof. The
City shall not be liable to Ute for any losses occuring as a
result of the City exercising this right.
19. The City shall have the right to temporarily
suspend the raw water tap granted hereunder in order to
-7-
reconstruct or maintain any City facilities appurtenant to or
used in connection with any of the water rights described
above. In the even t the City wishes to exercise the power
granted in this paragraph, the City shall inform Ute , in
writing, at least one (1) week in advance of the time the
City will suspend the rights pursuant to this paragraph. The
City agrees to attempt to make such suspension at a time
mutually convenient and least burdensome to both parties.
20. In the event that either party hereto fails to per-
form any of the promises or covenants contained in this
Agreement, that party shall be in default hereof and upon 10
days written notice the.rights of the defaulting party under
this Agreement shall be suspended for such time as said party
continues to be in default.
21. Notifications and consultations hereunder shall be
addressed to and made by the following persons:
a. For the City:
Mr. Ron Mitchell
Assistant City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
WM
b. For Ute:
David G. Behrhorst
Vice President
1010 Ute Corporation
Post Office Box 9046
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303) 925 -6537
L
22. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the other from any liability resulting from the
intentional, tortious and /or negligent acts or omissions of
each party, its agents, and members or their guests, in rela-
tion to the exercise of rights under. this Agreement.
23. The City reserves the right to file a change of
water right application concerning any of the subject water
rights hereto or any other water right owned by the City
and /or to substitute water from sources other than the water
rights described above for the use of Ute pursuant to this
Agreement. Provided, however, the . City shall not seek a
change which would prevent its performance under this
Agreement. Ute expressly agrees that this Agreement does not
provide any basis for Ute to object to the exercise of the
rights reserved to the City in this paragraph. Ute 'agrees to
cooperate in any court proceeding concerning these water
rights.
24. This Agreement shall not be transferred, assigned
or in any way conveyed to a third party by Ute without prior
written consent of the City. The City shall not unreasonably
withhold its consent to any assignment of this Agreement so
long as. such assignment will not be injurious to the best
interests of the City. Provided, however, Ute may assign the
benefits of this Agreement to other development entities of
Ute, to financial entities for purposes of securing
financing, or the Homeowners Association with notice but
without prior approval by the City.
25. The parties agree that by this Agreement, the City
does not become a public utility, compelled to serve other
parties similarly situated. Ute agrees that neither it nor
its successors or assignees shall at any time petition the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission or the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County to acquire jurisdiction over
the rate set herein or over any' other utility rate set by the
City. The parties agree that in the event the City is held
to be a public utility by virtue of this Agreement, this
Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and
effect.
27. This Agreement supersedes and controls all prior
written and oral agreements and representations of the par-
ties and is the total integrated agreement between the par-
ties.
28. By signing this Agreement, the parties acknowledge
and represent to one another that all procedures necessary to
-10-
validly contract and execute this Agreement have been per-
formed and that the persons signing for each party are duly
authorized to do so.
29. Neither party shall be held liable for failure to
perform the Agreement due to wars, strikes, acts of God,
natural disasters, drought or other similar occurrences out-
.
side the control of either party.
30. This Agreement is binding upon the successors and
assignees of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have set our hands and official
seals the day and year written above
ATTEST: CITY OF ASPEN
lerk Mayor
ATTEST: 1010 UTE CORPORATION
Secretary
President
-11-
Name of Structure
Aspen Ditch/
Spar Gulch
Wheeler
Nellie Bird
Riverside
East Aspen
Begley /Spar Gulch
Anthony Well
Aspen Well #4
Durant Mine/
Spar Gulch
Aspen Well #2
Aspen Well #3
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ASPEN WATER RIGHTS
ROARING FORK RIVER BASIN
1981
Main stem
Decreed
Basin
Stream
Amount
Decreed
Aspen
Rank
Rank
(cfs or af)
Use
Owns
32
2.00
Irrigation
2.00
95
3.00
Domestic
3.00
Street
Stock
84
1
10.00
Irrigation
10.00
Domestic
Street
Stock
3073
3
3.94
Irrigation
:65
3076
4
3.00
Irrigation
.33
3187
7
6.00
Irrigation
6.00
4310
1.50
Irrigation
1.50
Domestic
Industrial
4746
.17
Domestic
.17
4758
.67
Municipal
.67
Absolute
Domestic
2. 64
Conditional
5018
2.00
Irrigation
2.00
Recreational
Drainage,
Storm Sewer
Flushing
6165
2.23
Irrigation
2.23
Municipal
Domestic
6166
2.23
Irrigation
2.23.
Municipal
Domestic
Manufacturing
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director
RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision PUD /Preliminary Plat
DATE: April 21, 1987
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Lowe Development Construction Corporation, Skip
Behrhorst.
LOCATION: Northside of Ute Avenue, just east of the Gant
Condominiums, west of Ute Cemetery and south of Roaring Fork
River.
ZONING: R -15 PUD.
SIZE: 7.6 acres, 332,880 square feet.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision /PUD- Preliminary Plat, 8040
Greenline, Stream Margin Review.
PAST ACTIONS
In February, the City Council granted the 1010 Ute Avenue
Subdivision Conceptual Subdivision /PUD approval and an allocation
for 16 free market residential dwelling units. Several condi-
tions were associated with the conceptual approval which the
applicant was required to address as part of the preliminary plat
review. The applicant has addressed all of the conditions which
are discussed in this memorandum. We also provide you with an
evaluation of the preliminary plat submission based upon Muni-
cipal Code___ criteria.
When the Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z) reviewed the
conceptual submission, 8040 Greenline and Stream Margin Reviews,
were postponed until the preliminary plat review, and so these
are also reviewed herein.
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE
Sections 20 -11 (Preliminary Plat - Procedures) and 20 -12 (Prelim-
inary Plat - Contents) establish the procedure and contents of
the preliminary plat review. Because the 1010 property is a
mandatory PUD, Section 24 -8.9 of the Land Use Code is also
applicable to the review. Architecture, landscaping and design
features are considerations based upon this section of the Code.
Additionally, slope density reduction must be calculated based
upon Section 24 -8.18.
Due to the location of the subject property in proximity to the
Roaring Fork River and the 8040 elevation line, the application
is required to address code sections 24 -6.2 (8040 Greenline
Review) and 24 -6.3 (Stream Margin Review).
REFERRAL COMMENTS
Engineering Department - Major concerns stated in Jay Hammond's
April 10, 1987 memorandum include:
1) Preliminary approval should be conditioned upon:
a. Submission of final plat in conformance with
Section 20 -15.
b. Inclusion of drawing index on final plat.
C. Note on final plat indicating roadway with a
public utility easement.
d. Notations on final utility plan, to indicate that
where water and sewer lines cross, separation
shall be maintained or lines will be encased per
city standards.
e. The final grading plan should more clearly define
the limits of cut and fill areas within the
development.
2) Review of the proposed grading plan for the proposed
trail linking Ute Avenue to the nordic trail above the
park site with final plan submission.
3) The stream margin review
continued involvement b,
Engineer and adherence
particularly regarding
temporary protection of
ditch and river.
approval should be subject to
i Chen Associates or another
to Chen's recommendations,
construction techniques and
natural slopes, the Wheeler,
4) The Engineer also recommends that the applicant
guarantee the completion of utility /road /trail and
landscaping improvements to Ute Avenue in the form of a
cash escrow with the City or a bank in-accordance with
Section 20- 16.(C). The guarantee should be negotiated
with the City Engineer and Attorney as part of the
subdivision improvements agreement.
2
Water Department - The replacement and relocation of fire hydrant
#742 on Ute Avenue is to be coordinated in the field between the
developer and water department. A new mueller fire hydrant is
recommended.
Parks Department - Parks Superintendent, Bill Ness, comments that
the Parks Department prefers trail option C because it is the
best trail alignment to the proposed pedestrian bridge.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS
Ms. Valerie Richter, Gant Condominium owner, comments in the
attached letter that she would like to preserve the views from
the Gant of the west meadow. She is particularly concerned about
visual impacts of buildings located on lots two and three.
PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS
Stream Margin Review
As requested by the staff, the applicant has provided us with a
letter from a professional engineer attesting to the fact that
construction will not interfere with the 100 year floodplain of
the Roaring Fork River. The City Engineer has also reviewed the
application and recommends approval of the Stream Margin Review.
The Planning Office recommends approval of the stream margin
review.
8040 Greenline Review
The Code requires the City to review all development within 50
years of the 8040 elevation line. Lot 1 of the Hoag Subdivision,
a portion of this application, is proposed to be dedicated to the
City as a public park. A parking lot, which constitutes develop-
ment, is proposed to be constructed in the proposed park within
50 yards of the 8040 contour line. Consequently, the 8040
greenline review is required.
During the conceptual plan review, a representative of the
property owner just to the east of the proposed park, objected to
the location of the proposed parking lot adjacent to the east
property line. At the time, City Council determined that the
design of the proposed park should be addressed during the 8040
greenline review. The landscaping plan shows that the parking
lot has been relocated twenty -feet from the property line, bermed
and landscaped. On Wednesday of last week, Skip Behrhorst told
us that he had met with representatives of the adjacent landowner
and agreed to relocate the parking lot another 10 feet to the
west. This conversation has not been confirmed by the adjacent
property owners representatives, but it is anticipated that they
will be in attendance at your meeting.
C
The Planning Office has no problems with the 8040 Greenline
Review request and recommends approval.
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
The Preliminary Subdivision Plat satisfies section 20 -17 of the
Land Use Code. Minor changes in accordance with the City
Engineer's comments should be made prior to final plan submis-
sion.
Preliminary PUD Plan
a. Architectural /Review /Design
Since the 1010 Subdivision will be a land subdivision, the
developer does not intend to build the residences. However,
the application contains architectural covenants and a
proposal for a design committee to guide the construc-
tion of houses. The staff has reviewed the proposed
covenants and find them to be comprehensive and adequate to
meet the City's PUD requirements. The covenants address
site plans, floor plans, exterior elevation, cross - sections,
color samples, exterior lighting, landscaping and grading,
and will be presented in detail at your meeting.
b. Landscaping Plan
Section 24 -8.16 requires the applicant to submit a land-
scaping plan. The proposed landscaping` plan seeks to
preserve as much existing vegetation as possible and enhance
the attractiveness of the site with some new vegetation
particularly adjacent to the Gant, and the construction of
three ponds. The landscaping is scheduled to occur over a
period of two years. It is anticipated that additional
landscaping will occur on individual lots as they are
developed. In our opinion, the landscaping plan is more
than adequate and if implemented will be very attractive.
Certain aspects of the landscaping and improvements plan
affects the public. The staff recommends that a guarantee
be negotiated as part of the subdivision agreement to insure
that improvements to public areas such as landscaping on Ute
Avenue, trail and utility location, Ute Avenue recon-
struction and parks improvement occur in a timely manner,
and that financial resources are available to the public to
complete the improvements in the unlikely event that the
project should be unable to do so.
C. Development Schedule
All improvements are anticipated to be completed during the
summer of 1987 and 1988 with the exception of the actual
construction of residences. Pursuant to the applicant's GMP
4
•
allocation, the residence
review within 33 months of
corresponding to September
granted by Council at that
•
s must be under
the original GMP
1, 1989, unless
time.
Outstanding Issues /Conditions From Past Approval
a.
0
Trails
building permit
submission date
an extension is
The applicant was required to return at preliminary plat
submission with three trail options for the proposed trail
which will link Ute Avenue to the proposed pedestrian bridge
over the Roaring Fork River. Three options have been
prepared and are attached for your review. The applicant
has committed to provide a trail easement for trail options
B,C or D in lieu of constructing trail option A on City
property. It is the staff position that the acquisition of
trail easements across private property are more valuable to
the City than commitments to construct trails on City
property. The City may budget to build trail option A at
any point in the future, however, after the 1010 Subdivision
is approved, the City will permanently lose their oppor-
tunity to provide a trail easement at no cost across the
subdivision.
In evaluating trail options B, C and D, the staff has
considered the potential trail experience and privacy for
subdivision residents and neighbors. Based upon these
considerations, the staff believes that trail option C is
the best trail alignment.
City Raw Water Use Agreement
The applicant has finalized a raw water use agreement with
the City of Aspen for use of irrigation water from the
Wheeler Ditch, consistent with City Council's condition of
approval.
C. Building Envelopes /Bedroom Counts
Building Improvement Envelopes have been specified as
requested. Bedroom counts were requested in order to
determine park dedication fees. Since the proposal is to
subdivide lots and not build houses, it is difficult to
estimate the proposed number of bedrooms. The park dedica-
tion fee is calculated based upon a maximum of four bedrooms
per residence. The applicant proposes to pay the maximum
fee conditioned upon the City refunding fees in the event
that less than four bedrooms per unit are built.
5
r
s
d. Lots 13,14 and 15
The applicant has prepared an elevation drawing of roof
heights on Lots 13, 14 and 15 from the perspective of the
east side of the Roaring Fork River. The purpose of the
drawing is to demonstrate the visual impact on the east
ridge of the site. At conceptual submission, it was the
staff opinion that Lots 13, 14 and 15 should be relocated to
the west side of the east ridge. The P &Z and City Council
did not concur with our position. Instead, the applicant
was asked to prepare and present east elevation perspect-
ives.
Although we continue to believe that no building should be
located on the east side of the ridge and that the drawings
indicate the negative visual impact of the structures, we
recognize that, at least conceptually, you do not concur
with our findings. The applicant has committed to restrict
the building heights of Lots 13, 14 and 15 to 12 feet above
the ridgeline. Unless your feelings about the development
have changed, we find this representation to be consistent
with the condition established by P &Z and the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office recommends approval of Preliminary Plat and
PUD Subdivision, 8040 Greenline, and Stream Margin Review subject
to the following conditions:
1) A subdivision /PUD agreement shall be submitted in conjunc-
tion with the final plat submission. The agreement shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney, City Engineer and Planning
Office prior to final plat presentation to City Council.
The agreement shall include the following provisions:
a. An open space and common facilities agreement in
accordance with Section 24 -8.19.
b. Commitment to join all improvement districts affecting
subject property.
C. Necessary documents to convey open space to the City of
Aspen.
d. Employee housing restrictions consistent with concep-
tual subdivision approval.
e. Commitment that representatives made during conceptual
and preliminary plan submissions will be adhered to.
f. Commitment to adhere to recommendations of Chen
Associates regarding construction techniques and
R
temporary protection of natural slopes, the Wheeler
ditch and river.
g. A guarantee for the completion of utility /road /trail
and landscaping improvements to Ute Avenue in the form
of cash escrow or bank bond or other alternative in
accordance with Section 20-16(c).
h. Architectural covenants as proposed in submission.
i. Commitment to submit working drawings of water system
to Water Department for approval prior to construction.
j. Commitment to replace and relocate to the satisfaction
of the Fire Marshall existing fire hydrant #741 prior
to the issuance of a building permit for the first
house in the subdivision.
k. Commitment to develop air pollution control plan to
mitigate construction impacts shall be approved by
Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
1. Commitment that all buildings comply with Ordinance 86-
5 regarding solid fuel burning devices.
M. Commitment to comply with noise abatement Ordinance 81-
12.
n. Commitment that in the event mine tailings are uncov-
ered during excavation, the applicant shall have the
soil tested for toxicity and the tests will be reviewed
by Environmental Health prior to removal of any soil
from the site.
2) The final plat shall be in the following form and /or include
the following information:
a. Dedication of trail option C to the City of Aspen.
b. Note restricting building heights on lots 13,14 and 15
to 12 feet above east ridge.
c. Preparation of plan in accordance with Section 20 -15.
d. Drawing Index on first page.
e. Note indicating that Ute Circle is a private roadway
with public utility easements.
f. Note on final utility plan to indicate that locations
where water and sewer lines cross separation shall be
7
maintained or be encased per City standards.
g. A final grading plan which shall more clearly define
the limits of cut and fill areas within the develop-
ment.
h. A more precise grading plan for the proposed trail
linking Ute Avenue to the Nordic Trail above the park
site on Ute Avenue.
3) In preparing for final plan submission, the applicant shall
adhere to the provisions of section 24 -8.12 of the Code.
GH.1010
8
AM
i _c :o -- c
g O /
I
J Al
10 wo
yl F m 4 n tmi F
0 N 1 121 O
O O x a = O
Z Z
a
+O �� O ,p a� O r0 a p� O _ � o�j O a�_• �
O q = 2
i N .. s.
A.
Y s� t
o
Ay
ys ,;= ?L'�!; \'�I� iJ� F - > — w •� ice``.. "- lo• � e
•
J
7.
a o
x m
/. ROARING_
/A
%
(�
e,b
PRELIMINARY P.U.D. /SUBDIVISION
UTE AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO
bL!`.1010
r
I
w %I
m
0
0
Z- —.4-7
fill
ial
21.
m
-4
kN
I
If
PRELIMINARY P.U.D./SUBDIVISION
UTE AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO
00.
MEMORANDUM
ANDUM
TO: Glen Horn, Planning Office
w
FROM: Bill Ness, Parks Superintendent !._36655
DATE- April 6, 1967
RE: 1010 tTte :venue Subdivision /PUD Preliminary Plat
After viewing all trail options I believe Opt-ion 'C' to be my first -choice. I feel
this makes the most sense and creates tYie hest trail experience by giving the
public a mare Magical approach to the proposed bridge. Option 'A' has the
interruption of going around the proposed Ute Subdivision and not being a
very direct approach to the bridge. If tre go TAfith Trail Option 'C' we still
have the option to add the trail along the river which will create a river -
oriented jagging loop around the proposed Ute Subdivision. I feel if we go
vAth Trail Option 'A' we'll find that some of the trail users will take a short
cut through the the Avenue Subdivision to get to the bridge. Plus, we won't
have the option to create the jogging loop.
BN:mjm
M
Mr. Glen Horn
Aspen- Pitkin Planning and Zoning
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
Deat Mt. Horn:
so
6214 North 34th Street
Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253
February 26, 1987
Oil
F �l
�.
MAR 41981 ;
I wish to present my concerns regarding the Lowe Construction Company
development project, which is presently under review by the City of Aspen.
I urge the City to safeguard views towards the cemetary and the Ever-
greens on its Western ridge from the vantage point of the Gant "K" Building
and the adjacent Ute Avenue path.
It would be n eyesore for the buildings to be placed towards the
crest of that ridge,; or for two -or -more level buildings to be allowed at
that location.
Several Gant buildings; several houses; and that section of Ute Avenue,
have for years afforded one of the more pleasant in -town vistas in Aspen.
In the Gant "K" Building, alone, over twelve units have picture windows
directly displaying that area. Each unit offers this view to their rental
guests. Over the course of a year, hundreds of Aspen visitors occupy those
units. They get an impression of Aspen, during their stay in those units,
and many have developed a preference for that location because of the un-
obstructed view of the surrounding area.
Unnecessary placement of buildings might be at the expense of current
property owners, who contribute to Aspen's economic and general welfare. I
urge that the structures—especially multi -level structures, be located on
tl�e development in a less obtrusive and view - obstructing location.
Sincerely,
Valerie Richter
Owner, Gant K' =301
60
TO: City Attorney y
City Engineer �
Aspen Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Part's epartment
Fire/Marshall
Zoning Official
FROM: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision /PUD Preliminary Plat
DATE: March 20, 1987
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of his client, Lowe Development
Corporation requesting approval for Preliminary Plat Subdivision,
Preliminary P.U.D. Plan, 8040 Green Line Review and Stream Margin
Review. The applicant is proposing a 16 unit subdivision, plus
one employee unit. The property is located on Ute Avenue and is
bordered by The Gant, Calderwood Subdivision, Ute Park and Ute
Cemetery as well as Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision. The land is located
within the R -15 P.U.D. zone on a total of 332,875 square feet, or
approximately 7.64 acres.
Please review this material and send your comments to this office
no later than April 7, 1987 in order for this office to have
adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P &Z on April
21st.
Thank you.
N M
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
I MAR 2 61987
TO: GLENN HORN, PLANNING
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: 1010 UTE AVENUE/ UD PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: MARCH 25, 1987
----------------------- --- 4610 ------------------
Per your memo of March we have again reviewed the
1010 preliminary application, in particular the utility plan,
sheet 5. Such utility plan is acceptable to the Aspen Water
Department, which in essence consists of an 8" cast iron water
main off Ute Avenue to the intersection of lots 6 and 10 at the
cul -de -sec, at which point such line is interconnected with a 6"
ductile water line to the existing water line located in the
Calderwood Subdivision, thereby creating a loop system as
recommended by this department.
We wish to note the existing fire hydrant #742 is to be relocated
or moved out of the bicycle path. We recommend (as being more
practical) that the hydrant top of the existing hydrant be
dismantled and the remainder of the hydrant be abandoned and a
new mueller type hydrant be located off the 8" main at or near
the intersection of the subdivision roadway in Ute Avenue; actual
location of the hydrant is to be agreed upon and verified in the
field between the project engineer and the Water Department.
JM : ab
cc: Jay Hammond, Public Service Director
Gideon Kaufman
40
MEMORANDUM
1 -87
TO: Glen Horn, Planning Office
FROM: Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal
RE: 1010 Ute Ave. PUD Preliminary Plat
DATE: March 23, 1987
I have review the above ment
is .6 of a mile from the Fire
The distance was measured by
# 742. The response time will
is adequate water in the area
addition of the new hydrants.
ioned Plat. The proposed subdivision
Department by the shortest route.
vehicle from the station to hydrant
be less than three minutes. There
to service fire protection with the
C. SCHMUESER G�N A•.EYER I1: 12 Grand Avenue; Suite'212
�.. Wlenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
j l . 1004
�-;; (303) 945
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8 SURVEYORS
March 17, 1 9R7
Mr. Glenn Dorn
As Pen /Pitkin County planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colora(?o 81611
PE: Pelationshin Retveen Floodplain and Pedestrian Trail
1010 Ute Avenue
Dear Glenn:
I have reviewed the drawings for 1010 Ute Avenue as it relates to Trail
Option A and the proposed pedestrian bridge crossing of the Roaring
Forl: River and the floodplain elevation adjacent to the property. 'This
is to certify that, if the trail and bridge are constructed as shovm on
the drawing, they will not interfere with the ion -year floodplain of
the P.oarina Fork River. The elevation of the trail and bottom of the
bridcae are at least three feet to four feet above the 100 -_year eleva-
tion at any given location.
I trust that the above certification is adequate to address the condi-
tion of the Planning and Zonina Commission. I would be happy to pro-
vide anv additional information at your reauest.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHi .(tESFR GORDON) P:EYFR, INC.
Pfean W . Gordon, P. F.
?�resid nt
IX7G: lec /614
xc: -Mr. Skin Fehrhorst,. Lowe .DevelorTnent :.
-Mr. Dick Fallin, Sutherland Fallin, Inc.
N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
DATE: April 10, 1987
RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Preliminary P.U.D.
Having reviewed the above application for Preliminary Plat
Subdivision, Preliminary P.U.D. Plan, 8040 Greenline, Stream
Margin and building on slopes in excess of 40% for the 1010 Ute
Avenue project, I would offer the following comments:.
PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDIVISION
Generally the submission is quite complete for preliminary plat
purposes. Preliminary approval should be contingent in:
1. Submission of a final plat in conformance with the
requirements of Section 20.
2. Inclusion of a drawing index.
3. Indication that Ute Circle is a private roadway and public
utility easement as well as separate easement agreements for
public utility purposes.
4. Notations on the utility plan to indicate that locations
where water and sewer lines cross they shall maintain separation
or be encased per City standards.
5. The grading plan should more clearly define the limits of cut
and fill areas within the development.
PRELIMINARY P.U.D. PLAN
The preliminary plan seems to show some changes to the proposed
site grading plan. I would recommend preliminary approval be
contingent on:
1. Designation of areas of 0 to 20, 21 to 30, 31 to 40 and 40 +%
slope as used in the slope- density reduction calculation. While
the developer has indicated that these reductions have been
calculated, I have not seen the working drawing of the topo on
which they were designated. While it may not be necessary to
include this information in the plat documents, we would simply
like to review the slope analysis.
Page Two
1010 Ute Avenue Preliminary P.U.D.
April 10, 1987
8040 Greenline
I would reiterate that the Engineering office has no significant
concerns related to 8040 review on Lot 1 of the Hoag subject to
specific review of the grading requirements of the proposed
trail.
Stream Margin Review
We would support stream margin approval subject to continued
involvement by Chen and Associates and adherence to their
recommendations particularly regarding construction techniques
and the temporary protection of natural steep slopes, the Wheeler
ditch and river.
Steep Slopes
Again, construction on steep slopes would seem achievable from a
design and soil stability standpoint. Approval should be subject
to the continued involvement and adherence to the recommendations
of a soils engineering consultant.
JH /co /101OUtePrelPUD
architecture
& planning
1280 ute avenue
aspen 81611
colorado
303/925 -4252
sutherlad, fallin, inc.
March 5, 1987-1'
Transmittal
i'
To; Jay Hammond, City Engineer
Fr; Dick Fallin, Sutherland, Fallin, Inc.
Re; 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision
We are herein transmitting the following Preliminary Plat Submission
Materials:
1. One application booklet dated March 5, 1987.
2. One copy letter Chen & Associates, dated March 2, 1987, Exhibit
"C„
3. Letter Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. dated February 26, 1987
RE: Drainage Plan 1010 Ute Avenue
4. One set drawings from Sutherland, Fallin, Inc.
Sheet
1
Cover Sheet
March
4,
1987
Sheet
2
Preliminary Plat &
Vicinity Map
February
27, 1987
Sheet
3
Grading Plan
March
4,
1987
Sheet
4
Road Plan
February
27, 1987
Sheet
5
Utility Plan
February
27, 1987
Sheet
6
Landscape and Site
Devlpmt Plan
March
4,
1987
Sheet
7
Exhibit "D ", Roof
Height Illus.
March
4,
1987
Sheet
8
Trail Option "A"
March
4,
1987
Sheet
8a
Cross Sections, Trail
Option "A"
March
4,
1987
Sheet
9
Trail Option B
March
4,
1987
Sheet
10
Trail Option C
March
4,
1987
Sheet
10a
Cross Sections Trail
Option C
March
4,
1987
Sheet
11
Trail Option D
March
4,
1987
Urana Avenue, quite z iz
nwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945 -1004
February 26, 1987
Mr. Jay Hammond, City Engineer
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Drainage Plan
1010 Ute Avenue
Dear Jay:
Please find attached hereto a report entitled "Drainage Report, 1010
Ute Avenue ". The report is based on the criteria which you and I have
talked about in the past, as well as the written information which you
had assembled. earlier last week. The report addresses the concept of
maintaining both historic surface water flows and historic groundwater
recharge characteristics.
The report should be reviewed in conjunction with the grading and
drainage plan presented in plan form. If you so require, I will pro-
vide you with the detailed engineering calculations used to determine
the drainage plan details.
If you do have any questions or require additional information, please
feel free to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
ieside . Gordon, P.E.
t
m:3c /6148
•
I. INTRODUCTION
DRAINAGE REPORT
1010 UTE AVENUE
•
The purpose of this. report is to address the methods
the storm water runoff and groundwater recharge for
development of 1010 Ute Avenue. This report will
methods of drainage calculations and assumptions used
the various structures for handling the runoff.
u !,r , •
of handling
the proposed
also address
in designing
A number of methods are used to estimate the amount of runoff from
a rainfall event. These methods range from the Rational Method,
developed in the 1800's, to the more recently developed computer
models, such as the Stormwater Management Model. The Method sel-
ected to estimate peak flows should be based on the size of the
drainage area, the available data, and the degree of accuracy re-
quired for design. The Rational Method was used in the drainage
analysis for 1010 Ute Avenue.
The Rational Method is the most widely used method of estimating
peak runoff. Its limitations include the size of the drainage
area (e.g., it should not be used for basins greater than 200
acres in size). Also, a major limitation is that it only provides
the peak rate of flow and, thus, only one point on the runoff hy-
drograph. The Rational Method, however, is considered an adequate
approach to analysis in providing information in the design of the
local drainage structures typified by this project. The theory
behind the Rational Method oonsiders the following asumptions:
A) The time of concentration is the time required for runoff from
the most remote point in the basin to reach the point under
design, or typically called, and hereinafter referred to as,
the "point of concentration ".
B) The peak flow rate occurs at the time of concentration.
C) The rainfall lasts as long or longer than a time equivalent to
the time of concentration.
D) The intensity of rainfall is uniform over the entire drainage
basin.
For 1010 Ute Avenue, the Time - Intensity - Frequency curves provided
by the City are utilized. These curves were developed utilizing
methods outlined in the Urban Storm Drainage Criterial Manual,
prepared for the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the
National Weather Service Rainfall Frequency Atlas for Colorado.
• i
The runoff coefficient used for the study was based on the minimum
and maximum recommended values outlined in the January 17, 1984,
memorandum from Jay Hammond to Dan McArthur and Chuck Roth regard-
ing storm runoff calculations.
II. HISTORIC DRAINAGE PATTERNS
The 1010 Ute Avenue site exhibits historic drainage patterns
whereby surface runoff generally runs to the north. More specifi-
cally, two ridges separate drainage. One ridge is located on the
east end of the property, the other is located towards the center
of the property. On the west side of the property (i.e., west of
Ute Avenue) is Aspen Mountain. At present, surface runoff from
this area flows east into the Ute Avenue right -of -way. At Ute
Avenue, the flow then proceeds to the north along the west side of
Ute Avenue.
The center ridge of the property splits flow to the east.and west.
On the west side of this ridge, Lots 1 -5 and 17 are proposed. On
the east side of the ridge, Lots 6 and 7 are proposed. At pres-
ent, runoff from the west side sheet flows to a drainage along the
east side of Ute Avenue. Once runoff enters this drainage, flow
proceeds to the north. On the east side of this ridge, runoff
sheet flows to the east to the drainage between the east ridge and
the center ridge. Once in this drainage, flow proceeds north to
the Wheeler Ditch.
The east ridge in the site splits flow to the east and to the
west. Lots 8 and 16 are proposed on the west side of the ridge.
On the east side of the ridge, Lots 9 -15 are proposed. Surface
runoff from the east side of the ridge presently sheet flows into
the Wheeler Ditch along the east of the property. Below this
ditch, surface runoff sheet flows to the Roaring Fork River. The
drainage between the center ridge and east ridge presently empties
into the Wheeler Ditch along the north of the property.
III. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES
The proposed drainage facilities for 1010 Ute Avenue will consist
of a combination of culverts, retention /detention ponds and
drywells.
The objective of the drainage plan were to limit developed flows
leaving the property to the historic 100 -year flow rate, to retain
the 10 -year historic flow for recharge to groundwater (reasoning
to be discussed later), to size drywells for the combination of
10 -year retention and 100 -year detention and to determine drywell
sizes for homes ranging from 2,000 square feet to 6,000 square
feet.
The 10 -year event was chosen for design of recharging the
groundwater using the following reasoning:
-2-
• s
In recalling the Rational Method theory regarding the antecedent
precipitation coefficient, it is seen that, at the intensity for
rainfall events through the 10 -year rainfall event, the coeffic-
ient is 1.0. Beyond the 10 -year event, the coefficient gets
larger. Our objective is to recharge the groundwater in the
proposed conditions to equal that as seen in the historic condi-
tions. The rational theory utilizes the antecedent precipita-
tion coefficient to account for the fact that, as the intensity
get greater, the runoff to recharge ratio get larger. In
essence, for the events up to the 10 -year event, the runoff to
groundwater recharge ratio is nearly equivalent. At the 10 -year
event, the ground surface becomes so saturated that the ground
can no longer receive moisture. Therefore, the remaining pre -
cipitation in the event becomes surface runoff; hence, the
runoff to groundwater recharge ratio increases.
The proposed drainage facilities have incorporated drywells to
handle the increased runoff from selected individual homesites.
As stated earlier, these drywells will provide storage for both
recharge and detention. Table I shows the size of drywells for a
corresponding size home. It is important to note that the feasi-
bility of limiting the flow out of the drywells serving the smal-
ler homes to the 100 -year historic rate is nearly impossible from
a maintenance point of view. For the smaller homesites, 2,000 to
4,000 square feet, the 100 -year historic flow is so small that the
controlled outlet would be a one -inch to two -inch diameter pipe.
In this case, it is easily seen that this can be continual
maintenance problem caused by the small outlet plugging up. For
this reason, an outlet pipe of no less than three inches in
diameter is proposed.
In referencing the drainage map for 1010 Ute Avenue, it is seen
that the points of concentrating are fabled at various locations
on the mapping. These points of concentration were picked to gain
the ability of accomplishing the objectives of the proposed drain-
age plan. Table II is shown on the mapping depicting flow data
and design data at each point of concentration. Table II is also
attached to this report.
It is our opinion that this drainage plan is designed such that:
A) The drainage plan complies with the drainage regulations of the
City of Aspen;
B) Historic
flow patterns
and runoff_
amounts are maintained in such
a manner
as to have no
impact upon
neighboring landowners and the
historic
surface
and
groundwater patterns;
C) All systems proposed are capable of continuous maintenance; and
D) Pollutants are contained within the development itself, and will
not be introduced to any other natural water courses.
-3-
RE:
Dear
AS /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CCv - 81611
(303) 925 -2020
Date:
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application.. We have determined
that your application IS NOT complete..
Additional items required include:
Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
Adjacent Property Owners List /Envelopes /Postage (one copy)
Additional copies of entire application
Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica-
tion
Response to list of items (attached /below) demonstrating
compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the
Code, or other specific materials
A check in the amount of $
A. Your application is complete and
we have scheduled it for
review by the
on We will
call you if we need any additional
information prior to that
date. Several days prior to your
hearing, we will call and'!.
make available a copy of the memorandum.. Please note that it
IS NOT your responsibility to
post your property with a
sign, which we can provide you for a $3..00 fee..
B. Your application is incomplete,
we have not scheduled it
review at this time.. When we receive the materials we have
requested, we will place you on the
next available agenda.
If you have any questions, please call
the planner assigned to your case..
Sincerely,
ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
architectu6
& planning
1280 ute avenue
aspen 81611
colorado
303/925 -4252
sutherlgo, fallin, inc. S
March 5, 1987
Transmittal
To; Glenn Horn, Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
Fr; Dick Fallin, Sutherland, Fallin, Inc.
Re; 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision
We are herein transmitting the following Preliminary Plat Submission
Materials:
1. Letter dated March 4, 1987 from Gideon Kaufman Law Office
2. Check in the amount of $1,840.00 filing fee.
3. One application booklet dated March 5, 1987.
4. One copy letter Chen & Associates, dated March 2, 1987, Exhibit
C
5. One set drawings from Sutherland, Fallin, Inc.
Sheet 1 Cover Sheet March 4, 1987
Sheet 2 Preliminary Plat & Vicinity Map February 27, 1987
Sheet 3 Grading Plan March 4, 1987
Sheet 4 Road Plan February 27, 1987
Sheet 5 Utility Plan February 27, 1987
Sheet 6 Landscape and Site Devlpmt Plan March 4, 1987
Sheet 7 Exhibit "D ", Roof Height Illus. March 4, 1987
Sheet 8 Trail Option "A" March 4, 1987
Sheet 8a Cross Sections, Trail Option "A" March 4, 1987
Sheet 9 Trail Option B March 4, 1987
Sheet 10 Trail Option C March 4, 1987
Sheet 10a Cross Sections Trail Option C March 4, 1987
Sheet 11 Trail Option D March 4, 1987
i
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, reby certity that on this-__D/ day of
198 �', a true and correct copy of the attachedNo a of Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first -class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners ap indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on'the public notice.
lazlx C(a
Nancy Caeti
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1010 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION /PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
April 21, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 1st floor, City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado to consider an applica-
tion submitted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of his client, Low-
Development Corporation requesting approval for preliminary plat
subdivision, preliminary PUD, 8040 Greenline and Stream Margin
Review to construct a 16 unit subdivision, plus one employee
unit. The property is located on Ute Avenue and is bordered by
The Gant, Calderwood Subdivision, Ute Park and Ute Cemetery as
well as Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision. The land is located within the
R -15 PUD zone on a total of 332,875 square feet, or approximately
7.64 acres.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 298.
s /C. Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on April 2, 1987.
City of Aspen Account.