The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1279 Ute Ave.A025-00 DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property. Rights", of the City of Aspen'Municipal Code.' This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Jim Martin, 67 St. Andrews Circle, Durango, CO 81301 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Secondary Mass Variance and Garage not at Grade Variance Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution# 24-2000, 4/25/00 Land Use Approval(s)Received and Dates(Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) May 6, 2000 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) May 7, 2003 Expiration Date of Development Order(The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 6th day of May, 2000, by the City of Aspen Community D elopment Director. J Ann Woods, Community Development Director PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lot 1, Ute Subdivision, by resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission numbered 24, series of 2000. For further information contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/City of Aspen Account Publish in The Aspen Times on May 6, 2000 • RESOLUTION NO. 24 (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE, APPROVING THE VARIANCES OF THE SECONDARY MASS AND GARAGE NOT.AT GRADE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LOT 1,UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-184-03-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Howard G. Stacker and James T. Martin ("Applicants"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review, and for variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 43,084 square feet and is located in the Affordable Housing Zone District; and, WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992 granted final review approval for Rezoning from Rural Residential to Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Quota System Exemption, Vested Rights, and Waiver of the Watermain Extension Moratorium; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated April 25, 2000, recommended approving the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade from the Residential Design Standards finding that criteria c has been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 20, Series of 2000, by a five to two (5-2) vote, the 8040 Greenline Review for the Ute Park Partnership residence; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade provisions of the Residential Design 1 1111111111111111 IIIII 1111111111 IlIHI III Hill 11111111 442930 05/02/2000 01:20P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, with one condition; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS,the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 That the Residential Design Standard variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade, Section 26.410.040, are approved for the single family residence at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado, with the following condition: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of April, 2000. 1111111 11111 111111 11111 11111 11111 111111 III 111111111 IHI 442930 05/02/2000 01:20P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: C /L4' -a- CYity Attorney V ' .sett Blaich, Chair ATTEST: /ckie Lothian, l eputy City Clerk 1 111111 11111 111111 11111 11111 11111 111111 III 11111 liii liii 442930 05/02/2000 01:20P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO RESOLUTION NO. 20 (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR LOT 1,UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-184-03-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Howard G. Stacker and James T. Martin ("Applicants"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review, and for variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 43,084 square feet and is located in the Affordable Housing Zone District; and, WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992 granted final review approval for Rezoning for Rural Residential to Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Quota System Exemption, Vested Rights, and Waiver of the Watermain Extension Moratorium; and, WHEREAS, the subject house and proposed development are located at an elevation above 8040 feet above sea level and within the review authority of the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.435.020 Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at or 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.435.030(C) 8040 Greenline review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the 8040 Greenline Review with conditions; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and 11111111111101111111111111111111111111 III 1111111111111 442931 05/02/2000 01:21P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated April 18, 2000, recommended approving the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade from the Residential Design Standards finding that criteria c has been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a six to one (6-1) vote, the 8040 Greenline:Review for the Ute'Park Partnership residence with conditions recommended by the Community Development Department; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development. proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS,the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety,and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 That the 8040 Greenline Review for the Ute Park Partnership residence, Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision is approved with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an .alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel • and proposed addition. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to erisure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a detailed landscaping plan for Lot 1. g. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. The tree removal plan, when compared to the grading plan, seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be clarified and is susceptible to the City of Aspen Tree Removal ordinance. 111111 11111 111111 11111 11111 hIll IIIHI III 11111 Ilil IIII . 442931 05/02/2000 01:21P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI . 2 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 3. The building permit application shall include: - a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A Nordic trail crosses Lot 1, approximately 50 - 75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks has been working closely with Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently finished construction on the section that crosses Lot 1. There is a fully recorded, legal Nordic trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge,Nordic Trails Coordinator, agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this easement for a short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because of this agreement, a portion of the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet in length) as it is now located has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to minimize disturbance of this trail during construction, and if construction is going on during the winter, then it would be advantageous to skiers if the trail remains open and usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate sprinklered system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and that a pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper floor at approximately 25 psi. 1) Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. 2) If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. 3) If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 4. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 5. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 6. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 7. Before issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the 111111 11111 111111 11111 11111 11111 111111 111 11111 liii Till 442931 05/02/2000 01:21P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 8. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 9. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 10. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards { and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. 11. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 12. There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 Greenline Review. 13. Approval of the 8040 Greenline Review is conditioned upon approval of the variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade provisions of the Residential Design Standards for this property. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the - development proposal approvals as herein awarded,-whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof • APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 18th day of April,2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: 1 111111 IIIIJ 111111 11111 11111 11111 111111 III 111111111 Iill 442931 05/02/2000 01:21P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI • 4 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO , 4171°4 e11(+2 City Attorney Re:ert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Al ' 44.r� kie Lothian, D •puty City Clerk 1 111111.11111111111111111111111111111111 III 111111111 1111 442931 05/02/2000 01:21P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 5 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Joseph Wells Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen,Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary) e-mail Address: jwells @sopris.net April 3, 2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Community Development Department, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Hand Delivered Dear Nick: As we have discussed, I am forwarding additional information regarding the 8040 Greenline Review application for Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision in response to staff comments at the recent DRC meeting. 1. I am providing you with five sets of revised drawings reflecting the architectural revisions which have been made to the residence. The changes include the extension of the lower-level facade to the west, to further screen the garage doors from below. Note also that a roof overhang was always planned over the garage doors (see attached), to create a shadow line and to give the appearance that the doors are recessed. There is also a lower-level entry on the south side of the garage doors. 2. I have researched the water installation. Every indication is that the tap which was installed for the service to this lot is a one-inch tap off of an eight- inch service line installed into the subdivision. This is what is shown on the Water Plan, recorded in Book 704 at Page 252 (see attached reduction). As you are aware, there is a requirement that the residence on Lot One be sprinklered; the Water Department does not believe that there is adequate water pressure available to accomplish that. It is my understanding that the solution is to either install a new tap which is larger and to possibly add a booster pump or provide adequate storage to accommodate fire flows. Short , of engineering the system, it is not possible to determine which solution is the most cost-effective. It would therefore be my preference to re-affirm this obligation in any approval of the 8040 Greenline and include a condition that this issue be addressed as a part of building permit review. 3. A drainage plan was submitted for review as a part of the subdivision review (see attached copy of plan). The 8040 Greenline approvals for the other two lots (see attached) included conditions regarding drainage. April 3,2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Page two of two 4. Parks Department correctly points out that grading is anticipated close to several of the existing trees which we are planning on saving. Extra care will need to be taken to protect these trees during construction. It is the owner's intention to maintain the existing finish grade around the base of these trees. 5. Both of the other two 8040 Greenline Review approvals included a condition that a detailed landscape plan be submitted for approval prior to building permit issuance. 6. Note that the First Amendment to the Ute Park Subdivision (Exhibit D2 to the application) indicates Fire Access Easements on both Lots 1 and 2, to accommodate the turnaround function for emergency equipment. 7. I will be providing you with the two photographic panoramas that you asked for, as soon as I can determine a suitable location from which the site can actually be seen. So far, I haven't found a spot on the highway that serves this purpose. Let me know if you need additional information regarding this matter. S.fii ∎41/ / / •:eph Weis • 1 ,, f 1 k. ii 1,,,,, „, itst ,iff. ,, ,„.f.„.,. I , 1 , k "!iEt• . •Xf ' E a sof< a. a a: ,; gf o p8 l8 t .., aq F • . — AY IMIMI 'k.., ��rit I ,"'7 om„ k'f-ti,r,ii itT, ' nil ,,,,,,,,,,,ii . . 1 i : , .,,,41, 1 i.,,,,.,„, ..,..Lb.,,,,...,,, „.„,.. ,,.., 4.4 _ ,,,, lt,..., .,.. a ...,„, . ,,,,,,., �.. "€' s 6 i:fflt.,,' i'' " ii //,,,t,lie P' ' • , 1:z4:1,1:::,:i l''',"/74:, • + a ,1 ,10'tea rti74 sxa tu11:4 4 Ili atolomow k. 44leY ".. ., I t, tM*t , Nap u� ,, , ii d w a .,, aryry M«oxap p [te YS A ,r.:34„10',NV., k. ,. vl,,,,,,, in r '� S � +Y fW i14. �ec ,0 u ,,,x f"4,.841Pa i,, z,¢: ■ r ♦ '�j'j'' � �I .744 ' ~ 6‘ u. • 5".. s .y. ii ! \ i i \ �l;1 III . 1 , 1 t ii . •• : 1: 4 lit,. . •, „ , , g wiliiiiiiiii . . • z •Ii., 4 ,: BANNER • CONSULTING ENGINEERS IS ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction.Colorado 81506 13031243-2242 FAX 13031243.3810 605 East Main.Suite 6 Aspen.Colorado 81611 13031 925-5857 1 October 10, 1991 • Tom Stevens . The Stevens Group, Inc. 418 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Tom: Pursuant to your request, I have investigated the drainage issues relative to the proposed Ute Park Subdivision. The enclosed report addresses these grading and drainage issues. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, • Robert E. Dan' el, Jr. , P.E. 11 Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure RED\clk wp-doc\8203\8203drai.n I I I I t BANNER ■ 1 II GRADING AND DRAINAGE REPORT UTE PARK SUBDIVISION II ASPEN, COLORADO IIGeneral This project is located south of existing Ute Avenue at the east limits of the City of Aspen. The site slopes from south to north and consists of grades ranging from eight to 20 percent. The soil types encountered on the site consist of topsoil (2-4 foot depth) which overlays silty sand and gravel with cobble (see Soils Report dated 11/30/90, prepared by Chen Northern, Inc. ) . There exists both substantial tree and grass vegetation on the property. There appears to be no predominate nor significant IIerosion problems evident due to concentrated spring runoff or summer showers. II The project consists of three single family free market lots and seven deed restricted condominium units. This report, and the drainage plan prepared in conjunction with the grading plan prepared by The Stevens Group, Inc. , addresses the development activity associated with the deed restricted units and road/drive to serve the three free market lots. As a part of the submittal for individual building permits on the free market lots, a drainage IIreport should be prepared to address the increased runoff generated from the residential lot development. • II Improvements The improvements associated with this subdivision that have an I impact from a drainage perspective will be the road/drive to serve Lots 1 and 2 and the development of the deed restricted units on Lot 4 . The paving improvements to Ute Avenue are being made in conjunction with the Ute Avenue Improvement District. Included in these improvements are accommodation for historical surface runoff for an area approximately 400 feet south of the right-of-way for Ute Avenue. This surface runoff will be carried down (west) Ute I Avenue in a roadside ditch that will tie into the lower Ute Avenue improvements. I The drainage improvements associated with this plan that are within the Ute Avenue right-of-way will be coordinated and incorporated into the District work. Drainage improvements on Lot 4 will consist of grading to allow the natural historical drainage pattern 111 to continue across the property. Swales should be created a minimum of 15 feet from the structures to allow for positive drainage away from the foundations. These swales should be 111 . vegetated and maintain a minimum of a 2% gradient. The vegetation I is w BANNER I will minimize any erosion potential and create a natural percolation area for the roof runoff. The paved surfaces on Lot 4 will be graded to allow sheet flow drainage to the ditch adjacent IIto Ute Avenue. The runoff generated from the paving of the drive/road for Lots 1 and 2 will be drained to a ditch on either side. This ditch will I flow into the existing ditch at the south edge of Ute Avenue. Again for purposes of minimizing erosion and maximizing percolation, these ditches should be vegetated. 4 Drainage Calculations The calculations showing the historic and developed runoff from illthis project are attached in the Appendix to this report. I 11 II il • 41 1 I I II I II I BANNER • I UTE PARK SUBDIVISION DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Historical Draina•e Acrea•e C .2 .10 .100 Area 1 . 54 . 35 . 21cfs . 32cfs . 55cfs Area 2. 2 . 50 . 35 1. 0cfs 1. 47cfs 2 . 54cfs Tc = 15 minutes I2 = 1. 15 in. /hr. I10 = 1. 69 in. /hr. I100 = 2 . 91 in. /hr. NOTE: Tc is calculated to the northwest corner of the property where the runoff leaves the property in the Ute Avenue drainage ditch. C is based upon vegetated slope areas. Develo•ed Draina•e Acrea•e CavgA .2 .10 .100 Area 1 . 54 .42 . 47cfs . 71cfs 1.22cfs Area 2 2.50 1. 62 1. 86cfs 2 . 74cfs 4 . 71cfs Tc = , 15 minutes 12 = 1. 15 in. /hr. I10 = 1. 69 in. /hr. I100 = 2 . 91 in. /hr. NOTE: Tc is calculated to the northwest corner of the property where the runoff leaves the property in the Ute Avenue drainage ditch. CavgA is a weighted average taking into consideration the impervious and pervious portions of the site. I I I I I 1 I <------ • A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OP 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE WINNERMAN RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 2 OF THE UTE PARR SUBDIVISION AT THE EAST END OF UTE AVENUE Resolution 94-IG� WHEREAS, Section 24-7-503 of the Aspen Municipal Code requires Planning and Zoning Commission approval of all development within 100 feet of the 8, 040 foot elevation line; and WHEREAS, Larry Winnerman submitted an application to the Planning Office for. 8040 Greenline review of his proposed residence; and WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Engineering Department and the Parks Department; and WHEREAS, the site contains red and blue avalanche hazard areas as identified by consultant Art Mears, and the platted building envelope established a conditional building area and an unconditional building area based on the avalanche concerns; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the proposal, a site inspection, and referral comments, the Planning Office recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on June 21, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the project pursuant to the criteria of Section 24-7-503 , and voted 5-2 to approve the Winnerman 8040 Greenline review with thirteen conditions amended from staff's recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Commission also approved by 7-0 votes two additional motions: 1) to direct staff to notify the Nordic Council that the trail cut on Lot 2 (Ute Park Subdivision) is a violation of the 8040 Greenline regulations, and the Council must submit an application for 8040 Review within 30 days of notice; and 2) to direct staff to have on-going inspections of the Winnerman project by appropriate City departments. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION that it grants approval for the Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review for a residence of 4 , 852 s. f. (plus 540 s.f. garage and 774 s. f. deck) as represented by the application subject to the following conditions: 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be 1 i :t- approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2) The lowest level of the structure on the north (west) side shall not be excavated or exposed except for minimal egress windows which may be required for bedrooms per the Building Code. 3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the downhill side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of the building envelope. on the site, a 4) Prior to any grading or storage be erected along the building sturdy, visible barricade shal l envelope lines on the east, south and west to protect the existing grades and vegetation. 5) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted immediately. 6) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Application for tree removal permits must occur no less than two weeks prior to submittal for the building/excavation permits. 9) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building compatible atible with the hillside. 10) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review. The open area to the west of the residence shall remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. 11) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding fire access and building sprinklers, (required for Lot 2 as a condition of subdivision approval) . 12) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to 2 the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape =�a treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. 13) All representations made by the applicant within the application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval for this project. Z(1/ 11d'ee-' 4 W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan C ney, Deputy ity Clerk 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE NATHANSON 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 3 OF THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION Resolution No. 94- k5 , WHEREAS, Gary and Linda Nathanson submitted an application for 8040 Greenline Review to the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed for referral comments by the Parks Department and the Engineering Department; and WHEREAS, based on the referral comments, Planning staff comments, and presentation by the project representatives, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-2 in favor of the project with 15 conditions; and WHEREAS, the Commission also passed a motion directing staff to make on-going inspections during the construction process; and WHEREAS, the Commission passed another motion directing staff to contact the Nordic Council to require them to come before the Commission for 8040 Greenline Review for the trail which they cut through the Ute Park Subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it - approves the Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review for the development of a single family residence subject to the following conditions: 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2) Terracing of the ground shall (including any retaining walls) not extend beyond the line of the deck. 3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the uphill side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of the building envelope. 4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building envelope lines, and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at the northwest corner of the house, to protect the existing grades and vegetation. 5) The deck outside of the master bedroom shall be reduced in size to retain the mature aspens at the northwest corner of the house, in addition to replacing the at-risk trees caliper inch for caliper inch. . 1 6) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted immediately. 7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Submit for tree removal permits at least two weeks prior to submitting for building permit. 10) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building less visible on the hillside. 11) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review. The open field to the west of the residence shall remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. 12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding. fire access. 13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry driveway' s retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall.. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. 14) All representations made by the applicant within the application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval for this project. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 21, 1994 . W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan rn� De 4c-Cit Clerk Y. P Y 2 Fr- \ -i r .. • • \, plefAc.- •r (- ' 2 b r L. Neck 04.4.€ } 5ee14; - 43) cat ,-A ka 60%-vf -r) 7co. cre---16-1/4. 01-2 eg4zks pvbfeer_ ___ pko - • pea 1 tte-co-4.0- Pr () Kr/Olt , • Ica — '(� • 614e 4, ,r 4,02eleit . • - sAPP oktoitA ph91,A,, 611\42, && poll" 113 i MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directory f Ao FROM: Nick Lelack, Plannei RE: Ute Park Subdivision,Lot 1, Residential Design Standard Variances from Secondary Mass & Garage Not At Grade—Public Hearing DATE: April 25, 2000 APPLICANT: �, �t as w � � . : R Ute Park Partnership �� E a Jim T. Martin H � REPRESENTATIVE: # �. "� . . ".,� .:: Joseph Wells Joseph Wells Land Planning ti ; "X te'- , , . 9, , i a �. �, .; ■ LOCATION: w. 14f; " �,� Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision ZONING: � ' " r Affordable Housing (AH) k� � ' The a ows pom �.. ems . CURRENT LAND USE: t to the approximate location of the Vacant approved building envelope and development site. Most of the trees shielding property will remain. PROPOSED LAND USE: Single Family Residence SUMMARY: LOT SIZE: The Applicant is requesting variances from the 43,084 sq. ft. secondary mass and garage not at grade provisions of the Residential Design Standards for a new house to FAR: be located on Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision. Existing: 0 sq. ft. This is a one-step review before the Planning and Proposed: 5,770 sq. ft. Zoning Commission. The Commission approved the Allowable: 5,770 sq. ft 8040 Greenline Review for this property on April 18. 1 REVIEW PROCEDURE Residential Design Standards. The Design.Review Appeal Committee (DRAC)—the Planning and Zoning Commission in this case—may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF COMMENTS: Ute Park Partnership, Jim Martin, ("Applicant"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, is requesting approval of a variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence in an approved building envelope. Arthur Mears, Natural Hazards Consultant, evaluated the site during the original Planned Unit Development and Subdivision review in 1992 and again for this application for avalanche hazards. He identified two (2) potential building envelopes on the site. One building envelope was designated the "conditional building envelope." This envelope consists of an"avalanche red zone", which is an area of frequent but not intense avalanche slides, and"avalanche blue zone," an area of powder blast. The second building envelope was designated the "unconditional building envelope." This area was determined to be unaffected by the slide zones, but subject to the lateral spreading of debris. Staff has been working with the Applicant for the past couple of years on a compact design of a single-family house located only in the unconditional building envelope that meets nearly all of the Residential Design Standards and is acceptable to the Applicant. Residential Design Standard variances are requested as part of this application for secondary mass and garage not at grade. Staff supports these variances, finding that the variances are clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site- specific constraints. The undeveloped lot contains slopes in excess of 25%, red and blue avalanche zones, dense native vegetation, and is a scenic resource for the community. The proposed development minimizes the impact on the hillside with a principal structure limited to the unconditional building envelope rather than extending a secondary mass into the avalanche zones and across the hillside, and a relatively short driveway cut exceeding the two (2)-foot standard because of the natural topography of the lot. • 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision secondary mass and garage not at grade variances from the Residential Design Standards to build a new single family residence,with the following condition. 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision secondary mass and garage not at grade variances from the Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence with the condition in the draft resolution." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings • 3 RESOLUTION NO. c (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE VARIANCES OF THE SECONDARY MASS AND GARAGE NOT AT GRADE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LOT 1,UTE PARK SUBDIVISION,CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-184-03-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ute Park Partnership ("Applicant"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review, and for variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 43,084 square feet and is located in the Affordable Housing Zone District;and, WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992 granted final review approval for Rezoning for Rural Residential to Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Quota System Exemption, Vested Rights, and Waiver of the Watermain Extension Moratorium; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in _order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS,The Planning Staff, in a report dated April 25, 2000, recommended approving the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade from the Residential Design Standards finding that criteria c has been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 20, Series of 2000, by a five to two (5-2) vote, the 8040 Greenline Review for the Ute Park Partnership residence; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a_to _ C-i vote, variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade provisions of the Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, with one condition; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS,the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and'is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 That the Residential Design Standard variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade, Section 26.410.040, are approved for the single family residence at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of April,2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT A LOT 1, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION DRAC VARIANCES FOR SECONDARY MASS AND GARAGE NOT AT GRADE REVIEW CRITERIA& STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Variances are requested from the following two (2) standards: 1. Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Secondary Mass. "All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element." 2. Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Garage not at Grade. "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade." In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding This standard is not addressed. However, the 2000 AACP Parks, Open Space and Environment section encourages "an environmentally conscientious community through individually responsible lifestyles and responsible building practices (page 3)." This application attempts to minimize the impact to the native vegetation and visual qualities of this site to the greatest extent possible. Nevertheless, Staff does not believe development in this sensitive location can be considered in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding This standard is not addressed. 1 c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding Site-specific constraints on this undeveloped lot include slopes in excess of 25% and red and blue avalanche zones. Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Secondary Mass. Staff believes the proposed development warrants a variance from this standard because the Applicant has consolidated the residence into a single structure, stepped up the hill (not across the mountain) and out of the avalanche zones. Constructing a secondary mass would increase the impact on the undisturbed natural vegetation and steep slopes into at least the blue avalanche zone and possibly the red zone. A secondary mass would also increase the visibility of this project from below and danger to the structure's occupants. Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d).Garage not at Grade. The natural topography of the lot contains steep slopes that require a driveway cut exceeding the two (2)-foot maximum. The request is to connect the garage to the street in the shortest distance possible while still meeting the front yard setback requirement, thereby reducing the driveway cut to the absolute minimum. It does not appear that this standard could have been met anywhere near the road stub into the property because of the slopes. Staff believes that this criterion is met to grant the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade. • 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ` Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director cj FROM: Nick Lelack, Planne RE: Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1, 8040 Greenline Review &Residential Design Standard Variances from Secondary Mass & Garage Not At Grade—Public Hearing DATE: April 18, 2000 APPLICANT: ° s a as Ute Park Partnership a 4 y Jim T. Martin 7 REPRESENTATIVE: k';'''' ,�� Joseph Wells � Joseph Wells Land Planning . � r �R LOCATION: - . .; �,� , .- Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision `; F1-,5 �.. ` ZONING: ""� - =w� . �°� , Affordable Housing (AH) CURRENT LAND USE: , � �.. ..._ z . . . ,.w The arrows point to the approximate location of the Vacant approved building envelope and development site. Most of the trees shielding property will remain. PROPOSED LAND U. Single Family Residence SUMMARY: LOT SIZE: The Applicant is requesting 8040 Greenline Review 43,084 sq. ft. approvals to build a new single-family residence and variances from the secondary mass and garage not at FAR: grade provisions.of the Residential Design Existing: 0 sq. ft. Standards. This s a one-step review before the Proposed: 5,770 sq. ft. Planning and Zoning Commission. Allowable: 5,770 sq. ft 1 REVIEW PROCEDURE Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas—8040 Greenline review: Following the receipt of a recommendation from the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a development application in an ESA. Residential Design Standards. The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG)—the Planning and Zoning Commission in this case-may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF COMMENTS: Ute Park Partnership, Jim Martin, ("Applicant"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, is requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review to build a new single family residence in an approved building envelope, and variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential,Design Standards. The Applicant contends that some of the design standards do not apply because the subject property is accessed from a private street. However, Community Development Staff has applied these standards to the proposed single-family residence in the same manner that it applies them to all residential developments in the City. Ute Park Subdivision is a four(4)-lot subdivision, created in 1992. Lots 1-3 are free market lots, and Lot 4 is the site of seven (7) deed restricted affordable housing units. Lot 1 is the only remaining undeveloped lot. The Planning and Zoning m m Commission voted 5-2 for both Resolution 94-14 and Resolution 94-15, approving ' ` ' 8040 Greenline Reviews for I it Lots 2 and 3. Staff has 'm like;incorporated modified t ` ' conditions of approval from ,r . . h these resolutions along with Nt "`� • additional conditions of approval'in the draft resolution '€ ,. for Lot 1. This photo was taken from the avalanche zone looking Arthur Mears,Natural Hazards toward the private road (west). Shown here are the Consultant, evaluated the site Nordic/Pedestrian Trail to the left and part of the during the original Planned_ unconditional building envelope to the right. Unit Development and 2 Subdivision review and again for this application for avalanche hazards. He identified two (2)potential building envelopes on the site. One building envelope was designated the "conditional building envelope." This envelope consists of an "avalanche red zone", which is an area of frequent but not intense avalanche slides, and"avalanche blue zone," an area of powder blast. The second building envelope was designated the "unconditional building envelope." This area was determined to be unaffected by the slide zones, but subject to the lateral spreading of debris. Specifically, one event in a 10 to 30 year period would result in the deposition of debris against some of the surfaces along the east facade of the proposed residence, and that a much larger event in a 30 to 100 year period would produce substantial loads of debris against the east façade. Staff has been working with the Applicant for the past couple of years on a compact design of a single-family house located only in the unconditional building envelope that meets nearly all of the Residential Design Standards and is acceptable to the Applicant. This application requests approval of a residence in an environmentally sensitive area that largely meets all of Staffs concerns. Most of the existing trees and trail will remain on the property. Residential Design Standard variances are requested as part of this application for secondary mass and garage not at grade. Staff supports these variances, finding that the variances are clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site- specific constraints. The undeveloped lot contains slopes in excess of 25%, red and blue avalanche zones, dense native vegetation, and is a scenic resource for the community. The proposed development minimizes the impact on the hillside with a principal structure limited to the unconditional building envelope rather than extending a secondary mass into the avalanche zones and across the hillside, and a relatively short driveway cut exceeding the two (2)-foot standard because of the natural topography of the lot. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review and secondary mass and garage not at grade variances from the Residential Design Standards to build a new single family residence with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals'shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay'payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized,those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 3 c. The City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel and proposed addition. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a detailed landscaping plan for Lot 1. g. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. The tree removal plan, when compared to the grading plan, seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be clarified and is susceptible to the City of Aspen Tree Removal ordinance. 3. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A Nordic trail crosses Lot 1, approximately 50 - 75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks has been working closely with Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently finished construction on the section that crosses Lot 1. There is a fully recorded, legal Nordic trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge,Nordic Trails Coordinator, agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this easement for a short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because of this agreement, a portion of the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet in length) as it is now located has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to minimize disturbance of this trail during construction, and if construction is going on during the winter, then it would be advantageous to skiers if the trail remains open and usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate sprinklered system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and that a pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper floor at approximately 25 psi. 1) Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. 4 2) If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added p q � Y p p for sprinkler service. 3) If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 4. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 5. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 6. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 7. Before issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 8. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 9. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 10. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. 11. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 12. There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 Greenline Review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review and secondary mass and garage not at grade variances from the Residential Design Standards to build a new single family residence with the conditions in the draft resolution." ATTACHMENTS: • Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application Exhibit C -- Referral Agency Comments C:\home\nick)\Active Cases\8040 Ute.Park Subdivision\Ute 8040 memo.doc 5 0 EXHIBIT A LOT 1, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW DRAC VARIANCES FOR SECONDARY MASS AND GARAGE NOT AT GRADE REVIEW CRITERIA& STAFF FINDINGS 26.435.030 8040(C) Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche. dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Staff Finding City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992 approved the Ute Park Subdivision, including the development of a free market single-family residence on Lot 1. During the original subdivision and planned unit development review, the City deemed the parcel suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, and avalanche dangers. In addition, an environmental assessment of the parcel found no hazardous or toxic soils. Arthur Mears,Natural Hazards Consultant, evaluated the site during the original review and again for this application for avalanche hazards. He identified two (2) potential building envelopes on the site. One building envelope was designated the "conditional building envelope." This envelope consists of an"avalanche red zone", area of frequent but not intense avalanche slides, and "avalanche blue zone," area of powder blast. The second building envelope was designated the "unconditional building envelope." This area was determined to be unaffected by the slide zones, but subject to the lateral spreading of debris. Specifically, one event in a 10 to 30 year period would result in the deposition of debris against some of the surfaces along the east facade of the proposed residence, and that a much larger event in a 30 to 100 year period would produce substantial loads of debris against the east facade. The Applicant has proposed to build the structure completely within the unconditional building envelope, avoiding the avalanche zones. Mr. Mears recommends that the proposed structure be made strong enough to withstand any avalanche loading to provide protection to the residence's occupants. This criterion is addressed. 6 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage,soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Staff Finding Referral agencies did not identify any significant adverse affects from the project on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, and soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. The City Engineer will review the drainage plan prior to the issuance of building permits if this project is approved to ensure that this project does not significantly affect the runoff or drainage. The Parks Department will review the landscape plan for the proposed development to ensure that the natural watershed is not significantly affected through tree removal and subsequent soil erosion. This criterion is addressed. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff Finding The Environmental Health Department submitted referral comments stating that "air pollution impacts will come primarily from traffic generated by the home, both by residents and guests, by utilities such as mail, trash, meter readers, etc., and finally by service support providers (gardeners, maids, computer repair people, etc.). The City has traditionally considered the traffic impacts from one single family home to be below the threshold for "significant" impacts." Community Development Staff has included a proposed condition of approval to require the Applicant to submit and Environment Health to approve a fugitive dust control plan before beginning construction. This plan will need to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. The applicant indicates that its consultant determined there were no mine tailings or other hazardous soils present. This criterion is addressed. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff Finding Staff believes the design and location of the proposed development are appropriate considering the steep slope and proximity to avalanche zones. The proposed development is located within the established unconditional building envelope, which is already served by all public utilities. The driveway cut is expected to exceed the Residential Design Standard of two (2)-feet, but the distance is the minimum required to connect the street to the garage. A public trail exists through the property and will remain. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 7 Staff Finding Staff believes the combination of limiting development to the unconditional building envelope and locating the garage close to the road, which minimizes the driveway cut, minimizes grading for this parcel to the greatest extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. A proposed condition of approval is that the Applicant submits a landscape plan and gains approval of it by the Parks Department prior to the issuance of building permits. The Parks Department will ensure that the plan demonstrates how the project will minimize to the greatest extent possible impacts to all natural land features. In addition, the Applicant has represented in the application that all of the proposed re-grading of the site will be limited to an area approximately 36 inches around the perimeter of the building footprint, with the exception of the access and the turnaround area adjacent to the garage. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Finding The proposed residence would be located completely in the unconditional building envelope out of the avalanche zones in a compact design close to the turnaround at the top of the private road. Approval of the variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards would help to minimize the need for the development of a second structure on site and limit the driveway cut to the minimum needed to connect the garage to the road. Staff believes the design minimizes the need for roads, limits cutting and grading, and maintains open space and preserves the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Finding The PUD review limited building height to 25 feet, and this development will comply.with that established dimension. The structure will be stepped up the hillside rather than along the side of the mountain, which will minimize the visual impact of the building from Ute Avenue, the Aspen Club, and Highway 82. A proposed condition of approval is that the colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Finding The property is serviced by all public utilities. City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992, approving the subdivision included a condition of approval that the residence located on Lot 8 1 be sprinklered. However, the Water Department does not believe that there is adequate water pressure available to sprinkle the residence. A proposed condition of approval is that: "Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service." This issue would be resolved prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Finding A private, paved subdivision road connects Lot 1 to Ute Avenue. This road is maintained by the homeowners association. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Finding Adequate ingress and egress is available to Lot 1 along the private subdivision road. This. road provides access for fire protection and private snow removal. There are Fire Access Easements on both Lots 1 and 2 to accommodate the turnaround of emergency vehicles. In addition, both Lots 1 and 2 must sprinklered: 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Staff Finding The AACP Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map designates a Nordic/Pedestrian , Trail Easement across Lots 1 and 2. The trail is aligned to avoid building sites on these lots. Therefore, the AACP recommendation would be implemented in this proposed development. SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Variances are requested from the following two (2) standards: 9 1. Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Secondary Mass. "All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element." 2. Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Garage not at Grade. "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade." In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding This standard is not addressed. However, the 2000 AACP Parks, Open Space and Environment section encourages "an environmentally conscientious community through individually responsible lifestyles and responsible building practices (page 3)." This application attempts to minimize the impact to the native vegetation and visual qualities of this site to the greatest extent possible. Nevertheless, Staff does not believe development in this sensitive location can be considered in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding This standard is not addressed. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding Site-specific constraints on this undeveloped lot include slopes in excess of 25% and red and blue avalanche zones. Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Secondary Mass. Staff believes the proposed development warrants a variance from this standard because the Applicant has consolidated the residence into a single structure, stepped up the hill (not across the mountain) and out of the avalanche zones. Constructing a secondary mass would increase the impact on the undisturbed natural vegetation and steep slopes into at least the blue avalanche zone and possibly the red zone. A secondary mass would also increase the visibility of this project from below and danger to the structure's occupants. Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Garage not at Grade. 10 The natural topography of the lot contains steep slopes that require a driveway cut exceeding the two (2)-foot maximum. The request is to connect the garage to the street in the shortest distance possible while still meeting the front yard setback requirement; thereby reducing the driveway cut to the absolute minimum. It does not appear that this standard could have been met anywhere near the road stub into the property because of the slopes. Staff believes that this criterion is met to grant the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade. 11 MEMORANDUM To: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: March 27, 2000 Re: Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1 The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Ute Park Subdivision Lot 1 application at their March 15, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. Site Review 1. Improvement Survey — Requirement — The building permit application needs to include a revised improvement survey that references a title commitment dated within the past 12 months. The improvement survey must also include the Right of Way lines, curbs, sidewalks, and easements that exist. 2. Site Drainage — Requirement — A drainage report was not submitted with the application. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required 12 by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements; The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Information-The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow. 3. Community Development — Request — The following request was provided by the Planning Department: a. The building plan does not show a ground floor entrance. One would be preferred in the garage area to allow access to the ground floor by other means than the overhead garage door. b. The current proposal is supported because there is no element of separation for the building and the high danger avalanche zone has been avoided. 4. Fire Protection District—Information —The following information was provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District: a. Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. b. If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. c. If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 5. Streets Department — Requirement- As of the request of the Engineering Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 6. Parks — Requirement — The following information has been provided by the Parks Department: a. The tree removal plan, when compared to the grading plan,-seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be clarified and is susceptible to the City of Aspen Tree Removal ordinance. b. There is no mention of a lot-landscaping plan in the application. There is only a reference to the existing landscaping plan for the entire subdivision. One must be 13 submitted for condition of approval by the parks department before the building permit is accepted. c. A Nordic trail does cross Lot 1, approximately 50 - 75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks have been working closely with Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently finished construction on the section that crosses Lot 1. There is a fully recorded, legal Nordic trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge,Nordic Trails Coordinator, agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this easement for a short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because of this agreement, a portion of the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet in length) as it is now located has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to minimize disturbance of this trail during construction, and if construction is going on during the winter, then it would be advantageous to skiers if the trail remains open and usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail. 7. Utilities: - Water: City Water Department, Requirement 13. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen. Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. 14. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and that pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest floor elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper floor at approximately 25 psi. - Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement— Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage, 14 transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920- 5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department. DRC Attendees Staff: Phil Overynder Applicant's Representative: Nick Lelack Ed Van Walraven Jo Wells Ben Ludlow Chris Bendon 15 RESOLUTION NO. al (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW,AND GRANTING VARIANCES OF THE SECONDARY MASS AND GARAGE NOT AT GRADE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LOT 1, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-184-03-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ute Park Partnership ("Applicant"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review, and for variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision;and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 43,084 square feet and is located in the Affordable Housing Zone District; and, WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992 granted final review approval for Rezoning for Rural Residential to Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Quota System Exemption, Vested Rights, and Waiver of the Watermain Extension Moratorium; and, WHEREAS, the subject house and proposed development are located at an elevation above 8040 feet above sea level and within the review authority of the Planning. and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.435.020 Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at or 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.435.030(C) 8040 Greenline review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the 8040 Greenline Review with conditions; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or.provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated April 18, 2000, recommended approving the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade from the Residential Design Standards finding that criteria c has been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a to C-i vote, the 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standard variances for the Ute Park Partnership residence with conditions recommended by the Community Development Department; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS,the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 . That the 8040 Greenline Review for the Ute Park Partnership residence, Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision is approved with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized,those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel and proposed addition. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer. f The Applicant shall submit and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a detailed landscaping plan for Lot 1. g. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. The tree removal plan, when compared to the grading plan, seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be clarified and is susceptible to the City of Aspen Tree.Removal ordinance. 3. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A Nordic trail crosses Lot 1, approximately 50 - 75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks has been working closely with Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently finished construction on the section that crosses Lot 1. There is a fully recorded, legal Nordic trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge, Nordic Trails Coordinator, agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this asCo g adjust g easement for a short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because of this agreement, a portion of the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet in length) as it is now located has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to minimize disturbance of this trail during construction, and if construction is going on during the winter, then it would be advantageous to skiers if the trail remains open and usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate sprinklered system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and that a pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper floor at approximately 25 psi. 1) Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. 2) If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. 3) If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 4. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 5. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 6. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 7. Before issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 8. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 9. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 10. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they.pertain to utilities. 11. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. - 12. There shall be no future g g radin on the site without 8040 Greenline Review. Section 2 That the Residential Design Standard variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade, Section 26.410.040, are approved for the single family residence at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 18`x' day of April, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Lee Cassin, 02:02 PM 3/15/00 -0700, Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1 Page 1 of 1 X-Sender: leec @comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:02:32 -0700 To: nickl @ci.aspen.co.us From: Lee Cassin <leec @ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1 Nick, I have reviewed the 8040 Greenline review application for Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1. There are no significant Environmental Health concerns for the single home to be built on this lot. The project is to be served by City Water, which conforms with Health Department policies recommending service by City Water instead of individual wells. The project is to be served byrthe Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District as required. Air pollution impacts will come primarily from traffic generated by the home, both by residents and guests, by utilities such as mail, trash, meter readers, etc.,and finally by service support providers (gardeners, maids, computer repair people, etc.). The City has traditionally considered the traffic impacts from one single family home to be below the threshold for "significant" impacts. The applicant indicates that its consultant determined there were no mine tailings or other hazardous soils present. The applicant should provide a fugitive dust control plan to this office before beginning construction. This plan will need to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. The applicant should follow the advice of the City Engineer to ensure that the added impervious surfaces from roofs and paved areas do not create runoff water problems on this already-steep area. Lee Cassin Lee E. Cassin, City Director Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 leec @ci.aspen.co.us fax (970)920-5074 http://www.aspen.com/airquality http://www.aspengov.com/ehnew/city/index.html Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl @ci.aspen.co.us> 4/10/00 Aspen Consolidated sanitation District Sy Kelly* Chairman John Keleher Paul Smith *.Treas Frank Loushin Michael Kelly,* Sect' Bruce Matherly, Mgr March 28,2000 Nick Lelack Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Ute Park Subdivision ; Dear Nick: The development proposed at lot 1,.Ute Park Subdivision,is located within our service,area and 1 service to this property is available. Service to the lot,appears to have been"stubbed out" and is, shown on Exhibit,A of the application. There are downstream,constraints that will be eliminated through a,systemof proportionate additional fees.:A stub out fee-will need to be/paid as soon as s possible if a,service line has been stubbed out to the lot. We do not have an account set up for this address which leads us to believe that no fees have been paid. Once detailed plans are made available to our office we can complete a tap permit which estimates the fees for the project. As usual, service is contingent upon compliance with the District rules, regulations, and specifications which are on,file at the District office. We request, ' that a tap permit be completed and fees paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 92'5-2537 Joseph Wells Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen,Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary) e-mail Address: jwells@sopris.net April 3, 2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Community Development Department, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Hand Delivered Dear Nick: As we have discussed, I am forwarding additional information regarding the 8040 Greenline Review application for Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision in response to staff comments at the recent DRC meeting. 1. I am providing you with five sets of revised drawings reflecting the architectural revisions which have been made to the residence. The changes include the extension of the lower-level facade to the west, to further screen the garage doors from below. Note also that a roof overhang was always planned over the garage doors (see attached), to create a shadow line and to give the appearance that the doors are recessed. There is also a lower-level entry on the south side of the garage doors. 2. I have researched the water installation. Every indication is that the tap which was installed for the service to this lot is a one-inch tap off of an eight- inch service line installed into the subdivision. This is what is shown on the Water Plan, recorded in Book 704 at Page 252 (see attached reduction). As you are aware, there is a requirement that the residence on Lot One be sprinklered; the Water Department does not believe that there is adequate water pressure available to accomplish that. It is my understanding that the solution is to either install a new tap which is larger and to possibly add a booster pump or provide adequate storage to accommodate fire flows. Short of engineering the system, it is not possible to determine which solution is the most cost-effective. It would therefore be my preference to re-affirm this obligation in any approval of the 8040 Greenline and include a condition that this issue be addressed as a part of building permit review. 3. A drainage plan was submitted for review as a part of the subdivision review (see attached copy of plan). The 8040 Greenline approvals for the other two lots (see attached) included conditions regarding drainage. April 3, 2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Page two of two 4. Parks Department correctly points out that grading is anticipated close to several of the existing trees which we are planning on saving. Extra care will need to be taken to protect these trees during construction. It is the owner's intention to maintain the existing finish grade around the base of these trees. 5. Both of the other two 8040 Greenline Review approvals included a condition that a detailed landscape plan be submitted for approval prior to building permit issuance. 6. Note that the First Amendment to the Ute Park Subdivision (Exhibit D2 to the application) indicates Fire Access Easements on both Lots 1 and 2, to accommodate the turnaround function for emergency equipment. 7. I will be providing you with the two photographic panoramas that you asked for, as soon as I can determine a suitable location from which the site can actually be seen. So far, I haven't found a spot on the highway that serves this purpose. Let me know if you need additional information regarding this matter. S' _ / •:eph Weis t 4 ?-1-' ." a•• • a .ws 1 ' ! A• r H It • . �r • ,♦ •r t.0. .• • 'b • a �. L ;411: 1.741 . . Iy.y O• . � t ,; `%• l' . a._ •a .. Witfoliih4,6 • y • 1 : BANNER GRADING AND DRAINAGE REPORT UTE PARK SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO General This project is located south of existing Ute Avenue at the east limits of the City of Aspen. The site slopes from south to north and consists of grades ranging from eight to 20 percent. The soil types encountered on the site consist of topsoil (2-4 foot depth) which overlays silty sand and gravel with cobble (see Soils Report dated 11/30/90, prepared by Chen Northern, Inc. ) . There exists both substantial tree and grass vegetation on the property. There appears to be no predominate nor significant erosion problems evident due to concentrated spring runoff or summer showers. The project consists of three single family free market lots and seven deed restricted condominium units. This report, and the drainage plan prepared in conjunction with the grading plan prepared by The Stevens Group, Inc. , addresses the development activity associated with the deed restricted units and road/drive to serve the three free market lots. As a part of the submittal for individual building permits on the free market lots, a drainage report should be prepared to address the increased runoff generated from the residential lot development. Improvements The improvements associated with this subdivision that have an impact from a drainage perspective will be the road/drive to serve Lots 1 and 2 and the development of the deed restricted units on Lot 4 . The paving improvements to Ute Avenue are being made in conjunction with the Ute Avenue Improvement District. Included in these improvements are accommodation for historical surface runoff for an area approximately 400 feet south of the right-of-way for Ute Avenue. This surface runoff will be carried down (west) Ute Avenue in a roadside ditch that will tie into the lower Ute Avenue improvements. The drainage improvements associated with this plan that are within the Ute Avenue right-of-way will be coordinated and incorporated into the District work. Drainage improvements on Lot 4 will ' consist of grading to allow the natural historical drainage pattern to continue across the property. Swales should be created a minimum of 15 feet from the structures to allow for positive drainage away from the foundations. These swales should be vegetated and maintain a minimum of a 2% gradient. The vegetation I BANNER • CONSULTING ENGINEERS IS ARCHITECTS 1 BANNER. ASSOCIATES. INC. 2777 Crossroaas Boulevara Grano Junction.Coloraao 81506 1303)243-2242 I FAX(3031243.3810 605 East Main.Suite 6 Asoen.Colorado 81611 1303)925.5857 1 1 October 10 , 1991 Tom Stevens I The Stevens Group, Inc. 418 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 IRE: UTE PARR SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Tom: Pursuant to your request, I have investigated the drainage issues relative to the proposed Ute Park Subdivision. The enclosed report addresses these grading and drainage issues. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. ISincerely, I /-77-- E(...67 . . Robert E. Dan'el, Jr. , P.E. I Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure IRED\clk -- wp-doc\8203\8203drai.n I I II I 11 f _ BANNER !1 " I will minimize any erosion potential and create a natural percolation area for the roof runoff. The paved surfaces on Lot 4 will be graded to allow sheet flow drainage to the ditch adjacent to Ute Avenue. The runoff generated from the paving of the drive/road for Lots 1 and 2 will be drained to a ditch on either side. This ditch will flow into the existing ditch at the south edge of Ute Avenue. Again for purposes of minimizing erosion and maximizing percolation, these ditches should be vegetated. Drainage Calculations The calculations showing the historic and developed runoff from this project are attached in the Appendix to this report. I I 1 11 1 I I I I I I BANNER _ I UTE PARK SUBDIVISION DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Historical Drainage Acreage C 02 010 0100 Area 1 . 54 . 35 . 21cfs . 32cfs . 55cfs. Area 2 2 . 50 . 35 1. 0cfs 1. 47cfs 2 . 54cfs Tc = 15 minutes 12 = 1. 15 in. /hr. I10 = 1. 69 in. /hr. I100 = 2 . 91 in. /hr. NOTE: Tc is calculated to the northwest corner of the property where the runoff leaves t he property in the Ute Avenue drainage ditch. C is based upon vegetated slope areas. Develo.ed Draina.e Acrea.e Cay.A .2 .10 .100 Area 1 . 54 .42 . 47cfs .71cfs 1. 22cfs Area 2 2 . 50 1. 62 1. 86cfs 2 . 74cfs 4 . 71cfs Tc = 15 minutes I2 = 1. 15 in. /hr. 1 I10 = 1. 69 in. /hr. I100 = 2 . 91 in. /hr. NOTE: Tc is calculated to the northwest corner of the property where the runoff leaves the property in the Ute Avenue drainage ditch. CavgA is a weighted average taking into consideration the impervious and pervious portions of the site. I I I r 1 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE WINNERMAN RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 2 OP THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION AT THE EAST END OP UTE AVENUE Resolution 94-14 WHEREAS, Section 24-7-503 of the Aspen Municipal Code requires Planning and Zoning Commission approval of all development within 100 feet of the 8, 040 foot elevation line; and - WHEREAS, Larry Winnerman submitted an application to the Planning Office for 8040 Greenline review of his proposed residence; and WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Engineering Department and the Parks Department; and WHEREAS, the site contains red and blue avalanche hazard areas as identified by consultant Art Mears, and the platted building envelope established a conditional building area and an unconditional building area based on the avalanche concerns; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the proposal, a site inspection, and referral comments, the Planning Office recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on June 21, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the project pursuant to the criteria of Section 24-7-503 , and voted 5-2 to approve the Winnerman 8040 Greenline review with thirteen conditions amended from staff's recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Commission also approved by 7-0 votes two additional motions: 1) to direct staff to notify the Nordic Council that the trail cut on Lot 2 (Ute Park Subdivision) is a violation of the 8040 Greenline regulations, and the Council must submit an application for 8040 Review within 30 days of notice; and 2) to direct staff to have on-going inspections of the Winnerman project by appropriate City departments. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION that it grants approval for the Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review for a residence of 4 , 852 s.f. (plus 540 s.f. garage and 774 s.f. deck) as represented by the application subject to the following conditions: 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be 1 approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2) The lowest level of the structure on o for north (west) egress shall not be excavated or exposed except p per the minimal egress windows which may be required for bedrooms p Code. 3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the downhill side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of the building envelope. 4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a sturdy, visible barricade he east, and west to protect building envelope lines on the existing grades and vegetation. 5) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the east, south and west side of the residence. Any disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted immediately. 6) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Application for tree removal permits must occur no less than two weeks prior to submittal for the building/excavation permits. 9) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 10) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review. The open area to the west of control residence weed shall remain undisturbed except for necessary as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. 11) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding fire access and building sprinklers, (required for Lot 2 as a condition of subdivision approval) . 12) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to 2 the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. 13) All representations made by the applicant within the application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval for this project. lif. 04AA14014.--- W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan C.. ney, Deputy ity Clerk 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE NATHANSON 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 3 OF THE UTE PARR SUBDIVISION Resolution No. 94- j,5 WHEREAS, Gary and Linda Nathanson submitted an application for 8040 Greenline Review to the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed for referral comments by the Parks Department and the Engineering Department; and WHEREAS, based on the referral comments, Planning staff comments, and presentation by the project representatives, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-2 in favor of the project with 15 conditions; and WHEREAS, the Commission also passed a motion directing staff to make on-going inspections during the construction process; and WHEREAS, the Commission passed another motion directing staff to contact the Nordic Council to require them to come before the Commission for 8040 Greenline Review for the trail which they cut through the Ute Park Subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it approves the Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review for the development of a single family residence subject to the following conditions: 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2) Terracing of the ground shall (including any retaining walls) not extend beyond the line of the deck. 3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the uphill side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of the building envelope. 4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building envelope lines, and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at the northwest corner of the house, to protect the existing grades and vegetation. 5) The deck outside of the master bedroom shall be reduced in size to retain the mature aspens at the northwest corner of the house, in addition to replacing the at-risk trees caliper inch for caliper inch. . 1 6) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted immediately. 7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Submit for tree removal permits at least two weeks prior to submitting for building permit. 10) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building less visible on the hillside. 11) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review. The open field to the west of the residence shall remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. 12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding fire access. 13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry driveway' s retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. 14) All representations made by the applicant within the application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval for this project. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 21, 1994. W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan rney, Dep'City Clerk 2 . ! ' ; . • - i • ." I . I• : 1 . , CM.< , • 1 . . . .... . . . 7 .. .::•„, ..:... !.alf.;,j ;_.• ___..t ,..- / • --; 1 , • , ,• .. ; i.....' -- . -i 1 i • • :mei r I. . , • „... „ • , , , • , • .,.,.......,. :,,,ir .., .. , it - 011111111111ft• i!ii ,. :: .,......... A A , • - . . I ' Agniiiii 2o2m2111111111.11111.Mil= ' t• ,, - ' I I'll.i I•:'i' . I ........ '111121 Ii.7• • —2'2- ,.2 • • . i 5 11111.1.2 r. .-,-... '• . '• tA,Z . 2 , i . , •,... •••,. i.• -.7:-...r:.:; 1 • .1 i• / .., ' W :,;; '',•?.,..W,--,;,- k=m-t.i • '1',, i:'a;',.-•••• ,...,4.1,,..1.r. ?.7;!.. et,.• ',..... , -”" (4,:i4.1.;:eii; ,i-i1:1')..qA4 i itl't,tt.„,;•,..41....,- , • a as aiiromIs t.,'•,4 -.. 4,.,•,,t _ , ,41:".:4 .. .,,,,,„,,..„„,,,,,..‹ ... ... .. , 7, 4 v.,,i,:iiii !,......,-,,li. r2 • • ; 0:4;.,•:•%;* I.„,,,,....:.: ,. 1 ....... . , .,;-.4,:.- -,-;•; ,,,,:ff-,t4,,,,,T;;344 .,•, ,,,,.;:;:, • .,..4•0„,,,,fein-q:,`011Pi 1:r:i:--t -7;4 - 1'-'s SlIllaVllaMIIIMMlpgi 6 4 lir': ' •—6 7-WZ.1.41.!,...i.. — t'l _.b.' .4"\IV tall -Kr. :..i, . , "11.:44:::ill Inft,Inil: I. ,;;. ,-tt i ,... -iT',..W71a?":7 14.*":':it,•2 42-31•4 m.4.21 / ....„,•-•747. ,:iiiimmonin .1,4 A.144.X.,,,#",..1.',...Zig.if E. ,:.:7:!'i.:',:'..tit.:■Y5r,i't.K:...11i . ll '..'.•.;) ., i • !I V.;.:*,.:.!.1.1. f:q1 . . . 4.4.... ,....4.1 ."/". ,....1. ....;:'' .1'.Ma ......., •,...01\-, k• 1 „E.,. .. .. ttatrt.:44 7.:`,r.-41 mirz , / ,ii•i).!' III . , a= li . \,,. ''.''''`.-1'.". At ...7.:4-.,-4;74..?wlt-413..,7,:l, e'....Y4.• . 1 in .. in ....... . :L::::?-:j.:''.i-':'il:;alm""m"2dlv:::.L1'1::::1',"::::;::T;;;:v::;:";t9..,';ti;44-T,,,..:i,...,::., •.: , ..:;. •:?.::.1 ir..r.e.lit.'^^",.,"°;4'.....,...A ' ,,r,:.7,1111:,,,,,,rr,..',....4t..;!nr.1.1.4...;7e,r':,,e1.1...•.,;mi7ntret-Zy.‘!„,=1 . . war...0 I 141 1 .......-........... ..•. 5...:,rt Aigl'#.5..t,;AitZ t ki• ....„. .... .,0 .. i„.., , r....,.. ._... ......, •,. , i ,::,19 , :,,,,,..:Ii 4:.-5. -7"‘:•:::-.".07.-....'-'7.0,17,-).7.:41:. 117,4:P..,,..,..,,;Own,,,ro.rj[ • 14,...........___,..A•,. .Wr•Xt4 1,14.,,,At i is we a r a,it: r...:7,..i:r...:112.1:•,:ilr..7.''' , ,- • . • ,, . •,,. ,• -.... 4.. ';';,..--.74' .?-111/111114 17--"- ----- 44. 12;:2.A1 i •-- I,."47 : •i 171111111. \ ',,,2 t ' INES t:.- a t - a,..:'1 . ''-'it--'' . .- '',.. • '' . ,- . el f. ;', •:,A.., ,,•:,-,i,- - -- ' - --- '''''.,4-07t - - I .=1:1.'1::;•,„,...... . , A. ... ..,. 4 - .., . ...., , • .„ .•..:-, . ..:;. • .. ... . , Joseph Wells Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen,Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary) e-mail Address: jwells @sopris.net April 24, 2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Community Development Department, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Hand Delivered Dear Nick: One of the current owners of Lot One, Ute Park Subdivision recently pointed out that I had incorrectly identified the ownership of the lot in the 8040 Greenline Application as "Ute Park Partnership". Because of my error, you have referred to the owners as Ute Park Partnership in the resolutions regarding the application. Howard G. Stacker and James T. Martin actually each own an undivided 50 percent interest in the lot. To avoid any problem from a tax standpoint, the owners are requesting that this change be made in the language of the two resolutions. Please let me know if you need additional information regarding this matter. Sinc rel , w / ,4osep ells CASE NUMBER A025-00 PARCEL ID# 2737-184-03001 CASE NAME Lot 1 Ute Park 8040 Greenline and Residential Design Revi PROJECT ADDRESS Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision PLANNER Nick Lelack CASE TYPE 8040 Greenline, Residential Design Standards OWNER/APPLICANT Jim Martin REPRESENTATIVE Joe Wells DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4/25/00 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION Reso #24-2000 ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 5/17/00 BY J. Lindt `PARCEI:dID: 2737-184-03001 DATERCVQ' 3/2/00 #COPIES — CASE NO A025 00 CASEg 1AME 1Lot 1 Ute Park 8040 Greenline and Residential Design Review PLNR J i P\ROJ ADDR Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision �� ?CASET�YP 8040 Greenline Residential Design STEPS OWN/APPS Jim Martin ADR 67 St.Andrews Circle CtS/Z Durango/CO/81301 1 PHN;(970)375 2355 A ..... a/1�i. e _ . REP;-Joe Weis' ADR 602 Midland Park Plac C/S/Z Aspen/CO/81611 PHN 925-8080 FEES DUE 1155 D 16,0E FEES RCVD 1110 D 160E ;' STAT\ 6 REFERRALS a& REF� ��\ BY � DUE `MTG DATES\\REV BODY 'PH NOTIGEDs ., k • far � � �a,��; 49 oyi DATE OF FINAL ACTION E ,u»z a\ 1: �. �� 9� REMARKSC . I�TY COON C CLOSED /7p BY` i ,) BOA. ,,� DRAG PLA SUBMITD PLAT IBK,PG) II p ADM N • • • • • • • • MEMORANDUM To: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: March 28, 2000 Re: Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1 The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Ute Park Subdivision Lot 1 application at their March 15, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to"issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current-encroachment license requirements. Site Review 1. Improvement Survey— Requirement—The building permit application needs to include a revised improvement survey that references a title commitment dated within the past 12 months. The improvement survey must also include the Right of Way lines, curbs, sidewalks, and easements that exist. 2. Site Drainage— Requirement—A drainage report was not submitted with the application. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on Page 2 of 4 03/28/00 Ute Park Subdivision Lot 1 drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Information —The.City drainage criteria needs to be implemented: This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow. • 3. Community Development— Request—The following request was provided by the Planning Department: a. The building plan does not show a ground floor entrance. One would be preferred in the garage area to allow access to the ground floor by other means than the overhead garage door. b. The current proposal is supported because there is no element of separation for the building and the high danger avalanche zone has been avoided. 4. Fire Protection District— Information —The following information was provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District: • a. Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. b. If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. c. If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 5. Streets Department— Requirement- As of the request of the Engineering Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 6. Parks— Requirement—The following information has been provided by the parks department: a. The tree removal plan, when compared to the grading plan, seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be clarified and is susceptible to the City of Aspen Tree Removal ordinance. b. There is no mention of a lot landscaping plan in the application. There is only a reference to the existing landscaping plan for the entire subdivision. One must be submitted for condition of approval by the parks department before the building permit is accepted. c. A Nordic trail does cross Lot 1, approximately 50 - 75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks have been working closely with Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently, finished construction on the section that crosses Lot.1. There is a fully Page3of4 03/28/00 Ute Park Subdivision Lot 1 recorded, legal Nordic trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge, Nordic Trails Coordinator,agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this easement for a short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because of this agreement, a portion of the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet in length) as it is now located has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to minimize disturbance of this trail during construction,. and if construction is going on during the winter, then it would be advantageous to skiers if the trail remains open and usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail. 7. Utilities: - Water: City Water Department Requirement— a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. b. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and that pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest floor elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper floor at approximately 25 psi. - Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement— Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. Page4of4 03/28/00 Ute Park Subdivision Lot 1 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department. DRC Attendees Staff: Phil Overynder Applicant's Representative: Nick Lelack Ed Van Walraven Jo Wells Ben Ludlow Chris Bendon • �p� v eVn4 LOT ONE, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION 1 1 i L 1 1 t 1 1 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Review for a Single-Family Residence 1 I LOT ONE, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Review for a . Single-Family Residence February 25, 2000 Submitted to: The City of Aspen and The Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.920.5090 Facsimile: 970.920.5439 Applicant: Ute Park Partnership c/o James T. Martin 67 St. Andrews Circle Durango, Colorado 81301 Phone: 970.375.2355 Facsimile: 970.375.2356 Prepared by: Joseph Wells Joseph Wells Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 I Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.925.8275 1' • 1 1 CONSULTANT TEAM Architect: Bill Poss and Associates 605 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.4755 Facsimile: 970.920.2950 Surveyor Robert C. Hutton 725 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.544.9952 Natural Hazards Consultant Arthur I. Mears, P. E., Inc. 222 East Gothic Avenue Gunnison, Colorado 81230 Phone: 970.641.3236 Facsimile: 970.641.3236 Structural Engineering Oddo Engineering 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970.945.1006 I 1' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA'S) (8040 GREENLINE REVIEW) (CHAPTER 26.435) 12 III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW (Chapter 26.410) 23 IV. EXHIBITS A. General Application Information (Including Sec. 26.435.080.A) ' Al. Owner's Letter of Authorization to File. A2. Title Commitment-First American Title Company. A3. Vicinity Map. A4. Topographic Survey of Lot One-Robert C. Hutton. A5. Pre-Application Conference Summary. i A6. Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees. A7. Land-Use Application Form. A8. Dimensional Requirements Form. B. City Council Ordinance 18, Series of 1992. C. City Council Ordinance 22, Series of 1992. D. Subdivision Plats: Dl. Plat Of Ute Park Subdivision. D2. First Amendment to Ute Park Subdivision. E. Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Ute Park Subdivision. F. May 5, 1997 Letter from Charles T. Brandt to John Worcester, City Attorney Re: Vesting. G. May 15, 1997 Response from John Worcester, City Attorney to Charles T. Brandt Re: Vesting. H. Avalanche Loading Analysis. Arthur I. Mears, P. E., Inc. I. Tree Removal Plan Bill Poss and Associates 1 I. INTRODUCTION. ,/ This application is filed on behalf of Ute Park Partnership, owner of Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision (the "Subdivision"). The applicant requests approval by the City Planning& If Zoning Commission of 8040 Greenline Review (Chapter 26.435) for the residence be built on Lot 1. The review provisions for 8040 Greenline Review are proposed to p Iaddressed in Section II of this application,beginning on page 12. In addition, the . applicant requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider any variances from the Residential Design Standards (Chaper 26.410) which the Community Development Director determines are required for the proposed design. The review provisions for Residential Design Review are addressed in Section III of this application, IIbeginning on page 23. Ute Park Subdivision was the first privately-sponsored project to be approved and built under the AH-Affordable Housing zone district regulations which had recently been adopted by the City. In 1992, the City granted Final Plat approval to the Ute Park Subdivision under Ordinance 18, Series of 1992 (see Exhibit B). Following final approval of the Subdivision, the owner of the property constructed the seven affordable housing Iunits which were committed to on Lot 4 and sold the units to eligible employees of the community. The private street and all utilities serving the three freemarket lots were also completed and Lot 2 and Lot 3 were sold. Residences have since been constructed on those two lots. Lot 1, which has been retained by the original owner of the property 1 since the time that the Subdivision was reviewed and approved, is therefore the only unimproved lot remaining within the Subdivision. IAs a part of the Final P. U. D./Subdivision Application, the owners requested approval of an amendment to the dimensional requirements of the AH zone district to establish a isliding scale and cap for permitted floor area for freemarket single-family homes within the zone. As a result of that request, the City adopted Ordinance 22, Series of 1992 (see Ir Exhibit C), which established a sliding scale which permitted 3,660 sq. ft. of floor area for detached residential lots of 9,000 square feet and which increased by 7 sq. ft. of floor area for each 100 sq. ft. of lot area, up to a maximum of 5,770 sq. ft. Under Ordinance 22/92, the maximum floor area was permitted on lots of 39,143 sq. ft. or larger. / P ,1 The lot area of Lot 1 is 43,084 sq. ft. Slope reduction was taken into account during the P. U. D. process (as acknowledged by the Community Development Department in its II 1 1 0 Pre-App Conference Summary, Exhibit A5) and no reductions in lot area are required it ' for easements or other reasons. Therefore, the lot qualifies for the maximum permitted � q g square footage of 5 770 s . ft, as established under Ordinance 22, Series of 1992. In 1997, I Charles Brandt, the applicant's attorney, requested a clarification from the City Attorney regarding vested rights for Lot 1 (see Exhibit F). Specifically, Mr. Brandt took the position that common law vested rights had been established for Lot 1 as a result of 1 considerable expenditures made pursuant to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Ute Park Subdivision (see Exhibit E), as documented in his letter. Mr. Brandt also explained that the approval status of P. U.D.'s such as Ute Park Subdivision is unique in comparison to approvals which are not associated with P. U. D.'s. In John Worcester's response (see Exhibit G), the City Attorney agreed that the applicant is entitled to complete the development on Lot 1 with the originally approved floor area. 0, The proposed residence is in compliance with this floor area limitation under the current definition of calculating floor area. Since this is the definition used to design the I, structure as proposed in this application, the applicant is requesting that the current definition vest with any approval which is granted to the current application. 1 The following narrative provides background regarding the history of the property and describes the architectural concept for the project. program for Lot 1 is consistent with that approved for the 4, The development p gr PP Subdivision, which called for the following mix of deed-restricted and freemarket units: Units: 1. Deed-Restricted Units: 7 (70%) 1111 2. Freemarket Units: 3 (30%) (70%/30% Unit Mix Requirement Satisfied) ,le Bedrooms: 1. Deed-Restricted Bedrooms (3/unit): 21 (64%) !I 2. Freemarket Bedrooms (4/unit): 12 (36%1 ,I, (60%/40% Bedroom Mix Requirement Satisfied) .1 a. The residence proposed for Lot 1 has been designed by Bill Poss and Associates, Architects. The Schematic Design drawings for the resit.:::ice are included on the following 9 pages. ,Il 1 2. II ... - i �o � A r f. ' ,t ' .t c..7. : ;� ill - \ - U 1 \ \ \ iw ::.;.=; . 1. _ Iii AE _ / / / 7 / f i i-_,,-...-k• .-7•'-.•:::'' :=• .'•-• ,.'j:•:- ••••:.' ..*;•1 •i .. .'-', / 1 r - /, . 'r'. .:' .. . ., 11 / / t I ')4 ( III ,,.. ) i ff, / i • :--t-,:: .---- . '::. .i....c..„:.:-: ,.-9, =.....", / 1 i i• I . I • 1 i R limu�:b6:11t \ �- � � _ �— ` ' _ , a ,. . ' - i sz !,-,:,..,A- \ 1 1 -.4. 1- . - P-,-1,..0.. T - --1 , \ ' ' );I:. :a' ri a 74.1"--4 cr '•1 : •mu %,..1 I. 4 ..I # _... _ . i = . ti °,I1 , • ; [ ,- i+ ♦ i-- • ; _ "�_ _ t -j '`i •..� il g..2 I \\ n ' el CI 0\71,1 \ (1 r sc I ry i 1E I ii I. I I 7__--- .\ o `cf3 g i ', RIZ c.4 74 IS II 1 1 3. . \_,_\/ CI •c': '41.'16', 0 -z1.t1.-.1.1k-= ,..r.lwdva1a1o.1,.:04•k..-t441.rF-iag Ti- ------- --71k.-.T— e -III) 0 v - C1 - 1:1 1GW = t i .14...rf Fril■ItTlichie / 4' I" -t . rai) .... 1 111011,! 1 i 1 ...... t ,...4) At Fiii -- ! i(- IL_:7.,,,tRii jai a 3' . 4..........4.7.6,AY.rut s! 3.1i .f::: e. s--..-...- ', _ I L 1 1 -11,EIE:_404. ...--; . r _ __, _ \ ,..._,.._. — -..._____ __ ._.__........11!, : =an t 1111Vali m'irasszues°327 Ilir II - - -- -- 1 -- - -- - \ 111 .5.. E •••••■••■•••••••■••II • 1 •- &. . :, --- . t..................... 111111 I :31111',; '' 111--l' '..-1111f:, 1 -! tl iNINI 1.3 . ,.;.. „.........„ ..„. 5• .. ' , . ; -- • e— ....— - .,-,,,,. I :4 , ..__ taj.,.---i■i'— il I .> . .... it.1, - — _ 11 • II = .4 . . . I . t . ________________ wt ,______ . , ,I, ,1 • II --- ----4) ----- -- . 11 •ran •,,..1 , 1 n. I ft - I ...• .4 M I 'ion= I 7fasi II i -T i I 11 I = t:4) 0 13 ::_,,____' ,__ ,--_,_,-. I t I 1 I Cif) ree , I - i' 61_, •..., wi ...., . P _ , • ilW ' I : : 0 - .: `::- \ . -_._ il glo E "s r . . .:: l'k-:7-4 1 ii ,14) ' / ' Tr- id 0 ' I I- L ISI Clie 1, Lam i igal - I 1 ,..•..• I 1:11k ..Sia. I I a I. hi ct — —— — — --4 r,_----.___. .,�. ,. ..,1�t — — — 0 Q 73 L'. ...—. _ t � 1 t CIA I cis a _,../ ili_ Li, _..' _i_ _ i,_ ____ _ __ 1 -- .a_ I. . ' . cu tA- pL X Z. ( s - , I / D if i ® µ b I ,.,.. ._ h _ la �,_mu limit a I / _ !' � u ; If €,� Iii. l _ < < I! -, . I _ � / I _ .11, IIII 4 is IL , �� - —,—r ' _ a L_ MI II t 1 / " c / li i 4- ---^- - -1 j N P- •tI f � 1_H. _ , _-._— _ _ _ I —r CAS _ CI II a CA V 1 I aTat I I I 11,,,, CA CC'C , ) 7: .E. \\A". c„ _7: ; I CO "1 L; . 4 hi 0 C. .: i 0 --• `7 _ ___ ___ ____— — — --, --I-7 :--- ---- ----- -.7-- - - —, .. _ ra=.z:aid.....1 I C r; .••or r.--- "%r , ii / t CA . • 0.5 I =4 LW 0 ,........ _ 1 s ' , "..c.- ._. 1-- -.4- , _ ...._ r 1 4r All ) 1 • 0 . 1.. 11.10: 6.i. I -0- - i • 1111 i \I I, * I MI I 1--- - ---3 • 1 I MOISTiall Ell OMR IMIld - ( 1 I _.._ ..._..4', _____ 1.-- I I 1 t. ..—1—.11101 I .151,2 . _ .. 1 1 ,... i , — ------,, –.. --- . ' A 1 I___ _______1 1■1 i 1 Al CL) . 1 .21 ------------ -.,,,,,, .......---.- . -ill 4) I = 04 ,----■■—f 4 ; $ I POM011 CL) I ,--_------ ...-. i. CA CL, 1----------------- - = ' •a* i = , •rol t __ _________ ______ ____ ____ ____ _ --I 6 = = = •1■1 I I CL) gz L---- - - _ --.-.- i --- Lill C.) •o..0 CI iwil : CZ =, II 0* E = cy 04 2" I. riCr ti.11111 -,T' ...21. . I! 1 I, I cc 11, -- -- _ \-_\%'' U t-- - -- -1-- O VI-c Q C. -- _ v I � -- ..._.1 ,' \V , = - � I ;j _, 4 I �; I . , ____, ,,,,,,\\/, \\, 1 t4 0 P.411 li •PO c. PC Fal ell i II = c= i, ! 1 1 II 1 1 t t '4` 9! O v =x .g `] ' L z 1 'vim p c. _ I o �� 1 O 0 C I/ ir,/ ' ' f. / �P 1 a_. Q ..i 1 . I I 1011 I . Ila , CA I p c ! 1 `.w , RI 1 1 ®s�.v ' t '� O Nisir:Wmisa um ot_{� �I 'J'Lrrrrr al NM — --I rin 04 r ! •1!r cn 05 I H,1i�--Ni�f V 1 NO I �11 I 10 grew. ,� A-.iii -�NIIMI it _�.rr_= Cit ft 111001 1 II 11 n il'.4.. i 1 .„_. . • tan 1 1 Tali 'II'i t •Il _ , li, , I � = o -! CI •V ca I _ I c . • • ................- •; � I U L� =• [ ,,,,, pm� ri�� 1. CLI p GA Q Or 1111.11111111.1 Q e • • 1 1 ,.; ,,,,, i �,,,,,.,, _ ......_,........._. ., 'I b't < I i`-'l °b- fe ie.Si! f. I ��,_�_E. �( A I II--R---f-.w� o 1;� I ,. Cl 111111.III ' 0 w 1 rPriiiiik 0 g • � WIWII CA I Ilpfr 1 ,,., . _1,=.. ....::,11 i bk ® Ali cip <,,,CA . .. =,„ ;.., — •. gaio E = F. . alimetvitcA. (Y., II 1 lill . I ,I CA I = i ,: . - _ 2 pc. L. O Q ; 'L7 = C.) HS WI rliabo='t '11 }yr� WI I, . 4....: MEP tall I - / r OP III I ilk; I i n 0 0 et I CO it_ / .4 0 . / ,.. 4 ,..., .w, ......„ !..„.....t, ...„,. _..... ...... i.,........_, . , •.. , , I \I owiwirra •14 71.1 rroisthl MI 61111111111111111=Milid=1 1011111: INC te ..w I 41i ice' A .0 I I I. al to II if ' / iy 7111. I I • I t ■ II I1 , I CA CC= CI til 3■1 p C..- -: I iiIIIIIIIA . ___4 It c-.7-- Illi 11:111111 1 :^ CI 'Ci'i CA 7. I 1 I I I ii. II I . 1111111111111111 I . I ,- , r / • - 11 - 1111- ' '- E. ••■•••• a III —F. it .., I 1-1 [taw • lila tu iI I_ = mi i I .. -. 1.14 •mo . , ,wm cn t , En ••-• o I own; mIL • ck - =MI l'CliS I II I_ rill 1 limomi i, •N . .,. - 7ii 4- I .4. .Q ,_. e 41. PIO e _ I I mi tle cu J' ICAn 3 ...... Tab I - ..a• 1 1 ., v A % Z1- I ' • ri I i II. DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA's) (8040 GREENLINE REVIEW) (CHAPTER 26.435): affects the property is an area of potential avalanches, The only natural hazard which affe p p y p which was identified by Arthur Mears, Natural Hazards Consultant. Mr. Mears was retained by the owners of the property to assess avalanche hazards on the property during the PUD/Sudivision Review. In his 1992 report for the property, he concluded that homes could be built safely within certain areas within the Subdivision which are unaffected by the slide zones. Those areas were designated as unconditional building envelopes on the Final Plat. The "red" (areas of frequent but not intense slides) and "blue" (powder blast) avalanche zones were identified as conditional building envelopes. It is Mr. Mears' opinion that construction can also occur within the conditional building envelopes provided that appropriate mitigation techniques are implemented. applicant has again retained Mr. Mears to prepare a loading analysis for the The app g P P proposed residence once the schematic design was completed (see Exhibit H). Even though the habitable space for the residence has been located entirely within the unconditional building envelope, Mr. Mears has concluded that the east facade of the structure will be subject to avalanche loads due to lateral spreading of debris. This spreading will be enhanced by the proposed cuts into the existing terrain. Mr. Mears concludes that one event with a 10 to 30 year return period will result in deposition of debris against some of the surfaces along the east facade but that a much larger event with a return period of 30 to 100 years would be required to produce the loads illustrated in Figure 2 of his analysis. A. Purpose (Sec. 26.435.010): Under the provisions of Sec. 26.435.010, certain land areas within the city are considered to be of particular ecological, environmental, architectural or scenic significance and all development within such areas is subject to the Special Review procedures of Chapter 26.430 and the standards as set forth in Chapter 26.435. Such areas are known as Environmentally Sensitive Areas ("ESA's") and include the ' following: 1 12 I 1. 8040 Greenline (Sec. 26.435.010.A): Areas located at or above 8040 feet mean sea level (the "8040 Greenline"), including that area extending 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline. are designated as a part of the 8040 Greenline ESA. Development in these areas is subject to heightened review so as to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rockfall and mud slide, and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses. Review is intended to further ensure the availability of utilities and access to any development and also ensure that disturbance to the existing terrain and natural land features will be kept to a minimum. B. Authority (Sec. 26.435.020): Following the receipt of a recommendation from the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of Chapter 26.435, is authorized to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for development in an ESA. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for exempt development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA). C. 8040 greenline review (Sec. 26.435.030): 1. Applicability (Sec. 26.435.030.A): The provisions of 8040 Greenline Review apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the "8040 Greenline") within the City of Aspen, and all development within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Sec. 26.435.030 (B). The property is located within the City of Aspen. Elevations on the property range between 8038 vertical feet at the lower end of the property and 8120 vertical feet at the upper end. Therefore, 8040 Greenline Review of the proposed development is required. 2. Exemption (Sec. 26.435.030.B): The proposal is not eligible for exemption from 8040 Greenline Review because it is not an expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development on the lot. The lot is presently vacant. I I13 I' r3. 8040 g reenline review standards (Sec. 26.435.030.C): 1 Development is only permitted at, above, or 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline after the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the I proposed development complies with all of the requirements set forth below: a. "The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is P P P suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability ' characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city." I Response: The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located has previously been deemed suitable for development considering its slope, Iground stability characteristics (including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers) as a result of the City's review Iand approval of the Subdivision in 1992 (see Exhibit B). A Phase One level environmental assessment was conducted as a part of the subdivision approval process and no hazardous or toxic soils, such as mine tailings, were identified on the site under that analysis. 1 Arthur Mears, Natural Hazards Consultant was originally retained by the owners of the property to assess avalanche hazards within the Subdivision Iand has analyzed the proposed residence for Lot 1 to determine the extent of avalanche loads on the structure. Mr. Mears does not recommend Idiversionary structures (uphill walls and barriers) in dealing with the slide zones. Instead, he recommends that the structure itself be made strong I enough to withstand any avalanche loading to provide protection for its occupants. The applicant worked closely with Mr. Mears and a structural I engineer during the construction of the affordable housing on Lot 4 and determined that, with the relatively small loads that are involved in that case, the one building element requiring more strength than that offered by Iconventional construction techniques involved the ground floor windows. In that situation, windows developed to withstand hurricane-force winds were ispecified. These window units are steel-frame units bolted into the surrounding concrete. I .1 14 I The applicant is committed to undertake a similar investigation during the preparation of construction documents for this residence to assure that the structure can easily withstand the loads of a larger event as determined by Mr. Mears. b. "The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution." Response: The proposed development of the residence will not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Erosion control fencing will be erected at the lower perimeter of the area to be disturbed prior to commencement of excavation. Areas disturbed during construction will be revegetated within one growing season. c. "The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality in the city." Response: The proposed development will not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality within the City of Aspen. When occupied, the average daily traffic to and from the residence is expected to contribute an additional 5.86 round trips per day to Ute Avenue. The applicant previously committed to participate in the Ute Avenue Improvement District. Fireplaces and other woodburning devices will be in compliance with City regulations in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit. d. "The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located." Response: During construction of the infrastructure for the subdivision, the driveway to the building site on Lot 1 was rough-graded and all utilities were extended underground to the lot boundary. The conceptual design of the residence has been revised to locate all enclosed areas of the residence outside of the avalanche blue zone as mapped by Arthur Mears, Natural Hazards Consultant while saving as many of the existing trees as possible (see Tree Removal Plan, Exhibit I). The public trail through the Subdivision has been constructed generally in the approved location. I15 1 e. "Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the Iterrain, vegetation and natural land features." Response: I The concept for site grading is to maintain natural grade around the perimeter of the structure except where terraces, the auto court and the entry area are located in order to minimize disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features on the balance of the site. The location of the structure in close proximity to the turnaround also minimizes site disturbance Ion the one-acre parcel. All of the proposed regrading of the site will be limited to an area approximately 36 inches around the perimeter to the Ibuilding footprint, with the exception of the access and the turnaround area adjacent to the garage. The access will be built in compliance with any City 11 standards for driveways, except as discussed in this application. f. "The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource." I Response: The placement of the residence entirely within the unconditional building envelope in the western half of the lot has been chosen to avoid the Iavalanche blue zone and to save as many trees as possible.. The compact configuration of the structure will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting Iand grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Ig. "Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain." 1, Response: Building height established during the P. U. D. review is consistent with the \ I current height limit of 25 feet for the single-family residential zones. The bulk of the structure when viewed from Ute Avenue has been minimized by extending the structure up, rather than across, the sidehill. A substantial Ipercentage of the structure will be subgrade as a result of building the residence into the sidehill. The site of the residence is well screened by other Iexisting structures and trees which will be maintained where possible and augmented with additional trees planted to screen the structure from below. augur p I I16 I The structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the � P mountain. h. "Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development." Response: Water service has previously been extended to the lot boundary within the ' subdivision by means of an 8" main, as required under the Water Service Agreement entered into between the developer and the City of Aspen. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District lines are in place for sewer service. Holy Cross Electric service, gas service from K N Energy and cable TV service from AT&T Cable Services are also available to the lot boundary. Adequate water pressure and other utilities are available for both domestic use and to meet the fireflow requirements of the sprinkler system which must be provided. i. "Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained." Response: An adequate road has previously been extended into the subdivision from Ute Avenue and is available to serve the proposed development on Lot 1. The subdivision road is maintained by the owners of the three lots which are served by the road. j. "Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment." Response: Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development on Lot 1 along the private access road into Ute Park Subdivision from Ute Avenue. Adequate access for fire protection and private snow removal equipment is available. The design standards for the private road were previously established through the approval process for the Subdivision and the road was constructed to assure access to fire and other emergency vehicles. The Plat includes a dedicated access and utility easement from Ute Avenue to Lot 1. Snow storage typically occurs on the downhill side of the Subdivision's access road. I 17 I k. "The recommendations of the A spe n Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, 1 to the greatest extent practical." Response: A trail alignment is designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map in the general vicinity of the I Subdivision. An easement for a non-motorized trail for public use was previously dedicated on the Plat (see Exhibit D1). A rough trail alignment was constructed by the Nordic Council several years ago, and parts of the Itrail across Lots 1 and 2 were recently re-aligned to shift the trail slightly away from the building sites. ID. Procedure for approval of development in ESA (Sec. 26.435.070): Under the provisions of Sec. 26.435.070.A, a development application for Idevelopment in an ESA shall be processed in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304, as discussed below in 1 Section E. A one-step review is required, with a public hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission. There are no notice requirements, however. E. Application (Sec. 26.435.080): I Under the provisions of Sec. 26.435.080, a development application for development in an ESA shall include the following: 1 1. General Application Information (Sec. 26.435.080.A): • The general application information required in Sec. 26.304.030,Application Iand Fees: a. General (Sec. 26.304.030.A): ISixteen copies of this application are being submitted in the form, and which includes the information and materials specified for ESA Review in I Sec. 26.435.030, and those for Residential Design Review in Chapter 26.410. The application is accompanied by a fee of$ 1,260.00, as requested by the Planning Office. I I I I18 . 1 Ib. Application (Sec. 26.304.030.B): The application includes the following information and materials: i. "Contained within a letter by the a signed b th applicant, the applicant's g PP � PP name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant." I A letter signed by the applicant which includes the applicant's name, address and telephone number and which designates Joseph Wells Land Planning as its representative authorized to act on its behalf is included as IExhibit Al. ii. "The street address, legal description and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development." The street address of the parcel is 1279 Ute Avenue. The legal description Iis Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision. The parcel identification number of the lot is 2737-184-03-001. 1 iii. "A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a Title insurance company, or I attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and I demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application." A disclosure of ownership of the parcel, consisting of a certificate from IFirst American Title Company, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,judgments, liens, easements, contracts and Iagreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application is included as Exhibit A2. Iiv. "An 81/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen." I An 81/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen is included as Exhibit A3. v. "A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings." The site plan for the proposed residence which illustrates the proposed Ilayout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings, has been prepared by Bill Poss and Associates (see Iarchitectural drawings following page 2). I19 I I vi. "A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community 1 Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.)" The site is presently vacant. The only man-made improvements on the ' property include the access drive to the building site and a trail alignment which was constructed by the Parks Department. A site topographic Usurvey prepared byRobert C. Hutton which includes topography and trees in excess of 8" caliper is included as Exhibit A4 showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. vii. "A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application." A written description of the proposal is included in Section I as well as the introductions to Sections II and III of this application. A written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to 8040 Greenline Review is included in Sec. II.C.3, beginning on page 14 and those relevant to Residential Design Review is included in Sec. III.D,beginning on page 26. viii. "Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director."- I The applicant has included in this application the materials, documentation and reports as requested by the Community Development Department as a result of the pre-app conference. c. Consolidation of applications (Sec. 26.304.030.C): ' Consolidated review of 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested by the applicant. d. Copyrighted materials (Sec. 26.304.030.D): No copyright applications have been made for the materials submitted with this application. In the event that the applicant should desire to make such ' copyright application in the future, at that time the applicant will agree to 1 20 I I waive all claims and indemnify the City. The applicant consents that any document submitted to the City of Aspen as part of this development application may be utilized by the City in any manner deemed necessary, including, but not limited to, recording at the Pitkin County Clerk and ' Recorder, to preserve the representations made during the development review process. 2. Proposed Development Plan (Sec. 26.435.080.B): A plan of the proposed development, which shall depict at a minimum the following information: a. "The boundary of the property for which development is requested." The boundary of the property is illustrated on the Topographic Survey prepared by Robert C. Hutton, Professional Land Survyor, included as Exhibit A4. b. "Existing and proposed improvements." Existing improvements, including the location of the roughed-in driveway, trail, approved building envelopes and utility locations are illustrated on the Topographic Survey. Proposed improvements are illustrated on the architectural drawings prepared by Bill Poss and Associates following page 2. c. "Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees." Significant natural features, including the boundary of the avalanche red and blue zones as mapped by Arthur Mears, and existing trees are illustrated on the Topographic Survey. 3. Additional ESA Requirements (Sec. 26.435.080.C): In addition to the minimum plan contents described above, the development plan submitted for development in each type of ESA is also required to include the following: 1 a. Additional 8040 Greenline Requirements (Sec. 26.435.080.C.1): For development subject to 8040 greenline review, the plan is also required to depict: 21 I i. "Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent." Existing grades at two-foot contours are illustrated on the Topographic Survey. Proposed grades are illustrated on the architectural Site Plan ' prepared by Bill Poss and Associates. ii. "Proposed elevations of the development." Elevations of the proposed residence are illustrated on the architectural drawings prepared by Bill Poss and Associates. iii. "A description of proposed construction techniques to be used." It is anticipated that the construction techniques to be employed on the ' proposed residence will be traditional stick-built construction on spread concrete footings and foundation walls. I I 1 i 1 1 1 1 22 III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (CHAPTER 26.410)• Ute Park Subdivision is a four-lot subdivision located on the sidehill to the south of Ute Avenue near the Aspen Club. Lot 4 is the site of seven deed-restricted townhomes. The townhomes front on Ute Avenue. The three remaining lots in the subdivision are freemarket single-family homesites accessed from a private street which departs from Ute Avenue and climbs gradually up to the southeast to a turnaround which serves all three of these homesites. Because two of the three single-family sites are well above ' the public street, they do not have a strong relationship to the public street below. In fact, Lot 1, the subject site, is almost completely hidden from view from Ute Avenue by the existing home on Lot 3 and the three-story townhouses which lie between the public street and the building site on Lot 1. The building site on Lot 1 is also separated vertically by approximately 50 feet of elevation change and horizontally by approximately 150 feet from Ute Avenue, further weakening the relationship between the public street and the building site. The applicant previously presented to the Community Development Department an alternative design for the proposed residence on Lot 1 which encroached into the so- called avalanche "blue zone", as identified by Arthur Mears. Under that alternative, the ' larger area available to design the structure created additional flexibility for the architects and therefore greater opportunities for further compliance with the strict language of the Residential Design Standards. After a review of that alternative, however, the applicant was encouraged by the Community Development Department staff to re-design the residence in a location outside of the avalanche blue zone, and the ' applicant has opted to follow that recommendation, as indicated by the current design (refer to Schematic Design drawings following page 2). Finally,in some cases, the language of the standards themselves suggests that the regulations were written for relatively small, flat lots, fronting on public streets within the Aspen Townsite, and then later applied to virtually all residential development within the City, without regard to the difficulties owners of lots with significantly different characteristics would have in complying with some of the standards. .� 23 I 26.410.010 A. General (Sec. 26.410.010): ) 1. Purpose. Portions of the following language incorporated in Sec. 26.410.O10.A, Purpose, support the applicant's contention that the residential design standards were written primarily for Aspen Townsite lots within the City grid. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet the strict language of all of the standards when designing a structure for an approved lot such as the one which is the subject of this request. The underlining below indicates language which seems to be inapplicable to the single-family lots within the subdivision where the site is located: "The purpose of the following design standards is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to zualkinv. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the streetscape. Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front ifacades of buildings and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain consistency in front setback patterns. there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment. i The area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. Low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property, but it is important not to close off views of the front lawn and house. Certain elements of the front facade of a house are particularly important components of neighborhood character. Front porches provide outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape, and one story entryways provide an appropriate I domestic scale for a private residence. Street-facing windows can establish a hierarchy of spaces with larger,formal windows denoting public areas and smaller ones suggesting private rooms. ' Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment, is important to protecting the uniqueness of the town. Avoiding building materials which have no relevance to Aspen's history or climate helps to meet this goal, as does avoiding a significant overshadowing of small homes by larger structures. SFinally, along with creating homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood can be further enhanced by reducing conflicts between people and automobiles, and by making alleys an 24 r attractive g lace to walk. Parking areas are to be concentrated to the rear or P side of each residence. Secondary structures and accessory dwelling units, located along the alleys and inspired by the tradition of outbuildings in Aspen, are encouraged." r2. Applicability: The site is within the City of Aspen and is not within the R-15B zone district, and therefore review under Section 26-410 is required. 3. Application: This application for residential development addresses the applicable requirements of the Code for the required reviews, including those of rSec. 26.304.030 addressed in Section II above,beginning on page 12, as well as those for Residential Design Standards review, pursuant to Section 26.410.020. 1 4. Exemptions: The proposed development is not an addition or remodel of an existing structure or an application only for the erection of a fence, and is therefore not exempt from review under the provisions of Section 26.410.010.D. B. Procedures for Review (Sec. 26.410.020): 1. Determination of Applicability: PP t3': The applicant's representative has attended a pre-application conference with Nick Lelack of the Community Development Department and a determination has been made that the proposed project is not exempt from the requirements of Chapter 26-410 (see pre-app form, included as Exhibit A5). The applicant's representative has received an application packet as a result of that pre-app conference. 2. Determination of Consistency: ' Under the provisions of Sec. 26.410.020.B, upon receipt of an application for Residential Design Standards review, the Community Development Director ' shall first determine if the development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Standards set forth in Sec. 26.410.040. The applicant's responses to the standards of Sec. 26.410.040 are discussed in Subsection III.D below,beginning on page 26. r 1 25 r 3. Appeal or Adverse Determination: If the application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Residential Design Standards, the applicant is seeking a variance from that standard, as permitted under Sec. 26.410.020.D. 4. Variances: It is anticipated that variances from certain of the Residential Design Standards (Sec. 26.410.040) will be required, as noted below. Variances may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Committee as established in Chapter 26.222. Because ' the applicant is consolidating Residential Design Review with 8040 Greenline Review, however, the applicant requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the variances requested. C. Administrative checklist (Sec. 26.410.030): The applicant's representatives have utilized the information provided by the Community Development Department in identifying the approvals and reviews necessary for issuance of a development order for the proposed development. D. Residential Design Standards (Sec. 26.410.040): ' 1. Site Design (Sec. 26.410.040.A): "The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "facade line"and defines the public and semi-public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist, or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street." a. Building Orientation(Sec. 26.410.040.A.1): "The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be ' parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. One element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired." ' Response: This standard is not applicable to the proposed design because the lot does not front on a public street and is not a corner lot under the Code definition. The standard does not address a condition similar to this specific site in which there is no relationship to a public street and where the private street ' 26 terminates at the lot, rather than continue on past the lot. The principal mass of the structure is, however, effectively parallel to the radius of the turnaround for the private street that it faces. The inference of the standard is that the preferred orientation would be similar to that proposed. ' b. Build-to Lines (Sec. 26.410.040.A.2): "On parcels or lots of less than 15,000 square feet, at least 60% of the front facade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, at least 60% of both street facades of the building shall be within 5 feet of the minimum setback lines. Porches may be ' used to meet the 60% standard." Response: The lot area of the subject parcel is in excess of 15,000 sq.ft. (approximately 43,084 sq. ft.) and no specific requirement for build-to lines are incorporated ' in the standard for lots larger than 15,000 sq. ft. Therefore, this standard is not applicable to the proposed design. Nonetheless, the proposed design complies with this standard. c. Fences (Sec. 26.410.040.A.3): ' "Fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (4") high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback." Response: Any fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes which are installed in areas ' forward of the front facade of the house (facing the turnaround) will not exceed a height of forty-two inches, measured from natural grade. No berms will be installed in the front yard setback. 2. Building Form (Sec. 26.410.040.B): "The intent of the following building form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory units off of the City alleys, ' and by preserving solar access." a. Secondary Mass (Sec. 26.410.040.B.1): " All new structures shall locate at least 10 % of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory 1 27 g g ara as s buildin g such es, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass." Response: The proposed design requires a variance from this standard. The sidehill topographic conditions and access to the site from the front of the property with no alley access available make compliance this standard problematic. ' The architects have attempted to break down the massing by stepping the structure down along the slope. The applicant's and staff's desire to avoid the ' avalanche blue zone and to save existing trees where possible has consolidated the footprint in such a way that there is inadequate area to .employ a secondary mass. There are no historic residences in the ' neighborhood of the subject parcel. A scale sympathetic with the residences on neighboring parcels has been maintained in the design. 3. Parking, Garages and Carports (Sec. 26.410.040.C): "The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to ' minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking,garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not ' exist." a. Access from Alley or Private Road (Sec. 26.410.040.C.1): ' "For all residential uses, parking,garages, and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road if one exists." ' Response: No alley access is available. The garage of the proposed residence is, however, accessed from a private street, in compliance with this standard. b. If no Access from Alley or Private Road (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2): "For all residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private ' road, the following standards shall be met:" i. Relationship of First-floor Living Area to Garage (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.a): "On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5)feet greater than the width of the garage or carport." Response: This standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized. The standards of ' Sec. 26.410.040.0 are intended to minimize the visual impact of parking 28 ' areas from P ublic streets and are therefore not applicable in this case. If ' the standard did apply, the steep topography of the site would preclude the applicant from meeting the standard on level without creating extensive grading cuts into the hillside. The garage does conform to the ' standard if the overall length of the front facade is taken into account in lieu of the first level only. Iii. Garage Setback (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.b): "The front facade of the garage or the frontmost supporting column of a ' carport shall be set back at least ten feet(10'0")further from the street than the frontmost wall of the house." ' Response: This standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized (see above). If the ' standard did apply, the garage would not conform with the 10 foot setback requirement from the front facade. The unconventional ' limitations imposed by the designated building envelope, site topography, existing tree locations and a desire to avoid the designated avalanche zone all pose restrictions to the design of the residence. A single-story porch- like shed roof has been added over the garage doors to visually mitigate ' the impact to the private street. iii. Garage Forward of Facade (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.c): ' "On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, the garage or carport may be forward of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded)." Response: This standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized (see above). If the ' standard did apply, the proposed design does not take advantage of the option to locate the garage forward of the front facade. The alternative design which was developed and presented to the Community ' Development Department staff included a garage element forward of the facade. That design was in conformance with this standard. ' 29 f Iiv. Garage not at Grade (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.d): "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, Ithe driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade." I Response: This standard does not apply to the project because access is available I from a private street and that access is being utilized (see above). If the standard did apply, the proposed design would require a variance from this standard. The steepness of the cross slope upon which the drive and Igarage are situated requires a cut in excess of 2 feet in order to have an access solution which is workable. Iv. Width of Garage Doors (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.e): "The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater Ithan twenty-four feet (24')." Response: I This standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized (see above). If the standard did apply, the proposed design would be in compliance with this Istandard. The garage entrance width is approximately 20 feet. I vi. Single-stall Garage Doors (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.f): "The garage doors shall be single stall doors." Response: IThis standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized (see above). If the Istandard did apply, the proposed design would be in compliance with this standard. Two single-stall doors are proposed. I4. Building Elements (Sec. 26.410.040.D): "The intent of the following building elements standards is to ensure that,each I residential building has street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." 1 I I I30 I Entrance and Principal Street-oriented al Window (Sec. 26.410.040.D.1):p "All single-family homes, townhouses, and duplexes shall have a street- oriented entrance and a street-facing principal window. In the case of townhouses and accessory units facing courtyards or gardens, entries and I principal windows should face those features." Response: The proposed design complies with this standard. The residence is entered Ifrom the west, facing the private street turnaround. The principal window element on the west facade is above the garage. Ib. Corner Lots and Multiple-Unit Residential Buildings, (Sec. 26.410.040.D.1): I "On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. Multiple unit residential buildings shall have at least one street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units, and front units I must have a street facing principal window. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met:" Ii. Entry Doors (Sec. 26.410.040.D.1.a): "The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet(10'0") I back from the frontmost wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight feet." Response: IThis standard is not applicable to the site, as the lot is not a corner lot under the Code definition, nor is the proposed structure considered a I multi-family residence. If the standard did apply, the proposed design would be in compliance with this standard. The entry doors face the I street turnaround and are located within the plane of the west facade. Where the facade has been modulated, the elements do not extend over two feet in front of the main mass of the facade. The eight-foot deep Ientry porch is not enclosed. Entry doors will not be taller than eight feet." I ii. Entry Porch (Sec. 26.410.040.D.1.b): "A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet(6'), shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and Icanopies shall not be more than one story in height." Response: I This standard is not applicable to the site, as the lot is not a corner lot under the Code definition, nor is the proposed structure considered a multi-family residence. If the standard did apply, the proposed design 1 31 1 iwould be in compliance with this standard. A covered entry porch of ii approximately 100 square feet, with a depth of eight feet, has been incorporated into the front facade. The entry porch is a one-story design element located at the top of a flight of exterior stairs leading up to the IIentry. I iii. Street-facing Principal Window (Sec. 26.410.040.D.1.c): "A street facing principal window requires that a significant window or I group of windows face the street." Response: This standard is not applicable to the site, as the lot is not a corner lot Iunder the Code definition, nor is the proposed structure considered a multi-family residence. If the standard did apply, the proposed design Iwould be in compliance with this standard. b. One-story Element (Sec. 26.410.040.D.2): 1 "All residential buildings shall have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a one-story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space." Response: The proposed design complies with this standard. A porch-like canopy 26 feet in length been P h has b placed alon g the elevation facing the private street. This design element comprises approximately 37 percent of the overall building width. c. Windows (Sec. 26.410.040.D.3): i. No-Window Zone (Sec. 26.410.040.D.3.a): "Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second I floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet(12) above the finished first floor For interior staircases, this J measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists.A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. I All street-facing areas with an exterior expression of plate height greater than ten (10)feet shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade I I I32 I 0 penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12)feet above the level Of II finished floor." Response: As the attached architectural drawings following page 2 illustrate, the Iproposed design complies with this standard. No areas of glazing span more than one floor of the residence. ii. Non-orthogonal Windows(Sec. 26.410.040.D.3.b): "No more than one non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gabli' end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one non- I orthogonal window." Response: The proposed design complies with this standard. No more than one iii non-orthogonal window is contemplated for each facade. 0 d. Lightwells (Sec. 26.410.040.D.4): All areaways, lghtwells and/or stairwells on the street facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the frontmost wall of the building." 11 Response: The proposed design complies with this standard. No such features are Iplanned for the street-facing facade. I 5. Context (Sec. 26.410.040.E): The intent of the following standards is to reinforce the unique character of Aspen and the region by drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in designing new structures." , a. Materials (Sec. 26.410.040.E.1): "The following standards must be met: i. Consistent Use of Materials (Sec. 26.410.040.E.1.a): ? "The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building." Response: IAs the attached architectural drawings following page 2 illustrate, the proposed design complies with this standard. The use of materials is II consistent on all facades of the residence. 1 1 33 .1 Materials (Sec. 26.410.040.E.1.131: ii. Characteristics of ( "Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or non-bearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone" Response: The proposed design complies with this standard. Exterior building materials include wood siding over a stone base and wood shingles on the roof. iii. Reflective Surfaces (Sec. 26.410.040.E.1.c): "Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials." Response: With the obvious exception of the windows, the proposed design complies with this standard. If metal roofing is used, it will include a non- reflective coating. b. Inflection: (Sec. 26.410.040.E.2): "The following standard must be met for parcels which are 6,000 square feet or over: ? i. Relationship to Neighboring Sites (Sec. 26.410.040.E.2.a): "If a one (1) story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one story in height along I their common lot line. If there are one story buildings on both sides of the subject site,the applicant may choose the side towards which to inflect. A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure, or portion of a structure, where there is only one floor of fully usable living space, at least 12 feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one story." I Response: The non-traditional nature of the Subdivision creates a question regarding how this standard should be applied to the site. The three single-family lots are not laid out in a strict side-by-side arrangement,but rather in a U-shaped configuration around the end of the turnaround. No adjacent lot exists as illustrated in the graphic example. The subject lot has a stronger relationship to Lot 2, on the uphill side of the private street, than 34 1 1 to Lot 3, below, but Lot 3 relates more to Ute Avenue than the upper two asites. I Even though the portion of the residence on the neighboring Lot 2 closest Ito Lot 1 is only one level above grade along the common boundary, it reads as a two-story element when viewed from the private street below. IThis is perhaps the more appropriate point of comparison for Lot 2. Lot 3 reads as a one-story building adjacent to the private street but as a two- I story structure when viewed from Ute Avenue. An 11-foot tall single- story inflecting element on the north (downhill) side of the proposed residence has been incorporated in the design which relates to the lower design elements of the two adjacent residences. 1 I 1 I I.. I il t I I 111� 1 35 V. EXHIBITS 1 A. General Application Information (Including Sec. 26.435.080.A) Al. Owner's Letter of Authorization to File. A2. Title Commitment. First American Title Company A3. Vicinity Map. A4. Topographic Survey of Lot One. Robert C. Hutton, Professional Land Surveyor A5. Pre-Application Conference Summary. A6. Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees. A7. Land-Use Application Form. A8. Dimensional Requirements Form. B. City Council Ordinance 18, Series of 1992. C. City Council Ordinance 22, Series of 1992. �I D. Subdivision Plats: Dl. Plat Of Ute Park Subdivision. D2. First Amendment to Ute Park Subdivision. E. Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Ute Park Subdivision. F. May 5, 1997 Letter from Charles T. Brandt to John Worcester, City Attorney Re: Vesting. G. May 15, 1997 Response from John Worcester, City Attorney to Charles T. Brandt Re: Vesting. H. Avalanche Loading Analysis. f Arthur I. Mears, P. E., Inc. I. Tree Removal Plan Bill Poss and Associates i i I James T. Martin 67 St. Andrews Circle " Durango, CO 81301 February 7, 2000 ,I" Ms. Julie Ann Woods 11 Director of Community Development, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Woods: I am writing to you as owner of an undivided 50% interest in Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision. My letter is to confirm that the other owner, Howard Stacker, and I have authorized Joseph Wells Land Planning to file on our behalf the attached application for 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Review for a residence proposed for the lot. During the processing of this request, please contact Joe Wells at 925-8080 if you have any questions or need additional information. �N• Sincerely yours, • James T. Martin 970/375-2355 Office 970/375-2356 Fax i CO IN t ":- MENT SCHIMULE A Exhibit A2. 11 COr JELL BANKER/UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP, LTD 720 EAST DURANT 4� ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective AM Or No. 404955 -C6 active Date: August 8, 1997 at 7:00 JM/bi Customer Reference It2. ALTA Owner's Policy Amount: $ Proposed Insured: ItMURRY BC7WDEN II 3. ALTA Loan Policies Amount: $ Proposed Insured: A LENDER TO BE DETERMINED ItProposed Insured: Amount: $ it 4. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in This Commit:_. i and II, covered herein is: FEE SIMPLE I I/ and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP, LTD., a Colorado limited partnership issued by: `a' Owner's Premium: $ ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION Lender's Premium: $ 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE #305 Add'l render Q : $ ASPEN CO 81611 il Add'l Charges: $ FAX 970-920-4052 Tax Certificate: $ PH 970-920-4050 DENVER 303-595-8463 ilr TBDBD Charges: � $ 11 TOTAL CHARGES: $ FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY It C O M M I T M E N T III 1 SCHEDULE B Order No. 404955 -C6 Section 1 11 REQUIREMENTS THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH: ItItem (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. iItem (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: 1; 1. Deed from UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP, LTD., a Colorado limited partnership to MURRY BOWDEN. III NOTE: Duly executed real property transfer declaration, executed by either the Grantor or Grantee, to accompany the Deed mentioned above, pursuant to Article 14 of House Bill No. 1288 - CRS 39-14-102. INOTE: Certificate of Limited Partnership for Ute Park Partnership, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partnership, a Colorado limited partnership, recorded January 17, 1994, in Book 739 at Page 29, discloses that the name(s) and address(es) of the general partner(s) of said limited partnership are as follows: It James T. Martin 215 South Monarch Aspen CO 81611 Howard G. Stacker 300 Shepard Park Office Center St. Paul, MN 55116. li2. Deed of Trust from MURRY BOWDEN to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of A LENDER TO BE DETERMINED, to secure AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED. I (Continued) I ,11 it itFIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURE COMPANY III 1 COMMITMENT I SCHEDULE B Section 2 EXCEPTIONS Or No. 404955 -C6 The policy or policies to be issued will contain to the fo matters Po cY Po e�ooeptsans hawing unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason of the matters shown below: r 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which Oould ascertained by an inspection of said lard or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 11" 2. Easements or claims of easements, not stun by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and 11 any other facts which a correct survey would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 11 4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter , furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 11 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching wit to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured mires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 3 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. INOTE: The Policy to be issued will reflect the status of taxes as of the date of closing. 7. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 26, 1949, in Boo{ 175 at Page 299. 1 8. Fire access easement being 30' in width, nordic/pedestrian trail easement being 15' in width, building envelope, unconditional envelope, avalanche blue zone, avalanche red zone and falling rock zone as shown on the Plat of said subdivision. 9. Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvements Agreement between The City of Aspen and The Ute Park Partnership, a Colorado General Partnership, recorded 1 February 22, 1993, in Book 704 at Page 216. 10. Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 1992) by the Aspen City Council recorded August 4, (Continued 995, )in Book 789 at Page 131. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PPANY EXCEPTIONS (continued) Order No. 404955 -C6 11. Easement and right of way for installation, construction, operation, use 1' inspection, repair and maintenance of a trail suitable for bicyclists, pedestrians, cross country skier and for other similar recreational purposes, as granted by Ute Park Partnership to City of Aspen by instrument recorded February fli IF 22, 1993, in Book 704 at Page 242, said easement being more particularly described therein. I 11 I. I 11 11 IF I 11 I IIFIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 11 ..„‘2,_, ._ ..; , ,.,, , ' ----■ )--) ,;., - ----7- --17.7----A- ' '7,>C---''-'--V- - c, I 43'# \--\))■ :'. i !): s„,.,..i. :ri \ c , -\<.•••■•___.--_„.--\-.,N' j <,,, „„/:7)7;:_,, (/ ,. N...,....::: , ---:::::- _ ___:;„ _------ „.. 67 -,-/- ---%- N , ----- i ii (-4 ', -)-- ->`-'\ / I 1 Exhibit A3. • ‘ •---.t, \'‘. \\I . ( \ \;1\s,„„‘ •--- /7 ...„,:,-„c_—_--,..-j......._.\\ , r../...............; ss..."----'j"--- II „---.....-_—_-!_ 4. , \ \. ■ , I „1, .. . — • . . I. l'il` // .614)1 • - -,'.. i \ i '' : ' *".. '--' ' _... —N )‘..-t- 1\7""\ ,... ......"7. /(,(, fl,."; /J,_ zi Ill )) '\ •\ \ I II?iff/./.. i ‘-.1 \`•--- ----;0 .... , .„.....%.,../ / ' r.- ,_--...... , ,• , ' ) ) I \ • (. r r. --------- - , •C) ,_, % ..) ...,,N .6 s •/ tfr°43 • , 1*, • ; ,..._ -II 4. .. * . • :: / I,•4171` ..., Al r 1°1 '1. __/7L ;-; .4.....,..i.41' •.------,., , • --■ \74'* A\'''' , I \ V 1 \/, ' fr _:,_ "•Heit„-. .. 1.-.1 - -..4.115 , , \ ,,___,..._„ _ .„ ..„ ,, , -/ t ,...____ ,.._,,,, ...„............ ---- ev.:±,-- ;- i ‘ , ii , , , ' , ,, ', „, -------- A 7„........_ , /•, ,___)1 't, •41 ' ) 7. X,•.:, . , --' I 1,L-3 70'-{'---7-7---/r• ':.C2 , 'IA y 3 : \C3, prva,,, ,.,-_-, . , .3,. „ .. • • ' r : ,/ `.- r Ii.' •• ,. Iti.: .. , • #. I:r...../i A•4:i7._ „,, ,--"--1 ' 1 - - ■ E'Xiti: 1\ :54);//, I \ ‘ \i‘ (:\ \ ' / ---- ----"------/'-r----- '.--: ' 751":nr ()\- --:••• :‘.:: 1 .---:/';Ife,f/ ' ' -',/r ‘r/ / V 4/ .:', / & (9, -_-) '''' 0/411.14a.17:0-,/' (1/Cr - c4(7-- • 2 U- - L V4iir• -4.11P-z j (.:( ,7.--f.' • I. Jeff- ( : :, , / . * '1,* ' -----Th,---*_----( 4, ,,,;;(1- Ak-tv-4,,,a1 . .. • ._,._____--117-1:,i `‘,,■11 1I) rj --; 4t*/ 4 i , -_,/- z #'■ . Q.t.44,, -,:gryt ca:1::j. it ‘,c, Oti)—0,1 r_., --??6*.e .51:i ill '/ / -.•;/ 4 ' • • g• :r-1 , . e-,,t... . '. \ r:Vii. . ■■■::,--:7 ( . Pi / '' • lila; J;' tut lie' . .. sift .join-,..: )‘■ r-_----- 7-- 4 7s! i ;Alet-4.:,-e7tt3,.il1-,4l0t. r ,f.a ,-sf r / .. ----- f:./, i - jiifilit 1441tiTZ/ '' • ' -I,f'••;' 'I;. ,4' '.'j.._. .. .' /44'tier/ ,/''''..4, / ...•/:5*. ° ./,%, (r:i / / 17 Ltelttiar W_Alf 1 ,r1A /:•,:: :.;.-- - -'• ''' < •ire .41,,- e ,_,:.,,„ „.._-_„_ _-_,___,,, , ,,,,______.\....,, ,,, . ), ( A ro,/ */- ' ' .11ri ,:- J t,v'...,____4- - -__-• "-<,_,,, - -----_-----------"\ ,:%---' ''------ , ---,--• _ 11,:fw air t •-•-.‘- ---... ...:—,-.-_-:_ tl.,:_. - ----. - .\_,,--___/--,: _;,•_-. - ■ , y d ,. ' .. Q . * ",";:.1 .---'-e, . t -‘' -- ''----‘'. -'‘-' .. ._T'=_‘-'77--- y,■- ", ,... .;:::7:,-17 . .....„ " * c) ------ - ----';'■-_, `7.-'101:- ----;-;1//41' .4.-:‘ ._:5--:--__-t`s- - I 4 i 0 / --- --"---7 / 7 4; ,-,• / 4 ) -1 z,. lii> c"--'--->?-,,, , lk\■. \ '''-f- g- .7.'. 14k• , y. .,.. .,/ / I % 91 1111,-..P- ••• 1 L.- „jay? . , . .• :/2- j . •••■..I'''",... 1 • 4'. 4. ••• ----- . 0 ..\._, ....... • _............... 1111- . / -'1--- , ____--- \ C • ' ■ 1 112 . t cip,. ••••)- ,-.._%-- eL____ •i \ , ., :. .. • ___,411 t . 1 r--..„-- -7----7:--- ---.. ..______■L„.___ __N , • 7 . ib. ..., l'IT f--- - '\.,,,,`, 77J-1-r-(7---'---- x I / _ z o,� -° aN w , cL ,D KID^ oe II o i �� K U " h, Z M J - ``ain 'wa-° 33 I 11 oc� Y UIQ v � �» d0A"a 583 III w a Q. S}'. ,hW :i1aY tiQ o$......�bjsa pu s �<° Q N00 0 :C s $;o c'.� ° L -,=.o}D a_ Y W I ° <a -w W° g '!.. .,. ea a Y -I z 2 i o� o ? 16A".......''''� € $ n ob � I m a 5 J .i °"y o^ <, O . of „,. ,°i s'° i _ . =,, w:e 1 y ° m I I V' m U >, _ r , V ° .,j .— w o a ' p i3 i o i ( u n3.6� n$ Q ' a o p N 0 H�Q ' 8I , =Z O J, � i G n r'w Ya Sn _1° : "., fCo° ° =. o ,,m I a 1� `8 Ob ..i rc . o / � J U J : _ a < $ _ I2 •j .... /: o_T• la_d Z x12, I U Q v-' - - - Z_ 'n z w -*-^,.....:,PH`',. N �C _ I I • I 14 = H- p < I r C � ” , ' Sd - ¢O ,ZIT ' ST ; �— fie- i - g�(1 z h_~ Y ' _�� , :k m_�•,...1 � w WO ' LT,' i 2 1u Cfl� ,� On r � ;! E; o%I d ;0E : ;o m z W �u i a� 1 I\ \ IZ —I JZ W oi3 1 OW "W - Z 1 I ` Z, W a it 1•f— = 00¢ o W = I,' 3 1- a ;o (n W _ ° N=a O - " qi d n.P� a 411 a-,,,--- 4 \ --,ti \ \ , .. ,,,r_,,„,i,.-, t ‘:\ , \,,,, -k\\ --_ \ I ° t 1, 0, T f. ``4 \t, l �'' I i W!W I a\ 1 z r",;" . VI nNb8>� 1 `111 °t--1 w��: P" 3,n� 1N3Jyt0y JyP` JI I � # w/ { 1 J U, a$'6F 6'F \_ .\.__ • I• d o r I W �y z W ` oa3 �7yM W vL a w -? 1 •? 9 I /� J < yisg,T i ,•.:O, I N f'- , .. U �.`� i �'F s /`\" N 4101 01 E/ • / 3.;f- (/) 1 f• 108.44' u \ \\■ I 6c 3 /// r n3 iO• S Qg� . if7 \ \ \ , .1 v g 1 1 0 8 J- L 'rr \\''(' ? ) / I i . j' z\ li , ' .7"r -:1 I I I G / I I 1 ,/it,/ Io I i � 00' 0 1 1 I 000 N •.000 11 O i , / \ '•1 4',E;. / • / . 3, : ,4:,,,,i ° �� Y I i ! ' � ff y�I I _ 00 ,Of 00.005 / i ~ VZ :///// ■ I I: I {s 4 11"• J t \ / i / LL 7 . .il � a o_ !::i I I a o 'wn N un ed .<\ _m I � 3I 1.7 \ w I :2111,,),' I j I I 1 I l i v v I \` I \ o� I rk u \ 4_£\ I V.Z. 1 %6, Ii 66 j1 \ \ 1 \ IA / \ \W\\'' I '+ 1 I I \t lo T. i I/ i I 1 I 1 -1" 1 I � . 1 c_ 1 1 I 1 � I I it l i II, IIi I j N I I I I I I ,....-k-cri / I s-Esa I1 � I .; lJ`,�' II / 3 1 -_.HH i I I i ' I Cr I I /I 1 \ I I 1 - -- 4'20 , i t ' < ' I m �P�t'� J I IL z � t.,",I I j I ■ I I z :./ °6sz / i / ∎ I I ° I j ,- --; 1 o f I I I 1 1 1 m l0 1 I 1 i s �t11 ,. I o I I E6 I o I $ o y i i / i ° i 0 i I I 1 1 3dMS 1 Q �' i / i i 1■\., / I I I I 1 I ' I ' I'\ II i I I I �� I I \K I I I I li / I_ ',4.'" II I 1' I ° I a. J 1 �I l� 1 ,„ „ I • f I BO 00 / , li I I 'LL'9LZ, 1 -- lull fibs. iso 111114 III" IND Ilia 11111 111111' talk MI UN 111111 'all lige Mill ill MI INS Exhibit A5. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY' IPLANNER: Nick Lelack, 920-5095 DATE: 9/24/99 PROJECT: Lot 1,Ute Park Subdivision 8040 Greenline and Residential Design Standards Review a REPRESENTATIVE: Joseph Wells --- 925-8080; FAX=925-8275 602 Midland Park Place; Aspen, CO 81611 IOWNER: Jim Martin TYPE OF APPLICATION: 8040 Greenline and Residential Design Review DESCRIPTION: Construction of a Free Market Single Family Home on Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision. Located off Ute Avenue,just south of the 7 deed restricted units. Slope reduction does not apply to this lot and housing mitigation is not required. ma Land Use Code Section(s) 4 Greenline Review; Section 26.435.030, 8040 , Section 26.710.110, Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development(AH1/PUD) Zone District; and, Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. Review by: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. I Public Hearing: No, only a public meeting is required. Referral Agencies: Engineering;Parks, Zoning, Building Dept., Fire, Water, ACSD, Streets. Planning Fees: Planning Deposit Minor($1100), covers six (6) hours of review time Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor($160) Total Deposit: $1260.00 (additional hours are billed at a rate of$185/hour) To apply, submit the following information: (Also see Section 26.304.030, Application and Fees) 1 1. Proof of ownership 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,judgments, liens, easements,contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development I Application. 5. Total deposit for review of the application p. - Copies of the complete application packet and maps. \ HPC = 12; PZ= 10; GMC =PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff=2 7. An 8 '/z"by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. I 1 8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form describing how the proposed development complies with EACH of the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include and clearly indicate existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. Copies of prior approvals (Resolutions, Ordinances, Agreements, Covenants, etc.). 11. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. I12. For Residential Proposals: a) Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' (available from City Engineering Department) Graphically show the front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet. Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory dwelling units along the alley. Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one living level). I b) Site plan at 1" = 10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed, and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site with 2' contours. c) All building elevations at 1/8"= 1'-0. d) Floor plans, roof plan, and elevations as needed to verify that the project meets or does not meet the "Primary Mass" standard. e) Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block, including present condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board. I13. All other materials required pursuant to the Residential Design Review and 8040 Greenline Review submittal requirements packets. I Detailed submittal requirements, in addition to those mentioned above: 20 copies: Site plan drawings of the development, at a scale of either one (1") inch equals twenty (20')feet or one (1") inch equals thirty (30') feet, composed of one or more sheets with an outer dimension of twenty- four by thirty-six (24" x 36") inches, showing the following information: 1. Title by which the proposed development is to be referred. 2. Scale (graphic and written), north point, and date of preparation. 3. Location of municipal boundaries at or near the development. 4. Parcel size in gross and net acres as well as gross and net square feet. 5. Total bedrooms per each dwelling unit type. 6. Estimated total floor area and estimated ratio of floor area to lot size, with a breakdown by building. 7. Proposed coverage of buildings and structures, including the following: a. Percentage and square footage of building coverage. b. Percentage and square footage of driveway and parking. c. Percentage and square footage of public street right-of-way. d. Percentage and square footage of open space and/or landscaped area. 8. Number and location of off-street parking, including guest, handicapped, bicycle and motorcycle parking including typical dimensions of each. 9. Lot lines, easements, public right-of ways as per subdivision plat. I 10. Exact location of all buildings and structures and building envelopes dimensioned on at least two (2)sides to the nearest platted property line. 11. Location of temporary construction facilities, including temporary signs and parking areas (as applicable). 12. Topographic contours at two (2') foot intervals. ( ) 13. Location, species and size of existing plant materials. 14. Location/boundaries of all hazard areas including but not limited to avalanche zones, rockfall areas, 5 mudslide areas, etc. 15. Maximum building height of all structures. 16. Existing zoning and minimum required setbacks (front, sides, rear). I17. Area shown on the site plan shall extend beyond the property lines of the proposal to include a survey of the area and uses within fifty (50') feet of the proposal, exclusive of public right-of-way, at the same scale Ias the proposal. 1 In the event that you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact Nick Lelack of the Community Development Department at 920-5095. I * The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding on the City. The opinions contained herein are based on current zoning and regulations, which are subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not, in any way, create a legal or vested right. :I ,I I I I I I I I I I I/ ` ' • - Exhibit A6. ASPBN/PITIGN COMMUNITY['TY DEVELOPh1ENT DEPARTMENT TMENT . II/ . CITY in,ASPEN fhesebattierCiTY?and James T. Martin and Howard G. Stacker (Iterchiatier APPLICANT)AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Lam► has au taxi and CITY as appl _f9r (hereinafter,THE PROTECT). i3. APPLICANT utaWe rods and agrees that City of ARM 4tdlaance No. 49 (Sales of 1496) estsblisbea a fee gramme for Load use appticrtiaoa end toe prymatt of all processing has Is a condition precedent Ito a deoermirladva of application completeness. • 3_ APPLICANT sod Cit agree that i oft'he die,maws or scope oft the reposed project.it to toot possible at this dma to aeeatein the fall mama of the costs involved In moccasin* tbe appilemion. A CAA ff tend CITY halter a that It is to the latent of the prates 16atAPPGUCANT matte payment of an I labial deposit and to thereades permit ackildonal mute to bt: tolled to APPLICANT on a inbathlyr basis. APPLICANT agrees*Milano'costa may accrue Mowing their hearings endlor approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments Capon notification by the • CtrYwhen they e e eeeesse trio oases ere hummed. CTIY agrees ii will btbenefited through the seater certainty Iofreooreite Its toil oasts to process APPLICANT'S epptication. 4. CITY end APPLICANT fattier agree that it is iatpleeticable ihr CITY staff to complete Processing or mesent suftkietti toiormedne to line Plante Cemodsalott and/or aty Council to enable the Planning I Coltktlaiwiott andlor Cl Council to make legally required findings for projem.cmddedatioc.tulle=assents bellhops a to paid in MI prior to decision. 5. 'ntefegke,alln1CANT agrees dirt In coosidsradna of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect • I fail her priorA a demtmation of appIIcsetoa completencas,APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit to thy aatcuat of is.risicit is foe _home of Coma'" ty Develeprome gaff dote,and if actual . recorded costs exceed the initial alt,APPLICANT hall ptpl addrtiOp*l ly hinings to CITY to rebuitgrse the Ci1'Y for the processing of the eppticatioe mentioned above,laces post approval review. Such pewees payments shell bo made within 30 days of the biiling data APPLICANT further woes that fluent*to pay such waned teem shell be grounds for stopeatIon of pracessigg,and in no cam will building peonhrs be Issued until all . costs associated with ease processing have been pea • APPLICANT OF ASPEN CITY James T. Martin and Ho .rd G. Stacker / '/ •41 -e—t/It-e—t- Br s /0^ Aaa Woods February 4, 2000 ii • • amok Domseptnsst Director . let Y . fdellEng.Addmmo c/o James T. Martin 67 St. Andrews Circle ii Durango, CO 81301 I/ II ILAND USE APPLICATION Exhibit A7. PROJECT: Name: , Location: l/299 </«i,(-7/ce--e-eii '*/ti.r.r o2S, ,cdzIC:i/ ae *. M I (Indicate street address, lot& block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: /' IName: 0.- lG #41---7/724;41. Address: 9 o ✓,: rte-d 7A -, , 7 2f 4 i eu/.s � /e;�//e3 i, eo 8/3e,/ 1 Phone#: ?�. 3 2--3-CG- ✓✓ I REPRESENTATIVE: Name: LIB Rie/c,-✓01 ef4 l/t e`Gr i fic)e-te-c4.47 IAddress: 602-A'(- /(a- //e-P/a.Gc; /h7,-, 09 816l/ Phone#: �. q2-cr CDa ITYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): EConditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. I1 Special Review ❑ Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal////eeepi ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. I ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA(& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition - 0 GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation I g ESA- 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane 2, ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other: Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment IEXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals, etc.) 1 I PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) /e.-,-- ! ; f I Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 2O °o s Pre-Application Conference Summary ∎ if Attachment#1, Signed Fee Agreement _Cee- , c4),/G�;f ��`� ,1 Response to Attachment#2, Dimensional Requirements Form Ig' Response to Attachment#3, Minimum Submission Contents -e--%x:y4 ,r4.5. L.60 q Response to Attachment#4, Specific Submission Contents ,,,'s; ) 2 Response to Attachment#5, Review Standards for Your Application Ste- 6,5 I Exhibit A8. ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: h z, e/Z.- 5&,,4t,G./Grtn Applicant: e.-r e 149-0 LAkv 7 ;moo Location: h = - ie- Je— Zone District: 's _ ifisgzie,609 ma" 1 " PU�7 Lot Size: /3/ i , Lot Area: I (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the Idefinition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: O Proposed: 4/16- Number of residential units: Existing: O Proposed: Number of bedrooms: -7/ Existing: O Proposed: 4- IProposed% of demolition (Historic properties only): A.4 DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: O Allowable:V . fca/Proposed: 5 F Principal bldg. height: Existing: 1144- Allowable: -s /6 'Proposed: 2'' '1 Access. bldg. height: Existing: IV'?'- Allowable: Proposed: A1" On-Site parking: Existing: 0 Required: GYM Proposed:•__� I % Site coverage: Existing: AlAic Required: M Proposed: /VA" % Open Space: Existing: 700 Required: Proposed: IFront Setback: Existing: /11,# Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: 44- Required: Proposed: ICombined F/R: Existing: / '�_.—�e q uired.�� Le� Pro p osed:I5/i'o ti Side Setback: Existing: / /L Required: fl7 Proposed: ISide Setback: Existing: t14 Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: HA- Required: '■/ Proposed: .-V Existing non-conformities or encroachments: 1Vic:)*(e.-- Var' tons requested: ZP�'4I'4/ / 1 ` 4 c �° j cDf M I i I I I 1 EXHIBIT B. r City Council Ordinance 18, Series of 1992, An Ordinance Granting Approval for Rezoning, Final PUD and Subdivision Approval, Growth Management Exemption, Condominiumization and Related Reviews for Ute Park Subdivision. I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I ORDINANCE NO.18 (SERIES OF 1992) .�I AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM (RR) RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUBDIVISION, I/ FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR TREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING,CONDOMINIUMIZATION, VESTED RIGHTS, AND WAIVER OF THE WATERMAIN EXTENSION MORATORIUM FOR THE UTH PARK SUBDIVISION, A FOUR 11 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 3.8 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. 1 WHEREAS, in September 1989, the (AH) Affordable Housing zone district was created to promote private sector development of deed restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market residential development within a project; and WHEREAS, in April 1990 the Ute Park Partnership (Applicant) 11 submitted an application for rezoning of a 3 . 8 acre parcel on the east end of Ute Avenue from (RR) Rural Residential to (AH) Affordable Housing in conjunction with an application for 1 Conceptual PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Conceptual PUD Plan with conditions on July 3 , 1990; I and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Conceptual PUD Plan and 11 the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, discussed rezoning of the parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing as a threshold issue, and approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on August 13 , 1990; and WHEREAS, in December 1991, the Applicant submitted an application for Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, Growth Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and 1 i . I for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special II; Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, 8040 Greenline Review, waiver of Park Development Impact Fees, and Waiver of the I/ 1 Waterline Extension Moratorium for the development of 'seven deed IIrestricted affordable townhome units and three free market lots for single family residences; and I/ WHEREAS, the applicant also requested an extension to the one- year filing deadline for submission of a Final PUD Plan; and IWHEREAS, on January 13 , 1992, upon staff's recommendation, the ICity Council granted a 160 . day filing extension effective retroactively from August 1991; and 11 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having reviewed the development proposal for the Ute Park Subdivision and the Irecommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission and I/ Planning staff, approved Rezoning from (RR) Rural Residential to (AH) Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, Growth 11 Management Exemption for free market residential development and affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested rights, and waiver IIof the waterline extension moratorium. IINOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: IISection).: That it hereby grants the following approvals for the Ute Park IISubdivision pursuant to the applicable sections in the Aspen I/ Municipal Code: Rezoning from RR (Rural Residential) to AH (Affordable Housing) (Chapter 24, Section 7, Division 11) ; ii 2 II I 1 Subdivision (Chapter 24, Section 7-1004) ; Final PUD Plan (Chapter 24 , Section 7, Division 903) ; Growth Management Exemption for Free Market Development in an AH Zone District, and Affordable Housing (Chapter 24, Section 8-104 .C. ) ; and Subdivision Exemption for 11 Condominiumization (Chapter 24 , Section 7-1007) . Section 2 : The following conditions shall apply to the approvals: I1. The Applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement financial assurances for the construction of the affordable housing component of the project. This shall consist of 11 placement of First Deeds of Trust of $10 . 00 value on Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the name of the City of Aspen. Upon the sale of the first free market lot, the deed to Lot 4 will be placed in escrow for the City of Aspen. In addition, a letter of credit payable to the City of Aspen shall be provided by the 1 Applicant which covers the construction costs of the townhomes. Upon delivery of the letter of credit and 1 placement of the Lot 4 deed in escrow, the City shall release the remaining First Deeds of Trust. If construction of the townhomes by the Applicant has not begun within two years of recordation of the Final Plat, the City shall take possession of Lot 4, the architectural plans of the townhomes shall be turned over to the City, and the City shall redeem the letter of credit in order to construct the townhomes within one year. 1 1 2 . The applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement specific provisions for the mitigation of avalanche dangers 1 3 i 1 I for the seven deed restricted townhome units. Protection of the townhouses (by retaining wall or residential structure) must extend the entire length of the "conditional zone" on Lot I1 unless the unprotected townhouses are designed to standards established by Art Mears or similar avalanche expert. Avalanches shall not be deflected onto neighboring properties. I/ 3 . The home on Lot 1 shall be constructed prior to or simultaneously with construction of the seven townhouses. If I/ built simultan-eously, the structural framing of the Lot 1 house and any necessary retaining walls must be complete and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the townhouses. 4 . In the event that the Final Plat and Subdivision agreement have not been filed prior to issuance of any Building Permits 11 for the Ute Park lots, the financial assurance and avalanche protection documents must be approved by the City Attorney and 11 recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to issuance of any building permits on Ute Park parcels. 5. The applicant will continue to coordinate roadway design, 11 drainage, snow storage, etc. with City staff. Any improvement work must be done in accordance with City specifications. Alternative on-site parking locations for the townhomes shall be noted on the PUD Plan and Final Plat. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the townhomes, the applicant shall satisfy the City Engineer regarding storm drainage calculations. Storm drainage 4 1 1 calculations must be P rovided for the free market homes at the time of individual building permit application. 7 . The applicant shall indicate the entire avalanche zones on the ' Final PUD Plan. 8. Avalanche warning signs shall be indicated on the plat along the property boundaries along Ute Ave. and along the nordic I/ trail. 9. Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized and revegetated or removed to a sita acceptable to the City. I10. Prior to constructions, a fugitive dust control plan must be obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and this 11 office. 11. If the water line in the proposed utility corridor is I/ dedicated to the City of Aspen a water main easement must be executed between the Applicant and the City prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 12 . The Final Plat and PUD Plan shall indicate that the homes on Lots 1 and 2 must be sprinklered for fire protection. The rApplicant shall satisfy the Fire Marshal regarding emergency access prior to filing the Final Plat. 13 . The Subdivision Final Plat shall indicate the conceptual trail alignment. The County Open Space and Trails Program (COSTP) may act as assignee of the City of Aspen for the construction and maintenance of the trail. Upon completion of this trail, I/ the COSTP will be responsible for surveying and filing the as- built trail easement. Plat note #7 shall be amended to: 5 I I remove the one Y ear deadline for trail construction; state Ithat conceptual trail alignment and subsequent trail easement will run with the land and bind future heirs and assigns of 1 lithe developer; the trail alignment may be amended by mutual I/ consent of both parties (lot owners and City/COSTP) . The year-round trail easement shall be 15 ' wide with side slopes Inot to exceed 6%. The Nordic Council and the applicant shall work together and verify the trail alignment as shown on the 1 Plat and PUD Plan complies with the most workable alignment for skiing and trail connections. Signage shall indicate avalanche and rockfall hazards to trail users. These signs IIshall be installed prior to commencement of any site work. 14 . The seven townhomes shall be deed restricted as four Category II4 units and three Category 3 units in accordance with Housing Authority Guidelines. The restrictions shall be approved by the Housing Authority and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to issuance of City approval of the Final Plat. II15. All material representations made by the applicant in the IIapplication and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and IIconsidered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. II16. The Subdivision Plat and Subdivision / PUD Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and 11 Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the II 6 II 1 Plat and Agreement within a period of one hundred and eighty 1 (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the Plat and PUD Plan approval invalid and reconsideration and 11 approval of both by the Commission and City Council will be Irequired before their acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing 1 of good cause. Section 3 : An exemption from the moratorium on expansions to the City's municipal water system as imposed by Resolutions 12 and 45 (Series 1991) be and is hereby granted so as to allow the extension of the municipal water delivery system for three single family 11 residences in the Ute Park Subdivision. Section 4 : Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the 11 City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the lUte Park Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record 11 all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 11 2 . The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. i 7 1 I 1 3 . Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall 1 exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the 1 general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided 1 that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 1 4 . The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property 1 subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and 1 all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical 1 codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 5: 1 The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen shall be and is hereby amended to reflect that rezoning as set forth in 1 Section 1 above and such amendment shall be promptly entered on the 1 Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 B. of the Municipal Code. 1 Section 6: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now 1 pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded 1 8 1 1 under such prior ordinances. ISection 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or 11 unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and Ishall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 8: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City Iof Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a 11 vested property right pursuant to Title 24 , Article 68 , 1 Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- described property: IThe property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 9: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 10: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /3 day of � ' , 1992 at 5: 00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearin g a 9 1 1 public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of Igeneral circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the o 3 day of ' 1992 . cil? (� r IJohn Bennett, Mayor Attest: I ,�'�-/— Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this -2C0 day of , 1992 . John ennett, Mayor 1 Att-st: )414<l_ Kathryn Koch, City Clerk I I I 1 10 1 1 O 11 a EXHIBIT C. City Council Ordinance 22, Series of 1992, An Ordinance Amending Section 5-206.2 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, "Dimensional Requirements" for Affordable Housing (AH), so as to Establish a Sliding Scale and Cap for Floor Area Ratios for Single-Family Dwellings. I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 11 . ORDINANCE 22 (SERIES OF 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING SECTION 5-206.2 OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, "DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS" FOR AFFORDABLE . HOUSING (AH) , SO AS TO TO ESTABLISH A SLIDING SCALE AND CAP FOR FLOOR AREA RATIOS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that 1 amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations" , shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive and has reviewed and recommended for approval a certain text amendment to Chapter 24 arising from the Ute Park Subdivision/PUD submission relating to the establishment of a sliding scale and cap for floor area ratios for single family dwellings in an AH Affordable Housing Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and approved at public hearing those Code text amendments as recommended by the Planning Director associated with the Ute Park Subdivision/PUD submission, pursuant to procedure as authorized by 1 Section 24-6-205 (A) 8 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments 11 as approved and recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and are not in conflict with other portions of Chapter 24 ; and 1 ' WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments as amended by City Council will allow and promote compatibility of zone districts and land uses with existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics and will be consistent with the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO: Section 1: Section 24-5-206. 2 D. 10, "External floor area ratio" for Affordable Housing (AH) Dimensional Requirements, of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, is hereby amended at "Detached Residential Dwellings" , for Lot Size "9, 000 + " which new text shall read as follows: "9, 000+ 3 , 660 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet for each additional 100 square feet of floor area to a maximum of 5, 770 square feet of floor area. " Section 2 : This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now ' pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3 : If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or 1 I . unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining ' portions thereof. Section 4: A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be held on the -4. ' day of , 1992 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the a- — day of 1 , 1992 . (3 John nnett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk NALLY ado ted assed and approved this a6, day of � P � P PP Y 1992 . John ennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn . Koch, City lerk 1 1 3 1 I 1 I 1 EXHIBIT D. Subdivision Plats: Dl. Plat Of Ute Park Subdivision. 1 D2. First Amendment to Ute Park Subdivision. 1 i I 1 I J v 4 Y?, hi tC ! t '1•4 J 4 ;M kf} y } s I x Fz Ce 1 5 + v iJ9 t F 7! J t P'1 t � N "?.:'''''1.1::‘"1.r."..1.'''''', :: :-.-''';'',$1. 4 'f -1_ ..... � 5 ( x2 �r N.c r..,.«.,, ° °.3rtG . ( _ 7 >•' r q. 3�t tw o-.�!}t- 1j : �. '. _. ... � *fit Y�� 1 � r c:� .4. J k x t? 3 � ^' .. ti� +31 i ii Jd� � ; 1 � t F� 0 1 g .. ,'c c,, :,it 't .tf, #r ;; 1;'..r -.L- "i2 :#)4 E t.. :! � �ijiI ,► -'t#i3ti B". s YY Li .t 11 :a{ .► #i .54 1##S t## 1z • (E g 111,: 7r 3 !s . : . i=i ## .Ir 14€ i. .''; I ,� T 4 F!= !vil i. a f*1 1 :: Ttt ' F ,s . t4'-;1. ppas F{ •pi17.-..it : � t4.s f. � ._., "- t:.rgF; �: _ :' z�..:.•i �i a� i� 1-'11;:=1.11111-3# .. � YYY �`' �, �.�� :�[�.� 1 C:I s .:.. sac 4-1 i, L t ti t; Z !i 410„> 6 a•a' a: ;i 4.4, /.=r!a.#i1I !La 1! .4 e Ali' t 1. •:.'":: .':',!,•-':-:',. # t: /'�gi. 414--:;........"...k' 4•' !:' _ 1¢!� 4 YT i. 4,.,tti ".4 S 4 Sa '. s1 - 111 '). -3► f �t ;� a s, f.r .9la a �i. 1 a '�,:1 '�.i3 tct 'a S:5� to{� ;a •o. .4t -aa �� t4 j. z. ,)� a'� tg�.L �� }L.9�, �`# .t � i � E 3 � .� 1 fiz;.s gF!'E.a•',d}i ;5:a€.Y#.ea€ ` , r TTc A,, -1.;:::',:. a r . N• =I Y r . E# 1 ,1 i I i1! m ° q 8 '� ` S a sI 3i I I � is y'.n' i\ F<$r • ° r QL4T no ■�v �Y` Il� „I ?tom :if, o r <s d(n it <# 1112 J. . °I' �a o Q z 4# I�.Y pq 1 2 y ;. 1131,I's.U . •, a I_ T�1° \ i y 6J' :'6 I Fib^ { X .. ,Z S2' € : a - = z¢ aS - •' ."4 Y is i i I ..t I a O - _ a '2 OIaa Qy QN� F O I _ m z 'a', Now.L . _ ¢ as� _ 3 m« ^> w Wr' i l I 1 > 1 • . 1, i-_-;.t- L 1 I i I : l ”.o - 'L 1 t ; ; m °w �5 , b• l I v w4. i 4 Q v:'m �� n i s m S / �,re# I. 7 d 6��. ~ of ,' /S•. / �\ yyI' r F .f-• t W c' ✓' • a o Sr gO gyp N p0 7/ �J Q -<;y c7 • . ,° I Ti W ...Q a ...• :-: � ' ' / o// a a l A� �i rz ' 4,,:' ' of(>' 'et $'.4 / 1 p 3 Y./ " o 4o . / • , :;iQ o O $ .J *trr , , .f.'' \J,p J h9 <\_ �:. oh "' ,..7.- / . ti• boo.'y Sry o°,, /� ..I--. t'-\.. Z ;.i?. h�� j�p •1� ; " / " o,y / � _ �.. ♦�_F�._. . zF .,art ..ra;• -.,/t $/: 0 o�/f1a4 - _ m .. / ..,\ \`.':' . J �*:,•.2.1 '.:•'-d , >.Y 1 `/ �'v /' \ �� 3y >\ Oi -,C..•,•W \a"o\n,b. 7a i..i�.i 3 Cp :-O `'.t 6s; .0W.Jam. o/' V- _ N $-- b' or ``.4" /3t \ f 0 °(-''''!"- -6, '\\t j .�:' 'm ry`.i. v,\, `/. �. w i.:-:v..._,-----;-7 r/ / as p/ �° / _J ■ft i - . . Nr0 :, r ��.., pO ''''..',14'. /?�o,yt� ./t/. ',h> . 0 a . O a w <�,o i :y"p ,• ' ' < J\� . / '1 ; / Q V/_ .7? .,g :,/2:0 p r ,, ' Q C// . / y/> .- m y z y a ' � '.p r s .,a, ' m r a t 1.;';', 1O y t, / lj/ `v \ J .;- gy '. a ` O W j . �i. '60. ` ° , �/ ti°f OO :(S`f 4 tfI ¢;� f \ T : : Y +, ° t , .t • e, w (/) •�iL\ ;M1° _\�, .. 5�a`' ��+•.to 0J Q�' '�.�.3 1 C g � •. '1 w i q ) t' o .w CV W '•\ .r 1Y -3 G / 4 r ° 1.1 y i g m a L/ ., 1 {� / b ) 4.. t.•' r r'i,. _ 0 \V ONO m •"�.( : t O v b Y Z r' u * . r 'JNw�'=- °yb "1. O 9rre, /t 9 5' • 3 W 06';ll W =.3 .00 ,40.50 N M .00 .b0 .10 s Q „ , s, N - ,36.06 ,ll ,64 .00 N bin :WA 'StC F} r -1 1 `A 21111 naz = :.: 0YNaw::aNNI 3: ,• '' . ,.:01=1 la ;;. €I . w �z r i t 2 t eOVUr g� 60 e j + ru' ., ff r 1 {1 N . 6 f 6 + -� - ��1 h d t!s flip s � �r r+� egg•r' d 4.� Y t .. b{n $ --°jai .i$d if! �TJ'. i ]�1 p .� . 1 �.. ' ��rr�_f ,.� .1::4,1/4.,,, ... , .,... : Ai X� i c. a,. g Nn° �` . Yfl i 6. 11 4 £r s � y i, 1 of a :f . 1_ .i i.ii Fi i ll.1 (i,° `i •st, !: , Z . e..g� £b. F`.. 4 '€ eE 'a 111"11••=1;} ! Y -` i it f:.. Y4•'� tj !� t a x� ,P E::",;;; 1'a .s i8 t1e xella9 s• t .I f1 i .r s9<c 3 �� • F s NP s e: ,Y: a � " = 8Yd7�, = .Yi ! _ 2 i]O Y6 �Rd `;s gx. s.:' F:2R:} jl f l ad1 �1 .:.;t* 1� R tin y .a• -;a� •d ": � r�t� 1"yt 11=��e�4_i ;t :..'s§ a 's1 r'•oi§ 1ig1 `. FIi �FY. r. Ftdf� ;g ;F J..: ' Pd$ i a...a a'E E ; t61 :gg.1.Y:. E-i- =ry%r! i [.:; ilt;dl t d,: .,�-8 :vII :xff4iirz <a i _ "e3 .x. td F1. a8J €_a8 es - _ 1i1L ; .V ya.. 3 *j4a e N a � / v •• F F• fi.:� g8 Q ij;4 . I r F� s d 9 '-.Q ..;-'-'."•:.';•••• ,.: :.:::••.'„:-,:, gl:•,;'.: ,••• '••• -:.•!,3 -:-•.... 11 --;-: - : .I.. , :• i°!9 : • '',' 1-."r .•::'1,:''.-...i. ::::' -.:., ...",:-:.;'.....,ii-t -j•J'::•:-...;,::::','•:.'6:.:i:::::.''...;.'!...;•.' ".'••• •:':•,...:::;;;:i'.:::: .).,:;..!:.::":.;'":',..'''.':"...::',:. ":•.'f.t-:,:iTi'.'.1.':: 1 ; '( f `� ' s i _ ° a 1 , a aN. Egg "$ I x3 t _ � .s ji bk/ 1 1 - is a:4� 3 _ N ��} $ � N..$ 1� . : �� i gy f }i1 p;. ; dt F. ? s _Y t` 8 z 3 ..e r ;. I ' s I_ Y I a I i a ,Y 1 ......-:: ,-.i.,,,;-!.--y1 : , . f : : i::: ..' .,...,:-...:.;::. . .,:t! ...11. ::,-. . :.:.:: :: ......,. . '...:::::;,....,..:(.,.:..:-.::......: ,...,,:•.:.,::.:,:.:::„,.....,..:.:,.:.:•:::.: .,....,::..v.:...,:::,.::::::. ......,....::. ::::„,,,,......::.„,, 1:::',-;:..,:::.:..... s ': .'.. . i i:,-,.;...-: ,r, : i. • :, ,„ i =,. ,:.4,. _f S • 1� 1 E1 , + Ill :d SN p' 3• y ��$ F i 1: i i i $"h ;,: • BI S� N 6 .z R E s l,LI ) 1 _ N W • ..yyam� 3g P LL J� r F 9 aLLr R V 01. offs n `� a ¢w9 ? •�•�� L,.;- r UTm_ z `V ii .. - aaN - O J oY mamz � m� o<� . � 1,.. . .rya . .. : .' i°LY:f ' , ;:i,3"d.,, .. ' . - '. ' '. .. , . . . -:.;. '..''.,.::::.':',..::.'','•'!:.':-':'''',.,'''..:....:Y.:'....=,':::-.'f.:','::;..-:.--.f..J'..:::.'2,i',..:4J:-.',,.: kit ,:. -:::',..z.t.P4.,-;:•.-.::,', IIIIII {' •° ` 3 R v R LL !- ! Q o 'E i E R R „ „ / ,•e o r 0 m - 8 w 3 3 a as� e'er tiwq� `'j'3s• ..y• $ Pd �O d A X F^.. . . e. . ',i ''.. \‘‘xx-•■,,N \.:. .... ,,, 7 c., .. . _ • .„.:, i .,,,,,, • ..,:;, ,,,_! ,-, ..E., .;: ,(2 • :, • .. . • a.aaadaaa.aa / „« N. 5 00000®000® / :V.. / \"\` s j ;• . � / • '• ',.. , : :. ,..:,..-.: ':',...i.....--,:.':••••,-•.•1.';;: -..,':'•pt•':--.!-.••:-.•:-..2-...-:,:-,.',.:'-': • W Ow wo p u a I d o(K •• W .1.1 z n� o ur z g o Er, , ..,Li, !) n 5 W z� m�� w o f- c . iq Iq .,n3�. �° Fla �'aNw•_� h - 0 .� • fir' Iet4 f .• 4 3• m� r 4 omi // a; Q• - °-q • 1- . Ua>ry // . it p •.p. boo •� 6 - d. '• g R WW O. s aL I W ,00,E �S1 F— o a /, d r• m'.. r r O..U) .00 �Yd. Y � 4j " ° <$ 3`'as o° // Q sr�b �¢ F �? r/ Vii/ 4 .. •• 3'. g. Ud \y0 //Q' yv // d'�r 8:. • v Qa �i• Q OP Op'`° . i/ '''.•/r W '`� °p 1 II• $ .. cn 9 P�� ,� ;�� r\ o,t, '' „,",,c;J;`V•os"°fir .',� .\ .rr ...Q .4 ' vp.vy�-.:•0 1�' lr \.o o ff$¢¢ '.q' 4. d Pom 3 r r ro" rM1�r oOre isr��y\� d • � k e° �¢ /�° Y`4 �°are• y�•.. ® a y n•o Q• 3. d �/ . i w Pr ai' •o / • „'"4.44:,4i.du o $� / +k,`+• 4' • P// .. m w 4,7,:......• , p ./ .C7 o r�4 ` .: rr ,♦ 4>` r� 00 I „a �-V0 f4\l 08 a.0ti�N e� A• _• r Jr• 4./ .ey' .' �0.e yO , yr 4 / —q”,r o ■ teI • :;;? / -H. O /r 'Y c: I,' `\ Q ://_ :' s ./ ' >J - : Q ,Q ' --f s/ , , r/5 . . ' .c4 .: .- •O k; •., •o//a a H Q ° ! , ro / m W �.¢ /✓. 0 : 0/ * u/' O /\ t/: .1 0 •.: A. .e n // `0 0 e/ '/ J Wit • 8 e - 4 o'0 m J / _ / ter ." o / ' a " $won I• m ,/ ,.y , O � .• 4 'o, *S: 5-. q � $3 a . ./ , `. / / /'/o / r- 4.1. p. �ry rye / /, / / • / N �q N i ^ �/' 1 �,. i 1 'i •// t if,', •�' V / .0-,•".. , �d•3 U � .m / / - „C3' :„,i, -,y / op as 'mqm < o '0ry , � to ,_ o:B•B.90' Lt 3 ,9l ,SO .LOr N • • 12.,94 .00 N t x. , oU. um r:11 *'''''-‘1 • •; .° u� ,8'� • ��`.` J' V JR .. : O I¢ 11... ‘ 5 ��{ 4h d �/{4� J ' !_ c7 p e � L, �._ /i r o .e� • I I 1 EXHIBIT E. Planned Unit Development and Subdivision ImprovementAgreement for Ute Park Subdivision. I I I I I. I I I 1 # 203 02/22/93 16: 36 Rec $200. 00 BK 704 PG '216 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 PLANNED UNIT DEVE'LOPME1a'T AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR UTE PARK SUBDIVISION I THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation and home rule charter city (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and the Ute Park Partnership, a Colorado partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Owner') on the dates as indicated below. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recording a Final !Pianne-d Unit Development and Subdivision Plat (hereinafter referred to as the "Plat") pertaining to the development of a residential project comisting of three free-market single-family lots and seven ; #354208 02/22/93 16: 36 Rec $200. 00 BK 704 PG 217' Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $.00 ' WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to enter into such Agreement with the City and to provide the assurances set forth herein to the City. WHERE recordation the Plat. AS, the City is willing to approve, execute and accept for recd WHEREAS, this Agreement, the Plat and Ordinance No. 18, (Series of 1992), shall constitute the final development plan and development regulations for the Project pursuant to Section 7-906, of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is greed as follows: 1. 1. The Project Description of Pro' ject consists of four (4) lots,the legal description D t for which are set forth on the attached Exhibit "A". Lot #1 shall contain approximately 47,916 square feet, Lot #2 shall contain approximately 43,560 square feet, Lot #3 shall contain approximately 50,530 square feet, and Lot # 4 shall contain approximately 23,552 square feet. Lots #1, #2 and #3 have been it approved as free-market single-family lots. Lot #4 shall contain seven (7) affordable deed-restricted townhomes which will be sold to qualified buyers meeting the buyer qualifications of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines with the following development mix: A. Category 3 Deed Restrictions: i. Three (3) approximate 1,290.77 net livable square foot three- bedroom townhomes. B. Category 4 Deed Restrictions: i. Three (3) approximate 1,285.31 net livable square foot three-bedroom townhomes. ii. One (1) approximate 1,308.75 net livable square foot three-bedroom townhome. 2. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto,and upon approval of the final plat by the Engineering Department and Planning Office, the City agrees to approve, I and execute the final plat for the Project submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Section 24-7-1004 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The City agrees to accept the Plat for recording in the offices of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder upon payment of the recordation fee and cost to the City by Owner. Reduced size copies of the following documents, representing plats and plans that have been approved as part of this Subdivision Improvements Agreement, are attached as the following Exhibits: A. Legal Description, Exhibit "A". B. Reduced Copy of Plat, Exhibit "B". C. Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 1992), Exhibit "C". D. Recordation Information of Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction, Agreement, and Covenant, Exhibit "D". 2 I I #35120S 02/22/93 16: 36 Rec 15200. 0d BK 704 PG 218 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 1 1. Legal description, Lot #4, Attachment 1. 2. Reduced Site Plan, Attachment 2.. I 3. Categorization of Units and Net Livable Square Footage, Attachment 3. E. Letter from Emerson Culbertson, Inc. for Townhome Construction Cost Estimates, Exhibit "E". F. Grant of Trail Easement, Exhibit "F". G. Final PUD Development Plan, Exhibit "G". H. Final Grading Plan, Exhibit "H". I. Final Landscape Plan, Exhibit "I". 1 J. Landscape 'improvement Cost Estimate, Exhibit "J". K. Private Utilities Plan, Exhibit "K". L. Letter from Banner Associates, Inc. for Utilities Installation Cost Estimate, Exhibit "Lu. M. Water Plan, Exhibit "M". N. Sanitary Sewerline "B" Plan and Profile, Exhibit "N". O. Sanitary Sewerline "A" and "B" Stub-Out Plan and Profile, Exhibit "0". I P. Sanitary Sewer and Water Tap Fees, Exhibit "P". 3. Construcl.ion and Phasing. The City and Owner mutually acknowledge that exact I construction schedules cannot be determined for the development on Lot #4 at this time. Therefore, simultaneously with th3 execution of this Agreement, Owner shall provide financial assurances to the City for the construction of the affordable housing situate on Lot#4 in the form of a second mortgage against I Lots #1, #2 and #3 in the name of the City of Aspen. Upon the sale of one or more of the free market lots, a fully executed deed conveying Lot #4 by Owner to the City free and clear of all liens and other encumbrances shall be placed in escrow for the benefit of the City of Aspen. In addition, to secure the I performance by Owner of the construction of the contemplated affordable housing units of Lot 4, an irrevocable letter of credit payable by the City of Aspen shall he provided by the Owner in the amount of $632,854.00. A letter from Emerson Culbertson is attached as Exhibit "E" verifying the estimated cost of construction for the affordable housing- ..nits located on Lot #4. Upon delivery of the letter of credit and the deed to Lot #4 in escrow, the. ' e shall release the mortgage against Lots #1, #`2 and #3. If construction of the arfu. .. .');..1 housing units required under this Agreement by the Owner has not begun within two (2) years of recordation of the Final Plat, the City may record the deed, take possession of Lot #4, and the architectural plans for the affordable housing units shall be turned over to I the City, and the City shall redeem the Letter of Credit in order to construct the affordable housing units within one (1) year. Said affordable housing units shall be sold by the City to qualifying employees ami so much of the net proceeds of the sales shall be delivered to Owner by the City as are necessary for the I repayment of the Owner's promissory note to the bank issuing the Letter of Credit. The Owner acknowledges that the sole source of repayment of the Letter of Credit shall be limited to the Net Proceeds derived from the sale, lease or other disposition of Lot #4 or the affordable housing units I constructed thereon, and/or as a result of any permanent financing secured by Lot 44, as more particularly described as follows: "Net Proceeds" are hereby defined as any funds received by the City from the sale of Lot #4 or the affordable housing units to be constructed thereon, and/or any funds Idisbursed to the City pursuant to the Letter of Credit, less all costs incurred by the City in the development and construction of said units, including, but not limited to, planning, legal, architectural, engineering, interest and financing costs, and all costs of construction including materi:ils and labor. a The City shall in no manner he responsible for Owner's obligations, if any, to reimburse funds drawn sii on the Letter of Credit. In the event that the City takes possession of Lot #4 and redeems the Letter of Credit in order to construct the affordable housing units, the Owner's obligations under this Agreement I3 I «J542ud Q2/22/93 16: 36 Rec $200. 00 BK 704 PG 219 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 Ishall be deemed fully satisfied. 4. Parking. Owner agrees to construct seven (7) surface parking spaces and seven (7) itgarage covered parking spaces as depicted on the Final PUD Development Plan, attached as Exhibit"G", as parking for the affordable townhome units of the Project. As represeL ed, townhome parking spaces 1, ? and 5 have been partially designed within the ten foot (10') R.O.W. reservation. In the event the ten foot (10') reservation easement is acquired by the City of Aspen, an alternate location for the three parking spaces has been shown on the PUD Plan and Final Plat. 11, 5. Landscaping Plan. The owner agrees that it shall landscape the Prcject in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "I", which plan shows the extent and location of plants to be installed, all landscape features, flowers and shrub definition, the proposed treatment of I all ground surfaces (paving, sod. etc.), and the other elements of the landscape plan, including associated irrigation systems and revegetation of all disturbed areas. The landscaping is anticipated to be installed no later than the first planting season for the type of plants involved following the completion of the construction of the Project. The Owner or its successor homeowners' association will promptly replace any plants which have not survived for a period of one growing season following the final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project_ 6. Security for Landscaping. The City is entitled to and requires the provisio:_ uy the Owner of financial assurances for the landscaping of the Project. Prior to issuLnce of building permits for the project, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $12,762.50 securing to the City the installation of the il landscaping described on Exhibit "I", as attached. A letter from The Stevens Group, Inc. is attached as Exhibit "J" for the estimated costs of landscaping for the project. Such security document shall provide that in the event the Owner shall not fully have installed the landscaping as represented herein, the City shall withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation of such , landscaping. The security document shall provide that on completion of the landscaping, the Owner may obtain the release of the security document. 1 7. Exemption from Moratorium for Water Main Extensions, Pursuant to Ordmat:C No. 18 (Series of 1990), an exemption from the moratorium on expansions to the City's municipal water system as imposed by Resolutions No. 12 and No. 45 (Series of 1991) was granted so as to allow the extension of the municipal water delivery system for three(3) free-market single-family residences in the subdivision. I 8. Public Improvements, The Owner agrees to construct t.`!e following site improvements in relation to its construction of the Project: I' a. Ute Avenue Improvements District. Owner or the owners of the free market lots and any subgroup of any s..iccessor homeowners' association consisting of only the owners of the free- market lots agree to join any public improvements district formed for improvements along Ute Avenue benefiting the Project. The owners of the affordable housing units shall have no liability I with respect to such improvements. h. 5_ecurity `•�t P;;blic Improvements. in order to secure the performance of the I� construction and installation of the public. improvements for Sanitary Sewer and Water System Improvements, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form 1 4 1 I Y3542208 02/22/93 16: 36 Rec $200. 00 5K 704 PG 220 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clark , Doc $. 00 satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of$45,000.00. Said guarantee shall be delivered to `� the City prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Project. The documents shall give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default by the Owner in its I obligations specified herein, to complete and pay for installation of such public improvements. As portions of the improvements are completed, the district representative of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and representative of the Aspen City Water Department shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance shall authorize the release of the agreed g estimated costs for the completed improvements. The Owner shall require all contractors to provide a warranty that all improvements were constructed to accepted standards of good workmanship for the benefit of the City for the installation of the public improvements described iherein for one (1) year from the date of acceptance. In the event that any existing municipal improvements are damaged during the Project construction,on request by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and/or. the Aspen City Water Department, a bond or other suitable security Ifor the repair of those municipal improvements shall be provided by Owner to the City. c. Sewer Tap Fees, Owner agrees to pay sanitary sewer tap fees to the Aspen I Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) in the amount equivalent to 5.5 EQR's and the same equivalent EQR's for downstream constraints. Current estimates provide for a fee in the amount of$30,250.00 ($13,750.00 tap fees and $16,500.00 downstream constraints). Exact calculations 1 for tap fees and downstream constraints shall be provided by the ACSD at issuance of building permits for Lot #4 and fees shall be provided by the Owner to ACSD prior to connection of any sewer service hook-ups to Lot #4. d. Water Tan Fees. Owner agrees to pay to the Aspen Water Department a tan fee surcharge in the amount in effect at issuance of building permit for the development of the .11 bedrooms housing project located on Lot #4 containing seven (7) townhomes of three (3) bedrooms each. Payment shall be paid by Owner to the Aspen Water Department prior to issuance of building permits for townhome units on Lot #4. In the event the City of Aspen 1 amends their policy as to payment required for water tap fees for affordable housing created in the AH zone district, the Owner requests review under the amended policy prior to payment of water tap fees, or reimbursement for water tap fees paid to the City Water Department. i9. Private Utilities. The Owner agrees to extend the utility lines to provide connections through the Project as shown on the Private Utility Plan, Exhibit "Ku as attached. In I recognition of the City's request, the utilities will be placed in a utility corridor running up the driveway of Lots #1 and #2 and is so noted on the Utility Plan. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the private utilities described hereto, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $15,000.00. Said documents shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of any building permits for the Project. Said guarantee will give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default I h ' the Owner in its obligations specified herein, to complete and pay for the installation of such private itilities. As portions of the improvements are completed, a representative of the Aspen Water Department shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed improvements. 10. Site Drainage, The Grading Plan, attached as Exhibit "H" shall he submitted to the City in accordance with Section 24-7-1004 (C)(4)(f) of the Aspen Municipal Code and shall he approved by the Engineering Department. The Owner will continue to coordinate drainage and snow storage design 1 5 I08 6avz 2/"-' 1�6: 36 Rec $200. 00 BK 704 PG �, Pitkin Cnty C:erk , Doc 3. 00 $ and plans with City staff. Any improvement work will be performed in accordance with the Aspen Municipal Code and City specifications. The Drainage Plan includes the following information: 'I a. All proposed slopes in excess of 2:1 shall receive erosion control netting to minimize erosion. - b. The paving improvements to Ute Avenue, in conjunction with the Ute Avenue Improvement District, will accommodate the historic surface run-off for an area approximately ,I 400 feet south of the right-of-way for Ute Avenue. This surface runoff will be carried down (west) Ute Avenue in a road side ditch that will tie into the lower Ute Avenue improvements. The drainage improvements associated with this plan that are within the Ute Avenue right-of-wa•- I will be coordinated and incorporated into the District work. c. Drainage improvements on Lot #4 will consist of grading to allow the natural historic I pattern to continue across the property. Swales will be created a minimum of 15 feet from the structures to allow for positive drainage away from the foundations. These swales will be vegetated and maintain a minimum of 2% gradient. The vegetation will minimize any erosion potential and create a natural percolation area for the roof runoff. The paved surfaces will be graded to allow a sheet flow drainage to the ditch adjacent to Ute Avenue. 1 d. Prier to issuance of building permits for the townhomes, the Owner shall satisfy the City Engineer regarding storm drainage calculations. Storm drainage calculations must be provided 0 for the free-market single-family homes at the time of individual building permit applications. e. security fr r in Dri nrvmr, In order t � to secure performance I of the grading and drainage improvements described above, the Owner shall provide a bond,letter of credit, cash or other guarantee on a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $15,000.00. Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of building permits for the Project. The documents will give the City the unconditional right , upon clear and Iunequivocal default by the Owner in its obligations specified herein, to complete and pay for installation of such improvements. As portions of the improvements are completed, The City Engineer shall inspect the same ar d, upon approval and acceptance, the City Engineer shall 111 authorize the release of the agreed :stimated costs for the completed improvements. 11. Common Access Driveway Improvements. The Owner agrees that he will provide a I common driveway providing access to Lots #1, #2 and #3 froth -te Avenue. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Lots#1, #2 or #3, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the amount of$20,000.00 securing to the City the installation of the common private access driveway. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of I Occupancy for Lots #1, #2 or #3, the common access driveway form Ute Avenue to Lots #1, #2 and #3 I shall be completed by the Owner. The security provided at issuance of the first building permit for the free market lots shall provide that in the event the Owner shall not have fully completed the common access private driveway to the free market lots, the City shall withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete the proposed work. I I. 6 1 _:._i x:�. . 1 u: :>o r;ac lic. L%U S /04 PG � I �i !vi3 flavis, F'itkin Cnty Clerk , Doc 5. 00 TABLE I SCUIEDUL'.; CF SECURITY PAYMENTS IIMPROVEMENT FEE TIMEFRAME Sanitary Sewer and Water System 5-:5,000.C3 Prior to issuance of any building permits. Private Utilities S15,000.00 Prior to issuance of any building permits. Common Acce a Driveway S20,000.00 Prior to issuance of first building permit for free market lots. Grading and Drainage S15,000.G0 Prior to issuance of any building permits. Landscaping S12,762.50 Prior to issuance of any building permits. I TOTAL S107,762.50 12. Dust Control Plan, Prior to construction, and as a condition of building permit issuance, a fugitive dust control plan must be obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and Ithe Planning Office. 13. Trail Easement Dedication. The Owner will dedicate a year-round public trail easement to be fifteen (15) feet wide. The Nordic Council and the Owner shall work together and verify the trial alignment as shown on the Plat and PUD Plan to comply with the most workable alignment for I. skiing and trail connections. Signage at property boundaries shall indicate potential avalanche and rockfall hazard to trial users. These signs shall be installed prior to commencement of any site work. The Subdivision Final Plat shall indicate the conceptual trail alignment. The County Open Space and Trails Program (COSTP) may act as assignee of the City of Aspen for the construction and maintenance \I of the trail. Upon completion of this trail, the COSTP will be responsible for surveying and filing the as-built trail easement. The conceptual trail alignment and subsequent trail easement shall run with the land and be binding on the Owner, its successors and assigns. The trial alignment may be amended by 1 mutual consent of both the City, its successors and assigns and the Owner, his successors and assigns. 14. Park Development Impact Fee, Pursuant to Section 5-601. et.seq,, of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City is entitled to a park development impact fee for construction of the new residential townhome units. In the event the City establishes this fee is warranted, the Owner agrees pay a park development impact fee indexed prior to issuance of any building permits for the free marke. I lots. 15. Affordable Housing Impact Fee. Pursuant to Section 7-1007(a)(c)(2),of the Aspen I Municipal Code, the affordable housing impact fee applies to condominiumization of new residential units. The townhome units on this Project are to be condominiumized. However, the Owner has demonstrated the net effect of the Project is to increase the square footage number of bedrooms available I as affordable housing in the community and, therefore, the condominiumization of this Project will have no negative impact on the availability of affordable housing in the community and the City has exempted the Project from the affordable housing impact fee. I16. Exemption from Ordinance 1, Series Q_f_199i►.. Pursuant to Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, it is the determination of the City Planning Director that the proposed AH development will have already I. 7 • I ff354QOF' 02/22/93 10: 36 Rec $200. 00 BK 704 PG 223 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 accomplished multiple deed restricted units prior to or concurrent with the free market development and there will be no affordable hrusin mitigation (cash-in-lieu or accessory dwelling units) required of the individual single family Lots ,#I, #2 or #3. I17. Deed Restrictions. Attached as Exhibit "D" is the recordation information of the Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction, Agreement, and Covenan_ to be used for the seven (7) affordable townhomes units of the Project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Owner shall execute and record in the Pitkin County Real Property Records a Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Resale Agreement and Deed Restriction. Prior to sale of any individual unit in the Project to a purchaser, such purchaser shall be required to execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Resale Agreement and Deed Restriction,which shall then be recorded in the Pitkin County Real Property Records and placed on file with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Nothing herein Ishall r :-.,uire the immediate sale of the seven (7) affordable housing townhome units. The Owner may retain ownership of such units and rent them fc r a period not to exceed one (1) year while the units are being marketed for sale to qualified buyers. If the affordable housing townhome units are not sold within aone (1) year, they may be offered for sale by the APCHA to qualified buyers. While being marketed, the affordable townhome units may only be rented to persons who qualify under the APCHA guidelines as Category #3 and #4 income residents, and such rentals shall be subject to the price and income Ig guidelines. 18. Wood Burning Devices. Any combustible devices shall be built in accordance with I, the regulations in effect at issuance of building permits. 19. Building Permits, on Prior t #1, the following designlstandards shall bapproved by the 1, the single-family residence located Building Department: 1 a. Free Market Sinule-Family Home Lot #1: The single-family home located on Lot #1 shall be built simultaneously with or prior to the seven (7) deed restricted townhomes. If the single-family home and the townhomes are built simultaneously, the structural framing of the single-family home and any necessary retaining walls must be complete and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of Certificates Of Occupancy for the townhomes. I b. Deed Restricted Affordable Townhomes: In the event the townhomes are constructed prior to a single family residence on Lot #1, the townhomes will be constructed to I within potential avalanche loads as designed to standards established by Art Mears or a similar avalanche expert. For the protection of the townhomes from any potential avalanche, the designed retaining wall or residential structure on Lot #1 must extend the entire length of the conditional zone on Lot #1. I20. Fire Protection, The free-market single-family homes to be located on Lots#1 and #2 must be sprinkerled for fire protection. The Owner shall satisfy the Fire Marshall regarding Iemergency access prior to filing the Final Plat. 21. Hazard Notifications. Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized ; nd revegetated or removed to a site acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Environrr°ntal Health Department. 1 8 ' itg542O8 02/22/93 16: 3k Rec a;200. 00 BK 704 PG 224 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $.00 22. Cond miniumization. The City approves the exemption of condominiumization for the � Y Project subject to the deed restricting of the condominiumized townhome units to the price, income, Ioccupancy, and asset limitations imposed by the Master Housing Authority Deed Restriction (attached as Exhibit "➢ ") of this Agreement. The master deed restriction restricts the use and occupancy of the townhome units as the sole and exclusive place of residency of qualified buyers or initial Owners renters. The townhome units can not be rented without prior written approval of the APCHA. 23. Condominium Map. Upon substantial completion of the townhomes, a condominium Imap and condominium declaration for the townhomes must be prepared, reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department and the Planning Office. The condominium map and declaration shall be approved and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the conveyance of any of the individual units within the Project. 24. Material Representations. All material representations made by the Owner on record Ito the City iii accordance with the approval of the Project shall be binding upon the Owner, its successors and assigns. 25. Notice. Notices to the parties shall be sent by the United States Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Postage Prepaid, to the addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing. Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of mailing of same. To the City: do City Manager 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 To the Owner: James T. Martin Ute Park Partnership 215 South Monarch Aspen, Colorado 81611 26. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Aspen Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 27. Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are determined to be invalid, it shall not effect the remaining provisions hereof. 1 28. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the Prcject is located and shall be binding on and enure to the benefit of the Owner, its successors and assigns and the City, its successors and assigns. 29. enforcement. In the event the City determines the Owner is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or the final plat, the City may serve a Notice of Non- IIICompliance and request that the deficiency be corrected within a period of forty-five (45) days. In the event the Owner believes that it is in compliance or that the non-compliance is insubstantial, the Owner may request a hearing before the City Council to determin.: whether the alleged non-compliance exists 9 1 I ff3542O4 02/22/93 16:36 Rec $200.00 BK 704 PG 226 , Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, t)oc $.00• I . • 1 . A parcel of land situated in the NW_1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 18, Township I 10 South, Range 84 Nest of.. he r;h,Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado. Said Parcel is moz ull 4 cribed as follows: Beginning at a point Whence'=Corn_o of Riverside Placer, MS 3905 AM bears North 38'11'25" $eFsts1151. S feet, thence South 68'00'00" Esi*-1213.0.0 ~feet; a. thence South 49'00'00" Eait:A5b.90' let;-: ' II thence South 41'00'00" N it•-36X.Q0 ;fge = : thence North 49'00'00" We.elt_330: 71taadt; thence North 00'49'21" East 399.96 feet.; IIthence South 60'24'26" Eas .1 155' feeL� to the point of beginning. COUNTY OP PITKIN, - IISTATE OP COLORADO • - I 1 I 1 • I II unless _ Schedule B-Section 1 PC.1 il This commitment is invalid Schedul the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-3633 A and B are attached. EXHIBIT A eauyers Die Insurance Corporate. IT112 1000Oe04 I I I t rI ► A (1I 11 J: ' !!i y' l: :1� ►' 11(1 Ii'';• ' t : 1 �`t 1 ;i 4 % 1 4i1111.1 9 gill 11( ►flu 11i•!1 11 I (• X14 i ' 11��1 14 I 1 0 ,:rii Ii 111•• (11.,'ijI ! 9;; ;i 1 1• Ii ; &� j t i.1!; Ill :I115�r 61i;i, Iit111gE :i;' I fzl; i 1 ; "I!. ;t; ,Iffy;1 .,1.-i 1 .1 i�0 i'1 viii,(; i ;i I, ;, fl ► � ' t I Eit1'II II; ' 4 I ti∎:I� I !pi!,�G1!II If l.il .i __ 0 ii ''(t I IN , 0't i..14 1„;..;I 'C i,IT ;h i,l'••I i-icy.,r,g ifr+►n i I r l� , 11 v.,,, i►i I:,•�!1,1 ;;;••! 14,4.1, "c i1,•1 p, . ' '�:r 1! i•1 f !1 I 'Ii 1 ..Ei ' '', .. 111.n 11;1 u...i 1r•4.•••1 0 11(.1:!dill c. :1"114 I I 6 1 1 is '. i11 '1 III!;! L'hil I I , ie If • W. li it a.. /p if, .,;n,,writ,1 if! „ '' „ i 111111p 1��...., ii I Ir( iy, . 4 4114 111 I 11 .1 i • ,,., 1, . • sari. If 11 " t i ILI • ii I'i • li . / N. * 40V4; '44 f • �y t • i � ,,.. ..i, . ...:.4 " IIII! a Ili 1 i h ill ii i , ,. . .).„:„,..,t, , ...N.,,,,,s, / ,, . 4 ..., , : , rri • 3 i r/ N� , 111 h'l. 4 , j. 0 ,� d ,• % N 4, rs1 INI/ 1f w 7 1� ♦ + �,�IV i lloh, 44, l I 1 �� >or' P;0•4., "'� jq ■ Pi e� lit,N--, II SH► t ii ,1.� • •i.w .-.•e boa. (! �1 it p:i ..MINI a-1.n w w. .�{ t t i 1 tlii Ph h ,lil , t4'. .rao•w,�an 10 nva.r i iJl 1,� 1 • III. • 1 'EXHIBIT B . . w3542013 02/22/93 16: 36 Rec $200. 00 BK 704 PG 227 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 I I I EXHIBIT F. May 5, 1997 Letter from Charles T. Brandt to John Worcester, City Attorney Re: Vesting. 1 i I i I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER• ASPEN 600 EAST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE(970)925176 BOULDER• COLORADO SPRINGS ASPEN,COLORADO 61611-1953 FACSIMILE(9701 925.9967 DENVER TECH CENTER BILLINGS• BOISE CHEYENNE• JACKSON HOLE CHARLES T. BRANDT SALT LAKE CITY Cbrandt@hollandhart.CDm May 5, 1997 HAND DELIVERED John Worcester, City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot 1,Ute Park Subdivision,P.U.D. Dear John: Thank you for meeting with us last week on the question of vested rights as they pertain to Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision and the right to construct a single family dwelling on Lot 1 to the approved floor area of approximately 5,800 square feet notwithstanding the adoption of Ordinance No. 30, series of 1995. This letter will summarize the arguments made during our meeting in support of the recognition of vested rights for Lot 1 1. VESTED RIGHTS UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 18. Ute Park Subdivision P.U.D. was approved by the adoption by the City Council of Ordinance No. 18, series of 1992, copy of which is attached to the enclosed Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement as Exhibit "C.". Section 6 of Ordinance No. 30 provides, as follows: "Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and in the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Furthermore, the provisions of this ordinance shall not apply in the following specific circumstances: a. To the development of any property for which a vested right, as defined by Colorado law, has been obtained prior to the effective date here." We believe that the plain language of Section 6 permits the completion of the Ute Park Subdivision development, including the right to construct a single family dwelling on Lot 1 of approximately 5,800 square feet (a proportionate reduction in floor area is appropriate as the lot size was reduced from the square footage originally set forth in the application), as the Ute Park Subdivision approval ordinance was an "ordinance in effect prior to the effective sate of" Ordinance No. 30. This would appear to be rather straight forward. I I I HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW John Worcester, City Attorney May 5, 1997 Page 2 . • I VESTED RIGHTS UNDER COLORADO LAW. As you are aware, Colorado courts 1 have recognized the existence of common law vested rights as did the General Assembly in creating Colorado's statutory vested rights scheme. See Section 24-68-106(3), C.R.S. ("Nothing in this article, shall preclude judicial determination, based on common law I principles, that a vested property right exists in a particular case or that a compensable taking has occurred."). Subparagraph a. in Section 6 or Ordinance No. 30 (quoted above) appears to do the same thing. We contend that common law vested rights have clearly I been established by the developer's reliance upon the Ute Park Subdivision approval by the City of Aspen and the substantial expenditures made pursuant to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Ute Park Subdivision. Expenditures included the following: I1. Construction of the seven (7) unit employee housing townhome project at a cost of over $1,000,000.00; 1 2. Townhome tap and connection fees - $106,000.00 3. Subdivision infrastructure costs of- $95,000.00 i4. Grading and drainage work totaling - $15,000.00 I5. Landscaping expenses of- $12,700 6. Dedication to the City of Aspen of a forty foot right-of-way for Ute Avenue Iand an additional ten foot right-of-way dedication if required by the City 7. Dedication of cross country ski and hiking trail to the Aspen Nordic Council 1 8. The sale of Lots 2 and 3 to purchasers who have constructed residences on the lots, I As we discussed, Ute Park Subdivision was zoned Affordable Housing as part of the approval process. The concept of this zoning category under the City's Land Use Code is to encourage private development of affordable housing for qualified employees I and subsidize the developer's expenditures on the employee housing component of the project by approving a limited number of"free market" lots. We strongly believe it would be vary unfair for the City of Aspen to effectively "down-zone" Lot I by reducing the I allowed floor area, which, in turn adversely affects the value of this property, value which the developer is reasonably expecting in return for fulfilling its obligations under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. I'll spare you the citation of Colorado cases I supporting this proposition as I believe you are aware of them. Let me know, however, if you would like to have them. I I I HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW John Worcester, City Attorney May 5, 1 997 Page 3 I PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS GAVE A UNIQUE STATUS. During ' our meeting we also pointed out that under the City's P.U.D. Ordinance, it appears that P.U.D.'s have a unique approval status which may not be altered by subsequent ordinances such as Ordinance No. 30. Section 26.84.090 Enforcement of P.U.D. Development Order, enables the City, resident occupants and owners of the P.U.D. to enforce the P.U.D. ordinance. Furthermore, for the P.U.D. ordinance to be modified, the requirements of Section 26.84.090(B) must be complied with. And, perhaps more importantly, this section provides that no modification of the provisions of a P.U.D. ordinance "... shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants, and owners of the planned unit development (P.U.D.) to maintain and enforce these provisions at law or equity as provided in Section 26.84.090(B)." Thus, we question whether the floor area limitations set forth in �I Ordinance No. 30 can legally affect Ute Park Subdivision P.U.D. without compliance with the specific procedures relating to modification of a previously approved P.U.D. One additional factor which I do not believe was mentioned during our meeting last week, the two residences on Lots 2 and 3 are both in excess of 5,000 square feet Both lots went through 8040 green line review by the City. Based upon the foregoing arguments, we believe Lot 1 should receive similar treatment and achieve a similar result. We.trust the City will see the fairness of permitting the development of the third and final lot in this Subdivision to take place consistent with the development of the other two free market lots. Thank you. Very truly yours, I Charles T. Brandt for Holland&Hart LLP CTB\mlp Enclosures cc: James T. Martin Howard G. Stacker, Esq. Tom Stevens Brooke Peterson, Esq. 1-1H:20316 vl • I I I I I I 1 ' EXHIBIT G. May 15, 1997 Response from John Worcester, City Attorney to Charles T. Brandt Re: Vesting. I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I g ' . . ' - . • dwaow Tow OTT Ara• 1 - . • - • I . • . Idsy 15, 1997 + • - . . • Cha im T. Bradt,Esq. . 7 - . _ of Affic - - _ - • t�d East Street ' .Asixga,c olounio 81611 • • , ' • VIA FAX-HARD SPY TO FOLLOW - R+ct tot 1,TJtc Pant Sabdi PUD - r 1 ' ` ' • r • .'Mkt 18 in response to 3�letter 1 May 5. 1997,•in which yen sc�enzed roar.' am• - - clients agorae:els in=mart of the recogrdtioy of 4cisted rights f r Lot 1. I do:gat believe that your client has a;esbed right by vitae tefie-language coritsbad as Scotian 6 of Oo caeca No. 30.& ! (r)sties that Ordinicc.1 'o.30 does not I • apply't4 goy property f+oc which a vented-iltht tas teen obtahaid. I i ice pnt t apply Ioct only wiest a vested Agin i• "limbed;but slso 93 104 aS It if-AM is cwt.As yo ,•> d rights:obtained by your cases I . . penes end:Ware tot mewed.When lin vested zzghs ate d the property was subject to an subeeiaaat changes in the'-11w, n Chairesnee No. 30. That is lic we • . purioae af otaateng vested rights,WWII 3iy statute are riled to a tbtee year period Your clients coutonin law arguments, however, axe Pasnaaiv�e,It is try Asir that _ your client has com .14od a minas r cif oa s in of the approvals if mod. • I It is rmonible for bits m east-tat he would receive an =mat =turn oh his . project at tbis time Thus, I helm your cane should be einitet to'campletc.the - developing= an 1.+ t 3 with a floor ai+at sec originally. apProveit. I do not believe, I iv we er, met your client is caxmpt flora 'dim dear review -itopored by -, . Oxtenance lio.30 u yaw base pruyided ao evidinue that be retell in saty respecx to any . &ago-=dads tinder existing Law urn Lt- z+atcived his - It is my . I fa fact, that no age work has hems rearmed to date Ica- beat.• pub Lot. . - ' 138gocrli t;+wanaaamr•Aaoe.Oc sitel—t+ e30.1 0 01.4.: 0617''111 • '- • - .maw» . . . I e • car.16=4 Esq. • ,s, I - I tract ibe tenpin=wag your qnsztlaos awl con=a2sAl uot,iiinsc gin mz a c. , . • > ::4� / " • . p., oar • • •cc. DeValqinlent Dear - • 1 • I . . . •I • • - • • 1 . • • • o I - I ft • • • • • 1 •; • . • ' . . I • - _ . • i e . • I t ■ EXHIBIT H. Avalanche Loading Analysis. Arthur I. Mears, P. E., Inc. I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 1 555 County Road 16 Gunnison,Colorado 81230 Tel/Fax:970-641-3236 Iartmears@rmii.com November 27, 1999 Mr. Andy Wisnoski Bill Poss Architecture and Planning 605 E. Main Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision Dear Mr.Wisnoski: I have reviewed the November 11, 1999 site plan and am providing the following comments and loading analysis as you requested. Any substantial modifications to this plan may invalidate the findings reported in this letter. Building location According to the revised plan dated "11/12/99" the house will be located at the western edge of the avalanche"blue zone," an area of reduced avalanche energy and frequency. The garage and east entry areas are located outside the avalanche area, however the east exposure will be subject to avalanche loads due to lateral spreading of debris as avalanches decelerate. This lateral spreading will be enhanced by cuts into the existing terrain (as shown on the 11/12/99 plans),which are required to accommodate decks, a patio and east entries. The southeast corner of the building (uphill side)will also be subject to avalanche depositional loads for a distance of 15 feet along the south wall. The wall surfaces which are subject to static depositional loads are labeled "A"through °E" on Figure 1. Loading characteristics Loads will result from an avalanche deposit against the affected walls and will be distributed vertically as shown on Figure 2. Because these are depositional (static)loads they need not be multiplied by an impact factor. Avalanche debris deposited against walls will contain a large percentage of aspen tree limbs and vegetative debris (up to 10—20%volume) up to the loading height of 10 feet. All windows and doors should be reinforced for the specified forces. Avalanche frecwencv Judging from vegetation and evidence of recent avalanche activity, I assume avalanche frequency at the proposed house is approximately one event in a 10—30 year period. Any avalanche during one of these large events could deposit debris against some of the surfaces identified in Figure 1, however a much larger event with a return period of 30—100 years would be required to produce the loads illustrated in Figure 2. Please contact me if you have any questions. thy._—= �:4 ,/x?e■ Sincerely, ... 9J . CcAtin 4 o DEC -- 3 ia9g Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche-control engineer BILL POSSAND ACSOCIATES Mass Wasting•Avalanches•Avalanche Control Engineering llFIGURE 1. Revised site plan showing wall surfaces exposed to avalanche forces detailed in Figure 2. .r.04 Scale: 1°= 10.0' wow' 40-fc -14."6""hia"4".."`46...,400.0.0.1 -411 . . 0 I .A.Luilik rter.r.irlig 1 ..., i ; . 1_, • i . / MI k II,. gi. 1 :4444.t............,4141 Ali Y 1 F -:'v ^ wit , I it wo°11" tiPtriji\ ii 77 so_ t,4 ........ f Slit•; . ‘ et-Nt C 1 a..ws• ,�r : , . ior , ...„... __‘. ...... .pr,, . 004 .,i . N/404,.4-. , v...•r.-- \ II Ns:4 ._ 41 ....i . , .. ., -...-...---,---- -04 - __ J iir—m 71),c. , .r-diel I - : ail ilif" 1 i . ,, . AI 1 i °"."1.1811111044•44~449Primiow, .1 AI --all, i?le 4.-/.41:41 i .., mikit.i 04, i w..•., -r.w..r....rr r r w j IF * 1.1°°°." ...441‘..:441841#11'4\ 101° 1 . ,?...-i--..-F.7 A 5, 4.444............ .i ... . ......4 .".,it. aligios' nximing rr . i iiil 11 i 6 ►li 12"*"."""mahasgr"vii I g a 6-*•-.4.•1.4.4. . 1 , if I \ • . • ... 0,4",I I 1°...uPw.... 1---------444. Liii .„,„:tart- ( v. . . . . tia gir •411P i Ir. .. .. .:... pt. ^ ..1 .... A(... ...-,.. zitz _,_ .--t-.7,... . . . --.mod... `i! . REV. 11/ 12 ! 94 BLDG. Ni;,RTH _ .....-„- II 1 1 I I • 1 .: ...: . r-10.0 f t i 1 " ' ® H15opsf- I E 2. Vertical distribution of static depositional loads against wall surfaces "A'through "E". FIGURE P IScale: 1" = 5.0' II I i I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT I. ITree Removal Plan. Bill Poss and Associates I II II II 11 II I I II I I I I I I I -- ...- ..,,-■"' '""-- a ,,,,,-, ... _-, ":-.•:'.2.-s_--i- ----- - , .-- _____............„..,-- _„-- ?''' .-' ' .----- --- ---- ..- .' •irellr/.V.r*'. --....,...„ .........- .... „... ,7c l'-'. ... ......,..--+■ „l4., ., WiVi. ..itrila."411.."' ) At.1',. .,■:4t,31... 5.)----- ',s,..-4,. .14-rx _Eit • --....- 111 \ , _......„________:.--„---;--- --, —---t.: ..... ,',- .,'" =-----.-- -;:j.■ ^.7.4-8.1% ''' - -- ---... — --- '4.;;,,,*4'r`...■,^ '...5'.,,," '‘,... -._ "-- - -- ',• ."‘&4„,44...,.°A. ra;;,, +1, ‘3,-7,',,,,,,,r.,r, „Lak,,..,'`s" \ \ -• ''',-1T-', - ',:e.e.,---- -r---1-.1..,...-- -1.kr `r1-,..„--$ .•;:=•-•,•••..- ... ,<.•,-A-m-.. _ _ ______ \ 1 .."...1.,.;.v^,....4,.. ......40 •*;,74'.'",,,:*.,;r,;4:"; ..---- e•:r:'-;<.'-'''- .7.1"!..'rl,L•:.t4,,=---„, .,,,,v.A',...14. -:•"-s-.S0,,,,:1;s...,..-,4;:,,.:7'. .,....,.„...... -....................i.: u•—irl,I,,2-,4.---a kt.:..2. '.I.Z.a..4..,--,....,,,,t\st. ,. ---'-.......A...,-----'-'----....'''":—.. ,0,11`..!,r::4•',3':" ‘.',.,,,It'A'' 'C'\,...0•A',-.4,.--,...„1-.„,tA z.„,,,,-,,,.„„>-,-,4.: ........... •• 1 \ =,'‘7.44 t V-V:-:::"VA.,,,- ----,-,,,,--,Z,---,-,0 ,..,---.^- •'1--";:-",'4* .------ `'...,..,•,",,- r--.%3)...--...•:tigi,, ,.:,rukt,,,,I,^fV't. ',-,,, '.,,,,-k,....,,,,3,3,.^.„,..v,,,,,,,-,..,•,..,...., - ,...1.'',,,..;"‘47:Rt '..,,,,,I.40',,,....,/-. tk..... \XX.. ..:,,■, .....-,e,,.-. .....''....k:Zt.."7`... . -. ,k,IT.., ,,,.?,,•...i: t4,,k4Xtt ,,-4,k,-,I,'''',\.;••„EVe.,,''-1;‘-.N.,;.4", i',,,,,.....„,„ ;tict....,,, k .1.10't,•t"NT..,,F,`..4... I ..... ..".........s.', i. ''''''' R t.,..:,:,: A, \.43,oe. ‘1,V..7. .,',,i:,..'''',,...4,,..;,.\12e4,k.;,,,4t,,,?.•-■• - - AW;••"-t--CTIVt i;'4.1. 4•;',4',4:i''" ","•-•....... ■...,...... i ,,,,,,,..:,..k..„,,,ft, -..............., -/------•-44 . -------- , -..-.4.‘lireq,...............-.. ..,..-_- =--- ------' -- -i ------=.--•:"----,.;,-,•-wi,:Atz121-%‘ -034"-42,,10.014Zi.xv - ---....,..„.„......„_ . .vA:-.._.-,' ''. V./.4--.- 4 ,..-1,,,,,,„ ...,..,..„\,..,..„,,, ....... ...._-.- 0,--"Tr 1 '''' ' 1- --— • --t t: 9 r."4 ''''''t'S-.. 1 .4r,,mr..74,4Fr.,--17:'',4.,,:t1:*74,4 -`-.4.-„,.---- .. 7 •,•-• t LANCF.,i'vCrffi '''' •w•-,---..!••-,-,-,A,;,i14---k--••-•:%„ ---.,, - - ---,_, • - , , _ saimm.-......-,,,,,,,,t- pb,,, ---- :-.- .••-•-• \ ' • ----,--• , ' • .__ ' .-0-.4 1,-5. ..••=r•-",-----::-.* Bret-z.:-:--,,4,'''.."'t-,. .....q.t ••----....,,,.....,-- -, , ; i ith,,,,•-„,,;,,...-,..1,•2:-..e,-7 - ..1, , •-•---- Etza-1,4.l',';`-,rfk,rcz*:4 ----. AciAcarr,•.- \ - ,- .3 W""..."....".".--.-4--:---..."---I I -f‘.. .- - MOON 1111•117M+-ir.,...s.,,,u„... „ .:,,-. ....„----- •<, ,,,..... ,.., , f....=-.....s I •:),...N. .., ,, . :fy,t4 . ,c-- !,..vd„,,,,,,, 1 ,,'. 1111111111115111 I e“1°t*r INOBSSI s'...... r. 0.1 % ' '' .."..‘' . \\\--- ' ••••••MA‘i ' , i0-.* ` ' ISINIMK . ••' a 11.11110Min L.--‘,..-:---E4 - , a `; . I—T. e 1,1 \1 ammonia I , -- ' , — • '17- ;:. (1`'■ ' i . 1'1'4 ' r.r.- _,..-- . N,...._ -.46 '`.; -'•---------"-' i i ................._.t :"--- ' k MN . \.....- ---77,t -;4 .. • t ..,-- ' ---. , -- = .---... .N „. t I 11 „.._____:__._._.__s__- k t i .....:...'-:. / -..--.=.-- 1,.. --7 ■ :”. econ 1 7: ,r,:e. ri MAN ft' 'r7/'''• iaj• ' •-"'/Pr'41'.9" --k ''S...,I,V gt rr,ri ‘ 44A A ' r, -t---- \,/- \0 ''',.. V° • - -. ---------------- , .7. ,.....q3 II ----AA' i _------- -----------P- - '— $ 1 , `-- . , f • . Iti \ Lxnef- eatit_ _ - ., -----,/ 1- „ --- •=v7-t 4F , ■ I --- , \ x ---- —----——1------ \ ---- 1 , _ , . I ...-----..--- ----:----- . "^".• ^ -.. - ____,.--..""-------' „ r"."--- ------ I--,, -----1.- --, - -_ - -------2-Treesr-T-6Se Remrtivecj_ I 14" cor _ n r ,,.._ - -f' ...-- ..... - _ ..T,,, -. \'-7---\ • - - 1'1 __ ___11 __- -Viit - l 1 .-/-------- ...-- . ' I 209.81 S 40C/CO C ' ........„. ,... ..., 'E.. i ,"t6,,P ,1, ■-•!/.5',-_,-,ri..74.■• ..., I 11 I Oil U.- LL, Paik 5 ubdi v iiuli, Lu L 1 045 II aml...Wes Site Plan August 24, 1999 ..,,,..- _..,-.,-,•.•• r --.:,:-.% • • • * • . . .- ' . • • • , ' . / ., H I' • • . , , 11 • '' I • . // s. , . . . . . .., momispowl • . :was. • 1 • ,, - :ammo,. /,,;.?.::::i ''.: 1.0 !, . '. / `''1"'''• ,•,, ':, L'11101111 ;k / .,(tY:.4 Ikr: .: . ' ., I . -i;" ';',". •'. ...!".""•rr''''"f--; •,; • •,il....AIN 2., OMNI I i 1 i f - ,A.',.'*' .,.,.,,,..,f if/ iiiiil : , . , .. 1 .•:;:..;'•' i mg !: ,,,,•„‘r 1 n ;, . L.. .—.....•........ * • ..<3.4,*:.'', !,1! it''';• lii' —*I 1 i . ! ' Row'......mooll'allial ' —• .:7.'..-' ' ' 'MINH ItC • . atii—s if • : . . . . . . . • • . ti,;•., , . ......... ,... •. ..........., . •„, . ..,, ,.. ,.. , .• ... . --*-.. /' ,, 4,,;,.. .;'4„;,"?..`14•4, 44"1",4.,...,, • >,i tl;'.'AT .,,,,.^. ,Nr, ;.(..A •,,.,i „ . • . - - ."!..:- .. . ''1*." ,‘*''.,..‘,P. •'TN,4...r v%";.1,i;::, „„U cotostossommo ,)f„i, •.'..,,,,t,:-.. •.',....j.i4.! / 4,,,;,„!4',',.....:Ni 1,4,"4t" 101471;:1044'444,`," :!ill;• , . . . 'z'r.'"a•'"fiy; '1 i;Ilf;k1 ;1#1 ,. , . ....,1 "V ' trill„it .., ,,,. .,....... ,...,,... .....,......„ f. \ .------- . ......: . , rrl,!,,,:tn. 1,. ._ , iii iik ,..,',,r4r.14;R 4,;;;- -•, ' • / 4' ;• / '4^6:';".ibillill, .7 •f: ..,•?i",,,!...,,"*".‘',W.F..itres1 .Sit..,1■41'1,1,•:,.i4,::.',..i44 1., . , .. . .'' /11 ••• -....• 1,... , ',.„,,,v,, . V1.1i:;.' 1 1,,•, b".*,.;•.!!!",,,',..*;pc.ki..4, le' ,.,,.."...,..,4 0..;',,•,,,toi tF41.44 k> . 4 1111011 „ i tt ., gaireirig, AM. i' L...........i) • ,--I.-------- - ,fll:t!..t.'133141.7,,W, —'.. . 3 ,„■,!... wq4.*:,*rt,.....,,,,,,, .......: *:,:fa etrF411r „..., ... .2.1":7...? ',,;: --::: ' , ,n-- •,„414 ff OW.V144/T....._ _ tail 1.41,0at • 4,„..4' 43 i ■,j,:t.!''A''''-`3'4. '' 34•■ ‘• 4.,....,„,,,,, •1'.'t "... . * •7' t,'",,414K7''',:':'ill. „ ,...., . ' Wit44 .. • •To!'",''.;!•";.'.!„ ..,, ' rilS° •-,.,•.**' .: ••, ,c '', *,0 I. - ' *r?..6 ‘' ''''•' III I - ,,t ,,,,.. ‘• it- .-- .i., 1,7:......----.....:' i 1 ...„. . ,, • .. ,. ,.. I , . Jet r••'. ,. . . ' . ' I , • • . , • • ,• • . , . 1 . . • • , . . . , , . . 1: .. . . . itR, . . . • ..., V:.' • , ,:.,... • , . . .. . G e Fr Bp/ , 1. , , I . , "Pr '..! ,iliemitinThi) '' .0111)11-"..-.iii; s • ,.. L _.I L . ,. ,, .... . -,.. -. . . , - ; ' •OMNI ,, ,,,. ;'i, i ,. . ,. 11.,_...../,:i.:.,•: .. ................... MIMI' L • I . . , . ..A.',i-;;Arema/• ,.. • i ,... i , ,.6), ; ...: c. •........ . 4 i . . ,,,,,,,-., -,... .i• 17,,s, - i . . . ■ N ';',,,I.' ' ' 'rglia 1■?'. ....,....... i . ■ 1",.. il.•‘;' ,_,_ • ■ . . • i I • ...- . . I . If' — .....,4# Triff . . I , ..........•„ , ......,.. , ... . • •,r I?•.,• ,,It..,: . , .4„.,,. ,.,-.14A•c0,,Irii0:`,,-., . .''';',,'.+8, •1,.Yn.i.,''',';''44 es•'.,,,,...t. • ,(:4- .11.,-k ti ','..' ',..7*...11'-.1 / m • : . • . r.17.1.1 110 ." 13 .. . ,..... . ,.. -A:4 ffr:.*:r,.IAIIIIII;,'. i'441"?.14=,it ......- 44‘,41a1,414,,,, 4:£1140081HT:' ,• .,i.,-.4Tt-i4,..,, L ..•,...&,!,,,,L4 i. ,..,,2,,:„ .-","-• . • - • ,, •101,01,1t,A..!!1`.1,Teti,;..:,/Z.,11,4' I -0',!;.4.-..4m,■. -stu,..n,,,,,,,,e,..,,,,..,4,o....1.,:' 10 " $.1- '1 t-." Cl.sff'..01,rjrgiqz:Ari, liCtigt: 411 ' ' . ' '' .'Lt;:i'fl.:,':.s.;*''':::::: ', r,, , .6e,,,tvIt',,h,r,wevorkltv, • • ,,,, ,. ill ..il: 1...A.,:;,...,g4fAt4a7:- ,., / ,,,L.....,1, F ?.',' •it',114-'1,11:1°4,,i istItY ill . • .- 1 i . • /". „i:;',',."!°'' 1 1111 . .k: . • ..,.., ,. , :.4,:. „z/4,1„ i. 1 I ..L ,......,....,„,...., ,...„..,1.`•<,1- I.— • ,./ i•• ,,%"..': • .'.:-•1441: -- . .1:,,li F.V;:Fi.,IITAI FS 1'5'. s'L '.; ' , .,,,:-......„, , - - .. 1 .:'..iliv-EV iti.:*,isWi,'''!'',,,tl .,,‘I-''''::,.•'",,,,..." ' 43 4 . ,:t- ....,.:**,44m:',.■.(ratat" 2' —7.—. • , _ _ ..r--..—,....trvervi— !,!i!" .,•04„1..!VV.IAVo.'4....I.1: ——., i . " •• -,,,,,,•—m..4•4*er•-qi.'. >. .1 !X' ,'r7rM t,..'41,1r41..q1 ..... „. . .....8" . _A I...... ,........ .. p :. . . • . t; ..s, . • .t — -- .■ ....i., . , ,,,,,,,,...,,,„„„,,.. ....._........, .._ .,,.. • „,... .... .. .. , :. ,. ,...,.......•.....:. „,.",.......,... • , ., .: c7' — .4.....,„.,..,, ".1 . :I:k 11 IT;i',,Iilmzi .•:#,, .. : . ,.„.,.. .i'...,... ,.. ,,,,.. .,.; . ,r v .. i (%:':.. . 1 .' of %Ill' ( immix k.,,,;.,, , ...... , . I . ,. . ,... „,.._:.,.. , , .. 1 ; 1r4.. . ... ' , k. ;"i 1 `rt, ,.., i i''''''' • 'i *" 1 0'..- * . ' '1.. ■.,;! ; , 'I 1r' -.•, , .. 3, • • . . • • . . ' . I . , . . . ' . . . . . . . . f . . f . . . • . .. ...-.......-- ..-. ...........- .....- .... , . ...., .......... .....—,........- Erb (Silverlode) 8040 Greenline Review 1. Introduction 2. Public Hearing to Consider Reso #19 O,�� 3. 235 Silverlode Drive, Lot 12 of the Silverlode Subdivision 4. addition for a media room and powder/bathroom on the northwest corner (rear) of an existing house. Foot print of the addition is about 235 square feet and total FAR increase is 370, which bring the total for the lot to the maximum of 3,837 square feet. 5. The addition may be barely visible from Silverlode and town, although the applicant disagrees. 6. Flat bench, no vegetation. -no adverse scenic or environmental effect. Public facilities are fine, height and bulk are minimized, grading is minimal. Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1 —8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standard Variances • 1. Introduce Joe Wells 2. Public Hearing to Consider Reso. # 20 3. 8040 Greenline Review 4. Background Ute Park Subdivision is a 4 lot subdivision created in 1992. Lots 1-3 are free market lots and Lot 4 is the site of 7 deed restricted AH units. All the lots are fully developed except Lot 1. Lots 2 and 3 received 8040 approvals in 1994. For the past couple of years Community Development Staff has worked with Joe Wells on an application that Staff could support. The first proposals included locating a house in the blue and red zones. After a couple of pre-application conferences, site visits, exchanges over plan designs, etc., the applicant has proposed a house that Staff can recommend approval on. The proposal is for a house located solely within the unconditional building envelope outside of both avalanche zones. The structure is to build to withstand the force of the lateral spreading of debris of an avalanche rather that further impacting the sensitive site with a retaining wall. 5. Residential Design Standards: secondary mass and garage not at grade Staff can support these variances finding that they are clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related site-specific constraints. Staff believes the proposal minimizes the impact on the hillside with a principal structure limited to the building envelope rather than extending up the hill or into the blue or red avalanche zones. In addition, the driveway cut is just about the shortest possible to meet the Residential Design Standards—the garage must be 10 feet setback from the front of the building. Conditions: a) Landscaping plan(2f) b) Finalize negotiations on the exact placement of the Nordic trail and it shall remain open during winter. (3d)