HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.918 S Mill St.A053-97
.".-,.
.f-.r..
41b
:!!~~
h:
i;l"
!~~!
"^',-...-mg
~l
1<w\~
..
,,-
.~
~.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT, 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL, AND MOUNTAIN VIEW
PLANE APPROVAL FOR THE MARCIANO RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 918
SOUTH MILL STREET, CITY OF ASPEN
Resolution #97 - ~ f
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Horsehead Incorporated, a Colorado Corporation, owner and applicant, for an 8040
Greenline Review and a Mountain View Plane Review for a duplex of approximately
4,727 square feet, and a Conditional Use Review for an attached Accessory Dwelling
Unit of approximately six hundred (600) square feet, on a 6,724 parcel of land in the
Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) Zone District located at 918 South Mill Street further
described in Exhibit A of this Resolution.
WHEREAS, the subject parcel is approximately 138 horizontal feet from
elevation 8,040 and, pursuant to Section 26.68.030, development above or within 150
horizontal feet of elevation 8,040 feet, in conformance with the review criteria of said
Section, may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the subject parcel is within the view plane as projected from the
second floor of the Wheeler Opera House and,.pursuant to Section 26.68.050,
deveiopment within this view plane, in conformance with the review criteria of said
Section, may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.100.050, a 600 square foot Accessory
Dwelling Unit qualifies the development of two free-market units in a duplex on a lot
created before November 14, 1977, for an exemption from the Growth Management
Quota System; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.40.090 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Accessory Dwelling Units may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as
Conditional Uses in conformance with the requirements of said Section; and,
WHEREAS, the Housing Office, Water Department, Fire Marshall,
Environmental Health Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City
Engineering, Parks Department and Community Development Department reviewed the
proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, during a public hearing at a regular meeting on August 19, 1997, the
Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a 4-1 vote the Conditional Use for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit, the 8040 Greenline Review, and the Mountain View Plane
Review for the Marciano duplex, 918 South Mill Street, with the conditions
recommended by the Community Development Department, as amended by the
Commission during the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Conditional Use for an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, the 8040 Greenline
Review, and the Mountain View Plane Review for the proposed duplex residence at 918
South Mill Street is approved with the following conditions:
\~
r-
1"""'\.
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised Site
Improvement Survey that includes all easements, utility locations, existing and proposed
improvements, and describes the caliper and species of all existing trees. A tree removal
permit from the City Parks Department shall be required for the removal or relocation of .
trees as per Section 13.20.020 of the Code.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit appropriate development
plans in accordance with all requirements of the L/TR Zone District and Residential
Design Standards with the following exception: A duplex of no more than 4,800 square
feet of FAR shall be permitted. A 600-700 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit and
associated parking space shall be clearly delineated on the development plans. The ADU
deed restriction shall be noted on the development plans. Appropriate design
considerations to prevent snow from shedding onto the entrance to the ADU shall be
incorporated.
3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the owner shall:
a) Verify with the Housing Office that the Accessory Dwelling Unit contains.
. between 600 and 700 square feet and clearly meets the definition of an
Accessory Dwelling Unit;
b) Verify with the Housing Office that the ADU will contain a kitchen having a
minimum of a two-burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot
refrigerator plus freezer;
c) Provide the Housing Office with a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, a copy
of which must be obtained from the Housing Office;
d) Clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on building permit plans
with the minimum one (1) off-street parking space provided. Clearly note on the
building permit plans that the applicant has not requested, nor has the
Commission granted, an FAR bonus for the ADU.
4. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Housing Office and/or the Zoning
Officer shall inspect the accessory dwelling unit for compliance with all appropriate
standards in Section 26.40.090 of the Code and any conditions of approval.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the
Environmental Health Department for: Any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces
(coal- & woodburning fireplaces are not allowed); and, for a fugitive dust control plan.
Construction must be accomplished in such a way as not to create a nuisance as defined
in the Municipal Code. Construction cannot take place between the hours of 6 p.m. and
7:30 a.m., and shall be limited to Mondays through Saturdays, as agreed to by the
applicant. The applicant is encouraged to accommodate the concerns of neighbors
related to construction schedules, noise, dust, and debris.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit: The applicant shall complete a water tap permit
for a tap sized for the required fire suppression system and for the domestic use; the
Water Department shall inspect plans for a water pressure booster system; and, the Fire
Marshall shall inspect plans for a fire suppression system.
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a tap permit from, and
pay connection charges to, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. A shared service
line agreement must be completed if the proposed development will be connected with a
single sanitary line. Sources of clear water may not be directed to the sanitary sewer.
Floor drains within the garage structure must incorporate oil and sand separators.
8. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage mitigation
plan and a report, both signed and stamped by a Geotechnical Engineer registered in
~
.
~
,,-,.
Colorado. This plan must accommodate drainage both during and after construction and
must confirm the drywell system can be constructed without causing damage to down
gradient properties. If a metered delayed-release system is to be used, a licensed Civil
Engineer must complete the design. For the proposed excavation, the applicant shall
submit a stabilization plan signed and stamped by an Engineer registered in Colorado.
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall complete and record an
agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing
improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. The applicant is
encouraged, but not required, to dedicate 2 1/2 foot wide sidewalk and pedestrian
easement along the entire South Mill Street frontage.
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data including
property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments.
11. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, any utilities and/or easements located
. contrary to the site improvement survey submitted for the building permit must be
delineated on a revised site improvement survey.
12. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the
applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for
pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site
improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be
obstructed.
13. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights-of-way from the
appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox
and landscaping from the City Streets Department.
14. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning
Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder.
15. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
16. The owner shall connect into any future storm drainage improvements along South Mill
Street to the approval of the City Engineer.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on August 19, 1997.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
c.[:;LL t
~k~~
Sara Garton, Chair
ATTEST:
,.
(',,.;
,
.~
~
.
EXHIBIT A
A parcel of land being portions of Lots 3, 4 and 5 within the Little
Chief Lode USMS 3850, Capitol Hill Addition to the City and Townsite
of Aspen and a portion of the Big Chief Lode USMS 4327 all si~uated
in the SW1/4 NW1/4 of Section 19, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of
the 6th P. M '.' Pitkin CQunty, Colorado described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 3, Capitol Hill Addition
thence N 75009'W 99.18 feet to the Easterly right of way of South
Mill Street; thence S 14055' 27" W 67. 63.feet along the Easterly right
of way of South Mill Street to the intersection of the Northerly line
of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision; thence S 74055' E 99.08 feet
along the Northerly line of Lot 3, Aspen Mountain Subdivision; thence
N 15000' E 68.03 feet along the line of Lot 3, Aspen Mountain
Subdivision and Lot 12 Anthony Acres Subdivision to the point of
beginning.
,,,/
~\
r"':
<i"-\
.-
'"
1/
: 41/7411, ~.(h tJ
_~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~0e8(J
~(at1a:, {~~jPtmt ~
} .
NM) ~ ~~ R\~
. ~~(.. ~ ~.Jo~ irt ~ fT-~?uv ~
'~.~ ~ ~~I~~/~~/-kn
..~~1~~ I~t;f-
~ttlL ~ ~ ~~\ - ~6~
-, '{\{';W to. ~ ~ J fN\ ~ ~ bf-
@~~-
L J~ &twit ~ (1. ~ ( ul' l~
l'2i~V\
(,
. Q. ~ ~\. l.- c4 ~
. ~ f< ;j;rt;~ 4,; ~ (;w
t,,~ . ~ .kJ- l1vi~ ""kJ. ~ ~ ~ w,
~ .~~ ~~. vJueJ of €~tJ
~tz, % \U\~ '.~ J dn~
/"
~
~
..:
~V\ ~~
~lrr~ .
~U(~(~ iv ~~ ~/R~(tk.
0>j r~ fU<l ~ w.iM w '" ~-~ unJil {kA~
fro.. t'\it\ . CwlJ 4P u Wr-.~ ~vy
~ ~V\\~
... 1~ (,qw{~ At II
. ;{}JlJYYI~ . ~ ~,,~
tsJrfJ 0li~ {
: ~ ~~~
<\~
,~
~ \(/i~lw ~ ~UJo'- 0r;- ~ 0dtr(~ nL
. _ M6t/t~ ~ ~ -dCf
~ ~~ . ~: ~ W'l r;.V-r~rJ ~ '{Ai.fkuM
. .~ GArtivl ~
~~fv
~
:~
*v-t ~'" \ I ~ I ~ tiC io1O wt ~
.'" .
,"-'
~.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 918 S. MILL CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT,
8040 GREENLINE REVIEW & MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August
19,1997 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by Paul Marciano of Los Angeles, CA, requesting
Conditiona Use for ADU, 8040 Greenline Review and Mountain View Plane Review
approval to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a duplex and an attached
ADU. The property is located at 918 S. Mill Street, and is described as a parcel ofland
being portions of Lots 3, 4 and 5 within the Little Chief Lode USMS 3850, Capitol Hill
Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen and a porition of the Big Chief Lode USMS
4327 all situated in the SWII4 NW1I4 of Section 19, Township 10 South, Range 84 West
of the 6th P.M. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the AspenlPitkin
Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen Account
~ I\) ~..l.W...l\)~ ~. ro ro
~~T'-~~~
lpQOQ)- .DCXl(XI
~HUU
~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~.~.~.
LHLB~L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~z;z;
~~~~~'~~~~SJSJ~I\);~
~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~
~~,~.~~~~
~[1!~~~
, bbbbbo6
~18;Dco~Ui;c;)
)>1
Di
::l
:Il
(,i'
::r
3
o
::l
Q.
W
o
~
:Il
Dl
Q.
c'
Ul
~~~~~~~~r::l~~~ ~
H~~li\'I'lil~lil~![ <.
!!!!~~~!~!! ~ ~
3
H~;"~;"~;";";;;;" "
,,-o~...g~Ud~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w
~~~I~I~~~~~~ii~~~~*~~~~~~~8~~~~~~~~~8~~~~[
~~l\)~~N~l\)-~~~-OWCXl~~~QON~~~~m~o~~w~~QO__SCXlCXll\)O~
Z
.
3
[
~~~
",e:"
~ ~ ~
ITi ~:!i
~~~~
~ m"tl
m ~-l
q> Z 2
" m"
~ ~
0"
l>"TI:t>:J>Ol)>"tlZ
lD-lSBfgg,'-Il>o
~~Yl~~~~~
m z :!!)> to ~
m m m 0
5 ~ ~
e:
g
"'-lC
d8Q
~~iii
~mC
:::::.::u:tl
i:50m
zfgG)
m()~
"oc
~:!:O
o~z
"'z
,,-<
o
"
-l
~
:Ii
~
z
m
"
'"
:I:
'U
"
Cl
"tI~:i>!
00...
m"'",
~~~
3Lz In
a~
z "l
~~
m
C
"
>!z88Q~
:; '"
r=):>)>o
en ~ ~
~ ~ ~
i'l~~
m Z _
m" '"
~ (') 3::
(J)O~
:;z
~"
"
m
r
,,,,, "
I~ ~ ~
O"m
Z;g~
~zo
"'" Z
~ e::;
0(1) r=
"rr
ffi z)>
"m '"
~"
z"
"Cl
:E!a ~ Cf) (I)
;=S:(I)~()
j;~~25
~ffi~~~
~~rn~~
z~~i~
" r C
m '"
" 0
-l Z
~ Z
'" "
~~ '"
,,'" "
r -l 0
m ~ m
~ ~ ~
~rn g
m" ro
~~
Cm
m"
:!I"
~
C/)'1JOl."...
>ogo~
Z[]JomCll
~~JJ~6
JJ~~~:E
o - m
:g ~cn
-l
rS;j?
=1""
r m -
mcZ
,,0 m
g
"
ChOOlJJOO5:m
6EE~~~
mzz-<mO
ZGlCilmIl:I:
~~~~fQm
n!l!g:rs~
N!i)G:l;riZII
~2l21:D2>
tZlIl:OO>c:...
m!i)!i)>ffl
=lmmoo
m3:'!:;R
z
"
"''''-l
Ei=~
~~~
~~8
~~8
"''''''
QQ(3
~~j;!
:;:;::!
,,0
",Z
~Q
~~~C3C3C3
NOlOltZltZltZl
ozzooo
<::E:Exxx
6>>o;~tg
O~CjooNoo
mooooO(l)
~zz
m"''''
"rr
c<<
"CC
"
8
'"
m
<
m
"
!(
:I:
i'
r
'"
"''''C
~~o
-l-l"
~~~
<<z
j=r=
r r
mm
i!jmq~
S;:o:<!:z
~oom
" 0
g C
'"
"'-"
olil!,!
~8':~
m~:s
~~~
l'!Qg
C~"
"l0
ml'!
<l ~
1l;;;!I.,
OOO-en
m~.~3:'
3:''tI:I:>
~~::jZ
Zmmoo
~~~-I
>^G:l~
~~lTi~
~:o~
"
~
"'z"
-lo'"
5s;:ril
e:zz
Ci)~
o
r
;;;
11l11l3l:03:' 3:'
ll"m88E'
>c:...o",:o:o
z~^mmm
czzc:...c:...:O
~~:r!g~~
rZOzz~
!l!H~:;i\i
Ci)011l~ r
-11l.:I:m I1l
o !!I "
Z :[ ~
z ~
" m
~~l<
O"c
:I:zm
roc:!!
>~o
" "
~ '" .-
"0
:I:
m
r
r
m
-l
~cn
i!illl
C:I:
~~
zm
~~
~
m
"l
m
~
"
~~Q
i::!::!
r=ffl~
~~~
~8~
" "
rr
~.Z
m
8
:I::I:
00
e:e:
"''''
aa
zz
Z 5i ~ ;; ~ 5i 5i Z Z x ~I~
'tI:I:3:':I:0:I:
~j!:~~p~
~~~!H
~~~~~i
^-I-IOZ:D
o~~;Eo~
~~~ !:
~mrn ~
<! C
'"
m
:I:
~
"
1:
m
'"
:I:
~
C
m
"
S;
~
!I
~
'"
'"
~
m
;D
!(
C
"
<'
m
'"
-l
m
ro
~~~~~
m!:o_m
~m~:r!~
~nl~~-I
:Dm>I1
~G>_(I)C
B~>~~
mOl C
~m "
iii !!i
"
C
'"
"
r
OJ
r
m
l'!
"
"
"
m
m
"
~
m
m
...
~
:I:
;::
~
"
'D
~!l
~
""
g~
~~
p
,,~
- r
"5
"
~
rj;"'ms;~S;S;
~ril.~<(I)OCllc:...
O:D>!B<:E<~
0:S3:~~!;~S;:
OF~:!:I1l~(I)
m_r
~fn
fg
S;
"
m
o
z
;;:
C
C
"
~~~~~
~ P:!f;~ Q m
mo~:D
:E:Ilzm:!(
J!!Oo'tlr
r;;~>ilim
-IZ:ijZZ
ffimc:...m
"r ~
:I: "
"Z
~ 0
5!:!B
<00
~~@
s:co
"OZ
"Zm
-<"!'!
!:!B:<
"r
"0
Ce:
~;q
~ Gi s:
~ ~
"c
-z
2l"
'"
..P
"
~
oft
o
~
?
~
I
;'
r
'^
>-
~ 00 C3 N ~
"'0-1 m ~ 8
:r! Z ~ ~ ~
~~8~fA
...:JJ ::00
'tI'" ;;:z
r ~ r ~
"
C
~C3~~E
'tI~mo~
~:E~:I:o
Olo",8z
mIlO",
~:r!~
~
r
r
'"
~
'"
:I:
m
"
5
~
"
C
~
..
E
~
i~i
z ~ E
c,,~
~"
m!'!
r",
:;;-l
C
:I: "
r=hi
fnz
-"
ff:~
~~~
ffi~
Z-l
""
-<
~~z8@r~~~8~~~~~~~rrr@r
... ~ ':I !l " 8~~~~~~ ~ ~ ;i! ... '" i::i::il:l~ ':I ~ U '" " " '" ill ;;; OJ ~ S " U~ N
~ " 0 "'" :l ~ '" 81 ':I III 0 ;;
~ '" ':I ':I fil g~oo~2o H ~~~~ ':I ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
n ~ ~ '" 0 I!llil 0 ~ '" \l ~ 9> ~?~
c.:. <p ~ . . . ~ '>' 'f' '>' f' 'f' I'
~ '"
'" '" ~
'" "
" '" "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..~,.~.~.~, ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:=~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m >>mmmm;m
*i***~~******ij*j*~ii~~~~i
~o~W~m~~~N~ogm~&~~WN__~~m~
1\,)1\)1\)
~~~
~~~
~~ t t
00
""
mm..
~~~~~~
f}5~~~fl3~
~t~~~j;!
~~@~~~
~ ~
~~
m ~
" "
~ ~
~m
t:l ~I~I~
~ ~.w.~
i;,. it' ~
N ~:)
~ * f"-~
SSSs:
O'I.ro. (I,)/\)
~~~~~
........~, ~ .
~ ~ ... ~ !..
(XI CO 0; eo Z
'" N I\) I\) C
~ ~ ~ ~ 3
SS88~
....Ou:lQ:l
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w
~~~~~~~~~i~~iil~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[
~8w~w~=m8~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~~~W~~o&~~~~$~~~CtI~~~~~i
z
c
3
~
~
r ::J:mo <CIJ
"'9 r;~ommm:r:
" '" G> ~ ~ ~ ~
l:d~ ~ 5; 2 CJ);to"
~~~g~~~~
8~mF!HoJJ~8ril
>:0 -1[]Js::5~
iTP::::: G> m:J: ~ in
(f.l c 2:l g'"
,.. ,..
""" >~
>r;:t
:D<i=
3:o0m
oo(l)F
Z:s::mz
-1m<m
5c...f!!r=
Ci5~~-1
0'"
~
..
o
~
c
,..
,..
Q
o
>
'"
8
c;
o
"
o
'"
~~~9~~8~
.,,:r (') z C m ttl G>
~~2cnC3~55cn
jl~>c~O:OZ~
>:O(IJ:i:m~lDG>
t5g~m~~8~
rnmffl~(/)~ ~
,,3:)!>m -1
c...)>s:o:D c...
JJ~r=m~ :n
60=0
"'~L~!~~~~C32g:~
~~~~~~~~8;~
mocnG>s::!;r....ccs::
~~~~~.~~~~~~
~~ )>!Z 035
<
m
"m
,..~
~~
"'>
"''''
oel
11'"
'"
:t
~
"'"C
C:t'"
~~~
~"z
mO>
z
"
r;
z
o
~
(j)(I){i)_O
~~~~~
(l)Cm-<
",<>zmm
m :E '"
Ilz5;;
z ro:
-< "
m \'i
~ 5
!!! 0
'"
~~
gf:@
'"
z
"
'"
r-r~i5~
~
m
,..
,..
~
'"
'"
:t
>
>
~m<3:::2?mg
JJ(')~~=l~.:!:
~6i~Q~!!l8
~~(I)ena:::jJJ
~~~~!~~
!!l('))>zc....o::!
J:pos:~JJzO
"lJ8~)> ;;:12
zm '"
z'" m
;J>-'I ~
r;-JJ (I)
"'"
00
~ :E
rom
~~
~~
:t<
>m
"',..
<>
mZ
"'Z
"'<
Oli;
>
"
:i
m
'"
..
In
'"
o
"
~
m
'"
I" - ~
""~
ffiffi~
~~~
iis:
ee~
~~)>
~~?;:
OOm
"''''
;;:O;;S:::(I))>mm Z)>
enO)>(I)ZZZl!I(I)
(l)rZ"{i){i))>:i:"
~Z$!~f!ifTiffi-<~
~m~ sPll
,.. 00
~8,..)>~~c
^ Z-<-'lr
lnm3:~25~
)>8~(I)~3;
::qzmZOJJ
:i: (I):JJ!!!,.. > C
ci~(I)~S!
~(')~ -'lr
SlOmr JJ:d
;J>"~ Cc
:s::: .." ~(I)
m < m-l
,.. m
;;;
""
z!li
zm
m'"
",m
~~
"z
Om
",,,,
,,0
0"
H
~'a
li;8
"",
mm
-<'"
mO
"'=I
~:E
>0
"''''
0'"
ZO
:t
~gg~~~~~
~~~6~8CJffi
JJJJJJifioozela
>,,0 0-'1 <;J>0:r
:rmm055^z
~:!:l~~;j(')~(')
r:;::;:oJJ !:R~
)> ('))>"n 0
~ 51 ~;H
:d ~~
C ""
:S:::~ooi! C3~3:
~m:CJF~CJcE;
~(')~~O~~~~
"' 8" " :r -l - m
o,,~~~~~6F
~~~~~~~~~
)>~)>""E ~~
)>)>)>m ~r
)> z-<
C -<~
Z m _
o fili:3
'"
~~g
~;Do
~~~
o~~
~;!!~
~
8~~8z~~~8xlx~~8~~r~888~~
8~""88~~~;n~S:0888~ ~
~
~~~~m
9~q;~~
O~=~~~~
~~~~
i"?'fl'P
'"
o
"
_.,,01,,1\:)
OIOCDO?J
8l~80v>
8x~~~
r.;~~~~
6g:~JJ~
~ ~~:!
~ ~ ~
m :E
o ~
'" ~
('))> (I) JJm ~
r<3f:@~ -,
E;"lJm)>~~
OAZz{i)c
00> ;jO'
C'l Z
~ a
"z>
)>o~
{g;;>
oZ'"
z>O
0""
>0,.
,..c
m",
IDso.~(XI~~
~_~~I\:)(o)
;, -O-2~
"i>l'fl~'t'i>l
--Iillli"
~818-0
~I\:) (0)01
mCJzQ)~
""Il""
~~z~~
mmQ 01
:E >
8 li
o
~
m
",..>
o~r;
~!!1~
~o!Z
"Z
,..
m
'"
~~g*~Q)~~
~~~~~~~-
~ ~
~m
~g
~~
ww
IS 0 ~ IS
~ g ~~,
i>l~~-
-< -<:E
'" C m
C,.. '"
~ ~ ~
C ,,~
~~g
~~r:a
-< :t
:t -<"
m ~-l
~~~
,.. ~
o
E ~I~
~ ~ i!!
!i; x m
s:s::~
rn~g
'" m
~ "
'" :t
g ~
'"
C
~
m
(l:I4t"lJ~c;,;>
S!:-..jotj i
cs 00 lD (J) cl i
~ ~ ~ (j) OJ t;
:JJ .... = ~ ~ I\)
-<m m::e:
~ li li 8
O~ 0
~ '"
m
~
m
w
~
2~~~iii8~~~~~~~
~~25~~~$!g~~~:
~ JJ r A f:@ ~ en (g
~ A en JJ m e:
r.: > z""
"' z"
o '"
r;"
,,0
c C
Z Z
> m
"
~
:t
!l~
,,:1
m _
'I' '?
jJ3:(j) s: (i)
ffi8~i=$
OJJ~mo
~mm~~
Z ~ ~ ~ i:
~~5~r
r~~lDi
~ Z
:t
,..
m
m
:>
~
'"
"
>
,..
m
li
~
..
;;
;:
"
C
=I
z
m
'"
z
>
z
"
'"
"
~
'"
C
~
g~~:;j
0IU'i-..t8
:I!~ffi~
~~~~
m G) 5 -1m
! C '"
(') 'n?;: ~
Om
'"
~-!:l
0?8<o
-~~
0'"
U
~~
8 ~z
;;;
~ ~
c'"
"
In
'"
0"0
C m .
'" '" .
~ ~ ~
8~
z
~~
z"
<=
"
>
'"
'"
m
" "
>"
~Q
mm
'" m
"':t
:t 0
'ijc
'"
Z
"
c
z
=1
1l:
~
~
Q1~*~~~~. ~~
~~i})~r;;r;;-~
~~R
00 0;: c:. JJ
1\)1\)1\) I\)
~~~~~
66666
;;;m:r::C;;j\)
~~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
U
~~~~~~~
000;000000;>>0;
I\) I\) I\) I\) I\) I\)/\)
~ii~ii~
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
HH~UU~U~
~~.~&g:~;;;~~~~~~
o:::!: JJ 3:
)>;=;=l2;=
~lTih1-rJFn
OJJ:D:D:D
mrrOr
~mmOJm
>>:>:!ll>:
ZZ-tZ
~oo:;:o
Orr_r
~ F
o "
~ ;<
Witit
~oo
~ww
""''''
0>>
~lDfij
. 5 (5
!Zzz
~~~
m
~
;:
orr"tlr
i"=lH=I
S;:Fn~-I~
{J)aO~O
Z Z 0 Z
~88~8
~~~~~~
CD CD CD;>> CD CD
HHH
1\).,..,..,.........
"'01 J>. QI\) 0
H~~~H~H~H
R3~~~. .~~~R3~;l?~l?~
~ ~ ~ ~. ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Il!~...~",~<l~~...",ii\~l:lf<j
~~~~~~~
ooo;QlCDCDCDCD
':-11\)1\)1\)1\)1\)1}>
~~~~*~~
....O(oCD~o)OI
MI\)NIl:I
.... ~ ~ !l
~ ~ ~ g
R3R3R3i
~~~I~
~~iil
:D:D:DJJ:DJJJJJJ:DJJJJ:DJJJJJJJJ:DJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ:D:DJJJJ:DJJ:D:Dm
1~~~~~~~~III~~~~I~I~~IBIII~~~~~lt
J>.~NOI~....~....lo)Qoo)(o~""o)~J>.........(OiQQCD(OR~MI\)N~
....O....NOJ>.....oo~NNCD........NN....N~J>.....Qo)....J>..CD~~Ql....~i
Z
c
3
..
~
~m5~5~!:;;=lj;><
G) (I) z)> Z r r
3: G) :z c,::;:; hi J!!
~::r> 0 ~ c>:u:u m
:I:Z:I:~Oh1Fn~Ei
~~~~~~~t;a
~~~rn~~~~~
~~moc.... 1100
z:D JJ 2S~
0:: 3:0
)>110 mr
:; "
a ~!
~ ~ ~
Iii ~ ~
~2~
~ ~ g
~ g
c:
~
"
~::
~g
"0
o c:
j;;!:
,,~
~~
rn
"
rO;
c::;:
ill'"
0>
Zo;
@ ~
m",
'l-<
:;
~
"
~
'"
~
>
Z
o
"
~
'"
~
i
'"
-<
~
~
"
o
0;
1il
'"
>
0;
5
Z
~
0;
::l
'"
"
~
:::!
~
~
m
~
~
"
'"
~
m
ill
0;
~~8ffi~
00 0 r:!:: 0
oOf"tlz
o CD 0 Z
i~~~
-< "'",
~
r
~ ~
~~
m m
ad
zz
wo;
Ow
~."
~"
" m
;<0
o!ll
~ n
'"
o
"
'"
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~5fii3
~rz_rnsJJJ!!:E~o
~G)E;~~~mmz
m:r~E...o~~z
i!:'" 55 c.... m 0
~(I)~~>~~ ~
:rgC:Fz!=z Z
z ~ ~ ~ )>
8 )>~
;< '"
Z -<
~~~~~~~
(/)~~~~5m
c>m;!;)Jm"tlfii
)>)>ZOOc"tlc....
h1oC>~z!Dc:
Z9j;c....0-t~
>ooc:C:::oz
~~~ffi~~ffi
o -<(I)OJ
~ CDJJ
o ~~
~ ~g
<>>~~oQ~
0;... 00;"
i(l)~~~~
8~r~:jg
~~~:;il::!j
z)>~rn::::~
o~rii6Qp
<'II: r c:
i!j(O c: CD
" '" '"
o "
" 0
".,,~
ozm
0"''''
c:FnJ!!
-1)>0
~H
~EG)
m"m
m>
"'"."
Zoz
'io'"
~:jhi
z"l:
",Om
~~r
0-<>
i!~
~
Ol~~~
~00lJ>.
oom
mc:~~
ffizc::r::
)J il )>,,'"
Z-<_-I
~p~
",C:o
"''''0
oz
558
c:
ill
~ffi~8Q~1Ji
~~~~~~~
Om-<c>z
~~ 6i~
(l)Z r::!
rn
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~I~ ~
o(l)~m5JJ:::j:I:
a~~G)~~8~~
~E~,,~~~~~::
;< ~:.._mJJm
~o ~~~c~
;!o >-j-rJ)>
-..IIOJJmllO -I
>2 rc :D
~r !:!! ~
ffi (5-1
" "
.,,>
" "'
m"O
mm
oz
;<",
~i5
z:;
~~
[2",
:;'"
06
cn~
z
~o"'O
(I)~~
o-tz
:tm"
*~d
5J;t5z
~:;:~
8~~
~~~
~~~
zm(/)
....~o~~
g.... 0 (O./>.
zC/)im~
@~~~~
~~~~~
~p~m
c:mz
"'0
"
~~~~
(I)(D<>>m
~~~~
rx:I:-I
mXOm
z o~
~ ~C>
-I ~In
Zo
[2"
"
"tIc>m-rJmo
~ ~ Fn ~ ~ ffi
~~~~~m
m~8~r~~
~oc :I:o
-<j;m )>0
;nm.):.~~JJ
IIOrW;nm;!:
~ :;:c~~
-I - I?l
2:! 110 U.
o :;: ~
3:01 <>>(j)
f: ti ~ ii
:tj; 80
~:D h1~
~ffi ~~
~~ z~
> ><
-<~ m~
ll<>. m r
~~ ~
c:
;<
JJr:I: ~
i~~~~
C>)JJJ-<
mmC5
~gf51=
5>~~
:;:Z>o
~:;m
::m
;<
~
~(3t
Hi
~~
:t
'ij
~
~~
~ ;<
"';I
~m
~~
~rn
mO
""
"
o
g~(3
m~~
~;;:><
~~~
",-<l:l
:t~
;;l=<
...-<
"'m
1ftz
g~
lli'"
~~:g
;=~E
gg~
~~~
-<zz
>","
~<~
0"
o
~
~
~
0;
:t
o
"
Zz
~~
o~
~(3
8 c:
>'"
~
G))> )>s:::om
~~o~~~g
o~g~e5~5
~ ~ ~ ~!ll
55 :I: m
ffi ;= ~o
!;;
:t
00
>:t
@~
""
80
'"
:
1:
~
i
"0
Z
m
0;
~
o
OJ >"tIs;om
~~~5"t1;;gCi
~~~mm=l>Z
~ ~~~~
~ Fn8~
'" )>
J]'"tIO
~~.f
:t
c:
~
fJJgg~gVl td~&~~
9~~g~~~N~~~~
"" /,'
g ~
~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
~~~ci~
~ 2
d
z
~~~~88~zlx8~8fr8)>~~~~xgrr~8g~r~~Q~r~~8~~i
w
8il?J
";'19
iii'il~HUlii~
~ ~ I}> -: ~ ~ ~I~ ;;;
5:.~~
~...
""
to
;j
'"'
~ ~ ~ ;;j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TI~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OJ ~ . .
1"'"\ " ~ ~ ~l~ ';l ~ ~ [
l)l l)l ~ ;; ~ ~ ~ l)l ;; ~ ~ l\l l)l ~ ~ ~ l\l ~ ~ l\l z
'" '" '" '" ~ '" ~ ~ "'. ~ ~
Cl:ICllCOCl:lCllCXI ! ~ ~&. Cl:Imoo &. &. ~ <il <il " <il c
'P" H:n: q> H q>q>q> u q> ~ ,; ~ 3
8 lHs ~ " ~ ~ 6 ~ 6 ~
8S -- " ~ :<
... 1\).....1\)0 ~ ~ - '" ~
IUUUUUUiU
^c~-rzo
l:~zr~hi6
m~~~"tl(J)::D
::0 C/) C tD "):. ~
~~~!B!:35'~
f! ~ ~ r- m 0
m ~~ ~~
i! ~~ m~
iff:D)> ~
r- ~ ~ z
5:;::0 ~
,.~
;:" 0
o~~g
;;!;:zz>
~m~8
~r::i~~
3::Il::I:m
~~ii~
O>j;,IOm
r-OO(f.l:D
-c....:r"U
>om;;!;!
2!Z:OCll
C-I:om
=<!-r-;:(J)
~~~~~~~~
"'08:Else~cn
~~cz:u~ ~
z~~~~rii~m
~~::D~~~~~
~ o~~~ ~
en 8"tl < ~
rri :2 m ~
~ "
~e;~~
ffl@~m
~~z~
:D:tc....:n
5f2gB
mmmm
"'''' ."
;:J:
o
z
~
m
'"
~
'::
-<
,.
'"
~
.,
~
"
m
m
."
m
:0
o
~
"
m
o
i5
~
"'
~(/)~-r~;g~~~lD~
c-u...S;:-<OQZ>'"lJ"
~~~~:E:!!~riig~~
'"T1 z>mOx:D......
pj ~ ~ -0 Z
o In 1: ~
~ 0
fJJ
~
~ '"
q::~
13"
o'l'
" J:
~~
f)~
,,=<
~ i!l
~
~
z
m
:0
~~~*
~ ~ R ~
::OlIlZ
S;~~~
S:~>(J)
'l'?<~c
~ (J) ~
m il
:0
cn"tl~f\)
sOo,ffi18
=I\'l"O",
~X::~fri
-r....;p:J:Z
mlGz>~
:D<O{J)<JJ
~ .... -Hi) -<
fri ~ ~ ~
~ rn en m
o S -l ~
~ m
;;;
o
~ Glen CIJ
~ en" "U
(J)~~~
!;l'"
,.m
In
'"
JJJJ:C :D::D:II::tJ fJJ
H*HH ~
~ ~ (l) 91 $ l8 ::.-.l Q,c
lXIc.l<O"".....j>.N.
z
c
3
"
~
'" '"
00
!!l!!l
"''''
-< -<
~ ~
,. ,.
:0 :0
-< -<
cni:S::G>lJJ"tl
~FS;S;c~
~~~m~~
s:rc....:Ilm^
C ~ l: s;:O ~
~ ~ ill 53 m ~
m" r:E -< m :D
.. :0..
"'Cl OJ 3::"
,. m -<
~ < JJ ~
Z m c...
!B f2 ~Q
it ~ III
0"' C
'" -< m
~ ~ ~
~." m
6 ~ ~
z ~ '"
en (') ttl
-l:Ii :II
;:
-<
:0
C
!!l
.. ~
~"
lij~
H
~~
1;'
m
"'c
5;0
0'"
mO
zz
o
~
;: 0 "
o c .
Z :D ::::I
~ ^ ~
0'"
Iii ~
'l"
;:~
;::0
~1ii
"..
m
013::(11)
~og8:
;: ~." il
,. '" :;; .
~~~
!!lm~
~ ~...,
00>0
-<Zj;
~;ijr
~ :: 0
~
g;
o
~
"
"
:0
m
m
Z
~
:0
o
,.
~
~
E
~
~(3
~~
U
"''''
;;;
~
"'
f,1
~
c
'l
"
,.
:0
"
m
!!l
m
5 r CI)
'" :q
~~(J)
G>oQ
{!!z>
fJJ
o
J:;;
~Ffi
~~
'"
,.
o
5i~
o
z
~88~~J~~8~88~~88~8~~~zr~~
~
1~~i~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~
..
~ .~- ...
1"""\
1-"
~""'-"'-"'-~
iil.""=11
? ~.. _I)
? .___"1 i
(I.-~Il
) ,
~--...--...~-~~
August 7,
~ ~'cJ'~~;;t07~
1997
Sara Garton, Chairperson
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
l30 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 918 S. Mill St. Review
Dear Ms. Garton,
As managing agent for the Fifth Avenue Association, I have been
requested to comment on the proposed massive duplex at 918 S. Mill
St. The Homeowners request that the Planning and Zoning
Commissioners visit the site. prior to the scheduled August 19th
meeting.
The difference in elevation between the back side sidewalk of the
Fifth Avenue B Building and the current grade on the 918 lot is
approximately 6 - 8 feet. The difference in elevation from the D
building sidewalk is 10 - l2 feet. If this duplex is approved
according to the plans, the proposed roof will be as high as 38
feet to the 1/3 point. All current homeowner views will be lost in
seven units. Is the current grade what will be used or will it be
lower? If 918 needs an 8040 Greenline approval can you require the
building to be lower so the homeowners can at least see the sky?
Does an approval give Savannah Ltd. more ammunition for their
project?
The contractor is also seeking ADU approval.
required to have an occupant in the unit or
ADU's in town where the homeowners turn the
use for additional guest housing?
Other serious questions and concerns the Fifth Avenue Association
has are listed below and the Association would like a response to
the concerns either at the meeting or before.
Will the new owner be
will it be like most
ADUs into offices or
. 747 South Galena Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 970.925.2260 800.321.7025 Fax: 970.925.2264'
http://www.aspenonline_com/aspenlodgingco E-mail: lodging@csn.net
-, "'," .
1"""\
,~
)
Pg. #2
1. Noise from the construction will no doubt hurt rentals. Is
there a time frame for construction?
2. The Fifth Avenue buildings and windows will need extra cleaning
due to the construction. Will the contractor be required to clean
the sidewalks, windows and siding?
3. We are requesting that the construction vehicles be limited to
Mill St. only to lessen the impact of noise and mess on owners and
guests at other properies on Galena and Monarch streets.
4. What kind of mitigation plan is in place to
or building cracking due to the excavation?
building as no history of recorded movement.
5. Is the driveway encroaching on the Fifth Avenue property?
repair any sidewalk
The Fifth Avenue B
6. Over 4,000 square feet above ground and an additional 4,000
below ground is huge for such a small lot. How can they get
approval without needing a variance?
7. Has a soil study been performed on the property?
These are just a few of the concerns the homeowners have. Again,
I would like to request that the Commissioners visit the site prior
to the meeting if they have not already done so.
Sincerely,
ASPEN SNOWMASS LODGING COMPANY, INC.
O~/;/~
Douglas L. Nehasil
Vice President
cc: P & Z Commissioners
Fifth Avenue Board of Managers
AUG- 4-97 MON 3:12 PM
ASPEN LODGING CO
i'-""
FAX NO. 970 925 2264
.~
p, 2
August 4, 1997
Asp,mlPilkin ComnlUnity Development Department
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
At 10 Chris Bendon
Re: 918 S. Mill SI. Review
Dear Chris:
As property man.gc( fur many of Ihe condomiuiulll associations on Galena IlIld Mill slroots includillg
the Fifth Avel\UO Association, I eBrl assure you tb.t the Assooiations = against any Condillona' Use
tor ADU. 8040 GrCCl\line Review Or View Plane approvaL
Th. FiOh AVelme Associati<:>n "B" Building homeowners views are significantly impacted by the
proposed massive duplex and will be in force allhe August 19th meeting. Some otthe homeowners
concerns are listed below.
1. Over 4,000 square feet above ground.
2. Over 4,000 squaro feel below ground
3. 28 Feet 10 Ih. 113 point on the roof.
4, Has ally soil testing heen done? The mountain does move up there.
S. Looalion of the driveway is too close 10 Fifth Ave..
6. A/Il you using historical grade or ourrenlllrade?
7. What kind of mitigation plan is in place to fix any ctacb in drywall or side walks due to tho
construction.
8. What kind of mitigation plan is in place 10 clean.IM windows and buildings due to the amount of
dust .
9. Is Mr. Marciano required to toot the ADU or will it be like many other ADU's that are turned into
un office or guesl housing?
Please contact me if you have any questions prior 10 the meetillg,
Sincerely,
ASPEN SNOWMASS LODGING COMPANY, INC
oov;k c;f rJ ~
Douglas L. Noo..il
Vice Presidenl
~~\oA 1wo 15(q / M/b~ ~~ Vita ~ ivJ ~ ~ ~ J ~f"'~
.147 South ,,_lell. Street ^,p"n. Color.do S1611 970.92S.2260 SOO.~21.7025 Fax: 970,925.2264 .
hllp"^""""...pono~lin..,,,.tI.'p<nlodJl;nll"o E-mail: lodgl~g@..n.ncl
.~
~
Proposed revisions to conditions of approval for 918 South Mill Street
#9 . . . for the purpose of constructing eares aael gHttCfG improvements which
benefit the property under an assessment formula.
#11 Prier te iss1ilH1ee ef a eeFtifieate €If €Jeeapaney, the aJ'lJ3lieant shall replaee any eara
anel/sr gutter elamageel elariHg eeHstrueti€JH.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, any utilities and/or easements
located contrary to the site improvement survey submitted for the building
permit must be delineated on a revised site improvement survey.
,--.
.~
.IlIA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ~h,~
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director ' j /7'
THRU:
FROM:
Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE:
918 South Mill Street
Conditional Use for an ADU (public hearing)
8040 Greenline Review
Mountain View Plane Review
DATE:
August 19, 1997
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Paul Marciano, is proposing a duplex with an attached Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADD) at 918 South Mill Street. The ADU will allow for an
exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. The applicant is requesting
Conditional Use approval for an ADU, 8040 Greenline approval, and Mountain
Viewplane approval. The applicant is not requesting an FAR bonus associated with
. the ADU. The proposed development will be nearly 4,800 square feet of Floor Area.
Parking for the development will be accomplished with an underground structure.
Staff recommends approval ofthe Conditional Use for an ADU, 8040 Greenline
Review, and Mountain View Plane Review, with conditions.
ApPLICANT:
Paul Marciano. Represented by Alan Richman, AICP, and Carlos Rocha, Architect.
LOCATION:
918 South Mill Street. Gust south of the 5th Avenue Condominiums)
ZONING:
L/TR. LodgelTourist Residential. The intent ofthis Zone District is to encourage
construction and renovation oflodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and
to allow construction of tourist-oriented detached, duplex, and multi-family
residential dwellings.
LOT SIZE:
6,724 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
6,724 square feet. No reductions for slope or easements.
1
/"'""\
/---.
FAR:
6,724 square feet for multi-family or lodge uses.
3,341 square feet for a single-family home.
3,716 square feet for a duplex.
4,800 square feet (per Ordinance 66, see Background)
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family house, approximately 1,500 gross square feet.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Duplex with one attached Accessory Dwelling Unit. (per Ord. 66, see Background)
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this application.
. REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Conditional Use. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the
Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a conditional use
application at a public hearing.
8040 Greenline Review & Mountain View Plane Review. With a recommendation
from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions,
or deny a proposed development within an Environmentally Sen&itive Area.
BACKGROUND:.
In 1982 the owner of918 Mill Street applied for a rezoning of the subject property
which lied in two separate zone districts; L2 and R-15. The owner requested the
rezoning of the entire parcel to L2 to allow the construction of a duplex. At the time,
the L2 Zone District's FAR was 1:1 for all uses. The R-15 Zone District specified
3,600 square feet for a duplex but disallowed duplexes on lots this small. (The lot
was considered to be approximately 6,003 square feet at the time ofthe rezoning, the
actual property is approximately 6,724 square feet)
The Planning Department (in 1982) felt the proposed duplex use was appropriate but
that the 1: 1 FAR of the L2 Zone District was overscaled. A middle ground was
sought to allow the duplex use with a restricted size of the eventual structure. The
rezoning to L2 was approved conditional upon the recording of a deed restriction on
the property limiting the use to single-family or duplex and the size to no more than
4,800 square feet of Floor Area and subject to the applicable regulations of the L2
Zone District, as amended.
In 1988 the L 1 and L2 Zone Districts were virtually the same with the exception that
L2 allowed single-family and duplexes uses. The FAR for both these districts was
1:1 for all uses. There was some discussion about small properties (6,000 square feet)
zoned 11 which seemed unsuitable for lodge or multi-family uses due to their small
size, but which allowed overscaled single-family and duplex uses with the 1: 1 FAR.
As a result, the 11 and L2 districts were combined as the L/TR Zone District and
2
f!""'\
,~
downzoned. Lodge and multi-family uses remained permitted uses with a 1:1 FAR.
Single-Family and duplex uses were allowed only on lots of 6,000 square feet with
allowable Floor Area calculated using the R-6 sliding scale measurement.
In April of 1995 the deed restriction on the property was recorded and the rezoning
(to L/TR) took place. The deed restriction limited the use of the property to "single-
family or duplex" use with no more than "4,800 square feet [ofF AR] and subject to
those zoning regulations applicable to the L-2 [now L/TR] Zone District as described
in Chapter 24 [now 26] of the Aspen Municipal Code, as now exists or may hereafter
be amended."
After much correspondence with the City Attorney's Office concerning the events
surrounding the 1982 rezoning, the City Attorney does not contest the applicant's
ability to construct a duplex of no more than 4,800 square feet of FAR on this parcel
which is now known to be approximately 6,724 square feet.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." The application has been
included as Exhibit "C."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use for an accessory dwelling unit,
8040 Greenline approval and Mountain View Plane approval, with the following
conditions:
1.
2.
6~~~\
W&~ 1't~
(/"I ~Iu{ .
3.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised Site Improvement
Survey that includes all easements, utility locations, existing and proposed improvements, and
describes the caliper and species of all existing trees. A tree removal permit from the City Parks
Department shall be required for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 of
the Code.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit appropriate development
plans in accordance with all requirements of the LlTR Zone District and Residential Design
Standards with the following exception: A duplex of no more than 4,800 square feet of FAR
shall be permitted. A 600-700 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit and associated parking
space shall be clearly delineated on the development plans. The ADU deed restriction shall
be noted on the development plans:O Appropriate design considerations to prevent snow from
shedding onto the entrance to the ADU shall be incorporated.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits the owner shall:
a) Verify with the Housing Office that the Accessory Dwelling Unit contains between
600 and 700 square feet and clearly meets the definition of an Accessory Dwelling
Unit;
b) Verify with the Housing Office that the ADU will contain a kitchen having a
minimum of a two-burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot
refrigerator plus freezer;
3
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
V;4'lhlL Q/ 11.
.~~
.~
.~
5.
c) Provide the Housing Office with a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, a copy of
which must be obtained from the Housing Office;
d) Clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADD) on building permi~'plfU's with
the minimum one (1) off-street parking space provided. lAM ~ 1'fv.f no FiIt~ ~IIS ~ Pew
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Housing Office ~nd/or the Zoning r~iJl(kd q ~J,,;..
Officer shall inspect the accessory dwelling unit for compliance with all appropriate
standards in Section 26.40.090 of the Code and any conditions of approval.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the
Environmental Health Department for: Any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (coal-
& woodburning fireplaces are not allowed); and, for a fugitive dust control plan.
Construction must be accomplished in such a way as not to create a nuisance as definer!;1l. -c",r:.1 ")0_
the Municipal Code. Construction cannot take place between the hours of 1 () p.m. and h.m. "'..J.. I-c. \ \ b(
The applicant is encouraged to accommodate the concems of neighbors related to ~ ~o\ ~
construction schedules, noise, dust, and debris. ~ ~
Prior to issuance of a building permit: The applicant shall complete a water tap permit for a ~
tap sized for the required fire suppression system and for the domestic use; the Water
Department shall inspect plans for a water pressure booster system; and, the Fire Marshall
shall inspect plans for a fire suppression system.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a tap permit from, and pay
connection charges to, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. A shared service line
agreement must be completed if the proposed development will be connected with a single
sanitary line. Sources of clear water may not be directed to the sanitary sewer. Floor drains
within the garage structure must incorporate oil and sand separators.
Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage mitigation plan
and a report, both signed and stamped by a Geotechnical Engineer registered in Colorado.
This plan must accommodate drainage both during and after construction and must confirm
the drywell system can be constructed without causing damage to down gradient properties.
If a metered delayed-release system is to be used, a licensed Civil Engineer may complete
the design. For the proposed excavation, the applicant shall submit a stabilization plan.
signed and stamped by an Engineer registered in Colorado.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall complete and record an agreement
to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing cw:lls IlDQ gttMel3. - l~ s'-II
The applicant is encouraged, but not required, to dedicate 2 1/2 foot wide sidewalk and {c."!tN?'
pedestrian easement along the entire South Mill Street frontage.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit. GIS data including property
lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall replace any curb and/or
gutter damaged during construction.
All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the
applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for
pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement
survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed.
The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights-of-way from the
appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox and
landscaping from the City Streets Department.
10.
12.
13.
4
,~
I"""'\,
14. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning
Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder.
15. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
16. !f.ff;/JJ' Jtv.~ ~ MfA. JI4~Je/~ I~ Ol- AlIwof<<d. ;.. ~(pl 6Jt,~........
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Conditional use for an ADU, approve the 8040 Greenline
Review, and approve the Mountain View Plane Review with the conditions outlined
in the Staff memo dated August 19, 1997."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B Referral Agency Comments.
Exhibit C -- Development Application
5
r-\
~
Exhibit A
STAFF COMMENTS: ADU
Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to all Conditional Uses
(A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the
zone district in which it is proposed to be located.
Staff Finding:
An Accessory Dwelling Unit with no mandatory occupancy deed restriction and an
interior entrance enables an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System and
is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and standards of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
. The proposed duplex and ADU are consistent with the ". . . construction of tourist-
oriented detached, duplex, arid multi-family residential dwellings" intent of the L/TR
Zone District.
(B) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land
uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding land uses are primarily tourist-oriented and range from highly intensive
use at the Fifth Avenue Condominiums to relatively low intensive use (proposed) on the
Savanna site. The massing, scale, and intensity of this area should decrease approaching
the mountain. This proposed structure and use fits with that lessening.
(C) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on
pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
Staff Finding:
The location, size, and design of the proposed conditional use are consistent with the zone
district requirements. Operationally, the ADU will have little impact on the surrounding
properties. Pedestrian and vehicular impacts will be virtually the same as for the existing
use. One parking space for the ADU and two spaces for each side of the duplex will be
provided underground reducing the need for on-street parking. The applicant has
represented that trash and service needs will be appropriately handled. Noise, vibration,
and odor problems are not expected from this use.
The Commission should require the applicant to incorporate roof design considerations to
prevent snow from slumping onto the ADU entrance.
Staff Comments page 1
.---,
.-..
Representatives of the Fifth Avenue Condominiums have raised issues regarding
construction impacts related to dust and potential damage to sidewalks and of the Fifth
Avenue building itself. The Commission should require the applicant to submit a fugitive
dust control plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The Commission should also
require the owner to restore, or pay for the restoration of, any curb and gutter damaged in
the construction process at least to its pre-constuction condition. As far as structural
damage to the Fifth Avenue building, the applicant has prepared a geotechnical report
outlining the engineering requirements for construction considering the subsurface
stability and drainage. The report recommends continued consultation and monitoring
during construction. Any damage to other properties caused by the owner's negligence
will be the responsibility of the owner, but this becomes a private issue between
neighboring land owners.
Representatives of the Fifth Avenue Condominiums also have raised concerns about their
view of Aspen Mountain. Excepting the "garage," most ofthe applicant's building is 16
to 20 feet from the common property boundary. The minimum side yard in the zone
district is 5 feet. It is also important to realize the conditional use being considered is
only for the ADU. If the ADU were denied for visual impacts of the duplex, the duplex
could still be built because it is a permitted use.
(D) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use
including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks,
police, fIre protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical
services, drainage systems, and schools. '
Staff Finding:
Park fees are payable at building permit. Infrastructure capacity is sufficient for this
development. The Water Department, however, has warned the applicant there may not
be sufficient pressure, especially for upper floors of the building. This will require a
pump to enhance the pressure. This is also a Fire Department concern because the
building will require a sprinkler system. The applicant should size the water tap
accordingly.
(E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental
need for increased employees generated by the conditional use.
Staff Finding:
The conditional use mitigates itself.
(F) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title.
Staff Finding'
The GMQS exemption for a duplex requires an ADU of 600 square feet minimum. The
normal definition of an ADU requires 300 to 700 of net livable. Essentially this means
for a duplex the ADU must be 600 to 700 square feet of which 300 or more is livable.
Staff Comments page2
".......,
.,.-."
The applicant's ADU is slightly below this standard at approximately 545 square feet.
The Commission should require the ADU to meet this requirement for an exemption.
2) An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to all other dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding:
The ADU meets these dimensional requirements.
3)
A detached accessory dwelling unit shall only be permitted on parcels that have
secondary and/or alley access, exepting parcels with existing structures to be converted to
detached accessory dwelling units, detached garages or carports where an accessory
dwelling unit is proposed above, attached to, or contained within such detached garage or
carport. Detached accessory dwelling units are prohibited within the R-15B zone district.
~
Staff Finding:
The ADU is attached.
4) An attached accessory dwelling unit shall utilize alley access to the extent practical.
Staff Finding:
This property does not have an alley.
A. Development Review Standards.
I) The proposed development is compatible and subordinate in character with the primary
residence located on the property and with the development located within the
neighborhood, and assuming year-around occupancy, shall not create a density pattern
inconsistent with the established neighborhood.
Staff Findinlir:
The proposed ADU is subordinate to the main residences, the surrounding residential
uses, and will not create a density problem for the neighborhood.
Staff Comments page3
.~
.~
2) Where the proposed development varies from the dimensional reguirements of the
underlying zone district, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall fmd that such
variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence than the
development in accord with dimensional requirements. The following dimensional
requirements may be varied:
a. Minimum front and rear yard setbacks
b. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot.
c. Maximum allowed floor area may be exceeded up to the bonus allowed for
accessory dwelling units.
d. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of three feet.
e. The maximum height limits for detached accessory dwelling units in the R-6 zone
district may be varied at the rear one-third (1/3) of the parcel, however, the
maximum height of the structure shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet. On
Landmarked Designated parcels and within the Historic Overlay District the HPC
shall have the ability to make height variations.
f. Maximum allowable site coverage may be varied up to a maximum offive (5)
percent, on Landmark Designated Parcels and within an Historic Overlay District the
HPC shall have the ability ot make such site coverage variations.
g. In the case where the proposed detached accessory dwelling unit is located on a
Landmark Designated Parcel or within an Historic Overlay District only HPC may
make dimensional variations pursuant to the standards of Section 26.40.070(B)
Staff Finding:
The applicant is not requesting any variations to the dimensional requirements.
3) The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Committee may
exempt existing nonconforming structures, being converted to a detached accessory
dwelling unit, from 26.40.070(B)(2)(a-g) provided that the nonconformity is not
increased.
Staff Finding:
Does not apply.
4) Conditional use review shall be granted pursuant to Section 26.60.040 Standards
applicable to all conditional uses.
Staff Findini;':
Refer to Staff Comments for Conditional Use review.
C. Bandit Units.
Any bandit dwelling unit which can be demonstrated to have been in existence on or prior to
November 1, 1988, and which complies with the requirements of this section may be legalized as
an accessory dwelling unit, if it shall meet the health and safety requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, as determined by the Chief Building Official.
Staff Finding:
Does not apply.
D. GMQS/ Replacement Housing Credits.
Accessory dwelling units shall not be used to obtain points in the affordable housing category of
the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Only those units meeting the housing size,
type, income and occupancy quidelines of approval of the housing designee and the standards of
Section 26.100.090 may be used to obtain points in the affordable housing category. Accessory
dwelling units also may not be used to meet the requireemetns of Title 20 of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, "Residential Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program."
Staff Comments page4
~.
.~
StaffFinding:
Does not apply.
E. FAR for Accessory Dwelling Units.
For the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principle
use is residential, the following shall apply: the allowable floor area for an above-grade attached
accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded to a maximum of three- hundred-fifty (350) square feet
of allowable floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit, whichever is
less. This floor area exclusion provision only applies to accessory dwelling units which are
subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to conditional
use review and approval, Section 26.60.030 of this code, and the units must be deed restricted,
registered with the housing office, and available for rental to an eligible working resident of Pitkin
County. The owner retains the right to select the renter for the unit.
Staff Finding:
An ADU completely sub grade with no mandatory occupancy restriction is excluded
100% from FAR calculations and provides the applicant with a growth management
exemption.
STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 Greenline Review
Section 26.68.030
A. Applicability. The provisions of 8040 green line review shall apply to all
development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040
greenline) in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150)
feet below the 8040 greehline, unless exempted pursuant to Section 26.68.030
(8).
Staff finding:
The property is within this area and is not eligible for an exemption.
C. 8040 green line review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above,
or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the 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:
The .applicant submitted a geological report for this development. The City Engineer
reviewed this geologic report and included comments concerning drainage and the design
of the dryell system.
Staff Comments page5
,1""'"\
~
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 poliution.
Staff finding:
The applicant has proposed to retain drainage on-site with drywells on the downward side
of the property. If a metered retention-delayed release system is to be used, a licensed
Civil Engineer will be needed to complete the design.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air
quality in the city.
Staff finding:
The Environmental Health Department reviewed this application and has determined the
increase in one free-markef unit and one caretaker unit will not impact significantly the
air quality.
The blueline drawing include what appear to be two fireplaces. Fireplaces are not
allowed in the City. These two woodburning devices will need to be certified
woodburning stoves or gas fireplaces. This is a requirement of all new development in
the non-attainment area.
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:
The applicant is not proposing any new roads or trails. The parcel is relatively flat and
can accommodate development.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
Staff finding:
The site will need extensive excavation to accommodate the underground parking. Any
trees that require removal or relocation will require the necessary permits from the Parks
Department.
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 development is clustered to the extent possible.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to
blend into the open character of the mountain.
Staff Comments page6
,,-,
...-.,
,
Staff finding:
Building height and bulk have been determined by the rezoning ordinance. The character
of the mountain in this area has been dramatically altered by development, some of which
is much more massive in scale and intensive in use. Even though this proposed
development is much larger than the existing building, it still represents a lowering of
scale and intensity from the Fifth Avenue Condominiums towards the Savanna
development that is proposed above the subject parcel. The applicant intends to use
either clapboard or brick finish above a cut stone base with wood details and a shingle
roof. This combination of materials is characteristic of the region and probably more
appropriate than some of the development found further down Galena Street. The
entrance to the garage level will be capped with a one-car garage structure placed back
from the street. This lessens the street presense of the garage door and pulls the building
. further south, away from the FifthA venue Condominiums. Also, this development will
be largely hidden from the downtown core by the Fifth A venue building.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
Staff finding:
There is sufficient water capacity to serve the development. The applicant, however, will
need to install a pump to augment the water pressure. Also, because this development
will need to be equipped with a sprinkler system, the water tap and pump system will
need to be designed to accommodate the extra capacity needed.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads
can be properly maintained.
Staff finding:
The proposed development is easily accesible from Mill Street which is maintained by
the City.
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:
The Fire Marshall has reviewed this application and expects no access problems.
11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open SpacelTrails Plan map is dedicated for public use.
Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the
community.
Staff finding:
As stated in the development aplication, this properly is not a logical place for a trail
easement. the Aspen Mountain Trail will most likely traverse the Savanna site or be
incorporated along a public street. The Parks Departinent has reviewed this application
and agrees that the subject parcel is not a good site to require a trail easement.
Staff Comments page 7
r--,
,c \
,-,
STAFF COMMENTS: Wheeler Opera House View Plane
Section 26.68.050
1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section
26.68.050(C)(2).
When any mountain view plane projects at such an .angle so as to reduce the
maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title,
development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.84 asa
planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building
design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian
space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building
height requirements, view plane height limitations.
The commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated
requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the
parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may
be otherwise accommodated.
2. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is
located in front of another development which already blocks the same view
plane, the commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development
will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of
the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the
proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re-
redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the commission
shall approve the development.
Staff finding:
The proposed development is directly behind the Fifth Avenue Condominiums which
completely obscures the subject parcel, and most likely the proposed duplex, from the
Wheeler Opera House second floor. Because the proposed development is hidden and the
Wheeler Opera House viewplaneis not being further infringed upon, Staff does not
believe the PUD process would serve any community goal. It is also important to note
the intension of the View Plane Reviews is mostly to prevent foreground development
from blotting-out mountain views from protected civic areas in town while the character
and aesthetics of mountain development is more directed by the 8040 Greenline Review.
Staff Comments page8
~
~
tx~\bi\-- i?
MEMORANDUM
To:
Chris Bendon, Project Planner
Thru:
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From:
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
Date:
August 1, 1997
Re:
Horsehead Conditional Use for an ADU & 8040 Greenline Reviews
Physical Address:
Legal Description:
918 South Mill Street, City of Aspen, CO
A 0.154 Ac. parcel ofland in SW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 18, nos, R84W, of
the 6th P.M., City of Aspen, CO; (a.k.a. being portions of Lots 3, 4 and 5
within the Little Chief Lode, USMS 3850, Capitol Hill Addition to the City
and Townsite of Aspen and a portion of the Big Chief Lode, USMS 4327,
all being in SW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 18, nos, R84W, of the 6th P.M.)
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the
combined comments made by the members of the DRC:
1. Site Conditions and Drainage Impacts: Given the location of the proposed
development near the upper end of S. Mill Street (high in the drainage basin), the existence of
seasonal perched ground water and underground streams, and the known drainage problems in the
basements of the 5th Avenue Condominiums immediately down gradient of the property, particular
thought needs to be given to the disposal of storm drainage from the site. The geotechnical report
submitted with the application recommends additional investigation of the sub-surface conditions
in the location of any proposed drywelL
Before proceeding with fmalizing the design of the development, the owner should verify with an
engineering report by a currently licensed Colorado geotechnical engineer the deSign of the drywell
drainage system to confirm that the system may be constructed and used without causing damage to
down gradient properties. If a metered retention-delayed release system is selected in place of the
drywell design, a currently licensed Colorado civil engineer may complete the design. For the
owner's benefit, the question of on-site drainage flow disposal should be addressed early in the
design to verify the feasibility ofthe proposed solution.
This property lies in the Aspen Mt. Drainage Basin which is in the initial stages of study to evaluate
what drainage system(s) may be appropriate for the basin. While it may be desirable to capture
drainage from this property in any future basin-wide drainage system, due to the proposed
1 OF3
DRCM 1797 .DOC
1""""\
Memo.. Horsehead Conditional Use' ADU and 8040 Greenlioe Reviews
..-..
construction schedule of this development within the year, the owner will need to accommodate the
site generated drainage flows within the site for the foreseeable future.
2. Trash & Utility Areas: The proposed site plan does not indicate locations for these
facilities however the site plan suggests that the electrical transformer and utility pedestals at the
northwesterly comer of the property may need to be relocated if a drainage swale is constructed
along the property line. As such, any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above
ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not
located in the public rights-of-way. This will avoid any conflict with use of the rights-of-way for
public facilities and improvements.
3. Easements: The existing easement for the electrical transformer (Holy Cross Electric
Assoc.) does not appear on the submitted Improvement Survey although it is listed on the Title
Insurance Schedule provided in the application. Depending upon the final site design, a new
transformer easement may be required as well as easements for other re-Iocated above ground
equipment or pedestals.
Due to the substandard right-of-way width of South Mill Street, the applicant is requested to grant a
2 1/2 wide sidewalk and pedestrian easement along the entire South Mill Street ;frontage of the
property. This will permit the construction of a five (5) ft wide sidewalk at the back of curb and
effectively widen the useable right-of-way which presently does not permit safe two-way traffic,
curb-side parking and a pedestrian useable area. Granting of an easement would accommodate the
need for additional width in the South Mill St. right-of-way while the property owner would retain
ownership of the property and no be penalized in calculations of developable lot area.
As mentioned in the geotechnical report, depending upon the construction methods employed in the
project, the owner may need to secure easements with the adjacent property owners for the
construction and maintenance of the retaining walls for the below grade portions of the proposed
building due to the depth of the proposed construction.
A corrected Improvement Survey Plat including the information about the electrical transformer
easement will need to be completed and submitted with the building permit application package.
4. Water Service & Fire Protection: Due to the elevation of the property on the side of
Aspen Mountain, the city's gravity water distribution system doesnot provide sufficient pressure to
serve this development. Since the proposed development will contain more than 5,000 SF, the
building will need to contain a fIre suppression sprinkler system. These two conditions will require
that a water pressure booster pump be installed in the building and sized to meet the combined
needs of fire suppression and domestic water use.
20F3
DRCM 1797 .DOC
r'\
Memo ~ Horsehead Conditionai ~ for an ADV and 8040 Greenline Reviews
,-,.
,
5. Tree Mitigation and Trail Location: The site plan proposes relocating several
existing trees on the property and presumably mitigating several trees which would be removed.
The specific details of relocating and mitigating trees should be discussed with the Parks Dept. once
a fmal site plan is developed.
The
affected by the development.
trail easement appears to pass above this property so it is not
6. Sanitary Sewer Service: This property will require at least two (2) sanitary sewer
services (one for each duplex unit). If a trench drain is located in the driveway to intercept storm
drainage from either entering the property from the street or to prevent drainage flows. from
entering the subterranean garage, these flows must be directed into the drywell or stormwater
drainage system rather than the sanitary sewer system. Any drains servicing the garage or other
areas where the drains may capture oil, grease and sand, will need to have oil & sand interceptors
installed in-line before the flows are discharged to either the sanitary sewer or the stormwater
drainage system.
7. Building Permit Reviews: To facilitate the review of the building permit application,
the owner should review and prepare the information required by the conditions of development
approval prior to submitting the plan sets for review. Typically, detailed information regarding
drainage plans, fire suppression systems, landscaping plans, and energy code calculations, among
others, are required by the several referral departments before building permit plans may be
reviewed. It is the owner's responsibility to provide these at the time of submitting the building
permit application.
8. Improvement Districts: The property owner will be required to agree to join any
future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which
benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement must be executed and recorded
prior to issuance ofthe building permit for the project.
9. Record Drawings: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required
to submit to the AspenlPitkin County Data Processing Dept. as-builts drawings for the project
showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments before C.O. issuance.
30F3
DRCMI797.DOC
1"""\
~
~
MEMORANDUM
/ RECEIVl:D
AUG 0 7 1997
To:
Chris Bendon, Planner
,From:
.'. Lee Cassin, Enyironmental Health ~ 'l: C.
ASPEN I >'11 KIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Date: August 7, 1997
918 S. Mill Conditional Use for ADU and 8040 Greenline
Parcel ID # 2737-182-76
Re:
.
===============================================
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the 918 S. MilllaJ1d use
submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following
comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 "It shall be uiUawfu! for the owner or occupant of
" any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on-site sewage disposal device. II
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through thecen1:fal collection lines of the .
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the req.!lirements of this departmeneThe
applicant needs to provide documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually
bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development.
A condition of approval for this project should be that the applicant provide documentation
"..that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the
service agency is capable of serving the development.." as defined in the Municipal Code of the .
City of Aspen.
ADEOU A IE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the
like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system.ll
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with city policies
ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen wate, supply meets all standards of the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for drinking water quality. The
applicant needs to provide documentation tluit the applicant and the service agency are mutually
boundto the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development.
, A condition of approval for this project should be that the applicant provide do!=umentation
. '! ..that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that .the
service .agency is capable of serving the development.." as defined in the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen.
1
(',
~
. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For lile purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply
from injury and pollution.. the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction Within the incorporated liniits of the City of Aspen
and over all streams and sources con~buting ~ municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which
municipal water supplies are diverted.ll
/
Detention of on-site drainage in a drywell, and miJ;urnizing removal of native vegetation will
-Jessen the impacts of stormwater runoff from the project.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quaiity section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum
practical degree of air purity possible by req1liri?g the useDf all avaihible practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air
pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestion'l and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met"
as ~ell as"'to "provide de~n air by protecting the natural air sheds and redud.n~ pollutants", '
The net increase in development from this project is one additional free market dwelling unit plus
a caretaker unit. Any development abov~this levefis considered" significant" in its air quality
impacts from traffic in the non-attainment area. This project is under thaphreshold, so is not
considered to have a significant adverse air quality impact. However, air quality impacts can be
minimized by carpooling, walking into town, taking the bds, or using a bicycle for errands.
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS
· The applicant proposes that each half of the. duplex will have a woodbuming device; The owners
should be aware that in the City of Aspen, and throughout the county portions of the non-
attainmen~ area, woodburning fireplaces are not allo;yed. Fireplaces are allowed with gas logs.
The applicant' must file a fireplace/woodstove per~t with the Environmental Health Department
before the building permit will be issued if there are to be any gas log fireplaces or certified .
woodstqves.1n metropolitan areas of Pitkin County which includes this site, buildings (regardless
.. of number,of dwelling units in the buildmg) may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified
woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per
building. Newhomesmay NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use
coal as fueL '
Obtaining this permit is a condition of building permit approval.
FUGITIVE DUST A. fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not l!mited to
fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed -areas; daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to
re!llove mud that has been carried out; speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent
windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance.
A condition of approval sho,uId be for the applicant to obtain approval of a fugitive dust
control plan prior to obtaining a building permit for this project.
"
2
.
~.
I)
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAws:
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "Th~ city cOlUlcil ~ds and declares thai noise is a significanlsource of environmental
pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the he,alth, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of
Aspen and'it its visitors. .....Accordingly, iUs ,the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and
manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels. II . '
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and
construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. .and 10 r.m.
It is very likely that noise generated dUring the construction phase of this project will hav~ some
negative impact on the neighborhood:. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to
minimize the predicted high noise levels, .
j,
".
.3
Tele. (970) 925-3601
'.1""\ . . . . .. t."O
. ..... ...... ~
71spen Gonsof/daledtSamfa/~~1s1~~
. 565 North Mill Street . c\) \ . . . . ",,\.
Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~\\ ~\\~~~~~
F~'#. ~. . . ~25.2537
~~\Jf<~wJ .... . .
~~~ . Michael Kelly
00 .. Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
Sy IZelly , Chairman
Paul Smith : Treas.
Louis Popish. See)':
,July:31, 1997
Chris Bendon
CommunityDevelopment
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 9lS S. Mill redevelopment
Dear Chris:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Districtcurrelltly has sufficient collection and treatment.
capacity to serve this project. Ihere are down streamcohstraintsinthe collection system that will
be eliminated through a system of prorated additionaLfees charged to upstr~amcontributors..
Service is contingent upon compliance with. the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office. Fees for the duplex and ADD can be estimated Ollce final
plans 3{e available and a tap permit ispompleted at our office.. . . .
Thecurrelit stlUcture is served by a four inch service1ine which may needJo be replaced. The
proposed development could be'served by a single six inch. service line if a shared service line
agreement is completed at our office: Once plans are available, the service line configuration must.
be reviewed and approved by the District line superintendent.
Iffloor drains lire located inthe garages they will be requiredtobe connected to oil a:ridsand
separators. All clear water .sources (drive.\Vay, roof, ..and foundation drainage). must, be directed to
dry wells. All sources of clear water connections are prohibited. . Since service is currently
ayailable to the lot, we would request paymentofthe estimated total-connection fees prior to the.
issuance of a .building permit, as a condition. of approval. .
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
-~ :...- -rv-A....r '6 .
Bruce Matherly
Districtrylariager .
EPAAwards ofExeellellee
1976. 19.86. 1990
Regional and National
AUG 06 '97 l0:20AM AS~,HOUSING OFC
P.l
..-,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Chris Bendon, Community Development Dept.
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
RE:
Auguste, 1997
918 S. Mill Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
ParcellD No, 2737.182.76.
REOUEST: The applicant is reque$1ing approval for a 600 square foot accessory dwelling unit to
be located below grade.
BACKl;ROUND: Ae<:ording to Section 26.40.090. Accossory Dwelling units, a unit shall
contain nalless than 300 square feet or net livable area and not more than 100 square feet of net
livable area.
ISSUES: When the Housing Office reviews plans for an accessory dwelling. unit, there are
particular areas that are gIVen special attention. They are as fellows:
1. The unit must be a totally private unit, which means the unit must have a private entranee
and there shall be no other rooms in this unit that need to be utilized by the individuals in
the principal residence; l.e.. a mechanical roO!T1 for the principal residenCe. Also. is the
unit just an "additional betdroom' to the principal residence.
2. The kitchen includes a minimum of a two-bumer sbve with oven, stand~ sink, and a 6-
cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer.
3. The unit has natural light into the unit; i.e., windows, sliding glass door, etc., especially if
!he unit is located below grade.
4. Should the unit be used to obtain an FAR bonus, the unit MUST be rented to a Qualified
employee.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval or this unit as long as the following conditions
are met:
1. The kitchen is as stated above.
2. An accessory dwelling unit deed restriction must be recorded prior to building permit
approval (this fom is provided by the Housing Office). Should the unit be utilized to obtain
an FAR bonus, the deed reslrietJon will include the provision that !he unit MUST be rented
to a Qualified employee.
3. Inspection of the unit by the HOUSing Offioe priorto Certificate of Occupancy.
\reItvra1'1918n11...9'l'.BClu
~
.~
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Chris Bendon
Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
918 S. Mill St. Parcel ID #2737-182-76
August 1, 1997
Chris,
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
This includes but is not limited to the installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thank You,
/~
-"
r-...
i-,
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Project Planner
Nick Adeh, City Engin~c
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer ,/;l':2
Date: August 19,1997
Thru:
From:
Re: Horsehead Conditional Use for an ADU & 8040 Greenline Reviews
Physical Address:
Legal Description:
918 South Mill Street, City of Aspen, CO
A 0.154 Ac.parcel ofland in SW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 18, nos, R84W, of
the 6th P.M., City of Aspen, CO; (a.k.a. being portions of Lots 3, 4 and 5
within the Little Chief Lode, USMS 3850, Capitol Hill Addition to the City
and Townsite of Aspen; and a portion of the Big Chief Lode, USMS 4327,
all being in SW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 18, nos, R84W, of the 6th P.M.)
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit; I am forwarding the
combined comments made by the members of the DRC:
1. Site Conditions and Drainage Impacts: Given the location of the .proposed
development near the upper end of S. Mill Street (high in the drainage basin), the existence of
seasonal perched ground water arid underground streams, and the alleged drainage problems in the
basements of the 5th Avenue Condominiums immediately down gradient of the property, particular
thought needs to be given to the disposal of storm drainage from the site. The geotechnical report
submitted with the application recommends additional investigation of the sub-surface conditions
in the location of any proposed drywell storm disposal system to ensure adequate ground injection
and dispersion flows.
Before proceeding with finalizing the design of the development, the owner should verify with an
engineering report by a currently licensed Colorado geotechnical engineer that the design of the
drywell drainage system is an adequate solution for this project and will not cause damage to down
gradient and adjacent properties. If a detention and release system is selected in. place of the
drywell design, a currently licensed Colorado civil engineer may complete the design. For the
owner's benefit, the question of on-site drainage flow disposal should be addressed early in the
design to verify the feasibility of the proposed solution.
This property lies in the Aspen Mt. Drainage Basin which is in the initial stages of study to evaluate
what drainage system(s) may be appropriate for the basin. While it may be desirable to capture
drainage from this property in any future basin-wide drainage system, due to the proposed
lOF3
DRCM1797.00C
...
,,-,
~
~.
~emo - Horsehead Conditional Use for an ADU and 8040 Greenline Reviews
construction schedule of this development within the year, the owner will need to accommodate the
site generated drainage flows within the site for the foreseeable future.
2. Trash & Utility Areas: The proposed site plan does not indicate locations for these
facilities however the site plan suggests that the electrical transformer and utility pedestals at the
northwesterly comer of the property may need to be relocated if a drainage swale is constructed
along the property line. As such, any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above
ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not
located in the public rights-of-way. This will avoid any conflict with use of the rights-of-way for
public facilities and improvements.
3. Easements: The existing easement for the electrical transformer (Holy Cross Electric
Assoc.) does not appear on the submitted Improvement Survey although it is listed on the Title
Insurance Schedule provided in the application. Depending upon the final site design, a new
transformer easement may be required as well as easements for other re-located above ground
equipment or pedestals.
Due to the substandard right-of-way width of South Mill Street, it is recommended that the owner
grant a 2 1/2 wide sidewalk and pedestrian easement along the entire South Mill Street frontage of
the property. This will permit the construction of a five (5) ft wide sidewalk at the back of curb and
effectively widen the useable right-of-way which presently does not permit a safe pedestrian
useable area. Granting of an easement would accommodate the need for additional width in the
South Mill St. right-of-way while the property owner would retain ownership of the property and
not be penalized in calculations of developable lot area. .
As mentioned in the geotechnical report, depending upon the construction methods employed in the
project, the owner may need to secure easements with the adjacent property owners for the
construction and maintenance of the retaining walls for the below grade portions of the proposed
building due to the depth of the proposed construction.
A corrected Improvement Survey Plat including the information about the electrical transformer
easement will need to be completed and submitted with the building permit application package.
4. Water Service & Fire Protection: Due to the elevation of the property on the side of
Aspen Mountain, the city's gravity water distribution system does not provide sufficient pressure to
serve this development. Since the proposed development will contain more than 5,000 SF, the
building will need to contain a fire suppression sprinkler system. These two conditions will require
that a water pressure booster pump be installed in the building and sized to meet the combined
needs of fire suppression and domestic water use.
20F3
DRCM1797.DOC
\......
~
,......"
J'.
Memo - Horsehead Conditional Use for an ADU and 8040 Greenline Reviews
5. Tree Mitigation and Trail Location: The site plan proposes relocating several
existing trees on the property and presumably mitigating several trees which would be removed.
The specific details of relocating and mitigating trees should be discussed with the Parks Dept. once
a final site plan is developed.
The Aspen Mountain Trail easement appears to pass above this property so it is not affected by the
development.
6. Sanitary Sewer Service: This property will require at least two (2) sanitary sewer
services (one for each duplex unit). If a trench drain is located in the driveway to intercept storm
drainage from either entering the property from the street or to prevent drainage flows from
entering the subterranean garage, these flows must be directed into the drywell or stormwater
drainage system rather than the sanitary sewer system. Any drains servicing the garage or other
areas where the drains may capture oil, grease and sand, will need to have oil & sand interceptors
installed in-line before the flows are discharged to either the sanitary sewer or the stormwater
drainage system.
7. Building Permit Reviews: To facilitate the review of the building permit application,
the owner should review and prepare the information required by the conditions of development
approval prior to submitting the plan sets for review. Typically, detailed information regarding
drainage plans, fire suppression systems, landscaping plans, and energy code calculations, among
others, are required by the several referral departments before building permit plans may be
reviewed. It is the owner's responsibility to provide these at the time of submitting the building
permit application. .
8. Improvement Districts: The property owner will be required to agree to join any
future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which
benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement must be executed and recorded
prior to issuance of the building permit for the project.
9. Record Drawings: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required
to submit to the AspenlPitkin County Data Processing Dept. as-builts drawings for the project
showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments before C.O. issuance.
3 OF 3
DRCM1797.DOC
.~
~
~
-~
RECEIVED
lilt "I 4 1997
.
ASPEN 1 PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
THE CITY OF ASPEN
OFFICE OF THE CITY A HORNEY
July 24, 1997
Alan Richman
Box 3613
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: 918 South Mill Street
Dear Alan,
I have reviewed your letters of May 21 and May 29 regarding 918 South Mill Street.
While I do disagree with ~ number of the points that you have made, I do not contest
the conclusion that your client is entitled to develop a duplex on the property
containing not more than 4800 square feet based on the position that Ordinance 66,
Series of 1982, represents the use and floor area applicable to this proposed development.
Thanks.
SiQrelY,
~~
D id W. Hoefer d-
Assistant City Attorney
. cc. Chris Bendon
130 SOUTH GAI..ENA STREET. AsPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303~920.5055 . FAX 303.920.5119
PrinredOllrecrcle<lraper
/.
...,,' "'~
AtaH 1i!~.If,
?-y;
. .1"""\
,iDta&~
?I_961914~ ~S'1612;D~?t# (970) .920-1125
f ~ , ~ f)( dt ~~ /.'1 -Avo
. NO
. July 15, 1997
Mr. Chris Bendon, Planner
City of Aspen
130. South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 918 SOUTH MILL STREET D.EVELOPMENTAPPLICATION
Dear Chris,
. 'This letter constitutes an application for there-development of the property located at 918
. South Mill Street (see Attachment. # 1, ,vicinity IPapillustratjng the location of this property,
and see AttachIPent #2, Land Use Appli~tion Form). .
,. ...' '.
. .' - . .
. .
. . . The property consists of approximately 6,70.0. square feet ofland that is zoned Lodgeffourist
. Resigential (l/I'R); It. currently contains a SIP1l11 two bedroom residemial structure. The
owner of the property intends to deIPolish this structure and will replace it with a duplex
dwelling, including an attachedaccessOlYd~eIling unit..
This application is being submitted by Horsehead. Inc., ~. Colorado Corporation, the owner.
of the property. Proof of the ownership of tl;1eproperty. is provid<;d by Attachment #3, the
title in~urance commitm.ent. . Authorization for Alan Richman Planning Services torepresent
. the p,roperty owner for this application is provided by Attachment #4.
. . '-.,' '", ,. ..,','. ,'.
" ,
A pre-application <:onferencewas held with a representative of the City (see Attachment #5,
Pre~Application Conference Summary)'13ased on this meeting and subsequent <:ontacts with
. City staff, it was confirmed that the,follow,ing lan.d, development approvals are required by
the Aspen Land Use Regulations to accomplish' thisProjec~: .. . ..,
, '. ' , . . i '., ," '. " -, .
Co~ditional Use Ai>proval.to develop .an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU);
. , ", ",,'. ,". '.
.80.40 Greenline Reviewfordevelop~ent locatedwitl;1in15o.'belo~. the 80.40. elevation; and
" . . . '. '., ,.: , " . .' .
Mountain View Plane Review for. development projecting into ,the Wheeler Opera House
... View Plane... ". ... "., .. .
.. . The following sections. o~ this letter list' each of 'the applicable standards of the Aspen Land
....' USe Regulations for, these developIPent,approvals and provide a response to each standard.
.,.
,/
.""""
,.-..
Conditional Use Review
Section 26.100.050 A.2.c. of the Municipal Code authorizes the Community Development
Director to grant a GMQS exemption for the development of a duplex on a lot that was
subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977. In order to qualify
for the exemption, the applicant must comply with one of four options. The option the
applicant has chosen is to provide two free market dwelling units and an accessory dwelling
unit with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) square feet.
Accompanying this application is a set of floor plans, illustrating the proposed floor plan for
the two duplex units and for the accessory dwelling unit. These plans show that the
accessory dwelling unit will be located in the garden level. The accessory dwelling unit will
contain in excess of 600 square feet of floor area.
The lJfR zone district lists "Accessory Dwelling Units meeting the provisions of Section
26.40.090" as a conditional use. Therefore, our responses to the standards of conditional use
review are as follows:
I A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located.
Response: One of the major themes of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to revitalize the
permanent community by increasing the availability of resident housing and by encouraging
a more balanced community. Development of accessory dwelling units has been specifically
identified by the City as an appropriate method of making resident housing available, as
mitigation for the development of a duplex on a previously subdivided lot.
The intent of the LlfR zone district is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges
in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist-oriented
detached, duplex and multi-family residential dwellings". The proposed duplex and attached
accessory dwelling unit are consistent with this intent.
lB.
The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances
the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development.
Response: The subject property is surrounded by other tourist-oriented uses at the base of
Aspen Mountain. Immediately to the north and east of the subject property are the Fifth
Avenue Condominiums, a very tall, tourist-oriented multi-family development. These
buildings were developed many years ago, and appear to exceed both the maximum
allowable height and floor area of the lJfR Zone District. In fact, the presence of these
buildings makes this site essentially invisible from the core of Aspen.
2
.1*'\.
.~
The property immediately to the south and west of the subject is known as the Top of Mill
site. This property is included in the Aspen Mountain PUD and its development is subject
to an approved PUD Plan and Agreement between the owner and the City. The City is
currently considering an application to develop the site as a mix of detached, duplex and
multi-family dwelling units. Under the proposed site plan, two triplexes would be built
directly across from the subject property on South Mill Street, while a pair of duplexes
would be built above the subject property. Each unit within the duplexes and triplexes is
proposed to contain 4,500 square feet and will attain a height of twenty-eight (28) feet.
The proposed development on the subject property is compatible with this surrounding
development. Development of a duplex on this property, with a maximum allowable floor
area of 4,800 sq. ft. and a maximum height of 25', is a more appropriate use of this property
than would be a multi-family development built at a 1:1 FAR. The proposed level of
development represents an appropriate transition between the more massive, higher density
development that already exists below the property, the planned development above the
property, and the desired open character of the lands on Aspen Mountain. In fact, a review
of the City's records illustrates that this was precisely the type of transition the City was
trying to achieve when it rezoned the property to L-2 (now VIR) in 1982, with limitations
on its use and floor area. The City Attorney has recently ruled that the provisions of
Ordinance 66, Series of 1982, establish the allowable use and floor area of the property, and
establish its other dimensions as being those of the underlying LffR zone district.
4"c.
The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use
minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding
properties.
Response: The proposed accessory dwelling unit will have minimal or no impacts on views,
circulation and the other concerns listed above. As described above, the immediately
adjacent Fifth Avenue Condominiums obstruct any views of this site from lands below the
subject property. . Its location will permit the project's occupants to easily walk to many of
the City's amenities. One parking space will be provided on-site for the accessory dwelling
unit (and there will be a total of four spaces provided for the duplex units). Trash and
delivery needs for the accessory dwelling unit will be met as part of the duplex development.
tf} D.
There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including
but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools.
Response: The property has direct access from Mill Street. The incremental traffic impacts
of this small re-development project on Mill Street will be negligible. Impacts on parks,
schools, the hospital and other emergency services will be similarly negligible. Water and
sewer lines serving the property are located in Mill Street. There is a fire hydrant located
one block north of the property, at the corner of Summit Street.
3
r-
.,-.,
?
E.
The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for
increased employees generated by the condidonal use.
Response: The accessory dwelling unit is the affordable housing required by the Land Use
Regulations in order to build the permitted duplex.
4. The proposed condidonal use complies with all addidonal standards imposed on it by
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and all other applicable requirements of this title.
Response: The proposal is otherwise in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and with
the Land Use Regulations. It comPlie;;b~h ;:J ~~n=a~ection 26.40.090:
1. It will contain more than 300 and less than 100' square feet of net livable area and
will have one designated parking space. The applicant agrees to deed restrict its
occupancy, as required by this Section.
2. It complies with all other applicable dimensional requirements of the UTR Zone
District (see Attachment #6, Dimensional Requirements Form).
3./4. Since there are no alleys in this part of the City, these standards are not applicable.
8040 Greenline Review
This property is situated between elevations 8000 and 8010. However, according to
measurements conducted by the Community Development Department, it is located within
150', measured vertically, from the 8040 elevation. Therefore, technically, the proposed
development is subject to the standards of 8040 Greenline Review. It should be pointed out,
however, that 8040 Greenline Review was principally intended to address development
proposed on Aspen Mountain and other steep hillsides within the City of Aspen. This
proposal does not represent hillside development, nor will it be visible from the center of
town. We have, nonetheless, provided responses to the standards contained in Section
26.68.030 C. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, as follows:
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development, considering its slope, ground stability characterisdcs, 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
locadon acceptable to the City.
Response: This is a gently sloping property. As stated in the geotechnical report prepared
by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (see Attachment #7), there is about 11 feet of
elevation difference from the southwest to the northeast corners of the property (a distance
of about 100'). Therefore, slopes on the property are generally less than 15%.
4
r-...
1"""'\,
H-P Geotech conducted a field exploration to determine the suitability of the property for
development. The result of their exploratory borings are summarized in their attached
report. The report states that "The subsoils consist of about 2 feet of topsoil overlying loose
to medium dense sandy clay and gravel with scattered cobbles and small boulders. No fills
or mine tailings were indicated in the borings".
Based on these results, the report concludes that "The loose to medium sandy clay and
gravel soils should be suitable for support of lightly loaded spread footings". It goes on to
recommend a series of design specifications for the foundations, foundation walls and
retaining walls, floor slabs, and underdrain system, and for excavation and surface drainage.
The applicant agrees to comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
Response: The proposed development will not have a significant adverse affect on the
natural watershed, nor cause increased runoff, drainage or soil erosion. Drainage associated
with development of the property will be detained on-site, in conformance with City
standards. A drywell will be placed on the downhill side of the building.
As shown on the site plan, native trees and grasses will be planted to re-vegetate the site.
Any trees removed during development will be replaced, in compliance with City standards.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality
in the City.
Response: There should be no significant impacts on air quality from the proposed
development. The two residences in the duplex will each contain one wood burning device
that complies with all applicable City regulations; the accessory dwelling unit will not contain
any wood burning devices.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with
the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Response: The proposed building area is relatively level and can easily accommodate the
proposed development of the duplex. No new roads or trails are proposed.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation
and natural features.
Response: The property is already developed and has previously been graded. There is
an existing depression in the property resulting from previous site activity, that will reduce
the amount of excavation that will be necessary. As noted above, disturbed areas will be
fully re-vegetated and, if necessary, boulders may be used to stabilize disturbed areas.
5
~
.~
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting
and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Response: No new roads will be required for this project. The subject property is actually
located at the base, rather than along the side of Aspen Mountain, and is hidden from view
by Fifth Avenue Condominiums, so that its development will not affect the scenic qualities
of Aspen Mountain.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend
into the open character of the mountain. "1J>'
Response: The building will comply with the 25' height limitation of the LITR Zone District.
The floor area of the proposed building will be 4,787 sq. ft., which complies with the 4,800
sq. ft. maximum allowable floor area established for the property in Ordinance 66, Series of
1982, as confirmed by the City Attorney. It is also considerably less than the approximately
6,700 sq. ft. that could be developed on the property if its use were multi-family or lodge,
as permitted in the LffR Zone District. Given the location of the site, as described above,
the open character of the mountain will. not be affected.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
Response: As noted above, utilities already serve this property and have the capacity to serve
the proposed development.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be
properly maintained.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure
adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Response: There is access to the property directly from Mill Street, which is a public street
that will be properly maintained. Since ingress and egress is from Mill Street, there should
not be any difficulty to obtain fire protection and snow removal services.
11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/TraiJs Plan map is dedicated for public use.
Response: The referenced Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan map has been superseded by
the pedestrian and bikeway maps in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Those maps show
a trail in the vicinity of the top of Mill Street. This trail has been accommodated by an
easement labeled "Top of Mill Trail", which was dedicated for public use on the recorded
Subdivision and PUD Plan for the Aspen Mountain PUD.
6
1"*'.
.'1
Questions have arisen as to whether the dedicated alignment can actually be made to work,
given topography to the east of the Top of Mill. If it cannot, the logical solution is either
to move the trail uphill, onto the mountain catwalks, or downhill, onto Summit and Galena
Streets. In no case would a trail alignment through this small site be a logical solution
because of topography and surrounding development. Therefore, no dedication for public
purposes should be required through thi.s property.
Mountain View Plane Review
Subsequent to our initial pre-application conference for this application, we were contacted
by staff, who informed us that this site is subject to mountain view plane review, for the
Wheeler Opera House View Plane. The purpose of the designated view planes is to ensure
that development does not project above grade in such a way that it would prevent the
public from viewing Aspen Mountain from certain public gathering places.
An analysis of the Wheeler Opera House view plane was conducted by the applicant for the
Top of Mill project, which is located immediately above our property. That analysis
determined that the view plane has be.en described such that it enters the ground at an
elevation of approximately 7,990 feet, in the vicinity of Sumtnit Street.
Given this fact, that applicant concluded that the view plane was not really intended to
address the impact of development at the base of Aspen Mountain. Instead, it was
suggested that the view planes were adopted in order to control development near the origin
of the view plane, which could have the effect of obstructing significant portions of the
mountain beyond. For example, in the case of the Wheeler View Plane, it was suggested
that it was primarily intended to address development between the Opera House and
Wagner Park. In fact, the way the view planes are depicted on the zoning map would
support this argument.
We concur with the arguments advanced by that applicant. Nonetheless, we have agreed
to comply with the provisions governing mountain view plane review and present the
following response to the applicable standards of that procedure:
1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section
26. 68. 050(C)(2).
2. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located
in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the
commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe
upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will
occur to re-open the view plane. In the event that the proposed development does not
further infringe upon the view plane, and re-development to re-open the view plane
cannot be anticipated, the commission shall approve the development.
7
~..
'-", .
. Response: It was our intent to submit a photograph taken f~om in front of the Wheeler
. Opera House looking at our site. However, the view towards the mountain from this corner
is totally blocked by vegetation and intervening buildings. In fact, we even went to the
corner window on the second floor. to see if we could get . a view of this site. From the
. second floor (which is well above the origin of'the view plane) it is possible to see the Fifth
.. Avenue Condominiums, but the subject property is entirely invisible. A review of the
topography of this area illustrates why this is so.. .
Topographic maps of the area illustrate that the existing house, located in the center of our
property, sits at an elevation of approximately 8005. The Fifth Avenue Condominiums,
which are located immediately to the north of this building, are at an elevation between 8002
and 7990. The condominium, buildings are four. to. five stories in height, which would
indicate that they are well in exces~ of 40' above grad~;;. '.' 115 I .
As noted above, our proposed duplex will comply with ,the ~ht limitation of the l/fR
:zone district. Therefore, even taking into account'the '?lr:15;-;~pographicgain from the
. neighboring property to our property, our duplex will still have a peak elevation below the.
. Fift~ Avenue Condominiums and will not furtherinfripge irttothe view plane.
Since the proposed devtilopment does ~i,t Jurther infringe upon the view plane, and re-
.. development of the fifth Avenue Condominiums in',a .manner that would re-open the view
plane can~o,t be considered likely, the Cowmission should approve our proposal.
Conclusion
. . The materials provided herein address. ~ach of the applicable review procedures of the
Aspen Land Use Regulations. I trust that our responses provide the information you require
to review thisapplicatio/l. However, if there is any additional material you require, or if I
. need to clarify any of these responses, please do not hesitate to call on me.
o ' " '. ,," , ,.,'..,:!. , "'", .
v ~ry truly yours,.
. ..',.
ALAN RlCH~ PLANNING SERVICES
". '
Jh. . .
: -, "".; . "",- . ,'" .' . ::' , '
.. .. .. . 1fi.:..{{;:.R
. \-:
. Alan Richman,.AICP
.' . .
".'.,."
8
~.
ATTACHMENT #1
,-,.,
\
,""\ i
,. '\
\ \.
'\ \,
t ~
t .
(
1-" / ~"\'_
l t --r---, _. ':
/ ------1/1 I ~
r-,,_,r/ j
(' ,0".1.1/ ) /\~r-
" .... ~~;;/'" ~\I
" ~ o'!>. '" ~9
r / ~~ /' .....7
< I~;:! l'/ P<J""~/l,if)O~
'/~e4q: .
J"f)r:/' \. #'---
\, J \:}. ~i '/::
( , ,'/"
(/Q' -:,. <"/ ,.
t(/? I .QG. I ,f> Q
I" ~/<f '/'~~' g
'/:.:~ /~l f~1:f {c..f. :c:
I .'
' // t <:- q'
~o t:>" _
.}Ot:?;l,i "r?-IJ
(" ti 0 t.
,,0/ ,1...,<- i
~~'::'~~t~' j;1" ("~~..
......~", .-' ~
'''_'~I ....0,,/... q~
..:......
-" 'J
(
,
)
I,
....
)
.'
'v)
C.
--:--
(],) ~ \A~
Q. i
,
(f) ..-."
c.. -J. ,-
J"'(' ~~ "'(
~ r,
L~'"
IS.CU.
( .
. ~,
z
c)
( IS "O",S _
: ;'
'-
:"
.~
d
\fr;
n.
ct
~
>
I-
-
2
-
U
-
>
alOe'. 0' ..-". _'~
R,vt,.P~a"e c"" D' (';:: '0 :;;;;-..__.
'" ""0". C c..," _., . ___., c' 'O~
. --.......:';"..0:., (- ...rJ..- 'r""-'
I c ~ L .__- L.n to
~ C::l ,/' e'rn~lery t<"
' )~' !O._'\ 0/ C ~'~
/.~;~<s 0 j~~6 r~. /)/'~:, ~ ,. g
~i. ~":/ /o,,~ "
~~':'-'C ~ "~~4\.O ~
' -@-_... __J. Of ....,., t
--- - . ",.$ -,
p,l~ln ,...,. t
f'/-: "'
~r; ;
t :
~ t
c.::j '.P'
'- ------
'ott PI.'~/'IIJ
.'....,
, ,"')~-~
'..".O~
\;"
..-'
"
1;'~;"):;1";'.':i;,i~"1-t
.".
\."-0
\:>'
.~t
.,
"
,
'~
<i.';'S2"'"
tJ""......i:.
.<
.
'.
,\3
'C
:0
'0
i~
;<
..-.c~_.----..:' ~
Project Name
,,-, ATTACHMENT 1 1"""'\
LAND USE APPLICATION FOR1- I
~O~& ~54!>>C:> ,...le,. <p..>pt..e~
t\~
~. MIL-I.. ~1'Zoe:eT
Project Location
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
LP'T-OOtlt bf'P.....~.
?bUL. M..oe.C,I,e.r-lO Phone # 6ltr 1~"'1:l>7i-
-;J-~Z'b e1'H&L. ~". r-l. HoLLYWOOD. CJb elll40:7
c::.,b(Z.kJ~ J. 1ZobJ~. ~'Tlfc...TPhone# -Zl~. 4G?oS' eOlP4-
-:::t-03>~ ?J,J~ '&/..Vr:? ",?,J1'1'6 'ZZ<;7 t...P'?b,.JG.GU5"S7, uo
9>..oZ~
Present Zoning
L- .,. r-z..
Lot Size
APPLICANT
Address
REPRESENTATIVE
Address
Type of Application (please check all that apply):
4 Conditional Use 0 Conceptual PUD 0 Conceptual Historic Devt.
0 Condominiumization 0 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) 0 Final Historic Development
~O Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA 0 Minor Historic Devt.
0 GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) 0 Historic Demolition
0 GMQS Exemption 0 Special Review 0 Historic Designation
0 Lot Line Adjustment 0 Subdivision 0 TextlMap.Amendment
0 Lot Split 0 Temporary Use 0 Other:
~ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 SmaIl Lodge Conversion!
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Expansion
Mountain View Plane
Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate square feet; number of
bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property):
i "=,,,..1 (",l..e 'F.oM, LV 'P\vcal..t..u..l f::.) I~OO r; 1:.; 'Z P.>tz.. 'Z I:::>'TO(2.I(!J~
Description of Development Application:
<'f"'.,;z:.tlf'O'!"ec:> <V'''>pLe.;( u,..1<e>'''''"T,.-l6 oF- Z ~o/2.'e'S> ';'>~Il\H!J t::.~IO& It
'Z Le-'IIRL..'S> 811;L..ol-I. J..oJ-leL 1..e.\leL.. ee'~t!. 'Ph.e.~"J&,p.
.
vRave you attached the foIlowing? k~ 17t~\ ~.
-. Response to Attachmentj~Minimum Submission Contents
- . Response to Attachment~Specific Submission Contents
. Response to Attachment ~Review Standards for Your Application ~eoo-lb M""l..elilI'}
· hoTr"'Gikte:T A- '/)040 <f,~t.H..I\-lE; /2eVtE::'-<... (e.e'.J6 MQtl..Br.J)
r-\
.~
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Applicant:
Address:
Zone district:
Lot size:
L4Arm
Allowable FAR:
Proposed FAR: .41 ~1 "iI.F.
Existing net leasable (commercial): rJ/A
Proposed net leasable (commercial): ~/A
Existing % of site coverage: II 9t,
Proposed % of site coverage: 34- 'r"
Existing % of open space: S309 re,
Prcc:osed % of open space: v(, %
Existing maximum height: P'incioai bldc: 14'
Prooosed max. height: Princioal bldc: 2e>'
P'cposed % of demolition: I 00 "/'
Existing number of bedrooms: '2..
Prcoosed number of bedrooms: ., (,..II>'! ,"'(:(.11",,,..16/ /.:>o.U.
EXisting on-site parking spaces: I
en-site parking spaces recuired: 4-
-'PoJt... M.o~61~,J tJ
\...,.rz.,
"'* y. ~,. f.p
u,1 00 :t. .
4- l!>oo q
Accescrv bldo: .-e-
Accesscrv bldc: -e-
Setbaci<s
Existing:
Front: .'3?/
Rear: 31 '
Comoined
,
Front/rear..JQ..
Side: '2~'
Side: !>'
Combined
Sides: '7?":.
Minimum required:
Front: Ub'
Rear: yO'
Combined
Front/rear. 1.tJ; ,
Side: 6".
Side: fj'
Combined
Sides: f[~'
Prooosed:
Front: I CJ>'
Rear: l' 0'
Combined
. "1."'"
Front/rear. -.Y
Side: '""<iV'
Side: "!:pI
Combined
Sides: 1./!J
Existing nonconformities or encroachments:
r-l",..Je
Variations requested:
rJo.-lS
(HPC has the ability to vary the ioll9win9 requirements: setbacks. distance between buildings,
FAR bonus oi up to 500 sq.fl.. site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the
cottage infill program, parking waivers ior residential uses in the R-6. R-15, RMF. ce, and 0
zone districts)
1"',
.~
"
\
,"'<
\\
J ~
) .
,
r.l /
/i;//yl~'~j1
A'o" . ~o ^ /-....
~. ~/:-.//. ~
~~#~ cO"'"
~ ). "jt c,'
(It l '. -.r:;~
, Ij(;(A ) ~ ..);p:
,Ii~' .'/-
(I.~ /" i!;/ .
, 1<". ,,,. ~
i //:' ....~: ..' i
i ,l"l,
) '" ~<...' to
,01 <('
~~,) /...,(,0
.u r I ~
~...:-~'..,/,,~
"'. f..,rt.~
',.,,/'-'0,, ..,/
/
.,."..'
I
"'
z
""'
i
" IS i1:JfJJds _
;.1
_.."\
I
i
,
\/
/
,/ 'l>l
/' .'
,~
q,l
, .
8~
:2;';
~
I
I",
---"'"
.,
<\
Ii,,,
,,!/i<.j \ v;_.
., .. ',-r
, '-.._.~,p~
D.
<t
~
:3
( ~;;'j~;?
:~ ':;'i//!"k
:.
,"
.~
,u
Ie
o
,0
I~
,<
>
...
-
2
-
U
-
>
,.'
\,"
~o
'(J'.,..
,
~;/:';--:.'~o~,
~o::" \ ~'jj,
~,> '. .
"" D ~~
I" ",
,.....&.
. t'. '
. "'-~ ,...t ," ;:.
", .._n_,--....'~' :]
:~
~
u
,~
!]
~~
, \..;:
(U.
\:; .~.~
~~~
i. ~. J
\ll~~
-,,-
--
.-...-............---
.--
..----,
,
,
,
,--
I
,
I
,
,
.
,
I
,
I
I
.
,
,
I
,
,
,
\-~
~ 1\\
"I... ..
\ll~
'i3ltV
SNDu:l';d
o08~i
.-----...-------
. .
.--------
I
1""',
ATTACHMENT #3
(~
fNT
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
1. Effective Date: 02/01/97
at
08:30 A.M.
Case No. PCTl1576C2
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:
(a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992
Amount$ 1,100,000.00
premium$ 1,250.00
Rate:RE-ISSUE RATE
Proposed Insured:
HORSEHEAD INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
(b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992
Amount$
premium$
Rate:
Proposed Insured:
3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or
referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof
vested in:
MICHAEL TESCHNER
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County
of PITKIN, State of COLORADO and is described as follows:
See Attached Exhibit ;'A"
ISSUING COMPANY: FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
By: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO. 81611
970-925-1766
970-925-6527 FAX
AUTHORIZED AGENT
Schedule A-PG.1
This Commitment is invalid
unless the Insuring
provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
1""'\
1"""'\
,
EXHIBIT A
A parcel of land being portions of Lots 3, 4 and 5 within the Little
Chief Lode USMS 3850, Capitol Hill Addition to the City and Townsite
of Aspen and a portion of the Big Chief Lode USMS 4327 all situated
in the SW1/4 NW1/4 of Section 19, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of
the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 3, Capitol Hill Addition
thence N 75009'W 99.18 feet to the Easterly right of way of South
Mill Street; thence S 14055'27" W 67.63 feet along the Easterly right
of way of South Mill Street to the intersection of the Northerly line
of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision; thence S 74055' E 99.08 feet
along the Northerly line of Lot 3, Aspen Mountain Subdivision; thence
N 15000' E 68.03 feet along the line of Lot 3, Aspen Mountain '
Subdivision and Lot 12 Anthony Acres Subdivision to the point of
beginning.
,iI""'\
."-,,
FNT
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors
of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit:
1. Release by the Public Trustee of the,
Deed of Trust from : MICHAEL TESCHNER
to the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN
for the use of 918 MILL ST. CORP.
original amount $690,000.00
dated July 3, 1996
recorded July 3, 1996
reception no. 394400
2. Release by the Public Trustee of the,
Deed of Trust from : MICHAEL TESCHNER
to the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN
for the use of LEE R. LYON
original amount $400,000.00
dated September 23, 1996
recorded September 23, 1996
reception no. 387304
3. Release by the Public Trustee of the,
Deed of Trust from : MICHAEL TESCHNER
to the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN
for the use of DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
original amount $30,000.00
dated July 3, 1996
recorded July 3, 1996
reception no. 394401
4. Deed from
To
MICHAEL TESCHNER
HORSEHEAD INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
5. .Evidence satisfactory to the Company that HORSEHEAD INC., A COLORADO
CORPORATION is a duly existing and valid corporation existing
pursuant to the laws of the State of COLORADO, must be delivered to
and approved by the Company.
6. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer
Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and Ordinance
No. 13 (Series of 1990) has been paid or exempted.
7. Certificate of nonforeign status executed by the transferor(s). (This
instrument is not required to be recorded)
(Continued)
r".
i.......,
FNT
8. Completion of Form DR 1079 regarding the witholding of Colorado Tax
on the sale by certain persons, corporations and firms selling Real
Property in the State of Colorado. (This instrument is not required
to be recorded)
9. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Declaration of Sale,
Notice to County Assessor as required by H.B. 1288 has been complied
with. (This instrument is not required to be recorded, but must be
delivered to and retained by the Assessors Office in the County in
which the property is situated)
1""'\
,,-,
FNT
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, enchroachments,
any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose
and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for s.ervices, labor, or material heretofore or
hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if ,any,
created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the
effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires
of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by
this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed
for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district.
7. Reservations, exceptions and all matters as set forth in United
States Patent recorded in Book 175 at Page 177 and in Book 175 at
Page 208.
8. Easement and right of way for an electric transmission or
distribution line or system, as granted to Holy Cross Electric
Association, Inc., in instrument recorded July 2, 1986 in Book 513
at Page 968.
9. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Deed
Restriction recorded May 2, 1995 in Book 779 at Page 853.
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Schedule B-Section 2
Commitment No. PCTl1576C2
FNT
~
.~
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AND DISCLOSURES
The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following
items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1.
(2) Water rights, claims or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION
WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED
HEREUNDER)
Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2;
NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective
insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family
residence (including a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of
that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an
exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics
or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is
extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A
satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company
against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Liens executed
by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit
must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items
and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon
request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the
Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for
further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing
contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any
requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or
materialmens lien coverage.
NOTE:
Pursuant
(a)
If the Company conducts the owners or loan closing under
circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or
filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company
will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage".
(b)
to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122);
The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing
District;
A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction
may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County
Treasurer's Authorized Agent;
Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of
such districts may be obtained from the Board of County
Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County
Assessor.
NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County
Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to
the proposed insured unless written instruction to the
contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of
the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment.
(c)
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Schedule B-Section 2
Commitment No. PCT11576C2
,-,
...........,
EXHIBIT #4 .
. l\l11c 19, 1991
Mr. Stan Clauson, Commlmity Development Director
Qty ,If A1pen
130 Soutb Galena Street
AspeJ3. Colorado 81611
RE: 918 SOUTH MILL STREET DEVELOPMENT APPUCATION
Dear Mr. Clauson,
As th: owner of record of 918 South Mill Street, I hereby authorize Alan Rirhman Planning
Servilles to al:t as my designated representative with te5pect to the development a.pplication
being submined to your office. Alan Richman is authorized to subl:Dit those development
applillations required by the City for redevelopment of .the property with a duplex and
attached act:eSSOIy rlwe1ling unit. He is also authorized to repreaent me in meetings vrith
City.taft' and with thc Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission.
Should you have any need to CQ.lI.tact me during the course of your rev.lew of this application,
pleas" do so through.Alan Riehm... Plamrlng Services, whose address and telephone. number
is inc.1uded.in the development application.
Sincerely,
J/
t
Paul .Marciano, President
Hors'~ead mc., s' Colorado Co1pOtatiQ.ll.
1444.South Alemeda
Los JI.Dge1es, Califomia 9OOZ1
E'd
Wd€12I :Z0 L6, 02 Nrl.C
,..,
..
~.
ATTACHMENT #5
.~
. CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE, SUMMARY
PLANNER:
Chris Bendon, 920.5072
DATE: 5.23.97
. PROJECT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
DESCRIPTION:
918 South Mill Conditional Use
Carlos Rocha, Architect 213.465.8064
One Step - Conditional Use and 8040 Greenline
8040 Greenline, Conditional use for an ADU, possible DRAC waiver request at P/Z
Commission
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.28.190 L TR Zone District
26.60 Conditional Use Criteria
26.40.090 Accessory Dwelling Units
26.68.030 8040 Greenline
26.58 Residential Design Standards - Checklist included
Dimensional Calculations Sheet - Attachment #2 in application
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
Referral Agency Fees:
Total Deposit:
Staff for Completeness, Residential Design Standards
Planning and Zoning Commission for Conditional Use (public hearing)
Planning and Zoning Commission for 8040
Yes, Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 10 days prior to hearing, or at least 15
days prior to the public hearing if any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency owns property
. within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application.
Applicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing with a affidavit at the public hearing.
Engineering, Housing, Parks, Fire Marshall, Water, ACSD, Environmental Health
One step deposit ($1080)
Engineering, Minor ($110); Housing, Minor ($70);
$1,260 (additional hours are billed at a rate of$180/hour)
Review by:
Public Hearing:
To apply, submit the following information:
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,
Iisting.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 Application.
5. Total deposit for review of the application
6. 18 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC = 12; P&Z = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = Ilea.; Planning Staff = 1
7. An 8 112" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
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.)
1"""\
.1"""\"
9. A wri~ten description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include
existing conditions as well as proposed.
10. For Residential Proposals (Ord. 30):
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).
b) Site plan at I" = 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 118" = 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.
II. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing.
12. Copies of prior approvals
C!~ub. ~. [At(~~(ifw.l.;.., ~~ Cv~
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is
subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not create a
legal or vested right.
.~
~
ATTACHMENT #6
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS .FORM
Applicant:
Address:
Zone district:
Lot size:
Lor Ara'\
Allowable FAR:
Proposed FAR: 41 ~1 "',F,
Existing net leasable (commercial): ,.JIb.
Proposed net leasable (commercial): to1/A
Existing % of site coverage: \ \ %
Proposed % of site coverage: 3'1- ,~
Existing % of open space: g..~ 'Yl'7
Prccosed % of open space: v(, ro
Existing maximum height: P"incioai bide: 14'
Prccosed max. height: Princioal bide: 2e,'
P"coosed % of demolition: I 00 1/7
Existing number of bedrooms: '2-
Prcccsed number of bedrooms: ., (~O't ..."C..w::>".J(" ,c,o.u.
EXisting an-site parking scaces: 1
en-site parking spaces recuired: 4-
_'PoJ L.. M.o.e.6Ib,J CJ
\... .,. fZ.
(p:f- 'f. 9~. (p
l41 00 tI7 :t. .
42000 q
Accesorv '::Ide: .-e-
Ac:esscrv bido: -e-
Setbacks
EXisting:
>:1.-:2.'
From: ",.}.,I
Rear: 31'
Comcined
Front/rear. 10'
Side: '2'7 '
Side: !>'
C;Jmcined
Siees: '?~.~.-
Minimum required:
From: lb'
Rear. va'
Combined
Front/rear. t.c:> '
Side: e--
Side: ~f
Combined
Sides: f c>'
Prooosed:
Front: 10'
Rear. to'
Combined I
Front/rear. W
Side: ,1Jl7'
Side: -1 GJI
Combined
Sides: 1.fJ
Existing nonconformities or encroachments:
....1c..Je
Variations requested:
r-1~6
(HPC has the ability to vary the following requiremenlli: setbacks. distance between buildings,
FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft.. site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the
cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and 0
zone districts)
,-" ATTACHMENT #7 ~
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
S020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945.8454
Phone 970 945-7988
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED DUPLEX TOWNHOME
918 SOUTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO
JOB NO. 197 295
JUNE 24, 1997
PREPARED FOR:
PERRY HARVEY
C/O MASON AND MORSE
514 EAST HYMAN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
I".
.1""'\
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
June 24, 1997
Perry Harvey
c/o Mason & Morse
514 East Hyman
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Job No. 197295
Subject:
Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed
Duplex Townhome, 918 South Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Harvey:
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed duplex at the subject
site.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed
building area consist of about 2 feet of topsoil overlying loose to medium dense sandy
clay and gravel mixed soil to the drilled depths of 40 and 50 feet. Groundwater was not
encountered in the borings.
The proposed building can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils
and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Due to the proposed
extensive excavation depths, temporary support of cut slopes will probably be needed to
maintain stability. The feasibility of a deep drywell to dispose of on-site runoff should
be evaluated by additional subsurface exploration.
The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and
presents Our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during
design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation
of the geotechnical recommendations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
OTECHNICAL, INC.
J rdy . 7damson, Jr. P.
ev. By: SLP
JZA/kw.
/"""\.
,1"""'\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................. 1
SITE CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2
FIELD EXPLORATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
FOUNDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 3
FOUNDATIONANDRETAININGWALLS .................... 4
FLOOR SLABS ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 6
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ................................ 6
EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
SURFACE DRAINAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 8
FIGURE 1- LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
H-P GEOTECH
~
, .
~
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed duplex
townhome to be located at 918 South Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is
shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the
foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for
geotechnical engineering services to Mr. Perry Harvey dated May 6, 1997.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to
obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during
the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and
other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and
allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the
data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations
and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction
and the subsoil conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed townhome will consist of a two story wood frame structure over a
basement level. A parking garage will be located below the basement. The building
will be built with a 5 and 10 foot setback from the lot lines. Grading for the structure
is proposed to be relatively extensive including cut depths up to about 20 feet. We
assume relatively moderate foundation loadings carried mainly by continuous walls.
A drywell is proposed in the downhill part of the building to dispose of on-site runoff.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those
described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in
this report.
H-P GEOTECH
r-.
t-"
- 2 -
SITE CONDITIONS
The site was occupied by an existing one story wood frame structure with a
basement at the time of our field work. The ground surface is relatively flat in front of
the existing residence on the west side of the lot and irregular and depressed to the east
and north. There is about 11 feet of elevation difference from the southwest to the
northeast areas of the property. A cut up to about 7 feet high is located on the adjacent
property to the east. The property uphill to the south is vacant. Vegetation consists of
grass and weeds, with scattered aspen and evergreen trees.
FIELD EXPLORATION
,
The field exploration for the project was conducted on May 13, 1997. Two
exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous
flight augers powered by a track-mounted CME-45 drill rig. The borings were logged
by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch 1.0. spoon
samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows
from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard
penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values
are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which
the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of
Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review
by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDmONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 2 feet of topsoil overlying loose to medium dense
sandy clay and gravel with scattered cobbles and small boulders. No fill soils or mine
tailings were indicated in the borings. The natural soils are alluvial fan deposits to the
H.P GEOTECH
~
/""'""
- 3 -
drilled depths of 40 and 50 feet. No free water was encountered in the borings at the
time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included
natural moisture content and density, Atterberg Limits and gradation analyses. Results
of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 11h inch
fraction) of the more granular subsoils are shown on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is
summarized in Table 1.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The loose to medium dense sandy clay and gravel soils should be suitable for
support of lightly loaded spread footings. There could be some post construction
settlement if the bearing soils become wetted. Measures to prevent subsurface wetting
below the foundation should be taken.
A considerable. amount of excavation is proposed for the sub-basement parking
level. Based on the proximity of the building to the lot lines, shoring of the uphill sides
of the excavation may not be possible without an easement to install tiebacks.
Cantilevered shoring could be used in the shallower cuts along the northeast (downhill)
side of the property. Internal bracing and ground freezing may be possible methods to
stabilize the deeper uphill cuts without tiebacks.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and
the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with
spread footings bearing on the natural subsoils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
spread footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the natural subsoils should be designed for an
allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. A one-third increase in the
H-P GEOTECH
~.
1"""'>-.
- 4 -
bearing pressure can be taken for eccentrically loaded retaining wall
footings. Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings
designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch
or less. Additional settlements of at least equal magnitude could occur if
the bearing soils become wetted.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost
protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior
grade is typically used in this area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least
12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be
designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation
and Retaining Walls" section of this report.
5) Any existing fill, debris, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should
be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the natural
subsoils. The exposed soils should then be moistened as needed and
compacted. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be
dewatered before concrete placement.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaiJiing structures which are laterally supported and can
be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a
lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least
55 pcf for low walls (less than 12 feet high) and a uniform load of 27H in psf for high
walls where H is the retained wall height in feet. Self standing cantilevered retaining
structures which are separate from the building and can be expected to deflect
sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a
H-P GEOTECH
~.
,-,
- 5 -
lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf
for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. Backfill should not contain vegetation,
topsoil and oversized rock
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate
hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction
materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained
conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water
behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure
imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided
to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in
pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum
standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use
large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the
wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the
material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the
backfill. A higher level of compaction, such as 98 %, and use of a granular backfill
material could reduce the settlement risk.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a
combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and
passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the
bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.40.
Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be
calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf. The coefficient of friction
and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength:
Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will
occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed
against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least
95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
H-P GeoreCH
t-"
i~
- 6 -
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints
should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint
spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on
experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free-draining gravel
should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material
should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No.4 sieve
and less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 %
of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required
fill can consist of the Qfi.-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in the area that local perched groundwater may develop during times of
heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create
a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls
and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an
underdrain system.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain
should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining
granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the
No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No.4 sieve and have a maximum size of
2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1 V2 feet deep.
H-P GEOTECH
,-,
~
- 7 -
EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the proposed extensive excavation depths and loose to medium dense
subsoils, temporary support of the sides of the excavation will probably be need to
maintain stability. Surcharge loading within 10 to 20 of the top of the cut should be
considered in the design. General guidelines are presented below so planning and
design of the structure can be accomplished by the project designers and contractor.
After initial planning and design are completed, we should review the information and
perform additional analysis needed.
I) Cantilevered shoring should be feasible to support cut depths less than
about 12 feet in the downhill part of the excavation.
2) In cut areas deeper than about 12 feet several methods of temporary
shoring could be considered. Due to the close proximity to the property
lines, tie backs may not be feasible unless an easement off-site can be
obtained. Internal bracing of shoring walls and ground freezing are
possible methods of cut slope stabilization without tiebacks.
3) The position and stability of cuts relative to utilities, buildings and
structures on adjacent properties should be considered.
4) Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface runoff
around the stabilized cut faces. Slopes and other stripped areas should
be protected against erosion.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the duplex has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90 % of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
H.P GEOTECH
.-..,
" ,
1"""'\.
- 8 -
recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas.
Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with at least 2 feet of the
on-site finer grained soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
5) A drywell is proposed at the downhill side of the building to dispose of
on-site runoff. Due to the clay content of the subsoils the drywell may
need to be extended into the underlying gravel alluvium. Additional
subsurface exploration should be conducted at the selected drywell
location to determine the depth to relatively free draining gravel
alluvium or an acceptable alternative for the drywell disposal.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at
the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience
in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions
encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report,
we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made..
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design
purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our
information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and
field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our
recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately
interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or
H-P GEOTECH
r"
~
- 9 -
modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site
observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by
a representative of the geotechnical engineer.
Sincerely,
HE WORTH - P
j cd, . L'de. P.
Reviewed By:
JZA/kw
cc:
H-P GEOTECH
1"""\
.~
'-
I:::J
~
'"
. BORING 2
...
...
....,
~
~ I
is I
;::,
~
I
I
......
BORING 1
.
BENCH MARK: GROUND AT PROPERTY
CORNER; ELEV. = 100.0'. ASSUMED.
APPROXIMA 1E SCALE
1. = 20'
197 295
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 1
B/12
85 85
22/12
WC=B.l
- +....50 -
.. -:!OO=17 ..
.. APPROXIMATE PROPOSED ..
"- "-
1B/12 PARKING LEVEL
80 WC=1:z.4 80
r:: r::
0 B/12 0
:;; :;;
0 WC=1S.5 0
> >
.. -200-34 ..
W LL=28 W
PI-ll
75 75
100
95
90
70
65
60
197 295
~.
/~
BORING 1
ELEV. = 98'
BORING 2
ELEV. = 100'
100
19/12
95
14/12
15/12
90
B/12
19/12
70
12/12
65
60
21/12
BOTTOM HOlE OEPlH = 50'
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3.
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
1"""\
1"""\
LEGEND:
~
~
~
TOPSOIL; sandy silty cloy with grovel and scattered cobbles, organics, dark brown.
CLAY AND GRAVEL(SC-GC); rock fragments in 0 sandy cloy matrix, scattered cobbles. possible small
boulders. loose to medium dense, slightly moist to moist, brown.
p
~
Relatively undisturbed drive somple; 2-inch 1.0. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/B-inch 1.0. split spoon sample, ASTM D - 15B6.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 14 blows of a HO-pound hammer falling 30 inches were
14/12 required to drive the Californio or SPT sampler 12 inches.
--+ Depth at which boring had caved when checked on June 3, 1997.
NOTES:
1. Expioratory borings were drilled on May 13, 1997 with 0 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by taping from features shown
on the site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark
shawn on Fig. 1.
4. The exploratory boring locations ond elevotions should be considered accurate only to the degree implied
by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and when checked on June 3, 1997.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( " )
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve.
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
LL = liquid Limit ( " )
PI = Plasticity Index ( " )
197 295
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LEGEND AND NOTES
Fig. 3
.~
"-,,.
tmJRCIIIElER ANALYSIS
liME READlNClS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
u.s. or_ !ERES I a.EAR SQUARE .........
..
OIl
70
Cl C
W
Z OIl ... Z
Vi <;:
(IJ I-
< W
0.. 0::
I- .. .. I-
Z Z
W W
U U
0:: 0::
W W
0.. 0..
... eo
'0
70
30
..
OIl
..
o.
.001
....
.000.lXlI .018 .037 .074 .USO
.JOD .IKXI 1.11 2.Jl!I 4.15 1.5,2.5 '1.0 37.5
100
78.2 152 203
'27
a..AY TO SL1
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MIWMETERS
I FINE ~ ICOARSE I F1fE ~\€L COARSE I CQBIILES
GRAVEL 50 %
SAND 33 "
SILT AND CLAY 17 %
UQUID WAIT
%
PLASTICITY INDEX
%
SAMPLE OF: Cla)'eY Sandy Gravel
FROM: Boring 1 at 14 Feet
197 295
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
GRADA TlON TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
u
~
.
....I
<t
(,)
Z
J:
(,)
w
l-
e >-
w-15
C1wl-
:=.::al<(
<t <( 15
....I I- lD
~ :5
~
,
J:
l-
e:
e
~
Q.
W
J:
'"
'"
'"
,...
'"
~
o
Z
<Xl
o
...,
1"""\
1"""\
en
I-
...J
::J
en
W
a:
-.;
-.; > a;
'"
> ~ >
If '" (9 '"
~ ~
~ (9 "C (9
~ >- c: >-
u '"
~ "C "C
Q c: >- c:
~ '" '" '"
en U en
>- >- >-
Q) "C Q)
>- c: >-
'" '" '"
U en U
w .
Q
w ~ ~
~ w ~
w ;;:
~ if z
z Ii! ~
Q
U ~ ~
z 0
~ u
u x
~ w ~ ~
I! w Q ~
; ~ ;:
~
li!
~
'"
~ Q !: <Xl .
c ~ ~ ~ N
~ ~
~ Q 0
ffi ~ 0 ~ ,... '<t
w N
U W ci ~ '"
~ :f z W
Q ~ '"
z
C '"
w
Z
0
~
<!
~ ~
w 0
i ~ lD
~ >
~ ~ !: "
~ w !
~ Q ffi
:2 Q
~ Ii! ~ '<t
~ ~ ~ ~ lD
~ ~ z ~ <Xl C!) N
c 0 0 ~ ~
z ~ u
z ~ " '<t Cl) Cl)
0 Ii: . ~ ~ ~
~ w "
Q
U
0
~
~
~
~ Q
C ;: N I I
w '" ~
i
I-
en
W
I-
u..
o
>-
a:
<(
2
2
::J
en
r".
//teut. ;e~
~v
,-."
1'~ S~e4,
&$'~ 3613 J4~ ~ ~1612
P~"lu (970) 920-1125
May 29, 1997
Mr. John Worcester, City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 918 SOUTH MILL STREET
Dear John,
This letter is intended to supplement the discussion Brooke Peterson, Perry Harvey and I
held with you yesterday with regard to our client's property at 918 South Mill Street. During
that meeting, we reviewed with you the points we had made in our prior letter, dated May
21, 1997, with regard to the allowable floor area and uses for the subject property.
Brooke also introduced a new point at that time. Brooke noted that Ordinance 66, Series
of 1982, refers specifically to "the L-2 zone district as described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen
Municipal Code (as now exists or may hereafter be amended)". Brooke stated that the L-2
zone district was not amended when the LfTR zone district was enacted; instead it was
repealed and an entirely new zone district was created. Therefore, the applicable rules for
this property should be the L-2 zone district as it last existed before it was repealed.
You suggested that if we could provide any evidence that would support this assertion, we
should submit it to you. I searched the City's records yesterday and have, in fact, found
exactly the proof we believed existed. Following is a summary of what I have learned.
Copies of each of the exhibits referred to below are attached for your review.
Exhibit 1 is Ordinance 15, Series of 1988. This is the ordinance that adopted the new set
of zoning maps that accompanied the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The first clause of this
ordinance reads as follows:
"Whereas, Ordinance 5, Series of 1988 re-establishes the list of zone districts
in the City of Aspen, including repealing the L-l, L-2, R-40 and R-30 zone
districts, creating the LfTR zone district, and renaming the L-3 zone district
as the LP zone district; and"
Exhibit 2 is said Ordinance 5, Series of 1988, that adopted the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
1"""'\
,-.
Mr. John Worcester
May 29, 1997
Page Two
Exhibit 3 is the staff memo that accompanied Ordinance 15, that explains the changes that
are made to the zoning maps by this Ordinance, including the L-1/L-2 zone district change.
Exhibit 4 is a memo written during the preparation of the new Land Use Regulations. On
page 3, it provides a summary of why the L-l and L-2 zones were ultimately repealed.
All of the information I found is included in a notebook in the Community Development
Department that contains the entire public hearing record for the preparation and adoption
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. This record does not include a copy of a notice that
would have been mailed to those whose property was being rezoned by Ordinance 15. This
is because no such notice was provided, due to the provisions of Section 24-12.4 of the
former Aspen Zoning Regulations, "Rezoning of Entire City", that are now found in Section
26.52.060 E.5. of the Municipal Code, that waive the mailed notice requirement.
Therefore, as we stated to you, the then owner of this property did not receive individual
notice that his property was about to be rezoned in 1988.
Finally, I would point out that the versions of the City of Aspen Zoning District Map
prepared prior to the use of the City's GIS system contained a table on the title page. This
table was entitled "Ordinance Adopting Site Specific Plan/Restrictions" and it identifies
parcels that were subject to, what were labeled on the map as "conditional zonings". I have
provided you a copy of this part of the title page to the map as Exhibit 5.
You can see that the first listing in this table is the subject property and Ordinance. You
can also see that the date of revision on the map I had in my office was 6/3/88, after the
effective date of Ordinances 5 and 15. Therefore, according to the Official Zone District
Map, Ordinance 66 was intended to be the site specific plan for use and floor area for the
subject property, much as we suggested to you in our original letter.
Based on the above, we believe the City should support our client's intention to develop a
duplex on this property, containing not more than 4,800 sq. ft" based on either of the
following positions:
1. Ordinance 66, Series of 1982, represents the site specific plan/restrictions applicable
to this property and sets the use, floor area and other dimensional requirements
applicable to its development; or
2. Ordinances 5 and 15, Series of 1988, repealed the L-2 zone district and created the
LrrR zone district. Therefore, the applicable rules for this property should be the
L-2 zone district as it last existed before it was repealed.
~
~.
Mr. John Worcester
May 29, 1997
Page Three
I would hope that this supplemental information would provide all of the material you and
Stan require to make a decision on this matter. Please let me know if I can otherwise be
of assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
LL
Alan Richman, AICP
r-,
EXHIBIT 1
1""'\
ORDINANCE NO. \ ~
(Series of 1988)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING REVISIONS TO THE
OFFICIAL CITY OF ASPEN ZONING MAPS
WHEREAS, Ordinance 5, Series of 1988 re-estab1is.hes the list
of zone districts in the City of Aspen, including repealing the
L-1, L:"2, R-40 and R-JO zone districts, creating the L/TR zone
district, and renaming the L-J zone district as the LP zone
district; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure the conformance of the Official
City of Aspen Zoning Maps with the revised Land Use Regulations,
it is necessary to make revisions to the Official city of Aspen
zoning Maps; and
WHEREAS, in the course of reviewing the maps, the Planning
Office has also identified various additional changes which
should be made, involving zone district changes to publicly owned
lands, to certain lands presently designated with an SPA overlay
and to correct several minor designation errors; and
WHEREAS, at a public meeting held on April 5, 1988, the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Aspen
city Council adopt revisions to the Official city of Aspen Zoning
Maps.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN.
section 1
That the Official city of Aspen Zoning Maps, be and hereby
are revised to incorporate the changes identified on the maps
~
1"""'\.
which are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
section 2
That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed to amend
the Official Zone District Maps to reflect the revisions shown on
Exhibit A.
section 3
That the city Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in
the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
section 4
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.
section 5
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 the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
section 6
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 023
day of ~ ' 1988, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once
in a newspaper of general circulation within the city of Aspen.
1"""'\
r--,
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by
the city Council of the City of Aspen on the ot~ day of
~, 1988.
..-0?' /~
/~4,- J~'S
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
0~
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
75'
day of
/7--
1<"Y
, 1988.
~~~#~
William L. .stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
AR.ZONINGMAPSORD
EXHIBIT 2 Z(f)
-.J '0
1"""\ 550 p~GE.238 0 COr
z<
BOOK -1- m
= -<>
.= ::=IIi: m
en fT1<
"""" co _ m
ORD"INANCE NO.5 o en
:=>:: ""
(Series of 1988) 05 '" -..J
fT1
= '"
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE
CLARIFIED ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS AND REPEALING THE ASPEN
ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the Aspen Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations (hereinafter "The Land Use Regulations") were last
revised in a comprehensive manner pursuant to Ordinance ll,
Series of 1975, which implemented a complete recodification of
Chapters 20 and 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, in June, 1985, at a goals-setting session, the
Aspen City Council (hereinafter, "The Council") identified "Land
Use Code Simplification" as a top City priority; and
WHEREAS, to initiate the rewrite of the Land Use
Regulations, the Council adopted Resolution 85-16, appointing a
task forCe of local land use experts to help in identifying the
problems with the Code and potential solutions to the problems;
and
WHEREAS, in a report dated November 25, 1985, the Task Force
produced a detailed set of recommendations for changes to the
Code, and a basic recommendation that a consultant be hired to
perform the necessary drafting; and
WHEREAS, in a memorandum to Council dated January 16 ,1986,
the staff defined the scope of the consultant's work and the
projects to be accomplished by staff in conjunction with the
consultant, including revisions to the regulation of signs, floor
area ratios, planned unit developments, and nonconformities, and
the meed for better definitions; and
WHEREAS, in May of 1986, the City of Aspen entered int a
consulting contract with the firm of Siemon, Larsen and Purdy to
revise the Land Use Regulations; and
WHEREAS, during 1986, the consultant produced reports
summarizing the results of interviews conducted with community
members as to their concerns with Aspen's Land Use Regulations,
analyzing the problems in the Land Use Regulations and suggesting
alternative solutions to these problems, and also developed an
annotated outline of the revised Aspen Land Use Regulations; and
WHEREAS, throughout the second half of 1986, the Council met
in work sessions to review the materials produced by the
consultant and in a work session held on January. 19, 1987,
authorized the consultant to begin the drafting process; and
WHEREAS, throughout the first half of 1987, the consultant
and the staff met in work sessions with the Council and the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter, "The Commission") to
.~g
t;QO D"'-.. J
800K 00 ,HO:-
review draft articles of the revised Aspen Land Use Regulations;
and
,~
WHEREAS, in August of 1987, the first complete draft of
Articles 1 through l3 of the rev ised Aspen Land Use Regulations
were made available for distribution; and
WHEREAS, in August and September of 1987, the Council and
the Commission met in a series of joint work sessions to review
. the first draft and to provide direction for further revisions;
and
WHEREAS, as a result of the joint work sessions and other
public input received by staff, a second draft of the revised
Land Use Regulations was made available for distribution; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1987 a duly noticed public hearing
was held by the Commission concerning the adopt ion of the
clarified Land Use Regulations, which hearing was continued to
November 17, December 1, December 8, and December IS, 1987 and
January 5, January 12, February 2, and February l6, 1988; and
WHEREAS, on February l6, 1988, the Commission unanimously
adopted Resolution 88-l, recommending the adoption of the
clarified Aspen Land Use Regulations and the repeal of the Aspen
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That it does hereby adopt as a new chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code the clarified Aspen Land Use Regulations, attached
hereto as Exhibit nAn and incorporated by reference.
Section 2
That it does hereby repeal the following sections of the
Municipal Code:
l. Chapter 20, Subdivision.
2. Chapter 24, Zoning.
3. Section 7-l43, Park Dedication Fee.
4. Chapter 2, Article II, Board of Adjustment and Article
III, City Planning Co~ission.
5. Chapter 3, Advertising.
Section 3
That the effective date of this ordinance shall be thirty
days after the date of its final adoption by the City Council.
1"....\
~
5S0 PAGE~4.0
I
BOOK
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.
Section 5
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 the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 14th
day of March, 1988, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to
which hearing notice of the same shall be published once 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 22nd day of
February, 1988.
.----:? ~ ~
~/-::.~~
,\' . I ~
, .
"
K~thryn. ~..Koch, City
'. COg{ .... 'l ..
. . FidJtl;.LY' '~dopted ,
~
passed and approved this
-::?o~
day of
, 1988.
4~~~
,/"/<<-.. t?). ,
William L. Stirling, M yor
,\{ "A.'
t;
~TTE
/. :
KatlilY~. ..:...Ito511,
Ji C~).1\') .",
""
-to ,...,,1'
.1""\
EXHIBIT 3
,-..,
MEMORANDUM
~
(
FROM:
Aspen City council
Robert S. Anderson Jr., city Manager ~.
Alan Richman, Planning Director M oJ
Adoption of New Zoning Maps
TO:
THRU:
RE:
DATE:
May 16, 1988
================================================================
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends final approval of this
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND: In coordination with our work revising the Land Use
Regulations, it is timely to also adopt new zoning maps for the
City of Aspen. This project is mandated by the fact that we are
cOmbining the L-1 and L-2 Zone Districts, repealing the R-40 and
RBO Zone Districts, renaming a number of Zone Districts and
revising the procedures associated with the Park and Public Zone
Districts. Further, this provides an excellent opportunity to
address numerous parcels of land which have come under public
ownership whose zoning should therefore be changed.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: We have prepared a new set of zoning maps
for your review which will be presented at the meeting. The
changes proposed on the revised maps can be summarized as
follows:
1. Cover Sheet: We have prepared an entirely new cover sheet,
naming all of the zone districts and overlays which are
listed in the revised Land Use Regulations, and eliminating
all outdated references from the prior Code.
2. Sheet 1 contains the following changes:
* L-1 and L-2 Zone Districts combined into L/TR Zone
District;
* L-) Zone District renamed LP (Lodge Preservation) Zone
District;
* SPA designation removed from the Smuggler Mobile Home
Park (which no longer requires this zoning) and
replaced with MHP/PUD and one parcel of R-15;
* SPA designation removed from the Fire station and Jail
properties, leaving only Public designation (which,
under the new Code, requires review of development as a
PUD);
I~
,.
~
..-"
*
R-15 designation removed from the Koch LUmber Parcel in
favor of a Park designation (Note: The Planning
Commission disagreed with this recommendation. They
recommend that: Koch be zoned Public, being concerned
that a Park designation will be viewed as a permanent
dedication of the property to open space. We do not
concur with their decision and continue to recolDlllend
its designation as Park, consistent with the
recommendation in the adopted Open Space/Trails Plan
Element and with the current restriction in the
Ordinance accepting this property from Roberts. We
recognize that employee housing is a possible use of
this property, but the Public Zone District does not
permit this use. If an employee housing use is to
occur on this property, we think it should be rezoned
in conjunction with a development plan for the parcel);
* Park designation at Rubey Park replaced with Public
Zone District;
* R-6 and Office designations removed from two parts of
the Rio Grande site in favor of a Public designation
for the entire site, so that it is zoned PUB/SPA; and
* Small errors corrected on two properties, one (Isaac/De
Cray/Kappelli) in which property designated R-6 is re-
designated, part to R-15 and part to R-15 A (based on
the actual zoning at. the time of annexation), and one
(Moses) in which we incorrectly designated the area
rezoned in 1987, from Conservation to R-15.
* Several additional map change suggestions were brought
to our attention by Al Blomquist, as follows:
a. The Shapery p=perty, which the City purchased
several years ago, is still designated SCIon our
current maps. The Head/Little Cloud parcels which were
also recently purchased are designated R-15. We
recommend that both be rezoned to Park.
b. The Art Museum is zoned R-30 and should. instead be
designated as Public.
c. Two subdivisions dedicated land to the city during
their review process, these being the 1010 Ute Avenue
project and the Creektree project. Both parcels should
be designated as Park. .
Al also made some suggestions regarding the two school .
properties, the City shops, and the Given Institute
which we believe are more controversial and should not
be pursued in this "clean-up" Ordinance. If you wish
us to pursue these items further, please let us know.
.,-..,
1"""'\
3. Sheet 2: L-3 Zone District renamed LP Zone District.
4 . Sheet 3: The Shapery property extends onto this sheet as
well and is recommended to be rezoned to Park.
5. Sheet 4: No changes.
6.
Sheet 5: R-15/PUD/SPA designation removed
property and replaced with Park designation:
ation Zone District removed from Thomas
replaced with Park designation.
from Marolt
and Conserv-
property and
with regard to the Park Zone District, it has been suggested by
Francis Whitaker that an "Open Space Zone District" be
implemented for certain lands in the Park Zone District on which
no development (ie., not even recreation facilities or buildings)
should be allowed. We asked P&Z for their input on this matter,
and they were generally receptive to this idea. Formulation of
this zone district is being place on the list of continuing Code
work we are currently developing for your review.
These are the only changes we believe are required at this time.
Please let us know if you are aware of any other Zoning Map
amendments which should be initiated.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On April 5, 1988 the P&Z voted to
recommend the adoption of the new zoning maps.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"Move to adopt Ordinance t5", Series of 1988."
CITY MANAGERS COMMENTS:
Ol( fZJfI
maps
,-,
~
EXHIBIT 4
(-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen city council
RE:
Code Simplification Issue Paper # 2
Director~~
FROM:
Alan Richman, Planning and Development
DATE:.
June 9, 1987
================================================================
INTRODUCTION: As you are aware, the Planning staff, in con-
junction with the Code simplification consultant, has been
engaged in a comprehensive effort to streamline our land use
.regulations. The consultant's role is to produce the articles of
the Code, dealing principally with issues of procedure, organ-
ization and clarity. The staff's role is to address substantive
issues which have been targeted by Councilor P&Z or which emerge
during the drafting process.
Our first issue paper addressed growth management quota system
issues and was produced somewhat out of sync with the work the
consultant was performing at the time. However, we were able to
discuss its contents with city council and the Task Force, and
have used your input to draft changes to the GMQS, which will be
presented to you when Article 8 is being reviewed.
The purpose of this issue paper is to address a number of basic
zone district requirements for inclusion in the definitions
section (Article 3) and the zone districts section (Article 5),
each of which has been fawarded to you. Please note that with
the exception of the use table changes, we are not yet proposing
specific language for incorporation in the Code, but merely
suggesting ideas for consideration. If you concur with our
recommendations, formal language will be drafted for your review.
ANALYSIS:
paper; the
ment chart
definition
There are six basic issues we need to review in this
first two issues .deal with the area and bulk require-
and the use table, while the next four issues are all
concerns. The six issues are identified as follows:
1. Use table changes.
2. Area and bulk requirement changes.
"
3. Definition of open space.
4. Measurement of height.
5. Definition of Duplex
6. Measurement of floor area ratio (FAR).
.
~
.~
Following is a review of staff concerns with respect to each of
these issues and recommendations for you to consider.
1. Use Table Changes
One method of simplifying the land use procedures is to review
the uses that are subject to conditional use review and move some
uses to the permitted use category. In order to complete this
work, the staff accomplished a quick field survey of existing
..uses in our cominercial zones. We were. looking to.. . establish
whether any conditional uses in a zone had become so prevalent as
to make them part of the zone's basic character. We also wanted
to see if some of the uses which had previously been categorized
as conditional uses really have any aspects which require review.
Further, we wanted to see if any conditional uses had been
superceded by late~ use table amendments, making the conditional
use into a permitted use. Finally, as part of the survey we
identified uses not presently listed in the use tables which are
found in the community and created appropriate use categories.
This last action should eliminate the need for some use determin-
ations by P&Z and some Code interpretations by the staff.
Following is a zone-by-zone summary of our work, which has
already been incorporated into the use tables in Article 5.
a. CC Zone- The permitted uses added to this zone which were
not previously listed are clothes store, computer sales store,
music store, office supply store, record store, shoe store,
video sales and rental store, and ski repair and rental shop. We
also have moved shop craft industry from a conditional to a
permitted use.
b. C-1 Zone- The permitted uses added to this zone which
were not previously listed are theatre, clothes store, shoe
store, video sales and rental store, office supply store, and
personal service, including barber and beauty shop. We have
deleted the coffee shop/food service conditional use, as it has
been superceded by the restaurant .conditional use, and have
clarified the term "club" as "recreation club".
c. SCI Zone- The permitted uses added to this zone which
were not previously listed are automobile repair, computer
products sales and service, and typesetting. Two current uses
were clarified to read "appliance and equipment rental, storage
and repair" ; and "manufacture and repair of electronics or
sporting goods". We have also added the qualifying word "prin-
cipally" to the limitation on permitted uses selling items to the
general public.
d. NC Zone- The permitted uses added to this zone which were
2
.
r-.
~
not previously listed are record store and video rental and sales
shop. The term drug store was used to replace the term pharm-
aceutical. The T.V. sales and service conditional use has been
moved to a permitted use.
e. 0 Zone- No changes proposed by staff, however the Task
Force suggests the addition of "gasoline service station" as a
conditional use.
f. L-1/L-2 Zones- We have had several people suggest to us
that the concept of combining the L-1 and L-2 zones be recon-
sidered. For those of you- unfamiliar with the-issue, these two
zones are essentially identical, with the exception that L-2
allows single family, duplex and multi-family uses, while the L-1
does not. There are several properties in the L-1 zone which,
due to their small size, appear better suited to tourist resid-
ences than to lodge development. Possible solutions to this
prOblem include:
1. combining the zones, using the provisions of the L-2
zone as the guidelines for the new zone;
2. adding to the existing L-1 zone the ability to have
a single family or duplex unit on a 6,000 s.f. lot;
3. amending the zoning map, to better identify where we
want-the L-1 and L-2 zones to be located;or
4. eliminating the prohibition on having kitchens in
lodge units, and simply regulating our lodge
district as to whether the units are tourist or
residential.
Our preference is to begin by looking at the zoning map, to see
if there are any locations in the lodge district where tourist
residences, rather than lodges should be encouraged. If no such
locations exist, then combining the zones should be accomplished.
If a reason for having two types of lodge zones exists on the
map, then the appropriate areas should be so designated, and the
L-1 and L-2 zOnes remain separate. The Task Force recommends
implementing Option 2 to address the needs of small parcels which
are now prohibited in the L-2 from having a residential use.
We suggest that you do some walking around town and some thinking
about the purposes of all the zone districts listed above, in
preparation for discussing this matter.
2. Area and Bulk Requirement Changes
There are several area and bulk requirement changes which we
would like you to consider, as follows.
3
<1. f-
.' (/)
::E 0
z :::;; ,-..
:::;;<!)
lLJ I- Q:;;:: .~
iLz
a.. ZjZ ,
U 0:)
CJ) - u'o.. IQ
<( a::: a: ClD "
ctJ: ....... ~ ,...
I- :::;;t: - ~ COCO
- ' lU
3: co'
....... ~ ... <?
CJ) l/l '" ;;; ;a
I.J.. -\:> ..... ;'
J:Z !
- 1--
0 C Z Z
lL.01- 0
ONZ Vi
w :> I .(
Wf-:::;; W
>- (!) l/lZI- Q:
::>WQ:
I- Z Q:lEct l-
(/)
O::>a. ct
- - lL.U~ ...J
U Z lL.
2 ., 0
w
b w
....
z ct
0
II)
~
~
~
r.1
v>
% ;;;
Q al
.... '!'
u
ii: -
al
.... -
v> 0
W 0 a:
a: -"~ % 0
.... N ()
% " W al l:!
<I ~\ U - - m
-' % N N - ., IL
<I al al - 0
n. ....
% '!! m m 0> ...'
- 0 - '"
U N - - ~ %.
- al a: - ~ UJ~
U. N ~ ::; .~
U al '!' 0 <t .... 0 0 .. 0
lU .... CO ~ UJlU
W '!' - , N '" % 0> 0> UJO>
n. 0 ~ 0 ,.. CO a:~
v> - - ... e) w - - 0> ~ ,,-
<<> .% % % u .... Z co ~ '" <( CO
W 0 <I % d UJ '" CO C?
<<> .... .0>
.... % -' W W <I % ~ 0 CII ,.. 0.0
Vi 0 n. u u Z lU _::>%
Z
Z w a: z z 0 () <( cS co.G. W
" u <I <I a: % ~ UJ Z \0 W"O
Z w z z ~ () . ~ z
z w 0 C lU
U <I ~ 0 0 Z o <
.... z z , 0 a: <( (J Z I~
n. 0 ~ a: a: III ,0 Z Z
0 <I a 0 a 0 I 0 < UJ 0'0
0 z a: ro Z ::>a:
<I 0 0 '" , , a:; I a: a: is 0 0.0
W W 0 Z
>- w <
a: , w z '-"' .... :9 Z ,
w 0 a: ... a z , ~<w
u a: ~ ... a a
, u <f) W (I; 0...:0
Z W .... a: ro
<I '" -' U <I W U a: ll:Z<
Z a: '-"' w <I .... Z ~ 0::> ..J
0 <l '-"' -' u. V1 <f) W Z ,00.
::; ... W ..J <I 0 !f UJ::;>-
a: ::> <f) -' w -' .... .~
0 > ::; <l <l a: '-"' <f) co >- \<: IX Z !::
V1 U <l <l a: g o W,iO
- -, u. w a: -' oo.UJ
u ...
* ':J UI ::0"''''
, <::>
., .,
i~U~
I~~~~
Iii! :<!~
; N H
1e!!Il Z f<
114 ~ ~ ~
!o ~~
.fj " >-
l!:j .H~
i~~~8
i~~~~
,,,,0
:: ~~~ ~
10.. ...
!~ ~ ~ I~
I~~~
1,0
illl ~H
I ~~I:>
I ~ Cl.
ii - 0 ~ t i
I~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0~::J~~
m m
o
..... ~ C")
i..
~
o
~
~
-{
~
\\
r-,
.1"""\
'P~ s~~
?Ita", 1e~
~y;
5'" 5615 ,,~ ~~1612
P~"ltU- (970) 920-1125
May 21, 1997
_..
..;..i;:~ ?:s
... - <<j-
..-". ~
VI!\~ 1~~1
Cit'! ~\tolnefs
Q\fltl
RE: 918 SOUTH MILL STREET
Mr. John Worcester, City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
:~
......
i ,,_..~
Dear John,
I am writing this letter to you on behalf of Horsehead Inc., a Colorado Corporation.
Horsehead Inc. purchased the property known as 918 South Mill Street in April, 1997. ~_..-.-
Subsequent to their purchase, the owners began to prepare architectural drawings for the
development of a duplex on the property. Representatives of the owners held a pre-
application meeting with City staff on May 15, 1997, to determine the compliance of their
proposed dwellings with Ordinance 30.
It was at this time that the owners were advised by City staff that the Community
Development Director had issued an interpretation regarding this property during 1996.
This interpretation stated that the maximum allowable floor area for development of this
. property was considerably less than they had understood it to be at the time of their
purchase. The new owners had no knowledge of this interpretation (which was made in
response to a letter I had written to you on behalf of the prior owner of the property, Mr.
Michael Teschner) at the time of their purchase.
The new owners feel very strongly that. this matter needs to be brought directly to your
attention and hereby request that you issue a legal opinion concerning the maximum
allowable floor area for this property.
Following is a summary of the applicable background information we have collected to help
you in issuing your opinion. Copies of each of the exhibits referred to below are attached
for your review.
Background
In 1982, the then owner of 918 South Mill Street applied to the City of Aspen for a rezoning
of the property. The applicant stated that the parcel was bisected by two zoning districts,
these being L-2 (now LTR) and R-15 (L) PUD. The applicant requested that the entire
property be rezoned to L-2, so that a duplex could be built.
I"""c
1""\
Mr. John Worcester
May 21, 1997
Page Two
Exhibit 1, the October 26, 1982 staff memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission,
provides the staff's analysis of the application. It states that the staff recommended approval
of the rezoning, provided two issues were addressed. First, the staff wanted to ensure that
future development would be restricted to a single-family or duplex use, not the range of
other uses allowed in the L-2 zone district. Second, the staff wanted to limit the maximum
floor area below the 1:1 ratio then in effect in the L-2 zone. The staff recommended a floor
area of 4,200 sq. ft., as a compromise between what the two underlying zone districts would
allow.
Exhibit 2, the November 22, 1982 staff memo to City Council for first reading of Ordinance
66, Series of 1982, indicates that P&Z recommended approval of the proposed rezoning;
P&Z also agreed with the issues identified by the staff, but left it to City Council to
determine the precise form of the limitations that would be imposed on the property.
Exhibit 3, the December 27, 1982 staff memo to City Council for second reading of
Ordinance 66, Series of 1982, describes the action taken by City Council at first reading. It
states:
"Council indicated they felt a reasonable FAR for the V. Mark parcel was
4,800 square feet, 1,200 square feet lower than the 6,000 square feet allowed
in the L-2 zone district. Council also indicated that a building envelope was
not necessary, since side-yard setbacks provide the legal requirements for
distances between structures on adjacent properties..."
Exhibit 4., a signed copy of Ordinance 66, Series of 1982, demonstrates how these Council
actions Were put into effect. In Section 1, the property is rezoned, subject to the owner
placing a deed restriction on the property that:
1. Restricts the use of said parcel to either a single-family or duplex structure;
2. Restricts the allowable floor area to a maximum of 4,800 sq. ft.; and
3. Makes the property subject to those zoning regulations applicable to the L-2
zone district, as it existed at the time, or as it might thereafter be amended.
Exhibit 5 is the deed restriction, dated April 25, 1995, implementing each of the above three
restrictions. Taken together, Exhibits 4 and 5 create a contractual agreement between the
City of Aspen and the property owner regarding use and allowable floor area for this parcel.
Exhibit 6 is a copy of the letter I wrote to you on July 18, 1996, on behalf of Mr. Teschner,
asking you to confirm that the maximum allowable floor area for the property is, in fact,
4,800 sq. ft.
~
,.-.,
Mr. John Worcester
May 21, 1997
Page Three
Exhibit 7 is a July 29, 1996 letter from David Hoefer that referred the matter to the
Community Development Department. Exhibit 8 is the August 16 response we received
from Stan. He concluded that the current floor area ratio of the LTR zone district would
apply to this parcel. He based this conclusion on the language of Ordinance 66 .that
specifically refers to the L-2 zone district "as now exists or may hereafter be amended".
Finally, Exhibit 9 is a letter I submitted on September 20, 1997, appealing Stan's decision.
In the letter I stated that:
"I am submitting this appeal to preserve our rights to have the matter
considered by the City Council. My client, Mr. Teschner, has been out of the
community, attending to the health of a family member. Therefore, I have
been unable to speak with him since I received your letter. When he returns,
I will share your interpretation with him and we will decide whether, in fact,
he wants to carry this appeal forward to Council. Therefore, we hereby waive
the provision in Section 26.112.010 F. that requires you to bring this petition
to City Council within thirty (30) days of its filing. I will let you know as soon
as he returns whether or not it is necessary to schedule this matter with City
Council."
I have not spoken with Stan since that time regarding this matter, because Mr. Teschner
~ again contacted me to obtain the response to his interpretation application. It is only
since I was engaged by the new owners that I have again looked into this matter.
Interpretation
Our interpretation of Ordinance 66 is that it must be read as three distinct provisions
limiting the development of the property. These three provisions: (1) limit the use of the
property to a single-family or duplex dwelling; (2) limit the size of the dwelling to a
maximum of 4,800 sq. ft.; and (3) limit the other dimensions (height, setbacks, open space,
etc.) of the dwelling to the applicable standards of the LTR zone district. To read the
ordinance the way Stan has done, giving the third provision precedence over the other two
provisions, renders the agreement reached by the City and the former owner meaningless.
Let me provide you some additional history to explain position.
The L-2 zone district, as it was in effect in 1982, did not use the "sliding scale" floor area
ratio for single-family and duplex dwellings. Instead, it permitted a maximum floor area
ratio of 1:1 for all development. Subsequently, as part of the adoption of the new Aspen
Land Use Regulations in 1988, the City Council directed the staff to evaluate whether the
L-1 and the L-2 zone districts should be combined into a new zone district. The principal
difference between the two zones at the time was that the L-2 zone district permitted single-
family and duplex dwellings, while the L-1 zone district did not (see Attachments 10 and 11).
~
1""\.
Mr. John Worcester
May 21, 1997
Page Four
When the new Regulations were adopted, the L-1 and L-2 zone district were combined into
the LTR zone district. The City decided the new zone would allow the uses of the prior L-2
zone, but then made single-family and duplex dwellings a permitted use only on lots of 6, 000
square feet or less. As is stated in Exhibit 5, this property contains approximately 6,724 sq.
ft. Therefore, if Stan's interpretation is correct and all of the provisions of the new LTR
zone district apply to this property, then the LTR zone would prohibit us from developing
the only uses the ordinance and deed restriction permit on this parcel. In effect, this
interpretation would constitute a taking of the property.
Obviously, this would not be a logical interpretation of Ordinance 66. Rather, we believe
the ordinance must be interpreted to mean that those provisions of the L-2 zone district it
specifically addresses (these being use llnd floor area) were finally decided by Ordinance 66
and could not subsequently be amended, while all other provisions of the L-2 zone district
that are not specifically addressed in Ordinance 66 would apply, as they existed at that time
or as they may have subsequently been amended.
Once you have reviewed this letter, the new owner's attorney, Brooke Peterson, and I would
request a meeting with you and Stan to discuss this matter. It is our hope that you and Stan
would decide to reconsider the City's prior interpretation. If, however, we are unable to
resolve this matter with you, then we will have no choice but to activate the appeal we
previously submitted, and to argue the merits of this matter with the City Council.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
~Pr- /!,.J
Alan Richman, AlCP
cc: Brooke Peterson
~
^
EXHIBIT 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Dffice
RE: Valdamar Mark Rezoning
DATE: October 26, 1982
Location: 918 South Mill (Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition).
Zoning: L-l and R-15 (PUD)(L).
Lot Si ze: 6,003 square feet.
Applicant's
Request:
Referral
Con..nen ts :
Background:
Lots 3 and 4 of the Capitol Hill Addition which have merged
pursuant to Section 24-13.6(d) of the Code, are bisected by the
zone district line running between the L-2 and R-15(PUD)(L)
zone districts. Most all of Lot 3, the northern half of the
two parcels, is zoned L-2 while the remaining southern half
which contains Lot 4 is zoned R-15(PUD)(L). The applicant
wishes to build a conforming duplex on this parcel on a conforming
lot and is requesting a rezoning of the southern half of the
property from R-l5(PUD)(L) to L-2 to accomplish this. The
applicant submitted this ,request on August 15, the annual date
of rezoning by private applications.
The Engineering Department COlRnented that the legal description
indicates that the two lots in question are not legal lots in
either the L-2 or R-15 zone district in that the lots are
slightly less than 60 feet wide and therefore do not meet the
minimum lot width requirement of the Code. Engineering also
commented that the rezoning would 'not impact services in the
area and would not present any engineering problems.
The applicant is requesting a rezoning from R-15(PUD)(L) to
L-2 in order to build a duplex on the 6,000 square foot subject
parcel. A duplex is allowed in the R-15 zone district, but
only on lots 15,000 square feet or greater, therefore, a rezoning
to L-2 is requested for the purposes of building a duplex on a
conforming lot.
After reviewing City records, the Planning Office can find no
reason for the V. Mark parcel being bisected by the two different
zone districts. After researching the R-15(L) zone district,
we find that the (L) overlay is not listed in the Code even
though it is found on the zoning map. This will be corrected
when the use .tables are revised in the near future. The R-15
(L) zone was intended to be a transition area between the lodge
districts and the "ClI - Conservation zone district on Aspen and
Shadow Mountains. The R-15(L) district allows lodge uses, but
on a less intensive scale since the R-15 area and bulk requirements
must be met. In essence, the zone allows short term lodge uses
in single family and duplex structures.
Alternatives: After reviewing the applicant1s request and making a site
inspection, the Planning Office feels that several different
alternatives could accomplish the desired duplex on the subject
parcel. These methods are discussed below.
1. Rezone to L-2 and deed restrict the development to a
duplex.
2. Keep the existing zoning and allow a duplex on the L-2
portion of the property.
3. Rezone the entire property to R-15 (PUD(L).
I""'"
;""'"\
Memo: Valdamar Mark Rezoning
October 26, 1982
Page Two
1. Rezone to L-2. This is the alternative requested by the
applicant. This cleans up the zone district line bisecting
the parcel. but several other problems arise. First, an L-2
designation would upzone the parcel, allowing a higher density
and a higher FAR which the Planning Office feels is inappropriate
for the site. If the parcel is deed restricted to a duplex and
a reasonable FAR, the density and FAR concerns could be eliminated.
A second issue involved in an L-2 rezoning is that the R-15
(PUD)(L) transition zone would be reduced. Half of the subject
property is designated R-15(PUD)(L) in order to provide an
area of transition between intensive lodge uses and the "ell -
Conservation zone district. An upzoning to L"2 eliminates the
gradual transition for which the R-15(PUD)(L) was intended.
Again, a deed restriction on the FAR and the use of the parcel
for a duplex would eliminate these concerns.
A third issue arising from an L-2 zoning is that the Planning
Office's study on lodge units in Aspen shows that the buildout
potential for new short term units under existing zoning is
adequate enough to provide for future growth, especially with
the new l..3 district. Since lodging needs can be met at existing
locations. there is no need for an upzoning to L-2, especially
if it provides further justification for other lands to rezone to
lodge useS. As shown on the attached zoning map, the 3,000
square foot parcel to be rezoned would not significantly affect
or increase the existing lodge areas, especially when develop-
ment on the parcel is restricted to a duplex.
2. Keep the Existinq Zoning. If the applicant's proposed
duplex is located on the existing L-2 portion of the property,
the duplex will be conforming if the minimum lot requirements
and other area and bulk requirements of the L-2 district are
met. An appropriate compromise of the L-2 and R-15 FARs could
be made for the project through the PUD process. The major
problem with this alternative is that forcing the development
to locate on one portion of the property brings greater impacts
to the adjacent property owners at Fifth Avenue Condominiums.
With a minimum five yard setback, the structure could block the
view of Aspen Mountain from Fifth Avenue as well as concentrate
the bulk on the structure on the lot nearest these condominiums.
3. Rezone to R-15 PUD L. A rezoning of the entire V. Mark
parcel to R-15 PUD L will not allow the applicant to build
a duplex on the property since 15,000 square feet is required for
a duplex in this zone district. PUD procedures cannot decrease
the minimum lot requirements below what the Code allows. This
however, could be the best method of cleaning UP the zone district
line problems, if P & Z determines that only a Single family
structure shoul~be built on the site. An R-15(PUD)(L) rezoning
ren~ves the line from the middle of the V. Mark parcel without
adding a new area zoned for high density lodge uses and el iminates
the difficulty of enforcing a duplex deed restriction on an
L-2 parcel. However, a duplex is located between the subject
site and the ski mountain, and Fifth Avenue abruptly arises to
the north of the parcel. In view of the surrounding land uses,
a duplex appears to be a reasonable request for the subject
site. If P & Z agrees that a duplex is an appropriate use
for the site, this cannot be accomplished through an R-15(PUD)(L)
rezoning.
Planning Office
Review: Ordinance 19, Series of 1982 establishes review criteria for
evaluating a rezoning. Since this is a small parcel being
rezoned which will create only minor impacts, the only pertinant
review criteria involves the compatibility of the rezoning with
.,......
/~
Memo: V. Mark Rezoning
October 26, 1982
Page Three
surrounding zone districts and land uses. With the L-2 zone
surrounding the parcel on three sides, an L-2 rezoning is
compatible with the surrounding zoning. The proposed duplex
on the subject parcel will be located next to a duplex to the
south of the property and Fifth Avenue Condominiums to the
north and east, therefore the proposal is compatible with
surrounding uses. The Planning Office feels that a duplex
is a reasonable, compatible use of the subject site, and we
recommend that I' & Z recommend to Council the approval of the
applicant's request for a rezoning to L-2, if the applicant
agrees to deed restrict the property to a single family or
duplex structure.
The FAR of the structure should also be 1 imited to a size
appropriate for a duplex in this transition area. The following
illu~trates the resulting allowable floor areas under the L-2
and R-15 requirements:
Zone
Allowable Fioor Area
L-2
R-l5
L-2/R-15 (average)
6,000 sq. ft.
3,600 sq. ft.
4,800 sq. ft.
The Planning Office feels that an appropriate floor area limi-
tation would be 4,200 square feet - a mid point between the
above 3,60D and 4,800 square foot figures. A 4,800 square
foot structure is somewhat exce'ssive on a 6,000 square foot
lot in this transition area. Also, a 3,600 square foot structure
(1,800 square feet per unit) seems to be too small in light
of what is marketable on such a valuable piece of property.
A 4,200 square foot structure represents a .7 FAR.
The existing R-15 (PUD)(L) parcel has a mandatory PUD designation
due to potential slope problems. The Planning Office recommends
that the "PUO" still be attached to the new L-2 zone so that
the slope reduction formula still comes into play. Section
24-8.13 of the Code (Mandatory pUD) allows I' & Z to exempt a
project from compliance with the fOur step PUD process if the
proposed project meets the objectives of the planned unit
development. If the applicant wishes to be exempt from pUD
procedures, such a request and sufficient justification for
such a request should be submitted to the Planning Office for
subsequent review.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends that I' & Z recommend the approval
of the rezoning of Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition, to
L-2(PUD) subject to the following conditions:
1. Any future development must be deed restricted to a single
family or duplex structure with such restrictive covenants
approved by the Attorney's office; and
2. The floor area of any future structure is limited to a
maximum of 4,2.00 square feet.
3. Mandatory PUO procedures must be followed unless an exemption
is obtained from I' & Z.
!""
EXHIBIT 2
,.-",
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
DATE:
RE: Va1damar Mark Rezoning
APPROVED AS TO FOro1:
Location:
Zoning:
Lot Size:
Applicant's
Request:
Referral
Comments:
Background:
November 22, 19S2
918 South Mill (Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition.
L-2 and R-15 (PUD)(L)
6,003 square feet.
Lots 3 and 4 of the Capitol Hill Addition which have merged
pursuant to Section 24-13.6(d) of the Code, are bisected by the
ZOne district line running between the L-2 and R-15 (PUD)(L) zone
districts. Most all of Lot 3, the northern half of the two
parcels, is zoned L-2 While the remaining southern half which
contains Lot 4 is zoned R-15 (PUD)(L). The applicant wishes to
build a conforming duplex on this parcel Oh a conforming lot
and is requesting a rezoning of the southern half of the property
from R-15 (PUD)(L) to L-2 to accomplish this. The applicant
submitted this request on August 15, the annual date of rezoning
by private applications.
The Engineering Department commented that the legal description
indicates that the two lots in question are not legal lots in
either the L-2 or RC15 zone district in that the lots are
slightly less than 60 feet wide and therefore do not meet the
minimum lot width requirement of the Code. Engineering also
commented that the rezoning would not impact services in the
area and would not present any engineering problems.
The applicant is requesting a rezoning from R7l5 (PUD)(L) to
L-2 in order to build a duplex on the 6,003 square foot subject
parcel. A duplex is allowed in the R-15 zone district, but only
on lots 15,000 square feet or greater, therefore, a rezoning to
. L-Z Is requested for the purposes of building a cuplex on a
conforming lot.
After reviewing City records, the Planning Office can find no
reason for the V. Mark parcel being bisected by the two different
zone districts. The R-15 (L) zone is intended to be a transition
area between the lodge districts and the "e" - Conservation zone
district on Aspen and Shadow Mountains. The R-15 (L) district
allows lodge uses, but on a less intensive scale since the R-15
area and bulk requirements must be met. In essence, the zone
allows short term lodge uses in single family and duplex structures.
.Planning Office
Review: The proposed rezoning of the subject property to L-2 would clean
.up the zone district line bisecting the parcel, but several
other problems arise. First, an L-2 designation would upzone
the parcel, allowing a higher density and a higher FAR which the
Planning Office feels is inappropriate for the site. If the
parcel is deed restricted ~o a duplex and a reasonable FAR,
the density and FAR concerns could be eliminated.
A second issue involved in an L-2 rezoning is that the R-15
(PUD)(L) transition zone would be reduced. ~alf of the subject
property is deSignated R-15 (PUD)(L) in order to provide an
area of transition between intensive lodge uses and the lie" -
Conservation zone district. An upzoning to L-2 el iminates
,
I
I
,
,
.
l
I
,
h
I
r
.f
i
I
!
,-.,.
'-"'.
Memo: V. Mark Rezoning
November 22, 1982
Page, Two
the gradual transition for which the R-15 (PUD)(L) was intended.
Again, a deed restriction on the FAR and the use of the parcel
for a duplex would eliminate these concerns.
A third issue arising from an L-2 rezoning is that the Planning
Office's study on lodge units in Aspen shows that the buildout
potential for new short term units under existing zoning is
adequate enough to provide for future growth, especially with
the new L-3 district. Since lodging needs can be met at existing
locations. there is no need fo.r an upzoning to L-2, especially
if it provides further justification for other lands to rezone to
lOdge uses. As shown on the attached zoning map, the 3,000
square foot parcel to be rezoned would not significantly affect
or increase the existing lodge areas, especially when develop-
ment on the parcel is restricted to a duplex.
Surrounding property owners at Fifth Avenue condominiums have
expressed the concern that the five yard setback in the L-2
zone district would permit a structure that would obstruct the
views from their units. They have requested a bui-lding envelope
which provides a sufficient setback from their structure to
eliminate this problem.
Ordinance 19. Series of 1982 establishes review criteria for
evaluating a rezoning. Since this is a small parcel being
rezoned which will create only minor impacts, the only pertinant
review criteria involves the compatibility of the rezoning
with surrounding zone distrfcts and land uses. With the L-2
zone surrounding the parcel on three sides, an L-2 rezoning is
compatible with the surrounding zoning. The proposed duplex
on the subject parcel will be located next to a duplex to the
south of the property and Fifth Avenue Condominiums to the
north and east, therefore the proposal is compatible with
surrounding uses. The Planning Office feels that an L-2 rezoning
with a duplex is a reasonable, compatible use of the subject
site, if the applicant deed restricts the property to a single
family or duplex structure as he has agreed to do.
A reasonable restriction on the allowed floor area and a
designated building envelope are important issues but are issues
which could be more appropriately dealt with through the mandatory
PUO process. Since half of the SUbject property (Lot.4)
currently has a PUD designation, the Planning Office feels it
is inappropriate to remove this designation without sufficient
justification for doing so. Also, if the property is rezoned
L-2 (PUO), a reasonable floor area and building envelope can
be determined through the pUD process.
Planning Office and
Planning and Zoning
Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
an L-2 (pUO) rezoning of Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition
as described in the attached property description with the
requested deed restriction to a single family or duplex structure
placed on the property. Both P & Z and the Planning Office
recommend that the following issues be add,'essed in the mandatory
PUO process: FAR, setback/building envelope, height. slope and
surrounding land uses.
Council
Action:
"1 move to read Ordinance No. 06."
"I move to approve Ordinance No. ~ on first reading,lI
I
i
.,
,
~,
^
,
EXHIBIT 3
MEMORANDur~
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Valdamar Mark Rezoning
DATE:
December 27, 19U2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:~V..:t. ~/.;.</
Location:
Zoning: ,
Lot Size:
Applicant's
Request:
Referral
Callments:
Background:
918 South Mill. (Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Additionl
L-2 and R-15 (PUD)(L)
6,003 square feet.
Lots 3 and 4 of the Capitol Hill Addition which have merged
pursuant to Section 24-13.6(d) of the Code, are bisected by the
zone district line running between the L-2 and R-15 (PUD)(L) zone
districts. Most all of Lot 3, the northern half of the two
parcels, is zoned L-2 while the remaining southern half which
contains Lot 4 is zoned R-15 (PUD)(L). The applicant wishes to
build a conforming duplex on this parcel on a conforming lot
and is requesting a rezoning of the southern half 'of the property
from R-15 (PUD)(L) to L-2 to accomplish this. The applicant
submitted this request on August 15~ the annual date of rezoning
by private applications.
The Engineering Department conrnented that the legal description
indicates that the two lots in question are not legal lots in
either the L-2 or R-15 zone district in that the lots are
slightly less than 60 feet wide and therefore do not meet the
minimum lot width requirement of the Code. Engineering also
cOlffilented that the rezoning would not impact services in the
area and would not present any engineering problems.
The applicant is requesting a rezoning from R-15 (PUD)(L) to
L-2 in order to build a duplex on the 6,003 square foot subject
parcel. A duplex is allowed in the R-15 zone district, but only
on lots 15,000 square feet or greater, therefore, a rezoning to
L-2 is requested for the purposes of building a ~"plex on a
conforming lot.
After reviewing City records, the Planning Office can find no
reason for the V. Mark parcel being bisected by the two different
zone districts. The R-15 (L) zone is intended to be a transition
area, between the lodge districts and the !le" - Conservation Zbne
district on Aspen and Shadow Mountains. The R-15 (L) district
allows lodge uses, but on a less intensive scale since the R-15
area and bulk requirements must be met. In essence~ the zone
allows short term lodge uses in single fallli ly and duplex structures.
Planning Office
Review: The proposed rezoning of the subject property to L-2 would clean
up the zone district line bisecting the parcel, but several
other problems arise. First, an L-2 designation would upzone
the parcel, allowing a higher density and a higher FAR which the
Planning Office feels is inappropriate for the site. If the
parcel is deed restricted to a duplex and a reasonable FAR,
the density and FAR concerns could be eliminated.
A second issue involved in an L-2 rezoning is that the R-15
(PUD)(L) transition zone would be reduced. Half of the subject
property is designated R-15 (PUD)(L) in order to provide an
area of transition between intensive lodge uses and the lie" -
Conservation zone district. An upzoning to L-2 eliminates
,~
,.-..,
,
Memo: V. Mark Rezoning
December 27, 1982
Page Two
the gradual transition for which the R-15 (PUD)(L) was intended.
Again, a deed restriction on the FAR and the use of the parcel
for a duplex would el iminate 'these concerns.
. A third issue arising from an L-2 rezoning is that the Planning
Office's study on lodge units in Aspen. shows that the buildout
potential for new short term units under existing zoning is
adequate enough to provide for future growth, especially with
the new L-3 district. Since lodging needs can be met at existing
locations, there is no need for an upzoning to L-2, especially
if it provides further justification for other lands to rezone to
lodge uses.. As shown on the attached zoning map, the 3,000
square foot parcel to be rezoned would not significantly affect
or increase the existing lodge areas, especially when develop-
ment on the parcel is restricted to a duplex.
Surrounding property owners at Fifth Avenue condominiums have
expressed the concern that the five yard setback in the L-2
zone district would permit a structure that would obstruct the
views from their units. They have requested a building envelope
which provides a sufficient setback from their structure to
eliminate this problem.
Ordinance 19, Series of 1982 establishes review criteria for
evaluating a rezoning. Since this i-s a small parcel being
rezoned whtch will create only minor impacts, the only pertinant
review criteria involves the compatibility of the rezoning
with surrounding zone districts and land useS. With the L-2
zone surrounding the parcel on three sides, an L-2 rezoning is
compatible with the surrounding zoning. The proposed duplex
on the subject parcel will be located next to a duplex to the
south of the property and fifth Avenue Condominiums to the
north and east, therefore the proposal is compatible with
surrounding uses. The Planning Office feels that an.L-2 rezoning
with a duplex is a reasonable, compatible use of the subject
site, if the applicant deed restricts the pcoperty to a single
family or duplex structure as he has agreed to do.
Planning and
Zoning Conunission
Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recolT1l1ends
an L-2 (PUO) rezoning of Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition
as described in the attached property description with the
requested deed restriction to a single family or duplex structure
placed on .the property. P&Z recommended that the following
issues be addressed in the mandatory pUD process: FAR, setback!
building envelope, height, slope and surrounding land uses.
Council's 1st
Reading Actions:
At the first reading of this Ordinance, Councjl indicated that
they felt a reasonable FAR for the V. Mark parcel was 4,800
square feet, 1,200 square feet lower than the 6,000 square feet
allowed in the L-2 zone district. Council also indicated that
a building envelope was not necessar~ or appropria~e since side-
yard setbacks provide the legal requlrements for dlstances between
structures on adjacent properties. Council agreed that the L-2
rezoning requested by the applicant was.appropriate and that a
PUO designation was not necessary. Ordlnance No. 66 was approved
on fi rs t reading November 22, 1 982 with a 4,800 FAR and no PUD
designation.
,.
~
1-.,
EXHIBIT 4
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1 DO Leaves
ORDINANCE NO. 06
(Series of 1982)
AN ORDNANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ALSO KNOWN
AS 9lB SOUTH MILL STREET TO L-2/
~HEREAS, Valdemar Mark, owner of the real property described
in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, did file
a private application for a rezoning on August 15, 1982, pursuant
to Section 24-12.5(b) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the sUbject property described in Exhibit "A" is
currently bisected by a zone district boundary line between the
L-2 and R-15/PUD/L zone districts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has a significant municipal inter-
est in seeing t.hat its Zoning District "'ap is rational and con-
sistent and does not contain zone district boundaries bisecting
parcels historically in common ownership and uniform in use; and
WHEREAS, in the private rezoning application submitted by
Valdemar Mark, Mr_ Mark did request a rezoning of the subject pro-
perty to L-2; and
WHEREAS, Valdemar Mark, as an inducement to the City to
accept his rezoning request, did amend his rezoning application to
include a voluntary deed restriction limiting the use of the sub-
ject property described in Exhibit "A" to a single-family or
.,
duplex structure; and
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on November 2, 1982, the
Aspen~Planningand Zoning Commission did review the requested
rezoning and then did recommend to the Aspen City Council the
rezoning of the subject property described in Exhibit II All to
L-2/ with the requested deed restriction on the property limit-
ing the use of the parcel to a single-family or duplex structure
and did further recommend that the following issues be reviewed
~,.......-- ... ,'Pl":w";'f~""""''"''''''''''''''l':'l'Ttfl........,.... f'.~'r' "'r~~~w.y~'I""~. ':" '''iJ~~iPl''';~''!"''''' ,~ .,.... ""''''''''''''n':~:~~
,-..,
,..-.."
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1 OD Leaves
._.. ~."""'~"l..I.I'.<..
(Juring the mandatory pun process if Council rezones the property
L-2/ FAR, setbacks/building envelope, height, slope and sur-
rounding land uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the recommenda-
tion of the Planning ,and Zoning Commission and determined that
rezoning to L-2 be granted subject to certain below-described con-
ditions, which conditions the Applican~,~aldemar Mark, has stipu-
lated to be voluntary, reasonable and relating directly to the
subject property and valid public policy goals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That Section 24-2.2 of the Municipal Code entitled "Zoning
District Map" is hereby amended by rezoning the Valdemar Mark par-
cel, more specifically described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and incorporat-<:!d herein, as L-2, condi'tioned upon a deed restric-
tion to be filed by him as owner, or his successors and assigns,
restricting the use of said parcel to either a single-family or
duplex structure and restricting the allowed floor area of such
structure to a maximium 4,800 square feet and subject to those
zoning regulations applicable to the L-2 zone district as de-
scribed in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code (as now exists
"
or may hereafter be amended).
Section 2
That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed to amend the
Zoning ~istrict Map consistent with the requirement of the Aspen
Municipal Code and as described in Section 1 above.
Section 3
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for. any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
2
~
\/
-
.
~
~
..1""'"
r_.. C.'.""'C"~.....,.CIl.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1 DO Leaves
remaining portions thereof.
provision and 'such holding sh..~ll not affect the validity of the
Section 4
A public ,hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the o1;t-
D_~/v
day of
, 19B2, at 5:00 P.M. in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15
days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published
Aspen.
once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~ day of
~~.A../
ATTEST:
",-) 4';1~
ch', Ci ty CI erk
law by
, 1982.
~~
-( ~
Herman Edel, Mayor
FINALLY adopted,
b,~
passed and approved this t::f1-
day of
. AT'fEST:
athryn S.
, 1982.
H~l~~
"
)-
3
,
/
..;.',l,.!',"."" C'. /
[.[LV 11: [;;,:)1.,.: J:;'.
.. ;.., '/'..d ".,/..... ',),C' "".,.:. EXHIBIT 5
!)ITKIN c~' 'y CLER .
r~'I.~ i::,: O;::!(:.
~:;.tLnb:,~,
DEED RESllUC110N
This restriction is made and entered into April 25, 1995, by MILL ST. 918 CORP.
("Owner").
WHEREAS, on November 22, 1982, the City Council of the City of Aspen passed
Ordinance No. 66, Series of 1982 rezoning the following described property, to-wit: .
/1/ I :; I':'
A parcel of land being portions of Lots 3, 4, and 5 wiU,in the Little Chief Lode USMS
3850, Capitol Hill Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen and a portion of the Big
Chief Lode USMS 4327 all situated in Ule SWII4 NWI/4 of Section 18, Township 10
South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M" Pitkin County, Colorado, described as folluws:
Beginning at the Northeast comer of Lot 3, Capitol Hill Addition;
THENCE N 75009' W 99.lB ft. to the Easterly right of way of South Mill Street;
THENCE S 14055'27" W 67,63 fl. along the Easterly right of way of South Mill Street
to the intersection of the Northerly line of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision;
THENCE S 74055' E 99.08 fl. along the Northerly line of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain
Subdivision;
THENCE N 15000' E 68.03 ft. along the line of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision and
Lot 12 Anthony Acres Subdivision to the point of beginning containing 6,724 square feet
more or less.
and
WHEREAS, Owner as an inducement to the City to rezone the above-described property
did agree as a condition to the rezoning to file a Deed Restriction restricting the use of the
above-described properly to either a single-family or duplex structure with a floor area not to
exceed 4,800 square feet as defined in and subject to those zoning regulations applicable to the
L-2 zone district as described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the rezoning provided for in Ordinance No.
66, Series of 1982, it is agreed by the Owner as follows:
1. That only either a single-family or duplex structure be constructed on the above~
described property; and
2. That the allowable floor area as deflned in Chapter 24 of tile Aspen Municipal Code
not exceed 4,800 square feet; and
3. That such structure be subject to zoning regulations applicable to the L-2 zone district
as described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
The provisions of this restriction shall be covenants running with the land, be binding
upon the Owner, his heirs, successors, and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, executed on the day and year above first written.
MILL S;/; era . .
By /c1(Y2 -~;g
Peler H. Cantrup, PreSl ent
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this <0).,/1< day of April, 1995,
by Peter H. Cantrup as President of Mill SI. 918 Corp.
Witness lilY hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ~)J,w/qf
,"~"t't~\tl?q~.,
1'S ~;")... L' "'~o
r~/ c': .~ '....6
CJL"o".~ }t~~; ~
Notary Public ':
Address; :;;;;<; iV, r~a~ :rF -,-,:(,
1~~1q 'v, CC' 8; ti/,,'..'
RP.\072.GU65
EXHIBIT 6
,-,
/ltau ;e~
~~
'PU~ s~
Z'H 3613 rl4{zeH-. ~ ~/612
P~7tU (970) 920-1125
July 18, 1996
Mr. John Worcester, City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 918 SOUTH MILL STREET (F/KJA V. MARK PROPERTY)
Dear John,
My client, Michael Teschner, recently purchased a parcel of land at 918 South Mill Street,
formally described as portions of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Capitol Hill Addition to the City of Aspen.
Mr. Teschner intends to develop the property as a duplex, as permitted in the underlying
zone district, which is LodgefI'ouristResidential (UTR).
The property was made subject to special zoning restrictions pursuant to Ordinance 66,
Series of 1982. Due to this fact, the proposed construction lender for this project has asked
for written confirmation from the City of Aspen that Ordinance 66 allows a total of 4,800
square feet of floor area for both sides of the duplex.
By way of background information, Ordinance 66 rezoned the subject property to correct
the zoning error which caused this single parcel to be bisected by the zone district boundary,
resulting in part of it being zoned L-2 and the remainder being zoned R-15 (L) (PUD). The
City Council corrected this error by rezoning this parcel to a single zone only, based upon
the owner's agreement to restrict the property to a single-family or duplex dwelling
containing no more than 4,800 square feet of floor area, subject to the other regulations of
the L-2 zone district, as then existed or might be amended. .
Please furnish us with a letter confirming that the property is alIowed to be developed with
a duplex building containing not more than 4,800 square feet of floor area. This size
limitation was agreed to by the then owner in exchange for clearing up the zoning problem.
The benefit to the City was a reduction in alIowable floor area to 4,800 square feet, from
the more than 6,000 square feet allowed by L-2 zoning. This solution also avoided the
potential for problems that had occurred previously in similar situations where the applicant
was found to be entitled to a larger building as a result of bisected zoning. Thus, the
owner's agreement to reduce the maximum allowable floor area to 4,800 square feet was a
concession at the time and, being contractual in nature for this specific property, is not one
that was affected by the subsequent change to the floor area ratio in the zone district.
~
,-..,
Mr. John Worcester
July 18, 1996
Page Two
Our investigation has also determined that the original Planning Office file in the City clerk's
Office contains all of the memos that the staff submitted to both the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council to resolve this error in 1982. This file is
extremely clear in explaining the City's rationale in resolving this problem in this manner.
Therefore, I am attaching five documents to assist you in confirming our findings.
The first document is Ordinance 66, Series of 1982, rezoning the subject property to L-2.
The second document is a staff memo, dated October 26, 1982, written to the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Comtnission. On page 3, the FAR that would have been allowed for
the parcel in the L-2 and the R-15 zone districts is calculated. The staff then identifies the
average of these two sizes, this being 4,800 square feet. The staff then goes on to
recommend an FAR of 4,200 square feet.
The third document is a staff memo, dated November 22, 1982, written to the Aspen City
Council. It is provided to ensure that you have all of the relevant materials in your hands.
The fourth document is a staff memo, dated December 27, 1982, written to the Aspen City
Council. At the bottom of page 2 of the memo, it describes Council's first reading actions.
It explains that "Council indicated they felt a reasonable FAR for the V. Mark parcel was
4,800 square feet, 1,200 square feet lower than the 6,000 square feet allowed in the L-2 zone
district".
The fifth document is the deed restriction placed on the property by its former owner. It
clearly states that the property's allowable floor area shall not exceed 4,800 square feet.
We would appreciate your providing us written confirmation that the allowable floor area
of this property is 4,800 square feet. Of course, we recognize and agree that the property
is also subject to all of the other regulations of the L-2 (now LffR) zone district and that
it can only be developed for a single-family or duplex use. If you desire, you may document
our acknowledgement of this by attaching this letter to your confirmation.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
kt~ ()J
Alan Richman, AlCP
t""",
~
EXHIBIT 7
July 29, 1996
Stan Clauson
Community Development Director
City Of Aspen
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 918 South Mill Street
Dear Stan,
Please find enclosed another request to confirm F AR. Would you please
have your staff review and respond to the enclosed.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
David Hoefer .
Assistant City Attorney
cc. Alan Richman
.~
.~
"
EXHIBIT 8
16 August 1996
Alan Richman, AlCP
Alan Richman Planning Services
Box 3613
Aspen, CO 81612
.'...
~ '
. .
/~" '.... . '_',C;;:
.~lt...._, "o...U
ASPEN' PITKIN
Re: 918 S. Mill Street (F/K1A V. Mark Property)
COMMUNrry OEVELUI'MENT OEI'ARTMENr
Dear Alan:
I have reviewed your ~ecent letter requesting confirmation of an assigned FAR for the above-referenced
property through Ordinance 66, Series of 1982, Referring to Section 1 of that ordinance, I find that
Council granted a rezoning to the then-existing L-2 district as follows:
"conditioned upon a deed restriction to be filed by him as owner, or his successors and
assigns, restricting the use of said parcel to either single-family or duplex structure and
restricting the allowed floor area of such structure to a maximum of 4,800 square feet
and subject to those zoning regulations applicable to the L-2 zone district as described in
Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal code as now exists or may hereafter be amended),"
The L-2 zone district has been superceded by the L/TR district and there has been as subsequent
downzoning of that district as well. While Council indicates that the maximum floor area may be 4,800
square feet, I see nothing which assigns that tloor area or vests the owner in that amount. Rather, the
ordinance clearly states that future amendments to the zone district would apply to the parcel.
The currently permitted floor area for a lot size of 6003 square feet would be 3,240 for a single family
home or 3,600 for a duplex. I believe thilt this is the currently applicable floor area maximum for this
parcel. You refer in your letter to the 4,800 square feet of floor area as being "contractual in nature," I
do not believe that a contact, as you put it, was established to guarantee this floor area in spite of any
future zoning changes. In fact, the ordinance specifically makes the ,agreement subject to any future
zoning changes for that district, .
While I am sure this is not the response you sought, I believe it is fair and consistent with the degree of
development available to a comparable site within the districr at this time. Moreover, it is consistent
with the intervening council goal of downzoning properties to reduce the impacts of development.
Please let me know if! may provide any additional information or assistance.
Very truly y s,.
:, ,wwE:s:
Community Development Director
CITY OF ASPEN
cc: . John Worcester, City Attorney
Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer
130 SoUTH GALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX 970.920.5439'
Printed on Recvdl'd !"'r~r
1""'\
Aleue 'R~
EXHIBIT 9
,-..
'P~ S~
tf_ 5615 A4fuIe. ~",.<<. TI612
P~?~ (970) 920-1125
September 20, 1996
Mr. Stan Qauson, Community Development D~rector
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 918 SOUTH MILL STREET (F/KIA V. MARK PROPER1Y)
Dear Stan,
I have reviewed your letter to me regarding Michael Teschner's property at 918 South Mill
Street. Your letter is dated August 16, 1996, but was first faxed to me on August 22, 1996.
I actually received the letter by mail on August 23, 1996.
Pursuant to Section 26.112.010 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code, Interpretations, I am hereby
appealing the interpretation that you have rendered. Although the matter that you have
interpreted was the terms of a City Council ordinance and not the text of the Land Use
Regulations, I believe this Article would nonetheless be controlling. Section 26-112.010 F.,
Appeal, requires the submission of an appeal within 30 days of the date of the Planning
Director's decision. This letter is intended to comply with that requirement.
At this time, I am submitting this appeal to preserve our rights to have the matter
considered by the City Council. ,My client, Mr. Teschner, has been out of the community,
attending to the health of a family member, Therefore, I have been unable to speak with
him since I received your letter. When he returns, I win share your interpretation with him
and we will decide whether, in fact, he wants to carry this appeal forward to Council.
Therefore, we hereby waive the provision in Section 26.112.010 F. that requires you to bring
this petition ,to City Council within thirty (30) days of its filing. lwill let you know as soon
as he returns whether or not it is necessary to schedule this matter with City Council.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
~~L1
Alan Richman, AlCP
,,-..,
~
) Ogtl IE 'oN 'ddnS
> C':l t"" t"" '"
0 0 0 0;
n t""S 0. 0.
. C':l &.g t"" '\\l t"" '" ;j
> 0.
.. t"" '" ;.. ..
e. ~ ~ ~ " ~
~ 0 ()
n [ 0 .. "'l
')
)
:.g ~~g.:?
_.SS~..o
It (\\ =' ~
>c =' ;. Q. \rI ....
-....iii.l>>::l ~
~ iii';- a. Q.:::
~S"c:~a~
a ~ ;t; ~ a:- ~
<g;o~;;:m
a <ll C. n .... CoO
't:l g,,~~f>> C
,; _. n 0
;jJllJ(D=--P:g"
C g !II g ~.
l>>o>cn....Q>
;a. a. = S' iil''''
S" s'g.oq en II
~_oq<~~'5
g-S"~Q.G-fll
!3 ~ ! ~:r;:p
l'D (D n (tI (Jq .....
=' ::r C"';3". <
[gS'=o~
n (Jq (.0 ltl
CD \rI"" '0 en
~c..~;";:;:n
~. < .... cr l>> ::r
ftat1jo:':'"8
.- ~ ~ OJ '1 ..-
~ClI<l>S'~Si
e:g!;~:c:
[ .... n '"'l::S
to ""'0 n ....
~ (D i "1 ::r <
~oa~;>~
., '.... n ....
~ ~ ~ g..:;;g
~,::. Q.. Q.~ S"
~a!f~.~~
~:;s~...c..=?"'
e:~g-i5g:t
t;.o.a~~
l>> iit' ::r S' S:
an <ll aq =:I
(D E..!. c.o oq
g~:;.i:5
l>> c.. n Ii" G;
!l> S' ~ ::l t'D
....ft! &rl>>
~ ~ \rig.
n 0
::r .... Q. g.,
!.s:S"~
::"''< n 3
fA ~. c: _.
~~~S"
!!. &. -;.; ~
a:~""Q>
(D....9 "1
Z1I'tZ .
~g-e.:?
o ~ n
~. ~ 9 ~
g'~ ~ S.
.... 5: ~ t
8..~ t;j' 0'
'" -"
.. ~ 0
~ ;- [€ ;.
n .... (,II l;I
o (II l>> l!l
:3 =.... U)
:3 \rI;a. ~
8.g:~!ij"
a.~~::r
o' S''''':3
= :::s ~ III
!II !!!.!!..a.
~[==
0.", -
o .. .
~ r:;
;~~
"1 g ....
~3tD
~ :3 ~
;. &.-
~ ~ ~
~. ..
o .
o 0
. .
o S
o ..
~ :
on
&.9
o >-3
~ gf
..
.
:T
.
"
5'
'!9
.
.
~
~
..
e:
o
:T
.
o
~
..
9
3~S";'~~
E.;'Sl)(b~~
....=-c--.:::l
";'" S' 0' ll) 0 n
i" c.. ~ UJ ::s 0
:I (f) (D 0 E;
........ nO.., l>>
""::1 0..... .(JQ
'< (JQ::S >oC'll
; 'f~~~ 8
-';>!::<D(tl!
G' 3 n :::I (1:1
. =~.~;'
~ ::I 0 .... 8-.
g-a,s;-8
'E......S"I\)l>>
<D 0 _. '"1 ::s
:< c ::s (ll c.
!Xl ::!.\>> Il:I "1
&.~5.~~
~i!'ife:i
'2.. 2. ::; 2.
(ll -<;;:~
" ~. ,;
~ ~.~ g. c.
H~!::-~S;
in~ g
!II m m eo .
_. c+.:.c
Om",
'!!."~:T
cp ::s c. 0
[~"~
-SIL.
'< c: m :r-
~ ,.. S' g
c. ';". ::s .r.'
~S'
:Ti!i.
~ ~
~~
o 0
::s.r."
. ~
!II 5f
m
.
:T
~
5'
'!9
o
11-
~
..
3000 N3dSV
01 J,U1IHX3
S' s~. ~ :;3
Clq"O (l) Il:I (0
[~ as::s
oq ~ .... ::s 8
!l ::r ~ S. E;
S.;:: :r-_~
S"g-~&(l)
Ol"l oS'\\l 8
0" 0 ~
~ ~ :3 -. g
!t<D (O::S 1=
::! 0; o;....g.
= ~. 2.::r'_.
~ga:8
a:s.~~~
~ ~ (0 ~ Q..
go~~~~
. . Q.., .
0". Q- c-
o S. l5..
g :r~
-",
Q)>'"15
~,8 ~
:;: :3 ~.
;':'" g-
o . ~
if 58-:
Q-O
';j~~
m ~ ~
it Q- m
g "1 ~.
<<~5
, .. Ib'
s:'r.-
~S'
:Ti!i.
~ ~
~ ~
o 0
tl~
m ~
!II Ef
..
.
:T
m
"
5'
!'!
o
11-
~
..
S2
t;j
<:
:::j
o
<:
III
'"
~
"'l
l;j
\::l
~
f:l
(")
o
~
...
:::j
o
s:
...
~
f:l
n:-nl
H .LIlIIHX:tl
.--/
.r".,
~
,
m . .q,fj ~M1.t\ i ~ f W ~.WW
*\ tfJ ~ ~.~ ~ ~k rla~ lf~UI/J
/t1.t~
~. ~lZlf;V) . .'
~~ . Wkri ~ W .~( 'k ((h.~' L 7 . i- ~
. ~lA$l0
~ olLlt. ~krVJ
.~.~~~~~~
()JJ,~t-- . PA'W ltWl t; I
. . ~~ b W>t r'Zu~ bit ~,~
. qYfiJ ct ~ ~
~ .1m..~. I fe)jJf.!A. -
-r~ll'? . 011\. -tv..t ......11 ~ lit.
~p
11.MI ~
I (XV\(} or l.. ) I ~ (~ .
~ dtJ J WNkr I opvV .Qr ~
~.. ~~f ..<XJ\h. L~.'ftJ ~
l.! J! "..' ~J-. k. aPti.....J..: ~ru!~ ~
a~ ~~ aF ~. 1\wl .
a.iI\ lL\ W ck ~. . wk. #4 ~M~ ~
I....".\ 1"""'\
I Phil Overeynder, 09:45 AM~I 7/97 , 918 S Mill Conditional Use
X-Sender: philo@cornrnons.ci.aspen.co.us
Date: Fri, 25 Jul1997 09:45:27 -0600
To: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: 918 S Mill Conditional Use
Cc: nicka@ci.aspen.co.us
Chris and Nick,
1 incorrectly referred to the Aspen Alps development when I meant to
reference the 5 th Avenue Condominiums. I've corrected thge text and am
resending it to you. Sorry for the confusion.
>Date: Fri, 25 Jul1997 09:22:19 -0600
>To: chrisb
>From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us>
>Subject: 918 S Mill Conditional Use
>Cc: nicka
>
>1 received your request review the subject application. The application
correctly states that there is a water main available in Mill St fronting
the property. However, because the project is,located above the 8040
Greenline and is served off the City's gravity system from the Aspen
Mountain Tank (normal working elevation 8125), the water pressure on the
upper floors of the proposed buildings (elevation 8103 from building plans)
will not be adequate to serve the structure. The elevation of the top floor
will actually be about 3 feet higher than the base of the Aspen Mountain
Tank, so gravity service will not be possible under some conditions (e.g.
when the tank is drawn down to fight a fire).
>
> If the elevations the applicants have provided are correct, the normal
working pressure on the top floor would be approximately 10 psi,
significantly less than our minimum goal of 35-40 psi. The applicant would
therefore be responsible for installing their own pressure system to deliver
water at desired water pressures.
>
> Also the site plans shows a pond to be located on the proerty but does not
identify a water source. How is the pond to be fed?
>
>Notes for Nick and John:
>Nick, when you review this application please pay close attention to the
drainage details. The application is showing a drainage swale which appears
to convey runoff from Aspen Mountain to the 5th A venue Condominiums. Please
contact me or John Worcester and we can fill you in regarding the long
history of threatened lawsuits against the City because of what 5th Avenue
~inted for Christopher Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us>
11
~ ~
1 Phil Overeynder, 09:45 AM .,1/97,918 S Mill Condition-.l Use
believes is attributable to operations of the water storage tanks located
above this property. 5th Avenue properties are periodically flooded out
along this drainage and we need to ensure that this development does not
aggravate the existing drainage problem or increase the City's potential
liability associated with operation of our storage tanks.
>
>For the City's part on the water system side, we believe that we have done
everything possible to eliminate the potential for flooding damage from tank
overflows or leaking lines and have invested substantial sums to eliminate
problems which can be attributed to our facilities. However 5th Avenue
continues to complain of water damage and we have pointed to other sources,
including the natural drainage that comes in along the back side of this
property.
>
IPrintedfor Christopher Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us>
21
.
^
,1""\
.
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER:
Chris Bendon, 920.5072
DATE: 5.23.97
PROJECT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
DESCRIPTION:
, .
1J~ So. M!!J &.ltfz,....( Use. ~, ~
Carlos Rocha, Architect 213.465.8064 01. ~.~
~
One Step - Conditional Use and 8040 Greenline
Special review for 8040 Greenline, Conditional use for an ADU, possible DRAC waiver
request at P/Z Commission
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.28.190 L TR Zone District
26.60 Conditional Use Criteria
26.40.090 Accessory Dwelling Units
26.68.030 8040 Greenline
26.58 Residential Design Standards - Checklist included
Dimensional Calculations Sheet - Attachment #2 in application
Review by:
Staff for Completeness, Residential Design Standards
Planning and Zoning Commission for Conditional Use (public hearing)
Planning and Zoning Commission for 8040
Yes, Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 10 days prior to hearing, or at least 15
days prior to the public hearing if any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency owns property
within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application.
Applicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing with a affidavit at the public hearing.
Engineering, Housing, Parks, Fire Marshall, Water, ACSD, Environmental Health
One step deposit ($ I 080)
Engineering, Minor ($1 10); Housing, Minor ($70);
$1,260 (additional hours are billed at a rate of$180/hour)
Public Hearing:
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
Referral Agency Fees:
Total Deposit:
To apply, submit the following information:
I, 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 Application.
5. Total deposit for review of the application
6. 18 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC = 12; P&Z = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea,; Planning Staff= 1
7, An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all
easements and vacated rights of way, of the pat'cel 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.)
,
,
^
.A
9. A w'ritten description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include
existing conditions as well as proposed.
10. For Residential Proposals (Ord. 30):
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).
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,
11, List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing.
12. Copies of prior approvals
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is
subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not create a
legal or vested right.
,