HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Alpine Ct.A028-98
~.-,
r'
,r-,
"PARCEo"';'ID"'1"7" . ..,' ~",C",'
". "" .~" ~' .~I .. ..v... :J
, .
" , l?ArE.Rc'VD:'lc.ld; ii.
".'. ~ ' .,
~~~~~~'~~~ AI::I::~ CN~;:;i':',~, Mn H~"'~':li!I;,j, C~:""':~:"'l!:: '...!..:. S.I::~:
Gr.1QS !x.,.! ";';".1:;;',
i!"C,D'pI~S'r- ; C.4~~J\lol,:,C/.H :;~
.. '" . .
p~~~ilr.ll""II";" \,.../j( U
m:es -X. S ~TE~~:I
.iRi,~':A,ii:~,R:II:~:IC. ~ Cu'p'" ,
""-."'. ..."
. .~~l!tI:A~P: s :!!i.~~!.ll..!I"I ~:'l.r'~' . ~~R ~~::'~ :i ~"~I::~:'~'I. .' ..~j'S/Z~ ':',!;!':"::" ......
R~P S~'l'lr.:. r"I'Il',);,:". :);~Il'lriil.. .~DR: ...(,~ 2 = . ..;1:1 ~.~'.'...!'..!: ,C:"SlZ: ;'.!,'r.:';1" C~)
CASE ~vp.J~'"~I)I''''''' D.lr" :.:. ...~.
. 'r!. r ~. ".
:)11.:>11
::.n~~: .
. ,:..j.H~:I;;."-2(;.(;
PHR f:')b HI: ' i
STAT: r
, , I
' . ""r._'.""r ..,., .... ",,;. _ '!:
F.~E!! D~E. 2 I I... .. I ,,(, .~; ,~ I .1... , ..
REFERIIA~J '
FEEs RCVD~_g::"
, ..': ' ,. REFi
'MTi3'~AtE . >~EV ~!>~Y" "PH
:t==.rl
r-- t- I
Byl
DUE:f
":1
I..
NOT)CED
, DATE.liF',fINA'~ AirIO~
.'.''''"'''f
.. Pl:
BOA:
',J.lRAC,
. ADMIN~
...
'REMA~KsI
ClOSEDiS-/.~.:)J1fvls :.,_):,d::::..-;. ,',
Pl~T ~ilBMrrD: I " PLAT 'BK.p~I'1
,
'-::',-
"<"
"
"',
"
,lll.')t"ib;1 8
''-'"''
"',
"
"
'..,
,
'. /
'\,/
",
" \:
... / "
'Y4. // ""'.,,' ,
.... ,
' /
'/
.........
":', ,/
..."#'"......,....,"
...,
,/' "".,..
.. ,
<:,' ...
""'" ..
,/,..' "
...,-~",~~,..,'.
, I,
".'" ...... ....14"..>.
oH".
/.. :>
"J /'"
.:'. ,.",,'/
" "'"
" ",
, "
, ..
/'
..'
--".
.. -, ..
, .Hh
.. N-
O ,...
':",."",:'U'_
"",, ,,/"",','"
" ,,"'-,',.,
/i/ \~~ ~..//
I \/.,..,
L--.(()
" u ""',, " ,," " ,
'," ',.".',' ,,' ..
'" ,'" I','"~ ON ,-___.
-"." .'-,-" """ " ,,"".>.', :'_,O"Y';
, """ ,,, "" ""...."" "" , .. ..
':' :',,>;::-- ,..- -',',,' ,,' -:">'i';;;',:,:."',\;
. '~~
\ (/->"
X,'\'I.~.
/' "'\
1""".
I
I""
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
The Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager cp
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director .. j
Sarah Oates, Planning Technician So
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Amendment to the Alpine Cottages Subdivision Plat to Rename !!If
Street "Aene Park" to "Alpine Court-Resolution Number t.jy, ,
Series of 1999. -
DATE:
June 14, 1999
SUMMARY: The Community Development Department received a request for an
Insubstantial Amendment to the Alpine Cottages Subdivision Plat to officially rename the
access to the subdivision from "Aene Park" to "Alpine Court." Pursuant to Section
26.88.060, Amendment to Subdivision Development Order, the requested plat amendment
can be administratively approved by the Community Development Director; however, street
name requests require City Council approval.
Staff recommends that City Council approve with conditions the request to officially
rename the street "Aene Park" to "Alpine Court."
APPLICANTS: Jack Robinson, Jan Rosen, Robert Jones, Lantz Welch and Larry
Saliterman, in association with Semrau Building and Design.
LOCATION: 1240 East Cooper Avenue. See attached vicinity map (Exhibit B).
BACKGROUND: The subject road provides access for the Alpine Cottages Affordable
Housing project and four single family property owners.
STAFF COMMENTS: With respect to the requested street name of "Alpine Court," staff
has solicited the Engineering, Fire, Water, Streets, and Police Departments as well as the
City GIS (mapping) Division, Communications Center and U.S. Post Office to find out
whether there are any concerns with the proposed street name. Staff has not been told of any
problems or concerns regarding the proposed name, nor would the proposed name duplicate
the name of any existing street within Pitkin County.
Further, the street name "Alpine Avenue" appears on the 1896 Willits Map. At that time, the
street was located further east and on the north side of Cooper A venuelHighway 82
(somewhere in the vicinity of present day Riverside Drive). Nonetheless, "Alpine Court"
does have a historic context.
If the street name is approved by City Council, the Community Development Department
will administratively process the Insubstantial Plat Amendment. In order to qualify as an
Insubstantial Amendment to the subdivision development order, the request must not violate
1
~
r---!
i' '\
("" !
any of the provisions of Section 26.88.060(A). The provisions of said sect\on of the code
follow, along with staffs response.
1. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations
first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated
during the approval process, or any other minor change to a plat which the Community
Planning Director finds has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting the
approved plat,
RESPONSE: Naming the street is a minor change to the plat. The proposed amendment
would not have an effect on the conditions and representations of the subdivision approval.
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that
Council approve the attached Resolution, allowing the applicants to rename the street "Aene
Park" to "Alpine Court" with the following conditions:
1. Within 180 days of this approval, the applicants must. complete an Insubstantial
Subdivision Plat Amendment to update the Alpine Subdivision plat in accordance with
the approvals contained herein.
2. If new street signs are needed, said signs shall be purchased by the applicants through
the City Streets Department. The sign(s) shall be installed in a location approved by
the Streets Department, and any costs associated with the installation of the sign(s)
shall be borne by the applicants.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in this application shall be adhered
to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by the
Community Development Director or City Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution Number Lfi5, Series of
1999, allowing Jack Robinson, Jan Rosen, Robert Jones, Lantz Welch and Larry Saliterman,
in association with Semrau Building and Design to rename the street' Aene Park' to 'Alpine
Court. ",
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A: Submitted Application
Exhibit B: Vicinity Map
2
I""
r'.
MEMORANDUM
To:.
Sarah Oates, Planning Technician
Nick Adeh, City Engin~tl
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer )!tJ.
May 29, 1999
Thru:
From:
Date:
Re:
Special Review for Street Name Change
Physical Address:
Legal Description:
Aene Park, City of Aspen, CO .
Aene Park (a private street) located between the W oerndle Subdivision I PUD and the
Alpine Cottages Subdivision I PUD, City of Aspen, CO.
=-=-xx-=
Parcel ill No.:
After reviewing the above referenced request and the previous application for Alpine Cottages Subdivision I
PUD, I provide the comments of the Engineering Department:
Discussion: This is the same request initially made with the Alpine Cottages Subdivision I PUD application
in April 1998 although the proposed new street name is different.
1. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed street name changes, timing of the action changes, or
scope of the action changes subsequent to this review, a complete copy of the revised proposal shall be
provided to the Engineering Department for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations
given in this memorandum apply to the application cover memorandum (dated April 27, 1999) provided for this
review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the naming, or timing
of the application or scope of the application.
2. Re-naming of Aene Park: The applicant will need to provide a petition signed by the adjacent
property owners requesting the change of street name from Aene Park to Alpine Court. Verify with the City
Attorney the format and content of the petition and the requisite number of signatories to present this action to
City Council. The applicant will need to provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin County and copies of postal
receipts verifying the delivery of the notice to all utility companies, all owners of property fronting on or served
by Aene Park, the Aspen Post Master, Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen. The request for street name change
should also contain alternate names to provide a unique name not already in use and to be phonetically distinct
. so as not to be confusing to dispatching of emergency, mail or delivery services within Pitkin County.
Since this action does not involve dedication of right-of-way, we believe this action should be enacted by a
resolution of the Aspen City Council, if the Council approves of the application. If the proposed name change
is approved prior to the drafting of the as-built subdivision I PUD plat for the Alpine Cottages Subdivision I
PUD, the new street name should be incorporated in the as-built version of the plat with a note referencing the
City Council resolution by which the prior name was retired for the new name.
3. Prior Approvals: The prior approvals and conditions applicable to the Alpine Cottages
Subdivision I PUD shall remain as previously approved.
DRC Meeting Attendees:
No meeting conducted on this application.
DRCMI199.DOC
1 OF 1
From : ROBINSON ~
Jack lie Aviva Robinson
76 Aene Ct.
Aspen. ColDrlldo 818U
PIlI
..~
r l'i<.
I"'" I.
,b.':. 14. 19:)9 05:02 PM
Pel1
Jack 8r. Avlva Robinson
76 Attno Ct.
Aepen. Coloraclo 81611
Ph 970.920.2&&8
the information Q,ontaine4 in this facsimile is privileged and oonfidential information and intended S'~~y for. the use 0' the
individual or entity to whom it is add/ssaed. If the reeipient of this fKsimile is not tho int~nded addrosseo. or the emploveo Of
agent responsible to cteliver it to the intended addressee, YOU ore hereby notified that any dissomination. diitribution Of eopying
of this communication is sUictly prohibited. If you have received thi, facsimile in .rror. pleas. immediately notify us by telephone
(eaN ood.ctl and ,eturn the originat m.snge to us at the addrelS Jiated below bv mail. Thank you.
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE:
'[
I'
:I
il
Jack 8< AVlVa Robinson
76 Attne Ct.
Aspen, Colorado 81.n
Ph 97o.e2O.2668
'3
TO: ~
~COMPAJ'~
q p5r~r31
FAX NO.
Total NUl
,
I ~M;44ii
{P4, d ~,
FROM:~.~
~/
ESSAGE:
I ,I ...-.-L / E"
I~~"~
~~llfil'
,,"0';';
,..p.,j'l~ ,~"
~~~~
':f
Please calli81QI847-1664
(J..J~,
!ct/ ~~
,
I
[ , ~I
I
,
I,
s.oo Werth tA'coo......ra fl.-e. . S_llt J3e
SENT BY:
3-25-99 ; 1:34PM;
1'''1:''
t"'" '
. j
....
r-.
KAT-EM INTERNATIONAL INC.
110 East 9th Street, Suite C748 Los Angeles, CA 90079
Tel (213) 624-977'7 Fax. (213) 624-9776
3/11/99
FAXED'
Il'l 1W'l! J
DEAR LANTZ:
I WAS GLAD TO HEAR WE ARE FINALLY GETTING RID OF "AENE".
1 APPROVE OF TIlE NEW CHOICE "ALPINE COURT"
~~-
JA-N Q O~e f/V
Lf [;0 lteNe (OUi(
9703202288;# 1/ 1
I"""
,
/' t~,
I""'i
,~,
RobertE. Jones, M.D.
P.O. Box 12122
Aspen, Colorado 81612
March 10, 1999
To ;Nhom It May Concern:
My Wife Charlotte and I both desire to have the name of our street changed to Alpine
Court. Our Aspen home is located at 440 Aene Park. Tim Semrau is attempted to have
the name changed to Alpine Court and we support this name change.
Sincere;-'r!1:-,9
" ", /1
J,i. ..'
~o:ert';. J~nes" .D.
,...
, '
/ I'
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I heartily dislike the name of our street "AENE" and wish it
changed to: '
Alpine Court.
/8/ Lantz Welch
920-2288
YdX
:3/?"/lii
o G lJef-.;e Gu/l
r-
7 t,
1"'" '
,. 1
February 12, 1999
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter as the owner of Lots. 1, A, B, C & D of Alpine Cottages.
Due to the cumbersome nature of the name of the adjoining road "Aene Park", I am
supporting a change of name. "Alpine Court" is an appropriate name. Please consider
an expeditious resolution to this request.
Sincerely, ".~~
L~erman
5005 Cedar Lake Rd.
Minneapolis, MN 55422
I
....;'"'1
!""
,,\_.--:~,.._.:~-:-,--
.,'
'I:;. h,.i: ,'.,'
,~ '~!J.1t
,'.,
:':~."::::t}~'~~f!E:.'.:4'""
,5noWmasS Vi!8Q. Poilci "
,,;:;, ,:,)',-" Ate
.'.' '. Aspen Ambulance
: 'w FlIO & EMS
Snowmass Wildcat Fire & EMS
Carbondale Rre & EMS
Aspen~Pitkin County Communications Center
February 10, 1999
To Community Development,
Reference the request made by David Miller, Semrau Building and Design for a name change from
"AeneCourt" to "Alpine Court" is acceptable to our standards for street addressing. We would
request that when specific numerics are decided upon they be forwarded to us. Thanks for you
attention to this matter.
Sls Tricia Louthis, Communications Specialist 2, GGM manager
Jx~
CclDavid Miller
208 y, East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
~
506 East, Main Street, Dept., C
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-920-5310
FAX: 970-920-5339
.-/
~'l<..".
,r-'-}
!~,
~
,
,0
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611-1975
Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below:
fl........... City Engineer
fiI........... Zoning Officer
fiI'........... Housing Director
~.......... Parks Department
~.......... Aspen Fire Marshal
~........... City Water
o ........... Historic Preservation Officer
~.......... Sanitation District
~......... Building Department
~......:.... Environmental Health
~.......... Electric Department
0........... City Attorney
~.......... Streets Department
FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner
RE: Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing Project: Consolidated Conceptual/Final
PUD; Subdivision; Rezoning to AHI-PUD; GMQS Exemption; Residential Design Review
(variance from Volume standard); Special Review for Off-Street Parking Requirements and
ARI Lot Area Limitations; Park Development Impact Fee Waiver request; Land Use
Application Fee Refund request; and, Vested Property Rights.
DATE: April 16, 1998
REFERRAL SCHEDULE
DRC MEETING DATE:
ENGINEERING REFERRAL DUE TO PLANNER:
OTHER REFERRALS DUE TO ENGINEER & PLANNER:
April 22, 1998
May 1, 1998
April 29, 1998
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Timothy Semrau. Please
complete and return your referral comments according to the deadlines provided above.
Thank you,
Mitch.
r"" ,:"",
,..."",>
/i
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1305. Galena 51. Aspen, CO 81611-1975 (970) 920-5090
AGENCY REFERRAL FORM
The City of Aspen Community Development Dept. has received a land use request as highlighted below. Your
comments are an important part of the evaluation process. In order to review all appropriate agency comments
and incorporate them into the staff evaluation, your written comments are due back to this office on
ParcellO No.: .
Case Number:
Oate8ent: .. -:-Aorrl16 1998
Hearing Date: . not yetsei .
ORe l\iIeetingOate:.' '. Apri/22: 1998
EilgloeeriilgReferral Dilli to planner: · May 1.1998 .
Other Referrals Oue<to ,I;rigineering: APril 29. 1998
APPLICANTS PLEASE NOTE!!
Applic~mts or their representatives are
el)couraged to .attend tl).e. DRC meeting to .
discuss the project. The DRC Meeting has.
beerischeduled forWednesday, April 22nd'.'
at oj :30 pm in the Sister Cities Room ofCity
Hall.
Planner: Mitch Haas Phone No. 920-5095 Fax No. (970)920-5439
Applicant: Tim Semrau Phone No. 925-6447 Fax No. 925-6437
Representative: Tim Semrau Phone No. Fax No "
Lo.cation of Property: .1240 "'ast Cooper Street (NE corner of Hwy. 82 and Aene Road)
Summary of Request: AH project (PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning to AH, GMQS Exemption, Speciai Review, &c)
Residential Units: 14 SF: 4 MF: 10 Affordable: 10 ADU: 0
Acreage/Square Feet: 37,148 s.t. FAR Allowed: 23,253 s.t. (can be increased by Special Review
FAR Proposed: 23,227 sq. ft.
Zoning: Existing: R-15A1PUD/LP and R-15A1PUD Proposed: AH1/PUD
Amendments" .
Text
Map'
Administrative Review
Insubstantial
AppealS
Change in Use
Conditional Use
ADU
Other
Environ. Sensitive Area
Stream Margin Review
8040 Greenline Review
Exemption
View Plane Review
, Exemption
Hallam Lake Bluff
Exemption
SPECIAL ISSUES:
REQUESTS TO BE PROCESSED
GROWTHIlIIANAGEMENTq;S. . Site Plan Review
.' EXEMPTION SpeeialReview.
Residentialrrourist Accom. Special. Pianned Area (SPA)
0'::,,, c,,..,...::,:. ". SUBDiViSION pi.Ar--.
--.-...---..
_::.:. .' ': .~:,~:-...~.."(."'.
LOT SPLIT
Condominiumization
Timeshare
Temporary Use
Variance
,,-.,
r
r--)
LAND USE ApPLlCATi.....,,^
o
,PROJECT:
~-
Name: ALPINE COTTAGES
Location:
ApPUCANT:
Name: LattY Saliterman
Address: 650 S. Monarch, Aspen, Colorado !
Phone #: 925-2626/800-875-3321 (
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Timothy Semrau
Address: 208 1/2 E. Main
Phone #: 925-6447
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
o Conditional Use Conceptual PUD
g Special Review .2{ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
o Design Review Appeal D Conceptual SPA
o GMQS Allotment D Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
~ GMQS Exemption ~ Subdivision
o ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream D Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff; condominiumization)
Mountain View Plane
Lot Split
Lot Line Adjustment
o
o
D
Temporary Use
TextlMap Amendment
D Conceptual Historic Devt.
D Final Historic Development
D Minor Historic Devt.
D Historic Demolition
D Historic Designation
o Small Lodge Conversion!
Expansion
~ Other: Res. Design Wavier
Vested rights
EXISTING CONOmONS: (descri tion of existin buildin s, uses, revious a rovals, etc.)
Alpine Lodge currently has 12 rooms and is approved for 4 more- zone Ifoverlay. Lot 3 Ferguson Exemption is
vacant land current! zone R-15A.
PROPOSAL: (descri tion of ro sed buildin s, uses, modifications, etc.)
Joining of two lots and rezone to ARI/PUD, building of 10 deed restricted units and 4 free market units.
Have you attached the following?
~ Pre-Application Conference Summary
I2ll Atrachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
[2g Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
[1l Response to Atrachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents
o Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents
f)I1 Resnon!re to AttJlchment #5, Review StJlnrlarrls tOT Y OUT Annlication
FEES DUE: $1/ q'D 5" -
r--.
Apr-06-98 02:3?- .RRY SALITERMAN
, ,""""
*\lIIf*~:'O 920
,~
3836
P.O:l
Hl'd ,.,..0..
ASPENII'ITIaN COMMVNITV DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AcI cetaaIt for Pa)'IIMDt of City of Aapea DeveIopmeBt Ap~ Fees
(P'-e Priat Clearly)
CITY OF ASPEN (ben:iDafler CITY) and LA {<fly (It L IT pR N jfN
(haanaftcr APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS;
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY llIIappI~on for
It L PI tJE G TILJ-!J..~ r (haeinafter. mE PROJEC1).
2. APPLICANT IlIIderSlIPds lIIId ~ 1hIt City of Aspen Ordinance: No. 43 (Series of 1996)
cstablisIu:s a fee sttuctw:e for land II$e applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a det1:nui1wion of appli~ c:ompleleness.
3. API-LICANT and CITY agree thal bec:ause of tbc size. IIll1Ie or IiCOpe of the pwposcd
project, it is not possible at this lime to ascel'lain the full extent of the costs involved in processing
the application. APPLICANT and CITY funher agn:e thal it is in the intcn:st of the patties to aUow
APPLICANT to make paymat of an milia! deposit and to thereafter pcnnit additional costs to be
billed to APPUCANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining
gn:atet ~ liquidity lIIId will make additional paymenIS upon notification by tile CITY when they
~ IlCl:essary lIS costs ~ incum:d. CITY agrees it will be benefited t1wugh the greater certainty of
recovering its full costs to process APPLICANTS application.
4. CITY aud APPLICANT further agree that it is impItlCticlble for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient infunnation to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to
enable the Planning Commission and/or City Co~ to ~ legally required findings for pnlject
approval. ualess cumnt billings ant paid in full prior to decision.
S. '11Ien:fon:. APPLICANT agrees 1hat ~ ~deration of the CITY's waiver of its right to
coUCl:t full foes prior to a detenniDation of application compl~. APPLICANl sbaIl pay an
iniIial deposit in the amount of$2.lto~ 'Which is for _ hours ofPIanniIlg staff time, and if
IICtuallecorded com exceed tbe inilial deposit. APPLiCANT sball pay additional monthly biJlings
to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the proc:essiq of the application menticmed above. including
post approval review. Such periodic paymems shaII be made within 10 days of the billing date.
APPLICANT funhcr agrees that wIure to Jl&Y such accrued costs shall be grnunds for suspension
of~ing.
CITY OF ASPEN
~
ColMlUllity Developmcnl OiJeCtor
City of Aspen
APPLICANT
p-
Sipature:
Date:
Priated Name:
MailiDI Addn:ss:
LItR.t2, LiTpp M1+J
~OO') Df () (:~d", I -tl:"~ (loiff)
N ( fV N, . A4 rv 5')'{ 2. 2..-
. .
Tll'd
NDlS3Q ~ 9>4ICll1na ~
St :~T M.,,-'<A-""'"
~
"
^
/-~
.""....'....".,'...
"'.... ...
~*,.,.., .'.~
'\:\\'0 C\1'1_()'i~S\''C~
~a'] ~~, \99\\
"'. ow'] se!(l!au
~r. ,\$ . . &. Des\gt'
se!(l!au ~U\\c.\nlb
~()\\ \I~ 'Bast ~a\n St.
p."s-pe!', CO \\\6\\
Dear ~r. se!(l!au'.
. ~O'\Te1:(\ent -plans for new
'\Te\o-p\nlb the -plat ancl \1:(\-P be ~e-parecl '0'] the
. "",- ," ".,- "" " .. ,,,,,,,,", ",,- '" :,.. '" ,. "",.."
""'.'\\'1,"" ~\\:::'""."N'lD .'" .,a '''''':< .~""",''''' (,n' yoD)' ~""""" """",,:;;
","""""". ' ." ""') ,. "" ...."". ",W ~ '" - ,. C\~ C-'" ""
.,,",,, _. (~ ,,~,: "",.,a "" ~ ,,, ^'" '" "u>\ ,...,'" ~'I ~ """",.,. ","'-
.,. -,,,"OJ'':' ^",n,."'"' ,"'~"^ """: ,~."'"' (" ..\\" -. ,;;,,) .. -'''" ti"
.,. "" ",,,,.,,,,,. 'n "'"', ",""",n , ""'" D<"'- ' ""', ""
"" C\~ ,,""'" "":.:.: ~ '" "" c~ ",""" B'I - """',::. "" """~
,,,,,,,,", '" "': ~~'::;,,," ,~,.. "" y",) ::;:;:,;: ,,"""" C',- J.>>" ~~~ C',- (j
"" '"'",., '" ",. -'''' '" ' , , ,. -'''' '" ' "'"'"
su'ocl\'\T\s\On -plat 1:(\~ncl \1:(\-pro'\Te1:(\ent -plans) 1:(\us
(an.cl S\te, gracl\nlb O'\Tennlb 11:(\-pN~
. . . ...-' '
""","' ,,,,,,,.,,,' '" "" ' , \,,) "'" C-
. . . ",\JD -plat are s 'n<clS are cU1:(\U,a l' t
,~""..-"'" ,.-'" - '''' "" ,n' -,"
"'" _~,,,","""" 'I'''' ("" ''''":,""",, """ ,n'''''~ f" ti"'''''''' ,~-...,'
,....,,' ~". .. "" ",,,,,,,,,,, '0;<; ~ -",,, " .... '" ...;", .:,.-. .", """ '" ..
,,~ .,.-'''' '. .... ,,,,,,,,~
"'" """~ ."" .", , """,,_ .,u' ,,-"" "",'" "'" -""
","' ""W ,.'" .. ,_""" ,'I ... "'" '
,~ .",,- ,~ ",,, . , "", ,. "" ," '
.. ,,,,, ",,,,, '" .. ",.". C''''''''' ",:::" "" l ~ '1<" "","
0"""'- - in;::: :;;'.i. .,,n .,u' """ '" ': :::,:;::: ""'. ,.,' "", ":" ::
",,,,,,,, .,...-..... "",,00<>,0<1' ""'~;. ","' in ""'. ,,,,,OJ;': :~ .'
..-"",,- \\ ....,.-"'''' . ,~..-"""""'.'
_" """ "" drf'" '. ""~ " ,n """, "" ' . "'" """", ... "..' ,
,;;""""". ,:""'''''''' ;:.:::..,. ~ '^;' ~"",,,, "" ...in'" "'"
li\\t'j -pro'\T1.clers so nO -p. . Ro'o\n.son Dn'\Te W\\' n:
u cl ara\nalbe \n\ets \n
'fi\e -pro-pose cl \nto -pn'\Tate -pro-pert'i.
ease1:(\ent area an
l' cottalbes
cl \.It\\\t'j 1'\an for!\. -p\ne
.' ,,,,<~ 1'\at an:
SU'ocl\'\T\S\ODJ ,'U v
subject'.
00 . r/>..'1< 970.91'0
~ ~~\12.. ?\,\ON' 970.9~O.so
1:. ;.,.s\'f..N, COLOR'"
...,,'" 0""' 51"" '''','''' "",,,,, ",,,
---
, .
" ._- .....
1'"'\
r"""'l>;
,
May 22,1998
...~. "':'
<''''.... .. ....
..,., .,.
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Mr. Timothy Semrau
Semrau Building & Design
208 1/2 East Main St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Subject:
SubdivisionIPUD Plat and Utility Plan for Alpine Cottages
Dear Mr. Semrau:
Generally, the following outlines the process for developing the plat and improvement plans for new
subdivisions. A subdivisionIPUD plat and utility plan are required documents to be prepared by the
property owner (at his expense) in the creation of a subdivision (and PUD). These need to be reviewed
and accepted by the City staff and the appropriate utility providers by means of authorized signatories
and the completed plat and plans recorded within 180 days of final approval by the City Council. Within
. the City of Aspen, the utility plans, grading and site plans (as well as other plans, details and agreements
required by the City code and administered by the Community Development Dept.) are required parts of
the package, (collectively called the Plat) which is to be recorded. By state law and city code, the '
subdivision.plat must be completed by a currently licensed Colorado Land Surveyor and the utility plan
(and site, grading and improvement plans) must be completed by a currently licensed Colorado Civil
Engineer.
The standards for the subdivisionIPUD plat are summarized in the attachments covering Improvement
Surveys and Subdivision Plats (the required contents and standards are cumulative). The LlInd Surveyor
is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the subdivisionIPuD plat to city and state standards.
The utility plans must be completed to the standards of each of the utility providers for which new or re.
built utility lines and appurtenances will be constructed.. Your civil engineer will need to contact each of
the utility providers for confirmation of their standar.ds and final approval.
Of particular concern in the development of the Alpine Cottages project will be the coordination of
utilities and drainage. The drainage plan will need to be designed for a five (5) year return frequency per
the attached summarized methodology. The proposed paving of Aene Park will need to account for and
coordinate with the drywells which were to have been built in Aene Park by the developers of the
W oerndle Subdivision. Robinson Drive is an existing utility easement granted to the city and other
utility providers so no private drainage structures will be permitted within the limits of the easement.
The proposed drainage inlets in Robinson Drive will need to convey the drainage flows out of the
easement area and into private property. '
Ll398,DOC
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORAJo QA\l ~ PHONE 970.920.5000 . FAX 970.9205197
Printe<J(mRecyctedpa~r
~
,'-
1"""'-.
~
Letter: SubdivisionlPUD Plat and Utility Plan for Alpine Cottages
New and revised easements of all types will need to be appropriate in location and dimensions with the
intended use of the easements and with other features of the subdivision and the improvement plans.
Very Truly Yours,
;ZC, ~
Ross C. Soderstrom
Project Engineer
Attachments: Checklist for Improvement Surveys
Checklist for Subdivision Survey Plats
Interim Standards for Drainage Design & Erosion and Sediment Control for Parcels
Smaller than One Acre
pc:--1Ulie Ann Woods, Assistant Community Development Director, w/o attachments
Nick Adeh, City Engineer, w/o attachments
Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer, w/o attachments
Jeff Woods, Parks Director, w/o attachments
Phil Overeynder,Utilities Director, w/o attachments
Tom Bracewell, Line Superintendent, ACSD, w/o attachments
Ll39S.DOC
2 OF 2
,-.
MEMORANDUM
.~
To:
Growth Management Commission
Thru:
Stan Clauson, Director
Date:
05/14/98
From:
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
Subject: Alpine Cottages (with apologies)
Attached is the submittal for the Alpine Cottages located on Cooper Ave. As you can
see, there is no staff report attached to this submittal for both the Growth Management
Commission and the City P&Z. This case had been in the works with a previous planner
until it was determined that there may be a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, this is
now my case. I have not been successful in carving out time from my newly-created
position as Acting Historic Preservation Officer to evaluate and write up this case yet.
My deepest apologies to you all. I will be working on this over the weekend and promise
to have the reports in your boxes no later than noon on Monday. Because this is such a
big and complicated case, I thought it best for you to at least have the application
(booklet) so that you won't have to scramble too much on. Monday to get it all read
before Tuesday's meeting. Again, my apologies.
Attachments
Alpine Cottages Application Booklet
~
r"\
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney / L /"
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director~
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Directo()Jf/c
Alpine Cottages Affordable Housil'~n~e~tuallFinal Planned Unit
Development and other reviews
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
May 26, 1998
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Larry Saliterman in association with Semrau Building and Design.,
is requesting approval to rezone to AHI-PUD in order to construct 10 deed
restricted units and 4 free-market units. The proposal involves requests for
rezoning, consolidated conceptual/final PUD, and Subdivision. The applicant has
sought and received approval for Special Review of off-street parking
requirements and density limitations, and a variance from the volume provision of
the residential design standards from the Planning and Zoning Commission by a
4-0 vote at their May 19, 1998 meeting. The site is located at 1240 East Cooper
Ave. The property currently contains the Alpine Lodge and a vacant lot (Lot 3,
Ferguson Exemption) behind the lodge.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the rezoning, consolidated
conceptual/final PUD, subdivision, vested rights, a partial park development
impact fee waiver request; and a land use fee refund request, with conditions.
ApPLICANT:
Larry Saliterman in association with Semrau Building and Design. The applicant
will be represented by Tim Semrau.
LOCATION:
1240 East Cooper Ave., and Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption. The property currently
contains the Alpine Lodge and a vacant lot behind the lodge, within the City of
Aspen as shown on the attached vicinity map (Exhibit A).
ZONING:
The subject property is currently zoned R-15A-PUD; the Alpine Lodge portion of
the site also contains an LP overlay zone. The applicant is seeking a rezoning to
AHI-PUD.
I
, /
,
1"""'\
c~
,
LOT SIZE:
Approximately 37,148 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This represents the total property minus the
proposed access easement and slope reductions.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF DENSITY CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This includes the same restrictions as above
and considers slope reduction.
FAR:
Maxitnwn allowable FAR is 23,253 s.f., based on.8 X Lot Area, subject to PUD
Review. The applicant is proposing 23,227 s.f. of FAR.
CURRENT LAND USE:
A 12-room lodge contained within four buildings, and a vacant lot.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Fivelots, four of which will be free-market, and one (Lot I) which will contain
ten (10) deed restricted units. Lot I, Alpine Cottages will contain:
2 four-bedroom Category 4 units
2 one-bedroom Category.4 units
2 one-bedroom Category 3 units
4 four-bedroom RO units
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The City Council has not previously considered this application.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the rezoning, consolidated
conceptual/final PUD, and subdivision application at a hearing and recommended
approval with conditions to City Council. The applicant is also seeking Vested
Rights approval; a partial park development impact fee waiver request; and a land
use fee refund request.
BACKGROUND:
The Alpine Lodge participated in the Small Lodge Lottery in 1997 and was
allocated four (4) additional lodge expansion units. The owner did not proceed
. with applying for a change-in-use request. The previous owner of the property,
James and Christina (Pfeifer) Martin, sold the lodge to the current owner with the
understanding that their descendants would have a right of first refusal on two of
the units, should they choose to remain in Aspen. The applicant was before the
Housing Board, which recommended approval subject to certain conditions.
2
f"'""',
~.
These conditions are spelled out in the recommendation. The applicant is not in
full agreement with these housing conditions and will want to discuss this with
the City Council.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Land Use Application fee in the
amount of $2905. The applicant is also seeking a partial waiver of the Park Land
Dedication Impact Fee. The Parks dedication fee would be $43,092. Because this
project is 71 % affordable, staff recommends that the applicant be responsible for
paying for 29% of the Park Dedication Impact fee, or $12,497.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "B." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "c," The application, which is
in a booklet form, should be considered Exhibit "D."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve on first reading the consolidated
conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AHI-PUD, subdivision, Vested Rights,. a park
deyelopment impact fee waiver request, and a land use fee refund request for the Alpine
Cottages, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Growth Management Commission's recommendation to approve ten (10)
deed-restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated allotments, be exempted
from Growth Management and that this be the approved method of providing
affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages;
2. That the applicant agree to the conditions placed on the project by the housing board,
including:
. The RO units will have a 3% appreciation cap;
. The developer will sell the RO units to a minimum household size of three
persons;
. Income and asset restrictions should be based on a maximum of an
$800,000 price;
. The maximum price for the RO units be set at $550,000; .
. The RO units be sold to households who have worked in Pitkin County a
minimum of the last four years consecutively; and
. That the category units be opened to the public, with the exception of the
first right of refusal for Friedl Pfeifer's grandchildren mentioned in the
contract; (this is a condition that the applicant is particularly not in
agreement with);
3
/""".
~,
3. That a utility plan be submitted to the Water Dept., the ACSD, and the City Engineer
for their review and approval prior to issuance of building permit;
4. All legal instruments associated with the access easement to Lot 2, Ferguson
Exemption, the emergency access easement located between proposed Lots B and C,
utility easements, and the trail easement between Aene Ct. and Snyder be recorded as
part of the final plat;.
5. Lighting should be downcast and not used to call attention to architectural features;
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to gain approval
for a line extension request, a collection system agreement, and possibly a shared
service agreement for each unit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District;
7. The applicant shall submit a drainage report prior to issuance of a building permit to
ensure that no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property during and after
construction;
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust
control plan;
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain the necessary permits
from the Environmental Health Department for any fireplaces or woodburning
devices;
10. Asbestos testing of the existing buildings will be required, as applicable, with the
building permit application;
II. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data including
property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments;
12. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair any public
right-of-way damaged during construction;
13. 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
final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed;
14. A new title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, must be submitted prior to
building permit;
15. Additional information about the chain oftitle and the prior approvals regarding the
open space reservation must be provided prior to building permit;
16. The applicant will grant a utility easement along the westerly side of proposed Lot A
and will work with the adjacent owners (Robinson) to attempt to get agreement to
relocate two spruce trees onto Robinson's property instead of within the propose water
easement alignment. Division of costs for extension of the water distribution system
will need to be negotiated with the City Water Dept.;
17. The proposed development will need to construct a main line extension of the sanitary
sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines to each individual building.
18. The site plan should include areas for trash and recycling containers and for on-site
snow storage;
4
r-..
-,
,
19. The Robinson Rd. access way, as proposed, is too narrow to be dedicated to the public
and should remain a private access way and common utility easement as previously
dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption;
20. The applicant will need to provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin County and copies
of postal receipts verifying the deliver of notice to all utility companies, all owners of
property fronting on or served by Aene Park, the Aspen Post Master, Pitkin County, and
the City of Aspen;
21. The parking spaces located between Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft wide
(minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating these spaces
from the access driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should conform to city and ADA
standards in size, number, accessibility, slope;
22. The developer will need to provide plans in the construction plans submitted for the
building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic, hauling and delivery
routes; vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging areas; temporary drainage,
erosion and sedimentation control during construction, and provision oftemporary
utilities;
23. The developer will be responsible to provide temporary utility and drainage services to
the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by disruption of utilities
during construction;
24. The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to commencing work
(relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the most stringent permit
requirements if the requirements of any permits differ;
25. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need
to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches;
26. The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the
purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an
assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with
recording the subdivision plat;
27. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-
of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows:
. The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for
design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public
rights-of-way;
. Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and
irrigation systems;
. Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
. permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public
rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090);
28. Unless the property owner can provide documentation verifying his water rights in this
irrigation ditch, the property owner should establish a raw water lease agreement with
the City Water Department for use ofa portion of the City's water allocation in the
Riverside irrigation ditch for purposes of irrigation;
5
,""'"
~.
,
29. The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide easement centered
on the ditch flowline. Unless some other documentation is presented to substantiate
another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will be suitable for this ditch
easement;
30. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk
and Recorder;
31. 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. .
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve on first reading the consolidated conceptual/final PUD,
rezoning to AHI-PUD, subdivision, vested rights, a park development impact fee
waiver request, and a land use fee refund request for the Alpine Cottages, with the
conditions outlined in the Staff memo dated May 26, 1998."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A Vicinity Map
Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit C Comments from Referral Agencies
Exhibit D Application (Booklet form)
Exhibit E. Ordinance
6
City of A
CE
/;:~~
~:..
~
~.
~-'''-
"
.~
.1')
EXHIBIT B
Staff Analysis and F1ndmgs:
Alpine Cottages: Consolidated Cooceptu:alJFinal Planned Unit
Development
A development application fora Pt:fD must comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements:
A. The proposed development shall he consistent with the Aspen Area Community
PIan.
Staff Finding:
Community VISion: The plan calls for disbursed mid-size to smaller projects, infill
development within the existing urban area, smaJt scale resident housing dispersed with
free-market housing, locatingilOusing near public transportation, a mix of-housingio
encourage families, and private developmentiusulvt: lht:housing crisis. Alpineeottages
achieves these goals while providing high-qualityilOusing within walking distance of-rtte
commercial core.
Community Vitality: The proposed development is 71% affordable, addressing the
community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities within a reasonable
walking distance to employment and recreation resources. The proposed development is
an in-fill site within, or approximately within, the original townsite. IrrcreasedTesfdentiat
density, especially for local workingTeSidents, within the town promotes a sense uf
community and creates community vitality.
Open Space and Environment: Providing housing opportunities within walking distance
to employment, entertainment, recreation, and other residences reduces the need to use a
vehicle for every trip. Also, compact development in proximity to existing facilities and
services reduces the need to extend services, and preserves those natural open space areas
for their wildlife and aesthetic functions.
Because of the project's proximity tuthe- Snyder AHIPark site, the Parks Dept. is
requesting a trail easement alongiheTearpropertyline, connecting Aene-et.-with'ihe
Snyder parcel. The applicant has agreed to this request. Such an easement should be
included on the final plat drawings.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
~'FiIldiIlg.
The proposed developmjml is SUl1uUIldedby fully developed property. Tirree~djacent
parcels (presuming Snyder wiltgerapproved) are AHdevetopments andthe.other adjacent
lots are RI5A Existing developments consist of single family homes, affordable housing
C::::+oH f"'t-t'\l"rln"lonfc -1
r\
1"'"'\
I
units and a small lodge tj)'ihe east and across Highway '82 (the Beaumont). The proposed
development is compati1:>le with the surrounding land uses.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
As mentioned above, thesurrouncfmg parcels are already developed, or proposed for
-devettJPUl"ut ~nyderJ. The-.UlI uUlIding-area' S developUl"ul orredevelopmentpotential
should not be negatively affected by this development.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which
GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Staff Finding:
The application must re<;eive deve10pment allotments for to residential units, and 4 free-
market-AH associated allotments. The Growth Management Commission wiltcoIIsider
this case this same evening, and-make a recommendation to CityCounci1 for aGMQS
exemption.
2. Density:
A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying
zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if:
I. There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed
development;
2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development;
3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope,
ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers;
4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natoral
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution;
5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the city; or
6. The design and locatioQ of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in
the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes hannful
disturbanej> to critical natura! features of the site.
Staff Finding:
The density proposed on-tbis site isile10w that ailowed based on the gross10t size. The
gross lot size is 37,148 S.I. The tot is reduced due to slope and easements to a lot area of
29,067 s.f. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit under AHI-PUD is asf011ows:
~singlt; ["'Iilly lots'@3000 s.f./unit 12,OOO-s.f.
2 duplexes @ 1500 s.fJunit 6;000 s~f.
6 four-bedroom multi-family units @ 400s.f./br 9.600 s.f.
Total: 14 units 27,600 s.f.
There are sufficient utilities and services to accommodate this developmenf. The access IS
adequate for fire protection service. The portion ofthe property where development is
proposed is suitable for development. The applicant has provided a traffic generation
report and is not required to provide an Air Quality Mitigation Plan as the proposal will
have-a; netreduction in daily traffic trips as compared to the lodge use. The applicant is
required to provide a drainage report to the City Engineer for their review ~ntl ~rproYa1..
~t~ff f'nryu"nanfe ')
r'\
~
The location of the proposed development does-not1lppearto be in severe con:llict'With
the natural terrain and features of the site.
B. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
1. In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and ava1anche hazards; enhance soil stability; and
guarantee adequate fire protllCtion access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in
areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent iu the following manor:
a. For lands between zero (OJ and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density
allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district.
b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum
density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the
underlying zone district.
c. For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall
be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone
district.
d. For lands in excess offorty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be
allowed.
2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary
in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit.
3. For parcels resting in more than one (1) zone district, the density reduction calculation
shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district.
4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Area.
Staff Finding:
The application specifies the percentages of the 'P1'opertyfalling within the described slope
classifications on Attachment D of the application: Tb" plUpOSed densityTequires 27,600
square feet of Lot Area. After all reductions, the property yields approximately 29,067
square feet of Lot Area. The proposal meets the density standard.
3. Land Uses. The land lJSes permitted shall be those ofthe underlying zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a
zero lot line or row house configuration, but mutti-'family dwelling units shall
only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding:
The application includes a request to rezone the property to AHI-PUD. The present
zoning allows for residential development in varying densities, while the proposed
rezoning allows a mixture of single farni1y, duplex and multi-family units. The applicant is
proposing this mix in his proposal.
4. Dimensional RequireJllents. The dimenSional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in
the following:
a. Minimum distance between buildings;
b. Maximum height (including viewplanes);
c, Minimum front yard;
d Minimum rear yard;
C::::+~ff f' 1"\r'Y'U''nontc:!: ~
,-.,
n
f'
e. Minimum side yard;
f. Minimum lot width;
g. Minimum lot area;
h. Trash access area;
i. Internal floor area ratio; and
j. Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the
minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of a111ots,
when averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation
permitted shall be clearly indicated on the fina,1 plat development plan.
Staff Finding:
This PUD will establish the dimensional requirements for the lots created. There are no
variations requested fropl the underlying zone district proposed.
The proposed dimensional requirements are as follows:
Requirements Common to Entire Development
Zone District: The applicant is proposing the site be rezoned to AHI-PUD.
Minimum distance between buildings: As shown on the plat
Maximum height: 23' 6" Proposed
Minimum percent open space: Approximately 56% (presuming building
envelopes 100% used)
Lot 1 (multi-familv and duplex units)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yard:
AHI-PUD
16,527 s.f..
12,587 s.f
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape materials
on natural grade, approved access ways, and approved
driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as
represented on the final plat and within the following
setbacks:
11 feet, along both Aene Ct. and Highway 82
4 feet (west property line)
3 feet along Robinson Road (the existing buildings have a
3' rear setback)
Lot A (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
AHI-PUD
6,090 s.f
2,660 s.f (with additional 350 s.f if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape materials
on natural grade, approved access ways, and approved
driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as
represented on the final plat and within the following
setbacks:
66 feet.
5 feet. (15' if title is perfected)
5 feet each.
~+~ff f'"rnrno.nfc A
,-
n
Lot B (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
AHI-PUD
5,460 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 sJ, if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat,
No development other than approved landscape materials
on natural grade, approveQ access ways, and approved
driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as
represented on the final plat and within the following
setbacks :
50 feet.
5 feet. (12' iftitle is perfected)
5 feet each,
Lot C (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
AHI-PUD
4,545 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape materials
on natural grade, approve4 access ways, and approved
driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as
represented on the final plitt and within the following
setbacks:
37 feet.
5 feet. (13' if title is perfected)
5 feet each.
Lot D (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
AHI-PUD
4,526 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape materials
on natural grade, approveli access ways, and approved
driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as
represented on the final plllt and within the following
setbacks:
15 feet.
Sfeet.
5 feet. (13' if title is perfected on north sideyard)
5 feet on south sideyard
5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied
from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following
considerations:
a. The probable numlJer of cars used by those using the proposed development.
h The parkiug need of any .nonresidential units.
~+'.:I-FoF f'nlV'ln"l.c.n+e t:;,
,1""'\.
~.
i'
c. The varying time periods.of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
d. The availability of public transit and other transportation fucilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public
recreational fucilities in the city.
Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain
assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change.
Staff Finding:
The proposed underlyinlil zone district, AHI-PUD, requires parking requirements to be
established through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
proposal includes at least I parking space per one-bedroom dwelling unit, and 2 parking
spaces for every other unit, which is the minimum for development city-wide. This
Special Review is addre~sed later in this staff report. Staff does not see any problems with
the number of spaces proposed.
6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying
zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be
permitted if such varilUfon would not be detrimental to the character of the
proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a
common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common
park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recre;ltion purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom
the common area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in
perpetuity to each lot or dweI1ing unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD),
together with a deed restriction a&ainst future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space slli!11 also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the
permanent care and maintenance of open space~ recreation areas, and communa1ly owned
facilities.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has agreed to provide a trails easement to the Parks Dept. along the rear
(northern) portion of the site connecting Aene Ct. to the Snyder parcel. The legal
instruments to protect this area should be submitted with the Final Plat. The applicant is
encouraged to work with the City Attorney and the Parks Department in preparing these
restrictions.
The application indicates that a minimum of approximately 56% of the site will remain
open space. Staff believes that due to the proximity to the future park site on the adjacent
Snyder parcel, this amount of open space will be adequate to serve the proposal.
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior
C::::+~ff f"'nl"nrnontc!: ~
('""',
(')
spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant
species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding:
The application includes a Landscape Plan as shown on Attachment C. The existing lodge
parcel has a mature landscape which the proposed development will attempt to maintain.
The applicant has already moved several mature trees elsewhere on site in an attempt to
successfully maintain a more mature landscape within the development parcel. This plan
provides a reasonable amount and variety ofplantings.
8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural
character is based UpOJl, the suitability ofa building for its purposes, upon
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion of the buil~ings with each other and surrounding land uses.
'Building design Should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and
maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage
and reduce soil erosion.
Staff Finding:
Building envelopes have been placed appropriately considering the natural terrain and
surrounding land uses, The plans and elevations for the Category and RO units have been
included in this application. The proportions, massing, and materials seem appropriate.
Both the RO and free-market structures must be developed consistent with the City's
Residential Design Guidelines. The applicant is requesting a design waiver for the volume
standard related to windows iri the 9"-12' fIqor plate height. This is addressed later in the
staff report.
The garages are orienteq to the internal part of Lot 1 and will have minimal visual impact
on neighboring parcels. The overall design contributes to the visual character of the city.
9. Lighting. All lighting 'Shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind tq adjoining streets or lands.
Staff Finding:
The applicant proposes that exterior lighting will be kept to a minimum, using 60 watt
downlights in the entry 1lIld garage areas.
10. Clustering. Ch,lstering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Staff Finding:
The development has been clustered, while allowing smaller lot free-market units within
the complex.
~+!:I-Ff ("I'\n''lrvu:~n+e 7
r--,
r)
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate pnblic facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the ti~e development is constructed, and that there will be
no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Fnrther,
buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to
emergency vehicles.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has indicated that all sidewalks, utilities, street paving and curb and gutter
installation will be born\( by the applicant.
At the time of this writing, the Engineering Dept. had not provided written comments
regarding this case. Staffwill attempt to get this from the engineers prior to Tuesday's
meeting. Based on note~ from the Development Review Committee meeting, it does not
appear that there are any major issues regarding this case. Both the Water Dept. and the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have indicated that they have the capacity to serve
this project. Both utilities have requested the submittal of a utility plan for their review.
This should be a condition of approval.
The ACSD has indicated that service from Aene Ct. may not work due to grade
considerations and an ellsement may be required on the west side of the property causing
units I and J to move to the east. The trench drain in the parking area must be routed to a
dry well or storm sewer IUld not connected to the District system. It is likely that a main
line extension may be necessary. Easements for such an extension will be necessary and
should be included on the final plat.
The existing 8" water line will need to be extended to near the end of Robinson Dr.,
reconnecting existing service lines serving 3 existing homes and installing a fire hydrant.
The applicant has agreed to provide a 10' water line easement along the westerly
boundary of free market Lot A. This will allow the Water Dept. to connect several "dead-
end" lines in the vicinity of Snyder. The easements for t~se water lines should be
included on the final plat.
The proposed access WilY and fire suppression system has been designed to accommodate
the Fire Marshall's reqQirements.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use jlermitted in the planned unit development (PUD)
shall have access to a public street either directly or throngh an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access Pllints shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movement and minImum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Minor streets within the Planned Urtit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to
streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by throu,gh traffic,
c. The proposed development &hall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion
on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such
surronnding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be
adversely affected.
~+off r"nn"'lrTton+c R
,-..,.
n
d. Ev~ residential building shall not be farther than silcty (60) feet from an access
roadway or drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct
access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on
any street.
f. Streets in the planned unit qeve10pment (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or
retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall
comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances.
Staff Finding:
The proposed access WilY meets these standards. The development will provide a new
sidewalk along Highway 82 to better serve pedestrians in this area.
Alpine Cottages: ,Rezoning to AHI-PUD
In reviewing an amendment to the official zoning map, the city council and commission
must consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this Titre.
Staff Finding:
The proposed rezoning is not in conflict with any applicable portion of the Land Use
Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with aU elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding:
Refer to Item IA, page I. The ,amendment is consistent with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding:
The proposed rezoning is appropriate in this area. There are three AH projects (including
Snyder) in ttie immediate viCInity, as well as single family residences. The proposed
rezoning will allow the development of a similar AH mixed housing type project.
D. The effect of the proposed amend~ent on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding:
The applicant submitted a traffic report to the Environmental Health Dept. It was
determined by Environmental Health that the proposed rezoning will result in reduced
traffic generation.
E. Whether and the e:dent to which the proposed amendment would result
in demands on public facilities, aud whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
Both the Water Dept. and the ACSD have indicated enough capacity to serve this project.
The project is located on an existing RFT A bus line. It is anticipated that with the four-
~+~ff ,....^rY'lrnon+~ Q
/"""",
.~
bedroom units it is likely that families with children will move into these units. Therefore,
there could be some impact on the area schools. However, because the restrictions placed
on this project by the Housing office require potential residents to be Pitkin County
residents for the previous four years, it is very likely that the families will have already
been in the school district, resulting in a minimal increase in new students.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The project should not have any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
The property is being redeveloped in an already developed area. Approximately 56% of
the property will be oper space. To the extent possible, the applicant is attempting to
relocate large existing trees to minimize the loss of these amenities. A drainage plan
which addresses erosion control must be submitted to the city engineer for their review
and approval prior to building permit.
G. Whether the pro,posed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The project is designed \0 be similar in design to other structures in the vicinity. The
-residences will face the street and have front porches. Parking will be contained in the
rear. Staff believes that the project will be compatible and consistent with Aspen's
community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood w~ich support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The neighborhood has been developing with a mix of both free-market and AH housing.
The project will be consistent with this change in character in this neighborhood.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
Interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
The rezoning will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code and
will not conflict with the public interest.
Alpine Cottages: Subdivision
Land that is divided into two or more lots for purposes of development is subject to the
City's Subdivision Regulations. The followinll review criteria must be met with all
subdivisions:
la. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the AACP.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item IA, page 1. The subdivision is consistent with the AACP.
lb. The proposed subdivision will be co~sistent with the character of existing
land uses.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item IB, Page 1. The subdivision is consistent with the character of
existing land uses.
~+'!:lIff ('nrnrru~n.e -1 n
r'\
n
lc. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to Item IC, rage 2. The subdivision should not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Id. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements ofthis title.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision will be in compliance with all subdivision requirements.
Za. Land suitability
Staff Finding:
The land is suitable for qevelopment. There are no known hazards that could impact the
development.
Zb. Spatial Patterns efficient
Staff Finding:
There do not appear to be any inefficiencies with space. The utilities exist to the site and
will be improved to better serve the site and adjacent parcels.
3. Improvemeuts
a. Water.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item II, page 8. Water lines will need to be extended and easements for
these extensions will be granted by the applicant.
b. Sewer.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item II, page 8. ACSD has indicated that sewer service to Aene Ct. may
not work due to grades. A sewer easement and line may need to be located along the
western property line. The applicant is required to submit a utility report to both ACSD
and the Water Dept. prior to issuance of building pennit.
c. Electricity
Staff Finding:
Holy Cross Electric currently serves the property with overhead lines. New service will
come underground from under Aene Ct. to a transformer located on a utility easement on
Lot D, the overhead line adjacent to Highway 82 will be extended vertically for safety
reasons per Holy Cross Electric Association's request.
d. Telephone, natural gas, and cable TV.
Staff Finding:
All of these utilities exist and will be extended where necessary to serve the project.
e. Easements
Staff Finding:
C:::f!:llff ("nry'U'no,nfe 11
1"."\
.,....."
The existing driveway easement to Lot 2, Ferguson Exemption will be vacated and a new
easement agreement will be recorded with the final plat. A new emergency access
easement, utility easements, and trail easement will be recorded on the final plat.
f. Sidewalks, curb and gutter.
Staff Finding:
New sidewalks will be installed along Highway 82 and Aene Ct. A new concrete sidewalk
will also be installed along the west property line to connect the project to Highway 82.
The Highway 82 curb and gutterwill be extended up Aene Ct., and a new handicap ramp
will be placed near the intersection.
g. Fire Protection
Staff Finding:
All units will be sprinkled for fire safety purposes. The existing fire hydrant will be slightly
relocated. An emergency access easement will be granted between Lots B and C, at the
request of the Fire Marshall.
h. Drainage.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has indicated that dry wells will be used to retain the historic storm water
flows on-site. A drainage plan must be submitted for review and approval of the qty
Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
i. Roads.
Staff Finding:
Both Aene Ct. and Robinson Rd. will be improved and paved at the applicant's expense.
j. Final Plat
Staff Finding:
Upon final approval by the City Council, the applicant will record a final plat which
reflects all of the subdivision requirements for this project. The neighbors of this project
have expressed a desire to have Aene Ct. changed to Camelot Ct. As part of the final plat
suomission, another page with signature blocks for all five owners with an interest in Aene
Ct. will be recorded, officially changing this name, with City Council's approval.
Alpine Cottages:: DRAC Varianeefur-VidtmreStandard
(Final P&Z review):
If an applicant is coming before'the Planning 1IIld Zoning ~ommission for any other action,
they may request a variance form the Design Review Standards by requesting that the
P&Z sit as the Design Review Appeals Committee (DRAC). A variance from the
standards will not be granted unless the commission finds that:
1) the variance yieldsgreater compliance with the goals ofthe AACP.
2) the variance would more effectively address the issue or problem a given
standard or provision responds to; or
3) the variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual
site specific constraints.
C:::t~ff ""l"\l'v"'\"u~ntc -1"
1"""1
.1')
Variance Request:
The applicant is seeking a variance from the volume standard. This standard requires that
"all areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than 10' shall be counted
as two square feet for each one square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be
defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of
the finished floor. . ." The applicant is requesting a variance from this standard in order to
allow 2' transom windows to be added to the gabled ends of the multi-family architecture,
extending 10' into the pJateheight. He indicates that~The gable walls of the affordable
units<rltface-the sunny side of the parcel and the transom windows offer an opportunity to
'soften' the size of the gable walls and let in more light and sun."
Staff Findings:
One of the goals of the AACP is that housing should be compatible with the scale and
character of the community and should emphasize quality construction. Staff agrees that
this design for category housing is wen-executed, and a variance could be granted based
on the finding that ''the yariance yields greater compliance with the goals of the AACP."
Alpine Cottages: Special Review lor ParkingJl:oo ARl Lot Area-
Requirements (F.inal1>&Z review)
Parking:
Parking requirements for an AHI-i>UD1JTOPertyisrequired-w be determinedthrougb
Special Review by the commission. The applicant is proposing a total' of sixteen (16)'
spaces for the deed-restrictedwrits-ann-two (2) eacl1forthefour free-market lots. This
lIlt:t:ls tht: slallJlIld established in the-land use COlIe-O( 1 space /bedroom or 2
spaces/dwelling unit.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has demonstrated that the parking needs of the residents ofthe project have
been met. Staff believes that due to the proximity of the project to the commercial core
and its location as a transit stop;mo'St residents-will choose-to park their cars and-use
alternative transportation. The applicant ha:nrlso-inc1uded an area for bike storage for the
residents. Staff finds that the proposed parking is adequate for this site.
Lot Area for AHI-PUD:
"For multi-family dwellings on a: lot that was subdivided from a parcel of27,000 square
feet or less or for10ts that were subdivided from a parcel of 43 ,560 square feet or less
when approved by special review pursuant to Chapter 26.64, the following square feet
requirements shall apply:
Detached units
Duplex per unit
Multi-family
I bedroom
4 bedroom
3,000 s.f
1,500 s.f
400 s.f
1600 s.f
Review Standards:
-I; 'Fhe-fll_, heigllt,deRsity,~gurati9D, _t of open space,
landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a
C:::t~ff (''''rY'IrY'Io..,tc ... ~
,-"
.~
manner which is comp/lliblewith or enhances the character of'SDlTOuuding
land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have
adverse impacts on surrounding uses or wilfmitigate those impacts,
including but not limitetho1:1nn1fects 1)f slladillg, "X"".. h aftk, availability
of parking in the neighb'orhoo~or b19cking of a designated view plane.
Staff Findings:
The project, as proposed is laid out with adequate space and landscaping to enhance the
character otthe area andiS consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone. The
project will result in less traffic then the lodge currently generates. The project is laid out
in such a way that all units, including the free-market units wilthave act equate sun. As
mentioned above, the pr9,ject mt:ds lht:parkingTel/uilt:Illents of the 'city. There1ll'e no
established view planes in this area.
C:::t~ff ("nrnrnc.nfc.- 1 A
i"""
"""'"
Exemption for AffordableJtonsing:
Affordable housing deed restrieted in 1IeC6rdancewitlflhe~ilelinesllithe~ity
Council and its housing designee shaltbe-exempHrOmthe'scoringand~(J1lll'etit'UIl
procedures of gr\lWlh management by City Coundl.
Staff Finding:
The proposal includes:
Five lots, four of which will be free-market, and Qne (LQtl) which will oontain ten
~deett~;.,1t:tll'lf!its: lietcl; ~OW'5",,,wH!:-contain'
2 four-bedroom Categow <I mrits
2 one-bedroom Category 4 ullits-.
2 one-bedroom Cate$Ofy 3 uruts
4 four-bedroom ~O units
These units, if approved by City Council, will be deducted from the annual pool of development
allotments.
Approval of the IIl'etIro4k
Approval of the method by whiclt the applicant proposes to provide affordable housing shalt
De llt'tbe UJ!GU11 ofthe'CityCiinnc1f,'DpOn the recolllllJendatiml ofthe' GrowfuManagement .
Commission. In evaluati"g the applicant's proposal, the advice of the AspentPitKin County
Housing Authority shalll:le sought in considering the following factors:
1. Whether the cit:!'. has an ~o~ted plan to develop affordable housing witb moneys
received from l'ayment or .rro. daPle housing dedication fees.
Staff Findinl!:
The City, through the Hou~ AUthUlit,t;has neveIoJ>ed WJ. a1fuH:kl.ole housing-pian-for'botb public
and private moneys. Devefopers <U~ .l.1u11l;;Iy "'1""Ul"l;;.,.,[ tv 11Jlll;;"t~ orr-site'before'consi<leri:ng-ofF-'
site or payments-in-lieu. The applicant will provide affordable housing on site.
2. Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the applicant's site as ~eing
appropriate for affordable11Ousing.
Staff Finding:
The AACP does not specif).callpecognizeihis site for affordable housing. Staff believes ihat the
development of affordable 11""'lull close to1furcentero:ftowrrancfwithinwalkink dl.l:<ullle 1o"worK
opportunities and community facilities is appropriate and desirable.
3. Whether the applicant~s site is wen suifeiJ fot tlie development oiafiordabte
housing, taking into accou\li'the avaitabilityOf st:mces, proxiIilit)' to empto)'lllent
opportunities and whether the sife is affected by environmental constraints to
developm~ orl1islonc preservation concerns.
'St:a:tFFiiiJitl!!..
The site is well-suited for p:roviding'affotdable housing on-site. There are no known historical
constraints to development on this site.
4. Whether the method propo,sed will result in emp10yee bousing being produced prior
to or at the same time the impacts urthe development will be experienced by the
community.
Staff Findinl!:
~+...~ ~...................""'~+" ............0. 1
t"""\
~
The applicant will be developing the affordable housing as one complex. There should be no
additional impacts of development generated by this site.
5. Whether the developmeatltse1f requires the provision of affordable housing on-site
to meet its service needs;
Staff Findimz:
The development is an affordable housing project with a mix of free-market units, AH associated.
The AH units will be provided on-site.
V~ts:
Vested Rights status protejlts ihe lIJ!Pncant against changes in ihe 1an.d use code for a period of
three years from City Council approval. AJwrovals not granted this status are protected for 18
momns. .
There are no review criterii!- for the Council to consider other than the development requested.
Staff recommends the Council consider and approve-vested'rigI1t to the extent the proposed
development is acceptable.
Park Development Impact Fee Waiver Request:
fn-accordance--wi1:Ii26:44'.'OO{):
"Whenever the City counqI shall have determined that an:!, part of a proposed development
constitutes an affordable housing d".dojhu<a<l andwisbesro-suhsidize its-construction, the' .
city council may exemJlHhat part of the development from the application of the park
development impact fee, orredure by any attl6U41 the fees imposed by tbissection. . ."
The applicant is requestiJ:;lg the waiver -of the Park DevelopmenrIntpaet Fee based -on the
affordable housing compOtleflt of the- development. Beeause-7t% of the-unit mix wilt be-
deed restricted, staff recommends that the applicant be Tequired t1"\pay29%oc$12,497
for Parks development.
Land Use Fee Refund Ri!qUeSt:
At it's discretion, the city 'Council may waive the fees associated with a land use
application for an afforda51e-hOtlSing project. l'he-lIfl1llieant Ii> seeking & refund Oft flis.land
use fees. In this case, the applicant's fee was $2905. Staff recommends refunding this fee.
c...,...fl",....................o............. .............0. ")
1. ,
-
1""'.
i""!"\
J:;.Xrt I Bli c...-
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mitch Haas, Planning Office
Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director~ tc
RECEIVED
APR 3 0 1998
Through:
From:
Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health Specialist
ASPEN I PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Date:
April 28, 1998
Re:
Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing Project
Parcel ID # 2737-181-00-016
~==============================================
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing land 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 unlawful 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 the central collection lin,;~ ?fthe.t\.~pen Cons?lidated
Sanitation District (ACSD) meet th,;req~;"';r'ts?f~dep.a~~,;nt. .~~:!llt~:~flell~<1')J.i:I~~ll:~lttion
Distrjqt:to:J:1@dlg.t\l.e~~d::;fl\}W1~;l:lie:'p;r61~ctshOu1d::be';ueter~~;:liY::~Pi\\~~fThe applicant has failed to
:'~11;'~:~,'7,.t""+~:;7:'"!:,'.'(':""""';:::"'.:,, ".\/"~'{: :'-<':'.' ,0'.',,',.;:_,,""':" -':0"';':':":" .,..:> .. ... .. .." .. "'U"'."
pto'Vi'd,,' docuirtentiifil5ri'that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the
service agency is capable of serving the development.
ADEOlJATE 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."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental Health policies
ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen watersupply mee,ts all standards of the Colorado Department of
Health for drinkin water uality. ~ib;iillfr;<~<;~~eii$~~"....."!l.ttIS""~l:;d. et. ~. . 'e:'U;'."\i"""""''''''.walei:1'iSI
.. g q i)t~~~tt\",.,'"..~~t; -.t'--'--~',.,.,.",:.."~~",~"...:,.,;,::<,,,,:^.:,.;,,:.[:.,.,_":.:":,:;"",-"",^_,~~,~,""",,:,;-,~:,,.',~,,,*,,_LM".
WAl.!ll:r!~:~k;~~m!!j;~. The applicant' has failed 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.
WATER OUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply
from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the
City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above
the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted,"
. \.~r,;.U~epl.m'IJ'i"iriiti~ll" the w.tct(jli~il~;ii1ipiiCl';. hom dri\" ill1d parkirtgai"riS:'~;~)~Wl:fiiilj)l:lY!:;l;tj~~
l~n-ninl:~l\r. Illl.~ ,r:lppHc.:ation i!', nol ('xpeck'c.110 hnpi.1d do\\ n .sLn~dm \\ 1.1lc.'j" f..lllC1lit~..
. AIR OUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum
practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent
and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation
demands that cannot be metll as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
1
:<,.&. '
,-..,.
~
The major air quality impact is emissions resulting from the traffic generated by projects. PM-10 (83% of which comes
from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern in Aspen. The traffic generated also produces
carbon monoxide and other emissions that are health concerns, The municipal code requires developments to achieve
the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available practical qtethods to reduce pollution. Standards
used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and reductions from the 'Pitkin County
Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Renort Fifth edition,
Housing units use the trip generation rate for lTE Land Use code 210, which is 9.55 trips per day per unit. Free-Market
units located within one half mile of a transit stop are allowed a reduction of 1.5 trips per day, Affordable Housing
units are allowed a reduction of 2,0 trips per day, Hotel and lodging units use the ITE trip generation rate for Land Use
Code 310, Hotel/Occupied Room which is 8.8 trips per day per tourist room. The standard trip reductions for a hotel
are the same as for free market dwellings.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4 free market units
9.55 trips minus 1.5 trips (close to transit) minus ,75 (partial credit for being within walking distance to
support services)
+
10 affordable units
9.55 minus 2.0 trips (close to transit) minus .75 (walking distance to support services
;!2!ilta!l:iGt~i_~~~ffie;prep9'se'a!piOJ~t. New sidewalks and providing bike storage will also
encourage walking instead of driving, which will allow the reductions above to actually occur,
Using the ITE manual, th~~~~wJf/a'~el\\P~~Ijo!t%~~'!\~~~:~/ day, including both guests
and employees/ deliveries! services, etc,
It is expectep that the proposed new development will generate fewer trips each day than the existing use does, so
,~1lI'\%ljj,-, ,="_c;";s""",,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,
there ~",w'R@\.~~~!,~mr..v.ro-C~',;y";;iS\pliQ~$;p'oj~~m~f,ig'!lt;i,Q1il,<meaSm:ijsJajfeiteq1iired
The application from the developer used different numbers from the ITE book but also concluded that the new
development will decrease the total number of trips/ day,
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE. PERMITS lfi;1Ie""~PPlrClfflj,""mtiSf'i!ifiiIe,ji~:i3~R.~c$!iriEl<ifii.Ye;:p;;'",4ti:;W;itE,fl:te
~rim'.r~:f;fe';iMi!!:rrep::i{Ihjffif,,5'aOltei:~~n~~~g9,e.~t;:J.~'Bi@1iel!iiil~d. In metropolitan areas of Pitkin
County which includes this site, buildings may Mve two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each)
and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning
fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel.
FUGITIVE DUST ,~~~\li{iil!:~!i!D~9hpJ~~!\:f!\!lmli which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of
haul roads and diSturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove 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,
This applies to grading, landscaping, utility work, or other activities that might cause dust to blow onto nearby roads
or properties.~i'Ilm~ie1lipwreve(jiJ'6y'iGiii~bi!fjml!,,"!!~~g~B:S~i~~~J1~'
DEMOLmON
~=:rC~~1Ssue
~,
',aetntitifion lheapplicant ntltst ha:v:!',th~.b1;Ji~diIJg:t!:!l'te~'fflr,~bestos,~d if anJ(is ~eS!lnt,
it terfj'fi!ili al?..tem~ntc.ortip~i.')11~l"meas.mes must .be completed 'betorethe bl!i~
, ,', " , .".'
'.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
2
"
^
i""""\
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source. of environmental
pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and f;O the health, safety and welfare of the
residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors. .....Accordingly, it 18 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 exce,ss of those levels.1I
miring coii~tr~i~tiOI1, l1oi~~ can nol ~'.~ce~d:~itJdmum'permissible so~d le1(el:standm:ds. and,constructionCamlot be
dOlle exct'pt between U". h(~ur~ of 7 a.lll. <l'ld'iOp.m/, '
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on
the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise
levels.
3
^ '. . n
[7jsp~," Gonso./icfafedoanifalion LviSfricf
565 North MiItStreet
. Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (970) 925-3601
Sy Kelly. Chairman
Paul Smith. Treas.
Louis Popish .Seey.
FAX #(970) 925_2537
Michael Kelly
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
April 30, 1998
Mitch Haas
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Alpine Cottages AH project
Dear Mitch:
The ASpen Consolidated Sanitation District currently hassu:fficient collection and treatment
capacity to serve this project. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules,
regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office.
. .
. .
. .
We will need to review a detlliled utility plan for this project. If appears that a main line extension
will be needed to serve both the free market and affordable housing units. A line extension request
and collection system agreement are required for main line extensions. The paperwork for both is
available at our business office. The District will requires easements forthe main line extensions,
granted according to standard Districtform, providing access for future line maintenance and
repair.. Prior to utility construction, funds must be placed in escrow with the District to cover the
costs of reviewing the detailed plans for the extension and to. cover our costs of observing the
construction of the line. . .
Service from Aene Court may not work due to grade considerations and an easement may be
required on the west side of the property causing units I and J to be moved to the east The
application also shows a trench drain in the parking areawhich must be routed to a dry well or
storm sewer and not connected to the Di~trict system. We would like to review the. drainage plans
for the project once they are available. I would encourage the applicant's engineer to contact our.
line superintendent, Tom Bracewell, for a detailed reyiew of the preliminary on-site utility
planning. .
Please call if you have any questions,
,~ '! /,' ::.:::;
Sincerely,
MAY 04 1998
.~~ ~,XL,.rg
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
r',.::r;"'i.::.;~. i ,-',:('-"'11\1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976. 1986.1990
Regiol1al and National
.",-..,
.~
.
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mitch Haas, Project Plarmer
Tbru:
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From:
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
Date:
April 29, 1998
Re:
Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing Subdivision, PUD, Rezoniug, GMQS Exemption,
Special Review for Parking, and AR1 Lot Area Limitations Reviews
Physical Address:
Legal Description:
1240 East Cooper Avenue, City of Aspen, CO
A tract ofland situate in the Riverside Addition to the City of Aspen, consisting of Lot
3, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption, and a metes and bounds description of a parcel
situate between said lot, the rights-of~way of Aene Park and East Cooper Avenue, and
Lot B, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption, containing 0.893 Acres, more or less, City of
Aspen, CO.
xxxx-=-xx-=
Parcel ID No.:
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the combined
comments made by the members of the DRC:
[Site conditions at the time of site visit: April 22, .1998 and during subsequent site visits; no snow cover, dry,
clear.]
Discussion: As submitted, the subdivisionIPUD application is incomplete and should not be considered.
further until the applicant has provided a complete application. For the applicant's benefit, the following
comments are made at this time, based upon the submitted conceptual plans, to minimize future revisions.
Neither an utility plan nor a title policy were provided with the initial application. The utility plan provided on
May 12, 1998, does not meet the standards nor spatial requirements for extension of utilities which will be
necessary since this project is located at the peri ., s stems which are not presently
adequate to serve this proposed developm . The title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, ot 3, (al 0
delivered May 12, 1998) is not current as require y 1 e frrst
page of Schedule B.
At this time it appears that the hiatus between proposed Alpine Cottages Lots" A" and "B" and the Snyder
property is actually a remainder parcel of un-vacated public right of way of East Circuit Avenue. As successor
to Pitkin County of public rights-of-way armexed in to the municipal boundaries, it appears this parcel belongs
to the City of Aspen. We are continuing to review the chain of title of the hiatus located between common
Area #3, Woemdle Subdivision, and the subject property (given the out of date title report).
1. Application: Since this proposed development is in an area at the periphery of the existing utility
systems, some line extensions and improvements will be necessary to provide service to this development. The
DRCI1A98.DOC
10F 7
Memo - Alpine Cott:l.ges AHoruable H~o; .:iubdivision. PUD, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption. SpeciiL..R RevlI::w for Parking. and AH I Lot
Area Limitations RevIews " ~
I " .
DRAFT ... !
applicant should meet with each of the utility providers to verify the serviceability of the project, the need for
extensions and improvements to the utility systems, and division of responsibility between developer and
utility providers for making required improvements before the application is reviewed further. The utility plans
need to be completed (signed and stamped) by a currently licensed Colorado civil engineer (licensure required
by under CRS 12-25-105).
The applicant will be requireCi to complete the staI;ldard requirements and conditions associated with the
formes) of development requested in the application.
2. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project
change, or the site. parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of
the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and
recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated April 16, 1998)
provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the
use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking or utility designs.
3, Prior Approvals and Agreements: The proposed building envelopes of the four (4) free market
lots encroach into the open space easement defined in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption in the area of the
former East Circuit Avenue right-ot~way. Such restrictions are typically dermed as reservations running with
the title of the land in the vacated right-ot~way. There are approximately a dozen exceptions to the title reports
regarding prior agreements, subdivisions and easem.ents which may impact the developable area of this project
or otherwise influence the use, extent and location of specific features and types of improvements, including
public utilities. These prior agreements are under review. This review will also consider prior development
agreements and conditions which have not been completed to date.
We request additional information about this aspect of the chain of title and the prior approvals applied to this
property in order to fully evaluate the title and reservations of the property.
4. Utilities & Services: Apart from the discussion below of the water distribution system, the
application does not include plans nor letters of serviceability . from the several utility providers serving the area
of the proposed development. Coordination of the extension of utilities, possible dedication of utility and
access easements, and coordination of the utility systems with the site design is a requirement of the application
for both subdivision and POO. The proposed plan does not provide adequate width for separation of utilities
and excavation through the proposed Robinson Road although a main line extension will be required for the
sanitary sewer.
5. City Water Dept.: During the site visit on April 22, 1998, the applicant (Timothy Semrau) met
with Phil Overeynder and conceptually agreed to an extension of the water main through the project to connect
with water mains extended from Midland Avenue through the Snyder Property. This is contingent upon
granting of an utility easement along the westerly side of the proposed Lot A and agreement of the Robinsons
(owners of the adjacent lot to the west) to the relocation of two spruce trees to be transplanted on Robinson's
property instead of within the propose water easement alignment. Division of costs for extension of the water
distribution system will need to be negotiated with the City Water Dept.. (The utility plan provided on May 12,
1998, included undersized water mains.)
DRCllA98.DOC
2 OF 7
~
Memo ~ Alpine Cott:J.ges Atfordal.'-'~ousinl:. :::iubdivision. PUD. Rezoning, GMQS Exemption,'~.lal RevIew fOr Parking, andAHt Lot
Area Limitations Review.
DRAFT
The City's water distribution system presently consists of three terminal water mains serving this
neighborhood. The existing configuration does not provide adequate flow and pressure to maintain fire
suppression capacity in the distribution system without extending and interconnecting the water mains to form
a looped system. The extension of a water distribution main in the common access driveway with a new fire
hydrant is required to provide water service. Continuation of the water main through this property into the
Snyder property will assist in making the necessary extensions to the water distribution system. Coordination
of the water main easement and the trail easement is an alternative that the applicant and the city staff will need
to evaluate.
6. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: This proposed development will need to construct a
main line extension of the sanitary sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines to each individual
building. The District will not provide service to this development based upon the pro'Q.,osed configuration
shown in the schematic drawing. -
7. Trash and Recycling Areas, Snow Storage and Mail Boxes: The site plan should include areas for
trash and recycling containers and for on,site snow storage. The applicant should consider a common mailbox
area for the entire development to facilitate delivery and reduce congestion. (None of these are represented in
the plans.)
8. Utility & Service Easements: The proposed subdivision should include easements for utility
pedestals within the property boundaries and not in the public nor private rights-of-way where these cabinets
will obstruct the driveable width of the right-of-way. The proposed utility easement in the northeasterly corner
of Lot D may not be a serviceable location depending upon the types of utilities requiring an underground or a
surface fixture.
9. Riverside Irrigation Ditch: The Riverside Irrigation Ditch crosses the southwesterly comer of the
property, flowing from the culvert under Highway 82 toward Lot B, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption.
Although the previous property owners of the Alpine Lodge have pwnped water from this ditch for landscape
irrigation for several years, we have not received docwnentation of a water right in the Riverside Ditch which
runs with this properly. Unless this property owner can provide docwnentation verifying his water rights in this
irrigation ditch, we recommend that the property owner establish a raw water lease agreement with the City
Water Department for use a portion of the City's watera1location in this ditch.
The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide easement centered on the ditch flowline.
Unless some other docwnentation is presented to substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement
will be suitable for this ditch easement,
10. City Parks Department: There are a couple possibilities for extenSion and inter-connection of
the existing City trail system through this proposed development and the Parks Dept. wishes. to discuss these
further with the applicant to coordinate trail access. This may coincide with easements needed for extension of
the water mains through the proposed development. The City will request dedication of pedestrian trails
through the proposed development once the locations and dimensions are determined.
DRCIIA98.DOC
3 OF 7
Memo - Alpine Cott:l.ges Atlbrdll.ble ng ::iubdivision. PUD. Rezoning, GMQS E.'(emption. Spe~evlew tor Pll.rking, and AHl Lot
Arell. Limitlltions Reviews ' : ", .
DRAFT
11. Aspen Volunteer Fire Department: The entire development will need to be protected by tire
sprinklering and the applicant has proposed relocating the existing fIre hydrant at the comer of Aene Road and
Highway 82 a few feet. The fIre access is acceptable at 16 ftwidth of pavement and an additional 2 ft clear
passage on each side of the access way (Unit C may !lQ.I; be moved closer to the access drivewav than alreadv
. .
represented).
12. Environmental Health~ Due to the number of dwelling units proposed in the development and
the distance to the commercial area of the city, the proposed mitigation measures in sidewalks and paving of
the access driveway and proximity to public transit, fulfjll the mitigation requirements for vehicular traffIc.
Asbestos testing of the existing buildings and the standard fugitive dust control permit will be required, as
applicable, with the building permit application.
13. Access to Streets: The plans are not clear in the identifIcation of the ownership and status of the
proposed Robinson Road wQich is identified as an easement although this access way is not part of any of the
. lots. It either needs to be incorporated into the adjoining lots by extension of the lot lines or be identifIed as a
separate lot with common accesS conditions for all adjoining property owners. This access way, as proposed, is
too narrow to be dedicated to the public and should remain a private access way and common utility easement
as previously dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption. (providing of utilities may necessitate a wider
access way which would alter the site plans.) As shown, the surface drainage from this area will be retained
within the property.
Since the access way is presently narrower than a standard city alley, it would be more appropriate to name it
"Robinson Alley" to connote the sub-standard width and atypical construction (reverse crowned with drainage
catchbasins centered in the driveable surface width).
As a condition of approval, this development will provide common access to Lot B, Ferguson Subdivision
R'Cemption, similar to the access provided to the Robinson property through the access driveway. It is
appropriate to restore access for this adjoining lot which will facilitate the re-development of the property and
elimination of the existing curb cut onto Highway 82. The dedication of access for Lot B, Ferguson
Subdivision Exemption to Robinson Road will be irrevocable so as not to isolate this adjoining property. The
access driveway and utility easements of this property will also provide unrestricted utility easement to Lot B,
Ferguson Subdivision Exemption.
Aene Park is presently a gravel surfaced access way and cul-de-sac. As an alternative to developing this as an
urban street profIle, consideration should be given to providing curb, gutter and full width asphalt paving
beginning at Highway 82 and extending to the up-hill side of Robinson Alley. The bulb of the cul-de-sac could
be left with gravel shoulders and drainage swales around the perimeter so as to provide an area for snow
storage without danger of crushing the curb while plowing snow from Aene Park and the cul-de-sac.
14. Sidewalks, Street Lights, Fire Hydrants & Utility Pedestals: The proposed 16 ft wide Right-of-
Way Reservation along the Highway 82 frontage creates separations of 1 ft. and 3 ft, for Unit A and Unit F,
respectively. The planting bed around Unit A encroaches approximately I ft into the Right-of-Way reservation
which compromises the use of this reservation for future right-of-way development. The location and
orientation of these two dwelling units should be revised to increase the separation from the right-of-way
reservation, treating it as a proper right-of-way. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are required to be installed along thc:l
two (2) street frontages at the time of construction.
DRCIIA98.DOC
40F 7
Memo - Alpine Cottages AifordabJ-"-4',?using Subdivision. PUO. Rezoning, GMQS E.xemption, r~"'.al Review for Parking, and AH 1 Lot
Area Limitltions Review,
DRAFT
An public access easement will be required for the sidewalk along the westerly side of Aene Road since this
will lie within the property bOl.mdaries. As the utility plans are developed, locations of pedestals and above
ground appurtenances should be included on the site plan in order to coordinate the improvements and dedicate
any necessary utility easements.
Relocation of the existing fire hydrant will require a right-of-way permit from CDOT and the City of Aspen.
Depending upon the where street lights will be located, installation of these improvements may also require a
right of way permit from CDOT and the City of Aspen.
15. Re-naming of Aene Road: The applicant will need to provide a petition signed by the adjacent
property owners requesting the' change of street name from Aene Road to Camelot Court. Since this action
does not involve dedication ofright-ol~way, and so as not to complicate the dedication onhe subdivisionlPUD
by having persons without ownership or official capacity signing on the plat, we believe this action should be
treated separately from the subdivision application although simultaneously. The subdivisioniPUD plat may
rel1ect the street name change if the name change has been finalized before the plat is recorded. The request
for street name change should also contain alternate names to provide an unique name not already in use and to
be phonetically distinct so as not to be confusing to dispatching of emergency services within Pitkin County,
The applicant will need to provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin County and copies of postal receipts
verifying the deliver of notice to all utility companies, all owners of property fronting on or served by Aene
Park, the Aspen Post Master, Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen.
16. Parking: The parking spaces located between Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft wide
(minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating these spaces from the access
driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should conform to city and ADA standards in size, number,
accessibility, slope.
17. Traffic and Street Signage: The developer will.be responsible for coordinating additions and
changes to the traffic and street signage in and around this proposed development in accordance with City and
CDOT standards. If Aene Road is renamed, the developer will purchase the new street name sign(s) from the
City Streets Dept. and install the sign(s) as required by the City Streets Dept.
18. Drainage Improvements: The application did not include a geotechnical investigation of the soils nor
a drainage report for the preliminary sizing of the drainage facilities. If the proposed drainage system will rely
upon injection or infiltration, rather than detention alone, the geotechnical report will be required to assure the
feasibility and sizing of the drainage facilities.
Robinson Road should be graded with a high point at the property line with Aene Road so as to contain the
surface drainage within the Robinson Road drainage system.
19. Survey Monuments and Subdivision / POO Plat: The developer will need to tie this
subdivision into the City's survey control grid. The new range point(s) and box(es) for the subdivision will be
located in locations selected by the City Engineer and conform to City standards for survey monuments.
DRCIIA98,DOC
50F 7
Memo - Alpine Cottages Atfordable ~ng Subdivision, POD. Rezoning, GMQS Exemption. Sp~Review tor P:lrking.;:md AHI Lot
Area Limitations Reviews' " r ",'"'\
DRAFT
The owner will be required to prepare and record it subdiVision I PUD plat according to state and city standards.
The property corners of the new lots will be surveyed and monumented before recording of the plat. New and
existing property monuments will be protected during construction and flagged for verification prior to
issuance of any C.O. Signature blocks will be included for the City Parks Director for acceptance of the trail
easements and the several utility providers including the representative of the owners or principle water right
holder in the Riverside Ditch.
20; Landscaping: . The proposed landscaping plan indicates planting new trees in the 5 ft space along the
north side of Lot 2 in the area identified as the fire access, in the 5 ft utility easement on the south side of Lot 2,
in the 10 ft utility easement on the west side of Lot 1, and either over or close to the locations of drywells "c".
"D", and "E". The fire access along the north side of Building No.5 may not be obs.tructed by trees nor
shrubbery, and trees should not be planted in utility easements nor over shallow structureS'like the drywells.
The landscaping plan will need to be reVised to place the trees elsewhere. -
21. Construction Impacts: The developer will need to provide plans in the construction plans
submitted for the building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic, hauling and delivery routes;
vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging areas; temporary drainage, erosion and sedimentation control
during construction, and proVision of temporary utilities. The intent of the plans is to minimize the detrimental
impacts to the public rights-of-way and to adjacent property and neighbors.
22. . Public Improvements and Landscaping Security: The property owner will need to post
financial securities, acceptabie to the City Engineer, for the public improvements and landscaping in the public
right-of-way. The security will be in the amount of 100% of the value of the work as estimated by the City
Engineer.
23. Planned Unit Development: Topics specific to PUD have been incorporated in other sections of
this memorandum.
24. Construction Impacts: The developer will be responsible to proVide temporary utility and
drainage services to the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by disruption of utilities during
construction. An erosion and sediment .control pian will be included in the plans proVided for the building
permit.
25. CDOT Right-of-Way Permit: The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to
commencing work(relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the most stringent permit
requirements if the requirements of any permits differ.
26. Condominiumization: For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling
unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general
common elements and limited common elements will be labeled, dimensioned and identified on the
condominium plat recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site. The condominium plat will
be recorded prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project. The abutting subdivisions and
lots will also be shown on the subdiVision plat as required by Aspen Municipal Code.
DRCIIA98.DOC
60F 7
Memo. Alpine Cottages AtTordablev-using Subdivision. PUD. Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Sr~l Rev.ew for Parking, and AHI Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
27. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement
districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an
assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the
subdivision plat.
28. As-Builts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the
AspenlPitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines,
building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and
any other improvements.
29. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as foilows:
The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design
of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights-of-way;
Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation
systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within
public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090).
DRC Meeting A.ttendees:
Applicant: David Miller, representative for applicant (Semrau Building)
Staff & Referral Agencies: John Krueger, Ross Soderstrom, Stephen Ellsperman, Ed VanW"lraven,
Nancy MacKenzie, Phil Overeynder
ORCllA98.DOC
70F 7
::;;""':il'?
/~
.;~
Attachment 8
1'-"
'r,
(\
,
County oCPitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} . ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado} -;;J: SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I, ~ ~ I'~ 'f'- . being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certifY that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet ofthe subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the A.- day of~, 1998 (which is l.S days prior to the public
hearing date of.MA. '11~ 1m.
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 1!1 day
of ~, 199~, to the ~ day of -.JIl 1)."/ , 199.8-. (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photogra
is attached hereto.
!9Jt,
Signed before me this .2~~'day of .It~
199~. by ,
44r/,6 pt;. ,4../?-~
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
October 24, 1998
,-.,
r-\
May 19,1998
From: Terry and Molly Swanton
1331 East Cooper Street
Aspen, CO 81611
To: Aspen City and Planning
Dear fo lks,
This letter expresses not only our concerns about the Alpine Lodge project, but the
concerns of our absentee neighbor, Helen Klanderud, as well.
We believe the cart has been put in front of the horse on this project. There should be no
more building of any nature-particularly commercial--until a thorough study is made of
the already horrendous traffic situation on East Cooper Street.
For a number of years, the city's attention has been on the so-called entrance to Aspen,
on the west side of town. In the meanwhile, the east end has been neglected. The end
result has been a traffic situation so dangerous that it's impossible to walk or ride a bike
into town without taking your life in your hands. And this is when the Pass is not even
open.
Consider the following: Where is the sidewalk we were promised when the Crestahaus
Lodge did its expansion a number of years ago? Why has the city allowed the walking
path on the Beaumont side of Cooper Street to be used as a turning lane onto Riverside
Drive and Crystal Lake Road? An extremely dangerous situation. We were told the
Beaumont could serve breakfast to its guests, however the lodge owners have
continuously placed ads in the local papers promoting local specials, creating that much
more traffic. We as neighbors have called city management about this, but the owners of
the Beaumont blatantly ignore city codes on this issue. As well, the increase in food
delivery trucks in the area, which park on Cooper Street when making deliveries, blocks
the vision of all who try to turn onto the road.
The situation has become so extreme that parents line the roadways to pick their kids up
from the school bus stop simply to keep them from having to walk home on Cooper
Street.
There is a sea of road signs, none of which are obeyed, that only serve to decrease the
visibility when trying to merge into traffic on Cooper Street either from driveways or
McSkimming or Riverside. The average speed along Cooper in front of the Alpine
Lodge is 40mph plus.
We ask that you first consider these issues before allowing this project to go forward.
Something must be done to alleviate the traffic situation rather than to make it worse.
/,
I"""-
,-,
We are not NIMBYS. We merely would like to merge into traffic or walk into town
without feeling as if our lives are at risk.
Thank you,
Terry, Molly and Helen
fv i lL{lfUr
avtrld
0-1v~ tr WV~VV) W~5?
! &;,~~t!tt)? l'k4 1\-;1 ~?W? ~
Cts S-kb"J) 0cJ- .s~ 4-sk:edl
W- o\.v re~ 4ttgy: S~
V ~+-M ton c.~rY\S j
.
.
~'I
~~
Cj 1'-"
cf
~
/, /
~I/
/ (
/
\
"-
I
--
z
o
en
:;;
-w
Cu
Ill",
::::>a.
enen
Wz
....w
Co.
i€o
w
~
~
w
a.
o
cr
a.
cr
w
~
z
en
--
~
IE
ll.
o
cr
ll.
?-
M
ii3
:::J
(J)
--
~
'l,
~ ~
<. i
dc:::::
~~~J
--t. ~ ~
? .'5. '>
Q,;;'V
VI 'l)
O~
c.J
r"'l\
u..rJ)
I-W
rJ)-
l-rx:
zg
WrJ)
()O
~~
-l
-l
<(
u
~ )',
o 6
~ -
\U ~
3<:::::
~
~
N
OI;fOC/ :IN31;f
~
cr
w
&
cr
ll.
l-
t)
w
ii3
:::J
(J)
/ /
/ /
I /
1/
1/
/!J!
/ g I
/
-
(~
~
~
~
r
"
~
-----
>:
~~
fij52
>11:
ii~
o ;
---I
I
I
I
L
"
r
.
1"""\
n
1,.AW OFFICES OF
OATES, KNEZEVICH & GAR.DENSWARTZ, P.C.
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRO FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILOING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORAOO 81611
LEONARO M. OATES
RICHARO A. KNEZEVICH
TEO O. GAROENSWAATZ
TELEPI-lONE (970) 920-1700
FACSIMILE (970) 920-1 121
a-mailohkg@rof.net
OAVIO a. KELLY
April 27, 1998
OF COUNSEL.:
JOHN THOMAS KEL.LY
AspenlPitkin County
Housing Authority
530 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Proposed Alpine Cottages Project
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
We, Jack Robinson and Viva Robinson, are the owners of Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption. Our property
is immediately adjacent to, and will be most impacted by, the proposed Alpine Cottages Development. We
have worked with the developer in the development of his plans for going forward with Alpine Cottages and
feel that it is an acceptable solution for the land use on the property. This letter shall constitute our support
of the project and request that you process it to final approval as expeditiously as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.c.
By ~~&
Leonard M. Oates, authorized attorney and agent
for Jack and Aviva Robinson
"-
"
LMO/amc
Enclosure
C:ldata\ClienlSIROBINSONlL1r. Housing 4-27.98. wpd
..
1"""\
Jlafu ~fficell of
Jlnnh ~tk4,'.(!L
,~
SCOTT s. SETHUNEt*
TIMOTHY I.. BRAKE. P. C.
GRANT L. DAVIS.
THOMAS C. ,JONES.
L.ANTZ WELCH, P. C.
,
<6 16) 4.2-I;:I.~OO
CITY CENTER SQUARE
P. O. BOX 26250
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64196
r..sOo-a75-LWPC
FAX (616) 472-LWPC
E.MAII.: Iwpc@tfs.net
-ALSO ADMITTEC IN KANSAS
tALSO ADMITTED IN TENNESSEE
BUSINESS MANAGER
CAVID H. BRENTANO
April 22, 1998
LEGAL ASSISTANTS
REBECCA FRISBIE
LORETTA ...I. STEVENS
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I am a home owner in Aspen, residing at 66 Aene Park. I have had the opportunity
to review the Alpine Cottages Project, designed by Semrau Building & Design, which is
being considered for construction in that area. It is my belief that this project is beautifully
designed and will greatly enhance the neighborhood. I am requesting that you approve
this project.
Since changes will, of necessity, be made to the streets during construction of this
project, my neighbors and I have agreed that this would be a good time to change our
street name. We would like the name changed from Aene Park to Camelot Court and are
hereby officially requesting this change.
Your consideration is greatly appreciated.
1V~
LW/ls
,
~4/~~/l~~~ 1/:4b
~"/3f438&7
ROBERT E. JONES
PAGE 01
r-.
.""'"
Robert E. & Charlotte B. Jones
P.O. Box 407
Blue Hill, Maine 04614
April 29, 1998
Tel (2070 374-5115
FIX (207)374.5812
Mf. Timothy Semrau
201 ~1!. M.tin
AJpen. CO 81611
Dear Mr. Semrau:
Cbarlotte and I /sa.,., l1!Yiewcd your plans for the Alp;ne Cottages Affordable Housing proj~ and foeJ that
lhey will be very aurac:live and lI(lI'eC with tile development We have recemJy purchased a bome al 440
A_ Park and will be faeing the development and feel that it will be an attractive addition 10 the
neia/1bOtfKxlll.
We a11lO would like 10 /save lhe lWtIe of the &tree! changed to Camelot Court nom Aene Park. We find that
Aeoe i. a vtty hard lIlIIne for people to pronoUJICC.
P1_ filelll'ee to allow this letter to the ptoper city officials in Aspen.
s~
RobertE. Jones ?::- ~ ~
~~~ \::.;> . .
CbarlotteB.1onea
-=
,.....,
n
To: City of Aspen
From: Doug Mikalowski
Dear Sirs,
I own a home next to the proposed Alpine Cottages development. After
reviewing the design, it is my opinion the neighborhood and community will
benefit from your approval of the project. This letter constitutes my support of
the project as designed.
f""".
''''( ,,;-y~ "" ""' ~ -
, '-'"" . (~ I"-C:.c'CI'1Hc-'''-Ji)Arr'NJ
( FtZ-D n. ~ (</<".. i::-t<:vu _"-I C, ')
approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council. Though the
Planning and Zoning Commission do not act on it, the applicant will also be
seeking Vested Rights approval from the City Council for this site specific
development plan; a park development impact fee waiver request; and a land use
fee refund request.
BACKGROUND:
The Alpine Lodge participated in the Small Lodge Lottery in 1997 and was
allocated four (4) additional lodge expansion units. The owner did not proceed
with applying for a change-in-use request. The previous owner of the property,
James and Christina (Pfeifer) Martin, sold the lodge to the current owner with the
understanding that their descendants would have a right of first refusal on two of
the units, should they choose to remain in Aspen. The applicant was before the
Housing Board, which recommended approval subject to certain conditions.
These conditions are spelled out in the recommendation.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "B." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "C." The application, which
was previously forwarded to the Commission in a booklet form, should be
considered Exhibit "D."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the variance for the
volume standard for the transom windows in the gable ends of the multi-family building;
the special review for parking as proposed, and the special review to establish the AHI-
PUD lot area requirements as suggested by the applicant, without conditions.
Staff further recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of the consolidated conceptuallfmal PUD, rezoning to AHI-PUD, and
subdivision for the Alpine Cottages to the City Council, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Growth Management Commission recommends approval of ten (10) deed-
restricted units and f6ur (4) free-market-AH associated allotments, and that this
exemption from Growth Management is approved by the City Council;
2, That the applicant agree to the conditions placed on the project by the housing board,
including:
. The RO units will have a 3% appreciation cap;
. The developer will sell the RO units to a minimum household size of three
persons;
. Income and asset restrictions should be based on a maximum of an
$800,000 price;
3
.r"\
~
,
. The maximum price for the RO units be set at $550,000;
. The RO units be sold to households who have worked in Pitkin County a
minimum of the last four years consecutively; and
. That the category units be opened to the public, with the exception of the
first right of refusal for Friedl Pfeifer's grandchildren mentioned in the
contract.
3. That a utility plan be submitted to the Water Dept., the ACSD, and the City Engineer
for their review and approval prior to issuance of building permit;
4. All legal instruments associated with the access easement to Lot 2, Ferguson
Exemption, the emergency access easement located between proposed Lots B and C,
utility easements, and the trail easement between Aene Ct. and Snyder be recorded as
part of the fin<ti plat;.
5. Lighting should be downcast and not used to call attention to architectural features;
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to gain approval
for a line extension request, a collection system agreement, and possibly a shared
service agreement for each unit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District;
7. The applicant shall submit a drainage report prior to issuance of a building permit to
ensure that no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property during and after
construction;
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust
control plan;
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain the necessary permits
from the Environmental Health Department for any fireplaces or woodbuming
devices;
10. Asbestos testing of the existing buildings will be required, as applicable, with the
building permit application.
II. Prior to issuance. of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data including
property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments;
12. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair any public
right-of-way damaged during construction;
13. 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
final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed;
14. A new title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, must be submitted prior to
building permit;
4
,-.
,"""'\
15. Additional information about the chain of title and the prior approvals regarding the
open space reservation must be provided prior to building permit
16. The applicant will grant a utility easement along the westerly side of proposed Lot A
and will work with the adjacent owners (Robinsorr) to attempt to get agreement to
relocate two spruce trees onto Robinson's property instead of within the propose water
easement alignment. Division of costs for extension of the water distribution system
will need to be negotiated with the City Water Dept.;
17. The proposed development will need to construct a main line extension of the sanitary
sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines to each individual building.
18. The site plan should include areas for trash and recycling containers and for on-site
snow storage;
19. The Robinson Rd. access way, as proposed, is too narrow to be dedicated to the public
and should remain a private access way and common utility easement as previously
dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption;
20. The applicant will need to provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin County and copies
of postal receipts verifYing the deliver of notice to all utility companies, all owners of
property fronting on or served by Aene Park, the Aspen Post Master, Pitkin County, and
the City of Aspen.
21. The parking spaces located between Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft wide
(minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating these spaces
from the access driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should conform to city and ADA
standards in size, number, accessibility, slope.
22. The developer will need to provide plans in the construction plans submitted for the
building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic, hauling and delivery
routes; vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging areas; temporary drainage,
erosion and sedimentation control during construction, and provision of temporary
utilities.
23. The developer will be responsible to provide temporary utility and drainage services to
the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by disruption of utilities
during construction;
24. The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to commencing work
(relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the most stringent permit
requirements if the requirements of any permits differ;
25. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need
to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches;
26. The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the
purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an
assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with
recording the subdivision plat;
27. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-
of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows:
5
".....,
~
, ,J
. The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920~5080) for
design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public
rights-of-way;
. Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and
irrigation systems;
. Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and aJley cuts; and
. permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public
rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090).
28. Unless the property owner can provide documentation verifYing his water rights in this
irrigation ditch, the property owner should establish a raw water lease agreement with
the City Water Department for use ofaportion of the City's water allocation in the
Riverside irrigation ditch for purposes of irrigation.
29. The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide easement centered
on the ditch flowline. Unless some other documentation is presented to substantiate
another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will be suitable for this ditch
easement.
30. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk
and Recorder;
31. 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.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
~i
"I move to approve the variance to the volume standard for the transom windows
in the gable ends on the multi-family building, the special review for parking as
proposed, and the speCial review to establish the AHI-PUD lot area requirements
as suggested by the applicant, without conditions. - I wn ~
~.
W{
"I further move to recommend approval of the consolidated conceptual/final
PUD, rezoning to AHI-PUD, and subdivision for the Alpine Cottages to the City
Council with the conditions outlined in the Staffmemo dated May 19, 1997."
I-~I~ .~
ATTACHMENTS: ~ 'ZSb#f:.. 0_, o()fl.J ('.... . IJ.~
Exhibit A Vicinity Map - """'\ ~
Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments .L . ~ ~ ~ ':Iii-f
Exhibit C Comments from Referral Agencies ( '1
Exhibit D Application (Booklet form, previously forwarded to the commission)
9-r-~ ~ ~
~t.:t.l,,8 .a -._0_ W ;xj\. -4 --0
6
.
~
.-..
. "
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Growth Management Commission
Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct~
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director ~. .
Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing Request for GMQS Exemption
TO:
FROM~
RE:
DATE:
May 19, 1998
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Larry Salitennan in association with Semrau Building and Design.,
is requesting approval for the allotment of ten (10) deed restricted affordable
housing units and four (4) AH associated free-market units, and a recommendation
to the City Council and the BOCC that this be the approved method of providing
affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages project. The site is located at 1240
East Cooper Ave., and Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption. The property currently
contains the Alpine Lodge and a vacant lot behind the lodge.
Staff recommends the Growth Management Commission forward a
recommendation of approval for the allotment of ten (10) deed restricted
affordable housing units and four (4) AH associated free-market units, and
recommend to the City Council and the BOCC that this be the approved
,method of providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages project.
APPLICANT:
Larry Salitennanin association with Semrau Building and Desigrr. The applicant
will be represented by Tim Semrau.
LOCATION:
1240 East Cooper Ave., and Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption. The property currently
contains the Alpine Lodge and a vacant lot behind the lodge, within the City of
Aspen as shown on the attached vicinity map (Exhibit A).
ZONING:
The subject property is currently zoned R-15A-PUD; the Alpine Lodge portion of
the site also contains an LP overlay zone. The applicant is seeking a rezoning to
AHI-PUD.
LOT SIZE:
Approximately 37,148 square feet.
~
.~
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This represents the total property minus the
proposed access easement and slope reductions.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF DENSITY CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This includes the same restrictions as above
and considers slope reduction.
FAR:
Maximum allowable FAR is 23,253 s.f., based on.8 X Lot Area, subject to PUD
Review. The applicant is proposing 23,227 s.f ofFAR,
CURRENT LAND USE:
A 12"room lodge contained within four buildings, and a vacant lot.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Five lots, four of which will be free"market, and one (Lot I) which will contain ten
(10) deed restricted units. Lot I, Alpine Cottages will contain:
2 four"bedroom Category 4 units
2 one-bedroom Category 4 units
2 one"bedroom Category 3 units
4 four"bedroom RO units
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this application,
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
The applicant is seeking approval of a City Council exemption from Growth
Management. These exemptions are deducted from the pool of annual allotments
and from the metro area development ceilings. There are adequate allotments
available to serve this project.
According to the land use code, Section 26.100.050, "All affordable housing deed
restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its
housing designee, shall be exempt from the growth management competition and
scoring procedures by City Council." It also states that "Free market residential
development in the AH zone district shall be exempt from the growth management
competition and scoring procedures." It is clear from the code that no growth
management allocations in the metro area can be granted unless both the City
Council and the Board of County Commissioners accept the recommendation of
the Growth Management Commission.
"
1'*"-.
.~
BACKGROUND:
The Alpine Lodge participated in the Small Lodge Lottery in 1997 and was
allocated four (4) additional lodge expansion units. The owner did not proceed
with applying for a change-in-use request. The previous owner of the property,
James and Christina (Pfeifer) Martin, sold the lodge to the current owner with the
understanding that their desc.endants would have a right of first refusal on two of
the units, should they choose to remain in Aspen. The applicant was before the
Housing Board, which recommended approval subject to certain conditions.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Although there is no scoring, there are two criteria which must be addressed by all
exempt projects:
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan and other adopted plans.
Staff Findings:
Community Vi$ion: The AACPcalls for disbursed mid-size to smaller projects,
infill development within the existing urban area, small scale resident housing
dispersed with free-market housing, locating housing near public transportation, a
mix of housing to encourage families, and private development to solve the
housing crisis. Alpine Cottages achieves these goals while providing high-quality
housing within walking distance of the commercial core. .
Community Vitality: The proposed development is 71 % affordable, addressing
the community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities within a .
reasonable walking distance to employment and recreation resources. The
proposed development is an in-illl site within, or approximately within, the original
townsite. Increased residential density, especially for local working residents,
within the town promotes a sense of community and creates COmtl:J.unity vitality.
Open Spru:e and Environment: Providing housing opportunities within walking
distance to employment, entertainment, recreation, and other residences reduces
the need to use a vehicle for every trip. Also, compact development in proximity
to existing facilities and services reduces the' need to extend services, and preserves
those natural open space areas for their wildlife and aesthetic functions.
2. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable requirements
of the City Code.
Staff Findings:
The proposed development, upon approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council, would comply with all applicable requirements
of the City code. The applicable zone requirements are as follows:
1. Deed restricted units to be a minimum of70% of the project mix;
7
"~
2, Category deed restricted units to be a minimum of 40%;
3. A maximum of 30% free-market unitslbedrooms.
The applicant is proposing that 71 % of the project be deed restricted, that
category units make up 51 % of the mix, and the free-market component be
comprised of 29% of the total units and 30% of the total bedrooms. This mix
meets the minimum standards set forth in the code.
The applicant must receive development allotments for 10 affordable residential
units, and 4 free-market-AH associated allotments before proceeding into the
necessary public hearings for approval of his development order.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff re.commends the Growth Management Commission forward a
recommendation of approval for the allotment often (10) deed restricted
affordable housing units and four (4) AH associated free-market units, and
recommend to the City Council and the BOCC that this be the approved method of
providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages project.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend approval of the allotment often (10) deed restricted
affordable housing units and four (4) AH associated free-market units, and
recommend to the City Council and the BOCC that this be the approved method of
providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages project.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A Vicinity Map
Exhibit B Application (Booklet form, previously forwarded to the commission)
A
.~
:"'""I
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Conunission/, ( /
Stan Clauson, Community Development Directot--U
'Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director l:.' '
. .
Alpine Cottages Afiordable Housing onceptua1lFinal PlimnedUnit
Development and other reviews
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
May 19,1998
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Larry Saliterman in association with Semrau Building and Design.,
is requesting approval to rezone to AHl-PIJI) in order to construct 10 deed'
restricted units and 4 free-market units. The proposal involves requests for
rezoning, consolidated conceptual/final PUD, S'ubdivi'sion, Special Review ofoII-
street parking requirements and density limitations, and a variance from the volume
provision of the residential design stanoards. The site is locatedar lZ4() East
Cooper Ave., and Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption. The property currently contains
the Alpine Lodge and a vacant lot behind the lodge.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with
conditions, the special revIew olofI-sfreet parking requirementsanad'ensity
limitations, and a variance from the volume provisiol1 of the residential
design standards.
Staff also recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission"forward a
recommendation of approval ior this rezonIng, consolidated' conceptuaItfinat
PUD, and Subdivision, to the City Council, with conditions.
APPLICANT:
Larry Saliterman in association with Semrau Building and Design. The applicant
will be represented by Tim Semrau.
LOCATION:
1240 East Cooper Ave., and Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption. The property currently
contains the Alpine Looge anoa vacant lot behind the lodge, within the City of
Aspen as shown on the attached vicinity map (Exhibit A).
~
~
ZONING:
The subject property is currently zoned R-15A-PUD; the Alpine Lodge portion of
the site also contains an LP overlay zone. The applicant is seeking a rezoning to
AHI-PUD.
LOT SIZE:
Approximately 37,148 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES. OF FAR CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This represents the total property minus the
proposed access easement and slope reductions.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF DENSITY CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This includes the same restrictions as above
and considers slope reduction.
FAR:
Maximum. allowable FAR is 23,253 s.f., based on .8 X Lot Area, subject to PUD
Review. The applicant is proposing 23,227 s.f. of FAR.
CURRENT LAND USE:
A 12"room lodge contained within four buildings, and a vacant lot.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Five lots, four of which will be free-market, and ()ne (Lot I) which will contain ten
(10) deed restricted units. Lot I, Alpine Cottages will contain:
2 four-bedroom Category 4 units
'2 one-bedroom Category 4 Jlnits
2 one-bedroom Category 3 units
4 four-bedroom RO units
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this application.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Rezoning, consolidated conceptual/final PUD, subdivision, special review of off-
street parking requirements and density limitations, and a variance from the volume
provision of the residential design standards. The Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider the application ata hearing and approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the special review of off-street parking requirements and
density limitations, and a variance .from the volume provision ofthe residential
design standards.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the rezoning, consolidated
conceptuaVfinalPUD, and subdivision application at a hearing and recommend
')
t"'"\
~
approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council. Though the
Planning and Zoning Commission do not act on it, the applicant will also be
seeking Vested Rights approval from the City Council for this site specific
development plan; a park development impact fee waiver request; and a land use
fee refund request.
BACKGROUND:
The Alpine Lodge participated in the Small Lodge Lottery in 1997 and was
allocated four (4) additional lodge expansion units. The owner did not proceed
with applying for a change-in-use request. The previous owner of the property,
James and Christina (pfeifer) Martin, sold the lodge to the current owner with the
understanding that their descendants would have a right of first refusal on two of
the units, should they choose to remain in Aspen. The applicant was before the
Housing Board, which recommended approval subject to certain conditions.
These conditions are spelled out in the recommendation.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "B." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "C." The application, which was
previously forwarded to the Commission in a booklet form, should be considered
Exhibit "D."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the variance for the
volume standard for the transom windows in the gable ends of the multi-family building;
the special review for parking as proposed, and the special review to establish the AHI-
PUD lot area requirements as suggp.ot"c1 by the appl.i.cant,. without conditions..
Staff further recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval
ofthe consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AHI-PUD, and subdivision for the
Alpine Cottages to the City Council, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Growth Management Commission recommends approval often (10) deed-
restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated allotments, and that this
exemption from Growth Management is approved by the City Council;
2. That the applicant agree to the conditions placed on the project by the housing board,
including:
The RO units will have a 3% appreciation cap;
The developer will sell the RO units to a minimum household size of three persons;
Income and asset restrictions should be based on a maximum of an $800,000 price;
The maximum price for the RO units be set at $550,000;
The RO units be sold to households who have worked in Pitkin County a minimum
of the last four years consecutively; and
~
I. That ten (10) deed-restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated
allotments, be exempted from Growth Management and that this be the approved
method of providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages;
2. That the applicant agree to the conditions placed on the project by the housing
board (or as amended by the City Council), including:
a) The RO units will have a 3% appreciation cap;
b) The developer will sell the RO units to a minimum household size of three
persons;
c) . Income and asset restrictions should be based on a maximum of an
$800,000 price;
d) The maximum price for the RO units be set at $550,000;
e) The RO units be sold to households who have worked in Pitkin County a
minimum of the last four years consecutively; and
f) That the category units be opened to the public, with the exception of the
first right of refusal for Friedl Pfeifer's grandchildren mentioned in the
contract; (this is a condition [that the category units be opened to the
public) that the applicant is particularly not in agreement with, and
the P&Z recommended deleting);
That a utility plan be submitted to the Water Dept., the ACSD, and the City
Engineer for their review and approval prior to issuance of building permit;
All legal instruments associated with the access easement to Lot 2 (Robinson) and
Lot 4 Ferguson Exemption, the emergency access easement located between
proposed Lots B and C, utility easements, and the 10' trail easement between
Aene Ct. and Snyder be recorded as part ofthe final plat;.
That as part of the final 'plat submission, another page with signature blocks for
all five owners with an interest in Aene Ct. be recorded, officially changing the
name from Aene Ct. to Camelot Ct.;
Lighting should be downcast and not used to call attention to architectural
features;
3.
4.
5. t
6.
7.
8.
9.
1"""-.
'RB'\!\ SE:-P' N- Rr-Je- c-'<:>T)AC.,;E:,g
,.-,., Ceh'Z-I"J'O
Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to gain
approval for a line extension request, a collection system agreement, and possibly
a shared service agreement for each unit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District;
The applicant shall submit a drainage report prior to issuance of a building permit
to ensure that no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property during and
after construction;
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust
control plan;
4
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
\17.
~18.
19.
;"""'\
.~.
16.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain the necessary
permits from the Environmental Health Department for any fireplaces or
woodburning devices;
Asbestos testing of the existing buildings will be required, as applicable, with the
building permit application;
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data
including property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments;
That the applicant pay fees-in-lieu of the school land dedication, and that the
payment be made prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any
building permits for the residential lots;
That the remaining required park fees be paid prior to the issuance of building
permit;
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair any
public right-of-way 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 [mal plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be
obstructed;
A current title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, must be submitted
prior to filing of the final plat;
Additional information about the chain of title and the prior approvals regarding
the open space reservation must be provided prior to filing of the final plat;
The applicant will grant a utility easement along the westerly side of proposed Lot
A and will work with the adjacent owners (Robinson) to attempt to get agreement
to relocate two spruce trees onto Robinson's property instead of within the
propose water easement alignment. Division of costs for extension of the water
distribution system will need to be negotiated with the City Water Dept.;
The proposed development will need to construct a main line extension of the
sanitary sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines to each
individual building.
The site plan should include areas for trash and recycling containers and for on-
site snow storage;
The Robinson Rd. access way, as proposed, is too narrow to be dedicated to the
public and should remain a private access way and common utility easement as
previously dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption;
The applicant will need to provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin County and
copies of postal receipts verifying the deliver of notice to all utility companies, all
owners of property fronting on or served by Aene Park, the Aspen Post Master,
Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen regarding this subdivision and the name
change of Aene Ct. to Camelot Ct.;
20.
21.
22.
23.
5
t"".
1""').
24. The parking spaces located between Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft
wide (minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating
these spaces from the access driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should
conform to city and ADA standards in size, number, accessibility, slope;
25. The developer will need to provide plans in the construction plans submitted for.
the building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic, hauling and
delivery routes; vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging areas;
temporary drainage, erosion and sedimentation control during construction, and
provision of temporary utilities;
26. The developer will be responsible to provide temporary utility and drainage
services to the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by
disruption of utilities during construction;
27. The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to commencing
work (relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the most stringent
permit requirements if the requirements of any permits differ;
28. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit
will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and
switches;
29. The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed
for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property
under an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded
concurrent with recording the subdivision plat;
30. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public
rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows:
a) The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080)
for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within
public rights-of-way;
b) Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and
irrigation systems;
c) Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
d) permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public
rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-
5090);
31. Unless the property owner can provide documentation verifying his water rights
in this irrigation ditch, the property owner should establish a raw water lease
agreement with the City Water Department for use ofa portion of the City's water
allocation in the Riverside irrigation ditch for purposes of irrigation;
32. The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide easement
centered on the ditch flowline. Unless some other documentation is presented to
substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will be suitable for
this ditch easement;
6
~
r"""\
33. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County
Clerk and Recorder;
34. 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.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve on second reading, Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998, the
consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AHI-PUD, subdivision, vested
rights, and a partial park development impact fee waiver request for the Alpine
Cottages, with the additional conditions as noted.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A Vicinity Map
Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit C Comments from Referral Agencies
Exhibit D Application (Booklet form)
Exhibit E Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998
Exhibit F GMC Resolution
Exhibit G P&Z Minutes of 5/19/98
Exhibit H Applicant's letter dated 6/15/98 regarding Housing Board
recommendations
Exhibit I Letter from Pat Spector, Neighbor
g:/pIDnning/aspenlcascslpudlalpncc2.d\lc
7
-
-.
p~rt IBlI c....
MEMORANDUM
To:
Through:
Mitch Haas, Planning Office
Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director..?I t c
RECEIVED
APR 3 0 1998
From:
Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health SpeciaIist
ASPEN I P1TKlN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Date:
April 28, 1998
Re:
Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing Project
Parcel ID # 2737-181-00-016
===============================================
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing land 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 unlawful 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,lI
. The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District to handle the increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD. The applicant has failed 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.
ADEOUATE 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."
The provision of potable water .from the City of Aspen system..is consistent with Environmental Health policies
ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of
Health for drinking water quality. The..City of Aspen Water Deparhnent shall determine if adequate water is;
ayailable for .the projec;j:. The applicant has failed to provide documentation that the applicant and the service
agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of ser.ying the development.
. WATER OUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply
from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction. within the incorporated limits of the
City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above
the points from which munici.pal water supplies are diverted.!!
A.:~~1!in<t~ plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be evaluated by the pty
"Engineer. This application is not expected to impact down stream water quality.
,AIR OUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum
practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control,prevent
and reduce air pollution throughout.the city...1l The, Land Us,: Regulations s~ek to IIIessen~ongestionll and "avoid transportation
demands that cannot be-met" as well as to uprovide' clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing p6Hutants'\
1
-
The major air quality impact is emissions resulting from the traffic generated by projects. PM-10 (83% of which comes
from traffic driving on paved roads) is a sigrrificant health concern in Aspen. The traffic generated also produces
carbon monoxide and other emissions that are health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve
the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. Standards
used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and reductions from the 'Pitkin County
Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report. Fifth edition.
Housing units use the trip generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210, which is 9.55 trips per day per unit. Free-Market
units located within one half mile of a transit stop are allowed a reduction of 1.5 trips per day. Affordable Housing
units are allowed a reduction of 2.0 trips per day. Hotel and lodging units use the ITE trip generation rate for Land Use
Code 310, Hotel/ Occupied Room which is 8.8 trips per day per tourist room. The standard trip reductions for a hotel
are the same as for free market dwellings.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4 free market units
9.55 trips minus 1.5 trips (close to transit) minus .75 (partial credit for being within walking distance to
support services)
+
10 affordable units
9.55 minus 2.0 trips ( close to transit) minus .75 (walking distance to support services
Total of 100 trips generated by the proposed projett. New sidewalks and providing bike storage will also
encourage walking instead of driving, which will allow the reductions above to actually occur.
Using the ITE manual, the existing lodge would be expected ~ generate about 130 trip's/ day, including both guests
and emp10yees/ deliveries/ services, etc.
It is expected that the proposed new development will generate fewer trips each day than the existing use does, so
there would be no expected increase in PM10 caused by this proposed project and no mitigation measures are requiied
The application from the developer used different numbers from the ITE book but also concluded that the new
development will decrease thetotaI number of trips/ day.
;/
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a firep!fc<>/Woodstovepermit with fhe
lliI,vironmental Health Deparhnent before the building permit wiIl be issued. In metropolitan areas of Pitkin
County which includes this site, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each)
and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning
fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel.
FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of
haul roads iUld disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove 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.
This applies to grading, lai1dscaping, utility work, or other activities that might cause dust to blow onto nearby roads
or properties. This plai1 must be approved by our office before the building permit can be issued.
DEMOLITION Prior to demolition the applicant must have the building tested for asbestos, and if any is pres~t,
,. it must be removed.py a certified .abatement company. These measures must be completed before the building
permit can be issued. ! .
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
2
~
.-,
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental
pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to 'the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the
residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors. .....Accordingly, it is 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.1I
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 p.m.!
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on
the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise
levels,
3
~,
71sp",,, Gonsohda/ed (San.da/ion -is/riel
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (970) 925,3601
FA.\: #(970) 925,2537
Sy Kelly, Chairman
Paul Smith. Treas.
Louis Popish. Secy.
Michaei Kelly
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
April 30, 1998
Mitch Haas
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Alpine Cottages AH project
Dear Mitch:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient collection and treatment
capacity to serve this project. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules,
regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office.
We will need to review a detailed utility plan for this project. It appears that a main line extension
will be needed to serve both the free market and affordable housing units. A line extension request
and collection system agreement are required for main line extensions. The paperwork for both is
available at our business office. The District will requires easements for the main line extensions,
granted according to standard District form, providing access for future line maintenance and
repair. Prior to utility construction, funds must be placed in escrow with the District to cover the
costs of reviewing the detailed plans for the extension and to cover our costs of observing the ,
construction of the line.
Service from Aene Court may not work due to grade considerations and an easement may be
required on the west side of the property causing units I and J to be moved to the east. The
application also shows a trench drain in the parking area which must be routed to a drywell or
storm sewer and not connected to the District system. We would like to review the drainage plans
for the project once they are available. I would encourage the applicant's engineer to contact our
line superintendent, Tom Bracewell, for a detailed review of the preliminary on-site utility
planning.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
MAY 0 4 1998
'&..- ~ ~ -~...- z:
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
::~S'M :'1'; UN,;i~,; DE'~' rLo"PMENT
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976. 1986.1990
Regional and National
1""\
r,""",
That the category units be opened to the public, with the exception of the first
right of refusal for Friedl Pfeifer's grandchildren mentioned in the contract.
3. That a utility plan be submitted to the Water Dept., the ACSD, and the City Engineer
for their review and approval prior to ;Ss11~nce ofbnilding permit;
4. All legal instruments associated with the access easement to Lot 2, Ferguson
Exemption, the emergency access easement located between proposed Lots B and C,
utility easements, and the trail easement between Aene Ct. and Snyder be recorded as
part of the final plat;.
5. Lighting should be downcast and not used to call attention to architectural features;
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to gain approval
for a line extension request, a collection system agreement, and possibly a shared
service agreement for each unit from the Aspen ConsolidatecL Sanitation District;
7. The applicant shall submit a drainage report prior to issuance of a building permit to
ensure that no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property during and after
construction;
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control
plan;
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain the necessary permits
from the Environmental Health Department for any fireplaces or woodbuming devices;
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data including
property lines, building footprints, easements, arnLencroach1)1ents;
II. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair any public
right-of-way damaged during construction;
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 final plat.
Meter locations must be accessible for readillg-and..may not be obstruct~
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. 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.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the variance to the volume standard for the transom windows
in the gable ends on the multi-family building, the special review for parking as
A
r\
o
proposed, and the special review to establish the AHI-PUD lot area requirements
as suggested by the applicant, without conditions.
"r further move to recommend approval of the consolidated conceptual/final PUD,
rezoning to AHI-PUD, and subdivision for the Alpine Cottages to the City
Council with the conditions outlined in the Staff memo dated May 19, 1997."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A Vicinity Map
Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit C Comments from Referral Agencies
Exhibit D Application (Booklet form, previously forwarded to the commission)
"
,...."
,..-"
PUBLIC NOTICE.
RE: ALPINE COTTAGES GMQS EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 19, 1998 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Growth Management Commission, Council Chambers,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Larry Saliterman, requesting a
GMQS Exemption for ten (10) deed restricted affordable housing units and four (4) free market,
. AH associated units. The GMQS Exemptions are requested pursuant to Sections .
26.100.050(C)(3)(b) and 26.100.050(C)(3)(d) of the Aspen Land Use Code.. The property is
located at 1240 E. Cooper Avenue, and is described as Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption and the Alpine
Lodge. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the AspenlPitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095.
s/Sara Garton. Chair
Growth Management Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 2,1998
City of Aspen Account
g:lp1anninglaspenlnoticeslalpgmc.doc
'.-""",""-,-;;. '-~~'-"",~'-"-~~'''1"''-''' ._-.
~
,.,..,
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ALPINE COTTAGES CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUALlFINAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBDMSION, REZONING TO AHl-PUD,
VARIANCE FROM THE "VOLUME" PROVISION OF THE RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN STANDARDS, AND SPECIAL REVIEW OF OFF-STREET PARKING
AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 19,
1998 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 SI., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by Larry Saliterman of 5005 Old Cedar Lilke Road,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, in association with Semrau Building and Design of208 1/2 E.
Main Street in Aspen, requesting approval to rezone to AHI/PUD, construct 10 deed
restricted units and 4 free market units. The proposal involves requests for Rezoning,
consolidated conceptua1/fmal PUD, Subdivision, Special Review of off-street parking
requirements and density limitations, and a Variance from the "Volume" provision of the
Residential Design Standards. The subject property is located at 1240 East Cooper, and
is described as Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption. For further information, contact Mitch Haas
at the AspenlPitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena 51., Aspen, CO
(970) 920-5095.
s/Sara Garton. Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 2, 1998
City of Aspen Account
~*
(~.
g:/planning/aspen/noticeslalpcott.doc
.1""\
.~
-.
EXHIBIT B
Staff Analysis and Findings:
Alpine Cottages: Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit
Development
A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements:
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Finding:
Community Vision: The plan calls for disbursed mid-size to smaller projects, infill
development within the existing urban area, small scale resident housing dispersed with
free-market housing, locating housing near public transportation, a mix of housing to
encourage families, and private development to solve the housing crisis. Alpine Cottages
achieves these goals while providing high-quality housing within walking distance of the
commercial core.
Community Vitality: The proposed development is 71 % affordable, addressing the
community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities within a reasonable
walking distance to employment and recreation resources. The proposed development is
an in-fill site within, or approximately within, the original townsite. Increased residential
density, especially for local working residents, within the town promotes a sense of
community and creates community vitality.
Open Space and Environment: Providing housing opportunities within walking distance
to employment, entertainment, recreation, and other residences reduces the need to use a
vehicle for every trip. Also, compact development in proximity to existing facilities and
services reduces the need to extend services, and preserves those natural open space areas
for their wildlife and aesthetic functions.
Because of the project's proximity to the Snyder AH/Park site, the Parks Dept. is
requesting a trail easement along the rear property line, connecting Aene Ct. with the
Snyder parcel. The applicant has agreed to this request. Such an easement should be
included on the final plat drawings.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
The proposed development is surrounded by fully developed property. Three adjacent
parcels (presuming Snyder will get approved) are AH developments and the other
Staff Comments 1
r-.
~
adjacent lots are R15A. Existing developments consist of single family homes,
affordable housing units and a small lodge to the east and across Highway 82 (the
Beaumont). The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the fntnre development of the
snrrounding area.
Staff Finding:
As mentioned above, the surrounding parcels are already developed, or proposed for
development (Snyder). The surrounding area's development or redevelopment potential
should not be negatively affected by this development.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which
GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Staff Finding:
The application must receive development allotments for 10 residential units, and 4 free-
market-AH associated allotments. The Growth Management Commission will consider
this case this same evening, and make a recommendation to City Council for a GMQS
exemption.
2. Density:
A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the nnderlying
zone district. Furthermore, densities may be rednced if:
1. There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed
development;
2. There are not adequate roads to ensure frreprotection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development;
3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope,
ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers;
4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution;
5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the city; or
6. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to
critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding:
The density proposed on this site is below that allowed based on the gross lot size. The
gross lot size is 37,148 s.f. The lot is reduced due to slope and easements to a lot area of
29,067 s.f. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit under AHI-PUD is as follows:
4 single family lots @ 3000 s.f.lunit 12,000 s.f.
2 duplexes @ 1500 s.f.lunit 6,000 s.f.
6 four-bedroom multi-family units @ 400s.f./br 9600 s.f.
Total: 14 units 27,600 s.f.
There are sufficient utilities and services to accommodate this development. The access
is adequate for fire protection service. The portion of the property where development is
proposed is suitable for development. The applicant has provided a traffic generation
report and is not required to provide an Air Quality Mitigation Plan as the proposal will
Staff Comments 2
1"""'\
.~
have a net reduction in daily traffic trips as compared to the lodge use. The applicant is
required to provide a drainage report to the City Engineer for their review and approval.
The location of the proposed development does not appear to be in severe conflict with
the natural terrain and features of the site.
B. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
1. In order to reduce wildfrre, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and
guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in
areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the followiug manor:
a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density
allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district.
b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum
density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the
underlying zone district.
c. For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall
be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone
district.
d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be
allowed.
2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary
in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit.
3. For parcels resting in more than one (I) zone district, the density reduction calculation
shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district.
4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Defmition of Lot Area.
Staff Finding:
The application specifies the percentages of the property falling within the described
slope classifications on Attachment D of the application. The proposed density requires
27,600 square feet of Lot Area. After all reductions, the property yields approximately
29,067 square feet of Lot Area. The proposal meets the density standard.
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those ofthe underlying zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a
zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-family dwelling units shall
only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding:
The application includes a request to rezone the property to AHI-PUD. The present
zoning allows for residential development in varying densities, while the proposed
rezoning allows a mixture of single family, duplex and multi-family units. The applicant
is proposing this mix in his proposal.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in
the following:
a. Minimum distance between buildings;
Staff Comments 3
~
.~
b. Maximum height (including viewplanes);
c. Minimum front yard;
d. Minimum rear yard;
e. Minimum side yard;
f. Minimum lot width;
g. Minimum lot area;
h. Trash access area;
i. Internal floor area ratio; and
j. Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the
minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated on the fmal plat development plan.
StaffFinding:
This PUD will establish the dimensional requirements for the lots created. There are no
variations requested from the underlying zone district proposed.
The proposed dimensional requirements are as follows:
Requirements Commou to Entire Development
Zone District: The applicant is proposing the site be rezoned to AHI-PUD.
Minimum distance between buildings: As shown on the plat
Maximum height: 23' 6" Proposed
Minimum percent open space: Approximately 56% (presuming building
envelopes 100% used)
Lot 1 (multi-family and duplex units)
Zone District: AHI-PUD
Lot Size: 16,527 s.f..
Maximum internal floor area: 12,587 sJ.
Minimum lot width: As represented on final plat.
Building Envelope: No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
11 feet, along both Aene Ct. and Highway 82
4 feet (west property line)
3 feet along Robinson Road (the existing buildings have
3' rear setback)
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yard:
a
Lot A (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
AHI-PUD
6,090 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
Staff Comments 4
~
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot B (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot C (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot D (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
tJ
66 feet. .
5 feet. (15' iftitle is perfected)
5 feet each.
AHl-PUD
5,460 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
50 feet.
5 feet. (12' if title is perfected)
5 feet each.
AHI-PUD
4,545 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
37 feet.
5 feet. (13' if title is perfected)
5 feet each.
AH1-PUD
4,526 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
15 feet.
5 feet.
5 feet. (13' if title is perfected on north sideyard)
5 feet on south sideyard
5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied
from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following
considerations:
Staff Comments 5
f"""'\
~.
6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying
zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be
permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the
proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a
common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common
park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom
the common area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in
perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together
with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned
facilities.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has agreed to provide a trails easement to the Parks Dept. along the rear
(northern) portion of the site connecting Aene Ct. to the Snyder parcel. The legal
instruments to protect this area should be submitted with the Final Plat. The applicant is
encouraged to work with the City Attorney and the Parks Department in preparing these
restrictions.
The application indicates that a minimum of approximately 56% of the site will remain
open space. Staff believes that due to the proximity to the future park site on the adjacent
Snyder parcel, this amount of open space will be adequate to serve the proposal.
Staff Comments 6
r,
,.-"
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part ofthe final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior
spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant
species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding:
The application includes a Landscape Plan as shown on Attachment C. The existing
lodge parcel has a mature landscape which the proposed development will attempt to
maintain. The applicant has already moved several mature trees elsewhere on site in an
attempt to successfully maintain a more mature landscape within the development parcel.
This plan provides a reasonable amount and variety of plantings.
8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which eusures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural
character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses.
Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and
maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage
and reduce soil erosion.
Staff Finding:
Building envelopes have been placed appropriately considering the natural terrain and
surrounding land uses. The plans and elevations for the Category and RO units have been
included in this application. The proportions, massing, and materials seem appropriate.
Both the RO and free-market structures must be developed consistent with the City's
Residential Design Guidelines. The applicant is requesting a design waiver for the
volume standard related to windows in the 9'-12' floor plate height. This is addressed
later in the staff report.
The garages are oriented to the internal part of Lot I and will have minimal visual impact
on neighboring parcels. The overall design contributes to the visual character of the city.
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
Staff Finding:
The applicant proposes that exterior lighting will be kept to a minimum, using 60 watt
downlights in the entry and garage areas.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Staff Finding:
The development has been clustered, while allowing smaller lot free-market units within
the complex.
Staff Comments 7
~
..~
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings
shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency
vehicles.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has indicated that all sidewalks, utilities, street paving and curb and gutter
installation will be borne by the applicant.
At the time of this writing, the Engineering Dept. had not provided written comments
regarding this case. Staff will attempt to get this from the engineers prior to Tuesday's
meeting. Based on notes from the Development Review Committee meeting, it does not
appear that there are any major issues regarding this case. Both the Water Dept. and the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have indicated that they have the capacity to serve
this project. Both utilities have requested the submittal of a utility plan for their review.
This should be a condition of approval.
The ACSD has indicated that service from Aene Ct. may not work due to grade
considerations and an easement may be required on the west side of the property causing
units I and J to move to the east. The trench drain in the parking area must be routed to a
dry well or storm sewer and not connected to the District system. It is likely that a main
line extension may be necessary. Easements for such an extension will be necessary and
should be included on the final plat.
The existing 8" water line will need to be extended to near the end of Robinson Dr.,
reconnecting existing service lines serving 3 existing homes and installing a fire hydrant.
The applicant has agreed to provide a 10' water line easement along the westerly
boundary of free market Lot A. This will allow the Water Dept. to connect several
"dead-end" lines in the vicinity of Snyder. The easements for these water lines should be
included on the final plat.
The proposed access way and fire suppression system has been designed to accommodate
the Fire Marshall's requirements.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD)
shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall he designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to
streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic.
c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion
on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such
Staff Comments 8
!"""'\
t""'I:
surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be
adversely affected.
d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway
or drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct
access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on
any street.
f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or
retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall
comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances.
Staff Finding:
The proposed access way meets these standards. The development will provide a new
sidewalk along Highway 82 to better serve pedestrians in this area.
Alpine Cottages: Rezoning to AHI-PUD
In reviewing an amendment to the official zoning map, the city council and commission
must consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this Title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed rezoning is not in conflict with any applicable portion ofthe Land Use
Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding:
Refer to Item lA, page 1. The amendment is consistent with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding:
The proposed rezoning is appropriate in this area. There are three AH projects (including
Snyder) in the immediate vicinity, as wen as single family residences. The proposed
rezoning win allow the development of a similar AH mixed housing type project.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
StaffFinding:
The applicant submitted a traffic report to the Environmental Health Dept. It was
determined by Environmental Health that the proposed rezoning win result in reduced
traffic generation.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
Staff Comments 9
1""'\
/'"""1\
Both the Water Dept. and the ACSD have indicated enough capacity to serve this project.
The project is located on an existing RFT A bus line. It is anticipated that with the four-
bedroom units it is likely that families with children will move into these units.
Therefore, there could be some impact on the area schools. However, because the
restrictions placed on this project by the Housing office require potential residents to be
Pitkin County residents for the previous four years, it is very likely that the families will
have already been in the school district, resulting in a minimal increase in new students.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding'
The project should not have any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
The property is being redeveloped in an already developed area. Approximately 56% of
the property will be open space. To the extent possible, the applicant is attempting to
relocate large existing trees to minimize the loss of these amenities. A drainage plan
which addresses erosion control must be submitted to the city engineer for their review
and approval prior to building permit.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The project is designed to be similar in design to other structures in the vicinity. The
residences will face the street and have front porches. Parking will be contained in the
rear. Staff believes that the project will be compatible and consistent with Aspen's
community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The neighborhood has been developing with a mix of both free-market and AH housing.
The project will be consistent with this change in character in this neighborhood.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
The rezoning will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code and
will not conflict with the public interest.
Alpine Cottages: Subdivision
Land that is divided into two or more lots for purposes of development is subject to the
City's Subdivision Regulations. The following review criteria must be met with all
subdivisions:
la. The proposed subdivision will he consistent with the AACP.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item lA, page 1. The subdivision is consistent with the AACP.
Ih. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the character of existing
land uses.
Staff Finding:
Staff Comments 10
,-..,
1"">>,
Please refer to item lB, Page I. The subdivision is consistent with the character of
existing land uses.
lc. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to Item I C, Page 2. The subdivision should not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Id. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this title.
StaffFinding:
The subdivision will be in compliance with all subdivision requirements.
2a. Land suitability
StaffFinding:
The land is suitable for development. There are no known hazards that could impact the
development.
2b. Spatial Patterns efficient
Staff Finding:
There do not appear to be any inefficiencies with space. The utilities exist to the site and
will be improved to better serve the site and adjacent parcels.
3. Improvements
a. Water.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item II, page 8. Water lines will need to be extended and easements for
these extensions will be granted by the applicant.
b. Sewer.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item II, page 8. ACSD has indicated that sewer service to Aene Ct. may
not work due to grades. A sewer easement and line may need to be located along the
western property line. The applicant is required to submit a utility report to both ACSD
and the Water Dept. prior to issuance of building permit.
c. Electricity
StaffPinding:
Holy Cross Electric currently serves the property with overhead lines. New service will
come underground from under Aene Ct. to a transformer located on a utility easement on
Lot D. the overhead line adjacent to Highway 82 will be extended vertically for safety
reasons per Holy Cross Electric Association's request.
d. Telephone, natural gas, and cable TV.
Staff Finding:
All of these utilities exist and will be extended where necessary to serve the project.
Staff Comments 11
I""'>
I""'l
e. Easements
Staff Finding:
The existing driveway easement to Lot 2, Ferguson Exemption will be vacated and a new
easement agreement will be recorded with the final plat. A new emergency access
easement, utility easements, and trail easement will be recorded on the final plat.
f. Sidewalks, curb and gutter.
Staff Finding:
New sidewalks will be installed along Highway 82 and Aene Ct. A new concrete
sidewalk will also be installed along the west property line to connect the project to
Highway 82. The Highway 82 curb and gutter will be extended up Aene Ct., and a new
handicap ramp will be placed near the intersection.
g. Fire Protection
Staff Finding:
All units will be sprinkled for fire safety purposes. The existing fire hydrant will be
slightly relocated. An emergency access easement will be granted between Lots B and C,
at the request of the Fire Marshall.
h. Drainage.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has indicated that dry wells will be used to retain the historic storm water
flows on-site. A drainage plan must be submitted for review and approval of the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
i. Roads.
StaffFinding:
Both Aene Ct. and Robinson Rd. will be improved and paved at the applicant's expense.
j. Final Plat
Staff Finding:
Upon final approval by the City Council, the applicant will record a final plat which
reflects all of the subdivision requirements for this project. The neighbors of this project
have expressed a desire to have Aene Ct. changed to Camelot Ct. As part of the final plat
submission, another page with signature blocks for all five owners with an interest in
Aene Ct. will be recorded, officially changing this name, with City Council's approval.
Alpine Cottages:: DRAC Variance for Volume Standard
(Final P&Z review)
If an applicant is coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission for any other
action, they may request a variance form the Design Review Standards by requesting that
the P&Z sit as the Design Review Appeals Committee (DRAC). A variance from the
standards will not be granted unless the commission finds that:
1) the variance yields greater compliance with the goals of the AACP.
Staff Comments 12
r-..
r""">\
2) the variance would more effectively address the issue or problem a given
standard or provision responds to; or
3) the variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual
site specific constraints.
Variance Request:
The applicant is seeking a variance from the volume standard. This standard requires that
"all areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than 10' shall be counted
as two square feet for each one square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be
defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of
the finished floor. . ." The applicant is requesting a variance from this standard in order
to allow 2' transom windows to be added to the gabled ends ofthe multi-family
architecture, extending 10' into the plate height. He indicates that "The gable walls ofthe
affordable units all face the sunny side of the parcel and the transom windows offer an
opportunity to 'soften' the size of the gable walls and let in more light and sun."
Staff Findings:
One of the goals of the AACP is that housing should be compatible with the scale and
character of the community and should emphasize quality construction. Staff agrees that
this design for category housing is well-executed, and a variance could be granted based
on the finding that "the variance yields greater compliance with the goals of the AACP."
Alpine Cottages: Special Review for Parking and ARl Lot Area
Requirements (Final P&Z review)
Parking:
Parking requirements for an AHI-PUD property is required to be determined through
Special Review by the commission. The applicant is proposing a total of sixteen (16)
spaces for the deed-restricted units and two (2) each for the four free-market lots. This
meets the standard established in the land use code of 1 space /bedroom or 2
spaces/dwelling unit.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has demonstrated that the parking needs of the residents of the project have
been met. Staff believes that due to the proximity of the project to the commercial core
and its location as a transit stop, most residents will choose to park their cars and use
alternative transportation. The applicant has also included an area for bike storage for the
residents. Staff finds that the proposed parking is adequate for this site.
Lot Area for AHI-PUD:
"For multi-family dwellings on a lot that was subdivided from a parcel of27,OOO square
feet or less or for lots that were subdivided from a parcel of 43,560 square feet or less
when approved by special review pursuant to Chapter 26.64, the following square feet
requirements shall apply:
Detached units
Duplex per unit
3,000 s.f.
1,500 s.f.
Staff Comments 13
I"""
I'!""'I
Multi-family
I bedroom
4 bedroom
400 s.f.
1600 s.f.
Review Standards:
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space,
landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a
manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding
land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have
adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts,
including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability
of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane.
Staff Findings:
The project, as proposed is laid out with adequate space and landscaping to enhance the
character ofthe area and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone. The
project will result in less traffic then the lodge currently generates. The project is laid out
in such a way that all units, including the free-market units will have adequate sun. As
mentioned above, the project meets the parking requirements of the city. There are no
established view planes in this area.
Staff Comments 14
,,,......,,
~
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ALPINE COTTAGES CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUALIFINAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION AND REZONING TO ARl-
PUD.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 22,
1998 at a meeting t.o begin at 5 :00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
Larry Saliterman of 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road, Minneapolis, Minnesota, in association
with Semrau Building and Design .of 208 1/2 E. Main Street in Aspen, requesting
approval to rezone to AHIIPUD, construct 10 deed restricted units and 4 free market
units. The proposal involves requests for Rezoning, cons.olidated conceptual/final PUD
and Subdivision. The subject property is located at 1240 East Cooper, and is described as
L.ot 3, Ferguson Exemption. F.or further information, contact Julie Ann Woods at the
AspenlPitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970)
920-5100.
st.John Bennett. Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on June 12, 1998
City .of Aspen Account
g:/planning/aspen/noticeslalpcott.doc
,-..
.1"'"'\
VI\d
TO:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council . , /
Amy Margerum, City Manager~
John Worcester, City Attorney /~./
Stan Clauson, Community Development DirectorZY'
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director ~,j
Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing c):;t~allFinal Planned Unit
Development, Rezoning, and Subdivision Reviews (Second Reading)
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
June 22, 1998
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Larry Saliterrnan in association with Semrau Building and Design.,
is requesting approval to rezone to AH 1- PUD in order to construct 10 deed
restricted units and 4 free-market units. The proposal involves requests for
rezoning, consolidated conceptual/final PUD, and Subdivision. The applicant has
sought and received approval for Special Review of off-street parking
requirements and density limitations, and a variance from the volume provision of
the residential design standards from the Planning and Zoning Commission by a
4-0 vote at their May 19, 1998 meeting (see Exhibit "G"). The site is located at
1240 East Cooper Ave. The property currently contains the Alpine Lodge and a
vacant lot (Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption) behind the lodge.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the rezoning, consolidated
conceptual/final PUD, subdivision, vested rights, and a partial park
development impact fee waiver request, with conditions.
ApPLICANT:
Larry Saliterrnan in association with Semrau Building and Design. The applicant
will be represented by Tim Semrau.
LOCATION:
1240 East Cooper Ave., and Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption. The property currently
contains the Alpine Lodge and a vacant lot behind the lodge, within the City of
Aspen as shown on the attached vicinity map (Exhibit A).
ZONING:
The subject property is currently zoned R-15A-PUD; the Alpine Lodge portion of
the site also contains an LP overlay zone. The applicant is seeking a rezoning to
AHI-PUD.
I
,.......,
,~
LOT SIZE:
Approximately 37,148 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This represents the total property minus the
proposed access easement and slope reductions.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF DENSITY CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This includes the same restrictions as above
and considers slope reduction.
FAR:
Maximum allowable FAR is 23,253 s.f., based on (.8) x (Lot Area), subject to
PUD Review. The applicant is proposing 23,227 s.f. of FAR.
CURRENT LAND USE:
A 12-room lodge contained within four buildings, and a vacant lot.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Five lots, four of which will be free-market, and one (Lot I) which will contain
ten (10) deed restricted units. Lot I, Alpine Cottages will contain:
2 four-bedroom Category 4 units
2 one-bedroom Category 4 units
2 one-bedroom Category 3 units
4 four-bedroom RO units
PREVIOUS ACTION:
, The City Council approved this application on first reading, May 26, 1998.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
At their meeting on May 19, 1998, the Growth Management Commission
recommended that the City Council approve and exempt from Growth
Management ten (10) deed-restricted umts and four (4) free-market-AH associated
allotments and that this be the approved method of providing affordable housing
for the Alpine Cottages (see Exhibit "F" attached).
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the rezoning, consolidated
conceptual/final PUD, and subdivision application at a hearing and recommended
approval with conditions to City Council (see Exhibit "G" attached). The
applicant is also seeking Vested Rights approval; and a partial park development
impact fee waiver request.
2
I~~
~
BACKGROUND:
The Alpine Lodge participated in the Small Lodge Lottery in 1997 and was
allocated four (4) additional lodge expansion units. The owner did not proceed
with applying for a change-in-use request. The previous owner of the property,
James and Christina (Pfeifer) Martin, sold the lodge to the current owner with the
understanding that their descendants would have a right of first refusal on two of
the units, should they choose to remain in Aspen.
The applicant was before the Housing Board, which recommended approval
subject to certain conditions. These conditions are spelled out in the Housing
office referral, and are made conditions of approval. The applicant is not in full
agreement with these housing conditions and will want to discuss this with the
City Council. Please refer to the applicant's letter, dated 6/15/98, attached as
Exhibit "H." It appears from the letter that the applicant agrees with all but one
condition, that is that the category units be opened to public lottery. The applicant
claims he has made prior commitments to eligible buyers and this requirement is
not fair. The City Council may want to consider modifying the recommended
conditions requested by the Housing office.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant is seeking a partial waiver of the Park Land Dedication Impact Fee.
The Parks dedication fee would be $43,092. Because this project is 71 %
affordable, staff recommends that the applicant be responsible for paying for 29%
of the Park Dedication Impact fee, or $12,497.
The applicant is also responsible for paying the applicable School Land dedication
fees. Staff recommends that the applicant pay fees-in-lieu of the land dedication,
and that the payment be made prior to, and on a proportional basis to the issuance
of any building permits for the residential lots.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "B." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "C." The application, which is
in a booklet form, should be considered Exhibit "D", which was previously
submitted to the City Council at first reading. Also attached are Exhibit "F", the
Growth Management Commission's resolution, and Exhibit "G" the Planning and
Zoning Commission's resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve on second reading the consolidated
conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AHI-PUD, subdivision, Vested Rights, and a partial
park development impact fee waiver request for the Alpine Cottages, subject to the
following conditions:
3
>(A'
f"""',
R:c-\/\.sE:-V; 4R"J6- c..."",,--.:e;,g
t"""'.. 4>lnl"J'O
"'.
1. That ten (10) deed-restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated
allotlnents, be exempted from Growth Management and that this be the approved
method of providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages;
2. That the applicant agree to the conditions placed on the project by the housing
board (or as amended by the City C,ouncil), including:
a) The RO units will have a 3% appreciation cap;
b) The developer will sell the RO units to a minimum household size of three
persons;
c) . Income and asset restrictions should be based on a maximum of an
$800,000 price;
d) The maximum price for the RO units be set at $550,000;
e) The RO units be sold to households who have worked in Pitkin County a
minimum of the last four years consecutively; and
f) That the category units be opened to the public, with the exception of the
first right of refusal for Friedl Pfeifer's grandchildren mentioned in the
contract; (this is a condition [that the category units be opened to the
public) that the applicant is particularly not in agreement with, and
the P&Z recommended deleting);
3. That a utility plan be submitted to the Water Dept., the ACSD, and the City
Engineer for their review and approval prior to issuance of building permit;
4, All legal instruments associated with the access easement to Lot 2 (Robinson) and
Lot 4 Ferguson Exemption, the emergency access easement located between
proposed Lots B and C, utility easements, and the 10' trail easement between
Aene Ct. and Snyder be recorded as part of the final plat;.
5. That as part of the final plat submission, another page with signature blocks for
all five owners with an interest in Aene Ct. be recorded, officially changing the
name from Aene Ct. to Camelot Ct.;
6. Lighting should be downcast and not used to call attention to architectural
features;
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to gain
approval for a line extension request, a collection system agreement, and possibly
a shared service agreement for each unit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District;
8. The applicant shall submit a drainage report prior to issuance of a building permit
to ensure that no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property during and
after construction;
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust
control plan;
4
""
~
,....,
.~
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain the necessary
permits from the Environmental Health Department for any frreplaces or
woodburning devices;
II. Asbestos testing of the existing buildings will be required, as applicable, with the
building permit application;
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data
including property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments;
13. That the applicant pay fees-in-lieu of the school land dedication, and that the
payment be made prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any
building permits for the residential lots;
14. That the remaining required parkfees be paid prior to the issuance of building
permit;
15. Prior to issuance of a certifrcate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair any
public right-of-way damaged during construction;
16. 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 frnal plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be
obstructed;
17. A current title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, must be submitted
prior to filing of the final plat;
18. Additional information about the chain of title and the prior approvals regarding
the open space reservation must be provided prior to filing of the final plat;
19. The applicant will grant a utility easement along the westerly side of proposed Lot
A and will work with the adjacent owners (Robinson) to attempt to get agreement
to relocate two spruce trees onto Robinson's property instead of within the
propose water easement alignment. Division of costs for extension of the water
distribution system will need to be negotiated with the City Water Dept.;
20. The proposed development will need to construct a main line extension of the
sanitary sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines to each
individual building.
21. The site plan should include areas for trash and recycling containers and for on-
site snow storage;
22. The Robinson Rd. access way, as proposed, is too narrow to be dedicated to the
public and should remain a private access way and common utility easement as
previously dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption;
23. The applicant will need to provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin County and
copies of postal receipts verifYing the deliver of notice to all utility companies, all
owners of property fronting on or served by Aene Park, the Aspen Post Master,
Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen regarding this subdivision and the name
change of Aene Ct. to Camelot Ct.;
5
.,.!
,-.,
i"'"lI
24. The parking spaces located between Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft
wide (minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating
these spaces from the access driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should
conform to city and ADA standards in size, number, accessibility, slope;
25. The developer will need to provide plans in the construction plans submitted for
the building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic, hauling and
delivery routes; vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging areas;
temporary drainage, erosion and sedimentation control during construction, and
provision of temporary utilities;
26. The developer will be responsible to provide temporary utility and drainage
services to the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by
disruption of utilities during construction;
27. The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to commencing
work (relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the most stringent
permit requirements if the requirements of any permits differ;
28. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit
will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and
switches;
29. The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed
for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property
under an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded
concurrent with recording the subdivision plat;
30. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public
rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows:
a) The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080)
for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within
public rights-of-way;
b) Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and
irrigation systems;
c) Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
d) permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public
rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-
5090);
31. Unless the property owner can provide documentation verifying his water rights
in this irrigation ditch, the property owner should establish a raw water lease
agreement with the City Water Department for use of a portion of the City's water
allocation in the Riverside irrigation ditch for purposes of irrigation;
32. The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide easement
centered on the ditch flowline. Unless some other documentation is presented to
substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will be suitable for
this ditch easement;
6
.^'(
""'
I""!\
33. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County
Clerk and Recorder;
34. . 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.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve on second reading, Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998, the
consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AHI-PUD, subdivision, vested
rights, and a partial park development impact fee waiver request for the Alpine
Cottages, with the additional conditions as noted.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A Vicinity Map
Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments
. Exhibit C Comments from Referral Agencies
Exhibit D Application (Booklet form)
Exhibit E Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998
Exhibit F GMC Resolution
Exhibit G P&Z Minutes of 5/19/98
Exhibit H Applicant's letter dated 6/15/98 regarding Housing Board
recommendations
Exhibit I Letter from Pat Spector, Neighbor
s:J1'1amIIDgI:tSpc:nlcascslpudllllpn<:e2.dO~
7
r-..
,t""'\j
ALPINE COTTAGES--EXHIBIT B
Staff Analysis and Findings:
Alpine Cottages: Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit
Development
A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements:
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Finding:
Community Vision: The plan calls for disbursed mid-size to smaller projects, infill
development within the existing urban area, small scale resident housing dispersed with
free-market housing, locating housing near public transportation, a mix of housing to
encourage families, and private development to solve the housing crisis. Alpine Cottages
achieves these goals while providing high-quality housing within walking distance of the
commercial core.
Community Vitality: The proposed development is 71 % affordable, addressing the
community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities within a reasonable
walking distance to employment and recreation resources. The proposed development is
an in-fill site within, or approximately within, the original townsite. Increased residential
density, especially for local working residents, within the town promotes a sense of
community and creates community vitality.
Open Space and Environment: Providing housing opportunities within walking distance
to employment, entertainment, recreation, and other residences reduces the need to use a
vehicle for every trip. Also, compact development in proximity to existing facilities and
services reduces the need to extend services, and preserves those natural open space areas
for their wildlife and aesthetic functions.
Because of the project's proximity to the Snyder AH/Park site, the ~arks Dept. is
requesting a trail easement along the rear property line, connecting Aene Ct. with the
Snyder parcel. The applicant has agreed to this request. Such an easement should be
included on the final plat drawings.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
The proposed development is surrounded by fully developed property. Three adjacent
parcels (presuming Snyder will get approved) are AH developments and the other
Staff Comments 1
~\
("'\
adjacent lots are R15A. Existing developments consist of single family homes,
affordable housing units and a small lodge to the east and across Highway 82 (the
Beaumont). The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
As mentioned above, the surrounding parcels are already developed, or proposed for
development (Snyder). The surrounding area's development or redevelopment potential
should not be negatively affected by this development.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which
GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Staff Finding:
The application must receive development allotments for 10 residential units, and 4 free-
market-AH associated allotments from the City Council. The Growth Management
Commission considered this case and made a recommendation to City Council for the
GMQS exemption.
2. Density:
A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying
zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if:
There are sufficient utilities and services to accommodate this development. The access
is adequate for fire protection service. The portion of the property where development is
proposed is suitable for development. The applicant has provided a traffic generation
report and is not required to provide an Air Quality Mitigation Plan as the proposal will
Staff Comments 2
.--
~
have a net reduction in daily traffic trips as compared to the lodge use. The applicant is
required to provide a drainage report to the City Engineer for their review and approval.
The location of the proposed development does not appear to be in severe conflict with
the natural terrain and features of the site.
B. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
1. In order to reduce wildfIre, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and
guarantee adequate fIre protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in
areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor:
a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density
allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district.
b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum
density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the
underlying zone district.
c. For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall
be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent ofthat allowed in the underlying zone
district.
d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be
allowed.
2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary
in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit.
3. For parcels resting in more than one (I) zone district, the density reduction calculation
shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district.
4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Defmition of Lot Area.
Staff Finding:
The application specifies the percentages of the property falling within the described
slope classifications on Attachment D of the application. The proposed density requires
27,600 square feet of Lot Area. After all reductions, the property yields approximately
29,067 square feet of Lot Area. The proposal meets the density standard.
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a
zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-family dwelling units shall
only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding:
The application includes a request to rezone the property to AHI-PUD. The present
zoning allows for residential development in varying densities, while the proposed
rezoning allows a mixture of single family, duplex and multi-family units. The applicant
is proposing this mix in his proposal.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in
the following:
a. Minimum distance between buildings;
Staff Comments 3
1'*'\
.~
b. Maximum height (including viewplanes);
c. Minimum front yard;
d. Minimum rear yard;
e. Minimum side yard;
f. Minimum lot width;
g. Minimum lot area;
h. Trash access area;
i. Internal floor area ratio; and .
j. Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the
minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated on the fmal plat development plan.
Staff Finding:
This PUD will establish the dimensional requirements for the lots created. There are no
variations requested from the underlying zone district proposed. Note that the free-
market lots could slightly increase in size if the applicant is successful in securing title to
that portion of adjacent property which is represented as a hiatus between the Ferguson
Exemption and the Woemdle Subdivision.
The proposed dimensional requirements are as follows:
Reqnirements Common to Entire Development
Zone District: The applicant is proposing the site be rezoned to AHl-PUD.
Minimum distance between buildings: As shown on the plat
Maximum height: 23' 6" Proposed
Minimum percent open space: Approximately 56% (presuming building
envelopes 100% used)
Lot 1 (multi-family and dnplex units)
Zone District: AHI-PUD
Lot Size: 16,527 sJ..
Maximum internal floor area: 12,587 sJ'
Minimum lot width: As represented on final plat.
Building Envelope: No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
II feet, along both Aene Ct. and Highway 82
4 feet (west property line)
3 feet along Robinson Road (the existing buildings have
3' rear setback)
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yard:
a
Lot A (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
AHI-PUD
6,090 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
Staff Comments 4
~
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot'B (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot C (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot D (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
,-,
,
liPproved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
66 feet.
5 feet. (15' iftitle is perfected)
5 feet each.
AH1-PUD
5,460 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
50 feet.
5 feet. (12' if title is perfected)
5 feet each.
AH1-PUD
4,545 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
37 feet.
5 feet. (13' if title is perfected)
5 feet each.
AHl-PUD
4,526 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
15 feet.
5 feet.
5 feet. (13' if title is perfected on north sideyard)
5 feet on south sideyard
Staff Comments 5
,-,
.~
5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied
from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following
considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development.
b. The parking need of any nonresidential units.
c. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public
recreational facilities in the city.
Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain
assurance that the natnre of the occupancy will not change.
Staff Finding:
The proposed underlying zone district, AHI-PUD, requires parking requirements to be
established through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
commission approved the following parking requirements at their May 19, 1998 meeting:
one (1) parking space per one-bedroom dwelling unit, and two (2) parking spaces for
every other unit, which is the minimum for development city-wide.
6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying
zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be
permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the
proposed PUD, and ifthe proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a
common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common
park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom
the common area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in
perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the plarmed unit development (PUD), together
with a deed restriction against futnre residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned
facilities.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has agreed to provide a trails easement to the Parks Dept. along the rear
(northern) portion of the site connecting Aene Ct. to the Snyder parcel. The legal
instruments to protect this area should be submitted with the Final Plat. The applicant is
encouraged to work with the City Attorney and the Parks Department in preparing these
restrictions.
The application indicates that a minimum of approximately 56% of the site will remain
open space. Staff believes that due to the proximity to the future park site on the adjacent
Snyder parcel, this amount of open space will be adequate to serve the proposal.
Staff Comments 6
,.,.....,
--,
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior
spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant
species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding:
The application includes a Landscape Plan as shown on Attachment C of Exhibit "D."
The existing lodge parcel has a mature landscape which the proposed development will
attempt to maintain. The applicant has already moved several mature trees elsewhere on
site in an attempt to successfully maintain a more mature landscape within the
development parcel. This plan ,provides a reasonable amount and variety of p1antings.
8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character ofthe City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural
character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses.
Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and
maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage
and reduce soil erosion.
Staff Finding:
Building envelopes have been placed appropriately considering the natural terrain and
surrounding land uses. The plans and elevations for the Category and RO units have been
included in this application. The proportions, massing, and materials seem appropriate.
Both the RO and free-market structures must be developed consistent with the City's
Residential Design Guidelines, or be granted a waiver from the Planning and Zoning
Commission who can serve as the Design Review Appeal Committee. The applicant did
request and received a design waiver for the volume standard related to windows in the
9'-12' floor plate height.
The garages are oriented to the internal part of Lot 1 and will have minimal visual impact
on neighboring parcels. The overall design contributes to the visual character of the city.
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
StaffFinding:
The applicant proposes that exterior lighting will be kept to a minimum, using 60 watt
downlights in the entry and garage areas.
'10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Staff Comments 7
,.,.....,
,~
StaffFinding:
The development has been clustered, while allowing smaller lot free-market units within
the complex.
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings
shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency
vehicles.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has indicated that all sidewalks, utilities, street paving and curb and gutter
installation will be borne by the applicant.
The Engineering Dept. has included numerous requirements in their referral memo,
attached as Exhibit "C." In reviewing these requirements, it does not appear that there are
any major issues which cannot be resolved prior to building permit issuance or certificate
of occupancy. Both the Water Dept. and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have
indicated that they have the capacity to serve this project. Both utilities have requested
the submittal of a utility plan for their review. This has been included as a condition of
approval.
The ACSD has indicated that service from Aene Ct. may not work due to grade
considerations and an easement may be required on the west side of the property causing
units I and J to move to the east. The trench drain in the parking area must be routed to a
dry well or storm sewer and not connected to the District system. It is likely that a main
line extension may be necessary. Easements for such an extension will be necessary and
should be included on the final plat.
The existing 8" water line will need to be extended to near the end of Robinson Dr.,
reconnecting existing service lines serving 3 existing homes and installing a fire hydrant.
The applicant has agreed to provide a 10' water line easement along the westerly
boundary of free market Lot A. This will allow the Water Dept. to connect several
"dead-end" lines in the vicinity of Snyder. The easements for these water lines should be
included on the final plat.
The proposed access way and fire suppression system has been designed to accommodate
the Fire Marshall's requiremen.ts.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the plarmed unit development (PUD)
shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Minor streets within the Plarmed Unit Development (PUD) shall notbe connected to
streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic.
Staff Comments 8
,-...,
o
c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion
on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such
surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be
adversely affected.
d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway
or drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct
access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on
any street.
f. Streets in the plarmed unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or
retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall
comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances.
Staff Finding:
The proposed access way meets these standards. The development will provide a new
sidewalk along Highway 82 to better serve pedestrians in this area.
Alpine Cottages: Rezoning to AHI-PUD
In reviewing an amendment to the official zoning map, the City Council must consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this Title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed rezoning is not in conflict with any applicable portion of the Land Use
Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding:
Refer to Item lA, page 1 of this Exhibit "B.". The amendment is consistent with the
AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding:
The proposed rezoning is appropriate in this area. There are three AH projects (including
Snyder) in the immediate vicinity, as well as single family residences. The proposed
rezoning will allow the development of a similar AH mixed housing type project
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding:
The applicant submitted a traffic report to the Environmental Health Dept. It was
determined by Environmental Health that the proposed rezoning will result in reduced
traffic generation.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Comments 9
/""',
f'
Staff Finding:
Both the Water Dept. and the ACSD have indicated enough capacity to serve this project.
The project is located on an existing RFT A bus line. It is anticipated that with the four-
bedroom units it is likely that families with children will move into these units.
Therefore, there could be some impact on the area schools. However, because the
restrictions placed on this project by the Housing office require potential residents to be
Pitkin County residents for the previous four years, it is very likely that the families will
have already been in the school district, resulting in a minimal increase in new students.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The project should not have any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
The property is being redeveloped in an already developed area. Approximately 56% of
the property will be open space. To the extent possible, the applicant is attempting to
relocate large existing trees to minimize the loss of these amenities. A drainage plan
which addresses erosion control must be submitted to the city engineer for their review
and approval prior to building permit.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The project is designed to be similar in design to other structures in the vicinity. The
residences will face the street and have front porches. Parking will be contained in the
rear. Staff believes that the project will.be compatible and consistent with Aspen's
community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The neighborhood has been developing with a mix of both free-market and AH housing.
The project will be consistent with this change in character in this neighborhood.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
The rezoning will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code and
will not conflict with the public interest.
Alpine Cottages: Subdivision
Land that is divided into two or more lots for purposes of development is subject to the
City's Subdivision Regulations. The following review criteria must be met with all
subdivisions:
la. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the AACP.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item lA, page 1 of this Exhibit "B." The subdivision is consistent with the
AACP.
Staff Comments 10
1""'\
,-.,
"
lb. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the character of existing
land uses.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item lB, Page 1 of this Exhibit "B." The subdivision is consistent with the
character of existing land uses.
lc. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to Item 1C, Page 2 of this Exhibit "B." The subdivision should not adversely
affect the future development of surrounding areas. '
Id. The proposed subdivisiQn shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this title.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision will be in compliance with all subdivision requirements.
2a. Land suitability
Staff Finding:
The land is suitable for development. There are no known hazards that could impact the
development.
2b. Spatial Patterns efficient
Staff Finding:
There do not appear to be any inefficiencies with space. The utilities exist to the site and
will be improved to better serve the site and adjacent parcels.
3. Improvements
a. Water.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item 11, page 8 of this Exhibit "B." Water lines will need to be extended
and easements for these extensions will be granted by the applicant.
b. Sewer.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item 11, page 8. ACSD has indicated that sewer service to Aene Ct. may
not work due to grades. A sewer easement and line may need to be located along the
western property line. The applicant is required to submit a utility report to both ACSD
and the Water Dept. prior to issuance of building permit.
c. Electricity
,Staff Finding:
Holy Cross Electric currently serves the property with overhead lines. New service will
come underground from under Aene Ct. to a transformer located on a utility easement on
Lot D. the overhead line adjacent to Highway 82 will be extended vertically for safety
reasons per Holy Cross Electric Association's request.
Staff Comments 11
t""'.
~
d. Telephone, natural gas, and cable TV.
Staff Finding:
All of these utilities exist and will be extended where necessary to serve the project.
e. Easements
Staff Finding:
The existing driveway easement to Lot 2, Ferguson Exemption will be vacated and a new
easement agreement will be recorded with the final plat. Anew emergency access
easement, utility easements, and trail easement will be recorded on the final plat.
f. Sidewalks, curb and gutter.
Staff Finding'
New sidewalks will be installed along Highway 82 and Aene Ct. A new concrete
sidewalk will also be installed along the west property line to connect the project to
Highway 82. The Highway 82 curb and gutter will be extended up Aene Ct., and a new
handicap ramp will be placed near the intersection.
g. Fire Protection
Staff Finding:
All units will be sprinkled for fire safety purposes. The existing fire hydrant will be
slightly relocated. An emergency access easement will be granted between Lots B and C,
at the request of the Fire Marshall.
h. Drainage.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has indicated that dry wells will be used to retain the historic storm water
flows on-site. A drainage plan must be submitted for review and approval of the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
i. Roads.
Staff Finding:
Both Aene Ct. and Robinson Rd. will be improved and paved at the applicant's expense.
j. Final Plat
Staff Finding:
Upon final approval by the City Council, the applicant will record a final plat which
reflects all of the subdivision requirements for this project. The neighbors ofthis project
have expressed a desire to have Aene Ct. changed to Camelot Ct. As part of the final plat
submission, another page with signature blocks for all five owners with an interest in
Aene Ct. will be recorded, officially changing this name, with City Council's approval.
This has been included as a condition of approval.
Alpine Cottages: Vested Rights
Unless specifically requested by the applicant, the normal vesting of any project approval
is eighteen (18) ITlOnths. The applicant is requesting vesting for this project which would
Staff Comments 12
,-, l~
extend for a period of three (3) years. There are no criteria which must be met in order to
be fully vested.
g:/plal'lningfaspeolcaseslpudlaJpnexa.doc
Staff Comments 13
8(\t'1bIJ "c.."
,-,
~
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mitch Haas, Project Planner
Thru:
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From:
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
Date:
April 29, 1998
Re:
Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption,
Special Review for Parking, and AHl Lot Area Limitations Reviews
Physical Address:
Legal Description:
1240 East Cooper Avenue, City of Aspen, CO
A tract of land situate in the Riverside Addition to the City of Aspen, consisting of Lot
3, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption, and a metes and bounds description of a parcel
situate between said lot, the rights-of-way of Aene Park and East Cooper Avenue, and
Lot B, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption, containing 0.893 Acres, more or less, City of
Aspen, CO.
xxxx- xxx-xx- xxx
Parcel ID No.:
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the combined
comments made by the members of the DRC:
[Site conditions at the time of site visit: April 22, 1998 and during subsequent site visits; no snow cover, dry,
clear.]
Discussion: As submitted, the subdivisionlPUD application is incomplete and should not be considered
further until the applicant has provided a complete application. For the applicant's benefit, the following
comments are made at this time, based upon the submitted conceptual plans, to minimize future revisions.
Neither an utility plan nor a title policy were provided with the initial application. The utility plan provided on
May 12, 1998, does not meet the standards nor spatial requirements for extension of utilities which will be
necessary since this project is located at the periphery of the existing utility systems which are not presently
adequate to serve this proposed development. The title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, (also
delivered May 12, 1998) is not current as required by City code and is missing the pages following the first
page of Schedule B.
At this time it appears that the hiatus between proposed Alpine Cottages Lots "A" and "B" and the Snyder
property is actually a remainder parcel of un-vacated public right of way of East Circuit Avenue. As successor
to Pitkin County of public rights-of-way annexed in to the municipal boundaries, it appears this parcel belongs
to the City of Aspen. We are continuing to review the chain of title of the hiatus located between common
Area #3, Woemdle Subdivision, and the subject property (given the out of date title report).
1. Application: Since this proposed development is in an area at the periphery of the existing utility
systems, some line extensions and improvements will be necessary to provide service to this development. The
DRCllA98,OOC
IOF 7
,.,.....,
,....."
Memo - Alpine Cottages Affordable Hall::.. 6 Subdivision, POO, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special h..., iew for Parking, and AHl Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
applicant should meet with each of the utility providers to verifY the serviceability of the project, the need for
extensions and improvements to the utility systems, and division of responsibility between developer and
utility providers for making required improvements before the application is reviewed further. The utility plans
need to be completed (signed and stamped) by a currently licensed Colorado civil engineer (licensure required
by under CRS 12-25-105).
The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the
formes) of development requested in the application.
2. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project
change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of
the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and
recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated April 16, 1998)
provided for this, review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the
use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking or utility designs.
3. Prior Approvals and Agreements: The proposed building envelopes of the four (4) free market
lots encroach into the open space easement defined in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption in the area of the
former East Circuit Avenue right-of-way. Such restrictions are typically defined as reservations running with
the title of the land in the vacated right-of-way. There are approximately a dozen exceptions to the title reports
regarding prior agreements, subdivisions and easements which may impact the developable area of this project
or otherwise influence the use, extent and location of specific features and types of improvements, including
public utilities. These prior agreements are under review. This review will also consider prior development
agreements and conditions which have not been completed to date.
We request additional information about this aspect of the chain of title and the prior approvals applied to this
property in order to fully evaluate the title and reservations of the property.
4. Utilities & Services: Apart from the discussion below of the water distribution system, the
application does not include plans nor letters of serviceability from the several utility providers serving the area
of the proposed development. Coordination of the extension of utilities, possible dedication of utility and
access easements, and coordination of the utility systems with the site design is a requirement of the application
for both subdivision and PUD. The proposed plan does not provide adequate width for separation of utilities
and excavation through the proposed Robinson Road although a main line extension will be required for the
sanitary sewer.
5. City Water Dept.: During the site visit on April 22, 1998, the applicant (Timothy Semrau) met
with Phil Overeynder and conceptually agreed to an extension of the water main through the project to connect
with water mains extended from Midland Avenue through the Snyder Property. This is contingent upon
granting of an utility easement along the westerly side of the proposed Lot A and agreement of the Robinsons
(owners of the adjacent lot to the west) to the relocation of two spruce trees to be transplanted on Robinson's
property instead of within the propose water easement aligrnnent. Division of costs for extension of the water
distribution system will need to be negotiated with the City Water Dept.. (The utility plan provided on May 12,
1998, included undersized water mains.)
DRCIIA98,DOC
20F 7
1"""", ,-'
Memo - Alpine Cottages Affordable Hou~.. .: Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special h.... iew for Parking, and AHI Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
The City's water distribution system presently consists of three terminal water mains serving this
neighborhood. The existing configuration does not provide adequate flow and pressure to maintain fIre
suppression capacity in the distribution system without extending and interconnecting the water mains to form
a looped system. The extension of a water distribution main in the common access driveway with a new fire
hydrant is required to provide water service. Continuation of the waterIDain through this property into the
Snyder property will assist in making the necessary extensions to the water distribution system. Coordination
of the water main easement and the trail easement is an alternative that the applicant and the city staff will need
to evaluate.
6. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: This proposed development will need to construct a
main line extension of the sanitary sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines to each individual
building. The District will not provide service to this development based upon the proposed configuration
shown in the schematic drawing.
7. Trash and Recycling Areas, Snow Storage and Mail Boxes: The site plan should include areas for
trash and recycling containers and for on-site snow storage. The applicant should consider a common mailbox
area for the entire development to facilitate delivery and reduce congestion. (None of these are represented in
the plans.)
8. Utility & Service Easements: The proposed subdivision should include easements for utility
pedestals within the property boundaries and not in the public nor private rights-of-way where these cabinets
will obstruct the driveable width of the right-of-way. The proposed utility easement in the northeasterly comer
of Lot D may not be a serviceable location depending upon the types of utilities requiring an underground or a
surface fixture.
9. Riverside Irrigation Ditch: The Riverside Irrigation Ditch crosses the southwesterly Corner of the
property, flowing from the culvert under Highway 82 toward Lot B, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption.
Although the previous property owners of the Alpine Lodge have pumped water from this ditch for landscape
irrigation for several years, we have not received documentation of a water right in the Riverside Ditch which
runs with this property. Unless this property owner can provide documentation verifYing his water rights in this
irrigation ditch, we recommend that the property owner establish a raw water lease agreement with the City
Water Department for use a portion of the City's water allocation in this ditch.
The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide easement centered on the ditch flowline.
Unless some other documentation is presented to substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement
will be suitable for this ditch easement.
10. City Parks Department: There are a couple possibilities for extension and inter-connection of
the existing City trail system through this proposed development and the Parks Dept. wishes to discuss these
further with the applicant to coordinate trail access. This may coincide with easements needed for extension of
the water mains through the proposed development. The City will request dedication of pedestrian trails
through the proposed development once the locations and dimensions are determined.
DRCllA98.DOC
3 OF 7
~ ,~
Memo ~ Alpine Cottages Affordable HaL_ Q Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special'h",vlew for Parking, and AHl Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
11. Aspen V olnnteer Fire Department: The entire development will need to be protected by fire
sprinklering and the' applicant has proposed relocating the existing fire hydrant at the comer of Aene Road and
Highway 82 a few feet. The fire access is acceptable at 16 ft width of pavement and an additional 2 ft clear
passage on each side of the access way (Unit C may !lQt be moved closer to the access driveway than already
represented).
12. Environmental Health: Due to the number of dwelling units proposed in the development and
the distance to the commercial area of the city, the proposed l1litigation measures in sidewalks and paving of
the access driveway and proximity to public transit, fulfill the mitigation requirements for vehicular traffic.
Asbestos testing of the existing buildings and the standard fugitive dust control permit will be required, as
applicable, with the building permit application.
13. Access to Streets: The plans are not clear in the identification of the ownership and status of the
proposed Robinson Road which is identified as an easement although this access way is not part of any of the
lots. It either needs to be incorporated into the adjoining lots by extension of the lot lines or be identified as a
separate lot with common access conditions for all adjoining property owners. This access way, as proposed, is
too narrow to be dedicated to the public and should remain a private access way and common utility easement
as previously dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption. (Providing of utilities may necessitate a wider
access Way which would alter the site plans.) As shown, the surface drainage from this area will be retained
within the property.
Since the access way is presently narrower than a standard city alley, it would be more appropriate to name it
"Robinson Alley" to connote the sub-standard width and atypical construction (reverse crowned with drainage
catchbasins centered in the driveable surface width).
As a condition of approval, this development will provide common access to Lot B, Ferguson Subdivision
Exemption, similar to the access provided to the Robinson property through the access driveway. It is
appropriate to restore access for this adjoining lot which will facilitate the re-development of the property and
elimination of the existing curb cut onto Highway 82. The dedication of access for Lot B, Ferguson
Subdivision Exemption to Robinson Road will be irrevocable so as not to isolate this adjoining property. The
access driveway and utility easements of this property will also provide unrestricted utility easement to Lot B,
Ferguson Subdivision Exemption.
Aene Park is presently a gravel surfaced access way and cul-de-sac. As an alternative to developing this as an
urban street profile, consideration should be given to providing curb, gutter and full width asphalt paving
beginning at Highway 82 and extending to the up-hill side of Robinson Alley. The bulb of the cul-de-sac could
be left with gravel shoulders and drainage swales around the perimeter so as to provide an area for snow
storage without danger of crushing the curb while plowing snow from Aene Park and the cul-de-sac.
14. Sidewalks, Street Lights, Fire Hydrants ,& Utility Pedestals: The proposed 16ft wide Right-of-
Way Reservation along the Highway 82 frontage creates separations of 1 ft. and 3 ft, for Unit A and Unit F,
respectively. The planting bed around Unit A encroaches approximately I ft into the Right-of-Way reservation
which compromises the use of this reservation for future right-of-way development. The location and .
orientation of these two dwelling units should be revised to increase the separation from the right-of-way
reservation, treating it as a proper right-of-way. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are required to be installed along the
two (2) street frontages at the time of construction.
DRCIIA98,DOC
40F 7
f""'\ t1
Memo - Alpine Cottages Affordable HaiL...s Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Speciai'1\.....ilew for Parking, and AHI Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
An public access easement will be required for the sidewalk along the westerly side of Aene Road since this
will lie within the property boundaries. As the utility plans are developed, locations of pedestals and above
, ground appurtenances should be included on the site plan in order to coordinate the improvements and dedicate
any necessary utility easements.
Relocation of the existing fire hydrant will require a right-of-way permit from CDOT and the City of Aspen.
Depending upon the where street lights will be'located, installation ofthese improvements may also require a
right of way permit from CDOT and the City of Aspen.
15. Re-naming of Aene Road: The applicant will need to provide a petition signed by the adjacent
property owners requesting the change of street name from Aene Road to Camelot Court. Since this action
does not involve dedication of right-of-way, and so as not to complicate the dedication of the subdivisionlPUD
by having persons without ownership or official capacity signing on the plat, we believe this action should be
treated separately from the subdivision application although simultaneously. The subdivision/PUD plat may
reflect the street name change if the name change has been finalized before the plat is recorded. The request
for street name change should also contain alternate names to provide an unique name not already in use and to
be phonetically distinct so as not to be confusing to dispatching of emergency services within Pitkin County.
The applicant will need to provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin County and copies of postal receipts
, verifying the deliver of notice to all utility companies, all owners of property fronting on or served by Aene
Park, the Aspen Post Master, Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen.
16. Parking: The parking spaces located between Un.its G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft wide
(minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating these spaces from the access
driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should conform to city and ADA standards in size, number,
accessibility, slope.
17. Traffic and Street Signage: The developer will be responsible for coordinating additions and
changes to the traffic and street signage in and around this proposed development in accordance with City and
CDOT standards. If Aene Road is renamed, the developer will purchase the new street name sign(s) from the
City Streets Dept. and install the sign(s) as required by the City Streets Dept.
18. Drainage Improvements: The application did not include a geotechnical investigation of the soils nor
a drainage report for the preliminary sizing of the drainage facilities. If the proposed drainage system will rely
upon injection or infiltration, rather than detention alone, the geotechnical report will be required to assure the
feasibility and sizing of the drainage facilities.
Robinson Road should be graded with a high point at the property line with Aene Road so as to contain the
surface drainage within the Robinson Road drainage system.
19. Snrvey Monnments and Subdivision I PUD Plat: The developer will need to tie this
subdivision into the City's survey control grid. The new range point(s) and box(es) for the subdivision will be
located in locations selected by the City Engineer and conform to City standards for survey monuments.
DRClIA98,DOC
5 OF 7
i"""'. ,-,
Memo - Alpine Cottages Affordable Hau;. _, ':;ubdivision, POO, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special k ; jw for Parking, and ARt Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
The owner will be required to prepare and record a subdivision I PUD plat according to state and city standards.
The property comers of the new lots will be surveyed and monumented before recording of the plat. New and
existing property monuments will be protected during construction and flagged for verification prior to
issuance of any C.O. Signature blocks will be included for the City Parks Director for acceptance of the trail
easements and the several utility providers including the representative of the owners or principle water right
holder in the Riverside Ditch.
20. Landscaping: The proposed landscaping plan indicates planting new trees in the 5 ft space along the
north side of Lot 2 in the area identified as the fire access, in the 5 ft utility easement on the south side of Lot 2,
in the 10 ft utility easement on the west side of Lot 1, and either over or close to the locations of drywells "C",
"D", and "E". The fire access along the north side of Building No.5 may not be obstructed by trees nor
shrubbery, and trees should not be planted in utility easements nor over shallow structures like the drywells.
The landscaping plan will need to be revised to place the trees elsewhere.
21. Construction Impacts: The developer will need to provide plans in the construction plans
submitted for the building permit( s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic, hauling and delivery routes;
vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging areas; temporary drainage, erosion and sedimentation control
during construction, and provision of temporary utilities. The intent of the plans is to minimize the detrimental
impacts to the public rights-of-way and to adjacent property and neighbors.
22. Public Improvements and Landscaping Security: The property owner will need to post
financial securities, acceptable to the City Engineer, for the public improvements and landscaping in the public
right-of-way. The security will be in the amount of 100% of the value of the work as estimated by the City
Engineer.
23. Planned Unit Development: Topics specific to PUD have been incorporated in other sections of
this memorandum.
24. Constrnction Impacts: The developer will be responsible to provide temporary utility and
drainage services to the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by disruption of utilities during
construction. An erosion and sediment control plan will be included in the plans provided for the building
permit.
25. CDOT Right-of-Way Permit: The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to
commencing work (relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the most stringent permit
requirements if the requirements of any permits differ.
26. Condominiumization: For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling
unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general
common elements and limited common elements will be labeled, dimensioned and identified on the
condominium plat recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site. The condominium plat will
be recorded prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project. The abutting subdivisions and
lots will also be shown on the subdivision plat as required by Aspen Municipal Code.
DRCllA98.DOC
6 OF 7
-. ,-,
, I . ~
Memo ~ Alpine Cottages Affordable Hou~.... Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, G~QS Exemption, Special h... ;~w for Parking, and AHl Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
27. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement
districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an
assessment formula. The agreetuent would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the
subdivision plat.
28. As-BuiIts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines,
building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and
any other improvements.
29. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design
of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights-of-way;
Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation
systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within
public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090).
DRC Meeting Attendees:
Applicant: David Miller, representative for applicant (Semrau Building)
Staff & Referral Agencies: John Krueger, Ross Soderstrom, Stephen Ellsperman, Ed V an Walraven,
Nancy MacKenzie, Phil Overeynder
DRCIIA98,OOC
70F 7
MRY 13 '98 09:53RM RSPEN HOUSING OFC
,......,
P.l
,~.
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
JUlie Ann Woods, Community Development Dept.
Cindy ChrIstensen, Housing Office
May 14, 1998
Alpine Cottages Affordabto Housing Project
ParcellD No.
TO:
SUMIiAARY: Tim Semrau has submitted an application for Conceptual and Detailed approval of
an Affordable Housing Zone District project at the slle of the Alpine Lodgo and adjacent the
property. The corlellt proposal is for a mix of free market units. ResIdent Occupied eRO) units
and Category units as follows:
Unit Tyoe and C.Jtegnry
Uni.li
Free Market Lots
Resident Occupied four-bedroom townhomes
Category 4 four-bedroom townhomes
Category 4 one-bedroom townhomes
Category 3 one-bedroom townhomes
4
4
2
2
-2
TOtAL
14
The Resident Occupied unit program is currently undergoing scrutiny at this time. and the Housing
Board has been discussing. recommendations to amend this program. The RO unlls Proposed for
this development take those discussions into account to sClme extent. The oooupancy
requirements acknoWledge the Board's concern that large RO units have been pUrchased by
BmBii households. The incoma/asset limits acknoWledge a concern that RO units have been SQld
to households with the means to affoltt ether housing options.
~ECOMMENDATJON: The Housing Board met on this issue On May 6, 1998. The J30a1tt and
staff finds that this project meets I)'Iany of the eslablished goals of the housing program. In a
development of high quality and with work performed by a developer with a proven track reeoltt,
The Board recommends approval of this project with the fullowing conditions:
. the RO units have a 3% appreciation cap;
. the developer sell the RC units to a minimum hoUSehold siZe of three persOns;
. income and asset restrictions should be based qn a maximum of an $800,000 price;
. the maximum pric:e for the RO units be set at $550,000;
. the RO units be sold to households Who have worked in Pitkin County a minimum of the
last four years consecutively; and
. that the category units be opened to the public, with the exception of the first right of
refusal for Friedl Pfeifer's grandchildren mentioned in the conIracl.
1nlfo..r"lplnool.ah
MRY 13 '98 '09:S3RM RSPE:N HOUSING OFC
~\
P.2
o
, .
The Declaration of Covenants for Lazy Glen Park are more restrictive than the proposed deed
restriction. The BOard stated that they would not have a problem with using the Declaration of
COvenants for Laz.y Glen Park as the deed restriction with some additions to the document.
REOl)MMENDATION: The HoUSing Board recommends approval of this aubdMsion. with the
condition that the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority reviews and approves either the lIIfaster
Deed Resfrit;tion, O<<:upanay and Resale AgAlemellt for Lazy Glen Subdivision, or the
Declaration of Covenallls for Lazy Glen P1frk prior to final approval.
\N.ferf3Na2.ygli:m
:2
f"""',
ASPEN PLANNING & L"ONING COMMISSION
I"'"
MAY 19. 1998
play but the community character would matter if this house was demolished and
replaced with something as important to the community as a lesser remodeled
Bayer house. He said any essence of that Bayer box would dictate in some way a
calming of the speculative explosion that would happen ifit was not restricted.
Mooney said it met the architecture importance and the designer importance. He
noted that a respectful design quality has to accompany what Bayer has put there.
Hunt asked if the motion could include the major caution to city council
concerning this property, that some believe the historical significance of this
property could be totally lost as far as a community benefit with improper
development. Haas said what you are being asked was as the house that sits on the
property right now, today; should it be designated a landmark according to these 5
criteria (must meet 2 of the 5). Chaikovska said it did not meet the criteria but
Mooney's argument of the lesser of two evils.
Hoefer noted a .condition could be added to have tight controls on development.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to advise City Council to designate 240
Lake Avenue as Historic Landmark finding that standards Band C of
Section 26.76.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code have been met with the
consideration that the future plans of redevelopment maximize the
historic statement ofthe house. Roger Hunt second. APPROVED 3-1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ALPINE COTTAGES REZONING TO AH, PUD, SUBDIVISION, SPECIAL
REVIEW, GMQS EXEMPTION & ORDINANCE 30 VARIANCE
Sara Garton opened the public hearing. The notice was reviewed by the Assistant
City Attorney, David Hoefer and the commission had the authority to proceed.
Julie Ann Wood, Staff, said there were two levels of review that will take place.
The first set of review criteria would stop with P&Z approval or denial; off-street
parking requirements, density limitation and variance from the volume provision
of the residential design standards. She stated those that were acted on tonight
were final. Woods said after the rulings tonight, City Council will review and
conduct a public hearing on May 26, 1998; rezoning to AH-l PUD, consolidated
conceptual and final PUD and subdivision.
4
1""".
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
~
MAY 19, 1998
Tim Semrau, representative for applicant, stated that he met with the city engineer
for the utility plan with easily workable concerns. He noted the only condition
that they did not agree with was from housing; opening the lottery units to the
public. Garton asked where the recycling and trash area would be located.
Semrau replied in the garage; every unit has a garage.
Tim Mooney inquired if the right-of-first refusal could include the Pfeifer grand
children by name and that housing wanted to have units in the lottery. Saliterman
stated they have made commitments to people. Semrau said the lottery would take
time and they are trying to get into the ground by the end of July. He said there
was a waiting list now which they would like to honor. Garton maintained this
project should be held hostage to something the housing authority was considering
changing. She said as long as the developer chooses people who fit the housing
guidelines, is not wrong as a condition of approval. Hunt agreed and future
private developments could obtain a consortium of people together for financing
which should not be excluded from the possibilities of affordable housing. Garton
gave common ground as an example.
David Starensier, public, said he lived in an RO unit across the street and inquired
about the change in sales percentage from 4% to 3%. He said currently the
guidelInes say 4%; that was a 20% drop in resale value at 3%. Garton noted that
tomorrow night the housing meeting would be the forum for the RO resale input.
There was discussion of the housing guidelines, current and proposed.
Mooney questioned why there was a hardship in designing this structure without
the variance. Semrau answered the gables were tall and placing an 8' patio door
with a 2' transom made for additional light and a better elevation. Garton asked
why the gables were that tall. Semrau replied that was how the building looked so
good. He said it was only I' over the limit. Woods stated the energy efficiency
taking light from the south and east for affordable housing was a plus. Hoefer
asked for the hardship determination. Woods answered it furthered the goals of
the AACP, with quality construction.
Garton inquired as to the 3 big beautiful trees. Semrau responded that I remains,
I was successfully moved and the 3rd died when moved; which will be mitigated.
He said about 10 other trees have been moved on the site.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the variance to the volume
standard for the transom windows in the gable ends on the multi-family
5
,-,
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
~
MAY 19, 1998
building, the special review for parking as proposed, and the special
review to establish the AHI-PUD lot area requirements as suggested by
the applicant, without conditions for Alpine Cottages. Tim Mooney
second. APPROVED 4-0.
MOTION: Roger Hunt further moved to recommend approval of the
consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AHI-PUD, and
subdivision for the Alpine Cottages to the City Council with conditions
1-31 outlined in the Community Development Staff memo dated May
19, 1998 with the deletion ofthe 6th bullet under condition 2.
Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE MEADOWS SPA
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on
Biennial review of the Meadows SPA to June 2,1998. Tim Mooney
second. APPROVED 4-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
930 KING STREET ADU and LANDMARK DESIGNA nON
Sara Garton, Chairperson, opened the continued public hearing. Julie Ann Woods
noted the commission had the information from the May 5, 1998 meeting with the
addition of a petition. She added a cover memo noting Standard C. She said there
was a historic lot split that goes onto council from HPC.
Garton stated that HPC recommended the two curb cuts. Augie Reno, architect
for applicant, responded that the HPC recommended having the two separate
driveways. He said there was discussion that an alley was originally platted along
that driveway and worked with Mr. Maples (north side of property) to preserve his
view of Aspen Mtn. Reno noted the Neale Street side setback was 25' and King
Street setback was 16'8" which pushed the house closer to the old house with the
addition but not enough room two driveways between the houses. Garton said if
the lot split goes through, there will be two different owners; therefore driveways
should not be shared. Reno stated the shared driveways could cause problems and
6
!"""'\
ASPEN PLANNING & LONING COMMISSION
~
MAY ]9, ]998
there would be more pavement surface to allow for 2 cars in one area; engineering
and HPC concurred that amount of hard surface was too much.
Garton asked what engineering said about the blind hill. Reno said they had
satisfied everything engineering,requested; 50' distance from the comer of King
Street and cone of vision. He said midday on Friday Nick Adeh, the city engineer,
requested that they have an engineer look at the grades at Gibson and Neale; they
are in the process of doing that now. He said the engineer was looking for
drainage flow and capacity from their driveway. Garton stated the area was a
pedestrian right-of-way all down through Neale with a mess at the four comer
stop, which needed to be re-designed by the city. Reno said the 3rd reason for the
Neale Street driveway was the one-way King Street which would be almost 1 'v.
miles further to go that way. Roger Hunt said he did not see another or a better
solution to the driveway situation.
Tim Mooney asked if there was an FAR bonus for the ADD and what were the
intentions of the ADD. He said there was an obvious door connecting to the main
residence; the recommendation stated it must have a private entrance. He wanted
to know if this was going to be another bedroom or will.a unit be gained. Reno
replied the unit was being built by what was allowed by the ordinance. He said
many caretaker units were built with a connecting door for easier access. Garton
wanted to be sure this was the best land use.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval for historic
landmark designation and to approve the conditional use for an
accessory dwelling unit (ADD) at 930 King Street with the conditions
#2A.-J as outlined in the Community Development Memo dated May 5,
1998. Marta Chaikovska second. APPROVED 4-0.
Meeting adjourned.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
7
JUN-1S-1998 1S:06 SEMRAU BUILDING & DESIGN
Semrav BuiUil\9 ~I>::gl\
.plan/design/buildn
6115/98 '----_.
.~ 6Xt-lIBcr <1-1 ') P.01
'208 1/2 E Main. Aspen, Co 81611
... ......,.........."....,....."._'''''_.._..._..''.._....,._...,_........._...,_....,.w........."._._"._.
, J97lJJ92_5:<'iL1.47.:.,,~~~.(~~.l:!]_~S~:~.~?_
To: Aspen City Council
From; Timothy Semrau
RE; Alpine Cottages PlID Approval
Dear council members.
We have followed every existing housing authority guideline and propose the
following additional voluntary restrictions.
-Price of all Resident Occupied units to be capped at $500,000.
-Minimum household size to be three persons.
-Resident Occupied household income/asset restriction of $800,000.
The housing board has asked for three additional conditions in addition to the
voluntarily proposed conditions that do not exist in the current guidelines. The
applicant agrees with two of the three conditions as follows;
-Resident Occupied units to have a 3% appreciation cap per year.
-Resident Occupied unit to be sold to households who have worked in
Pitkin County a minimum of the last four consecutive years.
The housing board further requests all category units be opened to public lottery.
Since this condition is not part of current guidelines, may not be part of future
guidelines, and negates prior commitments made by the applicant to eligible
buyers we respectfully request City Council follow the current rules and allow
the applicant to sell category units to qualified buyers of his choice.
Sincerely,
Timothy Semrau
TOTAL P. 01
,.:24':'15~P,,";'~~P~:~'''~''':';-:<''------;,;i.,;.';~~-,..4;';''''''''''''''\'-M"","""",'~~i~."",_:.t.~;:";...;;..i<':""';"" .-.I'Ui).~~<"~~,-.~",,,,,...:....._~- -- ...
Pat Spector, A.LA.
,
t"""\
1"""">1 F--X.rr, a I T'" I.
3; ,Oaks. St. Louis MO 63124
3/4-552-8400
Ma;:J2, 1998
vka Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
ReCEIVF;
MAY 1 8 1998
Re: Alpine Cottages Development
ASPEN I PI, "'"
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dear Ms. Garton:
I am writing this letter as trustee on behalf of the Lorraine Stave Spector revocable living trust
which holds title to the property and improvements on Lot 2 Block 1 Aspen Grove Subdivision
(0145 Mcskimming Road), located due east of the proposed development.
While we commend the developers for their approach to providing affordable housing in Aspen,
we wish to express the following concerns regarding the development:
. Elevations seem to be designed to be seen from Highway 82 and Aene Road. We are just as
concerned about the appearance from the North and North-East, which will be the primary
elevations that we see. It appears that most of the garages will be on the North elevations.
. The density of development for Ferguson Lot 3 seem to be high with homes being built on
4,526 sf to 6,090 sf size lots. This is comparable to a down town density and is not consistent
with the density of the residential housing already in place.
. ,We have not seen any elevations, plans or details for the free market detached houses.
. There is no landscaping and visual screening shown along the property line between
Ferguson Lot 3 and the Woerndle Subdivision.
We bought and improved our property with the expectation of a lower density development at
Ferguson Lot 3 based on the existing zoning. We urge the Commission to review the proposed
density for appropriateness to the existing residential character that is in place. We would like to
have a public review of plans for the free market units, prior to any approval being granted for the
development.
We also strongly suggest that the "curb appeal" of the proposed development take into
consideration those neighbors to the North and East and that the proposed elevations reflect such
consideration. We would very much want to see extensive landscaping, including mature
evergreens along the property line adjoining the Woerndle Subdivision.
We regret that schedules do not permit our attendance to the public hearing. We hope our
concerns will be represented and expect that you will continue to involve us in this process.
Yours truly,
//cY~
c: Jasmine Tygre, Vice Chair
Robert Blaich
Marta Chaikovska
Roger Hunt
Timothy Mooney
Steven Buettow
-"-'''-:':'''':'''~'-''''''!~.
,-
~
Re: Alpine Cottages Trail Easement
We feel that the trail would be a nice amenity to'your development. It
would provide access to the park areas of the Snyder property that are now
planned and soon to be constructed.
This request is based on the assumption that you will attain title to the
"hiatus areas" and that they haven't reverted to the City ownership
previously. The trail easement and dedication would then become a part of
the recorded plat for the property. .
We would be glad to developa "Trail Easement Agreement" draft for your
. .
reVIew.
We appreciate your consideration of our tTail easement request. Please feel
free to call me with any questions
Sincerely:
~J?h~-
John D. Krueger
Trails Coordinator, City of Aspen
cc: Kevin Dunnett, Parks Planner
Ross Soderstrom, Engineer.ing Department
Jeff Woods, Parks Director
John Worcester, City Attorney
;(UI./l J;f/tf) w~f}.I)S 1 IMI 11~t/
attached:
site plan
ALPCTTRL.DOC
r
AREA OF JOINED PARCEL;
ALPlNE LODGE !>NO LOT 3 FERGVSON
RIATUS BETWEE/'! FERGUSON EXEMl'.
!>NO WOERNDLE SUBD. AND BOOK
71f AT PAGE 665 '
PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENTS
TO LOT Z FEIlGUSON
EMERGEl'lCY ACCESS
SLOPE REDUCTION;
Z~;l(l% = 1566 S;F 1:50% 783
30-40% = 2518 S.F@I00% 2518
<40% = 0
TOTAL SLOPE REDUCTIO/'!
38,m
,1000
II)'~
(1754) ,
(4OOl)
(72&)
Aet/~b.J}
r T,f/l/.!. ErfS5J1E/i/T'1
(3301)
HIATVS BE:TWFEN BOOK 750 AT PAG[ 865
ANO FFRCUSON [XCMPnON
TOTAL FOOTAGE TO UNIT DENSITY
AND FAR CALCULATIONS 29,067
NOTE. APPLICANT IS IN PROCESS OF FERFECTlNG
TITLE TO BlATUS. WHEN COMPLETE, 1754 SF
WILL BE ADDED TO LOT AREA AND 1400 SF TO FAR
"""'''''''''''''
~~"""""""''''
~~I<M)IftI.""
J>t.ASf1CCA"/,.$IJ!'C
~~"'Ir::f'
--
IdlltfbU
/11 ". r,f/1/1..
E.1SE/lfE/fJ T
~
:; H'ATUS 8"""'" WOEMOU' SV80MS"'"
AND FCRGUSON CX('MPnON
v-'
rJ'?
,..f!
"
r,o"
f'V
0~
0'
C
wnr UH[ WO[RNDf..{
SIJSOM$lON
~c,~
~ c,
'" ~
W##~
~
00
<0
~
:00
<S>.,:>>
7.,:>>
.(f>
~
Q ..p;
~~
~O
~ :/ &T' ~'~:I
~' l' ~~) 'l~:' ~I' ~;wj
)
GtN>t
= 30/40 % SLOPE AREA
<9"""
~
o.
....
o.>p,
/
, = 20/30% SLOPE AREA
= <40% SLOPE AREA
LOT FOOTAGE/SITE REDUCTION
~---'-Sc.:re~~--~-- ~ "~__~__~_w
-
~",~-,....--
_1..,..I_~......._"'VWt..
-"""-"-""""""''''''''''-
J'H(~~oIttI>Kllt.__.....,.
= =.. -::-- -., ......,.,: c:.....,--
..-,.,-."...~-
-
semruu building And design
208 1/2 ~st main. ll3pell,' colorado 81611
phone: (970) 925-6447/fn;l; (970) 925.6437
St/RfZ'J1/HS
S .d"YC/H.4"SR.5"
G
SCHKt'J'S..f'fi' M
CORbO/r' N'-t'lZ'N
A..lP/Hff ..lO.lJCff
~
.. I
of
1ft<
80;
E:n
Ii><
=
29C
s;
.....
"'"
/4;
S ,
"'"
1ft<
"'"
.]'1,
".
"""
-
-
<>'<
.]')
.....
.,
boo
",
",
) I
"~.
>-
>-3
>-3
~.~
n
=
~
tt:1
Z
~
~
,/[rl.- .\,
: i,
I '
I,',
: . ~.
',.\,','-'''i'ij'j''716!C:GtlPO
,~-"AR~~~,~.DDlTI~~-'-
,~fi-'
",..'-'"
'-.
'~." ,
" e-"-"'"
~./. _' ""~'1 /"'.......
'......./ 1;'1,,,
_ . ,'.._" ---\ Illj'
- :~. ;-:.. ' " ---. '.>~;.~?:'~/\ '
~.'..,;;;,~;E;.:~:~,,~;:':'" .... .~..,
- \........,. -"
.......,
--.
.
......."....,,'
a<JlL1N'
c
"~
....'-.-...
UWY'N'O
'~Z7.majfl:
~
j;
!
1i:
\ (,'-1!
\, i
\~:
r:
r'""\
", a~
"l1m..<<JDi'ii
'ft?fJf'(JSE ;)
T;f;1 ! j...
Em 611 EAI/
10 ;
,EXlsn/1/ G
J;P.,1 / L E4 sl'Am-
". ,
",.. /)/J
'\"'_i~l/:
'0;~1 {f/.I! 7N ,1/
, ;J , II
s Ire! It
.'~,,:,"" \.. '-',.
1'.t!5T1/{)C;
1Eii'.'.., ,
7"JM/!. li'/?,SE4t/:/PT
,.
/0
-"""1
f.,
"(
c
, '"
" . '~_ ,,_~7J VI#,
,..:,,~/-:~,),,~.,.-
, C!l" 1.
,,, ,
'-..-.. 0'
..- ,
.........-',
.;',1
~
------~
r-..
/III/till !It$ - ~-? .11(/
.,-"
....EC!;:!u;;-:n
n #:;".~ ~ L.,..~,,,,
JUN 3 0 1998
ASf'i:::,r..J f 1""'\, i ~\.~: .~,.... T
COB'~II~HTY DE\lEi...uPf'.;,cN
i\f.d\.....l".
.
THE CITY OF ASPEN
June 29, 1998
Mr. Timothy Semrau
Semrau Building and Design
208 1/2 E. Main
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-6447
Re: Alpine Cottages Trail Easement-Revision
Dear Mr Semrau:
After our meeting on site today to talk about the proposed trail easement, I
am writing to clarifY our discussions regarding the Alpine Cottages
Development and the proposed Trail Easement. The Parks Department
would like to request a 10 foot trail easement along the east boundary of the
property as shown on the attached site plan. The trail easement would
basically overlay the "hiatus" area shown on the surveys and site plans
between the Woemdle Subdivision and Ferguson Exemption, along the west
line of W oemdle Subdivision, from Aene Park north.
The proposed 10 foot trail eas'ement would not impact the building envelopes
on the site. The trail easement would allow the Parks Department to
construct a 4 foot crusher fine trail to the Snyder Property park area. The
Parks Department would be able to wind the trail between the trees and
vegetation on the property and miIlimize the impact.of trail construction:
,
We feel that the trail would be a nice amenity to your development. It would
provide access to the park areas of the Snyder property that are now planned
and soon to be constructed.
130 SoUTH GALENA STREET. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .: PHONE 970.920.5000 . FAX 970.920.5197 ,
Pr;nt<'<l011 Rccyded p~pe'
,
.
~
.-,
This request is based on the assumption that you will attain title to the
"hiatus areas" and that they haven't reverted to the City ownership
previously. The trail easement and dedication would then become a part of
the recorded plat for the property.
We would be glad to develop a "Trail Easement Agreement" draft for your
revIew.
We appreciate your consideration of our trail easement request. Please feel
free to call me with any questions
Sincerely:
~c.~
Trails Coordinator, City of Aspen
cc: Kevin Dunnett, Parks Planner
Ross Soderstrom, Engineering Department
Jeff Woods, Parks Director
John Worcester, City Attorney .....--
I#1lr~1I Ik#-$' I IpA'? .4ry ~
attached:
site plan
ALPCTTRLDOC
.--. . . .' .
...
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
...
r
AJlEA OF JOINED PARCEL;
ALPINE LODGE AND LOT 3 FERGUSON 38,902
H1A11JS BETWEEN FERGUSON EXEMl'.
AND WOERNDL!: SUBD. AND BOOK
760 AT PAGE 665 ' (1754)
PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENTS
TO Lar 2 FERGUSON (400))
EMERGENCY ACCESS m&)
SLOPE REDUC11ON;
20-30% = 1566 U' ~ 783
3Q.4l)'J', = 251t S.F ClOO% 2518
<40% = 0
TarAL SLOPEREDUC110N ' . (3301)
TOTAL FOOT AGE TO UNIT DENSITY
AND FAR CALCULATIONS 29,067
NOTE. APPLICANT IS 1N PROCESS OF PERFECTlNG
TITLE TO HIA res. WHEN COMPLETE, 17S4 SF
Wn..L BE ADDED TO LOT AREA AND 1400 SF TO FAR
fr)(IN()XI'I1rP
~"'"
1000
IO'J.SPf:N
,.-,."
H/AlVS BETWEEN BOOK 760 AT PAC! 665
AND FFRCUSON EXEMPnON
"""'~~
~.....,"""''''
Il:Jt.IM3PC1W1ANDItU()W
1'LAST'1CCN'/..S'31l0
~
"c.' D J" If}
tl-O f>vg,fSEtfI r;,
'RIII~
-
Q
-
Q
A I
'"
..
""
".
/IN
co
2S
S
,.,
..
/.
S
~
If>
a
J'
N
5>
"
.
.
J
.
,
,
,
,
.~,
00
'<"0
~
00
<.f>..;>>
"$"'..;>>
<t>
~
~
~.t-
~
W#;/&
, = 20/30% SLOPE AREA
6'"""
o
, O.
~-~_.._---'--_.
O~
I <He d 'B~,:r' ~':1.lj
I - i' .11' "~II' l~' 11' Ii' I"
~~~-=-OO_~SLOPE '_'lB."
= <40% SLOPE AREA
-
.......,,.~'-,..'IIfWII_
....,..-""'~.........~..
~~ -= ~::"..!:...,.
:: ':!::.,.-:" .........:::-:1:J:d.....,..,..
1"-__"'IJIw~~
-
~ --- -- ~---
LOT FOOT AGE/SITE REDUCTION
Scale
Sl/RI'El'rJRS
S A'Ht:/HA'Al'i'S
G
SCHKU.4'S4'.R M
COR bON V4'J'Z'R
semrau building and d~lgn
208 1/2 ~main. aspen. colorado 81611
phone (970) 92S.0447/fax (970) 92S.6437
~
"'j
~-
>
(1
~
~
trj
Z
~
~
ALP/HE LO.lJCE
'.
11918 oP..,oIO;) 'uod,V
Jodoo;) ''''' O~~ I
S3DV.LLO:> 3NIdl:V
LeV9-rni (0/.6) XEJILP\>9-SZ6 (0/.6) ouoqd
1191& oPlUolo::> .uMse .U"!~W ~ tlI SOZ
U8!S~p pm~ 8U!PUnq muw~s
"
.
c: .0 W
~15 'a:~ 0
~C- Z
.~ eJ ... oc>.u
lEi "':": .S! .a E.2: g
Ci"""'"'~t.~~ffi
~
.
Q
-<
r"'
,
U
E-i
Z
~
~
U
<
~
-<J..;
f
"
~
g
w
c "
g ~!#
"""'J.~lJ>"'C" "n(LlIlr~
t8 A.VMH~IH
""'-
~
.,-
f
o
t
~ Z f-
~
~
-->@,..
'1'
~.
8~
~9
~~
n
a
~ i~
g:U
~~U~
~~ 8 '
a~ ~
$
o
'>1&
,....., E t
'<:
@
l'
~~
,,"
,,~
~~ ~
Sf ~
Q~
Ii
~(!) @
~
\.
\,
\.
-'
~
o
~.
tJ~
~z
~~
&~
iON
is
r"'
.
co ~o:i
.~ a~
12....::: <..;
!;So'" "";0
1=;: e; ..ci-
~Q(J'>. ..:_ ~~
;5 ~ -.... N"; .r-:
Q~~:;:~-:;~
~ ..lr.llVlVl 0:(. <
::: ~tjtj!jtlez
~~~&l;;~~
~~1}j~~esll.<
w
'"
...
,
.
~
~:2
~ ,
Q~~
~.e...
o ~ l
;>;~-
~~tJ;;;
ii!;!
en;::
~
::!
ffi~ ~
~'~. ~
Qw:l iO
lol. u t;
C"'. ~
!ltJ~ '"
~;~ tl:~
~e;'.:!
i=.N
..l
..l
<
~<
~s
.:!:'
,.l
o
o
......
....
o
o
-:;
o
.
-~-~~~~~~~~~~~--~--
JUL-07-1!l'3!3 1'll'18 SEMRAU WILDING & DESIGN
Semru BVildi"9 $ D~
,.'", ,___8p~n/~ign/b~i1~=-_____._.
,~
FASClMILE TRANSMITTAL FORM
Date:
To: JuLIe' A- f'I ""' (AJ OJ(J.r
Firm Name
Fax Number
Phone Number
From: ~M .G /l..1 reA u
Number of Pages (including cover) /4)
Special Instructions:
P.01
208 1/2 E. Main. Aspen, Co 81611
(970J~25-6447; Fax: (9701 925-6437
CrT'-{ {;U~I L
foe Fe t- frtf'rr'
(0 1T I}-G--e S.
~
ror
JUL-a7-1~98 1~:18
SEMRAU BUILDING & DESIGN
n,
,
,-,
P.02
f)(ltJelr ;:C
7/7/98
TO;
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director Planning
FROM:
Timothy Semrau
RE:
Alpine Cottages Planned Unit Development Application
Response to council concerns
Applicable Guidelines, Codes, and Information:
"Develop a "Resident Occupancy" (R.O.) program that provides incentives/or the
private sector to develop R.O. units that benefit the character of the community and
are family oriented for working residents"
Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993
"This category (RO) was created to affer the private sector an incentive to produce
affordable housing for the community. "
1998 Aspen/Pitkin Cty. Housing Guidelines
If Private sector involvement is critical in order to meet our affordable housing
goals. " 1998 Housing Board Policy Statement
"Locating a "critical mass" ofresictents within town furthers the goals of
maintaining the character of Aspen and is far superior to housing those employees
in a remote location. "
Staff report, Snyder property PUD 1998
"The placement of citizen housing within a neighborhood and also within a larger
project should preferably be dispersed among free market units and other housing
types. InfiU development is highly desired." ,
Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan, 1998
"Investigate techniques to keep R.O. units in the $175-450,000 initial and resale
price range. " Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993
(no~-$55(),00IJ w.~~ ~l\\.\i \\ \\\\\\l\ 11\,\\\\
maxJmum pIus 4% per year since 1993)
JUL-07-,:i.998 to: 19
SEMRAU BUILDING & DESIGN
P.03
''1
,-,
"The consensus of the group was that RO housing is an important and viable
segment of the qffordable housing program in Aspen and Pitkin County. Initial
sales price restriction should be tied to entry levelfree market Jwusing currently at
approximately $600,000 - $650,()()(}. (Recommendation to Housing Board)
Leadership Aspen Collaborative Fomm
"Nobody from this political pkmet believes Aspen willlJui.ld enough employee
housing insidi! the town, and especiaily not within walking distance to the town
core. " Roaring Fork Sunday
"We can't just invent regulations, we don't have that legal autJwrity. We would be
entering into deep and unsafe waters ifwe invent rules at the table. I think we have
to be fair to everyone and follow our own rules and regulations. .
Mayor Bennet, June 22, 1998
"No matter what we accomplish, it's never enough. "
Frank. Peters, Housing Board Chairman
Section 5-206.2 Affordable Housing (AH)
A. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (An) wne district is to providi! for
the use of land for the production of low, moderate and middle income
affordable housing and resident occupied housing. The zone district also
pennits a limited component of free market units to offset the cost of
di!veloping affordable housing.
Further, the lands in the Affordable Housing (AR) zone district sJwuld be
locoted within walking dista1U:e of the center of the city, or on transit
roUleS.
B. Permitted uses. Thefollowing uses are permitted as o/right in. the
Affordable Housing (AR) zone district.
1. Residential uses restricted to low, moderate and middle"in_t;(Jme
affordable housing guitielines and reBident occupied units must
comprise at least seventy percent of the unit mix o/the development.
Free mmket development may comprise up to 30% oj the unit mix, and
forty percent of the bedroom mix o/the development. Residential uses
may be comprised of single-family, duplex and multi family dwelling
units.
Note-The applicant meets or exceeds all AD code and guideline rules.
JUL-67-~998' 1~:26
SEMRAiJ BLHLDING & DESIGN
~,
P.04
,-,
The above code, policy and community statements clearly show the Alpine Cottages
project fulfills the spirit afthe community's desires. The Housing Board (with the
exception of Frank: Peters). Planning and Zoning. and GMQS unanimously voted to
support this project. We've spent two years and two million dollars creating an
excellent project based on the stated desires of the community and the code rules of
the city. The private sector bas only the existing written code of the city to rely on~
if a rezone is denied based OD unwritten or unspoken rules the private sector will be
hesitant to come forward with future projects.
Additionally, we have voluntarily imposed restrictions beyond what is currently
required and done whatever is necessary (and will continue to do so) to create a
model project that enhances the entrance to Aspen. I find it bard to believe that the
community would prefer the (currently zoned) trophy homes rather than attractive,
well designed, deed-restricted housing.
Project Density:
-The density and design of this project meet all current code requirements (both
units and FAR), minimize automobile presence, creates pedestrian friendly porches
and sidewalks, and places the free market dwellings in the least prominent location.
-Current zoning allows for two trophy homes plus two Resident-occupied units or a
lodge expansion, one trophy home and one Resident-occupied unit. The density
allowed under current zoning does not benefit the community as much as 10 badly
needed deed restricted. units. The four small free market units, hidden in the aspen
grove on the north side of the parcel, will have less visual impact than two huge
trophy homes.
Project Design:
-AlI"neighborhood design guidelines have been met. The deed restricted housing
faces east and south to maximize views and solar gain. Trees will be moved to line
the new sidewalks and attractive, neighborhood appropriate affordable_hOllSing will
enha.D.ce the entrance to Aspen. Aspen log posts, rusted metal roofs, flower beds,
new paving, and energy efficiencies will make this the best affordable housing built
to date. The emphasis of this project is to integrate the deed restricted units into
the neighborhood fabric by using new sidewalks and public facing porches.
SlImmary;
-Each day valuable residents of all economic abilities leave our community. This
project is appropriate in density and will provide an in-town home for ten
households at no financial cost to the city.
Timothy Semrau
JUL-B7-1998 ~0:20
93'IRAO aU I LD I NG 8. DES I GN
P.BS
''1
~
Notes for City Council Meeting July 13
-Standing in front of Victorians at Bleeker was a woman taking a picture. I asked
what she was doing, and she said it was a beautiful. house and the family who live in
it were very lucky. I told her it was a seven units of which five were affordable
housing. She almost fell over, and said only in Aspen could it exist.
-My neighbor across the street says he enjoys having neighbors around now.
- Victorians at Bleeker was extremely high density, but it worked. Alpine Cottages
is a much lower density project with everything going for it. There is a reason we
received unanimous votes from the other approving bodies (except for Frank
Peters).
-One of the advantages I have is the ability to customize units for the individual
buyers on a presale basis. I carefully selected the buyers at Victorians with an eye
to the future harmony of the homeowner's association. We can do things like allow
dogs and other individual freedoms the city cannot do in their projects. I would like
to live at Alpine Cottages and have the opportunity to select a harmonious group of
people to work together in a Homeowner's Association. That's not so much to ask
after the years of effort to put something like this together, especially since it's a
cutrent rule.
-The flight of professionals with their families down valley is as serious a problem
as losing ski instructors or dishwashers. This project offers the type of quality and
diversity that Aspen was once famous for.
-This community needs affordable housing to survive and its not possible for the
government to go it alone. It seems crazy to have hundreds of building
professionals building empty trophy homes. Many other builders would love to get
involved with affordable housing if they saw any way to do it. Projects like this
encourage everybody to try something different.
-It seems all affordable housing projects have problems with variances, NIMBYism,
or density. This is a model project in the sense that everyone wants it and it
follows the spirit and letter of all existing guidelines and codes. Please-give it a
chance to, succeed.
TOTAL P.05
JUN-30-1998 12:47
~MRAU BUILDING & DESIGN
P.01
~.
'10r~
^.' ".
JuL(e . If-f\JN
the rear lot line; or
(2) All elements of the garage shall be locatedfarther than one 1r:mdred
fifty (150) feetfrom thefront lot line: or
(3) The vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular to the
front lolli7'/(!.
RESPONSE: As shown on the Site Plan and the three-dimensional perspecti~, the
proposal does not meet several elements related to garage alignment and dimensional
relationships. This is due to several facton1, including the fact that the project does not
utilize a gridded street pattern, that development is concentrated in the areas with limited
development constraints, the need to provide multi-family units witbinsingle structures,
and the objective of integrating the park uses on the property.
7. Fee Waiver
g r. '( c/t'N ~
~
Request For Fee Waiver of Park Development Impact Fee and Land Use Fees
Section 26.44 of the Aspen Municipal Code reads as follows:
"Whenever the City Council shall have determined that any part of a proposed development
constitutes an affordable housing development and wishes to subsidize its construction, the
City Council may exempt that part of the development from the applialtion of the park
development impactfte, or reduce by any amount the imposed by this section. ..
RESPONSE: The applicant hereby requests that such a waiver be granted to the Snyder
Affordable Housing Project. In addition, the applicant is requestiDg a waiver of land use
fees for affordable housing projects. Although no specific language appears in the Code to
address such a waiver, Council has granted such a request in the past for projects composed
of 100"10 deed-restricted affordable housing projects.
.~
"'ROCK
~EEI\
r;'ISTUDlOw
Page 101
Snyder Affordable Housing Project
C01lsolidalcdPUD Applicalilm
TOTAL P. 01
..~?I
..,
,.~,
Rhonda HarrJ.s, 02:47 1 4/22/98 , DRC
I""',
X-Sender: rhondah@comdev
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:47:39 -0600
To: mitchh@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Rhonda Harris <rhondah@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: DRC
Mitch, the DRC meeting wasn't too exciting. First, the applicant(s) didn't
know where to go and when someone finally figured out that they were seen
waiting in the lobby area on 1st floor, and Ross when to get them, they
were
gone. He tracked them down outside and Dave Miller came back. Anyway,
Nancy Mackenzie asked for a letter of commitment from the 2 districts
indicating their willingness to serve the area. Because of the location of
the property (proximity to things like City Market & being on the bus
route)
and the fact that changing from a lodge would reduce trips, there will be
no
mitigation. She said they would have to have the lodge tested fOr asbestos
before a demo permit could be signed-off on by Env. Health. She left!
PhilO. said they need a utility plan. He talked briefly about where to
run
water lines and his hope that they would find a suitable location to
include
both water & trail. He discussed running a line down Robinson. He said
the
question is how to link it with Snyder & Ardmore(?).
Ed V. didn't really have any comments. He had met and discussed the
project
last week. He said that everything will be sprinkled, so he's o.k. He was
happy with the 16' between Lots B & C that will be available for fire truck
turn around. Dave Miller discussed their request to move the fire hydrant
on the corner (Chipetta?) and PhilO. was concerned that they would need a
CDOT encroachment permit since they'd be working in the right-of-way to
move
it. After a brief discussion, Dave said that they did a Quit Claim on the
30' right-of-way when the state no longer wanted it. He thought they'd be
working within their property boundaries, but will discuss it. Ed V.
didn't
have a problem with it as long as Phil doesn't.
Steve (Parks) said that they already have a tree removal permit for
transplanting. He's concerned that they were going to move one large tree
and then, if all went well, move the other. He said that if it doesn't "go
well" they will need to apply for another permit for the second tree, it is
not covered in the scope of the 1st permit. Phil suggested they look at
the
possibility of putting everything in one area... and that they should
figure
that out before they move any more trees. He said that he and Jeff talked
about using the old Riverside Ditch alignment, it will be abandoned and
redone with Snyder. They agreed to walk the property after the meeting.
They thought maybe they could figure something out around the little jog in
the property by the ditch?!? Jeff Woods agreed to meet them there..
IPrJ.nted for MJ.tch Haas <mJ.tchh@cJ..aspen.co.us>
1
,
~
Rhonaa Harris, 02:47~ 4/22/98 , DRC
,""'"
John K. asked if the open space easement is to be maintained. Dave thought
everything remains the same. Phil asked where the lot lines came from.
Dave said they sketched setback lines from the lot lines. He wasn't sure
if
anything has changed and agreed to check into it. John said that he hoped
they could find a mutually beneficial trail and water location.
Ross asked if they have a geotech report. They don't. They talked about
dry wells for drainage and irrigation water. Dave said that Ernst isn't
willing to give them a letter stating they have water rights, even though
the pump has been in the water forever. Phil said they could enter into an
agreement with the city for irrigation water.
Tom wasn't there so there wasn't really any discussion of sewer.
They went to the site.
comment and ,invited me
anything more to add.
They called me Mitch, gave me opportunities to
to the site, but I told them Mitch didn't have
I 9> '01
q;)P
[pr1ntea tor M1tch Haas <m1tchh@c1.aspen.co.us>
2
..
.:..(
i
P~1l Overeynder, 08:c-rAM 5/4/98 -, Alp1ne cotttJ)s Affordable Hou
X-Sender: philo@water
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 08:45:14 -0600
To: mitchh@ci.aspen.co.us, rosss@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing Project
Cc: nicka@ci.aspen.co.us, jeffw@ci.aspen.co.us, davet@ci.aspen.co.us,
davidg@ci.aspen.co.us, edv@ci.aspen.co.us, geraldd@ci.aspen.co.us
Mitch,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the development submittals for the
above referenced project. This memo will supplement the comments made at
the
DRC meeting on April 22.
The City of Aspen has the physical capacity to provide water service to
this
project and is legally obligated to serve approved uses inside the City
limits subject to the following:
1) The applicant should provide a utility plan showing the location and
sizing of existing and proposed utility main lines and service lines on the
property and their relation to other buried utilities. A fire hydrant is
presently located at the entrance to Aene Court and there is an 8" main
which extends to the entrance to the "Robinson Driveway" and serves the
three existing homes on this cuI de sac.
2) The applicant will be responsible for extending the existing 8" line to
a point near the end of the existing Robinson Driveway, reconnecting
existing service lines serving the 3 existing homes and installing a fire
hydrant all in accordance with the City of Aspen Water System Standards.
3) From either the existing or new water main, the applicant will provide a
water service line and a service connection to each of the proposed units.
The service connections will be adequately sized to meet the requirements
of
any proposed fire sprinkler system and will be made in accordance with the
City of Aspen's Water System Standards. If the four free market lots will
be
lot sales and not developed concurrently with the other proposed structures
and the applicant desires to provide "pre-taps" for these units to avoid
future excavation in the roadway, the applicant will enter into a pre-tap
agreement utilizing the City's standard form for this purpose.
4) The applicant has agreed to provide a 10 foot water line easement along
the westerly boundary of free market Lot A. This easement will allow the
Aspen Water Department to connect several "dead end" lines in the vicinity
of the Snyder Property, Ardmore Court and the subject property to improve
fire flows and system redundancy.
>From a water system development standpoint it would be desirable to work
on
the interconnection described in item 4 above concurrently with the
development of the infrastructure and grading activities for the Snyder
affordable housing project and park. There is no final schedule for the
Snyder parcel and the final utility and grading plans for this development
IPr1nted tor M1tch Haas <m1tchh@c1.aspen.co.us>
1
. r
,~ ,-"
Phl.l Overeynder, 08:.. ; AM 5/4/98 -, Alpl.ne Cotta",,",s Affordable Hou
.,
are still under development. The route contemplated for the interconnecting
water line goes through the park portion of the Snyder parcel and would be
highly desirable to make this connectipn concurrently with the park
improvements to avoid damage to landscaping and water features contemplated
in the park plan.
Currently there is no appropriation for the interconnecting water system
described in item 4. It is assumed that the Alpine Cottages development
will ,
pay for the main line to the end of the Robinson driveway, the Aspen Water
fund would pay for the interconnect line from the end of the driveway and
it's connection to the existing Ardmore system, and that the Snyder
affordable Housing project would pay the cost of the internal water main
required to serve that development. It is my intent to request an
appropriation for the water department's share of this project in 1998 to
correspond with the development of the park.
Phil Overeynder
Water Director
IPrl.nted tor Ml.tch Haas <ml.tchh@cl..aspen.co.us>
2
- ~
i r',
John Worcester, 02:5~ ~M 7/10/98 , Re: Alpine Lo~ge
Date: Fri, 10 Ju1 1998 14:50:54 -0600 (MDT)
X-Sender: johnw@commons
To: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us>
From: John Worcester <johnw@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: Alpine Lodge
Packet went out, but you may want to supplement with a one page memo for
Monday. Thanks
JohnW
At 09:36 AM 7/10/98 -0600, you wrote:
>John--
>Sorry I missed further explaining it. It is addressed in the PUD book.
>Each of the 4 free market lots will have three (3) bedrooms for a total of
>12 bedrooms. The RO and category units comprise 28 bedrooms for a total
of
>40 units.
Staff
>believes that they meet the AH standards. Has the packet already gone out
to
>council? If so,
further
>explains how the mix is calculated and how it has met the requirements.
JA.
>
>
>
>
>At 10:40 AM 7/9/98 -0600, John Worcester wrote:
>>I just finished reading Council's packet on this matter and again noticed
>>that there is nothing in the packet which discusses the BEDROOM mix
between
>>free market and AH
>>bedrooms are being
>>70/30 mix of units
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
The 12 free~market bedrooms is 30% of the total bedrooms.
I can make up a one page sheet to distribute which
components. I can't even tell how
proposed. As you know, the AH/PUD
and BEDROOMS.
many free market
district requires a
(
Printed for Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us>
1
t""!'\,
f"""'.
/b.' 71~ ~
r~dM 5~fI-~
~ r--Jo. c;~ r - ~ <;Z:?7 '
)J~. !4 ~ : ((3
()~ 11Io/9-c
. A)/rf
~~ A/~ft"'^ ~o..~f:/'~
~ i) t1.rf. b · ~ ()..A...
~.
J.4
~
-
r.-,' \
{,.":j
\..~,:/
JUL-13-1998 10:23 s:::MRAD WILDING & DESIGN
(:\.
S.mr:w BUil~i"9 $ Desigl\
.planldeslgn/buildu
."....-...---.-.-..-
P.01
~
208 1/2 EMaill.Aspen.Co 81611
(8701925-8447; Fax: [9701 825-S437
FASCIMILE TRANSMITTAL FORM
7({5
-J u[( e fJ-j\lf'-/
Date:
To:
Fir'm Name
Fall Number
Phtme Number
(JJ DeVr
From: -r-; M.
Number Qf Pages (including cover)
~h(q
(2 )
Special Instructions:
-1f,IS
I F~ew t< V
Itrkc+-
e0 r~tf
~rJM
(f(,IIJeV~~
pAt~~
"
-,
does. ND-r
G LJloIe ;; ~(! s
7/?--7,
pi e'r;se
70
-
affly
5 D IIVTo
GII
COIf'-P;r~ I
-
'-/(f\.f
~.... /'Vf rc- L
TOTAL P. 01
~.
.~
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager / L /
Stan Clauson, Community Development Directerz.y
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director~ ~
July 13, 1998
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Alpine Cottages Clarification
The City Attorney asked me to clarify the bedroom and unit mix for the Alpine Cottages
as it wasn't clearly addressed in my staff memo. The AH1-PUD zone district requires
that any AH project have a 70/30 (AH to free-market) mix of both units and bedrooms.
The Alpine Cottages project is proposing the following unit and bedroom mix:
Lot 1:
2 four-bedroom Category 4 units
2 one-bedroom Category 4 units
2 one-bedroom Category 3 units
4 four-bedroom RO units
Total Units: 10
Total Bedrooms: 28
Lots 2 through 5 (free-market)
4 three-bedroom units
Total Units: 4
Total Bedrooms: 12
Project Total Units:
14
Project Total Bedrooms:
40
Total Percentage of Category Units = 10/14 = 71%
Total Percentage of Category Bedrooms = 28/40 = 70%
The proposed mix of units and bedrooms meets or exceeds the minimum requirements.
,-,
~
V" a.. ,
,
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council aV
Amy Margerum, City Manager (?
John Worcester, City Attorney a /
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director if
Jcli, Ann Woo,". D"uty Dire<>m ~"
Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing ConceptuallFinal Planned Unit
Development, Rezoning, and Subdivision Reviews (Second Reading)
(Continued from June 22,1998)
TO:
THRU:
RE:
DATE:
July 13, 1998
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Larry Saliterrnan in association with Semrau Building and Design,
is requesting approval to rezone to AH1-PUD in order to construct 10 deed
restricted units and 4 free-market units. The proposal involves requests for
rezoning, consolidated conceptual/final PUD, and Subdivision. The applicant has
sought and received approval for Special Review of off-street parking
requirements and density limitations, and a variance from the volume provision of
the residential design standards from the Planning and Zoning Commission by a
4-0 vote at their May 19, 1998 meeting (see Exhibit "G"). The site is located at
1240 East Cooper Ave. The property currently contains the Alpine Lodge and a
vacant lot (Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption) behind the lodge.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the rezoning, consolidated
conceptuaVfinal PUD, subdivision, vested rights, and a partial park
development impact fee waiver request, with conditions.
ISSUES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING:
At the meeting of June 22, 1998, City Council indicated that it does not generally
waive park dedication fees for AH projects. Staff would like to note to City
Council that according to city policy on fee waivers, ". . .city council can waive or
reduce fees for development which is wholly or partly affordable housing. . ."
City Council does have the discretion to waive the fee if they so desire.
Council also discussed the mix of units proposed with this AH1-PUD rezoning.
Some council members felt that there were not enough lower category units.
There was some debate regarding the discretion City Council has in approving a
rezoning, particularly addressing the unit mix. The City Attorney has issued a
confidential memorandum regarding this issue. At this time, the applicant has not
1
,-,
I""'i\
proposed a change in the unit mix, but is willing to further discuss this with the
City Council.
Finally, City Council did not like the new name for Aene Ct. They did not feel
that Camelot Ct. is appropriate for Aspen. They recommended that the applicant
do some historic research to come up with a name that is more appropriate to this
neighborhood.
ApPLICANT:
Larry Saliterrnan in association with Semrau Building and Design. The applicant
will be represented by Tim Semrau.
LOCATION:
1240 East Cooper Ave., and Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption. The property currently
contains the Alpine Lodge and a vacant lot behind the lodge, within the City of
Aspen as shown on the attached vicinity map (Exhibit A).
ZONING:
The subject property is currently zoned R-15A-PUD; the Alpine Lodge portion of
the site also contains an LP overlay zone. The applicant is seeking a rezoning to
AHl-PUD.
LOT SIZE:
Approximately 37,148 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This represents the total property minus the
proposed access easement and slope reductions.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF DENSITY CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This includes the same restrictions as above
and considers slope reduction.
FAR:
Maximum allowable FAR is 23,253 s.f., based on (.8) x (Lot Area), subject to
PUD Review. The applicant is proposing 23,227 s.f. ofF AR.
CURRENT LAND USE:
A 12-room lodge contained within four buildings, and a vacant lot.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Five lots, four of which will be free-market, and one (Lot 1) which will contain
ten (10) deed restricted units. Lot 1, Alpine Cottages will contain:
2 four-bedroom Category 4 units
2 one-bedroom Category 4 units
2
,-,
:~
2 one-bedroom Category 3 units
4 four-bedroom RO units
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The City Council approved this application on first reading, May 26, 1998.
Second reading was held on June 22,1998 and was continued to July 13, 1998.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
At their meeting on May 19, 1998, the Growth Management Commission
recommended that the City Council approve and exempt from Growth
Management ten (10) deed-restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated
allotments and that this be the approved method of providing affordable housing
for the Alpine Cottages (see Exhibit "F" attached).
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the rezoning, consolidated
conceptual/final PUD, and subdivision application at a hearing and recommended
approval with conditions to City Council (see Exhibit "G" attached). As part of
that motion, the Commission recommended deletion of the Housing Board
recommendation item,that the category units be opened to the public. The
Commission felt that this was an onerous requirement which they could not
support. The applicant is also seeking Vested Rights approval; and a partial park
development impact fee waiver request.
BACKGROUND:
The Alpine Lodge participated in the Small Lodge Lottery in 1997 and was
allocated four (4) additional lodge expansion units. The owner did not proceed
with applying for a change-in-use request. The previous owner of the property,
James and Christina (Pfeifer) Martin, sold the lodge to the current owner with the
understanding that their descendants would have a right of first refusal on two of
the units, should they choose to remain in Aspen.
The applicant was before the Housing Board, which recommended approval
subject to certain conditions. These conditions are spelled out in the Housing
office referral, and are made conditions of approval. The applicant is not in full
agreement with these housing conditions and will want to discuss this with the
City Council. Please refer to the applicant's letter, dated 6/15/98, attached as
Exhibit "H." It appears from the ietter that the applicant agrees with all but one
condition, that is that the category units be opened to public lottery. This is the
item which the Commission recommended be deleted as a condition of approval.
The applicant claims he has made prior commitments to eligible buyers and this
requirement is not fair. The City Council may want to consider modifying the
recommended conditions requested by the Housing office.
3
--
, .\
1""'\
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant is seeking a partial waiver of the Park Land Dedication Impact Fee.
The Parks dedication fee would be $43,092. Because this project is 71 %
affordable, staff recommends that the applicant be responsible for paying for 29%
of the Park Dedication Impact fee, or $12,497.
The applicant is also responsible for paying the applicable School Land dedication
fees. Staff recommends that the applicant pay fees-in-lieu of the land dedication,
and that the payment be made prior to, and on a proportional basis to the issuance
of any building permits for the residential lots. It is estimated that school land
dedication fees will be approximately $67,684.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "B." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "C." The application, which is
in a booklet form, should be considered Exhibit "D", which was previously
submitted to the City Council at first reading. Also attached are Exhibit "F", the
Growth Management Commission's resolution; Exhibit "G", the Planning and
Zoning Commission's minutes; Exhibit "H", the applicant's letter addressing the
Housing Board recommendations; Exhibit "1", an adjacent neighbor's letter; and
Exhibit "J", a new letter from the applicant dated 7/7/98.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve on second reading the consolidated
conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AH1-PUD, subdivision, Vested Rights, and a partial
park development impact fee waiver request for the Alpine Cottages, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That ten (10) deed-restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated
allotments, be exempted from Growth Management and that this be the approved
method of providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages;
2. That the applicant agree to the conditions placed on the project by the housing
board (or as amended by the City Council), including:
. The RO units will have a 3% appreciation cap;
. The applicant will sell the RO units to a minimum household size of three
persons;
. Income and asset restrictions should be based on a maximum of an $800,000
price;
. The maximum price for the RO units be set at $550,000;
. The RO units be sold to households who have worked in Pitkin County a
minimum of the last four years consecutively; and
4
,-,
,-,.,
. That the category units be opened to the public, with the exception of the first
right of refusal for Friedl Pfeifer's grandchildren mentioned in the contract;
(this is a condition that the applicant is particularly not in agreement
with, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended deleting as
part oftheir motion);
3. That a utility plan be submitted to the Water Dept., the ACSD, and the
City Engineer for their review and approval prior to issuance of building permit;
4. All legal instruments associated with the access easement to Lot B,
Ferguson Exemption, the emergency access easement located between proposed
Lots B and C, utility easements, and the 10' trail easement between Aene Ct. and
Snyder be recorded as part of the final plat;.
5. That as part ofthe final plat submission, another page with signature
blocks for all five owners with an interest in Aene Ct. be recorded, officially
changing the name from Aene Ct. to a name suitable to the neighbors and City
Council;
6. Lighting should be downcast and not used to call attention to architectural
features;
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to gain
approval for a line extension request, a collection system agreement, and possibly
a shared service agreement for each unit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District;
8. The applicant shall submit a drainage report prior to issuance of a building
permit to ensure that no sedimeIit loaded drainage will be leaving the property
during and after construction;
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fugitive
dust control plan;
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain the
necessary permits from the Environmental Health Department for any fireplaces
or woodbuming devices; .
11. Asbestos testing of the existing buildings will be required, as applicable,
with the building permit application;
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data
including property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments;
13. That the applicant pay fees-in-lieu ofthe school land dedication, and that
the payment be made prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any
building permits for the residential lots;
14. That the remaining required park fees be paid prior to the issuance of
building permit;
5
,-,
~
15. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair
any public right-of-way damaged during construction;
16. 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 final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for
reading and may not be obstructed;
17. A current title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, must be
submitted prior to filing of the final plat;
18. Additional information about the chain of title and the prior approvals
regarding the open space reservation must be provided prior to filing of the final
plat;
19. The applicant will grant a utility easement along the westerly side of
proposed Lot A and will work with the adjacent owners (Robinson) to attempt to
get agreement to relocate two spruce trees onto Robinson's property instead of
within the propose water easement alignment. Division of costs for extension of
the water distribution system will need to be negotiated with the City Water
Dept.;
20. The proposed development shall construct, at its expense, a main line
extension of the sanitary sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines
to each individual building.
21. The site plan shall include areas for trash and recycling containers and for
on-site snow storage;
22. The Robinson Rd. access way, as proposed, is too narrow to be dedicated
to the public and should remain a private access way and common utility
easement as previously dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption;
23. In regards to changing the street name, the applicant will need to do
adequate historical research for an appropriate name and resubmit the name to
City Council for their approval. Additionally, the applicant must provide a letter
of clearance from Pitkin County and copies of postal receipts verifying the deliver
of notice to all utility companies, all owners of property fronting on or served by
Aene Ct., the Aspen Postmaster, Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen;
24. The parking spaces located between Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft
wide (minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating
these spaces from the access driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should
conform to city and ADA standards in size, number, accessibility, slope;
25. The applicant will need to provide plans in the construction plans
submitted for the building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic,
hauling and delivery routes; vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging
areas; temporary drainage, erosion and sedimentation control during construction,
and provision oftemporary utilities;
26. The applicant will be responsible to provide temporary utility and drainage
services to the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by
disruption of utilities during construction;
6
'''''''-
,-,
r--,
27. The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to
commencing work (relocation ofthe existing fire hydrant) and will follow the
most stringent permit requirements if the requirements of any permits differ;
28. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling
unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and
switches;
29. The applicant is required to join any future improvement districts formed
for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property
under an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded
concurrent with recording the subdivision plat;
30. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in
public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows:
· The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for
design of improvements, including landscaping and, grading, within public '
rights-of-way;
· Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and
irrigation systems;
· Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
· permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public
rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-
5090);
31. Unless the applicant can provide documentation verifying his water rights
in this irrigation ditch, the property owner should establish a raw water lease
agreement with the City Water Department for use of a portion of the City's
water allocation in the Riverside irrigation ditch for purposes of irrigation;
32. The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide
easement centered on the ditch flowline. Unless some other documentation is
presented to substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will
be suitable for this ditch easement;
33. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the
County Clerk and Recorder;
34. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and
during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve on second reading, Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998, the
consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AH1-PUD, subdivision, vested
rights, and a partial park development impact fee waiver request for the Alpine
Cottages."
7
~,
,~
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A Vicinity Map
Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit C Comments from Referral Agencies
Exhibit D Application (Booklet form)
Exhibit E Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998
Exhibit F GMC Resolution
Exhibit G P&Z Minutes of 5/19/98
Exhibit H Applicant's letter dated 6/15/98 regarding Housing Board
recommendations
Exhibit I Letter from neighbor Pat Spector
Exhibit J Applicant's letter to City council dated 7/7/98 (NEW
ATTACHMENT)
g:/planninglaspcnl=slpudialpncc2b.doc
8
.JlIL-21-1998 16: 12 :=EMRAi.i WILDING & DESIGN
'SB~~ 8up.tn.q $ D1i9l\
Qplan{~~n~~i~~~_______ ,.______.___._.__,_________...__.,_,._,..,"_!~?~'_~~~~!-:_~ (979l ~,~.!?:6437.
~
P.B2
t;:'.'J(~ th'- \<-
208 1/2 E. Main. Aspen. Co 81611
7/15/98
To; Aspen City Council
Thru; Julie Ann Woods
From; Tunothy Semrau
RE; Alpine Cottages
Dear Co~cil Member.
The Alpine Cottages application was tabled on June 2200 so the City Attorney could
research the legal ramifications of denying a project that follows all code
requirements. We have also researched the legal responsibilities of the city
following Us own code and guideline requirements.
Since this ~roject not only follows every city rule and guideline but also the spirit
and intent of the community plan, we feel any legal technicalities concerning
whether the city can or cannot legally deny a valid application is not very important
concerning this specific project. However, since this issue arises occasionally we
felt you might benefit from the attached legal research.
~~
Timothy Semrau
P.B3
JUL-2t-t998 16:12
SEMRALi BUILDING & DESIGN
(""'\
t'r'\
:. ',i
~~~.f !..-P.c. I w ..".1It.X-
J1GO "'-.....400........00 tIl9Ilt
r~.n"" 449-401 Falfo., (3CJS)44Il-"'"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
BE:
T"1$Cltbf Setmru
DATE:
David G, Eisem~
Qwel,lIlr la1 Review Authority _ ~ Approval
July 21, 1998
wWle .. Ii aenera1 rule 1In appIicaIlt bas 1liO ript or IepI1y ...40....... ~w... of all
Jp{lIOY8lia,,- 00dII~11 of.cUca~ .lml:usemiew by I JooaI p....... that~ does
11IM III ~ rigJJl toa miAw psoI*IJ _ c;ompIies with tile minimum RlqUil:=-S of due
pn:.cea ofllfw,1b8t the nMn- body will be Iir IIId impllnW aIIlI will make its dec:isioa in ~
With tbe~ P9J11ltiQa&. iWll~ etc. govemiDgthemiewaud that 1blt~ body wiD aot
act it CXOI$I olitsjurisdietion or abuse its~dioa in ~its UWllI'h'GIl.
~ & pn..llnOl.ltal bo<ty bas ~ its p;$dicti0ll. or alIused its dUc:tetioa. .
.fl .fl(~~ pIll'SUallttotbeCo1orldoltule&ofCMl~ Rule 106(1)(4). stiR
risJIt to ~ dView of. go.MtiD& bocly's deQsioa in state diatria Court after that ap,pJicaDI bas
received & JiDaI 4....... liom the Iof::a1 pua.....4 review body anri has ~..Ipt II its
.IldI..iniSlulfivi: rem-dies at 1he Iocal8O"t"'~ level. Tbe ~ appBc:aat must w....~
such prote< ~:'1J withiu l&irty (lO) days of. filial decisicrl:L
~ &V..,,(ll.ouotIl review ora ......'in& PUD or subciMIion _~ isCODSicknd a
"~pro, N. QuI~ ~ .dioaIby aJocU~aeSllbject to RMe9ibydle
state dislIic:tcborl PUlllVlllUOc.&.CP. 106. $Dyder'\l City oft ~ 189 Colo. 421. 542 P.2d
m (1975). :W-1Ctill8 in its ~ caplICit.y in ~ WId use lIllPliuetloDs. a loc:Il
.......,..~ hiIs._duty IIIQt to ad in llII ubitrvy ad apriciowI ~ In r.:lo''18 its 4ecisioa it
fIIay DOl: exceCd its juaiIdiction or abuse its discl.~
The ~..maca I1llIteriaIt ..~_.I:,te.I. part oldle JaDd lIlO appIicaticD. the rc6rral
~ ~ the 10cal paJlllkDt stalf and.. ref'errat 1pllCieI,.1he ~\l~ of
actYisoIy bo8tds, 'MiItea ~.. fiom larereaced cil:ind$ _ aD. WlIbd .c..cp [ ~ 8Dd ..m...
matflri.lds made at lIlY public...... ~~ die "nlcoJd" of tile local ~....AI4's IlMew
proc m Tbe ~ ~tbe evidtace pllllllltfld to theJooal p...--.4 dwiDgtllemiflw
PloctSllalllS the nlIlORI sbOu1d atJo re8ect the ~ made by tbe-Iocal p...llMIC4t miew bOdy.
bued Oil e'\'ideac:e <<-"'"'-' iu tile reconl, whkh IUppIXt _ justifjr the dtdsiotl rw1oe6 by the
review body. It C8IIOOt make its _.. based OIlCO~~~ not fouad iu the record or lOr
lalpI\ll* moti'lillf or by using criteria or plIX UJIOI ~ in its, IaacJ '*~.
JUL~dl-1998 16:13
s::MRAU BUILDING & DESIGN
1"""\
P.04
!"""'l
~ llocalso,....~does_WUOWitl own tUlesor1!l~ ~~ it 'Yiolatadue
JlIOCCllI&. ~ a Joc:aIgo__....-t;vt _ atabIirhecl N1es _ criteria goveminc miew o€ a faod use
appJK:a1ioD, Jt IIIUSt 1bDow .. n.lla in the nMew of lID ~ fftbeR is no statute or
oro!i- ~ the at1boricy. all:Ullidpllity !lay IIOC impo8O ~ IIpOft dw ~
Bawl' ~~- v. BQV$( ofr'.....- o-n'ft.709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985). Ittbere Ire ~
gove.min,g review of 8ft appIieAtiosI, the PoYisiota. DlUSt be sutJicieatly ~ to fID$tI1fl tJw my
actioD:tabD \Iy a ('.OUIIty ill J~ to a IlPat U$C ~.w be ratioaal aad ~oNteat and that
j\Idk:'iaI ~ oftbat actioa wiI1 be &'IIIiJIble IJId ClfJ'bctiw. -... ofCol:mty C.....lra ofl ~
Coamvv. ('~. 9:27 P.2d 13:J9 (Colo. 1996); '8fsw!t ~ V. RnlmI of~ r--fl!,
JlIIm. 1'.bi& specifMti JllC(4demer4 proWdes all users aucf ~ IIIel$ oflaDd 'With DOli\:e of.
puticu1Ir .....- RqW.~"'" ~ by the COUIII.y for 1JIPlO'IIIl. Tbi$ $pOCtiy .aadard
also allows ~ CClW'I$ to paotoca .-. ImDeOIIAry aacI.IIICllolIIWJed ~~ of ~
powe. r~. 927 P.26 at 1348. Jftheloallp~.I....,.JtdoeatlOt1bDowjtupplicableJaw"arf
~ ~ toC.llC.I>. R:uIe J06, itsllelilDmaywSllC asideas.d)ib_i_~ Cl"
ot'discmiao_~tbIllCQpeotituJldlQlil.y. SeeHtlJb'~'P"- Iran v. BoIIrdafC.m"'\t,y
r'.nrnq;a.on....n.. 140 CoIo. 95.342 Ud.l032 (19S9); ~ 'Y. ~ oft -'11.--..4 __
While.' roc.l ~ ia "'~ a JlIDd u. appIWalicm -.r be ~ to haft
"disc:ill6oll"to!IJIIlRMOI' delly_~lIlio.ll. it; in_ the ~ meets aD cdteIia tlsat&ov<<B
die review of" appIi< 1I1io1l., tile local &0'.'''"''" ....... ~..... qua~ ad in eIlilct '
tile ~ ~"'" eatitIed to all ~aI ~" it cIerarly lZ\tIf:tS all crit<<ia. ffthe appIicaticm
IIIIIlds _.....~ ~ the City cam'lOt add DCW Glitaia that ale DOt lIWed II J*l ofdle
"'81~ ~ _thole ...__M"'ff criraia 1$. raeans to daly au ~jl)Q 1be appIiclat becomes
H~ to\l"'>Oo"~ ~if$eir pJau meets all of the requinlmeats IDd thin is uo autborily
to ;mr-addiJiiomJ ailciairlCo theappovaJ JII~ lit n-v Rill.. ~ ~ Co. v. Citv
af~_~ 190 P.2d S27 (Colo. 1990); ~n.". r...w..dQ ~}'\lI"""I CmqrQ.
763 P.2d 292 (Colo. 1988); Rs'-v. City ~ Iti4p S13I'.2d 203 (1973).
DuepRXu..is oaeotthe great~ofthe~DCov.- ~ ne
Joc:aI o'l-....~ aut play .flIidy ... it JblIIt ibJlow tile rules ... laws that 8OV<<I1 ita Iaad use
procedw:es. ,
the AIPD C~r project must be nMewed ... the ,....t..S bowiiJw auidPJi- ...
SO'rw.do& .. use AIpIatioM. bI the co.4e.4 af the "AJpiI>> eo.....$l"f.. adbnfIbfo lv-1l'lilla
appliCllioQ bi ~~ pLo- urit din Agp"". ~ aDd subcIi<IisioB approval,. it
~I fiom the 1iRory oftbe CitY. re.vieill oftbe projcd: dJat the appIicllnt.,.", meet aU nMtw
CIiteria -. IF")' to obt.aiJl tbI: ApJIIO'o.
1. Tbe ~ -I:" C'I"'f~jll!ll with all req..d~" -' die put~s. otalftrilble JlcIusldg
zoaiD& ~IV.~'-
2. The app1ic:atioa. ~ widl all CIJmllIl af10zdaWe ~ _I-..... eutbority
~
::
___ ~L-L~ 16'14
SEMRAU Bil J LDl NG 8. DES 1 GN
.I"f"-.
p.re
(""".
3. . TheCitystlllfhasftll:ll)..""....-clppJOvahtall__oftbenm-JXGr~ot
the .<<o....:..iPUD 1Dll~
4. The~ scua,bc cd reccivedappmval tbr~ nMew ototr-s&nlet pa.~
~_""Iio.....Il'lII5_a_iatlceoftlleVl:lllme p~ofthe~ de$ip
stlIOlfoudaio.'*. AspeD pIMoni'l8- ~ ())A...i!Mi<l! by &4-0 VOle at tIleir May 19, 1998 ~
S. 'Ibt~ arid ~CoJ"".i...., also to(>>o(joI..#.aded approval oftbe PUO.1be
rw.miD& aDd tile llDbcIMlIion.
6. , ~ growth 1U"'~ ~;Wolr.I'CQOo.ImtDJed tIat City COUIlGil ap,prove"
tlCelDPl......... .. _(10) deed M1bideduait&aad tow (4) fheJJllll'ket All ~
~ ~ dill tJusbe the ~ medlOd ofp.nMdins ~ housilIg for 1be Al.pilIe
Cott..ut~_ 'hConMay 19, 1998.
7. The AspenPil:kift.CouAty ~ A>JIhntiay (me HclutiJls Board) pllU8d . ~
in firlor of rhe1 poject _ recoI1U.....MI appt01IaI oftbe psojeet.
3. (A.L....,..~ No. 18. Scriaofl998, 1be~ ~ POD, tf<lO"'illJ
to AHl-PUD,1ISbdiYisioII. vated d(lds. ula pa1iIlpark _~ ~ fa Mivw'tapIIt
t'orthe AJpiDe Cottaga was 8JlIllIMId 0Il!rst JfI8diDg 0IlM'ay 26, 1998 by the City ~
9. The~ ia:.~~. Ja$fuuad that thoapplicaat.- tile apra......;c. ~lDet d
the mieweriteda~l~ pIam1ed_~ _ sub4Msionapproval. 'tbce
does 1lIlt appeIli'to be tI/lI.'j c:tdlIe orwlid evideIllle iI1 the J'4ICClId that ~ ,,~'adic:D 1be staIf. ~
TIle ~ body, ill t1sis llIIlIll tbe City CouaciI. I.IlUIl mab ill deciIIioD bMed OIl evideace
~ in theRlCCll'd and iI1~withtlJe tules _ repatiob$ govemiIIgllle RNiew of the
"P(IIir~. '1:be City ~ lbc ~nni"8j)l.ufulU'-k whose talk it is 1O.mse 1be PIs....... aad
ZODiDg Q,d..../...:.'IIlIIICl the City Couad1 0Il1lOlliu& aa4 p1a.......lU"tl~h... have ........._\y_
uaequivOCllJy reeomme:ndecl qptoYll.l oftbis ptO,ject. This is VOI)'!ltI'O.1I$erideace to $Upport III
IIppIOY*1 by _1oas1 p..t.1lo.ood nMclw body. ~'\....ce it is my\lSld...$lIu.&'18 tbcce is JIO other
tompetalt evideaee belen the City COUlICit tbat would otbr:rwise <fspule die 1kdi',,_ oftfle staII
3
TffiAL P.1?6
JUL -21-1998 16: 12 $MRAO BUILDING & DESIGN
1"'/:'.
Semral/Bllildii\9 ~ D 8siS"
-plan/design/build"
P.81
rf"""\
. '
20e 1/2 E. Main, Aspen, Co 81611
(9701925-6447: Fax; (8701925-6437
FASCIMILE TRANSMITTAL FORM
Date:
To:
JuLIe'
If,..,/'J
UjOc)(.)..r
Finn Name
Fax. Number
Phone Number
From: "[;1""\ ~e::'/V1 (c U
Number of Pages (including cover) M ( s )
SpeciallnsrnIctions:
f [eas. f
Attac {,Mer-' r- Tv
Co ttOS<2 S ~vf'JC" L
/ f'-J ~ fv/~
-rltu
It? f I rvr!.-
(2C-=-f0/1?
77M
5
1"'1'\
I""',
No ~w~'uV
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM:
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
RE:
Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing ConceptuallFinal Planned Unit
Development, Rezoning, and Subdivision Reviews (Second Reading)
(Continued from June 22, 1998, and July 13, 1998)
DATE:
July 27, 1998
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Larry Saliterman in association with Semrau Building and Design,
is requesting approval to rezone to AH1-PUD in order to construct 10 deed
restricted units and 4 free-market units. The proposal involves requests for
rezoning, consolidated conceptual/final PUD, and Subdivision. The applicant has
sought and received approval for Special Review of off-street parking
requirements and density limitations, and a variance from the volume provision of
the residential design standards from the Planning and Zoning Commission by a
4-0 vote at their May 19,1998 meeting (see Exhibit "G"). The site is located at
1240 East Cooper Ave. The property currently contains the Alpine Lodge and a
vacant lot (Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption) behind the lodge.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the rezoning, consolidated
conceptual/final PUD, subdivision, vested rights, and a partial park
development impact fee waiver request, with conditions.
ISSUES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING:
At the meeting of June 22, 1998, City Council indicated that it does not generally
waive park dedication fees for AH projects. Staff would like to note to City
Council that according to city policy on fee waivers, ". . .city council can waive or
reduce fees for development which is wholly or partly affordable housing. . ."
City Council does have the discretion to waive the fee ifthey so desire.
Council also discussed the mix of units proposed with this AH1-PUD rezoning.
Some council members felt that there were not enough lower category units.
There was some debate regarding the discretion City Council has in approving a
rezoning, particularly addressing the unit mix. The City Attorney has issued a
confidential memorandum regarding this issue. At this time, the applicant has not
1
I"f"",
,
"
('
proposed a change in the unit mix, but is willing to further discuss this with the
City Council.
Finally, City Council did not like the new name for Aene Ct. They did not feel
that Camelot Ct. is appropriate for Aspen. They recommended that the applicant
do some historic research to come up with a name that is more appropriate to this
neighborhood.
APPLICANT:
Larry Saliterman in association with Semrau Building and Design. The applicant
will be represented by Tim Semrau.
LOCATION:
1240 East Cooper Ave., and Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption. The property currently
contains the Alpine Lodge and a vacant lot behind the lodge, within the City of
Aspen as shown on the attached vicinity map (Exhibit A).
ZONING:
The subject property is currently zoned R-15A-PUD; the Alpine Lodge portion of
the site also contains an LP overlay zone. The applicant is seeking a rezoning to
AHl-PUD.
LOT SIZE:
Approximately 37,148 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This represents the total property minus the
proposed access easement and slope reductions.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF DENSITY CALCULATION):
Approximately 29,067 square feet. This includes the same restrictions as above
and considers slope reduction.
FAR:
Maximum allowable FAR is 23,253 s.f., based on (.8) x (Lot Area), subject to
PUD Review. The applicant is proposing 23,227 s.f. off AR.
CURRENT LAND USE:
A 12-room lodge contained within four buildings, and a vacant lot.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The AH1-PUD zone district requires that any AH project have a 70/30 (AH to free-
market) mix of both units and bedrooms. The proposal is to create five (5) lots, four of
2
r""':'\
t""'\
@)
which will be free-market, and one (Lot 1) which will contain ten (10) deed restricted
units. The Alpine Cottages project is proposing the following unit and bedroom mix:
LotI: I ~6g.L 8~
2 f6ur-te~room Category 4 UIiits
2 one-bedroom Catego1J;.k'units 3-
2 one-bedroom Category 3 units -4
4 four-bedroom~ units 4
Total Units: 10
I f?..J ~ :>
Total Bedrooms: 28
Lots 2 through 5 (free-market)
4 three-bedroom units
Total Units: 4
Total Bedrooms: 12
Project Total Units:
14
Project Total Bedrooms:
40
Total Percentage of Category Units = 10/14 = 71%
Total Percentage of Category Bedrooms = 28/40 = 70%
The proposed mix of units and bedrooms meets or exceeds the minimum requirements.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The City Council approved this application on first reading, May 26, 1998.
Second reading was held on June 22, 1998 and was continued to July 13, 1998.
At the applicant's request, the case was continued to July 27, 1998.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
,At their meeting on May 19, 1998, the Growth Management Commission
recommended that the City Council approve and exempt from Growth
Management ten (10) deed-restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated
allotments and that this be the approved method of providing affordable housing
for the Alpine Cottages (see Exhibit "F" attached).
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the rezoning, consolidated
conceptuallfinal PUD, and subdivision application at a hearing and recommended
approval with conditions to City Council (see Exhibit "G" attached). As part of
that motion, the Commission recommended deletion of the Housing Board
recommendation item that the category units be opened to the public. The
Commission felt that this was an onerous requirement which they could not
support. The applicant is also seeking Vested Rights approval; and a partial park
development impact fee waiver request.
BACKGROUND:
The Alpine Lodge participated in the Small Lodge Lottery in 1997 and was
allocated four (4) additional lodge expansion units. The owner did not proceed
3
1""1'\
r-.,
with applying for a change-ill-use request. The previous owner of the property,
James and Christina (Pfeifer) Martin, sold the lodge to the current owner with the
understanding that their descendants would have a right of first refusal on two of
the units, should they choose to remain in Aspen.
The applicant was before the Housing Board, which recommended approval
subject to certain conditions. These conditions are spelled out in the Housing
office referral, and are made conditions of approval. The applicant is not in full
agreement with these housing conditions and will want to discuss this with the
City Council. Please refer to the applicant's letter, dated 6/15/98, attached as
Exhibit "H." It appears from the letter that the applicant agrees with all but one
condition, that is that the category units be opened to public lottery. This is the
item which the Commission recommended be deleted as a condition of approval.
The applicant claims he has made prior commitments to eligible buyers and this
requirement is not fair. The City Council may want to consider modifYing the
recommended conditions requested by the Housing office.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant is seeking a partial waiver of the Park Land Dedication Impact Fee.
The Parks dedication fee would be $43,092. Because this project is 71 %
affordable, staff recommends that the applicant be responsible for paying for 29%
of the Park Dedication Impact fee, or $12,497. .
The applicant is also responsible for paying the applicable School Land dedication
fees. Staff recommends that the applicant pay fees-in-lieu of the land dedication,
and that the payment be made prior to, and on a proportional basis to the issuance
of any building permits for the residential lots. It is estimated that school land
dedication fees will be approximately $67,684.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "B." Agency
referral colIUIients have been included as Exhibit "C." The application, which is
in a booklet form, should be considered Exhibit "D", which was previously
submitted to the City Council at first reading. Also attached are EXhibit "F", the
Growth Management Commission's resolution; Exhibit "G", the Planning and
Zoning Commission's minutes; Exhibit "H", the applicant's letter addressing the
Housing Board recommendations; Exhibit "I", an adjacent neighbor's letter; and
Exhibit "J", a new letter from the applicant dated 7/7/98.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve on second reading the consolidated
conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AH1-PUD, subdivision, Vested. Rights, and a partial
park development impact fee waiver request for the Alpine Cottages, subject to the
following conditions:
4
f""!"\.
f"',
1. That ten (10) deed-restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated
allotments, be exempted from Growth Management and that this be the approved
method of providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages;
2. That the applicant agree to the conditions placed on the project by the housing
board (or as amended by the City Council), including:
. The RO units will have a 3% appreciation cap;
. The applicant will sell the RO units to a minimum household size of three
persons;
. Income and asset restrictions should be based on a maximum of an $800,000
price;
. The maximum price for the RO units be set at $550,000;
. The RO units be sold to households who have worked in Pitkin County a
minimum of the last four years consecutively; and
. That the category units be opened to the public, with the exception of the first
right of refusal for Friedl Pfeifer's grandchildren mentioned in the contract;
(this is a condition that the applicant is particularly not in agreement
with, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended deleting as
part of their motion);
3. That a utility plan be submitted to the Water Dept., the ACSD, and the
City Engineer for their review and approval prior to issuance of building permit;
4. All legal instruments associated with the access easement to Lot B,
Ferguson Exemption, the emergency access easement located between proposed
Lots B and C, utility easements, and the 10' trail easement between Aene Ct. and
Snyder be recorded as part of the final plat;.
5. That as part of the final plat submission, another page with signature
blocks for all five owners with an interest in Aene Ct. be recorded, officially
changing the name from Aene Ct. to a name suitable to the neighbors and City
Council;
6. Lighting should be downcast and not used to call attention to architectural
features;
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to gain
approval for a line extension request, a collection system agreement, and possibly
a shared service agreement for each unit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District;
8. The applicant shall submit a drainage report prior to issuance of a building
permit to ensure that no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property
during and after construction;
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fugitive
dust control plan;
5
~
t"""\
1 O. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain the
necessary permits from the Environmental Health Department for any fireplaces
or woodburning devices;
11. Asbestos testing of the existing buildings will be required, as applicable,
with the building permit application;
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data
including property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments;
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
o
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
.
That the applicant pay fees-in-lieu ofthe school land dedication, and that
the payment be made prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any
building permits for the residential lots;
That the remaining required park fees be paid prior to the issuance of
building permit;
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair
any public right-of-way 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 final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for
reading and may not be obstructed;
A current title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, must be
submitted prior to filing of the final plat;
Additional information about the chain of title and the prior approvals
regarding the open space reservation must be provided prior to filing of the final
plat;
The applicant will grant a utility easement along the westerly side of
proposed Lot A and will work with the adjacent owners (Robinson) to attempt to
get agreement to relocate two spruce trees onto Robinson's property instead of
within the propose water easement alignment. Division of costs for extension of
the water distribution system will need to be negotiated with the City Water
Dept.;
The proposed development shall construct, at its expense, a main line
extension of the sanitary sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines
to each individual building.
The site plan shall include areas for trash and recycling containers and for
on-site snow storage;
The Robinson Rd. access way, as proposed, is too narrow to be dedicated
to the public and should remain a private access way and common utility
easement as previously dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption;
In regards to changing the street name, the applicant will need to do
adequate historical research for an appropriate name and resubmit the name to
City Council for their approval. Additionally, the applicant must provide a letter
of clearance from Pitkin County and copies of postal receipts verifying the deliver
6
~
r-,
of notice to all utility companies, all owners of property fronting on or served by
Aene Ct., the Aspen Postmaster, Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen;
24. The parking spaces located between Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft
wide (minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating
these spaces from the access driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should
conform to city and ADA standards in size, number, accessibility, slope;
25. The applicant will need to provide plans in the construction plans
submitted for the building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic,
hauling and delivery routes; vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging
areas; temporary drainage, erosion and sedimentation control during construction,
and provision of temporary utilities;
26. The applicant will be responsible to provide temporary utility and drainage
services to the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by
disruption of utilities during construction;
27. The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to
commencing work (relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the
most stringent permit requirements if the requirements of any permits differ;
28. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling
unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and
switches;
29. The applicant is required to join any future improvement districts formed
for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property
under an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded
concurrent with recording the subdivision plat;
30. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in
public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows;
. The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for
design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public
rights-of-way;
. Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and
irrigation systems;
. Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
. permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public
rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-
5090);
31. Unless the applicant can provide documentation verifYing his water rights
in this irrigation ditch, the property owner should establish a raw water lease
agreement with the City Water Department for use of a portion of the City's
water allocation in the Riverside irrigation ditch for purposes of irrigation;
32. The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide
easement centered on the ditch flowline. Unless some other documentation is
7
~
"-,,,
presented to substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will
be suitable for this ditch easement;
33. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the
County Clerk and Recorder;
34. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and
during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve on second reading, Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998, the
consolidated conceptual/fmal PUD, rezoning to AH1-PUD, subdivision, vested
rights, and a partial park development impact fee waiver request for the Alpine
Cottages. "
~~~'""/Z..,,.jJ:'~~,Ir./ io~~
CrrYMANAGER',CO_,,",' f/~p~ 7~ ~ ~
~JS-~' " ~"~)
a /A~!l~ ~
~
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A Vicinity Map
Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit C Comments from Referral Agencies
Exhibit D Application (Booklet form)
Exhibit E Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998
Exhibit F GMC Resolution
Exhibit G P&Z Minutes of 5/19/98
Exhibit H Applicant's letter dated 6/15/98 regarding Housing Board
recommendations
Exhibit I Letter from neighbor Pat Spector
Exhibit J Applicant's letter to City council dated 7/7/98 (NEW
ATTACHMENT)
g:/plannlnglaspelllcaseslpudlalpncc2b.dc~
8
,.......,
;-...,
presented to substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will
be suitable for this ditch easement;
33. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the
County Clerk and Recorder;
34. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and
during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"J move to approve on second reading, Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998, the
consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AHl-PUD, subdivision, vested
rights, and a partial park development impact fee waiver request for the Alpine
Cottages. "
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A Vicinity Map
Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit C Comments from Referral Agencies
Exhibit D Application (Booklet form)
Exhibit E Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998
Exhibit F GMC Resolution
Exhibit G P&Z Minutes of 5/19/98
Exhibit H Applicant's letter dated 6/15/98 regarding Housing Board
recommendations
Exhibit I Letter from neighbor Pat Spector
Exhibit J Applicant's letter to City council dated 717/98 (NEW
ATTACHMENT)
Exhibit K Applicant's letter to City council dated July 15, 1998 (NEW
A TT ACHMENT)
giplalUlinglaspcnlcalleslpudlalpncc2b,doc
8
t'!"'\
~
,
ALPINE COTTAGES--EXHIBIT B
, Staff Analysis and Findings:
Alpine Cottages: Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit
Development
A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements:
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Finding:
Community Vision: The plan calls for disbursed mid-size to smaller projects, infill
development within the existing urban area, small scale resident housing dispersed with
free-market housing, locating housing near public transportation, a mix of housing to
encourage families, and private development to solve the housing crisis. Alpine Cottages
achieves these goals while providing high-quality housing within walking distance of the
commercial core.
Community Vitality: The proposed development is 71 % affordable, addressing the
community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities within a reasonable
walking distance to employment and recreation resources. The proposed development is
an in-fill site within, or approximately within, the original townsite. Increased residential
density, especially for local working residents, within the town promotes a sense of
community and creates community vitality.
Open Space and Environment: Providing housing opportunities within walking distance
to employment, entertainment, recreation, and other residences reduces the need to use a
vehicle for every trip. Also, compact development in proximity to existing facilities and
services reduces the need to extend services, and preserves those natural open space areas
for their wildlife and aesthetic functions.
Because of the project's proximity to the Snyder AH/Park site, the Parks Dept. is
requesting a trail easement along the rear property line, connecting Aene Ct. with the
Snyder parcel. The applicant has agreed to this request. Such an easement should be
included on the final plat drawings.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
The proposed development is surrounded by fully developed property. Three adjacent
parcels (presuming Snyder will get approved) are AH developments and the other
Staff Comments 1
,-
~
adjacent lots are R15A. Existing developments consist of single family homes,
affordable housing units and a small lodge to the east and across Highway 82 (the
Beaumont). The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
As mentioned above, the surronnding parcels are already developed, or proposed for
development (Snyder). The surrounding area's development or redevelopment potential
should not be negatively affected by this development.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which
GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Staff Finding:
The application must receive development allotments for 10 residential units, and 4 free-
market-AH associated allotments from the City Council. The Growth Management
Commission considered this case and made a recommendation to City Council for the
GMQS exemption.
2. Density:
A. The maximum density shall he no greater than that permitted in the underlying
zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if:
1. There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed
development;
2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development;
3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope,
ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers;
4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natnral
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution;
5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the city; or
6. The design and location of any proposed structnre, road, driveway, or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful distnrbance to
critical natnra! featnres of the site.
Staff Finding:
The density proposed on this site is below that allowed based on the gross lot size. The
gross lot size is 37,148 s.f. The lot is reduced due to slope and easements to a lot area of
29,067 s.f. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit under AH1-PUD is as follows:
4 single family lots @ 3000 s.f./unit 12,000 s.f.
2 duplexes @ 1500 s.f.lunit 6,000 s.f.
6 four-bedroom multi-family units @ 400s.f./br 9.600 s.f.
Total: 14 units 27,600 s.f.
There are sufficient utilities and services to acc.ommodate this development. The access
is adequate for fire protection service. The portion of the property where development is
proposed is suitable for development. The applicant has provided a traffic generation
report and is not required to provide an Air Quality Mitigation Plan as the proposal will
Staff Comments 2
f"!"".
1"""\
have a net reduction)n daily traffic trips as compared to the lodge use. The applicant is
required to provide II drainage report to the City Engineer for their review and approval.
The location of the proposed development does not appear to be in severe conflict with
the natural terrain and features of the site.
B. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
1. In order to reduce wildfrre;mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and
guarantee adequate frre protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in
areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor:
a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density
allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district.
b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum
density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the
underlying zone district.
c. For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall
be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone
district.
d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be
allowed.
2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary
in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit.
3. For parcels resting in more than one (I) zone district, the density reduction calculation
shall be perform,ed separately on the lands within each zone district.
4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Defmition of Lot Area.
Staff Finding:
The application specifies the percentages ofthe property falling within the described
slope classifications on Attachment D of the application. The proposed density requires
27,600 square feet of Lot Area. After all reductions, the property yields approximately
29,067 square feet of Lot Area. The proposal meets the density standard.
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a
zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-family dwelling units shall
only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding:
The application includes a request to r~zone the property to AH1-PUD. The present
zoning allows for residential development in varying densities, while the proposed
rezoning allows a mixture of single family, duplex and multi-family units. The applicant
is proposing this mix in his proposal.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in
the following:
a. Minimum distance between buildings;
Staff Comments 3
,t"!"'I
('
b. Maximum height (including viewplanes);
c. Minimum front yard;
d. Minimum rear yard;
e. Minimum side yard;
f. Minimum lot width;
g. Minimum lot area;
h. Trash access area;
i. Internal floor area ratio; and
j. Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the
minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated on the fmal plat development plan.
Staff Finding:
This PUD will establish the dimensional requirements for the lots created. There are no
variations requested from the underlying zone district proposed. Note that the free-
market lots could slightly increase in size if the applicant is successful in securing title to
that portion of adjacent property which is represented as a hiatus between the Ferguson
Exemption and the Woerndle Subdivision.
The proposed dimensional requirements are as follows:
Requirements Common to Entire Development
Zone District: The applicant is proposing the site be rezoned to AH1-PUD.
Minimum distance between buildings: As shown on the plat
Maximum height: 23' 6" Proposed
Minimum percent open space: Approximately 56% (presuming building
envelopes 100% used)
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yard:
a
Lot 1 (mnlti-familv and duplex units)
Zone District: AHl-PUD
Lot Size: 16,527 s.L
Maximum internal floor area: 12,587 s.f.
Minimum lot width: As represented on final plat.
Building Envelope: No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
II feet, along both Aene Ct. and Highway 82
4 feet (west property line)
3 feet along Robinson Road (the existing buildings have
3' rear setback)
Lot A (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
AH1-PUD
6,090 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. iftitle is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
Staff Comments 4
~.
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot B (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot C (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot D (free-market)
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Maximum internal floor area:
Minimum lot width:
Building Envelope:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
f"".
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
66 feet.
5 feet. (15' iftitIe is perfected)
5 feet each.
AH1-PUD
5,460 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 sJ. iftitIe is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
50 feet.
5 feet. (12' if title is perfected)
5 feet each.
AHl-POD
4,545 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on fmal plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside ofthe building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
37 feet.
is feet. (13' if title is perfected)
5 feet each.
AHl-PUD
4,526 s.f.
2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected)
As represented on final plat.
No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and
approved driveways may occur outside of the building
envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the
following setbacks:
15 feet.
5 feet.
5 feet. (13' if title is perfected on north sideyard)
5 feet on south sideyard
Staff Comments 5
t""!".
r'\,
5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied
from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following
considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development.
b. The parking need of any nonresidential units.
c. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public
recreational facilities in the city.
Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain
assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change.
Staff Finding:
The proposed underlying zone district, AH1-PUD, requires parking requirements to be
established through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
commission approved the following parking requirements at their May 19, 1998 meeting:
one (1) parking space per one-bedroom dwelling unit, and two (2) parking spaces for
every other unit, which is the minimum for development city-wide.
6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying
zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be
permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the
proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a
common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common
park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom
the common area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in
perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the plarmed unit development (PUD), together
with a deed restriction against futnre residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned
facilities.
StaffFinding:
The applicant has agreed to provide a trails easement to the Parks Dept. along the rear
(northern) portion of the site connecting Aene Ct. to the Snyder parcel. The,legal
instruments to protect this area should be submitted with the Final Plat. The applicant is
encouraged to work with the City Attorney and the Parks Department in preparing these
restrictions.
The' application indicates that a minimum of approximately 56% of the site will remain
open space. Staff believes that due to the proximity to the future park site on the adjacent
Snyder parcel, this amount of open space will be adequate to serve the proposal.
Staff Comments 6
~
,/"",\,
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior'
spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant
species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding:
The application includes a Landscape Plan as shown on Attachment C of Exhibit "D."
The existing lodge parcel has a mature landscape which the proposed development will
attempt to maintain. The applicant has already moved several mature trees elsewhere on
site in an attempt to successfully maintain a more mature landscape within the
development parcel. This plan provides a reasonable amount and variety of plantings.
8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural
character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion ofthe buildings with each other and surrounding land uses.
Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and
maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage
and reduce soil erosion. '
Staff Finding:
Building envelopes have been placed appropriately considering the natural terrain and
surrounding land uses. The plans and elevations for the Category and RO units have been
included in this application. The proportions, massing, and materials seem appropriate.
Both the RO and free-market structures must be developed consistent with the City's
Residential Design Guidelines, or be granted a waiver from the Planning and Zoning
Commission who can serve as the Design Review Appeal Committee. The applicant did
request and received a design waiver for the volume standard related to windows in the
9'-12' floor plate height.
The garages are oriented to the internal part of Lot 1 and will have minimal visual impact
on neighboring parcels. The overall design contributes to the visual character of the city.
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
Staff Finding:
The applicant proposes that exterior lighting will be kept to a minimum, using 60 watt
downlights in the entry and garage areas.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Staff Comments 7
1"1'"
~
Staff Finding:
The development has been clustered, while allowing smaller lot free-market units within
the complex.
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings
shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency
vehicles.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has indicated that all sidewalks, utilities, street paving and curb and gutter
installation will be borne by the applicant.
The Engineering Dept. has included numerous requirements in their referral memo,
attached as Exhibit "C." In reviewing these requirements, it does not appear that there are
any major issues which cannot be resolved prior to building permit issuance or certificate
of occupancy. Both the Water Dept. and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have
indicated that they have the capacity to serve this project. Both utilities have requested
the submittal of a utility plan for their review. This has been included as a condition of
approval.
The ACSD has indicated that service from Aene Ct. may not work due to grade
considerations and an easement may be required on the west side of the property causing
units I and J to move to the east. The trench drain in the parking area must be routed to a
dry well or storm sewer and not connected to the District system. It is likely that a main
line extension may be necessary. Easements for such an extension will be necessary and
should be included on the final plat.
The existing 8" water line will need to be extended to near the end of Robinson Dr.,
reconnecting existing service lines serving 3 existing homes and installing a fire hydrant.
The applicant has agreed to provide a 10' water line easement along the westerly
boundary of free market Lot A. This will allow the Water Dept. to connect several
"dead-end" lines in the vicinity of Snyder. The easements for these water lines should be
included on the final plat.
The proposed access way and fire suppression system has been designed to accommodate
the Fire Marshall's requirements.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD)
shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to
streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic.
Staff Comments 8
,...,.."
.f'"l,
c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion
on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed developmimt, or such
surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be
adversely affected.
d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway
or drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the plarmed unit development (PUD) shall have direct
access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on
any street.
f. Streets in the plarmed unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or
retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall
comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances.
Staff Finding:
The proposed access way meets these standards. The development will provide a new
sidewalk along Highway 82 to better serve pedestrians in this area.
Alpine Cottages: Rezoning to ARt-PUD
In reviewing an amendment to the official zoning map, the City Council must consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this Title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed rezoning is not in conflict with any applicable portion of the Land Use
Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding:
Refer to Item lA, page 1 of this Exhibit "B.". The amendment is consistent with the
AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics. '
Staff Finding:
The proposed rezoning is appropriate in this area. There are three AH projects (including
Snyder) in the, immediate vicinity, as well as single family residences. The proposed
rezoning will allow the development of a similar AH mixed housing type project.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding:
The applicant submitted a traffic report to the Environmental Health Dept. It was
determined by Environmental Health that the proposed rezoning will result in reduced
traffic generation.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Comments 9
~
^
Staff Finding:
Both the Water Dept. and the ACSD have indicated enough capacity to serve this project.
The project is located on an existing RFT A bus line. It is anticipated that with the four-
bedroom units it is likely that families with children will move into these units.
Therefore, there could be some impact on the area schools. However, because the
restrictions placed on this project by the Housing office require potential residents to be
Pitkin County residents for the previous four years, it is very likely that the families will
have already been in the school district, resulting in a minimal increase in new students.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The project should not have any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
The property is being redeveloped in an already developed area. Approximately 56% of
the property will be open space. To the extent possible, the applicant is attempting to
relocate large existing trees to minimize the loss of these amenities. A drainage plan
which addresses erosion control must be submitted to the city engineer for their review
and approval prior to building permit.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The project is designed to be similar in design to other structures in the vicinity. The
residences will face the street and have front porches. Parking will be contained in the
rear. Staff believes that the project will be compatible and consistent with Aspen's
community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The neighborhood has been developing with a mix of both free-market and AH housing.
The project will be consistent with this change in character in this neighborhood.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
The rezoning will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code and
will not conflict with the public interest.
Alpine Cottages: Subdivision
Land that is divided into two or more lots for purposes of development is subject to the
City's Subdivision Regulations. The following review criteria must be met with all
subdivisions:
1a. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the AACP.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item lA, page 1 of this Exhibit "B." The subdivision is consistent with the
AACP.
Staff Comments 10
,~
~
1 b. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the character of existing
land uses. .
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item lB, Page 1 of this Exhibit "B." The subdivision is consistent with the
character of existing land uses.
lc. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to Item 1 C, Page 2 of this Exhibit "B." The subdivision should not adversely
affect the future development of surrounding areas.
Id. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements ofthis title.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision will be in compliance with all subdivision requirements.
2a. Land suitability
Staff Finding:
The land is suitable for development. There are no known hazards that could impact the
development.
2b. Spatial Patterns efficient
Staff Finding:
There do not appear to be any inefficiencies with space. The utilities exist to the site and
will be improved to better serve the site and adjacent parcels.
3. Improvements
a.Water.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item 11, page 8 of this Exhibit "B." Water lines will need to be extended
and easements for these extensions will be granted by the applicant.
b. Sewer.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to item 11, page 8. ACSD has indicated that sewer service to Aene Ct. may
not work due to grades. A sewer easement and line may need to be located along the
western property line. The applicant is required to submit a utility report to both ACSD
and the Water Dept. prior to issuance of building permit.
c. Electricity
StaffFinding:
Holy Cross Electric currently serves the property with overhead lines. New service will
come underground from under Aene Ct. to a transformer located on a utility easement on
Lot D. the overhead line adjacent to Highway 82 will be extended vertically for safety
reasons per Holy Cross Electric Association's request.
Staff Comments 11
,~
r-,
d. Telephone, natural gas, and cable TV.
Staff Finding:
All of these utilities exist and will be extended where necessary to serve the project.
e. Easements
Staff Finding:
The existing driveway easement to Lot 2, Ferguson Exemption will be vacated and a new
easement agreement will be recorded with the final plat. A new emergency access
easement, utility easements, and trail easement will be recorded on the final plat.
f. Sidewalks, curb and gutter.
Staff Finding:
New sidewalks will be installed along Highway 82 and Aene Ct. A new concrete
sidewalk will also be installed along the west property line to connect the project to
Highway 82. The Highway 82 curb and gutter will be extended up Aene Ct., and a new
handicap ramp will be placed near the intersection.
g. Fire Protection
Staff Finding:
All units will be sprinkled for fire safety purposes. The existing fire hydrant will be
slightly relocated. An emergency access easement will be granted between Lots B and C,
at the request of the Fire Marshall.
h. Drainage.
Staff Finding;
The applicant has indicated that dry wells will be used to retain the historic storm water
flows on-site. A drainage plan must be submitted for review and approval ofthe City
Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
i. Roads.
Staff Finding:
Both Aene Ct. and Robinson Rd. will be improved and paved at the applicant's expense.
j. Final Plat
StaffFinding:
Upon final approval by the City Council, the applicant will record a final plat which
reflects all of the subdivision requirements for this project. The neighbors of this project
have expressed a desire to have Aene Ct. changed to Camelot Ct. As part of the final plat
submission, another page with signature blocks for all five owners with an interest in
Aene Ct. will be recorded, officially changing this name, with City Council's approval.
This has been included as a condition of approval.
Alpine Cottages: Vested Rights
Unless specifically requested by the applicant, the normal vesting of any project approval
is eighteen (18) months. The applicant is requesting vesting for this project which would
Staff Comments 12
,"""" ,-,
extend for a period of three (3) years. There are no criteria which must be met in order to
be fully vested.
g:fplanninglaspenleaseslpuclfaJpt'lexa.doc
Staff Comments 13
S1<.I-\'I\?,".c....
,-.
1"""'-,.
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mitch Haas, Project Planner
Thru:
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From:
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
Date:
April29, 1998
Re:
Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption,
Special Review fOr Parking, and AH1 Lot Area Limitations Reviews
Physical Address:
Legal Description:
1240 East Cooper Avenue, City of Aspen, CO
A tract ofland situate in the Riverside Addition to the City of Aspen, consisting of Lot
3, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption, and a metes and bounds description of a parcel
situate between said lot, the rights-of-way of Aene Park and East Cooper Avenue, and
Lot B, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption, containing 0.893 Acres, more or less, City of
Aspen, CO:
=x-=-xx-=
Parcel ID No.:
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the combined
comments made by the members of the DRC:
[Site conditions at the time of site visit: April 22, 1998 and during subsequent site visits; no snow cover, dry,
clear.]
Discussion: As submitted, the subdivisionIPUD application is incomplete and should not be considered
further until the applicant has provided a complete application. For the applicant's benefit, the following
comments are made at this time, based upon the submitted conceptual plans, to minimize future revisions.
Neither an utility plan nor a title policy were provided with the initial application. The utility plan provided on
May 12, 1998, does not meet the standards nor spatial requirements for extension of utilities which will be
necessary since this project is located at the periphery of the existing utility systems which are not presently
adequate to serve this proposed developm.ent. The title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, (also
delivered May 12, 1998) is not current as required by City code and is missing the pllges following the first
pllge of Schedule B.
At this time it appears that the hiatus between proposed Alpine Cottages Lots "A" and "B" and the Snyder
property is actually a remainder parcel of un-vacated public right of way of East Circuit Avenue. As successor
to Pitkin County of public rights-of-way annexed in to the municipal boundaries, it appears this parcel belongs
to the City of Aspen. We are continuing to review the chain of title of the hiatus located between common
Area #3, Woerndle Subdivision, and the subject property (given the out of date title report).
1. Application: Since this proposed development is in an area at the periphery of the existing utility
systems, some line extensions and improvements will be necessary to provide service to this development. The
DRCllA98,DOC
IOF 7
_... ".
,"""" 1"""1
1\
Memo ~'Alpine Cottages Affordable HOUSh'4, Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special K\. v lew tor Parking, and AHI Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
applicant should meet with each of the utility providers to verify the serviceability of the project, the need for
extensions and improvements to the utility systems, and division of responsibility between developer and
utility providers for making required improvements before the application is reviewed further. The utility plans
need to be completed (signed and stamped) by a currently licensed Colorado civil engineer (licensure required
by under CRS 12-25-105).
The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the
fonn(s) of development requested in the application.
2. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project
change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of
the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and
recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated April 16, 1998)
provided for this, review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the
use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking or utility designs.
3. Prior Approvals and Agreements: The proposed building envelopes of the four (4) free market
lots encroach into the open space easement defmed in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption in the area of the
fonner East Circuit Avenue right-of-way. Such restrictions are typically defmed as reservations running with
the title of the land in the vacated right-of-way. There are approximately a dozen exceptions to the title reports
regarding prior agreements, subdivisions and easements which may impact the developable area of this project
or otherwise influence the use, extent and location of specific features and types of improvements, including
public utilities. These prior agreements are under review. This review will also consider prior development
agreements and conditions which have not been completed to date.
We request additional infonnation about this aspect of the chain of title and the prior approvals applied to this
property in order to fully evaluate the title and reservations of the property.
4. Utilities & Services: Apart from the discussion below of the water distribution system, the
application does not include plans nor letters of serviceability from the several utility providers serving the area
of the proposed development. Coordination of the extension of utilities, possible dedication of utility and
access easements, and coordination of the utility systems with the site design is a requirement of the application
for both subdivision and POD. The proposed plan does not provide adequate width for separation of utilities
and excavation through the proposed Robinson Road although a main line extension will be required for the
sanitary sewer.
5. City Water Dept.: During the site visit on April 22, 1998, the applicant (Timothy Semrau) met
with Phil Overeynder and conceptually agreed to an extension of the water main through the project to connect
with water mains extended from Midland Avenue through the Snyder Property. This is contingent upon
granting of an utility easement along the westerly side of the proposed Lot A and agreement of the Robinsons
(owners of the adjacent lotto the west) to the relocation of two spruce trees to be transplanted on Robinson's
property instead of within the propose water easement alignment. Division of costs for extension of the water
distribution system will need to be negotiated with the City Water Dept.. (The utility plan provided on May 12,
1998, included undersized water mains.)
DRCIIA98,DOC
20F 7
-- .
f""'"
f""'"
Memo ~ Alpine Cottages Affordable Hous...", Subdivision. PUD. Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special k,t..tew tor Parking, and AHI Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
The City's water distribution system presently consists of three terminal water mains serving this
neighborhood. The existing configuration does not provide adequate flow and pressure to maintain fIre
suppression capacity in the distribution system without extending and interconnecting the water mains to form
a looped system. The extension of a water distribution main in the common access driveway with a new fIre
hydrant is required to provide water service. Continuation of the water main through this property into the
Snyder property. will assist in making the necessary extensions to the water distribution system. Coordination
of the water main easement and the trail easement is an alternative that the applicant and the city staffwill need
to evaluate.
6. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: This proposed development will need to construct a
main line extension of the sanitary sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines to each individual
building. The District will not provide service to this development based upon the proposed configuration
shown in the schematic drawing.
7. Trash and Recycling Areas, Snow Storage and Mail Boxes: The site plan should include areas for.
trash and recycling containers and for on-site snow storage. The applicant should consider a common mailbox
area for the entire development to facilitate delivery and reduce congestion. (None of these are represented in
the plans.)
8. Utility & Service Easements: The proposed subdivision should include easements for utility
pedestals within the property boundaries and not in the public nor private rights-of-way where these cabinets
will obstruct the driveable width of the right-of-way. The proposed utility easement in the northeasterly corner
of Lot D may not be a serviceable location depending upon the types of utilities requiring an underground or a
surface fixture.
9. Riverside Irrigation Ditch: The Riverside Irrigation Ditch crosses the southwesterly comer of the
property, flowing from the culvert under Highway 82 toward Lot B, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption.
Although the previous property owners of the Alpine Lodge have pumped water from this ditch for landscape
irrigation for several years, we have not received documentation of a water right in the Riverside Ditch which
runs with this property. Unless this property owner can provide documentation verifying his water rights in this
irrigation ditch, we recommend that the property owner establish a raw water lease agreement with the City
Water Department for use a portion of the City's water allocation in this ditch.
The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide easement centered on the ditch flowline.
Unless some other documentation is presented to substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement
will be suitable for this ditch easement.
10. City Parks Department: There are a couple possibilities for extension and inter-connection of
the existing City trail system through this proposed development and the Parks Dept. wishes to discuss these
further with the applicant to coordinate trail access. This may coincide with easements needed for extension of
the water mains through the proposed development. The City will request dedication of pedestrian trails
through the proposed development once the locations and dimensions are determined.
DRCllA98.DOC
30E 7
.... .,
i-r- r"""I
Memo __Alpine Cottages Affordable Hau;.. d Subdivision, POD, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, SpeCial'i~_ .iew tor Parking, and AHl Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
11. Aspen Volunteer Fire Department: The entire development will need to be protected by fire
sprinklering and the applicant has proposed relocating the existing fire hydrant at the comer of Aene Road and
Highway 82 a few feet. The fIre access is acceptable at 16 ft width of pavement and an additional 2 ft clear
passage on each side of the access way (Unit C may !lQ1 be moved closer to the access driveway than already
represented).
12. Environmental Health: Due to the number of dwelling units proposed in the development and
the distance to the commercial area of the city, the proposed mitigation measures in sidewalks and paving of
the access driveway and proximity to public transit, fulfill the mitigation requirements for vehicular traffic.
Asbestos testing of the existing buildings and the standard fugitive dust control permit will be required, as
applicable, with the building permit application.
13. Access to Streets: The plans are not clear in the identification of the ownership and status of the
proposed Robinson Road which is identified as an easement although this access way is not part of any of the
lots. It either needs to be incorporated into the adjoining lots by extension of the lot lines or be identified as a
separate lot with common access conditions for all adjoining property owners. This access way, as proposed, is
too narrow to be dedicated to the public and should remain a private access way and common utility easement
as previously dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption. (providing of utilities may necessitate a wider
access way which would alter the site plans.) As shown, the surface drainage from this area will be retained
within the property.
Since the access way is presently narrower than a standard city alley, it would be more appropriate to name it
"Robinson Alley" to connote the sub-standard width and atypical construction (reverse crowned with drainage
catchbasins centered in the driveable surface width).
As a condition of approval, this development will provide common access to Lot B, Ferguson Subdivision
Exemption, similar to the access provided to the Robinson property through the access driveway. It is
appropriate to restore access for this adjoining lot which will facilitate the re-development of the property and
elimination of the existing curb cut onto Highway 82. The dedication of access for Lot B, Ferguson
Subdivision Exemption to Robinson Road will be irrevocable so as not to isolate this adjoining property. The
access driveway and utility easemerits of this property will also provide unrestricted utility easement to Lot B,
Ferguson Subdivision Exemption.
Aene Park is presently a gravel surfaced access way and cul-de-sac. As an alternative to developing this as an
urban street profile, consideration should be given to providing curb, gutter and full width asphalt paving
beginning at Highway 82 and extending to the up-hill side of Robinson Alley. The bulb of the cul-de-sac could
be left with gravel shoulders and drainage swales around the perimeter so as to provide an area for ,snow
storage without danger of crushing the curb while plowing snow from Aene Park and the cul-de-sac.
14. Sidewalks, Street Lights, Fire Hydrants & Utility Pedestals: The proposed 16 ft wide Right-of-
Way Reservation along the Highway 82 frontage creates separations of! ft. and 3 ft, for Unit A and Unit F,
respectively. The planting bed around Unit A encroaches approximately 1 ft into the Right-of-Way reservation
which compromises the use of this reservation for future right-of-way development. The location and .
orientation of these two dwelling units should be revised to increase the separation from the right-of-way
reservation, treating it as a proper right-of-way. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are required to be installed along the
two (2) street frontages at the time of construction.
DRCllA98.DOC
40F 7
...... ,.
,,...,.... ~
Memo -'Alpine Cottages Affordable Hou~...~ Subdivision, pun, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special'1\.", view for Parking, and AHl Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
An public access easement will be required for the sidewalk along the westerly side of Aene Road since this
will lie within the property boundaries. As the utility plans are, developed, locations of pedestals and above
, ground appurtenances should be included on the site plan in order to coordinate the improvements and dedicate
any necessary utility easements.
Relocation of the existing fire hydrant will require a right-of-way permit from CDOT and the City of Aspen.
Depending upon the where street lights will be located, installation of these improvements may also require a
right of way permit from CDOT and the City of Aspen.
15. Re-naming of Aene Road: The applicant will need to provide a petition signed by the adjacent
property owners requesting the change of street name from Aene Road to Camelot Court. Since this action
does not involve dedication of right-of-way, and so as not to complicate the dedication of the subdivisionIPUD
by having persons without ownership or official capacity signing on the plat, we believe this action should be
treated separately from the subdivision application although simultaneously. The subdivisionIPUD plat may
reflect the street name change if the name change has been finalized before the plat is recorded. The request
for street name change should also contain alternate names to provide an unique name not already in use and to
be phonetically distinct so as not to be confusing to dispatching of emergency services within Pitkin County.
The applicant will need to provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin County and copies of postal receipts
, verifYing the deliver of notice to all utility companies, all owners of property fronting on or served by Aene
Park, the Aspen Post Master, Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen.
16. Parking: The parking spaces located between Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft wide
(minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating these spaces from the access
driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should conform to city and ADA standards in size, number,
accessibility, slope.
17. Traffic and Street Signage: The developer will be responsible for coordinating additions and '
changes to the traffic and street signage in and around this proposed development in accordance with City and
CDOT standards. If Aene Road is renamed, the developer will purchase the new street name sign(s) from the
City Streets Dept. and install the sign(s) as required by the City Streets Dept.
18. Drainage Improvements: The application did not include a geotechnical investigation of the soils nor
a drainage report for the preliminary sizing of the drainage facilities. If the proposed drainage system will rely
upon injection or infiltration, rather than detention alone, the geotechnical report will be required to assure the
feasibility and sizing of the drainage facilities.
Robinson Road should be graded with a high point at the property line with Aene Road so as to contain the
surface drainage within the Robinson Road drainage system.
19. Survey Monuments and Subdivisiou I PUD Plat: The developer will need to tie this
subdivision into the City's survey control grid. The new range point(s)and box(es) for the subdivision will be
located in locations selected by the City Engineer and conform to City standards for survey monuments.
DRCIIA98.DOC
5 OF 7
-... ..
~. i""".
Memo. A.lpine Cottages Affordable Ho~. J 3ubdivision,. PUD, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special k .~w tor Parking, and AHI Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
The owner will be required to prepare and record a subdivision / POD plat according to state and city standards.
The property corners of the new lots will be surveyed and monumented before recording of the plat. New and
existing property monuments will be protected during construction and flagged for verification prior to
issuance of any C.O. Signature blocks will be included for the City Parks Director for acceptance of the trail
easements and the several utility providers including the representative of the owners or principle water right
holder in the Riverside Ditch.
20. Landscaping: The proposed landscaping plan indicates planting new trees in the 5 ft space along the
north side of Lot 2 in the area identified as the fire access, in the 5 ft utility easement on the south side of Lot 2,
in the 10 ft utility easement on the west side of Lot I, and either over or close to the locations of drywells "C",
"D", and "E". The fire access along the north side of Building No.5 may not be obstructed by trees nor
shrubbery, and trees should not be planted in utility easements nor over shallow structures like the drywells.
The landscaping plan will need to be revised to place the trees elsewhere.
21. Construction Impacts: The developer will need to provide plans in the construction plans
submitted for the building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic, hauling and delivery routes;
vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging areas; temporary drainage, erosion and sedimentation control
during construction, and provision of temporary utilities. The intent of the plans is to minimize the detrimental
impacts to the public rights-of-way and to adjacent property and neighbors.
22. Public Improvements and Landscaping Security: The property owner will need to post
financial securities, acceptable to the City Engineer, for the public improvements and landscaping in the public
right-of-way. The security will be in the amount of 100% of the value of the work as estimated by the City
Engineer.
23. Planned Unit Development: Topics specific to POD have been incorporated ,in other sections of
this memorandum.
24. Construction Impacts: The developer will be responsible to provide temporary utility and
drainage services to the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by disruption of utilities during
construction. An erosion and sediment control plan will be included in the plans provided for the building
permit.
25. CDOT Right-of-Way Permit: The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to
commencing work (relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the most stringent permit
requirements if the requirements of any permits differ. '
26. Condominiumization: For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling
unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general
common elements and limited common elements will be labeled, dimensioned and identified on the
condominium plat recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site. The condominium plat will
be recorded prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project. The abutting subdivisions and
lots will also be shown on the subdivision plat as required by Aspen Municipal Code.
DRCIIA98.DOC
6 OF 7
.... ",
r1', ,r-
Memo ~ Alpine Cottages Affordable Hous..J., :Subdivision, pun, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special k . .ew for Parking. and AHI Lot
Area Limitations Reviews
DRAFT
27. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement
districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an
assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the
subdivision plat.
28. As-Bnilts: Prior to e.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines,
building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and
any other improvements.
29. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design
of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights-of-way;
Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation
systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within
public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090).
DRC Meeting Attendees:
Applicant: David Miller, representative for applicant (Semrau Building)
Staff & Referral Agencies: John Krueger, Ross Soderstrum, Stephen Ellsperman, Ed VanWalraven,
Nancy MacKenzie, Phil Overeynder
DRCIIA98,DOC
70F 7
-- ",
~
~~H1rr"c...I'
,-,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Julie Ann Weecs, Community Development Dept,
FROM:
Cindy Christensen. Housing Office
OAT~
May 12, 1998
RE:
AJpine Cottaqes Affordable HoLu,ing ?!'Qjec:
P3tC31 10' No.
SUMMARY: Tim Semrau has sucmitte;:i an ap!llicallcn fer Corn::;,ClIllll and ~iJecI approval at
an ,~ilte Housing lene Cisi1ic: preject at me 3ite of 1':e Alpine Lc:d'ge and adi3l:artt me
p~. Tne <=rent proposal is fer a ,'1'liJ( of 'J'eEi marim.;nils. ?.eside.'1t Cc::.:pieC (RCJ ;,;nits
and cate9cry unIts as fcRews:
Unit \"vce ~nd Cat~orv
!.iIllti
Rae Ma~ \.;t$
Re!ident O=cied r'ClJr-aedrccm tcwnhcmes
Category 4 four-!:edroorn townhcrr.es
Category 4 otle-Cearccm tawnnomes
Catsgory 3 one-OeCrt:Cm tewnhcmes
4
4
.:
2
-2
TOTAL
14
The Resident OcclJ!lied unit ;lrcgram is CIJl'I'eMtty undergoing SCl'l.IIiny at this lime, and the f-lcusing
Beara has been disaJsains reccmmendaticl1$ lD a.,le..d 1l'1iS prcgIam. The RO units ~ rcr
this develcoment taka these dlsc",..,icns into acc=unt :0. some extent; The' occupanc:.ol
reqlJiremerrts adcnowleage :ine brd's Q1lC:erTl that large RC I.mil3 have ceen pul'dlased by
, small hDUSel'1ofds. The inc::melasset limits ackr1ew1edge a concsm that RO units have l:leen sold
Ie households with the means to afford ether housing cptlcns.
REeoMMg1")AllON: The Housing Soard met an this issue on May e, 1998. The Boam and
staff llnda that 1lis pl'CljeC meets many at the esIaI:lilehed gaail at the hcu8ing \:llClglam. in a
develcpment ~ high quality and 'Nith walt ;:t!l'fcnned by a d.. !/cp6r with a proven lIaClc reccn1.
'rne Beard rec:cmmencls approval of this ~jec;t'NiIh the fcllolW1g amdilkms:
. !he RO unitS have a 3% appredation cap;
. the developer sell itle RO uni1S to a minimum hOlJSehcld siZe of three persons;
. inc:cme and assat l'llStrict.lons sl'1Ql.jld :e 'aased on a maximum at an $SOO,OOO pries;
. the maximum price for the RoO units be set at $560,000;
. the RC units be sold to households '.l/ho haw wcri<ed in F'itl<in County a minimum of the
last four yeaJ3 c;nsecl.ltively; and
. that the categorl units I::e cpened to the public, with the excaption of the ftr:st right of
refusal for Friedl ?feifer's grandchildren mentioned in the ccntrac:t.
~.raI\A.I,1COl.oIl
~..-
t""'!"I
, i
A
1'I1e ~ 01 ~ "" Lay G/M PatJrare mete restlicllVe than lI1e PI~OS8d deed
restriclicn.. The Beard stated that they wculd not haVe a problem with usingtne Dec:Untion 01
c.cwmrms fcrr l.ay GJM Pri as 11& daac:J reslricllon with sane addillons to lI'le dcc:ument.
r:iECOllMelDATlON: The Hcusing BCliIrd recommends apptC1181 of tt1is sul:dlvision. wi1tl !he
ccndltlcn tnat ':tTe AspenIPltkin County Hcusing Authority te'ilews anc1 approves eiltler 1tle Mutltr
a.d Rutrit:iion.~ncy and Raale AQ'leemerlt for !..v;y Glen Suildlvitlion. or the
Oeclanltion aI ~ far l.azy Glen P:Irlc;::rior to ffnaI aQProvaL
'.~.aUL,._
2
.... ~
--"
~
Kathryn Koch, 04:52 ~~, 8/3/98 -
,-,
Alpine Cottages'
X-Sender: kathrynk@commons
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 16:52:40 -0600
To: juliew@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Kathryn Koch <kathrynk@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Alpine Cottages
JAW
At the meeting, Tim amended his application to be 1 category 4
four-bedroom units; 1 category 3 four-bedroom unit; 4 category 3
one-bedroom
units, no waiver of park dedication fee; 30 percent of the units will be in
the lottery.
KK
IPrinted for Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us>
1
f..r...
S~a~ C~auson, 11:38 Ak. 9/14/98
i""",
. Re:, Property Ti......e atA~pine C
Date: Man, 14 Sep 1998 11:38:09 -0600 (MDT)
X-Sender: stanc@comdev
To: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us>
From: Stan Clauson <stanc@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: Property Title at Alpine Cottages
Sounds ok.
Stan
At 11:20 AM 9/14/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Everyone--
>It was my understanding that the hiatus was to be quit claimed by the
city,
>and that in return Semrau was to provide a 10'
>this rear property line. However legally that
>you John, I remember discussing a quiet title
point,
>but it would have taken a long time to accomplish this, and the city would
>be getting certain rights for a trail anyway. As long as we are
reasonably
>comfortable that the city will get this trail easement reserved in some
>method, I think we could at least issue the foundation permit for the
other
>buildings, not these free-market lots.
>suggestions? JA.
>
>
>
>
>At 10:34 AM 9/14/98 -0600" Stan Clauson wrote:
>>FYI
>>
>>Stan
>>
>>>X-Sender: ross@comdev
>>>Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:39:32 -0600
>>>To: jOhnw@ci.aspen.co.us, nicka@ci.aspen.co.us
>>>From: Ross Soderstrom <ross@ci.aspen.co.us>
>>>Subject: Property Title at Alpine Cottages
>>>Cc: stanc@ci.aspen.co.us
>>>
>>>The Alpine Cottages survey showed two (2) hiatuses in the original
>>>application. Tim Semrau has said these are resolved (in his favor)
although
>>>he had not provided a current title policy to support this and/Vince
,
Higens
>>>told me this afternoon in a telephone conversation he cannot write a
title
>>>policy for the hiatus on the common property line with the Snyder
Property.
>>>(Vince believes a quiet title ,action resolved the hiatus on the common
wide trail easement along
is to be done, I'd leave to,
action with Tim at one
Does anyone object to these
IPrinted for Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us>
1
~,
<
L aba'~ Clauson, 11:38 Au19/14/98
. 'll
.
1",
, Re: Property Ti\...Le at Alpine C
line
>>>with the Woerndle Subdivision). The conditions of approval stated that
Mr
>>>Semrau resolve this issue before recording the subdivision/PUD plat.
>>>
>>>>From my limited research, I believe the hiatus between the Alpine
Cottages
>>>property and the Snyder property is a remainder of the East Circuit
Avenue
>>>R-Q-W and that the hiatus developed while the properties were under
county
>>>jurisdiction between 1898 to approx. 1960's. Since the properties on
each
>>>side of the hiatus have been annexed to the City, and the city is the
>>>successor to the county for annexed rights-of-ways (developed and
>>>undeveloped), it appears that the city holds title to the hiatus as
>>>unvacated right-of-way. (Vince agrees with this conclusion.)
>>>
>>>Question: Will the city convey the hiatus to Mr. Semrau, et aI, to
>>>include in the Alpine Cottages subdivision, or convey the hiatus to the
>>>Snyder property, or split it between the two neighboring properties,
or do
>>>nothing at this time? To clearly convey the hiatus to either
neighboring
>>>property, I believe either a Mayor's Deed or a Quit Claim Deed would
need to
>>>be issued by City Council. The area involved is approximately 590 sq
ft.
>>>however it would change the exterior boundary of the subdivision and the
>>>boundaries and areas of two of the four free market lots in the Alpine
>>>Cottages Subdivision.
>>>
>>>Mr. Semrau needs this question resolved before, the plat may be recorded
and
>>>he needs the plat before receiving a building permit, specifically a
>>>foundation permit.
>>>Ross S.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
(Printed for Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us>
2
,-,
l""
I W oods.Julie, W orces, 09:00 t ,it 9/22/98 , E. Circuit R-O- W
To; Woods.Julie, Worcester.John
From: Ross Soderstrom <ross@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: E. Circuit R-O-W
Cc; Adeh.Nick, Vos.Janice
Bcc:
X-Attachments; C:\DRCMEM98\DRCM2998.DOC;
Julie & John; .
the memo for the quit claim ofE. Circuit Avenue to Alpine Cottages SubdivisionIPUD is attached for your
review. Nick has gone to Denver for a meeting so I pass this to you to review and refine for city council packet.
Janice has copies of the map of the area, quit claim deed and legal description of the parcel for each of you. The
legal description appears correct although needs to be labeled as "Exhibit 1" to be attached to the quit claim
deed.
NB; The trail easement that Tim Semrau has granted connects Aene Park (private road ofWoemdle
Subdivision) to Snyder Property. He needs to continue the trail easement along the southeasterly side of Lot "D"
and dedicate a public sidewalk easement within his subdivision in order to connect the trail easement to a public
access. (also needs a public sidewalk easement along the hwy 82 frontage since the sidewalk is within the
subdivision, not the hwy 82 r-o-w.) I will explain and show him this when I finish reviewing the plat.
Questions? I will be paving W. Francis between 5th & 7th or on N 7th between Hallam & Smuggler.
IPrinted tor Ross Soderstrom <ross(@ci.aspen.co.us>
1
r~U";~~W OFFICES
r-,;
10, 3034435479
n
PACE 4/4
,,'
QUlTCLAlM DEED
THIS DEED, IlIade as of tb.i$ _ day of
~ G:mr<<, and
LARRY SAUTERMAN. whose legal addtess is SOOS Old c...ur Lake Road. Sl LouisPark, V.-.a 55416,
of the COUllty of Ea,le. and Srarc ofCoi<<ado, Gtanree,
. 1m. THE CII'Y OF ASPEN, COLORADO. a IIlllIIicipal
" Wl'lNESSE11I. Thal the Gnnlcr. for geed and valuable . . .o$;.b..n...... the receipt IlId ...~ of wbich is
herdlY acIa1owlodpd, bas RlIliscd, ~...,,~ sold, CCI1veyec1 aad QUITCLAIMED. &DcI by lbse I"-..r.. docs IllIease,
~ 8Dd QUITCLAlM unto lbe 'Grmtee. his hein, $lK ,~~.... and assigas. fiwvcr. an !be right, litle. iDtcml, claim ODd
demand wbich!be Grmtor!ll$ iD ODd to lbeIe81 proporty.togIllherwith an ~v......cnls, if my. situae.lyiDg &DcI beiIIf
iD!be COUllIy ofPilkiD, lII1d StaofColondo. cIescribed lI$ fblIows: .
See ExID'bit I IItecbI:d herelo ODd iDcoiJlvodllld hele:in by this n:!creAce.,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same. togelber with alIl111d singular1be ~,",._ _ privileges .".,hecl
Ihereunlo ~1""ii"Z or in anywise dl.t:Iamro appatailIiDg,llIId all !be ~ ri;br. title, iDtaest aad cJaim ~. of
tbeGtaalllr. ci!her iDlaw or equity. to the only proper use, bcefit &DcI beboofofthe Graalee. his beirs and assip forevao.
IN W1lNESS WHEllEOF. The Gnnlcr!ll$ Cl<eCllkd this cIced 011 the elate set forth above.
CIIY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
a.DllUlicipal corporadoD
By:
Jolm Belmett. Mayor
ATTEST:
Karhryn s. Koch. City Clerl:
APPROVED AS TO FORM;
10lm Worcesrer. Ci1;y AtIOIney
STale of Colorado ).
Colm1y of )
Thetll.~ was acknowledged before methis_day of .1998..". JOENBENNET lI$Mayorand
KAnlRYN S. KOCH. City Cleric of the City of Aspe1I. CoIclrado. a IIIIIlIicipal ~4Iioa.
My ~;~on expires:
WitIless my hand and official seal.
Nolary Public
Ql.IITCLAIM DEED
C JJ. . 11.<pI-'Ioo.P.O._370424~C080237
NatC' .. ,. ........ .....4.
(303)us.olne 1m AD"'~
__ _ ~-;;..:~ !!.u..!!!~ ~91.L _ SCIDWESER GOIlDON ~
i1 002
n
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970l945-5948
_0'
........,...
~M
-=-wI
--
ns West 6th, Suiln 200
Gtenwocd Springs, CO 1:1601
22 Sept. 1998
Job No. 9259
OEseR/PITON-HIATUS eC!'WEeN FrRGUSON ~XEMPTfON AND SN'(Df:R PROPERTY
A tract of kmd situate in the Riverside Additil;n to the City of Aspen, County
of Pitkin, State of ColQrodo, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West Qf
the 6th Principal Meridian being more particularly descn'bed as fallows:
Beginning at the most nQrtherly comer of Open Space Easement Lot S, F'ergt,lson
Exemption Plat as recorded June " 1981 in Plat Sook 11 at Page 59: thence clong
the northerly and easterly line of said Open Space Easement Lot J the fallowing
courses: 24.89 feet along the ore of a curve to the right. having 0 rodius of
293.57 feet, a central angle of 4'51 '25~ and subtending a chord bearing
S 24'21"03- f: 24.88 feet: thence 82.55 feet along the orc Qf (J curve to the
left, having 0 radius of 184Ji2 feet, 0 centrol ongle of 25'37'08: and'
subtending a chord bearing S 34'43'S5a E 81.86 feet along said line ond an
extension thereof to the southerly line of 0 tract of lond described in Book 760
at Page 655 of the records of the Clerk ond Recorder of Pitkin County. Coloroa,,:
thence N 30'47'00" W 107.33 feet along said southerly line: thence
S 41'01'18" W}.OO feet to the point of beginning, containing 583 square feet
more or less.
The nome and address 01 the person who created the above legql
descn'ption is Kenneth IT. WIlson, LS. 1571 SchmlJeser Gordon Meyer, Inc.,
118 West 6th Street, Suite 200, '(;f, h Colorado 81601.
Kenneth R.
,
"
.
,
,-,
1""\
i
MEMORANDUM
To:
Julie Woods, Deputy Community Development Director
Thru:
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From:
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
Date:
September 22, 1998
Re:
Vacation of a Remainder Parcel of East Circuit Avenue to Alpine Cottages
Physical Address:
East Circuit Avenue Located between Alpine Cottages Subdivision & Snyder Park
PUD, City of Aspen, CO
[Sec. 18, nos, R84W]
xxxx-xxx-xx-xxx
Legal Description:
ParcellD No.:
Summary:
The legal description and qnit claim deed (upon verification) describe the remainder parcel of the East
Circuit Right-of-Way to be quit claimed by the City of Aspen to the property owner(s) of the Alpine
Cottages SubdivisionIPUD in partial exchange for a trail easement and to clarifY the property boundary
along the northerly boundary line of this subdivision. The Alpine Cottages SubdivisionIPUD was presented
through the planning review and then approved by City Council with the condition that ownership of this
remainder parcel be resolved (to Alpine Cottages unless other ownership claims were verified) before filing
of the subdivision plat. The apparent OWller of this section of right-of-way is the City of Aspen.
Background:
A section of East Circuit Avenue (originally platted circa 1890's) located between the present day Alpine
Cottages Subdivision & Snyder Park PUD has remained as undeveloped right-of-way between these two
properties which have both undergone re-subdivision since the original platting of the Riverside Addition
(circa 1890' s). With the annexation of the Snyder Property into the City, the properties on both sides of this
right-of-way section are now within the City limits and the City has become the apparent successor to Pitkin
County with jurisdiction over this relatively small (approximately 590 SF) section ofland-Iocked right-of-
way. The developers of the Alpine Cottages SubdivisionIPUD identified this remainder right-of-way parcel
during their application and have requested being granted title in partial exchange for a trail easement
through their property to connectAene Park (cul-de-sac) to the park area in the Snyder Parcel. (The trail
easement has already been granted to the City.) Vacation of this remainder section of right-of-way also
clarifies the common property boundary between the subdivisions.
I OF I
DRCM2998.DOC
/\~.~.... '..,./ ' ~
, \~ ~V\~
~~\,}.A ~
y \ ~ .
If\ r:::)Y - _ i\ ryV"
0-^' ,Civ ~," \ JV
~~ t 4;
eye \y>>rp-
~\~
0\;v~~ ~
VL~/
,-,
.t""'t\
Ross Soderstrom,. 04:39 PM <)/11/98 ,Pro, ., Title at AI ,jne Cotta
)(~SeDder: ~~
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16;39:32 -0600
To:jolmw@ci,aspellM),us, nicka@ci.aspen.co.,us
From: Ross Soderstrom <ross@cLaspen.co.us>
Subject: Property-Title.at Alpine~es
Cc: stanC@ci.aspen.co.us .
The.A!piJ:le.<A~=ey.showed-two-+Z)-hiatuses.m.the.griginal.
application. Tim Semrau has said these are resolved (in his favor) although
hehad-llOt.pI'~=ent,titlepolicy-to.-support thiS-lllld-VinceHigens
told me this afternoon in a telephone conversation he cannot write a title
policy-for.the-hiatus.on.the,commotl.~IiJIe,with.the.SnydeT,Property.
(Vince believes a quiet title action resolved the hiatus on the conunonJine
with..the-~Subdivision). .' The.cooditions-of approval stated that Mr
Semrau resolve this issue before recording the subdivisionIPUD plat I
>Erom.mylimi.ted.,.research"l,belie:lle.the-hiatus.between..the-Alpine,Cottages
property and the Snyder property is a remainder of the East Circuit Avenue
R._O~W.atld-that.the.hiatus,developedwhi1e.theproperties-were.under county
jurisdiction between 1898 to approx. 1960's. Since the properties on each
side-oLthe. biat'1S hav.e.been.annexed-to.-the-City, and the city is ,he
successor to the county for annexed rights-of-ways (developed and
umleveloped), it-appears.that thecity,holds- title.to the-~ as
unvacated right-of-way. (Vince agrees with this conclusion.) ,
Question; WilLthecityconvey-thebiatus-to.Mr. Semrau, etal, '0
include in the Alpine Cottages subdivision, or convey the hiatus to the
Sity4etpropel'ly, orsplititbetween..the.two-neighboring properties, or do
nothing at this time? To clearly convey the hiatus to either neighboring:
property, rbeli~.e.eithera Mayor~s.Deed-()l:.a.-Quit Claim-need-would need to
be issued by City Council. The area involved is approximately 590 sqft.
however it.wouldchange the exteriol: b01mdary.-ofthesubdivisionand the
boundaries and areas of two of the four free market lots in the Alpine '
Cottages SlIbdivisi9n,
Mr. Semr.lUl-needsthis question resolved before.the,p1at.may.,berecorded and
he needs the plat b.efore receiving a building permit, specifically.a
foundation permit.
Ross S. '
IPrinted for Stan Clauson <stanc@d.aspen.co.us>
1 I
SEP-11-5e 16,43 FROM,LAW OFFICES
~.. ...
10, 3034435475
PACE 3/10
~
'/1
q '5Y' (PJI..J
@r~y
TBIS SUBDMSION AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
September, 1998, by and between THE OTY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal
corporation ('hereinafter referred to as. "City"), and LARRY SALITERMAN (hereinaftcr referred
to as "Owner").
,-,
SUBDMSION AGREEMENT
FOR
ALPINE COTTAGES SUBDMSION
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a
Fmal Plat of a tract of land situated within the City of Aspen, Colorado and more particularly
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a pan hereofby this reference (hereinaftcr referred
was the "F'mal PIai'), said property being hereafter designated as the "Alpine Cottages Subdivision";
and
WHEREAS, City has fully considered the Final Plat, the proposed development and
impro,,-ement of the lands therein, and the effects of the proposed development and improvement of
said lands on other adjoining or neighboring properties and property owners; and
WHEREAS, City has imposed certain conditions and requirements in connection with its
approval, execution and recordation of the Final Plat, such matters being necessary to protect,
promote and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, Owner is willing to acknowledge, accept, abide by and fi!ithfully perl'orm the
conditions and requirements imposed by City in approving the Final Plat; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 7-100S(C and D) of the Aspen Municipal Code,
City is entitled to assurance that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be f3ithfully performed by
Owner.
NOW, I.I:iJ!..KEFORE. for and in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein
contained, and the approval, execution and acceptanCe oithe Fmal Plat for recordation by the City,
it is mutua1ly agreed as follows:
A Zonine and RelZUlatorv Apufovals.
L Under and pursuant to Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 1998) adopted on July 27, 1998,
the Aspen City Council granted approval of rezoning to AR1-PUD, conceptual and tinal planned unit
development approval, subdivision approval and vested property rights approval for the creation of
four (4) free market-AH associated single-family residential lots and one affordable housing lot to
contain ten (10) deed restricted affordable housing units in the Alpine Cottages Subdivision.
sub-ogUlp 9/1l19S
_~~-&&-~o 1~:4~ FROM:LAW OFFICES
10,3034435479
PAGE 4/10
~
'-'.
2. On May 19, 1998, the City of Aspen PI'\Pn1ng and Zoning Commission granted
approval of the Owner's application fur waiver of the "Residential ~ Standards" and Special
Review approval establishing lot ~ as shown on the FmaI Plat and a parking requirement 0(2
spaces (exclusive of garages).
3. The Alpine Cottages Subdivision is zoned AHI-PUD.
4. The CIty Council granted an exemption ftom the growth ~ c.Jwpetition and
scoring ~ fur affordable housing and free market - AH associated and an approval of the
method by which aft'ordable housing is to be provided.
B. AfTnrrl"h~e Housing
L The ten (10) deed restricted units to be developed on Lot 1 and the four (4) free-
market - AH associated units to be developed on Lots A., B, C and D, are exempted from Growth
MaIlagemeat and this is the approved method of providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages
subdivision as specified below:
Lot 1:
1 four-bedroom Category 4 unit
1 four-bedroom Category 3 unit
4 one-bedroom Category 3 units
4 four-bedroom RO units
T ota! Units: 10
Total Bedrooms: 28
Lots A, B, C and D (ftee-marlcet)
4 tbree-bedroom units
Total Units: 4
Total Bedrooms: 12
Project Total Units: 14
Project Total Bedrooms: 40
Total Percentage of Category Units '" 10/14'" 71 %
Total Percentage of Category Bedrooms" 28/40 '" 70%
2. The Owner agrees to the following restrictions on the affordable housing units:
(a) The RO units will have a 3% annua1 appreciation cap.
(b) The Owner will sell each RO unit to a minimum household size of three
persons.
sui>4gt.alp 9111198 2
~G~-ll-aa 16,44 FROM,LAW OFFICES
.
^--....
10,3034435479
PAGE 5/10
r'"
r"',
(c) Income and asset restrictions fur the RO units will be based on a maximum of
an $800,000 price; .
(d) The maximum price for the RO units will be $550,000.
(e) The RO units will be sold to households who have worked in PItkin County
fur a minim1lm of the last fuur years consecutively.
(f) Two (2) of the Category units will be made available to qualified purchasers
by lottery through APCHA; qualified purchasers for eight (8) of the Category units will be
selected by the applicant.
3. Upon substantial completion of the ten (10) Category Units on Lot I, Owner shall
condominiumize Lot 1 and the units thereon in accordance with the provisions of the Colorado
CommonInterestOwnersbIp Act (C.RS. ~38-33.3-101, et seq.) and the applicable provisions of the
Aspen MUIJicipal Code then in effect, to allow for the separate conveyance of the individual units to
purchasers of the units and to provide for the management and operation of the common interest
community on Lot 1 by a homeowner's association.
4. If Owner elects to vacate the Final Plat in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Aspen Municipal Code, this Subdivision Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no
further foJce or effect upon such vacation, and the affordable housing requirements contained in this
Section B sball tenninate as well.
C. Subdivision Improvements.
1. Prior to the issuance of a building petmit for the construction of units on the Lots in
the Alpine Cottages Subdivision, Owner sha1I submit a Utility Plan to the City of Aspen Water
Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ("ACSDj and the CIty Engineer for their
review and approval. In coIliunction with the construction of the Units in the Alpine Cottages
Subdivision, Owner sbal1 and hereby agrees to accomplish the following subdivision improvements:
(a) Construction of the private access driveway known as Robinson Drive from
Aene Pm: to Lot 2, Ferguson Exemption Plat. as shown on the Final Plat and in accordance
mth the Site Plan and Utility Plan.
(b) Installation of a sidewalk along Highway 82 abutting on the Alpine Cottages
Subdivision, in accordance v.ith the Site Plan and Utility Plan.
(c) Installation of water, sewer, gas, electrical, and telephone utility lines in
accordance v.ith the Utility Plan.
-""'-"S' 'lJ> 9/11/98
3
~Ar-,'-9a 16,44 PROM,LAW OFFICES
10,3034435479
PAGE 6/1l!l
i[
,-.,
2. Within 90 days following completion of the subdivision improvementS ~
above, Owner shl!Il furnish to the City Engineering Department a statement by a registered
professional. land surveyor that all required survey and property monuments remain in place or have
been re-established as required by Colorado law.
D. Additional Req,uirem-~ and Restrictions.
1. Prior to the issuance of a building pennit fur the constnIction of units ou the Lots In
the Alpine Cottages Subdivision, Owner agrees to accomplish the following:
(it) Owner shall obtain approval as may be applicable, of a 1ine extension request,
a ooD.edion system agreement, and if~iuy, a shared service agreement. from the ACSD.
(b) Owner shaD submit GIS data including property lines.. building footprints,
easements and encroachments.
(C) The Owner sba1l pay the required Park Dedicuion Fees to the City, calculated
in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 24-5.603 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
as said provision may be amended from time to time.
2. Owner sbal1 pay fees in lieu of the schoollaad dedication. Payment shall be made on
a proportiona1 basis prior to the issuance of a building permit fur construction of units on any of the
lots.
3. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transfonners installed in the Alpine
Cottages Subdivision shall be located on property within the subdivision and not in any public rights-
of-way. Ea!l/'D"'.l1ts sba1l be provided for any pedestals installed. Meter locations will be accessible
for reading and not be obstructed.
4. Owner sbal1 oonstruCl: at Owner's expense a main line extension of the sanitary sewer
system and provide individual service lines to each individual building.
5. Robinson Drive, as showu on the Final Plat, shall not be dedicated to the public and
shall remain a private access driveway and utility easement In accordance with the Easement
~ recorded August 7, 1998 as reception no. 420385 in the Pitkin County real estate records.
6. Each dwe1ling unit OOnstnlCted in the Alpine Cottages Subdivision will have separate
utility services, metering, Isolation valves and switches.
7. All work performed in a public right ofway shall require a pennit from the City Street
Department Prior to iSSll"7'Ce of a certificate of occupancy for a unit. Owner sha11 repair any public
right-of-way damaged during constrUCtion of the unit.
sulM&t.alv 9111198 .
4
~
10,3034435479
,~
PAGE 7/10
SEP-Il-SS 16,45 FROM,LAW OFFICES
S. Owner agrees for himself and for all future owners of units and/or lots in Alpine
Cottages Subdivision to join my future improvement districts formed for pwpose of constructing
public improv~ which benefit the property under an assessment fonnula.
9. All exterior lighting within Alpine Cottages Subdivision sha1l be downcast and sbaU
not be used to ca1I attention to architectural features.
10. Owner agrees that all material representations and commitmeats made by Owner
pumIllIIt to the rezoning, planned unit development. subdivision, Growth Management Exemption,
alibrdabIe housing method and vested rights approvals granted to Owner, and during publie 11I-"ng$
with the Aspen PIAnnn,g and Zoning Commission the Growth ~ Coimnission and the City
Council. are incOl.~&.u.ed herein as iffullyset furthherein and sha1l be eomplied with unless modified
by the provisiOIlS hereof.
F. Non-Compliance and Reqpest for Amendments
or Extensions by OwneI"
In the event that the City Council determines that the Owner is not acting in substantial
compliance with the terms of this Subdivision Agieement. the City Council shall notify the Owner in
writing specitYing the alleged non-compliance and asking that the Owner remedy the alleged non-
COIIIpliance within such reasonable time as the City Council may determine, but not less than 30 days.
lfCity Counci1 determines that Owner has not complied within such time, the City Council may issue
and serve upon the Owner a written order specifYing the alleged non-eompliance and requiring the
Owner to remedy the same within thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such
order, the Owner may file with the City Council either a notice advising the City Council that It is in
compliance or a written petition requesting a hearing to determine anyone or both of the foUowing
matters.:
(a) Whether the alleged non-eompliance exists or did exist. or
(b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this Subdivision
Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non-eompliance wbich is determined
to exist.
Upon the receipt of such petition, the City Council shall promptly schedule a hearing to
coIlSider the matters set forth in the cease and desist order and in the petition. The hearing sbal1 be
convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the City Council for
other hearings. If the City Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a non-
compliance exists which has not been ~ it may issue such orders as may be appropriate;
provided, however, no order terminAtitlg any approval previously granted by the City Council sbaU
be issued without a finding of the City Council that substantial evidence warrants such action and
affording the Owner a reasonable time to remedy such I1OI1-compliance. A final determination of non-
compliance which has not been remedied or for which no variance has been granted may, at the
~p 9111/!/8
5
b~P-II-9B 16,45 FROM,LAW OFFICES
10,3034435479
PAGE 6/10
f'i.
.-'
option of the City Council. and upon written notice to the Owner, tenuinate my of such approvals
which are reasonably related to the requirement(s) with which Owner has failed to comply.
Alte.matively, the City Council may grant such variances, extensions of time or amendments to this
Subdivision qeement as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances.
In addition to the furegoing, the Owner or its successors or assigns may, on its own initiative,
petition the City Council for a varianc<; and amendment to this Subdivision Agreement or an
extension of one or more of the lime periods required for pcrfonnance hereunder. The City Council
may grant such variances. ameadments to this Subdivision A8r~ or extensions of time as It may
deem appropriate under the Grcumstance5. The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the
City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to ~~tI the time periods for performance if Owner
demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s) which neees&tatc
said extension(s) are beyond the control of the Owner, despite good faith efforts on its part to
perform in a timely mannet'.
G. General Provisions.
1. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Owner and City
and their respective successors and assigns
2. This Subdivision Ageement shall be subject to and consttUed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado.
3. If any of the provisions of this Subdivision Agreement or any paragraph, sentence,
clause, phrase, word or section or the application thereofin my circumstance is invalidated, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Subdivision Agreement, and the
application of any such provision, paragrapb, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section in any other
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
4. This Subdivision Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties
hereto with mpect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or amended from
time to time oo1y by written instruments executed by all parties hereto.
5. Numerical and title heaOings contained in this Subdivision Agreement are for
convemence only, and shall not be deemed detemlinative of the substance contained herein. Ar. used
herein, where the context requires, the use oftbe 9"gJ.lv shall include the plural and the use of any
gender shall include all genders.
6. Upon execution of this Subdivision Agreement by all parties hereto, City agrees to
approve and execute the FmaI Plat for Alpine Cottages Subdivision, and to accept the same fur
recordation in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of .
the recordation fee by Owner.
sub-ogtoJp 911 1/98
6
~~r-~I-~e 16.46 FROM.LAW OFFICES
10,3034435479
PAGE 9/10
~
,-.,
7. Notices to be given to the parties to this Subdivision Agreement sbaIl be considered
to be gM:n ifhand delivered or if deposited in the United States Mail to the parties by registered or .
certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or such other addresses as may be substituted upon
written notice by the parties or their SUcx:essors or assigns:
City: CITY OF ASPEN
CIty Manager
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen. CO 81611
Owner: Lany Salitcrman
SOOS Old Cedar Lake Road
St. Louis Park. MN 55416
with copy to: Tunothy Semrau
Semrau Building and Design
208Yi E. Main Street
Aspen. CO 81611
8. The terms, conditions, provisions and obligations herein contained sha1l be deemed
covenants that nm with and bw'den the real property more particularly descnOed on attached Exhibit
A and any and an owners thereof; their SUIX:eSSOtS, grantees and asci~ and fi.u:ther sbaI1 inure to the
beIle6t of and be specifically enforceable by or against the parties hereto, their successors, gl:aIItees
or 11<"'81'''
IN WIl'NESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day
and year first above written.
CITY:
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal
corponl1iOD
By:
John Bennett, Mayor
Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcester, City Attorney
~91l1m
7
-..- . .-~Q olD' "16 FROM; LAW OFF ICES
10,3034435475
PAGE 10/10
~
'r"',
OWNER:
Larry Sa1iterman
STAlE OF COLORADO )
) $S.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of .
1998, by JohnBe:mctt as Mayor and Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk oftbe City of Aspen, ColoJado,
a municipal corporation.
Witness D1Y hand and official seal
My colIlIllission expires:
(SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC
STAlE OF COLORADO )
) $S.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1998, byLany Saliterman.
WItness my band and official seal.
My commission expires:
(SEAL)
NOTARY PUBLIC
StJb.agtalp 9/11198
8
.""'1'
,,,,",,,
TO: Case File A028-98 Alpine Cottages
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
John Worcester, City Attorney
DATE:
September 10, 1998
rpY
FROM:
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Correction to Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998
As per our discussion yesterday, please let this memo serve as clarification regarding the
access easement to "Lot B" Ferguson Exemption referenced in condition no. 4 in the
above reference ordinance. It was agreed that the condition should have read "Lot 2"
Ferguson Exemption, and that it was a clerical error and misunderstanding on the part of
planning staff. The ordinance should read "All legal instruments associated with the
access easement to Lot 2, Ferguson Exemption. . ."
If you have any questions regarding this access easement, please let me know.
cc: Tim Semrau
g:/pblll1inglaspenlCllse$lfolowup/alpine.doc
. .
- 3
JT70N
ID
~VED
iiii....o
->u
--I
=....~
-VI...
- Z
-III;::)
=....0
=~u
_ClZ
-...
==...""
-!!it-
~a:~
="'051
_;::)051
-III'
_ 61
=0:
-lSIZ
-..
-"051
-"051
-.. .
- 61
=mCl
!!!!!!~.CSl
=......&
_10 .
_NIO
-......
-..
iiiisa::
-"'0>
=..
-0>'"
-100
!!!!! N
_.. Gl
I)LE
~
,
'"
A\0he.> Cdlrt'tf:> Wb:lUl~
Certification of ~dicatian and Ownership: 1"""'. ~1~ ~~~i\:j\ l- A
Know all men by these presents that the undersigned being the sole
owner, in fee simple, free and clear, except as noted below, of certain lands in
Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows:
A tract of land situate in the Riverside Addition to the City of Aspen, County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of
the 8th Principal Meridian being more particularly described as fo/lows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption Plat as recorded
June " 1981 in Plat Book 11 at Page 59; thence N 41'01'18" E 142.97 feet
to the south line of a tract of land described in Book 780 at Page 665 of the
records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado; thence
S 30'47'00' E 112.15 feet along the boundary described in said Book 760 at
Page 665; thence N 75'47'00' E 13.14 feet along the boundary described in
Book 760 at Page 665; thence S 86'40'14" W 10.30 feet to the west line of the
Woerndle Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; thence
S 02'00'00" E 134.05 feet along the west line of said Waerndle Subdivision
to the northerly rigM-of-way line of Aene Park; thence S 52"02'00" W 155.84
feet along said right-of-way line to the north right-of-way line of Colorado
State Highway No. 82; thence along said right-of-way line the following courses:
N 50'37'00" W 58.37 feet; thence 81.88 feet along the arc of a curve to the
left, having a radius of 1457.50 feet, a central angle of 3'13'08: and .
subtendi,!g f chord bearing N. !?:z.,:7~:3'('.W. (jtfJ7 feet; thence
N 45'3830 E 23.27 feet alOMlJthe J;ig/lt.iJft.lbVi, line of Chipeta Avenue to the
southeast carner of Lot B, Fir~bsl:mi'Stltidiv!sidn I 'i!<ception and P. U.D. Amendment
recorded in Plat Book 18 q~ t'iQSh ~f!;' :tf!enc,lfi 1t"l"f~'!f8'30' E 100.08 feet along
the east line of said Lot a:\f;kea7J:eJ7V',!ij'3548t:5Alf..90 feet along the east
line of said Lot B to the., SP.Ui...f>/i11f p. (,s.pid .Lf..t..,. ;., ,/if. r'fl..... .,usan Exemption Plat;
thence 19.08 feet along 'the ',O[q p'( q .ic.~rv~ V<?::t~ tf~t having a radius of
309.94 feet, a central angle of f)1 40, and subtending a chord bearing
N 35'38'34" W 19.08 feet along said south line; thence 26.22 feet along the
arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 346.00 feet, a central angle of .
4'20'29: and subtending a chord bearing N 36'02'57" W 26.21 feet along
said south line to the point of beginning, containing 40849 sq.ft., or Q.933
acres more or less.
Together with a non-exclusive easement and right of way far ingress and egress
and far utilities pursuant to Easement Agreement recorded September 78, 1974 in
Book 291 at Page 354 over and across the private road shown hereon as Aene Park
as such road is shown on the final plat of the Woemdle Subdivision f!'led
September 18, 1974 in Plat Book 4 at Page 486.
Has by these presents laid aut, platted, and subdivided the same into lots as
shown on this plat containing a total of one (1) sheet, under the 'iame and style
of Alpine Cottages and does hereby dedicate to the City of Aspen, Colorado, the
public trail and sidewalk easements, as shown hereon, does hereby dedicate to
the public use the ub'lity easements shown hereon for their intended use, and
does hereby dedicate a non-exclusive easement far ingress or egress for police,
fire protection, ambulance and other similar emergency agencies or persons, now
or hereafter serving Alpine Cottages subdivision to enter upon all private
access easements, emergency access easements, and driveways in the Alpine
Cottages subdivision and on any property in the subdivision in the lawful
performance of their duties. The Owner executing the Certification of Dedication
and Ownership shown hereon is the owner thereof in fee simple, free and clear of
all liens and encumbrances, except and subject to the fallowing:
a. Mineral reservation and right of way for ditches or canals
constructed by authority of the United States, as reserved in Book
175 at Page 246,
Executed
b. Right. of way for ditch as set forth in Book 171 at Page 315.
c. Deeds of Trust for the use of Pitkin County Bank &- Trust Co.
J~cr at ReCr\ M 40 56 and Reception No. 408659.
this day of ~ -
I"t'.
1"'.
Case File A028-98 Alpine Cottages
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
John Worcester, City Attorney
(' iJ
/ "v
TO:
1("
it':
'" \.
DATE:
September 10, 1998
~
FROM:
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Correction to Ordinance No, 18, Series of 1998
As per our discussion yesterday, please let this memo serve as clarification regardiilg the
access easement to "Lot B" Ferguson Exemption referenced in condition no. 4 in the
above reference ordinance. It was agreed that the condition should have read "Lot 2"
Ferguson Exemption, and that it was a clerical error and misunderstanding on the part of
planning staff The ordinance should read "All legal instruments associated with the
access easement to Lot 2, Ferguson Exemption. . ."
If you have any questions regarding this access easement, please let me know.
cc: Tim Semrau
g:!jl~~~a1piMJk)c
f ~ ..-'"
.~.
,
r'\
'~g
RECEWEt)
~1=P ?:. s \qqr,
p,Sr>EN 6~~~~?MENi
COMMUNI1"\' - .
.
AsPEN' PITKIN
OffiCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
September 28, 1998
Tim Semrau
303 Vz E. Main St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Subdivision and PUD Agreement for Alpine Cottages Subdivision
Dear Tim:
I have completed my review of the proposed PUDand Subdivision Agreement with the
Community Development Department and we have a few changes to request:
. 1. Section A.2. It should include the words "per unit" to make clear that 2 spaces are
required for each unit.
2. Section B.t. Itmakes reference to Lots A,B,C and D. Has thig.changed from Lots 1,2,
3, and 4? It should be the same as shown on the Final Plat. .
3. Section B.4: I'm not sure what the intent of this language. Once the approvals are
granted and the Final Plat is recorded, the developer may not "vacate" the Plat. An
amendment to th~ Subdivision and PUD would be required.
Section Dneeds to include the following conditions of approval which are set forth in the
Ordinance: .
. A Fugitive dust control plan.
B: Drainage plan:.
e. Fireplace permits.
D. Staging plans.
E. Temporary drainage plans.
/
In addition, I would like to remind you that the Final Plat should include a site plan for
trash and recycling and all required easements. '
130 Smr'" GAL'NA STREET . AsPEN, CoLORADo &1611.1975 . PHON' 970.920.5055 . FAX~70.920.5119
Printed (In Recyded Paper
..
,...."
!
r-.
J....~
Please make these changes and we would be happy to again review the proposed
agreement.
Sincerely,
4tlF1wt:&.
John P. Worcester
City Attorney'
cc: Community Development Department ~.
JPW-09/28/98.G:\jobnlword\letle<slsemrau.doc
,
~
and/UO!S!^!pqnS sa6e>>0:) au!drv
'"
,
'"
~
.0.....
ro~
~
1:~tTl
"':t.,.
=
:.r;of~1: :;
I ~ I :mn
o
...
o
...
NO/SIll/GenS
,J70NllilOM ilNI7 lSilM
~_...._-~----
- NOlLdWi/X3 NOSn911.iM ON~
;JOBnS .il70NllilOM NililMEB Sflll1H
NOlLdWilJG NOsn911i1d ON~
S99 39~d 1~ 09L )/OOB NEMEB Sflll1H
aO!UQ 6u!snoH
and >tJed Jap~us
N9tISt' ~"J
~,
t"""..
: ~
)
i
<
j ),
1 .\
I'.
~:-
,:..
I"
I
I
6106 S1 dt:' :m.sY1d
~ 0Nt'1MDII0NIJQi
7MI.Jr.JIJIt/.
JIO;QJ, NIX 0Nf'IQ:/
SLCZ S7 t:h':) :JJJ.SY1d
M07U,( .(}NY I/J1B3JI mmaJ
DU""''''''. 0J!SYI<I7j!
Me"" OM'..... """'"
~Lt'l S1 t:h':) 1'tIW1IffI
OM' ..... tJMI(J,I
'\.
_D'e.
0> 'Z. ."
~ ".
'\ \
'&...
'l1-
:;,ras ;;""1:- lNiI/filS>3 SS3:X .
Y'OS ...LI- .99 39~d .Lt
09L )/OOB ON~ .OBns 370N1I30A( ON'
NOlLd/f3JG Nosn911.iM N33MEB SfllYl.
Y'OS i:06Bt: -NOlLd/f3JG NOSn9113.d OM' 39007 3NId7
S>'3t
..
paJeoe^ aq OJ eaJ'If