HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960305AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1996, 4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
I. Metro Residential GMQS Scoring
A. Heatherbed Lodge Subdivision, Ellen Sassano
B. Murray Subdivision, Francis Krizmanich
II. ADJOURN
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
(immediately following Growth Mgmt.)
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. 204 E. Durant PUD / Subdivision Amendment, Suzanne Wolff
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Bleeker Victorians PUD / Rezoning, Dave Michaelson
B. 918 E. Cooper Conditional Use for ADU (tabled to 3/19), Amy Amidon
V. WORK SESSION
A. ADU Survey, George Krawzoff / Dave Tolen
VI. ADJOURN
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Growth Management Commission
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
RE: Heatherbed Lodge Property Conceptual Subdivision , Metro Area
Residential GMQS and 1041 Hazard Review
DATE: March 5, 1996
REQUEST: The applicant requests the following approvals:
1. Subdivision Conceptual Submission to accommodate the subdivision of a 4.1 acre
parcel into 2 lots containing 2.25 and 1.85 acres respectively;
2. Metro Area Residential Growth Management Competition for one residential
allotment;
3. Special Review and GMQS Exemption for one fully deed -restricted category
affordable housing unit
4. 1041 Hazard Review for floodplain, wildfire and steep slopes.
APPLICANT: Connie Boyd; Heatherbed Lodge, Inc.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis; Curtis & Associates
LOCATION: 1679 Maroon Creek Road
ZONING: AR-2 (Accommodations/Recreation) - Zoning requires a minimum of 2 acres
for hotel/motel/lodge use and 1 acre per single family dwelling unit.
BACKGROUND:
Prior Land Use Approvals for the Property
• April, 1990 - Rezoning of the property to AR-2 and Special Review Use approval of
the Heatherbed Lodge and an expansion of the Lodge not to exceed 3,000 square feet
(expansion has not occurred to date); BOCC Resolution No. 90-170
• February,1992 - Approval of a 1,500 square foot Employee Dwelling Unit accessory
to the lodge for the owner/manager or employees of the lodge; The unit was voluntary
on Ms. Boyd's part and was not required as mitigation for development. (The
applicant proposes to fully deed restrict this unit to meet affordable housing
mitigation requirements of subdivision). P&Z Resolution No. 92-05
• April, 1993 - Approval of a small barn on the lower bench area of the property (not
yet built); Resolution No. 91-123
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Aspen Fire Protection District - Comments are attached as Exhibit A. The Fire
Marshal notes generally that all applicable codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire
District must be met, and specifically that the residence and affordable housing unit
must incorporate interior sprinkler systems.
2. State Division of Water Resources - Comments are attached as Exhibit B. The State's
comments regarding water provision are summarized under the heading of "Provision of
Water" on page 4 of this memorandum.
3. Environmental Health Department - Comments are attached as Exhibit C. Nancy
McKenzie recommends that the applicant provide the following information prior to
issuance of a building permit:
• Final as -built drawings of the engineer designed sewage disposal system installed for
the employee dwelling unit on -site;
• A letter from the engineer stating that the system was installed according to the
engineer's design
• A sewage disposal permit to expand the existing system to accommodate a second
residence;
• A detailed drainage plan; and
• A fireplace/woodstove permit.
4. Zoning - Comments are attached as Exhibit D. Joanna Schaffner forwards the
following comments:
• Existing structures and the proposed building envelope lie within both the 75' front
yard setback and the 100' Maroon Creek Road setback. The center lot line between
Lots 1 and 2 should be realigned to avoid creation of an encroachment on the side
yard setback by an existing shed.
• The lot area for both lots should be verified by a certified surveyor and indicated on
the final plat.
• If the Maroon Creek right-of-way encroaches on the property, the right-of-way area
should also be calculated and identified on the plat.
• The Board may wish to consider a height limitation for the residence, as if it is built to
the allowable height of 33 feet to the ridge of the roof, visual impacts may be an issue
from the Maroon Creek Road viewplane.
• Required open space and parking requirements are met.
• All development with the exception of the access drive and utilities must be contained
within the approved building envelope (including septic systems and landscaping).
5. State Forest Service - Comments are attached as Exhibit E. Vince Urbina states that
standard defensible space measures will accommodate the wildfire hazard on this parcel.
6. Aspen School District - Comments are attached as Exhibit F. Joe Tarbet
recommends that a school impact fee in -lieu of land dedication be paid at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the new residence, and that the fee amount be based on
the School District Land Dedication Standards in effect at the time of issuance of the _
pernut.
7. Housing Office -Comments are attached as Exhibit G. The Housing Office finds the
proposed Housing mitigation to be acceptable, based on representations made by the
applicant that the free-market residence will contain no more than four bedrooms.
8. Castle/Maroon Caucus - Comments are attached as Exhibit H. The Steering
Committee of the Caucus believes that proposed improvements to the Heatherbed
property will be an asset to the Heatherbed area and Maroon Creek Road. However, they
note that the present practice of guest and employee parking along the shoulder of
Maroon Creek Road is not acceptable.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Subdivision Conceptual Submission
Conceptual submission issues pertinent to this application are reviewed in the following
paragraphs.
Scenic Oualitv - As the developable portion of Lot 2 is located on a bench approximately
45 feet below the Maroon Creek Road, proposed development should have a limited
visual impact on the Road. While comments from Zoning suggest that a house height
limitation may be appropriate on this site, Staff believes that the elevation difference
between the lower bench and Maroon Creek Road, and existing vegetation should be
ample to limit visual impact to the extent necessary.
Drainage - The applicant proposes to submit a detailed drainage plan for the residence as
part of the building permit application. The applicant's engineer recommends that
drywells utilizing shallow chamber systems be used to maintain historic runoff conditions
while avoiding conflicts with potentially shallow groundwater in the area adjacent to
Maroon Creek.
Previous land use approvals have required the applicant to clean up the historically used
corral area to prevent direct run-off into Maroon Creek. As the corral area is being
slightly modified to accommodate the building envelope, Staff recommends that a
drainage plan identifying drainage improvements for the corral area be submitted at
detailed submission.
Erosion - To address the potential for erosion on Lot 2 Staff recommends that:
• an erosion control plan be submitted for approval by the County Engineer at building
permit application and implemented during any construction or earthmoving activities
to limit sedimentation impacts to Maroon Creek; and that
• all areas disturbed by construction be revegetated within one growing season of
construction.
Utilities - The applicant proposes to extend electric, gas, phone and cable TV
underground to the new residence. Staff recommends that the line extensions be buried
within the driveway and that utility easements be identified on the final plat.
Provision of Water - The existing lodge is served by a connection to the water mains
within the Highlands Water and Sanitation district by a service line of approximately 350
feet. To connect the proposed residence to the existing main would require an additional
500 foot extension of the service line. Consequently, the applicant proposes to use an
existing on -site well to provide water to the new residence. In his referral comments, the
assistant State Engineer indicates that the existing well permit for the employee dwelling
unit on the property will not accommodate a second residence. The applicant must obtain
a water court approved augmentation plan and a new well permit to serve a second unit
on site, or connect to the City of Aspen Municipal water system. Staff recommends that
the applicant either provide evidence of a water -court approved augmentation plan or a
water service agreement at Detailed Submission. Staff also recommends that the existing
water line easement(s) be depicted on the final plat.
A + 2000 gallon water storage cistern will be provided on -site to accommodate interior
fire suppression sprinklers which will be installed in both the proposed residence and the
employee dwelling unit.
Sewage Treatment - The applicant proposes to service both the residence and the
affordable housing unit with a single engineered septic system. An engineered system
was approved for the employee dwelling unit on the lower bench by the Environmental
Health Department, though it has yet to be installed. The Environmental Health
Department indicates that the approved system will have to be enlarged to accommodate
the second residence. The applicant's engineer indicates that an enlarged engineered
system is feasible on -site.
Due to the proximity of the proposed development to Maroon Creek, this site should
ideally be connected to the sanitation district lines. However, connection to the water and
sanitation district is not mandated for projects over 400 feet from the main. As the lodge
is not connected to the sewer mains, the development site is approximately 1,045 feet
from the line and not required to connect.
Staff recommends that a note be added to the plat stipulating that the septic system must
be included within the building envelope. Staff also recommends that the applicant
identify the location of the existing sewage disposal system serving the existing lodge on
the final plat.
4
Roads - No new roads are proposed to serve the residential development. The existing
driveway off of Maroon Creek Road will be improved with a gravel overlay and a guard
rail. While the existing driveway exceeds the County standard for grade (12%), bringing
it into compliance would require significant damage to mature vegetation and steep
grades on the adjacent hillside. The road exceeds County standards for width, and will
accommodate emergency vehicles, though exiting the property may be difficult due to
grades. The County engineer concurs with the applicant's engineer's recommendation for
improvements to the driveway.
The applicant's engineer provided a traffic impact analysis which indicates that the
proposed development will result in a minimal impact to the Maroon Creek Road. Prior
to the meeting, Staff will consult with the County Engineer to determine whether payment
of a pro rata share for improvements to the Road is recommended.
Parking - In light of the comments made by the Caucus regarding parking on the
shoulder of Maroon Creek Road, Staff recommends that the applicant provide a parking
plan at Detailed Submission. While there appears to be an adequate area for parking on
both lots, a plan delineating spaces will help to determine whether there is an additional
need for parking.
Lighting - Staff recommends that the applicant comply with County Lighting standards
established in the Land Use Code at the time of building permit issuance.
Affordable Housing - The applicant proposes to convert an existing 1,150 square foot 2-
bedroom employee dwelling unit into a fully deed -restricted Category #3 on -site
affordable housing unit. The unit will be enlarged to comply with the 1,400 square foot
minimum house size requirement established for Category #3 units in the 1995 Housing
Guidelines. The unit was approved by the County in 1992 as a voluntary employee unit
and was not required to off -set any development mitigation. It may therefore be fully
deed restricted and used to fulfill required GMQS employee mitigation obligations. The
2 bedroom house is credited with housing 2.25 employees per the 1995 Guidelines, which
is 64% of the 3.5 residents estimated to be generated by the free-market residence by
Code. The Land Use Code requires only that affordable housing be provided in an
amount equal to 33% of the residents living in the non deed -restricted dwelling units.
The applicant's proposal exceeds the Code requirement.
Park Dedication - Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant is required to
dedicate land or make a cash payment in lieu of land dedication for parks. Staff
recommends that the applicant address this issue at Detailed Submission.
Trails - As part of the 1990 AR-2 Rezoning and Special Review Use approval for the
Heatherbed Lodge, the applicant granted a public trail easement along the eastern bank of
Maroon Creek, recorded in Book 658 at Page 984. Staff recommends that if the current
trail easement is not associated with a public fishing easement, that a fishing easement be
granted as part of this subdivision.
School Impact Fees - Pursuant to BOCC Ordinance 95-20, the applicant is required to
pay a school impact fee in -lieu of land dedication. The fee will be due at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the new residence, and will be based on the School
District Land Dedication Standards in effect at the time of issuance of the permit.
Compliance with Zoning Standards - The existing structures on Lot 1 and the proposed
building envelope on Lot 2 are located within the front yard and Maroon Creek Road
setbacks. Staff recommends that the PUD provisions of the Land Use Code be used to
vary the front yard and "major road" setback on Lot 2. In this particular case the front
yard and road setbacks have little relevance to the adjacent road and neighboring parcels
because the development site is significantly below the road. Staff recommends that at
Detailed Submission provide the following information:
• a specific proposal for PUD variances for Lot 2 ;
• identification of the Maroon Creek Right-of-way as it encroaches on the property;
• a modification of the lot line dividing the two lots to reflect the standard AR-2 side
yard setback and to eliminate the encroachment of the existing shed on Lot 1 into the
setback;
• a proposed building envelope for Lot 1 to accommodate the possibility of
redevelopment of that site. As part of that submittal, Staff recommends that a PUD
request be made (with justifications posed by the applicant) to vary the front and
"major road" setbacks for Lot 1.
• the lot area (net of the area in Maroon Creek and the Maroon Creek Road right-of-
way) for each of the 2 lots (verified by a certified surveyor).
Staff notes that based on the AR-2 floor area ratio of .36, Lot 1 theoretically has an
allowable floor area of 32,179 and lot 2 has a theoretical floor area of 26,852. However,
any amount of proposed floor area over 15,000 square feet will be subject to special
review.
Improvements Agreement - The applicant will submit an improvements Agreement at
Detailed Submission.
1041 Hazard Review
The 100 year floodplain elevation for Maroon Creek is delineated on the site plan and the
building envelope has been sited to avoid the hazard area.
The development area on Lot 2 is mapped as a low wildfire hazard area. The applicant
proposes to sprinkler the residences and to establish a defensible space as required around
the structures. In addition, the applicant agrees to comply with standard wildfire
mitigation measures stipulated in the Land Use Code.
0
The proposed development area avoids steep slopes which exist on the property. As no
improvements are proposed to the driveway, there will be no encroachment on steep
slopes assiociated with the driveway.
Staff recommends that at Detailed Submission the applicant delineate any riparian habitat
which exists on the property, and that development within that area be prohibited
Staff recommends that the applicant address the issue of wildfire mitigation as it may
relate to a new building envelope on Lot 1 at Detailed Submission.
Metro Area GMQS
The applicant requests one metro area residential GMQS allotment for Lot 2 of the
proposed subdivision. Staff's recommended scoring of the application is attached as
Exhibit 1.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval of the Conceptual
Subdivision, PUD and 1041 Hazard Review subject to the following conditions:
1. All new development on Lot 2 with the exception of the access drive and utilities
shall be contained within the approved building envelope (including septic systems and
landscaping).
2. The Applicant shall submit a drainage and erosion control plan which meets the
approval of the County Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition to
addressing permanent drainage and erosion control measures, the plan shall include
temporary erosion control measures for construction to prevent soil and sediment from
impacting Maroon Creek. At Detailed Submission, the applicant shall submit a drainage
plan identifying drainage improvements for the corral area on Lot 2.
3. The building site shall be revegetated within one growing season of project
completion.
4. Outside illumination shall comply with County lighting standards in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
5. At Detailed Submission the applicant shall provide evidence of a water -court
approved augmentation plan or a water service agreement for the provision of water to
Lot 2. Water line easement(s) shall be depicted on the final plat.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Lot'.). the applicant shall submit final as -
built drawings of the engineer designed sewage disposal system installed for the
7
employee dwelling unit on Lot 2 and a letter from a professional engineer stating that the
system was installed according to the engineer's design. Prior to issuance of a building
permit the applicant shall obtain a sewage disposal permit from the Environmental Health
Department to expand the existing septic system to accommodate a second residence.
The septic system for the development shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health
Department. At Detailed Submission the applicant shall identify the location of the
existing sewage disposal system serving the existing Lodge (Lot 1) on the final plat.
7. The Applicant shall file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental
Health Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. The applicant shall comply with the following wildfire mitigation measures:
a. The area around the structure shall incorporate landscaping with wildfire
defensible space considerations as follows:
NOTE: Actual vegetation manipulation to meet these conditions may not be
necessary where the natural vegetation patterns have already fulfilled these
conditions.
1) All brush located downhill from the structure(s) shall be cleared for a
distance of 30-50 feet. Brush, debris, and non -ornamental vegetation shall
be removed within a minimum 10 foot perimeter around the remaining
sides of structure(s).
2) Vegetation shall be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal
continuity of the fuels a minimum of a 30 foot perimeter around a
structure built on flat ground. (For greater slopes ref. CSFS Safety Zone
chart. Page 13, Wildfire Guidelines For Rural Homeowners).
3) Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the 30 foot
perimeters shall be a minimum of two times the height of the fuel.
Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be two times the height of the fuel.
All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel.
4) All branches from trees and brush within the 30 foot perimeter shall be
pruned to a height of 10 feet above the ground and removal of ladder fuels
from around trees and brush.
5) Tree crown separation within the 30 foot perimeters shall have a minimum
of 10 feet between the edges of the crowns. This does not apply to mature
stands of Aspen trees where the above recommendation for removal of
ladder fuels have been complied with. In areas of aspen regeneration, the
spacing guidelines shall be followed.
6) All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all
branches within 15 feet of the chimneys shall be removed.
7) The density of fuels within a 100 foot perimeter of the structures shall be
reduced where natural reduction has not already occurred.
8) All deadfall within the 100 foot perimeter shall be removed.
9) The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the
defensible space vegetation requirements.
b. Structural Design and Construction Requirements:
1) Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible (no wood
shake/shingles) material with no flat roofs.
2) Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh with mesh 1/4
inch maximum.
C. The following maintenance measures shall be adhered to:
1) Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
2) Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris..
3) All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum
of 15 feet away from any structure.
4) Weeds and grasses within the 10 foot perimeter shall be maintained to a
height not more than 6 inches.
d. The following miscellaneous measures shall be adhered to:
1) Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of
15 feet away from the structure.
2) Swimming pools shall be accessible to Fire Department vehicles.
3) Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris.
4) Wood fences shall not connect to the structure.
5) Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same
standards as structures.
6) Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container.
7) Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a
contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation
mitigation around any above -ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the
tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour fire -resistive
construction on the exterior side of the walls.
8) Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 pound ABC fire
extinguisher which shall be placed in each structure in a visible and
accessible location.
9) Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2 inch non-combustible letters and
shall be visible and installed on a non-combustible post.
e. Water Supply:
1) When access to a public or private pressurized water system is not
available or if it is necessary to augment fire protection water systems,
private ponds may be used if approved by Pitkin County and the local fire
protection district.
2) Any fire department recommendation for individual structure water supply
and storage shall be accessible to fire department vehicle from the exterior
of the structure through a Fire Department approved mechanism (such as a
fire hydrant). The amount of storage capacity shall be determined by the
fire protection district with a minimum of 1000 gallon storage capacity per
structure. Photo documentation of the underground tank shall be
submitted to the Building Department, prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits.
3) Interior sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residences.
9. The Final Plat shall delineate any existing riparian areas on Lots 1 and 2. New
development shall be prohibited with riparian areas.
10. New development within the 100 Year Floodplain delineated on the Final Plat
shall be prohibited.
11. Prior to recording of the final plat, the applicant shall pay a pro-rata share for
County Road Improvements to the Maroon Creek Road. The pro-rata share shall be
determined by the County Engineer based on the traffic analysis prepared by the
applicant's engineer. In the event that a Transportation Improvement District is formed to
accommodate improvements to the Maroon/Castle Road system, the applicant shall join
the district.
H
12. All utility extensions shall occur within the access driveway.
14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the residence(s) on Lot 1, the applicant
shall pay a school impact fee in -lieu of land dedication. The fee amount shall be based on
the County School District Land Dedication Standards in effect at the time of issuance of
the permit.
15. The subdivision's protective covenants shall require the provision of a larger
affordable housing unit, or the cash -in -lieu equivalent thereof, should the owner of Lot 1
wish to construct more than 4 free-market bedrooms. The ability of the owner to increase
the number of free market bedrooms and to provide additional affordable housing and/or
a cash -in -lieu payment shall be subject to APCHA and land use regulations in effect at
the time of the request. In no event shall the applicant's original commitment as to the
percentage of employees to be housed by the proposed development (64%) be reduced.
16. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Lot 2, the applicant shall deed restrict the
existing employee dwelling unit to APCHA's Category 3 income guidelines and improve
the unit as required to comply with minimum net livable floor area requirements
established in the Housing Guidelines. Prior to occupancy of the free-market residence
on Lot 2, the affordable housing unit shall be occupied.
17. At Detailed Submission the applicant shall submit protective covenants
addressing (at a minimum) common access, parking limitations for the Heatherbed Lodge
and roof materials for the residence(s) on Lot 2.
18. The applicant shall provide a parking plan at Detailed Submission to address
parking on both lots.
19. At Detailed Submission, the applicant shall make a proposal to dedicate land or to
make a cash payment in lieu of land dedication for parks.
20. If the Heatherbed Lodge trail Easement recorded in Book 658 at Page 984 does
not include a fishing easement, the applicant shall provide a fishing easement through the
Creek as it traverses the property. Said easement shall be recorded concurrent with
recording of the Final Plat.
21. At Detailed Submission the applicant shall propose specific PUD variances for
Lot 2 and identify the Maroon Creek Right-of-way as it encroaches on the property. At
Detailed Submission the lot line dividing the two lots shall be modified to reflect the
standard AR-2 side yard setback and to eliminate the encroachment of the existing shed
on Lot 1 into the setback. At Detailed Submission the applicant shall submit a proposed
building envelope for Lot 1 to accommodate the possibility of redevelopment of that site.
As part of that submittal, a PUD request shall be made (with justifications posed by the
11
applicant) to vary the front and "major road" setbacks for Lot 1. At Detailed Submission
the lot area (net of the area in Maroon Creek and the Maroon Creek Road right-of-way)
for each of the 2 lots shall be verified by a certified surveyor.
22. The applicant shall will submit an improvements Agreement at Detailed
Submission.
23. All representations made by the applicant in the application and in public
meetings shall be adhered to.
12
ex 4� 1 r7p
I
METRO AREA RESIDENTIAL GMOS SCORE SHEET
Scoring: Points shall be awarded for performance relative to each of the four scoring criteria.
Possible scores for each criterion shall range from zero, the lowest possible score, to five, the
highest possible score. It is recognized that small projects could be at a competitive disadvantage
when scored against large-scale projects. It is intended, therefore, that projects be evaluated
according to reasonable expectations regarding what could be expected given their size and scale.
A score of zero shall be awarded to projects that, although they had the opportunity to comply
with scoring criteria and had the ability to advance stated community goals, will actually
contribute nothing to implementation of the articulated vision and may, in fact, move the
community further away from its stated goals. A score of three indicates that a project will move
the community closer toward attainment of its stated visions and make a positive contribution
toward the implementation of articulated goals. A score of five indicates that a project
demonstrates exceptional sensitivity to the stated visions of the community and will result in
significant movement toward implementation of those goals. Other scores along the continuum
from zero to five will be awarded based on the degree to which projects will implement stated
goals. No growth management allocation shall be awarded to projects that do not receive a final
average score of at least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria of
Sections 3-160.50-C.1, 3-160.50-C.2, 3-160.50-C.3 and 3-160.50-C.4.
Criteria:
1. Revitalizing the permanent community: Residents of the Aspen area have long
recognized the need to preserve the community's character and identity as more than just a resort,
a collection of second homes and a tourist shopping mecca. They recognize that a "critical mass"
of permanent residents and local serving -businesses is necessary to make any community
function. They recognize, too, that the vitality brought to the Aspen area by full-time residents is
being seriously diluted by the inability of working people to live in their own community.
As a result of these concerns, one of the community's central goals is to create a
community with a size, density and diversity that encourages interaction, involvement and
vitality and one that provides opportunities for its workers to become a permanent part of the
social fabric.
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of revitalizing the
permanent community, including, but not limited to the following:
a. providing high -quality, on -site, affordable housing for permanent residents;
b. providing site appropriate mixing of free market and affordable housing for
efficient provision of services such as transit and discourages site planning that isolates
affordable and free market units;
C. providing a housing package consistent with the Housing Authority Guidelines
with an emphasis on family -oriented housing where and when appropriate;
d. creating affordable dwelling units through buy -downs or conversion of existing
free market units; and
e. providing "locally serving commercial space/businesses."
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant proposes to enlarge and fully deed restrict an existing unit on -site. The
proposal to develop a unit on -site complies with the goals of providing housing for
employees in the Metro area. Staff recommends a score of three for this application as it
makes a positive contribution to local housing.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED SCORE: 3
COMMISSIONER'S SCORE:
2. Providing transportation alternatives: Residents recognize that reducing dependency
on the automobile is vital for the long-term livability and health of the Aspen area. Their plan is
so bold as to envision a time in the not -too -distant future when the automobile is not the
dominant means of moving people in and around the community. They are seeking a balanced,
integrated transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduces traffic
congestion and air pollution. These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the
goal of providing transportation alternatives, including, but not limited to the following:
a. reducing the need for private vehicles as a form of transportation;
b. facilitating and encouraging year-round pedestrian transportation;
C. helping to implement a valley -wide mass transit system;
d. providing needed improvements to the existing RFTA system;
e. increasing the number of available transportation choices;
f. creating a less congested downtown core;
g. helping to implement the transportation planning policies of the AACP and the
Aspen to Snowmass transportation plan;
h. altering land use patterns to accommodate and contribute to a more efficient and
effective transit system;
i. creating, improving or expanding public commuter trails, walkways or bikeway
facilities that are consistent with the goals of the AACP and associated plans, such as the
pedestrian bikeway plan;
j. locating developments near transit facilities;
k. providing on -going transportation to and from the airport, ski areas and shopping
areas;
1. providing on -going employee transportation services such as van pools or buses at
no cost to employees;
M. providing bicycle parking, showers and lockers for employees; and
n. providing secure bicycle storage for guests and employees.
2
STAFF COMMENTS:
The project is located within the Metro area and is within 1/2 mile of a RFTA bus stop. As
a small two lot subdivision the applicant has somewhat limited opportunities to enhance the
local transit system. However, Ms. Boyd agrees to contribute her fair share to any
road/transuit program for Maroon Creek Road and/or to join any Transportation
Improvement District established for the area. By providing on -site housing within the
Metro area, the applicant is eliminating the need for an employee to commute a significant
distance to the Aspen area to work. Staff recommends a score of 3.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED SCORE: 3
COMMISSIONER'S SCORE:
3. Promoting environmentally sustainable development: Residents of the Aspen area
recognize that the natural environment is one of the community's greatest assets. As a result, they
wish to allow only that development that is environmentally sensitive and that promotes
individually responsible, ecological lifestyles. The community seeks to foster a high level of
consciousness relative to resource conservation, wildlife protection and environmental
sustainability.
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of promoting
environmentally sustainable development, including, but not limited to the following:
a. orienting building sites, streets and other project features in order to maximize
potential for use of solar energy and other renewable energy resources;
b. protecting and preserving existing trees and other mature vegetation during and
after the construction process;
C. using fewer or cleaner wood -burning devices than allowed by law;
d. removing or replacing existing dirty wood -burning devices;
e. increasing community access to natural and open space areas;
f. promoting community recycling efforts;
g. landscaping with low -water -use plant materials and using chemical -free landscape
maintenance techniques;
h. employing measures that reduce PM 10 levels in the non -attainment area;
i. preserving and efficiently using environmental resources during all phases of
development, including types of materials used and future energy and material needs of the
project;
j. completely avoiding "1041" hazard areas and ridgeline development;
k. enhancing existing wildlife habitat;
1. completely avoiding 8040 Greenline issues; and
M. completely avoiding Stream Margin Review issues.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The proposed building envelope avoids all 1041 hazards and is located to preserve existing
vegetation on -site. Staff recommends a score of 3.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED SCORE: 3
COMMISSIONER'S SCORE:
4. Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character:
Residents recognize the importance of design within the community's historic setting. It is a vital
component of the community's economic well-being and cultural heritage. They believe that
public architecture should support and enhance community life. Their goal is to ensure
maintenance of community character through design quality and compatibility with historic
features.
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of maintaining
design quality, historic compatibility and community character, including, but not limited to the
following:
a. restoring structures listed in the inventory of historic structures;
b. improving and maintaining the appearance and function of alleys for commercial,
office and residential uses;
C. ensuring design compatibility with existing buildings in the vicinity of the
proposed project, in terms of scale, massing, building materials, fenestration, other architectural
features and open space;
d. including porches or other "pedestrian -friendly" features;
e. retaining and promoting eclectic and varietal businesses along main street that
maintain and enhance the special character of the historic district;
f. ensuring the site's useability for social activities.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Maroon/Castle Caucus provided comments to Staff indicating their belief that the
proposed development will be an asset to the Heatherbed and Maroon Creek Road area.
Staff believes that the additional residence on the property will be compatible within the
context of the neighborhood primarily because the development site is substantially hidden
from public view. The applicant proposes to limit roof materials to non -reflective, dark
colors to further ensure limited visibility. Based on a finding of general computability with
the surrounding neighborhood, Staff recommends a score of 3.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED SCORE: 3
COMMISSIONER'S SCORE:
4
SUMMARY:
Staff notes that to receive a development allotment, an applicant must receive a score of at
least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria. If this project
receives an acceptable GMQS score, Staff recommends that the Commission recommend
approval of the application subject to conditions in the attached Staff memorandum.
TOTAL SCORE: 12
P<-+i k V-P, (T &,
To: Ellen Sassano, Planner MfflOMMOUM
From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
Subject: Heatherbed lodge Parcel ID# 2735-143-00-008
Date: December 19, 1995
Ellen,
This project shall meet all of the applicable codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire
Protection District.
However it is noted that "construction of the proposed residence and caretaker unit is to
incorporate a sprinkler system....". 5-150.50 Fire Protection.
If you have any concerns -Please call me.
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
STATE of COLORADO
E 7.
December 28, 1995
Ms. Ellen Sassano
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
JAN 0 2 1996
yl 10
* 1876
Roy Romer
Governor
James S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
RE: Heatherbed Subdivision Conceptual Review, Parcel ID #2735-143-00-008
SW 1 /4, Section 14, T10S, R 85W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Ms. Sassano:
We have completed our review of Pitkin County's referral for the Heatherbed
Subdivision located approximately two miles southwest of the City of Aspen, Colorado. The
applicant is proposing to subdivide a 4.1 acre parcel into two tracts of 2.25 and 1 .85 acres.
Heatherbed Lodge is currently located on the proposed 2.25 acre tract and is provided water
from Highlands Water and Sanitation District. An existing employee dwelling unit is located
on the 1.85 acre tract and the applicant is proposing to construct an additional single family
residence on this tract. The proposed water supply for the proposed residence is an existing
well which is currently serving the employee dwelling.
Our files indicate that a well permit, No. 165637, was issued for the subject 4.1 acre
tract on August 13, 1992. The use of ground water from this well was limited to ordinary
household purposes inside a single family dwelling and the watering of the user's
noncommercial domestic animals. The Well Completion and Test Report indicates that the
-vvel1 v as Constru-Cted a dcpath of 51 feet ane+ the static water level was at 5 feet. The well
was reported to have been pump tested for two hours with a production rate of 15 gallons
per minute.
Pursuant to Section 30-28-1360)(h)(1), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed
water supply would cause injury to decreed water rights. The existing well permit, No.
165637, was issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(11)(A), C.R.S., and
is limited serving one single family dwelling and animal watering. The Colorado River system
and its tributaries at this location are over -appropriated. In this case, a well permit to expand
the use to two dwelling units could not be issued by our office without a water court
approved plan for augmentation. We recommend that this development, as proposed, not
receive approval from your agency until a plan for augmentation for the proposed purposes
is decreed by the water court .and the appropriate well permit is issued.
Ms. E'len Sassano
December 28, 1995
Page 2
The attached Water Supply Information Summary should be used as a guide in assuring
that a concise water supply plan is provided to our office. Should you have any questions
regarding the water supply for this project, please contact David Fox of this office.
Sincerely,
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPL/DF/df
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, WD 38
e
Section 30-28-133,11d), C.R.S. requires that the applicant submit to the County,"Adequate evidence that a water supply that
is sufficient in terms of quantity, quality and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water.
t__. NAME 01 DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED
2. LAND USE ACTION
3. NAME OF EXISTING PARCEL AS RECORDED
SUBDIVISION
FILING
BLOCK
LOT
4. TOTAL ACREAGE ( 5. NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED PLAT MAP ENCLOSED ❑ YES
6. PARCEL HISTORY - Please attach copies of deeds, plats or other evidence or documentation.
A. Was parcel recorded with county prior to June 1, 1972? ❑ YES ❑ NO
B. Has the parcel ever been part of a division of land action since June 1, 1972? ❑ YES O NO
If yes, describe the previous action
7. LOCATION OF PARCEL - Include a map deliniating the project area and tie to a section corner.
114 OF 114 SECTION TOWNSHIP ON OS RANGE O E OW
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN: O 6TH O N.M. 0 UTE n COSTILLA
8. PLAT - Location of all wells on property must be plotted and permit numbers provided.
Surveyors plat ❑ Yes ❑ No If not, scaled hand drawn sketch ❑ Yes ❑ No
9MATED WATER REQUIREMENTS - Gallms per Day or Acre Feet per Year
_......................................................._.......................................................................
10. WATER SUPPLY SOURCE
.......................................................................
_..........................................................................
❑ EXISTING ❑ DEVELOPED
❑NEW WELLS
WELLS SPRING
HOUSEHOLD USE
GPD
AF
WELL PERMIT NUMBERS
PR tWa AQUIFERS . (CHECK ONE)
❑ ALWMI ❑ uPPfR ARAPAHOE
❑ UPM DAWSON ❑ LOWER ARAPAHOE
COMMERCIAL USE
GPO
AF
= o LOWER DAMON ❑ tARME FOX Hugs
❑ DELAYER ❑ DAKOTA
❑ OTHER
IRRIGATION
GPD
AF
STOCK WATERING
GPD
AF
❑ MUNICIPAL
❑ ASSOCIATION
WATER COURT DECREE CASE NO.'S
OTHER
GPD
AF
❑ COMPANY
❑ DISTRICT
TOTAL
GPD
AF
NAME
LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR
SERVICE ❑ YES ❑ NO
11. ENGINEER'S WATER SUPPLY REPORT ❑ YES ❑ NO IF YES, PLEASE FORWARD WITH THIS FORM. (This may be required before our review is completed.)
12. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
❑ SEPTIC TANKILEACH. FIELD
r 'DON
❑ ENGINEERED SYSTEM (Attach a copy of engineering design)
❑ CENTRAL SYSTEM - DISTRICT NAME.
❑ VAULT - LOCATION SEWAGE HAULED TO
0 OTHER
fix(-�{��,`� �
MEMORANDUM
To: Ellen Sassano, Community Development Dept.
From: Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health Department
Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director
Date: February 1, 1996
Re: Heatherbed Lodge Metro Residential GM9S, Subdivision
Conceptual Submission & 1041 Hazard Rqview
Parcel ID # 2735-143-00-008
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
details of the Heatherbed Lodge application under the authority
of the Pitkin County Code,Title II, Land Use Code and has the
following comments.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-170 and 3-110.4:
"It is the policy of the County to insure the availability of a water supply of adequate quality, quantity,
pressure and dependability for fire protection and support of a proposed Land use prior to approval of the
use. The County shall require Land uses to hook up to existing public systems if service is avaiLabLe.11
This Department needs adequate information on the quantity and
the quality of water available. We have the 9/1/95 well drillers
report on the well for the employee unit. The report indicates 15
gpm which is sufficient quantity to also serve the proposed
personal residence. We have no report on file on the quality of
the water. The applicant must ensure that the water quality is
acceptable by having it tested by a lab such as the Snowmass
Water and Sanitation District or Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District. Water of acceptable quality and quantity has been
obtained in other lots in this area. Pitkin County Land Use Code
requires that the well site be within the building envelope. The
well does fit within the building envelope.
The application states that the Heatherbed Lodge on the proposed
Parcel #1 is served by water from the Highlands Water and
Sanitation District.
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt
of information documenting that the quality of the well
water is adequate. Without meeting these requirements a
septic permit and building permit can not be issued.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-180 and 3-110.5:
1
"It is the policy of the County to ensure that adequate sewage treatment facilities are available to serve
existing and new developments. Public and private sewage disposal systems and connections to such systems
shall comply with the sewage disposal guidelines of Pitkin County's Individual Sewage Disposal System
Regulation.".
Lots in this area of Maroon Creek are served by individual sewage
disposal systems.
A sewage disposal permit for an engineer designed system was
issued for the employee unit on the lower bench. The system was
installed but the permit has not been finaled. For the sewage
permit to be finaled, and a condition before approval for this
application, is that this Department receive the following:
1. Final as -built drawings of the engineer
designed system since changes were made
during construction.
2. A letter from the engineer stating that the system was
installed according to the engineer design.
Ground water is a problem in this area. The application
recognizes that an engineered design would be needed to update
this system to accommodate adding on the proposed residence. All
such changes to systems installed within Pitkin County require
septic permits issued by the Environmental Health Department, and
must comply with the County's sewage disposal regulations. To
receive a septic permit, the applicant will need to submit a
septic permit application and appropriate fee with the stamped
engineer design.
It appears that there is room within the building envelope of
Parcel #2 to add on to the present system. The applicant is
cautioned that care must be taken in planning the location and
size of the house and number of bedrooms in conjunction with the
size and location of the enlarged sewage disposal system.
In updating the existing system, the square footage of both the
residence and the caretaker unit would be added together to
determine average daily flow of sewage to calculate capacity
requirements for sizing the septic tank and the field.
The applicant will need to adhere to minimum horizontal setback
requirements for placement of septic system components and not be
within the 100 year floodplain boundary.
The area for the leach field should be located in an area of no
traffic, planted with dry land grass, and should not be watered.
The existing Heatherbed Lodge would be located on proposed
Parcel #1. This Department has no records in our files of the
size and location on the sewage disposal system for the Lodge. If
the system fails, or bedroom expansion occurs, we do not know if
there is room for a new or enlarged system At such time, the
Lodge might be required to be served by public sewer.
2
A condition before approval of this application is the
receipt by this Department of the final as -built drawing and
a letter from the engineer stating that the system was
installed according to the engineer design.
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt
and approval of the sewage disposal permit by the
Environmental Health Department before a building permit can
be issued.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Sections 2-140 and 3-70.5 and 3-70.10:
"It is the policy of the County to preserve and protect its present water resources, recognizing the
County's semi -arid character and that significant transrtountain and transbasin diversions and the vested
rights of senior appropriators in the basin have materially curtailed the availability of an already scarce
water resource. To this end it is the policy of the County that no land use be initiated which would
adversely affect the quantity, quality, or accessibility of the County's water resources; or which would
occur at the expense of established water -dependent agricultural activities; or which would result in
increased salinization of water resources, loss of minimum stream flows, further destruction of wildlife
habitat, or major expenditures to reacquire or redistribute major water resources. it is also the policy of
the County to maintain a natural vegetative buffer along its surface waters such that the surface and
groundwaters of the area are not encroached upon by land uses or other human activities which could cause
deterioration of water quality or impair the natural treatment processes provided by meadows and wetlands."
The Environmental Health Department is charged with preserving
and protecting the quality of Pitkin County's water resources.
Since a large percentage of the population is dependent upon
water from wells, elimination of groundwater pollution, and
protection of aquifers and their drainage areas are of utmost
importance. Roofs and asphalt driveways can be nonpoint sources
of water discharge which can contaminate water supplies. This
Department recommends that nonpoint sources of discharge must be
retained on the property of origin which can be accomplished
through landscaping, drainage patterns, detention ponds, and dry
wells for water runoff from buildings.
Surface water and groundwater contamination can also be caused by
inadequate setback distances from sewage disposal systems.to
proximate wells, rivers, creeks, ponds, and reservoirs. Minimum
horizontal distances between components of a sewage disposal
system and physical features must.be in accordance with the
Pitkin County Sewage Regulation. This Department reserves the
right to require water quality sampling at the homeowner's
expense.
The application states that a detailed drainage plan will be
submitted as part of the building permit application to ensure
that no sedimentation will enter Maroon Creek during construction
and that all disturbed areas will be revegetated as soon as
possible.
A condition of approval for this application is: A detailed
drainage plan prior to,ilssuance of a building permit.
3
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-130 and 3-602:
"Only that development is permitted which will not contribute significantly to degradation of air quality.
This project is not expected to contribute significantly to
degradation of air quality in Pitkin County.
Activities such as road building and landscaping may require a
Fugitive Dust Plan. This plan would need to include, 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.
The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the
Environmental Health Department before the building permit will
be issued. Metropolitan areas of Pitkin County which includes
this site may have two devices: either two gas log fireplaces,
two certified clean -burning woodstoves, or one of each. Each
building may also have unlimited numbers of decorative gas
appliances. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor
may any heating device use coal as fuel. No wood burning device
may be installed in barns or agricultural buildings.
Any remodeling that affects the firebox of a fireplace will
necessitate that the device meet current regulations.
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt
and approval of the fireplace/woodstove permit by the
Environmental Health Department before the building permit
can be issued.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Section 2-70:
"It is the policy of the County to ensure that no use or development of land is permitted which is in
violation of the laws of the County, the State of Colorado, or the United States of America."
This Department is not aware of any issues of concern regarding
other environmental health laws.
... ENV:WP:LAND USE:T3514300.008
4
IF-:--,x,irtigtr .Ij ,
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Ellen Sassano, Planning
FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning Officer
DATE: January 22, 1996
RE: Heatherbed Lodge Metro Residential GMQS, Subdivision
Conceptual Submission & 1041 Hazard Review
Parcel ID# 2735-143-00-008
I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the
following comments.
ZONE: AR-2, two acre minimum lot area for Hotel/Motel/Lodge
one acre minimum lot area for all other uses
The fathering parcel contains 4.1 acres and is conforming in size.
Previous approvals indicate that the parcel contains a net of 3.2
acres. The applicant proposes to subdivide this parcel into two
parcels. Lot 1 will contain 2.25 acres and the existing lodge.
Lot 2 will contain 1.85 acres, a single family residence and
employee dwelling unit. Both proposed lots are conforming in lot
areas.
SETBACKS: The required setbacks for these parcels are:
100 foot major road setback as measured from the Maroon Creek
Road right-of-way.
75 foot front yard setback
20 foot side yard setback
20 foot rear yard setback
20 foot minimum stream setback
The front lot line for each parcel is the lot line adjacent to
Maroon Creek Road.
The Maroon Creek Road right-of-way is not indicated on the site
plan. The existing structures on Lot 1 and the proposed building
envelope on Lot 2, lie within the 100 foot major road setback and
the 75 foot front yard setback.
The proposed lot line to separate Lot 1 from Lot 2 creates a side
yard setback encroachment of the shed on Lot 1. The lot line
should be realigned to avoid this encroachment.
FLOOR AREA: The floor area ratio in this zone district is
thirty-six percent. The applicant has reduced the lot size by
slope reduction. This is not required for floor area calculations.
Therefore, more floor area is allowed than is represented in the
application.
The area up to the high water mark of Maroon Creek must be
subtracted from the lot size to determine the allowable floor area.
The applicant has represented that this area contains 8,625 sq ft
on Lot 1 and 6,000 sq ft on Lot 2. These amounts should be
verified ed by a certified surveyor and indicated as a plat note.
If any portion of the Maroon Creek Road right-of-way encroaches
onto the parcel, the amount should also be calculated by the
surveyor and indicated as a plat note.
Based on the representations made by the applicant as to the area
up to the high water mark of the Creek, the total allowed floor
area is as follows:
Lot 1: 98,010 sq ft (2.25 acres)
-8,825 sq ft (Maroon Creek)
89,385 sq ft (total lot area)
x .36 AR- 2 Floor area ratio
32,179 sq ft total allowed floor area
The applicant represents that the existing lodge contains 11,500
square feet of floor area and that an additional 3,000 square feet
have been approved by Special Review but have not yet been
developed.
Lot 2: 80,589 sq ft (1.85 acres)
-6,000 sq ft (Maroon Creek)
74,589 sq ft (total lot area)
x .36 AR- 2 (Floor area ratio)
26,852 sq ft total allowed floor area
All structures will be included in the calculation of floor area
for both lots. Any amount of proposed floor area over 15,000
square feet will require Special Review. Existing floor areas have
not been verified by Zoning staff.
HEIGHT: Plans have not been submitted to determine compliance with
County height regulations.
The applicant states that the lower bench is 45 feet below the
road. This is roughly the same as the Little Texas Subdivision
compared to River Road. The maximum height to the ridge of a roof
of a proposed single family residence is 33 feet.
The Board may wish to consider a height restriction to limit the
visual impact as viewed from the road of a large home built to the
maximum height limit.
OPEN SPACE: Open Space is not defined in the Land Use Code.
Previously, the Land Use Code excluded rights of way, streets,
parking areas, and slopes over 30% from Open Space.
It does not appear that open space was considered for the Lodge
(proposed Lot 1). Lot 1 requires 1,200 square feet of open space
per dwelling unit.
The required open space for Lot 2 is 2,400 square feet for the two
dwellings (one proposed single family residence and one existing
employee dwelling unit).
PARKING: In 1987 the Board of County Commissioner approved a
reduction of required parking spaces for the Lodge from 20 spaces
to 12 spaces (0.6 spaces per unit). Board of County Commissioner
Resolution 90-170, which approved detailed submission, final plat
and rezoning to the Heatherbed Lodge, states 114) In the event that
other permitted uses in the AF-2 zone are proposed by the
applicant, special review for a revised parking plan, (including
overflow parking) to accommodate such use shall be required."
Lot 2 requires two off-street parking spaces for the proposed
single family residence and two parking spaces for the existing
employee dwelling unit. Although no parking plan has been
submitted, it appears that there is adequate area to comply with
the parking requirements for Lot 2.
OTHER: . Excepting the access drive and utilities, all development
must be contained within the approved building envelope unless
specifically exempted through this review. This includes
landscaping and septic systems.
C10IV___
dO -44 Q-
te
EST
SERVICE
State Services Building
222 S. 6th Street. Room 416
Grand Junction. Colorado 81501
Telephone: (970) 248-7325
January 19, 1996
Ellen Sassano
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Heatherbed Lodge 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review
Ellen,
I read the application for the Heatherbed Lodge Metro Residential
GMQS, Subdivision Conceptual 1041 Hazard Review. In there the
applicant stated they will comply with Colorado State Forest
Service guidelines for defensible space. From the description,
it appears that these defensible guidelines will work for this
parcel. You and I also discussed the recommendations that were
previously provided by the Pitkin County Sheriff's office. I
concur with those recommendations.
Please feel free to contact me with any further questions about
this application.
Sincerely,
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
CC: Steve Crockett -Pitkin County Sheriff's Office
Ed Van Walraven -Aspen FD
Connie Boyd
ASPEN
ScilOOi Distr1
'c,
MEMORANDUM
01 /03/96
TO: Planning Office
FROM: Joe Tarbet
SUBJECT: Heatherbed Lodge
JAN 10 1996
F
I have reviewed the application and have determined that the proposed development of this project will
have impacts on the School District's facilities. To put these impacts into quantitative form, I have
applied the standards of City Ordinance 32 Series 1995 and County Ordinance 95-20, School District
Land Dedication Standards.
The following table summarizes the results of my evaluation for a market value per lot of : $800,000
UNIT TYPE
NUMBER
OF UNITS
LAND DEDICATION
STANDARD
ACRES SQ. FT.
REQUIRED LAND
DEDICATION
ACRES SQ. FT.
TOTAL
CASH
PAYMENT
CASH
PAYMENT
PER LOT
Dormitory
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
$0
$0
Studio/One
Bedroom
0
0.0012
52
0.0000
0
$0
$0
Two Bedroom
0
0.0095
416
0.0000
0
$0
$0
Three Bedroom
0
0.0162
707
0.0000
0
$0
$0
Four Bedroom
0
0.0248
1,081
0.0000
0
$0
$0
Five or More
Bedroom
1
0.0284
1,236
0.0284
11236
$7,498
$7,498
TOTALS
1
0.0284
1,236
$7,498
$7,498
Because of the small size of this property and its location relative to existing school facilities , as well as
the small land area required for dedication, it does not appear to be suitable for the development of school
facilities. I therefore request that each lot be required to make a cash payment to the County in -lieu of
land dedication as required by the various ordinances. The actual amount of the payment will be calculated
by the planning office, as detailed in the ordinance at the time of building permit application for each lot.
0235 High School Road Aspen, Colorado 81611
970/925-3460 Fax 970/925-5721
JAN 31 '96 10:32AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
P.1
EX44 I t=7 (I-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ellen Saaaano, Plannixig Office
FRCK.* Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: January 31, 199G
RE: Heatherbed Lodge Metro Residential GMQS, subdivision
Conceptual Submission & 1041 Hazard Review
Parcel In No. 2735-143-04-008
IaVu The applicant is proposing :to build a four -bedroom
principal residence and provide a fully --..deed restricted, Category
3 unit.
BACXGRO=: The applicant was approv0d, in 1992, a voluntary
employee dwelling unit, which did not have any of -he irico-me or
asset restrictions. It is to be this unit that the applicant wants
to fully deed restrict to Category 3. The applicant proposes tc
convert the existing 1,150 square fort,, 2-bedroom unit into a
fuller -deed restricted, Category 3 , unit. The applicant proposes to
upgrade the unit to 11400 square feet,- which complies with the
minimum square foo-age of a Category 3 'detached house., listed in
the 1995 Affordable Housing Guidelines.
The Housing Board has established priorities in the Affordable
Housing Guidelines regarding mi.tigating affordable housing impacts ,
The priorities are as follows:
1. On -site housing;
2, ofi-site housing, including buydown concept;
3. Cash-in--lieu%land-in-lieu.
The two -bedroom house is credited with ].ousi.nq 2.25 employees per
the 1995 Guidelines, which is 64t of the 3.5 residents estimated to
be generated by the free-market residence by Code.
REC XWNP, Z,'=: The Housing Office has no problem with this unit
becoming fully deed restricted. It is up to the BOCC to decide if
a voluntary unit can be changed ,to a fully deed restricted unit and
used as mitigation. also, should the applicant decide to build a,
five -bedroom unit, further mitigation would be required.
\re£ersfa1Nhehtbd, qmq
t�_X'_f 4 (.;Z, ( 07 !1 ii
CASTLE/IA.ROON CAUCUS
King R. Woodward
0675 Meadowood Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Ms. Ellen Sassano
A spen/'Di tk in
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ellen:
RE: Heatherbed Lod
Residential GMQS.
Parcel ID: 2735-142-00-008
The Steering Committee of the Castle/Maroon Creek Caucus
reviewed the Heatherbed Lodge Residential GMQ� at its
December meeting.
The Steering Committee felt that the upgrading of the Heathe--
bed Lodge, the proposed residential building, proposed
renovated employee unit and subdividing of the property into
two lots will be an asset to the Heatherbed area and
Maroon Creek Road.
The Steering Committee does have a concern regarding
existing parking by guests and/or employees on the sr�oulder
of :Maroon Creek Road adjacent to the Heatherbed. The
Committe felt that the applicant should provide parkin?
for Guest:: and employees on site and not on the shoulder
Of the road.
The Committee also felt that all previous submitted building
requests and future building requests (if approved) should
be approved as soon as possible so that building doer not
take place over an extended period.
Please call me if you have any questions. 925-7772.
King R. Woodward
President
Steering Committee
HEATHERBED LODGE PROPERTY
CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION & GMQS APPLICATION
Submitted To: Ms. Ellen Sassano
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-920-5090
Applicant: Ms. Connie Boyd
Heatherbed Lodge, Inc.
1679 Maroon Creek Road
P.O. Box 530
Aspen, Colorado 81612
970-925-7077
Planner: Mr. Jim Curtis
Curtis & Associates
300 E. Hyman Avenue, 2nd Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-920-1395
Date: November 1, 1995
APPLICATION SUMMARY
This application is for the following:
1. GMQS Allocation for 1 Single -Family Residence
2. Special Review for Accessory Affordable On -Site Dwelling Unit
3. Conceptual Subdivision Review
4. 1041 Hazards Review
Maps illustrating this application are given on the following page and include:
1. Location Map
2. Existing Conditions
3. Proposed Site Plan
4. 1041 Environmental Factors
The Heatherbed Lodge Property is located up Maroon Creek Road across from the
Aspen Highlands Base Area as shown on the Location Map. The property is 4.1 acres and
is zoned AR-2. The Heatherbed Lodge contains 22 lodge rooms and is approximately
11,500 sq. ft. The owner, Ms. Connie Boyd, purchased the property in 1989 and has
made repairs and improvements to the lodge since that time. Ms. Boyd is proud of the
lodge today and her desire is to build her personal residence on the lower bench area of
the property along Maroon Creek. The lower bench area has .been historically used as a
horse corral area and contains several outbuildings. Ms. Boyd plans to continue to corral
horses on the lower bench as well as construct her personal residence. Ms. Boyd has also
submitted for a building permit to upgrade one of the outbuildings to an Employee
Dwelling Unit. The lower bench area is mostly hidden from Maroon Creek Road because
it is approximately 45 feet below the road and ringed with roadside vegetation and large
trees. Structures on the lower bench area would have little to no visibility from Maroon
Creek Road and no vegetation would be removed. Ms. Boyd wishes to subdivide the
property into 2 lots. Lot 1 would be the upper bench area containing the Heatherbed
Lodge and would be 2.25 acres. Lot 2 would be the lower bench area and would be 1.85
acres. Ms. Boyd's personal residence is proposed for Lot - 2 along with an accessory
affordable unit and a barn and corral which was previously approved in 1992. Ms.
Boyd's residence and the affordable unit would be serviced by an individual well and
septic system. The existing driveway to the lower bench area would remain as is and
simply be improved with a gravel overlay and guard rail to preserve the existing mature
vegetation along the driveway. Utilities to the structures will be underground.
1
r /r--R66eO�ifQ11i1� •• `•• \. /Gc � • .• _ 8*00
' • R d IB ttev
GOLF COURSEemet •� •`
_. •. //-.�"'-...1� QJ ., i ' i' •. ' • ' Qi •. • •• • �.1 •• Lam•.\� • -
\ roo
Is
Dililn
If
ht
9085,
.-- Ste I!'1 I ♦ �. ,, \ ' j �; a� �u. 7i j• '�
- i �; �idt1X • ..
IN
?=
10
oll
is
it U-,i _k• /.vim'/ I :rl /, i• / , /,., / '.;-��_ -77816
`
40111
0
% /• v o ;\ ,
n
/ Is
yr ,
p / O sj/lI ,✓ A O
V1
o } 1 \ \ R rkA It.
u•1�t&14A
r
�
J
;A+ di
r gQ
o O
O —r
�Nt!
Z � N
H �
v
if ea-
d
O
� L
W
�+
N
A=
lil
v
0
CM
^^0
M�
'OD
O
_1 ^
c s
c w
L
Z
V 7
�+
A
og t
The AR-2 zoning of the property allows for the subdivision and sufficient density
for the Heatherbed Lodge to remain free-standing on Lot 1 and for Ms. Boyd's residence
and affordable unit to be constructed on Lot I. Under AR-2 zoning, a single-family
residence is an "Allowed Use By Right" and requires an one acre minimum lot size and
the affordable unit is an "Accessory Use By Special Review." The Heatherbed Lodge is
a "Use By Special Review" which was previously approved in 1990 and requires a two
acre minimum lot size. The proposed subdivision complies with the AR-2 zoning and
density requirements as set forth in Appendix A.
PRIOR LAND USE APPROVALS FOR THE PROPERTY
The Planning Office requested the applicant outline the prior land use approvals
which have been granted to the property.
April, 1990 - Rezoning of the property to AR-2 and Special Review Use approval of the
Heatherbed Lodge and an expansion of the Lodge not to exceed 3,000 sq. ft. which
expansion has not occurred to date. BOCC Resolution 90-170 (Book 756, Page 992).
February, 1992 - Approval of an Employee Dwelling Unit accessory to the lodge for the
owner/manager or employees of the lodge not to exceed 1,500 sq. ft. The EDU was
approved for the lower bench area and Ms. Boyd has submitted for a building permit to
upgrade an existing outbuilding on the lower bench area to the EDU. The EDU was
voluntary on Ms. Boyd's part and was not required to off -set any development mitigation.
Therefore, when Ms. Boyd builds her personal residence, the EDU will be fully deed -
restricted as an on -site affordable unit. P & Z Resolution 92-05 (Book 678, Page 24).
April, 1993 - Approval of a small barn on the lower bench area. A building permit has
been submitted for the barn and construction is planned for the Fall/Winter 1995. BOCC
Resolution 91-123 (Book 676, Page 333).
METRO AREA GMOS SCORING STANDARDS
The property is in the GMQS Metro Area and the scoring standards are addressed
below. Ms. Boyd wishes to express she feels she is at a competitive disadvantage in
proposing a small residence for her personal use vs. a larger speculative development
project which typically can afford to offer more "goodies" to win the GMQS competition.
1 Revitalizing The Permanent Community. Ms. Boyd proposes to convert the
existing 1,150 sq. ft. 2-bedroom employee dwelling unit into a fully deed -restricted
2
Category 43 on -site affordable rental unit. Moreover, Ms. Boyd will upgrade the unit to
1,400 sq. ft. to comply with the 1995 Housing Guidelines which set forth 1,400 sq. ft. as
the minimum size for a Category #3 detached house. The unit was approved by the
County in 1992 as a voluntary employee unit, and was not required to off -set any
development mitigation. Therefore, under the Code, the applicant is allowed to retain the
unit and fully deed -restrict the unit to a Category #3 rental unit to fulfill her GMQS
obligation.
The unit was renovated in late 1995, and is located on the lower bench area as
shown on the Proposed Site Plan. The unit is a free-standing 2 bedroom, 1 bath house.
As noted, Ms. Boyd will upgrade the house even more to make it 1,400 sq. ft. to provide
a high quality living situation for the residents. The house has a wonderful setting and
is separated from the main house, thus offering a great living situation for the residents.
The 2 bedroom house is credited with housing 2.25 employees per the 1995
Guidelines, which is 64% of the 3.5 residents estimated to be generated by the free-market
residence by Code.
Under AR-2 zoning, the applicant's interpretation of the Code is that the deed -
restricted house would be classified as an "Accessory Structure" which is permitted by
Special Review. If this zoning interpretation is incorrect, the applicant will fulfill her
housing obligation with an equivalent cash -in -lieu payment or a buy -down of a free-
market unit.
2. Providing Transportation Alternatives. Ms. Boyd is a small non -developer
applicant who feels she can best fulfill her obligation by pooling resources. She therefore
agrees to contribute her fair share to any road/transit program for Maroon Creek Road
and/or to join any Transportation Improvement District for the area. Her fair share
contribution would be based on the limited impact of the development. The County can
use these pooled resources along with the commitments from the larger Aspen Highlands
Base Area and Moore developments to make road and transit improvements to the area
as it decides.
3. Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Development. Ms. Boyd feels at a
disadvantage because she is simply proposing a small personal residence that will comply
with all County codes. Notwithstanding, positive environmental features of this small
scale development are the following:
1. No vegetation will be removed by the development. All development is located
on flat open ground and all the surrounding vegetation will be preserved.
3
2. The building site is outside all 1041 hazard and ridgeline areas. The building site
is outside the mapped 100 year floodplain and set back a minimum of 20 feet from
Maroon Creek.
3. No critical wildlife areas are impacted as mapped on the County's Wildlife Maps.
4. The applicant has previously granted a public trail easement along the eastern bank
of Maroon Creek recorded in Book 658 at Page 984.
4 Maintaining, Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Community Character.
The biggest advantage of this site is that it is basically hidden from public view. The .
lower bench area is approximately 45 feet below Maroon Creek Road and is surrounded
by roadside vegetation and mature trees which will be preserved. Any structures on the
lower bench area will have limited to no visibility from the public. To further reduce
public visibility, the applicant commits to roofing material that will be non -reflective and
dark colors.
As noted, the biggest advantage of the site is that it is essentially "out of sight, out
of way." The site is isolated and has no immediate surrounding neighbors. Therefore,
the site doesn't impact any surrounding structures or homes, including the Heatherbed
Lodge on the upper bench. The site doesn't impact any historic structures nor does it
impact any existing neighborhood context.
CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION REVIEW
A. Environmental & Aesthetic Standards
1. Air Quality. The applicant will comply with the County's Air Pollution
Regulations.
2. Preservation of Natural Landscape. The proposed Building Envelope is flat
and no vegetation will be removed for construction. The existing driveway
will remain as is and simply be improved with. a gravel overlay and guard
rail to preserve the existing mature vegetation along the driveway.
3. Scenic Overlay. The property is not within any Scenic 'Overlay Zone.
EI
4. Scenic Quality. The proposed development will have limited to no visibility
from Maroon Creek Road. The lower bench area is approximately 45 feet
below the road and is generally ringed with roadside vegetation and large
trees which will be preserved. Traffic travelling southbound toward the T-
Lazy Seven Ranch will only have glimpses of any structures on the lower
bench area, while traffic travelling northbound towards the schools will have
no visibility of any structures on the lower bench area. To further reduce
public visibility from the road, the applicant commits to roofing material
that will be non -reflective and dark colors. All exterior lighting shall
comply with the County Lighting Standards.
5. Solar Access. The basically hidden site is not conducive to solar use. Solar
use will be used to the extent feasible.
6. Reduction In Density For Steep Slopes. The density and FAR calculations
given in Appendix A comply with the density reduction formula of the
Code.
B. Water Resources
1. Encroachment or Channelling. No encroachment or channeling requiring a
Section 404 permit are proposed at this time.
2. Drainage. The low -density development will have minimal drainage impact.
Historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained. The
applicant will submit a detailed drainage plan as part of the building permit
application. Moreover, the applicant has already improved the drainage and
water quality of the lower bench area by cleaning -up the historical corral
area. The cleaned -up corral, which the applicant proposes to use, is
designed to prevent direct run-off into Maroon Creek and said drainage shall
be approved by the County Engineer.
3. Erosion. The building site is flat and no vegetation will be removed. All
disturbed areas will be revegetated.
4. Groundwater. The proposed residence and affordable unit will be serviced
by an existing well as outlined in the Engineering Report in Appendix B.
The existing well will not negatively impact groundwater.
5
5. Irrigated Areas. There are no historically irrigated lands on the lower bench
area. Any irrigation of yard area will comply with the requirements of the
well permit, which has been issued to the applicant.
6. Irrigation Ditches. There are no irrigation ditches on the lower bench area.
7. Sedimentation. A detailed drainage plan will be submitted as part of the
building permit application to ensure that no sedimentation will enter
Maroon Creek during construction and that all disturbed areas will be
revegetated as soon as possible.
8. Water Ou The low -density development will not impact water quality.
A detailed drainage plan will be submitted as part of the building permit
application to ensure no negative impact on water quality.
9. Water Supply. The proposed residence and affordable unit will be serviced
by an existing well as outlined in the Engineering Report in Appendix B.
As stated in the report, the well has water of sufficient quantity and quality
to serve the units.
C. 1041 _Environmental Hazard Areas
1. Floodpplain Hazard Areas. Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer Engineers has
mapped the 100-year floodplain for the property per their report- in
Appendix C. All structures are located outside the mapped 100-year
floodplain as shown on the Proposed Site Plan.
2. Geologic Hazard Areas. No geologic hazards impact the proposed
development as stated in the geologic report by Nicholas Lampiris, PhD,
Geologist in Appendix D. All proposed structures are on level ground. The
existing driveway crosses some 30% slopes and will remain as is in order
to preserve the existing mature vegetation along the driveway.
3. Wildfire Areas. Based on a review of the 1041 Wildfire Hazard Areas map,
the proposed structures are located at the toe of the road embankment slope
which is mapped as a low wildfire area. Therefore, as noted in the prior
County land use approvals for the property, the applicant will provide a
defensible space ground all structures in compliance with the State Forest
Service guidelines and roof materials shall be Underwriter Laboratory
approved non-combustible materials.
Z
4. Wildlife Habitat Areas. Based on a review of the 1041 Wildlife maps, the
proposed structures are outside any critical wildlife areas.
D. Activities of Local and State Interest
Not Applicable.
E. Areas Around Key Facilities
Not Applicable.
F Improvements and Services
1. Logical Extension of Utilities. The proposed residence and affordable unit
will be serviced by an individual well and septic system. No municipal
water and sewer system extensions are required. As outlined in the
Engineering Report in Appendix B, this is recommended to be the best
manner to service the units.
2. Water Distribution Systems. See Engineering Report in Appendix B.
3. Water SupplSystems. The proposed residence and affordable unit will
be serviced by an existing well as outlined in the Engineering Report in
Appendix B. As stated in the report, the well has water of sufficient
quantity and quality to serve the units. For fire protection, the applicant
commits to sprinkle the residence and affordable unit. An estimated 2,000
gallon water storage cistern will be provided as part of the water system.
The applicant will also install a guard rail along the driveway for added
safety for easier fire vehicles access.
4. Sewage Treatment & Collection. The proposed residence and affordable
unit will be serviced by a single individual septic system as outlined in the
Engineering Report in Appendix B. The individual septic system will
comply with County's standards.
5. Public Utilities. Electric, gas, phone and Cable TV will be provided by the
respective utilities. All lines will be underground.
6. Roads. The existing driveway off Maroon Creek Road into the Heatherbed
property will remain the same. The existing driveway to the lower bench
h
area will also remain the same and simply be improved with a gravel
overlay and guard rail to preserve the existing mature vegetation along the
driveway as outlined in the Engineering Report in Appendix B. The
existing driveway is only 350 feet in length, has a 12 - 14 feet driving width
and grades from 13% - 15%. The existing grades exceed the 12%
maximum grade limitation of the County's driveway standards. To bring
the driveway grades into compliance with the County's standard, the south
end of the driveway would need to be raised approximately 10 feet with
imported fill and the alignment lengthened by approximately 83 feet to
create a maximum grade of 12%. To raise the driveway this much would
cause significant damage to the mature vegetation along the southern end of
the driveway. The driveway has been used for over 25 years without any
problems, and the applicant would prefer to preserve the nature vegetation
along the driveway. Given the historical use and suitability of the existing
driveway, the applicant feels it is better to save the mature vegetation and
simply upgrade the driveway with a gravel overlay and guard rail as a safety
precaution. Moreover, the prior County land use approvals for the lower
bench area recognized the problems with raising the driveway and agreed
that leaving the existing driveway as is was the best balance between
preserving the existing vegetation and reducing the driveway grade.
Nevertheless, if the County determines the driveway must be raised, the
applicant is prepared to do this even though it is environmentally damaging
and not necessary based on the historical use of the driveway. As also
noted, the residential structures will be sprinkled for fire protection, and- the
existing driveway is wide enough to handle fire vehicles and a guard rail
will be installed as a safety precaution.
7. Parkin Applicant will comply with the applicable County codes.
8. Trails. As part of the 1990 AR-2 Rezoning and Special Review Use
approval for the Heatherbed Lodge, the applicant granted a public trail
easement along the eastern bank of Maroon Creek recorded in Book 658 at
Page 984.
9. Lighting. Applicant will comply with the applicable County codes.
10. Sig_ s. Applicant will comply with the applicable County codes.
0
G. Development Exactions
l . Affordable Housing. See "Revitalizing The Permanent Community" Section
herein.
2. Parks/ Recreation/Open Space. None. Not applicable.
3. Road System Dedications. None. Not applicable.
4. Trails. As part of the 1990 AR-2 Rezoning and Special Review Use
approval for the Heatherbed Lodge, the applicant granted a , public trail
easement along the eastern bank of Maroon Creek recorded in Book 658 at
Page 984.
H. Improvement Agreements
1. Improvement Agreements. The applicant will submit an Improvement
Agreement as part of the Detailed Submission application.
.I
SUPPORTING CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION
l . Owner's Consent Authorization. Submitted to Planning Office separately.
2. Proof of Ownership. Submitted to Planning Office separately.
3. Proof of Legally Created Parcel. Submitted to Planning Office separately.
4. Pre -Application & Payment Form. Submitted to Planning Office separately.
5. Adjoining Property Owners. Submitted to Planning Office.
10
APPENDIX A
Heatherbed Lodge Conceptual Subdivision & GMQS Application
Area & Bulk Analysis, Code Section 3-50.50, Figure 3-1
1.
2
1/
1/
Minimum Lot Area. The Code requirement is:
A. Lot 1 = 2.25 ac. w/ Lodge > 2 ac. lot min. for "HML" per Code
Lot 2 = 1.85 ac. w/ SF residence > 1 ac. lot min. for "Other" per Code
4.10 ac. Total Property
Minimum Lot Area Per Principal Use. The Code requirement is:
A. Lot 1 Lodfze Parcel 2.25 ac.)
Code Calculations
2,200 sq. ft. per HML unit
22 lodge units existing
48,400 sq. ft. required
Lot 1
Parcel Calculations
985010
sq. ft. Lot 1 Parcel (2.25 ac.)
-8,625
sq. ft. M. Cr. watercourse
8%385
sq. ft. ,
-15,195
sq. ft. 17% density slope red.
74,190
sq. ft. provided
The 17% density slope reduction is calculated on 1.06 ac. slopes 45% or greater
2.25 ac. Lot 1 = 47% - 30% threshold = 17% density slope reduction.
B. Lot 2 SF Parcel (1.85 ac.)
Code Calculations
43,560 sq. ft. - Other (1 ac.)
1 SF principal use
43,506 sq. ft. required
Lot 2 Parcel Calculations
80,589 sq. ft. Lot 2 Parcel (1.85 ac.)
-6,000 sq. ft. M. Cr. watercourse
74,589 sq. ft. 1/
- 2,984 . sq. ft. 4% density slope red.-
715605 sq. ft.
The 4% density slope reduction is calculated on .627 ac. slopes 45% or greater
1.85 ac. Lot 2 = 34% - 30% threshold = 4% density slope reduction.
3.
n
5
91
7.
A
.Oj
Minimum Useable Open Space Per Dwelling Unit. The Code requirement is:
A. Lot 1 Lodge Parcel (2.25 ac.)
Code Calculations
1,200 sq. ft. per unit
22 lodge units existing
26,400 sq. ft. required .
B. Lot 2 SF Parcel (1.85 ac.)
Code Calculations
1,200 sq. ft. per unit
2 units
2,400 sq. ft. required
Lot 1 Parcel Calculations
98,010 sq. ft. Lot 1 Parcel (2.25 ac.)
- 8,625 sq. ft. M. Cr. watercourse
-49,161 sq. ft. slopes over 30%
-13,604 sq. ft. structures, parking, roads
26,620 sq. ft. provided
Lot 2 Parcel Calculations
809589
sq. ft. Lot 2 Parcel (1.85 ac.)
- 6,000
sq. ft. M. Cr. Watercourse
-31,931
sq. ft. slopes over 30%
- 5,278
sq. ft. structures, parking, roads
379380
sq. ft. provided
Minimum Front Yard Setback. The Code requirement is 75 feet. A 15 foot
setback variance is required for a portion of the Building Envelope on Lot 2..
Minimum Side Yard Setback. The Code requirement is 20 feet. All new
structures on Lot 1 and Lot 2 complies.
Minimum Rear Yard Setback. The Code requirement is 20 feet. Lot 1 and
Lot 2 complies.
Minimum Lot Width. The Code requirement is 100 feet. Lot 1 and Lot 2
complies.
Maximum Height Principal Structure. The Code requirement is 28 feet.
Structures on Lot 1 and Lot 2 will comply.
Maximum Height Accessory Structure. The Code requirement is 20 feet.
Structures on Lot 1 and Lot 2 will comply.
2
10. Maximum Floor Area Ratio. The Code requirement is:
A. Lot 1 LodRe Parcel (2.25 ac.)
Code Calculations Lot 1 Parcel Calculations
98,010 sq. ft. Lot 1 Parcel (2.25 ac.) 11,500 sq. ft. FAR existing lodge
- 8,625 sq. ft. M. Cr. watercourse 3,000 sq. ft. Approved lodge exp.
89,385 sq. ft. 14,500 sq. ft. FAR Total
- 15,195 sq. ft. 17% density slope red.
74,190 sq. ft. net density area
.36 FAR ratio per Code
26,708 sq. ft. permitted
B. Lot 2 SF Parcel (1.85 ac.)
Code Calculations
80,589
sq. ft. Lot 2 Parcel (1.85 ac.)
- 6,000
sq. ft. M. Cr. watercourse
74,589
sq. ft.
- 2,984
sq. ft. 4% density slope red.
719605
sq. ft net density area
.36
FAR ratio per Code
25,778
sq. ft. FAR permitted
3
Lot 2 Parcel Calculations
Lot 2 FAR will be less
than 25,778 sq. ft. and will
comply with Code.
(303) 925-6727
FAX (303) 925-4157
October 19, 1995
Mr. Jim Curtis
CURTIS & ASSOCIATES
Crystal Palace Building
300 East Hyman Avenue
ASPEN, CO. 81611
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
SG
M
SCHMUESER
GORDON MEYER
APPENDIX B
P.O. Box 2155
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Heatherbed Lodge Property, Conceptual Subdivision and Metro Area - Growth
Management Plan Application, Engineering Report
Dear Jim:
This letter comprises an engineering report for relevant aspects of the Heatherbed Lodge
property Conceptual Subdivision and Metro Area Growth Management Plan Application to Pitkin
County. My remarks are based on our discussions of the project and inspection of the site. I
have structured my comments in response to the engineering related criteria of Pitkin County
Land Use Code Article 5 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, Section 5-150, Metro and Non -Metro
Area Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Allotments.
Introduction
The Heatherbed Lodge property comprises 4.1 acres at 1679 Maroon Creek Road in Pitkin
County, Colorado. The site currently includes the Heatherbed Lodge structure on the north
(upper) portion of the property and miscellaneous outbuildings and a corral on the south (lower)
portion of the site. The current application is for subdivision to create a second lot as well as
growth management approval of a single-family residential and caretaker unit on the lower
portion of the site. With regard to the requirements of the Pitkin County Land Use Code Section
5-150, 1 offer the following comments:
(a) 5-150.20 Water System tem The property has a well permit for drilling of an exempt well in the
lower bench area and a well was dug by Shelton Drilling Company on September 7, 1995.
The well is approximately 51 feet deep and pumps approximately 15 gpm. The well has
water of sufficient quantity and quality to serve the proposed residence and caretaker
unit.
The existing lodge is served by a connection to the water mains within the Highlands
Water and Sanitation District by a service line of some 350 feet in length. The proposed
residence is an additional 500 feet from the existing main resulting in a service line
requirement of some 850 feet. Due to the excessive distance and disruption associated
with construction of a water service connection to the Highlands District main, our office
recommended that the applicant pursue the on -site well and riot connect the proposed
1001 Grand Ave., Suite 2E - Glenwood Springs, Colorado - (303) 945-1004
October 19, 1995
Mr. Jim Curtis
Page 2
residence and caretaker unit to the municipal system. Use of the well for the proposed
residence will also avoid any need to upgrade existing public water mains or excavate in
the vicinity of Maroon Creek Road to obtain water service. -
(b) 5-150.30 Sewage Treatment Sewage treatment is to be accomplished via an on -site
Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) near the proposed residence. A design for
an on -site system was recently prepared by our firm for a proposed owner / manager /
employee residence on the lower bench area. A permit for the ISDS system has been
processed and approved by the Pitkin County Environmental Health Department.
While our current design demonstrates the feasibility of constructing a suitable on -site
wastewater disposal system at this location, the design would need to be updated to
accommodate the location of the proposed residence and caretaker unit that is the
subject of this application.
In the case of sewage disposal, the existing lodge is not connected to the mains of the
Highlands Water and Sanitation District (as it is for water service). The distance to the
existing sewer line from the proposed residence is even greater than the distance to the
water main at 1,045 feet. Once again, the disruption and cost associated with
constructing a sewer service for this distance is not feasible for the applicant. Connection
to the sewer main is also not mandated for projects over 400 feet from the main.
An on -site sewage disposal system is feasible for the proposed residence and caretaker
unit and would not impact existing public facilities in the area.
(c) 5-150.40 Drainage The proposed residence and caretaker unit will not result in significant
additional drainage impacts to the surrounding area. Site design is to incorporate on -site
drainage features including drywells utilizing shallow chamber systems to maintain historic
conditions with regard to runoff from the site while avoiding conflicts with the potentially
shallow groundwater in the area adjacent to Maroon Creek.
This project will not create additional impacts to any public storm drainage system nor
will it require improvements or expansion of the storm drainage system at public expense.
(d) 5-150.50 Fire Protection The closest fire hydrant to the site is currently in place on
Maroon Creek Road at the Aspen Highlands Parking lot, approximately 470 feet north of
the existing lodge and 970 feet from the proposed residence. The project site is also
outside a five minute response time from the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department station on
Hopkins Avenue.
' Construction of the proposed residence and caretaker unit is to incorporate a sprinkler
system and will not require improvements to area fire protection facilities. The existing
driveway will be improved with a Class 6 gravel surface and guard rail for added safety
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
October 19, 1995
Mr. Jim Curtis
Page 3
for fire vehicle access, although the principal fire protection measure will be to sprinkler
the residential buildings. Installation of fire suppression sprinklers in the proposed units
will require the incorporation of a water storage cistern to provide adequate supply to the
sprinkler system from the on -site well supply. The cistern will likely be in the range of
2,000 gallons although final sizing will be determined by the final design of the residence
and caretaker unit.
(f) 5-150.80 Transportation Impacts The project proposes one new single family residence
and a two -bedroom caretaker unit. The location of the access to the property will be
unchanged off of Maroon Creek Road.
The existing driveway to the site of the proposed residence and caretaker unit is
approximately 350 feet in length and between 12 and 14 feet wide, exceeding Pitkin
County's driveway standards for width as contained in the Pitkin County Road
Management and Maintenance Plan. The short driveway has grades varying from 13%
to 15% which exceed the 12% maximum grade limitation of the County's driveway
standards. To bring the existing driveway into compliance with the County's driveway
standards, the south end of the driveway would need to be raised approximately 10 feet
with imported fill and the alignment lengthened by approximately 83 feet to create an
access with maximum grades of 12%. To raise the driveway this much would cause
significant damage to the mature vegetation along the southern end of the driveway. In
speaking with the owners, they have experienced no problems in using the existing.
driveway on a year-round basis. They would prefer to save the mature vegetation along
the driveway and upgrade the driveway with a gravel overlay and guard rail as a safety
precaution. The prior County land use approvals for the lower bench area recognized the
problems with raising the driveway and agreed that leaving the existing driveway as is
was the best balance between preserving the existing vegetation and reducing the
driveway grades.
From a traffic impact standpoint, I have evaluated the Heatherbed property in the context
established by the proposed Aspen Highlands Base Village development which will have
significant impacts on area traffic but also incorporates a number of mitigation measures
both in terms of funding physical improvements to the Maroon Creek Road and travel
demand control measures such as increased transit service and corresponding auto
disincentives. The Heatherbed subdivision represents a very minor impact to area traffic
conditions when compared with existing and projected volumes and will benefit greatly
from the many improvements and programs to be initiated by the Highlands Base Village
development (assuming, of course, that the Highlands Base Village proceeds).
Specific traffic counts on Maroon Creek Road were last taken in the Winter of 1995 when
a count of 4,686 vehicles was recorded on February 6th, week 6 of that year. Utilizing
Pitkin County's ADT adjustment factors, this equals a background traffic volume on an
annual average basis (AADT) of 4,171 vehicles per day (vpd) as of this year. Trip
generation rates for the Heatherbed subdivision are based on the rates contained in the
Pitkin County Road Management and Maintenance Plan, Section IV. For purposes of
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
October 19, 1995
Mr. Jim Curtis
Page 4
analyzing this development, I have assumed a reduction of 1.5 trips per day from the
average traffic generation per unit due to the availability of a transit system stop within 1/2
mile of the project site as permitted under Section 4.01.01 a. (c). Plans for the Aspen
Highlands Base Village currently anticipate creation of a private shuttle service from the
Highlands to Aspen. All of these factors support using a strong transit assumption in the
calculation of trip generation from the Heatherbed site. Based on the County's figures
and the 1.5 vpd reduction, trip generation from the proposed Heatherbed subdivision is
likely to be 8.05 vehicles per day per unit impacting Maroon Creek Road.
The Heatherbed subdivision, therefore, will be adding a total of 16.10 vehicles per day to
the currently existing traffic on lower Maroon Creek Road resulting in a total volume
excluding the Highlands and Moore projects of approximately 4,187 vpd. The Heatherbed
subdivision proposal, therefore, represents an impact of just 0.39% to existing traffic on
Maroon Creek Road. Perhaps more importantly, the peak hour impact of 1.5 vehicles in
the morning will be in a direction opposite that of the background peak movements, that
is traffic from the Heatherbed site will head into town when peak traffic from town is
accessing the facilities in the hospital, school campus and Highlands areas and traffic will
return to the Heatherbed in the evening when area workers and skiers are headed back
to town. As a result, peak hour impacts from the Heatherbed will have minimal impact
on background peaks on area roads since it will be predominantly moving in a direction
opposite that of the background peak and levels of service on the existing road and
intersections will be unaffected by the addition of the Heatherbed subdivision.
Utilizing the developers projected range of figures for traffic generation from the Highlands
Base Village and Moore projects, background traffic for the Heatherbed subdivision,
including projected traffic for the fully developed Moore and Highlands Base Village
rp ojects, is between 5,270 and 6,660 vpd on the lower Maroon Creek Road below the
school campus. Adding the calculated trip generation for the Heatherbed subdivision to
the background traffic after complete development of the currently proposed Highlands
Base Village and Moore projects results in a total projected traffic volume on lower
Maroon Creek Road during peak winter season of between 5,286 and 6,676 vpd.
The existing County road from the project site to Highway 82 is a paved two-lane
roadway which generally conforms to the Pitkin County standard of a Class IIB Collector.
Total projected traffic volume of 6,676 vpd for the lower Maroon Creek Road suggests the
need to upgrade the lower Maroon Creek Road section to at least a Class IIA Main
Collector and possibly a Class I Arterial under Pitkin County standards. Given the
concerns of the Maroon Creek neighborhood over excessive widening of the existing
road, however, we have been inclined to suggest more relevant safety and spot
improvements along with proposed improvements to area trail and transportation facilities
to mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the larger projects. The Highlands Base
Village and Moore projects have committed to funding improvements to Maroon Creek
Road and the Castle / Maroon / Highway 82 intersection.
If the Highlands Base Village and Moore projects do not proceed, the Heatherbed
subdivision will represent a minimal impact to Maroon Creek Road. If the Highlands Base
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
October 19, 1995
Mr. Jim Curtis
Page 5
Village and Moore projects do proceed, the numerous proposed improvements and
alternative transportation modes that will be available within the corridor will be a
substantial benefit not only to the Heatherbed site but to the neighborhood as a whole
and to the school campus in particular. The coincident development of the Highlands
Base Village will also offer several opportunities to keep traffic within the area and not
venturing into Aspen for every minor purchase or entertainment option.
I hope these comments will be sufficient for the Conceptual Subdivision and Metro -Area Growth
Management Plan application for the Heatherbed Lodge property. Please feel free to contact me
if I may provide further information or detail.
Very truly yours,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC.
Jay W.'Hammo id P.E.
Principal, Aspen Jffice
JH/jh 90120ER
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
SCMMIMSER CORDON MEYER ►NC.
APPENDIX C
July 3, 1991
Mr. Jim Curtis
Curtis & Associates
117 South Monarch
Aspen, CO 8161
RE: Heatherbed Lodge Floodplain Study
Dear Jim:
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite ZE
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945.1004 (303) 925.6727
Fax (303) 945-5948
CONSULT►NG ENGINEERS i SURVEYORS
The purpose of this letter is to transmit the enclosed information and to discuss the results
of the floodplain study performed by Schmueser Gordon Meyer for the Heatherbed Lodge
located on Maroon Creek in Pitkin County, Colorado.
You will find attached the following items:
1 . Original blueline print (stamped by Sidney Lincicome) which shows the located
100-year floodplain line (by SGM).
2. Floodplain study map prepared by SGM using both field survey information and
the Heatherbed Lodge renovation and rezoning Final Plat information to compile
this map.
3. Hydraulic calculations used to identify the 100-year floodplain line on the upper
portions of the Heatherbed Lodge property.
Approach to Study
The existing information available to identify the 100-year floodplain line, for the property
upstream of the Heatherbed Lodge, is basically non-existent. When one reviews the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps, it is found that no "official" location of the
100-year floodplain line has been derived. However, hydrologic information has been derived
to determine the peak flow of Maroon Creek at the magnitude equal to one percent (1 %) in
any given year.
Therefore, the approach to the study utilized field surveys to detail the site topo in the area
where floodplain mapping was to be performed. After we obtained the field survey
information, we utilized additional information from the Flood Insurance Study performed for
Pitkin County, Colorado, and incorporated areas by FEMA. Once all available information was
compiled, we developed a flood model for the area of the Heatherbed Lodge property in
question. The attached hydraulic calculations represent the flood model for the 100-year
flood for the area in questions.
Isl.00 SF
r ; �'
1
/
'
I I
b
J I
i
1 1
I
I it II I
4 1
R'
1 n 1
( ll \
I
1
i
I I
\ I I 1 I p
\ i
3
I
1
f 1
P 1
1 I
I I
a
o
I
•\ \ \ \\�
l+
ny�va' w
I
►E-4►NEn ED ^ODPLAIN STUDY, ASPEN. LOLDt9ADO
'_ :00 YEAR _.;NDl7l0NY r='MA RUN
"ARGON CnEEk;. ;'ITK IN COUNTY
._-cClc v11IV .:;in :t: T :-,V?N'
.000000 0
?FVS >t3ECV :(SEC; =N ALLDC
� fivtL
n�/F t ORt c/ti� i?iji%
l
000
'.9.000
:1NO
7.000 26.000 2.000
».000
'9.000
44.000
»'1000
1VOO -
:8 0C.(1
1�100
=:.000 � .000 �4.UOU
�"OUO
�1.UU0
:S.iOUu
.:t,01 _(;;,(1(1(1
.J.10
ric
.V.0
f;c�
.V"
.IGO
'!,�
aL,v
.0uu
,;
.�:1U
. h
.:IAO
r
11
r000
A .
..,)(11
Of 00
.000
1000
/ ��
1t;0
�
.-
_"+�`,(1��
I,
. ��1(►
fa I _b1 Y,I (1
-'� l .
'Li<
-
."0(
:.(t%,
0
:i :
80.000
—_-
k�� VV
It,
(
0V
j
:Vi
'.jv
1*00�
IV
.01)i►
T1000
b.ODU
bU.000
9! 1000
?b.500
.8.`00
.;(i0
i �(11
.OGG
—�:
_
=Y4 :!il
Ia.:'.
•iflil
s•:
n rt r,
= 1,
/Lv•.
rc 1 n
h ,�l>1
��r.\tt
1'! ! S i 1
'- O
v: aG
�! ! ,
H. 1 fl
iry n r, i;
q t ,
_: IL\\
=�F r r. r.
001".
O•t :
'� �' ' - r1
,_ . "Or1
...
y
i.l G 00
•
-lt= •?_ir
.;.�,..:►
•^.
�5..;1:
ynC jli.l.
�V.t•?:1
?.+. fl siry
::. 0
/V
r/?il
4 av\'v
v r
1 000
.
�s t�
,ti
990 000
rflf
140 OAO
tat
, :1,1
•. 1.♦
('
■�GV
—
:.
-C f, f
-v. fA
,��
iittt?
,eiiill
--
—
�'- ice:: i.;
11(1
„/ ..1tf
'ii
JV
._ y;t,;!
— •Ii
— yi�ii
h r i? j
_
1 '.
.!
? + . i i is
`.''.11 ` . ` `
? V / 1 .1 .
, .? .'
I {'. :%
. ;ltii
_ •'
i!
•!
il
l.:
, .t:�0
:tfli i
a,11 ! ?
i�J
' h i ,.,
avr:1L �.
i f! f
ul: ,vl1 \1
8 1f 0
i. t+a'v JU
t!�tt
1Cr r\1JV
jt '
,�;ili
.'U�/
•1-1V
v�•tl
��}}
.000
In
mqj 1 1
. v
;'4i
1: G
9�. 400
)
!b.((i0
(1 I
98?.4 i.
f r1 [) l�
1ni.t(�
n „ 1_
8�.�{
C.,tr
_! .
— ? 1%.l
1 i
bt.UOr
—
/
t i'(1(1
•. /
{89 000
•
.'fir \••.
•+' 000
^8q 00'0
a
6 _06
ii ,L
�q1 AOO
■V.
»a .sills
ai'
sl ;
1•. •:t
itiltt``
1\VV
— ??
h ? Iij
�i• If s{l
!i;R Iif i�?
�.'-ni: �i
�ih lit i?
.l tl
off 11
r:vtl
Oki. V
-
��
: ! -:`1?{
1 i1%
j(1%1
tiilti
No'
--
i111
. _v_1
. •.'�t.
1 :t.:%
::!Llll
, iil{i
, _ 1 1
,;_. %
,;r %
.010 0
+ 07-02-91 16:47:52 PAGE
SECND DEPTH CiiSEI CRIMS i15ELK :5 yV �+! GLOSS BANK E_EV
3L0? 3CH 9RnP ALOP -,ru =P uni 1`1A :.EFT/RIE~T
TIME JLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN EL11N SSTA
SLOPE tLDBL XLCH XLOER :TRIAL Ii,C 16DNT LDRAk "GF'WID E'VD5T
#SECND 5. 00
32B0 CROSS SECTION 5.00 EXTENDED .16 FEET
7685 'tiIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CASE'
v633 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
'120 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
5.00 4.66 992.76 992.76 .00 994.40 1.63 1.73 .03 989.10
"'00. 50. 2149. 101. 13. ?�7', 'S. 1. 9Q9.1(
C.74 :0.57 2.89 .050 .��35 .u50 .000 y88.10 8.67
.008178 18B. 1B6. 184. 20 8 0 .00 10i.33 iI0.0(+
1
j'-02-91 16:47:52 PAGE
-HIS RUN EXECFED 07-02-91
l"C2 RE' "S.' DATED NOV 76 UPDATED, MAY 1994
=RROR CORK - 21,02.03,04,05,06
APPENDIX D
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
P.O. BOX 2
SILT, COLORADO 81652
(303) 876-5400 (24 HOURS)
September 29 1995
Jim Curtis
300 E. Hyman Ave., 2nd Floor
Aspen, CO. 91611
REi Heatherbed Lodge Property, Lower Bench Area
Dear Mr. Curtiss
I have investigated the geologic conditions of the above
referenced site on the east side of Maroon Creek. The site is
below the Heatherbed Lodge within the Aspen 7 1t2 minute
quadrangle, Pi tki n County, Colorado. The site is on the east bank
of the creek, bordering the 100 year flood boundary. There are
outbuildings on the site.
The topography of the site consists of a flat area with some
aspens, cottonwoods, and native grasses. There is an existing
driveway to the site which will be improved. It is my
understanding that the civil engineers will ascertain that the
proposed homesi to is out of the 100 year flood plain and i n . no
danger. from stream flooding. There are no other geologic hazards
affecting this proposed homesite.
Site specific soils engineering studies will need to be performed
in order to insure proper foundation design. There is the
potential for erosion into the stream during construction of the
home which will need to be controlled during the project.
The home should be designed to preclude the accumulation of radon
gas as this is becoming standard practice in the State. Due to
the presence of old, inactive faults in the vicinity which could
be a factor in the case of a seismic event, the home should be
designed to the specifications given in the Uniform Building Code
for Seismic Zone I I . If there are further 'questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
A r
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
MEMORANDUM
TO: Growth Management Commission / Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Francis X. Krizmanich, Deputy Director Community Development
RE: Murray Rezoning, Conceptual Submission and Metro Area Growth Management
Quota System Application
DATE: March 5, 1996
ISSUE: The applicant owns "lots" 5 and 6 of the "West Buttermilk Subdivision". Each "lot" is
approximately 2+ acres in size. Because the lots are located in the AFR-10 zone district, they are
nonconforming in size and are, therefore, subject to the cumulation provisions of the County Land
Use Code.
In 1994, the applicant applied to separate these merged, substandard size lots. During the review of
this application, the staff discovered that the "West Buttermilk Subdivision was illegally created in
1966, some 6 months after the County had passed subdivision regulations.
During the Planning Commission review of this application on April 18, 1995, the staff indicated
that we could not recommend approval of the Lot Separation request because the subdivision was
created illegally. The Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the Lot Separation,
preferring to defer this decision to the Board. The Planning Commission did support the
application and recommended approval of the Scenic Overlay and Conceptual Submission if the
Board approved the Lot Separation.
This application and the Lot Separation issue was first presented to the Board on August 9, 1995.
Because of the issues related to subdivision approval, the County Attorney, John Ely, was requested
to provide his opinion regarding this Lot Separation application at the August 23, 1995 meeting.
John's opinion was that the lots were not separate and could not be approved through the "Lot
Separation" process. Because of the issues surrounding the creation of this "lot" the Board could
not approve the proposed lot separation and subsequently denied the application by their resolution
No. 201. In spite of this denial, the Board expressed sympathy toward the applicant's plight and
encouraged them to submit a new land use application. This application has been submitted to
rezone the property from AFR-10 (10 acre minimum lot size) to AFR-2 (2 acre minimum lot size)
and to resubdivide the two lots into their original configuration.
APPLICANT: Joyce K. Murray Charitable Trust
1
ZONING: The lots are zoned AFR-10. Each lot is slightly larger than two acres.
LOCATION: The property is located at 1422 West Buttermilk Road.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: Referral agency comments are attached. Comments
were received from the following agencies:
1. Housing Office
2. Zoning Department
3. Environmental Health
4. Pitkin County Airport
5. Colorado Division of Water Resources
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: The staff comments are organized as follows:
1. Rezoning
2. Subdivision
3. Scenic Overlay
4. 1041 Hazards
5. GMQS Scoring
REZONING
The rezoning criteria from Section 3-220.20 of the County Code and staff comments are as follows:
1. Not conflict with any applicable sections of the Land Use Code.
Staff Comment: The proposal does not appear to conflict with any Code standard or section.
2. Be consistent with Pitkin County Master Plans.
Staff Comment: The adopted Plans do not address this particular site. The proposal is generally
consistent with the surrounding development density. The proposal also sites the building envelope
behind the ridge which is supported by the Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan.
3. Be compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Comment: The surrounding zone districts include AFR-10, AF-SKI and AFR-2. This
application appears consistent with surrounding zoning and development patterns. This proposal
would "legalize" the remaining lot in this subdivision. Surrounding lots range in size from 2 to 5
acres. Large properties in the neighborhood include 35 to 120 acre parcels.
Pq
4. Not result in demands on public facilities, and shall not exceed the capacity of such public
facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water
supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency .medical facilities.
Staff Comment: The staff opinion is that one additional lot at this location will not create the need
for additional public services or facilities.
5. Not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Comment: This proposal avoids mapped 1041 Hazard areas - primarily steep slopes and
associated wildfire hazards - and should not create any adverse impacts.
6. Be consistent and compatible with the community character.
Staff Comment: The lot size is compatible with others in the area. The AF-2 rezoning would
impose a floor area limit of approximately 7,400 square feet; the existing AFR-10 zoning allows up
to 15,000 square feet. The proposed zoning limits floor area to an amount that is more compatible
with the lot size and surrounding development than the existing AFR-10 zoning.
In addition to the above criteria, the Codes states:
"B. The Board shall consider:
1. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
2. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety."
Staff Comment: In regard to the first criteria, it would appear the conditions have not changed
significantly in this neighborhood; this application requests approval of a previously created lot in a
developed area. The second criteria, traffic generation and road safety, should not be significantly
affected by the addition of one single family residence.
SUBDIVISION
The subdivision review is intended to insure compliance with f.he standards of the Land Use Code.
The following section General Standards details outstanding issues and contains recommendations
for Conceptual Subdivision approval.
General Standards:
3
• Air Quality (Section 3-60.20)
Fireplace/Woodstove permits are required prior to the issuance of building permits.
• Preservation of Natural Landscape (Section 3-60.30)
The proposal limits development to a proposed building envelope and access drive. The
hillside will be left in a natural state.
• SCENIC OVERLAY (Section 3-60.40)
The Scenic Overlay Review criteria and staff comments follow:
1. Whether the proposed development has utilized existing topography and natural
vegetation, such as ridges and hills to screen buildings to the maximum extent
possible.
Staff Comment: At the County Planning Commission meeting held previously for the Lot
Separation, the staff recommended that the building envelope be reduced to avoid the ridge top and
northeast hillside because these areas are highly visible from Highway 82. In response to this
recommendation, the applicant has indicated that the home will be set back 25 feet from the
northeast edge of the envelope. The staff notes that portions of the proposed structure will still be
visible from Highway 82. This staff opinion is that there is sufficient land and topographic relief on
this parcel to allow a residence that cannot be seen from the Highway. The application does not
comply with this criteria. The Planning Commission recommended scenic approval of the
application as submitted.
2. Whether the proposed development has been designed to complement the natural
topography of the land, including, whenever possible and appropriate, the, utilization
of innovative architectural techniques such as earth sheltered design, natural
materials and coloring, non-reflectability and clustering of structures on the least
visible portions of the site.
Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated that the home will "step-down" the ridge; building
elevations are attached. Because portions of the structure are visible, the applicant should address
the use of architectural techniques to mitigate scenic impacts. A condition of approval should
require non -reflective roof materials.
3. Whether the proposed development's height and bulk has been designed to avoid, to
the maximum extent possible, the visibility of buildings from the highway and
public viewplanes.
Staff Comment: As stated previously, the staff opinion is that a home can be constructed on this
site which completely avoids scenic impacts by either lowering the height of the home or moving it
further down hill from the ridge.
4
4. The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not break a ridgeline, unless there
are no alternate building sites on the lot.
Staff Comment: The proposed structure will break the ridgeline. There are alternate building
locations on this site. The proposal does not comply.
5. Whether the proposed development has avoided the location of uses on the highest
ground or most visible portion of the site as viewed from State Highway 82 and
public rights -of -way, identified in Section (B)(1) above.
Staff Comment: The development has avoided the highest and most visible portions of the site;
however, the proposed residence will still be visible from the Highway 82. corridor.
6. Whether the proposed development has been located outside of the designated
Scenic Overlay, or on a suitable site at the greatest distance possible from State
Highway 82 and identified ridgelines.
Staff Comment: The proposed building envelope includes the mapped ridgeline.
7. Whether the proposed development has been landscaped in accordance with the
adopted State Highway 82 Corridor landscape guidelines and has preserved natural
vegetation, to the maximum extent possible, including the avoidance of
development within irrigated meadows. Existing vegetation shall be maintained to
the maximum extent possible, while using existing vegetation to screen
development. A landscaping plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved
by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff Comment: The site is not located within the Highway 82 corridor. A landscaping plan has
not been proposed at this time. The staff opinion is that landscaping is not necessary on this site
because of existing vegetation and the site's distance from Highway 82. The staff opinion is that
lowering the house elevation is the best technique to mitigate ridgeline impacts on this site.
8. Whether the proposed development's exterior lighting has been designed in such a
manner that light sources, such as facade and landscape lighting, will not be seen
from public rights -of -way as identified in Section (B)(1). In addition, an application
shall be consistent with the lighting regulations identified in the Pitkin County Land
Use Code.
Staff Comment: The applicant indicates that no lighting will be visible from Highway 82 and that
lighting will be consistent with the Land Use Code. The staff notes that specific lighting plans have
not been provided. However, if the structure is allowed to break the ridgeline, it is likely that light
from windows on the north side of the home will be visible from Highway 82.
5
9. Landforms and earth moving shall generally not be acceptable as the sole measure
of compliance with these regulations. However, they may be utilized in conjunction
with other site techniques designed into the development plan. These methods may
be acceptable when utilized as one of several methods to complement and enhance
development, rather than as the single device for screening development from view
from the State Highway 82 Corridor and as mapped.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not proposed creating landforms or earthmoving to shield the
site. The staff opinion is that the location of the building envelope and building height are the two
critical factors on this site.
10. Whether the proposed development has been designed so as to avoid, to the
maximum extent possible, any Scenic Viewplane identified on the State Highway
82 Corridor Master Plan and Down Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: The site is not affected by any mapped Scenic Viewplane.
11. In the case where 1041 hazard areas may be in conflict with preservation of scenic
areas, the Board acknowledges that 1041 issues take precedence over scenic
concerns. These issues shall be reviewed on a case -by -case basis.
Staff Comment: The staff opinion is that revising the proposed building envelope to avoid the ridge
and steep hillside accomplishes the dual goals of avoiding wildfire hazards and scenic impacts.
• Water Supply (Section 3-70.100)
The applicant must comply with Environmental Health Department requirements regarding
quantity, quality and setbacks prior to the issuance of any building permits. The staff notes
that the applicant must also obtain a water right or otherwise gain approval from the State to
develop an individual well on this property. Prior to final subdivision approval, the
applicant shall be required to show that an adequate legal water supply exists to serve this
lot.
• 1041 HAZARDS (section 3-80)
The property comprises approximately two acres, contains steep slopes and is mapped as
containing severe wildfire hazards due to the steep slopes and thick, mature
oak/serviceberry vegetation occurring on the slopes.
Slope and wildfire hazards on this property can be avoided by proper building envelope
placement. The area of the property that is between the ridge and adjacent to West
Buttermilk Road contains slopes of approximately 10%. Because of the wildfire hazard
6
associated with the steep slopes and thick brush on the northeast side of the lot; the building
envelope has been reduced to avoid the ridge top and steep slope area.
The applicant has committed to incorporating the standard Pitkin County Wildfire
mitigation techniques. The staff opinion is that the proposal adequately avoids the
hazardous portions of the site.
• Standards For Areas Around Airports (Section 3-90)
The property lies within a mapped Medium Hazard Zone. The property may be impacted
by aircraft arrival and departure noise. The airport staff recommends that the applicant enter
into an avigation easement with the airport as a condition of approval.
• Sewage Treatment (Section 3-110.50)
It appears likely that an individual sewage disposal system will be able to serve this lot. The
applicant must obtain a sewage disposal permit prior to issuance of a building permit.
• Public Utilities (Section 3-110.60)
Holy Cross provides electric to the site.
alignment.
Utility lines shall be buried in the access drive
• Roads (Section 3-110.70)
The West Buttermilk Road appears adequate to serve one additional residence. The
applicant will be required to obtain a driveway permit from the County - the proposed
access alignment can meet County standards.
• Trails (3-110.100)
There are no identified or necessary trail dedications associated with this subdivision.
• Development Exactions (Section 3-130)
• Affordable Housing (Section 3-130.20)
The applicant has committed to provide a category 2, 400 square foot employee dwelling
unit. The Housing Office indicates that this commitment satisfies the housing mitigation
requirement for a 4 bedroom, free-market residence. The staff notes that Section 3-150.110
of the Code allows an additional dwelling on a property if it is fully deed restricted. The
staff recommends approval of this proposal subject to deed restrictions as required by the
Housing Office.
• Parks/Recreation/Open Space (Section 3-130.40)
The creation of a new lot through subdivision requires the dedication of park land or
payment of a fee -in -lieu of land where dedication is not appropriate. The staff recommends
that a fee -in -lieu of land dedication be required.
0
• Aspen School District (3-130.60)
The applicant is required to either dedicate land or a fee -in -lieu for school district impacts.
The staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication
for this subdivision.
METRO AREA GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (SECTION 3-150)
The criteria for metro area growth management quota system allotments and staff's recommended
scoring for this project are attached.
SUMMARY: The staff notes that to receive a development allotment, an applicant must receive a
score of at least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria. If this project
receives an acceptable GMQS score, the staff recommends approval of the application subject to
conditions as outlined below.
RECOMMENDATION: The staff and Planning Commission recommend that the Board approve
the Murray Rezoning, Conceptual Submission and GMQS application subject to the following
Conditions.
CONDITIONS:
1. The building envelope shall be revised to avoid severe wildlife hazards and scenic impacts
by avoiding the ridge and steep northeast face of the lot.
2. No development other than the access drive shall be located outside of the building
envelope.
3. The following conditions shall apply to mitigate wildfire hazards:
a. Defensible space: The area around the structure shall incorporate landscaping with
wildfire defensible space considerations as follows:
NOTE: Actual vegetation manipulation to meet these conditions may not be
necessary where the natural vegetation patterns have already fulfilled these
conditions.
1. Brush, debris, and non -ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a
minimum 10 foot perimeter around the structure.
2. Vegetation shall be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal
continuity of the fuels a minimum of a 30 foot perimeter around a structure
8
built on flat ground. (For greater slopes ref. CSFS Safety Zone chart. Page
13, Wildfire Guidelines For Rural Homeowners).
3. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the 30 foot
perimeters shall be a minimum of two times the height of the fuel.
Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be two times the height of the fuel.
All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel.
4. All branches from trees and brush within the 30 foot perimeter shall be
pruned to a height of 10 feet above the ground and removal of ladder fuels
from around trees and brush.
5. Tree crown separation within the 30 foot perimeters shall have a minimum
of 10 feet between the edges of the crowns. This does not apply to mature
stands of Aspen trees where the above recommendation for removal of
ladder fuels have been complied with. In areas of aspen regeneration, the
spacing guidelines shall be followed.
6. All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all
branches within 15 feet of the chimneys shall be removed.
7. The density of fuels within a 100 foot perimeter of the structures shall be
reduced where natural reduction has not already occurred.
8. All deadfall within the 100 foot perimeter shall be removed.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the
defensible space vegetation requirements.
b. Structural Design and Construction Requirements:
1. Roofing: Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible (no wood
shake/shingles) material with no flat roofs.
2. Vents: Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh with
mesh 1/4 inch maximum.
C. Maintenance:
l . Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
2. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris.
9
3. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of
15 feet away from any structure.
4. Weeds and grasses within the 10 foot perimeter shall be maintained to a
height not more than 6 inches.
d. Miscellaneous:
l . Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of 15
feet away from the structure.
2. Swimming pools shall be accessible to Fire Department vehicles.
3. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris.
4. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure.
5. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards
as structures.
6. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container.
7. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a
contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation
mitigation around any above -ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the
tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour fire -resistive
construction on the exterior side of the walls.
8. Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 pound ABC fire
extinguisher.
9. Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2 inch non-combustible letters and
shall be visible and installed on a non-combustible post.
e. Access: Access roads shall be built to County standards.
f. Water Supply:
l . When access to a public or private pressurized water system is not available
or if it is necessary to augment fire protection water systems, private ponds
10
may be used if approved by Pitkin County and the local fire protection
district.
2. Any fire department recommendation for individual structure water supply
and storage shall be accessible to fire department vehicle from the exterior
of the structure through a Fire Department approved mechanism (such as a
fire hydrant). The amount of storage capacity shall be determined by the fire
protection district with a minimum of 1000 gallon storage capacity per
structure.
3. Residential structures located within areas identified as containing "C -
Severe Hazard: Trees" or "X - Severe Hazard: Brush" wildfire hazard shall
be required to install in-house sprinkler systems which meet the standards of
the local fire protection district and the Uniform Building Code.
g. Utilities: Utility lines shall be buried within the access drive.
4. The applicant shall execute an Avigation Easement with Pitkin County prior to the issuance
of any building permits.
S. An adequate supply of water must be documented for the property and the location of the
well must be determined before the septic permit can be issued.
6. A septic permit must be applied for and issued by the Environmental Health Department
before the building permits can be issued.
7. A fireplace/woodstove permit must be applied for and issued before the building permits
can be issued.
8. All material representations made by the applicants in the application and public meeting
shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other
conditions.
9. The applicant shall submit a subdivision plat for review by the Community Development
Department and the County Engineer for approval by the Board of County Commissioners,
prior to final plat approval. The following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer
shall be included on the plat:
"Applicant acknowledges that he/she has been informed by Pitkin County of the
existence of 1041 environmental hazard areas that might affect the property, any
improvements, and the use and occupancy thereof."
10. To mitigate scenic impacts, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions:
a. There shall be no vegetation removed outside of the building envelope, except for
the access driveway and as approved by the Planning Department for wildfire
hazard reduction (as recommended by the Pitkin County Sheriff).
b. All utilities shall be placed within the access drive. Utility cuts on the northeast
hillside are prohibited.
C. The maximum building height shall match the elevations as depicted on the attached
site plan.
d. The home shall have a 25 foot setback from the northeast building.
e. No structures other than the main residence as depicted on the attached site plan are
approved at this time. Additional structures may require further review.
f. The applicant shall use exterior materials that blend with the surrounding natural
landscape. A sample of the materials to be used shall be submitted to the Planning
Office for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Non -reflective roof
materials shall be used.
g. The applicant shall comply with all material representations and commitments made
during the review of this project.
h. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the new lot the applicant shall pay
the park and school dedication fees as indexed at the time of building permit
issuance.
i. The applicant shall provide a 400 square foot, Category 2 deed restricted dwelling
on -site to satisfy housing mitigation requirements.
Attachments
1. Land Use Application
2. Referral Comments
12
METRO AREA RESIDENTIAL GMOS SCORE SHEET
Scoring: Points shall be awarded for performance relative to each of the four scoring criteria.
Possible scores for each criterion shall range from zero, the lowest possible score, to five, the
highest possible score. It is recognized that small projects could be at a competitive disadvantage
when scored against large-scale projects. It is intended, therefore, that projects be evaluated
according to reasonable expectations regarding what could be expected given their size and scale.
A score of zero shall be awarded to projects that, although they had the opportunity to comply
with scoring criteria and had the ability to advance stated community goals, will actually
contribute nothing to implementation of the articulated vision and may, in fact, move the
community further away from its stated goals. A score of three indicates that a project will move
the community closer toward attainment of its stated visions and make a positive contribution
toward the implementation of articulated goals. A score of five indicates that a project
demonstrates exceptional sensitivity to the stated visions of the community and will result in
significant movement toward implementation of those goals. Other scores along the continuum
from zero to five will be awarded based on the degree to which projects will implement stated
goals. No growth management allocation shall be awarded to projects that do not receive a final
average score of at least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria of
Sections 3-160.50-C.1, 3-160.50-C.2, 3-160.50-C.3 and 3-160.50-C.4.
Criteria:
1. Revitalizing the permanent community: Residents of the Aspen area have long
recognized the need to .preserve the community's character and identity as more than just a resort,
a collection of second homes and a tourist shopping mecca. They recognize that a "critical mass"
of permanent residents and local serving -businesses is necessary to make any community
function. They recognize, too, that the vitality brought to the Aspen area by full-time residents is
being seriously diluted by the inability of working people to live in their own community.
As a result of these concerns, one of the community's central goals is to create a
community with a size, density and diversity that encourages interaction, involvement and
vitality and one that provides opportunities for its workers to become a permanent part of the
social fabric.
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of revitalizing the
permanent community, including, but not limited to the following:
a. providing high -quality, on -site, affordable housing for permanent residents;
b. providing site appropriate mixing of free market and affordable housing for
efficient provision of services such as transit and discourages site planning that isolates
affordable and free market units;
C. providing a housing package consistent with the Housing Authority Guidelines
with an emphasis on family -oriented housing where and when appropriate;
d. creating affordable dwelling units through buy -downs or conversion of existing
free market units; and
e. providing "locally serving commercial space/businesses."
STAFF COMMENTS: This application proposes to develop and deed restrict an existing unit
on -site. The staff notes that the proposal to develop a unit on -site will comply with the goals of
providing housing for employees in the Metro area. The staff recommends a score of three (3)
for this application as it makes a positive contribution to local housing.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SCORE: 3
COMMISSIONER'S SCORE:
2. Providing transportation alternatives: Residents recognize that reducing dependency
on the automobile is vital for the long-term livability and health of the Aspen area. Their plan is
so bold as to envision a time in the not -too -distant future when the automobile is not the
dominant means of moving people in and around the community. They are seeking a balanced,
integrated transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduces traffic
congestion and air pollution. These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the
goal of providing transportation alternatives, including, but not limited to the following:
a. reducing the need for private vehicles as a form of transportation;
b. facilitating and encouraging year-round pedestrian transportation;
C. helping to implement a valley -wide mass transit system;
d. providing needed improvements to the existing RFTA system;
e. increasing the number of available transportation choices;
f. creating a less congested downtown core;
g. helping to implement the transportation planning policies of the AACP and the
Aspen to Snowmass transportation plan;
h. altering land use patterns to accommodate and contribute to a more efficient and
effective transit system;
i. creating, improving or expanding public commuter trails, walkways or bikeway
facilities that are consistent with the goals of the AACP and associated plans, such as the
pedestrian/bikeway plan;
j. locating developments near transit facilities;
k. providing on -going transportation to and from the airport, ski areas and shopping
areas;
1. providing on -going employee transportation services such as van pools or buses at
no cost to employees;
M. providing bicycle parking, showers and lockers for employees; and
n. providing secure bicycle storage for guests and employees.
STAFF COMMENTS: The project is located within the Metro area and has access to bicycle
and transit facilities near the Buttermilk base area. As a small two lot subdivision located on
West Buttermilk Road, the applicant has limited opportunities to enhance the local transit
system. The staff recommends a score of three (3) for this category because of the commitment
to provide an employee unit on -site.
N
STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SCORE: 3
COMMISSIONER'S SCORE:
3. Promoting environmentally sustainable development: Residents of the Aspen area
recognize that the natural environment is one of the community's greatest assets. As a result, they
wish to allow only that development that is environmentally sensitive and that promotes
individually responsible, ecological lifestyles. The community seeks to foster a high level of
consciousness relative to resource conservation, wildlife protection and environmental
sustainability.
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of promoting
environmentally sustainable development, including, but not limited to the following:
a. orienting building sites, streets and other project features in order to maximize
potential for use of solar energy and other renewable energy resources;
b. protecting and preserving existing trees and other mature vegetation during and
after the construction process;
C. using fewer or cleaner wood -burning devices than allowed by 'jaw;
d. removing or replacing existing dirty wood -burning devices;
e. increasing community access to natural and open space areas;
f. promoting community recycling efforts;
g. landscaping with low -water -use plant materials and using chemical -free landscape
maintenance techniques;
h. employing measures that reduce PM 10 levels in the non -attainment area;
i. preserving and efficiently using environmental resources during all phases of
development, including types of materials used and future energy and material needs of the
project;
j. completely avoiding " 1041 " hazard areas and ridgeline development;
k. enhancing existing wildlife habitat;
1. completely avoiding 8040 Greenline issues; and
M. completely avoiding Stream Margin Review issues.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed building envelope avoids the steep hillside and associated
1041 hazards including wildfire and steep slopes. The building envelope loation will preserve
the majority of the natural vegetation on -site. The proposal does not completely avoid the
ridgeline - it appears that 3-4 feet of the roof line height will be visible from Highway 82 -
because of this impact, the staff recommends a sore of two (2).
STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SCORE: 2
COMMISSIONER'S SCORE:
3
4. Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character:
Residents recognize the importance of design within the community's historic setting. It is a vital
component of the community's economic well-being and cultural heritage. They believe that
public architecture should support and enhance community life. Their goal is to ensure
maintenance of community character through design quality and compatibility with historic
features.
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of maintaining
design quality, historic compatibility and community character, including, but not limited to the
following:
a. restoring structures listed in the inventory of historic structures;
b. improving and maintaining the appearance and function of alleys for commercial,
office and residential uses;
C. ensuring design compatibility with existing buildings in the vicinity of the
proposed project, in terms of scale, massing, building materials, fenestration, other architectural
features and open space;
d. including porches or other "pedestrian -friendly" features;
e. retaining and promoting eclectic and varietal businesses along main street that
maintain and enhance the special character of the historic district;
f. ensuring the site's useability for social activities.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed subdivision will create one additional single family
residential lot. The placement of the building envelope and home size limits imposed by the
proposed AFR-2 zoning will insure this project's compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood. The staff recommends a score of three (3).
STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SCORE: 3
COMMISSIONER'S SCORE:
TOTAL SCORE:
4
FEB 09 '96 03:27PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
P. 3
TO*. Francis Krizmaniche Planning Office
57.0m: Cindy Christensen, Holaaing office
DATE: February 8, 1996
RE; Murray Metro Residential GMQS, Subdivision Conceptual
Review and Rezoning
Parcel ID No. 2735-033-00-031
160TIE:, The applicant io proposing to construct a single-family
home an a 2.021 acre parcel of land located at 1422 'Nest Buttermilk
Road.
BACXGROUM: The
single-family home
improvement contemplates the
provision for one
employee
housing unit., The applicant, owns, a 360
square foot rental
unit
that sits
on the adjacent Lot 5, and
proposes to deed
restrict
the unit
to Category 2. The applicant
further proposes
to bring
the unit up to standard by expanding it
at "least 40 square feet.
This unit
was built in 1972.
According to Sect.-Ior. 3-130,200 C, 1, Residential Development:
I-M for an
An applicant shall provide affordable housing
amount equal to thirty-three percent (33W) of the
residents living in the non -dead restricted dwellkli.ng
units.
By upgrading the unit, to 400 square feet at Category 2, this unit
wculd house 1.25 employees. This unit would mitigate for a four -
bedroom home at 33k of the residents living in the non -deed
restrictled dwelling unit.
The application does not state how many bedrooms the free-market
residence is to contain. Therefore, should t'ne -free-market un-,.t be
I
larger than four bedrooms, further mitigation would be required.
REco1acE==XcSz if the unit is deed restricted to Category 2 and
pgraded to a minimum 400 square feet, the applicant is pcoviding
the required housing mitigation for a four -bedroom free-market
unit
ni
\referral\Tnurray. Umq
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning
FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning Officer
DATE: January 24, 1996
RE: Murray Metro Residential GMQS, Subdivision Conceptual
Review & Rezoning
Parcel ID# 2735-033-00-031
I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the
following comments.
ZONE: Existing: AFR-10, ten acre minimum lot size
Proposed: AFR- 2, two acre minimum lot size
Lot 5 contains 2.037 acres and Lot 6 contains 2.020 acres. Both
lots are non -conforming for the AFR-10 zone district. Both lots
are conforming in lot size for the AFR-2 zone district.
SETBACKS: The required setbacks for Lot 6 are:
30 foot front yard setback
20 foot side yard setback
30 foot rear yard setback
The proposed building envelope lies outside of all required
setbacks.
FLOOR AREA: Under present zoning, Lot 6 would be allowed a total
of 15,000 square feet of floor area. All structures would be
included in the calculation of floor area.
If the rezoning were approved, the total allowed floor area on Lot
6 would be reduced to 7,400 square feet. Lot 5 would be allowed
a total floor area of 7,436. It is not known how much floor area
is currently contained on Lot 5, or whether a rezoning will create
a non -conformity regarding floor area on Lot 5.
The applicant has not represented how much floor area is proposed
for Lot 6 site at this time.
HEIGHT: The applicant proposes to reduce the maximum height limit
to 26 feet at the west end of the house, and to 28 feet in the
center of the house as measured vertically to the ridge of the roof
from grade elevations 8264 and 8266 respectively as indicated on
illustration #3 in the application.
There appears to be a four foot discrepancy as to what the proposed
height limitation will be on the East side of the residence. One
illustration indicates that the ridge will be no higher than 8294
and another illustration indicates that the ridge will be no higher
than 8290.
Building plans have not been submitted to determine compliance with
the proposed height limitation.
OTHER: Excepting the access drive and utilities, all development
must be contained within the approved building envelope unless
specifically exempted through this review. This includes septic
systems and landscaping.
Will lighting be allowed within the 25 feet between the house and
the ridge?
No building permits have been found to indicate the legality of the
studio cabin on Lot 5.
On the site plan, it is not clear what is intended by the dotted
line representing a "driveway boundary". Also, no driveway is
indicated on the site plan.
To: Francis Krizmanich, Community Development Dept.
From: Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health Department W'
Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental. Health Director o"O C.
Date: February 2, 1996
Re: Murray Metro Residential GMQS, Subdivision Conceptual
Review & Rezoning
Parcel ID # 2735-033-00-031
-----------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
details of the Murray application under the authority of the
Pitkin County Code,Title II, Land Use Code and has the following
comments. The lot 2.021 acre parcel is located in the Ridge of
Buttermilk area at 1422 West Buttermilk road.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-170 and 3-110.4•
"It is the policy of the County to insure the availability of a water supply of adequate quality, quantity,
pressure and dependability for fire protection and support of a proposed land use prior to approval of the
use. The County shall require land uses to hook up to existing public systems if service is available."
This Department needs adequate information on the quantity and
the quality of water available. This can be done from tests of
wells present on -site by a water engineer's or well driller's
report. The applicant must ensure that the water quality is
acceptable by having it tested by a lab such as the Snowmass
Water and Sanitation District or Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District. Before a septic permit can be issued, the well must be
drilled to assure that setback requirements from the well to the
sewage disposal system can be maintained. Pitkin County Land Use
Code requires that the well site be within the building envelope.
It is recommended that low water landscaping (xeriscaping) be
used and that the timing of any sprinkler systems be decreased
for low water plants. The Colorado State University Cooperative
Extension office can be contacted for more information on
xeriscaping.
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt
of information documenting that the location of the well(s)
meet setback requirements and can be placed within the
building envelope and that quantity/quality of the well
water are adequate. Without meeting these requirements a
0
septic permit and building permit can not be issued.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-180 and 3-110.5:
"It is the policy of the County to ensure that adequate sewage treatment facilities are available to serve
existing and new developments. Public and private sewage disposal systems and corrections to such systems
shall comply with the sewage disposal guidelines of Pitkin County's Individual Sewage Disposal System
Regulation."
Lots in the West Buttermilk area are served by individual sewage
disposal systems. All such systems installed within Pitkin
County require septic permits issued by the Environmental Health
Department, and must comply with the County's sewage disposal
regulations. To receive a septic permit, the applicant will need
to submit a septic permit application and appropriate fee with a
completed Soil Data Form including percolation test results and
profile hole information. It must be possible to design an
adequate sewage disposal system before a building permit can be
issued.
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department will design the
system for the applicant as part of the permit fee, if an
engineered system is not required. We will do a site visit,
advise the applicant about the best location for the system and
provide a system design. We will determine if an engineered
system is needed based on soil test results. An engineered
system is required if any one of the following conditions exists:
a percolation rate faster than 5 mpi or slower than 60 mpi;
maximum seasonal level of the groundwater table or bedrock less
than four feet below the bottom of the proposed absorption
system; or a slope in excess of 30%. Prior to initiating any
tests at the site, the applicant should contact this office.
Based on percolation test results in the general vicinity, 26 mpi
for the Yusem lot at 163-0 W. Buttermilk Rd, and 10 mpi for the
Burkholder lot at 1596 West Buttermilk Rd, we are confident that
a sewage disposal system can be installed and it probably will
not have to be an engineered system. Site specific soil data will
have to be obtained. The applicant will need to adhere to minimum
horizontal setback. requirements for placement of sewage disposal
system components. They will need to locate the leach field site
a minimum of 100 feet from their well and from any neighboring
wells. Eight feet of additional distance for each 100 gallons/day
of design flow over 1,000 gallons/day should be added unless an
RPE can verify that it is not necessary to prevent contamination.
Pitkin County Land Use Code requires the sewage disposal system
be within the building envelope.
The area for the leach field should be located in an area of no
traffic, planted with dry land grass, and should not be watered.
2
It is desireable to locate the system downhill from the house so
that the system can operate by gravity. The applicant should
refer to the Pitkin County Sewage Regulations for detailed
information, or call our off ice to discuss this site.
A condition of approval for this applicat+on is the receipt
and approval of the sewage disposal permit by the
Environmental Health Department before a building permit can
be issued.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS• Sections 2-140 and3-70.5 and 3-70.10
"It is the policy of the County to preserve and protect its present water resources, recognizing the
County's semi -arid character and that significant transmountain and transbasin diversions and 'he vested
rights of senior appropriators in the basin have materially curtailed the availability of an already scarce
water resource. To this end it is the policy of the County that no land use be initiated which ;could
adversely affect the quantity, quality, or accessibility of the County's water resources; or which would
occur at the expense of established water -dependent agricultural activities; or which ;could result in
increased salinization of water resources, toss of minimum stream flows, further destruction of wildlife
habitat, or major expenditures to reaccuire or redistribute major water resources. It is also the policy of
the County to maintain a natural vegetative buffer along its surface waters such that the surface and
groundwaters of the area are not encroached upon by land uses or other human activities which could cause
deterioration of water quality or impair the natural treatment processes provided by meadows and wetlands."
The Environmental Heal Depart -went is charged with preserving
and protecting the quality of Pizkin County's water rAsources .
Since a large percentage of the population is dependent upon
water from wells, elimin ation of groundwater pollution, and
protection of aquifers and their drainage areas are of utmcst
importance. Roofs and asphalt driveways can be ncnpoint sources
of water discharge which can contaminate water supplies. This
Department recommends that nonpoint sources of discharge must be
retained on the properry of origin which can be accomplished
through landscaping, drainage patterns, detention ponds, and di7
wells for water runoff f=om buildings.
Surface water and groundwater contamination can also be caused by
inadequate setback distances from sewage disposal systems to
proximate wells, rivers, creeks, ponds, and reservoirs. Kinim=
horizontal distances between components of a sewage disposal
system and physical features must be in accordance with the
Pitt_n County Sewage Regulation. This Department reserves the
right to require water quality sampling at the homeow-ner's
expense.
A condition of approval for this application is: NONE
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-130 and 3-602•
"Only that development is permitted which will not contribute significantly to degradation of air quality.
This project is not expected to contribute significantly to
degradation of air quality in Pitkin County.
3
Activities such as road building and landscaping may require a
Fugitive Dust Plan. This plan would need to include, 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.
The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the
Environmental Health Department before the building permit will
be issued. Metropolitan areas of Pitkin County which includes
this site may have two devices: either two gas log fireplaces,
two certified clean -burning woodstoves, or one of each. Each
building may also have unlimited numbers of decorative gas
appliances. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor
may any heating device use coal as fuel. No wood burning device
may be installed in barns or agricultural buildings.
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt
and approval of the fireplace/woodstove permit by the
Environmental Health Department before the building permit
can be issued.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Section 2-70:
"It is the policy of the County to ensure that no use or development of land is permitted which is in
violation of the Laws of the County, the State of Colorado, or the United States of America."
This Department is not aware of any issues of concern regarding
other environmental health laws.
... ENV:WP:LANO USE:73503300.031
4
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO:
Francis Krizmanich, Community Development Department
FROM:
Lee Remmel, Assistant Director of Aviati
SUBJ:'N,
Murray Metro Residential GMQS, Subdivision
Conceptual Review & Rezoning, Parcel ID #2735-033-00-031
DATE:
December 5, 1995
RE: s.
(a) Airport Memo of Nov 1, 1994; Subj Murray Lot
Separation, 1041 Hazard Review & Scenic Overlay Review,
Parcel ID #2735-033-00-031
(b) Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department Memo
of Nov 28, 94, Same Subj as Above
Airport staff conducted a 1041 Hazard Review in accordance with
reference
(a), and this subsequent review request is assumed to be
a follow-on to this original request.
Airport staff has further reviewed this Application in accordance
with reference (b) and offer the following similar comments as
forwarded
in reference (a):
(1) This property does not appear to lie within a significant
aircraft noise impacted area (60-65 DNL).
However, the applicant should be advised that while the proposed
site is not within the significant noise impacted area or
underneath usual flight paths for departures, arrivals, or
repetitive flight training operations, occasionally there will be
high levels of aircraft "side lobe" noise that maybe generated on
departure or landing that will impinge upon this area. During such
operations, aircraft noise could be very noticeable, and high level
single event (SEL) noise may be deemed a nuisance to residents and
guests.
(2) All of the property falls within the Airport Medium Hazard
Zone (AP-M) area as defined on the Pitkin County, CO, Lower Roaring
Fork Valley, Airport High Hazard and Airport Medium Hazard Zones
map.
(3) The development site does not seem to penetrate the airport's
horizontal surface area as depicted on the Obstructions and
Approach Zones (Part 77) map of Aug, 1989. Therefore, upon
reviewing Federal Air Regulation Part (FAR) 77, Objects Affecting
Navigable Airspace, it appears the development is exempted from
filing a Notice of Construction or Alteration under Section 77-15
(a), to wit, it is 11 - - - shielded by - - - natural terrain or
topographic features of equal or greater height - - - where it is
evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded
will not adversely affect safety in air navigation".
(4) Therefore and in due consideration of (1) & (2) above, the
Applicant should be required to enter into an Avigation Easement
Agreement with the County in exchange for approval of this
Application.
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
Mr. Francis Krizmanich
Aspen/Pitkin Community
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 31611
5TATE,QF7-C.QL0RAD0
�. V,
w;.
' 3Y�
JAN 0 9 1996
December 28, 1995
Development Department
RE: Murray Subdivision Conceptual Review, Parcel ID #2635-033-00-031
SW 1 /4, Section 3, T10S, R 85W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. Krismanich:
Rov Romer
Governor
James S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
We have reviewed the referral for the subject subdivision located two miles northwest
of the City of.Aspen, Colorado. The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home
on a 2.021 acre parcel. The Board of County Commissioners has determined that the
formation of this parcel was technically deficient and has required formal subdivision approval.
The proposed water supply for the home is stated to be by an individual well.
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(1), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed
water supply would cause injury to decreed water rights. The Colorado River system and its
tributaries at this location are over -appropriated. As such, well permit applications for new
subdivisions must be evaluated to determine if other water rights would be injured considering
the cumulative effect of all proposed well In this Vase a well permit could not bo icel IMA h%/
i t./ V 1 case 1 permit not U .r v Y
our office without a water court approved plan for augmentation. There is also insufficient
information in the submittal to evaluate the adequacy of the water supply. As per Section 30-
28-133 (3)(d), C.R.S. 1973, developers are required to submit adequate evidence that a water
supply is sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure
an adequate supply of water for the proposed development. We recommend that this
development not receive approval from your agency until a plan for augmentation for the
proposed purposes is decreed by the water court, the appropriate well permits are issued, and
the developer submits adequate evidence that the water supply is sufficient as described
above.
Mr. Francis Krismanich
December 28, 1995
Page 2
The attached Water Supply Information Summary should be used as a guide in assuring
that a concise water supply plan is provided to our office. Should you have any questions
regarding the water supply for this project, please contact David Fox of this office.
Sincerely,
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPL/DF/df
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, WD 38
MURRAY SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
METRO RESIDENTIAL G.M.Q.S., and
REZONING TO AFR-2
Joyce K. Murray Charitable Trust, Owner
Lot 6 of the Ridge of Buttermilk
Submitted to:
Mr. Francis Krizmanich, Senior Planner
Pitkin County Community Development Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Applicant:
Mr. Maxwell Aley, Trustee
Joyce K. Murray Charitable Trust
0002 Williams Way
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-6500
(970) 925-5376 (FAX)
ADDlicants Representative and Preparation by
Mr. John B. Young
0095 Light Hill Road
Snowmass, Colorado 81654
(970) 927-4252
(970) 927-3153 (FAX)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Land Use Application Form
Letter of Introduction from John B. Young
I. Introduction
A. Description of Proposed Development
B. Site Vicinity and Characteristics
C. Site History
D. Background
H. Article 2 - Land Use Policies
A. Compliance with Policies
2-10: Community Balance
2-20: Comprehensive Planning
2-30: Conformance with the Adopted Comprehensive Plan
2-40: Growth Rate: Phasing of Public Services and Facilities
2-50: Development or Expansion of Ski Areas
2-60: Compatibility with Existing Adjacent Neighborhoods
2-70: Conformance with Other Laws
2-80: Natural and Man -Made Hazard and Resource Areas
2-90: Soil, Surficial, Geological Characteristics and Radiation
2-100: Drainage
2-110: Erosion
2-120: Scenic Quality
2-130: Air Quality
2-140: Water Resources Impact
2-150: Noise
2-160: Wildlife Management
2-170: Adequate Provision of Water Needs
2-180: Sewage Treatment
2-190: Impacts on Road System °
2-200: Road Design and Construction
2-210: Logical Extension of Utilities
2-220: Impacts on Taxes and Management of Accessory Services and Facilities
2-230: Transportation
2-240: Compatibility with Agricultural Land and Operations
2-250: Compatibility with Historic and Archaeological Resources
2-260: Housing
2-270: Energy Conservation
2-280: Compatibility with Public Lands
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
2-290: Access to Public Lands
2-300: Private Land Surrounded by Public Lands (In -Holdings) - Not applicable.
III. Rezoning, Subdivision, and G.M.Q.S. Standards
A. 3-60: Environmental and Aesthetic Standards
B. 3-70: Water Resources
C. 3-80: Areas of Local and State Interest/1041 Environmental Hazard Areas
D. 3-110: Improvements and Services
E. 3-120: Impacts on Taxes and Management of Necessary Services
F. 3-130: Development Exactions
G. 3-160: Metro Area Residential and Tourist Accommodation Growth
Management Quota System Allotments
IV. Review Procedures
V. Submission Contents
A. Section 5-80:
B. Section 5-150:
C. Section 5-170:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Copy of Site Plan
3. Scenic Overlay Illustration
Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 7.
Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 9.
Exhibit 10.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Pre -Application Summary
Proof of Ownership and Property Description - Title Commitment
Resignation of Trustee and Appointment of Successor Trustee
List of Adjacent Owners
Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees
Representatives Authorization
Plat of Ridge of Buttermilk
Aspen Oak Lots Plat Excerpt of the Assessor's Map of Aspen Oaks
Lots
Employee Housing Site Plan and Photo of Unit to be Converted
April 18, 1995 Planning and Zoning Minutes
ii
PITKIN COUNTY
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
OWNER'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
REPRESENTATIVE'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
Joyce K. Murray Charitable Remainder Trust
c/o Maxwell Aley, Trustee
No. 2 Williams Way
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-6500 (phone); (970) 925-5376 (FAX)
Mr. John B. Young
0095 Light Hill Road
Snowmass, Colorado 81654
(970) 927-4252
(970) 927-3153 (FAX)
PROJECT NAME: Murray Review and G.M.Q.S. Application
PROJECT LOCATION: 1422 West Buttermilk, Aspen, Colorado
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2735-033-00-032
LOT SIZE: 2+ acres PRESENT ZONING: AFR-10
EXISTING USES: Vacant Land
PROPOSED USES: One Single -Family Home
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: Murray Subdivision Conceptual review, metro
residential G. M. Q. S . and rezoning to AFR-2.
To be Completed by the Planning Office:
Type of Application
EDU (701-1500 s.f.)
Caretaker Dwelling Unit
(700 s. f. or less)
Other Dwelling Unit
(R-6 or R-15 zone district)
1041 Env. Hazard Review
Subdivision Review
Rezoning
Other:
_ General Submission
Scenic Overlay
lii
Special Review
Subdivision Exemption
GMQS Exemption
Planned Unit Development
i
4
JOHN B . YOUNG CONSULTANT SERVICES
0095 LIGHT HILL ROAD
SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654
Phone: (970) 927-4252
FAX: (970) 927-3153
November 1, 1995
Mr. Francis Krizmanich, Senior Planner
Pitkin County
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Francis,
Enclosed please find the information requested for the Murray Subdivision Conceptual Review,
Metro Residential G.M.Q.S., and Rezoning to AFR-2 on the Murray property in the Buttermilk
West area. Included for your review are:
1. The original pre -application conference summary.
2. A letter of authorization for representation from the owners and Trustee.
3. A copy of the title insurance commitment.
4. Twenty copies of the text for staff and referral agency use.
5. Text prepared by the applicants representative addressing the sections asked for in the
Pre -Submission Summary.
6. A description of the proposed development.
If there is any other information required by you, please do not hesitate to ask. I will make
myself available to meet with you, the Planning Director, or the County Attorney, at your
eel it is necessary.
Authorized Agent for:
Joyce K. Murray Charitable Trust
I. INTRODUCTION
I. (A) Description of the Proposed Development:
The applicant is requesting permission to construct a single-family home on a 2.021 acre parcel
of land located at 1422 West Buttermilk Road. This is accomplished by requesting subdivision
conceptual review, a metro residential G. M. Q. S . allocation, and rezoning to AFR-2 .
1. The home will be consistent with the nearest five neighboring lots.
2. The site is relatively level, vegetated with scattered scrub or gambrel oak, sagebrush, and
serviceberry, and miscellaneous native grasses.
3. No road improvements will be necessary.
4. The construction of a single-family home is a positive impact on the County's taxes in
that the impacts created are far less than the dollars received.
5. The proposed home would conform to all Pitkin County Code requirements.
I. (B) Site Vicinity and Characteristics
The site is located in the Ridge of Buttermilk area at 1422 West Buttermilk Road, Pitkin County,
Colorado.
The site is primarily bounded by private lands with a small portion touching Forest Service
Land.
Utilities to the site are provided and the concept is for the home to be designed consistent with
the neighborhood. The home will be served by a well and septic system.
L(C) Site History
This application was precipitated by an action of denial by the Board of County Commissioners
of a request for a Lot Separation, 1041 and Ridge Line Review approval. Through the
application process, it was determined by the County that the formation of the lot was technically
deficient and thus required a GMQS allocation, subdivision approval and rezoning to AFR-2,
in order to be approved.
While the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (see Exhibit 10), the BOCC
denied the application, by a vote of 2 to 1, based on their concern over establishing a precedent
for other similar, undetermined parcels. The applicant was encouraged to submit a GMQS,
rezoning and subdivision request in order to rectify the deficiency.
1 �J
cp�� J
I. (D) Background
The property in question consists of two contiguous (2) metes and bounds parcels, which are
commonly referred to as Lots 5 and 6, which are part of a surveyed, recorded but unapproved
plat, which was created by the Owl Creek Corporation on the Ridge of Buttermilk, comprising
six numbered lots, each of two plus (2 +) acres, created in 1966 out of a part of Government
survey lots located in the East Half of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 10 South, Range 85
West, 6th P.M. The plat was recorded in December that same year in Plat Book 3 at Page 118
(see Exhibit 7). There were no statewide subdivision regulation requirements at that time, but
Pitkin County, pursuant to the 1972 State statute, adopted new subdivision regulations on May
8th of that year (after the platting of the subject property) to comply with Senate Bill 35 (see
History of Pitkin County Land Use Legislation, prepared by the Pitkin County Planning Office
in April of 1989).
Freidl Pfeifer acquired Lot 5 in 1967 from The Owl Creek Corporation by deed recorded in
Book 228, at Page 555 and Lot 6 in Book 253 at Page 236. By separate deeds for each lot,
recorded January 19, 1971, in Book 253 at Pages 237 and 238, Pfeifer conveyed the two lots
to William H. T. Murray, M.D., and Joyce K. Murray, addressed to the BOCC concerning
ownership of adjacent tracts of land, attached as Exhibit 8). All of these conveyances preceded
the adoption of the "merger" resolution by Pitkin County in September, 1973, and it is apparent
that the parties believed that the lots could be separately conveyed because they used separate
deeds to convey the separate lots to the same party.
In 1981, still by separate deeds, Dr. Murray conveyed his interest in both lots to Joyce K.
Murray. In June of 1994 Joyce K. Murray conveyed title to Lot 6 to William L. Stirling,
former Trustee for the Joyce K. Murray Charitable Remainder Unitrust, the applicant herein.
With respect to zoning, the Ridge of Buttermilk area was zoned AF, Agriculture and Forestry
District, with the adoption of the County's first zoning map in 1955. The minimum lot area
requirement for a single-family residence was two (2) acres. The area was effectively rezoned
AF-1 in 1974 in connection with the adoption of BOCC Resolution 74-16, the County -wide
downzoning. As a result, Lots 5 and 6 became non -conforming, substandard -size lots, as the
minimum lot area requirement for single-family residences was increased to ten (10) acres in the
AF-1 zone district.
A review of the County's regulatory history indicates that neither the subdivision regulations,
nor the zoning regulations contained any reference to the "merger" of substandard -sized lots until
the adoption of BOCC Resolution No. 73-60 on September 10, 1973. This resolution, which
was referred to as the "Small Lot Amendment", amended the zoning resolution to address non-
conforming lots. The resulting regulations represent the first appearance of the so-called
"cumulation" concept as we know it today. The applicable regulations, which were codified as
Section 10.6 of Zoning Resolution, are presently contained in Section 6-5 of the Land Use Code.
N
Despite these incongruities with regulations, the six -lot subdivision, which can be described as
a plat of the "Ridge of Buttermilk", has apparently been treated as a legal subdivision because
it has been fully built out, except for Lot 6, as a visual examination will show.
In this same subdivision, recent building permits were issued to Jeff Yusem for Lot 1
(mistakenly shown as Lot 12 on the permit) at 1650 West Buttermilk Road and a Certificate of
Occupancy was issued December 9, 1988 for the 4,383 s.f. house; another permit was issue to
Craton and Mardell Burkholder for Lot 2 at 1596 West Buttermilk Road, and a Certificate of
Occupancy was issued and approved on May 14, 1993 for the 4,555 s.f. house.
Furthermore, the adjoining single-family residential area to the north of the subject property,
part of which has been known as Aspen Oak Lots, has a similar history. The plat was recorded
June 29, 1973 in Book 277 at Page 406, but it was never approved by the BOCC (see Plat
attached as Exhibit 8). The lots all comprise five plus (5+) acres, which became non-
conforming or substandard after the 1974 downzoning of the AF-1 zone district. Nevertheless,
this unapproved, substandard platted area of some twenty (20) lots has been fully built out (see
Exhibit 8, excerpt of the Assessor's Map), and except for the lot on the Assessor's Map
numbered 300075, immediately to the northwest of the Applicant's Lot 6.
L(E) Summary of History
Based on the foregoing, the history of the Applicant's lots with respect to the relevant provisions
of the County's land use regulations can be summarized as follows:
1. In December of 1966, approximately six months after the June 6, 1966 adoption
by Pitkin County of it's first subdivision ordinance applicable to lots under 5
acres, the Owl Creek Development Corporation recorded the unapproved
subdivision Ridge of Buttermilk Plat.
2. Lots 5 and 6 were created and conveyed out as separate lots prior to the adoption
of the 1972 Pitkin County Subdivision Regulations.
3. While the lots conformed to the minimum lot area requirements of the AF zone
district in effect at the time they were created, they became non -conforming with
respect to size, in 1974 with the adoption of BOCC Resolution No. 74-16.
4. The Murrays acquired title to Lots 5 and 6 in 1971 before they were downzoned
and before the County's subdivision and zoning regulations contained any
provision for the merger of contiguous small or substandard lots in common
ownership. These lots apparently merged on September 10, 1973 with the
-60, the so-called "Small Lot Amendment."
adoption of BOCC Resolution No. 73
3
U. SECTION 2: LAND USE POLICIES
A. Compliance with Policies
2-10: Community Balance - The proposed development is consistent with the
neighborhood and has been accounted for in the inventory for the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
2-20: Comprehensive Planning - The proposed development is consistent with the
most recently adopted community planning efforts.
2-30: Conformance with the Adopted Comprehensive Plan - The proposed
development conforms with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
2-40: Growth Rate: Phasing of Public Services and Facilities - This development
will not encourage additional development as it is the last lot to be built on in
the neighborhood.
2-50: Development or Expansion of Ski Areas - Not applicable.
2-60: Compatibility with Existing Adjacent Neighborhoods - The proposed home
will be consistent with the nearest neighbors, in that it will be in similar scale
and mass.
2-70: Conformance with Other Laws - The proposed home is consistent with all
laws.
2-80: Natural and Man -Made Hazard and Resource Areas - The proposed building
envelope does not utilize land that is a known hazard or steep slopes. All
impacts have been addressed in this submission.
2-90: Soil, Surficial, Geological Characteristics and Radiation - The applicant agrees
to supply the building department with whatever soils information necessary
prior to issuance of a building permit.
The slopes in the building envelope range from 0 to 15 percent. No
engineer's report is necessary due to the flat nature of the building envelope.
All steep slopes have been avoided in the building envelope.
2-100: Drainage - The home will be consistent with other homes in the area so the
change in quantity of impervious surface will be minimal and the overall
drainage impact will be similar.
4
The building envelope is located away from any natural drainage courses in
the area.
No water quality issues or pollutants are expected from construction.
2-110: Erosion - The home has been located to minimize disturbance of natural
vegetation and soil cover.
The driveway is designed to fit the form of the land and attempts to minimize
cuts or fills.
Prevention against erosion and sedimentation will be provided for during
construction. The following will occur to manage construction:
1. All topsoil within the construction zone will be stripped and stock piled
on the site for use in landscaping and revegetation.
2. Areas to be disturbed will be limited to excavation, material storage,
vehicle access and parking, and driveway embankments.
3. Landscaping and revegetation will occur on all areas disturbed and be
completed as quickly as possible following exterior building
construction. Areas revegetated will be irrigated to ensure seed
germination and plant survival.
4. Any disturbance caused by utility construction will be revegetated and
restored.
5. Following project completion, any temporary sedimentation control
measures will be removed and the site will be cleaned of all
construction debris.
2-120: Scenic Quality - The proposed homesite will be hidden from Highway 82 by
virtue of the fact that the area selected utilized the existing land form and
vegetation to shield it from below.
The design of the home will accentuate the use of natural materials and will
blend in very well with the setting.
5
i
The home -will not be seen from the public right-of-way with the possible
exception of a minor portion of the peak of the roof.
In the prior application, the Planning Commission has approved the proposed
height of the structure as located in the building envelope (see Illustration #3).
2-130: Air Quality - All fireplaces will comply with Pitkin County Resolution no. 86-
91 and emissions standards established by the County.
2-140: Water Resources Impact - The homesite selected will not impact any stream
or adversely affect any other known water resource.
2-150: Noise - The development will not generate noise that would adversely impact
the community.
2-160: Wildlife Management - There are no mapped wildlife constraints associated
with this lot.
2-170: Adequate Provision of Water Needs - Water will be supplied to the home by
an individual well. The applicant agrees to provide adequate water
information prior to issuance of a building permit.
2-180: Sewage Treatment - The septic system will comply with the Pitkin County
Individual Sewage and Disposal System Regulations. The septic system will
be on the owner's lot.
The development does not adversely impact the availability of water for
irrigation of agricultural lands. Garden areas will be irrigated with well
water.
There are no floodplain impacts associated with the lot.
On -site investigation will determine the best location for the septic field.
2-190: Impacts on Road System - Road system impacts are projected to be seven one-
way trips per day which is the impact of one single-family dwelling unit. This
will create minimal impact on the West Buttermilk and Highway 82 Roads.
2-200: Road Design and Construction - The driveway will be gravel or asphalt
surfaced. The applicant will agree to a Pitkin County Class V Primitive Road
Standard typical for these types of lots.
Adequate parking has been provided for on the building site.
0
2-210: Logical Extension of Utilities - Power will be provided by Holy Cross
Electric.
Telephone service will be provided by U.S. West.
Television is available from the Pitkin County Translator System and/or
satellite dish capability.
2-220: Impacts on Taxes and Management of Accessory Services and Facilities - It
is anticipated that there will be a positive fiscal impact as a result of increased
property taxes to the County with virtually no new services required.
2-230: Transportation - The lot is located in close proximity to the Buttermilk Ski
Area which allows for easy mass transportation link to all of the region's
systems.
2-240: Compatibility with Agricultural Land and Operations - The site selected has
not been "ranched" in the past.
2-250: Compatibility with Historic and Archaeological Resources - There are no
known historic or archaeological resources on the site.
2-260: Housing - The single-family home improvement contemplates the provision for
one employee housing unit. The applicant owns a 360 s. f. rental unit that sits
on the adjacent Lot 5, and proposes to deed restrict the unit to a Category
Two level of the Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The
applicant further proposes to bring the unit up to standard by expanding it at
least 40 s.f., which will bring it into compliance with the County's guidelines.
Said improvements will be made to the satisfaction of the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Office.
2-270: Energy Conservation - This home will utilize the latest in technology and will
be adhere to the energy codes adopted by the County.
2-280: Compatibility with Public Lands - No adverse impacts on public lands are
expected.
2-290: Access to Public Lands - Not applicable. There are no public access points
associated with this subdivision.
2-300: Private Land Surrounded by Public Lands (In -Holdings) - Not applicable.
7
III. Rezoning, Subdivision, and G.M.Q.S. Standards
A. 3-60: Environmental and Aesthetic Standards
3-60.20: Air Quality - The applicant agrees to comply with the Pitkin
County Code Title III Air Pollution Regulation. As such, the proposed
development does not constitute a direct or indirect source of air pollution
under Federal, State or County laws.
3-60.30: Preservation of Natural Landscape - The applicant agrees to: seek
the County Engineer and Planning Director approval of the grading and fill
placement exceeding 50 cubic yards; adhere to the Building Official's
recommendations regarding grading excavation and fill placement; revegetate
any disturbed areas within one planting season; remove and save all topsoil for
landscaping purposes; control any weeds that may result from construction
impacts; and locate all utilities in an environmentally sensitive manner.
3-60.40: Scenic Overlay - The application is subject to Scenic Overlay
requirements and as such has created the information necessary to illustrate the
possible impacts (see Illustration #3). The current plan for a proposed
residence has an approximately 3 foot intrusion into the view plane from
Highway 82 that may be seen during certain times of the year. It is the
applicant's opinion that this intrusion is insignificant and therefore requires no
mitigation.
3-60.50: Scenic Quality - The applicant agrees to: avoid all alterations that
are highly visible from other properties and public use areas; comply with the
Pitkin County Landscape Guidelines and with all lighting standards; install
utilities in a sensitive manner; attempt to preserve scenic views and vistas;
mitigate visual impacts of any satellite dishes; utilize natural topography to
help screen building; and design the building to blend in with the topography.
3-60.60: Solar Access - The site offers good solar potential and the applicant
will utilize the sun in the design of the home pursuant to commonly accepted
standards.
3-60.70: Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes - The subject property has
some slopes in excess of 30 percent but given that the building envelope
avoids all such slopes this standard is not applicable.
B. 3-70: Water Resources
3-70.20 Encroachment or Channeling - No encroachment or channeling of
any stream or wetlands exists so there are no impacts.
�1
3-70.30 Drainage - The applicant agrees to manage all drainage impacts
consistent with the other homes in the area. The change in quantity of
impervious surface will be minimal and the overall drainage impact will be the
same.
3-70.40 Erosion - The home has been located to minimize disturbance of
natural vegetation and soil cover.
The driveway is designed to fit the form of the land and attempts to minimize
cuts or fills.
Prevention against erosion and sedimentation will be provided for during
construction. The following will occur to manage construction:
l . All topsoil within the construction zone will be stripped and stock piled
on the site for use in landscaping and revegetation.
2. Areas to be disturbed will be limited to excavation, material storage,
vehicle access and parking, and driveway embankments.
3. Landscaping and revegetation will occur on all areas disturbed and be
completed as quickly as possible following exterior building
construction. Areas revegetated will be irrigated to ensure seed
germination and plant survival.
4. Any disturbance caused by utility construction will be revegetated and
restored.
5. Following project completion, any temporary sedimentation control
measures will be removed and the site will be cleared of all
construction debris.
3-70.50 Ground Water - No interference with the ground water will occur
other than the obvious impacts associated with drilling a well. No clearing or
grading operations will occur during spring run-off.
3-70.60 Irrigated Areas - Not applicable.
3-70.70 Irrigation Ditches - Not applicable.
3-70.80 Sedimentation - The applicant agrees to: provide adequate
sedimentation control during construction; retain sediment produced by soil
disturbance on -site; and revegetate all clearing and grading as soon as
possible.
9
3-70.90 Water Quality - The homesite will not impact any stream or
adversely affect any other known water resource.
3-70.100 Water Supply - The applicant agrees to supply the Building
Department with evidence of adequate water supply prior to the issuance of
a Building Permit.
C. 3-80: Areas of Local and State Interest/1041 Environmental Hazard Areas
This section will address the mapped wildfire hazard and steep slope condition on a small
part of the property. Only two areas of 1041 concerns have been identified by the prior
application as areas of concern.
3-80.70 Wildfire Areas - A physical reconnaissance of the site reveals that
the building envelope, and the rest of the land toward the road, is relatively
level, vegetated with scattered scrub or Gambrel oak, sagebrush, and
serviceberry, and miscellaneous scattered native grasses. The northeasterly
quarter of Lot 6 is quite steep with the same vegetation plus a few scattered
aspen, juniper and miscellaneous "rabbit brush", the oak being quite dense in
some areas.
Across the West Buttermilk Road to the west of Lot 6 is located a 100±
parcel now split with one residence on the north end and one proposed on the
southerly lot, vegetated with native grasses and sagebrush without any
Gambrel oak or other brush. Lot 5, on the south of Lot 6, contains a few
Gambrel oak but otherwise is a 5 acre meadow.
Review and consideration has been undertaken by the Applicant with reference
to the Pitkin County Sheriffs Department "Standard 1041 Wildfire Hazard
Recommendations" dated June 7, 1994 with the following comments and
undertakings:
1. Defensible Space:
a. Brush, debris and non -ornamental vegetation shall be removed a
minimum of 10 .feet perimeter around the structure.
b. Vegetation shall be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal
continuity of the fuels a minimum of a 30 foot perimeter around
the structure.
10
c. Spacing between the clumps of brush and vegetation within the 30
foot perimeter shall be a minimum of two times the height of the
fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be from the edges of
the crowns of the fuel.
d. All branches from trees and brush within the 30 foot perimeter
shall be pruned to a height of 10 feet above the ground and
removal of ladder fuels from around trees and brush.
e. All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed
and all branches within 15 feet of the chimneys shall be removed.
f. The density of fuels within a 100 foot perimeter of the structures
shall be reduced where natural reduction has not already occurred.
g. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance
of the defensible space vegetation requirements.
2. Structural Design and Construction:
a. Roofing - Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible (no
wood shake/shingles) material with no flat roofs.
b. Vents - Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh
not greater than '/ inch maximum.
3. Maintenance:
a. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
b. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris.
c. All flammable materials shall be stored on a contour a minimum
of 15 feet away from any structure.
d. Weeds and grasses within the 10 foot perimeter shall be
maintained to a height not more than 6 inches.
4. Miscellaneous:
a. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same
standards as structures.
11
b. Fuel tanks, if any, shall be installed underground with an approved
contained.
c. Each structure shall have a minimum of one 1 lb. ABC fire
extinguisher.
d. The street address shall be clearly marked and visible according to
NFPA 299 standards installed on a non-combustible post and sign.
e. The applicant agrees to install a residential sprinkler system which
meets the standards of the local fire protection district and the
U.B.C.
5. Access:
a. The driveway to the property shall enter West Buttermilk Road at
a ninety degree angle for the first 25 feet of the driveway.
6. Water Supply:
a. In lieu of a pressurized system (City Water), there will be
constructed an adequately sized (as determined by
CSFS/PCSO/VPD), accessible pond or cistern with a dry hydrant
located on the property where fire equipment will have ready
access to it from the exterior of the property.
b. The amount of storage capacity shall be determined by the fire
protection district with a minimum of 1000 gallon storage capacity
per structure.
7. Utilities: Utility lines shall be buried.
8. Additional: Additional recommendations from the Colorado State
Forest Service, the Pitkin County Sheriffs Department and the local
fire protection district may be incorporated into any conditions of
approval as necessary to mitigate wildfire hazards.
3-80.50 Geologic Hazards, Steep Slopes - The northeasterly edge of the
property is steeply sloping but lies well outside the building envelope, and it
is not contemplated that any structures will be built thereon. Accordingly, this
is not a hazard for consideration except as to wildfire, which is addressed in
the previous Section 3-80.40 of this application.
12
Based upon the foregoing, it appears that the application complies with the
substantive review standards or can be in compliance with the mitigation
suggested.
D. 3-110: Improvements and Services
3-110.20 Logical Extension of Utilities - The proposed development is
consistent with all policies and is totally suitable with the area in that this will
complete the development of six of six lots in the immediate neighborhood.
3-110.30 Water Distribution System - Not applicable.
3-110.40 Water Supply System - Water will be provided to the home by an
individual well. The applicant agrees to provide adequate water information
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3-110.50 Sewage Treatment and Collection - Sewage treatment will be
handled by a septic system that will be on the owners lot. The system will
comply with the Pitkin County Individual Sewage and Disposal System
Regulations.
3-110.60 Public Utilities - Holy Cross Electric has indicated it will provide
electric service and will furnish a "will serve" letter prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
3-110.70 Roads - The applicant agrees to adhere to the appropriate standard
with the Pitkin County Road Standards sand Specifications for the proposed
driveway. The proposed development will be easily handled on the existing
West Buttermilk Road.
3-110.80 Parking - The applicant agrees to provide adequate parking on the
homesite.
3-110.90 Parking Requirements - There will be at least two spaces for the
main lot and two additional spaces for the employee housing unit on Lot 5.
3-110.100 Trails - Not applicable.
3-110.110 Lighting - The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable
lighting standards.
3-110.120 Lighting Standards -See 3-110.110.
13
3-110.130 Signs - No signs are contemplated other than standard mail box and
house address numbers.
E. 3-120: Impacts on Taxes and Management of Necessary Services
3-120.10 through 3-120.60 - The proposed development will be a positive
fiscal impact as a result of increased property taxes with virtually no new
services required. All construction impacts will be mitigated by the applicant.
F. 3-130: Development Exactions
3-130.20 Affordable Housing - The applicant is proposing to deed -restrict
an existing unit currently owned by the applicant. Said unit is constructed on
Lot 5 in the same subdivision and would be subject to the County's Category
Two Guidelines for affordable housing. As previously mentioned, the
employee housing unit will be brought up to the County standards by
expanding it at least 40 s. f. , in order to meet the minimum standard of 400
s.f. for a studio unit. The unit was built in 1972.
3-130.30 - Not applicable.
3-130.40 Parks/Recreation/Open Space - Not applicable.
3-130.50 through 3-130.70 - Not applicable.
G. 3-160: Metro Area Residential and Tourist Accommodation Growth Management
Quota System Allotments
3-160.10 Applicability - The BOCC has determined that a GMQS allocation
is necessary even though the applicant felt otherwise. Nevertheless, the
applicant is a cooperative and willing participant in the process.
3-160.20 Metro Area Residential and Tourist Accommodations
Development Ceilings - The proposed development is within the free-market
residential ceiling. "
3-160.30 Annual Development Allotments - The applicant is requesting one
of the two free-market residential units available.
3-160.40 Minimum Development Standards - The proposed development
falls within the anticipated "inventory" for the Aspen area and is consistent
with the Community Plan.
14
3-160.50 Scoring Standards for Metro Area Residential and Tourist
Accommodations Development - The applicant addresses each of the
standards as follows:
REVITALIZING THE PERMANENT COMMUNITY - Standard: To create
a community with the size, density and diversity that encourages interaction,
involvement, and viability and one that provides opportunities for its workers
to become a permanent part of the social fabric.
Response: By agreeing to deed -restrict an existing free-market rental
unit, the applicant is creating an opportunity for some worker(s) to
remain that may otherwise be displaced. Having the unit located in a
very desirable location is a major plus to the affected employee. By
being in the same location as a free-market residential unit, it will
encourage interaction between the two types of development that will
help to promote awareness of the workers plight.
Standard. Providing high quality, on -site affordable housing for
permanent residents.
Response: The applicant's proposal does exactly that.
Standard: Providing site -appropriate mixing of free-market and affordable
housing for efficient provision of services such as transit and discourages site
planning that isolates affordable and free-market units.
Response: The proposed unit will enjoy all the same benefits as the
free-market unit which include a close proximity to transit alternatives,
and skiing, great views, and a quality living environment.
Standard: Providing a housing package consistent with the Housing
Authority Guidelines with an emphasis on family -oriented housing where and
when appropriate.
Response: The residence will remain in free-market ownership with a
binding Housing Authority Deed Restriction which requires that
mitigation be paid if, at such time as the dwelling may torn down.
Standard: Creating affordable dwelling units through buy -downs or
conversion of existing free market units.
Response: The existing free-market rental unit shall be subject to
applicable Housing Authority regulations thus assuring its use in
perpetuity.
15
Standard: Providing locally -serving commercial space/business.
Response: Not applicable to residential accommodations.
PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES - Standard: Reducing
dependency on the automobile . . . seeking a balanced, integrated
transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduces
traffic congestion and air pollution.
Response: The excellent location of the - development encourages
pedestrian, bicycle, and bus usage.
Standard: Reducing the need for private vehicles as a form of transportation.
Response: The proposed development is within a 1.2 miles of the
Buttermilk Ski Area parking lot where frequent and affordable mass
transit options exist, including the ski and RFTA buses to Aspen, down
valley and Snowmass areas.
Standard: Facilitating and encouraging year-round pedestrian transportation.
Response: The location is well suited to pedestrian activity due to the
very low traffic levels that exist on the West Buttermilk Road.
Standard: Helping to. implement a valley -wide mass transit system.
Response: By providing an excellent opportunity for the residents of
this development to utilize the RFTA system it is expected that a high
usership will result, thus helping keep the system financially sound.
Standard: Provide needed improvements to the existing RFTA system.
Response: The proposed development is not directly on the route so
no opportunity exists for improving the system by providing benches,
stops, etc.
Standard: Increasing the number of available transportation choices.
Response: The location will "invite" the residents to bike, hike, and
utilize the bus system.
Standard: Creating a less congested downtown core.
Response: By using the above options, the development will help to
reduce downtown congestion.
16
Standard: Helping to implement the transportation planning policies of the
AACP and the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Plan.
Response: The home is located very close to the major City and
County bus routes, and ideally situated to enhance ridership.
Standard: Altering land use patterns to accommodate and contribute to a
more efficient and effective transit system.
Response: By locating development close to the transit systems we
encourage their use and this application does that.
Standard. Creating, improving or expanding public commuter trails,
walkways, bikeway facilities that are consistent with the goals of the AACP
and associated plans, such as pedestrian/bikeway plan.
Response: No trails are called for in the immediate area of this
development however, the Airport Business Center Trail is close
enough to be utilized by the residents. The location also allows for
easy access to the Government cross country and hiking trail.
Standard: Locating developments near transit facilities.
Response: The home is closely located upon the main City and County
bus routes.
Standard: Proving -on -going transportation to and from the airport, ski areas,
and shopping areas.
Response: The home is located so that all mass transit can be utilized
including relatively inexpensive cab fares to the airport and town. The
ski area is obviously very close by.
Standard: Providing on -going employee transportation services, such as van
pools, or buses, at no cost to the employees.
Response: No employees are contemplated so this is not applicable.
Standard: Providing bicycle parking, showers, and lockers for employees.
Response: Not applicable.
Standard: Providing secure bicycle storage for guests and employees.
17
Response: Both the residence and the employee housing unit have
ample secure storage for bicycles.
PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Standard: Development that is environmentally sensitive and that promotes
individually responsible, ecological lifestyles . . . conservation, wildlife
protection, and environmental sustainability.
Response: By encouraging and allowing development in areas where
development already exists we help to protect those areas that are more
environmentally sensitive. We help the wildlife by not spreading out
into their habitat, we consolidate utilities, and we isolate the
development impacts.
Standard: Orienting building sites, streets, and other project features in
order to maximize potential for use of solar energy and other renewable
energy resources.
Response: The site offers excellent solar potential.
Standard: Protecting and preserving existing trees and other mature
vegetation during and after the construction process.
Response: Very few trees will need to be cut during construction.
Standard: Using fewer or cleaner wood burning devices than allowed by
law.
Response: The applicant agrees to abide by the emission standards
adopted by the County.
Standard: Removing or replacing existing dirty wood burning devices.
Response: No replacement is proposed.
Standard: Increasing community access to natural and open space areas.
Response: No opportunity exists for the applicant to do this, therefore •
it is not applicable.
Standard: Promoting community recycling efforts.
Response: The applicant agrees to encourage the separation of their
domestic trash in both the employee and free-market unit.
IN
Standard. Landscaping with low water use plant materials and using
chemical free landscape maintenance techniques.
Response: New landscape materials will include native grasses, rye
grass, and drought -tolerant shrubs such as low juniper and mountain
mahogany, and xeriscape "rock gardens. " Only organic fertilizers will
be used. Natural vegetation around the home will be preserved to the
extent possible.
Standard: Employing measures that reduce PMIO levels in the non -
attainment area.
Response: The transit alternative programs, pedestrian, bike and bus
are available to the residents, and will curtail private auto usage and the
associated PM 10 generation levels in the downtown core area.
Standard: Preserving and efficiently using environmental resources during
all phases of development, including types of materials used and future
energy and material needs of the project.
Response: The proposed development is low -impact in two respects:
1) Construction materials proposed are low in "imbued energy", i.e.,
relatively little structural concrete, virtually no structural steel,
aluminum, or plastics; and 2) the energy required to run the completed
development will be modest given its solar potential.
Standard: Completely avoiding "1041 " hazard areas and ridgeline
development.
Response: The development completely avoids such areas, with the
exception of a moderate, mitigatable wildfire risk and a minor ridgeline
view impact.
Standard: Enhancing existing wildlife habitat.
Response: Although wildlife habitat is somewhat lacking, we believe
that preservation of the mature trees on the site will contribute to the
presence of native bird populations. Also, the vast majority of the site
will remain in it's native state.
Standard: Completely avoiding 8040 Greenline issues.
Response: This is not applicable.
Standard: Completely avoiding Steam Margin Review issues.
19
Response: The development completely avoids Stream Margin Review
issues.
MAINTAINING DESIGN QUALITY, HISTORIC COMPATIBILITY AND
COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
Standard: Public architecture should support and enhance community life
... the goal is to maintain community character through design quality and
compatibility with historic features.
Response: The design quality will meet or exceed the standards that
exist in the neighborhood. There are no historic buildings or features
to be compatible with in this location.
Standard: Restoring structures listed in the inventory of historic structures.
Response: Not applicable.
Standard: Improving and maintaining the appearance and function of alleys
for commercial, office and residential uses.
Response: Not applicable.
Standard: Ensuring design compatibility with existing buildings in the
vicinity of the proposed project, in terms of scale, massing, building
materials, fenestration, other architectural features, and open space.
Response: The proposed development will be very compatible with the
immediate five adjoining lots in scale, massing, building materials,
fenestration, architectural features and open space.
Standard: Including porches or other "pedestrian friendly "features.
Response: While the home has not been designed, it would be ideally
suited for some "porch" elements such as decking!
Standard: Retaining and promoting eclectic and varietal businesses along
Main Street that maintain and enhance the special character of the Historic
District.
Response: Not applicable.
Standard: Ensuring the site's usability for social activities.
Response: Not applicable.
20
IV. Review Procedures
The applicant understands that this is a combined application that includes special procedures for
obtaining a residential allotment and has elements that may require a five step review.
V. Conceptual Review Issues
A. Section 5-80: Caretaker and Employee Dwelling Units - The applicant is proposing
that a previously constructed, free-market rental unit be converted to a deed -restricted
rental unit in order to mitigate the impacts associated with the construction of a single-
family home. The unit is located on Lot 5 of the Ridge of Buttermilk development (see
Exhibit 9) .
B. Section 5-150: Metro and Non -Metro Area Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS) Allotments - Sections 5-150.20, 5-150.30, 5-150.409 5-150.809 5-150.909 5-
1509100, 5-150.1109 5-150.1209 5-150.130, 5-150.140, 5-150.150, and 5-150.170 have
been addressed in previous sections of this application. The following sections complete
the requirement for Section 5-150.
1. Section 5-150.50: Fire Protection - The residence will be part of the Aspen Fire
District and as such will enjoy the same level of service that is afforded the rest
of West Buttermilk. The nearest fire station is in Aspen, approximately 4.5 miles
away and would take no more than 10 minutes to respond to.
2. Section 5-150.60: Schools - The residence would be about 3.1 miles from the
schools of Aspen and would produce no more than two or three new students.
The bus currently drives within 100 feet of the home on West Buttermilk Road.
3. 5-150.70: Parks/Trails/Recreational Facilities - The home would be 1.2 miles
from the Buttermilk Ski Area and approximately 1.4 miles from the Airport
Business Center bike path.
4. Section 5-150.160: Construction Schedule - It is anticipated the home would be
built within three years of approval.
C. Section 5-170: Residential Subdivision, Commercial Land Subdivision, Mobile Home
Parks, Tourist Accommodation Developments, Multi -Family Developments and
Mobile Home Parks with or without PUD Review, and Transfer of More than One
Development Right - The applicant believes they have submitted all information
necessary for Pitkin County to make an informed decision on the proposed development.
If further information is desired or required, please do not hesitate to ask.
F-xhibit 1
PITKIN COUNTY
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
i
DATE:10/12/�s PLANNER: Fxx
PROJECT: Murray Subdivision Conceptual Review, Metro Residential
GMQS and Reionina to AFR-2i
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE-' John Young KaXW e11 Aley
REPRESENTATIVEtS PRONE: 925-6500
i
OWNERS NAME: Joyce K. Murray Charitable Trust
SUMMARY
1. Type of 'Application: Metro Residential GMOS, :Subdivision
Conceptual Review and Reaoriina
I
2. Describe.action/type ofjdevelopment being requested:
Applicant -proposes to subdivide parcel into 2 lots. site is
encumbered by steep slopes,) wildfire hazard and scenic overlay.
3. Areas is:which Applicant has been requested to respond, types
of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Ref errail Agent i comments
Refer to Aspen Fire Marshal, Division of Water Resources, Attorney,
Engineer, Env. Health, Colorado Geologic survey, zoning -
4. Review is'before: (P&2 �nly) (BOCC Only) (P&Z then to BOCC)
i
5. Public Hearing: (Yes) (No) At: (P&2) (BOCC) (BOTH P&Z A_.BOCC)
6. The applicant needs topost a sign for each public hearing
Pursuant to Section .5-3.4 oif the Code. (YES) (NO)
7. Please submit a list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) (NO)
Disclosure of Ownership: (NO)
S . Number of copies of this application to be submitted (plans
folded please): 2Q
9. whatfee Vitas apPlicant requested to submit: S2,040.0.0 t, 5468.00
referral gees and $300 . oo County „Clerk A-4min. fee (This is a
denosit I based on averaue 0 of heurA Tf AAA; 4- 9 nw% 1 AA:iv+ee
of Sx7-0 00 jh°bur)
10. Anticipated date
11. COMMENTS/UNIQUE
-u oe anaggga_ror aaaizaonai hours at a rate
f.
of submission:
CONCERNS: To apply, please submit: 1. Proof
i
TO'd 2STELEE-6 01 ld30 J078 NDilId/NSdSb WOdd @t:TT S66T-SZ-130
E.0 ' d 7y101
ofand
f
ztatemet
from attorney or title com an
certifying
hen
pargo1 wasl created and providing information on
whether
lot
has
merge with
adjacent arcels • 2. Site Plan
showing:lotio.
building env6lo
es any physical features pertinent
to 1041
Rev
ew
drains ewa s
2 foot contours etc.),& access to
lots and
bu ''
!ding
en'velopepi..
proposed trails Cif any) 3. Cony of
access pease
lint (s)
, if applicable; 4. Letter describing : regue-At
and addSeoSTrig Code S+ *t-lO- $ snOwn awye 5. Letter rrom owner
planning:wp
frm.pre_app.county
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
20'd ZSZZ226-6
i
O1 id3Q FJ07e N I ill t 6/NS dSU W06d L T: Z Z S66 T-SC-100
American Land Title Association Commitment • Modified 10/73
Exhibit 2
�A
' COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
�h
ISSUED BY
STEWAR.T TITIL
GUARANTY COMPANY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COM
valuable consideration, hereby commit!
Schedule A, in favor of the proposed In:
or interest covered hereby in th`t lan
premiums and charges therefor; alliubje
and Stipulations hereof. ► `
This Commitment shall be ,effective t�
of the policy or policies commitiia-'31
either at the time of the issuance of J -S
r;
This Commitment is preliminary to.,
liability and obligations hereunder sh
or when the policy or policies conic'.
failure to issue such policy or policies
valid or binding until countersigned by
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Comp
become valid when countersigned by a
with its By -Lows. This Commitment is e
_ STD
Chairman of the Bo
Countersigned by:
Author
-poration, herein called the Company, for
r policies of title insurance, as identified in
Uie A , is owner or mortgagee of the estate
FLedffies
in chedule A, upon payment of the
A and B and to the Conditions
I' .T d e proposed Insured and the amount
r , chedule A hereof by the Company,
r uent endorsement.
f
i o. c or policies of title insurance and all
i a.months after the effective date hereof
whichever first occurs, provided that the
mpany. This Commitment shall not be
T r'or agent.
tI.S�!Commitment to be signed and sealed, to
icer.oragent of the Company, all in accordance
Mwrx,.,gwi'ate shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date."
ii+A; - i
VI VL E
Yr, • .
PANY
President
Sancvity 0./ C antrncv
f
Rbgr-c,
t:•165
SCHEDULE A
ORDER NUMBER:.00021179.
1. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1994 AT 8:00 A.M.
2. POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: AMOUNT OF INSURANCE
A. ALTA OWNER'S POLICY $ TBD
PROPOSED INSURED: TO BE DETERMINED
B. ALTA LOAN POLICY $
PROPOSED INSURED:
C. ALTA LOAN POLICY $
PROPOSED INSURED:
D. $
3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS
COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND TITLE THERETO IS AT THE
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN:
JOYCE K. MURRAY CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST
4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL
OWNERS: TBD
STEWART TITLE OF
ASPEN, INC.
620 E. Hopkins
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303 925-3577
FAX 303-925-1384
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1
ORDER NUMBER: 00021179
REQUIREMENTS
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH:
ITEM (A) PAYMENT TO OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE GRANTORS OR MORTGAGORS
OF THE FULL CONSIDERATION FOR THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE INSURED.
ITEM (B) PROPER INSTRUMENTS) CREATING THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE
INSURED MUST BE EXECUTED AND DULY FILED FOR RECORD, TO WIT:
1. A. Certificate of non -foreign status, duly executed by the
seller(s), pursuant to Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code
AND
B. Satisfactory evidence of the seller(s) Colorado residency
(or incorporation) pursuant to Colorado House Bill 92-1270.
NOTE: Section 1445,of the Internal Revenue Code requires
witholding of tax from sales proceeds if the transferor (seller)
is a foreign person or entity. Colorado House Bill 92-1270 may
require witholding of tax from sales proceeds if the seller(s)
is not a Colorado resident. Detailed information and Forms are
available from Stewart Title.
2. Deed from vested owner, vesting fee simple title in
purchaser (s) .
3. Affidavit by a Trustee, setting forth the name of the Joyce K.
Murray Charitable Remainder Unitrust, the names and addresses of
all the Trustees who are represented by such name and the
authority of the affiant to execute and record the affidavit,
and the authority of the Trustees who are thereby empowered to
convey or otherwise act on behalf of the Trust.
4. Furnish for examination an authentic copy of the Trust Agreement
or Declaration of Trust for the Joyce K. Murray Charitable
Remainder Unitrust.
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
ORDER NUMBER: 00021179
THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED WILL CONTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE
FOLLOWING UNLESS THE SAME ARE DISPOSED OF TO THE SATISFACTION OF
THE COMPANY:
1. RIGHTS OR CLAIMS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION NOT SHOWN BY THE
PUBLIC RECORDS.
2. EASEMENTS, OR CLAIMS OF EASEMENTS, NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC
RECORDS.
3. DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES, SHORTAGE IN AREA,
ENCROACHMENTS, AND ANY FACTS WHICH A CORRECT SURVEY AND
INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES WOULD DISCLOSE AND WHICH ARE NOT
SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
4. ANY LIEN, OR RIGHT TO A LIEN, FOR SERVICES, LABOR OR MATERIAL
HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED, IMPOSED BY LAW AND NOT
SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
5. DEFECTS, LIENS, ENCUMBRANCES, ADVERSE CLAIMS OR OTHER MATTERS,
IF ANY, CREATED, FIRST APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OR
ATTACHING SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF BUT PRIOR
TO THE DATE PROPOSED INSURED ACQUIRES OF RECORD FOR VALUE
THE ESTATE OR INTEREST OR MORTGAGE THEREON COVERED BY THIS
COMMITMENT.
6. UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS; WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER.
7. ANY AND ALL UNPAID TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AND ANY UNREDEEMED TAX
SALES.
8. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER
CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER
DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT
AREA.
9. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove
his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or
intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United
States Patent recorded August 16, 1906 in Book 55 at Page 157 as
Reception No. 70877.
10. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority
of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent
recorded January 8, 1913 in Book 55 at Page 207 as Reception No.
75874.
11. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions of Deeds of
Easements recorded in Book 224 at Page 451, in Book 224 at Page
259, in Book 224 at Page 469 and in Book 243 at Page 946, and
Correction Document recorded December 29, 1969 in Book 245 at
Page 372 and re -recorded February 16, 1970 in Book 246 at Page
842; and Ratification of Correction Document recorded October
28, 1970 in Book 251 at Page 599 as Reception No. 142904.
12. Any lien that may attach upon vesting of title in the party to
be insured.
Continued on next page
CONTINUATION SHEET
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2
ORDER NUMBER: 00021179
NOTE: Stewart Title of Aspen, and/or Stewart Title Guaranty
Company neither assume, nor will be charged with any liability
under this Committment until such time as the name of the
proposed insured and the amount of insurance are made known to
the Title Company.
NOTE: Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. records the
documents of conveyance in the proposed transaction the status
of title will be updated -from the time of this commitment to the
time of said recording. If said update reveals no intervening
liens or other changes in the status of said title Exception No.
5 herein will be deleted; if said update reveals intervening
liens or changes in the status of said title appropriate
action(s) will be taken to disclose or eliminate said change
prior to the recording of said documents.
NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms,
conditions, and exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1992 Policy
form. Copies of the 1992 form Policy Jacket, setting forth said
terms, conditions and exclusions, will be made available upon
request.
SCHEDULE A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
ORDER NO: 00021179
That part of the E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwesterly Corner of property described in
Book 226 at Page 555 of the Pitkin County records from whence the
S 1/4 Corner of Section bears S. 31 degrees 08 minutes 35 seconds
E. 1672.98 feet, more or less;
thence N. 35 degrees 50 minutes E. 305 feet;
thence N. 59 degrees 06 minutes W. 289.56 feet;
thence S. 45 degrees 46 minutes W. 255 feet, more or less, to the
Easterly right-of-way line of the Buttermilk West Road as
described in Book 246 at Page 842 of the Pitkin County records;
thence Southerly, along said right-of-way 334.17 feet, more or
less, on the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 1927.41
feet, whose chord bears S. 49 degrees 12 minutes E. 333.73 feet,
more or less, to the Point of Beginning.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or
other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien,
encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or
mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in
writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage
resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such
knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual
knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter,
the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment
accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability
previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named
proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the
form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in
reliance hereon in undertaking in _good faith (a) to comply with the requirements
hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or
create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In
no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy
or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and
the Conditions and Stipulations and the exclusions from coverage of the form of
policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby
incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as
expressly modified herein.
4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises
out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the insured
mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to
the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment.
s T EWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to
be furnished the Company shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas
77252, and identify this commitment by its printed COMMITMENT SERIAL NUM-
BER which appears on the bottom of the front of the first page of this commitment.
Page 5
Exhibit 3
RESIGNATION OF TRUSTEE AND
APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
WHEREAS, William L. Stirling of Aspen, Colorado, was appointed
as the initial trustee for the Joyce K. Murray Charitable Remainder
Unitrust under the Trust Declaration dated June 10, 1995; and
WHEREAS, he desires to resign as such trustee; and
WHEREAS, Joyce K. Murray, the Donor of the Trust, wishes to
appoint Maxwell Aley of Aspen, Colorado as successor trustee.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, William L.
Stirling hereby resigns as trustee of the said trust, Joyce K.
Murray hereby appoints Maxwell Aley as successor trustee in the
place and stead of Mr. Stirling, and Maxwell Aley hereby accepts
the position as successor trustee for said trust.
DATED this 29th day of August, 1995..
1:�"' 4 )/&V g-�
O/oyde K. Murray
Donor
aa'
Maxwell Aley
Successor Trustee
William L. Stirling
Trustee
Exhibit 4
Attached to and made a part of the
Murray Trust Special Review for Lot
Lot Separation, 1041 and Ridge Line
Review
Names and Addresses of
Adjacent Land Owners (Source: Pitkin County Assessor)
1. Robert T. Bruce and Nancy M. Bruce,
0960 W. Buttermilk Road,
Aspen CO 81611
2. Gerald Douglas Hosier, Jr.
1129 N. Damen
Chicago, Ill 60622
3. Gerhard R. Andlinger (Woods Lot Split)
P.O. Box 8127
Vero Beach, FL 32963
(Postage prepaid envelopes are appended hereto.)
Exhibit 5
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of Pitkin County Development Application Fees
PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and �$ k
&Wt1 olly�uS hereinafter APPLICANT AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
� k �Qea � )
1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT) .
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Resolution
No. 94-236 establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and the payment
of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application
completeness.
3.' APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
COUNTY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow
APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit
additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT
agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make
additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary
as costs are incurred. COUNTY agrees it will be benefited through the greater
certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the
Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally
required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior
to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the
COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of
application ompleteness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount
of $ 2 $o hich is for 12 hours of Planning staff time,
�� g s ,and If actual recorded
costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings
to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the application
mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall
be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that
failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
PITKIN COUNTY
By.
Suza a Konc an
Com nity Development Director
APPLICANT
f k 3� t�C • PA Lt, i- r a C� ':!�A t-b It.
By: 6;�e�L'jj OJJLA
Date: 0 <-4b.,eA (,
Mailing Address:
1/Lo 1 lu, Lr/.v��
i
CUL" A s , C6,5 UU-L-0 ,-e �C� �
ZDo Q"u
ki ��e /t e
2
Exhibit 6
MAXWELL ALEY
Attorney and Counselor at Law
0002 Williams Way
Aspen, Colorado 81611
November 1, 1995
Mr. John B. Young
0095 Lighthill Rd.
Snowmass, Co. 81654
Dear John,
As Trustee of the Joyce K. Murray Charitable Remainder Trust, I
hereby designate you as our authorized agent in all dealings with
Pitkin County regarding the Murray Subdivision Conceptual Review,
Metro Residential G.M.Q.S., and Rezoning to AFR-2 review for lot 6 of
Ridge of Buttermilk.
Please keep me appraised of the progress of our application and
any significant actions taken by the County.
Sincerely,
A, L'-'�
Maxwell Aley, Trustee
T�—
•ti N
Exhi
.Fi' Spa. •
le 46
' Lo-r G
?..act Actsss
' To 4o0•ii
L o-r 5
' Z.o3d Act
r
•M
e� ss�os' A LOT 4-' S .
e 7 .40h/. A L Or2 mrres N
•
'.` . ; '. 9• M��p
t� LOT 3 IZ�
le +0
i
4 t0 �
. v m 1► � � f
• � .rot J::�- ••
1 r
s LOT 1 I..
. � d - �6'2a' \���. ' Z o� o lees
r
J
N
S
r
I •� r/�:sr
•� � � 1 .. � 1, i. \ �
Ex ibit 8
II
2 0101 S
2 0 0 0 1 s
lie
200014
200017
A " n
200019 ( (�
70000y r
700011
J 1 '
'A/ I
,, ,1
/ 200019`
I O �II 100012 (�-,� 7000�� 00022
��' I 309011 r ' •• 30"23
401002 ,►
300025
300033��.
�0100 if 00 .1
J00044
v II
If
/ 1
--lo0046
3o1007
300079
Sop e
i
i �
................ .. Exhibit -
.......... .. . .91
......
..........
. . . . . . . . . .
................. .............................
•... ..........�...................
.......
..............................................
.............. .........................
......
............
..........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , * * * , * * * , * , * , . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... .. ........... ........................
.
.......... ........................... ....
.......... ........... ......... I ..............
......................... ............... I ............ ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. .................... .. ............................... ..
.... .
.................. ................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . 0.. . - 0 . . .
. . . . . . . . N . 'i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ";.j * * * I I * I * I I * .* * * * I I I I I * I * I I I * * I I I * N I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... .............. .................... ............................. ..
..... .......... .... ............................. .
..... .............. .................... ......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............................ .................. .
............... .............................. ........................
............................................... ....... .. ......... ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................................. .......... ............. ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...... ............................ ........................... ....
..........
. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%*
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . , . . . 0 . 1 0 Po - - . , . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . - 0 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0
k"d
1. 1 1,r,1
Exh i
b i t F.-qg
70
O m
1-4 CP
mm
71
AA.
01) C
i:A
CW),
> r)
Te z m
�
10
3
C13
U)
OD
M
r)
A-
C:
r.
M
z
0
M
OD
N
M
z
CA
pi
>
>
�X
rfq
M
--4
C,
m
r)
>
z
>
p
-0
M
M
M
>
z
>
0
M
>
M
C)
>
z >
-M
-
0
0
--4
>
x
M
M
M
M
r)
M
z
0
A
?itkin County Planning & Zoning Commission
;Minutes of April 18, 1995
�!teve Whipple departed the meeting.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Page 3
A. Murray Lot Separation, 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Overlay Review - Francis
Krizmanich explained that this applicant was tabled from 2/7/95. Staff continues to recommend denial because
this was not a legally platted subdivision. Relative to conceptual subdivision issues, the property can get access
to utilities. 1041 hazard's include steep slopes and wildfire but the applicant has avoided steep slopes and
wildfire can be mitigated. Generally the applicant is close in terms of scenic review criteria, but it falls short in
-that at least six feet of the structure would be visible. The topography and elevations were reviewed by staff and
as a result staff recommends, in order to make the home entirely invisible from the highway corridor, a six foot
reduction in height to address that concern. The 8264 elevation was shown on the site plan and it appears a
maximum building height of 24 feet would hide the structure and a 25 foot setback be required. No additional
structures other than the primary residence should be allowed which is a recommendation offered by staff.
Francis Krizmanich clarified that the lot is an illegal lot. Following are considerations for the Commission: The
Planning Commission can recommend denial based on the illegality of the lot. An approval could be granted,
basing the recommendation on a fairness issue. The Planning Commission could pass this on to the BOCC for a
`decision.
Max Aley, representing the applicant, asked that the scenic be addressed first and then the threshold issue of
the legality of the lot be addressed.
Augie Reno was present on behalf of the applicant. He described the site plan noting that the applicant does
not object to the condition requiring that the building site be set back 25 feet from the edge of the building
envelope. Augie described the site lines and that only about 3 feet of the structure would be seen.
Max Aley described the history of the creation of the lots in question. Five of six lots have been granted
building permits. Homes have been constructed on all of those lots. Only Lot 6 is undeveloped. After all these
years, it was just noticed that the lots were not legal. When the Murray's purchased Lots 5 and 6, they believed
they purchased two lots. He urged the P&Z to approve the Lot Separation application for the following reasons:
the County has treated this subdivision, until this point, as a legal subdivision, by issuing building permits for
five out of six lots. The County's action indicates a waiver. However, the County is not bound by it's
acquiescence. This is a unique factual situation. It does not set a precedent which will damage the County. In
1971, people still thought you could develop land without a lot of restrictions. He contends there is a moral
dimension of social responsibility. He questioned what interest would be served by an overly legal
interpretation of the Code. He appealed to the Commission on the basis of fairness to approve the lot separation
based on the circumstances.
Bill Stirling, representing the applicant, believes that this does not change the character of the area, and it has
minimal impact on the area. He also noted that this lot was counted in the Aspen Area Community Plan as a
developable lot.
Discussion ensued on whether or not the Planning Commission has the latitude to recommend approval.
David Guthrie would like to make some kind of finding then approval of the separation can be acceptable.
Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of April 18, 1995
Page 4
Jack Hatfield suggested that the decision be deferred to the BOCC with a notation that, had this been possible,
the Commission would have approved it.
,Discussion continued. A consensus of the Commission determined to take Jack and David's approach to dealing
with the illegal subdivision.
Discussion began about the structure breaking the ridgeline.
'Staff recommended, if the Planning Commission is inclined to recommend approval, a sloping roof, at a pitch,
-with specific color and roof type.
with the middle elevation at 28 feet, result in either side at 26 feet.
The elevations provided by the applicant,
Francis Krizmanich's made an amendment to the northerly line comments in Condition No. 4.
It was noted that the westerly driveway boundary is intended to follow the line of the northerly building envelop
line so the line keeps going across. The driveway alignment will be amended as represented by the applicants
„ prior to presentation to the Board.
The Planning Commission discussed deferring the issue of lot separation to the BOCC due to the fact that the
Code does not allow the Commission to approve a plat of survey filed December 2, of 1966, six months after the
subdivision regulations went into effect. Specific considerations include the fact that five out of six lots have
been built out, the applicant has paid taxes on two lots separately since 1971, and the Aspen Area Community
Plan has included Lot 6 as a separately developable lot. Suzanne Caskey suggested the inclination would be to
support lot separation because of the fact that the development is consistent with other neighborhood
characteristics. In general, they did not find significant negative impacts. David Guthrie pointed out that it has
always been assumed that these impacts would be there.
Condition No. 3 shall be changed to reference the maximum building height which shall match those supplied
on the site plan.
Condition No. 4, add the word line on No. 4.
Jack Hatfield moved to language with respect to the Murray Lot Separation which indicates that the Planning
Commission would recommend approval because of the reasons outlined above, but because of the Code
regulations we are unable to forward a recommendation of approval. After some discussion, Jack withdrew his
motion.
- This matter was deferred to the BOCC because the Commission felt unsure of approval due to the fact that the
lot was not a legal lot.
A motion was made by , recommending approval of the Murray Lot Separation, Conceptual submission,
SFO and 1041, subject to the following conditions, as amended in discussions, Item 3, refer to 26 feet and 8624
elevation, Item 3 and 4, refer to the building envelope plan as submitted at the meeting. The issue of the
legality of the lot was deferred to the BOCC. Seconded by Cathy Tripodi. Discussion ensued. The motion was
?itkin County Planning & Zoning Commission
Airnutes of April 18, 1995
Page 5
mended to include the language offered by the applicant shall be included as reasons for possible consideration
in the lot separation issue. All in favor.
V. ADJOURN - The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:15 P.M.
"Respectfully submitted,
Janet Raczak
'Recording Secretary
RACZAK ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. INC.
215 S. MONARCH. SUITE 104
ASPEN, CO 81611
(303) 925-4869
-?24 18.95
•mac -- --- -- g S --� � \ { ` , \ C,\\ (\
Q
;vin
\ is C,p�Ch Gl
1 �))/• J t\tl� yi:�1 ) r r l/ yy \ \, -�/�i
r �../
011
V.
E t •. fir. -., ,: ,<� \\ -
-
S Rpr FIELD \ ,` \. / 6
A'• �����oo� .I. qti il\Y
�\p0.
\�.\\ o
r,'•
,� r �I, Aso° '.I��t. 1�'. \ '� �tI' t \` \�•�_,1 �'i - // l `1}
� � � 1 •f9 `$,� � �; !If ° ''�: III \ \,\, � R•�,-�- �; ' � �/l • �:<
?•. .4�, r.ng �` 347 \ rl ... J , - r li' \/ ,J i i t \(
o ;\I t J_ - I1 `� � r';,''.__ ,• i. 1 ) / i ,i / l` of\\� �� lr- %r g8o0
S�
4 •. ' \ 1 ��
J /• JS\ N r /1j / 1
'
Rodeo Grounds L
GOLF COURSE ,'1t T�• met ry,
' �� 0•. �,- � III f 9 \ � 1• �\ ��ee.+�� ' � �� i r0'4{.11� t �Eff�l.��
Rs
d o +,� - 1 ,., • rr 1 ' ~ , �:" •n _ >i o V ni 4akt✓ ePyit
QI Aspefi •i �i�\ 01\ .t,� '�•. i�\r Sfilt
�� �Yt f//�"/ \ ( 40 :ai
_ f•�? //,. I \ \, / ✓li,._ _ may% d .3 ,\• n pu
Yn V
Pnn? '�� •a4 /�I! dJttl y? \� l I / �I \ ar N r (M�v�li } \
v. a � /�\ `� '\ � ' j / � i�• III ��' \� \ � � �• _ , � � �\ .�,
Water,.,YV
9�OO woy. � � `��.! 4/1 06 r/ � i r � / _s,-K', i / 'Jj t:l, S) '`;s �\ �I' J ,h `' •r' > � `I.
as % �' .�y ��� �j/�\\` ,%% ( ,(ry$i�. :t`.: I,CI !1!1�• � \ . . / \ a / `� G el �, . � \ .. \\ r\\\'
' "ve .900 I r I �� ( , `\� \ \ . Janlit.
•�,
1.
� `, - ��• � r. � ' i / .=, - ,-',.-gel .i ` ql, f �,��\.'�i' � J -�-� �o°; / : \ �',`�i�•d�< t n •Gr.Yel P,rs
eF j �r � ° - ,� j 1 \' ,'� � // :/•-:'c-��%r t����`��\\� h\\\ \pf'�\ "/ �� -•j ,liq�� /��� ,` �
� .,�; •' 4 `� ' / /fir / r � � 1,' ' \ 0. - n9�\ / �'���-`\``.
! ,✓, �%�����t \�>SJ�/ ��/ �`Ir ,i! / 'r Irl//��/�r'///� i � ',� � \ •,; l /v �`v/�1`\` / �� �i:%, �,^ ,,`�\\y �'�l't1, '^\\\ a
i -�� j ., rri; r� �. ////� �\ '.- 1 !//,/ �J b�I�I' r, 4\ , I./`� �i �:/Ji-���':y �i �,''�\ `�� p I!' 'I )' '., M�il, ;��`:L•\V l�:V'I 1.^=����\ �\�\ _�•'
/.,/; r // / r 'I // //' ': • �; � I r i �' fir../�\_"`' / // / � �l(1' l.j ). � \ � �� �` \ \ \t
r,% //, �., ^-i':-�, �r'�l/ :i,' i) � jj�l' ' �'' ',.0°.'1(! -^� ��1j, ("�. � � j� l //j � � 01 I //_-\ ( /• t` \:•\'�.t \ \\. `\\� ` • //, jr, 1, ' {, i r rl /i' ) 1 r �/ )� ff. /:,. yi., J '� i �/ .ilt\tt'1 0L1+. /.-� __4 / fir/ n t1"� .\ •. `\�m `\\` �•�;.`<o,
'Y
�. �' :��` ��1 �'� ,`1• \ \' �\\\ `,�;s\•�+
\L. /�//i )'. `�. / ` :.� t�� ,�� \\�� �\\\ \ • �''
:��� /�/ "�� � I�' !r '•v /./ lV rl 11 �'!� •1 '�_ r/ //.. '���•.. �/ :� jr( ,. ,,$'��\•` IJ / ! \v
L ' /// �/// / 11 l vl• b {/ l` ��;' `_ `-_::.i /'i J'� \ ' /!�/.I',\\ C .
lilt
/�/.,/,/�_///r �,/; ./�� �) 1 , (� I ( e' � •r/ ; � f,l��l( t, °: � ��.'i\�� ��; 1 , Y� �/�, �\ ..l t��• II') : �:1 i/.l, �\�`--\\��� •, ' r:/,
I - //� �/�._. '7 .l`r/ !I ////. �, �. I. �� .((�// /`".,..' yl. .l. �:+� i����}' i.\• ,� r 1%� r/�\ �\ �) ��,�� I} i� '�R�' � (t � \.�(V
1 ,t//.� f 7, �' 1 �. / i t I 1_. i j /'i l �i q I a (S� �, q,.\ rr // v ;et/ \•N � \ca
�'e�/ .%/ - \ a� : 'I I N4 � i/ (l ) � �- ,i I I ,�j� 1 � � I _ �� `; � � \•�\\ , ,x � \ •\
%11
r •/%� \\\\ \li � � ,� %,�(b r /x� I ii/� ,' _ %J---..`�J�+��IJp�)i I 4 � l: ^\� ,` il,�'�i� I/1f l/��_� ��: ���\\°`
_� r. .1\\'\ illl �.�,I�� /�, f ,, 111,{(' I't I �� f Irr. �•�: r//-^''�>>_ �1 /� , �-•�'l \�\\ t 0 ��� ,"���:-_-_ _-i-% \ \�'1'.
- r0000----r, : \ 1, � ; ry$ , I i l : r I �;, �,.•fi 1 1 � i, ,.��.: t ,,�, � `i _.-,�' ; \ - -- �." \ �' �• ��� ` I (/ (jl'�_-. s.b0�-'----� ,, ( \
\\ o
rl1,�1�t, �� (: , /ii/�..' `�''.l /� l.J � / 1 rl i/%'ii, i• .. ; .� r r-. yr \ cb •1 '1 / r%C11 /`%
I � ,, �//�<���.� �\,,\.l D., l� r+Ni:.// �/, '� � ; .,.\�\` �;rlj•, \�v :\�l IT \`�\��C �� l t l�_ �� �j :� ii'/ ,l � t";
'V''Ir
. \ , (�,,�_1 ,`\\``� 'r , \•' lia 1�1t1' �\�;,•\\ �.' � \i-_L,. _ I 'i� --�'� tl�\�\,;\� � �.fl'�
-�\�\'\l.'� %;'�JrI J•/ r'\t l`:•• 9r � 1 \ "�t\\\t,:, .,os9o. — \ 1 � -•-� I /� 8//'; ��� r
'1 - `' � •)t ( / lil i � " °o Ilt\ \,•\\ \- %t,_Y^ I\, v'•�\ ,i .�o;r/ it /,4•`'• �-
i-• �, .o•~ ` ` �:,9 ///i/ \.�=_ \
� i \�� ) ��j ���� � , � l�Y '\ ;, ' .i�/ �- ; }! �\\\�� ��$ ' ��: ,,tl+ 'Il ' ` • 1 t', ' ; l �C\� `.=�, �\�ll�� � 111�1r�'
1),
s1ii; '/• 'l;`,J�il �. � 1 -t~, .v 1 (� �r �'t`�`�� J ` - �--- , l.� \ � 'v � ,� _.
�;��,\„\ . `may, i ' /; , . \ ' ., , // � � ((/ / ,� ` � ..: • 1 I� , . , )I
, il!� li) "'. �1��1,�'r/':=�\,\ i n 11 i •�� ,I ����({/�.--..� ,`` 1'.•i r{� �`` \ ` \ (�/! rr�
.�,. �l 1',..0� �r� i��� l�.•��� ri�� "`1` \ ' `�us �S\JI.( ,r,� .:<\\�� is
I. INTRODUCTION
I. (A) Description of the Proposed Development:
The applicant is requesting permission to construct a single-family home on a 2.021 acre parcel
of land located at 1422 West Buttermilk Road. This is accomplished by requesting subdivision
conceptual review, a metro residential G. M. Q. S . allocation, and rezoning to AFR-2 .
1. The home will be consistent with the nearest five neighboring lots.
2. The site is relatively level, vegetated with scattered scrub or gambrel oak, sagebrush, and
serviceberry, and miscellaneous native grasses.
3. No road improvements will be necessary.
4. The construction of a single-family home is a positive impact on the County's taxes in
that the impacts created are far less than the dollars received.
5. The proposed home would conform to all Pitkin County Code requirements.
I. (B) Site Vicinity and Characteristics
The site is located in the Ridge of Buttermilk area at 1422 West Buttermilk Road, Pitkin County,
Colorado.
The site is primarily bounded by private lands with a small portion touching Forest Service
Land.
Utilities to the site are provided and the concept is for the home to be designed consistent with
the neighborhood. The home will be served by a well and septic system.
L(C) Site History
This application was precipitated by an action of denial by the Board of County Commissioners
of a request for a Lot Separation, 1041 and Ridge Line Review approval. Through the
application process, it was determined by the County that the formation of the lot was technically
deficient and thus required a GMQS allocation, subdivision approval and rezoning to AFR-2,
in order to be approved.
While the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (see Exhibit 10), the BOCC
denied the application, by a vote of 2 to 1, based on their concern over establishing a precedent
for other similar, undetermined parcels. The applicant was encouraged to submit a GMQS,
rezoning and subdivision request in order to rectify the deficiency.
1 �J
cp�� J
I. (D) Background
The property in question consists of two contiguous (2) metes and bounds parcels, which are
commonly referred to as Lots 5 and 6, which are part of a surveyed, recorded but unapproved
plat, which was created by the Owl Creek Corporation on the Ridge of Buttermilk, comprising
six numbered lots, each of two plus (2 +) acres, created in 1966 out of a part of Government
survey lots located in the East Half of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 10 South, Range 85
West, 6th P.M. The plat was recorded in December that same year in Plat Book 3 at Page 118
(see Exhibit 7). There were no statewide subdivision regulation requirements at that time, but
Pitkin County, pursuant to the 1972 State statute, adopted new subdivision regulations on May
8th of that year (after the platting of the subject property) to comply with Senate Bill 35 (see
History of Pitkin County Land Use Legislation, prepared by the Pitkin County Planning Office
in April of 1989).
Freidl Pfeifer acquired Lot 5 in 1967 from The Owl Creek Corporation by deed recorded in
Book 228, at Page 555 and Lot 6 in Book 253 at Page 236. By separate deeds for each lot,
recorded January 19, 1971, in Book 253 at Pages 237 and 238, Pfeifer conveyed the two lots
to William H. T. Murray, M.D., and Joyce K. Murray, addressed to the BOCC concerning
ownership of adjacent tracts of land, attached as Exhibit 8). All of these conveyances preceded
the adoption of the "merger" resolution by Pitkin County in September, 1973, and it is apparent
that the parties believed that the lots could be separately conveyed because they used separate
deeds to convey the separate lots to the same party.
In 1981, still by separate deeds, Dr. Murray conveyed his interest in both lots to Joyce K.
Murray. In June of 1994 Joyce K. Murray conveyed title to Lot 6 to William L. Stirling,
former Trustee for the Joyce K. Murray Charitable Remainder Unitrust, the applicant herein.
With respect to zoning, the Ridge of Buttermilk area was zoned AF, Agriculture and Forestry
District, with the adoption of the County's first zoning map in 1955. The minimum lot area
requirement for a single-family residence was two (2) acres. The area was effectively rezoned
AF-1 in 1974 in connection with the adoption of BOCC Resolution 74-16, the County -wide
downzoning. As a result, Lots 5 and 6 became non -conforming, substandard -size lots, as the
minimum lot area requirement for single-family residences was increased to ten (10) acres in the
AF-1 zone district.
A review of the County's regulatory history indicates that neither the subdivision regulations,
nor the zoning regulations contained any reference to the "merger" of substandard -sized lots until
the adoption of BOCC Resolution No. 73-60 on September 10, 1973. This resolution, which
was referred to as the "Small Lot Amendment", amended the zoning resolution to address non-
conforming lots. The resulting regulations represent the first appearance of the so-called
"cumulation" concept as we know it today. The applicable regulations, which were codified as
Section 10.6 of Zoning Resolution, are presently contained in Section 6-5 of the Land Use Code.
N
Despite these incongruities with regulations, the six -lot subdivision, which can be described as
a plat of the "Ridge of Buttermilk", has apparently been treated as a legal subdivision because
it has been fully built out, except for Lot 6, as a visual examination will show.
In this same subdivision, recent building permits were issued to Jeff Yusem for Lot 1
(mistakenly shown as Lot 12 on the permit) at 1650 West Buttermilk Road and a Certificate of
Occupancy was issued December 9, 1988 for the 4,383 s.f. house; another permit was issue to
Craton and Mardell Burkholder for Lot 2 at 1596 West Buttermilk Road, and a Certificate of
Occupancy was issued and approved on May 14, 1993 for the 4,555 s.f. house.
Furthermore, the adjoining single-family residential area to the north of the subject property,
part of which has been known as Aspen Oak Lots, has a similar history. The plat was recorded
June 29, 1973 in Book 277 at Page 406, but it was never approved by the BOCC (see Plat
attached as Exhibit 8). The lots all comprise five plus (5+) acres, which became non-
conforming or substandard after the 1974 downzoning of the AF-1 zone district. Nevertheless,
this unapproved, substandard platted area of some twenty (20) lots has been fully built out (see
Exhibit 8, excerpt of the Assessor's Map), and except for the lot on the Assessor's Map
numbered 300075, immediately to the northwest of the Applicant's Lot 6.
L(E) Summary of History
Based on the foregoing, the history of the Applicant's lots with respect to the relevant provisions
of the County's land use regulations can be summarized as follows:
1. In December of 1966, approximately six months after the June 6, 1966 adoption
by Pitkin County of it's first subdivision ordinance applicable to lots under 5
acres, the Owl Creek Development Corporation recorded the unapproved
subdivision Ridge of Buttermilk Plat.
2. Lots 5 and 6 were created and conveyed out as separate lots prior to the adoption
of the 1972 Pitkin County Subdivision Regulations.
3. While the lots conformed to the minimum lot area requirements of the AF zone
district in effect at the time they were created, they became non -conforming with
respect to size, in 1974 with the adoption of BOCC Resolution No. 74-16.
4. The Murrays acquired title to Lots 5 and 6 in 1971 before they were downzoned
and before the County's subdivision and zoning regulations contained any
provision for the merger of contiguous small or substandard lots in common
ownership. These lots apparently merged on September 10, 1973 with the
-60, the so-called "Small Lot Amendment."
adoption of BOCC Resolution No. 73
3
U. SECTION 2: LAND USE POLICIES
A. Compliance with Policies
2-10: Community Balance - The proposed development is consistent with the
neighborhood and has been accounted for in the inventory for the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
2-20: Comprehensive Planning - The proposed development is consistent with the
most recently adopted community planning efforts.
2-30: Conformance with the Adopted Comprehensive Plan - The proposed
development conforms with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
2-40: Growth Rate: Phasing of Public Services and Facilities - This development
will not encourage additional development as it is the last lot to be built on in
the neighborhood.
2-50: Development or Expansion of Ski Areas - Not applicable.
2-60: Compatibility with Existing Adjacent Neighborhoods - The proposed home
will be consistent with the nearest neighbors, in that it will be in similar scale
and mass.
2-70: Conformance with Other Laws - The proposed home is consistent with all
laws.
2-80: Natural and Man -Made Hazard and Resource Areas - The proposed building
envelope does not utilize land that is a known hazard or steep slopes. All
impacts have been addressed in this submission.
2-90: Soil, Surficial, Geological Characteristics and Radiation - The applicant agrees
to supply the building department with whatever soils information necessary
prior to issuance of a building permit.
The slopes in the building envelope range from 0 to 15 percent. No
engineer's report is necessary due to the flat nature of the building envelope.
All steep slopes have been avoided in the building envelope.
2-100: Drainage - The home will be consistent with other homes in the area so the
change in quantity of impervious surface will be minimal and the overall
drainage impact will be similar.
4
The building envelope is located away from any natural drainage courses in
the area.
No water quality issues or pollutants are expected from construction.
2-110: Erosion - The home has been located to minimize disturbance of natural
vegetation and soil cover.
The driveway is designed to fit the form of the land and attempts to minimize
cuts or fills.
Prevention against erosion and sedimentation will be provided for during
construction. The following will occur to manage construction:
1. All topsoil within the construction zone will be stripped and stock piled
on the site for use in landscaping and revegetation.
2. Areas to be disturbed will be limited to excavation, material storage,
vehicle access and parking, and driveway embankments.
3. Landscaping and revegetation will occur on all areas disturbed and be
completed as quickly as possible following exterior building
construction. Areas revegetated will be irrigated to ensure seed
germination and plant survival.
4. Any disturbance caused by utility construction will be revegetated and
restored.
5. Following project completion, any temporary sedimentation control
measures will be removed and the site will be cleaned of all
construction debris.
2-120: Scenic Quality - The proposed homesite will be hidden from Highway 82 by
virtue of the fact that the area selected utilized the existing land form and
vegetation to shield it from below.
The design of the home will accentuate the use of natural materials and will
blend in very well with the setting.
5
i
The home -will not be seen from the public right-of-way with the possible
exception of a minor portion of the peak of the roof.
In the prior application, the Planning Commission has approved the proposed
height of the structure as located in the building envelope (see Illustration #3).
2-130: Air Quality - All fireplaces will comply with Pitkin County Resolution no. 86-
91 and emissions standards established by the County.
2-140: Water Resources Impact - The homesite selected will not impact any stream
or adversely affect any other known water resource.
2-150: Noise - The development will not generate noise that would adversely impact
the community.
2-160: Wildlife Management - There are no mapped wildlife constraints associated
with this lot.
2-170: Adequate Provision of Water Needs - Water will be supplied to the home by
an individual well. The applicant agrees to provide adequate water
information prior to issuance of a building permit.
2-180: Sewage Treatment - The septic system will comply with the Pitkin County
Individual Sewage and Disposal System Regulations. The septic system will
be on the owner's lot.
The development does not adversely impact the availability of water for
irrigation of agricultural lands. Garden areas will be irrigated with well
water.
There are no floodplain impacts associated with the lot.
On -site investigation will determine the best location for the septic field.
2-190: Impacts on Road System - Road system impacts are projected to be seven one-
way trips per day which is the impact of one single-family dwelling unit. This
will create minimal impact on the West Buttermilk and Highway 82 Roads.
2-200: Road Design and Construction - The driveway will be gravel or asphalt
surfaced. The applicant will agree to a Pitkin County Class V Primitive Road
Standard typical for these types of lots.
Adequate parking has been provided for on the building site.
0
2-210: Logical Extension of Utilities - Power will be provided by Holy Cross
Electric.
Telephone service will be provided by U.S. West.
Television is available from the Pitkin County Translator System and/or
satellite dish capability.
2-220: Impacts on Taxes and Management of Accessory Services and Facilities - It
is anticipated that there will be a positive fiscal impact as a result of increased
property taxes to the County with virtually no new services required.
2-230: Transportation - The lot is located in close proximity to the Buttermilk Ski
Area which allows for easy mass transportation link to all of the region's
systems.
2-240: Compatibility with Agricultural Land and Operations - The site selected has
not been "ranched" in the past.
2-250: Compatibility with Historic and Archaeological Resources - There are no
known historic or archaeological resources on the site.
2-260: Housing - The single-family home improvement contemplates the provision for
one employee housing unit. The applicant owns a 360 s. f. rental unit that sits
on the adjacent Lot 5, and proposes to deed restrict the unit to a Category
Two level of the Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The
applicant further proposes to bring the unit up to standard by expanding it at
least 40 s.f., which will bring it into compliance with the County's guidelines.
Said improvements will be made to the satisfaction of the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Office.
2-270: Energy Conservation - This home will utilize the latest in technology and will
be adhere to the energy codes adopted by the County.
2-280: Compatibility with Public Lands - No adverse impacts on public lands are
expected.
2-290: Access to Public Lands - Not applicable. There are no public access points
associated with this subdivision.
2-300: Private Land Surrounded by Public Lands (In -Holdings) - Not applicable.
7
III. Rezoning, Subdivision, and G.M.Q.S. Standards
A. 3-60: Environmental and Aesthetic Standards
3-60.20: Air Quality - The applicant agrees to comply with the Pitkin
County Code Title III Air Pollution Regulation. As such, the proposed
development does not constitute a direct or indirect source of air pollution
under Federal, State or County laws.
3-60.30: Preservation of Natural Landscape - The applicant agrees to: seek
the County Engineer and Planning Director approval of the grading and fill
placement exceeding 50 cubic yards; adhere to the Building Official's
recommendations regarding grading excavation and fill placement; revegetate
any disturbed areas within one planting season; remove and save all topsoil for
landscaping purposes; control any weeds that may result from construction
impacts; and locate all utilities in an environmentally sensitive manner.
3-60.40: Scenic Overlay - The application is subject to Scenic Overlay
requirements and as such has created the information necessary to illustrate the
possible impacts (see Illustration #3). The current plan for a proposed
residence has an approximately 3 foot intrusion into the view plane from
Highway 82 that may be seen during certain times of the year. It is the
applicant's opinion that this intrusion is insignificant and therefore requires no
mitigation.
3-60.50: Scenic Quality - The applicant agrees to: avoid all alterations that
are highly visible from other properties and public use areas; comply with the
Pitkin County Landscape Guidelines and with all lighting standards; install
utilities in a sensitive manner; attempt to preserve scenic views and vistas;
mitigate visual impacts of any satellite dishes; utilize natural topography to
help screen building; and design the building to blend in with the topography.
3-60.60: Solar Access - The site offers good solar potential and the applicant
will utilize the sun in the design of the home pursuant to commonly accepted
standards.
3-60.70: Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes - The subject property has
some slopes in excess of 30 percent but given that the building envelope
avoids all such slopes this standard is not applicable.
B. 3-70: Water Resources
3-70.20 Encroachment or Channeling - No encroachment or channeling of
any stream or wetlands exists so there are no impacts.
�1
3-70.30 Drainage - The applicant agrees to manage all drainage impacts
consistent with the other homes in the area. The change in quantity of
impervious surface will be minimal and the overall drainage impact will be the
same.
3-70.40 Erosion - The home has been located to minimize disturbance of
natural vegetation and soil cover.
The driveway is designed to fit the form of the land and attempts to minimize
cuts or fills.
Prevention against erosion and sedimentation will be provided for during
construction. The following will occur to manage construction:
l . All topsoil within the construction zone will be stripped and stock piled
on the site for use in landscaping and revegetation.
2. Areas to be disturbed will be limited to excavation, material storage,
vehicle access and parking, and driveway embankments.
3. Landscaping and revegetation will occur on all areas disturbed and be
completed as quickly as possible following exterior building
construction. Areas revegetated will be irrigated to ensure seed
germination and plant survival.
4. Any disturbance caused by utility construction will be revegetated and
restored.
5. Following project completion, any temporary sedimentation control
measures will be removed and the site will be cleared of all
construction debris.
3-70.50 Ground Water - No interference with the ground water will occur
other than the obvious impacts associated with drilling a well. No clearing or
grading operations will occur during spring run-off.
3-70.60 Irrigated Areas - Not applicable.
3-70.70 Irrigation Ditches - Not applicable.
3-70.80 Sedimentation - The applicant agrees to: provide adequate
sedimentation control during construction; retain sediment produced by soil
disturbance on -site; and revegetate all clearing and grading as soon as
possible.
9
3-70.90 Water Quality - The homesite will not impact any stream or
adversely affect any other known water resource.
3-70.100 Water Supply - The applicant agrees to supply the Building
Department with evidence of adequate water supply prior to the issuance of
a Building Permit.
C. 3-80: Areas of Local and State Interest/1041 Environmental Hazard Areas
This section will address the mapped wildfire hazard and steep slope condition on a small
part of the property. Only two areas of 1041 concerns have been identified by the prior
application as areas of concern.
3-80.70 Wildfire Areas - A physical reconnaissance of the site reveals that
the building envelope, and the rest of the land toward the road, is relatively
level, vegetated with scattered scrub or Gambrel oak, sagebrush, and
serviceberry, and miscellaneous scattered native grasses. The northeasterly
quarter of Lot 6 is quite steep with the same vegetation plus a few scattered
aspen, juniper and miscellaneous "rabbit brush", the oak being quite dense in
some areas.
Across the West Buttermilk Road to the west of Lot 6 is located a 100±
parcel now split with one residence on the north end and one proposed on the
southerly lot, vegetated with native grasses and sagebrush without any
Gambrel oak or other brush. Lot 5, on the south of Lot 6, contains a few
Gambrel oak but otherwise is a 5 acre meadow.
Review and consideration has been undertaken by the Applicant with reference
to the Pitkin County Sheriffs Department "Standard 1041 Wildfire Hazard
Recommendations" dated June 7, 1994 with the following comments and
undertakings:
1. Defensible Space:
a. Brush, debris and non -ornamental vegetation shall be removed a
minimum of 10 .feet perimeter around the structure.
b. Vegetation shall be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal
continuity of the fuels a minimum of a 30 foot perimeter around
the structure.
10
c. Spacing between the clumps of brush and vegetation within the 30
foot perimeter shall be a minimum of two times the height of the
fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be from the edges of
the crowns of the fuel.
d. All branches from trees and brush within the 30 foot perimeter
shall be pruned to a height of 10 feet above the ground and
removal of ladder fuels from around trees and brush.
e. All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed
and all branches within 15 feet of the chimneys shall be removed.
f. The density of fuels within a 100 foot perimeter of the structures
shall be reduced where natural reduction has not already occurred.
g. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance
of the defensible space vegetation requirements.
2. Structural Design and Construction:
a. Roofing - Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible (no
wood shake/shingles) material with no flat roofs.
b. Vents - Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh
not greater than '/ inch maximum.
3. Maintenance:
a. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
b. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris.
c. All flammable materials shall be stored on a contour a minimum
of 15 feet away from any structure.
d. Weeds and grasses within the 10 foot perimeter shall be
maintained to a height not more than 6 inches.
4. Miscellaneous:
a. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same
standards as structures.
11
b. Fuel tanks, if any, shall be installed underground with an approved
contained.
c. Each structure shall have a minimum of one 1 lb. ABC fire
extinguisher.
d. The street address shall be clearly marked and visible according to
NFPA 299 standards installed on a non-combustible post and sign.
e. The applicant agrees to install a residential sprinkler system which
meets the standards of the local fire protection district and the
U.B.C.
5. Access:
a. The driveway to the property shall enter West Buttermilk Road at
a ninety degree angle for the first 25 feet of the driveway.
6. Water Supply:
a. In lieu of a pressurized system (City Water), there will be
constructed an adequately sized (as determined by
CSFS/PCSO/VPD), accessible pond or cistern with a dry hydrant
located on the property where fire equipment will have ready
access to it from the exterior of the property.
b. The amount of storage capacity shall be determined by the fire
protection district with a minimum of 1000 gallon storage capacity
per structure.
7. Utilities: Utility lines shall be buried.
8. Additional: Additional recommendations from the Colorado State
Forest Service, the Pitkin County Sheriffs Department and the local
fire protection district may be incorporated into any conditions of
approval as necessary to mitigate wildfire hazards.
3-80.50 Geologic Hazards, Steep Slopes - The northeasterly edge of the
property is steeply sloping but lies well outside the building envelope, and it
is not contemplated that any structures will be built thereon. Accordingly, this
is not a hazard for consideration except as to wildfire, which is addressed in
the previous Section 3-80.40 of this application.
12
Based upon the foregoing, it appears that the application complies with the
substantive review standards or can be in compliance with the mitigation
suggested.
D. 3-110: Improvements and Services
3-110.20 Logical Extension of Utilities - The proposed development is
consistent with all policies and is totally suitable with the area in that this will
complete the development of six of six lots in the immediate neighborhood.
3-110.30 Water Distribution System - Not applicable.
3-110.40 Water Supply System - Water will be provided to the home by an
individual well. The applicant agrees to provide adequate water information
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3-110.50 Sewage Treatment and Collection - Sewage treatment will be
handled by a septic system that will be on the owners lot. The system will
comply with the Pitkin County Individual Sewage and Disposal System
Regulations.
3-110.60 Public Utilities - Holy Cross Electric has indicated it will provide
electric service and will furnish a "will serve" letter prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
3-110.70 Roads - The applicant agrees to adhere to the appropriate standard
with the Pitkin County Road Standards sand Specifications for the proposed
driveway. The proposed development will be easily handled on the existing
West Buttermilk Road.
3-110.80 Parking - The applicant agrees to provide adequate parking on the
homesite.
3-110.90 Parking Requirements - There will be at least two spaces for the
main lot and two additional spaces for the employee housing unit on Lot 5.
3-110.100 Trails - Not applicable.
3-110.110 Lighting - The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable
lighting standards.
3-110.120 Lighting Standards -See 3-110.110.
13
3-110.130 Signs - No signs are contemplated other than standard mail box and
house address numbers.
E. 3-120: Impacts on Taxes and Management of Necessary Services
3-120.10 through 3-120.60 - The proposed development will be a positive
fiscal impact as a result of increased property taxes with virtually no new
services required. All construction impacts will be mitigated by the applicant.
F. 3-130: Development Exactions
3-130.20 Affordable Housing - The applicant is proposing to deed -restrict
an existing unit currently owned by the applicant. Said unit is constructed on
Lot 5 in the same subdivision and would be subject to the County's Category
Two Guidelines for affordable housing. As previously mentioned, the
employee housing unit will be brought up to the County standards by
expanding it at least 40 s. f. , in order to meet the minimum standard of 400
s.f. for a studio unit. The unit was built in 1972.
3-130.30 - Not applicable.
3-130.40 Parks/Recreation/Open Space - Not applicable.
3-130.50 through 3-130.70 - Not applicable.
G. 3-160: Metro Area Residential and Tourist Accommodation Growth Management
Quota System Allotments
3-160.10 Applicability - The BOCC has determined that a GMQS allocation
is necessary even though the applicant felt otherwise. Nevertheless, the
applicant is a cooperative and willing participant in the process.
3-160.20 Metro Area Residential and Tourist Accommodations
Development Ceilings - The proposed development is within the free-market
residential ceiling. "
3-160.30 Annual Development Allotments - The applicant is requesting one
of the two free-market residential units available.
3-160.40 Minimum Development Standards - The proposed development
falls within the anticipated "inventory" for the Aspen area and is consistent
with the Community Plan.
14
3-160.50 Scoring Standards for Metro Area Residential and Tourist
Accommodations Development - The applicant addresses each of the
standards as follows:
REVITALIZING THE PERMANENT COMMUNITY - Standard: To create
a community with the size, density and diversity that encourages interaction,
involvement, and viability and one that provides opportunities for its workers
to become a permanent part of the social fabric.
Response: By agreeing to deed -restrict an existing free-market rental
unit, the applicant is creating an opportunity for some worker(s) to
remain that may otherwise be displaced. Having the unit located in a
very desirable location is a major plus to the affected employee. By
being in the same location as a free-market residential unit, it will
encourage interaction between the two types of development that will
help to promote awareness of the workers plight.
Standard. Providing high quality, on -site affordable housing for
permanent residents.
Response: The applicant's proposal does exactly that.
Standard: Providing site -appropriate mixing of free-market and affordable
housing for efficient provision of services such as transit and discourages site
planning that isolates affordable and free-market units.
Response: The proposed unit will enjoy all the same benefits as the
free-market unit which include a close proximity to transit alternatives,
and skiing, great views, and a quality living environment.
Standard: Providing a housing package consistent with the Housing
Authority Guidelines with an emphasis on family -oriented housing where and
when appropriate.
Response: The residence will remain in free-market ownership with a
binding Housing Authority Deed Restriction which requires that
mitigation be paid if, at such time as the dwelling may torn down.
Standard: Creating affordable dwelling units through buy -downs or
conversion of existing free market units.
Response: The existing free-market rental unit shall be subject to
applicable Housing Authority regulations thus assuring its use in
perpetuity.
15
Standard: Providing locally -serving commercial space/business.
Response: Not applicable to residential accommodations.
PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES - Standard: Reducing
dependency on the automobile . . . seeking a balanced, integrated
transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduces
traffic congestion and air pollution.
Response: The excellent location of the - development encourages
pedestrian, bicycle, and bus usage.
Standard: Reducing the need for private vehicles as a form of transportation.
Response: The proposed development is within a 1.2 miles of the
Buttermilk Ski Area parking lot where frequent and affordable mass
transit options exist, including the ski and RFTA buses to Aspen, down
valley and Snowmass areas.
Standard: Facilitating and encouraging year-round pedestrian transportation.
Response: The location is well suited to pedestrian activity due to the
very low traffic levels that exist on the West Buttermilk Road.
Standard: Helping to. implement a valley -wide mass transit system.
Response: By providing an excellent opportunity for the residents of
this development to utilize the RFTA system it is expected that a high
usership will result, thus helping keep the system financially sound.
Standard: Provide needed improvements to the existing RFTA system.
Response: The proposed development is not directly on the route so
no opportunity exists for improving the system by providing benches,
stops, etc.
Standard: Increasing the number of available transportation choices.
Response: The location will "invite" the residents to bike, hike, and
utilize the bus system.
Standard: Creating a less congested downtown core.
Response: By using the above options, the development will help to
reduce downtown congestion.
16
Standard: Helping to implement the transportation planning policies of the
AACP and the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Plan.
Response: The home is located very close to the major City and
County bus routes, and ideally situated to enhance ridership.
Standard: Altering land use patterns to accommodate and contribute to a
more efficient and effective transit system.
Response: By locating development close to the transit systems we
encourage their use and this application does that.
Standard. Creating, improving or expanding public commuter trails,
walkways, bikeway facilities that are consistent with the goals of the AACP
and associated plans, such as pedestrian/bikeway plan.
Response: No trails are called for in the immediate area of this
development however, the Airport Business Center Trail is close
enough to be utilized by the residents. The location also allows for
easy access to the Government cross country and hiking trail.
Standard: Locating developments near transit facilities.
Response: The home is closely located upon the main City and County
bus routes.
Standard: Proving -on -going transportation to and from the airport, ski areas,
and shopping areas.
Response: The home is located so that all mass transit can be utilized
including relatively inexpensive cab fares to the airport and town. The
ski area is obviously very close by.
Standard: Providing on -going employee transportation services, such as van
pools, or buses, at no cost to the employees.
Response: No employees are contemplated so this is not applicable.
Standard: Providing bicycle parking, showers, and lockers for employees.
Response: Not applicable.
Standard: Providing secure bicycle storage for guests and employees.
17
Response: Both the residence and the employee housing unit have
ample secure storage for bicycles.
PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Standard: Development that is environmentally sensitive and that promotes
individually responsible, ecological lifestyles . . . conservation, wildlife
protection, and environmental sustainability.
Response: By encouraging and allowing development in areas where
development already exists we help to protect those areas that are more
environmentally sensitive. We help the wildlife by not spreading out
into their habitat, we consolidate utilities, and we isolate the
development impacts.
Standard: Orienting building sites, streets, and other project features in
order to maximize potential for use of solar energy and other renewable
energy resources.
Response: The site offers excellent solar potential.
Standard: Protecting and preserving existing trees and other mature
vegetation during and after the construction process.
Response: Very few trees will need to be cut during construction.
Standard: Using fewer or cleaner wood burning devices than allowed by
law.
Response: The applicant agrees to abide by the emission standards
adopted by the County.
Standard: Removing or replacing existing dirty wood burning devices.
Response: No replacement is proposed.
Standard: Increasing community access to natural and open space areas.
Response: No opportunity exists for the applicant to do this, therefore •
it is not applicable.
Standard: Promoting community recycling efforts.
Response: The applicant agrees to encourage the separation of their
domestic trash in both the employee and free-market unit.
IN
Standard. Landscaping with low water use plant materials and using
chemical free landscape maintenance techniques.
Response: New landscape materials will include native grasses, rye
grass, and drought -tolerant shrubs such as low juniper and mountain
mahogany, and xeriscape "rock gardens. " Only organic fertilizers will
be used. Natural vegetation around the home will be preserved to the
extent possible.
Standard: Employing measures that reduce PMIO levels in the non -
attainment area.
Response: The transit alternative programs, pedestrian, bike and bus
are available to the residents, and will curtail private auto usage and the
associated PM 10 generation levels in the downtown core area.
Standard: Preserving and efficiently using environmental resources during
all phases of development, including types of materials used and future
energy and material needs of the project.
Response: The proposed development is low -impact in two respects:
1) Construction materials proposed are low in "imbued energy", i.e.,
relatively little structural concrete, virtually no structural steel,
aluminum, or plastics; and 2) the energy required to run the completed
development will be modest given its solar potential.
Standard: Completely avoiding "1041 " hazard areas and ridgeline
development.
Response: The development completely avoids such areas, with the
exception of a moderate, mitigatable wildfire risk and a minor ridgeline
view impact.
Standard: Enhancing existing wildlife habitat.
Response: Although wildlife habitat is somewhat lacking, we believe
that preservation of the mature trees on the site will contribute to the
presence of native bird populations. Also, the vast majority of the site
will remain in it's native state.
Standard: Completely avoiding 8040 Greenline issues.
Response: This is not applicable.
Standard: Completely avoiding Steam Margin Review issues.
19
Response: The development completely avoids Stream Margin Review
issues.
MAINTAINING DESIGN QUALITY, HISTORIC COMPATIBILITY AND
COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
Standard: Public architecture should support and enhance community life
... the goal is to maintain community character through design quality and
compatibility with historic features.
Response: The design quality will meet or exceed the standards that
exist in the neighborhood. There are no historic buildings or features
to be compatible with in this location.
Standard: Restoring structures listed in the inventory of historic structures.
Response: Not applicable.
Standard: Improving and maintaining the appearance and function of alleys
for commercial, office and residential uses.
Response: Not applicable.
Standard: Ensuring design compatibility with existing buildings in the
vicinity of the proposed project, in terms of scale, massing, building
materials, fenestration, other architectural features, and open space.
Response: The proposed development will be very compatible with the
immediate five adjoining lots in scale, massing, building materials,
fenestration, architectural features and open space.
Standard: Including porches or other "pedestrian friendly "features.
Response: While the home has not been designed, it would be ideally
suited for some "porch" elements such as decking!
Standard: Retaining and promoting eclectic and varietal businesses along
Main Street that maintain and enhance the special character of the Historic
District.
Response: Not applicable.
Standard: Ensuring the site's usability for social activities.
Response: Not applicable.
20
IV. Review Procedures
The applicant understands that this is a combined application that includes special procedures for
obtaining a residential allotment and has elements that may require a five step review.
V. Conceptual Review Issues
A. Section 5-80: Caretaker and Employee Dwelling Units - The applicant is proposing
that a previously constructed, free-market rental unit be converted to a deed -restricted
rental unit in order to mitigate the impacts associated with the construction of a single-
family home. The unit is located on Lot 5 of the Ridge of Buttermilk development (see
Exhibit 9) .
B. Section 5-150: Metro and Non -Metro Area Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS) Allotments - Sections 5-150.20, 5-150.30, 5-150.409 5-150.809 5-150.909 5-
1509100, 5-150.1109 5-150.1209 5-150.130, 5-150.140, 5-150.150, and 5-150.170 have
been addressed in previous sections of this application. The following sections complete
the requirement for Section 5-150.
1. Section 5-150.50: Fire Protection - The residence will be part of the Aspen Fire
District and as such will enjoy the same level of service that is afforded the rest
of West Buttermilk. The nearest fire station is in Aspen, approximately 4.5 miles
away and would take no more than 10 minutes to respond to.
2. Section 5-150.60: Schools - The residence would be about 3.1 miles from the
schools of Aspen and would produce no more than two or three new students.
The bus currently drives within 100 feet of the home on West Buttermilk Road.
3. 5-150.70: Parks/Trails/Recreational Facilities - The home would be 1.2 miles
from the Buttermilk Ski Area and approximately 1.4 miles from the Airport
Business Center bike path.
4. Section 5-150.160: Construction Schedule - It is anticipated the home would be
built within three years of approval.
C. Section 5-170: Residential Subdivision, Commercial Land Subdivision, Mobile Home
Parks, Tourist Accommodation Developments, Multi -Family Developments and
Mobile Home Parks with or without PUD Review, and Transfer of More than One
Development Right - The applicant believes they have submitted all information
necessary for Pitkin County to make an informed decision on the proposed development.
If further information is desired or required, please do not hesitate to ask.
F-xhibit 1
PITKIN COUNTY
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
i
DATE:10/12/�s PLANNER: Fxx
PROJECT: Murray Subdivision Conceptual Review, Metro Residential
GMQS and Reionina to AFR-2i
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE-' John Young KaXW e11 Aley
REPRESENTATIVEtS PRONE: 925-6500
i
OWNERS NAME: Joyce K. Murray Charitable Trust
SUMMARY
1. Type of 'Application: Metro Residential GMOS, :Subdivision
Conceptual Review and Reaoriina
I
2. Describe.action/type ofjdevelopment being requested:
Applicant -proposes to subdivide parcel into 2 lots. site is
encumbered by steep slopes,) wildfire hazard and scenic overlay.
3. Areas is:which Applicant has been requested to respond, types
of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Ref errail Agent i comments
Refer to Aspen Fire Marshal, Division of Water Resources, Attorney,
Engineer, Env. Health, Colorado Geologic survey, zoning -
4. Review is'before: (P&2 �nly) (BOCC Only) (P&Z then to BOCC)
i
5. Public Hearing: (Yes) (No) At: (P&2) (BOCC) (BOTH P&Z A_.BOCC)
6. The applicant needs topost a sign for each public hearing
Pursuant to Section .5-3.4 oif the Code. (YES) (NO)
7. Please submit a list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) (NO)
Disclosure of Ownership: (NO)
S . Number of copies of this application to be submitted (plans
folded please): 2Q
9. whatfee Vitas apPlicant requested to submit: S2,040.0.0 t, 5468.00
referral gees and $300 . oo County „Clerk A-4min. fee (This is a
denosit I based on averaue 0 of heurA Tf AAA; 4- 9 nw% 1 AA:iv+ee
of Sx7-0 00 jh°bur)
10. Anticipated date
11. COMMENTS/UNIQUE
-u oe anaggga_ror aaaizaonai hours at a rate
f.
of submission:
CONCERNS: To apply, please submit: 1. Proof
i
TO'd 2STELEE-6 01 ld30 J078 NDilId/NSdSb WOdd @t:TT S66T-SZ-130
E.0 ' d 7y101
ofand
f
ztatemet
from attorney or title com an
certifying
hen
pargo1 wasl created and providing information on
whether
lot
has
merge with
adjacent arcels • 2. Site Plan
showing:lotio.
building env6lo
es any physical features pertinent
to 1041
Rev
ew
drains ewa s
2 foot contours etc.),& access to
lots and
bu ''
!ding
en'velopepi..
proposed trails Cif any) 3. Cony of
access pease
lint (s)
, if applicable; 4. Letter describing : regue-At
and addSeoSTrig Code S+ *t-lO- $ snOwn awye 5. Letter rrom owner
planning:wp
frm.pre_app.county
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
20'd ZSZZ226-6
i
O1 id3Q FJ07e N I ill t 6/NS dSU W06d L T: Z Z S66 T-SC-100
American Land Title Association Commitment • Modified 10/73
Exhibit 2
�A
' COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
�h
ISSUED BY
STEWAR.T TITIL
GUARANTY COMPANY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COM
valuable consideration, hereby commit!
Schedule A, in favor of the proposed In:
or interest covered hereby in th`t lan
premiums and charges therefor; alliubje
and Stipulations hereof. ► `
This Commitment shall be ,effective t�
of the policy or policies commitiia-'31
either at the time of the issuance of J -S
r;
This Commitment is preliminary to.,
liability and obligations hereunder sh
or when the policy or policies conic'.
failure to issue such policy or policies
valid or binding until countersigned by
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Comp
become valid when countersigned by a
with its By -Lows. This Commitment is e
_ STD
Chairman of the Bo
Countersigned by:
Author
-poration, herein called the Company, for
r policies of title insurance, as identified in
Uie A , is owner or mortgagee of the estate
FLedffies
in chedule A, upon payment of the
A and B and to the Conditions
I' .T d e proposed Insured and the amount
r , chedule A hereof by the Company,
r uent endorsement.
f
i o. c or policies of title insurance and all
i a.months after the effective date hereof
whichever first occurs, provided that the
mpany. This Commitment shall not be
T r'or agent.
tI.S�!Commitment to be signed and sealed, to
icer.oragent of the Company, all in accordance
Mwrx,.,gwi'ate shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date."
ii+A; - i
VI VL E
Yr, • .
PANY
President
Sancvity 0./ C antrncv
f
Rbgr-c,
t:•165
SCHEDULE A
ORDER NUMBER:.00021179.
1. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1994 AT 8:00 A.M.
2. POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: AMOUNT OF INSURANCE
A. ALTA OWNER'S POLICY $ TBD
PROPOSED INSURED: TO BE DETERMINED
B. ALTA LOAN POLICY $
PROPOSED INSURED:
C. ALTA LOAN POLICY $
PROPOSED INSURED:
D. $
3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS
COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND TITLE THERETO IS AT THE
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN:
JOYCE K. MURRAY CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST
4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL
OWNERS: TBD
STEWART TITLE OF
ASPEN, INC.
620 E. Hopkins
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303 925-3577
FAX 303-925-1384
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1
ORDER NUMBER: 00021179
REQUIREMENTS
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH:
ITEM (A) PAYMENT TO OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE GRANTORS OR MORTGAGORS
OF THE FULL CONSIDERATION FOR THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE INSURED.
ITEM (B) PROPER INSTRUMENTS) CREATING THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE
INSURED MUST BE EXECUTED AND DULY FILED FOR RECORD, TO WIT:
1. A. Certificate of non -foreign status, duly executed by the
seller(s), pursuant to Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code
AND
B. Satisfactory evidence of the seller(s) Colorado residency
(or incorporation) pursuant to Colorado House Bill 92-1270.
NOTE: Section 1445,of the Internal Revenue Code requires
witholding of tax from sales proceeds if the transferor (seller)
is a foreign person or entity. Colorado House Bill 92-1270 may
require witholding of tax from sales proceeds if the seller(s)
is not a Colorado resident. Detailed information and Forms are
available from Stewart Title.
2. Deed from vested owner, vesting fee simple title in
purchaser (s) .
3. Affidavit by a Trustee, setting forth the name of the Joyce K.
Murray Charitable Remainder Unitrust, the names and addresses of
all the Trustees who are represented by such name and the
authority of the affiant to execute and record the affidavit,
and the authority of the Trustees who are thereby empowered to
convey or otherwise act on behalf of the Trust.
4. Furnish for examination an authentic copy of the Trust Agreement
or Declaration of Trust for the Joyce K. Murray Charitable
Remainder Unitrust.
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
ORDER NUMBER: 00021179
THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED WILL CONTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE
FOLLOWING UNLESS THE SAME ARE DISPOSED OF TO THE SATISFACTION OF
THE COMPANY:
1. RIGHTS OR CLAIMS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION NOT SHOWN BY THE
PUBLIC RECORDS.
2. EASEMENTS, OR CLAIMS OF EASEMENTS, NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC
RECORDS.
3. DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES, SHORTAGE IN AREA,
ENCROACHMENTS, AND ANY FACTS WHICH A CORRECT SURVEY AND
INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES WOULD DISCLOSE AND WHICH ARE NOT
SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
4. ANY LIEN, OR RIGHT TO A LIEN, FOR SERVICES, LABOR OR MATERIAL
HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED, IMPOSED BY LAW AND NOT
SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
5. DEFECTS, LIENS, ENCUMBRANCES, ADVERSE CLAIMS OR OTHER MATTERS,
IF ANY, CREATED, FIRST APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OR
ATTACHING SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF BUT PRIOR
TO THE DATE PROPOSED INSURED ACQUIRES OF RECORD FOR VALUE
THE ESTATE OR INTEREST OR MORTGAGE THEREON COVERED BY THIS
COMMITMENT.
6. UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS; WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER.
7. ANY AND ALL UNPAID TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AND ANY UNREDEEMED TAX
SALES.
8. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER
CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER
DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT
AREA.
9. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove
his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or
intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United
States Patent recorded August 16, 1906 in Book 55 at Page 157 as
Reception No. 70877.
10. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority
of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent
recorded January 8, 1913 in Book 55 at Page 207 as Reception No.
75874.
11. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions of Deeds of
Easements recorded in Book 224 at Page 451, in Book 224 at Page
259, in Book 224 at Page 469 and in Book 243 at Page 946, and
Correction Document recorded December 29, 1969 in Book 245 at
Page 372 and re -recorded February 16, 1970 in Book 246 at Page
842; and Ratification of Correction Document recorded October
28, 1970 in Book 251 at Page 599 as Reception No. 142904.
12. Any lien that may attach upon vesting of title in the party to
be insured.
Continued on next page
CONTINUATION SHEET
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2
ORDER NUMBER: 00021179
NOTE: Stewart Title of Aspen, and/or Stewart Title Guaranty
Company neither assume, nor will be charged with any liability
under this Committment until such time as the name of the
proposed insured and the amount of insurance are made known to
the Title Company.
NOTE: Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. records the
documents of conveyance in the proposed transaction the status
of title will be updated -from the time of this commitment to the
time of said recording. If said update reveals no intervening
liens or other changes in the status of said title Exception No.
5 herein will be deleted; if said update reveals intervening
liens or changes in the status of said title appropriate
action(s) will be taken to disclose or eliminate said change
prior to the recording of said documents.
NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms,
conditions, and exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1992 Policy
form. Copies of the 1992 form Policy Jacket, setting forth said
terms, conditions and exclusions, will be made available upon
request.
SCHEDULE A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
ORDER NO: 00021179
That part of the E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwesterly Corner of property described in
Book 226 at Page 555 of the Pitkin County records from whence the
S 1/4 Corner of Section bears S. 31 degrees 08 minutes 35 seconds
E. 1672.98 feet, more or less;
thence N. 35 degrees 50 minutes E. 305 feet;
thence N. 59 degrees 06 minutes W. 289.56 feet;
thence S. 45 degrees 46 minutes W. 255 feet, more or less, to the
Easterly right-of-way line of the Buttermilk West Road as
described in Book 246 at Page 842 of the Pitkin County records;
thence Southerly, along said right-of-way 334.17 feet, more or
less, on the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 1927.41
feet, whose chord bears S. 49 degrees 12 minutes E. 333.73 feet,
more or less, to the Point of Beginning.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or
other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien,
encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or
mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in
writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage
resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such
knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual
knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter,
the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment
accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability
previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named
proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the
form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in
reliance hereon in undertaking in _good faith (a) to comply with the requirements
hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or
create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In
no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy
or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and
the Conditions and Stipulations and the exclusions from coverage of the form of
policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby
incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as
expressly modified herein.
4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises
out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the insured
mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to
the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment.
s T EWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to
be furnished the Company shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas
77252, and identify this commitment by its printed COMMITMENT SERIAL NUM-
BER which appears on the bottom of the front of the first page of this commitment.
Page 5
Exhibit 3
RESIGNATION OF TRUSTEE AND
APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
WHEREAS, William L. Stirling of Aspen, Colorado, was appointed
as the initial trustee for the Joyce K. Murray Charitable Remainder
Unitrust under the Trust Declaration dated June 10, 1995; and
WHEREAS, he desires to resign as such trustee; and
WHEREAS, Joyce K. Murray, the Donor of the Trust, wishes to
appoint Maxwell Aley of Aspen, Colorado as successor trustee.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, William L.
Stirling hereby resigns as trustee of the said trust, Joyce K.
Murray hereby appoints Maxwell Aley as successor trustee in the
place and stead of Mr. Stirling, and Maxwell Aley hereby accepts
the position as successor trustee for said trust.
DATED this 29th day of August, 1995..
1:�"' 4 )/&V g-�
O/oyde K. Murray
Donor
aa'
Maxwell Aley
Successor Trustee
William L. Stirling
Trustee
Exhibit 4
Attached to and made a part of the
Murray Trust Special Review for Lot
Lot Separation, 1041 and Ridge Line
Review
Names and Addresses of
Adjacent Land Owners (Source: Pitkin County Assessor)
1. Robert T. Bruce and Nancy M. Bruce,
0960 W. Buttermilk Road,
Aspen CO 81611
2. Gerald Douglas Hosier, Jr.
1129 N. Damen
Chicago, Ill 60622
3. Gerhard R. Andlinger (Woods Lot Split)
P.O. Box 8127
Vero Beach, FL 32963
(Postage prepaid envelopes are appended hereto.)
Exhibit 5
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of Pitkin County Development Application Fees
PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and �$ k
&Wt1 olly�uS hereinafter APPLICANT AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
� k �Qea � )
1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT) .
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Resolution
No. 94-236 establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and the payment
of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application
completeness.
3.' APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
COUNTY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow
APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit
additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT
agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make
additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary
as costs are incurred. COUNTY agrees it will be benefited through the greater
certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the
Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally
required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior
to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the
COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of
application ompleteness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount
of $ 2 $o hich is for 12 hours of Planning staff time,
�� g s ,and If actual recorded
costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings
to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the application
mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall
be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that
failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
PITKIN COUNTY
By.
Suza a Konc an
Com nity Development Director
APPLICANT
f k 3� t�C • PA Lt, i- r a C� ':!�A t-b It.
By: 6;�e�L'jj OJJLA
Date: 0 <-4b.,eA (,
Mailing Address:
1/Lo 1 lu, Lr/.v��
i
CUL" A s , C6,5 UU-L-0 ,-e �C� �
ZDo Q"u
ki ��e /t e
2
Exhibit 6
MAXWELL ALEY
Attorney and Counselor at Law
0002 Williams Way
Aspen, Colorado 81611
November 1, 1995
Mr. John B. Young
0095 Lighthill Rd.
Snowmass, Co. 81654
Dear John,
As Trustee of the Joyce K. Murray Charitable Remainder Trust, I
hereby designate you as our authorized agent in all dealings with
Pitkin County regarding the Murray Subdivision Conceptual Review,
Metro Residential G.M.Q.S., and Rezoning to AFR-2 review for lot 6 of
Ridge of Buttermilk.
Please keep me appraised of the progress of our application and
any significant actions taken by the County.
Sincerely,
A, L'-'�
Maxwell Aley, Trustee
T�—
•ti N
Exhi
.Fi' Spa. •
le 46
' Lo-r G
?..act Actsss
' To 4o0•ii
L o-r 5
' Z.o3d Act
r
•M
e� ss�os' A LOT 4-' S .
e 7 .40h/. A L Or2 mrres N
•
'.` . ; '. 9• M��p
t� LOT 3 IZ�
le +0
i
4 t0 �
. v m 1► � � f
• � .rot J::�- ••
1 r
s LOT 1 I..
. � d - �6'2a' \���. ' Z o� o lees
r
J
N
S
r
I •� r/�:sr
•� � � 1 .. � 1, i. \ �
Ex ibit 8
II
2 0101 S
2 0 0 0 1 s
lie
200014
200017
A " n
200019 ( (�
70000y r
700011
J 1 '
'A/ I
,, ,1
/ 200019`
I O �II 100012 (�-,� 7000�� 00022
��' I 309011 r ' •• 30"23
401002 ,►
300025
300033��.
�0100 if 00 .1
J00044
v II
If
/ 1
--lo0046
3o1007
300079
Sop e
i
i �
................ .. Exhibit -
.......... .. . .91
......
..........
. . . . . . . . . .
................. .............................
•... ..........�...................
.......
..............................................
.............. .........................
......
............
..........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , * * * , * * * , * , * , . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... .. ........... ........................
.
.......... ........................... ....
.......... ........... ......... I ..............
......................... ............... I ............ ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. .................... .. ............................... ..
.... .
.................. ................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . 0.. . - 0 . . .
. . . . . . . . N . 'i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ";.j * * * I I * I * I I * .* * * * I I I I I * I * I I I * * I I I * N I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... .............. .................... ............................. ..
..... .......... .... ............................. .
..... .............. .................... ......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............................ .................. .
............... .............................. ........................
............................................... ....... .. ......... ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................................. .......... ............. ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...... ............................ ........................... ....
..........
. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%*
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . , . . . 0 . 1 0 Po - - . , . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . - 0 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0
k"d
1. 1 1,r,1
Exh i
b i t F.-qg
70
O m
1-4 CP
mm
71
AA.
01) C
i:A
CW),
> r)
Te z m
�
10
3
C13
U)
OD
M
r)
A-
C:
r.
M
z
0
M
OD
N
M
z
CA
pi
>
>
�X
rfq
M
--4
C,
m
r)
>
z
>
p
-0
M
M
M
>
z
>
0
M
>
M
C)
>
z >
-M
-
0
0
--4
>
x
M
M
M
M
r)
M
z
0
A
?itkin County Planning & Zoning Commission
;Minutes of April 18, 1995
�!teve Whipple departed the meeting.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Page 3
A. Murray Lot Separation, 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Overlay Review - Francis
Krizmanich explained that this applicant was tabled from 2/7/95. Staff continues to recommend denial because
this was not a legally platted subdivision. Relative to conceptual subdivision issues, the property can get access
to utilities. 1041 hazard's include steep slopes and wildfire but the applicant has avoided steep slopes and
wildfire can be mitigated. Generally the applicant is close in terms of scenic review criteria, but it falls short in
-that at least six feet of the structure would be visible. The topography and elevations were reviewed by staff and
as a result staff recommends, in order to make the home entirely invisible from the highway corridor, a six foot
reduction in height to address that concern. The 8264 elevation was shown on the site plan and it appears a
maximum building height of 24 feet would hide the structure and a 25 foot setback be required. No additional
structures other than the primary residence should be allowed which is a recommendation offered by staff.
Francis Krizmanich clarified that the lot is an illegal lot. Following are considerations for the Commission: The
Planning Commission can recommend denial based on the illegality of the lot. An approval could be granted,
basing the recommendation on a fairness issue. The Planning Commission could pass this on to the BOCC for a
`decision.
Max Aley, representing the applicant, asked that the scenic be addressed first and then the threshold issue of
the legality of the lot be addressed.
Augie Reno was present on behalf of the applicant. He described the site plan noting that the applicant does
not object to the condition requiring that the building site be set back 25 feet from the edge of the building
envelope. Augie described the site lines and that only about 3 feet of the structure would be seen.
Max Aley described the history of the creation of the lots in question. Five of six lots have been granted
building permits. Homes have been constructed on all of those lots. Only Lot 6 is undeveloped. After all these
years, it was just noticed that the lots were not legal. When the Murray's purchased Lots 5 and 6, they believed
they purchased two lots. He urged the P&Z to approve the Lot Separation application for the following reasons:
the County has treated this subdivision, until this point, as a legal subdivision, by issuing building permits for
five out of six lots. The County's action indicates a waiver. However, the County is not bound by it's
acquiescence. This is a unique factual situation. It does not set a precedent which will damage the County. In
1971, people still thought you could develop land without a lot of restrictions. He contends there is a moral
dimension of social responsibility. He questioned what interest would be served by an overly legal
interpretation of the Code. He appealed to the Commission on the basis of fairness to approve the lot separation
based on the circumstances.
Bill Stirling, representing the applicant, believes that this does not change the character of the area, and it has
minimal impact on the area. He also noted that this lot was counted in the Aspen Area Community Plan as a
developable lot.
Discussion ensued on whether or not the Planning Commission has the latitude to recommend approval.
David Guthrie would like to make some kind of finding then approval of the separation can be acceptable.
Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of April 18, 1995
Page 4
Jack Hatfield suggested that the decision be deferred to the BOCC with a notation that, had this been possible,
the Commission would have approved it.
,Discussion continued. A consensus of the Commission determined to take Jack and David's approach to dealing
with the illegal subdivision.
Discussion began about the structure breaking the ridgeline.
'Staff recommended, if the Planning Commission is inclined to recommend approval, a sloping roof, at a pitch,
-with specific color and roof type.
with the middle elevation at 28 feet, result in either side at 26 feet.
The elevations provided by the applicant,
Francis Krizmanich's made an amendment to the northerly line comments in Condition No. 4.
It was noted that the westerly driveway boundary is intended to follow the line of the northerly building envelop
line so the line keeps going across. The driveway alignment will be amended as represented by the applicants
„ prior to presentation to the Board.
The Planning Commission discussed deferring the issue of lot separation to the BOCC due to the fact that the
Code does not allow the Commission to approve a plat of survey filed December 2, of 1966, six months after the
subdivision regulations went into effect. Specific considerations include the fact that five out of six lots have
been built out, the applicant has paid taxes on two lots separately since 1971, and the Aspen Area Community
Plan has included Lot 6 as a separately developable lot. Suzanne Caskey suggested the inclination would be to
support lot separation because of the fact that the development is consistent with other neighborhood
characteristics. In general, they did not find significant negative impacts. David Guthrie pointed out that it has
always been assumed that these impacts would be there.
Condition No. 3 shall be changed to reference the maximum building height which shall match those supplied
on the site plan.
Condition No. 4, add the word line on No. 4.
Jack Hatfield moved to language with respect to the Murray Lot Separation which indicates that the Planning
Commission would recommend approval because of the reasons outlined above, but because of the Code
regulations we are unable to forward a recommendation of approval. After some discussion, Jack withdrew his
motion.
- This matter was deferred to the BOCC because the Commission felt unsure of approval due to the fact that the
lot was not a legal lot.
A motion was made by , recommending approval of the Murray Lot Separation, Conceptual submission,
SFO and 1041, subject to the following conditions, as amended in discussions, Item 3, refer to 26 feet and 8624
elevation, Item 3 and 4, refer to the building envelope plan as submitted at the meeting. The issue of the
legality of the lot was deferred to the BOCC. Seconded by Cathy Tripodi. Discussion ensued. The motion was
?itkin County Planning & Zoning Commission
Airnutes of April 18, 1995
Page 5
mended to include the language offered by the applicant shall be included as reasons for possible consideration
in the lot separation issue. All in favor.
V. ADJOURN - The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:15 P.M.
"Respectfully submitted,
Janet Raczak
'Recording Secretary
RACZAK ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. INC.
215 S. MONARCH. SUITE 104
ASPEN, CO 81611
(303) 925-4869
-?24 18.95
•mac -- --- -- g S --� � \ { ` , \ C,\\ (\
Q
;vin
\ is C,p�Ch Gl
1 �))/• J t\tl� yi:�1 ) r r l/ yy \ \, -�/�i
r �../
011
V.
E t •. fir. -., ,: ,<� \\ -
-
S Rpr FIELD \ ,` \. / 6
A'• �����oo� .I. qti il\Y
�\p0.
\�.\\ o
r,'•
,� r �I, Aso° '.I��t. 1�'. \ '� �tI' t \` \�•�_,1 �'i - // l `1}
� � � 1 •f9 `$,� � �; !If ° ''�: III \ \,\, � R•�,-�- �; ' � �/l • �:<
?•. .4�, r.ng �` 347 \ rl ... J , - r li' \/ ,J i i t \(
o ;\I t J_ - I1 `� � r';,''.__ ,• i. 1 ) / i ,i / l` of\\� �� lr- %r g8o0
S�
4 •. ' \ 1 ��
J /• JS\ N r /1j / 1
'
Rodeo Grounds L
GOLF COURSE ,'1t T�• met ry,
' �� 0•. �,- � III f 9 \ � 1• �\ ��ee.+�� ' � �� i r0'4{.11� t �Eff�l.��
Rs
d o +,� - 1 ,., • rr 1 ' ~ , �:" •n _ >i o V ni 4akt✓ ePyit
QI Aspefi •i �i�\ 01\ .t,� '�•. i�\r Sfilt
�� �Yt f//�"/ \ ( 40 :ai
_ f•�? //,. I \ \, / ✓li,._ _ may% d .3 ,\• n pu
Yn V
Pnn? '�� •a4 /�I! dJttl y? \� l I / �I \ ar N r (M�v�li } \
v. a � /�\ `� '\ � ' j / � i�• III ��' \� \ � � �• _ , � � �\ .�,
Water,.,YV
9�OO woy. � � `��.! 4/1 06 r/ � i r � / _s,-K', i / 'Jj t:l, S) '`;s �\ �I' J ,h `' •r' > � `I.
as % �' .�y ��� �j/�\\` ,%% ( ,(ry$i�. :t`.: I,CI !1!1�• � \ . . / \ a / `� G el �, . � \ .. \\ r\\\'
' "ve .900 I r I �� ( , `\� \ \ . Janlit.
•�,
1.
� `, - ��• � r. � ' i / .=, - ,-',.-gel .i ` ql, f �,��\.'�i' � J -�-� �o°; / : \ �',`�i�•d�< t n •Gr.Yel P,rs
eF j �r � ° - ,� j 1 \' ,'� � // :/•-:'c-��%r t����`��\\� h\\\ \pf'�\ "/ �� -•j ,liq�� /��� ,` �
� .,�; •' 4 `� ' / /fir / r � � 1,' ' \ 0. - n9�\ / �'���-`\``.
! ,✓, �%�����t \�>SJ�/ ��/ �`Ir ,i! / 'r Irl//��/�r'///� i � ',� � \ •,; l /v �`v/�1`\` / �� �i:%, �,^ ,,`�\\y �'�l't1, '^\\\ a
i -�� j ., rri; r� �. ////� �\ '.- 1 !//,/ �J b�I�I' r, 4\ , I./`� �i �:/Ji-���':y �i �,''�\ `�� p I!' 'I )' '., M�il, ;��`:L•\V l�:V'I 1.^=����\ �\�\ _�•'
/.,/; r // / r 'I // //' ': • �; � I r i �' fir../�\_"`' / // / � �l(1' l.j ). � \ � �� �` \ \ \t
r,% //, �., ^-i':-�, �r'�l/ :i,' i) � jj�l' ' �'' ',.0°.'1(! -^� ��1j, ("�. � � j� l //j � � 01 I //_-\ ( /• t` \:•\'�.t \ \\. `\\� ` • //, jr, 1, ' {, i r rl /i' ) 1 r �/ )� ff. /:,. yi., J '� i �/ .ilt\tt'1 0L1+. /.-� __4 / fir/ n t1"� .\ •. `\�m `\\` �•�;.`<o,
'Y
�. �' :��` ��1 �'� ,`1• \ \' �\\\ `,�;s\•�+
\L. /�//i )'. `�. / ` :.� t�� ,�� \\�� �\\\ \ • �''
:��� /�/ "�� � I�' !r '•v /./ lV rl 11 �'!� •1 '�_ r/ //.. '���•.. �/ :� jr( ,. ,,$'��\•` IJ / ! \v
L ' /// �/// / 11 l vl• b {/ l` ��;' `_ `-_::.i /'i J'� \ ' /!�/.I',\\ C .
lilt
/�/.,/,/�_///r �,/; ./�� �) 1 , (� I ( e' � •r/ ; � f,l��l( t, °: � ��.'i\�� ��; 1 , Y� �/�, �\ ..l t��• II') : �:1 i/.l, �\�`--\\��� •, ' r:/,
I - //� �/�._. '7 .l`r/ !I ////. �, �. I. �� .((�// /`".,..' yl. .l. �:+� i����}' i.\• ,� r 1%� r/�\ �\ �) ��,�� I} i� '�R�' � (t � \.�(V
1 ,t//.� f 7, �' 1 �. / i t I 1_. i j /'i l �i q I a (S� �, q,.\ rr // v ;et/ \•N � \ca
�'e�/ .%/ - \ a� : 'I I N4 � i/ (l ) � �- ,i I I ,�j� 1 � � I _ �� `; � � \•�\\ , ,x � \ •\
%11
r •/%� \\\\ \li � � ,� %,�(b r /x� I ii/� ,' _ %J---..`�J�+��IJp�)i I 4 � l: ^\� ,` il,�'�i� I/1f l/��_� ��: ���\\°`
_� r. .1\\'\ illl �.�,I�� /�, f ,, 111,{(' I't I �� f Irr. �•�: r//-^''�>>_ �1 /� , �-•�'l \�\\ t 0 ��� ,"���:-_-_ _-i-% \ \�'1'.
- r0000----r, : \ 1, � ; ry$ , I i l : r I �;, �,.•fi 1 1 � i, ,.��.: t ,,�, � `i _.-,�' ; \ - -- �." \ �' �• ��� ` I (/ (jl'�_-. s.b0�-'----� ,, ( \
\\ o
rl1,�1�t, �� (: , /ii/�..' `�''.l /� l.J � / 1 rl i/%'ii, i• .. ; .� r r-. yr \ cb •1 '1 / r%C11 /`%
I � ,, �//�<���.� �\,,\.l D., l� r+Ni:.// �/, '� � ; .,.\�\` �;rlj•, \�v :\�l IT \`�\��C �� l t l�_ �� �j :� ii'/ ,l � t";
'V''Ir
. \ , (�,,�_1 ,`\\``� 'r , \•' lia 1�1t1' �\�;,•\\ �.' � \i-_L,. _ I 'i� --�'� tl�\�\,;\� � �.fl'�
-�\�\'\l.'� %;'�JrI J•/ r'\t l`:•• 9r � 1 \ "�t\\\t,:, .,os9o. — \ 1 � -•-� I /� 8//'; ��� r
'1 - `' � •)t ( / lil i � " °o Ilt\ \,•\\ \- %t,_Y^ I\, v'•�\ ,i .�o;r/ it /,4•`'• �-
i-• �, .o•~ ` ` �:,9 ///i/ \.�=_ \
� i \�� ) ��j ���� � , � l�Y '\ ;, ' .i�/ �- ; }! �\\\�� ��$ ' ��: ,,tl+ 'Il ' ` • 1 t', ' ; l �C\� `.=�, �\�ll�� � 111�1r�'
1),
s1ii; '/• 'l;`,J�il �. � 1 -t~, .v 1 (� �r �'t`�`�� J ` - �--- , l.� \ � 'v � ,� _.
�;��,\„\ . `may, i ' /; , . \ ' ., , // � � ((/ / ,� ` � ..: • 1 I� , . , )I
, il!� li) "'. �1��1,�'r/':=�\,\ i n 11 i •�� ,I ����({/�.--..� ,`` 1'.•i r{� �`` \ ` \ (�/! rr�
.�,. �l 1',..0� �r� i��� l�.•��� ri�� "`1` \ ' `�us �S\JI.( ,r,� .:<\\�� is
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff
RE: 204 E. Durant (Carriage House) PUD/Subdivision Amendment
DATE: March 5, 1996
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to revise the project's design to reconfigure the four free
market units and to relocate the four affordable dwelling units to the eastern end of the building.
The proposed amendment will change the building's footprint and the appearance of the
structure. The Planning staff requests a determination from the Planning Commission as to
whether the proposed amendments to the project constitute an Insubstantial Amendment, which
may be approved administratively by the Community Development Director, or whether the
amended project should be reviewed as a Substantial Amendment, which would be reviewed by
the Planning Commission and the City Council.
APPLICANT: Towne Place, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 204 E. Durant St.; Carriage House Subdivision/PUD; Lots K, L, M, N & O,
Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen
ZONING: L/TR, Lodge/Tourist Residential
BACKGROUND: In December of 1994, the Aspen City Council granted a growth management
quota system (GMQS) exemption and subdivision approval for the construction of four free
market dwelling units and four affordable housing units (Ordinance No. 49, Series of 1994). The
Council also designated the property as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and granted PUD
approval to reduce the project's western side yard setback (Ordinance No. 65, Series of 1994) in
order to save a large spruce tree on the northwest corner of the lot. The Council also adopted a
text amendment which permits the Planning Commission to grant special review approval for
parking on garage aprons in multi -family projects (Ordinance No. 50, Series of 1994). The
Planning Commission granted special review approval to the project's off-street parking layout
(Resolution No. 94-36). A final subdivision plat and PUD/subdivision agreement were recorded
in June of 1995.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff is requesting a determination from the Planning Commission as to
whether the proposed revisions to the footprint and the appearance of the structure "create a
change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original
approval", which would require a full review of the proposed amendment.
The following chart outlines the differences in the setbacks between the approved footprint and
the proposed footprint of the structure:
APPROVED
PROPOSED
Durant St. to Footprint
36'
22'
Aspen St. to Footprint
13'
24'
East Lot Line to Footprint
5'
5'
Rear Lot Line to Footprint (alley)
23'
28' - 34'
The footprint has been moved closer to Durant St. to improve the parking area in the rear of the
structure. The original footprint was set back from Durant St. in order to retain the trees along
the street and to maximize the structure's exposure to the sun. During the original review, the
Planning Commission was concerned with the massing of the project along the Durant St.
facade; however, the Commission agreed that the design was constrained by the dimensional
requirements of theL/TR zone district and the requirements of Ordinance 1.
Staff notes that the setback on the east side of the structure has not been changed, however, the
walkway to the affordable units will be located within the setback, which is directly adjacent to
the Aspen Manor Lodge. During the original review of the application, Bruce Kerr, owner of the
Aspen Manor Lodge, was concerned with the view of the windows along the east side of the
structure into guest rooms.
The proposed amendment incorporates the retention of the spruce tree in the northwest corner of
the property, as required by City Council Ordinance No. 65, Series of 1994, and complies with
all required setbacks.
The height and appearance of the structure will vary slightly from what was represented in the
original approval. The overall amount of open space will increase by 165 square feet; however,
the amount of open space along Durant St. will be reduced.
The amendment will not change the affordable housing unit mix, the number of free market
bedrooms, or the number of parking spaces.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The Housing Office prefers the new configuration of the affordable units because it "provides a
better community atmosphere of individuals living in the complex year-round".
Chuck Roth, City Engineer, reviewed the application and recommends various technical
improvements and clarifications on the site plan.
06
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
DATE: March 5,1996
RE: Victorians at Bleeker Affordable Housing Project - Rezoning to AH1/PUD,
Conceptual and Final PUD
SUMMARY: The Victorians at Bleeker is a proposed affordable housing project located at the
southeast corner of Bleeker and Garmisch Streets. The applicant proposes to demolish an
existing fourplex and replace it with a single structure with two free market units, two resident
occupied (RO) units and three category 4 studio affordable housing (AH) units. A project
summary, vicinity map, existing improvement survey, adjacent land use map, and proposed site
plan and elevations are attached as Exhibit A. Ordinance 55, Series of 1995 establishing the
requirements and review criteria for the AH1/PUD zone district are attached as Exhibit B. A
color schematic Bleeker Street elevation is attached as Exhibit C.
APPLICANT: Larry Saliterman, represented by Tim Semrau, Semrau Building and Design
LOCATION/ZONING: Lots A and B, Block 66, City and Townsite of Aspen (101 E. Bleeker
Street). The parcel is approximately 6600 square feet, including a portion of a vacated alley.
The property is currently zoned R-6. Staff notes that the vacated alley cannot be used for lot area
or FAR calculations.
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: The proposed lot is surrounded by commercial uses
including the U.S. West facility to the east, the Medical Building and Design Workshop to the
south and east. The Hotel Aspen is located on the west side of Garmisch, the Yellow Brick
School on the northwest corner of Bleeker and Garmisch, and residential uses are located
opposite the project on the north side of Bleeker. An adjacent land use map is included within in
Exhibit A.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conceptual and Final PUD approval and a rezoning to
AHl/PUD, based on the AH1/PUD amendments recently adopted by Council (see AH1/PUD
zone text as Exhibit B). A summary sheet of development information (unit/bedroom mix,
setbacks and proposed square footage) are included in Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND: On January 16, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission conceptually
reviewed the project in a work session format. At that time, staff supported the project in terms
of the intent of the AHl/PUD zone district. Both the Commission and Staff supported the
project in concept, and indicated to the applicant that the most significant issues would most be
the massing and design of the project in the context of the existing neighborhood.
PROCESS: Section 26.84.030 (3) allows the consolidation of conceptual and final development
review if staff determines that because of the limited extent of the issues involved in a proposed
PUD in relation to the applicable review procedures and standards, or because of a significant
community interest which the project will serve, a four -step review would be redundant and
serve no public purpose. Staff has made that determination that a two-step process is appropriate
based on the following:
The project is small in scope (development of a single project on a single lot);
2. The project is consistent with the AACP and the intent of the AH1/PUD zoning by
revitalizing the community be proposing AH units within the central core;
3. The existing unit is near the end of its useful life, and the proposed concept and design is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
In addition to the two-step review before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant's
affordable housing will be required to obtain a GMQS exemption from City Council, based on
the recommendation from the Growth Management Commission. Following approval of the
AH1/PUD rezoning and GMQS approval, the project will also be required to obtain approval
under Ordinance 30.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from Housing, Engineering and Parks are
attached as Exhibit D, and are summarized below:
Housing: The Housing Office is in support of the project, and finds that the discrepancy of .7%
free market bedrooms beyond the 30%/70% bedroom mix is minimal. The Housing Board
requested that the two studio units should be Category 3 instead of Category 4.
Parks: The Parks Department noted several existing trees that were not noted on the applicant's
site plan. All trees removed with the exception of the 3 1/2" spruce will be required to be
mitigated. The larger Spruce trees on Garmisch should be protected, which appears to be the
applicant's intent. The Parks Department also supports the installation of a sidewalk on
Garmisch.
Engineering: The Engineering Department has discussed the requirement that the applicant
obtain an access easement from the adjacent property owner to negotiate the 90 degree turn from
Garmisch.. In addition, they requested that the existing head -in parking be converted to parallel
parking, a sidewalk installed on both street frontages. All of Engineering's comments have been
inlcuded in the proposed conditions of approval.
STAFF COMMENTS: The review of an AHl/PUD project is based on compliance with both
Standards of Review for a zoning amendment (26.92.020), and Review Standards for a PUD
application (26-84-030), and specific requirements of the AH1/PUD standards. Staff's analysis
is divided into two separate sections based on these requirements.
Purpose of Zone District: The AHl/PUD zone district is intended for residential use primarily
by permanent residents of the community. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found
in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the AHl/PUD zone
2
district should be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those
which are affordable by its working residents; at the same time, the AH1/PUD zone district can
protect the City's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non -community oriented
zone districts may produce. Further, lands in the AH1/PUD zone district should be located
within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit routes. The City's AH 1/PUD
district only applies within the Aspen Municipal boundaries.
Rezoning Requirements: In reviewing an amendment to the zoning map, the City Council and
Commission shall consider the following:
1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of the
Municipal Code.
Response: The proposal is consistent with the intent of the AHl/PUD zone district, which is
specifically aimed at located AH uses within walking distance of the center of the City, or on
transit routes. In addition, the Ai I l/PUD zone district was intended to encourage the scattering
of such projects throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those types
which are affordable to its working residents.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Response: The AACP includes several policies applicable to the proposal, including the
following:
a) "development of small scale residential housing which fits the character of the
community and is interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area and up
valley from Aspen Village"
b) "Whenever appropriate, work with landowners whose property is well suited and well
located to develop affordable housing projects."
c) . "The public and private sectors together should develop 650 new affordable housing
units, ...These units can be created through development of new units as well as conversion of
existing units".
3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed project is currently located within the R-6 zone district, which contain
relatively dense settlements of predominan€ly detached and duplex residents, and is within
walking distance if the central core. The existing structure is a four-plex of approximately 600
s.f. per unit, which are not deed -restricted, and are considered free-market rentals. The existing
occupancy of the units are not known, but the free-market status of the units implies that multiple
occupancy of each units is likely.
4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
3
Response: The proposed project will redevelop the property into seven dwelling units. The
existing structure includes 4 dwelling units, with occupancy not mown. Due to close proximity
to the central core and available transit, staff does not consider, the additional units as creating
unacceptable traffic generation or safety hazards.
5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including, but not limited to transportation
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and cmergency medical facilities.
Response: To staff's knowledge, all necessary public facilitil-•s are currently in place.
6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed ame?ci;nent would result in significantly
adverse impacts in the natural environment.
Response: The proposed project is a redevelopment of a currently developed lot. Although the
existing structure is smaller in size (Lot Coverage = 10.8ch), the proposed structure is generally
consistent with the Lot Coverage under the existing R-6 zoning (allowed = 40%, proposed =50
%). Staff does not consider the project as representi i , significant impacts on the natural
environment.
7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The proposed amendment to AH1/PUD is clearly consistent with the intent of the
community to provide additional housing for the local work force. In addition, the location of
the parcel is consistent with the intent statement of the AHl/PUD zone district, which states that
the zone district should be spread throughout the City, is located within walking distance of the
central core, and is in close proximity to available transit. The replacement of the existing
structure, as depicted, is compatible with the character of Aspen.
8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Response: The only significant change associai:.-d with the parcel is the aging nature of the
existing free-market building, which will be repla�ed with deed -restricted affordable units.
9. Whether the proposed amendment woule ` 17,e in conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the intent of the City of A t,��,n Land Use Code.
Response: The provision of affordable housing near the central core is consistent with the both
the public interest and all applicable portions c=. the Land Use Code.
PUD Requirements: A development application for a PUD must comply with the following
standards and requirements:
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: As cited earlier, the AACP clearly envisioned rezoning and PUD approvals consistent
with the current proposal.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Response: The proposed lot is surrounded by commercial uses including the U.S. West facility
to the east, Design Workshop and the Medical Building to the south and east. The Hotel Aspen
is located on the west side of Garmisch, the Yellow Brick School on the northwest corner of
Bleeker and Gam- isch, and residential uses are located opposite the project on the north side of
Bleeker. An adjacent land use map is included within Exhibit A.
The R-6 zone district is the most dense settlement pattern in the City, and the proposed AH
project is consistent with the existing character of the area.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Response: The proposed development is consistent in massing, size and use of parcels in the
immediate vicinity, and should in no way adversely affect development of the surrounding area.
4. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying Zone
district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if.•
a. There 1s not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the
proposed development;
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance to the proposed development;
C. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope,
ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche
dangers;
d. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution;
e. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the city; or
f. 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.
Response: Staff notes that the AHl/PUD process requires that the property be rezoned
from R-6 to AH 1, and then processed as a PUD. The proposal, assuming rezoning to
AH1, is consistent with the density restrictions of the zone district.
5
S. 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 percent.
Response: The property has existing slope of less than 3%, and is not located in area
identified as having any natural hazards that would limit development of the property.
6. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone
district. Multi -Family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by
the underlying zone district.
Response: The AHl/PUD zone district clearly envisioned the development of multi-
family units, and the proposal is consistent with the dimensional standards established in
the zone district (see Section D (2) on page 3 of Exhibit B).
7. 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;
b. Maximum Height;
C. Minimum front, rear and side yard;
d. Minimum lot width and area;
e. Trash access area, internal floor area and minimum percentage of open
space.
Response: The applicant proposes the following dimensional requirements:
Maximum distance between buildings = N/A
Maximum Height = 23' (1/3 up rake)
Front Yard Setback = 10' from Bleeker, 15' to front facade
Side Setback = 5'
Rear setback = 11'
For comparative purposes, the R-6 zone district, located to the north and east, requires a
10' front and rear setback, and a side yard of 5'. The LP zone district to the west (across
Garmisch) has the same requirements. The Office zone to the south requires a front
setback of 10', side yard of 5', and a rear yard of 15'. The proposed dimensional
requirements for the project do not represent a radical departure from the requirements of
adjacent properties. Allowable height in the R-6 zone district is currently 24'.
8. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces maybe 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.
9
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.
Response: There are currently no off-street parking available for the existing multi-
family unit, and the existing residents utilize the head -in parking located within the
existing ROW. The applicant is proposing 4 one -car garages and two parking spaces
accessed all from the alley. This is a significant improvement from the current situation,
and the head -in parking will likely remain on Garmisch. In addition, the project is
located in close proximity to transit, the central core, and recreational facilities. As has
been noted in the past, AH units typically generate less demand for vehicles than
commercial or free-market residential uses.
Staff would suggest that the on -street head -in parking be modified in the following
fashion:
1. The existing head -in spaces be converted to parallel parking;
2. The additional area between the new parking configuration be landscaped, and a
sidewalk be installed along the Garmisch frontage to provide a buffer between the travel
lanes and parking.
9. 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.
Response: There is no open space requirement in the R-6 district, and the AH1/PUD
requirements do not establish an open space requirement. Based on the current
definition of Open Space, the site plan depicts approximately 30 percent open space.
Staff finds that this is appropriate for both the site and the surrounding neighborhood.
10. Landscape Plan. There shall be a 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.
Response: The Parks Department has reviewed the project, and Planning staff has
incorporated these suggestions in conditions of approval.
11. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
N
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City.
Response: The proposed elevations (Exhibit A and C) depict a two-story Victorian
design with a wrap -around front porch on the Bleeker facade. The Garmisch facade also
includes a first -story wrap -around porch design, with second -story porches for all four
units. The inclusion of first- and second story porches is an appropriate design to
encourage interaction with both streets, and is consistent with the intent of Ordinance 30.
In comparison to the existing structure, the proposed architectural site plan is consistent
with the visual character of the neighborhood.
12. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
Response: The applicant proposes a single 60 watt Victorian fixture at each front door
and exterior stairwell. No additional exterior lighting is proposed.
13. Clustering. Clustering of Dwelling Units is encouraged.
Response: Not applicable.
14. 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.
Response: To staff's knowledge, all necessary public utilities are in place. All
proposed public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant.
15. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the PUD, shall have
access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian vt-ay, or other area dedicated to the public.
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 PUD shall not be connected to
streets outside the development 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 surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved
so that they will not 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 uses land uses within the PUD shall have direct
access to a collector or arterial street without traffic hazards or congestion on
any street.
f. Streets in the 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.
Response: The proposal currently meets all requirements of this section, and will
improve access to the site by utilizing access from the alley. This is assuming that all
necessary easements can be obtained to widen the geometric access to the garage
openings. In addition, to additional traffic generation is expected under the
redevelopment plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is in support of both the rezoning and
Conceptual/Final PUD approval. The project is clearly consistent with the intent of the
AHl/PUD zone district and pertinent portions of the AACP. Staff recommends approval
based on the following conditions:
1. All material representations of the applicant, either in the application or during
the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
2. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement district which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public -right-of-way.
3. The building permit application must include a stormwater runoff mitigation
plan for construction activities to ensure that no runoff enters the public right-of-way.
4. The existing utility pedestal shall be relocated onto an easement on the
applicant's property at the time of development and that any new surface utility needs for
pedestals or other equipment be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and
not in the public right-of-way.
5. The final development plan must include trash/recycle storage areas. Any trash
and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that
the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers.
6. The applicant shall obtain an easement from the adjacent property owner, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, to ensure adequate access to the garage openings.
7. The Final Development Plan must indicate proposed landscaping in the public
right-of-way.
8. Sidewalks shall be required on both street frontages.
9. The existing street light mounted on a former utility pole at the corner of
Garmisch and Bleeker shall be replaced with an antique street light.
E
10. The applicant shall discuss the application with the Development Review
Committee prior to a hearing before the City Council hearing to define how the public
right-of-way adjacent to the development must be reconstructed by the applicant.
11. The final plat must indicate easements of record based on current title policy.
12. The applicant shall receive approval from City Engineering for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within the public right-of-way, park department
for vegetation species, and street department for streets and alley cuts, and shall obtain
permits for any work or development, including landscaping, with the public rights -of -
way from the City Community Development Department.
13. The applicant shall incorporate the Housing Board's suggestion that two studio
units be Category 3 instead of Category 4.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the rezoning from R-6 to
AH1/PUD and Conceptual/Final PUD approval for the Victorians at Bleeker, with
the conditions as outlined in the Planning Office Memo dated March 5, 1996."
Attachments: Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - AHl/PUD Zoning Regulations
Exhibit C - Bleeker Street Facade
Exhibit D- Referral, Comments
10
LANU Liter. ArrIAJ-vru..a..,...
1) project namey I GTo R 14 A) S
r
t
2) proj ect Ux ati,on l D C %3 � -�f � .
_ Z_oTS L-yGk 6� ► C�Tr� o� 5���
(; rrj i cafe street address, lot & block M=ber, legal descsipt ran
appropriate) P _6 // -
3) ant Zoning
4) Lvt Size �D 600 S
s) Applicant's Name, Address & Ptne # �f� R (� .�i� L Z `7_P1ZMAA)
[IA
, �5�,Y22%12J7�03t
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phcne #':� ()-2, 1/- �_-_ MAIAJ. /45: loe�^-) 6 y y 7
/ / J✓1 ��" /Vf 2-�i'U ; �' PM �I�U
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply) :
Conditional Use Cxreptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review
8040 Green -line
, stream Margin
Final. SPA
C uioeptual PUD
Final PUD
mocmtain view Plane subdivision
Con omini.um i za tion Ztxt Map Amenanent
r-ot SplivrIn. t i ine
Adjustment
Final. Historic Dev_
Minor Historic Dev.
Historic Demolition
Historic Designation
GMQS Allotment
UIDS on
8) Description of E xi_-ting Uses (n ber and type of existing stmilctzUres;
approximate sq. ft. ; nuni>- of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
PropertY) -
�I P 0 -2, 2 X S-1
9) Description of Development Application
fi(� -
J
N
10) E is you attached the following?
to Attactmxent 2, Minimum Submi ssi On COrItentS
Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission
Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
S E M R A V 303'h East Main
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(41j) BUILDING AND DESIGN Phone: (970) 925-6447
Three-dimensional Computer Imaging Fax: (970) 925-6437
1 /30/96
To; Community Development
From; Semrau building and design
RE; Pud conceptual/final proposal summary for Victorians at Sleeker
Lot size- 6000 square feet plus 600 square feet of vacated alley or 6600 sf.
Existing Use- Currently a 4 plex of 2400 square feet exists on this flat lot. These
units are near the end of their useful life and are in extremely dilapidated
condition. There is currently no off street parking for these 4 units and the
residents utilize the head in city parking off of Garmisch street. The lot is
located one block from a bus stop on Main street and is walking distance to
town services.
Proposed Use -A rezoning from R-6 to AH and the building of 7 units as follows;
2 Free market 2 BR units of 1105 sf plus finished basement of 592 sf.
(1697 Total finished footage, 1140 each applies to FAR)
2 Res. Occupied 3 Br units of 970 sf. plus finished basement of 497 sf.
(1467 Total finished footage, 1006 each applies to FAR)
1 Category 4 Studio of 528 Sq.ft. (Does not include deck and stor. room)
1 Category 4 Studio of 556 Sq.ft. (Does not include deck and stor. room)
1 Category 4 1 BR of 710 Sq. ft. (Does not include deck and stor. room)
Total Proposed FAR- 6086 Square feet (6600 allowed in AH zone)
Far does not include garages, storage rooms, porches and decks.
Proposed Unit/Bedroom Mix-
2 units Free market/5 affordable housing = 28% FM/72% Affordable
4 BR Free market/9 BR affordable = 30.7%FM/69.3% Affordable
Proposed Parking-4 Garages and two parking spaces are on -site and accessed
from the alley on the south of the lot. This greatly improves the current
situation of 100% off -site parking.
Proposed Setbacks-10' front setback to porch towards Bleeker, 15' to dwelling.
11" rear setback from lot line in back
(4' of cantilevered second level deck overhangs within the 10' )
5' sideyard setback
Surrounding Neighborhood- This R-6 lot is surrounded by commercial use. To
the east is the U.S. West facility, to the south is the Medical Center and
Design Workshop, across the. street to the west is Hotel Aspen, on the
opposite comer is the yellow brick building. The only adjoining residential
use is across Bleeker street. This lot is located walking distance to town
making it an ideal location for affordable housing. The. Victorian design with
SEMRAU
BUILDING AND DESIGN
Three-dimensional Computer Imaging
303'h East Main
Aspen, Colorado 8161 1
Phone: (970) 925-6447
Fax: (970) 925-6437
several covered porches will complement the existing Victorian
neighborhood around the yellow brick building.
Surrounding Zoning and Setbacks -To the north is R-6 zone with required front
setback of 10', rear yard minimum of 10' (garage minimum 5'), side yard a
minimum of 5'. To the west is LP zone with required front setback 10', rear
yard of 10', and side yard of 5'. To the south is Office zone with required
front setback of 10', side yard of 5', and rear yard of 15'.
Construction Schedule- Assuming approvals are received in a timely fashion,
construction will begin May 1, 1996 and complete January 1, 1997. All
materials and equipment will be kept on the site and off of any public
right of ways.
Consistency with Aspen Community Plan- The proposed development is
completely in accordance with the stated goals of the city; relocating workers
upvalley, small scale affordable housing located walking distance to town,
and private developers assuming the responsibility for affordable housing.
The design of the project will show affordable housing can be of high quality
and fit in nicely with the surrounding neighborhood.
Exterior Lighting- Minimum lighting, a small Victorian (60 watt) fixture, will be
placed by each exterior door and stairwell as needed.
Utilities- Existing gas, electrical, water, sewer, and phone lines already in place to
be re -used and updated to accomodate the new structure.
2.
hi It
Is IN W-
�o
es
-Li- Uu_a_j X
747,'1
-7fS
e
0
00
N
G
Q'
b C
v
Il
N C V -I}-
-
o-
-
r
I
p
M
i
c
o
a
u
r
-v-
r
Z
11
a
:i
=
x
C Q
r
z 4
41
r
bi
Q.
r^
cc
�
o
r
z
r
�
j
W
I t<l
J
y
�
I
S
:p
P
. r.
P
W
u
Z
U
w
J
w
cr-
Z
Bleaker Streeef
New sidewalk along Bleaker
T— — — — —r— i — — — — —
Lol line I I
Sernrou building and design ��.. New 5" caliper Blue Spruce inslolled
303112 E, Un, Aspen Grass area
925-6441
Per S Po►rh I
r
Cj
c�
s
u
E
O
l 7
On
c
a
Ca..
c
—v
0
ej
rn
c
X
I
fail A 2 BR free markel
Unit B 2 BR free market
I
I
I
I
_
1
I
'
i
I
LWI ( 3 BR Resident Occupied
Unil D 3 BR Residenl Occupiee
s
S
i
I ,
Win. Well
a I
Open Breezeway
77r
Unit c G
Un;l E
Ursil I~
y
Lam/
i
Eopme"f Room
Slot.
Sfor.
Slot.
1
1 �
Unil A Garage
Unil ( Garage
Unit D Garage
Unil B Garage
J
Parking Space
Parking Space
3 Units above garages
j ) Units E and F Sfud'w ( egory 4
Unit G i BR (ofeQory
j 15�,P�JEp _
Jam' s Second level anlilevered DeckVacated alley to h paved two existing 10` caliper Spruce 10 6 removed
=, tat line
o'
<-- Existing Paved alley to Design Workshop —�
Proposed Site Plan Victorians of Bleaker
v
N
o N
GU,9-936 W6) XWL:V� ,9-536 (OG6) 8uoT4d
I I 9 19 op'Usoloa luadse 'uraur }sea Z/ I coc
u$Tsap pub $urprnq n-e uias
MY
W IOI
N`
CL
J i
/1
i
LU,9-936 (OG6) x'ffJ/GfiV9-536 (OG6) euoT4d
11918 op �uads8 �ureuu sea Z/ 1808
7 u$Tsep pxm Butprmq nvxmes
0
z
as v tA
+� N
w
I'm
W
W
o e
cz
�V �lb
LCt9-936 (0G6) wv3/Lt-t9-5Z6 (OG6) auogd
119 18 oPB,rojoo 'uads8 'urauz }saa 7/
u14saP Pu8 n-ex as ,
u?PI?nq II
d
2
Wit
VIA
rz T
t
C-j
Cie
- — i I `'( �r I �N
cm
I S N Td S V N S N 3 d 8 ---------------
I -
CL-
vn
mc
Ne
LJ-)
171
cm
C', V .2, cc
Ll 1M-
un I
1 L
. . . ..............
X L
-----•.i...._y._.__..1!_.._........._..._._.----''I ( I
Read in parking
Read in parking
I s i%
I S H 3 S I A 8 v o
Lf L--f L
0 c3. ------------
78
C:
w
iI
SAt I
.........
Ot
cw Ne
7 J
rn O-
Title
DUILOINC, PERMIT SURVEY_.__
I oTS A 4 f�, �► �K C°C° ,
CITY ANl? TO\,,,/N5ITE OFAtIPEN
PIT -KIN COUNTY, COLO"\PO
d
uj
n
Fla D
CITY t,,1oNUMENT
GO . / / FIE-1 D
00.00 1eECOR D
L---f — — — — — —
i 2 5 I _
35
17
I ,
Tito; ST�z 1
I'
i A TA ,
' Cof gOot
Of' EKER, 4EGHT1,2
�3. Cp , MINJUt4 35
I � I
N
t 6.a 26
I 1
I
I
Fo
Rl
vo
h
70
--- F --
--
�v
1/2 VAC Aj ED ALLEY [-�LOICK (P` 0 �
JET • : / ' �,''..';.,C� �'
ff-E-�Afz CAP, L 1� 1 &000
O-
/75 _ 09,// r� \
W
o
t--
W
0
ci
ej CJ CID
Cn
r-4
'mo C3,
a
Ln
-
r-,4 r-4 -3
C"
a
LL
w
u
u
2
u
-1
J
J
a r ,
r
tu
cc
d
ce
u
t
D
w
w
. I .
u
u
o
Li
u
z
0
w
LLJ
Exhibit B
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 55
(SERIES OF 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, AMENDING
CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING
SECTION 24-5-206.2 TO PROVIDE MORE DESIGN FLEXIBILITY WITH A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, AMEND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA,
AND AMEND THE BEDROOM MIX BETWEEN AFFORDABLE AND FREE MARKET UNITS
IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 Of the Municipal Code provides that
amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use
Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the
Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at public hearing, and then approved, approved with
conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan recommends the adoption
of an Affordable Housing zone district in Pitkin County, and he
Plan also recommends refinement of the existing Affordable Housing
zone district in the City with additional revisions to the Resic3� ,,t.
Occupied category housing; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan also created a metro
area development allocation pool that requires any changes to the
development review process for the metro area to be reviewed by
both the City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions as the
Growth Management Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development staff proposed to both tlf,e
joijnt'Planning and Zoning Commissions and the Council and Board of
County Commissioners the adoption of the Affordable Housing zone
1
district in Pitkin County and additional revisions to the City's
Affordable Housing zone district; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and the City
Council did conduct several worksessions with regard to the
proposed amendments and the overall coordinated goals and
objectives of the Affordable Housing amendments as they relate to
the AACP; and
WHEREAS, the joint, City and County Planning and Zoning
Commissions held several worksessions and did conduct public
hearings to review the proposals on August 1, 1995 and again on
September 26, 1995; and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the text amendment,
agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards
as contained in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division
11 of Article 7 (Text Amendments), the Planning and Zoning
Commission has recommended approval of the text amendments
recommended by the Community Development staff pursuant to
procedure as authorized by Section 24-6-205 (A) (5) of the
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered
the text amendments under the applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered
those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and
Zoning Commissions, and has taken and considered public comment at
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, .the City council finds that the text amendments meet
or exceeds all applicable development standards and is consistent
with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City council finds that the proposed text
amendment will allow and promote better site design, encourage
small, family -oriented affordable housing, promote housing
proposals that reflect surrounding neighborhood characteristics and
will be consistent with the public welfare and the purposes and
intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN COLORADO:
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code,
the City Council finds as follows in regard to the text amendment:
1. The proposed text amendments as set forth are not in conflict
with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal code or the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The text amendments will not adversely impact traffic
proposed
generation or road safety when taken into consideration with
the other aspects of the Municipal Code.
3. The proposed text amendments will promote the public interest
and character of the City of Aspen.
4. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the
recommendations of the Aspen Area community Plan.
Section 2: Section 5-206.2 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended, which new text
shall read as follows:
Sec. 5-206.2. Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH
1/PUD)
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (AH) zone
district is to provide for the use of land for the production
of Category 1, 21 3, and 4 affordable housing and resident
occupied lots and units. The zone district also permits a
limited component of free market lots/units to off -set the
Awr
cost of developing affordable housing. It is contemplated
that land may also be subdivided in connection with a
development plan.
The Affordable Housing 1/PUD (AH) zone district is intended
for residential use primarily by permanent residents of the
community. Recreational and institutional uses customarily
found in proximity to residential uses are included as
conditional uses. Lands in the Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD)
zone district should be scattered throughout the city to
ensure a mix of housing types, including those which are
affordable by its working residents; at the same time the
Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD) zone district can protect the
city's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non -
community oriented zone districts may produce. Further, lands
in the Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD) zone district should be
located within walking distance of the center of the city, or
on transit routes. The City AH 1/PUD zone district only
applies within the Aspen Municipal boundaries.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right
in the Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD) zone district.
1. Residential uses restricted to Category 1, 21 31 «nd 4
affordable housing guidelines and resident occupied units
(as defined by the Housing Authority Guidelines of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority) must comprise at
least seventy (70) percent of the unit mix, of the
development. Of this 70%, 40% of the units must be deed
restricted to Category 1, 21 3, or 4 pursuant to the
Affordable Housing Guidelines, and Resident Occupied
units may comprise up to 30% of the unit mix. Free
market development may comprise up to thirty (30) percent
of the units mix. For projects that comprise only 3
residential units, of this 33% of the units must be deed
restricted to Category 1, 21 3, or 4 pursuant to the
Affordable Housing Guidelines, and Resident Occupied units
may comprise 33%, and free market development may
comprise up to 33% of the units mix.
Only 30% percent of a project's bedrooms may bE, located
within free market units. Category housing and Resident
Occupied units must comprise 70% of the bedroom mix.
Despite these requirements, projects may be comprined of
all Category deed restricted or Resident occupiers units.
In the event that no free market development is proposed
as part of the project, the limitation on R,sident
Occupied units and bedroom mix shall not. apply.
Residential uses may be comprised of single-i.amily,
duplex and multi -family dwelling units.
In order to be eligible for a reduction in the
4
requirement to the level of 60% Affordable Housing and
40% Free Market Housing the project shall be required to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that
all of the following criteria have been met.
a. The quality of the proposed development
substantially exceeds that established in the
minimum threshold for the scoring established in
Sec. 4-60.65-B.V.
b. The proposal maximizes affordability, consistent
with housing needs established as priority through
the current AH Guidelines;
c. The proposal integrates a mixture of economic levels
and housing for a variety of lifestyles (e.g.,
singles, seniors and families);
d. The proposal minimizes impacts on infrastructure by
incorporating innovative, energy -saving site design,
structural design characteristics or other
techniques that minimize the use of water, heating
and sewage disposal;
e. The proposal incorporates or integrates with an
existing local based economy (i.e... sustainable
local businesses);
f . The proposal accomplishes a level of design and site
plan ingenuity that advances the community goals
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
g. The proposed project represents an exceptional
commitment to advancing the visions, goals and
specific action items of the Aspen Area Community
Plan, particularly those described in the scoring
criteria of Secs. 8 - ICE •
h. No RO units are included in the project; only
category units are included in the project.
2. Home occupations; and
3. Accessory buildings and uses.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as
conditional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district,
subject to the standards and procedures established in Article
7, Division-3.
1. Open use recreation site;
,- _ 5
2. Day care center;
3. Satellite dish antennae; and
4. Dormitory.
5. Transit facilities
D. Dimensional' requirements. The following dimensional
requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses
in the Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD) zone district.
_L. Minimum lot size (square feet):
a. for subdivided lots from a parcel of 27,000 square
feet or larger: 3,000 square feet
b. for subdivided lots from a parcel less than 27,000
square feet: 1,500 square feet
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
a. For subdivided lots from a parcel of 27,000 square
feet or larger:
Detached residential dwelling: 1,500 square feet
Duplex: 1,500 square feet
b. For subdivided lots from a parcel less than 27,000
square feet:
Detached: 3,000 square feet
Duplex: 1,500 square feet
For multi -family dwellings on a lot that was
subdivided from a parcel of 27,000 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 Article 7, Division 4,
the following square feet requirements apply:
Studio: 300
1 bedroom: 400
2 bedroom: 800
3 bedroom: 1,200
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1)
bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area.
For multi -family dwellings on a lot that was
subdivided from a parcel of more than 27,000 square
6
3.
4.
5.
feet (except when varied by special review) the
following square feet requirements apply:
Studio: 1,000
1 bedroom: 1,250
2 bedroom: 2,100
3 bedroom: 3,630
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1)
bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area.
Minimum lot width (feet):
review, based upon the
including but not limited
and adjacent zone district
Minimum front yard (feet):
review, based upon the
including but not limited
and adjacent zone district
Minimum side yard (feet) :
review, based upon the
including but not limited
and adjacent zone district
To be determined during PUD
criteria in Section 7-903
to neighborhood compatibility
regulations.
To be determined during i'UD
criteria in Section 7-903
to neighborhood compatibility
regulations.
To be determined during PUD
criteria in Section 7-903
to neighborhood compatibility
regulations.
The minimum side yard for multi -family dwellings: To be
determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in
Section 7-903 including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations.
6. Minimum rear yard (feet):
review, based upon the
including but not limited
and adjacent zone district
7. Maximum height (feet):
review, based upon the
including but not limited
and adjacent zone district
To be determined during PUD
criteria in Section 7-903
to neighborhood compatibility
regulations.
To be determined during PLID
criteria in Section 7903
to neighborhood compatibility
regulations.
8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot. To !:!e
determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in
Section 7-903 including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations
9. Percent of open space required for building site: To be
determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria .in
Section 7-903 including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and
nonconforming lots of record) .
The allowable floor area permitted in this
zone is determined by the following table and
shall be applied to the proposed fathering
parcel. Floor area allocations on newly
proposed subdivided lots shall be determined
as part of the Planned Unit Development
review, but in no case shall they cumulatively
exceed the provisions of this section. Sites
may be developed up to 85% of the allowed
floor area. Up to 100 % of the floor area may
be permitted by special review, pursuant to
Article 7, Division 4.
Lot Size
(Square Feet)
Allowable
Square Feet
0--15,000 square feet 1.1:1
15,001 square feet--25,000 square feet 1:1
25,001--43,560 square feet .8:1
>1 acre--3 acres .6:1
>3 acres -- 6 acres .36:1
>6 acres .3:1
11. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement.
E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street
parking spaces shall be provided for each use in the
Affordable Housing (AH) zone district.
1. Residential uses: Established by special review pursuant
to Article 7, Division 4. The maximum number of parking
spaces required shall not exceed 2 Space/dwelling unit
for Free Market, Units. Parking spaces shall not exceed
1 space/bedroom or 2 spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is
less for the Affordable Units.
2.
Section 3:
All other: N/A.
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding
now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be condul--ted and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
8
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase,
or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1995 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen
City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
1995.
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1995.
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
J
9
FEB.22 '96 4:19PM
P.1
WMORANDUM
TO- Dave Michaelson, Community Developmcnt
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Deportment
DATE: February 21, 1996
RE: Victorians at Bleeker Rezonig & Couceptual Illial PUID
Exhibit D
We have revicwcd the application submitted by Seinrau Buildilig Foie? Design for All
rezoning; and conceptual./final PUD for the Victorians at Meeker devclopincrit proposal,
The higgest. coneem oft1w Parks Department is in regards to existing trcxcs o-a thv
property. The application shows some existing trees, ho-wever, misses some as well.
From otw inspc:ction of the existing property the following are existing trees:
8" Spruce tree, approximatcly 30' in height - Sr, corner of lot (shown on
drawing as 10" Spruce)
8 1/2" Spruce tree, approximately 3R' in h6ght - SE cortier of lot (Ao«11 ► ll
dra,Mn.g as 10" Spnice)
6 1/2" Spruce tree, approximately 15' in height - next to existing lniildi_ng, east
side of property (not shown)
7" Spruce tree, approxiatcly 15" in height - next to existing building, east
side of property (not 3ho A u)
4 L12" Spruce tree, approximately 15' in height - on Garmisch, parallel to SW
comes of the building (not shown)
7" Spruce tree, apptoximatcly 20-25' in height - on Gartnisch, close to -dley
entmoe (not shown)
3 V2" Spruce tree, apprnximately 10-15' in height - on G=isch, close to alley
entrance (shown as 15' spruce to be saved?).
With the exception of the 3 112" Spruce tree, all of the trees listed above would be
required to be mitigated 'if proposcd for removal for development proposes, Mitigation
could be on site, or if the: applicant cannot replace the total caliper inches on site, then a
payYucnt-in-lieu option is possible. The 7" and 4 1 r2" Spruce trees on Ga.nnisch should be
presmed and protected, wA not removed. Neither of these two trees appear tilat tbcy
`will be impacted by the development of the property. These trees (particularly the 7")
must be. protected during construction by either placement of snow fencing around the
dripline of the trees or some other protective barrier to guard against damage to the root
zone of the tree.
The proposed site plan shows four new 5" caliper Spruce trees to be imstalled along
Bleeker St. A, 5" caliper Spruce tree is generally a very large tree to transplant, therefore,
FEB.22 '96 4:19PM
A
if these t ves are to be considered for mitigation on removed trees, thOy must survive for a
MUUMUm of two years from the planting date:, The other Comment is thew trees may out
grow thce proposed areas (7-10 ft.?) in a relatively short time span and ruay begin iU)
encroach upon their N� ways and hlcxek views.
The plan is rather vaguc in regards to what is proposed for the right -of --way (ROW) along
Garmisch. Additional detail is necessary for this area, includi size and species of trees.
Streetscape guidelirkes state that Cottonwoods are die p vferred street tree acid we
eneolu-age cottonwoods to be planted in die ROW's and generally discmaugu Spruce
tzfes in ROW's.
The foal comment on the application is the proposed sidewalk along Bl maker. `l'lie Writ
end has generally discouragcd formal side rinks as a char4c.tur issue. It may he
appropriate, however, to have a sidewoR along Garmisch for a tic into the Maul Street
pedestrian corridor.
Blctk VG.doc
FEB 26 '96 09:22AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
P. I
MEMORANDUO
TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development Dept
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: February 26, 1996
RE; Victorians at Bleeker Rezoning & Conceptualflnal FUD
Paroel ID No. 2736-124-38-012
155LIE: The applicant is requesting to rezone from R-6 to AH.
_UN)3: The applicant Is proposing to build the folloy4ng:
2 tee -market 2-bedroom units = four free-market bedrcloms
2 resident occupied 3-bedroom units = 6 RO bedrooms
2 Category 4 studios = 2 bedrooms
I Category 4 I=bedroom = 1 bedroom
The proposed unit/bedroom mix is as follows,
2 units free-market/5 affordable housing =2s% rm / 72k6 AH
4 free-market bedrooms/9 bedrooms AH � 30.7% FIVI 169.3% AH
RgQQMMENQAT10N# The mix is in line with Section 5-206.2 — 30% free market and 70% affordable
housing. The free-market rnix as to bedrooms 'is 7% higher t*n what the Code allows, This Is a very
minimal amount unless you take into consideration that the re5idont occupied bedrooms amount to six and
the Category 4 bedrooms only amount to three with two of those being studio units.
I
The Housing Board met in a work session on January 10, 1990, to discuss this proposed development.
The Board recommended the applicant incorporate into the itix some Category 3 units, The Board
suggested the two studio units, be Category 3 instead of Catenary 4. This is more along the line of the
policy of the housing program, The Board does not want to seal this project "killed" because of this issue,
but also believes that it can still be done with the two CategPry 3 studio units, one Category 4 one -
bedroom unit, 2 Resident Occupied units and the 2 free-market units.
Should this development be approved, a deed rettHetion must be filed in accordance with the approval
before building permit approval,
%f"%rMPMC4W ah
To: Dave Michaelson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department C�e_
Date: February 29, 1996
Re: Victorians at Bleeker Rezoning & Conceptual/Final PUD
(101 East Bleeker St.; Lots A & B, Block 66, Original Aspen Townsite; Parcel ID No. 2735-124-
38-012)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site visit, the Engineering
Department has the following comments:
1. Drainage The application does not discuss site drainage. Storm runoff design must be
provided that meets the requirements of Section 26.88.040.C.4(o of the City Code. The building
permit application must also indicate storm runoff mitigation during construction so that no runoff
enters public rights -of -way.
2. Utilities - There is an existing utility pedestal which is located in the public right-of-way
adjacent to the parcel. It should be a condition of approval that the pedestal be relocated onto an
easement on the applicant's property at the time of development and that any new surface utility
needs for pedestals or other equipment be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and
not in the public right-of-way.
3. Trash & Utility Area - The site improvement survey does not indicate the location of the
dumpster. The site visit revealed that the dumpster is in the street public right-of-way. The
development plans do not indicate the trash storage area, which must not be in the public right-of-
way. The final development plan must indicate trash storage areas which should be indicated as
trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters ' or other utility
equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers.
4. Access - We have discussed access with the applicant, but the conversation is not reflected in the
application. A vehicle cannot negotiate a ninety degree turn from an eleven foot wide driveway
into a garage immediately adjacent to the driveway. We discussed the necessity of the applicant
obtaining an access easement from the adjacent property owner. The final development plan must
provide functioning access to the garages.
5. Landscaping in the Public Right-of-way - The final development plan must indicate proposed
landscaping in the public right-of-way which must conform with City Code as discussed below.
6. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - The site is located on the fringe of the West End where the
Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan may not be specific about sidewalks. There is
however an existing sidewalk on Bleeker Street at the U.S. West offices and on the west side of
Aspen Street. There is also sidewalk in front of the medical building on Garmisch Street.
Therefore, sidewalk should be required on both street frontages of this development. This sidewalk
will serve both the future residents of the project as well as pedestrian traffic to the Yellow Brick
School and other neighboring properties.
Any damaged sections of curb and gutter will be required to be replaced prior to issuance of
a certificate of occupancy.
7. Street Lights - There is an existing street light mounted on a former wooden utility pole at the
corner of Garmisch and Bleeker adjacent to the applicant's property. It should be a requirement
that it be replaced with an antique street light.
8. Development of Public Right-of-way - City staff will need to discuss this application in the
Development Review Committee to determine, how the public right-of-way adjacent to the
development must be reconstructed by the applicant. It may be preferable to remove the existing
head -in parking and install parallel parking in order to improve the streetscape and the
neighborhood character.
9. Easements - The final plat must indicate easements of record based on a current title policy.
The site improvement survey appears to indicate easements that might affect site design.
10. Final Plat - The final plat must meet the requirements of the City Code.
11. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5088) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks
department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for
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.
cc: Tim Simrau (FAX 925-6437)
M96.68
RE: VICTORIANS AT BLEE PUBLIC NOTICE
KER CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD AND AMENDMENT
TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
NOTICE IS HE, GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday,
March 5, 1996 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoningion, Sister Cities
Commission,
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application S
Saliterman, requesting Conceptual and Final PUD approval to demolish the existing submittedur le Larry
replace it with a single structure containing 2 free market units, 2 resident occupied fourplex and to
3 category 4 studio affordable housing units; and requesting to rezone the property (RO) units, and
AHH1/PUD. The property is located at 101 E. Bleeker St., and is described as Lots from R-6 to
and B, Block
66, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Dave Michaelson
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., As en CO the _
5.100. P (970) 9..0
s/Sara Garton Chan -
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on February 17, 1995
City of Aspen Account �"'-
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin }
}
State of Colorado }
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 6-205.E.
)m -
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements
pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations 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 ( 3 0 0 ) feet of the
subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on
1
the ( day of e 199 (which is days
prior to the public hearing date of
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 day of F44d 199
to the day of %'G %'� 199 (Must be
posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing
date). A photograph of the posted ign is attached
hereto.
Sig ature
� st
Signed before me this day of
SS P_ P-rvL, 19 9 C . by
` i i'r �(•� tint � J' L'7 tYl � �I ii
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Comms ' n expir Y -
Notary Public `
Ed Grosse
Aspen
Phone 970-925-1689
Fax 970-920-3296
��,3/9/
®..�..�. A, O s
3 S- [ ct Qz'
Dr. & Mrs. Edward R. Watson, 121 W. Bleeker St. Aspen, Colorado 81611
pM1 (�s
North [levation
(looking south from Bleeker)
Drawing
E'� F v
Scale Job
Date Revised
//� 2,
Sheet No.
Victorians of Bleeker
101 E. Bleeker
Memorandum
To: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From: George Krawzoff
Through: Dave Michaelson
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Update, P&Z
Worksession on March 5.
Date: February 27, 1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW.
The Accessory Dwelling Unit legislation is providing needed
employee housing in Aspen but not at the 80% occupancy rate
projected for ADUs in the community plan. Occupancy, without
respect to qualifying tenants, is closer to 50%. (65% maximum,
making generous assumptions about the ADUs which haven't
responded.)
The property owners have mixed feelings about the ADUs -
some strongly support the program, others feel they were forced
to build the unit, and others in the entire spectrum in between.
Overall, they're happy to build another room in the house to ADU
specifications, but don't tell them how to use it.
The property owners have clear feelings regarding government
regulation - they don't want any more of it. They do not want
help locating tenants and they say they wouldn't have built the
ADU if rental to qualified tenants was mandatory. Their failu-e
to file leases as required and the poor response rate to the
survey further evidences the difficulty of regulating the ADUs.
We have less adequate responses from the tenants, who must
be contacted through the owners unless we're willing to knock on
their door - which was considered too intrusive for the first
survey. The 9 tenants who did receive the survey from their ADU
owners say they are generally happy to have a decent place to
stay in Aspen, although some report surprisingly high rents.
Overall, the survey process has established a valuable and
necessary database for the ADU program and judgements can begin
to be made on facts rather than supposition. However, the facts
gathered to date don't make an overwhelming case for or against
the ADU program.
Homes are deeply personal. If the ADU legislation becomes
more intrusive - with mandatory rentals, inspections, or annual
surveys - it will fail. Without more regulation, high vacancy
rates, occupancy by non -qualified tenants, occasional rent
gouging, and other negative aspects of the program will continue.
I recommend that.we do a follow-up mailing to those that
didn't respond the first time, eliminating the files that did not
result in a built ADU. This mailing will be less than half the
number required for the first mailing and our information is much
better now. With a good handle on the ADU occupancy rates, staff
should next analyze what could be produced through cash -in -lieu,
with the associated difficulty of locating appropriate sites for
higher density housing. Then policy makers can determine whether
to continue the ADU program based on complete information.
ADU DATABASE.
The first step in'producing the ADU survey was to establish
an adequate database of ADUs. Searching the City's files of
special reviews, 97,files were labeled as ADUs. Reviewing these
files with Dave Tolen, we purged 16 files which clearly predated
the current ADU legislation, i.e. Ordinance 1 of 1990. The
remaining 81 files form the basic ADU database which you have
received. The records are arranged alphabetically by the file
title, just as the files are kept in the Clerk's office,
Each record is divided into 4 sections as follows:
Information from the City's files.
The majority of these files were located in the City Clerk's
special review files but, as noted on the records, some were
in Leslie Lamont's office. Staff was not aware of any other
locations were ADU files might be so this should be a
complete list.
Information from the Pitkin County Assessor's files.
To obtain current ownership and mailing addresses, the City
files were cross-referenced with the County Assessor's
database. Problems with incorrect parcel numbers, legal
descriptions, or recent sales arose in 10 out of the 81
files. As a result, only 71 surveys were mailed. Since the
initial mailing, additional research has resolved all but
two of these problems.
Information from my research and notes taken while going
through the above files.
Since only 30 responses to the survey were received,
additional research was necessary. By searching phone
directories and contacting project architects or other
representatives, basic information regarding the
construction and occupancy of the ADU's was obtained for
another 37 of the projects. At this time, there are 14
projects for which no contact has been made. I believe I
have correct mailing addresses and phone numbers for all but
two of the projects but additional effort is necessary to
get a response.
SURVEY RESULTS - Owner Survey Questions.
The following results are for the 30 surveys returned by
mail plus one more which was taken over the phone.
1. Your
ADU
may be used in different ways: which statement best
describes
how your ADU is used?
7
(a)
The ADU is rented for periods of 6 months or longer to
qualified employees.
5
(b)
The ADU is occupied by a caretaker, nanny, or a person
providing other services within my home.
4
(c)
The ADU is used by my guests.
4
(d)
The ADU is used as a study, home office. or other
extension of the house.
1
(e)
The ADU is used as a home by a member of my family
without rent.
7
(f)
Other:' Please describe.
The owners also provided the following comments:
•(f) This ADU is for a proposed new home which has not been huiIt
vet
• (a) Our ADU is presently vacant but we are no« interviewi1-112
prospective employees for 6 months or longer
•(f) I personally occupy. the ADU
•(f) has not been built yet.
•(f) Nothing has been built on the property.
•(f) occasionally used by family - when everyone is in Aspen.
•(f) This adu is still under construction. When finished, it will
be rented to a full-time employee all year.
•(b) Will be used as a caretakers unit as of approx. 2/1/96
•(f) Building under construction.
•(a) It.isn't rented yet but it will be.
•(a) But it'isn't rented at this time.
2. If' you do rent the ADU long term (6 months or more) to qualified
tenants, please check all that apply:
5 (a) I was not aware of my obligation to qualify residents
and file a copy of the lease with the Housing
Authority.
1 (b) I expected my tenants.to communicate with the Housing
Authority.
5 (c) I find the qualifying of residents and filing of' the
lease a nuisance.
4 (d) If the deed restrictions are enforced, I would rather
not rent out the ADU than bother with the restrictions.
(Other responses include "I filed the first lease but not
renewals." Two leases were enclosed were enclosed with surveys.)
3. Do the occupants of the ADC) have access to the main house?
7 (Yes) 5 (No) 6 (Sometimes)
4. If you had it to do over, would you:
16 (a) Build the ADU the same way.
3 (b) Build a larger ADU. How many square feet? 1000/500/1"-")'()0
1 (c) Build a smaller ADU. How many square feet? _
6 (d) I would not build an ADU.
5. How do you feel about the ADli".1
11 (a) It's a benefit and adds to the value of my home.
13 (b) It's a benefit to the City of Aspen since it provide-,
employee housing.
2 (c) It's just another room in my home that happens to have
an outside entrance.
8 (d) Other?
• We would not have built it if the cash -in -lieu was more
reasonable.
• We should not have been required- we are full time res. iv,,o
work p.t.
• It's OR but if there is lots of gov. paperwork like this,
it's going to be a PAIN.
• It WILL in a few years provide employee housing.
• We were forced to build the ADC' by the HPC!
• Occupies space we would have put to other use. Mandatory
rental would prob. be unconstitutional!
• Just another rooni in my home with its own outside entrance.
• Provides extra room for my family when they visit and i'uture
housing.
6. Would Vou have built the ADU if rental to a qualified tenant was
mandatory?
3 (YES) 15 (NO) 9 (UNCERTAIN)
7. Would it be helpful if the Housing Authority provided you with a
list of qualified tenants?
2( (YES) 21 (NO) 5 (UNCERTAIN)
8. Please provide any comments that you would like the Aspen City
Council and the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority to hear regardin.2
this survey, your ADU, or employee housing in general.
• Aspen has created a model program for other communities.
Lowest cost answer to affordable housing.
• Additional restrictions will reduce the probability of more
units being built.
• I bought house with ADL'. It's not separated from house
sufficiently to comfortably rent out.
• Give ADU builders ALL info on financial oblig., permits,
costs of sewer, use tax, etc. prior to bldg.
• We support emp hour but didn't want to be landlords. We were
required to build for "alleyscape!"
• Appreciate the need for e.h. but we don't want someone
living in our own home. We like our privacy!
• More F.A.R. allowable would have helped us as an incentive.
It is a very expensive requirement.
• Unit is not built, expected completion 3/96, intend to use
as ADU.
• The ADU legislation should be enforced (enforcable) to get
the intended use.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenant Responses
1. Which statement best describes your apartment?
5 (a)
Studio.
3 (b)
One bedroom,
1 (c)
Two bedroom.
0 (d)
Other? Please describe:
2. Where is your apartment located? (Check all that apply.)
2
(a)
Ba s emen t .
2
(b)
First floor or ground leiel.
1
(c)
Second floor,
2
(d)
Attached to the main house.
3
(e)
Separated from the main house.
1
(f)
Other? Please describe:
"Above
Garage"
3.
How much do you pay for rent?
2
(a)
I do not pay rent
1
(b)
less than $400/month
1
(c)
$401 to $800/month
4
(d)
$801 to $1,200/month
1
(e)
More than $1,200/month.
Please
give an amount: $1,500
4.
Do you have caretaker obligations?
4
(YES) 5 (NO)
5. If you do have caretaker obligations, please indicate how
many hours per week are required.
45. 5, 10-1 S Hoursl4leek, and one yes to 4 aboc-e but no hours
gig - en
6. Who lives in your apartment?
6 (a) I live alone.
2 (b) I share the apartment with roommates.
0 (c) I share the apartment with my family.
1 (d) If you share the apartment, how many adults and how man v
children live there including yourself:'
2 Adults
Children (under 1S)
7. Are you allowed to keep pets? (Check all that apply.)
6
(a)
No, peas are not allowed.
1
(b)
Cats are allowed.
2
(c)
Dogs are allowed.
0
(d).
Other? Please describe:
8.
How would you describe your apartment? (Check all that
apply.)
4
(a)
Excellent. This is the t 17pe of apartment I want.
S
(b)
Good, but I'd like to have more space.
1
(c)
Good, but I'd like to pay less rent.
1
(d)
Good, but I'd like to have more pri vacY.
2
(e)
Fair. It's a reasonable compromise between what I can
afford and the apartment I'd like to have.
0
(f)
Poor. I'd move out if I ha,d an alternative.
0
(g)
Other? Please describe:
9. Do you have use of' parts of the main house? (Check all that
apply):
3 (a) I have access to the main house when the owners are not
here.
4 (b) I have storage space outside of my apartment.
6 (c) I have use of the yard.
1 (d) Other? Please describe: "Laundry room in main house."
10. What is your annual income?
0 (a) under $10, 000 per rear.
4 (b) $10, 000 to $ 20. 000 per year.
2 (c) $20, 001 to $30, 000 per year.
0 (d) $30, 001 to $40, 000 per ° ear.
2 (e) more than $40,000 per year.
One survey did not provide an income level.
11. How many vehicles do you own?
5 have 1 vehicle.
do not have any vehicles.
2 did not say how many they had but answered the questions be 1 oli,.
If you do own a vehicle, check all that apply:
7 (a) I have adequate on -site parking for my vehicle(s).
1 (b) 1 do not have adequate parking for my vehicle(s).
1 (c) I am able to park inside the main house's garage.
2 (d) I park on the street.
• Survey information.
The bottom section of each record details the responses to
the survey questions, including any comments, for the
properties that returned the survey. I took one owner's
survey responses over the phone at their request so there
are 31 records with survey answers.
Please note that "-0-" indicates that there is no
information for this aspect of an ADU record.
CONSTRUCTION AND OCCUPANCY INFORMATION.
There were limits to the information which could be obtained
from project architects or managers. They typically knew whether
the ADU had been constructed but were less certain regarding
current occupancy of the units. From these phone calls, plus the
completed surveys, we have the following basic construction and
occupancy information:
0 Construction Information.
44 files rE-presen-IL ADUs that aie built or wi-' llL be soon.
23 files did not result in an ADU being built.
14 files require additional research,
81 files total
0 Occupancy Information.
23 are ADUs are occupied generally as intended.
3 are ADUs which may soon be occupied.
2 are ADUs which are occupied by the owners.
12 are ADUs which will not be occupied by employees.
18 require additional research to determine occupancy.
23 files did not result in an ADU being built.
81 files total
Od
Ai
D
O
G.
O
e
C:
rL
ft
CIO
131
C,
Ago*
P-0
9--
PAO"
MIT
mwmo
o
number
file
result
newown
-----------------------------------
1
100 Park Avenue
--------------
Remail
---------------------------------
Tom Reagan
2
205 N. Sth.
OK
NationwiUe Theacres CorpO-atiOn
3
Alciatore
OK
Alciatore, Gaston A. ana Nancy J.
4
Allen
Built, not occupied
Gile, Robert B. Jr.& Ratciiff, Elizabeth
5
Bellina
Built, occupied
Bellina, the Delia Malone Trust (700) &
Joseph W.,(30%)
6
Bellock Conditional Use & Stream Margin
OK
Chuck. Bellock
7
Bennett Conditional Use Review
OK - duplex not adu
Tasse, Jeff & Mary McGuire Kelso - Cetz,s,
Linda C/O
8
Berger - 312 Gillespie Ave.
OK
Berger, Bruce
9
Blocker Conditional Use Review
Built, occupied
Laura Blocker
10
Braden (Conditional Use) 973 Queen St.
Built, occupied
Baum Lester V Trustee for the '*radon Cole
Wm & Kendall Ann T
11
Bucher Conditional Use
OK
Carrico, William N. and Estrin, Judith L.
12
Burton/Allen Conditional Use
remai-1
David Wright
13
Caffray Conditional Use Review, ADU
Not built
Caffray, Ann T., Trustee
14
Chisholm Conditional Use Review for ADU
OK
Chisholm, Edith (1/2 int.) and Chisholm,
K.H. & N.M. (1/2)
15
Choumas Conditional Use Review
Built, occupied
Choumas, John James & Patricia G.
16
Congdon Conditional Use Review for an ADU
Research -Dad address
Congdon, Thomas E. and Noel R.
17
Cunningham Conditional Use
OK
Cunningham, I. MCA.
18
Dickens Conditional Use Applic.
OK
Goldsmith -Miller, Beth H.
19
Eller Conditional Use RVW for ADU
remail
Heaven on Earth Holdings c/o Victoria
Trevino
20
Eller Conditional Use RVK for ADU
Research -sold
Heaven on Ea,,t.�, Holcings c/o ViCt.J11a
Trevino
21
Elmore Conditional Use for ADU
OK - paid cashinlieu
Elmore, John A.
22
Erdman Condtion,ai Use for ADU
Research - no phones
Fernandez, Beatriz Gigi
23
Fellman Residence/ADU Cond. Use
Not built
Fellman, Thomas H.
24
Fischer Conditional Use
Research - no phones
Arthur Fischer
25
Fortier Accesory Dwelling Unit
OK
Fortier, Timothy J. & Lisa A.
26
Fyrwald Conditional Use Review Accessory D.U.
OK
Fyrwald, Ernst R. & Lacy Barnett
27
Garrish Accessory Dwelling Unit
Bad parcel number
Not owned by 734 Assoc, as by the parcel t
28
Goldsmith Conditional Use Review for ADU
Built, occupied
Goldsmith, Henry L. Revocable Trust
29
Goldsmith Conditional Use Review for ADU
Not built
Goldsmith, Henry L. Revocable Trust
30
Grosse Accessory Dwelling Unit
Not built
Grosse, Edwin J. and Adeline M.
31
Hamilton, Cond.Use-Acc. Dwelling (Cottage Infill)
OK
Brown, Ruth Hamilton
32
Hamrick Conditional Use Review
OK
Hamrick, Kay Ellen
33
Hirsschfield Cond. Use for ADU
Not built
Hirschfield, Sheri A. and Robert E. as
joint tenants
34
Hufty Conditional Use Review
OK - paid cashinlieu
Hufty, Page Lee Trust, Hufty Page Trustee
35
Krebs ADU
Built, not occupied
Keltner Family Trust
36
Lang Conditional Use ADU
Not built
Koutsoubos, Ted. A.
37
Langley Sub./Rezoning/GMQS/Special Rev/Condo/Histo
Not built
Cowling, Jennie H. - c/o Richard E.
Cowling Jr.
38
Longoria Conditional Use for ADU
Remail
Sunybrook Colorado, Inc., c/o Krabacher,
Hill & Edwards
39
loushin Conditional Use Permit
Research - no phones
Turtle Beach Ltd., A Florida limited
Partnership
40
Loushin Conditional Use Permit
Remail
Turtle Beach limited Partnership
41
MacCarthy Conditional Use Review
Not built
MacCarthy, Lynda
42
MacCaskill Accessory Dwelling Unit
Built, occupied
Paul MacCaskill
43
Markalunas Cond. Use for ADU
Not built
James J. & P,amcna Markalunas
44
Mau Conditional Use Review for an ADU
OK
Leif, Juanita living Trust
45
McCoy Conditional Use Review
Built, occupancy?
McCoy, Joseph H. & Lillian
46
McPherson ADU
OK
McPherson, Douglas J. & Susan L.
47
Means Conditional Use Review
OK
Means, Graeme
48
Molly Gibson Condos A&B Cond. Use Review
OK
Curchill, Audrey lee, Living Trust,
Churchill A.M., Trustee
number
file
result
newown
----,-----
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------
-------------------------------------------
49
Moore Conditional
Use &
Stream
OK
Moore, Gary C. and Debra J - Joint Tenants
50
Moores Hallam lake
Bluff
Review
Not built
Moore, John Jay and Rebe:.ca B.
51
Moores Hallam Lake
Bluff
Review
Not built
Moore, John Jay and Rebecca B.
52
Newman Conditional
Use Review
Built, occupied p.t.
Joel Newman (verified by Subdivision
records)
53
Nichols Cond. Use
Review
for ADU
OK
Nichols, Gary T., Lucinda C., and Kenneth
E.
54
No Problem Joe Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Not built
734 Associates, A Colorado Gen.;,:
55 Norton Conditional Use Review for ADU
56 Oblock Townhouses Subdivision Cond. Use, GMQS Ex.
57 Oblock Townhouses Subdivision Cond. Use, GMQS Ex.
58 Oblock Townhouses Subdivision Cond. Use, GMQS Ex.
59 Oblock Townhouses Subdivision Cond. Use, GMQS Ex.
60 Oxley Conditional Use Review for ADU
61 Patrick Conditional Use
62 Penn Con. Use Rev. for an ADU
63 Red House Duplex, Conversion
64 Rothblum Cond Use Review for ADU
65 Roy 126 Wept Francis
66 Schiff Conditional Use for an ADU
67 Schiller Accessory Dwelling Unit
68 Seymour Conditional Use Permit
69 Smith Conditional Use for ADU & 8040 Greenline
70 Souki Conditional Use & 8040 Greenline
71 Sparbaro Conditional Use Review
72 Stauffer Cond Use Review for ADU
73 Sweeney Accessory Dwelling Unit
74 Transierra Accessory Dwelling Unit
75 Trott Duplex Conditional Use Review
76 Ukraine Accessory Dwelling Unit
77 Vidor Accessory Dwelling Unit
78 Volk Conditional Use Review
79 Weinberg Conditional Use for ADU
80 Whipple Accessory Dwelling Unit
81 limman Conditional Use Review for ADU
Partnership
Not built Norton, John & Robin
Research-sold,no ADU see previous record
Research-sold,no ADU Grueser, William D. & Patricia C., Joint
Tenants
Research-sold,no ADU see previous record
Research-sold,no ADU see previous record
OK Oxley, John C., Trust, Walker, Barbara
Attn:
Built, occupancy? Barksdale, Sarah M.
OK Penn, Paul E. and Susan W.
OK Smuggler Hunter Tryst, Alley Elizab.n &
Horn Sara K.trustees
OK Rothblum, Philip and Marcia - Joir,t
Tena,,ts
OK - app, withdrawn Roy Family Trust, c/o Philip Asner,
Trustee
OK Theresa Schiff
Built, occupied Schiller, Carl F. & Harlow -Schiller,
Leslie
OK - owner in ADU Reich, Denice C.
Research -bad address Smith, Robert C. and Glenda D.
OK - app, withdrawn Highland Investments & Jor,,so�, Karen, cro
Holland & Hart
OK Sbarbaro, Bonnie K.
OK Stauffer, John Q. and Leslie K., as joint
tenants
Built, occupancy? Emerson Ltd. C/O Sweeney
remail Transierra Corp.
OK Trott, Partricia P. & Houghton M. an;
Dunn, Joseph & Lucy
OK Anderson, Parker - Wing-Merrili-C/O
Built, occupied Vidor, Quentin
OK Volk, Richard W. and Sue J.
OK Weinberg, Jay N. Trust Agreement, Weinberg
Jay. N. Trustee
OK Kaufman, Alex & Cheek, Kathryn Sumgardner
(10%)
Research -sold Zimman, David
MIS,
4koll
ok
Roy