Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960618 AGENDA '.....,- TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1996, 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL :6' \1\ GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION I. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS A. AH Overlay, Tim Malloy B. Rural/Remote Zone District Code Amendments, Cindy Houben H. ADJOURN ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1996, 6:30 PM SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Schrager Conditional Use for ADU, Suzanne Wolff B. Winnerman Stream Margin Review, Suzanne Wolff C. Zupancis Subdivision, Bob Nevins D. 706 W. Main - Conditional Use for ADU, Dave Michaelson IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Howling Wolf Special Review - Trash Area Reduction, Suzanne Wolff B. Aspen Club PUD Amendment, Dave Michaelson C. Marshall Hallam Lake ESA Review, Bob Nevins D. Annexation Plan, Dave Michaelson/Stan Clauson (Please return clean copies of annexation plan following meeting). E. Election of Chair-person V. ADJOURN (Note: Meeting with Council on July 25, 1996 has been cancel ed!!) .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Rhonda Harris, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: June 13, 1996 June 27 - Growth Management Commission (4:30 pm) Plaza One Meeting Room North 40 (continued from 6/6) July 2 - RegularMeeting (4:3 0 pm) Waterplace Final SPA (DM) Aspen Mountain PUD (DM) Colas Investment Conditional Use for ADU & Stream Margin Review (BN) July 16 - Regular Meeting (4:3 0 pm) West End Traffic - Biennial Review (Aspen Music Festival) Srno-i irz- s I11' i\II.I;It V• Memorandum To: AIA Regional Urban Design Committee (RUDC) Members !' rom: Nancy Somerville, Vice President State and Local Affairs c Subject: Proposed Livable Communities Public Policy: 90 Day Review Period Date: June 4, 1996 Copy: Richard Hobhs, 1~AIA; John Kaliski, AIA; Cheryl Derricotte, Charles Zucker The attached draft Livable Communities Policy has been proposed for review by the AIA Board of Directors at its September 1996 meeting. Not less than 90 days before the first reading by the Board, we are required to circulate the draft to all Directors, components, and relevant committees for comment. As a member of the AIA RUDC you have an ongoing interest in the future of cities, towns and suburbs, how the AIA addresses the many issues related to their development and success, and \vc look forward to your thoughts. �dEf✓ /�l�� Z"Td y�/ Please review the proposed policy and return your comments to ,r at U--F-7� or fax at before August 30, 1996. 7;,5� Backfiround The existing Urban Design policy was approved by the Board nearly ten years ago, in March 1987. The RUDC and the AIA State and Local Affairs Department believe that a new statement of the AIA's position on cities, towns and suburbs is needed. A first draft of a new policy was distributed at the March 1996 RUDC meeting in San Diego. Since that time the State and Local Affairs Department has worked very closely with the RUDC leadership in developing the current draft, which is designed to replace the existing Urban Design Policy which is also attached. cz:cz Attachments: Instruction sheet. Drah Livable Communities Policy. Existing Urban Design Policy Public Policy Review Please read this page Public Policies are AIA statements of belief to policy -makers, the public, before reviewing the and the construction industry on issues of public policy affecting the attached public policy membership, the profession of architecture, or the AIA. All AIA policies approved by the Board are binding on AIA components. The AIA's Government Affairs Department oversees the AIA's public policy process. t A Public Policy should be a short, plain -language statement of a principle to which the membership of the Institute is committed, stated so that it is capable of implementation by various means and focuses on the broad concept rather than specific strategies. An explanation may accompany the Public Policy for internal AIA use that expands on the statement without modifying the principle or advocating adherence to it. The Public Policy can be supported by Position Statements and Commentaries. Position Statements elaborate on a policy or apply them to specific conditions or events and are subordinate to the policy. Commentaries are white papers or other analyses that amplify or advance public policies or position statements. There are no Position Statements or Commentaries accompanying this draft but they can be Prepared by committees or members at any time durinp, or after the review process and Board approval. Procedure for Adopting Public Policies must be approved by the Board of Directors. Government Public Policies Affairs prepares a discussion draft of a new policy, which is attached, based on input from appropriate sources from both within and outside the Institute, in this case the AIA Regional Urban Design Committee and other allied professionals. Not less than 90 days before the first reading by the Board, Government Affairs circulates the discussion draft to all Directors, components, and relevant committees for comment.. Based on comments, Government Affairs prepares a revised draft for the Board's first reading. Policies adopted at second reading take effect immediately. Review Schedule 90 day review and comment period by AIA components and programs: June 4, 1996 to August 31, 1996 First reading by the AIA Board of Directors: September 1996 Please return your comments to Charles "Zucker, State and L wal Affairs, (202) 626-7532 or (202) 626-7365 fax, before August 31, 1996. Livable Proposed policy to replace the existing Urban Design Policy Communities May 22, 1996, Draft Policy Livable Communttles Policy Statement. The AIA is dedicated to the principle that livable communities, whether in cities, towns, or suburbs, evolve over time, building by building, street by street, and neighborhood by neighborhood, to serve the diverse needs of their people. The AIA also believes that livable communities should reflect the many cultures and histories of .the people who strive to make them beautiful, safe, healthy, affordable, and of a human scale, and that their success is linked to a sustainable regional economy and environment. Thus, the AIA supports actions, programs, and policies that 1) emphasize the creation of human -scale neighborhoods and economic centers that incorporate a mix of uses as the basic building blocks of livable communities; 2) coordinate efforts that link local neighborhood improvements to regional sustainabili(y and plan: a priority on directing growth opportunities towards existing communities, where the vast majority of people already live; 3) secure the participation of citizens throughout the planning, urban design, and implementation process; and 4) promote the visualizing, synthesizing, and form -giving role that architecture and urban design can play in the decision -making process. Sutptx)rtinL Issues and Itackilround • Iluman-scale neighlx►rti(xxls and econo►rnic centers: Although communities arc not the same nationwide, the AIA believes that good design can improve the human quality of places and thus the activities of our daily lives. Well -designed neighborhoods and neighborhood centers, downtowns, and mainstreets that incorporate a mix of uses and are linked to both public and private transportation, increase choices people have in housing, shopping, recreation, and job locations. Such places offer people convenience:, create exciting and inviting environments, and add to a sense Of community. A lack of good design, including land use and zoning regulations that segregate uses, make such places difficult to achieve. Thus, the AIA supports the creation of 1) urban design plans and regulations that result in multifunctional neighborhoods and economic centers, including downtowns, that incorporate a mix of uses, building types, and choices in transportation; 2) a walkable public realm with trees, landscaped sidewalks, parks, and other places for public gatherings; and 3) a transportation infrastructure and building stock that supports neighborhood scale development, increases choices in the marketplace, and builds equity for all people. • Neighborhood and regional sustainability: The AIA believes that issues such as environmental health, jobs and employment distribution, housing costs and availability, traffic congestion, 1 air quality, and open spar: development are regional and all have a profound effect on individual communities and neighborhoods. Antiquated land -use and transportation policies, among others, that affect the shape of a region can directly affect the livability of communities. The lack of coordination among agencies and organizations at the regional level, can adversely affect all communities by allowing new growth in outlying areas apart from areas where the majority of people currently live. Thus, the AIA supports 1) coordination between agencies and organizations at the neighborhood, community, municipal, metropolitan, county, and regional levels to develop multi -jurisdictional solutions to regional economic and environmental problems; 2) urban growth limits and land development patterns that place a priority on directing new development toward the revitalization of existing cities, towns and suburbs, and secondarily towards the creation of new towns and peripheral areas only when growth can not bE accommodated in any other reasonable manner; and 3) the role of transportation routes and nodes in linking placs regionally and fostering mixed use. centers and human -scale neighborhoods. • Citizen participation throughout the planning, urban design, and implementation .process: The AIA believes that livable communities are made by the people who inhabit them and that credible and effective citizen participation requires that people receive timely information sufficient for them to understand fully the issues. Such information often requires public education and technical assistance over a significant period of time to nurture democratic action fully. Thus, the AIA supports 1) public education about the nature of neighborhoods and central places as an integral part of' the citizen participation process; 2) visioning and urban design programs that encourage people to consider what values they wish to further in their community and how to do so; and 3) architatural and urban design assistance that helps citizens to participate fully in the proces-ti of making communities livable. • A role for architecture and urban design: The AIA believes that architecture and urban design offer a community powerful toots for developing a strategic vision for change. The design process results in a visual understanding of issues and development alternatives that aids the public in making strategic planning decisions and monitoring results. By illustrating and synthesizing often conflicting ideas, visualizing alternative futures at the scale of the building, neighborhood, and region, the process results in a coherent plan of action that links issues. The AIA also recognizes that many communities do not incorporate these tools in their community planning and citizen participation process. Thus, the AIA supports the incorporation of architecture and urban design principles and processes within community planning efforts at all levels of decision making, from the neighbonc(x)d scale to the larger region. Approved by the Board March 1987 Existing Urban Design Policy Urban Design Statement. The American Institute of Architects believes that urban design considerations must form the foundation for any long- or short-range planning for urban development or change. In particular, the concern of the AIA is with the management of urban change; linkages, understanding, and amsideration of life -cycle costs; and pmccdures of govcrnancc. Above all, the process of identifying and implementing these mechanisms should be the result of a planning process involving and embracing the concerns, interest and participation of affected citizens and organizations. As designers of the physical environment, we are concerned with the health of the human, cultural, and natural environments which together determine the future of our regions, cities, and nation. Stiportin, Statements. A profession dedicated to the improvement of the physical environment has it responsibility to %cc that public goals ate achieved through a public process. Additionally, however, it must bring to bear its own talent, training, experience, and understanding to every problem and opportunity that it encounters. There are five elements recommended as the structural framework for it National Urhan Design Policy: Urban Growth and Change, Land Use, Transportation, Economic Awareness, and Governance. While these elements are stated separately, all arc interrelated and each plays a part in the life of every person and community. The AIA believes that the goals of public policy in the five areas should be: Urban Growth and ChanL)e 1. to encourage regeneration of the physical fabric and the infrastructure to public services within our central cities; to alleviate pressures in those central cities whose livability is threatened by overdevelopment by providing opportunities for development in other locations --existing or new --within their metropolitan areas; to encourage a variety of renewed functions within central business districts --such as residential uses --as a reinforcement and reinterpretation of their age-old functions of market, information exchange, and cultural center; to improve mobility and choice; and to relieve congestion --both on city streets and in existing commuting patterns --by providing; the most efficient balance of transportation modes; to provide for a sense of place and orientation in both cities and their suburbs by physical design features and informational systems; 1 6. to make possible the revival of economically distressed buildings and areas in ways that will make the most efficient use of available physical and economic resources with the greatest positive effect on the human and cultural environment, especially in residential areas; 7. to develop the livability of the core cities, including safety and aesthetics, so that they may continue as vital elements of our metropolitan areas; and 8. to enhance the economic and cultural opportunities of smaller cities, towns and rural areas to strengthen their attractiveness both in appearance and as an opportunity for settlement. . Transportation 1. to support funding and planning to integrate all transportation modes --road anb rail, air and water, pedestrian and vehicular --so that each region and urban area may choose the most effective and efficient combination of modes for its own needs and to recognize the broader benefits that will result from such funding; 2. to recognize the federal responsibility for ensuring that interstate passenger and cargo services by road, rail, waterway, and air are maintained; 3. to require that social, environmental, and aesthetic benefits --as well as economic efficiencies --govern the design of new routes for all transportation modes as well as their terminals, interchangcs, and parking or holding facilities; 4. to establish reinforcing linkages between transportation systems and land use objectives including urban growth management techniques as well as respect for established human, cultural, and natural environments; 5. to encourage private sector efforts to supply spec:ialircd transportation services; 6. to increase the use of public transportation in congested urban areas by improving and maintaining the quality of service, comfort, appearance, and graphic orientation systems with fares that take into account public needs as well as user affordability; 7. to require that vehicles --particularly automobiles, trucks, and aircraft used in populated areas --be held to high standards of safety, emission control, and noise. ruluction; 8. to reduce conflicts between the movement of goods and the movement of people; and 9. to provide accessibility for the physically handicapped, the old, the young, and the poor. 2 Land Use 1. to encourage each governmental jurisdiction to establish use, intensity, and environmental criteria --including their relationship to public and private transportation systems and service institutions -- as may best serve their citizens; 2. to preserve, in adequate quantity and at optimum location, productive agricultural lands; 3. to provide open space in appropriate locations and adequate amounts, accessible to all, for both active and passive recreation; and 4. to provide for the assembly, evaluation, updating and dissemination of all data required for land use decisions by governmental jurisdictions at all levels. Fiscal Policy 1. to identify federal, state, and local responsibility for financial support of urban regional development and redevelopment, including transportation, housing, and the urban infrastructure; 2. to encourage the effective organization and timing of the public investment in the infrastructure in ways that aid the implementation of other policies; 3. to recapture, for the public, a substantial portion of the increase in private property values created by public investment; 4. to encourage these policy objectives through creative financing techniques --such as mortgage guarantee programs and tax incentives --and with a steady flow of mortgage funds at reasonable rates to the housing and community development markets to finance building and rebuilding; 5. to encourage by similar means the supply of long term financing of private development that provides a long term public benefit; 6. to reform federal and local tax systems, a) to make it more equitable in terms of who pays and who benefits, and b) to encourage private enterprise to invest in high quality projects of long term benefit; and 7. to require compensation to the public from public or private entities involved in any necessary depletion of irreplaceable natural resources and to prohibit the contamination of air, earth, and water. Governance 1. to resolve problems through planning efforts initiated at the most 3 appropriate and direct level of government --local, state, or national; 2. to ensure that environmental decisions are made by levels of government entities most closely affected while recognizing that some decisions, such as those concerning the generation of waste products, environmental pollution, or the maintenance of the public infrastructure, must be made at higher levels; 3. to investigate and to recommend where appropriate the establishment of special entities such as public development corporations, interstate compacts, and regional agencies; 4. to encourage the establishment and participation of citizen groups -- adequately funded and with access to professional assistance --that are dedicated to ;nd actively involved in shaping planning, development, and design policies in partnership with government; 5. to provide for the assembly, evaluation, updating and dissemination by governmental jurisdiction of all data required for land use decisions at all levels; and 6. to lay the groundwork for adjusting to the possibility of diminishing stable and expanding local and regional economies. Statement of Issue and Background The AIA adopted a policy statement on National Growth in the early 1970's that was readopted in subsequent three-year periods through 1979. That statement was sunset after 1982 but the AIA's Urban Design and Planning Committee --concerned that the need for such a policy is stronger than ever --has moved to establish an updated, comprehensive policy statement to take its place. The AIA is and has been concerned that the understanding of growth, its benefits and problems, and the vital interrelationships between natural, cultural, and human resources continues to be deficient in the national legislative, judicial, and executive forums. AIA members have continuously been among the primary commentators on the state of our physical world, and it is proper that we offer leadership once again on these issues, together with those in the other design professions and in the allied disciplines that are concerned with the direction and quality of our national life. The objective of this policy is to replace the substance of the former National Growth Policy and the present Urban Growth, Comprehensive Transportation, Urban Design and Land Use policies while continuing -to be part of the family of definitive policies on energy, transportation, housing, environment, and historic preservation, all of which are needed to provide a comprehensive view of factors affecting regional and urban change in the United States. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission FROM: Tim Malloy, Long Range Planning RE: AH Overlay District DATE: June 18, 1996 STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is a memo which has been presented to. both the City of Aspen Planning Commission and the Pitkin County Planning Commission. This memo addresses the issues and concerns associated with the adoption of an amendment to the Pitkin County Land Use Code creating an AH Overlay district. The basic intent of this zone district is to provide a Growth Management Quota System exemption for projects which incorporate affordable housing and local serving commercial uses. Since this Code amendment would result in a new exemption having potential for fiurther deductions from the overall development ceiling and annual allotment pools, the County P&Z and Staff felt it would be appropriate to review this matter together with the City P&Z as the Growth Management Commission. Staff will summarize the contents of the attached memo and be prepared to answer questions and facilitate discussion at the Growth Management Commission meeting. ATTACHMENTS: I . April 9, 1996 Staff memo to Pitkin County Planning and Zoning .Commission re: AH Overlay. c:\home\timm\countylr\ahover\gmcmem.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Tim Malloy, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning RE: Land Use Code Amendment to Create an Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD (AHO/PUD) District. DATE: April 23, 1996 REQUEST: The Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners is sponsoring this request to amend the Pitkin County Land Use Code to include an Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD District. This request is being processed pursuant to Section 3-220.10 of the Land Use Code. Amendments to the Land Use Code require a two-step review pursuant to Section 4-60.20 and 4-60.80 of the Land Use Code. In order to incorporate an Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD provision within the Land Use Code, several sections of the Code would need to be amended. The Code sections which will need to be amended are listed as follows: Section 3-20: List of Zone Districts; Section 3-40.10: Intent of Zone Districts, Allowed Uses, Special Review Uses and Dimensional Standards, (also chart in Figure 3-3); Section 3-150: List of Growth Management Exemptions and Criteria for Growth Management Exemptions; Section 3-130: Development Exactions (regarding affordable housing mitigation standards for commercial projects); Section 4-70: List of Procedures; Section 5-160: List of Submission Contents. In this memorandum, Staff will discuss the substantive code amendments and the issues surrounding them. In addition, we will provide draft language for each substantive code amendment Many of the issues discussed in this memo involve provisions of the Growth Management System for the Metro Area. As a result, Staff recommends that these issues be discussed with the Growth Management Commission prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation to the Board. BACKGROUND: The impetus for the above described Code amendments originated during the review of the Aspen Highlands Village general submission application, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 13, 1996. The basic idea behind this Code amendment is to provide a tool which would allow exemption from the Growth Management Quota System for the residential and local serving commercial components of mixed use projects that include affordable housing and commercial uses. In the case of the Highlands Village project, the mix of uses occurs even within the same structure. The theory behind this idea is that such projects (mixed use with affordable housing and local serving commercial) would create fewer impacts on the environment and the existing infrastructure by locating commercial uses in close proximity to affordable housing. APPLICANT: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: The most significant amendments to the Land Use Code being proposed are those establishing the overlay district and the exemption from the Growth Management System. Also discussed is an amendment to the Development Exactions section of the Code. Establishing the AH Overlay/PUD District Compliance with AACP The basic purpose of this Code amendment is to provide another tool for encouraging the private sector to develop affordable housing in mixed use projects with local serving commercial uses. The AACP includes the following affordable housing goals and objectives to support the creation of the AHO/PUD zone: We believe the "critical mass" in our community means that 60% of the work force should live up valley of Aspen Village Mobile Home Park (AACP P. 30). The current Land Use Code requires that employee generation resulting from new free- market residential development be mitigated by housing one person in deed restricted affordable housing for every three people residing in free-market residential dwelling units. Subdivisions developed in compliance with this standards result in the Aspen Area growing in a 25:75 ratio of residents in affordable housing to residents in free-market housing (hereinafter referred to as 25:75 ratio). The AACP establishes a goal for new residential development to provide a 60:40 ratio of residents in affordable housing to residents in free= market housing (hereinafter referred to as 60:40 ratio). The 60:40 housing ratio is based upon an AACP goal to achieve a certain "character" in new residential developments reminiscent of the population mix which existed at one time in the Aspen Area. The "Community Vision" section of the AACP clearly establishes that the AACP was a process by which citizen planners "develop a character based plan" (see AACP PP. 6-10). Development in the AHO/PUDIwill help achieve the character goals of the AACP by requiring a 60:40 ratio for the residential component of a PUD as well as a diverse mix of land uses. Another goal found in the AACP is to create an "economically sustainable" community. It is commonly acknowledged in planning literature that residential land uses, in particular deed restricted affordable housing, in the absence of complimentary commercial land uses, will result in annual negative fiscal impacts on local governments. Local research also indicates that residential growth results in negative fiscal impacts on the Pitkin County General Fund. One way to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of growing in a 60:40 ratio is to permit commercial development in the AHO/PUD zone district in appropriate locations in the Aspen Metro Area. Some level of commercial development in the AHO/PUD zone district can help make the land use pattern in the Aspen Metro Area more economically sustainable as called for in the AACP. The AACP also. includes the following goals and objectives regarding mixed land use development which support the creation of the AHO/PUD zone: • Seek to create a community of size, density and diversity that encourages interaction, involvement and vitality among people (AACP P. 5). • On certain large acreage parcels, micro community or neighborhood development may be appropriate, and should be considered, to accommodate permanent residents, neighborhood character, appropriate density, mixed housing types and uses, usable open space and convenient public transportation. As previously noted, the AACP is a character based plan. The. Plan suggests that micro community neighborhood development which incorporates a diversity of land uses may encourage the interaction and involvement of permanent and seasonal residents and tourists reminiscent of the interaction which existed at one time in the City of Aspen. The mix of land uses which make up a micro community can be achieved in the AHO/PUD zone. The AACP includes the following goals and objectives relative to locally oriented commercial development to support the AHO/PUD zone: • Encourage land uses, businesses and events which serve both the local community and tourist base (AACP P.16). • Developments which include locally oriented businesses should be encouraged via a menu of options (AACP P.401. 3 The AHO/PUD zone district is designed to accommodate local and tourist serving businesses as called for in the Plan. The AACP specifically calls for a menu of land use options to achieve adopted goals. The AHO/PUD zone serves as one option to encourage locally oriented businesses to locate within a development in which the permanent residents comprise the majority of the neighborhood population. The AACP includes the following goals and objectives relative to transportation to support the creation of the AHO/PUD zone: • The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters that reduces congestion and pollution( AACP P. 20). Planners and urban designers recognize that mixed use development as would be allowed in the AHO/PUD zone helps reduce reliance upon private automobiles and increases use of mass transit and alternative transportation modes. In the May of 1995, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy presented a seminar on Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality presenting examples of Transit Oriented Development. Design Guidelines being utilized by several communities in Oregon, San Diego and Orlando Florida. * These communities are now requiring mixed use higher density developments to reduce the reliance on private vehicles and improve the utilization of mass transit. The mixed land uses permitted in the AHO/PUD zone will help reduce automobile dependence in the Aspen Area and help improve air quality as called for in the AACP. Staff believes that the contemplated AH Overlay/PUD district is consistent with the AACP. a Proposed Amendments and Issues Section 3-20.10 of the Land Use Code lists the various zone districts. This Section would have to be amended to include the AH Overlay/PUD district. In addition, Section 3-40.10 identifies the intent of the zone districts and includes the list of allowed uses and the area and bulk standards. This Section would need to be amended to include a statement of intent for the AH Overlay/PUD District. Since this would be an "overlay" district, the allowed uses and dimensional requirements would be those for the underlying zone district(s). Thus, it would not be necessary to separately list the allowed uses for the AH Overlay/PUD district. Staff suggest that the following language be considered to amend Section 3-40 of the Code: Sec. 3-40.73 Affordable Housing Overlay/Planned Unit Development (AHO/PUD). 4 A. Intent: The Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD zone is intended for the production of Category 1, 2, 3, 4 and limited Resident Occupied affordable housing within transit oriented mixed land use developments. The AH Overlay/PUD could accommodate a wide range of land uses including, but not limited to, free-market residential and affordable housing and commercial uses where the commercial uses are accessory to the other allowed and special review uses within the underlying zone districts. Recreational facilities, tourist accommodations and tourist oriented commercial uses could also be accommodated in appropriate locations (where these uses are allowed by right or by special review in the underlying zone district(s)). The AH Overlay/PUD zone is intended to provide a mix of land uses that encourage interaction between tourists, seasonal residents and permanent residents consistent with the character oriented goals. of the AACP. The Affordable Housing Overlay zone will be available for lands located within the Aspen Metro Area as -defined in the AACP (not "extended" Metro Area) and should be strategically located in recognized activity centers, on transit and bicycle routes. The mix of land uses in the AHO/PUD is intended to. reduce the need for private vehicle trips and, increase mass transit utilization thereby improving air quality. Use of the AH Overlay/PUD shall be subject to review under the Planned Unit Development criteria identified in Section 3-170 of the Land Use Code. Use of the AH Overlay/PUD district shall also be considered a rezoning and shall be subject to the standards and criteria in Section 3-220.20. In addition, the following criteria shall be consider when evaluating whether to permit a land use development to be zoned AHO/PUD: 1. . The degree to which a development represents an exceptional commitment to advancing the visions goals and specific action items of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. Whether the development limits Resident Occupied affordable housing to no more than 10 percent of the affordable housing units 3. The consistency of the development with the most current Community affordable housing needs as determined by the priorities of the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority; 4. The percentage of single-family affordable housing units that are constructed by the developer as opposed to selling lots for affordable housing units. 5. The range and diversity of affordable housing provided in the development; 5 6. The community amenities provided by the development for the benefit of residents and visitors of the Aspen Area including but not limited to; trails, recreational facilities, transit facilities and areas for public use; 7. The degree to which commercial land uses may offset the negative fiscal impacts associated with residential development; 8. The transit orientation of a project taking into consideration density, site design and mix of land uses. B. Use Requirements: Use requirements are determined by the underlying zone district(s) as established in Code Section 3-40. Residential uses restricted to Category 1, 2, 3, 4 and Resident Occupied affordable housing guidelines (as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority) must comprise seventy (70) percent of the residential unit mix of the development. In addition, the number of persons residing in the restricted affordable housing units must compromise sixty (60) percent of the total residential development population. Despite these requirements, projects. may also be comprised of all category deed restricted units. Projects may also be comprised of up to 10 percent resident occupied units. Iri the case of developments with one or more underlying zone districts, the 70 percent residential unit mix and 60 percent residential population mix may be satisfied by aggregating the resident unit and population mix in all the underlying zone districts overlayed by the AHO/PUD. Average household sizes shall be determine by the Aspen Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. Each individual underlying zone district overlayed by the AHO/PUD need not meet the minimum required unit and population mix. C. Dimensional Requirements: Dimensional requirements are determined by the underlying zone district(s) as established in Section 3-40. The are several issues to consider regarding the above language. Fast, use of the AH Overlay has been restrict to lands located within the Aspen Metro Area (not the "extended" Metro Area). This was intended to limit the potential for requests to rezone new areas for commercial uses since the intent of the AACP is to reduce the overall amount of commercial square footage at build out. The Metro Area also offers the greatest potential for "transit oriented development," which is one of the desired benefits of the AH Overlay/PUD district. Having said this, Staff would acknowledge that there is some logic to allowing this tool to be used County wide. For example, if one of the intents of this district is to reduce the impacts (particularly traffic related) of residential development, then it would seem that allowing local serving commercial uses in projects located in outlying areas would have as much or more effect on these impa►ts as projects located in the Metro Area. With -respect to this issue, Staff felt it would be appropriate to limit use of the AH Overlay to the Metro Area as a test. In the 6 event this proves to be a valuable tool its applicability could be expanded to other areas in the future. The above language also includes the 70/30 unit and 60/40 population requirements also found in the recently adopted AH 2/PUD and AH 3/PUD zone districts. This standard was arrived at (despite the fact that the joint City and County P&Zs recommended a 70/30 standard for both units and population) aftersignificant debate. In the end it was determined that there was little additional benefit gained by increasing the population standard from 60 percent to 70 percent. The Housing Office made this determination after review of average household size and other information. Another issue involves the potential for creating new pressure to rezone properties for commercial uses. Since the AH Overlay will allow commercial uses as permitted in the underlying zone district (and in fact may exempt these uses from the growth management scoring competition) there may be some added desire to rezone lands for commercial use and then apply the AH Overlay zone. This situation should be minimized by the fact that rezoning is subject to rigorous review under the current Land Use Code and is a discretionary approval. One of the standards which must be met when considering a rezoning proposal within the Metro Area, is consistency with the AACP! The Growth Action Plan within the AACP includes as a goal the reduction in potential commercial square footage at build -out from 700,000 to 400,000 square feet. Any request for rezoning that included a significant increase in commercially zoned lands would have difficulty meeting this test. In addition, the intent statement for the AH Overlay district indicates that the commercial uses should be accessory. Further, the draft language includes several suggested criteria for evaluating whether a particular proposal should be granted AH Overlay zoning. Growth Management Exemption Section 3-150.30 of the Land Use Code lists those activities which are exempt from Growth Management. This list would need to be amended to include a new exemption for units built within the AH Overlay/PUD District. The other issue addressed in this section of the Code is whether these exempt units are deducted from the "development ceiling" and "annual allotment pools." This is basically the bookkeeping system that allows us to track the numerical objectives of the system. Few things on the list are not deducted from the ceiling and pools. All units constructed within all of the other AH zone districts (AH, AH 2/PUD and AH 3/PUD) are deducted. The only affordable housing units which are not deducted are "caretaker dwelling units." Staff recommends that any units granted growth management exemption via the AH Overlay/PUD provision be deducted from the ceiling and pools just as they are for the AH 2/PUD and AH/3 PUD zone districts. F: Staff recommends that Section 3-150.30 be amended by adding the following: 7 M. Dwelling units and neighborhood commercial square footage constructed in association with a project approved for AH Overlay/PUD zoning shall be exempt from growth management competition and scoring procedures. All tourist oriented commercial development (including lodge units) done in association with an AH Overlay/PUD project shall be subject to growth management competition and scoring procedures unless otherwise exempt under another provision in this section or unless demolition credit has been granted for such commercial square footage or lodge units. As you will notice, this exemption includes the "neighborhood commercial" component of a project as well as the residential component. We would note that tourist oriented commercial development is not granted exemption from growth management under this provision. The reason for granting exemptionTor the local serving commercial component of a mixed -use development is that Staff feels this exemption provides a significant incentive for using the AH Overlay/PUD approach. Further, Staff feels that little is lost by this exemption, since most of the things we would have received through the growth management competition process are achieved through one or more of the other requirements of approval under the AH Overlay/PUD approach. For example, the design, resource impacts and visual impacts criteria which are part of the commercial growth management scoring criteria are more than adequately covered by the review standards required under the PUD provisions. With respect to affordable housing, the criteria in the commercial growth management section of the Code simply grants points for affordable housing. Under true competition this might result in an amount of affordable housing that exceeds the current exaction standard for commercial development (100 percent of employees generated). However, there has been little or no competition in the commercial category for years. This tends to eliminate the incentive for providing anything but the minimum amount of housing necessary to achieve the minimum threshold score. Under the AH Overlay/PUD approach, the requirement for the affordable housing component (70 percent of the units and 60 percent of the population) would most likely exceed the minimum exaction standard for most projects even if the exaction for the commercial component were reduced from 100 percent of the employees generated to 60 percent. This is due to the fact that the increase in employee housing generated by the 70:30 and 60:40 standard will in most cases outpace the commercial exaction standard. This relationship would deteriorate if a project were to included a large commercial component and relatively small residential component. As discussed previously, there are several safeguards which should provide adequate review and control of such projects. To test the theory discussed above, Staff analyzed the numbers for both the Highlands Village project and the Njorth 40 project. This analysis involved a comparison of how much 8 affordable housing would be provided if both of these projects were required to simply meet the current exaction standard versus meeting the 70:30 unit and 60:40 population standard plus providing affordable housing for 60 percent (the current requirement is 100 percent) of the employees generated by the commercial component of the projects. The result, in both cases, was that the community would receive more affordable housing through the AH Overlay/PUD approach. Staff would note that one of the reasons why this analysis was favorable for the AH approach is that the current affordable housing exaction standard for residential uses is only 33 percent of the employees generated. The AACP recommended that this standard be increased; however, to date this has not been done. Even the issue of pacing, one of the most important functions of growth management, can be at least partially addressed through the PUD review. Since the exemption for the commercial space would be granted as part of a total project via the PUD review, the issue of whether the project includes the right amount and type of commercial space can be addressed. While this does not provide the same type of pacing as the growth management quota system, given the limited applicability of this Code amendment, Staff does not feel this exemption.will create any significant impacts to the growth management program or the infrastructure system, which is one of the key purposes of pacing. Affordable Housing Exaction Standard In the paragraphs above we mentioned a reduced employee housing exaction standard for the commercial component of mixed use projects. This issue first arose during the Board of County Commissioner's review of the Highlands Village proposal. It was clear in the case of Highlands that applying both the AH criteria (70:30 unit and 60:40 population) and the commercial exaction standard (100 percent of employees generated) would result in more affordable housing on the site than was reasonable, given concerns for traffic congestion, air pollution and noise in the Maroon Creek Valley. Even allowing the applicant to satisfy this standard by paying a cash -in -lieu fee for the balance of the units not provided on site did not seem reasonable, as this fee would be in the 10 million dollar range.. Under these circumstances, it seemed reasonable to consider a reduced standard for a project that provides local serving commercial uses as well as affordable housing units at the 70/30 ratio. The City of Aspen utilizes 60 percent (i.e. 60 percent of the employees generated by the commercial use) when calculating the employee housing mitigation requirement for commercial developments. Having examined the numbers for the Highlands and North 40 projects (and finding that this standard results in more affordable housing than would be required under the current mitigation standards) staff feels that reducing the affordable housing exaction standard for the commercial component of mixed use projects approved under the AH Overlay/PUD approach is reasonable. Staff suggests that Section 3-130.20 (2) be amended as follows: 9 2. Commercial Development: An applicant shall provide affordable housing for one hundred percent (100%) of the employees generated by commercial development, except commercial development done in association with an AH Overlay/PUD project, based upon the standards in Figure 3-6. For commercial development done in association with an AH Overlay/PUD project, an applicant shall be required to provide affordable housing for sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the commercial portion of the development, in addition to meeting the unit mix and population requirements of the AH Overlay/PUD district as described in Section 3- 40 73 of the Land Use Code. If when using the standards in Figure 3-6 to determine the number of employees generated by a commercial use, a range of full time employees is indicated, the precise employee generation standard shall be determined during review of the development application after consideration of a proposal from an applicant. OTHER ISSUES: During Staff review of this Code amendment we noticed an omission in the Growth Management Section, which is pertinent to the Hines project for the Aspen Highlands Village. When the growth management system went through the most recent major update, the Growth Management Commission was established. This Commission is comprised of the joint City and County Planning Commissions, and is responsible for certain duties relative to the Growth Management System for the Metro Area. One of these duties is monitoring those exemptions from the system which are intended to be deducted from the "development ceiling" and "annual allotment pool." However, there is no provision in the Pitkin County Land Use Code requiring the Growth Management Commission to review requests for these exemptions. The primary purpose of this review would be to ensure communication between the two jurisdictions regarding the use of these exemptions. At the very least, it will be important to keep track of how many exemptions are used each year since there are a finite number of allotments available. It would also seem that there should be some level of agreement between the City and the County regarding whether a particular request for exemption is in the best interest of the Community. This will be particularly important for large projects where multi -year allotments are required as in the case of the Highlands Village project. The City's Land Use Code includes the appropriate provision; however, Staff feels that the County Land Use Codes should be amended to included a provision addressing this issue. We suggest the following amendment to Section 3-150.30 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code: 3-150.30 Metrro and Non -Metro Area GMQS Exemptions . 10 The exemptions set out in this Section 3-150.30 shall apply in the Aspen Metro Area and the Non -Metro Area. All exemptions within the Metro Area which are identified as being deducted from the Metro Area development allotments and development ceilings shall require approval by the Growth Management Commission: Another issue related to the Highlands Village project, has to do. with the granting of multi- year allotments in the Free -Market AH Associated exemption category. In order for Hines Interests to acquire the necessary allotments for those free-market units which are not being acquired through TDR, the Highlands Project will consume the entire quota in the Free - Market AH Associated category for 51 /3 years. This raises several questions. If we allow this, what happens if (or when) another project comes in during those 5 years. The Code does not currently specify what should happen under this scenario! Do we turn projects away? Do we start borrowing from years 6 through 10? Should we maintain a reserve pool for the Free -Market AH associated category (currently, we only require a reserve pool for the Free -Market Residential and Tourist Accommodations categories). These issues will need to be addressed before the Highlands Village project can be dealt with. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the discussion of this matter to a meeting of the Growth Management Commission. c:\home\timm\cases\codeamen\ahomem. doe 11 TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director RE: Amendments to the Rural and Remote Zone District DATE: June 18,1996 SUMMARY: The County adopted revised Rural and Remote (RR) regulations in late 1995. At that time the City was not a participant in the development of the regulations (Ordinance 95-24 is attached). Since that time, the City Council and Board of County Commissioners have met to discuss the issues surrounding the adoption of the RR Zone District. The Planning and Zoning Commissions were invited to attend that discussion earlier this year. Generally, the City Council and Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission were supportive of the concept of RR, however, the issue yet to be resolved is that of overall growth in the metro area. Staff is still debating how to handle the GMQS allocation questions and overall growth questions. Aside from that larger question, the County is proposing to revise the regulation in several areas. A list of the proposed amendments and their status relative to the County Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations (prior to this meeting) is provided below: The most significant revisions are intended to increase the use of Transferable Development. Rights (TDRs). Also of interest to the City is the proposal of how to deal with mitigation for affordable housing. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RR ZONE DISTRICT: The proposed amendments are indicated in italic in the attached draft ordinance. The charts explaining the use of TDRs are very complicated and are difficult to use. Staff has eliminated one chart and revised others. Status: County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends amendments to the charts. (See pages 17, 18, 19 of the attached ordinance.) 2. Some feel that there is a market for TDRs to be used for non-residential space such as enclosed recreational uses (pools or tennis courts). The concept is that'additional square footage may be allowed above 15,000 square feet if TDRs are purchased for the non- residential space. Status: County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that TDRs should be used for non-residential space and that each TDR should allow 8,000 square feet of non-residential space. Special Review is also required. (See page 16 of the attached ordinance.) 3. The section allowing an existing cabin to remain on the property should be amended to clarify that either the existing OR the newly constructed residential unit may be deed restricted (currently the regulation requires that the older unit be deed restricted.) Status: The County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that either the existing or the newly constructed unit may be deed restricted. (See page 8 of the attached ordinance.) 4. Affordable Housing mitigation for TDRs was not discussed as part of,the existing ordinance. This should be clarified as part of these amendments. Status: After substantial debate, the County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that no housing mitigation be required for TDRs. 5. Amendment to Section 3-200.90 of the County Land Use Code which allows increase above 15,000 square feet by Special Review to require TDRs. Status: The County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that an increase above 15,000 square feet -in residential space should require the use of TDRs. 6. Clarification to Section 4-60.95A2e (page 23 of the attached ordinance) noting that a deed restriction on a parcel does not need to take place until the TDR is sold. 7. An amendment to allow TDRs to be used for guest houses. Currently guest houses are prohibited in the Code. In the past they required GMQQS approval (for a free market unit). Staff believes that there are some areas in the County where guest houses may be, appropriate with a Special Review. This concept has not been discussed with the County Planning and Zoning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners. We are not asking for a formal recommendation from you tonight because staff has additional work to complete relative to the locations where guest houses may be appropriate. However, staff would like your initial reaction to the concept and whether we should pursue it any further. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting final recommendations from the County Planning and Zoning Commission after hearing the. deliberations of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Additionally, we are requesting input and comments that the City Planning and Zoning Commission would like us to pass on to the Board of County Commissioners (scheduled for worksession on June 25th and 1st reading of the amendments on June 26). Attachment: 1. Ordinance 95-24 2. Proposed revised ordinance FIRST AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 95-24 OF THE PITKIN .COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REZONING OUTLYING SITES WITHIN PITKIN COUNTY FROM AFR-10 AGRICULTURAL/FORESTRY/RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT, RS-20 AND RS-30 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) RESOURCE ZONE DISTRICTS TO THE RURAL/REMOTE ZONE DISTRICT (RIR) AND AS PROVIDED HEREIN AND AMENDING. THE PITKIN COUNTY ZONING DISTRICT MAP AND LAND USE CODE SECTIONS 3-40.11513-1.50.1609 3-200.959 4-60.95, 4-70.25, AND 4-80.25, AND ARTICLE 8. Specifically, this ordinance amends ordinance 95-24 by clarifying and deleting charts relating to Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), by adding TDRs to be used for non-residential and residential square footage, allowing existing cabins to remain by either deed restricting an existing cabin or the new development, clarification of affordable housing mitigation requirements and clarification of the timing of required deed restrictions on parcels from which TDRs have been transferred. Ordinance No. 95- RECITALS 1. Section 2-10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (hereinafter "Code"), Community Balance, states that it is the policy of the County "... to conserve and protect from further degradation the present natural environment and its resources. Development which can be accommodated within these limits will be managed to maintain a balance between residential; commercial and tourist accommodations." 2. Section 2-.80 of the Code, Natural and Man -Made Hazard and Resource Areas, states that it is the policy of the County "... to manage the use of lands which are idevitified as containing Areas and Activities of Local and State Interest, and to prevent any use "which will subject any person, use or resource to natural or man-made hazards." Ordinance No. 9S- Page 2 3. Section 2-160 of the Code, Wildlife Management, states that it is the policy of the County "... to identify and protect all wildlife habitat for the preservation of wildlife and prohibit land use patterns which disrupt such habitat." 4. Section 2-210 of the Code, Logical Extension of Utilities, states that it is the policy of the County "... to regulate public and private utility extensions. Areas served by such extensions must be found suitable for development in accordance with adopted comprehensive plans and the policies and regulations of the Pitkin County Land Use Code." 5. Section 2-250 of the Code, Compatibility with Historical and Archeological Resources, states that it is the policy of the County "... to protect sites, structures and surrounding areas determined to have historical or archeological significance." 6. Section 2-280 of the Code, Compatibility with Public Lands, states that it is the policy of the County "...to preserve and protect public lands from the impacts of incompatible development by promoting land uses within and nearby public lands which are compatible with public use of those lands and with the preservation of the natural environment." 7. To implement these policies the Board of County Commissioners amended Code to create the Rural/Remote Zone District pursuant to Ordinance 94-16. At the time of adoption, only the Richmond Hill/Little Annie area (as shown on Exhibit "E") was rezoned Rural/Remote. 8. Additional planning areas (as shown on Exhibits "A-D") have been identified which contain character and resource qualities which require unique management under the above cited Code sections. Ordinance No. 95- Page 3 9. All publicly owned lands including U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands within the defined Rural/Remote study areas of Pitkin County, have also been identified as containing attributes requiring management. 10. Criteria for identifying areas appropriate for inclusion in the Rural/Remote Zones must include at least four of the following characteristics: a. Sites which are located more than one half mile from winter maintained public roadways; except where privately maintained driveways or roadways serve residential development approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance (January 2, 1996). A distance of 1/2 mile was established based on a finding that the extension of further development decreases the integrity of the environment, decreases the rural and remote character of the area and significantly increases the risks involved with providing emergency service to the area. And that beyond 1/2 mile; the following issues/characteristics exist: • 1/2 mile has been established by various wildlife experts as the limits of the "zone of disturbance" created by development relative to wildlife; and • Development of driveways and utility extensions over lengths of greater than 1/2 mile often create substantial environmental impacts due to gradient changes or other existing hazards or resources; and • Emergency access often becomes limited and/or dangerous to emergency personnel when driveways exceed 1/2 mile in length. b. Lack of traditional utility services such as electricity, phone service, and central water and sewer; C. Difficult emergency services response; d. Little or no existing development and remote locations; e. Natural hazard areas or resources such as steep slopes, avalanche, wildfire or wildlife; f. Location within subalpine or alpine ecosystems; g. Location at or above 9,000 foot elevation h. Historic resources; i. Providing access to publicly owned backcountry recreation areas; and j . Unique backcountry character. * Subalpine and alpine ecosystems in Pitkin County are located between 9,000-11,400 and 11,400-14,000+ feet in elevation, respectively. The alpine ecosystem is found above tree limit. Subalpine forests are dominated by Engleman spruce and fir and can be intermixed with distinct stands of lodgepole pine and aspen. Douglas fir forests can also extend up into Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 4 the lower limits of the subalpine environment. Meadows are found throughout the subalpine zone. An exception has been made for the area associated with the Ashcroft Ski Touring Center in upper Castle Creek, zoned AF-SKI, and for which a master plan review is currently being processed. Exceptions have also been made for known existing approved subdivisions and/or where residential neighborhoods are established as further described on the attached maps and within the written descriptions of the study area boundaries. Additionally, an exception has been made for the Frying Pan River Ranch which is located as a Special Review operation on U.S. Forest Service property, and which is primarily located within 1/2 mile of the Frying Pan Road. 11. Currently, the planning study areas to be rezoned are within zone districts allowing a potential maximum area of 15,000 square feet per single family home as a use allowed by right. If every parcel within the following planning areas were to develop to the maximum density of the underlying zone districts, the following approximate number of units could be built: Hunter Creek: 15 units Fryingpan: 288 units Maroon/Castle: 203 units Independence/ Lincoln: 98 units Total 604 units Growth Management and 1041 Hazard Review typically reduce. the number of units allowed in the underlying zone district; however, not all of these areas are subject to Growth Management and density reductions are not ensured by these or other existing Code provisions. Development in these areas under current zoning guidelines would clearly create significant environmental impacts; t a need to provide public services outside our ability levels; involve illogical public and present p private utility extensions; and create incompatible development and impacts on public lands. Ordinance No. 95- Page 5 Rezoning these areas to the Rural/Remote Zone District will result in a potential average unit buildout reduction of approximately 53%, and square footage reductions of up to 90+%; providing a basis for preserving the health, safety, order and general welfare of people residing and using these areas. Development of large residences that are allowed under current zoning districts necessarily require that such residences wilthave a large number of people, residents, guests and staffing, using and being present at such residences. The greater the number of people, the greater the demand for County services, emergency services and the greater the detrimental impact on the environment. 12. After review of environmental issues, emergency service impacts, and impacts on the character of the backcountry, the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter 'Board") has recognized that traditional residential development in these areas is inappropriate. Increasing real estate costs, escalating development pressures and the development of large scale residences in Rural/Remote areas for the first time have contributed to the need to reevaluate current zoning designations. 13. The Board finds that development of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program in conjunction with the Rural/Remote Zone District provides equitable mitigation for landowners and places development in appropriate locations in Pitkin County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners that it does hereby rezone all lands within the identified planning study areas on the attached maps titled "Board of County Commissioners Exhibits "A through D" to the Rural/Remote zone district provided herein. The following revisions to the Pitkin County Land Use Code shall implement z Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 6 amendments to the Rural/Remote Zone District. Planning areas identified on Exhibits "A through E," including the Richmond Hill/Little Annie area shall be affected by the amendments. Written descriptions of the Planning areas are attached as Exhibit "F" Repeal- and re-enact Section 3.-40.115 as follows: 3-40.115 RR RURAL/REMOTE A. Intent: The intent of the Rural/Remote Zone District is to preserve the natural environment and the low scale, low density backcountry character; to minimize environmental degradation, and retain open space; to balance recreational uses and limited development. This zone district applies to areas of the County which are removed from emergency services and traditional services (such as electricity, phone service, year round road maintenance, and central water and sewer). These lands are often encumbered by a variety of natural hazard areas such as steep slopes, avalanche, wildlife or wildfire. Typically, lands within this zone are subalpine and alpine. Among other qualities, subalpine and alpine ecosystems function to collect, store, filter and distribute water for all the in -stream, agricultural, municipal, domestic, industrial and recreational purposes for which water is essential. As such, these ecosystems represent a unique environmental resource in the community. Lands within this zone contain qualities and resources. which are intrinsic to the character of the Community. These lands maintain a unique lifestyle alternative for backcountry individuals, protect the integrity of the larger overall ecosystem and provide backcountry (non -wilderness) winter and summer low impact recreational uses. B. Allowed Uses: The following uses are permitted as of right in the Rural/Remote Zone District. Non-commercial recreational uses *2. Single family dwelling units 3. Shared water systems 4. Solar energy collectors for on site residential purposes 5. Wind powered apparatus for on site. residential purposes 6. Pedestrian foot trails 6 Ordinance No. 95-_ Page '7 7. Above ground generators which meet the decibel requirements of the Environmental Health Department. 8. Gardening outside of the building envelope up to 2,500 square feet in size. 9. Agricultural operations and practices which were in existence prior to the adoption of this ordinance (November 15, 1995). 10. Fences which meet Colorado Division of Wildlife standards and are located outside of critical wildlife habitat as defined by the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 11. Repair of existing fences, regardless of location within wildlife habitat. 12. Termination of noxious weeds (as defined by the Pitkin County Land Management Department) within and outside of the building envelope. * SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS MAY TAKE THE FORM OF ALTERNATIVE/NON-TRADITIONAL STRUCTURES SUCH AS DOMES, YURTS, TEEPEES AND ELEVATED PLATFORMS/TREEHOUSES, CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH UNIFORM BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS C. Special Review Uses 1. Automobile parking area which centralize, parking adjacent to existing roadways in order to allow alternative access beyond that point (ie: skiing, hiking, snowmobiling) 2. Driveways 3. Helicopter access/construction use 4. Extractive operations 5. Transfer of development rights 6. Commercial recreational uses 7. Fences which meet Colorado Division of Wildlife standards and are located in critical wildlife habitat and/or migration corridors as defined by the Code. 8. Individual water supply 9. Individual sewage disposal system Ordinance No. 95- Page 8 10. Hydro plant to service a single residence 11. Expansion of footprint to 1000 square feet 12. Existing dwelling units may be deducted from the allowed density if they are existing legal units, and either the new or the existing unit is deed restricted to be occupied by residents, as determined by the Housing Authority Guidelines. However, year-round occupancy of the unit shall not be required. 13. Extension of utilities such as electricity, water, sewer, telephone and cable. Such extensions must comply with special review criteria in Sections 3-210.10 and 3-200.95 of the Land Use Code., D. Prohibited Uses: The following uses/activities are prohibited in the Rural/Remote Zone District. 1. Winter maintenance of roadways and driveways. 2. Accessory structures other than outhouse facilities and mechanical enclosures. 3. New roadways. 4. Uses not listed as allowed or special review uses 5. Individual water wells which are not otherwise approved by Special Review. 6. Traditional septic/leach field which are not otherwise approved by special review. 7. - Disturbance of all living native vegetation outside of the building envelope, including grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees. One standing dead tree per 5 acres shall remain undisturbed, if present, for bird of prey perching and nesting and for songbird perching and feeding. This provision shall not prohibit the general gathering of firewood from deadfall, nor does it prohibit the grazing of animals which have historically grazed the parcel prior to the adoption of this regulation (November 15, 1995). 8. Caretaker and Employee Dwelling Units pursuant to Section 3-150.120 and 3- 150.130. E. Dimensional Requirements: Except as may be permitted by Special Review pursuant to the provisions of 3-40.115 C., the following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and special review uses in the Rural/Remote Zone District. Ordinance No. 95- Page 9 1. Minimum Lot Area - 35 acres 2. Minimum Lot Area Principal Use - 35 acres 3. Maximum Size of Activity Envelope per Dwelling Unit - 0.5 acres 4. Minimum Front Yard Setback - Determined by Special Review 5. Minimum Side Yard Setback - Determined by Special Review 6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback - Determined by Special Review 7. Minimum Lot Width = 400' 8. Maximum Height per Principal Structure - shall be no higher than 20' to the highest roof or parapet surface of a flat roof. *9. Maximum Footprint per Principal Structures - Not to exceed 500 square feet without special review. **10. Maximum Floor Area not to exceed 1000 square feet. ** 11. Platforms/Treehouses shall not exceed 250 square feet of floor area. ** 11. Outhouse and mechanical enclosures shall not exceed a total of 100 square feet. of Boor area. * IN MEASURING FOOTPRINT, ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE TAKEN FROM THE OUTSIDE FACE OF FRAMING OR OTHER PRIMARY WALL MEMBERS. ** FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ZONE DISTRICT FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS DO NOT PROVIDE EXEMPTIONS FOR BELOW GRADE SPACE OR GARAGE AND CARPORT SPACE. F. Zone District Boundaries: If a parcel does not meet the criteria as outlined in recital #10 of this ordinance, as determined by the Board of�County Commissioners, then the parcel shall revert back to its original zoning,., , Repeal and re-enact Section 3-150.160 as follows: SECTION 3-150.160 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Ordinance No. 95- Page 10 A. Purpose and Applicability. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this transfer of development rights provision is to provide for the protection of lands within the Rural/Remote Zone District and to provide the owners of property within that District with a program of equitable mitigation which assures property owners of an economically beneficial use of their property. The program of equitable mitigation is achieved by making Development Rights appurtenant to lands within the Rural/Remote Zone District transferable to other lands within Pitkin County where development is appropriate in accordance with all applicable Pitkin County land use regulations, codes and plans. 2. . Applicability: Development Rights shall be transferable from any Preservation Site within the Rural/Remote Zone District to any approved Receiver Site. A Receiver Site for TDR Rights shall be approved by special review pursuant to Section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. B. Standards and Criteria. 1. Standards and Criteria for Preservation Sites a. Development Rights Appurtenant to Preservation Sites May be Severed from the Site and Converted Into TDR Rights. In addition to any other use permitted in the Rural/Remote Zone District, Preservation Sites shall have Development Rights which may be severed and transferred to Receiver Sites. The severance of Development Rights from a Preservation Site, and creation of TDR Rights, shall be accomplished through the procedure outlined in Section 4-60.95 below. b. Every 35 Acres Associated With One TDR Unit of Development. For each 35 acres, every Preservation Site shall be associated with one TDR Unit of Development, provided that fractions of TDR Units of Development shall not be considered. A Preservation Site less than 35 acres in size shall also be associated with one TDR Unit of Development. The following chart illustrates the number of TDR Units of Development by size of the Preservation Site: Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 11 TDR UNITS OF DEVELOPMENT BY ACREAGE Acreage of Preservation Site. Number of TDR Units of Develo ment Less Than 35 Acres 1 TDR Unit of Development 35 Acres 1 TDR -Unit of Development 60 Acres 1 TDR Unit of Development 70 Acres 2 TDR Units of Development 90 Acres 2 TDR Units of Development 135 Acres 3 TDR Units of Development 140 Acres 4 TDR Units of Development C. Preservation Sites Shall be Located in the Rural/Remote Zone District. A - Preservation Site shall be located within the Rural/Remote Zone District. . Preservation Sites Shall be Legqll- -- et to the i:aefge.f d. Preservation Sites Shall be legally Created and are Subject to cumulation provisions. A preservation Site shall be a legally created parcel and is subject to the cumulation provisions of section 6-50.20-of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 2. Standards and Criteria for Receiver Sites. a. Receiver Site Must Obtain Special Review Approval. No development of a Receiver Site with TDR Rights shall be carried out until such development has been approved by special review pursuant to Section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. b. Receiver Site Has Potential to Receive TDR Rights. In addition to any other use permitted by the applicable zone district, a Receiver Site shall be* eligible for development with TDR Rights. The transfer of a TDR Right to a specific Receiver Site shall be accomplished through the procedure outlined in Section 4-60.95 below. C. Receiver Site Located Anywhere in Pitkin County. A Receiver Site may be located anywhere in Pitkin County, subject to the limitations set forth in Section B(3)(e) below. d. Uses Proposed on Receiver Site Must be Consistent With Underlying Zone District. Except as expressly authorized under subsections B(3)(c) through B(4)(c) of this Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 12 Section, all development of the Receiver Site shall comply with each and every requirement of the applicable zoning district regulations: 3. Standards and Criteria for Transfer of Development Rights from a Preservation Site to a Receiver Site Located Outside of the Rural/Remote Zone District. a. Transfer of Development Rights Requires Approval By Special Review. The transfer of development rights from a Preservation Site to a Receiver Site which is not located in the Rural/Remote Zone District shall be approved by special review pursuant to Section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code and shall be subject to each and every requirement of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, except as expressly provided for in subsections B through C of this Section. b. _Transfers of Fractions of TDR Units of Development Prohibited. The transfer of less than one TDR Unit of Development, or any other fractions of a unit, shall not be permitted. C. Receiver Site Must Meet Underlying Zone District Requirements. A transfer of development rights from a Preservation Site to a Receiver Site located outside of the Rural/Remote Zone District shall meet the underlying requirements' of the zone district of the Receiver Site. If the underlying requirements of the Receiver.Site zone district can not be satisfied, 'the Receiver. Site shall be deemed appropriate for rezoning based on Section 3-220.20 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code prior to any transfers. d. Use of Preservation Site Restricted After Transfer. Once Development Rights have been severed, no development shall be permitted on the Preservation Site to the extent of the transfer and a deed restriction shall be recorded restricting the use of the Site in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 4-60.95 below. e. Transfers from Certain Preservation Site Locations Limited to Certain Receiver Sites Locations. Development Rights from a Preservation Site located within the Little Annie/Richmond Hill, Maroon/Castle, Independence/Lincoln and Woody Creek/Hunter Creek Planning Areas may only be transferred to a Receiver Site located within the Metro area and the expanded housing study area of the Aspen Area Community Plan (up valley of Aspen Village). Development Rights from a Preservation Site located within the Fryingpan Planning Area may only be transferred to a Receiver Site 16cated within the Non -Metro area of Pitkin Cdanty (the area not included within the Metrcc area identified in the Aspen Area Community Plan). f. Aggregation of TDR Rights Permitted on Single Receiver Site. Transferable development rights may be aggregated from different Preservation Sites for development on a single Receiver Site, provided that no residential development outside of the Rural/Remote Zone Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 13 District shall exceed 15,000 square feet of residential floor area without special review pursuant to section 3-200.90 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, or as such maximum Residential square footage may be amended by the Board of County Commissioners from time to time. g. TDR's may be used to construct non-residential uses: TDR's may be transfered for use as non- residential uses associated with or accessory to a residential use pursuant to sections 5.b.6 and 5.c below. h. Incentives for Transfer of Development Rights. Transfer of development rights from a Preservation Site to a Receiver Site located outside of the Rural/Remote Zone District. shall result in a percentage floor area intensity bonus and GMQS exemption as set forth in Section B(5) below, provided that no residential development outside of the Rural/Remote Zone District shall exceed 151,000 square feet of residential floor area, or as such maximum square footage may be amended by the Board of County Commissioners from time to time. 4. Standards and Criteria for Transfer of Development Rights from a Preservation Site to a Receiver Site Located Within the Rural/Remote Zone District. a. Transfer of Development Rights Requires Approval by Special Review. The transfer of development rights from a Preservation Site to a Receiver Site located within the Rural/Remote Zone District shall be approved by special review pursuant to Section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code and shall be subject to each and every requirement of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. b. Transfers of Fractions of TDR Units of Development Prohibited. The transfer of less than one TDR Unit of Development, or any other fractions of a unit, shall not be permitted. C. ' Receiver Site Must Meet Underlying Zone District Requirements. Development using'a transfer of development rights from a Preservation Site to a Receiver Site located within the Rural/Remote Zone District shall meet each and every requirement of the Rural/Remote Zone District with the exception of the floor area limitations. If a rezoning is required to effectuate the use of TDR Rights, no transfer of development rights shall be permitted. d. Use of. Preservation Site Restricted After Transfer. Once Development Rights have been severed, no development shall be permitted on the Preservation Site to the extent of the transfer and a deed restriction shall be recorded restricting the use of the Site in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 4-60.95 below. e. Aggregation of TDR Rights Permitted on Single Receiver Site. Transferable development rights may be aggregated from different Preservation Sites for development on a Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 14 single Receiver Site, provided that no residential development within the Rural/Remote Zone District shall exceed 2,400 square feet of residential floor area. f. Receiving Sites Must Satisfy Additional Requisites. In addition to meeting the requirements of the special review process in Section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, no development shall be authorized using transferable development rights on Receiver Sites located in a Rural/Remote Zone District unless it is determined that: 1) The Receiving Site is not located in alpine or sub -alpine environments. 2) The Receiving Site is not located in a deer, elk or bighorn sheep winter concentration area, severe winter range or critical wildlife habitat, or within 1/4 mile of deer and elk migration corridors and production -areas. 3) The Receiving Site is not located within riparian, shoreland or wetland areas as defined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 4) Emergency services, such as those provided by the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office, the fire districts, ambulance districts or other emergency services providers can be provided with a reasonable response time without unreasonable risk to emergency service employees or volunteers. 5) The impacts caused by proposed utility extensions are minimal and the installation of such extensions does not involve steep slopes, unstable soils and/or additional land disturbance beyond that otherwise required to develop the site. All utilities will be placed underground pursuant to Section 3-110.60 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 6) The existing and proposed development sites have been clustered to the maximum extent possible to minimize the.zone of disturbance created by the development and all building envelopes are located as close as reasonably possible to existing winter maintained public roads and existing utility services. 7) The Receiving Site and access roads and driveways are free from: a) geological hazards as defined in Section 3-80.50 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code; b) floodplain. hazards as defined in Section 3-80.40 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code; and c) severe wildfire areas as defined in Section 3-80.70 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 15 8) Any hazards associated with development on slopes between 15729% can be effectively mitigated. 9) The transfer of development rights provides a benefit to the County over the development potential otherwise present. g. Incentives for Transfer of Development Rights. As set forth in Section C(6) below, a transfer of development rights from a Preservation Site to a Receiver Site located within the Rural/Remote Zone District shall result in a GMQS exemption and a floor area intensity bonus permitting a higher allowed square footage than that permitted pursuant to the Rural/Remote Zone District, provided that no residential development within the Rural/Remote Zone District shall exceed 2,400 square feet of residential floor area. 5. Standards and Criteria for Incentives for Transfer of Development Rights to Receiver Sites Located Outside of --the Rural/Remote Zone District. a. Intensity Bonuses for Transfers from Preservation Sites to Receiver Sites Located Outside of the Rural/Remote Zone District. The- transfer of a Development Right from a Preservation Site to a Receiver Site which is not located in the Rural/Remote Zone District shall entitle the developer of the Receiver Site to a fifty percent (50%) bonus in gross floor area on the Receiver Site for every TDR Unit of Development transferred. For every acre that the Preservation Site exceeds 35 acres, the developer shall be entitled to an additional one percent (1 %) bonus in gross floor area with a cap of an additional thirty-four percent (34%) bonus, provided that fractions of whole percentages shall not be counted. b. Receiving Sites Exempt From GMQS. A Receiving Site outside of the Rural/Remote Zone District which is approved by special approval for development with TDR Rights shall be exempt from the Growth Management Quota System only where the square footage transferred equals or exceeds a certain percentage of the total square footage of the entire unit. The percentage shall be based on the sliding scale below: The use of one TDR results in one GMQS exempt unit of up to 5000 square feet in size. Additional square footage may be possible where more than one TDR is used based on the sliding scale below. 1) Where the total gross floor area of a residential dwelling unit seeking a GMQS exemption is less than or equal to 5,000 square feet, a GMQS exemption shall be granted if the square footage transferred to the unit equals or exceeds thirty percent (30%) of the total square footage of the unit. 2) Where the total gross floor area of a residential dwelling unit seeking a GMQS exemption is greater than 5,000 square feet but less than or equal to 7,500 square feet, a GMQS Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 16 exemption shall be granted if the square footage transferred to the unit equals or exceeds forty percent (40%) of the total square footage of the unit. 3) Where the total gross floor area of a residential dwelling unit seeking a GMQS exemption is greater than 7,500 square feet but less than or equal to 10,000 square feet, a GMQS exemption shall be granted if the square footage transferred to the unit equals or exceeds forty- five percent (45%) of the total square footage of the unit. 4) Where the total gross floor area of a residential dwelling unit seeking a GMQS exemption is greater than 10,000 square feet but less than or equal to 12,500 square ,feet, a GMQS exemption shall be granted if the square footage transferred to the unit equals or exceeds forty-eight percent (48%) of the total square footage of the unit. 5) Where the total gross floor area of a residential dwelling unit seeking a GMQS exemption is greater than 12,500 square feet but less than or equal to 15,000 square feet, a GMQS exemption shall be granted if the square footage transferred to the unit equals or exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the total square footage of the unit. 6) Where TDRRIs are transfered for use as non residential uses associated with or accessory to a residentail use, then a GMQS exemption shall be granted based on 8,000 square feet per TDR. C. Receiver Site May Vary From UnderlyinjZ Zone District Bulk Areas Restrictions Where TDR rikhts are Transfered for Use as lion- Residential Uses. Upon compliance with the special Review Criteria of section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code and the additional requirements listed below, a Recieiver Site may be permitted to vary from the area and Bulk limitations on floor area permitted in the underlying zone district where:. 1) TDR"S are transfered for use as non residential uses associted with or accessory to a residential use. 2) The reciever site is a conforming size lot in a zone district which currently allows 15,000 square feet of residential space. Ordinance No. 95- Page 17 _ OUTSIDE OF THE RURALTI` E I TC ZONE DISTRICT �C and TDR Unit of Development Itinitteetwity BOPMS 35 Aefes 50 Flear Are B,,nu If total (leer afea „f unit eking nMQS i TDRUD _ 1 DUY nnn c1~ is less than er-�Hftl te 5,000 SF Ott With Total f 1,500 r>: Existing Uflk 60 Ae 50 Beaus i 25 A.1.1iti.,na o if total fleer a of unit , l.i..5 MQS �iG� e( 1 'T`T RUD — 1 DU1 nnn SF 1~exefnptiE)n is `, 1 Unit With Total of 1,750 S plies Existing Ufflitt 70 Aefes 50% line, f Are T efti.� TF tota l Fleer afea of ti ,it s (`M eking Q � 2 TTID T Ds — 2 D T. i2 nnn r>; e F „r 3,090 Additiefial SF t Existing Uflit 105 Aer-es 50% Reef Afea Bew if total fleef area ef unit seeking GA4QS 3 TTID T DS — 2 D Ts i3 nnn cl✓ Z Units With Total e f 4,500equalsquafeUDs SF or- 4,500- Additional SF te are transferredexeffiptien Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 18 The following chart summarizes the GMQS exemption for transfers of TDR Rights to Receiver Sites located outside of the Rural/Remote Zone District: EXAMPLES OF GMQS EXEMPTIONS FOR TRANSFERS OF TDR RIGHTS OUTSIDE OF THE RURAL/REMOTE ZONE DISTRICT Total Floor Area of Unit Seeking Minimum Percent Square Number of TDRUDs and Amount GMQS Exemption Footage from of Transfer of Square Footage Required for GMQS Exemption < 5,000 SF 30% 1 TDRUD/1,500 SF (after bonus) > 5,000 SF, but < 40% 2 TDRUDs/3,000 SF (after bonus) 7,500 SF > 7,500 SF, but < 45% 3 TDRUDs/4,500 SF (after bonus) 10,000 SF > 10,000 SF, but < 48% 4 TDRUDs/6,000 SF (after bonus) 12,500 SF > 12,500 SF, but < 50% 5 TDRUDs/7,500 SF (after bonus) 15,000 SF 6. Standards and Criteria for Intensity Bonuses for Transfer of Development Rights to Receiver Sites Located Within the Rural/Remote Zone District. a. Intensity Bonus for Use of TDR Rights for Development on a <_35 Acre Receiver Site. The transfer of one TDR Unit of Development to a Receiver Site which is located within the Rural/Remote Zone District and is less than or equal to 35 acres or greater in size shall result in an intensity bonus which shall entitle -the developer of the Receiver Site to one dwelling unit with 1,200 square feet of residential floor area. b. Intensity Bonus for Use of TDR Ril4hts for Development on a >_70 Acre Receiver Site. The transfer of one TDR Unit of Development to a Receiver Site which is located within the Rural/Remote Zone District and is 70 acres or greater in size shall result in an intensity bonus which shall entitle the developer of the Receiver Site to one dwelling unit with 1,800 square feet of residential floor area. C. Intensity Bonus for Use of TDR Rights for Development on a >405 Acre Receiver Site. The transfer of two TDR Units of Development to a Receiver Site which is located within the Rural/Remote Zone District and is 105 acres or greater in size shall result in an intensity bonus which shall entitle the developer of the Receiver Site to one dwelling unit with 2,400 square feet of residential floor area. d. 2,400 Flocr Area Limitation on A14gregation of TDR Rights on a Single Receiver Site. While aggregation of TDR Rights on a single Receiver Site is permitted, an aggregated transfer within the Rural/Remote Zone District shall not in any case exceed two thousand and four hundred (2,400) square feet of residential floor area. Ordinance No. 95- Page 19 e. Receiving Sites Exempt From GMQS. A Receiving Site within the Rural/Remote Zone which is approved by special approval for development with TDR Rights shall be exempt from the Growth Management'Quota System. f. Deed Restriction of Undeveloped Portion of Receiver Site -Required Where Site is Greater Than 35 Acres and Intensity Bonus is Utilized. Where TDR Rights are transferred to Receiver Sites located within the Rural/Remote Zone District and an intensity bonus is utilized, the remainder of the Receiver Site shall be deed restricted against.future development. If the TDR Rights were not transferred from the Receiver Site, but were acquired from some other Preservation Site,.then the underlying Development Rights shall still be saleable and transferable to another Receiver Site. The following chart summarized the incentives for transfers of TDR Rights within the Rural/Remote zone district: EXAMPLES OF INCENTIVES FOR TRANSFERS OF TDR RIGHTS WITHIN THE RURAL/REMOTE ZONE DISTRICT Acreage of Receiver Site and Number of TDRUDs Intensity Bonus/Total GMQS TDR Unit of Development Transferred Allowed Square Footage Exemptions < 35 Acres 1 TDRUD Transferred 1 Dwelling Unit With 1200 Exemption 1 TDR = 1DU/1,000 SF Square Feet applies > 35 Acres, but 1 TDRUD Transferred 1 Dwelling Unit With 1200 Exemption < 70 Acres Square Feet applies 1 TDRUD = 1 DU/1,000 SF > 70 Acres 2 TDRUDs Transferred or 1 Dwelling Unit With 1800 Exemption 2 TDRUDs = 2 DUs/2,000 SF One TDRUD Transferred to Square Feet applies Existing Development Right > 105 Acres 3 TDRUDs Transferred or 1 Dwelling Unit With-2400 Exemption 3 TDRUDs = 3 DUs/3,000 SF One TDRUD Transferred to Square Feet applies Existing Development Right C. Standards and Criteria for Transfer of Development Rights Vested Prior to the Adoption of the Rural/Remote Zone District To the extent a Preservation Site has Development Rights which vested prior to the adoption of the Rural/Remote Zone District, such Development Rights may be severed and transferred as TDR Rights to Receiver Sites located outside of the Rural/Remote 'Zone District in'accordance with the procedures set forth in Sections 4-60.95, 4-70.25 an(il/or 4-80.25 beloxl,/. In addition to the standards and criteria set forth in Sections A and B above, the following standards and criteria shall.apply and supersede said Sections A-andB to the extent of any conflict. Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 20 1. Development Rights Must be Vested Prior to the Adoption of the Rural/Remote Zone District. To be eligible for transfer pursuant to the provisions of this Section, Development Rights must be vested as defined by the Pitkin County Land Use Code prior to the adoption of the Rural/Remote Zone District (November 15, 1995). To the extent Development Rights exist by virtue of a final, non -appealable court order, such Development Rights shall also be eligible for severance and transfer as TDR Rights to Receiver Sites. 2. Transfer of Development Rights Limited to Receiver Sites Located Outside of the Rural/Remote Zone District. The transfer of Development Rights pursuant to this Section shall be limited to Receiver Sites located outside of the Rural/Remote Zone District. 3. Transfer of Development Rights May Potentially Result in a Total Gross Floor Area Greater Than 15,000 Square Feet. The transfer of Development Rights pursuant to this Section may be permitted, through the procedures and special review set forth in Section 4-60.95 below, for residential development which exceeds 15,000 square feet of residential floor area, or as such maximum square footage may be amended by the Board of County Commissioners from time to time. 4. Receiving Sites Exempt from GMQS. A Receiving Site outside of the Rural/Remote Zone District which is approved by special review for development with TDR Rights shall be exempt from the Growth Management Quota System as set forth in Section 3- 150.60(B)(5)(b) above. However, where the total gross floor area of a residential dwelling unit seeking a GMQS exemption is greater than 15,000 square feet, a GMQS exemption shall only be granted if the total square footage transferred to the unit equals or exceeds seventy-five percent (75%) of the total square footage of the residential unit. Enact the following Section: 3-200.95 UTILITY EXTENSIONS IN THE RURAL/REMOTE ZONE DISTRICT The following criteria are to be used in conjunction with the SpecialReview Criteria established in Section 3-210 of the Land Use Code in order to allow the extension of utilities such as electricity, water, sewer, telephone and cable on lands located within the Rural/Remote Zone District: 1. Is the extension of the utility service less disruptive to the environment than an alternative source? 2. Does the prop?sed utility extension encroach upon or impact environmental hazards. or resources such as flcodplain, geologic hazards, slopes exceeding 15% in grade, wildlife habitat, wildfire, grounc!?water, ridgelines, vegetation, agricultural lands (irrigated meadows, dryland pastures or other environmentally significant features)? 3. Is -there a significant visual change or impact to the land area affected by the utility extension? Ordinance No. 95- Page 21 4. Can the visual impact be mitigated? 5. Does the extension visually impact surrounding properties? 6. Do reclamation and landscaping measures appear natural as related to the former condition and surrounding environment? 7. Does the utility extension comply with the intent of the Rural/Remote zone district? Enact the following Section: 4-60.95 SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS A. Procedures. The sale and transfer of development rights shall be carried out as follows: 1. Procedure Prior to Sale of Development Right. The procedure prior to sale of a Development Right shall be as follows: a. Affidavit of Development Right. The owner of a parcel. of land who sells a Development Right from a Preservation Site shall prepare an Affidavit of Development Rights in conformance with a form provided by the Community Development Department. The affidavit shall be filed with the Community Development Department at least thirty (30) days prior to the submission of any request for a Certificate of Development Rights. b. Certificate of Development Rights For a Preservation Site. Any person who sells a Development Right from a Preservation Site must obtain a Certificate of Development Rights fora Preservation Site from the Pitkin County Community Development Department. prior to sale and deed recordation of a Development Right. A Certificate of Development Rights shall be valid for one year. A Certificate of Development Rights on a Preservation Site shall only be issued where: 1) An Affidavit of Development Rights is submitted. 2) . The Preservation Site meets all of the standards and criteria set forth in Section 3- 40.115(C)(1) above. A Certificate of Development Rights for a Preservation Site must be issued or denied bjy the Community Development Department. C. Deed Restriction of Preservation Site. After the sale of a Development Right, the owner of the Preservation Site shall execute and record a deed restriction on the parcel which Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 22 acknowledges that the Development Right has been severed from the parcel and restricts future development. The deed restriction must be executed within thirty (30) days after the sale of the Development Rights from the Preservation Site. The deed restriction shall be in conformance with a form provided by the Community Development Department. d. Deed Recordation. A Development Right shall be conveyed by a deed duly recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds for Pitkin County within sixty (60). days after the sale of the Development Right and within thirty (30) days after the deed restriction of the Preservation Site. The deed shall be in conformance with a form provided by the Community Development Department. e. Copy of Recorded Deed to be Submitted to Community Development Department. A copy of the recorded deed shall be sent within thirty (30) days after recordation to the Community Development Department. f. Development Rights Appurtenant to Land Until Special Review Approval Obtained. The owner of any parcel of land may transfer any development rights allocated to his parcel of land at any time to any person, provided, however, that the use rights and the value thereof shall be deemed for taxation and all other purposes to be appurtenant to the land from which the rights are transferred until a development order is issued through the special review process in Section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code authorizing use of the transferred density. 2. Procedure for Approval of Receiver Sites Using TDR Rights. The procedure for approval of Receiver Sites using TDR Rights shall be as follows: a. Approval of Receiver Sites Using TDR Rights Shall be by Special Review No TDR Right may be. used on any Receiver Site without obtaining special review approval pursuant to Section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. See Sections 4-70.25 and 4-80.25 for additional procedures for the transfer of one or more TDR Rights, where Subdivision review is required b. Affidavit of TDR Rights and Application for Approval of a Transfer. The owner of a TDR Right shall prepare an Affidavit of TDR Rights and intent to transfer the TDR Right to a specific Receiver Site. Along with the Affidavit of TDR Rights, the owner of a TDR Right shall attach a copy of the recorded deed conveying the Development Right and a copy of the deed restriction of the Preservation Site. The Affidavit of TDR Rights shall be in conformance with a form provided by the Community Development Department. The affidavits and other materials shall be filed with the Community Developm-I,nt Department at least thirty (30) days prior to the submission of any applications for Certificate of TDR Rights, special review or other applications requesting development approval. Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 23 C. Certificate of TDR Rights. Any person who seeks special review approval to use a TDR Right on a Receiver Site must obtain a Certificate of TDR Rights from the Community Development Department prior to submission of any applications for special review or other applications requesting development approval. A Certificate of TDR Rights shall be valid for one year. A Certificate of TDR Rights shall only be issued where: 1) An Affidavit of TDR Rights is submitted. 2) The Receiver Site meets all of the standards and criteria set forth in Section 3- 40.115(C)(2) above. A Certificate of TDR Rights must be issued or denied by the Community. Development Department. d. Application for Speciat Review -of Potential Receiver Site for TDR Rights Within one year after the issuance of the Certificate of TDR Rights, an application for special review pursuant to Section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code must be filed. An application for special review of a potential receiver site for TDR Rights must include the following: 1) An Affidavit of TDR Rights. 2) A Certificate of TDR Rights. 3) All materials required in connection with a special review pursuant to Section 3- 20 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. e. . Approval, Approval With Conditions or Denial of Special Review Application. The Board of County Commissioners shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application, provided that where the proposed development requires rezoning, subdivision or planned development approval, the process shall follow the normal procedures and time -frames set forth in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Prior to final approvals and signature of approvals a deed restriction shall be recorded and effective against the Preservation Site from which the TDR Rights are being transferred. Enact the following Section: 4-70.25 ' SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS In addition to the procedures identified in Section 4-70.20 of the Land Use Code, the special procedures in Section.4-60.95 apply to the review for requests for approval of Receiver Sites using TDR Rights and for the sale and transfer of Development Rights. Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 24 Enact the following Section: 4-80.25 SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS In addition to the procedures identified in Section 4-80.20 of the Land Use Code, the special procedures in Section 4-60.95 apply to the review for requests for approval of Receiver Sites using TDR Rights and for the sale and transfer of Development Rights. Amend Article 8, Definitions, to include the following: AFFIDAVIT OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. An Affidavit of Development Rights is a sworn, written statement by a property owner which attests that: the property owner owns the property; the property is located within the Rural/Remote Zone District; and the Development Right which the property owner claims to own has not been previously sold or otherwise transferred. An Affidavit of Development Rights shall be in conformance with a form provided by the Community Development Department. AFFIDAVIT OF TDR RIGHTS. An Affidavit of TDR Rights is a sworn, written statement by a property owner which attests that: 'the property owner owns or has an option to purchase TDR Rights and that the Development Rights on which the TDR Rights are based have not previously been used on the parcel of land from which the Development Rights have been transferred or on any other parcel of land. For the purposes of this definition, an option to acquire a Development Right which is specifically enforceable shall constitute ownership. An Affidavit of TDR Rights shall be in conformance with a form provided by the Community Development Department. CERTIFICATE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR A PRESERVATION SITE. A Certificate of Development Rights for a Preservation Site is a document which is issued by the Community Development Department which attests that particular Development Rights are eligible for severance and transfer from a specific Preservation Site. The Certificate constitutes an official determination by Pitkin County that particular Development Rights are severable and transferable as TDR Rights. The Certificate is not an opinion of title by Pitkin County in regard to the Development Rights which are proposed to be transferred. CERTIFICATE OF TDR RIGHTS. A Certificate of TDR Rights is a document which is issued by the Community Development Department which attests to the existence of TDR Rights which may be transferred to a particular Receiver Site. The Certificate constitutes an official determination by Pitkin County that the TDR Rights are eligible for transfer to a specific Receiver Site, subject to special review approval pursuant to Section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The Certificate is not an opinion of title by Pitkin County in regard to the TDR Rights which are proposed to be transferred. Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 25 DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. The right to use a parcel of land for particular uses permitted under the Rural/Remote Zone District which constitutes a separate estate in land which is severable from the fee simple estate to which it is appurtenant. INCENTIVES FOR USE OF TDR RIGHTS. Legislatively created bonuses and exemptions to enhance the preservation of lands within the Rural/Remote Zone District and encourage the transfer of Development Rights from lands inappropriate for development to approved Receiver Sites. The incentives for the use of TDR Rights include floor area intensity bonuses and GMQS exemptions. PRESERVATION SITE. A parcel of land from which Development Rights are severed and transferred, provided that a Preservation Site may only be located in the Rural/Remote Zone District. For every 35 acres, a Preservation Site is associated with one TDR Unit of Development, however a legally created parcel less than 35 acres shall also be associated with one TDR Unit of Development. RECEIVER SITE. A parcel of land to which Development Rights are transferred within Pitkin County in accordance with the standards, criteria and procedures of Section 3- 150.160, 4-60.95, 4-70.95 and 4-80.95, and as approved through special review pursuant to Section 3-210.10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. A Receiver Site may be located in the Rural/Remote Zone District or anywhere else in Pitkin County. RURAL/REMOTE ZONE DISTRICT. Those lands shown on Exhibits A-D to this Ordinance which have been rezoned by this Ordinance from AFR-10, RS-20 and RS-30 to the Rural/Remote Zone District. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR TDR RIGHTS. Transferable Development Rights or TDR Rights are the right to sever development rights which exist under the land use regulations, codes and plans of Pitkin County'for lands which have been designated within the Rural/Remote Zone District and to transfer such rights to lands which are designated as suitable for on -site development. Once a Development Right is severed from a Preservation Site, it becomes a Transferable Development Right or TDR Right until it is attached to a Receiver Site. TDR UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT OR TDRUD. The amount of development which may be transferred from a Preservation Site to a Receiver Site. One TDR Unit of Development represents one residential dwelling unit and 1000 square feet of permitted floor area. For purposes of this definition, fractions of TDR Units of Development do not exist. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board that it intends to grant exempt or pipeline status for any application located within identified study areas which is substantially complete as of Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 26 February 14, 1995. These applications shall be processed pursuant to their underlying zoning prior to efforts to initiate Rural/Remote zoning. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this rezoning under established local and State laws shall not affect those parcels within the described areas which have current and valid vested Site Specific Development Plans, provided that development of these parcels must conform to the provisions of the vested approval. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that it is the intention of the Board that rezoning shall not affect any parcel within the described area which is located within a platted and approved subdivision. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that where a parcel of land is bisected by the zone district boundaries the parcel may be further reviewed at the request of the owners upon a rezoning request. These rezoning requests may be made companion with a 104-1 Hazard Review application, or as a standalone application. Under current Land Use Code provisions, privately submitted rezoning requests are limited to two periods in February and August. For the purpose of a Rural/Remote determination, the Board may waive these deadlines at their discretion. Moreover, if a site zoned R/R is later determined to be appropriate for rezoning to another zone due to the fact that, based upon a site specific analysis, the property does not meet the criteria test for R/R (pursuant to Recital #10 of this Ordinance), all fees for processing the request shall be refunded. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that every year, annually after the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners shall evaluate the effectiveness of the transfer of development rights provision. Among the factors to be considered in evaluating the effectiveness Ordinance No. 95-_ Page 27 of the provision shall be: (1) whether there is an adequate market place for the TDR Rights or whether additional measures should be taken to increase the marketability of TDR Rights;(2) whether the provision offers sufficient incentives to encourage transfers out of the Rural/Remote Zone District into areas more suitable for residential development; and (3) whether the procedures relating to the implementation of the transfer of development rights provision are functioning smoothly and efficiently as possible. The evaluation of the transfer of development rights provision shall be by one duly noticed public hearing and the decision whether to modify or amend the provision shall be solely within the legislative discretion of the Board. INTRODUCED, FIRST READ, AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING on the 22nd day of.March, 1995. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES on the 29th day of March, 1995. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING on the 19th day of April, 1995. THIRD READING AND PUBLIC HEARING on the 17th day of May, 1995. FOURTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING on the 27th day of July, 1995. FIFTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING on the 12th day of September, 1995. SIXTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING 'on the 24th day of October, 1995. SEVENTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING on the 14th day of November, 1995. EIGHTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING on the 15th day of November, 1995. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION IN THE ASPEN TIMES on the 2nd day of December, 1995. Ordinance No. 9S-_ Page 28 ATTEST: Jeanette Jones, Deputy Clerk and Recorder APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO James R. True, Chairman Date . APPROVED D AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney TO: THRU: FROM: RE: 17:WO MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director • 1�t*k .0 Suzanne Wolff, Planner Schrager Conditional Use Review For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Public Hearing June 18, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct an ADU within a proposed new single-family residence. The ADU is located below -grade and contains approximately 358 net livable square feet. The application packet is attached.as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of. the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit with conditions. APPLICANT: Phil Schrager, represented by Roy Parsons, Gibson & Reno LOCATION: 923 E. Hyman; Lot 2, Kentco Lot Split ZONING: R/MF, Residential/Multi-Family LOT SIZE: 6,000 square feet FAR: Allowed = 3,240 s.f; Proposed = 3,148 s.f BACKGROUND: The Kentco (Sund) Lot Split was approved by the City Council by Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1993. The applicant at the time proposed to develop a new single-family residence on Lot 2 and a duplex on Lot 1. Lot 1, which contains U.S. Land Monument Ute No. 4 ("the Rock"), was designated a Historic Landmark by Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1995. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see comments from the Parks, Housing, and Engineering Departments (Exhibit B). Comments are summarized below. Engineering Department: All required parking must be accommodated on -site; the ADU parking space shall not encroach into the public right-of-way in the alley as shown on the site plan. The owner shall construct a sidewalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The sidewalk must be 5 feet wide with a 6 foot buffer zone between the sidewalk and the curb. The sidewalk shown on the site plan does not comply with this requirement. Permits shall be obtained for any landscaping or work in the public right. -of - way I Parks Department: A landscape plan was not submitted with the application, however, based on the site plan, the proposed development will require removal of a clump of blue elder and several aspen trees. The driveway shown on the site plan is not directly aligned with the entrance to the garage, and two pine trees are shown to the west of the driveway; the main level floor plan shows a direct alignment from the driveway to the garage, which would requir6 removal of the pine trees. Mitigation or replacernent on -site will be required for the removed trees. A tree permit is required prior to building permit submittal. Clumps of trees to be retained shall be protected during construction by fencing around the dripline of the trees. Housing Office: Cindy Christensen recommends approval of the unit subject to allowing more natural light into the unit by increasing the size of the window well on the west side or by adding an additional window well. STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is purposed to be located; RESPONSE: A fundamental goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to "Create housing opportunities for 60% of the workforce to live up -valley of the Aspen Village Trailer Park". A short-term goal with the Housing Action Plan was to develop "650 new affordable housing units, including employee -occupied ADUs to achieve the identified current unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents". The RMF zone is intended for "intensive long-term residential purposes," and is an appropriate zone for the development of ADUs. The proximity of this property to the downtown core is consistent with the policy to create opportunities for people to live close to their work. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; RESPONSE: In staff s opinion, the proposed ADU is compatible with the surrounding single and multi- family development. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; RESPONSE: The proposed unit will not create additional impacts on the surrounding area. The ADU parking space shown on the site plan encroaches into the alley right-of-way; this space must be relocated on -site. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required for the ADU above and beyond what is in place for the existing neighborhood. I 2 E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; RESPONSE: The ADU must comply with the Housing Guidelines and must be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. If the unit is rented, it must be used to house a qualified working resident of Pitkin County. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed unit is required by Section 26.100.050, GMQS Exemptions, (Ordinance 1 - 1990) and must be deed restricted. Staff has identified the following issues with regard to the ADU: • Natural light is obtained from a light well which is approximately 4 feet wide. Planning staff agrees with the Housing Office that the window well as shown does not provide adequate natural light to the unit and should be expanded to improve the livability of the unit. The UBC requires a 19 square foot well with at least 3 feet of depth from the wall; it is not clear from the drawings provided that the window well complies with this requirement. Even if the window well does comply with the UBC requirements, staff feels that additional windows would improve the ADU. • The unit has a separate entrance at the rear of the residence, however, a connection is shown on the plans between the ADU and the rec room. This connection shall be removed prior to submission of the deed restriction to the Housing Office. • One parking space is provided for the ADU, however, the space shown on the site plan encroaches into the alley right-of-way. The space must be accommodated on -site. It appears that the two pine trees to the west of the driveway would have to be removed to provide adequate access to the garage, particularly if the ADU parking space is adjusted to the north so as not to encroach into the alley. • The unit is located directly below the garage, and shall comply with the UBC sound transmission control guidelines. • Adequate information has not been provided at this time to verify the height of the proposed residence, however, the structure appears to exceed the height limit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Schrager ADU with the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. The connection between the ADU and the rec room shall be removed from the plans and the window well shall be expanded prior to submission of the deed restriction to the Housing Office. 3. A tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department prior to building permit submittal. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. Clumps of trees to be retained shall be protected during construction by fencing around the dripline of the trees. 4. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with the 1994 UBC Sound Transmission Control guidelines. 5. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Community Development Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 6. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on -site. 7. The applicant shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the Community Development Department. The ADU parking space shall not encroach into the alley right-of-way. 9. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the owner shall construct a 5 foot wide sidewalk with a 6 foot buffer zone between the sidewalk and the curb. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for an ADU at 923 E. Hyman Ave. with the conditions as outlined in the Community Development Department Memo dated June 18, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet "B" - Referral Comments 4 Exhibit MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept. FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: May 28, 1996 RE: Schrager Conditional Use Review for an ADU Marcel ICE No. 2737-182-31.001 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to guild an accessory dwelling unit (ADLI) in the lower level of a principal residence. BACK RO : The Code state that: Accessory dwelling units shall contain not loss than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor arse. The unit &hail be deed restricted, meethq the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not lesss than six (s) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shag have the right to place a qualified eMployaee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. The proposed unit is to be 414 square feet (358 net liveable square foot). The proposed unit has very liftle natural tight. The plans show about a 6 foot window well on the west side of the structure. Staff would suggest enlarging the window well on the west side or add an additional window well on the south side. The kitchen gust also be built to the following specifications: Kitchen - For Accessory dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a two -burner stave wKh oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. RECOIi MEP�� N: Staff recommends approval as long as the following conditions are met: 1. readdress the issue of allowing more natural light into the unit; 2. the kitchen be within the definition stated above; and 3, an accessory dwelling unit deed restriction needs to be recorded before building permit approval (this form is provided by the Housing Office), VEfe"Rachragar.adu t IQ_10ECEQV/'Ei 111AY 3 1996 Memorandum --------------- TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department DATE: May 31, 1996 RE: Schrager Conditional Use for ADU CC: Engineering Department We have reviewed the application submitted by Phil Schrager and offer the following comments. The proposed site plan shows some of the trees on the lot but not all. There is a clump of Blue Elder trees in the center of the lot with two (2) main stems measured at eight (8) caliper inches each. The two Aspen's shown on the east side of the lot will be lost due to the proposed grade changes (I did not see a third tree at the south-east corner of the lot). These Aspen's were measured at seven and eight caliper inches. Additionally, there are two pines (one at 9" and one at 10") shown close to the alley and next to the proposed driveway. However, the site plan seems to show the driveway too far to the east. The drawing for the main level shows the driveway as meeting the garage right on, whereas the site plan shows the driveway four (4) feet further to the west. It would make sense that the main level drawing is the correct alignment for the driveway which would mean that both the pines would be lost as well to the development. If all six trees are removed, the valuation for these trees is estimated at $11,925.72. No landscape plan was submitted with the application, however, the total cost for trees removed could be less if some trees are replaced on site. We would suggest adding a few street trees in the buffer zone of the right-of-way, preferably cottonwoods. The only other trees on the lot are a clump of White Poplar and a clump of Crabapples (not shown) which are located on the west side of the lot. Both of these clumps should be able to be retained during construction and must be protected by placement of snow fencing or other type of fencing around the dripline of the trees. The site plan shows some grade changes in the area and the grade must not change at the base of the trees. No trees on site are to be removed without a tree permit which must be applied for prior to submittal of a building plan. The final comment on the application is the proposed buffer zone and sidewalk. Both the sidewalk and the buffer zone are shown at four (4) feet wide. The buffer zone should be six (6) feet wide and the sidewalk at five (5) feet. MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer 0__` Date: June 3, 1996 Re: Schrager Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (923 East Hyman Avenue; Parcel ID No. 2737-182-31-044) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Site Improvement Survey - The application packet that we received did not include a site improvement survey. The site visit revealed that there is an existing shed and a retaining wall of which portions may encroach into the alley public right-of-way. If either of these does encroach, they would have to be removed at the time of development or an encroachment license applied for at the City Engineering Department. 2. Parking - The site plan shows the parking space for the ADU located half in the alley public right-of-way. This is not acceptable. The parking place must be located entirely on private property. The Engineering Department recommends that the on -site parking space be required because of the high demands for on -street parking in the area. 3. Site Drainage - It must be a condition of approval that the building permit plans provide for storm runoff to be maintained on site and not discharged to abutting public rights -of -way or to neighboring properties as well as providing erosion and sediment control both during and after construction. 4. Utilities - Any n'ew surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. 1 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 and without encumbrances such as boulders and fences. Tree canopies extending into the right-of-way must be pruned up for the 9' minimum vertical clearance. 6. Sidewalk - Sidewalk must be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy as required by Section 21-16-030. The sidewalk must be five feet wide with a six foot wide buffer space to the curb. 7. 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: M96.173 The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) 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. 2 V PUBLIC NOTICE DATE JUWEia•i�H6 TIME PLACEZ�t- PURPOSE '"F s.i .•,,cep.-r'R-T �iwJ INIi WTHIIJ � ,1 �� ail-IC,tE r74`hL7' F"1or-tE Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } } State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 6-205.E. it Roy B, Parsons III, AIA L 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 the 24th day of May , 1996 (which is 26 days prior to the public hearing date of June 18, 1996 ), 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 7th day of June , 1996, to the 18 th day of June 199 6. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Si natur (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this 18th day of June , 1996 by Roy B. Parsons III, AIA WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAS My Commission expires: 6-,24-98 Notary Publi Zel_�0(401 ��� �74 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SCHRAGER CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 18, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Phil Schrager, Pacesetter, Corp., requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for an approximately 414 square foot studio Accessory Dwelling Unit and an adjacent 40 square foot storage room within the proposed residence. The property is located at923 E. Hyman, and is described as Lot 2, Kentco Lot Split. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5093. s/Sara Garton, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I have complied with the notice requirements of Section 6. 205 (E) (3) (C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of" the Aspen Municipal Code by mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto by first class, postage prepaid, U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300 ) feet of the subject property on May � 241 1996 STATZ OF COLORADO ) ) SS COUNTY OF PITKIN ) .The foregoing Affidavit of mailing was signed.before me this 1.8th day of June i 1996 • WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 6"24-98 Notary is PROJECT:'__ ,, O ��-'':" - DATE: i Z�l G R A P H P A P E R GIBSON•RENO A RCH I T E C T S 4 �a I 210 E. HYMAN No 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303,925.5968 FACSIMILIE 303.925.5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW No 2 TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 303.728.6607 FACSIMILIE 303.728.6658 u ' AUTAO 01DIr 1 LAND USE APPcAncco FoRm Exhibit A Z) Prof o t Name 2) Project l"cat..xon 2 (indicate strut address, lot & block rxmber, legal d ' c n where appropriate) 3) Present Zoninx e= %(• F .4) T-ot Size — 5) Applicant's Name, Address . & Phone � �' ✓'� c.✓" e gC�r..,.- 6) Representative Is Name:, Address & Phone c 1 bGOAg i-�-HMO - A4,12.0� ,��r,.,,,, �'� �stU�� • a ��- -��� 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply) C onciitz.onal use SPA CorKx teal Historic Dev_ special Review 8040 Greenline Sim MaLrgln Final SPA Final PUD Y xmtain Vier Plane Subdivision Condcoi-niuniization " Ted Amerx�n�nt Lot Spl-it,/lot Line Adj usbnerrt Final. Historic Dev- Minor Historic Dev _ Historic Demolition Historic Designation 8) ' can of Existing Uses *("tuber and type of e)dst- x)g ; appr xima.te sq- ft- ; rycimber of beds x:xns any PL rixxl:s approvals granted to the P=wertY) - 9) Description. of Development Applic aticn A U f TO) have you attact-jed the followij)g? Res case to Attachment ent 2, Minimuan �missian Contents to Attachment 3, Specific -cu mission Cont.,_-rjt_. Fhasponse to A 4, bier Standards for- Your Application atiion April 30, 1996 DAVI D GIBSON AIA AUGUST Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Dept. RENO 130 South Galena AIA Aspen, Colorado 81611 SCOTT RE: Schrager Residence SMITH Conditional Use (A.D.U.) AIA 923 E. Hyman Aspen, ColoradoIT III ::. We are submitting the enclosed application for the Conditional Use of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (A.D.U.) within the GIBSON - RENO • residence located at 923 E. Hyman in Aspen, Colorado. A R C H I 't E C 't S, L,L,C, The following addresses Attachment 4, Item A-F of the Review Standards for the development of a Conditional Use: 210 E. HYMAN No 202 A. The current zoning of the property is RMF which allows ASPEN Accessory Dwelling Units as a Conditional Use of this COLORADO zone district. The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan 81611 encourages the provision of A.D.U.'s within residences to help supply housing within the Aspen area. 970.925.5968 B. The Conditional Use is consistent and compatible with FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 the character of the immediate vicinity. The surrounding area consists of several similar projects with existing A.D.U.'s. 'r P.O. BOX 278 C. The proposed residence will have a 414 square foot 117 N. WILLOW studio A.D.U.(358SF net livable)and an adjacent 40 SF No 2 storage room.. The A.D.U. will be located at the lower TELLURIDE level of the unit at the alley side with a separate COLORADO exterior entry and stairway. There is a provision for 81435 one(1) parking space for the A.D.U. within the 970.728.6607 driveway, accessible from the alley. The A.D.U. will have no adverse effects on the surrounding properties. FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 Schrager Residence April 30, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department Page 2 D. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located within the City limits of Aspen and has access to all public facilities and services. E. As a requirement of Ordinance #l, replacement housing program, for a new residence in the RMF Zone District the applicant must provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit or pay a fee in lieu. This A.D.U. fulfills this requirement. F. The Conditional Use of the Accessory Dwelling Unit complies with all standards by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Ordinance #1. Thank you for your time in reviewing our request for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. Please contact me with any further questions regarding this application. Respectfully, Roy B. Parsons III, AIA schrgadu.doc April 30, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department This application is for a Conditional Use of an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 923 E. Hyman. The legal description is Lot2 Kentco Lot Split, Aspen, Colorado. FLOOR AREA ATIO• Proposed: 1. Main Level: a. Total FAR = 1,480 SF 2. UPPER LEVEL a. Total FAR = 1,500 SF 3. BASEMENT a. Total FAR = 51 SF (includes a 414SF ADU) 4. DECKS Amount over 15% of Allowable F.A.R. (3150SF) = OSF 5. GARAGE., 484 SF of Actual proposed garage space. 250 SF non -FAR with additional 250 SF x .5 allowable Total FAR = 117 SF 6. 1480 1500 51 117 3148 SF Allowable F.A.R. (RMF Zone w/6000SF lot) = 3150SF schradu.doc DAVI D GIBSON AIA AUGUST RENO AIA SCOTT SMITH AIA �'1'uilj 011 Y � D�i�,.� llllllllll, i III 210 E. HYMAN N" 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 970.925.5968 FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW N" 2 TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMI LE 970.728.6658 April 17,1996 Mr. Phil Schrager Pacesetter Corp. 4343 S. 96th Omaha, NE. 68127 (800) 228-9273 Aspen/Mtkiu Community Development Department 130 South Galena Sweet Aspen, CO.81611 Please accept this letter as authof=tion for the firm, of Gibson and Reno Architects, L.L.C.; located at 210 E. Hyman, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado 8 1611 (970) 925-5968 to submit and process the Application for a Conditional Use of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (A D.U.) on my behalf. s' ly, Phil Schrager CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licen.eed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that PHILLIP SCHRAGER is the owner in fee ~)le of the Following described property: Lv1' 2, KENTCO LOT SPLIT, according to the Map thereof recorded February 7, 1994 in Plat Book 33 at Page 82, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, Subject to encumbrances, easements and rights of way of record. This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIF COUNT I LE, INC. BY: -( /I / (A, i I authori s gnature CERTIFIED TO: 29, 1996 @ 8 ►30 ,A.M. ORDER NO: 1097 Mln / V pr le Cr l c co / O• 0 ,J C, QD 4rdG/ tip ,c CA r� ,� P D u• �a/w Fn'd Q� o O \0 OC C vj cuecc V�Oe C c / u P°O P \ac%d r!,v�o v0 Q�c cd° is I'V P ° Ei 0 01 OP rz N /ev6g co rr ec S v� �0 'r o i a` cc rp �S rJ e ko g t / V1 v ti iS Vip /S �9 IN .. 0-10 p Ce6110 Cref,�k Or Powe(+ cC �co oA , �� It ory Ln tc°td ��.���` m c c �O • 0a ro / es kin � b ° ° c a� u 8 tj IA ° ` a cc H iy c AN v ac q, in N �e pUS Sol •$ O, J U ' silvor.Queen} ^ Gondola •� NORTH ELEVATION ti5 OPAWt+ a-m: CHEaa®: SCALE. COPYNGH7 .0c 19_ W z • LU W: Gl � " Q 0 UJ Z O �- 0 W = J 0 C� V QN .Q z W U Co. a N Q) t!) 0) Q GIBSON • REN A R C H I T E C T S 210 E. "Y"AN No 202 ASPENOO101U00 4101 303.92SSW FACNI IE 303.92SS993 P.O. BOX 27E 117 N. VVq-OW Not TELUJR10E COLD ADO $1435 3D3.72&W7 FJC9M%JE 303.72SA6" WEST ELEVATION A6 SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION -vAt~=T-o-- J05 w ORAWN- DAM CHECKED . SCALE. COPnVGHT ' 19_ W - U Z u1 W o> Q —' Z 0 W < cca jr >" 0 0 Q � U �-a �ual N U} GIBSON•REI\ A RC H IT E C T S [if 2,0 E.HYMAN No 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303.9255960 FACS94LIE 303 92SS993 PO. BOX 278 1 17 N. W4LOW Not TELLURIDE COLORADO $1435 303.72SA607 FACWI&E 303.7284658 SHEET#- A5 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN W. - U Z W W a 0 Z p _W a a jr 0 W = J H C� 0 for a I W U M a N U) GIBSON • RENC A R C H IT E C T S 2wR.HTrvw No 202 AVENCOLawnO 61611 303.925S%S FACYMUE 303 9255"] �.P.O. box 278 '... 1 q N.wmLow Not TELLURIDE COLORADO 61435 303.72ab607 FKRmIE 303.72eb6Se FT, ProvwwW Line MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN- Lij U Z w W 0 � Q Z 0 p w�Q �- 0 W = J 0 (4) U _ v LW ct)- LU a N in U) Q F� . 1 GIBSON • RENC • A R C H I T E C T S 210 E. Hr AAN w 202 ,WENCOLORADO sun 303.925.5%8 FICSWICC 303.9253991 PO. BOX 278 117 N. WR1.OW Not TH1URt0E COLORADO 81435 303.72SAW7 FAr3MJE 303.728b6M S"ffTi: A3 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN W U Z W W p. > 0 � Z p Waa oc 0 W I J 0 a � Z LU .� = V a N to 0 a G IBSON - RENC ARCHITECTS 210EHYTUN No 20Q ASPENCOLORA00 $1611 303.92SS%E FRCS W VA M "55"3 Pa KM 278 117 N. WILLOW Not 7ELLU DE COLORADO BN3S 303.724AW7 FRCS* 1UE 303.72GA6" SHEET#: A2 v MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Winnerman Stream Margin Review DATE: June 18, 1996 -4 ob `6 SUNEVIARY: The applicant is requesting stream margin review approval to repair and stabilize the river bank which was damaged by the flooding of the Roaring Fork River in 1995. No work is proposed below the normal highwater line.The application packet is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of the stream margin review with conditions. APPLICANT: Lairy Winnerman, represented by Jay Hammond LOCATION: 315-317 Park Ave. e ZONING: R-6 PUD BACKGROUND: Stream Margin Review approval for the Whitcomb duplex was granted by the Planning Commission in August of 1990. City Council also granted Final PUD Development Plan approval by Ordinance 64, Series of 1990. These approvals allowed relocation of the irrigation culvert and revegetation to stabilize the bank. A stop work order was issued in June of 1993: the location of the culvert did not correspond with the approved location and boulders were placed. A stream margin amendment was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 93-20. It was determined that removal of the boulders would cause additional damage to the river bank, therefore, the boulders and the culvert remained in place subject to specific revegetation requirements. REQUEST: The proposed repair work includes stabilizing the existing large boulders and keying in gabion baskets in the deeply eroded areas which will then be covered with soil, stabilized with a temporary erosion blanket, and revegetated with native willows and Red Osier Dogwood. Additional native riparian plants will be used to revegetate the river bank. No work is proposed within the channel of the Roaring Fork River, and all of the work will be done by hand or by using light equipment. REFERRAL COMl\IENTS: Comments from the Engineering Department are attached as Exhibit B. Engineering Department: Engineering is concerned that the erosion of the bank is a result of the previous "improperly designed and completed- work". Specifically, the culvert was completely undermined and is not structurally restrained, and it! appears that several of the boulders in the river bed have settled there as a result of the bank erosion and may be disrupting the historic river flow patterns. Concrete shall not be used to stabilize the boulders on the bank, and the rebuilt embankment shall not exceed a slope of 1:1. Engineering will require more specific information from the application prior to issuance of a building permit, including a detailed construction plan, three cross -sections of the river: one at the approximate centerline of the work, and the other two 100 yards upstream and downstream of the centerline, photos of the river channel prior to construction, an embankment stabilization plan, and a drainage plan. Cross - sections and photos will also be required after completion.of the work. (Draft comments are attached to this memo; final comments will be available at the meeting.) STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 26.68.040(B), "No development shall be permitted within 100 feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the. proposed development complies with all the standards set forth below:" 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. RESPONSE: Cross -sections of the river channel shall be provided before and after construction to verify that the base flood elevation is not increased by the repairs. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Community Plan, Parks/Recreation) Open Space/Trails Plan map, or areas of historic public use or access are dedicated via.a recorded easement for public use. RESPONSE: A S foot fishing easement was required by the original PUD approval. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable; RESPONSE: Not applicable. 4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits.. The. barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; RESPONSE: Silt fencing shall be used to prevent any erosion or sedimentation from entering the river. The construction plan shall explain the means and materials to be used to minimize sloughing of the bank. The -applicant proposes to complete the work by hand and using light equipment, and does not propose to utilize heavy equipment in the river. 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency. Management Agency; RESPONSE: No alteration or relocation is proposed. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; RESPONSE: Not applicable. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100 year floodplain; RESPONSE: A letter from Grady McNure of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is included with the application. The Winnerman's bank stabilization project is authorized under Regional General Permit No. GP3 7. Alan Czenkusch of the Division of Wildlife will review and approve the riparian vegetation that is reintroduced. 9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within 15 feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 10. All development outside the 15 foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 11. A landscape plan is. submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings outside of the designated building envelope on the river side to native riparian vegetation; RESPONSE: A landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to building permit approval. Only native riparian vegetation is allowed. 12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no lights) directed toward the river or located down the slope; RESPONSE: Ordinance No 64, Series of 1990, requires that "Any outdoor lighting on the rear half of the lot be downcast, low wattage fixtures. If detached from the structure, light fixtures shall not exceed four feet in height." 13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top oy'slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level; 3 RESPONSE: Cross sections of the work area prior to and at completion of the work shall be provided to Engineering. 14. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. RESPONSE: Once completed, the work will improve the riparian area through and restoration of native vegetation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the stream margin review with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the following information for approval by the City Engineer: • Detailed construction plan; • Three cross -sections of the river: one at the approximate centerline of the work, and the other two 100- yards upstream and downstream of the centerline, including the mean edge of water, mean edge of high water and flood elevations; • Photos of the river channel prior to construction,; • An embankment stabilization plan stamped and signed by a Colorado licensed geotechnical engineer; • Drainage plan. 2. Cross -sections and photos shall also be provided to the City Engineer'after completion of the work. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with all requirements provided in the final referral comments of the City Engineering Department. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the stream margin review at 3*15-317 Park Ave. with the conditions as outlined in the Community Development Department Memo dated June 18, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet "B" - Referral Comments 4 TO: Bob Nevins, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: April 22, 1996 RE: Zupancis Subdivision CC: Ross Soderstrom, Engineering Department We have reviewed the Zupancis application for subdivision approval and have the following concerns. The existing fence that'parallels Walnut Street encroaches significantly into the existing right-of-way. As a condition of approval the fence should be moved to the property line or an encroachment permit must be applied for, separate from this development application. If the encroachment is not granted then the applicant will be required to move the fence. Additionally, because this property (both Lots 1 & 2) abuts South Street, the applicants will be responsible for snow removal on the sidewalk. The City has previously performed snow removal on the sidewalk, however, we will no longer be doing snow removal for any of these adjacent property owners. Snow removal is the responsibility of the abutting property owner per. the Aspen Municipal Code (Sec. 21.32.010-21.32.050). It does not appear as though any trees will be lost to the re -development of this property (Lot 1). However, if any trees are proposed to be removed a permit must be applied for prior to issuance of a building permit. No excavating shall occur within the dripline of trees and any construction activity occurring close to trees should have protective fencing placed around the dripline of the trees. If the applicant has any questions regarding trees on their property they may contact us at 920-5120. Zupancis.doc Exhibit B HHP 61 �b IU- LiHVI TO: Bob Nevins, Community Development Dept. FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: April 24, 1996 RE: Zupancis Subdivision Parcel ID No. 2737-073-00-026 lam: The applicant plans to demolish the dwelling that exists, primarily on Lot 1, to construct a new single-family residence for themselves, and maintain the residence on Lot 2, which would slightly encroach upon Lot 1. Should the lot be sold, the applicant is recommending that the residence on Lot 2 would then have to be demolished, Each dwelling unit exists on the same legal description, therefore, the applicant is requesting to subdivide the lot to provide each dwelling unit with 'its own legal description. BACKGROUND: There are already two dwellings on the subject property. The unit at 510 Walnut Street contains 2,780 square feet and contains five bedrooms; the unit at 511 Race Street is 1,373 square feet and contains three bedrooms. According to Section 26. 100.050, several types of development are eligible for exemption from the residential growth management competition. This application could be exempt as it applies to A.2.c., which states., Detached single-family or duplex dweUing unit. The construction of one or two detached residential urnYs or a duplex dwelling on a iot that was mbdiOdod or was a legally desefibed parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 28.88.040(A)(5) or the replacement after demofiffon of one or two detached residenlial units or a duplex dwelling, or the remodel or expanaion of a aingle family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development affo6nent is currently being sought or is approved. This axemMioa shall only apply if the AbfioMng standards are mcnit (1) Single-family. In order to qualify for a singfe4grnty exemption, the applicant shah have three opfiona: (a) providing an accessory dwelling unit; paying the applicable aff-ordabie housing impact 16@; or recording a ivsident-occupancy deed rest6cdon on thq siVe-family dwelkng unit being constructed. -RECOMMENDATION: If the request is approved, the applicant must do one of the three options stated above, Exhibit B DRAFT MEMORANDUM To: Y Suzanne Wolff, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: June 12, 1996 Re: . Winnerman Stream Margin Application for Bank Stabilization and Repair (315/317 North Park Avenue, --- Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO) After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments: Discussion: In reviewing the site and previous. files regarding this property, it is apparent that the present damage is a result of the previous improperly designed and completed work. I believe the work involved to properly stabilize and restore the river bank profile and vegetation will be more extensive than depicted by the material submitted in support of the application. We observed: A. The 18 inch CMP was completely undermined at the southern angle point nearest the river; the culvert had been previously bedded in native soil with only four (4) inches of cover rather than bedded in a select bedding material with known structural properties; there is no visible evidence that the culvert is structurally restrained with thrust blocks or tie backs at the angle points which were placed in the irrigation line during its previous unauthorized relocation. The culvert lies within five (5) ft of the foundation of the house patio. B. There are several large boulders on the remains of the eroded bank and in the river at the base of the bank. By their placement and size its apparent••that these were moved to the river bank and either placed in the river or have settled there as a result of the bank erosion. The boulders in the river bed are disrupting the historic river flow patterns. 1. Topographic 'Improvement Plat Survey & Flood Elevations: Prior to issuance of the construction permit, the owner of this property shall show mean edge of water, mean edge of high water and flood elevations at three (3) cross -sections, with equal scales for the horizontal and vertical axis, DRAFT 1 OF 4 DRCT11396.D0C Memo - Stream Margin Review-E*emptiurr (mean sea level; provide the name of the datum used) of the river cross sections where -the work is proposed. The surveying will be performed by a land surveyor currently licensed in Colorado. Three. (3) cross -sections of the river channel must be prepared prior to and after completing the work. One (1) cross-section shall be made at the approximate centerline of the work and the other two (2) cross - sections shall be made 100 yards upstream and 100 yards downstream of the approximate centerline of the work. The applicant shall provide color photographs of the river channel prior to and upon completing the work. In the event that the finished work varies substantially from the proposed cross -sections, length, width or depth of the work area, the applicant shall provide additional topographic information and HEC II analyses to accurately depict the actual water profiles downstream, at, and upstream of the work area. If the finished work adversely affects the water profiles in a manner that would cause flooding of previously un-impacted areas, the applicant shall remedy the conditions at his own expense. 2. Utilities: The submitted site plan does not indicate locations for these facilities however the applicant shall contact each utility prior to commencing work to verify utility locations and field locate those which are within the proposed work area. Any new utilities or utilities disturbed by the work shall be constructed or repaired with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. 3. Site Drainage: The restoration work shall not release more than historic storm run-off flows from the site. A drainage plan for the entire lot shall be prepared as part of the application package. During the field visit I observed that an irrigation system had been installed in the embankment above the river. While this probably not the primary cause of the bank failure which is now to be repaired, the introduction and channeling of water on and over this steep embankment is a critical consideration in stabilizing the embankment and preventing future erosion and collapse of the embankment. Noting that the cross-section provided with the application is not drawn to scale, it does not accurately depict the actual field conditions. The embankment is approximately 2V : l H which exceeds the commonly accepted maximum stabile slope of 1 V : l H. The proposed embankment stabilization plan must be stamped and. signed by a Colorado licensed geotechnical engineer, submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Dept. prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. Construction Plan: A detailed construction plan depicting the sequencing of the consE ruction, time duration, special .procedures, periodic review by City representatives, and compliance with all conditions of the stream margin permit will be submitted to the City Engineering Dept. for' approval prior to issuance of the construction permit. DRAFT 2OF4 DRCN4139b.DOC Memo - Zupancis Subdivision Review (5) feet of the existing fire hydrant, and only parallel parking on the Walnut Street frontage. No parking shall be permitted in the Race Alley right-of-way nor on South Avenue between Walnut Street and Race Alley. 7. Improvement Districts: The property owner shall be required to agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of - way. The condition shall be included in the subdivision agreement and shown on the final subdivision plat. 8. Utility Service and Community Impact Study: The general utility service arrangements presented in the letter from the applicant's engineer are acceptable as stated therein except where superseded by specific requirements of the Engineering Dept. in this review and other reviewing departments and agencies. 9. Building Encroachment: The encroachment of the existing main house across the proposed lot line between Lots 1 and 2 shall be fully described by bearing and distance and a condition shall be placed in the subdivision agreement and on the subdivision plat that when either lot is sold to a new owner, or a demolition or building permit is requested for either lot, that the portion of the existing house on Lot 1 which encroaches into Lot 2 shall be removed. Partial demolition of the encroaching portion of the Lot 1 house from Lot 2 would meet this condition. 10. Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Agreement: A note explaining the condition of approval for an appropriate curb, gutter and sidewalk agreement shall be placed in the subdivision agreement and on the final subdivision plat. The future property owner will be responsible for the construction or commitment to construct the curb, gutter and sidewalk along his respective Walnut Street frontage whenever he takes out a construction permit for his lot. DRC,%47A96.DOC 3 OF 3 DRAFT Memo - lupancis Subdivision Review DRAFT 2. Subdivision Standards: The entire subdivision v, 11 need to meet the City design standards of Sec. 26.88.040 for subdivisions. 3. Race Alley Right -of -Way: Formerly known as Race Alley, this right-of-way is legally and functionally a platted 20 ft. wide alley lying between and parallel to Walnut Street and Spruce Street. Due to the re -orientation of the lot lines to an east -west direction there is no apparent need for dedication of additional right-of-way width in the alley by the property owner. 4. South Avenue Sidewalk and Snow Storage Area: After discussing the practical problem of snow storage behind the existing sidewalk with the owners, they have expressed their preference to remove snow rather than change the sidewalk and snow storage easement locations at this time. If future right-of-way work is planned for South Avenue, they will again consider physical changes in these improvements. We accept the owners offer to thin the existing stand of aspens to open up the snow storage easement and recommend removing at least one-half (1/2) of the existing aspen trees. The existing snow storage easement behind the sidewalk is constructively unusable due to the aspen trees in the easement and inefficient for storage of snow from the street due to its present position behind the sidewalk. 5. Water Service: Jay Hammond's March 13, 1996 engineering report factually representE the status of water service to the property. The following conditions related to water service are required: • Yard Hydrant: Prior to recordation of the final plat, provide evidence that the existing yard hydrant has been traced to its source and properly abandoned. • Demolition of Existing Structure: At the time of issuance of a demolition permit for the existing structure on the property (lot 1), the applicant will either set up a new yard hydrant on the existing domestic water service line to the structure along with establishment of a construction account, or abandon all existing water service lines fronting the property. • Water Service to Existing Structure: Water service lines for both Lots 1 and 2 will be brought into compliance with current water service line standards of the Aspen Water Department for a separate single family residence (i.e., single tap, single service line, single curb box, single meter, all or consistent line size), or duplex development, as appropriate, on each lot. i 6. Parking: The Walnut Street frontage shall have a no parking zone extending from South Avenue and continuing for a distance of forty-five (45) feet along Walnut Street; no parking within five 2OF3 DRCM7A96.DOC DRAFT - Memo -.R4o ande Parl, Stream Margin Review. xemp i 8. Regulatory Licenses and Permits: Prior to beginning work, the applicant shall obtain the required licenses and permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), and any other permits required to work in the water course. The applicant shall provide a copy of each license or permit to the City Engineering Dept. and fully comply with all requirements of each license and permit in addition to those requirements of the City. In the event of conflicting requirements, the more stringent requirement or standard shall control. The applicant will provide the required mapping and construction plans to each of the above agencies for approval after preliminary review and approval of the City Engineering Dept. Plans submitted to these agencies without prior City Engineering review will not be accepted. DRAFT 4OF4 DRCM 1396.DOC Memo m Margin Review Exurrrptiurr..- The submitted proposal appears to call for concrete cementing .of the pockets around the boulders to stabilize them. The' boulders which were placed or have settled below the 100 Yr. flood elevation shall be removed from the water course if they interfere with the ' flow capacities of the river and cannot be stabilized in the river bed or embankment. Concrete cement will not be used for stabilizing the boulders. At the time of the field visit the boulders requiring stabilization were at the water line where a coffer dam would be needed to prevent concrete cement from entering the river. (In turn, a coffer dam .would require working in the river bed itself and would be difficult to erect without large mechanical equipment.) To the extent feasible, the re -built embankment shall be constructed with a slope not exceeding IV : 1 H. and preferably a slope of IV : 2H or flatter, or in a terraced configuration, and/or with vegetation pockets for riparian landscaping. Rip -rapping materials shall be angular, not spherical with not less than two (2) fractured faces, to provide interlocking and greater friction surface areas, and of sufficient mass to remain in their placed positions. 5. Erosion and Sediment Control: The construction plan shall explain the means and materials to be used to minimize sloughing of the bank, (both new and existing soils and rip -rapping materials), during and following construction. Since. 4ien ;& intPndp. t > ease with that-phase-to— a>>de_to-ensure-that the-wGrk--arPan y s a i lze an pro ec e against norma Ig wa Prior to the beginning of work, a non -disturbance line shall be erected with fencing to delineate the work area boundaries as shown on the construction plans submitted with this application. The non -disturbance line shall be securely maintained until written sign -off of completion for the project. Completion of the project shall include that work areas and all areas disturbed by the work, shall be compacted} stabilized with previously approved rip -rapping materials and re -vegetated with plant species previously approved by the Parks Dept. 6. River Bed Access: The access route(s) to and from the river bed shall be approved in writing by the Engineering Dept. prior to issuance of the construction permit. The applicant shall obtain prior «-ritten authorization from the property owner(s) who's property provides access to the river bed for personnel, materials and machinery, and loading and dumping operations. 7. Public Safety: Access to the work area shall be delineated and controlled to prevent the un-authorized entry of pedestrians, fishermen, and, other people in the river bed or on the river banks in or near the work areas from the beginning to the end of construction. The area shall be clearly posted with signs prohibiting entry of un-authorized people. E7t7;�aw� 3 OF 4 DRCM 1396.DOC (970) 925-6727 FAX (970) 925-4157 May 21, 1996 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS SG SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER Ms. Suzanne Wolff Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO. 81611 Exhibit A P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Winnerman Property Stream Margin Application, Roaring Fork River Bank Repair and Stabilization Project Dear Suzanne: Attached for your review and approval are twelve copies of a Stream Margin Review Application for a plan to repair the embankment adjacent to the Roaring Fork River at the Larry Winnerman property at 315/317 North Park Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. I direct this to you simply because we've had a couple of brief discussions regarding this project recently. As I have noted in our conversations, I had been of the understanding, pursuant to a conversation with Chuck Roth of the City Engineering Department in the Fall of 1995, that this project to repair damage to the river embankment resulting from the high runoff in the Spring and early Summer of 1995 would be eligible for a staff -level administrative sign -off for Stream Margin Review purposes. From our more recent conversation, it is my understanding that the administrative level sign -off of minor Stream Margin projects was left out of the current regulations and will require a, hopefully expedited, approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As I indicated in our phone conversation of this morning, I am submitting the most complete Stream Margin Review package that I am currently able to provide for the Winnerman bank stabilization and repair project. As I noted this morning, Mr. Winnerman is currently out of the country and unavailable to us for a few weeks yet in providing items such as written authorization to apply for this review. Mr Winnerman did authorize our design work and submission of the permit request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am currently assisting his Contractor, Mr. Gary Carmichael, in pursuing approval for the construction of the stabilization and repair project. In furtherance of our application and in response to the various requirements of the Stream Margin Development Application Package Contents document, I offer the following additional information; 1. Land Use Application Form: Enclosed as Attachment 1. 2. Minimum Submission Contents I Owner: Mr. Larry Winnerman 317 North Park Avenue Aspen, CO. 81611 (970) 920-1851 118 West 6th, Suite 200 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado - (970) 945-1004 May 21, 1996 Ms. Suzanne Wolff Page 2 As noted above, I do not have a written authorization to submit this application on behalf of Mr. Winnerman at this time. Larry has certainly authorized our design work and efforts to date in acquiring the permit from the Army Corps. Project Site: 315/317 North Park Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. The property is located in Section 18 of Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. in Pitkin County and is a condominiumized duplex under the name of 315/317 Park Avenue Condominium as recorded at Book 33, Page 50 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Given the minor nature of this approval request to repair river bank damage covered under a General Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, I have not requested a full ownership disclosure statement from a Title Insurance Company at this time. Should you determine that such documentation is required, please let me know. Vicinity Map: Attached Written Description of the Project: I have attached a copy of the cover letter dated April 24, 1996 that accompanied our application to Mike Claffey of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This letter, along with the attached plan and section drawing, serve to describe the project. I should note that my initial application was under General Permit # 96-071 the Corps' approval, however, as the attached approval letter dated May 6, 1996 from Grady McNure indicates, was issued under General Permit # GP37 (since GP 96-07 has not yet been finally issued). City Engineering should have a copy of GP37 with regard to its general provisions, if not let me know and I can provide a copy. 3. Specific Submission Contents Project Plan: Attached. The project plan depicts the 100-year flood elevation and existing as well as proposed grades at two foot intervals. The plan also demonstrates that this project is to restore the river embankment (and improve its vegetative -cover and erosion resistance) and will not place habitable structures in proximity to the flood hazard. Construction Techniques: As noted in the letter to Mike Claffey, construction. will utilize handwork and small equipment due to the access limitations to the work area. At Chuck Roth's recent suggestion, the Contractor will also place temporary erosion fencing above the high water line to prevent the introduction of sediment into the Roaring Fork River. I would stress that no work or disturbance is planned below the normal high water line. 4. Review Standards: For Stream Margin Review under Current Code Section 26.68.040, 1 think the attached materials address the various criteria. Generally; a. No increase in the base flood elevation will occur as a result of this bank restoration work. b. No alteration or relocation of the water course will occur. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. May 21, 1996 Ms. Suzanne Wolff Page 3 C. Our General Permit approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is attached. d. Riparian vegetation pursuant to the recommendations of Alan Czencusch of the Colorado Division of Wildlife is being reintroduced into the slope area as part of the project. I should note that our inclusion of riparian species per Alan's comments was the result of a phone conversation I had with him on April 24, 1996. At that time, Alan told me he was leaving town and was not able to provide written comment on the project. 5. Public Hearing Notice Requirements: Not Applicable. 6. Submission Fee: $450.00 staff approval deposit attached. I hope these items will be sufficient for an expedited Stream Margin Review approval through the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department and City Planning and Zoning Commission. Please feel free to contact me if I may provide additional information or comment. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/Ih 96049SWI cc: Gary Carmichael Larry Winnerman SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. A=CHiENT 1 LAND USE A.PPLI=ON FORM 1) Project 2) Proj ect Incati.on _sue, S — S((QtI -ka�e A,�� (indicate street address, lot & block mn ber, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning - t4 4) Lot, Size -� 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # t-. � a ,t v, A A 6) Representative, s Name, Address & Phone o e 5 e r'- Me- -. 1: -- elea F11-t 7) Type of Application (please deck all that apply) : (q10) 97, S- Conciitiorzal. Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic a--v. Special Review Filial. SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 online Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Der. V Stream Man3in Final FUD Historic Demolition Mountain in Vi(--w Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condcmin iumaization Text/Map An endr� Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line GMQS Exemption Adjustment 8) Description of Ey-� Uses (rumber and type of P,x st-imr ; approximate sq_ ft. ; ra-�r- of property)- any previous approvals granted to the S) Description of Development Application 10) Have you attached the * folluring? ---� Rf---�Se to Attachment 2, Mi n i m rm Submission —_� Response to Attachment 3 Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 04 VICIM T Y MAP SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 118 WEST 6TH, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (970) 9455-1004 ASPEN, CO. (970) 925-6727 315/317 N. PARK AVENUE joa QQTE 8y SCALE APPR17 OWG. Ala %0,49A q-zj4_-5(, --14- NONE JH of ENGINEERS _ SURVEYORS SG (970) 925-6727 SCHMUESER P.O. Box 2155 FAX (970) 925-4157 GORDON MEYER Aspen, CO 81612 April 24, 1996 Mr. Michael Claffey U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District Western Colorado Regulatory Office 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, CO. 81501-2563 RE: Winnerman Property, River Bank Repair and Stabilization Dear Mike: Attached for your review and approval are three copies of a plan for the repair of the embankment adjacent to the Roaring Fork River at the Larry Winnerman property at 315/317 North Park Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. You may recall that we had a brief discussion regarding this project back in November of last year. The duplex residence at 315/317 North Park Avenue is a little over two years old. At the time of its original construction, work was done along the river embankment and large boulders placed on the slope in an effort to stabilize the slope area. High runoff conditions in the Spring of 1995 eroded the embankment and caused some sloughing of the slope up to the level of the residence. Since the residence is now in place, access to the embankment area is restricted with regard to the further use of heavy equipment. We are proposing a repair scheme whereby the large boulders would be stabilized and gabion baskets would be placed in the deeply eroded areas. The baskets would be filled with rock with handwork and, possibly, light equipment and then covered over with soil, revegetated and stabilized with a temporary -type erosion control blanket. Final grade conditions will be comparable to the grades that existed prior to the high runoff last year and no work is proposed within the channel of the Roaring Fork River itself. We are applying to you under General Permit # 96-07 for Army Corps permission to undertake this repair and stabilization work resulting from flood damage in the Spring of 1995. In furtherance of our application, I offer the following additional information; Project Site: 315/317 North Park Avenue in Aspen, Colorado as shown on the attached Vicinity Map. The property is located in Section 18 of Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. in Pitkin County. Owner: Mr. Larry Winnerman 317 North Park Avenue Aspen, CO. 81611 (970) 920-1851 118 WP-,t Fth Suite 200 - GIPmond Swims. Colorado - (970) 945-1004 April 24, 1996 Mr. Mike Claffey Page 2 Engineer: Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, CO. 81612 (970) 925-6727 Contractor: Mr. Gary Carmichael Carmichael Construction P.O. Box 445 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (970) 963-1436 Proposed Work: As indicated above, the work is proposed to repair and restore the river embankment as a result of flood damage that occurred in the Spring of 1995. The area that has eroded represents a generally triangular -shaped area that is about 50 linear feet along the Roaring Fork River and tapers to a point near the Winnerman Residence. The eroded area is in the range of 18 to 24 inches deep and represents about 20 cubic yards of missing material interspersed with large boulders that remain from the initial slope work. We expect to excavate up to 10 additional cubic yards of material to key in the gabion baskets, then replace the eroded and excavated area with 30 yards of material including the rock -filled gabion.baskets and cover soil. Due to the damage caused by the high -runoff in the Spring of 1995, the slope is essentially devoid of any vegetation at this time. Our plan is to revegetate the slope as part of this restoration work and the plan refers to the use of native willows and Red Osier Dogwood as plantings within the temporary erosion blanket. I spoke this afternoon with Alan Czencusch of the Colorado Division of Wildlife who was, at first, not supportive of the use of the gabion baskets. When I explained, however, that the baskets would not be placed within the river channel and that their use along the embankment would be covered with a soil and planting layer, he indicated that this approach was acceptable from his standpoint. He recommended the further use of Choke Cherry, streambank wheatgrass and crown vetch as additional riparian species appropriate to the site. He also suggested we confer with a local landscape designer for recommendations of native plants that may already be present within the area. The goal with regard to revegetation -is to have plants that will assist in further stabilizing the embankment below Mr. Winnerman's residence while blending into the surrounding area and native species. Excavated material that is clean will be removed to the County Landfill or to properties available to Mr. Carmichael away from river or wetland areas. The sandbag remnants will be disposed of to the landfill. It is our intention to abide by the provisions of GP 96-07 with regard to this project. The Roaring Fork River is not listed as critical habitat for any of the Colorado endangered fishes nor are there any historic properties on the site. As noted, the project intent is to restore the embankment to its pre -flood contours and conditions using handwork and light equipment such as a bobcat loader that can access the top of the embankment around the house structure. No work is SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. April 24, 1996 Mr. Mike Claffey Page 3 proposed in the river itself and no heavy equipment will be operated in the flowing water to generate increased turbidity or suspended solids. We hope you will find these items acceptable under GP # 96-07 for the Winnerman bank repair project. I have photographed the site as a record of the pre -construction conditions and will maintain a construction -phase and post -construction photo record as well. Please feel free to contact me if I may provide additional information or comment. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ay Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/Jh 96MMCI cc: Gary Carmichael Larry Winnerman SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. REPLY TO �S?ATES OF ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-2922 May 6, 1996 Regulatory Branch (199675212) Mr. Jay Hammond Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Incorporated Post Office Box 2155 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Mr. Hammond: We have reviewed your plan for a bank stabilization project on the Winnerman property on the Roaring Fork River at 317 North Park Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. The project site is located in Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West, Pitkin County, Colorado. The Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, has issued Regional General Permit Number GP37 to authorize certain limited discharges of dredged or fill material associated with streambank and streambed stabilization projects. Based on our review of the information submitted, the project is authorized by this regional permit subject to the enclosed permit conditions. This authorization is valid until May 11, 1999. We have assigned number 199675212 to your project. Please refer to this number in any correspondence with this office. If your plan to work extends beyond May 11, 1999, you must contact this office to receive an extension. If you have any questions concerning this general permit, please contact Mr. Michael Claffey of this office at (970) 243-1199. Since/fely, /,/-�GrAd L. McNure C 'e , Northwestern Colorado gulatory Office 40' Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Enclosure Copies Furnished: Ms. Sarah Fowler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 8EPR-EP, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466 Mr. Keith Rose, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon Drive, South Annex A, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-3946 Mr. Paul von Guerard, Subdistrict Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, 402 Rood Avenue, Room 223, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Mr. Alan Czenkusch, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 473 Mountain Laurel, Aspen, Colorado 81611 City of Aspen, 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 om AWES.- 1. EXI TM COMMONS CONTOURS REMESDW &IAUC ERGS/AM PUE W AVU^H FLOWS AN 178E SPR/A44 OF 1995. Z PROPOSED GRA04EY SEEK W RESTORE ME RNER BWK 70 COW70NS PRKW 7U 7W SPRAW^ OF 199A 3. fVS7M COMMON$ ARE VARMBLE 8W7H MANY LARGE DAME7ER BOULDERS SrAMMEV ON ME SLOPE PReil£CT /N7E?VT LS 70 STABICE LARW E71'LS77NG 804X ERS AAO FALL SPACES &7*Lr£N W H C RM 849M S RUED W/7H AOWM7E SUED AAX,Y/LAR ROCK (dW - 12'J AND C1 WWV WAH 70PSM AND R/PARAON-7ME PL.W75 4. OUE TO ACICESS L/ANTAMW 7O ME E7dOL M SLOPE; ME COMRACTOR WEL AEM 70 POWORM ?W EXCAVA770N AND lA4BlOYV 84SKET PYACEAAE7VT Wf1H HUD -WORK MID L"ff £OGVPAEW ACCESS LAH/TAMW PREWWr 7W LLSE OF LARM? AA47DaW S OR RELOCiI MW OF EXWAW BOUMS. A STAID ALONE WEWEO-WRE G46"N BiSATM BY MCOVE'RR/ OR APPROWD EOCW.. 6. SLCP-r TO Af 701R'Si'LILED AND SaMM W N L004C RfIR'MW SPECAES PE77 THE COLOR400 D/NSION OF WDUfE SEEDED SLOPE 7O BE COVERED W7N AND ExceL59W STAN44W PWS (OR APPROPM EQU4Q 7EWFORMY ERID M CIONM Ot QLAWET. CPDWYMG ARE 70 SE CAFAMD /N 7W DWSW &AWET AND PYAN7£D W77H AMW MONS AAV fiW OS'AER DOCNVW SEELUVM EDGE or W47D G46/0M a4SKE7S (APPROXA1lAlE PLAC s•X3X3• --_-_.._----_____ — ......................�.,� wa6aun ,wn su EOM GXMIDC 1 MEYER M �S1 �;►4� 8�s.% �� 8=1 315 317 NORTH PARK 4 A SCHWAMM 1(3W) �45-181DOt (FAX "5-W48) aor" MEM : Aspom C010rsdo MW 925-6727 14r CANS IRRAM4770N CtXKRT D(M- oR SUAA4RD PLUS (� ERoSi 7OPS014 AfWM7A ry: 317 NORMPARK AVDVUE SLOPE S'LOPf r ENSW LARGE BOULDIERSERS ,: //�ti�W�O/��PLAA�CI ROCK FXI �ED-PD -CUVCRET£ KUS 0YDS TO STAMUZE LARGE EXISM*V BOMDERS KP/CAL SECT/ON A —A N.T.S. ,E„ A,► AiIAE < A4L—R ---------- M-,..r....n.......� ...�.___..M.. -^- w._..... K REPAIR A� w Fr ...__� /fie------------ ---..ND S'TABHaMYION ------ _-_____--_-------------------------------------------- �w wnnwnuuvuuertnAr:arimwnannamurnmwumwrwnuwuuuwmwmwrswannaurukm a�waauuuwm.wwmrmruw li{i rwrra.:rtrwrnttrmn MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director FROM: Bob Nevins, City Planner RE: Zupancis Subdivision, William's Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado Parcel ID No. 2737-073-00-026 DATE: June 18, 1996 SUMMARY: The public hearing for the Zupancis Subdivision was originally scheduled for May 7, 1996. The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the application due to insufficient public notification pursuant to Chapter 26.52, Common Development Review Procedures. The hearing was rescheduled for June 18, 1996. The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide an existing 16,746 sf parcel into two residential lots. The subdivision proposes to create one 7,500 sf single-family lot and one 9,246 sf duplex lot. Currently, there are two single-family residences located on the property, one at 5,10 Walnut Street and the other at 511 Race Street (a platted alley); and described as S 1/2 Lot 9, and all of Lots 10, 11, 12 in Block 3, of land situated in the NE 1/4, Section 7, Township 10, Range 84 West, City of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: Medium -Density Residential (R-6) APPLICANT: Robert Zupancis and Silvia Davis BACKGROUND: The property is located north of South Avenue between Walnut Street and the alley commonly referred to as Race Street in the Smuggler neighborhood. Two single-family residences currently occupy the site. The house facing Walnut Street is 2,780 sf and contains five bedrooms. The wooden fence in front of the house encroaches into the Walnut Street right-of-way. The three bedroom residence along Race Street totals 1,373 sf. and does not meet the dimensional requirements for rear and side yard setbacks established within the R-6 zone district. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into two residential lots. Lot 1 is a 7,500 sf single-family lot and Lot 2 is a duplex lot containing 9,246 sf: The proposed residential lots have an east/west orientation which is consistent with the original platting of the William's Addition. Upon subdivision approval, the applicant is proposing to demolish the house at 510 Walnut Street and construct.a new duplex on Lot 2. The residence at 511 Race Street shall remain in its current location as long as the applicant continues to own both lots. At such time Lot 1 is sold, the existing home(s) shall be demolished and a single-family residence shall be reconstructed in accordance with the R-6 zone requirements. REVIEW PROCESS: The subdivision process is a Two-step commission and council review as delineated in Section 26.52.060(A)(5)(b), Review of a development application by decision -making bodies, of the Land Use Regulations: Step I is a public hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission to determine if the development application meets the requirements of Section 26.88.040, Subdivision approval. The Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the proposal and the recommendation is forwarded to City Council; Step 2 is a hearing by the City Council at which time the subdivision application may be granted approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the subdivision plat. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following departments have reviewed the subdivision application and their comments (see Exhibit B) are summarized below: ENGINEERING: a) Plat and survey requirements: Subdivision plat and survey shall comply with Colorado state statute. b) Subdivision standards: City design standards for subdivision, Section 26.88.040, shall be met for the entire development. c) Alley right-of-way: Race Street is legally and functionally a platted alley with a twenty foot right-of-way and there is no apparent need for dedication additional right- of-way width. d) Sidewalk: To improve winter snow storage and pedestrian access along South Avenue, it is agreed that the property owners will remove the snow rather than change the sidewalk and the existing snow storage easements at this time. The applicant also agrees to thin the existing aspen trees by at least 50% to allow for more snow storage within the present easement. e) Water service: Prior to recordation of the final plat,.provide evidence that the existing yard hydrant has been traced and properly abandoned; at the time a demolition permit is issued for Lot 1, the applicant shall either set up a new yard hydrant on the existing water service line along with the establishment of a construction account, or abandon all existing water service lines fronting the property; and water service lines for Lots 1 and 2 shall be brought into compliance with the current water service line standards for a separate single-family residence or duplex, as appropriate. f) Parking: The frontage along Walnut Street shall be a no parking zone extending from South Avenue and continuing for a distance of 45 feet along Walnut Street. Parking shall 2 be parallel and not allowed within five feet of the existing fire hydrant on Walnut Street. No parking shall be permitted in the Race Alley right-of-way or on South Avenue. g) Improvement districts: Property owners shall be required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the adjacent public rights -of -way. The condition shall be included in the subdivision agreement and shown on the final plat. h) Utility service and community impacts: General utility service arrangements are acceptable except where superseded by specific requirements of the Engineering Department and other reviewing departments or agencies. i) Building encroachments: The encroachment of the existing residences across the proposed lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be fully described by bearing and distance and condition shall be placed in the subdivision agreement and on the plat, that when either lot is sold to a new owner, or a demolition or building permit is requested for either lot, the portion of the existing house on Lot 1 which encroaches into Lot 2 shall be removed. Partial demolition of the encroaching portion of the house shall meet this condition. j) Curb, gutter and sidewalk agreement: A note explaining the condition of approval for an appropriate curb, gutter and sidewalk agreement shall be placed on the final subdivision plat and contained in the subdivision agreement. The future property owner shall be responsible for the construction or commitment to construct the curb, gutter and sidewalk along their Walnut Street frontages whenever a construction permit is issued for their property. HOUSING: Pursuant to Section 26.100.050, several types of development are eligible for exemption from the residential growth management competition. In order to qualify for a single- family and/or duplex exemption, the' property owner shall meet the following standards: A. Single-family exemption for Lot 1 1. provide an accessory dwelling unit; '. pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee; or 3. record a resident -occupancy deed restriction on'the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. B . Duplex exemption for Lot.._2 1. provide one free-market dwelling unit and one deed -restricted, resident -occupied dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred (1 S00) square feet; 2. provide two free-market dwelling units and one accessory dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) square feet; 3. provide two deed -restricted, resident -occupied dwelling units; or 4. pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee. PARKS: a) The applicant has removed the fence. b) The property owners shall be responsible for snow removal on the public sidewalk along South Avenue pursuant to Section 21.32.010 - 21.32.050 of the Municipal Code. c) A permit for the removal of any trees shall be applied for prior to the issuance of a building permit. Excavation shall not occur within the dripline of the trees. If any construction activity is to occur near existing trees, protective fencing shall be placed around the dripline of those trees. STAFF COMMENTS: This development proposal is being evaluated in relationship to the standards and requirements set forth in Chapter 26.88, Subdivision, of the Municipal Code due to the following considerations; a) Pursuant to Section 26.88.040, Subdivision approval, a development order for subdivision shall be considered for approval if the applicant has been awarded a development allotment or has obtained a GMQS exemption in accordance with Section 26.100.050, Exemptions; and b) Pursuant to Section 26.88.040(A)(5), Aspen Townsite lots, if two or more lots within the original Aspen Townsite or additions thereto have continuous frontage and are in single ownership (including husband and wife) on October 27, 1975, the lots shall be considered an undivided lot for the purposes of this title, and conveyance of any portion shall constitute subdivision. SUBDIVISION: The proposed subdivision meets the general requirements set forth in Section 26.88.040(C)(1-5), Review standards for subdivision approval. The Community Development Staff finds the subdivision proposal to be in conformance with the following standards and requirements as summarized below: General requirements: a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the development and housing goals adopted within the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the character of existing Medium - Density Residential (R-6) zone district and the other residential land uses in the Smuggler neighborhood; c. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing and adjacent residential development. A single-family residence is proposed for Lot 1 and a duplex is proposed on Lot 2 which should not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas; and d. The proposed subdivision shall comply with all conditions of approval before recordation of development documents or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever is applicable. 4 2. Suitability of land for subdivision: a. The land is suitable for development as the site is not subject to natural hazards such as flooding, mudflows, avalanches or snowslides, steep topography or other conditions that are harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents. The property is located within the Smuggler Superfund site. There is a small area along the southern frontage with soil lead contamination levels requiring mitigation if it is disturbed. A redevelopment proposal that avoids the contaminated soils would not require any special action. However, mitigation of the contaminated zone would permit the issuance of a certificate to the property owner indicating that the site was "clean". Mitigation may be as simple as adding a soil cap to the contaminated areas without disturbing the contaminated soil underneath. Properties within the Superfund site require an additional permit associated with the building permit process. - b. The. spatial pattern of the proposed subdivision is efficient and does not create duplication, premature extension of public facilities or unnecessary public costs. 3. Improvements. a. Required improvements. The required improvements (1-16) for the proposed subdivision are currently in existence. b. Approved plans. The applicant shall not commence construction on any relocation of the existing improvements as required by Section 26.88.040(C)(3)(a)(1-16) until a plan, profile, and specifications have been received and approved by the City Engineer and, when appropriate, the relevant utility company. c. Oversized utilities. Not applicable. 4. Design standards. a. Streets and related improvements. The required street standards (1-24) for the proposed subdivision are currently in existence. b. Easements. All utility easements shall meet City standards. Any relocation of utility easements shall require submission to and approval by the City Engineer. c. Lots and blocks. The proposed subdivision meets the applicable regulations. d. Survey monuments. All of the survey requirements shall be in compliance with the. applicable regulations and statutes. e. Utilities. All of the required utility standards (1-7) have been met. f. Storm drainage. The proposed subdivision shall meet the requirements (1-4) set forth in the storm drainage standards. g. Flood hazard areas. Not applicable. 5. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing. Since this application for subdivision is being reviewed in accordance with Section 26.100.050(A)(5), GMQS exemptions, certain requirements need to be met. In order to qualify for a single-family and/or duplex exemption, the 5 applicant (property owner) shall meet the following standards: A. Single-family exemption for Lot 1 1. provide an accessory dwelling unit; 2. pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee; or 3. record a resident -occupancy deed restriction on the single-family unit being built. B. Duplex exemption for Lot 2 1. provide one free-market dwelling unit and one deed -restricted, resident -occupied dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; 2. provide two free-market dwelling units and one accessory dwelling unit with a minimum of six hundred (600) square feet; 3. provide two deed -restricted, resident -occupied dwelling units; or 4. pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Staff recommends approval of the Zupancis Subdivision within the Medium -Density Residential (R-6) zone district as presented in the application text and plat map with the following conditions: 1. The final improvement/subdivision survey plat shall be prepared in accordance with the standards of 38-51 C.R.S., as amended, and submitted to the City Engineering Department for review and approval. 2. The area within the Superfund site shall delineated on the final subdivision plat with notation detailing any special considerations and mitigation measures that apply. 3. The encroachment of the existing residences across the proposed lot line between Lots 1 and Lot 2 shall be fully described by bearing and distance and a condition shall be placed in the subdivision agreement and on the plat, that when either lot is sold to a new owner, or a demolition or building permit is requested,for either lot, the existing house on Lot 1 (510 Walnut Street) which encroaches into Lot 2 shall be removed. Partial demolition of the encroaching portion of the house shall meet this condition if the house at 511 Race Street is demolished or, removed. 4. The owners of the residential lots shall be required to join any future improvements districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights - of -way. The agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to the acceptance of the final subdivision plat. 5. The final plat/improvements survey and subdivision agreement shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. If the applicant fails to record the plat documents within a period of one hundred and eighty days following approval by the City Council, the plat may be rendered invalid. m 6. A storm drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved by City Engineering prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. If any trees are to removed, a tree removal permit shall be required prior to the issuance of any excavation or building permits. No excavation shall occur within the dripline of trees and any construction activity occurring close to trees shall require protective fencing to be placed around the dripline of the trees. 8. The lot owners shall be required to meet the affordable housing requirements for the proposed single-family residence on Lot 1 and the proposed duplex on Lot 2 in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 26.100.050(A)(4)(c) of the Code. 9. The property owners shall be responsible for snow removal on the sidewalk along South Avenue. The applicant shall also thin the existing aspens by 50% to allow for more snow storage capacity 10. The frontage along Walnut Street shall be a no parking zone extending from South Avenue for a distance of 45 feet along Walnut Street. Parking shall be parallel and not allowed within five feet of the existing fire hydrant on Walnut Street. No parking shall be permitted in the Race Alley right-of-way or on South Avenue. 11. The proposed single-family residence on Lot 1; and the proposed duplex or single- family residence on Lot 2 shall conform to the dimensional requirements of Section 26.28.040, Medium -Density Residential (R-6). 12. All material representations made by the applicant within the application, and at hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended. ALTERNATIVES: Planning and Zoning Commission may approve additional conditions or disapprove of the application for subdivision. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the Zupancis Subdivision with the conditions set forth in the Community Development Memorandum of June 18, 1996." EXHIB ITS : "A" Application for Subdivision "B" Referral Memorandums MEMORANDUM To: ((ob Nevins, Planner Thru: Mick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer �� j Date: Vlay 23, 1996 (Revised) Re: Zupancis Subdivision Review (51 10 Walnut Street and 511 Race Alley: S 1/2 Lot 9, and Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 3, William's Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO; and a parcel situated in the -N-E 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 7, T10S,, R84W, Ciry of Aspen, CO) After reviewing the above referenced application, discussing the site plan and limitations with. the aciDdcant, and making a site visit I have the folio,,ving comments: Discussion & Recommendations: Since the oricr:nal application for this subdivision was submitted, the lot line between the two (2) lots has been changed to an east -west orientation, following the original underlying subdivision lot lines, which facilitates redevelopment of the property in a manner more consistent with the existing utilities and neighborhood. As such, many of the previous physical limitations and subsequent development restrictions are no longer applicable and the subdivision is generally more practical. _After discussing right-of-way widths, the snow storage easement, parking on Walnut Street, utility easements, and the curb, gutter and sidewalk agreement with Robert Zupancis on May 21, 1996, I believe he and I are of agreement on the following matters. ae revised subdivision plat will need to be re -submitted for review and acceptance by the Engineering Deot. before recording with the County Clerk and Recorder. 1. Improvement and Subdivision Suivev: The submitted improvement survey needs to be revised and resubmitted for review and acceptance by the City Engineering Dept before recording. Based upon cow/ersations with the surveyor and owner, I believe the required changes have been reduced to technical surveying concerns and representing what has been verbally agreed upon in our discussions. The marked -up subdivision plat shall be returned with the revised subdivision plat for review. 1 OF 3 DRC.M7A96.DOC Exhibit B AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I have complied with the notice requirements of Section 6- 205 (E) (3) (C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of ` the Aspen Municipal Code by mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto by first class, postage prepaid, U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property STATE& OF COLORADO ) ) 5S COUNTY OF PITRIN ) The fcregoing Affidavit of mailing was signed before me this d a of J rid✓ / a: WITNESS my hand and official seal. 14y coinmi Zzsion expires: 3 0o Nota y Public Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } } SS. State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 6-205.E. 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 (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the / day of /? 4 1996 (which is 21) days prior to the public hearing date of h� = ) . 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 ������ 199, to the day of 1, 1996. Must be _ posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this ;2 day of Z_A'e , 199]d. by art vj(/i � � �. �" S • WITNESS MY BAND ArTD OFFICIAL SEAL My covZjssion ex ' res : may- CJC�i Not yPublic - --- PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ZUPANCIS SUBDIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 18, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Robert Zupancis and Silvia Davis, requesting approval to subdivide a lot -with two existing dwellings so that each has its own legal description. The property is located at 510 Walnut Street and 511 Race Street, and is described as S 1/2 Lot 9, all of Lots 10, 11, 12 in Block 3, of land situated in the NE 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West City of Aspen. For further information, contact Bob Nevins at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102. s/Sara Garton, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 1, 1996 City of Aspen Account At 1&r y 0 yh arc eld,4/ F `3 Co S/61l 12u M 14M i 1& St-t4 ' 1) �{zo N ri/7y �a�.v{ham h ShP der 3c-x z -r,, o /�Wj'j (f 0 fqln, 1IN11`tm a A/%Lg 6f-%6f", #I o m(,� m 5-!w I/ p,en �1,e P C 0 f�9Z 6 1� 17�ruylas 1��'i s�2 // ZO 0 L/l �l2 1+57en I/V Nel�yA C Cea 7-7- a E�ah,e G`e i/4 Z3 z7 Sm�yg45 Y?�l le� l-%e���ei-s .S�e de w Gis ef Gc-773 /0 S 12 /e N(kG/G q -5avah /,�/�l� .� y qo � ��G/ o Co Z o Go �f�► Gv� ��� Ga o-ra� T D��, -o Jr ZC Co f{r-71 Gti'66d L�� C -7 70�f 'P, kv B ,d ,, -Sr 49alr- Z-dne / G 30 6-A ndV�`'avv by L z 0 y Co P t Co 9, /2 lye 1-� 3 7 2- % /2- y Jcj,h rs emeY itr e l/ ,)v# T��sz k(try /4L"40 610 1(,P d a 23 72. 1 n-m 07 (713 C 07� %.�✓� 0 //inQ S� 611) /G C,�Q Box 11481 Aspen, CO 81612 March 12, 1996 Planning Dept City of Aspen 130 S Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Dave Michaelson: Attached i-s our subdivision application. Included are: 1. The actual application form which lists, in addition to other items, our (the applicant's) name, address and telephone number, the name, address, and telephone number of our representative authorized to act on our behalf, and the street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. 2. Written description of proposal and explanation of how proposed development complies with review standards relevant to the Development Application. 3. Several attachments: Attachment A: A copy of the current certificate from Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation. Attachment B: The only existing deed of trust against the property, Bk 686, pg 33. Attachment C: An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. Attachment D: City map: 1" = 400' Attachment E: Letter. from Jay. Hammond Schmueser Gordon Meyer Inc Attachment F: Blueline of Proposed Plat Exhibit A Thanks for you help and patience. Please let us know if there is any more detail or anything else we can provide for you. I understand we will be notified of the date set for the hearing. Sincerely, Robert Zupanci s Silvia Davis 2 ATMCHME lT 1 IAM USE APPLICAATTICH FARM 2) Project L x ati on !-2 l ° Allti OF 1_ T 10, (t, /Z 114 tuc ., 3 VVII,Zlltno ,A-17vtv ayVV (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal 4escripticn wbere 'o ate) 3) F7 :sent Zonvng _ 4) Lot Size f �� � `�'T i 5) a cw t-'s Name, Adder & Prione # 1612,., (vv) ASPENe (�MxeSVD 67 7--0 C7 2 _63 • - oflicatim (pleasecheck.a.11 that • • +�• •-• n err t .• _a.• .1• � n c.. .nr =.. • • ti err c. a. d►.�au �1 �'� 8) Desc=-.4ptjclrl of PaHstim (number and type of endsting SLIX-1=eS (17 r . .:►- • Descrjr4-ion of DevelcPnent.-. r. oSjOj 10) - you at.:... _. the follmirxr. a 7 (970) 925-6727 FAX (970) 925-4157 May 2,1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis P.O. Box 11481 Aspen, CO. 81611 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER RE: Zupancis Subdivision, Revised Engineering Report Dear Robert and Silvia: P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, CO 81612 This letter comprises a revised Engineering Report for the proposed subdivision application for a property owned by Robert Zupancis in the Williams Addition to Aspen, Colorado. The property currently includes two residential dwelling units addressed as 510 Walnut Street and 511 Race Street. The property that is the subject of this application includes the southerly 1/2of Lot 9 and all of Lots 10, 11 and 12 of Block 3 of the Williams Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen as well as a metes and bounds parcel adjacent to South Avenue. The lot split proposal will now create two parcels along a generally east west boundary (revised from the previously proposed north -south division) within the existing property. The lot split will generally place the two existing residences on the northerly parcel although the west residence will encroach up to 20 feet into the southerly parcel. The northerly parcel comprises 7,500 square feet and is now to be Lot 1 and the southerly parcel, at 9,246 square feet, is Lot 2. 1 had previously spoken with representatives of ail the primary utilities and inspected the site with regard to the availability of all secondary utilities. I would offer the following updated comments based on the revised lot configuration; 1. Water Phil Overeynder, the Director of the City of Aspen Water Department, indicates that water service to the existing homes, as well as any future redevelopment of the newly created lots, is available from the existing 8 inch diameter ductile iron water mains in South Avenue, Race Street or a recently constructed main extension in Walnut Street. No special physical constraints exist with regard to providing service to potential redevelopment of the newly created lots and the City has suffici Ont. capacity to serve new homes on either parcel. Service to new homes would be provided subject to submission of an in -town tap application once the new homes were designed (so service requirements can be determined). Given the ages of the existing structures, it is unlikely that there would be any credit associated with previous tap fees paid for the existing services. New homes on the two lots would therefore be subject to full tap fees as well as new service construction for City water service. Phil also notes that the newly constructed water main extension in Walnut Street is subject to a rebate requirement for the costs incurred by, the owner of 515 Walnut for its construction. New taps to this main would require payment of a proportionate share of the approximately $18,000 cost of construction in addition to normal tap fees and connection charges. Reconfiguration of the internal parcel boundary to east -west Addendum to Application May 2,1996 .118 West 6th, Suite 200 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado - (970) 945-1004 - ? May 2, 1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 2 changes the options with respect to water service somewhat. Lot 1 now created by this subdivision application has the .option of connection to the new Walnut Street main or to the existing line in Race Street. Distances and costs are likely comparable such that connection to the Race Street line is probably preferable to avoid the additional expense of reimbursing the cost of the Walnut Street main construction. Redevelopment of Lot 2 would now have the option of tapping any of the three mains although, again the Race Street main avoids the expense of reimbursing the construction of the Walnut Street line as well as the additional expense for landscaping, pavement and concrete repair for connection to the South Avenue main. Phil Overeynder did not, -at this time, express any preference on the part of the City Water Department regarding which main would need to be tapped. Phil also noted the presence of the yard hydrant on the north end of the Walnut Street frontage of the property that may be tapped to an old 1 1/2 inch diameter galvanized line. A building permit for the redevelopment of the north lot (Lot 1) would likely require a service agreement and meter for the yard hydrant or abandonment of the hydrant at the main. There is an existing fire hydrant on the southeast corner of the South Avenue and Gibson Avenue intersection immediately across the street from Lot 2. The hydrant is located within less than 100 feet of proposed Lot 2. There is also a fire hydrant at the end of the new main in Walnut Street within 50 feet of Lot 1. 2. Sewer Tom Bracewell, System Superintendent of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD), indicates that sewer service is available to the property from a recently completed 8 inch diameter collection line within the Walnut Street corridor or from the existing 8 inch diameter main collector in South Avenue (for Lot 2). No constraints exist and the ACSD has sufficient capacity to serve new homes on the newly created parcels. Once again, tap fee credits are likely not available and service to new structures on either lot would require payment of normal tap fees and connection charges. Tom noted that the two existing residences are currently served by a combined service line. He indicated that the ACSD would require a shared service agreement be filed for the shared line. To the extent that Lot 2 may be sold before the existing residences on Lot 1 are abated, an easement for the existing service line across Lot 2 would be required. Future redevelopment of both lots should anticipate routing independent services to each home. 3. Electric I spoke with Mr. Jeff Franke of Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., the rural cooperative that serves the area around this site. Jeff indicates that electric service capacity is available to serve new development on the lots created by the Zupancis Subdivision from existing overhead electric facilities within the Race Street corridor to the SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. May 2,1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 3 east. New construction on either lot would require construction of an underground service connection to the existing overhead primary system. No primary system upgrades would be required to provide service to the new homesites. 4. Miscellaneous Utilities Gas, telephone and cable TV are all evident and available from adjacent rights -of -way. A phone pedestal exists near the intersection of Walnut Street and South Avenue just south of the property. Cable TV is also in place on the overhead system paralleling the electric lines. Service to either parcel of the Zupancis lot split would be available subject to normal service construction and connection charges. 5. Access Access into the new lots is available from Walnut Street to the west or Race Street to the east. Both of the newly created parcels will front on existing rights -of -way and will access from existing streets. Walnut Street is currently a dirt street with minimal improvements, Race Street is a chip -seal street. Redevelopment of the existing site with two new residences would likely have minimal impact on adjacent traffic in that there are tw o existing homes on the site at this time generating traffic onto the adjacent streets. There is currently sidewalk, curb and gutter along the South Avenue frontage to the south of proposed Lot 2 accommodating the significant flow of drainage and pedestrian traffic from the Smuggler Mobile Home Park and Centennial Housing past the property. 6. Drainage Replacement of the two existing residential structures on the 510 Walnut and 511 Race Street site will result in minimal additional drainage impacts to the surrounding area. Site design for new homes should incorporate on -site drainage features including, possibly, drywells to maintain historic conditions with regard to runoff from the site. This project will not create additional impacts to the City of Aspen's storm drainage system nor will it require improvements or expansion of the system. The Zupancis property is not located in an area requiring accommodation of a neighborhood drainage plan. 7. Land Suitabilityll 041 The Zupancis Subdivision property is not effected by potential flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or condition that would render it unsuitable for development from a 1041 hazard standpoint. The property is located within the Smuggler Superfund site and indicates a small area along the south frontage with soil lead contamination levels requiring mitigation under the Institutional Controls administered by the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department. Redevelopment of the property with a structure in the contaminated area within Lot 2 would require removal of the contaminated soils to the repository designated to receive such material, currently located at the Pitkin County landfill. A redevelopment design which avoids contaminated soils would not require any special action but mitigation of the contaminated zone would permit the issuance of a certificate to the property owner that the site was "clean". Mitigation can be as simple as the addition of a soil cap to contaminated areas without SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. May 2, 1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 4 disturbing the contaminated soil underneath. Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department Director Tom Dunlop also indicates that there is some additional paperwork associated with the building permitting process for properties located within the Superfund site. 8. Spatial Pattern The Zupancis Subdivision, due to its location between established streets and utility corridors, fits well into the neighborhood and will not require the premature extension or duplication of area utility mains. I hope these updated comments will be adequate for submission of the Zupancis Subdivision/Lot Split application. Feel free to contact me if I may provide any further comment or detail. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. Jay . Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh 96029ERZ SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ZUI:IA/ V C/S SCAT.( 1'.Ifi PA119 of nFARINOS re4pto MONUMINIS AS SHOWN IIF.R[Ofl 11ofi EAS X41,1 Oi7l'11O11' 111 PK 14 M SW�A RV, p!I PO SRC CAfI1W/ M ORAry1/f A11 v O DC NO1[S t0U1T NO S REflA/1 A f1.A1. CAP 1. S SIRA 7110'Nlf IIIEPr IS 11N> VISIRIE EvArlicc or f.URAF.W U7f•Anr or Ell/q n oNf • mro,E3 SEE NO S RESAR A M.A1. CAP M 1 2'1 103 O UC110TES CORNER 491 SET �/lr•v �%� i Ti+•f y/�7` �.' hEiJoftl fnEE - SEC I.Frr"n nra .l.c1 S,8?'20'00"E. _ 125.00 5112 LOT 9 n _... oNf Srvgv FRAM£ licus£ SV /V /SItJ/ tJ � � � 5 Q -� C VICINITY MAP I s 3 Sin famfly, lot , oLu w LOT /O _Ee1'rE srurci SIN Qmwwm—m� re N l/ LVT71 ' e 1 W 1 Lot 2 ! 91246$f LOT IP Duple, lot tJ 0 _ 1, 0 rhscet rP ?WANCI.T. twlrr rtr[r :r'rc Ar! POnx Ire, rAFr :Pr i a• \ � . i® n. 245.0' L= 5FI.72' A00K 076_ COUNrr OII•Pfer 1 fC( IIICr DEC"' rl/MIN lYP( NO SIZE A ivP[ �- O - t Ic'• PP;ac_` - 45Pav i AVENUE Pw SOUTH VARIES,/ , R.o.w IR" roa.1 0 It 3PAvcr ? " 4SIrY k � lS sPAf/C[ lI _ R t•L 4srr Ns AS'" /I ^� r d' s `AvCr K A' ASPEN l�' f' SPAUC( ! CARMIC14AEL AURVEYING, INC. .a-. - --- CARBONDALE. COLORADO 91623 I IJ r PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAT TABLE OF CONTENTS page I. Project Description 4 II. Land Use Application Form 5 III. Specific Submission contents:- Subdivision 7 IV. Review Standards: Subdivision 11 V. Lawyer's Title Insurance Attachment A VI. Current Deed of Trust on property Attachment B VII. Vicinity Map Attachment C VIII. City Map: 1" = 400' Attachment D IX. Letter from Jay Hammond, Schmueser Gordon Meyer Inc Attachment E X. Blueline of Proposed Plat Attachment F PROJECT DESCRIPTION General: The applicants own a large city parcel on which are currently situated two separate residential dwellings. The subject parcel is located north of South Avenue, between Race and Walnut Street. Refer to the Vicinity map that is contained in this packet as Attachment C. They are seeking approval for subdivision of this larger lot into two lots, each of which meets the minimum lot size requirements. They are proposing a north/south lot line, so that each lot has limited frontage on South Avenue, a very busy and noisy street. This can be accomplished and still meet the minimum 60' lot width requirement. The blueline of the proposed plat is included in this packet as Attachment F. The westerly lot is labeled Lot 1: the easterly lot is labeled Lot 2. Each of the currently existing dwellings fits more or less on the separate lots. In each case there is a small encroachment. Upon approval, the applicants plan to demolish the dwelling that exists primarily on Lot 1, a split level frame house, and to construct a new single-family residence for themselves. The dwelling that exists on Lot 2 will encroach slightly upon Lot 1. The applicants are hoping that as long as they own both lots, this will be acceptable to the planning and zoning commission and city council. There will be the stipulation that if the lot is sold, the dwelling must then be demolished, so that the dwelling does not partially exist on "someone else's lot". Because there are already two dwellings on the subject property, the new plan does not differ drastically from what currently exists on the site. Utilities are already in place. A temporary easement will probably be required for sewer across Lot 1 for Lot 2. Also, an easement for electric across Lot 2 for Lot 1 may be required. Wherever possible, all redevelopment anticipates rerouting services to provide independent service to each home and eliminating related easements. Exact building design and floorplan have yet to be developed. City of Aspen Building Code will dictate all the specifics of building height, setbacks, etc. Specifics: The remainder of this packet will address all the specific details requested. 4 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project Name: Zupancis subdivision 2. Project Location: 510 Walnut Street & 511 Race Street. Lot and block number: S 1/2 Lot 9, all of Lots 10,11,12 in Block 3, Williams addit.ion to the City and Townsite of Aspen, plus a parcel of land situated in the NE 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West City of Aspen, Colorado. 3. Present zoning: R-6 4. Lot Size: 16,746 sq ft 5. Applicant's name address phone #• Robert Zupancis Silvia Davis Box 11481 Aspen, CO 81612 920-2546 home 920-5180 work Silvia 6. Representative's Name Address & Phone-' Tom Baker 312 Teal Court, Aspen, CO 81611 920-9283; 945-5989 GWS; FAX 920-4126 or 945-5912 7. TX e of Application: xx Subdivision 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures": approximate sq ft:-number of bedrooms: any previous approvals granted to the -property): _ 510 Walnut Street: 1 residential dwelling 2,780 sq ft 5 bedrooms 511 Race Street: 1 residential dwelling 1,373 sq ft 3 bedrooms W 9. Description of development application: Both dwellings exist on 1 legal description. Applicant wants to subdivide so that each dwelling has its own legal description. 10. The following are attached: x Minimum submission contents xx Specific submission contents xx Review standards: Subdivision 0 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION CONTENTS: SUBDIVISION Requirements of Planning -Commission: la(1) The general application information required in Common Procedures, Sec 6-202. 1a(2). City map Shows location of proposed subdivision and all adjacent lands and landmarks, and the Zone District in which the proposed subdivision and adjacent properties are located. (1" _ 400') Provided by City Engineer. (Attachment'D) la(3). PLAT: Prepared by surveyor. 1" = 100' or larger. Reflects layout of lots, blocks and structures in the proposed subdivision. 24" x 36". Include also vicinity map that shows subdivision as it relates to rest of city and street system in the area of the proposed'subdivision. 1a(3)(a). Name of proposed subdivision: Zupancis subdivision. la(3)(b). Plat contains • Robert Zupancis' name, address and telephone number • designer of proposed subdivision • name of licensed surveyor (Carl Carmichael) la(3)(c). Includes location and boundaries of proposed subdivision. la(3)(d). Plat shows existing and proposed contours of the land in the proposed subdivision at two -foot (2') intervals, where the slope is less than ten (10%) per cent, and five-foot (5') intervals where the slope is ten (10%) per cent or greater, and the designation of all areas with slope greater than thirty (30%) per cent. There is no slope greater than 10Y on this parcel. la(3)(e). The plat shows location & dimensions of all existing streets, alleys, easements, drainage areas, irrigation ditches, public and private utilities, and other significant manmade or natural features within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision. la(3)(f). The plat shows the new lot line. Otherwise, there are no new proposed streets, alleys, easements, drainage improvements, or utilities. In addition, no areas or structures reserved or dedicated for public or common use in the proposed subdivision are required. la(3)(g). The plat shows location, size, and type of existing vegetation and other natural landscape features, proposed limits of any excavation or regrading, including location of trees with trunk diameter of 6" or more and 4 1/2' above ground. Indicate which trees are proposed to be removed. la(3)(h). NOT APPLICABLE. There are no areas that constitute natural hazard areas including but not limited to snowslides, avalanche, mudslide, rockslide and the 100-year flood plain. la(3)(i). NOT APPLICABLE. The planning agency has required no additional information on geological or soil stability, avalanche potential, projected traffic generation, air pollution and similar matters. There is no impact of this nature since there is no increase in density. la(3) (j) . NOT APPLICABLE. There are no proposed new utility systems, drainage plans, surface improvements, or other construction projects contemplated within the proposed subdivision. The dwellings in the proposed subdivision must comply with the standard FAR allowed by zoning. This proposed subdivision, therefore, will have no adverse effect upon the surrounding area. la(3)(k). Site data tabulation. 2 lots: one 8683 sq feet, the other 8063 sq feet. R-6 zoning as exists -now. A single family dwelling on each lot. Project each dwelling to have approximately 4 bedrooms. Ground coverage.will be maximum or close to maximum allowed. Parking required: I spot per each bedroom. Streets, sidewalks and open space: No open space is required pursuant to Sec. 7-1004(c)-(5)(a). Additional streets and sidewalks not required in subdivision. la(3)(1). NOT APPLICABLE. This is not a division of land into condominium interests, apartments or other multi -family or time- share dwelling units. la(3)(m). NOT APPLICABLE. Applicant owns no adjacent holdings. la (3) n) Current utilities that service dwellings are: natural gas: Rocky Mtn Natural Gas electricity: Holy Cross Electric Corp telephones:- US West sewer: Aspen Sanitation District water: City of Aspen 8 fire Protection: Aspen Fire Protection District There is attached a letter from Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer Inc (Attachment E). This engineering report describes the utilities which will continue to service the proposed subdivision. Additional application contents prior to review by City Council: The submission has the following contents: 2b(1) FINAL PLAT permanent ink on mylar. 24" x 36" with unencumbered margin of 1 1/2" on left hand side and 1/2" margin on other 3 sides. It shall include: • (a) Accurate dimensions for all lines, angles, and curves used to describe boundaries, streets, setbacks, alleys, easements, structures, areas to be reserved or dedicated for public or common use and other important features. All curves shall be circular arcs and shall be defined by the radius, central angle, tangent, arc and chord distances. All dimensions, both linear and angular, are to be determined by an accurate control survey in the field which must balance and close within a limit of one (1) in ten thousand (10,000). • (b) A systematic identification of all lots and -blocks and names for all streets. • (c) Names of all adjoining subdivisions with dotted lines of abutting lots. If adjoining land is unplatted, it shall be shown as such. • (d) An identification of the streets, alleys, parks, and other public areas or facilities, and a dedication thereof to the public use. An identification of the easements as dedicated to public use. Areas reserved for future public.acquisition shall also be shown. (e) A written survey description of the area including the total acreage to the nearest one -thousandth (0.001) of an acre. • (f) A description of all survey monuments, both found and set, which mark the boundaries of the subdivision, and description of all monuments used J n conducting the survey. The Colorado Coordinate System may be used. 2b2. Statement by land surveyor explaining how bearings, if used, were determined. Surveyor will provide on plat. 2b3. Certificate by registered land surveyor as to accuracy of survey and plat, and a statement that the survey was performed in 0 accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 51, as amended from time to time. Surveyor will provide on plat. 2b4. A certificate by a corporate title insurer, that the person or persons dedicating to the public the public rights -of -way, areas or facilities as shown thereon are the owners thereof in fee simple, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. There are no such dedications; therefore NOT APPLICABLE. 2b5. Certificates showing approval of the Final Plat by the City Engineer, planning director and the Commission. Will be included. 2b6. A certificate showing approval of the plat and acceptance of dedications and easements by the City Council, with signature by the Mayor and attestation by the City Clerk. Will be included. 2b7. A certificate of filing for the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Will be included. 2b8. Complete engineering plans and specifications for all improvements to be installed in the proposed subdivision, including but not limited to water and sewer utilities, streets and related improvements, trails, bridges and storm drainage improvements. No improvements to be installed, therefore NOT APPLICABLE. 2b9. A landscape plan showing location, size, and type of proposed landscape features. Not required since no visual impact. NOT APPLICABLE. 2b10. Copies of any monument records required of the land surveyor in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 53, as amended from time to time. NONE REQUIRED. 2b11. Any agreements with utility or ditch companies, when applicable. All utilities are in place and no new ones are required. NOT APPLICABLE. 2b12. Any subdivision agreements as required by Sec. 7-1004(c)(3) 11K REVIEW STANDARDS: SUBDIVISION 1. General requirements a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: the proposed subdivision meets the minimum lot size for the zone district. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area: with the potential of 2 new houses, the proposed subdivision doesn't represent a departure from what already exists - 2 single family dwellings. C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas: there is no affect. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter: we meet all the standards. 2a. Land suitability. The engineer's report which is attached (Attachment E) states that the proposed subdivision is not located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other naturaL hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the healthy safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. 2b. Spatial pattern efficient The engineer's report which is attached (Attachment E) states that the proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. 3. Improvements. 3a. Required improvements. The following improvements shall be provided for in the proposed subdivision. 3a1. Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins._ There will be new survey monuments. 3a2. Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and improvements of a collector street. NOT REQUIRED. 3a3. Curbs, gutter, and sidewalks. Race Street is a narrow Right-of- way with low pedestrian usage. Sidewalk and gutter are not appropriate here. Walnut Street, likewise, has insufficient vehicle and pedestrian traffic to warrant sidewalks and gutters.. 3a4. Paved alleys. WE ARE PROPOSING'NO PAVED ALLEYS. 3a5. Traffic -control signs, signals or devices. NONE REQUIRED. 3a6. Street lights. NONE REQUIRED.' 3a7. Street name signs. NOT ADDING NEW SIGNS. 3a8. Street trees or landscaping. NOT ADDING NEW LANDSCAPING. 3a9. Water lines and fire hydrants. ALREADY EXIST. 3a10. Sanitary sewer lines. ALREADY EXIST. Sall. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers. The engineer's report which is attached (Attachment E) states this project will not create additional impacts to the City of Aspen's storm drainage system. Nor will it require improvements or expansion of the system. The property is not located in an area requiring accommodation of a neighborhood drainage plan. 3a12. Bridges or culverts. NOT REQUIRED. 3a13. Electrical lines. ALREADY EXIST. 3a14. Telephone lines. ALREADY EXIST. 3a15. Natural gas lines. ALREADY EXIST. 3a16. Cable television lines. ALREADY EXIST. 3b. Approved plans, Construction shall not commence on any of the improvements required by Sec. 7-1004(c)(3)(a) until a plan, profile, and specifications have been received and approved by the city engineer and, when appropriate, the relevant utility company. NONE REQUIRED. 3c. Oversized utilities. In the event oversized utilities are required as a part of the improvements, arrangements for reimbursement shall be made whereby the subdivider shall be 12 allowed to recover the cost of the utilities that have been provided beyond the needs of the subdivision. NO INCREASE IN DENSITY. 4. DESIGN STANDARDS The following design standards shall be required for all subdivisions. 4a. Streets and related improvements The following standards shall apply to streets regardless of.type or size, unless the street has been improved with paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk. NO NEW REQUIRED. 4a1. Conform to plan for street extension Streets shall conform to approved plans for street extension and shall bear a logical relationship to the topography and to the location of existing or planned streets on adjacent properties. NOT REQUIRED. 42. Right-of-way dedication Right-of-way shall be dedicated for the entire width for all local, collector and arterial streets. NOT REQUIRED. 4a3. Right-of-way width. Street and alley right-of-way widths, curves and grades shall meet the following standards. Minimum Street Center Line Right -of- Maximum Classifi- Curve way Width PerCent cation Radius (ft) t) of grade M Local 100 60 10 Collector 250 80 6 Arterial 625 100 5 Alley 50 20 5 NOT REQUIRED. 4a4. Half -street dedications. Half -street dedications shall be prohibited unless they are for the purpose of increasing the width of an.inadequate existing right-of-way. NO SUCH HALF -STREET DEDICATIONS. 4a5. Street ends at subdivision. When a street is dedicated which ends on the subdivision or is.on the perimeter of the subdivision, the last foot of the street on the terminal end or outside perimeter 13 of the subdivision shall be dedicated to the City of Aspen in fee simple and shall be designated by using outlot(s). The City shall use the dedicated land for public road and access purposes. NO SUCH STREET. 4a6. Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed four hundred (400') feet in length_ and shall have a turnaround diameter of one hundred (100') feet. A Cul-de-sac of less than two hundred (200') feet in length in a single-family detached residential area does not require a turnaround if the City Engineer determines a "T", "Y" or other design is adequate turnaround for the vehicles expected to use the Cul-de-sac. NO CUL-DE-SACS. 4a7. Dead end streets. Dead-end streets, except for cul-de-sacs, shall be prohibited unless they are designed to connect with future streets on adjacent lands that have not been platted. In cases where these type of dead end streets are allowed,, a temporary turnaround of one hundred (100') feet shall be constructed. NO DEAD-END STREETS. 4a8. Centerline offset. Streets shall have a centerline offset of at least one hundred twenty-five (125') feet. NO NEW STREETS. 4a9. Reverse curves. Reverse curves on arterial and collectors streets shall be jointed by a tangent of at least one hundred (100') feet in length. NO REVERSE CURVES. 4a10. Changes in street grades, -All changes in street grades shall be connected by vertical curves of a minimum length in feet equivalent to the following appropriate "K" value multiplies by the algebraic difference in the street grades. Street Classification "K" value for: Crest vertical curve Sag vertical curve NO NEW STREETS. Collector Local Arterial 28 16 55 35 24 55 4all. Alley5.. Alleys shall be provided in subdivisions where commercial and industrial development is expected, except when other provisions are made and approved for service access. NO ALLEYS. 14 4a12. Intersections. Intersections shall approximate right angles and have a minimum tangent of fifty (50') feet on each leg. The subdivision design shall minimize the number of local streets that intersect arterial streets. NO NEW INTERSECTIONS. 4a13. Intersection grade. Intersection grades shall not exceed four (4%) per cent for a minimum distance of one hundred (100') feet on each leg. Flatter grades are desirable.. NO NEW INTERSECTIONS. 4a14. Curb return radii. Curb return radii for local street intersections shall be fifteen (15') feet. Curb return radii and corner setbacks for all other types of intersections shall be based upon the expected types of vehicle usage, traffic volumes and traffic patterns using accepted engineering standards. In case of streets which intersect at acute angles, appropriate increases in curb return radii shall be made for the necessary turning movements. NO NEW INTERSECTIONS. 4a15. Turn by-passes and turn lanes. Right -turn by-passes or left -turn lanes shall be required at the intersection of arterial streets or the intersection of an arterial street with a collector street if traffic conditions indicate they are needed. Sufficient right-of- way shall be dedicated to accommodate such lanes when they.are required. NO NEW INTERSECTIONS. 4a16. Street names and numbers. When streets are in alignment with existing streets, any new.streets shall be named according to the streets with which they correspond. Streets which do not fit into an established street -naming pattern shall be named in a manner which will not duplicate or be confused with existing street names within the city or its environs. Street numbers shall be assigned by the city building inspector in accordance with the city numbering system. NO NEW STREETS. 4a17. Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalks or driveways. No finish paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks or driveways shall be constructed until one (1) year after the installation of all subsurface utilities and improvements. Per conversation with city engineer, this is not applicable. 4a18. Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be eight (8') feet wide in all Commercial Core (CC), commercial (Cl), Neighborhood commercial (NC), and Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone Districts and five (5') feet wide in all other zone districts where sidewalks are required. 15 Consideration shall be given to existing and proposed landscaping when establishing sidewalk locations. Applicant had meeting with city engineer. Race Street is a narrow Right-of-way with low pedestrian usage. Sidewalk and gutter are not appropriate here. Walnut Street, likewise, has insufficient vehicle and pedestrian traffic to warrant sidewalks and gutters 4a19. City specifications for streets. All Streets and related improvements shall be constructed in accordance with city specifications which are on file in the office of the city engineer. NO NEW STREETS. 4a20. Range point monuments. Prior to paving any street, permanent range point monuments meeting the standards of Sec. 7- 1004(c)(4)(d) shall be installed to approximately finished grade. Permanent range point boxes shall be installed during or as soon as practicable after paving. NO NEW STREETS. 4a21. Street name signs. Street name signs shall conform to the type currently in use by the city. STREET NAME SIGNS ALREADY EXIST. 4a22. Traffic control signs. Any required traffic -control signs, signals or devices shall conform to the "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices." TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS ALREADY EXIST. 4a23. Street lights. Street lights shall be placed at a maximum spacing of three hundred (300') feet. Ornamental street lights are desirable. STREET LIGHTS ALREADY EXIST. 4a24. Street tree. One (1) street tree of three-inch (3") caliper for deciduous trees measured at the top of the ball or root system, or a minimum of six-foot (6') height for conifers, shall be provided in a subdivision in residential zone districts for each lot of seventy foot (70') frontage or less, and at least two (2) such trees shall be provided for every lot in excess of seventy feet (70') frontage. Corner lots shall require at least one (1) tree for each street. Trees shall be placed so as not to block sight distances at driveways or corners. The city parks and recreation department shall furnish a list of acceptable trees. Trees, foliage and landscaping shall be provided in subdivisions in all other zone districts in the city in accordance with the adopted street landscaping plan. Applicant will comply. 4b. Easements 16 4bl. Utility easements. Utility easements of ten (10') feet in width on each side of all rear lot lines and five (5') feet in width on each side of lot lines shall be provided where necessary. Where the rear or side lot lines abut property outside of the subdivision on which there are no rear or side lot line easements at least five (5') feet in width, the easements on the rear and side lot lines, in the subdivision shall be twenty (20') feet and ten (10') feet in width, respectively. WATER., no easement necessary because water lines available from 8" diameter water main in South Avenue, Race Street, or Walnut St. SEWER: No easement necessary because sewer available within Walnut Street corridor and from existing 8" diameter main collector in South Ave. ELECTRICITY: Appears that an easement is necessary across Lot 2 to accommodate Lot 1. NATURAL GAS, CABLE TELEVISION, AND TELEPHONE: No easement necessary; service to either parcel would be available subject to normal service construction and connection charges. 4b2. "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs. Easements twenty (20') feet in ` width shall be provided in "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs for the continuation of utilities or drainage improvements, if necessary. NOT NECESSARY., 4b3. Potable water and sewer easements. Water and sewer easements shall be a minimum of twenty (20') feet in width. WATER AND SEWER EASEMENTS NOT NECESSARY. 44. Planned utility or drainage system. Whenever a subdivision embraces any.part of a planned utility or drainage system designated on an adopted plan, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision. There is no planned utility system. Per the engineer's report (Attachment E) there will be no additional impacts to City of Aspen's storm drainage system. Nor will it require improvements or expansion of the system. 45. Irrigation ditch channel natural creek. Where an irrigation ditch or channel, natural creek or stream traverses a subdivision, an easement sufficient for drainage and to allow for maintenance of the ditch shall be provided. NOT APPLICABLE. THERE IS NO IRRIGATION DITCH OR CHANNEL, NATURAL CREEK OR STREAM THAT TRAVERSES THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. IVA 46. Fire lanes and emergency access easements. Fire lanes and emergency access easements twenty (20') feet in width shall be provided where required by the city fire marshal. NOT REQUIRED. 4b7. Planned street or transit alignment. Whenever a subdivision embraces any part of an existing or planned street or transit alignment designated on an adopted plan, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision. NOT APPLICABLE. NO SUCH EASEMENT REQUIRED. 4b8. Planned trail system. Whenever a subdivision embraces any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski trail or hiking trail designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/ Recreation/ Open Space/ Trails Plan Map, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision. NOT APPLICABLE. THE PROPERTY IS NOT ENCUMBERED BY ANY SUCH BIKEWAY, BRIDLE PATH, CROSS COUNTRY SKI TRAIL OR HIKING TRAIL. 4c. Lots and blocks. 4cl. General. Lots shall meet all applicable regulations of this chapter. 4c2. Side lot lines. Side lot lines shall be substantially at right angles or radial to street lines. THIS REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MET. 4c3. Reversed corner lots and through lots. Reversed corner lots and through lots shall be prohibited except where essential to provide separation from arterial streets because of slope, or to prevent the development of incompatible land uses. NOT APPLICABLE. 4c4. Front on street. All lots shall front on a public or private street. THE FRONT OF EACH OF THESE LOTS FACES SOUTH AVENUE. 4c5. State Highway 82. No lot shall front on, nor shall any private driveway access to State Highway 82. NOT APPLICABLE. 4c6. Block lengths. Block lengths shall normally be at least four hundred (400') feet in length and not more than one thousand four hundred (1400') feet in length between street intersections. NOT .APPLICABLE. 4c7. Compatibility. Block lengths and widths shall be -suitable for the uses contemplated. NOT APPLICABLE. 18 4c8. Mid - block pedestrian walkways. In blocks over five hundred 500') feet long, mid -block pedestrian walkways shall be provided. NOT APPLICABLE. 4d. Survev monuments. 4dl. Location. The. external. boundaries of all subdivisions, blocks and lots shall be monumented on the ground by reasonably permanent monuments solidly embedded in the ground. These monuments shall be set not more than fourteen hundred (1400') feet apart along any straight boundary line, at all, angle points, and at the beginning, end and points of change of direction or change of radius of any curved boundaries. SURVEYOR WILL COMPLY. 4d2. CRS 1973 38-51-101. All monuments shall be set-in accordance with the provisions of CRS 1973 38-51-101, as amended from time to time, unless otherwise provided for in this chapter.. SURVEYOR WILL COMPLY. 4d3. Range points and boxes. Range points and boxes meeting city specifications shall be set on the centerline of the street right- of-way unless designated otherwise: SURVEYOR WILL COMPLY. 4d. Utilities. 4e1. Potable waterlines and appurtenances. All potable waterlines, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall meet the city's standard specifications on file in.the city engineer's office. Lots will be serviced by city water system. 4e2. Size of waterlines. All potable water lines shall be at least eight (8") inches in size unless the length of the line is less than two hundred (200') feet in length, its minimum size shall be six (6") inches in width. NOT APPLICABLE. Lots will be serviced by city water system. 4e3. Fire hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be spaced no farther apart than five hundred (500') feet in detached residential and duplex subdivision. Fire hydrants shall be no farther than three hundred fifty.(350') feet apart in multi -family residential, business, commercial, service and industrial subdivision. FIRE HYDRANTS ALREADY EXIST AND ARE SHOWN ON PLAT. Engineer's report (Attachment E) also describes location of fire hydrants. 19 4e4. Sanitary sewer. Sanitary sewer facilities shall meet the requirements of the.Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Engineer's report (Attachment E) contains comments by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 4e5. Underground utilities. All utilities shall be placed underground, except transformers, switching boxes, terminal boxes, meter cabinets, pedestals, and ventilation ducts. ALL UTILITIES IN PLACE. THERE WILL BE NO NEW UTILITIES. 4e6. Other utilities. Other utilities not specifically mentioned shall be provided in accordance with the standards and regulations of the applicable utility department or company. NOT APPLICABLE. THERE ARE NO OTHER UTILITIES. 47. Utilities stubbed out. All utilities shall be stubbed out at the property line of lots. NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITIES EXIST ALREADY. 4f. Storm drainage. 4f1. Drainage plan. The drainage plan for the proposed subdivision shall comply with the criteria in the city's "Urban Runoff Management Plan." The engineer's report (Attachment E) addresses the drainage for these lots. 4f2. Detention storage. Short-term on -site detention storage shall be provided to maintain the historical rate of runoff for the 100- year storm from the undeveloped site. The engineer's report is attached. (Attachment E). 4f3. Maintain historical drainage flow. In cases where storm.runoff from an upstream basin passes through the subdivision, the drainage plan shall provide adequate means for maintaining the historical drainage system. The engineer's report is attached (Attachment E). 4f4. Calculations and quantities of flow. The drainage plan shall include calculations and quantities of flow at the points of concentration. The engineer's report is attached (Attachment E). 4g. Flood hazard areas. The following standards shall apply to special flood hazard areas as defined in Sec 7-504 of the Municipal Code. NOT APPLICABLE. 20 4gl. The proposed subdivision design shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage to public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electricity, and potable water systems. The engineer's report is attached (Attachment E). 4g2. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for any proposed subdivision of at least fifty (50) lots or five (5) acres, whichever is less. NOT APPLICABLE. 5. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Art. 5, Div. 7, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which --is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Art 8., Growth Management Quote System. NOT APPLICABLE. POTENTIALLY, 2 NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WILL REPLACE 2 OLD SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. 21 ATTACHMENT D CITY MAP 0 N - � 1 • �� ; � mil' - r r � \ r r r � ` r I I IL r \ t , 1' i • •.. PV ENVY --._ . SOON O\ 6' t -ip , , J , , IF 10 t , f-/ P PRK (970) 925-6727 FAX (970) 925-4157 March 13, 1996 ENGINEERS S SURVEYORS GM SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER .-,I TACHMENT E P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, CO 81612 Mr. Robert Zupancis VOP Ms. Silvia Davis If P:O. Box 11481 Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: Zupancis Subdivision, Engineering Report Dear Robert and Silvia: This letter comprises an Engineering Report for the proposed subdivision application for the property owned by Robert Zupancis in Aspen, Colorado. The property currently includes two residential dwelling units addressed as 510 Walnut Street and 511 Race Street. The property that is the subject of this application includes the southerly 1/2 of Lot 9 and all of Lots 10, 11 and 12 of Block 3 of the Williams Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen as well as a metes and bounds parcel adjacent to South Avenue. The lot split proposal will create two parcels along a generally north -south boundary within the existing property. The lot split will create individual lots for the two existing residences. The Westerly parcel is to be Lot 1 and the easterly parcel is Lot 2. 1 have spoken with representatives of all the primary utilities and inspected the site with regard to the availability of all secondary utilities. I would offer the following comments; 1. Water Phil Overeynder, the Director of the City of Aspen Water Department, indicates that water service to the existing homes, as well as any future redevelopment of the newly created lots, is available from the existing 8 inch diameter ductile iron water mains in South Avenue, Race Street or a recently constructed main extension in Walnut Street. No special physical constraints exist with regard to providing service to potential redevelopment of the newly created lots and the City has sufficient capacity to serve new homes on either parcel. Service to new homes would be .provided subject to submission of an in -town tap application once the new homes were designed (so service requirements can be determined). Given the ages of the existing structures, it is unlikely that there would be any credit associated with previous tap fees paid for the existing services. New homes on the two lots would therefore be subject to full tap fees as well as new service construction for City water service. In addition, Phil notes that the newly constructed water main extension in Walnut Street is subject to a rebate requirement for the costs incurred by the owner of 515 Walnut for its construction. New taps to this main would require payment of a proportionate share of the approximately $18,000 cost of construction in addition to normal tap fees and connection charges. Connection to the new Walnut Street main would be shorter for Lot 1 created by this subdivision application and would require less expense for landscaping, pavement and concrete repair than connection to the South Avenue main. These items would need to be evaluated against the rebate expense of tapping the Walnut Street line by the builder of a new home on Lot 1. Phil did not, at this time, express any preference 118 West 6th, Suite 200 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado - (970) 945-1004 March 13, 1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 2 on the part of the City Water Department regarding which main would need to be tapped. Redevelopment of Lot 2 would likely tap the Race Street main. Phil also noted the presence of the yard hydrant on the north end of the Walnut Street frontage of the property that may be tapped to an old 11/2 inch diameter galvanized line. A building permit for the redevelopment of Lot 1 would likely require a service agreement and meter for the yard hydrant or abandonment of the hydrant at the main. There is an existing fire hydrant on the southeast corner of the South Avenue and Gibson Avenue intersection immediately across the street from both parcels. The hydrant is located within approximately 100 feet of either proposed lot. There is also a fire hydrant at the end of the new main in Walnut Street within 50 feet of Lot 1. 2. Sewer Tom Bracewell, System Superintendent of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD), indicates that sewer service is available to the property from a recently completed 8 inch diameter collection line within the Walnut Street corridor or from the existing 8 inch diameter main collector in South Avenue. No constraints exist and the ACSD has sufficient capacity to serve new homes on the newly created parcels. Once again, tap fee credits are likely not available and service to new structures on either lot would require payment of normal tap fees and connection charges Tom noted that the two existing residences are served by a combined service line. He indicated that the ACSD would require a shared service agreement be filed for the shared line and that easements should be incorporated into the plat document (temporary or otherwise) where service to Lot 2 crosses Lot 1. Future redevelopment should anticipate rerouting services to provide independent service to each home and reconfiguring or eliminating related easements. 3. Electric I spoke with Mr. Jeff Franke of Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., the rural cooperative that serves the area around this site. Jeff indicates that electric service capacity is available to serve new development on the lots created by the Zupancis Subdivision from existing overhead electric facilities within the Race Street corridor to the east. New construction on, either lot would require construction of an underground service connection to the existing overhead primary system. Service to Lot 1 should be accommodated by an easement across the Lot 2 if needed to acquire service from the Race Street primary. Otherwise, no primary system upgrades would be required to provide service to the ,new homesites. 4. Miscellaneous Utilities Gas, telephone and cable TV are all evident and available from adjacent rights -of -way. A phone pedestal exists near the intersection of Walnut Street and South Avenue just south of the property. Cable TV is also in place on the overhead system paralleling the electric lines. Service to either parcel of the Zupancis lot split SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. March 13, 1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 3 would be available subject to normal service construction and connection charges. 5. Access Access into the new lots is available from Walnut Street to the west or Race Street to the east. Both of the newly created parcels will front on existing rights -of -way and will access from existing streets. Walnut Street is currently a dirt street with minimal improvements, Race Street is a chip -seal street. Redevelopment of the existing site with two new residences would likely have minimal impact on adjacent traffic in that there are two existing homes on the site at this time generating traffic onto the adjacent streets. There is, currently sidewalk, curb and gutter along the South Avenue frontage to the south of both lots accommodating the significant flow of drainage and pedestrian traffic from the Smuggler Mobile Home Park and Centennial Housing past the property. 6. Drainage Replacement of the two existing residential structures on the 510 Walnut and 511 Race Street site will result in minimal additional drainage impacts to the surrounding area. Site design for new homes should incorporate on -site drainage features including, possibly, drywells to maintain historic conditions with regard to runoff from the site. This project will not create additional impacts to the City of Aspen's storm drainage system nor will it require improvements or expansion of the system. The Zupancis property is not located in an area requiring accommodation of a neighborhood drainage plan. 7. Land Suitability 1041 The Zupancis Subdivision property is not affected by potential flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or condition that would render it unsuitable for development from a 1041 hazard standpoint. The property is located within the Smuggler Superfund site and indicates a small area along the south frontage with soil lead contamination levels requiring mitigation under the Institutional Controls administered by the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department. Redevelopment of the property with structures in the contaminated area would require removal of the contaminated soils to the repository (currently located at the Pitkin County landfill) designated to receive such material. A redevelopment design which avoids contaminated soils would not require any special action but mitigation of the contaminated zone would permit the issuance of a certificate to the property owner that the site was "clean". Mitigation can be as simple as the addition of a soil cap to contaminated areas without disturbing the contaminated soil underneath. Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department Director Tom Dunlop also indicates that there is some additional paperwork associated with the building permitting process for properties located within the Superfund site. 8. Spatial Pattern The Zupancis Subdivision, due to its location between established streets and utility corridors, fits well into the neighborhood and will not require the premature extension or duplication of area utility mains. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. March 13, 1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 4 I hope these comments will be adequate for submission of the Zupancis Subdivision/Lot Split application. Feel free to contact me if I may provide any further comment or detail. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. Jay Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh 96029ER SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ZUPANC/S AW- f iff t t/ �--;—a----�— —--_�o yotget x41.j In' nol111 M nf.AhINOS ItNNM wwwo/Nl! A% 1010" 11E.ht Olt O OENOEE! rokolp Ilq ! nEEIA'1 A M.A% CAr 1 ! VIn4 boll EAS lv HI'1 n/ SI 'nwe VI (N ??4 PA 9*, 6 trt, Lr o0 nt C4t/Wjt M O 1AfNKAt.1 • tt[Igtt! SCE NO S MOAt) A tY.A1. CAr rE 1 2Aln3 :IIC�vf/ t11t t., 1: tot) VI'itnlf. t.Vl}M I�t:C M f,VttitlNf 1�1t. Atif Or fit if" t)NE . t.1110Its 0:011417R tMt !E/ /�� I't'mitl thre • Aft I.EIrlIn s sArotf SJORWE Aq W. S.R3' I R• 745.0' Poo. 416.04t �~ ra err( 1^ rtlrlN Cf.'t/Nrr l.'t/t[t rift J.N�•�O ^p.� of to'._.-- _ — — AVENUE 5 o U T H , F.o:µ: IvARIESfi CARMICHAEL •URVEYINO.INC. P.O. Box 1367 CAR@ONDALE.COLORADO e1623 t3o3-sea-oTs�1 , Attachment. F-VOID PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAT Box 11481 Aspen, CO 81612 March 12, 1996 Planning Dept City of Aspen 130 S Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Dave Michaelson: Attached i-s our subdivision application. Included are: 1. The actual application form which lists, in addition to other items, our (the applicant's) name, address and telephone number, the name, address, and telephone number of our representative authorized to act on our behalf, and the street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. 2. Written description of proposal and explanation of how proposed development complies with review standards relevant to the Development Application. 3. Several attachments: Attachment A: A copy of the current certificate from Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation. Attachment B: The only existing deed of trust against the property, Bk 686, pg 33. Attachment C: An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. Attachment D: City map: 1" = 400' Attachment E: Letter. from Jay. Hammond Schmueser Gordon Meyer Inc Attachment F: Blueline of Proposed Plat Exhibit A Thanks for you help and patience. Please let us know if there is any more detail or anything else we can provide for you. I understand we will be notified of the date set for the hearing. Sincerely, Robert Zupanci s Silvia Davis 2 ATMCHME lT 1 IAM USE APPLICAATTICH FARM 2) Project L x ati on !-2 l ° Allti OF 1_ T 10, (t, /Z 114 tuc ., 3 VVII,Zlltno ,A-17vtv ayVV (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal 4escripticn wbere 'o ate) 3) F7 :sent Zonvng _ 4) Lot Size f �� � `�'T i 5) a cw t-'s Name, Adder & Prione # 1612,., (vv) ASPENe (�MxeSVD 67 7--0 C7 2 _63 • - oflicatim (pleasecheck.a.11 that • • +�• •-• n err t .• _a.• .1• � n c.. .nr =.. • • ti err c. a. d►.�au �1 �'� 8) Desc=-.4ptjclrl of PaHstim (number and type of endsting SLIX-1=eS (17 r . .:►- • Descrjr4-ion of DevelcPnent.-. r. oSjOj 10) - you at.:... _. the follmirxr. a 7 (970) 925-6727 FAX (970) 925-4157 May 2,1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis P.O. Box 11481 Aspen, CO. 81611 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER RE: Zupancis Subdivision, Revised Engineering Report Dear Robert and Silvia: P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, CO 81612 This letter comprises a revised Engineering Report for the proposed subdivision application for a property owned by Robert Zupancis in the Williams Addition to Aspen, Colorado. The property currently includes two residential dwelling units addressed as 510 Walnut Street and 511 Race Street. The property that is the subject of this application includes the southerly 1/2of Lot 9 and all of Lots 10, 11 and 12 of Block 3 of the Williams Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen as well as a metes and bounds parcel adjacent to South Avenue. The lot split proposal will now create two parcels along a generally east west boundary (revised from the previously proposed north -south division) within the existing property. The lot split will generally place the two existing residences on the northerly parcel although the west residence will encroach up to 20 feet into the southerly parcel. The northerly parcel comprises 7,500 square feet and is now to be Lot 1 and the southerly parcel, at 9,246 square feet, is Lot 2. 1 had previously spoken with representatives of ail the primary utilities and inspected the site with regard to the availability of all secondary utilities. I would offer the following updated comments based on the revised lot configuration; 1. Water Phil Overeynder, the Director of the City of Aspen Water Department, indicates that water service to the existing homes, as well as any future redevelopment of the newly created lots, is available from the existing 8 inch diameter ductile iron water mains in South Avenue, Race Street or a recently constructed main extension in Walnut Street. No special physical constraints exist with regard to providing service to potential redevelopment of the newly created lots and the City has suffici Ont. capacity to serve new homes on either parcel. Service to new homes would be provided subject to submission of an in -town tap application once the new homes were designed (so service requirements can be determined). Given the ages of the existing structures, it is unlikely that there would be any credit associated with previous tap fees paid for the existing services. New homes on the two lots would therefore be subject to full tap fees as well as new service construction for City water service. Phil also notes that the newly constructed water main extension in Walnut Street is subject to a rebate requirement for the costs incurred by, the owner of 515 Walnut for its construction. New taps to this main would require payment of a proportionate share of the approximately $18,000 cost of construction in addition to normal tap fees and connection charges. Reconfiguration of the internal parcel boundary to east -west Addendum to Application May 2,1996 .118 West 6th, Suite 200 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado - (970) 945-1004 - ? May 2, 1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 2 changes the options with respect to water service somewhat. Lot 1 now created by this subdivision application has the .option of connection to the new Walnut Street main or to the existing line in Race Street. Distances and costs are likely comparable such that connection to the Race Street line is probably preferable to avoid the additional expense of reimbursing the cost of the Walnut Street main construction. Redevelopment of Lot 2 would now have the option of tapping any of the three mains although, again the Race Street main avoids the expense of reimbursing the construction of the Walnut Street line as well as the additional expense for landscaping, pavement and concrete repair for connection to the South Avenue main. Phil Overeynder did not, -at this time, express any preference on the part of the City Water Department regarding which main would need to be tapped. Phil also noted the presence of the yard hydrant on the north end of the Walnut Street frontage of the property that may be tapped to an old 1 1/2 inch diameter galvanized line. A building permit for the redevelopment of the north lot (Lot 1) would likely require a service agreement and meter for the yard hydrant or abandonment of the hydrant at the main. There is an existing fire hydrant on the southeast corner of the South Avenue and Gibson Avenue intersection immediately across the street from Lot 2. The hydrant is located within less than 100 feet of proposed Lot 2. There is also a fire hydrant at the end of the new main in Walnut Street within 50 feet of Lot 1. 2. Sewer Tom Bracewell, System Superintendent of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD), indicates that sewer service is available to the property from a recently completed 8 inch diameter collection line within the Walnut Street corridor or from the existing 8 inch diameter main collector in South Avenue (for Lot 2). No constraints exist and the ACSD has sufficient capacity to serve new homes on the newly created parcels. Once again, tap fee credits are likely not available and service to new structures on either lot would require payment of normal tap fees and connection charges. Tom noted that the two existing residences are currently served by a combined service line. He indicated that the ACSD would require a shared service agreement be filed for the shared line. To the extent that Lot 2 may be sold before the existing residences on Lot 1 are abated, an easement for the existing service line across Lot 2 would be required. Future redevelopment of both lots should anticipate routing independent services to each home. 3. Electric I spoke with Mr. Jeff Franke of Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., the rural cooperative that serves the area around this site. Jeff indicates that electric service capacity is available to serve new development on the lots created by the Zupancis Subdivision from existing overhead electric facilities within the Race Street corridor to the SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. May 2,1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 3 east. New construction on either lot would require construction of an underground service connection to the existing overhead primary system. No primary system upgrades would be required to provide service to the new homesites. 4. Miscellaneous Utilities Gas, telephone and cable TV are all evident and available from adjacent rights -of -way. A phone pedestal exists near the intersection of Walnut Street and South Avenue just south of the property. Cable TV is also in place on the overhead system paralleling the electric lines. Service to either parcel of the Zupancis lot split would be available subject to normal service construction and connection charges. 5. Access Access into the new lots is available from Walnut Street to the west or Race Street to the east. Both of the newly created parcels will front on existing rights -of -way and will access from existing streets. Walnut Street is currently a dirt street with minimal improvements, Race Street is a chip -seal street. Redevelopment of the existing site with two new residences would likely have minimal impact on adjacent traffic in that there are tw o existing homes on the site at this time generating traffic onto the adjacent streets. There is currently sidewalk, curb and gutter along the South Avenue frontage to the south of proposed Lot 2 accommodating the significant flow of drainage and pedestrian traffic from the Smuggler Mobile Home Park and Centennial Housing past the property. 6. Drainage Replacement of the two existing residential structures on the 510 Walnut and 511 Race Street site will result in minimal additional drainage impacts to the surrounding area. Site design for new homes should incorporate on -site drainage features including, possibly, drywells to maintain historic conditions with regard to runoff from the site. This project will not create additional impacts to the City of Aspen's storm drainage system nor will it require improvements or expansion of the system. The Zupancis property is not located in an area requiring accommodation of a neighborhood drainage plan. 7. Land Suitabilityll 041 The Zupancis Subdivision property is not effected by potential flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or condition that would render it unsuitable for development from a 1041 hazard standpoint. The property is located within the Smuggler Superfund site and indicates a small area along the south frontage with soil lead contamination levels requiring mitigation under the Institutional Controls administered by the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department. Redevelopment of the property with a structure in the contaminated area within Lot 2 would require removal of the contaminated soils to the repository designated to receive such material, currently located at the Pitkin County landfill. A redevelopment design which avoids contaminated soils would not require any special action but mitigation of the contaminated zone would permit the issuance of a certificate to the property owner that the site was "clean". Mitigation can be as simple as the addition of a soil cap to contaminated areas without SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. May 2, 1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 4 disturbing the contaminated soil underneath. Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department Director Tom Dunlop also indicates that there is some additional paperwork associated with the building permitting process for properties located within the Superfund site. 8. Spatial Pattern The Zupancis Subdivision, due to its location between established streets and utility corridors, fits well into the neighborhood and will not require the premature extension or duplication of area utility mains. I hope these updated comments will be adequate for submission of the Zupancis Subdivision/Lot Split application. Feel free to contact me if I may provide any further comment or detail. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. Jay . Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh 96029ERZ SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ZUI:IA/ V C/S SCAT.( 1'.Ifi PA119 of nFARINOS re4pto MONUMINIS AS SHOWN IIF.R[Ofl 11ofi EAS X41,1 Oi7l'11O11' 111 PK 14 M SW�A RV, p!I PO SRC CAfI1W/ M ORAry1/f A11 v O DC NO1[S t0U1T NO S REflA/1 A f1.A1. CAP 1. S SIRA 7110'Nlf IIIEPr IS 11N> VISIRIE EvArlicc or f.URAF.W U7f•Anr or Ell/q n oNf • mro,E3 SEE NO S RESAR A M.A1. CAP M 1 2'1 103 O UC110TES CORNER 491 SET �/lr•v �%� i Ti+•f y/�7` �.' hEiJoftl fnEE - SEC I.Frr"n nra .l.c1 S,8?'20'00"E. _ 125.00 5112 LOT 9 n _... oNf Srvgv FRAM£ licus£ SV /V /SItJ/ tJ � � � 5 Q -� C VICINITY MAP I s 3 Sin famfly, lot , oLu w LOT /O _Ee1'rE srurci SIN Qmwwm—m� re N l/ LVT71 ' e 1 W 1 Lot 2 ! 91246$f LOT IP Duple, lot tJ 0 _ 1, 0 rhscet rP ?WANCI.T. twlrr rtr[r :r'rc Ar! POnx Ire, rAFr :Pr i a• \ � . i® n. 245.0' L= 5FI.72' A00K 076_ COUNrr OII•Pfer 1 fC( IIICr DEC"' rl/MIN lYP( NO SIZE A ivP[ �- O - t Ic'• PP;ac_` - 45Pav i AVENUE Pw SOUTH VARIES,/ , R.o.w IR" roa.1 0 It 3PAvcr ? " 4SIrY k � lS sPAf/C[ lI _ R t•L 4srr Ns AS'" /I ^� r d' s `AvCr K A' ASPEN l�' f' SPAUC( ! CARMIC14AEL AURVEYING, INC. .a-. - --- CARBONDALE. COLORADO 91623 I IJ r PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAT TABLE OF CONTENTS page I. Project Description 4 II. Land Use Application Form 5 III. Specific Submission contents:- Subdivision 7 IV. Review Standards: Subdivision 11 V. Lawyer's Title Insurance Attachment A VI. Current Deed of Trust on property Attachment B VII. Vicinity Map Attachment C VIII. City Map: 1" = 400' Attachment D IX. Letter from Jay Hammond, Schmueser Gordon Meyer Inc Attachment E X. Blueline of Proposed Plat Attachment F PROJECT DESCRIPTION General: The applicants own a large city parcel on which are currently situated two separate residential dwellings. The subject parcel is located north of South Avenue, between Race and Walnut Street. Refer to the Vicinity map that is contained in this packet as Attachment C. They are seeking approval for subdivision of this larger lot into two lots, each of which meets the minimum lot size requirements. They are proposing a north/south lot line, so that each lot has limited frontage on South Avenue, a very busy and noisy street. This can be accomplished and still meet the minimum 60' lot width requirement. The blueline of the proposed plat is included in this packet as Attachment F. The westerly lot is labeled Lot 1: the easterly lot is labeled Lot 2. Each of the currently existing dwellings fits more or less on the separate lots. In each case there is a small encroachment. Upon approval, the applicants plan to demolish the dwelling that exists primarily on Lot 1, a split level frame house, and to construct a new single-family residence for themselves. The dwelling that exists on Lot 2 will encroach slightly upon Lot 1. The applicants are hoping that as long as they own both lots, this will be acceptable to the planning and zoning commission and city council. There will be the stipulation that if the lot is sold, the dwelling must then be demolished, so that the dwelling does not partially exist on "someone else's lot". Because there are already two dwellings on the subject property, the new plan does not differ drastically from what currently exists on the site. Utilities are already in place. A temporary easement will probably be required for sewer across Lot 1 for Lot 2. Also, an easement for electric across Lot 2 for Lot 1 may be required. Wherever possible, all redevelopment anticipates rerouting services to provide independent service to each home and eliminating related easements. Exact building design and floorplan have yet to be developed. City of Aspen Building Code will dictate all the specifics of building height, setbacks, etc. Specifics: The remainder of this packet will address all the specific details requested. 4 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project Name: Zupancis subdivision 2. Project Location: 510 Walnut Street & 511 Race Street. Lot and block number: S 1/2 Lot 9, all of Lots 10,11,12 in Block 3, Williams addit.ion to the City and Townsite of Aspen, plus a parcel of land situated in the NE 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West City of Aspen, Colorado. 3. Present zoning: R-6 4. Lot Size: 16,746 sq ft 5. Applicant's name address phone #• Robert Zupancis Silvia Davis Box 11481 Aspen, CO 81612 920-2546 home 920-5180 work Silvia 6. Representative's Name Address & Phone-' Tom Baker 312 Teal Court, Aspen, CO 81611 920-9283; 945-5989 GWS; FAX 920-4126 or 945-5912 7. TX e of Application: xx Subdivision 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures": approximate sq ft:-number of bedrooms: any previous approvals granted to the -property): _ 510 Walnut Street: 1 residential dwelling 2,780 sq ft 5 bedrooms 511 Race Street: 1 residential dwelling 1,373 sq ft 3 bedrooms W 9. Description of development application: Both dwellings exist on 1 legal description. Applicant wants to subdivide so that each dwelling has its own legal description. 10. The following are attached: x Minimum submission contents xx Specific submission contents xx Review standards: Subdivision 0 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION CONTENTS: SUBDIVISION Requirements of Planning -Commission: la(1) The general application information required in Common Procedures, Sec 6-202. 1a(2). City map Shows location of proposed subdivision and all adjacent lands and landmarks, and the Zone District in which the proposed subdivision and adjacent properties are located. (1" _ 400') Provided by City Engineer. (Attachment'D) la(3). PLAT: Prepared by surveyor. 1" = 100' or larger. Reflects layout of lots, blocks and structures in the proposed subdivision. 24" x 36". Include also vicinity map that shows subdivision as it relates to rest of city and street system in the area of the proposed'subdivision. 1a(3)(a). Name of proposed subdivision: Zupancis subdivision. la(3)(b). Plat contains • Robert Zupancis' name, address and telephone number • designer of proposed subdivision • name of licensed surveyor (Carl Carmichael) la(3)(c). Includes location and boundaries of proposed subdivision. la(3)(d). Plat shows existing and proposed contours of the land in the proposed subdivision at two -foot (2') intervals, where the slope is less than ten (10%) per cent, and five-foot (5') intervals where the slope is ten (10%) per cent or greater, and the designation of all areas with slope greater than thirty (30%) per cent. There is no slope greater than 10Y on this parcel. la(3)(e). The plat shows location & dimensions of all existing streets, alleys, easements, drainage areas, irrigation ditches, public and private utilities, and other significant manmade or natural features within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision. la(3)(f). The plat shows the new lot line. Otherwise, there are no new proposed streets, alleys, easements, drainage improvements, or utilities. In addition, no areas or structures reserved or dedicated for public or common use in the proposed subdivision are required. la(3)(g). The plat shows location, size, and type of existing vegetation and other natural landscape features, proposed limits of any excavation or regrading, including location of trees with trunk diameter of 6" or more and 4 1/2' above ground. Indicate which trees are proposed to be removed. la(3)(h). NOT APPLICABLE. There are no areas that constitute natural hazard areas including but not limited to snowslides, avalanche, mudslide, rockslide and the 100-year flood plain. la(3)(i). NOT APPLICABLE. The planning agency has required no additional information on geological or soil stability, avalanche potential, projected traffic generation, air pollution and similar matters. There is no impact of this nature since there is no increase in density. la(3) (j) . NOT APPLICABLE. There are no proposed new utility systems, drainage plans, surface improvements, or other construction projects contemplated within the proposed subdivision. The dwellings in the proposed subdivision must comply with the standard FAR allowed by zoning. This proposed subdivision, therefore, will have no adverse effect upon the surrounding area. la(3)(k). Site data tabulation. 2 lots: one 8683 sq feet, the other 8063 sq feet. R-6 zoning as exists -now. A single family dwelling on each lot. Project each dwelling to have approximately 4 bedrooms. Ground coverage.will be maximum or close to maximum allowed. Parking required: I spot per each bedroom. Streets, sidewalks and open space: No open space is required pursuant to Sec. 7-1004(c)-(5)(a). Additional streets and sidewalks not required in subdivision. la(3)(1). NOT APPLICABLE. This is not a division of land into condominium interests, apartments or other multi -family or time- share dwelling units. la(3)(m). NOT APPLICABLE. Applicant owns no adjacent holdings. la (3) n) Current utilities that service dwellings are: natural gas: Rocky Mtn Natural Gas electricity: Holy Cross Electric Corp telephones:- US West sewer: Aspen Sanitation District water: City of Aspen 8 fire Protection: Aspen Fire Protection District There is attached a letter from Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer Inc (Attachment E). This engineering report describes the utilities which will continue to service the proposed subdivision. Additional application contents prior to review by City Council: The submission has the following contents: 2b(1) FINAL PLAT permanent ink on mylar. 24" x 36" with unencumbered margin of 1 1/2" on left hand side and 1/2" margin on other 3 sides. It shall include: • (a) Accurate dimensions for all lines, angles, and curves used to describe boundaries, streets, setbacks, alleys, easements, structures, areas to be reserved or dedicated for public or common use and other important features. All curves shall be circular arcs and shall be defined by the radius, central angle, tangent, arc and chord distances. All dimensions, both linear and angular, are to be determined by an accurate control survey in the field which must balance and close within a limit of one (1) in ten thousand (10,000). • (b) A systematic identification of all lots and -blocks and names for all streets. • (c) Names of all adjoining subdivisions with dotted lines of abutting lots. If adjoining land is unplatted, it shall be shown as such. • (d) An identification of the streets, alleys, parks, and other public areas or facilities, and a dedication thereof to the public use. An identification of the easements as dedicated to public use. Areas reserved for future public.acquisition shall also be shown. (e) A written survey description of the area including the total acreage to the nearest one -thousandth (0.001) of an acre. • (f) A description of all survey monuments, both found and set, which mark the boundaries of the subdivision, and description of all monuments used J n conducting the survey. The Colorado Coordinate System may be used. 2b2. Statement by land surveyor explaining how bearings, if used, were determined. Surveyor will provide on plat. 2b3. Certificate by registered land surveyor as to accuracy of survey and plat, and a statement that the survey was performed in 0 accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 51, as amended from time to time. Surveyor will provide on plat. 2b4. A certificate by a corporate title insurer, that the person or persons dedicating to the public the public rights -of -way, areas or facilities as shown thereon are the owners thereof in fee simple, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. There are no such dedications; therefore NOT APPLICABLE. 2b5. Certificates showing approval of the Final Plat by the City Engineer, planning director and the Commission. Will be included. 2b6. A certificate showing approval of the plat and acceptance of dedications and easements by the City Council, with signature by the Mayor and attestation by the City Clerk. Will be included. 2b7. A certificate of filing for the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Will be included. 2b8. Complete engineering plans and specifications for all improvements to be installed in the proposed subdivision, including but not limited to water and sewer utilities, streets and related improvements, trails, bridges and storm drainage improvements. No improvements to be installed, therefore NOT APPLICABLE. 2b9. A landscape plan showing location, size, and type of proposed landscape features. Not required since no visual impact. NOT APPLICABLE. 2b10. Copies of any monument records required of the land surveyor in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 53, as amended from time to time. NONE REQUIRED. 2b11. Any agreements with utility or ditch companies, when applicable. All utilities are in place and no new ones are required. NOT APPLICABLE. 2b12. Any subdivision agreements as required by Sec. 7-1004(c)(3) 11K REVIEW STANDARDS: SUBDIVISION 1. General requirements a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: the proposed subdivision meets the minimum lot size for the zone district. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area: with the potential of 2 new houses, the proposed subdivision doesn't represent a departure from what already exists - 2 single family dwellings. C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas: there is no affect. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter: we meet all the standards. 2a. Land suitability. The engineer's report which is attached (Attachment E) states that the proposed subdivision is not located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other naturaL hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the healthy safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. 2b. Spatial pattern efficient The engineer's report which is attached (Attachment E) states that the proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. 3. Improvements. 3a. Required improvements. The following improvements shall be provided for in the proposed subdivision. 3a1. Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins._ There will be new survey monuments. 3a2. Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and improvements of a collector street. NOT REQUIRED. 3a3. Curbs, gutter, and sidewalks. Race Street is a narrow Right-of- way with low pedestrian usage. Sidewalk and gutter are not appropriate here. Walnut Street, likewise, has insufficient vehicle and pedestrian traffic to warrant sidewalks and gutters.. 3a4. Paved alleys. WE ARE PROPOSING'NO PAVED ALLEYS. 3a5. Traffic -control signs, signals or devices. NONE REQUIRED. 3a6. Street lights. NONE REQUIRED.' 3a7. Street name signs. NOT ADDING NEW SIGNS. 3a8. Street trees or landscaping. NOT ADDING NEW LANDSCAPING. 3a9. Water lines and fire hydrants. ALREADY EXIST. 3a10. Sanitary sewer lines. ALREADY EXIST. Sall. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers. The engineer's report which is attached (Attachment E) states this project will not create additional impacts to the City of Aspen's storm drainage system. Nor will it require improvements or expansion of the system. The property is not located in an area requiring accommodation of a neighborhood drainage plan. 3a12. Bridges or culverts. NOT REQUIRED. 3a13. Electrical lines. ALREADY EXIST. 3a14. Telephone lines. ALREADY EXIST. 3a15. Natural gas lines. ALREADY EXIST. 3a16. Cable television lines. ALREADY EXIST. 3b. Approved plans, Construction shall not commence on any of the improvements required by Sec. 7-1004(c)(3)(a) until a plan, profile, and specifications have been received and approved by the city engineer and, when appropriate, the relevant utility company. NONE REQUIRED. 3c. Oversized utilities. In the event oversized utilities are required as a part of the improvements, arrangements for reimbursement shall be made whereby the subdivider shall be 12 allowed to recover the cost of the utilities that have been provided beyond the needs of the subdivision. NO INCREASE IN DENSITY. 4. DESIGN STANDARDS The following design standards shall be required for all subdivisions. 4a. Streets and related improvements The following standards shall apply to streets regardless of.type or size, unless the street has been improved with paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk. NO NEW REQUIRED. 4a1. Conform to plan for street extension Streets shall conform to approved plans for street extension and shall bear a logical relationship to the topography and to the location of existing or planned streets on adjacent properties. NOT REQUIRED. 42. Right-of-way dedication Right-of-way shall be dedicated for the entire width for all local, collector and arterial streets. NOT REQUIRED. 4a3. Right-of-way width. Street and alley right-of-way widths, curves and grades shall meet the following standards. Minimum Street Center Line Right -of- Maximum Classifi- Curve way Width PerCent cation Radius (ft) t) of grade M Local 100 60 10 Collector 250 80 6 Arterial 625 100 5 Alley 50 20 5 NOT REQUIRED. 4a4. Half -street dedications. Half -street dedications shall be prohibited unless they are for the purpose of increasing the width of an.inadequate existing right-of-way. NO SUCH HALF -STREET DEDICATIONS. 4a5. Street ends at subdivision. When a street is dedicated which ends on the subdivision or is.on the perimeter of the subdivision, the last foot of the street on the terminal end or outside perimeter 13 of the subdivision shall be dedicated to the City of Aspen in fee simple and shall be designated by using outlot(s). The City shall use the dedicated land for public road and access purposes. NO SUCH STREET. 4a6. Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed four hundred (400') feet in length_ and shall have a turnaround diameter of one hundred (100') feet. A Cul-de-sac of less than two hundred (200') feet in length in a single-family detached residential area does not require a turnaround if the City Engineer determines a "T", "Y" or other design is adequate turnaround for the vehicles expected to use the Cul-de-sac. NO CUL-DE-SACS. 4a7. Dead end streets. Dead-end streets, except for cul-de-sacs, shall be prohibited unless they are designed to connect with future streets on adjacent lands that have not been platted. In cases where these type of dead end streets are allowed,, a temporary turnaround of one hundred (100') feet shall be constructed. NO DEAD-END STREETS. 4a8. Centerline offset. Streets shall have a centerline offset of at least one hundred twenty-five (125') feet. NO NEW STREETS. 4a9. Reverse curves. Reverse curves on arterial and collectors streets shall be jointed by a tangent of at least one hundred (100') feet in length. NO REVERSE CURVES. 4a10. Changes in street grades, -All changes in street grades shall be connected by vertical curves of a minimum length in feet equivalent to the following appropriate "K" value multiplies by the algebraic difference in the street grades. Street Classification "K" value for: Crest vertical curve Sag vertical curve NO NEW STREETS. Collector Local Arterial 28 16 55 35 24 55 4all. Alley5.. Alleys shall be provided in subdivisions where commercial and industrial development is expected, except when other provisions are made and approved for service access. NO ALLEYS. 14 4a12. Intersections. Intersections shall approximate right angles and have a minimum tangent of fifty (50') feet on each leg. The subdivision design shall minimize the number of local streets that intersect arterial streets. NO NEW INTERSECTIONS. 4a13. Intersection grade. Intersection grades shall not exceed four (4%) per cent for a minimum distance of one hundred (100') feet on each leg. Flatter grades are desirable.. NO NEW INTERSECTIONS. 4a14. Curb return radii. Curb return radii for local street intersections shall be fifteen (15') feet. Curb return radii and corner setbacks for all other types of intersections shall be based upon the expected types of vehicle usage, traffic volumes and traffic patterns using accepted engineering standards. In case of streets which intersect at acute angles, appropriate increases in curb return radii shall be made for the necessary turning movements. NO NEW INTERSECTIONS. 4a15. Turn by-passes and turn lanes. Right -turn by-passes or left -turn lanes shall be required at the intersection of arterial streets or the intersection of an arterial street with a collector street if traffic conditions indicate they are needed. Sufficient right-of- way shall be dedicated to accommodate such lanes when they.are required. NO NEW INTERSECTIONS. 4a16. Street names and numbers. When streets are in alignment with existing streets, any new.streets shall be named according to the streets with which they correspond. Streets which do not fit into an established street -naming pattern shall be named in a manner which will not duplicate or be confused with existing street names within the city or its environs. Street numbers shall be assigned by the city building inspector in accordance with the city numbering system. NO NEW STREETS. 4a17. Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalks or driveways. No finish paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks or driveways shall be constructed until one (1) year after the installation of all subsurface utilities and improvements. Per conversation with city engineer, this is not applicable. 4a18. Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be eight (8') feet wide in all Commercial Core (CC), commercial (Cl), Neighborhood commercial (NC), and Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone Districts and five (5') feet wide in all other zone districts where sidewalks are required. 15 Consideration shall be given to existing and proposed landscaping when establishing sidewalk locations. Applicant had meeting with city engineer. Race Street is a narrow Right-of-way with low pedestrian usage. Sidewalk and gutter are not appropriate here. Walnut Street, likewise, has insufficient vehicle and pedestrian traffic to warrant sidewalks and gutters 4a19. City specifications for streets. All Streets and related improvements shall be constructed in accordance with city specifications which are on file in the office of the city engineer. NO NEW STREETS. 4a20. Range point monuments. Prior to paving any street, permanent range point monuments meeting the standards of Sec. 7- 1004(c)(4)(d) shall be installed to approximately finished grade. Permanent range point boxes shall be installed during or as soon as practicable after paving. NO NEW STREETS. 4a21. Street name signs. Street name signs shall conform to the type currently in use by the city. STREET NAME SIGNS ALREADY EXIST. 4a22. Traffic control signs. Any required traffic -control signs, signals or devices shall conform to the "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices." TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS ALREADY EXIST. 4a23. Street lights. Street lights shall be placed at a maximum spacing of three hundred (300') feet. Ornamental street lights are desirable. STREET LIGHTS ALREADY EXIST. 4a24. Street tree. One (1) street tree of three-inch (3") caliper for deciduous trees measured at the top of the ball or root system, or a minimum of six-foot (6') height for conifers, shall be provided in a subdivision in residential zone districts for each lot of seventy foot (70') frontage or less, and at least two (2) such trees shall be provided for every lot in excess of seventy feet (70') frontage. Corner lots shall require at least one (1) tree for each street. Trees shall be placed so as not to block sight distances at driveways or corners. The city parks and recreation department shall furnish a list of acceptable trees. Trees, foliage and landscaping shall be provided in subdivisions in all other zone districts in the city in accordance with the adopted street landscaping plan. Applicant will comply. 4b. Easements 16 4bl. Utility easements. Utility easements of ten (10') feet in width on each side of all rear lot lines and five (5') feet in width on each side of lot lines shall be provided where necessary. Where the rear or side lot lines abut property outside of the subdivision on which there are no rear or side lot line easements at least five (5') feet in width, the easements on the rear and side lot lines, in the subdivision shall be twenty (20') feet and ten (10') feet in width, respectively. WATER., no easement necessary because water lines available from 8" diameter water main in South Avenue, Race Street, or Walnut St. SEWER: No easement necessary because sewer available within Walnut Street corridor and from existing 8" diameter main collector in South Ave. ELECTRICITY: Appears that an easement is necessary across Lot 2 to accommodate Lot 1. NATURAL GAS, CABLE TELEVISION, AND TELEPHONE: No easement necessary; service to either parcel would be available subject to normal service construction and connection charges. 4b2. "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs. Easements twenty (20') feet in ` width shall be provided in "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs for the continuation of utilities or drainage improvements, if necessary. NOT NECESSARY., 4b3. Potable water and sewer easements. Water and sewer easements shall be a minimum of twenty (20') feet in width. WATER AND SEWER EASEMENTS NOT NECESSARY. 44. Planned utility or drainage system. Whenever a subdivision embraces any.part of a planned utility or drainage system designated on an adopted plan, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision. There is no planned utility system. Per the engineer's report (Attachment E) there will be no additional impacts to City of Aspen's storm drainage system. Nor will it require improvements or expansion of the system. 45. Irrigation ditch channel natural creek. Where an irrigation ditch or channel, natural creek or stream traverses a subdivision, an easement sufficient for drainage and to allow for maintenance of the ditch shall be provided. NOT APPLICABLE. THERE IS NO IRRIGATION DITCH OR CHANNEL, NATURAL CREEK OR STREAM THAT TRAVERSES THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. IVA 46. Fire lanes and emergency access easements. Fire lanes and emergency access easements twenty (20') feet in width shall be provided where required by the city fire marshal. NOT REQUIRED. 4b7. Planned street or transit alignment. Whenever a subdivision embraces any part of an existing or planned street or transit alignment designated on an adopted plan, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision. NOT APPLICABLE. NO SUCH EASEMENT REQUIRED. 4b8. Planned trail system. Whenever a subdivision embraces any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski trail or hiking trail designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/ Recreation/ Open Space/ Trails Plan Map, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision. NOT APPLICABLE. THE PROPERTY IS NOT ENCUMBERED BY ANY SUCH BIKEWAY, BRIDLE PATH, CROSS COUNTRY SKI TRAIL OR HIKING TRAIL. 4c. Lots and blocks. 4cl. General. Lots shall meet all applicable regulations of this chapter. 4c2. Side lot lines. Side lot lines shall be substantially at right angles or radial to street lines. THIS REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MET. 4c3. Reversed corner lots and through lots. Reversed corner lots and through lots shall be prohibited except where essential to provide separation from arterial streets because of slope, or to prevent the development of incompatible land uses. NOT APPLICABLE. 4c4. Front on street. All lots shall front on a public or private street. THE FRONT OF EACH OF THESE LOTS FACES SOUTH AVENUE. 4c5. State Highway 82. No lot shall front on, nor shall any private driveway access to State Highway 82. NOT APPLICABLE. 4c6. Block lengths. Block lengths shall normally be at least four hundred (400') feet in length and not more than one thousand four hundred (1400') feet in length between street intersections. NOT .APPLICABLE. 4c7. Compatibility. Block lengths and widths shall be -suitable for the uses contemplated. NOT APPLICABLE. 18 4c8. Mid - block pedestrian walkways. In blocks over five hundred 500') feet long, mid -block pedestrian walkways shall be provided. NOT APPLICABLE. 4d. Survev monuments. 4dl. Location. The. external. boundaries of all subdivisions, blocks and lots shall be monumented on the ground by reasonably permanent monuments solidly embedded in the ground. These monuments shall be set not more than fourteen hundred (1400') feet apart along any straight boundary line, at all, angle points, and at the beginning, end and points of change of direction or change of radius of any curved boundaries. SURVEYOR WILL COMPLY. 4d2. CRS 1973 38-51-101. All monuments shall be set-in accordance with the provisions of CRS 1973 38-51-101, as amended from time to time, unless otherwise provided for in this chapter.. SURVEYOR WILL COMPLY. 4d3. Range points and boxes. Range points and boxes meeting city specifications shall be set on the centerline of the street right- of-way unless designated otherwise: SURVEYOR WILL COMPLY. 4d. Utilities. 4e1. Potable waterlines and appurtenances. All potable waterlines, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall meet the city's standard specifications on file in.the city engineer's office. Lots will be serviced by city water system. 4e2. Size of waterlines. All potable water lines shall be at least eight (8") inches in size unless the length of the line is less than two hundred (200') feet in length, its minimum size shall be six (6") inches in width. NOT APPLICABLE. Lots will be serviced by city water system. 4e3. Fire hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be spaced no farther apart than five hundred (500') feet in detached residential and duplex subdivision. Fire hydrants shall be no farther than three hundred fifty.(350') feet apart in multi -family residential, business, commercial, service and industrial subdivision. FIRE HYDRANTS ALREADY EXIST AND ARE SHOWN ON PLAT. Engineer's report (Attachment E) also describes location of fire hydrants. 19 4e4. Sanitary sewer. Sanitary sewer facilities shall meet the requirements of the.Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Engineer's report (Attachment E) contains comments by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 4e5. Underground utilities. All utilities shall be placed underground, except transformers, switching boxes, terminal boxes, meter cabinets, pedestals, and ventilation ducts. ALL UTILITIES IN PLACE. THERE WILL BE NO NEW UTILITIES. 4e6. Other utilities. Other utilities not specifically mentioned shall be provided in accordance with the standards and regulations of the applicable utility department or company. NOT APPLICABLE. THERE ARE NO OTHER UTILITIES. 47. Utilities stubbed out. All utilities shall be stubbed out at the property line of lots. NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITIES EXIST ALREADY. 4f. Storm drainage. 4f1. Drainage plan. The drainage plan for the proposed subdivision shall comply with the criteria in the city's "Urban Runoff Management Plan." The engineer's report (Attachment E) addresses the drainage for these lots. 4f2. Detention storage. Short-term on -site detention storage shall be provided to maintain the historical rate of runoff for the 100- year storm from the undeveloped site. The engineer's report is attached. (Attachment E). 4f3. Maintain historical drainage flow. In cases where storm.runoff from an upstream basin passes through the subdivision, the drainage plan shall provide adequate means for maintaining the historical drainage system. The engineer's report is attached (Attachment E). 4f4. Calculations and quantities of flow. The drainage plan shall include calculations and quantities of flow at the points of concentration. The engineer's report is attached (Attachment E). 4g. Flood hazard areas. The following standards shall apply to special flood hazard areas as defined in Sec 7-504 of the Municipal Code. NOT APPLICABLE. 20 4gl. The proposed subdivision design shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage to public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electricity, and potable water systems. The engineer's report is attached (Attachment E). 4g2. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for any proposed subdivision of at least fifty (50) lots or five (5) acres, whichever is less. NOT APPLICABLE. 5. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Art. 5, Div. 7, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which --is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Art 8., Growth Management Quote System. NOT APPLICABLE. POTENTIALLY, 2 NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WILL REPLACE 2 OLD SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. 21 ATTACHMENT D CITY MAP 0 N - � 1 • �� ; � mil' - r r � \ r r r � ` r I I IL r \ t , 1' i • •.. PV ENVY --._ . SOON O\ 6' t -ip , , J , , IF 10 t , f-/ P PRK (970) 925-6727 FAX (970) 925-4157 March 13, 1996 ENGINEERS S SURVEYORS GM SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER .-,I TACHMENT E P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, CO 81612 Mr. Robert Zupancis VOP Ms. Silvia Davis If P:O. Box 11481 Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: Zupancis Subdivision, Engineering Report Dear Robert and Silvia: This letter comprises an Engineering Report for the proposed subdivision application for the property owned by Robert Zupancis in Aspen, Colorado. The property currently includes two residential dwelling units addressed as 510 Walnut Street and 511 Race Street. The property that is the subject of this application includes the southerly 1/2 of Lot 9 and all of Lots 10, 11 and 12 of Block 3 of the Williams Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen as well as a metes and bounds parcel adjacent to South Avenue. The lot split proposal will create two parcels along a generally north -south boundary within the existing property. The lot split will create individual lots for the two existing residences. The Westerly parcel is to be Lot 1 and the easterly parcel is Lot 2. 1 have spoken with representatives of all the primary utilities and inspected the site with regard to the availability of all secondary utilities. I would offer the following comments; 1. Water Phil Overeynder, the Director of the City of Aspen Water Department, indicates that water service to the existing homes, as well as any future redevelopment of the newly created lots, is available from the existing 8 inch diameter ductile iron water mains in South Avenue, Race Street or a recently constructed main extension in Walnut Street. No special physical constraints exist with regard to providing service to potential redevelopment of the newly created lots and the City has sufficient capacity to serve new homes on either parcel. Service to new homes would be .provided subject to submission of an in -town tap application once the new homes were designed (so service requirements can be determined). Given the ages of the existing structures, it is unlikely that there would be any credit associated with previous tap fees paid for the existing services. New homes on the two lots would therefore be subject to full tap fees as well as new service construction for City water service. In addition, Phil notes that the newly constructed water main extension in Walnut Street is subject to a rebate requirement for the costs incurred by the owner of 515 Walnut for its construction. New taps to this main would require payment of a proportionate share of the approximately $18,000 cost of construction in addition to normal tap fees and connection charges. Connection to the new Walnut Street main would be shorter for Lot 1 created by this subdivision application and would require less expense for landscaping, pavement and concrete repair than connection to the South Avenue main. These items would need to be evaluated against the rebate expense of tapping the Walnut Street line by the builder of a new home on Lot 1. Phil did not, at this time, express any preference 118 West 6th, Suite 200 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado - (970) 945-1004 March 13, 1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 2 on the part of the City Water Department regarding which main would need to be tapped. Redevelopment of Lot 2 would likely tap the Race Street main. Phil also noted the presence of the yard hydrant on the north end of the Walnut Street frontage of the property that may be tapped to an old 11/2 inch diameter galvanized line. A building permit for the redevelopment of Lot 1 would likely require a service agreement and meter for the yard hydrant or abandonment of the hydrant at the main. There is an existing fire hydrant on the southeast corner of the South Avenue and Gibson Avenue intersection immediately across the street from both parcels. The hydrant is located within approximately 100 feet of either proposed lot. There is also a fire hydrant at the end of the new main in Walnut Street within 50 feet of Lot 1. 2. Sewer Tom Bracewell, System Superintendent of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD), indicates that sewer service is available to the property from a recently completed 8 inch diameter collection line within the Walnut Street corridor or from the existing 8 inch diameter main collector in South Avenue. No constraints exist and the ACSD has sufficient capacity to serve new homes on the newly created parcels. Once again, tap fee credits are likely not available and service to new structures on either lot would require payment of normal tap fees and connection charges Tom noted that the two existing residences are served by a combined service line. He indicated that the ACSD would require a shared service agreement be filed for the shared line and that easements should be incorporated into the plat document (temporary or otherwise) where service to Lot 2 crosses Lot 1. Future redevelopment should anticipate rerouting services to provide independent service to each home and reconfiguring or eliminating related easements. 3. Electric I spoke with Mr. Jeff Franke of Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., the rural cooperative that serves the area around this site. Jeff indicates that electric service capacity is available to serve new development on the lots created by the Zupancis Subdivision from existing overhead electric facilities within the Race Street corridor to the east. New construction on, either lot would require construction of an underground service connection to the existing overhead primary system. Service to Lot 1 should be accommodated by an easement across the Lot 2 if needed to acquire service from the Race Street primary. Otherwise, no primary system upgrades would be required to provide service to the ,new homesites. 4. Miscellaneous Utilities Gas, telephone and cable TV are all evident and available from adjacent rights -of -way. A phone pedestal exists near the intersection of Walnut Street and South Avenue just south of the property. Cable TV is also in place on the overhead system paralleling the electric lines. Service to either parcel of the Zupancis lot split SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. March 13, 1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 3 would be available subject to normal service construction and connection charges. 5. Access Access into the new lots is available from Walnut Street to the west or Race Street to the east. Both of the newly created parcels will front on existing rights -of -way and will access from existing streets. Walnut Street is currently a dirt street with minimal improvements, Race Street is a chip -seal street. Redevelopment of the existing site with two new residences would likely have minimal impact on adjacent traffic in that there are two existing homes on the site at this time generating traffic onto the adjacent streets. There is, currently sidewalk, curb and gutter along the South Avenue frontage to the south of both lots accommodating the significant flow of drainage and pedestrian traffic from the Smuggler Mobile Home Park and Centennial Housing past the property. 6. Drainage Replacement of the two existing residential structures on the 510 Walnut and 511 Race Street site will result in minimal additional drainage impacts to the surrounding area. Site design for new homes should incorporate on -site drainage features including, possibly, drywells to maintain historic conditions with regard to runoff from the site. This project will not create additional impacts to the City of Aspen's storm drainage system nor will it require improvements or expansion of the system. The Zupancis property is not located in an area requiring accommodation of a neighborhood drainage plan. 7. Land Suitability 1041 The Zupancis Subdivision property is not affected by potential flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or condition that would render it unsuitable for development from a 1041 hazard standpoint. The property is located within the Smuggler Superfund site and indicates a small area along the south frontage with soil lead contamination levels requiring mitigation under the Institutional Controls administered by the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department. Redevelopment of the property with structures in the contaminated area would require removal of the contaminated soils to the repository (currently located at the Pitkin County landfill) designated to receive such material. A redevelopment design which avoids contaminated soils would not require any special action but mitigation of the contaminated zone would permit the issuance of a certificate to the property owner that the site was "clean". Mitigation can be as simple as the addition of a soil cap to contaminated areas without disturbing the contaminated soil underneath. Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department Director Tom Dunlop also indicates that there is some additional paperwork associated with the building permitting process for properties located within the Superfund site. 8. Spatial Pattern The Zupancis Subdivision, due to its location between established streets and utility corridors, fits well into the neighborhood and will not require the premature extension or duplication of area utility mains. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. March 13, 1996 Mr. Robert Zupancis Ms. Silvia Davis Page 4 I hope these comments will be adequate for submission of the Zupancis Subdivision/Lot Split application. Feel free to contact me if I may provide any further comment or detail. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. Jay Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh 96029ER SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ZUPANC/S AW- f iff t t/ �--;—a----�— —--_�o yotget x41.j In' nol111 M nf.AhINOS ItNNM wwwo/Nl! A% 1010" 11E.ht Olt O OENOEE! rokolp Ilq ! nEEIA'1 A M.A% CAr 1 ! VIn4 boll EAS lv HI'1 n/ SI 'nwe VI (N ??4 PA 9*, 6 trt, Lr o0 nt C4t/Wjt M O 1AfNKAt.1 • tt[Igtt! SCE NO S MOAt) A tY.A1. CAr rE 1 2Aln3 :IIC�vf/ t11t t., 1: tot) VI'itnlf. t.Vl}M I�t:C M f,VttitlNf 1�1t. Atif Or fit if" t)NE . t.1110Its 0:011417R tMt !E/ /�� I't'mitl thre • Aft I.EIrlIn s sArotf SJORWE Aq W. S.R3' I R• 745.0' Poo. 416.04t �~ ra err( 1^ rtlrlN Cf.'t/Nrr l.'t/t[t rift J.N�•�O ^p.� of to'._.-- _ — — AVENUE 5 o U T H , F.o:µ: IvARIESfi CARMICHAEL •URVEYINO.INC. P.O. Box 1367 CAR@ONDALE.COLORADO e1623 t3o3-sea-oTs�1 , Attachment. F-VOID PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAT the downtown core, but would suggest that the deed restriction include a requirement that tenants of the ADU must store any vehicle off -site, and not on -street. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required for the ADU above and beyond what is in place for the existing neighborhood. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; RESPONSE: The ADU must be deed restricted for resident occupancy. If the unit is rented, it must be used to house a qualified working resident of Pitkin County. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed ADU is voluntary, and is not required by Ordinance 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ADU with the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk -and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meet the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. T ll-i-ndtrde-a restriction -that tenants=rntr" rrc ()rrn r ; 'I'GG� QTIU B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. 2. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. sound transmission guidelines. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the units to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. t 4. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on -site. t 5. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, and the Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the City Streets Department. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. 7. All material representations made by. the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for an ADU located at 706 West Main Street, as outlined in the Planning Office Memo dated June 18, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet "B" - Referral Comments "C"- Plans and Elevations C tr e4 '� d s �. � CIS vt c. ' Y 4 Exhibit A V. Conditional U- Accessory Dwelling - . .1 D41 The scaled plans included in this Application include a sketch plan of the site showing existing and proposed features which are relevant to the review of the conditional use application. In addition, proposed and elevations and floor plans are included. THE CONDITIONAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS OF THE ASPEN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WITH THE INTENT OF THE ZONE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED RESPONSE: The proposed conditional use is for an accessory dwelling unit. The AACP has encouraged employee housing, and Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1990, gives the Applicant the option to construct an accessory dwelling unit, which is a conditional use in the Office (0) Zone District. This furthers the goals of the AACP. THE CONDITIONAL USE IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PARCEL PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USES OR ENHANCES THE MIXTURE OF COMPLIMENTARY USES AND ACTIVITIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PARCEL PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT.. RESPONSE: The accessory dwelling unit has been carefully designed and planned to be consistent and compatible with the parcel. The access for the ADU is from the alley and the ADU is located below grade. It is a generously sized studio (622 sq. ft.) and its access is located away from. snow -shedding roofs, under the proposed rear porch. The Applicants are requesting waiver or variation of the recD,i i rement for one parking space for � the ADU The ADU is j completely voluntary as the Applicants )are not required to provide an ADU -since the proposed. addition will not result in a 500 14 reconstruction of the existing structure, and there is no demolition of the existing structure. The Property is located on Main Street and there is a bus stop on the corner of 6th and Main, one house away. Further, there are a variety of transportation options available to and from Main Street throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. Providing an additional parking space may actually encourage more use of the automobile, which is inconsistent with the transportation objectives of the City of Aspen_ Furthermore,' the site cannot accommodate an additional parking space. Overall, the residential addition with the ADU is much more preferable than the office building which has been approved and vested for. this Property, and if the parking space is not waived, the Applicants likely will not build the ADU. THE LOCATION, SIZE, DESIGN AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE MINIMIZES ADVERSE EFFECTS, INCLUDING VISUAL IMPACTS, IMPACTS ON PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION, PARKING, TRASH, SERVICE DELIVERY, NOISE, VIBRATION AND ODOR ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES RESPONSE: As illustrated by the plans, the ADU has minimal visual impact and virtually no impact on parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations or odor since it is incorporated within a proposed single family residence. THERE ARE ADEQUATE FACILITIES AND SERVICES TO SERVE THE CONDITIONAL USE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ROADS, POTABLE WATER, SEWER, SOLID WASTE, PARKS, POLICE, FIRE PROTECTION, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL SERVICES, DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, AND SCHOOLS RESPONSE: The pjt-operty is located within the City of Aspen and will be servci,a by City water, sewer, and septic. Police and fire protection are available as well as emergency medical 15 services, hospital and medical services, and schools. Drainage will be designed by an engineer to minimize adverse effects on historical flows. THE APPLICANT COMMITS TO SUPPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MEET THE INCREMENTAL NEED FOR INCREASED EMPLOYEES GENERATED BY THE CONDITIONAL USE RESPONSE: This standard is not applicable. In any event, the Applicant would be supplying affordable housing in the form of the proposed ADU. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE COMPLIES WITH ALL ADDITIONAL STANDARDS IMPOSED ON IT BY THE ASPEN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND BY ALL OTHER APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER RESPONSE: The ADU is in compliance with the AACP and all other applicable requirements, except as noted above. VI. Vesting of Rights The Applicant requests, upon final approval pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, that the Applicant's rights be vested. krabacher\docs\application.2 WIN GT- Project l' antler a e _i'Ci+-P Applican S Eteltresc Wativve " Kepmetitative's l'itone Nartte_��r��.ia Owner's TY1fc of Ai�rticaticnt{��� ! A_ Vt t r E7escription of tite pro jcc t/cicvc ter! crrenl �e (ed LA ttu o 12V 'the applicant has itcen requested it) resiwnd to Ilse following iteths aitd provide tite following repor[s: �' VZ "nd Use Code ,Scciiun Colttmenis 7.1a lOC7 r �%�� %�f7V1 < t 4 a�i la j�1 •r � 1 Xeferml Agencies The revi P67&Z Qn) ((:C ati1q) (P&"Z andCCU �M t 1'ON s (tto) , tt l)cliosii li►rflicnplylic:itivn Zeview: Referral :tgcacy 1141 ft cs: rOTA[, DEMSCI' (ndditimal !tours are r ';it a rate ofj— To Apply Subinil Or Fo[lmt•ittg itifoumal;am 1:,- 11roo>f of ownct-chili, I Applicaw's ttantc, m1dress wnl telephone. nuniiier in a Ietter sigiml by the applicant which also states 111c rislrtrr, ;rcldress anti iclr1ihrine ttitrttlrcir of tile: rcprcticttttttivc. �1. Total dcliosit for review cif tine alilrlic-atiou 4. o collies of lire c;omplctc altiilicatitin Imckel ;tail ►i►ap.i. 6. Strcitittary lcncr exl►inirtitrg tiro relit st (cxis(icig,critnditic►tts and prolrosed uses), including strccl address mid legal cicscrtititott cif tiro titc►in:rty. 7. An 8 1/2" i,y I I" vicirtily maji locating the irarcel wi0my the City of Aspett, 8. Site !dart shall ittclucie i►ruperty bomidarics, lot sine, prviwscd access, and phy;sicai futures (clTaitiageway sireartts, rivers, etc.) 10. These kills need to be sitbrniticd if circlet): � a, list or adjacrsnt 1►rol►c:rty owners within M feet of the subject prvlierty with addresses. U. Sile 14106Is. i . C. Proof of legal accesti to lire itarcel. d._ Historic Prescrvation Cut Mission review%alipruval. B. Joseph Krabacher" Curtis B. Sanders' Michael G. Topalov Nickolai V. Prokhorov^ Igor B. Porohkin ^ Admitted in US only Admitted in Russia only LAW OFFICES OF B. JOSEPH KRABACHER and Associates P.C. Jerome Professional Building 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 201 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-3206 Tel: (970) 925-6300 Fax: (970) 925-1181 ernailflnternet address: krabacher@ igc.apc.org DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP Moscow Office 9 Krasnoproletarskaya Suite No. 3 103330 MOSCOW RUSS IA The undersigned, constituting an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, hereby files this Disclosure of Ownership of the following described property: 706 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, also known as Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado 1. The names of all owners of the property are: B. Joseph Krabacher and Susan S. Krabacher. 2. The property is subject to a mortgage or deed of trust in favor of Chase Manhattan Bank, 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 103, Aspen CO 81611 in the approximate amount of $360,000. 3. All other easements, contracts, and agreements affecting t'ne property are as disclosed on the Lawyer's Title Insurance Corporation Policy No. 85-01-097598 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Dated: May 1996 B. JOSEPH KRABACHE ASSOCIATES P.C. By: _ B. Jo Krabacher 201 North Mill, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: (303) 925-6300 krabacher\docs\disclosure.2 k a ers 1 e 111suralIce Crporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND. VIRGINIA Poiicy Number 85-01-097598 SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE. THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION. a Virginia corporation. herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. against loss or damage. not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A. and costs. attorneysfees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder. sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein: 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; 3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land: or 4. Unmarketability of such title. - IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed, to be valid when Schedule A is countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company. all in accordance with its By -Laws. LTe Insuortce Corporation Presiden Attest: jrl'secretar-\ c,.- .t c :3,4.r ter.*, a 1!n7(N The following matters are expressly excluded f,, the coverage of this policy: (t7l Goverr:mental police power. (b) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation relating to environmental protection. (c) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement tnow of hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownershipor a change in the dimensions or area of the land or an parcel which the land is or was a part. (d) The effect of any violation of the matters excluded under (a), (b), or (c) above; unless notice of a defect, lien a ges, lis pendens, liens oor encumbrance resenting from a violation has been recorded at Date of Policy in those records in which under state statutes deeds, mortga tice to purchasers of other title encumbrances must be recorded in ordsuch records shall notart becctve onstroued to Include recordshinland anyy ofrvalue and without the offices of fede al,statg provided, however, that without limitation,eor local environmental protection, zoning, building, health or public safety authorities. 7 Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public records at Data of Policy. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed_ in writing by the insured claimant to the Company prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (a) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS Definition of Terms (c) The Company shall have the right at its own cost to institute and or proceeding or to do any The following terms when used in this policy mean; without undue delay prosecute any action in its may be necessary or desirable to (a) "insured": the insured named in Schedule A, and, subject to any Company may have had against the named other act which opinion establish the title to the estate or interest as insured, and the Company ihts or defenses the sured, those who succeed to the interest of such insured by operation but not limited to, may take any appropriate action under the terms of this policy. or not it shall be liable thereunder, and shall not thereby law as distinguished from purchase including, representatives, next whether concede liability or waive any provision of this policy. !irs. distributees, devisees, survivors, personal (d) Whenever the Company, shall have brought any action or kin, or corporate or fiduciary successors. _- ` _ insured claiming loss or damage interposed a defense as required or permitted by the provision of this "'insured final (b) claimant": an treunder. - knowledge or ,... policy, the Company may pursue any such litigation to determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly (c) "knowledge'": actual knowledge, not constructive Mice which may be imputed to an insured by reason of any public reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal from any adverse cords. (d) '"land'": the land described, specifically or by reference in - :!�,--• judgment or order. f _ :., . (e) In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to defense any action or proceeding, the chedule A, and improvements affixed thereto which bylaw constitute- "land"' does not include any ; i prosecute or provide for the of insured hereunder shall secure to the Company the right to so al property; provided, however, the term •operty beyond the lines of the area specifically described or referred ";prosecute or provide defense in such action or proceeding, and all to use, at its option, the in Schedule A, nor any right, title. interest, estate or easement in alleys, lanes, ways or waterways, but' appeals therein, and permit the Company equested ' . name of such insured for such purpose. Whenever r' `e nutting streets, roads, avenues, or limit the extent to which a right of i,�;,- • Company, such insured shall give the Company all reasonabi othing herein shall modify to and from the land is insured by this policy. _ x :x .: arty• sucfi action or proceeding, in effecting settlement, s. defending such d..►ion ccess (e) "mortgage'": mortgage, deed or trust, trust deed, or other t ;revidence. obtaining witnesses, or prosecuting or %or proceeding, and the Company shall reimburse such insured for any acurity instrument. (f) "public records"": those records which by law impart constructive �� :'expense so incurred. otice of matters relating to said land. V- _.,,� •-; Ai 4. Notice of Loss —limitation of Action Continuation of Insurance after Conveyance of Title The Coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy i favor of an insured so long as such insured retains an estate or Merest in the land, or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase -ioney mortgage given by a purchaser from such insured, or so long as uch insurea shall have liability by reason of covenants of warranty -iade by such insured in any transfer or conveyance of such estate or iterest: provided, however, this policy shall not continue in force in Ivor of any purchaser from such insured of either said estate or Merest or the indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage Ivan to sucn insured. 1. Defense and Prosecution of Actions —Notice of Claim to be liven by an Insured Claimant (a) The Company, at its own cost and without undue delay, shall )rovide for ttte defense of an insured in all litigation consisting of fictions or proceedings commenced against such insured or a defense nterposed against an insured in an action to enforce a contract for a ;.ale of the estate or interest in said land, to the extent that such itigation is founded upon an alleged defect, lien, encumbrance, or ether matter Insured against by this policy. (b) The insured shall notify the Companv promptly in writing (i) in -ase any action or proceeding is begun or defense is interposed as set :orth in (a) above. (ii) in case knowledge shall come to an insured -iereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the title o the estate or interest, as insured, and which might cause loss or Damage for wntcn the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy, or iii) if title ;o the estate or interest, as insured, is rejected as -inmarketable. If such prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, .hen as to sucn insured all liability of the Company shall cease and .erminate in regard to the matter or matters for which such prompt nonce is recu+red: provided. however, that failure tr 'ify shall in no "5e preluaice the rignts of any such insured under : policy unless __ ___ __ ..o,,Ir4, n by such failure ano then only to the In addition to the nw!ces required under paragraph 3(0) of these Conditions and Stipulat ans, a statement in writing of any loss or damage for which it is claimed the Company is liable under this policy shall be furnished to the Company within 90 days after such loss or damage shall have been determined and no right of action shall accrue to an insured claimant until 30 days after such statement shall have been furnished. Failure to furnish such statement of loss or damage shall terminate any liability of the Company under this policy as to such loss or damage. b. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims The Company shall have the option to pay or otherwise settle for or in the name of an insured claimant any claim insured against or to terminate all liability and obligations of the Company hereunder by paying or tendering payment of the arnpunt of insurance under this policy together with any costs. attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to the time of such payment or tehder of payment. by the insured claimant and authorized by the C;5mpany. 6. Determination and Payment of Loss (a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall in no cast exceed the least of: (i) the actual loss of the insured claimant: or (ii) the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A. (b) The Company will pay, in addition to any loss. insured r b' this policy, all costs imposed upon an insured in litigation car b- the Company for such insured. and all costs, attorneys' an expenses in litigation carried on by such insured with the written authorization of the Comr•--v. (c) When liability has i definitely fixed in accordance with th conditions of this policy, t.._ loss or damage shall be payable within 3' days thereafter. NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA • S , �1' 0, CASS:-: NU.Mi�? DATE OF POLICY PCT-2703 12/02/88 2:26 P.M. PO 1CY NUMB..'. 85-01-097598 T:n'S POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LASS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF '-M-=— FOLLCIWLNG : 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Ease tints , or claims of easements, not shown by t-he Public records. 3. Disc- epanc es , conf licts in 1 i n�e�s , shortage n area, encroachments , and ar_�� facts vd-li ch a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and wr`-=c-^ are not shown by the public records. 4 . Any lip , or right to a lien_, for se�*v; ces, labor, or material heretofore or h_ereto- after ft,.rrished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 1 �7- 5. Urnatented mining claims, reservations or -exceptions in patents or in Acts i -.g th-e issuance thereof ; water rights, clam or title to water. 6. Taxes -for the year 1988 not yet due or payable. 7. Reservations and �T�t j ors as ccntay''`.ed i_-, United States Patent record.�d. Dda- = 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216. tr ; c�; orrs as set forth in Aspen City Cour_cil g . Tee , co*zd{ tions , obligations and res �-_ Or �-,.ance No. 60 (Ser; es of 1976) designat==-g a t.Ustoric Dist_ ic+ recorded member 9, 1576 in Book 321 at Page 51. 9. DeP-i of '`rust from B . JOSS ? . to the Public Tr astee of Pitk n County for tyre use of SUN SASL-W3S AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, I?" S SUCG'.�SSORS A�nJ OR ASS I=TS :0 $220 , 000 . 00 da DECK'. 02, 1988 ---orded DECE 02, 1988 1N BOOK 579 AT PAGE 953 recoti� no. 3 e06554 10. Dead of T -.1st from . B. JOSS KRABAC:'� to the Public T-r stee of PitkCaunty cr he use of SCAN CELLULAR CORPORATION , A DEL' ASrIARE CORPORATION to s�eCd-e $20 , 000.00 d a t e,d DECa4—BER O1, 1988 DEC�'�? 02, ? 988 1N BOOK 579 AT °. 959 r eceotior_ no 306555 A_POVE = OF TRUST RE -RECORDED DEC—'; N= '_ 3 ''_9 8 8 BOOK 5 80 AT PAGE 759 REC=- -ON NO. 306850 E.v,�`?'T O..NS 1, ' 2, 3 & 4 ARE `_ =- ON�S'I'I'�-'. r J CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS -CONTINUED 7. Limitation of Liability No claim shall arise or be maintainable under this policy (a) if the Company, after having received notice of an alleged defect, lien or encumbrance insured against hereunder, by litigation or otherwise, removes such defect, lien or encumbrance or establishes the title, as insured, within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice. (b) in the event of litigation until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title, as insured. as provided in paragraph 3 hereof: or(c) for liability voluntarily assumed by an insured in settling any claim or suit without prior written consent of the Company. S. Reduction of Liability All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs, attorneys* fees and expenses, shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro tanto. No payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorsement of such payment unless the policy be lost or destroyed, in which case proof of such loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. 3. Liability Noncumulative It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any policy insuring either (a) a mortgage shown or referred to in Schedule B hereof which is a lien on the estate or interest covered by this policy, cr(b) a mortgage hereafter executed by an insured which is a chargeorlienon the estate or interest described or referred to in Schedule A. and ttm amount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy. The Company shall have the option to apply to the payment of any such mortgages any amount that otherwise would be payable hereunderto the insured owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy to said insured owner. _ 11. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement Whenever the Company shall have settled a claim under this policy, right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of u insured claimant. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitlea all rights and remedies which such insured claimant would have n, against any person or property in respect to such claim had this policy r. been issued, and if requested by the Company, such insured claima shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any pers or property necessary in order to perfect such right of subrogation a shall permit the Company to use the name of such insured claimant in a transaction or litigation involving such rights or remedies. If the payme does not cover the loss of such insured claimant, the Company shall subrogated to such rights and remedies in the proportion which s< payment bears to the amount of said loss. If loss should result from a act of such insured claimant, such act shall not void this policy, but Company, in that event, shall be required to pay only that part of a losses insured against hereunder which shall exceed the amount, if a lost to the Company be reason of the impairment of the right subrogation. 12_ Liability Limited to this Policy -This- instrument together with all endorsements and other instrumer "dtm,-attached hereto by the Company is the entire policy and contr between the insured and the Company. }:. -Any,daim'of loss or damage, whether or not based on ne .e. ; vnff#Ch arises out of the status of the title to the estate or int eve Pefr_by. or any action asserting such claim, shall be rest, . a to d prcnnsions and conditions and stipulations of this policy. 147aramendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made excep writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary 10. Apportionment - validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels which are not used as a single site. and a loss is established affecting one or more of said parcels but not all. the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was dividea pro rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel to the whole, exclusive of any improvements made subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or -value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each such parcel by the Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this policy and shown by an express statement herein orby an endorsement attacned hereto. 13. Notices, Where Sent All notices required to be given the Company and any statemen writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the numbe this policy and shall be addressed to its Corporate Headquarters, o West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia, mailing address: P.O. Box 27` Richmond, Virginia 23261. Lau-Tyers Title Insurance Corporation National Headquarters — Richmond, Virginia A WORD OF THANKS... As we make your policy a part of our permanent records. we want to express our appreciation of this evidence of your faith in Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation. There is no recurring premium. This policy provides valuable title protection and we suggest you keep it in a safe place where it will be readily available for future reference. If you have any questions about the protection provided by this policy contact the office that issued your policy or you may write to: Consumer Affairs Department Lau)yersTitle Insurance Corporation P.O. Box 27567 Richmond. Virginia 23261 R au)yerse insuraice CrOTltl oratlon POLICY OF -TITLE INSURANCE MR-66-1 �86� B. JOSEPH KRABACHER SUSAN S. KRABACHER 706 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena, Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Authorization for Representation Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter will constitute the authorization for B. Joseph Krabacher, 201 North Mill, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611 and Robert Trown & Associates, Inc., 25 Lower Woodbridge, Suite 104 B, Snowmass Village CO 81615 to represent B. Joseph Krabacher and Susan Scott Krabacher, with respect to a Land Use Application for significant historic development and conditional use approval and all matters related thereto. Very my Yo s, B. Joseph -Krabacher Susan Scott Krabacher krabacher\1trs\p1anning.4 10114:11 r-- VICINITY `14P E.YHIBIT 4 ME 0 0 fl _ _, _ S SEE � lbs ■ '� ��,� MEN mom SEE MEN Ow Krabacher Proposed Residential addition 1) Praj ect Name ti0Q 706 W. Main Street Lot Q and West 20 feet Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen (jndicate sheet ' address , 1vt & block ems, . legal de�i�sm c� 3) Fit 7oclir-9 0 4) I.10t Size 5,000 5) & R Ory B. Joseph Krabacher, Susan S. Krabacher Appl. is arlt-' s Name j Adder Z01 North dill, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6300 John Muir, Robert Trown &-Associates, Inc. 6) pp�t�tive's Name, Address 25 Lower Woodbridge Road, Suite 104 B, Snowmass Village CO 81615 (970) 923-6131 7) Type of Application (please check an that ap131Y) X CbrxxVtLml Dev- X Cxd..i_tZonal Use Oonoeptml SPA Special Review final SPA Final Hi sf-nri t- Dev_ - •• ems• � ►.M9 Final POD mouritain Viet Plane Sub#v-isicaz i n i t an i �atl Cxt _ Text;,� _ Lot TAxle. ,Adj ustmarlt 8) 9) 10) minor aistoric Dev_ X Hislumj.c Demolition H i st-nri _ Desig natijai Descr; pticn of EKisti leg Uses (n,nb, and type- of ap crva 1 S L gra,zted to the prcPertY) - 599 Sauare feet - building a Droved C13L b,is;ness . in Office Zone District; See Application for information on previous approvals. Dascr-iption of Development Applicatiori See Apolication for I F-ave you . attached the folla4i g? " to Attar 2 , Kin ; ru_ma albs i-ss i cxt _ to Attach� 3, cif is SL I scion ,� Ren�otzse to A 4 �ierw for Your Applic�tian I 7q UJ 1� 4 � LA r (N La J I LLJ - V ZLL- 1L. O di lu U �us>�3iiFi�uv/s3�vi�osry B 3:(--w4vnD sgl?IV14:) 7Z4�N�a1S�a a�li�d9da» oc d S X I 1 1 Ir EMU sut4 mooe- BOOtA -4 T r PLAN .SCALE. 1/ 4-- 17 2(5 Sa-f=T- AREA Ul (D u w J, u . z 0 Vi w ti LL LL z I u x ct c LU 0 z LU W w T. Ul z 0 u 7' W 0 cc OR&vvtr4G -A36 f-0 - 0':- � OArE if /5/90 S--EET C>= F-Dr�- Or pt61\./ E: Cyq C- I -L9 XFM� PAD p s t: STORY w CD t"C 8 (� � 8 �� III ,� I � L6 o I �.i (I bn"� I Me- o C-rz, LAQGr— I-P-EZ to l�lz') W.C. 0. 3z, ElAc5TERL:lf N ENO ti zL RE-- aA P- 0 f C Ck RQ F- C*-4 S. PRc>;- L-1-1- (50.00 AO.CDO 119� cl-r-Y mot'j. n," B L K- cc� z;:z Cu P-C) MAIN STREET (lct8) IM. CONIML 11 Cl mom Lm ve qx* OWIK3 or UK i(ils wUl " W- UZ:: 10 W. S"' f:fCQ 91 TLAr. Witt r1k; 171M W131n X- WTI: 14 v r" -aki ar 401W ont Ww W. ILI:- It LAr-1 Kit KV. llm 11, f,-Jr. t--r 1:3 -,mm q lk w � �*11: _ ' Exhibit B TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development Dept. FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: June 12,1996 RE: KRABACHER REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Parcel ID No. 2735-124-45-005 ISSUE'., The applicant is asking for approval to construct a voluntary accessory dwelling unit, to be located in the basement of a single-family residence. BACKGROUND: According to the plans, the unit is to be approximately 622 square feet, which is over the minimum and under the maximum. RECOMMENDATION,. Staff recommends approval of the accessory dwelling unit as long as the following conditions are met: If approved, the applicant would have to file a deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office. This document can be obtained from the Housing Office, 2, The kitchen would have to comply with the definition stated in the Aspen/Pitidn County Housing Guidelines, \reCerral\krabacher.adu Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } } ss. State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 6-205.E. B. Joseph Kraba.cher I, 11 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 (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 29th day of May 1996 (which is days prior to the public hearing date of -3°urie lg )• 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 �3 continuously from the _'d to the ` day of was posted and day of ZI-1-1-- visible 199 1994 (Must be posted for at least ten (10 ) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted ign is attached hereto. -- ure (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this 29th day of May , 1996 . by B. Joseph Krabacher WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL My Commissign expi es : 2/24/2000= Notary Public Cheryl_ Heiberger i-1n:3 0 RE: KRABACHER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 18, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application submitted by B. Joseph and Susan S. Krabacher, Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for an approximately 600 square foot below grade Accessory Dwelling Unit. The property is located at 706 W. Main, and is described as Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096. s/Sara Garton, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission PUBLIC NOTICE 706 WEST MAIN STREET Richard E. and Lois N. Long P.O. Box 1314 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Aspen Historical Society 620 West Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 John B. Dolan Trustee of Dolan Realty Trust 170 Sandy Pond Road Lincoln, MA 01773 Nancy Jane Mangham 9021 Dickson Road Fort Worth, Texas 76179 Graeme Means P.O. Box 4956 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Charles L. Hall and Nancy W. Tate P.O. Box 1819 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Christen Science Society/Aspen Snowmass, Inc. 344 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen Science Society/Aspen Snowmass, Inc. 734 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 W. Everett & Eleanor B. Biggs William D. Biggs 1036 Craigland Court Knoxville, TN 37919 Stape Ltd. Co. 533 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Seventh & Main Venture, a Colorado General Partnership P.O. Box 10147 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Ryanco Partners XXX 715 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 J. Robert Weien P.O. Box 3506 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Weston and Susan Anson P.O. Box 7953 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Sandunes Limited 4823 Old Kingston Pike, Suite 140 Knoxville, TN 37919 David and Elizabeth S. Kruidenier 3409 Southern Hills Drive DeMoines, Iowa 50321 Richard J. Fleisher IF Associates Ill West Washington, No. 1505 Chicago, IL 60602 Anne S. Feld 1700 Pacific Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 Augustus F. and Margeryl Hallum 410 South Aspen Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen Mountain Rescue 630 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 William Lentz, Jr. P.O. Box 1098 Lincolnton, NC 28092 William A. Levin 805 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10022 Ann R. Crockett Trustee of Price Living Trust 10898 Mora Drive Las Elpos Hill, California 94024 James C. and Sharon M. Kempner P.O. Box 25 Sugarland, Texas 77487 Dan B. and Lynne Levinson P.O. Box 2012 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Alfred P. and Lauralee S. West 12 Greenbrier Lane Paolia, PA 19301 Don McGill, Inc. 11800 Old Katy Road Houston, Texas 77079 Limited Partnership Hadid Aspen Holdings 600 East Cooper Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 County Housing Authority 530 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Bavarian Lodge 600 East Cooper Aspen, Colorado 81611 M&B Company c/o Garfield & Hecht 601 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 Cheryl Jennings -Salazar 101 Emma Road, No. 7 Basalt, Colorado 81621 Richard J. Fleisher IF Associates 111 West Washington No. 1505 Chicago, IL 60602 Debbie Klein 546 McSkimming Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 Jim Iglehart 610 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado 81611 Robert H. & Phyllis A. Throm 617 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Michaele S. Dunsdon David A. Borkenhagen P.O. Box 2225 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Donald L. Young 617 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard E. Rudolph P.O. Box 1089 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Douglas P. Allen 225 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 Patricia J. Straight 617 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Thomas Marshall 300 Riverside Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Cheryl Barker Shonk 7457 South Clarkson Littleton, Colorado 80122 Miles Berger 180 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60601 William D. Smithberg 132 East Delaware, Apartment 6001 Chicago, IL 60611 Sheliah J. Bryan P.O. Box 967 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Gale M. Parker P.O. Box 1490 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Merle Allan Jablin P.O. Box 778 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Brian and Susanne O'Neil 11995 Southwest 222 Street Miami, Florida 33170 John W. Taylor 31050 West Thompson Lane Heartland, Wisconsin 53029 Suzannah V. K. Reid P.O. Box 10443 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Ted Lenio P.O. 9854 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Edjar F. Barber P.O. Box 9678 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Gene T. Schubert 101 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Nancy J. Haddad P.O. Box 11453 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Robert A. and Christine N. Lester P.O. Box 9696 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Susie R. Cochran P.O. Box 11673 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Hispatel Corporation c/o B. Keon Finser 550 Biltmore Way Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Susan Pan P.O. Box 12020 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Corneal Robert B. and Lynn B. Piper 3415 Morrison Northwest Washington, DC 20015 Terry End 700 Gilespie Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Maridee Christopher 8957 East Pershing Avenue Scotsdale, AZ 85260 Kristen E. Hughes 233 Light Hill Road Snowmass, Colorado 81654 Joan Shapiro-Hykes 802 East Cooper Aspen, Colorado 81611 John W. Taylor 31050 West Thompson Lane Heartland, Wisconsin 53029 Linda Lee Bloomquist Curt Ian Beereboom 724 West Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Nikifor Budsey, II Susan Wabiszewski 728 West Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mark L. Pearson Laura B. Holmes 732 West Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Robert M. and Wendy Nevins P.O. Box 11482 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Jeffrey T. and Kelley J. Hanle 126 South Seventh Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Linda K. Baxter Mary E. Woolford P.O. Box 954 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Pitkin County Housing Authority 130 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Danny Abbott P.O. Box 2265 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Mia Valley P.O. Box 8141 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Nancy E. Lavigne P.O. Box 1901 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Glenda C. Knight P.O. Box 328 Snowmass, Colorado 81654 William A. Levin Revocable Trust 575 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2605 New York, NY 10022 Luu Investments, LLC 435 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Douglas Lee Price 16235 Redland Road Derwood, MD 20855 Margaret J. Manson Constance M. Morgenson 355 North Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 krabacher\notice.706 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I have complied with the notice requirements of Section 6- 205 (E) (3) (C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of" the Aspen Municipal Code by mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto by first class, postage prepaid, U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property on May ; 29 , 1996 . B. Joseph Krabacher STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Affidavit of mailing was signed. before me this 29th day of May , 1996 WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 2/24/2000 y'wf, Notary Public Cher9L Heiberger PUBLIC NOTICE RE: KRABACHER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 18, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application submitted by B. Joseph and Susan S. Krabacher, Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for an approximately 600 square foot below grade Accessory Dwelling Unit. The property is located at 706 W. Main, and is described as Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096. s/Sara Garton, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission 111U . a i� WARREN F. MAN P�sro�z )S,AN BRUCKER Ct7NnaluR smltY rtw PROPWY MatoA�l�t't 1 RYA, co I 114C. 713 V"ur, �"w snmr, win i 3 ASPT, COLORADO 81611 May 3 0, 1996 Via Fax 92�-11�1 B. Joseph Kx'aba.cher Attorney at Lair B. JOSEPH XRABACHE:R & ASSOCIATES, F.C. 201 N. Mill Street, Ste. 201 Aspen, Colorado 81.611 Re: 706 Nest Main Street I Aspen, Colorado TELEPHONE 970.9254M FACSiM 1 970.9254406 Dear Joe: As you and I have discussed I have receiv.L the Notice f public Hearing for the conditional use review for an accessory dwelling unit at ynur above referenced location. As you know I own the connercial property directly across the teet from your property. You may represent to the city, at the sch6 tiled meeti � �n Tuesday, June I Sth, 1996, that I have no objection to your proposed plans. r a strongly in favor of your proposed addition. As I told you I would be there personally to testify; n your be but I have previous vacation plans that will cause me not to be in the city on that te. Sincerely, I , Warren F. Ryan President WFR/fh RYANCO, INC. 715 Nest Main Street, Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone; 970 925-5599 Facsimile: 970-925-2408 F.X COVER SHEET (please deliver immediately) Faxed To The Following Number; 925-1181 To., 8 . Joseph Krabacher Firm: B. JOSEPH KRABACHER & ASS00IAIES Date; May BO , 1996 Time: 4:00 P.M. Number of Pages ( Including Craver Page) : 2 Fxom: Warren Ryan Message: Memo re. 'your property at 706 West Main Street IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL (970) 925-5889. OUR RETURN FAX NUMBER IS (9 7 0) 9 2 5- 2 4 0 8. T91S MESSAGE Y3 nmIMED DNLY FOR THE UWE OF THE INDMrrJAL (0) OF ENTITY (ZGE) TO W91CR =T IS ADDUSSED, AND b3A1' CON'TASN INFGRMATZ= MW IS PRIInLEGED, CONPIDEIIAL MO EXEMPT YWM DISCLOSCRS T NTMt APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE R:1i ER OF TES W&GAGE IS MT THE INTEN ED RECIPIMr, OR MM EWLQYEE OR ACMM R:SPMTSIBLE FOR VSLTVER= THE MZS5AG8 10 17M nMWMED RECIPSBNT, YOU ARE RMSY NOTIFIED TW ANY DISSEMINA==, DISTRZSCTION OR COPYING OF MCS COM jNICATIOli IS STRICTLY L*0E3'BITED• IF YOU DVS RECE "D zHls Comm-jalcATIoN IN =OR PLRASE NoTiCB US =NEDWELY BY TEL,EPEx%iL AM RET= QP IGIIgAL MESSAGE TO M AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VZA MW U.S. POSTAL SMVICE . THANX YOU. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director t>sLA 4 FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Howling Wolf Special Review for Trash Area Reduction DATE: June 18, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting special review approval to reduce the required trash service area. The application packet is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of the special review with conditions. APPLICANT: Howling Wolf, represented by Sven Alstrom LOCATION: 316 E. Hopkins Ave. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core LOT SIZE: 3,000 square feet BACKGROUND: The Howling Wolf is constructing an addition at the rear of the building to expand the kitchen and adding a basement to accommodate storage areas for the restaurant. The patio in the rear of the restaurant will be used for seasonal dining. HPC approved the addition on March 13, 1996. STAFF CONEVIENTS: In the Commercial Core, a trash/utility service area is required abutting the alley. For up to 6,000 square feet of net leasable floor area, the trash area shall be a minimum of 20 feet in length, measured parallel to the alley, with a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet and a minimum depth of 10 feet at ground level. The applicant is proposing.to reduce the required trash area to 10 feet by 10 feet. Pursuant to Section 26.64.040(C), the criteria for a special review to reduce the required trash service area are: 1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. Response: The Howling Wolf has approximately 2,500 square feet of net leasable floor area, including the patio dining area. Since the 20' x 10' x 10' trash area is intended to accommodate up to 6,000 square feet of net leasable floor area, a 10' x 10' x 10' trash area should be adequate. . 2. Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate. Response: The trash area is accessed directly from the alley. ! 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. Response: The trash area will be enclosed by a 6 foot fence. Dumpsters shall be oriented with the "ears" facing the alley so as to be easily removed by trash personnel. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compactions by other developments on the block. Response: Trash compaction is not proposed at this time. S. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. Response: The existing utilities in the alley will e be impacted. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area. Response: The trash area is accessed directly from the alley. STAFF RECOMIVIEENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Howling Wolf special review to reduce the required trash area to 10' x 10' x 10', subject to the following conditions: 1. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2. Dumpsters shall be oriented with the "ears" facing the alley so as to be easily removed by trash personnel. 3. Access to the trash area from the alley shall be unobstructed. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the special review for the Howling Wolf review to reduce the required trash area to 10' x 10' x 10', with the conditions as outlined in the Community Development Department Memo dated June 18, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet 2 Exhibit �: s. ALSTROMG RO U P P.C. ARCHITECTURE and INTERIOR DESIGN 312 F ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970 925 1745 20 May, 1996 via fax / 920 5580 . Suzanne Wolff, Planner ASPEN / PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 HOWLING WOLF / 316 East Hopkins Ltd. SPECIAL REVIEW TRASH AREA Building Permit Number 6 -146 Dear Suzanne, Attached is our special review application for a 10 foot by 10 foot trash area for the Howling Wolf. FAR our current proposed FAR is 1557.62 square feet. this is 35% of the allowable FAR on this site in the commercial core. this project is mostly a kitchen and storage addition. although we are adding a dining patio for seasonal use we will have adequate trash area capacity with the 10 x 10 ft area proposed. SPECIAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 1.At this time we are less than half of the allowable FAR and therefore strongly can demonstrate that our trash area of 10 x 10 will be sufficient. 2. The trash area is immediately accessible from the alley. 3. The area is enclosed by a wood fence. required by HPC. 4. Current construction has not disturbed utilities in the area. the proposed location does not impact utility lines. 5. This trash area does not impact the main utility locations in the alley. please schedule our hearing as soon as possible we understood last week that the meeting prior to June 18 was already filled. Sincerely, Sven Erik Alstrom AIA ARCHITECT cc: Warren Ryan / 316 East Hopkins Ltd. 8 13 s N.00F:E .. < CN CN LLuj o%. O�, - CN 0— 00 0 cr�y—) V) Ix Ito 1 8 > am CIO U) ---4 low CIV 'a a Now a (D C) M wee U, > 3: > co u 00 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director L�), j DATE: June 18, 1996 RE: Aspen Club PUD Amendment SUMMARY: On March 19, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of a proposed amendment to the access and parking plan for the Aspen Club. The applicant revised the application, and a First Reading was held in front of City Council on March 10, 1996. The Code is silent regarding criteria for requiring an applicant to formally return the beginning of a two-step process, but the applicant has agreed to appear before the Commission with the revised application for comment. The City Council will hold a 2nd Reading and Public Hearing on July 8, 1996. Staff will present the Commission's recommendation at that time. The entire City Council packet is attached as Exhibit A. A staff recommendation is included within the Staff Memorandum. A site plan will be available for review by the Commission on June 18, 1996. City Council Discussion: City Council did not take any formal action on the application, but did approve Ordinance 20, Series of 1996 on First Reading. Council members did voice concerns regarding traffic calming and snow plowing on Ute Avenue, but appeared to be awaiting comments from the Commission as well as the public before reaching a decision. Additional Alternative: Following the Council discussion, the applicant and staff have discussed another alternative, which would allow for the retention of 20 spaces at the north lot, and improvements at the Ute Avenue lot to be restricted to approximately 40 spaces. This would ensure no additional traffic on Ute Avenue, and allow for the applicant and staff to assess the need for additional parking in the future. Recommendation: Staff would recommend that the Commission foreword a recommendation to the City Council regarding the amended proposal, as well as the additional alternative summarized above. 0 MEMORANDUM Exhibit A TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director DATE: June 10, 1996 RE: Aspen Club PUD - PUD Amendment - First Reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval to modify the access and parking areas that serve the Aspen Club (Club). Access to the Club is presently provided from State Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road, as specified in the Callahan Subdivision and PUD agreement. In addition; the PUD agreement restricted the use of the Ute Avenue parking lot to service, deliveries or emergencies. Over time the Ute Avenue lot has been used for additional membership parking in violation of the PUD Agreement. The applicant initially proposed to access the Club exclusively from Ute Avenue, to expand the Ute Avenue lot to 138 parking spaces, and to convert Lot 14A, which is currently used for Club parking, to a single family lot. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at a public hearing on March 19, 1996, and recommended denial by a vote of 4-1, based on the adjacent land uses along Ute Avenue, the level of pedestrian/bicycle traffic in the area, and the physical constraints of the Ute Avenue roadway. The applicant has since revised the application, and is currently proposing to retain the existing parking lot on Lot 14A but reduced in size to accommodate a total of 20 vehicles, and to reduce the proposed number of parking spaces on the Ute Avenue side of the property from the original proposal of 138 spaces to 80 spaces. This represents a 42 per reduction from the original proposal, but also would increase available parking in the Ute Avenue lot by 70 percent when compared to the existing spaces. The applicant is also, committing to operate a shuttle service between the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge during peak traffic hours in -season to reduce traffic on Ute Avenue. The original application is attached as Exhibit A, referral memos are attached as Exhibit B, and letters from adjacent land owners in response to the public notice are attached as Exhibit C. The revised illustrative site- plan of the proposed modifications to thi,, Ute Avenue parking lot is attached as Exhibit D. An amendment to the application is attached as Exhibit E, and minutes from the March 19, 1996 minutes are attached as Exhibit F. Staff notes for Council that a determination has been made that the applicant does not require either conditional or special review because the underlying parking and access requirements were established through the PUD process. A conditional use review is not necessary for the Ute Avenue parking lot due the recognition within the PUD agreement that limited parking was approved by the City. The applicant has agreed to return to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to second reading to allow the Commission an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. Staff recommends approval with conditions, with a recommended modification of the proposed parking configuration. The concept advocated by staff would attempt to hold traffic levels on Ute Avenue to current levels. APPLICANT: _Dick Butera (Aspen Club International), represented by Alan Richman ZONING: Lots 14A and 15, Callahan Subdivision. The Aspen Club facilities are located on Lot 15, and Lot 14A is the current location of the parking lot approved in 1976. Lots 15 and 16 are zoned Rural Residential (RR), while the remaining lots in the PUD are zoned Moderate -Density Residential (R-15); with all lots in the development having a PUD overlay. The proposed PUD amendment would route additional traffic from State Highway 82/Cooper Street, and then continue to the rear of the club on Original Street/ Ute Avenue. Zoning through this section includes single and multi -family residential. (R-15 and RMF) along. SH 82, transitioning to tourist -oriented land uses (NC PUD and L/TR) along the west side of Original, and returning to residential use (R-15 PUD) near the terminus of Ute Avenue. BACKGROUND: The requirement for limited access to the Aspen Club property was defined in the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision. The specific condition addressing access reads as follows: "The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular tragic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles are for the purpose of construction, providing services to or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore, neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision. Since that time, the area behind the Aspen Club off of Ute Avenue has been used by employees and members of the Club for parking, in violation of the requirement of the PUD. Currently, approximately 47 spaces are being used for these purposes. Consistent with the enforcement policy of the City, staff has not taken action to remove the Ute Avenue parking pending a final decision on the application by City Council. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: The Aspen Club property includes the recreational facilities on Lot 15, and also created Lots 1 thru 12, each of which was approved for a single family home, except for Lot 10, which was approved for a duplex. Lots 13 and 13A were condominium lots, which were built -out as the existing 20-unit Aspen Condominiums. Lot 14, which contained the Benedict residence, was originally approved to be conyMed injto a clubhouse and residence. Lot 14A was approved for parking facilities for the recreational uses on Lots 14 and 15. Lot 16, the existing Benedict Office building, was designated for (Office use. -116). Subdivision and PUD Agreement, Callahan Subdivision, dated May 13, 1976 (Book 312, Pages 115 The existing access pattern requires that all east and westbound club patrons use State Highway 82 to Crystal Lake Road. The PUD approval included the development of a north lot, and visitors approach the Club via a walkway of approximately 1000 feet in length crossing the Roaring Fork River. The proposed access amendment would route additional traffic south on Original Street, continuing south on Ute Avenue to an existing entrance near the rear of the Aspen Club facility. Land uses along the proposed access route include commercial and multi- family residential along Cooper, continuing along Original between Cooper and Durant, and transitioning to single- and multi -family lots towards the terminus of Ute Avenue. TRAFFIC IMPACTS: Excerpts from the traffic analysis provided with the original application are included within Exhibit A. Based on Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) methodology, the study concluded that the traffic volumes projected for Ute Avenue, assuming approval, would be at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) based.on the assumed carrying capacity of the roadway, estimated at 3,000 vehicles per day. This estimate assumes the following cross-section: two eleven -foot driving lanes, an eight -foot parking lane, and an eight -foot separated bike path.2 Field work conducted by Planning, Engineering and Streets Departments at different times from mid -February to mid -March found that the actual cross-section of Ute Avenue tapers from 19' at the Ute Avenue/Aspen Alps Road to nearly 14' at the curve adjacent to Ute Park. The majority of the rest of Ute Avenue is restricted to 15' of passable road due to snow. This is primarily due to the directional orientation of Ute Avenue. Portions of the roadway are shadowed by Aspen Mountain as early as 1:30 pm, and completely shaded by 3:30 pm. For comparison, the existing access to the club via State Highway 82 remains in open sunlight until sunset at approximately 6:00 pm. Staff suggested that the 3,000 figure was flawed by assuming a cross section that is not possible 5 months out the year, and did not consider the horizontal and vertical alignment of Ute Avenue or the presence of significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Photographs taken during this period of time are attached as Exhibit H. The proposed peak period trip distribution, based on the original application, would have increased traffic by 18% on Ute Avenue south of Durant, and 104% (doubling traffic) at the far end of Ute Avenue adjacent to the proposed access and existing dwelling units. Based on the revised proposal to maintain 20 parking spaces in the existing north lot and to provide weekday peak -hour, peak -season shuttle service to the Club, weekday traffic on Ute Avenue south of Durant would increase by 4.8%, and at the far end of Ute Avenue by 26.3%.3 The intersection analysis of the original proposal also indicated that no adverse impacts are projected for Cooper/Original or Original/Durant, and the impacts would be less under the proposed amendment. Staff notes that traditional traffic studies do not account for the level of pedestrian and bike traffic in the immediate area, nor the sight distance issues addressed by the Engineering Department. Table 1 summarizes the conclusion of the traffic analysis for an average weekday for the initial application and the amended proposal, assuming a 30 percent reduction as represented by Leigh, Scott & Cleary. February 6th, 1996 cover letter from Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. to Dick Butera (included in Exhibit A) 3 May 15, 1996 cover letter from Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. to Dick Butera (included in Exhibit G) 3 Table 1 Aspen Club PUD Access Amendment Existing and Proposed Average Weekday Traffic (March Aspen Proposed % Aspen Proposed % 1996) Club Weekday Change Club Weekday Change Cooper at Original 31280 220 3,500 +6.7 55 3,335 +1.6 Original 11800 210 2,010 +11.6 53 1,853 +2.9 Lower Ute 1,250 230 1,480 +18.4 56 1,306 +4.5 Upper Ute 220 230 1 450 1 +104.5 58 1 278 +26.3 REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from Streets, Parks and Engineering are attached as Exhibit B, and are summarized below: Streets: The Streets Department was opposed to the original submittal due to the horizontal and vertical alignment that constrain site distance, and the reduced lane width caused by snow storage during the winter. Engineering: The Engineering Department was also opposed to the original submittal; due to sight constraints; potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, the residential character of the southern sections of Ute Avenue, and the potential conflicts with existing public uses of the three parks and trail crossings. A detailed analysis of the traffic study assumptions and findings are included in Engineering's comments. Revised comments have not been submitted. Parks: The Parks Department questions the adequacy of the traffic study in addressing winter driving conditions, including the narrow lane width and sight constraints due to snow storage. Environmental Health : Environmental Health did not identify any significant air quality issues or conflicts with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Aspen Area. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24-7-907 B. provides that any amendment to an approved PUD which is not insubstantial "shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan." The following section evaluates the proposal according to these standards. A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Cemmunity Plan. Response: The applicant's response notes that the retention of the Aspen Club is a consistent with the intent of "revitalizing the community" and the desire to . "encourage .land uses, businesses and events that serve the local community and tourist base." Staff does not agree 4 that this policy can be used to justify .the requested amendment. The proposal should be reviewed independently of the financial situation of the Aspen Club, and instead assessed by its relative impact on the community and consistency with applicable regulations. The Aspen Area Community Plan placed particular emphasis on the implementation of the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan. The Proposed Pedestrian System map identified Ute Avenue, Original and the portion of State Highway 82 west of Crystal Lake Road as a "Primary (Commuter)" route. Staff did not consider the original proposal to redirect additional vehicular traffic onto these streets, even if the roadway geometry can theoretically absorb additional capacity, to be consistent with the pedestrian plan approved within the AACP. The revised proposal would increase traffic along the Ute/Original corridor only slightly, and greatly reduces the impact on pedestrian and bicycle use of this area when compared to the original submittal. The City has also committed to enforce a 25 mph speed limit along Ute Avenue, as well as heightened enforcement of the "No Parking" zone on the north side or Ute Avenue. Staff would suggest that if there was no net increase over current traffic levels on Ute Avenue, the PUD amendment would be consistent with the AACP. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The applicant has stated that the existing parking lot is "incompatible" with the existing residential units. The same argument holds true for the proposed access to the parking lot off of Ute Avenue, which is also residential in nature and includes significant bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The concept of SH 82 access for the Aspen Club residences and recreational facilities was to minimize conflicting turning movements and concentrate through traffic onto roadways designed for such volumes. The existing access from State Highway 82 has wider shoulders, longer site distances and is more consistent in character with the existing traffic patterns- when compared to the Ute Avenue alternative. The revised plan dramatically reduces potential volumes on Ute Avenue, but would increases traffic over existing levels. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The surrounding area has developed to the point where very few vacant, developable parcels remain. The applicant may develop a single-family home on Lot 14A, and is also considering deeding the remaining land not used for the 20 space parking lot to the adjacent owners. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: This amendment does not require any GMQS allotments. The conversion of Lot 14A to a- single family :home would be considered exempt from GMQS,- based on its existence prior to November 14, 1977, and compliance with the Requirements of the Housing Replacement 1 Program. E. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. 5 Response: The amendment does not propose any changes to the underlying zoning or the density allowed in the R-15 zone district. F. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi family dwellings shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. Response: The Club's parking lot is not permitted in the R-15 zone district, but rather was approved within the PUD. Reducing the amount of parking on Lot 14A will lessen the non- conformity as it relates to underlying zoning. G, The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted for the. maximum distance between buildings, height, front/rear/side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area and minimum open space requirements. Response: No variations from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone districts are proposed. H. The number of off street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: 1. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. 2. The parking needs of any non-residential uses. 3. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. 4. The availability of pubic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. 5. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreation facilities in the City. 6. Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change. Response: Existing Parking There are currently 101 parking spaces available on Lot 14A, which exceeds the 38 required by the PUD. Observations by the applicant indicate that the existing number of spaces are adequate for existing club users, and that parking is currently split. between the approved parking and the Ute Avenue parking. The applicant notes that the parking lot on Lot 14A rarely contains more than 20 vehicles of members, guests and employees, and, therefore, asserts that maintaining 20 spaces on Lot 14A and providing shuttle service to the Club will only slightly increase existing traffic levels on Ute Avenue. Staff does note that the original application states that the lot on Crystal Lake Road is usually occupied by approximately 20-50 cars (pg. 9). no Parking Demand: The City of Aspen parking standards require 2.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of net leasable for a recreational club.4 Based on the existing square footage of the recreational facilities (approximately 32,000 sq. ft.), the Club, if approved today, would be required to provide 64 off-street parking spaces. At the time the .application was approved in 1977 for the original, the standard in effect at the time suggested only 38 spaces were needed to serve the Club. Other commonly used sources would have suggested a factor of 3 to 5 spaces per 1000 square feet, requiring 128 spaces.5 Staff notes that the concentrated land use pattern of Aspen, as well as the implementation of policies to encourage alternative transportation modes would suggest a parking demand below traditional urban factors. Demand estimations not withstanding, the project was approved with the north lot containing 101 parking spaces. The lot off of Ute Avenue provides 37 spaces, for a total existing parking count of approximately 138 spaces. Original Proposal: The original site plan indicated 138 spaces: 105 along the west side of the building, including an expansion of the area currently used for member parking and a conversion of the two tennis courts closest to the existing pedestrian bridge into parking, 12 spaces at the rear of the building for employees in an area currently used for parking, and 21 spaces for the spa and therapy area, which would have required the removal of the tennis/volleyball court along the eastern side of the Club. The proposal would have held available parking at existing levels, but would redistribute traffic onto Ute Avenue, far beyond the current levels. Amended Proposal: The revised site plan indicates 80 spaces on the Ute Avenue side of the property: 38 on two existing tennis courts directly to the north of the building, 27 along the west side of the building, 9 to the south of the building for therapy patients, and 6 to the southeast of the building. 20 parking spaces will be maintained on Lot 14A, for a total of 100 spaces for the Club. The proposed parking would be more than adequate, particularly in light of the representations that the north lot rarely contains more than 20-50 cars.6. The applicant also proposes to provide a shuttle service for guests and members from the Aspen Club to the Aspen Club Lodge from 8- 10 AM and 5-7 PM, Monday through Friday, from December to March and June to August, to reduce the need for parking and traffic impacts along Ute Avenue. Staff is not in favor of any increase in traffic above the levels currently using Ute Avenue to access the Club. In order for levels to remain status quo, no additional spaces, beyond those provided today, should be developed off of Ute Avenue. This would allow approximately 40 spaces to be developed off of Ute Avenue, including paving, striping, and landscaping. Assuming a mean of the observed occupancy of the north lot, staff would recommend that 35 spaces be retained. This would allow for 75 off-street parking spaces for Club use, and allow for the existing 12,000 foot north lot to be reduced to approximately 60%, leaving approximately 7,500 square feet of parking. This would also represent a decrease of available parking by 45 percent, discouraging traffic on Ute Avenue from exceeding current levels. 4 A Recreational Club is a permitted use in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district, which requires 2 spaces per 1000 sq. ft of net leasable. It is also an allowed use in the Commercial (C) zone district, which requires 1.5 spaces per. 100 sq. ft. net leasable. Staff has used the higher parking generation factor. Planning Advisory Service, Off -Street Parking Requirements Publication 432. May 1991. 6 Development Application for PUD Amendment, page 9. 7 I. 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 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: Neither the Rural Residential (RR) or the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district have any minimum open space requirement nor was such a requirement established in the original PUD. The site plan submitted with the application still retains significant open space as it is currently defined in the code. J There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed 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 application, and indicated that the Club has always retained adequate landscaped areas around the facility. Staff was concerned that a number of trees adjacent to the Benedict Building to the west would have to be removed to accommodate the access to the parking area. According to the revised site plan, the trees adjacent to the Benedict Building remain undisturbed. If required, tree removal permits shall be obtained by the applicant, if the proposal is approved by Council. K. There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site plan,. which ensures' architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is shed in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional. expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the building with other and surrounding uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion Response: No changes to the architectural design of the structures are proposed, however some green space will be eliminated. L. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Response: Any required lighting of the parking areas will be designed to match the existing lighting within the PUD, which is currently low profile, with. no glare on adjoining properties. M. Cluster of dwelling units is encouraged. Response: No dwelling units are proposed within the application. A single-family home could be developed on Lot 14A with an easement granted for the parking area. N. 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 not net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall be arranged such that structures are accessible to emergency vehicles. Response: The primary physical constraint to access from Ute Avenue is the tapering lane width due to snow storage, and the horizontal and vertical curves that compromise sight distance. Streets Department staff has indicated that significant additional snow removal along Ute Avenue would be necessary to address the lane width constraints. The applicant has addressed this concern in the revised proposal by providing fewer .parking spaces off of Ute Avenue and by committing to provide a shuttle service to lessen traffic going to the Club. O. 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 way, or other dedicated to public or private use. Response: The Club access, as proposed, would have direct access to Ute Avenue and to State Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road, a previously approved private road. P. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimize hazards to vehicular or pedestrian circulation. Minor streets within the PUD shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by traffic. Response: The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis that concluded that the parking entry and exit points, and internal circulation design meets accepted traffic engineering standards. Q. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traff c 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 be adversely affected. Response: The revised proposal suggests that vehicle trips along Ute Avenue will increase by 30 trips each way, which represents an increase over current levels. In addition, traffic routed through the central core is faced with increased pedestrian and vehicular movements, as opposed to the existing traffic patterns using State Highway 82 access to the Crystal Lake Road lot. R Every residential building shall be farther than sixty feet from any access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. Response: The potential residence on Lot 14A would meet this standard. Staff notes that the potential conversion to a dwelling unit is completely independent of the proposed PUD amendment. a P S. All non-residential land uses within a PUD shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on the street. Response: Staff would suggest that this.criteria is based on distributing traffic in a hiearchial fashion, with traffic and associated movements placed on appropriate streets in the system. Although Ute Avenue is considered a collector street, it by no means can carry the amount of W traffic that State Highway 82 was designed for. The revised access plan greatly reduces these potential traffic impacts, but does represent additional traffic. T. 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: There are no new streets proposed within the PUD, nor is any change proposed with regard to ownership or maintenance of the existing streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff would suggest that the staff recommends approval based on the following conditions: l . All representations of the applicant before the City Council are considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by subsequent conditions or amendments. 2. The proposed configuration shall be refined to allow for the retention of 35 spaces in the north lot, and 40 spaces shall be allowed off of Ute Avenue. 3. The applicant provide an elevation of the west side of the proposed parking lot to ensure that headlights can be deflected from the adjacent property by the use of berming or vegetation. 4. The approved parking area off of Ute Avenue shall be paved and stripped, .and a final landscaping plan shall be approved the City of Aspen Park's Department prior to planting. Any removal of trees will require a tree removal permit. 5. Prior to completion of the parking facility, the applicant shall submit documentation to the City Engineer to ensure that the distance between the two western access points meet standard engineering standards and will not result in an unsafe traffic situation for members and guests entering or exiting the Ute Avenue parking facility. 6. By July of 1997, the applicant shall provide the Community Development Department and the City Council with a report assessing the effectiveness of van service from the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge. The report shall include ridership data sufficient to determine if the program will continue to be a condition of approval. Recommended Motion: 1. "I move to approve on first reading Ordinance 20, Series of 1996. approving an amendment to the Callahan Subdivision PUD Agreement, with conditions." Alternative Motions. A summary of other options open to Council include, 1. Approve the PUD amendment as presented; 2. Deny the amendment outright, which would require that the Ute Avenue lot be abandoned and revegetated, consistent with the original PUD approval; [u 3. Allow an amendment for continued use and improvement of the Ute Avenue Lot and the retention of the north lot in its existing configuration. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Exhibits: A - Original Application B - Referral Memos C - Letters from Adjacent Property Owners D - Modified Site Plan E - Amended Application F. - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes G - Amended Traffic Impact Assessment H - Photographs of Ute Avenue I - Ordinance 20, Series of 1996 11 Exhibit B MEMORANDUM To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer A�5- Date: March 11, 1996 (Revised) Re: Aspen Club PUD Amendment, Special Review for Parking & Conditional Use Review After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following conu-nents: 1. Traffic Study Analysis: A) The applicant must verify the basis for justifying the 3,000 VPD capacity, i.e., travel lane width, shoulder type and width, speed, and LOS for a local road. B) The applicant is asking for too many curb cuts with less than adequate acceleration - deceleration distance between the first and second proposed driveways a the west end. C) Note that the traffic consultant's projected traffic impacts on page 3 of its report (found in the application appendix) are based on a re -distribution of existing traffic volumes that equals 105% rather than 100%. This would imply that the Aspen Club received an immediate 5% increase in member attendance due to using Ute Avenue rather than Hwy. 82 although this is not a demonstrated fact. More likely the entire traffic analysis is incorrect if the vehicle volumes shown are the actual values used in the traffic modeling analysis. In that case, the analysis and conclusions of this section are incorrect to the extent that the traffic modeling is also incorrect. In looking at the traffic consultant's re -distribution of the traffic leaving ti'ie proposed south parking area on the intersections of South Original with E. Durant Avenue and ,E. Cooper Avenue it appears that the actual waiting time for the peak morning and afternoon traffic periods will slightly increase overall at the two intersections. I OF 2 DRCM2a96.D0C 3/ 12/96 MEN40 - Aspen Club PUD Amendment D) The traffic study provided by the applicant primarily focuses on the LOS at the intersections and does not adequately consider the shorter sight distances along Ute Avenue, (particularly during the winter months) and does not give any consideration to the residential character of the neighborhood and number of residential driveways along Ute Avenue; the actual driving width of Hwy. 82 verses Ute Avenue during the winter; the planned improvements along E. Cooper Avenue (Hwy. 82); nor the potential conflicts of added vehicle traffic with public use of the three (3) parks, three (3) trail crossings and the carriage horse stables at the east end of Ute Avenue. On February 28, 1996 during my site review the passable road width on Ute Avenue varied from 19 ft. at the intersection of Ute Avenue and Aspen Alps South Road to only 14 ft. at the curve immediately east of Ute Park (a playground) while the passable road width on Hwy. 82 and Crystal Lake Road varied from 21.5 ft. on Hwy. 82 to 11.5 ft. at ,the one-way Centennial Circle around and into the existing sports club parking lot. It was also observed that Ute Avenue was partially shadowed by Aspen Mt. at 1:30 p.m. and entirely shadowed by Aspen Mt. by 3:30 p.m. while Hwy. 82 remained in open sunlight until sunset at approximately 6 p.m. This results in larger snowdrifts along the sides of Ute Avenue (3-4 ft. along Ute Avenue vs. 2-3 ft. along Hwy. 82) which obstruct sight distances at driveways, narrower passable road widths and causes more ice on the roadway. Furthermore, re -directing vehicle traffic from the present entrance to Ute Avenue would be contrary to the intentions of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the character that the community has sought to develop. 2. Impact on Neighborhood: We assume the additional traffic will be passenger cars driven by club members and customers, and no additional commercial vehicles will travel on Ute Avenue. 3. Drainage Impacts: The current surface run-off flows are not. known to us and there is no report nor mitigation proposed. The applicant must perform this work and determine the entire site's drainage basin and it's conveyance system, the sediment transport control, and the overall site erosion control improvements for our review and approval. 2OF2 DRC\M2a96.D0C 3/ 12/96 � V � Ya MEMORANDUM To: Dave Michealson t, From: Jack Reid Date: February 22, 1996 Subject: Aspen Club PUD/Conditional Use Amendment and Parking Special Review --------------------------------------------------------------=------------------------------------------ The Street Department feels it is inappropriate to increase the traffic on Ute Ave. The upgrade of Ute Ave., in 1992, did not address a great increase in traffic. There were drainage improvements, and the road was widened in some places. That widening was primarily to develop a consistent road width for the length of the road, and was not at all substantial. The road was overlaid with a 2 inch asphalt mat. There are some curves on the road that do inhibit sight distance. There was no attempt, during the upgrade, .to cure this problem. The enclosed pictures are of Original, south .of Durant, and Ute Ave. Both are very narrow. Obviously, Ute Ave. has restricted sight distances in both directions. It is a true that in the summer, additional traffic might not be a problem. However, the traffic calc's done by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, do not reflect the special conditions we experience in the winter. The pictures reflect a fairly typical condition for Original and Ute Ave., for most of the winter months. IJ MEMO To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Subject: Aspen Club Parcel ID# 2737-181-32-021 Date: March 1, 1996 Dave, This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but not limited to providing and maintaining adequate fire department access. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROM: John D. Krueger, Trails Supervisor Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: February 29, 1996 RE: The Aspen Club, Development Application For PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment, Parking Special Review (parcel ID No.2737-181-32-021) We have reviewed the Aspen Club Development Application For PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment, Parking Special Review and offer the following comments: 1. Landscaping: The Aspen Club has a good reputation for creating beautifully landscaped areas around the club. A more in-depth landscaping plan for the impacted areas would make evaluation easier. We are concerned about the area to the west of the club that will become the driveway to the new parking lot: This area has many trees that will be lost when the driveway is constructed. The Aspen Club needs to go through the tree removal permit process for this and any other areas that will incur tree loss and abide by the city ordinance. 2. Drainage: We have concerns about site drainage that will change or increase as. a result of the new driveway and parking lot. The area below the new parking lot has a history of drainage problems that result in unsafe ice build up during the winter and standing water during the summer. The application should address the drainage for this area. The proposed parking lot could also create drainage problems during the winter with snow storage and drainage down the hill onto the trail. 3. Crystal Lake Road Access to the Trail: k Will pedestrians and bikers retain*access to the Aspen Club Trail via Crystal Lake Road off of Highway 82 or surrounding properties? page 2 Aspen Club Application 4. Snow removal/storage: How will snow removal be accomplished in the new parking lot and where will it be stored? The close proximity of the proposed parking lot to the trail below could cause problems during snow removal of the lot. Snow should not be pushed or blown from the parking lot onto the trail. The snow needs to be managed in such a way that it does not create any unnecessary problems. 5. Traffic Impacts on Ute Avenue and Original St.: We feel that the traffic impacts to Ute Avenue and Original St are understated. During the winter, the snow, lack of exposure to sun and parking significantly narrow the road from its summer width. These factors will increase the impact of additional traffic on this road. The intersection of Ute Avenue and Original is a problem area during the winter because of its unique layout. The Alps pedestrian trail also intersect s the corner of Ute Ave. and Original St.. Additional auto traffic at this corner will add to the existing problems. We do not feel that these factors are adequately considered in the traffic study. SUMMARY: The application appears to have a minimal impact on the surrounding area and trail. Our main concerns are landscaping, drainage, snow management and traffic impacts. PM-10 (which comes almost all . from traf.f ic,. dr_iving, on paved. roads) . must be reduced by 25 0 ''by 1997 In or. r:.to achieve .that reduction, traffic. -increases that. ordinarily would occur as . a .result of deve� opment must 'be `mitigated, or else the. gains brought. about.by community control measures;wil:l be. lost.. In`addition; in, order* . to comply with ' the- municipal*,.code recqu1rement to achieve. the maximum practical .degree of air. purity. -.by _us.ing all .avail.abl e.: practical methods- to reduce pollu-tion,, -traf fi-c-increases-of development must be off set In order to : do.. this.; the applicai'it will `need. to determine .the' .traf.fic .increases: generated by the proj`e-ct,; commit to. a: -.set of control .measures, and show that the :-tra'f fie decreased - by the control. -measures is.: at least . as .great as. the _traff ic. increases of the .:project without: mitigation Traffic. Impact Analysis by ..Leigh; Scott &.-_Cleary, Inc. state that. this proposal. will..prmarly. affect traffic Bows . "l�To additional traf f o generation : is prod ected.." At: the . s-acne, _time;: pedestrian/.bicycle access,routes have been -developed, and:.a.peak hour van service:. has be.en,,-added ��in.. order to` �f:urther reduce_. Aspen • Club.: Automobile Graff is Membershl has de-c i fined . 4 0 o between ;.19 8 8 vs 19 9 -5 . The feel that P- y mprov rig .acaess to, the' Club -by-prow%ding 'a more convenient parking area will ".be. an, important:step to-. stablze.he.r membersh�,p .. They do .not*- see. this. ,as,. -an : acti.on t�iat: will lead `to growth. However if where is. any increased growth that would increase traffic,; this increase: would. hare: to 'be. m:itgted.' _TYie application states that the present parking area.. is gravel and .that the _entire new -.parking area will -be -.-paved. Our Department. would- considered. -this t:o 'be one method of mitigation: It. appears" that there :.are. presently .146 parking spaces .and .the proposed plan is to have.138-spaces.- A conditional of 'approval'is that the overall . nbmlier of harking.- spaces .does ...not : increas'e over. the:: present .number The proposal to .change the. use of -Lot _.14 f rom the ex.i•sting � parking lot and' develop it as..a single family home is: not considere�d `-o make a signif icant. change to. air quality. . 2 FUGLTIVE DUST A fugitive. - dust control. plan--.:.i's -required which Exhibit C ROBERT J. LOWE 11777 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SUITE 900 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 (310) 820-6661 March 5, 1996 Planning Commission Aspen/Pitken Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Commissioners: I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the Club, and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of Ute Avenue. Sincerely, Robert J. Lowe 86 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 l` Bindley Western Industries, Inc. 10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN 46290 (317) 298-9900 Fax (317) 580-9753 William E. Bindley _ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer MAR 1 Bind/ Western March 7111996 Commissioners ASPEN/PITKI-N PLANNING & ZONING 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners: As a resident of the Ute Place subdivision, I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the Club and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of Ute Avenue. Very truly yours. William E. Bindley 90 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 WEB:pb 0 RAR. -114' 96 (THU) 10:16 HNI [NTERNAT[ONAL 1NG TEL:918 664 6451 P. 002 PETER C. MEIN16 74 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 970/920-9093 - Telephone March 14, 1996 Aspen/PMin Planning er Zoning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 01611 Dear Commissioners: By Facsimile 9701920-5 434 I wish to go an record as opposed to the proposed tinges to the Ashen Club. Specifically, I oppm the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue The increased traffic along tote Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the club, and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of late Avenue. Sincerely, Peter C. Meinig 74 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 8161.1 03/ 1401956 17: 55 3039254200 4,I1L5urt tsKl�ry rH�,t ul f BRIAN AND CATHY WILSON 38 Ute Place Aspen, CO 8161 (970) 925-6747, Fax (970) 925 4200 March 13, 1996 Co i.ssioners Aspen/'Pitkin Planning and Zoning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co 8161.1 Dear Commissioners As registered voters in the city of Aspen, we would like to go on record opposing the dxmges regarding the entrance to the ,Aspen Club. Re-routing troffic away from a highway and onto a narrow residential street causes concern. During the winter the street is often made one lane due to snow fall. During the wom*r months it is much traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists enroute to the Ute Troll the Roaring Fork River Trail, and the old Ute Cemetary, not to mention the neighborhood children. We are raising three school age daughters here ourselves. We feel the impact would would ruin the neighborhood atwsphere and create traffic congestion and hazards. Sincerely, Brian and Cathy Wilson LEONARD M. OATES ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DAVID B. KELLY. OF COUNSEL: JOHN THOMAS KELLY LAW OFFICES OF OATES, 14UGIIES & KNEZEVICH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 March 18, 1996 Mr. Dave Michaelson City of Aspen Department of Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 8161.1 AREA CODE 970 TELEPHONE 920-1700 TELECOPIER 920-1121 Re: Application for PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment Parking Special Review Dear Dave: This office represents Jack and Caroline Davis and Thomas & Dathel Coleman, who own homes on Ute Avenue. Our clients, along with others in the neighborhood, are extremely concerned with the application filed by Aspen Club International which would effectively move all vehicular traffic from the existing and approved North Parking Lot accessing off Crystal Lake Road to parking accessing off Ute Avenue. Our clients oppose approval of the application based on the following: 1. Existing Approvals. It is clear that the 1976 P.U.D. approval as well as the 1977 amendment thereto forbid vehicular access off and parking adjacent to Ute Avenue. This was undoubtedly due to the fact that the City wished to maintain a "rural" feel to Ute Avenue and, in addition the physical constraints of the road, many of which exist -to this day. In any event the P.U.D. Agreement specifically provides: "The subdivider agrees . for himself and his successors and assigns that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue, unless such vehicles are for the OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH. P.C. Mr. Dave Michaelson Department of Community Development March 15, 1996 Page 2 purpose of construction, providing services, or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore, neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision." Clearly the City felt it was important that there be no access other than service or emergency access be permitted off of Ute Avenue. It is our clients' position that these restrictions were well founded and should be continued. As discussed in more detail below, Ute Avenue is still, particularly in winter, a narrow, dangerous road which does not need additional traffic. In addition, in our view, the Aspen Club has been clearly violating its Land Use Approval by permitting its employees, guests and members to park in areas accessing off of Ute Avenue. This violation of the parking restrictions is conceded in the Land Use Application. It does not seem correct to permit a clear violation of an existing PUD Agreement to exist and then, present it to the P.Z. as a Fait Accompli. The "informal use" (parking accessing off Ute Avenue) referred to in the application is really a violation of an existing P.U.D. Agreement. 2. Existing Conditions on Ute Avenue. Despite the apparent results of the traffic study prepared by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc., it is still obvious that Ute Avenue is a narrow, dangerous road. We agree with the positions taken in both the February 29, 1996 memo from George Robinson of the Parks Department and the Jack Ried February 22, 1996 memo from the Street Department that the traffic impacts, particularly at Ute and Original, are understated. Even if the numbers compiled and assumed to be accurate, the report does not take into account several important safety issues: a. The study does not adequately address the impact of the heavy snowfall during the winter months. Since Ute Avenue does not get a great deal of sunlight, snow and ice tend to linger. Plowing results in a narrowing of the road and also impedes vision. During heavy snowfall, Ute Avenue becomes little more than a one -lane road on the upper end. The intersection of Ute and Original is extremely icy and dangerous and has been the site of numerous accidents. b. The road is a "dead end" which increases traffic intensity as a result of Club visits." ;mMichaa.rr OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. Mr. Dave Michaelson Department of Community Development March 13, 1996 Page 3 C. There are at least three areas where the driver's line of site is impaired due to curves in the road. d. The road, as well as the bike path, is used by rollerbladers, bicyclists, and runners. It is also regularly used by the horse and carriage tours and there are two city parks, including Children's . Park, on the upper end of the Avenue. Ute Avenue is also the inception of -the popular Ute Trail. All of the foregoing creates heavy use and safety issues. 3. 1994 Upgrade of Ute Avenue. The applicant, and for that matter the traffic study, .make much of the City upgrade of Ute Avenue in 1994. It should be noted, however, that the upgrade was not intended to handle increased traffic. As the February 22, 1996 Road Department memo states, the primary focus was to create a consistent road surface, address drainage problems, widen the road in some places, and to provide some skier parking on the west end of Ute Avenue. A major part of the improvements also involved undergrounding of utilities and beautification of the area. The intent was not to create an atmosphere for significant increase in traffic. To summarize, Ute Avenue is a narrow, dangerous road with areas of limited line of site. Even assuming that the traffic study figures are correct, the study does not address the unique and dangerous conditions as a result of winter weather. It may be true that significant numbers of cars can travel on Ute Avenue without traffic jams. Whether they can do so safely is another issue. That Ute Avenue is dangerous is evidenced by the fact that 26 accidents occurred on Ute Avenue between 01/24/93 and 02/14/96, including 11 accidents at the Ute and - Original intersection. A copy of the computer printout from the Aspen Police Department indicating these accidents is attached. 4. Declining Use of the Club. The Application and the traffic study also make much of the declining use of the Club, which apparently have fallen forty percent (40%) over the last seven years. The real issue is, however, that shifting all access to Ute Avenue will place a significant additional burden on . Ute Avenue and its residents regardless of past use of the Club. Emphasis should be placed on current uses; rather than what has gone on in the past. jrk,\MiChAC1.tu I OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. Mr. Dave Michaelson Department of Community Development March 13, 1996 Page 4 In closing, our client would urge denial of the P.U.D. Amendment as same is presently configured, for the reasons stated above, particular by the safely issues. They feel Ute Avenue parking access should be limited to service emergency and handicapped persons using the facilities. This is in keeping with the original approvals, which my clients believe were based on concerns still valid today. Very truly yours, OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. By: John T. Kelly JTKlsh enclosures ;tk\MiC11A&.ftr Iar 6, 1996 \ APD/SO COMBINED RECORD INCIDENT REPORT PAGE: 1 SUBFILE: DONNA 3?,-'0291 1/24/93 ACCIDENT STEVE R SMITH 1093 UTE AVE .0458 2/10/93 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD UTE AVE/ORIGINAL 93000581 2/20/93 ACCIDENT LISA RUSSELL UTE/ASPEN ALP RD D3000679 3/01/93 ACCIDENT LISA RUSSELL ORIGINAL/UTE AVE 93001447 6/11/93 ACCIDENT 141BR ORIGINAL/UTE AVE 94000450 2/11/94 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN SOUTH RD/UTE AVE 94000454 2/11/94 ACCIDENT 141BR 700 UTE AVE/S ALPS RD 94000455 2/11/94 ACCIDENT 141BR 800 UTE AVE 940004.56 2/11/94 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN SOUTH RD/UTE AVE 94001080 4/08/94 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD UTE AVE/ASPEN ALPS RD 94002013 8/04/94 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD 700 UTE AVE 94002381 9/10/94 ACCIDENT RICHARD PRYOR UTE/ORIGINAL 94003070 12/08/94 ACCIDENT SHAWNA MINARD ORIGINAL/UTE )n^03109 12/12/94 ACCIDENT RICHARD PRYOR S ORIGINAL/UTE AVE 9 j 3 2 0 5 12/ 2 0/ 9 4. ACCI DENT WALTER CHI ORIGINAL/UTE 95000111 1/11/95 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD UTE/ORIGINAL 95000443 2/13/95 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE AVE/ORIGINAL 95000625 3/02/95 ACCIDENT C BROWN 1271 UTE AVE 95000947 3/31/95 ACCIDENT WALTER CHI 1300 UTE AVE 95002758 11/06/95 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE ST 95002767 11/04/95 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE AVE 95003084 12/16/95 ACCIDENT ALAN SHINDERMAN DURANT/UTE Mar 6, 1996 9600A234 2/01/96 ACCIDENT 9600A265 2/05/96 ACCIDENT 9600A291 2/09/96 ACCIDENT 9600A325 2/ 14/96 ACCIDENT APD/SO COMBINED RECORD INCIDENT REPORT PAGE: 1 SUBFILE: DONNA RICK MAGNUSON ALPS RD/UTE AVE CHARLIE MARTIN UTE/ORIGINAL VICKI NALL UTE/ORGINAL CHARLIE MARTIN UTE AVE i OA.EL _ NEESON & STEFAN EOL.IS March 9, 1996. Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81 61 1 Dear Commissioners: Re: March 19, 1996 Meeting - Aspen Club PUD Amendment We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically we object to the closure of the access via Highway 82, and the proposed new access via Original Street and Ute Avenue. Both these streets are used by skiers to park their cars during the winter months and the streets are often filled with pedestrians carrying their skis to and from the mountain. And in fact, because of the cross country trail,man.y skiers ski down from Aspen mountain and ski along Ute Avenue. Cross country skiers are also found along the streets. It is also a particular favorite of dog walkers. Because of the cars that park on Original and Ute the roadway is often reduced to one lane in winter which requires extremely cautious driving. The intersection of Original and Ute is also of great concern as this is a particular icy spot and the scene of many a fender -bender and near miss. Summer transforms the area into a rural playground filled with bikers, hikers, rollerbladers and people seeking to.escape the busyness of city streets to enjoy Gloryhole Park, Ajax Park, the Ute Cementry, Ute Park and the Children`s Playground and to hi,ce the most popular Ute Trail. As this is a street that is used extensively by pedestrians it would be a shame to see the efforts of the city to encourage such foot. and bike traffic to be diminished. Please, we need your help to preserve our rural and contented walking neighborhood and not to transform it into a busy thoroughfare to the Aspen Club. Yours sincerely, KAR. -14' 96 (THU) 10 :15 HK INTERNATIONAL 1NC TEL:918 664 6451 P. (101 March 14, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin Planning &C Zoning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8 1611 [dear Commissioners: Phy[lis S. Hold 72 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 8 1611 9701920-2012 - Telephone By Facsimile 970/920-5439 I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed chance to She Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the club, and would ruin the quiet residential atrrmphere of ULe Avenue. Sincerely, Phyllis S_ Hojel 72 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Coloniai Savings J. S. DUBOSE Chairman March 6, 1996 . Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN CLUB ACCESS CHANGE Private Line 817/390-2222 I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the use of the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the Club, and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of Ute Avenue. One of the main reasons we decided to build at Ute Place was the fact that it was in a nice, quiet area and not on one of the main streets of town and we will be very unhappy if this situation changes. Thank you for your consideration. AMES S. DUBOSE Aspen Address: # 1 Ute Place, Aspen, CO 81611 me 6 0 2624 West Freeway P.O. Box 2988 Fort Worth, Texas 76113 817/390-2G00 Metro 817/429-9333 Fort Worth Arlington Lewisville Garland Hurst T" Henrik & Christina Vanderlip �'V•A '� ll `� 35 Ute Place >> ' Aspen, CO 81611 i1A r i) iL March 4, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners: In regard to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club, my wife and I strongly believe Ute Avenue would not be able to support the increase in flow of traffic. I urge you, before making your decision to imagine yourself as a homeowner in this area, if these proposed changes are enacted they would absolutely ruin this quiet residential area. You must understand how your decision will effect the lives of every homeowner currently living in this beautiful area. My wife and I would like to go on record as opposing the closure of the current access via Highway 82 and the new access via Ute Avenue. Sincerely, HNV/lp0304 .Phyllis S. Hojel 72 Ute Place ` Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 29, 1996. Aspen, Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado. 81611. RE: MARCH 19, 1996 MEETING ASPEN CLUB PUD AMENDMENT Dear Commissioners, I recently learned that the City of Aspen is considering allowing the Aspen Club to eliminate their current parking lot and to provide parking access via Ute Avenue. I am horrified! Not too long ago a few Ute Place families donated to the City of Aspen property across the river from our houses, (which are along the river), to build a bike path. and park area. The purpose was for the preservation of green areas and family areas for Aspen proper. How can you allow' the Aspen Club to add more residences to their property by eliminating their parking lot? Was our donation in vain? Did we make a dreadful mistake? One only has to spend one day in the Summer in Aspen to observe the "life" on Ute Avenue. There are two parks ... the Children's Park and the one across the street from the Ute Place entrance to see the number of children playing in them. One only has to observe the number of cars* and bicycles parked across from Ute Trail to see the daily use by visitors and locals who use Ute Trail. One only has to observe a game of mini -soccer along the street by a group of boys, and a children's lemonade stand on the corner. There is a daily stream of bikers, skate -boarders, roller - skaters and strollers along the street. In the Winter we find cross country folks going down the bike path, neighbors walking to the Aspen Club, children walking into town,, the horses and buggy route, neighbors walking to the gondola. k Ute Avenue is the epitome of a dead-end residential street. Isn'ft this what Aspen is all about? Does every space of concrete'or green HAVE to be invaded and converted into residences? Granted I, too, live in a home in a space, (Ute place), that more Phyllis S. Hojel 72 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 page 2 than likely many locals were not happy about when the construction took place. Now, as someone who spends a great deal of time in Aspen and loves our little town, and desperately wants to preserve what Aspen was, I can't bear the thought of Ute Avenue being converted into a thoroughfare... that is what Highway 82 is for. Should not the Aspen Club maintain their parking lot on the present location? Should not the access to this parking affect as few people as possible? To allow the access to be on Ute Avenue would be a crime to a neighborhood, a family -oriented street. Highway 82 is what it is .... a highway. Cars come and go at all times of day and even into the night; this movement should take place on the highway. My heart tells me that surely the county commissioners are going to put the well-being of a quiet neighborhood street, with all its families and children, before the financial greediness of the Aspen Club, whose sole purpose is to build MORE houses, (which we do not need), and invade Ute Avenue with an unattractive parking lot.' PLEASE PLEASE GIVE -fHI ISSUE YOUR MOST SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. Most incer y, � O Phyllis._ Hojel P.S. Let's be honest, mistakes have been made in the past, but they do not have to continue to be made such as even in my own little haven of Ute Place. Quite frankly when Ute Place came to the commissioners table ever so many years ago ... you should have allowed eight (8) homes NOT 16'.! Don't we always learn from hindsight??? ! ! ! HARRY AND SUSAN WELSCH 10 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920-2003, Fax: (970) 920-2066 February 29, 1996 Commissioners Aspen/Pitkin Planning and Zoning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners: We have just learned that the Aspen Club plans to use Ute Avenue as its main entrance to a newly remodeled club. We are quite concerned since we live year round at 1010 Ute Place. The traffic on this small residential road is quite heavy. In our opinion,. any increased traffic on Ute Avenue would be a safety. hazard. As you are aware, there are two City parks along this road with children playing in the summer. The popular Ute Trail also begins on Ute Avenue with heavy pedestrian traffic walking along the road from town or crossing the road from the trailhead parking area. During the winter when there is snow piled up on both sides of Ute Avenue, the road often becomes only large enough for a single lane. People coming and going from the rear -entrance of the Aspen Club drive very fast, and at the corner of Ute Avenue and Original ice is nearly always present. We ourselves have more than once not been able to brake at this corner due to the icy conditions. The present front entrance to the Aspen Club also serves as an access with parkina for people wishing to walk or ride bikes along the Roaring Fork River Trail. There are very few such access points in the city for which people•can enjoy the trail and also be able to park their cars. We wish to go on record as being opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club's main entrance and wish the main entrance to remain from Highway 82. Thank you folr your consideration as to this matter. Sincerely, W LAB --,� , gin lv,�E'ti�✓ Harry and Susan Welsch r Exhibit E Vex 3613 r¢a aco, 91612 May 10, 1996 "'V&w157ax (970) 990-1125 Mr. Dave Michaelson, Deputy Planning Director City of Aspen. Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: ASPEN CLUB PUD AMENDiv1El` T Dear Dave, The purpose of this letter is to modify the land use application I previously submitted to you on behalf of Dick Butera of Aspen Club International. These modifications are being made to devise a plan that the community can support, so that one. of its important institutions. can remain in Aspen. Although our membership has been declining in recent years, there are still approximately 725 Club members today. This :represents on the order of ten (10) percent of the entire population of the Aspen Area and an even larger. proportion of the adult population in our community. The loss of this institution would remove an important aspect of what makes Aspen a community and would be contrary.. to the fundamental theme of the Aspen Area. Community Plan, that we need to revitalize our permanent community. Just as the community needs to be revitalized, so too does the Aspen Club. The Aspen Club was developed in the 1970's and has been operating in the same configuration for nearly. two decades. Over time, this configuration has proven to be inefficient. The Club should be modernized, so it can remain a vital part of the Aspen community for the next two decades. As you know, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did not support our application to amend the Callahan PUD at the public hearing they conducted on March 19, ,1996. Since that time we have held several meetings with you and other members of the City staff to see if we could identify positive ways to modify our application to respond to the concerns raised in your memo for that public hearing and to address issues spoken to by members of the public and. members of the Commission during the hearing. The modifications that we hereby commit to make to the application are as follows: 1. Parking Lot. In the original application we proposed closing the parking lot that is located on Lot 14A, off Crystal Lake Road, and routing all parking to the entrance off Ute Avenue. We hereby modify that proposal, so as to maintain -the approved parking lot in place on Lot ,14A. The present lot would be reduced in size to accommodate a total of twenty (20) vehicles. Mr. Dave Michaelson May 10, 1996 Page Two Our frequent observations of the use of that lot demonstrate to us that it virtually never contains more than twenty (20) vehicles operated by members; guests and employees. By maintaining twenty (20) spaces in this location we ensure, therefore, that traffic levels on Ute Avenue will remain essentially as they are today. Members and guests who live on the east side of Aspen or who otherwise find it convenient to use the previously -approved lot will continue to be able to do so. This will ensure that vehicles that presently do not travel along City streets at the edge of downtown Aspen will not be attracted to or required to use those streets. In addition,. persons who take the bus to the Club along Highway 82 will still be able to do so. Next week I will submit to you a follow-up letter from Phil Scott of Leigh Scott and* Cleary, updating his traffic study, demonstrating that the traffic impacts of -our application on Ute Avenue will be negligible. 2. Van Service. As a means of reducing the need for parking at the Aspen Club and the consequent impacts from vehicles using. Ute Avenue, we . hereby commit to operate a shuttle that will carry members and guests between the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge. Vans will operate in the following manner:. a. 'Dimes of Operation. Vans will leave every thirty (30) minutes, on: the hour and half hour, during the hours of eight (8) to ten (10) .AM and'five (5) "to seven. (7) PM, Monday through Friday. Vans will operate during the months of December through March and June through August. b. Experiment. The van service will be a one (1) year experiment. One. (1) year following start=up of the service, we will report to the City on. the number of persons using the service, to determine whether the City views the experiment as worthy of continuation. 3. Safety. In the meetings we held with staff, the City agreed to post the speed limit of Ute Avenue as twenty-five (25) mph and to have police officers periodically visit the area to enforce that limit. The City. also agreed to enforce the no parking signs that are already in place just outside of the entrance to the Club on Ute Avenue. 4. Site Plan. We are currently preparing a modified site plan, that we will deliver. to you early next week. The. site plan will illustrate the following modifications:. a. 'Number of Spaces. The parking areas. proposed for the Ute Avenue side of the property will be reduced in size, to accommodate approximately eighty (80) parking- spaces. The tennis courts -near the River will not be converted to parking. The trees adjacent to the Benedict Office Building will not have to be removed to accommodate the revised site plan. Mr. Dave Michaelson May 10, 1996 Page Three b. Circulation and Service Delivery. Circulation and service delivery through the site have been carefully reviewed to ensure that members, guests and employees can circulate through the lots and that all service delivery functions occur within our property. No such activity will take place on Ute Avenue. C. Snow Storage and Drainage. Areas have been designated for snow storage on the site. Drainage from snow melt and from runoff will be retained on our property at historic levels and will not impact any adjacent property, as required by City of Aspen regulations. Should you have -any questions or need additional information as you review this letter, please feel free to contact me. Thank .you for your assistance in helping us to identify positive responses to our neighbors concerns and for your continuing attention to this project. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES Alan Richman, AICP _PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Exhibit F Mooney asked if there are neighborhood or character guidelines for this section of town. Michaelson responded that the old neighborhood design guidelines of ordinance 3 5 standards. Mooney stated that his concern is technical questions about sidewalk, curbs and gutters, ect... and whether it is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Mooney also asked if the snowmelt and water runoff could be measured. Vann responded that the applicants proposal includes sidewalks, curb and gutter, street lights, ect... and the City code states that on any parcel in the City the historic runoff cannot be increased. Special meetings were scheduled April 9th and the 23rd at 4: 30pm for Savanah/Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot S. MOTION: Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on the Aspen Mountain Subdivision .PUD, Conceptual PUD, and Subdivision approval for lot 3 and 5 to April 9, 1996. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. Aspen Club PUD Amendment Parking Special Review/Conditional Use Proof of notice provided. Michaelson, Staff introduced several letters for the record. Michaelson said this is a request for the Aspen Club PUD amendment, Conditional Use amendment and a parking special review. The applicant has proposed to bring access to the club exclusively from Ute Avenue to an area currently used for "bandit" parking. Staff has included a summary of the zoning and all agreements related to the development of the Aspen Club, as well as the parking arrangements that were agreed upon in the subdivision and PUD for the "Callahan Subdivisibn". Michaelson stated that when Staff met with the applicant regarding the proposal to change the access, Staff asked for a traffic study and noted some concern with the study. In addition, traffic engineering does not make any assumptions in terms of pedestrian traffic, or the traffic mix on the road but does makes some assumptions 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 on peak periods. Michaelson said the traffic study did not deal. with conditions related to this particular street, for example, snow loading, parks, and cross pedestrian traffic. Michaelson noted that Staff s referral comments include sight constraints, potential conflicts with adjacent land uses as well as the residential character of the southern section of Ute Ave. Parks has reviewed the application and they recognize and are very supportive of what the Aspen Club has historically done with their landscaping, but did note that there are narrow lane widths and sight constraints particularly. in the winter. Michaelson said the economic viability of this Club is important to anyone who has spent time in Aspen. He said the AACP has particular emphasis on pedestrian corridors, of which Ute Ave. has become. Michaelson said and Staff notes that in terms of off street parking the proposal meets the PUD approval standards however, Staff questions the logic of increasing the amount of traffic through town. Michaelson stated that P&Z basically has three options, 1) to approve the PUD amendment to allow access to come off of Ute and Conditional and Special reviews would also be approved, 2) the request can be denied out right, and 3) Staff s recommendation with three conditions, would be to deny the request as before you but to allow a certain amount of parking behind the Aspen Club to remain. Dick Buetra, public, applicant, stated that when the Club was initially built the reason parking was so far from the building was twofold, 1) during the original approval process a clubhouse/restaurant was approved for the site next to the North side parking lot and 2) Ute Avenue was a narrow dirt road and could not carry the 1400 members. Butera noted that those were two very good reasons the lot was put where it was, but now those reasons have dramatically changed and the Club feels it is proper that the parking lot of this commercial building be moved from the residential area to the commercial area where it belongs. Butera stated that they would like to correct what was done previously and fit then, but does not fit now. The clubhouse restaurant lot has been rezoned residential and the Club spent $72,000 to fix Ute Avenue into a road that has a capacity of 3000 cars a day. Butera said that commercial parking should be next to the building, adjacent to the Fritz Benedict parking lot. Butera said in 1982 the Club was a run down building with one stationary bike and a racquetball court, since then he has spent millions of dollars on the Club and -has won numerous national awards and have bti.en F chosen throughout the Club industry in America as one of the top 10 or, top 5 Clubs in the Country. Butera noted that national television tennis tournaments have brought alot of positive attention to the community. Butera said that since opening in 1982, they have been open everyday serving over 20% of this community, selling health and fitness, not booze, jewelry, furs or fast food. Butera stated the Club has helped rehabilitate several thousand elbows, knees, 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 shoulders and heads, and, the product is health, fitness and fun. Therefore, Butera said what affects the Aspen Club is in the community interest, it is not just in Ute Avenues or Highway 82's interest. Butera said many more people live on Highway 82 between town and the Club than Ute Avenue and the Club. Butera said that 50% of the Clubs membership traffic, through which the "bandit" parking lot has evolved, already use Ute Avenue. Alan Richman, public, representing the applicant, stated that placing the parking for a building of this size fairly unusual, but there were specific reasons in 1975 & 76, when the Callahan Subdivision was reviewed by P&Z and the City Council, to put the parking where it is and it was not a mistake at that time. Richman stated that the lot zoned for the clubhouse restaurant is one of the reasons, it was 9400 sq.ft and obviously parking was needed for that facility because it wasn't going to serve only those from the Callahan Subdivision, so there was parking identified for both the club and the clubhouse restaurant. The other situation is much more pertinent, and that is the condition of Ute. Avenue in 1975 & 76. Richman said that because there was a need for parking and because Ute Avenue clearly was not able to handle traffic, the-PUD stated that no vehicle traffic should enter the PUD from Ute Avenue, unless vehicles are for the purpose of construction, providing services, or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Richman said that no additional trucks or commercial vehicles are going to come on to Ute Avenue because of this proposal, they are already there and will continue to be there. Richman said the "bandit" parking area initially occurred because of the people who came to the Club for therapy did not use the lot on the other side of the river, they couldn't make that walk. The Club employees began using the gravel area along the West *side of the building for parking, and finally approximately 5-6 years ago the Club allowed members to use that parking area. Richman stated since that time it has been fully occupied. Richman also stated that the past use is important because as Staff has reported, the City has not received complaints from neighbors about the traffic on Ute Ave. Richman also said that in addition to the commercial traffic, the traffic counts that were done when compared to the membership and visitation, tells us that at least half of the people coining to the Club today use Ute Ave. Richman stated that the trend in both membership and overall visitation to the Club has drogped approximately 6 40%, in the last eight years. Philip Scott, of Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., representing applicant, stated that they looked at some key intersections and did a number of hours of traffic counts along Original at Cooper and Durant. Scott said the study was done in the third week of January and that the level of service for those two intersections would remain 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, MARCH I9, 1.996 basically unchanged. Scott stated that some estimates were done as to the capacity of the roadways in the area and their analysis indicated that Ute Ave. and Original have a comfortable capacity of approximately 3000 cars per day. The capacity of Highway 82 is estimated to be 6000 trips per day. Scott noted that other elements during certain times of the year like snow stacking have an impact on narrowing of the roadway where the capacity is somewhat reduced. He said that capacity by our estimates, is reduced to 2100 vehicles per day. Scott said it is important to compare the 2100 vehicles per day to the amount of traffic we expect to be transferred from the Highway 82 access off of Crystal Lake, to the Ute Avenue access. The study found that as many as 230 vehicle trips per day would be expected to snake that transfer, that is 115 round trips. Scott said that today the amount of traffic on a daily basis, on Ute, is about 1250 trips, 625 round trips. He also stated that January is one of the two busiest months of the year in terms of activity at the Club, looking at the average month of the year, compared to January, there is significantly less traffic, prorated it would be approximately 99 round trips. Scott said that because of the separate bike path provided along Ute, there is a separation that acts as a safety buffer between vehicular traffic and the pedestrians that use the path. Scott noted that currently there is a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle activity along the shoulder of Highway 82, and separating the traffic associated with the Club would be a benefit. Lastly, the thru traffic on Highway 82, with the exiting and entering of the Club does not exist on the Ute access. Scott also said that he felt the capacity of the street could accommodate the small amount of additional traffic, and that the additional amount of traffic far out weighs any other disbenefits that might be considered as it relates to traffic and pedestrian safety. Gat -ton asked Mr. Scott where the 1000 extra trips, after the Durant St. stop, continuing to Ute Avenue, go. Garton stated that the traffic study shows 1480 and then on the lower end of Ute Avenue it shows 450. Scott replied that the 450 is the Aspen Club traffic, the 1480 less the 450. The 500 other, round trips would be the residential, postman and other service activities. Richman asked the Commission to think abo4it what 230 additional vehicles going either one direction or the other actually means. Richman stated that the Aspen Club is open from 6:30am until 9:00pm; 14 hours, and if the traffic was distributed evenly through the day, which would not be a correct thing to do, but it would be about 15-16 cars an hour or l car every 4 minutes. Richman noted that the traffic study indicates morning and evening peak usage periods, at the highest point there could be 40 cars.in an hour or 1 car every 1-2 minutes but the other 10 hours the 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Club is open, it's not a car every 4 minutes, its more like 6-10 cars a minute. Richman said he did not view this as a huge influx of new traffic in this area, and in the Planning Staff memo it states "a "perceived" doubling of traffic" by neighbors. Richman said the only place the numbers double is at the Club entryway. Richman noted that there are neighbors across the Club entryway. He also stated that the 230 vehicles is not new traffic in Aspen, it is rerouted and he does not think that anyone who lives in this community thinks Highway 82 East of town is a safe road and any traffic that is taken off 82 does have a benefit. Richman noted that the Staff memo mentions that snow plowing on Ute Avenue may not be adequate in the winter, and said if that is the case, then we believe something should be done to correct that situation. Mary Gleason, public stated that she has lived on Ute Avenue for 25 years and is an Aspen Club member, but she hopes that they find some other way to funnel 20% of the community down their narrow residential road. George Gleason, public stated that if the Club brings its membership up he felt that number should 500 not 250. He also stated that he has complained to the police -to slow the cars down -and the cars that park across the street make it difficult to back out in the winter time. Susan Welsch, public said she was concerned about the people who hike on Ute trail, during the summertime dozens of people walk on Ute Avenue and do not use the bicycle trail because it has always been a quiet street. She also stated that the community spent extra money to improve the road, had they known the improvement would be used against them they wouldn't have spent the extra money. Gael Neeson, public stated that she too -is a resident on Ute Avenue and spent the extra money for safety of Ute Avenue. Neeson also said it would be ludicrous to have all the cars coming from one of the world famous tennis matches on to Ute Ave. Nancy Rathborne, public said that she feels the people walking in the middle of Ute Avenue should make Lase of the bicycle path. She stated that two of the three nears she has lived here, she has been in rehabilitation and had to use the back entrance of the Club. Rathborne stated that it is impossible for a handicapped person to access the club off of Hwy 82. 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19$.1996 Caroline Davis, public said that in January Ute virtually becomes a one way street, depending on the amount of snow, secondly the people who have accidents or problems generally come to her house for assistance and she feels that would be greatly increased by this access. John Kelly, public with Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, represents several homeowners in the area, stated that from talking with people he gets a different version than the traffic expert, he has heard numerous people talk about accidents, speeding, one lane because of the snow plow; ect... He said that the traffic study did not address the winter or summer conditions and there was no mention of safety. Kelly stated that he suggests the reality is different from the study. Cathryn Crum, public stated that Staff did not report the letter she wrote about 10 years ago complaining about the speed and requesting speed bumps. Crum said the letter she received from the Planning Staff said "they don't build bumps, they build dips" and they wouldn't do it. She said the people who the applicant says walk on 82 do not, they walk on Ute Avenue because they want a peaceful, quiet place so they come on Ute where .it is beautiful. Crum also said she would hate to see the horse and buggy that comes up and down Ute, interrupted by a flow of traffic. Michaelson responded that his statement, that Staff had not received any complaints, was referring to anyone calling the Community Development Department to complain about the Aspen Club being out of compliance with the PUD, and the answer is no. Michaelson said there have been numerous calls on Ute Avenue about speed problems, safety and snowplowing and Staff clearly represented that in the Staff report. Mike Otte, public, stated that he was on the Planning and Zoning Commission that approved the PUD. Otte stated that the comment about the parking being put on the North side of the river because of the restaurant, is not totally true. The reason parking was on the North side was to maintain the country character of Ute Avenue. Otte said if the applicant who received the PUD approval had asked for parking next to the building, he didn't think there would have been an approval, he asked the Commission to look, at the reason the PUD was approved, look at the character of'how the neighborhood was designed, it was supposed to be a country lane. 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt stated that he agreed with Mr. Otte, he was on the P&Z for the original approval of the Aspen Club and feels that the points about Ute Avenue .being a country lane are quite proper as well as his comments about the parking. Hunt also stated that if he had been out there in the last five years he would have complained about the parking. He said he thinks P&Z should accommodate the rehabilitation and handicapped access to this facility. Hunt said he is not disposed to accommodating "a lot" of employees, nor approving this plan the way it sits. Hunt said one of the reason commercial traffic was allowed out there was to get it close to the facility and being the type of facility it was, there wouldn't be much commercial traffic. Buettow said he would like the lot to facilitate the rehabilitation that goes on in the Club to allow some handicapped parking at the present site, the "bandit" parking. Mooney stated that he lives on Park Avenue and has lived in the same house for 20 years and now has a bus that runs by his house every fifteen minutes, but it is for the good of the community. Mooney stated that the applicant has presented a logical idea, a 1996 need. He also said that everyone has to realize that this town is changing and their street is not a little country road, people have developed here and have put a commercial core in here. Mooney said that he speaks for the people in the community who are not here and are part of the growth. Mooney said a formal study should be done this neighborhood and the impact of the road in this neighborhood should be submitted. Mooney stated that maybe the City should get involved and redesign the lighting, the streets, curb and gutter, the bike and walking paths, make the path wide enough so that the horse can come down the path, put a plowing schedule together, install speed bumps or even dips in a plan, make the safety study and the corrections something that will benefit everybody. Mooney said a traffic mitigation plan' should be presented with this proposal, could a van pick people up, dial -a -ride, or maybe a bus could facilitate commercial developments in residential neighborhoods. He also stated that this street has proprietary interest to everybody, and Dick Butera is one of those people. Mooney stated that the towns character has changed, the streets character has changed, and we should be smart enough to make a plan so that it works for everybody and. help our neighbors understand what is necessary to live in this community now. Mooney stated that he felt this application should come back with some questions answered, and a formal proposal of what the needs are. L PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 193 1996 Tygre stated that she agrees there has been. a change and Ute has evolved like any other street, but unlike Park Avenue it was never a through street, it was always a street that dead ended and lead to trails. Tygre said that the evolution of Ute Avenue has been that it is more like a recreational street with the children's park, the cemetery, and the access to Ute trail. Tygre said the increased number of pedestrians using this road is because it doesn't have much traffic, and there are various types of recreational activities going there all.the time and she feels it is a very precious community asset. Tygre stated that as a bus user, she notices alot of people ask to be dropped off at the Aspen Club, the availability of access through public transportation is a really important community asset. Tygre said she did agree with the handicap and rehab access on Ute Ave., but not employee parking. Garton stated that the Aspen Club has changed and the rehab portion of the Club needs to be accommodated and that she is unwilling to see employee parking in that area. Garton said she is unwilling to see a dead end residential area change as radically as it would change with the Aspen Club traffic. MOTION: Aunt moved to deny the PUD amendment, conditional use and special use as presented by the applicant for the reasons set forth in pages 1-11 of the March _19th memorandum from Staff, Dave Michaelson. Seconded by Buettow. Motion carries 4 - 1. Garton, Tygre, Hunt and Buettow voted yes. Mooney voted no. Meeting adjourned at 8:40p.m. i �1 L Amy G. S6hmid, Deputy Clerk I 20 LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING -CONSULTANTS Exhibit G 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 FAX (303) 333-1107 May 15, 1996 Mr. Dick Butera c/o Alan Richman Planning Services P.O. Box 3613 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Aspen Club Parking (LSC # 960030) Dear Mr, Butera: As requested, we have reviewed your modified parking plans related to proposed improvements to the Aspen Club health club and spa. As you are aware, we prepared a.traffic. Impact study, dated February 6, 1996, which evaluated the previous plaris. As we understand it, your revised plans contain the following traffic related elements: 1, The site's existing north parking lot, which was previously proposed to be eliminated, is, now planned to remain with a reduced capacity of twenty (20) parking spaces. Furthermore, parking activity within this redesigned facility will be restricted to health club clientele only. These changes will, in turn, allow for a significant reduction in the proposed number of spaces accessed via Ute Avenue. 2, The existing van shuttle service between the Aspen Club and Aspen Club Lodge (down- town) will be greatly expanded to include. weekday peak -hour, peak -season service for both non -lodge and lodge clientele. These factors are expected to significantly reduce the health club improvement plan's traffic impacts on Ute Avenue. More specifically, we anticipate about a 75 percent reduction In previously projected Ute Avenue traffic increases associated with the Health Club improvements. As you may recall, we previously projected weekday traffic on Ute to increase by 115 vehicle -trips in each direction. This total is now expected to be reduced to less than 30 trips in each direction per day, a relatively inconsequential total. We trust that this updated information will assist with your improvement plans. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Sincerely, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, f N'C. By: , Philip . Scott III, P.E. PNS/wd N^ "� • •ilk y 1 ° ' I -- d -0001 �.� Ift r IMP 40 -' ti FPS, '� .' -• . -. - - �t � Nti UI .74 aa.111 `*_ I• Lj • - . '�• •jam " � a l .,L.• •...:tom 't..i d ; •• � d '.�� t^+`:'i '•a�.?`f :. � t �t y i � JCS L 'a- �•K ���% -1. WR�� �r .` t �� t e. ` � a .- ' a l�=T �• AR. - ► '3•� O. i 1 `�'� F . .' ', . t•.JLi r1�:�G.+9fias .vY..'+� aw. 3•.", f.. , ., mot'- - • • j.. + r•I�i, �'i�•1} .t I 1 t _ •.a » � !„t 1 if t'► : tit ,�� _ :..+ • ,,kg'r � ,-, 1 y�,, ♦ -`•sty! .., �. - • . � � �-, . � ..) P "ice ... e. tt, a •' t'N�x�� ,7N.y l� ��y•: • �J Af x ..gy�pv /a :. _ cs!_� , w: ._" ,t�.`��,�•' �,._ h . r r z/ ems. , � a a ~ Y _ I _ r Q � r Exhibit I Ordinance No. 96-20 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION PUD AGREEMENT FOR LOTS 14A AND 15, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN WHEREAS, Section 26.84.080. of the Municipal Code provides that the City Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission may amend a PUD agreement based. on compliance with the review criteria established for Final PUD approval; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Club was approved as a PUD, and the PUD agreement explicitly limits the parking plan of the Club to allow parking on Ute Avenue for the use of employees and service deliveries to the facility; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen received. a PUD amendment application for the expansion of parking off of Ute Avenue from Aspen Club International; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning Commission reviewed the project on March 19, 1996, and recommended denial to the City Council based on neighborhood impacts and the impacts of the proposed traffic increase on Ute Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office received an amendment to the original application that modified the number of parking spaces to remain on Lot 14A, proposed .a van service to address impacts on Ute Avenue, and reduced the total number of spaces proposed for the Ute Avenue lot; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the PUD amendments under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed PUD amendments, with modifcations suggested by staff, meet or exceed all applicable development standards and are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO: Section l: Pursuant to Section 24-7-907 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the PUD amendment: l . That the proposed amendments are consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development does not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. No additional GMQS allotments are necessary for the project. 5. The maximum density is no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. 6. The proposed amendments will promote the public interest and character of the City of Aspen. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1 above, the City Council grants a PUD amendment, subject to the following conditions: 1. All representations of the applicant before the City Council are considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by subsequent conditions or amendments. 2. The proposed configuration shall be refined to allow for the retention of 35 spaces in the north lot, and 40 spaces shall be allowed off of Ute Avenue. A revised parking plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department, the Engineering Department and the Streets Department. 3. That the applicant provide an elevation of the west side of the proposed parking lot to ensure that .headlights can be deflected from the adjacent property by the use of berming or vegetation. 4. The approved parking area off of Ute Avenue shall be paved and stripped, and a final landscaping plan shall be approved the City of Aspen Park's Department prior to planting;- Any removal of trees will require a tree removal permit. 5. Prior to completion of the parking facility, the applicant shall submit documentation to the City Engineer to ensure that the distance between the two western access points meet standard 2 engineering standards and will not result in an unsafe traffic situation for members and guests entering or exiting the Ute Avenue parking facility. 6. By July of 1997, the applicant shall provide the Community Development Department and the City Council with a report assessing the effectiveness of van service from the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge. The report shall include ridership data sufficient to determine if the program will continue to be a condition of approval. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the PUD amendment as herein awarded, whether in a public meeting or documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approval and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. 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 separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED Council of the City of Aspen on the 1995. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 1996. k ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 9 as provided by law, by the City day of , John Bennett, Mayor day of John Bennett, Mayor 3 TO: FROM: THRU: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Bob Nevins, City Planner Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director. f Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review Parcel I.D. Number 2735-124-01-003 & 2735-124-01-002 June 18, 1996 Summary: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing, non -conforming hot tub and deck and to revegetate the disturbed slope area overlooking Hallam Lake pursuant to the Court Order of May 3, 1993. The hot tub and deck will be relocated to an area adjoining the existing residence and deck which are outside the fifteen foot ESA setback along the top of slope. Community Development staff recommend approval with conditions. Attached are the following: Exhibit A, Development Application; Exhibit B, Civil Action No. 92 CV 47, Judgment and Order; Exhibit C, Referral Memorandums; and Exhibit D, Chapter 26.68, Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA), and Section 26.64.040(D), Special Review. Applicant: Ms. Ronnie Marshall, as represented by Mr. Jim Cook Location: 320 Lake. Avenue (Parcel 1, Marshall Lot -split), Aspen, Colorado Lot Size: 7,075 square feet Zoning: Medium -Density Residential (R-6) with Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Overlay Procedure: One-step commission review with no public hearing or notification requirement. Referral Comments: Complete referral memorandums are attached as Exhibit C. 6 Parks Department: Upon review of the application and a site inspection, Parks Department has made the following recommendatiovis: 1. A 5" apple tree will be removed due to the relocation of the deck and hot tub. No permit is required for the removal of this tree. 2. Jute landscape netting infused with seeds shall be used to revegetate the slope after the removal of the deck. The seed mixture shall be a native species for this area. Hydro -seeding would also be an acceptable alternative. 3. Choke cherry bushes (prunus virginia) are also recommended to be planted. 4. The existing juniper trees may remain if there is no objection from ACES. Engineering: Based upon a review of the application and site visit, Engineering has the following recommendations: 1. The preliminary improvements survey contains several technical surveying deficiencies and insufficient detail. 2. The applicant needs to explain how and where the discharge water from the spa will disposed. Water drained or discharged from the spa shall not be released over the edge of the bluff. 3. A site grading plan shall be submitted for review. Planning Staff Comments: The Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Overlay was adopted via Ordinance 71-1990 and codified within Chapter 26.68 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The intent of this ESA Overlay is "to heighten review of development in this area so as to reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve, and to ensure the aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve". . Since the deck and hot tub are existing within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA, the critical issues that need to be resolved are: 1) the removal and relocation of the deck and hot tub; and 2) the stabilization and revegetation of the slope overlooking the nature preserve. Community Development staff has reviewed the application and conducted a site visit. Staff's findings pursuant to Section 26.68.060(C) are as follows: l . The existing deck and hot tub shall be removed entirely, both above and below the top of slope. 2. The proposed relocation of the deck and hot tub complies with the fifteen foot setback from top of slope. There is a four foot, wooden retaining wall that currently separates the lawn area from the level of the hot tub deck. It is within ESA setback. Rather than removing the retaining wall and reconfiguring the slope, Staff recommends that the retaining wall be lowered approximately one foot so that it is flush with the grade of the lawn area and three feet high or less on the downhill slope facing Hallam Lake. With the planting of native shrubs and grasses in front of the wooden wall, the visual impact would be minimal and conform with the conditions set forth in Section 26.64.040(D). 3. All development outside the fifteen foot setback from top of slope does not exceed the height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five degree angle from ground level at the top of slope (see Site Section, Aspen Survey Engineers). 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by Parks Department prior to the issuance of demolition and building permits. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope. 6. No fill material shall be placed on the face of the slope unless it is to be part of . an approved grading and landscape plan. 7. Site sections and plans are included as Exhibit A, Development Application.. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review for the relocation and revegetation of the hot tub and deck areas with the following conditions: 1. A revised Site Improvements Survey in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Engineering staff memo of May 28, 1996, shall be approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any Development Orders. 2. A building plan, plumbing plan or written statement explaining how and where the discharge water from the spa (hot tub) will be disposed prior to the issuance of -any development permits. 3. A final site grading plan shall be approved by Engineering before any Development Orders shall be issued. 4. A final landscape plan 'showing the location, number, type and size of plant materials and any site grading shall be approved by Parks prior to the issuance of any development permits. 5. 'T''�e-��` g hot tub, decking, posts and concrete footings shall be completely removed from the area within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA. A demolition permit shall be issued prior to site work or demolition. 8. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast withmo light(s) directed towards the nature preserve or located down the slope. Light sources shall not illuminate greater than eight feet from the building or structures. 9. Any future development (including but not limited to: decks, spas, terraces, patios, fences, non-native plant materials) shall not encroach into the fifteen foot ESA setback. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in -the application and during public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. Alternative Recommendations: Planning and Zoning Commission may approve the conditions above, approve additional conditions or disapprove the development application in the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA. Proposed Motion: "I move to approve the Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review with the conditions set forth in the Community Development Memo of June 18, 1996." i Exhibits: "A" Application of Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review "B' Civil Action No. 92 CV 47, Judgment and Order "C" Referral Memorandums "D" Chapter 26.68, Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas; Section 26.64.040(D), Special Review Exhibit A FROM THE DESK OF JAMES M. COOK APRIL 22, 1996 DAVE MICHAELSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 REF: SUBMITTAL FOR RELOCATION OF EXISTING HOT TUB 320 LAKE STREET ASPEN, CO.81611 DEAR DAVE, ENCLOSED ARE EIGHT COPIES OF THE APPLICATION FOR A E.S.A. HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW, FOR REFERENCED PROJECT. ALSO ENCLOSED ARE EIGHT COPIES OF THE CURRENT SURVEY AS PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, ALONG WITH A CHECK # 8346 FOR THE AMOUNT OF $1050.00. I TRUST THIS IS THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION IN A TIMELY MANNER. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO GIVE ME A CALL AT 927 - 4327. YOURS TRULY, d JAMES M. COOK 1020 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 (970) 927-4327 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name W© �.J Q I L -- 2. Project location =51 s��►� . Co (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 4. Lot size. :Z, d-T 3 S •F 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number v-w \ - 3Zo Co ' dress and 6. Representative's name, �d phone number t o 20 VDWM_Co� ( � CZ1 -�ZI 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use' Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin T Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condom iniumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line �, �S� at Appeal Committee Adjustment t.1►c. 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the, property) -il.00G1'CbVL`C 5 W G (- ��t� s� ---- �r��c��l� - -�'t-tee � �C�ZC�'t�t • , - -,.._ ., r-� _ . � . �. _ -ram `. -7 ... i 1 � l 1 �' �, /� C � Y� .-•. '� A � -CiJ c)SN- !--✓1 E-_-1J 1 " -�y'--1(s o`er�t `t t • Description of development .•• • ✓ w _ .1 _�� ,, � .� � a� -. - � - ••. ter. �r �r 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 _�4 Response to Attachment 4 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant:2¢�..1 Address: Zone district. tZ-c;► Lot size: `7v-15 <=& Existing FAR: 14-N Allowable FAR: 14 -A, Proposed FAR: V-A • A Existing net leasable (commercial): u . A Proposed net leasable (commercial): Existing % of site coverage: Proposed % of site coverage: 2 6t °76 Existing % of open space: _ -a Proposed % of open space: Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: Accesory Bldg: Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: �• Accessory bidg: Proposed % of demolition: • J� Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on -site parking spaces:. . On -site parking spaces required: tJ •, Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: 'l S Front:_____ 10 Front: 25 Rear: ' Rear: Rear: .V 1 .A Combined Combined Combined Front/rear: Front/rear: ;35 Front/rear:.W 54-8 Side: 24 YA - Side: 5 Side:_ Side: YA-(Z _---5 Side: 5 Side: Combined Combined Combined Sides: 24.. Y �• Sides: Sides: �_ � It=s Existing nonconformities or encroachments: E�x csT6 amsc— Variations requested: 12e1..0GtaT1L," k 0T" -_ja, , pe=Ct=- � (HPC has the ability to ' vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) FROM THE DESK OF JAMES M. COOK APRIL 19, 1996 REF: HOT TUB RELOCATION RONNIE MARSHALL 320 LAKE STREET ASPEN, CO. 81611 THE FOLLOWING IS IN RESPONSE TO ATTACHMENTS 3 & 4: ATTACHMENT 3: GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1. SEE ATTACHED LETTER. - 2. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. 3. SEE ATTACHMENT FROM STEWART TITLE COMPANY. 4. ATTACHED. ATTACHMENT 4: SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY. 2. SEE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION ITEM 4. 3.SEE ATTACHED DRAWING. 4. THE EXISTING TWO STORY VICTORIAN STYLE HOUSE CONSIST OF PAINTED.BEVELED BOARD SIDING WITH CONSISTENT ORNAMENTATION, WITH WOOD PORCHES AND DECKS ATTACHED THERETO. IT IS INTENDED THAT THESE DETERIORATING EAST DECKS BE RESURFACED AND EXTEND TO ACCOMMODATE THE RELOCATION OF THE NON -CONFORMING HOT TUB. THE MATERIALS WILL BE PAINTED AND EXPOSED REDWOOD. EXISTING HANDRAILS TO BE MODIFIED TO CONFORM TO NEW DESIGN. THE NEW DESIGN IS A FORMAL APPLICATION ADDRESSING THE SYMMETRY OF THE EAST ELEVATION AND GENERATING OFF THE CENTER LINE OF THE EXISTING KITCHEN. THE DECK AND THE HOT TUB ARE STEPPED DOWN FROM THE MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION TO LESSEN THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING. THE VISUAL IMPACT IS MINIMAL TO THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE WITH NO IMPACT TO THE STREETS CAPE AND PUBLIC VIEW. THE PROPOSED DESIGN WILL HAVE NO INFLUENCE ON THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. 1020 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 (970) 927-4327 1(p APRIL 17, 19N- AMY AMITON HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OFFICER ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 REF: SUBMITTAL FOR RELOCATION OF EXISTING HOT TUB 3ZO 39n-LAKE STREET ASPEN, CO.81611 DEAR AMY, THE FOLLOWING IS MY AUTHORIZATION OF JAMES M.COOK ASSOCIATES TO REPRESENT ME CONCERNING THE REFERENCED PROJECT. THEIR ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS: JAMES M. COOK ASSOCIATES 1020 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654. (970) 927 - 4327 MY MAILING ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ARE: RONNIE MARSHALL 302 LAKE STREET . ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 925 - 5551 I TRUST THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION, YO TRULY, RONNIE MARSHALL 0 t e7l i�'ML HAce coca ie+ � —!tilif. ►�111�'11 rm0► ,Ek Chia=- 111 111111111 i�� -,.� 1111 111111 ._ .. ►ids iti�itlll lull.__ ��, �... OR M 0 t111. 01111111 111l�111 wah1111111FIRiUMBIRRifill tlk SM, TI'AR7' 77ME OFASPEN INC. O imeRSIIIP AND ENCUMBRAW E REPORT Order No.: 00022648 PREPARED FOR: 9999900 STEWART 777LE OF ASPEN, INC. HEREBY CER77FIES from a search of the books in this office that title to: Parcel I, MARSHALL LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded January 26, 1988 in Plat Book 20 at Page 54. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO situated in the County of Pitkin. State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of.- RONNIE MARSHALL and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following liens: 1. Lis Pendens, Case No. 90CV274,�Distri.ct Court, Pitkin County entitled Jon K. Dyer d/b/a Dyer Construction Co., Plaintiff vs Ronnie Marshall, Benjamin Ferris, E. W. Young, Aspen Savings and Loan Association, Pitkin County Bank and Trust, and the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado, Defendant, recorded December 26, 1990 in Book 636 at -Page 515 as Reception No. 329064. 2. A Deed of Trust dated December 6, 1993, executed by Ronnie Marshall, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $200,000.00, in favor of FBS Mortgage Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, recorded December 10, 1993 in Book 734 at Page 531 as Reception No. 364420. NOTE: The beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust was assigned of record to Capstead Inc. by FSB Mortgage Corporation, a Nevada Corporation recorded November 28, 1994 in Book 768 at Page 134 as Reception No. 376743. EXCEPT any and all taxes and assessments. EXCEPT all easements, rights of way, restrictions and reservations of record. This report does not reflect any of the following matters: (1) Bankruptcies which, from date of adjudication of the most recent bankruptcies, antedate the report by more than fourteen (14) years. (2) Suits and judgments which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or until the governing statue of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. (3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years. Although we believe the facts stated are true, this letter is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes, i nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any statement contained herein. , Dated: ! April 04, 1996 at 7:30 A.M. , at Aspen, Colorado STEWART 7771E OF PEN, INC. By: Authorized Signatur w ►I N �w mz N N Z JW OL tu ~ } fA � �z zv Q 0� T- OT DISTRICT COURT,PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 92 CV 47 p JUDGMENT AND ORDER RONNIE MARSHALL; PLAINTIFF vs, THE CITY OF ASPEN, and THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS This matter came before the Court on the Complaint of the Plaintiff seeking review of an adverse decision of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. The record below was certified to this Court, and the parties have filed their briefs as required by R>>le 106 ( a) (4) : Court has considered the briefs and the record of the proceedings below. The Defendants also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Based on the record as supplemented by the �Ygals on tide ivies: '.-on for = -ummary Judgment, the. Court issues the following Order'. �C _ S Z'.AN DARD F O.R REV = Ew In reviewing a land use decision of an agency under C.R.C.P_106 (a)(4), the Court is limited to the matters contained in the record of the proceeding before that agency, Fedder v_ McCurdy, 768 P.2d'711 ( Colo. App. 1988). Where the land use agency exceeds its jurisdiction or abuses its discretion, this Court must set aside the agency's order. The court looks to tine entire record and must uphold the land use decision unless trlere is no competent evidence to support it, Fedder, supra; Rinq's Mill Homeowners Ass'n v_ Westminster, 192 Colo. 305, 557 P.2d 1186 Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 2 (1976), so that the decision is devoid of evidentiary support and therefore arbitrary and -capricious, Platte River. Env. Cons. Organ. Inc. v. Nat'l Hog Farms, 804 P. 2d 290 (Colo.. App. 1990) . This Court must also consider whether the land use agency misconstrued r or misapplied the law; and if there is a reasonable basis for its application of the law, the agency's decision will not be set aside on that basis, .Lee v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 654 P. 2 d 839 (Colo. 1982). The City has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will decide the case on the merits under Rule 106 (a)(4), reviewing the entire record below. A decision on the merits will include a decision on the issues raised in the Motion for Summary Judgment. The city seeks a mandatory injunction directing the Plaintiff to bring her property into compliance with the City Code, and the Plaintiff seeks. an injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing ,the Hallam Lake ESA against her. -IF NDSNGS 1. The Plaintiff, a resident of Aspen, Colorado, owns real property located at 320 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. 2. The Plaintiff caused to be built a hot tub and deck at the rear of her property in- the Spring of 1990. She did not obtain a building permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, zoning permit, or land use development approval as required by various portions of the Aspen City Code. Nor did she obtain the required inspections. Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 3 3. On May 29,! 1990, the City of Aspen ("City") red -tagged the Plaintiff's hot tub. 4. The Plaintiff's property lies within the Historic Preservation District and is a designated historic landmark. Under the City Code, a minor development approval for the construction of the spa and deck was required. The Historic Preservation Committee was the agency authorized to issue that permit. The Plaintiff ;did not obtain this Committee's approval before construction of the spa and deck 5. On June 14; 1990, the Plaintiff applied for a building permit to legitimize the construction of the hot tub. 6. On July 19, 1990, the City advertized public notice of a hearing on the Hallam Lake ESA Ordinance before the P&Z . This ordinance created the Hallam lake Environmentally Sensitive Area ("ESA"), and, among other things, limited development on the hillside above Hallam Lake, and prohibits any development below the top of the slope. 7: On August 7, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") held the public hearing on the Hallam Lake ESA ordinance. 8. On August 22, 1990, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the spa and deck from the Historic Preservation Committee, subject k to herr providing screening landscaping. 9. On October 2, 1990, the P&Z approved the Hallam Lake ESA Ordinance., 10_ On October-22, 1990, the City Council passed the Hallam lake Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 4 ESA ordinance on first reading, and on November .12 , 1990, gave final adoption to the ordinance. Topographically, a portion of the Plaintiff's hot tub and deck is located below the top of the slope. The ESA ordinance subjects certain development to a special review process, and the spa.and deck lie within the area subject to that special review process. 11. On November 15, 1990" the plaintiff's landscaping for screening -was accepted as complying with the Historic Preservation Committee'standards. 12. On March 8, 1991, the Plaintiff applied for a zoning variance to the Board of Adjustment to legitimize the read yard setback violation created by the hot tub structure. 13. On June 6, 1991, the board of Adjustment granted her a variance, subject to her compliance with the Hallam Lake ESA. The motion to grant the variance included the language that the .plaintiff "go -back and meet the building codes with respect to'railings and the ESA and HPC for that railing to ascertain if it is appropriate." 14. On October 30, 1991, the Plaintiff filed for approval under the Hallam take ESA. 15. On December 17, 1991, the P&Z denied the Hallam Lake ESA b application, and reaffirmed its decision on January 21, 1992,. 16. The Plaintiff has never obtained the necessary permits under the City Code for the construction and use of the hot tub and deck. Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 5 17. The Plaintiff has not obtained vested rights to construct or use the hot tub and deck. 18. The City is not estopped from enforcing the ESA ordinance and other portions of its Code and requiring the removal of the hot tub and deck." 19. The City is entitled to injunctive relief. _ _ _ D -E S CUSS = O N I. SEQUENCE OF APPLICATIONS AND ORDINANCE The City Code required the Plaintiff to comply with an assortment of regulations and permit requirements. As of the, date of construction of the spa and deck, the Plaintiff had to get a building permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, zoning permit, and a land use development approval as required by various .portions of the Asper. City Code. She failed to do so, and the project was almost completed without either the permits or the requisite inspections. The specific location. she chose triggered another permit requirement. The structure intruded into the rear yard setback in violation of the City Code. Therefore, she needed another permit, a variance from the strict application of the Code. Until she obtained this variance permit,, the project was not lawful. She did not apply for a variance until March 8, 1991. k This was about one hundred-pixteen days after the passage of the ESA ordinance. When she applied for the variance, the ESA ordinance was in full force and effect. Here application for and the decision on the variance came well after the passage of the ESA Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 6 ordinance. In doing so, she subjected herself to its requirements. She, like others, was obligated to comply with its terms. Thus, because of the dates of passage of the ESA ordinance and her variance application, the ESA ordinance applies, and the Defendants lawfully may require the Plaintiff to conform to its provisions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under her Complaint. II_ VESTED RIGHTS The Plaintiff argues that her actions created for her vested rights so that she was not subject to the ESA ordinance. First, her construction of the hot tub and deck in the Spring of 1990 did not vest her with anything; it was illegal from the outset. She tacitly admitted this by applying after the fact for City approvals to legitimatize it. Second, under Colorado's interpretation of the pending ordinance doctrine, the passage of the ESA ordinance during the pendency of. the building permit proceedings did not vest the Plaintiff with any rights. In Crittenden v_ Hasser, 585 P.2d 929 (Colo. App. 1978), the Court held: This authority to enact a zoning resolution, and thereby restrict the use of property, exists even though an application for a license involving that use ins pending; the only proviso being the Board had not reasonably or arbitrarily refused or delayed the issuance of the license. In Gramiger v_ CountY of Pitkin 794 P.2d 1045 (Colo. A pp- 1989), the Court interpreted Crittenden to mean that if the amending ordinance is adopted before the normal processing of the application is completed, the new ordinance may apply. Here, the Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 7 passage of the. ESA ordinance preceded the normal completion of the Plaintiff's building permit application. It preceded the filing of the variance request. Thus, under applicable precedent, the timing of the filing of the application and the passage of the ESA ordinance does not ,generate for the Plaintiff any rights, vested or otherwise, to retain . the hot tub and deck. Third, under the vested property rights statute,-C.R.S. § 24-68- 101, et. seq., she did not obtain any approval or conditional approval of a site specific development plan before the enactment of the ESA ordinance, C.R.S. § 24-68-103 (1). Fourth, the ESA ordinance by its.terms provided that --- Any development or proposed development in the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Overly (sic) District not vested in accordance with law prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall comply with the terms and provisions of the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA development standards as adopted pursuant to this ordinance. Clearly, the terms of the ordinance shut out the possibility of creating rights from pending, unapproved applications. Plaintiff points to the language of § 24-1-104(B)(3) of the City Code which states --- The provisions of this chapter and any amendments hereto shall not affect the review of any development applications or building permit application lawfully submitted prior to the effective date of this chapter pursuant to the provisions of the zoning and subdivision regulations in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this chapter. To apply, the building permit application must precede the Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 8 effective date �"of this chapter." This provision clearly deals with the time period when the whole chapter was being introduced, which occurred well before the Plaintiff's building permit here. This language does not apply to later amendments to portions of the chapter's text from time to time. Thus, this portion of the Code does not prohibit the application of the ESA ordinance to the pending building application of the Plaintiff. The Court -concludes that the Plaintiff did not obtain any vested rights. III_ RELIANCE The Plaintiff argues that she receives vested rights from substantial steps in reliance on her permit application. She argues that her construction "is virtually complete," and that she had "done all she can do to acquire a vested right." ( Brief, p. 5). One must separate out what she.did without a semblance of legality, and that is the virtual completion of the project before being red -tagged for having no permits. This was clearly illegal activity, and not the basis for vesting rights. What she did afterwards was installing about $1,000 worth of landscaping, file applications and other paperwork, and go to meetings. The Plaintiff had a project involving a heating system rehab which had not been done since the 1940's, foundation work, and the hot tub (Record, 6;' 19). In the context of all that went into the unlawful hot tub project, there is a failure of proof by the Plaintiff that the Landscaping was a substantial item. Similarly, there is a failure Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 9 of proof that the Plaintiff's purported actions in reliance were reasonable. There is nothing the City or its representatives said of did that would form the basis for one reasonably -to expect that the hot tub and deck would be legalized and that money and effort should be spend ahead of time presupposing that outcome. The Plaintiff argues further that participating in the land use hearings and pursuing a permit vests her with rights. The argument implies that mere participation in -the hearing process after a code violation equals success, and that a permit denial cannot occur when one expends time and effort to seek the permit. There is a vast difference between seeking a land use or building permit and actually acquiring one; Plaintiff's argument would eradicate that difference. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff's pursuit of the permits does not create any rights in her favor to retain the hot tub and deck. 1V . ESTOPPEL viewing the actions of the City and those acting on its behalf, the Court does not find any actions of the City or the P&Z which estop the City from enforcing the ESA ordinance. In the context of the Plaintiff's initial illegally constructing the hot tub and deck, there -is less justification for application of estoppel. Defendants argue that Lehman v. Louisville, 16 Brief Times Reporter 1805 (Colo. App . 199 2 ) bars the Plaintif f ' s estoppel claims by application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. That case is now on certiorari. It dealt with a tort claim for Marshall v. Aspen April 291 1993 Page 10 damages and thus subject to the specific policies of the Act which hich have little apparent application to a land use. dispute. The word. estoppel has many applications and meanings. Nothing in the Lehman indicates that the rules for tort claims against a municipality P Y should apply in the Rule 106(a)(4) dispute over the application of a land use ordinance or building code. Sovereign immunity simply is not a consideration here: Taken as a'whole and in context with one another, the CitY 's actions were an orderly application of its various, albeit complex, interrelated ordinances. Nothing was done to lead the Plaintiff reasonably to conclude that she would be treated in any manner other than that mandated by the City Code. Nor is there any proof that the City Code -was applied differently to her situation. The City did not represent to the Plaintiff that its ordinances would not be enforced or that she would be immune from the application of the ESA ordinance. A municipality may be estopped when its representative performs an action or makes a statement on which the citizen reasonably relies and the municipality then changes its Position to the'landowner-s detriment, see, e.g., P.W. Investments Inc. Y. CitV of Westminster, 665 P.2d 1365 (Colo. 1982). Here, the City did nothing to induce the Plaintiff to conclude the ESA ordinance would not apply, to her. To the extent she interpreted the e City's actions and concluded it would not, her reliance was not reasonable in light of the circumstances. V. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Marshall v_ Aspen April 291 1993 Page 11 The Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing primarily the same issues inherent in the Rule 106(a)(4) procedure. The Precise issues in the Motion for Summary judgment are whether the City is entitled to an injunction that the Defendant bring her property into compliance with City Code and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to* an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the Code against her on the basis of estoppel. Summary. judgment is a drastic remedy, and will be granted only where there is no: genuine issue as to any material fact, Kral v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 784 P.2d 759 (Colo., 1989), Ridgeway v. Kiowa School Dist. C-2, 794 P.2d 1020 (Colo., 1989). Even where the facts are not controverted, if reasonable persons could reach different conclusions or draw different inferences from them, summary judgment cannot be granted, Halsted v. Peterson, 797 P.2d 801 (Colo. App., 1990). The party opposing the motion is entitled to all favorable inferences which, may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, Halsted v. Peterson, supra The movant has the burden of establishing the lack of a triable factual issue, and "all doubts as to the existence of such an issue must be resolved against the moving party." Cung La v_ State Farm Auto Ins Co 830 p. 2d 1007 (Colo. 1992) , Churchey v. Adolph Coors. co., 759 P. 2d 1336, 1340 (Colo. 1988). The Plaintiff used the Summary Judgment Motion procedure as a vehicle to attempt to create factual issues. However, as discussed above on the Rule 106(a)(4) issues, as a matter of law, the Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 12 Defendant never acquired vested rights nor was the City estopped to proceed. The Summary Judgment arguments do not expand the legal or factual issues on these points. Based on the record certified under Rule 106 (a)(4) and the affidavits submitted on the Summary Judgment issues, the Court l C nn rfpnuine issue of material fact concerning any of the issues raised by the Motion . The City is not estopped. The record is clear as to when the City and the P&Z acted, what their decisions were, what the Plaintiff said and did, and what the effects of the Defendants' formal actions were. The Defendant City is entitled to injunctive relief, the Plaintiff is not. =V _ CCDNCLUS = ON Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that --- a) NeitherDefendant has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion; b) The actions of the Defendant in denying the permit applications of the Plaintiff were lawful; c) The Plaintiff had. not gained any vested deck other aharights entitling her'to construct the hot tub a nd een done, nor is the City estopped to enf orce its Code and the ESA ordinance;. the d) The Plaintiff stands in violation of the City Code, City has no plain, adequate, and speedy remedy at law, and the City is entitled to injunctive relief; e) The Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. Therefore, the Court ORDERS: 1) The Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby dismissed, with costs to the Defendants; ! 2) The Plaintiff shall cease using,immediatea!ndn permanently, the hot tub and deck and shall remove sixty days of this Order failing which the City is authorized to enter the Plaintiff's premises and remove the hot tub and deck. If the City does so, it shall deliver the removed Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 13 pieces to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall pay the City's out of pocket costs of removal plus 5o for overhead. Dated: May 3, 1993 BY ,TH-E---C T T . PETER, DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a rue copy of tYe foregoing on Andrew Hecht and Edward Caswall on ^ C--' REPORTER./ r Exhibit C Memorandum TO: Bob Nevins, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department DATE: May 28, 1996 RE: Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff Review CC: Engineering Department We have reviewed the application submitted for the relocation of the hot tub on the, Marshall property. There is one apple tree that is under code (5") that will be lost to the hot tub relocation next to the house. No permit is required to remove this tree. However, if any other trees are impacted or excavated around for this project, a tree permit should be applied for. There was no landscape plan with the application, however, after looking at the site and meeting with Jim Cook, we discussed the use of a jute landscape netting infused with seeds to revegetate the slope after removal of the deck. Hydroseeding would also be acceptable for this area. Seed composition should be native species for this area. Additionally, we would recommend planting a few choke cherry bushes (prunus virginia) on the slope which is the predominant shrub on the hillside. The existing Junipers don't appear .to be very healthy, however, they are not dead and may be assisting with stabilizing the bank. If the homeowner would like for the Junipers to remain, and ACES has no objection to them, then the Parks Department has no objection to them remaining. MEMORANDUM To: LZ�ob Nevins, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer �. Date: May 28, 1996 Re: Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff Review (320 Lake Street, Aspen: Parcel 1, Marshall Lot Split, Aspen, CO) (Formerly: Lots 10, 11 and the Northwesterly 1/2 of Lot 12, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to Aspen, CO) After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments: 1. Plat Map: The preliminary improvement survey provided contains several technical surveying deficiencies and insufficient detail to properly evaluate the required work. The primary of these are: • Resolution of the conflicting boundary monumentation at the northeast corner of the property. • Location of all trees of six (6) caliper inches or larger located from the existing porch and extending a distance of ten (10) ft beyond the northeast property line for evaluation of impacts to existing trees governed by City code. (A symbol for both conifer and deciduous trees appears in the plat legend although no trees are shown on the survey.) • Clarification and descriptions of the potential encroachments along the southeast property line created by the fence and "overhang" from the adjacent property to the southeast. • Location of the rear set -back line as shown on the "Marshall Lot Split" plat. Location of the new set- back line based upon the existing, restored, or court decision regarding determination of the top of bank. • Field and record dimensions of the parcel. Resolution of differences and discrepancies. 2. Spa Drainage: We will need to receive a building plan, plumbing plan or written statement from the applicant explaining how and where the discharge water from the spa will be disposed. In particular, water drained or discharged from the spa may not be released over the edge of the bluff. If it is discharged to a drywell on the property, we will need a soils report from a licensed geotechnical engineer and a detail of the drywell design for review. 3. Site Grading: Refer to the separate comments from the Parks Dept. regarding site grading and landscaping. As needed, prepare a site grading plan for review. Address future correspondence regarding this application directly to myself at 920-50187, Aspen Engineering Dept. I DRCM 1296.DOC 26.68.010 Exhibit D Chapter 26.68 DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA) Sections: 26.68.010 Purpose. 26.68.020 Authority. 26.68.030 8040 greenline review. 26.68.040 Stream margin. 26.68.050 Mountain view plane review. 26.69.060 Hallam Lake Bluff review. 26.68.070 Procedure for approval of development in ESA. 26.68.080 Application, 26.68.090 Conditions. 26.68.010 Purpose. Certain land areas within the city are of particular ecological, environmental, architectural -or scenic significance and all development within such areas shall be subject to special review procedures and standards as set forth in this Chapter 26.68. These areas shall be known as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and shall include the following: A. 8040 Greenline. Areas located at or above 8040 feet mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) and including that area extending one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline. Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rock fall and mud slide, and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses. Review shall further ensure the availability of utilities and access to any development and that disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features be kept to a minimum. B. Stream margins. Areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Form River and its tributary streams, or within the one -hundred -year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of -the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within a flood hazard area (stream margin). Development -in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features. C. Mountain view planes. Designated mountain view planes as set forth in Section 26.68.050. Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to protect mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the city, maintain property values,- and enhance the city's tourist industry by maintaining the city's heritage as a mountain community. D. Hallam Lake Buff. That bluff area nuining approximately on a north -south axis bordering and/or overiooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850-foot mean sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, up slope and there terminating, and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision, and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street_ Development in this area shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, 595 (Aspan 10195) 26.68.010 minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve, and ensure the aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve. (Ord. No. 71-1990, § �: Code 1971, § 7-501) 26.68.020 Authority. The commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this chapter, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA). (Code 1971, § 7-502) WM b A. Applicability. The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Section 26.68.030 (B). B _ Exemption. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development shall be exempt from 8040 greenline review if the following standards are met: I. The development does not add more than ten (10) percent to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five (25) percent; and 2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the -applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section; and I The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. C. 8040 areendine review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. I. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. -If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the ci ty. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affection the natural watershed, runoff, - drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects oh water pollution. 3_ The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road. or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain., vegetation and natural land re=res. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space. and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. - 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve. the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. tAsp= 1OV3) 596 26.68.050 base line which bear S. 300 41' 11" E. and S. 66' 08' 59" W. respectively and which is above a plane which passes through the reference point at an inclination of 20 50' 38" above horizontal. 6. Main Street View Plane. There is hereby established a view plane originating from Main Street above which plane no land use or building shall project. The reference point bears N. 78' 22' 29" W. 92.35 feet from the southeasterly property comer of Block 79, Original Aspen Townsite. The reference base line . bears N. 75' 09' 11" W. 51.40 feet from the reference point. Elevation of the reference point and reference base Iine is 7,906.90 feet above mean sea level: The view plane is more particularly described as follows: All that space which is within the projection of two (2) radial lines which bear S. 29° 10' 06" E. from the reference point, and S. 800 29' 29" W. from the westerly terminus of the reference base line, and which is also above a plane which passes through the reference base line at an angle of inclination of 6° 29' 20" above horizontal. B. Exemption. Development which shall be exempt from mountain view plane review shall include the addition of any mechanical equipment to an existing development which protrudes into the view plane, except for the following types of equipment 1. Satellite dish; 2. Elevator shaft; or 3. Any other piece of equipment whose height and mass are found to be of such significance in their effect upon the designated view plane that their review pursuant to the standards of Section 26.68.050(C) is required. C. Mountain view_ plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view lane unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section 26.68.050(C)(2). When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.84 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk. and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the. view plane may be otherwise accommodated. 2. When any proposed development iruringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re -open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re -redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the commission shall approve the development. (Code 1971, § 7-505) 26.68.060 Hallam Lake Bluff review. A. Applicability. All development in that bluff vim running approximately on a north -south axis bordering and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850-foot mean, sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, up slope and there terminating, and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision, and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street, shall be subject to the review standards as set forth in this section. 601 B Exemption. The exterior ex or the removal of °n' reempt or reconstruction of an existing sttu trees or shrubbery, shall be exempt from Hallam Lake B1 � or development are met_ Bluff review if the following star dar 1. The development tees place more than this is obscured from the rear slopertY (30) feet from the to of Slope, standard (C)(7) below. by other structure,S as determined b site P �' or the development Y a section provided pursuant to review C. Hallam Lake Bluff review Bluff ESA unleSs the co standards. No development shall be Petted n mmission makes a determinations the the Hallam Lake requirements: Proposed development meets � of th 1- � No development, excavation or fill, other e following the top of slope. than native vegetation planting, shall tak 2- All development within e Plane below development not at P thin the fi�n-foot setback from the topof slope de b4 pmen grade within the fifteen -foot setback must be Pe shall be at grade. Any Proposed approved by special review p° �• All developmentpursuant Section outside the fifteen -foot setback from to by a line awn at a forty-five (45) degree angle Q P of slopeshall not ex o and determined b from brnund level at the top of slod a height delineated Y the zoning 4• Alan g of utilizing that definition set forth at Secti Pe Height shall be measured plan shall be submitted with on '76.04.100. native vegetative screening50 all development applications. Such Ian s of the of no less than fifty ( ) percent of the development P hall include parcel. Ali vegetative scree p t as viewed from the rear slo or comparable material should it d�b shall be marntauied rn perpetuity and shall be ( pe) replaced with the same 5- All exterior lighting cast with shall be Iow and down th no light(s) or located down the slope. ght(s) directed toward the natu 6- 'NO fill material or debris shall be placed o re Preserve rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be the f of slope. 7- Site sections drawn b damned down the slope.Historic drainage patterns and showing Y a registered architect, lands esg and proposed site elements, the to o � architect, or engineer shall be (Ord. into. 71-1990, § 6: Code 1971 P f slope, and submitted § 7-506) Pertinent elevations above sea level. 26.68.070 Procedure for approval of development A development application for development in nvirin ESA. and recommended for environmentally sensitive area approved approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval(ESA), shall be reviewed approved with conditions, or disapproved by the planning the procedure established in Co by the commission at a hearing Vector, and then ul an Enviro mmonProcedures, Ch aring held in accordance with nmentally Sensitive Area aPmr..6S2. A development application for development Pursuant to the CESA) may be consolidated with P �irements of Common procedures any other development application § 7-;07) , Chapter 26.52. (Ord- No- 71-1990, § 7: Code 1971, 26:65.080 APPUcation. The development application for deveiopment'in re the following: an environmentally sensitive aa A- The general (ESA) shall include �pIication formation required in Section 26-52.03 B • :� plan of the proposed development, which 0- . shall depict at a muurnum the following information: 602 26,68.080 I.. The boundary of the property for which development is requested. 2. Existing and proposed improvements. 3. Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees. C. In addition to these minimum plan contents, the development plan submitted for development in each type of ESA shall also include the following: 1. For development subject to 8040 orreenline review, the plan shall depict: a. Existing and proposed grades at two -foot contours, with'five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. b. Proposed elevations of the development. c. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 2. For development subject to stream margin review, the plan shall depict:. a. The 100-year floodplain line and the high water line. b. Existing and proposed grades at two -foot contours, with five-foot intervals for gravies over ten (10) percent C. When development is proposed in a special flood hazard area: Accurate elevations (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new or substantially improved structures; a verification and recordation of the actual elevation in relation to _mean sea level to which any structure is constructed; a demonstration that all new construction or substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of any structure to be constructed or improved; a demonstration that the structure will have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to at least two (2) feet above the base flood elevation, all as certified by a registered professional engineer or. architect. d. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 3. For development subject to mountain view plane, the plan shall depict: a. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it will be screened. b. Photographs shall be submitted by the applicant which show the present improvements which protrude into or are in the vicinity of the view plane. The applicant shall graphically represent on the photographs how the proposed improvements will appear in relation to existing improvements and views. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9; Ord. No. 71-1990, § 7: Code 1971, § 7-508) 26.68.090 Conditions. The planning director may recommend and the commission may impose conditions *to its approval of development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA), which includes but is not limited to means for. A. Minimizing any adverse impact of the proposed development upon lands, including the use and operation and the type and intensity of activities which may be conducted; B. Controlling the sequence or timing of proposed development, including when it must be commenced and completed; C. Controlling the duration of use of development and the time within which any structures must be removed; D. Assuring that development is maintained properly in the future; or E. Establishing a more detailed record by submission of drawings, maps, plats or specifications. f�Ord. No. 71-1990, § 7: Code 1971, § 7-509) 1 603 26.64.010 Chapter 26.64 SPECIAL REVIEW Sections: 26.64.010 Purpose. 26.64.020 Authority. 26.64.030 Applicability. 26.64.040 Review standards for special review. 26.64.050 Procedure for special review approval. 26.64.060 Application. 26.64.070 Conditions. 26.64.080 Modification of requirements. 26.64.090 Amendment of development order. 26.64.010 Purpose_ The purpose of special review is to ensure site specific review of dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.28), off-street parking requirements (Chapters 26.28 and.26.32), and all reductions in the dimensions of utility/trash service areas (Chapter 26.28), and any development not at grade within fifteen (15) feet from the top of slope in the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA (Chapter 26.68), in order to maintain the integrity of the city's zone districts and the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses. (Ord. No. 71-1990, § 3: Code 1971, § 7-401) 26.64.020 Authority. The commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this chapter, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for special review, after recommendation by the planning director. (Code 1971, § 7-402) 26.64.030 Applicability. Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special review in Chapters 26.28 and 26.32. (Code 1971, § 7-403) 26.64.040 Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the. following conditions are met 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of The underlying zone district 590 - 3. Off-street parking provided for multi -family dwelling units which do not share a common parking area is not required to have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but may consist of garage area, parking strip. or apron provided that the applicant demonstrates that adequate landscaping will be installed to reduce the parking's visual impact Developments consisting of three or more dwelling units shall install one (1) planter buffer per three parking spaces. Planter buffers shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet long by two and one-half (2-1/2) feet wide by two (2) feet high unless otherwise vaned by the Commission. The location and dimensions of the planters may also be varied by the Commission based on site specific circumstances provided that no fewer than one (1) planter buffer is provided per three (3) off-street parking spaces. Multi -family projects using this provision shall access parking from the alley, if available. C. Utility/trash service area. Whenever the special review is for reduction of the dimensions of a utility/trash service area, the development application shall be approved only if: 1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. 2. Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access a<rPa_-- D. Hallam Lake Bluff ESA encroachment into fifteen -foot setback .from top of slope or height limit. Whenever a special review is for development above or below grade within the fifteen -foot setback from top of slope as identified on a site specific section drawing or above the height limit established by the ESA, the development application shall be approved only if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. 2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. 3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. 4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. E. Subdivision design standards. Whenever a special review is for development which does not meet the subdivision design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4), the development application shall be approved only if the following conditions have been met: L A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9; Ord. No. 7-1989, § 2; Ord. No. 16-1989, § 3; Ord. No. 71-1990, § 4; Ord. No. 35-1992, § 2; Ord. No. 4-1993, § 2; Ord No. 50-1994, § 2; Ord. No. 69-1995, § 2: Code 1971, § 7-404) 593 26.64.050 26.64.050 Procedure for special review approval. A development application for special review shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the planning director and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the commission at a hearing held in accordance with the procedure established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. A development application for special review may be consolidated with any other development application pursuant to the requirements of Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. (Code 1971, § 7-405) 26.64.060 Application. The development application for special review shall include the following: A. The general application information required under Section 26.52.030. B. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those features of the site which are relevant to the special review application. C. An analysis of the characteristics of similarly situated properties in the same zone district and of neighboring parcels with respect to whether these properties comply with the dimensional, off-street parking or trash/utility service area requirement which is subject to special review.. (Code 1971, § 7-406) 26.64.070 Conditions. The planning director may recommend, and the commission may impose, such conditions that are necessary to ensure a proposed development subject to special review complies with the purposes of the As Area Comprehensive Plan, this chapter, and this title, including conditions to ensure the integrity of the city's zone districts are maintained, and the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses. This includes but is not limited to imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, lighting, signage, off-street parking, and other design features. (Code 1971, § 7407) 26.64.080 Modification of requirements. If the dimensional requirements, off-street parking, signage, or reduction in access to utility/trash service areas for a proposed development are expressly modified by a valid conditional use or other valid development permit or approval, the proposed development must comply with such modified requirements. (Code 1971, § 7-409) 26.64.090 Amendment of development order. A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for special review may be authorized by the planning director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall include a change to the design of approved off-street parking or to the configuration of a trash/utility service area. An insubstantial amendment shall not include: 1. Any increase in a dimensional requirement established by special review. 2. .Any decrease in the number of off-street parking spaces established by special review. . 3. .Any decrease in the size of a utility/trash service area established by speial re view. 4. Elimination of any represented feature, such as provision of a trash compz for or the number of trash bins, which was approved by special review. B. Other amendment Any other amendment shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures Of this chapter. (Code 1971, § 7-409) 594 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director L�), j DATE: June 18, 1996 RE: Aspen Club PUD Amendment SUMMARY: On March 19, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of a proposed amendment to the access and parking plan for the Aspen Club. The applicant revised the application, and a First Reading was held in front of City Council on March 10, 1996. The Code is silent regarding criteria for requiring an applicant to formally return the beginning of a two-step process, but the applicant has agreed to appear before the Commission with the revised application for comment. The City Council will hold a 2nd Reading and Public Hearing on July 8, 1996. Staff will present the Commission's recommendation at that time. The entire City Council packet is attached as Exhibit A. A staff recommendation is included within the Staff Memorandum. A site plan will be available for review by the Commission on June 18, 1996. City Council Discussion: City Council did not take any formal action on the application, but did approve Ordinance 20, Series of 1996 on First Reading. Council members did voice concerns regarding traffic calming and snow plowing on Ute Avenue, but appeared to be awaiting comments from the Commission as well as the public before reaching a decision. Additional Alternative: Following the Council discussion, the applicant and staff have discussed another alternative, which would allow for the retention of 20 spaces at the north lot, and improvements at the Ute Avenue lot to be restricted to approximately 40 spaces. This would ensure no additional traffic on Ute Avenue, and allow for the applicant and staff to assess the need for additional parking in the future. Recommendation: Staff would recommend that the Commission foreword a recommendation to the City Council regarding the amended proposal, as well as the additional alternative summarized above. 0 MEMORANDUM Exhibit A TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director DATE: June 10, 1996 RE: Aspen Club PUD - PUD Amendment - First Reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval to modify the access and parking areas that serve the Aspen Club (Club). Access to the Club is presently provided from State Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road, as specified in the Callahan Subdivision and PUD agreement. In addition; the PUD agreement restricted the use of the Ute Avenue parking lot to service, deliveries or emergencies. Over time the Ute Avenue lot has been used for additional membership parking in violation of the PUD Agreement. The applicant initially proposed to access the Club exclusively from Ute Avenue, to expand the Ute Avenue lot to 138 parking spaces, and to convert Lot 14A, which is currently used for Club parking, to a single family lot. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at a public hearing on March 19, 1996, and recommended denial by a vote of 4-1, based on the adjacent land uses along Ute Avenue, the level of pedestrian/bicycle traffic in the area, and the physical constraints of the Ute Avenue roadway. The applicant has since revised the application, and is currently proposing to retain the existing parking lot on Lot 14A but reduced in size to accommodate a total of 20 vehicles, and to reduce the proposed number of parking spaces on the Ute Avenue side of the property from the original proposal of 138 spaces to 80 spaces. This represents a 42 per reduction from the original proposal, but also would increase available parking in the Ute Avenue lot by 70 percent when compared to the existing spaces. The applicant is also, committing to operate a shuttle service between the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge during peak traffic hours in -season to reduce traffic on Ute Avenue. The original application is attached as Exhibit A, referral memos are attached as Exhibit B, and letters from adjacent land owners in response to the public notice are attached as Exhibit C. The revised illustrative site- plan of the proposed modifications to thi,, Ute Avenue parking lot is attached as Exhibit D. An amendment to the application is attached as Exhibit E, and minutes from the March 19, 1996 minutes are attached as Exhibit F. Staff notes for Council that a determination has been made that the applicant does not require either conditional or special review because the underlying parking and access requirements were established through the PUD process. A conditional use review is not necessary for the Ute Avenue parking lot due the recognition within the PUD agreement that limited parking was approved by the City. The applicant has agreed to return to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to second reading to allow the Commission an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. Staff recommends approval with conditions, with a recommended modification of the proposed parking configuration. The concept advocated by staff would attempt to hold traffic levels on Ute Avenue to current levels. APPLICANT: _Dick Butera (Aspen Club International), represented by Alan Richman ZONING: Lots 14A and 15, Callahan Subdivision. The Aspen Club facilities are located on Lot 15, and Lot 14A is the current location of the parking lot approved in 1976. Lots 15 and 16 are zoned Rural Residential (RR), while the remaining lots in the PUD are zoned Moderate -Density Residential (R-15); with all lots in the development having a PUD overlay. The proposed PUD amendment would route additional traffic from State Highway 82/Cooper Street, and then continue to the rear of the club on Original Street/ Ute Avenue. Zoning through this section includes single and multi -family residential. (R-15 and RMF) along. SH 82, transitioning to tourist -oriented land uses (NC PUD and L/TR) along the west side of Original, and returning to residential use (R-15 PUD) near the terminus of Ute Avenue. BACKGROUND: The requirement for limited access to the Aspen Club property was defined in the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision. The specific condition addressing access reads as follows: "The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular tragic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles are for the purpose of construction, providing services to or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore, neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision. Since that time, the area behind the Aspen Club off of Ute Avenue has been used by employees and members of the Club for parking, in violation of the requirement of the PUD. Currently, approximately 47 spaces are being used for these purposes. Consistent with the enforcement policy of the City, staff has not taken action to remove the Ute Avenue parking pending a final decision on the application by City Council. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: The Aspen Club property includes the recreational facilities on Lot 15, and also created Lots 1 thru 12, each of which was approved for a single family home, except for Lot 10, which was approved for a duplex. Lots 13 and 13A were condominium lots, which were built -out as the existing 20-unit Aspen Condominiums. Lot 14, which contained the Benedict residence, was originally approved to be conyMed injto a clubhouse and residence. Lot 14A was approved for parking facilities for the recreational uses on Lots 14 and 15. Lot 16, the existing Benedict Office building, was designated for (Office use. -116). Subdivision and PUD Agreement, Callahan Subdivision, dated May 13, 1976 (Book 312, Pages 115 The existing access pattern requires that all east and westbound club patrons use State Highway 82 to Crystal Lake Road. The PUD approval included the development of a north lot, and visitors approach the Club via a walkway of approximately 1000 feet in length crossing the Roaring Fork River. The proposed access amendment would route additional traffic south on Original Street, continuing south on Ute Avenue to an existing entrance near the rear of the Aspen Club facility. Land uses along the proposed access route include commercial and multi- family residential along Cooper, continuing along Original between Cooper and Durant, and transitioning to single- and multi -family lots towards the terminus of Ute Avenue. TRAFFIC IMPACTS: Excerpts from the traffic analysis provided with the original application are included within Exhibit A. Based on Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) methodology, the study concluded that the traffic volumes projected for Ute Avenue, assuming approval, would be at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) based.on the assumed carrying capacity of the roadway, estimated at 3,000 vehicles per day. This estimate assumes the following cross-section: two eleven -foot driving lanes, an eight -foot parking lane, and an eight -foot separated bike path.2 Field work conducted by Planning, Engineering and Streets Departments at different times from mid -February to mid -March found that the actual cross-section of Ute Avenue tapers from 19' at the Ute Avenue/Aspen Alps Road to nearly 14' at the curve adjacent to Ute Park. The majority of the rest of Ute Avenue is restricted to 15' of passable road due to snow. This is primarily due to the directional orientation of Ute Avenue. Portions of the roadway are shadowed by Aspen Mountain as early as 1:30 pm, and completely shaded by 3:30 pm. For comparison, the existing access to the club via State Highway 82 remains in open sunlight until sunset at approximately 6:00 pm. Staff suggested that the 3,000 figure was flawed by assuming a cross section that is not possible 5 months out the year, and did not consider the horizontal and vertical alignment of Ute Avenue or the presence of significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Photographs taken during this period of time are attached as Exhibit H. The proposed peak period trip distribution, based on the original application, would have increased traffic by 18% on Ute Avenue south of Durant, and 104% (doubling traffic) at the far end of Ute Avenue adjacent to the proposed access and existing dwelling units. Based on the revised proposal to maintain 20 parking spaces in the existing north lot and to provide weekday peak -hour, peak -season shuttle service to the Club, weekday traffic on Ute Avenue south of Durant would increase by 4.8%, and at the far end of Ute Avenue by 26.3%.3 The intersection analysis of the original proposal also indicated that no adverse impacts are projected for Cooper/Original or Original/Durant, and the impacts would be less under the proposed amendment. Staff notes that traditional traffic studies do not account for the level of pedestrian and bike traffic in the immediate area, nor the sight distance issues addressed by the Engineering Department. Table 1 summarizes the conclusion of the traffic analysis for an average weekday for the initial application and the amended proposal, assuming a 30 percent reduction as represented by Leigh, Scott & Cleary. February 6th, 1996 cover letter from Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. to Dick Butera (included in Exhibit A) 3 May 15, 1996 cover letter from Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. to Dick Butera (included in Exhibit G) 3 Table 1 Aspen Club PUD Access Amendment Existing and Proposed Average Weekday Traffic (March Aspen Proposed % Aspen Proposed % 1996) Club Weekday Change Club Weekday Change Cooper at Original 31280 220 3,500 +6.7 55 3,335 +1.6 Original 11800 210 2,010 +11.6 53 1,853 +2.9 Lower Ute 1,250 230 1,480 +18.4 56 1,306 +4.5 Upper Ute 220 230 1 450 1 +104.5 58 1 278 +26.3 REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from Streets, Parks and Engineering are attached as Exhibit B, and are summarized below: Streets: The Streets Department was opposed to the original submittal due to the horizontal and vertical alignment that constrain site distance, and the reduced lane width caused by snow storage during the winter. Engineering: The Engineering Department was also opposed to the original submittal; due to sight constraints; potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, the residential character of the southern sections of Ute Avenue, and the potential conflicts with existing public uses of the three parks and trail crossings. A detailed analysis of the traffic study assumptions and findings are included in Engineering's comments. Revised comments have not been submitted. Parks: The Parks Department questions the adequacy of the traffic study in addressing winter driving conditions, including the narrow lane width and sight constraints due to snow storage. Environmental Health : Environmental Health did not identify any significant air quality issues or conflicts with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Aspen Area. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24-7-907 B. provides that any amendment to an approved PUD which is not insubstantial "shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan." The following section evaluates the proposal according to these standards. A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Cemmunity Plan. Response: The applicant's response notes that the retention of the Aspen Club is a consistent with the intent of "revitalizing the community" and the desire to . "encourage .land uses, businesses and events that serve the local community and tourist base." Staff does not agree 4 that this policy can be used to justify .the requested amendment. The proposal should be reviewed independently of the financial situation of the Aspen Club, and instead assessed by its relative impact on the community and consistency with applicable regulations. The Aspen Area Community Plan placed particular emphasis on the implementation of the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan. The Proposed Pedestrian System map identified Ute Avenue, Original and the portion of State Highway 82 west of Crystal Lake Road as a "Primary (Commuter)" route. Staff did not consider the original proposal to redirect additional vehicular traffic onto these streets, even if the roadway geometry can theoretically absorb additional capacity, to be consistent with the pedestrian plan approved within the AACP. The revised proposal would increase traffic along the Ute/Original corridor only slightly, and greatly reduces the impact on pedestrian and bicycle use of this area when compared to the original submittal. The City has also committed to enforce a 25 mph speed limit along Ute Avenue, as well as heightened enforcement of the "No Parking" zone on the north side or Ute Avenue. Staff would suggest that if there was no net increase over current traffic levels on Ute Avenue, the PUD amendment would be consistent with the AACP. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The applicant has stated that the existing parking lot is "incompatible" with the existing residential units. The same argument holds true for the proposed access to the parking lot off of Ute Avenue, which is also residential in nature and includes significant bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The concept of SH 82 access for the Aspen Club residences and recreational facilities was to minimize conflicting turning movements and concentrate through traffic onto roadways designed for such volumes. The existing access from State Highway 82 has wider shoulders, longer site distances and is more consistent in character with the existing traffic patterns- when compared to the Ute Avenue alternative. The revised plan dramatically reduces potential volumes on Ute Avenue, but would increases traffic over existing levels. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The surrounding area has developed to the point where very few vacant, developable parcels remain. The applicant may develop a single-family home on Lot 14A, and is also considering deeding the remaining land not used for the 20 space parking lot to the adjacent owners. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: This amendment does not require any GMQS allotments. The conversion of Lot 14A to a- single family :home would be considered exempt from GMQS,- based on its existence prior to November 14, 1977, and compliance with the Requirements of the Housing Replacement 1 Program. E. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. 5 Response: The amendment does not propose any changes to the underlying zoning or the density allowed in the R-15 zone district. F. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi family dwellings shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. Response: The Club's parking lot is not permitted in the R-15 zone district, but rather was approved within the PUD. Reducing the amount of parking on Lot 14A will lessen the non- conformity as it relates to underlying zoning. G, The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted for the. maximum distance between buildings, height, front/rear/side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area and minimum open space requirements. Response: No variations from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone districts are proposed. H. The number of off street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: 1. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. 2. The parking needs of any non-residential uses. 3. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. 4. The availability of pubic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. 5. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreation facilities in the City. 6. Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change. Response: Existing Parking There are currently 101 parking spaces available on Lot 14A, which exceeds the 38 required by the PUD. Observations by the applicant indicate that the existing number of spaces are adequate for existing club users, and that parking is currently split. between the approved parking and the Ute Avenue parking. The applicant notes that the parking lot on Lot 14A rarely contains more than 20 vehicles of members, guests and employees, and, therefore, asserts that maintaining 20 spaces on Lot 14A and providing shuttle service to the Club will only slightly increase existing traffic levels on Ute Avenue. Staff does note that the original application states that the lot on Crystal Lake Road is usually occupied by approximately 20-50 cars (pg. 9). no Parking Demand: The City of Aspen parking standards require 2.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of net leasable for a recreational club.4 Based on the existing square footage of the recreational facilities (approximately 32,000 sq. ft.), the Club, if approved today, would be required to provide 64 off-street parking spaces. At the time the .application was approved in 1977 for the original, the standard in effect at the time suggested only 38 spaces were needed to serve the Club. Other commonly used sources would have suggested a factor of 3 to 5 spaces per 1000 square feet, requiring 128 spaces.5 Staff notes that the concentrated land use pattern of Aspen, as well as the implementation of policies to encourage alternative transportation modes would suggest a parking demand below traditional urban factors. Demand estimations not withstanding, the project was approved with the north lot containing 101 parking spaces. The lot off of Ute Avenue provides 37 spaces, for a total existing parking count of approximately 138 spaces. Original Proposal: The original site plan indicated 138 spaces: 105 along the west side of the building, including an expansion of the area currently used for member parking and a conversion of the two tennis courts closest to the existing pedestrian bridge into parking, 12 spaces at the rear of the building for employees in an area currently used for parking, and 21 spaces for the spa and therapy area, which would have required the removal of the tennis/volleyball court along the eastern side of the Club. The proposal would have held available parking at existing levels, but would redistribute traffic onto Ute Avenue, far beyond the current levels. Amended Proposal: The revised site plan indicates 80 spaces on the Ute Avenue side of the property: 38 on two existing tennis courts directly to the north of the building, 27 along the west side of the building, 9 to the south of the building for therapy patients, and 6 to the southeast of the building. 20 parking spaces will be maintained on Lot 14A, for a total of 100 spaces for the Club. The proposed parking would be more than adequate, particularly in light of the representations that the north lot rarely contains more than 20-50 cars.6. The applicant also proposes to provide a shuttle service for guests and members from the Aspen Club to the Aspen Club Lodge from 8- 10 AM and 5-7 PM, Monday through Friday, from December to March and June to August, to reduce the need for parking and traffic impacts along Ute Avenue. Staff is not in favor of any increase in traffic above the levels currently using Ute Avenue to access the Club. In order for levels to remain status quo, no additional spaces, beyond those provided today, should be developed off of Ute Avenue. This would allow approximately 40 spaces to be developed off of Ute Avenue, including paving, striping, and landscaping. Assuming a mean of the observed occupancy of the north lot, staff would recommend that 35 spaces be retained. This would allow for 75 off-street parking spaces for Club use, and allow for the existing 12,000 foot north lot to be reduced to approximately 60%, leaving approximately 7,500 square feet of parking. This would also represent a decrease of available parking by 45 percent, discouraging traffic on Ute Avenue from exceeding current levels. 4 A Recreational Club is a permitted use in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district, which requires 2 spaces per 1000 sq. ft of net leasable. It is also an allowed use in the Commercial (C) zone district, which requires 1.5 spaces per. 100 sq. ft. net leasable. Staff has used the higher parking generation factor. Planning Advisory Service, Off -Street Parking Requirements Publication 432. May 1991. 6 Development Application for PUD Amendment, page 9. 7 I. 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 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: Neither the Rural Residential (RR) or the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district have any minimum open space requirement nor was such a requirement established in the original PUD. The site plan submitted with the application still retains significant open space as it is currently defined in the code. J There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed 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 application, and indicated that the Club has always retained adequate landscaped areas around the facility. Staff was concerned that a number of trees adjacent to the Benedict Building to the west would have to be removed to accommodate the access to the parking area. According to the revised site plan, the trees adjacent to the Benedict Building remain undisturbed. If required, tree removal permits shall be obtained by the applicant, if the proposal is approved by Council. K. There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site plan,. which ensures' architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is shed in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional. expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the building with other and surrounding uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion Response: No changes to the architectural design of the structures are proposed, however some green space will be eliminated. L. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Response: Any required lighting of the parking areas will be designed to match the existing lighting within the PUD, which is currently low profile, with. no glare on adjoining properties. M. Cluster of dwelling units is encouraged. Response: No dwelling units are proposed within the application. A single-family home could be developed on Lot 14A with an easement granted for the parking area. N. 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 not net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall be arranged such that structures are accessible to emergency vehicles. Response: The primary physical constraint to access from Ute Avenue is the tapering lane width due to snow storage, and the horizontal and vertical curves that compromise sight distance. Streets Department staff has indicated that significant additional snow removal along Ute Avenue would be necessary to address the lane width constraints. The applicant has addressed this concern in the revised proposal by providing fewer .parking spaces off of Ute Avenue and by committing to provide a shuttle service to lessen traffic going to the Club. O. 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 way, or other dedicated to public or private use. Response: The Club access, as proposed, would have direct access to Ute Avenue and to State Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road, a previously approved private road. P. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimize hazards to vehicular or pedestrian circulation. Minor streets within the PUD shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by traffic. Response: The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis that concluded that the parking entry and exit points, and internal circulation design meets accepted traffic engineering standards. Q. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traff c 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 be adversely affected. Response: The revised proposal suggests that vehicle trips along Ute Avenue will increase by 30 trips each way, which represents an increase over current levels. In addition, traffic routed through the central core is faced with increased pedestrian and vehicular movements, as opposed to the existing traffic patterns using State Highway 82 access to the Crystal Lake Road lot. R Every residential building shall be farther than sixty feet from any access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. Response: The potential residence on Lot 14A would meet this standard. Staff notes that the potential conversion to a dwelling unit is completely independent of the proposed PUD amendment. a P S. All non-residential land uses within a PUD shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on the street. Response: Staff would suggest that this.criteria is based on distributing traffic in a hiearchial fashion, with traffic and associated movements placed on appropriate streets in the system. Although Ute Avenue is considered a collector street, it by no means can carry the amount of W traffic that State Highway 82 was designed for. The revised access plan greatly reduces these potential traffic impacts, but does represent additional traffic. T. 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: There are no new streets proposed within the PUD, nor is any change proposed with regard to ownership or maintenance of the existing streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff would suggest that the staff recommends approval based on the following conditions: l . All representations of the applicant before the City Council are considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by subsequent conditions or amendments. 2. The proposed configuration shall be refined to allow for the retention of 35 spaces in the north lot, and 40 spaces shall be allowed off of Ute Avenue. 3. The applicant provide an elevation of the west side of the proposed parking lot to ensure that headlights can be deflected from the adjacent property by the use of berming or vegetation. 4. The approved parking area off of Ute Avenue shall be paved and stripped, .and a final landscaping plan shall be approved the City of Aspen Park's Department prior to planting. Any removal of trees will require a tree removal permit. 5. Prior to completion of the parking facility, the applicant shall submit documentation to the City Engineer to ensure that the distance between the two western access points meet standard engineering standards and will not result in an unsafe traffic situation for members and guests entering or exiting the Ute Avenue parking facility. 6. By July of 1997, the applicant shall provide the Community Development Department and the City Council with a report assessing the effectiveness of van service from the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge. The report shall include ridership data sufficient to determine if the program will continue to be a condition of approval. Recommended Motion: 1. "I move to approve on first reading Ordinance 20, Series of 1996. approving an amendment to the Callahan Subdivision PUD Agreement, with conditions." Alternative Motions. A summary of other options open to Council include, 1. Approve the PUD amendment as presented; 2. Deny the amendment outright, which would require that the Ute Avenue lot be abandoned and revegetated, consistent with the original PUD approval; [u 3. Allow an amendment for continued use and improvement of the Ute Avenue Lot and the retention of the north lot in its existing configuration. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Exhibits: A - Original Application B - Referral Memos C - Letters from Adjacent Property Owners D - Modified Site Plan E - Amended Application F. - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes G - Amended Traffic Impact Assessment H - Photographs of Ute Avenue I - Ordinance 20, Series of 1996 11 Exhibit B MEMORANDUM To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer A�5- Date: March 11, 1996 (Revised) Re: Aspen Club PUD Amendment, Special Review for Parking & Conditional Use Review After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following conu-nents: 1. Traffic Study Analysis: A) The applicant must verify the basis for justifying the 3,000 VPD capacity, i.e., travel lane width, shoulder type and width, speed, and LOS for a local road. B) The applicant is asking for too many curb cuts with less than adequate acceleration - deceleration distance between the first and second proposed driveways a the west end. C) Note that the traffic consultant's projected traffic impacts on page 3 of its report (found in the application appendix) are based on a re -distribution of existing traffic volumes that equals 105% rather than 100%. This would imply that the Aspen Club received an immediate 5% increase in member attendance due to using Ute Avenue rather than Hwy. 82 although this is not a demonstrated fact. More likely the entire traffic analysis is incorrect if the vehicle volumes shown are the actual values used in the traffic modeling analysis. In that case, the analysis and conclusions of this section are incorrect to the extent that the traffic modeling is also incorrect. In looking at the traffic consultant's re -distribution of the traffic leaving ti'ie proposed south parking area on the intersections of South Original with E. Durant Avenue and ,E. Cooper Avenue it appears that the actual waiting time for the peak morning and afternoon traffic periods will slightly increase overall at the two intersections. I OF 2 DRCM2a96.D0C 3/ 12/96 MEN40 - Aspen Club PUD Amendment D) The traffic study provided by the applicant primarily focuses on the LOS at the intersections and does not adequately consider the shorter sight distances along Ute Avenue, (particularly during the winter months) and does not give any consideration to the residential character of the neighborhood and number of residential driveways along Ute Avenue; the actual driving width of Hwy. 82 verses Ute Avenue during the winter; the planned improvements along E. Cooper Avenue (Hwy. 82); nor the potential conflicts of added vehicle traffic with public use of the three (3) parks, three (3) trail crossings and the carriage horse stables at the east end of Ute Avenue. On February 28, 1996 during my site review the passable road width on Ute Avenue varied from 19 ft. at the intersection of Ute Avenue and Aspen Alps South Road to only 14 ft. at the curve immediately east of Ute Park (a playground) while the passable road width on Hwy. 82 and Crystal Lake Road varied from 21.5 ft. on Hwy. 82 to 11.5 ft. at ,the one-way Centennial Circle around and into the existing sports club parking lot. It was also observed that Ute Avenue was partially shadowed by Aspen Mt. at 1:30 p.m. and entirely shadowed by Aspen Mt. by 3:30 p.m. while Hwy. 82 remained in open sunlight until sunset at approximately 6 p.m. This results in larger snowdrifts along the sides of Ute Avenue (3-4 ft. along Ute Avenue vs. 2-3 ft. along Hwy. 82) which obstruct sight distances at driveways, narrower passable road widths and causes more ice on the roadway. Furthermore, re -directing vehicle traffic from the present entrance to Ute Avenue would be contrary to the intentions of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the character that the community has sought to develop. 2. Impact on Neighborhood: We assume the additional traffic will be passenger cars driven by club members and customers, and no additional commercial vehicles will travel on Ute Avenue. 3. Drainage Impacts: The current surface run-off flows are not. known to us and there is no report nor mitigation proposed. The applicant must perform this work and determine the entire site's drainage basin and it's conveyance system, the sediment transport control, and the overall site erosion control improvements for our review and approval. 2OF2 DRC\M2a96.D0C 3/ 12/96 � V � Ya MEMORANDUM To: Dave Michealson t, From: Jack Reid Date: February 22, 1996 Subject: Aspen Club PUD/Conditional Use Amendment and Parking Special Review --------------------------------------------------------------=------------------------------------------ The Street Department feels it is inappropriate to increase the traffic on Ute Ave. The upgrade of Ute Ave., in 1992, did not address a great increase in traffic. There were drainage improvements, and the road was widened in some places. That widening was primarily to develop a consistent road width for the length of the road, and was not at all substantial. The road was overlaid with a 2 inch asphalt mat. There are some curves on the road that do inhibit sight distance. There was no attempt, during the upgrade, .to cure this problem. The enclosed pictures are of Original, south .of Durant, and Ute Ave. Both are very narrow. Obviously, Ute Ave. has restricted sight distances in both directions. It is a true that in the summer, additional traffic might not be a problem. However, the traffic calc's done by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, do not reflect the special conditions we experience in the winter. The pictures reflect a fairly typical condition for Original and Ute Ave., for most of the winter months. IJ MEMO To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Subject: Aspen Club Parcel ID# 2737-181-32-021 Date: March 1, 1996 Dave, This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but not limited to providing and maintaining adequate fire department access. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROM: John D. Krueger, Trails Supervisor Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: February 29, 1996 RE: The Aspen Club, Development Application For PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment, Parking Special Review (parcel ID No.2737-181-32-021) We have reviewed the Aspen Club Development Application For PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment, Parking Special Review and offer the following comments: 1. Landscaping: The Aspen Club has a good reputation for creating beautifully landscaped areas around the club. A more in-depth landscaping plan for the impacted areas would make evaluation easier. We are concerned about the area to the west of the club that will become the driveway to the new parking lot: This area has many trees that will be lost when the driveway is constructed. The Aspen Club needs to go through the tree removal permit process for this and any other areas that will incur tree loss and abide by the city ordinance. 2. Drainage: We have concerns about site drainage that will change or increase as. a result of the new driveway and parking lot. The area below the new parking lot has a history of drainage problems that result in unsafe ice build up during the winter and standing water during the summer. The application should address the drainage for this area. The proposed parking lot could also create drainage problems during the winter with snow storage and drainage down the hill onto the trail. 3. Crystal Lake Road Access to the Trail: k Will pedestrians and bikers retain*access to the Aspen Club Trail via Crystal Lake Road off of Highway 82 or surrounding properties? page 2 Aspen Club Application 4. Snow removal/storage: How will snow removal be accomplished in the new parking lot and where will it be stored? The close proximity of the proposed parking lot to the trail below could cause problems during snow removal of the lot. Snow should not be pushed or blown from the parking lot onto the trail. The snow needs to be managed in such a way that it does not create any unnecessary problems. 5. Traffic Impacts on Ute Avenue and Original St.: We feel that the traffic impacts to Ute Avenue and Original St are understated. During the winter, the snow, lack of exposure to sun and parking significantly narrow the road from its summer width. These factors will increase the impact of additional traffic on this road. The intersection of Ute Avenue and Original is a problem area during the winter because of its unique layout. The Alps pedestrian trail also intersect s the corner of Ute Ave. and Original St.. Additional auto traffic at this corner will add to the existing problems. We do not feel that these factors are adequately considered in the traffic study. SUMMARY: The application appears to have a minimal impact on the surrounding area and trail. Our main concerns are landscaping, drainage, snow management and traffic impacts. PM-10 (which comes almost all . from traf.f ic,. dr_iving, on paved. roads) . must be reduced by 25 0 ''by 1997 In or. r:.to achieve .that reduction, traffic. -increases that. ordinarily would occur as . a .result of deve� opment must 'be `mitigated, or else the. gains brought. about.by community control measures;wil:l be. lost.. In`addition; in, order* . to comply with ' the- municipal*,.code recqu1rement to achieve. the maximum practical .degree of air. purity. -.by _us.ing all .avail.abl e.: practical methods- to reduce pollu-tion,, -traf fi-c-increases-of development must be off set In order to : do.. this.; the applicai'it will `need. to determine .the' .traf.fic .increases: generated by the proj`e-ct,; commit to. a: -.set of control .measures, and show that the :-tra'f fie decreased - by the control. -measures is.: at least . as .great as. the _traff ic. increases of the .:project without: mitigation Traffic. Impact Analysis by ..Leigh; Scott &.-_Cleary, Inc. state that. this proposal. will..prmarly. affect traffic Bows . "l�To additional traf f o generation : is prod ected.." At: the . s-acne, _time;: pedestrian/.bicycle access,routes have been -developed, and:.a.peak hour van service:. has be.en,,-added ��in.. order to` �f:urther reduce_. Aspen • Club.: Automobile Graff is Membershl has de-c i fined . 4 0 o between ;.19 8 8 vs 19 9 -5 . The feel that P- y mprov rig .acaess to, the' Club -by-prow%ding 'a more convenient parking area will ".be. an, important:step to-. stablze.he.r membersh�,p .. They do .not*- see. this. ,as,. -an : acti.on t�iat: will lead `to growth. However if where is. any increased growth that would increase traffic,; this increase: would. hare: to 'be. m:itgted.' _TYie application states that the present parking area.. is gravel and .that the _entire new -.parking area will -be -.-paved. Our Department. would- considered. -this t:o 'be one method of mitigation: It. appears" that there :.are. presently .146 parking spaces .and .the proposed plan is to have.138-spaces.- A conditional of 'approval'is that the overall . nbmlier of harking.- spaces .does ...not : increas'e over. the:: present .number The proposal to .change the. use of -Lot _.14 f rom the ex.i•sting � parking lot and' develop it as..a single family home is: not considere�d `-o make a signif icant. change to. air quality. . 2 FUGLTIVE DUST A fugitive. - dust control. plan--.:.i's -required which Exhibit C ROBERT J. LOWE 11777 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SUITE 900 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 (310) 820-6661 March 5, 1996 Planning Commission Aspen/Pitken Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Commissioners: I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the Club, and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of Ute Avenue. Sincerely, Robert J. Lowe 86 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 l` Bindley Western Industries, Inc. 10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN 46290 (317) 298-9900 Fax (317) 580-9753 William E. Bindley _ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer MAR 1 Bind/ Western March 7111996 Commissioners ASPEN/PITKI-N PLANNING & ZONING 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners: As a resident of the Ute Place subdivision, I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the Club and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of Ute Avenue. Very truly yours. William E. Bindley 90 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 WEB:pb 0 RAR. -114' 96 (THU) 10:16 HNI [NTERNAT[ONAL 1NG TEL:918 664 6451 P. 002 PETER C. MEIN16 74 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 970/920-9093 - Telephone March 14, 1996 Aspen/PMin Planning er Zoning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 01611 Dear Commissioners: By Facsimile 9701920-5 434 I wish to go an record as opposed to the proposed tinges to the Ashen Club. Specifically, I oppm the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue The increased traffic along tote Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the club, and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of late Avenue. Sincerely, Peter C. Meinig 74 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 8161.1 03/ 1401956 17: 55 3039254200 4,I1L5urt tsKl�ry rH�,t ul f BRIAN AND CATHY WILSON 38 Ute Place Aspen, CO 8161 (970) 925-6747, Fax (970) 925 4200 March 13, 1996 Co i.ssioners Aspen/'Pitkin Planning and Zoning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co 8161.1 Dear Commissioners As registered voters in the city of Aspen, we would like to go on record opposing the dxmges regarding the entrance to the ,Aspen Club. Re-routing troffic away from a highway and onto a narrow residential street causes concern. During the winter the street is often made one lane due to snow fall. During the wom*r months it is much traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists enroute to the Ute Troll the Roaring Fork River Trail, and the old Ute Cemetary, not to mention the neighborhood children. We are raising three school age daughters here ourselves. We feel the impact would would ruin the neighborhood atwsphere and create traffic congestion and hazards. Sincerely, Brian and Cathy Wilson LEONARD M. OATES ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DAVID B. KELLY. OF COUNSEL: JOHN THOMAS KELLY LAW OFFICES OF OATES, 14UGIIES & KNEZEVICH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 March 18, 1996 Mr. Dave Michaelson City of Aspen Department of Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 8161.1 AREA CODE 970 TELEPHONE 920-1700 TELECOPIER 920-1121 Re: Application for PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment Parking Special Review Dear Dave: This office represents Jack and Caroline Davis and Thomas & Dathel Coleman, who own homes on Ute Avenue. Our clients, along with others in the neighborhood, are extremely concerned with the application filed by Aspen Club International which would effectively move all vehicular traffic from the existing and approved North Parking Lot accessing off Crystal Lake Road to parking accessing off Ute Avenue. Our clients oppose approval of the application based on the following: 1. Existing Approvals. It is clear that the 1976 P.U.D. approval as well as the 1977 amendment thereto forbid vehicular access off and parking adjacent to Ute Avenue. This was undoubtedly due to the fact that the City wished to maintain a "rural" feel to Ute Avenue and, in addition the physical constraints of the road, many of which exist -to this day. In any event the P.U.D. Agreement specifically provides: "The subdivider agrees . for himself and his successors and assigns that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue, unless such vehicles are for the OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH. P.C. Mr. Dave Michaelson Department of Community Development March 15, 1996 Page 2 purpose of construction, providing services, or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore, neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision." Clearly the City felt it was important that there be no access other than service or emergency access be permitted off of Ute Avenue. It is our clients' position that these restrictions were well founded and should be continued. As discussed in more detail below, Ute Avenue is still, particularly in winter, a narrow, dangerous road which does not need additional traffic. In addition, in our view, the Aspen Club has been clearly violating its Land Use Approval by permitting its employees, guests and members to park in areas accessing off of Ute Avenue. This violation of the parking restrictions is conceded in the Land Use Application. It does not seem correct to permit a clear violation of an existing PUD Agreement to exist and then, present it to the P.Z. as a Fait Accompli. The "informal use" (parking accessing off Ute Avenue) referred to in the application is really a violation of an existing P.U.D. Agreement. 2. Existing Conditions on Ute Avenue. Despite the apparent results of the traffic study prepared by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc., it is still obvious that Ute Avenue is a narrow, dangerous road. We agree with the positions taken in both the February 29, 1996 memo from George Robinson of the Parks Department and the Jack Ried February 22, 1996 memo from the Street Department that the traffic impacts, particularly at Ute and Original, are understated. Even if the numbers compiled and assumed to be accurate, the report does not take into account several important safety issues: a. The study does not adequately address the impact of the heavy snowfall during the winter months. Since Ute Avenue does not get a great deal of sunlight, snow and ice tend to linger. Plowing results in a narrowing of the road and also impedes vision. During heavy snowfall, Ute Avenue becomes little more than a one -lane road on the upper end. The intersection of Ute and Original is extremely icy and dangerous and has been the site of numerous accidents. b. The road is a "dead end" which increases traffic intensity as a result of Club visits." ;mMichaa.rr OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. Mr. Dave Michaelson Department of Community Development March 13, 1996 Page 3 C. There are at least three areas where the driver's line of site is impaired due to curves in the road. d. The road, as well as the bike path, is used by rollerbladers, bicyclists, and runners. It is also regularly used by the horse and carriage tours and there are two city parks, including Children's . Park, on the upper end of the Avenue. Ute Avenue is also the inception of -the popular Ute Trail. All of the foregoing creates heavy use and safety issues. 3. 1994 Upgrade of Ute Avenue. The applicant, and for that matter the traffic study, .make much of the City upgrade of Ute Avenue in 1994. It should be noted, however, that the upgrade was not intended to handle increased traffic. As the February 22, 1996 Road Department memo states, the primary focus was to create a consistent road surface, address drainage problems, widen the road in some places, and to provide some skier parking on the west end of Ute Avenue. A major part of the improvements also involved undergrounding of utilities and beautification of the area. The intent was not to create an atmosphere for significant increase in traffic. To summarize, Ute Avenue is a narrow, dangerous road with areas of limited line of site. Even assuming that the traffic study figures are correct, the study does not address the unique and dangerous conditions as a result of winter weather. It may be true that significant numbers of cars can travel on Ute Avenue without traffic jams. Whether they can do so safely is another issue. That Ute Avenue is dangerous is evidenced by the fact that 26 accidents occurred on Ute Avenue between 01/24/93 and 02/14/96, including 11 accidents at the Ute and - Original intersection. A copy of the computer printout from the Aspen Police Department indicating these accidents is attached. 4. Declining Use of the Club. The Application and the traffic study also make much of the declining use of the Club, which apparently have fallen forty percent (40%) over the last seven years. The real issue is, however, that shifting all access to Ute Avenue will place a significant additional burden on . Ute Avenue and its residents regardless of past use of the Club. Emphasis should be placed on current uses; rather than what has gone on in the past. jrk,\MiChAC1.tu I OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. Mr. Dave Michaelson Department of Community Development March 13, 1996 Page 4 In closing, our client would urge denial of the P.U.D. Amendment as same is presently configured, for the reasons stated above, particular by the safely issues. They feel Ute Avenue parking access should be limited to service emergency and handicapped persons using the facilities. This is in keeping with the original approvals, which my clients believe were based on concerns still valid today. Very truly yours, OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. By: John T. Kelly JTKlsh enclosures ;tk\MiC11A&.ftr Iar 6, 1996 \ APD/SO COMBINED RECORD INCIDENT REPORT PAGE: 1 SUBFILE: DONNA 3?,-'0291 1/24/93 ACCIDENT STEVE R SMITH 1093 UTE AVE .0458 2/10/93 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD UTE AVE/ORIGINAL 93000581 2/20/93 ACCIDENT LISA RUSSELL UTE/ASPEN ALP RD D3000679 3/01/93 ACCIDENT LISA RUSSELL ORIGINAL/UTE AVE 93001447 6/11/93 ACCIDENT 141BR ORIGINAL/UTE AVE 94000450 2/11/94 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN SOUTH RD/UTE AVE 94000454 2/11/94 ACCIDENT 141BR 700 UTE AVE/S ALPS RD 94000455 2/11/94 ACCIDENT 141BR 800 UTE AVE 940004.56 2/11/94 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN SOUTH RD/UTE AVE 94001080 4/08/94 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD UTE AVE/ASPEN ALPS RD 94002013 8/04/94 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD 700 UTE AVE 94002381 9/10/94 ACCIDENT RICHARD PRYOR UTE/ORIGINAL 94003070 12/08/94 ACCIDENT SHAWNA MINARD ORIGINAL/UTE )n^03109 12/12/94 ACCIDENT RICHARD PRYOR S ORIGINAL/UTE AVE 9 j 3 2 0 5 12/ 2 0/ 9 4. ACCI DENT WALTER CHI ORIGINAL/UTE 95000111 1/11/95 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD UTE/ORIGINAL 95000443 2/13/95 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE AVE/ORIGINAL 95000625 3/02/95 ACCIDENT C BROWN 1271 UTE AVE 95000947 3/31/95 ACCIDENT WALTER CHI 1300 UTE AVE 95002758 11/06/95 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE ST 95002767 11/04/95 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE AVE 95003084 12/16/95 ACCIDENT ALAN SHINDERMAN DURANT/UTE Mar 6, 1996 9600A234 2/01/96 ACCIDENT 9600A265 2/05/96 ACCIDENT 9600A291 2/09/96 ACCIDENT 9600A325 2/ 14/96 ACCIDENT APD/SO COMBINED RECORD INCIDENT REPORT PAGE: 1 SUBFILE: DONNA RICK MAGNUSON ALPS RD/UTE AVE CHARLIE MARTIN UTE/ORIGINAL VICKI NALL UTE/ORGINAL CHARLIE MARTIN UTE AVE i OA.EL _ NEESON & STEFAN EOL.IS March 9, 1996. Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81 61 1 Dear Commissioners: Re: March 19, 1996 Meeting - Aspen Club PUD Amendment We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically we object to the closure of the access via Highway 82, and the proposed new access via Original Street and Ute Avenue. Both these streets are used by skiers to park their cars during the winter months and the streets are often filled with pedestrians carrying their skis to and from the mountain. And in fact, because of the cross country trail,man.y skiers ski down from Aspen mountain and ski along Ute Avenue. Cross country skiers are also found along the streets. It is also a particular favorite of dog walkers. Because of the cars that park on Original and Ute the roadway is often reduced to one lane in winter which requires extremely cautious driving. The intersection of Original and Ute is also of great concern as this is a particular icy spot and the scene of many a fender -bender and near miss. Summer transforms the area into a rural playground filled with bikers, hikers, rollerbladers and people seeking to.escape the busyness of city streets to enjoy Gloryhole Park, Ajax Park, the Ute Cementry, Ute Park and the Children`s Playground and to hi,ce the most popular Ute Trail. As this is a street that is used extensively by pedestrians it would be a shame to see the efforts of the city to encourage such foot. and bike traffic to be diminished. Please, we need your help to preserve our rural and contented walking neighborhood and not to transform it into a busy thoroughfare to the Aspen Club. Yours sincerely, KAR. -14' 96 (THU) 10 :15 HK INTERNATIONAL 1NC TEL:918 664 6451 P. (101 March 14, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin Planning &C Zoning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8 1611 [dear Commissioners: Phy[lis S. Hold 72 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 8 1611 9701920-2012 - Telephone By Facsimile 970/920-5439 I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed chance to She Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the club, and would ruin the quiet residential atrrmphere of ULe Avenue. Sincerely, Phyllis S_ Hojel 72 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Coloniai Savings J. S. DUBOSE Chairman March 6, 1996 . Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN CLUB ACCESS CHANGE Private Line 817/390-2222 I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the use of the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the Club, and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of Ute Avenue. One of the main reasons we decided to build at Ute Place was the fact that it was in a nice, quiet area and not on one of the main streets of town and we will be very unhappy if this situation changes. Thank you for your consideration. AMES S. DUBOSE Aspen Address: # 1 Ute Place, Aspen, CO 81611 me 6 0 2624 West Freeway P.O. Box 2988 Fort Worth, Texas 76113 817/390-2G00 Metro 817/429-9333 Fort Worth Arlington Lewisville Garland Hurst T" Henrik & Christina Vanderlip �'V•A '� ll `� 35 Ute Place >> ' Aspen, CO 81611 i1A r i) iL March 4, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners: In regard to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club, my wife and I strongly believe Ute Avenue would not be able to support the increase in flow of traffic. I urge you, before making your decision to imagine yourself as a homeowner in this area, if these proposed changes are enacted they would absolutely ruin this quiet residential area. You must understand how your decision will effect the lives of every homeowner currently living in this beautiful area. My wife and I would like to go on record as opposing the closure of the current access via Highway 82 and the new access via Ute Avenue. Sincerely, HNV/lp0304 .Phyllis S. Hojel 72 Ute Place ` Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 29, 1996. Aspen, Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado. 81611. RE: MARCH 19, 1996 MEETING ASPEN CLUB PUD AMENDMENT Dear Commissioners, I recently learned that the City of Aspen is considering allowing the Aspen Club to eliminate their current parking lot and to provide parking access via Ute Avenue. I am horrified! Not too long ago a few Ute Place families donated to the City of Aspen property across the river from our houses, (which are along the river), to build a bike path. and park area. The purpose was for the preservation of green areas and family areas for Aspen proper. How can you allow' the Aspen Club to add more residences to their property by eliminating their parking lot? Was our donation in vain? Did we make a dreadful mistake? One only has to spend one day in the Summer in Aspen to observe the "life" on Ute Avenue. There are two parks ... the Children's Park and the one across the street from the Ute Place entrance to see the number of children playing in them. One only has to observe the number of cars* and bicycles parked across from Ute Trail to see the daily use by visitors and locals who use Ute Trail. One only has to observe a game of mini -soccer along the street by a group of boys, and a children's lemonade stand on the corner. There is a daily stream of bikers, skate -boarders, roller - skaters and strollers along the street. In the Winter we find cross country folks going down the bike path, neighbors walking to the Aspen Club, children walking into town,, the horses and buggy route, neighbors walking to the gondola. k Ute Avenue is the epitome of a dead-end residential street. Isn'ft this what Aspen is all about? Does every space of concrete'or green HAVE to be invaded and converted into residences? Granted I, too, live in a home in a space, (Ute place), that more Phyllis S. Hojel 72 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 page 2 than likely many locals were not happy about when the construction took place. Now, as someone who spends a great deal of time in Aspen and loves our little town, and desperately wants to preserve what Aspen was, I can't bear the thought of Ute Avenue being converted into a thoroughfare... that is what Highway 82 is for. Should not the Aspen Club maintain their parking lot on the present location? Should not the access to this parking affect as few people as possible? To allow the access to be on Ute Avenue would be a crime to a neighborhood, a family -oriented street. Highway 82 is what it is .... a highway. Cars come and go at all times of day and even into the night; this movement should take place on the highway. My heart tells me that surely the county commissioners are going to put the well-being of a quiet neighborhood street, with all its families and children, before the financial greediness of the Aspen Club, whose sole purpose is to build MORE houses, (which we do not need), and invade Ute Avenue with an unattractive parking lot.' PLEASE PLEASE GIVE -fHI ISSUE YOUR MOST SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. Most incer y, � O Phyllis._ Hojel P.S. Let's be honest, mistakes have been made in the past, but they do not have to continue to be made such as even in my own little haven of Ute Place. Quite frankly when Ute Place came to the commissioners table ever so many years ago ... you should have allowed eight (8) homes NOT 16'.! Don't we always learn from hindsight??? ! ! ! HARRY AND SUSAN WELSCH 10 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920-2003, Fax: (970) 920-2066 February 29, 1996 Commissioners Aspen/Pitkin Planning and Zoning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners: We have just learned that the Aspen Club plans to use Ute Avenue as its main entrance to a newly remodeled club. We are quite concerned since we live year round at 1010 Ute Place. The traffic on this small residential road is quite heavy. In our opinion,. any increased traffic on Ute Avenue would be a safety. hazard. As you are aware, there are two City parks along this road with children playing in the summer. The popular Ute Trail also begins on Ute Avenue with heavy pedestrian traffic walking along the road from town or crossing the road from the trailhead parking area. During the winter when there is snow piled up on both sides of Ute Avenue, the road often becomes only large enough for a single lane. People coming and going from the rear -entrance of the Aspen Club drive very fast, and at the corner of Ute Avenue and Original ice is nearly always present. We ourselves have more than once not been able to brake at this corner due to the icy conditions. The present front entrance to the Aspen Club also serves as an access with parkina for people wishing to walk or ride bikes along the Roaring Fork River Trail. There are very few such access points in the city for which people•can enjoy the trail and also be able to park their cars. We wish to go on record as being opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club's main entrance and wish the main entrance to remain from Highway 82. Thank you folr your consideration as to this matter. Sincerely, W LAB --,� , gin lv,�E'ti�✓ Harry and Susan Welsch r Exhibit E Vex 3613 r¢a aco, 91612 May 10, 1996 "'V&w157ax (970) 990-1125 Mr. Dave Michaelson, Deputy Planning Director City of Aspen. Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: ASPEN CLUB PUD AMENDiv1El` T Dear Dave, The purpose of this letter is to modify the land use application I previously submitted to you on behalf of Dick Butera of Aspen Club International. These modifications are being made to devise a plan that the community can support, so that one. of its important institutions. can remain in Aspen. Although our membership has been declining in recent years, there are still approximately 725 Club members today. This :represents on the order of ten (10) percent of the entire population of the Aspen Area and an even larger. proportion of the adult population in our community. The loss of this institution would remove an important aspect of what makes Aspen a community and would be contrary.. to the fundamental theme of the Aspen Area. Community Plan, that we need to revitalize our permanent community. Just as the community needs to be revitalized, so too does the Aspen Club. The Aspen Club was developed in the 1970's and has been operating in the same configuration for nearly. two decades. Over time, this configuration has proven to be inefficient. The Club should be modernized, so it can remain a vital part of the Aspen community for the next two decades. As you know, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did not support our application to amend the Callahan PUD at the public hearing they conducted on March 19, ,1996. Since that time we have held several meetings with you and other members of the City staff to see if we could identify positive ways to modify our application to respond to the concerns raised in your memo for that public hearing and to address issues spoken to by members of the public and. members of the Commission during the hearing. The modifications that we hereby commit to make to the application are as follows: 1. Parking Lot. In the original application we proposed closing the parking lot that is located on Lot 14A, off Crystal Lake Road, and routing all parking to the entrance off Ute Avenue. We hereby modify that proposal, so as to maintain -the approved parking lot in place on Lot ,14A. The present lot would be reduced in size to accommodate a total of twenty (20) vehicles. Mr. Dave Michaelson May 10, 1996 Page Two Our frequent observations of the use of that lot demonstrate to us that it virtually never contains more than twenty (20) vehicles operated by members; guests and employees. By maintaining twenty (20) spaces in this location we ensure, therefore, that traffic levels on Ute Avenue will remain essentially as they are today. Members and guests who live on the east side of Aspen or who otherwise find it convenient to use the previously -approved lot will continue to be able to do so. This will ensure that vehicles that presently do not travel along City streets at the edge of downtown Aspen will not be attracted to or required to use those streets. In addition,. persons who take the bus to the Club along Highway 82 will still be able to do so. Next week I will submit to you a follow-up letter from Phil Scott of Leigh Scott and* Cleary, updating his traffic study, demonstrating that the traffic impacts of -our application on Ute Avenue will be negligible. 2. Van Service. As a means of reducing the need for parking at the Aspen Club and the consequent impacts from vehicles using. Ute Avenue, we . hereby commit to operate a shuttle that will carry members and guests between the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge. Vans will operate in the following manner:. a. 'Dimes of Operation. Vans will leave every thirty (30) minutes, on: the hour and half hour, during the hours of eight (8) to ten (10) .AM and'five (5) "to seven. (7) PM, Monday through Friday. Vans will operate during the months of December through March and June through August. b. Experiment. The van service will be a one (1) year experiment. One. (1) year following start=up of the service, we will report to the City on. the number of persons using the service, to determine whether the City views the experiment as worthy of continuation. 3. Safety. In the meetings we held with staff, the City agreed to post the speed limit of Ute Avenue as twenty-five (25) mph and to have police officers periodically visit the area to enforce that limit. The City. also agreed to enforce the no parking signs that are already in place just outside of the entrance to the Club on Ute Avenue. 4. Site Plan. We are currently preparing a modified site plan, that we will deliver. to you early next week. The. site plan will illustrate the following modifications:. a. 'Number of Spaces. The parking areas. proposed for the Ute Avenue side of the property will be reduced in size, to accommodate approximately eighty (80) parking- spaces. The tennis courts -near the River will not be converted to parking. The trees adjacent to the Benedict Office Building will not have to be removed to accommodate the revised site plan. Mr. Dave Michaelson May 10, 1996 Page Three b. Circulation and Service Delivery. Circulation and service delivery through the site have been carefully reviewed to ensure that members, guests and employees can circulate through the lots and that all service delivery functions occur within our property. No such activity will take place on Ute Avenue. C. Snow Storage and Drainage. Areas have been designated for snow storage on the site. Drainage from snow melt and from runoff will be retained on our property at historic levels and will not impact any adjacent property, as required by City of Aspen regulations. Should you have -any questions or need additional information as you review this letter, please feel free to contact me. Thank .you for your assistance in helping us to identify positive responses to our neighbors concerns and for your continuing attention to this project. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES Alan Richman, AICP _PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Exhibit F Mooney asked if there are neighborhood or character guidelines for this section of town. Michaelson responded that the old neighborhood design guidelines of ordinance 3 5 standards. Mooney stated that his concern is technical questions about sidewalk, curbs and gutters, ect... and whether it is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Mooney also asked if the snowmelt and water runoff could be measured. Vann responded that the applicants proposal includes sidewalks, curb and gutter, street lights, ect... and the City code states that on any parcel in the City the historic runoff cannot be increased. Special meetings were scheduled April 9th and the 23rd at 4: 30pm for Savanah/Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot S. MOTION: Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on the Aspen Mountain Subdivision .PUD, Conceptual PUD, and Subdivision approval for lot 3 and 5 to April 9, 1996. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. Aspen Club PUD Amendment Parking Special Review/Conditional Use Proof of notice provided. Michaelson, Staff introduced several letters for the record. Michaelson said this is a request for the Aspen Club PUD amendment, Conditional Use amendment and a parking special review. The applicant has proposed to bring access to the club exclusively from Ute Avenue to an area currently used for "bandit" parking. Staff has included a summary of the zoning and all agreements related to the development of the Aspen Club, as well as the parking arrangements that were agreed upon in the subdivision and PUD for the "Callahan Subdivisibn". Michaelson stated that when Staff met with the applicant regarding the proposal to change the access, Staff asked for a traffic study and noted some concern with the study. In addition, traffic engineering does not make any assumptions in terms of pedestrian traffic, or the traffic mix on the road but does makes some assumptions 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 on peak periods. Michaelson said the traffic study did not deal. with conditions related to this particular street, for example, snow loading, parks, and cross pedestrian traffic. Michaelson noted that Staff s referral comments include sight constraints, potential conflicts with adjacent land uses as well as the residential character of the southern section of Ute Ave. Parks has reviewed the application and they recognize and are very supportive of what the Aspen Club has historically done with their landscaping, but did note that there are narrow lane widths and sight constraints particularly. in the winter. Michaelson said the economic viability of this Club is important to anyone who has spent time in Aspen. He said the AACP has particular emphasis on pedestrian corridors, of which Ute Ave. has become. Michaelson said and Staff notes that in terms of off street parking the proposal meets the PUD approval standards however, Staff questions the logic of increasing the amount of traffic through town. Michaelson stated that P&Z basically has three options, 1) to approve the PUD amendment to allow access to come off of Ute and Conditional and Special reviews would also be approved, 2) the request can be denied out right, and 3) Staff s recommendation with three conditions, would be to deny the request as before you but to allow a certain amount of parking behind the Aspen Club to remain. Dick Buetra, public, applicant, stated that when the Club was initially built the reason parking was so far from the building was twofold, 1) during the original approval process a clubhouse/restaurant was approved for the site next to the North side parking lot and 2) Ute Avenue was a narrow dirt road and could not carry the 1400 members. Butera noted that those were two very good reasons the lot was put where it was, but now those reasons have dramatically changed and the Club feels it is proper that the parking lot of this commercial building be moved from the residential area to the commercial area where it belongs. Butera stated that they would like to correct what was done previously and fit then, but does not fit now. The clubhouse restaurant lot has been rezoned residential and the Club spent $72,000 to fix Ute Avenue into a road that has a capacity of 3000 cars a day. Butera said that commercial parking should be next to the building, adjacent to the Fritz Benedict parking lot. Butera said in 1982 the Club was a run down building with one stationary bike and a racquetball court, since then he has spent millions of dollars on the Club and -has won numerous national awards and have bti.en F chosen throughout the Club industry in America as one of the top 10 or, top 5 Clubs in the Country. Butera noted that national television tennis tournaments have brought alot of positive attention to the community. Butera said that since opening in 1982, they have been open everyday serving over 20% of this community, selling health and fitness, not booze, jewelry, furs or fast food. Butera stated the Club has helped rehabilitate several thousand elbows, knees, 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 shoulders and heads, and, the product is health, fitness and fun. Therefore, Butera said what affects the Aspen Club is in the community interest, it is not just in Ute Avenues or Highway 82's interest. Butera said many more people live on Highway 82 between town and the Club than Ute Avenue and the Club. Butera said that 50% of the Clubs membership traffic, through which the "bandit" parking lot has evolved, already use Ute Avenue. Alan Richman, public, representing the applicant, stated that placing the parking for a building of this size fairly unusual, but there were specific reasons in 1975 & 76, when the Callahan Subdivision was reviewed by P&Z and the City Council, to put the parking where it is and it was not a mistake at that time. Richman stated that the lot zoned for the clubhouse restaurant is one of the reasons, it was 9400 sq.ft and obviously parking was needed for that facility because it wasn't going to serve only those from the Callahan Subdivision, so there was parking identified for both the club and the clubhouse restaurant. The other situation is much more pertinent, and that is the condition of Ute. Avenue in 1975 & 76. Richman said that because there was a need for parking and because Ute Avenue clearly was not able to handle traffic, the-PUD stated that no vehicle traffic should enter the PUD from Ute Avenue, unless vehicles are for the purpose of construction, providing services, or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Richman said that no additional trucks or commercial vehicles are going to come on to Ute Avenue because of this proposal, they are already there and will continue to be there. Richman said the "bandit" parking area initially occurred because of the people who came to the Club for therapy did not use the lot on the other side of the river, they couldn't make that walk. The Club employees began using the gravel area along the West *side of the building for parking, and finally approximately 5-6 years ago the Club allowed members to use that parking area. Richman stated since that time it has been fully occupied. Richman also stated that the past use is important because as Staff has reported, the City has not received complaints from neighbors about the traffic on Ute Ave. Richman also said that in addition to the commercial traffic, the traffic counts that were done when compared to the membership and visitation, tells us that at least half of the people coining to the Club today use Ute Ave. Richman stated that the trend in both membership and overall visitation to the Club has drogped approximately 6 40%, in the last eight years. Philip Scott, of Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., representing applicant, stated that they looked at some key intersections and did a number of hours of traffic counts along Original at Cooper and Durant. Scott said the study was done in the third week of January and that the level of service for those two intersections would remain 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, MARCH I9, 1.996 basically unchanged. Scott stated that some estimates were done as to the capacity of the roadways in the area and their analysis indicated that Ute Ave. and Original have a comfortable capacity of approximately 3000 cars per day. The capacity of Highway 82 is estimated to be 6000 trips per day. Scott noted that other elements during certain times of the year like snow stacking have an impact on narrowing of the roadway where the capacity is somewhat reduced. He said that capacity by our estimates, is reduced to 2100 vehicles per day. Scott said it is important to compare the 2100 vehicles per day to the amount of traffic we expect to be transferred from the Highway 82 access off of Crystal Lake, to the Ute Avenue access. The study found that as many as 230 vehicle trips per day would be expected to snake that transfer, that is 115 round trips. Scott said that today the amount of traffic on a daily basis, on Ute, is about 1250 trips, 625 round trips. He also stated that January is one of the two busiest months of the year in terms of activity at the Club, looking at the average month of the year, compared to January, there is significantly less traffic, prorated it would be approximately 99 round trips. Scott said that because of the separate bike path provided along Ute, there is a separation that acts as a safety buffer between vehicular traffic and the pedestrians that use the path. Scott noted that currently there is a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle activity along the shoulder of Highway 82, and separating the traffic associated with the Club would be a benefit. Lastly, the thru traffic on Highway 82, with the exiting and entering of the Club does not exist on the Ute access. Scott also said that he felt the capacity of the street could accommodate the small amount of additional traffic, and that the additional amount of traffic far out weighs any other disbenefits that might be considered as it relates to traffic and pedestrian safety. Gat -ton asked Mr. Scott where the 1000 extra trips, after the Durant St. stop, continuing to Ute Avenue, go. Garton stated that the traffic study shows 1480 and then on the lower end of Ute Avenue it shows 450. Scott replied that the 450 is the Aspen Club traffic, the 1480 less the 450. The 500 other, round trips would be the residential, postman and other service activities. Richman asked the Commission to think abo4it what 230 additional vehicles going either one direction or the other actually means. Richman stated that the Aspen Club is open from 6:30am until 9:00pm; 14 hours, and if the traffic was distributed evenly through the day, which would not be a correct thing to do, but it would be about 15-16 cars an hour or l car every 4 minutes. Richman noted that the traffic study indicates morning and evening peak usage periods, at the highest point there could be 40 cars.in an hour or 1 car every 1-2 minutes but the other 10 hours the 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Club is open, it's not a car every 4 minutes, its more like 6-10 cars a minute. Richman said he did not view this as a huge influx of new traffic in this area, and in the Planning Staff memo it states "a "perceived" doubling of traffic" by neighbors. Richman said the only place the numbers double is at the Club entryway. Richman noted that there are neighbors across the Club entryway. He also stated that the 230 vehicles is not new traffic in Aspen, it is rerouted and he does not think that anyone who lives in this community thinks Highway 82 East of town is a safe road and any traffic that is taken off 82 does have a benefit. Richman noted that the Staff memo mentions that snow plowing on Ute Avenue may not be adequate in the winter, and said if that is the case, then we believe something should be done to correct that situation. Mary Gleason, public stated that she has lived on Ute Avenue for 25 years and is an Aspen Club member, but she hopes that they find some other way to funnel 20% of the community down their narrow residential road. George Gleason, public stated that if the Club brings its membership up he felt that number should 500 not 250. He also stated that he has complained to the police -to slow the cars down -and the cars that park across the street make it difficult to back out in the winter time. Susan Welsch, public said she was concerned about the people who hike on Ute trail, during the summertime dozens of people walk on Ute Avenue and do not use the bicycle trail because it has always been a quiet street. She also stated that the community spent extra money to improve the road, had they known the improvement would be used against them they wouldn't have spent the extra money. Gael Neeson, public stated that she too -is a resident on Ute Avenue and spent the extra money for safety of Ute Avenue. Neeson also said it would be ludicrous to have all the cars coming from one of the world famous tennis matches on to Ute Ave. Nancy Rathborne, public said that she feels the people walking in the middle of Ute Avenue should make Lase of the bicycle path. She stated that two of the three nears she has lived here, she has been in rehabilitation and had to use the back entrance of the Club. Rathborne stated that it is impossible for a handicapped person to access the club off of Hwy 82. 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19$.1996 Caroline Davis, public said that in January Ute virtually becomes a one way street, depending on the amount of snow, secondly the people who have accidents or problems generally come to her house for assistance and she feels that would be greatly increased by this access. John Kelly, public with Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, represents several homeowners in the area, stated that from talking with people he gets a different version than the traffic expert, he has heard numerous people talk about accidents, speeding, one lane because of the snow plow; ect... He said that the traffic study did not address the winter or summer conditions and there was no mention of safety. Kelly stated that he suggests the reality is different from the study. Cathryn Crum, public stated that Staff did not report the letter she wrote about 10 years ago complaining about the speed and requesting speed bumps. Crum said the letter she received from the Planning Staff said "they don't build bumps, they build dips" and they wouldn't do it. She said the people who the applicant says walk on 82 do not, they walk on Ute Avenue because they want a peaceful, quiet place so they come on Ute where .it is beautiful. Crum also said she would hate to see the horse and buggy that comes up and down Ute, interrupted by a flow of traffic. Michaelson responded that his statement, that Staff had not received any complaints, was referring to anyone calling the Community Development Department to complain about the Aspen Club being out of compliance with the PUD, and the answer is no. Michaelson said there have been numerous calls on Ute Avenue about speed problems, safety and snowplowing and Staff clearly represented that in the Staff report. Mike Otte, public, stated that he was on the Planning and Zoning Commission that approved the PUD. Otte stated that the comment about the parking being put on the North side of the river because of the restaurant, is not totally true. The reason parking was on the North side was to maintain the country character of Ute Avenue. Otte said if the applicant who received the PUD approval had asked for parking next to the building, he didn't think there would have been an approval, he asked the Commission to look, at the reason the PUD was approved, look at the character of'how the neighborhood was designed, it was supposed to be a country lane. 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt stated that he agreed with Mr. Otte, he was on the P&Z for the original approval of the Aspen Club and feels that the points about Ute Avenue .being a country lane are quite proper as well as his comments about the parking. Hunt also stated that if he had been out there in the last five years he would have complained about the parking. He said he thinks P&Z should accommodate the rehabilitation and handicapped access to this facility. Hunt said he is not disposed to accommodating "a lot" of employees, nor approving this plan the way it sits. Hunt said one of the reason commercial traffic was allowed out there was to get it close to the facility and being the type of facility it was, there wouldn't be much commercial traffic. Buettow said he would like the lot to facilitate the rehabilitation that goes on in the Club to allow some handicapped parking at the present site, the "bandit" parking. Mooney stated that he lives on Park Avenue and has lived in the same house for 20 years and now has a bus that runs by his house every fifteen minutes, but it is for the good of the community. Mooney stated that the applicant has presented a logical idea, a 1996 need. He also said that everyone has to realize that this town is changing and their street is not a little country road, people have developed here and have put a commercial core in here. Mooney said that he speaks for the people in the community who are not here and are part of the growth. Mooney said a formal study should be done this neighborhood and the impact of the road in this neighborhood should be submitted. Mooney stated that maybe the City should get involved and redesign the lighting, the streets, curb and gutter, the bike and walking paths, make the path wide enough so that the horse can come down the path, put a plowing schedule together, install speed bumps or even dips in a plan, make the safety study and the corrections something that will benefit everybody. Mooney said a traffic mitigation plan' should be presented with this proposal, could a van pick people up, dial -a -ride, or maybe a bus could facilitate commercial developments in residential neighborhoods. He also stated that this street has proprietary interest to everybody, and Dick Butera is one of those people. Mooney stated that the towns character has changed, the streets character has changed, and we should be smart enough to make a plan so that it works for everybody and. help our neighbors understand what is necessary to live in this community now. Mooney stated that he felt this application should come back with some questions answered, and a formal proposal of what the needs are. L PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 193 1996 Tygre stated that she agrees there has been. a change and Ute has evolved like any other street, but unlike Park Avenue it was never a through street, it was always a street that dead ended and lead to trails. Tygre said that the evolution of Ute Avenue has been that it is more like a recreational street with the children's park, the cemetery, and the access to Ute trail. Tygre said the increased number of pedestrians using this road is because it doesn't have much traffic, and there are various types of recreational activities going there all.the time and she feels it is a very precious community asset. Tygre stated that as a bus user, she notices alot of people ask to be dropped off at the Aspen Club, the availability of access through public transportation is a really important community asset. Tygre said she did agree with the handicap and rehab access on Ute Ave., but not employee parking. Garton stated that the Aspen Club has changed and the rehab portion of the Club needs to be accommodated and that she is unwilling to see employee parking in that area. Garton said she is unwilling to see a dead end residential area change as radically as it would change with the Aspen Club traffic. MOTION: Aunt moved to deny the PUD amendment, conditional use and special use as presented by the applicant for the reasons set forth in pages 1-11 of the March _19th memorandum from Staff, Dave Michaelson. Seconded by Buettow. Motion carries 4 - 1. Garton, Tygre, Hunt and Buettow voted yes. Mooney voted no. Meeting adjourned at 8:40p.m. i �1 L Amy G. S6hmid, Deputy Clerk I 20 LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING -CONSULTANTS Exhibit G 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 FAX (303) 333-1107 May 15, 1996 Mr. Dick Butera c/o Alan Richman Planning Services P.O. Box 3613 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Aspen Club Parking (LSC # 960030) Dear Mr, Butera: As requested, we have reviewed your modified parking plans related to proposed improvements to the Aspen Club health club and spa. As you are aware, we prepared a.traffic. Impact study, dated February 6, 1996, which evaluated the previous plaris. As we understand it, your revised plans contain the following traffic related elements: 1, The site's existing north parking lot, which was previously proposed to be eliminated, is, now planned to remain with a reduced capacity of twenty (20) parking spaces. Furthermore, parking activity within this redesigned facility will be restricted to health club clientele only. These changes will, in turn, allow for a significant reduction in the proposed number of spaces accessed via Ute Avenue. 2, The existing van shuttle service between the Aspen Club and Aspen Club Lodge (down- town) will be greatly expanded to include. weekday peak -hour, peak -season service for both non -lodge and lodge clientele. These factors are expected to significantly reduce the health club improvement plan's traffic impacts on Ute Avenue. More specifically, we anticipate about a 75 percent reduction In previously projected Ute Avenue traffic increases associated with the Health Club improvements. As you may recall, we previously projected weekday traffic on Ute to increase by 115 vehicle -trips in each direction. This total is now expected to be reduced to less than 30 trips in each direction per day, a relatively inconsequential total. We trust that this updated information will assist with your improvement plans. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Sincerely, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, f N'C. By: , Philip . Scott III, P.E. PNS/wd N^ "� • •ilk y 1 ° ' I -- d -0001 �.� Ift r IMP 40 -' ti FPS, '� .' -• . -. - - �t � Nti UI .74 aa.111 `*_ I• Lj • - . '�• •jam " � a l .,L.• •...:tom 't..i d ; •• � d '.�� t^+`:'i '•a�.?`f :. � t �t y i � JCS L 'a- �•K ���% -1. WR�� �r .` t �� t e. ` � a .- ' a l�=T �• AR. - ► '3•� O. i 1 `�'� F . .' ', . t•.JLi r1�:�G.+9fias .vY..'+� aw. 3•.", f.. , ., mot'- - • • j.. + r•I�i, �'i�•1} .t I 1 t _ •.a » � !„t 1 if t'► : tit ,�� _ :..+ • ,,kg'r � ,-, 1 y�,, ♦ -`•sty! .., �. - • . � � �-, . � ..) P "ice ... e. tt, a •' t'N�x�� ,7N.y l� ��y•: • �J Af x ..gy�pv /a :. _ cs!_� , w: ._" ,t�.`��,�•' �,._ h . r r z/ ems. , � a a ~ Y _ I _ r Q � r Exhibit I Ordinance No. 96-20 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION PUD AGREEMENT FOR LOTS 14A AND 15, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN WHEREAS, Section 26.84.080. of the Municipal Code provides that the City Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission may amend a PUD agreement based. on compliance with the review criteria established for Final PUD approval; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Club was approved as a PUD, and the PUD agreement explicitly limits the parking plan of the Club to allow parking on Ute Avenue for the use of employees and service deliveries to the facility; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen received. a PUD amendment application for the expansion of parking off of Ute Avenue from Aspen Club International; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning Commission reviewed the project on March 19, 1996, and recommended denial to the City Council based on neighborhood impacts and the impacts of the proposed traffic increase on Ute Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office received an amendment to the original application that modified the number of parking spaces to remain on Lot 14A, proposed .a van service to address impacts on Ute Avenue, and reduced the total number of spaces proposed for the Ute Avenue lot; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the PUD amendments under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed PUD amendments, with modifcations suggested by staff, meet or exceed all applicable development standards and are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO: Section l: Pursuant to Section 24-7-907 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the PUD amendment: l . That the proposed amendments are consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development does not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. No additional GMQS allotments are necessary for the project. 5. The maximum density is no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. 6. The proposed amendments will promote the public interest and character of the City of Aspen. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1 above, the City Council grants a PUD amendment, subject to the following conditions: 1. All representations of the applicant before the City Council are considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by subsequent conditions or amendments. 2. The proposed configuration shall be refined to allow for the retention of 35 spaces in the north lot, and 40 spaces shall be allowed off of Ute Avenue. A revised parking plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department, the Engineering Department and the Streets Department. 3. That the applicant provide an elevation of the west side of the proposed parking lot to ensure that .headlights can be deflected from the adjacent property by the use of berming or vegetation. 4. The approved parking area off of Ute Avenue shall be paved and stripped, and a final landscaping plan shall be approved the City of Aspen Park's Department prior to planting;- Any removal of trees will require a tree removal permit. 5. Prior to completion of the parking facility, the applicant shall submit documentation to the City Engineer to ensure that the distance between the two western access points meet standard 2 engineering standards and will not result in an unsafe traffic situation for members and guests entering or exiting the Ute Avenue parking facility. 6. By July of 1997, the applicant shall provide the Community Development Department and the City Council with a report assessing the effectiveness of van service from the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge. The report shall include ridership data sufficient to determine if the program will continue to be a condition of approval. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the PUD amendment as herein awarded, whether in a public meeting or documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approval and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. 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 separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED Council of the City of Aspen on the 1995. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 1996. k ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 9 as provided by law, by the City day of , John Bennett, Mayor day of John Bennett, Mayor 3 TO: FROM: THRU: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Bob Nevins, City Planner Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director. f Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review Parcel I.D. Number 2735-124-01-003 & 2735-124-01-002 June 18, 1996 Summary: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing, non -conforming hot tub and deck and to revegetate the disturbed slope area overlooking Hallam Lake pursuant to the Court Order of May 3, 1993. The hot tub and deck will be relocated to an area adjoining the existing residence and deck which are outside the fifteen foot ESA setback along the top of slope. Community Development staff recommend approval with conditions. Attached are the following: Exhibit A, Development Application; Exhibit B, Civil Action No. 92 CV 47, Judgment and Order; Exhibit C, Referral Memorandums; and Exhibit D, Chapter 26.68, Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA), and Section 26.64.040(D), Special Review. Applicant: Ms. Ronnie Marshall, as represented by Mr. Jim Cook Location: 320 Lake. Avenue (Parcel 1, Marshall Lot -split), Aspen, Colorado Lot Size: 7,075 square feet Zoning: Medium -Density Residential (R-6) with Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Overlay Procedure: One-step commission review with no public hearing or notification requirement. Referral Comments: Complete referral memorandums are attached as Exhibit C. 6 Parks Department: Upon review of the application and a site inspection, Parks Department has made the following recommendatiovis: 1. A 5" apple tree will be removed due to the relocation of the deck and hot tub. No permit is required for the removal of this tree. 2. Jute landscape netting infused with seeds shall be used to revegetate the slope after the removal of the deck. The seed mixture shall be a native species for this area. Hydro -seeding would also be an acceptable alternative. 3. Choke cherry bushes (prunus virginia) are also recommended to be planted. 4. The existing juniper trees may remain if there is no objection from ACES. Engineering: Based upon a review of the application and site visit, Engineering has the following recommendations: 1. The preliminary improvements survey contains several technical surveying deficiencies and insufficient detail. 2. The applicant needs to explain how and where the discharge water from the spa will disposed. Water drained or discharged from the spa shall not be released over the edge of the bluff. 3. A site grading plan shall be submitted for review. Planning Staff Comments: The Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Overlay was adopted via Ordinance 71-1990 and codified within Chapter 26.68 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The intent of this ESA Overlay is "to heighten review of development in this area so as to reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve, and to ensure the aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve". . Since the deck and hot tub are existing within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA, the critical issues that need to be resolved are: 1) the removal and relocation of the deck and hot tub; and 2) the stabilization and revegetation of the slope overlooking the nature preserve. Community Development staff has reviewed the application and conducted a site visit. Staff's findings pursuant to Section 26.68.060(C) are as follows: l . The existing deck and hot tub shall be removed entirely, both above and below the top of slope. 2. The proposed relocation of the deck and hot tub complies with the fifteen foot setback from top of slope. There is a four foot, wooden retaining wall that currently separates the lawn area from the level of the hot tub deck. It is within ESA setback. Rather than removing the retaining wall and reconfiguring the slope, Staff recommends that the retaining wall be lowered approximately one foot so that it is flush with the grade of the lawn area and three feet high or less on the downhill slope facing Hallam Lake. With the planting of native shrubs and grasses in front of the wooden wall, the visual impact would be minimal and conform with the conditions set forth in Section 26.64.040(D). 3. All development outside the fifteen foot setback from top of slope does not exceed the height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five degree angle from ground level at the top of slope (see Site Section, Aspen Survey Engineers). 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by Parks Department prior to the issuance of demolition and building permits. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope. 6. No fill material shall be placed on the face of the slope unless it is to be part of . an approved grading and landscape plan. 7. Site sections and plans are included as Exhibit A, Development Application.. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review for the relocation and revegetation of the hot tub and deck areas with the following conditions: 1. A revised Site Improvements Survey in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Engineering staff memo of May 28, 1996, shall be approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any Development Orders. 2. A building plan, plumbing plan or written statement explaining how and where the discharge water from the spa (hot tub) will be disposed prior to the issuance of -any development permits. 3. A final site grading plan shall be approved by Engineering before any Development Orders shall be issued. 4. A final landscape plan 'showing the location, number, type and size of plant materials and any site grading shall be approved by Parks prior to the issuance of any development permits. 5. 'T''�e-��` g hot tub, decking, posts and concrete footings shall be completely removed from the area within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA. A demolition permit shall be issued prior to site work or demolition. 8. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast withmo light(s) directed towards the nature preserve or located down the slope. Light sources shall not illuminate greater than eight feet from the building or structures. 9. Any future development (including but not limited to: decks, spas, terraces, patios, fences, non-native plant materials) shall not encroach into the fifteen foot ESA setback. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in -the application and during public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. Alternative Recommendations: Planning and Zoning Commission may approve the conditions above, approve additional conditions or disapprove the development application in the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA. Proposed Motion: "I move to approve the Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review with the conditions set forth in the Community Development Memo of June 18, 1996." i Exhibits: "A" Application of Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review "B' Civil Action No. 92 CV 47, Judgment and Order "C" Referral Memorandums "D" Chapter 26.68, Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas; Section 26.64.040(D), Special Review Exhibit A FROM THE DESK OF JAMES M. COOK APRIL 22, 1996 DAVE MICHAELSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 REF: SUBMITTAL FOR RELOCATION OF EXISTING HOT TUB 320 LAKE STREET ASPEN, CO.81611 DEAR DAVE, ENCLOSED ARE EIGHT COPIES OF THE APPLICATION FOR A E.S.A. HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW, FOR REFERENCED PROJECT. ALSO ENCLOSED ARE EIGHT COPIES OF THE CURRENT SURVEY AS PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, ALONG WITH A CHECK # 8346 FOR THE AMOUNT OF $1050.00. I TRUST THIS IS THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION IN A TIMELY MANNER. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO GIVE ME A CALL AT 927 - 4327. YOURS TRULY, d JAMES M. COOK 1020 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 (970) 927-4327 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name W© �.J Q I L -- 2. Project location =51 s��►� . Co (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 4. Lot size. :Z, d-T 3 S •F 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number v-w \ - 3Zo Co ' dress and 6. Representative's name, �d phone number t o 20 VDWM_Co� ( � CZ1 -�ZI 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use' Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin T Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condom iniumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line �, �S� at Appeal Committee Adjustment t.1►c. 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the, property) -il.00G1'CbVL`C 5 W G (- ��t� s� ---- �r��c��l� - -�'t-tee � �C�ZC�'t�t • , - -,.._ ., r-� _ . � . �. _ -ram `. -7 ... i 1 � l 1 �' �, /� C � Y� .-•. '� A � -CiJ c)SN- !--✓1 E-_-1J 1 " -�y'--1(s o`er�t `t t • Description of development .•• • ✓ w _ .1 _�� ,, � .� � a� -. - � - ••. ter. �r �r 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 _�4 Response to Attachment 4 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant:2¢�..1 Address: Zone district. tZ-c;► Lot size: `7v-15 <=& Existing FAR: 14-N Allowable FAR: 14 -A, Proposed FAR: V-A • A Existing net leasable (commercial): u . A Proposed net leasable (commercial): Existing % of site coverage: Proposed % of site coverage: 2 6t °76 Existing % of open space: _ -a Proposed % of open space: Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: Accesory Bldg: Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: �• Accessory bidg: Proposed % of demolition: • J� Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on -site parking spaces:. . On -site parking spaces required: tJ •, Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: 'l S Front:_____ 10 Front: 25 Rear: ' Rear: Rear: .V 1 .A Combined Combined Combined Front/rear: Front/rear: ;35 Front/rear:.W 54-8 Side: 24 YA - Side: 5 Side:_ Side: YA-(Z _---5 Side: 5 Side: Combined Combined Combined Sides: 24.. Y �• Sides: Sides: �_ � It=s Existing nonconformities or encroachments: E�x csT6 amsc— Variations requested: 12e1..0GtaT1L," k 0T" -_ja, , pe=Ct=- � (HPC has the ability to ' vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) FROM THE DESK OF JAMES M. COOK APRIL 19, 1996 REF: HOT TUB RELOCATION RONNIE MARSHALL 320 LAKE STREET ASPEN, CO. 81611 THE FOLLOWING IS IN RESPONSE TO ATTACHMENTS 3 & 4: ATTACHMENT 3: GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1. SEE ATTACHED LETTER. - 2. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. 3. SEE ATTACHMENT FROM STEWART TITLE COMPANY. 4. ATTACHED. ATTACHMENT 4: SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY. 2. SEE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION ITEM 4. 3.SEE ATTACHED DRAWING. 4. THE EXISTING TWO STORY VICTORIAN STYLE HOUSE CONSIST OF PAINTED.BEVELED BOARD SIDING WITH CONSISTENT ORNAMENTATION, WITH WOOD PORCHES AND DECKS ATTACHED THERETO. IT IS INTENDED THAT THESE DETERIORATING EAST DECKS BE RESURFACED AND EXTEND TO ACCOMMODATE THE RELOCATION OF THE NON -CONFORMING HOT TUB. THE MATERIALS WILL BE PAINTED AND EXPOSED REDWOOD. EXISTING HANDRAILS TO BE MODIFIED TO CONFORM TO NEW DESIGN. THE NEW DESIGN IS A FORMAL APPLICATION ADDRESSING THE SYMMETRY OF THE EAST ELEVATION AND GENERATING OFF THE CENTER LINE OF THE EXISTING KITCHEN. THE DECK AND THE HOT TUB ARE STEPPED DOWN FROM THE MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION TO LESSEN THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING. THE VISUAL IMPACT IS MINIMAL TO THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE WITH NO IMPACT TO THE STREETS CAPE AND PUBLIC VIEW. THE PROPOSED DESIGN WILL HAVE NO INFLUENCE ON THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. 1020 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 (970) 927-4327 1(p APRIL 17, 19N- AMY AMITON HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OFFICER ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 REF: SUBMITTAL FOR RELOCATION OF EXISTING HOT TUB 3ZO 39n-LAKE STREET ASPEN, CO.81611 DEAR AMY, THE FOLLOWING IS MY AUTHORIZATION OF JAMES M.COOK ASSOCIATES TO REPRESENT ME CONCERNING THE REFERENCED PROJECT. THEIR ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS: JAMES M. COOK ASSOCIATES 1020 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654. (970) 927 - 4327 MY MAILING ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ARE: RONNIE MARSHALL 302 LAKE STREET . ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 925 - 5551 I TRUST THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION, YO TRULY, RONNIE MARSHALL 0 t e7l i�'ML HAce coca ie+ � —!tilif. ►�111�'11 rm0► ,Ek Chia=- 111 111111111 i�� -,.� 1111 111111 ._ .. ►ids iti�itlll lull.__ ��, �... OR M 0 t111. 01111111 111l�111 wah1111111FIRiUMBIRRifill tlk SM, TI'AR7' 77ME OFASPEN INC. O imeRSIIIP AND ENCUMBRAW E REPORT Order No.: 00022648 PREPARED FOR: 9999900 STEWART 777LE OF ASPEN, INC. HEREBY CER77FIES from a search of the books in this office that title to: Parcel I, MARSHALL LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded January 26, 1988 in Plat Book 20 at Page 54. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO situated in the County of Pitkin. State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of.- RONNIE MARSHALL and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following liens: 1. Lis Pendens, Case No. 90CV274,�Distri.ct Court, Pitkin County entitled Jon K. Dyer d/b/a Dyer Construction Co., Plaintiff vs Ronnie Marshall, Benjamin Ferris, E. W. Young, Aspen Savings and Loan Association, Pitkin County Bank and Trust, and the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado, Defendant, recorded December 26, 1990 in Book 636 at -Page 515 as Reception No. 329064. 2. A Deed of Trust dated December 6, 1993, executed by Ronnie Marshall, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $200,000.00, in favor of FBS Mortgage Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, recorded December 10, 1993 in Book 734 at Page 531 as Reception No. 364420. NOTE: The beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust was assigned of record to Capstead Inc. by FSB Mortgage Corporation, a Nevada Corporation recorded November 28, 1994 in Book 768 at Page 134 as Reception No. 376743. EXCEPT any and all taxes and assessments. EXCEPT all easements, rights of way, restrictions and reservations of record. This report does not reflect any of the following matters: (1) Bankruptcies which, from date of adjudication of the most recent bankruptcies, antedate the report by more than fourteen (14) years. (2) Suits and judgments which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or until the governing statue of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. (3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years. Although we believe the facts stated are true, this letter is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes, i nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any statement contained herein. , Dated: ! April 04, 1996 at 7:30 A.M. , at Aspen, Colorado STEWART 7771E OF PEN, INC. By: Authorized Signatur w ►I N �w mz N N Z JW OL tu ~ } fA � �z zv Q 0� T- OT DISTRICT COURT,PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 92 CV 47 p JUDGMENT AND ORDER RONNIE MARSHALL; PLAINTIFF vs, THE CITY OF ASPEN, and THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS This matter came before the Court on the Complaint of the Plaintiff seeking review of an adverse decision of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. The record below was certified to this Court, and the parties have filed their briefs as required by R>>le 106 ( a) (4) : Court has considered the briefs and the record of the proceedings below. The Defendants also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Based on the record as supplemented by the �Ygals on tide ivies: '.-on for = -ummary Judgment, the. Court issues the following Order'. �C _ S Z'.AN DARD F O.R REV = Ew In reviewing a land use decision of an agency under C.R.C.P_106 (a)(4), the Court is limited to the matters contained in the record of the proceeding before that agency, Fedder v_ McCurdy, 768 P.2d'711 ( Colo. App. 1988). Where the land use agency exceeds its jurisdiction or abuses its discretion, this Court must set aside the agency's order. The court looks to tine entire record and must uphold the land use decision unless trlere is no competent evidence to support it, Fedder, supra; Rinq's Mill Homeowners Ass'n v_ Westminster, 192 Colo. 305, 557 P.2d 1186 Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 2 (1976), so that the decision is devoid of evidentiary support and therefore arbitrary and -capricious, Platte River. Env. Cons. Organ. Inc. v. Nat'l Hog Farms, 804 P. 2d 290 (Colo.. App. 1990) . This Court must also consider whether the land use agency misconstrued r or misapplied the law; and if there is a reasonable basis for its application of the law, the agency's decision will not be set aside on that basis, .Lee v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 654 P. 2 d 839 (Colo. 1982). The City has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will decide the case on the merits under Rule 106 (a)(4), reviewing the entire record below. A decision on the merits will include a decision on the issues raised in the Motion for Summary Judgment. The city seeks a mandatory injunction directing the Plaintiff to bring her property into compliance with the City Code, and the Plaintiff seeks. an injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing ,the Hallam Lake ESA against her. -IF NDSNGS 1. The Plaintiff, a resident of Aspen, Colorado, owns real property located at 320 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. 2. The Plaintiff caused to be built a hot tub and deck at the rear of her property in- the Spring of 1990. She did not obtain a building permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, zoning permit, or land use development approval as required by various portions of the Aspen City Code. Nor did she obtain the required inspections. Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 3 3. On May 29,! 1990, the City of Aspen ("City") red -tagged the Plaintiff's hot tub. 4. The Plaintiff's property lies within the Historic Preservation District and is a designated historic landmark. Under the City Code, a minor development approval for the construction of the spa and deck was required. The Historic Preservation Committee was the agency authorized to issue that permit. The Plaintiff ;did not obtain this Committee's approval before construction of the spa and deck 5. On June 14; 1990, the Plaintiff applied for a building permit to legitimize the construction of the hot tub. 6. On July 19, 1990, the City advertized public notice of a hearing on the Hallam Lake ESA Ordinance before the P&Z . This ordinance created the Hallam lake Environmentally Sensitive Area ("ESA"), and, among other things, limited development on the hillside above Hallam Lake, and prohibits any development below the top of the slope. 7: On August 7, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") held the public hearing on the Hallam Lake ESA ordinance. 8. On August 22, 1990, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the spa and deck from the Historic Preservation Committee, subject k to herr providing screening landscaping. 9. On October 2, 1990, the P&Z approved the Hallam Lake ESA Ordinance., 10_ On October-22, 1990, the City Council passed the Hallam lake Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 4 ESA ordinance on first reading, and on November .12 , 1990, gave final adoption to the ordinance. Topographically, a portion of the Plaintiff's hot tub and deck is located below the top of the slope. The ESA ordinance subjects certain development to a special review process, and the spa.and deck lie within the area subject to that special review process. 11. On November 15, 1990" the plaintiff's landscaping for screening -was accepted as complying with the Historic Preservation Committee'standards. 12. On March 8, 1991, the Plaintiff applied for a zoning variance to the Board of Adjustment to legitimize the read yard setback violation created by the hot tub structure. 13. On June 6, 1991, the board of Adjustment granted her a variance, subject to her compliance with the Hallam Lake ESA. The motion to grant the variance included the language that the .plaintiff "go -back and meet the building codes with respect to'railings and the ESA and HPC for that railing to ascertain if it is appropriate." 14. On October 30, 1991, the Plaintiff filed for approval under the Hallam take ESA. 15. On December 17, 1991, the P&Z denied the Hallam Lake ESA b application, and reaffirmed its decision on January 21, 1992,. 16. The Plaintiff has never obtained the necessary permits under the City Code for the construction and use of the hot tub and deck. Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 5 17. The Plaintiff has not obtained vested rights to construct or use the hot tub and deck. 18. The City is not estopped from enforcing the ESA ordinance and other portions of its Code and requiring the removal of the hot tub and deck." 19. The City is entitled to injunctive relief. _ _ _ D -E S CUSS = O N I. SEQUENCE OF APPLICATIONS AND ORDINANCE The City Code required the Plaintiff to comply with an assortment of regulations and permit requirements. As of the, date of construction of the spa and deck, the Plaintiff had to get a building permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, zoning permit, and a land use development approval as required by various .portions of the Asper. City Code. She failed to do so, and the project was almost completed without either the permits or the requisite inspections. The specific location. she chose triggered another permit requirement. The structure intruded into the rear yard setback in violation of the City Code. Therefore, she needed another permit, a variance from the strict application of the Code. Until she obtained this variance permit,, the project was not lawful. She did not apply for a variance until March 8, 1991. k This was about one hundred-pixteen days after the passage of the ESA ordinance. When she applied for the variance, the ESA ordinance was in full force and effect. Here application for and the decision on the variance came well after the passage of the ESA Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 6 ordinance. In doing so, she subjected herself to its requirements. She, like others, was obligated to comply with its terms. Thus, because of the dates of passage of the ESA ordinance and her variance application, the ESA ordinance applies, and the Defendants lawfully may require the Plaintiff to conform to its provisions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under her Complaint. II_ VESTED RIGHTS The Plaintiff argues that her actions created for her vested rights so that she was not subject to the ESA ordinance. First, her construction of the hot tub and deck in the Spring of 1990 did not vest her with anything; it was illegal from the outset. She tacitly admitted this by applying after the fact for City approvals to legitimatize it. Second, under Colorado's interpretation of the pending ordinance doctrine, the passage of the ESA ordinance during the pendency of. the building permit proceedings did not vest the Plaintiff with any rights. In Crittenden v_ Hasser, 585 P.2d 929 (Colo. App. 1978), the Court held: This authority to enact a zoning resolution, and thereby restrict the use of property, exists even though an application for a license involving that use ins pending; the only proviso being the Board had not reasonably or arbitrarily refused or delayed the issuance of the license. In Gramiger v_ CountY of Pitkin 794 P.2d 1045 (Colo. A pp- 1989), the Court interpreted Crittenden to mean that if the amending ordinance is adopted before the normal processing of the application is completed, the new ordinance may apply. Here, the Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 7 passage of the. ESA ordinance preceded the normal completion of the Plaintiff's building permit application. It preceded the filing of the variance request. Thus, under applicable precedent, the timing of the filing of the application and the passage of the ESA ordinance does not ,generate for the Plaintiff any rights, vested or otherwise, to retain . the hot tub and deck. Third, under the vested property rights statute,-C.R.S. § 24-68- 101, et. seq., she did not obtain any approval or conditional approval of a site specific development plan before the enactment of the ESA ordinance, C.R.S. § 24-68-103 (1). Fourth, the ESA ordinance by its.terms provided that --- Any development or proposed development in the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Overly (sic) District not vested in accordance with law prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall comply with the terms and provisions of the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA development standards as adopted pursuant to this ordinance. Clearly, the terms of the ordinance shut out the possibility of creating rights from pending, unapproved applications. Plaintiff points to the language of § 24-1-104(B)(3) of the City Code which states --- The provisions of this chapter and any amendments hereto shall not affect the review of any development applications or building permit application lawfully submitted prior to the effective date of this chapter pursuant to the provisions of the zoning and subdivision regulations in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this chapter. To apply, the building permit application must precede the Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 8 effective date �"of this chapter." This provision clearly deals with the time period when the whole chapter was being introduced, which occurred well before the Plaintiff's building permit here. This language does not apply to later amendments to portions of the chapter's text from time to time. Thus, this portion of the Code does not prohibit the application of the ESA ordinance to the pending building application of the Plaintiff. The Court -concludes that the Plaintiff did not obtain any vested rights. III_ RELIANCE The Plaintiff argues that she receives vested rights from substantial steps in reliance on her permit application. She argues that her construction "is virtually complete," and that she had "done all she can do to acquire a vested right." ( Brief, p. 5). One must separate out what she.did without a semblance of legality, and that is the virtual completion of the project before being red -tagged for having no permits. This was clearly illegal activity, and not the basis for vesting rights. What she did afterwards was installing about $1,000 worth of landscaping, file applications and other paperwork, and go to meetings. The Plaintiff had a project involving a heating system rehab which had not been done since the 1940's, foundation work, and the hot tub (Record, 6;' 19). In the context of all that went into the unlawful hot tub project, there is a failure of proof by the Plaintiff that the Landscaping was a substantial item. Similarly, there is a failure Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 9 of proof that the Plaintiff's purported actions in reliance were reasonable. There is nothing the City or its representatives said of did that would form the basis for one reasonably -to expect that the hot tub and deck would be legalized and that money and effort should be spend ahead of time presupposing that outcome. The Plaintiff argues further that participating in the land use hearings and pursuing a permit vests her with rights. The argument implies that mere participation in -the hearing process after a code violation equals success, and that a permit denial cannot occur when one expends time and effort to seek the permit. There is a vast difference between seeking a land use or building permit and actually acquiring one; Plaintiff's argument would eradicate that difference. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff's pursuit of the permits does not create any rights in her favor to retain the hot tub and deck. 1V . ESTOPPEL viewing the actions of the City and those acting on its behalf, the Court does not find any actions of the City or the P&Z which estop the City from enforcing the ESA ordinance. In the context of the Plaintiff's initial illegally constructing the hot tub and deck, there -is less justification for application of estoppel. Defendants argue that Lehman v. Louisville, 16 Brief Times Reporter 1805 (Colo. App . 199 2 ) bars the Plaintif f ' s estoppel claims by application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. That case is now on certiorari. It dealt with a tort claim for Marshall v. Aspen April 291 1993 Page 10 damages and thus subject to the specific policies of the Act which hich have little apparent application to a land use. dispute. The word. estoppel has many applications and meanings. Nothing in the Lehman indicates that the rules for tort claims against a municipality P Y should apply in the Rule 106(a)(4) dispute over the application of a land use ordinance or building code. Sovereign immunity simply is not a consideration here: Taken as a'whole and in context with one another, the CitY 's actions were an orderly application of its various, albeit complex, interrelated ordinances. Nothing was done to lead the Plaintiff reasonably to conclude that she would be treated in any manner other than that mandated by the City Code. Nor is there any proof that the City Code -was applied differently to her situation. The City did not represent to the Plaintiff that its ordinances would not be enforced or that she would be immune from the application of the ESA ordinance. A municipality may be estopped when its representative performs an action or makes a statement on which the citizen reasonably relies and the municipality then changes its Position to the'landowner-s detriment, see, e.g., P.W. Investments Inc. Y. CitV of Westminster, 665 P.2d 1365 (Colo. 1982). Here, the City did nothing to induce the Plaintiff to conclude the ESA ordinance would not apply, to her. To the extent she interpreted the e City's actions and concluded it would not, her reliance was not reasonable in light of the circumstances. V. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Marshall v_ Aspen April 291 1993 Page 11 The Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing primarily the same issues inherent in the Rule 106(a)(4) procedure. The Precise issues in the Motion for Summary judgment are whether the City is entitled to an injunction that the Defendant bring her property into compliance with City Code and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to* an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the Code against her on the basis of estoppel. Summary. judgment is a drastic remedy, and will be granted only where there is no: genuine issue as to any material fact, Kral v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 784 P.2d 759 (Colo., 1989), Ridgeway v. Kiowa School Dist. C-2, 794 P.2d 1020 (Colo., 1989). Even where the facts are not controverted, if reasonable persons could reach different conclusions or draw different inferences from them, summary judgment cannot be granted, Halsted v. Peterson, 797 P.2d 801 (Colo. App., 1990). The party opposing the motion is entitled to all favorable inferences which, may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, Halsted v. Peterson, supra The movant has the burden of establishing the lack of a triable factual issue, and "all doubts as to the existence of such an issue must be resolved against the moving party." Cung La v_ State Farm Auto Ins Co 830 p. 2d 1007 (Colo. 1992) , Churchey v. Adolph Coors. co., 759 P. 2d 1336, 1340 (Colo. 1988). The Plaintiff used the Summary Judgment Motion procedure as a vehicle to attempt to create factual issues. However, as discussed above on the Rule 106(a)(4) issues, as a matter of law, the Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 12 Defendant never acquired vested rights nor was the City estopped to proceed. The Summary Judgment arguments do not expand the legal or factual issues on these points. Based on the record certified under Rule 106 (a)(4) and the affidavits submitted on the Summary Judgment issues, the Court l C nn rfpnuine issue of material fact concerning any of the issues raised by the Motion . The City is not estopped. The record is clear as to when the City and the P&Z acted, what their decisions were, what the Plaintiff said and did, and what the effects of the Defendants' formal actions were. The Defendant City is entitled to injunctive relief, the Plaintiff is not. =V _ CCDNCLUS = ON Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that --- a) NeitherDefendant has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion; b) The actions of the Defendant in denying the permit applications of the Plaintiff were lawful; c) The Plaintiff had. not gained any vested deck other aharights entitling her'to construct the hot tub a nd een done, nor is the City estopped to enf orce its Code and the ESA ordinance;. the d) The Plaintiff stands in violation of the City Code, City has no plain, adequate, and speedy remedy at law, and the City is entitled to injunctive relief; e) The Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. Therefore, the Court ORDERS: 1) The Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby dismissed, with costs to the Defendants; ! 2) The Plaintiff shall cease using,immediatea!ndn permanently, the hot tub and deck and shall remove sixty days of this Order failing which the City is authorized to enter the Plaintiff's premises and remove the hot tub and deck. If the City does so, it shall deliver the removed Marshall v. Aspen April 29, 1993 Page 13 pieces to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall pay the City's out of pocket costs of removal plus 5o for overhead. Dated: May 3, 1993 BY ,TH-E---C T T . PETER, DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a rue copy of tYe foregoing on Andrew Hecht and Edward Caswall on ^ C--' REPORTER./ r Exhibit C Memorandum TO: Bob Nevins, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department DATE: May 28, 1996 RE: Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff Review CC: Engineering Department We have reviewed the application submitted for the relocation of the hot tub on the, Marshall property. There is one apple tree that is under code (5") that will be lost to the hot tub relocation next to the house. No permit is required to remove this tree. However, if any other trees are impacted or excavated around for this project, a tree permit should be applied for. There was no landscape plan with the application, however, after looking at the site and meeting with Jim Cook, we discussed the use of a jute landscape netting infused with seeds to revegetate the slope after removal of the deck. Hydroseeding would also be acceptable for this area. Seed composition should be native species for this area. Additionally, we would recommend planting a few choke cherry bushes (prunus virginia) on the slope which is the predominant shrub on the hillside. The existing Junipers don't appear .to be very healthy, however, they are not dead and may be assisting with stabilizing the bank. If the homeowner would like for the Junipers to remain, and ACES has no objection to them, then the Parks Department has no objection to them remaining. MEMORANDUM To: LZ�ob Nevins, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer �. Date: May 28, 1996 Re: Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff Review (320 Lake Street, Aspen: Parcel 1, Marshall Lot Split, Aspen, CO) (Formerly: Lots 10, 11 and the Northwesterly 1/2 of Lot 12, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to Aspen, CO) After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments: 1. Plat Map: The preliminary improvement survey provided contains several technical surveying deficiencies and insufficient detail to properly evaluate the required work. The primary of these are: • Resolution of the conflicting boundary monumentation at the northeast corner of the property. • Location of all trees of six (6) caliper inches or larger located from the existing porch and extending a distance of ten (10) ft beyond the northeast property line for evaluation of impacts to existing trees governed by City code. (A symbol for both conifer and deciduous trees appears in the plat legend although no trees are shown on the survey.) • Clarification and descriptions of the potential encroachments along the southeast property line created by the fence and "overhang" from the adjacent property to the southeast. • Location of the rear set -back line as shown on the "Marshall Lot Split" plat. Location of the new set- back line based upon the existing, restored, or court decision regarding determination of the top of bank. • Field and record dimensions of the parcel. Resolution of differences and discrepancies. 2. Spa Drainage: We will need to receive a building plan, plumbing plan or written statement from the applicant explaining how and where the discharge water from the spa will be disposed. In particular, water drained or discharged from the spa may not be released over the edge of the bluff. If it is discharged to a drywell on the property, we will need a soils report from a licensed geotechnical engineer and a detail of the drywell design for review. 3. Site Grading: Refer to the separate comments from the Parks Dept. regarding site grading and landscaping. As needed, prepare a site grading plan for review. Address future correspondence regarding this application directly to myself at 920-50187, Aspen Engineering Dept. I DRCM 1296.DOC 26.68.010 Exhibit D Chapter 26.68 DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA) Sections: 26.68.010 Purpose. 26.68.020 Authority. 26.68.030 8040 greenline review. 26.68.040 Stream margin. 26.68.050 Mountain view plane review. 26.69.060 Hallam Lake Bluff review. 26.68.070 Procedure for approval of development in ESA. 26.68.080 Application, 26.68.090 Conditions. 26.68.010 Purpose. Certain land areas within the city are of particular ecological, environmental, architectural -or scenic significance and all development within such areas shall be subject to special review procedures and standards as set forth in this Chapter 26.68. These areas shall be known as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and shall include the following: A. 8040 Greenline. Areas located at or above 8040 feet mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) and including that area extending one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline. Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rock fall and mud slide, and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses. Review shall further ensure the availability of utilities and access to any development and that disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features be kept to a minimum. B. Stream margins. Areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Form River and its tributary streams, or within the one -hundred -year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of -the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within a flood hazard area (stream margin). Development -in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features. C. Mountain view planes. Designated mountain view planes as set forth in Section 26.68.050. Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to protect mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the city, maintain property values,- and enhance the city's tourist industry by maintaining the city's heritage as a mountain community. D. Hallam Lake Buff. That bluff area nuining approximately on a north -south axis bordering and/or overiooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850-foot mean sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, up slope and there terminating, and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision, and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street_ Development in this area shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, 595 (Aspan 10195) 26.68.010 minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve, and ensure the aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve. (Ord. No. 71-1990, § �: Code 1971, § 7-501) 26.68.020 Authority. The commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this chapter, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA). (Code 1971, § 7-502) WM b A. Applicability. The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Section 26.68.030 (B). B _ Exemption. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development shall be exempt from 8040 greenline review if the following standards are met: I. The development does not add more than ten (10) percent to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five (25) percent; and 2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the -applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section; and I The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. C. 8040 areendine review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. I. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. -If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the ci ty. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affection the natural watershed, runoff, - drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects oh water pollution. 3_ The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road. or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain., vegetation and natural land re=res. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space. and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. - 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve. the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. tAsp= 1OV3) 596 26.68.050 base line which bear S. 300 41' 11" E. and S. 66' 08' 59" W. respectively and which is above a plane which passes through the reference point at an inclination of 20 50' 38" above horizontal. 6. Main Street View Plane. There is hereby established a view plane originating from Main Street above which plane no land use or building shall project. The reference point bears N. 78' 22' 29" W. 92.35 feet from the southeasterly property comer of Block 79, Original Aspen Townsite. The reference base line . bears N. 75' 09' 11" W. 51.40 feet from the reference point. Elevation of the reference point and reference base Iine is 7,906.90 feet above mean sea level: The view plane is more particularly described as follows: All that space which is within the projection of two (2) radial lines which bear S. 29° 10' 06" E. from the reference point, and S. 800 29' 29" W. from the westerly terminus of the reference base line, and which is also above a plane which passes through the reference base line at an angle of inclination of 6° 29' 20" above horizontal. B. Exemption. Development which shall be exempt from mountain view plane review shall include the addition of any mechanical equipment to an existing development which protrudes into the view plane, except for the following types of equipment 1. Satellite dish; 2. Elevator shaft; or 3. Any other piece of equipment whose height and mass are found to be of such significance in their effect upon the designated view plane that their review pursuant to the standards of Section 26.68.050(C) is required. C. Mountain view_ plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view lane unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section 26.68.050(C)(2). When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.84 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk. and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the. view plane may be otherwise accommodated. 2. When any proposed development iruringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re -open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re -redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the commission shall approve the development. (Code 1971, § 7-505) 26.68.060 Hallam Lake Bluff review. A. Applicability. All development in that bluff vim running approximately on a north -south axis bordering and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850-foot mean, sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, up slope and there terminating, and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision, and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street, shall be subject to the review standards as set forth in this section. 601 B Exemption. The exterior ex or the removal of °n' reempt or reconstruction of an existing sttu trees or shrubbery, shall be exempt from Hallam Lake B1 � or development are met_ Bluff review if the following star dar 1. The development tees place more than this is obscured from the rear slopertY (30) feet from the to of Slope, standard (C)(7) below. by other structure,S as determined b site P �' or the development Y a section provided pursuant to review C. Hallam Lake Bluff review Bluff ESA unleSs the co standards. No development shall be Petted n mmission makes a determinations the the Hallam Lake requirements: Proposed development meets � of th 1- � No development, excavation or fill, other e following the top of slope. than native vegetation planting, shall tak 2- All development within e Plane below development not at P thin the fi�n-foot setback from the topof slope de b4 pmen grade within the fifteen -foot setback must be Pe shall be at grade. Any Proposed approved by special review p° �• All developmentpursuant Section outside the fifteen -foot setback from to by a line awn at a forty-five (45) degree angle Q P of slopeshall not ex o and determined b from brnund level at the top of slod a height delineated Y the zoning 4• Alan g of utilizing that definition set forth at Secti Pe Height shall be measured plan shall be submitted with on '76.04.100. native vegetative screening50 all development applications. Such Ian s of the of no less than fifty ( ) percent of the development P hall include parcel. Ali vegetative scree p t as viewed from the rear slo or comparable material should it d�b shall be marntauied rn perpetuity and shall be ( pe) replaced with the same 5- All exterior lighting cast with shall be Iow and down th no light(s) or located down the slope. ght(s) directed toward the natu 6- 'NO fill material or debris shall be placed o re Preserve rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be the f of slope. 7- Site sections drawn b damned down the slope.Historic drainage patterns and showing Y a registered architect, lands esg and proposed site elements, the to o � architect, or engineer shall be (Ord. into. 71-1990, § 6: Code 1971 P f slope, and submitted § 7-506) Pertinent elevations above sea level. 26.68.070 Procedure for approval of development A development application for development in nvirin ESA. and recommended for environmentally sensitive area approved approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval(ESA), shall be reviewed approved with conditions, or disapproved by the planning the procedure established in Co by the commission at a hearing Vector, and then ul an Enviro mmonProcedures, Ch aring held in accordance with nmentally Sensitive Area aPmr..6S2. A development application for development Pursuant to the CESA) may be consolidated with P �irements of Common procedures any other development application § 7-;07) , Chapter 26.52. (Ord- No- 71-1990, § 7: Code 1971, 26:65.080 APPUcation. The development application for deveiopment'in re the following: an environmentally sensitive aa A- The general (ESA) shall include �pIication formation required in Section 26-52.03 B • :� plan of the proposed development, which 0- . shall depict at a muurnum the following information: 602 26,68.080 I.. The boundary of the property for which development is requested. 2. Existing and proposed improvements. 3. Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees. C. In addition to these minimum plan contents, the development plan submitted for development in each type of ESA shall also include the following: 1. For development subject to 8040 orreenline review, the plan shall depict: a. Existing and proposed grades at two -foot contours, with'five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. b. Proposed elevations of the development. c. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 2. For development subject to stream margin review, the plan shall depict:. a. The 100-year floodplain line and the high water line. b. Existing and proposed grades at two -foot contours, with five-foot intervals for gravies over ten (10) percent C. When development is proposed in a special flood hazard area: Accurate elevations (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new or substantially improved structures; a verification and recordation of the actual elevation in relation to _mean sea level to which any structure is constructed; a demonstration that all new construction or substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of any structure to be constructed or improved; a demonstration that the structure will have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to at least two (2) feet above the base flood elevation, all as certified by a registered professional engineer or. architect. d. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 3. For development subject to mountain view plane, the plan shall depict: a. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it will be screened. b. Photographs shall be submitted by the applicant which show the present improvements which protrude into or are in the vicinity of the view plane. The applicant shall graphically represent on the photographs how the proposed improvements will appear in relation to existing improvements and views. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9; Ord. No. 71-1990, § 7: Code 1971, § 7-508) 26.68.090 Conditions. The planning director may recommend and the commission may impose conditions *to its approval of development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA), which includes but is not limited to means for. A. Minimizing any adverse impact of the proposed development upon lands, including the use and operation and the type and intensity of activities which may be conducted; B. Controlling the sequence or timing of proposed development, including when it must be commenced and completed; C. Controlling the duration of use of development and the time within which any structures must be removed; D. Assuring that development is maintained properly in the future; or E. Establishing a more detailed record by submission of drawings, maps, plats or specifications. f�Ord. No. 71-1990, § 7: Code 1971, § 7-509) 1 603 26.64.010 Chapter 26.64 SPECIAL REVIEW Sections: 26.64.010 Purpose. 26.64.020 Authority. 26.64.030 Applicability. 26.64.040 Review standards for special review. 26.64.050 Procedure for special review approval. 26.64.060 Application. 26.64.070 Conditions. 26.64.080 Modification of requirements. 26.64.090 Amendment of development order. 26.64.010 Purpose_ The purpose of special review is to ensure site specific review of dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.28), off-street parking requirements (Chapters 26.28 and.26.32), and all reductions in the dimensions of utility/trash service areas (Chapter 26.28), and any development not at grade within fifteen (15) feet from the top of slope in the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA (Chapter 26.68), in order to maintain the integrity of the city's zone districts and the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses. (Ord. No. 71-1990, § 3: Code 1971, § 7-401) 26.64.020 Authority. The commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this chapter, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for special review, after recommendation by the planning director. (Code 1971, § 7-402) 26.64.030 Applicability. Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special review in Chapters 26.28 and 26.32. (Code 1971, § 7-403) 26.64.040 Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the. following conditions are met 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of The underlying zone district 590 - 3. Off-street parking provided for multi -family dwelling units which do not share a common parking area is not required to have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but may consist of garage area, parking strip. or apron provided that the applicant demonstrates that adequate landscaping will be installed to reduce the parking's visual impact Developments consisting of three or more dwelling units shall install one (1) planter buffer per three parking spaces. Planter buffers shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet long by two and one-half (2-1/2) feet wide by two (2) feet high unless otherwise vaned by the Commission. The location and dimensions of the planters may also be varied by the Commission based on site specific circumstances provided that no fewer than one (1) planter buffer is provided per three (3) off-street parking spaces. Multi -family projects using this provision shall access parking from the alley, if available. C. Utility/trash service area. Whenever the special review is for reduction of the dimensions of a utility/trash service area, the development application shall be approved only if: 1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. 2. Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access a<rPa_-- D. Hallam Lake Bluff ESA encroachment into fifteen -foot setback .from top of slope or height limit. Whenever a special review is for development above or below grade within the fifteen -foot setback from top of slope as identified on a site specific section drawing or above the height limit established by the ESA, the development application shall be approved only if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. 2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. 3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. 4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. E. Subdivision design standards. Whenever a special review is for development which does not meet the subdivision design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4), the development application shall be approved only if the following conditions have been met: L A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9; Ord. No. 7-1989, § 2; Ord. No. 16-1989, § 3; Ord. No. 71-1990, § 4; Ord. No. 35-1992, § 2; Ord. No. 4-1993, § 2; Ord No. 50-1994, § 2; Ord. No. 69-1995, § 2: Code 1971, § 7-404) 593 26.64.050 26.64.050 Procedure for special review approval. A development application for special review shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the planning director and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the commission at a hearing held in accordance with the procedure established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. A development application for special review may be consolidated with any other development application pursuant to the requirements of Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. (Code 1971, § 7-405) 26.64.060 Application. The development application for special review shall include the following: A. The general application information required under Section 26.52.030. B. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those features of the site which are relevant to the special review application. C. An analysis of the characteristics of similarly situated properties in the same zone district and of neighboring parcels with respect to whether these properties comply with the dimensional, off-street parking or trash/utility service area requirement which is subject to special review.. (Code 1971, § 7-406) 26.64.070 Conditions. The planning director may recommend, and the commission may impose, such conditions that are necessary to ensure a proposed development subject to special review complies with the purposes of the As Area Comprehensive Plan, this chapter, and this title, including conditions to ensure the integrity of the city's zone districts are maintained, and the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses. This includes but is not limited to imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, lighting, signage, off-street parking, and other design features. (Code 1971, § 7407) 26.64.080 Modification of requirements. If the dimensional requirements, off-street parking, signage, or reduction in access to utility/trash service areas for a proposed development are expressly modified by a valid conditional use or other valid development permit or approval, the proposed development must comply with such modified requirements. (Code 1971, § 7-409) 26.64.090 Amendment of development order. A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for special review may be authorized by the planning director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall include a change to the design of approved off-street parking or to the configuration of a trash/utility service area. An insubstantial amendment shall not include: 1. Any increase in a dimensional requirement established by special review. 2. .Any decrease in the number of off-street parking spaces established by special review. . 3. .Any decrease in the size of a utility/trash service area established by speial re view. 4. Elimination of any represented feature, such as provision of a trash compz for or the number of trash bins, which was approved by special review. B. Other amendment Any other amendment shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures Of this chapter. (Code 1971, § 7-409) 594 June 15, 1996 Aspen City Council City of Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION -- --------- Dear Mayor and City Councilpersons, The Aspen Alps owners have been informed of the Aspen Club request for an amendment to the PUD to change the parking from the current location off Highway.82 to access and parking from Ute Avenue. As you are aware, the Aspen Alps' owners have been adamant in their desire to maintain the rural aspect of Ute Avenue. In all of the negotiations regarding Ute Avenue Special Improvement District, spearheaded by Kay Sandberg, the Manager of Ute Place, and Molly Campbell, the General Manager of the Gant, Aspen Alps was consistent in its concern that the rural character be maintained. (See attached letters.) The public comment at the March 19, 1996, Planning and Zoning meeting pertaining to the Aspen Club PUD amendment application mirrored the concerns of the Aspen Alps' owners and did not require redundancy on our part, particularly in light of the staff recommendation of denial and the subsequent denial of the Commission by a 4 to 1 vote. When the staff was directed to write Ordinance 20, the Alps owners were made aware of it and felt that, in the spirit of compromise, they could support what amounted to legalization of a substantial violation'of the original PUD. However, it became apparent as the first reading became a public hearing that there seemed to be support for an even broader amendment to benefit the applicant, which could result in a greater impact on Ute Avenue. . Although willing to endorse the Ordinance as originally drafted by the Planning staff and presented for first reading at the June 20, 1996 City Council meeting, the Aspen Alps owners CANNOT support any additional increase in the amount of parking off of Ute Ave Avenue because of the same concerns so eloquently presented by many Ute Avenue residents and their representatives; SAFETY - Please review the Police Department statistics for the Ute and Original Corner; please review materials included in the Aspen Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan. 700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-7820 Fax (970) 920-2528 Page Two June 15, 1996 HISTORIC - Please review the original Aspen Club PUD, the encroachment of the Ute Place wall and the remedial measures which were taken, and all materials pertaining to the Ute Avenue Special Improvement District, the Aspen Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan. AESTHETIC - Please review the Ute Special Improvement District information noting references to the rural character and information provided in the City of Aspen Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan. We hope that you will consider the concerns of the 83 Aspen Alps owners. -Sincerely, Pamela M. Cunningham General Manager PMC:pwm enc: Ute Avenue Special Improvement District information; City of Aspen Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan (excerpts); P.S. Please investigate the suggestions proffered by Councilpersons Waggaman and Richards, as well as _ Boyd Billings' intriguing proposal regarding the pedestrian bridge becoming a traffic bridge. Aspen Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan, Page 13 GENERAL PEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY STANDARDS The following standards should be followed where possible: • Routes should be planned in their entirety, not piecemeal, so that alignment questions, bridge crossings, destinations, signs, intersections, parking, and support facilities are coordinated • Paved trails should conform to a uniform width Where this is not possible, transitions in width should be clearly marked. • Paved trails should be smooth, even, unbroken, and clean. Concrete is preferred. If asphalt is used, it should be special -mixed for trails, which must withstand different vibration and use rates than roads. Seal coats should be applied periodically to minimize cracking and spalling. Curves should be super -elevated for ease of travel. Smoothness and crown are best ensured by a graded subbase 4 to 6 inches thick. Pavement edges must be stable, and flush to the ground on both sides. • Provide adequate drainage. Run-off must be handled by swales, catch basins, or cross drainage. Dips, bumps, soft spots, and puddles must be minimized. • Bridges should be 2 or 3 feet wider than adjoining trail to provide emergency maneuvering room when cyclists pass. For example, on a trail 10 feet wide, bridges should be 12 to 14 feet wide. Approaches at either end may need periodic re - pavement to account for abutment settling. • Tunnels and underpasses should be kept to a minimum since they are prone to poor drainage and poor visibility. • Trail curvature should be gentle (100 tq 500 feet in radius) for most uses. -Sudden sharp curves, especially at bridges, should be avoided. • Center line and edge striping is recommended for congested areas. At intersections -and points of confusion, arrows indicating lane direction may be appropriate. • Intersections should be highly visible, with appropriate striping and signs that can be seen by both cyclists and motorists, especially at night. See Illustration #21 for suggested treatment of a trail and street intersections. • Traffic signals should be timed so cyclists and pedestrians can move comfortably through intersections. • Locate new routes along desire lines, between traffic generators, to encourage use for commuting. Where feasible, follow along topography lines, to minimize excessive slopes. Winter & Company - 6/21/90 Aspen Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan, Page 14 General Principles of Trail Design The following principles for trail design should be employed. • Follow existing corridors of disturbance, such as utility lines and abandoned rail corridors, where appropriate. • . Avoid fragile or protected environments and minimize adverse impacts on other environments. • Align routes to facilitate personal security and police patrolling. • Maximize opportunities to enjoy scenic features. • Combine long-distance routes with smaller loops and connectors to provide a variety of trip options. Winter & Company • 6/21/90 s k! , f City of Aspen Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan - Conditions Survey SUB -AREA: 5A Route name: A -A Bicycles, hiking, jogging, roller blades and walking are the modes of transport =- on this route. The users are children, adults and the elderly who are year- round and seasonal residents and short-term visitors. Other user characteristics include lots of dog walkers and skiers who carry skis to gondola in the morning (parking on Ute Avenue) and return in the afternoon. The trip purposes are exercise, training, recreation and commuting. The destinations are to the Aspen Club, downtown, Transit Center or the Ute Trail. Time of use is anytime during the daylight throughout the week, year-round. An asset of the route is Glory Hole Park. Hazard/Conflict. Al -A2 - gap in paved trail - forced onto Ute Avenue no separation between vehicles and ped/bikers. A3-A4 - - Aspen Alps has sign saying "No Bicycles. " Route name: A-B During the winter, adult, short-term visitors use this route for walking to the gondola, the transit center and downtown, in the morning and afternoon, throughout the week. An asset is its wide sidewalk. B1 conflicts with delivery vehicles, there is no separation between (pedestrians and vehicles. )? Route name: A-C The mode of transport used on this route is walking The users are children, adults and the elderly who are year-round and seasonal residents and short- term visitors commuting to either downtown, Wagner Park, the golf course, McDonalds or the Transit Center. The time of use is year-round, throughout the week, and either day or night. An asset of the route is the Transit Center. There is no separation between pedestrians and alley vehicular traffic which is very dangerous. The neighborhood context is very urban, busy and congested with delivery trucks, courtesy vans, buses, and private cars idling outside McDonalds. The area still attracts tons of pedestrians because its open to view, creating a "plaza" feeling. Route name: A-D Year-round and seasonal residents and- short-term visitors,, both children and adults, walk on this route commuting to downtown, the 1 A lift and the transit center for buses to other ski areas. The time of use is morning, afternoon and night time throughout the week during the winter. An asset of this route is D-2 parking and D-3 parking. The hazards and conflicts of this route include walking up an icy steep hill, traffic, the D-1 sidewalk deadends, and pedestrians with skis. The neighborhood context is tourist/residential: condos and hotels. Route name: A-E Winter & Company - Page 1 City of Aspen 'Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan • Conditions Survey Route name: Highway 82/Cooper Street Modes of transport used on this route include bicycles, jogging, roller blades and walking. Users are year-round and seasonal residents, and short-term visitors who are children, adults, and the elderly. Other users are serious high speed bicyclists. The route is used for exercise, training, and commuting. Downtown, the Aspen Club and Independence Pass are the destinations of this route. The route is used during daylight and at night time throughout the week, year-round. Its special asset is that it is the shortest distance to and from town for East Aspen Residents. Highway 82 traffic is a hazard along this route, as well as Crestahaus Hill which is narrow and had blind curves. Also the sidewalks and the road are in poor condition. The neighborhood content is mostly single family residents for the large Aspen working population, as well as some high density housing and lodges. Route name: Ute Trail The modes of transport used on this route include hiking and jogging. The users are year-round and seasonal adult residents. It is a popular vertical trail to the top of the mountain with great views of Aspen and valley, and is used for exercise, training and recreation during the daylight, throughout the week and during every season except winter. It is very steep and during the winter is an avalanche shute. The neighborhood context is the same as Ute Avenue Route. At the base of trail there may be a high -density unit built. Route name: Ute Avenue Route The modes of transport used on this route include bicycles, cross-country skis, hiking, jogging, roller blades, and walking. The users are. children, adults and the elderly who are year-round and seasonal residents, and short-term visitors who are going downtown, to Ute Park, the Aspen Club, the Bennidict Building, fishing, cross country skiing or to the Ute Trail. The route is used for exercise, recreation, commuting, business, to and from Bennidict Building offices, and fishing access. The route. is used year-round, with more limited use during the winter, anytime during the daylight and limited night time use, throughout the week. The route has a variety of assets and special features: parks, a cemetery, wildflowers, solitude, fishing, historic sites, picnic sites, river views, a playground, and easy elevations. Its conflicts and hazards are blind curves, road debris, poor intersections, street use required at times during the winter, and avalanche shutes. The neighborhodd context is some high -density housing and lodges with large single family units. Most of the area is built -out except for avalanche areas. Winter & Company - Page 2. June 6,1991 Ms. Molly Campbell c/o The Gant 610 South West End Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Molly, Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, I feel that I can make a positive recommendation to the Aspen Alps Board of Managers concerning the Ute Avenue Special Improvement District. The most recent plan should mollify the concerns of my owners about over -gentrification of Ute Avenue. The method of funding appears to be equitable and should avoid the pitfall of the last attempt to form a special improvement district. There are several areas of concern to Aspen Alps owners: 1. The culvert and/or swale at the bottom of the Aspen Alps South Road. 2. The drainage which has been established on Original Street must be maintained. 3. An independent engineer will need to approve the plans for removal of the toe of the hill to assure its stability with cost to be borne by the district. As we discussed, the Board of Managers is adamant that the drainage issue, although it has been dropped from this plan, should not be ignored. I have spoken with Carol O'Dowd and strongly urge that others on Ute Avenue contact City officials to assure that the drainage remains a priority. Please let me know when you receive a draft of the resolution from Nick McGrath. My compliments to you and to Kay for your tenacity in reaching what appears to be an acceptable plan for the district. Cordially, Pamela M. Cunningham General Manager PMC:pwm TE), j)LACE May 1, 1991 Ms. Pam Cunningham Aspen Alps 700 E. Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Ute Avenue Improvements Dear Pam: As you know, several homeowner associations and individuals in the neighborhood have been working over the past year to advance the establishment of an Improvement District for Ute Avenue. Over the past several months we have communicated with many of you concerning the objectives and parameters of proposed improvements to the Avenue. Most recently, we have been in more detailed communication with the City in an effort to advance a plan of improvements. Importantly, we have been taking into account the recommendations of the City Engineer and of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee, which was formed by the City last year. Enclosed you will find a plan indicating the extent and character of proposed improvements to the Avenue. The general nature of the improvements is utilitarian. As you can see, the improvements include limited street lighting, continuation of the trail system through Glory Hole Park and the provision of limited parking on the north side of the Avenue adjacent to The Gant. Additionally, all of the existing overhead utilities would be placed underground, and, of course, the entire roadway would be completely resurfaced. It should be noted that the proposed road improvements and resurfacing do not call for curb -and -gutter but rather a "rural section" with a valley pan for drainage. All contemplated improvements would be achievable for a cost on the order of $300,000-$350,000. With over 300 individual property owners in the proposed District, this would mean an assessment of approximately $1,000-$1,200 per property owner. The levy would be paid over ten years with a consequent charge of about $10.00 per month, or less. With regard to the contemplated improvements, it is readily acknowledged that this plan is still lacking many specifics. For example, there is no detail on the street lights, which must be 11)1 11 PlVI ,\1,I'1\ t()IiIlk, \1NitiIl,l1•I;1I;I 1 ,I, May 1, 1991 Page Two functional yet non -intrusive. At this juncture, it is the objective to identify the character and scope of the improvements, recognizing that certain levels of detail are yet to be determined. As the proposed program goes forward, public hearings incidental to formal establishment of the District will be scheduled. The current objective is to secure a broad consensus on the project prior to advancing to that stage of the process. We would appreciate your comments on the enclosed at your earliest convenience. As noted above, we have continuing dialogue with the City Staff and expect that the proposed District could go to public hearing in the next several weeks. Please contact any of the following individuals with your comments: Molly Campbell c/o The Gant 610 South West End St. 925-5000 Kay Sandberg c/o Ute Place Homeowners Association 19 Ute Place 925-6555 Jim DeFrancia President, Ute Place Homeowners Association 17 Ute Place 920-4101 Thanks very much for your time in considering the attached. We are confident that improving Ute Avenue is for the community's benefit and will also undoubtedly increase values for all of our properties. Si rely, Jam DeFrancia JMD/df Enclosure 2/26 Conversation with Kay Dittmar The City is basically washing its hands of any involvment with the plans for Ute Avenue, particularly in regards to any drainage issues. Therefore, the Gant and Ute Place have put together an aesthetic plan foir Ute Avenue, encompassing road resurfacing., lights, landscaping, and culverts. Kay will let me know as the process continues and will let us be a part of the decision making process. Discussions of funding sources will take place and the Alps will be involved. V" May 1, 1991 Ms. Pam Cunningham Aspen Alps 700 E. Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Ute Avenue Improvements Dear Pam: As you know, several homeowner associations and individuals in the neighborhood have been working over the past year to advance the establishment of an Improvement District for Ute Avenue. Over the past several months we have communicated with many of you concerning the objectives and parameters of proposed improvements to the Avenue. Most recently, we have been in more detailed communication with the City in an effort to advance a plan of improvements. Importantly, we have been taking into account the recommendations of the City Engineer and of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee, which was formed by the City last year. Enclosed you will find a plan indicating the extent and character of proposed improvements to the Avenue.. The general nature of the improvements is utilitarian. As you can see, the improvements include limited street lighting, continuation of the trail --system through Glory Hole Park and the provision of limited parking on the north side of the Avenue adjacent to The Gant. Additionally, all of the existing overhead utilities would be placed underground, and, of course, the entire roadway would be completely resurfaced. It should be noted that the proposed road improvements and resurfacing do not call for curb -and -gutter but rather a "rural section" with a valley pan for drainage. All contemplated improvements would be achievable for a cost on the order of $300,000-$350,000. With over 300 individual property owners in the proposed District, this would mean an assessment of approximately $1,000-$1,200 per property owner. The levy would be paid over ten years with a consequent charge of about $10.00 per month, or less. With regard to the contemplated improvements, it is readily acknowledged that this plan is still lacking many specifics. For example, there is no detail on the street lights, which must be I � � I I I'� \� I i`�I'I \ t � �l t �l: �l`� � %ti��� l • I :n ; � �i �; r„„ May 1, 1991 .Page Two functional yet non -intrusive. At this juncture, it is the objective to identify the character and scope of the improvements, recognizing that certain levels of detail are yet to be determined. As the proposed program goes forward, public hearings incidental to formal establishment of the District will be scheduled. The current objective is to secure a broad consensus on the project prior to advancing to that stage of the process. We would appreciate your comments on the enclosed at your earliest convenience. As noted above, we have continuing dialogue with the City Staff and expect that the proposed District could go to public hearing in the next several weeks. Please contact any of the following individuals with your comments: Molly Campbell c/o The Gant 610 South West 925-5000 Kay Sandberg c/o Ute Place 19 Ute Place 925-6555 Jim DeFrancia President, Ute. 17 Ute Place 920-4101 End St. Homeowners Association Place Homeowners Association Thanks very much for your time in considering the attached. We are confident that improving Ute Avenue is for the community's benefit and will also undoubtedly increase values for all of our properties. Sir .e rely, r. Jam DeFrancia JMD/df Enclosure P.U. L30X Zlbb Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-6727 June 16, 1989 Kay Dittmar Ute Place Homeowners Association 19 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Ute Avenue Improvement District (UAID) Preliminary Plan and Cost Estimate Dear Kay: We have completed a preliminary plan and cost estimate for Ute Avenue (UAID). This project has been designed to tie into the improvements being done this year on Original Street by the City of Aspen. When complete, both projects will make a handsome entry to properties on Ute Avenue. It is our opinion that the major neighborhood related problems along Ute Avenue are lack of`organized parking, especially in winter, which results in severe traffic restrictions and the potential of severe flooding from Spar Gulch on Aspen Mountain. For purposes of this preliminary planning we have set the project limits from Original Street to the end of Ute Place Subdivision + 1300 lineal feet. We will address the need for each improvement and provide a conservative estimate of cost. This will allow some flexibility in the amount of dollars spent. Spar Gulch Drainage Spar Gulch,has historically drained to the Roaring Fork River through the Ute Avenue, Original Street neighborhood. Drainage has increased in recent years with the improvements on Aspen Mountain. The Chance development established a 100 year channel for this flow which ends at Aspen Alps property. A small channel exists to Glory Hole Park. From the ponds at Glory Hole a 36 culvert runs to the Roaring Fork River. In the event of a significant storm now, waters would run over Aspen Alps property, through Ute Chalet and Black Swan property to the Clarendon. We would propose to solve this situation by installing 200 feet of culvert along the Aspen Alps Road and 200 feet of 2 foot by 7 foot channel to Glory Hole Park. We estimate this work at $22,000. 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945-1004 Kay Dittmar June .16 , 1989 Page 2 Ute Avenue � 0�4""._ _� L_ We propose constructing Ute Avenue as a 24 foot wide paved street with curb and gutter. Thirty-two parallel parking spaces are proposed for the south side of Ute Avenue from Original to Ute Place. The parallel parking spaces would be an additional eight feet of paving. We have chosen to put the parallel parking on the south side of the street as the bike trail and a covered drainage ditch are on the north side and it would be quite expensive to move these facilities. The estimated cost of improving Ute Avenue is $57,000. i1i- i I i fi i e.q All utilities are presently underground. There are five homes that have not yet provided themselves with underground service which is at their expense. The cost to underground these five homes is estimated at $5,000. Poles will have to be removed to widen Ute Avenue as previously described. Bike Trail An additional 200 feet of bike trail is needed to bring it to the of Ute Avenu We would propose to overlay the entire trail. stimat cost of this work is $7,000. Street Amenities We would propose six street lights on the north side of Ute Avenue. We have chosen this side of the street as adequate space exists because parking is on the other side. We estimate street lights including necessary wiring at $21,000 although this will ,vary depending on the fixture chosen. We propose street trees at 100 foot spacing on both sides of the street. We estimate street trees at $8,000. Ute Avenue Addition We discussed taking these improvements to the Aspen Club. This doubles the length of the project. Because the character of this section of street will always be more rural, I would suggest f e men�i` J es . would tHin-k this section of street could be done for about $70,000. We would need to do a survey of this portion of construction prior to any design. Our survey costs are estimated at $2,500. In summary, if all items were done on the initial 1300 feet of Ute Avenue, by the proposed district, a conservative estimate of cost is $120,000. Our estimated design fee for this portion of the improvements is $9,500, not including meetings with Kay Dittmar June 16, 1989 Page 3 homeowners and the city which we would bill at an hourly rate. Construction administration would run about $5,000. d suggest that the proposed district raise at least �.00 to. gg P p begin this project. This should cover unforseen expenses s c as utility problems, attorney fees, etc. Monies not used would be rebated at the end of the project. If you wish to proceed any survey work must be completed by this November, design work should be completed this coming winter so we can bid the project in late March when good prices can usually be obtained. Please give me a call if I can answer any questions. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Ron Thompson Planning Engineer RT:cw/9108 MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: October 10, 1991 RE: Ute Avenue Improvement District assessment As you requested, I have been looking at different alternatives for the assessment process in this district. The procedure we are using to assess the lower part of Ute Avenue is equitable and should not be changed. The assessment for the upper district, however, could be changed. The following table shows the costs to each entity as a result of different methods .of assessment- compared to cost resulting from the method that has been proposed: Methods of Assessment * Assessed Value Frontage Proposed Ute Cemetery $34,596.92 $56,170.90 Ute Children's Park $34,596.92 $11,825.44 Ute Trail property $994.06 $35,476.34 Subtotal $70,187.90 $103,472.68 $150,000 Jim Martin property $23,117.76 $51,243.63 $33,333 Aspen Club $80,912.17 $39,418.17 - $33,333 Benedict Building $54,326.75 $25,621.80 $33,333 Benedict property $42,295.92 $51,243.63 Subtotal $200,812.10 $167,527.23 $100,000 Total const. cost $271,000 Funding: Possibly up to $20,000 from the Parks Space Fund and the remainder from the General Fund and the unappropriated cash reserves. * Instead of using the assessed value of zero for the City property, 29% of the actual value was used. This is how the Assessor's Office normally would assess unimproved property. cc: Chuck Roth Bob Gish John Worcester ------------- „a. MEMORANDUM F y} To: Mayor and Council From: Elyse Elliott, Project Engineer t Through: Bob Anderson, City Manager - Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer ' Date: September 5, 1989 Re: Encroachment License for 1010 Ute Avenue wall Summary: The Engineering Department recommends that an Encroachment License be granted to the Ute Place Homeowners Association for a fence that was constructed adjacent to the bike path. Background: The 1010 Ute Avenue development agreed to re -align and repave a bike path along Ute Avenue. In doing so, they added a decorative landscaping wall which encroaches onto the Ute Avenue right-of-way. in a triangular area which is 210' long and 2' to 27' wide. When this request was circulated through City departments, it was noted that there was a drainage problem on the bike path. This problem' was corrected by the Ute Place Homeowners Association. No City departments now have a problem with granting this request. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council approve this as an item on the Consent Agenda. Ici 1-1 0 "n --4 z z is Z. M m ;7j D c 713 X CL z z 0, ru) z < --4 U) im n D m -n b- i M r- MM n 0 "n c -4 0 z 0 T- X m x D n T rtl -tj X ED rtl C) co 0 En n C: e, :u 71 < m z D� m z z Ml z 0 M 0 W TZ r. m m o 0 < z z za m n ZZ z -i m M -4 --1- T- m m z : n.M m < 0 :K 0 T m 0 -00 v rl-J IOU (D > rtl -0 0. >< C) < 0 > CD ro r- 0 0 z m 0 0 0 z CD N u -u -7� n sr C� 20 x �-4 t-0 n w w C� rl, n m �d fo "Vil �j �-3 til 6Om zvowo m �u z > m 0:V0 m or > w w til P 0 I'll lqj-4"1 G) 'm Z til zl tri 0 X 0 0 1-0Z i tat L-1 1-0 t:l 0 0 0 0 w Z F C� - -el m �� �9 z t4 C) �-i txj " t-� 0w F< U) J-3 tri 0 cf) M ri) �0 z > f-< 0 m L-i OF �c 0 z n �--1 t:� L-1 0 H 0 F-4 > 0 t4 r � n t4 0 tz) tzl q q Z, t4 n til H co ;3� - H n llt�:l )-� U) kst t:� 0 m z z M t:l cri -1 0 �U Cn M 0 C) > ITJ 0 n C� 0 q 0 I A - Al L4 a MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director / . DATE: June 18, 1996 RE: 1996 Annexation Plan SUMMARY: The City of Aspen last updated the city's annexation plan in 1988, in conjunction with the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. As you know, that Plan was superseded by the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) in 1993. The AACP was a "character - based" document and did not include a discussion or revision of annexation policies. The City is currently preparing for the annexation of the Maroon Creek Club, and these discussions have led to an effort to update the annexation element consistent with state statutes. The attached plan (Exhibit A) refines and updates the 1988 plan. It is important to note that the general policy direction has not changed since 1988, but the plan has been refined to reflect changes in land use within the potential annexation areas. Process: Since the adoption of the AACP, the annexation. element is considered a separate policy document, as opposed to an actual element of the Community Plan. As such, the Planning Commission is advisory to the Council, and the discussion tonight does not require a public hearing. However, a public hearing will be required in front of City Council. Recommendation: Staff would recommend that the Commission discuss any issues with the draft plan, and foreword a positive recommendation to the City Council. Exhibits: A - 1996 City of Aspen Annexation Plan B - Resolution 96 - RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN Resolution No. 96- WHEREAS, pursuant to- Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 31-12-105, all cities within the State of Colorado must a have a "Plan" in place to guide future annexations; and WHEREAS, the last update of -the City of Aspen Annexation Plan was approved by Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 18, 1988 in association with the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan was superseded by the adoption of the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP); and WHEREAS, the AACP differed from prior comprehensive plans in that the, document was a "character" based plan that did not include the adoption of a revised Annexation Plan; and WHEREAS, The Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department has refined and updated the previously adopted Annexation Element to be consistent with the AACP; and WHEREAS, State Statute allows the adoption of separate plans by City Council following review by the Planning Commission. , NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the Commission has reviewed the proposed 1996 Annexation Plan and recommends to the City Council the Plan be adopted, APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 18, 1996. Attest: Amy Schmid, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission: Sara Garton, Chair I. INTRODUCTION Statutory Requirements. All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed by CRS 31- 21-105. These statutory requirements include the need to produce an annexation plan for a three mile boundary around the existing city limits. The specific requirements include the following: Prior to completion, of any annexations, within the three mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for the area, which generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area". Past Annexation Plans by the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen last updated the Annexation Plan in 1988. From the fall of 1984 until the fall of 1985, The City Council, in cooperation with the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, met intermittently to discuss annexation policy, and the analysis of annexation is traditionally coordinated by the City Manager's Office. The plan adopted in 1988 has not been updated, and has been the legislative guide for all annexations since that time. The 1988 plan was actually an individual element to the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, which has subsequently been replaced by the Asper' Area Community Plan (AACP) adopted in 1993. This 1996 revision has been prepared in order to meet the statutory requirements of CRS 31-21-105, as well as to update the Annexation Plan with respect to annexations already undertaken, and new policies and land use code provisions which have been implemented. However, the remaining annexation areas identified in this plan are essentially the same as those identified in the 1988 plan and the conceptual framework for annexation remains unchanged as well. The 1988 Annexation Plan stated that the City of Aspen is taking a proactive role in the annexation process in order to enfranchise County residents who live outside of the City of Aspen jurisdictional boundaries within the political process. Presently, there are many residents who live within the urban service area who do not participate in City elections. The intent of the annexation process is to incorporate the urbanized portion of Pitkin County into the City of Aspen. Secondly, a pro -active, aggressive annexation policy will allow the City to exert direct 44°;��� ��, __.., Exhibit A I ' r.•. 000 1 9 9 6 A n n a t i o n P I a n Aspen -�=> ` NN, 4. C i ty of Aspen , .ON now% Proposed An-fiexat as B o u n d a r y 14 °o ,. ,www"' -•. ,,� Proposed,, Annexat i on Areas g O n e m i l e r a d,� I u s .° � / I \\r ; � �+,4� d ~. ..•\_+._ may, .•`n�.. i � �t, ,\ ,' ,a° r - _ - s 6 .. h,� • t.Da ,. , ° ♦ ` T .w-(y mi 1 - r a d i ul ° y' ° o , - I l r l . �, `� , . - i '• 6 0 v vi oa 6 p a ,. o.v •' �`^~ -..._- ••n o O o• -� J)J �,/ ..>4.•.' t _-.- �T h r e e m 1 1 e ka d I ups 1 4e B v r Od,v ,yam •--�' r 0 R ° } .. * b 0 t e r Features a5; 0 .,r & ) . �J� \— / of _ I A wo•4 ic e ➢ o : 0 1 a p i '.7• • ;r� %o -o,� ° a -/ ... - , .•• �+. •. • S t r c t u r e s '--•.-� . � . • _ Co� a Ric � ` ../' "1(/• . ,4 ..• Ci � � • 1 • \J 10 s Ile IV e°° o � 'gyp I� o j � ` , 1 ,Y.1� °^ `�_....r..,.• � .° �/!'' O ,s 0-0 cm 11000 ,00 0001, Y _4000 0 1996 Ci ty of Aspen ;.J ��~— �� .` THIS MAP//DRAWIN IS A GRAPHICAL �o ` REPRESENTAT10 F THE FEATURES r DEPICTE AND S NOVA LEGAL — �, s REPRESN. THEy1C—C�llRACY 1 i n c h — 2 6 0 0 f e e t --d MAY CH DEPEND I NG ON TIE t• ` � � i 000 , ENLARGE NT 0R REDUCTION, J e 06/076 Oc 1996 C1 ty of Aspen J THIS MAP�DRAWIN IS A GRAPHICAL R E P R E S E N AT10 OF THE FEATURES D E P I C T E AND S NO A LEGAL R E P R E S N, THE O flACY MAY CH DEPENDING ON T ENLARG9ENT OR REDUCTION. o e 0 1 inch = 2600 feet ME �o O urn Exhibit B Annexation Areas City of Aspen City of Aspen (� 1 U t e N o r t h s t a r 2--o-a-r n y# 3 Lower S uggler 4 Red M o u n t a 1 0 5 P i t k i n Green '`�=��~— -; - ❑ 6 Red Butte 1ftwom 7 M e a d o w o o d 10 Aspen Highlands se Ar fib.(:: �/% rK `'. 7 _. � , •.-..? r S l } Aspen H i gh I ands Sk i Area � 1 0 Shadow M o u n t a i n'tl<_; n 11 Aspen Mountain k a s '�� •�,-� 12 SH 82 i d o r ® 13 M r o o n Creek Ci ty boundary . Annexation A e a s a t e r F, a t u r e s d s City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 3 An analysis of the existing zoning pattern in the unincorporated portion of Pitkin County indicates that a range of 896 to 1,130 new dwelling units can conceivably be developed in the proposed annexation area. This figure includes the approvals for the Maroon Creek property, as well as the conceptual approval of the Highlands Base Village. The summary by annexation group is shown on Table 1. This table provides a overview of land use characteristics for each annexation area. the land use characteristics provided a basis for aggregating the annexation areas into four distinct groups which share similar traits. The grouping of these areas are explained below: Group A--Ute/Northstar, Red Butte, Shadow Mountain Generally, rural annexation areas which have very limited growth potential due to their geographic location. These areas are particularly affected by environmental planning issues. The City's existing Land Use Code with its provisions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) is now well -suited to guide the growth and development of these areas. Group B--Roaring Fork East, Red Mountain, Pitkin Green Generally, suburban annexation areas comprised of -predominantly developed subdivisions. Several of these subdivisions have been already annexed into the City, such as Eastwood and Knollwood. Remaining areas include Aspen Grove and Mountain Valley. The major land use issues affecting this group include floor area ratio and legitimizing "bandit dwelling units." Another issue relative to Red Mountain is the status of Red Mountain Road and the ability of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade it as necessary. Group C--Meadowood, Smuggler, Aspen Highlands Base and New Development, State Highway 82 Corridor These areas contain large development parcels with significant growth potential. There are numerous land use planning issues which need to be resolved prior to annexation, regarding appropriate development densities. The Maroon Creek Development Corporation area has completed the County land use process and has been awarded land use approvals. The Aspen highlands project is currently in the County land use process. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 4 TABLE 1 SUMMARY M$:ID:# Annexation Size Vacant Vacant. Potential: Character: Comments :Area (ac:)' Unsubdivided:: Subdivided Units , Group A 1 Ute 469 133 69 7-10 Rural/Not Includes Little Annie Base Northstar Subdivided 6 Red Butte 105 217 0 9-11 Rural/Partially Potential for park use I Public 10 Shadow 284 1 4 10-14 Rural / City ESA process Mountain Numerous appropriate mining claims Subtotal 858 351 73 26-35 1 Group B 2 Roaring 66 0 3 28-33 Suburban/ All Numerous bandit units Fork Subdivided 4 Red 324 .5 20 98-124 Suburban/ Numerous bandit units Mountain Subdivided & Unsubdivided Pitkin 2119 0 1 89-99 ' Suburban/ Numerous banait units Green Subdivided & Unsubdivided Subtotal 609 I 5 44 215-256 Group C 3 Lower 260 42 10 37-150 1 Urban/ Not EPA requirements Smuggler Subdivided 7 vleadowood 366 219 231 93-114 Suburban/ Significant potential for Subdivided & growth Unsubdivided 8 - Aspen 144 2 15 154 Suburban/ Significant potential for Highlands Subdivided & Growth y Unsubdivided 12 SH 82 1536 424 2 260-310 Urban and Significant potential for Corridor Rural/ growth Subdivided and Unsubdivided 13 Maroon 403 62 218 111 Suburban PUD approval in place, Creek RETT revenue Subtotal 2709 , 749 476 655-839 Group D 9 Aspen 1374 0 130 0 Ski Area/ 96% Sales tax revenue Highlands USFS 11 Aspen 1058 0 0 0 Ski Area/ 21% Fragmented ownership Mountain USFS Subtotal 2432 0 130 0 TOTAL 8714 1 1100.5 723 1 896-1130 Source: <4spenlPitkin County Community Development Department, 1996. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 5 Annexation of these areas would generally include reaffirming the decisions of these processes. An issue unique to the Smuggler area is the impact upon the City, County, and residents of the area relating to its designation as a "Super Fund" hazardous waste site. Group D--Aspen Highlands and Aspen Mountain Skiing Area These areas correspond with skiing area permit boundaries. Annexation would necessitate the drafting of new land use legislation to guide future growth and development of the skiing areas. An analysis of land use issues indicate that the annexation of areas in Groups A and B will result in less complicated land use issues for the City than the annexation of areas in Groups C and D. It is also possible that the Meadowood annexation can be broken into smaller parts, according to existing subdivisions. For example, the Meadowood, Aspen Highlands, and Aspen Tennis Club subdivisions are similar in nature to each other and the annexation of these three subdivisions could be accomplished without addressing the question of zoning large vacant tracts of land. III. STATUTORY ANNEXATIOYCRITERIA An area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at a hearing as provided in CRS 31-12- 109, finds and determines the following:2 1. that not less than one -sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way or area, public lands, or a lake reservoir, stream, or other natural, or man-made waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed. 2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will be urbanizing in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. 2CRS 31-12-104. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 6 The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing municipality required by the above requirement shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the hearing, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist: a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality; Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-five percent of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not apply. b. One-half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intent to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years. C. It is not physically practicable to extend the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to of all its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area proposed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or through a quasi -municipal corporation. These annexation criteria have been used as a general guide to identify an annexation area around the periphery of Aspen. M rill ''III 1' State statutes also require that a municipality must prepare an impact report concerning the proposed annexation at least twenty-five days before the date of the hearing, and shall file one copy with the Board of County Commissioners governing the land proposed to be annexed. Such report shall not be required for annexations of ten acres or less in total area or when the municipality and the Board of County Commissioners agree that the report may be waived. Such report shall include, as a minimum: City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 7 l . A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory to show the following information: a. The present and proposed boundaries of the municipality and in the vicinity of the proposed annexation; b. The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls, other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed annexation; C. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed. 2. A copy of any draft or final preannexation agreement, if available; 3. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to or otherwise providing for, within the area to be annexed, municipal services performed by or on behalf of the municipality at the time of annexation; 4. A statement setting forth the method under which the municipality plans to finance the extension of the municipal services into the area to be annexed; 5. A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed; and 6. A statement on the effect of annexation upon local -public school district systems, including the estimated number of students generated and the capital construction required to educate such students. V. ISSUES AND CONCERNS This section of the annexation plan addresses land use issues and general policy concerns which are likely to arise during any annexation process. The annexation guidelines which follow this section have been developed in response to the issues and concerns addressed in this section, and are intended to guide the City and County during annexation decisions. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 8 Increased Development Potential within Existing Subdivisions From a historical perspective, it has been City policy that, when land is annexed, the development rights of the annexed land are not increased in comparison to the development rights in unincorporated Pitkin County prior to the annexation. A fundamental policy question is whether the City will continue to pursue this policy, particularly in light of the potential land use changes that could occur in and around Aspen, and community goals such as affordable housing and the development of alternative transportation modes entering Aspen. The continuation of the past annexation policy would be an indirect acknowledgment that the development rights established by Pitkin County zoning are appropriate. A review of the existing subdivisions in the proposed annexation areas indicated that in virtually all cases, based upon a consideration of standard zoning criteria such as neighborhood compatibility and provision of services, County zoning appears appropriate. A general land use policy addressing the development potential of an area after annexation should take into consideration. more factors than just the zoned development potential in unincorporated Pitkin County. Equally important factors affecting density should include: • compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; • compatibility with the existing neighborhood; • recent or expected changes in the neighborhood or general area; • capability of the community to provide necessary services; • environmental constraints; and • changing goals of the community. Floor Area Ratios Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are utilized by the City and the County to determine the maximum size of dwelling units permitted in zone districts. Floor area ratios represent the relationship between the size of a structure and the size of the lot. Pitkin County utilizes fixed percentages for FAR calculations. For example the FARs in the R- 301 R-15 and R-16 are .131.16 and .30 respectively. By comparison, the City of Aspen utilizes a sliding scale FAR system. With the exception of relatively large two -acre lots, the County 'FARs City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 9 are more restrictive than the methodology applied by the City of Aspen. Therefore, in the absence of changes to the City FARs, the annexation of outlying subdivisions will most likely result in the expansion of some dwelling units and the removal of non -conforming status for some existing structures. The expansion of dwelling units may or may not be compatible with surrounding areas and is an issue that should be analyzed during the annexation process. Development Potential of Unsubdivided Land A summary of major unsubdivided land within the annexation area is shown previously on Table 1. In the past, both the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council have expressed frustration due to their perceived lack of control over the development of large parcels on the urban fringe of the existing City limits. One method of addressing this concern is have large, unincorporated parcels which are located in feasible annexation locations be annexed by the City. The capability to assert direct control over such important lands around Aspen has significant impact on the ability of the City to control is own destiny from a land use perspective. In almost every case, the ability to capture both sales tax and Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) revenues are compelling reasons to pursue aggressive annexation policies. A primary disadvantage associated with annexing substantial amounts of vacant, undeveloped land is that the action is generally followed by increased development expectations on the part of land owners. The community has consistently attempted to maintain a rural entrance to the City, with urbanization limited to and surrounding the central core. The City must weigh the costs of potential intensification of land uses with the desire to increase revenues and exert greater land use control. These are particularly important in reference to the State Highway 82 Corridor. One option open to the City would be to incorporate an open space component into the annexation process, partially financed by increased RETT revenues associated with individual annexations. Environmental Review Standards The Aspen City limits have begun to expand beyond the original townsite located on the primary benches above the valley floor. This has created a situation whereby future expansions will introduce significant environmental constraints in the annexation process. The Pitkin County Land Use Code is specifically designed to address such environmental issues such as slope, City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 10 erosion, wildlife and floodplain constraints. In particular, the Colorado House Bill 1041 powers have allowed Pitkin County to apply detailed criteria to review potential development in environmentally sensitive areas. In contrast, the Municipal Code is intended to review urban -level developments, and does not contain the rigor of the County's 1041 regulations for managing development in sensitive areas. The City has made steps to address these issues, specifically improving the 8040 Greenline, Environmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin review processes. These provisions of the City Code may not be as restrictive as those found in Pitkin County's 1041 regulations. Ski Area Base Zoning The Aspen Highlands Base Village has obtained conceptual development approval from Pitkin County. If the Highlands base area is annexed by the City, the City's existing lodge zones may not be suitable for the Aspen Highlands base area. The potential annexation of Buttermilk presents similar difficulties. The threshold issue with annexing either base village is the extensive area which could potentially accommodate future development, and the intensive nature of existing City zoning. Ski Area Zoning - Study Area 11 includes the Aspen Mountain Ski Area. The annexation of the ski area would require the creation of a new zone district for ski area recreation, as well as an SPA overlay. A wide variety of issues related to ski area expansion, which are not addressed by the current municipal code, would have to be resolved prior to annexation. Pitkin County has adopted the AF-SKI zone district to regulate ski area development and expansion. This tool should be considered for adoption by the City if annexation occurs in this area. Additional issues include the relative benefit of annexing federal lands into the City, as well as the additional impact on emergency response. Utility Extensions Typical annexation policies focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of water and sanitary sewer lines by a municipality to annexed territories. Within the Aspen Area, City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 11 sanitary sewer is provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, rather than the City. Therefore, the provision of sanitary sewer is not an annexation issue. However, the City of Aspen operates a municipal water system, and cost and engineering issues relating to the provision of potable water to developing land on the urban fringe are significant annexation issues. Exhibit C depicts the boundaries of the existing plan for water service areas adopted within the Aspen Water Management Plan. Currently, there are several small water districts which serve residences which are located outside the City's boundaries but within the service area of the water system. These small districts may present a problem for the City following annexation because their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading would be expensive, and may become the responsibility of the City following annexation. As the periphery of the City is developed, the development community is faced with a choice of joining the Aspen water system or developing their own domestic water infrastructure. The City and County do not currently require that new development join the municipal water system. Furthermore, the County should require that that new developments which choose to provide private water systems, design those systems to meet standards which are comparable to City standards. When and if the City annexes these areas, the water systems will therefore create a liability to the City. The County also should develop standards which act as an incentive to have developments initially hook onto the City's system, in order to avoid the proliferation of small, uneconomical, often undependable private water systems in the metro area. Annexation/Zoning Process State law requires municipalities to zone annexed land within 90 days of annexation. In the past, when complex zoning issues arise, the City of Aspen has experienced problems meeting this state requirement. Failure to zone land within 90 days may potentially permit unwanted land uses on annexed land. In order to assist the City in zoning newly annexed areas within the 90 day time period, the Annexation Plan should establish guidelines for the city to follow during the annexation process. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 12 V. ANNEXATION GUIDELINES Introduction The first purpose of this chapter is to establish annexation guidelines to assist the City of Aspen in making land use decisions regarding the annexation of new territory. The guidelines should be used to determine when annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed and how it should be zoned. The guidelines will also be useful to property owners in annexed areas who are seeking an indication of how their land will be treated in the land use process: The second purpose of this chapter is to propose specific actions to be pursued to prepare the City for the annexation of land within designated annexation areas. Guidelines A. Master Planning 1. Guideline Generally, an adopted Master Plan for an annexed area addressing land use and capital facilities improvements should be a pre -requisite to annexation. Explanatory Comments Most of the areas earmarked for annexation have been master planned or developed under Pitkin County jurisdiction. The previous approvals established guidelines for zoning decisions and capital facilities improvements. Previous approvals, in combination with general wishes of property owners and neighbors, should be a basic consideration in the land use decision making process. D. Development Potential Within Existing Subdivided, Generally Developed Areas 1. Guideline Apply zoning to annexed areas which generally maintains the same development rights within the City as within unincorporated areas. Exhibit C \ 1\1 W a t e r S e rv i ce Areas �r, \ C i t of A s en , ,- r••'� {ram. .V-,x�•''"'a4Y��'� n �if'�•• •• xG^`fir} 1 {, r r J J `? fi;�,` f 4 r \J \. •. ��fN ��A��7lvi �f�S J i f � i 1 � �r)y'7v7 �i� Yw ;. � r tiM�1 ` � �f,�'i ,° ��5 t�i9siZt �%'i7a,�ij�r�t�,�i•17r��i: �p�yii � ::. �S� z.. � ^�.. `� � ;: ihs1nZ f 1 � �•�Yn 7fc'r�i a�)��F JsYt,�p 49 0 6 / 0 7 / 9 6 Oc 1996 City of Aspen THIS MAP D R A W I N IS A GRAPHICAL R E P R E S E N T ATION 0 THE FEATURES D E P I C T E AND S NO A LEGAL R E P R E S N. THE RACY MAY CHDEPENDING ON T "E ENLARGE ENT 0R REDUCTION, 1 inch = 2600 feet i7�z'l4i..f by J�'S J• tt. �Td S 7• G ., 1 / -1 - rsa t 1a r! ��>(,fif��nx f�f � � ��J; l .�`` "� .�, ��., ice..-•�. 1 tir - { )� ,•j:.\.--- - r---+f----ram r r l l Sri #It City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 13 Explanatory Comments The general idea behind this guideline is that annexation and subsequent zoning should not create a change in the character of an annexed area. Instead, the City land use regulations should be oriented to maintaining the "character of the neighborhood." 2. Guideline Strive to avoid zoning designations which make conforming land uses and structures nonconforming. 3. Guideline Consider, when appropriate, creating new land use zone districts or formulating code amendments, which may also be applied on a City-wide basis, to address specific problems but avoid creating custom land use legislation to address isolated, special interest problems. Explanatory Comments Inevitably, during the annexation process, it will become evident that new legislation may be needed to address specific problems. The legislation should be pursued if it addresses a problem for the majority of property owners in an area and is consistent with other City plans and regulations. The City should avoid creating land use legislation for unique problems associated with a handful of properties which has adverse effects on the entire City. 4. Guideline When creating new land use legislation for annexation areas, the City should consider the effects of the new legislation on the remainder of the City of Aspen. C. UnsubdividedNacant Land City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 14 1. Guideline Postpone the annexation of unsubdivided vacant land which is rural in character until a development proposal has been prepared for the land by the property owner(s) or a development proposal is pending, unless the City decides to annex certain properties due to their value as open space or to achieve contiguity for the annexation of a developing area. Explanatory Comments It is recognized that the annexation of the area around the airport may be in the best interest of the City. The price for the annexation of the airport should not be the insensitive urbanization of the State Highway 82 Corridor. The City of Aspen supports the concept of a greenbelt surrounding the existing City limits as described in detail in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks / Recreation / Open Space / Trails Element. The potential future development of the State Highway 82 Corridor should be consistent with this concept and the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan. D. Floor Area Ratios 1. Guideline The City should generally try to maintain Floor Area Ratios comparable to the County's for annexed properties, unless it is demonstrated during the zoning process that the Floor Area Ratios are unreasonably high or low. E. Environmental Review 1. Guideline Utilize the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations, 8040 Greenline, Environmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin Review when appropriate to insure the best possible review of environmentally sensitive areas. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 15 2. Guideline Consider, as necessary, code amendments to expand the scope of the City's environmental reviews to include review mechanisms which address wildlife habitat and the State Highway 82 Scenic Corridor. F. Bandit Dwelling Units 1. Guideline Use the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions of the City Land Use Code, in conjunction with the Uniform Building Code, to legalize "bandit units" as employee units. Explanatory Comments Pitkin County has developed legislation to legalize "bandit units" in return for a property owner's agreement to upgrade the units to meet health and safety standards of the Uniform Building Code and to deed restrict the units to employee housing occupancy. Since many bandit units will be encountered when the Mountain Valley, Meadowood and Highlands Subdivisions are annexed, the City should apply existing regulations with respect to Accessory = Dwelling Units to address the problem. G. Utilities 1. Guideline Pursue an agreement with Pitkin County which insures that Pitkin County requires small, private, utility systems to meet all City standards. Explanatory Comments Pitkin County cannot preclude a developer from installing a private water or sewer system if the system meets acceptable standards. However, Pitkin County City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 16 may require potential developers to meet City standards and may serve as a catalyst to join the public utility system, or at a minimum, insure that if private systems are developed and subsequently taken over by the public, excess costs will not burden future users. H. Annexation Zoning Process 1. Guideline Pursue the annexation of County lands only when a majority of the property owners favor annexation. Explanatory Comments The City should continue to take a pro -active role in annexation by assisting residents to gather annexation petition signatures. The City may annex property by one of two methods. The first method is to annex upon receipt of a certified petition from landowners who own more than 50 percent of the land area in a proposed annexation area. The second option is to call an annexation election for designated annexation areas. If a majority of the residents favor annexation, the City may annex. In the past, the City has pursued annexation by assisting residents to gather annexation petition signatures. When property owners of more than 50 percent of the annexation area have submitted an annexation petition, annexation has been pursued. The City Council may utilize either annexation method. The first method is considered to be preferable because it is more responsible to local citizens and more personal approach to annexation. The City should research the pros and cons of holding an annexation election for a large area. 2. Guideline Stage the annexation and zoning process so that the final annexation ordinance is considered simultaneously with final zoning actions in order to insure that the majority of owners are satisfied with zoning solutions. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 17 Explanatory Comments. In order to maintain a spirit of cooperation between the City and property owners within annexed territory, the sequencing of the annexation and zoning process is essential. Since zoning and its land use implications are the biggest unknown element of the annexation process, it is the City's policy to postpone the final reading of annexation ordinances until property owners are well aware of the implications of City zoning regulations upon their property. The City of Aspen, annexation and zoning approach is an improvement upon the procedure used by most Colorado municipalities in which the annexation is completed prior to the initiation of the zoning process and residents are uncertain as to how zoning issues will be resolved. Another positive effect of the process is that it insures that the zoning is accomplished within 90 days of annexation, as required by state law. If this 90 day requirement were not met by the City, the property could be considered "unzoned" and might not be subject to any development limitations. I. City/County Sales Tax Revenue Sharing 1. Guideline The City staff shall annually monitor its costs for providing Municipal services = to annexation areas to determine additional costs incurred by the City and report to the City Council. The City and County shall renegotiate an equitable distribution of sales tax revenues or other methods of revenue sharing, when City costs have increased enough to warrant a redistribution of revenues. Explanatory Comments In 1968 Pitkin County voters adopted a resolution imposing a 2 percent County- wide sales tax, including a provision distributing 47 percent of the tax proceeds to Pitkin County and 53 percent to the City of Aspen. Following several annexations, it is likely that service responsibilities will shift from Pitkin County to the City. At some point, sales tax distribution should also be adjusted. In the City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 18 event the City decides to hold an annexation election for a large area, the sales tax agreement should be renegotiated prior to the election. J. Ski Area Zoning 1. Guideline Prior to annexation of Aspen Mountain and/or Aspen Highlands, the City of Aspen should adopt a special zone district for ski areas comparable to the County 's AF-SKI zone district. Explanatory Comments The City does not have a zone district which is designed to address land use issues associated with ski areas. It will be necessary to adopt such a district -if the ski areas are annexed. Proposed Land Use Actions The following are proposed land use actions to be pursued by the City of Aspen. 1. Prepare and adopt a Land Use/Community Facilities/Utilities Plan, which addresses all land in the Aspen area including the annexation areas. The Plan should specifically address the entrances to Aspen with an emphasis on lands in the State Highway 82 Corridor. 2. Prepare legislation for inclusion in the City of Aspen Land Use Code which includes: • 200 foot setback from State Highway 82. • Scenic Foreground Overlay regulations. • A new Zone District for base area ski development. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 19 These code amendments should be adopted as a pre -requisite to annexation of land in the corridor. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, June 1996 Page 20 U1 -'' ►11 The following documents and reports are related to this Annexation Element and may be obtained from the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Office: l . Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993 2. AACP Appendix, January 1992 3. AACP Phase One Report, September 1991