Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.488 Castle Creek Rd.0088.2005.ASLU -., ... .' City of Aspen Community Development Dept. CASE NUMBER 0088.2005.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735-12-3-00-024 PROJECT ADDRESS 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PLANNER BEN GAGNON CASE DESCRIPTION 3 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 2 LOTS REPRESENTATIVE HAAS LAND PLANNING 925-7819 DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3/30/2006 12:( CLOSED BY Denise Driscoll NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Steel Partners Ltd., c/o Haas Land Planning FROM: Chris Bendon, City of Aspen Community Development Director Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner RE: Extension for Recordation of PUD Documents Request- 488 Castle Creek Road PUD DATE: August 11, 2003 SUMMARY Steel Partners Ltd. requests a six month (182-day) extension in order to record the necessary PUD Plans with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office for the 488 Castle Creek Road PUD project. BACKGROUND The 488 Castle Creek Road PUD received final PUD approval from the Aspen City Council on February 27, 2006, which is memorialized in Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit "A"). The Applicant has yet to record their PUD agreement or plat and their deadline to do so expires on August 18, 2006. Therefore, the Applicant has requested an extension of six months from the date of which the recordation period would expire without an extension. According to Section 26.445.070(A) of the Land Use Code, the Community Development Director has the authority to extend the recordation deadline if the request is within the vesting timeline and if there is a community interest for providing for such an extension. STAFF FINDINGS Staff believes that the request to extend the recordation deadline is within the vesting period, which ends on March 12, 2009 (three (3) years after final approval). Staff also feels that allowing for the requested extension is within the best interest of the community in that it will allow for the Applicant to complete the water main easement agreement with the City of Aspen Water Department. Staff feels that it is in the community's best interest to allow for the Applicant to complete this easement, as the connection with City utilities was part of the community benefit expressed in the PUD review. Therefore, staff finds that the request has been submitted within the vesting timeline and that there is a community interest for providing an extension. f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL I hereby extend the recordation deadline for the 488 Castle Creek PUD project for six months (182 days)to expire on February 18, 2007, finding that the request has been made within the v ing timeline and there is a community interest for providing such an extension. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Date ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A—Letter of Request - HAAS LAND PLANNING , LLC August 8, 2006 Mr. Ben Gagnon Aspen City Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Request for Extension of 488 Castle Creek Road PUD Plan and Lot Split Plat Recordation Deadline Dear Ben: As you are aware, Ordinance Number 5, Series of 2006 granted certain approvals for the 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split and PUD Amendment. The ordinance provided that the Final PUD Development Plans, a Final Plat, and a PUD Agreement all be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of the approval. Final approval for the PUD was granted on February 27, 2006, The 180-day deadline for recordation of the PUD documents is August 18, 2006. We have been working toward completion and recordation of the PUD Plans, Agreement and Plat. Indeed, drafts have been prepared. It was also necessary to work out a water main easement location, survey, and agreement with the City of Aspen Water Department prior to preparing the final plat; the terms of the easement agreement and the location of the easement itself have been completed although neither will be perfected until simultaneous recording with the Plat. Given the amount of time and effort already spent toward satisfaction of the recording requirements and the fact that only one week remains before the currently effective deadline, we hereby respectfully request a six- month extension, resulting in a recordation deadline of February 18, 2007. If I can be of further assistance in any way, or if you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You can reach me at the phone number provided, or by email at mhaas @sopris.net. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC �Mit Pam, ICP Owner/Manager c:/my documents/city applications/488 Castle Crcek/City Docs/PUD Extension • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 FAX: (970) 925-7395 529045 Page: 1 of 11 09/27/2006 08:489 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 0 0.00 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AGREEMENT FOR THE 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD PUD AMENDMENT AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION THIS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND PUD AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made this-;)�day of , 2006,between STEEL PARTNERS, LTD, a Delaware Corporation (th "Owner") and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the "City"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Owner owns that certain real property (the "Property") located at 488 Castle Creek Road (Parcel Identification Number 2735-123-00-024) in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as: A tract of land located in Sections 12 and 13 of Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point, a number 5 re-bar on the Easterly side of the county road right-of-way whence the common corner of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 bears S 8706' W1016.20 feet; thence N 81°56' E 257.42 feet; thence S 06°42' E 308.07 feet; thence West 11.48 feet to the Easterly side of the county road right-of-way; thence along a fence line N 31°21' W 73.89 feet; thence along the fence line N 44°55' W 133.57 feet; thence along the fence line N 52°30' W 184.31 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.824 acres +/- (35,895 square feet+/-), City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. WHEREAS, Owner applied to the City of Aspen for approval of a PUD Amendment and a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption and associated growth management approvals (collectively, the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, on January 17, 2006, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") approved Resolution Number 04, Series of 2006 (the "Resolution") recommending that City Council approve a PUD Amendment and Lot Split,creating Lots 1 and 2 of the 488 Castle Creek Road PUD-and Lot Split Subdivision, Exemption, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2006, the City Council of the City of Aspen granted approval of a PUD Amendment and Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split on the Property pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, Subdivision Exemption &PUD Agreement 529045 488 Castle Creek Road Page: 2 of 11 Page 2 of 11 09/27/2006 08:48P JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 WHEREAS, the approval of the Project was conditioned upon Owner complying with certain requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006 (the "Ordinance", recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder as Reception Number 528820), including entering into a Subdivision Exemption and PUD Agreement for the Property; and, WHEREAS, Owner has submitted to the City, for approval, execution and recordation, a plat and final PUD plan for the Property(together, the "Plat") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat (Owner shall pay all applicable recordation fees) on the agreement of the Owner to the matters described herein; and, WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat, which matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and the Owner is prepared to enter into a Subdivision Exemption and PUD Agreement incorporating such conditions and requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and the approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, and upon approval of the final Plat by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director, the City agrees to approve and execute the final Plat for lot split subdivision exemption submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Chapter 26.480 and all other applicable requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code. Said Plat and this Agreement shall be recorded(Owner pays all applicable recordation fees) in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of August 17, 2006 (the day an extension to the recordation deadline was approved by the Community Development Director). 2. Plat Requirements. At a minimum, the Plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Sections 26.480 and 26.445.070(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code; however, the PUD Plan portion of the Plat will not include an architectural character plan, a landscape plan, a grading and drainage plan, or a utility and public facilities plan. These elements will be provided with individual building permit applications for development of the resulting lots. The illustrative site plan will include only a delineation of the applicable setbacks and access easement. b. Contain a note stating that, no further subdivision of the subject properties may be granted nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. e. Contain a note stating that all new development on the subject lots will conform to the dimensional requirements established in the Ordinance (and reiterated 2 Subdivision Exemption &PUD Agreement 529045 488 Castle Creek Road Page: 3 of 11 Page 3 of 11 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 09/27/2006 08:48P JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 below), unless said dimensional requirements are approved for amendment by the City. f. The following dimensional requirements of the Project are approved, as contained in the Ordinance, and shall be printed on the Plat: Minimum Lot Size Lot 1: 11,225 Square Feet Lot 2: 24,600 Square Feet Minimum Lot Area'',per Dwelling Unit 6,300 Square Feet(after Lot Area reductions) Minimum Lot Width,(westttt property line setback) 75 feet Lot 1: 10 feet along west property line Minimum Front Yard Lot 2:25 feet for buildings,and 0 feet for grading/retaining associated with driveway Lot 1:5 feet along north and south property lines Minimum.Side Yard Setbacks Lot 2:5 feet along north property line;55 feet along south property line Lot 1: 10 feet along east property line Minimum Rear Yard Lot 2: 10 feet along east property line and property lines adjoining Lot 1 Maximum Site Coverage No Requirement Maximum Height 25 feet Min.Distance between Buildings on a lot 10 feet Min.percent of Open Space No requirement Lot 1: 3,344 Allowable External FAR Lot 2:5,015sf,where the free market residence is allowed up to 3,515sf,and the Category 7 unit must be at least 2,000sf of net livable area. Minimum©ff-Street Parking Lesser of one space/bedroom or two spaces/unit 3. Building Permit Application. In addition to such requirements enumerated elsewhere herein and otherwise required by the City of Aspen Building Department, the building permit application for each of the residential units shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance; b. The conditions of approval, as contained in the Ordinance, printed on the cover page of the building permit set; c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD); 3 Subdivision Exemption&PUD Agreement 529045 488 Castle Creek Road Page: 4 of 11 Page 4 of 11 1 11111i 11111111111111111111111111111111 ill 1111111111111 09/27/2006 08:48A JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees; e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility; f. A Construction Management Plan (CMP)pursuant to the requirements of the Community Development Department at the time of building permit application (a list of requirements is available in the offices of the Community Development Department). The CMP shall include a noise, dust control, and construction traffic and construction parking management plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following issues: I. Defining the construction debris hauling routes and associated impacts on local streets; and ii. Construction parking mitigation, except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The city encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport parking area. iii. Recognition that the applicant and the contractors have been notified that there will be no construction materials or dumpsters stored in the public right- of-way unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City Engineer. iv. Tracking of mud onto City streets during construction is prohibited and a washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. g. A fugitive dust control plan which includes proposed construction fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads, construction speed limits, and other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property lines. h. Geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified, Colorado licensed engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development, and that required excavation may be performed without damaging the adjacent street. i. Building permit applications shall include a letter from the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. j. Building permits will not be issued until all tap fees, impact fees and building permit fees have been paid; if an alternative agreement to delay payment of the water tap and/or parks impacts fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to such agreement. k. As a condition of the building permits, all noise ordinances shall be abided by. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7a.m. and 7p.m. on Monday through Saturday. 4. Asbestos and Demolition. The Applicant shall complete (prior to any demolition) the Building Department's asbestos checklist, and if necessary, a person 4 Subdivision Exemption &PUD Agreement I 529045 488 Castle Creek Road Page 5 of 11 Page: 5 of 11 09/27/2006 08:48A JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 licensed by the State to do asbestos inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until submittal of this report. If there is a finding of no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 5. Residential Design. All development within the PUD shall comply with the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410 unless variances from said standards are granted. With the exception of solar panels, there shall be no reflective roof materials used on any structure. 6. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's Lighting Code Requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. 7. Water Service. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. See also #11, below. 8. Sewer Service. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) shall be allowed to ACSD lines. Also, the Applicant shall execute a shared sewer service line agreement prior to application for a building permit. See also #11, below. 9. Access. Lots 1 and 2 of the PUD/Lot Split shall share a driveway meeting the City Engineering Department Design Standards to be accessed off of Castle Creek Road, and in the approximate location shown on the Plat. 10. Fire Protection. Owner shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Marshal, including but not necessarily limited to installation of a fire sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the Aspen Fire Marshal in any residential unit that is of 5,000 square feet or more in area. 11. Utility Connections. All utility connections shall be buried. The Applicant shall submit financial assurance in an amount and form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Water Department Director for excavation in the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall also schedule the abandonment of the existing water tap prior to requesting a new water tap. 12. Environmental Health. The Ordinance contained conditions of approval related to a) disposal of contaminated soils or solid waste, to the extent that either are found to exist on the Property, b) abandonment of the existing septic system, c) fireplaces, and d) outdoor trash and recycling enclosures: 5 Subdivision Exemption &PUD Agreement i I I ( 529045 488 Castle Creek Road ( Page: 6 of 11 Page 6 of 11 I I I 09/27/2006 08:48A JANICE K VOS CAUDiLL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 a. Disposal of Contaminated Soils or Solid Waste. To the extent that any contaminated soil or solid waste are found to exist on the site, no such contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. b. Septic System. The applicant shall provide a handling and disposal plan that complies with City Environmental Health Department requirements for the abandonment of existing septic system. c. Fireplaces.New residential buildings are limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant must file a fireplace permit with the Building Department before a building permit will be issued.New homes may not have wood burning fireplaces,nor may any heating device utilize coal as fuel. d. Trash &Recycling Enclosure(s). All outdoor trash and recycling storage enclosures shall meet with the City of Aspen's wildlife protection regulations that specify closures for dumpsters and other containers. 13. Affordable Housing. Development of a detached single-family residence on Lot 1 shall be subject to the requirements of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(1), Single-family, and compliance with said Section shall satisfy all growth management requirements for development of Lot 1. Development of Lot 2 with a free market, detached single-family residence and a detached Category 7 single-family residence in accordance with the following requirements shall satisfy all growth management requirements for development of Lot 2, including those of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26..470.040(B)(1), Duplex. a. Affordable Housing Unit B on Lot 2 shall be a deed-restricted, for-sale unit with at least 2,000 square feet of net livable area, designated Category 7. Unit B will be sold through the Housing Office lottery as a completed residential unit. b. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership in the deed restricted affordable housing units. c. A deed-restriction shall be placed on Unit B, Lot 2 prior to Certificate of Occupancy. d. The ADU on Lot 1 shall be deed-restricted prior to building permit approval; if the ADU is not constructed, the housing impact fee will also be due prior to building permit approval,pursuant to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. If built, the ADU shall be detached,pursuant to Section 26.520 unless special review approval is obtained to vary the requirements of the ADU design standards. 14. Landscaping Improvements. The following requirements are applicable to development of the Project: a. All landscaping in the public right-of-way shall meet the requirements set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 21.20, Trees and Landscaping on Public Right-of-Way. Any landscaping in the public right-of-way shall be approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall obtain a revocable 6 Subdivision Exemption&PUD Agreement l 11111111111111111111111111111 529 @45 488 Castle Creek Road � Page: 7 of 11 !I I 09/27/2006 08:48P Page 7 O f 11 JANICE K VOS CRUDIL-L PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 encroachment license from the City Engineering Department prior to installation of any landscaping or improvements in the public right-of-way. b. The Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of any tree(s) to be saved or at other points associated with the limit of the foundation as approved by the Parks Department. i. The Parks Department must inspect and approve tree saving construction fence locations before any construction activities commence. ii. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within a fenced drip line. 15. Subdivision. No further subdivision of the Property may occur without receipt of applicable and required approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter"Code") and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470 of the Code, unless the Code is amended in a manner that otherwise allows for further subdivision. 16. Impact Fees. Park Development Impact Fees shall be assessed on each residential unit constructed on Lots 1 and 2 at the time of building permit issuance. The park development impact fees shall be calculated by the City Zoning Officer at the time of building permit issuance using the fee schedule in place at said time. In addition, cash- in-lieu of School Land Dedication shall be due prior to building permit issuance. The amount due in lieu of school land dedication shall be calculated by the City Zoning Officer at the time of building permit issuance using the fee schedule in place at said time and the information provided by the Applicant with regard to market value of the land including site improvements but excluding the value of the structures on the site. Only the proportionate amount of all applicable impact fees shall be due at the time of building permit issuance for each residence. 17. Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). As soon as construction on Lot 2 practically allows, Owner anticipates submitting the Lot 2 development to a plan for condominiumization created pursuant to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) in order to facilitate the separate conveyance of ownership in the free market unit and the Category 7 employee housing unit. The City agrees to process for approval and for recordation a condominium map prepared in accordance with the Code and CCIOA. As the Owner will have provided affordable housing pursuant to the Code, the Lot 2 is exempt from paying an Affordable Housing Impact fee. This provision is not in conflict with those provisions of the Ordinance or of this Agreement restricting the property from further subdivision. 18. Vested Property Rights. The approved Ordinance, Plat and this Agreement, collectively, constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of development order issuance. 7 Subdivision Exemption&PUD Agreement 529045 488 Castle Creek Road 11111�1 1111111111 I Page: 8 of 11 Page 8 of 11 1 1 I 09/27/2006 08:48A JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 19. Financial Security for Public Improvements. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public right-of- way, including landscaping, the Owner shall provide the City with a financial security for the proposed improvements. The financial security shall take the form of a letter of credit, cash or other guarantees in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney and shall be submitted to the City prior to the initiation of construction or the issuance of any building permits. Pursuant to this Agreement, the Owner shall provide a detailed cost estimate of the improvements for approval by the City. The amount of the required financial security shall be 110% of the estimated cost of the improvements. The guarantee documents shall give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default by the Owner in its obligations to complete the public improvements, to withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation for such public improvements, or to withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation for such public improvements. If the improvements have not been completed to the satisfaction of the City within one year of the cost estimate, the City may require the Owner to adjust the amount of the financial security for local increases in construction costs. As portions of the improvements are completed, the City shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for that portion of the improvements, except that ten percent (10%) of the estimated costs of the improvements shall be withheld for the benefit of the City until (i) all of the improvements have been inspected and accepted by the City, (ii) a two-year maintenance bond has been provided by the Contractor, and (iii) as-builts have been provided (if required). Separate financial securities and maintenance bonds are required for civil R.O.W. improvements (i.e. pipelines, sidewalks, and curbs) and landscaping R.O.W. improvements. 20. Material Representations. All material representations made by the Owner on record, whether in public hearings or in documentation presented before City Council or the P&Z, shall be binding upon the Owner. 21. Enforcement. In the event the City determines that the Owner is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or of the Final Plat, the City may serve a notice of noncompliance and request that the deficiencies be corrected within a period of forty-five (45) days. In the event the Owner believes that s/he is in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial, the Owner may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or where any amendment, variance, or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to its standard procedures and take such action as it deems appropriate. The City shall be entitled to all remedies at equity and at law to enjoin, correct and/or receive damages for any noncompliance with this Agreement. 8 Subdivision Exemption&PUD Agreement 529045 488 Castle Creek Road Page: 9 of 11 Page 9 of 11 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 09/27/2006 08:48A JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 22. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent in writing by U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of the mailing of the same. To the Owner: Steel Partners, Ltd. c/o Warren Lichtenstein, President 590 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10022 With Copy to: J. Bart Johnson Otten Johnson Robinson Neff&Ragonetti 420 East Main Street, Suite 210 Aspen, CO 81611 Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 To the City: City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 23. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Owners, their successors and assigns, and to the City and its successors and assigns. 24. Amendment. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by all parties hereto, with the same formality as this Agreement was executed. 25. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Subdivision Exemption and Planned Unit Development Agreement the day and year first written above. [remainder of page intentionally left blank] 9 Subdivision Exemption &PUD Agreement 488 Castle Creek Road Page 10 of 11 529045 Page: 10 of it 09/27/2006 08:48P JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 OWNER: STEE ARTNERS LTD, a Del re corporation By: Na Michael Falk Title: Secretary and Treasure' STATE OF N\/ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF .M ) Thp foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this day of 2006, by Michael Falk, in his capacity as Secretary and Treasurer for Steel Partners Ltd. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires LAUREN LEIMAN Notary Public,State of New No.01LE6113687 Not ry P he Qualified In New York County Term Expires August 2,200$ [remainder of page intentionally left blank] 10 Subdivision Exemption &PUD Agreement 488 Castle Creek Road Page 11 of 11 529 @45 APPROVED: Page: 11 of 11 09/27/2006 08:48A JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 —John orcester, City Attorney THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ATTEST: a municipal corporation By: y' Helen Kalin Klanderud, May Kathryn Koch, ity Clerk i STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) f4 A" _"A_m 1 The foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this a(Aday of 2006, by Helen Kalin Klanderud and Kathryn Koch, as Mayor and it)Flerk, respectively, of the City of Aspen, a Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official eal. P!►r My commission expires c� C i Prty ; tary Pub �0-11AWA 1 o �7 ;o qTf OF COQ. C:My Documents\City Applications\488 Castle Creek/City Docs\SE&PUD Agreement 11 DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Paul E. Andersen. 488 Castle Creek Rd.. Aspen. CO 8161 1. 920-1596 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Parcel ID # 2735-123-00-024. at 488 Castle Creek Road. Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Lot Split and PUD Amendment for the propertv at 488 Castle Creek Rd. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Aspen Citv Council approval of Lot Split and PUD Amendment on February 27.2006. Ordinance No.5. Series of 2006. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) March 12. 2006 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) March 12. 2009 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 6th day of March, 2006, by the City of Aspen Commnnity Development Deputy Director. ~D~ ~ 3j(pjo" Joyce llgaier, Commu ty Development Deputy Director ., ORDINANCE NO.5 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512300024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Steel Partners Ltd., represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting approval of a PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 488 Castle Creek Road; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 17, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and recommended by a vote of 5-0 that City Council approve the proposal; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development proposal meets or exceeds all ofthe applicable development standards; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approval ofthe Development Plans Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves the 488 Castle Creek Final PUD, which includes application for PUD, Subdivision (condominiumization), subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the following: a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. A Final PUD/Subdivision Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the Community Development Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements, and the location of utility pedestals. Section 2: Dimensional Approvals The following dimensional requirements of the PUD are approved and shall be printed on the Final PUD Plan: ro\fedJ>.lID;~i3 ~Eiiifina.n~'':'; Lot 1: 11,225 Square Feet Lot 2: 24,600 S uare Feet 6,300 Square Feet (after Lot Area reductions) 75 reet Lot 1: 10 feet along west property line Lot 2: 25 reet ror buildings, and 0 reet ror adin Iretainin associated with drivewa Lot I: 5 feet along north and south property lines Lot 2: 5 feet along north property line; 55 feet alon south fO e line Lot I: 10 reet along east property line Lot 2: 10 reet along east property line and property lines ad. oinin Lot 1 No Requirement 25 reet 10 reet No requirement Lot 1: 3,344 Lot2: 5,015, where the free market residence is allowed up to 3,515, and the Category 7 unit must be at least 2,000 s uare feet of net liveable area. Lesser of one spacelbedroom or two spaces/unit Section 3: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the development is hereby approved by the City of Aspen subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current plat requirements in place at the time of filing. Each plat for condominiumization shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and approval by the Community Development Engineer prior to recordation. The cost of recordation shall be borne by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of ownership of the condominium. The condominium declarations shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department Director to ensure that condo minimum dues are balanced, reasonable and fair especially with regard to the deed-restricted Unit B on Lot 2. Section 4: Buildinl! Permit Submittal The following conditions are applicable to this approval. I. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded ordinance. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. e. A fugitive dust control plan which includes proposed construction fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adj acent paved roads, construction speed limits, and other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line. f. The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified, licensed engineer to the Community Development Department Engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development, and that required excavation may be performed without damaging the adjacent street. g. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 3. The Applicant shall complete (prior to any demolition) the Building Department's asbestos checklist, and if necessary, a person licensed by the State to do asbestos inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until submittal of this report. If there is a finding of no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 4. All development within the subdivision shall meet the Residential Design Standards as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410, unless variances from said standards are granted. 5. No reflective roof materials shall be used, with the exception of solar panels. Section 5: Utilitv and Service Conditions of Approval The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) shall be allowed to ACSD lines. 3. The Applicant shall execute a shared sewer service line agreement prior to application for a building permit. 4. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a driveway meeting the City Engineering Department Design Standards to be accessed off of Castle Creek Road, and in the approximate location shown on the Final PUD plans. 5. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal. 6. All utility connections shall be buried. Section 6: Enl!ineerinl! Requirements and Conditions: The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. The Applicant and contractors are hereby notified that there will be no construction material or dumpsters stored on the public rights-of-way unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City Engineer. 2. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan as part of the building permit application, and the management plans shall include a noise, dust control, and construction traffic and construction parking management plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following issues: a. Defining the construction debris hauling routes and associated impacts on local streets; and b. Construction parking mitigation, except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The city encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport parking area. c. The Construction Management Plan shall comply with City requirements at the time of building permit application. 3. The Applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 4. The Applicant shall submit financial assurance in an amount and form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Water Department Director for excavation in the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall also schedule the abandonment of the existing water tap prior to requesting a new water tap. 5. The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Monday thru Saturday. Section 7: Environmental Health The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. To the extent that any contaminated soil or solid waste are found to exist on the site, no such contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. 2. The applicant shall provide a handling and disposal plan that complies with City Environmental Health Department requirements for the abandonment of existing septic system. 3. New residential buildings are limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant must file a fireplace permit with the Building Department before a building permit will be issued. New homes may not have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device utilize coal as fuel. All outdoor trash and recycling storage enclosures shall meet with the City of Aspen's wildlife protection regulations that specify closures for dumpsters and other containers. Section 8: Lil!htinl! All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, as may be amended from time to time: Section 9: Landscapinl! Improvements The following conditions are applicable to this approval. I. All landscaping in the public right-of-way shall meet the requirements as set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 21.20, Trees and Landscaping on Public Right-of-Way. Any landscaping in the public right-of-way shall be approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall obtain a revocable encroachment license from the City Engineering Department prior to installation of any landscaping or improvements in the public right-of-way. "". ..., ....../ 2. The Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of any trees to be saved or at other points associated with the limit of the foundation as approved by the Parks Department. a. The Parks Department must inspect and approve of the fence location before any construction activities commence. b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the fenced drip line. Section 10: Emplovee Housinl! The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. Affordable Housing Unit B on Lot 2 shall be a deed-restricted, for-sale unit with at least 2,000 square feet of net liveable area, designated Category 7. Unit B will be sold through the Housing Office lottery as a completed residential unit. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership in the deed restricted affordable housing units. 3. A deed-restriction shall be placed on Unit B, Lot 2 prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The ADU on Lot I shall be deed-restricted prior to building permit approval; if the ADU is not constructed, the housing impact fee will also be due prior to building permit approval, pursuant to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The ADU shall be detached, pursuant to Section 26.520. Section 11: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the yalue of structures on the site. Section 12: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. ......" Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held in.valid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin county Clerk and Recorder. Section 16: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of February, 2006, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of February, 2006. Attest: FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by the Aspen City Council on this day, February 27, 2006. Approved as to form: r:::4(~/~ -- ~ VIII c. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner THROUGH: Chris Bendon. Director, Community Deyelopment RE: PUD Amendment and Lot Split: 488 );:astle Creek Rd. 2nd" Reading of Ordinance No,S, Series of 2006. 1> e,.--- DATE: February 27. 2006 SUMMARY: Haas Land Planning, representing Steel Partners Ltd., owner of 488 Castle Creek Rd., is requesting approval ofa PUD Amendment [26.445.100(B)] and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption [26.480.030(A)2] from the City Council. The proposal for a PUD Amendment is subject to final development plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.030(C) Steps 3 and 4. This requires the P&Z to adopt a resolution recommending City Council approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the PUD Amendment. On January 17, the P&Z voted 5-0 in favor of Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006, recommending approval of the PUD Amendment, with conditions. The request for a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption goes directly to City Council. Applicant is also seeking an Administrative Growth Management Review [26.470.040(B)(1)] and an administrative review for Condominiumization [26.480.090]. City Council approyal of this PUD Amendment and Lot Split would allow administrative Growth Management and Condominiumization reviews. If the PUD Amendment, Lot Split, Growth Management and Condominiumization requests are approved, the applicant would be entitled to the following: Two (2) detached single-family, free market units (3,335 square feet and 3,515 square feet) and one (I) detached single-family, deed-restricted (RO) unit (1,500 square feet). Staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the deed-restricted unit be designated as Category 7. RECOMMENDA nON: Staff has reyiewed this proposal and recommends that City Council find that the project complies with PUD Amendment Standards of Reyiew [26.445.050 (A-J)] and qualifies for a Lot Split Subdiyision Exemption [26.480.030(A)2]. Staff belieyes that applicant's request meets the Standards of Reyiew for a PUD Amendment, qualifies for a Lot Split Subdiyision Exemption and is consistent with the purpose and intent of preyious land-use decisions regarding this property. HISTORY: In 1980, this property was annexed into the City of Aspen and zoned R- l5A/PUD. A single-family home of about 2,000 square feet existed on the site prior to 1980, and there have been no improvements since that time. During deliberations in 1980, the City Council recognized that R-15A zoning without a PUD overlay made it possible for two free market units to be approved with no employee housing required (ADUs were not required at that time). The PUD overlay was added to require slope reductions, which reduced the density allowance and limited the potential of development to either one single family home (which existed at the time) or a duplex that included one employee housing unit. (Please see Exhibit B; Minutes; Ordinance # II Series of 1980). In 1999, then-owner Paul Anderson applied for a Rezoning in order to remove the PUD overlay, which would have allowed for a subsequent lot split and the development of two, single-family homes, each with an ADU. The Community Development Department recommended denial of the Rezoning application, citing the 1980 annexation and zoning deliberations: 'The PUD oyerlay was placed on the property... to ensure the existence of an employee unit on-site..." according to the staff summary. The staff summary acknowledged that two ADUs would be deyeloped, or a cash-in- lieu payment would be made. subsequent to a lot split, but added that. "Staff believes any changes to the zoning of this parcel should be associated with a higher degree of community benefit..." The Planning and Zoning Commission yoted 5-0 to deny the application. (Please see Exhibit C: Staff Memo + P&Z minutes: Rezoning request, 1999.) The applicant appealed the P&Z decision to City Council. but the appeal was withdrawn prior to 1;t Reading. Staff believes that if a condition of approval requires a Category 7 Employee Housing Unit rather than an RO Unit as prescribed by an Administrative Growth Management Review, the project would be consistent with the PUD Amendment Standards of Review, as well as the purpose and intent of previous land-use decisions regarding this property. On January 17, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that City Council approve the PUD Amendment with the condition of a Category 7 designation. The Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority has also reviewed this proposal and recommended a Category 7 designation. The applicant has agreed to this condition. ApPLICANT: Steel Partners Ltd., represented by Haas Land Planning. Owner is Paul Anderson. LOCATION: 488 Castle Creek Road; a metes and bounds parcel (.824 acres). ZONING: R-15A/PUD REVIEW PROCEDURE: A PUD Amendment is required to meet the Standards of Review in Section 26.445.050 (A-J). A Lot Split Subdivision Exemption is allowed under Section 26.480.030 (A)2. Administrative Growth Management Review occurs under Section 26.470.040(B)(I); and an administrative review for Condominiumization occurs under Section 26.480.090. KEY ISSUES: Slope reduction proytSlOns of the Land Use Code in combination with the PUD oyerlay of this property reduce the effectiye lot size and allowable density for this property. While the actual size of the property is 35,895 square feet. these Code requirements reduce the effectiye Lot Area to 22,945 square feet. The use-by-right for this property allows for a single-family home of approximately 5,000 square feet. including an ADU as small as 300 square feet, or a cash-in-lieu payment. The request for a PUD Amendment proposes a decrease in the minimum lot area for Lot I. a decrease in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for Lot 1 and Lot 2 and a decrease in the front yard setback for Lot I. Approyal of the PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdiyision Exemption would allow for two (2) single-family homes (3,335 square feet and 3.515 square feet), one (I) ADU. or a cash-in-lieu payment, and one (I) deed-restricted home (1,500 square feet). In other words. this PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdiyision Exemption would allow for a net increase of 1,815 square feet of free market space compared to the use-by-right option. but would simultaneously proyide 1.500 square feet of deed- restricted housing (at Category 7. according to the proposed staff condition). This trade-off is in keeping with the purpose and intent of preyious land use decisions regarding this property. Furthermore, staff belieyes the proposal meets the PUD Amendment Standards of Reyiew [26.445.050 (A-J)] through the mitigation of steep slopes with proyen engineering methods, the community benefit of a Category 7 single-family home. the appropriate scale of three smaller homes rather than one large home in this neighborhood, close proximity to both transit and pedestrian trails, the remoyal of overhead utilities and the remoyal of a septic tank in the Castle Creek neighborhood. (Please see Exhibit A for detailed staff findings.) In addition to standard conditions for a Final PUD, additional conditions recommended by staff include the designation of Unit B on Lot 2 as a Category 7 unit: the submittal of professional engineered reports to the Community Deyelopment Department Engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed deyelopment; and the remoyal of oyerhead utility lines. Regarding enyironmental conditions. a proposed condition of approval is the deyelopment of a handling and disposal plan for the abandoned septic system; and permit requirements for transporting any contaminated soil away from the property (while the 12 feet of fill on-site is likely to originate from the construction of Castle Creek Road. it is unclear if other types of waste were disposed of at the site). Dimensional Requirements: Zone District Vs. PUD Amendment R-15A Zone District PUD Request Min. Lot Size 15.000 s.f. Lot I: 11,225 s.f. Lot 2: 24.600 s.f. Min. Lot Areal 15.000 s.f. for 6,300 s.f. (after Lot Area Dwelling Unit single-family; Slope Reductions) 7.500 for duolex Minimum Lot 75 ft. Lot 1: 75 ft. Width Lot 2: 75 ft. Minimum 25 ft. Lot ]: ] 0 ft. Front Yard Lot 2: 25 ft. Minimum Side 5 ft. Lot I: 5 ft. Yard Lot 2: 5 ft. Minimum Rear lOft. Lot I: 10 ft. Yard Lot 2: 10 ft. Maximum 25 ft. 25 ft. Height Minimum lOft. 10 f Distance between Principal & Accessory Buildings Minimum (%) No requirement No requirement Open Space Requirement Allowable 5.025 for single-family; Lot I: 3,344 s.f. FAR 5,445 for duplex or two Lot 2: 3,515 s.f. detached sin!lle-family + 1,500 (Cat 7) Minimum Off- Lesser of one Lesser of one Street Parking space/bedroom or two space/bedroom or two Spaces spaces/unit. spaces/unit. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.5, Series of2006, approving a PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for property located at 488 Castle Creek Rd., with conditions, finding that the review criteria for the application have been met." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - PUD Amendment, Standards of Review Exhibit B: Minutes; Ordinance #11 Series of 1980 Exhibit C: Staff Memo + P&Z minutes: Rezoning request, 1999 Exhibit D: Application Exhibit E: Planninf and Zoning Commission Resolution and Minutes (to be provided prior to 2" Reading). ORDINANCE NO.5 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512300024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Steel Partners Ltd., represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting approval of a PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 488 Castle Creek Road; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 17, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and recommended by a vote of 5-0 that City Council approve the proposal; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development proposal meets or exceeds all of the applicable development standards; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approval of the Development Plans Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves the 488 Castle Creek Final PUD, which includes application for PUD, Subdivision (condominiumization), subject to the following conditions: I. A PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the following: a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. A Final PUD/Subdiyision Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the Community Deyelopment Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements, and the location of utility pedestals. Section 2: Dimensional Approvals The following dimensional requirements of the PUD are approved and shall be printed on the Final PUD Plan: Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area er DweUin Unit Minimum Lot Width (west property line setback A rovedPUD viathisOrdillance Lot I: 11.225 Square Feet Lot 2: 24.600 St uare Feet 6300 Square Feet (aftcr Lot Area reductions) 75 feet Maximum S' Maximn Min. Distance between BuUdin s on a lot Min. Percent of 0 en S ace Lot I: 10 feet along west properly line Lot 2: 25 feet for buildings, and 0 feet for radin retainin associated with drivewa Lot 1: 5 feet along north and south property lines Lot 2: 5 feet along north property line: 55 feet a]on south fa ert line Lot 1: 10 feet along cast property line Lot 2: to feet along east property line and property lines adjoining Lot I No Requirement 25 feet 10 feel Minimum Front Yard Minimum Side Yard Setbacks Minimum Rear Yard Allowable External FAR No requirement Lot I: 3.344 Lot 2: 5,015, \vhere the free market residence is allowed up to 3.515, and the Category 7 unit must be at least 1.500 s uare feet Lesser of one space/hedroom or two spaces/unit Minimum Off-Street Parkin Section 3: Condominiumization Condominiumization ofthe development is hereby approved by the City of Aspen subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current plat requirements in place at the time of filing. Each plat for condominiumization shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and approval by the Community Development Engineer prior to recordation. The cost of recordation shall be borne by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of ownership of the condominium. Section 4: Buildinl!: Permit Submittal The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded ordinance. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. e. A fugitive dust control plan which includes proposed construction fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adj acent paved roads, construction speed limits, and other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line. r. The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified, licensed engineer to the Community Development Department Engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development, and that required excavation may be performed without damaging the adjacent street. g. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 3. The Applicant shall complete (prior to any demolition) the Building Department's asbestos checklist, and if necessary, a person licensed by the State to do asbestos inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until submittal of this report. If there is a finding of no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 4. All development within the subdivision shall meet the Residential Design Standards as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410, unless variances from said standards are granted. Section 5: Utility and Service Conditions of Approval The following conditions are applicable to this approval. I. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation. perimeter drains) shall be allowed to ACSD lines. The Applicant shall execute a shared sewer service line agreement prior to application for a building permit. 3. 4. Lots I and 2 shall share a driyeway meeting the City Engineering Department Design Standards to be accessed off of Castle Creek Road, and in the approximate location shown on the Final PUD plans. 5. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal. 6. All utility connections shall be buried. Section 6: En2ineeriDl! Requirements and Conditions: The following conditions are applicable to this approval. I. The Applicant and contractors are hereby notified that there will be no construction material or dumpsters stored on the public rights-of-way unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City Engineer. 2. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan as part of the building permit application, and the management plans shall include a noise, dust control, and construction traffic and construction parking management plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following issues: a. Defining the construction debris hauling routes and associated impacts on local streets; and b. Construction parking mitigation, except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The city encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport parking area. 3. The Applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 4. The Applicant shall submit financial assurance in an amount and form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Water Department Director for excavation in the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall also schedule the abandonment of the existing water tap prior to requesting a new water tap. 5. The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Monday thru Saturday. Section 7: Environmental Health The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. To the extent that any contaminated soil or solid waste are found to exist on the site, no such contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. 2. The applicant shall provide a handling and disposal plan that complies with City Environmental Health Department requirements for the abandonment of existing septic system. 3. New residential buildings are limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant must file a fireplace permit with the Building Department before a building permit will be issued. New homes may not have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device utilize coal as fuel. All outdoor trash and recycling storage enclosures shall meet with the City of Aspen's wildlife protection regulations that specifY closures for dumpsters and other containers. Section 8: Lil!:htinl!: All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, as may be amended from time to time. Section 9: Landscapinl!: Improvements The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. All landscaping in the public right-of-way shall meet the requirements as set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 21.20, Trees and Landscaping on Public Right-of-Way. Any landscaping in the public right-of-way shall be approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall obtain a revocable encroachment license from the City Engineering Department prior to installation of any landscaping or improvements in the public right-of-way. 2. The Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of any trees to be saved or at other points associated with the limit of the foundation as approved by the Parks Department. a. The Parks Department must inspect and approve of the fence location before any construction activities commence. b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the fenced drip line. Section 10: Emplovee Housinl!: The following conditions are applicable to this approval. I. Affordable Housing Unit B on Lot 2 shall be a deed-restricted, for-sale unit designated Category 7. Unit B will be sold through the Housing Office, either as a single-family lot with accompanying development right, or as a completed residential unit. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership in the deed restricted affordable housing units. 3. A deed-restriction shall be placed on Unit B, Lot 2 prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The ADU on Lot I shall be deed-restricted prior to building permit approval; if the ADU is not constructed, the housing impact fee will also be due prior to building permit approval. pursuant to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Section 11: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 12: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein. unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin county Clerk and Recorder. Section 16: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of February, 2006, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall. Aspen. Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of February, 2006. Attest: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by the Aspen City Council on this day, February 27, 2006. Approved as to form: City Attorney Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor 1/ I i ! / /! )/ iW/ 7 !\ / I I <!' ' 7 ~J ) \\ l' i A ~. ,. If /;)1 I~ /. ,p? I' I /: / \ / 1 / ~~ II I ,/ \ ~/~ _~</ 1'1,' Jt~ ,~:tl "rftn ~;'~ · \~\ ,. , ~I:l.. :.-' \ " \ ,/ 'I, ~~_~ (", . I" , ~}1' . /~; o'..--~;.t'''' (\\1\' / / ,/~\"'tc .~/ ~y-_..-' ,,111, , /"'/" r- //~ \\'~\ ~" ~~ = \11 ~~~ ~,.,. /-1 7 "0 'I'_fl ij;:::-': .~.- /~ I ", \,~ /;:;:;;- " ~ ~. ,I' \ ~~ /:~/ . ' <I', /~ -1" // .~"Ifl w/ ,// - _./.o>c.../J . , --.-/ / / /' ..' ,-~--_./ /--'/" ~ ,_/~_' / _' ./ ~<.~ __,:::: ~~-==----===--:::'-/--;:";j" I ~ - -- -., / -= ~-' ,/ ! ,/~~- ,- ==------_...----~-~--- ,. ------- ---- ---- /" . _' .~ _--,-----c::::::::::::::::::=-=~ ~ ~ ' ! i . ~ ~ ~I~ jg \'J .;~. ; ~ ~;~ ~ en ~ ~ "Tl~~ ~ ;;; 5 .. iJJ v 11 .: 5 -< ~ ~ ~I~ -I>. Q) Q) ~ -~ ,. ~I!~ ~~f~~ i "Tl"Tl~~~I~~ ~ ): .-. "Tl o ~ en ~ ~ 0 en m .. r.n CI) ~ E N V m ~ 11 ~ #. ~ m - 3 (") ),. C/) .., r- III (") :tJ III III " :tJ o ),. t:l , K ~ I K J .. ;r K K ! 5! ~ [ ~ I !i c r i . . R i' f i l a . ~ ~ t l ~ ~ : i J it a ~ rr r g n . f ;;; H ~t~~ I- ~::;; ~ 9:.... .... ia f ~~ [ [ IN~ i~~ ~.. ~ ~~~l! !'<;<; J~~ iN" l-IE'I/ p. . ~- i ~~ iig gg ~~" ~ ~ ~..= !'oo !.! i~1 ~~~ ~~ij ~CI ! !jl m II II Ji! F ~i !i ~~ i~ I f [ n' en Iii ,,~t s~~ ,,,oQ I ..I: I: i g2: 5' c lD i i 3 S ~ ~ a sg: r- a ~ i S! i P I i - : !' r ~ ~ ;:, . g ~ J J . c . . ~ i i ~ . ~ . c . I ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ f _~::: CI . ~~ ~ ~ '1/'1/ c ~ IS g t ;r;r ii 2.!l r I &;< ~1'i ~- enO!: ;J~ m oS:: :0> ill" " ~ "T1 - Z.,J:::.. )>OJ rOJ :-t'O C)> . (j) ~-i Qo~ rO 0;0 -im (j)m -o^ C;o -iO -0)> ro )> Z . . ~ en Iii \2~t 1j~~ ~ ... . ~ ,,0" "' Exhibit A Review Criteria & Staff Findings 26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD. A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this title. A. General requirements. I. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Managing Growth: The proposed development is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Transportation: The proposed development is across the street from a RFT A bus stop and adjacent to the Marolt Trail. Housing: The proposed development provides a deed-restricted, single-family lot/unit. Economic Sustainabilitv: The size of this modest proposal does not provide an impact regarding Economic Sustainability. Parks, Open Space & the Environment: The proposed development will replace overhead utility poles/lines, a septic system, and an above-ground propane tank with underground connections to public electric, sewer and natural gas. These changes eliminate negative visual impacts in an important travel corridor and remove a septic system located in relatively close proximity to Castle Creek. Historic Preservation: The existing building is not a historic resource. Design Qualitv: Instead of developing the property with one large single-family structure of some 5,035 square feet (plus garage), the proposal will result in a development that breaks up the available floor area into three separate structures, which is contextually more appropriate for this neighborhood. Arts. Culture & Education: The size of this modest proposal does not provide an impact regarding Arts, Culture & Education. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existinK land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Findilll~: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The medium-density residential use is an appropriate intermediate use, located between institutional and high- density residential uses to the north. east and west, and low-density Pitkin County zone districts to the south. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the JUture development of the surroundinK area. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The area to the north. east and west of this site is substantially built-out, and the area to the south is under the purview of Pitkin County. A review of this proposal by the Pitkin County Community Development Department resulted in no objections. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt/rom GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, .final PUD development plan review. Staff FindiDl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. As part of the concurrent request for a Lot Split, applicant will be eligible for an Administrative Growth Management Review 26.470.040B, which further provides that the one additional allotment would not be deducted from the Annual Development Allotments or Development Ceilings, 26.470.040(B) I. B. Establishment 0/ Dimensional Requirements: Thefinal PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements/or all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions/or the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: J. The proposed dimensional requirements/or the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influence.I' on the property: aJ The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected/uture land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The medium-density residential use is an appropriate intermediate density, located between institutional and high-density residential uses to the north. east and west, and low-density Pitkin County zone districts to the south. b) Natural or man-made hazards. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Regarding wildfire hazard, the site was rated, "Low Hazard: Brush" by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. In addition, the response time to this site for emergency services is short. Regarding geological hazard, the steep slopes at the north and east edges of the property were found to be well vegetated with no loose boulders, according to a Geologic Hazard Assessment by Geologic and Natural Resource Consultants. In addition, the potential hazard posed by the existing steep slopes can be mitigated by further soil testing, grading and/or the installation of engineered retaining structures. Regarding other hazards, the report notes that the property is not subject to rockfall; swelling or hydro-compactive soils or bedrock; alluvial fan; landslide; talus slope; near- surface bedrock; high ground water; or Mancos shale geologic hazards. A subsoil study by HP Geotech based on an analysis of existing conditions made several recommendations regarding foundation and retaining wall design, floor slabs, drainage systems and site grading. The site is covered by 12 feet of fill, presumably from the construction of the adjacent Castle Creek Road. However, there is the potential that other hazardous materials were dumped at the site. A condition of approval will make any clean-up and removal the responsibility of the applicant. c) Existing natural characteristics oj the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The potential hazard posed by the existing steep slopes can be mitigated by further soil testing, grading and/or the installation of engineered retaining structures. There are no significant waterways on this property, and vegetation consists largely of grass and brush. The most significant vegetation resides in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way and in the very northeast corner of the property, outside of areas to be developed. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The existing man-made characteristics of the property are represented by approximately 12 feet of fill. The proposal would excavate this layer and backfill where appropriate. The medium-density nature of this proposal will not have a significant impact regarding noise, tratlic or parking. The site is located near a transit stop and a pedestrian trail. There are no historical resources in the immediate area. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity ojopen space and site coverage appropriate andfavorable to the character of the proposed PUD and o/lhe surrounding area. Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The PUD variations sought from the dimensional requirements ofthe underlying R-15A zoning are for minimum lot size (Lot I only), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and front yard setback for Lot I. It is important to review the differences between the PUD proposal and the two use-by- right scenarios. One use-by-right option under R-15A/PUD zoning would allow for the development of one free-market home at 5,035 square feet, with an Accessory Dwelling Unit as small as 300 square feet or a cash-in-lieu payment. The second use-by-right option is a duplex at 5,455 square feet, with one free market unit at 3.955 square feet and one R.O. unit at 1,500 square feet. Clearly, the most favorable use-by-right option from an economic perspective is to build one single-family home and an ADU, which does not carry a significant deed restriction compared to the R.O. unit; the single-family use-by- right option would also provide 780 additional free market square footage. Comparing the use-by-right option of the single-family home/ADU to the current PUD proposal, it becomes clear that the current PUD proposal creates a clear community benefit. Free Market FAR Deed-Restricted FAR includes minimum 300 s.f. AD Single-Family 4,735 300 Use-by-right Current proposal 6.550 1,800 Difference + 1,815 + 1,500 U) In addition, the current proposal would allow for two free market homes at 3,335 s.f. and 3,515 s.f. and one deed-restricted home at 1,500 s.f., rather than one free market home (including an ADU) at 5,035 s.L The current proposal would result in a more appropriate scale of home for this neighborhood, while also breaking up the massing that is allowed by right on this lot. 3. The appropriate number ofofj:street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations.. a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. Staff Findilll!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. At least two spaces per residence will be provided. b) The varying time periods of use, wheneverjoint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Findinl!.: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There is no common parking proposed for this three-unit residential development. c) The availahility of puhlic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automohile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Findinl!.: Stafffinds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposed development is near a transit stop and a pedestrian trail. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Findin2: Statl'finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposed development is near a transit stop and a pedestrian trail. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density ofa PUD may be reduced if a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. Staff Findin2: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. b) There are not adequate roads to ensurefire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Findin2: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced ifthere exists natural hazardv or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density ofa PUD may be reduced if a) The land is not suitablefor the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibilily of mud flow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. Staff Findin2: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed. due to runoff,' drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. Staff Findin2: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmfill disturbance to critical naturalfeatures of the site. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. 6. The maximum allowahle density within a PUD may he increased if there exists a significant community goal to he achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may he increased ir- a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is suhject. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This proposal would meet a significant community goal by providing for a 1,500 s.f. deed-restricted R.O. unit as required by Section 26.4760.040(b) I. In addition, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the unit be designated as Category 7 under the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, thereby establishing a greater community benefit. A condition of approval will require the net livable area to be a minimum of 2,000, as proposed by the applicant. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can he avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. Staff Findinl!: Staff tinds the proposal complies with this standard. The steep slopes at the north and east edges on this site can be effectively mitigated by further soil testing. grading and/or the installation of engineered retaining structures. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The medium-density residential use is an appropriate intermediate density, located between institutional and high-density residential uses to the north, east and west, and low-density Pitkin County zone districts to the south. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the puhlic '.I' health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with thefallowing' 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Findinl!: Staff tinds this proposal complies with this standard. This site does not feature any existing natural or man-made features that provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. The proposed development preseryes the vista from Castle Creek Road by locating structures at a substantially lower grade relative to the road. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. There is no existing development plan, but future development must comply with Residential Design Standards. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. Existing conditions which consists of a single curb cut at the north edge of the site, close to the Marolt Trail crosswalk and RFT A bus stop. The proposal is an improvement upon existing conditions from a safety standpoint, featuring a single curb cut at the center of the property, allowing for improved sight lines and removing potential conflicts with the Marolt Trail crosswalk and RFT A bus stop. There are adequate internal roads to access the proposed structures. The proposal was reviewed by the Fire Marshall. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. The site has easy access to the Marolt Trail, which leads to a RFT A bus stop. Handicapped access will be addressed via the Building Code. 6. Site drainage is accommodated jiJr the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. An adequate drainage plan will be a condition of future development. 7. For non-residential land uses, ,Ipaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. This is a residential proposal. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose olthis standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character olthe city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the filllowing: I. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior 'paces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Findin2: A landscape plan has not been prepared to date as individual home designs have not yet been undertaken. The most significant vegetation resides in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way and in the very northeast corner of the property, outside of areas to be developed. The applicant accepts a condition of approval requiring submittal of individual landscape plans for review and approval of the Community Development Director with each residential building permit. Any removed trees will be mitigated according to City requirements. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Findin2: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Significant vegetation occurs in the Castle Creek Road right of way and in the far northeast corner of the property, outside of developable areas. Other vegetation consists of grasses and brush. There are no significant man-made site features. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Findin2: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. A landscape plan has not been prepared to date as individual home designs have not yet been undertaken. The most significant vegetation resides in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way and in the very northeast corner of the property, outside of areas to be developed. The applicant accepts a condition of approval requiring submittal of individual landscape plans for review and approval of the Community Development Director with each residential building permit. Any removed trees will be mitigated according to City requirements. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, 'variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability ofa building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Complian~e with applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards will be required and will guarantee consistency with this standard. 2. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage olthe property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical.\ystems. Staff Findinl!: Stafr finds the proposal complies with this standard. Architectural and mechanical plans have not yet been prepared for the project. By using existing topography in accordance with the recommendations of the soils and geologic analyses, significant portions of the resulting residences will be located below grade. This will ensure natural cooling. The site plan also ensures adequate solar access/heating for each building site. 3. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Findinl!: Stafr finds the proposal complies with this standard. The twenty- five foot setback area along the Castle Creek Road frontage will provide an area of approximately 9,700 square feet that can accommodate snow storage. There is currently no development plan. but the appropriate shedding of snow, ice and water, as well as water/drainage storage issues must be addressed in the Building Permit process. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The fill/owing standards shall be accomplished: I. AI/lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The development will comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Land Use Code, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(F), Residential Lighting Standards. Compliance with said sections will provide consistency with this PUD review standard. Any lighting installed will not cause direct glare on or hazardous interference of adjoining strcets or lands. ---- 2. All exterior lightinf!, shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in thefinal PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, huildinf!,s, landscape elements, and lif!,hting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibitedfor residential development. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The development will comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Land Use Code, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(F), Residential Lighting Standards. Compliance with said sections will provide consistency with this PUD review standard. Any lighting installed will not cause direct glare on or hazardous interference of adjoining streets or lands. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. Ilthe proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual henefit olall development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall he met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design olthe common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character olthe proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features olthe property, provides visual relielto the property's huiltform, and is available to the mutual henefit ol the various land uses and property users olthe PUD. Staff Findinl!: There is no open space requirement in the R-15A Zone District. No designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD, rendering thise standard inapplicable. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (notji}r a number ol years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Findinl!: There is no open space requirement in the R-15A Zone District. No designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD, rendering this standards inapplicable. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance throuf!,h a legal instrumentfor the permanent care and maintenance olopen spaces, recreation areas, and sharedfacilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Findinl!: There is no open space requirement in the R-15A Zone District. No designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD, rendering this standards inapplicable. H. Utilities and Public facilities. , , The purpose o/this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue hurden on the City's infrastructure capahilities and that the public does not incur an unjustifiedfinancial hurden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: I. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The project site benefits from sufficient infrastructure capabilities to serve the proposed development. The existing home on the site is served with electric, telephone, cable and City water. The septic system will be removed and connection to Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) service will be made. The above-ground propane tank will be removed and underground connection with Kinder Morgan natural gas service will be made. The cost of all necessary utility upgrades and extensions will be borne by the applicant. Historic drainage rates will be maintained after development. The roads serving the project site are already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The site is located on a public road, making it easily accessible for emergency medical services and fire protection. The development will not result in demands exceeding the capacity of any public facilities or services. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will he mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost 0/ the developer. StaffFindine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. While no adverse impacts on public infrastructure are anticipated, the applicant will bear the costs of any necessary connections, upgrades. and line extensions. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimhursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Applicant has consulted with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and the Aspen Water Department, and jointly determined that no over-sizing of utilities will be necessary. Applicant will fund extension of existing service lines in the area. T. Access and Circulation. The purpose o/this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessihle, does not unduly hurden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trai/facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation 0/ the development shall meet the following criteria: I. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a puhlic street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to puhlic or private use. Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The existing driveway to the site enters at the property's northwest corner, near the Marolt Trail crosswalk and the RFT A bus stop. The proposal involves a single point of access at the midpoint of the western property line. improving sight lines and removing potential conflicts with the crosswalk and bus stop. The shared access easement will be twenty (20) feet in width, allowing for driveway function and pedestrian or bicycle movement between the lots and Castle Creek Road. The shared driveway would split in three directions to serve each of the homes. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roadv are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Findine:: StafJ finds the proposal complies with this standard. The subject property can be developed as a use-by-right with a single-family unit and ADU or a duplex; the current proposal will allow for three single-family units. The surrounding roads can safely accommodate the additional traffic without any improvements. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements oj; or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposedfiJr appropriate improvements and maintenance. . Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This site is not adjacent to any significant public lands and rivers. The adjacent Marolt Ranch Subdivision maintains Castle Creek frontage and easements for existing trails. This site benefits from but is not directly connected to any historic pedestrian, bicycle or recreational trails. Future residents at this site may reach the Marolt Trail via a public right of way along Castle Creek Road. 4. The recommendations o/the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no recommended plans in the AACP or adopted specific plans regarding the implementation of recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths with regard to this property. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. "...... - Staff Findinl!.: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no streets in this PUD proposal, only a shared access easements, which allows access for emergency vehicles. 6. Security gates, guard posts. or other entryway expressions/or the PUD. orfnr lots within the PUD. are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Findinl!.: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no security gates, guard posts or entryway expressions proposed. J. Phasing 0/ Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing 0/ the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adoptedfinal PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with thefnllowing; I. All phases, including the initial phase. shall be designed tofimction as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Staff Findinl!.: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There is not a phasing plan proposed. A condition of approval requires for the deed restricted residence on Lot 2 to be developed simultaneously with or prior to development of the free market residence on the Lot. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants olinitial phasesjrom the construction of1ater phases. Staff Findinl!.: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. No phasing plan is proposed. A condition of approval requires for the deed restricted residence on Lot 2 to be developed simultaneously with or prior to development of the free market residence on the Lot. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities. payment olimpact/ees and/ees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be usedjointly by residents of the PUD, construction 0/ any required affordable housing. and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the re.\pective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Findinl!.: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There is no phasing plan proposed. A condition of approval requires for the deed restricted residence on Lot 2 to be developed simultaneously with or prior to development of the free market residence on the Lot. The necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu. construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measurcs will be completed concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with those payments, improvements or construction work. 26.480.030(A)2 Exemptions / Lot Split The underlying R-15A Zone District allows the development oftwo detached dwellings; the proposed lot split enables the development of an additional single-family dwelling. The split ola lotfor the purpose olthe development olone additional detached single- family dwelling on a lotfhrmed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, is exemptfromfull subdivision review provided all ofthefollowing conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board ol County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption olsubdivision regulations by the City ol Aspen on March 24, 1969; Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this condition is met. The subject property was annexed into the City of Aspen in 1980 as a metes and bounds parcel. It is not located in a subdivision. h. No more than two (2) lots are created hy the lot split, hoth lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigatefor aflordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.040(B)(I)}. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this condition is met. The proposal would create two lots where only one currently exists. The resulting lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the adopted Final PUD development plan for the site. Development on the resulting lots will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.040(8)(1). Lot I will include an accessory dwelling unit or the applicable affordable housing impact fee (cash-in-lieu) will be paid. Development on Lot 2 will satisfy affordable housing mitigation requirements by virtue of providing one deed restricted single-family dwelling unit, designated as Category 7, with a minimum floor area of 1,500 square feet and a minimum net livable area of 2,000 square feet. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof was not previously the suhject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26. 470. 040(A}(4)]. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this condition is met. The subject property has never been the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this (26.480) chapter or a lot split exemption. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms olthis chapter, and confhrms to the requirements ol this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted fhr these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt o( applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this condition is met. A Plat will be reviewed by the Community Development and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The Plat will include notes explaining that further subdivision is prohibited unless applicable approvals are obtained, and that any and all additional development must comply with the applicable provisions of the Code. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office olthe Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be requiredjor a showing of good cause. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this condition is met. The language of this criterion is a condition of approval. f In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible jor a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Findinl!: Statl tinds this condition is met. The subject property contains an existing residence. The existing residence will be demolished prior to development of either resulting lot; however, the existing residence will remain through the lot split application review process and final platting pursuant to the rights afforded under this standard. Ii- Maximum potential build-out jiJr the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed ofa duplex and a single~family home. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this condition is met. The proposed lot split will create two lots; Lot I will be developed with a detached single-family home and Lot 2 will be developed with two detached single-family homes (sharing the allowable floor area for a duplex). A June 1998 formal code interpretation by the Community Development Director in association with the 920 West Hallam Street approvals allows a duplex to be expressed as two single-family homes. the 5' {'. ser'v"ic :i "-~~~lman Belu' Ii. ~i~g the ski II to Highland I II :i Ij :1 I , I All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1980 - Celia Marolt Annexation Mayor Edel Opened the public hearing. &~'=b,f 15 Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE HI (Series of 1980) AN' ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS THE CELIA MAROLT PROPERTY LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH ANNEXATION IS ACCOMPLISHED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965 was read by the city clerk Joe Wells, planning office, told Council this parcel is 36,000 square feet and the origin al planning office recommendation was to zone it R-lSA. There was some concern that an R-lSA without a restriction against further subdivision would have the effect of elimin- ating possible employee units on the site. R-lSA as a single lot, a duplex would be permitted with the second unit deed restricted; however, on a 36,000 square foot parcel, the creation of a second lot would be less than 20,000 square feet necessary to create two units. Only two free market single family units would be permitted in the event. a lot split had been accomplished. Wells pointed out the Opal Marolt property, which is being annexed, is recommended R-ISA mandatory PUO, and the mandatory PUD designation should apply to this site as well. Mandatory PUD triggers the slope reduction formula; this formula recognizes that steeply sloped 'sites are less developable and should have less density potential. The PUD designation reduces the allowable density to 20,000 squa feet which would allow a duplex situation. The planning office feels the PUD designation should be added. . Councilman Behrendt said there is a claim that there might be a bandit unit in the build- ing at this time and asked if staff had checked this out. Wells answered this has not been checked out because the tenants are not in town. Lennie Oates, representing the applicant, told Council this has never been used as a duplex; it is not set up like that. veIls told Council the PUD deSignation has been applied to the adjacent site for the same :easons the planning office would like it applied to this site. Ms. Smith told Council 'he P & z had rocommended R-isA with restriction against subdivision of the lot, so that ,he effect is basically the same. Oates said the applicant felt there were some advantage .f coming into the city at the R-lS designation. Their zoning request was R-15A without .he PUD. p & Z recommended zoning as long as there was a contract arrangement so that here was not a lot split. Oates said he Would like to have the right to come back and o through the subdivision process; however, he agreed not to avail Ordinance #3, which is utomatic lot split. Wells said the planning office would prefer to leave this unannexed f the city does not get the benefit of the employee unit. ity Attorney Stock said he felt it was inappropriate to apply to one site in a Zone some- hing which is unique and different to it and not apply to all sites within the Zone. To .strict R-lSA would be subject to challenge. Stock recommended R-15A!PUD. CounCilman 'aac said he felt the Council should go with planning office and attorneys recommendation ., Juncilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance HI, Series of 1980, as amended with PUD added 1 Section 2; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Councilmembers COllins, 'y; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Behrendt, nay: Mayor Edel, aye. }lotion c:ried. MEMORANDUM -e)(kibit C TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director Christopher Bendon, Planner ~ 488 Castle Creek Rezouiug - Public Hearing FROM: RE: DATE: May 18, 1999 SUMMARY: The owner of 488 Castle Creek Road, Paul Anderson, has applied to remove the Planned Unit Deyelopment (PUD) oyerlay zoning designation from his .82 acre parcel ofland currently deyeloped with a single-family residence. The City's PUD oyerlay is intended to provide more zoning flexibility but also considers areas of steep slope and reduces the allowab!e density accordingly. This slope consideration is unique to parcels with a PUD oyerlay and does !lot apply to other single-family properties. The slope reduction for this parcel eliminates the possibility of applying for a lot split, limiting the current development opportunities to a single-family residence or a duplex with one side deed restricted to affordable housing. Removing the PUD designatio!l would allow the property owner to apply for a Lot Split. . In 1980, the already deyeloped parcel was annexed into the City of Aspen and rezoned to the RI5-A zone district. The PUD overlay was placed on the property, according to the Ordinance minutes, to specifically prohibit the ability to split the lot and to ensure the existence of an employee unit on-site if the property were redeveloped as a duplex. It is apparent that the 1980 City Council preferred the community benefit of the parcel either remaining a single-family home or adding one affordable unit over the deyelopment of two free-market lots after a lot split. I There haye been changes in the neighborhood which lend support for a higher density zone district. Howeyer, staff belieyes changing the zoning to allow mOre 'deyelopment should only be considered when there is a fayorable and significant benefit to the community _ such as affordable housing. Since 1980, changes in the land use code,such as requiring ADU's with lot split applications, haye made progress towards that goal but do not represent a permanent benefit to the community. Staffbelieyes any changes to the zoning of this parcelshould be associated with a higher degree, of community benefit, as required by growth management reyiew or as proyided for in the AHI-PUD Zone District. Staff recommeuds the Planning and Zouiug Commission forward a recommeudation of denial to City Council for remoying the Pun overlay from this parcel. . APPLICANT: Paul Anderson. LOCATION: 488 Castle Creek Road. (See attached location map in application.) _ I ""--'- r---, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~oo-~ ~ SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , Aspen, CO , 200-/2- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Mrrc.\e\..\... ~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certifY that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: --""- Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. / Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not less than one inch in heigJJI. Said n9lW: was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the l1lJ!aay of ~l.utfl'f ' 200-b, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. N JA. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended ~ntal to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shallbe waived. However, the prop sed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15 'or to the public hearing on such amendments. ,"' - PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 488 CASTLE CREEK, PUD AMENDMENT AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, February 27, 2006, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to review a proposal for a PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 488 Castle Creek Road. The subject property is a metes and bounds parcel; Parcel ill #273512300024. For further information, contact Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429-2755, (or by email at beng@ci.asoen.co.us). All written correspondence related to the application should be sent to the above e-mail or physical address. Applicant: Steel Partners Ltd. c/o Haas Land Planning, 201 N. Mill St., Suite 108, Aspen, CO 81611 s/Helen Klanderud Aspen City Council '" CASTLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES L TD CIO HILL MANAGEMENT COMPANY POBOX 95 ST ANN, MO 63074 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUNTAIN OAKS EMPLOYEE HOUSING ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL 200 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 ASPEN, CO 81611 WACHS EDWARD H JR PO BOX 405 ASPEN, CO 81612 "'"". t"" '-' ,..., -- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (El, ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: L{3o Ca5f)-cLV~k 'Z/77/tb , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ,200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County or Pitkin ) I,~\ CilM,'f?c' L\\~ci I- (name,pleaseprint) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: .-4'publication of notice.. By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _ Posting of notice.. By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, ~ waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wille and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not t less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of ,200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public h~ing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hzreto. (continued on next page) o I""'i\ -" Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, tile proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. The fore of i 19 "Affidavit of Notice" was aCknOWle~ged before rr;Jfsl + day ,200 IP, by '- II me/;? (// WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL I Sunday, Februa M~ize~ Notary Public PURUC NOTrCE RIO: 488 CASTU: CREEK, PUD AMENDMENT AND ~~[~LlT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PUBLIC NOTICE 15 HEHEBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held o~ Monday, February 27 200fi,atameelinglobegmat5:00p_ffi, beforeth~ Aspen Crty Council, in the Council Chambers City Hal!, ]30 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to review ~ p:OP?sal f.or a PUD Amendment and Lot Split Sub- dlvlslon,Exemption for 488 Castle Creek Road. Thesubjectpropertyisa metes and bounds par, ce/;ParceiID#2j3512300024 F~r I~rther !nfonnatJon, co~tact Ben Gagnon at ~'RAP'H OF THE POSTED NOT'TCE (.SIG'N) t e City of Aspen Community Development De- r .I.' ~;rlrnent. i30S.~aJenaSt.. Aspen. CO (970) 429- ~5, (or by em.lJl at beng@cLaspen.co.us). All wntten correspcndence related 10 the applica ' tlOn should be Sl~nt to the above e-mail or phYSi~ I AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED "',dd"" t A.PPllcant:.Steelfartne Ltd_c/o Haas Land Plan- rllng.201N.MlllSt.,su' J08,Aspen,C081611 s/HelenKJanderud . Aspen City Council Published m the Asp I Times Weekly on Febru_ ary 12,2006. (344::) ATTACHMENTS: My Commission Expires 09I2512OOl COPY OF THE PUBLICATION BY MAIL "u~~_w~ - I! 1\ /Dr? . Wi I t3Ci'lr----- '7 r-- (!) . ul.!ftII2..... ~~ - IJ".. ~l 'FVD ~- 1:,\ Wt ~Ir- i!I&. ~ . ~. ~ 1W-fv ~ .;~. ~ ! I ~ k>1- t1{~ Wd- ~ ~ uJl1f.s. 1,1 /l_. J ~S"A C:;~ ~ l)v wL~ M I {)YW ~ (;, ~ .~ ~€-- ~ 14'4'1 .n .~ P-~~ I~er {uW'C 1-. ~{ ... 1)J vJ- ~ CtAMmlM~~. €b 'Cu<<t.J- 1~v1 .... - :1 0p~.~ ~~ lV.~ ?J ~(,S to"L ~s ~ 1V1U@~ .~V' WA ~ .. . [v\w{ft~ tVl tl~1 Af6v.~,,~ ~~ , , ~i:~ f\47 . ~t .~ ~K~ ~priWA Jf~1. ~~~ tra-- VYI1~uk~Ji-/$} dPw.-~~ ~:,i~~ $1ic..~ it ~ jo~&~ ~ ; \~DD? flu~. ~~ . !1!~~lt1IC- W\ CuM~I~~ ~n ~M !! lwu.k '1 V'AA$hr..-, of- fWki~ . it'f'b ()Uuf, pf. n . 1hi:. V\af lN~bvdA eojl-fe.. -..J . ~ z,-~ ltJ ti.k?7::; b] tJet- ~.~It-; ...tI2. 1ZW ~/UGr~ JJ - Pfeej. 1P1v4 ~I c#;1- .. rlptd.- ~f Ik.. ~Iewf. . iU~. .._ @LJ \1 ~'-iP...1tit --~ k>e_b....H-. I~ ~ c!...,,~ ~k--fo c;~~ &sI- I, I~~ . Sere. fed~ "s l~fk.~ \- ~ ,j ~LMlh c41l 'i~ (Q t:ML v1 ~. i, hW-. ~ +k- ~~.&- F,O.f2. ~ 1~l=.~ lv\kld 1l\~ ~ve.. { ~mrl btJ_mn NOJ~um rz,.f ~e,.(~ i , fu- p{~ A-'iw. i ITf- . ~ccZ L . i1Y~ il ,!~(~- %;~~:~~. I' u ',I ~M.~ /~hh.,- 'I m, (/0...,. flfll- "~-~- i~- 17,-:~} . { Ii , !. t'"' ........ , RESOLUTION NO. 04 (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PUD AMENDMENT, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512300024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Steel Partners Ltd., represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting approval of a PUD Amendment for 488 Castle Creek Road; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed PUD Amendment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 17, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal on January 24,2006 under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and recommended by a vote of 5-0 that City Council approve the proposal; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development proposal meets or exceeds all of the applicable development standards; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PUD AMENDMENT WITH CONDITIONS, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: AIJIJroval of the DevelolJment Plans Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves the 488 Castle Creek Final PUD, which includes application for PUD, Subdivision (condominiumization), subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUDISubdivision Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the following: a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. A Final PUDISubdivision Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the Community Development Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements, and the location of utility pedestals. " '-,- ..,.,....., ~.... Section 2: Dimensional Aoprovals The following dimensional requirements of the PUD are approved and shall be printed on the Final PUD Plan: Lot I: 11 ,22 5 Square Feet Lot 2: 24,600 S uare Feet 6,300 Square Feet (after Lot Area reductions) 75 feet Lot J: 10 feet along west property line Lot 2: 25 feet for buildings, and Ofeelfor radin Iretainin associated with drivewa Lot 1: 5 feet along north and south property lines Lot 2: 5 feet along north property line; 55 feet alon south ro ert line Lot 1: 10 feet along east property line Lot 2: 10 feet along east property line an'd ro er lines ad 'oinin Lot J No Requirement 25 feel 10feet No requirement Lot I: 3,344 Lot 2: 5,015, where the free market residence is allowed up to 3,515. and the Category 7 unit must be at least J ,500 s uare eel Lesser of one space/bedroom or two spaces/unit Section 3: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the development is hereby approved by the City of Aspen subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current plat requirements in place at the time of filing. Each plat for condominiumization shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and approval by the Community Development Engineer prior to recordation. The cost of recordation shall be borne by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of ownership of the condominium. Section 4: Buildi1tf! Permit Submittal The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded ordinance. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. ".... ',-, :) e. A fugitive dust control plan which includes proposed construction fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads, construction speed limits, and other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line. f The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified, licensed engineer to the Community Development Department Engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development, and that required excavation may be performed without damaging the adjacent street. g. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 3. The Applicant shall complete (prior to any demolition) the Building Department's asbestos chec/dist, and if necessary, a person licensed by the State to do asbestos inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until submittal of this report. If there is a finding of no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 4. All development within the subdivision shall meet the Residential Design Standards as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410, unless variances from said standards are granted. Section 5: Utilitv and Service Conditions of Approval The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Title 8(Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. 1'" ,,", :) 2. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) shall be allowed to ACSD lines. 3. The Applicant shall execute a shared sewer service line agreement prior to application for a building permit. 4. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a driveway meeting the City Engineering Department Design Standards to be accessed off of Castle Creek Road, and in the approximate location shown on the Final PUD plans. 5. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal. Section 6: En1!ineerinf! Requirements and Conditions: The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. The Applicant and contractors are hereby notified that there will be no construction material or dumpsters stored on the public rights-ofway unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City Engineer. 2. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan as part of the building permit application, and the management plans shall include a noise, dust control, and construction traffic and construction parking management plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following issues: a. Defining the construction debris hauling routes and associated impacts on local streets; and b. Construction parking mitigation, except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The city encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport parking area. 3. The Applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 4. The Applicant shall submit financial assurance in an amount and form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Water Department Director for excavation in the public right-of way. The Applicant shall also schedule the abandonment of the existing water tap prior to requesting a new water tap. 5. The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Monday thru Saturday. ....'--'" ...., '"" ---' Section 7: Environmental Health The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. To the extent that any contaminated soil or solid waste are found to exist on the site, no such contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. 2. The applicant shall provide a handling and disposal plan that complies with City Environmental Health Department requirements for the abandonment of existing septic system. 3. New residential buildings are limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant must file a fireplace permit with the Building Department before a building permit will be issued. New homes may not have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device utilize coal as jitel. All outdoor trash and recycling storage enclosures shall meet with the City of Aspen's wildlife protection regulations that specifY closures for dumpsters and other containers. Section 8: Lillhtinf! All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, as may be amendedfrom time to time. Section 9: Landscapinfl Improvements The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. All landscaping in the public right-ofway shall meet the requirements as set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 21.20, Trees and Landscaping on Public Right-of Way. Any landscaping in the public right-ofway shall be approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall obtain a revocable encroachment license from the City Engineering Department prior to installation of any landscaping or improvements in the public right-of way. 2. The Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of any trees to be saved or at other points associated with the limit of the foundation as approved by the Parks Department. a. The Parks Department must inspect and approve of the fence location before any construction activities commence. b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the fenced drip line. ,. ^""",,,.. ""'" '-' Section 10: Emplovee Housing The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. Affordable Housing Unit B on Lot 2 shall be afor-sale unit designated Category 7. Unit B may be sold either as a single-family lot with accompanying development right, or as a completed residential unit. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability,fees or similar charges related to ownership in the deed restricted affordable housing units. Section 11: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section J],: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Attest: ~ J~-r:~ :7- Jasmine Tygre, Chai ckie Lothian, Assistant City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission this 24th day of January, 2006. Approved as to form: Cia I Yt- ilH11 11'1 "!l 'I' 1I!!!1 mit~ .... Q> Q> C) ~:>> ",CIl ;::.... "r- .", n 0C) ~:<J ~'" 0'" 0,,", :<J o :>> " . ,... :;il'l S Gl ~ en ~.. .. ~ - ,... -c:; ~.. ~. ..' ". c: ?l!! (!D~ z. ; , I I( I (i j 1\; Ii I m' ( II I / '/ v. II \. ''/ \ 1"1' 1'1' li, A, ! litl! · / i'h' / /)\ \ \\il i ?/ fj/~/'" \ I IIi!' II . / ! 10 I' "\1\' /1 I // I"~;: \ \ \\\\ \ , If-- / ,1 Ii'! / / \ ! <? '\\;: /##,)'-~?('#"" , II /j' /;;i '. / /' ../3 ~,\,~~j,,/.J.::"~. . 1\\\\.\'. / / Ii: Y' ......-";".. "1,1' , :0 /",/ \'1:';:,--/, \W\~\\\. 1;;;;1[: ~/ · -%;P ///~1!/ !! JW \ \ @;' / /' '," // ; ~// "\ ,;If" " v-- '" / - . --=-=/"" /?// L/ / /- ./ ~ --==--==--'~" i ;1. C/.# ,/-::~::>::;;:/~' - :~~~#i2, ~ t OlE ! ~ "I: :=~ ~ ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ . ;:; ~ ; p~ ~I.i;'~~i ; "'..... ;:t is ~ !{Pll,<<;I!!ft~rc ~ ~ i! j m ~ ~ = . . i ~ ;:; ~ ~ ~ (' '-' ...... ...." f I l IH!!I l Ii I f : I . < ! . (H ill id q . , i I f f i i i f tj ~t~~ f" [ }~~ ." <"" t~ ! bi j.... ~~- ~RR II Hh In m i~j ,.l zll f~l J:l .~f .H H i i ~ji ~ii II Ii III I -I If f Ii I " . ," I ( ~ -~ Hi i Zf - . ~ h I 1 'T1 - z~ )>ex> rex> :-tJo c)> . (f) !=J--i Qoh; ro 0;:0 --im (f)m -o^ r;:o --io -0)> ~o z h~ ~ ' ;~~ .~~ ~ ' r'''-'' 1[, C , MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner Joyce Allga~puty Director, C~mmunity Development THROUGH: RE: PUD Amendment: 488 Castle Creek Rd. Public Hearing, Resolution No. Q1., Series of 2006 DATE: January 17.2006 SUMMARY: Haas Land Planning, representing Steel Partners Ltd., owner of 488 Castle Creek Rd., is requesting approval of a PUD Amendment [26.445.100(8)] from the Planning and Zoning Commission. No formal PUD reviews or approvals have ever been completed for this 3;4-acre property, but since it was zoned R-15A/PUD when it was annexed into the City in 1980, the property's existing conditions (one single-family home) are considered to represent a Final PUD Plan that must be amended to accommodate the proposed development [26.445.100(C)].This proposal is subject to final development plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.030(C) Steps 3 and 4. This requires the P&Z to adopt a resolution recommending City Council approve, approve with conditions or disapprove this PUD Amendment. Applicant is also seeking a Lot Split approval from City Council [26.480.030(A)2(b)), an Administrative Growth Management Review [26.470.040(8)(1)] and an administrative review for Condominiumization [26.480.090] . Approval of this PUD Amendment would allow a Lot Split and an Administrative Growth Management Review. If the Lot Split, Growth Management and Condominiumization requests are approved according to the Land Use Code, the applicant would be entitled to two detached single-family, free market units (3,335 s.f. and 3,515 s.t'.) and one detached single-family, deed-restricted (RO) unit (1,500 s.f.). Staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the deed-restricted unit be designated as Category 7. RECOMMENDA nON: Staff has reyiewed this proposal and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission find that the project complies with PUD. Amendment Standards of Reyiew 26.445.050 (A-J). Staff belieyes that applicant's request for a PUD Amendment, Lot Split and GMQS reyiew is consistent with the purpose and intent of preyious land-use decisions regarding this property, the PUD Amendment Standards of Review and -- taken together with conditions recommended by staff -- represents a significant community benefit. f""'''", """,,, HISTORY: In 1980, this property was annexed and zoned R-15A1Pl.JD. A single-family home of about 2,000 square feet existed on the site prior to the annexation and rezoning, and there have been no improvements since that time. During deliberations in 1980, the City-Council recognized that R-15A zoning without a PUD oyerlay made it possible for two free market units to be approved without any required employee housing. The PUD overlay was added in order to limit the potential of development and make it possible for an employee housing unit to be required as part of a future development proposal (please see Exhibit B; Minutes; Ordinance # II Series of 1980). In 1999, then-owner Paul Anderson applied for a Rezoning in order to remove the PUD oyerlay, which would have allowed for a subsequent lot split and the development of two. single-family homes, each with an ADU. The Community Development Department recommended denial of the Rezoning application. citing the 1980 annexation and zoning deliberations: "The PUD overlay was placed on the property... to ensure the existence of an employee unit on-site..." according to the staff summary. The staff summary acknowledged that two ADU s might be developed subsequent to a lot split, but added that. "Staff believes any changes to the zoning of this parcel should be associated with a higher degree of community benefit ..." The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the application. The applicant appealed to City Council. but the appeal was withdrawn prior to 1st Reading. - Staff belieyes that if the Planning and Zoning Commission adopts a condition of approval of the PUD Amendment to require a Category 7 Employee Housing Unit rather than an RO Unit as prescribed by subsequent Administrative Growth Management Review, the application with conditions would be consistent with the PUD Amendment Standards of Review, as well as the purpose and intent of previous land-use decisions regarding this property. ApPLICANT: Steel Partners Ltd., represented by Haas Land Planning. LOCATION: 488 Castle Creek Road; a metes and bounds parcel (.824 acres). ZONING: R-15A/PUD REVIEW PROCEDURE: A PUD Amendment IS required to meet the Standards of Reyiew tt1 Section 26.445.050 (A-J). ."'...., KEY ISSUES: Slope reduction proYISlons of the Land Use Code in combination with the PUD oyer lay of this property reduce the etfective lot size and allowable density for this property. While the actual size of the property is 35,895 square feet. these Code requirements reduce the etfectiye Lot Area to 22.945 square feet. The use-by-right would allow for a single-family home of approximately 5,000 square feet. including an ADU as small as 300 square feet or a cash-in-lieu payment. This request for a PUD Amendment proposes a decrease in the minimum lot area for Lot I. a decrease in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit tor Lot I and Lot 2 and a decrease in the front yard setback tor Lot I. Approval of this PUD Amendment would allow tor two single-family homes (3.335 square feet. and 3,515 square feet). one ADU or cash-in-lieu and one deed-restricted home (1,500 square feet). In other words. this PUD Amendment would allow for a net increase of 1,815 square feet of free market space compared to the use-by-right option. but would also proyide 1.500 square feet of deed-restricted housing (at Category 7. according to the proposed staff condition). This trade-off is in keeping with the purpose and intent of preyious land use decisions regarding this property. and is in compliance with the PUD Amendment Standards of Reyiew. Staff belieyes the ability to mitigate the steep slopes, the community benetit of a Category 7 single-family home. the appropriate scale of three smaller homes rather than one large home in this neighborhood. close proximity to both transit and pedestrian trails, the remoyal of overhead utilities and the removal of a septic tank in the Castle Creek neighborhood all combine to meet the PUD Amendment Standards of Reyiew in Section 26.445.050 (A-J). In addition to standard conditions tor a Final PUD. additional conditions recommended by statf include the designation of Unit B on Lot 2 as a Category 7 unit; and the submittal of professional engineered reports to the Community Deyelopment Department Engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed deyelopment. Regarding enyironmental conditiops. a proposed condition of approyal is the deyelopment of a handling and disposal plan for the abandoned septic system: and permit requirements for transporting any contaminated soil away from the property (while the 12 feet of fill on-site is likely to originate trom the construction of Castle Creek Road, it is unclear if other types of waste were disposed of at the site). . Review criteria and Staff Findings haye been included as Exhibit "A." RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No..o.1, Series of2006, approving a PUD Amendment tor property located at 488 Castle Creek Rd., with conditions. finding that the review criteria for the application have been met." A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - PUD Amendment, Standards of Review _. - Exhibit B: Minutes; Ordinance #11 Series of 1980 Exhibit C: Staff Memo + P&Z minutes: Rezoning request, 1999 Exhibit D: Application ;,~"'''''' . ....... MEMORANDUM TO: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner - Community Development FROM: Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager - Housing DATE: January 18,2006 RE: 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD DEVELOPMENT ParcellD No. 2735-123-00-024 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting lot split and PUD amendment approvals for redevelopment of the property located at 488 Castle Creek Road. BACKGROUND: The proposed Lot 1 contains 11,255 square feet; after slope reduction, it contains 6,370 square feet. Code allows development of a detached single-family residence approximately 3,335 square feet of allowable FAR. If an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is developed, the area will be included within the FAR limit; otherwise, a payment-in-lieu fee will be made to the Housing Office. Lot 2 contains 24,640; after slope and common access reduction, it contains 16,575 square feet. Code allows development of a duplex approximately 5,015 square feet. The applicant is proposing to detach the duplex where the two units still share the allowable duplex FAR. Unit A is to be a free market residence approximately 3,315 square feet, and Unit B is to contain a Resident Occupied deed-restricted unit approximately 1,500 square feet of FAR, but 2,000 square feet of net livable area. By detaching the unit, it creates a deed-restriction single-family residence with a private yard. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approyal with the following conditions: 1. The deed-restricted unit on Lot 2 be approved as a Category 7 single-family home and sold through the Housing Office. 2. A deed-restriction shall be placed on the unit on Lot 2 prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 3. The proposed unit on Lot I shall be deed-restricted PRIOR to building permit approval; if the ADU is not constructed, the housing impact fee will also be due prior to building permit approyal. The City Land Use Code or Guidelines do not specifically state how the fee should be calculated in place of a unit; therefore, since a small studio unit is usually provided as an ADU, Table V, Occupancy Standards by Unit, in the Guidelines applies 1.25 employees with a studio unit. The Guidelines also state that any other payment-in-lieu fee that is required and the category is not specified, an average of Category 2 and 3 will be used to calculate the amount owed. Under the current Guidelines, the fee that would be due is $205.089 X 1.25 = $256,361.25. I"" .....,. .-., -..; AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~~"n~~ ~. ~~'f ~ , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ,200k STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, (name, please print) being or representing an pplicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following marmer: L Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. I Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten (1 O)--"ays prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the ~ay of ~I.l~i , 200lL, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. L Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the deyelopment application, and, at least tifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) ,~ -, --". 1 Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on s!lch amend The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice:' was acknowledged before me this l1--day of, ./}(ltu../t17 ,200-0 by {YLLV t!kc./I .I/:J.& s .' ,,'?,~~..e.i!.e( 0../ ......~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL </ .., , ANNG. 'j J KEENEY /0 ..P".\ /~ \.'1 ,.;.~~,....... (;) q: '-..~ OF CO\; ATTACHMENTS: 'OF THE PUBLICATION . OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) rvD GOVEKlVMENTAL AGENC1ES NOl'ICb'D BYMAIL o "'~ ....,# PUBLIC NOTICE RE: STEEL PARTNERS, LTD 488 CASTLE CREEK RD, PUD AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 17, 2006, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to review a proposal for a PUD amendment for 488 Castle Creek Rd. The subject property is a metes and bounds lot in the City of Aspen, Parcel ill #2735-123-00-024. The Community Development Department has a survey of the exact lot location for public review. For further information, contact Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429-2755, (or by email at beng(aJ,ci.aspen.co.us). All written correspondence related to the application should be sent to the above e-mail or physical address. Applicant: Steel Partners Ltd. c/o Haas Land Planning, LLC, 201 N. Mill St. Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 s/Jasmine TVl!re Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 1,2006 City of Aspen Account -., - CASTLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES LTD C/O HILL MANAGEMENT COMPANY POBOX 95 ST ANN, MO 63074 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUNTAIN OAKS EMPLOYEE HOUSING ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL 200 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAl N ST STE 302 ASPEN, CO 81611 WACHS EDWARD H JR PO BOX 405 ASPEN, CO 81612 ""'" -' I'" '- '" ....I PUBLIC NOTICE RE: STEEL PARTNERS, LTD 488 CASTLE CREEK RD, PUD AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 17, 2006, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to review a proposal for a PUD amendment for 488 Castle Creek Rd. The subject property is a metes and bounds lot in the City of Aspen, Parcel ill #2735-123-00-024. The Community Development Department has a survey of the exact lot location for public review. For further information, contact Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429-2755, (or by email at beng@ci.aspen.co.us). All written correspondence related to the application should be sent to the above e-mail or physical address. Applicant: Steel Partners Ltd. c/o Haas Land Planning, LLC, 201 N. Mill St. Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 s/Jasmine TVl!:re Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 1, 2006 City of Aspen Account ,r--"---" " .." '10..;..-' ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE _ REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE 0:2 /' / J / it I} ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: !j. ('U (.cl.,S;t!c'" C;1('{.}!\-~0co SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: ~/ / -:;;/ C--:?) ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. county,:~ ) / 'd j !, ~\ C{ l,;V(~ <:::::. {/) \/t (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that! have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Laod Use Code in the following manner: ,t=- Publication of notice; By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication.is attached hereto. _ Posting of notice; By posting of notice, which form was obtained from tl;);e Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, " waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches widt, and twenty-six (26) inches high, aod which was composed ofletters not less thao one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, to aod including the date and time ofthe public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community - Development Department, which contains the information described in Sl,ction 26.304.060(E){2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) daYSi7prior to the public hearing, notice was haod delivered or mailed by first class post~ge prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names aod addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next'fJage) - ",..., - Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, tile requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ac1mowledged before me this 3rt day of ~A n U~ ' 200k, by <..JAm es. /..-ind1" WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 1IViI'2-0o'l P"'PCNDT", / ~ v. ~i?v0itrvlL HE: STEEL F'ART~RS' LTD 488 CASTLE CREEK I ----1. RD,PUDAMENDM TPUBLlCHE'.ARJNG I Notary Public NOTICE IS EREBY GIVEN that a public ,>S$~~'ti:' hearing will be eld on Tuesday, January 17, , 0' 8R A{.","\~\, 200ti,atameetm tObegmat4:30p.m,belorethe: ,., /O:,t~ I ' ."... ..... 'I. Aspen PlannIng and Zoning Commission, in the h... ...... V Council Chambers, Cily Hall, [3(] S. Galena St.. As- Q:-'f.." -.:.0 \ A t:? ;....~_ , pell, co, to review a proposal for a PUll amend. I ~. ",.. .I- 00 ~ It men! for 488 Castle Creek Rd. The subject prop- J...:. : .,;.-. ~ erly is a metes and bounds lot in theGty of As- :. '-: pen, Parcel ID #2735-123-01>-024. The Community Development Department has a survey 0/ the ex_ act lot location for public review, (j)'" .'~ For further information, contact flen Gagnon at ATTACHMENTS: ,;.... ('C ,0..,...., the Clly 01 Aspen C"rnmumty Development De- -'9 .'. ..-.::1 L .. ,?,-"V partment, 130 S. Gale~a St, Aspen, CO (970) 429- ;-.~ ........0 '0:<-' 2755 (or by emall albeng@<:i.aspen.co.us). All OF CO\'; Wrltl~n correspondl1 e related to the appllca- COpy OF THE PUBLICATION tionshouldhesentt lheabovee-mailorphysi_! '"' "dd,,~. . . ~Commission Expires 09I25/200~ App'''"o'S""p"" '''l.Id.~/"H"".'!.illodPl".o~~D "P'HOF TUEPO'ST'E'D MOTTe'''' /SI " rung, I.LC, 201 N. IJ SI. SUite lOll Aspen, COl1.1\.1'1 .ILL .1, 1"11 .1.11 ~ Il / 81/111 sjJasmilleTygre Aspen Plannlng"alld ZOlliog Commission S AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED PubHshed m the Aspen limes Weekly on January 1.20116. (3322) BY MAIL o :) 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD , - . - A LOT SPLIT & PUV A~ENV~ENT APf'UCAIION , - . - . ... .. .- .-;"1 ... .. .... . ... ". ... .<. - SU'BMli'1'1:'O 'By ... ... . ... HAAS LANV PLANNING, LLC 201 NORm MILL ST'R'EET, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 P'hoYuu (970) 925-7819 f~ (970) 925-7395 Ernat'll ~~ri4t:net" .. - '. - . - . ... . ... . ... . - . ... NOVEMBER, 2005 . .-' . ... ~.~ -- . I"'"" '-' ., AN APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT AND PUD AMENDMENT APPRO V ALS FOR 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD '.oiiii , ... . .. . - , ... . Submitted by: - Steel Partners, Ltd. cj 0 Haas Land Planning, LLC 20 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-7819 - Prepared by: . HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Planning Consultants 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 925-7819 Fax: (970) 925-7395 Email: mhaas@sopris.net - - "... " c , "".I PROJECT CONSULT ANTS ".'1 "" ~''1 ... ... - PLANNER Mitch Haas, AICP Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-7819 ENGINEERING Mark Butler, P.E. Sopris Engineering, LLC 502 Main Street, Suite A3 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 704-0311 '.''1 ... ... ... .. .. ... - SURVEYOR Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. John Howorth, P.L.S. 25947 210 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-3816 SOILS Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-7988 SITE PLANNING Rowland + Broughton 100 East Cooper Avenue, #3 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 544-9006 GEOLOGIC Bruce A. Collins, Ph.D. P.O. Box 23 Silt, CO 81652 (970) 876-5400 ... ATTORNEY J. Bart Johnson Otten Johnson Robinson Neff + Ragonetti, P.e. 420 E. Main Street, Suite 210 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 544-4637 ... .. ... '... - WILDFIRE Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. 0222 Bobcat Lane Redstone, CO 81623 (970) 963-2190 ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. - ... - ., ,,~.. '.'1 ~ ~. ... ;".M - "..... - "'111 - 1. ... - ". II. - - - ,.'011 - III. - .~ - ~ - - .~ - ... - .. .. .. - .. - ... - ... - ... - - - " r - 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD LOT SPLIT & PUD AMENDMENT APPLICATION ---TABLE OF CONTENTS --- PAGE INTRODUCTION...................................................................... ....1 PROJECT SITE & NEIGHBORHOOD (Existing Conditions)...................2 A. Overview................................................................................2 B. History...... ......... ......... ............ ............ ..................... ...............3 C. R-15A/PUD Zoning & Use-By-Right Development Potential.............4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............ ............ ...... ...... ....... ........... ...6 A. Overview...... ......... ......... ............ ............... ...... ..... ........ ...........6 B. Dimensional Requirements................................ ....... ......... .........8 . Table One: Dimensional Requirements Comparison....................8 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS... ........................ ..................... ..... ..... ..13 A. Lot Split..... .......... .............. ......... ................ ...... ...... ............ ....13 B. PUD Amendment.. .......... .......... ........................ ............ ...........16 C. Growth Management...... ...... ........... ...... ....... .......... ........................30 D. Vested Property Rights............... ........ ....................... ........ .......31 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Pre-Application Conference Summary Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms Exhibit 2: Authorization Letter and Proof of Ownership Exhibit 3: Letter from Sopris Engineering, LLC Exhibit 4: Wildfire Hazard Review Letter - Eric Petterson Geologic Report - Dr. Bruce A. Collins, Ph.D. Subsoil Study - Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech Exhibit 5: List of Property Owners within 300 Feet of the Subject Property Exhibit 6: Executed Application Fee Agreement - r- - I. INTRODUCTION "-'" This application requests Lot Split and PUD Amendment approvals for redeyelopment of the property located at 488 Castle Creek Road. No formal PUD reviews or approvals have ever been completed for the subject property but since it is zoned R-15A1PUD, its existing conditions are considered to represent a Final PUD Plan that needs to be amended to accommodate the proposed development. Administrative GMQS approval by the Community Development Director is requested with the Lot Split, pursuant to Section 26.470.040(B)(I) of the Code. The site is below the 8,040 foot elevation (actually at 8,010 feet or lower) and is not within 150 horizontal feet of the 8040 Greenline, rendering Environmentally Sensitive Area review inapplicable. "..~ ... ".. - '"" ... ... - ... ... '... .. This application is submitted pursuant to Sections 26.445. 1 OO(B), 26.470.040(B)(I), 26.480.030(A)(2), 26.710.060, and 26.308.010 of the Aspen Land Use Code (the Code). Exhibit 1 contains the Pre-Application Conference Summary, the Land Use Application Form, and the Dimensional Requirements Form. The application is submitted by Steel Partners, Ltd. (hereinafter "applicant"), who is under contract to purchase the property, but the property remains under the ownership of Paul Egon Andersen (see the letter authorizing the applicant to submit these requests, and the Commitment for Title Insurance for proof of ownership, both in Exhibit 2). A civil engineering analysis done by Sopris Engineering is attached as Exhibit 3. Supporting documents, such as a wildfire hazards analysis, a soils report, and a geologic report are attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Finally, a list of property owners located within three- hundred feet of the property and an executed application fee agreement are attached as Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively. '... ~ ... ".", - '" .. ... - .... .. The application is divided into four sections. This Section I provides a brief introduction, while Section II describes existing conditions of the project site and neighborhood. Section 11 also supplies background regarding the property's annexation and zoning, as well as a relevant analysis of the current zoning. Section III of the application describes the applicant's proposed development in detail. Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project are provided in the various exhibits. - ... - ,"" ....-I ... ... . ... While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, the applicant will provide such additional information as may be required. . ... '"" ... .. .. ""'1 .. .. .. "" .. 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page I ..... - - - J!iIIf"'''- , ... .,J -.......~. II. PROJECT SITE & NEIGHBORHOOD (EXISTING CONDITIONS) A. Overview <,.. The subject property is a metes and bounds lot of 35,895 square feet (0.824 acre) and has a Parcel Identification Number of 2735-123-00-024. It is not in a subdivision. The address of record is 488 Castle Creek Road, which is on the east side of Castle Creek Road (see Vicinity Map, below). The zoning is Moderate-Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R-15A/PUD). The site is accessed directly from Castle Creek Road, just past the entrance to the Aspen Valley Hospital and the crosswalk/bus stop most closely associated with the MaroltlMusic School Housing. ;'111 ... .. .. .. ~ !ro\A.PQV[S'T ".:: .~: 0" ". '3:00m " '1'._, _ :' '9QOft H' "1:' aOilfllS' "0.WIIr "J.. t, 6' -..!l!l<il Sl' /.: : ff ~: ;;~1~J~-'1- .. .. ~r "<.8'_ 'i'. I <= . >;; t3 " -~-.!'r ~i'1< . ..' ..2: 3 ,V't, Afililirst~~' '" ,'-WI1,,^""'~. ; ,\\1' .' ''''''''I-A.'''' I;! , C;1o : --r-,._,' '} /IJ' ,'":'"ii1J !'l"" <l\~"l '-llt-.,.~.i... .", . ~, }'- ';, '? L_ , It . '" d,. .-,. . - . .. J~afoc;Hl9~,~kJ~~(t_ \..~, .. . !i ~ :1' O /,* polfrit"---:.,,l" "'''/''~'~tV: 'tr __ 0:", " o.lic q <0. f #0 o. ~' QQ, iii o \ ;. \ 13 1"- e2005 N1WTE ... - Ij). ."('lo .. ":"'\ 'l .(j ...~ o"~ .' ~~ "". '. .c>..' ",<1" .~__ ';':; C'...._...'<>~ L' . " .~~;k.J>tljL'! !~ ",,%. ,!!t <" o S?, ' " ~~oJePI... - '_'~G ~~" 2005 Me Quest.co-m Inc. Vicinity Map - 488 Castle Creek Road .. .. A current Improvement and Topographic Survey of the property is provided on the adjoining page. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence of approximately 2,000 square feet in area (per County Assessor's records). The existing residence is served by City water and overhead electric but remains on an individual sewage disposal system (ISDS/septic) and maintains use of an above-ground propane tank which resides partially in the public right-of.way. Access to a large gravel driveway and parking area comes from the comer of the site closest to the Marolt Trail crosswalk. .. .. " ... .w ... '" ... .. ... The lot is triangular in shape, with its longest side bound by Castle Creek Road on the west. The Marolt Ranch Subdivision open space forms the northerly boundary and the Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing borders the east side of the property. While the ... .. .. .. 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 2 ... ... ... - 1 I i o j , u z r w > '" => ~ ~s !~ ;~ ~; i .. ;! ~~ :L '0. 0< i~; ~ ~~~ ~t !~~~~~ m .., ".,,' ,'" !~j ~~~~~! i~ u >-0 ,,"0"'0 ~w\li ~~; <~~~;: 3~~ ~ ~ ~~ffi ~~~~~~ i~~ ~ ~ :;~ ~>-~~:; ~~~ o. ~-' %..u <~"'-., ,~'tw - ~~~ ~:~;~: ....;0.,; .,. .'.'0. !;I, ,. . .. ,~ z~_z~~ _~~~I ~ g~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ; <~8 ~S~t~~~~~!; ~ ~ 00 ~ , , ~ ~~~ ... "''''~ o >-~>- i'! ~ u ." H' @~~ 00. , ! ;!:bl~l "'cw1:E~!j!''''''' - :J ~1<~~:l!~:: u ~ <j~~'5i~ ~ ~ ~~:~~~~ u .... ~,,;:J~l;; N ~~~8~~g~~.":" ~ ~"'c~:."~i".;:i!","i ' ~~~'5~~<~~< [,." !O'O;~.~'l ' ~~ .wJ:( i'L' , ~ '" w W w W . Z . : ~ ~ ~ : ~ 0 8 ; ~ ~ " w . ~ ~ ~.,Y'o, U I ~ << '" <0 o ~ o e- , e- Z w :>:: w > o '" ~ :>:: , : ~~~ l!; ~,,: > . o w . i < CO z Z w " W < 0 r ~ w 0 > ~ '" CO ~ ~ Z "' ~ ~ << ~ u, e- O Z '" Z << '" Z w <0 w -' < i ! , ~ . .i:..~,'i . ! . ! i , , ~ o . 19 [- * MAROLT RANCH SUBDIVISION d .. "" 0' ~~ 0 ./ ~ /' /' / / / / / / / ~ UZ ZO -<- cO'" " ~; I~ ....> -,- 00 ",,,, -<=> ,.'" {' <f *- ,,'<; ,/ v'" I' 'v .' ",'v ..- 0' ." v'" * L i 1 ! , . ? , , - , w w . g . ~ . . . :L:i::;::;::;: z w . 0 5::i:si:;i:;: g . - " , . < " :~~~s . . . ~ ~:::: 0 < . , , , . , , ~:~~ ! ~~H!l!; ~~>-....,,:~ ~H:I!.'i:~ r;"" !~O~!; ~:i~..~ f!~!8~1il ~~g:~~ :i~~t~i ."""~ ~!t::;~: uO~-u.- e~~~:~ ~~:~~: :iF"">-':1!- @~~~....~ <~i5~~'< ~~..~rf~~ ;:;::~~5'::': i~':t::it"e~ y ~ ~g ~? .. o z '" " '" ... -:- ':" " <Jz EI , ~ ~ ~o ?l- J.~o 'l!; 3. o-,;~:,.,. ... <<: ~~~ ~ eee.. : ~g~~: ~ i:Z~:Z~ ...J ...:!itM on e~,:;~.;:I , , . ~ . " < " '" .. o ... ~ ~m~ , ~t8~ a r j" ~ ::E ~; [~ <;i ~ a. ,,~ + ~o- ~f~ ~ g ~8t ~ cg. 6~.Il!!!. 0 ~lil8'g =' .j>" 0) 0) ~ VNO~Ui ~9NO"" *~oC/)z ""~,,, II II II 0 w.! N~b tn...... wr--l Co <..n co -.... )l> ~~Rl~ ~ cn(f)CIlC/) > T1T1T1T1 I' / j / .... 8 @ ,. -8 ~ +~# 1I0#-~ t:.t* ll_W 'ulllit~ +,00)00 ~U>OO(J) ."T12!.2! () )>. )> ",Cn lJ-i rnr- <: 111 (') O() ;~ ~111 ~111 0,", ~ o )>. CJ .. vWNolfa~ ~tz:~o!=' *o~<o~c #<0<0 m #* ~ II II II II ~ ~ o w Co....,.....,.", lJ)(ONO O)<D.Ilo.Ol ClHfJC/>cn T1-nTlTl ,.0 N-c, D'" (>,-0 +"i 0-0 <1 en ai;;ot """, <::~o (i)Or- o:t-t " @ ~ ~-o + ~~* o ~I ~ II IV #. u; ~l ~ ..... II ~w-r.n ~6ot~~ ~cncncncn ~".2!2!.3I _.._~ II" ~- s ~ ! , "_I ~1!! ! 00 c ~~~ -"", $;()o faJ:~ ~ ~ " -"00 zO 0" <.... mIT.1 "- (II II: mN "0 ~ti o ~ m x (jj -; z G)~ CJl" -; m "C~ r~. s;: "II (~'1 z ,Ii; 0 ,-, ....." '-' twenty to thirty feet closest to the northerly and easterly boundaries of the properties are somewhat steeply sloped, the vast majority of the property is almost completely flat, having been backfilled over the years to result in its current topography and elevation. Surrounding development is rather dense and/or intensive. For example, the Marolt Seasonal Housing resides immediately to the east and is a high density, high intensity development. Across Castle Creek Road, to the west, one finds the high intensity uses of the Aspen Valley Hospital and the Pitkin County Health and Human Services Building. Just uphill and to the south of these facilities, there are high-density multi-family housing communities, including the City's Waterplace Housing. "'.1 ""I .., B. Historv/Backl!round ,,,,, In 1980, the already development parcel was annexed into the City of Aspen and rezoned to an R-15A/PUD designation. There was a good deal of discussion during the annexation and rezoning proceedings as to whether a PUD overlay should be put on the R-15A zoning. Based on the City Council minutes, there was some concern that R-15A zoning without the overlay would have the effect of eliminating possible employee units on the site and replacing that potential with the ability to have nothing more than two free-market residences (and no affordable housing). ... - - .~ In supporting City Council's concerns, the Planning staff at the time made it clear that R-15A zoning permits a duplex, but only where the second unit is deed restricted as affordable housing. Without the PUD overlay, however, the parcel could be split into two lots for development of two single-family homes, but no affordable housing would result. The PUD overlay, and its associated density reductions attributable to slopes, was thought to bring the effect of allowing nothing more than either one single-family home (as existed at the time) or a duplex where one of the two units is deed restricted. - When compared with the potential for development of just two free market residences after a lot split, it is apparent that the 1980 City Council preferred the parcel remaining as a single-family home site or the potential to realize community benefit by addition of an affordable housing unit. Further, at the 1980 rezoning hearing, the Planning Director told the Council that the planning office would prefer to leave the property in the County (not annex it) if the City would not be getting the benefit of an employee unit. - ~ - It has been more than twenty-five years since the subject property's annexation and rezoning. Since then, the surrounding area has experienced a substantial increase in development intensity and density. Now, after twenty-five plus years have elapsed, the current applicant is offering to give the City Council the affordable housing unit it had hoped for and desired when it agreed to annex the subject property. ~ - .. - "" - .... - .. - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 3 .. - - o o Since 1980, the City of Aspen Land Use Code and, specifically, the PUD regulations have been amended to make both possible: a lot split for development of two free-market residences and the community benefit of a deed restricted unit. The PUD regulations now allow use of the PUD process to vary not only dimensional requirements but also allowable densities. As a result, it is now possible for an applicant to realize the added free-market density necessary to make viable the property's redevelopment with inclusion of a deed restricted affordable housing unit. ...." C. R-15A1PUD Zoninf! & Use-Bv-Rif!ht Develooment Potential ~. ... Cnder the existing R-15A1PUD zoning, the property owner is afforded the option of ayoiding PUD review and developing, as a use-by-right, either a detached single- family H,sidence or a duplex pursuant to the provisions of the underlying R-15A zone district. That is, Section 26.445.020, Applicability, of the Code provides that, ".. .in no event shall adoption of a final [PUD] development plan be required for construction of a single detached or duplex residential dwelling on a separate lot, in conformance with the General Provisions of this Chapter, Section 26.445.040." Nothing in the Section 26.445.020 General Provisions portion of the PUD Chapter compromises the property's ability to be developed outside of the PUD process with a single-family residence or duplex in accordance with the R-15A zoning. ... ... .k_ ... k ... k ... . ... - After FAR reductions for slopes in excess of 20%, the subject property could be redeveloped with a detached single-family residence with up to 5,035 square feet of FAR floor area. The term "FAR floor area" is used to connote that there are many types of floor area exempt from the calculation of FAR (i.e., garage and subgrade spaces). The allowable FAR floor area of 5,035 square feet is reasonably expected to provide for development of a home with a gross area of not less than 8,000 square feet, inclusive of garage and basement. Irrespective of exempt area, a two-story structure with 5,035 square feet of floor area above grade can be developed on the subject property. ... ... lit ... I ~ ... ... As a duplex, the allowable FAR floor area on the subject property is 5,455 square feet. The R-15A zone district requires that development of a duplex include one of the two units as a deed restricted residence. The Codified definition of a "duplex" requires that neither unit have less than 25% of the built floor area. Also, pursuant to Section 24.470.040(B)(I) of the Code, a growth management exemption for redevelopment or expansion of a single-family home resulting in a duplex is automatically granted when one of the two units in the duplex has 1,500 square feet of FAR floor area and is deed restricted as a Resident Occupied (R.O.) unit. Therefore, if anyone were to redevelop the property with a duplex, it would be expected that there would be a free market residence with 3,955 square feet of FAR floor area and an R.O. unit with 1,500 square feet of FAR floor area. .... ... .. - - - ... - lit ... ... . ... - Given the lack of increase in free market floor area, the duplex redevelopment scenario is highly unlikely. That is, the allowable free market FAR floor area for a ... - ... 488 Cade Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 4 ... - r; r' - ." .....; " detached single-family home is actually 1,080 square feet greater than that which can be realized in a duplex redevelopment. In light of the requirements associated with the R- 15A zoning, there is simply no incentive for a developer to pursue development of a duplex at the subject location. In spite of the fact that the subject property is an appropriate location for increased density and construction of affordable housing, as evidenced by development undertaken by the City in the surrounding area, the R-15A zoning actually serves to discourage development of a duplex and, in turn, affordable housing. This runs directly counter to the City's goals in annexing the property and subsequently zoning it R-15A. " ... - " - .- - ~ - .. - .. - .. - 11 .. 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 5 ... - .... .. - c o III.PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ~, A. Overview ... The applicant respectfully requests Lot Split and PUD Amendment approvals for redevelopment of the property located at 488 Castle Creek Road. There have never been any formal PUD reviews or approvals completed for the subject property but since it is zoned R-15A1PUD, its existing conditions are considered to represent a Final PUD Plan that needs to be amended to accommodate the proposed development. Administrative GMQS approval by the Community Development Director is requested with the Lot Split, pursuant to Section 26.470.040(B)(1) ofthe Code. ... .. .. - ... - As demonstrated above (see "History/Background" and "R-15A1PUD Zoning & Use-By-Right Development Potential"), the underlying R-15A zoning of the subject property is counterproductive with respect to its ability to deliver a development that would forward City goals and the City Council's hopes for the property when it agreed to annex the site. That is, in spite of the fact that the subject property is an appropriate location for increased density and construction of affordable housing, as evidenced by development undertaken by the City in the surrounding area, the R-15A zoning actually serves to discourage development of a duplex and, in turn, affordable housing. As it turns out, the City's PUD regulations have been amended since the 1980 annexation, now making it possible to establish dimensional requirements, including allowable density, as part of a site-specific review process. In this application, the PUD provisions are being used as a means of modifying the effect of the R-15A zoning to make viable the inclusion of privately funded and developed affordable housing. ... -, .. - .. ... .. - or - 11II" ... II' ... III' .. While the Code requires Lot Area reductions for steep slopes, these reductions serve only to decrease allowable floor area but not allowable density. However, Lot Area reductions for steep slopes also decrease allowable density only where a property is zoned with a PUD overlay. After Lot Area reductions for steep slopes, the subject property has an effective area of less than 30,000 square feet, seemingly precluding the potential for a lot split. For this reason, the PUD overlay zoning was put on the subject property in an effort to preclude a lot split that would result in development of two free market residences with no associated affordable housing requirements. Further analysis of the zoning proves, howeyer, the underlying R-15A designation actually serves to discourage development of an affordable second unit. In an ironic turn of events, it is the PUD overlay (due to more recently adopted amendments to the PUD regulations) that now allows fhe property to be split, thereby providing the potential for development of two free market residences and, in turn, the economic yiability and incentive for inclusion of a deed restricted affordable housing unit. r= I: III' ... r= r= III' .. III' ... III' ... ... ... The PUD regulations were amended to allow variation of allowable density. The PUD will be used, in the current case, to allow a decrease in minimum lot area with a corresponding increase in allowable density. This will enable application of the Lot Split ,... ... ... - .. _. 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 6 .. - ... .. '" .., ~t8 a a l,i ~ ~ ~...t C) Q) <~i ~ a .. + ~C' !~ ~ g n", g!:f ~ .'. - $~<g- g -l>o. 00 00 () :>> :b. en C/) " -l rn <: r- 111 () 0 () r- ::0 0 ::0 111 :>> 111 <:J 0 " ::0 0 :b. t:l c- ,. T 0 ;0 -0 " '/; ~:1 ,. ;0 '/; " , - m.._ WlxtN '" ~m~ ~ O~~ ~ "un U> U> ~~~ ~ en c- O " m U> v w 0 ~ , , " , 'I, / / // / /// / / // ' // / / / ;/ / / / / I / / i c- O " ,. ;0 m ,. ,. ;0 '/; U>lr -0 hj" N "'<) '" ,,>^''' ,J? ~'IJ .}: ",0 G , " \ 'I I- I' Ie 'I~ I " ! \ ! ~! "'1 " ~ " '" ...... ...... ..... I f\J en -..t .......Ol~ UlU,I.rlX(o(J)o, ~I~~~~f~~ -n~" "I~" N .. '" .. o "' ~ '- " " \ \ \ "' c: " ~~):. -,,:0 SaG ~::J.:!:{ o " ~ o m U> "' '/; "' m " m z ~ en c- o " m U> N '? w o ~ en c- O " m U> v w o ~ / ,,~~.;t Y"~~ .: ..:t+o ....0 ~~s: ffi~!!! ~~" ro-:t>1ll ./ { , ~ I // fS///.... / / - - '- // .......... '. .... /' ,',' ,,' .----..--- i I , \ I, \~ \'f; \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ili!l ,- ",~<t. , .\., ~ l:I\ -.;', - J'f">- ///';/ I' . _____n-- ---------- \ ~ "" \ ~ '" <n c: ~~fi -,,:0 SoG <n_'- 0......-1 " w Q r '" U> 0 Z 0 -I o~rn riifT:1"tJ " r m Ii --1_-" ;0 ~ "'tJ q ~Cic: o Ol P N Q 'll (f~) > I ,_1. Zo /,,- .... ,..--. ....... "'-,-<..... provisions of the Code. The result is a Lot Split providing two parcels for development of three total residences. The net effect is three residential dwelling units where only two are currently permitted. - - Proposed Lot 1 has is 11,255 square feet in size. Its effective Lot Area (after slope reductions) is 6,370 square feet. This Lot Area accommodates development of a detached single-family residence with approximately 3,335 square feet of allowable FAR floor area. If an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is developed, its area will be included within the FAR limit established in the Final PUD Plan; otherwise, a payment in lieu of the ADD requirement will be made to the Housing Office. . - . - Proposed Lot 2 is approximately 24,640 square feet in size and will accommodate development of two detached single-family residences. The effective Lot Area (after reductions for slopes and the proposed common access easement) is 16,575 square feet. With this Lot Area, the maximum allowable FAR floor area for development of a duplex is approximately 5,015 square feet. The proposal involves detaching the "duplex" in a manner where the two units will share the allowable duplex FAR floor area. Lot 2 will subsequently be condominiumized into Units A and B to allow division of interest in the land and separate sale of the two homes. Unit A will be a free market residence with approximately 3,515 square feet of allowable FAR floor area, and Unit B will be a Resident Occupied (R.O.) deed restricted unit with 1,500 square feet of FAR floor area and approximately 2,000 square feet of net livable area. Both residences on Lot 2 will have private yards. Approval of this application and the proposed plat will ensure promotion of several community goals and realization of several community benefits. Instead of developing the property with one large single-family structure of some 5,035 square feet (plus garage) above grade (and as much as 3,000 to 4,000 additional square feet below grade), the proposal will result in a deyelopment that breaks up its ayailable floor area into three separate structures, much of which will read as only one story from Castle Creek Road. The two residences build along the Castle Creek Road frontage will also serve to substantially screen the Lot I home from view. - The project makes a substantial contribution to the City of Aspen affordable housing inventory. Rather than one 5,455 square foot duplex structure with a free market residence and a 1,500 square foot R.O. unit, these units will be developed as two detached structures with a combined FAR floor area of approximately 5,015 square feet. Including spaces exempt from the calculation of FAR floor area, the R.O. unit will contain approximately 2,000 square feet of net livable area. By detaching the "duplex" units and decreasing their combined FAR floor area (without any decrease in the size of the RO unit), bulk and massing are reduced while the affordable housing inventory receives an unsubsidized, detached single-family home. ".... .. '" ... ... ... ... ... ... - ... ... ... - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 7 ... - ... - ... o o t" In addition to the foregoing community benefits, the project will serve to replace overhead utility poles/lines, a septic system, and an above-ground propane tank with underground connections to public electric, sewer and natural gas. While these may seem like fairly minor community benefits, it is worth considering the visual impacts of the existing oyerhead utility lines and poles. Also, the existing above-ground propane tank sits partially in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way, and the septic system is located in relatively close proximity to Castle Creek. ,.. ... ... ... ~ ... The project's proposed shared access easement provides for improved safety and efficiency while being consistent with transportation-related community goals. Residents of the proposed development will benefit from location across the street from a RFTA bus stop ,md adjacent to the Marolt Trail, providing more or less direct access to Aspen via the bridge to N. Seventh Street. Therefore, by virtue oflocation, the subject property is an appropriate site for increased density and development of affordable housing inasmuch as it benefits from virtually unsurpassed opportunity for alternative means of transportation. ... ~ ... ~ ... .' III .... . The existing driveway to the site enters at the property's northwest corner, in the closest possible location to the hospital, the Marolt Trail crosswalk and the RFTA bus stop. If a use-by-right duplex were developed on the subject property, the existing driveway access could be maintained while a second point of access could be added. The proposal, by contrast, involves a single point of access serving all three residences that will be developed. By locating the shared driveway as proposed, once on the property, it can easily split into three directions to serve each of the homes. Further, location near the middle of the Castle Creek Road frontage provides for increased safety over the existing condition; while located on the outside of the curve in the first place, sight distance up Castle Creek Road will be improved. Also, the access point will move further from the Marolt Trail crosswalk and the hospital bus stop, minimizing potential for conflict with pedestrians while increasing safety oyer the existing condition. . .. ... .. ... ... .," ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... .. The proposal's one unit of added density will be largely screened from public view by the "detached duplex" development along the roadway frontage. Given all the other considerations described above, the one unit of added free market residential density is a fair trade-off and the only realistic way of getting affordable housing deyeloped on the subject site. In a neighborhood where substantial densities of affordable housing have been developed all around and at substantial public cost, the proposal will provide a deed restricted, detached single-family residence. ... ~ ... ... ... .- ... ... B. Dimensional Requirements ... For purposes of comparison, the dimensional requirements associated with the underlying R-15A zone district, the existing conditions, and the proposed dimensional requirements for the PUD amendment are depicted in Table One, on the following page. Square footages are rounded to the nearest ten square feet. ... ... ... ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 8 '"" '"" ,?'.... '.", TABLE ONE: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON ... ". 1. Minimum Lot Size: . In the R-15A Zone: 15,000 square feet. . Existing Condition: 35,895 square feet. . Proposed for PUD Amendment: 11,000 square feetl. ... ...., ... -. .-. . . - 3. - . . - 2. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: . In the R-15A Zone: 15,000 square feet for detached residential dwellings; 7,500 square feet per unit in a duplex. . Existing Condition: 23,756 square feet (after Lot Area reduction for slopes). . Proposed for PUD Amendment: 6,300 square feet (after Lot Area reductionsl. Minimum Lot Width: . In the R-15A Zone: 75 feet. . Existing Condition: greater than 300 feet. . Proposed for PUD Amendment: Lot I: 75 feet (measured along west property line setback); and, Lot 2: 75 feet (measured along west property line setback). 4. Minimum Front Yard: . In the R-15A Zone: 25 feet. . Existing Condition: approximately 9 feet for the shed, 7 feet for the garage, 27 feet for the house, and 0 feet for the propane tank. . Proposed for PUD Amendment: Lot I: 10 feet along the west property line; and, Lot 2: 25 feet for buildings, and 0 feet for grading/retaining associated with the driveway (both along west/Castle Creek Road property line). . - 5. Minimum Side Yard: . In the R-15A Zone: 5 feet. . Existing Condition: greater than 50 feet. . Proposed for PUD Amendment: Lot I: 5 feet along north and south property lines; and, Lot 2: 5 feet along the north property line, and 55 feet along the south property line. .. - .~ - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 9 ... - - ... o ~ 6. Minimum Rear Yard: . In theR-15A Zone: 10feet. . Existing Condition: greater than 50 feet. . Proposed for PUD Amendment: Lot 1: 10 feet along the east property line; and, Lot 2: 10 feet along east property line and property lines adjoining Lot I. -, .. ... - 7. Maximum Height: . In the R-15A Zone: 25 feet. . Existing Condition: Not measured. . Proposed for PUD Amendment: 25 feet. ... _. .. ... ... ... 8. Minimum Distance Between Principal & Accessory Buildings: . In the R-15A Zone: 10 feet. . Existing Condition: 4 feet (residence to garage). . Proposed for PUD Amendment: 10 feet. ... ... ... ... ... ... 9. Minimum Percent Open Space Required for the Site: . In the R-15A Zone: No requirement. . Existing Condition: Not measured. . Proposed for PUD Amendment: No requirement. ... - ... ... ... 10. Allowable External Floor Area Ratio (FAR): . In the R-15A Zone: 5,025 square feet for single-family; 5,445 square feet for a duplex or two detached residential dwellings on one lot. . Existing Condition: not measured, but approximately 2,630 gross square feet of enclosed area (three structures). . Proposed for PUD Amendmene: Lot 1: 3,344 square feet; and, Lot 2: 5,015 square feet, where the free market residence is permitted up to 3,515 square feet and the R.O. unit must be at least 1,500 square feet. .. ... .. ... .., ... ~ II" ... II" ... 11. Minimum Off-Street Parking Spaces: . In the R-15A Zone: Lesser of one space/bedroom or two spaces/unit. . Existing Condition: greater than 6 spaces. . Proposed for PUD Amendment: Lesser of one space/bedroom or two spaces/unit. r: .. ... r: Notes: .. ... ... ... 1: While Lot 2 will be more than twice the proposed 11,000 square foot minimum lot size, it will not be possible to further subdivide it. That is, by virtue of ... ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 10 ... ... ... ... r: " 2: .... '"" - ..., - . - " - . , -- - dividing the subject property pursuant to the Lot Split Subdivision Exemption provisions, further subdivision of the land will be precluded. However, this will in no way prohibit condominiumization of resulting Lot 2 as contemplated herein. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: the proposed 6,300 square foot requirement takes into account all applicable Lot Area reductions required by the Code. Proposed Lot 1 has a lot size of 11,255 square feet, of which 4,885 square feet are on slopes of greater than 30%, resulting in an effective Lot Area of 6,370 square feet. Proposed Lot 2 has a lot size of 24,640 square feet, of which: 852 square feet are on slopes of between 20% and 30%; 6,670 square feet are on slopes of greater than 30%; and 969 square feet are in the proposed shared access easement; resulting in an effective Lot Area of approximately 16,575 square feet. By setting the minimum lot area per dwelling unit as 6,300 square feet, Lot 1 can be development with no more than one dwelling unit, and Lot 2 can be developed with no more than two dwellings. 3: The allowable external floor area ratios proposed herein are consistent with the R- 15A dimensional requirements for the Lot Areas described in Note 2, above. In light of the fact that the applicant is working with a triangular-shaped property, the diminutive degree of proposed PUD variation from the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-15A zone district is commendable. The proposed PUD Amendment represents no change to the R-15A zone district's minimum side yard setbacks, minimum rear yard setbacks, minimum setback from Castle Creek Road (except for grading or retaining necessary for driveway construction), minimum distance between principal and accessory structures, maximum height, minimum off-street parking standard, or maximum allowable external floor area ratios (FAR). Therefore, the only PUD variations sought from the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-15A zoning are for minimum lot size (Lot 1 only), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and front yard setback for Lot 1. The subject property has a lot size of 35,895 square feet. Therefore, it would be easy to conceive of a lot split plan that would provide two properties with lot sizes in excess of 15,000 square feet each. However, if the size of Lot 1 were increased to 15,000 square feet, a proportional amount of land area would have to be removed from Lot 2. While this would be consistent with the R-15A zone district's minimum lot size, it would compromise the overall quality of the proposal inasmuch as the ability to provide a deed restricted, detached single-family home would be diminished if not lost; the deed restricted unit would have to become part of a duplex, effectively lowering the quality of the unit and eliminating the ability to break up the mass and bulk into two smaller structures. With the proposed plan, the result is a "detached duplex" (the two buildings combined use the same total FAR floor area as would one duplex) where the free market residence and the deed restricted residence are independent and have their own yard spaces. Another positive consequence of the proposal is Lot 1 has less allowable FAR ~ .." - .. - .." - .. - '"", ... ... .. ... - Page II ~ .. 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment ... .. - f"""\ 0".,... o floor area than it would if its size were increased to meet the 15,000 square foot lot size standard. After applying the density reduction calculations for slopes, the property has an effective area of approximately 24,070 square feet, or approximately 5,930 square feet less than 30,000. Section 26.445.040(B) of the Code provides that the reductions in density for steep slopes are applied "In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access." The applicant had the subject property analyzed by a wildfire expert, a professional geologist, and HP Geotech (soils); these reports are supplied herewith in Exhibit 4. A clear result of these studies was a determination that increasing the otherwise allowable density on the property by one additional residential unit (from two units in a duplex to three units) will have no affect on wildfire, mudslide or avalanche hazards, soil stability, or fire protection access. Therefore, imposition of the "reduction in density for steep slopes" formula will in no way whatsoever advance the codified intention of the standard. Cases such as this would seem to be a substantial part of the reason the PUD review standards allow for increases in the otherwise allowable density. 'I"'" ... - ... .... ... ... ... ... !' ... ... Furthermore, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement of the R-15A zone district must be the subject of PUD variation if development of any affordable housing is to be realistically expected. As demonstrated earlier (see pages 4-5, discussion of zoning and use-by-right development potential), the allowable free market FAR floor area for a detached single-family home on the subject property is 1,080 square feet greater than that which can be realized in a duplex redevelopment. In light of the R-15A requirement that any duplex must include a 1,500 square foot deed restricted residence as one of its two units, there is simply no incentive for a developer to pursue development of a duplex at the subject location. In spite of the fact that the subject property is an appropriate location for increased density and construction of affordable housing, as evidenced by development undertaken by the City in the surrounding area, the R-15A zoning actually serves to discourage development of a duplex and, in turn, affordable housing. This runs directly counter to the City's goals in annexing the property and zoning it R-15A. The proposed PUD variation of the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement will solve this problem, thereby providing community benefit and advancing City goals. - ... ... ~. ... .... .... ... lIP ... ~ ... - .... ... ... ... ...' ... The proposed front yard setback for Lot 1 is ten feet; R-15A zoning requires twenty- five foot front yard setbacks. The remaining proposed setbacks are consistent with the existing setback requirements for the property. For example, the existing access comes off the west property line, making that the front yard. Being opposite the west property line, the east property line represents the rear yard. The north and south property lines are left as the side yards. These designations stipulate the following, under R-15A zoning: a twenty-five foot setback from the west lot line (adjoining the Castle Creek Road frontage), which is identical to that proposed in the PUD Amendment; a five foot setback from the north property line, which is identical to that proposed in the PUD Amendment; ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..-, ...- - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 12 ... .... ... .... (" - .. ,j a ten foot setback from the east property line, which is identical to that proposed in the PUD Amendment; and, a five foot setback from the south property line, which is greatly exceeded in the proposed PUD Amendment. '. The R-15A zone district requires only five foot side yard setbacks, resulting in a development pattern where buildings on side-by-side lots are only ten feet apart. By contrast, the five to ten foot minimum setbacks along each side of the proposed common lot line (ten feet in all places, except five feet along proposed Lot I 's south property line) results in a minimum separation of fifteen to twenty feet between buildings on the two lots. '~ "~ - - ., - ,~ - - - """ - ~'" - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 13 ... ... ... ... ... -""'" "-" o IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS , The proposed development requires PUD Amendment and Lot Split approvals. No formal PUD reviews or approvals have ever been completed for the subject property but since it is zoned R-15NPUD, its existing conditions are considered to represent a Final PUD Plan that needs to be amended to accommodate the proposed development; for instance, Section 26.445.100(C) of the Code explains that, in the absence of an approved final development plan for a site designated PUD on the Official Zone District Map, an accurate improvement survey of existing conditions may be substituted to permit evaluation of whether the proposal is an insubstantial or other amendment. In the current case, the Community Development Department has correctly determined the subject proposal to be an "other" amendment. Administrative GMQS approval by the Community Development Director is requested with the Lot Split, pursuant to Section 26.470.040(B)(I) of the Code. .... ... .. II"'.., .. .. ... .. ... .. ... ... Pursuant to Section 26.445.100(B) of the Code, a request for amendment of a PUD requires a one-step review process before the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) at a public hearing. The applicable standards for review of the proposed PUD amendment are those of Section 26.445.050, and the decision of the P&Z is considered the final action unless appealed. The Lot Split review, pursuant to Section 26.480.040(B), is also a one-step review process, but before the City Council. The applicable standards for review of the Lot Split request are those of Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Code. ... .. ~ ... ... ... ..' ... ... This section of the application is organized by applicable review standards, with each set of standards (i.e., Lot Split, PUD Amendment, and Growth Management reviews) provided as a sub-section hereto. Under each sub-section, every individual review criterion is presented in indented and italicized print and followed by a response demonstrating compliance with and/or satisfaction of the given standard. .. ... I' ... ... ... .. A. Lot Split I' I' bl its current condition, underlying zoning allows development of two dwellings expressed as a duplex on the subject property, and the proposed lot split will enable development of an additional single-family dwelling. The Code provides that the split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one additional detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to Noyember 14, 1977, is exempt from full subdivision review provided all of the following conditions are met. lIP .. ... ... lIP .. a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24,1969; and ... .. III' .. III' ... ... ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 14 .. ... ... ... ... ... /"""", , ....... .I The subject property was annexed into the City of Aspen in 1980 as a metes and bounds parcel. It is not located in a subdivision. " I;.... b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.JOO.050(A}(2}(c) [this citation is incorrect and should instead refer to Section 26.470.040(B)(1)]. ~ II IIU ., The proposal involves the creation of two lots where only one currently exists. The resulting lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the adopted Final PUD development plan for the site. Development on the resulting lots will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.040(B)(1); a note to this effect will be placed in the Subdivision Exemption Agreement (S.E.A.) and on the Plat. ." - ;..... To meet the requirements of Section 26.470.040(B)(I), resulting Lot 1 will include an accessory dwelling unit meeting the standards of Section 26.520 or the applicable affordable housing impact fee (cash-in-lieu) will be paid. Development of a "detached duplex" on Lot 2 will satisfY the Section 26.470.040(B)(I) affordable housing mitigation requirements by virtue of providing one free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted Resident-Occupied dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of 1,500 square feet. Also, please refer to sub-section "e. Growth Management," below. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C}(I}(a) [this citation is no longer correct and should actually refer to Section 26.470.040(A)(4)]. The subdivision exemptions provided for in Chapter 26.480 of the Code are: Lot Line Adjustments; Lot Splits; Approved Subdivisions; and, Historic Landmark Lot Splits. The subject property has never been the subject of a subdivision exemption under the proyisions of this (26.480) chapter or a lot split exemption. - d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. ~ ... A Plat will be reviewed by the Community Development and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The Plat will include notes explaining that further subdivision is prohibited unless applicable approvals are obtained, and that any and all additional development must comply with the applicable provisions of the Code. It will also contain a note describing . ... ... - ... - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 15 ... ... ... '.. - o 0 and refelTing to the approval documents (i.e., ordinances, resolutions, and S.E.A.) pursuant to which the Plat was prepared. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be requiredfor a showing of good cause. ~"" _. - ... The language of this criterion is understood and the applicant will comply. ... ~ f In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. .. .., The subject property contains an existing residence. The existing residence will be demolished prior to development of either resulting lot; however, the existing residence will remain through the lot split application review process and final platting pursuant to the rights afforded under this standard. I' IE ... ... ... ... g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. .... ... .... .. The proposed lot split will create two lots subject to the limitations of an adopted Final PUD development plan. The PUD Development plan and associated dimensional requirements will not permit development of more than three dwelling units in the manner proposed herein. Proposed Lot I will be developed with a detached single-family home. Proposed Lot 2 will be developed with two detached single-family homes (sharing the allowable floor area for a duplex), one of which will be a deed restricted to resident occupancy in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. It should be noted with regard to Lot I, however, that while development of an ADD or Carriage House (or payment of cash-in-lieu) is required, such units are not considered units of density under the Code. Therefore, the maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by the lot split will not and cannot exceed three units. II' ... ~ .... ... ... ... ~ ~ .. ... In June of 1998, the Community Development Director made a formal code interpretation finding that the word "may," as used in this standard, is permissive and means the same thing as "can" or "might." This interpretation was made in association with the 920 West Hallam Street approvals, where it was determined that development of two detached residences (sharing the allowable floor area for a duplex) on one lot is allowed under the permissive language of this standard. Thus, the proposal complies with the technical requirements of this standard even though Lot 2 will be developed with two detached single-family structures. .. ... .. - ... ... .... ... ... ... - .. ... 488 Castl,e Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page] 6 ... ... ... ...." , ..,/ '-' B. PUD Amendment "., The existing conditions of the subject property represent a Final PUD Plan, and the proposed development constitutes a request for a significant amendment to the existing conditions. A significant amendment of a PUD is subject to the review standards outlined in Section 26.445.050 of the Code. Each applicable review standard is provided and addressed below. lil.~ 'N '''I ". ... .. A. General Requirements. I. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. "" ~. -." Please refer to Section III., Proposed Development, of this application for a description and explanation of community goals supported by the proposed development. The following provides a summary of the analyses provided earlier, in Section m. . Design Quality: Instead of developing the property with one large single-family structure of some 5,035 square feet (plus garage) above grade (and as much as 3,000 to 4,000 additional square feet below grade), the proposal will result in a development that breaks up the available floor area into three separate structures, most of which will read from Castle Creek Road as a single story home. The two residences build along the Castle Creek Road frontage will also serve to substantially screen the Lot 1 home from view. . Housing: The project makes a substantial contribution to the City of Aspen affordable housing inventory. In its effort to require affordable housing, the underlying R-15A zoning actually serves to discourage development of affordable housing. The proposed development, on the other hand, makes creative use of the PUD Overlay to make viable the development of an unsubsidized, deed restricted single- family residence. . Character, Environment, Design Quality: In addition to the foregoing community benefits, the project will serve to replace oyerhead utility polesllines, a septic system, and an above-ground propane tank with underground connections to public electric, sewer and natural gas. While these may seem like minor community benefits, elimination of the visual impacts associated with the existing oyerhead utility lines and poles is certainly worthy of consideration. Also, the above-ground propane tank sits partially in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way, and the septic system is located in relatively close proximity to Castle Creek. - . Transportation: The project provides for improved safety and efficient access while being consistent with transportation-related community goals. Residents of the proposed development will benefit from location across the street from a RFT A bus stop and adjacent to the Marolt Trail, providing more or less direct .. .. .. .. .. - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 17 .. - .. ... ... ~ ."""'-' o access to downtown Aspen via the bridge to N. Seventh Street. Therefore, by virtue of location, the subject property is an appropriate site for increased density and development of affordable housing inasmuch as it benefits from virtually unsurpassed opportunity for alternative means of transportation. ,.. ,.. . Growth, Transportation, Design Quality: The existing driveway to the site enters at the property's northwest comer, in the closest possible location to the hospital, the Marolt Trail crosswalk and the RFT A bus stop. If a use-by-right duplex were developed on the subject property, the existing driveway access could be maintained while a second point of access could be added. The proposal, by contrast, involves a single point of access serving all three residences that will be developed. By locating the shared driveway as proposed, safety is improved over the existing condition; while located on the outside of the curve in the first place, sight distance up Castle Creek Road will be improved. Also, the access point will move further from the Marolt Trail crosswalk and the hospital bus stop, further alleyiating any potential for conflict with pedestrians while increasing safety over the existing condition. ,.. ... .. ... .... .... .. r: ~ ~ The proposal's one unit of added density will be largely screened from public view by the "detached duplex" development along the roadway frontage. Given all the other considerations described above, the one unit of added free market residential density is a fair trade-off and the only realistic way of getting affordable housing developed on the subject site. In a neighborhood where substantial densities of affordable housing have been developed all around and at substantial public cost, the proposal will provide the only deed restricted, detached single-family residence. - ... .. ... .. ... .. ... I' 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. - - Please refer to Section II, Project Site & Neighborhood (Existing Conditions); and, Section III., Proposed Deyelopment. Development in the surrounding area is predominantly characterized by institutional uses and high-density residential development, most of which is permanent affordable housing. I' ~ I' 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. ... ... .. ... The proposed development will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area in any way. The neighboring properties are essentially built out. If anything, positive affects on the potential for future re/deveJopment of the surrounding area might occur since any necessary utility upgrades that would be completed by the applicam would serve to aid in and better facilitate the re/deYelopment of the surrounding neighborhood. .. ... .. - .. ~. .. .....' ... ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 18 .. .... ... ~ ,.."" ';'/ .0 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. ,0 As a Lot Split, the proposed development meets the requirements for administrative growth management approval. This is more specifically addressed in the next sub-section of this application (see "e. Growth Management," below). ~'. .. . - . - B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD ... The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. Please refer to Section Ill., Proposed Development, and specifically Table One, for an explanation of the proposed dimensional requirements and the rationale behind them. Section III of this application also includes a description of the proposed dimensional requirements' consistency with those of the underlying R-15A zone district as well as compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. - . - The proposed site plan's compatibility with existing and expected (via zoning designation) land uses in the surrounding area has been demonstrated throughout this application as well as in response to specific, similar review standards. In addition, the proposed development's compatibility with existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and surrounding area with regard to traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources have also all been addressed throughout the preceding portions of this application. There has been a residence on the site since the late 1950s and it is completely surrounded by urbanized properties. ... ... ... ... ,"" ... ... ... .. - .. - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 19 .. - ,.. - 1"'"'. ,-,,~~' o With respect to natural or man-made hazards affecting the project site or the surrounding area, several studies have been completed and are attached as Exhibits 3 and 4. As concluded in the Geologic Report prepared by Dr. Bruce Collins, field examination and review of published information indicate that the property at 488 Castle Creek Road is not subject to snow avalanche; debris avalanche; debris or mudflow; rockfall; swelling or hydrocompactive soils or bedrock; alluvial fan; landslide; talus slope; near-surface bedrock; high ground water; or Mancos shale geologic hazards. ~. - - In fact, the site is not subject to any natural hazards at all. To the extent that any hazards do affect the property, such hazard is man-made and associated only with the steep slopes that were created by the placement of fill material on the property. As the HP Geotech subsoil study (in Exhibit 4) points out, "The subsoils consist of about I21f:: feet of Jill overlying medium dense to dense, silty sand and gravel with scattered cobbles." Next, HP Geotech explains that, "The natural sand and gravel soils encountered below the fill possess moderate bearing capacity with a relatively low settlement risk and should be suitable for support of spread footings... The fill should be completely removed below buildings." In a related vein, Dr. Collins points out that, "Glacial gravels and alluvium derived from them constitute the most common type of in- place valley floor surficial material from west of Woody Creek to the base of Independence Pass east of Aspen, and as a result excavation and construction techniques utilizing these deposits are well known." ... ... - ... - lIP ... lIP .. ... - - .. ... .. The conclusion to be derived from these two independent studies provides that all existing fill material on the site should be removed prior to construction of footings and foundations for any home developed on the site, and that excavation and construction techniques to be used on the types of soils existing below the fill are well-established and rather typical in the upper Roaring Fork Valley. Consequently, Dr. Collins pointedly concludes that, ... .. ... .. . lIP ..' The steep slope hazard is largely the result of fill material and can be mitigated through engineering analysis and proper design and construction techniques... geologic hazards in and of themselves do not so a/feet the subject property in a manner that would imply an inability to safely accommodate added residential density. Buildable space can be safely maximized by grading, stabilizing slopes through the construction of engineered retaining structures, or both. _. - lIP .. .. .. lIP .. .. ... The setbacks proposed with the PUD Amendment were chosen based on careful consideration of the above-cited conclusions reached in the soils and geologic studies of the property. By establishing the minimum setbacks along the north and east property lines at five and ten feet, respectively, it will be possible for the buildings' lowest leyels facing north to daylight right near the 7,990 foot elevation with their finished floor being at or near 7,988 feet, while their second floors' elevation will be very close to the existing ground level of 8,000 feet. Since the top twelve or so feet of ground on the site is fill .. _. ... .. .. ~ ... ... . ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 20 . ... ... - .."..~~ r '" ....... -~_. -# ",I.. material that ought to be removed for construction (then properly backfilled), these setbacks enable development in accord with the recommendations of the site-specific soils and geologic analyses. Along the east property line, the ten foot setback works well with the same finished floor elevations. I~,~ Therefore, not only are the proposed setbacks in keeping with the recommendations of the soils and geologic studies, but they will also serve to greatly limit perceived building heights from the Marolt Trail and Castle Creek Road. Since substantial portions of these buildings will be built below existing grade, and well below the elevation of Castle Creek Road, they will appear from most vantage points to be single-story residences. This also works well with access and parking. The driveway off Castle Creek Road will start as a bench of fill material to allow exiting cars to be at eye- level with the road. The driveway will then dip down to the height of finished grade near the center of the property, which will roughly align with the floor height on the second level of the homes (sitting at approximately existing grade). I~' . ,II", .~" ... ',," ... Finally, as explained in Section III of this application, the proposed setbacks from the perimeter boundaries of the fathering parcel are identical to those in place today as part of the R-15A zoning. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Satisfaction of and compliance with this standard has been demonstrated in the foregoing; more specifically, please refer to Section III of this application and to the response provided for the previous standard. The R-15A zone district does not have "minimum open space" or "maximum site coverage" requirements. - 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. - ~ - . - The proposed dimensional requirements maintain the off-street parking requirements of the underlying R-15A zone district. At least two spaces per residence will be provided. - '" ... .. ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 2] .. - ... - ... o o 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if' a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. H'.l' ,.., ... ... Please refer to the study prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC, and attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The project site benefits from sufficient infrastructure capabilities to serve the proposed development and, therefore, no density reductions are necessary. As explained in the foregoing, the existing home on the site is served with electric, telephone, cable and City water. The septic system will be removed, and connection to Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) service will be made. The aboye-ground propane tank will be removed and underground connection with Kinder Morgan natural gas service will be made. ... . ... -, ... Ii*; .. ... .. ... The project site is less than five minutes from the Aspen Fire Protection District station. All roads between the fire station and the project site are public, paved, and in good repair (State Highway 82/Main Street, and Castle Creek Road). Fire sprinklers and alarms will be installed to the extent required. The roadways are publicly owned, thereby assuring adequate fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance. ~ ... ... ... - .' ... 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. .. ... e ... ... ... ... !: .... .. .. ... .. ... Please refer to the response provided for standard B.I., above. Please note that no natural hazards or critical natural site features affect the project site or its deyelopment. It has been fully demonstrated that the land is suitable to accommodate the proposed deyelopment. The underlying zoning allows deyelopment of two residential dwelling units (duplex) as a use-by-right. The proposed development represents an increase of only one (1) unit of density. ... ... ... ... ... ~. ... .. ... ...." ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 22 . ... .. .. ... '-' '. ., As required by City of Aspen Engineering Design Standards, the project will maintain the site's historic runoff/drainage rates after development. Thus, the proposed development will not be detrimental to the natural watershed and will not result in water pollution. Required compliance with City of Aspen Environmental Health Department regulations and permitting standards will ensure that the development will not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. Further, as explained earlier in this application, the development's location encourages use of alternative means of transportation such as buses, bicycles and walking. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. '. - The proposal represents an increase in allowable density by only one (1) dwelling unit: two dwellings units can be developed by right in a duplex and three dwelling units are proposed in this PUD Amendment. As demonstrated in response to the two previous criteria, the site is physically capable of supporting the additional dwelling unit. The HP Geotech, Dr. Collins, and Sopris Engineering studies demonstrate that the site's physical capability to accommodate the one unit of additional density. Adherence to the recommendations of the studies provided in Exhibits 3 and 4 will ensure that any physical constraints of the property will be fully avoided and/or mitigated. Finally, it has been demonstrated throughout this application that the proposed development will be compatible with and complimentary to the existing and expected surrounding development patterns, land uses, and characteristics. '" - After applying the PUD density reduction calculations for slopes, the property has an effective area of approximately 24,070 square feet, or approximately 5,930 square feet less than 30,000. Section 26.445.040(B) of the Code provides that the reductions in density for steep slopes are done "In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access." The applicant had the subject property analyzed by a wildfire expert, a professional geologist, and HP Geotech (soils) (see above, and Exhibit 4). A clear result of these studies was a determination that increasing the otherwise allowable density on the property by one ~ .. ". - .. - ... - .. - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 23 ... - "" - 1"'.. .",-", o additional residential unit (from two units in a duplex to three units) will have no affect on wildfire, mudslide or avalanche hazards, soil stability, or fire protection access. Therefore, imposition of the "reduction in density for steep slopes" standards will in no way whatsoever advance the codified intent of the regulation. Cases such as this seem to be a substantial part of the reason the PUD review standards allow for increases in the otherwise allowable density. Furthermore, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement of the R-15A zone district must be the subject of PUD variation if deyelopment of any affordable housing is to be realistically expected. As demonstrated earlier (see pages 4-5, discussion of zoning and use-by-right development potential), the allowable free market FAR floor area for a detached single-family home on the subject property is 1,080 square feet greater than that which can be realized in a duplex redevelopment. In light of the R-15A requirement that any duplex must include a 1,500 square foot deed restricted residence as one of its two units, there is simply no incentive for a developer to pursue development of a duplex at the subject location. In spite of the fact that the subject property is an appropriate location for increased density and construction of affordable housing, as evidenced by development undertaken by the City in the surrounding area, the R-15A zoning actually serves to discourage development of a duplex and, in turn, affordable housing. This runs directly counter to the City's goals in annexing the property and zoning it R-15A. The proposed PUD density increase will solve this problem, provide community benefit, and advance City goals. '1'.~ 'tIll" II: . ;111. ... I.,.. ... ";oj., ... ., ... - .... h In conclusion, the foregoing narratives have demonstrated that there are several significant community goals and benefits to be realized with approval of the proposed PUD Amendment. The proposal's one unit of added density will be largely screened from public yiew by the "detached duplex" development along the roadway frontage. Given all the other considerations described herein, the one unit of added free market residential density is a fair trade-off and the only realistic way of getting affordable housing developed on the subject site. In a neighborhood where substantial densities of affordable housing have been developed all around and at substantial public cost, the proposal will provide the only deed restricted, detached single-family residence. ... ... I - - ... - ... - ... - C. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: i. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. ... - ... - -. - ... The site does not presently contain any unique natural features that provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past. The site, in its existing state, does not significantly contribute to the identity of the town. For discussions of how the proposal's ... ... ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 24 ... ... ""~ '> -. .... site design compliments existing natural and man-made features, and improves safety, please refer to the previous responses and Section ill, above. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. I;.~ There are no significant open spaces and vistas on the subject property. Nevertheless, the proposed PUD provides for clustering of structures, as evidenced by the ability to serve all three with a single shared driveway. By establishing the setbacks as proposed, they are in keeping with the recommendations of the soils and geologic studies. Furthermore, the setbacks will also serve to greatly limit perceived building heights from the Marolt Trail and Castle Creek Road. Since substantial portions of these buildings will be built below existing grade, and well below the eleyation of Castle Creek Road, they will appear from most vantage points to be single-story residences. This also works well with access and parking. The driveway off Castle Creek Road will start as a bench of fill material to allow exiting cars to be at eye-level with the road. The driveway will then dip down to the height of finished grade near the center of the property, which will roughly align with the floor height on the second leyel of the homes (sitting at approximately existing grade). Finally, the PUD Amendment establishes a twenty-five foot maximum building height, the same as the limit ofthe R-15A zone district. ; ,~~ ., - 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Please refer to the responses provided for the two previous standards as well as the narratives provided in the "Proposed Development" section of this application. Compliance with applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards will be required and will guarantee consistency with this standard. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. The site is bound by Castle Creek Road, and a single, shared entry point into the property will adequately provide for emergency and service vehicle access. >. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. - ~ - Castle Creek Road is not really designed for pedestrian movement, but the Marolt Trail is easily accessible to/from the subject property. The Marolt Trail provides access to the RFT A bus stop near the hospital, as well as over the bridge to North Seventh Street and the East Hopkins Avenue pedestrianlbicycle corridor into downtown. Handicapped accessibility will be addressed to the extent required in design and construction of the indiyidual homes. ,"'" - .. - ... - .... - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 25 ... - ... - - o o 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Again, the project will maintain the site's historic runoff/drainage rates after deyelopment, as required. No drainage related impacts will be felt on surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. 'I'If-' The proposal does not involve any non-residential land uses. ... D. Landscape Plan: The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. ... .. ... ... lit ... "" - - - A landscape plan has not been prepared to date as indiyidual home designs haye not yet been undertaken. That said, there is no significant existing yegetation on the parts of the property that lie outside of setback-restricted areas. The most significant vegetation resides in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way and in the very northeast comer of the property. The applicant will accept of a condition of approval requiring submittal of individual landscape plans for review and approval of the Community Development Director with each residential building permit. Any removed trees will be mitigated by either planting an equal amount of caliper inches on-site, paying the required cash-In-lieu fee, or a combination of these measures, as directed by the City Forester. .- ..' "" ... . .. ~ .. ... .. ... 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. .. ... ... ... "" .. Please refer to the responses proyided for the previous standards. . ... 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. ..' .. With respect to any trees that are to be preserved, the applicant will employ the tree preservation methods recommended by the City Parks Department. At a minimum, this wi]] include placement of tree protection fencing around the drip line of any and all trees to be preserved and prohibiting construction activity or storage of materials within the drip line of such trees. .. .. - _. "" .. "" ... .. 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 26 - ... ... f- -~ . "", #' .~ E. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: I. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Compliance with applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards will be required and will guarantee consistency with this standard. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. Architectural and mechanical plans have not yet been prepared for the project. The applicant will make an effort to incorporate natural heating and cooling systems when the preparation of such plans is undertaken. By using existing topography in accordance with the recommendations of the soils and geologic analyses, significant portions of the resulting residences will be located below grade. This will ensure natural cooling. The site plan also ensures adequate solar accesslheating for each building site. - 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. - The twenty-five foot setback area along the 390 or so feet of Castle Creek Road frontage will provide an area of approximately 9,700 square feet that can accommodate snow storage. Roof overhangs on individual structures will provide snow shielding for the various entrances. Water/drainage storage will be accommodated on-site, likely through the installation of dry wells. . - - - - - "'" .. F. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: "" - .. - .. - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 27 ... - ~ - ... o o 1 All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. The development will comply with Section 26.575. I 50, Outdoor Lighting, of the Land Use Code, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(F), Residential Lighting Standards. Compliance with said sections will provide consistency with this PUD review standard. Any lighting that gets installed will not cause direct glare on or hazardous interference of adjoining streets or lands. .' 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. ... ... _. ... ... Please refer to the narrative provided in response to the previous standard. ~ .... G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: ~(the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. a. .... - .. - .. ... III' ... ... ... .. - .. - ... ... .. - No designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD, rendering these standards inapplicable. .. ... ... - H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: I. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. ... - ... - ... .. ....', Please refer to the study prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC, and attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The project site benefits from sufficient infrastructure capabilities to .... ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 28 ... ... ~, ,",,'-" ( ....../ " " serve the proposed development. As explained in the foregoing, the existing home on the site is served with electric, telephone, cable and City water. The septic system will be removed and connection to Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) service will be made. The above-ground propane tank will be removed and underground connection with Kinder Morgan natural gas service will be made. The cost of all necessary utility upgrades and extensions will be borne by the applicant. Historic drainage rates will be maintained after development. , The roads serving the project site are already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The site is located on a public road, making it easily accessible for emergency medical services and fire protection. The development will not result in demands exceeding the capacity of any public facilities or services. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. . .- While no adverse impacts on public infrastructure are anticipated, the applicant will bear the costs of any necessary connections, upgrades, and line extensions. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. It is not believed that any over-sizing of utilities will be necessary. If the proposal is subject to the terms of another developer's reimbursement agreement, the applicant will pay the fees required. . - 1. Access and Circulation: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. ~ - The proposal provides for improved safety and efficient access while being consistent with transportation-related community goals. Residents of the proposed development will benefit from location across the street from a RFT A bus stop and adjacent to the Marolt Trail, providing more or less direct access to Aspen via the bridge to N. Seventh Street and the West Hopkins Avenue bicycle and pedestrian corridor. - - ... - - ... ... The existing driveway to the site enters at the property's northwest corner, in the closest possible location to the hospital, the Marolt Trail crosswalk and the RFTA bus stop. The proposal involves a single point of access serving all three residences that will .. .,. .. ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 29 .. .. - ,- c o be developed. The shared access easement will be twenty feet in width, which is more than adequate to serve a driveway function and allow for pedestrian or bicycle movement between the lots and Castle Creek Road. By locating the shared driveway as proposed, once on the property, it can easily split into three directions to serve each of the homes. Further, location near the middle of the Castle Creek Road frontage provides for increased safety over the existing condition; while located on the outside of the curve in the first place, sight distance up Castle Creek Road will be improved. Also, the access point will move further from the Marolt Trail crosswalk and the hospital bus stop, further alleviating any potential for conflict with pedestrians and increasing safety over the existing condition. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Discussions relative to vehicular access, parking, and traffic have been provided throughout the foregoing portions of this application, and said discussions have adequately demonstrated that the proposed development will not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the property. The subject property can be developed as a use- by-right with two residences; the proposal will allow only one additional residence, for a total of three. The surrounding roads can safely accommodate the additional residence without any improvements. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. The adjacent Marolt Ranch Subdivision maintains Castle Creek frontage and easements for existing trails. The subject property benefits from but is not directly impacted by or connected to any historic pedestrian, bicycle or recreational trails. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. The subject property is not affected by the recommendations of the AACP or any adopted specific area plans with regard to recreational trails and pedestrianlhicycle paths. There is no opportunity to implement any such goals in this proposal. 5 Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 30 ... .. .. "'1~ I.;; .'" .." ... .. ... NU ... -, ... ... ... ... .. ... .. .... ... ... lIP .... .. - III' - III' ... .. ... .. ... .... ... ... ... - .. .... .. ... ... ... .$ '" ,...,- r-" ...... ....... There are no streets within the PUD, only a shared access easement for driveway/access purposes. The easement will allow emergency access to all three residences. 6 Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. There will be no security gates or guard posts for the PUD or any lots within the PUD. Addresses will be clearly marked in accordance with building and fire code requirements. To the extent any entryway expressions are desired by owners/residents of the PUD, they will be minimized. 1. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. There is not a phasing plan proposed. It is assumed that the deed restricted residence on Lot 2 will have to be developed simultaneously with or prior to development of the free market residence on the Lot. C. Growth Manaf!ement - - As a pre- I 977 lot and pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Code, the existing property maintains one GMQS exempt development right, which may be expressed as either a detached single-family residence or duplex dwelling units; this development right is maintained through the lot split process. Further, Section 26.470.040(B)(I) of the Code provides that, "the new development of a single-family or multiple detached residential units or a duplex dwelling... on a lot created by a lot split, pursuant to Section 26.480.060(C), shall be approved [for Administrative Growth Management allotment] if all the following standards are met." These two provisions of the Code provide each resulting lot with one development right. - - ... - - -. - .. . -". - 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 3 1 ... - ... .. c o The "Note" at the end of the Section 26.4 70.040(B)(I) explains that, "In zone districts permitting the development of a single-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences, one development allotment may be expressed as a single-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. The parcel shall have only one development right regardless of the way in which it has been developed. The parcel may be condominiumized to separate ownership. In order to subdivide the parcel, additional development right(s) must be obtained." A lot split is not considered "subdividing" the parcel in the sense used here; instead, a lot split falls under the heading of a "subdivision exemption" and the provisions of Section 26.470.040(B)(I) as quoted in the preceding paragraph. 1'1'; I'~'. ... ,,", Accordingly, the administrative growth management allotment necessary to enable development of a detached single-family residence on Lot 1 will require development of an ADU or Carriage House, or payment of cash-in-lieu of such development. .. -.,. ... ... '" ... The development right on Lot will be expressed as a "detached duplex" (two detached single-family residences using the allowable floor area for a duplex). In the R- I 5A zone district, a duplex is allowed only when one of the two units is deed restricted as affordable housing. Further, Section 26.470.040(B)(I) of the Code stipulates that, in order to qualify for a duplex approval, the applicant shall have six (6) options, including provision of one free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted Resident-Occupied (RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of 1,500 square feet. The applicant has proposed satisfaction of the administrative growth management review criteria by making one of the two "detached duplex" units an RO unit with at least 1,500 square feet of floor area. ... - ... ~ ... - ... ~. III' .. ~ D. Vested ProfJertv Rif!hts ... - ... lrl order to preserve the land use approvals which may be obtained as a result of this application and adoption of the Site Specific Development Plan (SSDP) represented by the PUD Plan, the Lot Split Plat and the Subdivision Exemption Agreement, the applicant hereby requests vested property rights status pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.308 ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. - ... ... .. - .. - ... - ... - - - ... ... ~ ... ... 488 Castle Creek Road Lot Split & PUD Amendment Page 32 ... ... ~ I ,u "'I .. '''''I ... Exhibit 1: ... ... ... . ... ... ... - Exhibit 2: .. - ... - ... - Exhibit 3: - - - Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: - Exhibit 6: - ~ - ~ - .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .... ... .. - .~'.... ", '- EXHIBITS Pre-Application Conference Summary; Land Use Application Form; and, Dimensional Requirements Form Letter of Authorization for both Steel Partners, Ltd., and Haas Land Planning, LLC; and, Proof of Ownership Civil Engineering Analysis, Sopris Engineering Wildfire Hazard Review by RMES, Inc.; Geologic Report by Bruce A Collins, Ph.D.; and, Subsoil Study by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech List of Property Owners within 300 Feet of the Subject Property Executed Application Fee Agreement Land Use Code Section(s) 26,445.100(B) PUD Amendment 26.470.040(8)(1) GMQS Review for a Lot Split 26.480.030(A)(2) Subdivision Exemption- Lot Split 26.710.060 R-15A Zone District To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total deposit for review of the application. 2. Proof of ownership (for both properties) 3. Completed Land Use Application. 4. Signed fee agreement 5. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 6. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attomey licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 7. An 8 l/2" by II" vicinity map (to be contained on the draft plat locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. . . ... PLANNER: PROJECT: REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER: TYPE OF APPLICATION: -. ... ... ... .. - DESCRIPTION: .. ... ... - .. - .. - ... - "'Of - ... - . - ~ - '" - - Review by: - .. - Public Hearing: Referral Agencies: Planning Fees: Referral Agency Fees: Total Deposit: '. . .. . "" .. ... - ,,,. - .. - ... - ... - .. - .... - ~ EXHIBIT 1 I ~ - CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY James Lindt, 429-2763 DATE: 8/29/05 488 Castle Creek Rd Lot Split Mitch Haas Anderson Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, GMQS Review for a Lot Split, PUD Amendment, Possible 8040 Greenline Review The applicant would like to split the property of about 35,000 square feet located at 488 Castle Creek Road into two separate properties. One of the proposed parcels would be used for the construction of a single-family residence and the other of the proposed parcels would be used for the construction of two detached residential dwelling units. The applicant would require approval of a PUD amendment to split the property because the subject lot contains a PUD overlay even though no site specific PUD exists. The applicant would also need to establish the minimum lot size for detached dwelling units as less restrictive than the underlying zone district currently permits in order to construct 2 detached residential dwelling units on one of the lots to be created through the lot split. Staff would suggest that the applicatiou address why a lot split would be acceptahle on the property now as part of the PUD amendment discnssion, because the pun overlay was specifically placed on the property to require a heightened level of review in the case of any request to split/divide the property according to City Council minutes and the staff memo responding to the rezoning application that was submitted and withdrawn in the late 1990s (which sought to remove the PUD Overlay). Staff for Completeness, DRC for technical information, Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to City Council on PUD Amendment, City Council for Final Determination on Lot Split and PUD Amendment, Community Development Director for Final Determination on GMQS Review. Yes, at P & Z, and at City Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance. Engineering Planning Deposit ($2640) Engineering, Minor ($190) $2,830 (deposit covers l2 hours of Staff time, additional hours are billed at a rate of$220/hour) 8. .. 9. "'I 1~1l "1l1 .. 10. " ... 11. ~ . .. .. .. - ...-. ""\ ,- -- 12. A site improvement survey showing existing conditions performed by a professional surveyor licensed within the State of Colorado. Draft Plat of the proposed lot split certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. Contact the Community Development Engineer if more specific information is needed. 920-5104. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 30 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. HPC = 12; PZ = 10; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = l/ea.; Planning Staff = 2. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. '. - Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The swnmary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The sunnnary does not create a legal or vested right. ... ,...", - - - ~ ... , ... ~"" - ... . ... . ... .. "1 . .. .. .. AI .. . ".... - ,""' ,-' LAND USE APPLICATION " ,;j~ ApPLICANT: 1'1.1 '" Location: .J '" ,"" Name: ropriate) "II Puree/ID # (RE ".. ., REPRESENTATIVE: ... Address: tl ., ... Name: "1 ... Phone #: .. ... PROJECT: -. Address: Phone#: 10 92::::r 161 TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ... Name: - - ,~ - 0 Conditional Use ~ Conceptual PUD 0 Conceptual Historic Devt. 0 Special Review Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) 0 Final Historic Development 0 Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA 0 Minor Historic Devt. ~ GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) 0 Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision 0 Historic Designation 0 ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes 0 Small Lodge Conversion! Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ~ Lot Split 0 Temporary Use 0 Other: 0 Lot Line Adiustment 0 Text/MaD Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri tion of existin ONE:: 51NG\..€-FAfllILY +\oivle: ... .. PROPOSAL: (descri tion of roposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) =rnree <?IN(QlE-FAfIlIL'/ t\oM€5 6,," Two LOlS: It. Lo-f i A mx-M~ ttoMiS.' f\Uv Lurw " uf''' ~ tJrf ISve::D Re:~lClev.'!S 1(,0, Ive you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ::2ECQ - gz Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger than 8.5" x II" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part ofthe application. ,., - ... .. ... - .. - ... .. "'" - .. .. .. - ".... "- o - ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM . ... AP~~~~:~~: ~~~~(t:~~OJ~~~~~~~:~ Locati?n: r ~~';b('.IlI%'j:. rDA-D Zone Dlstnct: -IS Lot Size: ::;5, eA~ Lot Area: ~~, ql~sF (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) "'!II ... ., ,,", "'" ... ... ... .. ... .. .. Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Existing: rJ I A Proposed: Existing:~Proposed: Existing: ,3 Proposed: N/A -3 16\) .... - ... - Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ,.1 /A DIMENSIONS:PU::,{Ct R~ 1O"TA~~6 DtJE" !~ ittt Aff'UCAlTc;J Floor Area: Existing. Allowable Proposed. "'11III - .""", . ,., .. - Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable Proposed. Access. bldg. height: Existing. Allowable Proposed. On-Site parking: Existing. Required. Proposed % Site coverage: Existing. Required. Proposed % Open Space: Existing. Required. Proposed Front Setback: Existing. Required. Proposed Rear Setback: Existing. Required. Proposed Combined FIR: Existing. Required. Proposed Side Setback: Existing. Required. Proposed Side Setback: EXisting:+eqUired. Proposed Combined Sides: Existing: Required ,J Proposed \ / , - , - .. - - - Existing non-conformities or encroachments: fRot1T Il'f?o S€1BA:ChS ... - ... . Variations requested: VIA rUD, ,"7lX' i\WLIC,I;1/W TBXT ... - ... .. ... . .. .. .. .... "'" '-' , '..,1 EXHIBIT I~ October 27, 2005 Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 Re: 488 Castle Creek Road PUD Amendment and Lot Split Application I iW '1>'\ .~.. To whom it may concern: ""'I ... I hereby authorize Steel Partners, Ltd., and Haas Land Planning, LLC, to submit and process an application for PUD amendment, Lot Spit, and any incidental or associated approvals they desire with respect to my property located at 488 Castle Creek Road. Steel Partners, Ltd. is under contract to purchase the property and Haas Land Planning, LLC is their authorized representative. .. ... ON - ... - ""'" - ... - Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose address, telephone and fax numbers, and email address are provided in the application. Sincerely, ~~~~~~~ ~ ~--- -- ... - .... ... """'t - "" .. .. '... .... - ON .. ~~ - ,...... \".., :> COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A .."... 1. Effective Date: August 1, 2005 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT19962F - 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: "'!I~ ... (a) AL T A Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 2,825,000.00 Premium$ 2,587.00 Rate: Re-Issue ... ... Proposed Insured: STEEL PARTNERS, L TO. (b) AL T A Loan Policy-Form 1992 ~ ... ~ - Proposed Insured: Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Rate: Proposed Insured: Amount$ Premium$ Rate: (c) AL TA Loan Policy-Form 1992 - Tax Certificate: $10.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: PAUL EGON ANDERSEN - 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" - ,~ - PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, ASPEN, CO, 81611 97()'925-1766 Phone/970-925-<.527 Fax 877-217-3158 Toll Free E-MAIL pcti@sopris.net Schedule A-PG.1 This Commitment is invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. .... - . ... .~ . .., . .. - "'" . .... - c :) .M EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION "'Ii ,", "" A tract of land located in Sections 12 and 13 of Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin .. County, Colorado, described as follows: .., .. Beginning at a point, a number 5 re-bar on the Easterly side of the county road right of way whence the common comer of .. Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 bears S 87006' W 1016.20 feet; .. thence N 81056' E 257.42 feet; '. thence S 06042' E 308.07 feet; - thence West 11.48 feet to the Easterly side of the county road right of way; .. thence along a fence line N 31021' W 73.89 feet; .. thence along the fence line N 44055' W 133.57 feet; thence along the fence line N 52030' W 184.31 feet to the point of beginning. - . - ... - ... ... ,'.... ... , ... .. - .. #"',.., ~ "'" '"'" SCHEDULE B - SECIlON 1 REQUIREMENTS ,,'~ The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit: '. ". ... 1. Release by the Public Trustee of the, Deed of Trust from : PAUL EGON ANDERSEN to the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN for the use of : NORWEST MORTGAGE, INC. original amount : $400,000.00 dated : February 12, 1999 recorded : February 12, 1999 reception no. : 427707 re-recorded : February 29, 1999 reception no. : 429257 Duly acknowledged Assignment of the Deed of Trust recorded June 25, 1999 as Reception No. 432670 assigning the Deed of Trust to First Union National Bank. . - 2. Release by the Public Trustee of the, Deed of Trust from : PAUL EGON ANDERSEN to the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN for the use of : WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC. original amount : $322,000.00 dated : February 21, 2003 recorded : February 28, 2003 reception no. : 479378 3. Release by the Public Trustee of the, Deed of Trust from : PAUL EGON ANDERSEN to the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN for the use of : WELLS FARGO BANK, NA original amount : $100,000,00 dated : September 30, 2004 recorded : November 4, 2004 reception no. : 503863 4. Duly executed and acknowledged Deed, From : PAUL EGON ANDERSEN To : STEEL PARTNERS, L TO, .~ (Continued) ,..,", ... ... ... '''\'III . ... ... ... ... 1'''' ....... ~ ,..; SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS - Continued ~, ., " , 5. II..... Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990) has been paid or exempted. 1;.'1 '" 6. Certificate of nonforeign status executed by the transferor(s). (This instrument is not required to be recorded) Completion of Form DR 1079 regarding the withholding of Colorado Tax on the sale by certain persons, corporations and firms selling Real Property in the State of Colorado. (This instrument is not required to be recorded) : 7. .,..... - .: 8. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Declaration of Sale, Notice to County Assessor as required by H.B. 1288 has been complied with. (This instrument is not required to be recorded, but must be delivered to and retained by the Assessors Office in the County in which the property is situated) ~ - - - ,.", .. ... - ,,"' - '.'''1 .. .. - .. - "'""I - 1. 2. 3. '~, - 4. . 5. - ~ - 6. 7. '" ... ,~ - . .... . .,;;01 ... ... ~ .... " ... '. ... 1"" '- "" -' SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCErnONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded December 3, 1892 in Book 55 at Page 35. 8. Reservations and easements as set forth in Deed recorded June 7, 1940 in Book 166 at Page 148. 9. The subject property was annexed to the City of Aspen by Ordinance No. 11, Series of 80 by Aspen City Council recorded May 23,1980 in Book 389 at Page 301 and as shown on Plat recorded in Plat Book 9 at Page 70. ., -. ~. ... ~. ... .. ... "l ... ~'l ... ... .... , - ~ .... ..", . ... .. .. .. ... ... ... .... 11/08/2005 SOPRIS ENGINEERING ',." , ~ 16:30 970-704-0313 EXHIBIT 3 ,'" \ I I Novem Mitch Haa. Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill St., Suite 108 Aspen Colorado 81611 Re: 488 Castle Creek Road- Site investigation SE# 25212,01 Our investigation is based the assumption that lhe exi.ting structure at 488 Cas!le Creek Road lot (referred to herein as ".ite") will be demolished and that lot split will be compJeled to allow for development of three detached single-family residences on lhe site. Water: The Aspen Water Department maps indicate that there i. a 12" main in Castle Creek Road that ends northeast of the sileo There is also a 20" main extending from the northeast corner of the site, downhill and north of the site, to a main below the Marolt Housing complex, The water main is located within the City of Aspen open space parcel somewhere near the Marolt Trail. The existing water service to the site feeds off of the 20" main. None of the documents indicate anything about an casement for the existing service. Our best indication is that the existing service is %'0 copper. We recommend that the water service be increased to a 4" service to providc for fire protection. Sewer: The site is currently on an individual septic system. The proposed residences would be required 10 tie into the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District system, A sewer main runs down Castle Creek Road for the fulllenglh of the site, To connect into the Castle Creek sewer main. all sewer services from the site would most likely have to be pumped, Tn the alternative, there is an existing sewer main in lhe road below the Marolt Housing complex. There is suffident clearance near the Marolt Trail to construct a sewer service or main extension t the site, This would allow the sewer services from on-site to gravity rced to thl.;;; main. To tie into this main, an easement across the City of Aspen Marolt Ranch Lot 3 would be required, TIlis is the preferred option. Electric: The existing residence is served by an overhead electric line from across Castle Creek Road. The overhead electric line will be placed underground across Castle Creek Road. The existing transformer that serves the site could not be located. A new transformer with capacity to serve three houses would most likely be required onsite. Cable TV: The existing cable is on the overhead with the electric and \vill be under-grounded by the develope.!. 502 Main Street. Suite A3 . Carbondale, CO 81623 . (970) 704-0311 . Fax (970) 704-0313 SOPRIS ENGINEERING · llC civil consultants 11/08/2005 16:30 870-784-8313 SDPRIS ENGINEERING PAGE 03 ,~ ....~ ..,~.,.IJ' ..I" oW Telephone: , ... A Qwest pedestal is located by the existing driveway. Service can be extended onto the site from thi. pedestal. ,- Gas: , - The existing on-site propane lank shall be removed. IGnder Morgan indicatcs that there is a 4" gas main on the opposite side of Castle Creek Road. We recommend connecting to the main and elCtenrnng gas service across Castle Creek Road near the proposed underground electric cros..ing. ". - - Access: The Pitkin County Parcel map indicates that Castle Creek Road is within the City limits adjacent to this parcel so access would be from the City of Aspen, Aspen code WQuld not restrict additional access points to the subdivision. The owner has proposed relocating the existing driveway 10 the eenler of the 101. This will improve the sight distance and clearance from other intersections and lhe Marolt pedestrian crossing. The proposed access location will allow the drive to be constructed perpendicular to Castle Creek Road. The driveway wiH be required to meet Aspen access standards for width and maximum grade. Drainage: The existing grades create detention on-sile with a landscape berm on the northwest end of the yard. The drainage requirement for the proposed development will need to be addressed to determine if addilional storm detention is required. A soils report would be required to indicate if drywells Con be ",cd to create additional storage on site. Plcase call if you need any additional information. ~-d&, Mark Butler. PE Project Engineer - , - ~ - . - - - ,.~ .. ''-'''I ... .'.... ... ... ... EXHIBIT it 1"""", '>..,.- ""'" '-' j OCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES. INC. NEPA.. WILDLIFE.. VEGETATION.' WILDFIRE MITIGATION.. WETLANDS"PLANNING September 28, 2005 Mitch Haas, AICP Haas Land Planning 201 N. Mill St., Suite 108 Aspen CO, 81611 RE: 488 Castle Creek Road, Wildfire Hazard Review Dear Mitch, I visited the property at 488 Castle Creek Road, in the City of Aspen, with Mitch Haas on August 26, 2005. Using Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) Wildfire Hazard standards (Bulletin No. 6.302), all properties located in Pitkin County are rated either "Low," "Moderate," or "High" with respect to wildfire hazard. Due to the fact that the predominant slope of the subject property is less than 20% (actual slope was ranged between 1 and 3%) and the fuels were discontinuous, the 488 Castle Creek Road property is considered "Low Hazard: Brush." Additionally, the property is located in an urban setting, where response times are short and the likelihood of a wildfire event is extremely small. While the steeper slopes on the northern and eastern sides of the property somewhat increase the risk of a fire event impacting development on the property, access to the site for fire fighters is very good and the hazard rating is still considered "Low." Furthermore, given the proximity to Castle Creek Road and fire hydrants, it is my professional opinion that regardless of the size or number of structures that may occupy the property in the future, defensibility of the structure(s) could be accomplished in a safe setting for fire suppression personnel. That said, there are standard defensible space and structuraUdesign mitigation measures that should be required for development of the site, regardless of size or number of structures. A list of these measures can be provided upon request and are well-defined in Pitkin County's Land Use Code and in CSFS Bulletin No. 6.302. - Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this property. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. - Sincerely, ... ./ ~ .. .. ... .. Eric Petterson Principal Ecologist Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. ... ,,," "'!II - .~ .. ... ... 0222 BOBCAT LANE' REDSTONE' COLORADO' 81623 PHONE/FAX, (970) 963-2190 . CELL, (970) 309-4454 EMAIL.ERIC.PETTERSON@STARBAND.NET ... .. .. 1"" ........ BRUCE A. COlLINS, PH.D. GEOLOGICM. AND NATIJRAL REsOURCE CONSULTNITS P.O. Box 23 . 1116 MINEOTA DRIVE SILT, COLORADO 81652 PHON~FAX(970)876-5400 bacol@rof.net ::) .. .. ENVIRONMENTAL, EXPLORATION. AND MINING GEOLOGY '. ,.1'. '1'111 - November 2, 2005 ~ - '- Mitch Haas Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 North Mill Street Suite 108 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ... .. ,""" RE: GEOLOGIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT. 488 CAsrLE CREEK ROAD, AsPEN . Dear Mr. Haas: - At your request I have visited the subject property, examined geologic maps as well as aerial and surface photographs, and reviewed relevant geologic hazard maps to establish whether or not such hazards are present, and if so to determine the extent to which such hazards might affect development of the site. The property is not mapped in any geologic hazard category by either Bryant (1972') or Pitkin County (Colorado State University, 19742). Bryant (19723) maps the property in the 10% to 30% slope range, and the Aspen Survey Engineers improvement/topographic survey provided4 indicates a band of mostly + 30% slopes along the northern and eastern boundaries, up to 40 ft wide in the northeast corner. An October 4, 2005 subsoil study prepared by HP GeotechS reports that these slopes are comprised primarily of fill material. The current residence and yard areas consist almost entirely of slopes of 14% or less. The + 30% slopes around the northern and eastern edges representthe only geologic hazard that affects development of the property, and this hazard can be substantially mitigated by grading, installation of engineered retaining structures, or a combination of both. - ,." - The property is located on a small bench near the mouth of Castle Creek, between Castle Creek Road. which forms the southwest boundary. and the Marolt Ranch employee housing . - .~ .. 1 Bryant, B.. 1972, Folio of the Aspen quadrangle, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map Series 1.785. ... .. 2 Colorado State University (CSU), 1974, Pitkin County, Colorado - Lower Roaring Fork Valley: unpublished environmental resources analysis maps. "" .. 3 Bryant, B.. 1972, Slope map of the Aspen quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: Folio of the Aspen quadrangle, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map Series 1-785-E. ... ... "'" ... 4 Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc.. job 28106,june 1998. "" .. 5 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical. Inc.. Subsoil study for foundation design. proposed residence. 0488 Castle Creek Road, Pitkin County, Colorado: Glenwood Springs, CO, job No. 105-756, dated October 4,2005. ... ... ... .. ,".... "-~ 1"'.... - PAGE 2 complex on a lower bench to the northeast through southeast. The Marolt Ranch complex in turn borders Castle Creek further east. The center of the property, currently occupied by a single-family residence, is 0.98 miles west-southwest of the Pitkin County Courthouse in Aspen, and lies about a mile west and a little south of the center of the Aspen 7.5' quadrangle. " Geologically the bench that mmprisf's most of the property is mapped by Bryant (19716) as his unit Qmb, described as poorly-sorted moraine deposits ranging from silt to boulders of Pleistocene age. These materials are usually well-drained and stable on vegetated slopes up to 50% or more. although surficial boulders on steep slopes can loosen and roll under a variety of cirwmstances, It should be noted that the steep slopes on the property are well- vegetated and no loose boulders were observed, According to the previously-cited HP Geotech study, the subsoils consist of about 12.5 feet of fill comprised ofIoose to medium- dense silty sand and gravel with scattered cobbles overlying medium-dense to dense in-place deposits essentially identical in composition to the fill; observed surficial materials were visually indistinguishable from nearby glacial deposits. Glacial gravels and alluvium derived from them constitute the most common type of in-place valley floor surficial material from west of Woody Creek to the base of Independence Pass east of Aspen, and as a result excavation and construction techniques utilizing these deposits are well known. 'PI l,OIJ.l "'JIj . ... Composition and depth of bedrock beneath the gravels is unknown but is probably sandstone and siltstone of the Maroon Formation (Ptpm) of Permian-Pennsylvanian age at a depth of less than 100 feet, The western edge of the Castle Creek fault zone is projected to lie just east of the property. The fault zone developed during the Laramide period of mountain building in the Late Cretaceous and Early Paleocene, between 60 and 70 million years ago, and there has been no known movement within the zone, or on other more distant faults in the area, in thousands if not millions of years; the origin of rare small earthquakes of up to magnitude 5 in the Aspen region over the last few decades is unknown. .. Part 26.445.040.B of the City of Aspen Land Use Code limits density in a PUD where there are slopes of greater than 20% in order to reduce environmental hazards, enhance soil stability, and guarantee adequate fire protection access. The only geologic hazard that might have an implication for increased density on the subject site relates to the slopes around the perimeter of the property. This hazard can be mitigated with proper site grading as well as retaining wall and foundation design and construction. That is, proper soil testing, followed by engineered foundation and fill design and construction (including grading) will mitigate hazards that might otherwise be associated with the site's slopes and soils. ~ . ... Summary & Additional Recommendations: '. .. Field examination and review of published information indicate that the property at 488 Castle Creek Road is not subject to snow avalanche; debris . ... .. .. ~ .. 6 Bryant, B., 1971, Geologic map of the Aspen quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-933. .. ... . - ~^' ,-, .""" --.i PAGE 3 avalanche; debris or mudflow; rockfall; swelling or hydrocompactive soils or bedrock; alluvial fan; landslide; talus slope; near-surface bedrock; high ground water; or Mancos shale geologic hazards.7 . Glacial moraine deposits can contain voids resulting from plpmg or differential compaction of fine materials around boulders. Soil testing should be adequate to establish the absence ofthese hazards within their potential :lOne ofillOuel1l:e UII fuundatiun design or, iffound, to provide adequate data for appropriate foundation and drainage design. . Boulders disturbed during construction should be stabilized or removed and the voids appropriately backfilled. - - . Faults are mapped in the immediate vicinity. While there has been no known movement on these faults in historic time and probably none for thousands ifnot millions of years, earthquakes of up to Mercalli Intensity VI8 have occurred in the region within the last few decades; therefore, new structures should be designed and constructed according to the Uniform Building Code provisions for Seismic Zone IIA (or IRC equivalent). - "- "., - '~ - - . Glacial moraine deposits include rock materials that are known to contain small amounts of radioactive minerals, so inhabited structures should be constructed in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of radon or other dangerous or noxious gases; such techniques are well-established in the Roaring Fork valley. . Foundation drainage as well as final grading and landscaping should be designed and constructed in such a manner as to convey surface and ground water, including snowmelt, away from structures, and such runoff fully integrated into the existing drainage system, Conclusions: - The very minor ground subsidence hazard, the almost nonexistent fault hazard, the radon hazard, and site drainage are not density-limiting factors. The steep slope hazard is largely the result of fill material and can be mitigated through engineering analysis and proper design and construction techniques, Potential space limitations aside, geologic hazards in and of themselves do not affect the subject property in a manner that would suggest an inability to safely accommodate added residential density. Buildable space can be safely - .. .. ... .... .. . - 7 Snow and debris avalanche hazard recognition and mitigation are specialties in which I do not claim expertise. and if a more accurate assessment of the risk and recommendations for mitigation are desired you should seek the opinion ofa qualified professional in the field. ~ - - 8 Roughly equivalent to magnitude 5 on the more-familiar Richter scale. Earthquakes of this magnitude are felt by all, with damage from minor to moderate. , - 1''' ........ - - PAGE 4 maximized by grading, stabilizing slopes through the construction of engineered retaining structures, or both. ~ If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. ,",'!h .. 'f'lh '.. ,.., ,", ""l ... ..... - .~ . - IMPORTANT NonCE: This report concerns natural processes that are unpredictable and in large measure poorly understood. It is intended to identify potential obselVable hazards within the scope of work to which the subject property is exposed and to suggest mitigating measures in compliance with applicable regulations. Nothing in this report should be construed or interpreted as suggesting the absence of the described hazards, or that the recommended mitigations will protect the subject property from the described hazards under all circumstances, foreseen or unforeseen. Nothing in this report should be construed or interpreted as suggesting that additional unidentified hazards are not present. It must also be understood that "mitigation" does not mean either the elimination of the hazard(s) or prevention ofthe consequences of a hazard event or events, only the reduction to the extent reasonably possible of the latter. By accepting this report all present and subsequent panies thereto agree to indemnify and hold hannless the preparer for any and all damages, direct, indirect or consequential, including personal injury or loss oflife, above and beyond the original cost of this study, caused by or resulting from any occurrence of the described or other hazard(s), whether or not such damages may result from failure to identify said hazard(s) or from failure or inadequacy of properly engineered, constructed, and maintained recommended mitigations. The preparer of this report cannot and will not be responsible in any way or manner whatsoever for the proper engineering, construction, and/or maintenance of recommended mitigations, orthe inadequacy or failure of improperly engineered. constructed, and/or maintained recommended mitigations, or mitigations that have been altered in any way whatsoever from those recommended by the preparer. This report may be amended or withdrawn without notice at any time prior to receipt of payment therefor. .~ - ... ... .. - .. - ... - ... - 'ilIIIII .. "" ... ."" - C~ech HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Her ~h-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 502~unty Road] 54 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone, 970.945.7988 Fax, 970.945.8454 email: hpgeo@hpgeotech.com ., "'1 ,,' ., ".. -, SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE 0488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ". " ,- ..... - .,.. - JOB NO. 105 756 - OCTOBER 4, 2005 .. PREPARED FOR: . - .. .. STEEL PARTNERS C/O MITCH HAAS 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - ."", .. "" .. .. - "'1IlII .. Parker 303-841-7119 · Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 . Silverthorne 970-468-1989 ... .. - o ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDy............................................................................. I - ... PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .....................................................................................' I ' ..... ... SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................2- ... FIELD EXPLORATION.................................................................................................- 2- ... SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS......................................................................................- 3- ... ~ FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS...................................................................- 3 - ... ... DESIGN RECOMMENDA TIONS .................................................................................- 3 - FOUNDATIONS..... ......... ...... ................. ....... ........................... ........ ....... ...... .... ......... - 3 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS............................................................- 5- FLOOR SLABS ..........................................................................................................- 6, UNDERDRAIN SySTEM..........................................................................................- 7 - SITE GRADING .........................................................................................................- 7 - SURFACE DRAINAGE .............................................................................................- 8 - ... ... ... ... ... .,...,~ .... - ... - LIMITATIONS ...............................................................................................................- 8, .. ... FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING ~ FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING .. ... FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES .. ... FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS III' ... TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .. ... .. ... - .... ... ... -, ... .' ... ... ... ... ... ~ c """'I ~' PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ,..I ... This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located at 0488 Castle Creek Road, Pitkin County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure I. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Steel Partners c/o Mitch Haas dated August 29, 2005. We understand that the results of our findings will be considered in the purchase of the property. " .. - - - An exploratory boring was drilled at the site to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. - - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - Design plans were conceptual at the time of this study. We understand that it is desired to raze the existing structures and construct 2 to 3 single family residences at the site. We assume the proposed residences will be typical of the area and consist of two story, wood frame structures over crawlspaces or full basement levels. Ground floors may be slab-on- grade or structural over a crawlspace. Grading for the structures is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 10 feet. We expect relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the assumed type of construction. , - '"""! - ... - "'" - ...... - ... - When building loadings, locations and grading plans have been developed, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. ... .. .... - Job No, 105756 ~tech - - o o - 2- SITE CONDITIONS The site is currently occupied by a single family residence with basement and detached garage on the northeast (downhill) side of Castle Creek Road as shown on Figure I. Previous site grading consists of cuts and apparently extensive fills to provide a relatively level building area. Fill depths could be variable across the site. The ground surface adjacent to the existing structures is relatively flat with a gentle slope down to the northeast. Steep fill slopes are located along the north and east sides of the property. Vegetation consists oflawn areas adjacent to the existing buildings with scrub oak, evergreen trees and aspen trees elsewhere on the property. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on September 14, 2005. An exploratory boring was drilled in the existing gravel driveway as shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Access to additional boring locations was not possible due to the existing site conditions. The boring was advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-45B drill rig. The boring was logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. and backfilled following drilling. Samples ofthe subsoils were taken with a I % inch J.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Log of Exploratory Boring, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. Job No, 105 756 ~ - ... - - ... .. .. - ... .. ... ~, ... ."- .. .. ... ... !' ~ - !: .. - .. - .. .' .. - ... - ... - ... . .. .. ... . ... . ... - ... .' /'" '-' """"" J o - ~ - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A graphic log of the subsoil profile encountered in the boring is shown on Figure 2. The subsoils consist of about 12Y:, feet offill overlying medium dense to dense, silty sand and gravel with scattered cobbles. The fill consists of loose to medium dense silty sand and gravel with scattered cobbles. " Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus I y:, inch fraction) of the natural subsoils are shown on Figure 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. - ~. - - - No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The natural sand and gravel soils encountered below the fill possess moderate bearing capacity with a relatively low settlement risk and should be suitable for support of spread footings. The compaction level of the existing fill soils is unknown but was variable in our boring. The fill should be cornpletely removed below buildings. The depth offill at the site could vary depending on the location of the buildings and structural fill may be needed to re-establish design footing or slab grade. - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS '. - ,~ - FOUNDATIONS -~ .. ... ... Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the buildings be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils below the existing fill. . ... .. ... ... - Job No. ] 05 756 ~tech ... ... The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. I) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils or structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about I inch or less, and should essentially occur during construction. The bearing conditions should be evaluated at the time of construction. The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed to expose the natural granular soils prior to footing construction or fill placement below buildings. Structural fill used to re-establish design footing bearing level can consist of the on-site gravel soils or an imported relatively well-graded sand and gravel (such as road base) compacted to at least I 00% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Fill should extend horizontally out from the sides of footings a distance at least equal to the depth of fill below the footing. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. - -.1. o o ... .'''1 ...', ... ... ... - ... "'0 III' ... .. ... ... ... .. ... .. ... III' ... t= ... ... E .. ... ... ... III' ... .. ... ... ... - - ...' _. - - ... -, ... .' .... Job No, 105 756 ... ... - 4- 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) ~tech ~. ,''''" """ -' ......... - 5 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS .~ Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site predominantly granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the buildings and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting ofthe on-site predominantly granular soils. ..4041 -- All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. - - Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. - ,"' ... ... .. '-"4 - The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.45. Passive pressure of compacted "' - ... .. .. .. ... - Job No, 105756 ~tech .. ,- "" - o - 6- backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 375 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. - .. IIJII'" .'"' FLOOR SLABS ~ I!t*' a The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil and existing fill, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. All existing fill should be removed from below slab areas and design slab subgrade be re-established with structural fill. The subgrade conditions should be evaluated at the time of construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and colunms with expansion j oints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free- draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No.4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. ... .., .. - ... ... ... ..~ ... .. .... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ...' All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site predominantly granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. .. ... ... ... .. ... .... ... ... ... ... .. .. ... ... ~tech ~ Job No, 105756 ... - ,.... '-' ""'" ....; - 7 - UNDERDRAINSYSTEM ". Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. ~,., ..-... .. - The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least I foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum I % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No.4 sieve and have a maximum size of2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least I If:, feet deep. ,.. .. ... .. ... ". ... ..., - SITE GRADING - The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the buildings are adequately set back from the steep fills slopes along the north and east sides of the property. We assume the cut depths for basement levels will not exceed one level, about 10 to 12 feet. Soil should not be stockpiled at the top of the steep fill slopes. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the sub grade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the property exceeding 20% grade. - - """'I - '. - ..., - .. - .. - Permanent umetained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope ... ... .... .. Job No. ] 05 756 ~ ~- - o o - 8 - instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. SURJ1ACE DRAINAGE The fi)llowing drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: I) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the fIrst 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the fIrst 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on- site, fmer grained soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory boring drilled at the location indicated on Figure I, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area, Our Job No. 105 756 ~tech ... . ." ... ...~ ... ... ... .. ... ... .... .. .... -, .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - . ... ... .... .' ... .... ... .... ... ... .. .... .. ... .. .... ...... .... .' .. c o - 9- "" services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory boring and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. ,.1.,1. "I '.,111. ,"'. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical '.. '.. - - - - - - - engmeer. Respectfully Submitted, - Trevor 1. Knell, P. - .. Reviewed by: .. ... ~ ... ( ~ .. - .. Daniel E. Hardin, P .E. ... .. TLK/ksw - .. - .. - Job No. 105756 ~tech - - MAROLT RANCH SUBDIVISION 7990 --- ------- --- ------ -------- BORING 1 . -, r - '\ \ \ \.. .l \ EXISTING \ RESIDENCE ) EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY _-1\ EXISTING \ \ \ GARAGE ) \ \.-.-- \--..--- - - q, ll',;, ((' ~ ~ T?J ~ ~ PROPERTY BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" = 40' 105756 ~ HEPWORn+PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING ... 7980 "- '\ "- \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '\ \ \ I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 7980 .'" ..' - ... ~, ... .. .. ~, ... ... \ \ \ 7990 \ \ \ \ 8000 I I ... - - - .... "" .. - I:' I:' .. ... .. ... ... - .. - ... - ... - ... ... Figure 1 ... ... ~. , , ,,' " - .. - """ - .. ... 1i5 .. Q) - LL C . 0 ~ Q) ill - - - - " - '... .. '.... ... ... - .. - ... - ... - ,~ - 8005 8000 7995 7990 7985 7980 105 756 BORING 1 ELEV. = 8004' 11/9,10/0 19/12 6/12 24/12 WC~9.6 +4~20 -200~45 63/12 WC~4,6 +4~32 -200 ~ 24 NOTE: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. ~ HEPWOR'IH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 8005 8000 7995 Qj Q) LL c .Q 1i1 7990 > Q) ill 7985 7980 Figure 2 - - lEGEND: ~ ~- -. .:. ~ Fill; silty sand with gravel and cobbles, slightly clayey, loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown to black. .' SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); silty to very silty, with cobbles, medium dense to dense, slightly moist to moist, reddish brown to brown. lI"" Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM-1586, ,.,,' 19/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 19 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to dnve the SPT sampler 12 inches. ... .. .... ... NOTES: ... - 1. The exploratory boring was drilled on September 14, 2005 with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. The exploratory boring location was measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3, The exploratory boring elevation was obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided and checked by instrument level. 4. The exploratory boring location and elevation should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring log represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling. The boring was backfilled following drilling. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) +4 = Percent retained on the NO.4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve .. ...' .. _. .... - ... - ... - .. ... ... .. ... ... III' -, .. .. .. .. ... .. ... 1iIIi" III' ... ... ... .... - .... .. .. -, ... ...' 105756 ~ HEPWOR11+PAW1J..K GEOTECHNICAL ... - LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 3 ... - ... - 0 " w ",~ Z <{ f- II.... W a: f- .,.., Z ... W () '1 a: W - 0- - - ... - "'" "' 80 <.? " Z (ij rn 80 if: f- 80 Z W () '" a: w 0- 80 '" " ,"" "" .005.lXl9 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.519,0 37.5 762 152 203 '" DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS "" SA" MEDI~ GRAVEL COBBLES CLAYTOSlLT COARSE FINE COARSE GRAVEL 20 % LIQUID LIMIT SAND 35 % SILT AND CLAY 45 % % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Very Silty Sand and Gravel HYOROMETER ANALYSIS TIME READINGS 24 R, 7 HR 45 MIN, 15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN,4 MIN, 1 MIN. #200 #100 o FROM: Boring 1 at 15 Feet SIEVE ANALYSIS U,S, STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE QPENINGS #50 #ao #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4' 11/2' 3' 5'6' 8' 100 . ... 10 0 20 W Z 30 <{ f- W 40 a: f- Z 50 W () a: 60 w 0- 70 80 90 100 ,001 ,002 ,005 ,009 90 so 1 - <.? 70 Z (ij I CfJ I----- 60 if: I f- SOZ I w () I <0 a: I w 1-= 0- I 30 I I 20 F:':" i:= 10 = ClAYTOSILT FINE "ND MEDIUM COARSE 0 4.75 9'~2.5 19,0 37,5 76,2 }52 203 12 GRAVEL COBBLES FI'-< COARSE SILT AND CLAY 24 % ... ". ... .. ,019 ,037 ,074 ,150 ,300 ,600 1.18 2,36 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS ... - GRAVEL 32 % LIQUID LIMIT SAND 44 % .... - % PLASTICITY INDEX % ... - SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel ~ HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAl. FROM: Boring 1 at 20 Feet .. - 105756 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4 ". - ,..... P dl > e OIl dl "Cl > l'i ., ., ~ -,w ] -.. ] 5l~ ., '" ., 0 ] - .~ ., '" '" C >. - l!) - .~ ;;- tIl w ~2::r ZUl.... u: -"'Cl "'WZ Ul Zo:W .. 0"0: - 0:;.... ZOUl :>0 Ul QX .... ....W ~ UlO :IE <Z '" ::; -'- .. Cl 0: W "' 0: 51.... W :>- ~ ~ O! - < ::;-' !zOOW w~~> 0/') '<T Of/) .w '<T N ~U)O- wetzel) .... 0 l 0/') '<T Z Z < c<1 '<T 0 Ul .... < 0 < -' 0: W 0 N Cl > l < N c<1 0: Cl -' > < .... ~ 0:>- :>0:'" ....OZ < W Z 0 -'W.... <o:Z ~ ~ o::>W ~ :>........ ...."'Z '" 0\ '<T <00 Z:;O Z :I: 0 0 .... iE' 0/') ;:: .. - N W < 0 0 0 -' W -' Cl .. z. :; -0 - < O:z '" 0 "' CD III "- III C ..... ci Z .0 o ..., o ~ Z ..J ::> ...J en <( w o a:: z l- I en o ~ w > b a:: w 0 C)....~ ~wa:: <(...JO ...JCOco :5:<(<( <(I-...J Q. lL. i 0 I- > a:: a:: o <( :5: :E Q. :E w ::> I en - "' m' ...' ""I~ .j,,-,. tI'!'" ~~I~ .... ,bi. .... -, .... ...,' .... -, ... - .... ... .... ... ... ... ... ... I: III' ... !: It' ,.. - ... - ..... ... ..... ... .... ~ .... ... -, ... - ,--'"' r... ......... EXHIBIT 15 "--- I , , CASTLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES LTD C/O HILL MANAGEMENT COMPANY POBOX 95 ST ANN, MO 63074 , '.'hA CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 .~ MOUNTAIN OAKS EMPLOYEE HOUSING ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL 200 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 ASPEN, CO 81611 - ~ - ... '... WACHS EDWARD H JR PO BOX 405 ASPEN, CO 81612 '''41 - ""4 ... "'II' ... .. - "'" - ,.."" ... "," ... ,-.... ........ 1'" '-' I EXHIBIT ~ CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A2reement for Payment of City of Asoen Develooment Aoolication Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Warren Lichtenstein of Steel Partners. Ltd. (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for PUD Amendment and Lot Solit aoorovals (hereinafter, THE PROJECf). " . 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a detennination of application completeness. 1 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings andlor approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it wi1l be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. .. ., ,.M -.""ll ;,;. ,,~ - .~ ... - 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission andlor City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. '.""1 ... 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of$ 2830' which is for twelve (12) hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of$220.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: i\ Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: .. ... g:\support\rorms\agrpayas.doc 11130/04 Billing Address and Telephone Numher: Reauired (In.) 57..0, 'd..~oo QD 7:rIli2L l(~ril1~{"~ S'1o mA'.L~.50.J A1.I~ 3,6. ,,; ~Lo""r I tJ~ f\I '(0 (r(. '" 'f I DD :2- '].... "<'" - .... .. . includes $2640 Planning Deposit, and $190 Minor Engineering Review Fee ... - ... - ... - .. - ... - . , . "'"." ........ G Permits [[J~IIJ E_e .:d. BIlCOfd - F""" R_ - rab tJo\> ~X ) 7.1 ~1 ~J .Jj . ,:.I 2<~ 0 . II ,Conditions I SlbEen,;l, I M.~ I Ro].!ting Slet", 1 ...ehiEng Pe",;1 Type I_ .::..!A'P....LIlndU",2004 Addre", 1488 CASTLE CREEK RD Ciy Permit InformatiOrY'^ Yaluation Parceft MasterPennit Project D.,criptionI3SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 2 LOTS Submited /HMS-lAND PLANNING 925-7B19 r Vi,DIe on the web? _r~ L.~ N_ ISTEEL PARTNERS Phone 1(212)520-2300 ~ Ownef IsAppicant? - L.~ N_ISTEEL PARTNERS 3J first Name ~czl F'.~ Name 1 PuJlIic Comment Custom Fjetd: Fee~ ~j 1Ji.. ;!urr'4' t A . . 4~ 4:1. Cudome< Reguest I FeeSt..rnmar2 ! Actions Attacbmenti Roo~ng HistolY .J Permit # 1??oo 2005 ASLU ^ State ICD _J Z.. 181611 Rooting Queue I"'" SI_lpen<iro;j Applied 11111012005 .J Approved IS$UOd Clock IRut'Ili'lg Oay. ro PelTlltlO: 5W MADISON AVE 32ND FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10022 I~~!S_O_N AVE v > View RecOl'd: 1 of 1 ,-. '"'-' - '" 3._On each additional story of the dwelling, including basements but not including crawl spacl:s and uninhabitable_attics. In dwellings or dwelling units with split levels and without an intervening door between the adjacent levels,_a smoke alarm installed on the upper level shall sufficeJor the adjacent lower level provided that the lower level is less than one full story below the upper level.