HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Water Treatment.A2396
CA~OAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY (i""!y\SPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 3/25/96
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID # 2735-132-00-858
CASE # A23-96
STAFF: Dave MichaelsoTI
PROJECT NAME: City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements & Affordable Housing Project
Project Address: Doolittle Drive
APPLICANT: City of Aspen
AddresslPhone: Asset Management Dept., 130 S. Galena, Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group, Inc.
Address/Phone: 312 E. AABC, Aspen, CO 81611; 925-6717
FEES:
W0 \ (('{e;.. J
VlO -t.JlJ2.ff .
PLANNING
j./ENGINEER
vHOUSING
vENV HEALTH
TOTAL
uC\" b,,\,,
$0- 0 +-
$0 u.
$0 woAl<- ,
$0 f10\ lJ. J'""I .
$
# APPS RECEIVED 22
# PLATS RECEIVED 0
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Two Step
P&Z
CC
CC (2nd readin )
REFERRALS: - \':or+\ D. ,
~V~JIo.\.S<> ...
~I"""r'o~ .
~ City Attorney - /-l.~ C-QP\~ 0 Aspen Fire Marshal
mityEngineer_...", COf'l=:::, 'i5(CityWater
o Zoning , 1J City Electric
.... .,
jHOUSing 0 Clean Air Board
Environmental Health 0 Open Space Board
Parks 0 Other:
,
DATE REFERRED: ~J;).'i INITIALS: ~
o CDOT
o ACSD
o Holy Cross Electric
o Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
o Aspen School District
o Other:
DATE DUE: o~, '$,'ll.f
APPROVAL:
Ordinance/Resolution #
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
Date:
Date:
Book
, Page
CLOSED/FILED
ROUTE TO:
DATE:
INITIALS:
/'
r"\
.r--.,
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
FOR
CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT
AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SPA AND SUBDIVISION
This Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for City of Aspen Water
Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project SPA and Subdivision is made this
/.3 day of 1?lM~ , 1998, by the City of Aspen, a
Colorado home rule municipality, whose address is 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado
81611, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant".
I. DECLARATION - PURPOSES AND EFFECT
1.1 General Pur:poses. Declarant is the owner of the First Amended City of Aspen
Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project SPA and Subdivision recorded at Book
~ Page 53 in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office, and hereinafter referred
to as "the Property." Declarant desires to submit the Property to this Declaration to provide
for the use, operation, administration and maintenance of certain facilities or functions
Common to the use or benefit of the Property.
The Declaration establishes certain rights and obligations with respect to the Property
for the Declarant and all present and future owners of the Property. Declarant intends that
such owners, mortgagees and any other person or entity now or hereafter acquiring any
interest in the Property shall hold their interests subject to the rights, privileges, obligations,
and restrictions established by this Declaration. All such rights, privileges, obligations and
restrictions are declared to be in furtherance of a plan to promote and protect the value,
desirability and attractiveness of the Property as a City of Aspen employee housing project.
1.2 Declaration. Declarant hereby submits the Property:
a. to this Declaration and declares that the Property shall at all times be
owned, used or occupied subject to the provisions of this Declaration, which
provisions shall constitute covenants running with the land and shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of Declarant and any person or legal entity
acquiring any interest in the Property; and
b. to the provisions of the CIOA.
1111111111111.1111111111111111 111111111111I1111111111111
4144Si 03/13/1998 11:11A COVENANT DAVIS SILVI
1 of 8 R 4~.00 D0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
1
'-i
!"""\
!"""\
II. DEFINITIONS
The terms listed below, as used in this Declaration, shall have the meanings set forth as
follows:
2.1 "Association" means the Water Place Homeowners Association, a Colorado
non-profit corporation.
2.2 "CIOA" means the Common Interest Ownership Act. as amended, as set forth
in Colorado Revised Statutes 38-33-101, ~~, as it may be amended from time to time.
2.3 "Common Elements" means the Parcels when conveyed by the Declarant to the
Association, and such other real property acquired by the Association as authorized by the
CIOA.
2.4 "Land Use Plan" means the Land Use Plan for First Amended City of Aspen
Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project SPA and Subdivision recorded in the
office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, in Plat Book ttJ/ at Page
StJ ., or as the same may be hereafter amended.
2.5 "Lot" means each single family residential lot numbered from 18 through 23,
inclusive, and each duplex lot numbered 1 through 17, inclusive, as shown on the Plat. For
purposes of the CIOA, a Lot shall be considered a unit.
2.6 "Owner" means the person or legal entity holding fee simple title to a Lot.
2.7 "Parcels" means each tract of land numbered 1 through 24 as shown on the
Plat.
2.8 "Plat" means the Plat of Subdivision recorded in the office of the Clerk and
Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, in Plat Book ~'/ at Page 63 , or as the same
may be hereafter amended.
2.9 "Property" means the real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado,
described in Exhibit A hereto and the Plat, filed of office in the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin
County, Colorado, in Plat Book' '1'1 at Page .~~ .
2.10 Undefmed Terms. Each capitalized term not otherwise defmed in this
Declaration, the Land Use Plan or the Plat shall have the meaning specified or used in the
CIOA
III. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY
3.1 ~. The use of the Property shall comply with the provisions of the Land Use
Plan.
111111I11111111111111111111111111111111 11I1111111111111 2
414459 03/13/1998 11,11A COVENANT DAVIS SILVI
2 o( 8 R 41.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
~-,~~
I"""".
I"""".
,
3:2 Reservation of Rillhts to Declarant. Declarant reserves the right with respect to
the Property, which right shall be reserved to and remain vested in Declarant, notwithstanding
the conveyance of the Lots or Parcels by Declarant to any other persons or entities, to grant
additional easements, and to relocate existing easements, for utilities, irrigation, drainage,
grading, driveway access and similar purposes as may be required by Declarant; provided that
no such easements shall begranted or relocated so as to encroach upon the building envelopes
of the Lot as shown on the Plat.
IV. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE LOTS
4.1 Residential Use. Each Lot shall be used only for single family residential
purposes and such accessory uses ;:IS may be permitted by the Aspen Municipal Code.
4.2 Compliance with Land Use Plan. All buildings and other improvements
constructed upon a Lot, and the use thereof, shall comply with the provisions of the Land Use
Plan. All above-grade improvements, except for driveways, parking areas, retaining walls,
and landscaping, shall be located within the Building Envelope of the Lot as shown on the
Land Use Plan.
4.3 Outdoor Fixtures. Outdoor fixtures, except for chimneys and weather vanes,
shall not exceed the height of the highest building on such Lot.
4.4 Reflective Finishes. Reflective finishes and reflective glass shall not be used on
exterior surfaces, including, without limitation, walls, roofs, windows, doors, trim, retaining
walls and fences; except that the foregoing shall not prohibit skylights.
4.5 Utilities. All water, sewer, gas, electrical, telephone, cable television and other'
utility pipes or lines shall be buried underground and' shall not be carried on overhead poles or
above the surface of the ground. Any areas of natural vegetation or terrain disturbed by the
burying of utility lines shall be revegetated by and at the expense of the Owner causing the
installation of the utilities no later than the next growing season following such installation.
4.6 Animals. No horses, cows, fowl or other farm animals shall be kept on any
'Lot. Domestic pets shall be pennitted, subject to the rules and regulations with respect thereto
as may be promulgated from time to time by the Association. All domestic pets, when
outdoors, must be leashed at all times or confined within the boundaries of a Lot by a fence or
other physical restraint.
4.7 Enclosure of Unsillhtly Facilities and Eq.uipment. All unsightly facilities,
equipment and other items including but not limited to those specified below, shall be enclosed
- within a-covered structure. Any motorhome, trailer, boat, truck, tractor, snow removal or
garden equipment and any similar items shall be kept at all times, except when in actual use,
in an enclosed garage. Any refuse or trash containers, tanks, utility meters or other facilities,
service area, or storage pile shall be enclosed within a structure or appropriately screened
111111I1111I11111111111I 11111111111111111I1111111111111 3
4144S9 03/13/1998 11:11A COVENANT DAVIS SILVI
3 of 8 R 41.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
~
~
."-...,,
from view by planting or fencing approved by the Homeowners Association and adequate to
conceal the same from neighbors and public and private roads. No lumber, metllls, materials,
scrap, refuse or trash shall be kept, stored or allowed to accumulate on any Lot, except
building materials during the course of construction and only for such reasonable periods of
time as is necessary prior to the collection of or disposal thereof.
4.8 No Water Wells. Individual water wells shall not be permitted on any Lot and
no Owner shall be permitted to drill for water on a Lot.
4.9 Impairment of Drainage. No Owner shall do anything which shall impair or
adversely affect the natural drainage of the Property, or divert drainage water onto another
Lot, or deprive any other Lot of its natural drainage course. Each Owner shall install culverts
where driveways cross road ditches, irrigation channels and other drainageways.
4.10 No Subdivision. No Lot shall be subdivided into smaller lots or conveyed or
encumbered in any less than the full dimensions thereof as shown on the Plat.
4.11 Ownership Subiect to Occl\Pancy and Resale Deed Restriction. Agreement. and
, ,
Covenant. Ownership of all lots shall be subject to and conditional upon certain Occupancy
and Resale Deed Restriction, Agreement and Covenant, a copy of which is appended hereto as
Exhibit B and incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
4.12 Enforcement. The provisions of this Article shall be enforceable by the
Declarant, the Homeowners Association, or any Owner.
V. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO PARTY WALLS
5.1 Establishment. The duplex lots numbered 1 through 11, inclusive, as shown on
the Plat, share common walls. Said walls shall be party walls, and the Owners of the lots
which share the party walls shall have a right to use these jointly. The following provisions
shall be applicable to those party walls.
5.2 R~airs or Rebuilding.
If it becomes necessary or desirable to repair or rebuild the whole or any part of
a party wall, the repairing or rebuilding expense shall be borne equally by the Owners of the
adjoining lots that share the party wall, or by their heirs and assigns. Any repairing or
rebuilding of the wall shall be on the same location and of the same size as the original wall or
part of the original wall, and of the same or similar material of the same quality as that used in
the original wall or part of the original wall.
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111I1111I11111111
414459 03/13/1998 11:11A COVENANT DAVIS SILVI
4 of 8 R 41.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
--"
4
,
".-.
,-,
,
5.3
Dispute Resolution.
111111I 1111I111111 11111111111111111111111I11111111I1111
4144$9 03/13/1998 11:11A COVENANT DAVIS SILVI
$ of 8 R 41.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
In the event of a dispute or controversy as to any matter within or arising out of
the use, repair or rebuilding of a party wall, the dispute or controversy shall be submitted to
the Water Place Homeowners Association, and the arbitration of such matters shall be an
express condition precedent to any legal or equitable action or proceeding of any nature
whatever.
VI. THE ASSOCIATION
6.1 Membership. All Owners shall automatically be Members of the Association.
Membership shall be appurtenant to a Lot and shall not be separately conveyed, encumbered
or abandoned. Such membership shall automatically cease upon termination of an Owner's
ownership interest in a Lot.
6.2 Authority. The Board of Directors of the Association, the Executive Board
referred to in the CIOA, shall govern and manage the Common Elements and shall enforce the
provisions of this Declaration. The operation of the Association shall be governed by its
Articles ofIncorporation, its Bylaws, this Declaration, the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation
Act, and the CIOA.
6.3 Association Powers. The Association shall have all of the powers, authorities
and duties permitted pursuant to the CIOAnecessary and proper to manage its business and
affairs. In addition to its others powers, the Association shall have the following specific
powers:
a. The right to bring suit in its own name for either legal or equitable relief
for any lack of compliance with its Articles of Incorporation, its Bylaws, this
Declaration and all rules, regulations and agreements lawfully made by the Association;
and
, b. The right to levy assessments against the Owners, impose a lien on lots
for the nonpayment of assessments, foreclosure of a lien; and
c. The right to assign its future income, including its rights to receive
common expense assessments, but only upon the affIrmative vote of not less than
eighteen (18) Owners at a meeting called for that purpose.
6.4 Declarant Control. The Declarant shall have the power to appoint and remove
offIcers of the Association and members of the Board of Directors. The period of Declarant
__ control t~rminates sixty (60) days after the conveyance of seventy-five percent (75 %) of the
lots that may be conveyed to Owners other than Declarant. The Declarant may voluntarily
surrender the right to appoint and remove offIcers and Directors before termination of the
periods of Declarant control, but in that event, the Declarant may require, for the duration of
the period of Declarant control, that specified actions of the Association or Board of Directors,
5
".-,.
.~
as described in a recorded instrument executed by the Declarant, be approved by the Declarant
before they become effective.
6.5 Limitation on Declarant Control. Not later than sixty (60) days after
conveyance of twenty-five percent (25 %) of the Lots to Owners other than a Declarant, at least
one (1) member, and not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Board of
Directors, shall be elected by Owners other than Declarant. Not later than sixty (60) days
after conveyance of fifty percent (50%) of the Lots that may be conveyed to Owners other than
Declarant, not less than one-third (1/3) of the members of the Board of Directors must be
elected by Owners other than Declarant.
VII. COVENANT FOR COMMON EXPENSE ASSESSMENTS
7.1 Creation of Association Lien and Personal Ohligation to Pay Common Expense
Assessments. Declarant, for each Lot, shall be deemed to covenant and agree, and each
Owner, by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in any such
deed or other conveyance, shall be deemed to covenant and agree, to pay to the Association
annual Common Expense Assessments. Such assessments, including fees, charges, late
charges, attorney fees, fines and interest charged by the Association shall be the personal
obligation of the Owner at that time when the assessment or other charges became or fall due.
The pe~sonal obligation to pay any past due sums due the Association shall not pass to a
successor in title unless expressly assumed by them.
The Common Expense Assessments of the Association shall also be a continuing lien
upon the Lot against which each such assessment is made. A lien under this Section is prior to
all other liens and encumbrances on a Lot except: (1) liens and encumbrances recorded before
the recordation of the Declaration: (2) the first lien Security Interest on the Lot recorded
before the date on which the Common Expense Assessment sought to be enforced became
delinquent; and (3) liens for real estate taxes and other governmental assessments or charges
against the Lot. This Section does not prohibit an action to recover sums for which this
Section creates a lien or prohibit the Association from taking a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
Sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the Association's lien except that sale or transfer of
any Lot pursuant to foreclosure of any first lien Security Interest, or any proceeding in lieu
thereof, including deed in lieu of foreclosure, or cancellation or forfeiture shall only extinguish
the Association's lien as provided in the Act. No such sale, transfer, foreclosure, or any
proceeding in lieu thereof, including deed in lieu of foreclosure, nor cancellation or forfeiture
shall relieve any Lot from continuing liability for any Common Expense Assessments
thereafter becoming due, or from the lien thereof.
VIII. ALLOCATION OF INTERESTS
8.1 Determination of Allocated Interests. The interests allocated to each Lot have
been calculated as follows:
a. Liability for Common Expense is one twenty third (1123);
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111 6
4144!9 03/13/1998 11:11A COVENANT DAVIS SILVI
S of 8 R 41.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
"----
/""'.
/""'.
b.
The number of votes in the Association is one (1).
IX. TERM, REVOCATION AND AMENDMENT OF DECLARATION
9.1 Term of Declaration. The term of this Declaration shall be perpetual.
9.2 Revocation of Declaration. This Declaration may be revoked if all of the
Owners and the Declarant agree to such revocation by an executed, acknowledged instrument
recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. The prior
written approval of each First Mortgagee of Association Property will be required for any such
revocation, except in the case of obsolescence, substantial destruction by fire or other casualty,
taking by condemnation or eminent domain, or abandonment or tennination provided by law.
9.3 Amendment of Declaration. This Declaration may be amended if the Owners
holding two-thirds or more of the votes outstanding and entitled to be cast under the Bylaws,
and the Declarant, agree thereto by an executed, acknowledged. instrument recorded in the
office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado.
X. MISCELLANEOUS
10.1 Declarant's Rights Transferable. Any right or interest of the Declarant
established or reserved in this Declaration may be transferred by Declarant either separately or
with one or more of such rights or interests.
10.2 Provisions IncOl:porated in Deed. Each provision contained in this Declaration
shall be deemed incorporated in each deed or other instrument by which any right, title or
interest in the Property is granted, devised or conveyed, whether or not set forth or referred to
in such deed or other instrument.
10.3 Number and Gender. U~ess the context shall otherwise provide, a singular
number shall include the plural, a plural number shall include the singular, and the use of any
gender shall include all genders.
10.4 Construction. The provisions of this Declaration shall be liberally construed to
effectuate its purpose of creating a uniform plan for the development of certain common
facilities and functions and for the maintenance of the Parcels.
,10.5 Disclaimer. No representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied,
have been given or made by Declarant or its agents ot employees in connection with the
___Property. or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon, its physical condition, zoning,
compliance with the applicable laws, fitness or intended use, orin connection with the
subdivision, sale, operation, maintenance, cost of maintenance, taxes or regulations hereof as a
planned unit development, except as expressly set forth in this Declaration.
11111111111111111111111111111111I111111111111111111111I 7
414459 03/13/1998 11,11A COVENANT DAVIS SILVI
7 of 8 R 41.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
'--'---'-'-.c - '"'_~_.~.~..,.__,,~_.'_
I~
.-.,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has executed this Declaration the day and year
fIrst above written.
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
~ 1'2 -:/1
7~~
John ennett, Mayor
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County ofPitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this \ & ~ day of
~ ctJ\.C'^-. , 1998, by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
MyCommlssionexp/res
My commission expires: 1r:1/AAt2000
,," l' !.
.'~\\" ""
, /(,-.,~"-""~"~"t~'''':!
.' '.', ..' '" (.'I'
/t.';JrL A "-:",
".~" "t}..
.', "'l>~'
........... ~
\ '::\ fit. r.e
'.7",,,, ., .
X A.A~
Notary Public
o.
".> .'
.,,~.. "
, f'-0'\.,1!"."...,,~
'. ,,' '! 1 "" ;'.:.! . .,,', . " . I, ,~
\~O S. Q~ '0\'" AA~,~O <?I~tt
Address .
.,. ..
1
."'. ;.
_~ 111111I1111I11111111111I11111111111111111I1111111111111
414459 03/13/1998 11:11A COVENANT DAVIS SILVI
8 of 8 R 41.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
~.
. .
c-...."
" ,
EAA..o2l11198..g:\\WP-DECLN.DOC
8
,-.,
,.-..,
BY LAWS
OF
THE WATER PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ARTICLE 1 - INTRODUCTION
These are the Bylaws of The Water Place Homeowners Association, which shall operate
under the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act, as amended, and the Colorado Common Interest
Ownership Act, as amended, Colorado Revised Statutes 38-33.3-101, ~., hereinafter referred
to as the "Act", the Articles ofIncorporation of the Association, and,the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for The City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and
Affordable Housing Project SPA and Subdivision filed for recOOiiin the office of the Clerk and
Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, on the / ~ day of ~nA.AU , ' 19~
ARTICLE 2 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2.1 Number and Qualification.- Termination of Dec1arant Control.
(a) The affairs of the Association shall be governed by a Board of Directors
which, until the termination of the period of Declarant control, shall consist of two (2)
persons, the majority of whom, excepting the Directors appointed by the Declarant, shall
be Owners. Directors shall be elected by the Owners. At'any meeting at which Directors
are to be elected, the Owners may, by resolution, adopt specific procedures which are not
inconsistent with these Bylaws or the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act for conducting
the elections.
(b) The terms of all Directors shall expire annually.
(c) The Declaration shall govern appointment of Directors of the Board of
Directors during the period of Declarant control.
(d) The Board of Directors shall elect the officers. The Directors and officers
shall take office upon election.
2.2 Powers and Duties. The Board of Directors may act in all instances on behalf of
the Association, except as provided in the Declaration, these Bylaws or the Act. The Board of
Directors shall have, subject to the limitations contained in the Declaration and the Act, the
powers and duties necessary for the administration of the affairs of the Association, including the
following powers and duties:
(a) Adopt and amend Bylaws and Rules and Regulations;
(b) Adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures and reserves;
111111I1111111111111111111111111111111111I1111111111111
41446003/13/1998 11:13A BYLAWS DAVIS SILVI
1 of 11 R 56.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
1
./
r"-,
-,
(c) Collect assessments for Common Expenses from Owners;
(d) Hire and discharge managing agents;
(e) Hire and discharge employees, independent contractors and agents other
than managing agents;
(f) Institute, defend or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings or
seek injunctive relieffor violations of the Association's Declaration, Bylaws or Rules in
the Association's name, on behalf of the Association or two (2) or more Owners on
matters affecting the Association;
(g) Make contracts and incur liabilities;
(h) Regulate the use, maintenance, repair, replacement and modification of
common Elements;
(i)
Elements.
Cause additional improvements to be made as a part of the Common
G) Acquire, hold, encumber and convey, in the Association's name, any right,
title or interest to real estate or personal property, but Common Elements may be
conveyed or subjected to a security interest only pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes
38-33.3-312;
(k) Grant easements for any period of time, including permanent easements,
and grant leases, licenses and concessions for no more than one (l) year, through or over
the Common Elements;
(I) Impose and receive a payment, fee or charge for services provided to
Owners and for the use, rental or operation of the Common Elements, other than Limited
Common Elements described in Colorado Revised Statutes 38-33.3-202(l)(b) and (d);
(m) Impose a reasonable charge for late payment of assessments and, after
notice and hearing, levy a reasonable fine for a violation of the Declaration, Bylaws,
Rules and Regulations of the Association;
(n) Impose a reasonable charge for the preparation and recording of
amendments to the Declaration or statements of unpaid assessments;
(0) Provide for the indemnification of the Association's officers and the Board
ofDirectdrs and maintain Directors' and officers' liability insurance;
(P) Exercise any other powers conferred by the Declaration or Bylaws;
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
41446003/13/1998 11:13A BYLAWS DAVIS SILVI
2 of 11 R 56.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
/'
2
r-
'-,
(q) Exercise any power that may be exercised in the state by a legal entity of
the same type as the Association;
(r) Exercise any other power necessary and proper for the governance and
operation of the Association;
2.3 Manager. The Board of Directors may employ a Manager for the Association, at
a compensation established by the Board of Directors to perform duties and services authorized
by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors may delegate to the Manager only the powers
granted to the Board of Directors by these Bylaws under Section 2.2., Subdivisions (c), (e), (g)
and (h). Licenses, concessions and contracts may be executed by the Manager pursuant to
specific resolution of the Board of Directors and to fulfill the requirements of the budget.
2.4 Removal of Directors. The Owners, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all persons
present and entitled to vote, at any meeting of the Owners at which a quorum is present, may
remove any Director of the Board of Directors, other than a Director appointed by the Declarant,
with or without cauSe.
2.5 Vacancies. Vacancies in the Board of Directors, caused by any reason other than
the removal of a Director by a vote of the Owners, may be filled at a special meeting of the
Board of Directors held for that purpose at any time after the occurrence of the vacancy, even
though the Directors present at that meeting may constitute less than a quorum. These
appointments shall be made in the following manner:
(a) As to vacancies of Directors whom Owners other than the Declarant
elected, by a majority of the remaining elected Directors constituting the Board of
Directors; and
(b) As to vacancies of Directors whom the Declarant has the right to appoint,
by the Declarant.
Each person so elected or appointed shall be aDirector for the remainder of the term of
the director so replaced.
2.6 Regular Meetings. The first regular meeting of the Board of Directors following
each annual meeting of the Owners shall be held within ten (10) days after the annual meeting at
a time and place to be set by the Owners at the meeting at which the Board of Directors shall
have been elected. No notice shall be necessary to the newly elected Directors in order to legally
constitute such meeting, provided a majority of the Directors are present. The Board of Directors
may set a schedule of additional regular meetings by resolution, and no further notice is
necessary to constitute r"gular meetings.
2.7 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by
the president or by a majority of the Directors on at least three (3) business days' notice to each
11111111111I11111111111I1111111111111111111111111111111
414460 03/13/1998 11:13A BYLAWS DAVIS SILVI
3 0' 11 R 56.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
3
-------->"
,-.,
,-.,
Director. The Notice shall be hand delivered ot mailed and shall state the time, place and
pUrpose of the meeting.
2.8 Location of Meeting. All meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held within
the City of Aspen.
2.9 Waiver of Notice. Any director may waive notice of any meeting in writing.
Attendance by a Director at any meeting of the Board of Directors shall constitute a waiver of
notice. If all the Directors are present at any meeting, no notice shall be required, and any
business may be transacted at such meeting.
2.10 Quorum of Directors. At all meetings of the Board of Directors, a majority of the
Directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and the votes of a majority of
the Directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall constitute a decision of the
Board of Directors. If, at any meeting, there shall be less than a quorum present, a majority of
those present may adjourn the meeting. At any adjourned meeting at which a quorum is present,
any business which might have been transacted at the meeting originally called may be
transacted without further notice.
2.11 Telephone Communication in Lieu of Attendance. A Director may attend a
meeting of the Board of Directors by using an electronic or telephonic communication method
whereby the Director may be heard by the other members and may hear the deliberations of the
other members on any matter property brought before the Board of Directors. The Director's
vote shall be counted and the presence noted as if that Director were present in person on that
particular matter.
ARTICLE 3 - LOT OWNERS
3.1 Annual meeting. Annual meetings of Owners shall be held in the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at such date set forth in the notice. At these meetings, the Directors shall be elected by
ballot of the Owners, in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Bylaws. The Owners
may transact other business as may properly come before them at these meetings.
3.2 Budget Meeting. Meetings of Owners to consider proposed budgets shall be
called in accordance with the Act. The budget may be considered at Annual or Special Meetings
called for other pUrposes as well.
3.3 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Association may be called by the
president, by a majority of the members of the Board of Directors or by Owners comprising
twenty percent (20%) of the votes in the Association.
3.4 Place of Meetings. Meetings of the Owners shall be held at a suitable place
coiwenient to Owners, as may be designated by the Board of Directors or the president.
1 111111 111lI 111111 111111 11111 1111111111 111111111111 1111
414460 03/13/1998 11:13A BYLAWS DAVIS SILVI
4 of 11 R 5&,00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
4
I'"
.-.
3.5 Notice of Meetings. The secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws shall
cause notice of meetings of the Owners to be hand delivered or sent prepaid by the United States
mail to the mailing address of each Lot or to the mailing address designated in writing by the
Owner, not less than ten (l0) not more than sixty (60) days in advance of a meeting. No action
shall be adopted at a meeting except as stated in the notice.
3.6 Waiver of Notice. Any Owner may, at any time, waive notice of any meeting of the
Owners in writing, and the waiver shall be deemed equivalent to the receipt of notice.
3.7 Adjournment of Meeting. At any meeting of Owners, a majority ofthe Owners who
are present at that meeting, either in person or in proxy, may adjourn the meeting to another time.
3.8 Order of Business. The order of business at all meetings of the owners shall be as
follows:
(a) Roll call;
(b) Proof of notice of meeting;
(c) Reading of minutes of preceding meeting;
(d) Reports;
(e) Election of members of the Board of Directors;
(t) Ratification of budget;
(g) Unfinished business; and
(h) New business.
3.9 Voting.
(a) If only (l) one of several owners of a Lot is present at a meeting of the
Association, the Owner present is entitled to cast all the Votes allocated to the Lot. If more than
one (I) of the owners are present, the Votes allocated to the Lot may be cast only in accordance
with the agreement of a majority in interest of the owners. There is a majority agreement if any
one (l) of the owners casts the Votes allocated to the Lot without protest being made promptly to
the person presiding over the meeting by another owner of the Lot.
(b) Votes allocated to a Lot may be case under a proxy duly executed by an
'Owner. If a Lot is owned by more than one person, each Owner of the Lot may vote or register
protest to the, casting of votes by the other owners of the Lot through a duly executed proxy. An
Owner may revoke a proxy given under this sectiOn only by actual notice of revocation to the
person presiding over a meeting of the Association. A proxy is void if it is not dated or purports
to be revocable without notice. A proxy terminates one year after its date, unless it specifies a
shorter term.
3.10 Quorum. Except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws, the Owners presept in
person or by proxy at any meeting of Owners, but no less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the
members, shall constitute a quorum at that meeting.
1.11111111111111111111111 11111.1111111111111.1111111111111
414460 03/13/1998 11:13A BYLAWS DAVIS SILVI
$ of 11 R 56.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
5
,-"
.,.-,.
3.11 Majority Vote. The Vote ofamajority of the Owners present in person or by proxy
at a meeting at which a quorum shall be present shall be binding upon all Owners for all purposes
except where a higher percentage Vote is required in the Declaration, these Bylaws or by law.
ARTICLE 4 - OFFICERS
4.1 Designation. The principal officers of the Association shall be the president, the vice
president, the secretary and the treasurer, all of whom shall be elected by the Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors may appoint an assistant treasurer, an assistant secretary and other
officers as it finds necessary. The president and vice president, but no other officers, need to be
Directors. Any two offices may be held by the same person, except the office of president and
secretary. The office of vice president may be vacant.
4.2 Election of Officers. The officers of the Association shall be elected annually by the
Board of Directors at the organizational meeting of each new Board of Directors. They shall
hold office at the pleasure of the Board of Directors.
4.3 Removal of Officers. Upon the affirmative vote ofa majority of the Directors, any
officer may be removed, either with or without cause. A successor may be elected at any regular
meeting of the Board of Directors or at any special meeting of the Board of Directors called for
that purpose.
4.4 President. The president shall be the chief executive officer of the Association. The
president shall preside at all meetings of the owners and of the Board of Directors. The president
shall have all of the general powers and duties which are incident to the office of president of a
nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Colorado, including but not
limited to the power to appoint committees from among the Owners from time to time as the
president may decide is appropriate to assist in the conduct of the affairs of the Association. The
president may fulfill the role of treasurer in the absence of the treasurer. The president may
cause to be prepared and may execute amendments, attested by the secretary, to the Declaration
and these Bylaws on behalf of the Association, following authorization or approval of the
particular amendment as applicable.
4.5 Vice President. The vice president shall take the place of the president and perform
the president's duties whenever the president is absent or unable to act. If neither the president
nor the vice president is able to act, the Board of Directors shall appoint some other Director to
act in the place of the president on an interim basis. The vice president shall also perform other
duties imposed by the Board of Directors or by the president.
4.6 Secretary. The secretary shall keep the minutes of all meetings of the Owners and
the Board of Directors. The secretary shall have charge of the Association's books and papers as
the Board of Directors may direct and shall perform all the duties incident to the office of
secretary of a nonprofit corporation organized under the. laws of the State of Colorado. The
secretary may cause to be prepared and may attest to execution by the president of amendments
11111111111111111111111I11111111111111111111111111I1111
41446003/13/1998 11:13A BYLAWS DAVIS SILVI
.6 of 11 R 56.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
6
i~'\
.,-,
to the Declaration and the Bylaws on behalf of the Association, following authorization or
approval oftheparticular amendment as applicable.
4.7 Treasurer. The treasurer shall be responsible for Association funds and securities, for
keeping full and accurate financial records and books of account showing all receipts and
disbursements and for the preparation of all required financial monies and other valuable effects
in depositories designated by the Board of Directors and shall perform all the duties incident to
the office of treasurer of a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Colorado. The treasurer may endorse on behalf of the Association, for collection only, checks,
notes and their obligations and shall deposit the same and all monies in the name of and to the
credit of the Association in banks designated by the Board of Directors. Except for reserve funds
described below, the treasurer may have custody of and shall have the power to endorse for
transfer, on behalf of the Association, stock, securities, or other investment instruments owned or
controlled by the Association or a fiduciary for others. Reserve funds ofthe Association shall be
deposited in segregated accounts or in prudent investments, as reserves for the purposes for
which they were deposited, by check or order, authorized by the treasurer, and executed by two
(2) Directors, one (1) of whom may be the treasurer if the treasurer is also a Director.
4.8 Agreements, Contract, Deeds, Checks, etc. Except as provided in Sections 4.4, 4.6,
4.7 and 4.9 of these Bylaws, all agreements, contracts, deeds, leases, checks and other
instruments of the Association shall be executed by persons designated by the Board of
Directors.
4.9 Statements of Unpaid Assessments. The treasurer, assistant treasurer, a manager
employed by the Association or, in their absence, any officer having access to the books and
records of the Association may prepare, certify and execute statements of unpaid assessments, in
accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 38-33.3~316.
The Association may charge a reasonable fee for preparing statements of unpaid
assessments. The ainount of this fee and the time of payment shall be established by resolution
of the Board of Directors. Any unpaid fees maybe assessed asa Common Expense against the
Lot for which the certificate or statement is furnished.
ARTICLE 5 - ENFORCEMENT
5.1 Abatement and Enjoinment of Violations of Owners. The violation of any of the
Rules and Regulations adopted by the Board of Directors or the breach of any provision of the
Documents shall give the Board of Directors the right, after notice and hearing, except in case of
an emergency, in addition to any other rights set forth in these Bylaws:
(a) To enter the Lot or Limited Common Element in which, or as to which, the
violation or breach exists and to summarily abate and remove, at the expense of the
defaulting owner, any structure, thing or condition (except for additions or alterations of a
permanent nature that may exist in that Lot) that is existing and creating a danger to the
Common Elements contrary to the intent and meaning of the provisions of the
1111111 UmlllllHlIlllllllllllllllllrlll 1111I11111111
41446003/13/1998 11:13A BYLRWS ORVIS SILVI
7 of 11 R 56.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
7
r".
.~.
Documents. The Board of Directors shall not be deemed liable for any manner of
trespass by this action; or .
(b) To enjoin, abate or remedy by appropriate legal proceeds, either at law or in
equity, the continuance of any breach.
5.2 Fine for Violation. By resolution, following notice and hearing, the Board of
Directors may levy a fine of up to $25.00 per day for each day that a violation of the Documents
or rules persists after notice and hearing, but this amount shall not exceed that amount necessary
to insure compliance with the rule or order of the Board of Directors.
ARTICLE 6 - INDEMNIFICATION'
The Directors and officers of the Association shall have the liabilities, and be entitled to
indemnification, as provided in Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act, the provisions of which are
incorporated by reference and made a part of this document.
ARTICLE 7 - RECORDS
7.1 Records and Audits. The Association shall have the liabilities, and be entitled to
indemnification, as provided in Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act, the provisions of which are
incorporated by reference and made a part of this document.
7.2 Examination. All records maintain.ed by the Association or the Manager shall be
available for examination and copying by any Owner, any holder of a Security Interest in a Lot
or its insurer or guarantor, or by any of their duly authorized agents or attomeys, at the expense
of the person examining the records, during normal business hours after reasonable notices.
7.3 Records. The Association shall keep the following records:
(a) An account for each Lot, which shall designate the name and address of each
Owner, the name and address of each mortgagee who has given notice to the Association
that it holds a mortgage on the Lot, the amount of each Common Expense assessment, the
date on which each assessment comes due, the amount paid on the account and the
balance due;
(b) An account for each Owner showing any other fees payable by the Owner;
(c) A record of any capital expenditures in excess of $3,000.00 approved by the
Board of Directors for the current and next two (2) succeeding fiscal years;
(d) A record of the amount and an accurate account of the current balance of any
reserves for capital expenditures, replacement and emergency repairs, together with the
amount of those portions of reserves designated by the Association for a specified
project;
. 111111I1111111111111111111111111111111111I1111111111111
414460 03/13/1998 11:13A BYLRWS ORVIS SILVI
8 of 11 R 56.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
8
~.
,.-"
,"'""
MUST BE TYPED
FILING FEE: $50.00
MUST SUBMIT TWO COPIES
Corporations Section
1560 Broadway, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 894-2251
Fax (303) 894-2242
Please include a typed
self"addressed envelope
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF A COLORADO NONPROFIT
CORPORATION
FILED COpy
9981040333 1'1
.
SECRETARY OF STAiE
03-02-98 16:23:35
The undersigned person(s) acting as incorporator(s) of a nonprofit corporation under the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act
execute(s) the following Articles of Incorporation for such corporation:
FIRST:
SECOND:
and the name of its initial registered agent at such address is
John P. Worcester
THIRD: The nonprofit corporation (will~) ( circle one) have members.
FOURTH:
Provisions regarding the distribution of assets on dissolution are: The assets of the Association
shall be allocated to the members in the same proportions as the number
of lots owned by each member.
FIFTH:
The nonprofit corporation shall have
3
directors who shall serve as the initial board of directors,
The name and address of each director is: (This information is not required)
NAME OF DIRECTOR
ADDRESS (include zip code)
Amy L. Margerum
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611
Randy Ready
130 S. Galena St.. Aspen. CO 81611
SIXTH: The name(s) and address(es) of each incorporator(s) is:
Stephen Barwick
ADDRESS (include zip code)
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611
NAME OF INCORPORATOR(S)
The signature of each incorporator:
tf~
1 111111 11m 111111 111111 111111111111111 III 1111111111111
414461 03/13/1998 11:15A ART INC DAVIS SILVI
1 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
Revised 7/95
1""""
~
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
THE WATER PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
The undersigned hereby signs and acknowledges, for delivery in duplicate to the Secretary of
State of Colorado, these Articles ofIncorporation under the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act.
19981040333 ~1
$ 50.00
SECRETARY OF STATE
03-02-98 16:23:35
The name of this corporation is THE WATER PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
hereinafter referred to as the "Association".
ARTICLE 1
NAME
ARTICLE 2
DURATION
The duration of the Association shall be perpetual.
ARTICLE 3
PURPOSE AND POWERS OF ASSOCIATION
3.1 The Association shall operate the Common Interest Community known as the City of
Aspen Water Treatment Plantand Affordable Housing Project SPA and Subdivision ("Water Place"),
located in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado, in accordance with the powers set forth in the
Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, as amended, and the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act,
as amended.
3.2 The Association shall promote the health, safety, welfare, and common benefit of the
residents of the Common Interest Conununity.
3.3 The Association shall do any and all permitted acts, and shall have and exercise any and .
all powers, rights, and privileges which are granted to a Common Interest Community Association
under the laws of the State of Colorado ,and the Declaration, Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, and other
governing documents of the Association.
3.4 The foregoing statements of purpose shall be construed as a statement of both purposes
and powers, The purposes and powers stated in each clause shall not be limited or restricted by
reference to or interference from the terms or provisions of any other clause, but shall be broadly
construed as independent purposes and powers.
3.5 The Association is vested with the obligation of operation and maintenance of the
common areas of Water Place Subdivision, pursuant to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions filed for record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado.
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
414461 03/13/1998 11:1!A ART INC DAVIS SILVI
2 of ! R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
r\
t"""\.
3.6 The Board or Directors and the officers of the Corporation shall have no personal
liability to the Corporation or its members for monetary damages arising from breach of fiduciary duty
as a Director or officer except as expressly limited by the provisions of Colorado Revised Statues 7-22-
10l(r). The Corporation shall indemnify the Directors and the officers as contemplated in Colorado
Revised Statues 7-22-101.5.
ARTICLE 4
NONPROFIT
The Association shall be a nonprofit corporation, without shares of stock.
ARTICLE 5
MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS AND QUALIFICATIONS
5.1 The classes, rights, and qualifications and the manner of election or appointment of
members are as follows:
(a) the members shall be of one (1) class, Owners who own Lots are defined in the
Declaration;
(b) any person who holds title to a Lot in Water Place shall be a member of the Association,
provided that there shall be only one (1) membership for each Lot owned;
(c) membership shall be automatically transferred upon the conveyance of that Lot;
(d) voting shall be one (1) vote per Lot, and the vote to which each membership is entitled
is the vote assigned to its Lot in the Declaration;
(e) if a Lot is owned by more than one (1) person, those persons shall agree among
themselves how a vote for that Lot's membership is to be cast. Individual co-owners may not cast
fractional votes. A vote by a co-owner for the entire Lots membership interest shall be deemed to be
pursuant to a valid proxy, unle~s another co-owner of the same Lot objects at the time the vote is cast,
in which case such membership's vote shall not be counted.
ARTICLE 6
DECLARANT RESERVED RIGHTS
The Declaration of Water Place shall have additional rights and qualifications as may be
provided under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act and the Declaration. During the period
of Declarant control, the Declarant, or persons designated by Declarant, subject to certain limitations,
may appoint and remove the officers and members of the Board of Directors. The period of Declarant
control terminates sixty (60) days after the conveyance of seventy-five percent (75%) of the Lots that
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
414461 03/13/1998 11:1'R RRT INC DAVIS SILVI
3 of ! R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
/
,-"
.,-",
may be created to Owners other than Declarant. The Declarant may voluntarily surrender the right to
appoint and remove officers and Directors before termination of the periods of Declarant control, but in
that event the Declarant may require, for the duration of the period of Declarant control, that specified .
actions of the Association or Board of Directors, as described in a recorded instrument executed by the
Declarant, be approved by the Declarant before they become effective. Not later than sixty (60) days
after conveyance of twenty-five percent (25%) of the Lots that may be created to Owners other than
Declarant, at least one (1) member, and not less than twenty-five percent (25% of the members of the
members of the Board of Directors, shall be elected by Owners other than the Declarant. Not later than
sixty (60) days after conveyance of fifty percent (50%) of the Lots that may be created to Owners other
than Declarant not less than one-third (1/3) of the members of the Board of Directors must be elected
by Owners other than Declarant.
ARTICLE 7
REGISTERED AGENT FOR SERVICE AND ADDRESS
The initial registered agent of the Association shall be John P. Worcester at the registered
address of 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611.
ARTICLE 8
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The initial Board of Directors shall consist of three (3) persons. The names and addresses of
the persons who shall serve as Directors until their successors shall be elected and qualified are as
follows:
Amy 1. Margerum
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Randy Ready
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Stephen Barwick
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ARTICLE 9
INCORPORATOR
The name and address of the incorporator is:
Stephen Barwick
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 11111111111111111111111I1111111111111111111111I11111111
41446103/13/1998 11:1!R RRT INC DAVIS SILVI
4 of ! R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
r"
'-'.
--
ARTICLE 10
AMENDMENT
Amendment of these Articles shall require the assent of at least two.thirds (2/3) of the members
of the Association as provided in the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act.
ARTICLE 11
DISSOLUTION
Upon dissolution or final liquidation of the Association, other than by merger or consolidation,
the assets of the Association shall be allocated to the members in the same proportions as the number
of lots owned by each member bears to the total number of lots in Water Place and shall be disbursed,
net of expenses and debts of the Association, to the members and their mortgages, or as their respective
interest$ may appear.
ARTICLE 12
EXECUTION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned incorporator has signed these Articles in dllplicate
this~dayof Fe..bll~ ,19%'.
s:!!:f!(~
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing Articles ofIncorporation were acknowledged before me this 'a 4
Fe..Io~ 1995$', by Stephen Barwick.
, '\
dayp:t;
""t,HUW"'lli,
>\~:~'~\~A A. "'"
~ Jv~,~,.......,....,/ ",.'
-.~ ":,. .....' -
;' .tt 8 74,1,:), \,'~:
I ~,.;(/,..:
,.,"~ ~,-,'~ :
"'A'\" //ll' .('\,:
;-~::\:.'.' ',;,.\.~....>:.
. . <:I ,..'... ,<i:o',
". '" C(l\..Q\~","
"ll,/. Ilj.il\P~\\'
Witness my hand and official seal.
My CommIssiOn ecp/Ies
12/2612000
2 Ii: AJ&h
Notary Public . ~
My commission expires:
EAA.02/24/98-g:\edna\word\WP.ARTCL
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
41446103/13/1998 11,1!A ART INC ORVIS SILVI
! of ! R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
/
-,
~
W\&-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manage~ .//{I ../
Stan Clauson, Community Development DirectoYY
THRU:
FROM:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director D.}..-\.
DATE:
July 22, 1996 tvtd' ...;f~ct<<- ~
City of Aspen Water Treatment Plan~ffordable Housing Project Final SPA'
Review - Second Reading of Ordinance 23, Series of 1996
RE:
SUMMARY: The proposed Water Treatment Plan and Affordable Housing Development would house
essential city employees, including emergency response personnel, adjacent to the city's water treatment
and distribution facilities. The project also calls for significant improvements to both the infrastructure .
and office facilities of the water plant. The Final SPA application is attached as Exhibit A. The
Conceptual SPA Plan was unanimously approved by City Council on May 22, 1996 as Ordinance IS,
Series of 1996. The Final SPA was approved by the Planning Commission on July 2,1996. Council
passed first reading of Ordinance 23, Series of 1996 unanimously on July 8,1996,
Staff is recommending approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Asset Management Department, represented by David Hauter (Project
Manager)
LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 2 and 4, City of Aspen Thomas Property. The property is located at the
end of Doolittle Drive, south of Castle Ridge Housing complex, and includes the City water plant. The
entire parcel is approximately 54 acres, with approximately 5 acres proposed for residential
development. The property is zoned Public (PUB) with an SPA (Specially Planned Area) overlay, The
adjoining residential uses to the North are zoned R-15 PUD SPA.
PROPOSAL: The following approvals are requested:
I. SPA Amendment to accommodate the proposed affordable housing development and
improvements to the existing Water Plant;
2, Subdivision to create a separate 4.39 acre parcel for the affordable housing development;
3. Conditional Use Review for affordable housing in the Public zone district (final approval by
Commission)
4, GMQS Exemption for affordable housing;
~
,~
,"-;'
5. Special Review for parking, open space and dimensional requirements for the affordable housing
development (final approval by Commission); and
6, 8040 Greenline Review (final approval by Commission).
The applicant proposes to construct 22 fully deed restricted units and to renovate an existing unit for a
total of 23 units. The unit mix for the new units will be as follows:
· 5 single-family detached residences (one 3-bedroom and four 4-bedrooms);
· 6 duplex units (three 3-bedrooms and three 2-bedrooms);
· II townhouse units (three 2-bedrooms, five I-bedrooms, and three studios).
Table I summarizes the type, number of units, square footage and proposed unit costs of the project. the
proposal would create three Resident Occupied units, eight Category 4 units, eight Category 3 units and
three Category 2 units. Half of the units are Category 2 and 3, and will not exceed $125,000 in sale
price. A copy of the Deed Restriction is included in the application as Exhibit 9,
Unit~
A
B
C
D
D
E
E
F
F
G
G
G
H
H
Type
single fam,
singie fam,
single fam,
duplex
duplex
duplex
duplex
2 bdrm twnhm
2 bdrm twnhm
1 bdrm twnhm
1 bdrm twnhm
1 bdrm twnhm
studio
studio
,v.,r'
TABLE!
PROPOSED UNIT CHARACTERISTICS
# of units
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
# of bdrms
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Basement
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
S,F. per unit
1105
1440
1436
1125
1125
936
936
902
902
748
748
748
600
600
The following improvements to the water treatment facilities are proposed:
Unit Cost
. $192,000
$229,000
$214,700
$207,800
$183,000
$181,000
$161,000
125,000
115,000
114,300
74,200
107,000
95,000
63,300
Category
4
R.O,
4 (max)
4 (max)
4
4
4
3 (max)
3
3 (max)
2 (max)
3
3
2 (maxi'
· The expansiol1 of the existing raw water storage reservoir from the existing 4.8 million gallon
capacity to approximately 8 million gallons to address peak day demand fluctuations;
. The expansion of the second floor of the existing "west plant" by approximately 2,674 sq. ft, and
remodeling of the first floor;
. The remodeling and reorganization of the "east plant" office, control room and shop spaces;
2
,,-
~
. The expansion of the existing chlorine storage building by approximately 250 s.f., and the existing
electrical shed by approximately 450 s.f.;
. Grading of a platform for a new transformer storage yard;
. Construction of a new 4,000 s.f. Water Department storage building for vehicle and equipment
storage;
. Additional surface parking and approximately 12,000 s.f. of construction material storage in two
three-sided concrete structures;
. Construction of a Water Plant Emergency Response Building consisting of a 550 square foot, one-
story building located at the south end of the affordable housing parking lot;
. Security fencing around the water treatment plant facility and the western property lines of the
single-family units; and
. Associated infrastructure improvements including water, sewer, private utilities and Doolittle Road.
. Designation of a site for a future storage building of approximately 2,000 sq. ft.
No net employee increase is expected in connection with these improvements.
The application, including a reduced set of site plans is attached as Exhibit A.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Housing, Engineering and Environmental Health have all reviewed the
project (see Exhibit B), and these comments are summarized below:
Housing Office: The Housing Office noted that the comments provided during the Conceptual SPA
Review are still valid. The Housing Board approved both the proposed net livable square footage
(including those units that do not comply with the minimum required net livable square footage) and the
category mix of Resident Occupied (RO) and Category 4 units as stated in the application. The Unit
categorization for all units are shown on Table 2 (page 24 of the application). The master deed
restriction for the units shall be approved and recorded by the Housing Office prior to issuance of any
building permits.
Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has reviewed the application, and suggested that
several lot lines should be adjusted. Staff would suggest that these issues can be addressed at the time a
Final SPA Plan is prepared for recording. All other engineering concerns have been incorporated into
the conditions.
Environmental Health: Environmental Health reviewed the project in 1995, and had indicated that these
comments are still valid. Conditions of approval recommended included the submittal of a fugitive dust
plan (included in conditions), confirmation from the Sanitation District for future service (included in
conditions), the completion of a Phase II Environmental Audit (included in application) and the approval
of an evacuation plan (approved by City Council).
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has responded to the conditions set forth by City Council during
the Conceptual SPA Review on pages 12-15 of the application.
1. SF A Amendment: The applicant proposes to amend the Lot 4 City Thomas Property SPA
Amendment #1, dated 3/27/96, to accommodate the proposed affordable housing development and
improvements to the existing Water Plant. Per Section 28.80.0 I 0, the purpose of a specially planned
area (SPA) is to:
3
.-.,
,-,
A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those
circumstances where traditional zonhig techniques do not adequately address its historical significance,
natural features, unique physical character, or location, and where potential exists for community benefit
from comprehensive development.
B. Allow the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design
practices which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional requirements.
C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered
appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public benefit.
The Final SPA review standards are summarized below, followed by staff s response.
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and
open space.
. Response: The appropriateness of the site for affordable housing and the proposed density and
conceptual design of the project were established during the Conceptual SPA Review, The affordable
housing units will be located adjacent to existing housing complexes and the existing water treatment
plant. Floor plans and elevations for the affordable housing units and the new/remodeled buildings at the
water treatment plant are included in the application packet. Staff recognizes that the design is
somewhat limited by the affordable nature of the project.
The design approach of the units have a strong "New Urbanism" influence, with one-story front porches
accessed from a common pedestrian walk on the east side of Doolittle Drive, The porch and kitchen
window of each of the 17 attached units are oriented towards the landscaped open space. With the
exception of Unit 22 at the southwest comer of the property, all units have oriented garage entrances
away from Dolittle a broad sidewalk which serves each unit and provides a focus for social interaction
and personal identity through individual front porches. Autos are clustered along Doolittle Drive, and
are screened by a landscaped berm to minimize asphalt and buffer the street.
Massing of the buildings is characterized by simple volumes, gable roofs, cross gables and shed porches,
representative of a "western" design feel. Each unit has a one story porch, which further reduces the
perceived mass of each structure. All units are two-story, except the studios. The units have a strong
solar orientation, and energy efficient design is proposed, including super efficient insulation and low
flow water appliances, Massing of the structures has also been reduced by stepping down to a one-story
studio on the structures adjacent to the parking area. Small buildings are located along the street for the
emergency response building, van shelter, mail kiosk, recycle center and covered parking. Proposed
building materials include horizontal lap siding, cedar shingles, rough sawn cedar plywood with battens,
and untreated corrugated metal. Roofing will consist of asphalt shingles and corrugated metal.
The single-family units on the west side of Doolittle Drive have gone through several design changes to
address comments from both Planning Staff and City Council. The current design abandons the
previously proposed cul-de-sac in favor of a stronger pedestrian orientation utilizing two driveway cuts
off of Doolittle Drive.
Staff would suggest that the design would be further enhanced by improving the landscaping buffer
along the west side of Doolittle Drive. As shown on the proposed site plan, Units 20, 21 and 22 have a
4
""'"
r"",,,
range in setback from Doolittle Drive from 20 to 25 feet. Due to the volume of large equipment
associated with the Water Treatment Plant, staff would suggest that the applicant design some form of
berming and vegetation to buffer these units from traffic noise. Staff has proposed a condition to address
the need to explore options without creating a "tunnel vision" effect to the streetscape.
The associated water treatment plant improvements are generally located in an area historically used for
municipal purposes, and do not represent an incompatible use. Due to the natural topography of the site,
none of the associated improvements can be seen from the proposed residential units.
Ordinance 30 Compliance: The project will be required to undergo a full Ordinance 30 review for
compliance with the City's Design Guidelines. The Guidelines are based on encouraging units to orient
to the street, reducing perceived mass by applying volume calculations, placing public living space near
the front of units, de-emphasizing the automobile and garage doors as they relate to the street on which
the structure faces and encouraging human interaction between units. The units on the east side of
Doolittle Drive appear to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of Ordinance 30.
The units on the west side of Doolittle are more problematic due to the emphasis Ordinance 30 places on
the relationship between a proposed structure and a traditional gridded street pattem. The primary issue
with these units is the orientation of the garages in relation to the street. Staff believes that units 18 and
22 have a garage orientation that is unacceptable, and must be redesigned. In addition, the two-story
entry ways should be revised to reduce the vertical massing and re-emphasize the front porches.
Although the building envelopes are constrained due to topography and existing infrastructure, the
applicant is revising the elevations for the single family in an effort to address Ordinance 30 issues.
2, Whether sufficient public facilities androads exist to service the proposed development.
Response: The residential site is located on the boundary of the City's gravity system and the pumped
pressure zone of Meadowood. The site will be served by a main line located in Doolittle Drive that is fed
from the Meadowood pump station. Sewer will be provided via a main line extension located in the east
end of the upper loop of the Castle Ridge project. Common recycling and trash collection facilities have
been provided at the north end of the proposed parking lot.
Access to both the water treatment plant and the affordable housing site is via Doolittle Drive, which
currently does not meet City standards for pavement width, grade, or turning radii. The current proposal
to re-align and widen Doolittle Drive will bring the road into compliance with all applicable City
standards: lane widths are 12' with 2' shoulders; the roadway grade will not exceed 10%; and the curve
radius at the lower switchback will be increased to 100'. A plan and profile for Doolittle Drive are
included in the application packet on map sheet C5.
The applicant is proposing 2: I upslope and downslope grades from Doolittle Drive. Revegetation of
road cuts will consist of placement of adequate topsoil and finish grading, grass seed and replacement
scrub oak. All revegetated areas will be irrigated for two seasons after installation.
Three road cuts will provide access to the affordable housing units. Signs are proposed to identify all
pedestrian crossings and to limit vehicular speed to 20 mph. The pavement width has been reduced with
"bulbouts" at the intersection of Doolittle Drive and the residential accesses to further reduce the traffic
speed. Staff would suggest that the applicant be required to install some form of pavement treatment to
clearly delineate the Doolittle Drive crossing. Staff has included a condition of approval to address this
issue,
5
~\
t~,
Oft'-site impacts are summarized in the Engineering Report, Improvements have been defined for lower
Castle Creek Road and the Maroon Creek/SH 82 intersection. As a result of analyzing these
improvements as well as projected traffic counts, a pro-rata share of the traffic impacts generated by the
project are estimated at $5,052.63. Staffhas concerns regarding the adequacy of this figure, and would
suggest that the methodology for arriving at the proportional share should be reviewed and approved by
both City and County Engineer prior to signing of a subdivision agreement between the applicant and the
City. This has been included as a condition of approval.
An issue that was discussed before City Council at conceptual review was the operational problems
associated with the RFTA bus stop located near the terminus of Doolittle Drive at Castle Creek Road.
The existing stop is not adequate for passenger waiting, and buses are partially in the travel lane when
boarding. Staff has proposed a design modification (see Exhibit C), which would relocate the shelter
approximately IS feet towards Castle Creek Road to create additional storage room for buses. The
existing trail that provides access across Castle Creek Road to the Marolt Property would also be
relocated. Staff would suggest that the improvements be funded and constructed by the City as
mitigation for the increased transit use by residents of the project. Staff has included the improvements
to the bus stop as a condition of approval.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering
the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudjlow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and jlood
hazards,
Re.ponse: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. prepared a subsoil survey of the site in May of 1995,
and concluded that the project is feasible, however, underdrain systems will be required due to depth to
groundwater (see Geotech Report in the application). Specific recommendations regarding foundations,
retaining walls, floor slabs and site grading are included in the report and must be followed during
construction.
The project is not located in an area having known mud flow, rock fall, avalanche or flood hazard areas.
A Phase II Environmental Audit is included with the application packet, and does not identify any
hazardous waste on the site that would preclude either residential or municipal land uses.
4, Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve
significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar
amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
Response: The project has employed progressive and responsive land use techniques based on
comments from the Commission, City Council, and City staff. The units overlooking the bluff have been
set back, and the second story has been "stepped back" from the rear facade to limit the structural
projection from the top of slope. In addition, none of the existing scrub oak will be disturbed.
The lower portion of the site is proposed to be public open space. No concrete proposals for
improvements or ownership of the park have been discussed, Future planning for the site will include
the Water Place, Castle Ridge and Twin Ridge residents. The applicant is proposing an 8' wide recycled
asphalt trail that would descend to the Twin Ridge intersection to provide exclusive pedestrian access to
the RFT A bus stop and the Marolt trail. Snowplowing and maintenance of the trail will be the
responsibility of the homeowner's association. The open space component of the multi-family units on
the east side of Doolittle Drive is an asset, and wmprovide an amenity to the entire area.
6
.,-,
.,-"
The design of the associated water treatment plant improvements should not be visible due to the
topography and natural vegetation of the site,
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide
public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood
Response: The costs of upgrading Doolittle Drive will be incorporated into the cost of the homes.
However, as a direct beneficiary of the road improvements, the Water Department should pay some portion
of these costs. Final approval of the proportional share for road improvements should be approved by both
the City and County Engineer prior to the recording of a final SPA Plan. This has been included as a
condition of approval.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope
reduction and density requirements of Sec. 26.84,030 (B)(2)(b) [prior code 24-7-903].
Response: No slopes exceeding 20% will be impacted by the development.
8, Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotmentsfor the proposed development.
Response: A GMQS exemption may be granted by the City Council for a 100% affordable housing
development. The water plant infrastructure is considered an essential public facility, and is exempt from
growth management.
2. Subdivision: The specific review criteria for subdivision, as required by Section 26.88, are
summarized below.
A. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land Wtsuitable for development
because of jlooding , drainage, rock or soil creep, mudjlow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep
topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response' As mentioned earlier, the EP A Phase II Audit did not identify any existing contamination that
would preclude development. The Geotech Report reached similar conclusions.
B. Spatial Pattern. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that
cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and Wtnecessary public costs.
Response: The discussion regarding compliance with SPA amendment criteria addressed the spatial pattern
of the project.
C. Improvements. The Code lists 16 required improvements for subdivision including items such as
survey monuments, paved streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, jlre hydrants, street signs, etc.
7
""""
.-.,
Re~onse: The applicant and staff are in substantial agreement regarding the specific design of the
roadway, trail and internal access. Final details such as road and trail centerlines, survey lot lines, etc. will
be determined by Staff and the Engineering Department at the time mylars are prepared for recordation,
Staff notes that the pedestrian paths accessing the units on the east side of Doolittle Drive are not
exclusively on each unit's property, This will require either an adjustment to the proposed lot lines, or a
series of reciprocal agreements to ensure access to each unit. Similar agreements will be required for access
to the single family units, due to the private access easement nature of the roadway. This requirement is
included as a condition of approval.
The slope will be altered upslope and downslope along Doolittle Drive, and staff has concerns regarding
the slope retention and revegetation of the area. The proposed slopes reach 2: I, which will make topsoil
retention difficult. Prior to recordation of a final plat and subdivision agreement, the applicant will be
required to provide security to ensure survivaJ'for required plantings for at least two years, This
requirements is included as a condition of approval.
Sidewalks. Staff and the applicant have discussed many options for pedestrian travel to and through the
site, including consideration of sidewalks on either side of Doolittle Drive. These options are not practical
due to snow plowing constraints and potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Staff believes that the best
option is the proposed path which descends to the Twin Ridge intersection. Maintenance and plowing of
the sidewalk will be responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
Subdivision Agreement: Prior to or concurrent with the recordation ofa final plat, the applicant and City
Council shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement binding on the subdivision to any conditions placed on the
development order.
Landscape Guarantee: In order to ensure implementation and maintenance of the landscaping plan, the City
Council may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred and twenty-five
percent (125%) of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements.
Public Facilities Guarantee: In order to ensure installation of necessary public facilities planned to
accommodate the subdivision, the City Council shall require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less
than 100 percent of the current estimated cost of such public improvements, as estimated by the City
Engineer.
3. Conditional Use Review: Affordable housing is listed as a Conditional Use in the Public zone
district, therefore, this project must comply with the criteria of Section 26.60.040.
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located;
and
Re~onse: Consistency with the AACP was previously addressed. The intent ofthe Public zone district
is "to provide for the development of governmental and quasi-govemmental facilities for cultural,
educational, civic and other governmental purposes," The 54 acre site currently contains the Aspen
water plant facility, accessory structures and one residence. The SPA overlay encourages innovative
design and the development of mixed land uses to provide for the greatest public benefit. The creation of
affordable housing fo benefit the City and the
community.
8
,--.
--.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of
the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of
complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and
Response: This criterion has been met, as discussed above.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use
minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
Response: A total of35 parking spaces are provided for the 17 townhome units in a common parking
area accessed from and parallel to Doolittle Drive. Each single-family residence will include a two-car
garage with additional parking available on the garage apron. Trash dumpsters are located adjacent to
the parking area, and mail boxes will also be centrally located. RFT A van pool service is available into
Aspen, A trail will connect the project with the bus stop at Castle Creek Road and with the Marolt trail.
The Conceptual SPA approval specified that the new residential structures shall not be washed with light
from any exterior light fixtures. Wall-mounted fixtures at exterior doors Will have down light elements.
No landscape lighting will be allowed. Lighting on the pedestrian walk to the townhomes will receive 42
inch high bollard lighting with down-light louvers over the elements. Minimal downlighting will be
provided in the parking area for safety purposes. City of Aspen streetlights will be installed along
Doolittle Drive, and the trail will receive safety lighting similar to that provided along the pedestrian
walk.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not
limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical
services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools.: and
Response: The. site will be served by a main water line extension located in Doolittle Drive that is fed
from the Meadowood pump station, Sewer will be provided via a main line extension located in the east
end of the upper loop of the Castle Ridge project. All other public services are easily accessible.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased
employees generated by the conditional use; and
Response: All 23 units will be deed-restricted as affordable housing.
F, The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen
c
Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title.
Response: The proposal complies with the applicable requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code,
4. GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing: The Council shall exempt deed restricted housing
that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines, The Commission shall review and make a
recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the review of any
request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need
for such housing, considering the proposed developments compliance with an adopted housing plan, the
number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, the size of
9
,--
..-,
each unit, the rental/sale mix, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be
deed restricted
Response: The Housing Board has reviewed the proposal and supports the unit mix, size and price
categories.
5. Special Review: Special Review is required to establish dimensional requirements and off-street
parking requirements for development in the Public zone district. The applicant requests the following
dimensional requirements:
PROPOSED SETBACKS
Unit Type Front Side Rear
Single-Family Detached 0 0, 5 total 5
Duplex 5 0, 5 total 10
Triplex 5 0 10
The requested setbacks will establish a building envelope for each structure, which will be identified on
the Final SPA Plan. Any expansion shall occur within the building envelopes.
. Minimum Lot Size: 2,000 square feet/townhouse unit; 5,850 square feet/single-family detached unit
. Maximum Building Height: 28 feet measured from existing grade to the ridge. This hieght is
consistent with both Ordinance 30 (which differentiates measurement by roof pitch), and the adjacent
R-15 zone district.
. Maximum FAR: 0.5:1 for the single-family detached dwellings; 0.75:1 for the attached townhouse
units
. Off-Street Parking: I space/studio; 2 spaces for all other units; 4 guest spaces will also be included
in the parking lot.
Pursuant to Section 26.64.040(A), the proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the
following criteria:
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the
proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of
surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district,
Response: The proposed setbacks and height of the structures allow clustering of the units in order to
retain more open space on the property.
2, The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on
surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess
traffic. availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane.
Response: The applicant has worked with the adjacent homeowners to minimize the visual impact of the
project, and proposes to limit the speed on Doolittle Drive to 20 mph,
10
-."
.-,
The proposed off-street parking shall also comply with the following requirements of Section
26.64.040(B):
\
1. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements are subject to establishment and/or
\
mitigation by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents,
customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the
parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of
the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services,
such as vans, providedfor residents, guests and employees.
Response: The proposed parking is consistent with the parking requirements established by Ordinance
30, Series of1990. A RFTA bus stop is accessible from the project, and a van pool is proposed.
8040 Greenline Review: Pursuant to Section 26.68.030, the affordable housing units and the water plant
improvements require 8040 Greenline approval based on compliance with the following standards:
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development
considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subSidence and the possibility of
mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. .if the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the
applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from
the site to a location acceptable to the city.
Re$ponse: Development on the parcel has been limited to suitable areas.
2. The proposed development does not have a siguificant adverse affect on the natural watershed,
runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
Response: Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. notes that the proposed project will not
affect historic runoff patterns or volumes in the area, and will not introduce pollutants into area stream
systems.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the
city,
Re$ponse: Air quality will not be significantly affected. The project is close to a bus stop and trails that
connect to Aspen and the school campus. Further, the provision of metro area employee housing reduces
trip lengths and will have a beneficial affect on air quality.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the
terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Response: The townhouses have been located to avoid the steep slopes to the north and east and to take
advantage of the existing buildable portions of the site. The relocation of a portion of Doolittle Drive
will impact slopes only to the extent necessary for the road to meet City standards.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and "
natural land features.
Response: The structures have been placed and designed to minimize grading and impacts to vegetation.
II
1"'\
,--
6, The placement and clustering of stn,cMes will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and
grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource,
Reilponse: The townhomes and single-family units have been clustered to minimize impacts and the
maintain open space.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the
open character of the mountain,
Re&ponse: The units are below or meet the minimum net livable square footage requirements in order to
minimize impact on the site. The townhouse units have been divided into duplexes and triplexes to
reduce the perceived bulk of the structures.
8, Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development.
Response: All utilities are available and have sufficient capacity to service the development.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly
maintained
Response: Reconstructed Doolittle Drive will be adequate to serve the development. Maintenance of the
road will be the responsibility of the Streets Department.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate
access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Response: All roads have been designed to City of Aspen standards, Fire access has been improved
within the townhome site via a twenty-five foot wide dedicated fire access which loops through the site
providing access to within seventy-five feet from the furthest structure. The surface of the fire access
will be ten feet of hard paving (concrete or asphalt) and ten feet of subsurface grass paving system.
Specifications of the grass paving system must be provided to the Fire Marshall for final approval prior
to construction.
Staff is concerned regarding the ability of emergency vehicles to access the site from Doolittle Drive
over the handicapped ramps shown on the plans. Staff would suggest that the applicant review the plans
with the Fire Marshall prior to the Council meeting.
II. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation!
Open SpacelTrails Plan map is dedicatedfor public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas
of special interest to the community.
Response: The proposed trail and common space will be dedicated for public use.
RECOMMENDATION: On July 2,1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously
recommended Council approve the project based on compliance with the following conditions:
12
1'"".
~
I. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during hearings before the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are considered conditions of approval, unless amended
by other conditions.
2. The amended SPA Development Plan shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the amended SPA Development Plan within a
period of 180 days following approval by the City Council shall render the PUD approval invalid and
reconsideration and approval by the Commission and City Council will be required before the acceptance
and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by the City Council for a showing of good cause.
3. A final stormwater drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
any development permits.
4. The applicant shall sign Doolittle Drive as 20 miles per hour, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
5. The proposed pedestrian loop on the east side of Doolittle Drive shall be approved by the Fire'
Marshall for emergency access purposes.
6. The fmal plat shall have signature blocks for all utilities.
7. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for
construction of right-of-way improvements in adjacent and neighborhood public rights-of-way.
8. The final SPA Plan must show, dimension,'and number all parking for the development.
9. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design considerations of development within
public rights-of-way, Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within the public right-of-way from City Streets Department.
10. Native vegetation to be retained shall be protected to the maximum extent practical, including the
establishment of building envelopes outsicle of the existing oak scrub. Construction fencing shall be erected
at the dripline around all protected vegetation adjacent to structures, trails or roads prior to the issuance of
any excavation, grading, or building permits. Any exposed roots must be protected during construction per
Parks Department direction.
11. Street light fixtures and locations shall be approved the Community Development and shown on the
Final SPA Plan.
12. Mud shall not be tracked onto City or County streets during construction.
13, Prior to acceptance of financial assurances for the project, the cost estimates of improvements must
be approved by the City Engineer.
14, A line extension agreement and appropriate fees will be required per Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District Regnlations.
15, Homeowners covenants must provide for snow removal on any sidewalks and trails approved
through this development review.
13
I"'"
.-,
16. Street names shall meet the approval of the City Engineering Department.
17. The single family home size variance is allowed for net livable area less than the 1,400 square feet.
18. The deed restrictions shall be 3 Resident Occupied units and 20 Category units,
19. The eventual trail alignment shall be staked for review by the Community Development
Department, and shall avoid as much existing vegetation as practical. Snow removal on the trail shall be
the responsibility of the homeowner's association.
20. Residents from adjacent residential neighborhoods should be included in the planning and design
of the proposed park. The park should be adequately fenced or screened with vegetation to keep children
from straying onto' Doolittle Drive. The applicant shall submit a park design to the Parks Department for
approval prior to the recording of a final SPA Plan. .
21. A park development impact fee will be granted in exchange for the applicant's commitment to
design and construct park development activities (grading, drainage, top soi~ seeding and vegetation).
22. No fireplaces are approved for the development.
23. A fugitive dust plan shall be approved by Environmental Health prior to the issuance of any
grading, excavation, utility, demolition, or building permits.
24, Financial guarantees for landscaping, revegetation, and public facilities improvements must be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to the issuance of any development
permits for the project.
25. The applicant shall submit pavement treatments for the crossing of Doolittle Drive for review
and approval by the Engineering Department and the Community Development Department prior to the
recording of a Pinal SPA Plan.
26. All construction shall be consistent with the Geotech report recommendations conducted by
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
27, The applicant shall be required to present evidence to Council that the GMQS Exemption and
associated mitigation waivers are appropriate .and warranted.
28. The concrete path on surrounding the open space shall be colored to reflect a more natural
appearance.
29, The applicant shall confirm that the proposed road impact mitigation is consistent with the
relative impact of the project on the CastleIMaroonCreek/SH82 intersection.
30. The applicant shall be responsible for the minor relocation and improvement of the Doolittle
Drive Bus Stop, as shown on Exhibit C of the Staff memorandum.
14
1"""'.
~
31. The applicant shall submit proposed landscaping screening or other form of buffering between
Doolittle Road and the single family units for approval by the Community Development Department at
the time of final SPA plan submittal.
32. The applicant shall revise the elevations for the single family homes on the west side of Doolittle
Drive to achieve compliance with Ordinance 30, Series of 1995. Community Development staff shall
review the revisions prior to recording of a Final SPA Plan.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 23, Series of 1996 on Second
Reading."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
A - Final SPA Application
B - Referral Comments
C - Proposed Bus Stop Improvements
D - Ordinance 23, Series of 1996
File Location: C:\HOMEIDA VEM\CASES\PUDI W ATFINCC.DOC
15
."......,
.,-,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Soo c_~ 00="",,, ~DITtt""
David Hauter, Asset Mana .
July 22, 1996
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Staff Memorandum Dated July 8, 1996
The Water Treatment Plan and Affordable Housing Project
Reference page six of the memo regarding staffs concems with the adequacy of the direct
contribution of this project to off site traffic improvements.
At the City Council meeting tonight, staff needs to be prepared to identify their specific
concems and or support the figure stated in the application. SGM (Schmueser Gordon
Meyer), the engineers for this project, based their methodology on the Housing Authority's
approach of calculating trip generation figures for comparable affordable residential units
with available transit options.
Attached is the complete engineering reports submitted as part of the application in March
of 1995 and again in June of 1996. There are three basic issues that need clarifications by
City and County.
#1 Is the agreement with HineslMoore regarding State HWY 82/Maroon Creek
intersection for a fully funded new intersection at that location without any
additional contributions from any other developer.
#2 Is the methodology used with SGM acceptable with this project for arriving at the
pro-rata share for improvements for lower Castle Creek Road.
#3 lfthe methodology used is not acceptable, what cost approach should be used?
We need to meet with Amy Margerum this aftemoon before the City Council meeting.
Please call me.
cc: Amy Margerum
Dave Michaelson
Nick Adeh
l3,.'1r~ '
L1 ~. . 1\ \ (')1-' 91\ 1\
VV\ l~,c ~ tJ ~ IV\../ \I../VV
2;::::>.\ ~
.--tc:> ~.>'~ \ QAJ\J ~ y.....
l!"', (\ l
r~,\[\>v) L.,.,; 6\ + \ ~
M46_96
Enclosures
18-0' "'The Aspen Times .'SaturdaySunday. July ~7, /996
~:;~~.1~rl'
Adve,init:#i.:"",,, 00' ,.: ,:.'
. . ".: ,1~,;"~:' ;.,~'r....:.. ", ,....:.~~.:J~~f.,~ .~::':: .:t ''''~!'''''~ ,"?:"l~j
. continued """'''''_ 1-11 ,', , l~ft S.llu.,'n~ ,t~. .:,'~":' ". '.: ",;-i., '~:~,"'i~
hi iifldilicm In II~~ 101) t'.c"'lt~n...~;:~, ',.SiUll.lat 'i~,LhHi'~lItrnale:\\'eath.~~
1111' r'ff) Ihen o;chl~cil.oll'cJ I~ l:mri er ttdJ' tdj,llIlng G:r~i~ig;r, ',:~'~" ',~,;=_
;",'W II,:;:Iud:: Jc...11ll romac, :\like " ",
King, Dave .cullinan. Myles kay.iclng
Rockwell. Tomas Mjsser. Francis The Aspen Kayak School, in
Gacl)ei,and,:..~ria,q~~.,..;" ," \assoclatiod~:itfu the::*-United
The wornen's field includes States Canoe and Kayak Team, '1'1
the aforementioned Donovan,the will stage the Dual Slalom <
1001;: w.,.+i.,tb::'....1::~'!"~!'ll~:;;:-"", '.1',.'" . Kayaking Races for 'I:
... '\ '.11, .1
l ; c':., .. ", '. ng will take place,oni!
" ;,1t:t,.,~ _', . . FJ,iday' y.rith racing oTi Saturday, )l
~.",~;,t Hang gIId~,nc, ,~.t;:;;:':Juli:6. urider the direction of ;;
. . The Aspe~ Aer~.R.. a~~.s'.W~J.C"KfrkJlakerpf. the. "Aspen KaYaki1.
k.ck off th~ Ro~klttJo~nlalh f jcfiQOf"'i; n CH\f' 'i
Adventure Gain'@iitfn Saturaay){- ,-, "fiur'kayakihg portion of the('
July 6: The ASn~n A,ir Force. . ,C;BWV~ml1l'tition will, be ,;
sanctioned by .1o-11'11=,.l~..I ~.~w- "1f .,~,. ;..; : '. the Roanng;)
Hang GliCling ','.:.'" . ~ "'iI,~. .~. .~ " theboa,ters ,:l
charge of the A I~- '. ..~." .,': ~me,teryLane:
The events will consist of two and racing down Class 4 y
competitions - an,~ ids ..,--- two at a '
and a speed glidi,,;
events will fea .. e the pad-.;;
ASpen' Mountai '. ~~, , Slaughter- H
dusk, Landings wil "e~"a s hey scramble in i~
North Stat Nature Preserv~and. . ,e u~qiJ~ dual fOnilat., ,': .. . J
the Maioltfi,eld.~ ':"(~~')', '~ . ~.' ~~:, tt' H~) tKaYfttatefare-Wf t6tbegtn at. i
For the speed gliding race,' <) p,t;!);; on Saturday. Arid accord~!
pilots will race against the clock I 'ing to organizers, the kayaking t
by flying around sky gates;'The' 'eveTits'"ontheRoaring Fork will il
flyers will lellvt' a lraiJ of smokE' be"sditie:tif, 'th~'~mosi"~visualf!
in' the. air as ,they negotiate tadi- '. everits:;of the, Rodty. :Mountain h
calloops'aIld;.e;liyesthrough,the,; 'A.dy~*1tureG~es:,(~';.Y~'~:":'1': . ,il
course. '. "I. ,: Spectators 8relnvtted to View"
Hang-gliding, piJpts, ,,~iIL; 'lli,e, ka);!Wng ~"t4e shore. ju~t II
include John Heinet; Aaron "as~~Y- are illvited to watch the j.l
Swepston, Tony Bartoo, Mitcn jiiount~n~1?~ do~nhil1 f"r9m the 1j
McAleer,' Tammy.Bt\tcltr;iKati_ ~'~tide[6frtlie' c6Ui'st~(Kayakers J.i
Castle, Rob Kenl),;,Latr}::~qlior: l~sche~",le~,t,?+ ~ompete ineluderi
Allison Bumhefn~l.'tlAf~ Sharp' local1iba~rNels6h'OIdham.lhe;1
and Chris Arai. . '. '.' "winner oft~e 1996 U.S. Team,l!
Saturday"s SChlulE""'''l1~ ~"Tlfl~ 1..."'""1".....,......:_- 'vill bej.j
aefubaticcompeti . f.I.,.....~.',. ';"1'''''1 .... Mark'!j
7 a,m. and 8 p.m. .' . ~ ,,,,IJ. i: 1.'1 ." k Bev. h
:The speed glidx,,_, l~' ':' i' ;r" ....~ . ~,.I .;. " .:'.... . ~ ,y andll
set for 7;30 a.m.iji~ I. . ...~. II' ,i..I'. ""';'1. ,~ d
il
--
-^
'1'
,~'He who stopso~irtg oettwstop[;oeing go04,':,.
- Olivet, Cromwell
"';,1 . ':,.."i~."" ..-
!f'...."l\1l.. it.".", """
....,,(.. , 'rf:"ISii{f:': ;~,"1!-1i>..f.'" :""I't '''; ..~_ p,
r-: ~,'''''... - -: - - - - --
'. .....iI!~1I
I.. All Work Guaranteed
'r' ~'ln~~ralists '
'I prEiSllhted'at
" " un1lVdf 1r1sta/1a6ol;t
';,1'
""'.ii"
,I
.L
ASPEN;;CE$;TER.FOR .'PHYSICS'
,JleJilzR. Pagels.. .
Meti!oti~I:l;etture Seties1996
Wedilesaay evenings; a p:m.
PaepckeAuditilrlum attheAspen Institute
FREE! FREE! FREE!
"" ""juffl(j,,-'""Shcitl8ws of Creation:. ....
"The Dark"iWattef of the Universe"
Dr. SCl1ranun., Vi.c~ ~resi!lent. U, of Chicago
Chairmaii 61 the~6ar!l. Aspen Center for Physics
...........................................
July 17 - "From Simplicity to Compteklty~
Murray Oell.Mann. Nobel Laureate
Santa Fe Institute. H ,
...............!.............,......,........,......
'duly 24 - "Does God Throw Dice In Black Holes?"
Stephen Hawking. DAMPT _ ,
, U"lveisity of Cambridge ':':'" ,
....~.........,.li.~.,...._...~...........:i...
July 31 - ". .:',' Superstring Theory:. "
Ir".....'M;<;~' ,~J.."~ BrainGreen, Newman Lab
" ''''Cilr!um University. .'
"~..,, .........'.,.... ........... .......... ..............
Aligtill~1.ot 1,~ii; "Quant!lm c;C?f1IP!l(lng"
....,... ':: 1 . :':--" .~. ,,:,'c{(j '; ;,TBA c, '!'. ''''',;
...,.................~.........~............
'., ',,' .. .. :W,ll ...,
ACENCY AUTO CLAss
"2' 5 "613 ~:':..0...1.."'!'
!" .~~ . ,,',we.Coi.wlIM ".<I :,~ii'
....-- - - - -'.-
,;,.... ',:
nil
, ~',~ ""1
iL'
, .
.t,',
;1'"
.,.;'
T~;~~:f~~~~I[:J~v~W:~~~gr:?~f6~~~i~~~:~~~~i,~,~t~~O~~u~.
,:1" .', :The proQrams;ot,th~,~~1'! ,ge~r, fOr phYsiCs are supported In part by Los A1sl'l')()s Natlonal
labOr8tdiy. thlli NaitOnal A~ronauUCil And spa~ Admin.istratlon, th,e ,Natlonal"Sclence l7~ndatlon."
" .', '. .... the LliS, [jijparlment oIl:nergy. and University Aesearc~ AssocIates.
."~.."'...,.
. ..~ :f""': :'~.._ ," ";.:;,,
-lfIiil.,~~..,. ", ': "'~,
.-Aublic' Notice
'1\,,\1.
'\!B ':;
',. . ". '..'
otWINANCEm.-;;" ., . .... - ., WHEREAS. tir~ ell)' C~\Indlllnd. thaUbe '7:Thl!'applleatll JhalI~ to }olU!tfuture
AN o'RbiNA~W'~~'AiPEN -(tITy~~~.~~~=t~:~I!~j~t,p~~~~'.....I:':::~~;:.::;:~'l,m:~~:'n~'
'~ .'" . . -" '" ....... . .,.. .nd nel8hborhood publlc.rlshts--ol.
~ , . " '. ... .. '. .ISPAPlan.ll\uIt.~.dtiii",i1li1r.~
".~ '.. MaUparkkllfot;tIJO.~~tf1.,~
.. .. . .... -I. -'-lIP' ..- "1~I~e::~I.:.h:l~,j:::it~~It~I:;;
" ''v.... .:.. I. . ~, .,'~ II" ._ ., . ~ Wllbln pUblie rlahts-oloWly' Parkri
" .' '.. for vetellltlon lpeeles. and ahall
.,...... "'.'Ul". "A... . ltsfo'.lUlyworkordevetopIDent,
.,.. II- II'" ,~ . "..,!"". ".... II" I' I P . ..I.... :1 ~ ,.llIselpln"~lllth"pub~rI.iI*.
'" ."11 ~~II "'.... .1I1-'i'~'C. . .:ItyStreetaoepartmen~I.:"
iIl~~'.a."". ill"" .~""":~""~. 1':1;" ,. 'veeetallcm,tobe~laI'~'t.
"... ..' ".',.'11'11' '" .~." "1l..C..)....... '.....l.h....~ ... l.the'maxlibullleJltent '. le1il;
". ....~. ", "'~"'lfl'"", iP,.. It.. ~~T".III.'.'I.."" ~_II"Il.r.. , he. elltablbhlllent of .~itdlnl
... ~I .,. ....."lI:~..I'r:':'Nlor~~. "~~''''''''~~'I'II.~.,II'". .~ ul.ldeollheexl.llnloat.crab.
. , .'':'.:..:..,,,",,, ....~r ':'~';:. . ;~.,.,. ... .~.~ . nfendnllhllllballrllCttAI'lItthll
. .,....................... ,.,....:..~.'''-'ij~.i~ ';:,J" .'. .. ,undallprolec.te4.,v~.(!t!ltlon
.-11.,..............1_....1 ,,,.- .,....""!'fII'..~.'. 'ltruCtures.,ttallsor,~.,tl;).;
.... ;, .'"'''iir~.''' 1...1tft\'H.:.......~~"...1~.."l... .... ~olany,eXcj;vatloii';lr~I~'Of
. .... '..;..... .....,. . , . ....,...~:...... . . .mll'.Anyexpoledrooll:,tnUlltbe
...'I.....'Il Ai i114,", .,:~....II' r,- ."..' .,. .:.. ~,'""t...::,~.,t..ru~~1~l!t~..?:~.,,~~r.,'i
. '.'.'. u..,..... ''''''~'' ~ '1 '~~M~.. 5" .__ : ...........~...
..... .'. .'I.~"~"'.)~, '.~..'?!. '.' .CommunIty1oevelop~~Il.lmd.
.'. , ...,............... I '. ,"',....."'.. ... ....,1 . .', ..FlnalSPAa,;,.; ,"" ... ,
. '.- "'.'!lnotrMttrik~,On~c":~",:
. '. ..". .." ~'..:'.;:- Pro"".... '. . .~ . . ud:ki~,,".'.:':.:. ::"':,:"
""'.~:,.;;~;:~~:;~:' ~~';':~".~: :~:.' .:""'" /.' ... ..:. "Irhe.t~~:)U
.'. ... ,.a . .. ..,. . .,~:a'" ~.;~c,~~
. ...., a.. ~..., I~. '" ~ "'.. . il exlenllon
'.' -,,~ .7.<.~"::~'. .M"". ,.,.".....".." .... '. ",. ....~.~~.,wl....II.~4e
. I."" I ,~... .. .' '. ;>lII"
. a. .' ...!, a ft . '.'~~cinollii
"...." -rI',' ~,':::..~"....o'rl'.".~..I. I . I
. ":-., .:..~ '" '. ~ ." ~~.:'~
o. ...1" I ..... .."."......, "'"... ,. .... '.. ... .....elMall.,1ll
.. .... . '.'."l"- ". . "....... I.""..,... I'II"~ '11 .' " .~ ~.'
I. .....~....-..~........ ." of'.,_.~~ ....... .,-~ft~o;'
-.. ": --:-:.1....~ :.~:"~. ~.. ~, ...' ,~,::....:.. ~.,. p
. . ..".t:t'..~",.,:.:.!" ~1ir".I,b."'.",_""",,,:,, . ...:'."Id'ra.trlci
., .1l.1I'...."..~... '.'I"rI ,.~.......... .. ,." . .'" h... 'llIandU
~~"...I . .~:~:!:-.:tr.:::., ':':~.~:..: :',:..:~' ,:',..." .In::' enl
.....""'.'.~~~--.;,)~. ....
~:::rr~ . .. ,....,...... ..
'.-.a.~~r.-"':"... "':"""i'r;-=:': ... .
... ~~. ..;lIF'.......;,..1ft . ,~._.. .'
.
, , ,
. .
.....
DevelolSfnli/atDeplVtnient,lindib.lI.vOldu
, muchellllltlnll YIlfIetatlon u,pr.ctklol, Snow <
renlOYllI on the Irel! .haI1 be the relpoMlblllly
olthehoineown<!r'..ilOClaUon.' .'. '. .
n:l~h~:;~~eo~: ~h~ti~dJ:cl~~\:3:~d~~~~
plarmlnllaD(fdellirt~thepropritedP8fk.Tbe
parl:.houldbeadeqlMilelylencetf.,orscftene;d
;:':=~~~~r:.r::nt~'~m'W .
e perkdlllllln 10 tltt.p'lI'klDeplrtment for
epprov&lPl'iOrto,~~ord!nltofe_f1na1SPA
p~ A pe!. dmJ~.1!enl ,Impact let. will be
Iranled,J~txch.lla~ for the,appllcant's
commttlllutlodlilll,n aod.ctlh.trUCI p.ark
~~, ,dralnaae.top
22. Nonr
,diivelopl!1enf
,,.
peildlrii!:undetor by'virtueoltbeordhianceS
repealed,orllDllll'ldedu,heTelnj)tOYltled,and
lhe~am_e,.hall be condUcted ami concluded '
undersuchprlorOl'dlllarlees.
sectloil4J1'lITlJ'secl~i.\lbfttl:lon..enlence,
dause.phrllQ.otportillilof.thlsOrdlnance,I'J
rer,,:::-:r c':::~= l~~=::~:~~~ .;
Ptr11lonIlrSUbedellllled,a.eplfale,dl.tlncl',
IIIdI~proVIalonand.hallnotaltect'
:,tt\.iivalldllyorthe~Po.J':IIIlnsthereol.
"C"SecCIon 5 TheClIy.esetktIMD ause nollceof
Ihll:Ordlnancetobe-jlii,IbIlIhec;llaanewsplpeI'
ofsellefllc1rculatloii,lIPlthIntheCityolAlpeD
no Iater,tban Iourtelliif(14),daYf;,folloWlna final
'adootloriher<<ll.Sudilllitk:eshaltlMlatWftln':
IbeloUoWllllllorm:''!'':<1'':':,:'''!':..''
NiitIa:"ben:by~thi~a1i>ubic-OI<'i
".-;t~:l=~~e ~r=,,::,wJ.t:t:=W;:
dihljilirsUantto'Qt(il44;AitleIt~:CoIoi'ado<:.,:
'~tatIttf:I.~tO':'.' .~~I.~;?
11Mf~~1ie,' '~1
:1l:=~1,6'be)M:',:/.
JI'*:Itlria ',....:.'~"\
8That,tM, -_\"~
kl::gb~ .',i
, ~.'
'. .
',--
~
fC:5T
cuP!
-
^
,--
Dr.B.
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo~
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director ~ tJ\
~c.l:::' ""=<-n'<-a~
~(<f::)6F '
CaN1=\t\V~,(\!I~.4
-..:;> C'>), -r'b",,,,,,,,,, OF '
\'.),'Ut.:fI-F~\l"',, oJ
,~;.T ~1 P€" up
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
July 2, 1996
RE:
City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project Final SPA
Review - Public Hearing
SUMMARY: The proposed Water Treatment Plan and Affordable Housing Development would house
essential city employees, including emergency response personnel, adjacent to the city's water treatment
and distribution facilities. The project also calls for significant improvements to both the infrastructure
and office facilities of the water plant. The Final SPA application is attached as Exhibit A. The
Conceptual SPA Plan was unanimously approved by City Council on May 22, 1996, by Ordinance 15,
Series of 1996.
Staff is recommending approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Asset Management Department, represented by David Hauter (Project
Manager)
LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 2 and 4, City of Aspen Thomas Property. The property is located at the
end of Doolittle Drive, south of Castle Ridge Housing complex, and includes the City water plant. The
entire parcel is approximately 54 acres, with approximately 5 acres proposed for residential
development. The property is zoned Public (PUB) with an SPA (Specially Planned Area) overlay. The
adjoining residential uses to the North are zoned R-15 PUD SPA.
P~OPOSAL: The following approvals are requested:
4. GMQS Exemption for affordable housing;
5. Special Review for parking, open space and dimensional requirements for the affordable housing
development (final approval by Commis~ion); and
"
6. 8040 Greenline Review (final approval by Commission).
I"""'.
'~"
The applicant proposes to construct 22 fully deed restricted units and to renovate an existing unit for a
total of 23 units. The unit mix will.be as follows:
. 6 single-family detached residences (one 3-bedroom and four 4-bedrooms);
. 6 duplex units (three 3-bedrooms and three 2-bedrooms);
. 11 townhouse units (three 2-bedrooms, five I-bedrooms, and three studios).
The following improvements to the water treatment facilities are proposed:
.
The expansion of the existing raw water storage reservoir from the existing 4.8 million gallon
capacity to approximately 8 million gallons to address peak day demand fluctuations;
The expansion of the second floor of the existing "west plant" by approximately 2,674 sq. ft, and
remodeling of the first floor;
The remodeling and reorganization of the "east plant" office, control room and shop spaces;
The expansion of the existing chlorine storage building by approximately 250 s.f., and the existing
electrical shed by approximately 450 s.f.;
Grading of a platform for a new transformer storage yard;
Construction of a new 4,000 s.f. Water Department storage building for vehicle and equipment
storage;
Additional surface parking and approximately 12,000 s.f. of construction material storage in two
three-sided concrete structures;
Constructionof a Water Plant Em~rgency Response Building consisting of a 550 square foot, one-
story building located at the south end of the affordable housing parking lot;
Security fencing around the water treatment plant facility and the western property lines of the
single-family units; and
Associated infrastructure improvements including water, sewer, private utilities and Doolittle Road.
Designation of a site for a future storage building of approximately 2,000 sq. ft.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The application, including a reduced set of site plans is attached as Exhibit A.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Housing,Engineering and Environmental Health have all reviewed the
project (see Exhibit B), and these comments are summarized below:
Housing Office: The Housing Office noted that the comments provided during the Conceptual SPA
Review are still valid. The Housing Board approved both the proposed net livable square footage
(including those units that do not comply with the minimum required net livable square footage) and the
category mix of Resident Occupied (RO) and Category 4 units as stated in the application. The Unit
categorization for all units are shown on Table 2 (page 24 of the application). The master deed
restriction for the units shall be approved and recorded by the Housing Office prior to issuance of any
building permits.
Engineering Department: The Engineering Department is currently reviewing the application, and
comments will be available at the July 2, 1996 hearing.
. Environmental Health: Environmental Health reviewed the project in 1995, and had indicated thai these
comments are still valid. Conditions of approval recommended included the submittal of a fugitive dust
plan (included in conditions), confirmation from the Sanitation District for future service (included in
conditions), the completion of a Phase II Environmental Audit (included in application) and the approval
of an evacuation plan (approved by City Council).
2
!""""\
.'''''''''''
STAFF COl\1MENTS: The applicant has responded to the conditions set forth by City Council during
the Conceptual SPA Review on pages 12-15 of the application.
1. SF A Amendment: The applicant proposes to amend the Lot 4 City Thomas Property SPA
Amendment #1, dated 3/27/96, to accommodate the proposed affordable housing development and
improvements to the existing Water Plant. Per Section 28.80.010, the purpose of a specially planned
area (SPA) is to:
A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those
circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its historical significance,
natural features, unique physical character, or location, and where potential exists for community benefit
from comprehensive development.
B. Allow the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design
practices which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional requirements.
C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered
appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public benefit.
The Final SPA review standards are summarized below, followed by staff's response.
1, Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and
open space.
Response: The appropriateness of the site for affordable housing and the proposed density and
conceptual design of the project were established during the Conceptual SPA Review. The affordable
housing units will be located adjacent to existing housing complexes and the existing water treatment
plant. Floor plans and elevations for the affordable housing units and the new/remodeled buildings at the
water treatment plant are included in the application packet. Staff recognizes that the design is
somewhat limited by the affordable nature of the project.
The design approach of the units have a strong "New Urbanism" influence, with one-story front porches
. .
accessed from a common pedestrian walk on the east side of Doolittle Drive. The porch and kitchen
window of each of the 17 attached units are oriented towards the landscaped open space. The auto free
common open space is bordered by a broad sidewalk which serves each unit and provides a focus for
social interaction and personal identity through individual front porches. Autos are clustered along
Doolittle Drive, and are screened by a landscaped berm to minimize asphalt and buffer the street.
Massing ofthe buildings is characterized by simple volumes, gable roofs, cross gables and shed porches,
representative of a "western" design feel. Each unit has a one story porch, which reduces the perceived
mass of each structure. All units are two-story, except the studios. The units have a strong solar
orientation, and energy efficient design is proposed, including super efficient insulation and low flow
water appliances. Massing ofthe structures has been reduced by stepping down to a one-story studio on
the structures adjacent to the parking area. Small buildings are located along the street for the
. emergency response building, van shelter, mail kiosk, recycle center and covered parking.
The single-family units on the west side of Doolittle Drive have gone through several design changes to
address comments from both Planning Staff and City Council. The current design abandons the
3
r-.
--.
previously proposed cul-de-sac in favor of a stronger pedestrian orientation utilizing two driveway cuts
off of Doolittle. With the exception of Unit 22 at the southwest comer of the property, all units have
oriented garage entrances away from Dolittle Drive, but have also oriented the garage directly to the
access road, inconsistent with the intent of Ordinance 30 (Residential Design Standards). If the design
cannot be modified, the applicant will be required to request a variance from the garage orientation
standards for Ordinance 30. Staff notes that each individual structure will be reviewed for compliance at
the time of building permit submittal.
Proposed building materials include horizontal lap siding, cedar shingles, rough sawn cedar plywood
with battens, and untreated corrugated metal. Roofing will consist of asphalt shingles and corrugated
metal.
The associated water treatment plant improvements are generally located in an area historically used for
municipal purposes, and do not represent an incompatible use. Due to the natural topography of the site,
none of the associated improvements can be seen from the proposed residential units.
Staff would suggest that the design would be further enhanced by improving the landscaping buffer
along the west side of Doolittle Drive. As shown on the proposed site plan, Units 20, 2 I and 22 have a
range in setback from Doolittle Drive from 20 to 25 feet. Due to the volume of large equipment
associated with the Water Treatment Plant, staff would suggest that the applicant design some form of
berming and vegetation to buffer these units from traffic noise.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development.
Response: The residential site is located on the boundary of the City's gravity system and the pumped
pressure zone of Meadowood. The site will be served by a main line located in Doolittle Drive that is fed
from the Meadowood pump station. Sewer will be provided via a main line extension located in the east
end of the upper loop ofthe Castle Ridge project. Common recycling and trash collection facilities have
been provided at the north end of the proposed parking lot.
Access to both the water treatment plant and the affordable housing site is via Doolittle Drive, which
currently does not meet City standards for pavement width, grade, or turning radii. The improvements
for this section of the road have been a major issue since the March 1995 submittal. The current
proposal to re-align and widen Doolittle Drive will bring the road into compliance with all applicable
City standards: lane widths are 12' with 2' shoulders; the roadway grade will not exceed 10%; and the
curve radius at the lower switchback will be increased to 100'. A plan and profile for Doolittle Drive are
included in the application packet on map sheet C5.
The applicant is proposing 2: I upslope and downslope grades from Doolittle Road. Revegetation of road
cuts will consist of placement of adequate topsoil and finish grading, grass seed and replacement scrub
oak. All revegetated areas will be irrigated for two seasons after installation.
Three road cuts will provide access to the affordable housing units. Signs are proposed to identify all
pedestrian crossings and to limit vehicular speed to 20 mph. The pavement width has been reduced with
"bulbouts" at the intersection of Doolittle Drive and the residential accesses to further reduce the traffic
speed. Staff would suggest that the applicant be required to install some form of pavement treatmenHo
clearly delineate the Doolittle Drive crossing.
4
.1""'"\.
~,\
Off-site impacts are summarized in the Engineering Report. Improvements have been defined for lower
Castle Creek Road and the Maroon Creek/SH 82 intersection. As a result of analyzing these
improvements as well as projected traffic counts, a pro-rata share of the traffic impacts generated by the
project are estimated at $5,052.63. This figure must be approved by the City and County Engineer prior
to final approval.
An issue that was discussed before City Council was the operational problems associated with the RFTA
bus stop located near the tenninus of Doolittle Drive at Castle Creek Road. The existing stop is not
adequate for passenger waiting, and buses are partially in the travel lane when boarding. Staff has
proposed a design modification (see Exhibit C), which would relocate the shelter approximately IS feet
towards Castle Creek Road to create additional storage room for buses. The existing trail that provides
access across Castle Creek Road to the Marolt Property would also be relocated. Staff would suggest
that the improvements be funded and constructed by the City as mitigation for the increased transit use
by residents of the project.
3. Whether the parcel proposedfor development is generally suitable for development, considering
the slope, ground instability and the possibility ofmudjlow, rockfalls, avalanche dangers andjlood
hazards.
Re&ponse: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. prepared a subsoil survey of the site in May of 1995,
and concluded that the project is feasible, however, underdrain systems will be required due to depth to
groundwater (see Geotech Report in the application). Specific recommendations regarding foundations,
retaining walls, floor slabs and site grading are included in the report and must be followed during
construction.
The project is not located in an area having known mud flow, rock fall, avalanche or flood hazard areas.
A Phase II Environmental Audit is included with the application packet, and does not identify any
hazardous waste on the site that would preclude either residential or municipal land uses.
4. Whether the proposed developmenr creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve
significant view planes,avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar
amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
Response: The project has employed progressive and responsive land use techniques based on
comments from the Commission, City Council, and City staff. The units overlooking the bluff have been
set back, and the second story has been "stepped back" from the rear facade to limit the structural
projection from the top of slope. In addition, none of the existing scrub oak will be disturbed.
The lower portion of the site is proposed to be public open space. No concrete proposals for
improvements or ownership of the park has been discussed. Future planning for the site will include the
Water Place, Castle Ridge and Twin Ridge residents. The applicant is proposing an 8' wide recycled
asphalt trail that would descend to the Twin Ridge intersection to provide exclusive pedestrian access to
the RFTA bus stop and the Marolt trail. Snowplowing and maintenance of the trail will be the
responsibility of the homeowner's association. The open space component of the multi-family units on
the east side of Doolittle Drive is an asset, and will provide an amenity to the entire area.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
5
. ."""
,-'
ReilPonse: The AACP Housing Action Plan policies section states: "Encourage special districts (schools,
hospital, sanitation, etc..) and non-profits to provide housing for their own employees." This project is an
example of the City providing housing specifically for emergency response and essential staffmembers.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide
public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: The costs of upgrading Doolittle Drive will be incorporated into the cost of the homes.
However, as a direct beneficiary of the road improvements, the Water Department should pay some portion
of these costs. Final approval of the proportional share for road improvements should be approved by both
the City and County Engineer prior to the recording of a fmal plat.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope
reduction and density requirements of Sec. 26.84.030 (B)(2)(b) [prior code 24-7-903].
Response: No slopes exceeding 20% will be impacted by the development.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotmentsfor the proposed development.
ReilPonse: A GMQS exemption may be granted by the City Council for a 100% affordable housing
development. The water plant infrastructure is considered an essential public facility, and is exempt from
growth management.
2. Subdivision: The specific review criteria for subdivision, as required by Section 26.88, are
summarized below.
A. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development
because of jlooding , drainage, rock or soil creep, mudjlow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep
topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response' As mentioned earlier, the EP A Phase II Audit did not identitY an existing contamination that
would preclude development. The Geotech Report reached similar conclusions.
B. Spatial Pattern. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that
cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Response: The discussion regarding compliance with SPA amendment criteria addressed the spatial pattern
of the project.
C. Improvements. The Code lists J 6 required improvements for subdivision including items such as
survey monuments, paved streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, jlre hydrants, street signs, etc.
Response: The applicant and staff are in substantial agreement regarding the specific design of the
roadway, trail and intemal access. Final details such as road and trail centerlines, survey lot lines, etc. will
be determined by Staff and the Engineering Department at the time mylars are prepared for recordation.
. Staff notes that the pedestrian paths accessing the units on the east side of Doolittle Drive are not
exclusively on each unit's property. This will require either an adjustment to the proposed lot lines, or a
6
I"""
.~
series of reciprocal agreements to ensure access to each unit. Similar agreements will be required for access
to the single family units, due to the private access easement nature of the roadway.
The slope will be altered upslope and downslope along Doolittle Drive, and staff has concerns regarding
the slope retention and revegetation of the area. The proposed slopes reach 2: I, which will make topsoil
retention difficult. Prior to recordation of a final plat and subdivision agreement, the applicant will be
required to provide security to ensure survival for required plantings for at least two years.
Sidewalks Staff and the applicant have discussed many options for pedestrian travel to and through the
site, including consideration of sidewalks on either side of Doolittle Drive. These options are not practical
due to snow plowing constraints and potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Staff believes that the best
option is the proposed path which descends to the Twin Ridge intersection. Maintenance and plowing of
the sidewalk will be responsibility of the Homeowners Association. .
Subdivision Agreement: Prior to or concurrent with the recordation of a final plat, the applicant and City
Council shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement binding on the subdivision to any conditions placed on the
development order.
Landscape Guarantee: In order to ensure implementation and maintenance of the landscaping plan, the City
Council may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred and twenty-five
percent (125%) of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements.
Public Facilities Guarantee: In order to ensure installation ofnecessaty public facilities planned to
accommodate the subdivision, the City Council shall require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less
than 100 percent of the current estimated cost of such public improvements, as estimated by the City
Engineer.
3. Conditional Use Review: Affordable housing is listed as a Conditional Use in the Public zone
district, therefore, this project must comply with.the criteria of Section 26.60.040.
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located;
and
Response: Consistency with the AACP was previously addressed. The intent of the Public zone district
is "to provide for the development of govemmental and quasi-governmental facilities for cultural,
educational, civic and other governmental purposes." The 54 acre site currently contains the Aspen
water plant facility, accessory structures and one residence. The SPA overlay encourages innovative
design and the development of mixed land uses to provide for the greatest public benefit. The creation of
affordable housing for emergency response personnel and City employees will benefit the City and the
community.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of
the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of
complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and
Response: This criteria is addressed above.
7
!'"'\
,-'
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use
. minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
Re$ponse: A total of 35 parking spaces are provided for the 17 townhome units in a common parking
area accessed from and parallel to Doolittle Drive. Each single-family residence will include a two-car
garage with additional parking available on the garage apron. Trash dumpsters are located adjacent to
the parking area, and mail boxes will also be centrally located. RFT A van pool service is available into
Aspen. A trail will connect the project with the bus stop at Castle Creek Road and with the Marolt trail.
The Conceptual SPA approval specified that the new residential structures shall not be washed with light
from any exterior light fixtures. Wall-mounted fixtures at exterior doors will have down light elements.
No landscape lighting will be allowed. Lighting on the pedestrian walk to the townhomes will receive 42
inch high bollard lighting with down light louvers over the elements. Minimal downlighting will be
provided in the parking area for safety purposes. City of Aspen streetlights will be installed along
Doolittle Drive, and the trail will receive safety lighting similar to that provided along the pedestrian
walk.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not
limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks. police, fire protection, emergency medical
services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and
Response: The site will be served by a main water line extension located in Doolittle Drive that is fed
from the Meadowood pump station. Sewer will be provided via a main line extension located in the east
end of the upper loop of the Castle Ridge project. All other public services are easily accessible.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental needfor increased
employees generated by the conditional use; and
Re$ponse: All 23 units will be deed-restricted as affordable housing.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title.
Re$ponse: The proposal complies with the applicable requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code.
4. GMOS Exemption for Affordable Housing: The Council shall exempt deed restricted housing
that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines, The Commission shall review and make a
recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the review of any
request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need
for such housing, considering the proposed developments compliance with an adopted housing plan, the
number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling unitsproposed, the size of
each unit, the rental/sale mix, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be
deed restricted
Response: The Housing Board has reviewed the proposal and supports the unit mix, size and price
categories.
8
~.
.~
5. Special Review: Special Review is required to establish dimensional requirements and off-street
parking requirements for development in the Public. zone district. The applicant requests the following
dimensional requirements:
PROPOSED SETBACKS
\ Unit Type Front Side Rear
Single-Family Detached 0 0,5 total 5
Duplex . 5 0, 5 total JO
Triplex 5 0 JO
The requested setbacks will establish a building envelope for each structure, which will be identified on
the Final SPA Plan. Any expansion shall occur within the building envelopes. .
. Minimum Lot Size: 2,000 square feet/townhouse unit; 5,850 square feet/single-family detached unit
. Maximum Building Height: 28 feet measured from existing grade to the ridge ( For comparison, the
adjacent R- I 5 zone district restricts height to 25 feet. Staff notes that structures can exceed this
height depending on roof pitch.) .
. Maximum FAR: 0.5: I for the single-family detached dwellings; 0.75: I for the attached townhouse
units
. Off-Street Parking: I space/studio; 2 spaces for all other units; 4 guest spaces will also be included
in the parking lot.
Pursuant to Section 26.64.040(A), the proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the
following criteria:
1, The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the
proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of
surrounding land uses and is consistent with thepurposes of the underlying zone district.
Response: The proposed setbacks and height of the structures allow clustering of the units in order to
retain more open space on the property.
2, The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on
surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess
traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane.
Re$ponse: The applicant has worked with the adjacent homeowners to minimize the visual impact of the
project, and proposes to limit the speed on Doolittle Drive to 20 mph.
The proposed off-street parking shall also comply with the following requirements of Section
26.64.040(B):
1. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements are subject to establishment and/or
mitigation by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents,
customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the
parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of
9
,,-..\
-.
the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services,
such as vans, providedfor residents, guests and employees.
Re&ponse: The proposed parking is consistent with the parking requirements established by Ordinance
30, Series of 1990. A RFTA bus stop is accessible from the project, and a van pool is proposed.
8040 Greenline Review: Pursuant to Section 26,68.030, the affordable housing units and the water plant
improvements require 8040 Greenline approval based on compliance with the following standards:
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development
considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of
mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the
applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from
the site to a location acceptable to the city.
Response: Development on the parcel has been limited to suitable areas.
2, The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed,
runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
Response: Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. notes that the proposed project will not
affect historic runoff patterns or volumes in the area, and will not introduce pollutants into area stream
systems.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the
city,
Response: Air quality will not be significantly affected. The project is close to a bus stop and trails that
connect to Aspen and the school campus.
4, The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the
terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Re&ponse: The townhouses have been located to avoid the steep slopes to the north.and east and to take
advantage of the existing buildable portions of the site. The relocation of a portion of Doolittle Drive
will impact slopes only to the extent necessary for the road to meet City standards.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent praCticable, disturbance.to the terrain, vegetation and
natural land features.
Re&ponse: The structures have been placed and designed to minimize grading and impacts to vegetation.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and
grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Response: The townhomes and single-family units have been clustered to minimize impacts and the
maintain open space.
10
~
""'"
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the
open character of the mountain.
Response: The units are below or meet the minimum net livable square footage requirements in order to
minimize impact on the site. The townhouse units have been divided into duplexes and triplexes to
reduce the perceived bulk of the structw:es.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development.
Response: All utilities are available and have sufficient capacity to service the development.
9. Adequate' roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly
maintained.
Response: Reconstructed Doolittle Drive will be adequate to serve the development. Maintenance of the
road will be the responsibility of the Streets Department.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate
access for fire protection and snow removal equipment,
Response: All roads have been designed to City of Aspen standards. Fire access has been improved
within the townhome site via a twenty-five foot wide dedicated fire access which loops through the site
providing access to within seventy-five feet from the furthest structure, The surface of the fire access
will be ten feet of hard paving (concrete or asphalt) and ten feet of subsurface grass paving system.
Specifications of the grass paving system must be provided to the Fire Marshall for final approval prior
to construction.
Staff is concerned regarding the ability of emergency vehicles to access the site from Doolittle Drive
over the handicapped ramps shown on the plans, Staff would suggest that the applicant review the plans
with the Fire Marshall prior to the Council meeting.
11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation!
Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated/or public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas
0/ special interest to the community.
Re$ponse: The proposed trail and common space will be dedicated for public Use,
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval based on compliance with the following
conditions:
I. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during hearings before the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are considered conditions of approval, unless amended
by other conditions.
2. The amended SPA Development Plan shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the amended SPA Development Plan within a
period of 180 days following approval by the City Council shall render the PUD approval invalid and
11
,......
-.,
reconsideration and approval by the Commission and City Council will be required before the acceptance
and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by the City Council for a showing of good cause.
3. A fmal stonnwater drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
any development pennits.
~J The applicant shall sign Doolittle Road as 20 miles per hour, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
CD The proposed pedestrian loop on the east side of Doolittle Road shall be approved by the Fire
Marshall for emergency access purposes.
6. The final plat shall have signature blocks for all utilities.
7. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be fonned for
construction of right-of-way improvements in adjacent and neighborhood public rights-of-way.
8. The final SPA Plan must show, dimension, and number all parking for the development.
9. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design considerations of development within
public rights-of-way, Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain pennits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within the public right-of-way from City Streets Department.
(]o:J Native vegetation to be retained shall be protected to the maximum extent practical, including the
~blishment of building envelopes outside of ):he existing oak scrub. Construction fencing shall be erected
at the dripline around all protected vegetation adjacent to structures, trails or roads prior to the issuance of
any excavation, grading, or building pennits. Any exposed roots must be protected during construction per
"
Parks Department direction.
CID Street light fixtures and locations shall be approved the CommunityDevelopment and shown on the
Fmal SPA Plan.
12. Mud shall not be tracked onto City Streets during construction.
13. Prior to acceptance offmancial assurances for the project, the cost estimates of improvements must
be approved by the City Engineer.
14. A line extension agreement and appropriate fees will be required per Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District Regulations.
@ Homeowners covenants must provide for snow removal on any sidewalks and trails approved
through this development review.
16. Street names shall meet the approval of the City Engineering Department.
(Ih The single family home size variance is allowed for net livable area less than the 1,400 square feet.
~ The deed restrictions shall be 12 Resident Occupied units and 11 Category 4 units.
12
~.
.--
\i9':, The eventual trail alignment shall be staked for review by the Community Development
De~artment, and shall avoid as much existing vegetation as practical. Snow removal on the trail shall be
the responsibility of the homeowner's association.
~~ Residents from adjacent residential neighborhoods should be included in the planning and design
oIthe proposed park. The park should be adequately fenced or screened with vegetation to keep children
from straying onto Doolittle Drive. The applicant shall submit a park design to the Parks Department for
approval prior to the recording of a final SPA Plan.
21. A park development impact fee will be granted in exchange for the applicant's commitment to
design and construct park development activities (grading, drainage, top soil, seeding and vegetation).
22. No fireplaces are approved for the development.
23. A fugitive dust plan shall be approved by Environmental Health prior to the issuance of any
grading, excavation, utility, demolition, or building permits.
24. Pinancial guarantees for landscaping, revegetation, and public facilities improvements must be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to the issuance of any development
permits for the project.
~) The applicant shall submit pavement treatments for the crossing of Doolittle Drive for review
and approval by the Engineering Department prior to the recording of a Pinal SPA Plan,.
26. All construction shall be consistent with the Geotech report recommendations conducted by
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc,
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval ofthe Final SPA
Development Plan, Amendment of the Aspen Water Treatment Plant SPA, Growth Management
Exemption for Affordable Housing and Essential Public Facilities, Subdivision, 8040 Greenline
Review, Conditional Use and Special Review for Parking, Open Space and Dimensional
Requirements in the Public Zone District for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant
Improvements and Affordable Housing Project, subject to the conditions noted in the Community
Development staff memo dated July 2, 1996."
Exhibits: 31 I'trl /ZE.b1)3C.ll'"IS r." [''''>'1r_06'-,,,,,- '-<JO'fiJ4a/2., JiZ=frX-t-iv
32, IS", 5TC1f' M!>I~;<"GS- II
)3>. U<:::t~I,.-..I<., tz"F{A"
'~.::<'c..ICf\~S
A - Pinal SPA Application
B - Referral Comments
C - Proposed Bus Stop Improvements
(z 1) B~.> ?' -r (j~
\ 11><;;: Af1'~'(...~"'T s......t.t.- Be
(z.7)~~S &::'iEMRlo'-\ ".,0
\ --r"€~~
(?'f{)A~~e: rt"rJ.l :<?t-o'>l-i..-- J!G- /'~~_._
\ (2.'\) -r. 1'e;A~4=.' ~ -ro ~l.€L-r Do ,'" ,::.....~ ..-tA.7"\I~1-> L
\ l-E" APfUe-.o.J"'f ~I" ' 1''''''' \ "'~ ~-i
"'l ,.,.'" -rl)E'~, ~ "L\.. Co-'1",<Cv\ -rl-'P-r 1"1"<: P>z-o+'oJ",o ""1\'''''-'' I, 'c-"",,~.-
~"'("E; 't ^ '. C)y-.. L..- -,=""\-\
\ IH-rE1<~ I""'~~' "'F' -rl"'I< to- 13 !.
'v \0,"". T ~";l'-r '-""' ,= C-I',.,.~ C~(fI\~/l._-J C~I2;?
C2o)T4;;: Al'-F"",~""i' S"""- ",,,_$ -rl'e i'bcK L~(..,,~ "l3o~e -f'.>E eN.,,,, ~,.",E:"
AW.-"'\~" > .
,....--
~\ll"-"''''T:>-O
" f'l2e.e.Q2r, 8.J ! \"=.., ~_
A$!.oc-, ~"-lS 16 C6V>(c..1L T\lFT'
""""r:> "^'l-rII'l"TIC>J Wp.,v=" 6'= L A
-->,~ ~!'"f"1'O<'\I''''''E: "D \N"~'<f"'\'").
"....,
-,
ROGER H. HUNT
Box 3944
AsPEfl. CO\.OfW)<) 81812-3944
U.S.A.
OFFICe:
970-925-44j4
FAX:
970.925-4288
26 June 1996
City of Aspen
, ~,Commissioners, Planning and Zoning Commission, Sara Garton, Chairperson
. ~'~ via Amy Schmid, City Clerk for P&Z, Fax 920-5119
,--'" Dave Hoefer, Assistant City Attomey, Fax 920-5119
Stan Clauson, Director, Community Development, Fax 920-5439
Nick Adeh, Director, Public Works, Fax 920-5197
Jack Reid, Superintendent. Streets Department, Fax 92()..5015
Subject: United States Postal SEllViQe (USPS) change of parking and Circulation at the
Aspen Post Qffice(pO)
Reference: Truman SPA. Pan:el2
(Truman Pan:el1 is commonly called Clark's Market complex)
Dear Addressee:
'-
I am writing this letter as a concemed citlzen of this community and as a member of the P&Z
whqse tenure includes the original Truman SPA approval process.
On 25 June 1996, I spoke with Aspen Postmaster, Tony Natalie. and discovered that USPS
engineers have apparently solely and arbitrarily executed a change of parking and circulation
surrounding the Aspen Post Office. This change is being accomplished today with little or no
regard to the intolerable impacts on congestion, traffic flow. and safety that they will, cause upon
the businesses and users of the Clark's Market complex and. as well, the users of the Post
Office parking.
What USPS has done to PO, parking and circulation:
1. In the south lot at the neck-down near the southwest comer of the. PO building,
there are signs erected to prohibit pUblic exit around the west side of the building
to Puppy Smith Sl
2 All vehicles using the south lot and the east lot now must exit through the
southeast driveway (heretofore a one-way entrance) and turn left a<:ross traffic
entering the Clark's parking access road. As well, east lot traffic now must turn
left across traffic entering the south lot (southeast driveway). The short, .
distances, short turning radii, narrow driveway width, driveway gradej(espeCially
with icy conditions) make the adverse impacts on traffic flow, vr"ic'uJar safety. .
and pedestrian safety both intolerable and untenable.
3. There are two octagonal stop signs on each side of the PO northwest driveway
1
,,,....,
,---.
MEMORANDUM
To:
Dave Michaelson, Community Development
Thru:
Nick Adeh, City Engine~
Chuck Roth, Project Engineer (!.. '1--
June 26,1996
From:
Date:
Re:
Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing Project
Having reviewed the above referenced application, having made a site inspection, and having
discussed the application at the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting of June 20, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Access - Lot 9 is land locked. It must be revised to include at least a 10' wide frontage to the
common access in order to provide continuous access to the lot. The lot lines of lots 18-21 should
be reconfigured so that the access road to lots 18, 19, and the unnumbered lot are on an out lot of
the subdivision in order to define common access to common units, rather than on easements on
private lots. Also note that the lot between 19 and 20 must be numbered. The lot numbers on the
"Final Plat," sheet C3, are too small to be legible.
2. Drivewl\Ys - Driveways are limited to 12% grade in and within 20' of public rights-of-way, If
driveways are to be used as handicap access to buildings, the maximum grade is 8.33%.
3. Site Drainage - It is a standard condition of approval for development applications that site
drainage and impact mitigation plans be prepared by an engineer registered to practice in Colorado
and that the design meet City Code requirements. The plan is generally developed following a
drainage study and analysis report.
There is a snow storage area indicated by the trail. The City has experienced problems with
drainage onto trails in similar situations. The snow storage area must be designed to provide
drainage that does not impact the trail. .
I
/""",
,-
,
4. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an
easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. The building permit
drawings must indicate all utility meter locations.
5. Lighting - The proposed lighting is a mixture of street lighting and walkway lighting. The
typical residential lighting plan within the 'City has been a street light on diagonal comers of an
intersection for two lights at an intersection, and a light mid-block on each side of the street. The
resulting spacing is about 150 feet. No lighting is indicated for the trail.
One light is shown located within the 20' emergency access corridor. Another light is
shown located within proposed landscaping tree canopies.
6. Improvement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement
districts that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent and accessing
public rights-of-way.
7. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way, parks
department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for
street cuts.
The Engineering Department reviews the proposed site development plans and
specifications on a continuous basis and will administer the site construction contracts and
perform project management and construction management tasks.
M96,180
2
,~
PLANNING & ZONING LJMMISSION
!'"'"\.
. ,
JUNE 18. 1996
Growth Management Commissionmeeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m., minutes taken by Dee
Benson, County.
Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre,
Roger Hunt, Timothy Mooney, Steve Buettow, Marta Chaikovska and Dave Johnston present.
Member Robert Blaich was excused.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Buettow said the American Institute of Architects is putting together a new policy on proposed
livable communities and they would like some comments in 90 days and he thinks the
Commission should read the memorandum over and he will put together a letter, this could be
a way to implemen~ an impact nationally.
Garton commented that she is concerned with the length of the agenda and suggested that the
Commission meet weekly rather than burden the Commission with such a long agenda as
tonight.
Stan Clausen, Community Development Director apologized for the length of the agenda,
added to the agenda is the annexation plan and unfortunately the legal requirements of
annexation where such that the City Attorney's office advised them to move forward with the
plan, any items that prove to be difficult or prolonged could be tabled to the next meeting.
Garton stated that it was not just the annexation there are several items that are going to require
a lot of discussion. Clausen responded that the Winnerman Stream Margin Review will be
tabled to July 16, 1996. Garton also said she received a memo from the City, they have been
meeting with representatives of the Aspen Small Lodges for the past six months, a general
consensus has been reached regarding amendments to the Municipal Code which will affect the
Lodge Preservation Zone. Garton stated that they would like to have a round table discussion
of the issues with the key players in the CommU11ity one of which is the Planning & Zoning
Commission, the meeting will be held Tuesday, July 9,1996 and they asked that the
Commission appoint a representative, although anyone who is interested may come.
Michaelson stated that those amendments will be coming before tife Commission again on July
16, 1996 so if you can not participate in the round table discussion you will have a full
presentation of the amendments. I
Garton commented that the Arundale residence overlooking the Roaring Fork has very strong
exterior lighting on the river at night. Staff took note. Garton asked about the meeting with
Council that was canceled.
~
PLANNING & ZONING C .1MISSION
JUNE 18, 1996
STAFF COMMENTS
Michaelson said that he thinks it was an opportunity for the Commission to get together with
Council and reprioritize. Michaelson also said Staff does not expect to give a lengthy
presentation on the Aspen Club PUD amendment because the Commission has heard the issues
and has the Council report, it is really an opportunity for Dick Butera to come back and give
the Commission an opportunity, if you choose to change the motion of denial that went to
Council. '
There were no public comments on items not on the agenda.
MINUTES
MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of May 21,1996. and June 4,
1996. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Schrager Conditional Use Review for an ADU
Buettow stepped down. Proof of notice provided.
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that the notice is legal and adequate and the
Commission has jurisdiction to proceed.
Suzanne Wolff, Staff stated that the applicant is requesting a below grade ADU of
approximately 358 sq.ft.located at 923 E. Hyman. Wolff said the unit complies with the
Conditional Use requirements, the Housing office and Staff agrees that the lightwell is not
adequate and more light could be added to the unit; the connection shown between the ADU
and the Recreation room would need to be removed prior to submission of the deed restriction
to the Housing office, the parking space shown encroaches into the alley right-of-way and
would need to be moved and accommodated on-site, the Parks Department noted that a couple
of Pine trees to the West of the driveway will need to be removed to provide adequate access to .
the garage. Staff recommends approval with conditions.
I
Roy Parsons, representing the applicant said that some ofthe items mentioned have either been
or will be resolved before any submissions for pewits, the lightwell is intended to service light
to the rec room of the residence and takes up an entire comer at its narrowest will be 5 ft. front
2
-
PLANNING & ZONING C lMMISSION
.-,
JUNE 18, 1996
to back, the actuallightwell itself will be a 10' X 15' platform at its lowest point, the
requirements for egress are met and exceeds the D.B.C requirement for light and ventilation for
that room by about 5 sq. ft.
Garton asked if there were any conditions that he could not comply with. Parson responded
that because the way this house is sited off the alley they had almost 40 ft. of driveway space
and the initial plan showed a parking area centered on the driveway past the property line, by
putting a 20' X 10' space at the actual' property line they still have plenty of clearance for a
vehicle to get in, he said they anticipate relocating the trees rather than replacing them. Garton
asked about the connection to the rec room. Parson stated that the ADD is directly off of a
foyer that accesses a stair way that leads directly to the outside, another doorway in the rec
room accesses the hallway and the stairway going outside, this is not only more convenient for
the residents of the primary unit but is a safety option to get out of the basement, the ADD is
not intended to be part of the residence, the ADD has its own door lock and the rec room
having its own door lock.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Chaikovska stated that this is a situation that would be acceptable to her, this is not the
situation where someone had the ADD open up into a bathroom adjoining the house.
Hunt stated that if he makes the motion he will drop the connection condition.
Garton asked about the height of the building. Parsons responded the primary offender would
be the South elevation, the eve of the main ridge starts at 20' with an 8:12 pitched roof
measured from the third point, this is approximately 32',3' under the allowable.
Garton opened the public hearing.
Sven Alstrom, public stated that the HPC Commission is concerned about the roof heights as
well and have begun compiling a list and he suggested that , the Commissions meet to share
their concerns. Garton said we are beginning to see some interesting roof lines.
Garton closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the conditional use for an ADD of
approximately 358 sq.ft. at 923 East Hyman Avenue with the following
conditions:
3
~
PLANNING & ZONING C dMISSION
JUNE 18, 1996
1) Prior to. the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall
comply with the following:
A) The owner shall submit the appropriate deed
restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office
for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction
by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the
deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the
Planning Department. The deed restriction shall
state that the accessory unit meets the housing
guidelines for such units, meets the definition of
Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented
for periods of six months or longer;
B) Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office
to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens
in ADUs.
2) Condition removed.
3) A tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Parks Department prior to
building permit submittal. Tree removal permits shall be
required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater
than 6" caliper. Clumps of trees to be retained shall be
protected during construction by fencing around the
dripline of the trees.
4) The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling
unit on building permit plans and shall comply with the
1994 UBC Sound Transmission Control guidelines.
5) Prior to issuance of a Certiflcate of Occupancy, the
Community Developm~rft Department shall inspect the unit
to ensure compliallli:e with the conditions of approval.
4
.1""'\,
PLANNING & ZONING (;"MMISSION ,.
~
.JUNE 18, 1996
6) All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed
on-site.
7) The applicant shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-
of-way from the Community Development Department.
8) Condition removed.
9) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the owner
shall construct a5 foot wide sidewalk with a 6 foot buffer
zone between the sidewalk and the curb.
10) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
Seconded by Chaikovska. AU in favor, motion carries. Buettow stepped
down.
Tygre excused herself from the meeting. Buettow was re-seated.
Winnerman Stream.Margin Review
MOTION: Hunt niovedto table the Winnerman Stream Margin Review to
. July 16, 1996. Seconded byChaikovska. AU in favor, motion carries.'
Zupancis Subdivision, William's Addition
Proof of notice provided. Hoefer stated that notice is legally correct and the Commission has
jurisdiction to proceed.
'j
Bob Nevins, Staff said the applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing 16,746 sCJI.ft parcel
into two residential lots, the property is located North of South A venue between Walnut St. and
the platted alley commonly referred to as Race Street. Nevins stated that P&Z's
recommendation will be forwarded to City Council, the subdivision proposes to create one
7,500 sq. ft. single family lot with an FARof3450 sq.ft. for a single family residence and a.
5
~
PLANNING & ZONING C _ _I1MISSION
~
JUNE 18, 1996
9246 sq. ft. duplex lot that would allow for a duplex of 4095 sq.ft. or a single family home of
3675 sq.ft., currently there are two single family residences occupying the site, one 5 bedroom
home and a 3 bedroom residence, upon approval the applicant proposes to demolish the 5
bedroom house on Walnut Street and construct a new duplex. Nevins stated that the reason
they are doing subdivision instead of lot split is because a code provision states that since these
are two or more lots with continuous frontages in single ownership on October 27, 1975 the
lots are considered undivided and conveyance of any portion shall constitute subdivision. Staff
recommends approval with conditions.
RobertZupancis, applicant stated that this property has been in his family since 1949 and he is
excited with the split, the potential and with the preservation of almost all the large vegetation.
Garton stated that she is pleased that the grove of Aspen, in the comer will be thinned and
worked out with the city. Zupancis responded that will be thinned about 50% and allow some
of the trees to grow out nicely and still have the snow removal.
There were no public comments on this application,
MOTION: Hunt moved to approved the Zupancis Subdivision creating Lot 1
of approximately 7500 sq.ft. and Lot 2 of approximately 9246 sq.ft. with the
following conditions:
1) The final improvement/subdivision survey plat shall be prepared in
accordance with the standards of 38-51 c.R.S., as amended, and
submitted to the City Engineering Department for review and approval.
2) The area within the Superfund site shall delineated on the final
subdivision plat with notation detailing any special considerations and
mitigation measures that apply.
3) The encroachment of the existing residences across the proposed lot line
between Lots 1 and Lot 2 shall be fully described by bearing and
distance and a condition shall be placed in the subdivision agreement
and on the plat, that when either lot is sold toa new owner, or a
demolit~Ol~ or building permifis requested for either lot, the existing
houst~ ~n Lot 1 (510 Walnut Street) which encroaches into Lot 2 shall be
removed. Partial demolition of the encroaching portion of the house
shall meet this condition if the house at 511 Race Street is demolished or
removed.
6
~
PLANNING & ZONING CuMMISSION
/~
JUNE 18, 1996
4) The owners of the residential lots shall be required to join any future
improvements districts formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way. The agreement shall be
executed and recorded prior to the acceptance of the final subdivision
plat.
5) The final plat/improvements survey and subdivision agreement shall be
recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. If the applicant
fails to record the plat documents within a period of one hundred and
eighty days following approval by the City Council, the plat may be
. rendered invalid.
6) A storm drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved by City
Engineering prior to the issuance of any building permits.
7) If any trees are to be removed, a tree removal permit shall be required
prior to the issuance of any excavation or building permits. No
excavation shall occur within the dripline of trees and any construction
activity occurring close to trees shall require protective fencing to be
placed around the dripline ofthe trees.
8) The lot owners shall be required to meet the affordable housing
requirements for the proposed single-family residence on Lot 1 and the
. proposed duplex on Lot 2 in accordance with the standards set forth in
Section 26.100.050(A)(4)(c) of the code.
9) The property owners shall be responsible for snow removal on the
sidewalk along South Avenue. The applicant shall also thin the existing
aspens by 50% to allow for more snow storage capacity.
10) The frontage along Walnut Street shall be a no parking zone extending.
from South Avenue for a distance of 45 feet along Walnut Street.
Parking shall be parallel and not allowed within five feet of the existing
fire hydrant on Walnut Street. No parking shall be permitted in the
Race Alley right-of-way or on South Avenue.
11) The proposed single-family residence on Lot 1; and the proposed
duplex or single-family residence on Lot 2 shall conform to the
dimensional requirements of Section 26.28.040, Medium-Density
Residential (R-6).
7
'~
~
PLANNING & ZONING C, .v1MISSION
~
.nINE 18, 1996
'12) All material representations made by the applicant within the
application, and at hearings before the Planning and Zoning
Commission or the City Council shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval unless otherwise amended.
Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries.
NEW BUSINESS:
Howling Wolf, Special Review for Trash Area Reduction
Wolff stated that the applicant is requesting to reduce the required trash service area, within the
commercial core, up to.6000 sq. ft. of net leasable floor area requires a 20'x IO'xIO' trash
service area, the Howling'Wolfhas approximately 2500 sq.ft. of net leasable floor area and are
essentially proposing a IO'x IO'x IO' trash service area, Staff feels this area should be
adequate. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions.
Hunt asked what the back patio area, surrounded by the fence would be used for.
Sven Alstrom, representing applicant responded that it is mostly seating, their dinner business
is part of their lifeblood, this will be seasonal outdoor dining. Hunt asked if it would be
operated during daylight hours. Alstrom responded yes. Hunt noted that the service access, to
the kitchen appears to be through the operating dining area, meaning trash would have to be
carried through the dining area.
Paul Levine, owner of Howling Wolf responded that the fence along the back opens allowing
delivery and trash removal directly from the stairwell to the open fence, only one table should
be affected. Hunt said the trash will be taken down through the basement and up these stairs.
Levine responded that is possible. Alstrom said Hunt's point is well taken, the Howling Wolf
tried to preserve the I0x20 space so they would have the opportunity to build to the max FAR
allowed if they choose to do so.
MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the Howling Wolf special review to
reduce the required trash area to 10' x 10' x 10', with the following
. I
conditibns: .' . ,
1) All material representations made by the applicant in the application
and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission
shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
8
,....,
PLANNING & ZONING (;"MMISSION
-
JUNE 18. 1996
2) Dumpsters shall be oriented with the "ears" facing the alley so as to be
easily removed by trash personnel.
3) Access to the trash area from the alley shall be unobstructed.
Seconded by ChaikQvska. All in favor, motion carries,
PUBLIC HEARING:
Krabacher Conditional Use for an ADU
Proof of notification provided,. Hoefer stated that notice is legally correct and the Commission
has jurisdiction to proceed.
Michaelson said this is a request for Conditional Use approval for a voluntary ADD, the
property is located at 706 West Main Street, it has a one-story landmark miner's cottage,
previously approved by HPC to be converted to an office.' Michaelson stated that the current
proposal will retain and expand the residential uses, the ADD exceeds the minimum net livable
sq.ft. and is exclusively accessed from an ascending stairwell, there is no connection to the
main structure, snow shedding will not be a problem, in addition the lightwell exceeds U.B.C.
standards by approximately 5 ft., the applicant has requested a waiver from the required
parking space, Staff supports that waiver because,there is available transit within walking
. distance and it's in the downtown core, Staff suggests that the deed restriction include a
requirement that the tenants of the ADU must store any vehicle off-site and off street. Staff
recommends approval with conditions.
Joe Krabacher, applicant stated that this project has been through office building approval and
this will not be in lieu of that approval, he has come up with a reasonable plan to continue
using the property for residential purposes and the voluntary ADD is for someone to take care
of kids (in the future), the issue about the vehicle deed restriction basically states that the
person living in the ADU has no rights to have a car, if it can not be stored on-site, nor off-site
where will they put it.
Michaelson responded that the language does not say that he/she can not have a car, it
recognizes that there are options in town for long term storage of vehicles and it is not unusual
for someone not to have a vehicle at their house, in the past Staff has recommended the
residential parking program, this is a different situation there is another unit of density being
introduced, above and beyond a single family unit.
9
~
.~
PLANNING & ZONING C...MMISSION
JUNE 18, 1996
Garton stated that Staff is not denying that every citizen has.a right to park on a public street,
Main Street is pretty restricted as far as moving a car. Michaelson stated that the only thing
left is the alley and we clearly try to avoid parking in the alley. Krabacher said City ordinances
prohibit parking in the alleys and he has never seen a deed restriction that has this type of
language. Michaelson said this is the first ADU, he has personally handled, on Main Street
were there is no parking available.
Chaikovska asked if the residential parking program states that a permit will only be issued if
the house is on the side street or does it state that if you are in a zone you can park anywhere
within that zone. Michaelson responded that you can park within the zone, the issue is if
residential parking was available on the block face of this structure, he would agree but there is
not. Chaikovska stated that she has a problem deed restricting the parking issue. Michaelson
said they are creating an additional demand for a parking space where there is none adjacent to
the dwelling unit. Hunt stated that they are not within the "D" zone, and this is not an
uncommon request for ADD's in the commercial core.
Garton opened the public hearing.
Roy Billings, public stated that one suggestion may be to deny a residential parking permit, .
even if residential spreads to cover that area.
Garton read letter from Warren Ryan, in favor of the project into the record.
Hunt stated that he was ready to make a motion but did not know what to do about the deed
restriction because, in the past P&Z has had the authority to make such a deed restriction and
has done so within the commercial core, we have required that they not have an automobile, for
example Marolt Housing has that restriction as well. Garton said that she recalls that the
Commission has waived the parking requirement if they were close to public transportation and
she does not recall a condition that there be no car, Marolt Housing is a different situation.
Michaelson stated that the condition does not say "no car", clearly this is a nice unit and he
noted that this is a unique location. Hunt stated that he felt it was incumbent of the applicant to
make the potential renter aware of the problems with parking.
Chaikovska stat)d that if the applicant does not have parking on-site it is something they can
deal with, as a.matter of principal deedtestrictions should be used for things that are serious.
j
Garton suggested that the Commission remove the last sentence from 1. A.
10
1"""'\
PLANNING & ZONINGC\jIVlMISSION
i~
.JUNE 18, 1996
MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the Conditional Use for an ADU of
approximately 622 sq.ft. located at 706 West Main Street with the following
conditions: .
1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply
with the following:
A) The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon
approvalofthe deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the
applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the
Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the
accessory unit meet the housing guidelines for such units, meets
the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be
rented for periods of six months or longer. Commission
recommends full disclosure of no parking available to the ADU
occupants.
B) Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure
compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADU's.
2) The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on
building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. sound transmission
guidelines.
3) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning
Department shall inspect the units to ensure compliance with the
conditions of approval.
4) All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on-site.
5) The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations
of development within public rights-of-way, and the Parks Department
for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
I .
development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way frOIh
the City Streets Department.
6) Prior to the issuan(:e of any building permits, a tree removal and
mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
II
~
~,
PLANNING & ZONING CJMMISSION
JUNE 18, 1996
Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the
removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper.
7) All material representations made by the applicant in the application
and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission
shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
8) The applicant shall comply with all ,conditions of approval from the
Engineering Department. If the applicant disputes those conditions the
applicant shall repeal such conditions to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aspen Club PUD Amendment
Michaelson stated that this is before P&Z again because on March 19 the Commission
recommended denial of the proposed amendment to the Callahan PUD, dealing with parking
access to the club, at that time the applicant proposed to transfer all existing parking on the
North side on both the Lot and Ute Avenue side. Michaelson noted that the Code is relatively
silent on what point an applicant has to return to P&Z, either by direction of the Commission or
on his own volition with an amended application, Staff took the Commissions recommendation
of denial to Council on first reading, the letters based on the original application and minutes of
the March meeting were included in the Council packet. Michaelson said the proposal, at first
reading before Council was to retain 20 spaces on the North side and improve the Ute Avenue
side to include the deletion of the tennis courts next to theclub house, that would be
approximately 80 spaces, Council did approve the on first reading.
Hoefer stated that Council approved it simply to allow it to come back to P&Zand keep the
process going, it was not a vote on the merits ofthe application.
Michaelson stated that Staff's position has been the same that Ute Avenue is under a lot of
pressure now, it has a very interesting mix of traffic including bikes, rollerblades, skateboards
and people using Ute trail, we do not consider it a traditional urban roadway, the applicant and
Staff have discussed a potential alternative, that has not been presented to Council, it would
essentially retain 20 spaces on the North side, allow improvement of the Ute Avenue lot to
what it is today, approximately 40-47 spaces, this would keep existing traffic on Ute Avenue
12
~,
PLANNING &ZONING C,JMMISSION
--
.JUNE 18, 1996
with the idea that the applicant would come back in a year ifhe felt the parking was not
meeting the demand. Michaelson said that Staff-represented to Council that speed limits of 25
m.p.h. will be posted on Ute Avenue and the City would enforce "no parking" on the
downslope side of Ute Avenue, these are commitments the City has made and are independent
ofthis application. Michaelson stated that this is not a public hearing but is an opportunity for
the Commission to change their previous recommendation to Council..
Garton said the last recommendation was made at a public hearing and asked for clarification
of procedures for tonight's meeting. Michaelson responded that this is clearly an advisory to
Council. Hoefer stated that the City Attorney's position is this was not a significant change in
the application and that is why it is not a noticed public hearing. Garton said she felt it was
important to take public comment.
Dick Butera, applicant said they have gone to a lot of different places, people and things to find
a better way than what was originally proposed, they met with Staff, Department Heads at the
site, almost all the neighbors and revisited the traffic consultants to recalculate what the
amendmended proposal means. Butera stated what they heard at the public hearing in front of
City Council is it is not necessarily the number of CaI;S that people are concerned with but the
drivers, they are going too fast, reckless and sometimes with a disregard for pedestrians.
Butera said that he has the feeling that Ute Avenue grew up from a rural street to a city street
and nobody noticed, in terms of snow removal, police, sinage and speed bumps, that really
does not have anything to do with the Aspen Club and hopes the Commission keeps that in
mind, he thinks a few speed bumps would cure 90% of the issues. Butera said they went back
to the traffic engineer, Leigh/Scott which the City and County use regularly, they reported that
if the first application was approved the Club would have added 220 cars for a total of3500
cars a day, a 6.7% increase, on Original Streetthey would have added 210 cars for a total of
1800 cars a day, an 11 % increase, lower Ute, which is -really where the problem is there are
1250 cars a day, they would have added 230 for a total of 1480 an 18% increase and at the end
of Ute A venue there are presently 220 cars a day, they would have added 230 for a 104%
increase, under the new proposal we will add 55 cars on Cooper and Original a 1.6% increase,
53 cars at lower Original a 2.9% increase and at the critical point, lower Ute they will add 4.5%
more traffic than is there now, Leigh/Scott stated that the capacity of Ute Avenue, as it was
rebuilt is 3000 cars a day without snow, with snow the capacity is 2200 cars. Butera said if this
proposal was approved we would be at 1306 cars on a2200 capaci~y, ~ey think they have
come up with a proposal that works with everybody, with minima} effect on the neighborhood.
. J J
Garton said that the van has not been discussed. Butera responded that they propose to have a
van from the Aspen Club Lodge during the peak hours from 7-9 a.m. and from 4-6:30 p.m. on a
regular, half hour schedule.
13
~
~
PLANNING & ZONING L,-"MMISSION
JUNE 18. 1996
Chaikovska asked if the parking spaces will be differentiated as to who will be able to park in
there, is it member, therapy or employee parking. Butera responded that this parking lot has
evolved, innocently, 80% of the parking demand is to be next to the building, few of the
employees have cars and they have been told, up until now to park on the North side, they
think this is what works for their customer base, he said they are asking for the City to help
them be commercially viable, he is not interested in destroying the beauty of the property with
a lot of parking, but they do know that to stay in business they have to service their customers.
Hunt stated the current load of approximately 47 spaces, developed over the years because
people are essentially lazy and they want to park right next to where they want to go and
unfortunately that is part of the applicants justification for this, but he wants to know the
number of spaces the Club needs for therapy and handicapped. Hunt said that is the change in
the Club that he can see justifies some parking there.
Butera responded that they have had 12 spaces in the past and would like to put in 6 more, that
will be plenty because they only have 3 therapists so they can only have so many people
coming in at a time. Hunt said his point is that the therapy and handicapped parking is well
justified the parking, for the able bodied customers he does not feel it is justified, it evolved
over laziness, 20 or so spaces for therapy and handicapped is perfectly all right.
Butera stated the Club is not competing well with the four new clubs in downtown, he said he
needs to do everything he can do, 90's people are in a hurry and will park next to the building,
it is our habits. Butera said no one here, that lives on Ute Avenue cheers about the traffic but
the Club does not cause all of that traffic, they cause 200 cars and with this new proposal it will
be 215-220, he said it has grownup into a city street, we can hope it is a rural lane but it isn't,
it is a city street with sixteen homes on 6 acres at 10lD Ute, that is city density.
Hunt said that he questions Leigh/Scott in this situation, what happens to the traffic if the
parking is full and they have to drive around to the North lot. Butera responded that is the
question, they would like to start with 47 spaces, they are trying to do only what is necessary,
he asked that the Commission consider that they are trying to keep the Club economically
viable and this is a small part of the solution.
Chaikovska asked if the applicantis asking for 80 spaces or a phase in starting with the 47.
f
Butera responded they are asking for the 47 spaces, then they will need to prove to Staff, a year
from now that it is not enough, they need to prove whether or not the van is working and
hopefully he will not have to come back and ask for more.
14
.-.,
PLANNING & ZONING CuMMISSION
i~
.TUNE 18, 1996
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bill Frazer, public lives very close to Ute A venue and has had ample opportunity to observe
the traffic and its growth over the years and he respectfully disagrees that the serious problem
is on lower Ute, he finds a real problem on upper Ute and he is very uDhappy with the increase
in traffic and the possible further increase. Frazer said he would love to see it rolled back to
where it was supposed to be under the existing agreement.
Hugh Wise, public said that he tries a lot of automobile cases and Ute Avenue is dangerous,
there are too many cars right now and the snowbanks are bad, this is exactly the type of
situation he sees in the courts, all the time. Wise stated that he thinks this is permitted to have
more cars it is going to become worse.
Mary Gleason, public said she does not like to be on the opposite side of Mr. Butera because
she does not think anyone uses the Aspen Club more than she does, but she does think it is our
job to preserve our neighborhood streets and this is what the issue is for those who live on Ute
Avenue. Gleason stated that she would like to again, see the original intent of this road for
deliveries and physical therapy, not for the general membership of the Aspen Club. .
Tim COOlley, public stated that he is the president of the Billings Condominium Association
and represent their unity in opposing this, he said he would like to see the existing PUD in
force, traffic is bad and is getting worse. Cooney said the true motivation for moving the cars
on Ute is so the applicant can build a house on the lot, there are a lot of points here that can be
debated.
Garton said in fairness to the applicant it was disclosed in the original proposal his intent to
build a house.
Butera responded that it does not feel good to sit here and have someone say he is lying to the
Commission, he said he does not have a record of lying to anyone, the cards have been on the
table since the beginning, his intentions are clear, we have hired all the experts we were asked
to hire to show the effects of this and for the record many people in favor of this wanted to
come tonight and we told them there would be no comments at this stage.
I
Susan Welsch, public representing the 1010 Ute subdivision said she is also a member and
enjoys the Club very much, she said she was playing tennis with someone who lives on the
other side of town and he said it is easier for him to drive on 82 but now he has to go all the
way around to Ute because the front door is closed in the evening at 9:00. Welsch stated that
there is a lot of ice on the comer of Ute and Original, she thinks it is the most dangerous comer
in Aspen, she had a lot of neighbors calling her and asking her to say things tonight but she
15
,~
PLANNING & ZONING c.. .\1MISSION
~
JUNE 18, 1996
feels at this time the Commission has heard them all, she would only like to remind the
Commission of Ute trail and that people park across the street, that could be a dangerous
situation for.children and people hiking.
John Kelly, public represents several homeowners who live directly on Ute Avenue, he said the
reality on Ute Avenue is a lot different than the traffic report, he does not dispute their numbers
or their counts but there is adequate evidence in the packet and Staff report that show this is a
dangerous road, right now. Kelly stated that no matter how many spaces get shifted to Ute
Avenue, the Aspen Club is an integral partofthe Callahan Subdivision PUD, everyone who
bought into the subdivision knew about that parking lot.
Garton closed the public comments.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mooney stated that he did not have to change his vote, he voted not in favor of the application
but in favor of reviewing this in a more elaborate way, he did not think the applicant came
prepared to satisfy the needs of the immediate people on Ute Avenue and he thought then that
maybe a compromise and a response from the City was necessary. Mooney said he still has the
same feeling, the things he is hearing from the public are things that are the responsibility of
the City, if the street, sidewalk and lighting is notup to standard, if this is unsafe, ifit
jeopardizes the health and safety of the citizens living in that area and the street has been
designed for so many cars and is not maxed out, it is the City's responsibility to plow it, sign it
and to police it. Mooney said that people will take the natural path that they feel is the shortest
route to get them where they are going, as things evolve there are footpaths that go throughout
this town, shortcuts around places, people migrate to what is the easiest way for them, he
thinks this is what we are seeing, he thinks this is a use that has been created by either 82 being
too busy, the parking lot on the other side of the river being inconvenient, or people knowing
they can get in and out quicker, this is the evolution of the comItlUnity. Mooney stated that we
amend things all the time, we're being asked to change ordinances to give exemptions and
bonuses to people who want to create growth, here, growth has shown us what a traffic pattern
is and we are being asked to legitimize this traffic pattern, to him there seems to be some
balance if the City will take responsibility for the health and safety issues.
;
Johnston stated that he was not a part of the original vote and in his mind he is trying to justify
the need and he does not think laziness doe~, he is glad the public had a chance to speak out,
the concrete reason is not there for him, he does not see it and laziness does not cut it for him.
Garton said she would stand by her original vote for denial because for her, to relocate the
main parking for Ute Avenue is an actual relocation of the Club, she thinks it puts the Club into
16
-."
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
,"-"
.nINE 18.1996
a small residential neighborhood with a dead end street, to keep the entrance and exit off of
highway 82 is the way an entrance and exit to a large community, private Club should be.
Garton stated that she understands that the patrons of the Club have found a back door that is
the fault of the community and the City for allowing it to exist for so long, she recommends the
elimination of the Ute Avenue parking lot but allow parking for the health and rehabilitation
patients, she said good planning can not guarantee a profit for every business in this town but
good planning can guarantee a quality of life for our neighborhoods.
Hunt said that he was a party to the original approvals for the Aspen Club and we went very
long and hard about the accesS to the Club being orientedtowards Highway 82, Ute Avenue
was planned on being, as much as possible a very rural access road it was the desire of the
community then and he thinks is stilI the desire of the community now that it does tend to be
more of a rural access road, at that time we recognized the possibility of the problems that any
significant parking at the end of that road would put on Ute Avenue, this is the problem he has
right now because that aspect of the planning really has not changed. Hunt stated that he can
stilI support, very strongly, because of the significant change in the operation of the Club, the
aspect of the handicapped and therapy support, he thinks they can accommodate that parking at
the end of Ute Avenue, he can not support 30 additional spaces for general membership that
finds it more convenient to drive up closer to a back door, he does not see that convenience.to
the members of the Club justifying the ovelWhelming inconvenience to the residential area.
Hunt stated that he personally would like to send a-recommendation to Council that there is
justification for the therapy and handicapped spaces.
Buettow said that in 1980 he worked in the Benedict building, even then at those traffic levels
that road was very unsafe, it has a number ofbIind spots and even driving at moderate speeds
people can not see. Buettow stated that he would keep his vote the same as well although he
would support legitimizing the handicapped and therapy spaces.
Chaikovska stated that procedurally she would like to protest that if we do not have a publicly
noticed hearing she feels it is unfair to the applicant to listen to the comments of the public,
which in this case happened to be all negative, it does have some impact on the Commission
whether we say it does or doesn't, so as a matter of procedure she would like the Commission
to look at that. Chaikovska said the issue here is not whether there is a lot that the applicant
wants to do something with,theissl;le is strictly whether this is a reasonable request to move
the parking lot and is the scale doWn version of the parking lot reasonable for this particular
site, she appreciates the comrrients about the status of the road that it may be unsafe, that there
is a lot of traffic, she is always suprised when she goes down Ute Avenue that it is not a rural
street, it has offices, it has an enormous amount of buildings, things that she does notthink
anybody thought of. Chaikovska said she agrees with Mooney, regardless of what Mr. Butera
will or will not do on this street, the public has a serious issue with the City if they believe that
17
~
~.
.nINE 18, 1996
PLANNING & ZONING C. "VlMISSION
the street is unsafe, the public comments tonight were the street is unsafe, right now, regardless
of Butera's issue. Chaikovska stated that she understood the comments that say the street is
unsafe now however, we have traffic experts that give us reports, we rely on engineering,
parks, and other reports, she is not convinced that this would make the street significantly more
unsafe than it is now, given the report. Chaikovska said that the AspenClub is an institution
that she is sure nobody will dispute is a bad institution, everybody supports it, Butera has done
a great deal for the community, she suggests that We try the scale down version of his proposal,
if it does not work we will deal with it then, she will support the scale down version, whether
people are lazy or not is not an issue with her, everything evolves over time, we are not going
to change peoples laziness by keeping the parking lot on one side or the other. Chaikovska
said she would vote to recommend the approval ofthe scale down version ofthe parking lot.
MOTION: Chaikovska moved that the Commission forward a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the amended proposal to
approve a scale down parking lot of 47 spaces provided that the City revisit
the issue after studying the impact of the 47 spaces. Understanding that 20
spaces will remain on the Crystal Lake road lot. Seconded by Mooney.
Discussion:
Hunt said he could not support that motion because he thinks it goes to far at
this point.
Mooney stated that he is supporting it on the merits that are presented here,
he stated at the last meeting and this meeting that he did not support the last
motion because he wanted more discussion and compromise from Mr. Butera,
the residents and the City and he thinks this is an indication that we have it.
Mooney said he thinks this is a substantial change for him and thatis why he
is voting in favor of this.
Garton, lIuntand Buettow voted no, Mooney and Chaikovska voted yes and
Johnston abstained. Motion denied 3-2.
Hunt asked if the Commission should send a recommendation to Council because we cj.enied
that compromise, we support their need for the therapy and handicapped spaces. Gaiton stated
that is not part of the application or the discussion. Clausen said it is very much ~ part of the
record. Hoefer said that because it is only a recommendation, if that is the feeling of the board
he does not see where it presents any harm. Chaikovska said she has a problem, yes she would
support a minimum amount of that but if she does, that will compromise her other vote. Hoefer
said the two votes are both ofrecord, it is pretty obvious you favor something more, so he does
18
. ~
PLANNING & ZONING <:....JMMISSION
.r""""1
. .nINE 18, 1996
not see how voting for the 17 really compromises your position. Chaikovska stated that she
feels it does. Clausen stated that it is not necessary to take a vote because Staff understands,
having heard from most of the Commission that even though you may be opposed to the
proposal as presented you favor some number of spaces relating to the handicapped and
rehabilitation parking,
Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review
Bob Nevins, Staff said the residence is located at 320 Lake Avenue, it is a 7075 sq.ft. lot within
the medium density residential R-6 with the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive
Area Overlay. Nevins stated that the applicant proposes to move an existing, non-conforming
hot tub and deck and to revegetate the disturbed slope overlooking Hallam Lake pursuant to the
Court order of May 3, 1993. Nevins stated thatthe critical issues that need to be addressed are
the removal and relocation of the deck and hot tub and the stabilization and revegetation of the
slope overlooking the nature preserve, having reviewed the application and conducting' a site
visit Staff finds the applicant has met the standards for ESA review, item 2) states; "that there
is no development within the 15' ESA setback", Nevins said there is an existing retaining wall
that is retaining the lawn area with the disturl?ed slope, approximately 3' of soil has been
removed to allow the hot tub and deck construction, instead of removing the retai,ning wall and
reconfiguring the slope, Staff recommends that the retaining wall be lowered, as much as
possible to ground level at the existing yard area and then there will be approximately a 3'
wood retaining wall on the downhill slope facing Hallam Lake with additional planting and
landscaping. Nevins said since the time of the original submittal the applicant has proposed
reconstructing and reconfiguring the slope in its pre-existing condition to revegetate it with an
approved seed mix and mesh netting to retain the soil. Staff recommends approval with
conditions.
Garton had a question on the Project Engineer's questions concerning the Plat map.
Jim Cook, representing the applicant stated that he thinks the Project Engineer needs to be
more specific as to what his questions are, this was done by a registered surveyor. Cook stated
that they plan on completing everything as stated, most of which are typically done when.
pulling a building permit. '
Nevins responded that the c<)ficern of the pj'oject Engineer and Staff is that the rear property
corner hasn't been accurately established, there is conflicting documentation as to where it is.
19
-,
PLANNING & ZONING C ..tMISSION
~
JUNE 18, 1996
Garton asked where the spa water will be drained. Cook responded that the Code represents
that you don't want it g9ing down into the lake so we have to take it into a drywell or the
sanitary.
Hunt asked if the applicant would be cutting down the retaining wall. Cook responded they are
going to cut it down, there is an existing flower garden that follows the outline of the retaining
wall so they will take it down within approximately 6" of grade. Cook said they are leaving the
retaining wall for stabilization of the uphill side.
MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the Marshall Hallam Lake ESA Review
with the following conditions:
1) A revised Site Improvements Survey in accordance with the criteria set
forth in the Engineering staff memo of May 28, 1996, shall be approved
by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any
Development Orders.
2) A building plan, plumbing plan or written statement explaining how
and where the discharge water from the spa (hot tub) will be disposed
prior to the issuance of any development permits.
3) A final site grading plan shall be approved by Engineering before any
, Development Orders shall be issued.
4) A final landscape plan showing the location, number, type and size of
plant materials and any site grading shall be approved by Parks prior
to the issuance of any development permits.
5) The existing hot tub, decking, posts and concrete footings shall be
completely remoVed from the area within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA.
A demolition permit shall be issued prior to site work or demolition.
6) The new deck and relocated hot tub shall be constructed in accordance
with the development application (see proposed site plan design). No
work shall be initiated prior to the issuance of all required permits.
7) The applicant shall restore to the original grade, with new fill and 8"
compacted lifts and feather into adjacent properties and to provide
stabling mats as required. '
20
t"""'.
PLANNING & ZONING C"MMTSSTON
~
.JUNE 18, 1996
8) All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no Iight(s) directed
towards the nature preserve or located down the slope. Light sources
shaUnot illuminate greater than eight feet from the building or
structures.
9) Any future development (including but not limited to: decks, spas,
terraces, patios, fences, non~native plant materials) shall not encroach
into the fifteen foot ESA setback.
10) All material representations made by the applicant in the application
and during public meetings shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval.
11) That the removal and relocation ofthe hot tub, deck and revegetation
of the slope be completed within 90 days of obtaining building permit.
Seconded by Mooney. All in favor, motion carries.
'. 1996 Annexation Plan
Clausen said the 1996 Annexation Plan is basically a reauthorization of the October 1988
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan annexation element, the reauthorization is required because
Colorado law says that a plan extending out 3 miles from the Municipality be adopted and
readopted annually depicting any annexations the City may undertake.
Quote from the Annexation Plan:
"The 1988 plan was actually an individualelement to the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan, which has subsequently been replaced by theAspen Area Community Plan (AACP)
adopted in 1993. This, 1996revisionhas been prepared in order to meet the statutory
requirements ofCRS 31-21-105, as well as to update the Annexation Plan with respect to
annexations already undertaken, and new policies and land use code provisions which have
been implemented. However, ~he remaining anrzexation areas identified in the plan are .
essentially the same as those, identified in the. 1988 plan and the conceptual framework for
annexation remains unclJangedas well". I
Clausen stated that the 3 mile plan is distinctly different from the Master Plan or the legally
required Impact Study for any annexation, the old 1988 plan maps have been replaced by three
GIS maps, one illustrates the 3 mile area from the Municipality as well as the extent of
21
~
PLANNING & ZONING ( MMISSION
.~
.nINE 18, 1996
annexation within that area, the next depicts 13 specific areas, and finally there is a summary of
the annexation areas. Clausen said that Dave Michaelson has provided a resolution of the '
Commission recommending, to Council the adoption of the 1996 Annexation Plan.
Garton stated that page two of the Annexation Plan states; "Owl Creek, Maroon Creek" and the
east side of the Roaring Fork East and the west side of State Highway82 Corridor, are within
the boundaries of the Aspen Area Community Plan but outside of the proposed annexation
area. these areas have been excluded from consideration because they are considered rural in
character, with little likelihoodfor the provision of urban or municipal services ", she
questions whether they should be exciuded.
Clausen said bearing in mind we have not attempted to change any policies from the 1988
Plan, that is the language at that time, we have not attempted to reconsider and Staff can put it
in the work program to do so in the coming year. Garton stated that Staffhas set aside time to
really look at this. Clausen responded that this was not on the work program, in January of
1996 a notification from theAmerican Planning Association (APA) of Colorado was received,
it emphasized the importance of annually revisiting the 3 Mile Plan as the legal basis for
annexation that will take place and he thinks prior to that there was some confusion as to
whether such a plan needed to be updated annually or whether it was replaced or amended by
the Five Year Plan. Clausen stated that the annexations that would take place could be legally
challenged if the plan were not properly done. Clausen noted that there is another area within
this document that says it is the intention of the City to adopt any county zoning approvals or
any underlying county zoning at essentially the same density. Clausen said the Planning & .
Zoning Commission may want to discuss this and suggest that the density that we adopt may
be somewhat greater than the density of the underlying county zoning that preceded it, this is
an issue the Commission would probably want to give some thought.
Chaikovska asked if there were changes in this from what you had before that are particularly
notable. Clausen responded there are no notable changes, we have acknowledged things that
have been done over the past five years, for example some language in the 1988 plan has been
changed. Chaikovska asked what is the role ofthe Commission in annexation process.
Clausen said that beyond the authorization ofthe plan itself, he does not believe the Planning
& Zoning Commission has a specific role.
I
Garton said the City Council recommends annexation. Chaikovska asked if the Commission
had any comment on things such as Environmental Review, FAR there are a lot of provisions
that she supposes underline the annexation process that the Commission does not have a say in.
Garton responded that she thought Council may ask for P&Z's advice.
22
PLANNING & ZONING l'")VlMISSION
/"""'I
JUNE 18. 199'6
Chaikovska said Maroon Creek was annexed and there are lots that are about to be developed,
do they come under different rules now that they are in the City than what they agreed to.
Clausen responded that with the Maroon Creek annexation we are creating zoning districts that
are created at the same time annexation takes place, the zoning districts acknowledge the
planned unit development program that the county had developed. "
. Chaikovska said we adopt their program, do we have additional rules we impo!,e on the owners
of the lots because yesterday they were county and today they're city. Clausen said he would
not say as a blanket consideration there would be no additional rules, the basic thrust would be
to adopt the zoning that had been expected as part of the county PUD.
Hunt stated that the general philosophy is that when it comes in, it does not get a zoning
advantage by the annexation. Garton stated that East Wood is an example.
Mooney asked if there was some type of mitigation for this growth. Clausen responded that
because all the annexation areas are within the Metro area, we have a uniform mitigation of
growth management requirements there really is not a significant change whether they are
under county or city jurisdiction, a significant additional mitigation that comes with annexation
is the Real Estate Transfer Tax.
MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the recommending resolution to City
Council for the adoption ofthe 1996 City of Aspen Annexation Plan.
Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries.
Election of Chair-person for the Planning & Zoning Commission
MOTION: Hunt moved t~ nominate Sara Garton for Chair-person.
Seconded by Chaikovska. Garton accepted. All in favor, motion carries.
MOTION: Hunt moved to nominate Jasmine Tygre for Vice Chait-person.
Seconded by Mooney. All in favor, motion carries.
,
Buettow asked about electing the Ch,lir for the Design Review Committee as an repr~~entatives
of Planning & Zoning. .
23
, PLANNING & ZONING \'MMISSION
~,
.nINE 18, 1996
Election of Chair-person for the Design Review Committee
MOTION: Hunt moved to nominate Steve Buettow for Chair-person.
Seconded by Mooney. All in favor, motioucarries.
Chaikovska said she would like to resign from the Design Review Committee.
MOTION: Hunt moved to nominate Robert Blaich and Dave Johnston to the
Design Review Committee. Seconded by Buettow. All in favor, motion
carries.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
24
I
I
r ~
t ,
P++I'\ ~-t l:t I
June 17, 1996
Mr. Tom Stevens
Page 5
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
q
.
.
.
.
.
Access and Traffic Imoacts
Internal Roads
Access to the 23 units of the affordable housing project will follow the existing Doolittle Drive that
serves the water treatment plant. The existing road is 14 to 20 feet in width, has maximum grades
of up to 11 % and extends some 650 feet from the existing access into Twin Ridge to the upper unit
access. We have shown a widening of the paved platform from current conditions to a 24 foot width
overall to accommodate two-way traffic including trucks more easily. This two-lane standard, with
a centerline curve radius of 100 feet (compared to the approximately 65 foot radius of the current
road) and under 10% grade meets he current regulations for City of Aspen streets. Based on our
discussions within the project team, we are showing widening of the paved road section and speed
limit and relevant caution signing in response to neighbor concerns. We have also shown, for purposes
of this Final Plat submission, relevant grading and slope treatments for the Lower Doolittle corridor.
The site plan incorporates 61 parking spaces to accommodate a project of 47 bedrooms or 1.30
spaces per bedroom. This ratio exceeds normal code requirements for parking spaces and should avoid
guest parking along Doolittle Drive.
With the full development of all 22 new residential units, increased traffic volumes of up to 88 vehicles
per day (vpd) can be expected based on Aspen/Pitkin CountY Housing Authority trip generation figures
for comparable affordable residential units with an available transit option.
Our Conceptual Submission Engineering Report, dated March 21, 1996, presented an extensive
discussion of the relative impacts of the Water Plant Project to the Lower Castle Creek Road. Rather
than revisit that entire discussion for this submission. I would simply reiterate our conclusion that the
affordable housing projects pro-rata share of a $300,000,00 package of improvements to the lower
Castle Creek Road would be $5,052.63.
Drainaoe
We have also evaluated the affordable hou~ing project with regard to internal drainage design. The
main development site in the existing yard area sits on a minor ridge and knoll in an area that
accumulates little runoff volume under natural conditions. Based upon my analysis, it is my opinion
that the project will have minimal impact on the historic drainage patterns, peak flows and runoff
volumes.
Currently, runoff is generally west to east or west to north off the property. This historic drainage
pattern would be unaffected by the proposed construction.' The roadway system will generally cross
perpendicular to the major drainage basins on the property. These basins will be culverted and kept
in their historic channels. Surface sheetflow would be intercepted by the roads and directed toward
the major drainage basins. Typical drainage &onsiderations such as uphill drainage swales. foundation
drains and sloping backfill away from t/;le sides of the structure will be adequate to provide satisfactory
drainage at all building sites. I have identified potential locations for a small detention pond for
sediment removal as well as drywells for groundwater recharge and to delay any actual runoff until
after the storm peak.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC.
,
II
iii
,
II
..
II
II
..
~
,
.
"'I
~I
..
.
.
.
~
II
March 24, 1995
Mr. Tom Stevens
Page 8
~~
A \~,~, ',j
t1-+ .vW".,. ,;t
-i.. 2-.,
Required Road Improvements. lower Castle Creek Road
Pitkin County, in their County Road Service Area Report, of 1985, identified the need to
upgrade the lower Castle Creek Road from a Class III local Access to a Class II Collector.
This proposed upgrade remains appropriate today based on both current and projected build-
out traffic counts. Utilizing the Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications issued in
December of 1990, the upgrade would be to a Class IIA Main Collector status. The Class IIA
offers a design capacity of up to 5000 VPD offering two 12-foot travel lanes as well as six-
foot paved shoulders resulting in a very functional section for vehicular traffic, pedestrians and
cyclists.
With regard to estimated cost of improvements to the 2000 linear feet of Castle Creek Road
from the Maroon Creek intersection to the curve at the Aspen Valley Hospital entrance. I have
included the following items;
1 . Stripping and grubbing.
2. Dirt work to widen the roadway platform.
3. Construction of paved shoulders.
4. Overlay (optional),
5. Drainage improvements.
6. Re-striping.
7. Engineering and contingency at 10%
The total cost of these items is estimated to be $290,000. Items of particular note that are
not included in the above figure include landscaping, right-of-way acquisition (given the public
nature of many of the abutting properties, I have not anticipated that right-of-way would
represent a significant cost) and guardrails which may be appropriate when a widened
platform is constructed on the high bank overlooking the Marolt Property.
We have analyzed a cost approach based on a proportionate share of road reconstruction
costs for the net additional traffic volume associated with the Water Place Housing project
as it relates to the anticipated build-out traffic volume of the Castle Creek Valley corridor.
Using this approach, the Water Place project pro-rata share would be $3,891.00 toward
improvements to the lower Castle Creek Road.
Potential Improvements to the Maroon Creek Road/Highway 82 Intersection
The Colorado Department of Highways Draft and Environmental Impact Statement included
an analysis of the Maroon/Castle intersection with Highway 82 as it related to the future four-
laning of Highway 82 itself. Based on feedback from Centenniai Engineering, Inc., the
consulting engineers who worked on the draft EIS, the only impr'ovement of any significance
to handle projected traffic volumes to the year 2010 was the addition of a second left-turn
lane for traffic turning left onto Highway 82 (down valley). One of the main reasons that
Centennial Engineering recommended the addition of a second left-turn lane related to the
short available length of the existing left-turn lane due to the conflict with the Castle Creek
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
I
I
I
1
I
March 24, 1995
Mr. Tom Stevens
Page 7
1
estimated figures for the available units in the residential build-out category from the Pitkin
County Owl Castle Maroon Buttermilk Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Report as
prepared in 1987. I have reduced the number of build-out units anticipated in 1987 from 64
to 45 to account for the thirteen free market homes an 4 affordable housing units to be
constructed in the Castle Creek Valley Ranch as well as a few homes recently constructed in
the valley. These figures for future build-out result in a total average daily traffic volume of
under 5000 VPD for the Lower Castle Creek Valley from the hospital camPUS entrance to the
intersection with Maroon Creek Road. While this calculated traffic volume is approaching
5000 VPD. I do not consider the numbers here precise enough to state with certainty that
traffic on Castle Creek Road will, at some point, exceed 5000 VPO on an annual average
basis. Current traffic volumes on Castle Creek Road undoubtedly include the impacts of
temporary conditions such as on-going construction in the valley that would not be a major
factor at build-out.
,
i
1
Table 1
Lower Castle Creek Road Future Traffic Impacts
Existing AAOT, 1990
4,335 VPO
I
t
Castle Creek Valley Ranch
Residential Build-out - 45 units
1 20 VPO
315 VPO
,
j
J
Total @ Build-out
4,770 VPD
J
,
While I was initially skeptical of the calculated build-out traffic figure as being somewhat low,
on further scrutiny, I would note that the construction of the Health and Human Services
Building represents substantial completion of the potential build-out of the Aspen Valley
Hospital Campus Area. In addition, as reflected in the Owl Castle Maroon Buttermilk
Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Report, the limited available, developable private
property further up the Castle Creek Valley limits the potential for additional units as reflected
in the OCMB Report. Clearly, the majority of the higher density uses are clustered in the area
of the Aspen Valley Hospital, Castle Ridge Housing and Marolt Ranch Housing projects. With
completion of these various developments I would consider the calculated figure of 4770 VPO
at build-out to be a reasonable estimate.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC.
"
"
-
II
.
II
7 "
March 24, 1995
Mr. Tom Stevens
Page 6
Marolt Ranch Housing
Health & Human Services Building
Meadowood Subdivision
Pine Creek Cook House
Elk Mountain Lodge
Aspen Music School
Pitkin County Assisted Living Facility
Castle Ridge Housing
Pitkin Iron Mine (currently closed)
Twin Ridge Subdivision
Aspen Water Plant
Prince of Peace Chapel
Ashcroft Ski Touring
Toklot
Aspen Valley Hospital
Mountain Oak Housing
Miscellaneous Residential Units
Clearly, some of the existing uses contribute ~raffic to the Castle Creek Valley corridor only
on a seasonal basis such as the Ashcroft Ski Touring Center and the Aspen Music School.
One of the consistent features of prior traffic reports dealing with the Castle and Maroon
Creek corridors was the need for a traffic signal controlling the intersection of Maroon Creek
Road and State Highway' 82. This traffic signal was installed by the Colorado State
Department of Highways in the summer of 1987, and has resulted in significant improvements
to the level of service (LOS) of that intersection. The Maroon/82 intersection now functions
at an LOS "CO (stable flow) with only intermittent queuing problems for traffic attempting to
turn left into M~roon Creek Road from the highway, or turn left onto the highway from
, Maroon Creek Road. The existing Maroon Creek/Highway 82 intersection is ciJrrently
constrained by two major factors including its proximity to the Maroon Creek Road/Castle
Creek Road intersection and the limited queuing capacity of the left turn lane from Maroon
Creek Road onto Highway 82.
Traffic Impacts of the Water Place Housing Project
I
I
The 16 residential units of the Hardy Subdivision will put up to 64 vehicles per day onto the
Castle Creek Road based on Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority trip generation figures for
comparable affordable residential units with an available transit option. It is expected that
peak volumes departing and accessing the project will occur during 7:45 - 8:45 a.m. for the
morning peak and 4:45 - 5:45 p.m. for the evening peak with traffic from the affordable
housing generally traveling in the oooosite direction as the peak flows for the existing
roadway. that is, outbound to Highway 82 in the morning and inbound in the evening. We
could reasonably expect, based on peak hour .estimations generated, once again, by the
Housing Authority, that up to 20% of the daily traffic volume. or 13 vehicles, could be
expected to impact the Castle Creek Road and Maroon Creek/Highway 82 intersection during
peak hours. I
Future Impacts on Castle Creek Road
Table 1 lists the anticipated traffic impacts of several projects either recently completed,
under construction or under consideration for the Castle Creek Valley. I have included
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC.
,
I
-I
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
,~
March 24, 1995
Mr. Tom Stevens
Page 5
traffic impacts at the Maroon Creek/Highway 82 intersection, and needed improvements to
the Lower Castle Creek Road from the hospital campus entry down to the intersection with
Maroon Creek Road. As this report will show. improvements to the Castle Creek Road have
been, and continue to be, appropriate from the Hospital Campus entrance to the intersection
with Maroon Creek Road where the vast majority of traffic volume is concentrated.
This traffic impact report is based predominantly on a review of existing data including traffic
counts generated by Pitkin County in 1985, 1990 and 1993, as well as projected traffic
impacts for several projects recently completed or currently under construction in the Castle
Creek Valley area, such as the Twin Ridge and Marolt Ranch housing 'projects, the Michael
Schultz Health and Human Services Building and the Castle Creek Valley Ranch. I have also
incorporated extensive data from traffic studies dating back to 1981 for the Maroon Creek
Road corridor as well as the intersection of Maroon Creek Road and Highway 82 and recent
data from the Colorado Department of Highways draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Highway 82.
.
A review of the various traffic studies undertaken historically for the Maroon Creek and Castle
Creek Valley corridors reveals a number of inconsistencies regarding current and projected
traffic count information. As a result of these inconsistencies, I have been most inclined to
use actual traffic count data collected by Pitkin County in analyzing existing volume
conditions. I have generally attempted to be conservative (high) with regard to the potential
impacts of future build-out and construction which is currently underway.
Existing Conditions
The Castle Creek Road from the Doolittle Drive entrance to the intersection of Maroon Creek
Road comprises approximately 2,000 linear feet of two-lane roadway with a pavement width
which varies between 24 and 26 feet. The roadway currently meets a Pitkin County Class
III Local Access Standard with two 11-foot through lanes, one to two-foot paved shoulders
and additional gravel shoulders from six inches to four feet in width. Current design capacity
of the existing road pursuant to Pitkin CountY Standards is between 700 and 1100 vehicles
per day with a suggested speed of 35 mph. The Lower Castle Creek Road (between the
Aspen Valley Hospital campus entrance and the intersection with Maroon Creek Road) is also
encumbered with intersections accessing the Meadowood Subdivision, the Pitkin County
Assisted Living FacilitY. and the Marolt Ranch Housing Project.
Current traffic volumes on the lower Castle Creek Road, based on the traffic count study
undertaken by Pitkin County in September of 1993, show a 24-hour traffic volume for that
date of 5,33j'3 vehicles at the Maroon Creek intersection. Converting this figure to annual
average da.ily traffic (AADT) utilizing the Pitkin County AADT adjustment factors results in an
AADT For Castle Creek as of 1993, of 4,335 vehicles per day (VPD).
Existing facilities and development which contributed to the 4,335 VPD annual average daily
traffic on the Castle Creek Road as of 1993 included:
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC,
.
"
-.
..
.
.
..
--
..
.
--
..
..
,
--
~
II
.
.
.
,-."
March 24, 1995
Mr. Tom Stevens
Page 4
Access and Traffic ImDacts
Internal Roads
Access to the 16 units of the Water Place Housing project will follow the existing Doolittle
Drive that serves the water treatment plant. The existing road is 14 to 20 feet in width, has
maximum grades of up to 11 % and extends some 650 feet from the existing access into Twin
Ridge to the upper unit access.
With the full development of all 16 residential units, traffic volumes of up to 64 vehicles per
day (vpdl can be expected based on Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority trip generation
figures for comparable affordable residential units with an available transit option.
From the intersection at Twin Ridge. a few improvements are recommended to improve width,
sight distances and drainage on existing Doolittle Drive. Appropriate borrow ditches on the
uphill side of the road as well as culvert crossings for drainage as shown on the grading and
drainage plan are recommended. We have shown a widening of the paved platform from
current conditions to a 24 foot width overall to accommodate two-way traffic including trucks
more easily. Some concerns were expressed at the neighborhood meetings on March 6th and
13th regarding sight distances. speeds and safety issues for Doolittle Drive. Based on our
discussions within the project team, we are recommending widening of the paved road section
and speed limit and relevant caution signing in response to neighbor concerns. Another
aspect of the current road condition to be addressed by the City of Aspen, as the project
applicant. will be to improve winter plowing and maintenance practices and provide safer
driving conditions for residents of the Water Place project. Due to cost and construction
impacts, we are not recommending significant changes to the Doolittle Drive alignment or
grades within this submission.
Another suggestion raised at the neighborhood meeting of March 13th was the option of
creating an alternate access to the site from the property boundary along Castle Creek Road.
We have reviewed our topographic mapping of the property and find the east portion of the
property to be characterized by slopes of 50% and steeper for a height of 100 feet from the
County Road. Generally. we would not view construction of an alternate access within the
property a feasible alternative.
Traffic Generation
In reviewing the potential traffic impact of the Water Place Housing proposal I have
endeavored to assess the relative traffic impacts of the proposed subdivision as it relates to
existing and future traffic associated with current development and build-out of the Castle
Creek Valley corridor.
Based on the general concerns for impacts to the Lower Castle Creek Road, as well as traffic
impacts at the intersection of Maroon Creek Road and Highway 82 where traffic from Maroon
Creek and Castle Creek combine at the intersection with the highway. I have attempted to
compile all available. relevant data regarding traffic on Castle Creek Road itself. combined
SCHMUESER GOROON MEYER. INC.
.-
t"""'I
.
.
. March 24, 1995
Mr. Tom Stevens
Page 9
I
j
J
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Road. More recent design work for the Highway intersection has been undertaken by our firm
in coordination with Bob Fellsburg of Fellsburg. Holt and Ulliveg Consultants on behalf of the
Highlands and Moore projects.
Estimating the costs of improvements to the Maroon Creek RoadlHighway 82 intersection is
somewhat complicated due to the unknown aspects of the specific four-lane design and
revised entrance to Aspen, if constructed, as well as the potential need to relocate utilities and
traffic signal systems. I would certainly note that the upgrade of the intersection is not
warrented at this time nor would it be warranted by the impacts associated with the Water
Place Housing project alone. Certainly. improvements to the intersection at Maroon Creek and
Highway 82 become appropriate at such time as either the four-lane is constructed or traffic
volumes from the combined roadways begin to. once again, degrade the level of service of
the existing intersection. Reconstruction of the Castle/Maroon/82 intersection is currently
estimated at $500,000.00 and could be fully funded by the Highlands and Moore projects
based on current discussions within Pitkin County.
DrainaCle
I have also evaluated the Water Place property with regard to internal drainage design. The
main development site in the upper yard area sits on a minor ridge and knoll in an area that
accumulates little runoff volume under natural conditions. Based upon my analysis, it is my
opinion that the project will have minimal impact on the historic drainage patterns, peak flows
and runoff volumes.
Currently, runoff is generally west to east or west to north off the property. This historic
drainage pattern would be unaffected by the proposed construction. The roadway system will
generally cross perpendicular to the major drainage basins on the property. These basins will
be culverted and kept in their historic channels. Surface sheetflow would be intercepted by
the roads and directed toward the major drainage basins. Typical drainage considerations
such as uphill drainage swales, foundation drains and sloping backfill away from the sides of
the structure will be adequate to provide satisfactory drainage at all building sites. I have
identified two potential locations for small detention ponds for sediment removal, groundwater
recharge and to delay any actual runoff until after the storm peak.
In summary, it is our opinion that the Water Plant Housing project will not result in any
changes to historic runoff patterns or volumes in the area. Because of the density and project
location well above area streams and water courses, we do not anticipate the introduction of
any pollutants into area stream systems.
SCHMUESER GOROON MEYER. INC.
.16C TheAspen Times'SatJJnkly.Sunday,JU/le 15.J6, 1996
....,..
. Fl'UbOPlt4Pj:i,.
,,,,. . .......'^,... ....~._'^",....., "~,"',~''''''",M'''''''''''''''''''''''''''~''''''':<'''''J'''''''''...,'':" ".,..,,,,.,,-,,,,,'" .-.' ,,-,',--, "';""-'~-","';"'i";~'_''''''''4'':i;><.'I<'''''^''''':'''\~':'':-&"'_, ',"-", .. ....v . ,;_,
, ~~-Of~3~~' R~~E~f~~:~~aJOll~:"I:~I~~ ~~~~COUNTy, Pl.EAS~WOTIC~~so.rdOi..:'~n~=:~t~~m:.=.n~:
Tr~<t:C=~IG~~m~'1.~~eOJ ~n~.~ ollh~~lor~dll RlIl..lQIClvll ;'~6;;o;'u:SY!&:;=tr"". ---~.-- ...~-"'..:.,.~...I -. ..~.~-~ ,n. . :-". :~""',=-~:~n~~~::"~i::t~~~~
=~~~El::~=~~ s:~~~:'::2:::'June Pplts~~~1i:X:;~:=:: :::...., ..":"':h_~.':~;' . :,.~=7~~E:~ut:;::,::
PublletroueetftWliCqunc.yo(f'ttkm;the 'pUblk:Tru.leeNo.96-11""" Oe.fend&nll','.'-"~',:,,,',,', ,: ~.. .~.~I..:.I 1~I~tbe~~ac::..n:.~1:
~~lna:=~..~~~~' To'Whom II mlyCon,,"rn: Thll''t'Iotlce II M:lj;~,":"'w~'fr,E~~~U~o~~~:oat::, heard:'" ;""'rll.>otheT~,J'QUIe"JAIba~lhfIroad
Dt'ed r Tnlal, located In Wd CoUNr 01 Pllkln, C wIth reprd 1f),1be-lotlowlllf cklcrlbed JudJllle."1 Credltor'Ja1l)" P.Wallerl w..luued '; ORDlNANCEOFTHEBOARDOfCOWnr .. ,l~ Cilloll by 111'1 or c:lcIaed "'1'''.evKllljllnl
lowll: ,',,, ',,\, ", '..,'. '...G"~,,.,T,ru~t;""'_.")',""'dD"~~;.,'':'.'~~1 :~ulofttlllCOUi1<<Ul'eCtlnllheSheriHolthfF~, ,.O~IO~~J!l1'KINCOUN1Y., ,'~kklnrJ;.~~~~'C.etl"t;~
LOT 3S. BLOC~ t. UTILE ElKCREEj{ Bellelli:~ry:""'Mtrr!n~hCfedlIC~~~...:",qoun.tyotPltklu.Stue'<ll.€qlorUQ;tlf!eVY',,:,~ .. ____...............,HlEZON1NGFROM , " , "
~~~~~O~~.I,COUNT\'.,... ClIrre'lItOwrnlroltheEvldenc.~o/Debl: "~f:":'I"'d:::"'d~,=.,~;:.="..,.r:.,dY;b.~,."'..~?f</,;.i~.'yp;:~~~~;'.'''':):.'f:'~~?~7~~.:;=eeJ:~
Purpol1ed Common Add~.: OlliS UuleElk ,lllionkei~ Tru.t Coinp<lJ!Y of Call1omla, N.A" U n "'.~~..~" 1lI&e... .. " . -'\i... ed I _.._..... .......... .., I_A
Qo.eekDrive.S/lOwmaas.Colorado.. trlulee. under Ihat cerlaln Poollnl,and 1101lI1!_~lQDj:lIofptIoMIlf:~bildJ\f!)~.I!:,i " .:. .,"RedtaJj' "':' '.'"..;,,,.,:t:".W D._....._lIi'tonllllleroul......
Mo.re Pro(lllrlJ Dea<:rlbed: IS Ullle EQr Creek. ':_ Suvfclng WeeDienl dated AI of l}eCembef I". ',.,Tha~'cel1lllp.real:jlU'P.rly.IIl'Clltl!t:I al 2411, " .-:'," " i~'" .'"" ''',' '.''';' ~ "II' .......h~........'...~ 1_1r~'~ ..... ....,~':'
Avenue, Snowmas.. Colorado. 1994, fOr Sen/Qr SUl)l:lrdlnllte M~Dge Pal&-> CollllndJutn kdId.~",,~~,.....oknown
llIEUENFORECI,OSCDMAYNOTBEAflllST..' Through Cerllllc. ..te..S.,erlel 1'99i~ (MLCC ,:' ~~!~~ !~, ,~,l;;~tip#09,~)~ll'!dl!~~flq..'" r ''';1 I ,:: rJ: M~.'\o : ::. :~ M ' :~" .~:,..'...:. ~r: of' " .1':. '..
UiJi. . .. ' " " MQftgflje In~utQisdni..SeI~r}wltbOut """""".. M
SaldDo!edofTruatleCllrea.Promll~Note rec:QIlrle... ," '~;.:.NOWd'd..THH~.EI'PR.J!:~lI,.'~~M_..!CIlae...'f"""""'''''d'''-' ' ~ ,....~ ~.. ..~.,;..,~: . rR,.~~,,' .r'.,~"~~'~
thcrewlth for thl.um of 1166,000.00. Pl!Ylbte DaleofPel!dotT",I~July22,l994.,. "..... ~PIix ..,.. ... ft.. _. ..
. to the order nf North American MOrlgage ""l!~cor~ln, D4te o/.Deed 01 Tr.~!:,fuIY,~fi,; Pl"lnlll(I~,~ce:;diat'~JI~tqlen;daYli;lrilni.. .. I' .11" ".... '"..' . 'j', fIO ~ . '.,
C hfl.1 ~flhJ.aaldNol ~;n ........ . thed~teoJ-~~,~~'n~'W,ftll[l\thll' I.' ,,',", '" .....,. .,..,.,'.....
..::dc:r:f't:u.ti::r19r..n . e, :Orlglil..I'PrlnclP,I!omollnI'OlEv'ldenceol l'ultl!,orllll!~'\j)'Jlll'r:iiI~Ulon'!'lthln'tell. . I'" .... ... '_'I'. .
WHEREAS.the'OllUWK!\DlfPfJnclpAlln!lUICfI !>ebl:$t41~,(lOO.OO"" :",.. " : .':' :.:-daYa'f"~.~"",n:::i.=~~~~~~.;' . II ., .' '"' ., ,,_~".... ,'.,,', ..',: .'" , .'
dlleandowhlll'uponthe.e...ldenc:eo'de-bl 'OullltilldIIltfPrlIlctpaIAmOUnlQf~enuof ~-~..-.. 1\' e "'ll II" ~ '.
Sl!j:Ufed IIf Ihe'aIJove.deICllbed Oeed 01 T'l-l.t ' Oeblu ollhe dalehereol: $1,415,1/00.00 pi \'h!, .bov$lenlIUOlll:.cou~ Url~ dllm':oI '~:Ma~~,Sc;;j~i'comnij~Io~:'04:,;;.:r:i?;:""t() Ihe'rcM'lllld w.kir::SUJlP!Y'c:ouJd reliult In tl
belnllfofec!ofedlll $164,&4l:~ 41 olMay 17.,"; 'CoLirttyot~dlng:Pltkln ,~.<,,'!anYI!lleInPtlon,lO'hIch~lIma)'bave.Un4erIhe:>..t996,:'4t whlch.tlnie:,lhe':"Cq~inl$lloil,,"'-'~~pbe1l1.thelll'lL".'
1996. 'illIlMlOWlI:does notlnckide lnhl~ ~.' Bo.oklJ"ld PllgeNo. 9r Recepllon 'No 0' ,.I\.mea l:litl\e,stat9. ~ lOf4ln ca,,:o$""JlPl\-I'ltIDOUllY recommended granl\.il, of'one 14.. TbePlttlll"C_ountr Lind ,Use Code
any olher d.llr,., ..llo\WabJe, IIOder_ tile l,oa~ "RecordedDeed of Trlist: In Book 7S6. at Pllie )'OIIr IllIul1Ilo m~aIld OM luch wrftteJ1 dalm, .', ra,ldelltWGMQS ailotmenHortNii'pi-ojea.:":' f",pr,ohlblt.dlWlllojlIMD11.ltl p1annlnll and
doc:wntllflo,byl.w:.,""~";'-"'."'-" --, 43f' ' , . . " O~a~h'~~ko.fed"'(f.Co~~ ;'-S.'1he,.CollntYPlannh1lfandZOnlng',enllneerIQitecMlqUel,C:~not:'c'pJllplelely
WHEREAS. TIle Ban.k of New York, ill Tl\llIlee S......, . "D".~H"'I"~TI~~TTf~H'~'D-HER'"E'T'O' . ~'N. D " ,~..""! \Q, . e ~~, - _; Commlllion 1110 teY\flWedUil..applk:elioidot,,>~e huardllo,pllbUe hll&lUt; ..fety ..nd
under the pooUngand Itrvlelnll"voemenl SEE....... ......... .. ~jlllol1~~,the~lllIJ.,rtetoflhllltlt~.. " reZOrilnll,""d'lIDdlvlllonlllhelr':regullrlvc.,we,lt.are.,fltklnCou~.~u..~.er:tfpn3-
dated... 01 April 1995 among CWMBS, Inc.,:.; 'INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE Who..... RObert: 'C. B-nudlf. Sb'Tffpl '1I1~ ,,' Ichedult(!meetfng 010 Marcb S. 11196; ..nd .;,. 80.30. 'Ole ~ IIlI:Opr()blbuJ dtvt!lopmenlll
depolllClr, ~..Ihe Ieg.tJ holder of iIakINote'alld, rWHICH HAS THE ADDRESS 01' l;\OO NORTH Pltkln CountYofCo~ado,.I~1I: 16t~QI)'1>f May, recommendedapprov.1 01 thlJ lI{l(lllt..Uon' .lIch ckveIOp~t"ubJec:tI other panoll' or
OeedofTruslhlllfUedwnllenElec,.on..nd THlROSTREET,ASPEN,COI.01U.OO8I611 199&. ,1Il;ljed:to<:9lldltlOlll. ,'."..'... ,: ,.<.,theCI?UDtYICl~ora:~.-equJfedlo
DeQllnd /of Sale u provided lualdOeed 0' ' THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS ALL ;8~=l~T:i:::~ .6.'Jlt"~ ofCou!'IY~O!Il:Ill"'l\XI"'P8ard :":" :,~~4:OtId=_orl't:.~pd to
Trull: ,,' : ,'"OF THE PROPERTY ENCUMBERED BY THE 2)\:mBIT~'::':'_' ":' IhlsappliCatlonatUlelrr~orlYldleduJel!" .is.'CU...3l).IJ:\n.:)-........A 'ri.atu.e
TflEREFORE.-trollcellhe~III_lMl:lwill, 'UENOF11-fEDEEOOFTRUST.,: A puo:eloff4Dd; IllbOwn...1'rad B Qn the ~~~~~oann~;:="~I:.~"r:;:~,};.~_.nlylllal_~h~~...:.-;.;;-:a.erpn<:y
..I IJ.l:OOa:.lll.oll.lllfyl7. 1996,atthe,fr(ont.ttpa ::..~!;!.~NPOR;C~OSE.DMA.t.~.,.q~ BE A Exemption ~tlllll'~ofrkorded!n8oolc 7.." . "y. vdIIc:f' IlIIb.l\t rIvUe I
D11he court boPIe; Colmty ol~' IIDd State ....... ....... . ~. 'p&i!e lll.lo'dited IriSec!lon '2.TPW'riiihlp II .~ w.W.r~~FOthl~:~~IT"IofIORD''':CH'EO'''' ",y';;-,.,',",'::,'ioned ec:=~. pn ....,dId~.a1 ancrorn::~~
of Colorado. ,eU.af Pllbllc..uctlon to the ~r.1'ru.q::omPllllyofC..lIk@Ilt;.t~A...s Ii, Ih R asw t Ilh 6thPrl I I .............. III lorlln ~_A" Of.....
hl(hellllld bet!: b~ lor CljIh:the.~. "": lrulte~,. under thai certain Poollng'ln.d ..~~~,~~...n " .'_.. ,!~.? H.E'" "., ,,',', ~~~ P/lklaCouqty BoardotCounly"'.."'>"',,', .."...... punilIhmeAt, , Vlo .
_. doU'- "._ .~_'J' '_'1. .__ ",.. _.0_'- ._, ...............IIlI\d.. ...."'.."'"". _.. Commllltoneralllaf..ltGrtn.IIRwlntnilrom 1.6.Even1hou1lhme_~_)bflpower<<>
pro..-v In u,lera o.....sa .......""'l..h ""'.. n,'.....,""'."en' I 41", --...,m"", , far<:e[llmorefilUydeacribedllfolfowl: ' AFR~10 to AFR-2 approval 10 th~ appl1c:aDt'" fIIt~bll.1r f1rl,III.MlI,lnd emlrpnl:)' veh.cle
their heJrl.lhfl/r I~., and Ihelr..l/irII. 1994.lor-Senlor S"bord1l1IleM~e Pus- 8eglnnlng.at. JIOlnt whence CQtl'lIr No. I Of IlIbIectUltl:telollov4na~loaI::, ,', ,', " .;, iOI:c:e11 ~'trJvale'r,udflllJll.propeny, there
for Ihe purpou of paylrigtbetndeble4ndl ThwlIllh Certll1t..tel. Serle. 1994& (MLCC tU:..f.JI2 beirN: -21"24'[. 919.SOteel:"lhence --I. Ail mllorljll ",pr$"n1.tiOlOl'm~ bylhe ve oddltlo~enll which mull be
::=~~ :,'~~:~D;;e.:r:fJ:.u;M ~~.::.~ ~nev=r"U~~l~~"'~t~: N. n-S7' W31;4,l/eet; Ih.nee N.2!l"41' 'W. appllc"r1II'ln Ihe ..ppllc,lIol1'''lId f::IlC ..~m-'!llOlhe. O~andtberolll.need
deliver to tbe pUr~""'e"lI.ClfllIl~..tI,ol I41Cl!I'filbylhe,DeeOoIi""l~hereln, ..~~~::IT~9~::J,sri142il~t~~~., m"'-fut..~ be t.<lMrei:t tund.-tQM. dred ' ::I:.e:::~~~ =m~~~: ~O::~DU:~~
Pllrdlaae,Il1 u provided bylaw. h.atfl~wrlUenelectlqnapddemllldlor.ak! leet:thl!llc:eS:'71.S7'e!223.60'eet;tbestceS. =1~n:~~r~","I,~le"~.~'bf: Improvementl Ire'llI..de. 100l..lnt.ln
Pr~PuA:cu;:.t:..;h~o:.'t,=:r. "~~I~~I~:~~:e~~~ru~~1 fi:~;~~.~~~.t~~:i'l~t't~J~:.~ 2.TIulRezol1lnlftomAf1t.IO'0~8nd~ _' ==...c:ceu'or lire and l/YIergency
~lwIllrUl,Shlpirol&CocUhf.LlP"'dee:mI!dto will, at 1j);OO o'c:IocJr; In ~he 'jlrenoon' Q1 7S"12'W. 6:;12 feet,Ip"If!epolnl of lMl,lllillPlf, =~~~lll~I~=~ICl~hbe= . 17.Theetl~rtl 01 the COllDlY"~ nrlou$
beadebto:olle<:toratltmptlll(lOeoIlecUdebt Wednesd..y, July 3, 1996,af Ihe.SOulh,lrollf-Publl$hed In ~~nlllOfll"'lIY 25. June upoYI approvaJlUid recordatJon of 11\I flllaI:91" . ho~WMI1' ~prvltealton1l)lt 10~lve
Ind8ll)'.nltmnatlonoblalnedwJIJbe~lor door,P\tklnCounfYCo~rthouse',S06!a4tMaln, . 1.8$ld IS. 1996. lQrlhe-lubdl'l'lIloa. -: ' ,-. ..: theProblllll1l~veb;!len1lltlllc:<:eS1IlIl.
thatpurjlOft Aapom Colorado sejlll.l publl<: ....Cllon 10 lhe: Copies of Ihe ,rop'o.ed OrdIQlnce'IlJI,;", ..Ia 'Th,Board l;l"~1ed Ilalf III procesl
Dated Ih"W day 01 May-; 1996',.. hlillni and'bell~b1l;krer lor cash,lhe'llld real mSI'IUCTCOI./RT;'frooNC01..iNTY, avallabJelor pub/lli InIJll!ctIon diirlllll:~:~",,!)fI!Vd~~/4~StiIeld 0
TbomuC-lrI Oken. !"UbllcTl\llItee In and lor , pi'opertyllldalllilleresloftllelallfCllalllor(i), STATEOFCOl.ORADO':' .'..: .~ .~.... ,.,' bUlI~ hou.... In the Otllee 01 tIwt,Ckri.ancl;;;;" Wllh IlteiUid."t.aDll11I8 that petrlllI& will
.' . theCountyofPltJrln,Co1oradQ"'" 'Qranlor(l)' hel... and IIllgn' tharelll, lor the ea;l!iNo'96CV14-1' , Re<:Ordet"S30EaatMalnSI"'Ai~COIOt~,:, Qlit,lnlHlunm~~II~ue....te~.Ind
Carol I.. l'oole,'DfiputyPubllc:Trullte ''''purpoH of payln( the Indtibled_:~d ''..~. . NOTlCEDF lE\IYOR _VRE .. 81ttll. P'hone(91O) 92(4i180 :, ~ ;:~:,~,,__:.. .:,';;::'h..:requuted. ~ild(1:loA'be,hll.po.iied upon
~Publkatlon:JWleI, 1996',In..k1 EvldeneeolOebllecllred by,th-l Deed ", H'MIClfAEL:. ""'.lriil..inddbaH,.~ICliAEL ;'.;- '" ..'.JeanetleJ<loieS:OePillYCoUntyCJeiolf:.'... ~~O. ~"pp'...~req_uHte4... ':?~.!h..'
'"l.UIf'lIbIk:I01loo:Juile29; 1996 , "ofTrUlI,p1l1uttorDeyl'tea,lhe1;:ll~~-of FOXaASSOClA1'F3;P1aInttff,,,,. . 'PublWJedInTheAlpeo'l'lmeiiJuneIS 1994,"'--" areh_1lO .....g . I......
MelAhold,SUlJi.ml.S!la-PIro.&COdillll.ILP","aa!e,..IIiI-other,ltem..a1lowedby'Jaw;andwlll . y.:.. .. ..,,,,,,:_,,,...,':':,,:' ,"..- ,.'" _. ..'.. ..',.'::,:untllthetoadllU1lliAprovecftoa.tmdard
~MeY1ue~~~f'"'' "'~:~~:e~~I~e:::~t:I:W~(:~llflc"leol Ji.Mis, p: W-Ai.TEaS, ttiU..Qoo'&.t;NDELSON " :" . . 'PUBlJCNOTICf:' ",:,,'~'~, ":t!-1-S..t1.1"C:101l' 10lhe 'Boud 01, Counly
=~~~AVllIlut " ' A~~~~.l'o~g'M :-.tloI:ot~nt~ ", . . '~~JCJ~9!~,~~:ry~~~:rI!ell~~~
EneJewood.ColorodoSOU2..... . INFORMATtQN08TAiNroWULIlE';VSEOFOR .~~ .,, " . . I ., . I r,
Itn::w~~e~~=t,M~fti::' TH~I~9sa,:,' -,:>:,'~'~~.." ,.0 ... .. ..~" . "". .. . . .
Corpor8lloll)uSdler.anlfMlSler~.lIld Car(l/L.FCXlte,DeputyPubflcTnisteelnljPd "Color.. ... ,I.. . ,.. ". ... ." ., ~
The fltnk 01 New York; u Truatee:relatlng 10 for IheCountyof Pllkbl, Colorado. ;:prOpert; '~I" . I 'I, I ., ...lI' .....,.~ .... '." ~.I..
1II0l1gqe pau-thl'Ough c:ertUlCllfll'~ ll$5. Flrlf PlIbllell1lon:!o\I)' 18, 1996 Sherlfll ~ , .,1,. .' . I I"''',
O. , ' LasIPll1:lileatlon:.hiile15.1996 :,--nlze.-1Il ... ...u"'~ ..:. ,'. ..f. ,~ ., .1 ~ I.. .. I. ...
PIIbfllhedIl1TbeAlpenTline'June_I.&.IS,. NllmIofPllbllci.llon:1be....pen\illlfll <~~lM'l. .. .~:. ,.. ::~~';' ';' ,'.lI' , ..,~"". u '.~'~
Z211nd29.19!l6. ;2>~~~I;ude,p.C..__:,":".,>: .~,:';g~......~.;..~ 0,_ ,... ....1....., ..,1.."..'..1"....'''""........._.
lI'lTHElINlTEDSTATESDl5TRIC1'COURT' l099l8th-&l11e2300 :,!:"','" bylhe .. .1 "".. .~..~ '~.... ,~~"~"~ 01. ...-...,..,...,,,..,.'
fORntEDiSTRfCTOFCOWRAOO 'Penver;CoIorado80202~"" ',. "Exhlblt~ . ,".. . " . I
C1v11Ac:tlonNo 9SW6ro (303)~1 I," . Now THEREFORE yoU,'H. MlChaelFoidill!. ~~~=1i4~~:t.::~~=,'_;:,' ~~ D~'r:~I~~~,~=
=,E_R TI~.aIlQIl.LO~E MIi!IlNGCOMPANY,.a ;,.,-....:..,....' "T",';'W"'ESrrTAON~U,'~Lo 'LOT :W", ~.. ~...t.l~,,".~'::'.,'..'1'..~...aItI.l~.~~PiQ~.ForlllrlherlnfOrJlllllon,C~. but oIlho!,' ~looIl~..m~.to
, ,......'...........' .--..... ''''~''U''',''' ....~...u..."0Mr~~e'A.penPllklnCOlIlIIIunlty,;::",rea~,IQ~...thelRa,ilndUl\lalotbtq)urdyal
P1a1n1lfl, 11, BLQCKI02, HALLAMS ADomcm TO THE. . 'lhadale ofkrVke'beteof, 11~ wllhlnlhll DeveloPQlciiif09utntelll-, no S-..GaleqI... St-.,"",)IJlfll, to pl'ohij)11 f\uli!er,deveI. 0M1~ In tfle
va." .' .,'" .__-', 'CITYANDTOWNSITEOFASPEN;t.ESSAND Ilale.orUlervedby'publlc..lloowllhlnten AapenCO(910)92Q-,$10fl.. ,..,;,_ ... "';are.untlltheacc:el.rood"ID"I.:~Jn
UNITED STATF.S OF AMERICA, SSCUfARY EXCEPT THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF $AID , d.ayI al'terlervlce h~ txdUllve Of the day. ' ... '" . 't.JJoM.B~Mayor':' 'Ollnltnllm _lIIlCIIrda.tIid,. JIlomorlWa WI the
OFAGfijCIll,.TURE, IlN11'EO$TAm'~RE,ST. "LQi 10, MORE'PULLY DESCRIBED AS o"~YOUIllaynt.abandmewlthIheClerft AI QiyCouQdl ~SUIODc:eo'anyfllrtherbulidlola~IIIotIllY
SERVICE; ASC CORPORA,TION, a Colorado, FOLLOWS: 8EClINNlNO AT THE NW CORNER of the above entitled COlII1. wrltlen dlOlm 01 PJMJ IWod I TheAll .... 'fJ' '~iil'U'I996." ,'....pnipei1y~bytlieaeroids.DeteI...ry
corporation, 1Ik/.,ASPEN '.SKIING OF SAlD LOT 10:' THENCE S' 1SDEClREES 09 any exemptlonwhfch you may have under: the . .. D ,. pen ll1IlIIJ!.\1\fI .,... ::~","~2.ltJI ntt<:-qiiar)o'.'lli' .order' 10 auow
CORPORATION, a. Colorldel c:orporallon; MINUTES t 1 SECONDS EAST 29.65 FEET 1IIIt1ll-lS of the Stal.f)/ COlOrado;..nd In CIIl! 01 ' . . NOTICE OFPtlBUcIiE4RiNa' "," . .,.~ ',,:dewIo~ (jfttblH'DftIIIIItiIallt tbt!lnure,
-,SPEN.WESTERN' CORP.;ljk/a. ASPEN- ALONG TIlE NORTHERLY UNE OPSAlD LOT your fallur. tomakund file luch wrllltn Clallll PLEASE TAItE NOTICE: Thllt theJI08rd 01 If) IftOdlfy CoIlllt1'roacJ,~ In.. /uhlon
WESTERNCORPORAflON; a Colorado . 10: THENCE WEST 28;66 FEET TO'A pOINT ON of exemptIon wllh Ihe CleJtollllld Court you . CounlY Commlulc:inera. of'Pltkln 'ClIUntf,,'"lhat (I~.,I1OtCO"'promloe health., .dell)' allll
corporatlon;.CHARLESllBELL;11iEIl-OARI>OF' THE WEST UNE OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE Iball blldeemed 10 h.Wl wlivelf your rlghlol CoIoradoWUI conduer'pub1k:'hearInt'On'IhfI':"~. '. "', " ..'
COUNT'Y COMMISSIONERS.oF PITKIN COUNTY. NORTH 1.60 FEeT ALONG THE WEST UNE .oP ,exemption under the lIatlllll 01 thlutale. "ollowlnaOrdlnance~ at 5:00 p.m'oll,J....e 0' ,23. Baa,ct-llpOIIetlllllatedtraflk:ld build OUI.
COWIW)(); DAVID R.e BROWN.aJtll D,lle. SAID LOT 10 TO TIlE POINT OF BEGINNING. Wllne.., Rol!.ern;:, Braud.l. Sherif/ of..ld g;,~.,~~~~~~'~~~n::rlh~ '.Y:/r~elll~le~~~~e31lo.~~~ f.:'~
~~o~~o~i~'rl"'1i'~w~"R~~g COIJNTYOFPITION,STATEOfC01.QMOO; =~C~ty,OICotOndO.thIa l6thda,yofMay., whJcltltniellldpl..:ellllll!embefioftl)ll~ vehlcIeIpardayonlhe:SliIaldOMea'Ro~.
=~.~t~ ~~=~=W= ~~~8.\~;ris~&:Tlme' ~aY 1$.25, ~C.JlnUdll.~ ~Z.'18~~~'1B6ARO;"Co~ 1aU~~1:=:=.'::d=h~~
McNUTT BROWN:RlfTH McNU'lT BROWN, ~~~eeT4Ium,. .. ,.. ..", - ~ - ',' '. .
;~Y~~~~~M~JM.== NOTlCE'I'OCftU>\1'ORS ~=~~thereOf~.:J~~~\U::, ".... 1 ,," ~ .. ... ,," " " ... . ~
a/k!' FLETCHER I!f. BROWN,lIk/a WM. Bem.adlneVOSC':;~o~ p.ageI9.loc..tedlnSectlon~,Town.hlptl ,. :J'.l ~:.'III' .~r.if:.,2to4ft
~~~'~N~~~ ,.<i\llperaonsbavlngdllm.asafnltlhe Soilth.ftalllle&SW""oltbl~h:Pl'lnclp'\ ".,.'W~:,""~' .. ,...,..' 115ft'
N; & .8/ a .above.n.m,ed "late are required lopreaent MtrIdlanllldbelnsP'rtofH,E.S.No.ll2.sakI " 'II.... .II'. 10%
~::riJ;.~l&'f:t1f~~l<i.~:~,; ,themtQlhepel'SOtlafreprell!nlatlveortotbe ~~I~I~r::~'::eU~",,""o.) DI AI'o...".lILWuM""^1\UAW .. o..I.'MW~l\.IIlUllul~atandardawhlc:bdo
MELVIN HOAtlLAND: McCUllOCH CONSO!.. (OIsIrIcICourIQlfltkln, C,!Wlty,CoIorado)on H.ES 112 bear 1'1,.21"24' E. 919..$0 feet: thence . 1 ~ "everel)' eOmPromlle be..llh, safety. and
Mt<<l.CQ.,aJ\IaMl:(:\llLOCH~1'EO orbeforeOclo/)e~9.1996,orthec:;lalmsmay N.l1"Sl'W:U.41teet:tbel'lCeN.U"41' W. ",,,. WtU.are .~t;neceuiU'~ .be<:lu.e \1 I.
~~~~M~~~Z~:rC~~~~t1:~; belorevetbarretlpeterVanDomefen.persollal ~f~~~~.j;;~~~~~:';el:~i1~~;: II "" . M" :~i~f1lall:m!D~~'~Q~etoa:eq:l~e I:l~
WI~UAM MUltDOCK, alkJ.. Wr-t. MURDOCK; R~:,~'5:' 118.91 leel: Ihenc:e'S. n"n' E.223.60 leel; . ." 'I, . , 2fi. SOme Df the Shteld 0 hoIIteowPlltI have
THOMAS OKEN, ... PublIC Tru.lel 0' Pitkin ..A......... <>.~<>'l. thenceS. 21"06' W.85.00feet:: Ihenc:es.1"3r,w.; .>111!l'U U !\'Ie... "uau. II.. uel" ..UlIelIlUUlll .alread)' hired . p.lanner In obl.alnlnlt .peel/le
COllnty. Colora40; THOMAS OllEN. al .....,.,.".ow<> 1'16.00/eet: Ihena!S, 0"14' E, 8S.00 feet: thelIce. 'deveiopmlllll Ineelh late I 96Qs Tiler lid enltI rl IlIIlleland I.atelfofroad
TrdSurer of PItkin County. Colorado; STEPHEN ~Ug:~"I';l.ln The AlIp'CD Times ~une 8. 15 s.. 7$"12.W. 62.'I21eet lolhe poInl'oI ~lnQIntf.' ; never been.. ~orl'lllll ,"ubdI"lfon ~ Shl~d 0' . Iill~::n~ .. COIltll, III
~~':itt~.~ ~~~~M:'lI~: 1.~~~;:'I~:~pen..TI~ M~ : .,.J~~\ ~I'~'i:":~l~:v~ ~..~ :-:~ce:;, '~2:' ,:'rgti~ORJ~~::.~~~~e~fb~A~~
G. WOODRllf'F; 4Dd 111 lioknowtr perlOlll who dO.....", "'^......., .. cue bula. 'County. SUite or Colorldo, th"lllo further
dalm llIlY Interell In the .lIbject mltWr of lhl. .-uOU>.o,......,... EASTSNOWMASSBRlDGECONS1RlfC'f'1ON 2. The Shldd 0 Men Ro.ad and.tbe Shleld.o buIIdlll' perUlIU: wlU la_lor development Of
acllnn. ' , IN TIlEMAlTEfl OF THE PFl'lTION FOR THE Toulce Ro..d do not meet COllnty ro.a4l OIny t1iK1 Ior"ny prOperty IIttealed b)' tbe
Delendanll. ~GE~NAME~F: PI' TheAs:pen~~:,crO:~~Wblte1l;lVei standard...",. ',SNeldOTtmII:fI.at\dIol'ShletdOlMuwa4,.
SUM......~ aka ~~m.1 P.~~:M Il)'.;rl.elll Gner, N..lloJlalFor~II' be.nnln," _'0 lor In ..S;;,~ T. ,b,', ,",..,..~.',~~s,e;!ev,..loP~(, ',",d' ..Jtd,lhal W. moratorium, on the luuance 01
........... "... .-..,. ...' ""'... ~..n 11I~".IU n _bUld."IPerm..ltl..h..lbe.....b/ecllolhe
Tothe abovenllllled Detendantt; Publk Nollce I. hillrebylflven thai by liD envlronmenl..l..nalyal. on a propoullO attemptlnlflohmllllleroadhnprovelaenu.and,. .......
You ..re hereby .ummoned ..nd requIred to Order ollheCounty Clerk of Pll~hl Counly. OOlIIII'UCl a 1001 !lridlfll &eross Eaal Snowman uPllr~~r. "'.. Shield ,O~errace, andShfekl 0 - I. Apjlllcatlona for developmenl lipproval'
ieI've upon Malt A. MIMIg,Jr.. Eaq.. Plalnlllr. Colorado entered II May 21. 1996, lit the above- Creek. Tho propouJabo In.:-kKIea conatrucllOll Mesa......... ... ... wffi cglUl_ to be lltO<:fl1--l<l ttocoulfh the:
K~~~~:I~'P~~~$~8a~~~h';t~:~I~~~:\~0:' ~~I~:~:mO:.; ~~~::::.eI6f iC::::: ~:~~: ::o:;r .=t1~I::tn~aIt.':r~:-:"~I~~~ C:~m~';.lo1,.ge~~ ":c':,~~:~~:ri'J~;:~:i' . :'f:;:~r::r., g:~:~~~gl~/~l::alt~~~ I~~r
Denver Colo ado802fl2 Nonll. upon proof 01 pubUeallOIl beln, lIled Ilnne(ellar)' lecllonl 01 oldlUn, trallln Ihe Irom lite PItkin Counly Sherlff'l Olflce, thl no -petrnJlI Will 1._ lInlll the road compile.
ANDFlU: Wmt llIEci.ERKOFTHECOURT wJlhlheClerk oftheCourt. immedlalearea. Basalt f1ra Dlllrfct..nd IheSlate l'oreal ~ICI' with IhamInJ/IlIIID II8iKIards aet:lortbhereio,
fU:~It~r~~::r~~e:=~' ClerkOllheC~~~~~~t~t Svc~d~~~IIl~:::~.:'~~'e~'~'~; ~1~fl~':d"P=:r:''=;I~~ ~ ~er=:=':W:::~:;~-:~~
~~ ~~c;r(:':t~I:,~~S::~h~D:' ~ ,l~~k~ In The Aspennl1l-lS JUIIll!, 8...nd ~: :~:~t:I~I~~~~~ ~ ':r~:::'~~~: ~:::~~I~e$:h~e:aB~~~'d'" I~::~lt ~~~, ~ to the rnI,nlrown "la_rd. aetlorth
Semceof thla sumlllOll' shall be complete on Imporlant plrt 0" the ICoplrig (lrocel$ JI the ~~t~~~~l(llt~OIl$ Whlle__tt~,road l~~ '. 3. The moralothllD wQl not be reldnded untU
f~~~ ~I~t~~=l~ =t~~~ N~~~IO~::1~e:C~~B~~J.ed ~~::~,tL~r~=~ :::.:: p~0~~~~nar~0"~~f~~181:::r~f=:~nf:,' r::'i:~i~Wi:;::a::Erbn:
II ~o... fllU-to llIe )'our anlw"r or other Iludgel ha. been lubmllled to Ih~ Board 01 ' tocaled ..pprOldmately 400 feel downltteam ::;pr~a~hly~ei:.%n"=t ha,," been ,'4;Thfl mtnkollln IJllndarda lor ImprOVemenls
response 10 the complalnlln wrilllllf wllhln 30 ~rWileeaf of f~lof:Wo t"lyounl~n ~IIP: ~41"T' '~~r:ro~ ~~~~eo~:~~':'h':'or~~~.:lI~~~e: :e The :oar~ 0,0 Cou';'y CO'::iUIOl1ers ,~ IIIS~~ro:: areas-followl. RI.lRAL
daYlallerthod..leollhellllpubllcallo", ',19~.lc~:rwmebill/~~M:y38.i'996,'~{h~ rol tt'llg..ld(SCrl tlo .ls1'l0S R86W dlr<<tedcounty.ta/ftolll.lslttMlSllleld.o:uea M1n.R~_~~Wa,y, 30ft.
~~~e~:?~I~~~I=~~h~.' ColoradOMOlInialn CoUelll! Di'lrId'Olffce.2IS iec,~O.Theebrldsl!iwlll"cOn~llralla'leidloi ~:'=fe~~n:~f:I~:e1o:::.1~ti:,,:, '~~~iibOoldet' r'.~lft
~omp\alnt....ltllmltluntoerh~ rwl~r:"fv~~~:t~~~~=~n7::cr:' !f:\ll~.W:~~'e;:"~::~~~\::::tYU~ agreedtol\tlIIJ\Ct'$8,OOl).OOlottnalflel!tlnlto:, W1n.CurveRlidllla. .5011
ThIS !s.n ..c:tlon 10 qu.et Ihe !IUe of the 'propo.ed budllt wlll'be cO"lldered lor cro..!trlf ttle creek and reduce.relource begin the' procns 01 de'l,n.nll .road ,:. :-=3"J)~~:~~E::a~
~:~I~::,u:;,\!o~':,::~ :~:l~:::r~ ~ft:::: :1:'&'l1e;~:fr~~:I~,,~ damalle by,conc:enlrallll8u.e on one tr..lI. Imr=~ta;l.tt obl..lned thenec:l!ii,.ry SUvl Provfd ; 'and B.asalt FI Pr' I
d\!$<:libed.asfollows: . Center,I39Sioadway.F.illfle,CO,81S3lonJune ~'~~~~~~~~~,~~~~.~~= ;~rdG~~e~~r~:::I~~w~:'~g:.o:~ 'Dlscr:.. "lIt".a Sire Oleeton
Sl~::~~~::.r:~=== ~i~=~~~~~=ltI7~~ft: .Jr:.~~~V:.i:~~~:s~~:~~:~ot~' 19fOeveJopm~II~~~~~ki'~~ '=:::~;'~:~~~~~
Cierl:oICO~r~~~ dlsll'lclml)'atanylll1leprlor,tothef'nal AlpenRangerDllldc:tbyJune28,I99ti.Our ~"4'64fc::'~~ ., "ln~!l!'lo :r~~~~~~~h:::~rOlllrlcllI
~~~'k,:,"~,~,l~strlcl Co..rl, C-J45 U.S,. ~=I:~I~~'::' budlfet Ille or rellmr W:~a:~~~=~~1'U1~.IIlI'IcI.806 Ih~t~~r~~'::'d~C:O~~=: Cop.el o'the ellllreOrdln.nce 96.19 are
C De Slnceiely, For more Inform..tlo.n please eontaC:1 Dan huard areu"be bllllt to CoUlIli 1tIad~. ~'i-:r~~:~J:='%':'~8:N;~~
o@~~~~tE~~~i294 ~Sh~ lnT~~~ri~\:~P;:~~;~~~~ ~~~I~~~~~mes June 8 and I~ J~J~:!;~~~ ::r~:;':r~e~:~;: ,~~S~1'he~I~:~:I:~,::~1
f"""'.
AGENDA
May 28, 1996
,,,....,,
5:00 COUNCIL MEETING
I. Call to order
II. Roll call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a)
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the day
a) Mayor's comments
b) Councilmembers' comments
c) City Manager's comments
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #27, 1996 - Amending Deed RestrictionlWilliams Ranch
b) Resolution #28, 1996 - Kopf & Kopf- Holy Cross analysis
c) Resolution #29, 1996 - Contract - Moore Pool and ADA improvements
d) Resolution #30,1996 - Contract award Aspen Earthmoving hydrant replacements
e) Resolution #31, 1996 - Appointment of directors to MEAN & MNPP
VII, Public Hearings
a) North Maroon Creek Annexation Continue to June 10
b) South Maroon Creek Annexation Continue to June 10
~c) Ordinance #8, 1996 - Trueman SPA Amendment Continue to June 24
- d) Ordinance #10, 1996 - 616 W. Main Historic Designation
e) Ordinance #15, 1996 - Water Place Housing
f) Ordinance #17, 1996 - Amending Housing guidelines
g) Ordinance #18, 1996 - Adult Entertainment
h) Ordinance #19, 1996 - Mall Performers Continue to June 10
VIII. Action Items
a) Reso1ati6ii'#26; 'T99B'~ -Hlnes-Water-Atlfccmcnt-
b)
c)
d)
e)
IX, Information Items
a)
X, Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting June 10, 1996
70 .- $/t? gLt/PM-Q" TAx-: S-fl-If"es-
~: ~e;,eh'~/a.. ' .r'\
,.,B/L.C., .' ~ 5""ur /&V/!J/7ItJlf/ t?r /fP
/Ai'//;Pt!it? ~ 2'/:
~ tPr /pM-7A6 ~$5.A'F"4V'~
t
-~ #C6e<; / / ~#7 ~/tK 7#'e ~S"
~ ~ ~$~$P' 6tm7#6- ~~ .
/~ /AJ~ae J;r#T $"~ ~#- ~r'
Al/~k 0/ l2'~ 41.f/ZG CK~. 72J
~ #6tv' ~ I!?,/L~. J1
lV~ffa. ~ fir ~~
~7C6' a!eEK .6M
") . r
~ ~//.IIC.
PaJU7'7UE ~~/E.
1
I.
'"
o
,P~6
(" ~t/L.7Z )
~t\'\ O?l-'I~
l
ZJ~/?b
I""'>
-m- e)
"'"'"
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
THRU:
Mayo.. and City Council ~
Amy Mar-gerum, City Manage L?('
Stan Clauson, Community Deve opment Director- J-/
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director '0, tA.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
May 22, 1996
Second Reading, ordinanc~Series of 1996 - City of Aspen Water
Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project -Conceptual SPA Review
RE:
SUMMARY: The proposed Water Treatment Plan and Affordable Housing Development
would house essential city employees, including emergency response personnel, adjacent to the
city's water treatment and distribution facilities. An additional component of the project calls
for significant improvements to the both the infrastructure and office facilities of the water plant.
The project has been before the Planning and Zoning Commission since 1995 in various
configurations. Based on comments during a two-step submittal in March of 1995 and additional
work sessions with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the applicant
(City of Aspen) has re-submitted the application as a four-step review, as shown below on Figure
I.
Figure 1
City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing
Process
Planning and Zonin
Conceptual SPA
Council
Conceptual SPA
Planning and Zoning
Final SPA
Subdivision
GMQS Exemption
Special Revie
8040 Greenline
Conditional Use
Council
Final SPA
Subdivision
GMQS Exemptio
April 16, 1996
April 22, 1996
May 22, 1996
Not Scheduled
Note: Italics indicates a public hearing
July 2, 1996
On April 16, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with
conditions on a vote of 4"0, On April 22, 1996 Council held a public hearing and unanimously
approved Ordinance IS, Series of 1996 on first reading.
,-."
.'-""
PROPOSAL: The proposed development now calls for the construction of 22 fully deed
restricted units plus the renovation of an existing unit, for a total of 23 units. Six units will be
single-family detached and 17 units will be in a townhome configuration. Discussions with the
City Manager's Office and the Water Department has widened the original scope of the project
to include those improvements approved by the Asset Planning Committee for the water
treatment facilities:
. The expansion of the existing raw water storage reservoir from the existing 4.8 million
gallon capacity to approximately 8 million gallons to address peak day demand fluctuations.
. The expansion of the second floor of the "west plant" by 2,000 sq. ft, and the remodeling
and reorganization of the "east plant" office, control room and shop spaces.
. The expansion of the existing chlorine storage building by approximately 250 s.f., and the
existing electrical shed by approximately 450 s.f.
. Grading of a platform for a new transformer storage yard.
. Construction of a new 4,000 s,f. Water Department storage building for vehicle and
equipment storage.
. Additional surface parking and approximately 12,000 s.f. of construction material storage in
two three-sided concrete structures.
. Construction of a Water Plant Emergency Response Building consisting of a 500 square foot,
one-story building located at the south end of the affordable housing parking lot.
. Security fencing around the water treatment plant facility and the western property lines of
the single-family units.
. Associated infrastructure improvements including water, sewer, private utilities and
Doolittle Road.
The project has been significantly revised and reconfigured since the March 1995 submittal.
Specific design changes for the residential component, based on several work sessions with both
the Commission and Council, include the following:
. The elimination of a fourplex previously proposed for the lower portion of the property
adjacent to Castle Ridge. The former site of the fourplex is no longer proposed for
development, and the applicant intends on dedicating the area as open space.
. The units proposed near the bluff above (south) of Castle Ridge have been set back
approximately 25 feet from the top of the slope to lessen the visual impacts from existing
units and State Highway 82,
. Several single-family detached units have been dropped in favor of more affordable smaller,
attached units.
2
/"....\
~
. The overall site design has been revised to represent a more pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood, and all parking has been isolated from the units on the east side of Doolittle.
Limited access would be allowed for deliveries by way of the proposed walkway.
. The density has been increased from 16 units in the original application to 23 units.
. The project has been designed to maximize the neighborhood relationship between the
structures by proposing a "greenspace" orientation of the front facades for the units on the
east side of Doolittle Road.
. The proposed improvements of the water treatment plant have been widened in scope to
ensure that impact of the project is minimized and to allow expected growth in the
department.
. The design is based on a "green" approach by minimizing the influence of vehicular traffic
adjacent to the units, maximizing solar exposure, and incorporating energy efficient design
and construction.
. Doolittle Drive has been re-engineered, and will meet all current City standards for grade,
lane width and curve radius. This is a significant improvement from prior submittals.
The applicant's submittal package, which includes a conceptual site plan, a description of
significant revisions, a preliminary financial plan, a summary of potential chlorine hazards and
evacuation radius, as well as memos addressing transportation issues were included with staff's
April 22, 1996 memorandum.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Asset Management Department, represented by David Hauter
(Project Manager)
LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 2 and 4, City of Aspen Thomas Property. The property is located
at the end of Doolittle Drive, south of Castle Ridge Housing complex, and includes the City
water plant. The entire parcel is approximately 54 acres, with approximately 4.95 acres
proposed for residential development. The property is zoned Public (PUB) with a Specially
Planned Area (SPA) overlay. The adjoining residential uses to the North are zoned R-15 PUD
SPA.
Referral Comments: Housing, Engineering and Environmental Health have all reviewed the
project (see Exhibit A) and these comments are summarized below:
Housing Office: The Housing Board discussed the project on April 1996, and approved the both
the net livable sizes and category mix as stated in the application.
Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has been closely involved with the
project, and was instrumental in modifications to the road alignment, access points and
infrastructure improvements. Based on the these changes, they have no further comments at the
conceptual phase.
Environmental Health: Environmental Health reviewed the project initially in 1995, and has
indicated that these comments are still valid. Conditions of approval recommended by
Environmental Health include a series of submittals that will be required at the time of Final
3
,/''.
",....,
~'\
",....,
SPA, including confirmation from the Sanitation District for future service, a fugitive dust plan,
the Phase II Environmental Audit and the approval of a Evacuation Plan by City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS: Per Section 28.80.010, the purpose ofa specially planned area (SPA) is
to:
A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those
circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its historical
significance, natural features, unique physical character, or location, and where potential exists
for community benefit from comprehensive development.
B. Allow the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative
design practices which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional
requirements.
C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered
appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public
benefit.
Section 26.80.040 (B) (8) provides that in the review of a Conceptual development plan,
consideration will be given only to the general concept for the development, while during the
review of the final development plan, detailed evaluation of the specific aspects of the
development will be accomplished.
The standards for review for a Conceptual SPA are summarized below, followed by staffs
response.
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping and open space.
Re&j:lonse: Staff believes that the project meets the criteria in tenus of density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping and open space. This is particularly true in light of the modifications
summarized earlier. The proposed density has increased from sixteen units to twenty-three, with.
a gross density of 5.02 units per acre (23 units/4.58 ac.). As a comparison, the adjacent Twin
Ridge development represents a density of 5.55 units per acre, and the Castle Ridge apartments
are significantly higher. Staff supports the density increase, based on the natural screening by
the site's natural topography and existing vegetation. The applicant proposes units sizes ranging
from 600 s.f. for the three studios to 1,500 s.f. for the largest single family unit.
All units have been designed to fit into a neighborhood context, with front porches accessed from
a common pedestrian walk. The units have a strong solar orientation, and energy efficient design
is proposed, including super efficient insulation and low flow water appliances. Massing of the
structures have been lowered to one story on the exterior elevations overlooking the ridge. Floor
plans and elevations are included in the application packet.
The associated water treatment plant improvements are generally located in an area historically
used for municipal purposes, and do not represent an incompatible use. Due to the natural
topography of the site, all associated improvements should not been seen from the proposed
4
~
('"""..
the structural projection from the top of slope. In addition, none of the existing scrub oak will be
disturbed.
The lower portion of the site is no longer proposed for development, and is shown as open space.
No concrete proposals for improvements or ownership of the park has been discussed. Due to
the proximity of RFT A service, the applicant is proposing a trail that would descend to the Twin
Ridge intersection to provide exclusive pedestrian access. The open space component of the
multi-family units on the east side of Doolittle Drive is an asset, and will provide an amenity to
the entire project.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Re;wonse: The AACP Housing Action Plan policies section states: "Encourage special districts
(schools, hospital, sanitation, etc..) and non-profits to provide housing for their own employees."
This project is an example of the City providing housing specifically for emergency response and
essential staff members.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds
to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the su"ounding neighborhood
The costs of upgrading Doolittle Drive will be incorporated into the cost of the homes. However,
as a direct beneficiary of the road improvements, the Water Department should pay some portion of
these costs. Pinal approval of the proportional share for road improvements will occur at Pinal
SPA review.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the
slope reduction and density requirements of See. 7-903(B)(2)(b),
No slopes exceeding 20% will be impacted by the development.
8. Whether there are sufficient GM~ allotments for the proposed development.
A GMQS exemption will be required for these residences prior to [mal approval. The affordable
housing component will need to be reviewed by the Joint Growth Management Commission prior
to a hearing before the City Council at Pinal SPA review. The water plant infrastructure is
considered an essential public facility, and is exempt from growth management.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the project in concept based on the revisions that have taken place over the last year.
The project reflects thoughtful design of the site, and the associated water treatment plant
improvements have been based on future demand and the need to coordinate both projects with
minimal impact on water services. On April 16, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the Conceptual SPA on a vote of 4-0, with the following conditions:
6
,-."
.r"",
I. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings and hearings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall be
adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
2. The applicant shall provide at fmal SPA review a detailed plan for retaining and
revegetating the Dolittle Road cuts, disturbed areas or easements, and building envelopes. Such a
plan shall include section details, plant species list and construction and planting schedules.
3. The trail alignment shall be staked in the field for review by Staff and the Commission at
the time of Final SPA review. The trail alignment must avoid as much existing vegetation as
possible. Plans submitted at Final SPA review shall include proposed surface type and width. A
plan for snowplowing and maintenance must also be provided for review.
4. In no case shall the new residential structures be washed with light from any exterior light
fixtures. Additional lighting needs for the trail and roadway must be specified at the time of Final
SPA review.
5. Residents from adjacent residential areas should be included in planning and design of the
proposed park area. At the time of Final SPA review, the applicant shall be prepared to address
what level of participation is envisioned for improvements to the park area.
6. The Phase II Environmental Audit must be included in the Final SPA submittal, in addition
to a Fugitive Dust Plan.
7. Specific signage, speed limits, pedestrian treatments and potential traffic calming measures
to address the mix of traffic on Dolittle Road shall be approved by the City Engineer and submitted
at the time of Final SPA review.
8. The applicant shall submit elevations of all water treatment plant structures proposed for
improvements at the time of Final SPA review. These elevations should be sufficient for Staff and
the Commission to review the proposed improvements in the context of potential visual impact
from proposed and existing development.
9. A Chlorine Evacuation Plan shall be included in the Final SPA Plan for approval by City
Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 15, Series of 1996 on second
reading, approving the Conceptual SPA Plan for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant
Improvements and Affordable Housing Project."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
A - Referral Comments
B - Ordinance 15, Series of 1996
7
~
i/lIlb
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council ft,,, /
Amy Margerum, City Manager W
THRU:
FROM:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
DATE:
April 22, 1996
First Reading and Public Hearing, Ordinance I 5 , Series of 1996 - City of
Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project -Conceptual
SPA Review
RE:
SUMMARY: The proposed Water Treatment Plan and Affordable Housing Development
would house essential city employees, including emergency response personnel, adjacent to the
city's water treatment and distribution facilities. An additional component of the project calls
for significant improvements to the both the infrastructure and office facilities of the .water plant.
The project has been before the Planning and Zoning Commission since 1995 in various
configurations. Based on comments during a two-step submittal in March of 1995 and additional
work sessions with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the applicant
(City of Aspen) has re-submitted the application as a four-step review, as shown below on Figure
I.
Figure 1
City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing
Process
Planning and Zonin
Conceptual SPA
Conncil
Conceptual SPA
Planning and Zoning
Final SPA
Subdivision
GMQS Exemption
Special Review
8040.Greenline
Conditional Use
Council
Final SPA
Subdivision
GMQS Exemptio
April 16, 1996
April 22, 1996
Not Scheduled
Note: Italics indicates a public hearing
Not Scheduled
On April 16, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with
conditions on a vote of 4-0.
t>pPUu.,"'T'. C I rr OF A"f"a>.I />0...:, M..-l........"'"' Perro 1<l;l;1". P..'l' p,o.VIP f-l4>\tT<i/::..
PROPOSAL: The proposed development now calls for the construction of 22 fully deed
restricted units plus the renovation of an existing unit, for a total of 23 units. Six units will be
I
,Ji""'oo..
r-.
\Ne.S-( o;.Lpe;"
OF PQ..'''l't1..ti ~ 'slOe;: of" p::)L.;rr.,-~
single-family detached and 17 units will be in a townhome configuration. Discussions with the
City Manager's Office and the Water Department has widened the original scope of the project
to include those improvements approved by the Asset Planning Committee for the water
treatment facilities:
. The expansion of the existing raw water storage reservoir from the existing 4.8 million
gallon capacity to approximately 8 million gallons to address peak day demand fluctuations.
. The expansion of the second floor of the "west plant" by 2,000 sq. ft, and the remodeling
and reorganization of the "east plant" office, control room and shop spaces.
. The expansion of the existing chlorine storage building by approximately 250 s.f" and the
existing electrical shed by approximately 450 s.f.
. Grading of a platfonn for a new transfonner storage yard,
. Construction of a new 4,000 s.f. Water Department storage building for vehicle and
equipment storage.
. Additional surface parking and approximately 12,000 s.f. of construction material storage in
two three-sided concrete structures.
. Construction of a Water Plant Emergency Response Building consisting of a 500 square foot,
one-story building located at the south end of the affordable housing parking lot.
. Security fencing around the water treatment plant facility and the western property lines of
the single-family units.
. Associated infrastructure improvements including water, sewer, private utilities and
Doolittle Road.
The project has been significantly revised and reconfigured since the March 1995 submittal.
Specific design changes for the residential component, based on several work sessions with both
the Commission and Council, include the following:
. The elimination of a fourplex previously proposed for the lower portion of the property
adjacent to Castle" Ridge. The fonner site of the fourplex is no longer proposed for
development, and the applicant intends on dedicating the area as open space.
. The units proposed near the bluff above (south) of Castle Ridge have been set back
approximately 25 feet from the top of the slope to lessen the visual impacts from existing
units and State Highway 82.
. The proportional share of single-family detached units have been dropped in favor of more
affordable smaller, attached units.
. The overall site design has been revised to represent a more pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood, and all parking has been isolated from the units on the east side of Doolittle.
Limited access would be allowed for deliveries by way of the proposed walkway.
2
r-,
,-.
. The density has been increased from 16 units in the original application to 23 units.
. The project has been designed to maximize the neighborhood relationship between the
structures by proposing a "greenspace" orientation of the front facades for the units on the
east side of Doolittle Road.
. The proposed improvements of the water treatment plant have been widened in scope to
ensure that impact of the project is minimized and to allow expected growth in the
department.
. The design is based on a "green" approach by minimizing the influence of vehicular traffic
adjacent to the units, maximizing solar exposure, and incorporating energy efficient design
and construction.
. Dolittle Road has been re-engineered, and will meet all current City standards for grade, lane
width and curve radius. This is a significant improvement from prior submittals.
The applicant's submittal package, which includes a conceptual site plan, a description of
significant revisions, a preliminary financial plan, a summary of potential chlorine hazards and
evacuation radius, as well as memos addressing transportation issues are attached as Exhibit A.
Staff has attached a set of bluelines as Exhibit B.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Asset Management Department, represented by David Hauter
(Project Manager)
LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 2 and 4, City of Aspen Thomas Property. The property is located
at the end of Doolittle Drive, south of Castle Ridge Housing complex, and includes the City
water plant. The entire parcel is approximately 54 acres, with approximately 4.95 acres
proposed for residential development. The property is zoned Public (PUB) with a Specially
Planned Area (SPA) overlay. The adjoining residential uses to the North are zoned R-15 PUD
SPA.
Referral Comments: Housing, Engineering and Environmental Health have all reviewed the
project (see Exhibit C)and these comments are summarized below:
Housin~ Office: The Housing Board discussed the project on April 1996, and approved the both
the net livable sizes and category mix as stated in the application.
Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has been closely involved with the
project, and was instrumental in modifications to the road alignment, access points and
infrastructure improvements. Based on the these changes, they have no further comments at the
conceptual phase.
Environmental Health: Environmental Health reviewed the project initially in 1995, and has
indicated that these comments are still valid. Conditions of approval recommended by
Environmental Health include a series of submittals that will be required at the time of Final
SPA, including confinnation from the Sanitation District for future service, a fugitive dust plan,
the Phase II Environmental Audit and the approval of a Evacuation Plan by City Council.
3
,-.,
,-,
STAFF COMMENTS: Per Section 28,80.010, the purpose ofa specially planned area (SPA) is
to:
A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those
circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its historical
significance, natural features, unique physical character, or location, and where potential exists
for community benefit from comprehensive development.
B. Allow the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative
design practices which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional
requirements.
C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered
appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public
benefit.
Section 26.80.040 (B) (8) provides that in the review of a Conceptual development plan,
consideration will be given only to the general concept for the development, while during the
review of the final development plan, detailed evaluation of the specific aspects of the
development will be accomplished.
The standards for review for a Conceptual SPA are summarized below, followed by staff's
response.
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk,
architecture, ImuJscaping and open space.
ReiiPonse: Staff believes that the project meets the criteria in terms of density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping and open space. This is particularly true in light of the modifications
summarized earlier. The proposed density has increased from sixteen units to twenty-three, with
a gross density of 5.02 units per acre (23 units/4.58 ac.). As a comparison, the adjacent Twin
Ridge development represents a density of 5.55 units per acre, and the Castle Ridge apartments
are significantly higher. Staff supports the density increase, based on the natural screening by
the site's natural topography and existing vegetation. The applicant proposes units sizes ranging
from 600 s.f. for the three studios to 1,500 s.f. for the largest single family unit.
All units have been designed to fit into a neighborhood context, with front porches accessed from
a common pedestrian walk. The units have a strong solar orientation, and energy efficient design
is proposed, including super efficient insulation and low flow water appliances. Massing of the
structures have been lowered to one story on the exterior elevations overlooking the ridge. Floor
plans and elevations are included in the application packet.
The associated water treatment plant improvements are generally located in an area historically
used for municipal purposes, and do not represent an incompatible use. Due to the natural
topography of the site, all associated improvements should not been seen from the proposed
residential units, however staff is recommending that the applicant submit elevations for the
water treatment plant improvements for review at Final SPA.
4
/""",
.-.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development.
Response: The residential site is located on the boundary of the City's gravity system and the
pumped pressure zone of Meadowood, The site will be served by a main line located in Doolittle
Drive that is fed from the Meadowood pump station. Sewer will be provided via a main line
extension located in the east end of the upper loop of the Castle Ridge project. Common
recycling and trash collection facilities have been provided at the north end of the proposed
parking lot.
Access to both the water treatment plant and the affordable housing site is via Doolittle Drive,
which currently does not meet City standards for pavement width, grade, or turning radii. The
improvements for this section of the road has been a major issue since the March 1995 submittal.
The applicant has submitted plans for the re-alignment and widening of Doolittle, which will
bring the road into compliance with all applicable City standards. Staff is suggesting that the
applicant refine signage, speed limit, and traffic calming techniques at the time of Final SPA
review.
Off-site impacts are summarized in the Engineering Report. Improvements have been defined
for lower Castle Creek Road and the Maroon Creek/SH 82 intersection. As a result of analyzing
these improvements as well as projected traffic counts, a pro-rata share of the traffic impacts
generated by the project are estimated at $5,052.63. This figure must be approved by the City
and County Engineer prior to fmal approval.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development,
considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche
dangers and flood hazards.
Re&ponse: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. prepared a subsoil survey of the site in May of
1995, and concluded that the project is feasible, however underdrain systems will be required
due to depth to groundwater (see Geotech Report in the application). Specific recommendations
regarding foundations, retaining walls, floor slabs and site grading are included in the report and
must be followed during construction.
The project is not located in an area having known mud flow, rock fall, avalanche or flood
hazard areas. In addition, a Phase II Environmental Audit has not been completed, but will
identify any hazardous waste on the site that would preclude either residential or municipal land
uses. Staff is suggesting that the Phase II Audit be submitted at the time of Final SPA review.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to
preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmenttll impacts and provide open space,
trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. '
Response: The project has employed progressive and responsive land use techniques based on
comments from the Commission, City Council, and City staff. The units overlooking the bluff
have been set back, and the second story has been "stepped back" from the rear facade to limit
the structural projection from the top of slope. In addition, none of the existing scrub oak will be
disturbed.
5
~.
~
The lower portion of the site is no longer proposed for development, and is shown as open space.
No concrete proposals for improvements or ownership of the park has been discussed. Due to
the proximity ofRFTA service, the applicant is proposing a trail that would descend to the Twin
Ridge intersection to provide exclusive pedestrian access. The open space component of the
multi-family units on the east side of Doolittle Drive is an asset, and will provide an amenity to
the entire project.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive,Plan.
Response: The AACP Housing Action Plan policies section states: "Encourage special districts
(schools, hospital, sanitation, etc..) and non-profits to provide housillg for their own employees."
This project is an example of the City providing housing specifically for emergency response and
essential staff members.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds
to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood
The costs of upgrading Doolittle Road will be incorporated into the cost of the homes. However,
as a direct beneficiary of the road improvements, the Water Department should pay some portioll of
these costs. Pillal approval of the proportional share for road improvements will occur at Final
SPA review,
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the
slope reduction and density requirements of Sec, 7-903(B){2)(b).
No slopes exceeding 20% will be impacted by the development.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
A GMQS exemption will be required for these residences prior to final approval. The affordable
housing component will need to be reviewed by the Joint Growth Management Commission prior
to a hearing before the City Council at Pinal SPA review. The water plant infrastructure is
considered an essential public facility, and is exempt from growth management.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the project ill concept based on the revisions that have taken place over the last year.
The project reflects thoughtful design of the site, and the associated water treatment plant
improvements have been based on future demand and the need to coordinate both projects with
minimal impact on water services. On April 16, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the Conceptual SPA on a vote of 4-0, with the following conditions:
. I. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings and hearings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall be
adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions,
6
,-..,
r-,
· 2. The applicant shall provide at final SPA review a detailed plan for retaining and
revegetating the Dolittle Road cuts, disturbed areas or easements, and building envelopes. Such a
plan shall include section details, plant species list and construction and planting schedules.
. 3. The trail alignment shall be staked in the field for review by Staff and the Commission at
the time of Pinal SPA review. The trail alignment must avoid as much existing vegetation as
possible. Plans submitted at Pinal SPA review shall include proposed surface type and width, A
plan for snowplowing and maintenance must also be provided for review.
. 4. In no case shall the new residential structures be washed with light from any exterior light
fixtures. Additional lighting needs for the trail and roadway must be specified at the time of Pinal
SPA review.
. 5. Residents from adjacent residential areas should be included in planning and design of the
proposed park area. At the time of Pinal SPA review, the applicant shall be prepared to address
what level of participation is envisioned for improvements to the park area.
. 6. The Phase II Environmental Audit must be included in the Pinal SPA submittal, in addition
to a Pugitive Dust Plan.
. 7. Specific signage, speed limits, pedestrian treatments and potential ,traffic calming measures
to address the mix of traffic on Dolittle Road shall be approved by the City Engineer and submitted
at the time of Pinal SPA review.
. 8. The applicant shall submit elevations of all water treatment plant structures proposed for
improvements at the time of Pinal SPA review. These elevations should be sufficient for Staff and
the Commission to review the proposed improvements in the context of potential visual impact
from proposed and existing development.
. 9. A Chlorine Evacuation Plan shall be included in the Pinal SPA Plan for approval by City
/i Council. M'~s...'" 'ol.~.-l N-"l'.jlEi.
'(~ to. P"'JI~"t ,.....Gl>\>l.2 II. "'"~ 12. ~..ellJ-,e. 1'!o.,loS6E.T 1'1..........""""'''" ~ll1<>o-I.l>i=\q......1 .:oll>e-.
, RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 15, Series of 1996 on first
"r reading, approving the Conceptual SPA Plan for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant
Improvements and Affordable Housing Project."
~\\
CITY MANAGER"S COMMENTS: 3 t....~e:.I-\e:~T> ~ I~ I "IUUI=f5P
JC".6 > '" (J) r '''l A....a'T "'~~
...-'- l\ &-~.A"':'-f..Io .........."', e Pl4oto\
cc,,_!l1iO<l<.< t.." fi'P~I'f>".e:
." ,~~~
~ (p Zz ""l~< _ ....... 'v(z.)"""........
1'\ ,,, ..~ 1.......~,.",~.<>4 ....o.JE'
Exhibits: A-Application ~~'~'" -""""""N,
C - Referral Comments ......F._f>'~I('( ~I"""'l>>
D - Ordinance 16; Series of 1996 JF'I'-.. _ .
lpo u -.:.. ~ . F=o' .. -=- .,-= . - f=)l
- &..IC. Q::>HIoo{~1's.J ti ~ 'yz. U>l'l\ ~ c...."""'orz.(W '5: .:
...\lb1.... l'4p~ - Ii '.. .. .. '.q
.. ~~ ~M P~T ~w:r~~ ~l- .~ p~~ I::~
. t>l-\13~..I'....CGE' t><.t.a> rrr G,be> -teE? P-r L,...~ 14 f1
.!OGol.loa >-IJ:I.~161HoL. ~J1 -. UN'l.!.. ~rr~ K ...."l/.'l.
. CII .. B,,~ IhUll.('14- .......= ~ ' -. \. ~
~o.le =-....... ~ '~~ 7 i
'''''R=''q<p~~''o.l p........ i2:F'fc.. HosrL'(p-\- .J(J>
~..-s.1.t2.. B\JS -ro'f' .f'~' "oJ.
. \lllu..\.. ;:r..1"""T . u,J. 1-\1'T""I"l'I ,
,"Il~-~<'" 'P1.l>-~
,-,
:""""
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
DATE:
April 2, 1996
RE:
City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project.
Work Session
SUMMARY: The proposed Water Treatment Plan and Affordable Housing Development
would house essential city employees, including emergency response personnel, adjacent to the
city's water treatment and distribution facilities. An additional component of the project calls
for significant improvements to the both the infrastructure and office facilities of the water plant.
Based on comments during a two-step submittal in March of 1995 and an additional workshop
with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the applicant (City of Aspen)
is requesting a work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to a Conceptual.
SPA hearing scheduled for April 16, 1996, The proposed development now calls for the
construction of 22 fully deed restricted units plus the renovation of and existing unit for a total of
23 units. Six units will be single-family detached and 17 units' will be in a townhome
configuration.
Significant revisions from .the March 1995 submittal include the following:
. the elimination of a fourplex previously proposed for the lower portion of the property
adjacent to Castle Ridge. The former site of the fourplex is no longer proposed for
development, and the applicant intends on dedicating the area as open space;
. the units proposed near the bluff above (south) of Castle Ridge have been set back
approximately 25 feet from the top of the slope to lessen the visual impacts from existing
units and State Highway 82;
. the proportional share of single-family detached units have been dropped in favor of more
affordable smaller, attached units;
. the overall site design has been revised to represent a more pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood, and isolating all parking frotu the units on the east side of Doolittle. Limited
access would be allowed for deliveries by way of the proposed walkway;
. the density has been increased from 16 units in the original application to 23 units;
. the project has been designed to maximize the neighborhood relationship between the
structures by proposing a "greenspace" orientation of the front facades for the units on the
east side of Doolittle Road;
1""'.
^
. the necessary modifications of the water treatment plant to ensure that impact of the project
is minimized and to allow expected growth in the department has been included in the
application;
. the design is based on a "green" approach by minimizing the influence of vehicular traffic
adjacent to the units, maximizing solar exposure, and incorporating energy efficient design
and construction; and
. Dolittle Road has been re-engineered, and will meet all current City standards for grade, lane
width and curve radius. This is a significant improvement from prior submittals.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Engineering Department, represented by David Hauter (project
Manager)
LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 2 and 4, City of Aspen Thomas Property. The property is located
at the end of Doolittle Drive, south of Castle Ridge Housing complex, and includes the City
water plant. The entire parcel is approximately 54 acres, with approximately 5 acres proposed
for residential development. The property is zoned Public (PUB) with an SPA (Specially
Planned Area) overlay. The adjoining residential uses to the North are zoned R-15 PUD SPA.
The applicant's submittal package, which includes a conceptual site plan, a description of
significant revisions, a preliminary financial plan, a summary of potential chlorine hazards and
evacuation radius, as well as memos addressing transportation issues are all attached for the
commission's review (Exhibit A).
ISSUES: During the previous submittal, several issues where identified by both staff and the
Commission. These issues, as well as proposed modifications by the applicant, are summarized
below.
Building Envelopes. The proposed building envelopes may be quite visible from both adjacent
development (Castle Ridge and Twin Ridge) as well as from the State Highway 82 corridor. The
applicant has set back the building envelopes approximately 25 feet from the edge of the bluff
overlooking Castle Ridge. Staff has requested that the applicant place story poles within the
building envelopes shown on the site plan for review by staff and the Commission. In addition,
staff has requested that the proposed building envelopes and road alignment be conceptually
depicted on an aerial photograph to determine the impact on existing vegetation.
Road Improvements. Dolittle Road is substandard for existing uses, and the applicant proposes
to improve the road with a pavement width of 24 feet, and install curb and gntter on the downhill
side. The existing road width varies from 14 to 16 feet, with existing grades at or exceeding 10
percent. Existing residents have noted that the road retains snow and ice due to the north facing
descent and existing vegetation, and additional traffic may be problematic. The improvements
proposed by the applicant have addressed the majority of these issues.
Widening the template to 24 feet may require significant disturbance of existing vegetation on
both the up and downhill slopes. The proposed uphill and downhill slope reach 2: 1, which may
make topsoil retention and revegetation difficult.
2
,-.,
~.
Trail Alignment. The applicant is proposing an improved trail connection from upper DolittJe
Drive to the Twin Ridge intersection (see site plan). The relocation of dwelling units from this
area may minimize impacts on existing vegetation when compared to previous trail alignments.
Staff has requested that the alignment also be shown on an aerial photograph, and be field-
located to minimize disturbance of the mature oak stands.
PROCEDURE: The project will go through a Four-Step Review, with each of the necessary
approvals depicted below:
Table 1
City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing
Process
Planning and Zonin
Conceptual SPA
Council
Conceptual SPA
Planning and Zoning
Final SPA
Subdivision
GMQS Exemption
Special Review
8040 Greenline
Conditional Use
April 16, 1996
Not Scheduled
Note: italics indicates a public hearing
Following the work session, a memorandum will be presented by staff at the April 16, 1996
meeting.
Exhibits
"A" - Application
"B" - Bluelines
3
,
ASPEN/PITKIN {PRIVATE }
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Attomey
City Engineer
Environmental Health
Housing Director
Aspen Water
Parks
FROM:
Dave Michaelson, Planner
RE:
City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements & Affordable Housing
Project
Parcel ID No. 2735-132-00-858
DATE:
March 27,1996
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by the City of Aspen.
Please return your comments to me no later than AprilS, 1996.
Thank you.
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE{PRIV ATE }
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090 FAX# (970) 920-5439
March 27,1996
Re: City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing
Project
Case A23-96
Dear Tom,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on
Tuesday, April 16, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for
you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date
will be considered final and changes to 'the schedule or tabling of the application will only be
allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to
inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office.
If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case, Dave Michaelson, at 920-
5100.
Sincerely,
/'1 _ -1/ -! f-, .
/:J^L{2///.EP-'" C""",,^a, u0
Rhonda L. Harris
Administrative Assistant
.1""'\
,-,
David Michaelson
Community Development
City of Aspen
Aspen, CO 81601
1.22.
.
March 22, 1996
THE CITY OF ASPEN
RE: Water Treatment Plant Improvements & Affordable Housing Proiect
City of Aspen
Dear David:
This Conceptual Submission is submitted to you for the City of Aspen by the City's
A,sset Management Department. It is a request for review and comment as the first step
in a four step process requesting approval of a SPA Amendment to the City owned
Thomas Property. This project combines Water Treatment Plant improvements with an
Affordable Housing Project. In 1994 the City Council requested that a housing project be
considered adjacent to the Water Treatment Planfthat would provide family oriented
affordable housing for emergency response persounel and other City staff. ,Over the last
year this project has progressed through critiques, reviews and design revisions. The
attached application synthesizes the work and input of the Design Team, City staff, the
P&Z Commission, the public and City Council into a comprehensive plan for Doolittle
Driye Road Improvements, an Affordable Housing Development imd Water Treatment
Plant Improvements.
While we have attempted to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough
evaluation of this application, questions may arise which result in requests for additional
information arid or clarification. We will be pleased to provide such information as may
be required in the course of this application review.
Dav d Hauter, Ass. t Manager
City of Aspen
130 SoUTH GALENA"STREET. ASPEN, COLO~OO 81611 . PHONE 970.920.5000 . FAX 970.920.5197
Printed On l<eryded paper
r\
,-,.,
IY O.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
DATE:
April 16, 1996
RE:
City of Aspen Water Treatmeut Plant and Affordable Housing Project-
Conceptual SPA Review - Public Meeting
SUMMARY: The proposed Water Treatment Plan and Affordable Housing Development
would house essential city employees, including emergency response personnel, adjacent to the
city's water treatment and distribution facilities. An additional component of the project calls
for significant improvements to the both the infrastructure and office facilities of the water plant.
The project has been before the Planning and Zoning Commission since 1995 in various
configurations. Based on comments during a two-step submittal in March of 1995 and additional
work sessions with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the applicant
(City of Aspen) has re-submitted the application as a four-step review, as shown below on Figure
I.
Figure 1
City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing
Process
Planning and Zonin
Conceptual SPA
Planning and Zoning
Final SPA
Subdivision
GMQS Exemption
Special Review
8040 Greenline
Conditional Use
Conncil
Final SPA
Subdivision
GMQS Exemptio
April 16, 1996
Note: Italics indicates a public hearing
Staff is recommending approval with conditions.
PROPOSAL: The proposed development now calls for the construction of 22 fully deed
restricted units plus the renovation of an existing unit, for a total of 23 units. Six units will be
single-family detached and 17 units will be in a townhome configuration. Discussions with the
City Manager's Office and the Water Department has widened the original scope of the project
to include the following improvements to the water treatment facilities:
r'\
r-"
. The expansion of the existing raw water storage reservoir from the existing 4.8 million
gallon capacity to approximately 8 million gallons to address peak day demand fluctuations.
. The expansion of the second floor of the existing "west plant" by approximately 2,000 sq. ft,
and the remodeling and reorganization of the "east plant" office, control room and shop
spaces.
. The expansion of the existing chlorine storage building by approximately 250 s.f., and the
existing electrical shed by approximately 450 s.f.
. Grading of a platform for a new transformer storage yard.
. Construction of a new 4,000 s.f. Water Depanment storage building for vehicle and
equipment storage.
. Additional surface parking and approximately 12,000 s.f. of construction material storage in
two three-sided concrete structures.
. Construction of a Water Plant Emergency Response Building consisting of a 500 square foot,
one-story building located at the south end of the affordable housing parking lot.
. Security fencing around the water treatment plant facility and the western property lines of
the single-family units.
. Associated infrastructure improvements including water, sewer, private utilities and Doolittle
Road.
The project has been significantly revised and reconfigured since the March 1995 submittal.
Specific design changes for the residential component, based on several work sessions with both
the Commission and Council, include the following:
. The elimination of a fourplex previously proposed for the lower portion of the property
adjacent to Castle Ridge. The former site of the fourplex is no longer proposed for
development, and the applicant intends on dedicating the area as open space.
. The units proposed near the bluff above (south) of Castle Ridge have been set back
approximately 25 feet from the top of the slope to lessen the visual impacts from existing
units and State Highway 82.
. The proportional share of single-family detached units have been dropp,ed in favor of more
affordable smaller, attached units.
. The overall site design has been revised to represent a more pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood, and all parking has been isolated from the units on the east side of Doolittle.
Limited access would be allowed for deliveries by way of the proposed walkway.
. The density has been increased from 16 units in the original application to 23 units.
2
/""".
.---
. The project has been designed to maximize the neighborhood relationship between the
structures by proposing a "greenspace" orientation of the front facades for the units on the
east side of Doolittle Road.
. The proposed improvements of the water treatment plant have been widened in scope to
ensure that impact of the project is minimized and to allow expected growth in the
department.
. The design is based on a "green" approach by minimizing the influence of vehicular traffic
adjacent to the units, maximizing solar exposure, and incorporating energy efficient design
and construction.
o Doolittle Road has been re-engineered, and will meet all current City standards for grade,
lane width and curve radius. This is a significant improvement from prior submittals.
The applicant's submittal package, which includes a conceptual site plan, a description of
significant revisions, a preliminary financial plan, a summary of potential chlorine hazards and
evacuation radius, as well as memos addressing transportation issues were distributed to the
Commission prior to the 04.02.96 work session. If members of the Commission no longer
have copies, please call Vicki Chavka in the Community Development Department at 920-
5444.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Engineering Department, represented by David Hauter (Project
Manager)
LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 2 and 4, City of Aspen Thomas Property. The property is located
at the end of Doolittle Drive, south of Castle Ridge Housing complex, and includes the City
water plant. The entire parcel is approximately 54 acres, with approximately 4.95 acres proposed
for residential development. The property is zoned Public (PUB) with a Specially Planned Area
(SPA) overlay: The adjoining residential uses to the North are zoned R-15 PUD SPA.
Referral Comments: Housing, Engineering and Environmental Health have all reviewed the
project (see Exhibit A), and these comments are summarized below:
Housin~ Office: The Housing Board discussed the project on April 1996, and approved the both
the net livable sizes and category mix as stated in the application.
En~neering: Department: The Engineering Department has been closely involved with the
project, and was instrumental in modifications to the road alignment, access points and
infrastructure improvements. Based on the these changes, they have no further comments at the
conceptual phase.
Environmental Health: No comments at time of writing.
3
"..,
~
STAFF COMMENTS: Per Section 28.80.010, the purpose of a specially planned area (SPA) is
to:
A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those
circumstances where traditiollal zoning techniques do not adequately address its historical
significance, natural features, unique physical character, or location, and where potential exists
for community benefit from comprehensive development.
B. AJlow the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative
design practices which pennit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional
requirements.
C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered
appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public
benefit.
Section 26.80.040 (B) (8) provides that in the review of a Conceptual development plan,
consideration will be given only to the general concept for the development, while during the
review of the final development plan, detailed evaluation of the specific aspects of the
development will be accomplished.
The standards for review for a Conceptual SPA are summarized below, foJlowed by staff's
response.
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping and open space.
Response: Staff believes that the project meets the criteria in terms of density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping and open space. This is particularly true in light of the modifications
summarized earlier. The proposed density has increased from sixteen units to twenty-three, with
a gross density of 5.02 units per acre (23 units/4.58 ac.). As a comparison, the adjacent Twin
Ridge development represents a density of 5.55 units per acre, and the Castle Ridge apartments
are significantly higher. Staff supports the density increase, based on the natural screening by
the site's natural topography and existing vegetation. The applicant proposes units sizes ranging
from 600 s.f, for the three studios to 1,500 s.f. for the largest single family unit.
AIl units have been designed to fit into a neighborhood context, with front porches accessed from
a common pedestrian walk. The units have a strong solar orientation, and energy efficient design
is proposed, including super efficient insulation and low flow water appliances. Massing of the
structures have been lowered to one story on the exterior elevations overlooking the ridge. Ploor
plans and elevations are included in the application packet.
The associated water treatment plant improvements are generally located in an area historically
used for municipal purposes, and do not represent an incompatible use. Due to the natural
topography of the site, aJl associated improvements should not been seen from the proposed
residential units, however staff is recommending that the applicant submit elevations for the
water treatment plant improvements for review at Pinal SPA.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development.
4
APR 05 '96 09'44AM
'-,
.-
,-
Exhibit A
MEMORANDUM
TO.:
Dave Michaelson, Community Development Dep!.
FROM:
DA.TE:
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
RE:
April 5,1996
WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
REQUEST: The City of Aspen is proposing a 100% affordable housing deveiopment at the end of Doolittle
Drive, within the City iimits of Aspen, south of the Castle Ridge housing compiex. The original proposal
was to consist of eight single family detached homes (SFD), four duplex units (DUP) and four townhame
units (TH). The applicant Is now requesting to build 22 fully deed restricted units, plus renovate and deed
restrict an existing unit, for a total of 23 units.
The units are to be designated as predominately RO ana Category 4, The applicant states that the intent
of this categMzation is to offer the greatest level of income and asset flexibility for the putchasing
employees.
ISSUES: The Housing Board discussed this proposal on April 19, 1995. There ,were three major issues
to <<OnEllder at that time:
1, Two of the single family homes are smaller than the Minimum Net Liveable for single-family
detached units listed in the Guidelines. The Board approved the unit sizes as stated in the
application,
2. Was the mix of Category 4 and RO units appropriate? The Board also approved the mix belng
presented as stated. Staff feels that the new mix being requested is also appropriate since the
goal of the applicant is to not maximum the sales prices but to offer the greatest level of income
and asset flexibility for the purchasing employees.
3, The applicant is also proposing to sell the units only III full-time employees of the applicant ana
require owners to sell the units back to the applioant If the owner leaves its employment. The
Housing Board approved the applicant's request, but recommencled that the owner have 180 days
to sale and vacant the unit once the owner's employment changes rather than 90 days,
The only other hurdle the applicant should be made aware of \s that there is a three-year residency
requirement III purchase a RO unit. As proposed, lt1e applicant would have to sell the RO un~s III
~ualified employees who had been working in the community for at least three years. The three-year
requirement was approved by. City Counoil and the Board of County Commissioners. therefore, !tie
Housing Board and staff do not have the ability to waive this requirement. The Category 4 units do not
have an outright requirement for length of residency.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that request be approved as proposed. The deed restriction
will need to IJe reviewed by the Housing Office and approVed by the Housing Office before bUilding permit
, approvel.. '
I
-
.""'
,-'
From:
MEMORANDUM
em,,",.; "".7'0' )
Kim Johnson, Planning Office OEVELOPMl;~'T , .
Betsey Kipp, Environmental Health Department :'1SPENI?\~~\<""
Lee cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Officer y(!(/
April J.4, J.995
To:
Through:
Date:'
Re:
Water Place Affordable
Subdivision, GMQS Exemption,
& Special Review
Parcel ID # 2735-132-00-858
Housing SPA Amendment,
Conditional Review,
===========================~=================
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
Water Place Affordable Housing land use submittal. under authority
of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. and has the following
comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section J.J.-J.. 7 "It shall be unlawful for
the owner or occupant of any ,building used.for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or
reconstruct an on~site sewage disposal device~1I
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through
the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The
ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the
increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD.
The applicant needs to provide final documentation that the
applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal
and that the service agency is capable of serving the development.
A condition of approval will be a letter from ACSD confirming
their intention to provide sewage treatment to the project.
ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings,
structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the City limits which use water shall be connected to the
rrK.lnicipal water utility system. II
The provision of potable water from the city of Aspen system is
consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply
of safe drinking water. The City of Aspen Water Department shall
determine if adequate water is available for. the project. The City
of Aspen's water supply meets all standards of the Colorado
Department of Health for drinking water quality.
1
- "
.-,
.~
WATER OUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1. 3 "For the purpose of maintaining and
protecting its J1'IJMicipal water supply from injury and poLlution', the city shall exercise regulatory and
supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources
contributing to nunicipal water suppl i,es for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which nunicipal
water, suppl i es are diverted."
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive
and parking areas will be evaluated by the city Engineer. Based on
the report by Tom stevens of the Stevens Group, this application
is not expected to impact down stream water quality.
AIR OUALITY: Sections J.1-2. J. "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the
MuniCipal Code] to achieve the maxinun'practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all
available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..."
The Land Use Regulations seek to I'lessen congestionll and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as
well as to IIprovide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The maj or concern of this Department is usually the impact of
increased traffic caused by developments in the nonattainment area,
However, this project is expected to actually decrease traffic,
because people living at this site will be emergency workers who
formerly lived downvalley. Now these same workers will travel a
much shorter distance in the nonattainment area. It is the intent
of this project that Water Place residents will be people who
formerly lived downvalley, and will communte less due to their
proximity to work. Thus, the number of miles driven in the
nonattainment area should decrease.
It is recommended that the applicant ensure that employees living
at the site are encouraged to commute to work without using
automobiles.
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a
fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department
before the building permit will be issued. Metropolitan areas of
Pitkin County which includes this site may have two department
certified devices and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace
appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning
fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. Barns and
agricul tural buildings may not install any type of fireplace
device.
The plans for the Water Place Housing do not indicate the use of
gas log fireplaces or certified woodstoves, If fireplaces are not
going to be used, the Project will have less PM10 emissions than
allowed under the law.
If no fireplaces are to be installed, a condition of approval
will be to deed restrict the project through Planning & Zoning
and the Aspen City Council.
2
.-..
-.
FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which
inclUdes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and
disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove
mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures
necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line
or causing a nuisance. Due to the close proximity of many
residences, the applicant should be sure to use aggressive dust
control measures.
A oondition of approval will ~e the receipt and approval
of a fugitive dust plan ~efore final review.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NOISE ABATEMENT: -section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a
sign;ficant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to~he public
peace and to the health, safety and weLfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors.
.....Accordingly, it is the poLicy of counciL to provide standards for penmissible noise Levels. in various areas
and manners ar'ld at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those Levels.1I
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound
level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the
hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The applicant should be aware of this,
and take measures to minimize the noise levels before they become
an issue.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES/AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION:
Three areas of primary concern regarding potential contamination
have been identified by Waste Engineering, Inc. (WEI) who performed
a Phase One Environmental Audit. The three areas are as follows:
1. Transformer storage area where soil samples have tested
positive for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
2. The above ground storage tank area where diesel and
leaded gas were previously held.
3. The sediment trap which is used to collect sludge from
street-sweeping operations.
It is this Department's understanding that a Phase II Environmental
Audit will be conducted to determine the extent of the
contamination at all three sites.
A condition of approval will ~e the receipt of the Phase II
report ~efore final approval will be given for this project.
3
-.. . .
~
-,
Chlorine storage near the site should not be a concern provided
proper standards are followed for its storage and handling.
HoweV'er, it is also our recommendation that an Evacuation Plan be
developed since the chlorine storage building will be in close
proximity to the proposed development.
A condition or approval will be compliance with OSHA's
standards ror storage/handling, and an Evacuation Plan.
..._ENV:WP:LAND_USE:WATER.PLACE.AFFORDABLE
4
f- ~/T/IC.
^
~
Exhibit C
..
~7lL!: C/Ee-..e .bAt'
") r
.
PCf::)Ct77Z4E I'Rf.!E.
I , ()
?~b
C' ~t/.c;7Z )
r
\..
o
2./';% /.d/'