HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Gordon.031A-84
./
~'~
,../.,,:;
'I
"\,\. ,
. ~.1
,.i .1
STAFF:
4Uye/6n Co ~*;,1;, 'f:::g{::!1)~.
.sh~/d6n Gb,...',. l A. 941\'*7 Phone:
~ tfI~ phone:
,~
~.
~;'
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
..~ .
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
I. GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Final Plat
-X ,
II. SUBDIVISIQN/PUD (4 step)
~ 1- "Conceptual Submission
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Final Plat
CASE NO.
(FEE)
($2,730.'00)
($1,640.00)
.' , I
($ 82,0.00)
'. ,
.,
"
,
'. "
, L
, ,
.,; ,
. I
, ::: ! ~ ',',
i :,1
" ,
. ($1,900.00) ~,;
t ,'. ' . ,. .
($+,220.00) '<:,",', ,.
,,', .
'.
.:' ($ 820.00) , :,:' .
,
'; ,'1
'. I,
,.,,. I'
. 'I,
! .l'
,
.: I"
,
($1,490.00)
.',. i~ '
"l"
, ,
, !
','
IV.
SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step)
EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step) ','
III.
1.
2.
Special Review
Use Determination
3. Conditional Use
4. . Other:
'($ 680.00)
I
1;,\
"I
I:'
, "
i "
I". I:
,':. '
" ,
':'<,i:::,::',:
1('\"
,'j "1
',!:,;':
P&Z MEETING DATE: "- 0-..1 (0
CC MEETING DATE:
DATE REFERRED:
REFFLS:
~City Attorney
~~ity Engineer
~Housing Director
~Aspen Water Dept.
____City Electric
Environmental Hith.
.~spen Consolo
____Mountain Bell
____Parks Dept.
____Holy Cross Electric
Fire Marshall
. 0ire Chief
S.D.
FINAL ROUTING:
v/ City Attorney
~,.r
~City Engineer
____Other:
0ther:
i
" School District
----
-L--Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas,
State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood)
~tate Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn)
LBuilding Dept.- "2...<>'''' \ '2:j
Other:
DATE ROUTED:
____Building
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
C60~fjJ --
4J tb-uJ0
,---
/'
\
,~
."'"
DISPOSITION:
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
JJ,{t'trt'l'.t d ~ f,U"1-
,-
-,{l W'~fl" W)..tt;J,~--;;. :
.}-....I
Ordinance No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
'.
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinance No.
CITYP&Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
'.
Ordinance No.
-~IJc;OIl"END^TION.: The, PI a, nn ing Of f i ce recommends D.pprova1 of th e
16~cC'Pl:ua1 PUD with the ~11owin9 condl tions: .~,
./. ~,' 1. The C~p&~i~\;~~\"~:~'i~l>i~e~i~;~Jith the ~ity Attorney, prior to
Preliminary Plat Submission, that the Grant of Easement
recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder .in Book
316 at Page :961, allows for the usage of the access associated
with the three duplexes proposed to the Gordon Property from
Crystal L?ke Drive and through Lot 2 of the Callahan Subdivi-
sion.
Location and dimensions of utilities and the fire hydrant
shall be submitted as part of the preliminary plat.
All roads in the subdivision shall be designed in the
preliminary plat at a width satisfactory to the Aspen
Volunteer Fire Department for adequate fire protection.
'More detailed representation of cuts and fills shall be
shown in the Preliminary Plat submission.
A Stream Margin Review shall be initiated and conducted in
conjunction with Preliminary Plat review.
The applicant shall provide at Preliminary Plat Submission,
the Qocuments necessary to convey to the 'City of Aspen,
water rights to. the Riverside Irrigation Ditch in an amount
corresponding to the addit.ional use of the proposed three
duplexes 4 ~ fA.,.. Atl~34n1 ?o$.S',b!(,
2.
. 3.
4.
5.
6.
.
7. Trail and bridge easements shall be shown on the Preliminary
PI at. .
8.
The applicant shall state in the preliminary plat submission
whether the low, income deed restricted units are rental or
sales properties, and follow Housing Authority Guidelines
accordingly.
fh e~(i1. duplt)(.corll(.1. on 111lE? I
The deed restrictions agreement for the three low income
,units on site and the three low income units at Hunter Creek
shall be submi tted to the Housing Authori ty for its review
and approval, and filed with the City of Aspen prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
10. Open space shall be clearly denoted on the Preliminary Plat.
9.
11. Park dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
12. The i? reI im i na ry PI at subm i ss i on shall incl ude all th e
contents required in Section 20-12.
sb.nec.cc.gordon
.
"
Aspen/Pit
130 s
^'
/'''''\
ing Office
Hay 23, 1986
lvlr. Stan Mathis
Mathis Architecture & Planning
720 E. Hyman
Aspen; CO 81611
RE: Gordon Property Residential GMP - 1983 Allocation
Dear Stan:
This letter is written to inform you that pursuant to Section 24-
1:L1 (a~ off the Municipal Code, as amended, your Gordon proper~y
R(i}sidential GNP - 1983 Allocation will expire on september. 1,
1986. Section 24-11.7 Ca) requires that the Planning Office
notify you of the expiratien date and the requirements which you
must meet in order to. aveid less ef your allecation.
The code requires that you submit plans to. the Building Department
sufficient for the issuance ef a building permit fer the project
by.June 1. If you are unable to. meet this deadline, but wish to
r;~.t:ai11!l1 yourr allocation, p1eas~ submit a letter tq, me, within
whicfiyou request that City Councilgrant an extension o~ the
q:(?;ad'~ines'of, up to 180 days\. To justidfy the extension." please.
~~m<i},li1t~tl\'~teyour ail igence,. in purtSUin<,;3i this, preject ana; why ,the
e:X!t:e.~sion is in the best interests of the communi ty. It would.
certainly ~eem to me that in. order to ebtain said ext,ension, you
~~:llJ<IJ,~~~j..t()ta,k~ ,this ,p~oj~,~t.~.€?~~,~\1i~ltqi t~e. W,1iel imiJl~!~Y~nq,
~j~al~~~lvils,ion ~tages ofrevfe\<t at thJ.si time'., ' ,.., .,.'
Plea!s~ l@r~ m~i ~li1\~w if I can be, of fUlr thelf assil st:an.ce' in. thdis\ Fe:<g'Ia:fd..
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Planning and Develepment Director
AR: ne c
cc: Steve Burstein
~
:~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council ~
Hal Schilling, City Manage~
Steve Burstein, Planning Office t\<<.
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Gordon Conceptual PUD
DATE: July 8, 1985
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:, The Planning Office recommends approval of the Conceptual
PUD plan with the twelve conditions stated below.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant proposes to build three duplex
units on a 2.187 acre site. The project would contain three three-
bedroom free-market units and three one-bedroom deed-restricted
employee units. Each employee unit would be attached to one free-
market unit. Three two-bedroom deed-restricted employee units would
also be provided off site at Hunter Creek as part of this project.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL AIm PLANRIIiG COMMISSION ACTION: On August 15, 1983
Ci ty Council granted to Sheldon W. Gordon an exemption from the full
subdivision process and Growth Management Quota System to split his
property into two lots. In the Council resolution, the applicant
conveyed to the City water rights to the Riverside Ditch (2 EQR),
agreed to construct a water line extension at his own cost according
to City policies and standards, and agreed to join any special districts
in the area of the property.
In December, 1983 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a
Residential GMP application for the Gordon PUD plan. The application
was scored above the threshold by the Planning and Zoning Commission
for an allotment of three free-market units. The proj ect was then
forwarded to City Council in February, 1984 for review and confirmation
of the number of housing units allotted. Council granted this allotment
by approving Resolution 84-7, but did not accomplish a conceptual
PUD review at that time.
The applicant submitted a second residential growth management app-
lication on December 1, 1984 for the Gordon Property merged with six
lots of the Callahan Subdivision. The allotment sought on behalf of
the Gordon Property was also for three free-market units, and, when
combined with the units permitted on the other six lots, the total
number was nine free-market units. This allotment was also approved.
However, for purposes of this review, the latter proposal is defunct
because the applicant is pursuing the earlier PUD plan. .
~
r'-'"
BAClGROUND: Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision is zoned R-15 (PUD). The
property borders the Roaring Fork River to the south and east 1 and
across the river is Ute Children's Park. Surrounding the property to
the north and west are lots zoned R-15, several of which contain
single family residences. The Aspen Club facilities are located
within 600 feet of the proposed entry road. Access to the Gordon
property is proposed to be off Crystal Lake Road through the Aspen
Club parking lot.
The site consists of four physical sub-areas: (1) a plateau on the
same approximate level as the Aspen Club parking lot, on the western
edge of which runs the Riverside Irrigation Ditch, (2) hillside area
with slopes up to 40% sloping toward the river, (3) plateau area
directly adjacent to the river, and (4) steep river bank in the
southwest corner of the land. There are presently several areas of
thick brush and aspen groves.
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 24-11.3 (f) states
that a project with a development allotment has in effect met conceptual
review requirements:
"Any proj ect needing subdivision or planned unit development
(PUD) approval which has received a development allotment may be
deemed by the Planning Office to have satisfied the conceptual
presentation requirements of the City's subdivision and PUD
regulations, and the office may authorize the applicant to
proceed directly to preliminary plat review."
It must be ~phasized that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed
the substance of the project at the time of the Residential GMP
competition, while City Council has only reviewed the number of
units for allotment. The development allotment received by the
applicant may be deemed to constitute conceptual plan approval, as
stated in the above cited section, however, then Council would not
have the opportunity to review the project at the conceptual stage.
This situation is neither of benefit to the applicant nor the Community,
since it would mean that Council's first opportunity to see the
project would be at final plat. Were you to have problems at that
time, the applicant would have spent considerable time and money
without knowing how you will react to the project.
As you recall, one section of Ordinan'ce 85-20 requires conceptual
review to be done at the same time as GMP scoring and allocation.
Therefore, the problem identified for this project's review should not
again occur for any proj ects submitted after the date of approval of
that ordinance.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. REFERRAL lGENCY COMMER'.rS: The following comments were received
in conjunction with the Residential GMP Competition.
2
-----
~~-~-
r"
/""..
1. Engineering Office: Major concerns from the Engineering
Office's GMP review checklist dated 12-28-83 are listed
below:
a. The Engineering Office needs to seethe agreement with
the Aspen Club for access easement from the Aspen Club
parking lot, to the subdivision.
b. The proposed looped water system with fire hydrant will
need to be located more exactly before a proper evaluation
can be made.
c. More than the required number of parking spaces would
be provided.
d. The fishing and trail easements and the proposed
pedestrian bridge were rated as an excellent design
feature. The bridge must meet flood clearance.
e. Public buses run along Highway 82 within 1200 feet from
the site, providing good access to public transportation.
2. Aspen Volunteer Fire Department: The fOllowing items were
noted in the PWFD checklist:
a.
The proposed 12 foot road width for the upper
adequate for anticipated one-way circulation.
foot wide feeders serving two duplexes with
circulation are not adequate.
loop is
The 16
two-way
b. The "k" turns proposed at the end of the feeder roads
meet AVFD approval.
c. The new fire hydrant has not been located, and AVFD
would like to see where it would be placed.
3. Building Department: The Zoning Inspector noted in a
memorandum dated 12-28- 83 that recorded ~asements through
the Callahan Subdivision will be needed.
4. Water Department: The Manager of the Water Department stated
in a memorandum dated 12-13-85 that the looping of the
water main will improve reliability of service and upgrade
the existing neighborhood distribution system.
5. Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation System: The AMSD Manager
noted that depending on the location of the duplexes, one or
more lift stations may be necessary.
6. Housing Authority: The Housing Director made the following
recommendations:
3
~
1"""'\
~
a. The standard 50 year deed restrictions should be placed
on the low income units; and this agreement should be
signed by the Housing Authority and filed with the City
of Aspen prior to the issuance of a building permit.
b. The applicant should state whether the- low income deed
restricted units are rental or sales properties. If
the low income properties are sales units then they
must meet the current Housing Authority Guidelines and
a financial plan for the sales units be developed.
7. Director of Parks: In a memorandum dated 12-16-83 the
Director of Parks noted that the acceptability of design and
construction of the trails bridge will be of concern to both
the City and County, and should compliment the trails system.
8. City Attorney: In a memorandum dated 1-4-84 it was pointed
out that a number of legal documents associated wi th this
project will apparently be needed, including:
a. Employee housing deed restrictions.
b. Open space deed restrictions.
c. Trail easement (with bridge).
d. Water main extension agreement.
e. Water rights deed and leaseback.
f. Park dedication fee determination.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: The proposed PUD met with an overall positive
reception from the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the
referral agencies. Some of the most attractive features of the
project given high GMP competition scores were: the provision of
employee housing both on and off site, the looped water system, more
parking spaces than required, abundance of open space, and the trail
easement and pedestrian bridge.
In addition to the numerous comments from referral agencies and
Planning Commission members, the Planning Office has the following
concerns:
1. The siting of the duplex units in the two flat areas of the
property appears to work well in terms of minimal grading of
the building sites and providing some privacy to occupants.
2. The proposed drive going to the lowest duplex would appear
to require some cuts and fills in order to obtain an 8% maximum
grade. More detailed representation of the cuts and fills
is necessary to evaluate the environmental effects.
4
,.....",
r\
3. It should be noted that the site presently has significant
stands of trees and heavy shrub and grass covering. The
landscape plan portion of the preliminary plat submission
should show the existing vegetation and indicate the extent
of disturbance proposed.
4. Moreover, a Stream Margin Review should be required, pursuant
to Section 24-6.3; to allow the City to review in greater
detail how this plan would meet the guidelines and standards
regarding land use in proximity to the river.
s. One of the key components of the 1983 Gordon Lot Split was
the conveyence of water rights held on the Riverside Ditch
to the City with lease-back provisions for the property
owner. The amount of the water conveyed was determined by
estimating the water used by the anticipated additional
single family residence facilitated by the lot split. Now
that the proposed density has increased to three duplexes,
the water rights conveyence should correspond to this
additional useage.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Conceptual POD with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall verify with the City Attorney, prior to
Preliminary Plat Submission, that the Grant of Easement
recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book
316 at Page:96l, allows for the usage of the access associated
with the three duplexes proposed to the Gordon Property from
Crystal Lake Drive and through Lot 2 of the Callahan Subdivi-
sion.
2. Location and dimensions of utilities and the fire hydrant
shall be submitted as part of the preliminary plat.
3. All roads in the subdivision shall be designed in the
preliminary plat at a width satisfactory to the Aspen
Volunteer Fire Department for adequate fire protection.
4. More detailed representation of cuts and fills shall be
shown in the Preliminary Plat submission.
5. A Stream Margin Review shall be initiated and conducted in
conjunction with Preliminary Plat review.
6. The applicant shall provide at Preliminary Plat Submission,
the documents necessary to convey to the Ci ty of Aspen,
water rights to the Riverside Irrigation Ditch in an amount
corresponding to the additional use of the proposed three
duplexes.
5
I~
~
7. Trail and bridge easements shall be shown on the Preliminary
Plat.
8. The applicant shall state in the preliminary plat submission
whether the low income deed restricted units are rental or
sales properties, and follow Housing Authority Guidelines
accordingly.
9. The deed restrictions agreement for the three low income
units on site and the three low income units at Hunter Creek
shall be submitted to the Housing Authority for its review
and approval, and filed with the City of Aspen prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
10. Open space shall be clearly denoted on the Preliminary Plat.
11. Park dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
12. The Preliminary Plat submission shall include all the
contents required in Section 20-12.
sb.nec.cc.gordon
6
c~
-,.1"""'\
\{ ,
1
-\~
CITY~
130 so
aspen.,
s t re e t
81611
, ...
MEI-iORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 1984
TO: Richard Grice
FROM: Gary Esary
RE: Gordon 1984 Residential GMP Submission
No substantive comments on this at this time.
Procedurally, it appears that there will be a great number of
legal documents in this development (employee-housing deed
restrictions, open space deed restriction (p. 2), trail easement
(with bridge), water main extension agreement, water rights deed
and leaseback.
Obviously, the earlier we see drafts of tpese documents, the
better.
We also should determine whether park dedication fee should be
paid at the time of subdivision action (20-18) or at the time of
building permit (7-143). As an aside, Mr. Gordon still owes a
park dedication fee on Lot 1 of approximately $17,000.00. It
would be nice to get this amount paid. '
GSE/mc
r
.... ,^,
"
'~"i
),-",
1;"
'J>
r).
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen: colorado 81611
TO :' ..
FROH:
RE :
DATE:
Richa~d Grice, Planning Office ~JI) ?
James L. Adamski, Housing Direct U
Gordon Property - 1984 Residentia GMP Submission
December 30, 1983
Applicant:
The Gordon Property
Lot 3, Gordon Subdivision
Aspen, Colorado
Nature of the Project:
The proposed project is comprised of thLee duplex
units, each having one, three bedroom free market
unit and one, one bedroom low-income housing unit.
In order for the developer to meet the code re-
quirements they will provide off site low income
employee housing by purchasing 900 S.F. tvlO bed-
room free market units at Hunter Creek Properties
and deed restricting these units according to low
income guidelines.
Housing Office Recommendation:
The applicant has been reviewed subject to the
following code requirements (Sec. 24-11.4)
1) Employee Units - low income deed restricted
2) Displacement - none
3)50% S.F. ratio - 9000 S.F. free market
4500 S.F. low income emp. units.
4) Number of bedrms -~ free market, 9 low income
emp. units
5) Square footage of Emp. Unit,s - 600# S. F. per one
bedroom unit. -) 00 S. F. per two bedroom unit.
6) Comparable quality - yes
7) Availability of Financing - Applicant does not
state if the units will be rental or sale units.
8) Standard 50 year Deed Restriction - not stated
in the application.
-
r:,,'~;v~
/
"/"
I
Page 2
It is the recommendation of the Housing Office based on
the information provided that the Gordon Property, Lot 2
Gordon Subdivision Application be approved based on the
following conditions:
,-,.'
~: :
-)""'
I
/
. -6i:
1) That the standard 50 year deed restriction
. "
be placed on the low income un1.ts, and that
this agreement be signed with the Housing
Authority and filed with the City of Aspen
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2) That the applicant state whether the low
income deed restricted units are rental or
sales properties. In the event that the
low income properties are sales units they
must meet the current Housing Authority
Guidelines and a financial plan for the
sale units be developed.
~, ~ ,
ASPEN.PITKIN .-r'GIONAL BUILDII\..../~EP~R,TMENT
':"
19::
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Richard Grice, Planning Dept.
Bill Drueding, Zoning 1J~
.~
TO:
DATE:
December 28, 1983
RE:
Gordon Property
1984 Residential GMP Submission
1) Applicant indicates access to the site from the Aspen Club parking
lot:
a} We will need a recorded easement through the property
south of the site.
b) If the access is from the Aspen Club parking lot, the
Building Department would consider this the "front yard".
Therefore, the applicant's indications of setbacks would
need revision or variances set by P&Z for the P.U.D.
2) Section 24-6.3 indicates that a Stream Margin Review will be
required prior to any construction.
3} We should check the status of the original Gordon Subdivision
for any restrictions or conditions.
cc:
Patsy Newbury, Zoning
BD/ar
-~ q r.:::l~O\7}?~ \ U
jr,\ I," ;;;; ! Lr ,; 0'1 J ~ \\:! r' ,V'\
(;, ~:) _" iL.L\_-J~-'--'-"' ,..,q.,\; 1\
:' 'Arl 0-'('(-'.~ ';
j \ - \ ; "''''''~''''' 1
~,:' V', t.J .',.. -' t.-f,..r
:.,~)n.:'" r'i TKiN CO.
PU\NI\!NG OfFICE
;:l:-:::'':'.J.,-'
:........,....... ..r'.~:""'":" .- }' ~_.,~..~......~;.,~~~~V;t~}t'....~,...
.\
"!', ',.
f"""'"
offices:
110 East Hallam Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973
mail address:
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
-----.~~-- ~.,.:-.~,:-~.,^.:~
~.r
~
~,
T
1'''
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Richard Grice, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, City Engineering~
TO:
DATE:
December 28, 1983
RE: ,....
City Residential GMP Scoring
------------------------------------------------------------
Attached are copies of suggested scores for the Gordon and
East Hopkins residential Growth Management applications.
The sheets include recommended scores for various
engineering related GMP criteria as well as notes regarding
the project. The notes are intended to explain the rationale
for the various scores, however if I may elaborate on these
items or participate in further scoring sessions, feel
free to contact me.
JH/co
Enclosures
\~\ ,~ C]g<:?V;7;7lJnl
\ \' : ..,..!; ~ ':,!, \, \
i , "'._ ;" 'I
; '-- .' , "'__":::'...J
~_aJ', . ,.,
{ ~.... : ~ \ ::, t \'5 C:C~.
PLf..\r<~\..-~t\\~G ()FF!.CE
. '..... __~ ..:;;._!::.~.:._~'t.:t:;ti::--..-...:..'. ~.:. ....- y"'t ,r'
,
""".
~
~..",., ,_, [Residentia 11
')1'" , .
l~
r.Ro\-/'!'H MANAGEHENT REVIE\-J CHECKLIST
.
CITY OF ASPENI"ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DECE!.1BER 1983
Phone e -/t_(;y../
, I
Da te 12 - ~ --'2f ?"')
Revie~ed By ~
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
!
(1) Public Facilities and Service~
o - Project re~uirc5 provision of new services at
public expense.
1 -. Project handled by e~isting level of service or
improvement by applicant benefits project only.
2 - Project improves quality of service i~ a given
area. '.
Z-
lva ter (2 pts.)
Capacity of system to service proposed development
with6ut syste~ extension, treatment plant or other
tr1i'l +~~{ (' d:tr h:i.g
Sewage Disposal (2 pts.)
.'
Capaci ty of se\\'er system to handle proposed
development without system upgrade.
~j"-4- "'<..,,,,nCL .. .
z,
Storm Drainage (2 pts.) .
Adequa te disposal of surfa, ce runoff. n(
O. - :;;4. ckt.... t}........ of <k.tJrOJl \-(c>.&D
/
I
,/ <-
I
I
,r
,~
'j
, i""',
-2-
~
GRO\'1TH l'1ANAGEf.1ENT REVIE\v CIIECKLIST- - Residential
6'
(ee) L Parking (2 pts.)
O':-~. <..\. :. .- .,... .:- .(r.,.".\. ~lt" 11'.'-,(.+ -\:\\..L needs
oli th'~':~'r~j~~t:<1 vis~\~l~i'mpac\:', am~~>unt of paving,
convenience, and safety.
~ M.~ ~l~ ~0tJ(L -=i1:- ~
e-/ ~,-', ~ ) v'- b~ n.,"(.; l~
(ff) Roads (2 pts.)
Capacity of Existing roads to handle increased,
traffic wi~:'\c>u;-. cJt~''-1 -tru.{'~\~ 'FH~ J f'VJ.. "'/""-t"-~
H\~ ~\- <>+l"<..t:T \\\.\\;.(~" <- (7\ ;"\.~.,,,,~~,"\..(Q. C I
r\\ ~ h y.li ~ ':-wvpo..e \-1 -
(~. ~'11 \l~~ 1t'>-"'r~ cfJ0
(2) Quality of Design
o - Totally deficient design.
1 - Major design fl~~.
2 - Acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Excellent design.
(bb)
J:...;
Site Design (3 pts.)
Otiality an~ character of landsc~pin~ and open
space, extent of utility undergrounding,
arrangement o~ improvements for efficiency of
circulation, increased 'safety and privacy.
'1- t~, ro.-'-C-r Q. ~IA. '; +
(dd)
=s
Trails (3 pts.)
Provision of pedestrian trails, bikeways, and
links to existing parks and trail systems.
h~'1 ~.L. .
~~ C{(~Jx d~j
,
I
:I
I.
~.
~ '(I\.I.T'J'-.
-3-
)~
. 1
GROt-3TH HANA(;EMENT REVIEhl CHECKLIST - Residenti,al
(aa)
(bb)
I!J.
(3) Proximity to Support Services
'L
Public Trans~ortation (3 pts.)
. "'" 1 - Project more than 6 blocks from an existing City
or County bus route.
2 - Within 6 blocks of a City or County bus route.
3 - Within 2 blocks of a City or County bus route.
rv'/ZCO ({ ~ ~ik
. b<J7;:, ~
O'-n.
-&-z
/
Community Commercial Facilities
1 - Project more than 6 blocks from the commercial
facilities in town.
2 - 1-Ji thin 6 blocks of cOITUTIercial facilities.
3 - Hithin 2 blocks of co~ercial facilities.
>,'';:'.~:.'''-'<.'-.,,-
"-. _ , : " :,':~:.r:~>f~:?t';r;/:':~'"
, 'f. ., ",\" ".~'
..'j ,', "~~ill.j.,~~.~, ',.t "
;. -"" v, 't
"-'-' '1
"
, .
,
-A_'-t~
IJ Jl'--',Jr r ~_,It,:)l,.~~'Wir r
."
'j "h'" U <4 "'"fl,,,,,J,~--,~'''-';r''
- v () ! 1,
. j
f:-l '7 r-
b-' I~ {) )
GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
for
THE GORDON PROPERTY
December 1, 1983
',",,"-_' ~'.';_ '-W!lr.' .l~'Ja. ~'..:€'....~ ~
I. Location:
Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado
II. Proposal:
This proposal is being submitted on behalf of Sheldon
Gordon. We seek a growth management allotment of three, three
),,1-
'. . ~ry1
bedroom free-market units that includes three, one bedroom low
""'---
(P:...... .r":ij'
'--
income deed-restricted employee housing units on the subject
I I
;. }.i...O.. ~
property and three, two bedroom low income deed restricted
employee housing units off site at the Hunter Creek Condominium
Project. Each on site employee unit will be attached to one
free-market unit. 'This will result in three duplex units on the
subject 2.187 acre property. The proposed development is further
described by the enclosed maps, documents and the following
discussion.
III. Description of Development:
A. The site is 2.187 acres zoned R-15 P.U.D. located off
Crystal Lake Road and bordered by the Roaring Fork River on the
west and by private properties zoned R-15 on the north and east
.' ...
,t
~ .
:~:...~.~ ~ ',~ ~"tT ~.'.Iiii".:rWi'" '::;~~",,,,,,,~,.:;,.,_,,,,.,,,,,,'~,;JII', <,,:;:,.'<;,,-,-;,",""",---'-"
(see Map 1). The site has some slopes in excess of 20% therefore
a slope area reduction calculation is required to determine
allowable area for development. This calculation by Alpine
Surveys, is shown graphically on Map 3. The resulting area
/
available is 62,117 square feet not ~ncluding the l~nd,~nder:~h~,
(;:,' r. .-- '.. "". .1\: : .. .,; ..~ '" 1',,'
water of the Roaring Fork River. The minimum lot q~ea per duplex
unit in this zone is 20,000 s.f., therefore a density of three'
duplex units are allowed. The site is proposed to be subdivided
into 4 parcels/one parcel for each duplex and the remaining
parcel to be common area for the three duplex parcels restricted
against further development (see Map 3). This projiect will have
three duplex units, each duplex having one, three bedroom
free-market unit and one, one bedroom low-income housing unit
(see Drawings 5 and 6).
A free-market unit to consists of: ~J9Qg_,square feet
, _."....,--'-'-'-----------,-,."
in two stories. Living room, dining room, green house, kitchen,
- - .
breakfast room, family room, laundry room and powder room on the
first floor. Three bedrooms and 3 baths on the second floor.
There will be an outside deck off the living room and one off the
master bedroom.
The low-income on-site unit" to consist of: 600 square
feet in one level. Living room, dining room, green house,
kitchen, laundry room, one bedroom, and bath. There will be an
outside patio off the living room.
All of the on site units will have passive solar
heating and active solar domestic hot water devices.
2
..
t
<
f
r
.
/"""" .
~.~. I~
----.,
The remaining employee housing units will be provided
by purchasing three 900 square foot two bedroom free market units
at the Hunter Creek Properties and deed restrictingctl1e units
according to the low income guidelines.
'....n. '1';:; ..t -:;..
.~. ("':1 . ,,-;
B. The projebt:is served by the City of Aspen Water
Department. A newlcast iron water main will be de~~~ped~and
constructed according to City of Aspen Engineering. end Water
Department standards i (see Map 2).
,~
~,~ "': ' },
This water main will connect the 8" cast iron pipe
(C.I.P.) water main located in the Aspen Club park~ng lp~cwith
the 6" C.I.P. located at the upper end of Riversid~.Avenue. The
result of this connection will be a loop water mai~, system, (see
Map). Each duplex will be provided with a 3/4" seit7vice lin.e
connection. The estimated demand is 200 gallons per duplex per
day resulting in a total estimated demand of 400 gallons per
day per duplex.
In addition to providing a loop water system, the ap-
plicant's share of the Riverside Irrigation Ditch (app~oximately
1/7) will be transferred to the City of Aspen. The applicant
reserves the right'to alter the course 'of the ditch and the width
to form ponds in 'the landscape of the project.
'c. The project is served by the Aspen Metropolitan
Sanitation District from an 8 inch sanitary sewer main located in
the right-of-way on the site (see Map 2).
Each duplex will be
3
;,
.
r-..
f
.~
provided with a 4 inch service line connection. The total
estimated demand is 400 gallons per day per duplex.
D. Electricity isp~ovided by Holy Cross Electrieal
\
Association.' ElectricaJ,~.ef,vj,~e ,i,ntq ,t:he site wil.l.::J?~::::..:::'.:.::.. ::~:
t'
k l .-...~,+ '''1-"' r<\~
(, r\.r::
with ,passive solar collection.
wit)',
v (,.. ~;: (\ J
,
(",(,',::,1,- .1
E.The project will provide on-site retainage fo~ ~ur;fape
and run-off water in excess of pre-development rates. Surface
and run~off in. excess of pre-de,velopment rate will be ppnd,ed ap.d
relea,sed at. the historical rate into the Riverside Irrigation
, .. i
Ditch or the Roaring Fork River. At this time there is no
evidence of surface water to deal with (see Map 4).,
F. The project will provide a new fire hydrant on the
site. The nearest existing fire hydrants is in the Aspen Club
parking lot (see Map 2). The greatest distance from the proposed
fire hydrant to a proposed residence is'170 feet.
The distance
, "
to the fire station is 20 blocks ~ travel time fro~,:t::h~.,!3tpt-~pn,:,:t.p
the site is less than 8 minutes.
~:~
G. The total site area including the.area under the
Roaring Fork River is 2.187 acres. There is no requiremen~ fo~
4
'~
,~
E
open space in this zone, however the project, including paved
areas such as roads and parking, covers only .37 acres or 17
percent of the 2.187 acre site.
~, . "
, ,:"I_~' ,. _. ,'~ _ ,... r"l..,. '-.. ..... 't;';',,-.. ,,......J-.......:..,,.-....; I
qpen space or 83 percent of the site.
t ~r:."::t'..-,f i (1J.: ,i1 r i: f 'i-~l~' ~; j 1, (:-
This equates to 1.82 acres of
~
. ~
r'r _ "l ..- ,'~... '"
J A ,.:
'-."-',;1<;-."",,
c:;: f:~ ~:i: "'.. ~ .' ~ {,.
, J I r -II
t' : 1"'- ~.; \. t,
r
. 1: x . ii~' ct" ffI: (df~f~ii6e,nf:b t tli,~J t.'O~~tt::el~me'ntary'
,.
Jp:fjfb4iIn~t.eiy 1. 51Jil~s ~ tb;~hk','MidcUe and High
f ~.
School buses run on Highway 82, within 600 feet fr6m the site.
i
, ,
1h~re is easy pedestrian access 'to Highway 82 via try.staJ.. Lake
Scllool i$i' (or i Y'€(;: '0
r
~
SCl1,Oo'ls -3,', mi,l'es ~
~.~t
r
i
~oad or Riverside Drive.
;
I
y"
; !.
"
I. Assuming one car per bedroom, a total of 12 cars will
pe parked regularly on-site. Twelve spaces will be provided by~
€ove,red and 8 outside on-site parking spaces. Add~(t:i.9nally 3
.._.~---~..._..--'_.__.
outside on-site visitor spaces will be provided, providing a
total of 15 patking spaces. Extensive landscaping: will minimize
the impact of outside parking spaces to the site and surrounds.
"~
J.
The developer will dedicate a public trail and fisher-
.' '-.
man's easement to the City of Aspen. The easement will be. below
the developed area of the site, adjacent to the Roaring Fork
River.''''; Further 'the developer will provide a brid9\e a'cross the
ri ver, connecting directly with the Ute Children's pa'rk and
existing paths.
5
.~
t"""';,
K. The Aspen Valley Hospital is approximately 3 miles
away and within 10 minutes driving time from the site. The
) -, ..-.. ....'" .). '~~. ~ ."'<C,
police department is 20
than 8 minutes. Retail
blocks away with the respoJ;l~e ti.me J-ess,.
1", I. '!7" ,", ,', '"'"
and service activites are approximately;
.~
~. J J
16 blocks from the site. This dev!elopment will creat~Jn()ks fi:'om t.he
1 n.htib-e~bl~1d~~'knds on any of the ;~~~e mentioned servi<ces '. : f
s:Jt
L. The effects of the proppsed development on the vicini-
ty w6uld be' hlghly beneficial, and ffarreaching. The causes' of
.....
"" l
such will be: new and upgraded utillities lines, spa'cea'nd energy
;
efficient housing units with quali!ty aesthetics,' passive solari
heating, active solar domestic hot water, extensive, landscaping,
'\.
sufficient parking and roads, hew .trail and fisherman','s easement.
with a bridge link. The project wi!'l 'provide~new low'-income
employee housing units both on site and closer to community
service centers. In addition the project will be developed at
the allowed density resulting in a great deal of open space,
allowing the project to be more compatible with existing
development.
M. If,approved, construction of'the development will com-
mence in the spring of 1984 and be complet'ed in the spring of:
1986.
6
J ~'.i.(;)}:
~
l
t:
~
,~
IV. Comparison of Development Against Growth Management Plan
Scoring System:
A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services:
1.
Water:
. - .
Two'points should be awarded s inbe ,th~
w;J.+P't" ,
i": '1
project. will 1) allQW a branch line
~, r1'hi5 dev'eloprilellt vii J 1
thus iFProving se~vice to the area,
..t _~ ,I?_
"
to become a. ci~S:tl~:!L:i,ip~U J; aJ
{iC; ,', t} , This develop
and 2) il1.c:r~as~h~llei~Ji.~v:P:PE selfvJC{
Aspen I ~ ownership" of water rights within the City A,;imilts,.
c'I'1,:
2.
Sewer: One point should be awarded since the';
{ ,
pc:
projecf may be handled by existing level of servicf?: e1JPvpe~y~c:~\~: d'LE'>
improv~ment by th~ applicant will benefit the proj~~;t{ptlllY;.\d 1
~ . ., - '
3. Storm Drainage: Two points should be awarded
,
. '
since the project will provide on-site retainage for sur4:ace and
~.~
run-off water in excess of pre-development rates. Also ponding
will allow desirable landscape aesthetics and controlled release
of water.
4. Fire Protection: Two points should be awarded
since the project will provide a new fire' hydrant, improving
eXistihg conditions for the project and the neighbo:J;"s;.
5. Parking Design: Two points should be awarded
since the project will provide the 12 required parking. spaces on
site. Additionally three extra guest, 'spaces will be provided
on-site. All 15 spaces will be screened bylandscepi!lg.
6. Roads: Two points should be awarded since the
i!, ~,' ": '~...
project will provide easy in and out access with the minimum
amount of road possible. Also, the rO.ad will be P@.M>~P to. avoig,
ruttins and dust, minimizing impact on the resident-$;fln~
neighbors.
i'~ 1 .,
....'.-....J "-''- t !
1L,11''i.
L
7
~
~,
t
J
'-",
.~
B. Quality of Design:
1. Neighborhood Compatibility: The existing
t.r.t
nei~hborhood consists of one and two story single family
1<7;';', (.:>;e's~l~~cen;,iol ~ /"tlOO:..!;2"J, 400 aiqJ~~g f~e"t-Fori 'tots that 'ralnge"'in,(-~i'ze "J',I"-'1JiJ
.,1.,,..')
,
~. --f:ro~tio~'o~~sciU~;e tEf~t.\to 1\17,'8-12 'square <feet (see":Map,3,).."",Xha;~r,,,
\- .1..\) ;.:,.~~~, i..t ',,-. v', ,:'; J. \.:: 1. t~t.> L~: 1. c;7.:,t:J~<I'L: t 'oN\~ r.T I
c, ip" (:i~,~J's ethEd' e8,:.JJt,a...Jpnf~nf~ ;dn i,,!'l.cex ~~'.I?r?d'd'~1eptdp+e>Jr-..r.:L 6 ,', - ',/ """::ci l'c~ ....l...., "'....._, aD(~
it' a v ...n v '-::t C nSJ:.sr"'t"(.."Q"'H l;";'r\;l("~,'f;~"'f-l!I;"'c~,.(d
3 , 6,OOs .. f : "dupitiies:orl : 2 . itb tdtch acres or one dUJ?lexP!~r i . 7:29.
acres or 31:,75S"s.:f. dt leirid cirect.' <",
~t'c~t '.'
n
.~!.:. "the" amount of land under the water course of th~(
,
Ro~i:fng F6rk :Ri:v~r:werEi\ deduct,fbd" from the 2 .187 aC,r,esl,rtpe;
balance of land above water would amount to 25,070,~.f~ pf, fand
area per duplex.
Taking,the slope area reduction for density calcula-
tiqns into account there is 20,705.66 s.f. per duplex.
These numbers indicate that the proposed development
is in the same density range as the rest of the neighborhood.
This is not only compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,
but improves the quality of the neighborhood. Together with the
extensive site work and trail easements being given, three points
should be awarded for this section.
2. Site Design: Three points should be awarded
since the project will provide a high quality of lan,dscapin~ ,to.
:.... '~., "''', ~-- '., ". '. ~,;.
in~lude ponding, and extensive open spaces, all benefitin~tl1e
surrounding sites, and public ~rail users ,as well a~ ~his p~oject.
3. Energy: Three'points should be awarded since the
pr6)ecfwill incorporate:
insulation values of R-24l, in. t.he. walls "
, ,
8
J!'
. . "
~.
.~
i:
~;
and R-45 at the roof, orientation within 150 of south, extensive
passive solar heating, and active solar domestic hot water
devices.
.'t'
:~.;
""-:;-.\:.- ,'.'...T'J., c+:",{" ~'--;.,J;-;.;;.: <", ~ n\,\/F~r'de(;,,:;;,:; ., ,._ ,f.p),.; r.t ..Y';."';:'
4. Trails~ Three points should be provided since
t1:'P*td~~:~~i.l: ,d"d~te,a 'tl'~i~,'.ana.l;isherme1i ' S~i~~~ ~,i';~:,' '.
:pro~id~r': a ~b~fdge'link"t.hiis f~:rf.he~.thg' p~ogres's 'bfY)th~'; ~ityf~S
$ . . .7
~
"Trails Master Plan.
l-~~
~,' '?
(' :<"
5. Green ~pace: Three points should be provided
'''''-\: since: the pro j ectwiil ~rovlde'83 percent of thee site as+ g.e;en.
, 1, < "
space. The majority of the green space will be adaflcent to, tAie.
trail., benefiting res~dents and public alike.
f.""
)
C. Proximity to Suppor~Services:
Awarding of ,points in' this section .requires specia,..l"
attention. Three two bedroom employee housing units will be
located at the Hunter Creek Properties and therefore closer to
public transportation anq comm~nity commercial facilities.
Therefore, the point distribution in this section should be
balanced between the site and the employee housing at t~eHunter
Creek Properties.
1. Public Transpor.tation (from the Gordon site):
,
Two points should be awarded since the project is 'f,f!~s:,1;.h~p.:, s;;i..;J.C:
,
(;")'
,
blocks walking distance of a City bus stop.
2. Community Commercial Facilities (from the Gordon
Property): One point should be awarded since the proj~ct is
9
'"
, .
"
~
~.
,
,~
,~,
f
~.
t,
t.,
r
f
.,
farther than six blocks walking dista~ce from the commercial
facilities in town.
;"-,1..
l ?
ID.
. (
Provision for Low Income Housing:
~ "
~'~'''~' C,;, , 'r~ .~<.~ c..l ',TW~E.ty;':poi:nt;&,,-,shOUld ~~f~a~~t'9~.(l;Sj.~ge the d~X~lgpl!l~~~,;.t ..,..~~"j1.,;i
~ () (., :{. :.01; ( ,', '< ".. ,-', ,.," ", t: ,- 'e.
will r>E:;'50tl&tr.blcom~ 'o'ccupancy. Y><Th€ "project will, p+o,~iide(a)
total of 9 employee bedrooms in a total of 6 separa:t,13 ~mploye~"i\
'.
".;p.... ~,
" '(it::
housing units. These units will house a total of 12 people
according to"the'Pitkiti:<::ountyliHousillg Office averages of, 1.75
people perone bedroom\' units and 2..3 ,people per two, pedJ:"oofU
units.
.--
"'~,
E. provision for Unique Financing. .
Not applicable. -
F.
Bonus Points:
)
This project makes a substantial contribution to
Aspen's pedestrian trail system by the construction of a foot
\.
bridge across the Roaring Fork River and the dedi~ation of land
for the continuation of the Ute Trail along the Roaring Fork
River.
10
',~,
-~
efT
SPEN
, ""-
WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
----------
TO: RICHARD GRICE, PLANNER
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
---sSfr1
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1983
RE: GORDON PROPERTY
We have reviewed the application known as the Gordon Property and concur
with the statement that the looping of the water main from the end of
Riverside Drive to the Aspen Club interconnect will improve reliability
of service and upgrade the existing neighborhood distribution system by
providing for an alternate routing of water in the event of a main fail-
ure. However, it should be noted that availability of water to the site
would require a main extension but the looping does create an improvement
to the water system. Assuming that the applicant will install the looped
main extension, water would be available in sufficient quantities to the
subdivision.
JM:lf
l'-'-OJt~H~P~' ~, > QC':::\~
o'd !...r.. <::'1 ., 'Ii, ) ~'1 !J II
n,(,I_-~::X ~~'~\I I
J,,-_D E C-=.4.1983JJ
J\SPEN I PlTKiN"to, .
PLANNING OfflC!. '
~.:~..... \ ::'~"~-'~':::;.~l.~;..l,;~:"'!~.r.....:.',i,.,:~;,.~"~~'~:.t.:~:~~~
(
I
/
~.
--;-
.~
'. '. ~
~
/@'~~~@%;@Y~
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 131611
The Aspen Volunteer Fire Department welcomes the opportunity to participate within
the framework that is determining the future configuration of our town. Insofar
as our concern is the protection of life and property, we have prepared the following
guidelines to establish a sense of balance between our capabilities as a department
and the locations We might be called upon to defend.
To insure fairness and equality of application, the most recent edition of the
Uniform Fire Code will serve.as final authority in our evaluations.
This review of plans is intended to impact final approval of a given project. There-
fore we see mos:!: pl ans in a Itconceptua lllform. In many ~ases specific'items of i nter-
est are simply not available for review a~ they don't exist in hardcopy.
It is recommended that this checklist be reviewed at some subsequent time to
insure that these items of concern have been addressed. We at the department
will gladly perform this check at the direction of the Planning Office or in'
cooperation with the Building Department.
Each item of the checklist is preceeded by three possible indicators: (OK).;, (IO),
which stands for Insufficient Data; and (NOT OK).' General comments and clarifications
will appear at the end of the prepared list.
AVFO Plans checklist 1283
Page 1
-
-.~,
'~h,_
CIT
feet
1611
'~'~
. ....
MEMORANDUM
TO:
RICHARD GRICE, Planning Office
FROM:
JIM HOLLAND, Director of Parks ~
December 16, 1983
DATE:
RE:
GORDON PROPERTY - 1984 RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
Acceptability of design and construction of the trails bridge over
the Roaring Fork River will be of concern to both the City and the County.
The County maintains all trails system assets as per our joint maintenance
agreement. Any considerations made involving trail extension proposals
and/or improvements which would become part of our existing trails system
should include them.
~\~;l~~~3?S~~1.~~ n
\ ' -_.~-- -- ,.)\ I \
' ,I
~ i 1
, -' - dq', ~j ~' \'U
f : ,J.....""" .
l.. ;,Jv f
... ',. '- oj ~.,
.,'?f.:N /:-Pl~rK.~tO. /
PLANNING OFfiCE /
.,... .........;,..
"'J.~:.-.~:~~.,.:'!:.~'~wj ,,;';:'~41:~:~
------