Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.273514207001 (2)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat copies (11217) ~.. ~.~ rnnctLw:~usn-wz-ui-uuuuu ~ CASE NAME: Aspen Highlands Subd, Filii PROJ ADDij:~ p tiRIQ DO.U (~ ~- OWNIAPP: Aspen Highlands Ski ADR~ REP: ADR:r FEES DUE:~~ FE REMARKS TE RCVD: ~l #COPIES;~ CASE NO 1978 2, Gen 3ubm (1978) Planners i° C/S2:~- PHN:~- C/S/Z:~~ PHNi~ ALLOCATED HOURS:r- RCVD:~- %OVER: I CLOSEDi~~BY: ~~ PLAT RECORDEDr~ ~, PLAT, s,~ CASE TYP.: ':~ Gen Subm CASE,TYP2: ~-~ File Locatipn:.~ RESOLUTION OF THE {'ITKIN COUNI~Y PLANNIf1G AND ZOh1ING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE ASPEN HIGHLAfJDS SUBDIVISION, FILING 2, GEfJERAL SUBMISSION Resolution No. 78 - WIlEREAS, the Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation is the owner of record of W.V.N. Jones residence located on a 11.64 acre parcel within the Aspen Highlands Subdivision, and 41HEREAS, the owner has applied for General Submission approval for the further subdivision of said parcel into a total of nine lots, and LJHEREAS, the Commission has awarded the application 69.6 points out of a total 160 possible points under Resolution flo. 77-57 with no points awarded for housing, and WHEREAS, Section 5.30 of the Land Use Code requires that the Planning Commission and the Board determine that a land use proposal either is not an exclusionary development or will help to alleviate the shortage of low and moderately priced ownership and rental housing units in the County, and LJHEREAS, this application did not make specific commitments with regard to Section 5.30, and WHEREAS, the opinion of the Commission is that specific commitment or other changes in the application to comply directly with Section 5.30 would at this point be a substantial modification in violation of Section 5.90.04.a.7, and LJHEREAS, the Commission has heard the evidence and testimony related to this application. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission that it finds the proposal to be exclusionary and hereby recommends denial of the General Submission application for the reason of non-compliance with Section 5.30 of the Land Use Code everi though it scored above the minimum of 64 points in the Growth Mananement Reviews. Recommended for denial by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission of Pitkin County, Colorado at its regular meeting on September.20,.19.78. M E M O R A N D U M T0: Board of County Commissioners FR0~4: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Highlands Subdivision - General Submission DATE: November 7, 1978 This application requests general submission approval of the Aspen Highlands Subdivision, Filing 2. The 11.64 acre site is currently occupied by the W.V.N. Jones residence. Mr. Jones desires to further subdivide his hamesite in order to create eight additional single family sites. The site is zoned R-30 and is surrounded on three sides by the previously approved Aspen High- lands Subdivision, Filing 1. The following is a summary of Planning Office and referral comments: 1. Geologist, Nick Lampiris, states that, "there are essentially no geo- logic hazards associated with this tract. The lot layout is excellent from a geologic point of view, even to the point of allowing for green space in the southwestern most corner of the property below the dam for the large pond there; this is the only spot on the acreage that I recommend leaving undeveloped because of the chance of dam failure under certain combinations of adverse conditions. I recommend that soils testing be performed for purposes of foundation design. This is an excellent site for additional development with little or no impact on the environment." 2. Visual impact of development of the eight homesites would be minimal. The development would not be visable from anywhere except within the subdivision and from the Highlands lifts. 3. Water for the proposed development is to be supplied by the Aspen Highlands water and Sanitation district. At the present time, in addition to supplying the water needs of Asoen Highlands Subdivision, Filing 1, the district also supplies water for the Highlands Inn, Maroon Creek Lodge, Chamonix Condominiums, Heatherbed Lodge, and the Highlands Base facility. The application indicates that in order to supply the necessary water for Filing 2, it will be necessary to in- crease the storage and treatment facilities of the system to a capacity of approximately 282,000 gallons. Adequate water rights to meet these expected needs are indicated as being available, however, no evidence has been presented that these water rights exist and we do not .know if they are dedicated to agriculture or domestic uses. We have received comment from the Highlands 6Jater and Sanitation District. The Board of Directors state in their letter of June 29, 1978, that "the District would be unable to extend service to the proposed lots at this. It appears that the tiWSD does not have sufficient capacity to meet the water requirements which would be needed in the event the District's size was increased by eight homes." Furthermore, they note signi- ficant errors in estimates of the daily demand of the district in the report of Sterling Associates. 4. Aspen Metro has commented as follows ,+"there will be no problem in providing sanitation services to the subdivision as the existing trunk lines that are already there have sufficient capacity to handle this proposed development and substantial excess capacity exists at the sewage treatment plant." 5. As of the time of this writing, we have no comment from the County Engineer regarding the proposed road design and layout. The appli-. cation indicates that construction will be in accordance with County standards. Memo to County P&Z Highlands Subdivision September 14, 1978 Page Two The County Trails Master Plan calls for a trail through the Aspen Highlands subdivision which would connect existing trails. A con- dition of approval should be the dedication of a trails easement to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 6. All utilities are available. Mountain Bell has requested specific phraseology which should be used on any future submissions. They would have all access roads as well as those portions of real property which are labeled as utility easements dedicated to the public utilities. 7. The proposed subdivision is located on an existing mass transit route. 8. With regard to the Housing requirements of the Land Use Code, the appli- cation indicates a willingness on the part of hir. Jones to purchase existing units, construct new units, or make payments to the County in lieu thereof. These offers are based on the assumption of eight free- market units and four additional PMH units. No specific committments are made within the application. Without specific committments we must conclude that Section 5.30 of the code has not been complied with. In summary, the site is nearly perfect for development. There are no geologic constraints, no visual problems, and the proposed density is only slightly more than half of what the R-30 zoning would allow. The location is within walking distance to schools, skiing, parks and mass transit. However, with- out specific compliance with Section 5.30 we expect that the application will not score well. Due to the non-compliance with the housing section, the Commission should reject the application based upon Section 5.90.03 b, unless you find the subdivision to be non-exclusionary. The Planning Office does not support this argument. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal at their regular meeting on September 20, 1978, at which time they recommended denial of the application. Their reasons for denial are outlined in the attached reso- lution. sr STERLING ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS WOODY .:REEK, COLORADO MEMBERB AIA~PO. BO%B7Z~P COOS Bt656PHONE 303 923-4SB May 31, 1978 Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County, Colorado Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is information describing an application for re-subdivision of a parcel of land containing approximately 11.64 + acres. This parcel is presently in the ownership of the Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation and is located within the existing Aspen Highlands Subdivisior. adjacent to the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. The general character of the parcel is wooded meadowland containing a 1.18 acre pond which is presently used for water supply to the Aspen Highlands Ski Area snovrtnaking equipment. The parcel is wooded with scattered areas of immature aspen and spruce. The site is totally surrounded by lots and built residences comprising the existing subdivision. The parcel is well protected visually and is not visible from Maroon Creek Road. The major outward views from the site are toward the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. There are also good views up Maroon Creek from several of the proposed sites. The total parcel is presently under one ownership and does not represent a conflict in terms of view or quality with surrounding residences. These residences are of high quality and currently are subject to covenants and restrictions. In order to maintain the present quality, these restrictions will also be imposed on the proposed subdivision. It is the intent of the owner to re-subdivide the parcel into nine lots, each lot containing a minimum of 30,000 square feet of area in conformance with present zoning requirements. One lot will contain an already existing residence presently occupied by lJhipple Van Ness Jones and the other eight will be offered for sale. As partial ;ulfillment of the application, there follows comment on various aspects of the subdivision's impact on public services as required by the pre-application conference with Ms. Karen Smith on October 25, 1977. SECTION 2 - POLICIES 2.01. COfdFORMANCE WITH ASPEN AREA GENERAL PLAN The parcel and surrounding lots are presently zoned in the R-30 category. No exception to that category or use is requested. Each lot will contain 30,000 square feet of area minimum. This zoning classification is presently recommended by the General Area hlaster Plan. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 2 2.02. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS The development of this parcel of land does not violate any known laws of Pitkin County, the State of Colorado or the United States of America. 2.03. NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARD AND RESOURCE AREAS A. The Colorado State University Resource maps indicate the possible exis- tence of a fault adjacent to the property. Enclosed with the application is a report prepared by Nicholas Lampiris, geologist, which addresses this problem. B. There will be no improvements made which will create dangerous conditions for surrounding property. C. Refer to A. D. No identifiable natural resources of the county will be disturbed. E. No nuisance or potentially dangerous activities will take place in the subdivision (covenants). F. No significant wildlife habitats exist on the parcel. 2.04. SOIL, SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS AND RADIATION Adequate historical evidence exists from prior construction experiences to show that no unusual structural problems will arise for improvements on the parcel. The CSU resource maps show no identified hazard areas. 2.05. DRAINAGE The parcel is naturally drained, both to h1aroon Creek and to the pond which is then drained to Maroon Creek via the Lyeth-Jones pipeline. Please refer to map. 2.06. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR 4JATER NEEDS The site is presently served by an underground water distribution system and storage facility. Further analysis and comment is included under Section 5.25. Fire protection is available from this system as well as from the pond on the property. 2.07. SEWAGE TREATh1ENT AND COLLECTION The site is presently served by an adequate sewage collection system under the jurisdiction of the aspen Metro Sewer District and is presently monitored by the Pitkin County Board of Health. Connections to the present system are available from each site. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 3 2.08. IMPACTS ON ROAD SYSTEMS The road and access system to the parcel is in place. Extensions of private easements to sites are indicated on the map. f!o additional impact on county road services will be required. 2.09. ROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION The existing road system presently conforms to county standards and is pre- sently maintained privately. 2.10. LOGICAL EXTENSION OF UTILITIES See 2.07. 2.11. EROSION Adequate landscaping of each residential area will assure that no accelerated erosion takes place (covenants). 2.12. COMPATIBILITY 41ITH HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES No historical or archeological sites exist on the parcel. 2.13. COMPATIBILITY WITH AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND OPERATIONS No agricultural land exists on the parcel. 2.14. IMPACTS ON TAXES AND MANAGEMENT OF NECESSARY SERVICES AND FACILITIES Public services are already available to the parcel and surrounding residences, therefore the quality of such services is not compromised. The taxing and revenue impacts should be positive for the county sinepublic service ex- tensions and capital costs are not necessary. e~ ~„!- ~ 2.15. HOUSING oa~~\SC~e~"~\O~`\ ~-~°~9~`~~,u~~~ ~a•~~e ~~`t"',\ The owner agrees to satisfy9the requirements for moderate income housing as specified by Resolution 74-87 (1974) by either the outright purchase of exist- ing housing stocks, a cash payment to Pitkin County or the construction of housing at a location adjacent to the development at Aspen Highlands. Dedi- cation of housing within the development itself would be out of character with present surrounding development and the type of development anticipated on the subdivision sites. 2.16. SCENIC QUALITY The nature of the site topography, location and present roads and facilities precludes additional scenic impact. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 4 2.17. AIR QUALITY No significant air quality impacts are anticipated. Conformance with existing fireplace regulations will be practiced. 2.18. ENERGY CONSERVATION All efforts will be made to conform or exceed the present county requirements for energy conservation. The nature of the site precludes the use of active or passive solar heating except, perhaps, for domestic hot water. There are numerous opportunities on the sites to take advantage of slope conditions to increase insulation values. The building areas on the sites are so arranged as to prevent blocking sun exposures or views from other sites. 2.19. .TRANSPORTATION The site is locabed such that Aspen Highlands ski buses and City buses can be used for town trips. The parcel is also close to existing and proposed bicycle paths, cross country skiing and bridle paths. The net impact on daily automobile trips should be negligible given the already heavy impact of automobile traffic on Maroon Creek Road during the winter and summer. Estimated additio~ial average trips per day will be between 15 and 30 for eight additional sites. Skiers from the proposed subdivision are within easy walking distance of the lifts, negating automobile impact in that respect for Aspen Highlands. 2.20. DEVELOPMENT OR EXPAPJSION OF SKI AREAS Not applicable. 2.21. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS The proposal is compatible with adjacent neighborhood areas and will adopt covenants and restrictions already exercised in the surrounding neighborhood. 2.22. WATER RESOURCES IMPACT Water resources are not impacted by this proposal. 2_23. NOISE No noise impacts are anticipated by this proposal. 2.24. COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT OR NEARBY PUBLIC LANDS Public lands are not impacted by this proposal. 2.25. GROWTH RATE, PHASING OR PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES This proposal is minimum in nature and represents minimum addition of population ~. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 5 to the planning area. Therefore, it is in general conformance to growth rate policies. The anticipated rate of build-out in the development is two units per year which is in line with recommended growth rates identified in the Growth Management Plan. SECTION 5 - GENERAL REGULATIONS 1. CONSISTENCY 41ITH MASTER PLAN RATE OF GROWTH The proposal is consistent with Master Plan policies which indicate R-30 residential zoning. A projected build-out of two units per year is also consistent with Growth Management Policy in the Aspen Highlands Water and Sanitation District. 2. HAZARD AND RESOURCE AREAS A. Geologic Hazards Geologic hazard areas and underlying soils analyses are enclosed in the report submitted by Nicholas Lampiris. B. Soils, Erosion Refer to geologic analysis. 5. SCENIC QUALITY A. Project Location Refer to enclosed map entitled "Project Location." B. Uisual Vulnerability 1. Reveqetation: Damaged areas adjacent to building will be repaired by landscaping and replanting. 2. Topsoil: Topsoil will be saved and respread. 3. Weed Prevention: Not applicable. 4. Utilities: Utilities will be in roadway easements where possible. here not possible, vegatation will be reclaimed through planting. 5. Scenic Views: Building areas will be designated which take advantage o scenic views and preserve views of existing structures. 6. Road Impact on Scenic Quality: The impact of the road system on scenic quality is negative. Existing roads are already located such that they do not interfere with any views from construction sites. 6. WATER SUPPLY, DSITRIBUTION AND TREATMENT A. General Description: Distribution System The existing watei° distribution system is through 8" and 6 steel pipe. One Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 6 6 main is located in Gleneagle Drive and will serve the upper tier of lots in the proposal--Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Another 6" main exists along the Westerly edge of the parcel and will serve Lots 1, 2, 3, and 8. Three street cuts (Lots 4, 5, and 6) will be required. All other lots have access to water mains on easements. At present streets are not paved, making cuts easily accomplished. B. Storage and Treatment System The present system is capable of processing and storing 150,000 gallons of water per day. In order to relate that capacity to present requirements of the Land Use Code the following analysis is included: USERS OF ASPEN HIGHLANDS WATER AND SANITATION SYSTEM INCLUDItVG PROPOSED LOTS Domestic In-House Demands (Maximum Daily Demand) Highlands Inn 150 persons @ 75 gallons per day Maroon Creek Lodge 50 persons @ 75 gallons per day Chamonix Condominiums 60 persons @ 75 gallons per day Heatherbed Ledge 46 persons @ 75 gallons per day Highlands Base Facility Guests - 175 persons average x 6 hours per day x 5 gallons per day Employees - 25 persons @ 75 gallons per day 39 Residences @ 300 gallons per day TOTAL ESTIMATED DAILY DEMAND Irrigation Demands Assume each resident irrigates 5,000 square feet 39 x 5,000 x 7.48 = daily demand re: 5.25.O1.e.2 365 x 2 d.d = 2000 gallons per day Fire Demand Re: 5.25.O1,e,4,ii - assume population on system = 251-1000 11,250 gallons 3,750 " 4,500 " 3,450 " 5,250 " 1,875 " 9,300 39,375 gallons Storage Demand = 1000 gpm x 60 x 4 = 240,000 gallons .. , Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 7 Therefore, the to tat daily demand for all water uses is 281,375 gallons Less existing capacity 150,000 gallons Residual 131,375 gallons Based on this analysis it will be necessary to increase the storage and treat- ment facilities of the system to a capacity of approximately 282,000 gallons. The applicant therefore proposes to construct additional storage and treatment facilities such that the total system is capable of handling 300,000 gallons of water. Existing water rights and inlet capacities from Maroon Creek to the system assure the ability of the applicant to accomplish this increase in capacity of the system. 7. SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT The proposed parcel and surrounding sites are presently connected to and served by the Aspen-Metro Sanitation District. There is an 8" collector trunk located in Glen Eagle Drive which connects to a 10" main in the Maroon Creek Road. This collector .will serve Lots 4, 5 and 6 in the proposal. Another 8" collector is located on the Northwest proposed site in an easement provided for same. This trunk connects to an 8" main in Glen Garry Drive and thence to the 10" main in Maroon Creek Road. This trunk will service Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the proposal. Another 8" main exists on the Southerly edge of the proposal in road easement and will serve Lots 7 and 8. This main also presently serves Lot 9. The total anticipated demo 1120 and 1760 gallons per morning and early evening sewage system requires no construction shall consist 11. ROADS AND TRAILS General Comment nd additional to the existing uses will be between day. The peak demand periods will occur in the in conformance with normal residential use. The extension or construction by Aspen-Metro. All of tap-ons and connecting sewers to the residences. In terms of overall impact on the road system, the addition of 8 residences to the existing extreme use experienced on (~1aroon Creek Road is negligible. Although earmarked for consideration on the application form by the Planning Department, ;he applicant requests that, if found necessary, more extensive analysis be deferred to the Detailed Submission phase of the review process. Given the extreme impact on Maroon Creek Road by present recreational, tour and school uses, analysis of the traffic contribution of the proposal does not appear necessary at this time. The reasons for this are: 1. The pro pc sal will not generate enough additional traffic to change the characteristics of the existing situation on Maroon Creek or other County roads. The levels of service and safety are not affected by the proposal. No capital costs are generated by the proposal. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 8 B. Road Design and Construction Inasmuch as all access roads and streets presently in use conform to county standards and are maintained by the county, Section 5.22, Road Design and Construction, is omitted. C. Trails The proposed parcel is in the near vicinity of proposed bike and pedestrian trails from Aspen through Meadowood to the Highlands as identified on the CSU resource maps. Although the proposal is not directly involved with these proposed trails, they will be easily accessible to the residents of the sites. 12. DRAINAGE The proposed site has at present a well developed drainage system. All of the lots in the proposal are naturally drained through a system of ponds and out- flow pipes from the site to Maroon Creek and along well established barrow ditch and culvert systems along the roads. The pond on the proposed site collects runoff and drains it to a series of ponds on adjoining lower pro- perties and eventually empties into Maroon Creek. All pipes in the system are 12" diameter minimum. Please refer to preliminary plan. The proposed develop- ment of this site will not affect this drainage pattern negatively. For this reason the applicant requests that more specific analysis, if found to be necessary, be deferred to the Detailed Submission phase. 13. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION See 2.19. 14. IMPACT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES/SERVICES A. General Comment The proposal lies within already well established service areas for all public facilities, service, solid waste disposal and fire and police protection. Therefore, no re-scheduling or additional accomodations are necessary for these services. B. Extensions of Utilities, Water and Sewer Water and sewer extensions are discussed under Articles 6 and 7. C. Gas and Electrical Service The proposed site is presently served with both high pressure natural gas and electrical service adequate to serve the requested density. 1. flatural Gas: Proposed Lots 1 and 2 are served by a 3/4 h.p. gas lin=_ existing in the private access easement for• these lots. Lots 3 through 9 inclusive are served by an existing 3/4" h. p. gas line on the East and South edges of the aroperty. Please refer to preliminary plan. 2. Electrical: At present there is underground electrical service located on the East, South and North-edges of the property. It will be necessary to extend service from the equipment to each lot in conformance with Holy Cross Electric Association requirements. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 9 D. Parks Dedication To be determined. E. General Tax Cost/Benefit On the basis of discussions relating negligible impacts on public service effect on the tax structure should be improvements on the proposed sites ar X8,000 to X10,000 per year added rove revenue condition to the county since are not commensurately increased. 15. CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSING STOCK to Articles 6, 7, 11 and 13 which indicate and utility extensions, the overall beneficial for Pitkin County. The e capable of producing on the order of nue. This figure constitutes a surplus capital improvement costs and services A. General Comment There are 8 dwelling units proposed for the property under this application. Therefore according to Code requirements it is required to furnish 4 additional employee housing units to the housing stock or remunerate Pitkin County far this housing. It is assumed that development of this project will have little effect on current demand for low or moderate cost housing since the only development taking place is residential construction which can easily be absorbed by the existing contracting firms available in Pitkin County. Additionally it is estimated that minimum increased demand is generated be- cause of operational problems inherent in the proposal. However, in con- formance with Growth ~danagement policy the addition of four housing units is indicated. It is contemplated that these housing units will be purchased or contracted under the Code provisions for PMH housing at such times as to conform to the development schedule contained in the proposal or payment to the County will be made. Housing, if required, will be sold or managed under those provisions. 16. MAN-MADE HAZARDS A. General Comment The existing pond on the made hazard. However, th Bible to the public and t Western edge of the pond difficult. Accesses from readily visible from four visual control of the are the site, but is an aesth bates outweigh any hazard 18. ENERGY CONSERVATION See comments for 2.18. proposed site has been identified as a possible man- e pond is located in such a way as to be inaccess- o the majority of the sites on the proposal. The is heavily vegetated Waking access from that side the other three sides are gentle slopes and are of the proposed structure locations which give a. The pond not only serves as a drainage basin for etic focal point for the development. These attri- ous aspects that appear to exist. 19. WATER RESOURCES IMPACT A. General Comment The proposal as applied for has no anticipated effect on groundwater resources, neither adding or subtracting groundwater volumes nor altering the character of such water resources. Nicholas Lampiris, PhD CONSULTING GEDLOGBT PO 60% 10935 AS PE N, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-6020 OFF. 923-2126 RES May 23, 1978 Robert Sterling Jr. Box 97 Woody Creek,. Colorado 81656 Re: Whip Jones Subdivision Dear Mr. Sterling: I have completed my investigation of the proposed subdivision of the 11.64 acres surrounding the Whip Jones home north of the Highlands Ski Area. The acreage lies i_n the E1z, NW w, Section 14 (projected), T. 10 S., R. 85 W., within the Aspen 71s minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. The property consists of rolling meadow interspersed with groves of aspen trees and some conifers. There are several moderate sized ponds in and around the property including the one just west of the Jones home which is more than an acre in area. Poorly sorted material ranging in size from clay to boulders covers the property. This is morainal material of the Quaternary age glacier "b" which moved down the Maroon Creek Valley thousands of years ago. The underlying bedrock cannot be seen on the property, but the geologic map of Bryant (1971) indicates that the Triassic age State Bridge and Chime Formations, mostly red shales, siltstones, and sandstones, under- lie the area. Bryant also infers a north-south trending faul*_ near the eastern boundary of the property but there was no surface indica- tion of any faulting and at any rate the fault has been inactive for millions of years. The general dip of the bedrock in this area is 20 degrees to the north. There are essentially no geologic hazards associated with this tract. Morainal deposits are quite suitable for developmental purposes, especially if slopes are not allowed to become supersaturated. The few slopes within this property are not high enough to cause any significant problem. The preliminary lot layout was excellent from a geologic point of view, even to the point of allowing for greenspace in the southwesternmost corner of the property below the dam for the large pond there; this is the only spot on the acreage which I recommend leaving undeveloped Robert Sterling Jr. May 23, 1978 Page Two because of the chance of dam failure under certain combinations of adverse conditions. Access, domestic water, and waste disposal systems are already available for all the proposed lots. I re- commend that soils testing be performed at a later date at the site of each proposed home for purposes of foundation design. This is an excellent site for additional development with little or no impact on the environment. If there are further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely; Nicholampir~~t Consulting Geologist REFERENCE Bryant, Bruce, 1971, Geologic map of the Aspen quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey, Map GQ-933. ~ A t9 ,. ~ lai i -~ ~ ~~ I ,; ~" a i - i- l ~ ~ ~ `~~ Is t .,ri v e I 4/~ ~, , : ~ \~ ~,; ~~ .~ j . k r. i ~. .~ `; mil' 4, ~~.. , ~ , I /~ t ~ ~ I' ~ Jn ~ ~ ~~• ~ ~ ._... ~' i _ 4' j / / %~~~~~~ _ ,t ~cS~ ; /~':a'~ 3,o- t'y iaj ~~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~_~ cl„ v< ~~ / ~ti ~t a u / ~ .. ~ ~ ~ i / ~~~ ~~~ ~ a ~ ~ j / ri.~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ r 1'~ 1 (~ ~ • ~ ; i , I ~ ti ~~~~ ~:~ ,+-..y7 ~~i~ // ,~ ,~~ ~ ,~ < ~'~ ~ / -; ~~ „' I ii' \ r, ,,1 i ~ i:~ ' Ir :. ~~~ ~ / ~ t ~.~ ~ / ila 3 ,~ yr .v ~~ ~ ~ / ii~~ ~~. ~ 1 ~ A ~/ '~" ~ ~ I ~ ~C ~ /~. i I ~ yy , ~ A d~ ~ ,.~ S ' iii I II{ ~~~. ;~~' %~ i ~ ~X /',~) ~ ti' ~!i ~ 1 i 9 ek p f/ - I I i "~'~ ,n r~~/ a i i ( ~ I jll~ I~~ "b %~~ ~)) ~. I.. < III q '1 1 I ~~ ~ ~ ' I!II i% ~ ~ i ~ I . ~ ,; <,A < ~ \, ~ ~ 1~~ ~, u ; ~ ,. _ / j 3 ~~ 3 ~ i j ~ .i ti ,~' i i~ ; ~ ~ / ~ 'j ,. ; ~ , r ~c1Ni ~u~G~~ "1 a j ;.;a Name of Subdivision: ilability of Public and Private Facilities and Services (max. 27. points) Consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facil- itites and services and rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates total impracticality of providing service. 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level. 3 - Indicates an excellent service level (that is, one that improves the overall quality of service). The following facilities and services shall be rated accordingly: Number of points ~~ ) ~_ I. Nater (maximum 3 points) considering the reliability and capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the pro- posed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. ~. ~~ e - Comments: _ ~`r`,~ "~ ~ ~~~~~ l ~ ~~, A N .(.U1 `i~-~-'~~ _' l V -~`) 2. Sewer (maximum points) considering the capacity of the sewer system to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. J ,~ -~ fi) - 3 JAL` SCORE SHEETS FOR ASPEN METRO SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS Storm Drainage (maximum 3 points) considering the cap- acity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development with- out system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. -Z- s C Z ) ~ 4. Fire Protection (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the estab- lished response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring the addition of equipment or personnel or capital improvement. Comments: ~~~ ~ 5. 2) ~. b . CAL ~~) 2 _ ~. ~~~.' ~ _. 7 8. ~~ Police Protection (maximum 3 points -ability of the Sheriff's Department tection within reasonable response necessity of additional facilities, equipment Comments: Road System (maximum 3 points) considering the abil- ity of the public road networks *_o safely provide for the needs of the proposed development (without the need for improvements or capital expenditures) at a "c" service level (at a minimum) as such servi+ee level is defined in the Briscoe/Maphis Pitkin County Road Network Analysis. ,: _: 1 V _ ~. School System (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the school system to accomodate addi- tional students without extensive busing and addi- tional r_aoital improvements. Recreational facilities (maximum 3 points) consider- ing the availability and location of parks and other recreational facilities (on and off site) and the ability of public facilities to accommodate addi- tional users without acquisition of lands or making considering the to provide pro- times without the personnel or -3- 1. ~~ ~ 9 Affect on the Environment (Maximum 24 points) Consider each application with respect to energy conservation and enviro- mental impacts, and rate each development by assigning points according to the following schedule: 0 - Indicates no conservation features and adverse enviromental impacts. 1 - Indicates minimal conservation features and minimal enviromental impacts. 2 - Indicates standard conservation features and no adverse environ- mental impacts. 3 - Indicates outstanding conservation features and environmental improvment. The following features shall be rated accordingly: Number of Points ~z~ -s- 1. Air Pollution (maximum 3 points) considering the elimination of fireplaces and unpaved surfaces, use of Hass transportation, and other tec tques to reduce air pollution. fiit1 Comments : ~~ ~:~ Q ~ A~ { ~~~~. ~_+~ . C~~. X t~1lQ ~~~ { ~r ~ 2. Water Resources (maximum 3 points) considering the extent to `~ which the project will reduce and/or pollute surface and ground water supplied. n Comments: ~ jr b ~.)U ~ Soe~+ ~ ~ ~ ~7~~' ~''~'~"-~i-~ p ~ /~ h ~ ~ 0 I' k.1 ~ e-. !~ ^~ ~. ~~~ n i ~f -~ ~~ LLi7 ~ t-A_ ~_F t, '~"~I l_1 ( ~l 1 3. q _ _ ~ . _ - ~ .. .. r.LL ~~... '~/' 1 r - ~~ Energy Conservation (maximum 3 points) considering the extent to which solar heating and thermal insulation measures are taken (beyond the r uirements fo the Building Co \). ? .~ Comments: r-: ~~ Ca \ .~..1~-- .~y'~~. Q ~al~ `~ ~_- ~~: ,.. ., t - • .. _ .. Public and Private Transit Systems (maximum 3 points) consid - ering the ability of the public and private trail and trans- portation systems to provide for the needs of the proposed development without the need for public improvements or capital expenditures. -4- ,r ~ { ' 4. Open Space (maximum 3 points) considering the extent to which the ~ / project preserves usable and desirable public and private open space. (, Comments: ~~` rr "~1i~~ 'i;~Sx ~0~-~kCX JC~I~~,W~ i, ~~p> L 5. ~~ .~ 6. c~ ~ ~~ 7. Wildlife Habitat (maximum 3 points) considering the extent to which (including dog control) the project accommodates wildlife habitat including game winter range, migration routes, calving areas, water fowl habit~~.a~ft~ (winter and sunnier)/sand fisheries. Comments: ~~ C~t'>~~ ~ ~1. "~' ~i ~ ~ 8. Natural Vegetation (maximum 3 points) considering the extent to which the development will preserve unique natural vegeta- tion (expecially trees) on the development site. Comments: X1_(1.-11201? ____ ~~ , ,~ Natural and Man-made Hazards (ma~fimuw 3 points) considering the extent to which the proposed development is free from airport hazards and natural hazards (including geologic hazards, flood- plains, steep slopes, unstable soils, snow avalanche and wild- F:~e 4.»~..1 ~rmc1 Visual Vulnerability (maximum 3 points) considering the extent to which the proposal will leave unaltered the highly visual SU1o3b,lt ~.._ gc,6oo - l1o,gG 9.a~ = 1~.9c = ,53 ;~-~ >+ {~1,~15 f2ouuc(ec( ~,o (I,VG Provisien_of I__ow/I~icd~rate_/i•i_i_ddle ir.eom;; Housinq (mor.imem 30 poini:s) Total Number or Points Consider to what extent each development proposal will satisfy local need for low, moderate and middle income housing and rate each proposal and assign points according to the follovainy schedules: Number of points (a) Middle Income Housing Points 15-291 of project 2 30-44 of project 6 45-5y% cf project ~ 8 60% (or more) of project 10 `~ (b) Moderate Income Housir.y Points 15-2g°i, cf project 4 30~44~ of project 6 45-59 of project 8 60% (or more) of project 10 ',:~ (c) Low Income Housing Points 15-29% of project 6 30-44% of project 9 45-59% of project 12 60-79G of project 15 80-89 of project 20 90-1u^U~ of project 30 In order to determine what percent of the project is devoted to middle, moderate and low income housing, t he following formule shall apply (+vith no credit for any wait not meeting the minir„um square footage require- ments): Type of Dwelling Unit (minimum sq. footage) Number of kesidents Per Dwelling Ur;it Studio (40U sq. ft.) One Bedroom (600 sq. ft.) Two Bedroom (800 sq. ft.) Three Bedroom (or larger) (1.000 so. ft.) Total Number of Points _ ~ L 1.0 1.3 2.7 4.0 Ti+e Commission may a~.aard as many as 25 additional points to any project which proposes to develop below the (net) allovable density in the applicable zone district. If it shall elect to do sc, the Commission shah award 1 point for each full 4o reduction in net allowable density. "Net allocable density" shall mean tP;at density allcree~l in the appropriate zone district reducer; by any off-set. otherwise provided for in th. Fitkin County Land Use Code {e.g. Section 3.08.OH). ~_ Comment 1 I~ ~ t~r~~L1~~.Cf~ i..~,il ~ s~~.9-~ ~ I C.~.l' C~L~Q _ __~1~~i?~^_QJ~"~1~'' 1~_J`4 _~~~~ _."_ ,~, _"1.GiL.~C~ ~ti .~CJJ'~~~.~C'N~'~ G...~.5.__a'~"lz`~.. ~' ~.4~ ~ C ( ~ ` i~ !~S' ~c~t~C ., ~i~~e j.~r.:-~%- ~~<_~~'u`t,~ r~"_ _~~~r-fix <_ ,_. _ - \1 1 VMA / C1 ~'S[,-1~,. V ~1 ~ I. ~~~ 1 ~ ~ Sc ~L ~Ji~. ~~Y\.~'L~ ~~ /" / 4,' 7 / ~-~ pt~~..~,/ L -.. {' ..r '' ' '~'~ ~~ ~ "l i ~ ~', lr Y { ,'y. ~~o N t ~: '. ,~. i '~ l''J„R..7\ (';..o~P 1 W i ~~ ~ ~"~-'~-.. _tti it `#\:. ~ M.t N:, :^)C 3! "~ {~.D- i;04vi`r .~-G tYl,.2. ~~ Develoement Below Allowable ensitw (maximum 25 Points) APPLICATIOPa: Total Points without multiplier i. Public and private facilities ii. Environment iii, Housing iv. Density -~a dal with multipliers i. Public and private facilities ii. Environment iii. Housing iv. .Density ig _~ ~~ 1~- O ~' ~~ P }-~ "~ G. a_ . ~ -~ J. ~• ~; : A C ~ G~ O ~ ~ m • N p x D w G C n --1 m 0 '^ ~ n N o (~ ~I Q w c V1 Sl0 ~ (~ Q. n Q w ~ J. Sl0 yl ~ d n Q w • J. J. J J J~' Z D .J J. • `* • J. w - 7 1 0 3 <-r o ~ m v r 3~ t° >j J Z O m~ 7~ z v;nvACn J NNE C O o N ~ • c+ N a -' _'• fD j 3 •• ` U ~ 7 < Q d Q G d C c 7 'T fD ~ fD Q J• ^5 O O Z f ' Ct ~ •? (D Z ..S w -S t0 "5 'C O + -~ Cl (D O ~ Z S f1 Vl (D N ~ ~ ~ ` w w ro ~ J w -~• N~ c c~ ~r -s p n o 's ro ~ '' m ~ w c~ ~ --. m w ~n v ~• cn o -s -n v~ O ~ c in n o ~n c ~ ~-r -s o~ c+w mm N my ~ mx~ ro~o J m 3 arno~ N~rn~ ~ ff -sc t0 w~ S m o-m w N C ro -s o ~ v ~ -'3 ~~ ~ ~ D ,-r .-zo zn ~ - ~ oo . w ~-F N i < m s ~~ 3 mn ~ o~ Q n J N 3 ~ ~ J J. N Sp v ~ J. N O fD ~ J. '9 ~ Iy' ~G '~i ~ ~ ~ J J. ~ ~ 3 ~ ct 7 ~ ~. ~ J• h N c 1~-1(.I I'~I`IlJ ~~~Ii It~~l~l'?I~`~I~~h hJl ~ P r I ...- "7I~, .. ~I , ~ ~~'I' I i JI.JIf.J I~JI~I~II.~IJiIrI n N / I I ' ~ ~ l ~ I I-- r=l~ 1 -~ ~~I~vli~l,l:,~~~ ~~Is~;IN~~~~INl~l~i~ `~W IY- `^I;.I..; I~~f,Jl;`~I-I5;1~•31~J hJh.;I(JI.JI`,'I?JINIIJI- ~a =- I I` I~`' i I f~~Ij~ Y'I~I~L~~ . ~~'~INI'~I~'I~ ~I~I}~I_ ~v, ~~~l ~IN ~I ~~I ~~I ~ ~ ~ il~tJlwl a ~l f ~ v ~ G ~ 3 --I c O J .--' ~ Z Z Z I~ ~. +~- C O O O r 7 X 3 3 r-+ N W W W N N N W W t-• 1-+ r+ N N W W X fD ID CJ fD v -~ -v -'• o m a N .. ~ J t' -.~..I,~ t rt _~ ~=~-~ I I I , ~'"~~v~~-l~a~~~~l-z t`~~ry~~~I~JI~~I~~ r-oIN °-'. ~~„ ~ ~~ m ~o ~V W p m ~ ~ =io l) H:L r- r x '-~ cn ~ D x r z R7' O D m -i o ~ m 3 zm -i z N=-1 t MEMORANDUM T0: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROPi:. Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Highlands Subdivision DATE: September 14, 1978 This application requests general submission approval of the Aspen Highlands Subdivision, Filing 2. The 11.64 acre site is currently occupied by the W.V.N. Jones residence. Mr. Jones desires to further subdivide his homesite in order to create eight additional single family sites. The site is zoned R-30 and is surrounded on three sides by the previously approved Aspen High- lands Subdivision, Filing 1. The following is a summary of Planning Office and referral comments: i. Geologist, Nick Lampiris, states that, "there are essentially no c;eo- logic hazards associated with this tract. The lot layout is excellent from a geologic point of view, even to the point of allowing for green space in the southwestern most corner of the property below the dam for the large pond there; this is the only spot on the acr°F~.ge that I recommend leaving undeveloped because of the chance of dam failure under certain combinations of adverse conditions. I recommend that soils testing be performed for purposes of foundation design. This is an excellent site for additional development with little or no impact on the environment." 2. Visual impact of development of the eight homesites would be minimal. The development would not be visable from anywhere except within the subdivision and from the Highlands lifts. 3. IJater for the proposed development is to be supplied by the Aspen Highlands water and Sanitation district. At the present time, in addition to supplying the water needs of Asoen Highlands Subdivision, Filing 1, the district also supplies water for the Highlands Inn, Maroon Creek Lodge, Chamonix Condominiums, Heatherbed Lodge, and the Highlands Base facility. The application indicates that in order to supply the necessary vaater for Filing 2, it will be necessary to in- crease the storage and treatment facilities of the system to a capacity of approximately 282,000 gallons. Adequate water rights to meet these expected needs are indicated as being available, however, no evidence has been presented that these water rights exist and we do not know if they are dedicated to agriculture or domestic uses. We have received comment from the Highlands Water and Sanitation District. The Board of Directors state in their letter of June 29, 1978, that the District would be unable to extend service to the proposed lots at this. It appears that the HWSD does not have sufficient capacity to meet the water requirements which would be needed in the event the District's size was increased by eight homes." Furthermore, they note signi- ficant errors in estimates of the daily demand of the district in the report of Sterling Associates. 4. Aspen Metro has commented as follows, "there will be no problem in providing sanitation services to the subdivision as the existing trunk lines that are already there have sufficient capacity to handle this proposed development and substantial excess capacity exists at the sewage treatment plant." 5. As of the time of this writing, we have no comment from the County Engineer regarding the proposed road design and layout. The appli=. cation indicates that construction will be in accordance with County standards. -,.. _ ~_ _ ,_ _ . Memo to County P&'I. ..,. ' Highlands Subdivisior; September 14, 1978 Page Two The County Trails Master Plan calls for a trail through the Aspen Highlands subdivision which would connect existing trails. A con- dition of approval should be the dedication of a trails easement to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 6. All utilities are available. Mountain Bell has requested specific phraseology which should be used on any future submissions. They would have all access roads as well as those portions of real property which are labeled as utility easements dedicated to the public utilities. 7. The proposed subdivision is located on an existing mass transit route. 8. With regard to the Housing requirements of the Land Use Code, the appli- cation indicates a willingness on the part of P-1r. Jones to purchase existing units, construct new units, or make payments to the County in lieu thereof. These offers are based on the assumption of eight free- market units and four additional PMH units. No specific committments are made within the application. lJithout specific committments vae must conclude that Section 5.30 of the code has not been complied with. In summary, the site is nearly perfect for development. There are no geologic constraints, no visual problems, and the proposed density is only slightly more than half of what the R-30 zoning would allow. The location is within walking distance to schools, skiing, parks and mass transit. Hov+ever, with- out specific compliance with Section 5.30 we expect that the application will not score well. Due to the non-compliance with the housing section, the Comrnission should reject the application based upon Section 5.90.03 b, unless you find the subdivision to be non-exclusionary. The Planning Office does not support this argument. sr _ } _. ._. _,_ =-~ -_ ~ ~ jo ~~ .~~ . ~:+~ i~: c ArPENDIx II PITIi:IN COUNTY LAND USEAPPLICATION FORM TU BE COMPLETED IIY APPLICANT: . C,1 i ~ t. c ~ _ ; ~tt;: r. - .~ d_.-.~1.~ __?.8_. _ .. PROJECT P]UI9BL'~{Ni~Ff Section/Parbel' ••.____„- DnTE suBtar~TTED NTL':tE ill///PR=E lii4rv NESS ~.y~ 71~~ ADDRESS ~D • BOX T ~ ~~~N ~~~~ B~~ /~ PHONE yzS ' 5300 = NAME OP PROJECT _~F=/J ff'/lff'C/}il/DS ~UF>j~/y/~i/D>/ '~ F~~~ - PROJECT LOCATION: (On attached sheet, locate on zoni_ny map, showiny boun:laries of any natural hazard and resource areas, any other special regulatory districts, Section 5, Land Use-Code; and locate on appropriate CSU/ERA Maps any areas not covered by the ' above.) . ;' TOTAL AP.EA . //~ 64 ~GJ°~ ~ - Ex1STING UsE (s) - 5/i~l6cE ~~'ni`y ~~ioF.~17~- . PP.OPOSP.U USE(S) -S/~~ `~1/L~/ /~$'/,D~,q/TJ~ ,7~ :~ (appropiiate square footage for each) ~ d~ s~ /t1/~1.'• _ PRESENT ZOtr'ING OF SIT.': ll` DESCRIPTIGN OF LAUD USE PROPOS.~L ~P-8~5~ ~ G///dam ~X~ST/~ ~/TF /Nr N/NE ~9) `~nrf~E ~fh'et~.y %lr~z~ /~e~~a~~ ~'r~ /uoa~ ouru~%~/i W yni c-~n/~S /mss/~~•yc~ TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING OFFICE TYPE OP APPLICATION: REZONING SUBUIVISIO:d ~ / P_U.D. EXE::PTION SFL'.CIAL KIiVIi.W 35-acre + SUBDIVISION BUILDING PERMIT F.EVII3[J . 7 tSVIE[1 FHASE: FRE-APPLICATION __~~'~~J ~=`"~~`. D.lTE CO>;PS1i'I'i'.D GEN1iPvlL SUR^IISSION P.C_ nC`1'ION DA'79~ BOnRU AC'PION llATI: DETnILED SUBMISSION F.C. ACTION D,'~'1'E BOn1:D ACTION DATIi FINAL FLAT IIOnl1) ACTION Un'1'i: i ~~ r' .< ~ l:p(+cndix F: ' I'1TKI:I COCNTY LANll USL APPLICATION FORPI 1. ~2. $.'oz.oi 6 • / g•a z ., I a 3. SUMMT+RY OF FItIDINGS ]t3?QUIRP:D P.Y RliVI1:47 PIIASF. ' Directi_on_s_: Any app].i.car.t for. a develcp:nent requiring a permit and^r this code shall be responsible for showing conformance with any applicable policies of Section 2 as listed below. The applicant shall submit those requir.erne,-its necessary to show conformance with these policies and the related general regulations of Section 5. Upon suhrnission of the applica- tion and all submission contents, the Planning Office shall distribute same to appropriate referral agencies which shall indicate its certifica- tion or non-certification of the proposal as being i.n conformance with policies and as satisfying submission requi.re¢+ents and revie.r guidelines of relevant gcreral regulations. Referral agencies shall also indicate whether further study in a ld*_er review phase is required a:.d any further recorr~ enda*_ions or conditions, attac%t_ng ccr:,rnents and returning same to the Planni,^.g Office. OCAL REC1IiY1- CERTIPICATI0:Q ~CO::DITIG:' STliDY P,EQCIRED POLICY FACTOR IhG STAFF YES NO AND ~ INITIALS DATE ~_y:,r.;f;_,;P ' / LIONS PA GS D~ FP'< Not inconsistent: 1'12nning / with Piaster Plan t Office - -~/- - - Rate of Groc.th ~ ~ - - - Hazard <( Resourc es Planning Areas Office Geo].o~ic / ~~ ~{~ 'i ~ ! i•l Jp `n-r~ ~ ~ ~ hazards . . F].oodplains Riparian Areas ]cildlife t;ildfire ~ Radiation / Soil.s/Lrosioa~ Countv Es- • (2'~a'_t"_C~ Il,i;~~ (,,,~ 1~ tension r r . ,._ ~ t ` ~ .Agent , ~ ' e r r j 5~ I I t i ~ Extractable ~F`]anning - - Resources i Of.ficc 11 Nincral ~ Vr;otable ~ I ~ O[hcr * I'A = 1'ro-;lppliraci<+n US = Drt:+ilcd Sulnnission GS = General Submission FP =Final 1'1nC i ~~ ~' .. . ~/ J.D% S.~.S J . 2n ~ APpendir, li PITKli~ COUNTY LAND USE Al'PhICATIO:I FORi4 , STUDY REQUIRED POLICY FACTOR hOCAL REVIEW- CF.P.TIPICATIO:d CO:iUITlOWS I}IG STAFI' YF•.S NO AiID INITIALS DATE RLCO;4'QENUA- TIONS 4. PA CGS DS FP Agricultural Planning Conservation Office i 5, ~ Scenic Planning _ _ _ Quality Office Elie{ ~ J i`.CrJ~, rr I) ~l) h Cr (..}a~ (~ r`: 6. ~/ Water Supply Environ- _ _ mental !t t I;.~'.1~~-; i~~~~/li i Health U 7, ~ Sewage Dis- Environ- _ _ _ posal mental k .,i~ Health i $, Noise Environ- ~- - - mental Health 9. Air Quality Environ- _ - - mental Health p, }listoric/ Historical _ - Archaeolo;;ical Society Resources • r ~.._. , ~, ~' Appendix B PITKIW COllid'Pf LAND USE APPLICATION FOIIhi S~~ .~.03 -o/ w"\ +/ ~L~l STUDY REQUIRLU POLICY FACTOR LOCAL REVIIi4;- CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS ING STAFF YES NO AND ~ ' INITIALS DATE REC0:4`;ENDA- T1oNs PA GS DS FP 11. ~ Roads/T'rails De- County sign & Construe- Engineer tion Impact on -~,~~I~~ S~~ Road system Maintenance pro- ~ tt ~. it i~;f-' ~~='•i ~~ ,~..E/ a c'i.: w.:^" visions `` 'Ji (CU~ -'," til/.~/. '.h-%-`. t`?i ~•titl~ r`a't -t._E l 12~~ e ~ ~ Drai.nage County Engineer ~ ~ 13. ~ Trans- Impact on County pprtation Engineer f E i 14. V Impact on Public Planning Office Facilities/ - Services / Solid k'aste County Engi.n-- ~/ Disposal & eer Collection Fire & Police Sheriff/ Protection, Pire Response DisCri.ct ' Service Sanitary Land County Engin- fills eer i:ospital ilosptial Capacity Board Library Sub- Library station Site Board Post Office Postal Substation Service Site ~' o~ -; ~. , .. nPPcndir. II PITKIN COU[~'LY LANU USE APPF.I:CATIGN FORM 8~3 ~' ~ ~~ S. ~o t/ S., 9 STUDY REQUIRED POLICY FACTOR LOCH, REVIEW- CER'LIFI(:ATIOId Colu7lfrloNs ING S1'AFP YES NO. AND INITIAL DATE RECC::MEND7~- • TIONS PA • GS DS FP ~ Extension of Rocl:y Mtn. _ _ utilities, Natural Gas water and Aspen/Holy sewer. Cross Electric N,ountain Eell Municipal Water ' & Sewer Uistric s ~ Public shops, County Earages, yards Ifanager 7 ~ ' Recre~ign, Sites ' :c + i: City Recreation Di p , , ~l rector General Tax Cost/ County rr"finance Eerefit Officer ~ 15. _ _ _ _ Contribution to Housing Housing Stocl: Coordinator ~ • 1G._ ~ _ _ ?far.-made Hazards Euildinr; Safety Official T7 ' f E~ 17. _ _ _ F;ildlife Colorado Div. Preservation of Nildlife -y- 18. _ ~! _ __ Energy Ruil.ding Conservation Official 19.__ ~_ _ Water Resources Uistict tdatcr.~ I 'J~~ ~~~~ Impact Court r~~7 ~~ ^ 1' -- ''\ ' v y 20. -_ --_ - - Fin:7] flat County I:uginocr, _ l:0^t Ci1tS e1tt07: I1Cy, I'l.lll- 171111 Of f1CC I CI ~~ M E M O R A N D U M T0: Planning Staff FROM: Karen Smith RE: Metro GMP and Subdivision Applications DATE: September 25, 1978 The BOCC set public hearings on all the five Aspen Metro Subdivision appli- cations. Shellie, you should write one hearing notice and list the five applications (November 13, at 2:00 p.m.) The rest of the staff should advise your applicants that the hearings have been scheduled and that the appeals session will take place on November 13 just after the General Submission session. The reason for this is that the GMP (Section 5.90) Quota System says that any development application that is awarded development allotment shall be deemed to have received General Sub- mission approval. That's why we're allo~~~ing the BOCC to consider the gen- eral submission first. I think tiie can keep the General Submission public hearing fairly brief - concentrate on the three that are likely to be eligible for development allot- ments and enter the Planning Office memos to the record on the others. The Board of County Commissioners will need to include conditions of general submission approval on those that are approved fpr development allotment and probably should note in the public hearing that they intend to do so after development allotments are awarded. sr ~,. Nicholas Lampiris, PhD CONSULTING GEOLOGIST PO 80% 10935 ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 (303) 925-6020 OFF. 923-2126 RES. May 23, 1978 Robert Sterling Jr. Box 97 Woody Creek, Colorado 81656 Re: Whip Jones Subdivision Dear Mr. Sterling: I have completed my investigation of the proposed subdivision of the 11.64 acres surrounding the Whip Jones home north of the Highlands Ski Area. The acreage lies in the E'z, NWT, Section 74 (projected), T. 10 S., R. 85 W., within the Aspen 7~z minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. The property consists of rolling meadow interspersed with groves of aspen trees and some conifers. There are several moderate sized ponds in and around the property including the ore just west of the Jones home which is more than an acre in area. Poorly sorted material ranging in size from clay to boulders covers the property. This is morainal material of the Quaternary age glacier "b" which moved down the Maroon Creek Valley thousands of years ago. The underlying bedrock cannot be seen on the property, but the geologic map of Bryant (1971) indicates that the Triassic age State Bridge and Chinle Formations, mostly red shales, siltstones, and sandstones, under- lie the area. Bryant also infers a north-south trending fault near the eastern boundary of the property but there was no surface indica- tion of any faulting and at any rate the fault has been inactive for millions of years. The general dip of the bedrock in this area is 20 degrees to the north. There are essentially no geologic hazards associated with this tract. Morainal deposits are quite suitable fir developmental purposes, especially if slopes are not allowed to become supersaturated. The few slopes within this property are not high enough to cause any significant problem. The preliminary lot layout was excellent from a geologic point of view, even to the point of allowing for greenspace in the southwesternmost corner of the property below the dam for the large pond there; this is the only snot on the acreage which I recommend leaving undeveloped Robert Sterling Jr. May 23, 1978 Page Two because of the chance of dam failure under certain combinations of adverse conditions. Access, domestic water, and waste disposal systems are already available for all the proposed lots. I re- commend that soils testing be performed at a later date at the site of each proposed home for purposes of foundation design. This is an excellent site for additional development with little or no impact on the environment. If there are further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Nicholas Lampiris / Consulting Geologist REFERENCE Bryant, Bruce, 1971, Geologic map of the Aspen quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey, Map GQ-933. r ~, i` i I 1 AUC-sU`iT ~ ••~ •vl`I;8 ., -T"'~' ,•~~~nr~E~. r_ K~.e.-ter`. L.S. `~ 184 ' ,5~ ,.~~ ..., •~ ~ 1 ~ I• ~ ~~ ~ NOTE U71L17Y ANA RCCE'i5 EASEM>=N'~°~ NOT PAR~f OF -THIy SURVEY, k ~ i ~i 4 . 3 i A 1 t ( -~ VIGIN{T'f Mi~p ~~'li,.F: ~ =.~ ?'il:...: _~_ M E M O R A N D U M T0: Aspen Highlands Water and Sanitation Colorado Geologic Survey Bob Nelson, Environmental Health Jeff Davis, County Engineer Dick Kienast> Sheriff George Newall, Fire Marshall Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Holy Cross Electric Mountain Bell Aspen Metro Sewer District Marc Danielson, Housing Director Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice RE: Proposed Aspen Highlands Subdivision, Second Filing DATE: June 7, 1978 Enclosed, please find the complete General Submission for the second filing of the proposed Aspen Highlands Subdivision. This application is tentatively scheduled for review by the County P & Z on July 5, 1978. It would be most helpful if I could have your comments by June 28, the Wednesday prior. Thank you sr STERLING ASSOCIATES~ ~ ARCHITECTS MEMBERS AIAPO. BO% 97 ZIP CODE B"I656 PHONE 3C3 923-468 May 31, 1978 Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County, Colorado Gentlemen: ..~ .~. WOOOV CREEK, COLORADO Enclosed herewith is information describing an application for re-subdivision of a parcel of land containing approximately 11.64 + acres. This parcel is presently in the ownership of the Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation and is located within the existing Aspen Highlands Subdivision adjacent to the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. The general character of the parcel is wooded meadowland containing a 1.18 acre pond which is presently used for water supply to the Aspen Highlands Ski Area snowmaking equipment. The parcel is wooded with scattered areas of immature aspen and spruce. The site is totally surrounded by lots and built residences comprising the existing subdivision. The parcel is well protected visually and is not visible from Maroon Creek Road. The major outward views from the site are toward the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. There are also good views up Maroon Creek from several of the proposed sites. The total parcel is presently under one ownership and does not represent a conflict in terms of view or quality with surrounding residences. These residences are of high quality and currently are subject to covenants and restrictions. In order to maintain the present quality, these restrictions will also be imposed on the proposed subdivision. It is the intent of the owner to re-subdivide the parcel into nine lots, each lot containing a minimum of 30,000 square feet of area in conformance with present zoning requirements. One lot will contain an already existing residence p~°esently occupied by lJhipple Van Ness Jones and the other eight will be offered for sale. As partial fulfillment of the application, there follows comment on various aspects of the subdivision's impact on public services as required by the pre-application conference with Ms. Karen Smith on October 25, 1977. SECTION 2 - POLICIES 2.01. CONFORMANCE WITH ASPEPi AREA GENERAL PLAN The parcel and surrounding lots are presently zoned in the R-30 category. No exception to that category or use is requested. Each lot will contain 30,000 square feet of area minimum. This zoning classification is presently recommended by the General Area Master Plan. ~...,. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 2 2.02. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS The development of this parcel of land does not violate any known laws of Pitkin County, the State of Colorado or the United States of America. 2.03. NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARD AND RESOURCE AREAS A. The Colorado State University Resource maps indicate the possible exis- tence of a fault adjacent to the property. Enclosed with the application is a report prepared by Nicholas Lampiris, geologist, which addresses this problem. B. There will be no improvements made which will create dangerous conditions for surrounding property. C. Refer to A. D. No identifiable natural resources of the county will be disturbed. E. No nuisance or potentially dangerous activities will take place in the subdivision (covenants). F. No significant wildlife habitats exist on the parcel. 2.04. SOIL, SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS AND RADIATION Adequate historical evidence exists from prior construction experiences to show that no unusual structural problems will arise for improvements on the parcel. The CSU resource maps show no identified hazard areas. 2.05. DRAINAGE The parcel is naturally drained, both to Plaroon Creek and to the pond which is then drained to Maroon Creek via the Lyeth-Jones pipeline. Please rer"er to map. 2 06. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR I~JATER NEEDS The site is presently served by an underground water distribution system and storage facility. Further analysis and comment is included under Section 5.25. Fire protection is available from this system as well as from the pond on the property. 2.07. SEWAGE TREATP1ENT AND COLLECTION The site is presently served by an adequate sewage collection system under the jurisdiction of the Aspen Metro Sewer District and is presently monitored by the Pitkin County Board of Health. Connections to the present system are available from each site. ~. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 3 2.08. IMPACTS ON ROAD SYSTEMS The road and access system to the parcel is in place. Extensions of private easements to sites are indicated on the map. No additional impact on county road services. will be required. 2.09. ROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION The existing road system presently conforms to county standards and is pre- sently maintained privately. 2.10. LOGICAL EXTENSION OF UTILITIES See 2.07. 2.11. EROSION Adequate landscaping of each residential area will assure that no accelerated erosion takes place (covenants). 2.12. COMPATIBILITY WITH HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES No historical or archeological sites exist on the parcel. 2.13. COMPATIBILITY WITH AGRICULTURAL LAfJDS AND OPERATIONS No agricultural land exists on the parcel. 2.14. IMPACTS ON TAXES AND MANAGEPIENT OF NECESSARY SERVICES AND FACILITIES Public services are already available to the parcel and surrounding residences, therefore the quality of such services is not compromised. The taxing and revenue impacts should be positive for the county since public service ex- tensions and capital costs are not necessary. 2.15. HOUSING The owner agrees to satisfy the requirements for moderate income housing as specified by Resolution 74-87 (1974) by either the outright purchase of exist- ing housing stocks, a cash payment to Pitkin County or the construction of housing at a location adjacent to the developn.~ent at Aspen Highlands. Dedi- cation of housing within the development itself would be out of character with present surrounding development and the type of development anticipated on the subdivision sites. 2.16. SCENIC QUALITY The nature of the site topography, location and present roads and facilities precludes additional scenic impact. ~. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 4 2.17. AIR QUALITY No significant air quality impacts are anticipated. Conformance with existing fireplace regulations will be practiced. 2.18. ENERGY CONSERVATION All efforts will be made to conform or exceed the present county requirements for energy conservation. The nature of the site precludes the use of active or passive solar heating except, perhaps, for domestic hot water. There are numerous opportunities on the sites to take advantage of slope conditions to increase insulation values. The building areas on the sites are so arranged as to prevent blocking sun exposures or views from other sites. 2.19. .TRANSPORTATION The site is locabed such that Aspen Highlands ski buses and City buses can- be used for town trips. The parcel is also close to existing and proposed bicycle paths, cross country skiing and bridle paths. The net impact on daily automobile trips should be negligible given the already heavy impact of automobile traffic on Maroon Creek Road during the winter and summer. Estimated additional average trips per day will be between 15 and 30 for eight additional sites. Skiers from the proposed subdivision are within easy walking distance of the lifts, negating automobile impact in that respect for Aspen Highlands. 2.20. DEVELOPMENT OR EXPANSION OF SKI AREAS Not applicable. 7_.21. COMPATIBILITY 4JITH EXISTING ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS The proposal is compatible with adjacent neighborhood areas and will adopt covenants and restrictions already exercised in the surrounding neighborhood. 2.22. WATER RESOURCES IMPACT Water resources are not impacted by this proposal. 2.23. NOISE No noise impacts are anticipated by this proposal. 2.24. COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT OR NEARBY PUBLIC LANDS Public lands are not impacted by this proposal. 2.25. GROWTH RATE, PHASING OR PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES This proposal is minimum in nature and represents minimum addition of population Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 5 to the planning area. Therefore, it is in general conformance to growth rate policies. The anticipated rate of build-out in the development is two units per year which is in line with recommended growth rates identified in the Growth Management Plan. SECTION 5 - GENERAL REGULATIONS 1. CONSISTENCY WITH MASTER PLAN RATE OF GROWTH The proposal is consistent with Master Plan policies which indicate R-30 residential zoning. A projected build-out of two units per year is also consistent with Growth Management Policy in the Aspen Highlands Water and Sanitation District. 2. HAZARD AND RESOURCE AREAS A. Geologic Hazards Geologic hazard areas and underlying soils analyses are enclosed in the report submitted by Nicholas Lampiris. B. Soils, Erosion Refer to geologic analysis. 5. SCENIC QUALITI' A. Project Location Refer to enclosed map entitled "Project Location." B. Visual Vulnerability 1. Revegetation: Damaged areas adjacent to building will be repaired by landscaping and replanting. 2. Topsoil: Topsoil will be saved and respread. 3. Weed Prevention: Not applicable. 4. Utilities: Utilities will be in roadway easements where possible. Where not possible, vegetation will be reclaimed through planting. 5. Scenic Views: Building areas will be designated which take advantage of scenic vie~vs and preserve views of existing structures. 6. Road Impact on Scenic Quality: The impact of the road system on scenic quality is negative. Existing roads are already located such that they do not interfere with any views from construction sites. 6. WATER SUPPLY, DSITRIBUTION AND TREATMENT A. General Description: Distribution System The existing water distribution system is through 8" and 6 steel pipe. One Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 6 6" main is located in Gleneagle Drive and will serve the upper tier of lots in the proposal--Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Another 6" main exists along the Westerly edge of the parcel and will serve Lots 1, 2, 3, and 8. Three street cuts (Lots 4, 5, and 6) will be required. All other lots have access to water mains on easements. At present streets are not paved, making cuts easily accomplished. B. Storage and Treatment System The present system is capable of processing and storing 150,000 gallons of water per day. In order to relate that capacity to present requirements of the Land Use Code the following analysis is included: USERS OF ASPEN HIGHLANDS WATER AND SANITATION SYSTEM INCLUDING PROPOSED LOTS Domestic In-House Demands (Maximum Daily Demand) Highlands Inn 150 persons @ 75 gallons per day Maroon Creek Lodge 50 persons @ 75 gallons per day Chamonix Condominiums 60 persons @ 75 gallons per day Heatherbed Lodge 46 persons @ 75 gallons per day Highlands Base Facility Guests - 175 persons average x 6 hours per day x 5 gallons per day Employees - 25 persons @ 75 gallons per day 39 Residences @ 300 gallons per day TOTAL ESTIMATED DAILY DEMAND Irrigation Demands Assume each resident irrigates 5,000 square feet 39 x 5,000 x 7.48 = daily demand re: 5.25.O1.e.2 365 x 2 d.d = 2000 gallons per day Fire Demand Re: 5.25.O1,e,4,ii - assume population on system = 251-1000 11,250 gallons 3,750 " 4,500 " 3,450 " 5,250 1 ,875 " 9,300 " 39,375 gallons Storage Cemand = 1000 gpm x 60 x 4 = 240,000 gallons Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 7 Therefore, the total daily demand for all water uses is 281,375 gallons Less existing capacity 150,000 gallons Residual 131,375 gallons Based on this analysis it will be necessary to increase the storage and treat- ment facilities of the system to a capacity of approximately 282.,000 gallons. The applicant therefore proposes to construct additional storage and treatment facilities such that the total system is capable of handling 300,000 gallons of water. Existing water rights and inlet capacities from Maroon Creek to the system assure the ability of the applicant to accomplish this increase in capacity of the system. 7. SEWAGE COLLECTIOiJ AND TREATMENT The proposed parcel and surrounding sites are presently connected to and served by the Aspen-Metro Sanitation District. There is an 8" collector trunk located in Glen Eagle Drive which connects to a 10" main in the Ptaroon Creek Road. This collector will serve Lots 4, 5 and 6 in the proposal. Another 8" collector is located on the Northwest proposed site in an easement provided for same. This trunk connects to an 8" main in Glen Garry Drive and thence to the 10" main in I~iaroon Creek Road. This trunk will service Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the proposal. Another 8" main exists on the Southerly edge of the proposal in road easement and will serve Lots 7 and 8. This main also presently serves Lot 9. The total anticipated demand additional to the existing uses will be between 1120 and 1760 gallons per day. The peak demand periods will occur in the morning and early evening in conformance with normal residential use. The sewage system requires no extension or construction by Aspen-Metro. All construction shall consist of tap-ons and connecting sewers to the residences. 11. ROADS AND TRAILS A. General Comment In terms of overall impact on the road system, the addition of 8 residences to the existing extreme use experienced on Maroon Creek Roac'. is negligible. Although earmarked for consideration on the application form by the Planning Department, the applicant requests that, if found necessary, more extensive analysis be deferred to the Detailed Submission phase of the review process. Given the extreme impact on Maroon Creek Road by present recreational, tour and school uses, analysis of the traffic contribution of the proposal does not appear necessary at this time. The reasons for this are; 1. The proposal will not generate the characteristics of the existing county roads. enough additional traffic to change situation on Maroon Creek or other 2. The levels of service and safety are not affected by the proposal. 3. Nn capital costs are generated by the proposal. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 8 B. Road Design and Construction Inasmuch as all access roads and streets presently in use conform to county standards and are maintained by the county, Section 5.22, Road Design and Construction, is omitted. C. Trails The proposed parcel is in the near vicinity of proposed bike and pedestrian trails from Aspen through Meadowood to the Highlands as identified on the CSU resource maps. Although the proposal is not directly involved with these proposed trails, they will be easily accessible to the residents of the sites. 12. DRAINAGE The proposed site has at present a well developed drainage system. All of the lots in the proposal are naturally drained through a system of ponds and out- flow pipes from the site to Maroon Creek and along well established barrow ditch and culvert systems along the roads. The pond on the proposed site collects runoff and drains it to a series of ponds on adjoining lower pro- perties and eventually empties into f4aroon Creek. All pipes in the system are 12" diameter minimum. Please refer to preliminary plan. The proposed develop- ment of this site will not affect this drainage pattern negatively. For this reason the applicant requests that more specific analysis, if found to be necessary, be deferred to the Detailed Submission phase. 13. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION See 2.19. 14. Ih1PACT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES/SERVICES A. General Comment The proposal lies within already well established service areas for all public facilities, service, solid waste disposal and fire and police protection. Therefore, no re-scheduling or additional accomodations are necessary for these services. B. Extensions of Utilities, Water and Sewer Water and sewer extensions are discussed under Articles 6 and 7. C. Gas and Electrical Service The proposed site is presently served with both high pressure natural gas and electrical service adequate to serve the requested density. 1. Natural C;as: Proposed Lots 1 and 2 are served by a 3/4 h.p. gas line existing in the private access easement for these lots. Lots 3 through 9 inclusive are served by an existing 3/4" h.p. gas line on the East and South edges of the property. Please refer to preliminary plan. 2. Electrical: At present there is underground electrical service located on the East, South and North edges of the property. It will be necessary to extend service from the equipment to each lot in conformance with Holy Cross Electric Association requirements. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Subdivision Application Page 9 D. Parks Dedication To be determined. E. General Tax Cost/Benefit On the basis of discussions relating to Articles 6, 7, 11 and 13 which indicate negligible impacts on public service and utility extensions, the overall effect on the tax structure should be beneficial for Pitkin County. The improvements on the proposed sites are capable of producing on the order of $8,000 to $10,000 per year added revenue. This figure constitutes a surplus revenue condition to the county since capital improvement costs and services are not commensurately increased. 15. CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSING STOCK A. General Comment There are 8 dwelling units proposed for the property under this application. Therefore according to Code requirements it is required to furnish 4 additional employee housing units to the housing stock or remunerate Pitkin County for this housing. It is assumed that development of this project will have little effect on current demand for low or moderate cost housing since the only development taking place is residential construction which can easily be absorbed by the existing contracting firms available in Pitkin County. Additionally it is estimated that minimum increased demand is generated be- cause of operational problems inherent in the proposal. However, in con- formance with Growth h-0anagement policy the addition of four housino units is indicated. It is contemplated that these housing units will be purchased or contructed under the Code provisions for PMH housing at such times as to conform to the development schedule contained in the proposal or payment to the County will be made. Housing, if required, will be sold or managed under those provisions. 16. MAN-MADE HAZ,4RDS A. General Comment The existing pond on the proposed site has been identified as a possible man- made hazard. However, the pond is located in such a way as to be inaccess- sible to the public and to the majority of the sites on the proposal. The 4lestern edge of the pond is heavily vegetated making access from that side difficult. Accesses from the other three sides are gentle slopes-and are readily visible from four of the proposed structure locations which give visual control of the area. The pond not only serves as a drainage basin for the site, but is an aesthetic focal point for the development. These attri- butes outweigh any hazardous aspects that appear to exist. 18. ENERGY CONSERVATION See comments for 2.18. 19. WATER RESOURCES IMPACT A. General Comment The proposal as applied for has no anticipated effect on groundwater resources, neither adding or subtracting groundwater volumes nor altering the character of such water resources. CITY OF ASPEN MEMp PRlO/1M RICHq}tD GRICE ~~ ~~ tnAE'1vF r^, y ~~, _ „ ~ f' , A ~~ L~ ..<~y~,i_,~.t , ,<. ~ rJ -'~----- "~` ~"'~a °l ,-t .lac,. ~ -` -~.._ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~_ S~~,Q~ ~~,F i ~ ~~ `~ ~ r a .~~~4..~ °fr - d. //~~~ CI T Y OF ASPEN MEMO FROM RICHARD GRICE r' f'f~.t <'~}rt '> ~ _£_~.~.{ C<.r g~~~~ .~~. ~~ r~~ ~ t `~ A __ .54 ~ ~:~ r~~ ' f ,~ 1 n ~ ,~nn~~ / C.., t.,~t C~ MEMO FROM RICHARD GRICE ~1~-12~- .. ,.e ~1 ~ i ~ ~ CITY OF ASPE~`1