Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.404 Park Ave.0017.2017.asluPATH: G/DRIVE /AD INISTRATIVE/ADMIN/LANDUSE CASE DOCS CJ77 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PROJECT ADDRESS PARCEL ID PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0017.2017.ASLU 404 PARK AVE 2737 974 04 705 JUSTIN BARKER GMQS AMENDMENT PETER FORNELL 06/09/2017 CLOSED BY ANGIE SCOREY 7.03.18 Permits L� ! ✓ �— D t" " � 4- _ ` 7D S- C., ,,o) " l�V l 7 J file , Erf`rt Record _f r[gate ' Form Repogs Format Tait Help E D D I f J1 l�v Jump 1 Main Custom Fields .. fu#ing Status Fee 5urarCGs Rcw Misr � aslu As Land en Use � a p t �' 001 72017 ASLU := . Address' 404 PARK AVE {t�SufSe LOT 3 OF SUNNY PARK SUB , >flitY ASPEN State Cd Z 81#�11� ■■ r R Owner is applicant? ❑ Contractor is applicant? Last name FAT CITY HOLDINGS LLC First name —� 4a2 MIDLAND PARK PL Phone (970 374L343 Cust TM 30585 ASPEN CO 81fi19 —� Address Email Lender Last name First name Phone ( } - Address I 1 of.1, CM RESOLUTION NO. 9 (SERIES OF 2017) IIIIIII'il�f �Ilnlllllll1111111111111fllllllllll�111111�111111111ilillllll RECEPTION#: 638996, R: $33.00, D: $0.00 DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Pg 1 of 5, 06/0912017 at 11:03:30 AM Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO A GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 3, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 404 PARK AVENUE. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-074-04-705 WHEREAS, Mr. Peter Fornell of Fat City, LLC, submitted an application for a review of a Substantial Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order by the Planning and Zoning Commission to allow for flexibility in the tenancy (owner and renter occupancy) of the previously approved development of 28 deed -restricted, affordable housing units at 404 Park Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2016, voted to approve the removal of an existing Planned Development overlay on the parcel, subject to conditions including the creation of a 100% Affordable Housing development; and, WHEREAS, the property is located in the Residential Multi -family (RMF) zone district; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in Resolution No. 11, Series of 2016, granted approval of reviews for Affordable Housing, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, a Dimensional Variance, and Residential Design Standards for the development of 28 deed -restricted, affordable housing units at 404 Park Avenue WHEREAS, the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority's Board of Directors considered the application for an Amendment at their scheduled meeting on April 5, 2017 and provided a recommendation of approval, subject to conditions; and,. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received a staff memo outlining the recommended conditions on the Amendment application from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and has provided a recommendation to approve the Substantial. Amendment; subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on May 16, 2017; and, Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the Amendment request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution 9, Series of 2017, by a four to zero (4 - 0) vote, granting approval of a Substantial Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order, as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following land use review: Substantial Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order; allowing for a change to the tenancy / occupancy type of the previously approved units. With the exception of the approved Amendment, the project is subject to the approvals granted previously in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2016 and P&Z Resolution 11, Series of 2016, and to the requirements of the Residential Multi -family (RMF) zone district. Section 2: Amendment to Tenancy/Occupancy Type Where Resolution No. 11, Series of 2016 allowed for 100% owner -occupied units, this resolutions allows three options in establishing tenancy type. The project may be 1) 100% owner - occupied; or 2) 100% renter -occupied; or 3) a mix of owner -occupied and renter -occupied units. The deed restriction required for issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy will identify the tenancy type of the completed project. Section 3: APCHA Conditions 100% Ownership Project: 1. As shown in the application, the unit sizes meet the 20% reduction requirement and the criteria for the reduction; therefore, the units meet the minimum square footage as stated in the Guidelines. 2. All bedrooms shall contain a closet. 3. All units shall include a refrigerator/freezer, stove/oven with hood, dishwasher, and washer/dryer hookups. 4. Based on Part II1, Section 6.C.3, Priority of Qualified Tenants and Owners Selected by Developer, of the Guidelines, the developer has the right to choose APCHA-qualified owners to occupy one-third of the affordable housing units if the households meet the top priority criteria (four-year minimum work requirement, minimum occupancy requirement, category, and if they currently own a deed -restricted unit, the owned unit must be listed for sale once the new unit is under contract, prior to closing on the new unit). All APCHA Page 2 of 5 **ON Guidelines apply to the developer selected owners. Any units not pre -selected and the balance of the units shall be marketed and sold as stated in the Guidelines through APCHA. The developer has the right to select the initial APCHA qualified buyer (as stated above) of 30% of the units. Any resales will go through the lottery system as stated in the Guidelines. 5. Based on the common elements that will need to be maintained by the HOA, no Category I or 2 shall be allowed; the request is to have a mix of Category 3 and Category 4 units. 6. APCHA must approve the initial sales price for the RO unit of which will be deed restricted accordingly and as stated in the Guidelines. 7. A Capital Reserve Study is required to be provided to the HOA and to APCHA by a certified reserve specialist at the time of Certificate of Occupancy, or within one month of CO. Extinguishment of any credits shall not be allowed until the Capital Reserve Study is completed and accepted by APCHA. 8. APCHA recommends that the Engineering Department reconsider the ability to have on - street parking for this project. 9. The developer shall obtain approval of all condominium documents to APCHA for review These shall include, but may not be limited to, the following: prior to acceptance. a. Articles of Incorporation b. By -Laws c. Condominium Declaration d. Condo Plat Map e. Nine required governance policies required by the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). f. Budget hall provide to each new homeowner a binder that 10. At the closing on all units, the developers will include, but may not be limited to, the following: a. All condominium documents stated in #8 above; b. All mechanical warranties, all warranties for appliances, etc. 100% Rental Project: 1. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 from the 100% Ownership Project conditions shall apply. 2. All employers requesting to purchase a unit must obtain approval by APCHA and must meet the definition of a qualified Pitkin County Employer defined in the Guidelines and as it is amended from time to time. A City of Aspen business license will be one means of proof as a Pitkin County employer. Employer (Pitkin County Employer) - A business whose business address is located within Aspen and/or Pitkin County, whose business employs employees (as defined herein) within Pitkin County, who work in Pitkin County, and whose business taxes are paid in Aspen or Pitkin County. If an employer is not physically based in Pitkin County, an employee must be able to verify that they work in Pitkin County a minimum of 1500 hours per calendar year for individuals, businesses or institutional operations located within Pitkin County. 3. A self-employed owner cannot reside in the unit. 4. All new tenants must be approved PRIOR to signing a lease and occupying the unit. 5. Minimum occupancy for all units is required. 6. Employers cannot reside in the unit; units must be occupied by Qualified Employees, 7. All tenants/roommates will be required to complete the qualification packet prior to signing a new lease or renewing their current lease. Page 3 of 5 8. All tenants/roommates will be required to requalify as stipulated in the Guidelines and as they are amended from time to time. 9. All leases must be provided to APCHA and state the length of the lease, the amount of rent, and signed by both the tenant and the landlord. 10. If at such time the unit is found to be out of compliance, and upon receipt of APCHA's Notice of Violation (NOV), a fine shall be assessed each day the unit is out of compliance. The fine will be $500 per day, unless specified differently in the Guidelines and as they are amended from time to time. 11. At such time the fines are assessed, the management of the noncompliant unit shall be turned over to APCHA to manage, and the owner will be required to pay a management fee as determined by APCHA. No fines or fees shall be assessed to the tenant. Mixed Ownership/Rental Project: 1. All criteria stated under 100% ownership units shall apply. 2. All criteria stated under 100% rental project shall also apply. If the employer is found to be out of compliance, and after the Notice of Violation (NOV), a fine shall be assessed each day the unit is out of compliance. The fine will be $500 per day, unless specified differently in the Guidelines and as they are amended from time to time. The owner shall also be required to list the unit for sale with APCHA and sold through the lottery system. 3. The rental units must not exceed 49% of the total units within the project. 4. One entity/owners must not own more than 10% of any units within the project. 5. t All rental units must meet the minimum occupancy requirements. 6.' Employers must be approved by APCHA prior to purchasing the unit as stated above under the 100% rental project section. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the completed project, a deed restriction for the units will be approved by the City Attorney and APCHA that reflects the requirements of this resolution and Resolution No. 11, Series of 2016. Section 4: Vested Rights This approval of an amendment does not change the period of vested rights established by Resolution 11, Series of 2016. The development order remains effective through January 5, 2020. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Page 4 of 5 w.r Section 6: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 16th day of May, 2017. APP OVED O FORM: PLANNING �F� E MISSION: 7 drea Vn, 06sistant City Attorney ATTEST: Cindy Kl b, Records Manager Page 5 of 5 0 THE CITY 4F ASPEN City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p: (970) 920.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 w: www.aspenpitkin.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 404 Park Avenue Public Hearing: Tuesday, May 16, 2017, 4:30 p.m. Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities Room, 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 Project Location: 404 Park Avenue; Parcel ID: 2737-074-04-705; legally described as: Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision recorded in Book 3 at Page 18, that part of vacated Park Avenue being adjacent to said Lot 3 according to Ordinance No. 11 (series 1972) City of Aspen recorded in Book 265 at Page 1, all of that parcel of land described in the special warranty deed in Book 765 at Page 858, plus an easement on portion of Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision, described in Book 264 at Page 787. Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish existing multi -family housing, and develop twenty-eight (28), new, affordable housing units. Parking for the new development is proposed in a subgrade garage. The underlying zoning is Residential Multi -Family (RMF). This review is for an amendment to the original approval (P&Z Resolution 11, Series of 2016) that would allow a portion of the units to be occupied by rental, rather than owner occupants. Land Use Reviews Requested: Amendment of Growth Management Approval Decision Making Body: Planning and Zoning Commission Applicant: Peter Fornell of Fat City LLC, 402 Midland Park, Aspen CO 81611. 970.379.3434 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Ben Anderson at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, 970.429.2765, ben.anderson@cityofaspen.com. en Im NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 404 Park Avenue Public Hearing: May 16, 2017; 4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities Room 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 404 Park Avenue, Parcel ID: 2737-074-04-705 Legal Description: Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision recorded at Book 3 Page 18, that part of vacated Park Avenue being adjacent to said Lot 3 according to Ordinance No. 11 (series 1972) City of Aspen recorded in Book 265 Page 1, all of that parcel of land described in the special warranty deed at Book 765 Page 858, plus an easement on portion of Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision, described in Book 264 Page 787. Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish existing multi -family housing, and develop twenty-nine (29), new, affordable housing units. Parking for the new development is proposed in a subgrade garage. The underlying zone district is Residential Multi -Family (RMF). The proposed amendment (to P&Z Resolution 11, Series of 2016) would allow a number of the approved units to be renter, rather than owner occupied. Land Use Reviews: Amendment, Growth Management Decision Making Body: Planning & Zoning Commission Applicant: Peter Fornell of Fat City, LLC, 402 Midland Park, Aspen, CO 81611 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Ben Anderson at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2765, Ben.Anderson@cityofaspen.com. Published in the Aspen Times on April 27, 2017 '"W NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 404 Park Avenue Public Hearing: May 16, 2017; 4:30 PM Meeting L©cation: City Hall, Sister Cities Room 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 404 Park Avenue, Parcel ID: 2737-074-04-705 Legal Description: Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision recorded at Book 3 Page 18, that part of vacated Park Avenue being adjacent to said Lot 3 according to Ordinance No. 11 (series 1972) City of Aspen recorded in Book 265 Page 1, all of that parcel of land described in the special warranty deed at Book 765 Page 858, plus an easement on portion of Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision, described in Book 264 Page 787. Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish existing multi -family housing, and develop twenty-nine (29), new, affordable housing units. Parking for the new development is proposed in a subgrade garage. The underlying zone district is Residential Multi -Family (RMF). The proposed amendment (to P&Z Resolution 11, Series of 2016) would allow a number of the approved units to be renter, rather than owner occupied. Land Use Oeviews: Amendment to an approved Growth Management Development Order Decision Nuking Body: Planning & Zoning Commission Applicant: Peter Fornell of Fat City, LLC, 402 Midland Park, Aspen, CO 81611 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Ben Anderson at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2765, Ben.Anderson@cityofaspen.com. Published in the Aspen Times on April 27, 2017 PUBIC NOTICE Date: May 16, 2017 Time: 4:30 PM Place: 130 S Galena, City Hall, Sister Cities Room Purpose. Peter Fornell of Fat City, LLC seeks approval of an Amendment to Growth Management Approval (Resolution 11, Series of 2016) for an affordable housing redevelopment project at 404 Park Avenue. For further information contact Ben Anderson with City of Aspen Planning Dept. at 970-920-2765. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director MEETING DATE: May 16, 2017 RE: 404 Park Avenue — Amendment to Growth Management Quota System Approval — Request to have a mix of ownership and rental units APPLICANT /OWNER: PROPOSED LAND USE: Peter Fornell of Fat City, LLC In the affordable housing project approved in P&Z Resolution No. 11, Series of 2016, all 28 units were approved as ownership units — a mix of Category 3 REPRESENTATIVE: and 4 (with one RO unit). The project will conform to the RMF Zone Districe Sara Adams, The applicant is now proposing a mix of units that would include both BendonAdams, LLC ownership and rental units. LOCATION: Street Address: 404 Park Avenue. Legal Description: Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision recorded at Book 3 Page 18, that part of vacated Park Avenue being adjacent to said Lot 3 according to Ordinance No. 11 (Series of 1972) City of Aspen recorded in Book 265 Page 1, all of that parcel of land described in the special warranty deed at Book 765 Page 858, plus an easement on portion of Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision, described in Book 264 Page 787. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-074-04-705 CURRENT ZONING & USE The property, which is located in the Residential Multi -Family (RMF) Zone District, is currently subject to a planned development overlay. The property contains 14 residential units housed in four separate buildings. In Fall 2016, Council approved a conditional removal of the existing planned development overlay. The new project is proposed to not require the overlay. In December of 2016, The applicant received approval for a 28-unit affordable housing project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Land Use Code allows owner units and is permissive of rental units as affordable housing units and in the issuance of affordable housing credits. Staff supports the three proposed options for tenancy (100% owner occupied, 100% rental occupied, or a mix of owner and renter units) subject to the conditions provided by APCHA and included in the Draft Resolution. SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing a change to a previous approval for an affordable housing project. Resolution No. 11, Series of 2016 granted approval for a 28-unit (1, 2 and 3 bedrooms) affordable housing project. The mix would award a total of 64 FTE housing credits — split evenly between Category 3 and 4. Essential to this application, the original approval was for all units to be occupied by owner tenants. The proposed change would allow a mix of owner and renter tenants. 1.404 Park Avenue. ing of Page 1 of 4 0 G� LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: Growth Management — Affordable Housing Review (GMOS) Three sections of the Growth Management chapter apply to this review: 26.470.150.13 Substantial Amendment to a growth management development order; 26.470.080 General Review Standards; and 26.470.100.D Planning and Zoning Commission Applications — Affordable Housing. Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority for these criteria. BACKGROUND: 404 Park Ave. is an existing multi -family, free-market •residential development with 14 units. The parcel, which is nearly 18,000 square feet (.41 acres), lies at the intersection of Park Circle and Park Avenue and is adjacent to Midland Park. The property is currently subject to a Planned Development overlay (PD). In August of 2016, City Council approved Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 201) that removes the PD at the completion of the redevelopment of the property with a 100% affordable housing project. In December of 2016, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution I I (Series of 2016, by a vote of 5 — 0, for the redevelopment of the site with a new, 28 unit, affordable housing project. The project is subject to the dimensional requirements of the Residential Multi -Family Zone District (RMF). The project will include a total of 28 units, with a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. The completed project would award 64 FTE Affordable Housing Credits (32 FTE each of Category 3 and 4 credits). One unit in the project was approved as a Resident -Occupied (RO) unit. All units were approved as owner -occupied units. PROJECT SUMMARY: This application proposes a single change to the approval granted by Resolution No. 11 (Series of 2016). In the approval, the project proposed the units as owner occupied. The applicant is requesting an amendment that would allow a mix of owner -occupied and renter -occupied units. The renter occupied units would be owned by a third party who would then rent the units to APCHA qualified tenants. While not a requirement, the potential owners of these units could be lodges or other local businesses who need employee housing or to mitigate for a development project's affordable housing requirements. There are no changes proposed to the mass or form of the building, or the number or size of units. STAFF COMMENTS: Referencing the Land Use Code (26.470.100.1); Affordable Housing, and 26.540.030; Housing Credits) in regards to affordable housing units, the units "shall be deed restricted as for sale" or "may be for rent". Staff views this language as a clear allowance of owner occupied units and a permissiveness of rental units. Said another way, rental units can be approved, but the approval is discretionary. In both cases the tenants would be APCHA qualified based on the deed restriction for a particular unit and the APCHA guidelines. As staff understands the applicant's intent, the proposed renter -occupied units would be purchased by third party interests who would then rent the units to APCHA-qualified tenants. The Land Use Code, in this same section, "encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge." The only review criteria provided by this section of the code discussing rental units requires a "legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney (that) ensures permanent affordability of the units." Page 2 of 4 *40W As is the case with all projects that involve issues relating to affordable housing, this application was referred to APCHA for a recommendation. APCHA's staff and board were in strong support of the original proposal that consisted of 100% owner units. However, in conversation with APCHA staff regarding the application, and reflected in both the staff memo and the APCHA Board recommendation from the meeting on April 5, 2017, three concerns are raised by the proposed mix of owner and renter units: 1) Based on experience, APCHA has concerns about these kinds of rental units and the frequency of non-compliance with requirements to ensure that APCHA qualified tenants are residing in the units. 2) Again, based on APCHA's experience, the mixture of owner and renter tenants in the same development can create difficulties within the HOA — and generally, it is more difficult to create a cohesive, functional relationship between residents. 3) Most importantly, if the majority of development becomes renter occupied (more than 49%), or if a single entity owns more than 10% of the units in a development, the owner occupied units cannot qualify for conventional mortgages (due to lending requirements of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). After further research and conversation with APCHA, Staff (and the applicant) agrees with the following framework of options in defining the project's tenancy: the units would be deed -restricted as 1) 100% owner -occupied; or 2) 100% rental occupied; or 3) a mix of owner and renter occupied units. The deed restriction required for issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy will identify the tenancy type(s) of the completed project. Each of the three options will require compliance with the conditions provided by APCHA. Because this request for a change to the project directly intersects with the day to day operations of APCHA, and because the applicant would like to have continued flexibility in determining which of the tenancy options will ultimately define the project, Staff finds it important that APCHA's recommended conditions be included in the Draft Resolution, should P&Z approve this amendment. Most of the conditions are directly related to APCHA's Guidelines ensuring that residents are APCHA qualified tenants, units meet APCHA requirements, and units and residents contribute to the larger purposes of the affordable housing program. However, two specific conditions are of particular importance if the project becomes a mix of owner and renter occupied units. First, renter occupied units must make up less than 50% of the total number of units (in this case, 13). Secondly, a single owner can own no more than 10% of the total units (in this case, 2). These two conditions will prevent a situation that would prevent owners from qualifying for conventional mortgage financing. The full set of recommended conditions is contained within Section 3 of the Draft Resolution. If rental units are approved, Staff finds that these conditions are necessary to give direction to the deed restriction(s) that will eventually define these units. Page 3 of 4 rn rn RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff supports the requested tenancy flexibility for the 28 affordable housing units at 404 Park Ave. At completion, the development may be deed restricted as 1) 100% owner -occupied, or 2) 100% renter -occupied, or 3) a mix of owner and renter -occupied; subject to conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: If the Commission agrees with the staff recommendation, the following motion is proposed: "I move to approve Resolution XX granting three (3) options in establishing the deed -restricted tenancy - type for the redevelopment of 404 Park Avenue, subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Growth Management — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B Application, Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order Exhibit C Staff Memo, APCHA Exhibit D Comment from neighbor adjacent to project site Page 4 of 4 M Exhibit A Review Criteria and Staff Response 26.470.150. Amendment of a growth management development order. B. Substantial amendment. All other amendments to an approved growth management development order shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Chapter. Allotments granted shall remain valid and applied to the amended application, provided that the amendment application is submitted prior to the expiration of vested rights. Amendment applications requiring additional allotments or allotments for different uses shall obtain those allotments pursuant to the procedures of this Chapter. Any new allotments shall be deducted from the growth management year in which the amendment is submitted. StaffResponse: Because this proposed amendment involves changing an important quality (tenancy type) of the approved units and because this quality was specifically described in Resolution 11, Series of 2016 granting initial approval of the project, the current application was accepted as a Substantial Amendment that requires P&Z review. 26.470.080. General Review Standards. All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. A. Sufficient Allotments B. Development Conformance C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities D. Affordable Housing Mitigation. StaffResponse: The project as approved, was reviewed through this section of the code. Due to the nature of the proposed Amendment, the project continues to meet the General Review Standards established by this section of the code. The proposed change does not affect any of the General Review Standards. 26.470.100 Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.080. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. D. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed -restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080. 1) The proposed units shall be deed -restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi -municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Response: This section of the code is the subject of the Amendment request. The Land Use Code allows owner -occupied and is permissive of renter - occupied units to qualify under both Growth Management review and the review for the establishment of Affordable Housing credits. For rental units to be allowed, a "legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney (that) ensures permanent affordability of the unit" is required. APCHA raised concerns during the review process for the Amendment regarding projects that have a mix of owner and renter -occupied units. Staff finds that the proposed Amendment is allowed by the code, but strongly recommends that the conditions proposed by APCHA be included in the Draft Resolution if approved — to help mitigate the potential challenges of a mixed development and give direction to the deed restriction that will define the eventual units. cm .,or Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority A• P*Ce H A MEMORANDUM TO: Ben Anderson, Community Development Department FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director DATE: May 1, 2017 RE: Board recommendations from applicant's Request to Amend Approval for 404 Park Avenue Housing Credits Project ISSUE Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) Resolution 11 (Series of 2016) approved 404 Park Avenue Affordable Housing Project as a mix of Category 3 and Category 4 ownership units, with one Resident Occupied Unit. The project was approved as a 100% ownership project and awarded 64 FTE credits — 32 Category 3 and 32 Category 4. The applicant is requesting the ability to create a 100% owner -occupied project, 100% rental project, or a mixed -residential (owner -occupied and rental) project. BACKGROUND The APCHA Board reviewed the request at their regular meeting held April 5, 2017 with concerns about a mixed -residential (owner -occupied and rental) project. The concerns that were raised at the meeting by staff were based on experience and financial industry feedback. APCHA staff believes a mix of ownership and rental units create several unintended consequences, including: 1. Financing — Lenders will not provide conventional financing if a project includes more rental units than ownership units, or if one entity owns more than 10% of the units in an HOA. Given that no one employer could own more than two units, this project could have between six and thirteen different employer -owned (rental) units in addition to fourteen individual (owner -occupied) units. 2. Compliance and Enforcement — The number one compliance issue APCHA faces is unresponsive landlords who fail to provide leases and have tenants qualify under program rules and deed restrictions. Without this information, it is difficult, if not impossible, for APCHA to determine if a unit is complying and serving a working 404 Park Avenue AH Project Amendment Request Page 1 household. Many owners are under LLC's with no contact information. Ownership can change at any time without notification to APCHA. Staff physically have gone to properties to put notices on doors requesting qualification paperwork. With over 1300 rental units and 200 different landlords/owners in the APCHA inventory, there are currently 118 rental units (9%) that have never qualified under the deed restriction and another 227 units (17.5%) that are past due in providing re -qualification paperwork. 3. Quality of Life and Community Governance Issues — In APCHA's experience, projects including a mix of owners and renters is problematic because of different standards, commitments, and shared -values toward the property. Further complicating mixed residential communities is the HOA itself. HOAs are much more difficult to govern and manage for owner -occupants required to work with absentee employer -owners. Often the interests of the two conflict, which can create quality of life and governance issues for the HOA community. 4. Administrative Burden and Program Complexity — The compliance and enforcement issues above create additional administrative burden and cost to taxpayers. Having up to 13 different employer landlords for the rental portion of this project would add to APCHA's administrative burden by increasing the frequency of requalification requirements and associated compliance and enforcement. The 2016 Housing Guideline Policy Study stated that "Aspen has exceptionally complex Guidelines that requires a large staff to administer, are very hard to update, and difficult to understand." It also states, "The result is that a complex program has been created over many years, which makes management, public education and compliance challenging...". Without additional resources and policy changes to modernize operations and increase compliance and enforcement (e.g. fines), employer -owned rental units will be difficult to oversee and enforce. At the April 5, 2017 meeting, the applicant questioned staff's concerns on an owners' ability to obtain conventional financing when purchasing in a mixed -use or mixed -residential project. A mixed -residential project (i.e., a project containing a mix of both owner -occupied and rental units) that includes more than 49% rentals does not allow for conventional financing. The same applies for a mixed -residential project where one entity owns more than 10% of the units. The APCHA Board asked the applicant and staff to provide third -party opinions from local lenders concerning their lending policies for mixed -residential (owner -occupied and rental) projects. DISCUSSION The applicant has provided lender opinions confirming staff's concerns. The applicant is requesting the flexibility to provide a 100% for -sale project, a 100% rental project, or a mixed - residential (owner -occupied and rental) project. If the project becomes mixed -residential, the conditions the applicant/developer must meet are as follows: 1. No more than 13 employer -owned rental units (below the 49% threshold); and 2. No more than 10% of the units owned by the same entity. 404 Park Avenue AH Project Amendment Request Page 2 omn on On April 5, 2017, the APCHA Board recommended to allow the 404 Park Avenue Affordable Housing Project to become a mixed -residential (owner -occupied and rental) project under the following conditions: • The applicant should verify what lending options and obstacles exist for mixed -residential projects (i.e. owner-occupied/rental project) with any additional information provided by APCHA staff; • Each employer wanting to purchase a unit to lease must be qualified to purchase by APCHA. Specific criteria will be provided by APCHA to approve any employer before purchasing a unit for use as a rental to qualified employees (e.g., Pitkin County employer, City of Aspen Business License, etc.); • Self-employed individuals will not be allowed to purchase a unit to reside in themselves; • All new tenants and roommates must be approved PRIOR to signing a lease and occupying the unit; • All tenants will be required to complete the requalification packet as required under the Housing Guidelines and prior to signing a new lease or renewing the current lease; • All signed leases must be provided to APCHA and state the length of the lease and the amount of rent; • If at such time a unit is found out of compliance, and after receipt of APCHA's Notice of Violation (NOV) and past the cure date deadline, the unit will be listed with APCHA and sold through the lottery process as an owner -occupied unit; • A fine of $500 will be assessed each day a unit is out of compliance; • Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, a deed restriction will be provided by APCHA to the applicant to be recorded. RECOMMENDATION Based on the additional information provided by the applicant requested by the APCHA Board, APCHA strongly recommends the following conditions, at minimum, be added to any Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution, the master deed restriction, and the deed restrictions controlling the employer -owned units (i.e. rental units). 100% Ownership Project: 1. As shown in the application, the unit sizes meet the 20% reduction requirement and the criteria for the reduction; therefore, the units meet the minimum square footage as stated in the Guidelines. 2. All bedrooms shall contain a closet. 3. All units shall include a refrigerator/freezer, stove/oven with hood, dishwasher, and washer/dryer hookups. 404 Park Avenue AH Project Amendment Request Page 3 e 4. Based on Part III, Section 6.C.3, Priority of Qualified Tenants and Owners Selected by Developer, of the Guidelines, the developer has the right to choose APCHA-qualified owners to occupy one-third of the affordable housing units if the households meet the top priority criteria (four-year minimum work requirement, minimum occupancy requirement, category, not own other property within the OEZ). Any units not pre - selected and the balance of the units shall be marketed and sold as stated in the Guidelines through APCHA. The developer has the right to select the initial APCHA qualified buyer (as stated above) of 30% of the units with the condition that the selected owners do not own any real estate within the ownership exclusion zone defined in the Guidelines. Any resales will go through the lottery system as stated in the Guidelines. 5. Based on the common elements that will need to be maintained by the HOA, no Category 1 or 2 shall be allowed; the request is to have a mix of Category 3 and Category 4 units. 6. APCHA must approve the initial sales price for the RO unit of which will be deed restricted accordingly and as stated in the Guidelines. 7. A Capital Reserve Study is required to be provided to the HOA and to APCHA by a certified reserve specialist at the time of Certificate of Occupancy, or within one month of CO. Extinguishment of any credits shall not be allowed until the Capital Reserve Study is completed and accepted by APCHA. 8. APCHA is satisfied with the proposed onsite parking and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the project as is. 9. APCHA recommends that the Engineering Department reconsider the ability to have on - street parking for this project. 10. The developer shall obtain approval of all condominium documents to APCHA for review prior to acceptance. These shall include, but may not be limited to, the following: a. Articles of Incorporation b. By -Laws c. Condominium Declaration d. Condo Plat Map e. Nine required governance policies required by the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). f. Budget 11. At the closing on all units, the developer shall provide to each new homeowner a binder that will include, but may not be limited to, the following: a. All condominium documents stated in #8 above; b. All mechanical warranties, all warranties for appliances, etc. 404 Park Avenue AH Project Amendment Request Page 4 ""W 100% Rental Protect: 1. All employers requesting to purchase a unit must obtain approval by APCHA and must meet the definition of a qualified Pitkin County Employer defined in the Guidelines and as it is amended from time to time. A City of Aspen business license will be one means of proof as a Pitkin County employer. Employer (Pitkin County Employer) - A business whose business address is located within Aspen and/or Pitkin County, whose business employs employees (as defined herein) within Pitkin County, who work in Pitkin County, and whose business taxes are paid in Aspen or Pitkin County. If an employer is not physically based in Pitkin County, an employee must be able to verify that they work in Pitkin County a minimum of 1500 hours per calendar year for individuals, businesses or institutional operations located within Pitkin County. 2. A self-employed owner cannot reside in the unit. 3. All new tenants must be approved PRIOR to signing a lease and occupying the unit. 4. Minimum occupancy for all units is required. 5. Employers cannot reside in the unit; units must be occupied by Qualified Employees. 6. All tenants/roommates will be required to complete the qualification packet prior to signing a new lease or renewing their current lease. 7. All tenants/roommates will be required to requalify as stipulated in the Guidelines and as they are amended from time to time. 8. All leases must be provided to APCHA and state the length of the lease, the amount of rent, and signed by both the tenant and the landlord. 9. If at such time the unit is found to be out of compliance, and upon receipt of APCHA's Notice of Violation (NOV), a fine shall be assessed each day the unit is out of compliance. The fine will be $500 per day, unless specified differently in the Guidelines and as they are amended from time to time. 10. At such time the fines are assessed, the management of the noncompliant unit shall be turned over to APCHA to manage, and the owner will be required to pay a management fee as determined by APCHA. No fines or fees shall be assessed to the tenant. Mixed Ownership/Rental Project: 1. All criteria stated under 100% ownership units shall apply. 404 Park Avenue AH Project Amendment Request Page 5 VW 2. All criteria stated under 100% rental project shall also apply. If the employer is found to be out of compliance, and after the Notice of Violation (NOV), a fine shall be assessed each day the unit is out of compliance. The fine will be $500 per day, unless specified differently in the Guidelines and as they are amended from time to time. The owner shall also be required to list the unit for sale with APCHA and sold through the lottery system. 3. The rental units must not exceed 49% of the total units within the project. 4. One entity/owners must not own more than 10% of any units within the project. 5. All rental units must meet the minimum occupancy requirements. 6. Employers must be approved by APCHA prior to purchasing the unit as stated above under the 100% rental project section. 404 Park Avenue AH Project Amendment Request Page 6 `aoe'` Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority A• Ps Ca H •A MEMORANDUM TO: APCHA Board of Directors FROM: Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director MEMO DATE: March 30, 2017 MEETING DATE: April 5, 2017 RE: Request to Amend Approval for 404 Park Avenue Housing Credits Project ISSUE Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) Resolution 11 (Series of 2016) approved 404 Park Avenue Affordable Housing Project as a mix of Category 3 and Category 4 ownership units, with one Resident Occupied Unit. The project was approved as a 100% ownership project and awarded 64 FTE credits — 32 Category 3 and 32 Category 4. The applicant's request is to offer a mixed ownership project made up of 14 owner -occupied units (52%) and 13 employer -owned rental units (48%). BACKGROUND The APCHA Board reviewed the project at their regular meeting December 7, 2016, and recommended a 100% ownership project, which P&Z approved. The table below shows the approved category configuration for the project: Bedrooms Category 3 Category 4 RO 1-Bedroom 5 8 0 2-Bedroom 1 0 1 3-Bedroom 7 6 0 Total 13 14 1 404 Park Avenue AH Project Amendment Request Page 1 M EMM DISCUSSION The applicant has requested an amendment to the project to allow for flexibility to provide a mix of for -sale and for -rent units that meets APCHA requirements and qualifications. Previous approval was based on a 100% ownership project. The applicant provided no explanation for his request. The applicant plans to keep the number of rental units under the 50% threshold to allow buyers to obtain conventional financing. Under federal regulations, multifamily residential projects cannot have more than 49% rental units for lenders to provide conventional financing. Also, one entity can own no more than 10% of the units in an HOA. The City of Aspen Land Use Code, Section 26.470.100.D.1, states the following: The proposed units shall be deed -restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long- term viability of the lodge. According to the City's Community Development Director and Law Director, the Land Use Code allows for a sales project, a rental project,. or a mixed sale and rental project. In fact, the Community Development Director has the authority under the code to determine that a mix of "for sale" and rental units is allowable in a single project. The City and the applicant are asking the APCHA Board to discuss and recommend conditions under which a mixed "for sale" and rental project should work. The APCHA board does not have authority to recommend denial of mixed project based on its interpretation of the code. The APCHA Board, however, does have authority to recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the applicant's request based on other legitimate affordable housing factors or concerns, including affordability, livability, regulatory, etc. 404 Park Avenue AH Project Amendment Request Page 2 'vrrr Nuof Based on experience and financial industry feedback, APCHA staff believes a mix of ownership and rental units creates several unintended consequences, including: 1. Financing — Lenders will not provide conventional financing if a project includes more rental units than ownership units, or if one entity owns more than 10% of the units in an HOA. Given that no one employer could own more than two units, this project could have between six and thirteen different employer -owned (rental) units in addition to fourteen individual (owner -occupied) units. 2. Compliance and Enforcement — The number one compliance issue APCHA faces is unresponsive landlords who fail to provide leases and have tenants qualify under program rules and deed restrictions. Without this information, it is difficult, if not impossible, for APCHA to determine if a unit is in compliance and serving a working household. Many owners are under LLC's with no contact information. Ownership can change at any time without notification to APCHA. Staff physically have gone to properties to put notices on doors requesting qualification paperwork. With over 1300 rental units and 200 different landlords/owners in the APCHA inventory, there are currently 118 rental units (9%) that have never qualified under the deed restriction and another 227 units (17.5%) that are past due in providing re -qualification paperwork. 3. Administrative Burden and Program Complexity — The compliance and enforcement issues above create additional administrative burden on staff and cost to taxpayers. Having up to 13 different employer landlords for the rental portion of this project will add to APCHA's administrative burden by increasing the frequency of requalification requirements and associated compliance and enforcement. The 2016 Housing Guideline Policy Study stated that "Aspen has exceptionally complex Guidelines that requires a large staff to administer, are very hard to update, and difficult to understand." It also states, "The result is that a complex program has been created over many years, which makes management, public education and compliance challenging...". Without additional resources and policy changes to modernize operations and increase compliance and enforcement (e.g. fines), employer -owned rental units will be difficult to oversee and enforce. 4. Quality of Life and Community Governance Issues — In APCHA's experience, projects that include a mix of owners and renters is problematic because of different standards, commitments, and shared -values toward the property. Further complicating mixed residential communities is the HOA itself. HOAs are more difficult to govern and manage when owner -occupants are required to work with absentee employer -owners. Often the interests of the two conflict. However, APCHA staff recognizes and supports the desire and need for employers to purchase deed restricted units for exclusive use by Qualified Employees. There are many advantages for allowing employer -owned rental units which are important for housing the local labor force. If the Board were to support a 100% employer -owned rental project, then it must answer the question, how many different owners? Under conventional financing standards, no employer could own more than 2 units (10% HOA Ownership Rule), which could mean up to 14 different owners. Without additional resources and changes to enforcement policies, this type of project 404 Park Avenue AH Project Amendment Request Page 3 (i.e. employer -owned rentals) could increase future compliance/enforcement issues, administrative complexity, and cost to the housing program. If the project were to be 100% employer -owned for renting to those employer's employees, then APCHA would recommend using a formula for limiting the number of employer owners. This could be done simply by dividing the total number of units equally (dividend _ divisor = quotient). The dividend in this case is 28 units and the divisor could be either 4, 7, or 28. The quotient, or total number of different employer -owners, could be: • 28 total units/28 units per owner = 1 employer -owner; • 28 total units/7 units per owner = 4 employer -owners; • 28 total units/4 units per owner = 7 employer -owners. �aS G (55� RECOMMENDATION � I " APCHA has explained several policy concerns with mixed (ownership/rental) affordable workforce housing projects. Instead of mixing ownership and rental housing, staff recommends the existing approval stands as a 100% owner -occupied project unless the applicant agrees to the specific conditions below in exchange for either a mixed ownership/rental residential project or allowing 100% employer -owned rental units. APCHA strongly recommends the following conditions, at minimum, be added to any Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution, the master deed restriction, and the deed restrictions controlling the employer -owned rental side of the project. +� 1. The rental units must not exceed 49% of the project if mixe 1 C2. One entity cannot own more than 10% of said rental units within the project if mixed. ' 3. Employers must be approved by APCHA prior to purchasing the unit.— CWVU - /4. Employers cannot reside in the unit; units must be occupied by Qualified Employees/Residents (no self-employed owners can reside in the unit). 5. All new tenants must be approved PRIOR to signing a lease and occupying the unit. 6. All tenants will be required to complete the qualification packet on a yearly basis, prior to signing a new lease or renewing their current lease. 0 7. All leases must be provided to APCHA and state the length of the lease, the amount of rent, and signed by both the tenant and the landlord. 8. If at such time the unit is found to be out of compliance, and upon receipt of APCHA's Notice of Violation (NOV), a fine may be assessed every day the unit is out of compliance. The employer -owner shall be require to sell their units to another qualified employer for rental to qualified employees c eo V ; C �J -� cwe, T + Ird 404 Park Avenue AH Project Amendment Request ` Page 4 AMW .r► From: Elise Cohen To: Sara Adams Subject: RE: conventional lending for multi -family units Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:53:21 PM Hi Sara, Below is my reponse to your questions: 1) Is conventional financing available if this project includes more rental units than ownership units — for example if 60% of the project is rental units and 40% of the project is for -sale units? 50% or more of the units must be owner occupied to make this warrantable. 2) Is conventional financing available if one entity owns more than 10% of the rental units in an HOA? This would make this project un-warrantable. I think it would be very difficult to offer conventional financing for this project. I hope that this information is helpful as you go forward with this project. Kind regards, Elise. Elise Cohen I Vice President I First Western Trust, Aspen 201 N. Mill St., Ste. 202 Aspen, CO 81611 www.myfw.com Cell 970-379-4413 1 Office 970-710-7200 1 Elise.Cohen(cDmyfw.com A connected view assists us in bringing your financial goals to fruition and positions us to be the best private bank for the Western wealth management client. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe that this email has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Thank you. From: Sara Adams [mailto:sara@bendonadams.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 3:26 PM To: Sara Adams <sara@bendonadams.com> Subject: conventional lending for multi -family units W We are doing some research into current lending practice and we need some help from the experts. Our questions relate to a deed restricted multi -family housing project, so we have reached out to local lenders that are familiar with deed -restricted units in Aspen (we found your information on the APCHA website). Project description: The City of Aspen approved a 100% deed restricted affordable housing project in December 2016. The project is located at 404 Park Avenue, at the base of Smuggler Mountain. A total of 28 units are approved in two 3-story buildings on the lot. A subgrade garage provides a parking space for each unit. The project was approved as a for -sale project. The units are approved as follows: Bedrooms Category 3 Category 4 Resident Occupied 1-bedroom 5 8 0 2-bedroom 1 0 1 3-bedroom 7 6 0 TOTAL 13 14 1 The developer is looking to amend the approval to provide a mix of for -sale and for -rent units. The for -rent units may be owned by different entities. The entire project will still be condominiumized after completion. We need clarity on lending practices to ensure that the units are available for financing if the project is a mix of for -rent or for -sale, or is entirely for -rent. Questions: 1) Is conventional financing available if this project includes more rental units than ownership units — for example if 60% of the project is rental units and 40% of the project is for -sale units? 2) Is conventional financing available if one entity owns more than 10% of the rental units in an HOA? Thank you for helping us answer these questions. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions or if you need any more information. We intend to provide this data to the Planning and Zoning Commission next month during the hearing to amend the project approvals to allow for -rent units within the project. Best, Sara Sara Adams, AICP 970-925-2855 www.BendonAdams.com 300 S. Spring St., #202 Aspen, CO 81611 "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. if you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are CM not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited." `w+ r.rr` From: Jody.Cooper@welIsfargo.com To: Sara Adams Subject: RE: conventional lending for multi -family units Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:54:40 AM Hi Sara, See below, most lenders sell to FNMA/FHMLC unless it is an in house loan so hopefully everyone's answers are the same! Please don't hesitate to reach out to me, I am happy to help. JODY COOPER Mortgage Consultant NMLSR ID 420460 Wells Fargo Home Mortgage 1 119 S Mill St I Aspen, CO 81611 MAC C7408-010 Tel (970) 544-2333 1 Toll -free (888)473-4133 1 Cell (970)379-5626 1 Fax (970)544-0311 Jody. Coopera-wel Isfarao. com www.jodycoo e If this email was sent to you as an unsecured message, it is not intended for confidential or sensitive information. If you cannot respond to this e-mail securely, please do not include your social security number, account number, or any other personal or financial information in the content of the email. This may be a promotional email. To discontinue receiving promotional emails from Wells Fargo Bank N.A., including Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, click here NoEmailReauestCabwellsfargo.com. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. All rights reserved. Equal Housing Lender. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage-2701 Wells Fargo Way -Minneapolis, MN 55467-8000 From: Sara Adams [mailto:sara@bendonadams.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 3:29 PM To: Cooper, Jody Subject: FW: conventional lending for multi -family units Hi Jody— I sent this to Anne, but it bounced. I didn't want to bother you — I know that Cindy Christensen and Peter Fornell have already asked you this. We just need to get something on paper for P&Z. Thanks! Sara From: Sara Adams Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 3:26 PM To: Sara Adams (sara(@bendonadams.com) <sara@bendonadams.com> Subject: conventional lending for multi -family units Hi, `.rW v../ We are doing some research into current lending practice and we need some help from the experts. Our questions relate to a deed restricted multi -family housing project, so we have reached out to local lenders that are familiar with deed -restricted units in Aspen (we found your information on the APCHA website). Project description: The City of Aspen approved a 100% deed restricted affordable housing project in December 2016. The project is located at 404 Park Avenue, at the base of Smuggler Mountain. A total of 28 units are approved in two 3-story buildings on the lot. A subgrade garage provides a parking space for each unit. The project was approved as a for -sale project. The units are approved as follows: Bedrooms Category 3 Category 4 Resident Occupied 1-bedroom 5 8 0 2-bedroom 1 0 1 3-bedroom 7 6 0 TOTAL 13 14 1 The developer is looking to amend the approval to provide a mix of for -sale and for -rent units. The for -rent units may be owned by different entities. The entire project will still be condominiumized after completion. We need clarity on lending practices to ensure that the units are available for financing if the project is a mix of for -rent or for -sale, or is entirely for -rent. Questions: Is conventional financing available if this project includes more rental units than ownership units - for example if 60% of the project is rental units and 40% of the project is for -sale units? Is conventional financing available if one entity owns more than 10% of the rental units in an HOA? A minimum 51% of the units must be for use as a primary (A) No more than 10% of units may be owned by one person or entity. (B) No person or entity may own > 1 unit in a project of 10 or fewer units. Note: Single entity can own 2 units in a 5 to 20 unit project. Thank you for helping us answer these questions. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions or if you need any more information. We intend to provide this data to the Planning and Zoning Commission next month during the hearing to amend the project approvals to allow for -rent units within the project. Best, *Mol Sara Sara Adams, AICP 970-925-2855 www.BendonAdams.com 300 S. Spring St., #202 Aspen, CO 81611 0 RE: 404 Park Ave May 16, 2017 Dear Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission members, The proposed amendment to this project has wide ranging implications for the entire affordable housing program and so dramatically changes the character and nature of the project that the project approval should be rescinded and reconsidered as a new application. A 3 bedroom affordable rental does not have one car. It will likely have 3 and potentially up to 6 cars. Additionally, the nebulous format being requested for approval could end up being anything (for sale, mixed or rental) and is a tough uncertainty to expect the neighborhood to endure. Currently the surrounding neighborhood is dense and sustainable. The approval to date increases density and the Aspen Hills project will likely request additional density in the near future. The current neighborhood is a blend of free market and deed restricted (the ideal notion under the AACP vision). Relative to the affordable units in the neighborhood, most are ownership whereas the high -density free market units are rentals adding valued workforce housing. To approve this amendment not only jeopardizes the neighborhood, it jeopardizes the approval of future affordable housing throughout the entire community. This proposed amendment, if approved, will be pointed to as the example of why affordable housing is unacceptable. The congestion of vehicles, the lack of on -site open space, the yet to be resolved trash locations, the 5 foot setback from neighbors is tough enough when long term committed ownership is involved. The existing, viable, affordable housing neighborhoods need to remain a quality that we can all be proud of and proud to call home. As our citizen planner representatives we urge you to think long and hard about these seemingly minor amendments which have dramatic undercurrents for the future of the entire affordable housing program. The Planning and Zoning Commission's responsibility is to plan for Aspen and not to feel pressure to make a project financially viable for the developer, if it's not right for the community. The amendment is an unacceptable revision and at a minimum should be re-evaluated in the context of a new application. Thank you, Cindy Houben Midland Park Resident In Im 1 Ben Anderson ` From: Kelly McNicholas Kury <kelly.mcnicholas@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:45 PM To: Cindy Klob; Jennifer Phelan; Andrea Bryan; Ben Anderson Subject: input on 404 Park In the context of separate unrelated conversations I was given this unsolicited input about tonight's project. I am forwarding it on for the record as confirmed with the submitters. Input from Jackie Tracy a neighbor to the project: "Not enough parking spots per resident. There is also a new development going in up the street, 517 Park Circle, that will also not have enough parking. Add to that the City's desire to put in the sidewalk on Park Circle, which will remove 10 street parking spots, and there will be a problem. Jackie Tracy 431 Park Circle" Input from Pam Cunningham a neighbor to the project: "Peter, Chris and Sara, disappointingly, have not reached out to 404's Midland Park neighbors as recommended by Jasmine at P&Z when the project was approved. It does not bode well for consideration of neighbors as relates to Peter's request for renters and consideration of possible additional impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods." than you, Kelly sent from my iPhone, please excuse typos 14.r TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Judy Kolberg, Midland Park Homeowner DATE: May 15, 2017 RE: 404 Park Avenue Amendment Hearing May 16, 2017 As I read the documentation regarding the request to amend the approval for the 404 Park Avenue Affordable Housing project, what I understand is that the applicant is seeking approval to have the flexibility to designate this project as 100% affordable ownership housing, 100% affordable rental housing, or a mix of the two. And the applicant does not have to decide which option to adopt until some future time, depending upon circumstances. Where the 404 Park Avenue Project initially started out with great potential and had near consensus of support from many in the neighborhood, its present morphing is cause for concern. This project was approved as 100% owned affordable housing but now, in asking for the flexibility to be either owned, rental or a mix of the two, I sense a degree of uncertainty as to if it will ever be developed. The affordable employee housing designation seems to be the only thing that is keeping it alive and while it lingers, the goal posts regarding its approval are continually moved. At the December 20, 2016 P&Z meeting, some of us applauded the idea of this project although there were still some unclarified issues which we had hoped would first be addressed. These concerns and reservations arose from a lack of information from the applicant to us, Midland Park (as immediate adjacent neighbors), regarding details of building mass, scale, lighting impacts, landscaping, and the elephant in the room, parking. It would appear the applicant and his representative assumed they did not have to offer this information because of the removal of an existing Planned Development overlay on the parcel granted by City Council in August of 2016, all done in the name of guaranteeing this project would be 100% employee housing. At the Dec. meeting, P&Z asked, as part of the approval process, that the applicant's representative reach out to Midland Park regarding the aforementioned concerns (see my letter to P&Z dated Dec 29, 2016 as well as the minutes of P&Z Dec. 6, 2016 meeting) but thus far, that outreach has not taken place. The proposal now being requested concerns a mix of rental and owner affordable housing with the strong possibility of the rental component being third party ownership. While there is a need for more affordable rental housing in Aspen, tying it to employment is, in my opinion, a bad idea. The downside to this kind of arrangement is multifold - regardless of a landlord/tenant lease, lose or leave your job, in short order lose your housing. Additionally, with rental housing there is more turnover, less buy -in to the neighborhood, less stability, and more maintenance on the units. Even APCHA has voiced reservations stating the potential for 13 different employer landlords creating an administrative burden on APCHA not to mention the possibility of having absentee landlord situations where appropriate monitoring of rental units would be compromised. (See items 3 &4, page 2 of the APCHA Memorandum, dated May 1, 2017). There is also the question of why now take 13 potential sale units off the market? It may be very generous of the applicant to offer to help out fellow developers in need of housing for their workforce but this action removes coveted affordable ownership units from the pool and for which there is no lack of potential buyers. Furthermore, there are two other affordable rental projects coming on line soon in the CM rm L� Reply rEF Reply All (-� Forward Jd'� -ins ein)i� acIcorn Ben Anderson Sun4:4: girl, Fwd. 404 PARK AVE A You replied to this message on 5J$1201711:06 AM. Bing Maps Suggested Meetings Act,en Items + Get more ap Dear Mr Anderson Your reply below indicates a proposed change to allow "some or all of the units to be renter -occupied". This is primarily an owner occupied neighborhood. In the past we have have experienced severe parking abuses and rowdy parties at the rental complex currently occupying the location of the proposed development. While I look forward to the development of a properly supervised owner occupied development, I am opposed to affordable rental property at this site. I feel such a development will be detrimental to the neighborhood and erode my property value. Please forward my comments to the Planning and Zoning commission for the May 16 meeting. Thank you Jerry Feinstein 407C Park Ave From: JdfeinsteinJDF9baol.com To: ben. andersonOcilyofas en n.com BCC: bkromelowDGMAIL.COM. CORY.LOWEDGMAIL.COM Sent: 5/4/2017 5:03:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: Re: 404 PARK AVE thank you In a message dated 5/4/2017 4:54:25 P.M_ Eastern Daylight Time, ben.andersonQ_cityofaspen.com writes: Mr. Feinstein — This review is for one proposed change to the project approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in December. The project remains a 100% affordable housing project with 28 units. The project was initially approved as entirely owner -occupied. This application requests flexibility to also allow some or all of the units to be renter -occupied. Please be in touch if you have further questions or would like to make comment on the application. Sincerely, Ben 3-1 b N (N GV -D PN*ts qoq 4L �t�-4t 4 -�' WAA4 UV.a' 0 Ben Anderson From: JdfeinsteinJDF@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 4:48 PM To: Ben Anderson Subject: Fwd: 404 PARK AVE Dear Mr Anderson Your reply below indicates a proposed change to allow "some or all of the units to be renter - occupied". This is primarily an owner occupied neighborhood. In the past we have have experienced severe parking abuses and rowdy parties at the rental complex currently occupying the location of the proposed development. While I look forward to the development of a properly supervised owner occupied development, I am opposed to affordable rental property at this site. I feel such a development will be detrimental to the neighborhood and erode my property value. Please forward my comments to the Planning and Zoning commission for the May 16 meeting. Thankyou Jerry Feinstein 407C Park Ave From: JdfeinsteinJDF@aol.com To: ben.anderson@cityofaspen.com BCC: bkromelow@GMAIL.COM, CORY.LOWE@GMAIL.COM Sent: 5/4/2017 5:03:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: Re: 404 PARK AVE thank you In a message dated 5/4/2017 4:54:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ben.anderson@cityofaspen.com writes: Mr. Feinstein — This review is for one proposed change to the project approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in December. The project remains a 100% affordable housing project with 28 units. The project was initially approved as entirely owner -occupied. This application requests flexibility to also allow some or all of the units to be renter -occupied. Please be in touch if you have further questions or would like to make comment on the application. On Sincerely, Ben Ben Anderson, Planner City of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2765 Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. The Cite of Aspen na.nt s vvonr feedback! We are amending the Land Use Code to further incorporate the Aspen Area Conununity Plan (AACP). To do this. we need your feedback on what you think these revisions might mean for the future. It's your Aspen, htave your ;ay'. L From: JdfeinsteinJDF@aol.com [mailto:JdfeinsteinJDF@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:47 PM Otl To: Ben Anderson <ben.anderson@cityofaspen.com> •rrr Subject: 404 PARK AVE SIR IS THE APPLICANT REQUESTING FREE MARKET RENTAL APPROVAL OR WILL THEY BE FOR AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS ONLY? JERRY FEINSTEIN 407 PARK AVE Ben Anderson From: Kelly McNicholas Kury <kelly.mcnicholas@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:45 PM To: Cindy Klob; Jennifer Phelan; Andrea Bryan; Ben Anderson Subject: input on 404 Park In the context of separate unrelated conversations I was given this unsolicited input about tonight's project. I am forwarding it on for the record as confirmed with the submitters. Input from Jackie Tracy a neighbor to the project: "Not enough parking spots per resident. There is also a new development going in up the street, 517 Park Circle, that will also not have enough parking. Add to that the City's desire to put in the sidewalk on Park Circle, which will remove 10 street parking spots, and there will be a problem. Jackie Tracy 431 Park Circle" Input from Pam Cunningham a neighbor to the project: "Peter, Chris and Sara, disappointingly, have not reached out to 404's Midland Park neighbors as recommended by Jasmine at P&Z when the project was approved. It does not bode well for consideration of neighbors as relates to Peter's request for renters and consideration of possible additional impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods." than you, Kelly sent from my Whone, please excuse typos It4 M) SIT' OF ASPEN Agreement to Pay Application Fees CMRMTY MELOPMENT .�, i., , -z_ 7 /*� / -7 n e- I A bibit 5 An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and UU l 7'V-LJI TT- 'rT—,> L- /r Property Fat City Apartments LLC Phone No.: 970-379-3434 Owner ("I"): c/o Peter Fornell Email: p.fornell@comcast.net Address of 404 Park Avenue Billing Property: Lot 3 of Sunny Park Subdivision Address: S. Wes St., #4 (Subject of (send bills here) A Asp Aspen, CO 811 16 application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $. 975 flat fee for Housing _ $, flat fee for $. flat fee for $. flat fee for For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no -payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 3250 deposit for 10 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $_Received $ Property Owner: Fat City Apartments LLC Name: Title: Manager/member March, 2016 City of Apen 1 130 S. Galena St. 1 (970) 920 5050 } you` e March 3, 2017 Ben Anderson Planner RECEIVE® Planner City of Aspen MAR 0 7 2017 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 CITY OF ASPEN CM DtlT RE: 404 Park Avenue Affordable Housing Project: GMQS Amendment Mr. Anderson: Please accept this application, submitted on behalf of Fat City LLC, to amend the Growth Management approval granted by Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 11 or 2016 to allow forthe ability to rent the deed restricted units. In December, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval for a 100% affordable housing project that includes 28 deed restricted units for a total of 64 FTEs. The project is approved as a mix of Category 3 and Category 4 units, with one Resident Occupied Unit. Section 3 of Resolution 11 specifies that the units are for -sale. The applicant requests an amendment to allow both for -sale and for -rent units within the project. There are no other changes proposed to the approved project. This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code: • 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures • 26.470.140.E Growth Management—SubstantialAmendment The application is divided into three sections: Section I describes the existing conditions of the project site and environs. Section II outlines the approved development and Section III addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. Exhibits are provided as follows: • 1— Land Use application. • 2 - Dimensional requirement form. • 3 - Survey (ComDev waived requirement that survey be less than 1 year old) • 4—Vicinity Map. • 5 —Agreement to pay. • 6 — Proof of ownership. • 7—Authorization to Represent. • 8 — HOA compliance form. • 9 — Pre application Summary. 0 10 - Resolution 11— 2016. C7:� 11—Approved drawings. applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and to provide sufficient -mation to enable a thorough evaluation of the application. Upon request, BendonAdams will gladly side additional information as may be required in the course of the review. erely, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams LLC 300 So. Spring St. #202 1 Aspen I CO sara@bendonadams.com 970.925.2855 Page 2 of 9 404 Park Ave. GMQS Amendment Section I: Existing Conditions The property is currently zoned Residential Multi -family with a Planned Development overlay. 404 Park is located at the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle, and Park Avenue and Midland Avenue, near the base of Smuggler Mountain. The gross lot area is 17,837.82 square feet or 0.4095 acres. The lot currently contains a three story multi- family building facing Park Avenue, two one story multi -family buildings in the center of the lot, and a two story multi -family building facing Park Circle. There is a total of 14 units onsite: 2 studios; 4 one -bedrooms; 6 two - bedrooms; 1 three -bedrooms; 1 four - bedroom. There is designated gravel head -in surface parking along Park Avenue and Park Circle. Most of the parking is within the right of way. There are only 7 legal onsite parking spaces where 22 are required, which equals a deficit of 15 parking spaces. The property conforms to the underlying RMF Zone District, except for a few setback nonconformities. There are 14 units, which provides an allowable floor area of 1.25:1 or 22,297 sf of floor area. The four existing buildings total about 8,788 sf of floor area. Allowable height is 32 ft. for the existing density, and the tallest building on the property measures 28 ft. When constructed, the buildings were located in the setbacks as shown on the site plan. The buildings were built before a Planned Development overlay was placed on the property. Figures 3 — 5: (top to bottom): aerial view of property, building facing Park Ave.; side view of 3 story building from Midland Park. Page 3 of 9 404 Park Ave. GMQS Amendment Section II: Approved Project Description A 100% deed restricted affordable housing project is approved forth e 404 Park Avenue property including 28 housing units. A subgrade garage accessed off of Park Avenue provides parking for the project. Two buildings are approved above grade, each three stories in height with street oriented fagades to promote a positive relationship with pedestrians. Front doors, large windows, material changes, and alternate roof pitches respond to the varied neighborhood character and create a contextual addition to the neighborhood. An interior courtyard with a small pool, barbeque grill, bike parking, seating and a fire pit provides a protected cozy nook for residents to enjoy year-round. The proximity of this property to the bus route (a bus stop is located directly across the street) and to town is a great opportunity for an affordable housing project. This project meets the Residential Multi- family Zone District requirements and provides housing for 28 families/individuals. 404 Park is located in a residential neighborhood with a range of building types and density. The approved buildings and subgrade garage respect the 5 ft. setback on all sides of the property, exceeding the setback requirement in most areas. The buildings comply with the 32 feet height limit and with the allowable Floor Area within the Residential Multifamily Zone District. Extra storage outside of the individual units is proposed in the subgrade garage above each parking space and the corners of the garage provide communal bike/ski storage and a bike repair area. Trash is located at grade in an easily accessible location. Most upper level units have a private balcony. All units have one parking space in the garage. A reduction in unit size was granted for the affordable housing units. Table 1: Approved Category Configuration. The only change to the project is a request to allow for -rent and for -sale affordable housing units. The approval documents from December 2016 state that the units are approved as for -sale; however, the Land Use Code allows both for -rent and for -sale affordable housing units. The applicant requests the flexibility to provide a mix of for -sale and for -rent units that meet APCHA requirements and qualifications as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Section III: Review Requirements A. Common Development Review Procedures This land use application is submitted pursuant to and subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.304 — Common Development Review Procedures — of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. B. Growth Management Review. The amendment requests approval to change the type of units from all for -sale units to a mix of for -sale and for -rent units. Responses to relevant growth management criteria are as follows: Page 4 of 9 404 Park Ave. GMQS Amendment 26.470.140.8 Substantial Amendment of a growth management development order All other amendments to an approved growth management development order shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Chapter. Allotments granted shall remain valid and applied to the amended application, provided that the applications requiring additional allotments or allotments for different uses shall obtain those allotments pursuant to the procedures of this Chapter. 26.470.050.8 General Requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny and application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development. 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi -year allotments, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Response — no change proposed to allotments. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Response — A mix of rental and for sale units is compatible with the surrounding land uses in the area which include both for sale and for rent multi -family residential buildings. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Response —The development conforms to the RMF Zone District. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development — Project Review approval, as applicable. Response — Not applicable. The property 100% residential and is not historically designated. The property is not subject to Historic Preservation Commission approval or Commercial Design Review. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Page 5 of 9 404 Park Ave. GMQS Amendment 0 En Response— Not applicable. The development contains no commercial or lodging components and does not generate employees according to Section 26.470.100.A. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed - restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Response — Not applicable. No additional free-market residential square footage is proposed. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Response — The property is already developed with multi -family residential units and approved for the development of 28 deed restricted units. The requested amendment to allow for -rent units does not change the demand on public infrastructure. 26.470.070.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed -restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Response —The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority as determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution 11 of 2016. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off -site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a fee -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a fee -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used Page 6 of 9 404 Park Ave. GMQS Amendment ,%we '%%d to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Response — The proposed deed restricted units are not required for mitigation purposes. Affordable Housing Certificates are approved for the project. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Response —All units are located entirely above grade, no change is proposed in the amendment. d. The proposed units shall be deed -restricted as 'for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi -municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Response — The units are proposed to be deed -restricted "for sale" or "for rent" units. The "for rent" units may be owned by an employer. Designation of "for rent" or "for sale" units are at the discretion of the owner. e. Non -Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non -mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Response — Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit review criteria are addressed below. 26.470.070.5 Demolition or redevelopment of multi family housing. The City's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second -home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen workforce. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market -rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote Page 7 of 9 404 Park Ave. GMQS Amendment a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and the City's tourist -based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.): 1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market multi -family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a free-market multi family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. a. One -hundred -percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi- family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (1005vo) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed -restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section. When this one -hundred -percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market residential units within a multi family or mixed -use development. b. Fifty -percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed - restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category Page 8 of 9 404 Park Ave. GMQS Amendment NOW NOW designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing. When this fifty -percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market residential units within a multi family or mixed -use project, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.7, New free-market residential units within a multi family or mixed -use project. c. One -hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one -hundred -percent of the free-market multi family housing units are demolished and are solely replaced with deed - restricted affordable housing units on a site that are not required for mitigation purposes, including any net additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing; all of the units in the redevelopment are eligible for a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Any remaining unused free market residential development rights shall be vacated. Response - No change to approved project. Page 9 of 9 404 Park Ave. GMQS Amendment u Exhibit 1 ATTACHMENT 2 — LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 404 Park Avenue Location: Lot 3 of the Sunny Park Subvision Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2737-074-04-705 APPLICANT: Name: Peter Fornell of Fat City LLC Address: 402 Midland Park, Aspen, CO 8161 Phone #: 970-379-3434 or p.fornell@comcast.net REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: Sara Adams of BendonAdams Address: 300 S. Spring St., #202, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone#: 970-925-2855 or sara@bendondams.com 0 GMQS Exemption [$� GMQS Allotment Special Review 0 ESA-8040Greenline,Stream 0 Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane Commercial Design Review = Residential Design Variance = Conditional Use 0 Conceptual PUD 0 Temporary Use 0 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Subdivision = Conceptual SPA Subdivision Exemption (includes Condominiumization) Final SPA (&SPA Lot Split Amendment) 0 Lot Line Adjustment Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Other: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Free market multi -family residential unit development Zoned Residential Multi-family_(RMF) with PD overlay. PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) 100% affordable housingproject with 28 housing units including subgrade garage and three stories above grade. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 4,25 Pre -Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements — including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project NOT APPLICABLE All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre -application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. March, 2016 City of Apen 1 130 S. Galena St. 1 (970) 920 5050 'r.r *4W Exhibit 2 CITY OF •DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 404 Park Avenue Applicant: Fat City LLC represented by Sara Adams of BendonAdams Location: Lot 3 of Sunny Park Subdivision at the intersection of Park Ave. and Park Circle Zone District: RMF [conditional PD overlay, see Ordinance 20, Series of 2016] Lot Size: gross lot size is 17,837.82 Lot Area: net lot area does not apply in the RMF zone district for multi -family development (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: n/a Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: 14 Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: n/a Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): n/a DIMENSIONS: n/a 28 54 Floor Area: Existing: 8,582.08 Allowable: 26,756 Proposed 26,084 Principal bldg. height: Existing: 910" - 28' max Allowable: 32' max Proposed up to 32' see Z-201 - 212 Access. Bldg. height: Existing: n/a Allowable: Proposed /a On -Site parking: Existing: 7 spaces Required: 28 spaces Proposed 28 spaces Site coverage: Existing: n/a Required: Proposed n/a Open Space: Existing: n/a Required: Proposed n/a Front Setback: Existing: 5' Required 5' Proposed 5' Rear Setback: Existing: 1'6" Required: 5' Proposed 5' Combined F/F: Existing: n/a Required n/a Proposed n/a Side Setback: Existing: 1'8" Required: 5' Proposed 5' Side Setback: Existing: 5' Required 5' Proposed 5' Combined Sides: Existing: n/a Required n/a Proposed n/a Distance between Bldgs. Existing: n/a Required: n/a Proposed n/a Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing non -conformities or encroachments: setbacks Variations requested: trash/recycle location in street facing yard (26.575.020.5.t). NOTES PAt PYm� .rw..m�.emio..Mm.aNm�ws'�'.. so�nnriovm-a serum r, ro.+mb,o sow.Y.Y.Mwwd «:.w era a .eu.,u+..+w.�.w.d,ono..a,wa.,eda,•s,.�.m•�...mP.d.a.... mmY.wa.A•Mo. .Y .«w�,P. a,da � d YN�>nP� . dd.� m ,,.,. b: mro Y., aam•E. mm.. a ,.� b �*.mmAw Y.oa. NNN er w...mi m..,aa... smmP..sd,ANmm. RNN ra.M.sm.drm.m..0 om++..wY. a� I \ a� r foN / P Ss3Wb EnRm1 A iw,O REYAR ANR RPC 1 — AT 11R: R.R. PROPEItn cmml AYR A inuw RUAR ARo nc W — AT tRE xc PRartRn ca+rm. iNi PREP AAR T=n s wi.T.'unw M ergA °Ymux n ag rro. P�nav wi� oAt�Eo to/xe . ) N W APR�PERRn�CpMER. CnT M1EAV 51(WE) PWT(�—) — YAM OATIu. B[NCNYARR- —21 o w me xo'rroEAY n.PowAYEI zN a'n DA— .. A. 1— — Em 5 cuYSomm ro ee sne a �cmxiRivP zwE usmcT REwunwn vi N AL c. oEVM ARluvfiT ro ArTEcr s.o PARca Accwowe uAPs PRowm n nR: an z VICINITY MAP 1-400' CITY OF ASPEN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY LOT 3 SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION PITAYN COUNTY. COLORADO / r� ra ow /inAmrioAc � \ b �Aq. MIDLAND\A\VF.. Exhibit 3 V = 20' LEGEND • MpU iwNU .roMR 1 A] OFSCRREO. uT AEuww rAc cr ® secR YANYwz w Poxn Pwe RY WATER Ac1m o--f—. PFNCE Mrt FY 6ECTAK YETEIt ® EE£ — 1RAN]iORMEi m TE1eMrouz Mme ® sanY DRAM m GM£ R®t � RATER VALM c ,A„T Po,F RRmR RELL EwwMEEY TAEE ,RNM MAYERR(MpRS}MN UNEmm SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE E YKNAEL P. UiTGn. XEREBY CERTIiY TIAT 11R] YAP ACCIINAIELY CEPICI] M IN x8 PME�E1. a 1YE IACAIYpYM AW N— t Au CROACYMd15 R1�OxYW 1Y6f PREM]E5 ARE ACCWATELY SYgM� Y qpR R ClD]IIRE 5 lFE5 MAN 1/I5,000. L/ MCIUEL P. UfTFR1Y Ply / ]]RlR �� DATE. o-n- s Z W a- W U- Agreement to Pay Application Fees n 8greement between the City of Aspen ("City") and hibit 5 Property Fat City Apartments LLC Phone No.: 970-379-3434 Owner ("I"): c/o Peter Fornell Email: p.fornell@comcast.net Address of 404 Park Avenue Billing S. WestEnd #4 Property: Lot 3 of Sunny Park Subdivision Address: Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, A (Subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $. 975 flat fee for Housing $, flat fee for $. flat fee for $. flat fee for For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no -payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $_ 3250 deposit for 10 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: Fat City Apartments LLC Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $Received $ _ Name: C Title Manager/member Exhibit 6 PROFORMA TITLE REPORT SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: February 27, 2017 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT24764W2 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Proposed Insured: TO BE DETERMINED 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: FAT CITY APARTMENTS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, ASPEN, CO. 81611 970-925-1766 Phone/970-925-6527 Fax 877-217-3158 Toll Free AUTHORIZED AGENT Countersigned: EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A Tract of land being all of Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision recorded at Book 3 Page 18, that part of vacated Park Avenue being adjacent to said Lot 3 according to Ordinance No. 11 (Series 1972) City of Aspen recorded in Book 265 at Page 1 and all of that parcel of land described in the Special Warranty Deed at Book 765 Page 858, all in the South one-half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point, being the North Corner of said Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision; thence S52°00'00"E a distance of 120.62 feet along the North line of said Lot 3 to the Northeast corner of said Lot 3 being a point on the Westerly boundary of Midland Park Subdivision as recorded in Book 6 at Page 138 and being a point on the Line 5-1 of the U.S.M.S. Mascotte Lode #5867; thence S45°21'00"W a distance of 77.96 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 3 also being the Westerly line of said Midland Park Subdivision and the Line 5-1 of said U.S.M.S. Mascotte; thence S35°53'00"E a distance of 9.46 feet along the boundary of said Midland Park Subdivision; thence S54°07'00"W a distance of 45.95 feet along the Westerly line of said Midland Park Subdivision to a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 3 also being on the Line 4-1 of the U.S.M.S. Mollie Gibson Lode # 4281AM; thence S38°00'00"W a distance of 79.73 feet along the Easterly line of said Lot 3 also being along the Line 4-1 of said U.S.M.S. Mollie Gibson Lode to a point on the Southerly boundary of said Park Avenue vacation; thence along said Park Avenue vacation boundary the following four (4) courses: N14°22'26"W a distance of 67.09 feet; thence; 5.58 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 10.00 feet, a central angle of 31 °58'16" and subtending a chord bearing of N01°36'42"E a distance of 5.51 feet; thence 75.14 feet along the arc of reverse curve having a radius of 93.93 feet, a central angle of 45°50'03" and subtending a chord bearing of N05°19'12"W a distance of 73.15 feet; thence 12.14 feet along the arc of a reverse curve, having a radius of 10.00 feet, a central angle of 69°33'25" and subtending a chord bearing of N06°32'29"E a distance of 12.14 feet; thence N41°20'00"E a distance of 3.99 feet to the Southwesterly Corner of said Lot 3; thence N41 °20'00"E a distance of 91.65 feet along the Westerly line of said Lot 3 to the point of beginning. TOGETHER with a non-exclusive easement for the construction, maintenance, inspection, protection, repair and replacement of the existing concrete retaining wall, stairs, sidewalk and fence, through, on, over and across the following described real property, hereinafter referred to as the "easement" to -wit: That portion of Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision, Pitkin County, State of Colorado, described as follows: Commencing at a point being the Northwest corner of Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision, Pitkin County, State of Colorado, said point also being the Southwest corner of said Lot 5, thence South 52°00' East along the Northern boundary line of said Lot 3, said line also being the Southern boundary line of said Lot 5 a distance of 90.00 feet; thence North 38°00' East, a distance of 5.0 feet; thence North 52°00' West, a distance of 89.71 feet; thence South 41 °20' West, a distance of 5.01 feet to the point of beginning; the same being appurtenant to Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado; for so long as the said concrete retaining wall, stairs, sidewalk and fence are used for the same purposes as currently exist and further for so long as the said concrete retaining wall, stairs, sidewalk and fence, or any portion thereof, shall remain attached and/or appurtenant to the existing structure, a dwelling house, and no longer, together with the right of ingress and egress over said easement and the right to survey, construct, reconstruct, maintain, operate, control and use said concrete retaining wall, stairs, sidewalk and fence, as conveyed from Ralph H. Woodward, Jr. and Patricia Woodward to Luke W. Anthony, Inc., a Colorado Corporation by instrument dated June 26, 1972 and recorded June 30, 1972 in Book 264 at Page 787. Historically described as A tract of land being part of Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision, part of vacated Park Avenue and part of the Mascotte Lode U.S.M.S. No. 5867, all in the South one-half of the Southeast quarter of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point, being the North corner of Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision; thence South 52°00'00" East 118.26 feet along the north line of said Lot 3; to line 1-5 of said Mascotte Lode; thence South 45024'29" West 77.95 feet along line 1-5 of said Mascotte Lode; thence South 35053'00" East 9.46 feet; thence South 54007'00" West 37.14 feet to a point on line 4-1 of Mollie Gibson Lode U.S. M.S. No. 4281; thence South 38°00'00" West 86.24 feet along Line 4-1 of said Mollie Gibson Lode to a point on the Easterly right -of -Way of Park Avenue; thence North 14°22'26" West 67.11 feet along said right-of-way; thence following said right-of-way 5.58 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 10.00 feet; thence following said right-of-way 75.14 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 93.93 feet to a point on the Easterly right-of-way of Park Circle; thence following said Easterly right-of-way of Park Circle 12.14 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 10.00 feet; thence North 41020'00" East 95.64 feet along said right-of-way to the Point of Beginning. TOGETHER with a non-exclusive easement for the construction, maintenance, inspection, protection, repair and replacement of the existing concrete retaining wall, stairs, sidewalk and fence, through, on, over and across the following described real property, hereinafter referred to as the "easement" to -wit: That portion of Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision, Pitkin County, State of Colorado, described as follows: Commencing at a point being the Northwest corner of Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision, Pitkin County, State of Colorado, said point also being the Southwest corner of said Lot 5, thence South 52000' East along the Northern boundary line of said Lot 3, said line also being the Southern boundary line of said Lot 5 a distance of 90.00 feet; thence North 38°00' East, a distance of 5.0 feet; thence North 52°00' West, a distance of 89.71 feet; thence South 41 °20' West, a distance of 5.01 feet to the point of beginning; the same being appurtenant to Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado; for so long as the said concrete retaining wall, stairs, sidewalk and fence are used for the same purposes as currently exist and further for so long as the said concrete retaining wall, stairs, sidewalk and fence, or any portion thereof, shall remain attached and/or appurtenant to the existing structure, a dwelling house, and no longer, together with the right of ingress and egress over said easement and the right to survey, construct, reconstruct, maintain, operate, control and use said concrete retaining wall, stairs, sidewalk and fence, as conveyed from Ralph H. Woodward, Jr. and Patricia Woodward to Luke W. Anthony, Inc., a Colorado Corporation by instrument dated June 26, 1972 and recorded June 30, 1972 in Book 264 at Page 787. SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS THIS REPORT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED.THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. The premises hereby granted, with the exception of the surface, may be entered by the proprietor of any other vein, lode or ledge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate, intersect, or extend into said premises, for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or ledge as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 168 and Book 175 at Page 171. 8. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Quit Claim Deed recorded March 30, 1964 in Book 206 at Page 301. 9. Reservation of all mineral rights as set forth in Warranty Deed recorded September 4, 1964 in Book 209 at Page 68 and Warranty Deed recorded May 18, 1965 in Book 213 at Page 10. 10. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Easement recorded June 30, 1972 in Book 264 at Page 787. 11. Easement and right of way for an electric transmission or distribution line or system, as granted to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., in instrument recorded July 26, 1972 in Book 265 at Page 351. 12. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in License Agreement recorded April 26, 1996 as Reception No. 392136 13. All matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded January 19, 1965 in Plat Book 3 at Page 18. 14. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Boundary Survey of subject property recorded January 9, 2007 in Plat Book 82 at Page 36 as Reception No. 533172. 15. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2011 by City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado recorded February 29, 2012 as Reception No. 587076. 16. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2016 by Aspen City Council recorded September 7, 2016 as Reception No. 631974. 17. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Ciy of Aspen recorded January 12, 2017 as Reception No. 635410 as Resolution No. 11-2016. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, THIRD FLOOR ASPEN, CO 81611 970-925-1766/970-925-6527 FAX TOLL FREE 877-217-3158 WIRING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS REGARDING THE CLOSING OF THIS FILE ARE AS FOLLOWS: ALPINE BANK -ASPEN 600 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, CO. 81611 ABA ROUTING NO. 102103407 FOR CREDIT TO: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., ESCROW ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NO. 2021 012 333 REFERENCE:PCT24764W2/TO BE DETERMINED IVAW ``00 Exhibit 7 April 15, 2016 rREC IVE MAR 0 7 2017 Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP CITY OF ASPEN Community Development Director COMA TY DMLOPMENT City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 404 Park Avenue, Lot 3 of Sunny Park Subdivision; Aspen, CO. Ms. Garrow: Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams, LLC, to represent our ownership interests in 404 Park Avenue and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or If I can assist, please do not hesitate to call. Kind Regards, lePF6rnell Manager 300 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM %Mae ftoo a Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies With all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the Property owner or Attorney representin_a the property owner. Property Owner ("I"): Name: Peter Fornell. Manager, Email: p.fornell@comeast.net Address of Property: 4p4 Park Avenue; Aspen, CO 81611 (subject of application) Phone No.: 379.3434 I certify s follows: (pick one) This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not Interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of priv to covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a p document. Owner signature: date: "�/ f /111�" Owner printed name: Peter Fomell or, Attorney signature: date: Attorney printed name: 1%W *4W Exhibit 9 CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Ben Anderson DATE: February 15, 2017 PROJECT: 404 Park Ave. REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, LLC REQUEST: Substantial Amendment of a growth management development order RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2017 CITY OF ASPEN C TY DmOPME DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing an amendment to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 11, Series of 2016. A development order for three years of vested rights has been issued in connection to this resolution effective December 20, 2016. Resolution 11 granted approval for reviews of GMQS, Affordable Housing Credits and a dimensional variance for a trash enclosure. The approved project includes 28, deed restricted, affordable housing units. The applicant is considering a change to a single aspect of the project. The units in the approved project were proposed as "ownership" or "for sale" units. The applicant is considering shifting the units in part, or in full to "rental" units. Because this aspect of the project was specifically described in the approved Resolution, this proposed change must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission in a public hearing. As the proposed change has been presented, the only aspect of the project subject to the review will be the designation of units as "owned" or "rental". An essential component of this review will be a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Staff and Board regarding the proposed change. This recommendation regarding the change must be submitted to Community Development prior to the review being placed on the Planning and Zoning Commission's schedule. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www.asr)eni3itkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%201and%20use%20a pp%20form.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use- Code/ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.470.140.E GMQS: Substantial amendment of a growth management development order Review by: Staff for complete application, Staff and APCHA for Recommendation, Planning and Zoning Commission for approval or denial Referrals: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Public Hearing: Yes, Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Fees: Planning Deposit — $3,250 for 10 hours ($325 per hour for additional Planning Staff review time in excess of deposit hours) Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority - $975 flat fee Total Deposit Due: $4,225 ASLU GQMS Amendment 404 Park Avenue Parcel # 2737-074-04-705 1 To apply, submit the following information: ❑ Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. ❑ Pre -application Conference Summary (this document). ❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. ❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ❑ HOA Compliance form (Attached) ❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. ❑ A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. ❑ Written responses to all review criteria. ❑ An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ 1 Complete Copy. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: ❑ 2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings. ❑ Total deposit for review of the application. ❑ A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 2 I= RESOLUTION NO. I I' (SERIES OF 2016) R PTIOW: 635410, 01/12/2017 at 02:30:14 PM, 1 OF 22, R $118.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO - Exhibit 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS, A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 3, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 404 PARK AVENUE. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-074-04-705 WHEREAS, Mr. Peter Fornell of Fat City, LLC, submitted an application for Growth Management — Affordable Housing, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, a Dimensional Variance, and Residential Design Standards reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the development of 28 deed -restricted, affordable housing units at 404 Park Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2016, voted to approve the removal of an existing Planned Development overlay on the parcel, subject to conditions including the creation of a 100% Affordable Housing development; and, WHEREAS, the property is located in the Residential Multi -family (RMF) zone district; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Transportation Department, Parking Department, Environmental Health and Parks Department as a'result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Board of Directors considered the application at their scheduled meeting on December 7, 2016 and provided a recommendation of approval; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has provided a recommendation to restudy two aspects of the project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on December 20, 2016; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fords that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the four requests is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, - Page 1 of 6 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution 11, Series of 2016, by a five to zero (5 - 0) vote, granting approval of Growth Management Reviews, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, a Variance of a Dimensional Standard and Residential Design Standards as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section l: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby grants approval for the redevelopment of the site. This approval constitutes a Site Specific Development Plan for 404 Park Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein to•develop a multi -family residential building containing 28 affordable housing units and 28 off-street parking spaces. Without changing the number of residential units approved on the site, minor -changes to the floor plans are permitted to ensure that the building meets the dimensional requirements of the Residential Multi -family zone district (as well as applicable allowances of section 26.575.020, Calculations and measurements), including minimum yard setbacks, a maximum height of 32 feet, and Floor -Area Ratio allowances. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following land use reviews: Growth Management Reviews, a dimensional Variance, Residential Design Standards, and the establishment of Affordable Housing Credits. Section 2: Development Agreement The record owner shall prepare, execute and record a Development Agreement meeting the requirements of Section 26.470.070.5.6, Redevelopment Agreement, within 180 days of this approval. The development agreement shall be reviewed to ensure each item and condition of approval is documented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney prior to recordation. No building permit submission for development of the lot shall be permitted until recordation has occurred. The Development Agreement shall set forth a description of the proposed improvements and obligations of the parties. Section 3: Affordable Housing All of the affordable housing units shall meet the APCHA Guidelines. APCHA has granted a unit size reduction for all units associated with the project. All of the 28 units on the Jot shall be `for sale' units. The Applicant may choose a percentage of purchasers for the affordable housing units that qualify via APCHA's guidelines per the allowances and limitation that APCHA has granted associated with this development. Increases to the net livable area for individual units (from Page 2 of 6 M iM approved unit sizes) may be approved administratively by Community Development at the time of building permit. Xv Approved' _Approved , Employees Y dEinployees ; uhiffypef' AH U111ts ' r Housed per ° , d.. HHoused by nit L ` _LTnrt T� e, 1 bedroom 13 1.75 22.75 FTE 2 bedroom* 2 2.25 4.5 FTE 3 bedroom 13 3 39 FTE Totals 28 64 FTE *project includes one, 2 bedroom deed restricted Resident Occupied unit — which will not be available as a credit Section 4: Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits This resolution approves the establishment of affordable housing credits for the project. Prior to issuance of the credits, the units shall be deed restricted pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Guidelines and a Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for the entire development. As submitted and approved by APCHA, the project is proposing the following unit configuration and credit schedule: Category 3 (5) five, one bedroom units (1) one, two bedroom unit (7) seven, three bedroom units Total Category 4 (8) eight, one bedroom units (6) six, three bedroom units Total 8.75 FTE 2.25 FTE = 21 FTE. 32 FTE — Category 3 14 FTE 18 FTE 32 FTE — Category 4 A total of 64 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) will be issued at the completion of the project. Any changes to this balance of unit and category types are subject to APCHA approval. Section 5: Dimensional Variance This resolution approves a variance to subsection 26.575.020.E.5.t allowing the location of the trash and recycling enclosure on Park Avenue between the street and the principal mass of the building. The final design of this enclosure will be approved by the City of Aspen's Environmental Health Department and will comply with adopted building codes in meeting Accessibility and ADA requirements. Additionally, applicant will propose final design for Page 3 of 6 cm En trash enclosure including materiality, door configuration and landscaping for administrative approval by Community Development at time of building permit. Section 6: Residential Design Standards The Planning and Zoning approval of Residential- Design Standards, which would normally be reviewed administratively, allows for design flexibility of the trash enclosure that is subject of the Dimensional Variance. This resolution grants approval of the project under Residential Design Standards, limited to the project as presented. Section 7: Building Permit Application In addition to the standard submission requirements for a building permit, the Applicant shall submit the following: a. A signed copy of the Planning and Zoning resolution 'and the Development Agreement granting land use approvals. b. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the resolutions and the. Development Agreement have been read and understood. a. The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and school lands dedication fees applicable and per the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit submission, payable upon issuance of the full building permit. c. All approved Transportation Mitigation Requirements shall be included as part of the building permit application. d. All Fire codes will be designed for and met with the submission of a building permit application. Section 8: Engineering Final design and analysis shall be compliant with all sections of the City of .Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department inclusive but not limited to the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements (URMP. Section 9: Environmental Health The project shall meet Aspen Municipal Code Section 12.06 Waste Reduction. Section 10: Parks Tree permit: The tree permit shall be submitted for approval prior to building permit submittal. Said permit shall outline protection of existing trees, drip line excavations and mitigation for any removals as referenced in Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Fee -in -Lieu mitigation will be owed for.approved tree removals. The applicant will be required to preserve the spruce tree in the front, SE side of the property, and the aspen trees at the rear of the property. The landscape plan (including a bio-retention, plan) will be reviewed by the City Forester and species and spacing will be determined for sustainability and long term health of the tree, as well as their contribution to the community forest. No hedgerow planting. Deciduous trees should be Page 4 of 6 ''WNP+" . planted no closer than 5' from the building. Coniferous trees should be planted no closer than 10' from the building. Please submit a bio-retention plan with your landscape plan. Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved first by the City Parks Department. Final plans shall show compliance with these requirements by way of new street trees, irrigation and sod, all of which is subject to approval by the City Forester. Irrigation of trees is required throughout the entire length of the project. Any access across or through the area of protection is .prohibited at all times., Section 11: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. A separate ACSD permit is required. Section 12: Utilities Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 13: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 14: Impact Fees Pursuant to. Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development impact fee and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality impact fee assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 15: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 16: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a vested property right attaching to and running with the lot each for a period of three (3) years. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property right. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this resolution granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval Page 5 of 6 as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 18: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED,BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 20th day of December, 2016. AP D O FORM: Planning and ning Commission Z An rea B , ssi t City ttorney Keith Good , hair ATTEST: ZZ � Cindy Kl , Records Manager Exhibit A: Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations Page 6 of 6 Exhibit A: Pg 1 of 16 y. ., w ; #+} �� �J � � � ' 5 . a '� .. T;�. i v y�� +� 4 t .r _. +` • f i� w a a ^+ �� t +�2 , Y � �� E�r a � � ». Z � r l _ � �. a �..- —" ,y .. ,: -s ' �. v � .:a Y i Ml � Y �. � .. t � -.,»� ,u a ! y ., - t >_ 4 i .t.� � -. N .. .a a r ,gem , rwra ) a.3.m 3$. � A"`fi�. �` n D �' ; � w `�� .� .� J " ins i bi �� � m e j 4u.. .4 a,.. 4 -.- '� .... � y i t i ��a`5.. w. � ,_ ,,. =r ..egg. w y_��i� t J 6 � a .; _ � 3e � A - y R r � - k 1 .. � � � ' � � "k �. _ _ _ � as " J:��4�t"' - .�. -.. y s `.. o Exhibit A: Pg 3 of 16 O•.btl5<C CA�MILL,W[M RN 11 PCLL. L� � !F • 1 m © (9Mf.t:txtr •AEE¢i• v � � � � A"s;»•. • :''� � � i IlAyiVS .M4Y v � R+th NI.11w[ v,. q CY\Ml ✓Y� ;'f%. XM 1W t tOM SnH f.I1M"YF — � v+� ti•5!•.4t tKt • •00. /Y1tAt CDT t a i...._. ft/ � •» 4_ n;�_ i WMi6wIlAf}WW14 W �Ys4t 5lN 1Mlflli ,t..o.. _ — °t4Y.vVthtW - tMi.^ba[ RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2017 CITY OF ASPEN f,*OMt MTY DRSOPMENT PRELIMINARY Z-003 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Exhibit A: Pg 4 of 16 Imo, P'Hf >.sww wn u+.e sm. Tw f lMZf4.�`5T F liA7N'.S�A 404 PARK STRVCIUMAL r. ar+-s waw caT:ue. va.rrare t r�cs.w,wx+� w.+cue,e+r FwwJs�. n SONF. p15TWT AW PARCEL IDS M7074,0 . 05 LrGAL OMRJPT�OB L ] d %.,y b- 5,bO - SKETTME Z-003 PROPOSED SITE PLAN i 1 Is .8114" OFF= 1 I n-SPAMOICUP" FORUM -M PHI Exhibt A: Pg 5 of 16 — - — - — - — - — - — - — -- M77 WIM I - - - - - - - - - - - -T - - - - - - - - - - 3EE UE e. 0- - - -- - -- - -- - ARCRITT-CTURE I FWt-RIORSj;N_M:NW., FORUM-Ht.r-ORA PROPOSED Lry"a,v56'- F L_j --I ____j (gL a to 32 404 PARK 4 --- --------------------------- T A L.✓ cr-------------------------- o------------- o------------- o------------- Exhibit A: Pg 6 of 16 --------------- Mproacnuwt�A. ,a , ex. �+ . se hSWW AI.n SMM. SAY i0A A.a.n, CabYb d061e DfiT61rAAf B1 e. }tl6.f!?34M{ 404 PARK tW STRW,LRAL ZONE Mfmt AVF PUACEL D r 1r3417-toWos LOOM WSCRroTtSN ,03d$I-"P. SO&AW. Z-102 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 4 4 i I 1 1 i i t 0------------------------------i------- ------------------------------ -._._ i ....... i i•'' .� ,r MLS Exhibit A: Pg 7 of 16 aa:ru.nrrsm�as 4W PARK +~«.Null a...rn .c. cammM •trwwuc zoNE a�sNac� part papcsinamrof�a.ios LEM o"CRWfnN ta)atu.tign a,maa�., SKE„na Z-103 PROPOSED SECONDLEVEL Exhibit A: P9 8 of 16 1 Cow 4 1p ----------------- - - ----------------------------------- -------------- A-- - - --------------------------- ------- --- --- - - - - - - 0 - — ----------------------- ----- - -- ------ -- --------------- --- ------ - - -------------- -------------- - - ------------------- 1'-.A: L ------------- -- .. ..... - — ----------- ...... .......... -4-4-0 ------------- --------------- T WPHI um E) 0 ARC*4tfFCl'URE I lMtf--PIORS I PLANNNG 404 PARK FORUMPHI'Com I Exhibit A: P9 9 of 16 D 0 0 0 I i I aer: eseY.*ar.vetr zau, rc«scrnr,vro _ _,� I .,rr,r wrnairan s ATIP'll �y iU. elr �ph.Y'� 1 i , Nrh14f� rmwwt�cnwr , 1 ,.�.� tG SA.W Eta' 1 Exhibit A: Pg 10 of 16 I Sf'Tbv'K ttlilE � �� � fi�{Y,ltiibt mbM q`M,.T aw':OkF d5nrkf NAY' C%Mr . — . — . — . —. —. —. —. —. — — . —. —. —. I J 1 I I � 3 I �' >NfdYx9#6 GAAfJf I — — — — — — — — — — MS,Mk CMY. I 1 I I eawa,cre� 3 F4,EYAT14Y 3t32. 1. Z _„ EIEVATIM -w 3W— Tfi' I ARCHItECTURE I INTERIMS I PLANNING 404 PARK roRUNr".CoM f Exhibit A: Pg 11 of 16 0 0 0 0 .,.� ' _ _ w y �4X1KT�p18Myvi IL i .. ( Stt [LN1tEW SHED .01 rQM1SU Mr9 w. -.� I 77 eEux •- I _. _.-. -. _. _. _.-. I IMKMilYi _• L._--...��-mot. �..-.-_.-__.._.._--- w.e... ,e..n... Il.. _..__.._1_.,r ._.___......_........m...,....,......._......�s. u.. _., ».. 1. ®.@�. .... ... ..`. 1. a..._.-..�1--- _---._-_. 4 .�,.__....,.._ EL.EVATM ARCHt`6CTURC I INTEMRS I PLANNING 404 PARK PpRtN,tPli1.CA� r Exhibit A: Pg 12 of 16 0 0 ©o ® o o HIM IIIII M, Kill ARCHtMC"E t INTFRu ORS I PC.1, MIW, 404 PARK FORtIA^p"I'com I Exhibt A: Pg 13 of 16 r h. tL M%f -} �"'�4.4 eE� �%a`w,[ardrrreJn*!ewn t2�pN?ApD1Y +� �d �xEfnr[+aNe r wcra+* ucwiwe+revro zac+ rrx st arAll un I � ' � , I "eKu.rwe+sueee+tWru I i _ — yea a nc i i r � 1 wemn[ zM� I T ELEVATION 31 �.=.... ?�'� E E1.f�YATION aCf2" a 1'4r ARCHL`ECTURE IINTEROR&I PLANNW A•i�A PARK FORUmPHi COM 0 �� �RW Ynf d3iR11't fBx9sP U4tt YMIAP elVFY fFC01D♦ — 1 'O�RYtbP� lffi ••••_ —•y � W6R'11K GMGt 4 { t f I 9 ,EtEV1TiQii _— 3132` i •0' ARCHOTECTURE I NIERIORS I PtANNiNO 404 PARK fORL,p.AAHLCQbt a Exhibit A: Pg 14 of 16 I um.cr.xw �msnaetc-hKt NRRr LRM7 � sic cxrw+kr. x s«cc* I I � z��raR poor. uu g� i. y �++tvfvsS i f _. _. _.) _. _._ _ ..�.. _.. — — _. _. _.. _. to Rv •••<i.� I I I ----- ._.... _._ ._. _.—�— YCGN�IML. — —•— —'7a.. i[. coin r i ....�.,.,.,m� i ... _.__ F1 Fl- .,...: tM(� Krim, IROPOK36M0[ I YrirC/fF GM( I I I I I I I B ELEVATION 3W* Exhibit A: Pg 15 of 16 - 13 rl wl F T-Fl, LI-T- Ll ELEVATION ARcHrEctumE 1 tvTF-Rton i potmw, 404 PARK I FORUM" CCMI D P.0—HM Heigh% ♦: t ca v...,n„ .o..nc . ta.+x«w..wur �"wMR,✓` :uwl�xr�wr fil Im „v m• „ c •o � sr zoo __T_ _. a� r.s •,.. •.o.� ca �-� 61nmm N.eNwk 11.MnMtiwd ��� RMMMIM LYriMYfW�wr sum r�W may: i me REEaft -a - PH! SETBACK /:R(WprfL if 1 Exhibit A; Pg 16 of 16 PROPOSED ROOF TOPO $ i6 32 AIRC ITtrruae 404 PARK 'ZI.IPHI.Uoa Exhibit 11 715 V M W. 9beaf, Sus. ]04 Aspen, Cobndi191a11 P: 9M2M.4157 F: 996.770.5586 404 PARK Aspen CO 61611 ZONE DISTRICT RMF PARCEL ID M 273-707.404.705 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot of Smny Park Subdivision SHEET TITLE Z-003 PROPOSED SITE J. ®" I PLAN PARNNO COUNT PROPOSEDUMTMBf REOIIIRED PARNNO 13-ONE aEIXtCQ15 13.SPACES 1-1N09EIXtOOMS 2.SPACES 13-THREE BEDIICOMS 28-SPICES 1 -RO 2 -SPACES 28TOTALUNRS SPACES REWRED "'.. 15-SPACES DEFlCR i 2e-SPACES REDURED e PROPERTY LINE — V — //_SETBACK LINE 1 ^ ------------7- G O , I I I , oNE wn I 1 / I I / I / / / uNnm.zw I 1 / ♦ � I � I I / I � I _ ___ 1 1-------- L ---�- --I--------�- +----- - - ---- ---- - -�-- r t2%SLOPE , I -- ---------- I 12%SLOPE I I ;I pEN11Y I I I 1 i 1 II m 1 UNf FLAT FORDRAINAND I I .ARACE 000R �---�-__ l_L_______-- ___ -- q F 4-Ao 1 E fiE,A1rn K � 1 RAC / L I =/sETBAOK�NE / PROP=RTY LINE�� _ _ _ _ _ _ �_• _ - _ - - - - — - — - - — - - _ - — L - 1 1 2 J 5 6 ARCHITECTURE I INTERIORS I PLANNING I FORUMPHI.COM e8 16 32 ® 9t 8 ,� A 4 All l3Ai'I WYW 0350dOild I I I - r - - — — ------ —— -- —Mg El Lo , FIE ❑ I I aM o- -- —1— - --- — --I -- —�--------- — 7 T-- -- ---------0 o- --- =------------ - ------------ a.va � w I '� I I o-- - - - - - - - - - ---------------- - - - - I —___—_�___� _—_--0 � ,.,M ,ro 0. J — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —� I „! ' � I I � I I � I I i� I're i w,� i i w� m I 1 %• i . m Q-- — — — — — — — — — — --- — J — — — — — — — — L----------------------- -0 b b b b b b wHdozi --------------- IHd Anuo-A 0 '--'_-- -' w� Ell ------------------ -'---'-'-'-'-'-'--+D -'---'-'-' '-'- -'-'---'-'-'---'-'-'-' ----------------- ----------------- --------------- o--------------- o--------------- I I I I - - T - - - F------- iAi ---------- I ®ry 1 4 B 16 w RUM PHI I 715 Weal Main s—t sab ] A— Cob.d 81611 P: 9M 2M.4157 F: 6ss.770.5555 404 PARK Aspen CO 61611 u Ll PROJECTND -7 ZONE DISTRICT RMF PARCEL ID 0 273-707-404-705 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 3 of Swny Park Subd'mwon SHEET TITLE_ Z-104 PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL LEGEND Q,r. OvRDroseovsrEM3REE u 3 uL ORRORDSEDASRENmEE ORROROSED COILMNPR ASREN mEE 3 3'GL VROROSEDCOWMNARAS- f.g'� Ett. DECIDUOUS -REMAIN o.Rov..a.n.v , A 11/19/30I6 p6 ® ro� Z-003 MON f RESOLUTION NO. 11� (SERIES OF 2016) 00tPTION#: 635410, 01/12/2017 at 02:30:14 PM, 1 OF 22, R $118.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS, A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 3, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 404 PARK AVENUE. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-074-04-705 WHEREAS, Mr. Peter Forriell of Fat City, LLC, submitted an application for Growth Management — Affordable Housing, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, a Dimensional Variance, and Residential Design Standards reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the development of 28 deed -restricted, affordable housing units at 404 Park Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2016, voted to approve the removal of an existing Planned Development overlay on the parcel, subject to conditions including the creation of a 100% Affordable Housing development; and, WHEREAS, the property is located in the Residential Multi -family (RMF) zone district; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Transportation Department, Parking Department, Environmental Health and Parks Department as aI-result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Board of Directors considered the application at their scheduled meeting on December 7, 2016 and provided a recommendation of approval; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has provided a recommendation to restudy two aspects of the project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on December 20, 2016; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the four requests is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, Page 1 of 6 Mini loot WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution 11, Series of 2016, by a five to zero (5 - 0) vote, granting approval of Growth Management Reviews, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, a Variance of a Dimensional Standard and Residential Design Standards as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby grants approval for the redevelopment of the site. This approval constitutes a Site Specific Development Plan for 404 Park Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein to, develop a multi -family residential building containing 28 affordable housing units and 28 off-street parking spaces. Without changing the number of residential units approved on the site, minor -changes to the floor plans are permitted to ensure that the building meets the dimensional requirements of the Residential Multi -family zone district (as well as applicable allowances of section 26.575.020, Calculations and measurements), including minimum yard setbacks, a maximum height of 32 feet, and Floor Area Ratio allowances. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following land use reviews: Growth Management Reviews, a dimensional Variance, Residential Design Standards, and the establishment of Affordable Housing Credits. Section 2: Development Agreement. The record owner shall prepare, execute and record a Development Agreement meeting the requirements of Section 26.470.070.5.6, Redevelopment Agreement, within 180 days of this approval. The development agreement shall be reviewed to ensure each item and condition of approval is documented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney prior to recordation. No building permit submission for development of the lot shall be permitted until recordation has occurred. The Development Agreement shall set forth a description of the proposed improvements and obligations of the parties. Section 3: Affordable Housing All of the affordable housing units shall meet the APCHA Guidelines. APCHA has granted a unit size reduction for all units associated with the project. All of the 28 units on the.lot shall be `for sale' units. The Applicant may choose a percentage of purchasers for the affordable housing units that qualify via APCHA's guidelines per the allowances and limitation that APCHA has granted associated with this development. Increases to the net livable area for individual units (from Page 2 of 6 *AINW approved unit sizes) may be approved administratively by Community Development at the time of building permit. .: xApp`-roved ° ° Total x Approved Employees Employees Unit Type AH Units 'Housed per- ousW by unit 1 Unrt 1 bedroom 13 1.75 22.75 FTE 2 bedroom* 2 2.25 4.5 FTE 3 bedroom 13 3 39 FTE Totals 28 64 FTE *project includes one, 2 bedroom deed restricted Resident Occupied unit — which will not be available J a credit Section 4: Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits This resolution approves the establishment of affordable housing credits for the project. Prior to issuance of the credits, the units shall be deed restricted pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Guidelines and a Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for the entire development. As submitted and approved by APCHA, the project is proposing the following unit configuration and credit schedule: Category 3 (5) five, one bedroom units (1) one, two bedroom unit (7) seven, three bedroom units Total Category 4 (8) eight, one bedroom units (6) six, three bedroom units Total 8.75 FTE 2.25 FTE 21 FTE_ = 32 FTE — Category 3 14 FTE 18 FTE 32 FTE — Category 4 A total of 64 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) will be issued at the completion of the project. Any changes to this balance of unit and category types are subject to APCHA approval. Section 5: Dimensional Variance This resolution approves a variance to subsection 26.575.020.E.5.t allowing the location of the trash and recycling enclosure on Park Avenue between the street and the principal mass of the building. The final design of this enclosure will be approved by the City of Aspen's Environmental Health Department and will comply with adopted building codes in meeting Accessibility and ADA requirements. Additionally, applicant will propose final design for Page 3 of 6 cm trash enclosure including materiality, door configuration and landscaping for administrative approval by Community Development at time of building permit. Section 6: Residential Design Standards The Planning and Zoning approval of Residential- Design Standards, which would normally be reviewed administratively, allows for design flexibility of the trash enclosure that is subject of the Dimensional Variance. This resolution grants approval of the project under Residential Design Standards, limited to the project as presented. Section 7: Building Permit Application In addition to the standard submission requirements for a building permit, the Applicant shall submit the following: a. A signed copy of the Planning and Zoning resolution and the Development Agreement granting land use approvals. b. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the resolutions and the. Development Agreement have been read and understood. a. The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and school lands dedication fees applicable and per the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit submission, payable upon issuance of the full building permit. I c. All approved Transportation Mitigation Requirements shall be included as part of the building permit application. d. All Fire codes will be designed for and met with the submission of a building permit application. Section 8: EnOneerin Final design and analysis shall be compliant with all sections of the City of .Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department inclusive but not limited to the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements (URMP. Section 9: Environmental Health The project shall meet Aspen Municipal Code Section 12.06 Waste Reduction. Section 10: Parks Tree permit: The tree permit shall be submitted for approval prior to building permit submittal. Said permit shall outline protection of existing trees, drip line excavations and mitigation for any removals as referenced in Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Fee -in -Lieu mitigation will be owed for approved tree removals. The applicant will be required to preserve the spruce tree in the front, SE side of the property, and the aspen trees at the rear of the property. The landscape plan (including a bio-retention, plan) will be reviewed by the City Forester and species and spacing will be determined for sustainability and long term health of the tree, as well as their contribution to the community forest. No hedgerow planting. Deciduous trees should be Page 4 of 6 'raw "kaw planted no closer than 5' from the building. Coniferous trees should be planted no closer than 10' from the building. Please submit a bio-retention plan with your landscape plan. Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved first by the City Parks Department. Final plans shall show compliance with these requirements by way of new street trees, irrigation and sod, all of which is subject to approval by the City Forester. Irrigation of trees is required throughout the entire length of the project. Any access across or through the area of protection is .prohibited at all times. Section 11: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. A separate ACSD permit is required. Section 12: Utilities Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 13: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 14: Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development impact fee and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality impact fee assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 15: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 16: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a vested property right attaching to and running with the lot each for a period of three (3) years. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property right. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this resolution granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval Page 5 of 6 %W V as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 18: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED _ BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 20th day of December, 2016. APPR D O FORM: Planning/and ping Commission C ce An rea W, ssi t City ttorney Keith Good , hair ATTEST: Cindy Kl , Records Manager Exhibit A: Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations Page 6 of 6 r..§ y :.3.,t ., h. y� iw M c � fi�gg{{ pp ^i#m y, s v� a ,�, �.i rx a ��,� � . ., .; 1 . Exhibit A: Pg 2 of 16 Park Circle Elevation m `r/ LEGEND w.. Exhibit A: Pg 3 of 16 S B Z-003 --a..— .... nON tiltiiti Exhibit A: Pg 4 of 16 Mm Exhibt A: Pg 5 of 16 >NOVEPiV AWE - ------------- --------- 7-1 -J, MTrl m I - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L A --------- --- --- ----- IF zF-F PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 11'r V� 16 32 MCMTECTURE INTERI-S I P-IING 404 PARK FORWPHLCOM Im m Exhibit A: Pg 6 of 16 PHI Exhibit A: Pg 7 of 16 PHI Ew Exhibit A: Pg 8 of 16 tir Exhibit A: P9 9 of 16 1 ELEVATION 3W . T'O' ARCHITECTURE I INTERIORS I PLANNING 404 PARK FORUMPHI.COM -------- liMI 40 •-•-•-'- 3 ELEW W" 3AT- V-W ARCNRECTURE I WTERQRS I PLANNWO FORUMPNLCOM Exhibit A: Pg 10 of 16 - -- M-10* 4-No ,_ _--- - - - - - - - - - - 404 PARK PHI -11,11.1 I ARCRrrECTURE I INTERIORS I PL^NNM 404 PARK FORUMPRLCOM Exhibit A: Pg 11 of 16 -'-'- Me —. Ta'nv rov�i:wHw —' — rn 7i*a� 1m.. m Exhibit A: Pg 12 of 16 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 5 ELEVATION y - ply n CH TCCTURE I INTERIORS I PUNNWG 404 PARK FORUMPHI.COM Exhibt A: Pg 13 of 16 0 0 0 I �Z1 -------------- i I i 41, 7 EIFV TION Mr- V6 ELEVATION 3w- VE ARCHITECTURE I INTERIORS I PLAWIMO 404 PARK FORUMPHLCOM m 0 ❑ --- p ❑ i UEJIMI ua. El, - I - - - eiM,6Vas N CHMCrURE I MTERQRS I F MRMG 404 PARK FORUMP LCOM Exhibit A: Pg 14 of 16 --F------------------- -�. I %ftw Exhibit A: Pg 15 of 16 0 0 0 0 �1 I M • .. n Mm Min ARCHRECTURE I INTERIORS I P�NiNG 404 PARK FORUWKCW m 6=f1.61r'S74'3�f1r� ��f�6�af�R^a mmw-n 6i�[^af�'EF�� f� 61�7"1• fi�CIQ�3���rET_'�l2T� 6���s�^� 36>•,�sszr.� f>l�mmffm a6=.�l7f>�6�•25�� � mmwsm ��f:�E1!'56�."l33333356�6�'Si"a r-�s�-��T•�s:�a - vm �� s:.-.a,s:.-a.�s�•�s�—Paz-micas,-a.-i- n Exhibit A: Pg 16 of 16 r------ ---------- -- - - - -=�L-i --- — - - ---------- ---- 0 ' a _ _ i= i -� —, — -, !� 1 0 j I i i i 1 I. ._ ------ " 1 ! 1 -- !_raoveRn=1N-E— - - — - - - PROPOSED ROOF TOPO Mr. Nr & 6 16 33 ARCM1TECTURE I INTERIORS I PLANNING 404 PARK FORUMPMI.COM 7 M MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director MEETING DATE: December 20, 2016 RE: 404 Park Avenue — Reviews for Growth Management — Affordable Housing, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, and a Dimensional Variance for the location of a trash enclosure APPLICANT /OWNER: PROPOSED LAND USE: Peter Fornell of Fat City, LLC A redevelopment with 28 deed restricted units in two, three-story buildings. Per Ordinance 20, Series 2016, upon completion (issuance of REPRESENTATIVE: a Certificate of Occupancy) of the project, the existing PD overly will be Sara Adams, rescinded, and the redevelopment will be subject to the requirements of BendonAdams, LLC the underlying zone district (RMF). LOCATION: street Addrecc- 404 Park Avenue. Legal Description: Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision recorded at Book 3 Page 18, that part of vacated Park Avenue being adjacent to said Lot 3 according to Ordinance No. 11 (series 1972) City of Aspen recorded in Book 265 Page 1, all of that parcel of land described in the special warranty deed at Book 765 Page 858, plus an easement on portion of Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision, described in Book 264 Page 787. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-074-04-705 CURRENT ZONING & USE The property, which is located in the Residential Multi -Family (RMF) Zone District, is currently subject to a planned development overlay. The property contains 14 residential units housed in four separate buildings. In Fall 2016, Council approved a conditional removal of the existing planned development overlay. The new project is proposed to not require the overlay. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the hearing for the application for Growth Management — Affordable Housing, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits and a Dimensional Variance for the location of a trash enclosure, to allow additional study of on -street parking and the location of the trash enclosure. SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing redevelopment with 28 deed restricted units (27 Affordable and 1 Resident Occupied). 28 parking spaces will be provided in a sub -grade parking garage. The project as proposed would create 64 FTE Affordable Housing Credits. Figure 1.404 Park Avenue with existing conditions LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: Growth Management — Affordable Housing Review (GMQS) Three sections of the Growth Management chapter apply to this review: 26.470.050 General requirements; 26.470.070.4 — Planning and Zoning Commission Applications — Affordable Housing; and 26.470.070.5.c — Demolition of redevelopment of multi -family Housing — 100% Affordable Housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority for these criteria. • Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Chapter 26.540 provides the review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authori . Dimensional Variance Chapter 26.314 provides the standards applicable to variances. This review would grant approval to the location of the trash/recycling enclosure. If the Dimensional Variance is approved, Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of Residential Design Standards is not necessary. If the Dimensional Variance is not granted, it is recommended that the Commission also consider approval for Residential Design Standards — Multi -family, subject to Chapter 26.410. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority for both of these reviews. Note: The variance request is related to the location of the trash enclosure for the property. While the request does not involve a dimension of the building, the applicable language is located in the section of the code related to setbacks 26.575.020(E)(5)(t) — and therefore, the variance request falls under a review for dimensional variance. BACKGROUND: 404 Park Ave. is an existing multi -family, free-market residential development with 14 units. The parcel, which is nearly 18,000 square feet (.41 acres), lies at the intersection of Park Circle and Park Avenue and is adjacent to Midland Park. The property is currently subject to a Planned Development overlay (PD). In August of 2016, City Council approved Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2016 that removes the PD at the completion of the redevelopment of the property, subject to the following conditions: a. Review and approval of a 100% affordable housing project as represented by the Applicant. b. The application to Establish Affordable Housing Certificates for the 100% affordable housing project shall be reviewed pursuant to the Land Use Code at the time of Application; however the project will not be required to undergo a Planned Development review, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. C. The Planned Development overlay shall remain in effect until such time as the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for a 100% affordable housing project at the subject property. The entire property must receive a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the removal of the Planned Development overlay. The primary effect of this ordinance is that the redevelopment of the site is subject to the requirements of the underlying Zone District — in this case, Residential Multi -Family (RMF). PROJECT SUMMARY: The project has been designed to conform to the dimensional requirements of the RMF Zone District. The redevelopment of 404 Park Avenue currently proposes 28 deed -restricted, affordable housing units contained within two, three story -buildings (27 are proposed as Category 3 and 4, ownership units; one unit is proposed as a Resident Occupied, ownership unit). The two buildings are separated by a courtyard space that includes a small spa/pool, and other common amenities. 28 parking spaces are proposed in a subgrade garage. An elevator connects the garage with the units on the main level. Because of the proposed density, the Zone District allows for 1.5:1 Floor Area Ratio, 32 feet in maximum height, and setbacks of 5 feet on all sides. Table 1, below displays the dimensional standards allowed in the RMF Zone District, the existing dimensions of the current development, and the proposed dimensions of the redevelopment project. Table 1. Existing and Proposed Dimensions RMF Zone District Existin Proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) varies by unit size 1.25:1 1.5:1 Maximum floor area varies by unit size 22,297 square feet 26,756 square feet Actual floor area J 8,788 square feet 26'084 square feet Maximum Height 28 or 32 feet _ 28 feet 32 feet Setbacks front, rear, side 5 feet non -conforming 5 feet The project proposes 13, one -bedroom units; 2, two -bedroom units; and 13, three -bedroom units. In total the new development would include a total of 56 bedrooms and is seeking the issuance of 64 Full Time Equivalent Affordable Housing Certificates - a mix of Category 3 and Category 4. The 27 affordable housing units are all below the APCHA unit size requirements and a request for a unit size reduction, subject to APCHA's Guidelines for such reductions is a part of this review process. Additionally, the project proposes a complete redevelopment of portions of the adjacent right of way including new sidewalks along both Park Circle and Park Avenue. Currently, much of the parking for the existing development is organized as head-on parking, utilizing much of the public right of way, and creating dangerous conditions with multiple, undefined access points. The proposed design utilizes a single curb cut in providing entry to the sub -grade garage. Two components of the project require more specific discussion: 1) Parking and mobility This property lies outside of the Aspen Infill Area. Due to this location and the unit/bedroom configuration, the project per the Land Use Code would require 43, off-street parking spaces. Because of the existing conditions on the property, the project carries forward a parking deficit of 15 spaces. Per code, the project is permitted to maintain this parking deficit in the redevelopment. Therefore, the project proposes 28 parking spaces — one per unit. All of these spaces will be provided in a subgrade garage. Related to this topic, the neighborhood context offers very limited on -street parking. No visitor spaces are proposed, nor zones for delivery or loading. Positively, the development is located in close proximity to Aspen's core, and transit and pedestrian facilities. The applicant has proposed a mobility plan that includes one membership per unit in the Car -to -Go and We - Cycle share programs. These memberships would be built into the HOA agreements and would allow residents to opt out after one-year. Additionally, the applicant has been working with city departments to identify the potential for on -street parking in the right-of-way on Park Circle and/or Park Avenue. 2) Trash and Recycling Facilities The original project submission proposed the sub -grade garage as the location for trash and recycling facilities. Comments from the Environmental Health Department during the Development Review Committee made clear that this location was not practicably feasible. Constrained by the site conditions and design of the primary buildings, the proposed location is the response to these comments. This location (on a street facing fagade) does not conform to the code — and is the subject of the variance request. Ln Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan O o ■ 0 ■ see - • /r� ■...■ �tlR� ' _1Kim , LAND USE REVIEWS: Please see Exhibits B-E for a full discussion of staff findings on the specific review criteria. Growth Mannement (GMOS) Staff finds that the project meets most of the criteria within the Growth Management chapter. However, two important criteria raise questions about the project. Demands on Public Infrastructure First, the review requires that "the project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project." While compliant with the Land Use Code, parking for the project has been of particular concern for staff due to the number of bedrooms in total (56) and the number of 3 bedroom units (13). This situation is exacerbated by the absence of on -street parking in the neighborhood of the project. There is no proposed visitor parking for the project and each of the 28 units is allocated one parking space. Community Development and the Parking Department have raised concerns about the proposed parking conditions and likely impacts to residents, the neighborhood, and the limited, public parking infrastructure in the area. (See Exhibit F for Parking Department comments on the project) Unit Size Reduction Secondly, it is the role of the P&Z Commission to review the proposed Affordable Housing units after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Board of Directors. Exhibit G includes the APCHA staff memo in support of the project. Additionally, The APCHA Board of Directors voted in unanimous support of the project at their most recent meeting on December 7, 2016. Topics of parking and unit livability were a part of APCHA's board discussion at this meeting. The minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit H. The primary criteria asks for a review as to whether the proposed unit size reductions from APCHA Guidelines are justified by the other amenities that the project offers. All of the proposed units are below the APCHA unit size requirements. For a 1-bedroom unit, the minimum is 700 square feet; for a 2-bedroom unit, the minimum is 900 square feet; for a 3-bedroom unit, the minimum is 1200 square feet. On average, the units are approximately 17% below the established minimums — totaling approximately 4,400 square feet of reduction across the 27 units. Table 2 illustrates the unit configuration and unit size reduction figures. Table 2. Unit Configuration and Proposed Unit Size Reductions. Unit Number Number of Bedrooms Proposed net livable (so Minimum net livable (sf) APCHA Square footage reduction o /o Reductio' 101 1 618 700 82 11.7 102 3 1086 1200 114 9.5 103 1 572 700 128 18.3 104 3 1036 1200 164 13.7 105 1 564 700 136 19.4 106 3 961 1200 239 19.9 107 1 612 700 88 12.6 108 2 777 900 123 13.7 109 1 662 700 38 5.4 110 1 588 700 112 16 111 1 598 700 102 14.6 201 1 570 700 130 18.6 202 3 991 1200 209 17.4 203 3 961 1200 239 19.9 204 3 972 1200 228 19 205 1 570 700 130 18.6 206 3 965 1200 235 17.8 207 3 972 1200 228 19.1 208 3 961 1200 239 19.9 209 1 562 700 138 19.7 301 1 570 700 130 18.6 302 3 991 1200 209 17.4 303 RO 2 1337 n/a n/a n/a 304 1 570 700 130 18.6 305 3 965 1200 235 19.6 306 3 972 1200 228 19 307 3 961 1200 239 19.9 308 1 562 700 138 19.7 28 Total Units 56 Total 4,411 Avg. 16.95% APCHA guidelines do allow for this reduction (up to a maximum of 20%) if the project meets a variety of criteria that bring other amenities to the residents of the units. These include, but are not limited to the following provisions: Significant storage outside of the unit — The project proposes some common storage in the garage as well as individual unit storage that hangs above each parking space. Above average natural light — The project is proposing glazing significantly beyond what building code requires. Efficient, flexible layout with limited hall and staircase space — While small, the units do offer efficient floor plans including closets, space for stackable washer and dryers, in -unit water heaters, bedrooms that will all contain a queen size bed, and no unit square footage assigned to staircases. Availability of site amenities — The location of the project and its proximity to open space, trails, a transit stop, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities is of significant value to the future residents. Additionally, several of the second and third level units offer deck space. A courtyard space separates the two primary buildings and is proposed to include a pool and other common amenities. Unit location within the development — No units or portions of units are proposed for below grade. Possibility that the project can achieve higher density — APCHA's Guidelines encourage the creation of more affordable housing units. Issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housine Credits The review criteria in this chapter requires 1) compliance with the review criteria in Growth Management for Affordable Housing (see above) and 2) ensuring that the units are not required to mitigate new development as part of a separate develop order. In response to APCHA staff comments, the project, which originally proposed all units to be Category 4, is now proposed as a mix of Category 3 and 4 units. In total, the project is pursuing 64 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Affordable Housing Credits. As a reminder, each one -bedroom unit equates to 1.75 FTE; each two- bedroom unit equates to 2.25 FTE; and each three -bedroom unit equates to 3 FTE. The proposed structure of units and credits is as follows: Category 3 (5) five, one -bedroom units (1) one, two -bedroom unit (7) seven, three -bedroom units Total Category 4 (8) eight, one -bedroom units (6) six, three -bedroom units Total 8.75 FTE 2.25 FTE 21 FTE 32 FTE — Category 3 14 FTE 18 FTE 32 FTE Category 4 The issuance of the credits will not occur until a certificate of occupancy is issued and APCHA grants approval of the deed restriction for each unit. Trash Enclosure Variance The review criteria for variances require that a variance be 1) generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Land Use Code; 2)as minimal as possible; 3) be allowed if a literal interpretation of the code would deprive the applicant of rights afforded to other property owners. The last of these requirements gives two further qualification: First, that the variance is necessary due to special circumstances unique to the site — and that these circumstances cannot be created by actions of the applicant. Secondly, the variance cannot grant special privileges that are not available to other projects in the same Zone District. T w 140 The variance request for this case is caused by two circumstances: 1) Site conditions create a bench on the property that is elevated from street level. Access to a trash enclosure by waste haulers is possible, but would require a redesign in moving the enclosure away from the street on both Park Circle and Park Avenue. 2) Once the proposed location in the sub -grade garage was determined to be unfeasible, the proposed footprint of the buildings offers no viable option for locating the enclosure other than in front of a street facing fagade. Additionally, the project must comply with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) for multi -family housing. If the Dimensional Variance is approved to allow the location of the trash enclosure as proposed, RDS approval could be approved administratively. If ultimately the trash enclosure is relocated, the current design of the principal building creates a conflict with the RDS. If the Dimensional Variance is not granted, and an alternative location proposed, the current design of the primary building structure would require a variation (approved by P&Z), to the RDS in meeting the setback requirement for the garage entry. Development Review Committee Beyond the Land Use Code reviews for this project, the Applicant's team has also received written and verbal comments from the City's Development Review Committee. Some of these comments relate to the reviews below, but others relate to other Titles from Aspen's Municipal Code that have application to the project. Please refer to Exhibit F for evaluation of these comments. STAFF COMMENTS: The Community Development Department is supportive of the creation of affordable housing units and the efficient use of land. However, in this project, because of the size of the site and grade constraints, the encouragement of increased unit numbers has: 1) translated into 28 affordable housing units that are all significantly below minimum unit sizes (with the exception of the RO unit) 2) resulted in staff concerns that the project is significantly under parked from a practical evaluation (although code compliant). 3) contributed to the conditions that require the variance for the trash enclosure In response to the first issue, Staff believes that all projects, and perhaps this project more than others, involves trade-offs. On one hand, staff remains concerned about the intersection of the reduced unit sizes, the limited storage, and parking conditions. On the other hand, staff recognizes the amenities that the project offers, the location of the project, and the creation of 27, Category 3 and 4 affordable housing units. Additionally, staff recognizes the recommendation of APCHA's Staff and Board in support of this project. (See Exhibits G and H) Staff finds that further consideration of the fmal two issues could make significant improvement to the overall project: 1) In consideration of the proposed sub -grade parking and limited on -street parking in the neighborhood, staff encourages a new study of the relationship of the project to the right-of-way in identifying opportunities for on - street parking on Park Circle and Park Avenue. 2) As proposed, the trash enclosure becomes a prominent feature on the Park Avenue fagade — a condition that the applicable section of the Land Use Code was specifically written to avoid. Staff fmds that this proposed condition is ultimately self-created. Relocating the trash enclosure to a less prominent location on the site would significantly improve the project's relationship to the street and improve the pedestrian experience. r u RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Commission continue the public hearing for review of trash enclosure. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning on street parking potions and alternative location of the PROPOSED MOTION: If the Commission agrees with the staff recommendation of a continuance, the following motion is proposed: "I move to continue the public hearing on the application for 404 Park Avenue to allow for the further study of on -street parking and the location of the trash enclosure." (to a date certain) ALTERNATIVE MOTION: The Draft Resolution is written in approval of the three reviews required by the application. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Application, includes Site Plan, Floor Plans and Renderings of the project Exhibit B Growth Management — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit C Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit D Dimensional Variance — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit E Residential Design Standards — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit F Comments, Development Review Committee Exhibit G Staff Memo, APC14A Exhibit H Minutes, APCHA Board Meeting, December 7, 2016 Exhibit I Public Comment received via e-mail e —Ile reA, L (,� ,J U4 r tA J7�1 ft �o h'-, so G�I were�i x�e c ti,o SK . o 04 - "a uw r � 24^ c� U CO-KCZ4-^ ova ec I S 0-�, eSS�