Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.1301 E Cooper.Beaumont.0013.2004 THE CITY ~F ASPEN ~.,::.,~ City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0013.2004.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2737-181-00-047 PROJECT ADDRESS 1301 E. Cooper Ave. PLANNER Scott W. CASE DESCRIPTION Rezoning/Concept Final REPRESENTATIVE Leslie Lamont DATE OF FINAL ACTION 6/23/04 CLOSED BY Amy DeVault ,~, ~e e~ aacc~d Md~gate >=a-m kepo-ts rab ~ ~. ~-.,"~' ~ i~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ._ } ~~~~~~ I y~Otl$ ~ SGb _Mam # Rq#~ Sta~US Atdt/Er~ ~ P~eafs ~ PaflfptS ~ VeIUdtlpl ~ItC 4ommetlt ,,,_ Custc~n fads F ~ ~ S 8~ 9a § t,Xfk1l8t~ ~ J~.L`IIfWlS . i Pmt T, .,~~~~~~~~~ P #t CiA7 3.2tA4.ASlU~ - .. _ _ . . Addre~s t E Gt3gP1+RAVE ~ Aptl~~ta' --__ _._ ... } fir' _, C~y,~+SPEN .... State~LO t~ ~~~~ ~~ ~gs,81611 ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~' Parm~lt~Nmah~n .~ _ ._ t«tas#ar Perrn~t ° _ _ j .,.~...~.,~....~..~...W....~,._ ..~. . Keating queue asMa ~ Applied ~03f0212[H3A ~ .~.. p~cjed ~ Skatus ~pen~ng Appravad ~~ ~_'~ Oascription ~BEa~tJMONT INN REZONING, CONSOLIt'~4TED CDNC.EPTi.1AL1FiNAl PUD AA1D I ~°~`~ -- -_ GA4Sq EXEMPTI~IN IWgR AFFARDABLE HOUSING gd ~ ; Ee~ai ~ .. _. .... Sutxr~tted -LESLIE L4MOFJT Cia~c Runne~rg Days C Exgras 021~12~i5 ~ + ~ Vises an Ehe we6:~ _~. „ ____ __. ~~ Parma IO. 1 .251 ds~m~ _ last Name SPEN VALLEY HOSPiTA Fk~t Name ~~ _ ~ _..... ' 4p1 CASTLE CREEK Rt} ~ ' _... ~..~.~ i'hor~e SPEN CO 81611 , ~ ;_~ Owr~r Is bpplicanY? ~ ' ._ __ _~.~ li{7pIlGdnt ... .. .. .. ... . Last Name ~.SPEfd VALLEY HOSPlTA ? East Name ~. 393 810'2 RO x ~m..~.~.w_. ~'~~ ~~~~~ Cult # 16286 ,~~. CARBONOAIE CO 81623 , ~ _ _.. ' ,~. ~..,. ~ _ ~... ~ ~ ° r'-- Racwd: 1 of 1 ~, July 26, 2004 Lamont Planning Services. c/o Leslie Lamont 725 Melissa Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 RE: Beaumont PUD -Postponement of Application f ~i ASPEN~PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Leslie: ' This letter is in response to your letter to us (dated July" 8, 2004) requesting an indefinite tabling of the Beaumont Conceptual PUD review. (Case # 0013.2004.ASLU). According to Section-26.304.070.E (Development Orders) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, an applicant is allowed to put an application "on hold" for a maximum of one year prior to it being considered abandoned, Jas specified below: F. Abandonment of application. If an applicant. fails to pursue the approval of a site-specific development plan in a timely fashion after filing an application for same, the application shall be considered abandoned. For purposes of this subsection, failure to pursue the approval of a site specific development plan in a timely fashion shall mean a failure on the part of the applicant to take any action with the Community Development Department in furtherance of the application for a period of at least one year. ,An abandoned application shall render all previously issued land use approvals which do' not constitute the approval of a site specific development plan' void unless the Community Development Director determines that reinstatement of the application is in the best interests of the City. After the one-year time .limit, if the applicant wishes to pursue approval of the site- specific plan, they must submit the application again as if it were a completely new application. If the applicant requests, however, to commence .the review of the application prior to the one year time limit, then the applicant shall" not be required to submit a new application. The applicant shall, however, meet with the appropriate members of the Community Development Department prior to that point to discuss any amendments to the application, need for additional information, -and whether or not another Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting will be necessary and what, if any, new fees will be required. New public noticing procedures will also be required. -For the purposes of this application, the one-year time limit shall commence from the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 6, 2004 and the deadline shall be July 6, 2005. gards, ulie Ann Woods , Community Development Director City of Aspen - 13O SOUTH GALENA STREET " ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FAx 970.920.5439 Printed on Recycled Paper Jul 20, 004 / ,~~ : ~~ (~1~~ Lamont Planning Services ~ ~i''~~1~-'•~`~ '~"~ c/o Leslie Lamont -~j U~5 ~ i G~1.~~tr iS ~f Y~~C~ Carbondale, CO 81623 ~ ~t~~ l,~b.c~.Cu.~1 fSu.wrv~,1-~caD f RE: Beaumont PUD -Postponement of Application Dear Leslie: ~Nw~~ of ~°~` This letter is in response to your letter to us (dated July 8, ~ • ~~ tSo~/v~ ~~. e tabling of the Beaumont Conceptual PUD review (Case # ~ g to Section 26.304.070.E (Development Orders) of the City .--~ ~~ n applicant is allowed to put an application "on hold" for a n it being considered abandoned, as specified below: F. Abandonment of application. If an applicant fails to pursue the approval of a site-specific development plan in a timely fashion after filing an application for same, the application shall be considered abandoned. For purposes of this subsection, failure to pursue the approval of a site specific development plan in a timely fashion shall mean a .failure on the part of the applicant to take any action with the Community Development Department in furtherance of the application for a period of at least one year. An abandoned application shall render all previously issued land use approvals which do not constitute the approval of a site specific development plan void unless the Community Development Director determines that reinstatement of the application is in the best interests of the City. After the one-year time limit, if the applicant wishes to pursue approval of the site- specific plan, they must submit the application again as if it were a completely new application. If the applicant requests, however, to commence the review of the application prior to the one year time limit, then the applicant shall not be required to submit a new application. The applicant shall, however, meet with the appropriate members of the Community Development Department prior to that point to discuss any amendments to the application, need for additional information, and whether or not another Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting will be necessary and what, if any, new fees will be required. New public noticing procedures will also be required. For the purposes of this application, the one-year time limit shall commence from the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 6, 2004 and the deadline shall be July 6, 2005. Regards, Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director City of Aspen Lamont Plannin Services LLc g 725 Melissa Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 July 8, 2004 Mr. Scott Woodford ~~~~ Aspen Community Development Department ` 130 South Galena Street JUL 1 2 2004 Aspen, CO 81611 I~tly Dear Scott, D~ RTI~ENT This letter is a follow up to our conversation of July 8, 2004. On behalf of my client, Aspen Valley Hospital, I have requested an indefinite tabling of the review process for the Beaumont PUD land use application. At this point in time is it difficult to predict when review of the application will continue. However, when the Hospital decides to pursue rezoning and future development planning for the Beaumont property, we would like the opportunity to meet with the planning staff and discuss our next steps. The point of that meeting will be to review any amendments to the previous application and determine whether a new application is required or just a submittal of amendments, whether another review is required by the APCHA board, whether another DRC review is necessary prior to commencement of the public review process,` and. any other items. We acknowledge that a new public notice procedure is required prior to future public hearings and that-this request does not "continue" our current public hearing that was tabled to July 20, 2004. In addition, the Hospital would like credit for deposit and referral fees that have not been spent. Scott, I look forward to a response from the Community Development Department so we can put this understanding in our file for future use. Thank you for your work effort to date on this project. I look forward to working with. you again on behalf of the Hospital. p:970.963.8434 e:llamont c~ sopris.net c:970.948.1357 Lamont Planning 725 Melissa Carbondale, CO Services, LLC Lane 81623 July 8, 2004 Mr. Scott Woodford Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Scott, RECEIVED JUL 1 2 2004 ASi'tIV BUDDING p~,RTMENT This letter is a follow up to our conversation of July 8, 2004. On behalf of my client, Aspen Valley Hospital, I have requested an indefinite tabling of the review process for the Beaumont PUD land use application. At this point in time is it difficult to predict when review of the application will continue. However, when the Hospital decides to pursue rezoning and future development planning for the Beaumont property, we would like the opportunity to meet with the planning staff and discuss our next steps. The point of that meeting will be to review any amendments to the previous application and determine whether a new application is required or just a submittal of amendments, whether another review is required by the APCHA board, whether another DRC review is necessary prior to commencement of the public review process, and any other items. We acknowledge that a new public notice procedure is required prior to future public hearings and that this request does not "continue" our current public hearing that was tabled to July 20, 2004. In addition, the Hospital would like credit for deposit and referral fees that have not been spent. Scott, I look forward to a response from the Community Development Department so we can put this understanding in our file for future use. Thank you for your work effort to date on this project. I look forward to working with you again on behalf of the Hospital. Sin erely, ~ V~1.~ ` Leslie Lamont ~~ Cc: John Schied, Director of Engineering, AVH File p:970.963.8434 e:llamont@sopris.net c:970.948.1357 ]~C MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commiss~n THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director of C~ o~mmunity Development FROM: Scott Woodford, City P1ann~I~.~ RE: BEAUMONT PUD, PUBLIC HEARING, CONCEPTUAL PUD, RESOLUTION Noa~ ~, SERIES 2004 DATE:. July 6, 2004 Photo of the Beaumont site taken from across US 82. The old lodge building to the right will be torn down and replaced with new affordable housing units, while the structure on the left will remain. ,: ~., , Prto.IECT: BEAUMONT PUD REQUEST SUMMARY: Conceptual PUD approval and consideration of other required land use approvals to construct 25 affordable housing units (Note: Including the 13 affordable housing units that already exist on the site, there would be a total of 38 affordable housing units on the site). APPLICANT: Aspen Valley Hospital c/o John Shied, Director of Engineering, represented by Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning Services LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel of land being part of the Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, more full described in Exhibit 1 to the attached Resolution; 1301 East Cooper Avenue STAFF APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL PUD, WITH CONDITIONS RECOMMENDATION: BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT -1- ~.,., PROJECT SUMMARY: The Aspen Valley Hospital submitted this application for approval to construct affordable housing on the site of the old Beaumont Lodge located at 1301 East. Cooper Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct 25 new affordable housing units on the site, adding them to the 13 deed restricted units the hospital already owns and rents out on the site, for a total of 38 affordable housing units on-site. To accommodate the new units, four (4) new buildings will be constructed, while two of the existing structures will remain to house the existing 13 units. A one-story modular residence and the main lodge building are proposed to be demolished to provide space for the new structures and the expanded parking lot. The existing buildings will be "re-skinned" with masonry, lap siding and metal roof materials to match the design of the new structures. The applicant plans to use the affordable housing units to provide affordable housing mitigation required for other hospital projects in the community, such as a future hospital expansion or relocation. The initial plan is to phase the construction of the units as they are needed. A rezone of the property from its current zoning, R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) to AH/PUD (Affordable Housing, PUD) is proposed to more appropriately capture the character of the new development. The following information explains the proposal in more detail: NEw AFFORDABLE HOUSING UMTS: The 25 new affordable housing units will be spread out in four new structures, with the units per building, unit types and gross floor area of each building noted below: Proposed Units: No. of Unit Types Gross Floor. Units Area Cooper Building' 2 studios, 4 one-BR's, 2 two- 6,400 sq. ft. ~ BR's Homestead Building ® 4 studios, 4 one-BR's 5,250 sq. ft. Canal Building ® 5 studios, 2 one-BR's, 1 three-BR 5,560 sq. ft. Cresta Buildin 0 1 two-BR 1,000 s . ft. Total Affordable Housing 25 11 studios, 10 one-BR's, 3 two- 18,210 sq. ft. BR's, 1 three-BR TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS: After the 25 new affordable housing units are constructed, there will be 38 units spread out in six new structures, with the units per building, unit types and gross floor area of all buildings noted below noted below: ~ See plans in the Application for locations of specific buildings BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 Proposed Units: Na. of Unit Types Gross Floor Units Area .~ Cooper Building (New) ~ 2 studios, 4 one-BR's, 2 two- 6,400 sq. ft. BR's Homestead Buildin (New) 8~ 4 studios, 4 one-BR's 5,250 sq. ft. Canal Buildin (New) 8~ 5 studios, 2 one-BR's, 1 three-BR 5,560 s . ft. Cresta Building (New) 0 1 two-BR 1,000 sq. ft. Silver Building (Existing) 10 3 studios, 2 one-BR's, 5 two- 9,600 sq. ft. BR's Garden Buildin (Existin) 3~ 2 studios, 1 one-BR 2,250 s . ft. Total Affordable Housing 38 16 studios, 13 one-BR's, 8 two- 30,060 sq. ft. BR's, 1 three-BR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Mix: All 38 units will be deed restricted to meet Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) requirements. The following is a breakdown of how many of each types of unit are in each category: Affordable Units: Unit Sizes: Category ~ Category . 2 Category 3 Category 4 Resident Occu ied Studio Units 500 s.f. L~J ~ ~ 10 0 1-BR Unit 700 s.f. ~ ~ ~ 10 1 2-BR Unit 950 s.f. ~ ~ 5~ 3~ 0 3 BR Unit 1,200 s.f. ~ ~ L-J L.-J 0 Total ~~ ~ ~ ~ 24 1 VEHICULAR ACCESS/PARKING: Residents and guests will access the site via the existing driveway off of US Highway 82 at the southeast corner of the property. A deceleration lane off of Highway 82 is being contemplated and may be required as part of a revised access permit the applicant is applying for through the Colorado Department of Transportation (which will be determined prior to Final PUD). Thirty-eight (38) parking spaces are proposed for the thirty-eight units, the majority of which are located along the southern property line. The remaining spaces are located between the proposed Cooper Building and the existing Silver Building. Twenty-one of the 38 spaces, along the southern property line, are tentatively proposed to be covered. Two of the spaces are required to be handicapped spaces. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS: A 5' wide sidewalk will be installed by the applicant along the .western property frontage with US 82, connecting with the existing sidewalk that currently ends adjacent to the Lacet Court affordable housing project. In conjunction with this improvement, the slope next to the highway will be regraded to remove the existing retaining wall (as shown in the photo below). BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 ~:.~~ The City is also investigating the possibility of it installing a section of sidewalk from the entrance of the Beaumont south on US 82 to the intersection with Riverside Drive, where a bus stop exists on the east side of US 82. This would facilitate safer and more convenient access for Beaumont residents to the bus stop. APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: At the Conceptual PUD stage, the applicant only requests the following land use approval: 1) CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD): A Conceptual PUD is requested because the AH/PUD zone district requires that all of the dimensional standards for a project be established through a PUD. Conceptual PUD approval is the required first step towards gaining Final PUD approval. Final Review Authority: City Council. NOTE: In order to receive Final PUD approval, approval of other land use approvals will also be required. Technically, while the only approval necessary at this point is Conceptual PUD, the applicant seeks feedback on all of the potential issues in anticipation of submitting later for Final PUD, including the following land use approvals: 2) AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP: A rezoning from R-15 to AH/PUD is requested because a.) multi-family dwellings are not permitted in the R-15, and b.) AH/PUD better characterizes the affordable housing nature of the proposal. 3) GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070.J., construction of affordable housing is exempt from GMQS, subject to meeting certain requirements (which are reviewed later in the report). Final Review Authority: City Council. 4) SPECIAL REVIEW: Off-street parking requirements for affordable housing units are established through special review. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site currently consists of four separate structures and a parking lot. Encompassing a total of 20,979 square feet, the structures consist of 1.) a one-story modular residence on the south end of the site containing three deed restricted bedrooms, 2.) atwo-story, L- shaped structure consisting of two building connected by a breeze way with ten deed BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 ~. -~ r restricted affordable housing units (five 2-BR's, two 1-BR's, and three studio units), 3.) a two-story tri-plea with three deed restricted affordable housing units (one 1-bedroom unit and two studio units), and 4.) the main lodge building, which has not been recently occupied on a permanent basis and has no affordable housing units, but includes an outdoor hot tub and pool. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The structures that make up the Beaumont Inn (formerly known as Crestahaus Lodge) were primarily constructed in the mid-1980's and originally consisted of 31 lodge rooms. Several expansions and remodels to the lodge were approved in 1990's requiring affordable housing, so a triplex of affordable housing constructed in 1992 and athree-unit modular was later added. In 1996, the lodge was remodeled. In 2000, the Aspen Valley Hospital purchased the site and received City conditional use approval to convert 31 lodge units into affordable housing. STAFF COMMENTS' 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The applicant is proposing to rezone to the AH/PUD zone district, which contains no specific dimensional standards and requires that all dimensional standards be established through the PUD. Below is an explanation of the significant dimensional standards proposed to be established through PUD (the remainder of the dimensional standards are found in the staff findings for PUD in Exhibit A) followed by staff s position on the issue: ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): Although there is no specific FAR standard in the AH/PUD zone district, a table of allowable floor area ratio is provided for use as a guide in determining the appropriateness of proposed floor area for new projects. The table, which is based on the size of the fathering parcel lot size, uses a .6:1 FAR as a guide for parcels between 1-3 acres. With a 1.2 acres site (53,543 sq. ft.), the applicant proposes to comply with this recommendation. After lot area is removed for mandatory slope reduction, 50,230 sq. ft. of lot area remains. Using a .6:1 FAR, 50,230 sq. ft. of lot area allows 30,192 sq. ft. of floor area. The applicant proposes 30,192 sq. ft. of floor area. STAFF POSITION oN FAR: Staff supports the Beaumont's proposed FAR, as it is clearly in compliance with the guide provided in the AH/PUD zone district and also because staff feels that the site can adequately support the amount of floor area proposed (assuming that concerns staff brings up later in this report about the provided parking are adequately addressed). BUILDING HEIGHT: Three of the four new structures proposed for the site will be 27' 6" feet high to a point half way between the eave and the ridge2 and 32'6" to the ridge. 2 Measured in accordance with the Code, which requires that the height for roof pitches between 3:12 and 7:12 be measured from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the mean point between the eave point and the ridge; the proposed roof pitches are 6:12 BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 The fourth structure, the Cresta Building, is proposed to be 22 feet in height. The existing building heights are approximately 27' 8" to the peak and 24' at the mid-point. STAFF POSITION ON HEIGHT: As there is no maximum height requirement in the AH/PUD zone district for reference, staff compared the proposed heights to the allowed height of other similar zone districts, such as the R/MF (Multi-Family Residential). The R/MF allows a 25 foot height limit and the L/TR (Lodge Tourist Residential) and the CL (Commercial Lodge) both allow a 28 foot limit. Adjacent to the site, are found R-15 zoned parcels, which allows a height limit of 25' for single-family and duplex structures. Based on those comparisons, staff believes the proposed 27'6" heights are appropriate to community standards. Staff also believes that the heights are sensitive to the neighboring properties. With a new building proposed fairly close to the adjacent Lacet Court Condominiums to the north, the applicant designed the structure so that it is only one foot taller than its neighbor (although topographical differences places the new structure approximately five feet higher). Furthermore, the majority of the new structures are aligned along the highway side of the property and their proposed heights should not negatively impact the adjacent neighbors because of the buffer of US 82 and grade differences that place the single-family lots across the street approximately five to ten feet higher than the Beaumont site. No increases in height are proposed to the two existing structures, so there will be no greater impact to their most immediate neighbors. SETBACKS: Absent any specific required setbacks in the AH/PUD zone district, the applicant proposes that the front setback, or the setback that is directly adjacent to US 82, be a minimum of 10' and the rear setback on the west side also be a minimum of 10'. The north side yard setback, adjacent to the Lacet Court Condominiums, is proposed to be a minimum of 5', while the south side yard setback, closest to the homes of the Riverside Subdivision, is dependent upon whether the applicant constructs a cover for the parking. If the applicant chooses to cover the parking with a structure (something that must be determined prior to submittal of a Final PUD), then the minimum setback would be established as 1 foot. A minimum of 5' would be established if there is no cover. STAFF POSITION oN SETBACKS: Staff finds that the proposed setback dimensions are generally appropriate. The setbacks for the existing structures are set and are not proposed to change., so there will be no additional impacts to the immediate neighbors of these structures. Due to the undulating nature of the new buildings proposed along the east property line, the setbacks will range from a minimum of 10' to as much as 23' in one area. Staff has recommended that these structures have a separate sidewalk and entrance from the sidewalk along the street (in addition to an entrances from the interior of the site), the buildings will provide a more pleasing and inviting facade to the street and are, therefore, appropriate to be setback a little closer to the property line. For comparison purposes, the R/MF zone district requires a minimum of a 10' front setback, so the proposed setbacks are the same as other similar zone districts. The Canal Building, adjacent to the north property line, presents some concern to staff, as it is proposed to be only 5' from the property line. Given that the Beaumont site BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 sits approximately 5-10' higher than the Lacet Condominiums next door, staff believes that there will potentially be some negative impacts to Lacet. Again, using the R/MF zone district as a guide, 20' of combined side setback would be required (calculated based on this lot size) - with a minimum of 5' setback for each side (meaning that if one side is only 5', then the other side setback must be at least 15'). Assuming that the proposed parking will not be covered on the south side of the site (the other side setback) the Beaumont would comply with the 20' requirement. In the R-15 zone district, the minimum side yard setback is 10'. The Canal Building would not comply with this requirement. When the Lacet Building was constructed in the AH/PUD zone district, it established a minimum setback of 18' from its south property line that it shares with the Beaumont. This setback is measured between the decks on the Lacet and the property line. When considering the building setback, there is at least 27'. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plan to create more separation between the Canal Building and the Lacet Condominiums for the benefit of both parties. PARKING: The applicant proposes 38 off-street parking spaces (two of which will be handicapped only spaces) for the 38 proposed units. Assuming that two of the residents can take advantage of the handicapped parking, there will be one parking space/unit. The applicant does not propose to assign specific parking spaces to residents; instead they prefer that it be established on a first come, first serve basis. According to the application, the applicant feels that thirty-eight spaces is a sufficient amount given the around-the-clock schedules hospital employees work, during which some portion of residents (and their cars) will always be gone, thereby leaving open parking spaces. STAFF PosITroN orr PARKING: The AH/PUD zone district section states that the off- street parking requirement shall be established under the PUD and the Off-Street Parking section (Chapter 26.515) of the Code states that parking in the AH/PUD shall be established through Special Review in accordance with the following standard: ** Residential uses in AH/PUD are established by special review in accordance with Chapter 26.430. The maximum number ofparking spaces required shall not exceed two (2) spaces/dwelling unit for free market units. Parking spaces shall not exceed one (1) space/bedroom or two (2) spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is less for the affordable housing units. Staff will use the above standard as a guide with which to review the parking. Using the above Code requirement as a guide, parking spaces shall not exceed one (1) space/bedroom or two (2) spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is less for the affordable housing units. There are forty-eight (48) bedrooms proposed and thirty-eight units (38). Based on bedrooms, there would be a maximum of 48 spaces allowed and 76 spaces based on number of units. Since 48 spaces is less than 76 spaces, the Code states that there shall not be more than 48 spaces. BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 Staff believes that the proposed amount of parking is deficient and that the number of spaces should be increased. In the likely scenario that two of the residents are not handicapped and, therefore, cannot take advantage of the restricted spaces, there will be less than one parking space per unit. Staff feels that there should be, at a minimum, one non-handicapped space per unit and, preferably, several guest spaces in addition to that. Past experience with other affordable housing projects demonstrates that finding parking can be difficult for residents when there is only one space per unit. The fact that there is no on-street parking allowed on the adjacent streets of this project -for potential overflow parking -exacerbates the problem. Other affordable housing projects with a similar parking ratio have the luxury of overflow parking onto the public streets. Because the project is a PUD and because this is a relatively large affordable housing project, staff believes that further consideration of the parking demand, beyond the parking requirement established above, is necessary and that additional parking should be required. In their Development Review Committee (DRC) comments (see Exhibit B) the Environmental Health Department finds that the size of this development will have a negative effect on the air quality from automobile trips generated to the site. Using the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) figures, the replacement of 10 lodge units with 25 affordable housing units will generate 105.9 additional trips per day, and 15 pounds of pm10 per day, which constitutes a negative impact. However, because the applicant is proposing not to exceed the maximum number of required parking spaces than the code requires, Environmental Health believes that this project will adequately mitigate that negative air quality impact, in addition to the following factors: 1. The applicant has an established record of employees using alternative transportation. 2. This site is located across from a RFTA bus stop and is within easy walking distance from the commercial core and Rubey Park. This contradicts the Community Development staff's recommendation of increasing the number of parking spaces. Per Environmental Health, if the applicant were to be required to add more parking spaces then additional mitigation measures may be necessary to ensure that the project does not again constitute a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, such as: 1. Provide off-site car storage to account for the additional spaces. 2. Provide tangible incentives for employees to use alternative transportation for their commute. However, the Environmental Health Department stated that increased spaces in the neighborhood of 3-5 additional spaces on the site would not be enough of a change to require the two above steps. BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 2. AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP: The applicant proposes to rezone the parcel from the R-15/LP (Moderate Density Residential, Lodge Preservation Overlay) zone district to the AH/PUD (Affordable Housing, Planned Unit Development) zone district. Doing so, according to the applicant, would provide a zone district more appropriate to the type of project proposed and because multi-family dwelling units are not allowed in the R-15/LP zone district. Per Section 26.310.040 of the Code, in reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following standards of review: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF POSITION ON REZONING: Since this is just a Conceptual PUD review, staff has not prepared any findings on the above review standard, but will prepare them for the Final PUD review. Staff has, however, done a cursory review of how the rezoning proposal does or does not comply with the review standards and feel that the proposal does generally comply with the standards and that there would be no major obstacles to recommending future approval of the rezone. Generally, staff believes that the AH/PUD zone district is appropriate for the site because there are other AH/PUD zoned sites and affordable housing developments immediately adjacent to and across the street from this project (Lacet Condominiums and Alpine Cottages, respectively). Additionally, by placing the majority of the new development on the site away from nearby single-family subdivisions and towards the boundary with US 82, the new impact to the non-affordable housing neighbors is minimal. Additionally, staff finds that the proposal complies with the provisions of the AACP. BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 3. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS): In accordance with Section 26.470.070.) of the Code, construction of affordable housing, that is deed restricted in accordance with housing guidelines of the City Council and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Association (APCHA), is exempt from the GMQS, subject to compliance with the review standards below: REVIEW STANDARDS: - A determination of the city's need for affordable housing. - The proposed development's compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, housing section, and addendum of said plan - the proposed location, number, type, size, rental/sale mix, and price/income restrictions of the affordable housing units - The phasing of affordable housing unit production in relation to impacts being mitigated through such provision. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL: As stated earlier, the hospital's proposal is to construct new affordable housing units and, with the existing units, create a "bank" of affordable housing units that they can use towards complying with mitigation requirements associated with future hospital projects. At :this point, it is the intention of the hospital to phase the construction of individual buildings as needed for mitigation requirements. Ownership of all of the units will be maintained by the hospital and the units will be rented out only to hospital employees. While there will be a mix of different category deed restrictions, the majority of the units (24 out of 38) will be Category 4 units. The hospital has requested this category in order to allow for maximum flexibility in renting out their units to employees who have a wide variety of incomes. If the categories were to be lower, the hospital would not be able to house certain employees, as their incomes would exceed the maximums allowed for lower categories. According to the hospital, they have rarely charged the maximum rental rate for their units for people who cannot afford them and are, of course, not allowed to charge more than the deed restriction allows; however, at the same time, they feel that it would be unfair to undercharge an employee that has the ability to pay Category 4 rental rates. Therefore, the hospital believes the Category 4 provides them with the necessary flexibility they need in order meet their goals. With this approval and once all of the units are constructed, the hospital requests that the city recognize a credit of 55.25 employees that they can use as a bank towards future mitigation requirements. Additional explanation of how they arrived at that figure and a detail of the proposed units follows: EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING: There are currently fourteen (14) deed restricted affordable housing units owned by the applicant on the site and all were required mitigation for previous lodge approvals. In 1987, three (3) dormitory units in the lodge were deed restricted to Category 1 in conjunction with expanding lodge operations, then a tri-plex (3 units) was built in 1992 when the lodge was remodeled (see photo below). BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE I 0 Soon after, the lodge owners placed a one (1) unit, three (3) bedroom modular on the southern end of the site to replace the three (3) dormitory units in the lodge. In 2000, Aspen Valley Hospital purchased the Beaumont Inn and received conditional use approval to operate the lodge rooms as affordable housing, of which the hospital remodeled one of the existing buildings into ten (10) affordable dwelling units. The chart below breaks down the fourteen existing units into number of unit types, unit sizes, and deed restriction categories: Existing ' 1lnits: studio Unit Types: ~ Unit Size: Cate 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 0~ o ~ RO Silver Building Tri-Plea (ex. Garden Building) Modular Total 3 2 ~ 1=.J 2 5 0 296 sq. ft. - ^^ ~~~ 1,145 s . ft. 1 0 0 2,250 sq. ft. 0 1 total ~~~ 264 s . ft. ~~ ~00 --------- 00 ^ 1 ~ ^ 1 ~ 0 NEw AFFORDABLE HousING: Twenty-five (25) new units are proposed. All of the units except one will be deed restricted to meet Category 4 standards and will meet the minimum square footage requirements under Category 4 , as noted below: Proposed. No. Of Each- Unit Sizes: Cate o Units: .Type of Unit: ~I- ,~I~L.=.~I Studio Units 11 500 s.f. ~ 0~~ 10 1-BR Unit 10 700 s.f. ~~~ 10 2-BR Unit 3 950 s.f. I V - ~~~ 3 BR Unit 1 1,200 s.f. ~~~~ Total 25 units 16,550 s.f. L-J 0~ 0~ 24 The new units will be located in four new buildings, as described below: BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 1 Building Total Units/ Gross Building T es o f Units: Name: Building: Sizes: Studio L-BR 2-BR 3-BR m Coo er 8 6,400 sq. ft. 0 0 0 Homestead 8 5,250 sq. ft. ~ Canal 8 5,560 s . ft. ~ Cresta 1 1,000 sq. ft. ~ Total 25 units 18,210 s . ft. 11 ~ ~ ~ 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EXISTING AND PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: All told, there will be thirty-eight (38) total affordable housing units when the site is built-out (25 new + 13 existing units). (Note: There are fourteen existing units on-site; however, the modular that accounts for one of those units and its three bedrooms will be removed from the site and replaced as three studio units that will be part of the twenty-five new units -therefore, there will be a net loss of one existing unit). All of the units are proposed to be deed restricted: All Units:` Unit Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat. Resident Sizes: 1 2 3 4 Occu ied Studio Units 500 s.f. ~~~ 10 0 1-BR Unit 700 s.f. ~~ 2~ 10 1 2-BR Unit 950 s.f. ~~ 5~0 0 Totals: 16 13 8 3 BR Unit -1,200 s.f. ~~~0 0 Totals: ~~~~~ 24 1 1 38 EMPLOYEE CREDITS FOR PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The hospital requests that a total of 55.25 FTE (full time equivalents) credit be recognized by the city based on thirty-eight deed restricted units, for use as mitigation for future hospital projects requiring mitigation. That figure is arrived at as follows: BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 Employee Credits: Existing Units: No. Of ~ Type of Unit: Employees/Unit: Unit: 5~ 2-Bedroom Unit 5 x 2.253 = 11.25 em loyees 2~ 1-Bedroom Unit 2 x 1.754 = 3.50 employees Studio Unit 1 x 1.255 em loyees Studio Units 2 x 1.06 em loyees Sub-Total: 10' ------- 18.0 Em to ees New Units: 1~ 3-Bedroom Unit 1 x 3.008 = 3.00 em loyees 3~ 2-Bedroom Unit 3 x 2.25 = 6.75 employees 10 ~1-Bedroom Unit 10 x 1.75 = 17.50 employees 8~ Studio Unit 8 x 1.25 = 10.00 employees Sub-Total: 22 ------ 37.25 Em to ees 0 TOTAL: 32 ------ 55.25 Em to ees TRACKING EMPLOYEE HOUSING CREDITS: In all likelihood, the hospital will request utilization of the employee housing credits on an incremental basis as needed for individual hospital projects. Therefore, keeping track of how many credits remain from time to time could pose a challenge. To address this, the applicant proposes that each time the hospital uses employee housing credits, they will record an amendment to the PUD approval with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder to provide an official account for the number of used and remaining number credits. ASPEN / PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD ACTION: The Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Board reviewed the affordable housing portion of the application at their April 14, 2004 meeting and approved the applicants affordable 3 This employees/unit number is derived from the Occupancy Standards by Unit Type found in the Housing Guidelines and also in Section 26.470 of the Aspen Land Use Code 4 Same as above 5 Same as above 6 Two of the existing studio units in the Silver Building are smaller than the minimum size for studio units as established by APCHA standards. APCHA allowed the applicant to take some credit for these units in terms of occupancy, however, not the full allowance. ' The one unit modular is not included in this number as it will be removed from the site and its three bedrooms will be replaced by three studio units in one of the new structures. The three units in the Garden Building are not included in this figure either, as the hospital agreed when they bought the property in 2000 that those units were mitigation for another project and would not be used for mitigation for future hospital projects. 8 This employees/unit number is derived from the Occupancy Standards by Unit Type found in the Housing Guidelines and also in Section 26.470 of the Aspen Land Use Code 9 Three studio units will be provided in the new structures to replace the three bedrooms that will be lost when the modular is removed. These units will not be used as employee mitigation credit for future hospital projects, as the units were originally used to mitigate improvements to the original Beaumont Lodge. BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 housing proposal, by a vote of 4 - 0 (See Exhibit C for Housing office staff memo and APCHA Board meeting minutes). The Housing staff recommended approval of the project with seven conditions of approval (which can be found in the attached Resolution). The Board concurred with their staff's recommendation and did not change any of the conditions. Generally, the Board felt it was appropriate for the hospital to bank employee housing credits for future affordable housing mitigation requirements given that the hospital will likely soon be undergoing changes to their facilities to keep up with nationwide trends in the health care industry. The Board believed that having this bank will allow the hospital to concentrate on their true mission -providing high quality health care for the community. In making their approval, however, they did attach a few key conditions: ^ In order to track the number of employee housing credits used and remaining over the years, the Board approved the following condition: "At any time the credits are used for future development, this shall be noted and recorded as a Minor PUD amendment with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder to keep track of the credits. " ^ In regard to a concern was raised by the Housing staff about future changes to the Land Use Code pertaining to employee occupancy regulations, the Board approved a condition that the hospital be subject to the code requirements in place at the time for occupancy regulations. The condition for this is as follows: "Should any changes occur in the Land Use Code and/or Guidelines that are more restrictive that those currently used that relate to calculating employee mitigation requirements, any future mitigation required at that time shall be calculated under the new standards to establish the accurate mitigation. " ^ .Finally, the staff and the Board wanted to ensure that the employee. housing credits will only be used for hospital projects, unless otherwise approved: "The credits can only be used by the Aspen Valley Hospital on this property without additional review or approval. Should the Hospital wish to transfer the credits to another buyer willing to construct affordable housing units on the site and/or enter into any type of partnership for development on the site, the Hospital shall request such approval with the Housing Authority Board and/or appropriate elected approval body. " COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF RESPONSE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN: The Community Development staff supports the proposed affordable housing plan. Our only additional recommendation would be regarding the process for tracking the employee housing credit. Staff agrees that it should be tracked and that the updated allowance should be recorded; however, instead of a "Minor" PUD Amendment, staff would suggest that it should be done through the "Insubstantial" PUD Amendment process, whereby it is BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 ", an administrative decision that may be approved by the .Community Development Director. 4. STYLE OF HOUSING/LIVABILITY/SITE & PARKING LAYOUT: As it is still early in the review stage, staff felt it was an appropriate time to analyze the overall site layout and the livability of the affordable housing units to ensure that what is proposed is the most efficient plan. The applicant is proposing 25 new units in a stacked arrangement where one unit is over another. This style, however, is counter to the townhome style units preferred by the City in its public initiated affordable housing, a notion which is supported by surveys from residents of City affordable housing who indicate a strong preference for the townhome unit arrangement versus the stacked units because they generally offer more privacy and quietness. In fact, City Council chose the townhome style in their new Burlingame Parcel D affordable housing projects and favors this for the proposed Burlingame Village in order to increase livability. Staff also discussed the parking layout and the proximity of many of the spaces to the units. Staff understands the design constraints that the applicant is dealing with, especially with the preference to retain and work around the two existing structures that are to remain, including the Silver Building which is oddly shaped and consumes lots of the site and the concern of limiting the impacts to the neighbors. However, staff believes that the location of the majority of the parking along the southern property line is a long way from many of the units and therefore compromises some of the "livability" of the complex by making access back and forth difficult. Because of these concerns, staff would like the applicant to investigate if the townhome style of units would be a better choice for increasing the livability of the project. With this style of units, a one car garage could be provided underneath each unit to increase the parking capacity of the site and bring at least a portion of the parking into greater proximity to the units. Staff also concluded that the size of the Cresta Building is an inefficient use of space in terms of how many bedrooms are proposed and that it's site would be a better location for either more parking or for a community space (park, community building, etc.). Staff believes that those bedrooms can be accommodated somewhere else on the site. According to the applicant, all types of units were initially contemplated, although they decided to go with a stacked arrangement in order to provide more units on the site at the same time keeping the heights of the structures lower to satisfy the neighbors. They feel that if they were to have townhomes with garages underneath, the result would be unacceptably tall structures. 5. DRC COMMENTS: DRC minutes are attached in Exhibit B. The majority of the comments are related to standards and items that will be applicable at the Final PUD and building permit stage. A significant discussion item at the meeting was the adequacy of the proposed parking. Most (with the exception of Environmental Health) felt that the BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 15 :, parking amount was too low. Preservation of the existing trees on-site was also brought up. According to the applicant, they will preserve the majority of trees and will only lose some aspen trees in the north end of the site. The Parks Department commented that tree removal permits and a tree protection plan will be required prior to construction to take the necessary steps to preserve mature vegetation. There were also questions about the timing of infrastructure- improvements in light of the applicants proposal to phase construction of units based on need, which will be addressed at Final PUD. (. ARCHITECTURE: According to the applicant, the architectural design of the proposed structure is influenced by the nineteenth century, mining town, Victorian style and is reminiscent and compatible with architecture of that time. The proposed building materials will be local stone masonry around the base of the structures with lap siding and metal roofing materials. By splitting up the units into multiple buildings, the applicant hopes to break up the structures into more smaller scale, residential style massing. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff believes that the proposed architecture is adequate for the site and for the proposed use. The Aspen Area Community Plan's goal for design in the community is reflected in the following statement: "RETAIN AND ENCOURAGE AN ECLECTIC MIX OF DESIGN STYLES TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE SPECIAL CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY" Staff thinks that the design fulfills and contributes to this goal. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on March 31, 2004. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit B. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Beaumont PUD, with conditions as put forth in the proposed resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2004, for a Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Beaumont PUD" ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings -Conceptual Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit C: Housing Office Memorandum Exhibit D: Housing Board Minutes Exhibit E: Letter from Neighbor Exhibit F: Application BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 16 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR THE BEAUMONT PUD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PART OF THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT I ATTACHED TO THE RESOLUTION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-181-00-047 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Valley Hospital, represented by Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning Services for approval of a Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, the application submitted proposed construction of 25 affordable housing units in four new buildings, construction of 38 parking spaces, and other associated site improvements; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting on March 31, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Conceptual PUD and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council to approve the proposed affordable housing mitigation for the project at their meeting held on April 21, 2004; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the. Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPQRT PAGE 17 WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on July 6, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where, by a to (_-~ vote, recommended City Council approve the Conceptual PUD, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD approval shall only grant the ability for the applicant to submit a Final PUD Application and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review, Growth Management Quota System Exemption, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Special Review approval pursuant to the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, The Commission finds that the development review standards for a Conceptual PUD plan have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the Beaumont allowing construction of 25 affordable housing units in four new buildings, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1 The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final PUD application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the Commission, as described above. 2. The Final PUD application shall include: a. An application for Final PUD, Amendment to the Official Zoning Map, Special Review for parking for the affordable housing units, and Growth Management Quota System Exemptions. Apre-application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application; b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD. c. A construction plan describing timing of construction components, areas of disturbance, contractor parking, and a physical plan for maintaining adequate access, including emergency access, to land uses remaining active during construction; and, d. A detailed phasing plan that describes overall timing of specific project phases, including the off-site improvements and describing construction affects on the neighboring properties. 3. The Final PUD Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the comments and recommendations from the DRC meeting held on March 31, 2004, including the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority staff memorandum dated April 16, 2004. 4. The total credit base that the Hospital gains through this development is 55.25 FTE's. BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 18 . , ,~„ 5. The new units shall maintain an average rental rate of Category 4. This allows for the Hospital to provide rental housing for up to Category 7 employees as long as an average of Category 4 is maintained throughout the new units. 6. Prior to building permit approval for hospital development requiring employee mitigation, the applicant shall complete and record necessary deed restrictions for units on this property. 7. At any time the credits are used for future development, the applicant shall apply for an Insubstantial PUD Amendment with the City of Aspen and once approved shall record with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder a document specifying the number of employee housing credits used and remaining to help keep track of the credits. 8. Should any changes occur in the Land Use Code and/or Guidelines in the future that are more restrictive that those currently used that relate to calculating employee mitigation requirements, any future mitigation required at that time shall be calculated under the new standards to establish the accurate mitigation. 9. The applicant shall structure a document for the deed-restricted units such that 1/10tH of 1 % ownership of each of the units are deeded to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority in perpetuity; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority deems acceptable. 10. The credits derived from this development can only be used by the Aspen Valley Hospital unless approved by the City of Aspen. Should the Hospital wish to transfer the credits to another buyer willing to construct affordable housing units on the site and/or enter into any type of partnership for development on the site, the Hospital shall request such approval with the Housing Authority Board and/or appropriate elected approval body. 11. Prior to submitting an application for a Final PUD, the applicant shall make the following revisions to the plan: a. Increase the amount of parking on the site so that there is at least one non- handicapped space per unit and provision of a minimum of five guest parking spaces. b. Increase the amount of setback between the proposed Canal Building and the north side yard setback. c. Revise the site plan to show townhome style units rather than the stacked unit arrangement to increase the livability of the units. d. Revise the site plan to place more of the parking spaces in closer proximity to the majority of the units and show sidewalks leading from the units in the structures along the east property line to the proposed sidewalk along US 82. BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 19 Section 2 This Resolution shall not effect 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 3: 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 Commission at its regular meeting on July 6, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT PAGE 20 ,~~ ;, < ~... i ~ . j ~~ ATTACHMENTI TO RESOLUTION NO._, SERIES OF 2004 Order Ntvnbe~: ono?7449 LEGAL DE.SCRIP770N •~ parcel of land beissg part of the Rlverstde Addltjoa to the Cjty and Sowasitc °f Jlspen, Colorado, said parcel is more full}, described as follows: Be9iIIa.isg at a polat being a platstje cap on a No. 5 rebar $ trheace coraar 8 of the Riverside Placer U_ 5.3[.3. No, 3905 d 11i. ybetng a brass coy dated 295 bears North 85.08' West 544.05 feel, Gheace North I5°41' West 92.08 feet; thence North 14'06'59' West 222.02 feat; _ thence North 13 °13'3 Saet 40.54 feet thence North 78.22'05° East 33.32 feet; th~ce North 37'34'04' Baet 56.45 feet theaca North 68.24'25• Bast 27.55 feet; thence South 50'37' Bast 77.76 feet; thence Soa.:.h 34.21' East 250.08 feet; thence 93.50 feet along a curve to tae right havtitg the radius 760.00 feet (the chord of which beers South 24°03' gnat 93.00 feet); thence 6ottth 77'45'50' West 235.31 feet to the point of beg;nn,~ng. COI~ELTY OS PIT1[IN~ 3TAI3 OF COLORADO EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: CONCEPTUAL PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES In the AACP, the future land use -nap designates the Beaumont parcel as "Lodging." This designation stems from the fact that the Beaumont Lodge was still operating at the time of the adoption of the AACP on February 28, 2000 and the desire of the plan makers was to accurately represent the land use at the time. Later that year, Aspen Valley Hospital was granted approval to covert the lodge's 31 lodge room into affordable housing units. Because the lodge is no longer in existence and because the property has been utilized for affordable housing, technically the site does not comply with the future land use. However, the future land use plan was developed primarily from existing zoning and "generalized" to reflect expected future land uses and it is impossible to predict all possible future land uses. Staff believes that the site is an appropriate location for the proposed use as the site has historically been used for higher density uses, is close to the town core, and is in close proximity to other high density affordable housing projects (Lacet and Alpine Cottages). The project is generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP, specifically with regard. to Housing, Transportation, Economic Sustainability, and Design Quality. The Housing section of the AACP states as the intent: "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods, is affordable, and respects our overall community concerns, as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan." The Hospital's proposal preserves existing development while blending new development into the overall scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal to construct four new buildings on the site is designed in a manner that compliments the existing structures and does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Locating the new development on the periphery and in the center of the site mitigates to the greatest extent possible impacts to neighbors. The Action Plan of the AACP also speaks to the importance of increasing density through infill in Aspen's original town-site, especially for affordable housing, in order to protect open space surrounding the community and for the private sector to contribute to the supply of affordable housing. Additionally, the project is located within easy walking or biking distance of downtown, is in close proximity to a bus stop, provides "a compact, mixed use development that enable travel by foot, bicycle, and public transportation for all types of trips", enhances pedestrian corridors, and proposes quality architecture in order to maintain and enhance the character of the community. The project also promotes economic sustainability by "fostering a high quality, well-trained, service-oriented, educated work force" by providing long term affordable housing for hospital employees housing. - 2i - 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed multi-family, deed restricted affordable housing (AH) development will be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area, as those uses consist of two other similar AH projects (Lacet Court and Alpine Cottages) and other largely locals-oriented, single-family residential areas (Riverside Subdivision). 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the Code, the construction of deed restricted affordable housing is exempt from the GMQS. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) ~ Zone T)istrict ~~ Dimensioual Requirement ltcyuircnicnt Minimum Lot Size (square feet) * ~~ Proposed 53,543 square feet Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit * 1,409 sq. ft. (53,543 / 38 units) Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Setback * 10 feet (along Highway 82) Minimum North Side Yard Setback * 5 feet Minimum South Side Yard Setback * 1 foot (if covered parking is constructed, 5 feet, if not) Minimum Rear Yard Setback * 10 feet Maximum Height * 27.5 feet to mid-point of roof -22- and 32.5 feet to top of ridge Minimum Distance b/w Buildings * 7.4 feet Minimum Percent of Open Space * 18,878 square feet (.43 acres) or 35 /o of the site Allowable Floor Area (FAR) * .6:1 (30,192 square feet) Minimum Off Street Parking * 38 spaces * Per Section 26.710.110 (AH/PUD Zone District), these dimensional requirements shall be established. by the adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics, as follows: a.) Approximately 50% of the existing development on the site will remain in its current configuration and will not create any additional impact to its neighbors. Three of the 4 new structures are oriented towards US 82 or to the interior of the site and, therefore, away from neighboring development. Approximately one third of the two buildings along the Highway are 25 feet high at the mid-point, which is consistent with height limit of the surrounding R-15 zone district, and two-thirds of the buildings are 27.5 feet to the mid-point and 32 feet to the top of the ridge. The majority of the parking is located along the south boundary shared with the Riverside Subdivision and will be low impact to the neighbors. The new Canal Building in the north end of the site will create more of an impact to its neighbor to the north (Lacet Court) than the existing lodge structure currently does -the lodge maintained an approximate 50' setback from this property line, while the Canal Building proposes a minimum 5' setback from the property line. Although the established setback is 5 feet, the actual setback of the Canal building averages 12 feet (due to the staggered and undulating nature of each unit), while the setback for the Lacet building is about 20 feet. For reference, staff considered the R/MF zone district as a guide, which (for a lot of this size) requires a total of 15' of combined side setback with a minimum 5'. The proposed Beaumont structures would comply with this requirement, as there is a total of over 15' of side setback and a minimum of 5' on both sides. The height of the Canal building is approximately one foot taller than the Lacet building although the Canal buildin starts about 4' hi her in rade; -23- b.) Assuming precautions recommended by the soils and structural engineers and the city engineer are adhered to, there should be no natural or man-made hazards (final details related to this will be determined with the final PUD); c.) Most of the proposed building envelope has already been impacted by existing buildings and the parking lot, but a conscious effort is being made to protect existing vegetation. Therefore, staff does not find that the proposed dimensional standards will create any significant additional impacts to existing natural characteristics; d.) Staff finds that there will not be an appreciable negative impact to any of these influences on the property as a result of the proposed dimensional standards. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards are generally appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed development and surrounding area. Staff does, however, believe that the site may be too dense for the number of parking spaces provided and recommend that the applicant either provide additional parking spaces, or reduce the density by several units in order to improve the parking situation. In addition, staff recommends that the one unit in the Cresta building be accommodated elsewhere on the site and that the area proposed for this building be instead used as community open space for residents of the project. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NO Staff finds the proposed amount of parking is not adequate to serve the needs of the development. There are 38 parking spaces proposed for 38 units. Given that two of the 38 spaces will be required handicapped spaces, there will be less than one space per unit (assuming that the two handicapped spaces are not used by handicapped persons). Also, when considering the lack of guest parking spaces and the lack of adjacent, on-street parking for overflow purposes, staff believes that there will be a parking deficiency. Staff has, therefore, recommended that the applicant either provide additional parking spaces or reduce the density of the ro~ect b several units. -24- „x 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Adequate infrastructure capabilities (not including parking) exist to meet the expected demand. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced i£ a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Since does not believe that the proposed density will have a negative impact on criterion a, b, or d above that would necessitate the density being reduced. Regarding criterion c., the Environmental Health Department for the City of Aspen has determined that there will be a pernicious effect on the air quality as a result of the increased number of trips to the site over and above what the lodge produced. However, assuming that proper mitigation measures are implemented (i.e. addition of sidewalk, bike storage, providing discounted bus passes to residents, etc ), Environmental Health feels that the negative impact can be properly mitigated. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. -as- <.~ b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase. in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES A maximum allowable density in not established for the AH zone district; the density is determined through the PUD process. The zone district does, however, provide a minimum lot area per dwelling unit as a guide. Based on that guide and the number and type of units the applicant is proposing, 22,400 square feet of lot area would be required. The site has over 50,000 square feet of lot area (after slope reduction is taken out). Therefore, the proposal is in compliance The applicant is not requesting any increase in the allowed density. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES There are no unique natural or man-made features on the site that would require preservation. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that there are no "significant" open spaces or vistas associated with this site. In other words, there are no open spaces or vistas of great community value located on this property 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. -26- •,., »a STAFF FINDING:. DOES IT COMPLY? YES The new structures are primarily oriented towards US 82. As such, the applicant has attempted to design the structures with a strong visual interest and engagement of the vehicular and pedestrian traffic along US 82. By breaking up the units into four different structures, limiting the heights to a maximum of 32.5' to the ridges, by removing the retaining wall that separates the site and the street, and by adding separate entrances off of the proposed sidewalk, staff believes the applicant has met the intent of this guideline. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to their comments from the Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting for this project, the Fire Department does not have any concerns about their ability to access this development for emergency service- activities. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Per the Building Department, the applicant shall meet the IBC, ANSI, and Federal Fair Housing accessibility requirements and shall show accessible units and access routes to parking, trash, and other site features. Although this has not yet been fully demonstrated, staff is confident that the plan will comply with alt of the above accessibility requirements by time of Final PUD review when more detail will be provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to a letter submitted by the applicant's engineer, site drainage will continue at pre- development flows with the use of dry-wells installed on-site. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE There are no non-residential land uses proposed with the project. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. -z~- a1~5'~la r. _ ..V~ 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Programmed commons spaces- phased with development- will be provided for residents' use. The site design and building design have been sensitive to preserving, to the greatest extent practicable, existing plant materials- especially mature trees. Proposed tree material selections include hardy species as well as ornamentals for seasonal interest and historic (Victorian) homage. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with the final PUD application and the Applicant intends to work with the Parks Department on tree mitigation measures. During construction orange construction fencing with metal support posts at drip line of the protected tree will be provided. After construction the Aspen Valley Hospital will provide routine maintenance and servicing of landscape materials, including weed abatement, for the site. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. -as- STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The project is compatible with the local character of Aspen. It recalls the late nineteen century, mining town, stick style Victoria architecture that is common in Aspen, which is accomplished through the use of small-scale, single family residential massing, vertical proportioning of openings and the buildings themselves, rich color, and detailing that recall local historic nuances. The use of materials such as local stone helps to anchor the buildings in masonry, lap siding, and metal roof materials, all of which are common to this neighborhood and region. In addition to breaking the building facades into separate smaller, more vertically proportioned planes, the building massing steps with the topography, which provides for frequent breaks in the roof lines and facade massing which is also a common characteristic of this end of the Aspen valley. Buildings are oriented to take advantage of prevailing breezes in order to encourage natural ventilation while enclosing the interior to provide weather protection. The majority of the units should be situated to take advantage of southern exposure and the natural cooling provided by mature existing vegetation. The buildings will be designed with metal roofs that will shed snow to the front and back sides of units. According to the applicant, pedestrian areas and entrances to buildings will be protected from shedding snow by secondary roofs. Looking at the site plan, staff is concerned that protection from shedding snow and adequate snow storage has not been fully considered, however, feel that these issues can be worked out at Final PUD when there is more information and that it is not an issue that cannot be worked out. F. Li htin . The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY I YES The applicant states that no lighting of the site or building features is proposed, other than what will be required for safety. The development's exterior lighting will comply with the standards of Section 26.575.150. Pursuant to Section 26.575.150.D, a detailed lighting plan will be submitted for review and approval with the Final PUD application. G. Common Park Open Space or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: -29- ~._,~ ,,~ 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Located at the site of the last structure to be built, the Cresta Commons concept will provide needed residential open space within the project with potential seating, play and barbecue uses. With eventual site build-out, the residential common area would be relocated to the west side of the existing Silver building with views toward Ajax Mountain. Staff believes that the Cresta Building site would be better served as a permanent common park and that the applicant should consider replacing the unit proposed for it in another structure on the site in order to preserve the area as a common park for the development. This issue will be examined during the Conceptual PUD review and be worked out prior Final PUD. Ownership of the park will be retained by the hospital, just as they propose to own the units and rent them out. Aspen Valley Hospital will support on-going maintenance of the park and other common areas. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. -30- STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The site is located within the City of Aspen and is currently served by all primary and secondary utilities and capacity is available from all of the necessary utilities to serve the additional units proposed. No adverse impacts on existing public infrastructure are anticipated by the expansion although the proposed development will be adding a fire hydrant adjacent to Highway 82 to the benefit of other adjacent properties and will be removing several old service .taps on area utility mains to the benefit of those facilities. No oversized utilities, public. facilities or site improvements are proposed in anticipation of future development in adjacent areas. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES All structures and all of the units will have adequate access from the existing entry drive off of US 82. Some of the units will be accessed from pedestrian ways that lead directly from the parking areas, pr from the sidewalk along the street. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the traffic study performed by Dan Cokley, P.E. of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., this access is adequate to accommodate the increased number of trips generated by the 38 proposed dwelling units. The applicant also proposes to re-grade the project site adjacent to Highway 82 to eliminate the need for the existing retaining wall, which will result in the sight distances will on US 82 being greatly improved. Staff does have a concern about the amount of provided parking and feel that it could create a parking problem on the highway. As proposed, there will only be one space per unit. Given that two of those spaces are required to be signed as handicapped only, there will be less than one space per unit. Added to that, there will be no guest parking spaces, nor space for a second vehicle at any of the units. Staff believes that the lack of parking might encourage people to park on US 82, which could create congestion or other hazards. Therefore, staff has placed a condition on the approval requiring additional on- site parkin _ 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. -31- ,. ,,, ~,~.~ STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There are no historic trails through the subject property which would require dedication or improvement and the AACP does not recommend any additional trails on the property. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES A sidewalk along the frontage of the property with US 82 will be constructed providing a pedestrian link to downtown. Internal walking paths are also proposed to provide an easy way to get back and forth from individual units to the parking spaces. In terms of meeting the overall transportation goals of the AACP, the project complies by providing affordable housing within easy walking distance of downtown and a nearby bus stop and by maintaining the appeal of bicycling and walking around Aspen by adding sidewalk connections. 5. Streets in the -PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The interior street will be private although appropriate easements will be required to be dedicated for emergency service access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No security gates or guard posts are proposed. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. -32- STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE Per the Code, this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications. -33- «~~.:, To: Development Review Committee EXHIBIT B DRC MINUTES From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: March 31, 2004 Re: 3/31/04 DRC Minutes: Beaumont PUD Attendees: Scott Woodford, City Planner Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Denis Murray, Building Department Brian Flynn, Parks Department Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Cindy Christensen, Housing Department Steven Spears, OTAK Jay Hammond, SGM Engineers Leslie Lamont, Planner for Applicant Don Gillon, Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) -Employee Housing Craig Swick, AVH -Project Manager At the March 31, 2004 DRC meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the proposal to construct. a total of 38 hospital employee housing units on the Beaumont Lodge site. These units are being designed as rental units and will not be condominiumized. The current PUD application seeks conceptual PUD approval. The timeline for project implementation is dependent on the hospital's need for housing mitigation resulting from future hospital expansions. DRC COMMENTS Housing Department: • Proposed buildings need to include three category #1 units to replace demolished units. • Existing studios (that will not be demolished) are too small but they have been previously approved and will not be required to be altered as part of the project. BEAUMONT PUD STAFF REPORT -34- March 31, 2004 Beaumont PUD DRC EngineerinE• • Parking_Requirements: Mr. Adeh says that guest parking spaces are needed. All of the City staff at the meeting concurred. Nick suggests that one guest parking spot is needed per 12 units. • Entrance: Final PUD plans should show a concrete drive ramp at the entrance. • ADA Ramps: The latest requirements for ADA ramps that meet federal standards will be met on sidewalks for pedestrian access. • Construction Management Plan: As part of the building permit application, the applicant must submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP). The City will provide guidelines for the CMP. The CMP needs to include a construction Traffic Management report and plan.. • State Permits: Unless the Applicant can demonstrate otherwise, the project will require State Erosion Control and Fugitive Dust Control Permits since the site is over one acre. • Curb and Gutter: Curb and gutter will be needed along the frontage of the property for several reasons including enhancement of pedestrian safety in a relatively narrow traffic corridor, collection and conveyance of street runoff, reduction of sediment load in surface runoff, encouraging pedestrian foot traffic as an alternative to driving, ensuring stability of road bed and pavement, etc. • ADA Parkin: The 38 parking spots for the development includes 2 handicap spots. If there are no handicap residents the handicap parking spots will not be used and there will be a parking deficit of two spots. The applicant needs to address this problem and still comply with handicap parking requirements for multi unit development. Fire Department: • Alarms and Sprinklers: Alarms and sprinklers will be needed in all of the proposed buildings. During the project design, a consultant will need to design the sprinkler and alarm systems. (The existing Garden Building will be the only building without a fire sprinkler ands alarm system.) • Fire Hydrants: (i) One fire hydrant is proposed to be located at the entrance and a second hydrant is proposed to be located near the Crest Building. The Fire Department needs to be consulted regarding the final locations. (ii) The Water Department may not want to see a fire hydrant on a dead-end water line. • BB s: In order to prevent forest fires, Ed would like the Ordinance to read that the rental agreements should state that briquette BBQ grills will not be allowed - -only propane grills. Parks Department • Tree Removal: An approved tree permit is required prior to approval of the building permit. An approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal and means and schedule for mitigation. Please contact the City Forester for more information 920-5126. -35- March 31, 2004 Beaumont PUD DRC • Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic inside of the protective fence. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area inside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5126) before any construction activities are to commence. • The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 1.5 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or train member of the contractor's team. • No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. • Parks Department is requiring the applicant secure a maintenance bond for all trees remaining on site which will have excavation under drip lines or next to drip lines. This will assure the survival of the tree or provide a replacement means if the tree dies within two years after the CO of the project. • .Erosion Control: Silt fencing installed to the City of Aspen standards. Additional erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. Site specific to the irrigation ditch on the West of the property. • Landscaping Based on the mitigation for tree removal an approved landscape plan will need to be submitted to the parks department. • Sidewalk Easement: shall be .worked out .between the applicant and the Engineering office. The Easement shall speak to indemnification of parties and maintenance of the sidewalk. • Sidewalk landscape area: This is open for discussion, however a minimum of landscaping shall be accomplished by the applicant. This requires irrigation and a grass strip between the back of curb and edge of sidewalk when available. Parks will help the applicant look into trees when space allows or specific species allows. Sanitation District • Infrastructure Timing: Will all of the utilities be installed at one time? From the City's viewpoint this is preferable. The City understands that the construction of the buildings could be phased to meet the hospital's housing mitigation needs. • Common Service Agreement: There will be a common service agreement among the different buildings. As designed, it will be difficult to condominiumize the units. Thus, the units should stay as rental units. • Sewer Extension: The Sanitation District would prefer the extension of the main sewer line onto the property with an easement overlaying this sewer line. This may solve problems with the potential condominiumization of the units. • ACSD Standards: Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. • Trees: Do not plant trees over sewer services. -36- March 31, 2004 Beaumont PUD DRC • ACSD Review: Prior to submitting the building permit applications the applicant should submit plans to ACSD for review and determination of fees Zonin • Overview: The Beaumont Inn Affordable Housing Project is a proposal to construct twenty-five (25) additional employee-housing units on the property at 1301 E. Cooper Avenue. The addition of twenty-five (25) additional employee-housing units will make a total of thirty-eight (38) employee-housing units on the site. The Applicant has proposed to establish all of the dimensional requirements for the site through the PUD process in conjunction with rezoning the property to AH/PUD. • Dimensional Requirements: The AH/PUD Zone District requires that the dimensional requirements be established through a PUD while using the following density and FAR guidelines to establish said requirements: A U/DT TTl Tloroit~~ (~~ii~P~inac• UNIT TvpE: Min. Lot Area per Dwelling Unit S uare Feet): Dormitory 300 SF Studio 400 SF One Bedroom 500 SF Two Bedroom 1,000 SF Three Bedroom 1,500 SF More than 3 Bedrooms 500 SFBedroom A U/DT TTl ~ A D f;.,,~P~1nPC' y~yFatherin Parcel Lot Area: Allowable Floor Area Ratio: 0-15,000 SF 1.1:1 15,001-25,000 SF 1:1 25,001-43,560 SF .g:l >1 acre-3 acres .6:1 >3 acres-6 acres .36:1 >6 acres .3:1 In reviewing the proposal against the above guidelines established in Land Use Code Section 26.710.120, the Applicant has proposed a total of sixteen studio units, thirteen 1-bedroom units, eight 2-bedroom units, and one 3-bedroom unit. Therefore, based on the density guidelines in the code, the Applicant would need 22,400 square feet of lot area for the thirty-eight dwelling units. Thus, since the subject parcel contains almost 50,000 square feet, the proposal is in line with the density guidelines of the AH/PUD Zone District. In also reviewing the proposal against the FAR guidelines outlined above, the Applicant has proposed 30,192 square feet of FAR. And thus, since the lot size is between one and three acres, the AH/PUD guidelines suggest an allowable FAR of .6:1. -37- March 31, 2004 Beaumont PUD DRC However, please note that the method of calculating slope reduction in the application was calculated incorrectly. In the application the lot area that is between 31% and 40% slopes is only reduced by 75%. Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(C) requires that all land area over 30% slopes be completely removed from the property's lot area for the purpose of calculating FAR. Therefore, pursuant to the land use code only 49,934 square feet of lot area on this property should count for the purpose of calculating the allowable FAR as opposed to 50,320 square feet that is indicated in the application. Thus the floor area ratio proposed to be established in the application should actually be .604:1. • Residential Design Standards: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, the Applicant shall obtain variances from the building orientation, entry door, and one-story element residential design standards or amend the proposed design to comply with said standards. In PUD projects, residential design standard variances are typically applied for and reviewed in conjunction with the Final PUD application. • Outdoor Li htg ins: The Applicant must comply with Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Given that the project contains residential multi- family buildings, a lighting plan meeting the lighting code is required at the time of building permit submittal. • Park Impact Fees: At the time of building permit the applicant will be required to pay all relevant park impact fees for the addition in bedrooms unless otherwise waived or reduced by City Council. In calculating the park impact fees, credit will be given for exiting bedrooms. • School Land Dedication Fees: The application is not subject to School Land Dedication fees since the property will not be subdivided under the proposal . Water Dept• • City Standards Compliance: All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. Building Department: • Accessibility: (i) Must meet IBC, ANSI, and Federal Fair Housing accessibility requirements, (ii) Plan must show accessible units and access routes to parking, trash, etc. • Demolition: Contractor needs to recycle as much as possible and compact the remainder. • PUD and Permit Application: Permit application cannot be submitted -until PUD is recorded. -38- rt„t March 31, 2004 "~ Beaumont PUD DRC Environmental Health • AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code 13.08] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek to "lessen con es~ tion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducingpollutants". The land use code states that the density of a PUD may be reduced if the proposed development will have a pernicious [negative] effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project. Using the ITE figures, for the replacement ofl0 lodge units with 25 affordable housing units, this 100% affordable housing development will generate 105.9 additional trips per day, and 15 pounds of pm10 per day. Thus the size of this development will have a pernicious (negative) effect on the air quality. In order to comply with the provisions of the land use code, and ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the applicant has included the following mitigation measures to be implemented: 1. The applicant will add sidewalk along Highway 82, which will connect to its neighboring properties' sidewalks, during its first phase of the project. 2. The applicant will provide only 38 off street spaces to be used by the 38 affordable housing units and their guests. 3. The applicant will provide covered and secured bike storage. 4. The applicant is an active member in the Transportation Options Program. 5. That applicant will continue to provide discounted bus passes to its employees. The Aspen Environmental Health Department recognizes that the applicant is providing significantly -less parking spaces than what the land use code requires. However, staff believes that this project is an excellent candidate for such a reduction based on the following: 3. The applicant has an established record of employees using alternative transportation. 4. This site is located across from a RFTA bus stop and is within easy walking distance from the commercial core and Rubey Park. If the applicant were to be required to add more parking spaces then additional mitigation measures will be necessary to ensure that the project does not constitute a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area -39- March 31, 2004 Beaumont PUD DRC and the City of Aspen. Staffs recommendation is that the applicant implement the additional PM10 reduction measure: 3. Provide off-site car storage to account for the additional spaces. 4. Provide tangible incentives for employees to use alternative transportation for their commute. • REMINDERS FOR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS: FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. FUGITIVE DUST any development must implement adequate dust control measures. A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Division if this project is over 1 acre in size. ASBESTOS Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 18.04 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors....Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels." During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible .sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. -40- March 31, 2004 '"'~"' Beaumont PUD DRC It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that trash storage areas have adequate wildlife protection. -41- r+*„ , .~?' EXHIBIT C HOUSING OFFICE MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Woodford FROM: Cindy Christensen DATE: April 16, 2004 RE: BEAUMONT PUD -AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUE: The applicant, Aspen Valley Hospital, is requesting approval to construct 25 affordable housing units. The proposal is for a rezoning to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development and a Growth Management Quota System exemption for affordable housing. This is conceptual approval only. BACKGROUND: The Hospital purchased the Beaumont Inn in 2000 for hospital employee housing. The Hospital received conditional approval to use the property for affordable housing. The Hospital is now pursuing the appropriate land use approvals to develop and operate up to 38 affordable housing units on this site. The property is 53,543 square feet and is currently zoned R-15, moderate density with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The property currently contains approximately 20,979 square feet of floor area on the parcel -one complex includes atwo-story building comprised of two wings connected by a short breezeway, atwo-story triplex and athree-bedroom modular. The two-story building (the Silver building) has been converted into ten deed-restricted dwelling units for hospital employees. The triplex (the Garden building) and the three-bedroom modular are also occupied by Hospital employees and remain deed-restricted units. The Hospital proposes to construct another 25 employee units on the Beaumont site for a total of 38 dwelling units. The proposal is to demolish the older lodge structure that is closest and perpendicular to Highway 82 and remove the three-bedroom modular from the site. The three- bedroom, Category 1 modular, will be replaced within the project as three Category 1 studios. A total of 13 deed-restricted units located in the refurbished section of the lodge and the triplex will remain in their current configuration and deed-restricted status: • Five 2-bedrooms at Category 3 • Two 1-bedrooms at Category 3 • One 1-bedroom at Category RO • Two studios at Category 1 • One studio at Category 2 <,.. ~~~., • Two studios at Category 3 It is the intention of the hospital to phase development on the Beaumont site when mitigation is required for future Hospital campus expansions. The intention is to construct 25 units in four separate buildings. The four new buildings are proposed as follows: Name of Building No of Units Studios 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom Cooper 8 2 4 2 Homestead 8 4 4 Canal 8 5 2 Cresta 1 1 The proposed square footages are stated below: Studios 400 square feet 1-Bedrooms 500 square feet 2-Bedrooms 1,000 square feet 3-Bedroom 1,500 square feet The proposed new units will meet the minimum square footage requirements under Category 4 Previous owners of the lodge were required, as part of the Lodge expansion, to provide employee mitigation. In 1987, a deed restriction was recorded that deed restricted three dormitory-style units to Category 1. In 1992, a new owner remodeled the lodge and built a triplex for employee housing purposes. Athree-bedroom modular was located on site to replace the three dormitory units in the lodge. The triplex includes a RO one-bedroom unit, a Category 3 studio and a Category 2 studio. The modular is deed restricted to Category 1. The applicant proposes replacing the three-bedroom Category 1 modular with three Category 1 studio units. The applicant is proposing 24 Category 4 units and one studio unit to Category 1 as one replacement for the modular. At the current time, the Hospital is proposing to use two of the existing Category 1 units in the existing Silver building to replace the additional shortage that the demolition of the modular would create. The Hospital is proposing mostly Category 4 to provide the most rental flexibility for the Hospital. The Hospital must recruit employees on a seasonal basis, twice a year. They believe it is inefficient to request rental rate structures at least twice a year. The Housing Guidelines and deed restrictions require at a minimum six-month leases; aone-year lease is not required. This should accommodate the concern the. Hospital has for use of the rental units on a seasonal basis. The Hospital states that they rarely charge the maximum rental rate for their existing units and would not charge more for a unit if it exceeds what at essential employee is paid. In addition, the Hospital feels it would be 2 ~~~:. '.~. unfair to undercharge an employee that has the ability to pay Category 4 rental rates. The conceptual proposal for the new construction is as follows: Units Type Sq. Ft. Cate~ory 1 3-bedroom 1,200 4 3 2-bedroom 950 4 10 1-bedroom 700 4 1 Studio 500 1 10 Studio 500 4 The table below shows what would exist at full development: # of Units Type Cate~ory O 1 3-bedroom 1 (4) 8 2-bedroom 3 (4); 5 (3) 13 1-bedroom 2 (3); 10 (4); 1 (RO) 16 Studios 10 (4); 3 (1); 2 (3); 1 (2) The project represents 100% employer developed affordable housing located within the City of Aspen. When the Hospital purchased the former Beaumont Inn, they did so to be proactive and provide employee housing for current and future employee needs. The Hospital requested that existing and future dwelling units (excluding the existing four deed restricted units in placed at the time of purchase) are reserved for future employee mitigation purposes. Reservation and some strong opinions were expressed by some members of the P&Z and the Housing Authority Board about "banking" dwelling units for future use. The minutes reflected that further discussion of the issue would be more appropriate when the Hospital came forward with a comprehensive proposal for the property. As part of the GMQS request for the development of 25 deed restricted dwelling units and the redevelopment of the Beaumont property, the Hospital is asking that the total employee credits be created for future Hospital developments requiring employee mitigation. The total is 59.5, but the modular replacement at 3.75 would need to be subtracted. The breakdown is as follows: Existing Structure New Dwelling Units 1 3-bedrooms 1 X 3.00 = 3.00 5 2-bedrooms 5 X 2.25 = 11.25 3 2-bedrooms 3 X 2.25 = 6.75 2 1-bedrooms 2 X 1.75 = 3.50 10 1-bedrooms 10 X 1.75 = 17.50 3 Studios 3 X 1.25 = 3.75 11 Studios 11 X 1.25 = 13.75 3 TOTAL FTE's 18.50 41.00 Minus the modular, the total credits = 55.75 FTE's for future mitigation. One of the major problems with allowing credits is keeping track of the employee credits over time. Another issue is potential code changes or Guideline changes. The Hospital is proposing that when employee-housing mitigation is required, it tracks with a land use approval for a specific expansion and/or new development. In order to keep track of the employee credit pool established in the Beaumont final PUD plan, it is recommended that the applicant record in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder a minor amendment to the Beaumont PUD plan reflecting any reductions in the employee housing credit pool. This would allow for staff reviewing the Beaumont property at any time to understand what is left in their credit pool. This takes care of the first major concern. The second concern relates to any potential changes to the Land Use Code and/or Guidelines as to how they may relate to mitigation and employee generation and/or occupancy standards by unit type. This could be addressed that at the time of the request for the additional credits, the up-to-date standards would go into effect for any new expansion, redevelopment, and/or new development. In summary, the Hospital seeks the approval for the following: • Secure the exemption to ultimately construct 25 new deed restricted dwelling units on-site, deed restricting 24 units to Category 4 and one unit to Category l; and • Establish an employee credit pool of 55.75 employees for future housing mitigation purposes; and RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed this application on April 14, 2004 and recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Calculation of the Credits: ^ The two existing studio units would be treated as dorm rooms and provide a credit of 1 FTE, thereby making the total credit base for the existing structure 18 FTE's. ^ Two of the rooms in the existing modular unit that is proposed for demolition will be satisfied by the two Category 1 studio units in the existing structure, thereby making the total credit base for the existing structure 16 FTE's. The other room in the existing modular will be replaced with a new studio Category 1 unit in the new phase. ^ The new units would provide a total credit base of 41 FTE's. The one replacement studio would be subtracted from this total base and leave a credit base for the new structure of 39.75. ^ The TOTAL credit base that the Hospital could utilize would be 55.75 FTE's. 4 2. The new units must maintain an average rental rate of Category 4. This allows for the Hospital to provide rental housing for up to Category 7 employees as long as an average of Category 4 is maintained throughout the new units. 3. Deed restrictions shall be completed and recorded prior to building permit approval for the development requiring the mitigation. 4. At any time the credits are used for future development, this shall be noted and recorded as a Minor PUD amendment with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder to keep track of the credits. 5. Should any changes occur in the Land Use Code and/or Guidelines that are more restrictive that those currently used that relate to calculating employee mitigation requirements, any future mitigation required at that time shall be calculated under the new standards to establish the accurate mitigation. 6. The applicant shall structure a document for the deed-restricted units such that 1/10th of 1 % ownership of each of the units are deeded to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority in perpetuity; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority deems acceptable. 7. The credits can only be used by the Aspen Valley Hospital on this property without additional review or approval. Should the Hospital wish to transfer the credits to another buyer willing to construct affordable housing units on the site and/or enter into any type of partnership for development on the site, the Hospital shall request such approval with the Housing Authority Board and/or appropriate elected approval body. 5 EXHIBIT D HOUSING BOARD MINUTES MINUTES OF THE APRIL 14, 2004 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTYHOUSING AUTHORITY (RESCHEDULED FROM APRIL 7, 2004) I. Sherri Sanzone, Vice Chairperson, called the Special Meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The April 14, 2004 Regular meeting was held in the Rio Grande Meeting Room, 455 Rio Grande Place. Board members in attendance were Sherri Sanzone, Marcia Goshorn, Joanne Ihrig and Dan Lauer. Staff Members in attendance were Maureen Dobson, Executive Director and Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager. II. MINUTES: Goshorn clarified that when the issue of disclosure of anything that could adversely affect a unit was discussed on Gabrielle's unit, that it was not just for this specific unit but for any unit that would be sold through the Housing Office and that Smith stated that Staff should be disclosing anything on any unit that could adversely affect that unit. This will be reflected in the March 16, 2004 minutes. Goshorn made a motion to approve the March 16, 2004 minutes with the above-stated clarification; Ihrig seconded the motion. All approved. Goshorn made a motion to approve the March 24, 2004 minutes as submitted; Ihrig seconded the motion. All approved. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment for items not on the agenda. IV. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS: Dobson stated that she would be out of the office from April 21 to May 10. The BOCC and City Council approved moving Lauer from alternate status to regular status. The BOCC has decided on the joint alternate opening, but City Council has not made their decision. Dobson updated the Board on the progress of the Cathy Tripodi case. Gabrielle's has been -held up due to the bankruptcy issue. Tom Smith had suggested that if the Board wants to pursue the issue of Gabrielle selling the unit immediately, the Board would need to hire a bankruptcy attorney to proceed. The Board directed staff to wait to see how the asset would be handled in the bankruptcy. The Board asked staff to have Tom Smith attend the next meeting to give a more thorough explanation on the Tripodi and Gabrielle cases. Dobson distributed the summary of the joint work session held between BOCC and City Council on April 6, 2004. Goshorn stated that she was disappointed that Staff was asked to provide other recommendations when the Board reviewed and approved a policy. Dobson stated that the BOCC and City Council did not agree with an outside inspector in that this person could have too much power in deciding a sales price and that there would be an additional cost to the buyer. Dobson stated that the BOCC and City Council Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 1 wanted to limit the 10% cap to a specific time frame and remembered that the Board talked about this, but could not remember the time frame. Staff will bring a revised policy back to the Board prior to requesting approval with the City Council and BOCC. This will be brought back to the Board in May. V. DIRECTOR COMMENTS: Goshorn stated that regarding the Foreclosure policy, the City Council needs to have a formal resolution regarding the funding source to take care of any units that would need to be purchased in order to protect the deed restriction. Dobson stated that Paul Menter, Finance Director, would be setting up this fund and would take forward a resolution to the City Council. There were no other Director Comments. VI. WOODY CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK: A. Update: Ben Ludlow, Project Manager, updated the Board on the progress of the construction of the wastewater treatment plant and the subdivision application. Ludlow asked for direction regarding the easement on the property owned by Woody Creek Development Company. Ludlow recommended an agreement to allow the owner a "right for a tap" for asingle-family residence on this property in the future. The Board approved this request. Ludlow stated that once this issue is wrapped up and provided to Glenn Horn, Horn can submit the subdivision application. Ludlow met with Tom Bracewell, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, to review the videotapes of the existing sewer lines. There are some problem areas that should be addressed. The cost to repair the biggest problems would be around $30,000.This is an additional financial impact to the property. The Board directed Ludlow to do more research on what specifically should be done and the potential cost and what the costs are currently to keep cleaning the lines. Ludlow stated that the BOCC did approve the financing for the project if it is needed at the end of the year. Ludlow asked Dwayne Watson with the Colorado Department of Health about the permit. Watson stated that the work has to be completed by the entity holding the permit and that the permit cannot be transferred to any one else; therefore, the Housing Office would need to finish the wastewater treatment facility prior to selling to the Homeowners' Association. Ludlow stated that once the contract is signed with Aslan and they begin construction, the plant should be completed in about six months. Lanny Curtis asked Ludlow when Aslan plans to break ground. Ludlow was unsure, but should have a construction schedule at the May meeting. The Board directed staff to provide the following in the next update: construction schedule and the cost to do minor maintenance of lines. B. Executive Session: Goshorn made a motion to go into Executive Session at 5:50 p.m. under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(e) - To determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; and C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) - To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property interest. Lauer Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 2 seconded the motion. All were in favor. The Board came out of Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS: A. Beaumont PUD Land Use Referral: Leslie Lamont, Planner; Don Gillow, Employee Housing Manager; and Craig Shied, Director of Engineering, were present representing Aspen Valley Hospital. Christensen stated that the applicant is requesting approval to construct 25 new affordable housing units and use the credits from the new and existing development for future mitigation requirements for the Hospital. Staff is recommending approval, but the credit base would be 53.25 compared to the applicant's credit base of 55.75. Staff is also recommending that the credits can .only be used by the Hospital and cannot be transferred to any other development. Christensen stated that the request to use 16.2 employees for the mitigation requirement for the medical office space in the Obermeyer Place project has been pulled. The applicant has pulled out of that project. Lamont briefed the Board on the long-range plans for affordable housing for the Hospital. The applicant purchased the Beaumont Inn in 2000 and remodeled part of the lodge into l Odeed-restricted units. Currently, there are 14 deed-restricted units on the property. This is a four-step process and this is the first step under the conceptual stage. The application also shows one parking space per unit. The applicant believes that due to the nature of the hospital needing employees 24 hours a day that there would always be parking spaces available. Lamont stated that the Hospital seeks approval for the following: • Secure the exemption to ultimately construct 25 new deed restricted dwelling units on-site, deed restricting 24 units to Category 4 and one unit to Category 1; • Establish an employee credit pool of 55.75 employees for future housing mitigation purposes. Lamont stated that the existing triplex and three-bedroom modular unit were deed- restricted for previous lodge expansion and are not being asked to use as credit. The modular unit is proposed for demolition with those units being replaced in the remodeled structure and in one of the new structures. The applicant is requesting that the. new units be deed restricted at Category 4 to provide a more flexible range for the employees of the Hospital. Lauer stated that he is struggling with this long-range plan without knowing a specific time frame for this project. Goshorn stated that she has a concern with waiving the income and assets for Hospital employees. Lauer asked what long-range meant to the hospital. Shied stated that the Hospital is going through many changes due to the health care industry and the requirements that are being made in this industry. By having the opportunity to have the ability to mitigate for anything that the Hospital has to do to keep up with the health care industry is one Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 3 additional issue that they would not have to worry about. Ihrig stated that this would a valuable asset for the Hospital to protect this right. Goshorn made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: 1. Calculation of the Credits: ^ The two existing studio units would be treated as dorm rooms and provide a credit of 1 FTE, thereby making the total credit base for the existing structure 18 FTE's. ^ Two of the rooms in the existing modular unit that is proposed for demolition will be satisfied by the two Category l studio units in the existing structure, thereby making the total credit base for the existing structure 16 FTE's. The other room in the existing modular will be replaced with a new studio Category 1 unit in the new phase. ^ The new units would provide a total credit base of 41 FTE's. The one replacement studio would be subtracted from this total base and leave a credit base for the new structure of 39.75. ^ The TOTAL credit base that the Hospital could utilize would be 55.75 FTE's. 2. The new units must maintain an average rental rate of Category 4. This allows for the Hospital to provide rental housing for up to Category 7 employees as long as an average of Category 4 is maintained throughout the new units. 3. Deed restrictions shall be completed and recorded prior to building permit approval. for the development requiring the mitigation. 4. At any time the credits are used for future development, this shall be noted and recorded as a Minor PUD amendment with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder to keep track of the credits. 5. Should any changes occur in the Land Use Code and/or Guidelines that are more restrictive that those currently used that relate to calculating employee mitigation requirements, any future mitigation required at that time shall be calculated under the new standards to establish the accurate mitigation. 6. The applicant shall structure a document for the deed-restricted units such that 1/10th of 1 % ownership of each of the units are deeded to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 4 ~. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority in perpetuity; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority deems acceptable. 7. The credits can only be used by the Aspen Valley Hospital without additional review or approval. Should the Hospital wish to transfer the credits and/or enter into any type of partnership, the Hospital shall request such approval with the Housing Authority Board and/or appropriate elected approval body. Ihrig seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Sanzone, Goshorn, Ihrig and Lauer voted yes. Motion passed. B. Disposition of Unit at Hoagland Ranch: Rick Neiley was present representing the owner. Christensen stated that the applicant received approval for a project in 2003 that would consist of 10 deed-restricted category units and two RO units. One of the units is a small one-bedroom single-family home. At the time, the applicant was requested to expand the unit if they wanted to sell the home at a Category 4 sales price. The applicant would like the ability to keep the unit at its current size and sell as a Category 2single-family one-bedroom home. Staff is recommending the Board approve this request since this would add a lower category, one-bedroom single- family home in the inventory. Goshorn made a motion to approve the request; Ihrig seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Sanzone, Goshorn, Ihrig and Laurer voted yes. Motion passed. . C. Request to Swap Deed-Restricted Unit for Free-Market Unit: Christensen stated that Lee Shapiro is currently an owner of adeed-restricted unit in Hunter Creek. He is requesting a release of his deed restriction by providing another free-market in its place. Staff is recommending approval as Mr. Shapiro has owned his unit for over 20 years and would like to maintain this unit as his home. Goshorn made a motion to approve staffs recommendation; Ihrig seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Sanzone, Goshorn, Ihrig and Lauer voted yes. Motion passed. D. Approval of Resolution No. 2004-01, Approving CIRSA Bylaws and Intergovernmental Agreement: Dobson stated that this is a formality in order to go under the insurance policy that the City is currently under.. This insurance provides a cost savings to the Housing Authority. Lauer made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2004-01, Approving CIRSA Bylaws and Intergovernmental Agreement; Goshorn seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Sanzone, Goshorn, Ihrig and Lauer voted yes. Motion passed. E. Approval of Resolution No. 2004-02, Disposition of Hearing on Lori Gabrielle: Dobson stated that this is the formal resolution based on the Hearing held March 16, 2004 for Lori Gabrielle. Lauer made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2004-02, Denying the Appeal of Lori Gabrielle Regarding Request for Leave of Absence; Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 5 Ihrig seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Sanzone, Goshorn, Ihrig and Lauer voted yes. Motion passed. VIII. REVISED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY/PROCEDURE: Dobson asked the Board at what point in time they would like to be notified of any potential compliance issue. The. Board stated that they would like to know what is going on prior to it becoming public knowledge. Dobson stated that she would make minor changes to the procedure and bring back at the next meeting. There was a motion to adjourn and it was seconded. The Board adjourned its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Sherri Sanzone, Vice Chairperson Maureen Dobson, Executive Director Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 6 EXHIBIT E LETTER FROM NEIGHBOR Thomas L. Kurt, MD, MPH 1375 Riverside Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Mail: POB 7977, Aspen, CO 81612 Tel: 925-6648 Fax: 925-9432 E-mail: kurtskarma@att.net June 29, 2004 Scott Woodford City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Public Notice: Aspen Valley Hospital to "construct twenty-five (25) affordable housing units at 1301 East Cooper Avenue, Riverside Addition, public hearing, Tuesday, July 6, 2004", the location commonly known as the old Beaumont/Crestahaus Lodge on Highway 82 Dear Mr. Woodford: As a property owner at 1375 Riverside Drive in the Riverside Subdivision since 1978, I recently received a "Public Hearing" announcement for these units which are under review from Jasmine Tygre, Chair of Aspen Planning and Zoning, saying to contact you for further information. Not being able to be at the public hearing, I ask that my letter be read and placed in the public record; and, I'm responding as a notified proximate landowner. Today I called John Schied, Director of Engineering of Aspen Valley Hospital, to whom I was referred from Administration. He said that these 25 units were in the hospital's 3 to 5 year `master plan'. In response to my question, he also said that the financing for these units had not been arranged. Yet, according to local newspapers, Aspen Valley Hospital after markedly curtailing severance pay rules, recently terminated 34 long term employees. Also, last year Aspen Valley Hospital had a $11.3 million deficit and delayed over 18 months in some billings, passing the cutoff time to obtain payment, thereby losing millions of dollars in billings recovery. Are these 25 units to bring on cheaper, low seniority replacement employees to replace the terminated senior employees with over 30 years of dedicated service to this community? I question the ethics of such an action. Please pass this communication to the City Council, Planning and Zoning and others to review these points pertinent to their authority: Page Two Review of Aspen Valley Hospita125 additional employee housing units From: Riverside Addition homeowner, Thomas L. Kurt, MD, MPH June 29, 2004 1. NEED5 ASSESSMENT Ask Aspen Valley Hospital to provide a NEEDS ASSESSMENT justifying how these 25 additional employee housing .units are needed in view of the recent 34 Aspen Valley Hospital employee terminations. Those 34 terminated employees already had their own housing. There are already about 30 a tinQ employee housing units on this old Chateau BeaumontlCrestahaus property bought by Aspen Valley Hospital a few years ago. How many of those 30 units are occupied now by current Asyen Valley Hospital employees? How many are rented out to others? Because notice of vacancy must be given, how many are vacant effective July 1 ~`' 2004? 2. FINANCING APPROVAL A building permit can be granted only if the property owner has the financing. Aspen Valley Hospital must provide substantial authority that FINANCING APPROVAL has been obtained. If bonds would be sold, the $11.3 million deficit means high risk which translates to high interest from bond underwriters. Or, would the new housing units appear as a hidden add-on agenda in the property tax for Aspen Valley Hospital paid by property owners? Substantiate the funding. 3. TIlVIE OF BUII,DING As a homeowner contractor, I know that construction must commence within a year of obtaining a building permit, not 3 to 5 years later in the 3 to 5 year `master plan' described to me by John Schied. A timetable of implementation must be furnished. 4. EVIDENCE OF APPROPRIATE and TIlNELY APPROVAL The full picture of the financial straits of Aspen Valley Hospital with the 34 terminated employees, $11.3 million budget deficit and lost money due to expired billing deadlines have just come to public attention. The decision made by the Aspen Valley Hospital Board to approve these 25 units was likely before; and, is not timely in view of these financial problems. In view of these financial problems surfacing, this Planned Unit Development should be sent back to the Aspen Valley Hospital Board for updated review and approval. 5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE When I called Administration at Aspen Valley Hospital to be referred to whomever was in charge of the Planned Unit Development, the administrative assistant who fielded my call was not even aware of this project. If the Aspen Valley Hospital staff is not aware, certainly the public is not either. Why is this development being kept away from public view. Aspen Valley Hospital need to provide information on who voted for and approved this project? 6. AIIZ POLLUTION, MAIN ST.TRAFFIC, EMERGENCY RESPONSE There is only one way to Aspen Valley Hospital from this property. Up and down Main Street and then Highway 82 over the Castle Creek Bridge. Employee vehicles ,~. Page Three Review of Aspen Valley Hospita125 additional employee housing units From: Riverside Addition homeowner, Thomas L. Kurt, MD, MPH June 29, 2004 create traffic. Every minute a vehicle's engine is running more air pollution is generated. Over the years this adds up to thousands of gallons of gasoline and tons of air pollutants. Critical employees are called in for emergencies, such as operating room techs, making a longer response time because of the longer distance. Why not look for a closer location for employee housing that does not add to Main Street traffic or add to air pollution, such as close by, such as near the Senior Citizen Center? Such a closer location would even invite walking to work. Choosing a location on the opposite side of town from the hospital for additional employee housing does not make sense. Thank you for listening to me as a nearby property and homeowner in the Riverside Addition. This addition was formatted by Fritz Benedict from the Benedict Land & Cattle Company, who despite his devotion to community concerns, did not envisage a total of 55 or more closely packed employee units within this addition. At the very least I cordially request tabling the Aspen Valley Hospital request until the further information is obtained_which I advised. In addition, I am concerned about the fair treatment of the 34 terminated senior employees and am separately .recommending their filing a complaint with EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) on grounds of age discrimination, severance curtailment and with documented proof from this additional employee housing being applied for by Aspen Valley Hospital helping substantiate their proof than their replacement by younger, cheaper employees was premeditated. To those eligible terminated employees who read this, a call to the EEOC (Federal Regional Offices in Denver) must be made within 60 days of termination to document the event and filed within 6 months. Sincer y, Thomas L. Kurt, MD MPH 1375 Riverside Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Mail: POB 7977, Aspen, CO 81612 Tel: 925-6648 E-mail: kurtskarma@att.net TLK:mts ~,: 1 I l {I i ~(G~tf,~x~- r,~~-~ i 4 d I G I (-~.~'•~ ~- 21~~ ~ J ~ i1 ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~-1~=.~-s ~~ ~ ~~-~_~~-~~~ (~~ ~,~~~ U~~~~ 1. i 4 ~~~k .s -~ ~ U:~4~~ ~~ ~:I~ f 4~ i ~. ~2.1,~ C,i ~~ ~~ ~$ ~: AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING, James Lindt, continued from 6/15 B. BLUE MAIZE CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT, James Lindt C. BEAUMONT INN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD, Scott Woodford V. BOARD REPORTS VI. ADJOURN ~+ =~uD ._----a_.._ --._._._._.....__. ~~~,~ ~~e~~~, ~~rw~~ ~1~ ~~~ ~~~ ~. ~t.~I~'~..~ ~~c~.rtic~~ ~f~~~ A~'~c~. ~~~~?~~~.~'''f''l ~, ~~lr~ Con~.uw1,~ ~ ~ `lnn ~ _.._ ~~ ~~-4 ~~~ ~tc~.,-r. ~~G. ~d, ~l .-drw~- Cando assr~~ . ~ ~au~- ~ c~~n e~ ~AL~ ~~ ~~~!,r;~t} ~ ~~5 aca ~s h~ ir~A-'~` ` , ~~-s M45~'~ ~ hQr~~ nbkl ~ S,~-c i s ~J J ~" e~~~ ~cr r,,+ncw~~ ~~~t,~~ ~ -1~~'nq ~~i ~~` ~~t~G1c~.f ~ s~~ ~`~j cr~(c~ 5,ti.j ,~~- g ~ ~nic ~~s . ~ Rn~~- ~~ ~ s;~~~ ~~;t~-~ ~ i ~a~C ~o -/ j C~~ZS`~~ fX~~~ t~ ~cv-~Ct?^ / ~ ~ ~ I~~h inn ~ c ~ ~ ~G~ ~~ ((" CGnG~~.n. E~ ~ (~'~'~ ~al~ ~ b ~e~~ ~.. °~ ~°~ ~ t. Ct~c'' ~ ~ ~ ~ l~L~t~~ ~1 ~. ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ .tea 6'' ~:1'""~ ~ 't ~. 1 ~a (Q- ~~ u~~ cc~~~la- ~~~ ~zw~ ~~ ~~ ~ ucs~U~ °~ lut,~ ~ ~- Una ~ 5 (~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~„~.___,...v._~.~~..-_._ .__ ___._ l~ L~'n , ut~.{ ~ ~, 5u9~1- ~d~r~sc~ `j +r-IC~ ^ ~ ~~ c~,~~~~a •`~r~~~ f.C~~. ~s' ~ r- ~~~tu~~ ~~h-~c~ ~~~~ ~ ~~n~.,b~ r1 ` ~NZ~n~- -I~ ~Q. E~ ~~~~~r~ {~-~~ ~~ ~~tr~" ~~f ~~~:~ i ~-~,1- w~ ~ ~C,~l~ ~~ ~ce~s~` iS 1` ~ ~l!1~L ~~ l4~ « l ~c(J ~ ~-" CC~~+'~~; ~ l ~ ~~~~` ~'~i ~~ ~~- ((ti.l,,i~ 'h-~ ~ C~k Kf '~ ~ ~ e.~,l~ ~~~5 D~~~'`~ ~ Cc~,s,°~.~-..,~'~~ ~~u.~n ~,~~~~ ~ ~"~ck~~- ~~~C Cat" ~(~,,~f ~ ~" ~~ ~n ~E~/'~`s'~;CC~ ~ICt'~l~(, ~/" ~: ~C. ( ~ C--,~G C~ ((~.l.L~ ~~ ~''~M`~t~s-t~, `~~',$ ` )~`- a J ~` ~- ~ --y~ dh ~ ~` ~"~`~~"~ `~~- ~~~~ ~ ~ c~r~~n ~~ acc~. ~ n-~ ark- a~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~,~,:~-.~.r ~~ f ~ ~ t~ w CL~_ Gti+~r~ ~~~ ' yw- ~;,~r~ -,~~~ ` ~~ C~t~,`c~ ;~ ~ l~~ ~~" ~ (~ U,~t ~`S l ~ ~~~ ~ 1~( 1t' ~F ~~~ Cbn~~ . Gu.~: ~~ 0,~4 ^ ~ ~a fin- ~~ ~ ~1 C ~. c ~ ~ ~ ~ C«k-~. ~ .~~ ~~~ ~ t ~ELEN KALIN KLANDERUD POST OFFICE BOX 1558 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 July 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Beaumont Conceptual PUD Dear Planning & Zoning Commission: My property at 1380 Riverside Drive, Lot 2, Riverside Subdivision is contiguous to the south boundary of the Beaumont Inn. As a member of city council, the city's Ethics Code does not allow me to appear before any city board or commission on this matter, and I must recuse myself when this application comes before city council. However, I do have the right to represent my interests in my property. I have consulted with John Worcester, City Attorney, and in his opinion a letter to you does not constitute an appearance before you. I applaud the efforts of the Aspen Valley Hospital to provide affordable housing for its employees. However, I have some concerns regarding the density and height of this project, parking provision, and the resulting impact on neighbors. This site zoned R-15 has seen several re-developments over the years. In 1971, the original Crestahaus building and several old cabins existed on the property. The cabins were removed, and the modular unit at the south end of the property was constructed in the 70s or early 80s. The modular unit was originally a single family residence for the owners. I believe at the time there were about 18 lodging units. Later, the new lodge building added the additional units bringing the total to over 30. The other existing affordable units were constructed later. The modular unit was to remain housing, not lodge. No parking for busses was to be allowed along the south boundary. At this time, large groups were staying at the lodge. The fence along the south boundary was constructed at this time to shield the Riverside f~~ Subdivision properties from the glare of headligrties asda trailevent lodge visitors from using the neighboring prop licant's concern about impacts on the lower density I appreciate the app Riverside Subdivision. In the event that builu It alongtor close tot e would object to the higher buildings being b south boundary. I would ask that the total height of all buildings that are constructed on the site not exceed the height of the current buildings on the site. construction to minimize to I request that the fence remain during ro ect construction impacts on the Riverside Subdivision. When the p j lete, although there appe~'s to be an extensive landscaping is comp I request that an opaque fence remain. plan for the south boundary, need to be replaced, The current wood fence is in disrepair, and may but it is a fence consistent with the chaired m previ ousoapprovals. Not properties. Also, there were trees req all of the conifers survived. I believe the south side-yard setbacks should be no less than 5' . In fact I believe the side-yard setbacks would be if this was to remain R-15, arking on the south boundary 10' . I am concerned about covered p because of its visual impacts on the Riverside Subdivision neighbors. If there is covered parking on the south boundary, it should be as incons icuous as possible to the neighbors on tr ent ~ dulartuniheight P of the covering should be no higher than the c will have no more than a This is particularly true if the covered parking the extensive landscaping seems to be 1' setback. Under this scenario, impossible. Under any scenario, there should be extensive landscaping, and a condition that any trees that die be replaced. The parking issue is significant. The scarce, therea as con~ernathat n street parking, and if guest parking is rking will occur in other neighborhood the density may need to be p then space on site for additional parking, decreased. I believe this site is more suitable for housing than a lodge. However, r those of this who have lived here for many years, the neighborhood fo is changing from a more rural to a vast~yo terremaining less dense ay be expected, but it requires sensrtivrty arking impacts, neighborhoods. Attention to increased traffic, P ortant. density, and lighting that may be invasive is imp Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Helen Kalin Klanderud June 29, 2004 Scott Woodford City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Thomas L. Kurt, MD, MPH 1375 Riverside Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Mail: POB 7977, Aspen, CO 81612 Tel: 925-6648 Fax: 925-9432 E-mail: kurtskarma@att.net Re: Public Notice: Aspen Valley Hospital to "construct twenty-five (25) affordable housing units at 1301 East Cooper Avenue, Riverside Addition, public hearing, Tuesday, July 6, 2004", the location commonly known as the old Beaumont/Crestahaus Lodge on Highway 82 Dear Mr. Woodford: As a property owner at 1375 Riverside Drive in the Riverside Subdivision since 1978, I recently received a "Public Hearing" announcement for these units which are under review from Jasmine Tygre, Chair of Aspen Planning and Zoning, saying to contact you for further information. Not being able to be at the public hearing, I ask that my letter be read and placed in the public record; and, I'm responding as a notified proximate landowner. Today I called John Schied, Director of Engineering of Aspen Valley Hospital, to whom I was referred from Administration. He said that these 25 units were in the hospital's 3 to 5 year `master plan'. In response to my question, he also said that the financing for these units had not been arranged. Yet, according to local newspapers, Aspen Valley Hospital after markedly curtailing severance pay rules, recently terminated 341ong term employees. Also, last year Aspen Valley Hospital had a $11.3 million deficit and delayed over 18 months in some billings, passing the cutoff time to obtain payment, thereby losing millions of dollars in billings recovery. Are these 25 units to bring on cheaper, low seniority replacement employees to replace the terminated senior employees with over 30 years of dedicated service to this community? I question the ethics of such an action. Please pass this communication to the City Council, Planning and Zoning and others to review these points pertinent to their authority: ~r+' Page Two Review of Aspen Valley Hospita125 additional employee housing units From: Riverside Addition homeowner, Thomas L. Kurt, MD, MPH June 29, 2004 1. NEEDS ASSESSMENT Ask Aspen Valley Hospital to provide a NEEDS ASSESSMENT justifying how these 25 additional employee housing units aze needed in view of the recent 34 Aspen Valley Hospital employee terminations. Those 34 terminated employees already had their own housing. There aze akeady about 30 existin employee housing units on this old Chateau Beaumont/Crestahaus property bought by Aspen Valley Hospital a few yeass ago. How menu of those 30 units are occupied now by current Ashen Valley Hospital employees? How many are rented out to others? Because notice of vacancy must be given, how many are vacant effective July 1~' 2004? 2. FINANCING APPROVAL A building permit can be granted only if the property owner has the financing. Aspen Valley Hospital must provide substantial authority that FINANCING APPROVAL has been obtained. If bonds would be sold, the $11.3 million deficit means high risk which translates to high interest from bond underwriters. Or, would the new housing units appear as a hidden add-on agenda in the property tax for Aspen Valley Hospital paid by property owners? Substantiate the funding. 3. TIME OF BUILDING As a homeowner contractor, I know that construction must commence within a yeaz of obtaining a building permit, not 3 to 5 years later in the 3 to 5 year `master plan' described to me by John Schied. A timetable of implementation must be furnished. 4. EVIDENCE OF APPROPRIATE and TIlI~IELY APPROVAL The full picture of the financial straits of Aspen Valley Hospital with the 34 terminated employees, $11.3 million budget deficit and lost money due to expired billing deadlines have just come to public attention. The decision made by the Aspen Valley Hospital Board to approve these 25 units was likely before; and, is not timely in view of these financial problems. In view of these financial problems surfacing, this Planned Unit Development should be sent back to the Aspen Valley Hospital Board for updated review and approval. 5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE When I called Administration at Aspen Valley Hospital to be referred to whomever was in charge of the Planned Unit Development, the administrative assistant who fielded my call was not even aware of this project. If the Aspen Valley Hospital staff is not awaze, certainly the public is not either. Why is this development being kept away from public view. Aspen Valley Hospital need to provide information on who voted for and approved this project? 6. AIR POLLUTION, MAIN ST.TRAFFIC, EMERGENCY RESPONSE There is only one way to Aspen Valley Hospital from this property. Up and down Main Street and then Highway 82 over the Castle Creek Bridge. Employee vehicles Page Three Review of Aspen Valley Hospital 25 additional employee housing units From: Riverside Addition homeowner, Thomas L. Kurt, MD, MPH June 29, 2004 create traffic. Every minute a vehicle's engine is running more air pollution is generated. Over the years this adds up to thousands of gallons of gasoline and tons of air pollutants. Critical employees are called in for emergencies, such as operating room techs, making a longer response time because of the longer distance. Why not look for a closer location for employee housing that does not add to Main Street traffic or add to air pollution, such as close by, such as near the Senior Citizen Center? Such a closer location would even invite walking to work. Choosing a location on the opposite side of town from the hospital for additional employee housing does not make sense. Thank you for listening to me as a nearby property and homeowner in the Riverside Addition. This addition was formatted by Fritz Benedict from the Benedict Land & Cattle Company, who despite his devotion to community concerns, did not envisage a total of SS or more closely packed employee units within this addition. At the very least I cordially request tabline the As en Valle Hos ital re uest until the further information is obtained which I advised. In addition, I am concerned about the fair treatment of the 34 terminated senior employees and am separately recommending their filing a complaint with EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) on grounds of age discrimination, severance curtailment and with documented proof from this additional employee housing being applied for by Aspen Valley Hospital helping substantiate their proof than their replacement by younger, cheaper employees was premeditated. To those eligible terminated employees who read this, a call to the EEOC (Federal Regional Offices in Denver) must be made within 60 days of termination to document the event and filed within 6 months. sinter y, Thomas L. Kurt, MD MPH 1375 Riverside Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Mail: POB 7977, Aspen, CO 81612 Tel: 925-6648 E-mail: kurtskarma@att.net TLK:mts ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: t D ~ CSC ~ ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ~ ss. County of Pitkin ) f I, ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day •of 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (I S) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment.of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (IS) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ' gnature The fo9ing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this ~o day of C.> ~__ , 200 ~, by ~~-•-~S ~1-~r-~d~j PUBLIC NOTICE ~ RE: BEAUMONT P NOTIC IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will held on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 at a meeting t begin at 4:3(1 p.m. before the Aspen .Planning an Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen Val- ley Hospital requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval and consideration of other land use requeststo cynstruM twenty- five (25) affordable housing units. The address of ~I the subfect parcel is 1301 East Cooper Avenue and legalty"described as a parcel of land being part o('the Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (for complete legal description, please contact the planner below). For further informs ion, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen nmmunity Development De- partment, 130 S. na St., Aspen, CO (970) 920• 5102, (or by e-mail scottw®cf.aspen.co.us). s/Jasmine Tygre, Chair Aspen Pla ning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on June I9, 2004. (2814) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ~~~.~.~, ~'' N~TA,o~. Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION Dy S,9 G41 ~~. c°~oRAO~ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL ~,n , ~~.,,:, ~.: ,- MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Woodford FROM: Cindy Christensen DATE: April 16, 2004 RE: BEAUMONT PUD -AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUE: The applicant, Aspen Valley Hospital, is requesting approval to construct 25 affordable housing units. The proposal is for a rezoning to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development and a Growth Management Quota System exemption for affordable housing. This is conceptual approval only. BACKGROUND: The Hospital purchased the Beaumont Inn in 2000 for hospital employee housing. The Hospital received conditional approval to use the property for affordable housing. The Hospital is now pursuing the appropriate land use approvals to develop and operate up to 38 affordable housing units on this site. The property is 53,543 square feet and is currently zoned R-15, moderate density with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The property currently contains approximately 20,979 square feet of floor area on the parcel -one complex includes atwo-story building comprised of two wings connected by a short breezeway, atwo-story triplex and athree-bedroom modular. The two-story building (the Silver building) has been converted into ten deed-restricted dwelling units for hospital employees. The triplex (the Garden building) and the three-bedroom modular are also occupied by Hospital employees and remain deed-restricted units. The Hospital proposes to construct another 25 employee units on the Beaumont site for a total of 38 dwelling units. The proposal is to demolish the older lodge structure that is closest and perpendicular to Highway 82 and remove the three-bedroom modular from the site. The three- bedroom, Category 1 modular, will be replaced within the project as three Category 1 studios. A total of 13 deed-restricted units located in the refurbished section of the lodge and the triplex will remain in their current configuration and deed-restricted status: • Five 2-bedrooms at Category 3 • Two 1-bedrooms at Category 3 • One 1-bedroom at Category RO • Two studios at Category 1 • One studio at Category 2 • Two studios at Category 3 ,,. It is the intention of the hospital to phase development on the Beaumont site when mitigation is required for future Hospital campus expansions. The intention is to construct 25 units in four separate buildings. The four new buildings are proposed as follows: Name of Building_ No of Units Studios 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom Cooper 8 2 4 2 Homestead 8 4 4 Canal 8 5 2 Cresta 1 1 The proposed square footages are stated below: Studios 400 square feet 1-Bedrooms 500 square feet 2-Bedrooms 1,000 square feet 3-Bedroom 1,500 square feet 1 The proposed new units will meet the minimum square footage requirements under Category 4. Previous owners of the lodge were required, as part of the Lodge expansion, to provide employee mitigation. In 1987, a deed restriction was recorded that deed restricted three dormitory-style units to Category 1. In 1992, a new owner remodeled the lodge and built a triplex for employee housing purposes. Athree-bedroom modular was located on site to replace the three dormitory units in the lodge. The triplex includes a RO one-bedroom unit, a Category 3 studio and a Category 2 studio. The modular is deed restricted to Category 1. The applicant proposes replacing the three-bedroom Category 1 modular with three Category 1 studio units. The applicant is proposing 24 Category 4 units and one studio unit to Category 1 as one replacement for the modular. At the current time, the Hospital is proposing to use two of the existing Category 1 units in the existing Silver building to replace the additional shortage that the demolition of the modular would create. The Hospital is proposing mostly Category 4 to provide the most rental flexibility for the Hospital. The Hospital must recruit employees on a seasonal basis, twice a year. They believe it is inefficient to request rental rate structures at least twice a year. The Housing Guidelines and deed restrictions require at a minimum six-month leases; aone-year lease is not required. This should accommodate the concern the Hospital has for use of the rental units on a seasonal basis. The Hospital states that they rarely charge the maximum rental rate for their existing units and would not charge more for a unit if it exceeds what at essential employee is paid. In addition, 'the Hospital feels it would be unfair to undercharge an employee that has the ability to pay Category 4 rental rates. The conceptual proposal for the new construction is as follows: 2 jµ;.~ Units Type Sq. Ft. Cate~orv 1 3-bedroom 1,200 4 3 2-bedroom 950 4 10 1-bedroom 700 4 1 Studio 500 1 10 Studio 500 4 The table below shows what would exist at full development: # of Units Type Cate~ory O 1 3-bedroom 1 (4) 8 2-bedroom 3 (4); 5 (3) 13 1-bedroom 2 (3); 10 (4); 1 (RO) 16 Studios 10 (4); 3 (1); 2 (3); 1 (2) The project represents 100% employer developed affordable housing located within the City of Aspen. When the Hospital purchased the former Beaumont Inn, they did so to be proactive and provide employee housing for current and future employee needs. The Hospital requested that existing and future dwelling units (excluding the existing four deed restricted units in placed at the time of purchase) are reserved for future employee mitigation purposes. Reservation and some strong opinions were expressed by some members of the P&Z and the Housing Authority Board about "banking" dwelling units for future use. The minutes reflected that further discussion of the issue would be more appropriate when the Hospital came forward with a comprehensive proposal for the property. As part of the GMQS request for the development of 25 deed restricted dwelling units and the redevelopment of the Beaumont property, the Hospital is asking that the total employee credits be created for future Hospital developments requiring employee mitigation. The total is 59.5, but the modular replacement at 3.75 would need to be subtracted. The breakdown is as follows: Existing Structure New Dwelling Units 1 3-bedrooms 1 X 3.00 = 3.00 5 2-bedrooms 5 X 2.25 = 11.25 3 2-bedrooms 3 X 2.25 = 6.75 2 1-bedrooms 2 X 1.75 = 3.50 10 1-bedrooms 10 X 1.75 = 17.50 3 Studios 3 X 1.25 = 3.75 11 Studios 11 X 1.25 = 13.75 TOTAL FTE's 18.50 41.00 Minus the modular, the total credits = 55.75 FTE's for future mitigation. 3 _~ .., One of the major problems with allowing credits is keeping track of the employee credits over time. Another issue is potential code changes or Guideline changes. The Hospital is proposing that when employee-housing mitigation is required, it tracks with a land use approval for a specific expansion and/or new development. In order to keep track of the employee credit pool established in the Beaumont final PUD plan, it is recommended that the applicant record in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. a minor amendment to the Beaumont PUD plan reflecting any reductions in the employee housing credit pool. This would allow for staff reviewing the Beaumont property at any time to understand what is left in their credit pool. This takes care of the first major concern. The second concern relates to any potential changes to the Land Use Code and/or Guidelines as to how they may relate to mitigation and employee generation and/or occupancy standards by unit type. This could be addressed that at the time of the request for the additional credits, the up-to-date standards would go into effect for any new expansion, redevelopment, and/or new development. In summary, the Hospital seeks the approval for the following: • Secure the exemption to ultimately construct 25 new deed restricted dwelling units on-site, deed restricting 24 units to Category 4 and one unit to Category 1; and • Establish an employee credit pool of 55.75 employees for future housing mitigation purposes; and RECOMMENDATION.• The Board reviewed this application on April 14, 2004 and recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Calculation of the Credits: ^ The two existing studio units would be treated as dorm rooms and provide a credit of 1 FTE, thereby making the total credit base for the existing structure 18 FTE's. ^ Two of the rooms in the existing modular unit that is proposed for demolition will be satisfied by the two Category 1 studio units in the existing structure, thereby making the total credit base for the existing structure 16 FTE's. The other room in the existing modular will be replaced with a new studio Category 1 unit in the new phase. ^ The new units would provide a total credit base of 41 FTE's. The one replacement studio would be subtracted from this total base and leave a credit base for the new structure of 39.75. ^ The TOTAL credit base that the Hospital could utilize would be 55.75 FTE's. 2. The new units must maintain an average rental rate of Category 4. This allows for the Hospital to provide rental housing for up to Category 7 employees as long as an average of Category 4 is maintained throughout the new units. 4 _. 3. Deed restrictions shall be completed and recorded prior to building permit approval for the development requiring the mitigation. 4. At any time the credits are used for future development, this shall be noted and recorded as a Minor PUD amendment with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder to keep track of the credits. 5. Should any changes occur in the Land Use Code and/or Guidelines that are more restrictive that those currently used that relate to calculating employee mitigation requirements, any future mitigation required at that time shall be calculated under the new standards to establish the accurate mitigation. 6. The applicant shall structure a document for the deed-restricted units such that 1/lOt" of 1 % ownership of each of the units are deeded to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority in perpetuity; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority deems acceptable. 7. The credits can only be used by the Aspen Valley Hospital on -this property without additional review or approval. Should the Hospital wish to transfer the credits to another buyer willing to construct affordable housing units on the site and/or enter into any type of partnership for development on the site, the Hospital shall request such approval with the Housing Authority Board and/or appropriate elected approval body. 5 max. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 14, 2004 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING A UTHORITY (RESCHEDULED FROM APRIL 7, 2004) I. Sherri Sanzone, Vice Chairperson, called the Special Meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The April 14, 2004 Regular meeting was held in the Rio Grande Meeting Room, 455 Rio Grande Place. Board members in attendance were Sherri Sanzone, Marcia Goshorn, Joanne Ihrig and Dan Lauer. Staff Members in attendance were Maureen Dobson, Executive Director and Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager. II. MINUTES: Goshorn clarified that when the issue of disclosure of anything that could adversely affect a unit was discussed on Gabrielle's unit, that it was not just for this specific unit but for any unit that would be sold through the Housing Office and that Smith stated that Staff should be disclosing anything on any unit that could adversely affect that unit. This will be reflected in the March 16, 2004 minutes. Goshorn made a motion to approve the March 16, 2004 minutes with the above-stated clarification; Ihrig seconded the motion. All approved.' Goshorn made a motion to approve the March 24, 2004 minutes as submitted; Ihrig seconded the motion. All approved. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment for items not on the agenda. IV. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS: Dobson stated that she would be out of the .office from April 21 to May 10. The BOCC and City Council approved moving Lauer from alternate status to regular status. The BOCC has decided on the joint alternate opening, but City Council has not made their decision. Dobson updated the Board on the progress of the Cathy Tripodi case. Gabrielle's has been held up due to the bankruptcy issue. Tom Smith had suggested that if the Board wants to pursue the issue of Gabrielle selling the unit immediately, the Board would need to hire a bankruptcy attorney to proceed. The Board directed staff to wait to see how the asset would be handled in the bankruptcy. The Board asked staff to have Tom Smith attend the next meeting to give a more thorough explanation on the Tripodi and Gabrielle cases. Dobson distributed the summary of the joint work session held between BOCC and City Council on April 6, 2004.. Goshorn stated that she was disappointed that Staff was asked to provide other recommendations when the Board reviewed and approved a policy. Dobson stated that the BOCC and City Council did not agree with an outside inspector in that this person could have too much power in deciding a sales price and that there would be an additional cost to the buyer. Dobson stated that the BOCC and City Council wanted to limit the 10% cap to a specific time frame and remembered that the Board talked about this, but could not remember the time frame. Staff will bring a revised policy back to the Board prior to requesting approval with the City Council and BOCC. This will be brought back to the Board in May. .-r~•~,• ••~•~~~ ~uu~y i wuauiy r~uu Wfl[y IVlIfI UI@S April 14, 2004 Page 1 ... V. DIRECTOR COMMENTS: Goshorn stated that regarding the Foreclosure policy, the City Council needs to have a formal resolution regarding the funding source to take care of any units that would need to be purchased in order to protect the deed restriction. Dobson stated that Paul Menter, Finance Director, would be setting up this fund and would take forward a resolution to the City Council. There were no other Director Comments. VI. WOODY CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK: A. Update: Ben Ludlow, Project Manager, updated the Board on the progress of the construction of the wastewater treatment plant and the subdivision application. Ludlow asked for direction regarding the easement on the property owned by Woody Creek Development Company. Ludlow recommended an agreement to allow the owner a "right for a tap" for asingle-family residence on this property in the future. The Board approved this request. Ludlow stated that once this issue is wrapped up and provided to Glenn Horn, Horn can submit the subdivision application. Ludlow met with Tom Bracewell, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, to review the videotapes of the existing sewer lines. There are some problem areas that should be addressed. The cost to repair the biggest problems would be around $30,000.This is an additional financial impact to the property. The Board directed Ludlow to do more research on what specifically should be done and the potential cost and what the costs are currently to keep cleaning the lines. Ludlow stated that the BOCC did approve the financing for the project if it is needed at the end of the year. Ludlow asked Dwayne Watson with the Colorado Department of Health about the permit. Watson stated that the work has to be completed by the entity holding the permit and that the permit cannot be transferred to any one else; therefore, the Housing Office would need to finish the wastewater treatment facility prior to selling to the Homeowners' Association. Ludlow stated that once the contract is signed with Aslan and they begin construction, the plant should be completed in about six months. Lanny Curtis asked Ludlow when Aslan plans to break ground. Ludlow was unsure, but should have a construction schedule at the May meeting. The Board directed staff to provide the following in the next update: construction schedule and the cost to do minor maintenance of lines. B. Executive Session: Goshorn made a motion to go into Executive Session at 5:50 p.m. under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(e) - To determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; and C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) - To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property interest. Lauer seconded the motion. All were in favor. The Board came out of Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 2 VII. ACTION ITEMS: A. Beaumont PUD Land Use Referral: Leslie Lamont, Planner; Don Gillow, Employee Housing Manager; and Craig Shied, Director of Engineering, were present representing Aspen Valley Hospital. Christensen stated that the applicant is requesting approval to construct 25 new affordable housing units and use the credits from the new and existing development for future mitigation requirements for the Hospital. Staff is recommending approval, but the credit base would be 53.25 compared to the applicant's credit base of 55.75. Staff is also recommending that the credits can only be used by the Hospital and cannot be transferred to any other development. Christensen stated that the request to use 16.2 employees for the mitigation requirement for the medical office space in the Obermeyer Place project has been pulled. The applicant has pulled out of that project. Lamont briefed the Board on the long-range plans for affordable housing for the Hospital. The applicant purchased the Beaumont Inn in 2000 and remodeled part of the lodge into 10 deed-restricted units. Currently, there are 14 deed-restricted units on the property. This is a four-step process and this is the first step under the conceptual stage. The application also shows one parking space per unit. The applicant believes that due to the nature of the hospital needing employees 24 hours a day that there would always be parking spaces available. Lamont stated that the Hospital seeks approval for the following: • Secure the exemption to ultimately construct 25 new deed restricted dwelling units on-site, deed restricting 24 units to Category 4 and one unit to Category 1; • Establish an employee credit pool of 55.75 employees for future housing mitigation purposes. Lamont stated that the existing triplex and three-bedroom modular unit were deed- restricted for previous lodge expansion and are not being asked to use as credit. The modular unit is proposed for demolition with those units being replaced in the remodeled structure and in one of the new structures. The applicant is requesting that the new units be deed restricted at Category 4 to provide a more flexible range for the employees of the Hospital. Lauer stated that he is struggling with this long-range plan without knowing a specific time frame for this project. Goshorn stated that she has a concern with waiving the income and assets for Hospital employees. Lauer asked what long-range meant to the hospital. Shied stated that the Hospital is going through many changes due to the health care industry and the requirements that are being made in this industry. By having the opportunity to have the ability to mitigate for anything that the Hospital has to do to keep up with the health care industry is one additional issue that they would not have to worry about.. Ihrig stated that this would a valuable asset for the Hospital to protect this right. Hspeniritian County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 3 Goshorn made a motion to approve the .application with the following conditions: 1. Calculation of the Credits: ^ The two existing studio units would be treated as dorm rooms and provide a credit of 1 FTE, thereby making the total credit base for the existing structure 18 FTE's. ^ Two of the rooms in the existing modular unit that is proposed for demolition will be satisfied by the two Category 1 studio units in the existing structure, thereby making the total credit base for the existing structure 16 FTE's. The other room in the existing modular will be replaced with a new studio Category 1 unit in the new phase. ^ The new units would provide a total. credit base of 41 FTE's. The one replacement studio would be subtracted from this total base and leave a credit base for the new structure of 39.75. ^ The TOTAL credit base that the Hospital could utilize would be 55.75 FTE's. 2. The new units must maintain an average rental rate of Category 4. This allows for the Hospital to provide rental housing for up to Category 7 employees as long as an average of Category 4 is maintained throughout the new units. 3. Deed restrictions shall be completed and recorded prior to building permit approval for the development requiring the mitigation. 4. At any time the credits are used for future development, this shall be noted and recorded as a Minor PUD amendment with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder to keep track of the credits. 5. Should any changes occur in the Land Use Code and/or Guidelines that are more restrictive that those currently used that relate to calculating employee mitigation requirements, any future mitigation required at that time shall be calculated under the new standards to establish the accurate mitigation. 6. The applicant shall structure a document for the deed-restricted units such that 1/10th of 1% ownership of each of the units are deeded to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority in perpetuity; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority deems acceptable. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 4 ,,: ~;:. 7. The credits can only be used by the Aspen Valley Hospital without additional review or approval. Should the Hospital wish to transfer the credits and/or enter into any type of partnership, the Hospital shall request such approval with the Housing Authority Board and/or appropriate elected approval body. Ihrig seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Sanzone, Goshorn, Ihrig and Lauer voted yes. Motion passed. B. Disposition of Unit at Hoagland Ranch: Rick Neiley was present representing the owner. Christensen stated that the applicant received approval for a project in 2003 that would consist of 10 deed-restricted category units and two RO units. One of the units is a small one-bedroom single-family home. At the time, the applicant was requested to expand the unit if they wanted to sell the home at a Category 4 sales price. The applicant would like the ability to keep the unit at its current size and sell as a Category 2single-family one-bedroom home. Staff is recommending the Board approve this request since this would add a lower category, one-bedroom single- family home in the inventory. Goshorn made a motion to approve the request; Ihrig seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Sanzone, Goshorn, Ihrig and Laurer voted yes. Motion passed. C. Request to Swap Deed-Restricted Unit for Free-Market Unit: Christensen stated that Lee Shapiro is currently an owner of adeed-restricted unit in Hunter Creek. He is requesting a release of his deed restriction by providing another free-market in its place. Staff is recommending approval as Mr. Shapiro has owned his unit for over 20 years and would like to maintain this unit as his home. Goshorn made a motion to approve staffs recommendation; Ihrig seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Sanzone, Goshorn, Ihrig and Lauer voted yes. Motion passed. D. Approval of Resolution No. 2004-01, Approving CIRSA Bylaws and Intergovernmental Agreement: Dobson stated that this is a formality in order to go under the insurance policy that the City is currently under. This insurance provides a cost savings to the Housing Authority. Lauer made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2004-01, Approving CIRSA Bylaws and Intergovernmental Agreement; Goshorn seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Sanzone, Goshorn, Ihrig and Lauer voted yes. Motion passed. E. Approval of Resolution No. 2004-02, Disposition of Hearing on Lori Gabrielle: Dobson stated that this is the formal resolution based on the Hearing held March 16, 2004 for Lori Gabrielle. Lauer made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2004-02, Denying the Appeal of Lori Gabrielle Regarding Request for Leave of Absence; Ihrig seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Sanzone, Goshorn, Ihrig and Lauer voted yes. Motion passed. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 5 ~, VIII. REVISED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY/PROCEDURE: Dobson asked the Board at what point in time they would like to be notified of any potential compliance issue. The Board stated that they would like to know what is going on prior to it becoming public knowledge. Dobson stated that she would make minor changes to the procedure and bring .back at the next meeting. There was a motion to adjourn and it was seconded. The Board adjourned its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Sherri Sanzone, Vice Chairperson Maureen Dobson, Executive Director Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes April 14, 2004 Page 6 `~~'N7_ r ll ~~ ~ e~C.~ ~~~. ...~~~ ~' ~~ ~B CG4,~~1 ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~Q(.ZU1iLt~ ~ lY ~`~' ~~ CY1L ~ ~ L c~" ~ c'~t, i:%C(vL n m 0~U~1~~- J~v ~c~~ L (~ ~ ~ ~s oL' ~a c~~~c.-~ a~1~- ~~~, -5 ~ ~~ Gw''u-~ r/~'C.~ J `, VV ~ C~,~/\ ~ \ G'~' ~`9~~.'U'L~~ i/~'l~ ~i"~` ` •vY ` ©~l a`~~ L ~~ VVV""'~~. 1, U ~" ..~J~'. Gi~+rrr~- ~ ~ ~~~1~ t ~ /e~c, C:~zA, dk- ~ ~61-eS ~~, ~° ~ L ~ s .'~ ' `-'^", n~7C7~( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ .. ~~,i1 ~ ~~ 5 : ~.til, ~ ~ ~1..t,~ ~-f} C~S~~ ~t~ Cah~;~~'~ ~~- ~z4 ; CU~'~i ~-~ i.~.;~ ~ °~y ~ ~~- (,~~~I~ ~~. ~ ~~~~ ~s~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~` ~J ~~~ fie. C~ ~~~~ ~ ~`' ~~i~~~~ ~~ :~d -'1~"`~~ / ~~`~l~' ~.'h1~71V~1~ ~'~~ ~N~tiL'~: lS-L.,S~°~ ~1~~~ ~ ~~..11 1 ,~~+. AFFIDAVIT STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The undersigned, Leslie J. Lamont, hereby certifies that on June 18, 2004, I did post one Public Notice Sign for Conceptual P.U.D. rezoning and GMQS Exemption, for the property located at 1301 East Cooper, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, State of Colorado more fully described in Exhibit A, attached. The undersigned, Leslie J. Lamont, hereby certifies that on June 17, 2004, I did mail, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, the Public Notice attached as Exhibit B to the property owners within a 300 foot radius, as described in Exhibit C, attached. Leslie J. Lamont The foregoing AFFIDAVIT was subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of July, 2004, by Leslie J. Lamont. Witness m hand and offs ' seal. N~ M commission ex fires: Y P ~u~'c~OSp~~'~~2 U ~ ,_~- • ~ •O 9rF OF CO~pP MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: OCTOBER 27, 2004 .. .~ ..~. ,. ~F ~ .~_ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~. i. i~ ~ ,~tis, ~'~ ~ < ~n ~l .~ ,>,~ „''r ' ~ iii ~' ~~o '4' ~r' ~~~, ~, ,, ~ ~ !,,, ~~~ ~~~~ J a5~~ ~`"""'~~ ~. '.I Y5Y y'IY~, y ryY„ ~F+~ a ~~~ '~~'~„ ~; ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ,r ~~ ~n ~ , . `~ ~ ~ ~„ F a ~"'''' ~I1~~II ~~~ JIB ~q: .... ~I, ~, ~ ~n 4 _~ :F a - ~ ~. ~,~. ~, . +w ~ ~ , ~{ n..l.. }. ~/ c M1, Y. iw;' ,. _ ._. ~. ~ ~, p~ ~: ti~ ~ ~ ~* .- ~- ,, ... ~~~ ~~ ~ `~9 W 5 ~ _ _ ~,,, „~, ~ .~ ~~ ~ e~:., *~, M ' ~ ~. ..,.~ ~ ~ _. .. a ~~!~~. f:C:r~~t`~{r'.,' "1?~in kSP~N/F~11KIl~l ~L,~`~^J;ti'~NG {~FF(~~, ~,. R, t u. ~~. :^,~f~~~l, fi~t~i-CITY.. (~c~~ ~.'k; ';,eq~ ,~' C(~iJr`I7v~ ~`Lxi ~~~~}-~~`,~; ~~- _ _.. , - ~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BEAUMONT PUD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen Valley Hospital requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval and consideration of other land use requests to construct twenty-five (25) affordable housing ~arsts. Tl?e ad~*Pss of the subject parcel is 1301 East Cooper Avenue and. legally described as a parcel of land being part of the Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (for complete legal description, please contact the planner below). For further information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102, (or by email at scottw@ci.aspen.co.us). s/Jasmine Tvare, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the aspen Times on May 15, 2004 City of Aspen Account c ~4vti,~~,} ~, Order Nivnlie~; DDO?7449 LEGAL DFSCRIP770N A parcel of laced being Pa='t of the ~igerside Addj lion to th of kpen, Colorado, ea~d parcel as more a Cjty and S°wnsitr fully described as t`ollo*ra: E~9J.unin9 at a point being a plastic cap on a No. S rebar stamp S. 2376 ~rheace coraar B of the Riverside. placer U. ed L. cap dated 1954 bears North 83.08' West 544503•feeto 3905 ~i.M. being a brass tbeace North IS°41' West 42. D8 feet; thence North 14.06'59' West 222.02 feet; _thence North I3°13'3?' Bast 40.5E feet thence North 78.22'05° East 33.3I feet; ` thence North 37.34'04' Seat 56.43 feat thence North 68.14'13 gist 27.55 feet; tbe,ace SonC.h 50.37' Saat 77_T6 feet; theacc Sou; 3!•21'. East 250.08 fcet; thence 93.30 feet along a curve to the right havjay the radius 76D.00 feet (the chord of rhjch bears South 24°03' Saat 93.00 feat); thence 6otsth 77°45'50• Weat 235.31 feet to the point of be'giIInjag. COL~'TY OS PIT]CS'N, 3TAt3 OF COLORADQ -_i ALLEN DOUGLAS P ALPINE COURT INVESTMENTS LLC ISH EILEEN M 1/31NT 403 LACET LN 440 ALPINE CT 6482 CHERRY CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NIWOT, CO 80503 GRESK DEAN R ~ MILLER LEE I & SUZANNE K 1/3 OHWINKEL CLIFF PO BOS 8432 439 N WELLS 2ND FLOOR PO BOX 9457 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60610 ASPEN, CO 81611 L E 1/3 OSEN JAN & MICHELLE TRSTES 50% PRIGGS KRISTEN R NOVAK THEO~~RE J i CARS 208 LACET COURT 439 N WELLS 2ND FLOOR 17217 WEDDINGTON ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60610 ENCINO, CA 91316 Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 0401 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 .WELCH LANTZ 10000 NW 75TH ST KANSAS CITY, MO 64152 ROWER DALE 1024 E HOPKINS #1Z ASPEN, CO 81611 SANDLER ELLEN RES TRUST 104 MIDLAND AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ www.avery.com ^'"~'° ~~ 1-800-GO-AVM OKSENHORN STEWART & CANDICE 100 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611 POWER MATTHEW & LEIGH 101 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 BARNHART NORMAN F 103 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611-2144 ~;! ~I~~ i i ~ MINTZ MENACHEM MENDEL & LIEBA • ~ 104 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611 DOCIMO ANNETTE R & SERAFINO A ' MILLER DAVID W & ELIZABETH S 108 ROBINSON RD UNITE ~ 110 ROBINSON DR ASPEN,. CO 81611 ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 CRIDEN MICHAEL E & MICHELE S BENDON CHRISTOPHER J 11035 MARIN ST 112 ROBINSON DR CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 ASPEN, CO 81811-2381 CARLSON CHARLES M CAUDILL ROBIN 116 ROBINSON DR 118 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611-2381 ASPEN, CO 81611 OATES CHERIE G BRANSON PAMELA D 1205 RIVERSIDE DR 1230 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ;ASPEN, CO 81611 l -, '~ '; ~ CITY OF ASPEN i OSUR FAMILY TRUST 130 S GALENA ST 1300 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81811 GRINNELL CHERI CORLETO RICHARD A & EMILY M 1426 CRYSTAL LAKE RD TRSTES 50% ASPEN, CO 81611-2252 17217 WEDDINGTON ST ENCINO, CA 91316 AVERY® 5160® HAILEY JOhiN T 100 ROBINSON RD ASPEN, CO 81611 SETTE CYNTHIA R 102 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ~' , i i j MICCIO KENNETH W 104 LACET CT ' ' ASPEN, CO 81611 BURKLEY RICHARD & ROBERTA ____ - 106 ROBINSON DR UNIT F ASPEN, CO 81611-2381 RODBELL PHYLLIS 1101 CREST VALLEY DR ATLANTA, GA 30327 OCONNER PHILIP 114 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611 BENNETT BARBARA DODGE 120 S CHERRY ST DENVER, CO 80222 J ~' 1~ '~ JONES JUDITH G TRUST 1230 RIVERSIDE DR ' ASPEN, CO 81611 MASON CHRISTOPHER P 133 KINGS ROW ST CARBONDALE, CO 81623-8832 FLINT DAVID B TRUSTEE 17876 CRANBROOK DR NORTHVILLE, MI 48167 ~A2l~A1o/ 1111 Ab3Atl-09-008-L ~ ®09L5 31~d1dW31®tiany asB Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® LIPTON ALAN H TRUSTEE 1/2 INT 19495 BISCAYNE BLVD #410 AVENTURA, FL 33180 JIMENEZ LETITIA M 206 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 GOODRICH TERRY 2249 N BURLING CHICAGO, IL 60614 KESSLER EDWARD E 2520 THE STRAND NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 YEAGER JAMES W 310 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 GRIMES DAVID L & JOANN G 3510 BROMLEY WOODS LN 'GREENSBORO, NC 27410 FRIES MICHAEL T 4643 S ULSTER NO 1300 DENVER; CO 80237-2866 STONE FOWLER P III & RUTH D 611 FRED LN ASPEN, CO 81611 DUSON LIZABETH KERR 9030 GREENVILLE AVE DALLAS, TX 75243 ~ www.averyr.~n ~' 1-800-GO-A~~ SANDLER LIVING TRUST 8/5/99 201 S BURLINGAME AVE .LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 MCDONALD MAUREEN 207 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 i WALKER CHARLES F i 2320 CEDAR ELM TER P WESTLAKE, TX 76262-9030 SEFTON FAMILY TRUST 2550 FIFTH AVE STE 808 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 SUTHREN MARTIN T 312 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ALPINE COURT INVESTMENTS LLC 415 E HYMAN AVE #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALPINE COTTAGES LLC 5005 OLD CEDAR LAKE RD ~, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 J' ,~ , HARRISON MARK N 2/3 INT ~ 6482 CHERRY CT NIWOT, CO 80503 TARNA GARY C/O JIM KOHN ESQ 10940 WILSHIRE BLVD #1500 LOS ANGELES; CA 90024 Q AVERY® 5160® SPECK BRIAN D 205 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 TULLAR CHRISTOPHER J '~ .208 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 MOHWINKEL CLIFF 2363 PEACHTREE LN SAN JOSE, CA 95128 HILB THOMAS J & SUSAN S 3075E 4TH AVE DENVER, CO 80206 RIESSEN MICHAEL TRUST 313 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 DEROSE JAMES F & MAUREEN C 1/3 439 N WELLS 2ND FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60610 ~;~ i, ~~, l,, << i ~, ALLEN DOUGLAS P 520 E COOPER AVE STE 230 ~ 'ASPEN, CO 81611 THEE S MARC & ABBOT MICHAEL J ~' 720 W MORSE BLVD .WINTER PARK, FL 32789 MASON WILLIAM C C/O WALLS GERTA PO BOX 406 ASPEN, CO 81612 CW TRUST FOWLER MARK C SOUTHLAND CORP C/O ZUKER FOWLER PEMILA L - JT TENANTS LA MOTTE CHAMBERS 406 LACET LN PO BOX 11060 ST HELIER JERSEY ASPEN,. CO 81611-2101 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHANNEL ISLANDS JE1 1BJ, A~13At/-09-008-L ~,09L5 3J.t/ldW3t,g,Aaany asB Jam Free Printing ,,,~,~ ® vuww.avery.co, a AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ~~ 1-800-GO-AVE .~ POLE POSITION LTD SWANTON TERRY & MOLLY KLANDERUD HELEN ANN KALIN LA MOTTE CHAMBERS PO BOX 1403 PO BOX 1558 ST HELIER JERSEY ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHANNEL ISLANDS, JE1 1BJ PIEPHO KARL W PO BOX 2195 KIHEI, HA 96753 MERZBACH NINA PO BOX 3465 ASPEN, CO 81612 COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA LOB DE LIEUNEUVE NICOLAS E PO BOX 272409 PO BOX 2961 FT COLLINS, CO 80527-2409 ASPEN, CO 81612 LUU TONY PO BOX 795 ASPEN, CO 81612 BEACH.CATHERINE A COSTLEY JAMES J PO BOX 8432 PO BOX 884 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROBINSON ELLIOTT REV TRUST SPECTOR LORRAINE STAVE TRST ROBINSON GRETCHEN BIXLER REV SPECTOR LORRAINE & PAT TRUTE TRUST 3 FAIR OAKS 1245 RIVERSIDE DR , LADUE, MO 63124 'ASPEN, CO 81611 'I ~ l/ - ~l~I ~~~ ~~ ~i ~1 A2JI3At/-09-008-L ~~ KURT THOMAS L & CAROL F PO BOX 7977 ASPEN, CO 81612 ITTNER ROBERT_ A JR & ROBERT A SR PO BOX 8965 ASPEN, CO 81612-8965 ROBINSON JACK A & AVIVA 1589 KIRKWAY BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48013 ,i~~ ~~' I~ ~~II ®09L5 3ltrldW31®i(.~and ash i ii y9~ f 3 F 4 } r J ~, ~~ ~ t- .. `~w ~.. 'f ;a :fit. ~ N_ W ~ `* O ~m O O c~ U~Q A~ W u ... ~~ M V J = ~O ~J ~ •~ N 0 S~ ~ S y~ C N ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ v O v r a- ~ r ,: ~ ~ z,, ~ ~ v t6 W Q !tf U Q W Y ^ ~ N t~ 'J r m ~ ;, ~,~ v m .-ter d~ z c ~ '~ .~- 0 9 m 'm c co m g > a; ~ ~~,! O C N O c D m p S r' ~'~ 7 ~ 5 ~ 7 Q Z > ~ ~ ~_v -•, ~~ ~,,. Summary of Staff Comments on Beaumont PUD Project May 6, 2004 The following is a summary of the comments that the Community Development staff had when we reviewed the proposed Beaumont Conceptual PUD project at our recent staff meeting: Parking - Staffidentified this as a significant issue for the project. After much discussion, we feel that the proposed parking is deficient. There are 38 units with 38 parking spaces - 2 of which will be reserved for handicapped spaces. That means that if two renters are not handicapped (a distinct possibility), there will only be 36 spaces for 38 units. Staff believes that there should be, at the very minimum, 1 space per unit in addition to the two required handicapped spaces. However, based on evidence from other affordable housing projects, it would also be extremely beneficial to have a few guest spots available as well. In the case of these other. projects, there are incidences of guests/residents being forced to park in cul-de-sacs, fire lanes, and in spaces designated for visitors to parks. It appears, from past experience, that just limiting the number of parking spaces does not necessarily mean that people are going to reduce car ownership and they will still park wherever they can. This scenario creates at worst, an extremely dangerous situation if emergency vehicles cannot reach buildings, or, at best, a hassle for the residents. Because there is no overflow on street parking ~~, possibilities in the near vicinity (like other AH projects closer to the town core have the luxury of), the need for a few extra spaces seems even more important. In analyzing the site plan, it would appear difficult to find area to squeeze in any additional spaces without compromising open space and landscaped areas. Given this difficulty, staff concluded that the project might be a unit or two too dense for the site. Less a unit or two, the existing parking situation becomes much more workable and flexible for the residents who will live there. On the other hand, staff would be receptive to a design solution that can efficiently accommodate extra spaces while still retaining the proposed number of units. 2. Parking Lot Layout - Another topic of conversation was the parking layout and the proximity of many of the spaces to the units. While we can certainly understand some of the design constraints (the existence of the L-shaped building) and the political constraints of limiting the impacts to the neighbors, we felt that the location of the majority of the parking along the southern property line was a long ways from many of the units. This compromises some of the "livability" of the complex. 3. Style of Housing/Livability/Site Layout - The discussion about parking eventually morphed into talk about the overall layout, the style of housing, and the livability of the project. As mentioned above, staff understands the logic that went into the proposed design and site layout. There are obvious external forces and existing site constraints that played a large role in the design. Staff discussed the concept of "stacked units" as opposed to townhome style units and what the City's preference is with respect to City initiated affordable housing. Based on surveys from residents of City affordable housing, there is a strong preference for the stacked unit arrangement, and the City Council prefers the townhome style in their new affordable housing projects (such as what's being done with Burlingame Parcel D and Burlingame Village) in order to increase livability. We understand that this is not a City project, but did your design team consider the townhome layout? If so, what were the reasons for going with the stacked style of units? Staff thought that if the townhome style of units were used in this project (excluding the existing structures) that possibly the units could be narrowed somewhat to accommodate about the same number of units. We also wondered if it would be possible to have a one car garage or carport underneath the townhome style unit and one space behind it to maybe increase the parking capacity of the site. There may be solid reasons why this wouldn't work, but we would like you to consider these ideas. 4. Other Issues - Staff also concluded that the size of the Cresta Building is an inefficient use of space in terms of how many bedrooms are proposed and that it would be a better location for either more parking or for a community space (park, community building, etc.). As your team stated at a previous meeting, maybe those bedrooms can be accommodated somewhere else on the site. Staff will investigate the possibility of the City Engineering Department taking on the installation of a sidewalk connection from the southeastern portion of the subject property south to a point opposite the bus stop. At the same time, the applicant should consider adding a sidewalk connection from the intersection of US 82 and the entry drive to the interior sidewalks connecting to units. This would provide for a seamless sidewalk connection from the units to the sidewalk along 82 to both downtown and the bus stop. Did you consider having individual walks from the units to the perimeter sidewalk located along US 82? Staff thought that this might provide additional privacy for residents, increase the convenience of those residents who walk, as well as enhance the streetscape presence along 82 with more of a "front door" type presence, versus having it appear like they are the backs of the building. ~W ~i~. ~,~!. arm.. .b ~( r. ~ A ~~ aYlh4~~ ~~~ ~~i Z 5~ • ~ dV. ~f I G~ . (~~I ~~G~fRw ~5 1 r L(~ sk~~;~~s L3 l~s~ r ~ 2 ~~. ~~, ~- lb ~~ I~ ~°~~ i~~,~ ~~ ` ! ~~uus ~ ' ~ ~ ~B ~~~ ~,P~ ~e~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~` X36 ~,, ~,~r1~.¢~ ~~'i '~.ot ~ ~ ~.,t(,. . ~ y ~~~~~~~~,~`S~rbPD`--~tI ~v, ~~C,~ ~~~ : '~ ~(~ ~ ~' ~ rc c Qrv~r~~~ ~ ~ ~~-~~ :~.~~~'1 r~~,,~.s ~- rat; ~ } crn C ~ (~,J ~ e alt. ' ~ ~ t.-;~ 1 y~. ~ ( .r. .1 ~~~CuI~1~~6A~~~~~5~~ ~C(~1~ ~OifLc ~~a0 ~'(0~ ~ ~~<1b.~-1 ~'-~~ ~~.~ 5~~ er~~ ~, _ ~~nc ~ I-~ rye ., ~, ~~ I~~ - `i+wt (~~ ~~t ~ ` ~~~ ~~" ~~~~~ '~~ck.~ i ~~ . ~ t2 u~-k~ C e ~C. ~~, ~~~ . G CCO..~~~~~ _~~Ur ~~~a cl~ ~ C;~s ? MEMORANDUM w To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: March 31, 2004 Re: 3/31/04 DRC Minutes: Beaumont PUD Attendees: Scott Woodford, City Planner Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Denis Murray, Building Department Brian Flynn, Parks Department Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Cindy Christensen, Housing Department Steven Spears, OTAK Jay Hammond, SGM Engineers Leslie Lamont, Planner for Applicant Don Gillon, Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) -Employee Housing Craig Swick, AVH -Project Manager At the March 31, 2004 DRC meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the proposal to construct a total of 38 hospital employee housing units on the Beaumont Lodge site. These units are being designed as rental units and will not be condominiumized. The current PUD application seeks conceptual PUD approval. The timeline for project implementation is dependent on the hospital's need for housing mitigation resulting from future hospital expansions. DRC COMMENTS Housing Department: • Proposed buildings need to include three category #1 units to replace demolished units. • Existing studios (that will not be demolished) are too small but they have been previously approved and will not be required to be altered as part of the project. Engineerinq: Engineerinq: • Parking Requirements: Mr. Adeh says that guest parking spaces are needed. All of the City staff at the meeting concurred. Nick suggests that one guest parking spot is needed per 12 units. • Entrance: Final PUD plans should show a concrete drive ramp at the entrance. • ADA Ramos: The latest requirements for ADA ramps that meet federal standards will be met on ~ sidewalks for pedestrian access. • Construction Management Plan As part of the building permit application, the applicant must submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP). The City will provide guidelines for the CMP. The CMP needs to include a construction Traffic Management shy report and plan. • State Permits: Unless the Applicant can demonstrate otherwise, the project will require State S~ Erosion Control and Fugitive Dust Control Permits since the site is over one acre. Page 2 of 6 March 31, 2004 Beaumont PUD DRC ,~~~~, Curb and Gutter: Curb and gutter will be needed along the frontage of the property for several reasons including enhancement of pedestrian safety in a relatively narrow traffic corridor, collection and conveyance of street runoff, reduction of sediment load in surface runoff, encouraging pedestrian foot traffic as an alternative to driving, ensuring stability of road bed and pavement, etc. ADA Parking: The 38 parking spots for the development includes 2 handicap spots. If there are no handicap residents the handicap parking spots will not be used and there will be a parking deficit of two spots. The applicant needs to address this problem and still comply with handicap parking requirements for multi unit development. Fire Department: Alarms and Sprinklers: Alarms and sprinklers will be needed in all of the proposed buildings. During the project design, a consultant will need to design the sprinkler and alarm systems. (The existing Garden Building will be the only building without a fire sprinkler ands alarm system.) Fire Hydrants: (i) One fire hydrant is proposed to be located at the entrance and a second hydrant is proposed to be located near the Crest Building. The Fire Department needs to be consulted regarding the final locations. (ii) The Water Department may not want to see a fire hydrant on a dead-end water line. BBQs: In order to prevent forest fires, Ed would like the Ordinance to read that the rental agreements should state that briquette BBQ grills will not be allowed - -only propane grills. Parks Department • .Tree Removal: An approved tree permit is required prior to approval of the building permit. An approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal and means and schedule for mitigation. Please contact the City Forester for more information 920-5126. • Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic inside of the protective fence. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area inside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester orhis/her designee (920-5126) before any construction activities are to commence. • The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 1.5 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or train member of the contractor's team. • No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. • Parks Department is requiring the applicant secure a maintenance bond for all trees remaining on site which will have excavation, under drip lines or next to drip lines. This will assure the survival of the tree or provide a replacement means if the tree dies within two years after the CO of the project. • Erosion Control: Silt fencing installed to the City of Aspen standards. Additional erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. Site specific to the irrigation ditch on the West of the property. • Landscaping: Based on the mitigation for tree removal an approved landscape plan will need to be submitted to the parks department. • Sidewalk Easement: shall be worked out between the applicant and the Engineering office. The Easement shall speak to indemnification of parties and maintenance of the sidewalk. ~.. Page 3 of 6 , March 31, 2004 Beaumont PUD DRC • Sidewalk landscape area: This is open for discussion, however a minimum of landscaping shall be accomplished by the applicant. This requires irrigation and a grass strip between the back of curb and edge of sidewalk when available. Parks will help the applicant look into trees when space allows or specific species allows. Sanitation District • Infrastructure Timing? Will all of the utilities be installed at one time? From the City's viewpoint this is preferable. The City understands that the construction of the buildings could be phased to meet the hospital's housing mitigation needs. • Common Service Aareement~ There will be a common service agreement among the different buildings. As designed, it will be difficult to condominiumize the units. Thus, the units should stay as rental units. • Sewer Extension: The Sanitation District would prefer the extension of the main sewer line onto the property with an easement overlaying this sewer line. This may solve problems with the potential condominiumization of the units. • ACSD Standards: Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. • Trees: Do not plant trees over sewer services. • ACSD Review: Prior to submitting the building permit applications the applicant should submit plans to ACSD for review and determination of fees Zoning Overview: The Beaumont Inn Affordable Housing Project is a proposal to construct twenty- five (25) additional employee-housing units on the property at 1301 E. Cooper Avenue. The addition of twenty-five (25) additional employee-housing units will make a total of thirty-eight (38) employee-housing units on the site. The Applicant has proposed to establish all of the dimensional requirements for the site through the PUD process in conjunction with rezoning the property to AH/PUD. • Dimensional Reauirements: The AH/PUD Zone District requires that the dimensional requirements be established through a PUD while using the following density and FAR guidelines to establish said requirements: AH/PUD Density Guidelines Unit Type: Min. Lot Area per Dwelling Unit S uare Feet): Dormito 300 SF Studio 400 SF One Bedroom 500 SF Two Bedroom 1,000 SF Three Bedroom 1,500 SF More than 3 Bedrooms 500 SF/Bedroom AH/PUD FAR Guidelines Fatherin Parcel Lot Area: Allowable F/oor Area Ratio: 0-15, 000 SF 1.1:1 15, 001-25, 000 SF 1:1 25, 001-43, 560 SF . g;1 > 1 acre-3 acres . 6:1 >3 acres-6 acres .36:1 >6 acres .3:1 In reviewing the proposal against the above guidelines established in Land Use Code Section 26.710.120, the Applicant has proposed a total of sixteen studio units, thirteen 1- bedroom units, eight 2-bedroom units, and one 3-bedroom unit. Therefore, based on the density guidelines in the code, the Applicant would need 22,400 square feet of lot area .. Page 4 of 6 ~.,.>~ March 31, 2004 Beaumont PUD DRC for the thirty-eight dwelling units. Thus, since the subject parcel contains almost 50,000 square feet, the proposal is in line with the density guidelines of the AH/PUD Zone District. In also reviewing the proposal against the FAR guidelines outlined above, the Applicant has proposed 30,192 square feet of FAR. And thus, since the lot size is between one and three acres, the AH/PUD guidelines suggest an allowable FAR of .6:1. However, please note that the method of calculating slope reduction in the application was calculated incorrectly. In the application the lot area that is between 31 % and 40% slopes is only reduced by 75%. Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(C) requires that all land area over 30% slopes be completely removed from the property's lot area for the purpose of calculating FAR. Therefore, pursuant to the land use code only 49,934 square feet of lot area on this property should count for the purpose of calculating the allowable FAR as opposed to 50,320 square feet that is indicated in the application. Thus the floor area ratio proposed to be established in the application should actually be .604:1. • Residential Design Standards Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, the Applicant shall obtain variances from the building orientation, entry door, and one-story element residential design standards or amend the proposed design to comply with said standards. In PUD projects, residential design standard variances are typically applied for and reviewed in conjunction with the Final PUD application. • Outdoor Liohtina: The Applicant must comply with Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Given that the project contains residential multi-family buildings, a lighting plan meeting the lighting code is required at the time of building permit submittal. • Park Impact Fees:At the time of building permit the applicant will be required to pay all relevant park impact fees for the addition in bedrooms unless otherwise waived or reduced by City Council. In calculating the park impact fees, credit will be given for exiting bedrooms. • School Land Dedication Fees The application is not subject to School Land Dedication fees since the property will not be subdivided under the proposal . Water Dept: • Citv Standards Compliance All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. Building Department: • Accessability: (i) Must meet IBC, ANSI, and Federal Fair Housing accessibility requirements, (ii) Plan must show accessible units and access routes to parking, trash, etc. • Demolition: Contractor needs to recycle as much as possible and compact the remainder. • PUD and Permit Application: Permit application cannot be submitted until PUD is recorded. Environmental Health • AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code 13.08] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by reouirino the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city... The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek Page 5 of 6 ,,, March 31, 2004 Beaumont PUD DRC to "lessen con estion"and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants" The land use code states that the density of a PUD may be reduced if the proposed development will have a pernicious [negative] effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project. Using the ITE figures, for the replacement of10 lodge units with 25 affordable housing units, this 100% affordable housing development will generate 105.9 additional trips per day, and 15 pounds of pm10 per day. Thus the size of this development will have a pernicious (negative) effect on the air quality. In order to comply with the provisions of the land use code, and ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the applicant has included the following mitigation measures to be implemented: 1. The applicant will add sidewalk along Highway 82, which will connect to its neighboring properties' sidewalks, during its first phase of the project. 2. The applicant will provide only 38 off street spaces to be used by the 38 affordable housing units and their guests. 3. The applicant will provide covered and secured bike storage. 4. The applicant is an active member in the Transportation Options Program. 5. That applicant will continue to provide discounted bus passes to its employees. The Aspen Environmental Health Department recognizes that the applicant is providing significantly less parking spaces than what the land use code requires. However, staff believes that this project is an excellent candidate for such a reduction based on the following: 1. The applicant has an established record of employees using alternative transportation. 2. This site is located across from a RFTA bus stop and is within easy walking distance from the commercial core and Rubey Park. If the applicant were to be required to add more parking spaces then additional mitigation measures will be necessary to ensure that the project does not constitute a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen. Staff's recommendation is that the applicant implement the additional PM10 reduction measure: 1. Provide off-site car storage to account for the additional spaces. 2. Provide tangible incentives for employees to use alternative transportation for their commute. • REMINDERS FOR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS: FIREPLACENVOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file afireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. FUGITIVE DUST any development must implement adequate dust control measures. A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust ~ ; Page 6 of 6 ~,,, ~ ~, March 31, 2004 Beaumont PUD DRC from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Division if this project is over 1 acre in size. ASBESTOS Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall carpet the etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 18 04 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors....Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels." During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project wilt have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that trash storage areas have adequate wildlife protection. /DRC/Beaumont3-31-04 ~,. ~ ~.,, ~i~~,~ ~(~ .~ .. .~..; . ~~ nZIU V%(~i~S G l.~ + ~ ~ ~ . l r -~ ~ ~ c;, 1 y_.~C- f C t_::j~- i ~ "Y ~ `~ ~ _. ~-- ~~ GMT .~ -. ~ ~:.~ ~ - ,~ a [ l ~ cv~ ~. ~a~ ~~~ U- o~ c~ wc~-~ ~~ "-~t~Ci,C, . ; ~- C~ ~.. cln~n~~~ M (~.-h~~ -E~~ Ca(c~~(a-~~:~r~ ~x en~~lo~u- ;~~-~~~~w'~ ~, ~~(,+~ n~ ~-~. , c~~t~ MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Woodford, Planner r FROM: James Lindt, Planner. RE: Beaumont Inn AH PUD Zoning Referral Comments DATE: March 15, 2004 The Beaumont Inn Affordable Housing Project is a proposal to construct twenty-five (25) additional employee-housing units on the property at 1301 E. Cooper Avenue. The addition ,of twenty-five (25) additional employee-housing units will make a total of thirty- eight (38) employee-housing units on the site. The Applicant has proposed to establish all of the dimensional requirements for the site through the PUD process in conjunction with rezoning the property to AH/PUD. Dimensional Requirements: The AH/PUD Zone District requires that the dimensional requirements be established through a PUD while using the following density and FAR guidelines to establish said requirements: AH/PUD Density Guidelines: ~,~~~ ~ . ~,~. ivun. Lor Area per llweu-ng l!n~t (Square Feet): Dormitory 300 SF Studio 400 SF One Bedroom 500 SF Two Bedroom 1,000 SF Three Bedroom 1,500 SF More than 3 Bedrooms 500 SF/Bedroom ' AH/PUD FAR Guidelines: - -- - FatheringParcel Lot Area: ~ -_ 0-15,000 SF Allo~i~able Floor Area Ratio: ~ 1.1:1 15,001-25,000 SF 1:1 25,001-43,560 SF .8:1 >1 acre-3 acres .6:1 >3 acres-6 acres .36:1 >6 acres .3:1 In reviewing the proposal against the above guidelines established in Land Use Code Section 2,6.710.120, the Applicant has proposed a total of sixteen studio units, thirteen 1- ,;~.,, *• ~. . bedroom units, eight 2-bedroom units, and one 3-bedroom unit. Therefore, based on the density guidelines in the code, the Applicant would need 22,400 square feet of lot area for the thirty-eight dwelling units. Thus, since the subject parcel contains almost 50,000 square feet, the proposal is in line with the density guidelines of the AH/PUD Zone District.. In also reviewing the proposal against the FAR guidelines outlined above, the Applicant has proposed 30,192 square feet of FAR. And thus, since the lot size is between one and three acres, the AH/PUD guidelines suggest an allowable FAR of .6:1. However, please. note that the method of calculating slope reduction in the application was calculated incorrectly. In the application the lot area that is between 31 % and 40% slopes is only reduced by 75%. Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(C) requires that all land area over 30% slopes be completely removed from the property's lot area for the purpose of calculating FAR. Therefore, pursuant to the land use code only 49,934 square feet of lot area on this property should count for the purpose of calculating the allowable FAR as opposed to 50,320 square feet that is indicated in the application. Thus the floor area ratio proposed to be established in the application should actually be .604:1. Residential Design Standards: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, the Applicant shall obtain variances from the building orientation, entry door, and one-story element residential design standards or amend the proposed design to comply with said standards. In PUD projects, residential design standard variances are typically applied for and reviewed in conjunction with the Final PUD application. Outdoor Lighting: The Applicant must comply with Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Given that the project contains residential multi-family buildings, a lighting plan meeting the lighting code is required at the time of building permit submittal. Park Impact Fees: At the time of building permit the applicant will be required to pay all relevant park impact fees for the addition in bedrooms unless otherwise waived or reduced by City Council. In calculating the park impact fees, credit will be given for exiting bedrooms. School Land Dedication Fees: The application is not subject to School Land Dedication fees because the property is not proposed to be subdivided. ,~ yam;; CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for BEAUMONT LODGE - 1301 E. COOPER AVE. (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 2,620.00 is for 12 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $220.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT firrther agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN By: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director APPLICANT By: '~ ~r ~ e ~ns~, ~~ Dater l~ ~~ Billing Address and Telephone Number: Required 0401 Castle Creek RD. Aspen, CO 81611 970-544-1379 g: \supp ort\fo rms\agrp ayas.d oc 6/05/03 ~'1'Al~- ~ p~RNT RED Jam Free Printing ~ www.avery.com o q~Ry® 5160® Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ~~~•„ ~~ 1-800-GO-AVr""`~''~ ~~• ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT OKSENHORN STEWART & CANDICE 1001 ROBIONSON RD 0401 CASTLE CREEK RD 100 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WELCH LANTZ 10000 NW 75TH ST KANSAS CITY, MO 64152 HOWER DALE 1024 E HOPKINS #17 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANDLER ELLEN RES TRUST 104 MIDLAND AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 POWER MATTHEW & LEIGH 101 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 BARNHART NORMAN F 103 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611-2144 -- MINTZ MENACHEM MENDEL & LIEBA 104 ROBINSON DR . ASPEN, CO 81611 DOCIMO ANNETTE R & SERAFINO A 108 ROBINSON RD UNIT E ASPEN, CO 81611 CRIDEN MICHAEL E & MICHELE S 11035 MARIN ST CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 CARLSON CHARLES M 116 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611-2381 OATES CHERIE G 1205 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 GRINNELL CHERI 1426 CRYSTAL LAKE RD ASPEN, CO 81611-2252 MILLER DAVID W & ELIZABETH S 110 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611 BENDON CHRISTOPHER J 112 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611-2381 CAUDILL ROBIN 118 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611 BRANSON PAMELA D 1230 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 OSUR FAMILY TRUST 1300 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CORLETO RICHARD A & EMILY M TRSTES50% 17217 WEDDINGTON ST ENCINO, CA 91316 SETTE CYNTHIA R 102 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 MICCIO KENNETH W 104 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 BURKLEY RICHARD & ROBERTA 106 ROBINSON DR UNIT F ASPEN, CO 81611-2381 RODBELL PHYLLIS 1101 CREST VALLEY DR ATLANTA, GA 30327 OCONNER PHILIP 114 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611 BENNETT BARBARA DODGE 120 S CHERRY ST DENVER, CO 80222 JONES JUDITH G TRUST 1230 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO $1611 MASON CHRISTOPHER P 133 KINGS ROW ST CARBONDALE, CO 81623-8832 FLINT DAVID B TRUSTEE 17876 CRANBROOK DR NORTHVILLE, MI 48167 J1213AV-09-008-I. ~~ ®09L5 31K1dW31®IGand asB n ~ ...__.~.,.--•------ 6uiiwad aaa~ wed Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® LIPTON ALAN H TRUSTEE 1/2 INT 19495 BISCAYNE BLVD #410 AVENTURA, FL 33180 JIMENEZ LETITIA M 206 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 GOODRICH TERRY 2249 N BURLING CHICAGO, IL 60614 KESSLER EDWARD E 2520 THE STRAND NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 YEAGER JAMES W 310 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 GRIMES DAVID L & JOANN G 3510 BROMLEY WOODS LN GREENSBORO, NC 27410 FRIES MICHAEL T 4643 S ULSTER NO 1300 DENVER; CO 80237-2866 STONE FOWLER P III & RUTH D 611 FRED LN ASPEN, CO 81611 DUSON LIZABETH KERR 9030 GREENVILLE AVE DALLAS, TX 75243 CW TRUST C/O ZUKER 406 LACET LN ASPEN,. CO 81611-2101 ~ www.avery.com o ANERY® 5160® ,~ ~~ 1-800-GO-AVE' ' s~ ,~ SANDLER LIVING TRUST 8/5/99 SPECK BRIAN D 201 S BURLINGAME AVE 205 LACET CT LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCDONALD MAUREEN 207 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 WALKER CHARLES F 2320 CEDAR ELM TER W ESTLAKE, TX 76262-9030 SEFTON FAMILY TRUST 2550 FIFTH AVE STE 808 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 TULLAR CHRISTOPHER J 208 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 MOHWINKEL CLIFF 2363 PEACHTREE LN SAN JOSE, CA 95128 HILB THOMAS J & SUSAN S 3075E 4TH AVE DENVER, CO 80206 SUTHREN MARTIN T 312 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ALPINE COURT INVESTMENTS LLC 415 E HYMAN AVE #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALPINE COTTAGES LLC 5005 OLD CEDAR LAKE RD ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 i HARRISON MARK N 2/3 INT 6482 CHERRY CT NIWOT, CO 80503 TARNA GARY C/O JIM KOHN ESQ 10940 WILSHIRE BLVD #1500 LOS ANGELES; CA 90024 FOWLER MARK C FOWLER PEMILA L - JT TENANTS PO BOX 11060 ASPEN, CO 81612 RIESSEN MICHAEL TRUST 313 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 DEROSE JAMES F & MAUREEN C 1/3 439 N WELLS 2ND FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60610 ALLEN DOUGLAS P 520 E COOPER AVE STE 230 ASPEN, CO 81611 THEE S MARC & ABBOT MICHAEL J 720 W MORSE BLVD WINTER PARK, FL 32789 MASON WILLIAM C C/O WALLS GERTA PO BOX 406 ASPEN, CO 81612 SOUTHLAND CORP LA MOTTE CHAMBERS ST HELIER JERSEY CHANNEL ISLANDS JE1 1BJ, ~~~~ A2l3Atl-09-008-L ~~ ®09L5 3J.KIdW31 ~Saany ash K~/1 _.-- ----__ __ -- 6u~tuua aa~a wer lam Free Printing ~ vuww.avery.com "' Q AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ~~' 1-800-GO-AV' :,~ ~ POLE POSITION LTD ,_~ SWANTON TERRY & MOLLY KLANDERUD HELEN ANN KALIN LA MOTTE CHAMBERS PO BOX 1403 PO BOX 1558 ST HELIER JERSEY ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHANNEL ISLANDS, JE1 1BJ PIEPHO KARL W COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA LOB DE LIEUNEUVE NICOLAS E PO BOX 2195 PO BOX 272409 PO BOX 2961 KIHEI, HA 96753 FT COLLINS, CO 80527-2409 ASPEN, CO 81612 MERZBACH NINA LUU TONY KURT THOMAS ~ & CAROL F PO BOX 3465 PO BOX 795 PO BOX 7977 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 BEACH.CATHERINE A PO BOX 8432 ASPEN, CO 81612 COSTLEY JAMES J PO BOX 884 ASPEN, CO 81612 ITTNER ROBERT A JR & ROBERT A SR PO BOX 8965 ASPEN, CO 81612-8965 ROBINSON ELLIOTT REV TRUST ROBINSON GRETCHEN BIXLER REV TRUST 1245 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 SPECTOR LORRAINE STAVE TRST SPECTOR LORRAINE & PAT TRUTE 3 FAIR OAKS LADUE, MO 63124 ROBINSON JACK A & AVIVA 1589 KIRKWAY BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48013 ~~ ~~ A2l3AV-09-008-L ~~ ®09L5 31~d1dW31 fiend asB 1\~// 1 ....~~.[.nwn•wwwwM 6w~uud aa~~ wed RESOLUTION NO. 57 (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CIfiY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL CONDIfiIONAL USE. FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT THE BEAUMONT INN, IN THE LODGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE. DISTRICT, AT 1301 EAST COOPER AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel Ideatification # 2737-181-00-047 ~~ WHEREAS, the Cornrnunity Development Department received an application from J &~ B Hotels (Applicant), represented by Aspen Valley Hospital, for a conditional use to operate the Beaumont Inn's 31 lodge units for .affordable housing in the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District, at 1301 East Cooper Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 53,578 square feet, grid is located in the R-15, Moderate Density Zone District with a Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.710.320(C) of the. Land Use Code, the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District allows affordable .. housing as a conditional. use; and, WFlEREAS, the Fire Marshall, ,Aspen Consolidated .Sanitation District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, City Parks Department, the Aspen/Pitld.n County Housing Authority, and the Community Developrrient Department reviewed. the Project and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.425 of the Land Use Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a conditional use during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, during a .duly noticed public hearing on November 7, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, ~by a three to one (3- 1) vote, a conditional use to use the Beaumont Inn for affordable housing at 1301 East Cooper Avenue, with'cond'itions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen 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, the applicable ~''~~, referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, iu, imxmnn~mMmnu~iwiuiin~u~~ui WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, .the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission f nds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, ,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section ]. -~ Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the J & B Hotels/Aspen Valley I-Iospztal. request for a conditional use to operate the Beaumont Inn's 31 lodge units for affordable housing in the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District is approved subject to the conditions described hereinafter. Conditions of Approval: 1. The Applicant/owner shall grant the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing !`'~~~ Authority the right of first refusal to purchase the Beaumont Inn property. This condition shall be terminated if and when the property is subdivided and sold as deed restricted affordable housing 'to qualified Pitkin County employees. A separate land use application for subdivision condominiumization, etc. is required prior to the . individual sale of each unit. This condition must be satisfied prior to the affordable housing use of the facility. 2. The applicant desires to and shall grant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority an interest in the property. The Housing Authority shall grant the interest .back to the owner if the property is subdivided, condominiumized, and sold as deed restricted affordable housing units to qualified Pitkin County employees.. This condition must be satisfied prior to the affordable housing use of the facility. 3. The Housing Office shall conduct a site visit of the units to specify what type of rental units they should be approve as. 4. The Applicant shall take the final deed restrictions for each rental unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board for final input and A'"'~ approval prior to affordable housing use of the facility. The Applicant . shall comply with. the Housing Guidelines as to the category that is i ~uiii nix moi mug uu inn Dui m uN uu m~ .,~~ ~~. assigned to each unit. A deed restriction for each unit shall be recorded prior to occupancy. 5. A minimum of 36 on-site parking spaces. shall be provided. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit to reconfigure ~ the lodge room to affordable housing units, the following conditions must be met: a. The driveway access to the property shall be at least 20 feet wide. b. Afire hydrant will be required if there is more than 150 feet of distance between the nearest access point to a structure. c. Any remodeling of the. lodge rooms into 1 and 2 bedroom affordable housing units shall comply with the adopted City Building Code and shall not adversely affect the existing sprinkler system. d. The 1-story modular building should be sprinkled, but this is ~/"~. not required. e. A sidewalk, curb, and gutter agreement shall be completed. f. A minimum of a 50-foot radius for a fre turnaround shall be provided. g. A drainage report, soils report, grading, and "site plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Off ce for review and approval for the remodel phase. h. All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title S of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. ' i. If a sprinkler system is added to the modular building, the existing water system must be upgraded. j. if new kitchens are proposed, full tap fees are required at the time of building permit review. k. Detailed plans need to be submitted to ACSD to assess fees before the issuance of a building permit. ~ ~~~~~i i~i~~ i~~~~r i~~~~i ~~~~ ii~~~ i~i~ii i» ri~ir i~i~ »~~ 449090 !2/27/2000 04:04P RE50LUTI DAYI5 SILVi 3 of d R 2'3.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ~~~•. 1. If the building is converted to I and 2 bedroom units, ACSD tap fees will be required. m. If the site is redeveloped, main lines may need to be replaced in order to handle capacity. 7. The Applicant shall work with the Community Development and neighbors to improve. access, lighting and noise on the property to minimize any and all negative impacts. 8. Pursuant to the opinion of the City .Attorney, the conditional use awarded herein. is an optional use for the. benefit of the .Aspen Valley Hospital or current property owner. The use runs with the .land as Iong as the .property is remains in Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District or other zone district that allows affordable housing as a permitted or conditional use. 9. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby puts the Applicant on notice of Aspen/Pitkin County Mousing Authority staff member Cindy Christianson's memorandum dated November ~1, 2000 concerning this P""~"` application. concerning future uses of the property. Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action oi~ 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 3: 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 Commission at its regular meeting on November 7, 2000. Al'~PROVED AS TO FORM; PLANNING AND Z011TING COMMISSION: ,r-.ti i imfl xr~ iaw uuH ~ iiei nnu is ~u mi pu t~~~ City Attorney ATTEST: 9 ~~~ ackie Lothia ,Deputy City Clerk ~. Robert Blaich, Chair _::, l 111111 i1111111N1 llllll Illl 11111 Illill NI Illll 1111 IIII ~~~,:, 4495!6 12/27/2000 04:04P RESOLUTI DAYIS SILYI 5 of S R 25:00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ASPEN PLANNIN& ZONING COMMISSION: ` ~~ NOVEMBER 07, 2000.. - business/use.shall not expand in anyway, including,~bu# not limited to; square footage. and operating characteristics without gaining approval by the Planning and ~oning~ finding that the criteria have been meta- Steven Buettow seconded. Roll call vote: ~Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; ~Tygre, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN VALLEY I30SPITAL CONDITIONAL USE - BEAUMONT INN Bob Blaich< opened the public hearing fox the Beaumont Inn, Aspen Valley Hospital affordable housing proposal. David Hoefer stated that the:notice was received and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Nick Lelack introduced Bill Brunworth, project manager for Aspen Valley Hospital, Don Gillow the: employee housing director and~Randy Millbrook the CEO of the hospital. Lelack said that these gentlemen represented J&B Hotels {Beaumont Inn) with a contract to purchase it. Lelack explained that the Beaumont lnn was located at 1301 East Cooper; there were 2 zone districts R-15 (moderate density residential) and LP (Lodge Preservation} overlay. ~ This was a conditional use for the Beanrnont Inn to operate as affordable housing because the LP zone districtallowed..only lodge employees. Currently there were 31 lodge units: and 4 affordable housing units=(3 studio or one-bedroom unit and lthree-bedroom unit). .Lelack said that.pursuant to conditional use approval Pitkin County residents.couldublize the affordable housing. There were currently between 33-47 parking spaces on site; the-proposal required a parking space for each bedroom:: Lelack stated that the proposal met the Affordable Guidelines, the Aspen Area Community Plan, interium Area Aspen Citizen Housing Plan; it was located inside. the community growth boundary; it's proximity. to available public transit; it was compatible with the .neighborhood and did not promote sprawl. Lelack said that this was internal reconfiguration of the rooms; tree external will remain the same. Lelack~said that the Hospital was in negotiations with the County on Affordable Housing. A condition was removed from the resolution but the commission acknowledged Cindy Christiansen's memo with potential future housing. Randy Millbrook said that he did not know what the appraised values of the property were prior to changing it to affordable housing. Millbrook asked what the process was on the city's right of first refusal. Ohlson stated that the condition had nothing to do with the sale-price of the property at this time but rather when it was deeded as affordable housing: 2 ASPEN PLANN~'~G &.ZONING. COiViMTSS~±pN ~ 11TOVENig1~R 07 -2000 Haneman. asked. if the LP overlay remained.on the property: Lelack responded that was the only way that people could bid on property that. were lodges, .affordable housing or one Large home: -- . Joe Wells, public, stated that,he represented ~&B Hotels over the years; he stated that they wanted_.to support~the Hospital but.if tie hospital deal fell through; J&B did not want to be respons~i'ble for an~ affordable Housing .project. Wells stated that the conditional. use would .be an optional use €or the property if the hospital did not go through on the affordable housing. Terry Swanton, public,stated that he and his wife~Molly lived next door, the adjoining property. Swanton stated the concerns-were the same through the years; he said that it had been occupied- 6 or ?times year round because currently there were::~not very. man cats: Swanton said. that his rrmajor concern wasputting that many mare- cars coming out ofthat-driveway on a dangerous curve and hill. Swanton; said that money was: put into escrow for a sidewalk 10' years ago, which never happened. He said that there was supposed to b~e fences and tress along the property line. so the car lights wouldnot coirie through onto their property Molly Swanton, public, ,stated that there was more `affordable housing right across the street. 'Molly. Swanton said that the .power, pole located in their back. yard was overloaded. now;. she. asked how the power would .be handled... Molly Swanton asked when the ,trailer. would be removed-that eras supposed o be removed :years ago;.;she asked who was accountable for whatever was not done. Molly said that the sidewalk that was` never put in and the. wall that was riot finished. Blaich asked that:the public. safety issues with the access proxirriity to the highway and power pole issues,be addressed. David~Hoefer provided the Swanton's with a copy of the resolr~tion that addressed the .issues: Lelack saidahat Helen Klanderud called and apologized-:for not being able to attend but was working the election. Klanderud supported the protect but - - requested that the one-story modular building be removed, Lelack said that he could riot find, that modular unit removal-in any ;document. Ferry-.Swanton stated that carried.:over from whenGuido lYleyer owned the property. Joe Wells said that if this comes hack to the Beaumont owners; there was an expansion~appli-cation that was filed but never processed: 'V~ells said .that if that should occur, the Beaumont owners would re-address those'issues but did not think that this was helpfil to the-hosptal:discussion. Bruriworrh stated that he wanted to work with the neighborhood..Brunworth said .that they would be looking at that. Ynodular because it was o.ld and decrepit.... 3 ASPEN PLANNING~& ZONING COMIVIISSION ~'~` hTOVEMBER 07, 2000 Blaich stated that after the commission decided on the project then the safety issue could be dealt. with:. Jasmine 'Tygre asked that the, safety issues be recognized and cooperate with the neighborhood and that any potential negative impacts of this project be taken into account. Lighting,~access and safety were issues; Tygre encouraged the applicant to work with community development to rr~ake improvements to the existing access. Tygre stated that the applicant should work with the community to address the issues and concerns. Steven Buettow suggested rrteeting with .the police chief to work on the increased traffic for the access problems. LelaclC stated that the conditions required.by the city engineer had to be met prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. MOTION; Roger Haneman moved to approve P&Z Resolution #00-5.7 finding that all of the review :criteria have been met: for. the J & B HotelsLAspen Valley hospital request for a cou.ditionak use to operate the Beaumont Inn's 31 lodge units for affordable housing in the Lodge Preservation Overlay;Zone District is approved subject to the conditions: 1.) The Applicantlowner shall grant the Aspen/Pitkin County housing Authority the right of first refusal to purchase the Beaumont Inn property. This condition shall be texininated if and.when the property is subdivided and sold as deed restricted affordable housing to qualified Pitkin County employees. A separate land use application for subdivision condominiumization, etc. is required prior to the individual sale of each unit. This condition must be satisfied prior to the~affordable housing use of the facility. 2.) The applicant desires: to and shall grant to the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority an interest. in the property. The Housing Authority shall grantthe interest back to the owner if the property is subdivided, condominiumized, and sold as deed restricted affordable housing units to qualified Pitkin County employees. This condition must be satisfied prior to the affordable housing'use of the facility. 3.) The Housing Office shall conduct a site visit of the units to specify what type of rental units they should be approve as. 4.) The Applicant shall take the~fnal deed restrictions for each rental unit to the AspenlPitkin County Housing Board for final input and approval prior to affordable housing use of the facility..The Applicant shall .comply with the Housing Guidelines as to the category that is assigned to each unit. A deed restriction for each unit shall be recorded prior to occupancy. 5.) A minimum of 36 on- site parking spaces shall be provided. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building per~anit to reconfigure the lodge room to affordable housing units, the following conditions must be met: a.) The driveway access to the property shall be at least 20 feet wide. b.) Afire hydrant will be:required if there is more than 150 feet of distance between the nearest access~point to a structure. c.) Any remodeluag of the lodge rooms into 1 and 2~ bedroom affordable housing units shall comply with the adopted City Building Code and shall not adversely affect the existing sprinkler system. d.) The X-story modular building should be sprinkled, but this is not required. e.) A sidewalk, curb, and gutter agreement shall be completed. f:) A minimum of a 50-foot radius for a fire turnaround shall be provided. g.) A drainage report, soils report, grading, and site plan shall be~ 4 ASPEN- PLANNG `& ZONING COMMISSION 1~OVEl~IBER ~07 20.4. subbitted ,to .the Engineering Uffice:for review and approval for the remodel phase. h.} All uses: and construction shali.comply with the City of Aspen Water System'.Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Z~tle 8 of the Aspen;iV,[unicipal Code as they pertain to utilities. i.}If a sprinkler system is added to the modular building, the existing water system must be upgraded. j.) If new kitchens are proposed, fall tap fees are required at the time of building permit review. k. Detailed plans need to be submitted to ACSD to assess fees. before the issuance of a building pernut. 1.) If the building is. coa~erted to ~l ands 2 bedroom units; ACSD` tap: fees. will be required. m.) If the•site is redeveloped, mainlines may need to.be replaced in.arder~to handle:capacity. ?.) The Applicant shall work with .the Community Development and neighbors to improve access, lighting andnoise, on the property to minimize any and alI negative impacts. Pursuant to the opinion of he City Attorney, the conditional use awarded herein is as optional use `for the benefit of.t)1e Aspen Valley Hospital or current property oyvner. 8.} The use ruas~with fhe Laud as long.as floe Pi`operty is~remaias in Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone=Itistrict or'other. zoee district that allows affordable housing as a permitted or conditional use., 9.) The'Planning: and Zoning Commission hereby puts the Applicant on notice of Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority staff member Cindy Christianson's memorandum dated November 1,.2000 concerning this application concerning future uses of tlie-.property Jasmine 'I~gre Seconded. RoII call vote: Buettow, yes; Tygre, yes; Haneman, n~o; Blaich, yes, APPROVED 3-1. Discussion of vote: Roger Haneman stated that he would vote.. against this because of the conflict between the economic ~sustainability and the -affordable. Housing from the AACP. Haneman said that he thought that the LP was for lodges that needed help because of the buildings or existing site plans. Haneman said that there .were not that many properties left in the LP like the Beaumont that were in good condition to remain in the LP; he said that affordable housing could be placed in other sites rather than eliminating a small lodge. PUBLIC HEARING; 337 SILVERLHDE .IY)RIVE - DRAC Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David.Hoefer stated. that notice was provided and explained the criteria sheet for the Planning & Zoning Committee acting as DRAG {Design Review Appeals Committee).. Fred Jarman said that the request was for variance from the residential design standards to construct two additions for 2 bedrooms, remodel an existing two-car garage, living room and modify the' existing entrance to the house. The two variances requested were for garage location and for the front door.setback. Jarman stated that the property was located at 337 SilverLode Drive, Lot 7 Williams Ranch Subdivision with AH PUD Subdivision Zoning. There were originally 4 variance requests and after discussions with the applicant, 2 areas wexe redesigned. Staff recommended approval. because it met the standards. 5 ~. ~~ f .. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning :Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy. Director~~p FROM: Nick Lelack, Fianner ~~ `` RE: Aspen Valley Hospital -Conditional Use for Affordable Housing at the Beaumont Inn . DATE: November 7, 2000 APPLICANTS J & B Idotels REPRESENTATIVES: Aspen Valley Hospital District Bill Brunworth Don Gillow ' LOCATION: Beaumont Inn 1301 E. Coopex Avenue/Hwy 82 ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential & Lodge Preservation Overlay LOT SIZE: 53,578 square feet REVIEW PROCEDURE: Conditional- Use: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a development application for a conditional use, after recommendation by the Community Development Director. FAR: 20,100 square feet: SUMMARY: The Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District allows Affordable Housing for lodge employees as a permitted use and for non- lodge employees as a. Conditional Use. This application requests approval to operate the Beaumont Inn's 31 lodge rooms for affordable housing for hospital employees. -i- r ~, STAFF COMMENTS: J & B Hotels (Applicant), represented by the Aspen Valley Hospital (AVID District, Bill Brunworth and Don Gillow, has applied for conditional use approval to operate the Beaumont inn as an affordable housing complex for hospital employees; AVH is under contract to purchase the property;. closing is set for later this month. The Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District on the property allows affordable housing for lodge employees as a permitted use and for non-employees as a conditional use. The Beaumont Inn consists of 311odge rooms and four (4) deed restricted affordable housing units with a total of six (6) bedrooms in four {4) 2=story buildings and one (1) 1= story building: Most of the Inn's buildings were constructed in the mid- ].980s, and a triplex consisting of three (3) affordable housing units was constructed in the early/mid-i990s. The Beaumont Inn is an ideal site for affordable housing; it is located within walking and biking distance to downtown, a RFTA bus stop is located almost immediately across the street, and the surrounding properties are primarily residential. The site includes approximately 33- 4? on-site parking spaces (depending on how and where the spaces are designated), a swimming pool, hot tub, common dining room, and commercial kitchen. The application states that Aspen Valley Hospital plans to convert the 31 lodge units into 1- and 2-bedroom affordable housing units. The number of units may be decreased to create the 2- bedroom affordable hausing units. Parking may be an important issue to neighbors. The~Land Use Code requires 1 parkin space for each studio and 1-bedroom affordable housing unit, and 2 parking spaces for units v~iith 2 or more bedrooms. The Land Use Code requires 0.7 spaces oer bedroom for lodge units. Currently, there is one 3-bedroom affordable housing unit and 3 studio residential units; the 311odge units are studio or 1-bedroom configurations. The -z- ~~ , ~,` !"" w~ ~ ~°' following table shows the required number of parking spaces for the 31 lodge units and 4 affordable housing units: Table 1: Existing Conditions Type of Unit Number of Number of Parking Spaces Bedrooms Units Re uired Affordable ~ Housin 3 1 2 Affordable Housin 1 3 3 Lode 1 31 21.7 TOTAL 34 26.7 Table 2: Proposed Conditions (decreasing the number of units through the conversion of 1-bedroom units to 2-bedroom units would result in the same number of required narking st~aces for residential ,~nitcl Type of Unit Nuniber of Number of Parking Spaces Bedrooms Units Re uired Affordable Housin 3 1 2 Affordable Housin 1 g4 34 TOTAL ~ 36 Therefore, with 33-47 an-site parking spaces, the conditional use for affordable housing would comply with the Code's requirement for on-site parking if at least 36 on-site. parking spaces are designated. Staff recommends that this nuxn.ber of on-site parking spaces be made a condition of approval. Staff believes that residents may be more likely to walk or bike to and around town or take the bus rather than their cars because they recognize the difficulty of parking around town, "know the ropes" of transit logistics, and the ecanamic value of taking the bus. The Beaumont's parking area may serve more as "car storage" than as a parking lot because of the Inn's close proximity to downtown and the RFTA bus stop. In fall 1999, City Council approved a new lodge preservation program. A key component of the program was the revamping of the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District. The purpose of this zone district, as stated in the Land Use Code, "is to provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used~for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to -3- .~"': h... .. ~>~ ~: accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses to provide uses accessory and nornnallv associated with lodge and affordable housine development to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated, and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent properties." The program's intent is to preserve and expand the community's existing lodges, and to make affordable housing the only other acceptable use of a lodge. The conditional use allows the lodge to serve as rental affordable housing. The lodge has not been condominiurnized; therefore, the units cannot be sold separately as residential units. The application states that Aspen Valley Hospital plans to develop a master plan for the property. The plan would include an application for a change in use; subdivision, planned unit development, etc. to allow the hospital. to subdivide and condominiumize the pxopexty to sell the individual units to hospital employees as deed restricted affordable housing. Such an application would nearly mirror the application and land use approvals for the former Ullr Lodge; now Ullr Commons. Staff is concerned about the impact of the recent Colorado Supreme Court decision on the Telluride.case on.this conditional use application. Specifically, Staff is concerned that the rental caps proposed maybe unenforceable, as decided by the Telluride case. Consequently, if the Applicant does not apply far and receive change in use and subdivision approvals for the property to sell the units as deed restricted affordable housing; there is no guarantee the units will remain affordable. Staff recommends three {3) conditions of approval to ensure that the units remain affordable should the units remain rental. One condition is that the owner shall grant the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority the right of first refusal to purchase the property. This condition would expire upon the termination of the conditional use -- or once the units are deed restricted affordable housing units and sold to qualified Pitkin County employees. A second condition is that the owner shall grant the Housing Authority an interest in the property, which allows the Housing Authority to enforce the rental restrictions for each unit. - 4- .~,:. _~ A third condition is that the final deed restrictions to set rental rates for the units be approved by the Housing Board at a public meeting. Additional conditions of approval in the draft resolution are designed to bring the units into conformance with City codes for residential use in addition to lodge use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use with conditions. RECOMMENDED 1VIOTION: "T move to approve Resolution No.~Series of 2000, approving the Aspen Valley Hospital's conditional use to use the Beaumont Inn for affordable housing, with conditions, finding that all of the review criteria have been met." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B - Application -s- EXHIBIT A BEAUMONT. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all o£ the following standards are met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Pian, with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title; and Staff Finding Staff. believes this application is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the AACP; intent of the zone districts (R-15 'and Lodge Preservation Overlay}, and all other .applicable requirements of the Land. Use Code. The AACP's Housing element and Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan support this proposal. One Housing. Policy states: "The burden of providing affordable housing should not lie solely on the shoulders of the Housing Authority. The local business community, non-profit entities, and local developers have much expertise and definite interest in affordable housing and should be encouraged to contribute." This application .is a case in point of the private sector creating affordable housing for its employees. A related Housing Goal is to "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing.'.' Again, this application achieves this goal. The Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan, incorporated into the AACP, includes a list of criteria that- all affordable housing projects should strive to meet. These include: 1) location inside the Community Growth Boundary; 2) Proximity to available public mass transit; 3) "Containable development" -compatible with neighborhood and does not promote sprawl. a. Contiguous to existing public facilities and infrastructure. . b. Amendable to transit, bike and pedestrian oriented design. -6- ~ _ w~ r ~• c. Visual compatibility with surrounding area. d. Optimizes the site's development potential. e. Contribute to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Goals. f. Quality of life: range of income groups, mixed uses, access to open space. . . g. Quality of design and construction. h. Utilize and conserve natuxal features. i. Fiscal impact of site compared to other sites. Although these criteria are particularly relevant to new and re-developments, Staff. believes that all of the. relevant criteria to this project are met. Specifically, the project is inside the Community Growth Boundary, served by all public utilities and facilities, is within walking and biking distance to town and a transit stop, and contributes to the Housing Goals. The only conflict with the AACP is in the Economic Sustainability Philosophy section, which states that lodges contribute to the communit-~s economic base. Allowing the Beaumont lnn to operate as a rental affordable housing complex is a trade off between two competing AACP goals -economic sustainability and affordable housing -for the same site. The purpose of the R-3.5, Moderate Density Residential Zone District, is "to provide for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses." The purpose of the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District, "is to provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate Iod a and affordable. housing uses, to provide uses accessory and normally associated with lodge and affordable housing development, to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated, and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent properties." _ Staff believes the project xneets the intent of the zone districts -the long- term residential use of the R-15 Zone District, and the higher density affordable housing use of the Lodge. Preservation Overlay Zone 1istrict. Staff believes this criterion is met. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity o£ the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimeintary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and -~- ~ ~.~ Staff Findine Staff believes the conditional use is consistent aiad compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel and surrounding Iand uses. The property is surrounded by residential uses, including the higher density Lacet Court Townhouses and Alpine Cottages. Staff believes this condition is met. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, .service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Staff Finding The operating characteristics are expected to be similar to those associated with the lodge. No visual impacts are planned or expected as part of this application. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation on Highway 82 maq increase as Aspen Valley Hospital employees occupy the units year around compared to the seasonal occupancy of a lodge: The employees may make fewer trips per day than a tourist during the "on-season" because their daily trips might typically include. to and from work andlar school on weekdays, compared to several trips by a tourist. However, during the off season when fewer tourists occupy the lodge rooms, the lodge residents would likely make more trips than the facility currently generates as a lodge. Residents may also be more likely to walk or bike to and around town or take the bus rather than their cars because they recognize the difficulty of parking around town, "know the ropes" of transit logistics, and the economic value of taking the bus. The Beaumont's parking area may serve more as "car storage" than as a parking lot :because of the close proximity to downtown and RFTA bus stop. 't'rash pick-up is provided on-site and will be on a regular basis. Service delivery is expected to be significantly lower than that for the lodge because tourists often require .more sexvices than residents. Noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties should be no greater than that experienced by the lodge operations, and perhaps less because residents - in this case professional workers -typically create different impacts than tourists and have a greater interest in their property and neighborhood. Staff believes this criterion is met. -s- ~,. ~' ...< ,~ .w,, „.,~ D. There are adequate public. facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and Staff Finding All appropriate utility agencies and the City Engineer were referenced on this application and reported the ability to serve this project. Staff believes this criterion is met. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to .meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Staff Finding The conditional use mitigates itself.. -9- As en Valle Hos ital p Y p Beaumont Site Conceptual PUD Development Application Submitted by: Aspen Valley Hospital c/o John Shied, Director of Engineering 0401 Castle Creek Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 544-1149 C 1 Eu x r. SioaacE ~d By: ing Services in association with Otak, Inc. HLM Design Schmueser Gordon Meyer w .r Aspen Valley Hospital Beaumont Site '~ ~. Conceptual PUD Development Plan Application Submitted bv: Aspen Valley Hospital C/o John Schied, Director of Engineering ~.. 0401 Castle Creek Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 """ (970) 544-1149 ~. ~" February 27, ?004 Prepared by: Lamont Planning Services, LLC Platming Consultants ^^* 725 Melissa Lane Carbondale, Colorado 81623 `~ (970)963-8434 «.. In association with: ~+ Otak, Inc. Urban DesignersiLandscape Architects "°" 36 North 4`~ Street Carbondale. Colorado 81623 HLM Design Architects 820 16`~ Street Denver, Colorado 80202-32 ] 9 `~'" (720)946-0276 Schmueser Gordon Mever Engineer Surveyors 118 W. 6'~ Street r~ Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970)945-1004 ~r w Table of Contents Section Pale I. Introduction 1 II. Project Site 1 III. Project Proposal '- IV. Review Requirements 4 A. Rezoning 5 B. PUD Review 8 C. GMQS Exemption ''-I Appendiz Exhibit 1.Pre-Application Summary Exhibit 2.Ownership Documentation Exhibit 3. Permission to Represent Exhibit 4. Soils Analysis Exhibit ~. Traffic Report/Access Permit Exhibit 6. Engineer Report Exhibit 7. Conditional Use Approval Resolution 57, Series of 2000 Exhibit 8. Previous Deed Restrictions Exhibit 9. Obermeyer Place Ordinance 18, Series of 2003 ~. 0 ~. I. INTRODUCTION The Aspen Valley Hospital (the Applicant) submits the following land use application to the City of Aspen requesting a rezoning to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development ~, (PUD), PUD development review for the construction of 25 affordable dwelling units, and a Growth Management Quota System exemption for affordable housing. In addition, the ~" Applicant would like to request a waiver of tap fees for the development of 100% affordable ,~„ housing for an essential public facility. Please refer to the Pre-Application Conference summary, Exhibit 1. ~. The Hospital purchased the former Beaumont Inn in ?000 for hospital employee housing. Please refer to Exhibit 2 for ownership documentation. The Hospital received a conditional '"" use approval for affordable housing in November of ?000. At this time the Hospital is ~+• interested in pursuing the appropriate land use reviews in order to develop and operate up to 38 affordable dwelling units on the site for Hospital employees. The Applicant's representative is Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning Services. LLC. Permission to represent the Hospital is found in Exhibit 3. The application fee agreement and a list of owners located within three hundred feet were attached to the submittal. .~ ,~, The application is divided into four sections. Section I is a brief introduction to the application. Section II describes the existing conditions of the site and previous land use "' approvals and Section III provides a review of the Applicant's proposal. Section IV ~„ addresses the relevant Code sections and the project's compliance with the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations Title ?6. .~ ~. Upon receipt and review of this application the staff and pertinent review bodies may request additional material. The Applicant will provide any additional material during the time of «~ review of this application. .,„, II. PROJECT SITE The site is located at 1301 East Cooper Avenue. The property is ~3,~-13 square feet and zoned R-15, moderate density w7th a Lodge Preservation Overlay. Currently there is ~„ approximately ?0,979 square feet of floor azea on the parcel. The complex includes a two story building comprised of hvo '~~•ings" connected by a short breeze~vav, a two-story triplex ""' and athree-bedroom modular. Historically a small lodge has occupied the property renting up to 31 rooms. There have ~°" been several land use approvals to expand the lodge which required employee mitigation. The triplex and modulaz were added to the site and deed restricted for purposes of mitigation. "" After the Hospital purchased the property and obtained the conditional use approval they +~ refurbished one of the "wings'' (the Silver building) creating ten deed restricted dwelling units for hospital employees. The triplex (the Garden building) and the three-bedroom ~"" modular aze also occupied by Hospital employees and remain deed restricted units. The +~ remaining lodge structure is not occupied on a permanent basis. ~ Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application February 27.2004 ew rr r:~ The site it located just at the top of the hill and has served as a defining point between Town "" and the east side of Town. The site is relatively flat except at the northern end where the property slopes north down the hill. The property supports a variety of vegetation including lilac bushes, stands of Aspen and some significant coniferous trees. .t. Access to the site is at the top of the hill in the southeast corner off of Highway 82. The ~,. property is bounded by single family residential land uses on the south and west sides, multi- family townhomes on the north side and Highway 82 on the east side. III. PROJECT PROPOSAL The Hospital proposes to construct another 25 employee dwelling units on the Beaumont site ~ for a total of 38 dwelling units on site. In order to accommodate the new development, the „~ Hospital proposes to demolish the older lodge structure which is closest and perpendiculaz to .~ Highway 82 and remove the three-bedroom modular from the site. Those three bedrooms will be replaced within the project as three Category 1 studios. *~ A total of thirteen deed restricted dwelling units located in the refurbished section of the lodge (the Silver Building) and the triplex will remain in their current configuration and deed ~ restricted status: • Five 2-bedrooms at Category 3 • Two 1-bedrooms at Category 3 • One 1-bedroom at Category RO • Two studios at Category 1 • One studio at Category 2 • Two studios at Category 3 Access to the property, off of Highwav 82, will remain at its current location. There aze 38 pazking spaces purposed for the site which provides one parking space per dwelling unit. The current pazking configuration will remain roughly the same however it will be upgraded. The gravel lots will be paved, internal turning radius improved, ADA spaces identified. pedestrian access points defined, and the pazking spaces along the southern boundary may be covered. Please refer to the site plan for further detail. The north end of the property will require significant grading and soils removal. The soils analysis by HP Geotech (Exhibit 4) concludes that there are unstable soils and trash and organics in the land at this end of the site. However, the regrading creates several opportunities for community benefit. Reducing the slopes, combined with the demolition of the lodge building, will negate the need for the large retaining wall that pazallels Highway 82. Removal of the wall will improve the site distance and increase traffic safety at the entrance to the property and enable the expansion of the turning lane on Highway 82. These site improvements will make possible the construction of a public sidewalk connecting to the one that ends on the Lacet property. The Hospital proposes to develop four separate buildings. It is the intention of the Hospital to phase development on the Beaumont site when mitigation is required for future Hospital Beaumont Conceptual PUD Applicuion ~ February 27, 2004 ill ......W. ~~ V ,p ~ b ~ ~ ~ a' b o ~ p~ oV `I.) ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ a ~ ^^`` ~ O W ~ ~ ~~~ o ~ •~ ~~ ~ ~a ~~ '~~ ~~ # r~ w ~~~ ~~~j~ ~~a`~ .. ~~ ~„„ ~~ 1= ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~~ ~ w ~t ~ ~~s ~~ ~ i ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~,~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ bMtik~3~~~! ~. I ~~~~, ~_~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~l~l~l~~~1.1 ~~ m~-• Y ,~ ~r ;~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~' N ~~f :~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ o ~ # _~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ a aa. ~ ~ ~ ,/ ._ ,~ ~~'~~ '~. '~ . Y sly.'Y3.r. ~ ~ ~ ~f•~+~1~' K '~: ~ i ~~ ,l.s ~ ,~.,.. d ~ ~~ ~ r. . ~~pp G w c W A ~ ~ ,, / i ~n ~ ,~~.. ~ „ ~ ~ ~ ` ,' ~ ~ ~ .:~~. ~~ ~~ ~a ~~ i~ ;a~ ~~ ,.~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ; n ~ ~ ti 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ a #~ ' „ ~ ~~ r Y-~yi;~t.'.~f ~ ~o tr 1 c ,k•.'~ :..~. i x f~~ ~ . L ' b ~ ~t~~ 1 ( b p 6{ /. ` ..,~. ~i .. ~ h ® ~ ~~ ~~ ~ •- o ~~ ~~~ '~y ~~ ~~ ~ 8~ a~ ~~ ~~ ti~ v aT ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ i151 p ~~ ~o C 0 .H L q Q4 ~r • I~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ gF~S~A atSj}ooe~^Q®~ ~ U ~8 ~ ~o ~~ ~~ _;~ ~°a N~~s~ ~~~`~~ ~~~~~~a ~~~ ~~~i ~ s~ig#~ ~~~~~~.~ 0 "_'~ a. campus expansions. However the Applicant is aware of the disruptive nature that phased development can have within the neighborhood and to Hospital residents. ,.. ,~,,, Additionally, constructing 25 units in four separate buildings will break up the massing of the buildings and negate the perception of one long building along Highway 82. This is an *` important architectural feature as most of the new development is located on the perimeter of ,,. the site. '"" As stated above, three of the four new buildings are proposed for the perimeter of the site. +r. primarily along Highway 82. This is necessary because half of the buildings ~tizll remain on the property thus confining new development to a specific azea of the property. Further '"~ confining the new development is the current access to the property at the top of the hill. ++~ This cannot be relocated due to safety concerns. The Applicant's commitment to preserving as much of the mature vegetation on the site as practicable also dictates the location of future .~ development. The surrounding neighborhood will benefit from the site design as well. Locating buildings along Highway 82 will create a neighborhood street presence and keep the parking area internal to the site. Furthermore, locating new development along the Highway will reduce the disturbance and changed conditions to existing neighbors. .. „~,,,, At this conceptual phase the following programmatic elements apply to the four new buildings: ~.. • The Cooper Building Location: at the top of the hill, adjacent to the vehiculaz entrance of the property and w. parallel to Highway 82. Number of Units: eight. Type of Unit: two studios, four 1-bedrooms, two 2-bedrooms. Gross Floor Area: 6,400 sq. ft. ^-° Height: the south end of the building is two stories stepping up to three stories in the „~, middle, and back down to two stories at the north end. The maximum height is 27.5 feet to the mid-point of the roof, 32 feet to the ridge. The height of the two story "' sections is 21 feet to the mid-point of the roof, 25 feet to the ridge. ~.. • The Homestead Building "" Location: pazallel to Highway 82 and in the approximate location of the old lodge ++~ building (half way down the hill heading into Aspen). Number of Units: eight. '~"' Type of Unit: four studios, four 1-bedrooms. +~ Gross Floor Area: 5,250 sq. ft. Height: the maximum height is 27.5 feet to the mid-point of the roof, 32 feet to the ridge. """" Notes: the first floor of the Homestead will be garden level and the building is designed to step up the hill reflecting the changing topography of this location. ~ Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application 3 February 27, 20at w~ Ns • The Canal Building Location: at the north end of the property at the toe of the slope. This building is perpendicular to Highway 82 and parallel to the Lacet multi-family building across the irrigation ditch. Number of Units: eight. Type of Unit: five studios, two l -bedrooms, one 3-bedroom. Gross Floor Area: 5,560 sq. ft. Height: the maximum height is 27.5 feet to the mid-point of the roof. X2.5 feet to the ridge. Notes: taking advantage of the grading that is required for this portion of the site, the first floor is garden level. Access to the outside will no be provided at the garden level on the north side in order to reduce noise impacts and increase privacy for the Lacet residents. w The Cresta Building '"" Location: a small three story building, in the middle of the propem• benveen the '~" Homestead, Silver and Garden buildings. ~ m Number of Units: one. Type of Unit: one 2-bedroom. "~' Gross Floor Area: 1,000 sq. ft. m Height: maximum height is ?? feet. As discussed earlier, the majority of the new• development proposed for the site does not have a direct affect upon adjacent neighbors. However, the Canal building is within close proximity to existing neighbors. As the Hospital's proposal was being prepared, the Applicant organized a small neighborhood meeting for the residents of the Lacet subdivision to introduce the project. Several neighbors participated in the meeting at the Beaumont site to review the proposal. Most of the questions and concerns focused on the Canal building and its pro~cimity to the Lacet multi-family buildings. Concerns included landscape screening of the building and the importance of using mature vegetation at the time of installation and most importantly the alignment of the two buildings and impacts to privacy and views. It was suggested that the Canal building be rotated so residents were not looking directly into each other's homes. Phasing and the length of phasing was also a concern as extended construction can be very disruptive. The Applicant appreciates the comments and participation by the neighbors. Rather than amend the site design and building plans prior to submitting the application for public review, the Applicant has elected to submit the application without changes and to discuss all the issues during the public review process. IV -REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The proposed development is subject to rezoning, PUD development review, and GMQS `~` Exemption for Affordable Housing. Each review is discussed below. ,,,,~, Beaumont Conccptual PUD Application ~' February 2'. 2004 4 1~1 wra ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W c~ J ~ ~ I ~ ~ Q Z ~~ ~ z m ~ Z ~ r ~ Z ~ ~' O ~ ~ FF tq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' .J,~ ~ ~ i. ~ F ~ ~ F m ~ ~ LL W 3 Z LL o v a .. ,- ,- ~~ ~~ 0 ~ / ~ i ~ ~ ~ ,` J ti •~'~ 7 % j p j .~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aa~ ~ ~ .~ J ~ / '~ \ i i~ W ~~ _ ~ ' ~ ' %/ `h ~~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ Y % e ~~ ~ ~ Q ~ Z °° ~- V ~- Z a c' a ~/ c Li. 0 ~ O Z W a 0 J W f~.l O W W C~ O 0 J ~- ~ Z •y ,oo ~m ~ .~ -~ a~ W ~Q s ~~ - . U x .~~ ~~ ~'~~~ a~~~~ ~~ W m ~ a Z s Z ~' 0 In ~ _ W O s o~ '-' ~. O~ W °' a. 0 s Z 0 1~cT, W J m ~ W o~ 1- Z ~' 0 °~ is ~~ m `V L_ Z ~ J ~ ~. O W ~ m J F Z 0 ~~ m w~ WWs ~o N ~~ Z a z 1- Z W a 0 W W W W O ~_ Z •~ 0 o~ ~~. ~ .~ -~ ~~ m~ - ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~' ~~~'~ ~ ~~~~ ~ $~ Memo To: Scott Woodford From: Leslie Lamont Date: June 23, 2004 Re: Beaumont -Response to Staff Meeting Comment Memo May 6, 2004 Thank you for the memo documenting staffs comments regarding the Beaumont PUD application and thank you for the opportunity to respond to those comments. I look forward to our review at the P&Z and City Council. As I understand from our conversations, the Community Development staff wanted to review our conceptual application prior to your review memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The May 6'" memo is the result of that staff meeting. Although you and I had a follow up conversation regarding this memo I have summarized my remarks for the file, hence the purpose of this memo. First I want to emphasize that since this application is only the first step in a four step review process and it is a conceptual application we will not be amending the site plan or any aspect of the submitted application prior to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Because we have submitted our application and it has been deemed complete we are in the gathering mode -collecting input from neighbors, staff, and other review agencies, the Housing Authority as well as the P&Z and City Council. It is our intent to pay close attention to the comments and constructive criticism and reevaluate the development proposal based upon these reviews and the conditions of approval from the P&Z and City Council prior to submitting a final PUD application. As a bit of history, I want to reconstruct our efforts prior to submitting the application. Aspen Valley Hospital selected to pursue the four step PUD process rather than a consolidated process for the development of a 100°/o affordable housing project. The Hospital wanted to take advantage of the full public process with staff and community comments prior to committing significant financial resources to a final development plan. Before we submitted the conceptual application we conducted our requisite pre-application conference with James Lindt and met again with Julie Ann and James to discuss height and FAR issues. With Cindy Christensen our architect Steve Carr and I toured a variety of affordable housing developments within the community to understand what elements of the projects work for residents, review final products and appreciate what issues were problematic during review and development of the projects. The AVH team also met with the Lacet Homeowners to introduce them to the project and collect their comments. After we submitted the conceptual application a DRC meeting was conducted. We had our first public review at the Housing Board on April 7, 2004 and received approval with conditions. The AVH team then made a presentation to several Community Development staff members: John N., Amy G., Julie Ann and you. Then your full staff again reviewed the application with notes provided in a May 6'" memo. I provide this history to emphasize that we are attempting to gather as much input as we can and put the puzzle together in a manner that works best for all concerned. With regard to your comments in the May 6th memo, many of the comments are right on and will be incorporated into the next iteration of site planning. I have the following remarks for your specific concerns: Parking - as we have proceeded through the various reviews of this project we realize that the parking plan is tight; particularly when one must consider the handicapped spaces that must be associated with the accessible dwelling units as well as guest parking for the disabled. We have been able to find two additional parking spaces on site, and these will be identified at the P&Z meeting. However, as we have talked, some reviewers have favored less parking due to the proximity to town, RFTA routes and direct connections to the Hospital while other's voiced a concern that the parking is too tight. I look forward to a lively discussion with the P&Z and as I have stated above we are reevaluating the number of parking spaces per dwelling units. Parking Layout -staff commented that the majority of our parking is too far away from the units. This is a good time to remind the reviewers of the various site constraints that the proposed development is attempting to work around: two of the existing buildings will remain on site because they are relatively new and in good condition and the Silver building was recently renovated by AVH to upgrade the lodge rooms to quality residences; there is only one access to the site at the top of the hill and that cannot be relocated due to safety issues; there are several large coniferous trees that will be preserved; and the north end of the site is filled with rubbish and will need to be excavated and hauled away. All these specific features of the site constrain the location of any new development. Keeping the majority of the parking on the south side adjacent to the Riverside neighborhood may not be the most convenient location for Beaumont residents but due to the above stated site constraints and the desire to disturb our neighbors as little as possible have led us to locate parking on this boundary. The fencing will be enhanced as well as perimeter landscaping. Style of Housing/Livability/Site Layout - staff s comments about the style of housing is conflicting. According to your memo a City resident surrey indicated that "stacked units" were preferred but City Council prefers the townhome style such as at Burlingame Parcel D and Burlingame Village. The two Burlingame projects really do not compare as they are being built on vacant land. The Beaumont is attempting to presence significant vegetation, can only use one existing entrance to the property, and is preserving two existing buildings. All this dictates not only the location of the new development but how that development is built to achieve the FAR and housing needs for AVH. Our team has been extremely sensitive to the height of our proposed development due to the surrounding neighborhood. Our buildings do not exceed the height of either the Lacet or Alpine Cottages (the tallest buildings in the immediate neighborhood). Locating parking below the units may compromise our commitment to keep the height of the new buildings as low as possible. In addition, we believe that the building parallel to Highway 82 should stair step up to buffer any visual impacts of a large building at this entrance to Town. Other Issues - we agree that the Cresta Building may not be the most efficient building in the project however at this point AVH has not reevaluated whether the dwelling unit should/could be absorbed into the rest of the project and prefers to gather all the comments from staff, P&Z and City Council before changing the program. The unit proposed for the Cresta is an accessible unit and those specifics will need to be considered for replacement of that unit within the project. Individual sidewalks and sidewalks connecting the intersection of the driveway with Highway 82 will be incorporated into the next site plan- good comments. ~ Page 2 r ~W ~~~ Rye ~~g a ~~p u 5 ° g o ~1Oeg 3~~9 m m 9 g 'm g m ~ w ~ °c N g 9 W ~~ H ~ 8 ~ o Z ~ ~ 5 s Z O O r- H J U o~ W ° ;~ o ~ o- ~ ~ ~~ E.., Z Q W ~ ag H ~ _; l~ ~ J Q W Z W O J W W W rW V O J H ~ Z ~~ o b O~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ P., R~: ~ ~~~~ o ~~ W `'`~~~~ mQ w w - ~, Z ~~ ~ ~ T O ~d ~ C j W ~ ~ U w w 2 U N V _N L U Q C O O) +~ C 'C V C ll IO d U a ~Eg~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ d ~ ~= N L ~.~ g~k o a a m ~ N _r ~~` ~; (1 4h ~A~ E ~ $ ~~g E ~, a~~~ _a ~`$ ~s~~ W ~ $`~ F ~ ~ ~ o 2 ~s~= Z ~ O ~- H qJ V o~ LL W ~ ,~~ ~ m ` O ~ ~ ~ ~N C r N d~ O ~ W ag F- F- - Q z _ ~ a li J aW E- z w o. J W W ' W W C~ O -~ H m z ~~ O ~ ~~ O _gl a~ ~ z "' ~~ ~w"' ~;~~~, a -~ crz `~ C ~' L ~~ ~_I Q ~~ _.wa. w~ T W _ ~ C Z 'C ~ y O O ~ ~ N O m W ~ ~ U w N w U 7 U Ld U Q C O Ol .~ C C ~ N ~ a a a ~~ -:~~~ ~_ _ I ~ ~ , s b~ I ,~ _ ' ~: a ~- ~~ i ~E~~ ~°~~~ d sgi ~ ~ N ` i ~ L R ~~f o a m ~ - ~ ~ v c ~ m J ain A. Section 26.310 Amendment to the Official Zone District Map ' Aspen Valley Hospital requests a change to the official zone district map to rezone the property located at 1301 East Cooper Avenue from R-15 with a Lodge Preservation Overlay to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD). Although the Hospital received a conditional use approval in ?000 to manage affordable housing on the property, the Hospital now seeks to rezone the propem~ so the underlying zone district of AH/PUD compliments the primary use of the propem•. In addition, because ~ affordable housing is a community asset and a community goal, the AH zone district includes a variety of incentives for the development of new affordable housing. At this point in time the Hospital is submitting a long range development plan for the property to solidify in advance for the public and the Hospital the long term use of the property. The Applicant believes that a long range plan is preferable to a piece meal approach in which Hospital affordable housing is approved on a project by project basis. Pursuant Section 26.310.040 the standards of review for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as follows: 1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. *„ Response: Currently, the Hospital manages on site, 13 affordable dwelling units for Hospital employees based upon a conditional use approval granted in November of ?000. This rezoning request is not in conflict with the Land Use Code and is in fact an attempt to bring the property into further compliance with the existing and long term uses of the property. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The Housing section of the AACP states as the intent: Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods, is affordable. and respects our overall community concerns, as expressed in ' the Aspen Area Communit<~ Plan. The Hospital's proposal preserves existing development while blending new development ~" into the overall scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal to construct four new buildings on the site is designed in a manner that compliments the existing structures and does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Locating the new development on the periphery and in the center of the site mitigates to the greatest extent possible impacts to neighbors. ' In addition, existing infrastructure will be improved. For example, water lines will be upgraded and the public sidewalk will extend up the hill. ^ Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application 5 February 27, 2004 Eliminating the existing lodge structure will enable the hillside along Cooper Avenue to be regraded. Recontouring the property in this location will improve travel sight lines for vehicles exiting the property and facilitate the construction of a sidewalk thus providing a missing link in the City's trail network. Most importantly, the rezoning of this property and subsequent development of additional affordable housing represents an increase in the affordable housing inventory within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary and within walkingibiking distance to many city amenities. The property is located on a RFTA bus route with 30 minute headways to and from Ruby Park. Although riders will have to change buses to get to the Hospital those buses operate 20 minute headways. Finally, the Hospital's application is an example of a Special District developing affordable housing to meet the demand for quality, affordable housing within close proximity to employment and community amenities. In review of the Housing Criteria from the Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan, this project complies with the following criteria: • Criteria 1: Community Growth Boundary location • Criteria 2: Proximity to available public mass transit • Criteria 3: "Containable Development'' compatible with neighborhood and does not promote sprawl • Criteria A: Contiguous to existing public facilities and infrastructure • Criteria B: Amenable to transit, bike and pedestrian oriented design (non-automotive) • Criteria C: Visual compatibility with sun ounding area • Criteria D: Optimize the site's development potential • Criteria E: Contribute to the Aspen/Pitkin Counn• Housing Goals • Criteria F: Quality of life: range of income groups, mixed uses, access to open space • Criteria G: Quality of design and construction • Criteria H: Utilize and conserve natural features • Criteria I: Fiscal impacts of site compared to other sites 3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: There are two multi-family affordable housing projects in the vicinity of the Beaumont. Lacet affordable housing is directly to the north of this property and the Alpine Cottages aze located across Cooper Avenue. Although 1/2 of the property is surrounding by low density residential neighborhoods, this property has historically been a pocket of greater densit<• and intensity due to the lodge use. The architectural design is intended to reflect the materials used throughout the neighborhood. The buildings that are closest to the low density neighborhoods will continue Beaumont l'onceptual PUD Applicazion 6 Febntary 27.2004 to exist in their current configuration. New• development is proposed along Highway 8? and adjacent to the multi-family housing in the Lacet subdivision. 4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: According to the traffic analysis conducted by Schmueser Gordon Meyer (SGM), the increase in traffic from 31 lodge units to 38 dwelling units 'will not adversel~~ affect the ~ performance of the (property's) access" (Exhibit 5). In addition removal of the retaining wall and the reduced slopes will increase the sight distance from the northerly direction. These site improvements will also facilitate the extension of the sidewalk up the hill which is a great improvement for pedestrian safety. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not ' limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: According to the Engineering Report by SGM (Exhibit 6), there is ample capacitti• in water, sewer and electric utilities to service the additional dwelling units proposed for the site. A new fire hydrant will be installed near the entrance to service this project. SGM recommends that an existing drywell should be replaced and at least three additional drywells should be installed to address drainage impacts. All miscellaneous utilities have the capacit<• to service the expansion. As stated earlier there is an existing bus route along Highway 82 that will service this project. Residents of this project are Hospital employees thus this housing supports the community's emergency medical facilities. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. ~ Response: The rezoning is intended to reflect the current use and future uses of the site - affordable housing. The use of the site for affordable housing is not incompatible «~ith the historic use and zoning of the property as the impacts of the lodge and the intensit<~ of the lodge use. during the summer and winter seasons, are similar to the needs ofmulti-family ~, housing. The Applicant is committed to preserving as many of the mature trees on site as is practicable. 7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application February 27.2004 7 u Response: Providing quality affordable housing, within Town and within close proximity to ~' community jobs and amenities enhances the balance of the community and supports ~~ community character by enabling residents to live and work in the same community. 8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: The Hospital received a conditional use approval in 2000 for this site to provide `'~ deed restricted dwelling units for Hospital employees. There are two other properties zoned ~, AH directly adjacent to and across the street from this property. ~ 9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Response: Based upon the previous discussion of the project within this section. it would appear that rezoning the property to AH/PUD for the development of more affordable housing is within the best interest of the community and through the PUD review process will be found to be in "harmony'' with this Title. B. Section 26.445.050 Review Standards Conceptual Planned Unit Development Rezoning the property to Affordable Housing requires a PUD review process to establish ~'" most of the dimensional requirements for this zone district. Pursuant to Section 26.445.050 the following review standards shall apply: 1. Genera! requirements. ~+ a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: Rezoning the property to AH/PUD is consistent with the AACP in that the AACP recommends development of affordable housing within the urban gro~~th area. In addition, the Housing section of the AACP encourages the development of affordable housing by the private sector. Although he Hospital is a special district established to provide a public service, the Hospital is not relying upon City or County affordable housing funds to develop the Beaumont propem• for housing for Hospital emplo}~ees. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: Prior to the Hospital's purchase the former lodge went through several ,~ expansions. New buildings and additional lodge rooms were constructed as well as four units of deed restricted housing for lodge employees. .,,1 Lacet subdivision, adjacent to the property on the north side, was one of the first developments to take advantage of the newly adopted AH zone district that stipulated a 70/30 affordable housing to free market residential unit mix. Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application Februan 27.2004 g M ~,~, U r= 1O •5 c ~~ o ~ Z a a 0 a J W O Z W a O J W W O W d- o~ ~ II V 0 .~ U ~, a~ Q r 'c W C~ O~ J H ~ Z ~~ O o ~. ~_; a~ ; ~ ~ ;~ a-~~~ W -o ~~ ~. m Q . w --- Z .~ ~o T ~ W ~ . to ~ U w rn w f x U N 7 N C L Q C C C ~ ~ LL a .~ a a ~~~~, ~ ~~j ~~ ~~~~t o ~ a~~ =g V ~ w J Ur o V ~ U a c ~ > y Z Q Q ~ .y w m o c o a ~ m w 0 m o c c o (n ~ O V o ~~ d ~~ u ~ a p~ a 1 w E c ~ ' ~ a 'a ~ ° 3 v ry 0 ~ 1'i o `o p o 0 m ~ 3 0 0 c c o m m A 3 ~ LL v ~ C A ~ C ~ ~ ~, ; 3 ~ 0 0 c ~ m 3 € o o a c « c a a ~ m ~ V O fq F F 2 V /~ m m fv ~ ~. O j' ~ F = ci / a R Z ~~ q J i V ~~ ~~ ~~ :~~ ~~ ~~ M d N M j N ~ N Q ~ c ~ J . ~ c~ ° ~~ O I Y m ~ z ~ `~ J Z Q Q o~ J ~ ~~ 0 Q a ~N /A 'n C Z Q Qo Z N N ~- z a d Q LL r Z 5W O J W W O W W C~ O J H ~ Z ~~ ~' 0 O~ ~ _ ~' a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,~~a ~~~ Q ~ „n~d-~ ~ ~r C7 . e.}"""`r+~ ~ ;~ ..~- w --- Z ~~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ m O C 7 W ~ ~ U w N w x U N d U N t Q C O O1 C 'C V C 11 d V a a ° BE~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~€g~ ~d N ` ~ °' N ~8~~} o C m ~ ~ ~ N Z V J Z J w ^O LL _ ~ _ P1-122_ ~~ X52 ~'a ~ ~ W.~W~~ ~ ~.g ~' ~~ ' E ~ H m~ v~~ E E A E~ E~ ~ ~E P E ~~ c' E E~~ E b~$ E E~ E E mWBm~ 33=~ & 2 Y~Rm • SSS6A e$ ># 3888E~~.ag~~£~gm~~`S m`Eze~Eom~S Y Y'ccc o°~'~@2m2 ~c~oo':~:~'~~~CeE~~ ~~ L°E'~E5 Sj E ~'~g<c~'x $.Y ~+`m eo m ~.~s~~~mq mmm m m t aiaaa aa¢wa~a ~i¢zaz`ssNN~uaac~N i¢¢¢¢¢¢¢o~8oowwc~c~xs >~azNNxoad~i '~ • ty - ____ _ _ _ ~ y ~ ~ y y ~ ? ~` ~ 8 E ~ m ~ o U ~ > r'p c E P 'c E ~ ~ ~ > ~ 6 ~> ~ 'c gg ~ m~ _~ ~ ~ p g ~ -~ E> ~ m ~` °c 2~ g E o z R i E ~ c ` c?aau ~ c4 L ~"~ m ~ $$ @ c ~~ ~>~-gy Og ~ ~ !~~- c ~j~ c ~ ~.'c_.2 ~;$ j ~'q ~$mvN `o-~u _ 3. OI`o2~pp$ y`~ ~`~~~5 ~g~~a w..vUS~~ E~.3 ~~~V ~a€v~~,En~~"~m~~EOSgmE~mc~~~~'$ ~ a @om a 'V c m m °~ ~ ~daR E$ ~ ~ 3 ~••E ~ n ~- E .~~E m: 2~c ~ >,cn=' ~g ~ m nY;~ ~~ ''c > a`o 8 m~~o~Fe~ r ~3'mOa~ ~.nJ~sm~B~~n~ 9 `~~~a°~~~o°mmme2';~~ ~~8aaa~'- W w` Uam G z ozc9uuu N ca ~N3aNarRN ic43aKN2NV ~a~3~4~m~obm a'm mo =N~U ammNm _cz a M 7 m io c d m ~ c ~ O ~ ~ N c U o ~ ~ •~ ~ m ~ o H ~ F y ~ ~p01111/(~j~~ ~-. y p O y ~ O ~///Ill~~uu~~ w t ~ N W Vl - W W 9~su Q J a W Q Z J Z Wra a O J W W O W OC o~ ~ 11 Uy C N o Q n N LL W C~ O O J H ~ Z ~~ O o _ ~ ~ , ~~ w ., ~ .~ a ~ ~;~ ,~~~ ~~ i ~ ~" ~ W L Q i v«i i + . „ ___ ~ c Z '~ ~ ~ O O ~ N V. G j W ~ ~ U w w 2 U c 0 rn~ c = ~c N LL d V d J a ~ES~ ~~~~~ m ggi ~ d l mt N ` ~~! o ~d a m ~ ~ J Q W W V/ W EL~I/I1 LL ~ g ~~og 9 E m ~' d $`TsJ 8 C~ p 3 ~ m `~.4o ICO m 8 c~~ ~ ~ m ~' W C ~ S ~ ~ ~ m a ~ $ .y ~ N y W $ % _ - E ` M G v " - ~ n $ t m ~ ~ a ~ m ~ `m m o E .: $ 3 g ~ d O ~- rn E ~~ `~ @ ` ~ A N N m ~ o ~ c m '~° c m ` ~ ~ . . o _ x ~ c~''9 n m - n c a o ~~ ~6 a y~ 3 o ~ m$ ~ c O ? s /~~~/Gi1~~ o' m _ t a t _ ~ O ~ ~ _ c ~ ~ L > y ~ m E F m m 3 "^ r ~ ~ °u 3 tt ~ N M v1 ~.. a~ U ~ C C ~ N C ~ X ~ ~ h V o ~ Z Q a ~ J Q o~ ~ II ~_ o ~~ U ~, W O o Q ~ C W ao ~ ~ ¢N W W 2 W W `~ `~ LL r r Z 5W O J W W O W w r w - ~, Z ~- ~, o m~ _~ W ~, - ~> ~ U w w x U !n ~qq N U _N L U Q C O m C 'C U C ~ (0 ~ d U J a ~~~~ s~E~~~ ~ see '~'SGS~ C N ~9~ ~L rG N O s.~_°,3'~ ~ Q C N N d ~ ~ ~ ' Alpine Cottages is across Highway 82 from Lacet and is another AH project v~7th deed restricted units and free mazket units. ' The south and east sides of the property that aze adjacent to the Riverside subdivision, and the single family area of the Lacet subdivision will not be disturbed. thereby reducing any construction impacts to those two neighborhoods. The most significant changes to the property occur along Highway 82. The residential neighborhood on the other side of the Highway is situated well above the project site. As will be reviewed in the Establishment of Dimensional Requirements 26.445.050 B. section, the site planning and design of the new structures have been done with the ' surrounding neighborhood in mind. Significant changes to the property occur on the Highway 82 side of the property, mature vegetation is preserved to the greatest extent practicable and the building elevations along the highway step down the hill to minimize ~ visual impacts. For the Canal building the building's first floor is garden level and there is no outside space planned for this first level (on the north sidel to respect the privacy of Lacet residents and future residents of the Hospital's project.- c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The proposed development is contained on site and is not dramatically different than what was on the site when the property operated as a lodge. d. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Response: The proposed development seeks a GMQS exemption for the development of 100% affordable housing. 2. Establishment ojDimensional Requirements. The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions. Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During reviev~• of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 2a. Proposed Dimensions for this Project The following dimensions are proposed: 1. Minimum Lot Size: 53.543 square feet or roughly 1.23 acres. With slope density reduction the lot size for FAR purposes is 50.320.4. ^ Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application February 27.2004 9 2. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit: studio - 400 sq. ft. (as stipulated in the LUC) 1-bedroom - X00 sq. ft. 2-bedroom - 1000 sq. ft. 3-bedroom - 1500 sq. ft. 3. Maximum allowable density: 16 studios @ 400 sq. ft each =6400 sq. ft. 13 1-bedrooms @ 500 sq. ft. each = 6500 sq. ft. 8 2-bedrooms @ 1000 sq. ft. each = 8000 sq. ft. 1 3-bedrooms @ 1500 sq. ft. each = 1500 sq. ft. Total 38 dwelling units 22,400 sq. ft. of lot area required for the number & mix of dwelling unit proposed by AVH. 4. Minimum Lot Width - N/A the 1.23 acres is not being subdivided into smaller parcels. 5. Minimum front vazd -along Highway 82: 10 feet* 6. Minimum side Yazd - on the north side: 5 feet*; on the south side adjacent to Riverside Subdivision: 3.5 feet the first '/z of the property boundar}' and 1 foot the second '/z of the property boundary, provided covered parking is constructed. If parking is not covered than the setback will remain at 5 feet. 7. Minimum rear yard - on the west side: 10 feet* 8. Maximum site coverage - 18,200 square feet (.42 acres) or 34% of the site 9. Maximum height - 27.5 feet to mid-point of roof and 32.5 feet to top of ridge. 10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot - 7.4 feet 11. Minimum percent open space required for the building site - 18,878 square feet (.43 acres) or 35% of the site 12. Trash access azea: 135 square feet and includes trash dumpsters and recycling bins 13. Allowable floor area - 30,192 square feet or a ratio of .6:1. The proposed floor area of the project is .6:1. 14. Minimum off-street parking spaces - 38 spaces *These setbacks were established when the property became a Lodge Preservation Overlay and are not being changed with this proposal. 2b. Review Standards: The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: Beaumont Conceptual PIJD Application February 27.2004 10 ~ t l~ a. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: i) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. ii) Natural or man-made hazards. lr iii) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. ' iv) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Response: The site is very limited for new development: approximately SO% of the existing development on the project site will remain in its current configuration, the entrance to the property cannot be relocated, there is mature vegetation that the Applicant is committed to preserving to the greatest extent practicable, and it is the Applicant's desire to disturb the least amount of neighbors as possible. Thus most of the new development is located on the periphery of the site. In addition, the Hospital is interested in building an amount of affordable dwelling units on the site that will meet their long term employee housing needs. Therefore, a majority of the new buildings are three stories. Although the site presented various challenges and is somewhat constrained for new development, the site planning for this project as well as the design of the buildings attempted to the greatest degree possible to respect the surrounding neighborhood. To the south of the property is the Riverside subdivision. Except for possibility of covered parking, no development is proposed for this side of the property. In this location, the side yard setback has been reduced to 3.5 feet for the first half of the property boundary and 1 foot for the second half of the property boundary in the event covered parking is built along the south propem~ boundary. However, if covered parking is not constructed the setback will remain at 5 feet. Pursuant to Section 26.S7S.040 A.. surface parking can be within an established setback if the parking is part of an approved parking plan. The setback for the west property boundarv_ will remain S feet as established with the Lodge Preservation Overlay. ~ On the north property boundary the S foot side yard setback is also the same as the setback established with the previous Lodge Preservation Overlay zone. However, the Canal ' building places development closer to the adjacent multi-family housing of the Lacet Subdivision than the previous uses on the property. Although the established setback is S feet, the actual setback of the new building averages 12 feet. The setback for the Lacet ~ btuldine is 10 feet. The design of the Canal building was influenced by its close proximity to the neighbors. There is no outdoor living space proposed for the ground floor on the north side. Significant vegetation is proposed to replace the few aspens that will be lost as well as to enhance the existing vegetation that is preserved. The height of the Canal building is approximately the Beaumont Conccptual PIJD Application February 27.2044 same as the Lacet building. Although the issues of building orientation were raised at the neighborhood meeting, the Applicant would like the opportunity to discuss the building with staff and public review bodies before considering possible site planning changes. The majority of new development is proposed for the azea of the propem~ that parallels Highway 82. Approximately one third of the two buildings along the Highw•av are 25 feet high at the mid-point which is consistent with height limit of the surrounding R- I S zone district. Two-thirds of the buildings aze 27.5 feet to the mid-point and 32 feet to the top of the ridge. The Canal building, across from the Lacet residents is 27.5 feet to the mid-point and 32.5 feet to the top of the ridge. b. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Response: As stated previously in this application the design of the project considered the mass and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. The height of the Lacet building is 31 feet to the top of ridge and the Alpine Cottages multi-family dwelling units across the street are 30 feet to the ridge for the buildings along Highway 82. Many of the condominium developments along Cooper Avenue aze three story buildings. Although these aze closer to downtown, it is a predominate scale along Cooper Avenue. The Beaumont buildings aze designed to step down the hillside following the grade along Highway 82. At the entrance to the property the Cooper building, at two stories, is designed to emulate other residential structures along the Highway. Pazking is internalized on the site and the majority of the open space is on the periphery buffering development from adjacent neighbors. There is 35% open space on the site. c. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: i) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. ii) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. iii) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. iv) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Response: The number ofoff=street pazking spaces is 38; one for even dwelling unit. The Applicant believes it is important not to under park the project. It is also important to provide a parking space for every unit because night shifts make RFTA or riding a bike to work impracticable. However, because the Hospital operates azound the clock it is unlikely Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application 12 February 27.2004 ' that all residents will be at home at once thus guest parking or overflow should not be a problem. ' The project site is on a RFTA route with 30 minute headwavs to Rubv Park. The project is also a comfortable distance for one to ride their bike to work utilizing the City's bike path ~ system. d. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may rt. be reduced if: i) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. ii) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Response: N/A ' e. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a ~ PUD may be reduced if: i) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. ii) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. iii) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. iv) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful ' disturbance to critical natural features of the site. ~~ ~ , Response: N/A ~ Q~ ~,,~ ~~~~i~ -~~~ ~`oG ~,a,o~~ f. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: i) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. ii) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. iii) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application February 27.2004 13 Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying zone district as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective zone district or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a Final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. Response: A maximum allowable density is not established for the AH zone district; the density is determined via the PUD review process. However, the zone district does provide a minimum lot area per dwelling unit, depending upon the type of dwelling unit i.e. studio or 1-bedroom etc., as guidance. According to Section 26.710.110 D. Note #1 the square feet of lot azea required for this project is 22,500 square feet. (Please refer to Section IV.B.2a. for maximum density calculations.) The size of the property well exceeds the lot area required for the number of dwelling units. The property is approximately 53,543 square feet. A slope reduction analysis reduces the size of the property to 50,320.4 square feet. Slope Reduction Calculations Slone Area Reduction Net Area 0%-20% 49,488.9 none 49,488.9 21%-30% 890.9 50% 445.5 31%-40% 1,544.7 25% 386 40%< 1,587.7 100% none Total 53,512 +/- 30' 50,320.4 3. Site Design. The purpose of this standazd is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentan~ to the site' s natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public" s health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: a. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Response: The Applicant and the development team plan to re-use existing landscape materials (red sandstone ornamental stones) on-site. There has also been a concerted effort in design of the buildings and building's placement to retain existing mature vegetation. These tvvo design features will help recall the site's past. In addition the entryway signage design and materials intend to reflect historic elements of the site. The architectural designs will compliment existing site topography and the new grading of the site. Taking advantage of the necessity to remove large amounts of soil and debris from the northern end of the site, the Applicant will be able to extend the public sidewalk southeast through the site. (This has been a goal of the City's for quite sometime.) Beaumont Conceptual Pi?D Application 14 February 27.2004 Q o~ N ~ v N o L C C .D n L ~ Z v ~ ~~~~ a a a` v~ g ~`$g ~~~D~ ~~~~~ rvn _.. h 0 Z ~ ~ 41 .. O ¢ u U y N 8~ ~J Z a . W a V a $ O` N y ~ `~ _~' EE y ~ O O a c m~ tiz` ~ ~ ~ > o e e e d £ E F L E E S i~ ~ $~ ~ ~;~ $ ~ L ~ ~ $ ~ ~ z k ° ~ o ~' '~ o ~ 'o o ~ ~~m ~ .E". c ~ u ~ W n ~ o ° ~ ~ ~" _ ~ e~ ~ " ~ Ci °py v.w a y] ~ ~ v ~ ° ~ ~9 U rv " m m ~j z; v~~ ~ r7 E~ ; a O T_ N b N V a~ u A N V V (~ ~ .. a~OO 'e'ta ~ ~~oh `gym > w~ P .S G ~ C C 9~ [r N L a y G p ~ D o ~ o p 'D o O v W $U LQ y c'3 ~ a'U ~ B =- ~' ~ ~ m a u e 4 v p o e r .~ ~~ '_~' a N M a mm io c ~m ~ O h m U O ~ Z J ~ o~ ~ ~I `o O - a ~~ J J ~o Q N Z `W 2 O LL Z W i~ a O J W W O W W C' J E- ~ $. Z o O~ c_ G ~ ( ~„ ~ ~~~~~ Q ~ j~C°~ M i 4^~~~~ W Q '_~~~ w --- m z •c ~ y `a 0 O C N ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ U w N w S U U N L V Q C O C .C •U G l0 ~ LL d U a ~~~~ ~ ~~; ~gg j Ti j ~~ ~ m- jA L N ~ aa~~f o C N ~. ~ N 0 ~a~~ ~~ ° ~ ~~~~ c~ b ~ ~~~N° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 4 ~~~~$~~~~~~ o ~' ~ ~~88g ~ ~ \ ` ' .fly ~~~ o ~ +., ~88oc , Z e 0 ~ ~ ~~~~ V `~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~hHh Il (~~ `V ~~6^ ^ (~''~ T_l `IV O O ~.1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~''' ~~ ~ ~ $. ~~ ~ ~ C~ ~~~ ~i ~ M ~ ~ ni t f ~ oX•• { ~,~ ~ ~ ~ (~ Ui..~E '~~ ~n NL, ;~ W `co~8 g' ' 8 ~Na~`o~ a w,g ~~ ` ~ Wr~~no~ ~~~ '-'` '; ~ n ~ co v t v wy,~~~ paoao~y ~ = 3 ; o m M,{,vu,l +, ~ U~mn~E 5 r ~,. w "' ^~,. ice'"' "".- ~`"""--. ~ ~ ~ • .... W tl b~ 4 ~ i ~~ a ~r J ~ ~~ ~~ ~l~`~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~a~ e$~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ c ~ '1' / .. .. ..f % t ~ l .ti +~~ ~ ~ vh {~ ~ i ~, rr And the site will incorporate the City of Aspen ornamental streetlight fixtures along Cooper Ave. ... b. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. ~, Response: Clustering of residential structures will provide intimate interstitial spaces for residential gazdens and passive uses. View corridors to Ajax Mountain and Smuggler 'A" Mountain aze maintained as much as possible. ~. c. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or ~'" rural contest where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of ~. vehicular and pedestrian movement. '""' Response: The buildings aze sited adjacent to Highway 82 to internalize surface parking, minimizing it from public view. The proposed Homestead and Cooper buildings relate ground floor patios to the grade of extended sidewalk, encouraging neighborly social ~` exchange. The extension of Highway 82 sidewalk will have a better relationship with the street with the elimination of the tall retaining wall on site and removing the wall will improve the sight distance looking west for vehicles entering and exiting the site. """ d. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and _ service vehicle access. "~" Response: The development team met with the Aspen Fire District to better understand ,~, strategies for emergency access to the site and the site plan addresses their recommendations. These include a 6 foot wide pedestrian access path between the Canal Building and "~' Homestead Building, radius and paving provisions for fire vehicle access and turnaround into ~., and within the site. e. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Response: Two ADA accessible parking spaces are identified on the site plan. Site grading is compliant with ADA access to designated units. „~ f. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. ~, ,~„ Response: Off-site drainage will continue at predevelopment flows with the use of drywells installed on site. 0 g. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriateh~ designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: There will be adequately designed space to accommodate one enclosed dumpster structure. rr Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application 15 Febrttary 2i. 2004 ~.. rr 4. Landscape Plan. m The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the ~ visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: "r a. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Response: Programmed commons spaces- phased with development- will be provided for residents' use. The site design and building design have been sensitive to the necessity to preserve to the greatest extent practicable existing plant materials- especially mature trees. Proposed tree material selections include hardy species as well as ornamentals for seasonal interest and historic (Victorian) homage. b. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. "" Response: The architecture compliments the sloping hillsides along the north (Excel) and east (Highway 82) side yards. A significant preservation effort has been made to protect existing spruce, aspen and Douglas fir tree species. c. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Response: A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with the final PUD application and the Applicant intends to work ~~~ith the Parks Department on tree mitigation measures. During construction orange construction fencing with metal support posts at dripline of the protected tree will be provided. ,after construction the Aspen Valle}~ Hospital will provide routine maintenance and servicing of landscape materials. including weed abatement, for the site. S. Architectural Character. .~ It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, ~-ariety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitabilit,~ of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, r~,; orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be ~"' approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan. which ,.r adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: *~" m Beatunont Conceptual PUD Application 16 tri February 27, 2004 a. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate .W to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby ,~, historical and cultural resources. ®' Response: The project is compatible with the local character of Aspen. It recalls the late ~,. nineteen century, mining town, stick style Victoria architecture that is common in Aspen. We accomplish this through the use of "small" scale, single family residential massing, '"" vertical proportionment of openings and the buildings themselves, rich color, and detailing .~, that recall local historic nuances. We also propose the use of materials such as local stone to anchor the buildings in masonry, lap siding, and metal roof materials, all of which are '"' common to this neighborhood and region. This project does not attempt to replicate the historical aspect of the azchitecture; it instead is an interpretation with a more contemporary edge as is also common to the Aspen valley. In addition to breaking the building facades into ~'~ sepazate smaller, more vertically proportioned planes, the building massing steps with the .. topography, which provides for frequent breaks in the roof lines and facade massing which is also a common characteristic of this hilly end of the Aspen valley. ~. "` b. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage ,~ of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- orless-intensive mechanical systems. ~. ~„ Response: The buildings aze oriented to prevailing breezes in order to encourage natural ventilation while enclosing the interior site to provide weather protection with entries that '~' collect around a central court yazd with good southern solaz exposure. All units have a front and back exposure allowing them to be opened up seasonally and encourage breezes to pass through the buildings and minimising or eliminating any potential need for mechanical air ~.. conditioning. The central court yazd concept also allows for better community interaction -~ and security by putting activity and eyes into a common area and allows for better screening of pazking areas from the street. The buildings trace the site perimeter, presenting a properly scaled building facade on the street and canal edges. The site planning has also integrated ~°° the existing mature coniferous trees and other vegetation (see the landscape narrative), which ~, will promote summer cooling. ~" c. accommodates the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and ,~„ appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. ""' Response: The project's metal shed roofs will shed snow to the front and back sides of the ..~ units. Secondary roofs at front doors and balconies will shed snow away from pedestrian areas and into landscape areas. Parking azeas have been kept relatively contiguous for ease ~" of snow removal and large landscape areas have been preserved for stock piling snow. Water ~ runoffwill be managed on site with drywells. '~ Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application February 27, 2004 1 ~ :.., trr ~r 6. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an "'~ appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The m, following standards shall be accomplished: a. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. b. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Response: No lighting of the site or building features is proposed other than what will be required for safety. The development's exterior lighting will comply with the standards of `" Section 26.575.150. Pursuant to Section 26.575.150.D, a detailed lighting plan will be submitted for review and approval with the final PUD application. 7. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: a. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Response: Located at the site of the last structure to be built, the Cresta Commons concept will provide needed residential open space within the project with potential seating, play and barbecue uses. With eventual site buildout. the residential common area would be relocated to the west side of the existing Silver building with views toward Ajax Mountain. b. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each tot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Response: All open space on the property shall be considered "Common Area'' for all residents. The Applicant does not intend to provide public open space or recreational space within this project. c. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. m Beaumont Conceptual PliD Application 1 g February 27.2004 P„',-1 ~~. Response: PUD maximum coverage protects the proposed open space from future `~` development. However, it is proposed that the Crests building will eventually occupy the site of an interim park area, the Crests Commons. Aspen Valley Hospital will support on- going maintenance. 8. Utilities and Public facilities. ~, The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not unpose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified "^ financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development „~,,,, shall comply with the following: "' a. Adequate public infrastructure facilities ezist to accommodate the development. ,.. Response: The Beaumont Inn site is located within the City of Aspen and is currently served °'" by all primary and secondary utilities. Capacity is available from all of the necessary utilities to serve the additional units proposed. The site is also located on Highway 82 with an existing driveway access that will be upgraded by the proposed expansion for affordable `~" housing. b. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. „~, Response: No adverse impacts on existing public infrastructure aze anticipated by the expansion of the Beaumont Inn site for affordable housing. The proposed development will ""` be adding a fire hydrant adjacent to Highway 82 to the benefit of other adjacent properties .~, and will be removing several old service taps on area utility mains to the benefit of those facilities. ... c. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Response: No oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are proposed in „~, anticipation of future development in adjacent areas. *~ 9. Access and Circulation. ,~,,, The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational "" trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of ,~, the development shall meet the following criteria: "" a. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public r street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. ~. +~ Response: There is a single vehicular access to the property off of Highway 82 at the southeast comer of the property. The access is located near the crest of the hill. This access '~ Beaumont Conccptual PUD Application 19 February 27, 2004 w s will not change. According to the traffic study performed by Dan Cokley, P.E. of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (Exhibit ~ ), this access is adequate to accommodate the increased ~`" number of trips generated by 38 dwelling units. (The study is required for this application „~,,, and an Access Permit application is required by CDOT.) In past reviews of proposed development on this site, the steep hill and existing retaining wall have caused concern for adequate sight distance in the westerly direction. For the posted speed limit, 25mph, the sight distance is adequate however, for a vehicle traveling 30 to 35 mph the required sight distances are not met. The Applicant proposes, for a variety of reasons already mentioned in this application, to regrade the project site adjacent to Highway 82. The grades of the hillside on the north end of the property will be significantly reduced and the retaining wall mill be eliminated. As a result the sight distances will be greatly improved. The Applicant proposes to construct a sidewalk along the property's boundary along Highway 82. There are two pedestrian accesses proposed to connect the project to the new sidewalk. At the north end of the property the Fire District has requested pedestrian access that is at least 6 feet wide to accommodate emergency personnel on foot. Another pedestrian "" access point is proposed half ~vav up the hill connecting the middle of the site to the ~ sidewalk. b. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Response: As discussed in the access Permit report, which includes a traffic study, the r increased traffic will not negatively affect the performances on the access. However, the Applicant is seeking an Access Permit from CDOT due to the increased traffic of the ~. proposed development. The Applicant intends to secure that permit upon final approval of the PUD. c. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or „ connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trait system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail *~' easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. rrr Response: As discussed above, the Applicant intends to construct a public sidewalk along Highway 82 for the entire length of the Applicant's property. This extension of the City's sidewalk network is an important missing link and greatly improves safety. d. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. ..~- Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application ~Q February 27.2004 .- ~~ ~~~ ~_ ~ ~ w ~ NLLN 0 ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ J r r ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ oN ~~I ~ ~ o 0 ~g~~ ~~gJ~ooo~~Q ® a m t~ `~` U~ c ~ r c d c aci a ~~ ~ Q~ 0 7 N Z m ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ U~ 2 ~ LL ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ .. ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ Z ~..~ ~ ~ W _~, ' i ` ~ W ' ~ ~ '_._~ Q ~,~ \ W .~-~ ~, ~,, `' ~ o r a O ~ J '~~ ~ rn a ~ c ,~,.~k ~~ uoisin ip qns apisaan icy -xLO--xvo-~wo-8-'-••-"~ ~ l "~.,; aaz •~r e r~ ~ - ~. ~ _ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~m ~~ ~~ ~~ ii~,~~ ,f s ae ~ ae1 ~. ~~~ 2i8L ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~, - j '~ N ~~,,1~`y ~ ~ ~a .~.~ ~~"' ~ a~~l ``-~ ~ rt S '~ X78 ll S ae ~ J=- s _~ ae ~ .09'0091 • • • •. ~na13 ano3 ~'' ~ ,trL'886 s 9g~ ,o,9c~ ~n13 .~00~3 }s[ ~°° ~~~ 0C'µ ~~t / O~ G ~ w / ~ ,LL'L00 ,64'866 ~Q"~' ~m ai3 ano3 'nt3 uooi~ }s1 fio~ C°~ JQ 6unyaHp ,9l'6lOl m nal3 'Toad tootl ~,p .SZ'066 m ^al3 ~I~aO uo ana ~eC / 0 w -° C .~ C ~ C LL l0 d V a ~~~~~ m ~~ U Ol L ~~~~F v a ~v C J #~, ~; , W ~ '~ - ~ ~ m Q `~..~:. >; ~. ~., '7 J"` ~ ~ .,- ~~ ~ ,; ~ ~ m t •. ~ `o 2 \ ~'" , ~ d 1 ~ ~ t \ ~~: '\ ~~ f W N w ` f as ~ i L /, Q ~ i .~ ~ ~ o°~ J ~~ 1 OF' ^° / 0°' ¢~ /~~ `F ' o . '~' ~ o~i °m / 4 / >a ~ / O i ~Q W /~o° iN i~ N D~ y' ~4m / S P III _ o W II ~ O b a 0 ~k m Response: The proposed sidewalk will add a missing connection to the City's trail network. In addition, the project is located on a RFTA Mountain Valley route. Because of the •. convenient bike and pedestrian access to Town and location on a RFTA route with 30 minute ~, headways, the pazking plan provides one space per dwelling unit. °~ e. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ~,,, ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Response: The parking area has been designed to support emergency access and trash removal. +~- f. security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for tots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. .., +~ Response: There aze no security gate or guard posts planned for this project. However, on either side of the entryway low 3 foot tall walls are proposed to define the driveway and designed as landscape features that will be subtle in nature. The walls tie into and are of '~'~ similaz material as the patio privacy walls found along the buildings that parallel Highway ,,,,, 82. ~"' C. Section 26.470.070.) Growth Management Quota System Exemption ,., Pursuant to Section 26.470.070.) of the City's Land Use Code the proposed development is exempt from the GMQS competition and scoring procedures. The Applicant intends to `"~ construct 25 affordable dwelling units in accordance with the housing guidelines and review ~. standazds of this section. The City Council and its housing designees shall consider the following standards of review ~• when considering an exemption request: ~. the city's need for affordable housing; *R compliance with applicable community plans; ~,,,,, the proposed location, number, type, size, rentaVsale mix, and price/income restrictions of the affordable housing units; and ~'" phasing of affordable housing unit production in relation to impacts being mitigated through ~,,, such provision. '""' 1. Affordable Housing History of the Project Site .~. AVH purchased the former Beaumont Inn in 2000 and received a conditional use approval (Resolution 57, Series of 2000, Exhibit 7) to operate the 31 lodge rooms as affordable "" housing. In compliance with the conditional use approval, the hospital was required to deed +~• restrict the utits to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. Deed restrictions were recorded at the time the hospital remodeled one of the structures converting and upgrading "~ existing lodge rooms into 10 dwelling units; one of the units was brought into ADA +~+ compliance. ... ~' Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application February 27, 2004 21 wr ~tw Previous owners of the lodge were required, as part of expanding lodge operations. to provide employee mitigation. In 1987 an occupancy and rental deed restriction was recorded '~" that deed restricted three dormitory style units to Category 1. In 199?, a new owner ~ remodeled the lodge and built a triplex for employee housing purposes. Athree-bedroom modular unit was located on site to replace the three dormitory units in the lodge. Today the '~" triplex includes a Resident Occupied one-bedroom unit, a Category 3 studio unit and a ~„ Cate>?orv 2 studio unit. The modular is deed restricted to Category 1. Please refer to Exhibit .- 8 for those documents. Currently the renovated units, the triplex and the modular are the only occupied units on a .~ consistent basis and are the only units with recorded deed restrictions. Amore complete description of the existing units is as follows: '""* Table 1 Ezistin~ Units Unit Number Type SQ. Ft. Category _ 100 ?-br. + fN~ 949 3~'`. , , `~, 101 2-br. 949 3 ~ ~~ ~-tv d ~ o ~. ~ '~ 102 studio~l? 296 1 103 1-br. ~,1 745 3 = '' ~~`~~~ '~ ' y, 104 1-br. 786 3 ~ ,~; 200 ?-br. 1.004 3 201 2-br. 1,004 3 202 ~ studio 296 1 ~, 303 2-br. 1,145 3 ~~ 304 __ studio _. 508 3 ~~, Triplex 1-br. '.'S0 RO ` ~ studio 3 studio ' Modular 3-br. 364 1 2. Current Proposal The Applicant proposes to construct 25 affordable dwelling units. 34 of the units ~~~ill be deed restricted to Category 4 and one studio unit will be deed restricted to Categotl• 1 ~t~hich will replace a Category 1 bedroom when the existing modular is removed. The units ~~~ill be deed restricted in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County housing guidelines. The Hospital is proposing Category 4 for the ne~~~ dwelling units because Categon' 4 wE provides the most rental flexibility for the Hospital. AVH employee compensation is wide i„I„ ranging due to the variety of skills required at the Hospital. If units are deed restricted to lower categories then some employees may exceed the income limits. u"~' Although, the housing authority provides a process to amend the designated categories, the Hospital, like many businesses in our resort community, must recruit employees on a '" seasonal basis twice a year. It would be inefficient to request from the Housing Authority .r chances to rental rate structures at least twice a year. Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application ~ ~ '~ February 27.2004 _~ . .., are aw Historically, the Hospital has rarely charged the maximum rental rate for their units. *~• Obviously, the Hospital cannot charge more for a unit if it exceeds what an essential ,~ employee is paid. In addition it would be unfair to undercharge an employee that has the ability to pay Category 4 rental rates. Therefore, the Applicant proposes the Category 4 *~ classification which provides the most flexibility. Following is the conceptual proposal for the dwelling units: .^ ~ Table 2 Proposed Units '"`~ Units Tvpe Sp. Ft. Category +w 1 ~ 3-br. 1,200 4 3 2-br. 950 4 """ 10 1-br. 700 4 11 studio 500 1 Category 1 ~ 9 Category 4 ~- Total 25 30 bedrooms 16,550 sq. ft. ..~ In summary, there are currently 14 deed restricted units on-site. Four of the units were "~` required mitigation linked to lodge expansions and 10 were deed restricted to comply with ,,,~, the Hospital's conditional use approval. The development proposal includes the addition of 25 new deed restricted dwelling units and the removal of the modular unit. The modular's "' three bedrooms will be replaced within the 25 new units. For this Conceptual PUD review, „~, the mix of new and existing units and proposed categories are as follows: Table 3 Dwelling Unit Summary Existing and Proposed # DU `~ 1 ... 8 ~ 13 16 Total 38 Tvpe Category n 3-br. 1(4) ~ ;~ 2-br. 3(4) 5(3) ~ r~,f 1-br. 2(3) 10(4) 1(RO) studio* 10(4) 3(1) 2(3) 1(2) 48 bedrooms *the existing modular will be replaced by three Category 1 studio units ~. Based upon the review standards, the proposed dwelling units comply with the standards of the APCHA guidelines and standards of this section. The development also complies with *~ the AACP as mentioned previously within this memo. The project represents 100% ,,,,,~ employer developed affordable housing located within the City of Aspen. 3. Housing Production and Mitigation Requirements ,,,,, The Hospital, in a proactive move, purchased the former Beaumont Inn for current and future employee needs. According to the Planning and Zoning Commission memo for the ~, Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application February 27, 2004 23 conditional use review in 2000, the Hospital requested that existing and future dwelling units ~ (excludin>? the existing four deed restricted units in place at the time of purchase) be reserved for future employee mitigation purposes. Reservation (and some strong opinions) was „~ expressed by some members of the P&Z as well as the Housing Authority Board about ~ "banking" dwelling units for future use. However, it appeazs from the memo and minutes of the meetings that further discussion of the issue would be more appropriate when the ~,,,, Hospital came forward with a comprehensive redevelopment proposal for the property. The Hospital believes that this discussion is appropriate in conjunction with review of this rezoning/PUD redevelopment plan submittal. "~' Like many employers in this community, the Hospital has a long history of providing employee housing within the Aspen azea for existing and future employees. The Hospital, to ~ date, has 14 units with 21 beds at the Beaumont property and 21 units with 30 beds at ,~,,,, Mountain Oaks for a total of 35 units and 51 beds. Not only does employee housing facilitate recruitment but it helps retain good employees to ensure that a vital community service is fully functional azound the clock, 365 days a year. The Hospital has begun to evaluate their facilities and operations, due in part to federal health ""` care requirements and partly due to the changing characteristics of the community and required services. For the extensive financial investment the Hospital must consider when ~ planning an expansion to the Hospital's facility, it would be unrealistic and financially risky for AVH to enter into a detailed capital facilities planning process without knowing '~ mitigation costs or how they will comply with employee mitigation requirements. It is well ~ known that one of the lazgest costs for expanding a business in Pitkin County is employee mitigation. If the Hospital can rely upon a specific number of employee mitigation credits '~ from the Beaumont site then they can focus on what they are in the business to do which is to ~ provide cutting edge quality health Gaze. Finally, the Hospital purchased the Beaumont with long term quality housing for their employees in mind. The Hospital not only purchased the lodge prior to other Hospital developments but upgraded existing lodge units without knowing whether the units would be considered part of a future pool. Those upgrades have added quality deed restricted units to the community's affordable housing inventory. Therefore, Aspen Valley Hospital requests, as part of the GMQS exemption request for the development of 25 deed restricted dwelling units and the redevelopment for the Beaumont property, that 56.25 employee credits be created for future Hospital developments requiring employee mitigation. ~~ld- w,r~, : Table 4 Employ ee Credits for E%IStinQ Unit Remodel ~~ rMl- `~' ,~'r #DU Type Employees ner unit r Gc~S~~ 5 2-br. 5 X 2.25 = 11.25 (~c~~,r ~~jG'~°~~"'~`(~ \ ~,t 2 1-br. 2 X 1.75 = 3.50 ~'~' ~ , -~~~ 3 studios 3 X 1.25 = 3.75 Total- sQ 18.50 employees housed Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application 24 ~ February 27, 2004 -~ 0 Table 5 Credits for New Dwellint? Units ... ~ #DU Type Employees per unit 1 3-br. 1 X 3.00 = 3.00 ~. 3 2-br. 3 X 2.25 = 6.75 ~, 10 1-br. 10 X 1.75 = 17.50 11 studios 11 X 1.25 = 13.75 ""~ Total ~ Zy = 41.00 employees housed ww Subtotal Credits = 59.5 employees housed or credits "'"` Subtract the modulaz to be replaced with three studio units = 3.75 ww Total Credits = 55.75 """' 4. Future Mitigation Requirements r In this conceptual stage of review, it is anticipated that the redevelopment of the Beaumont will provide housing for 55.75 employees (this does not include the four deed restricted units '~" that were restricted by previous approvals). However, since the 2000 conditional use approval the Hospital has incurred an employee mitigation requirement that is intended to be fulfilled via the Beaumont project. .. "' When the Obermeyer Place project was approved earlier this year, up to 9,000 square feet of ~, medical office space was included within the project. The Hospital proposes to lease the space on behalf of local physicians. Employee mitigation is required for the medical office '"" space. According to the Obermeyer Place Ordinance (Exhibit 9), the office space will ,,,~ generate 3 employees per 1,004 square feet of space. Mitigating 60% of those employees, the Hospital will be required to mitigate, in the form acceptable to the Housing Authority, "' 16.2 employees: .. - (9,000 sq. ft. = 27 employees) (27 X .6 = 16.2 employees) ,,,,. Deducting the Obermeyer Place housing requirement from the employee credit pool created by the Beaumont project, 40 employee credits remain for future development mitigation purposes (55.75 - 16.2 = 39.55). 5. Tracking Employee Housing Credits ~ Keeping track of the employee credits overtime will help staff and the hospital maintain ~•• accurate bookkeeping. For other projects such as the Smuggler Mobile Home Pazk, the PUD ,~ process was used to monitor credits. It is proposed that this PUD plan be utilized for record keeping. ... „~ By way of an example, if the Hospital were to expand the Hospital facilities on Castle Creek Road employee housing mitigation would be required. How and when the employee housing *~ is mitigated would typically track with the land use approval that approved the facility ,;,,,, expansion. The construction of the mitigation units on the Beaumont site would presumably ~, Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application 75 February 27, 2004 ,~. rrr be consistent with the final PUD plan which should not require an amendment to the ~ Beaumont final PUD plan. However, in order to keep track of the employee credit pool established in the Beaumont final PUD plan it is recommended that the Applicant record in the office of the Pitkin Count<~ Clerk and Recorder a minor amendment to the Beaumont PUD plan reflecting any reductions in the employee housing credit pool. Thus an accounting system is established that is autonomous from the other land use approvals that the Hospital may seek. Staff would only have to review the file of the Beaumont property to understand at any given time how many credits are still available. 6. Summary '~ This development plan for the former Beaumont property is essentially a long range ~ development plan for employee housing on the site. The planning for this site was done in order for the Hospital to phase future development. Development of housing would occur as *~ necessary and/or required as part of future Hospital development proposals. .~ For purposes of this GMQS exemption section of the application the Hospital seeks to: • secure the exemption to ultimately construct 25 new deed restricted dwelling units on-site deed restricting 24 units to Category 4 and one unit to Category 1; • establish an employee credit pool of 55.75 employees for future housing mitigation purposes; and • comply with the employee mitigation requirement for the 9,000 square feet of medical office space in the Obermeyer Place project thus mitigating 16.2 employees to be deducted from the Beaumont employee pool leaving 39.55 employee credits for future Hospital development proposals. Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application February 27, 2004 m 26 •~ iA111 .. ,~ Ex H i B ~ -r- ~ CITY OF ASPEN ~"`" PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY `'"~` rLANNER: James Lindt, 920.5095 DATE x,'22/03 rw PROJECT: Beaumont Inn Rezoning, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing """' REPRESENTATI<'E: Leslie Lamont ,~' OWNER: Aspen Valley Hospital TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning, Consolidated PUD. GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing *~ DESCRIl'TION: The Applicant w ould 1 ike f o r ezone t he B eaumont I nn t o t he A ffordable H ousing P UD Zone District to redevelop a portion of the Beaumont Inn property and increase the number of affordable housing units on the site. The property is currently zoned R-15 with an LP "~" Overlay and should be rezoned in conjunction with the PL1D application to establish the rrr dimensional requirements for the development. A GMQS exemption to construct additional affordable housing units on the site is also required. If the Applicant wishes to ""` use the proposed AH units as mitigation credit for another project, this should be detailed ,~„ in the application. The application should also include the proposed category mix of the affordable housing units to be constructed on the site. ,,,r Additionally, the Applicant may request the ability to consolidate the Conceptual and Final PUD r eviews i nto a t wo-step p rocess. In order to request the consolidated review, the "" Applicant should prepare a letter to the Community Development Director outlining the ,~,,, request and how the request meets the criteria for consolidating a PUD application pursuant to Land Use Code 26.~45.030(B)(2). The Community Development Director will then ^~ determine if the application is eligible to be reviewed as a Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD prior to application submittal. +r Land Use Code Section(s) "" 26.470.070(J) GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing 26.445 Planned Unit Development (PUD) 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) +rr .~.. Review by: Staff for complete application, referral agencies for technical considerations(DRC Committee), Housing Board for recommendation to City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission for "` recommendation to City Council. City Council shall be the final review authority regarding all the land use requests associated Frith this application. '"~" Public Hearing: Yes at P & Z, Council 2"`~ Reading of Ordinance +~.r Planning Fees: 52;~0 Deposit for 1? hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $ 0 per hour) `" Referral Fees: 5355 Engineering, 5355 Housine o.. Total Deposit: ~y3,23g ` To apply, submit the following information: ;w., l . Total Deposit for review of application. ?. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the ~' applicant. Signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary. "' S. An 8 1;'2" x 11"vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. ,r. 6. Proof of ownership. 7• A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man-made site features. 0 S. Proposed site plan that includes a parking plan and a landscaping plan. .w ~~. Proposed floor plans that include proposed dimensional requirements to be established in the PL'D. ,, Elevation Drawings of all structures proposed. t 1. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development '"" complies with the review standards relevant to the development application (Rezoning, PUD. G~1QS Exemption for Affordable Housing). 11. A copy of the recorded documents that affect the proposed development. ""` 12. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS depanment can provide this ~. list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 13. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above- as well as the text only on either '~ of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred. Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft ~~'ord format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. 20 Copies ofthe complete application packet (items ~-12) w Process: ~ Apply. Planner checks application for completeness. Application referred to applicable referral agencies 1 DRC vleeting to identify technical issues). Application reviewed by the Housing Board for recommendation to City Council. Applicant then is given a Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing date by Staff. Staff «Tites a memo of recommendation. Planning and Zoning Commission reviews case and makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council makes final determination on land use requests. tit Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning. ~~~hich is subject to change in the tuture. and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. t'"'! wr IIA Illi "' Il~~~~oo `~.k4 3383 l~~l'1~c;~ ~~ 33~~ EXHIBIT 2 WARRANTY DEED ,.. ~ TFIIS DEED. Made this 17th day of Novetrtbsr 2000 .between i, r., J & B HOTELS, L.L.C., A LIMITED LIABZLIT° COMPANY ~ ~r of the said County of PITKSN and State of COLORADO ,grantor, and I I ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT :. COLORADO SPECIAL j DISTRICT /~~~ j~Q~ +rsr saa a.w ~. m., art .at, +ar whose legal address is 0401 CASTLE CREEK ROAD ASPEN, CO. 81611 of the said County of PITXIN std State of COLORADO . grantee: I 'I Wl1TIESSETH, That the grantor for and in cotutderanon of the sum of Tan dollars and other good and valuable consideration DOLLARS, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledeed, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, selh convey and conrirm. un[o the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. all the rest propem• :eeether with improvements, if any, situate. icing and being in the said County of PZTKIN and State or Co;orado aescnbcd as follows: S88 EXHIBIT "A" 448992 ~ TRWVSFER DEC<.RRATIDN RECEIVED 111111 X000 448992 11/17/2000 04:13P WD DpVIS SILVI 1 of 3 R Sd.00 D 483.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO also known by street and number as: 1301 E. COOPER AVE. , ASPEN, CO 81611 TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditamenu ana aopurtenances thereto belongine, or in anywise aooertainine, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, renu.:rues and proms thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand what- soever of the grantor, either in law or equity, of. ;r, and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditamenu and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, wi[h the appurtenances, unro the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the grantor, for himself, his heirs, and personal representatives, does covenant, grant, bar¢ain, and agree to and wi[h the gran[ee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealin¢ and delivery of these presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, slue, perfect, absolute and indefeaztble estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and haz stood right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convev the same to manner and forth as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other eran[s, bargains. sales, liens. taxes. assessments. encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever. except those specific Exceptions shown on the attached as "ERIiIBIT 1". The ¢rantor shall and will WARRANTY AND FOREVER DEFE.'JD the above-bargained premises in the outer and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claimine the whole or any Dart thereof. The stn¢ular number shall include the plural, the plural the sm¢uiar, and the use of any gender shall be applicable [o all eendea. IN WIT, SS WHEREOF, the~at3tor has ezecu[ed this deeo on the dale set forth above. MANAGER J #~, irr •.+t rtr J. WIL`L~~Ai COCREHAM, MANAGER ; ~, '• State o COLORADO I y ~~ J ss. ':~,~ ' ,.1. County of PITKIN i - '_ Cat: ~;" The foregoing instrumen[ was acknowledged before me thts 17th Jay of Novetnber 2000 , by JEFFREY R. STAFFORD AND J. WILLIAM COCREHAM, MANAGERS OF J & B HOTELS, L.L.C., A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY My commission expires Dece»tber 27, 2001 FJe No. 00027519 Stewart Title or Aspa~, (nc. \o. 932A WARRANTY DEED (Fe. vt....,...."t.4 0.,.. Nimess my hand and fin seal. Notary Public ~, EXHIBIT 1 EXCEPTIONS File Number: '~J~'=-S _. Distr~but~ca ~[~__ ____..._-_c ,_...._.:din cable _".. . .w. MY _. T::ose spec___ca__.• _escr._e_ __ghts .,~ _.._rd parties rot c._c.- the public ~ records or •.rhich 3uyer -ss a_t;:al ::nowledge and which were ac_epted by Buyer in accordance with taraarata ._ _~ contract _crm No. ~BS 1->-P5 'tatters Not Shown r~ c•/ the Public ..__.,rds i Y ? . Taclusion of t!:e . _ocer[~• __ :in aav soecrai ta:uncr _~str_ct. 4. The benefits and :,,:ree.^.s ._ =:y deciarat•c n and dart.: caaii_-reements, if anV. 5. L'npatented mining c_aiT_: =e=_rvat_cns .,_ _xcepttcrs _.. pat=_r__s. [r an act authorizing tie _~suance =:s_~of; .rater __~hts. .__aims cr t_t_e to water. 6. Taxes for _.._ vesr 1_.,., a-= =~sem.:eat =_ars act __ due _.... -=•: able. 7. any vein or _ode ~' -•,:ar[~ __ ether _ . ..., ~_: _ :ace _ear:: ~ _cid, silver, cinnabar, _aad, ..n, r ~r _ther •raiuable deposit __a_-:ed or known tc exist on Marc: 21 , :585. s.c right cf a proprietor of __ .. or lode to extract and remo •:e ._s ___ =^:erefrom, ~rould the same be '_~ ... to penetrate or intersect tie premises. _= reser.•ed b •: Patent recorded =_. _ ~7, 1949 in 3ook 175 at Paae =Y6. e. Terms, conditions cbiir t•--_ and r=_str~ct_ons as set ~ort __ ~xupancy and Rental Deed Restrict:c-s a:i agreement recorded December :: ..87 in Book 553 at Page 206 as Recentic- ':_. :.35853. 9. Terms, condititns, _~~ _-=_.as aad restr,ctions as set fc_... is instruments entitled Cccunaac;• D___ =_strict•cn d agreement; :;ffcrcabie Dwelling Unit..." recorded :. ~•s[ 1352 _.. Book o"85 a[ ?age =__ as Deception No. 347308, and _.. ...,..ic o83 a. ._ ___ 3~ Re_eDL1.... ...,. 13733 aid in Book 685 at Page .,16 as F.ecentlc.. ..~ =,',31~. 10. Terms, conditicns, ~bii~at_.-s and provisions of an Ordinance =_ the City Council of the C___; cf :.-__-. _olorado, _c Rezone Specific =_cperties from Lodge Preservatic: ~., „ :der=.: • ng Zoning •.. Bch a Lodge Preser: at_cn Overlay as set forth in instr;:ment ____ried Seotember_, 1997 as Recept_=- ..o. 407979. 11. Right of, -.nay for _ . __.._a_ -- =_ '_:..es a d _acroac :meats ~._[_ =asements and setbacks as prov.d:d :,_ .:e __ty of .~spe.^. Soning Dapt. _,:dce =_eservation (LP) Zone Distric~ as __.cwr. ~- .-- cvemer- S .-.:_•• P+.ao ,.ated _ _ _ -_- -9, 2000 _reDdred S'C:"::^,._---- ---..._--- per a3 ~.. _. _.,. ~~CC--__-._. I I"III "III "III' I"'II Il" IIII'III"I III "I'I IIII I"I 448992 11/17/2000 04:13P WD DAVIS SILVI 3 of 3 R 16.00 D 483.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ~ `Ilf i Slewvt Title of ,lspen, Inc. Exblblt I -Deed Excepuons ~ 1UEEDEXCEI'f1 Rer. 7/99 Wrr ~'%P.IBI:.: Order:Vumoer: 00027449 iEG.4L DESCR1PT10.~' :. parcel of land being part o~ t~e 3iverside Addition to the City and Towasite or Aspen, Colorado, said parcel _~ Wore folly described as follows: Beginaina at a point being a plastsc cap on a No. rebar stamped L. S. 2376 whence corner 8 of the Riverside Placer U.S.M.S. :70. 3905 A. M. being a brass cap dated 1954 bears North 85°08' .tiest 544.05 feet, thence North 15°41' tJest 92.08 feet; thence North 14°06'59" west 1..2.02 feet; thence North 13°13'32" East 40.54 feet; thence North 78°22'05" East 33.31 feet; thence North 37°34'04" Easc X5.45 feet thence North 68°24'15" Easc ~".55 feet; thence South 50°37' Easc '..76 feet; thence South 34°2Z' E.:st „".•- -°^e:: thence 93.50 feet along a curve ro ~:e richt having the radius 760.00 feet (the cisord of which bears South 24°03' East 93.C0 feet); thence South 77°45'50" west 35.32 __et .... the point cf beginning. CODNTY OF PITXIN, STATE OF COLORADO w." ww+ ExH i B~-r 3 w - a~ ASPEN '~' ~ ,~ VALLEY ~~ HOSPITAL t~~ 0401 Castle Creek Road :aspen. Colorado 8161 1 • ~>70'9?~-1 1?0 February 20, 2004 Lesiie Lamunt 970-963-1971 36 N. 4`~' Street Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Leslie: ~.. ,..- ~. .~ This is authorization for you to act as the hospital representative for the Beaumont Lodge and Obenneyer projects. Sincerely, ~, --~ i~.. Rbbert Karp, NLD. Interim CEO RK:pw .~r .. ~r ~ Hepwotth-Pawlak Geu[echnical. Inc. P BOZO Cuunq• Road lit ,.., ~ Glenwood Spnnes, ~„i:rado fi1601 Phone: a70-9~}5-i9~~ '~" HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Fax: 9; C~-947-b4~4 ~,,,~ email: hpgeoU~ hpgeo[ecn.~um September 18, 2003 EXHIBIT 4 ~. Aspen Valley Hospital ,~,, c/o OTAK, Inc. :Attn: Steve Spears ""'" 36 North 4`~ Street +~ Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Job No. 103 492 Subject: Supplemental Subsoil Study, Proposed AVH Affordable Housing '""` Project, Beaumont Inn. 1301 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Spears: ~- As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed subsurface exploration within the northwest part of the subject site. The study was conducted as a supplement ..~ to our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Aspen Valley Hospital dated "' July 29, 2003. We previously performed a subsoil study at the site and presented our ... findings in a report dated August 19, 2003, Job No. 103 492. The additional exploration was requested to evaluate t:~te subsoils in a new proposed building area that `""" is inaccessible to the drill rig. Proposed Construction: The proposed construction is the same as that described in our previous report. We understand that the proposed building at the northwest part of "' the site will probably have a walkout basement level. The site is currently occupied by ,., a concrete pool between 4 to 8 feet deep. We assume that the ground floor of the new building will be slab-on-grade. Subsurface Conditions: An explorator<~ pit was excavated with a small trackhoe at the ,~„ location shown on Figure 1. The pit was excavated in a lawn area west of the existing pool which was not accessible to the drill rig or a rubber tired backhoe. The pit ~"" location is shown on Figure 1 and the log of the pit is presented on Fiuure ?. The .~ subsoils encountered consist of about i feet of mostly granular fill containing debris, trash and organics above relatively dense, slightly silty sandy gravel with cobbles and .. boulders down to the pit depth of 8 feet. The results of a gradation analysis performed "" on a sample of the natural gravels (minus ~ inch fraction) are presented on Figure 3. ~„ :~,the; deln~~~•graY'el4;was~~cli~cult^rl,~e, taathe~o~b~nd bou~dars z. r~ra~tical diggtng refusal was; encountered at ~a depth of8 feet +.r .. .~,, Recommendations:` 7~,e, gxi~ting-~ill~eneountered 7n the.exploratory pit is not~auitab~ ~ for ~suppart of the building and should be completely remov~ci. We expect that the basement level construction should remove most of the unsuitable fill. Structural fill -- placed to re-establish design grades should consist of granular material compacted to at ,,,, least 98% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near Parker ~G3-841-1119 Colorado Sprin~~ -i9-633-»6? Silverrhorne ~"~~-468-1989 t -z- optimum. The fill should be placed in thin lifts and extend horizontally from edge of the footings a distance greater than or equal to the depth of fill below the footing. Footings placed on the natural soils or compacted structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf_ Other recommendations presented in our previous report which are applicable should also be followed. If you have any•questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ~~~T• Trevor L. Knell Reviewed by: v ~f`~ ~ P'q.:~•l • O Steven L. Pawlak, P. ~ ; I !5 2 2 2 , :o ~/is/oJ ~.: TLK/ksw ~ f :~ss/pNAI ~6•~ ~ attachments Figure 1 - Loca ~ xploratory Borings and Exploratory Pit Figure 2 -Log of Exploratory Pit Figure 3 -Gradation Test Results Job fi 103 492 ~ P ec1'i ~., Wrr ~. r ... .. u. ... r +.r ~, wr ~. ,~.. ... ,.,, ~.r ,., ~. ,~ rrr .w rr ..•, +r ,... .. APPROXIMATE SCALE 1 ° = 40' ~~~ ~ EXISTING f ~BUILDING~ ~, ~' ~ ~ PROPOSED ~ ~ ~ BUILDINGS ~ EXISTING ~~ ~BEAUMONT ~ INN p - -:-:-: ... _ .. ~ I N'~ ~ ...-.~.- ::. y I / ~ BORING 1 - ~ * ~ ~ r' / ~ .BORING -2 y \ s // / :_::.:.:::: ~i / BORING 4 • - . / EXISTING ~ --:-:-:-~ - BUILDING ~ -:-::-:-:-: ~ \ / i ~ ~ ` / ` ORING 3 1 I \~~ / ~ I J I BORING 6 ~ BORING 5 • • PROPOSED NEW PARKING LOTS -~~ LEGEND ^ EXPLORATORY PIT FOR CURRENT STUDY • EXPLORATORY BORING FOR PREVIOUS -STUDY, 8/19/03 RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION t 103 492 I HEPWORTH-PAWLAK I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Figure 1 I I GEOTECHNICAL, iNC. AND EXPLORATORY PIT i PIT -~- --- - ~ 1 -- ~-~--- ----~- ~ ~ -::.:-: ~ ' ~.~..~~ ~ BENCH MARK: GROUND FLOOR OF .-.~.-.~ -.~. - EXISTING BUILDING; ELEV. = 100.0', ..............._. - ASSUMED ~,- -.. , \ PIT 1 0 0 ,. _ y POOL BOTTOM (NORTH) ~ _ I 5 5 ,_ r a - a~ ° Poa soTTOM (souTH) ;o• . -; +~~e - - - -zoo=s 10 10 LEGEND: FILL; silty to clayey sandy gravel with cobbles below 6 inches of sod, medium dense, moist, mixed browns, contains debris, trash and organics. ~:° - ••'~. GRAVEL AND C088LES (GP-GM); with boulders, sandy, slightly silty, dense, slightly moist, brown, morraine. .8:• i Disturbed bulk sample. ~- J Practical digging refusal in cobbles and boulders. NOTES: 1. The exploratory pit was excavated on September 15, 2003 with a small trackhoe. 2. The location of exploratory pit was measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. The exploratory pit elevation was not measured and log of exploratory pit is drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory pit location should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit log represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the pit at the time of excavating. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: +4 =Percent retained on No. 4 sieve -200 =Percent passing No. 200 sieve r ± m v_ I ~ t a 0 1 103 492 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOG OF EXPLORATORY PIT Figure 2 ~~~ >,, awn >sew iYYl1 ~w Yf1 ern arr 1rr .~. rr ,... r~ ~w Yw w.+. VWYI irYr www r ,.., wr .~, ,.. HYDROMETER ANALY9S 9EVE ANALY95 Tuff READNIVS U.S STANDARD SERIES CLEAR ~~ ~~~' 24 hR. 7 HR 045 TIN. 15 MW. 60MIN. 1911Yi. 4 MW. 1 MIN. X200 X100 /50 /30 /14 /8 H }/g' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3~ 5'6' B' T00 90 10 20 70 30 V Q __ ~ Z W 40 V1 Z to Q Q F- ~ W ~ ~ ~ F- ~ 2 W Z U V ~ ~ W ~ ~- 60 30 70 20 80 10 90 0 100 , 001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •~ •600 7.18 236 4.75 9.5125 19.0 37.5 76.2 12752 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT FlNE MEDIUM COAR GRAVEL FlNE COARSE CODE0.E5 GRAVEL 76 ~ SAND 19 ~ SILT AN D CLAY 5 LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Sandy Gravel and Cobbles FROM: Pit 1 at 7 thru 8 Feet HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 3 103 492 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL 1•{e~+wurrh-i•'au~ial (_~rureci•~ciicai, lnc. 502Q (~ci+inrc i ;~a,i 1 is ~ ~lenu•c~~xi ,~>.~nn~s, C:,1<~r:::.~, K1fi01 Plronr: y7G945~7985 cmarl: hp~e~~~h~;tccr;•:r, c nn SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED AVH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT BEAUlV10NT INN 1301 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO JOB NO. 103 492 AUGUST 19, 2003 PREPARED FOR: ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL C/O OTAK, INC. ATTN: STEVE SPEARS 36 NORTH 4TR STREET CARBONDALIJ, COLORADO 51623 Parker 03-841-7i 19 Cc~laracio springs 719-633-562 Silvcrthorne 97^-"6ii-1y~9 err .... TABLE OF CONTEI`TS "' PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY .............................. 1 ~. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .................................. 1 .~. .•. SITE CONDITION'S ................... . ..................... 2 r. ... MINE SUBSIDENCE ......................................... 2 ~. FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 3 "~' SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................. 3 ,,, FOUNDATION BEARIv'G CONDITIONS ........................... 4 `" DESIGN RECOMIv1ENDATIONS ................................ 4 .~. FOUNDATION'S ....................................... 4 FOUNDATION A~'vD RETAINING WALLS ..................... 5 FLOOR SLABS.... .................................... 7 ~~ UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ................................. 7 ,„„ PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS ................... _ ..... 8 SURFACE DRALtiAGE .................................. 9 LIMITATIONS ............................................. 9 '~ FIGURE Z -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ,~,, FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF E~LORATORY BORINGS "~ FIGURE 3 -LEGEND A_VD NOTES ... FIGURES 4 - 6 -GRADATION TEST RESULTS .. -- TABLE I-SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .. ~.. ,.. ... Job ~ lU3 492 ~ P ,~. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) Affordable Housing Project, located at the existing Beaumont Inn, 1301 last Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design, Zfie study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Aspen Valley Hospital dated July 29, 2003. A Feld ezpIoratioa program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnica] engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed development will include three new ilou.5ing buildings located on the site as shown on Figure 1, and a parking lot in the southeastern part of the property. The buildings will he 2 and 3 story wood-frame structures. Ground floors may be structural over crawlspace or slab-on-grade. An existing building will be removed for the new building located in the middle of the property. The remaining existing buildings will he remodeled and/or renovated. Grading for the new- structures is assiitned to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to 5 feet. We assume relatively light foundation w 1oU ~ 103 492 G~tect~ ~' irr -~- ~. .. ~.. loadings, typical of the proposed t~•pe of construction. The parking lots will be asphalt ~- paved. "" If building Loadings, Location or grading plans change significantly from those described '~"' above, we should be notified to revaluate the recommendations contained in this report. 0 SITE CONDI'ITONS The site is occupied by the existing Beaumont Lodge buildings, consisting primarily of ~,,, 2 story wood-frame structures. The original lodge building, ~in the northe<.st part of the ~,,, property, apparently has a basement level. The ground surface is relatively flat with a .~.. sIight slope down to the northwest. Along the west-northwest sides of the property, the ~. slope becomes moderately steep. Elevation difference across the individual buildings is ~- typically abvut 2 or 3 feet. Vegetation consists of landscape grass, brush and trees. "~' There are several boulders on the ground surface. MINE SUBSIDENCE Portions of the Aspen azea are underlain by mine workings. The workings are primarily underground tunnels between Aspen and Smuggler Mountains southeast and ~.. east of the downtown area. The works consist of numerous tunnels beginning a few .. hundred feet below the ground surface becoming shallower to the south. Under certain w conditions these workings may collapse and cause surface subsidence. Glory Hole ,~, Park, which is about 6 to 7 blocks southwest of the subject site, is believed to have «~ been caused by the collapse of one or more tunnels. The subject site appears to be east ,,,,,~ of the these main tunnel works. ,~. +.. Chtr borings were relatively shallow and for foundation design only, howe~~er, no •~• indleations of subsurface voids were found at the subject site. We believe ~?le risk of ,~,,, lob ~ 103 492 H A4IYI1 -3- subsidence due to the collapse of underground mine wvrks throughaut the service life „w„ of the proposed development to be law. If further evaluation of the mine works subsidence potential is desired, we should be cantactcd. FIELD EXPLORATION 'lfie field exploration for the project was conducted on August 7 and S, 2003. Six explanatory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Borings 1 through 3 were located in or near proposed building areas and Borings 4 through 6 were located in proposed parking areas. Access across the site was Iimited due to existing development and a boring-at the proposed northwestern building site was not possible. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck mounted CME-45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawiak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/s inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are stn indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Irxpioratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory far review by the project engineer and testing. SUI3SLZZI+'ACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at file site are shown on ~.: Figure 2. The subsoils consist of a few inches of gravel road base overlying medium w dense, silty sandy to very sandy gravel containing cabbies and possible boulders. Drilling in the coarse granular soils with auger equipment was diffcult due to the cot~hles and possible boulders and drilling refiisal was encountered in Boring 2 at a ~,,, Job ff tU3 492 ~h Ilia -4- „~, depth of 14 feet. A fill depth greater than that shown on the boring logs may exist at „~., the site due to the prior development. ~,. -~+ Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural """' moisture content and density, and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses "' performed nn small diameter drive samples (minus 12/z inch fraction) of the natural granular soils are shown on Figures 4 through 6. Tlie laboratory testing i~ summarized .. in Table 1. .~. No free water was encountered in the borings and the subsoils were slightly moist to ~.. moist. .,,, FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITiUNS ~- The natural granular subsoils possess moderate bearing capacity and relativEly low '~ settlement potential. Spread footing gearing on these soils should be feasible for ~°' support of the proposed buildings. "" The individual building excavations should be ""'"" observed at the time of construction to evaluate the soil bearing conditions exposed. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS ,~, ,,,~ Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the ,~,,,, nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the buildings be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. ~. ""~ 'The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread °~ footing foundation system. .-• Job t; 103 492 H~ fllri -5- 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be ,,~ designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. Based on ~~ experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about i inch or less. .. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and Z feet for isolated pads. ~) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 48 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation wails acting as retaining strictures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) : ~~t~t~7t{~'~77I7~ryrne,~7„ettris~f,r.•i:s~ri.~.,,~~~ ..1.,,..t,, obi g9~ai~lrig~e~1:'e~Ctended ~~oiivfi'tc, furm'~;~. . The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. 6) A representative of the geotec:hnical engineer should observe alt footing excavations privy to concrete placement to evaluate hearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Fvundation walls and retaining structures which are IateraIly supported and c:an be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflec:tivn should he designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pcf for back-fill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the buildings and can be expecaed to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the foil active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure Jos tr 103 492 ~ Pb~ci't ~„ -6- ~. ~,,, computed ou the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 4S pcf for backfill ,.. consisting of the on-site granular soils. The wall backfill should not co-itain debris, +~ topsoil or oversized rocks. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate Hydrostatic "~ and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the ~.. walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behittd a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. -" ... ... Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfili in °~ pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at Ieast 95 % of the maxitnutn "" standard Praetor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use ""'" Larne equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wail. The Lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of ~.., the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of file ~, footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.45. Passive pressure ~,,,, of compacted backftll against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an r.. equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure ,.,,, values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultitnatc -~ strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of ""' the footings to resist lateral Loads should be a granular material compacted to at least ""' 95 °lo of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisnire content near optit1ltrnn. .. '°^ Joli ~ 103 492 N Wrr -7- FLOOR SLABS .~ The natural granular soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly to moderately loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of come differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinbage craclang. The '~ requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by t11e "~" designer based on experience attd the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of ~ gravel should be placed beneath interior slabs to facilitate drainage. Phis material '~ should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50 °lo retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 12 % passing the I~Io. 200 sieve. Ail .fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 ~ of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site sands and gravels devoid of topsoil, debris and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater can develop during limes of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall baclcfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should he placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent rl J00 fi lU3 4y"L .-- '--~ F'- - ~I F,~ ..g_ finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining ~* ~~ranular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the "~" No. 200 sieve, less than 50°I passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of "" 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1'/z feet deep. .. ,.~ PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS We understand that asphalt pavement is proposed for the on-site parking and drives. Traffic loadings have not been provided but are expected to be relatively light. The „~ subarade soils encountered at the site are generally low to non-plastic silty sand and ~„ gravel which are considered a fair to good support for pavenent sections. Based on an ~, assumed 18 kip EDLA of about 15 for the driveway areas and 5 for parking areas, a ..~. Regional Factor of 2.25 and a serviceability index of 2.0, we recommend the minimum pavement section thickness consist of 3 inches of asphalt on 8 inches of base course for .~,» the driveway and 3 inches of asphalt on 6 inches of base course for automobile only '~" parking areas. For areas subjected to regular truck traffic, such as trash pick-up, or """"" tight turning areas, we suggest the use of 6 inches of portland cement concrete on 4 "~ inches of base course. .~. ~w The asphalt should be a batched hot mix, approved by the engineer and placed and .~, compacted to the project specifications. The base course should meet CD{)T Class 6 specifications. All base course and required subgrade till should be compacted to at .. least 9.5% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content within ~% of optimum. ~, „~ Required fill to establish design subgrade level can consist of the on-site granular soils ,~„ or suitable imported granular soils approved by the geotechnicai engineer. Prior to fill ,.,, placement the subgrade should be stripped of vegetation, te~psoil and debris, scarified to ~. a depth of 8 inches, adjusted to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at ~• least 95% of standard Proctor density. 'plie subfirade should be proofrollcd. Areas that ^. „„ Job ~ I03 492 ,.._, t' rr -9- deflect excessively should be corrected before placing pavement materials. The .w suhgrade improvements and placement and compaction of base and asphalt materials .~ should be monitored on a regular basis by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. ~„ Once craffic loadings are better known, we should review our pavement section ,,~, thickness recommendations. SURFACE DRAINAGE r~ Tlie following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and ~ maintained at all times after the buildings have been completed: '""' 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and u~nderslab areas Should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should he adjusted to near optimum moisture and rrr compacted to at least 95 o of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. ~) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the buildings should be ~ sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We wr recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved ~, areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free draining wall backfiU should be capped with about 2 feet of the on-site, finer graded, soils to reduce surface water infiltration. ~' 4) Root downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the Iimits of all backfill. LY11-IITATJO1~iS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principics and practices in this area at tlus time. ~'Vc make no warranty either express or implied, The cunc[usions and recouunendations submitted in this ~! Jeh F' 103 492 H +,~ - 10- ~.. report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the *-~ locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in "" the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface '"" conditions identif ed at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditivns may not become evident until excavation is perfortned. Jf cotrditiot~s encountered during constructivn appear different from those described in this report, +rr we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. ., .. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. ,,,,,, We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As ,,.., the project eva[ves, we should provide continued consultation and held services during ~•• construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to ~- verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant '~"' design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the """ recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the '~ geotechnical engineer. Respectively Submitted, HEPWORTH,~-1.,AAjLAK GFi~fl~iF.~INICAL, Inc. .. r •• -^~_ David A. Young, P.~i.9'; 2-216 ,•` ~„ ~i ~ti ~'l~j.v ~ Reviewed by: '~~~i~~`~pNAL ,,,~~~`~~ _ ~N11 t 111 „~, Steven L. Pawlak P.E. "' DAY/ksw """' lob !/ 103 X92 ~ V ~~v ~ APPROXIMATE SCALE 1w _ .^~ ~~~ ~ EX1STiNG\ ~ ~BUlIDING ~ ~, V ~ n O 9 ! /~~ - - ~y ~ / ~ ~ 80RING 1 / / / / / / / / / / BORING 4 • // ~80RING 2 ~ Z . - ~ - s~ . - ~~ -- N / ~ ~ / EXISTING ~ < BUILDING ~ - -: -:.:. ~ ~ / 1 ~ ~ \ / ORING 3 1 ~ ~~~J/ 1 BORING 6 80RING 5 • ~ PROPOSED NEW PARKING LOTS --~~~ RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION i03 492 ~ GE~TOCHNICAL,~INC. ~ I-OCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ~ Figure i _' ~ ~ BENCH MARK: GROUND FLOOR OF EXISTING BUILDING; ELEV. = 100.0', ASSUMED . _ i~ ~ \ ~ \ PROPOSED ~ ~ BUILDINGS \ EXISTING ~ ~BEAUMONT \ INN _ - \ i _ v 111 ~. BORING 1 BORING 2 80RING 3 ~. ELEV.=99.$' ELEV.=99.7' ELEV.=102.0' .r ,~. 0 rr .. .. ? ..~ .. ~ 11/12 0 wC~e.3 SSr 2 20/12 rrr .• ~ 01h124 '.' WCe5J -~; _ -200=18 +x.25 ~ ~~ •' -200at3 ""' S so/t2 r/t2 2+/12 - f -2ooalo 5 • . rrr ,., ~ ... i 10 15/12 16/12 50/3 r r• '~.'' a m D .. •. ~,. ;. .w ~ 5 .• 25/12 28/12 ~" w~6.a wc=7.a +4x27 X4"28 r -200=16 -200s 21 ,.. 20 ... ... 0 10 ~- 1 s a v n 15 20 BORING 4 BORING 5 60RING 6 +r. ELEV.=100.1' ELEV.T102.6' ELEV.=99.5' ~. 0 O r •' r• ~ b""' : 0 21/12 2,3/12 :. ..' ~ '1/12 w ~ .. M1C~4.9 OD~125 •, ~ '. f ' WC~4.2 +4••57 ~ l~ -20pM15 , -200-10 "~ S :~ 16/12 •'•' 20/12 _l 19/12 5 ~ ~ a, NBC=e_7 m DDy120 ~ -200F21 r 10 ., """ Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on figure 3. ~» 103 492 HEFWORTH-PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ""' GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 10 s I r Q O a Figure 2 .. LEGEND: "~' FILL; silty sand and gravel. (Road base) GRAVEL (GM); with cobbles, possible boulders, sandy to very sandy, medium dense, silty to slightly ,~„ ~.. silty, slightly moist, brown, rock fragments are primarily subangular to subrounded. Rel 'vel atr y undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. Cafrfornia Inner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586. Drive sample blow Count; indicates that 11 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were !11/12 required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. Practical drilling refusal. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on August 7 and 8. 2003 with o 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from the features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark shown on Figure t. Boring logs are drown to depth. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 1 day later. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (~ ) OD =Dry Density (pcf ) +4 =Percent retained on No. 4 sieve. -200 =Percent passing No. 200 sieve. 103 492 ~ HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 3 i .., w. ~.. .., rrr {.,r 9W .., rrr +w awe ~,. i1W w ~. r~ -+TORa~lal aw.YSS sa:vE /JlALT515 Tim ~eaalcs Us n~~ 9EA45 aEAR SQU/WE aP051106 . 2s. _. _. . es ~ loo 0 00 10 00 m ~ ~ Z Z ~ ~ ~ N Q W 10 0- Q: r ~ ~ so z z ~ ~ ~ B0 a a 30 70 do 20 ~ ~o lao 0 .oot .002 .006 .odo .olt .c37 .o7t _ISO •300 .seo r.la 23a 1.7s 0,51 2519.0 37.5 75.7 Irsz 203 01AMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO St.T y~y COARSE . f1rE COARSE ~~ GRAVEL 27 ~ SAND SILT AND 57 X CLAY i6 X LIQUID LIMIT 9L PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring 1 a t 15 Feet r1~oROUEhse AIULTSI$ SIEY6 ANALt35 T~ "EAO~$ us srA~oARC seats a~tt snuARS aaQalas ~ F a ~ w- _ .. . _ „ , , rr s a' S' ~' 0 to 70 v w ~ z a W b z ''- so a U ~ ~ 4} 0.. 7p a0 90 100 lao Oo eo ~ z N ~ a a ~- so z w v 40 ~ fl_ 30 20 t0 0 .001 _002 A06 .000 .019 .OJ7 .071 .750 .~ .800 1.75 7.35 ~~ Q'572.519.0 37.6 747 1Z7~ 20.1 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MIWMETERS pJ1T TO SILT ~~ CW ~~ _ Mf~RAt COARSE ~ GRAVEL 25 % SAND 62 ~ SlLT AND CLAY 13 LIQUID LIMIT ~ PLASTICITY INDEX ~ SAMPLE qF: Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring 2 at 2 Feet 103 492 HEPWORTH-PAW!_AK GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. z 4 11 2 Q W z s a ~ " z °' w U Q: ~ W a MYaRawETOe AfiALYStS TiYE ac.oua ~~ s~ ~.rss us sr~rmArc sr~s ! a~R sauARe oro~o6 I foo wlr. 1s wN. eOMN. 1919N. a ~. 1 1011. f200 ~I00 fso po /f9 /s ~ oi" '~• ~- 100 L7 70 Z .o d F- ~ z w U ~ W d so 10 0 .a0t .ao2 .005 .009 .otf .037 .074 .150 .300 .eo0 L18 s.3s 1.75 9.51 1>a.0 37s 76.4 t27~ 20S DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS rft. - - Ct~Y To SILT ~--~---~uma~'- ~ rauesE raf ~ ~ffi GRAVEL 55 ~ SAND 35 ~ SILT AND CLAY 10 LIQUID L1MfT 96 PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Grave! FROM: Baring 3 vt 3 and 5 Feet Combined atoaa~n Awarss s~ terns T~ READ910S u.s STAlOARD stets r1EAR 90UARf GP2T10iG5 2~ ~' 7 ~ _ W _ ._. 1 1 ~Y !~ ccN w Q ~~ Q Z Q t"' 2 W ~ ~ L+J 4 70 90 90 100 1~ 90 /^ V 70 Z 50~.~ W U ~ W as zD t0 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .07~ .190 .JOO .800 1.18 2.3Q 1.73 9.S1Z319.0 ~~ ~'2 12762 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MIWMETERS CUY 70 9CT nrE wmluw COARSE FlME CWRSE GRAVEL 26 % SAND 53 ~ SILT AND CLAY 21 ~ LIQUID L1MIT ~ PLASTICITY INDEX 3~ SAMPLE OF: Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring 3 at 15 Feet 103 492 MEP WORTH-PAWLAK GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 5 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. +r wir ,An wr ,.. w. wr rr ~.. r ,.., r +w ,~ .iea a.ae airr r ~., .. .. r~ i nr: ~~ z4 _ ..._ c~ 10 ao W ~0 z a w a< ~ ~ Z W U D: w a ~ 70 au so us sThxo~o SERFS 00 70 6o C? z a a z w U W ro ~ so 10 0 100 ~a .0lSi .002 .006 .000 -0'10 .037 .074 .150 •~ -6no 1.70 t..to w~ n.:r1~ ••••• ~ .~ ,~~ 127T DIAMETER OF PARTICLES (N MILLIMETERS OLAY TO 9~T d>t~ C'O>OZO~ CO GRAVEL 57 ~ SAND 33 ~ S1LT AND CLAY 10 3: LIQUID L1M(T ~ PLASIIClTY INDEX ~ SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel i-ROM: Boring 6 at 2 and 5 Feet Combined j 103 492 ~ NEPWORTH-PAWLAK I GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 6 GEOTECHNICAi_, 1NC. aFrw snuWtE ov~rwa ~ _ .r .... .....~ ,~ a-r r ~ N m Q O L U z J r a U w Z ~ S !- U "' w ~ O ~' W r- O ~ ~r- `.Gm~ Q Q O J ~ Q a a O ~ ~ O a ~ W r ~ 1 ~ ! ~ t 1 ` ~ ~ 1 ~ C ~ C 'a C ~ ~ 1 r ~ C ~ C ~ ~ i ~ f ~ Y to to N N ~ r. ~ v~ rn C '~ I " ~ ~ ~J ~ N ~ N =_ N 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ = to ~ t t0 cII (0 ^; ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ •N !n _ N _ N V: ( _ V7 _ !n !A i I ~I ~I i ~ 1 1 j ~_ o, W W ~ L ~ 1t 1 =i O a G n. :J `L r O ~ ~ U t7 x j _ 1 I ry-+ a o ~ 6 Z - ~ i i i I a a ~: ~ ~j< ~i cj~ + ~ ~~ .. ~; ~ ,. o a rv~ M CO M O •- ~ I.A r O f i i i ~' '- ~ r r N I ~ N ~- li ~~~ ~- ~ ~ N ~ ~ M i ~~ ~, ~, M ~ ~~ O -! i l ~ o- ~ ~ N N t!7 N ~ I 1~ i K > {{' ! I p z a a - iz - N .- f i i N N i ~ ~ a e Z y z ~, M co n O ~ ~ O G7 r~ N ~ I I ~ ~ ~ _ ~~_ ~~ ~ i W - N ~ N ~ ~ ~~ "~ N ~ ~~ _ G M p ` N I U U N ( I ~ y m ~- N ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ I i TOTAL P_~~ SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ~ E N G I N E E R S S U R V E" O R S February 23, 2004 „~ ,Leslie Lamont Lamont Planning Services 725 Melissa Lane „~ Carbondale, CO 81623 118 W. 6TH. SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 21 55 P.O. BOX 3068 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 8160 '~ ASPEN. CO 8161 2 CRESTED BUTiE. CO 81224 970-945-1004 970-925-6727 970-349-5355 Fx: 970-945-5948 Fx: 970-925-4157 Fx: 970-349-5358 EXH 1 BIT 5 "" RE: Beaumont Inn Traffic Report, Aspen, Colorado ~. Dear Leslie: ~. The purpose of this correspondence is to provide a letter traffic report regarding the access to State Highway 82 for the Beaumont Inn. The Beaumont Inn is located east of ~"' downtown Aspen at 1301 East Cooper Avenue (SH 82, mm 42). The Beaumont Inn property currently has a single access onto the highway and has historically served as a Lodge with 31 available rooms for rent. Aspen Valley Hospital has purchased the '~' property, and is currently providing 14 employee housing units, with the intent of improving the existing buildings and adding new structures to ultimately provide 38 ., employee housing units. Although the change in access use does not require an access permit per CDOT access code, the review of the CDOT files has not resulted in finding an existing access permit for the site. This letter report will provide a cursory ~„ review of the existing and proposed traffic to accompany an access permit submittal, should it be deemed necessary. ~„ EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS `~ Existing traffic volumes were not counted for this report. Traffic volumes (2002) for SH ,,~„, 82 were obtained from the CDOT web site at two locations, either side of the existing access point. See attached map showing count locations and volumes. The AADT at `" the SH 82 and Cleveland Street intersection is 6475. This results in a DHV of 648 ,,~ vehicles. Trip distribution assumed a 60/40 split, towards Town at the AM peak and out of Town during the PM peak. ,,,, Existing traffic volumes from the site were generated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition. Traffic generation performed using the historic 31 lodge units (ITE """ code 320) results in an ADT of 282. The current site, containing the14 employee units, ~„ (ITE code 220) generates an ADT of 93. The posted speed limit in this location is 25 mph. .~„ PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS "~ 2020 Projected traffic volumes for SH 82 were generated using a growth rate of 2% a year. The projected AADT by applying this growth rate is 9630 and the DHV is 963 vehicles. ~- Projected traffic volumes generated by the proposed development were calculated using 38 "Apartment" units (ITE code 220). The ADT for these units is 252. The traffic ~. ~,.. rrr '''~"'~° -sy ~- distribution was completed using the ITE peak hour values and further distributed at a rate of 80/20, toward Town during the AM peak and away from Town during the PM ~. peak. ,,,~, The resulting peak hour distributions and volumes are shown on the attached map. ~^ SITE CONDITIONS The access for the property is located on the southeast corner of the property. The "' access is located near the crest of a vertical curve and on the inside of a horizontal ~, curve, near its point of tangency. The access has adequate sight distance in the easterly direction, but is limited to about 180 feet in a westerly direction due to an """ existing retaining wall and spruce trees. The required sight distance for the posted speed of 25 mph is 150 feet. For a vehicle traveling in excess of the speed limit, at 30 to 35 mph, the required sight distances of 200 feet and 250 feet respectively, are not "~" .met. CONCLUSIONS The projected traffic from the 38 housing units may actually be less than the historic use „ ~ of 31 lodge units. There are factors that could be argued that may reduce the actual peak hour impact of both the historic and proposed uses. With the historic use, the proximity to Town and the fact that Aspen is a destination resort may reduce the need ~„ for a vehicle by visiting tourists. The projected traffic from employee housing may be reduced by the fact that the Hospital has staggered shifts, i.e. all employees will not be working the same 8 am to 5 pm shift, thus spreading out the peak hour traffic. The use of mass transit would also reduce the traffic, from either scenario. This analysis .r..~ concludes that the traffic generated by the projected use will not be significantly different ~' than historically seen from the site. The access will also be improved by the removal of the existing retaining wall and '~" spruce trees adjacent to SH 82. This will serve to increase the sight distance to ,~, approximately 225 feet, increasing the safety of the intersection. °""' I hope this provides adequate information for the review of the access issues for the „~, Beaumont Inn property. If you have any questions or requests for additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ""~ SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ~.. ~, rr Dan Cokley, P.E. 1:\2003\2003-230\002102-23-04 Itr to lamont.doc r ~: ~. .ti r ~. / . ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ,,o / EXISTING SPRUCE TREES ~ ~ ~ '~ (TO BE REMD QED) ~ ~' L~r. " ~ £X/ST/NG RETAINING WALL ~' ~ TO BE~ REMO !/E©) ~ aeb .•' , `„a Saar "°~ ,: .,.4 . S' t ~ 4 •,• a. \ Yt ilea' bw ' •' '•~, bt~~lki0r _ .. ~4.z'r"rF.''ay!R'iytr+'..4 ,per . 2 • ti ~.a4e4r,~•r'~t',`~tg~.y.,~ .t,:i.'. .~,_ e"~+.i?~?~'ii~ to .: -~~ y~+D~.ii~'."~~~•r~j y.~ ~+~.'• '~~~M: ; ~ raga'" ~, ~. O ., • ~!. ~}*~.r +:~ ~:~illY'~'rl+ 1Ql r »~.,~'~itM`C:rhy~ +• .•"` E' QEF ~r 'bi T Ayl 'SY~'•. ~~h tY a, . r r~~ ~r1.., ~,s~ ',.. a 99 ~. _ ,~ a~ti~ r~ .,. .fir ;'~"~''``=,~.. IIYi~' . 1 1i~,y'`•r-~yei"~'.Fy~j tyt+:~~ +, . ,r , is !fear Ow i; 41 ~ 4~'C~::'• , ai:'3'aC ! • ~•..• ~ ~,~ ~sti~~ ..,.~yw'~.p}~f~Y. ~~~`~t+i, _ ~ ` ~ 4 ' `1'Lys~~~i!: .'`~ !: `L ~"` ~' ~C+1t•k.~i ' .. }• ' '~ • ur 'i'ati 41~: 4 ., B' . A y~ flao• W , r .~ .~ . «~ ,~f} . w 3 '~ """'~... .~ .:fir yy'~~~`C\' .~s~ .~ ,,.,-••-'"s ~ 'R '~ s • ~~ ~ Y Y ~ ~ ...,. - 5G4LE.~ f °- 50' SCHMUESER GoRDON MEYER tNC. BEA~lt1~ONT IN~V ASPEN C~ 118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81so1 , ,SITE PLAN (970) 945-1004 (FAX 945-5948) SCHMUESER ~ GORDON ~ MEYER E N O I N E E R f ! EYOR UR Aep~a COlorOdO (9 G) 925-6727 Ja8lN~3-23~ 002 Dote: 9/9/03 Drawn by.~ D/C ~4UMONT S V r~ «.. ,. rir ^ ~.. rr ~.. ~. w w r.. rw +rr +rr us rr ,.,. arr YIE awe .~. rr ~, 2002 TRAFFIC' VOLU.~IESFRO,~I C'DOT W~'BSITE REF, PT. IN7~ERSECTION AADI' TRUf~K % DHV ,°% rnrn 4l, 74 CLEVELAND ST 647? 3.2 !fI inrn 42.47 LUPINE (C,R 123) 1265 ~ 7 1 rntlr 42 13EAUNIf.~1~rI'I1V:V ~fF Z ' ~Qj. HERRON DR a 'rQp sT s~ 9L 4. K1~(i Sr QQQ~ -_ J J ~ y KIN fN ST ~ qV i " > w a ~ a NYNAN q ti ~ Y _ '~ a ti a a C~ fR y 2 ~ q Q 9V 2 ti 3 ~ j q ti~~ q ~ A~ ~ ~1~M oQ' a q ~ ti wAT~ ~' W W o! 3 < ti z Sf71 ALICE LN q Gj, ~ J > F y w 3 o: F ~ ~R o: ~ WESTVIEW DR ? ~` ~""~_ 9L S• RIv ~~ ~`~-" .~ --.. R~-RIn~ FORK DR 0 `° ~~..~ c 0 N SCALE.• 1 = N. T. r SCNMUESER CORDON MEYER tNG. $EAI~MON~' INN, ASPEN, C'D 118 W. 8th Street Sulte 200 Glenwood Springs,~Colorado e~sol 2042 S.H. $,2 AADT VOLUMES SCNMUESER {CORDON { MEYER (970) 945-1004 ( (FAX 945-5948) E N O I N E E R s t SURVEYOR Aepen~ riolOrcdO (9 0) 925-6727 /o8(Xd3-Z.;O.OOI Date: 9/9/03 Drown by.• O/C ~AUMOIVT ~.r PROJECTED PEAK HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTIOCU 59' 169' 60 0 409' '~ COOPER A ~E/S N. 82 ASPEN 40 0 609' ~~ 159' 569' .. 659' 209' 159' 89' BEAUMONT /NN DRl !/EWA Y so 0 409' ~~ ~1NDEPENDENCE PASS 40 o soq ~- AM PM TRIP ©l5TRJBUTION PERCENTAGE PROJECTED PEAK HOUR TURNI~JG MOVEMENTS ~. 1 4 578 385 ~~ COOPER A I/E/S. H. 82 ASPEN .. ... 385 ,578 ~~ 3 14 .. ~r «~ 566 384 '~~ INDEPENDENCE PASS 385 566 ~" BEAUMONT 1NN DR! I/EWA Y AM PM PEAK HOUR l/OL UME ~. SCHMUESER CORDON MEYER INC. BEA ~MONT INN, ASP~'N, G`t~ 118 W. 6th Street, Su(te 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81so1 PR~~,T TARN I1IST. & VD.Lr~ME,s SCHMUESER ~ CORDON ~ MEYER (970) 945-1004 {FAX 945-5948) E N O I N E E R B ! ! U R V E Y O R epee, CiOlOradO (970) 925-6727 ,yBpg,;_p,3p pp2 pQfa~ 2~p¢~p¢ prawn by.~ O/C ~AUA/ONT rs x 2iBY ~~, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ~,~, ' E N G I N E E R S S U R V E Y O R S February 23, 2004 Ms. Leslie Lamont LAMONT PLANNING SERVICES 725 Melissa Lane Carbondale, CO. 81623 ^,LENWOOD SPRINGS 118 W. 6TH, SUITE 200 :.SPEN P.O. BOX 21 55 RESTED BUTTE P.O. BOX 3088 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 1601 ASPEN, GO B 1 61 2 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 8 1224 970-945- 1004 970-925-6727 970-349-5355 FX: 970-945-5948 FX: 970-925.4157 Fx: 970-349-5358 EXHIBIT 6 "~' RE: Beaumont Inn Affordable HousingProject for Aspen Valley Hospital Engineering Report Dear Leslie: ~` This letter comprises an engineering report for relevant aspects of the proposed expansion of the Beaumont Inn property at 1301 East Cooper Avenue in Aspen, Colorado to provide affordable housing for the Aspen Valley Hospital. My comments are based on our discussions of the project, ~' prior contact with representatives ofthe primary utilities, site visits and record research regarding previous utility service and site design. I have endeavored to present my comments in response to the engineering-related provisions of City of Aspen Municipal Code including Sections 26.430.040 Review Standards forSpecial Reviewand 26.445.050 H., Planned UnitDevelopment, Utilities and Public Facilities. Introduction .~ The Beaumont Inn property is located at 1301 East CooperAvenue (East Colorado State Highway No. 82) at the crest of the hill east of Midland Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. The site currently serves ^"" as affordable housing for Aspen Valley Hospital and inGudes the original Crestahaus Lodge and an existing 3-bedroom modular home, both of which will be demolished, and a total of 13 existing employee units in two newer structures that are detached from the Lodge and will be preserved. The existing 3-bedroom modular home is to be replaced with three studio units for a total of 16 units that are either preserved or replaced from the 14 existing affordable housing units on the site. Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH), as the property owner, isseeking a re-zoning and GMQS exemption approval to construct a net additional 22 units through the demolition of the original lodge building and the construction of 4 new buildings on the site. Combining the units that are preserved or replaced (16) and the additional units proposed (22), the resulting project therefore totals 38 affordable housing units. This report focuses on the infrastructure, grading and drainage requirements of the proposed lodge expansion. Traffic impact issues are addressed in a separate report dated February 23, 2004 prepared by Dan Cokley of our Glenwood Springs office. `~ Utility service will be predominantlyfromthe CooperAvenue /East Highway 82 frontage or adjacent utility easements, where most utilities are currently under ground. Vehicular access will be from Cooper Avenue /Highway 82 as well, at the current entry location. I have spoken with representatives ofall the primary utilities and inspected the site with regard to the availability of all ~~ secondary utilities. I would offer the following comments based on the proposed demolitions and expansion; ,q„ February 23, 2004 ,,,~, Ms. Leslie Lamont Page 2 ,~ 1. Water Service Phil Overeynder, the Director of the City of Aspen Water Department, and department staff indicate that a 1'h inch water service to the existing structures is in place from the ~.. existing 8 inch diameter ductile iron water main in Riverside Drive along the south edge of Highway 82 to the site. The Water Department notes that the service from Riverside Drive is an older service "' and likely not adequate for serving the additional units and meeting the requirements of current City ,,.~ regulations regarding fire sprinkler protection. For a new service in a larger diameter, the City Water Department has recommended connecting a 6 inch diameterductile iron extension from the '~ existing 8 inch diameter cast iron line in the north side of Cooper Avenue /Highway 82 across the „~ highway and into the site. This would permit the installation of fire hydrants at the entry to the site and within the site and would permit new service taps in closer proximity to the new structures. "~ Tying into the 8 inch line and routing around the adjacent 14 inch transmission main is the only apparent physical constraint with regard to providing water service to the redevelopment of the ~"" Beaumont Inn property for affordable housing. Connection of new services would also require ~•• abandoning the old service tap at the main. Static pressures in the area should be in the range of 70 psi and the City has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed units. ,~, Based on the assumption that the newer existing structures including the expansion in 1987 are current in terms of tap fees and without the benefit of the City's previous calculations for the Inn, I ~° would anticipate that the Beaumont Inn expansion would typically be subject to only the tap fees ~, associated with a net increase in fixture counts and occupancy. Including an assumption about a common irrigation system through its own meter, the ECU value will be increased by approximately -- 20.5 for the additional units. Asa 100% affordable housing project for an essential community facility that is not a required mitigation for another development, the affordable housing for Aspen ""~ Valley Hospital at the Beaumont Inn site may qualify for a water tap fee waiver through the City of ,~, Aspen. ~"' There is an existing fire hydrant on the northwest comer of Aene Park and Cooper Avenue approximately 120 feet north of the Beaumont Inn property. Installation of two newfire hydrants on '~ a short, private main extension for service would provide for additional fire protection at the property entrance and within the site. ~» ~.. 2. Sewer Service Tom Bracewell, System Superintendent of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD), indicates that sewer service is in place for the Beaumont Inn property ~' to a 10 inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) collection line in Cooper Avenue /East Highway 82. ,,,~, No significant constraints exist and the ACSD has sufficient collection and treatment capacity to serve the additional affordable housing units. ACSD records indicate that the structures have an *~ existing 6 inch diameter cast iron service tap to the main in CooperAvenue. Based on some of the .~ ACSD documentation for the current tap, 20 additional lodge rooms were connected to the 6 inch tap serving the existing lodge in 1987 and service for three employee units was also connected „~, through the same tap in 1992. The modular home on the south side of the site has its own tap out to the highway connected in 1973 (demolition of this building would again require abandoning the existing tap). I would anticipate thatthe Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) associated with the propertywill be "' increased approximately 18.5 EQR for the 22 net additional residential units (plus any accessory 0 ~+ au~u .,~ - February 23, 2004 Ms. Leslie Lamont Page 3 space fixtures). Tap fees for additional service in this area are also subject to a tap fee surcharge "'r"" for anticipated improvements to the Galena Street collector line. .. I had discussed with Tom the option of serving the three new buildings in the vicinity of the original '"" lodge with the common service that is currently in place. Due to the configuration of the current site plan, the old common service will need to be abandoned and a new 6 inch PVC common service constructed as reflected on the Schematic Utility Plan. The new "Cooper" building along Cooper Avenue /Highway 82 would likely be served by a new service tap to the main in the highway. ,~ .~ 3. Electric Service Jeff Franke of Holy Cross Energy, the cooperative that provides electric service to areas around the Aspen Townsite, indicates that underground single phase service is in "' place for the Beaumont Inn from an existing transformer just over the southwest property line. ~,,, Significant load increases or three-phase service (for large pool or Jacuzzi pumps, for instance) would require a new service to the transformer and possible replacement of the transformer by Holy -- Cross Energy. Holy Cross will need to get specific load information from the mechanical system designer for the expansion to address this issue specifically. Otherwise Jeff expressed no concerns regarding Holy Cross's ability to serve the Beaumont Inn affordable housing project. ~` 4. Miscellaneous Utilities Phone service is currently routed with the buried electric service .~, from the southwest property line. Cable TV is on an overhead service across Cooper Avenue /East Highway 82 from a pole on the northeast comer of Aene Park. Gas service is from the Cooper / 82 "~" corridor as well. All of the miscellaneous utilities are in place to provide service to the expansion „~ and are sized adequately at this time. 5. Drainacte The expansion of the Beaumont Inn property for affordable housing use on the ""~ 1301 Cooper Avenue site will result in additional drainage impacts due to increased roof and +~ impervious site area. Site design for most of the current buildings dated March 1987 includes two substantial drywell /catch basin structures to capture and detain runoffwithin the site. The currently "" proposed site plan for the 22-unit net addition will require the removal and replacement of one of the ~r existing drywells (we're suggesting with a larger drywell). A preliminary re-calculation of the detention requirements for the proposed site design under current City of Aspen regulations indicates that at least three additional drywells will be adequate to maintain historic conditions. Our a,,,, preliminary drainage plan indicates two new inlet / drywells in the entry court area and a new drywell southwest ofthe lodge replacement building. The Subsoil Studyforthe propertydated August 19, 2003 by HP Geotech indicates good granular soils and no evidence of groundwater to the depths drilled (up to 16 feet below grade). Site soils appear appropriate for drywells to retain increased drainage runoff. The project should have no additional off-site drainage impact. Any site and grading revisions should maintain positive drainage awayfrom structures and incorporate appropriate area drains on any exterior, below-grade space orflat roof areas routed to the drywells. This project will not create additional impacts to the Cityof Aspen's storm drainage system norwill it require improvements or expansion of the system. .r .w. _ -~ . = February 23, 2004 Ms. Leslie Lamont ~~ _ Page 4 ~~ '"" 6. Access and Parking Access forthe proposed expansion of the Beaumont Inn propertyfor ~, affordable housing remains near the southeast end of the Cooper Avenue /East Highway 82 frontage. Parking is provided in the proposed site plan at a ratio of 1 parking space per unit inGuding "'~' 4 accessible spaces. Traffic impacts associated with the project on Highway 82 are further ,,,,~„ addressed in a report by Mr. Dan Cokley of our office dated February 23, 2004. Thank you for the opportunity of working on the Beaumont Inn expansion project for affordable housing. Please feel free to contact me directly if I may provide additional comment or detail "~' regarding this report. ~. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. ~V• Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office J~h 96114ER2 ~... rrr yew r «..~ w+r .~... ww ExH i Bi-r ~ RESOLUTION NO. 57 (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING TaE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL -~ CONDITIONAL USE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT THE BEAUMONT INN, IN TFiE LODGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT, AT 1301 EAST COOPER AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, ~^ PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel Identification # 2737-181-00-04? WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from J & B Hotels (Applicant), represented by Aspen Valley a~, Hospital, for a conditional use to operate the Beaumont Inn's 31 lodge , units for affordable housing in the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone ~~ District, at 1301 East Cooper Avenue; and, «.. WHEREAS, the subject property is approximatellr 53,578 square ~'"' feet, and is located in the R-15, Moderate Density Zone District with a ,~,,, Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District; and, ~„ WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.710.320(C) of tree Land Use Code, the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District allows affordable '"' housing as a conditional use; and, '""` WHEREAS, the Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation „~ District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, City Parks Department, the Aspen/' Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Community Development Department reviewed the Project and recommended approval with conditions; and, ~ WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.425 of the La;:d [; se Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a conditional use during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from ""'' the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development „~„ Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, ..r WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public heari±.g on November 7, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a three to one (3- ~~' 1) vote, a conditional use to use the Beaumont Inn for affordable housing at ~w 1301 East Cooper Avenue, with conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen 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, t:.e applicable .,, referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, .~. ~.. -~ I illlli Illll lillll lllill 1111 11111 lllllllll itlilillf IIII 449996 12/27/2000 04:04P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILYI ""' 1 of ~ R 25.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COt~lT7 CII WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning the development proposal meets or exceeds ally a oni ablelodevelo sment standards and that ~'~e approval of the development proposal,p with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, Suety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, gE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Sect--- i°n 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen iVlunicipal Code, the J & B Hotels/Aspen Valley Hospital request for a conditional use to operate the Beaumont Inn's 31 lodge units for affordable housing in the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District is approved subject to the conditions described hereinafter. Conditions of Approval: l . The Applicant/owner shall grant the Aspen/ Pitkin County Housing Authority the right of first refusal to purchase ~~e Beaumont Inn aw property. This ccndition shall be terminated if and when the property is subdivided and sold as deed restricted affordable housing to `~' qualified Pitkin County employees. A separate land use application +w~ for subdivision condominiumization, etc. is re^uired prior to the individual sale of each unit. This condition must~be satisfied prior to '~ the affordable housing use of the faciiitti-. .~. 2. The applicant desires to and shall grant to the Aspen!Pitkin County Housing Authority, an interest in the property. The Housing Authority shall grant the interest back to the owner _` *he property is subdivided, condominiumized, and sold as deed restricted affordable housing units to qualified Pitkin County employees. This condition must be satisfied prior to the affordable housing use of the facility. 3. The Housing Office shall conduct a site visit of t:7e units to specify ~ what tape of rental units they should be approve as. =1. The Applicant shall take the final deed restrictions fcr each rental unit to the Aspen j Pi~.zin County Housing Board or Hirai input and approval prior to affordable housing use of the faciii~~. The Applicant shall comply with. the Housing Guidelines as to C*:e category that is ~ 111111111111111111111111111111111 ilill 449996 12/27/2000 04:04P RESn~ ~rrl III 1111111111111 e c n v. assigned to each unit. :~ deed restriction for each unit shall be recorded prior to occupanc :~. 5. A minimum of 36 on-site parkirrg spaces shall be provided. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit to reconfigure the lodge room to affordable housing units, the following conditions must be met: V ,, a. The driveway access to the property shall be at least 20 feet wide. w b. Afire hydrant will be required if there is more than 150 feet of distance between the nearest access point to a structure. ~° - c. Any remodeling of the lodge rooms into 1 and 2 bedroom „,,;~ affordable housing units shall comply with the adopted City Building Code and shall not adversely affect the e:~isting '"" sprinkler system. d. The 1-story modular building should be sprinkled, but this is '~ not required. - e. A sidewalk, curb, and gutter agreement shall be completed. f. A minimum of a 50-foot radius for a fire turnaround shall be ~„ provided. g. A drainage report, soils report, grading, and site plan shall be ~. submitted to the Engineering Office for review and approval for the remodel phase. h. All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. i. If a sprinkler system is added to the modular building, the e<Yisting water system must be upgraded. ,,,,,, j. If new kitchens are proposed, full tap fees are required at the time of building permit review. ,~. ..~ k. Detailed plans need to be submitted to ACSD to assess fees ~, before the issuance of a building permit. i iigii niii nail iiiiii nil iinuiini iii iqn iiii ini 1. If the building is converted to 1 and 2 bedroom units, ACSD tap fees will be required. m. If the site is redeveloped, main lines may need to be replaced in order to handle capacity. 7. The Applicant shall work with the Community Development ~ and neighbors to improve access, lighting and noise on the property to minimize any and all negative impacts. 8. Pursuant to the opinion of the City Attorney, the conditional use awarded herein is an optional use for the benefit of the Aspen Valley Hospital or current properly owner. The use runs with the land as long as the property is remains in Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District or other zone district that allows affordable housing as a permitted or conditional use. 9. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby puts the Applicant on ~,~n~ notice of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority staff member Cindy ~'"" Christianson's memorandum dated November 1 2000 concerning this '~' application concerning future uses of the ro e P P riy• Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect 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 3• 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 Commission at its regular meeting on November 7, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM; PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: I "III VIII' I'll'I IlI~ II"~ ~II"I III "VI'I'I III ~ Iilll ~, 449996 12/27/2000 04c04P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILYI 4 of S R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ~. ~~ +.w r ... 1 Citv Attornev ATTEST: ~~~~~ Robert Blaich, Chair ,~.°~,(~ Gl~ ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk I III~1I III ~'I'I Iill I"I 'III VIII "III' I'll'I ~~I' II" LUTI DAVIS SILVI II' 96 12/27/2000 04:04P RESO KIN COUNTY CO 4499 g of S R 2'5.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PI EXH 1 BIT 8 PnCL( T~DAUNE 323 WTST MAIN STREET, SUtTE ~Ol ~SPEti, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970} 925-9190 T°_tEFAX (970) 925-9199 iNTEiZME1': taddune~compuserve.com WILLIAM GUFST, OF COUNSEL LAw OFFICES OF Pa-t1t J. TADDUNB, P.C. November 15, 2001 Ms. Cindy L. Christensen Operations Manager City of Aspen/Pitldn County Housing Office 530 E Main Street, Lower Level Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Beaumont i'nn Deed restriction ... .. ~.. ~w .~. .. ,~., w~ ,. w. +YAe Dear Cindy: -~ ~ ~ "~, ~ ;;~ _ _.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 .~; ~ , ~ ` ~ wu u 15 2001 ~- '';;. ~. ~S ~- r Attached please find the Occupancy Deed Restriction anti Agreement for the Beaumont which has been signed by the hospital. Please provide me with a copy after it has been signed by the Housing Office and recorded in the Pitkin County real estate records. Of course, should you have any questions please feel free to call. Very truly yours, PAUL ~T. T_4DDUNE, P.C. -._ . ,- ' -~ _ _'~_ . Paul J. Taddune •.~er on~,:aae.~t;n~u~.«~ ~ ~ ~a of ~a ~FFtu.+7ED OFFICE FOIYLER, SCHIAfEERC & FIwNAGwN, P.C. 1640 GRANT STREET, SUITE .300 DENVfR, CCLORADO 80203 TELEPHONE (303) 298-8603 TELEFAX X303) 298-8748 .w~ OCCUPANCYDEED ~7R•'G?TONAND AGREF,AIENT FoR EMPLOYEEDWEI:LLNG ~ APPROVED PURSUANT Tp PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMIS.S'1'ONRFSOZUTIDNNO.57-2000 'Tffi3 AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2001. b Hospital District (after referred to as "Owner" w y Aspen ~ ~ Colorado 81611, located in the County of Pitlan, and)the ~ addresz is 0401 Castle Creek Road, Aspen, jurisdictional AspeyPitlan County Housing Authority, a mult<- houssng authority established pursuant to the SECOIv'D A.M$j~~ A,~ RESTATED iNTERGOVERNMENTAI, AGREEMENT recorded at Recxptian No. 445444 of the mcort}s of the Pitkin Canty Cleric and Reeonda's Ofbce (hereinafter referred to as "Authority„). WiTNESSETH Owner owns real property more specifically described iir Exhibit "A" (haeiaaRa. referred to as "Kral prpptrty")~ located at 1301 East Cooper Avernse, gspm, Col~,~, which Real Property contai>ss ten (10) affordable dwelling units described 1!r Exhibit "B", approved by thLe Aspen Planning and Zanirtg Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 57-2000. For purposes of this Agreement, the Employee Dwelling Units, the Real Property, and all appurtenanecs, improvements and Mures associated therewith shall hereinafter be rtfared to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, this Agreement imposes certain covenants upon the Property winch restrict the use and occupancy of the Affordable Dwelling Units to r+csidrnts and their farrnlies who arc either employed by the Owner and qualify under the Ownar's established policies and procedures or who are residrnts of Firkin County and fall within the Air@ronty's rental price guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. YOW, 'THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obliganons contained herein, the Owns hereby covenants and agrees as follows: Owner hacby covenants thaz the Affordable Dwelling L'nits described in Exhibit "B" shall at all times remain tarts! utrits and shall not be condomuuumized unless and until the Owns secures all appropriate approvals necessary to condominiumiu the Affordable Dwelling Units from the Aspen City Council ~ and from the Authority, 2• 'The use and occupancy of the tar (10) .Fordable Dwelling Units described in Exlibu 'B" shall ,w lxaceforth be limited exchrsivehy to housutg for individuals who arc employed by the Owner and selected for tenancy in the Units by the Owns and their farnriies who qualify under Owner's established policies and procediues, or such other employees grid their families who are employed in h'itlan County and who meet the definition of "qualified employee" under the '~` and as that term rs defined by the qualification guidelines ~stablishedcand indexed by the Authority on an annual basis in accordance with its established policies and procedures. Owner shall have t}tc right to tease the Affordable Dwelling Units to qualified persons of its own selection. Such individuals may ~ be an employee of the Owner, or employed as a resident manager of the Units. The Owns is entitled to aIl rents and other paymeats made by residents of the huts in accordance with their occtiparky of the Affordable Dwelling Units. l . Written venncation of employment of persons proposed :o reside in the Affordable Dwelling units shalt be completed and filed with the Authority office by the a~ner prior to occupancy thereof. wr ~w 4- If the Owner at any tune does not rent any one of the Affordable Resident Units to an employee of the Owner, the unit shall be made available for occupancy in accordance with the housing categoric= stated ~" in Exhibit "B", provided the Owner shall have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which approval shall not be tuu~ea.Sanabty delayed or withheld. ~,. .. 5. Units shall not be vacant far more than 45 days between leases, unless the Authority approves a vacsstcy for a longer period of time based upon the Owner's danottsi<ated need to ktcp a Umt vacant for a loagrr '""'' period of time, whether for maintenance, refurbishment, or otherwise. w 6. Lease agreements executed for occt~ancy of the Affot~dable Dwelling Units shall provide for a ttmtal ••~ term which equals the employment term of th,e employee with the Owner, to the case of seasonal ~w. employees. Such leases shall provide that should an employee who is housed in tht Affoidabk Dwelling Unit leave the employment of the Owner far any mason, or have his or her employment with ~„ tht Owner terminated, the employee shall have 30 days written notice within which to vacate the premises wr . .,, 7. The maximum r~erttal rate shall not ezcted the rental rau as set forth in the Rental Guidelines established by the Authority and may be adjusted atmuatly as set forth by the Guidelines. The rnaximutn pertnitor~ ~+ rent for an Affordable Dwelling Unit on the date of execution of this deed restriction is stand in Exhibit .~, "B". Rtnt shall be verified and approved by the Authority upon submission and approval of the lease. ,,,,~ 8. The Units need not meet minimum occupancy (i-e., one person per bedroom) at this tune since the units were Hat used for mingatton purposes. 9. This Amt shall constitute covenants Hooting with the Real Property as a burden thereaat for the benefit o£ and shall be speeific~lly enforceable by, the Authority, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, ,,,,, and their respective successors, as applicable, by any appropriate legal actzon including, but not limited to, injunction, abatement, or eviction of ncm-qualified tenants. rr ~ 1<N WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this tnstrtunent an this date and year above first written. OWNER: Aspen Valley Hospital District ..~ r~ l 1 . ~~ ~~ ' ~~ ~ Q~i'JY}1.Gi 1 ~ ~ G~~t4Gr ~~nxLl~"Z~ L' (Notary on following page) rn +rr ~.. .r STATE OF COLORADO ) } ss. COUNTY OF PTTK~I ) The foregoing instrvrnrot was aclatowledged bcforc me thisr'9~~~ ~y of uF'rYl~in 20~~ b "' . ~. .~ Tom. CfrT /'~dC r :. - '~. A~ •;:U~ ~Y- ~,IP~~ !'l~A~,j ar ~y!:~~IPS:_"it..~ ; t~ .~ Ile.,, ?. NESS` hand and official seal; My Commission expires: ~ ~ ~~ ~ PAUL J. ~~ N TAOpUNE ~c ~F C~ ~ ~~ Notary Public ~ '- '~ ^ommission ~~^,r~~, ~J~12~/~Q~p,I,ANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY AuthotiThe f~8om8 agreement and its leans are accepted by the A.specvPitkin Caunry Housing ry. T~ AsPEN/Prl~clrt COLNT'Y HOUSING AUTHORITY By: T'un Semrau, Chairper~ STATE OF COLORADO j ss. COUNTY OF PTTKIN The foregoing insuinnent was ac)snowledged before me this day of .2001, by Tim Scmrau, Chairperson, AspeaPitkin Cocuity Housing Authority Board. V!JTTNESS ~tY hand and official seal; My Commission expires: Notary Public 3 ar +~• EXHIBIT "A" ~.- LEGAL DFSCRg'TION ~r .. .. ... «~ ~. ~. ,,. M. rr ,~. 4 drr rw+ +~r EXHIBIT A Order Nur»ber: ovo?7449 LEGAL DESCRIP770N ~ Parcel of ,land being part of the Riverside Add1 ttaa to Ilse Cj ty and 2ovasi to of Aspen, Colorado, said parcel is snore f1zlZy described as follosys: ee9~jsg at a point being a plastic cap oa : No. S rebar sst Mhes~ce corner 8 of the Riverside Placer V. S, N, moped L. S. 2376 cay dated 2955 bears North 8S'08' Wegt 544. OS feeto. 3905 A. M. besag a brans thence ATorth 15°SZ' West 92.OB feet; thes:ce North 24.06'59" West 122.02 fewt; thence North 13°13'3?* SaBC 40.54 feet; inc. Nors:h 78'22'05° .Bast 33.32 feet; thence North 37.34'04' gnat 56.43 feet thence North SB•?4.15* grit 27.55 feet; tbeaee South 50.37' gnat 77.76 feet; ~eaee Sot:r~ 34•?1 '. East 150.08 feet; thence 93.50 feet along a curve to the right having the radius 760,00 feet «e fiord of rhlcb bears South 24°03' Sast 93.00 feet); thence soesth 77.55'SOM Resat 235.32 feet to the yoiat of ~gxna3ng. CO~TTp OS PITICIN, 3TAT3 OF COLORADO .. rr r .w ers .. .,. .., ~. ~. .. .~, ,.. ~.. .~, .. .. E3~iIBIT "B" D¢scription of Units Unit Number Twe Sq. Ft. Catet~orv Max. Rent 100 2-bedroom 949 3 $1,189 101 2-bedroom 949 3 $1,189 102 Studio 296 1 $364 103 1-bedroom 745 3 51,076 104 I -bedroom 786 3 $1,076 (Type A) 200 2 bedroom 1,004 3 $1,189 201 2-bedroom 1,004 3 $1,189 202 Studio 296 1 $364 Z03 Z-bedroom 1,145 3 $1,189 204 Studio 508 3 $964 s r~ Lbw' OFFICES OF PAL'S, J. TADDLINE, P.C. 323 a.'~iain Street, Suite 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-9190 (970) 925-9199 Facsimile TELECOPIER TR.A,'~'SMITTAL LETTER PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: Don Gillow F.~X #: (970) 544-1363 FROM: Paul 3. Taddune. ~sq, F_4X #: (970) 925-9190 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES l~iCLL'DLVG TINS COVER PAGE: 3 ~~ Beaumont Dccc Restriction DATE: March 5, ?00? Don, wr Attached is a copy of the signed Occupancy and Decd 12estriction Agreement for the Beaumont that 1 personally delivered to the Housing pffce on November :5, X001. The stamp on the upper right hand comer of my letter is the receipt stamp placed on the letter by the person at the front desk. .~s always, t:a.ll if you need am~hins rurther. CO~IFIDEN't7AL NOTICE ~ Thu facsimile trsasmusion (andlor the documents accompanying tt) may contain cont?dentuil mfnrmanon belonging to the sender ahtch is proteettd by the attorssey-cleat: pnv~le~. The ,nfortnatton is ~ntrndtd only for the use of the mdroidual or a,uty named above. If you arc na the tttttttded ~ recipient, you are hereby notified that arty disclosure. copying, distribution or the taking of any action m rciisnc::.n nc~ contrnu of this tafomunon is scricsly prohibited. if you have rectived the vsasrnitsion in error, please immcdiuely notify us by telephone to orange for return of the documents. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF Tt[E P.1GES PLEASE GLL l.'S AS SOO?v ,fig POSSIBLE AT f9''0 925-9190. ASK FOR: Stefanie or Alvssa ~~ ARE TRA1VSMtI'fNG FROM A R[CG'r. =q:.: _ jE t1t~y~,+OMIY~,:.v. .. . ~ ,.,.... .~ . 1'i^ •,~ ~R~~ t. 'M .. •.~ "~~;+'. ~ ,~-~x ,'ar'c, ty. • •`~• s~. -k,~'. c t ~, ~I~- r _ j.. .. ]~- ~~ ~• . ;i 4 ~r .~.. .~•_. M34T30!! OA/07/92 1233 Rec 113.00 BK b9J Pfl ZCe 9ilvl: Davie, Pltkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 1.00 OCCUFA1i~Y DtLD PEBTRICTION 71ND AQREEIIENT ATFOADABLR DALLLIH4 UNIT CRlSSTAHAUB LODOL, UNIT A ",~ ~1ay of I8 AORLLMLNT made and entered into this 1992, by and between Hslinda Go rich of t're County of Pitk n, State oC Colorado (hereinatter raterreColorado,081611' whose address is I~O1 East Cooper Avenue, Aspon, a multi- and the ASPEt!/PITKIN COUNTY HOestabllshedHOpursuant to the jurisdictional housing authority AMENDED AND RESTATED Ii~TERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEH£tIT recorded in Boak Recorders3 Otfice (hereinafterrCalled tAuthority") ounty Clerk and e::. . a ::.: . :r.: ~., :; .~ ~ . ~ "~~.i- 1'_ .A:' L..:, . jh•, qx~a ,~r,; _ . ~. ' .~: L ., J 1 i . :~ • i X I T 11 E e 8 E T H IIISERLAB, owner owns real property mere specifically described ne on Exhibit A attached hereto Shall ntheplollowingraffozdable Propert;"), which Real Property dwelling unit ("Unit"). Unit A 9ha11 be deed restricted to Resident Chill bays This unit will be entered from the downstairs, ~ li~inq~and dinirr7 areabeone~andnathalf baths andklaundry `~,\facilities. For purposes oC this agreement, the Affordable Dwelling Unit, the Real Property, and all the appurtenances, improvements and fixtures associated there~dith shall hereinatter be referred to as the "Property"? and N11LRtA8, this Aaree:nent imposes caztain covenants upon the Pzoperty which restrict the use and occupancy of the Affordable Dwelling Unit to residents and their families ~,+ho era either employed by the +%wner ar •.+ho are resident: of Pltkin County and fall within *_he dousing Authority quania~c~nnual bjjigelines established and icdexed by the Authority NOR, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, Caner hereby covenants and agrees as follows: ., ~ 1. ~ 2. ,; I Owner hereby covenants that th9 Unit doscribedshalle notl be all times remain a rental snit and condominiumized. Unit A shall ba deel restricted to Rss~higt de d paestriction means that the unit is limited by but not to price or running ••+ith the land, to occupancy income 1'_aitationsj by qualified employees in Pltkin County, meeting t!te guide'_ines or approval c_° the Au~'~ority. + i~ , . ti • r,~.' ~~ .'~.~ „1' "~~~;~' ,,i... ., ,~. ~~ '~" y •,.,,:~ ~'i! .= ~~ .~/j t ! ;.': wti •'+ ._ ~ ' ~~ . ~ '~ t ~x~•'i~ ~'{ j M3~7309 08/03/92 12~ J8 Ree 119.00 BfC ~~ pe ~ } 8llvfa Devi s, Pi!kin Cnty Cle~k~ Doe 1.00 • ; - ]. Wcitten verification of employment o! persons pro oaed to i reside in Lhe Unit shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authcrity Office by the Owner of the Unit prior to occupancy thorsof, and such verification must be acceptable to the Hausinq Authority. ~ . ~~ 4. Unit shall not be vacant '~r any unreasonable period of ties, ~~• which shall be defined as a maximum of forty-five (4S) days, •'~••. betweon leases. Jlpprov,! for such additional time may be "~'`~- requested by Owner for repair ant/or roturbishment of Unit, r which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. '..,? `~r~~~'~~ + 5. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Unit shall provide for a rental term of not lass than six (6) consecutivo ,.j'~,_-' months. A signed and executed cupy of lease shall be provided 'Y'v~;: r c ~`j"~"• to the Housing Authority within ten (10) days of approval of ?~i;~~~>. ,~ residents. ,.:~.. • 6. This agre:mant shall constitute covenants running with tt:e ' •~ •' 1 Real Property as a burden thereon for the benslit ot, and ,jY ' •,,f~e~ shall be epecitically enforceable by, the Housing Authority - and the City o! Aspen, their respective successors as '~ ;' applicable b an a ' y y ppropriate legal action Sncludinq, but not ' limited to, injunction, abatement, or eviction of non- " complying tenants. .~ ~ , . 7. On January 1 of each year, the lodge owner must submit in '~ writing to the Planning Office and/or Housing dasignse '••;'~ verification of occupancy of this deed restzlcted unit on the property. •~• 1./. 'idle !~ ZN 11ITHE99 AHLRLOIl, the Farties hereto have executed this instrument on the day and year above first written. a~~'.,. ( o1IN14Rt Hailin Addresst ,; ~- _ q :~2::.,x • . ~ r~ ~~. c~z Melon a co r h 97ATE OF ~Qi,~~pp ) ''~;,';,~' COUNTY OF pl'rKtl.~ ) ,:`,1 y. t ,~',~~ ~ .The foregoing instrument vas acknowledged befo a me this a ~D ~ b4lST , ~:,. day aL"~ 1992, ty MEUIJM E,pt.O21C,F~ ,. ;,, /. ' Hitne~•'my hand and official seal. ;` ~,~~a?nission erpirea: ~~~~ ~ //~~/~.~ . n ' ' :`. ~~ ] L~ 94a++iysslan ~~ 1~-i4fB6 r.cii„~l.~anQa-, ( Notary Public • ~> ... ~- M~ . •_,_ ,.:c:t, ..(:- .A .:L' :~~i . ~. >*-~~, ._:w y . ~ s~.J ~Yi ~, ,~ _~•~: . ;_` ~7: ~',,. 1 *,...j •~ ~' ^~~ ~ . z, 1 '+~", i, ia~~l :. } !~ ~~ ~~ a~ ~~ •j:. . ~'~ ~ ': ~. ""'~ 1~~ '` ~ .~Si~ .,~1~. • ~j \' 1 1 I~u • L 'i~t N ( ~hl ~ { ~~~111 ,r ,7 ~ 3 , :,:f, . ~. ~" L ~~ _, R I 11 tt~ ~~~• , I ..~.~ ~Y~N'MYttif'A~*1~.~ ~ x,47?OB 08/03/92 1Z13~ Rac 81Z.O0 SiL ~ P! Z i0! ~ '~~~~'" ~ !Livia Davts, Fitkin•Cnty Clark, Dae f.OO ~';'~` ~ ' . ~ - Zc C4f~~ .. `S ACCBPTANCB BY TH=,FOUSINO AUTHORITY ~ ~:~` ' ~+ Ths foregoing sgr~asant and its tares ara accaptad by Tha ' ~ ' '• `~ Aapen/Pitkin County Houainq Authority. ~ ..' ~E''~ ~• s ~ ASPEN HOUSING AUTHORITY OP THE CITY OT. ~. ,: , AND PITICIN COUNTY, COLORADO ~ ``~! r,: rp eYt ~ „~; ,. •' :;; TITLEi ~ ~~ •:, nt ' a~: Nailing Addrssse SO Truscolt Placa -! ~ ~ Aapan, Colorado 41612 . • ; ~~~ :~~r STATE O! COLORADO ) 88. ~'~''~~"•. ~ ri ' ; COUNTY Of PITICIN ) Y~ ; 1 .v ~ ~~ '!'h~ inq instzunant vaa acknoxladgad bafora a~a . ~ t thi• ~;; .,?h. ' ~•;~ , 1992, by ''naa L ctrtia Chair n~n. :• '~»c~ ,~1. ~,t~, . ~~. °~~ ttf~a• aY and and oftiaial ^aal. 4 . :~y „~;~t b'e~aission axpiras~ 4 ;~~', ~ `` oTC • Not ry' Public •`~ . ' , ..~„~.. ~~ ~, ~ ,a' . •+ Thosaa P n o smith ~ APCHA 1-ttarnay ~'`.~' ~~'1 3. . •t:~. .~.. i1•. i ;~ ,, .p..~~~,~Il4.KtW~~^~',wr+.------r.r.~-+.•c.rvwarrw-.<'.-..u.:/:,....~.......cti~i.~l'~`!'~I}~~x'3 ,;~' ~. Ww+~•°~ ~ 4 iii ~ ~+', .~ fi' ~. ra's T'; r'"•. , ~ er ~.:... +...--a. ~.--....-T..~ , ~~i °. - -s :- .. r~ rr 5i ~ -~ r~'{~. 1G y7J..~A . ~ t4 - .: I:EGftL' ~QE'~CRCPTxtl•t'.. - ,k ,;t:~'~•'• r'r. ~~ w ~.. y ti 's ~ .: t al~~ rV'.' i f ` s ~'' ~a aArr.~f ~? l.Mr ^ ~~'. nv nA t Q~~z~~T"s~=r~1d! ~ddttion to AStlI~~' ~7~ olorr^Q. Sr.1 ~ •,1• ~ .orb 66 , ~-•..ribid ns f~11~w~r ~'~ ~,~ ~; .3~~i~n~~t:7 7'. r,,i-,_ ~..,~.,.~ t,FGA1~sORSCR~P,TIPrta' ,r~, rebnr Zanc~fo0'~ ,t~~' if n jt~•: ,. ~r ! Of "^n. Ri•. ...7n ~'t•r.~.U.S.M.S. rt7 :-~~b~~~~i F,: ~'~1'~,~~~il';Qf~~ii~d.,~e[n~~pi~'~t~c~~.:C~i~~ttiver~+i~e~isd~itiot~'toRl~itS~r~~tu+t: t.+ ~A~a~~dp~.lRio;asr+caL:ii„nilfr~;tut~~<d~acribAd a~ follows: :` { ,~ ., 'til ~ 'r'.. ~ , 1.' ~n 3!. ~7+ < ems' t ~ `~` r2'~Sn' :'{ ~~a ~gi +~ ~oP~Ynt~b.te e,r>;I st w„dan on ~ r+~, S reber ataaa~d ~~ ' `~~~r_'2 ~~~j~htao*zcndnef~~~o~~i~~~ ~~k~rel.ds Pltesr V.~.ri:s: 1fd. ,;9'f0ls; t+e~» 9P•~ ati~.e>Ao dtt~d,~g ~ b~~rti r.crch sS•o9• usst QSS 06 taltf.!'; ,` < , .; c rEE~ ~~`+~l' WRs~ 9~~.~d! ~~,~E: .' ° aj` ~~i'~:ri '' ":. I~F6 ~~t 'dbssf•.a~sC~ 1~•~2:{e*ts "'':,~ o~• a '. R 4rt „~R~Y~~~~e„Ewe~1 8aS yf;~~,: i?.,_ ~,avir~~ +~ t±~!!~~ of ysq.lb R~~t ~r~ ~= 1~Ees ~~j~ ~.,fe~c;.f~,•~t.t~ .,_-,~,a ~,,_1 r `.t, .ry ~,~~~ ~p~ oJt `'~7'~t'~~. Et3~ tS~~~+S.,fieC:, ,, _ `~ ~~i ~ G~9l~rrin, ~ r,'T^; ;~`' :=~.t ' n~a F~or~h b~•2d'16• Cent ~>:6S "f~ec ~ + ' -: CdlnClr >leuth'a0'77' E+sc 77.76 T'.~t: -, ti1»nzs~itocth•:3af2i' Ea,c isa.cB test: ?r ^`. thanes 93.50 fewt along r curve to the right ~•wlnp a radlu~ of ~60:q feat (the chord of which blare South 21'03' Rest 4].00 t.et)~ ;,'~y~t: _Mne• South 77'45'50' ua~t Z33.3~. to ch+w cotnt a` tTeglnnLnri. `":-,5~:•a,. r C.'.'IAY Or PiTr,Irt. ;'`~ f~, sTnr_ or c..~_rtnoo ~. ? T~.~T ,r'j f.` •• < ~,~;~~ ,•~.x i ~ _ ~~ 'r ~r; 1 r'~ . I.,. -~'~$ :~: ~ar~"~ ~~ >S. _. +~. ~ :. ~< <.°.. ~'~ sr; t', af~'• +.. ~ . ti , ,i. t ~~ ~' f ~ :' ~..:,5, ~~~:i're ;, ~ =f ~?/:. t ~ ~'"T'' fx'1=va•,•_w ~. , " .. <r< ~-•a.. .. 1. - ~ k~'. J~ ` r t:. xr 19 c000 10~23AM STEWART TITLE ASPEN NO.c54 P.2 ~~ , ~,~~@ .k •, 777 ~{~,;+ • y k f .~ -...'wy,~;~~~~~~~r J~~''~rA • '' .i~" ~ ..~ ~T309 08/03/42 12t37 Rec a28,00 Bk bB~ PG Zll wri 8llvla Davta, Pltktfl Craty Clerk, Doc {.00 err, , ~. CCOCPAIICY DBltD RE8'fRIC'PZON A1fD 710REE1l8N. A17'~ORD71f1'.E Otl1LLIN0 U1R? ,rr1 C118T>1RAV8 fAOaf, OliiT C D ... 8 AAR8fIf8!!q+ made and antor•td into this 3f` day of ~r o! i in, 8takelot coloraddob(ha~reeinatterdsetorred~Ownas~j whose addresA is iZOi Eest Cooper Awnue, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, • and the ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY HOUBIHG AUTHORITY, a mttlti- .•. jurisdictional ~ouafaq authority aatablished pursuant to the }• ANBNDBD ANO R63TAT80 INTSRliOVI!&lMENTAL AGREE6t3NT rocorded in Hook r~r 6os at Paga 7b1 0! the records of the Pitkih County clerk and Recorders Oltico (hsrainaitar called "AUthority~+). +«.. + ar ,a». t •. .k w ~.. ~` ^~ wr ~. r '"" , .~ RI T7l888E~~ 1f8311tf~18, owner owns real property lore speoitlcaily described as on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Roai Property+), which Rsai Property shah tho following altordabia dwelling unit (++Unit++) r Unit C shall ba rostriated to Category 2. This unit will be on the ground floor and wlil be an etliclonoy unit consisting of 50C square test (with at iaest a X00 sqquuare toot net livable area as defined by the 1991 Affordable withsipri wte baths)kitohenotG end~storags tao113Lieaacn the ground !loon. For purposes of this ngroement, the AlfordaLle Dwelling unit, the Real Property, and all the appurtenanoea. improveaents and fixtures associated thsrowith shall hereinafter be reforred to as the "Propertyr+t and b~1ls, this Agresrent inposas contain covenants upon the Property which restrict tlia use and aeeupanciyyy of the Affordable a0 played bUyn the Owns=lornymo afire t=a~ider~iCeiolepitkin Countytand tall within the Housing Authority qualifications guidelinae established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. lfAx, TSeREYORIt, in consideration of the premises, pwner hereby covenants and agrees ae follows: 1, Owner hereby covenants thnt the Unit described above shall at all times remain a rantnl unit end shall not ba condominiumized. 2. The uee and occupancy of the Unit c, described above, shall henceforth be limited exclusively to housing for individuals who era orgplcyed in Pltkin county and who meet the definition of "tiuaii!!od Category !2 income residents" as that tsriq is ~~. ~, . . ~{ , .en4 Vii' .. ~ ,. ~~, . • ,,. . 1 ~ .. .. T.(• ~ . ~ ^~ .. .. k ...:fir/ "~•:~ ~ . ~!~~ I ,I. ~ . . ~•_ . ,~ ,«.. r SEP.19~0a0 10~24AM STEWART TITLE ASPEN .'~~_ N0.254 P.3 at ~ , ~ • I • , . • . ~ : ~ , ~ .• ~ y ~ ~• ' N347309 08/03/AZ 313? Rae !28 00 ~~ ~ . BK ~ Z1~ Bilvta Davle, Pltkin Only Clerk D ~ s ar l po i ~ dotinod by the Hausing ]luthrity tiuada,iaes eataoliahed and ~ indexed lrom titu to tits. Owner shall have the right to ' ~'"' !setts the Ynit to Ngnalitiad Category f1 inaoms raatdentaN of .. hla own aeieation. Suoh individuals stay be esployse(e) of the .~ ° ~, Owner, provided snob person(s) !ul[iil the requirements of a gwlitiad resident. 1. Britten verilioation o! i ~ d ~ e ~ p th reside in the unit shall and tlle d wLtA be a osptet ' Housing Anthority Ottiaa by the owner of tae quit prior to r~ ooaupanay theraot, and scab varitiaation must be acaeptsbie to _ ~'' the dousing Authority. .r, { * 4. 1t the owner does not sett Unit C to "quailiiad Category, ~Z ~ income residents,„ the unit shall be available for ooatpanay ~ . , in aaaordanae with the itousinq Authority Guldeiittee, provided ~ the owner shell have the right to approve any proapectivs Aft tenant(s), which approval shall not ba uttreasonabiy delayed or . ~•' withheld. swrA- s. tt»it O shall not bo vacant !or any unreasonable period of time, which shall be detlned ee a aaxitnnm of terry-live (46) 1~1- days, between leases. Jlppravsl for such additional tine may • be requested by owner for repair and/or retnrbishment of tltis 1rr ~:x,;.•j unit, which approval shall sot be unreasonably ~leisyed or `~1t vithheld. ~ 6. Iaase agreements extontod tar oooupanay of the Unit shall i ~'+, psovide !or a rental term o! trot lees than six (6) oonssoutive Ira it months. A signed and exnautad copy at lease shall be provided • ~~ to the Housing Authority within tan (10) days at approval o! _ r residents. twt .~ ~ 7. This agreement shall constitute oavanant^ ~~nninqq Kith rho Ibip ' heal Propesty as a burden thereon for the benefit a!, and shall be speoitiaally entosaeable by, the Housing 1uthority, ~ City Council, and the City of Aspen, their swpeative ;, sttoaessoss as applicable, by any a rapriate legal cation u • inaiudinq, but not lieitad to, in~ notion, abatstaent, or ~allr eviction of non-complying tenants. , ` ~. , tp ~'~ 8. The maximum rental rate shall n.~t axaaed the Cdttsgory ~4 rental rate as are tgrth in the Rental Guidelines establiahad by the Authority and may be ad~ustad annually as sat forth by bh i, flea cuidelines. The maxiaua.permittad rent for the unit on the date of execution of this deed restriction is 4s4s. Rant shall ba verltied and approved by the Authority upon ~t ' submission and approval o! the lease. ID~layees: shall be ~ '; qualitisd by tbs .Authority as to employment only. and- not ~ ~ ' Iriiu • tesxlmum inasse.or=asset l tabions. ~ ' ~ ~ n~'~ _ ' : tea ~~~ i• :;, _ ~~~ . i ' • ~~jiilinAw~l~t.~W~kpXl~.~JepiN+in~~f~Y'L'irs'iKF~~'±ih~tllM~ i , / 1 A/ice • ~ • . ~•,' 4 (: ' ~ , ~tP 19 cUEwJ 10~25tiM STEWART TITLE ASPEN N0.254 P.4 ~. rr .A. Writ M. wr W :.•+. WiY oew. WnY Wr ' .'Y M 9347309 CB/03/92 iZ~37 RfC f23.00 BfC 1i6!! pQ Zit 811via Davis Pitkin Cnly Clerks Doc f.00 ~ 9. an January 1 of each year, the 2adge ovner must submit rn vsitinq to the Planning oltica and/or Hona'ng deeignoe varitioation of occupancy at this dfad raatrictfd unit on the Pt'oPartY IIi wITNfBA 1QRlREOr, the parties hereto have executed this inatrum~.nt on the day and year abov~s first written. • opNfa{8)~ ,alt., H Nailing Addrosst ~ s!'11T8 0~ Qo~oRAOa y COUNTY Or t~'riu~{ ~ aa. That rfgoinq instrument was ac~~nno~wwlfdgyyd be~~gqr~~~e ne thi• ~~ ~ap'ct ~ 1982, by M{JJ-t~ C~-01~14i ~~ ;~''•OtitYiUi~~,~tj- hand and ottioial seal. i'~~Ql~,'tja ~ sion expires: ~~+,' 'wllL~ . ~fis 1?JiA(N6 ~.C.C,n~` uy(! 7 r._ 'r o~ •~, ~~' ~ Notary public '1 ..... i; ~• ~~_ i~~, ~,~ • ... ~_., `~ ;' i ~~~_ ~ ~•~ .• rrr ~ - ~ • ' 1 I• '•. _ ,.r- ' II. • ~EP.19.2000 10~26AM STEWART TITLE ASPEN .~ .~ ~r ~.~ ~.. N0.254 P.S rr ~.r+~~t • .~ F~w~DQBiW/9Ztkln CntyCCl~k~DOe 1~ppPO Ali ACC£PZANC£ 8Y THti )'L`J:iING AilTH02tITY The to!'agoinq agrsoaant and its tent arc accepted by The Aspen/Pitkin county xouslnq Authority. HOOSIH3 A RITY OP TH8 CITY OF A>sP$N AND PITRIN , Grp 9Y~ ~~ ~j TI?L8s If ~~ Nailing Addretst SO Trvacott Place Aspon, Colorado e1611 ' BR'ATD OF COLORA00 ) 88. ~I~jN~TY,~ OF PITKIH ) ~~~~.~,~~~~~•u.~lie.`t s inq instruewnt was aalmowladged betora u this ~, I • ~ ~' O ~ .t~~ ~ ~ t ~ 1991, by Jaees G C~~~r ie ehal r,..n. ~ ~ ' ~ y,;; i najss sY hand and otliaiai seal. a~ ~/ ~ L~ go~aalssion •xpirss~ ~r ry,~~ fE O-~c~~,0 r' "~~ LIL~'~1 ..~. MN..MN AP8ROV8D AS TO 1rOANe Notary, blio 4'hallas Pa ga ~ KPCHA Attorney ~ t F~ ,: i~ i+ t, ~'. .~ ~il ~1 ~ ; , r: ~, L N. ~I ~ I1 . 4LK.S:A'r.. ~ . 'r~ :.• . YI R - .•~. ~ - ~ :4 ill. ` •Y•-"-.,'.~ L_._" _.____,.__ ,-f~-._..... .... __.• .. ._. tr ~• ~ ~ 1 i j7~' s_M .1 S ~. iV~'.. ,~ ~ .~ r, 1 I. t~ •w .,' t I . .. ~ . i ,' ~~ ,r •are ee9 '"~~ *. iril YID rri .A1 ar eA arl !A i rf ea. r SEP.19.2000 10~27AM ~TEWART TITLE ASPEN . ~~P'?' ,,. ~ . ,.. ,~: N0.254 P.6 A Ci~_ .'}i+ r~7ao9 oe~oaivz ix~s~ Ree rze.oo etc ees PQ zis Silvia Davia~ PilkiR Ctt1~y CSsrk~ Doa •.00 Ex>1I8I T ' 'r. • LFGA~ OE•4CRIPTION 'A• parcel of Land teinp pert of the ~lverside Addition to Aspen. Colorado. Said parcel Ls sore ful1Y dgsortbed as fa,ilowee Qevinnino at a point being a plastic Cep on a No. rebar eten~ped t. S. 2376 ahenee oorner 8 of the Rivgroide Placer u.S.N.b. No. 3905 A.K. bein0 a brass caa doted 1964 bearir North 8S•08' Wset SS4.05 feeti thence North !S•41• West 92.08 feett thence North 14.06'S9• ueec 1:2.02 fasts Ihenc! North 13•i3'3Z• East a0.S4 feat; tnenes North 78.22'D5' Eest 33.31 feed; ehenee North 37.34'Od" Eaat 56.45 teet:t thence North 66.24'15• Eaat 37.SS feet: thence South 50.37• Eaai 77.76 feast thanes Eouth 94.21' East 150.08 fsetp theme 93.SO feet along a curve to thelrLpht having a radius of 760.00 feet (the chord of which bears South 2.°03• Eae! 43.00 feet); :nonce South 77.45'50' Wast 235.32 to the point of beyLn~in6. CC, v. Y OF PITKIN, STATF OF CDI.OttA00 ..... I~. r j• . N~~• ', ,•- ~ t, :' ~~ii`t ~~'F i, :}, .• i ~ i i .~ ~,~ ~ ~. .} ,~ ,, ii :r~ . ,,.. .. x. - i' t; ~' 4., 1' I ..'~/? fog, ~ a ~ •~: bi't' ~ ., ~~ ~ ~~~ 3 z .} ~, t~~~.t ~,~ ~ ~{~1:T..~' ~~ ~`..•^,~',}~ l' j~i'#'f (. it ~t~• y .f• , ' ~^ 1 '... ; ~ :i.. 1 ~ ,. ' f ~ ~ , ~~~ ~ ~.•~.~.11~ /NV~ 4 • • lift .,. M347'310 08/03/92 I~;38 Ric f2~.OJ BK 6N7 Pp 216 911vta Davis, Pitkin Cnty~Clerk, Dac e.00 OCCUPANCY DZED REBTR2CTION AND AORBLNLNT AlTOEDAHLL D1IELLINO II1fIT cREBTARAas LDDaE ~ Q11zT s _y 'V' ~`;_. +- ~,;,,F. ,~ ; ~ ~ •~ ~• .~ i w ~~ ,} :~ . fa b ~,~ y',~ 1 . i ~ ;yam ~'1 i, 1~1`1~, .{tni r ,r .,. Ta?,8 AORLENLNT madam and entered into this ~~ day of _~, 1792, by and between Helinda Go dr~f thetho County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (::erainnfter referred t~ as "Owner") whose address is 1701 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, and the ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, a itiulti- juriadietional housing authority established pursuant to the AMEIIDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVEP'7HENTAL AGREEMENT recorded in Book 605 at Paqe 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office (hereinafter called "Authority"). *=TxEeeara 11HLREA9, owner owns real Property more specifically described as on Exhibit A a*.tachad hereto and incorporated herein ("Real Property"), which Real Property shall the following nftordable dwelling unit ("Unit"); Unit B shall be restricted to Category 7. This unit will be a 600 square foot manager's efficiency apartment (with at least a SOC square toot net livable urea ne defined by the 1992 Affordable !{ouslnq Guidelines) on the ground .~ floor featuring a single-r^om living spats with private bath, kitchen and storage !3cilitisa on fhb ground floor. For purposes oC this agreement, the ACfordable Dwelling Unlt, t':e Real Property, and all the appu:tenanc©s, improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall ::_reinafter be referred to as the "Property"; and KHEREAB, thin Agreement :-,doses certain covenants upon t':a Property which restrict the uss and occupancy oP the Affordable Dwelling Unit to residents ar.d their families who are eit:-:er employed by the Owner or who .re residents of Pitkin County end fall within the Housing :.ithority qualifications guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. N01f, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, Owner hereby covenants and agrees as follcvs: 1. Owner hereby covenants t.._t the Unit described above shall st all times remaLn; a 4-ental unit and shall not :e condominiumized. 2. The use an~i occupancy ~` Unit 3, describ?d above, shall henceforth be limited c:c~:.aively to hcusinq for ir,dividcals who are employed 1n Pit~:r ::ounty and who r.,eet the definit::^ of "qualified Category ~'. Income resid_nts" as that tern, i~ ~• a~ ~~s. ~~ . r.; f .~ ~ •~ j ~.;.1 i.,.f,• • ~„ ,..,,:~f ;~ ~ ~~!\/ y~ h ~."~.r~ l,. .. 3. w d. ,.. X :,~ ~ 1 .' ~+; ~~ ..:~.~.~,Y. • , ~•,,~' ;.;~ • .rye ~ ~, • x~ ~,~~~, ~ ~• ~ 6 . ~'~.;^~ ~~, , .,i4J MI •;«; : r .. i~ i i . `~ H. ~,. •~ _~ ,' ? ~~ .f: ~ . ~,., +vur..., i•.. .,,. ~~ ~~ `• ~~ a } ..... I !': M347310 08/03/92 121:,8 Rec !23.00 BIC ~!Q PA 21T Bilvfa Dav1s~ P1tkln Cnty Clerks Doe e.0O delined by the Houeinq Authority Guidelines •atablished and indexed from tine to time. Owner shall have the right to lease the Unit to "qualillad,Category p7 income residents" of hie own selection. Such indlbiduals may bs employee (e) o! th• Owner, provided such person(s) fulfill the requirements oL a qualified resident. ' Written verification oL employment o! parsons proposed to.~ reside in the Onit shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority office by the owner of the Unit prior t0 occupancy thereof, and such verification m~•t b• acceptable to the Houeinq Authority. IL the Owner does not rent Unit B to "qualified Category 1~' income residents," the Unit shall b• available Lor occupancy in accordance with the Houeinq Authority Guidelines, provided the owner shall' have the right to approve any prospective tenant(s-, which approval shell not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. Unit B shall not b• vacant Lor any unreasonable period of • time, which ^h~ll be delined as a maximum of forty-five (43) days, between leases. Approval Lor such additional time ^ay bs requested by Owner for repair and/or refurbishment of Unit, which approval•shall not b• nnrsesonably delayed or withheld. Lease agraement• executed Lor occupancy of the Unit shall provide !or a rental farm of not leas than •ix (6} consecutive months. A signed and executed copy of lease shall be provided to the Housing Authority :+ithin ten (10) days of approve! o! residents. Thls agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Real Property as a burden thereon for the benelit o!, and shall be apeci=ically enforceable by, the Houeinq Authority. CSty Council, and the Clty of Arpen, their respective successors as ap~:icable, by any appropriate legal nctlon lncludinq, but~not !felted to, injunction, abatement, or eviction of lion-complying tenants. The maximum rental rate shall not exceed the Category +!7 rental rata as set forth in the Rental Guidelines established by the Authority and may be adjusted annually as sat forth by the Cuidelinea. The maximum permitted rent for the unit on the data of execution of this deed restriction is S81S. Rent shall be verified and approved by the Authority upon submission and 'approval of the lease. Employees shall be qualified by the Authority as to asployment only, and not maximum income or asset limitations. Z ~. • :,~ tii: _ ,~~ ="~ .'. ~' ~~, .~ ~{ .,4 ~~,; ., . ~ ~~ ~• :x.. .~•,.. d '*!- ~'= 1 t ~~ r .~y~ ~ ~ ,~,•i - :y 1lJ+TJ10 08/O~/12 12i~8 Ree 123.00 !K Ns PY 21a 811vta Davls, Pitkin Cnty Clark, Doc e.0O ~~:;~„ 9. on January 1 of each year, the lodq• owner mint aubait in ~ ~ F. rritinq to th• planning office and/or !louainq daaignsa ~; verification of occupancy o! thin dead reatriatad unit on tho ,,~. property. ~• , `~ jx wI?IlNO^ lIB~ASO1, the 1 parties hereto have executed this : •-~s.~ inatzunent on the day and yeas above Lizst written. ~ OR~>R! :. ~ ~~ ~G a •• ,7,• ~- ' .a ~ ~ _.','~~ ~. ~ti•' ~ ~; ~:.. Mali G dzi ''•' ;. , Mailing /-ddrees: " ~N • ..`si '~; ~.ti • ' r;}!~ '• 1~Y~ . covNTY or P'i~a , .. ::: r=~'.' ,,'Pht, ore einq instrument was ~ a knoxladged bafo~a ma tHi9 :~ t'~ , •~ n~~lf JDA ~ • ~ r day ~Qf , 1993, by ,f . -- r ~...,. ~. - -- - =, ~s~'7~Y hand and otlicial ' , ~~t~t . : Baal. `~~ ~.~s,~,3,~'. , , . p° o~i~aion expirass ''';~~,~:~. I~p ~orirr~aion s~lrea 1l~1 ~ - •^ ~ . : <;; ` ~' r ~ • Notary Publio '•,~ ~~~. ,:1 ~>~ ': r 9• •.i Yi~ ~ ~~ : `` ~' ; •~A` ~'~ ~. .,~4r_. . A .. .~' t: 1 r.w.ar .wy.NV.^w."'.~ - _ .~ F. .. ... ,,w ~.n.:'/: Ca„yYJ "M ~1Y'1L _ • :1 ` .~ ~ _ . A ~~~r.~r~;R-.~.-R-.-- ,-.,,v - w...., . ,~ ~4 , ys, ,~j t t, , • :,: ~ ~ ~r .S - .- .~d 1.:' r +1 t~~e ~j ~1 °~'. r ~F ~1.:~``-r~ , :s. .. . . ~;, i-astalo ow/oam s~tiat IF6d '~'l~:ao ~k1l~coo , lflvl+~ Davls; Mtkin enty.cl~~t;;t~ae r a., ,:.~ ~_. - ACCEFT11ACi• sY SHt }pVAI119 l~VTRORIZY .' ~ q;~l: ~ ...+ ,~~ foregoim agts~nt end ltei t~stss ors ~eo~pti i,1l~psn/titkia CcuntY gonsiAq 7, .~a•~ ~ d'° 9xP! ,' ' ~ wr ~a ,,*~1ecuRilr~ ~-trreo~2iY or stis canc. or Asnsr ~,. ~, ~1lID FIT!'.IN CnVn2Y, CoIrP'l1~DO _ ,'~`. /7 '4 '~ ~ r, . ~ DY t ~ lIZLE t If ~~r r r t- j AQ e~~s !0 Znawcott rhle~ 1 1; 1[ailinq. ~~~ Colorescib •16ii ~' ~~ #~~'~`~ ~ ~ ~ r ~f'~71TE 01 Co11Q!tADO 1 r f, 4 ~~ C` p ~` 4' 11 `j 1~ l `~! a ~~ Ot' 4: ~. i Yti'd •~ ~{~~ ;,~nu•<''~ 4,. ~ RnM end olfic~iAl ein,-~~l. w~~ '~~~~ 7fi~ w. ~.. ~-fl 1.~~ S s .is~ion e~rlpir~~t ~:~ ~. ;. tl .+ 1l, !f ~ . 1 ttt 7 t 4:~'r J ^'~~ 1- `G! n ' r:. F1IIbilo a{~tC'; Lit ~. :'~ ~ ~r~ c , ~ ~! '' .A.Fk'I'.9YrD TS 'IO ICi'21t r~ ~, . ^ .. Thor~ee f n ' ,;;, 11PClt11 Attorn•Y ~, ti .Tj' :A- , . `, 3 ' ~. - ' ?fir ~f7:"' ' .Cy~~ ~3~~~ ~M r ~ r ~.¢y ~~c~~.s ~C, i ~~ t,'~~i' j~! s, t.~ { a•7 _~,~ ~ ~: i j 5 '1 j., ~ ~ ' y J'~ tr ;t I si r ~ j ~• • • . '~ 1 ~ __-__.___ .a~~ :11 .~` {~~.. =~;~f. tt--11J' l'Vf~i~ :•::h+ ,~ Nal~alo osiosin 12~~s Ric s2s.oo aK Ns po ~ Elllvia Davls~ Pftkin Cnty Clrr~k~ Doe s.p~ EXHIBIT 'A• LEGAL. DESCRIPTION 'A• parcel of Land bvinp part o• the Rivrrsid~ Addition to Aspen. :...~'' ~ ~ Colorado. Said parer! Ss wore tullr dasoribrd as follow: -:%rcc~ t, Sroinninp at a voint bsinp a elastic crv on a No. S mbar rtawprd '~'~"' L. S. 2376 whrnea corner d of the Rlvarrldr PUerr V.S.M.E. No. 7105 .;~~'' A,M. Drinp • brass eav dated 1154 burr North /S•Oe• Wrst 564.06 frets '~' throes North IS•41' cart 12.Ot1 tuts •;;'t.: thrnos North 11.06'S!' Wrat 122.02 fvrti ~'=M -, thrner North 13.13.32' Caat 40.14 frrci 'i'•~ ;:,', tnlne• North 70.22'OS• last 37.21 trrtt _ ~ ,~ ;- ~: ~ - ~;='. tMner North 37.31'01' [aaC S~.IS trrti , ,, . ~ '.:,: ~" '~r~;,: tMner North 6x•24.15' Cast 27.lS trrti _ ~ , ` 3 :.::~ ,. thanes Eouth SO.37' Cast 77.7ti trrt i - '~ ~ -J ` tMnes south 31 21' Cast iS0.0• trrti ''` ;~ •c ~'r~ +'~ ~~ cMnCr l3.S0 trrc sloop a curer to thr ri0ht having a radius of 7 60.00 ~~: ~~+ ~ ~ ,` ,.,R_. tart (the chord of which brars fouth 24.03' Cast 9J .00 teat): , , •~v`~J.;y ;;yy. :nancr south 77.45'SO• Wrrt 235.32 to Lhr point of b~winninQ , `. tr.... •t~~;', Ct9:`iTY bF DITKIN, ."'•su+,~ -~' iTA1E Of COLORA00 ~ , ~ •~ ~ r~'•c y y ~ ~ j ~~•~~ . ,jy3 .ia : ~ •;.'•'` ~~~ ~ y .. .riDNI+~L . - ;y ~ ,- _ ,, i I ~ .. 't. . ~ ' '• ~~ ^1ar~-(~7-UO 12:3~tP x'09-:-35 18x12 MCF~YNdipICKETT ~ 1~.. • ~, ,~`~ ~'~ 1~_U, 970 0 ~ ~' . O 1 z~ a760 p.ez~~ Housing pffice C~tY of Aspen/P(tkin County 330 disc Main Str~~~, {,oyr,~r Level A:peal Colorado a 161 1 ts~o~ siasosa Fax: (97oy 9zo-ssao ,., r A, .r ..r ~, ~~ 1301 F,~ ~~ A~renur: A>~ CD ! 1611 Re: ~~~ Ha0~in6 . Q~otm Vait: Lk=r M+eii>Dd>r ~peCS.d >ths Lsrne roost badidin~ Pn+Po~d to meat tbs a>~brytble hou: ~~Y ~ ~+~ Dsed R+tetlttiom ~d ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~sultrwrat aontdnai is C.dt~ GMc't tsmtds. beeie SS3 •e p,~ 206 in the nfo ~ rooQ, b4;,c~ng u„y be tised a:, .uhs0 /~IaDSPII is in! deb 1'~7Gt1~ in mchlblt "A'. t>,11C ~ ~ ~u °~~°~~ p~°p°s°~ ova the tabby, L ~ ~ ~t a 0°~P'm ~ tented in sooo~~,rith the DMd Rettcirtiot pl+ue d1 ate dye hsvt ~r 41~nnt. Y ~ Davo *c Ioo, P~trurdn Ditt~ut ~`S~~t ~~ (~-~ 1 ` . -~ ~r.~rripd at ' o'ciotk~hi ~ ~ ~ ` SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER rpl;q 55•.3 v,,i;:?(!6 CCC'';PAfJC'f ,\:.U kENTAL DtiL•L kF.STFICTIC;I AtiD AGREb'D;FtiT TfiIS UCCL'cAi7CY AND RLNTAi. DEED RE51'RICTIOC7 AND ACREF.- MENT (Ap,reemene~ in made a d entered into December 4, 1987, ~ by and between CFESTAIlA;TS~LODCE, INC. (Owner), and the r15PF,t1/PITKIN CCL'tI'IY HOUSING AUTHORITY (Authority), a housln; authority created znd erEndized pursuant to § 29-4-~)1, e[ seg., C.R.S.i § Z9-4-50L, et sue., C.R.S.; § 29-1-101, e[ she ., C.R,S.; nrd an intergoverr.mer.tnl ,~3reement bctween~tte City of Aspen .ir,d 'rickin r'ounty, Colorado. .J I T N E S S E T H WflERGAS, Owner owns employee units (Units) 1n the Crestahaus Lo;ige, 1:01 Eaat Highway t32, Aspen, Colorado, which Units are r,,ore particularly described a~ follows. " The dormLtory h~ sing unit occupying approximately 625 s uare f t i L • q ee n an -ehgped configuration along the north ~ and east walls of the aecat-d floor of the main lodge build- . ing of the Crescahaus Lodg~: ns shown on Exhibit A attached `i hereto and located on tha land described on Exhibit B tt h d h a ac e ereto. t+'HERr.IS, pursuant to the City of Aspen City Council Resolution t7o. 1-86, Ownez is required to impose certain covenants on the L'nits which •.+111 restrict the use and occupancy .,E the L'nits to lower-income workers and their families who f.i11 within the low-income rental guidelines establis};eci a:;d indexed >a}tnuaily by the Authority, except that employees of Owner ~.~hall be allowed to live in the Units even if their inco;~es exceed the low-income guide- lines. In order to :.ccompiish the foregoing ob fectivea, • Owner desires rt enter in~u this Agreement wir.h the Authori- ty on the terms ;et forth""herein.. .~ NOW, T1;E%EFJi:~, in c~nsid~•r.:ticn : *_en cailars ($l0.CC) ;ind cthc~r r,,od and v.,i~~,ible ~,. eider-tticn, paid by the Authcrit,• tc t^e Owner, t'~c c~ucipt^ and sufficienev o~ which are her~•l:y r: knowledged, it is screed by the parties hereto as fol'_c~~s. 1. Rental Restrictlc•ns. '.'`~e par[ics 'r.ereto acknowledge chit !`wren wi nut occupy ~r utilise -he Units as Its residence; instead, C•.+ner has ccnstru~ted the Units for purposes ~f lea^inK the Units to cPrscn° employed in Pitkin County as employees of 0•.mer or •.i,u fall within the Authority's 1cw-inccme rencll guidelines as the s:,me are published from time to time. 'n the e~:ent the !';;its are occu^ied by persc;:s other thin cr-,.yloyees of (,`.•me-, Owner shall lease the ':nits pursuant to the s:tremer.[icrec± guide- 11r.cs at the rental prices per square feet established by such guidelines. 1n this regard, no lease agreement '' ~) t co: ~ 5~•3 ~.cF _L ~ - , executed for ~ccupnncy of Cleo aUnics ;hall provide for a t~riraary term of loss than si:<• cunsecutive meths. Owner shall Furnish the Authority with a copy ut any lease agrre- menC covering t":e .In its. • 2 Usr. and Oc~unnnev. Thu Owner hereby c.ve- nants Chac c!.e n> r:; s ca remain n•ntal units and shad nut be condominiumireri. Use and o~upancy of the Units shall be limited to housing fur quali£~`ed emplo;~eea in accordance with the low-income re+iCal guidelines established by [he Authority or a successor thereto, except that employees of Owner shall be allowed to live in the Units even if theLr incomes er.ceed the luw-income ~•ental g•iidelines. The O•.mer of the Units nha11 have the rigt+t to lease the Units to qualified employees of its own selection. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall- mean any person currently residing in ar.d c•mpluyed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum average of 30 hours per week nine months out ~f anv L2-month p~rlod who shall meet low-income and occupant}•-eligibility rAqu+-emer.ts established and applied by tt:e Auttiurit: with reGpect to employes housing or are employed by Owr,rr. 3. ~~~ .~ menc Verification. Verificatioc: of employment of arr one ving in tie nits shall be completed_ and filed with t_ne A~•thority by Owner prior to occupancy thereof and r_~r ~.~• a•_ceptable co the Authority. If the Owner does nac rent the Units Cn ±ts own employees or other qualified empluyees, the Units shall be made available For occupancy in ~rcurdance wick the Authority guide Lines, nc~ right to approve any provided the G•.rner shall have ) prospective ter.:,nt, which approval shall notle unreasonably delayed or wichhe]d. 4. Leas~•. Whin .~ 1e:r:;,~ is signed wieh :c tenant, u copy shall '•~ i' t~., th~~ Authurir~~ ~:n that a current file may he maLnt.• ,. i t,: } ~ 5. Owr:rr further covenants that the previously !existing manaeer's apartr.,unt un the first floor of the main ~ lodge of the C: esCahaus, the L~+cation of which is showTC on Exhibit C, shall remain an employee untt exclusively for ~ occupancy by e^•,p1o;:ees of the (:restahaus and their families. „ ` ~ "iolations of Rental ur Resale restrictions. 6 ~ . In the event t!•.r ~n'its aru easec. w~tTiuut comp ia~:cc w~~ this Agreem^_nt, :uch transacricm shall be cu 11 Ind void and A+4 shall confer ^o ic~terest whatsoever nn cl:e intended lessee. Each and every 1r;u;e cif the Units shall he deemod to include and incorporate 5y chi:; rc2r•rence, even without r~+`urence I hereto, the cuvenants herein cor.tain~~d. ~ 7. lnsnec•ions. In r.ha event the Authority has rcasuna'~Le c.n~.:--rr 1; e• lvvr.• the Uwncr ie viul•tting the ,.t,,,...J.,r•: , . .i - '_~::K 553 :'Y`~i!~3 lia ,.r,r.., ct)t, .ttt. r1r1[hut'itf, .,v .u-~ .1; • Churi::t:tl t,.~..,..;,.rt~.rt:•.' r• rr cite lfnit:; f:ctwe~•n .9:00 U•.;a••:' ..ith ~:,, % C r,•:.•,1 i~ri,l.ty :tft,•r +t-uvitlina •_ho . tlt.~n ~' , lu+;: i r inr written! nu-_ lc:e, .C Ct, ~1. _I_ 1~.i, .:It•r' . ..,'p'. •:i'_ lu•rl'ta •LL 1)+ .-+:cd •it.tr~_ .uth~r, t, •v .h.. c•,n- ta.tir.::: .: it~•.. .~t:: i'ntt; h! r„ ,~, in , r'cifv ''tt• U:r•_r I+ :r.)': uC• i.... .: 1tlt!)~ r,. .tt: rcr. t,l, .::~. lucli,. ru.,r prcr,i. :)r C rr ^r nc~ At:t!~ ~ n• - ri1c..:tir. ;; _!:~ '.en.t:)[ ., r!', !':.. ~ rl C~ t~itC rin qu:!1`i ird •r• tc is int•nt+. by t!•C 9. ?Jnr.ic•+•::, rtny' r•ntict• which is r,•riuirec: =;~ be given ur;•Jer chi: ~Kt~c~ent !!aril he give:) by r.:.tilir.tr •:uch nitice b/ cectifit•d ^ail ru [ht: Culloainl; addre;;e;;, ',,hick ra.ty bt- chanJ;~,1 by •.rri Ct~_n nol'icc r.u ehr_ other part,:. i r t::t•::[.th.rus LuJE;c, Inc_ ~:i+) t•licltiy;.vt Avenue h':_nagernent C:•.rp,)ny _ ::uitt: L01, 91C Suuth t•!i.:hiar. Avcr.ue 1'Lic.'1•r,, I1l'nnis 50tit)5 \•:~'' a; i'i-':::) cCt)nr.CV tir>u::inv Autlt,~riC~• ~„ i ,... [h .;trJ .rtt, :---==:.- ' ~ _:rn' ^s• __.. h f..srrl ' :, ltrm... ..;^ . . ^ ' ' .iul :; ft.tl ''~ .t h lci• Cc.c ..nit. ru:t:..r. i . !1 Ch~, i.r C(1 :tr ~ ^ ~ •. rt, • ~ ~ ' A::p••11 -. r ~ h~•i.r ~!r. • : ~' .. 't•~Chr.r.'•; .r. ~• 3~ ~ 1t1Y r:• ' / , •f.,. Cirv ~ :' rr!.utiin:• .~, r~~nri ! . )Lr (c•.; t1 .:cti:'n rr•n.r.tr;; Thy t-.,~,,..t.:nr.~• ! •_~'~irct~)•t ~ rnedinc,! ir+ thu A t• „r,:cr.plvin5 t e•rct~ tl [,) bt^ ltt furrt: a•.. surviv[r•c l::t 4ah•~ i s r;' t':-r I r•-g,r~r ~luritt>{ •Itc• liC~• nt. s1~a11 .'.)e r,f trier I r a chc the City of r\s;,tn) C ,I ' -;•r,~rnrly cx~ ~i~: C(r '"~ •,, a,t Ctlunci: oC , • ~ . uC SU vr•.r-, rrf^ rl'.r . .~,!„ ,i ptu3 ,`L vc•ar:: ur :', .C+ ' r :t c•rr ~ -Cl~ r.r ,Iltt•./ t'r JL ~ •~ _ ~1 _• Ir 1 r t' `r 1. !•~ ~,: ..1 :ll s • C.1~ r'i r•!{ 1^ ); ..l l' -• :I11r:lt_.~ ~! ` :~I.III i1' i 'j ~ t: •: __tu . . r { 1 i 1 •a rri ~- rr .+ rrr ,~. aq wI rd r All YII/ r -- :cam - - - -- - - - roeK 5~.3 ~~~F2U~ ,. LCI WIT,1=S5 ~iliiRliOF. the ;:srtio:: Hereto leave e:;ecuted this instrument on th~~ day and year above first written. O41t7E72: CRl'S'1',11L1115 LVUI;Ii, I:lC. Liu;~,~;tll U:'AL; i'rc%iuiuunt STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ., .. . COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument :gas acknowledged before me December 1987, by LEOIIARD KOVAL. My commission expires- a iJitness my hind and officill seal. __ ~ r otary u is ACCF.P'fAN~:E 13Y IIOUSItIC AUTHORITY The fore~;'~inl; ;rant and its terms are accepted '~ r the , Authority. ~~ THE ASPGI!/PITI:la COUt7'i'i !lOUSIi;G AU'1'ilCi:i:'t ! } 7 ! Tit 1 e ~ .~. ~~ ~;, /! / <t-rt c t ~ ~~ . 1~1~. ~ •~ t DG/07 _ !, _ f M~.:. ...~I ,~. . ~- T- ,; '~ ~ ~•' ~~rr'~3,~~ ~N 553 PA~z10 •A• t j ~Tr, `- ,~', „ .~ l~i•. . -ra:: ~~ "; i .~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF. she partles hereto have executed this Instrument on the day and year above first written. .. OWiJER: ~. ~~ ,- :~; .. t CREST TAUS L3DGE I2JC.~ .; ~~ it ~ t /LhU:~AKI) KUVAI.( Yresiden[ • STATE OF ltt2It0I9 ) - COUNTY OF PtTK-InJ ~ •s. '` ~s~[[ • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged 6alasa..me _ . ;_ ,'F ~:.~_~ ~ December ~i h, 198 i , bF LEONARD KOVAL. ,•..• •.:,;~ • • ,. ~ '':, ;- , My commission expires $ - f`1 ~ ,@,VS~ JH ~' ••~`~~,~; Witness my hand and official seal. ,`,jc ~•C 1 j '}- ,-t.~ , ~' - i,V.~ ~~ ~ .~ry,-- ~ . otar is •• p ,~ ~ f ' J ACCEPTANCE 3Y HOUSING AUTHORITY ' ~:i The foregoing grant and its ter^s are accepted by the ~• Authority. :'~ THE ASPEN/PITKI:7 COU:~:'f HOUSING AUTHORITY By ^ Title i. D6/07 -4- ~ ~ ~ I'l•~i..~ ~! X r . ~ 7M~..~~ f ' ~ ,~ ... . ~ .. . wsilir~l'tit~+`'. .~ ~, . . R'. r ! ;i1er~.'!'Li'+~~ ~j ~ *r. `1,.iy ' ~, • / 1 r :', • ~~. s ~„ 55'3 ~w~_11 .. :Fi `~ ,~ '~ jSr`~ FM~r 'P' S 3 {i iy ~r.7•~ ~+ r,.o.• e ^~c~ \ r ~ i.-, t~i v ~ . ~~4. ~Ky ~•{ ~~ `+ ilf:i s_+~ ~?;;' ~. - r ~,. ~.. ~~~. -~~ :: • . ~~~„~~ ~, ~, ~ s~ , ~. ;:. K' ~3=' :~ .., i I .' ~ ~''~ ~: 7~ . e . «::. ` .r '<.. ~f}; .T :,~t~~4 1 ~ 1 •t I. 4• ..` • _.~ x_._ ;. r . . reek 5~..3 ~a;:'~1 ,: €: :~ ;: ~~ ~s ~~ -~ :;~ , ; _ _ ,~ • • poi lsd betn~ i~'t a~ the Mwrslds R!L`{ y ~t~I ~~ ` r::: ,~ N`R ~~ o ~ ~fien°r mater i o~ Q ap e4 ~ ~ S :~Ess ~ L: ~ ~ daLd 1751 ~t Ri~eact6 t ~ • ^1 J~ a03 ~ 1't~ ~es R !S'OM ' e `ri ; ~ _ ~ K. SS1.03 ' ~ ii i ~ ! ? `Y steno. •o ~ w y ~ yw i f ~' ~ ~ vu. el~ss. w h-z~ r ~ as s~~c`' ~ ~. lAs+a w if-SI•yf• L. S~.s3 a~,a, s som• ~ ' (~ dim o[ atlldf ~R u! Abe ~ lam ~ ~*! o ~GRa et 2i'f.C7 ~e ago f T795•SD- t• 2art2 sr.: sa >y Potae ~ n`~ • ' ~, j •1 . ''F. .- ,,_ F:'~ . ~ 1~ ;` w I ~. r; (~ iS~.. . ~ / 'i i ~ I i ~. .. ~" 1111111 IIIII 111111 111111 1111 1111 1111111 iii 11111 1111 1111 482681 ~ I I"III "III "I'I' Iill~l I"I I11~ ~III~'I I~I I'~~I II'I I~'I 05914/2003 ??:46A SILVI(~ DAVIS FITK,IN COUNTY ~~ R 111,00 ~ 0.00 ORDINANCE N0. i 8 i sEP~, ~~ 2oc~_ , EXHIBIT 9 _~'~t ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN '~"" APPRO`ZNG FLNAL LAI~'D LSE APPRO~-ALS _-~ND GR.~NTING ~. .. DE`~LOPMENT ORDER FOR THE OBERI~IEYER PL ACE COWOP PROJECT, ON LANDS DESCRIBED HEREIN I\ THE VICINITY OF THE 500 ~\'D 600 """ BLOCKS OF EAST BLEEKER STREET. CITI~ AND TO«~NSITE OF ASPE>\', PITKIN COLNTI". COLOIZ4D0. WHEREAS. the Aspen City Council. oursuara to Resolution ~' 1, Series of 2002, ~. - and Resolution=~, Series of 2002, deternined eligibi~ for *.:_~e City's development for the '""' Convenience and ~-Welfare of the Public , CO'~ti'OPl re•.•iew process the redevelopment of ;,,~, cenain real propert_: (hereinafter the `~'roiect'') o•wrea b_... Obernever Place Holding Company, LLC and Maus Ober_ne..•er. G°era° '.Iurphv, y Robert Zupancis "~'" ~subseauently conveyed to the City or Aspen!. ~ailen ~ _lit. Pitkin County, and the City eew of Aspen, and successors and assigns, _.._ t::e pu:-yose o: providing service-oriented >~ commercial space, surface and undergro~~:d harking ~ :or both aubiic a-td prvate needs), free-market housing. deed restricted housing. ~edest~an lint:ages beta-'een the ever and '""' the City core, and possible City and/or Counr.~ ~overn:.ent office space; and, '"'" WHEREAS, the Proiect includes ail ':and ber:.een East Bieeker Street and R.io „~ Grar_de Place, all land bordering East Eieek°: StrPe_ bet~~~een Spring Street and Rio Grande Place, and ao~~ions of F,io Grande Park, more precisely described as: a tract of ""~ land i n the East Aspen Townsite Addir_on. accordi :, to the plat thereof recorded as Docu.~~ent No. 10843 of the records or' Pitkin County. identified as Parcel No. 273-.0-3.24.003 according to the Pitkin Cour:1.• Assessor and known as t;40 East Main Stree Gignoux-7..:. Subdivision Lots ~~.d ~ L~a ~~. -. 8, and ~. Block 2'"` East ~" Aspea :`.ddition, Lots 6. 8, and 9 FZio i=rande Subdi-.-sior.... tract of land ide.^aiiied as „~, Parcel No. 273;.6-~.0!J.040 according tc to ?:.kin C~~ant~~ _-assessor and ~zown as 600 East Bieeker Street, a tract of land identif.ed as Parcel \o. =x,7.07 3.00.041 according to ~"" the P'r' - C r , ^_ ., ~IW ..gin oun.} ....~.,ssor ---- and known as ~30 Last ,~,r~~~? ~, '"~"n,~",~~ `~Iapo:Prciectarea Bieeker Street, that po:~ion ~ Rio Grande' park-~~_~ ~' ~+~ ~ a ~~ of Last Bieeker Street ~~i ' '` `~`~°~-y~ :~ ~ ` ~ right-o-way between ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ -u - ~' ~.. ~~ ~~;" `!` Spring Street ar:d Rio ~ ~~ ~`'`~~ . ~..~--~ ~~' ~` „~` -i~~~ Grande Place, that ponion ~~~' ;h. `" J. Of R10 Grande Parl: owned /~ 'u ~ =~~ -' 9ounden of Ceermeysr ~ ~. ~ '~ COWOP IenO use rsverw by the City of _~.spen ~ ~~'~ ~ .,,, ~ accorr~ .odating and a.. _ t; ,~'~~ - ~ ~h ~ affected by tl:e ?akin - -'' ~ ~~- ~` ~''~~ t. i Count.. recycling ~~ ~'~ ra _ , _~ ' ~ ~~~ operation and snow e: `:cQ'~~ • ,' ~ ~ ;moo;` melting facility. ;hat ~d - ~ °~ ~-~ ~~ portion of Rio Grande Ordinance ~ o. 18. 482591 ~, Page: 2 of Z2 05/14/2003 11:46A SIIVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 111.00 D 0.00 Place right-of-wav i,etween and including its two intersections with East Bleeker Street, and a parcel of land owned by Pitkin County known as Rio Grande Subdivision Lot #5, '~" all located within tine City of Aspen; and, _ WHEREAS. t:^.e Project's private property 1ardowners ~~ere represented by their respective propem~ o« ~Iers and by Tim Belinski of Obermever Redevelopment Company, Leslie Lamont and _~.lan Gray of Otak, Inc., John Cottle and Bob Schiller of Cottle "~` Graybeal Yaw ArclZitects, Steve Szymanski of Szymanski Ray Consulting, Chupa Nelson "~ and Jeff Peterson of RA Nelson Fine Builders, a:-Id Ben Gagnon of Ben Gagnon Consulting, all of •,~~hom were authorized, conditienaily concerning some property owners, to represera the private property interests and known collectively as the ~" Obermeyer Design Team; and, WHEREAS, : is anticipated that certain of tine 1 ands and development rights will ~ be conveyed to Obermever Redevelopment Company (the "developer") and that the developer will constr.:ct and complete the Project subject to the COWOP process and the development approvals described herein WHEREAS, :~ COWOP land use review process, Section ?6.500 of the City of Aspen Land lise Ccde, .vas created anti adopted b~~ the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest. •,vhen determined necessary by the City Council according to said Section, to evolve an iterative process considering input from neighbors, pronerw owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest assembled as a formal reviewing authorin~ of the City of Aspen Task Force Team providing recommendations directly to City: Council; and, WHEREAS, :~ Obermeyer Place COWOP Task Force Team was comprised of owners of subject progenies, neighbors, representatives of the City of Aspen Community Development Dear:.::ent, representatives of the City of Aspen City Council, representatives of the C:~~~ of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, representatives of the City of Asper. ristor:c Preservation Commission, a -epresentative of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing .=_.ahor-ity Board, a representative ~ . akin County, a representative of the e.;isting commercial tenants, and members ;;~ the citizenry. The City of Aspen Community Development Director served ~s t::e chair of the Task Force Team, in ccmnliance with the requirements of Sec~on 26.00 of the Aspen Land lise Code. The composition of the Obermeyer COWOP Task Force Team was approved by the City of Aspen City Council, pursuant to :c°soiution ? 1. Series of 2002, and provides :~ project with a brc and awareness of cone ~~:_;:~- issues:: r:d. WHEREAS, t he COWOP review process enabled the niannina and desiQrl of the ~' Project to reflect esser:tia'. community goals and values, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points-of--view from neighbors, current and potential tenants, land i~r Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2003. Page 2 ** 48291 Fage: 3 of 22 05/14/2003 1I:46A SILVIA DAVIS PiTKiN COUNTY CO R 111.00 D 0.00 owners. citizens, and technical exaertise mom various professional staff of essential City, ^. Counn•, and quasi-municipal distracts and utility and service providers; a~.d. WHEREAS, the CO`Z~OP land use revie~.v procedure does rot a.^.d has not ~" lessened any public hearing, p~ubiic notici:-lg, or a. s critical anah-sis or scr LLtiny of the ,,,~, oroiect as would otherwise be required; and, ,,, WHEREAS, the Obermever COWOP Task Force Team met fifteen (15) times. each time for approximately twee to four (3-4) hours, to consider the iazds and their ~'" context; to identify the goals, obiectives, and physical, financial, legal, arld public policy issues and parameters of the project; and, to guide the programming, planning, and design Df the project or. the following dates: 'vlarch 20, 2002; March 27, 2002; April 3, 2002: April 10, 2002; _-~pril 17, 2002; 1lav i, 2002; Mav _.', 2002; June ~, 2002; Jane 19, 2002; "~' ?uly 10, 2002; August 14, 2002; October 16, 2002; ~ anuary 24, 2003; Februar_w 12, 2003; ,~„ and, February• 26, 2003; and. „~, WHEREAS, the Obermever Design Team met with processional staff i - ~"., ., -~: ~" oc the City, County, and individual quasi- ~'. ~ `n - : ,_.~; - r ~. municipal districts numerous times - _ .. _ , (likely over fa'~• times) to identin~ and ~' `" - ~ ~ _ - : ;~ _ , a discuss technical, physical, tnancial, ~~ - ~ _ legal, and operational issues of the site, land uses, and ~~ arious design solutions; : _ and. ...: .,,, =._I ~. - - - WHEREAS, the Project ~.t•as also °'"'" considered. as agenda items at public - .~.~ meetings, b~,~ tre Aspen;~Pitkin County COWOP Task Force T_~ousing ~ uthon_ty .Board, the City Planning and Zoning ;Team site `~isil ~" Comrr:issiDr:, tie Pitkin CDUnt~.~ Board Dc County C::;:-nmissioners. and the _=aspen Fi_e District to Qati,.er additiorai inout ti-om these critical decision making Bodies: and. „~„ WHEREAS, on May 22, 2002, an "open-:,Dose" style meeting, notice oc which ~.~-as published in the Aspen Times and provided by separate written notices sent to '""" .neighboring lando«-Hers and other interested Darties, -:~: as conducted on the P: _; ect site tc ,~,, orovide information and discuss ~~:anninQ issues •~~.:th neighbors, °~istinc ~~:. potential to Hants, City and County elected and appointed o:~ ces and professional ~...::. and the °~" general public; and, WHEREAS, the Project was also the subject c,fan Oklahoma Flats neighborhood .. meeting that resulted in the appoir:t=rent D~ an Gr:iahoma Flats representative to rile COWOP Task Force; and , WHEREAS, Obernever CO`~'OP Task FDr.;e Tea-n meetir:~s were o-oea to the ~. - - - public and well attended. 'n'otice Df each rr:°eting •.~:as published in the .~.snea Times ~'"' newspaper ~.;,ith a "box ad." Meets:c summaries «~e-e produced and adopter b~• the Task ,~. Force at each subsequent meeting. _'~~ inter: et web site, pa~~ of the Cit.~~ D' _-aspen web site (www.asperpitkin.com%) also provided up-to-date information ;.Dnce:.:ing the ~. - ~r Grdinance No. i fi, X8259 =aqe: 4 of Z2 5/ 14/2003 ::: 46A ""'' SILViA DAMS PITK:?; COUNTY CO R 111.00 D 0.00 Proiect, including meeting summaries a d written and graphic information. retarding the "'~" prowess and evolution of the Project; ar:d. V WHEREAS, the City of Asper.:_:ternet web site, w~~w.asDenpitk~..com/, had ~ approximately 78,83 page ~,~iews .in r:uarv, 2003, and appro-~imateiv -=.882 page „~ vies;•s in February, ?003; and, WHEREAS, at least ti,~irrv (3G1 a-~icies in local newspapers appeared over the ~ course of the Obermever COWOP Task once Team review process detaiiy.g ongoing '~ planning issues and the evolution of the r: ~iect; and, WHEREAS, City Council revie:Led the progress of the Proiect du-~ ~ two (2) publicly noticed work sessions May 7, 2602, and July 9, 2002, considered prowess of the Project and provided direction as to the proper planning and design. objectives and issues to be fully considered; and, " WHEREAS, on October 2S, 2GG2. City Council revie~;•ec the prowess of the Ober-zeyer COWOP Project during a ~;:Iv noticed public ear._l~ and ~~ :alumously endorsed the direction of the planning ~-~ recommenda*.ions cf -~ Ober.-:ever Place CO~z-OP Task Force Team, pursuant te`C~:v Council Resolution: _`~1, Seres of 2002; and. WHEREAS, the Project provides oarking in excess o? its ;,~~~~n needs and such parki:.g may serve municipal narking needs or function as remote pariing for residential infill housing development within the rir/ of Aspen -both i::entitied community planri.-lg objectives of previous planning documents and identified roiect goaa; and, WHEREAS, the Project results i a loticai disposition. of property o~::red by the City of Aspen and the East Bleeker Street right-of-way providing z :eater pubic benefit of these lands - an identified Project goal; and, WHEREAS, the Project provides opportunity for service; commercia,industrial businesses to operate withn :-e Cin~ o seen is a physicaii~• a d financiaiiy viable manner - an expressed goal of :he City or _aDen and an identified P:c_iect toai : ;order to maintain a proper protiie of commercial y ~~ ~ businesses, a balance between tourist- t ~L . serving and locally-serving businesses, c::d ~ _- _ _.~:;;.,,~;- ~, a reduced reliance on remore locations ^- i ~-I~__- ,,. - ~~~: light industrial and sen-i ~*~~ =-+='~.~ '`-- - _ ,~a; businesses; and, :: _;~~ .. _., = i:~_ ~=- ~~ WHEREAS. the Project a of higher auaii:-~ as a result of the Oberr::ever Place COWOP Task Force Team re~~~iew process and : he thoughtfial and interacti•: discussions than may Nave othent~se resulted if the Proiect had not been revie«~ed as a CO vvOP application; and. WHEREAS, the Project .c consistent with the Goals and Objectives Asper. __-.rea Community Plan.~he Project of the Ordinan: ~ No. 18, Series of 2003. Page 4 ~ I I~ Page: 5 of 22 j 05/14/2003 1i:46A HAIR ~ILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 1:1.00 D 0.00 with the directior: of the l.tvtc Master Y1an - a planr~-~ proiect commissioned by the Cit-~• err of Asper. carer:::_.n progress analyzing proper uses of land surounding and including •~+ the subject prone--••. And, the Project is consister.: '~.~ith the currently stated goals and ~ objectives of the :~iil Program. - a planning proiec: commissioned by the City of Asper. analyzing m~ethcds of encouraging greater - utii:~a:.on of urbanized land through '"" redevelopment: ar_d. "~ WHEREAS. the Obermeyer CO`VOP rroiect minimizes reliance on the .., automobile with a proximity to downtown and ~ cmmon destinations, proximty to transit services. proposed pedestrian connections. ~r:,vision of one narking space per .r. - - - - residence with additional parking spaces available ~: ~ market rate, parking spaces for *- municipal vehicles. parking spaces for the Citv of .=.spen Car-Share program vehicles. „~ covered and secu-e storage, traffic-calming phvsica::mprovements to the right-of--way, and a controlled ;,arising garage; and, WHEREAS. the above listed transpor<atic:- demand management strategies """ adequately mitigate air auaiity ~pmi0) affects of additional traffic generation and the ~. preservation. of ser•.~ice commercial businesses and t:e deveiop.~~ent of affordable housing within Aspen's ccre reduces future necessit~.~ for greater automobile reliance and loneer ~. - - automobiie trips :c :.cress such businesses and residences; and. WHEREAS, the East Bleeker Street right-of-~.~. av, as ,urently platted, does not ~. provide for efficie.: or practicable vehicular moveme_ :and t e City of Aspen believes it is in the best interests of the City, and its residents, tc ~.~acate t.e right-of--way, concurent ,~. with the approva _ the development proposal, suc ::hat tie lands ma_v be used for "`"" development pu:~~cses: and. ""' WHEREAS. t:`~e lands subject to this nigh:-rf-way •~~acation are described as ,~,,, adjustment parcels ;;~. the Obermeyer Place Subdivision~~'acation plat; and, ,~,, WHEREAS, t~~e owners of real proper,- adiace ::. and affected by the ,~, - - ~•acatior_ of the ~-~ ct ~onio. of East ~- Bleeker Street ~ t~sert. conditionaiiv concernispg scrre ~-cp~nv o~,;~ners. to tine .,,,, _ _ vacation aaior_; ~.~. ,~. WHEREAS.::~e ~~acaro~ action. considerna the . -oiect's entire 'land ,,,,~ assemblage, '.vii' =_, leave any land without a :Weans G.:~dequate access to a ~. public right-of-wa•~~: ~ .d. ~., .. WHEREAS. :he City of Aspen has reviewed. ,.,.__.~_. and hereby accepts ~llc u.`is:;:. ~i Las: Lteexer Street rigat-of-wa.,- = :d reversion of associated lands :_ diace:~: a_ arcels. as depicted and described on the C~~cermeyer Place Subdivision,~~~aca::on P:~:. as consistent with the requirements ofC.~..S Section s-~-~Ql et. seq.; and, V~'HERE AS.:e vacation of this portion of Ea..: Sleeker Street meets or exceeds the review crtena :~_ ~ffecting such changes as adopter .the C:r,~ of.~spen; and. rrr Ordinance '~ o.: 8, 482691 =age: 5 of 22 SILVIA DfiVIS PI7KIN COUNTY CO5/14/2003 :1:46A ~r R 111.00 D 0.00 WHEREAS, during a regular meeting of the Obermever Place COWOP Task Force Team on February 26, 2003, t:e Task Force Team recommended, by a vote of "~ twelve to zero (12-0), that City Counci. approve the Project as represented during the ,,,~ February 26, 2003, meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.304 and 26.00 of the Land Use Code, City Council may approve, approve with co^ditions, or deny ail requisite land ~~se approvals necessary to grant a development order for a proposed development deter:rLned eligible for COWOP land use review upon a recommendation iiom the Community Development Director and consideration of comments offered by the general public at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Asper. Community Development Director ;^.as reviewed ""' the proposed development in consideration of the recommendations of the COWOP Task Force Team, the requirements of the land use code, and comments from the City Engineer and applicable referral agencies and has recommended approval of all necessary land use approvals for granting a development order for the proposed Project including Final ~" approval of a COWOP Land Use Revie«~. Rezoning o: Rio Grande Subdivision Lots 6, 7, 8, azd 9 to the Service Commercial Inds.: trial (SCI) Lone District. Rezoning of all lands within the Project to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay and a Specially Planned Area (SP_~) Overlay, Final PL-D and SPA Plan aaprovai, land use code Text Amendment, Replacement of Multi-Fa.:.ilv Housing, Temporan~ Use, replacement of ~ Nonconforming " - Uses. replacemer.: of Conditional ~,:ses, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Stream Margin Review, Residential Design Revie~z'. Final Growth ~ Management approval for exemption. ~^:c ~~acation of right-of-wa~~ subject :;; conditions rr of approval as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Cou~ICii 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 Obe^never Place CO`''OP T; sk Force Team:. the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies. and has take:: and considered pudic comment at a public hearir.C; a.-ld. WHEREAS, the City Counci: f~~ds that the deveiopme^: proposa: rneets or exceeds all applicable development stanch.-ds and that the appro~•a of the c~.~eiopment proposal, with conditions, is consistent ~.~~ith the ~oais a-Id eiemens of file seen Area Corr.~IUnity Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council f nds :~.at this Orci:: .nce rarthe-s and is necessary for the promotion ofpubiic health, safetti~. and ~.ti ~ifare; and. WHEREAS. the City of Aspen co :ciders t;^~is project awin-~~~in-win. uroposal and appreciates Klaus Oberl;~eyer and his enduing commitment to Aspen as reflected in his oper_. honest, and enthusiastic aursuit _: this Project ar:d aspiration. .., create an extraordinary com..~unir~~ asset. ordinance No. 18, Series of 2003. Pale 6 ~` ~" ~ 482v~' Page: - ~~ 22 05/14/203 ': '.:46R SILVIr1 C=VIS =:'KIN COUNTY CO R 111.00 2 0.00 AAU1 ~ NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITI' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. COLOR-ADO as follows: ,~„ The Obermeyer Place CO`~t'OP ? roiect is hereb~• a-anted a deveicrn:° ., order for a site specific development plan and ~ anted ail necessary land use apor c••~ais including Final "' approval of a COWOP Land Case Re~.~iew, Rezoning of Rio Grande S•~bdivision Lots 6, 7, +.• 8, and 9 to the Service CoI~u erciai Industrial ("SCII Zone District. ezorin~ of all lands within the Project to a Pursed '/nit Deveion_ meat (PUD) Ove-:a•.~ and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overia~.~. Fi::ai PUD Plan and Final SPA Pig. anurovai. Land use ""' code Text Amendment, ? eoiacement of Multi-Family Housir_z. ~emnorary Use, ,~,,, replacement of Nonconforr::in~ ~~ ses, replacement of Conditiora: :: ses, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Strea:::~larair: Review, Residential Design e~.~iew. Final Growth "" Management approval for exe:n~tion. ~-"ested Rigints, and vacation c. =~.t-oi-way subject ,,., to conditions of approval as descrbed 'Herein. Section l: Rezoning The Official Zone Distrct '._an c i the City o Asper. shall be. _~on diing of the Subdivision plat and Final P' -D Mans, amended by the ComL__~.::::~• Development Director to reflect the foiiowin~ property as included in the ~°-.~::° Commercial ~.. _ Industrial (SCI) Zone Distric:.:o rer':ect a Planned ~ nit Developmen:. ?'.~) Overlay, and ""'"" to reflect a Specially Planned Area !SPA) Overiav on all ponions o: ~~:~ land: Gignoux-Lynch Subdi~.~ision Lots land =: Lots e, "i, ~, a-:: =. Block 20, East Aspen Addition; Loss ~. -. ~, and 9 Rio Grande Subdivi~.~::. a tract of land identified as Parcel No. ~'~~-.073.00.00 according to the Pi:':~- County Assessor and known as 600 East ~:~eker Street, ~ tract of land ide::i::°d as Parcel No. 273 7.073.00.041 according :o the Pitkin County _`~ssessor ar.::::-_o~~n as X30 East Bleeker Street; .and ~.. ~o-ions o Fas: ~'.eeker Street -_- _:-_:=•wav vacated ,~„ between Spring St:-e... ~..,. =~e Grande ?:a;,e desc::bed and ~ ~~t.°d or. the Final SubdivisionL ~.'acation ~ ... __ :..° ObeL:.~e~. er ?'_ace S~.~bdiyisi.._ - .. Section 2: Vacation of East Bleeker Street East Bleeker Street right-of-,".a... be^s~een Sprang Str°et to the east a:::: :__eri:fs alley" to the west shall be and is nereb~.~ •• acated and e lee simnie o~;~-__= ~r o~ the lands ~"' underlying such vacated -_ ._-. _= .• ay snail i; _ and ~. e iiereb` ~ ~-:bined «~ith and incorporated into the res>,ec::-.~e ~~;acent pares as depicted a - e::bed on the Obermever Place Subdivision -u,.~..:o~. n1at. ,,,, - - ,~„ Section 3: Approved Proiect Dimensions The following approved dimensions of t.~te nrolec: -_ a'.i be reelected in ___ =s ai PLC Plans: ,r~ Minimum Lot Size ~• Minimum lot width „~,,, Minimum wont yard As rer_ resented on the ::_-_a: ?L~ Plans Minimum side yard ""' Minimum rear yard ,r. Maximum site coverage 'Minimum distance be^~vee : ;,;:_.~:::__ +.. +~ Ordinance No. 18, ~ 4828x1 Page: ~ of 22 05/1:%2303 11:46A SILVIGI DRVIS =:-KIN COUNTY CO R 111.00 0.00 _~r ~lmum percent open space 'yo reauir°rnent `~i~almum helant ~ ~c feet mea.:-u;ed from existing grade depicter: c:, Fil-lal PL'D !Plans with t e following noted exceptions: Elevator enc:esures and roof access hatches r:.~~,- extend u to - P ' -- i 5 feet arJOVe .:c feet if the_~~ ~:re at least ten feet ~aci; from the main buiidir:_ :ace. ~ - Chi mneys. e.~~:aust flues, etc. may extend up to : ~~ feet above 36 feet if the.- are at least i0 feet back from the :-air. building face. Skylights, -czar panels. •.vater towers and ~lechanical I equipment ~_.a r extend up to ~ ` above 3 ~' if the; a^e at least 10 feet back fro :::ne main building face. Stair encios~w es required b~• ,:ode to access roofs may extend up to 10 feet ~:,ove ~~ feet if they are at leastl0 feet back from I the main buid~ ~ face. i Trash access area As snowy. on Final PLC Plans I Mi::.-num off-street parking space: (allocated by use, includes space desianated for loading): SC: and NC commerclal uses ~ ; ~ r o r t _„- ' i.., spaces, . X00 sauar., ~eet ne -.gable = 60 ~ I tiledical Offices ~ spacesi 1000 square feet net lesabie = 27 ~ I A.:ordable Residential 1 per unit = = i ~ Free-Market Residential 1 ' er unit = ~ i I C::-; of Aspen 20 spaces Ex~a (unallocated) 36 --- ~ spaces according to Lnai design of parking garage as depicted on Final PUD Plans. (Also see Section ;=4) ~r,r~. Muss ~,nclosea square roota__ dot to exceed ~5~,000 square :ee:. ~ (inc:•~des ail parking, storage, .-nechanicc:. i cor-~ ercial. residential, circulations, °tc.: i Seri~ce Commercial Industrial Vie: 'vlinimum o= X5,977 square fee:. ! ~ ;Leasable Square Footage (includes nonc;.nforming and conditional usesl• ~ ~ Ne.~_cornood Commercial ~~et ~ easac:~ Saua_e Footage: '~~ot to exceec 900 square feet. ~ Med:..~. Office Net Leasable Squa.-e -^ 'got to ~~ ~ o a.~ fee :.,;; :o~ e ..,e°; , .000 squ e _ . ~. Foota_°. - Affo= ~abie Residential U nits ~ 1 I ~` 'Affordable Residential Bedrooms ?~ minimal.- tom`? maximum ~ Affordable Residential S uare Footage q ~' ,n r°ot ' -~,9.; ~ squa-° .,,,, , wnic:: may- c° Increased (mezs-.::ed as net livable) cti• 10°0. Plus associated Carage-_°~.-ei storage ' ~-id dec:s ~ -~c«~ or. the Finn:.' ~~ P'ans. j Free-:.~arket Residential Units 1 irr Free-liarket~Residential Bedrooms Not to exceec -0. Free-_~_arket Residential Square Footage Not to exceed f?.7~0 square feet: Plus (meas•,:.-ed as net livable associated g~-a~o_ P a ~-. 1„~ el storage ~. ~ decks as , +~ shown on the Fi_~lai PL~i Plans Ordinau__ Rio. iQ, Series o= ?f1t1; PaoP R ~ ,~ I 482691 it ~ 05/14/2003 ~?:46 ~"" Section 4: Parking Spaces and Parking Cara lel~ c'vIS PITKIN COUNTY ~0 ~ 111.00 ~ 0.00 '~ ~'TLT11I11L'.:. ~3rKing S aces t0 Ser~'e ~ p ~~ ~ . P ---~ - ~ sect ire ~ stated .r, t..e d:menstonai requirements table, herein. Allocated s_;;a;,es shall be identif ed on the Finai PLC Plans. Allocated spaces shall not be sold or :e,.,,,,c s,,o~r~.°~.om th„ portton of ; ,, Project to ~ whic;,. t hey are allocated. Parking spaces ~aosated :_ residential units shall be conveyed ,,., in fee as part of the ownership interest :n :° associated residential units. Lxtra (unallocated) parking spaces n:av -e leased ~ : the owners therecf on a daily or •• long-term oasis. Extra parking spaces ma_,• oe used to satisfy parking needs of future ~„„ commercial expansions and may be scld or lease;: to third parties for use as remote parking. after initial sale offering to or.-s:e tenants a:.d residents, tine City ofAs~en shall '"" be offered an option to purchase extra p~rkir~g spaces at a fair market value determined ,,,~ through good faith negotiations prior tc suc :spaces ~ eing offered to off-sae purchasers. This initial sale offering requirement s:.aa apply :;: the first transfer of each parking """ space, •~~•hether individually or as a ~ -o~~_r ;.~r sa_ aces. and shall not appi~- :c subsequent transfers of each parking space. The extra narking spaces shall be considere~ :.a anpr~c-.-ed commercial parki __ facility and '~" an approved remote parking faciiit as suc terms areused in the ` - - Y City's Land L'se Code. ,~„ Extra narking spaces may be physically r°~~na~ured. ~.•ith approval from th° Community Deveioament Director, to accommodate fe•~ er narki_ _= spaces such that a total reduction '"'"` of no greater than five (5) parking spaces. ~om that depicted on the Finai ?L`'J Plans, .~ occurs. Physical reconfigurations reducir__ parking ~,..~ more than rive (f~~ spaces shall require a PL-D amendment. Conversion e: e ,:ra nari::='_~ spaces to non-parid^~ uses shall .~ require a PLC amendment. ` ~,,, The Project parking spaces shall be used :~.- narkinC -. ehicies and accesso^ ,~ storage and _ shall not be principally used for storage, :-ash con:miners, or similar nor_-automobile u y '^ related nu:~oses. «w '~' The parking garage shall be designed ~.. a .__°r,Il°r aL..::ing for a r~Itur° exprr.sior. of the v y panting garage to the X40 East Main Sere°- c. -operr-.~ :he former Zupancls properly) to .~ acconLrnodate no more than fifty (~0) additi~-:c; narki= =spaces. ,.. Section ~: City Land and EYCess Parking Luse .~Qreements ""' The ci. ~ -owned lands immediateii.~ adjacent :: ::,e Pr ~ - ' T~ ode:,.. nown as Rio Crranc° .o.., ti, ~, 8 „,,, , and 9. shall be leased to Obermever Place - ~idiag C.~ =:~anv. Li,C, or its s~~c°ssors and assi~s. for use ov tenants of the Proiect. . __c lease s ~:1 stipulate a rr~inimur : r::l:-nber of surface narking spaces to be "public parking' -paces ma-_a~ed by the City of Asper Parkins ~., . Depa.u-nert and the allocation of fees coiiecte~ on these narking spaces. The lease o: these prone:-ies shall allow for architectural -,rot :c;fors ar.~ rroposed site impr•.~°rnents as depicted in the Final PL?D Plans. Of paring spaces «•:_yr. the parking garage, -.ven~• (201 ~- park;l~:g spaces shall be leased to the Cir~~ of _ snen for .eking municipal vericies, parking ,~„ of Car ware Program vehicles, and~'or ieasil-:_ :o third r.._--:~ ~ users. Both leases s.ali be for """ _ no long°r than fom (40) years for one (" ~ dcl: r ,._. T• ~ °°--, ` = ~ ~ ~r ae. •~~e=- . re specttic agr....._.enu s i shah .~. address snow removal, maintenance, liabiii^,'; prohibited uses. and remedies. Ordinance ti o.: Series n= ~(1O; '~aoP o 482691 Page: 10 of 22 ,I 05/14/2003 11:46A SILVIA DRVIS PITKIN C~L'~~TY CC R 111.00 D 0.00 Section 6: Temoorarv Use of 540 East Main Street and Recvciin Center/snowmelt area The City of A spe.^. City Council hereby approves tie temporary use of 540 East Main Street (the forner Zupancis property) for use by businesses displaced by the construction activity and fcr Project staging as necessary and the _oortion of Rio Grande Park affected by the recycling center and snowmelt operation for use by businesses displaced by the construction activity and for Project staging as necessan• for a period to be specified in a lease agreeme^: for each propem~. Use of the S40 East Main Street property shall begin no earlier than upon the conclusion of the existing lease agreement with Robert Zupancis. Use of the recycling and snowmelt area shall not negatively affect the Pitkin Counts-• recycling progra~~~ or the snowmelt operation through the 2003-04 winter season. The applicant and the Ciry of Aspen snail enter into a lease agreement for the use of these two properties. T::e ti::.e period for the temporary use c: these properties for said purposes may be extended b ~• the Community Development Director for a time period agreeable to both parties. The City of ~ soen hereby supports and appreciates the applicant's attempts to temporarily relocate Project businesses during the process of construction in order to sustain their li ~-eiihood. Section 7: Medical Office Section 26.16-x.100, Definitions, of the City of Aspen Land Use Code which section defines terms used :_: the Land Use Code, shall be amended to include the following term and definition: ss .~ Medical or dental clinic or office: An office ;:f practitioners of the medical arts, ~, where the p L-narv use is the delivery of health care services on an outpatient basis, where sale c` merchandise is incidental to .::e sale of services, and where no ~ overniC~-:t a;.cctr~Inodations are provided. ,~, The Project incl::::es the use of approximately 9,000 s,:aare feet of net leasable space for medical offices ~.~itri_-1 building ~5. Actual net leasable space shall be used to define actual mitigation requirements. As this space is not intended to be used by Service!Commercial ;Industrial (SCI; businesses, mitigation of employee generation shall be required by the City of Aspen. In the e~.•e:a this space is used to house SC1 Businesses, no employee mitigation shall be requires ~_~ t ~ City of Aspen. The medical cf ce space shall be considered to generate tlZree (~) employees per one- thousand (1,0001 square feet of net leasable space. Of :his generation, the City of Aspen shall require ntigation of sixty (601 percent of the QPnerated employees. Mitigation of employee Qeneraticn shall be a form acceptable tov~ e Asnen;~Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCz = i. The deveiop._lent of new affc-.abie iaousing units nay require separate land use a~n-c•.•[ls. A business licerse for medical offices in this project s:.ail not be issued by the City of ~ Aspen until a plan for the provision of employee TM.aigation has been submitted and approved by APC'_~~. .~~ plan for the ;:rovision of empic_.~e r:~.itiQation shall be accepted by Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2003. Pase ' 0 *~ 48259 ~ Page: li of 22 05/14/2003 :::46A SIIVIP DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CC R 111.00 ti 0.00 ~""" _~.PC~ 4 u om either the rraperty owner or from tenants on behalf o the property owner. The employee mitigation plan shall identity the ...ethod in which employees shall be mitigated. any required financial security, and remedies for non-compliance. The employee mitigation shall be provided, in a manner as described in the approved mitigation pion ~' withil-I t'u~ee (~) years of issuance of a Certificate o Occupanc}• for the respective space. ,,,, Responsibility of this empiovee mitigation shall reside with the Proiect. Acknowledgement of this responsibility shall be .^cluded in the Subdivision agreement acid shall be binding ~ upon the Project. ~.. Employee mitigation, once provided to the City's requirements, shall relieve the Project of any subsequent employee :.;itigation obligation to the City of Aspen for the respective space. APCHA and the Ci:v of Aspen shall not reiurd any employee housing mitigations ,,,r upon any tenant vacation of the specified space. Change in tenancy and adjustment of any mitigations provided by ce^ain tenants shall be resolved bettiveer. the specific tenants and ""' the propem~ owner. ~. Aspen ~'allev Hospital is the expected tenant to occupy this space ~.vith muiti~le medical practices. .~ltemate businesses meeting the medical office definition. as provided above. may occupy this space according to the same provisions of the employee mitigation agreement. v """ Both "_Tnedical offices" and businesses qualifying «•it;~Iin the use limitations of the Citv of Aspen Service/CommerciaL7ndustrial (SCI) Zone District, Section '~.-10.160 of the Land Use Code, may occupy the identified space as "permitted uses," as such term is used in the City's Land Lse Code. Occuoancv of this space by one permitted use for a period of time ~.• shall not affect the ability or right of another permitted use to occup~~ the space, subject to the empiovee mitigation requirements for medical offices use as described above. ~. - ~" Section 8: Affordable Housing Units ,,,~ The Proiect shall include rn-er~ti~•-one (21) one- and r:.~o-bedroom affordable housing units as described on the Final PL-D Plans. Each unit .-nay be configured as either none- a "'"' two-bedroom unit. Each u:ut shall have one (11 associated parxing space conveyed .~• appuneaant to the ownership interest of the residential unit. Trese affordable housing units shall be deed restricted as for-sale Resident Occupied (RO) or Category units and ~, ~ transfe~~ed to qualified purchasers. the developer s:-:all retain the ^,~zt to select the first """ purchaser o each unit not subsidized ~.vith public monies, conditioned upon each purchaser being qualified tc purchase such unit b~~• the Aspen: Pi:;in County Housing Autho::;_v (APCH_~Unit conveyances after the first o~:rchase s:.ai be according to the 'r" ACPHA Guidelines or as other:~~ise stated in the deed : estriction for :he particular unit. a~ The initial sales prices shall be determined b•.- the deveiooer and APCHA prior to transfer - based or. a mix of Category Seven and Resident Occupied, as defined in the .4PCHA -~ "~Guidelires, focus group discussions of purci:aser qualification reauiremerts, and the fully wr - allocated costs of constructing the units. A methodoio~y for deterfr::r.~-:Q unit sales prices -~ shall be aVeed upon prior to issuance of a building permit. .,. ~,, Ordinance :~o. ': 8. "" Series of ?~fl~ ~aoP t t I 48269" -age: 12 of 22 SiLVIq OgVIS PiTKIN COUNTY CO RIlIi.00 /(4,^,20©00,1:4fiA ~PCHA and the City of ?spen shall retain the right to financially panicipate in the affordability of the affordable housing units by subsidizing ~"bu~7ng-do~zr:'') the final purchase prices of the affordable housing units until September :. =003. This will allow the developer to establish pre-purchase contracts for each unit. ~fordabie sousing units subsidized with public mcnies shall be conveyed to qualified purchasers :.rough the APCHA Lottery. - " Section 9: Neighborhood Commercial Space A business space of approximately 850 square feet. plus additional outdoor seating area, is proposed along the western. edge of building r5. This space ..:av house businesses in compliance with eitiaer the 'neighborhood Commercial ;NC) or Sen~ice,%CommercialiIndustrai ~~SCII Zore District regulations as de ned ir. tre Land Use Code, and as maybe amended from time to time. The City of ~sDen prefers ti^.is space be used by an NC business providing food service or refreshments or proiect residents, tenants, customers, and users of the nearby recreational amenities. 'The space shall be identified in size and location. in the Final PUD Plans with both a:iowed uses identified (i.e. "Allowable uses: \eighborhood C;;nunercial or SeI•~~ice ~~c;mmercia'_ Industrial businesses"). Section 10: Replacement of \on-Conforming Uses Land uses considered non-confotming uses prior to redeveiopr.:°nt are a~~thorized to occupy locations in the Project as nonconforming uses, subject to Section ~'`.~ 12 of the City Land Use Code - \orconformities. _~fter initial rees:abiishme:.: of each nonconforming use, abandonment or discontinuance of the nonconforming use for a period as defined by Secticn X6.312, as amended, of the City La:.d Use Code, shall abolish the nonconforming status and the allowable uses s :ail never` to only Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) uses, as defined by 26.710. i 60. as amended, of the City Land Use Code, unless another use is detertrined acceptable to :::e City of _~spen. Each nonconforming space s:~:ail be identifed in size and location :::e Tina: ?L~ Plans with the type of nonconfo.~.ring use identized (i.e. `'nonco-:o.:.Iing: office" or "nonconforming: fitness club"l. Exact replication of each existing n,~nconforn:ing space is not necessary (i.e. an existing -?0 square foot space need not be replaced ~~.•ith a new 720 square foot space). T e total of nonconforming use space s :all not exceed the existing total devoted to suc use. These non-conforming use spares may house either the identified nonconforming use or a Service Cotnl-nerciai Industria: SCI) use. according to Section 26.710.160 oftheyCi:• r and Use Code, as amended. >« .~ .. rr~ c~ vwci JIICIUC !756 In~~~~ i I he Gym 12400 IFitnP~c :~;i ih I I-it~R Block ~ (425 (Office I IDalbv Wendland 1600 Office Schmueser Gordon Meyer i425 i o ! Offic 'Goldberg and Goldberg ,gccc;;;-;t;ru ;100 Office Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2003. Page 12 The following uses are considered nonconforming: ~rw =,Iterrati•,'e interi~~s '27? ~ a~2~Q~ ~ I ES9e4/2003{:``=c =:LVIF =='JIS F:'KIN COUNTY CO R Iii.00 0.00 Office !'vlark ~ ecan. G ~ ;2 ~ 8 Office Total:5.197 Section 11: Replacement of Conditional t. ses """ Land uses appre~.-ed as conditional uses p~cr to r~seveiooment are aut:~le^zed to be „r,r, reestablished within the Proiect fer a perios c time nct to exceed existing lease terms. subject to the indi•~•iduai conditional use a~~rovai. end not to exceed the e:~isting net ..~, leasable square sotaQe. Conditional i'se aoprova:or such reniaced uses snail expire r. anon conclusion c. the existine lease. Chan yes in t..e ooerationai stv_ le of the else may' require ar: amensment of the conditional use ~rorova~:. the following use is currently ar. ..~ - - appro ~~es conditional use: ,.+., :1::.-.: i ~ ~"' I iPlanning and Zonings ~ Cc~;;rnission Resoiuticr, Uo.i ,~ i I 130. Series of 1999. ~xisnngi ~Nlitte! =.:-o~~a ~2,9oC!lease. Including exen:ions,,; lex~~~es in 2009. ~"" Section 1?: Sno~~ ~Ielter The C:. ~~ of Aspen agrees to the cessation ::_.~ . emo ~ ::: of the mechanical sr:o«~ melter «~. _ locates worth of the Proiect after the conclusi_r: of the ==~0~-~ ~~•inter season. ,.~. Section 10: Rec~~clinQ Center The Cr~~ of Aspen r:~ees to pursue alternat° vocations or the Pitkin Courn~ recycling ~. - - operation within :° contest of the Civic `.:aster P1a.~:. _~~lv alternate location shall be ^~ consideres ~~iabie :he City of Aspen ~~nsider. - .. ~~hborr.~ uses ..rd rronerr.. ;,w, owners. user ~o~~_ ~ nd operational meth~..~ of the _ ::;in Counn~ recvcr:^_ pro~am. ,,, _ _ ..' _ h1S GrC~nanCe Sr?:.::C: ~SStire .~.. 1~...::at,.._ ".:ivn is r :..,..., ling i.al,illt•~'. .vie City Ot ""'" Asper. s.:aii allow :::e Proiect developer to r.. _e=.~ ans c,::nrn ent on the proposes aesthetic ~.. imDro~~errents. _ __., anal desi~-i «'i11 shield :.._~ rninirn :~° • ~isibiiity of the dumnseers and loadir.~, areas from :e Proiect. ..,, - - ~ The Pr _ .,, seveio~°r ~:.3ii provide ~i,- ~~~~~~_ :o the ,.~:~~ o:.-aspen for t:e ouroose of lmprov: _ :_:e rec~ .in_ _aciiity upon coma ....,,omen: ~:. n:orovemerts to ::.e ..,cvcilr.Q faciiit~~. the Ci- o _snen and the Prole..: ~evelo~.,. ..:ail enter into ~.. a~-'eement '~ identll~-:r.'? the fi.:nLs, luerltlr~7ng !imlts on :.i° t:se o: sucr. funds, and applicable time ,,,,,~ periods _,~r the exercise of such funds to eit;~ler relocate ,,. improve the exists _ recycling faciiit~~ _ ~, aaree:~ert ^etweer. t~:e Proles: ::evelo~... and Pitkir. Coura~~ rnav be rrr - -- - - - necessa-.. ~, Section 1-;: Hunter Street Trail The Cif. of,Aspen afire,,., to provide ~ ter. ~ _ "~ ~-foot ~ .de easement along t::e easterly ""' prODerL_.' ~Ollnaar`.' Ct the ~-~rV East ~~la1n JIreet urope'_`:•" ;tne IOi7Tier Lupancls prOperlti'I ,,,,~ for the ~arnose of se~,reioninv a pedestri~_. cor_^ection -~-^ ',;win Street to the P~oiect and a1C'ry .__:. ~aJLern .._~nca_ v_ ~i:'.' ~-_ .-..:JL _...... J.r t..~. ~~_ _. ..... ~aJe.._.,._. J..aa ~.°, w Ordinance \ o. i ~. 48291 image: :1 of 22 05/14/2003 11:46A SILVIii DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY ~O R 111.00 ~ 0.00 reelected on the Final Subdivision plat and shall coincide with a public access easement. w. Specirication of the trail design shall be included in the Final PUD plans wit.: an approval signature line for the City Parks Departrrlent. The Proiect developer shale construct the trail. Maintenance of the trail shall be divided bettiveer, the City of Aspen a::d the Project .. owner as described and depicted in a .:,ainter.:znce and license agreement :c be recorded along with the SubdivisiorvPUD agreement. Costs cf the trail are expected to roughly approximate the required Park li-npact fee. Costs of constructing the trail s:.ail be credited towards the Park Impact fee, as described is Section i ~. ~ Section 15: Impact Fees Park IYI2DQCI Fees of 5124,464 shah be assessed gad allocated by :he City for improvements proximate to the Proiect site in coordination with the City Parks Department. Costs of physical improvements to create the Hunter Street Trail, as described in Section 14, and other site improvements determined acceptable to the City Parks Department, shall be credited towards reducing this impact fee. .-~iendments to the Proiect shall include an adjustment to this impact fee according to ::.~ following schedule: Park Fees: 16 one-bedroom units ~ 52,120 per unit = 531.8C~~~ 6two-bedroom uluts C 52,; ~ utit = 516.3 ~~ 21 three- or four-bedroom units ;~ 3,634 per unit = 576.3' u Si24 46= School ImDQC7 Fees are assessed based on one-third :he value of the unir.:~roved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. ^he City of Aspen verities the unimproved land value of :he lands underlr~n~ the ?-oject to be S4,1-3,301 per acre from recent transactions a_:d irforr!mation from the P.:_tiin County _~ssessor. One-third of this value divided by the proposed 42 units results - a $32,883 ner acre standard for calcuiatin~ t:e im;.act fee. ~:,e su~~ect subdivisio is -conducive to locating a school facility and acash-in-lieu pz:.mer.: shall be accepted. school Impact gees are follows, payable at building permit issuance: 1/3 land Land Per ~:.it \umber va ue per ~ Dedication ~ L:.~act F°e of Units ;unit per i standard ~ "~' acre ! (acresi ~ One bedroo:;z 532.883 .0012 S3 ~.-+6 i ~ S~91.; :~ Two Bedroom ' $32 883 ~ .009., ~ ; : S..'~ 39 5 ~ ~ ~ ; , , S1,87-.__ Three j $32,883 ; .0162 S~3_.70 11 ' 5~,8~."0 j Bedroom Four Bedroom S32,883 .0248 S8 : - , ~~ ~ 0 58.1 ~=.:~~~~ Total: S16,480.84 ~- Amendments to th e project shall include an adjus:1:ent to th is impact fee acccrdina to the above schedule. Grdinance No. 18, Series of 2003. Page 14 +~. 48259 ~ Fage: 15 of 22 05/14/2003 11:46A rAli SiLVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 111.00 D 0.00 Section 16: Landscape Plan The proposed landscape p:a-. s hall t;rovide a :umber. type, and c::ali.~ of giant material ..~ acceptable to the City Para Department. Sufricient mitigation s:~:ail be provided, in a form acceptable to the C:.- ~a-ks Department. to offset the re^.:ovai cf existing trees on the site. The Landscape ?:a-. sheet(sj of the FLhal PLrD Plans shall include an acceptable "' tree replacement and mitiga:i~~n plan with a signature line for a_nn_ rc~'ai by the City Parks ,,.,, Department. """ Tree removal mitigation sha:~_ be based on the valuation of existir._ :reel to be removed. Following is a summar~• cf : he existing trees to be removed and :~:eir valuation. ?tiew trees to be established witri :_.e Project shall be credited towards :his -. aiuation. ~, ,~. «~ ~. ,~ 6 6 i 6,104.16 7 4 9,693.18 8 1 1, 808.64 I 14 3 16.616.8 17 1 8,167.14 20 1 ~ 11, 304.00 22 1 13,677.84 30 1 ~ 25,434.00 9 1" 1,144.53 10 1" 1,413.00 ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1,709.73 13 2~ 4,775.94 30 1 * I 12,717.00 Total:! X114,566.04 frees assessed at half -, a_ue cue t~ ~evPre r1~~1;nP ;n heal*r .~» business activities. and iri,~pact from past The SubdivisionPL~ acre°:~ent shall include provisions a~~.~_____. :.e successful implementation of the landscape pan and ongoing maintenance of :andscape. Buildings ,~, shall incorporate outside sprots for ~z~ater planters and containers i:. the pedestrian pathways. The Subdivision?T'D _agreement shall include ^r~•~-isions for initial "'"' establishment of irnprovemen:_ ar.d ongoing maintenance of the .~..~s.."pe and pedestrian r~ ~~-avs as general corrunon el°-'-°~:s '""' Section 1~: Pedestrian Path« a~~s and Fire Access Ways .. The fire access lanes depicted :- the Final PLnJ Plans througr.: he proiect, on pedestrian pathways, shall remain clear a: ail times of any architectural proiectons, signs, benches, ~ ~ . planters, etc. The drop-ofl pa:_~-.g spaces shall be signed for " 3~~ ::~~au:e paring only.' '~o ,,.,,, narking shall be permitted aio~_ .. pedes-~an nat1~~L~avs within _ _'e ^-~; °... Pedestrian pathways and plaza spaces ~:.ay be used for occasional `•.adoor events with -• approval from the Communi~. Development Director as a Te:npe_a-;- ~se, pursuant to Section 26.40 of the Land t;se bode. Lirnitations on event timi:., da:ation. location, etc. :nay be established b., such ~ ~ ~,. ~ncroac :._~en:s L.:o :__ _ _.._.._s _~._es _~:.all not be -- ~.. Ordinance No. 18. Ili l a82691f 22 I;i ; 5/14/2003 11:46A SILVIF ~aVIS PiTKIN COUNTY CO R i::.00 D 0.00 oerrstted. Siffnincant events s -all reeuire ~necial E~.~ents approval i adr..:atered by the Cis, Clerk~~. Section 18: Water Department Requirements :? sencrate water meter will be needed for eac:, residence. an additio:.ai tap for ianascaping viii be needed. There shall be a shared ~.vater service a~•eement ~w-itil each owner. Adequate cover of the water line t.tnder Shed= s alley shall be mainta:red. Relocation of the Water Main lTOm East Bleeker Street to Ric C7rande Place shall be in coordination with the Cin• Water Department. Service interruptions shall be minimized. Section 19: Locatin Streetlights The applicant shall work with the Cite L-tii:-~. Department Director ~ ?:..il O~~ere~~nder) and the City Parks Planner (Scott Chismi for ioca,n? antique sueetli~hts ~:one tn° north side of Rio Grande Place. These shall be depicted i : ;::e Iilustrati~•e plan oft ° : final P';_-D Plans. Section 20: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District All requirements of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation. District. :~ described in the memorandum attached as Exhibit _~, shall be co:-npiied with. Service :rtem:ptions shall be Section 21: PM10 Mitigation and Transportation Options Program The Cay of Aspen considers t:~Ie following °:~ments of the project properi~• .:utigating the increases in pm10: proximity to downtown. a .d common destinations. oroximit~• to transit services, proposed pedestrian cornectiors. ~ro~ision of one Harkin- _~pace per residence will: ~dditior.al arising spaces a•,~aiiable a p : a .,.arket rate, paricin~ -aces ~ municipal vehic:es, parking spaces nor the Cite of .-~sne:: Car-Share ~ro~ram ~~e .roles. _;;~•ered and secure storage, elimination of unpa~ ed pari:i, =and access ways, tra~~ic-carrying physical improvements to the right-of-wa•,•. a contr;;ied parking ;arage, and ::.e de~•eiopment of affordable housing and SCI busir:ess space ~..~;r:in _-aspen's core reduc:. z fu.are necessity for g_*•eater automobile reliance a-:d longer a~,.;,-l;obiie tips to ~.ccess s ~ b~ -~~ `' ~cn •s....,sses and residences. The ,•.~nerl l of the commercial ~~:.its •.:it:-.i:_ the Proiec; shall i:~~rr:n ~.... encourage corrlir:.._ciai tenants to ;pin the ~ _ of _~ .. ~~ Cir,~ .sae^ Transponat.on Opr:c::s ?ro.yam. l~ •s pro~*•a:~_: offers certain ncenti~-es to reduce automobile reliance. Ci^_~~ of Aspen Transportation Department - 92Q.~?6~. Section '_2: ~"ested Rights The development approvals g-a~^.ted 'Herein snail constitute asite-sped::. development -plan vested _or a period of seven (;) ~-ears 'zom the da~e o: issuance of a deve:cr;rne::: order. Grdinance No. 18, Series of 2003. Page 16 Aew- ..- .~. i ~ h' 482fi91 Page: 17 of 22 :~VIR DpVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO RIIi:. 05/14/2003 11:468 '~ .00 D 0.00 Section 23: Condominiumization "~ Condominiumization of the existing (~pric- _o redevelopment] site improveme 's is hereby ... approved by the City of Aspen, subject :~ recordation of a condominiumiza~on plat in ,~ compliance with the current (at the time c. condo plat submission) plat requirements of the Ci~~ Community Development Engineer. ^~is•will facilitate financial and redevelopment "' a~-eeulents between various property own°-_ of the Project. rr Condominiumization of the Project (ai~e- .edevelopmeatj to define separate ownership """ interests of the Project is hereby approved ~.: the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a ~•• condominiumization plat in compliance ~::-ith the current (at the time of condo plat submission),plat requirements of the Cit;~ C~mmunity Development Engineer. "~' The applicant shall work with city staff a^_d :e Housing Authority staff during :.e drafting ~, of tine Homeowner Association (HOA) agreement(s) to ensure that the maintergr~ce dues for the deed restricted units are equitable and -°asonable in accordance with the nro«sions of """" the Colorado Condominium-0wnersrip ~ ~: a.-td the Colorado Common Owners:::r interest ~, Act. The Project developer shall 'nave :.e right to condominiumize the ariordable residential units under a separate condomi:~~,:n regime independent of other por-:ons of the Project. The HOA agreement(s) must be approved by _-`LPCHA prior to issuance of a ~- builairg permit and reflected in the Subdiv:_:ovPL'D agreement. ~°° Section 24: Subdivision/Street Vacation Prat & Final PL~D Plans ,,,,o Within X60 days after final approval by C:-.~ Council and prior to applying fcr a Euilding Permit, the applicant shall record a Subc:~.-aioniStreet Vacation Plat and a Final PUD """ Development Plan. . The Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat shai; _ompiy with c:u-rent requirements of ~he City ,. , Com.-runirv Development Engineer and s:~_:: include easements and signature blocks for """ utiiit~~ ::,gins not administered by the Ci: -_ Asper.. T':~:e following items s:-aa also be .~. depicted „~,,, _. i ne final property boundaries and c:~cosition of lands formerly part of Ea st Bleeker Street right-of--way shall be depicted with appropriate additions t~ property '" descriptions. "~ _. T:ae top-of--slope of the Roaring Fo:: ?.ver depicted coinciding with the steep edge ~, of the riverbank -approximately fog- ~4) feet (at its closest point) norheast of the northeast edge of the existing side-.-. ark along the n ortheast edge of Rio Grande ~r Place. A site section demonstrati ~ proposed development compiiarce with a ~. progressive height limit projected u;;.., this top-of--slope at a forty-five i,-'. ~) degree , angle away from the river. ~,, .,., _. ?.~n easement to the Ciri~ Weil ;=ead aiio~;-ins access and ..:ainten ~_:.e. The a~eement shall be referenced with a : ~:e on the tinai plat. - ~, =. Easements for electric transformers. transformers shall be located outside of the """ public right-of--way. er ,,. e. OrdiJia~ce ?~o. 18, 482691 1 Page: i8 of 22 ` ^^ SILViq OgVIS F;TKIN CouNTY CO R 111.00 /14DZ0000~~•46A ""~ .,. Public a~,cess and pedestrian easements cei.-tcic;n~ with the pedestrian corridors ar_d "~' trails ~.;-ithin the project. w , 6. Fire and emergency access easements throu_V. ti7e pedestrian ways of at least sixteen ~ 161 feet width. ~. The atapiicant shall provide the..zal appro•: ed Subdivision line data or survey descrntion data describing the revised sweet and parcel boundaries to the .~ Geograpiuc Information Systems Departr..e: t prior to applying for a bttilain~ ""' perrrit. The final building location data. :eluding any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any o the residential units. +~ The Final PL-D Plans shall include: 1. An ilustrative site plan with dimensioned wilding locations. Adequate snow storage areas shall be depicted. Of:=site impro•: ements, not intended for constructio^. by the developer, shall be labeled "for dacussion only, to be desigl-1ed and const: acted by others". 2. A landscaoe plan showing location. amount, and species of landscape improvements with as i.^igation plan with a signature line .or the City Parks Department, T'nis shouic include any movable planters:pots witl•~ir: pedestrian areas. 3. Desi~ soecirications for the Hunter Street Trail connection to Main Street with a sigrtar,:-~e tine for the City Parks Department. 4. _~n architectural character plan demonstrating .he general architectural character of each ~uiiding depicting materials, =enestratio::. projections, and dimensions and locations of elevator shaft heads, slc~~lights, mechanical equipment, etc. Mechanical equipment shall be screened from pedestrian vie•.v. 6. A utiii-~- plan meeting the standards of the C~.- Engineer and Cin~ utility agencies. T:~e C:.- ~~~ glen Department prefers one fare tao and one domestic service tap w-itr. subsec~ent Branch lines to serve inai•:iduai bui:~~ gs and residences. 6. Construction details for improveme:.ts to t e public .~ghts-of--way, includins Sherifi'~ =,lley, with road profiles. i. A grades a drainaue plan with any o=-site i:~:c:ovements specified. Arty off-site unpro•~-er tents done in coordination ~::•ith the Ci-,- rnQineering Department and costs shall ~~ prorated with other properties receiving such benerit. 8. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.6"6.160. Section 23: Subdivision/PUD Agreement Within. X60 days after final approval by Cit,Y Council and prior to applying for Building Permit. the apoiicant shall record a Subdivision;~PL~D _=.greement binding this property to "~' this deveiopme:a approval. The Agreement shall inc:::de the necessary items detailed i:. Section %5.4~~.~~-G, in addition to the following: ~' 1. A~•e°.-perils with the City of Aspen, as describes above, regarding: the snow melter, ~ recycling center, use of the 640 East ~1ain Street propem-, APCHA acceptance of '~""' condornir.:u:-r. HOA agreements. acknowied~ ent of medical office use ~r Ordinance'~c. i~ Series of 2003. ?age : s 0 wr 4e2sg~ ~ Page: 19 of 22 05/14/2003 11:46A SILVIA DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 111.00 D 0 00 ww . employee mitigation requirement, the methodology of determining actual costs of ~ the Resident Occupied units, any agreement for the City or APCHA to "buy-down~~ ~-- the affordable residential units, Citv parcel :ease agreement, Hunter Street Trail .~ maintenance and license agreement describing and depicting division o_ maintenance responsibilities, extra pari~ing space lease agreement, an access and '~" maintenance agreement for the Ciy Weii :gad acceptable to the City Water ~,,, Director, a public and emergency access easement agreement along pedestrian ways ~. and trails as saeciried above. ?. An agreement with Pitkin County providing adequate access for Pitkin County; the Pitkin County Sheriff, the Pitkin County Jaii building, and Pitkin County Facilit`~ -•- Maintenance, including any relocation measures. 3. The PUD agreement shall state the ownersrLn and maintenance responsibilities of _ the common areas of the project. 4. Arl estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for constructior: phases affecting city streets and infrastruc:sre and provisions for noticing "^ emergency service providers, neighbors, the Pitkin County Jail, Pitkin Counn~ .,~, Facility Maintenance, the City Streets Departrr:ent, the Transportation Department. '""' City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events on the Rio Grande Park shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. The Cit~• can provide trafric control barriers, cones, ,~. etc., but cannot provide personnel. ~. A.n agreement to return Rio Grande and Spring Streets to acceptable condition after construction. as determined by the City Engineer. Subsurface work may be ^~ necessary. Curb and gutter work may be necessary. A final two-inch overlay may ~,,, be necessar,~. ,.. Section 2~: Building Permit Requirements °" The building permit application shall inciude,~deoict: "° 1. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been y ~• read and understood. ~. _~ signed copy of the final Ordinance wanting lard use approval. «. ~. A ragitive dust control plan approved by the Pnvironmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of--way, speed limits within and "~' accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a ,~ nuisance during construction. The applicant s~:zll wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. "' The applican shall provide phone contact information for on-site project .,. management to address construction impacts .o: The City of Aspen. Pitkir. County, 600 East Main Condominium :~ssociatior., and the River Park Condominium Association. ""~ 4. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City '~ Building Department. Spring Street shall be the ar:man hauling and deliven~ route. r Ordinance'~o. i8, I~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ 482691 "" Page: 20 of 22 ~' ~~~~~ ~•ui^ nn+l nn I1~1 ll::1~1 III 1111111 II I~~I 05/14/2003 1 :: »E SILVIR DRVISrITKIN C~:1NT" :' R 111.00 '.~ 0.00 Section ~: Project amendments - Amenaments to the Prciec: s :ail be reviewed accordii.__ to rile proced;:res and limitations of "'"' the Land Use Code for ate.:ending a Final PUD Plan. Section 2'~ The City of Aspen 1~-1a~.~o- := ereby authorizeu to execute r.c as::e a Mayor's Deed to ~ Obermeyer Place Holdii~~ Company, LLC, on behalf of the Cir ~~ of _-soen for that portion of ~ land south ofR.io Grande ~~bdi~•ision Lot ~9, as described or. the Ob .-:never Place Mayor's Deed Parcel Ex'tlibit ~1ao_ . Tie Er~bit Mat_~ shall be r°cordec ~.~•iti::e ?itkin County Clerk ~,,; and Recorder. Section 2 . All material representation a.-td commitments made cv the developer. conditionally by some property owners, ptirsuar.t to the development proposal appro~.~~a as herein awarded, whether in public ~.earir.~ ~,- documentation presented before rite Co: -.~:iunity Development Department, the Oberme~.~er ~~ ~~'~t'OP Task Force Te tn, or :~ _ .~~en Cit}' Council, are hereby incorporated in suet. p:an development appro~•ais and t.e s~..e shall be complied with as if fully set forthrer°~ . •_r.iess amended by other sped: c ::ord:::ors. Section This Ordinance shall not e:ect ~-tv existing litigation ;rid sh„':._ -- - ~: mot ~ _ °rate as an abatement of any action or proceedir.` =_o~,~~ pending under or b~~ ~~-inuc e:h° ordinances repealed or amended as herein. provided. wnd the same shall be conducted a.:d ~onciuded under such prior ordinances. Section: If any section, subsection. ~~~.e ;,~, clause, pi7rase. or portion ,;: :a ~~rdinance is for anv reason held invalid or uncors::~,aional in a court of competent ~;:risdic::on. such portion shall be deemed a separate, dist:r.o: a:.d independent provisio. and s~aa ::, :affect the validity of the remaining portions there~~:. Section 3CA: That the City Clerk is directed. upon the adoption: o this Ordir.r_o°.:_ -ecord a copy of this Ordinance in the ofr~ce of one Pit!-;in Count~• Clerk and Recorder. Section 3 A public hearing o~ the Grd~.arce ;~•as held on the _ . :av c.~ _n-:. =~03, at ~:00 in the City Council Chambers, a seen Cin Hall. _~spen Colorado, iiftee:: c :. davs prior to tivhich rr hearing a public notice of :e sa.--:e u•as published a newspaper ~: eenerai circulation within the City ofAspen. - - ~ OrCinance No. 18, Series of 2003. Pa^e 2G .7 .~ .,. .. ., ~.. ,.. ~. INTRODUCED, READ A.ND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by rile City Council or the City of Aspen :.- she 24`" day or March. X003. Attest: ~o~'S C F A S~ ' ath n ,City Clerk .. - Helen Kalin ILl nd d, ayor . s:'~~; r . ~_.~ o ~ ....~. per;..;,. (Qg~o .~= ,; FI?V AL~~ adopted. passed and approved ::ss 14`h day of A~rii. ?003. c~ill'~fI'`f'~ , z'~. ,Kathryn ~~5 ch, Cit<~ Clerk Approved as to form: S- /z~~~ Joh Worcester, Cin~ Attorney C:\home~ObermeyerC0W0? Final\Ordinance.doc elen Kalin an eru Iayor ~ ~826~~ i II .00 914/2000012246A SILVIR DRVIS =:-"•IN COUNTY CC R 111 Ordinance ?~10. 18. __...__... ~~, _~~`i~..__ ._..,..___ _ ` r _ s -~ ...,...~e: ---... - na:r i.ousnin ~ v -^iCSD R°QU1.: ~.+...~nrC_i"i ^~rr-•, ~. -or ~ O«/r~~ ~~ ^-~ ~ ~ N •• N r+ -- m ~en~:ce .c :,;,nnr.Oent upon piiance ~~; ~ - ..wiarcns, w.,: sp _._~:;ons ~e en r z which ` D m Qy N B O . at a le istrict once. . iw ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -=~C~D ~. ~_ : e~.~ew ti7e approved D: ai:.a?° :ars ~ ^ '° ~ m ~' a o . ."....: ~ :. at cear w~-°r co: ~_,.~ ~ _Ou..;CaLS... "er:.^..ete~ t10 d y - C 4.... ......,..Or_ pa ralr.si a-- nc: coru ec - -~L. . _ . ...,.:,, :e sanitary se`~er _ :e:r.. ~~ ~ -.. `~~n-site 'r ~:~_,• playa require approval by CSD rrr ~ . ~ , _ ~~11 a~':G~.':C?_Se Lrl:°rC°DtOrS ~0! :-aDSi - -_- --- C C'W v . ... c _ ..,..._. .:'.:i IOCC proC2SS;i.~ .._:~.,._5.....°" , CCa~CT.S _r =JCC -:. ., essln^ snail be idenrnee r - r~ ~ ~..~ . .lt. " . "~~ ~ _~ _.....^.a ~_._ separators are r °d =~- ,. e0lur., ice. _-` n=c rril: ~ ..~~` i fi . :, n _ _ y.. , ell - _ :C v?.il Cie ma.L-::°.^..'..~: c _..~5 - 'ay °nrance drains :.:ust a: ai^ . t ^ ---• °n ~~~....ts. __ ; s ~ -_ e . --e:•a:or sha*'s drains m~.:_, mew t~ v ~ .. .. ~, s ~...... : ~~ , _. ~t ~~~ old servi„e .rtes must be eYCavated a::d ; candor= ~' ~.~°- . s„ _pec~~-; :, ..'-.SD reeuir ........_ rain sanitary ~~er :..... ~.,.,.. ~ errlents -_-~ to - ~~, ~' > _ . Iwo _¢ _° ~. . ~eiev. a-a~= ,,eiop eat ~ - -- m rnay.°q:r:re ~ s: -_ n alr ~ ~~ - ,~a or -- . --=`~p~° _ stem. ~~~, One tap is ~..cwed :cr eacn buiidi::~ ~ tared ,e z ^r c -- = , .._.... ~ c - _ __~•r° ' ` y _ a _ _ eem°nts may ne r~ -~~ • - n .~.~, d o sln le sen,ce L -;z -:. ., .:7orz :n Wn ~ : z.^r.,..,.e... ---_~.er-,errs re pro:pie: _ '•ti ~ or ter- ~- y..=..,.._ --== ,v ~ : -~'~_~;. ~~.~_ca~~ "~ _ °c'.~r_ a^ -_ ,Val b,~ CSD w;-ter V ~ J _ Mans will . _ a ., sc ~ . ,.-. c ~;. ,,.,~ .. '_ -_ - .-... .G ......._.. _ ".:ay Lr_paC. _:O1:C =. _ .~ =- _~:C:Ile.^.tS .,, ~ "~ -...~1] -=-- :'llSt C° ~a1C pr10r :C u7e :SS.:a.":Ce .,: C J:_._.C. ':~ p°^?1:: ?_., ' - __ ~rc~e once ae:;~!e ars av,. ~_.... ~c= a, ble ~ -=... :. ..... ., a:: a .., . e ~ ., `~~ ner e ~~~ - ~ai '°„~ .:_...... c,,. iopment wo~:d produce ~o':~s -= _ ,.,°,; ~~ :;Lection syste::, an:. '-eau e ;: :.l Irv ,; - ~pac:r~ ..=.~'S~C..... c_.=.u:ai0v;.1e QOW'P.StrC3.": ~. ,. - ". 3.,CalOr:y1 0: C'~...,,,._-_ -=° ~,L'111 Oe - 00:-'.,..~:_ =..e5 .vp ~ be COlie ..... CO!1°.,D..' _ ...... .. .. _at::;°n: C3DdC::~' CC._:.. __.:. . ___:ZOn31 _....~ ...:°_ .._ - .. emea ~;ieeQeC. y ~°. ....._ ~.....:... .._ °_1CDn.1e...... ...,, ar__ ~_ .. ... ... ........ CrCer .., ~. ~~'nere addi's'ai development would produce u~ ~a- ows -:.. ~:~ouid oven~•ileim e o:a^~ ec , -city cr :.~e ':y$:'~ V Coi.CC-,, .. S'JStem anC Cr 4eatine:l: .a.,.. `~ ~'°_ - °nr ~ ~ _ - . 1. ~'S:_ .._ °piG., :.~: °. ..nitre v= ~ - ..~~ e.C DI;l..... ~i«!1 Ue .~-.~~~~.~.~~. ....°.~ ... Pt h° ° D0l .ton ~hP 'n _ vV.. to ... CC_a ... ,. _..-l:.l:..u C -eser':., .. .,it`:' ._.. - _,_,., ,~• .°_ „'.:" .~ nr~ ortar.°r .L._. - ..._ a.,,~ ..............:. (~ri:y :;,:::~e r;a:eT_ ~~s: ~ ==rence _ ~ Dui :c -,e .. _--c: on t:.e alley tC rep:a,. = ^ai De171I1C COi7Cep:.~~;C V~~ an~'..,:.T't :::ay Ce reSpO^S:C'i= ......^_°:: - ~ ........~1 sal-li alter sewer t.~.i_ aLz„ ~ __ :,ie cost - _ ~ ^w