The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1000 E Hopkins Ave.A60-901000 East Hopkins Townhouses,Subdiv/PUD/ 1 Stream Margin Rev.,Lots,A,H,I,K&S,blocks 25 & 26 2~ 94.-al 1 - -4 , t. ~r-0*-Kit.3> ~~E~tro 4- \\ p I I 1. . ' #339~ 12/06/91.115:51 Rec $45.0|~ 663 PG 863 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR 1000 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO THIS SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST, a Colorado general partnership ("Owner"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ("the City of Aspen") pursuant to Â§7-1005 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City of Aspen for approval, execution and recordation the final Plat of the 1000 East Hopkins Townhouse Condominiums for a tract of land situated within the City of Aspen, more fully described as follows: Lots K and S, Blocks 25 and 26, Lots H, I and A, Blocks 25 and 26, plus remainder of vacated Cleveland Street, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, with a street address of 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (the "Plat"); and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has fully considered and reviewed the Plat and has determined that it is consistent with the provisions, terms and conditions of that certain Ordinance granting subdivision approval with conditions, which Ordinance was approved by the Aspen City Council on June 10, 1991 (hereinafter "Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991"); and WHEREAS, the City o f Aspen has imposed certain conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and recordation of the Plat and the granting of approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, such matters being deemed neces- sary to promote, protect and enhance the public welfare; and WHEREAS, Owner is willing to acknowledge, accept, abide by and faithfully perform the conditions and requirements imposed by the City of Aspen in approving the Plat; and WHEREAS, under the authority of Chapter 24, Article 7, Section 7-1005(C) and (D) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, the City of Aspen is entitled to security and assurance that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed by Owner. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual covenants contained herein, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City of Aspen, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1 #339258 1~16/91 15: 51 Rec $45.00 BK Silvia Da-s, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc PG 864 I. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN By Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, the City of Aspen has granted the Owner approval for the demolition of existing improve- ments on the subject Property and for the construction of four free-market condominium units with a permissible floor area ratio totalling approximately 13,380 square feet for the free market units, and for four deed restricted affordable housing units containing not less than 750 square feet each (50% of which shall be above grade). The total permissible floor area ratio for the subject property shall not exceed 1.1:1 on parcel 1 of the subject Property. Two-thirds of the additional .1 floor area ratio shall be used for affordable housing. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the Plat submitted to and approved by the City of Aspen. II. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND DEDICATION OF TRAILS 1. Stream Margin Review. No development shall be permitted within one hundred feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, such high water line as depicted on the Plat. All approved development shall take place entirely within parcel 1. 2. Dedication of Trails. (a) Fisherman's Easement. Owner hereby dedicates a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River including the land measured five feet horizontally from the edge of the river as depicted on the Plat. (b) Trail Easement. Owner hereby dedicates a fifteen foot wide trail easement within the one hundred year flood plain as depicted on the Plat. III. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND VARIANCES 1. Rear Yard Set-Back Variance. Owner shall be permitted to construct improvements on the subject Property with a zero rear yard set-back between parcel 1 and the City of Aspen alleyway, limited to the building footprint necessary to accommo- date the affordable housing units as depicted on the Plat. 2. Height Variance. Owner shall be permitted to increase the permissible height for the north two-thirds of the improvements on the subject Property by two feet. 3. Parking Requirements. Owner shall be required to construct twelve parking spaces in the underground parking area. Parking spaces shall be assigned one to each affordable housing unit and two to each free market housing unit. No other parking shall be required. Affordable housing unit owners shall not be precluded from using free market unit parking spaces on a space available basis and so long as such use does not interfere with free market unit owners' use of the parking spaces. 2 #339258 ~ 15:51 Rec $45.00 B~63 PG 865 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 4. Limitation on Development of Parcel 2. No further development shall be permitted on parcel 2 of the subject Property. IV. CONDOMINIUMIZATION AND DEED RESTRICTIONS 1. Condominiumization. Owner shall be permitted to condominiumize the free-market and the affordable housing units in the configurations depicted on the PUD plan. Owner shall cause to be recorded a Condominium Declaration and Condominium Plat covering all of the condominium units. 2. Minimum Lease Terms. All residential units shall be restricted to six month minimum leases, with no more than two shorter tenancies per year in accordance with Â§7-1007A. 1(b) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. 3. Affordable Housing Impact Fee. Because Owner shall construct four affordable housing units on the subject Property, the obligation which would otherwise exist pursuant to Â§7- 1007A. 1(c) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code is hereby waived. 4. Deed Restriction of Affordable Housing Units. The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted, and Owner shall enter into resale agreements with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority providing for the following: (a) Each of the affordable housing units shall be separately condominiumized, with the Condominium Plat depicting each unit as containing at least 750 square feet, two bedrooms, with at least 50% of the square footage being above grade. (b) The affordable housing units, with the exception of the initial sale by Owner to purchasers, shall be listed through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. (C) For purposes of sale, three of the units shall be deed restricted to middle income (that is, the highest income category, or category four) price guidelines. One unit shall be deed restricted to moderate income, category three price guide- lines. (d) For rental purposes, all of the affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to moderate income, category two price guidelines, but in no event shall the square footage rental be less than $0.89. (e) For purposes of qualifying purchasers and/or renters of the af fordable hous-ing units, Owner shall rely upon any of the qualification guidelines for any income category as such are established from time to time by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. (f) Owner shall be entitled to sell an affordable housing unit in conjunction with the sale of a free-market unit regardless of whether or not the purchaser qualifies under afford- 3 #339258 12~/91 15: 51 Rec $45.00 Bl::~ 6~ PG 866 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.-0 able housing guidelines; provided, however, the affordable housing units shall be occupied by a qualified employee. (g) Upon, issuance of a building permit for improvements to the subject property, Owner shall pay to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority a cash-in-lieu amount of $45,000.00. V. CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS 1. Water. Owner shall extend the existing service water line to service the building sites. Domestic water shall be obtained through the City of Aspen Water Department. 2. Sewer Line. Owner shall extend the existing sewer line to service the building sites. Sewer service shall be provided through the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 3. Improvement District. Owner shall join an improve- ment district if such district is formed. 4. Fire Alarm System. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Marshall. 5. Vegetation/Erosion. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods shall be installed at the northern perimeter of parcel 1 prior to excavation and clearing and shall remain in place throughout construction. 6. Demolition. Demolition of the existing apartment building on the subject Property shall not occur prior to issuance of a building permit for new construction, unless deterioration or casualty to the existing structure requires demolition for health and/or safety purposes. VI. NON-COMPLIANCE AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS OR EXTENSIONS BY OWNER In the event that the City of Aspen determines that Owner is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the City of Aspen shall notify the Owner in writing asking that the Owner remedy the alleged non-compliance within such reasonable time as the City of Aspen may determine, but not less than forty-five days. If the City of Aspen determines that Owner has not complied within such time, the City of Aspen may issue and serve upon Owner a written order specifying the alleged non- compliance and requiring the Owner to remedy the same within thirty days. Within twenty days of the receipt of such order, Owner may file with the City of Aspen either a notice advising the City of Aspen that he is in compliance or a written petition requesting a hearing to determine one or both of the following matters: (a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did exist, or 4 #339250~e/06/91 15:51 Rec $45.00 ~63 PG 867 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $â€ž00 (b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non-compliance which is determined to exist. Upon receipt of such petition, the City of Aspen shall promptly schedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in the order and in the petition. The hearing shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the City of Aspen for other hearings. If the City of Aspen determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a non-compliance exists which has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be ap- propriate; provided, however, no order terminating any approval granted herein shall be issued without a finding of the City of Aspen that substantial evidence warrants such action and affording the Owner a reasonable time to remedy such non-compliance. A final determination of non-compliance which has not been remedied or for which no variance has been granted may, at the option of the City of Aspen, and upon written notice to the Owner, terminate any of the approvals contained herein which are reasonably related to the requirement(s) with which Owner has failed to comply. Alternative- ly, the City of Aspen may grant such variances, extensions of time or amendments to this Agreement as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. In addition to the foregoing, the Owner or his successors or assigns may, on his own initiative, petition the City of Aspen for a variance, an amendment to this Agreement or an extension of one or more of the time periods required for performance under the Construction Schedules or otherwise. the City of Aspen may grant such variances, amendments to this Agreement, or extensions of time as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. VII. EASEMENTS OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY The Plat sets forth certain easements and rights-of-way for the use of the owners of the improvements on the Property and the general public and which are dedicated to the perpetual use of all utility companies and providers for the purpose of install.ing, constructing, replacing, repairing and maintaining underground utilities and drainage facilities, as more fully set forth on the Plat. VIII. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE At the time Owner proposes to construct improvements on the subject Property, a letter of credit or other financial secur- ity in a form and amount reasonably satisfactory to the City of Aspen shall be provided as security for the completion of such improvements, which amount shall be based upon the estimated costs of constructing said improvements as reflected on the engineer's estimates attached hereto as Exhibit "A, " unless such financial security is waived by the appropriate administrative body. Such restrictions as appear on the Plat and as are contained in this Agreement shall be fully enforceable by the City of Aspen in accordance with the terms hereof and applicable law, and Owner's 5 #339258 ~06/91 15: 51 Rec $45.00 81~63 PG 868 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 entitlement to development of the subject Property reflected on the Plat shall be dependent upon its performance of the obligations and conditions set forth herein. IX. G.M.O.S. EXEMPTION Pursuant to Â§8-107 (A) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Owner has been granted Growth Management Quota System exempt-ion for the replacement of four free-market units and the construction of four affordable housing units on the subject Property. X. VESTING OF RIGHTS In accordance with Â§6-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, applicable state statutes, and Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, Owner is hereby granted vested property rights for the purpose of constructing the improvements on the subject Real Property for a period of three years from the effective date of said Ordinance. XII. MISCELLANEOUS 1. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Owner and the City of Aspen and their respective successors and assigns. 2. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 3. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section of the application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, and the application of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section in any other circumstance shall not be affected thereby. 4. This Subdivision Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or amended from time to time only by written instruments executed by all parties hereto. 5. Numerical and title headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only, and shall not be deemed determinative of the substance contained herein. As used herein, where the context requires, the use of the singular shall include the plural and the use of any gender shall include all genders. 6. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement shall be considered to be given if delivered or if deposited in the United States mail to the parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or such other addresses as may be substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors or assigns: 6 #33:~8 12/06/91 15: 51 Rec $45. ~~~BK 663 PG 869 S i 1. \7-i Davis, Pit kin Cnt y C lerÂ· IÂ·:1l/uo c $.00 The City of Aspen Valley-Hi Development Trust 130 South Galena Street c/o Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C. Aspen, Colorado 81611 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Attn: Planning Director Aspen, Colorado 81611 7. The terms, conditions, provisions and obligations herein contained shall be deemed covenants that run with and burden the real property more particularly described herein hereto and any and all owners thereof, their successors, grantees or assigns and further shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically enforce- able by or against he parties hereto, their successors, grantees or assigns. 8. Owner represents and warrants that he is the fee title owner of the subject parcel with full authority to enter into this Agreement, and that any and all persons, firms or entities having any lien, encumbrance or interest in the property have consented to the dedications, restrictions and conditions of approval set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto executed their hands and seals on the dates and years respectively indicated, in full understanding agreement to the terms and conditions herein contained. Owner: Date : [C~i O~ 4,\ 1 VAL~EY HIEDEVELOPMENT TRUST BY:/ 1*USTRALIAN INVESTMENT CORP. , 1 1Avggherall partner y v l///\/1 ) 1,1 1 B , , A !)Richajbd Y. Neihey; Jr., Secretary The City of Aspen: THE CITY OF ASPEN Date: 11Ot,kld 3 ) 199 1 * 5. GÂ».X By 7 #339258 ~06/91 15:51 Rec $45.00 Bl~53 PG 870 Silvia D~ Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Subdivision Agreement was acknowledged and signed before me this /O day of f 0 ff-/LU_LA. , 1991, by Richard Y.. LNeiley, Jr. as Secretary of Australian Investment Corp., a general partner of VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST. ~ WITNESS my hand and official seal. e,i. 'Â© 3 My commission expires: 6)1419 4 pov ff U / //N 4 12 -LA._A-c 54 1 L 0, .97 1, uy-- 1 1 Notary Public) < STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing ~bdivision Agreement was acknowledged and raigned before me this 3' day of Â£24*,00-42*j , 1991, by 12:k *u tok-,-cff on behalf of the City Council of the City of 0*spen. - WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 3) I 341 1 /lei-fj \ d-1 10 90419 tift (2 . (1,Â£,iteÂ£i_ j 4.Â· gOTA lit <- I9 Notalry~Public c:\act\cvntry.dnn\subdivis.agr 8 #33925- 663 PG 871 Silvia ~%2/Ut2%rtcc:5~:7* $.00 NOTICE OF PUD DESIGNATION PLEASE TAKE NOTE that on the 10th day of June, 1991, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, approved development on the following described tract as a Planned Unit Development pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. No development shall occur on the tract except in accordance with such development order and under any conditions that may be imposed thereby. The above referred to land is located within the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, and is more fully described as follows: Parcel One A parcel of land situated in E.A.A.T. and more fully described as follows: Beginning at the SW Cor. of Lot S, Blk. 26, E.A.A.T. thence N 14'50'49" E 100.0 Ft.; thence S 75Â¤09'11" E 135.32 Ft. thence S 14'50'49" W 100.0 Ft.; thence N 75'09'11" 135.32 Ft. Parcel Two A parcel of land situated in E.A.A.T. and more fully described as follows: Beginning at the SW Cor. of Lot H, Blk. 26, E.A.A.T., thence N 140 50'49" E 29.11 Ft. i to the point of intersection with Line 9-10 of said E.A.A.T.; thence along said line S 74Â¤12' E 165.34 Ft. 1; thence S 14'50'49" W 26.36 Ft. t; thence N 75009'11" E 165.32 Ft. to the Point of Beginning, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. A copy of the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is of record in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. f_al Â£2470 2 KG-Q-L City Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and signed before me this <~ day of /Lk_ 2-2.- 2,4-2..L , 1991, by Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires : .3/3-7/'/4 3(3 Â·>4---t MJQ<-lÂ£ bll,1 i. ~ 4' t~- 1-,~10 4 NotaryjPublic MYLER, STULLER & SCI~.RTZ Memorandum to Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council April 10, 1990 Page Two D. Additional restrictions on use: (1) All units separately condominiumized. (2) Owners reserve right to rent or sell to persons who qualify under low, moderate, or middle income guidelines at the prices/rates referred to in paragraph C above. (3) Units to be offered first for sale to purchasers of free-market units, and then to qualified purchasers from the 1 Housing Authority. (4) All rentals are subject to terms of standard Housing Authority operating agreement, specifically including requirement that rental/affordable units be rented at all times to qualified tenants. (5) Cap on common area maintenance assessments for affordable units (exact terms to be decided). 4 E. Miscellaneous terms: The following terms are agreed to with the understanding, and on the condition, that at least 50% of the square footage in the affordable units Will be above-grade: (1) 2' height variance for rear-half of building. (2) Back-yard set-back variance of approximately 8'. (3) Encroachment permit within existing alley ROW will be granted by City as need be to accomplish 50% above-grade objective. (4) Parking: (a) 2 per free-market unit = 8 (b) 1 per affordable unit = -4 12 total (5) PUD designation for the subject property to facilitate implementation of these terms. 1 (6) Standard architectural review. (7) Expedited review process (2-step consolidated PUD review). 17/A6 j .. MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Memorandum to Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council April 10, 1990 Page Three (8) Dedication of trail easement and installation of footpath to Roaring Fork River. ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED UPON: By-Â· *46 Wet/- E. tohwartÂ¢r City Attorney Richard Y. Ne #ley Jr. L, V "~ Aiko-liKENT ph h MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: 1000 East Hopkins: Consolidated two-step Subdivision/ PUD Review (public hearing), and Stream Margin Review DATE: November 26, 1990 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this project with conditions. This development proposal is based on resolution of a suit (the Settlement) between the City of Aspen and the property owner. APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, represented by Sunny Vann LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins, Lots A and K Block 25 and lots H, I and S Block 26, Townsite of Aspen. The parcels include the abandoned Cleveland St. r.o.w. ZONING: Block 25: R/MF, Block 26: R-15 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: In order to redevelop the property, the applicant requests Subdivision and PUD approval, Stream Margin Review, and GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of 4 of the existing Valley Hi units as well as 4 affordable housing units. The project will also request from Council vesting of development rights for three years. As part of the Settlement, it was agreed that the review for PUD approval will be consolidated into a two-step process. Public Hearings will be held at both Planning Commission and City Council. Please see Attachment "All for Settlement summary. Attachment "B" contains Development Data, site and architectural plans. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are compiled in Attachment "C". Highlights are as follows: Engineering: - Garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20' distance from the property line. - The proposed trail easement should be 15' wide with north boundary coinciding with the 100 year floodplain boundary. - Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter improvements, and any other work in the public R.O.W. - A 5' fisherman's easement along the riverbank is recommended. 1 f- 0 Â· 1000 E. Hopkins Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan including variances to height and rear setback, Condominiumization of the eight units, and GMQS Exemption of the four deed restricted Affordable Housing units. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: "A" - Planning Memo to the Planning Commission 11 B" - Commission Resolution #91-7 Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for Council Consideration jtkvj/1000hop. ccmemo 3 . parcel 1) and building height (two feet). The R/MF parking requirement is one space per bedroom. This would be 20 spaces except that the Settlement requires that only 12 spaces must be provided. Please refer to drawings in the P&Z memo, Attachment "Al'. The proposal also requests approval for Condominiumization of all eight units, and GMQS Exemption for the four affordable housing units. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Although the Planning and Housing Authority staff are concerned that the free market units seem to exceed the size stated in the Settlement, the City Council at first reading felt that the proposal meets the intent of Settlement. Staff has made amendments to the proposed ordinance based on Council comments at first reading, which includes approval language for Condominiumization and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning Commission approved the proposal by a 5-1 vote. STAFF COMMENTS: Condominiumization: The Settlement states the eight units shall be Condominiumized. The City Council may grant Condominiumization for new development at the time of other development reviews, including Subdivision and PUD. The proposed Subdivision Agreement contains language requiring six month minimum leases and establishes affordable housing parameters. Staff recommends approval of Condominiumization for this multi- family structure. GMOS Exemption for Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Section 24-8- 104 C.1.c., the Council may exempt deed restricted housing from Growth Management. The Settlement establishes the parameters for the affordable housing component. Staff recommends that the four affordable units, sized and deed restricted as per the Settlement, be exempted from Growth Management. GMQS Exemption of the free market replacement units shall be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 24-8-104 A.1.a. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of this Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, including height and rear setback variances, with conditions. Planning staff recommends approval of Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and vesting of development rights. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have second reading of Ordinance 8, Series 1991 approving and vesting the development rights for the 2 r. Y[. e MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director gv FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: June 10, 1991 1 RE: 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses - Final Subdivision/PUD Review (consolidated review), Condominiumization and Vested Rights, Second Reading of Ordinance 8, Series 1991 SUMMARY: First Reading of Ordinance 8 was held on April 8. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the consolidated Final Subdivision/PUD Plan with variances to height and rear setback with conditions. The Planning Office also recommends approval for Condominiumization and GMQS Exemption for the four affordable housing units. COUNCIL GOALS: This project seeks to create affordable housing units in support of goal No.1. Also, staff wishes to process this application in a fair manner consistent with goal #14. BACKGROUND: In April 1990, the City and the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant") reached a legal settlement ("Settlement") regarding the rights for redevelopment of the Valley Hi property. Please see Attachment "A" of Planning memo to the Commission which includes a summary of the terms of the Settlement from then Acting City Attorney Alan Schwartz. This application was heard by the Commission on December 4, 1990. Stream Margin review was approved on this date. Resolution #91-7 documents the conditions recommended by the Commission for Final Subdivision/PUD and Stream Margin review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project calls for razing the existing 22 unit Valley Hi Apartments. New development is proposed to be a multi-family structure including 4 three-bedroom free market units (3,345 s.f. each) and 4 two-bedroom affordable housing units (750 s.f. each). The Settlement requires that three of the units be indexed as "moderate", and one be indexed as "middle" income units. This translates into current housing indexes as three category #4 units and one category #3 unit. Twelve parking spaces will be provided underground at one space per affordable unit, two spaces per free market unit. The Settlement provides that the project will be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development in order to permit dimensional and parking variances. The project seeks variance to the rear yard setback (zero setback on .. MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning DATE: L July 17, 1991 RE: 1000 E. Hopkins - GMQS Exemption for Replacement of Four Residential Dwelling Units (Director's Approval) summary: Staff recommends approval of GMQS Exemption for the replacement of four dwelling units at 1000 E. Hopkins, currently known as the Valley Hi Apartments. The project has already received approval of Subdivision, Final PUD, Condominiumization, and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing from City Council via Ordinance 8, Series 1991. Applicant: Valley Hi Development Trust, Sunny Vann representative Location: Lots A and K Block 25, and Lots H,I and S block 26 (1000 E. Hopkins) The parcel is zoned R-MF. Request: Prior to filing the required Subdivision/PUD Agreement, the project must formally be granted GMQS Exemption for replacement of dwelling units. Staff Comments: According to Section 24-8-104 A.1.a., the Planning Director shall exempt reconstruction of an existing building which does not create additional dwelling units. It must be demonstrated that affordable housing and parking are provided for the reconstructed units. The existing structure (The Valley Hi Apartments) contains 22 small units. The redevelopment plan calls for four free market units and four deed restricted affordable units within one multi-family structure. Twelve underground parking spaces will be provided. The terms of this proposal reflects a 1990 legal settlement between the developer and the City. This settlement established the PUD review process and specified the number of units, square footages, parking spaces, deed restrictions, etc. Based on the settlement and the approved affordable housing and parking provided, the GMQS Exemption for the four replacement units should be granted by the Planning Director. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Growth Management Exemption for the replacement of four residential dwelling units at 1000 E. Hopkins. r. - The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement District if one is ever formed. - A Final Plat must be submitted and approved by Engineering prior to this application being scheduled for review by City Council. Sanitation District: - Treatment capacity is sufficient. - Line replacement for collection system used by this project will cost the applicant approximately $20,000. - Access right-of-way for heavy equipment must be provided for line maintenance. - Drainage design for garage shall include oil and sand interceptor. Surface run-off shall not enter sanitary sewer. Fire Marshal: - Residential sprinkler system shall be installed. - Fire alarm system shall be installed. Water: - Development not to exceed 2" domestic line, not including irrigation. - No credit will be given for old tap fees. Housing Authority: The Settlement conflicts with Housing Guidelines on several points: the percentage of replacement with affordable housing units; the affordable units offered for sale to the free market unit owners for first refusal; net livable square footage of the affordable units (750 s.f.) qualifies for low-income only; and the cash-in-lieu payment of $45,000 for 3 bedrooms does not meet the Housing Authority's guidelines for 5.25 low-income employees. Recognizing that this proposal results from a negotiated settlement, Housing staff would hope that GMQS Exemption be granted with the following conditions of approval: - The affordable units be sold or rented to qualified moderate income employees as defined by the guidelines in effect at the time of sale or rental of the units. - Cash-in-lieu payment for 5.25 low income employees be made (current calculation: $183,750) prior to issuance of Building Permit. - Increase the size of the affordable units to 1,000 s.f. so that they meet Housing Guidelines for moderate income units. PROPOSAL: This project calls razing the existing 22 unit Valley Hi Apartments. New development will consist of a multi-family structure including 4 three-bedroom free market units (3,345 s.f. 2 00 .0 each) and 4 two-bedroom affordable housing units (750 s.f. each). The Settlement requires that three of the units be indexed as "moderate'l, and one be indexed as "middle" income units. Twelve parking spaces will be provided underground at one space per affordable unit, two spaces per free market unit. The Settlement provides that the project will be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development in order to permit dimensional and parking variances. The project seeks variance to the rear yard setback (zero setback on parcel 1) and building height (two feet). The R/MF parking requirement is one space per bedroom. This would be 20 spaces except that the Settlement requires that only 12 spaces .must be provided. STAFF COMMENTS: According to the terms of the Settlement, the 4 free market units were to be 3,000 s.f. each. The application proposes each of these units to be 3,345 s.f. This is inconsistent with the Settlement. In light of comments from Housing regarding the insufficient size of the affordable units if indexed as Category 2,3 or 4 (Moderate and Middle), staff feels that the free market units should be reduced and the size of the affordable units increased to comply with the Housing standards for net livable area. If this is not architecturally possible, then the affordable units should be indexed at Category 1 Low income units for determining sale or rental rates. If this option is not agreed to by the applicant, then the free market units should be reduced to 3,000 s.f. each as per the Settlement terms. With either option, it should be noted that at the time the Settlement was developed, there were only three housing index categories for deed restricted units: low, moderate, and middle. Four categories are currently used by the Housing Authority: #1- low; #2 and #3 - moderate; and #4 - middle. In the spirit of the intent of the Settlement, Planning staff recommends that if all four units are not indexed as low income units, they now be indexed to today's categories as follows: two units as category #2, one unit as category #3, and the fourth unit at category #4. The 1.1:1 FAR on parcel 1 granted by the Settlement is approximately 14,800 s.f. Of the additional .1 FAR allowed by special review criteria, 2/3 must be used for affordable housing. This equals 893 s.f. which is exceeded with the 1,500 above-grade FAR of the affordable units. Density/lot area requirements for the R/MF zone have been met with this application. Stream Margin Review: The Planning Commission shall review the proposal for compliance with the review criteria listed in Section 7-504 of the Land Use Code: No development shall be permitted within one hundred feet (100'), measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood 3 Hazard Area where it extends beyond one hundred feet (100') from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all the standards set forth below. 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. RESPONSE: The development takes place entirely on parcel 1 and is not is not located in the Special Flood Hazard Area. The building envelope is approximately 12' higher than the 100 year flood elevation. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. RESPONSE: An existing (but not dedicated) footpath exists along the river on parcel 2. The applicant proposes to dedicate and describe an easement for this trail on the final subdivision plat. Engineering requires this easement be 15' wide and recommends that it parallel the 100 year floodplain boundary. Also recommended is the dedication of a fisherman's easement in the river including 5' of bank, measured horizontally. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: Keeping parcel 2 in its natural state complies with the intent of the Plan to maintain riparian vegetation and animal habitats. 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: The application states that substantial vegetation must be removed on parcel 1. However, the construction is far enough from the stream bank to have any direct impact on the river. Erosion control techniques (haybales etc.) are offered by the applicant to prevent sedimentation of the river. Staff also recommends that barrier fencing be placed along the perimeter of parcel 1 to keep men and machinery out of the slope areas. 4 . f 5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. RESPONSE: The project is too far from the river to have any impact to the river course. Drainage requirements address site generated runoff pollution. 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. RESPONSE: No notice is required as no alteration is proposed. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. RESPONSE: As no alteration is proposed, a specific guarantee is needed. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. RESPONSE: The project is not in the 100 year floodplain. Subdivision: Section 7-1004 C. describes the review standards for any land to be used for multi-family or condominium use. In summary, the application conforms to the general review standards for Subdivision. It is consistent with the 1973 Land Use Plan and character of existing land uses in the neighborhood. The Settlement determined those project elements non-conforming to R/MF standards which may receive variances within the PUD review framework. Otherwise, the project complies with the R/MF requirements and Stream Margin Review criteria. The proposed subdivision does not create any governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary public costs. All costs for utility extensions as well as the line repairs noted in the 10/30/90 referral comments from the Sanitation District will be paid by the applicant. The applicant is attentive to easement needs and clearances for the sewer line on adjacent property to the east and in the alley. Sidewalks are proposed to be in compliance with the Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan. Curb and gutter will be installed along the street. 5 f. 0. The project is served by two fire hydrants. The Fire Marshal also indicates that the building must be sprinklered and served by an alarm system. Historic drainage flows will be maintained with drywells and surface detention. A detailed drainage plan will be submitted with the final subdivision plat. Planned Unit Development Review: The Settlement dictates that this project be reviewed as a PUD to permit variances to the rear yard setback, maximum height, and minimum parking requirement. Sections 7-903B.4. and 5. allow for these variances. The project is mostly consistent with the basic requirements and review standards for PUDs which are similar to the standards already reviewed for Subdivision. The application does not address a development schedule. However, project representative Sunny Vann verbally indicated that construction will take place next spring pending real estate market activity. As the project seeks three year vested rights status from Council, the project must be constructed within that time frame in order to retain the development right under this approval. The requested yard and height variances are to facilitate the location of the affordable units. The rear of the structure rests directly on the property line abutting the undeveloped alley for a zero setback. There will be little impacts to adjacent properties resulting from the rear setback variance. The height variance accommodates the affordable units at the rear of the structure. It is difficult to determine if the requested variance extends towards the street to include the living area of the free market units. It appears that the building design would still work even if the height of the free market living room had to be lowered to comply with the 25' R/MF height limit. Required parking may be varied within a PUD review. The parking requirement in the R/MF zone is one space per bedroom (20 spaces for this proposal.) The Settlement declares that 12 spaces must be provided. Five standards must be considered for a PUD parking variance: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. b. The parking needs of any non-residential uses. C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. d. The availability of public transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial 6 .r core or public recreational facilities in the City. Given the location of this project approximately 5 blocks from the commercial core, it is reasonable to expect that auto trip generation will be lower than average for this type of use. It should be clear to prospective residents that parking is limited on-site. Parking spaces for each unit should be designated within the garage. GMOS Exemption for Reconstruction of 4 Units and Construction of 4 Deed Restricted Units: The Planning Director has the authority to grant exemption for reconstruction of dwelling units as long as no additional units are created and housing replacement requirements are met. Staff will prepare the appropriate document for the Planning Director's signature. The City Council is requested to grant exemption for the four affordable housing units. These shall be deed restricted according to the terms of the Settlement. Vesting of Development Rights: The applicant will request that City Council grant vested development rights for a period of three years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed multi-family development with the following conditions: Prior to this project being scheduled for review by City Council: 1. The applicant shall submit a plat to Engineering for their comments. Prior to filing the Subdivision/PUD Plat: 2. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. The Final Plat shall dedicate a fisherman's easements in the Roaring Fork River including the land along the bank measured 5 feet horizontally . 4. A 15' trail easement being bounded on the north by the 100 year floodplain line shall be dedicated on the plat. 5. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20' distance from the property line. 6. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right- 7 r. of-way. 7. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement District if one is ever formed. 8. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line replacement as determined by the Sanitation District. 9. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line maintenance. 10. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the sanitary sewer. 11. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements. 12. The applicant shall reduce the floor area of the free market units to 3,000 s.f. to conform to the terms of the Settlement and deed restrict two units to category #2, one unit to category #3, and one unit to category #4. If reducing the free market area is not acceptable to the applicant, the four affordable housing units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category #1 occupancy. 13. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods (fences, haybales, etc.) shall be installed at the perimeter of parcel 1 prior to any excavation or clearing and shall remain throughout construction. 14. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks Department prior to removal of any tree 6 inch caliper or over. 15. The parking spaces shall be assigned to units on the Subdivision/PUD Plat as well as in the garage. Four spaces are allotted for the affordable units, eight to the free market units. 16. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for the four free market replacement dwelling units. The Final Subdivision/PUD Plat complying with all Engineering standards contained in Section 7-1004 D.2.a. shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of approval by City Council. Attachments: "Al' - Litigation Settlement Summary, Myler, Stuller & Schwartz, 4/10/90 "B" - Development Data, Architectural and Site Plans "C" - Referral Comments jtkvj/1000hop.memo 8 ~ MYLER, STULLER & SCHWAI~~~ Attachment "A" ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 DAVID'J. MYLER 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 SANDRA M. STULLER ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 ALAN E. SCHWARTZ (303) 920-1018 FAX 920-4259 1 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Schwartz 1 DATE: April 10, 1990 RE: Final Terms of Valley-Hi Settlement 1 INTRODUCTION 1 At your executive session of April 3, 1990, we reviewed the proposed terms of settlement in the Valley-Hi matter. All of the negotiating points which you raised at that time have since been resolved in your favor, after discussions with Valley-Hi respresentatives, as follows: I. Terms of Settlement A. Density (FAR) limited to 1.1:1 (approx. 15,000 sq. ft.) (1) 4x3 bedroom free-market units @ 3,000 sq. ft. = 12,000 sq. ft. @ 750 sq. ft. (minimum) = 3,000 sq. ft. (2) 4x2 bedroom affordable units Total 15,000 sq. ft. B. 50% of existing FAR (4,500 sq. ft.) and 50% of existing bedrooms (11) devoted to affordable housing/cash-in-lieu as follows: (1) 8 bedrooms on-site (2) $45,000 cash-in-lieu for 3 bedrooms off-site C. Units to be deed restricted as follows: (1) For sale purposes: 3 middle income ($93,000 @ 750 sq. ft. x $124 per ft.) 1 moderate income ($72,750 @ 750 sq. ft. x $97 per ft.) (2) For rental purposes: All moderate income ($667.50 max. rent per month @ 750 sci. ft. x $.89 per ft. per month) MYLER, STULLER & f.- ~TZ Memorandum to Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council April 10, 1990 Page Two D. Additional restrictions on use: (1) All units separately condominiumized. (2) Owners reserve right to rent or sell to persons who qualify under low, moderate, or middle income guidelines at the prices/rates referred to in paragraph C above. (3) Units to be offered first for sale to purchasers of free-market units, and then to qualified purchasers from the Housing Authority. (4) All rentals are subject to terms of standard 1 Housing Authority operating agreement, specifically including requirement that rental/affordable units be rented at all times to qualified tenants. (5) Cap on common area maintenance assessments for affordable units (exact terms to be decided). 1 E. Miscellaneous terms: The following terms are agreed to with the understanding, and on the condition, that at least 50% of the square footage in the affordable units Will be 1 above-grade: (1) 2' height variance for rear-half of building. (2) Back-yard set-back variance of approximately 8'. (3) Encroachment permit within existing alley ROW will be granted by City as need be to accomplish 50% above-grade objective. 1 (4) Parking: (a) 2 per free-market unit = 8 (b) 1 per affordable unit = 4 12 total (5) PUD designation for the subject property to facilitate implementation of these terms. (6) Standard architectural review. (7) Expedited review process (2-step consolidated PUD review). 17/A6 LJ LU L_JL_J C MYLER, STULLER * /ARTZ Memorandum to Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council April 10, 1990 Page Three (8) Dedication of trail easement and installation footpath to Roaring Fork River. ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED UPON: By -- V Il A.<Act (444/ 4 " 11 40'hwart94 City Attorney 4949917 By : (1~ Vi Richard Y. Ne~ley Jr. L' U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 1 r 1 : - -- ----___r -- - Gretchen Greenwood ----F 303Â·425-1502 & Assocuta Inc. 201 Noe,h Mill Street Suite 207 .... ColorAdo ..I Unit 5 A ADW .iUM N Unit 7 *, ~ ~ Unit 8 ~ - aw= O>0 61~-P~ 1 El 41 kh I<I E '-1 In -50 d_ 7 8~0 Entry 16 4 1 2 T *10-0 C A A -En F 1 mi Entry 92 . I = d h_ Er PARKING LEVEL E= 1 I . L- - -=I 3456789101112 SCALE. 1 '08 DATE ISSUED DRAWN BY: -11- . CHECKED BY ~~ Parking Garage Floor Plan REVISIONS M -- Employee Housing Plan ~ r 02. 8 / 20 L. h. 4 C 1 I i 1-Â»0-44- 1 Â£0 --r.shagtÂ·â€¢-1 mao Â»1=1 1 1"- -4,-9.zwi,4,9.Qpep-'04.-7#BeD'*b--- Gretchen 45&11'miLIMM@.L--In-llil~li~_+11 11J11 Ill_Inll* & 'Mo<=1,~In Ifw: Greenwood 201 ..h Mill SÂ¢,ret All IdLInri-11-11~I_limmIILLI'lllII i rlr-liu L-11'mr,LIL-111 i 1~P Suite 207 Aspen. Colo,-0 01611 30>915-4302 - 4 1-.l!CRE?BE}t'il?Ilill@F~C,-mEFa:14*kM i rÂ·Â¥'Vd}ArtÂ·M>CY-11@HU 0112:00~mall?LLL ZDW 1CZM a-w D ] SOUTH ELEVATION from HOPKINS WE. I<I 0>0 8 3 92 1 1. 1 Â£ Li *Figgwt f.10. 4 9 &E L1~YTJ4 ~~fGcoi'Ri>,0 ~Q~~~32'~~-~ Â»r Â· 6-1.. El. +ImmE- 1 11,LIT,7,ZI~~~IWPF~1~~~~~ 1'.On'!Mt Ill'1111111~11 'J ' ~TEDIi *LI[~ Frr~f- 11"rirr,-Im-1F~Wit<~~ 14 -------- - - ----- SCALE loB DITE ISSUED DR'IN HY 1 NORTH ELEVATION CHECKED BY REVISIONS: CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS Q I d.., , I--I----------------- i . 111'll lili \% f O - 1 4.*F) 10 werri.OCD AVâ‚¬NUâ‚¬ 11 i, Â¥ # H H, E I 1000 HOPKINS RkiN N TOWNHOUSâ‚¬S 3 1*10 0 .9 .9 //52- CONCEPTUAL BUILDIN S LIBRARY 011(Â»4(1 |81â€¢1 ||| 1~1 LIVING RA EXISTING GRACE - i.*44Â§*6, l ~ '1 1 i li jl ,'NAUCES16W+--r'-UL-Â·elll \ 1.-/r / _2,â€¢2....=Z~â€¢I....=Ill) ~~m---il.&-1--1/2.- 1\ ' I. .W 1 1 1 . L,4, 1 ~' 1 "to P , .P .1 1 \ ,\ .:9 \ 1/ \ 1 1 4 , 4 I)1, ' ' ~~ Par 1 \ 1 .1 . 1, 0 . I ~ -~74Â»_ d; 1 111 1 4. Â· Abe 4 1 1 .11 lilli i 1 1 4 4 1 1 -/ ' >4 1 - , 11 Ittj 1 1/ 1 1 --1-11 1 Greenwood 201 *rth Mill.rnM & A~ocutes, In~ SuIte 207 A.prn, Cok*,do 816] 1 /I>92â€ž502 MASTER SED.100.1 BED.00Â¥ M W ul 1 JW -a 31 R- 1 11, UK 11 41 , Gretchen 81 0 - Z M - WD 2jr--____1-1 - DRESSING 44+ 0>0 0 1011 '1 I<I â€¢ 1 )11.ASÂ¥EA A 1 0 1, lia J ''I Pr-1. 6 A Z a â€¢ASTE. U 2-ill], 11111 L.*1 BATH 11 R' il. 11 - 92 13Â«x/:D<D< <'16//Aâ€¢U - 1 - BEOACâ‚¬>M F .'. fl~ YI~f~ ~ -0.00. LUU 1 .\5 11 K. \04 ___111\ . /lij -K> 77 1Â«/Ab W h /'. ' 1 / ''' JIT ati-4- Me , . 1-11 1 . - SCALE jos 41 ..7 1 DATE ISSUED DRAWN I 0 r. 1 --2 - 1 CHECKED m REVISIONS 6--6 0-90 0 43 Entry Level Floor Plan 0 .4 8. 20 HOPKINS AVE. 6 NINd .0 0 Gretchen Greenwood & A....leS. 11/ 201 N.h Mill blwet Suile 207 -itil -- -#-S~ -tpÂ£- */â€¢n. Cok,fad.i !(lell ......]2 4 1_1! 12 1* IZE 0 0 O W O -7 -~.â€žfil~~ - - /-~'d~0-1 __ _-~Ii<~o ~. Z 1-- P -1,111111 111 1 0 ' 1 ./vill I. 1 Iii i 11 1 1 ===-Â«EEEÂ»- 22 M 1 SCA LE. JOB DATE ISSUED DRAWN In Q CHECKED 8%Â· Upper Level Floor Plan REVISIONS 7 SNI d H 00Ok ~ r. 1 6% 0 - Gretchen 1 1 1 1111 Greenwood lA.%..leâ€¢ Inc Xll .,r,h \1,il Sta,rt --51-- Go 1 1 Suile /12 A,pen li,kirido 81611 Il].42~-1~12 ./. I.. M 1 3 W.OTTUB'F 4 SCALE JOB DATE ISSUED , Roof Plan & DRAIX BY: CHECKED BY Roof Deck Plan REVISIONS 02 . 8 5%13 0 r. Attachment "C" Referral Comments From: Engineering Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshal Water Housing Authority MEMORANDUM Nov 1 3 +UL TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department *~ DATE: November 7, 1990 RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption Having Reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The 4,740 square feet of proposed open space is adequate pursuant to requirements in Chapter 24, Article 5-206 D. of Municipal Code. 2. The applicant is proposing 12 off-street parking spaces which is pursuant to the provisions of the settlement agreement between the City and Valley-Hi. The proposed spaces are to be provided in a subgrade garage. The Engineering Department requests a condition of approval that the driveway entry to this garage must not have a grade of more than 12% for a distance of 20 feet from the property line (A code amendment for this driveway slope is scheduled for first reading on November 26) . 3. The applicant has proposed to grant an easement for the existing trail which parallels the river. The Engineering Department requires that this easement be 15 feet in width and recommends that the north boundary of this easement coincide with the 100 year floodplain boundary. 4. The Engineering Department confirms that, pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 7-1004 C. (4), this development will not be located in a natural hazard area. 5. Chapter 24, Article 7-1004 C. (5) requires that the proposed development Will not place an additional demand on public facilities and the Engineering Department is satisfied that this development will not. 6. The applicant will need to get an excavation permit from the Streets Department for the sidewalk, curb and gutter he has proposed to place and for any other work in the public right-of- way. 7. The Engineering Department recommends that applicant grant a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5 feet from the high water line along the bank of the river. 8. The applicant must agree to join a Special Improvemeht District if one is ever formed. . - C. C. 9. Code requires that the final plat be submitted prior to review by Council and this plat must be reviewed by the Engineering Department before this application is scheduled for review by Council. jg/1000EHOP cc: Chuck Roth *:A Â·Â·10.1.t- t-,2.-â€¢sA..A , 2 ,..2.E.: 4.-- lu582111 tflsnen Gonsolidated: Sanitdtion -(District- ~ ' < /1 --:9.4'519-Â·:jf*Ziti342565.Ndriftl2#19584&t ,~,f',..:5~4&.~.b,~.ti-0*.ijf~:2Â£71~*51&~4B1~.,~~~i~ lrIELEEFi- j 91.7*,*f)~f(fi**.4*Fe}flf*i-;4~t*:~~f~&.Irprgrfi~vt.:&, 2%*09'4a l.: -*Â©r<21,. c_rÂ·.3Â·-,Mapi':4 :. . 1 y.;4---2:~1,.:,* <42 2&46497.446*AM&~~C~~,#4-).LI. ~; *MMR#**4424%*WACKY~F}(~'({&.14,/~.~-~ ~ fit ' .-1 . ': .October 30, 1990 -~->---Â·1...h .:C--Â·I:j .#I ... *.L~ A,Â· Â· - './44 Kim Johnson Â·-<,Planning Office . 130 S. Galena Street -Â·i r Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision .12 Â· -= - ;'Â« Dear Kim: --*rl J We have sufficient treatmenttcapacityito -serve.this project at-r *-â€¢Â·~'~~\ this time, however, the adjacent segment of the collection system- 0 1Â· that the project will= tie into will needt to.be replaced by...7the z.:= 7-'.f-"applicant prior' connection. Thisa-involvesipproximately 400'' of.:1- r...:.-,Â·0-+012" vitrifiedxy-clay line. We estimateithe cost -of?.this. replacement-*0-7 3 F:' 2Â· to be approximately ' $20,000 4-which'ifÂ·willtÂ·tbeht addedunto .::the'*4.-'- Â» i. ft-*f:, it applicant's connection fees.- The-applicant must provide an access >:.th "14.4.; 2.3.4 right of way for-a.30,-000#.:vehiclenfor-line-maintenance.. , ,- -Â·-:,~-4' ~ The below grade parking-,garage..must 'be equipped with an oil and v. F sand interceptorl-and Â·must be designed-Â·in a manner that excludes: I. surface water run-off.Â° All on-site surface water run-off problems. must be excluded from-the sanitary sewer. Sincerely, ~gwr-74 2-1~ Bruce Matherly District Manager cc: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates A.J. Zabbia, Leonard Rice & Assoc. 4412% 6. . 4- 4 C. Aspen/Pit kj~~ning Office 130 s~ treet aspett~~0;~0le-81611 TÂ¥ 4/./â‚¬z/~4/jil/ MEMORANDUM -. TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Water Department - Electric Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Marshal FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption DATE: October 18, 1990 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses. Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990. Thanks. -- 1 \U,Â«4171uu o.,,9k\,LiA~~-Â« 2-~up~61,Â·A @4Â»LU-- iÂ» IÂ»_~ou~t-Â£-ug: 11 0-31/vÂ·uu ~-- AJ GI/L-- 0_./uL 06-_U x *~3._. PLICA3Lki U .C- 4 .it AW.' Aspen/Pit]Ull~~Ening Office 130 Â§4%1~treet aspet;2M~|~81611 MEMORANDUM -: TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Water Department Electric Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Marshal FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption DATE: October 18, 1990 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses. Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990. Thanks. /0 j 1 A-,Ld 5/u- US-0-64Â» 1 61 10,1,.-1=f--41 41Â£/kf 606/L.t-9 5-2231 - 1 1k_.~_~- / 1 ' 4-/0 1 r. C. MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning OfficÂ® From: Yvonne Blocker, Administration Manager, Housing DATE: Nov*mb.r 9, 1990 RE: 1(IC 0 East Hopkins Townhoumes Subdivision/PUD, and GMQS Exemption .1 11 11 1 1 , 4'. 40 SUMMARYz Applicant requests subdivision/PUD approval for the development of the 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses for eight (8) multi-family residential project to be developed on the site of the existing Valloy Hi apartment complex. GMQS Exemption is requested for the re-development of four (4) of the existing Valley Hi units for affordable housing. APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, a Colorado general partnership. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Â· Sunny Vann, Vann & Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins Lots K and S, Blocks 25 and 26, Lots H, I and A, Blocks 25 and 26 plus remainder of vacated Cleveland Street. ZONING: Parcel 1, R/MF 13,532 sq. ft. Parcel 2, R-15, 4,485 sq. ft. REQUEST: Applicant proposes to demolish the existing Valley Hi apartments which contain an existing three two-bedroom units, ten one-bedroom units, and six studios. Proposed replacement will be four three-bedroom free market units and four two-bedroom ! affordable housing units. Included in this submission as an Agreement drafted by Alan Schwartz of Myler, Stuller, and Schwartz dated April 10, 1990 which allows the following: 1. Density be limited to 1.1:1 (approximatelv 15,000 sq.ft.) 2. Development of fcur three-bedroom free market units @ 3,000 sq.ft.each. 3. Replacement of four two-bedroom affordable houzing units @ 750 sq.ft.each. 00 .6 4. 50%.of existing FAR (4,500 sq.ft.) and 50% of bedrooms (11) devoted to sffordable housing/caah-in-lieu as follows: a. 8 bedrooms on-Bite. b. $45,000 cash-in-lieu for 3 bedrooms off-site. C. Units to be deed restricted as followe: 1. For gale purposes: a. 3 middle income (93,000 @ 750 sq.ft. x $124/aq.ft.) b. 1 moderate income (972,750 9 750 sq.ft. x $97/sq.ft.) 2. For rental purposes: All moderate income ($667.50 max. rent/month @ $.89/sq.ft) d. Additional restrictions: 1. All units separately condominiumized. 2. Owners reserve right to rent or sell to purchasers of free market units, and then to qualified purchasers from the Housing Authority. 3. All rentals are subject to terms of standard Housing Authority operating agreement, specifically including requirements that rental/affordable units be rented at all times to qualified tenants. 4. Cap on common maintenance assessments for affordable units (exact terms to be decided). 5. Parking provided to be one space per affordable hou*ing unit for a total of four spaces. The demolition and replacement of housing for this application shall meet the standards of Section 5-702 and 5-703 of the Aspen Land Use Code- Section 5-702 establishes that: u WhenGVBr one or more residential dwelling units in a multi- family building is demolished...the applicant shall be required to restrict a Minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total number of units (but in no case more than the number of units demolished) and twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of bedrooms in the replacement project as affordable housing. For this section, a studio shall be counted as a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom." Section 5-703 of the Aspen City Code requires that, " when the number of affordable housing units replaced on the site is less than or equal to fiftv Dercent (50%) of the total number of units demolished on the site, the replacement units ehall be restricted 0. to the housing designee' s low income and occupancy guidelines. " Section 5-702 requires the replacement of 50% of the existing units be replaced with affordable houging. There are nineteen existing units in the Valley Hi Apartments and the applicant is proposing to develop a total of four units which ig twenty-one percent (21%) replacement. The applicant is required to provide 25% replacement of the bedrooms and to deed restrict those units as to affordable housing. Applicant proposea to provide a total of eight bedrooms to be deed restricted to affordable housing of the 20.5 existing bedrooms for a total of thirty-nine percent (39%). The requirement of Section 5-703 which required that the applicant provide 50% replacement of the existing units and if the applicant replaces less than fifty percent (50%) of the existing units the replacement units shall be deed restricted to low income. Applicant requested that the four affordable housing units be deed restricted to moderate income rental guidelines and in the event these four units are sold that one be deed restricted to moderate and the other three units be deed restricted to middle income. Applicant has stated that; " the affordable housing units will be offered for sale to purchasers of the free market units, who in turn will rent the units to employees qualified by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. In the event the units are not sold to the projectal free market owners, the Applicant will offer them for sale or rent to qualified employees pursuant to Housing Authority guidelines and the provisions of the settlement agreement. " The 1990 Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines requirements for purchase of affordable housing units are as follows: To be eligibla for affordable rental/811* housing e person must be a resident of Pitkin County, propose to occupy the unit am their primary residunt and meet the following criteria: A. A person must qualify as follows: 1 . an employee 2. a menior 3. a handicapped person 4. a dependent of any of the above as defined by the IRS. B. Not own risidintial real estate, or list and sell reaidintial real astati prior to or simultaneously with closing on the affordable housing unit (and Still meet the& amsâ€¢t/income limitationg). C. Household Income (defined as combined individual income) shall not exceed the following maximums per year: $0 - 928,000 Category ?; i (Low) . Category #2 (moderate} $23,001 - $44,802 ' Category #3 (mederate) $44,801 - 366,000 . . Category #4 (middle) $66,081 - $100,000 Net assets shall not exceed $175,000 (Category #4), $125,000 for Category #2 and 3, and $75,000 (category #1). Gros@ assets shall not exceed $200,000 for any category. The proposal Cor the free market owners to purchase the affordable dwilling units can not meet the following requirements: 1. The affordable housing units be occupied as a primary residence as the freÂ® markit owners would be occupying either fulltime or parttime their free market units. 2. Free market owners can not own reeidential real estate. 3. Free market owners may or may not be employees, seniors, handicapped, or dependents of any of the aforementioned in pitkin County. 4. Free market owners shall not exceed $100,000 (middle) in income and net assets of $175,000 for al individual employee occupants of the affordable Mnit. Applicant has stated that; " in the event the affordable housings units are rented, all four (4) units will be deed restricted to the Housing Authority's moderate income guidelines. If the units are sold, one (1) unit will be restricted to moderate income guidelines while the three (3) remaining units will be restricted to the Housing Authority' M middle income guidelines. " The 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines require the following net livable square footage be developed for two bedroom units for the approval of rental/sale terms of the guidelines: Category #1 (low) 650-850 eq. ft. Category #2 and 3 (moderate) 851-1,000 Category #4 (middle) 1,001-1,300 The applicant has proposed to provide four 750 sq. ft. two bedrooms unit which would be approved for low income occupancy, price, income, and anset qualifications. If applicant proposes to index these four units to either moderate or middle income rental/sale qualificationG these unite would need to meet the Category #2 and 3 or Category #4 n*t livable equare foot ranges for development. Applicant heirs atated that; 4 fifty percent (50%) of the existing bedrooms lost to demolition are to be replaced, Eight (8) affordable housing bedroom@ will be reconstructed on-site with an additional three (3) bedrooms provided via cash-in-Â·lieu payment. " The applicant has proposed to provide a $45, 000 cash-in-lieu payment for the replacement of the three bedrooms. r. 00 Section 5-703 requires that when less than fifty percent (50%) of the units will be replaced that the replacement units shall be restricted to the housing designee' s low income guidelines. The applicant would be required to make a cash-in-lieu payment of $183,750 for 5.25 low income employees. 3 bedrooms x 1.75 employees x 535,000 = $183,750 Applicant proposes to develop on two parcels which contain a total of 18,120 mq. ft. four three-bedroom free market units to contain 3,345 sq. ft. each and four two-bedroom deed restricted 750 aq. ft. units each for a total of 14,880 sq.ft. net livabla area. Housing would request that applicant reduce the size of the four free market three-bedroom units to 2,270 sq. ft. each and to expand the two bedroom units from 750 sq. ft to 1,000 sq. ft. which would accomplish the request by applicant to rent these affordable housing units at the moderate income rental/sale guidelines. Applicant has requested that the four (4) affordable housing units proposed for construction on, the property be exempt pursuant to Section 8-104(C)(1)(c) which requires that all housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee. The review procedure requires that the exemption shall be approved pursuant to the determination of the City'B need for such housing, considering the proposed developmentls compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. -4- t.Â·, & + STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes w,au a settlement was drafted and approved by the City of Aspen for the re-development o f 1000 East Hopkins. Staff would hope that coneideration be given as to the approval of this project for GMQS exemption pursuant to Section 8-104(C) (1)(c) to meet the following conditions required by the city's housing designee: The affordable housing units be sold or rented to qualified 1. moderate income employees in Pitkin County as defined by the guidelines in effect at time 'of sale or rental of units. 2. Applicant be required to pay for 5.25 low inc,ome employees indexed to guidelines in effect prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed development which at present would constitute 2. payment-in-lieu of $183,750. 3. Applicant be required to reduce the sq. footage of the four (4) three-b"drocm free market unite to contain 2,720 sq,. ft. and be required to develop the four two-bedroom affordable housing 09 ir units to contain 1,000 net livable square Yest each to met requirements of the 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines for development of two bedroom moderate income affordable housing units. fri/Act/PIEuT "b " Resolution ,91- -/ RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR SUBDIVISION AND PUD REVIEW AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR 1000 EAST HOPKINS (LOTS A AND K BLOCK 25 AND LOTS H,I AND S BLOCK 26, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) Whereas, the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant") submitted for review an application for a residential development consisting of four free-market units and four deed restricted units. The project required Stream Margin approval and Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review. The City Council will then hear the Commission's recommendations from the Subdivision and PUD reviews as well as the request for GMQS Exemption for construction of the deed restricted units. The Planning Director shall review the request for GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of the free-market units; and Whereas, the project was designed to comply with the Aspen Land Use Regulations as well as the terms of an April 1990 legal agreement (the "Settlement") between the Applicant and the City of Aspen. The Settlement stipulated certain building size limitations, parking provisions, and affordable housing provisions, also that the project be reviewed under the consolidated two-step PUD process to facilitate certain height and setback variations; and 1 Whereas, the application requested, by virtue of the PUD review process, a ten (10) foot variance from the rear setback requirement and a two (2) foot variance from the height restriction which the Land Use Code establishes for the RMF zone district; and Whereas, the application was reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, -the Fire Marshal, the Water Department, the Housing Authority, and the Planning Office, and these agencies submitted referral comments; and Whereas, based on the comments received from the referral agencies, and review of the proposal in consideration of the Settlement and Land Use Code requirements, the Planning Office recommended to the Commission that the project be approved with conditions; and Whereas, at a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 1990, the Planning Commission heard presentations by Planning staff, the Applicant's representative, attorney, and architect; and Whereas, the Commission felt that according to their reading of the language of the Settlement, the proposed free market units exceed the 3,000 square foot size stated in the Settlement. The Applicant's representative felt that the 3,000 square foot figure was intended to be an approximation of the units' sizes; and 'll' Whereas, the Commission agreed with the Applicant to defer to the City Council determination of compliance with the Settlement in regards to the size of the free-market residences and rental/sales prices for the deed restricted housing; and Whereas, the Commission voted to forward to City Council the recommendation to approve the Subdivision and PUD plan (including variances to the rear setback and height) with conditions as amended; and Whereas, the Commission also approved the Stream Margin Review with conditions as amended. Now therefore it be resolved: that the Stream Margin is approved with the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall dedicate a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River including the land along the bank measured five (5) feet horizontally. 2. A fifteen (15) foot trail easement shall be dedicated on the plat subject to Engineering's and Plannihg's approval. 3. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods (fences, haybales, etc.) shall be installed at the perimeter of parcel 1 prior to any excavation or clearing and shall remain throughout construction. 4. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks Department prior to removal of any tree six (6) inch caliper or over. Also be it resolved: that the Commission forwards a recommendation of approval for Subdivision with the following conditions: Prior to this project being scheduled for review by City Council: 5. The applicant shall submit a plat to Engineering for their comments. Prior to filing the Subdivision/PUD Plat: 6. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the Final Plat. 7. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20' distance from the property line. 8. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right- of-wav. C. 60 9. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement District if one is ever formed. 10. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line replacement as determined by the Sanitation District. 11 .,1. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line malntenance. 12. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the sanitary sewer. 13. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirement.s. 14. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMCS Exemption for the replacement of four free market dwelling units. 15. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. Also be it resolved: the Commission recommends approval of the PUD review with the following conditions: 16. The Applicant shall not be required to reduce the floor area of the free market units to 3,000 square feet to conform to the terms of the Settlement. In exchange, the four affordable housing units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category #1 occupancy. 17. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided according to the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the PUD review process. Four (4) of these spaces shall be allotted to the affordable housing units. 18. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is 1 i.mited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the affordable housing units. 19. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited to the building area containing the affordable housing units. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 4, 1990. Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission: // f Â·- CI /61 A n / A 1/1 M 49/ 1/ 97/3,/9/9 ~-~-- 4 ~~â‚¬L- .Ta-hÂ·~ Carney,-Deputy City Clerk WalÂ·ton--Ander-senr---Chair.man 0/ atit M 18,26 3-904- jil~3 V 14.-41 -Of.1/f\~21 tu//,1-764 jtkvj/1000hop.reso .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council /Aloril ' 8,*1991Â» ORDINANCE #7, SERIES OF 1991 - Whitcomb Duplex Condominiumization Councilwoman Pendleton moved to read Ordinance #7, Series of 1991; seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #7 (Series of 1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVI- SION EXEMPTION FOR THE CONDOMINIUMIZATION OF 103 PARK AVENUE, LOT 12, BLOCK 1, RIVERSIDE ADDITION was read by the city clerk Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #7, Series of 1991, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council this is a condominium- ization of a proposed duplex which has already received stream margin review and PUD approval and pursuant to Ordinance #1, 1990, has paid an housing impact fee. The applicant will be required to file a PUD plan within 180 days of final approval. The PUD agreement is due today, and there is language in the ordinance asking that the date to file the PUD agreement be extended 30 days after final approval of the ordinance. Councilman Gassman asked if there is a risk in this. Jed Caswall, city attorney, said he could see no risk. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Tuite, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 1991 - 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision/PUD Mayor Stirling moved to read Ordinance #8, Series of 1991; seconded - by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #8 (Series of 1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVI- SION/PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT FOR FOUR FREE MARKET UNITS AND FOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1000 EAST HOPKINS (LOTS A AND K OF BLOCK 25 AND LOTS H, I, AND S BLOCK 26, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) was read by the city clerk Councilman Tuite moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 1991, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Gassman. Kim Johnson, planning office, pointed out this has been approved by P & Z and forwarded to Council with conditions. The project is 8 .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 1991 process a GMP exemption for the change in use of a historic landmark. This use will not increase the floor area ratio. Ms. Johnson told Council the applicant is concerned about the highway right-of-way. It is not known how much land will be taken up on the site. The P&Z was hesitant to approve the PUD plan knowing up a one-third of the site might be encumbered by the highway right-of-way. However, P&Z approved this based upon if the highway causes changes to be made in the PUD plan that amendments could be processed. Ms. Johnson told Council when the city acquired the property, platting was to be done to remove certain lot lines and easements. This has not been done, and Council should direct that this be done. Councilman Peters said the lease for this property was approved by the voters. Councilman Peters asked if there was language in the ballot question approving the change in use. Jed Caswall, city attorney, said he will look at the lease and ballot question. Councilman Peters said he is worried about the conflict with the potential highway route. Councilman Peters asked if there is going to be some effort to control the improvements and use of the area so the city does not face loss of capital improvements on site. Graeme Means, representing the applicant, showed the lease boundaries, the existing bicycle trail. Means noted they have left the northern portion of the site unresolved. The museum could live with the highway in that portion. Means said unless it starts to encroach in the bicycle trail, the museum can function. Means said if the highway goes through, the city will be dealing with issues up and down the corridor. Tom Baker noted after a certain increment of moving the highway right-of-way, the bridge starts getting closer to the Villas. The highway department drew a curbed bridge in order to miss the entire site. Staff was looking for a compromise, and is still exploring this location. Mayor Stirling asked if it is Council's desire not to have the highway hit any portion of this parcel. Councilmembers Gassman and Peters said no. Means told Council this summer the historical society plans to work on the building and not the grounds. Next summer they will work on the grounds. Heidi Hoffman said the best interests are that the pedestrian trail be incorpo- rated into any redesign. Councilwoman Pendleton said she is satisfied after the highway is aligned they can come back in with an amendment to the PUD. Amy Margerum, planning director, told Council by second reading staff can come back with the worst case right-of-way for the highway with overlays on the map. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Tuite, yes; Gassman, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. 7 e . Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council April 8, 1991 redevelopment of the Valley Hi parcel, currently containing 22 affordable apartments. The proposal is 4 three bedroom free market units approximately 3345 square feet each, and 4 two bedroom affordable housing units of 750 square feet net livable each. This project is based on a settlement agreement between the city and Valley Hi development trust. The square footages, indexing of the affordable units, parking and cash-in-lieu payment were established as part of this settlement. The settlement was approved by Council in April 1991. Ms. Johnson told Council 12 underground parking spaces are proposed. The free market units are on the upper two levels; the affordable units are garden level. Ms. Johnson noted the legal settlement said the free market units are at 3,000 square feet totalling 12,000 square feet. This is a semantic issue of what "@" means. The applicant has stated that Council intent was to be approximately 3,000 square feet. The final plans have not been decided precisely but they are about 3345 square feet. Ms. Johnson told Council staff has discussed whether the free market units should be lowered to 3,000 square feet or the affordable units lowered to low income indexing. Ms. Johnson said even using the low income figure, there would be considerable value added to the project because of the extra square footage in the free market 2 3 units. Ms. Johnson said the ordinance should state that the cash-in-lieu payment for the affordable housing of $45,000 described in the settlement needs to be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit rather than certificate of occupancy. Councilman Peters said the square footages are loosely limited to the FAR, which is strictly limited. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, said they agreed to a maximum FAR of 1.1:1, which is 14,880. The applicants agreed to provide four 750 square feet net livable affordable housing units. When the settlement was prepared, this number was deducted from the assumed FAR to come up with 12,000 for the free market units. Vann said the affordable housing units are garden level units and about 1500 square feet counts as FAR. The remaining FAR available for the free market is 13,380. The maximum FAR of the project will not exceed 14,880 square feet. Councilman Peters agreed with this assessment as the spirit of what Council and the applicant worked out. Councilman Peters said he would like to know how the maintenance assessments are being worked out. Vann said there will be a difference between the free market portion and that of the affordable housing units. Councilman Peters said he would like to look at specific numbers. Rick Neiley, representing the applicant, said he will work on some language with staff prior to final reading of the ordinance. Neiley said the applicants have an obligation to provide a certain 9 .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 1991 amount of net livable above grade affordable housing units. The balance can be split up between the free market units. Councilwoman Pendleton brought up the owner's right to sell or rent to persons who qualify and asked if this allows them the right not to rent the units to employees. Neiley said the applicants have agreed these units will either be sold or rented to employees who meet the guidelines. Vann said the owner may sell or rent to a qualified employee of his choosing. If the owner fails to do so, the housing authority has the right to place a qualified employee in the unit. Vann said the right of first refusal is for the owner to purchase an affordable housing unit in combination with the free market unit. The unit has to be occupied by a qualified employee. Amy Margerum, planning director, said the settlement agreement outlines how many employee housing units will be for sale and how many for rental. Vann said this will be in compliance with the settlement agreement and the contents of the PUD agreement. Roll call vote on the ordinance as amended by deleting #1 and adding #16; Councilmembers call Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Pendle- ton, yes; Peters, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE *9 SERIES OF 1991 - Code Amendment Section 7-602 Councilman Gassman moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of 1991; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #9 (Series of 1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION 7-602; DEMOLITION, PARTIAL DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION; OF THE ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS was - read by the city clerk Councilman Gassman moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of 1991, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Peters. Roxanne Eflin, planning office, told Council HPC and staff have discovered in tightening up the demolition standards adopted in 1989, they became too strict to allow some redevelopment to occur and to allow demolition of buildings that are not historic or contributing but are in historic districts. Some of these buildings cannot meet the standards for demolitions. This code amendment allows for an exemption process through HPC. Being exempt does not mean one is exempt from the approval process of the HPC. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. 10 .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 1991 APPOINTMENTS TO THE ROARING FORK FORUM RAIL TASK FORCE Councilman Peters said he would like to insure that RFTA is adequately represented either through the city or county on this task force. Councilwoman Pendleton said she does not agree with RFTA representative from the city or county; however, a RFTA representative should be included in the group. Councilwoman Pendleton said RFTA may be administering a lot of this. Council asked staff to re-publish this task force openings, set the deadline for April 16th. Council will interview interested persons Thursday, April 18th at 4:30 p.m. TRAILS BUDGET Councilman Peters said he supports the concept of establishing a plan for capital improvements. Councilman Peters said it appears this capital plan is driven by the trails plan. Councilman Peters said parks, active and passive, and playing fields are areas of great interest and he does not want to adopt a capital improvement plan that relegates parks to the back burner. Tom Baker, city manager's office, agreed there is a need to look at finding additional neighborhood parks. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed she y would like to see more emphasis on parks, especially pocket parks. Carol O'Dowd, city manager, said the direction from Council has been to implement the pedestrian and bikeway plan. Ms. O'Dowd said there is a substantial amount left unallocated in the parks and open space funds. Councilman Gassman said dur-ing the last couple of budget years Council has budgeted $250,000 for trails. That's what this plan is. Councilman Gassman agreed about the parks; however, this is money for the trails. Councilman Gassman said the two points are not in conflict. Councilman Peters suggested approving the plan and focusing on the first year's expenditures until after the comprehensive plan is done and then update this plan. Ms. O'Dowd suggested staff and Council look at the 36 existing parks to see how they are being used to make sure they are meeting the com- munity's needs. Council agreed to go to 1991 and accept moving forward with the money allocated for this. Ms. O'Dowd said she will bring this document back during the budget process. Council adjourned at 8:00 p.m. de)71 4 fÂ« - Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk 11 a-u- CL 6..19 LI 4 Â»at 11â‚¬ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager F~ l 3 THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director/~~ \,A < FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner 5-0 DATE: April 1, 1991 RE: 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses - Final Subdivision/PUD Review (consolidated review) and Vested Rights, First Reading of Ordinance , Series 1991 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this consolidated Final Subdivision/PUD Plan with variances to height and rear setback with conditions. COUNCIL GOALS: This project seeks to create affordable housing units in support of goal no.1. Also, staff wishes to process this application in a fair manner consistent with goal #14. BACKGROUND: In April 1990, the City and the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant") reached a legal settlement ("Settlement") regarding the rights for redevelopment of the Valley Hi property. Please see Attachment "A" for Planning memo to the Commission which includes a summary of the terms of the Settlement from then Acting City Attorney Alan Schwartz. This application was heard by the Commission on December 4, 1990. Stream Margin review was approved on this date. Resolution #91-7 documents the conditions recommended by the Commission for Final Subdivision/PUD and Stream Margin review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project calls razing _the_existi-aga-2 unitVall-eÂ¥=Hi Apartments. New development is proposed to be a multi-family structure including 4 three-bedroom free.._market BRits _ s.f. each) and 4 t~o-bedroom .af housing units (750 s.f. each). Jh~e-S-ettlement requires tha :hre Lof-the units be indexed as '*oderateh, and (aÂ©Jbe indexed as dmiddl.8,1 income units. Twelve parking_22=22_2~Il be provided underground at one space per affordable unit, two spaces per free market unit. The Settlement provides that the project will be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development in order to pe,rmit dimensional and parking variances. The project seeks var'i.aÂ·!W@F.1 to the rear yard setback (zero setback on parcel 1) and building hfight (two feet). The R/MF parking requirement is one-space per bedroom. This would be 20 spaces except that the Settlement requires that only 12 spaces must be provided. Please refer to drawings in the P&Z memo, Attachment "A". U,1 .. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Planning and Housing Authority staff are concerned that the free market units exceed the size stated in the Settlement. Staff is also uncomfortable that the Settlement states that the free market unit buyers have first option to buy the deed restricted units prior to qualified buyers from the Housing Authority. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The P-lanning-Commission--appEeued_,the proposal by_.a_5-l_vote-.. KEY ISSUES: The Commission and Planning office had concern that the size of thLfre*-maâ€žrkek_units prgposed exceeds the terms of the seEFIemen as documented by Alan Schwartz. Accordinqj~_0 Alan' s synopsi-s-r_-the_four free market units are to be â‚¬Lldfib sq.ft." ctotaling 12,_9.QD sq.ft. The application for Final Subdivision/PUD propose that the units are 3,345 sq.ft. each. Sunny Vann, representative for the Applicant, stated that "@ 3,000 sq. ft. " meant that the units were to be "approximately" 3,000 s.f. to allow the project to use the same architectural plans conceived from the beginning of the project. The Commission felt that according to the "plain language" of Alan's letter, the free market units should not exceed 3,000 sq.ft. The Commission wished to express to City Council that the free mark&t units- should remain 3,000 sq.ft. However, realizing thateCouncil mayave intended more latitude with c-p respect to the free market unit sizes that the Commission is not C- aware of, the Commission recommends changing the proposed deed < restrictions for the four affordable units from 3 middle and 1 ) moderate to all low-income (category one) units. The applicant / is not in agreement with this proposal. In the Commissioner' s minds, the lower pric*kincomp r;â€¢taggry would off-set the extra 345 sq.ft. of the free market units in a manner of greaterkenefit to the comInunity than requiring the free markets units to be reduced in size. For example, if one choose a free market value of $400 per square foot, 345 s.f. represents $138,000 added sales value to each unit. As a comparison, for the deed restricted units the difference in sales price between moderate category 3 ($106/s.f.) and low category 1 ($70/s.f.) is $27,000 per unit, or a total decreased sales value of $108,000 for the four units. So in rough numbers, the "extra" square footage of the four free market units represents about $550,000 added sales value to the project. The lowest deed restriction category for the four affordable units reduces this by about $108,000 leaving a net of about $440,000 added value to the free market component of the project. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of this Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, including height and rear setback variances, with conditions as stated in Resolution 091-7. The Planning Office also recommends that the property I ,f . i il< 94 .AEÂ·* 7J A O -AMW~V 21::el,E,i,c~ fl#y~Â·twf| ' ~ '; , 2 //4 t v Â£ ifix,/Li~ i Li,0#, 1 11 . + i ,, . 2 t, ~Are f~49 467+~'---cf 61*ss::E:,:6,rr,4- C,0. .. file a "Notice of PUD Designation" as required by Section 7-905. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could require the applicant to reduce the square footage of the free market units to 3,000 sq.ft. and approve the proposed higher category deed restrictions for the affordable units. The Council could elect to approve the application as submitted with the larger free market units and higher category deed restrictions. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have First Reading of Ordinance approving and vesting the development rights for the 1000 E. Hopkins Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan including variances to height and rear setback, with conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: "A" - Planning Memo to the Planning Commission "B" - Commission Resolution 091-7 Ordinance for Council Consideration jtkvj/1000hop.ccmemo 3 . AÂ«.dhlut ih, /1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: 1000 East Hopkins: Consolidated two-step Subdivision/ PUD Review (public hearing), and Stream Margin Review DATE: November 26, 1990 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this project with conditions. This development proposal is based on resolution of a suit (the Settlement) between the City of Aspen and the property owner. APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, represented by Sunny Vann LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins, Lots A and K Block 25 and lots H, I and S Block 26, Townsite of Aspen. The parcels include the abandoned Cleveland St. r.o.w. ZONING: Block 25: R/MF, Block 26: R-15 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: In order to redevelop the property, the applicant requests Subdivision and PUD approval, Stream Margin Review, and GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of 4 of the existing Valley Hi units as well as 4 affordable housing units. The project will also request from Council vesting of development rights for three years. As part of the Settlement, it was agreed that the review for PUD approval will be consolidated into a two-step process. Public Hearings will be held at both Planning Commission and City Council. Please see Attachment "A" for Settlement summary. Attachment "B" contains Development Data, site and architectural plans. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are compiled in Attachment "C'Â°. Highlights are as follows: Engineering: - Garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20' distance from the property line. - The proposed trail easement should be 15' wide with north boundary coinciding with the 100 year floodplain boundary. - Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter improvements, and any other work in the public R.O.W. - A 5' fisherman's easement along the riverbank is recommended. 1 .. - The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement District if one is ever formed. - A Final Plat must be submitted and approved by Engineering prior to this application being scheduled for review by City Council. Sanitation District: - Treatment capacity is sufficient. - Line replacement for collection system used by this project will cost the applicant approximately $20,000. - Access right-of-way for heavy equipment must be provided for line maintenance. - Drainage design for garage shall include oil and sand interceptor. Surface run-off shall not enter sanitary sewer. Fire Marshal: - Residential sprinkler system shall be installed. - Fire alarm system shall be installed. Water: - Development not to exceed 2" domestic line, not including irrigation. - No credit will be given for old tap fees. Housing Authority: The Settlement conflicts with Housing Guidelines on several points: the percentage of replacement with affordable housing units; the affordable units offered for sale to the free market unit owners for first refusal; net livable square footage of the affordable units (750 s.f.) qualifies for low-income only; and the cash-in-lieu payment of $45,000 for 3 bedrooms does not meet the Housing Authority's guidelines for 5.25 low-income employees. Recognizing that this proposal results from a negotiated settlement, Housing staff would hope that GMQS Exemption be granted with the following conditions of approval: - The affordable units be sold or rented to qualified moderate income employees as defined by the guidelines in effect at the time of sale or rental of the units. - Cash-in-lieu payment for 5.25 low income employees be made (current calculation: $183,750) prior to issuance of Building Permit. - Increase the size of the affordable units to 1,000 s.f. so that they meet Housing Guidelines for moderate income units. PROPOSAL: This project calls razing the existing 22 unit Valley Hi Apartments. New development will consist of a multi-family structure including 4 three-bedroom free market units (3,345 s.f. 2 .. each) and 4 two-bedroom affordable housing units (750 s.f. each). The Settlement requires that three of the units be indexed as "moderate", and one be indexed as "middle" income units. Twelve parking spaces will be provided underground at one space per affordable unit, two spaces per free market unit. The Settlement provides that the project will be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development in order to permit dimensional and parking variances. The project seeks variance to the rear yard setback (zero setback on parcel 1) and building height (two feet). The R/MF parking requirement is one space per bedroom. This would be 20 spaces except that the Settlement requires that only 12 spaces must be provided. STAFF COMMENTS: According to the terms of the Settlement, the 4 free market units were to be 3,000 s.f. each. The application proposes each Of these units to be 3,345 s.f. This is inconsistent with the Settlement. In light of comments from Housing regarding the insufficient size of the affordable units if indexed as Category 2,3 or 4 (Moderate and Middle), staff feels that the free market units should be reduced and the size of the affordable units increased to comply with the Housing standards for net livable area. If this is not architecturally possible, then the affordable units should be indexed at Category 1 Low income units for determining sale or rental rates. If this option is not agreed to by the applicant, then the free market units should be reduced to 3,000 s.f. each as per the Settlement terms. With either option, it should be noted that at the time the Settlement was developed, there were only three housing index categories for deed restricted units: low, moderate, and middle. Four categories are currently used by the Housing Authority: #1- low; #2 and #3 - moderate; and #4 - middle. In the spirit of the intent of the Settlement, Planning staff recommends that if all four units are not indexed as low income units, they now be indexed to today's categories as follows: two units as category #2, one unit as category #3, and the fourth unit at category #4. The 1.1:1 FAR on parcel 1 granted by the Settlement is approximately 14,800 s.f. Of the additional .1 FAR allowed by special review criteria, 2/3 must be used for affordable housing. This equals 893 s.f. which is exceeded with the 1,500 above-grade FAR of the affordable units. Density/lot area requirements for the R/MF zone have been met with this application. Stream Margin Review: The Planning Commission shall review the proposal for compliance with the review criteria listed in Section 7-504 of the Land Use Code: No development shall be permitted within one hundred feet (100'), measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood 3 .. Hazard Area where it extends beyond one hundred feet (100') from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all the standards set forth below. 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. RESPONSE: The development takes place entirely on parcel 1 and is not is not located in the Special Flood Hazard Area. The building envelope is approximately 12' higher than the 100 year flood elevation. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. RESPONSE: An existing (but not dedicated) footpath exists along the river on parcel 2. The applicant proposes to dedicate and describe an easement for this trail on the final subdivision plat. Engineering requires this easement be 15' wide and recommends that it parallel the 100 year floodplain boundary. Also recommended is the dedication of a fisherman's easement in the river including 5' of bank, measured horizontally. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: Keeping parcel 2 in its natural state complies with the intent of the Plan to maintain riparian vegetation and animal habitats. 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: The application states that substantial vegetation must be removed on parcel 1. However, the construction is far enough from the stream bank to have any direct impact on the river. Erosion control techniques (haybales etc.) are offered by the applicant to prevent sedimentation of the river. Staff also recommends that barrier fencing be placed along the perimeter of parcel 1 to keep men and machinery out of the slope areas. 4 .. 5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. RESPONSE: The project is too far from the river to have any impact to the river course. Drainage requirements address site generated runoff pollution. 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. RESPONSE: No notice is required as no alteration is proposed. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. RESPONSE: As no alteration is proposed, a specific guarantee is needed. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. RESPONSE: The project is not in the 100 year floodplain. Subdivision: Section 7-1004 C. describes the review standards for any land to be used for multi-family or condominium use. In summary, the application conforms to the general review standards for Subdivision. It is consistent with the 1973 Land Use Plan and character of existing land uses in the neighborhood. The Settlement determined those project elements non-conforming to R/MF standards which may receive variances within the PUD review framework. Otherwise, the project complies with the R/MF requirements and Stream Margin Review criteria. The proposed subdivision does not create any governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary public costs. All costs for utility extensions as well as the line repairs noted in the 10/30/90 referral comments from the Sanitation District will be paid by the applicant. The applicant is attentive to easement needs and clearances for the sewer line on adjacent property to the east and in the alley. Sidewalks are proposed to be in compliance with the Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan. Curb and gutter will be installed along the street. 5 .. The project is served by two fire hydrants. The Fire Marshal also indicates that the building must be sprinklered and served by an alarm system. Historic drainage flows will be maintained with drywells and surface detention. A detailed drainage plan will be submitted with the final subdivision plat. Planned Unit Development Review: The Settlement dictates that this project be reviewed as a PUD to permit variances to the rear yard setback, maximum height, and minimum parking requirement. Sections 7-903B.4. and 5. allow for these variances. The project is mostly consistent with the basic requirements and review standards for PUDs which are similar to the standards already reviewed for Subdivision. The application does not address a development schedule. However, project representative Sunny Vann verbally indicated that construction will take place next spring pending real estate market activity. As the project seeks three year vested rights status from Council, the project must be constructed within that time frame in order to retain the development right under this approval. The requested yard and height variances are to facilitate the location of the affordable units. The rear of the structure rests directly on the property line abutting the undeveloped alley for a zero setback. There will be little impacts to adjacent properties resulting from the rear setback variance. The height variance accommodates the affordable units at the rear of the structure. It is difficult to determine if the requested variance extends towards the street to include the living area of the free market units. It appears that the building design would still work even if the height of the free market living room had to be lowered to comply with the 25' R/MF height limit. Required parking may be varied within a PUD review. The parking requirement in the R/MF zone is one space per bedroom (20 spaces for this proposal.) The Settlement declares that 12 spaces must be provided. Five standards must be considered for a PUD parking variance: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. b. The parking needs of any non-residential uses. C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. d. The availability of public transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial 6 . core or public recreational facilities in the City. Given the location of this project approximately 5 blocks from the commercial core, it is reasonable to expect.that auto trip generation will be lower than average for this type of use. It should be clear to prospective residents that parking is limited on-site. Parking spaces for each unit should be designated within the garage. GMOS Exemption for Reconstruction of 4 Units and Construction of 4 Deed Restricted Units: The Planning Director has the authority to grant exemption for reconstruction of dwelling units as long as no additional units are created and housing replacement requirements are met. Staff will prepare the appropriate document for the Planning Director's signature. The City Council is requested to grant exemption for the four affordable housing units. These shall be deed restricted according to the terms of the Settlement. Vesting of Development Rights: The applicant will request that City Council grant vested development rights for a period of three years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed multi-family development with the following conditions: Prior to this project being scheduled for review by City Council: 1. The applicant shall submit a plat to Engineering for their comments. Prior to filing the Subdivision/PUD Plat: 2. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. The Final Plat shall dedicate a fisherman's easements in the Roaring Fork River including the land along the bank measured 5 feet horizontally . 4. A 15' trail easement being bounded on the north by the 100 year floodplain line shall be dedicated on the plat. 5. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20' distance from the property line. 6. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right- 7 .. of-way. 7. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement District if one is ever formed. 8. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line replacement as determined by the Sanitation District. 9. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line maintenance. 10. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the sanitary sewer. 11. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements. 12. The applicant shall reduce the floor area of the free market units to 3,000 s.f. to conform to the terms of the Settlement and deed restrict two units to category #2, one unit to category #3, and one unit to category #4. If reducing the free market area is not acceptable to the applicant, the four affordable housing units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category #1 occupancy. 13. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods (fences, haybales, etc.) shall be installed at the perimeter of parcel 1 prior to any excavation or clearing and shall remain throughout construction. 14. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks Department prior to removal of any tree 6 inch caliper or over. 15. The parking spaces shall be assigned to units on the Subdivision/PUD Plat as well as in the garage. Four spaces are allotted for the affordable units, eight to the free market .---------+F. units. E 16. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for ~/LT z,(' J the four free market replacement dwelling units. ~~ ~' ~ ' 1\10' The Final Subdivision/PUD Plat complying with all Engineering standards contained in Section 7-1004 D.2.a. shall be filed with 2 9 Uj the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of approval by City Council. Attachments: "A" - Litigation Settlement Summary, Myler, Stuller & Schwartz, 4/10/90 "B" - Development Data, Architectural and Site Plans " C" - Referral Comments jtkvj/1000hop.memo 8 . MYLER, STULLER & SCHWA~ 3 Attachment "A" ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 DAVID J. MYLER 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 SANDRA M. STULLER ASPEN. COLORADO Ski i ALAN E. SCHWARTZ (303) 920-10!S FAX 920-4259 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Schwartz DATE: April 10, 1990 RE: Final Terms of Valley-Hi Settlement 1 INTRODUCTION 1 At your executive session of April 3, 1990, we reviewed the proposed terms of settlement in the Valley-Hi matter. All of the negotiating points which you raised at that time have since been resolved in your favor, after discussions with Valley-Hi respresentatives, as follows: I. Terms of Settlement A. Density (FAR) limited to 1.1:1 (approx. 15,000 sq. ft.) (1) 4 x 3 bedroom free-market units @ 3,000 sq. ft. = 12,000 sq. ft. (2) 4x2 bedroom affordable units @ 750 sq. ft. (minimum) = 3,000 sq. ft. Total 15,000 sq. ft. 1 Net LioatA B. 50% of existing FAR (4,500 sq. ft.) and 50% of existing bedrooms (11) devoted to affordable housing/cash-in-lieu as follows: (1) 8 bedrooms on-site (2) $45,000 cash-in-lieu for 3 bedrooms off-site C. Units to be deed restricted as follows: (1) For sale purposes: 3 middle income ($93,000 @ 750 sq. ft. x $124 per ft.) 1 moderate income ($72,750 @ 750 sq. ft. x $97 per ft.) (2) For rental purposes: All moderate income ($667.50 max. rent per month @ 750 sq. ft. x $.89 per ft. per nor.th) . MYLER, STULLER & Â°'IMARTZ Memorandum to Maker William Stirling and Aspen City Council April 10, 1990 Page Two D. Additional restrictions on use: (1) All units separately condominiumized. (2) Owners reserve right to rent or sell to persons who qualify under low, moderate, or middle income guidelines at the prices/rates referred to in paragraph C above. (3) Units to be offered first for sale to purchasers of free-market units, and then to qualified purchasers from the Housing Authority. (4) All rentals are subject to terms of standard Housing Authority operating agreement, specifically including requirement that rental/affordable units be rented at all times to qualified tenants. 40 cap on c ommo n area maintenance assessments for affordable+[Kits (exact terms to be decided) . E. Miscellaneous terms: The following terms are agreed to with the understanding, and on the condition, that at least 50% of the square footage in the affordable units Will be above-grade: (1) 2' height variance for rear-half of building. (2) Back-yard set-back variance of approximately 8'. (3) Encroachment permit within existing alley ROW will be granted by City as need be to accomplish 50% above-grade objective. (4) Parking: (a) 2 per free-market unit = 8 (b) 1 per affordable unit = 4 12 total (5) PUD designation for the subject property to facilitate implementation of these terms. (6) Standard architectural review. (7) Expedited review process (2-step consolidated PUD review). 17/A6 MYLER, STULLER ~THWARTZ . Memorandum to Mayuv William Stirling and Aspen City Council April 10, 1990 Page Three (8) Dedication of trail easement and installation o footpath to Roaring Fork River. ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED UPON: By -- V |i \AlÂ«(F LÂ«tf- Al#ft, E . benwart City Attorney By: Â»Â»~iff/1 Richard Y. Nellky'Jr. L' CJ f~~~9340â‚¬*lff#&7~88,.~ lf# 38/ ..... 1...05 T.YA?133?~1414<irt .L-.e'.. -/: ..2. 1 4-,6 %73Â£. .-3~ \ ---fit' V: 12'00'E le >4â€¢ Â£ 441 042 4~10> (,Mâ‚¬0.U'CAL 'ON'-~ - n; I i #.t .6-- --- - - N / r; ~Â«~-3 32Â»yf / rÂ«/4.-9/ /'\10 \V *HUR =42- /02-7-2Â« 7 : 22Â·_:-uyÂ·Pfri=-421'172-;72'6.2,â€ž~.a '--*a ~0-4- 4585*SO. FT. -- ..,------- 6 corâ€¢UI L,utl~ T~CACE' , &< . - .... Irr' Al. PUCTI' 1-1 - - 1 -, / 51.1- /4.- 3 K_--6--t----------33Â«k ' . F-~.F-75- i.1 - 1.r-~j--77-MOB - ----- 373-09'1/ 13532 ------ - '75â€¢0'11'W 14/32 [2 ED'[p Tpr-17+101\M /~INI LIFE - - --- BLOCK 26 f --.- BLOCK 25 1 -'r - .- EEGE*i 1 1 111 11 I zi 10/32 - M#A ,3832 5.- ...5-M .De %INITY W . 1 . 4005 1 2/ rf % 771.0 : f ./:.::14,00/ / :t: >~02,/51/ -r ZOW Ji.1 345 J 8 1 1 -- 0 III 2.-C---3.---/. ~ AREA 13.532:SOFT -reEARING fOUND CITÂ¥ ~Â·Oâ€¢U.E.rrs .OCK 32 SCALE 2â€¢ 10Â· - Â»*I - .e / L 0'7*'CLEVEL / . f 1 PAVED i Pâ€¢â€¢11<ING# /- g I Z . 1.-06 / 2;. 1 ali.lIZIQB 5 CERTIFICATE - 4. 4 , ..RE / cull, r â„¢AT â„¢ls 'Ap acc. ATE.. DE.'crl '---7â€¢I.0-- .I I. I= 11 1 [0 1 - A E- - . 1/ / Il y A ..RVE' MAJE UNDE' l. SuP,Ell/ON O. OCTO.E. !2./.7 . . .,1 0' TÂ»â‚¬ FOLLO'WING DESCM!.0 PARCELS or L.-O - /1.9 PUICE. ONE A IKEL . LANO SITLLATED IN E A A T AND ./RE FULLÂ¥ aM#XMÂ·.V~d A.Uf ?RÂ·WiN, Â· 13~ 32 1 Thâ‚¬ NCE S 14-50.4/'W 1000 â„¢ENCE 4 75â€¢ 09' 1 I *W -N-. ~ .. . 7 I35 32' TO Tâ€¢,E POINT OF BEGINNING -Â£80*'6--WAW-'LTWA,--6.1. el I 26, tair THENCE IM SO'â€¢l E al fâ€¢ TOI,â‚¬ POiNT I I *-k-,1- 1 ./ / 1 (* 1./.SECTI. \10â„¢ l- ...g SAK] EAA.:THENCE + . %=%.Â·21 74â€¢12/ ./34 â€¢inâ‚¬NCE 314*50'49.26*â€¢ I /5 32 TO nâ‚¬ POINT Of ..ING FE NO BUILDINGS VERE FOUND TO 6â‚¬ LOCATED ENT,~LY J :4.0.2,46!#M:J'mA&/269:~LlMai'â€¢â€¢ca. I . 11,1 ./.lk.....ENTS /96 3 Â· OF 'Ar IN E %40{6. P"â„¢15,3 AME "CURATELY Â»10*74, OA Ktâ€¢0-4 To,k AND ENCROACMâ€¢ENTS MOR ON THE,E 4' :,11--1 Ill811 I ~ 4 AL ANE 5-VEYS ING - 890%;r . 135 32 NOVEâ€¢BER,7â„¢.I,â€¢7 0 1 f.y'Â¥% J kil ./ 1/ 4 %/663~3~-C,1 ... - HOPKINS AVE. 50llâ„¢*ISTERCÂ¥ to,â„¢El I SAÂ© SLOCK 24 a.0&'~77.N 81491'~0&5'I:Â¥573:"954%iâ€¢ W M.:&,IgizziEG*% SOUâ„¢EAST,B - "EKE 1 5"' w zib, rÂ·r TOT'~E â€¢opri,â‚¬asTER, CORNER OFLOT N SAIO BLOCK 25 Mu -5 M "hÂ¥ 0 32,7 '6 YME FCâ€¢NIDFMEG-*NG EXI5TING CONDITIONS SURVEY Alty," 5. "Â·.r 99. 1,â€¢c 414.50'4/1 <294/â€¢ i , .9(92 4 14-50'49Â£ 10000 5 OHN,%01 1 C.4TED >6'~. Attachment <Aid'd Ar#.0 Edge of River ,=-/::r==.*cHAM#<4 ~t\%3413?~ --ip--trÂ·l~-i~j---jj~-~ .*~ iÂ· 11*Patcel?.Â·~ 5. ~.~12 1~ fip--~-_~i ' f~:f 1 11 6 +1 -:-13 124,Â¢ i \A \ f - 11 142.14 -il i AM, M 11 -la - -443 - , A-- 1 * 1 1 1--4-9/7 11 - P.-11 1 V -TT19 04.63,3341 1 1 i 11 1 1 11 ; 1- t. 119444 -- __] Sanitary Selver E isement Ill I lit 1 V 11 11 lilli 01 I-.1 L. iFIE---0.1-1-i -2 !1 -44+LT--Iu-~h,l,trir~1----4Lrtlzf=-=*-r9- 1 1 d 7 1 - 1 111 lilli' 1 . 1 jill li 1 If 1 i -- 1 , 1 W 1432 Greenwood Gretchen h . 4-4.-2- Im hi' an ~.J.1,1 ~1111 ~,hi 1 4/1 1 */Â·n ' i./,Â·11/1,11 ~142,-0 1 T z.w 1Â£Z M 0-w 0> 11 p Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 ~ 0 0 3 j 4 o .â€ž J 10' fi '24+ px /,1 d 221.1 +21Â·.Â· , -Xtrix'.<42.-3,Illi*631*XXXAX)~ >1 / /4 IA, . 1 1 :- i lie. C:. 1 '*:'tpZU<vi= 4 1__ perennials '' -+~T- Trash area . ' SCALE Walkway to Employee -pr~e- 1 J , ---5 1 r .4 ~ Ran~ down to Pakng~Walkway lawn . ho Employee Units '08 I - / ./ I ' 42% 1 / i .1 DRIi,N 8, CliECKED. \ Ul J.1 .e ewal P:*t . 1 ./t::b I. 24#4 1 '11, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN m ISIONG A - / -e ' HOPKINS AVENUE AOHN/â‚¬01 1 P Fl Gatchen .- O 1 - . A./.1.Â¢,1 1. Greenwood $1. /17 A..n l,â€¢Ii.j....I 1 7 -- C Unit 5 n Gi 22 Unit 6 mn ZJu, Unit 7 5 13 H Unit 8 ~ f Z ' u -1 h 13]g! 0*4/I - 2 7 -z 7 IC] O0 Entry 7 + 7[ITT kg M 1 2 ~IT q Entry 9 9 1 1 - a n_ I.1 - - IX - EZI PARKING LEVEL ~ = N g . 3 4 56789101112 9 Al F I. . DRAWN MY 'Art 1.5UFE c HICKED MY 1 Parking Garage Floor Plan REVT'.IONS AIA Employee Housing Plan 3-Iiâ‚¬~1~ r Ll r 4 * -I' ~---~ LJ-Juj-J W -4-4L*Â£*-JLJL;LJLJ â‚¬ Ir E/â‚¬2 - - -r - -mr , 1 1 - I .- -ijA.1///JF.#Ill" 1 *P,M_}1 1 I "*Lil UL-1 EC 1 1- P 0 312>% 1 Z =-2 ~En=2== / 11 - 0 r 3 Z < m rz - i 2:Â¥'3TOO ~~ 10(DO HOPKINS 011/il Ed 0 5 ge AMâ‚¬ NUâ‚¬ *ti:i t O ; U (li Â¥ ~ TOWNHOUSâ‚¬5 111 4 ~ ~ 0.-0 u 1 - 1 6 .7 YNOI1VA313 1Â¥nld))NOD NOI1VA313 HlkION 1 1 1 Gretchen 1 ~ HOPKINS Greenwood DINING MM EL - w 20% Nk.r h M,11 4 - ./i ./ A,pe- Caki,de :11611 - 4 *)1 92< 4502 -OMOOM MWIn 1 *-4 - m=;0 E..... 0.0. .- ZDW - *Z9 â‚¬JOYEE UN,- ...1-J Q~ i. 1 - /IS<DE a 2 / CONCEPTUAL BUILDING SECTION SCALE 1 108 DATE ISSUED DRAWN Fr, CHECKED BY REVISIONS 1 19. 10 - .~--i-~~-~ 44, 91. â€ž w. 1 . 1 , ' '1 0, 1.1 11 1% 1 1 0 , U.- \ 1%1 \ , 1 I \ 1 ''dl '6 w '' . 1,11 4 1 H 'I 1 49' , 4,11 1 - 11 \Illf lili 1 4-'.L- 11 1 4, 1 11-, ~ i .-~1. 1 1.,; 11) .t'!1~/,11~, 1,1 w,1 1, '11 4,1 19 1 -~.i~Lit_ Gretchen Greenwood JOI .*h M.11 hire,1 hÂ»t-Â»f ./. .7 *r~ C.,6..kill:bll ......2 ..â€ž...,00. 1.Or- W D _71 Z W 3312* ~'11, 1, r)w. 16 ---411~--Uk/.'M.' 12 0 \01-1.-0. /4/ . i 11 . 1 1 bl #..C> 1 71 9 . . 91/9/ .....1 1 t'ij // - ./1 1 L DATHSUP ,)RAWN MÂ·, (i'CK'P,n 43 41 -20-44-9 â‚¬v Â»- Entry Level Floor Plan RE\'51(n4 â‚¬4/ 7---1 j HOPKINS AVE. 6 SNI>IdOH 0008 535AOHN/*Ol 0 0 1 Ill I WH 1 - i .1 r--1 1 5 11 +1-:- -:lirta6==+ q- 11'Illill 1 1, 11 p : ag== 9 i El i p% 4*Â° r Â¥ 1 1 1 %111, i , O 0 3 8 2 /3/; f ......... ITY 1000 HOPKIN5 01?im)' lili 3:R 3 3 . 1,1 V / E k= AVâ‚¬NUâ‚¬ ti~';4 2 TOWNHOUSâ‚¬s i i.* D .. 30013 12*31 10ddn 10 - Gretchen I AWâ€¢ I'l Iii Greenw<xx 1 11 2111 /.r,h \lili.M 4/,1.Â· .Â». t=-7 Of-) .:. ' 1,6,0,1,1.1.11 LOW MZ M It-2 -___i- , O,0 I<I 8 * 9 2 Ea. â€¢!m <f.Al[ 105 DATE 1%LT[) Â© Roof Plon 6 DRAW' HY (14[CKE[)8. Roof Deck Plan ./1/10- ---- .. Attachment "C" Referral Comments From: Engineering Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshal Water Housing Authority MEMORANDUM NOV 13 4 TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department *1 DATE: November 7, 1990 RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption Having Reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The 4,740 square feet of proposed open space is adequate pursuant to requirements in Chapter 24, Article 5-206 D. of Municipal Code. 2. The applicant is proposing 12 off-street parking spaces which is pursuant to the provisions of the settlement agreement between the City and Valley-Hi. The proposed spaces are to be provided in a subgrade garage. The Engineering Department requests a condition of approval that the driveway entry to this garage must not have a grade of more than 12% for a distance of 20 feet from the property line (A code amendment for this driveway slope is Echeduled for first reading on November 26). 3. The applicant has proposed to grant an easement for the existing trail which parallels the river. The Engineering Department requires that this easement be 15 feet in width and recommends that the north boundary of this easement coincide with the 100 year floodplain boundary. 4. The Engineering Department confirms that, pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 7-1004 C. (4), this development will not be located in a natural hazard area. 5. Chapter 24, Article 7-1004 C. (5) requires that the proposed development Will not place an additional demand on public facilities and the Engineering Department is satisfied that this development will not. 6. The applicant will need to get an excavation permit from the Streets Department for the sidewalk, curb and gutter he has proposed to place and for any other work in the public right-of- way. 7. The Engineering Department recommends that applicant grant a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5 feet from the high water line along the bank of the river. 8. The applicant must agree to join a Special Improvemeht District if one is ever formed. .. 9. Code requires that the final plat be submitted prior to review by Council and this plat must be reviewed by the Engineering Department before this application is scheduled for review by Council. jg/1000EHOP cc: Chuck Roth ~~7 tÂ· '....'' ~ r~. 2.1~, OCT 3 1!99 flspen Gonsolidate &6~iigitation (District ;214.... ~- ---1.-2. 4, 1,--4,,FL. ..Â· - 61,.A56~~~9~~th Mill -Street ..p L Â· t ,,Â·L.~- :2--Â·.-3 . ~;~-77VM"-Â· ,.Â·1~29 f - 1 ' - --0 4 Aspen, Giarado-81611 5 r :... . 37'~2:i - . ::.... .-". - Tele. (303)925-3601 - .--tiâ„¢3';<:4 '-':*4'.6.~0.<..2+ -:-7~.........,219 Tele. (303) 925-2537Â·-u . -, - . . -' I. M 434 October 30, 1990 Kim Johnson Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street - Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision - - - MI- Dear Kim: a : .-- .4. p.3. _ We have sufficient treatment.capacity to serve this project a t -- this time, however, the adjacent segment of the collection system - 3 that the project will tie into will need to be replaced by the _ applicant prior connection. This involves approximately 400' of't- Â«- 12" vitrified"clay line. We estimate the cost of this replacement to be approximately $20,000 whichÂ· willi be added -- to the L_:_applicant's connection fees. The applicant must provide an access 1 Â· â€ž y right of way for-a 30,-000# .vehicle--for.1-ine maintenance. u-: 10&1 ---ILL.1 Â·_- =fm f .. .'C-~Ic.AE ..I-I -< --1--+A#:. - The below grade parking garageu.must be equipped with an oil and sand interceptor and must be designed in a manner that excludes surface water run-off; All on-site surface water run-off problems must be excluded from the sanitary sewer. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager cc: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates A.J. Zabbia, Leonard Rice & Assoc. 0 ,4 . Aspen/Pitki,jO~wining Office 130 sdiMi~ treet aspeti~81611 MERORANDUM -. TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Water Department Electric Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Marshal FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption DATE: October 18, 1990 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses. Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990. Thanks. AldET-v ro-~q,t~L~2*~ie-~~ O./Â©FialÂ» Ii,Jit_ C 11 1 - -_-, 4-1-- 43Â»-V-~ g,-,A/*1>-~. R..Lo 3---"1~1J-k-Eli ,1\ B 32 Aspen/PitiWi~g~~ning Office 130 snial1lImlilriWabtreet aspe~81611 MEMORANDUM .. TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Water Department Electric Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Marshal FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption DATE: October 18, 1990 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses. Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990. Thanks. 9 Eld AtÂ»=-~ f ' 0-,1 ~~,4~~aÂ«L,~ A I -j 1 1Â«-LÂ£_uL . -r- L -ti '44 .. MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnlon, Planning Offial From: Yvonne Blocker, Administration Manager, Housing DATE: Novt,mbor 9, 1990 RE: 1000 Eamt Hopkins Townhouges Subdivision/PUD, and GMQS Exemption r ..1 .. .1 ...'. . . 1,11, 1 11,0-,/ SUMMARY: Applicant requests subdivision/PUD approval for the development cf the 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses for eight (8) multi-family residential project to be developed on the site of the existing Valloy Hi apartment complex. GMQS Exemption is requested for the re-development of four (4) of the existing Valley Hi units for affordable housing. APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, a Colorado general partnership. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Â· Sunny Vann, Vann & Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins Lots K and S, Blocks 25 and 26, Lots H, I and A, Blocks 25 and 26 plus remainder of vacated Cleveland Street. ZONING: Parcel 1, R/MF 13,532 sq. ft. Parcel 2, R-15, 4,485 sq. ft. REQUEST: Applicant proposes to depolish the existing Valley Hi apartments which contain an existing three two-bedroom units, ten one-bedroom units, and six studios. Proposed replacement will be four threeÂ·-bedroom free market units and four two-bedroom affordable housing units. Included in this submission as an Agreement drafted by Alan Schwartz of Myler, Stuller, and Schwartz dated April. 10, 1990 which allows the following: 1. Density be limited to 1.1:1 (approximately 18,000 sq.ft.) 2. Development of four three-bedroom free market units @ 3,000 sq.ft.each. 3. Replacement of four two-bedroom affordable housing units @ 750 sq.ft.each. .. 4. 50% of existing FAR (4,500 eq.ft.) and 50% of bedrooms (11) devoted to 2,ffordabli housing/cash-in-lieu as follows: a. 8 bedrooms on-site. b. $45,000 cash-in-lieu for 3 bedrooms off-Bite. C. Units to be deed restricted aÂ® follows: 1. For sale purposes: a. 3 middle income (93, 000 @ 750 sq.ft. x $124/aq.ft.) b. 1 moderate income (972,750 6 750 sq.ft. x $97/sq.ft.) 2. For rental purposes: All moderate income ($667.50 max. rent/month @ $.89/sq.ft) d. Additional restrictions: 1. All units Deparately condominiumized. 2. Owners reserve right to rent or sell to purchasers Of free market units, and then to qualified purchasers from the Housing Authority. 3. All rentals are subject to terms of standard Housing Authority operating agreement, specifically including requirements that rental/affordable units be rented at all times to qualified tenants. 4. Cap on common maintenance assessments for affordable units (exact terms to be decided). 5. Parking provided to be one space per affordable housing unit for a total of four spaces. The demolition and replacement of housing for this application shall meet the standards of Section 5-702 and 5-703 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Section 5-702 establishes that: " Whenever one or more residential dwelling units in a multi- family building is demolished...the applicant shall be required to restrict a ninimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total number of units (but in no case more than the number of units demolished) and twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of bedrooms in the replacement project as affordable housing. For this section, a studio shall be counted as a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom." Section 5-703 of the Aspen City Code requires that, " when the number of affordable housing units replaced on the site is less than or equal to fifty percent (501) of the total number of units demolished on the fitew the replacement units ehall be restricted .. to the housing designee's low income and occupancy guidelines." Section 5-7C 2 requires the replacement of 50% of the existing units be replaced with affordable housing. There are nineteen existing units in the Valley Hi Apartments and the applicant is proposing to develop 8 total of four units which ig twenty-one percent (21%) replacement. The applicant is required to provide 25% replacement of the bedrooms and to deed restrict those units as to affordable housing. Applicant proposes to provide a total of sight bedrooms to be deed restricted to affordable housing of the 20.5 existing bedrooms for a total of thirty-nine percent (39%) . The requirement of section 5-703 which required that the applicant provide 50% replacement of the existing units and if the applicant replaces lei;s than fifty percent (50%) of the existing units the replacement units shall be deed restricted to low income. Applicant requested that the four affordable housing units be deed restricted to moderate income rental guidelines and in the event these four units are sold that one be deed restricted to moderate and the other three units be deed restricted to middle income. Applicant has stated that; " the affordable housing units will be offered for sale to purchasers of the free market units, who in turn will rent the units to employees qualified by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. In the event the units are not sold to the projects free market owners, the Applicant will offer them for sale or rent: to qualified employees pursuant to Housing Authority guidelines and the provisions of the settlement agreement. " The 1990 Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines requirements for purchase of affordable housing units are as follows: To be eligible for affordable rintal/Bals housing a person must be a risidant of Pitkin County, propose to occupy the unit am their primary residont and meet the following criteria: A. A person must qualify as follows: 1. an omployee 2. a senior 3. a handicapped person 4. a dependent of any of the above as defined by the IRS. B. Not own risidontial real estate, or list and sell râ€židintial rial estat, prior to or simultaneously with closing on the affordabla housing unit (and Still meet tho assit/income limitations). C. Household Income (defined as combined individual income) shall ' not exceed the following maximums per year: Category #1 (Low) . $0 - 928,000 Category #2 (moderate) $28,001 - $44,800 Category #3 (moderate) $44,801 - 366,000 . Category #4 (middle) $66,081 - $100,000 Net assets shall not exceed $175,000 (Category #4), $125,000 for Category #2 and 3, and $75,000 ( category #1). Gress assets shall not exceed $200,000 for any category. The proposal 1!or the free market owners to purchase the affordable dwilling units can not meet the following requirements: 1. The affordable housing unit* be occupied as a primary residence as the free markit owners would bet ocÂ¢upying either fulltime or parttime their free market units. 2. Free market ownera can not own residential real estate. 3. Free market owners may or may not be employees, seniors, handicapped, or dependents of any of the aforementioned in Pitkin County. 4. Free market owners shall not exceed $100,000 (middle) in income and net assets of $175,000 for al individual employee occupants of the affordable gnit. Applicant has stated that; " in the event the affordable housings units are rented, all four (4) units will be deed restricted to the Housing Authority's moderate income guidelines. If the units are sold, one (1) unit will be restricted to moderate income guidelines while the three (3) remaining units will be restricted to the Houeing Authority'Â£ middle income guidelines." The 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines require the following net livable squeire footage be developed for two bedroom units for the approval of rental/sale terms of the guidelines: Category #1 (low) 650-850 sq. ft. Category #2 and 3 (moderate) 851-1,000 Category #4 (middle) 1,001-1,300 The applicant has proposed to provide four 750 sq. It. two bedrooms unit which would be approved for low income occupancy, price, income, and anset qualifications. If applicant proposes to index theae four units to either moderate or middle income rental/sale qualificationt; these units would need to meet the Category #2 and 3 or Category #4 nÂ®t livable square foot ranges for development. Applicant hels Gtated that; " fifty percent (50%) of the existing bedrooms lost to demolition are to be replaced, Eight (8) affordable housing bedrooms will be reconstructed on-site with an additional three (3) bedrooms provided via cash-in-lieu payment. " The applicant has proposed to provide a $45,000 cash-in-lieu payment for the replacement of the three bedrooms. .. Section 5-703 requires that when less than fifty percent (50%) of the units will be replaced that the replacement units shall be restricted to the housing designee's low income guidelines. The applicant would be required to make a cash-in-lieu payment O f $183,750 for 5.25 low income employees. 3 bedrooms x 1.75 employees x &35,000 = $183,750 Applicant proposes to develop on two parcels which contain a total of 18,120 mqi. ft. four three-bedroom free market units to contain 3,345 sq. ft. each and four two-bedroom deed restricted 750 sq. ft. units each for a total of 14,880 sq. ft. net livable area. Housing would request that applicant reduce the size of the four free market three-bedroom units to 2,270 sq. ft. each and to expand the two bedroom units from 750 sq. ft to 1,000 sq. ft. which would accomplish the request by applicant to rent these affordable housing units at the moderate income rental/sale guidelines. Applicant has requested that the four (43 affordable housing units proposed for construction on, the property be exempt pursuant to Section 8-104(C)(1)(c) which requires that all housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee. The review procedure requires that the exemption shall be approved pursuant to the determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proponed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the propoeed price categories to which the dwelling unita are to be deed restricted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes that a settlement was drafted and approved by the City of Aspen for the re-development of 1000 East Hopkins. Staff would hope that coneideration be given as to the approval of this project for GMQS exemption pursuant to Section 8-104 (C) (1) (c) to meet the following conditions required by the city's housing designee: 1. The affordable housing units be sold or rented to qualified moderate income employees in Pitkin County aa defined by the guidelines in effect at time 'of sale or rental of units. 2. Applicint be required to pay for 5.25 low; income employees indexed to guidelines in effect prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed development which at present would constitute a payment-in-lieu of $183,750. 3. Applicant be required tc reduce the sq. footage of the four (4) three-b*drocm free market unite to contain 2,720 sq,. ft. and be required to develop the four two-kedroom affordable housing units to contain 1,000 net livable square Yeat each to met requirements of the 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines for development of two bedroom moderate income affordable housing units. /1-RANINMEL-T 'bÂ·' .. Resolution /91- -~ RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR SUBDIVISION AND PUD REVIEW AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR 1000 EAST HOPKINS (LOTS A AND K BLOCK 25 AND LOTS H,I AND S BLOCK 26, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) Whereas, the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant") submitted for review an application for a residential development consisting of four free-market units and four deed restricted units. The project required Stream Margin approval and Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review. The City Council will then hear the Commission's recommendations from the Subdivision and PUD reviews as well as the request for GMQS Exemption for construction of the deed restricted units. The Planning Director shall review the request for GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of the free-market units; and Whereas, the project was designed to comply with the Aspen Land Use Regulations as well as the terms of an April 1990 legal agreement ('the "Settlement") between the Applicant and the City of Aspen. The Settlement stipulated certain building size limitations, parking provisions, and affordable housing provisions, also that the project be reviewed under the consolidated two-step PUD process to facilitate certain height and setback variations; and 3 Whereas, the application requested, by virtue of the PUD review -- process, a ten (10) foot variance from the rear setback requirement and a two (2) foot variance from the height restriction which the Land Use Code establishes for the RMF zone district; and Whereas, the application was reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Fire Mirshal, the Water Department, the Housing Authority, and the Planning Office, and these agencies submitted referral comments; and Whereas, based on the comments received from the referral agencies, and review of the proposal in consideration of the Settlement and Land Use Code requirements, the Planning Office recommended to the Commission that the project be approved with conditions; and Whereas, at a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 1990, the Planning Commission heard presentations by Planning staff, the Applicant's representative, attorney, and architect; and Whereas, the Commission felt that according to their reading of the language of the Settlement, the proposed free market units exceed the 3,000 square foot size stated in the Settlement. The Applicant's representative felt that the 3,000 square foot figure was intended to be an approximation of the units' sizes; and .. Whereas, the Commission agreed with the Applicant to defer to the City Council determination of compliance with the Settlement in regards to the size of the free-market residences and rental/sales prices for the deed restricted housing; and Whereas, the Commission voted to forward to City Council the recommendation to approve the Subdivision and PUD plan (including variances to the rear setback and height) with conditions as amended; and Whereas, the Commission also approved the Stream Margin Review with conditions as amended. Now therefore it be resolved: that the Stream Margin is approved with the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall dedicate a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River including the land along the bank measured five (5) feet horizontally. 2. A fifteen (15) foot trail easement shall be dedicated on the plat subject to Engineering's and Plannihg's approval. 3. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods (fences, haybales, etc.) shall be installed at the perimeter of parcel 1 - prior to any excavation or clearing and shall remain throughout construction. 4. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks Department prior to removal of any tree six (6) inch caliper or over. Also be it resolved: that the Commission forwards a recommendation of approval for Subdivision with the following conditions: Prior to this project being scheduled for review by City Council: 5. The applicant shall submit a plat to Engineering for their comments. Prior to filing the Subdivision/PUD Plat: 6. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the Final Plat. 7. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20' distance from the property line. 8. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right- of-way. .. ORDINANCE NO. ( SERIES OF 1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION/PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR FOUR FREE MARKET UNITS AND FOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1000 EAST HOPKINS (LOTS A AND K OF BLOCK 25 AND LOTS H, I, AND S BLOCK 26, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) WHEREAS, the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant") submitted to the Planning Office an application for a Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, Stream Margin review, and vesting of development rights to construct eight units at 1000 East Hopkins Ave. The plan was designed in accordance with an April 1990 legal settlement ("Settlement") between the City of Aspen and the Applicant; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Fire Marshal, the Water Department, the Housing Authority, and the Planning Office and those agencies submitted referral comments; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Stream Margin Review with conditions and forwarded a recommendation to City Council to approve Final Subdivision/PUD review with conditions, including variances to height and rear setback; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 7'1004 D.2.b. and 7-903 of the Aspen Land Use Code (revision date August 14, 1989,) the City Council may grant approval to Final Subdivision and PUD Development Plans; and 1 .. 9. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement District if one is ever formed. 10. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line replacement as decermined by the Sanitation District. 1 1 Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line maintenance. 12. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the sanitary sewer. 13. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements. 14. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GNES Exemption for the replacement of four free market dwelling units. 15. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. Also be it resolved: the Commission recommends approval of the PUD review with the following conditions: 16. The Applicant shall not be required to reduce the floor area Of the free market units to 3,000 square feet to conform to the terms of the Settlement. In exchange, the four affordable housing units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category #1 occupancy. 17. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided according to the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the f JD review process. Four (43 of these spaces shall be allotted to the affordable housing units. 18. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is ilmited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the affordable housing units. 19. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited to the building area containing the affordable housing units. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 4, 1990. Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission: v Â»v AffiCÂ·L / (--f Â»~â‚¬- r , y , All, . Jap' Carney,-Deputy City Clerk Walton Ander-n, Cha'irmAn d Ab ki LIJE TY>26~ Vic,6 -6-MANE-_HA?: l A- jtkvj/1000hop.reso .. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning and Zoning Commission's and Planning Office's recommendations, does wish to grant the Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan approval with conditions as well as Vesting of Development Rights for three years for the development of four free market units and four deed restricted units at 1000 East Hopkins. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby grant Final Subdivision/PUD Approval with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office for four free market units and four deed restricted affordable housing units. Section 2. In order to accommodate the affordable housing units, in accordance with Section 7-903 of the Land Use Code, the City Council approves a PUD variance to allow a zero (0) foot rear setback for the portion of the structure containing affordable housing, and a height variance of two (2) feet to the R-MF height limit restricted to the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the building. Section 3: The conditions of approval which apply to this project are: 1. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the Final Plat. 2. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20' 2 .. distance from the property line. 3. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right- of-way. 4. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement District if one is ever formed. 5. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line replacement as determined by the Sanitation District. 6. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line maintenance. 7. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the sanitary sewer. 8. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements. 9. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for the replacement of four free market dwelling units. 10. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. (1514~ The Applicant shall not be required to reduce the floor area 0-*21 of the free market units to 3,000 square feet to conform to the terms of the Settlement. The four affordable housing units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category 01 occupancy. 12. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided according to the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the PUD review process. Four (4) of these spaces shall be allotted 3 .. to the affordable housing units. 13. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is limited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the affordable housing units. 14. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited to the building area containing the affordable housing units. Within 180 days of City Council's approval of this plan the following must occur: 15. A Subdivision Plat, "Notice of PUD Designation", Final PUD Plan and PUD agreement must be filed with the County Clerk as required by Sections 7-1005 E., 7-905 and 7-907 of the Land Use Code. Alb 46"0 ?61-10 *4 -10 4121Â¢RA Section 4: That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the 1000 East Hopkins Stream Margin review and Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan. The rights granted by the site specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 5: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in 4 the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1991. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1991. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk jtkvj/1000hop.ord 5 .. SAN 2 4 991 ,L AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the application for approval of subdivision, conceptual PUD, GMQS exemption and stream margin review for he property located at 1000 East Hopkins Avenue in the City of Aspen was given by 1) posting of notice containing the information required in Section 6-205.E.2., which posting occurred on or before November 23, 1990, in a con- spicuous place on the subject property and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from that date, and 2) mailing Notice of said development application to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, which mailing occurred on or before November 23, 1990. Applicant: Valley Hi Deygl ient Trust By / \pur v ,+VL - *unny~ann V The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and signed before me this 420#'day of January, 1991, by Sunny Vann on behalf of VALLEY HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 4/,25//9/ Â«i 446 J Notary Public --a*-h j .. tdÂ»O-*MiN*vj(f-,ex MEMORANDUM 4-n TO: MayeD ang Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager ofte# 6-'Â° 0-*~Â° t.ia, /16/6 0;'CA L P THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director 4,4 FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: November 9, 1992 RE: 1000 E. Hopkins (Valley Hi Apartments) Extension of Vested Rights for Redevelopment - Second Reading of Irdinance 57, Series 1932 SUMMARY: First reading of this vested rights extension ordinance was approved on October 13, 1992 after being tabled on September 14, 1992. Since first reading the improvements at the Valley Hi Apartment complex are virtually complete. The Planning Office recommends second reading approval of Ordinance 57 for the requested one year extension of vested rights for the redevelopment of this property. If approved by Council, vested rights status will be valid through June 10, 1995. j PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The 1000 E. Hopkins proj ect-Was-approved by City Council by adoption of Ordinance 8 on June 10, 1991....The approval included vested development rights for three years, ending in June of 1994. Please see Exhibit "All for Ordinance 8, Series 1991. BACKGROUND: The approved .development-_ plalÂ©for four free market units and four deed restricted units included Subdivision, Final PUD, GMQS Exemption, Condominiumization, and Vested Rights approval. The site is currently occupied by the Valley Hi apartments which will be replaced by the eight unit structure. The details of the 1000 E. Hopkins project were the result of a 1990 legal settlement between the City and the Valley Hi Development Trust. CURRENT ISSUES: The property owners are requesting the one year extension of their vested rights because of the concern that the approximately $85,000.00 required for the repairs could not be recovered by rents between now and the time during which the structure would have to be demolished and replaced given the existing three year vested rights period. The Municipal Code is silent on the question of extension of vested rights. It is discretionary by City Council whether or not to grant extensions. On August 11, 1992 the Planning Office wrote a letter to project 1 FE'OV'I 10-,cr ~ Â» .. . representative Rick Neiley and notified him of City Council's concern about the condition of the site and structures and that improvements to the property must begin prior to Council's consideration of the vested rights extension, Exhibit "B". Mr. Neiley replied in writing and explained that the property owners were intending to make certain repairs to the structure to improve its appearance and livability. Please refer to Exhibit "C" for the list of repairs and improvements and the costs associated with these items. Mr. Neiley stated that the current flatness of the real estate market offers no incentive to demolish the apartments and rebuild. The Applicant is faced with the alternative of closing down the apartment complex until the reconstruction occurs in 1994. If that were to happen, the community would lose several units of employee housing for the next two years. Rather than close the units , the Applicants request a one year extension in order to help in the recovery of the costs for the necessary improvements. Recent Developments and Improvements: Before granting any extension of vested rights, City Council wanted to see substantial improvements to the site as a show of good faith by the applicant. Council also expressed that an improved management program must be implemented so that the Valley Hi would not again fall into such squalor and disrepair. Planning staff has ~been monitoring progress at the site and made fi,/ it ' s last Jenspectign -all- october 30. â€ž129.22> For all practical purposes, the project is complete. Upon receipt of the pending Certificate of Occupancy, new tenants are expected to move into the units. The ma jg:--improvements tp_-ttht==prep-g-r-4*4-have-been < replacement of tkG_~920) complete d'Nâ‚¬e-rior and exteriint in_433 of the complexts=:dafatyl. repairs to~ht:lie baluurries d~d st*rways, replacement_pfl(LE.jindowstrequired for emergency egress, Wheetrockb and subf loor_reR--ire, criew--gaupe* and--linoleumi~ the addit-1Nrof certain fird alarm equipment,-and-general clean-up of the property. 'jf Y\ cu~t. 4 r 12 41 4 4 n,-----I#- --+ Rick Neiley also informed Pla-nning staff that the property manager ~__.2~ chosen to teyersee _the maintenancE of the site is Michael Adams of / Mike's Maintenande, Ine:--Please refer to Exhibits "D" and "E" for update letters from Mr. Neiley. Because of the improvement progress made to date, the Planning Office recommends the approval of Ordinance 57 on second reading. go forward. Staff included in Ordinance 57 a condition which reads: 1. The Valley Hi Apartment complex shall be maintained in a clean and orderly condition until such time as they are demolished prior to redevelopment pursuant to Ordinance 8, 1991. 2 .. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no costs to the City associated with extending vested rights for one year. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of second reading of the Ordinance 57, extending the vested rights for the 1000 E. Hopkins project. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could elect to deny the one year extension or chose a different vested rights extension period. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have second reading of Ordinance 57, Series 1992, approving a one year extension of the vested rights for the approved development plan at 1000 E. Hopkins." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Ordinance 57, Series 1992 Exhibits: "A" - Ordinance 8, Series 1991 "B" - 8/11/92 Letter from Planning Office "C" - 9/2/92 Letter From Rick Neiley Regarding Repairs/Costs " D" - 10/7/92 Update Letter from Rick Neiley "E" - 11/3/92 Update Letter from Rick Neiley 3 . ORDINANCE NO. 57 (SERIES OF 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 1991 FOR THE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 E. HOPKINS PARCEL (A.K.A. THE VALLEY HI APARTMENTS), LOTS A,H,I, K,AND S, BLOCKS 25 AND 26, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the City Council may grant vested rights status for a site specific development plan; and WHEREAS, upon the adoption of Ordinance 8, Series 1991, the Applicant received approval for the redevelopment of the subject property as well as vested rights extending for three years from the approval date of said ordinance; and WHEREAS, due to the deteriorated condition of the existing apartments on the site, the owners must make numerous repairs to continue the livability of the units which are occupied by employees of the community, until such time that the project is demolished and replaced by the development approved in 1991; and WHEREAS, because of the cost of such repairs the Applicant requested a one year extension to the vested rights approved by Ordinance 8, Series 1991 in order to allow a greater timeframe to recover the costs through rents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application recommends approval of the extension of vested rights for a period of one year beyond the vested rights approved in Ordinance 8, Series 1991; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning Office's recommendations for the extension of vested rights does 1 .. . wish to grant the requested extension of vested rights for one year beyond the approval granted in Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for the 1000 E. Hopkins parcel, finding community benefit in the improvements to the employee housing until said property is redeveloped. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the applicant a one year extension for the vested rights approved by Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for the 1000 E. Hopkins parcel as follows: 1. The Valley Hi Apartments shall be maintained in a clean and orderly condition until such time as they are demolished prior to redevelopment pursuant to Ordinance 8, 1991. 2. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this ordinance shall remain vested for a total of four (4) years from June 10, 1991, the date of final adoption of Ordinance 8, Series 1991. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2 O â€¢ 3. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. - - - ---- ------ 5. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 2: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a 3 . I vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- described property: "1000 E. Hopkins, Lots A,H,I,K,and S, Blocks 25 and 26" The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 3: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance,- to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: This Ordinance 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 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of 1992 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which 4 .. hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1992. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1992. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 5 A 1% vi, City Council Exhibit 4 Approved , 19 - By Ordinance ORDINANCE N0.8 (SERIES OF 1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION/PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, GMQS EXEMPTION, AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR FOUR FREE MARKET UNITS AND FOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1000 EAST HOPKINS (LOTS A AND K OF BLOCK 25 AND LOTS H,I, AND S BLOCK 26, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) WHEREAS, the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant") . submitted to the Planning Office an application for a Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, Stream Margin review, Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and vesting of development rights to reconstruct eight units at 1000 East Hopkins Ave. The plan was designed in accordance with an April 1990 legal settlement ("Settlement") between the City of /0 34* Aspen and the Applicant; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Fire Marshal, the Water Department, the Housing Authority, and the Planning Office and those agencies submitted referral comments; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Stream Margin Review with conditions and forwarded a recommendation to City Council to approve Final Subdivision/PUD review with conditions, including variances to height and rear setback; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24-7-1004 D.2.b., 24-7- 903, 24-7-1007, and 24-8-104 C.1.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council may grant approval to Final Subdivision, PUD 1 .. Development Plans, Condominiumization, and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning and Zoning Commission's and Planning Office's recommendations, does wish to grant the Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan approval with conditions as well as . Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing, and Vesting of Deyelopment Rights for three years for the development of four free market uriits and ~-out deed restricted units at 1000 East Hopkins. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby grant Final Subdivision/PUD Approval with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office and amended by City Council for four free market units and four deed restricted affordable housing units. Section 2. In order to accommodate the affordable housing units, in accordance with Section 7-903 of the Land Use Code, the City Council approves a PUD variance to allow a zero (0) foot rear setback for the portion of the structure containing affordable housing, and a height variance of two (2) feet to the R-MF height limit restricted to the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the building. Section 3: 2 '-'' 'r f h j The City Council also approves Condominiumization for all eight units and Growth Management Exemption for the four affordable housing units. Section 4: The conditions of approval which apply to this project are: 1. A Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 2. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20' . distance from the -property line. - 3. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right- of-way. 4. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement F It.* r i District if one is ever formed. --.- 5. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line improvements as determined by the Sanitation District. 6. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line maintenance. 7. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the sanitary sewer. 8. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements. 9. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for the replacement of four free market dwelling units. 10. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building 3 - permit. 11. The four affordable housing units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category #3 Cone unit) and category #4 three units) for sale purposes. For rental purposes, all four unit shall be indexed at category #2. 12. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided according to'the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the PUD review process. Four (4) of these spaces shall be allotted to the affordable housing units. 13. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is limited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the affordable housing units. 14. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited j to the building area containing the affordable housing units. 15. Prior to recordation, a fifteen (15) foot trail easement shall be dedicated on the plat subject to approval by Engineering and Planning. 16. Condominium plat and condominium declarations shall be appboved by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to recordation. 17. A $45,000.00 cash-in-lieu payment for affordable housing shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the property. Within 180 days of City Council's approval of this Final Plat and Final PUD Plan the following must occur: 18. A Subdivision Plat, "Notice of PUD Designation", Final PUD 4 .e 1 Plan and Subdivision/PUD Agreement must be filed with the County Clerk as required by Sections 7-1005 E., 7-905 and 7-907 of the Land Use Code. 19. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning commission, City Council and Historic Preservation Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended in the conditions. Section 5: That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the 1000 East Hopkins Stream Margin review and Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan. The rights granted by the site specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 6: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 7: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /3 )1 day of //10-4 , 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 5 / Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the â€¢FW't- day of , 1991. . 44:e ZieRVS William L. Stirling, Mayor AVIA'ST: _ - gfÂ»Ut,2.-) 6*U- Kathryn 0. Koch, City Clerk EINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ,45 94- day of Lk*...t , 1991. U 1Â«goÂ» j William L. S'tirling, Mayor =.J ATTEST: VA--71 11.42-4 Kathryn SU Koch, City Clerk U jtkvj/1000hop.ord 6 I ~ City Council Exhibit *1 /7 H D i Approved , 19 - 2-< r'.,29 Â£ By Ordinance Aspen/Pitki~Bl*uning Office i/Mihir""Nsan 130 ~~mEi#ate#*~treet Asp~611 (303) 92m~Mi~0t%9Â»37920-5197 Rick Neiley Neiley & Alder 201 N. Mill St. Suite 102 Aspen, Co. 81611 August 11, 1992 RE: Valley Hi Extension of Vested Rights Dear Rick, During Councilmember's comments at last night's regular City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to write the Valley Hi representative informing the proj ect owners that City Council wants to see the renovation work on the units started prior to the Council hearing on vested rights extension scheduled for September 14, 1992. They are very interested in seeing immediate improvements to the structure. If work cannot be started prior to September 14, the meeting date will have to be pushed back to September 28 or later. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact City Planning Director Diane Moore as I will be out of the office from August 12 through August 24. S*cerelyi, \/ I Lj Â«961Â¥1 Kim dohhson PlandeÂ¥ CC: Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning Director Gary Lyman, Chief Building Inspector i f.Â· ir, 4,Â·4Â·d pamÂ·i 0 r City Counc~ 111.~l,it-12-~.-4~.~UIV 4 ,: Approved , 1/7 2 ~ ~ 3 NEILEY SPAL#EN- nance 1; AUG 3 1 199/ 1 1 i ATTORNEYS 1 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 -- Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., RC. FAX Number Eugene M. Alder, RC. (303) 925-9393 (303) 925.9396 September 2, 1992 HAND DELIVERY Ms. Kim Johnson, Planner Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Extension of Vested Rights Dear Kim: This letter is in response to yours of August 11, 1992. As I have previously expressed, my client is very concerned about City Council's position that we commence improvements prior to consideration of our extensicn of vested rights hearing scheduled for September 14, 1992. Since the bulk of the improvements are dependent upon obtaining an extension of rights, my client feels at jeopardy with respect to committing to the expenditure of substan- tial sums without first having had an opportunity for a review of our request. Notwithstanding this concern, we have proceeded with the execution of two contracts related to exterior work. Stark Roofing of Basalt will be replacing the roof on one building and repairing the roof on a second building. A contract for exterior painting has also been entered into with John Van Vonderen Painting of Aspen. The combined costs of these two contracts is in excess of $23,000.00. The roof and painting work is to commence immediately, with completion by no later than September 13, 1992. A building permit application has been submitted for the roof work and has been reviewed by zoning, and a permit should be issued in the immediate future. We have given notice to all tenants of termination of leases, with the latest effective date of September 13, 1992. Some tenants have already vacated. In response to your inquiry, we have not granted options to renew leases to any tenants following com- pletion of improvements. While the improvements will substantially enhance the habitability and desirability of the units, market .. Letter to Ms. Johnson September 2, 1992 Page 2 considerations would probably not permit any substantial increases in rentals. Thus, the granting of our extension request becomes particularly important as the owners' ability to recoup the remodel expenses remains doubtful even with a new three year vested rights period. We are currently negotiating with a general contract and are working on A final budget and contract. As we are uncertain regarding the status of our extension of rights application, it is difficult to finalize a contract, especially because most general contractors are not particularly interested in a contingency re- lated to City Council's approval or lack thereof. We are proceeding in our efforts to finalize arrangements for interior improvements. I attach hereto a copy of our current budget for work other than roof work and exterior painting. As you can see, the total cost for the items to be performed by our gen- eral contractor has now risen to approximately $62,000.00. With the addition of the roofing and painting contracts, the total cost of the project now exceeds $85,000.00. This is a substantial increase over our original budget attached to our application of approximately $66,000.00. Our date of completion of work is tied directly to the outcome of our application. If final approval is granted by the end of September, we believe all improvements can be completed by October 31, 1992. If approval is granted at a later date, we will need to extend our completion by an equivalent period of time. If our application is rejected, it is unlikely that substantial interior improvements can be justified. If you need additional information, please let me know. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Verd truly yours, NE~HY &/41ER ~ . 1 J u L ~ichard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk /,f , 4 . Â· 3.4 *pr *Â·,7 2- 'll/F 4 9.- .,91 -7.-U' - "- - ATTACHMENT "A" _ VALLEY-HI APARTMENTS CONSTRUCTION BUDGET 9/1,2209&1 ggiI GETE DRAINAGE AND PARKING LOT CLEANUP .8,000 PEST CONTROL $1,000 LABOR TO CLEAN OUT UNITS 02,880 /1,290 PLUMOIN@ ir . ORYWALL REPAIR- 66,355 INTERIOR PAINTING .7,250 ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING $1,170 CARPHNG - $10,150 VINYL FLOOR & UNDERLAYMENT 86,315 MISCEUANEOUS: REPLACE WALL HEATEM thi UNIT 0 $060 s ADD HOT WATER TO BATH IN UNIT B -=- $17S MILDEW SPRAY FOR SATHROOM IN UNIT 12 $60 INSTALL WALL CABINET IN UNIT 9 $300 NEW INSULATION IN UNIT 7 $360 MILDEW 8PRAY FOR UNIT 7 $200 MEINSTALL TRIM IN UNIT 7 $460 REPLACE SHOWER IN UNIT 7 $420 REPLACI TWO INTERIOR DOORS $130 REPLACE nVO REFRIGERATORS $765 REPLACE FRONT DOORS IN 4 UNITS $420 REPLACE APPUANCES IN 4 UNITS DUMP FEES INSURANCE 0400 SUPERVISION ~~94,11223+.:Fi:fij -~ 1.,Alth.,1,:'.: '.'r, f. ~./:L..ff:480;400 CONTRACTORS FEE (12%) . 1Â£911 ta~/E?12*XEEN.9....'r. 4 ......1 1 , '*el,$41:-Â·~r.res:fl...1:44Â£41.. CONTINGENCY 4,1#090~*2 *221 ~ City Council hhihit D Approved -, 19 - NEILEY & ALDER By Ordinance ATTORNEYS 4 OCT - 7 1992 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 IUchard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C. FAX-Number Eugene M. Alder, RC (303) 925-9393 (303) 925-9396 October 7, 1992 HAND DELIVERY Ms. Kim Johnson, Planner Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Extension of Vested Rights Dear Kim: This letter is a follow-up to our site visit of October 1, 1992. As was apparent, a substantial amount work has been completed and is underway at the Valley-Hi Apartments. This work is substantially consistent with the information previously pro- vided regarding the nature and extent of the work and the cost thereof. As I mentioned, certain additional health/safety related work has been undertaken at the request of the Building Department including the replacement of sixteen windows for improved egress in the event of an emergency, the reconstruction of handrails on stairways and the rear balconies, and the installation of indivi- dual smoke detectors and a central fire alarm system. As of this date, all roof work and exterior painting is complete. Our general contractor, Braeburn Construction, has completed all unit cleanout and preparation and is presently finishing drywall, plumbing and appliance repair. This work along with the installation of the new windows should be completed by the end of this week or early next week. Interior painting is sche- duied to begin next week, with installation of carpeting and new flooring to follow. All the units are being thoroughly cleaned. Additionally, general site cleanup is substantially complete with final cleanup to follow completion of construction. Subsequent to our appearance before City Council on September 14, 1992, I have investigated management alternatives for the project. We have interviewed two management companies regard- ing the nature and extent of services that can be made available and have selected Resort Management Services, Inc. ("RMS") of Carbondale and Aspen to provide site management for the project. We are currently negotiating the terms of the contract but intend to incorporate the following: .. Letter to Ms. Johnson October 7, 1992 Page 2 1. A monthly retainer which will provide for general oversight and supervision of the physical aspects of the project on a twenty-four hour per day, seven day per week basis. RMS provides an emergency telephone number for necessary repairs and maintenance and can provide carpentry, plumbing, electrical and related services. 2. A minimum of two site inspections per month to determine that unit occupancy is consistent with the Valley-Hi leases; to inspect the building as a whole for appearance, utility and safety concerns; and to insure that such things as trash pick up have been accomplished and that the laundry room and grounds are maintained in a clean and sa fe condition. 3. Regular reports of the physical characteristics of the property to recommend periodic improvements and maintenance requirements. Rental management and related financial management will be handled by Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. Mr. Linnecke will receive the reports and recommendations from RMS and is authorized to make decisions regarding typical maintenance and repair obligations. I have dealt extensively with RMS in the past and know them to be competent and reliable. In addition to managing many commercial buildings and residences in Aspen, RMS provides condo- minium management for Riverview Condominiums which are located on East Hopkins Avenue just to the east of the Valley-Hi Apartments. Thus, representatives of RMS will be in the area on a regular basis. We hope to have our contract with RMS finalized prior to the scheduled City Council meeting on October 14, 1992. Again, I believe we have consistently adhered to the representations we have made to the City in connection with our application. The Valley-Hi Development Trust has proceeded in good faith to undertake a significant portion of the repairs and im- provements in advance of approval of extension of vested rights. It is our hope that the first reading of the ordinance approving the extension of vested rights will occur on October 14, 1992. Very truly yours, \ f. N*ILEYi & 61 A /\ iv , -- RichÂ¢rd Y. Neiley; Jr. RYN/agk .. NEILEY & ALDER 1 4 --GICS ATTORNEYS 1 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 IM, 3 92 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., RC. FAX Number Eugene M. Alder, RC. (303) 925-9393 (303) 925Â·9396 November 3, 1992 City Council Exhibit E' Approved , 19 - HAND DELIVERY By Ordinance Ms. Kim Johnson, Planner Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Extension of Vested Rights Dear Kim: This letter is a follow-up to our meeting of Friday, October 30, 1992, at the Valley-Hi Apartments. As you observed, the remodel has been substantially completed, and as of Friday, the units are being cleaned and readied for occupancy. We had hoped to permit tenants to start moving in on Sunday, November 1, 1992, but because a certificate of occupancy was not issued by the City, this was not possible. As of today, we are still attempting to obtain the certificate of occupancy. The certificate of occupancy has been held up because of several minor matters. We replaced approximately sixteen windows with larger windows to permit better egress in the event of emer- gency. The new windows are minimally below Uniform Building Code standards ( the window opening is approximately 221 inches high where 24 inches is called for by the Code) but were approved as acceptable by Gary Lyman. We are also in the process of installing smoke detectors and two additional railings. We had requested a temporary certificate of occupancy on Friday, but could not get anyone in the Building Department to sign off on it because Gary Lyman was down valley doing inspections. As of this morning, Braeburn Construction, our general contractor, had still not heard from Mr. Lyman. We anticipate the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in the next day or so. All of the units have been rented, and tenants are waiting to move in. We have modified our leases to require all tenants to be signatories on the leases. The number of occupants of the units has been limited such that overcrowding will no longer be a problem. We have incorporated inspection rights into the leases so that we can confirm the number of occupants. We have .. Letter to Ms. Johnson November 3, 1992 Page 2 assigned parking spaces and prohibited the storage of immobile automobiles. We have retained the services of Michael Adams of Mike's Maintenance, Inc. to perform the periodic inspections and mainte- nance and repair which was described in my letter of October 7, 1992. Resort Management Services could not commit to the provision of the required services. Mr. Adams is a former partner in Resort Management Services and is experienced in providing the type of services required. Both the delays in the approval and construction process and the necessary health/safety upgrades to the project have resulted in the expenditure of substantially greater amounts than what were originally anticipated. In the circumstances, we request that the three-year vested rights period run from the second reading of the extension ordinance scheduled for November 9, 1992. If you need additional information, please let me know. Ver~ truly yours, NfIÂ¥,EY & ALDER Au q 4 micharu- x. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk 1. 0 VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning Consuttants October 5, 1990 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Tom Baker Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision/PUD/Stream Margin Review Application Dear Tom: Attached for the Planning Office's review are eight (8) copies of the referenced application and a check in the amount of $820.00 for payment of the application fee. Please note that the Applicant has a Planning Office credit for $1,480.00 which is to applied to this application. Should you have any questions regarding the application, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. On behalf of Vann Associates and the Applicant, thank you for your assistance in the preparation of the application. Very truly yours, VANN SOCIATES,. Sunny Vani~~AICP SV:CWV Attachment 230 East Hookins AvenueÂ·As[)en, Colorado 81611 Â· 303/925-6958 .. AN APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION/PUD/STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR THE } 1000 EAST HOPKINS TOWNHOUSES Submitted by Valley Hi Development Trust J % Richard Y. Neiley, P.C. 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 (303) 925-9393 Prepared by VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning Consultants 230 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6958 and GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 201 North Mill Street, Suite 207 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4502 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROJECT SITE 2 1 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 11 A. Subdivision 11 B. Planned Unit Development 23 C. Stream Margin Review 25 .:, D. Growth Management Exemption 28 E. Vested Property Rights 29 APPENDIX A. Exhibit 1, Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 2, Title Insurance Policy Exhibit 3, Settlement Memorandum Exhibit 4, Permission to Represent B. Exhibit 1, Letter from Jim Markalunas, Aspen Water Department Exhibit 2, Letter from Heiko Khun, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District , Exhibit 3, Building Inspection Checklist l .. I. INTRODUCTION 1 The following application requests subdivision/PUD ap- proval for the development of the 1000 East Hopkins Town- houses, a eight (8) unit, multi-family residential project to i be developed on the site of the existing Valley Hi apartment complex. The application also requests stream margin review approval, exemption from growth management for the reconstruc- tion of four (4) of the existing Valley Hi units and for the project's affordable housing component, and vested property rights status for the various development approvals (see Pre- Application Conference Summary, Exhibit 1, Appendix A). 294 The application is submitted pursuant to the terms and provisions of an agreement for the settlement of litigation by and between the owner of the property, the Valley Hi Develop- ment Trust, a Colorado general partnership (see Title Insur- ance Policy, Exhibit 2, Appendix A), and the Aspen City Council (see Settlement MemÂ®randum, Exhibit 3, Appendix A). The Applicant's representative is Sunny Vann of Vann Associ- ates, Inc. , Planning Consultants (see Permission to Represent, Exhibit 4, Appendix A). The application has been divided into three (3) parts. The first part, or Section II. of the application, provides a brief description of the project site, while Section III. describes the Applicant's proposed development. The third part, or Section IV., addresses the proposed development's 1 0 0 1 ..4 : 5 k : p-#YL 444 . i .*- /.J - 1 . (.# 0 - r... '04 4 - Rd * , th-BÂ®*att - . 0. , < P .> et.000 9 + f I 'Â· 4.-1 , ' }0â€¢144 . *- ir / I 0 3 , , \V// Project *. Site 1 -7/ r q 4 3 1 1 *64 e / 21 1 *ouritaib To Twin Lakes t.ur.Of .. compliance with the applicable review requirements of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project (e.g., proof of ownership, utility letters, etc.) are provided in the various appendices to the application. While the Applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Land Use Regulations, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. The Applicant would be pleased to provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the application's review. II. PROJECT SITE As the property survey on the following page illustrates, the project site consists of two (2) distinct parcels which are separated by a platted, albeit non-existent, alley. Parcel 1, which contains approximately thirteen thousand five hundred and thirty-two (13,532) square feet, fronts on East Hopkins Avenue and consists of Lots K and S, Blocks 25 and 26, plus a vacated portion of Cleveland Street. Parcel 2, which contains approximately four thousand five hundred and eighty- five (4,585) square feet, is located adjacent to the Roaring J Fork River and consists of a portion of Lots H, I and A, Blocks 25 and 26, plus the remainder of vacated Cleveland Street. - 2 1 1 ..E ...~.46. :' - .ire?Â·-~~,RE"ill/Mer --.- * tri LOE_.9.10 (THEOR=AL %4*1 13,-5_22-5 _- U -li --t-- L.J . - -'-b.59--* il ' 3-- lers 1 - 4585*SO. FT. CO,In~ uuÂ£, Te<ED B a.g- *crrÂ·1 -I nlarD 9 62 0 rÂ«-t'N;'0),1 k==4 +i - 7 - 1- 1 -------- *&-: , t | N 75â€¢09'11'w 16~32 ---- Ii---i--- 573Â·09. t-Qt-7- - . ----79â‚¬------- -Â· a I Â¥â€¢Vâ€¢d ... \11 -3 m CD"CZE]UZZ]*r---17-"11 9\8 V- 1--1:1--1,r---le--11=-1 '[t.. 'b.- --- 4 - 39'ING LIfE , - -----~ RÂ·Is . ..L.. LZJLZ_11' 'UJ 7 1Â· Ii'U. BLOCK _.26- 9..'~" - ---4,1 1. BLOCK 25 ,,; f -R 1.11 ~ 11 ,7 i-, E E tE EE 1 "Oil Â· M p Nâ„¢09'11'W 135-32 11 '' S 76'09~11'fE I35 32 VICINITY 'Al lâ€¢ 400' 1/ 5 .0 ACCES..>Q ,-//- li~ -=1 , le'Al. Pâ€¢ONCIP~% M, . ... 1 111/1/51 21-/j//111 1r=-p - - ------1 j r I I . *0 LEVEL el[Q t/}WLA ZDW 1 /J/ 347 vi' Q.w D i-IHÂ·11*111-INI 0> '. i / i /0 .8 U Â» miti'. 8 ---' 0 // 0 I 20 ~ AFEA 13,532'SOFT. BASIS CF BEARING FOUND CITY MONUMENTS BLOCK 32 k SCALE; râ€¢ ~0 4 1 ./'' //// / / 1\ â€¢ | . , 9LOG I :2 . iEVEL L O .e , ' 1 PAVED = PAIRINGW ---+~ , ... .211.17 L I Ult j ULA i./ rul U IL .. . '' 1 HEREBY CEMFY RAT â„¢IS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS Â·Â· - 1 A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON OCTOBER 12,1987 ----71/0-/z- fil:I. I. to \ - h = I / OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS 00 LAND: . . -/ PARCEL ONE: i â€¢ DESCRIBED AS FOLLO~S IE914.ING AT THE SW COR OF LOT S. A ...CEL OF LAN[ s./.TED ,â€¢ E I al AN' lili FULLY / : \0 , t .7.4 1 BLK 26.RENCE '14~50 49.E 100Â·04.â„¢ENCE '75â€¢09 Ir E 135Â·32' :THEKE 314â€¢50 49 W 10604Â·THENCE N73-09'11 W 7 1 ~ 135.32' TorME POINT OF BEGINNING. / PARCEL T.0 A PAACEL o F LA" SITUATEDIN E A AT AND MOâ‚¬ Fuuy / / , l/// 1- XSCIBED AS FOLLONSÂ· BEGIN,Â»NG AT â„¢E SW COR. OF LOT " ./.1/ -- eli 26, EAAT THENCE N14.50'49' alfâ€¢Tonâ‚¬ POINT OF INTE .SECTION kâ„¢ LINE 9 - 10 g .ul l A.A T. TIE 'ICE I :, 9 , ALONG sAID UN~ ;74-,2'E !6&34 â€¢.â„¢ENCE S,4~50 49-W 26.â€¢ T}â‚¬NCE N 75â€¢09 11 W 165 32' TO â„¢E POINT OF 8â‚¬OINNING thÂ·z ~\ E. THE no MUL-INGS KIME 'C~t,P,~AkMAJa~mmAn 15 /â€¢r ACCOS(,1Â¥ .Do J . *Bi22zap:*ta:~ 4 Â©90/ 10 IMF -NCIPA' 01 - 1 'RONT . --- 44;d P"EMSÂ£3 ARE ACCURATay fl#N. Â· r DANIEL E â€¢cKENZIE SE / 135 32 =T,Â¥521& . .3 20151 N 75.09' 1 1 / . :-.455.- '2 01 -7.1~ .' 0 f=ir m.v 'llt k HOPKINS AVE. SOUâ„¢wESTERLY tORNER OF LOT r SAID BLOCX 26Â· 2NOWN'15. =10;ENS?'310.95/# :.::#5512'4-ginf:*E SOUTHEASTtRLY 22[legs THENCE S,4-5445 W 21Â·01 /t TOI'HE NORTHEASTERLY ~EZ:Q 24&9&'i~~9*~;'':b THE uNT/ INNING. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 2 Alpine Surveys, Inc. g eyed 12 0CT 1907 Ae-sionS 2'oCT 1987 ~,e,No B7.143 190CT 1987 73 OCT 1987 I.LE...1 -m.MEITS Pnâ€¢, 014,- N ivia ~ttachnTentrIP, 1- -4 Ni4-50'49[ ~2911â€¢ 3.6, 0.. OHN/&01 1 - â€ž91,0' ~46 . 71 \% \ 1 1 , Edge of River_~~~~~~~~~~ -v-- AL 3\ , 0 /0 0.10 r 11, ~&17--+-1 J.. 94 1 N 1 1 i 3 111 111 1/ 1 11 4 i il MI11 1 1 \\.y ----Uft, - 1 ~JI It , I~ 121)# b 1,1 Ill 11 1 4/ " 1 1 ._L#FL Gretchen | | ~'| Greenwood hulte /17 44 .pen I J., lilli 101Â·42% .' Z D M Z 0-W 94 0> I< Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 0 -4 4 0 0~1.,<t<Ak' 1 P Ext>4 11=11 _I'~ 5%4%*x .---72 . 117**3*#41//8"763*1 L 3,0.--c planter w/vines <ip . juniper shrubs and +-~'r ' -.-- Trash area If - perennials SCALE, 1 Walkway toreyee )%& ~---~ 1 .1 1 Ramp down to Parking/Walkway lawn ho Employee Units DATE ISSUED 108 -t DRAWÂ·N 6Â¥ 1 7, . -6 duall 9-9 2 1 51$~'/ -..6<r,- 4 r CHECKED In r I :lk SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVISIO\5 9--9 n 71-6./.* 4/14. Vul 0 14+it ...2. HOPKINS AVENUE 3 535nOHN/*Ol S 74Â° 12' 00" E 16534* /// /--/- ////--7 E. A.A.T LINE 9~10 (THEORETICAL POS~ITION) --, / / /44' /9 L k 1- o~RfÂ«/-..TE --- -- '- 1~ / f..\22t~ -----21--/LIE------- ----- ---P--Â»J--2------ I----- 1/ Pt --444--1~=--i----- CID VE.AA FLOOD 'LAIN FER. FE. --1- N - ' L.* J # WAJ - 4.-1/ Ort~/C a ,- KCTE Wm-in 1 -,2] H --------t-------- ---Ztwj-u?5Â·'4Â·-* ---1.fic_ -*/,-,-0~- -~1~-' 23% cirt Al< FUCTD CO,maX LINE-9 71=ACED 2-' 45852SQ.FT. 1 - =PRE.3 ' 1 /0 EZE /72 721[-7- 26 FT 25 )/,1 CIB - 12" MC.P- s -:.-â€žvul. HOPK~NS AVE --/bn 711-1 N 75Â°09' 11" W 165Â·32 ---- -*-*/ / P--7.-Â»-1.-.-"l--1( r L.1-LI SET - ----- S 75Â°09 8"E --132 32 ---_-___. . : SET D / E-'7 771704-1"Ir-'~-1U,7'3~7"-~1\\ V\\1-1 ------71/â‚¬----- ----- L15-% 1 Iii '22_10 W HYMAN AVE o --- -------- -2 'H ------lop OF BANK 1 1 00 |1| m L /1 103 IF - - --i iii 34 49 ZONING LINE .---- R-15 , BLOCK 25 1-$ COOPER AVE. LOCK 26 2 REF 1 fre 00 0 2211 \ 1 1.1 [23 ELI I "O 11 37 < l // 1 5 1 k DURANT AVE- I ON TCK N 75Â°09' 11'W 135-32 1, SET S 75Â°09'Il'LE !35Â·32 VICINITY MAP 10' â€¢ 400' < ~ -- 5 RMF ACCESSORY BLDG z UPPER 8 LOIER BALCONIES 11 411+F+I Id RMF PRINCIPAL BLDG (REAR) .'ll,ljllirl ilill'/1 ,TWO LEVEL BLDG / ..1 /1// \ 8AICONÂ¥ lifff I - 1 , 11 11: \\ / / ~*~ NORT- C j 0 5 16 20 30 40 50 ~ AREA L3,532+SOFT. SCA~E 1" = I O' BASISOFBEARINGÂ· FOUND CITY MONUMENTS BLOCK 32 ,-0 0. ~ / / /7 //// ///. I * -7920_ / TWO LEVEL / â€¢n 'ac 1 ~ BLDG ~ . 1% CURVEYOR'S PE':77-V- 2-E 0 1:): -' - - ...N _ 4 4 4-Ak,1 - M PAVE[ ~ PARKINGM 4 / 10 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS --- .-4 lil .- \ > ..L. A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON OCTOBERI2,1987 c OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS OFLAND: 0---=712Â·0*- ' 2 . 1 1 11 , / T PARCEL ONE: - 1//1 1.-, 1 j DESCRIBED ASFOLLOWS,BE~NNING AT THE SW COR OF,LOTS, / 4 A PARCE L OF LAND SITUATED IN E A AT AND MORE FULLY BLK. 2 6, THENCE N 14Â° 50 49' E 100Â·00% THENCE $ 775Â° 09 11" E - 135.32':THENCE S'4050'49"W 100001.,THENCE !475'09'11â€žW --- ----- --------~-------ffs: \ 4 ' -~ 135Â·32' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCELTWO 1 - li./. \ ....4 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SW COR. OF LOT H. \ A PARCE- OF LAND SITUATED IN E A. AT AND MORE FULLY BLK 26, E A A.T. THENCE N 14Â°50'49"E 29Â·Ifâ€¢ TO THE POINT t--7--------- ONE.THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILDINGS, OE INTERSECTION WITH LINE 9-10 OF SAD E A AT.; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S74.12'EE 165.341.,THENCE S'4050'49'W 2636'21 THENCE N75Â°09"ll"W 165 32'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING 0 1. . 33 / \ THE TWO BUILDINGS WERE FOUND TO BE LOCATED ENTIRELY 15' RMF ACCESSORY BLDG. 1 0 )| / WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE A80VE DESCRIBED PARCEL IMPROVEMENTS EASEMENTS RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN EVIDENCE -- OR KNOWN -ro JE AND ENCROUHMENTS BY OR ON THESE IO IMF PRINCIPAL Ba_~tÂ»ONT) ; --~~~~~~209~< - .- PREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN. 1 , , ~ g__11[ Elli 1 1 ,S --=-*- 7422-- ---- ------- --_----|~~~.. K \ 1.Lf Â·? *plâ€ž . ALPINE SURVEYS INC BY: DANIEL F McKENZIE SE" NOVEMBER!7TH,1987 LS 20151 N 75Â° 09' 11" W 135 32 -. ~ SET 01] ,(-90.*1 40-%27.: ... tv V 4 0 E.7 13 1 j... 9 .-. 4 PROPOSED VACATION OF R.O.w ...4,3. 1.. A TRACT CF LAND SITUATED IN THE EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBE6 AS FOLLOWS HOPKINS 75'ROW AVE. SOUâ„¢WESTERLY CORNER OF'LOTI SAID BLOCK 26- BLO#&*InG,Ar,12#PERTN7$%%r~~ p'3~p~ ~~ l~:~~S, THENCE S75â€¢09'11'E 135Â·32 FT. TO tHE Soul-HEASTERLY CORNER OF LOTA B[-OCK 25 E.A.AT. THENCE S14â€¢50'49' W 21Â·01 FT: TO<HE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT K Â§AID BLOCK 25 THENCE N 75' 09' 11 W 135 32 FI T6 THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY Alpine Surveys. Inc. Surveyed 12 OCT 1987 Rewsions 21 OCT 1987 VALLEY HIGH APARTMENTS Job No Post Otlice Box 1730 Drafted 19 OCT. 1987 23 OCI 1987 Cllent J 1 HEX, M. 7 Aspen, Colorado 81612 7NOV 1987 303 925 2688 2 FE8 1988 00 00 5NI>IdOH 000, 00Â·001 _ _Z ___ - M â€ž64,06 oDi S 5' RMF SIDE YARD VACATED .. The topography of the site slopes away from Hopkins Avenue towards the Roaring Fork River. Parcel 1 drops approximately ten (10) feet in elevation from the front property line to the alley, while Parcel 2 consists almost entirely of the steeply sloping river bank. A portion of L Parcel 2 is located within the Roaring Fork River. Natural vegetation consists primarily of a stand of approximately eight (8) cottonwoods located near the southeast corner of Parcel 1 and the riparian vegetation of Parcel 2. Parcel 1 is zoned R/MF, Residential/Multi-Family, while Parcel 2 is zoned R-15, Residential. Existing site improvements, which are confined to Parcel 859 1, consist of two (2) multi-family residential structures and a paved parking area. The existing structures contain a total of nineteen (19) separate dwelling units and twenty-two (22) bedrooms. A twelve (12) inch sanitary sewer traverses the adjacent alley and a portion of Parcel 2. Water, electric and telephone service is located in the Hopkins Avenue right-of- way. A crude footpath traverses Parcel 2 parallel to the River. No easement for this trail, however, has been granted to the public. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing Valley Hi apartments and to construct a new eight (8) unit, multi-family structure on the project site. Pursuant to the provisions of 4 J .. the settlement agreement, the development program consists of four (4), three (3) bedroom, free market units and four (4), two (2) bedroom, affordable housing units. All units will be separately condominiumized. The affordable housing units will be offered for sale to purchasers of the free market units, who in turn will rent the units to employees qualified by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. In the event the units are not sold to the projects free market owners, the Applicant 1 will offer them for sale or rent to qualified employees pursuant to Housing Authority guidelines and the provisions of the settlement agreement. In the event the affordable housing units are rented, all four (4) units will be deed restricted to the Housing Authori- ] ty's moderate income guidelines. If the units are sold, one (1) unit will be restricted to moderate income guidelines while the remaining three (3) units will be restricted to the Housing Authority's middle income guidelines. Pursuant to the provisions of the settlement agreement, the Applicant will provide the equivalent of an additional three (3) bedrooms of affordable housing via a cash-in-lieu payment. The proposed development has been designed in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the R/MF zone district and the housing replacement provisions of Section 18-3.3, as modified by the terms of the settlement agreement. As Table 1 on the following page indicates, the proposed bedroom mix J 5 0 . complies with the reduced minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements for projects in which a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the units are restricted to affordable housing guidelines. Similarly, fifty (50) percent of the existing bedrooms lost to demolition are to be replaced. Eight (8) affordable housing bedrooms will be reconstructed on-site with an additional three (3) bedrooms provided via a cash-in-lieu payment. Fifty (50) percent of the affordable housing units' floor area will be located above grade. Table 1 DEVELOPMENT DATA : 9 1. Existing Zoning Parcel 1 R/MF Parcel 2 R-15 2. Total Site Area (Sq. Ft.)1 18,120 Parcel 1 13,530 Parcel 2 4,590 3. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 10,000 1 4-3 Bdrm. Units @ 1,500 Sq. Ft./Unit 6,000 j 4-2 Bdrm. Units @ 1,000 Sq. Ft./Unit 4,000 4. Minimum Required Setbacks (Feet) Front Yard 10 Side Yard 5 Rear Yard 10 5. Proposed Setbacks (Feet) Front Yard 30 Side Yard 5/10 Rear Yard 0/5 6. Maximum Allowed Building Height (Feet) 25 6 J .. 7. Proposed Building Height (Feet) 27 8. Maximum Allowable External Floor 14,880 Area @ 1.1:1 (Sq. Ft.)2 9. Proposed External Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 14,880 4 Free Market Units @ 3,345 Sq. Ft. 13,380 /Unit 4 Affordable Housing Units @ 750 1,500 Sq. Ft./Unit3 10. Minimum Required Open Space 4,740 @ 35 Percent Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 11. Proposed Site Coverage (Sq. Ft.) Building Footprint 8,100 Area Attributable to Open Space 4,740 12. Minimum Required Parking 12 @ 1 Space/Bdrm.4 13. Proposed Project Parking Spaces 12 dot Free Market Units 8 Affordable Housing Units 4 All square footages have been rounded to the nearest ten 1 (10) square feet. 2 Two-thirds (2/3) of the additional square footage above 1:1 must be used for affordable housing purposes. 3 Fifty (50) percent of the square footage of the afford- able housing units is located one hundred (100) percent below grade. 4 Does not include affordable housing component, the parking requirement of which is established by special review pursuant to Section 5-301.B. It should be noted that the settlement agreement provides for a reduction in the proposed development's rear yard setback and an increase in maximum building height. As the Site Development Plan on the following page illustrates, the 7 .. proposed building footprint encroaches into Parcel l's ten (10) foot rear yard setback. This encroachment is necessary to accommodate the project's affordable housing units, and is to be achieved via a setback variance granted pursuant to the planned unit development provisions of the Land Use Regula- tions. Similarly, a two (2) foot variance in the maximum height of the new building is required to provide fifty (50) percent of the affordable housing units' floor area above grade. A discussion of the required variances and their compliance with applicable PUD provisions is provided in Section IV.B. of this application. 1 ( As the Parking Garage/Employee Housing Floor Plan on page 10 illustrates, twelve (12) parking spaces will be provided in a subgrade garage which is accessed directly from Hopkins Avenue. Pursuant to the provisions of the settlement agree- ment, two (2) spaces will be provided for each free market unit while one (1) space will be provided for each affordable housing unit. The proposed development's affordable housing units are located to the rear of the garage in order to take advantage of the significant change in elevation across the i site. The units will each contain a minimum of seven hundred and fifty (750) square feet of net livable area and a small outdoor deck. As noted previously, the units will be located a minimum of fifty (50) percent above grade. Conceptual floor plans and elevations for the proposed development are depicted on pages 11 through 16. 8 j .. I hereby approve GMQS Exemption for the replacement of fddr residential dwelling units at NO E. Hopkins. U.Lv l # 41 4 4 it----_ 16 f /49/ Amy~arger~, U Planning Director ~ate ~ jtkvj/1000hop.dirmemo 2 .... 0 0 >t 4 ~- HOPKINS 5 *Nf ... 4 LU LIBRARY DINING RM LIVING AM 8 1 - 97;~W f. 4. -_ EXISTING GRADE BEDROOM ENTRY 4 - EMP OYEE UN17-Â·-----~~~~~~~~ PARKIPIG EXISTING GRADE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING SECTION ... lili 11111~'IA. r.b= k IN mn Imlm KUL-lili t.,1 1~ 9 .~ - - - 11 j.Â£1~ SOUTH ELEVATION from HOPKINS * 1. 4. 4 5 AL 429 c..lu. SAE & A/JA- 11,1 h44-4/2*%3,1 - a.**Â©ND , lul li Ink WIEP~Ii -im *~ *iwit-tit ..id - --iti,BLT - -- 1 4jh i~i 1 imm@nom *mo?pEE h /1 -_t d TI'll'll-I'llfill''ll'li.IlllIII IlllIITIIMMIIII NORTH ELEVATIO 1~E~mom~ 2 4 8 12 20 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS Bill,Imi 1 m . . 0 . IIe -U-gli-iliW-I.-I--I-----4 1 . 1 111 li 16 1111 1 i 1 1 1 L DEÂ« l DECK 1 dHOTTUBV . I jiHOTTUB~, 1 4 = - - n - -- i 1 0 0 Roof Plan & Roof Deck Plan @ 02 4 8 12 20 .... BREAKFAST RM ' BREAKFAST RM -1 -1=99Â» 2 T 'liu 1 1, 71~-7 -T- Ful -Â«- cb LIBRARY LIBRARY 1.4 E KITCHEN 1~ KITCHEN 4 1% __~ _ _ BATH BATH ~__ _ DININ~L _ _AO 08,L DINING RM 11 1 39-1 11 116 LIVING RM | | LIVING RM 1 -22 M Upper Level Floor Plan 02 4 8 12 20 .I .. The project site Will be extensively landscaped. Deciduous trees will be planted in the approximately seventeen (17) foot public right-of-way between Hopkins Avenue and the Applicant's property line. Smaller ornamental shrubs and seasonal flowering plants will be planted in the landscaped area in front of the building and the alley area will be improved and maintained. Sidewalk, curb and gutter, all of which are presently lacking in the area, will be installed along Hopkins Avenue at the Applicant's expense. IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The proposed development is subject to subdivision, planned unit development and stream margin review. An exemption from growth management and vested property rights are also requested. Each of these review requirements is dis- cussed below. A. Subdivision Pursuant to Section 3-101 of the Land Use Regula- tions, land to be used for condominiums, apartments or any other multiple dwelling units is by definition a subdivision. Consequently, the Applicant' s proposed development of an eight (8) unit, multi-family residential structure is subject to the City's review and approval. Such developments are reviewed pursuant to the provisions of Section 7-1004.C. of the Regulations. The specific subdivision review criteria, and 17 .. the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summa- rized as follows. 1. ~The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area comprehensive Plan. Il The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan indicates that the project site is located within the so-called "Mixed Resi- I dential" land use category. As noted previously, the project site is zoned R/MF, Residential/Multi-Family. The proposed multi-family development is a permitted use in this zone dis- trict and, therefore, is consistent with the Land Use Plan's mixed residential designation. It should be noted that both the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan and the Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan depict a proposed trail align- ment (i.e., the so-called North Star trail) across Parcel 2 of the Applicant's property. While a crude footpath does in fact parallel the River, no easement has been granted across the 1 property. The Applicant, however, will grant an easement incorporating the existing trail alignment as a condition of subdivision approval. To the best of the Applicant's knowl- edge, no other element of the Comprehensive Plan contains recommendations which pertain to the proposed development. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent 2. with the character of existing land uses in the area. The 18 .. proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas." The proposed development is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area, and will have no adverse effect on the area's future development. The surrounding site area consists primarily of mixed residen- tial development, including multi-family condominium struc- tures, several relatively new duplexes, and a variety of older single-family residences. With the exception of the southeast corner of the intersection of Hopkins Avenue and Cleveland Street, which was recently acquired by the City for affordable housing purposes, the area is essentially fully developed. ititt 3. "The proposed subdivision shall be in compli- ance with all applicable requirements of the Land Use Regula- tions." Except as otherwise provided for in the settlement agreement, the proposed development has been designed to comply with the applicable requirements of the underlying R/MF zone district and all relevant subdivision and stream margin provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. 4. "The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or 19 .. other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.~ No natural hazards adversely affect the development of the property. While the proposed development is located within one hundred (100) feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, the proposed building footprint is located entirely on Parcel 1 which is outside the one hundred (100) year flood plain boundary. Consequently, no adverse affect upon the health, safety or welfare of the project's residents is anticipated. 5. "The proposed subdivision shall not be designed 1 to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplica- ii;J tion or premature extension of public facilities and unneces- sary public costs." No governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary public costs will occur as a result of the provision of public services to the proposed develop- ment. All required utilities are currently available in the immediate site area. All costs for the extension of utilities to serve the project will be borne by the Applicant. In addition to requiring compliance with the preceding review criteria, the Land Use Regulations also require that various improvements be provided in connection with the proposed subdivision, and that specific standards be 20 .. adhered to in the subdivision's design. The improvements and design standards which pertain to the Applicant's proposed development are summarized as follows. 1. WH--0-=--M----#-=9-Iiana'5n:P~My!~-9~~g,# pO egiageÂ¥*_Op- Ine~ Va : L, , '4 4 4 . 5 e H 1 .. -'PER . I. , . . 4~0 MI -1 - - lb, fil 1 'H-#14.. A - 00.'8, i *c 4 v f=-~~~wax~,-Ma1u41spen.=a=EE=twa=me#Immena~Ins,inande*~:22iaal~:g bui~ew -03,- 13 -14- -------./.."/"W"mamEME.8, 1 -/ - I - *JA~/892 t~FTE-6/& is:J Sewer. The proposed development will be served 2. by the existing twelve (12) inch sanitary sewer located in the alley to the rear of Parcel 1. According to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, anticipated flows can be accommodated with no improvements to existing sewer lines or to the treatment plant (see Exhibit 2, Appendix C). Electric and Telephone. Electrical and 3. telephone service is presently located in the Hopkins Avenue _~ right-of-way and will be extended to serve the proposed 21 j J .. development as necessary. All required extensions of these utilities will be located underground. 4. Easements. Easements to accommodate utility extensions will be provided in compliance with the applicable provisions of Section 7-1004.C.4.b. of the Regulations as may be required. It should be noted, however, that the proposed 1 development's east side yard setback has been increased to ten (10) feet to provide a larger clear zone around the existing sanitary sewer which traverses the adjacent property. Similarly, the building footprint has been staggered on the Site Development Plan in order to provide a minimum fifteen (15) foot clear zone adjacent to the sewer located in the alley. All utility easements to be conveyed by the Applicant will be described in the project's subdivision agreement and depicted on the final subdivision plat. 5. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter. No sidewalks, curbs or gutters presently exist within the immediate site area. The property, however, is located within a mapped sidewalk im- provement district. As discussed previously, the Applicant will install sidewalk, curb and gutter along the north side of Hopkins Avenue as depicted on both site development plans All improvements will comply with the recommendations of the City's Pedestrian Walkway and Bicycle Plan. 6. Fire Protection. Fire protection for the proposed development will be provided by the Aspen Volunteer 22 .. Fire Department. The project site is located approximately five (5) blocks from the fire station, resulting in a response time of approximately three (3) to five (5) minutes. Two (2) fire hydrants are conveniently located nearby, one directly j across the street on the southwest corner of Hopkins and } Cleveland Street, and an additional one located approximately two hundred (200) feet to the east in front of the Riverview Condominiums. 7. Drainage. The proposed development's storm drainage system will be designed to maintain historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and groundwater recharge. on-site drywells and/or surface detention facilit- (ki?i ies will be utilized to intercept and detain runoff from building roofs and impervious areas, and to control the rate of groundwater recharge. A detailed stormwater drainage plan will be submitted in conjunction with the Applicant's final subdivision plat application. B. Planned Unit Development Pursuant to the provisions of the settlement agreement, the proposed development is to be reviewed as a planned unit development in order to permit variances in the project's rear yard setback, maximum height and minimum parking requirement. These variances are required in order to accommodate the project's expanded affordable housing compo- nent without necessitating a complete architectural redesign 23 .. of the free market units. The proposed development, however, is to be reviewed pursuant to the consolidated two step process provided for in Section 7-903.C.3. of the Regulations. The size and configuration of the project site provides little opportunity for the incorporation of typical PUD design approaches. As noted above, the sole purpose of utilizing the PUD process is to vary certain dimensional requirements of the R/MF zone district in order to increase the amount of affordable housing while preserving the original project's free market unit design. The proposed development, however, is consistent with the basic purpose and review standards of the City's planned unit development regulations. The general requirements of PUD development approval are 1 identical to those of the subdivision regulations and have been addressed in Section IV.B. of this application. It should be noted that portions of the property are located within the Roaring Fork River while other areas ..J contain slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent. These areas, however, are confined solely to Parcel 2. As the proposed development is to be located entirely on Parcel 1, and the two parcels are not contiguous, no reduction in density for slope considerations or land under water are required. Similarly, Parcel 1 contains no existing surface easements which would .1 reduce the property' s maximum theoretical density. As a result, the proposed density is based upon the R/MF zone 1 24 1 .. district's reduced minimum lot area per dwelling unit require- ments for projects in which a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the units are restricted to affordable housing guidelines. As discussed previously, the project site is suitable for development. The proposed density is substan- tially below that of the existing Valley Hi apartments, which should result in fewer impacts upon the surrounding area. Existing roads and utilities are adequate to serve the project, and no adverse impacts upon the area's air or water quality are anticipated. The proposed site development plan is compatible with the site's topography. While the majority of Parcel l's mature vegetation will be lost due to excava- d tion, the property will be extensively landscaped following J construction. The more critical riparian vegetation located on Parcel 2 will be maintained in its natural state. C. Stream Margin Review , Pursuant to Section 7-504 of the Land Use Regu- lations, all development within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River is subject to stream margin review. Although no development is proposed on Parcel 2, the proximity of Parcel 1 and the proposed building footprint to the River necessi- tates P&Z review and approval. The specific review criteria, and the proposed development's compliance therewith , are summarized below. 25 .. 1. "It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development." As the accompanying survey and site development plan 1 illustrate, the proposed building footprint is confined entirely to Parcel 1 which is located outside the 100 year flood boundary. Consequently, no increase in the base flood elevation of the River will occur as a result of the proposed project. 2. " Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open 421 Space/Trails plan map is dedicated for public use." As discussed previously, the Applicant will grant an easement for the existing pedestrian trail which traverses Parcel 2 adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. The easement CJ will be described in the proposed development's subdivision agreement and depicted on the final subdivision plat. 3. "The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development to the greatest extent practicable.~ 1 The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan contains no site specific recommendations with respect to the project site. The retention of Parcel 2 in its undisturbed state, however, 26 .. is consistent with the Plan's general recommendations regard- ing the preservation of riparian vegetation and the natural appearance of the river corridor. 4. ~No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank." As noted above, no development will occur on Parcel 2. Consequently, no adverse effect upon the stream bank or the Roaring Fork River will occur as a result of the proposed project. Appropriate safeguards (e.g., hay bales, etc.), however, will be employed during construction to prevent sedi- mentation of the River. All areas disturbed during construe- <d tion will be revegetated. 5. "TO the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. " The proposed development will have no adverse effect J upon the natural changes normally experienced by the Roaring Fork River. No development is proposed on Parcel 2 or within the River. The elevation difference between the proposed building envelope and the one hundred (100) year flood boundary is approximately twelve (12) feet. 6. "Written notice is given to the Colorado Water 1 Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a 27 .. water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.~ No alteration or relocation of the existing water course will be required as a result of the Applicant's proposed development. Hence no notice is required. 7. ~A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. 10 Inasmuch as no alteration or relocation of the water course is proposed, no such guarantee is required. itit 8. "Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain." No federal or state permits are required to con- hl struct the proposed development. D. Growth Management Exemption The proposed reconstruction is exempt from the City's growth management regulations. The project's four (4) free market units are exempt pursuant to Section 8-104.A.1.a. of the Land Use Regulations subject to the approval of the Planning Director upon the verification of an adequate number of existing development credits and compliance with the 28 1 1 provisions of the City's housing replacement program. Bill Dreuding of the Zoning Department has inspected the property and has verified the existence of nineteen (19) dwelling units (see Exhibit 3, Appendix B, Building Inspection Checklist). As no ability presently exists to transfer development credits, the remaining fifteen (15) units will be credited to the annual growth management quota upon demolition. The four (4) replacement affordable housing units to be constructed on the property are exempt pursuant to Section 8-104.C.1.c. of the Regulations subject to the approval of the City Council. In general, the criteria for such exemptions include the size and type (i.e., number of bedrooms) of the proposed units, the price categories to which the units will be restricted, and the proposed development's compliance with the City's adopted affordable housing plan. As discussed previously, the proposed two (2) bedroom units will each contain a minimum of seven hundred and fifty (750) square feet of net livable area and will be deed restricted pursuant to f the provisions of the settlement agreement. J E. Vested Property Rights In order to preserve, as may be allowed, the land use approvals which may be obtained as a result of this application, the Applicant hereby requests vested property rights status pursuant to the provisions of Section 6-207 of the Land Use Regulations. It is understood by the Applicant 29 .. that, to establish such status, final approval of the proposed development must be granted by ordinance of the City Council. It is also the Applicant's understanding that no specific submission requirements, or review criteria other than a public hearing, are required to confer such status. j (171 30 .. ~2. J APPENDIX A 1 CITY OF ASPEN PR~PLICATION CONFERENCE SUMM]l~ -7 DATE: #1 Ad 3- PLANNER: PROJECT: C ?80 0 Â£_ d-op k,Lli APPLICANT 'S REPRESENTATIVE: 3 *AM '1' Â¢9 0 M REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: 9 2-5-- 6 43-2 OWNER'S NAME: 4 11 1 #1 1. â‚¬.00'.2 "Â·Â«+ -~ 6<J+ Y 1. Type of Application: /1. - -( ...4 k / 5-/CK-04" 01,1-1~/,1 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: 4- bER. F-/4.Mky- 3 4 - 2-6,t- f .DCALALA. 6+.55 ,P., F Afl 60 0,4 Mt.il/tj VH# (u.-Lu , .~-â€¢Â«r.A'o OJ*, Hu4~- / 0 0 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments 6 .,4. - Pub 1 0 Art\. - 1 -â‚¬%i'.L 1%A.Aâ€¢vu x (A f /Y t f e. . 4 â€¢ 2 /44.,4,4,1 L Q.*-\19 11 Lc.--W 4 0 91\ I 4 11-9 -0 A.A L-46-r- A #-3- lA) cAL, I i 1 5-ck - / 4. Review is before: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) ~P&Z then to CC) 3 5. Are you requesting vested rights? ( CYES) j (NO) 6. Public Hearing~(Yes,~(No) At: (P&Z) (CC) ~BOTH P&Z & CC) ) 7. The applicant needs to Notify the public for each-public hearing pursuant to Section 6-205.E.3. of the Code. ((YES)JÂ¥NO) g 8. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: 9. What fee was applicant requested to submit: fl-A/0 +- 90 2-co Soo . M-+Pd 14%0 10. Anticipated date of submission: 11. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: 1 ,+Fle mu 6 ,-A- 4 VITâ‚¬-9.3 Mictg 'tb L puD 1 , 0 19)yers title * EXHIBIT 2 Insurance @poration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA SCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY , CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF DEURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT-2237 07/25/88 @ 12:33 P.M. $ 1,250,000.00 85-01-097393 1. NAME OF INSURED: u VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 2. THE ESTATE OR INTERESr IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SZMFLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 4. THE LAND REFERED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: tilij PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF 1 04416/ A PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. CountersÂ»led #lth*ized Agent ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-1766 THE POLICY NIJMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE , COVER SHEET. orm 100 litho in U.S.A. ~0*100-0041/2 [awyers title * Insurance @rporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA ENDORSEMENT FORM 110,1 ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART OF LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION NO. 85-01-097393 The aforementioned policy is hereby amended by deleting paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 of Schedule B, Exceptions. 4 This endorsement is made a part of the policy or cammitment and is subject to all the terms and provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies any of the terms and provisions of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements, if any, nor does extend the effective date of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements or increase the face amount thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be signed and sealed and to be valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws. ISSUED AT PITKIN COUN~~~~~SLE,>INgÂ·. /001 E. HOPKINS AVE., ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 I t1161(~16'll i- COUNTERSIGNED : AUTHORI FFECE:f OR AGE:NT DATED:07/25/88 @ 12:33 P.M. irm 100 Litho in U.S.A. 5-0-;00-0041/2 EXHIBIT 3 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWAMZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 SANDRA M. STULLER ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 ALAN E. SCHWARTZ (303) 920-1013 FAX 9204259 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM 5 TO: Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Schwartz DATE: April 10, 1990 RE: Final Terms of Valley-Hi Settlement INTRODUCTION i At your executive session of April 3, 1990, we reviewed the proposed terms of settlement in the Valley-Hi matter. All of the negotiating points which you raised at that time have since been , resolved in your favor, after discussions with Valley-Hi respresentatives, as follows: I. Terms of Settlement A. Density (FAR) limited to 1.1:1 (approx. 15,000 sq. ft.) (1) 4 x 3 bedroom free-market units @ 3,000 sq. ft. = 12,000 sq. ft. (2) 4 x2 bedroom affordable units @ 750 sq. ft. (minimum) = 3,000 sq. ft. 1 Total 15,000 sq. ft. B. 50% of existing FAR (4,500 sq. ft.) and 50% of existing bedrooms (11) devoted to affordable housing/cash-in-lieu as follows: (1) 8 bedrooms on-site (2) $45,000 cash-in-lieu for 3 bedrooms off-site CÂ® Units to be deed restricted as follows: (1) For sale purposes: 3 middle income ($93,000 @ 750 sq. ft. x $124 per ft.) 1 moderate income ($72,750 @ 750 sq. ft. x $97 per ft.) 1 (2) For rental purposes: All moderate income ($667.50 max. rent per month @ 750 sq. ft. x $.89 per ft. per month) â€¢Ie)yers title . Insumnce @poration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA EXHIBIT "A" LOTS H AND I, IN BLOCK 25. LYING WITHIN THE EAST ASFEN ADDITION T THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, according to the Plat therecf recorded as M--.-- ent No. 125453 in Ditch Bock 2A at Page 252 of the -=V--AC -1- Pitkin County. together with a tract of land situated in the East Aspe Townsite described as follows: Beginning at the So "thwest Corner cf Lc S, Block 26, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, as shown on the reccrded Plat therecf: thence Ncrth 14Â©50'49" East :00 feet along the West line of Lot S to the Northwest Corner cf Lot S, thence Sc -4, 7(Â°09'11" Eas- 135.32 feet: thence South 14'50'49" West 100 feet; thence Ncrth 75Â° 09'11" West 135.39 feet to the point of beginning. AND A tract =f land lying Northerly cf Let E. said Block 26, and Lct K, Block 25 cf said East Aspen Additicnal Townsite, and that tract of land sometimes referred to as Cleveland Street lying Northerly of the South Half of said-Blocks 25 and 25, all of which is shown upon Plat recorded as Document No. 108453 in Ditch Book 2A at Page 252 of the records for Pitkin County, Colorado, and being situate in the East Aspen Addition 51/ to the CitY of Aspen. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 1 - f --- -- ---------7mn Form 100 Utho in U.SA ~5-0-100-0041/2 LimiEZEZIEZIIiEEZEI~ 0 Ilwyerslitle â€¢ Insurance @rporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1 1 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA E SCHEDULE B--CWNERS 1 1 CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER PCT-2237 07/25/88 @ 12:33 P.M. 85-01-097393 111 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE BULI,OWING: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records . 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conf licts in boundary lines, shortajge in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereto- af ter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authoriz- ing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. â‚¬. Taxes for the year 1988 not yet due or payable. 1 1 7. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 185 at Page 69. 8. Deed of Trust from : 1000 E. Hopkins Partnership, a Colorado General Partnership to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin for the use of : Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company to secure : $472.500.00 41 dated : April 15, 1988 recorded : April 15, 1988 in Book 561 at Page 316 receptian no. : 299209 4 1 9. Financing Statement from Valley-Hi development, debtors to 1000 East Hopkins Partnership, A Colorado general partnership, secured party, filed July 25,1988 in 13 Book 569 at Page 364, as Filing No. 11767. 10. Deed of Trust from : VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST, A COLORADO GENERAL PARâ„¢ERSHIP 8 to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of : 100 EAST HOPKINS PARTNERSHIP, A COLORADO GENBERAL PARTNERSHIP to secure : $650,000.00 dated : JULY 25, 1988 1 1 recorded : JULY 25, 1988 IN BOOK 569 AT PAGE 350. reception no. : 302326 lj N EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED NONE ARE HEREBY CHITTED. i J '/ J arm '00 Litho n LISA ~-0-100-0041/2 uic 1.111 1.llc 111( 1.1" 1 11< 111< 1 Ill 1 11' 1 in I llc 1.1,1 1.11, 1 lic I lic tilt 111' 111( 1 llC 1-lit Illt 1 11{ 1.111' 1.11(' 1.11â‚¬ 1-11( 1.11( Illâ‚¬ Ill< 111' .... 0= r 1 ".. - - 5Â»1 ====== - I ~Â·~ E-1~ -. = --1 Unit 5 Fl Z u Unit 6 '11 4 1-13 IL~+ 1419 F Unit 7 FC-P 4 Unit 8 /1 1 1-0--0 -Crd J -TJ=01 la- 7 -2 IJ ~ n- k-- lA [3 00 1 Entry 1 / 1 2 [h ~~ Entry =I PARKING LEVEL I . m 3456789101112 8 0 Parking Garage Floor Plan Employee Housing Plan ~ 0 24 8 12 20 .. AQ:Â·'29Â·. 1-5~ x\\ T-~al>P-'7*l \ 4 ACZE.--0-3>*31 \\ 4 2 Y <---Lir/..< ' Â»7 Lild Xfti_L-1.--17 U.[ 2 -ar U \\ \A L/C-Â»--f ' / *ECFÂ©&60 J An=M- : F 11-*--~T- WK U Â£ _.Wdn.T# r 1\ 1 ,-lf.L- L--T- 1\ -T L-Â·11Â¥.' &71 1 , , P \ \-Ir. tj# ... \ ' ,_iL--1~-- 00 P h 34 Al. 1 r A 1 17 J 2 + \ '-1---~-1 (Rt) if , , . . ill firEmbrp-K j 1.G 1 lilli l{ 11 - a L 1/ 1/) 1-\1 j d 1 . 11 - 1 lili 11 r.1/ 1 30- N1 1 1 " 12 - MASTER BEDROOM = -- - - MASTER BEDROOM , k BEDROOM BEDROOM J' 1 - -41 + 1 HI - 1-- /1 k VI' 4 4-- DRESSING DRESSING pb n fATH-6 411# \ 1 7 1-j' BATH k 1 1-77 7-7 %1 r-r-- 4 MASTER|| J /||MASTER n ~ LM 11 BATH U (4!34 A -1 . 1 O 01-1 7-n 11 1, 1 -3\>97 7 BATH L \ 9%25<>V :YAWÂ» / T 1 BEDROOM 4 ~ BEDROOM \ f /1/914/ / ff 7 I ~1 4 ; 1 1 rf Â»U // 4 f C 71 1 ry-1 11 Â·r=-+ 4 '*1-Â¥ neÂ·46~~ , f 1+- 4 1 W - 61 11 I 1%1 \1 D 2, - - ' 1 G Ilt [64 /629/50.. I\' f. Mifflf.ftÂ«~p--4 - Â·Â·' ILL_ 4 Â© | .....| . I ' -im. E- -- rn-Z. 1 - --- p-- - r---=V~ -~-'77- 11'6 7 - 1~'97914 i '.,F~M-~-dky ~0'#844 -- 1 1#.Prlih. Entry Level Floor Plan 1/1 '31 -9 1 64/3 41 071 1- 1(11! 47 / P (r A 73 Zil'-1.1'-7 ~Al f .3#/ ~u 7 2 J, i,-,7 3 024 8 12 20 Â¥%=7, 7-r HOPKINS AVE. ED 1 j rb=:30 3 L+-O - f L_.1 5 1 1 /7 1 L_.2 Bedroom IBedroom - El -~Bedroom Bedroom LI 0 lo 0 0 00 0 0. 0 lE[ 1 1 y 0 11 oq 0+ 0 01 / L=ZE >f Living 40 -4 ~ 010 Living Dining 3 Co 1 1 1 01 0 Dining L o_p 213 LÂ».\ 9"-1 rft 00 20 nÂ»1/ 1 UNIT 5 IUNIT6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 L 1/4"scale Floor Plan Employee Housing Plan .. .. . '90 Edge of River - 4.,WdÂ¢*45%:AD 7 03 ' h 9 - W --4-Â«#--lt P '22"Â°--/ i--2.~ . .0 9 1 H 2--~ 0, 1-i. ~ / ; -/ 4,40 y ~ 1 ' 11 / b 4-1 -- i A qCUge 10---1 -Ihk--_l_~-1-~4 --1-- + 1 3-a f ~71.11 1, NI I L 5---7T---Â»~+1~ ---4-5 0-3.-NOUP-9-itt-Â¥4-4-_- \" /2<1.1-/ 1- Ul 11 \2 ' 14 I ' .6 11 1 --11 11 _ A# --, M--0 11 ~ . -- . IW.11~ 11jl I 1~ 1 t 1 i / San'itary 'Fewer Easement-1.2 1 1 ) ~ ~ 1 0 1 1~ 11'll 1 -1 \~Alley ~ I'~ ' \~~~7 ! . 611 1/1, 4, 11( j / 3 D.: li 11,7 IN If 11 il j 11 v L. 21 /11 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 5 , 10' 014 L I N. /lff Ath' 1-'IdÂ» , 0'-211 1~ 1 -/7 >000./.4,1, 'ltoOO< 14**'44&14 1 Â· â€¢ r-- -- . -- V V V VV~ Â·v' WL.1 C., --U- J/~ 1 Â· . . I r. 2' planter w/vines .., . U '. -Â· juniper shrubs and 1 -â€¢ 4 Â£ Trash area 1 44# I Walkway to EmployeeÂ·j :34 1< i. J Ramp down to Parking/Walkway Units I lawn i //Â»LE- - 4 2 X \- /to Employee Units 1 / ./.flt./ 6/Ifi . SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN siewalÂ£ 1 ai Al'-~gf 4' 1*- H' J/1/ ~ / 1 $ L , 9,~' 1- ~ 024 8 12 20 1Â·r-~9 4 7-- 1 1 S HOPKINS AVENUE EXHIBIT 4 April 24, 1989 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Alan Richman I Planning and Development Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Mr. Richman: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inc. to represent the Valley Hi Devel- opment Trust in the processing of our application for subdivision/stream margin review approval. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned appli- cation. < Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our attorney, Richard Y. Neiley at 925-9393. sincerely, VALLEY HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST 1 0.# A -L- ji F *,1-l-*uÂ»00,t #06~ Kâ€ž, Peter Coventry tfm-yifthfu'l3d- SV:CWV .. .1 j - j 1 APPENDIX B J .. 1. EXHIBIT 1 CITÂ¥~PEN 130 kli~~~reet asp Al.~ 611 February 22, 1988 Vann & Associates P. 0. Box 8485 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Sunny: I This letter is to confirm our conversation of February 22, j 1988 regarding 1000 E. Hopkins Townhouses. 1 It is my understanding that you intend to raze the existing h.,A :ut apartment building, located at the above address; and in its place construct six two-bedroom townhouses. This letter is to assure you that water is available from the existing main located in E. Hopkins Street, and you may elect to use the existing service line should the service line be adequate for your needs. Please be advised that separate and distinct shut-off valves will be required should the units be under separate ownership However, if a condominium associa- tion is formed to manage the common elements; then a community shut-off valve with a common meter may be used as long as there is one entity to deal with. bincerelf, 4 1%/LL . <-~ames MArMalunas irector, Aspen Water Department JM:mlg CC: Planning Board J ~ EXHIBIT 2 fl;pen Gonsolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537 i February 25,1988 | Vann Associatts P. 0. Box 848, Aspen, Colora.0 81612 RE': 1,000 Eas Hopkins Townhouses This letter i<.to verify that the Aspen Consolidated Sarlitation District has adequate ,lant capacity and line capacity to serve the proposed 6 multi-family units that are replacing the former 19 Valley-Hi apartments at this site. Sincerely /444 %6 Heiko Kuhn, Manager Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 3 J J ASPEN*PITY-~ REGIONAL BUILDING r~ARTMENT 806 E-t Main Str-t ./- A-pen, Colorado 81811 303*825-6873 \ 4 6411Â¢ 1-4 Uf BUILDING INSPECTION CHECK LIST EXHIBIT 3 Inspection - Reinspection Partial Complete Permit No. 1 STEEL ELECTRIC PLUMBING MECHANICAL BUILDING Footings Temp Underground Rough - R-Frame Caissons - Underground - Waste & Vent Flue InsuL Wall --- Swim Pool Water Pipe F. P. Flue - Drywall - Struct Slabs - Rough -_ Gas Glass Door - Special Damp Proof - Service Final - Combust Air - Mobile Home Foun. Insul. - Final Fire Final Final Sprinklers Found Drain - Air Cond. Zoning Wall Cores - FIRELIFE& SAFETY Kitch Hood Accepted Rejected Reinspection Fee $30.00 Yes No No. Bdrms. (You are ordered to make the following corrections on the construction which is now in progress at the address below) 1 1 - ~.A A 0 1 4- J Kle' 0, i lO f d t ' 7 - +4 1, 3 (11/0 6,Â·GÂ·C,C>- jN (51 r U.2 CY 9 1 e luk -jÂ»-#-~ 1 1.2.4 c i ii:9 b ) 12 D 1 4 10 4 /1,1 f Â· -54 1 1.1.: 3 ' f iLL,7.â‚¬34 r i Di lrYV 6 0 4 (/,Lon 'V -12> /:51.- 1 -2 f.,3 4 / 4 .1 4 LAÂ» 1 /. i ,-4-:,1 21:i ,- 5 l /3. d R 1, f Â£ 2. pef =LIZE#i.* 12.0-C~=44 0 0, 0 3 414 Â«fc P 19 -4+MeÂ»,/ 1 -2- 1 410 gf .0 1 Â¥,-A.,1.-, 11 1 ion ,Â£ f ~ Instructions to Inspector 1 Kitchen__ Tub __ Shower _ __ Lav. - W.C. - Ice - W. Bar- Tub/Shower _____ Jacuzzi Bidet- Hose Bib Laundry ____Clothes Washer- Hot Tub- D.W.- Jacuzzi w/Shower City- County Time of Arrival Time of Depanure ~ Address \ 70 O \~Â£ t~~')~All-; A.} f Phone Job Office Subdivision Request Rec'd Date Time Contractor, Request for M TW TH F A.1(1Â· P.M. Time Â« 1 Â£ s Owner 1 ' IA,1 (' fiAA 2.1 Date Insp -: 1 ' ' ' ' Inspector w.1-7 ' f ,i; .4412Â·u -7 - Rev. 7/87 v Independence Press, Inc. -1 .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1000 EAST HOPKINS SUBDIVISION, CONCEPTUAL PUD, GMQS EXEMPTION AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 4, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application submitted by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting approval Of Subdivision, Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption and Stream Margin Review for the property located at 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. The applicant proposes a multi-family structure consisting of 4 free market units and 4 affordable housing units on the site of the existing Valley Hi apartments. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090. s/C. Welton Anderson. Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on November 22, 1990. City of Aspen Account. 01 4 'V--- --- 04. It/at/94 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Yvonne Blocker, Administration Manager, Housing DATE: November 9, 1990 . RE: 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, and GMQS Exemption SUMMARY: Applicant requests subdivision/PUD approval for the development of the 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses for eight (8) multi-family residential project to be developed on the site of the existing Valley Hi apartment complex. GMQS Exemption is requested for the re-development of four (4) of the existing Valley Hi units for affordable housing. APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, a Colorado general partnership. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann & Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins Lots K and S, Blocks 25 and 26, Lots H, I and A, Blocks 25 and 26 plus remainder of vacated Cleveland Street. ZONING: Parcel 1, R/M# 13,532 sq. ft. Parcel 2, R-15, 4,485 sq. ft. REQUEST: Applicant proposes to demolish the existing Valley Hi apartments which contain an existing three two-bedroom units, ten one-bedroom units, and six studios. Proposed replacement will be four three-bedroom free market units and four two-bedroom affordable housing units. Included in this submission as an Agreement drafted by Alan Schwartz of Myler, Stuller, and Schwartz dated April 10, 1990 which allows the following: 1. Density be limited to 1.1:1 (approximately 15,000 sq.ft.) 2. Development of four three-bedroom free market units @ 3,000 sq.ft.each. 3. Replacement of four two-bedroom affordable housing units @ 750 sq.ft.each. .. 4. 50% of existing FAR (4,500 sq.ft.) and 50% of bedrooms (11) devoted to affordable housing/cash-in-lieu as follows: a. 8 bedrooms on-site. b. $45,000 cash-in-lieu for 3 bedrooms off-site. C. Units to be deed restricted as follows: 1. For sale purposes: a. 3 middle income (93,000 @ 750 sq.ft. x $124/sq.ft.) b. 1 moderate income ($72,750 @ 750 sq.ft. x $97/sq.ft.) 2. For rental purposes: All moderate income ($667.50 max. rent/month @ $.89/sq.ft) d. Additional restrictions: 1. All units separately condominiumized. 2. Owners reserve right to rent or sell to purchasers Of free market units, and then to qualified purchasers from the Housing Authority. 3. All rentals arp subject to terms of standard Housing Authority operating agreement, specifically including requirements that rental/affordable units be rented at all times to qualified tenants. 4. Cap on common maintenance assessments for affordable units (exact terms to be decided). 5. Parking provided to be one space per affordable housing unit for a total of four spaces. The demolition and replacement of housing for this application shall meet the standards of Section 5-702 and 5-703 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Section 5-702 establishes that: " Whenever one or more residential dwelling units in a multi- family building is demolished...the applicant shall be required to restrict a minimum of fifty percent ( 50%) of the total number of units (but in no case more than the number of units demolished) and twenty-five percent ( 25%) of the total number of bedrooms in the replacement project as affordable housing. For this section, a studio shall be counted as a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom." Section 5-703 of the Aspen City Code requires that, " when the number of affordable housing units replaced on the site is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the total number of units demolished on the site, the replacement units shall be restricted .. to the housing designee's low income and occupancy guidelines." Section 5-702 requires the replacement of 50% of the existing units be replaced with affordable housing. There are nineteen existing units in the Valley Hi Apartments and the applicant is proposing to develop a total of four units which is twenty-one percent (21%) replacement. The applicant is required to provide 25% replacement of the bedrooms and to deed restrict those units as to affordable housing. Applicant proposes 'to provide a total of eight bedrooms to be deed restricted to affordable housing of the 20.5 existing bedrooms for a total of thirty-nine percent (39%). The requirement of Section 5-703 which required that the applicant provide 50% replacement of the existing units and if the applicant replaces less than fifty percent (50%) of the existing units the replacement units shall be deed restricted to low income. Applicant requested that the four affordable housing units be deed restricted to moderate income rental guidelines and in the event these four units are sold that one be deed restricted to moderate and the other three units be deed restricted to middle income. Applicant has stated that; " the affordable housing units will be offered for sale to purchasers of the free market units, who in turn will rent the units to employees qualified by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. In the event the units are not sold to the projects free market owners, the Applicant will offer them for sale or rent to qualified employees pursuant to Housing Authority guidelines and the provisions of the settlement agreement." The 1990 Affordable Employee' Housing Guidelines requirements for purchase of affordable housing units are as follows: To be eligible for affordable rental/sale housing a person must be a resident of Pitkin County, propose to occupy the unit as their primary resident and meet the following criteria: A. A person must qualify as follows: 1. an employee 2. a senior 3. a handicapped person 4. a dependent of any of the above as defined by the IRS. B. Not own residential real estate, or list and sell residential real estate prior to or simultaneously with closing on the affordable housing unit (and Still meet the asset/income limitations). C. Household Income (defined as combined individual income) shall not exceed the following maximums per year: Category #1 (Low) $0 - $28,000 Category #2 (moderate) , $28,001 - $44,800 Category #3 (moderate) $44,801 - $66,000 Category #4 (middle) $66,081 - $100,000 Net assets shall not exceed $175,000 (category #4), $125,000 for Category #2 and 3, and $75,000 (category #1). Gross assets shall not exceed $200,000 for any category. The proposal for the free market owners to purchase the affordable dwelling units can not meet the following requirements: 1. The affordable housing units be occupied as a primary residence as the free market owners would be occupying either fulltime or parttime their free market units. 2. Free market owners can not own residential real estate. 3. Free market owners may or may not be employees, seniors, handicapped, or dependents of. any of the aforementioned in Pitkin County. 4. Free market owners shall not exceed $100,000 (middle) in income and net assets of $175,000 for al individual employee occupants of the affordable unit. Applicant has stated that; " in the event the affordable housings units are rented, all four (4) units will be deed restricted to the Housing Authority's moderate income guidelines. If the units are sold, one (1) unit will be restricted to moderate income guidelines while the three (3) remaining units will be restricted to the Housing Authority's middle income guidelines." The 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines require the following net livable square footage be developed for two bedroom units for the approval of rental/sale terms of the guidelines: Category #1 (low) 650-850 sq. ft. Category #2 and 3 (moderate) 851-1,000 Category #4 (middle) 1,001-1,300 The applicant has proposed to,provide four 750 sq. ft. two bedrooms unit which would be approved for low income occupancy, price, income, and asset qualifications. If applicant proposes to index these four units to either moderate or middle income rental/sale qualifications these units would need to meet the Category #2 and 3 or Category #4 net livable square foot ranges for development. Applicant has stated that; " fifty percent (50%) of the existing bedrooms lost to demolition are to be replaced. Eight (8) affordable housing bedrooms will be reconstructed on-site with an additional three (3) bedrooms provided via cash-in-lieu payment." The applicant has proposed to provide a $45,000 cash-in-lieu payment for the replacement of the three bedrooms. Section 5-703 requires that when less than fifty percent (50%) of .. the units will be replaced that the replacement units shall be restricted to the housing designee's low income guidelines. The applicant would be required to make a cash-in-lieu payment of $183,750 for 5.25 low income employees. 3 bedrooms x 1.75 employees x $35,000 = $183,750 The proposed development has been designed in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the R/MF zone which requires the for multi-family dwelling on a lot of 27,00 sq.ft. or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing that two bedroom units are to be 1,000 sq. ft. Applicant proposes to develop on two parcels which contain a total of 18,120 sq. ft. a total ofÂ·four three-bedroom free market units to contain 3,345 sq. ft. each and four two-bedroom deed restricted 750 sq. ft. units each for a total of 14,880 sq.ft. net livable area. Housing would request that applicant reduce the size of the four free market three-bedroom units to 2,270 sq. ft. each to meet the required net livable sq. ft. of two bedroom affordable units in the R/MF zone. The expansion of the two bedroom units from 750 sq. ft to 1,000 sq. ft. would accomplish the request by applicant to rent these affordable housing units at the moderate income rental/sale guidelines. Applicant has requested that the four (4) affordable housing units proposed for construction on the property be exempt pursuant to Section 8-104 (C) (1) (c) which requires that all housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee. The review procedure requires that the exemption shall be approved pursuant to the determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically,regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes that a settlement was drafted and approved by the City of Aspen for the re-development of 1000 East Hopkins. Staff would hope that consideration be given as to the approval of this project for GMQS exemption pursuant to Section 8-104(C)(1)(c) to meet the following conditions required by the city's housing designee: 1. The affordable housing units be sold to qualified moderate income employees in Pitkin County as defined by the guidelines in effect at time of sale of units. . 2. Applicant be required to pay for 5.25 low income employees indexed to guidelines in effect prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed development which at present would constitute a payment-in-lieu of $183,750. 3. Applicant be required to reduce the sq. footage of the four (4) three-bedroom free market units to contain 2,720 sq,. ft. and be required to develop the 'four two-bedroom affordable housing units to contain 1,000 net livable square feet each to met requirements of the R/MF zone district and the 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines for development of two bedroom moderate income affordable housing units. . . .. MEMORANDUM NOV 1 3 104,1 TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department (10 DATE: November 7, 1990 9 RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption Having Reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The 4,740 square feet of proposed open space is adequate pursuant to requirements in Chapter 24, Article 5-206 D. of Municipal Code. 2. The applicant is proposing 12 off-street parking spaces which is pursuant to the provisions of the settlement agreement between the City and Valley-Hi. The proposed spaces are to be provided in a subgrade garage. The Engineering Department requests a condition of approval that the driveway entry to this garage must not have a grade of more than 12% for a distance of 20 feet from the property line (A code amendment for this driveway slope is scheduled for first reading on November 26). 3. The applicant has proposed to grant an easement for the existing trail which parallels the river. The Engineering Department requires that this easement be 15 feet in width and recommends that the north boundary of this easement coincide with the 100 year floodplain boundary. 4. The Engineering Department confirms that, pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 7-1004 C. (4), this development will not be located in a natural hazard area. 5. Chapter 24, Article 7-1004 C. (5) requires that the proposed development Will not place an additional demand on public facilities and the Engineering Department is satisfied that this development will not. 6. The applicant will need to get an excavation permit from the Streets Department for the sidewalk, curb and gutter he has proposed to place and for any other work in the public right-of- way. 7. The Engineering Department recommends that applicant grant a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5 feet from the high water line along the bank of the river. 8. The applicant must agree to join a Special Improvemeht District if one is ever formed. .. 9. Code requires that the final plat be submitted prior to review by Council and this plat must be reviewed by the Engineering Department before this application is scheduled for review by Council. jg/1000EHOP cc: Chuck Roth CT 3 1.0: p Aspen Gonsolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537 October 30. 1990 Kim Johnson Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision Dear Kim: We have sufficient treatment capacity to serve this project at this time. however, the adjacent segment of the collection system that the project will tie into will need to be replaced by the applicant prior connection. This involves approximately 400' Of 12" vitrified clay line. We estimate the cost of this replacement to be approximately $20,000 which will be added to the applicant's connection fees. The applicant must provide an access right of way for a 30,000# vehicle for line maintenance. The below grade parking garage must be equipped with an oil and sand interceptor and must be designed in a manner that excludes surface water run-off. All on-site surface water run-off problems must be excluded from the sanitary sewer. Sincerely, .1/4.--7->4 Fau--,~f Bruce Matherly District Manager cc: Sunny Vann. Vann Associates A.J. Zabbia. Leonard Rice & Assoc. .. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 1October 18, 1990 f Sunny Vann Vann & Associates 230 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses Dear Sunny, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. As I mentioned in our phone conversation today, we would like 2 additional applications for referral purposes and 2 sets of full size drawings. An additional fee of $140.00 for Housing referral is also requested. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on Tuesday, December 4, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please note that it is your responsibility to post the subject property with a sign for the public hearing and mail notice to property owners within 300'. If you have any questions, please call Kim Johnson, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant CC: Rick Neiley /72/L-013~~ Aspen/Pitld.30*0&uning Office 130 sAait*imaiml~street aspe~1~;g~;Bg~~-81611 ./ MEMORANDUM .. TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Water Department Electric Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Marshal FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption DATE: October 18, 1990 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses. Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990. Thanks. 54~ Gs-r-Â» 44174 - - /-4/97/4 fÂ°Â» ~~pi__~ (fp toi /9l4 .. rem g Aspen/PitkADUNhilning Office 130 so~liwN?Imi3*~qtree t a spe Ii;E810Â§1~MI~'81611 MEMORANDUM .. TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Water Department Electric Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Marshal FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption DATE: October 18, 1990 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses. Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990. Thanks. 941-Â«11_L Cv*LkaÂ« G.*-EÂ» *U--2-_ h-Â© i=cul-uoj I 1 - --1 #-_, 03- OlA/Â«_ aA/14â€ž px<ol--u 'Li k'w~~-1-6-.-eg CASEL~ SUMMARY SHEET CiEy of Aspen DATE RECEIVED410/09/90.49 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: k >~ 1 9~ CP 2737-182-01-003 A60-90 STAFF MEMBER: 1< ~- PROJECT NAME: 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses.Subdiv./PUD/Stream Margin Review Project Address: Lots A. H.I.K&S, Blocks 25 & 26 Legal Address: 1000 East Hopkins, Aspen. Co. 0. APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust Applicant Address: c/o Richard Y. Neiley. 201 N.Mill,Aspen. CO 5-939.3 6 v n ny Va- n n REPRESENTATIVE: Vann Associates. Inc. -+-Â·Greâ‚¬~hen_aceenweed--4- .-M:El 1. S irizte 207 . Aspenr-Ge--83:&Â¥i- Representative Address/Phone: 230 East Hopkins, Aspen. Co (303) 925-6958 PAID: YES X NO AMOUNT: $820.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 8 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: <- P&Z Meeting Date 43~ 4/ * j O PUBLIC HEARING: ~E~) No t , VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: 42% No VESTED RIGHTS : ~ES ~ NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFg. is. V , City Attorney , Mtn. Bell School District 1.C j:ity Engineer V' Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas 3/ Housing Dir. /Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) â‚¬ / Aspen Water Â« Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ) 6/ City Electric Building Inspector : Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork ,/Other& CÂ».*C- Â£21& 40 Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center Q'UL ..1 C-\ DATE REFERRED: /0 // ke.,/ -10 INITIALS: }~~= W O. FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: L-.6 --' --h BÂ· 11 D 4 i City Atty k~ City Engineer _>C Zoning - Env. Health 74~e yt '0 )< Housing Other: (0. -L /, I/0 D FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: L.,0/Ll ~ L/~C g fu .C Mat~Â£ . 16123