HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain 1983 Coceptual 1983.53-83 file 3E
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
ENDORSING THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD REVISED EMPLOYEE HOUSING
PROPOSAL AND GRANTING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND
EXEMPTION FROM THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT
PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPOSAL'S -UTE CITY PLACE COMPONENT
Resolution No.
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation. Commerce Savings Associa-
tion, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as
the "Applicants ") have made the following employee housing commitment.
pursuant to Sections 24- 11.4(b)(4), 24- 11.6(b)(4), 20 -22(d) and
20 -23 (A) (2) of the Municipal Code, in consideration of the review
and approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD:
1. To provide nine (9) , two - bedroom units housing twenty (20)
employees in conjunction with the 700 South Galena residential
condominium project;
2. To provide housing for sixty (60) percent of the additional
employees, currently estimated at one hundred forty -five
(145). employees, generated by the Aspen Mountain Lodge
project; and
3. To provide housing for an estimated thirty (30) additional
employees displaced as a result of the demolition of existing
employee housing units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised their original proposal for
fulfilling their employee housing commitment so as to withdraw their
requests for rezoning to R -6 (RBO) conceptual PUD /subdivision approval,
and exemption from the City's growth management allotment procedures
for the fifty (50) unit, multi - family employee housing project to be
constructed on the Benedict /Larkin property; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' revised proposal for fulfilling their
employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain PUD consists of the
following components:
1. The acquisition and deed - restriction of thirty -two (32) of
the existing sixty -four (64) free - market. Airport Business
Center apartment units;
2. The acquisition and conversion of the existing forty -three
(4.3) unit Alpina Haus and fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
lodges to deed- restricted employee housing; and
3. The construction of a new twenty -two (22) unit, one hundred
(10.0) percent deed - restricted, multi - family residential
project to be known as Ute City Place.
Resolution No. 84-
Page Two
; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen /Pitkin Housing Authority did review and
conceptually endorse the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal
at their regular meeting held on April 19. 1984; and
WHEREAS, there are no specific review requirements set forth in
the Municipal Code for the conversion of existing, free - market,
residential units to deed- restricted employee housing units; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of. existing lodge units to deed - restricted
employee housing units is subject to the change -in -use provisions of
Section 24-11.2(j) of the Municipal Code provided, however, that the
change -in -use of a structure which has received individual historic
designation is exempt from complying with the City's growth management
allotment procedures pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(b); and
WHEREAS, the Copper Horse Lodge, located at 328 West Main
Street, is an individually designated historic structure; and
WHEREAS, the construction of a one hundred (100) percent deed-
restricted employee housing project is exempt from complying with the
City's growth management allotment procedures pursuant to Section 24-
11.2(f) of the
Municipal Code subject to the
special approval
of the
City Council,
based on the recommendation of
the Planning and
Zoning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the construction of a multi - family, residential project
is subject to the City's subdivision review requirements pursuant to
Section 20 -5 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did find, pursuant
to
Section 24- 11.2(j) of
the Municipal Code,
that the conversion of
the
forty -three (43) unit
Alpina Haus Lodge to
deed - restricted employee
housing, as set forth in the Applicants' revised ` employee housing
proposal, will result in negligible growth impacts on the Community,
and that said change -in -use is exempt from complying with the growth
management allotment. procedures of the Municipal Code, all as set
forth in the Commission's Resolution No. 84 -1, dated January 17,
1984; and
Resolution No. 84-
Page Three
WHEREAS, the Commission did. endorse the Applicants'. revised
proposal for fulfilling their employee housing commitment and did
recommend conceptual subdivision approval and growth management
exemption for the proposed Ute City Place project, all as set forth in
the Commission's Resolution No. 84 -6, dated June 5, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did consider the Commission's
endorsement of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal and
their recommendations with respect to the Applicants' request for
conceptual subdivision approval and growth management exemption at
regular meetings held on July 23rd, August 13th and August 27, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby endorse the Applicants' revised proposal for
fulfilling their employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain
PUD subject to the following conditions:
1. The submission, to the extent necessary, of revised employee
generation figures for the various components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD, said generation figures to be included in the
the Applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision submission.
2. The submission of additional documentation with respect to
the replacement of existing employee housing as required
pursuant to Sections 20 -2.2 and 20 -23 of the Municipal Code,
said documentation to be included in the Applicants' preli-
minary PUD /subdivision submission.
3. The deed - restriction of the forty -three (43) unit Alpina Haus
Lodge, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by the
Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of
twenty -five percent (25 %) of the employees average annual
income, or two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per person
per month, whichever is less. Rents shall include utilities
consistent with the City's employee housing guidelines.
4. The deed - restriction of the forty -three (43) unit Alpina Haus
Lodge to a maximum occupancy of forty -six (46) employees
with first priority given to employees of the Aspen Mountain
Lodge.
5. The deed - restriction of the . fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by the
Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of
twenty -five percent (25 %) of the employees average annual
income, or two hundred dollars ($200.00) per person per
month, whichever is less. Rents shall include utilities
consistent with the City's employee housing guidelines.
Resolution No. 84-
Page Four
6. The deed - restriction of the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge to a maximum occupancy of forty -three (43) employees
with first priority given to the employees of the Aspen
Mountain Lodge.
7. The submission of an acceptable proposal for the specific
building improvements to be undertaken with respect to the.
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodges, said proposal to be
included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD %subdivision
submission.
8. The retention of all existing on- site parking spaces at the
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges and the submission of
various alternatives for the mitigation of potential impacts
resulting from the non- conforming status of said parking,
to include the provision of a minimum of one (1) parking
space per two (2) employees housed, said alternatives to be
included in the. Applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision
submission.
9. The deed - restriction of thirty -two (32_) units at the Airport
Business Center Apartments, as proposed by the Applicants
and endorsed by the Housing Authority, to the City's low and
moderate rental and sales price guidelines as follows:
Low Income
9 Two - bedroom units
Moderate Income
8 One- bedroom units
13 Two- bedroom units
2 Three - bedroom units
Rental and sales prices shall be restricted to the low and
moderate price guidelines in effect at the time of the
execution of the deed - restriction. Rents shall include
utilities consistent with the City's employee housing
guidelines.
10. The deed- restriction of the thirty -two (32) units at the
Airport Business Center Apartments to a maximum occupancy of
sixty -nine (69) employees.
11. The provision of one (1) parking space per bedroom for the
thirty -two (32) units at the Airport Business..Center Apart-
ments and an employee shuttle service to augment non -to -low
operating times of the transit system, the details of said
shuttle service to be included in the Applicants' preliminary
PUD /subdivision submission.
12. The execution of all required deed- restrictions prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Aspen Mountain
Lodge.
Section 2
That it does hereby exempt, pursuant to Section 24-11.2(f) of
the Municipal Code, the proposed Ute City Place component of the
Applicants' revised employee housing proposal from complying with the
City's growth management allotment procedures subject to the following
conditions:
0 0
Resolution No. 84-
Page Five
1. The deed- restriction of the twenty -two (22) unit Ute City
Place project, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by
the Housing Authority, to the City's moderate income rental
and sales price guidelines in effect at the time of the
execution of the deed - restriction. Rents shall include
utilities consistent with the City's employee housing
guidelines.
2. The deed - restriction of the twenty -two (22) unit Ute City
Place project to a maximum occupancy of thirty -seven (37)
employees with first priority given to employees of the
Aspen Mountain Lodge.
Section 3
That it does hereby grant conceptual subdivision approval,
pursuant to Section 20 -10 of the Municipal Code, to the Ute City Place
component of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants' provision of an eight inch (8 ") water system
interconnect on Cleveland Street between Hyman and Cooper
Avenues and the reconfirmation of the agreement reached
between the Applicants and the Water Department with respect
to payment for the required interconnect.
2. The Applicants' re- evaluation, in conjunction with the City
Engineer, of the appropriateness of the proposed curb cut on
Cooper Avenue, including an evaluation of alternative access
points for the proposed Ute City Place project.
3. The Applicants' provision of a sidewalk the length of the
property along Cooper Avenue.
4. The Applicants' provision of an acceptable landscaping plan
designed so as to minimize the visual impact of the proposed
project.
5. The Applicants' compliance with the provisions of Ordinance
12, Series of 1983, with respect to the inclusion of fire-
places in the proposed project.
6. The Applicants' provision of a minimum of one (1) parking
space per two (2) employees housed.
7. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
subdivision application not specifically referred to above
being made a condition of this approval.
8. This approval being expressly conditioned upon the Applicants'
receipt of a Residental Bonus Overlay rezoning for the Ute
City Place site.
Date: , 1984.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
Resolution No. 84 -,
Page Six
•
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado
at a meeting held _ _ __ , 1984.
Kathryn S. Kocn, city u-L er K
I •
t
Ld
t
f Y' 1/
•
1"4 A,
- Lee
1 --
E
i
IAM 'L-. _ 2
_/_ /Swn�ls
TO:
THRU :
FROM:
•
RENORANDUN
Aspen City Council
Harold Schilling, City Manager
Sunny Vann, Planning Director
•
SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain PUD - Revised Employee Housing Proposal
DATE: August 27, 1984
SUMMARY
The Planning Office recommends approval of the attached Council
Resolution endorsing the Aspen Mountain PUD revised employee housing
proposal and granting conceptual subdivision approval and exemption
from the City's growth management allotment procedures for the pro-
posal's Ute City Place component.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council discussed the Applicants' revised employee housing
proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendations at their regular July 23rd and August 13th
meetings. With the exception of a question regarding available
parking at the Copper Morse and Alpina Haus, I believe the Council has
completed -it's review of the Applicants' proposal. At its August 11th
meeting, Council directed the Planning Office to provide additional
information with respect to the parking problem and to prepare a draft
resolution endorsing the Applicants' employee housing proposal and
granting conceptual subdivision approval and growth management exemption
for the proposal's Ute City Place component.
BACKGROUND
The conversion of existing lodge units (e.g. The Copper Horse and
Alpina Haus) to deed restricted employee housing units is subject to
the change -in -use provisions of Section 24- 11.2(j) of the Municipal
Code provided, however, that the change -in -use of a structure which
has .received individual historic designation is exempt from complying
With the City's growth management allotment procedures pursuant to
Section 24- 11.2(d).
The Planning and Zoning Commission, in its Resolution 84 -1, dated
January 17, 1984, found that the conversion of the 43 unit Alpina Haus
Lodge to deed restricted employee housing, as set forth in the Appli-
cants' revised employee housing proposal, would result in negligible
growth impacts on the Community, and that said change -in -use was
exempt from complying with the growth management allotment procedures
of the Municipal Code. As an individually designated historic struc-
ture, the Copper Horse Lodge is by definition exempt from these
provisions.
The Commission, however, was concerned about the non - conforming status
of the two lodges existing parking and, therefore, specifically
conditioned their endorsement of the Applicants' proposal, and their
granting of a change -in -use exemption to the Alpina Haus, on the
submission of various alternatives for the mitigation of potential
impacts resulting from the parking problem. These alternatives are
to be submitted by the Applicants as part of their preliminary PUD /sub-
division submission.
PROBLEN DISCUSSION
The Copper Horse and Alpina Haus Lodges are currently zoned L- and
' respectively. The parking requirement for each of these zone
districts is one space per bedroom for lodge uses. The Copper Horse
0
currently contains 14 lodge rooms, with occupancy ranging from one to
eight persons per room, while the Alpina Haus contains 40 lodge rooms,
two studio apartments, and one dorm apartment. Since the Code provides.
no guidance with respect to parking requirements for dormitory rooms,
one could reasonably argue that the parking requirement for the
existing Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodge operations is approximately
57 spaces. These two lodges currently provide 15 off - street spaces-
eleven at the Alpina Haus and four at the Copper Horse.
Upon conversion to deed restricted employee housing, parking require-
ments for these two properties is established by special review,
pursuant to Section 24- 4.1(c) of the Dluni_cipal Code. In conducting
such a review, tho Commission and Council shall consider the projected
traffic generation of the proposed development, site characteristics,
pedestrian access, walking distances to the downtown areas, and the
availability of public transportation. As pointed out above, the
Commission has requested additional information to be submitted at the
time of the Applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision submission. A
preliminary discussion of measures which the Applicants propose to
undertake to mitigate the short -fall in on -site parking for the Copper
Horse and Alpina Haus is contained in the attached letter from John
Doremus dated August 15, 1984.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council can concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation and defer consideration of this issue to preliminary
PUD /subdivision review or elect to addreso it at this time. In the
event you choose to address this issue nova, the attached resolution
will have to be amended to reflect any additional conditions you
might wish to attach.
RECOMMENDATION
While there may be additional parking related impacts resulting from
the deed restriction of the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges to
long -term employee housing, it should be pointed out that these
properties currently provide both short and long -term accommoda-
tions throughout different periods of the year. As a result, the
problems anticipated by P &Z and Council currently exist to varying
degrees at both locations`.
Given the fact that these two properties may soon be removed from the
lodge inventory thru conversion to higher, more profitable uses, and
the fact that these properties currently provide employee housing to
varying degrees, the Planning Office would like to see them legitimized
as part of the employee housing inventory. Pedestrian access, the
properties' proximity to the downtown areas, and the availability of
public transportation make these excellent choices for conversion to
deed restricted employee housing. While the potential for increased
automobile ) _._ _ ;_ as a result of the conversion is indeed a distinct
possibility, the Applicants' proposal to investigate potential mitiga-
tion techniques warrants, in our opinion, conceptual approval at this
time.
The Planning Office, therefore, recommends that the issue of parking
be deferred until preliminary PUD /subdivision consideration and that
the attached resolution be essentially adopted as drafted.
PROPOSED MOTION
Should you concur with the Planning Office's recommendation, the
appropriate motion would be as follows:
"I move to adopt Resolution No. , Series of 1984, as
submitted."
ENDORSING THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD REVISED EMPLOYEE HOUSING.
PROPOSAL AND.GRANTING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION.APPROVAL AND
EXEMPTION FROM THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT
PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPOSAL'S -UTE CITY PLACE COMPONENT
Resolution No.
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Associa-
tion, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as
the "Applicants ") have made the following employee housing commitment,
pursuant to Sections 24- 11.4(b)(4), 24- 11.6(b)(4), 20 -22(d) and
20 -23 (A) (2) of the Municipal Code, in consideration of the review
and approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD:
1. To provide nine (9), two- bedrocm units housing twenty (20)
employees in conjunction with the, 700 South Galena residential
condominium project;
2. To provide housing
for sixty percent
(60 %) of the
additional
employees, currently estimated at one hundred
forty -five
(145) employees,
generated by the
Aspen Mountain
Lodge
project; and
3. To provide housing
for an estimated
thirty (30)
additional
employees displaced
as a result of the
demolition
of existing
employee housing units
on the Aspen Mountain PUD
site.
; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised their original proposal for
fulfilling their employee housing commitment so as to withdraw their
requests for rezoning to R -6 (RBO) , conceptual PUD /subdivision approval,
and exemption from the Ci''s growth management allotment procedures
for the fifty (50) unit, multi - family employee housing project to be
constructed on the Benedict /Larkin property; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' revised proposal for fulfilling their
employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain PUD consists of the
following components:
1. The acquisition and deed- restricted of thirty -two (32) of
the existing sixty -four (64) free- market Airport Business
Center apartment units;
2. The acquisition and conversion of the existing forty -three
(.43) unit Alpina Haus and fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
lodges to deed - restricted employee housing; and
3. The construction of a new twenty -two (22) unit, one hundred
percent (100 %) deed- restricted, multi- family residential
project to be known as Ute City Place.
forth in the Commission's Resolution�w:o- -a�°-�► u u— -••
1984 ; and
e
Resolution No. 84-
Page Three
•
WHEREAS, the Commission did endorse the Applicants' revised
proposal for fulfilling their employee housing commitment and did
recommend conceptual subdivision approval and growth management
exemption for the proposed Ute City Place project, all as set forth in
the Commission's Resolution No. 84 -6, dated June 5, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did consider the Commission's
endorsement of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal and
their recommendations with respect to the Applicants' request for
conceptual subdivision approval and growth management exemption at
regular meetings held on July 23rd, August 13th and August 27, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby endorse the Applicants' revised proposal for
fulfilling their employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain
PUD subject to the following conditions.:
�. The submission, to the extent necessary, of revised employee
generation figures for the various components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD,_ said generation figures to be included in the
the Applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision submission.
---/2. The submission of additional documentation with respect. to
the replacement of existing employee housing as required
pursuant to Sections 20 -22 and 20 -23 of the Municipal Code,
said documentation to be included in the Applicants' preli-
/ - minary PUD /subdivision submission.
�3. The deed - restricted of the forty -three (43) unit Alpina Haus
Lodge, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by the
Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of
twenty -five percent (250) of the employees average annual
income, or two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per person
per month, whichever is less.. Rents shall include utilities
consistent with Huttsi- n- g— Au-th�r_ tL guide ».
4. The deed- restricted of tt`e` Vrty -three (43) unit Alpina Haus
Lodge to a maximum occupancy of forty-six ( 46) employees
with first priority given to employees of the Aspen Mountain
Lodge.
/5. The deed - restriction of the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by the
Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of
twenty -five percent (25u-) of the employees average annual
income, or two hundred dollars ($200.00) per person per
month, whichever is less. Rents shall include utilities
consistent with Hous- irrg- .Auth-or-ity--gu- i-ci�e-l- i-n-es.
Resolution No. 84 -,
Page Four
�/. The deed- restricted of the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge to a maximum occupancy of forty-three (43) employees
with first priority given to the employees of the Aspen
Mountain Lodge.
7. The submission of an acceptable < proposal for the specific
building improvements to be undertaken with respect to the
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodges, said proposal to be
included in the- Applicants' preliminary.PUD /subdivision
submission.
8. The retention of all existing on —site parking spaces at the
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodges, and the submission�of
various alternatives for the mitigation of potential impacts
resulting from the non - conforming status of said parking,
said alternatives to be included" in the Applicants' prelim-
! inary PUD /subdivision submission.
9. The deed - restriction of thirty -two (32) units at the Airport
Business Center Apartments, as proposed by the Applicants
and endorsed by the Housing Authority, to..the.City's low and
moderate rental and sales price guidelines as follows:
Low Income
9 Two- bedroom units
Moderate Income
8 One - bedroom units
13 Two- bedroom units
2 Three- bedroom units
Rental and sales prices shall be:,,, restricted to the low and
moderate price guidelines in effect at the time of the
execution of the deed - restriction. Rents shall include
utilities consistent with Atrt1fbrity guidelines.
s
J10. The deed- restriction dty -two (32) units at the
Airport Business Center apartments to a maximum-.occupancy of
sixty -nine (69) employees.
v 11. The provision of one (1) parking space per bedroom for the
thirty -two (32) units at the Airport Business Center Apart-
ments and an employee shuttle service to augment non -to -low
operating times of the transit system, the details of said
shuttle service to be included in the Applicants' preliminary
PUD /subdivision submission.
X12. The execution of all required deed - restrictions prior to the
issuance of a Certificate`of Occupancy for the Aspen Mountain
Lodge.
Section 2
That it
does hereby exempt,
pursuant
to Section 24- 11.2(f)
of
the Municipal
Code, the proposed
Ute City
Place component of
the
Applicants' revised employee housing proposal from complying with the
City's growth management allotment procedures subject to the following
conditions:
Resolution No. 84-
Page Five
1. The deed- restriction of the twenty -two (22) unit Ute City
Place project, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed.by
the Housing Authority, to the City's. moderate income rental
and sales price guidelines in effect at the time of the
execution of the deed - restriction. Rents shall include
utilities consistent with ut eity guidelines.
2. The dee.d'- restriction of the t �enty -two (22) unit Ute City
Place project to a maximum occupancy of thirty -seven (37)
employees with first priority given to employees of the
Aspen Mountain Lodge.
Section 3
That it does hereby grant conceptual subdivision approval,
pursuant to Section. 20 -10 of the Municipal Code, to the Ute City Place
-component of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants' Cp'ovisio.h of an eight inch (8 ") water system
interconnect on Cleveland Street between Hyman and Cooper
Avenues and the reconfirmation of the agreement reached
between the Applicants and the Water Department with respect
to payment for the required interconnect.
2. The Applicants' re- evaluation, in conjunction with the City
Engineer, of the appropriateness of the proposed curb cut on
Cooper Avenue, including an evaluation of alternative access
QR points for the proposed Ute City Place project.
3. The Applicants' provision of a sidewalk' he length of the
Ny `
property along Cooper Avenue. /
4. The Applicants' provision of an acceptabl landscaping plan
designed so as to minimize the visual impa t of thej;proposed.
project. \`
5. The Applicants' compliance with the provisions of Ordinance
.12, Series of 1983, with respect to the inclusion of fire-
0, places in the proposed project.
6. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
subdivision application not specifically referred to above
being made a condition of this recommendation of approval.
7. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary sub-
division approval.
Date: 1984. a
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted:.: by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado
at a meeting held 1984.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
RIK
k�g UVi.L_
August 15, 1984 !r
A I AUG 1 51984
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
130 South-Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81.611
Dear Sunny,
This letters in response to City Council review of the Aspen..
Mountain Project's employee housing proposal. Co, uncil had some
questions regarding the parking for the Copper Horse and Alpina
Haus conversions. They asked that we determine the parking
requirements and also respond as to how we intend to handle the
shortfall.
My investigation of the Code indicates that the off- street .
parking requirements "shall be established by special review of
the City Council." See Article IV, Section 24- 4.1(c)t.
Therefore, my conclusion is that there is no specific requirement
for dormitory employee housing per se, but rather is determined
by the Council. In making a determination by review, the Code
goes on to say the projected traffic.generation of the proposed
development, site characteristics,.pedestrian access, walking
distance to downtown and the availability of public transporta-
tion shall be considered. See Article IV, Section 24 -4.6.
With respect to the measures we expect to augment to mitigate any
shortfall of on -site parking for these two existing properties,
we offer the following.:
1) A parking survey was conducted by TDA in February of the
current year which determined that current employees of
the lodges and condominiums in the central lodging
district travel to work in the following manner, 39%
drivd, 42% walk, and 19% take the bus. This survey, it
should be noted, did not take into account the location
of the employee hqusing.
2) The two projects in question were selected partly for
their close proximity to the hotel and the center of town
as well as for the type of employees which would be
housed. The grade of employees most suitable for these
accommodations (lower incom(g, blue collar, seasonal) are
less likely to need, or desire a vehicle, especially
considering location.
Mr. Sunny Vann
August 15, 1984
Page Two
3) Both projects have some off - street parking, i.e.. Alpina
Haus - 11, and Copper Horse - 4, and the Applicant has
made the commitment to retain these spaces. Both are
within walking distance of the work place as well as'•the
business core and are one block or less from existing
public transit.
4) During -che Conceptual approval process, the Applicant
revised its parking plan for the hotel and.in the
process, reserved 10 underground parking spaces exclu-
sively for employees. In addition, in the process of
revising Ute City Place as employee housing for the Aspen
Mountain Project, we were able to add an extra space over
and above the normal residential requirements for that
project.
5) The Applicant has committed to at least 4 courtesy vans
for the hotel. These vans will be made available on the
basis of need to shuttle employees at major shift changes
to their housing. Further, transit passes, where
required, will be provided for any employees wishing to
use transit for commuting to work.
6) A cursory study of the Copper Horse site indicates that
.ample on- street parking exists at all times of the year
on Main Street, Second, Third and Hallam Streets in the
immediate vicinity. Also, the Applicant has committed
to a reduction in the current maximum occupancy of the
Copper Horse by 10 pillows, or a 20% reduction over its
_.present use.
7) Finally, the Applicant will aggressively discourage
employees having vehicles. management policies will be
aimed at encouraging walking, biking and transit use.
Should you wish to discuss this issue further, please let me
know.
rely,
1 Johh Doremus
JD:cck
608 east hyman avenue aspen, Colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925 -6866
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING -AND ZONING COMMISSION
ENDORSING A REQUEST BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A'
.VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICABLE HEIGHT'REQUIREMENT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE UTE CITY PLACE EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT
Resolution No. 8
(S rips of 1984)
e
WHEREAS; in 1981, C.M. Clark and Alexander Raspar received a
residential GMP allocation and related. land use approvals for' the
construction of a twenty -two (22) unit mixed free- market /employee
housing project known as Ute City Place; and
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants ") have proposed to acquire and convert the Ute City Place
project to a_one hundred (100) percent deed - restricted employee housing
:project in parti.al fulfillment of their employee housing commitment
for the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commission ") has endorsed the Applicants' proposal
and has forwarded its recommendations to the Aspen City Council,
all as set forth in Resolution No. 6,. Series of 1984; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the review and approval of the original
Ute City Place project, the Commission did recommend and the City
Council did amend the City's land use regulations so as to reduce
the height limitation of the underlying zone district in which the.
:project is located from twenty -eight feet (28') to twenty -five feet.
(25t); and
-WHEREAS, the Applicants have indicated that it is impossible
to lower the height of the original Ute City Place building without
reducing the number of units contained therein; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied, pursuant to Section 2-
22 of the Municipal Code, for a variance from the height limitation
of the underlying zone district; and
WHEREAS, C. M. Clark and Alexander Raspar are prepared to `proceed
with the construction of the original Ute City Place project in the
event that the proposed conversion does not receive Council approval..
or the requested variance is denied by the Board of Adjustment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission i
�..._ raj. •
UTE CITY PLACE
VARIANCE REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATIONS
FOR VARIANCE
Variance Request. Commerce Realty Corporation, developer of the.
Aspen Mountain Hotel, wishes to convert the Ute City Place proj-
ect into an employee housing project containing twenty -two
employee housing rental or sale units to meet part of the Hotel's
employee housing requirement..
A variance is requested to permit the building height of the
Ute City Place to exceed the present 25 foot height limitation.
When the previous development application for Ute City.Place was.
approved, the project complied with the height limit in the zone
district of 28 feet. Since that approval was granted, the height
limit has been reduced to 25 feet. It is impossible to lower the
building height without reducing the number of units. if the
variance is granted the development will provide 22 employee
housing.rental'or sale units on five City lots as part of the
Aspen Mountain PUD employee housing requirement, with 1000 of the
building being devoted to empoloyee housing. If the variance is
denied, the current owners will proceed with the development of
8 free market units and 14 employee units.
Justifications for Variance. In 1981, the present owners of the
real property, C. M. Clark and Alexander Kaspar, received a resi-
dential GMP allocation for a proposal to construct 8 free market
units* and 14 employee units on the property. Subsequent to the
granting of the allocation, the City granted conceptual and pre-
liminary subdivision plat approval, preliminary exemption from
GMP competition for the employee units and first reading approval
of an ordinance to rezone the property from R /MF to R /MF /RBO
thereby permitting the developer to receive the benefits of the
Residential Bonus Overlay (an increase in the number of employee
units).
Later in 1981, the City imposed a moratorium on projects in
the R /MF zone district while considering zoning code amendments
for the district. In September, 1981, however, the City granted
Ute City Place an exemption from the moratorium and allowed the
project, as originally proposed, to proceed with final develop-
ment reviews. Final approvals, including approval of the Resi-
dential Bonus Overlay, were granted by the City on September 28,
1981.
Following final approvals, the previous applicants prepared
and submitted for building permit review, plans and specifica-
tions for the proposal. Because of some apparent confusion and
miscommunication during the review process, however, a building
permit was not obtained within the time frame specified in the
growth.management regulations.
In February, 1984, the previous applicants requested and
were granted by the City an additional period of 180 days to
)btain a building permit from the Building Department. That
xtension terminates August 7, 1984. Mr. Clark and Mr. Kasper
re preparing to proceed with the previously approved project and
instruct the 8 free market units and 14 employee units in the
,ent that this revised application does not receive City
proval, including the variance sought by this application. - We
lieve it to be in the best interests of the City to vary the
�_ght limitation in order to permit the construction of the
,loyee units.
For comparison purposes, in addition to the conversion-of
8 free - market units included in the previously approved proj-
to employee unit status, this application includes a
ction in floor area from approximately 20,417 square feet to
. V R E 19
June 29, 84
.. • D a *ASE 110
APPELLANT PCommerce Realt *y• Corp*. i►ODRE c/o ,Holland && Hart
••' ::,,, jl' 81 E
�..•. --_. PHO, {E 925 -3476
C. M. Clark & 1
.. XiO..D RE ..�S 300 W. Bleeker, St•`
Alexander Kaspar hspen, Colorado 81611
•" LEfC /1TION OF PAUPERTY Lots C, D, E, F, and G, Block 118,. City ,of Aspen
-
909'923 East Cooper St., Aspen, Colorado
�:• _ St:eet- & Nun. ber of Subdivision alk & Lot
° € UUC4in ± P ern it Application and
prints or any other pertinent
idata must accompany this. application, and-will be made ..part of
Ci►SE r {O , ;
T RE BOA ; -D W1 LL RETURN THIS- APPLIC"TION IF IT ODES -NOT C0NTAIN
ALE THE FACTS Ii{ QULSTI0U
DEMI P T I0' L. PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHO"ING JUSTIFICATIONS): • : • =
'Please, refer to.the.Variance�Request and -
l Justifications for. Variance•-ati--ached••hereto v • _
_
you he :represented by counsel ? Yes X No
SIGNED:
Appellant -for Commerce Realty Corp
RC71:SIONIS OF THE ZONING ORDI�" {ANNE REQUIRINIG THE BUILDING `INSPECTOR g0R?v!nRD TUTS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJOS H -VENT AND .REASON
ti0
GRANTING: .
- C
-5 t a i. U.S 40
Signed
PERMIT REJECTED, DALE DECISION, � DATE
a
AFP' ICA?IDN FUED D DATE IF HEARING
tiAILLn - SECRETARY .
RESOLUTION OF,THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ENDORSING A REQUEST BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A'
VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICABLE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE UTE.CITY /PLACE EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT
Resolution No.
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, in .1981, C.M. Clark and Alexander Kaspar received a
residential GMP allocation and related land use approvals for the
construction of a twenty -two (22) unit mixed free - market /employee
housing project known as Ute City Place; and
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants ") have proposed to acquire and convert the Ute City Place,
project to a one hundred (100) percent deed - restricted employee housing.
project in partial fulfillment of their employee housing commitment
for the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commission ") has endorsed the Applicants' proposal
and has forwarded its recommendations to the Aspen City Council,
all as set forth in Resolution No. 6, Series of 1984; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the review and approval of the original
Ute City Place project, the Commission did recommend and the City
Council did amend the City's land use regulations so as to reduce
the height limitation of the underlying zone district in which the
project is located from twenty -eight feet (281) to twenty -five feet
(25!); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have indicated that it is impossible
to lower the height of the original Ute City Place building without
reducing the number of units contained therein; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied, pursuant to Section 2-
22 of the Municipal Code, for a variance from the height limitation
of the underlying zone district; and
WHEREAS, C. M. Clark and Alexander Kaspar are prepared to proceed
with the construction of the original Ute City Place project in the
event that the proposed conversion does not receive Council approval
or the requested variance is denied by the Board of Adjustment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. 84-
Page 2
of the
City of ,Aspen,
Colorado, that it does hereby
endorse
the Appli=
cants'
request to the
Board of Adjustment for a
variance
from the
height
limitation of
the underlying zone district
for the
following
reasons:
1. The conversion of a mixed free - market /employee housing
project to one hundred (100) percent deed - restricted employee
housing is in the best interests of the City.
2. The conversion of the previously approved project will
result in a reduction in the footprint and overall floor
area of the building . and an increase in open space, both
of which are in the best interest of the neighborhood.
3. The reduction in the height limitation of the underlying
zone district occurred subsequent to the approval of the
original project.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City-of
Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on July 17, 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
C014MI SS ION
BY
Perry Harvey, Chairman
ATTEST:
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
MM ® i, :M.
UTE CITY PLACE
LOTS C, D, E, F, & G BLOCK 118 CITY OF ASPEN
A CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, REQUEST FOR RBO REZONING
AND EXEMPTION FROM GMP FOR A 100% EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT AND
SPECIAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION OF A REDUCTION IN OPEN SPACE
June 22, 1984
Applicants: Commerce Realty Corporation
111 Soledad, Suite 1350.
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(512 ) 2 71 -3062
Mr. Alan R. Novak
Tregaron Corporation
1731 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite #300
Washington, D.C. 20009
(20 2 ) 462 -0811
Mr. Robert Callaway
Robert Callaway Corporation
4040 Broadway, Suite #501
San Antonio, Texas 78209
(512) 822 -0200
Architect: Jack M. Walls Architects
P. O. Box 29
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303 ) 925 -3218
Application Prepared By: John Doremus
Joseph Wells
Doremus & Company
608 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -6866
INTRODUCTION TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This Conceptual Subdivision Submission and Request for Applica-
tion of a Residential Bonus Overlay District is submitted for
Lots C,D,E,F and G in Block 118, City of Aspen. The development
will provide twenty -two employee housing rental or sale units as
part of the Aspen Mountain PUD's employee housing requirement,
with 100% of the building devoted to employee housing.
The property is particularly well- suited for employee housing
development because of its proximity to the Lodge site and the
Commercial Core, and is adequately serviced by existing city
utilities and services._ Vehicular travel impacts will be kept to
a minimum as a result of the prime location of this site.
By virtue of its prior approval of the project, the City has
already recognized that the proposal is a highly suitable solu-
tion to a portion of the City's employee housing needs.
SUMMARY OF PRIOR CITY ACTIONS REGARDING UTE CITY PLACE
In 1981, C. M. Clark and Alexander Kaspar received a residential
GMP allocation for a proposal to construct 8 free market units
and 14 employee units on the Cooper Street site. Subsequent to
the granting of the allocation, the City granted conceptual and
preliminary subdivision plat approval, preliminary exemption from
GMP competition for the employee units and first reading approval
of an ordinance to rezone its proposed location from R /MF to
R /MF /RBO.
Later in 1981, the City imposed a moratorium on projects in the
R /MF zone district while considering zoning code amendments for
the district. In September 1981, however, the City granted Ute
Nam m m m ® M M
City Place an exemption from the moratorium and allowed the pro-
ject as originally proposed to proceed with final development
reviews. Final approvals, including approval of the Residential
Bonus Overlay, were granted by the City on September 28, 1981.
Following final approvals, the previous applicants prepared and
submitted for building permit review, plans and specifications
for the proposal. Because of some apparent confusion and mis-
communication during the review process, however, a building
permit was not obtained within the time frame specified in the
growth management regulations.
In February, 1984 the previous applicants requested and were
granted by the City an additional period of 180 days to obtain
a building permit from the Building Department. That extension
terminates August 7, 1984. Mr. Clark and Mr. Kaspar are prepar-
ing to proceed with the previously approved project in the event
that this revised application does not receive City approval.
For comparison purposes, in addition to the conversion of the 8
free - market units included in the previously approved project,
this application includes a reduction in floor area from approxi-
mately 20,417 sq. ft. to 16,845 sq.ft. (17.5 %). Site open space
has been increased from approximately 2,648 sq.ft. (18 %) to 3,422
sq.ft. (23%). Based on the current method of calculating FAR,
the FAR of the previous proposal was 1.34 as compared to 1.10
under the new proposal. Height remains at 28 feet, the same as
under the previously approved project.
�M M ® M m M
CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS
20- 10(b)(1) Drawings submitted with this application include a
vicinity map illustrating the location of the project. The site
lies generally in the center of a relatively large area of R /MF
zoning in east Aspen. Some enclaves of L -3 zoning have been
applied in this area, including one immediately south of the Ute
City Place site, covering the site of the Brass Bed in Block 118.
The applicant does not own or have under option any parcels
adjacent to the 15,000 square foot site included under this
submittal.
20- 10(b)(2) The attached site plan illustrates proposed site
utilization. The revised site plan is essentially the same as
the previously approved plan with the exception of a reduction in
the footprint along the south side of the building, and a
resultant increase in open space. The site is generally flat
with very little existing vegetation. The existing street system
will remain unchanged except for the new curb cut off of Cooper
Street onto the site.
20- 10(b)(3) Tabulation of Data
Density
Since all of the dwelling units are deed restricted within the
terms of Section 24- 11.4(b)(4), the minimum required lot area per
dwelling unit as outlined in Section 24- 10.5(b)(5) is:
1.
Studio Unit ---------- -
- - - -- 500
square
feet
of
land
2.
One Bedroom Unit ----- -
- - - -- 625
square
feet
of
land
3.
Two Bedroom Unit ----- -
- - - -- 1,050
square
feet
of
land
® M M MOM==
Based on the breakdown of the number and types of units, the land
required by this proposal is:
6 Studio Units @
500
S.F. =
3,000
Square
Feet
12 1 Bedroom Units
@
625 S.F. =
7,500
Square
Feet
4 2 Bedroom Units
@
1,050 S.F. =
4,200
Square
Feet
= 3,916
S.F.
TOTAL LAND AREA
REQUIRED =
14,700
Square
Feet
The above total of 14,700 S.F.
Accessory
is less than
the site acreage of
15,000 S.F.
TOTAL FLOOR AREA
16,845
S.F.
External Floor Area Ratio
The maximum external floor area permitted under Section
24- 10.5(g)(1) is 1.25:1. The total external floor area permitted
and proposed is as follows:
SITE AREA = 15,000 Square Feet
MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA = 15,000 S.F.xl.25 FAR = 18,750 S.F.
Proposed Floor
Area
1,202
S.F.
2 1 Bedrm. 673 S.F.
6 Studios
@ 475 S.F.
(Avg.)
= 21852
S.F.
12 1- Bedrooms
@ 762 S.F.
(Avg.)
= 9,142
S.F.
4 2- Bedrooms
@ 979 S.F.
(Avg. )
= 3,916
S.F.
Subtotal Residential
S.F.
= 15,910
S.F.
Above -Grade
Accessory
Space
TOTAL FLOOR AREA
16,845
S.F.
The total of 16,845
square feet proposed is less than the allowed
maximimum of 18,750
square feet.
Proposed Mix by Level
GARDEN LEVEL
Number Type Size Bedrooms Total
2 1 Bedrm. 601 S.F.
2
1,202
S.F.
2 1 Bedrm. 673 S.F.
2
1,346
S.F.
2 1 Bedrm. 685 S.F.
2
1,370
S.F.
6
6
3,918
S.F.
jack m. walls architect aspen, Colorado
P.O. box 29 / zip oocls BlB11 / plaOn2 303 -926 -3218
May 2, 1984
UTE CITY PLACE REVISED APARTMENT FLOOR AREAS
ORIGINAL BLDG.
GARDEN LEVEL - - - - -- 4 -- 1 Bedrm. Apts.
E�ZPLOYEE UNITS @ 818.4 S.F.ea.
2 - 1 Bedrm. Apts.
@ 633.6 S.F.ea.
FIRST FLOOR - - - - - -- 2 - 2 Bedrm. Apts.
EMPLOYEE UNITS @1135.2 S.F.ea.
4 - Studio Apts.
@ 567.6 S.F.ea.
SECOND/THIRD - - - - - -- 2 - Studio Apts.
FLOOR EMPLOYEE UNITS @ 648 S.F.ea.
6 - 1 Bedrm. Apts.
@ 1095.6 S.F.ea.
2 - 2 Bedrm. Apts.
@ 1316.2 S.F.ea.
REVISED BLDG.
2 - 1 Bedrm. Apts.
@ 684.8-S.F.ea.
.2 - 1 Bedrm. Apts.
@ 672.9 S.F.ea.
2 - 1 Bedrm. Apts.
@601.12 S.F.ea.
2 - 2 Bedrm. Apts.
@ 917.3 S.F.ea.
4 - Studio Apts.
@ 452.7 S.F.ea.
2 - Studio Apts.
@
519.7
S.F.ea.
4 - 1
Bedrm.
Apts.
@
866.6
S.F.ea.
2 - 1
Bedrm.
Apts
@
878.04
S.F.ea.
2 - 2
Bedrm.
Apts.
@
1040.9
S.F.ea.
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 199583.60 S.F. 15,906.74 S.F.
APARTMENTS ONLY
TOTAL ABOVE GRADE BUILDING
FLOOR AREA AS PER G.M.P.
APPLICATION IN 1980 ---------------------- - - - - -- 15,876.5 S.F.
REVISED ABOVE GRADE BUILDING
FLOOR AREA ------------------------------- - - - - -- 12,924.5 S.F.
m
a
!/ 7z-!:-" L!7Y P44e- ,6"
c�2 ob , 4jP7.S.
:5 724v to AoP �,
,Y ,e l
� 5 cs SWIV5
,d/ /S°e�b
`rt
4oiz5 )1-S7 *'es
774-77W— e23-
°7f . /4 (o 6
c;76 0 7 A o0o'
. .. - - — .. -- — -- ,—; fit—; •— _". -.—'
FIRST LEVEL
Number Type Size Bedrooms Total _
4 Studios 453 S.F. 4 1,812 S.F.
2 2 Bedrm. 917 S.F. 4 1 ,834 S .F .
6 8 3,646 S.F.
SECOND
AND THIRD
LEVELS
Number
Type
Size
Bedrooms
Total _
2
Studios
520 S.F.
2
1,040
S.F.
4
1 Bedrm.
867 S.F.
4
3,468
S.F.
2
1 Bedrm.
878 S.F.
2
1,756
S.F.
2
2 Bedrm.
1,041 S.F.
4
2,082
S.F.
10
12
8,346
S.F.
Total:22
26
15,919
S.F.
Project Population
6 Studios @ 1.25 employees /unit = 7 employees
12 1- Bedroom Units @ 1.75 employees /unit = 21 employees
4 2- Bedroom Units @ 2.25 employees /unit = 9 employees
37 employees
REQUEST FOR RBO REZONING AND SPECIAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION OF A
REDUCTION IN OPEN SPACE
The applicants hereby request consideration by the City of RBO
Overlay designation for the site. We believe the project is in
full compliance with the requirements of Section 24 -10,
Residential Bonus Overlay District with two exceptions. The two
exceptions result from changes in the Area and Bulk requirements
that have been made subsequent to the approval of the original
project as follows:
1. Open Space
At the time the previous application was approved, there was
no open space requirement in the R /MF zone district.
Subsequent to those approvals, a requirement of 350 open
space has been adopted. The open space provided in this
project is 3,422 square feet, or 23 %. While below the
current requirement, the commitment represents an. increase
of 5% in the previously approved open space commitment.
2. Height
When the previous application was approved the project
complied with the height limit in the zone district of 28
feet. Since that approval was granted the height limit was
reduced to 25 feet. Since it is impossible to lower the
building height further without reducing the number of
units, the applicant intends to request a variance from the
height limit from the Board of Adjustment.
REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM GMP FOR A 100% EMPLOYEE HOUSING
PROJECT
In compliance with Section 24 -11.2, the applicants hereby request
review by the City of a request for exemption from the develop-
ment allotment procedures for the Ute City Place project.
Information contained elsewhere in this submittal is adequate to
allow the City to determine compliance with the provisions of
Section 24 -11.2 (f).
EMPLOYEE HOUSING RESTRICTIONS
Ute City Place is a 22 unit project of new construction. The
project is located on 5 city lots at 909 -923 East Cooper Street
directly in town. The project was awarded a 1981 GMP allocation
but has not been constructed because of reasons explained
MM ®® m M M m mil � Q MM M
elsewhere. The original project included 8 free - market units and
14 deed - restricted units. The Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD proposed
to purchase the property and deed- restrict all.22 units to the
price guidelines for employee housing.
To comply with the Housing Authority's affordability guidelines
for unit sizes, the revised 100% deed - restricted project would
reduce the size of the original project from 20,400 sf. to 16,850
sf. This would make the already approved project even more
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Parking for the.
revised project would be 28 cars, in excess of 1 car per bedroom.
ADJACENT LAND USES
Adjacent properties to the site are in residental use. It is
bordered by a six unit condominium project on the west, a twenty
unit condominium project on the south and a triplex and
commercial project on the east. The proposed land uses support
the City's zoning and general plan objectives of placing density
where facilities are within easy walking distance,'or access by
public transit, of required services.
TRANSPORTATION
Cooper Street functions as a major collector street for the east
end of Aspen, and is also the route for the Mountain Valley and
Silverking routes for the Aspen free shuttle bus system. Service
for both of these routes operates on a 20 minute cycle. Roads in
the area have adequate capacity, and are of adequate condition,
to handle the additional travel demand that will be realized from
this development.
0 . . 0
Several aspects of this proposed project will mitigate private
vehicular travel requirements. The site is within easy walking
distance of all essential neighborhood commercial and retail
services. It is one and one -half blocks, or roughly 350 feet,
from City Market and Durant Mall neighborhood center. It is
roughly 1500 feet from the central business district, where
expanded commercial facilities are also available.
Twenty -eight on -site parking spaces are provided which more than
adequately meets the City Code requirements. Access to the
parking is provided by way of the alley to the rear of the site,
and an 18 foot wide curb cut off of Cooper Street.
FIRE PROTECTION AND POLICE PROTECTION
The project is located approximately seven blocks from the fire
station and the existing police facilities are within easy access
to the site.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the project will receive careful consideration.
Existing trees on the site will be preserved and protected. If
significant trees are located in an area where the building is to
be located, and if the size of the trees permit, they will be
relocated. Additional landscaping will be provided as outlined
below. The areas to be landscaped include the area fronting on
Cooper Street and the below -grade garden court areas.
1. The area between the north property line and the new side-
walk will be planted with a combination of aspen and
evergreen trees. Trees and shrubs will be planted at the
north end of the parking area to partly screen the parking
from Cooper Street. The remaining area will be sodded with
grass.
2. The area between the sidewalk and the proposed curb line on
Cooper Street will be planted with grass sod.
3. The below -grade garden courts will be landscaped with a
combination of aspen trees, shrubs and grass sod Sidewalks
will be installed to provide access to each unit.
CONDITIONS OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR PRIOR APPLICATION
The following six conditions were imposed on the previous
applicant in connection with conceptual subdivision approval:
1. The applicants' agreeing to provide an eight inch water
system interconnect on Cleveland between Hyman and Cooper by
working out an equitable arrangement with the Water
Department prior to review for preliminary plat.
2. The applicants' meeting the conditions of the City .Engineer
concerning the variance for a curb cut on Cooper Street.
3. The applicants' providing a sidewalk the length of the
property along Cooper Street.
4. The applicants' installing fireplaces designed with energy
conservation in mind and limiting the number of
,installations to minimize air pollution impacts.
5. The applicants' giving further consideration to landscaping,
massing and bulk and their relationship to the request for
Residential Bonus Overlay at the preliminary plat stage of
the review process.
6. Inspection of the site by the Building Inspector to assess
the movability of the historic structure and to report to
the Planning Office as to the results of that visit.
Our commitments regarding these conditions are as follows:
Condition 1 - The applicant will arrive at an equitable arrange-
ment with the.Water Department regarding the interconnect prior
to preliminary plat application.
Condition 2 - The applicant agrees to comply with this condition.
Condition 3 - The sidewalk will be constructed.
Condition 4 - The applicant will comply with City regulations
adopted since the previous approval was granted.
Condition 5 - This condition will receive further consideration
and elaboration in the preliminary subdivision application.
Condition 6 - Herb Paddock, former Building Inspector, inspected
the residence, found that,the structure was impossible to move
and that in fact if left at its location, it should be abated as
a dangerous building. The previous applicant applied for and
received a demolition permit and demolished the structure.
o,r ®r �r ® r rr ® r r — rr r �■r r �r
D
N
13
m
Z
`—t. I
N
0
c
z
.4
z
Y1�41N +000DV PN�4/ N �
<no*zngo0„00030 a>
y000S<CmA__DOI. C 10
;1- ai0r^aam <� >mTT
co 2Or� >wxciy<z
z'n; mxZ<» Os;
a�nr Occara »xr
yAmr Tmmz - mirmmr
n m c
m = >
z T N
T a > >
a z
N
V
M
4
n
m
z
m
a
M
-i
T
2
-V/•
2
>
m
N
I
f _ _ _ - SEVENTH
❑Ia ❑aa
' SIXTH
DIF 1-112.0
' H >
aIC� ❑zD
FOURTH
F1g;-E1 [I F] 1-1
THIRD
❑!ama2❑ a
F mDrtl a
m
CASTLE
DF
GARM ISCH '
aaaa11
A:
[7F]
I MC
WAG D
PARK K F11
� �
D 'Ell
GAL NA
OCT Poll H NT R
1
.�° 0_ n n n n 1F
I'M a
11 1 Li
.4
=o
O O
m C
Z
m>
zz
m<
it'll <
REE
I,-- Qm\
0
0
J
H
I ➢ s
G
2
2
>
r
r
c
r
x
m
Ic
m
a
C
n t* /
T
S N I
z
I '
z /
1
H �
c
m
1
/
/
/a
yob ,S
' o 4
r
ry
0�
n0
DL.
-� m
_0
0�
Z
® = mm ® M = = MM so= r
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
File No. A84 -.2.08
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE
Aspen Title Company, Ltd., hereby certifies that title to:
Lots C, D, E, F and G
Block 118
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF .ASPEN
Pitkin County, Colorado
is vested in:
C. M. CLARK (as to Lots C and D)
and
ALEXANDER.G. KASPAR (as to Lots E, F and G)
and that the above described property is subject to the following:
Any and all mineral rights as described in instruments recorded in
Book 93 atPage 83, in Book 93 at Page 92, in Book 93 at Page 178,
in Book 98 at Page 512, in Book 105 at Page 129, in Book 105 at Page 463
and in Book 106 at Page 482.
Terms and conditions of Subdivision Agreement between the City of Aspen
and C. M. Clark and Alexander G. Kaspar recorded February 23, 1982
in Book 422 at Page 514 and Plat of "Ute City Place, a Condominium,
Final Plat" recorded in conjunction therewith in Plat Book 12 at
Pages 74 through 76.
Deed of Trust from Alexander G. Kaspar to the Public Trustee of
Pitkin County, Colorado for the use of Mollie H. Maurin, Kathryn Sincovec,
Frances Nelson, Josephine Arbaney, Helen Zordel and Lorraine Grange,
to secure $40,625.00, dated October 17, 1979 and recorded October 17,
1979 in Book 377 at Page 742, Reception No. 218855. (as to Lots E, F, and G)
Deed of Trust from Alexander G. Kaspar and C. M. Clark to the Public
Trustee of Pitkin.County, Colorado for the use of The First National
Bank of Midland, Texas, to secure $899,000.00,ydated June 23, 1983 and
recorded June 23, 1983 in Book 447 at Page 560,' Reception No. 251176.
(as to Lots C, D, E, F and G)
Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any and all tax sales that
have not been properly redeemed or cancelled.
NOTE: Although we believe the facts stated are true, this certificate is not
to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guarantee
of title, and it is .understood and agreed that the liability of Aspen Title
Company, Ltd. is limited to the amount of the fee charged hereunder.
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
B
Grant Crenshaw
June 20, 1984 at 8:00 A. M.
FEE: $100.00
ASPEN TITLE CO:IPANY, LTD
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
File No. A84 -208
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE
Aspen Title Company, Ltd., hereby certifies that title to:
Lots C, D, E, F and_G
Block 118
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Pitkin County, Colorado
is vested in:
C. M. CLARK (as to Lots C and D)
and
ALEXANDER G. KASPAR (as to Lots E, F and G)
and that the above described property is subject to the following:
Any and all mineral rights as described in instruments recorded in
Book 93 atPage 83, in Book 93 at Page 92, in Book 93 at Page 178,
in Book 98 at Page 512, in Book 105 at Page 129, in Book 105 at: Page 463
and in Book 106 at Page 482.
Terms and conditions of Subdivision Agreement- between the City of Aspen
and C. M. Clark and Alexander G. Kaspar recorded February 23, 1982
in Book 422 at Page 514 and Plat of "Ute City Place, a Condominium,
Final Plat" recorded in conjunction.therewith in Plat Book 12 at
Pages 74 through 76.
Deed of Trust from Alexander G. Kaspar to the Public 'Trustee of
Pitkin County, Colorado for the use of Mollie H. Maurin, Kathryn Sincovec,
Frances Nelson, Josephine Arbaney, Helen Zordel and Lorraine Grange,
to secure $40,625.00, dated October 17, 1979 and recorded October 17,
1979 in Book 377 at Page 742, Reception No. 218855. (as to Lots E, F, and G)
Deed of Trust from Alexander G. Kaspar and C. M. Clark to the Public
Trustee of Pitkin County6 Colorado for the use of The First National
Bank of Midland, Texas, to secure $899,000.00, dated June 23, 1983 and
recorded June 23, 1983 in Book 447 at Page 560, Reception No. 251176.
(as to Lots C, D, E, F and G)
Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any and all tax sales that
have not been properly redeemed or cancelled.
NOTE: Although we believe the facts stated are true, this certificate is not
to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guarantee
of title, and it is understood and agreed that the liability of Aspen Title
Company, Ltd. is limited to the amount of the fee charged hereunder.
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
Grant Crenshaw
June 20, 1984 at 8:00 A. M.
FEE: $100.00
\y:�r,
® M r®® r® M® M r
May 8, 1984
Sunny Vann
Planning Department Head
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Lots C -G, Block 118
City and Townsite of Aspen
Dear Sunny:
e/firec� Jriril� Jl �� x
Enclosed is the fully executed consent to joint development
application which we discussed yesterday. This is submitted to the
City of Aspen on behalf of my clients expressly conditioned upon
acceptance by the City of the terms and conditions contained therein..
It is specifically understood that the re- zoning to RMF /RBO
together with the present growth` management approval and allocation
will stay intact until such approvals are relinquished subsequent to
or contemporaneously with closing of the sale from my clients to
Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas.
Very truly yours,
Douglas P. Allen
DPA /jb
Enclosure
® d ® = M = ® ® ® ® 0 M = O
May 4, 1984
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Consent to Joint Development Applications
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the
owners of Lots C, D, E, F and G,
Aspen, Colorado (the "property ")
letter represents that such owne
Commerce Savings Association of
the 1983 Lodge GMP, Coneptual PC
previously submitted to your off
year under the title "Aspen Mour
of Mill."
undersigned, being the record
Block.118, City and Townsite of
hereby agrees to be, and by this
rs are,.a joint applicant with
Angleton, Texas, with respect to
D, and subdivision applications
ice on or about October 1 of last
tain PUD - The Lodge /Galena /Top
It is expressly understood,.of course, that in the event a
mutually satisfactory purchase agreement covering the Property
has not been signed by and between the undersigned (as Sellers)
and Commerce Savings Association and /or its assignee or nominee
(as Purchaser) prior to the time the Lodge Phase of the Aspen
Mountain PUD is submitted to the Aspen City Council for final
approval, the consent set forth herein shall be of no further
force nor effect and the Property shall not be directly burdened
or affected by any of such applications. In the further event
that a purchase agreement covering the Property is entered into
but does not close and the buildings are not conveyed to Pur-
chaser for any reason whatsoever, the Property shall not be
burdened or affected in any manner by the GMP, conceptual PUD or
subdivision approvals. It is further ague d that until
the purchase referenced above is con
7xPrQ.ss1--Y,
mate t e joining in
this application by the undersigned shll no f ct the existing
GMP and subdivision approvals rela i to /t perty.
C. M. Park )
Alexander G. Casper
6
1 .
CITY : :. PEN
M 4
YM1.
130 sa, .�`�1e��. ���treet
s.. .; � 11
aspen
816
•� :�.
November 24, 1980
Mr. Jack Walls
P.O. Box 29
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Ute City Place
Dear Jack:
As per our telephone conversation and your letter of
October 9, 1980, all the conditions concerning the referenced
project meet with my approval..
If you have any more questions,.please feel free to
contact me at 925 -2020, Extension 214.
Thank you.
.
Sincerely,
Gt,►u.tl � �
Daniel A. McArthur
City Engineer
40
ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT
P. O. Box 528 Tele. 925-3601
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Nov. 13, 1980
Jack M. Walls
P. 0. Box 29
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Jack,
In regards to the Ute City Place Development of-22 units located at
Cooper St. between West End and Cleveland Streets. This project can be
serviced by the Aspen Sanitation District. At this point we have adequate
capacity in the trunk line and the plant to handle the increased flow
from this project.
Sincerely'.,
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Sanitation District
HK/ld
.0
I N D E %
57. Jim Curtis' April 17, 1984 letter -to the Planning Office Re: Aspen
Mountain PUD Employee Housing Requirements.
58. Jim Curtis' April 19, 1984 letter to the Planning Office Re: Aspen
Mountain PUD - Employee Housing and Employee Parking for the
Hotel.
59. Jim Curtis' April 23, 1984 letter to the Planning Office Re: Aspen
Mountain PUD - Employee Housing.
60. Planning Office's Apirl 24, 1984 memo to P &Z Re: Aspen Mountain
PUD revised employee housing proposal.
61. Art Daley' s April 25, 1984 letter to the Planning Office Re: Commerce
Employee Housing Acquisitions.
62. Art Daley's April 26, 1984 letter to the Planning Office Re: Exca-
vation Permit for the west side of Aspen Mountain..
63. Jim Curtis' April 30, 1984 letter to the Planning Office Re: Summary
of Aspen Mountain PUD Employee Housing requirements.
64. Jim Adamski's April 30, 1984 letter to the Planning Office Re: Aspen
Mountain PUD - Employee Housing.
65. December 28, 1981 Ute City Place, Subdivision Agreement. 1
GG, % �-L�C � /� «"'""^ -S %�l"s� j/ Jyc °Q ,��r��i � �iil7 �ie'�j /4C : ��%vr•:,c�c -� Gay' O i'� . C,/ G�vG�yJ.S.
z/, -6-6: John McBride's May 3, 1984 letter of consent Re: Joi t Applica-
tions /ABC Apartments.
Go. -67 -. Doug Allen's May 8, 1984 letter of consent Re: Joint Applications /Ute
City Place.
�%- -6 -8 -. Planning Office's May 8, 1984 memo to P &Z Re: Aspen Mountain
PUD revised employee housing proposal.
moo, -6-9. Planning Office's May 22, 1 -984 memo to P &Z Re: Aspen Mountain
PUD revised employee housing proposal and draft resolution.
_70 Aspen Mountain PUD Employee Housing Transportation Analysis.
73,
I;V -
r
Z,_,71-1 V10,1
�41
11VOI
TO:
THRU :
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
SUMMARY
MEMORANDUM
Aspen City Council
Harold Schilling, City Manager
Sunny Vann, Planning Director
•
Aspen Mountain PUD - Revised Employee Housing Proposal
August 27, 1984
The Planning Office recommends approval of the attached Council
Resolution endorsing the Aspen Mountain PUD revised employee housing
proposal and granting conceptual subdivision approval and exemption
from the City's growth management allotment procedures for the pro-
posal's Ute City Place component.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council discussed the Applicants' revised employee housing
proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendations at their regular July 23rd and August 13th
meetings. With the exception of a question regarding available
parking at the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus, I believe the Council has
completed it's review of the Applicants' proposal. At its August 13th
meeting, Council directed the Planning Office to provide additional
information with respect to the parking problem and to prepare a draft
resolution endorsing the Applicants' employee housing proposal and
granting conceptual subdivision approval and growth management exemption
for the proposal's Ute City Place component.
BACKGROUND
The conversion of existing lodge units (e.g. The Copper Horse and
Alpina Haus) to deed restricted employee housing units is subject to
the change -in -use provisions of Section 24- 11.2(j) of the Municipal
Code provided, however, that the change -in -use of a structure which
has received individual historic designation is exempt from complying
with the City's growth management allotment procedures pursuant to
Section 24- 11.2(d).
The Planning and Zoning Commission, in its Resolution 84 -1, dated
January 17, 1984, found that the conversion of the 43 unit Alpina Haus
Lodge to deed restricted employee housing, as set forth in the Appli-
cants' revised employee housing proposal, would result in negligible
growth impacts on the Community, and that said change -in -use was
exempt from complying with the growth management allotment procedures
of the Municipal Code. As an individually designated historic struc-
ture, the Copper Horse Lodge is by definition exempt from these
provisions.
The Commission, however, was concerned about th-e non - conforming status
of the two lodges existing parking and, therefore, specifically
conditioned their endorsement of the Applicants' proposal, and their
granting of a change -in -use exemption to the Alpina Haus, on the
submission of various alternatives for the mitigation of potential
impacts resulting from the parking problem. These alternatives are
to be submitted by the Applicants as part of their preliminary PUD /sub-
division submission.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION
The Copper Horse and Alpina Haus Lodges are currently zoned L -3 and
RMF, respectively. The parking requirement for each of these zone
districts is one space per bedroom for lodge uses. The Copper Horse
currently contains 14 lodge rooms, with occupancy ranging from one to
eight persons per room, while the Alpina Haus contains 40 lodge rooms,
two studio apartments, and one dorm apartment. Since the Code provides
no guidance with respect to parking requirements for dormitory rooms,
one could reasonably argue that the parking requirement for the
existing Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodge operations is approximately
57 spaces. These two lodges currently provide 15 off - street spaces -
eleven at the Alpina Haus and four at the Copper Horse.
Upon conversion to deed restricted employee housing, parking require-
ments for these two properties is established by special review,
pursuant to Section 24- 4.1(c) of the Municipal Code. In conducting
such a review, the Commission and Council shall consider the projected
traffic generation of the proposed development, site characteristics,
pedestrian access, walking distances to the downtown areas, and the
availability of public transportation. As pointed out above, the
Commission has requested additional information to be submitted at the
time of the Applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision submission. A
preliminary discussion of measures which the Applicants propose to
undertake to mitigate the short -fall in on -site parking for the Copper
Horse and Alpina Haus is contained in the attached letter from John
Doremus dated August 15, 1984.
ALTERNATIVES_
The Council can concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation and defer consideration of this issue to preliminary
PUD /subdivision review or elect to address it at this time. In the
event you choose to address this issue now, the attached resolution
will have to be amended to reflect any additional conditions you
might wish to attach.
RECOMMENDATION
While there may be additional parking related impacts resulting from
the deed restriction of the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges to
long -term employee housing, it should be pointed out that these
properties currently provide both short and long -term accommoda-
tions throughout different periods of the year. As a result, the
problems anticipated by P &Z and Council currently exist to varying
degrees at both locations.
Given the fact that these two properties may soon be removed from the
lodge inventory thru conversion to higher, more profitable uses, and
the fact that these properties currently provide employee housing to
varying degrees, the Planning Office would like to see them legitimized
as part of the employee housing inventory. Pedestrian access, the
properties' proximity to the downtown areas, and the availability of
public transportation make these excellent choices for conversion to
deed restricted employee housing. While the potential for increased
automobile as a result of the conversion is indeed a distinct
possibility, the Applicants' proposal to investigate potential mitiga-
tion techniques warrants, in our opinion, conceptual approval at this
time.
The Planning Office, therefore, recommends that the issue of parking
be deferred until preliminary PUD /subdivision consideration and that
the attached resolution be essentially adopted as drafted.
PROPOSED MOTION
Should you concur with the Planning Office's recommendation, the
appropriate motion would be as follows:
"I move to adopt Resolution No. _ —, Series of 1984, as
submitted."
� t
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
ENDORSING THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD REVISED EMPLOYEE HOUSING
PROPOSAL AND GRANTING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND
EXEMPTION FROM THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT
PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPOSAL'S UTE CITY PLACE COMPONENT
Resolution No.
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Associa-
tion, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as
the "Applicants ") have made the following employee housing commitment,
pursuant to Sections 24- 11.4(b)(4), 24- 11.6(b)(4), 20 -22(d) and
20 -23 (A) (2) of the Municipal Code, in consideration of the review
and approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD:
1. To provide nine (9), two - bedroom units housing twenty (20)
employees in conjunction with the 700 South Galena residential
condominium project;
2. To provide housing for sixty percent (60 %) of the additional
employees, currently estimated at one hundred forty -five
(145) employees, generated by the Aspen Mountain Lodge
project; and
3. To provide housing for an estimated thirty (30) additional
employees displaced as a result of the demolition of existing
employee housing units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised their original proposal for
fulfilling their employee housing commitment so as to withdraw their
requests for rezoning to R -6 (RBO) , conceptual PUD /subdivision approval,
and exemption from the City's growth management allotment procedures
for the fifty (50) unit, multi - family employee housing project to be
constructed on the Benedict /Larkin property; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' revised proposal for fulfilling their
employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain PUD consists of the
following components:
1. The acquisition and deed- restricted of thirty -two (32) of
the existing sixty -four (64) free- market Airport Business
Center apartment units;
2. The acquisition and conversion of the existing forty -three
(43) unit Alpina Haus and fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
lodges to deed - restricted employee housing; and
3. The construction of a new twenty -two (22) unit, one hundred
percent (1000) deed - restricted, multi- family 'residential
project to be known as Ute City Place.
Resolution No. 84- _
Page Five
1. The deed - restriction of the twenty -two (22) unit Ute City
Place project, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by
the Housing Authority, to the City's moderate income rental
and sales price guidelines in effect at the time of the
execution of the deed- restriction. Rents shall include
utilities consistent with Housing Authority guidelines.
2. The deed - restriction of the twenty -two (22) unit Ute City
Place project to a maximum occupancy of thirty -seven (37)
employees with first priority given to employees of the
Aspen Mountain Lodge.
Section 3
That it does hereby grant conceptual subdivision approval,
pursuant to Section 20 -10 of the Municipal Code, to the Ute City Place
component of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants' provision of an eight inch (8 ") water system
interconnect on Cleveland Street between Hyman and Cooper
Avenues and the reconfirmation of the agreement reached
between the Applicants and the Water Department with respect
to payment for the required interconnect.
2. The Applicants' re- evaluation, in conjunction with the City
Engineer, of the appropriateness of the proposed curb cut on
Cooper Avenue, including an evaluation of alternative access
points for the proposed Ute City Place project.
3. The Applicants' provision of a sidewalk the length of the
property along Cooper Avenue.
4. The Applicants' provision of an acceptable landscaping plan
designed so as to minimize the visual impact of the proposed
project.
5. The Applicants' compliance with the provisions of Ordinance
12, Series of 1983, with respect to the inclusion of fire-
places in the proposed project.
6. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
subdivision application not specifically referred to above
being made a condition of this recommendation of approval.
7. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary sub-
division approval.
Date: , 1984.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado
at a meeting held , 1984.
Kathryn S. Koch, City ClerK
Resolution No. 84-
Page Two
; and
•
WHEREAS, the. Aspen /Pitkin Housing Authority did review and
conceptually endorse the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal
at their regular meeting held on April 19, 1984; and
WHEREAS, there are no specific review requirements set forth in
the Municipal Code for the conversion of existing, free - market units
to deed - restricted employee housing units; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of existing lodge units to deed - restricted
employee housing units is subject to the change -in -use provisions of
Section 24- 11.2(j) of the Municipal Code provided, however, that the
change -in -use of a' structure which has received individual historic
designation is exempt from complying with the City's growth management
allotment procedures pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(b); and
WHEREAS, the Copper Horse Lodge, located at 328 West Main
Street, is an individually designated historic structure; and
WHEREAS, the construction of a one hundred percent (1000) deed-
restricted employee housing project is exempt from complying with the
City's growth management allotment procedures pursuant to Section 24-
11.2(f) of the Municipal Code subject to the special approval of the
City Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the construction of a multi- family residential project
is subject to the City's subdivision review requirements pursuant to
Section 20 -5 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did find, pursuant
to Section 24- 11.2(j) of the Municipal Code, that the conversion of
the forty -three (43) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed - restricted employee
housing, as set forth in the Applicants' revised employee housing
proposal, will result in negligible growth impacts on the Community,
and that said change -in -use is exempt from complying with the growth
management allotment procedures of the Municipal Code, all as set
forth in the Commission's Resolution No. 84 -1, dated January 17,
1984; . and
L
Resolution No. 84-
Page Three
WHEREAS, the Commission did endorse the Applicants' revised
proposal for fulfilling their employee housing commitment and did
recommend conceptual subdivision approval and growth management
exemption for the proposed Ute City Place project, all as set forth in
the Commission's Resolution No. 84 -6, dated June 5, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did consider the Commission's
endorsement of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal and
their recommendations with respect to the Applicants' request for
conceptual subdivision approval and growth management exemption at
regular meetings held on July 23rd, August 13th and August 27, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby endorse the Applicants' revised proposal for
fulfilling their employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain
PUD subject to the following conditions:
1. The submission, to the extent necessary, of revised employee
generation figures for the various components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD, said generation figures to be included in the
the Applicants' preliminary�PUD /subdivision submission.
2. The submission of additional documentation with respect to
the replacement of existing employee housing as required
pursuant to Sections 20 -22 and 20 -23 of the Municipal Code,
said documentation to be included in the Applicants' preli-
minary PUD /subdivision submission.
3. The deed- restricted of the forty -three (43) unit Alpina Haus
Lodge, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by the
Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of
twenty -five percent (25 %) of the employees average annual
income, or two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per person
per month, whichever is less. Rents shall include utilities
consistent with Housing Authority guidelines.
4. The deed - restricted of the forty -three (43) unit Alpina Haus
Lodge to a maximum occupancy of forty-six ( 46) employees
with first priority given to employees of the Aspen Mountain
Lodge.
5. The deed- restriction of the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by the
Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of
twenty -five percent (250) of the employees average annual
income, or two hundred dollars ($200.00) per person per
month, whichever is less. Rents shall include utilities
consistent with Housing Authority guidelines.
Resolution No. 84
Page Four
6. The deed - restricted of the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge to a maximum occupancy of forty -three (43) employees
with first priority given to the employees of the Aspen
Mountain Lodge.
7. The submission of an acceptable proposal for the specific
building improvements to be undertaken with respect to the
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodges, said proposal to be
included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision
submission.
8. The retention of all existing on -site parking spaces at the
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodges, and the submission of
various alternatives for the mitigation of potential impacts
resulting from the non - conforming status of said parking,
said alternatives to be included in the ,Applicants' prelim-
inary PUD /subdivision submission.
9. The deed - restriction of thirty -two (32) units at the Airport
Business Center Apartments, as proposed by the Applicants
and endorsed by the Housing Authority, to the City's low and
moderate rental and sales price guidelines as follows:
Low Income
9 Two- bedroom units
Moderate Income
8 One- bedroom units
13 Two- bedroom units
2 Three - bedroom units
Rental and sales prices shall be restricted to the low and
moderate price guidelines in effect at the time of the
execution of the deed- restriction. Rents shall include
utilities consistent with Housing Authority guidelines.
10. The deed - restriction o A.._.._. __-i -, -ty -two (32) units at the
Airport Business Center Apartments to a maximum occupancy of
sixty -nine (69) employees.
11. The provision of one (1) parking space per bedroom for the
thirty -two (32) units at the Airport Business Center Apart-
ments and an employee shuttle . service to augment non -to -low
operating times of the transit system, the details of said
shuttle service to be included in the Applicants' preliminary
PUD /subdivision submission.
12. The execution of all required deed - restrictions prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Aspen Mountain
Lodge.
Section 2
That it does hereby exempt, pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(f) of
the Municipal Code, the proposed Ute City Place component of the
Applicants' revised employee housing proposal from complying with the
City's growth management allotment procedures subject to the following
conditions:
Doremus & co Pany
608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • .telephone: (303) 925 -6866
August 15, 1984 11D
" 1504
Mr. sunny Vann
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
130 South'Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear sunny,
This letter is in response to City Council review of the Aspen
Mountain Project's employee housing,proposal. Council had some
questions regarding the parking for the Copper Horse and Alpina
Haus conversions. They asked that we determine the parking
requirements and also respond as to how we intend to handle the
shortfall.
My investigation of the Code indicates that the off - street
parking requirements "shall be established by special review of
the City Council." See Article IV, Section 24- 4.,1(c)(.
i
Therefore', my conclusion is that there is no speci=fic requirement
for dormitory employee housing per sd, but rather is determined
by the Council. In making a determin bation by review, the_Code
goes.on to say the projected traffic generation of the proposed
development, site characteristics,.pedestrian access, walking
distance to downtown and the availability of public transporta-
tion shall be considered. See Article IV, Section 24 -4.6.
With respect to the measures we expect to augment to mitigate any
shortfall of on -site parking for these two existing properties,
we offer the following.:
1) A parking survey was conducted by TDA in February of the
current year which determined that current employees of
the lodges and condominiums in the central lodging
district travel to work in the )following manner, 39%
drive, 42% walk, and 19% take the bus. This survey, it
should be noted, did not take into account the location
of the employee housing.
2) The two projects in question were selected partly for
their close proximity to the hotel and the center of town
as well as for the type of employees which would be
housed. The grade of employees most suitable for these
accommodations (lower income, blue collar, seasonal) are
less likely to need, or desire a vehicle, especially
considering location.
Mr. Sunny Vann
August 15, 1984
Page Two
3) Both projects have some off - street parking, i.e. Alpina
Haus - 11, and Copper Horse - 4, and the Applicant has
made the commitment to retain these spaces. Both are
within walking distance of the work place as well as!!th e
business core and are one block or less from existing
public transit.
4) During the Conceptual approval process, the Applicant
revised its parking plan for the hotel and in the
process, reserved 10 underground parking spaces exclu-
sively for employees. In addition, in the process of.
revising Ute City Place as employee ho.using for the Aspen
Mountain Project, we were able to add an extra space over
and above the normal residential requirements for that
project.
5) The Applicant has committed to at least 4 courtesy vans
for the hotel. These vans will be made available on the
basis of need to shuttle employees at major shift changes
to their housing. Further, transit passes, where
required, will be provided for any employees wishing to
use transit for commuting to work.
6) A cursory study of the Copper Horse site indicates that
ample on- street parking exists at all times of the year
on Main Street, Second, Third and Hallam Streets in the
immediate vilcinity. Also, the Applicant has committed
to a reduction in the current maximum occupancy of the
Copper Horse by 10 pillows, or a 20% reduction over its
present use.
7) Finally, the Applicant will aggressively discourage
employees having. vehicles. Management policies will be
aimed.at encouraging walking, biking and transit use.
Should you wish to discuss this issue further, please let me
know.
JD:cck
608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925 -6866
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD /Subdivision Review and Employee
Housing Proposal
DATE: July 23, 1984 .APPROVED AS TO FORM:
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to review the Planning Office'&
draft resolution granting conceptual PUD /subdivision approval 'to
the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components
of the Aspen Mountain PUD and to initiate discussion of the Applicants'
employee housing proposal. The Planning Office's comments and P &Z's
recommendations with respect to employee housing for the PUD can
be found in our June 25, 1984 memorandum to Council and in P &Z Resolution
No. 6, Series of 1984. Please bring these materials to your Monday,
July 23rd meeting. i
The Applicants and the Planning Office are prepared to discuss the
revised employee housing proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD following
your review of the attached draft Resolution. Should you have any
questions, or if I can be of any assistance prior to your Monday
meeting, please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD /Subdivision Review and Employee
Housing
DATE: June 25, 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to continue your discussion of
the various conceptual PUD issues associated with the Top of Mill,
Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD. The Planning Office's comments and P &Z's recommendations
with respect to these issues can be found in our May 14, 1984 memorandum
to Council and the P &Z's resolution. Please bring these materials
as well as the Planning Office's June 11, 1984 memorandum and discussion
outline to Monday's meeting.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Planning and Zoning Commission has completed its review of the
Applicants' employee housing proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD.
The Applicants' original proposal has been revised to reflect the
reduction in the size of the proposed hotel and the abandonment of
the proposed Ute Avenue employee housing complex. The Commission's
recommendations and actions with respect to the Applicants' revised
employee housing proposal are contained in their attached resolution.
A more detailed discussion of the Applicants' revised employee housing
proposal is provided below.
The attached letters from Jim Curtis, dated April 23rd and April
30, 1984, outline the Applicants' revised employee housing generation
figures and employee housing proposal. Both the generation figures
and the employee housing proposal have been reviewed and endorsed
by the Housing ' Au ' thority and Planning and Zoning Commission. It
should be pointed ou, however, that further revisions to the generation
figures and revised proposal may be forthcoming as further refinement
of the lodge portion of the PUD continues: It should also be pointed
out that the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal is consistent,
in terms of the percentage of employees housed, with their original
lodge GMP representation. The major change to the Applicants' original
proposal involves the substitution of two (2) additional employee
housing projects for the proposed fifty (50) unit project to be built
on the Benedict /Larkin property on Ute Avenue.
As Jim's attached letters indicate, the revised proposal would house
one hundred and ninety -five (195) employees in four (4) separate
projects. To refresh your memory, the Commission, in its resolution
recommending conceptual PUD /subdivision approval for the lodge portion
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, found that the conversion of the forty -
three (43) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed - restricted employee housing
would result in negligible growth impacts on the Community and that
said change -in -use was exempt from complying with the growth management
allotment procedures of the Municipal Code. No further review of
this component of the Applicants' employee housing proposal is required
at this time. A condition of the Commission's approval, however,
was that the Applicants submit additional information with respect
to the mitigation of potential parking problems at the Alpina Haus
as part of their lodge preliminary PUD /subdivision submission.
In addition to the Alpina Haus Lodge, the Applicants also propose
to convert and deed - restrict the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge to employee housing. The change -in -use of an individually
designated historic structure is exempt by definition from the City's
growth management allotment procedures. As a result, no specific
Page 2
review is required by the P &Z or Council to accomplish the proposed
change -in -use. The Commission, however, also identified a concern
with respect to parking problems at the Copper Horse and propose
to further review this issue in conjunction with the Applicants'
lodge preliminary PUD /subdivision submission. The appropriateness
of both the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus for employee housing purposes
is subject to P &Z and Council review in the context of the overall
Aspen Mountain PUD.
Together, the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse will house eighty -nine
(89) employees, or approximately forty -five percent (45 %) of the
Applicants' employee housing commmitment. The remainder of the employees
(106 employees) were originally proposed to be housed in an approximately
fifty (50) unit project to be constructed on Ute Avenue. With the
withdrawal of this proposal, the Applicants now intend to provide
the remainder of their employee housing commitment at the Airport
Business Center and in a new project to be constructed on East Cooper
Street. As outlined in the attached materials, the Ute City Place
project on East Cooper Street essentially involves the conversion
of a prior GMP approval to 100% deed - restricted employee housing
while the acquisition of existing rental housing at the Airport Business
Center would result in the deed - restriction of currently unrestricted
units.
From a procedural perspective, the Ute City Place project should
be considered a discreet and separate proposal from the prior GMP
approval. The project involves the construction of twenty -two (22)
new deed - restricted employee housing units exempt from the City's
growth management allotment procedures. As such, it is subject to
the special approval of the Council, based on the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Inasmuch as the prior Ute
City Place GMP approval involved full subdivision review and rezoning
to Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO), the Commission and Council must
find that the proposed revisions to the project are consistent with
the original conditions of subdivision and RBO approval.
No specific review by the Commission or Council is required for the
deed - restriction of the Airport Business Center to employee housing
guidelines. The Commission and Council, however, must find that
the proposed utilization of both the ABC and Ute City Place units
is consistent with the Applicants' relevant lodge GMP application
representations and is appropriate within the context of the overall
Aspen Mountain PUD approval. Further analysis of these two new components
of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal is provided
below.
UTE CITY PLACE
The original Ute City Place application received a GMP allocation
in the 1981 residential competition. The original applicant proposed
to develop twenty -two (22) units on a fifteen hundred (1500) square
foot parcel zoned R -MF. The project location is Lots C, D, E, F
and G, Block 118, City of Aspen (Cooper Avenue between West End and
Cleveland Avenues). Of the twenty -two (22) units proposed by the
Applicants, eight (8) were free - market and fourteen (14) were deed -
restricted employee housing units. The original application also
received full subdivision review and approval and was rezoned to
R -MF (RBO) in order to accommodate the density proposed. Ee project
was also condominiumized in order to allow sale of the individual
units.
The Applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD propose to purchase the
Ute City Place site, make minor revisions in the original approved
project, and deed - restrict all of the units pursuant to the City's
employee housing guidelines. The revised project would house thirty -
seven (37) employees. Given the fact that the project will no longer
contain free - market units, an amendment to the prior GMP approval
will not be required. Instead, the Planning Office proposes to essen-
tially duplicate the procedural steps employed in the review of the
original Ute City Place project. Obviously, consideration of the
0 . 0 0
Page 3
Applicants' requests for exemption from growth management for the
construction of the twenty -two (22) units would also be required.
The specific steps will involve conceptual subdivision review by
the P &Z and Council, preliminary subdivision review by the P &Z and
final subdivision review by Council. In addition, a public hearing
will need to be held at the preliminary subdivision step in order
to consider the Applicants' request for rezoning to Residential Bonus
Overlay. Council would also take action on this request at the final
subdivision step. Should the Applicants be successful in the review
of the revised Ute City Place project, then a condition of final
subdivision approval would be the revocation of the prior GMP allocation.
Council's responsibility with respect to the Ute City Place proposal
is to consider the appropriateness of this component of the Applicants'
employee housing solution and of conceptual subdivision approval
as recommended by the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission.
Although the public hearing with respect to the RBO rezoning will
not occur until the preliminary subdivision step, P &Z considered
the appropriateness of the rezoning in its conceptual subdivision
review.
Based on the material submitted to date, the revised Ute City Place
proposal appears to be identical in most respects to the original
project which received preliminary subdivision approval by the P &Z
and final approval by the Council. The architecture is identical
to the prior proposal with the exception that the size of the free
market units has been reduced consistent with the City's employee
housing guidelines. As a result the overall FAR of the project and
the building footprint have been reduced substantially.
With respect to the revised project's eligibility for RBO rezoning,
the changes which the Applicants' have proposed make the project
even more consistent with the applicable criteria. Essentially,
the only reason RBO rezoning is required is to allow the level of
density proposed. Additional information with respect to the density
allowed under existing zoning as compared to the density proposed
will be available at your Monday meeting. The Planning Office supports
the utilization of the Ute City Place project as part of the Applicants'
employee housing solution subject to the conditions contained in
the attached P &Z resolution.
AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER APARTMENTS
No specific review by the Commission or Council are required for
the deed - restriction of the Airport Business Center units to employee
housing guidelines. The Planning and Zoning Commission, however,
endorsed the inclusion of the ABC units in the Applicants' employee
housing solution. The remainder of the Applicants' employee housing
commitment, approximately sixty -nine (69) employees would be met
by this proposal.
While the Commission debated the appropriateness of using the ABC
units extensively, both the Commission and the Housing Authority
endorsed this proposal based primarily on the fact that the inclusion
of these units in the Applicants' employee housing solution will
result in the deed - restriction of thirty -two (32) existing free- market
units. While these units currently serve an employee housing function,
there is no mechanism which insures their continued availability
for employee housing purposes. In fact, the owners of the Airport
Business Center units are currently discussing the appropriateness
of an application for condominiumization with the Housing Authority.
Given the fact that utilization of these units as part of the Applicants'
employee housing solution would result in the deed - restriction of
previously unrestricted units, and that applicants are allowed to
meet their employee housing commitments throughout the metro area,
the Planning Office supports this proposal. The principal issue
which the Commission debated involved the transportation implications
associated with the housing of hotel employees at the Airport Business
Page 4
Center. Jim Curtis' April 19, 1984 letter, which is attached for
your review, addressed this concern to the Commission's satisfaction.
As the attached resolution indicates, the Commission's endorsement
of the ABC units is expressly conditioned upon. the mitigation of
potential transportation related problems.
SUMMARY
Should you concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommenda-
tions, we would propose to include your- actions with respect to the
Applicants' revised employee housing proposal in your resolution
granting conceptual PUD /subdivision approval for the Top of Mill,
Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD. The Planning Office is prepared to discuss the Applicants'
employee housing proposal in detail following your discussion of
the PUD's free - market residential components. Should you. have any
questions, however, please feel free to contact me at the Planning
Office.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ENDORSING THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD REVISED EMPLOYEE HOUSING
PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND
EXEMPTION FROM THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT
PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPOSAL'S UTE CITY'PLACE COMPONENT
Resolution No. 6
(Series; of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Associa-
tion, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as
the "Applicants ") have made the following employee housing commitment,
pursuant to Sections 24- 11.4(b)(4), 24- 11.6(b)(4), 20 -22(d) and 20-
23(A)(2) of the Municipal Code, in.consideration of the review and
approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD:
1. To provide nine (9), two - bedroom units housing twenty (20)
employees in conjunction with the 700 South Galena residen-
tial condominium project;
2. To provide housing for sixty percent (600) of the additional
employees, currently estimated at one hundred forty -five
_(145) employees, generated by the Aspen Mountain Lodge
project; and
3. To provide.housing for an estimated thirty' (30) additional
employees displaced as a result of the demolition of exist-
ing employee housing units on the.Aspen Mountain PUD site.
and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised their original proposal for
fulfulling their employee housing commitment so as to withdraw their
requests for rezoning to R -6 (RBO), conceptual PUD /subdivision approval,
and exemption from...the City's growth management allotment prcoedures
for the fifty (50) unit, multi - family employee housing project to be
constructed on the Benedict /Larkin property;. and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' revised.proposal for fulfilling their
employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain PUD consists of the
following components:
1. The acquisition and deed - restriction of thirty -two (32) of
the existing sixty -four (64) free - market Airport Business
Center apartment units;
2. The acquisition and conversion of the existing forty -three
(43) unit Alpina Haus and fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
lodges to deed - restricted employee housing; and
3. The construction of a new twenty -two (22) unit, one hundred
percent (1000) deed - restricted, multi - family residential
project to be known as Ute City Place.
; and
Resolution No.. 84 -6
Page Two
WHEREAS,.the Aspen /Pitkin.Housing Authority did review and con
ceptually endorse the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal at
-their regular meeting held on April 19,-1984; and
WHEREAS, there are no specific review requirements set forth in
the Municipal Code for the conversion of existing, free - market units
to.deed- restricted employee housing units; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of existing lodge units to-deed-restricted
employee housing units is subject to the change -in -use provisions of
Section 24- 11.2(j) of the Municipal Code provided, however, that the
change -in -use of a structure which has received individual historic
designation is exempt from complying with the City's growth management
allotment procedures pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(b); and
WHEREAS, the Copper Horse Lodge, located at 328 West Main Street,
is an individually designated historic structure; and.
WHEREAS, the construction of a one hundred percent (100 %) deed -
restricted employee housing project is exempt from complying with the
City's growth management allotment procedures pursuant to Section 24-
11:.2(f) of the Municipal Code subject to the special approval of the
City Council, based on the,recommendation of.the Planning and Zoning
Commission; and
- .WHEREAS, the construction of a multi- family residential project
,is subject to the .City's subdivision review requirements pursuant to
_Section 20 -5 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did find, pursuant to
Section 24- 11.2(j) of _the Municipal Code, that the conversion of the
forty -three (43) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed - restricted employee
housing, as set forth in the Applicants' revised employee housing
proposal, will result in negligible growth impacts on the Community,
and that said change -in -use is exempt from complying with the growth
management allotment procedures of the Municipal Code, all as set
forth in the Commission's Resolution No. 84 -1, dated January 17, 1984;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission did consider the Applicants' revised
proposal for fulfilling their employee housing commitment and requests
for conceptual subdivision approval and growth management exemption
for the proposed Ute City Place project at meetings held on April
.;I-
Resolution No. 84 -6
Page ,Three
24th, May 8th, May 22nd and June 5, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT.RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen; Colorado:
SECTION 1
That it does hereby endorse the Applicants' revised proposal for
ulfilling their employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain PUD
subject to the.following_ conditions:
1. The submission, to the extent necessary, of revised employee
generation figures for the various components of-the Aspen
Mountain PUD, said generation figures to be included in the
Applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision submission.
2. The submission of additional documentation with respect to
the replacement of existing employee housing as required
pursuant to Sections 20 -22 and 20 -23 of the Municipal Code,
said documentation to be included in the Applicants' preliminary
PUD /subdivision submission.
3. The deed - restriction of the forty -three (43) unit Alpina
Haus Lodge, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by
the Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline
of twenty -five percent (250) of the employees average
annual income, or two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per
person per month, whichever is less. Rents shall include
utilities consistent with Housing Authority guidelines.
4. The deed - restriction of the forty -three (43) unit Alpina
Haus Lodge to a maximum occupancy of forty -six (46) employees
with first priority given to employees of the Aspen Mountain
Lodge.
5. The deed - restriction of the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by the
Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of
twenty -five percent (250) of the employees average annual
income, or two hundred dollars ($200:00) per person per
month, whichever is less. Rents shall include utilities
consistent with Housing Authority guidelines.
6. The deed - restriction of the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge to a maximum occupancy of forty -three (43) employees
with first priority given to the employees of the Aspen
Mountain Lodge.
7. The submission of an acceptable proposal for the specific
building improvements to be undertaken with-respect to the
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodges, said proposal to be
included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision
submission.
8. The retention of all existing on-site parking spaces at the
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodges, and the submission of
various alternatives for the mitigation of potential impacts
resulting from the non - conforming status of said parking,
said alternatives to be included in the Applicants' preliminary
PUD /subdivision submission.
9. The deed - restriction of thirty -two '(32) units at the Airport
Business Center Apartments,*as proposed by the Applicants
and endorsed by the Housing Authority, to the City's low and
Resolution No..84 -6
Page Four •
moderate rental and. sale price guidelines as follows:
Low Income
9 Two- bedroom units
Moderate IncMe
8 One - bedroom units
13 Two - bedroom units
2 Three - bedroom units
Rental and sales prices shall be -restricted to the low and
moderate price guidelines in effect at the time of the
execution of the deed- restriction. Rents shall include
utilities consistent with Housing Authority guidelines.
10. The deed - restriction of the thirty -two (32) units at the
Airport Business Center Apartments to a maximum occupancy of
sixty -nine (69)_ employees.
11. The provision of one (1) parking space per bedroom for the
thirty -two (3'2) units at the Airport Business Center Apart-
ments and an employee shuttle service to augment-non-to-low
operating times of the transit system, the-,details--of said -
'shuttle service to be included in. the Applicants' preliminary
PUD /subdivision submission.
12. The execution of all.required deed - restrictions prior to the
-issuance.of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Aspen Mountain
Lodge.
SECTION 2
That it does hereby recommend, pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(f) of
the Municipal Code,. that the Aspen City Council exempt-the-proposed
Ute City Place component of the Applicants' revised employee housing
proposal from complying-.with the City's- growth management --allotment
procedures- subject.to.the following conditions:
1.
The deed - restriction of the twenty -two (22) unit -Ute City
Place project, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by
the Housing Authority, to the City's moderate income rental
and sales price guidelines in effect at the time of the
execution of the deed - restriction. Rents shall-include-_.-L.'..__
utilit.ies.consistent with Housing Authority guidelines.---
2.
The..deed- restriction of the twenty -two (22) unit Ute.City
Place project to a maximum occupancy of thirty -seven (37)
-.
employees -with first priority given to employees 6f-the':---
Aspen. Mountain Lodge.
SECTION 3
-
That
it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant
conceptual
subdivision.approval, pursuant to Section 20 -10 of the
Municipal-Code, to the Ute City Place component of the - Applicants'
revised employee housing proposal subject to the following conditions:
1.
The Applicants' provision of an eight inch.(8 ") water
system interconnect on Cleveland Street between Hyman and
Resolution No.. 84 -6
f Page Five
Cooper Avenues and the reconfirmation of the agreement
reached between the Applicants and the Water Department with
respect to payment for the required interconnect.
2. The Applicants' re- evaluation , in conjunction with the City
Engineer, of the appropriateness of the proposed curb cut
on Cooper Avenue, including an evaluation of alternative
access points for the proposed'Ute City Place. project.
3. The Applicants' provision of a sidewalk the length of the
property along Cooper Avenue. .
4. The Applicants' provision of an acceptable landscaping plan
designed so as to minimize the visual impact of the proposed
project
5. - The Applicants' obtaining a variance from the Board of
Adjustment to allow the proposed building height which is in
excess of the underlying zone district requirement. The
Applicant's request for a variance has been endorsed by the
Commission in Resolution.No. 8, Series of 1984.
6. The Applicants' compliance with the provisions of Ordinance
12, Series of 1983, with respect to the inclusion of fire-
places in the proposed project.
7. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
subdivision application not specifically referred to above
being made a condition of this recommendation of approval.
8. The above conditions being met.prior to preliminary sub-
division approval.
APPROVED by the.Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on June 5, 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
By
Perry H vey, Chairman
i a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Revised Employee Housing Proposal
DATE: June 5, 1984
Attached for your review and consideration is a revised draft resolution
endorsing the Aspen Mountain PUD employee housing proposal and recom-
mending conceptual subdivision approval and exemption from the City's
growth management allotment procedures for the proposal's Ute City Place
component. The resolution incorporates those conditions we have dis-
cussed to date with respect to the Applicants' proposal. Unless sub-
stantial revisions are required, P &Z approval of the draft resolution at
your Tuesday, June 5th meeting, would enable us to forward your recom-
mendations to Council for consideration at their Monday, June 11th
meeting. In the event minor revisions are required, you may wish to
authorize the Planning Office to make the necessary corrections and the
Chairman to sign the revised resolution prior to your next regularly
scheduled meeting.
The Planning Office is prepared to discuss the revised resolution in
detail at your Tuesday meeting. If you have any questions, however,
please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office.
® o
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Current Schedule Analysis
Frequency*
Airport Business Center - Once every hour except mid -day. .
Highlands Route (including Castle Ridge) -.Once every half -hour.
Mountain Valley - Once every half-hour.
Silverking - Once every twenty minutes.
Snowbunny = Once every half -hour.
All bus routes begin service at 7:00 AM both peak and off. - season.
The Airport Business Center / Snowmass route extends service until
1:00 AM during the peak season,. while the other routes cease
service at 11:00 PM.
During the winter months, when there is the most demand, there
is increased service to Snowmass (i.e. the Airport Business Cen-
ter as well) which will include mid -day service next season if
warranted.
According; to Greg Fitzpatrick, the General Manager of the Roaring
Fork Transit Authority, it is premature to entertain specific
plans for two years down the road. The final decisions on high-
way improvements are pending which make detailed planning and /or
budgeting an exercise in futility at this time.
However, the new transportation authority
just past the Airport Business Center and
to be devised to incorporate this locatio
Center once the highway improvement plans
the service will improve at that point as
Center will be at the hub of the system.
building will be located
a new scheme will have
a as well as the Business
are finalized. Clearly
the Airport Business
In addition, the R.FTA is eager to demonstrate use and hence ap-
propriations to provide full -time service down- valley without
interruption, year- round. They are lobbying for this support
at the present time.
Furthermore, there are existing bike paths which are part of the
everpopular trail system which link the Airport Business Center
with downtown Aspen. It is an enjoyable and comfortable jaunt
and a great alternative to the transportation question.
*This is a general synopsis of the current schedules. Please
see the attached sheets for specifics.
(nDFn:DD-1-0
-n
j
d
:3 En 1:3
cn "(n. c ..
p
x
(n
m
m
i
_K
-
D
< C
G CD CD =r =
c
3
3
3 =3
3 =CDC-)
_T�(nn0N
(n
t$z(
m
o
(0 CD -..0
_
v
wo 3
(n cCn
=rCD0M
M
3 x
c
a
c
->>
3
c
a
c h'
r-
cn�mc
-
3
3
Cnc�.
3
zr_
=O
m I
m
m
Q.
TI
3
n
D N
�rC
c
�m
7] < m
CD
ti AO i.
moo y
'O
O
�..
C
N.
L,
a 0 o_
d,
Z
CO
C0 C0 C0 C0 C0
N
N N N N N"
cn
W U1 Ul cn U1
1
W & O0 O0 -,�
N
-1 CA) .?-Pb.W
N
-1 O OD 00 N
O
-1 O -Pb- .A 0
N ca QJ N M
N m C m
0 (D m (D (D G) = ry N
3 3 ci
to cam- Q c a m m
p 7
O x
m N w
ti
m
j
d
D
In
?
x
(n
m
m
i
_K
-
D
3
3
c
3
3
nN
()71
'SPEN S9.
(n
t$z(
m
o
<
Q
v
wo 3
x
3
m
3 x
c
a
c
->>
3
c
a
O.
D
3
3
3
3
f
3
=O
m I
m
m
Q.
0
ti
m
j
d
D
In
?
x
(n
m
m
i
_K
-
D
w ,
�
n
0
m
<n
nN
()71
'SPEN S9.
°.
t$z(
m
o
<
Q
v
1
m
m
3 x
c
0
c
->>
c
a
O.
D
O
O (D
cn
f
-' •
=O
m I
m
m
Q.
0
3
n
D N
�rC
c
�m
7] < m
CD
ti AO i.
moo y
'O
O
�..
O
N.
ml
m
D
d
m
K
m
oc
. •
..
D
w ,
�
n
0
• °••
-n' O ,_
nN
()71
'SPEN S9.
°.
t$z(
m
<
•
cr)
1
m
m
a
0
0
Q
O.
D
O
-' •
m
m
m
0
n
D N
�rC
c
�m
7] < m
m
*-r 5r 0,
7 L
N CD - m D a gym.. VI
0 n i c m
y N t m P
0 no n°(D
(D
CD';!
0 a _i
gm nJ
D d�=3 4 G 9 C
0 m cnm ��60
o x� nN Nm
K -o
oio < w a
O �a y w
c
ID
EL x o
n � m �'a ao.
ID <
to a 0 W CCD O
mm o m C
J
0 w O p O Q
F m N 3^ O
c 3 m w 75 c
0
m(ID o� 3w
C n D w a n
cv m cm 7ocm
m Q � � N
o �
<0 8 c
w °c 6 JE 3
17
N CD � :0 0
O O 3 m O
w= a�NS.
ID n F J
m 3 ( a m.
m o < 0
R m w m (D
�
cD2 r m °-
c w N O...
m N x (D
0m
w
a m 3 m
w
c
_ N
•
cn
`J
D
-1.6 ZZIL
me .
am
x'^ m
oc
. •
..
D
w ,
�
n
• °••
-n' O ,_
nN
()71
'SPEN S9.
°.
t$z(
Z D Z
<
•
cr)
1
(D
SEVENTH ST
O g -.
Q
O.
D
-' •
SEVENTH ST .Q O O -Q:
n
D N
�rC
�m
7] < m
ti AO i.
moo y
'O
O
O
odo
L,
a 0 o_
d,
cn
.
-1.6 ZZIL
me .
am
x'^ m
® ........
. •
..
D
w ,
�
n
• °••
D
°.
t$z(
Z D Z
<
•
Dom
al M% .c
1
_
�•.•• is ��ey.;:.
SEVENTH ST
cn
. •
..
• °••
+m
°.
1:
Z D Z
<
•
Dom
al M% .c
•� "� •tea :.•o..��Il1. SL
_
�•.•• is ��ey.;:.
ROARING FORK
TRANSIT AGENCY
WINTER SEASON SCHEDULE
1983 -1984
Effective November 24 through April 15, 1984
EXACT FARE ONLY
Service is 7 Days/Week except as noted.
DEPARTURES FROM
SNOWMASS VILLAGE MALL
(Multiple buses at peak hours)
`"(By transfer only — inform driver)
(Buses make all intermediate stops)
To: To: To:
ASPEN ELJEBEL WOODYCREEK/
AIRPORT /ABC PHILLIPS++
AM AM AM
7:15+ 1 7:15• 7:15•*
8:15 } 8:15* 8:15•+
9:15. 9:15 9:15•+
10:15
11:00
PM PM PM
1:15 i 1:15 4:15 **
3:15* 3:15 5:15*•
4:15 4:15+ 6:15*+
5:15 I 5:15
6:00 6:15*
6:15 8:15
6:45 ( 10:15
7:15 J
8:15 [
9:30 it 10:15
10:45
11:30
AM AM AM
't 12:15 / 12:15. 12:15
* These buses will not operate Thanksgiving Day; Christmas Day; or New Year's Day
+ +: Woody Creek van operates Monday through Friday only,
'6xcept the 12:15 AM is 7 days/week.
•
ROARING
TIT A ECY
SPRING 1984 SC4EDULE
Effective April 16 -June 10, 1984
SNOWSUNNY
7:45 am -11:00 pm (every-30 minutes) Mon. -Sat.
i Outbound: Departs Ruby Park on the hour and
:30 past each hour.
Inbound: Departs Red Bute Drive at: 15 and :45
past each hour.
SILVER`. ING
7:30 am -11:00 pm (every 20 minutes) tion. -Sat.
Outbound: Departs (Ruby Park at :00, :20, and :40
past each hour.
Inbound: Departs Hunter Creek at :10, :30, and
:50 past each hour.
MOUNTAM `ALLEY
7:35 pm (every 30 minutes) Nion. -Sat.
Outbound: Departs Ruby Paris' :25 and :55 past
each hour.
Inbound: Departs Mountain Valley at :05 and :35
past each hour.
-HIGHLANDS
7_:25 am -11:00 pm (every 30 minutes) Peon. -Sat.
Oat656nd: Departs R65y Park at :15 and :45
past each hour.
Inbound: Departs Highlands at :05 and :35 past
each hour. Departs Castlendge /Aspen Valley
Hospital at :25 and :55 past each hour.
SUNDAY HOURS
SNOWBUNNY: 9:15 am - 7:00 pm
SILVERKING: 9:10 am - 7:00 pm
MOUNTAIN VALLEY: 9:05 am - 7:00 pm
HiGHLANGS: 3:55 am - 7: pm
For further information call 925 -8484.
DEPARTURES FROM
ASPEN (RUBY PARK)
(Multiple buses at peak hours)
-
(
(Buses make all intermediate stops)
.
i To:
To: To:
To,
AIRPORT/
SNOWMASS ELJEBEL
WOODYCREEK
ABC
VILLAGE
PHILLIPS**
1 AY
AN AM
AM
7:15
7:15 I 7:15+
7:15++
8:, 5*
8:15. 8:15+
8:15++
9:15
9:15 915,
9:15++
10:15.
10:15*
PM
PM PM
PM
2:45
12:45 .1:15
4:15++
1:15
2:15 3:15
5:15 **
2:15
3:15 4:15+
8:15++
3:15
4:15* 5:15
-
4:15*
5:15 6:15+
5:15
6:15 .. 8:15
a 6:15
7:1510:15.
7:15
8:15
8:15
8:45
8:45
9:15
9:15
10:15
- 10:15
11:00
11:00
11:30 -
11:30.
- AM
AM AM
AM
- .12:15
12:15 12:15r
- 12:15
1:00
1:00
-- r = service beyond
Brush Greek Rd: and Hwy 82 at the request of passengers
on board only.
+ These buses will
not operate Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day,
or New Year's Day
*+ Woody Creek van operates Monday through Friday only,
i except the 12:15 AM is 7 days/week.
DEPARTURES FROM
SNOWMASS VILLAGE MALL
(Multiple buses at peak hours)
`"(By transfer only — inform driver)
(Buses make all intermediate stops)
To: To: To:
ASPEN ELJEBEL WOODYCREEK/
AIRPORT /ABC PHILLIPS++
AM AM AM
7:15+ 1 7:15• 7:15•*
8:15 } 8:15* 8:15•+
9:15. 9:15 9:15•+
10:15
11:00
PM PM PM
1:15 i 1:15 4:15 **
3:15* 3:15 5:15*•
4:15 4:15+ 6:15*+
5:15 I 5:15
6:00 6:15*
6:15 8:15
6:45 ( 10:15
7:15 J
8:15 [
9:30 it 10:15
10:45
11:30
AM AM AM
't 12:15 / 12:15. 12:15
* These buses will not operate Thanksgiving Day; Christmas Day; or New Year's Day
+ +: Woody Creek van operates Monday through Friday only,
'6xcept the 12:15 AM is 7 days/week.
•
ROARING
TIT A ECY
SPRING 1984 SC4EDULE
Effective April 16 -June 10, 1984
SNOWSUNNY
7:45 am -11:00 pm (every-30 minutes) Mon. -Sat.
i Outbound: Departs Ruby Park on the hour and
:30 past each hour.
Inbound: Departs Red Bute Drive at: 15 and :45
past each hour.
SILVER`. ING
7:30 am -11:00 pm (every 20 minutes) tion. -Sat.
Outbound: Departs (Ruby Park at :00, :20, and :40
past each hour.
Inbound: Departs Hunter Creek at :10, :30, and
:50 past each hour.
MOUNTAM `ALLEY
7:35 pm (every 30 minutes) Nion. -Sat.
Outbound: Departs Ruby Paris' :25 and :55 past
each hour.
Inbound: Departs Mountain Valley at :05 and :35
past each hour.
-HIGHLANDS
7_:25 am -11:00 pm (every 30 minutes) Peon. -Sat.
Oat656nd: Departs R65y Park at :15 and :45
past each hour.
Inbound: Departs Highlands at :05 and :35 past
each hour. Departs Castlendge /Aspen Valley
Hospital at :25 and :55 past each hour.
SUNDAY HOURS
SNOWBUNNY: 9:15 am - 7:00 pm
SILVERKING: 9:10 am - 7:00 pm
MOUNTAIN VALLEY: 9:05 am - 7:00 pm
HiGHLANGS: 3:55 am - 7: pm
For further information call 925 -8484.
FARE SERVICE BETWEEN
Aspen, Snowmass Village, El Jebel and Woody Creek
SERVICE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY ONLY— EXACT FARE ONLY
Effective April IWune 10, IW4
DEPARTURES FROM
ASPEN (RUBY PARK)
(Busets make all intermediate stops)
To: To: To: TO:
(AIRPORT/ SNOWMASS ELJEBEL WOODYCREEK
VILLAGE PHILLIPS
7:15arn 7:15am 7:15am 7:15 am
8:15arn 8:15am 8:15am 8:15am
9:15am 9:15am 9:15am 9:15 am
10:15 am 10:15 am
1:15 pm 1:15 pm
3:15pfn 3:15pm 3:15pm
415pm 4:15pm 4:15prn 4:15prn
5:15pm 5 :15pm 5:15pm 5:15pm
6:15prn 6:15prn 6:15prn 6:15prn
7:15prn 7:15prn
8:15prn 8:15prn
9:45pm 9:45prn
10:15pM r10:15pm
12:15mn r12 I :15pm
r a service beyonc! Bmwh Creek Ad. and Rwy 82 at the request of passengers
wbowdo*.
DEPARTURES FROM
SNOWMASS VILLAGE
(By transfer only — Pease inform driver)
To: To: To:
ASPEN ELJESEl WOODYCREEK/
ti 1J Aff"RTIASC PHILLIPS
7:15am 7:15am 7:15am
A 8:15arn
9:15am 8:15am 8:15am
10:15arn 9:15am 9:15arn
1:15prn
3.15prn 315prn
4:15prn 4:15 pm 4:15prn
5:15pm 5:15PTI 5:15pm
15p
6:15prn 6. - rn
6:45 pm
8:15pm 8:15prn
10:15prn 10:15pm
DEPARTURES FROM, EL JEBEL
(INIS83 nmke all intermediate stops)
To: To, To:
ASPEN SNOWMASS w000ycl`t� K/
AMPOFIT/AW PHILIJPS
6'.00am Marn
7.00 arn
700am 700am
800arn 8.,00 wn 800am
M rn 9.00 M 900am
10'.00arn 10:00a"n
2.00 pm 2:00prn
4:00 pm 4:00 pm 4:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00,prn 500 pm
700pm 7:00 prn
9:00 pm
DEPARTUqES FROM
WOODY CREEK/PI41LUPS
To- To: To:
ASPEN SNOWMASS ELJESEL
XRP0.11T!At3c VILLAGE
715 am 7:15prn 7:15am
9:15am 8:15am 8:15am
9:15 am 9:15am 9:15 am
4:15prn 4:15prn 4:15 pm
6:15m 5:15pm 5:15pm
6:15prn 6:15 pm
AIRPORT/AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER (ABC)
Buses to Asven leave trOM "0 airport SKJe (A HWY. 82. Buses to snowrnass
Resort. W--<)dy CmuK and dLwrrrj;ey leave from d-,a bus svelter in fiv
Aspen Business Centar.
_A-
li
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
�J
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Revised Employee Housing Proposal
DATE: May 22, 1984
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to finalize the Planning and
Zoning Commission's position with respect to the Applicants' revised
employee housing proposal. A rough draft of a resolution endorsing
the Applicants' proposal and recommending conceptual subdivision
approval for the Ute City Place component will be available at your
Tuesday, May 22nd meeting.
The Planning Office has had some difficulty in drafting this resolution
given the disparate nature of the various reviews involved in the
employee housing proposal and the lack of consensus among the P &Z
members with respect to the Airport Business Center component. As
a result, the draft which you receive on Tuesday will necessarily
be incomplete. The resolution of any remaining issues will also
be difficult given the anticipated absence of a number of the Commission's
members. Nonetheless, the Planning Office will attempt to gain consensus
with respect to any unresolved issues with the idea of finalizing
the draft resolution for adoption at your first regular meeting in
June.
Should you have any questions prior to your Tuesday, May 22nd meeting,
please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ENDORSING THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD EMPLOYEE HOUSING
PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND
EXEMPTION FROM THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT
PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPOSAL'S UTE CITY PLACE COMPONENT
Resolution No..
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants ") have made the following employee housing commitment,
pursuant to Sections 24 -11.4 (b) (4) , 24 -11.6 (b) (4) , 20-22(d) and 20-
23(A)(2) of the Municipal Code, in consideration of the review and
approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD:
; and
1. To provide nine (9), two-bedroom units housing twenty (20)
employees in conjunction with the 700 South Galena residential
condominium project;
2. To provide housing for sixty percent (600) of the additional
employees, currently estimated at one hundred forty-five
(14 5 ) employees, generated by the Aspen Mountain Lodge
project; and
3. To provide housing for an estimated thirty (30) additional
employees displaced as a result of the demolition of existing
employee housing units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised their original proposal
for fulfilling their employee housing commitment so as to withdraw
their requests for rezoning to R -6 (RBO) , conceptual PUD /subdivision
approval, and exemption from the City's growth management allotment
procedures for the fifty (50) unit, multi- family employee housing
project to be constructed on the Benedict /Larkin property; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' revised proposal for fulfilling their
employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain PUD consists of
the following components:
; and
1. The acquisition and deed restriction of thirty -two (32)
of the existing sixty -four (64) free market Airport Business
Center apartment units;
2. The acquisition and conversion of the existing forty -three
(43) unit Alpina Haus and fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
lodges to deed - restricted employee housing; and
3. The construction of a new twenty -two (22) unit, one hundred
percent (100%) deed - restricted, multi - family residential
project to be known as Ute City Place.
WHEREAS, the Aspen /Pitkin Housing Authority did review and endorse
® •
Resolution No. 847
Page 2 /
the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal at a regula meeting
held on April 19, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of existing lodge units to deed- restricted
employee housing is subject to the change -in -use provisions of Section
24- 11.2(j) of the Municipal Code provided, however, that the change-
in-use of a structure which has received individual historic designation
is exempt from complying with the City's growth management allotment
procedures pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(b); and
WHEREAS, the Copper Horse Lodge, located at 328 hest Main Street,
is an individually designated historic structure; and
WHEREAS, the construction of a one hundred percent (100 %) deed-
restricted employee housing project is exempt from complying with
the City's growth management allotment procedures pursuant to Section
24- 11.2(f) of the Municipal Code subject to the special approval
of the City Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning
and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the proposed Ute City Place project
is subject to the subdivision review requirements of Section 20 -10
of the Municipal Code and to the residential bonus overlay rezoning
requirements of Section 24 -10; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did find, pursuant
to Section 24- 11.2(j) of the Municipal Code, that the conversion
of the forty -three (43) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed - restricted
employee housing, as set forth in the Applicants' revised employee
housing proposal, will result in negligible growth impacts on the
Community, and that said change in use is exempt from complying with
the growth management allotment procedures of the Municipal Code,
all as set forth in the Commission's Resolution No. 84 -1, dated January
17, 1980; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did consider the Applicants' revised
proposal for fulfilling their employee housing commitment and request
for conceptual subdivision approval and growth management exemptions
for the proposed Ute City Place project at meetings held on April
24th, May 8th and May 22, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
• •
Resolution No. 84-
Page 3
of the City of Aspen, Colorado:
SECTION 1
That is does hereby endorse the Applicants' revised proposal
for fulfilling their employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain
PUD subject to the following conditions:
SECTION 2
That it does hereby recommend, pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(f) of
the Municipal Code, that the Aspen City Council exempt the proposed
Ute City Place component of the Applicants' revised employee housing
proposal from complying with the City's growth management allotment
procedures subject to the following conditions:
SECTION 3
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual
subdivision approval, pursuant to Section 20 -10 of the Municipal
Resolution No. 84-,
Page 4
Code, to the Ute City Place component of the Applicants' revised
employee housing proposal subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants' provision of an eight inch (8 ") water system
interconnect on Cleveland Street between Hyman and Cooper
Avenues and reconfirmation of the agreement reached between
the Applicants and t Mater Department with respect to
payment for the requi nterconnect.
2. The Applicants' reev luation, in conjunction with the City
Engineer, of the appropriateness of the proposed curb cut
on Cooper Avenue, including an evaluation of alternative
access points for the proposed Ute City project.
3. The Applicants' provision of a sidewalk the length of the
property along Cooper Avenue.
4. The Applicants' provision of a detailed landscaping plan
designed so as to minimize the visual impact of the proposed
project.
5. The Applicants' compliance with the provisions of Ordinance
12, Series of 1983, with respect to the inclusion of fireplaces
in the proposed project.
6. All material reprentations of the Applicants' conceptual
subdivision application not specifically referred to above
being made a condition of this recommendation of approval.
7. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary subdivision
f approval.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on May , 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING C0101ISSION
Perry Harvey, Chairman
ATTEST:
Barbara Norris, Deputy County Clerk
'~ r1Er610RANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of .Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD /Subdivision Review and Revised
Employee Housing Proposal
DATE: May 8, 11084
Attached for your review and consideration is the latest draft of
your resolution recommending conceptual PUD /subdivision approval
for the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The resolution also recommends
a rezoning to R -15 (PUD) (L) . for that portion of the Top of Mill site
currently zoned Public and owned by the City of Aspen. I have incorp-
orated the additional conditions with respect to 700 South Galena
which you requested at your 11Iay 1st meeting.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to review and amend as required
the revised resolution and to formally review the Applicants' revised
employee housing proposal. The Planning Office's comments with respect
to the Applicants' revised proposal are outlined below.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The attached letters from Jim Curtis, dated. April 23rd and April
30, 10,84, outline the Applicants' revised employee housing generation
figures and employee housing proposal. F.oth the generation figures
and the employee housing proposal have been reviewed and endorsed
by the Housing Authority. It should be pointed out, however, that
further revisions to the generation figures and revised proposal
may be forthcoming as further refinement of the lodge portion of
the PUD continues. It should also be pointed out, that the Applicants'
revised employee housing proposal is consistent, in terms of the
percentage of employees housed, with their original lodge GASP repre-
sentation. The major change to the Applicants' original proposal
involves the substitution of two (2) additional employee housing
projects for the proposed fifty (50) unit project to be build on
the Benedict /Larkin property on Ute Avenue.
As the attached materials indicate, the revised proposal would house
195 employees in four (4) separate projects. To refresh your memory,
the Commission, in its resolution recommending conceptual PUD /subdivision
approval for the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD, found that
the conversion of the forty -four (44) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed -
restricted employee housing would result in negligible growth impacts
on the community and that said change -in -use was exempt from complying
with the growth management allotment procedures of the Municipal
Code. No further review of this component of the Applicants' employee
housing proposal is required by the Commission at this time. A condition
of your approval, however, was that the Applicants submit additional
information with respect to the mitigation of parking problems at
the Alpina Haus as part of their lodge preliminary PUD /subdivision
submission.
In addition to the Alpina Haus Lodge, the Applicants also propose
to convert and deed- restrict the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse.
Lodge to employee housing. The change -in -use of an individually
designated historic structure, however, is e.x.empt by definition from
the City's growth management allotment procedures. As a result,
no specific review is required by the P &Z to accomplish the proposed
change-in-use. The Commission, however, also identified a concern
with respect to parking problems at the Copper Horse and proposed
to further review this issue in conjunction with the Applicants'
lodge preliminary PUD /subdivision submission. The appropriateness
•
Page 2
•
of both the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus for employee housing purposes
is subject to P &Z and Council review in the content of the overall
Aspen Mountain PUD.
Together, the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse will house 89 employees,
or approximately forty -five percent (45o) of the Applicants' employee
housing commitment. The remainder of the employees (106 employees)
were originally proposed to be housed in an approximately 50 unit
project to be constructed on Ute Avenue. With the withdrawal of
this proposal, the Applicants' now intend to provide the remainder
of their employee housing commitment at the Airport Business Center
and in a new project to be constructed on East Cooper Street. As
outlined in the attached materials, the Ute City Place project on
East Cooper Street essentially involves the conversion of a prior
GNP approval to 100 percent deed- restricted employee housing while
the acquisition of existing_ rental housing at the Airport Business
Center would result in the deed- restriction of currently unrestricted
units.
From a procedural perspective, the Ute City Place project should
be considered a discrete and separate proposal from the prior GMP
approval. The project involves the construction of 22 new deed - restricted
employee housing units exempt from the City's growth management allotment
procedures. As such, it is subject to the special approval of the
Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion. Inasmuch as the prior Ute City Place GMP approval involved
full subdivision review, and rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay
(RBO), the Commission must find that the proposed revisions to the
project are consistent with the original conditions of subdivision
and RBO approval.
No specific review by the Commission is required for the deed- restriction
of the Airport Business Center units to employee housing guidelines.
The Commission, however, must find that the proposed utilization
of both the ABC and Ute City Place units is consistent with the App•li-
cants' relevant lodge GMP application representations and is appropriate
within the context of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD approval. Further
analysis of these two new components of the Applicants' revised employee
housing proposal is provided below.
UTE CITY PLACE
The original Ute City Place application received a GNP allocation
in the 1981 residential competition. The original Applicant proposed
to develop twenty -two (22) units on a 1.500 s. f. parcel zoned R -MF.
The project location is lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118, City of
Aspen (Cooper Avenue between West End and Cleveland Avenues). Of
the twenty -two (22) units proposed by the Applicant, eight (8) were
free market, and fourteen (14) were deed- restricted employee housing
units. The original application also received full subdivision review
and approval and was rezoned to R -MF (RBO) in order to accommodate
the density proposed. The project was also condominiumized in order
to allow sale of the individual units.
The Applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD propose to purchase the
Ute City Place site, make minor revisions in the original approved
project, and deed - restrict all. of the units pursuant to the City's
employee housing guidelines. The revised project would house thirty -
seven (37) employees. Given the fact that the project will no longer
contain free market units, an amendment to the prior CHP approval
will not be required. Instead, the Planning Office proposes to essen-
tially duplicate the procedural steps employed in the review of the
original bte City Place project. Obviously, consideration of the
Applicants' request for exemption from growth management for the
construction of the twenty -two (22) units would also be recuired.
The specific review steps will involve conceptual subdivision review
by the P &Z and Council, preliminary subdivision review by the P &Z
and final subdivision review by the Council. In addition, a public
hearing will need to be held at the preliminary subdivision step
0
Page 3
•
in order to consider the Applicants' request for rezoning to Residential
Bonus Overlay. Council would also take action on this request at
the final subdivision step. Should the Applicants be successful
in the review of the revised Ute City Place project, then a condition
of final subdivision approval would be the revocation of the prior
GMP allocation.
The purpose of tonight's meeting with respect to the ilte City Place
proposal is to consider the appropriateness of this component of
the Applicants' employee housing solution and of recommending conceptual
subdivision approval to City Council. Although the public hearing
with respect to the RBO rezoning would not occur until preliminary
subdivision review, P &Z should also comment with respect to the appro-
priateness of the rezoning at this time. Based on the materials
submitted to date, the revised Ute City Place proposal appears to
be identical in most respects to the original project which received
preliminary subdivision approval by the P &Z and final approval by
City Council. The architecture is identical to the prior proposal
with the exception that the size of the free market units has been
reduced consistent with the City's employee. housing guidelines.
As a result, the overall FAR of the project and the building footprint
have been reduced substantially. A detailed analysis of the area
and bulk requirements of both the original and revised project will
be.available at your Tuesday meeting.
With respect to the revised project's eligibility for RBO rezoningi,
the changes which the Applicants have proposed make the project even
more consistent with the applicable criteria. Essentially, the only
reason RBO rezoning is required is to allow the level of density
proposed. Additional information with respect to the density allowed
under existing zoning as compared to the density proposed will also
be available at _your Tuesday meeting. The Planning Office supports
the utilization. of the revised Ute City Place project as part of
the Applicants' employee housing solution subject to the attachment
of appropriate conditions.
AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER APARTMENTS
No specific review by the Commission is required for the deed- restriction
of the Airport Business Center units to employee housing guidelines.
The Planning Office believes, however, that the Commission should
make_a recommendation to Council as to the appropriateness of the
inclusion of the ABC units in the Applicants' employee housing solution.
The remainder of the Applicants' employee housing commitment, approxi-
mately sixty -nine (69) employees, would be met by this proposal.
Based on preliminary discussions to date, the Commission appears
to be divided with respect to this issue. It should be pointed out,
however, that the Housing Authority has endorsed this proposal, based
primarily on the fact that the inclusion of these units in the Applicants'
employee housing solution will result in the deed - restriction of
thirty -two (32) existing free market units. While these units currently
serve an employee housing function, there is no mechanism which insures
their continued availability for employee housing purposes. In fact,
the owners of the Airport Business Center units are currently discussing
the appropriateness of an application for condominiumization with
the Housing Authority.
Given the fact that the utilization of these units as part of the
Applicants' employee housing solution would result in the deed - restriction
of previously unrestricted units, the Planning Office supports this
Applicants' proposal. The principal issue which we have identified
at this time involves the transportation implications associated
with the housing of hotel employees at the Airport Business Center.
Jim Curtis' April 19, 1984 letter, which is attached for your review,
addresses this concern and we are prepared to discuss it in further
detail at your Tuesday meeting. Any endorsement by the Commission
of the Applicants' use of the ABC units should be conditioned upon
the specific measures to be taken to mitigate transportation problems.
Page 4
SUMMARY
c:
Should you concur with the Planning Office recommendations, we propose
to prepare a draft resolution endorsing the Applicants' revised employee
housing, proposal and specifically recommending conceptual subdivision
approval for the revised Ute City Place project. The resolution
would outline the. Applicants' proposal in detail and contain any
conditions you might wish to add with respect to your endorsement.
Suggested conditions for which the Planning Office would develop
specific language would include, for example, the timing of the Appli-
cants' acquisition of the various properties, the execution of appropriate
deed - restrictions, the mitigation of transportation related problems,
etc. This resolution could be prepared for your May 22nd regular
meeting and could be forwarded to Council. independent of your resolution
with respect to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena
projects. Obviously, there are alternative approaches which you
may wish to take. The Applicants' will. be available at your Tuesday
meeting to discuss this issue as well as any other questions your
might wish to raise with respect to their revised employee housing
proposal.
i
May 8, 1984
Sunny Vann
Planning Department Head
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Lots C -G, Block 118
City and Townsite of Aspen
Dear Sunny:
Enclosed is the fully executed consent to joint development
application which we discussed yesterday. This is submitted to the
City of Aspen on behalf of my clients expressly conditioned upon
acceptance by the City of the terms and conditions contained therein.
It is specifically understood that the re- zoning to RMF /RBO
together with the present growth management approval and allocation
will stay intact until such approvals are relinquished subsequent to
or contemporaneously with closing of the sale from my clients to
Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas.
Ve truly yours,
Dougl P. Allen
DPA /jb
Enclosure
May 4, 1984
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Consent to Joint Development Applications
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the undersigned, being the record
owners of Lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado (the "property ") hereby agrees to be, and by this
letter represents that such owners are, a joint applicant with
Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, with respect to
the 1983 Lodge GMP, Coneptual PUD, and subdivision applications
previously submitted to your office on or about October 1 of last
year under the title "Aspen Mountain PUD - The Lodge /Galena /Top
of Mill."
It is expressly understood, of course, that in the event a
mutually satisfactory purchase agreement covering the Property
has not been signed by and between the undersigned (as Sellers)
and Commerce Savings Association and /or its assignee or nominee
(as Purchaser) prior to the time the Lodge Phase of the Aspen
Mountain PUD is submitted to the Aspen City Council for final
approval, the consent set forth herein shall be of no further
force nor effect and the Property shall not be directly burdened
or affected by any of such applications. In the further event
that a purchase agreement covering the Property is entered into
but does not close and the buildings are not conveyed to Pur-
chaser for any reason whatsoever, the Property shall not be
burdened or affected in any manner by the GMP, conceptual PUD or
subdivision approvals. It is further ague that until
the purchase referenced above is con m to t.j ; e joining in
this application by the undersigned s 11 0 pct the existing
GMP and subdivision approvals rela i g to t perty.
C. M— Clar
Alexander G. Casper
May 3, 1984
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Consent to Joint Development Applications
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the undersigned, being the record
owner of that certain real property more particularly described
on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by this ref-
erence, hereby agrees to be, and by this letter represents that
such owner is, a joint applicant with Commerce Savings Associa-
tion of Angleton, Texas, with respect to the 1983 Lodge GMP,
Coneptual PUD, and subdivision applications previously submitted
to your office on or about October 1 of last year under the title
"Aspen Mountain PUD - The Lodge /Galena /Top of Mill."
It is expressly understood, of course, that in the event ,a
mutually satisfactory purchase agreement covering the four (4)
buildings containing thirty -two (32) apartment units situated on
the property described on attached Exhibit A has not been signed
by and between the undersigned (as Seller) and Commerce Savings
Association and /or its assignee or nominee (as Purchaser) prior
to the time the Lodge Phase of the Aspen Mountain PUD is sub-
mitted to the Aspen City Council for final approval, the consent
set forth herein shall be of no further force nor effect and the
property described on attached Exhibit A shall not be directly
burdened or affected by any of such applications. In the further
event that a purchase agreement covering the property is entered
into but does not close and the buildings are not conveyed to
Purchaser for any reason whatsoever, the property described in
Exhibit A shall not be burdened or affected in any manner by the
GMP, conceptual PUD or subdivisiop� approvals.
Johh P. McBr
JPB /k
EXHIBIT A
Lot 10, Block 5, amended and restated plat of
Aspen Airport BUsiness Center Filing No. 1,
recorded in Plat Book 7 at Page 79, Pitkin County,
Colorado or Lot 3F, Block 4.
May 3, 1984
Arthur C. DailY, Esq-
Holland & Hart
600 East Main Street,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: commerce zmploYee BOusing Acu"S"o"S
Dear Art:
I have your letter of April 25, 1984, regarding the Commerce
Employee Housing acquisitions, which I are forwarding to the City
Manager and Mnning Director for their review and comment.
ks best I can recall, ail prior p 1 applications have encompassed
property which was actually owlied by the applicant. One problem I
see in allowing the hotel project to proceed beyond final approval
and into the building stage with t"e applicant having OnlY an
Vey, uitable" rather than "fep" interest in the employee housing
component is that failure to close on the employee properties
would jeopardize the PUD approval, and the City would then be
faced with a substantially cOmPieted project which was 13remised,
in part, on an unfulfilleO employee housing Promise-
Perhaps this dilemma Could be avoided by actually dW restricting
a percentage of hotel rooms equivalent to the promised emp loyee
housing to be held hosiage until all elIpjoyee housing representa-
tions are fulfilled. It also appears to me that assurances
regarding Commerce's employee housing obligations (other than the
certificate of occupancy approach) should also be directly dis-
cussed in the context Of preliminary approval.
in any event, these are only initial thougbts and I will report to
you as soon as I have discussed your letter with City staff-
very truly yours,
Paul J. Taddune
City Attorney
PjT/MC
cc Z city manager
Planning Director
r
1981, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (herein-
after referred to as "City ") and C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER
G. KASPAR (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sub-
divider ").
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has submitted to the City
for approval, execution and recordation, a final plat (herein-
after "the plat ") concerning the construction of a.22.unit
condominium building on property owned by Subdivider known as
Lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118, City of Aspen, County of
Pitkin, State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1981, the Planning and Zoning
Commission.granted preliminary plat approval subject to
specific conditions and on July 13, 1981, the City Council
granted final plat approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is willing to approve,
execute and accept for recordation the plat on the condition
that Subdivider agree to all matters contained in this agree-
ment; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to impose certain condi-
tions and requirements in connection with its approval, exe-
cution and recordation of the plat, as are necessary to
protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivider is willing to acknowledge,
accept, abide by and faithfully perform all of the condi-
tions and requirements imposed by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20 -16(c) of the
Aspen Municipal Code, the Subdivider is required to pro-
vide assurances that it will faithfully perform the condi-
tions and requirements as hereinafter agreed to prior
Boa 422 f>;cE. 5140'
^'
tern
CJ. _
tV
�� a
to
Ln
6
ml_
-�
c� z
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
"'
cry
rrnn
t�
//11
Ac6mBCA?_
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ,01
day of
,
1981, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (herein-
after referred to as "City ") and C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER
G. KASPAR (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sub-
divider ").
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has submitted to the City
for approval, execution and recordation, a final plat (herein-
after "the plat ") concerning the construction of a.22.unit
condominium building on property owned by Subdivider known as
Lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118, City of Aspen, County of
Pitkin, State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1981, the Planning and Zoning
Commission.granted preliminary plat approval subject to
specific conditions and on July 13, 1981, the City Council
granted final plat approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is willing to approve,
execute and accept for recordation the plat on the condition
that Subdivider agree to all matters contained in this agree-
ment; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to impose certain condi-
tions and requirements in connection with its approval, exe-
cution and recordation of the plat, as are necessary to
protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivider is willing to acknowledge,
accept, abide by and faithfully perform all of the condi-
tions and requirements imposed by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20 -16(c) of the
Aspen Municipal Code, the Subdivider is required to pro-
vide assurances that it will faithfully perform the condi-
tions and requirements as hereinafter agreed to prior
Boa 422 515
to the City's acceptance and approval of the final plat;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises,
the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval,
execution and acceptance of the plat for recordation by the
City, it is mutually agreed as follows:
I.
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
Subdivider and its assigns shall be responsible
for the construction and installation of all improvements
required by Section 20 -16(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code,
and as are indicated on the plat. The nature, extent and
estimated cost of such improvements shall conform to the
schedule annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A ".
II.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section 20 -16(c) of the Aspen Municipal
Code and prior to the issuance of -.any permits.for construc-
tion, Subdivider shall provide a guaranty for no less than
one hundred percent (100 %) of the estimated costs of the im-
provements indicated on Exhibit "A" annexed hereto and made
a part hereof and as approved by'the City Engineer. The
guaranty to be provided by Subdivider shall be in the form
of a cash escrow with the City or a bank or savings and loan
association; or shall be in the form of an irrevocable site
draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible
lender; and such guaranty shall give the City the uncondi-
tional right, upon default, by the Subdivider, or its succes-
sors or assigns, to withdraw funds upon demand to partially
or fully complete and /or pay for any improvements or pay any
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As
portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer
shall inspect them and, upon approval and acceptance, he
shall authorize the release of the.agreVed estimated cost for
2.
�oK422 vAGLr 516
that portion of the improvements except that ten percent
(10 %) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all pro-
posed improvements are completed and approved by the City
Engineer.
The Subdivider, its .successors and assigns shall
and hereby agree to provide unto the City a warranty as to
all improvements for a period of one (1) year from and after
acceptance by the City of such improvements.
The Subdivider, its successors "and assigns shall
further guarantee by a maintenance bond or other suitable
means, the repair of any existing improvements damaged during
the course of construction of new improvements pursuant to
the provisions of this Article.
III.
PARKING SPACES
The Subdivider, its successors and assigns shall
designate and provide twenty -six (26) on -site (off street)
parking spaces meeting the requirements of Article IV of
Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, as such parking spaces
are indicated and designated on the plat.
IV.
WATER LINE
The City of Aspen is in the process of construc-
ting an 8" intercept water line on Cleveland Street between
Hyman and Cooper Streets. At such time as construction is
completed on said line and on the line to be constructed on
Cooper Street (so that the Subdivider has the ability, sub-
ject to the appropriate application to the jdater Department,
to tap on to the Cooper Street line) , and the City has adopted
the anticipated new plant investment fee structure, Subdivider
3.
Kelp
moK 422 v cl- 517
agrees to elect one of the.two following options at his
sole discretion, prior to being permitted to tap on to said
line:
1. Subdivider will pay the full plant invest-
ment fee based upon the current rates plus an additional
amount equal to one -half of the actual cost of the portion
of the new intercept line running from the 12" line on
Hyman Street to the hydrant on the south side of Cooper
Street (a distance of approximately 3301) or, alternatively,
2. Subdivider will pay the total amount of the
new, increased, plant investment fee which is anticipated
to take effect August 5, 1981, whichever dollar amount
results in a lower payment by the Subdivider to the City.
LIM
DEED RESTRICTIONS
Subdivider agrees that Units 101 through 106,
201., 203, 205, 206, J and K, will not be rented or sold
• 3
except in accordance with the low income .guidelines estab-
lished by the City of Aspen for the period October, 1980
.to October,.-1981, plus such increases as are permitted by
those guidelines and that Units 201 and 204 will not be
rented or sold except in accordance with moderate income
guidelines established by the City of Aspen for the period
October, 1980 to October, 1981, plus such increases as are
permitted by those guidelines.
Subdivider agrees that all of the units in the
project -will be subject to the following rental restriction:
If any.unit is rented, it must be rented for a term of not
less than six months per calendar year and for only two
.shorter tenancies per calendar year.
4.
VI.
FIREPLACES
•
BooK 422 vm,r 518
Subdivider agrees not to install any fireplaces
in 14 of the 22 units and to install Majestic metal fire-
places, Model Number MHC 36, which are energy conserving,
free air fireplaces, in each of the eight other units.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the Subdivider and City and their
respective successors and assigns.
B. This Agreement shall be subject to and con-
strued in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado
and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
C. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or
any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section
or the application thereof in any circumstance is invali-
dated, 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.
D. This Subdivision Agreement contains the entire
understanding between the parties herein with respect to the
transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or
amended from time to time only by written instruments execu-
ted by each of the parties hereto.
E. Numerical and title headings contained in this
Agreement are for convenience purposes only, and shall not
be deemed determinative of the substance contained therein.
F. Any notices required to be given to the parties
to this Agreement shall be deemed to be-given if personally
delivered or deposited in the United States mail to the
parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses
5.
EM
ma 422 mui- 519
indicated below:
City of Aspen
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Subdivider or its successors or assigns
C. M. Clark and A. G. Kaspar
c/o C. M. Clark
Post Office Box 566
Aspen, Colorado 81611
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have here-
unto set their hands and seals on the date and year respec-
tively indicated in full understanding and agreement to the
terms and conditions herein contained.
CITY OF ASPEN
A Colorado Municipal Corporation
By
Herman Edel
Mayor
Kathr,•yn ` S . 4Roch
City Clr
' -APP�OVED .AS TO FORM:
Paul J. Tad dune
City Attorney
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The above and foregoing Subdivision Agreement
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corpora-
tion, and C. M. CLARK and ALEX NDER G. KASPAR, was acknowledged
before me this�� day of , 1982./ by
HERMAN EDEL, Mayor, and KATHRYN S. KOCH,5Xity Clerk, of the .
City of Aspen.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
4 Notary Public
6.
e •
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
•
Boa 422 tuE520
Alexander G. Kaspar
The above and foregoing Subdivision Agreement
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corpora-
tion, and C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER G. KASPAR, was acknowl-
edged before me this c2 j�& -day of r-�Jk'f_f -,�iiJ 1981,
by C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER G. KASPAR.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
0
7.
NOK422 ma 521
EXHIBIT "A"
To Subdivision Agreement Between
The City of Aspen and
C. M. Clark and Alexander G. Kasper
Improvements to be constructed and installed by Subdivider:
Estimated
1. Sidewalk the length of the property Cost
along Cooper Street to City specifications; $ 2625.00
2. Road sign indicating that a left $ 100.00
turn may not be made into the project by indivi-
duals travelling west on Cooper Street (State
Highway 82).
Construction Schedule:
Construction of the above improvements will be completed
not later than October 1, 1982.
April, 30, 1984
•
Mr. Sunny Vann, Director
Aspen /pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Employee Housing
Dear Sunny:
s
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen, colorado 81611
0
-APR 3 0 1
ASPEN / Pi7KIN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE �
On April 19, 1984, at the regular meeting of the Housing Authority,
Jim Curtis and Richie Cohen, consultants for the Aspen Mountain
Lodge, presented a revised proposal for fulfilling the employee
housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. The applicant
currently estimates their total housing commitment for its PUD as
follows:
1. Aspen Lodge GMP
2. South Galena St. GMP
3. Employee Replacement
Gross
Alpina Haus
Copper Horse
Net
The applicant proposed to house
properties: the Ute City Place
Business Center (69 employees).
145 employees
20 employees
30 employees
/195 employees
-47 employees
-43 employees
to be housed
to be housed
to be housed
to be housed
housed
housed
105 employees to be housed
the 105 employee balance on two.
(37 employees) and the Airport
The Housing Authority Board felt the Ute City Place was very suitable
for employee housing but questioned the use of the Airport Business
Center. Primarily, the Housing Authority was concerned with dis-
placement of current employees living at the ABC apart nts and.the
location.of the property. The applicant stated thepnits at
the Airport Business Center would be deed restricted to the low and
moderate price and income guidelines and that shuttle service to
and from the employment center would be provided.for hotel employees..
Mr. Sunny Vann;
April 30, 1984
Page Two
•
Taking into consideration these items, the Housing Authority Board
approved the concept of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD revised
proposal for housing the net employee generation and suggests that
the Planning and Zon'ng Commission approve this revised plan because
it would restrict units presently in the free market to deed
restricted employee using thus increasing the inventory of protected
employee housing.
The caveat which must be recognized and which has been highlighted
by the applicant is that the numbers may change as the applicant
proceeds with its final plans. Therefore, this is not an approval
of the project and its employee generation but rather support of
the concept of housing 196 employees as previously outlined. The
Housing Authority will scrutinize the project once the applicant
feels they can provide a final set of numbers.
Thank ou.
�amesL. Adamski, Director
Aspen /Pitkin Housing Office
JLA /clm
cc: Jim Curtis
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
April 30, 1984
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
r1
U
0
APR 3 0 1984
--
w / PITK N CO.
PINNING Off ICE
Re: Summary of Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Employee Housing
Dear Sunny,
I wish to present our current proposal for fulfilling the
employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD.
Our current estimate for the PUD's total employee housing
commitment is as follows:
1. Aspen Mtn. Lodge GMP
2. So. Galena St. GMP
3. Employee Replacement
145 emp. to be housed
20 emp. to be housed
30 emp. to be housed
195 employees
The above estimate is a preliminary figure and shall be adjusted
prior to the Preliminary PUD application based on the final plan
and program of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD and a final determin-
ation of the employee housing replacement requirement under
Section 20 -22 and 23 of the Municipal Code. I will continue
working with the Housing Authority and Planning Office to
establish the applicant's final housing commitment.
The Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD proposes to meet its employee
housing commitment as follows:
1.
Alpina Haus
✓46
employees
housed
2.
Copper Horse
Z43
employees
housed
3.
Ute City Place
✓37
employees
housed
4.
Airport Business Center
-69
employees
housed
195 employees housed
North of Nell Building
P.O. Box 3159, Aspen,Colorado 81611
Telephone: 303) 925 -4530
REAL ESTATIOAFFILIATES
Incorporated
Mr. Sunny Vann
April 30, 1984
Page Two
1. Alpina Haus
•
The Alpina Haus is located at 935 E. Durant and is operated as a
tourist lodge. The building will house 46 employees as follows:
40 lodge rms. @ 1 emp. /rm. = 40 emp. - private rms. @ 115 sf. w/bath, shower
2 studio apts. @ 1 emp. /apt. = 2 emp. - studios @ 300 sf. w/bath, shower
1 dorm apt. @ 4 emp. /apt. = 4 emp. - apt. @ 500 sf. w/bath, shower,
y' / , 43 nits 46 emp. kitchen
The building has a heated swimming pool, large kitchen and dining
area, reading /fireplace room, manager's office, basement storage
area, and basement laundry. Eleven (11) on -site parking spaces
are provided. On- street parking is allowed along E. Durant St.'
in front of the lodge.
The building will be upgraded as necessary. Specific building
improvements will be listed at the Preliminary PUD application
based on more detailed study.
The building shall be deed - restricted rental only. Rents shall
�. not exceed 25% of employees' average income or not to exceed
$250.00 per person per month whichever is less. Rents shall
include all common utilities.
The building shall be deed- restricted at the time of issuing a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first Lodge rooms of the Aspen
Mountain Lodge. The units shall be rented on a priority basis to
employees of the Lodge, but if vacancies occur, rooms may be
rented to other employees, music students, and others in the
community. The Housing Authority shall have the right to review
rents on an annual basis.
2. Copper Horse
The Copper Horse is located at 328 W. Main Street and is operated
as a tourist dormitory facility. The building is approximately
4,000 sf. with 14 dorm rooms, 7 shared baths and showers, common
kitchen and living room. The existing and proposed room
capacities are given below:
Existing Proposed
1
- 1
person
rm.
= 1
1
- 1
person
rm. =
1 emp.
2 -
8
person
rm.
= 16
2 -
4
person
rm. =
8
1
- 6
person
rm.
= 6
1
- 4
person
rm. =
4
4
- 3
person
rm.
= 12
4 -
3
person
rm. =
12
3
- 4
person
rm.
= 12
3
- 4
person
rm.
= 12
3 -
2
person
rm.
= 6
3 -
2
person
rm.
= 6
14
53
14
43 emp.
REAL ESTAT�AFFILIATES •
Incorporated
Mr. Sunny Vann
April 30, 1984
Page Three
Four (4) parking spaces.are provided off of the alley behind the
building. On- street parking is provided along Main Street and
No. Third Street.
The building will be upgraded as necessary; however, it is
generally in good condition and well maintained. Specific
building improvements will be listed at the Preliminary PUD
application based on more - detailed study.
The building shall be deed - restricted rental only. Rents shall.
not exceed 25% of employees' average income or not exceed $200
per person per month which ever is less. Rents shall include all
common utilities.-' The building shall be deed - restricted at the
time of issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the first lodge
rooms of the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Rooms shall be rented on a
priority basis to employees of the Lodge, but if vacancies occur,
rooms may be rented to other employees, music students, and
others in the community. The Housing Authority shall.have the
right to review rents on an annual basis.
3. Ute City Place
Ute City Place is a 22 unit project of new construction. The
project is located on 5 city lots at 909 -923 Fast Cooper Street
directly in town. The project was awarded a 1981 GMP allocation
but has not been constructed due to economic reasons. The
original project included 8 free - market units and 14
deed - restricted units. The Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD proposes to
purchase the property and deed - restrict all 22 units as follows:
6
studios
@ 475 sf.(approximate)
@ 1.25 emp. /unit
- 7
emp.
12
1- bedrms
@ 700 sf.(approximate)
@ 1.75 emp. /unit -
21
emp.
4
2- bedrms
@ 1,000 sf.(approximate)
@ 2.25 emp. /unit -
9
emp.
22
units
37
emp.
To comply with the Housing Authority's affordability guidelines
for unit sizes, the revised 100% deed - restricted project would
reduce the size of the original project by. approximately 30% or
from 20,500 sf. to 14,600 sf. This would make the already
approved project even more compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. Parking for the revised project would be at 1 car
per bedroom or 26 cars.
The building shall be deed - restricted to allow for rental or
sale. Under either option, "the units shall be price- restricted
to the moderate income price guidelines annually adopted by the
City. Rent and sale prices shall comply with the moderate income
price guidelines in effect at the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the units. The Housing Authority shall have the
,,-right to review rents and sale prices.
REAL ESTAT DAFFILIATES
Incorporated
Mr. Sunny Vann
April 30, -1984.
Page Four
4.- Airport Business Center
0
The Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD proposes to buy and deed - restrict 32
units of the 64 units of the Airport Business Center apartments.
The units consist of Buildings E, F, G, and H located along the
back edge of the property.
The units are presently free - market units with no deed- restric-
tions. - Under the proposal, the units would be placed under a 50
year deed - restriction.
The units will house 69- employees as follows:
8
1- bedrms
@ 550 sf. @ 1.7.5 emp. /unit
- 14
emp.
22
2- bedrms
@ 750 sf. @ 2.25 emp. /unit
- 49
emp.
2
3- bedrms
@ 1,050 sf. @ 3.00 emp. /unit
- 6
emp.
32
units
750
69
emp.
Under the deed - restriction, the rents would be the following:
1. Nine (9) 2- bedroom units would be restricted to the low -
income price guidelines. The proposed 1984 low- income
guideline is 58� sf. These units would fulfill the
low- income commitment made for the South Galena Street GMP.
2. The balance of the units would be price- restricted to the
moderate - income guidelines. The proposed 1984 moderate -
income guideline is 86� sf.
Current and deed - restricted rents are compared below:
Deed - Restricted Current
Rents Rents
8
1- bedrms.
@
550
sf.
@
$473
@
861
sf.
$500
@
.91�
sf.
9
2- bedrms.
@
750
sf.
@
435
@
58�
sf.
675
@
.90�
sf.
13
2- bedrms.
@
750
sf.
@
647
@
86$
sf.
675
@
.90$
sf.
2
3- bedrms.
@
1,050
sf.
@
903
@
86
sf.
875
@
.83
sf.
32 units
Current rents are as of May 1 based on an already announced rent
increase. All rents included common utilities of water, sewer,
electric, gas and cable TV.
Each' building has a downstairs laundry and assigned unit storage
rooms. Parking is provided at 1 car per bedroom. The applicant
proposes to operate an employee shuttle which will supplement the
County bus service. The employee shuttle would be scheduled to
REAL ESTAT?FAFFILIATES, •
Incorporated .
Mr. Sunny Vann
April 30, 1984
Page Five
provide service during the non -to -low operating times of the
County buses. It is felt a well- operated employee shuttle plus a
manaqement policy of educating employees--not to drive to work
will provide a high employee transit use.
The buildings shall be deed - restricted to allow for rental or
sale. Under either option, nine (9) 2- bedroom units shall be
price - restricted to the low income price guidelines, while the
balance -of thd'>2 units shall be price- restricted to the moderate
income price guidelines annually adopted by the City. Rents
shall include all common utilities. The units- shall'be
deed - restricted at the time of issuing a Certificate of Occupancy
for the first lodge rooms of the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Rental
and sale prices shall be restricted to the low and moderate price
guidelines in effect at the-time of recording the
deed - restriction. The Housing Authority shall have the right to
review rents and sale prices.
If you have any questions on the above information please give me
a call.
JC /b
Sincere�y,
J�m Curtis
J
DENVER OFFICE
. SUITE 2900
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE (303) 295- 8000
TELECOPIER (303) 295 -8261
MONTANA OFFICE
SUITE 1400
175 NORTH 27TH STREET
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
TELEPHONE (46611 252 -2166 -
TELECOPIER (406) 252 -1669
ARTHUR C. DAILY
H OLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS Ax LAW'
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303) 925 -3476
Aspen City Council .
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
April 26, 1984.
- WASHINGTON,D. C: OFFICE
SU)7E 1200 -
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20006.
TELEPHONE (202) 468-7340'.
TELECO PIER (202) 466 -7354
WYOMING OFFICE -
SUITE 500
2020 CAREY AVENUE.
CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001
TELEPHONC (307) 632 -ZI&O
TELECOPIER (307) 778.8175
S. E.DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 1250 - -
7887 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111
TELEPHONE (303) 741 -1226
Re: Excavation Permit for West
Side of Aspen Mountain Lodge Project
Dear Mayor Stirling and City Council Members:.
The lodge component of the Aspen Mountain P.U.D. received full
conceptual approval from the City Council on,April 2, 1934. The
Planning and Zoning Commission is expected to grant conceptual
approval to the remainder of the P.U.D. (the residential and
employee housing portions) in the next week or two, and the first
Council review of this component is scheduled for May 14. Planning
Office projections suggest that Council consideration of the resi-
dential and employee housing aspects may be completed and formal
Council action taken with respect to the matter on or about
June 11. If that Council action is favorable, the entire Aspen_
Mountain P.U.D. will then have received conceptual approval.
In order to expedite development of the Hotel site, the Appli-
cant has elected to proceed first with preliminary and.final P.U.D.
reviews of the lodge component, with detailed consideration of the
residential project to follow at a more moderate pace. At present,
the first P & Z review of the Lodge Preliminary P.U.D. is scheduled
for June 5.. This phased approach makes a lot of sense, in that it
will enable the City to isolate and to concentrate separately on
the details of each of the two essentially independent elements of
the Planned Unit Development. Those aspects of the overall subdi-
vision and P.U.D. which cannot properly be segregated (trails and
open space, subdivision improvements, etc.) will,.of course, be
handled in the first (lodge) review phase. The Applicants will
thus continue to adhere to all applicable Code requirements.
The principal purpose of the phased approach is to allow pre -
development work to begin on the West side of the Hotel Site as
HOLLAND & HART
April 26, 1984
Page 2
early as possible this year. Hensel Phelps, the Applicant's gen-
eral contractor, believes that if certain critical elements of the
construction schedule can be accomplished this year, the West side
of the Hotel can be completed and opened to the public during the
spring of 1986. The West side includes the greater part (roughly
275).of the hotel units, the entire conference facility, and all
amenities necessary for a fully operational resort hotel. The East
side, which is essentially a reconstruction of the Continental.Inn
units, is scheduled for excavation early in the Spring of 1985 and
for completion around December 1 of 1986.
However, even.a concentrated effort by both the Applicant and
the City to finalize the Lodge P.U.D. phase cannot achieve Final
Plat approval before August or September of this year. Aspen's
attenuated construction season requires that excavation work be
commenced no later than June 15 on the West side if the necessary
progress is to be made in the construction schedule during 1984..
While many zoning codes (including Pitkin County's in certain
instances) provide for the issuance of preliminary construction
permits while detailed project review is in process, Aspen's Code
does not specifically address the matter. Because of the critical
importance, to both the Applicant and the community, of the timely
completion of the West and East sides of the Hotel, the Applicant
respectfully requests early consideration of its excavation permit
.application for the West side on the following basis.
The Applicant will enter into a written understanding with the
City to the effect that the issuance of an excavation permit shall
have no effect whatsoever on the City's freedom to approve or dis
approve.the preliminary and /or final stages of the Lodge P.U.D.
phase of the project or any aspect thereof. In other words, the
Applicant shall expressly agree that it has no rights, either legal
or otherwise, to place any reliance whatever on future City devel-
opment approvals as a consequence of the issuance of an excavation
permit. The Applicant will also specifically waive any estoppel
arguments that might otherwise be raised. Furthermore, the Appli-
cant will deliver to the City a bond or Letter of Credit in an
amount sufficient to enable the City to restore. the West side to
its natural state and grade in the event that Final Plat approval
for the Lodge P.U.D. phase has not been obtained by a mutually
agreed -upon date. The City's right to draw down the bond or Letter
of Credit will be clearly spelled out in the accompanying agreement
with the Applicant.
Finally, while the Applicant desires to enter into this under-
standing with the City as promptly as possible, the Applicant
® HOLLAND & KART
April 26, 1984
Page 3
acknowledges that its effectiveness must be expressly contingent.
upon the Council's adoption of a resolution of conceptual approval
of the remainder of the Aspen Mountain P.U.D.
The Applicant will also be submitting to you during the next
week a Petition for the immediate vacation of Lawn Street and the
Westerly portion of Dean Street. Vacation of the balance of Dean -
Street and the Southerly extreme of Mill Street will be handled
this summer during the Lodge Final P.U.D. phase. In its submittal,
the Applicant will address the concerns expressed in Conditions
Nos. 7 and 8 of Council Resolution No. 84 -11 (Lodge P.U.D. Concep=
tual Approval). In connection with this vacation Petition, the
Applicant will propose that in the event Final Lodge P.U.D.
Approval is not obtained by the mutually agreed -upon date, (i) the
bond or Letter of Credit discussed above be large enough to provide
for the complete restoration of the vacated streets, and (ii) an
instrument of reconveyance of such streets to public use be placed
in escrow with instructions for the delivery of the instrument to
the City for recording simultaneously with the triggering of the
City's right to.draw down and use the funds represented by the bond
or Letter of Credit.
While the three (3) months that will be gained by the issuance
of an early excavation permit may not seem like a.great deal of
time in the overall scheme of things, Hensel Phelps has helped the
Applicant to understand that the timing of this permit is perhaps
the most critical factor in the entire construction schedule.
Let's examine some of the projected consequences of commencing
excavation on June 15 as opposed to starting on September 15.
A. Excavation Begins June 15, 1984
1. All below grade structural work can be completed during
1984. This allows above grade structural steel work to be
accomplished during the 1984- 85.winter.
2. Substantial progress can be made during the 1985 summer
with respect to site improvements, such as paving, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and some landscaping.
3. West side of Hotel, including the complete conference
facility, opens roughly May 1, 1986. Substantial revenues will be
generated for the community, the City and the developer during the
summer and fall of 1986. And with the Continental Inn probably
demolished by this time as well, the 275 new hotel units will serve
•
HOLLAND & HART
•
April 26, 1984
P a g "e 4
g
to fully replaces the number of ac bmmodations; removed from the
entire 'Hotel Sites In pres6ht.- y -x,1 tin numbE�r
of lodging units in the area will have been completely replenished
for the 1986 summer season.
4.. East side of Hotel opens roughly December 1, 1986. This
may be the most significant consideration for everyone concerned,
because if.excavati.on of the.West side..is delayed until September
of 1984 (see below), Hensel Phelps believes it likely that the East.
wing will not be completed before May of 1987. Hence, early exca-
vation of the West side results in completion of the entire Hotel
project prior to the 1986 -87 winter season.. The multiple benefits
are obvious. Why is the East side completion date so drastically
affec ted.by the timing of excavation on the West side? Hensel
Phelps- states that only by making full use of the 1984 summer can
the developer achieve the staggering of labor and material demands
which will be essential to effective construction scheduling. If
the multitude of different types of trade work are simultaneously
required on both sides of the Hotel project, there simply will not
be enough material and qualified manpower available to accomplish
the job in an timely manner.
B. Excavation Beqins September 15, 1984
1. Only excavation work can be accomplished during 1984.
Little if any below grade structural work will be done, and the.
winter season (structural steel) will be lost. In fact, a tough
judgment call will have to be made as to.whether to commence exca
vation at all during. 1984, because of the risks inherent in leaving
an excavated hole in the ground throughout the entire winter. At
best, excavating this fall will gain only a month or two over,
beginning the whole project during the spring off 1985.
2. No site improvements work will be performed during 1985.
3. West side of Hotel opens no earlier than December 1,
1986. A minimum of six (6) months of revenues and accommodations
availability will have been lost, including the summer and fall
seasons during 1986.
.4. East side.of Hotel opens during May of 1987. The entire.
1986 winter season will have been lost for the 172 units (and
related amenities) planned for this wing of the Hotel.
Further to our discussion of yesterday evening, I've pulled
together for your file the following information pertaining to
scheduled closing dates for the four (4) properties being acquired
by Commerce Savings for employee housing purposes.
1. Copper Horse: Existing contract closing date is
September 1, 1985.
2. Alpine Haus: Existing contract closing date is.either
April 30, 1985 or September 1, 1985, at Commerce Savings' option.
3. Ute City Place: Contract in negotiation, proposed.
closing date is April 1, 1985.
4. Airport Business Center Units: Contract in negotiation,
proposed closing date is May 1, 1986.
In other words, Commerce Savings will have all of its employee
housing (assuming these properties receive final City sanction)
under specifically enforceable purchase contracts prior to final
P.U.D. approval. The actual closings of these acquisitions will
not take place until the approximate dates set forth above.. Since
neither the City nor Commerce Savings will have any need for this
employee housing until the first phase of the new Hotel opens its
doors, this would appear to be a workable approach for all parties
(the most optimistic completion date for the West wing of the Hotel
being May 1, 1986). However, if this schedule raises any questions
from the City's point of view, I would appreciate your letting me,
know as promptly as possible.
"
HOLLAND & HART
DENVER OFFICE
WAS H INGTOX.O. C.OFFPC -E
SUITE 2900 -
- ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 1200
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
-
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
DENVER, C OLORADO 80202
600 EAST MAIN STREET
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20006
TELEPHONE (303) 295-8000
"
TELEPHONE (202) 466 -7340
TELECOPIER (303) 295 -8261 -
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELECOPIER 1202) 456-7354
TELEPHONE (303) 925 -3476
MONTANA OFFICE
- WYOMING OFFICE
'SUITE 1400
- -
- SUITE $00
175 NORTH 27TH STREET
-
2020 CAREY AVENUE
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
CIIEYENNE,WYOMING 82001
TELEPHONE (4016) 252 -2166
TELEPHONE, ( 507) 632 -2160 "
_ TELECOPIER (406) 252 -1669
�y p
April 25, 1984
TELECOPIER (307) 778.8175
ARTHUR C. DAILY.
-
S. E.OENVER OFFICE
SUITE 1250
7887 EAST BELLEVIEW AV ENUC
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111
.
- TELEPHONE (303) 741 -1226
Paul Taddune, Esq.
APR 2 14
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena
ASPEN / PITKIN CO,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
PLANNING 0FRICE
Re: Commerce
Employee Housing Acquisitions.
Dear Paul:
Further to our discussion of yesterday evening, I've pulled
together for your file the following information pertaining to
scheduled closing dates for the four (4) properties being acquired
by Commerce Savings for employee housing purposes.
1. Copper Horse: Existing contract closing date is
September 1, 1985.
2. Alpine Haus: Existing contract closing date is.either
April 30, 1985 or September 1, 1985, at Commerce Savings' option.
3. Ute City Place: Contract in negotiation, proposed.
closing date is April 1, 1985.
4. Airport Business Center Units: Contract in negotiation,
proposed closing date is May 1, 1986.
In other words, Commerce Savings will have all of its employee
housing (assuming these properties receive final City sanction)
under specifically enforceable purchase contracts prior to final
P.U.D. approval. The actual closings of these acquisitions will
not take place until the approximate dates set forth above.. Since
neither the City nor Commerce Savings will have any need for this
employee housing until the first phase of the new Hotel opens its
doors, this would appear to be a workable approach for all parties
(the most optimistic completion date for the West wing of the Hotel
being May 1, 1986). However, if this schedule raises any questions
from the City's point of view, I would appreciate your letting me,
know as promptly as possible.
HOLLAND & MART
April 25, 1984
Page 2
Commerce Savings will, of course, be deed - restricting as many
of these accommodations as are required under the final P.U.D.
approvals contemporaneously with its request for a Certificate of
Occupancy on the Westerly phase of the Hotel.
Very trul yours,
Arth r C. Daily
for HOLLAND & HART
ACD /jIf
cc: Mr. Sunny Vann, Planning Director
Doremus and Company
Mr. Richard Cohen
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
•
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place
and 700 South Galena Conceptual PUD /Subdivision
Review and Revised Employee Housing Proposal
DATE; April 24, 1984
Attached for your review and consideration is a revised draft of
a resolution recommending conceptual PUD /subdivision approval for
the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components
of the Aspen Mountain PUD and recommending a rezoning to R -15 (PUD)
(L) for that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public
and owned by the City of Aspen. I have incorporated the additions
and changes you requested at your April 17th meeting. With the
exception of specific conditions with respect to the 700 South Galena
project, I believe the resolution to be complete and up -to -date.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to:
1) Initiate discussion of the Applicants' revised employee
housing proposal,
2) Review the 700 South Galena project with respect to the
conceptual PUD /subdivision criteria of the Municipal Code,
3) Review and amend as required the revised draft resolution.
Given the fact that May 14th is the earliest date at which Council
can review the residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD,
I would suggest that you refrain from forwarding your resolution
with respect to the Top of Mill until such time as you have comlpeted
your review of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal.
Your recommendations with respect to their proposal could then be
incorporated , in the Top of Mill resolution and forwarded to Council
for consideration at their May 14th meeting.
The Planning Office's initial comments with respect to the Applicants'
revised employee housing proposal are outlined below. We have also
included an overview of potential conceptual PUD /subdivision concerns
with respect to 700 South Galena project.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The attached letters from Jim Curtis, dated April 17th and April
19, 1984, respectively, outline the Applicants' proposed revisions
to their original employee housing proposal. Essentially, the Applicants
propose to abandon the Benedict /Larkin project on Ute Avenue, replacing
it with deed - restricted units at the Airport Business Center and
a new project to be constructed on East Cooper Street. While the
Planning Office has not reviewed the specific details of this new
proposal, we generally support the basic concept.
The Ute City Place project on East Cooper Street involves the conversion
of a prior GMP approval to 100% deed- restricted employee housing
while the acquisition of existing rental housing at the Airport Business
Center would result in the deed- restriction of currently unrestricted
units. The principal issue which we have identified at this time
involves the transportation implications associated with housing
hotel employees at the Airport Business Center. The Applicants'
April 19th letter addresses this concern and we will be prepared
to discuss it in detail at such time as formal review of the Applicants'
LJ
Page 2
revised proposal occurs.
r1
�J
No formal action with respect to the Applicants' revised employee
housing proposal can be taken tonight. Should you agree conceptually
with the Applicants' revisions, a detailed memorandum addressing
the review requirements of the municipal Code will be prepared by
the Planning Office and formal review could be conducted by the
Commission at your regular May 8th meeting. The Applicants must
secure permission to submit an application on behalf of the current
owners of the two properties or place the properties in question
under option prior to formal action by the Commission. In addition,
the Housing Authority must take formal action, tentatively scheduled
for the Authority's Thursday, April 3rd meeting, with respect to
the revised proposal and the Planning Office must review the specifics
surrounding the prior GMP approval of the Ute City Place project.
The Ute City Place project involves the construction of twenty -two
(22) new deed- restricted employee housing units. As such, it is
subject to special approval of the Council, based on the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Inasmuch as the Ute City
Place project involves an RBO rezoning, the Commission must find
that the proposed revisions to the project are consistent with the
original conditions of RBO approval. No specific review by the Commission
is required for the deed - restriction of the Airport Business Center
units to employee housing guidelines. The Commission, however, must
find that the proposed utilization of the ABC units is consistent
with the Applicants' lodge GMP application and is appropriate within
the context of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD.
700 SOUTH GALENA - CONCEPTUAL PUD /SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Attached for your review and consideration is the 1983 Residential
GMP Project Profile and Planning Office recommended scoring for the
700 South Galena residential component of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
Generally speaking, the impacts of a proposed project are reflected
in the scores which the project received in the GMP process. Similarly,
receipt of a GMP allocation would tend to indicate that the majority
of those impacts have been successfully mitigated.
As the Planning Offices' recommended scoring reflects, no major defic-
iencies of a conceptual nature with respect to the proposed project
were noted. In fact, the Planning Offices' recommended scoring with
respect to public facilities and services were increased based on
the Applicants' clarification that the project would only be built
as submitted in conjunction with the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain
PUD. The 700 South Galena project also clearly exceeds the underlying
zoning requirements for parking and open space.
It should be pointed out, however, that the level of development
proposed exceeds the L -2 zoning requirements for the twenty -one thousand
six hundred (21,600) square foot site and may only be permitted in
conjunction with the development of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD.
Twelve (12) units with twenty -four (24) bedrooms and a total adjusted
floor area of twenty -one thousand seventy -three (21,073) square feet
are proposed for the site as part of the Aspen Mountain PUD. However,
if the multi - family development plans were based solely on the 21,600
square foot site, Section 24 -3.7k of the Municipal Code would permit
no more than one bedroom per 1,000 square feet of land area or a
maximum of twenty-one(21) bedrooms. In the event the Aspen Mountain
PUD is not approved, the 700 South Galena project would require a
GMP amendment in order to allow its construction.
As the attached project profile indicates, the 700 South Galena project
essentially complies with all applicable area and bulk requirements
of the underlying zoned district. The only variation required under
the PUD regulations with respect to 700 South Galena is the project's
height. The maximum height of the underlying L -2 zone district is
Page 3
28 feet while the proposed project appears
35 feet on the attached conceptual drawings.
recommended scoring points out, however, tY
of units, and materials create a desirable
proposed hotel and residential units to the
is compatible with other structures in the
are prepared to discuss the height at your
this be a major concern.
to average approximately
ks the Planning Offices'
e massing, articulation
transition between the
southeast and the scale
area. The Applicants'
Tuesday meeting should
Neither the Planning Office nor the Engineering Department have identified
further conceptual issues which should be addressed at this time.
The Applicants, however, will present the 700 South Galena project
at your Tuesday meeting, and should you have any, additional concerns,
they can easily be incorporated into your resolution. Should _you
have any questions prior to your April 24th meeting, please feel
free to contact me at the Planning Office.
• s
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
April 23, 1984
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Mr. Jim Adamski
Aspen /Pitkin Housing Authority
0100 Lone Pine Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Employee Housing
Dear Sunny and Jim,
Per your request, I have outlined for the Aspen Mountain Lodge
PUD our current employee housing commitment, properties, and
generation figures. I emphasize the figures will continue to
change as the Lodge plan and program is finalized and as our
employee housing replacement requirement is also finalized. I
have compared our current program with our original program for
your review.
1 Employee Housing Commitment Current Original
1. Aspen Mtn. Lodge GMP
145
emp.
180
emp.
2. So. Galena Street GMP
20
emp.
20
emp.
3. Employee Replacement
30
emp.
0
not included
emp.
195
emp.
200
emp.
2 Employee Housing Properties Current Original
1.
Alpina Haus
47
emp.
47
emp.
2.
Copper Horse
43
emp.
43
emp.
3.
Ute City Place
37
emp.
-
4.
Airport Business Center --
69
emp.
-
19.6
emp.
-
5.
Benedict Property
111
emp.
201
emp.
North of Nell Building
P.O. Box 3159, Aspen,Colorado 81611
Telephone: 303) 925.4530
Mr. Sunny Vann
Mr. Jim Adamski
April 23, 1984
Page Two
3. Employee Generation
A. Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Current Original
1. Lodge Operations
Lodge rooms
185
250
1 bdrm suites
50
w /50
liv.rms. 75
w/75
2 bdrm suites
0
50
w /50
Lockoffs
200
50
Penthouse suites
12
w /12
liv.rms. 55
w/55
447
480
Living Rooms @ 25% ult.
15
45
462
525
Existing rooms
-277
-277
Net new roans
185
248
Employees per roan
.36
.36
Net new employees
67
89
GMP employees housed
60%
60%
Employees housed
40
53
2. Accessory Food /Beverage
Total food /beverage
22,000
sf.
23,500
sf.
Existing food /beverage
- 10,000
sf.
- 10,000
sf.
Net new food /beverage
12,000
sf.
13,500
sf.
Employees per 1,000 sf.
12.8
12.8
Net new employees
154
174
CHIP employees housed
60%
60%
Employees housed
92
104
3. Accessory Retail
Total retail
7,000
sf.
7,500
sf.
Existing retail
-700
sf.
-700
sf.
Net new retail
6,300
sf.
6,800
sf.
Employees per 1,000 sf.
3.5
3.5
Net new employees
22
24
GMP emp. housed
60%
60%
Employees housed
13
14
Subtotal Employees Housed
145
171 *
liv.rms.
liv.rms.
liv.rms.
*The original 1/1/83 Lodge GMP application showed a housing
commitment for 180 vs. 171 employees. However, based on
additional research by the applicant and Gail Schwartz of the
Housing Authority, the housing commitment was reduced to 171
employees due to a reduction in lodge operations employees.
Mr. Sunny Vann
Mr. Jim Adamski
April 23, 1984
Page Three
B. So. Galena St. GMP
There has been no change in the South Galena Street GMP applica-
tion or the employee housing commitment per the application which
is outlined below:
Free market units 12 units @ 24 bedrooms
Employee Units 9 units @ 18 bedrooms
Employees Housed 9 units - 2- bedroom units
2.25 emp. /2- bedroom unit
20 employees housed
C Employee Replacement Housing Required by Sections 20 -22 & 23
of the City Code
Per the Code, employee replacement housing is not considered as
part,of the GMP review, but is considered part of the Conceptual
PUD review. Therefore, the employee replacement housing was not
included in the original GMP employee housing calculations but
are included in the overall PUD calculations. The replacement
estimate is preliminary until I submit further documentation to
the Housing Authority and Planning Office.
1. Employee Housing Replacement
Melville II cottage 10 employees
Black Residence 2 employees
Townplace apts. 5 employees
1978 Aspen Inn expansion 13 employees
Hillside- Holiday exchange 0 no net displacement
Mine Dumps Apts. 0 no displacement
30 employees
I again wish to emphasize the above numbers will change as we
proceed with detailed Lodge planning and programming and the
political processing of the total PUD. I will continue working
with the Housing Authority and the Planning Office to establish a
final set of numbers. If you have any questions, please give me
a call.
Respectf.ull ,
Jim Curtis
J,C : c ck
.y
C7
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
April 19, 1984
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
APR 1 1
ASPEN / PiTKIN CO:
PLANNING OFFICE ,
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD
Employee Housing & Employee Parking for.the Hotel
Dear Sunny,
Based on our current employee housing proposal for the Aspen
Mountain Lodge PUD, I wish to respond to your question concerning
employee parking at the Hotel. As you know, our current employee
housing proposal consist of the following properties:
1. Airport Business Center - 69 employees housed
2. Ute City Place - 37
3. Alpina Haus - 47
4. Copper horse - 43
196 employees housed
I wish to restate our employee parking policies which were
presented to you during the conceptual parking review of the
Hotel. These policies will be applied equally to all the Hotel
employees including the employees we propose to house. The
policies are outlined below:
1. We will aggressively discourage employees from driving to
work. Management policies will be aimed to encourage
walking and transit use. Three of the employee housing
properties are in -town within easy walking distance to the
Hotel and directly on the City bus routes. The Airport
Business Center property will be served by an employee
shuttle van in addition to the County buses. The van.will
y
be scheduled . to provide service during the non -to -low
operating times of the County buses.
North of Nell Building
P.O. Box 3159, Aspen,Colorado 81611
Telephone: 303) 925 -9530
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
Mr. Sunny Vann
April 19, 1984
Page Two
2. TDA's analysis has shown that except for the peak occupancy
periods estimated at "10 % -15% of the year, the Hotel will
have unused parking spaces which could be segregated for
employee parking. TDA's analysis indicates that except for
the peak occupancy periods, the 280 parking spaces supplied
specifically for the lodge rooms will provde a 10% to 20%
cushion above average occupancy demand or a cushion of 28 to
56 parking spaces. These spaces in addition to the 10
permanent employee spaces would allow for 38 to 66 spaces
which could be used by employees for up to 85 % -90% of the
year. This does not even consider the utilization of any
unused spaces from the additional 63 spaces being provided
in the total of 353 spaces proposed.
3. By working with the Hotel operator, we will have the ability
to set up a strict heirarchy of parking priorities under
which we could assign the right to park to certain employees
during non -peak occupancy periods. For example, the Airport
Business Center employees could be given a parking prefer-
ence over the in -town employees.
4. During the peak occupancy periods, employees will be prohi-
bited from bringing their cars to work and parking at the
Hotel. If employees violate this rule, they will be
reprimanded, ticketed, towed, or even fired.
5. We expect the City to develop a parking policy for the area
together with the Lodge Improvement District in which we
will actively.participate. The parking policy and plan will
establish the rights of the public, including our employees,
to park in the Hotel area as well as the total Lodge
Improvement District. The parking policy may very well
prevent an employee from parking on the streets without
risking being ticketed or towed.
Because of the above reasons, we simply.do not see the need or
logic to provide "extra" employee parking on the site.
Sincerel ,
m Curtis
JC /b
North of Nell Building
P.O. Box 3159, Aspen,Colorado 81611
Telephone: 303) 925 -4530
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
April. 17, 1984
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Mr. Jim Adamski
Asen /Pitkin Housing Authority
0100 Lone Pine Road, Suite 7
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Employee Housing
I wish to present our revised proposal for fulfilling the
employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD.
As you know, our original proposal consisted of the following
properties:
1. Benedict Property - 106 emp. -mix of 1, 2, 3 bdrm.units
2. Alpina Haus - 47 emp. - converted lodge units
3. Copper Horse - 43 emp. - dormitory units
196 emp.
Since the original October 1, 1983 submission date for the Aspen
Mountain Lodge PUD, both the size of the PUD has been reduced and
there has been an indication from the City P &Z and Council that
the R -6 RBO rezoning for the Benedict property would not be
approved. Therefore, we have had to revise our employee housing
proposal accordingly.
We are currently estimating our total employee housing commitment
for the PUD as follows:
1. Aspen Lodge GMP
2. So. Galena St. GMP
3. Employee Replacement
GROSS TOTAL
Alpina Haus
Copper Horse
NET TOTAL
North of Nell Building
P.O. Box 3159, Aspen,Colorado 81611
Telephone: 303) 925 -4530
145 emp.
20 emp.
30 -emp.
195 emp.
-47 emp.
-43 emp.
1(75 emp.
to be housed
to be housed
to be housed
to be housed
housed
housed
to be housed
REAL ESTAT
Incorporated
Mr. Sunny Vann
Mr. Jim Ad amsk i
April" 17, 1984
Page Two
FFILIATES
I wish to emphasize that the estimate of 105 employees remaining
to be housed will continue to change as'the hotel program is
finalized and our employee housing replacement requirements are
also finalized. I will continue to work with the Planning Office
and Housing Authority to establish our.final employee housing
commitment.
Since the rezoning of the Benedict property appears unfeasible,
we propose to house the estimated balance of 105 employees as
follows:
1. Ute City Place property - 37 employees housed
2. Airport Business Center units - 69 employees housed
106 employees housed
Ute City Place
Ute City Place is a 22 unit project of new construction. The
project is located on 5 city lots at 909 -923 East Cooper Street
directly in town. The project was awarded a 1981 GMP allocation
but has not been constructed due to economic reasons. The ori-
ginal project included 8 free - market units and 14 deed - restricted
units. The Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD proposes to purchase the
property and deed-restrict all 22 units as follows:
6 studios @
475 sf. (approximate)
@ 1.25 emp. /unit -
7
emp.
12 1 -bdrms @
700 sf. ( approximate)
@ 1.75 emp. /unit -
21
emp.
4 2 -bdrms @
1,000 sf.(approximate)
@ 2.25 emp. /unit -
9
emp.
22 units
37
emp.
To comply with the Housing Authority's affordability guidelines
for unit sizes, the revised 100% deed-restricted project would f
reduce the size of the original project by approximately 30% or
from 20,500 sf. to 14,600 sf. This would make the already
approved project even more compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. Parking for the revised project would be at 1 car
per bedroom or 26 cars.
REAL ESTAT FFILIATES
Incorporated
er. Sunny Vann
Mr. Jim Adamski
April 17, 1984
Page Three
The applicant proposes to retain the flexibility to rent or sell
the units. Under either option, the units will be
price - restricted to the moderate income price guidelines annually
established by the City. Rent and sale prices shall comply with
the moderate income price guidelines in effect at the issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy for the units and may be adjusted
annually according to the annually adopted guidelines. The
Housing Authority will have the right to reveiw rents and sale
prices for compliance with the adopted City guidelines.
Airport Business Center
The Aspen Mountain Lodge P.UD proposes to buy and deed-restrict 32
units of the 64 units of the Airport Business Center apartments.
The units consist of Buildings E, F, G, and H located along the
back edge of the property.
The units are presently free - market units with no deed-restric-
tions. Under the proposal, the units would be placed under a 50
year deed-restriction.
The units house 69 employees as follows:
8 1 -bdrms @ 550 sf. @ 1.75 emp. /unit - 14 emp.
22 2 -bdrms @ 750 sf. @ 2.25 emp. /unit - 49 emp.
2 3 -bdrms @ 1,050 sf. @ 3.00 emp. /unit - 6 emp.
32 units 69 emp.
The current rents for the units are given below. Current rents
include all utilities except telephone.
8 1 -bdrms @ 550 sf. @ $475 /month = 86 � sf.
22 2 -bdrms @ 750 sf. @ $650 /month = 87 sf.
2 3 -bdrms @ 1,050 sf. @ $825 /month = 79 sf.
32 units
Under the deed-restriction, the rents would be the following:
1. Nine (9) 2- bedroom units would be restricted to the
low- income price guidelines. The proposed 1984 low- income
guideline is 58t.sf. These units would fulfill the
low - income commitment made for the South Galena Street GMP.
2. The balance of the 23 units would be price - restricted to
the moderate - income guidelines. The proposed 1984
moderate - income guideline is 86� sf.
. REAL ESTAT&AFFILIATES
Incorporated
Mr. Sunny Vann
Mr. Jim Adamski
April 17, 1984
Page Four
The deed-restricted rents for the units are given below.
8
1 -bdrms
@
550
sf.
@
86
sf.
_ $473/mo.
9
2 -bdrms
@
750
sf.
@
58c
sf.
= 435/mo.
13
2 -bdrms
@
750
sf.
@
86
sf.
= 647/mo.
2
3 -bdrms
@
1,050
sf.
@
86c
sf.
= 903 /mo'.
32 units
Parking for the units is provided at a 1 car per bedroom. Under
the proposal, the applicant would operate an employee shuttle
van. The employee shuttle would supplement the County buses
which presently stop at the Airport Business Center. The
employee shuttle would be scheduled to provide service during the
non - to-low operating times of the - County buses. It is felt a
well - operated employee shuttle plus a management policy of
educating employees not to drive to work will promote a high
employee transit use.
The applicant proposes to retain the flexibility to rent or sell
the units. Under wither option, the units would become
deed-restricted at the time of issuing a Certificate of Occupancy
for the first lodge rooms. The rental and sale prices would be
restricted to the low.and moderate price guidelines in effect at
the time of recording the deed - restriction. The Housing
Authority will have the right to review rents and sale prices for
compliance with the adopted City guidelines.
I hope the above information clarifies our current proposal to
fulfill our employee housing commitment. I will follow -up with
presentations before the Housing Authority, P &Z, and City Council
to answer any questions.
Respectfully,
m Curtis
JC : cck