Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Aspen Sanitation District.50-81 . . No, 50-81 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen eeeteyli .'/// 1. DATE SUBMITTED: 7Y`r;',L /`7() STAFF: S%//1f C,/ I ," t)/ 2. APPLICANT: ;177,7/ ",.,''/)/)LQ>4 \_/5' /1-/ 3. REPRESENTATIVE: 14lb2,° /t1:7,7 94--,)Z - 7-: // 4. PROJECT NAME: Tpn :\il f);t0//6,0,)1):1 -1--r O ► :1. )) t)V, `1t (. 616((Si, rr 3 5. LOCATION: ' 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning x Subdivision Stream Margin P.U.D. X Exception 8040 Greenline XSpecial Review Exemption View. Plane Growth Management 70:30 . Conditional Use HPC X Residential Bonus ZOther ("A f i 0,E'.,11 1. f— , i c3-'() -t'iy Ptt hi /-fro r;t?ci i 7. REFERRALS: _24_Attorney Sanitation District School District Engineering Dept. Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas X Housing Parks State Highway Dept. __Water Holy Cross Electric Other City Electric Fire Marshal/Building Dept. �'.--r'' -- \- *v ill. '0, ! ' —' e(, ! �t`'(�' `-f'�" -` j✓ '111 " 1 '; �� c / I , 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: • • a 9. DISPOSITION: P & Z X Approved /\ Denied Date 1'c, 9, /9 TO y));`/..} { r']///4yL, '/'(r(Y'/d7-L) ,D) ri ray 9 (,t k Ji r Leo nn--- 0\ , 13! \c,1601•10,11/ nii(77e t`16 pe rPEIo Council Approved Denied Date • 10. ROUTING: v/Attorne " Building g Engineering /Other 1-10u6 11-c tea`_ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Application for Exemption From Park Dedication Fee - Aspen Sanitation District Employee Housing i' DATE: July 7, 1901 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ;t � <<. As the attached letter indicates, the Aspen Sanitation Distri recently: received a number of approvals from City Council which will a low the con struction of four employee housing units at the old sanitation plant loci ed south of Puppy Smith Street. The Sanitation District is now applying, pur- suant to Section 20-18(a)(7), for an exemption from the park dedication fee required under the subdivision regulations. If a proposed subdivision con- stitutes a bonified moderate or low income development, Council may exempt the development from the application of any park dedication fee or reduce by any amount the fee which would ordinarily be imposed. Inasmuch as the proposed employee units have been deed restricted to moderate income guidelines, the conditions of 20-18(a)(7) have been met and the Planning Office recommends that Council waive the applicable fee. Should you concur, the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to waive the park dedication fee applicable to the four moderate income employee housing units to be constructed by the Aspen Sanitation District at the old sanitation plant located south of Puppy Smith Street. " ---------------------------__ Lispen/Pit , ,ining Office kl‘,..!,,-.0 , 4.1.‘,/4:-.., 'I,i'd :- !' ,A( FM \ „cr' aspen, .4 , I --. 'z*i 81611 t...„- -4,-, ---....t- • ' - - c? .,,, .......„....,---1 Elizabeth Paepcke Lakeview Addition ' 105 West Adams Chicago, Illinois 05 0 Z..1.!:;.;:..31.4 1. 1. 1.." .1.5".a.0 1 REILW64 10 Se4Di.J... 1.40T DUMAITe14-31J: 1.'.6 i:.i...1:: ALBERT KERN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW JUN 30 ECEIM 430 E. HYMAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN / PiTKiN CO. TELEPHONE(303) 925-7411 MANNING OFFIC June 30, 1981 HAND DELIVERED City Planner City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Application for Exemption from Park Dedication Fee - Aspen Sanitation District. Dear Sir: Recently the Aspen Sanitation District received a zoning change, Residential Bonus Overlay and subdivision exception from the City Council of Aspen to permit it to construct four moderate income employee units for its employees at the sanitation plant site. At the time of appearance before the City Council we neglected to apply for a waiver of the Park Dedication Fee. We are doing so at this time in accordance with Section 7-143 (7) of the Municipal Code which provides for exemption of the Park Dedication Fee upon determination by the Council of a bona fide moderate or low income housing development. The Aspen Sanitation District has already entered into covenants restricting the four units to rental to its employees under the moderate income guide lines of the City as well as restricting the rental period and covenanting not to condominiumize the units. We feel that this project squarely meets the objectives of the exemption provision in Section 7-143 (7) . We request this application for Park Dedication Fee exemption be placed before the City Council in the earliest possible time. Very truly yours AK/o Albert Kern, Attorney for Aspen Sanitation District cc: Heiko Kuhn • IPORTANT MESSAGI ' TO :.._�IAI:. A.M. DATE TIME P.M. -� WHILE YOU WERE OUT M OF Area Code &Exchange ■ TELEPHONED ■ CALLED TO SEE YOU ■ ■ WANTS TO SEE YOU ■, ■ MERETURNED YOUR CALL .- Mess:e 1 I ' �LIMil % r 14 1 i erato' • /�wP '►111 '4 , 1 IF /� i , )F153Q a,.,�^.+.' 1 d w\ 46a24-.- *44 'y 6(1' '14 r 61'64( MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Aspen Sanitation District Employee Housing DATE: January 21, 1981 4tt �� �'� c4 "�x.„z (., This is a request on behalf the Aspen Sand ation Distr i' for a number of approvals under the City's Subdivision an Zoning Regul tions in order to facilitate the development of a four-uni, multi-family employee housing project to be constructed at the old sanitation plant located south of Puppy Smith Street. Specifically, the applicants are requesting the following approvals: 1. Rezoning of a portion of their property from P, Park to Pub, Public/ Residential Bonus Overlay. 2. Subdivision exception for a four-unit multi-family employee project , (the applicants do not request parceling of the land, however) . 3. SPA approval for area and bulk requirements in the Public zone. 4. Special review approval of the employee housing units. The Planning Office' s detailed review of the applicants' request is contained in Karen Smith's attached memorandum dated December 1, 1980. Also attached for your review are the Engineering Department's and Housing Office's com- ments. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the applicants' request at a public hearing on December 9, 1980 and recommended the following: 1. Rezoning from Park to Public/Residential Bonus Overlay subject to the following conditions: a. Preservation of existing trees on the site. b. Improvement to landscaping of the remaining greenway when snow dumping is terminated. c. Stream margin review and approval if required, the extent of the floodplain identified through an update of the engineering study, and the avoidance of development in the 100-year floodplain. d. The approval of an on-site drainage plan by the City Engineer and the reservation of stormwater retention opportunities. e. The deed restriction of the four units in perpetuity to moderate price guidelines and a prohibition against condominiumization. f. The preparation of an amended zoning map by a registered surveyor prior to City Council 's first reading of the zoning ordinance. The Commission's resolution with respect to the applicants' request for rezoning is attached for your review. 2. Subdivision exception for the proposed four-unit multi-family project. Specifically, P & Z recommended that the applicants be excepted from conceptual review before City Council and preliminary plat before P & Z subject to amendment and revision of the final plat to include the following: a. Existing and proposed fence around the existing treatment plant. .Memo: Aspen San. Er vee Housing January 21, 1981 Page Two b. Adjacent parcels including the Rio Grande alignment. c. Mill Street right-of-way and proposed access including neces- sary easements. P & Z further conditioned its recommendation on the property to preclude condominimization. 3. SPA approval of the setbacks, area and bulk parameters, parking, open space, height, and FAR of .28:1, all as indicated on the attached plat. 4. Special review approval of the employee housing units subject to to the following conditions: a. Six-month minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22. b. Deed restriction to moderate income guidelines. c. Prohibition against condominiumization. The Planning Office concurs with the P & Z recommendation. Should you also concur, the following motions are required: 1. A motion to read the ordinance rezoning the property from Park to Public/Residential Bonus Overlay and to set a public hearing. 2. A motion to read the ordinance adopting the specific SPA plan and to set a public hearing. 3. A motion to approve the applicants' request for subdivision exception subject to the following conditions: a. Revision of the final plat to include existing and proposed fence around the existing treatment plant. b. Revision of the final plat to include adjacent parcels including the Rio Grande alignment. c. Revision of the final plat to include the Mill Street right-of-way and proposed access including necessary easements. d. Prohibition against condominiumization. 4. A motion to grant special review approval for the employee housing units subject to the following conditions: a. Six-month minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22.'. b. Deed restriction to moderate income guidelines. c. Prohibition against condominiumization. The Planning Office is prepared to discuss this application in detail at your January 26 meeting. • • STERLING ASSOCIATES a�RCHITECT9 WOODY CREEK, COLORADO MEMBERS Al Al PO. BOX E..7 Z ODE B16561 PHONE 303 923-4518 IV October 25, 1980 1�\ U ,t „ �' 4 \ iv The Honorable Mayor of Aspen f 7 Members of the City Council City.of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Your Honor, Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is documentation representing an application to the City of Aspen requesting review and approvals necessary to receive building permits to construct four employee housing units at 565 North Mill Street. The purpose of this project is to provide four housing units for employees of the Aspen Sanitation District. The project is located on land owned by the District at the base of Mill Street in Aspen which presently contains the aban- doned sewage treatment facilities for the District. The proposed project will consist of four housing units; two of which are two- bedroom, two baths (1008 sf) and two of which are one-bedroom, one bath (672 sf). Also included are locked storage facilities for the units (50 sf each) , laundry facilities and an all-purpose room. Two off-street parking spaces per unit are provided. All necessary utilities including .water, sewer, natural gas and electricity are presently existing on the site in locations available to the proposed housing. • Domestic water is supplied from a main in Mill Street through a 112" pipe to the abandoned clari-digester building. A 1 " pipe from this location will be furnished to the proposed units. An 18" sewer trunk is located 170' East of the proposed units on the property. A 4" sewer line from the units will intercept this trunk. The site is presently served by a 3/4" high-pressure natural gas line at the clari- digester building in the event natural gas is used. This line can be extended to the units and metered at that location. The site is presently served with 440 V, three-phase electrical service. A step--down transformer, rated at 220 V, single-phase, will provide underground electrical services to the units. All of these utilities are identified on the drawings. A well exists on the property for the purpose of irrigating the grounds. No domestic, potable use of this water will be made in connection with this project. Approximately two-thirds of the property is zoned Public and one-third is zoned Park with a Drainage overlay. The project lies on the boundary between these two zones. This housing site was selected on he property so as to avoid con- flict with the existing improvements and to limit the impact on possible future uses of the remaining property. This location also contains numerous mature cottonwood trees Which enhance the aesthetic quality and desirability of a resi- dential use on the property. In order to implement the project, it is neces:>ary to satisfy certain regulatory requirements for the City of Aspen. Therefore, the applicant requests the follow- ing procedural steps to be taken by the City of Aspen to enable the applicant to • Aspen Sanitation Distr ...c Employee Housing October 25, 1980 Page 2 continue with the project: 1 . Rezone a portion of the Drainage overlay area to Public, thereby increasing the Public zone by an amount of land equal to 0.35 acres (15,442 sf) . This area is identified on Sheet 1 of the drawings. 2. Rezone an area equal to 0.33+ (14,297 sf) of the Public zone to Residential Bonus overlay for the purpose of allowing a residential use in the Public zone. This area is identified on Sheet 1 of the drawings . 3. Waive the requirement for the applicant to conform to subdivision procedures and allow a subdivision "exception" for a multi-family structure. In asking for this waiver, the applicant points out that a separate parcel of land is not requested, merely a four-unit structure which is part of an overall land holding. 4. Review the enclosed documents including drawings and narrative for conformance to the requirements of Article VII , Specially Planned Areas, and find the bulk and area requirements as enclosed herein and delineated on the drawings satis- factory and acceptable. 5. The applicant is aware of the necessity to subject the project to special review by the Housing Authority in which two of the four residential units are required to be price restricted. The applicant requests that these units be price restricted in the middle-income bracket. Addtional information included in this application are: 1 . Preliminary drawings and outline specifications for the building. 2. Summary of bulk and area data proposed by the applicant in conformance to Chapter 24, Article 3.4. 3. Application requirements as defined by Ordinance 80-16 and Article VII , Chapter 24. 4. List of landowners within 300 feet of the project as required by Article XI , - Chapter 24. 5. Employee Housing Summary. The applicant wishes to construct the project during the Spring of 1981 and there- fore in pursuit of this goal , requests review action as soon as possible on this application. Respectfully, Aspen Sanitation District • By: MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE : Aspen Sanitation District Employee Housing DATE: December 1, 1980 On Tuesday, December 2, a public hearing will be held to consider the application of the Aspen Sanitiation District for three zone changes intended to accommodate a four unit multi-family project for their employees. The site is at the location of the old san- itation plant south of Puppy Smith Street . The application requests several approvals necessary for the project : 1. Rezoning of the southern portion of their property from Park to Public/Residential Bonus Overlay. 2. Subdivision exception for a four unit multi-family project . (The applicant does not request a parceling of the land, however . ) 3 . SPA approval for area and bulk requirements in the Public zone. 4. Special review approval of the employee units. The attached maps will show the location of the zone change and proposed development . Referral Agency Comments 1 . The Housing Director recommends that all four units be deed restricted to the moderate income level with a six month minimum lease because there is no GMP exemption for anything other than deed restricted units in the Public, Residential Bonus zone . The Housing Director recommends these units with the under- standing they will be rental only and recommends further review before condominiumization . 2. Engineering comments address several areas including drainage plans for the site, floodplain consideration, and stormwater area objectives. While water pressure, trash, parking, and utilities pose no particular problems for the site, the above considerations bear discussion. Due to their specific nature and import , Engineering ' s comments are included in your packet . 3 . The Water Department certifies the use of the existing 12" pipe for water service with the understanding that the standard PIF for employee housing be paid prior to connection to the system. Analysis of Residential Bonus Overlay The most important review involved in this application is the rezoning of a portion of the Park zoned land to Public/Residential Bonus Overlay. The RBO is necessary not for density purposes (all Public zoned land bulk and density requirements are set by an SPA plan) but to permit the residential use. The review criteria for RBO designation include planned unit development criteria, compli- .Memo : Aspen San. 30 December 1 , 1980 Page Two ance with a housing plan, construction quality and unit size, minimization of environmental and social impacts, geographic dis- persal , compatibility with surrounding land uses, and proximity to transportation . Applications are preferred in areas where it is possible to mitigate the impacts of development through clustering and use of open space. With respect to the rezoning from Park to Public/RBO, the Planning Office has the following comments : Disadvantages 1 . The rezoning would have the effect of reducing Park zoned inventory in an area which has been strongly recommended by the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan as greenway. Greenway designation is intended to preserve and support reinstatement of natural ecosystems in streams and riparian areas bordering them. 2. The Rio Grande Task Force has recommended implementation of the greenway concept on the streamside portions of the Rio Grande property. Continuation west of Mill Street would be a definite open space benefit to the public and a complement to both proposed Rio Grande greenway and to existing open riparian preserves at Jenny Adair Park, Hallam Lake, and along the Rio Grande trail . 3 . Surrounding land use is low density residential or green- way on three sides, but Public and commercial to the North. 4. The access road will require grading within 100 feet of the river and thus needs stream margin review. 5. There may be encroachment into the floodplain due to man- made obstructionsin the floodway. 6. Neighborhood concern has been recently expressed over other proposed area developments. 7. The development may preclude some City service and facility needs such as stormwater retention and snow dumping. Advantages 1. The application tends to cluster the units in a manner to minimize impact on the riverway and preserve existing trees . 2 . There is more than 100 feet of greenway preserved between the units and the river. The development may force a new solution for snow dumping and thus open the opportunity for restoration of greenway objectives . 3 . If all four units are deed restricted to moderate price guidelines, the project complies with the Housing Action Plan . 4. The project represents geographic dispersal of employee units and is a good example of a local employer providing housing for employees he generates, also in compliance with the Housing Plan. 5. Parking and utilities are adequate. Memo: Aspen San RBO 'December 1, 1980 Page three 6. The site is close in, extremely proximate to commercial support services and to public transportation. A delicate balance is again posed between community objectives for open space and housing. Weighing the input , we believe the rezoning is supportable only if the following conditions are met : 1. Existing trees will be preserved. 2 . An effort will be made to improve the remaining greenway when snow dumping is terminated. 3. Stream margin review and floodplain considerations are satisfactorily resolved. 4 . The City Engineer ' s comments regarding on-site drainage and area stormwater treatment objectives can be met regardless of the development . 5. The four units are deed restricted per the Housing Director ' s recommendation. Analysis of the Subdivision Exception We agree that no parceling or condominiumization should be approved but that exception from full subdivision reviews for a four unit multi-family project is warranted conditioned on the three items noted on November 26th by the City Engineer . Analysis of the SPA Plan for Bulk and Density The proposed multi-family structure in the rezoned area will be the equivalent of a multi-family (R/MF) zoned density. However, that is partly mitigated by the surrounding Park zoned property owned by the Sanitation District . Two parking spaces per unit more than meets the parking require- ment of one space per bedroom. i The height of the building is less than the 25 foot height allowed in the district although perceptibly the height may seem high given the lack of nearby structural development . Ten foot side 9�©C yards would also meet R/MF standards. Some consideration, however, might be given to moving the building east somewhat L 26g given its proximity to the Rio Grande right-of-way. That right- Zi of-way is currently used as a trail and constitutes an important - ".'- 1' element of the greenway. It has also been identified for a pos- sible realignment of Mill Street . Open space within the rezoned portion is adequate at 60%. Subject to the further discussion of the western side setback and building height , we recommend approval . Analysis of the Special Review for Employee Housing See comments of the Housing Director included in your packet . We recommend that P & Z members take the opportunity to visit the site. If anyone would like to do so with the architect , please call our office. MEMORANDUM TO: Karen Smith, Planning Office \, FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department `.4 DATE: November 26, 1980 RE: Aspen Metro Sanitation District Employee Housing Special Review and Subdivision Exception Having reviewed the above application for special review and subdivision exception and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: SPECIAL REVIEW The site is well suited in terms of access to the transportation network and the downtown area. The road to the new housing represents an additional intersection in an already congested portion of North Mill Street, however, the housing probably will not create traffic loads in excess of that created by the old sewer plant. Water pressure, parking, trash, and utilities all pose no particular problems for the site. The following specific items should be satisfied: 1. Most of the proposed site is a drainage overlay district requiring submission of a drainage plan with conduits, swales, and ponds as necessary. Proposed improvements should not create major drainage problems but the site plan should consider runoff caused by paving and slopes above the site. 2. The proposed water service is in excess of the 100 foot maximum permitted under the City of Aspen Water Main Extension Policy requiring extension of a 6-inch ductile iron main. 3. Due to the restriction created by the Rio Grande alignment and bridge immediately to the west part of the site appears to be in the flood plain per the Urban Runoff Management Plan of August 1973. The applicant should be required to have an accurate flood plain study undertaken by a qualified firm such as Wright- McLaughlin and apply for stream margin review as required under 24-6.3. Should the building site prove to be outside the flood plain, stream margin review would still be required due to proposed grading and road improvements within 100 feet of the high water line. 4. The city has, on occasion, expressed interest in the site for use as a possible stormwater treatment site, park, or open space. The city already has a significant interest in the site as a snow dumping area in winter and as part of the Roaring Fork greenway. While it is not clear at this point whether the city would be willing to purchase the site in order to pursue such plans, now is the time to consider the idea. I hope to have more specific information on this prior to the Planning & Zoning meeting. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION Since this subdivision application is for construction of a multi- family dwelling on a specific overlay parcel, preparation of a final plat showing the boundaries proposed for zoning change would be required. The plat should show the proposed building site and include the following: 1. Existing and proposed fence around the existing treatment plant. 2. Adjacent parcels including the Rio Grande alignment. 3. Mill Street right-of-way and proposed access including necessary easements. Sale of the units would require a further condominium plat following construc- tion. TO: Karen Smith FROM: Jim Reents l \, DATE: November 28 , 1980 SUBJECT: Sanitation District Employee Housing In regard to the ab ve.-Application, the Housing Office recommends deed restriction fo "t0 years, moderate income level, six month minimum lease . If, in fact, the Sanitation District is going to rent only to their own employees, I believe the issue of deed restriction to a particu- lar guideline is moot. They have to pay their employees enough to afford the units. However, our concern is not the current owner, but any future owner. The code requires Growth Management exempt units to be deed restricted. It is also my understanding that these will be rental units for the employees of the Sanitation District. I believe it should be required that this project come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council for any condominiumization to review the proposed use. JR:ds t Lyk RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING THE REZONING APPLICATION OF THE ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT RESOLUTION• NO. 80 - 15 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered the rezoning application of the Aspen Sanitation District at a public hearing on December 2 and 9, 1980, and WHEREAS, the application requests rezoning of g a portion of the Sanitation District's south Mill Street property from Park to Public and Public/Residential • Bonus Overlay for the purpose of allowing construction of a four unit, moderate income employee residential project, and WHEREAS, Ordinance 16, Series of 1980 authorizes rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay when at least fifty percent of the units will be deed restricted to employee price guidelines and the development is reviewed against *certain criteria including the purposes of the planned unit development procedure, compliance with the adopted housing plan construction quality and unit size minimization of environmental and social impacts, geographic dispersal , compa- tibility with surrounding land uses and proximity to transportation, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard testimony from the {{ Planning Office, the City Engineer, the Water Department and the City Housing Director, and WHEREAS, there were no objections from the public to the application, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that: 1. If the four units are deed restricted to moderate income rental guide- lines and prohibited from condominiumization, the application meets the objectives of the 1980 Housing Action Plan by providing rental housing for employees of the Aspen Sanitation District. 2. The siting of the buildings, however, encroaches on the open space recommended in the 1973 Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, Through clustering of units, the maintenance of existing trees and reservation of a setback from the river, the . applicant has attempted to mitigate the impact on greenway objectives and reserve open space along the river. 3. Stream margin review and potential floodplane conflicts require further review. 4. The .site is well located with respect to proximity to town and public transportation. 5. Through a carefully planned development, mitigating concerns raised and clustering units to maximize open space values, the proposed development can successfully balance conflicting needs in the public interest and provide four units of needed employee housing. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission that it does hereby recommend the rezoning from Park to Public and Public/ amended 1 Residential Bonus Overlay in the configuration shown on the attached/plat, amended to reduce the intrusion of the road into the green- way and subject to satisfactory resolution of the following conditions: 1 . Preservation of existing trees on site. 2. Improvement through landscaping of the remaining greenway when snow dumping is terminated. 3. Stream margin review is approved, if required and the extent of the floodplane is identified through an updated engineering study develop- ment in the 100 year floodplane shall be avoided. 4. An on-site drainage plan is approved by the City Engineer and storm- water retention opportunities are reserved. 5. The four units are deed restricted in perpetuity to moderate price guidelines and against condominiumization. 6. An amended zoning map is prepared by a registered surveyor prior to City Council ' s first reading of a rezoning ordinance. Approved this 16th day of December, 1980 by the Planning & Zoning Commission. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION by ._ _.���.ii/ _, , / So He •• , Cha iman ATTEST: c Lk_ 14.1.4∎_ % O4 I(,-. Deputy City Clerk J EGO■fNy CITY ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen', colorado '8161I . March 5 , 1981 k „• w • Mr. Robert Sterling P.O. Box 97 • Woody Creek Colorado 81658 RE: Aspen Metro Employee Housing SPA Dear Bob: I am writing to detail a plan requirement for the proposed Aspen Metro Sanitation employee housing project on North Mill . There are two basic plan requirements that need to be satisfied, Specially Planned Area (S .P.A. ) and Final Plat; the two being essentially separate in purpose . In view of the fairly complete site plan already submitted, I would suggest (and the Planning Office concurs) that it be utilized to satisfy S .P.A. requirements for an adopted plan with the following revisions : 1. Title as an S.P.A. plan 2. Indicate 100-year Flood Zone 3. Show proposed landscaping (if any). 4 . Indicate if drive to be paved and drainage of drive and parking. Following construction an improvement survey should be under- taken and submitted satisfying the requirements of 20-15 for Final Plat and indicating: 1. Zone boundaries and fact that RBO is not a separate lot. Show the entire ownership. 2. Access from N. Mill including an easement across any intervening parcels . 3. Flood Plain. 4 . All adjacent lots, right-of-ways, etc. 5. Location map. 6. Approvals, recording certificates, etc. . Mr. Robert Sterli March 5, 1981 PAGE TWO Final plat should be recorded following construction and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, since no subdivision of land is involved, only construction of M.F. units. Recording serves to show actual locations of units and to record zone changes on overall parcel. I hope utilizing the site plan for the S.P.A. and requiring later preparation of the plat will simplify submission needs . Please feel free to contact me if I may elaborate on any of the above plan requirements . Sincerely, IIP W- ( ; OF.y W. Hammond ssistant City Engineer cc: Sunny Vann . JWH/lw MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann , Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond , Engineering Department DATE: February 19 , 1981 RE : Aspen Metro Sanitation District Adoption of S .P .A. , Residential Bonus Overlay and Final Plat EXHIBIT C The site plan from Sterling Associates (three sheets) is adequate to serve as an S .P .A. plan. The plan as submitted adequately answers most S .P .A. concerns (i . e . area/bulk , setbacks , parking, utilities , access , dimensions , and siting of structures , etc . ) . The S . P .A. plan is needed for adoption with the Ordinance establishing the Residential Bonus Overlay. Adoption should be conditioned on the following revisions : 1 . Title as an S .P .A. plan . 2 . Indicate 100-year Flood Zone . 3. Show proposed landscaping . 4 . Indicate if drive is to be paved, and drainage of parking and drive . Following construction an improvement survey should be undertaken and submitted satisfying the requirements of 20-15 for Final Plat and indicating : 1 . Zone boundaries and fact that RBO is not a separate lot . Show the entire ownership . 2 . Access from N. Mill including an easement across any intervening parcels . 3 . Flood plain . 4 . All adjacent lots , right-of-ways , etc . 5 . Location map. 6. Approvals , recording certificates , etc . Final plat should be recorded following construction and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy , since no subdivision of land is involved, only construction of M. F . units . Recording serves to show actual locations of units and to record zone changes on overall parcel . BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 1981 ) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED BY THIS REFERENCE , ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA MASTER PLAN FOR THE SITE, THE ELEMENTS OF WHICH MASTER PLAN WILL CONSTITUTE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE AREA ALL AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS , the City Council has received a request to rezone that property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incor- porated by this reference within the City of Aspen according to the specially planned area (SPA) procedures of Article VII of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code , and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the proposed Master Plan presented and wishes to approve the same all as provided in said Article VII ; NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; Section 1 • That it does rezone that property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference according to the SPA Master Plan submitted , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by this reference subject to full compliance with the conditions set forth in Exhibit "C" attacned hereto and incorporated by this reference. All development in the above-described area shall be in con- formance with the elements of the approved Master Plan, the attached conditions and the definitional , regulatory and other general provisions of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code shall, when not in conflict with the approved plan , continue with equal force and effect within such area. Subsequent to the effec- tive date of this ordinance , a copy of this approved Master Plan shall be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and remain of public record; and constitute the develop- t BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO..DENVCR R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S merit regulations applicable to the Specially Planned Area uniess and until amended by authority of the City of Aspen. Section 2 If any subsection, sentence , clause , phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof . • Section 3 A public hearing on the ordinance shalom be held on the day of , 1981, at 5 :00 P. M. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , Aspen , Colorado, fifteen days prior to ghich hearing public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held on the day of , 1981. Herman Edel Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk FINALLY adopted , passed and approved on the day of , 1981. Herman Edel Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk 2 • FiD:_R. NUMBER PI 3593 0 AMOUNT $200,000.00 !� 7 :eo this 24th day of March , 1969___, at the hour of 8:00 o'clock A.M. The -nani of the insured and the estate, or interest of the insured in the land described below and cov- ered by this policy is as follows: ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic. 2. The .and, the title to which is insured, is described or known as follows: A tract of land within the NWIISWI of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West, 6th P. M., described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast Corner of the NWliSW. of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West; thence North 89°32' West along the South line of said subdivision a distance of 184.4 feet; thence North 53°35' West 335.0 feet; thence North 1°15' East 100.0 feet; thence North 7°45 ' West 217.0 feet to true point of beginning of the tract herein conveyed; thence South 82°15' West a distance of 303.0 feet to a point 50 feet easterly measured at right angles from the center line of main track of the Aspen Branch of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Co. ; thence North 8°15' West parallel with and 50 feet Easterly from the center line of main track a distance of about 585 feet to the Southerly bank of the Roaring Fork River; thence Easterly and Southeasterly along the Southerly bank of said Roaring Fork River a distance of 380 feet, more or less; thence South 7°45 ' East 413.0 feet to the point of beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown of record, including unrecorded easements. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a cor- rect survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. : n.;nics liens, or any rights thereto, where no notice of such liens or rights appear of record. ....e . ses.s icats Oat yet. due v. i ,.,c:,:,i cl.i:. £01 Li ,cc Li, L1, : (,tOCL of OUnty Treasurer als110 Tmi xli: Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any tax sales that have not been properly redeemed or cancelled. 5. Existing easements, licenses, rights, rights-of-way for pipelines, pole and wire lines, roads, ditches or otherwise, upon, along, over and across the land herein above described. 6. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore there- from, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as provided by law as reserved by patent of record. No. CO 173624 - 0 AMERICAN CANS Ti'(LL A';SOCIATION OVJNf_I■■POLICY----STANDARD FORM J•1SsZ RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING THE REZONING APPLICATION OF THE ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 15 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered the rezoning application of the Aspen Sanitation District at a public hearing on December 2 and 9, 1980, and WHEREAS,- the application requests rezoning of a portion of the Sanitation' District's south Mill Street property from Park to Public and Public/Residential Bonus Overlay for the purpose of allowing construction of a four unit, moderate income employee residential project, and 0HEREAS, Ordinance 16, Series of 1980 authorizes rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay when at least fifty percent of the units will be deed restricted to employee price guidelines and the development is reviewed against certain criteria including the purposes of the planned unit development procedure, compliance with the adopted housing plan construction quality and unit size minimization of environmental 'and social impacts, geographic dispersal , compa- tibility with surrounding land uses and proximity to transportation, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard testimony from the Planning Office, the City Engineer, the Water Department and the City Housing Director, and WHEREAS, there were no objections from the public to the application, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that: 1. If the four units are deed restricted to moderate income rental guide- lines and prohibited from condominiumization, the application meets the objectives of the 1980 Housing Action Plan by providing rental housing for employees of the Aspen Sanitation District. 2. The siting of the buildings, however, encroaches on the open space recommended in the 1973 Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plano Through clustering of units, the maintenance of existing trees and reservation of a setback from the river, the applicant has attempted to mitigate the impact on greenway objectives • and reserve open space along the river. 3. Stream margin review and potential floodplane conflicts require further review. 4. The site is well located with respect to proximity to town and public transportation. 5. Through a carefully planned development, mitigating concerns raised and clustering units to maximize open space values, the proposed development can successfully balance conflicting needs in the public interest and provide four units of needed employee housing. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission that it does hereby recommend the rezoning from Park to Public and Public/ amended Residential Bonus Overlay in the configuration shown on the attached/plat, amended to reduce the intrusion of the road into the green- way and subject to satisfactory resolution of the following conditions: 1. Preservation of existing trees on site. 2. . Improvement through landscaping of the remaining greenway when snow dumping is terminated. 3. Stream margin review is approved, if required and the extent of the floodplane is identified through an updated engineering study develop- ment in the 100 year floodplane shall be avoided. Ir 4. An on-site drainage plan is approved by the City Engineer and storm- water retention opportunities are reserved. 5. The four units are deed restricted in perpetuity to moderate price guidelines and against condominiumization. 6. An amended zoning map is prepared by a registered surveyor prior to City Council's first reading of a rezoning ordinance. Approved this 16th day of December, 1980 by the Planning & Zoning Commission. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION by _ _.1 i/ of Hess •. , Cha iman ATTEST: A_.'-4A,` • ( t141.44.�1�. Deputy City Clerk J J r� • <' t< r 'i ')4 "f _ r- �'zuc-, C7 ,V AV- 7 alai,: k� ( /11 • .Seclioti 4 ' l cc �<s) SUMMARY OF AREA AND BULK DATA - ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT EMPLOYEE HOUSING Minimum Lot Width: 63' Setbacks: Front Yard - 10' minimum, 40' maximum Side Yard - 10' minimum Rear Yard - 50' minimum Building Height: 22' maximum - Minimum Distance Between Principal and Accessory Buildings: . Not applicable Percent Open Space: 14,296-3240-2688=8368; 8368 = 58.5% 14,296 • External FAR: 4032 sf Building = 0.282:1 14,296 sf Site • • ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: ASPEN METRO SANITATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1980 We have reviewed the Applicant's proposal for 4 employee units and it appears at this time that there would not be a problem in supplying domestic water to these facilities. As stated in the fourth paragraph, it is o.k. with the Water Department for the Sanitation District to use the existing 1 1/2" pipe supplying the old Sewer Plant as the new service for the units. It is understood, however, that the standard PIF for employee housing must be paid prior to connection to the system. P.S. Off the record, it's too bad we cannot do the same thing for our own employees. cc: Jim Reentz MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Reents, Housing Director Acting City Attorney Dan McArthur, Engineer Aspen Water FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Aspen Metro Sanitation Employee Housing Special Review & Subdivision Exception, Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay DATE: November 3, 1980 The attached application requests special review approval for four employee units at Aspen Metro Sanitation (the plant) and exception from the require- ments of full subdivision. This item is scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on December 2, 1980; therefore, may I please have your comments no later than November 19, 1980? Thanks. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Aspen Sanitation District Employee Housing Proposal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, December 2, 1980 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall , 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Aspen Sanitation District to rezone 565 N. Mill Street to "Density Bonus Overlay" for the purpose of constructing four employee housing units. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 225. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on November 13, 1980 City of Aspen account RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves frftM to C.f.11(llCKfl N.0.A t.(fl. ORDINANCE NO. _ (Series of 1981 ) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ASPEN , COLORADO, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE FROM P ( PARK) TO Pub (PUBLIC) AND Pub/RB (PUBLIC/RESIDENTIAL BONUS OVERLAY) WHEREAS , the Aspen City Council has been presented with a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to amend Section 24-2. 2 of the Municipal Code , and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt the same for the benefit of the City of Aspen, NOW THEREFORE,' BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 Section 24-2. 2 ( Zoning District Map) is hereby amended by changing the zoning of the property described in Exhibit "A" and attached hereto from P (Park) to Pub (Public ) and Pub/RB (Public/Residential Bonus Overlay) subject to the following conditions : 1 . Preservation of the existing trees on site . 2. Improvement of the property through landscaping of the remaining greenway when the snow dumping activity is terminated. 3. That stream margin review be approved, if required and the extent of the floodplane is identified through an updated engineering study development in the 100 year floodplane shall be avoided. • 4 . An on-site drainage plan is approved by the City Engineer and storm-water retention opportunities are reserved. 5. The provision of _ on-site parking spaces , the arrangement of which is to be approved by the Engineer- ing Department . r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 4 C.F.MOFCKFL B.B.fl 1.CO. 6. The provision and deed restriction of all four (4 ) moderate income employee units for a period of fifty ( 50) years , said restriction to be executed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7 . Deed restriction of all four (4 ) units to six-month minimum rentals 8. Deed restriction that within the above-mentioned fifty (50 ) year period the property shall not be condominium- ized. 9 . Subject to the SPA plan currently being adopted for the area. Section 3 If any section, subsection, sentence , clause , phrase or por- tion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti- tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate , distinct and independent provision and • such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining por- 9 tions thereof . Section 4 That a public hearing on this ordinance be held on the day of , 1981, at 5 : 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , Aspen, Colorado , fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be pub- lished once within a newspaper of general circulation within the City. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held on the day of 1981. Herman Edel Mayor 2 • !tt RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves /ORM SE C. HOOCKEL 8.A.a L CO. ATTEST : Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of , 1981. • Herman Edel Mayor ATTEST: • Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk • • 3 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM SC C.F.NOEC.NFL R.N.0 L. _ SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1980 Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order at 5:10 P.M. with members Hunt, Harvey, Pardee, • , Tygre and alternate member Al Blomquist present. Also present were Smith and Vann from the Planning office and Bob Edmondson, City Attorney. It was announced that there will be a site inspection of the ULLR property next Tuesday at 4:15 P.M. Olof announced that this week's Public Hearing is a continuation of 12-2-80, thus opening the Public Hearing. .-.Aspen Metro Karen Smith re-stated the requests of the Aspen Metro Sanitation Sanitation District application for employee housing (see 12-2-80 minutes) . District Employee Karen summarized the actions before the Commission at this time. Housing Units First, the Public Hearing is on a portion of the land from P-Park RBO, Special to Public/Residential Bonus Overlay. Review & Subdivision 2-Subdivision exception for a four unit multi-family project. Exception .3-SPA 'approval for area and bulk requirements in the Public Zone. 4-Special review approval of the employee units. Olof asked the Commission for comments. There were none at this time. Olof asked the public for comments or questions. There were none. Olof closed the Public Hearing. Members of the Commission reviewed the Plat and asked the applicant questions. • Roger Hunt moved to recommend rezoning from Park to Public/Residen- tial Bonus Overlay as shown on the plat with exception where the road is shown; should be on straight line with the existing pro- posed line that is oriented west/northwest. That line shall be projected until it intersects their existing Public Park Zone at the easterly end of the property. The road shall be on the public side of that zoning, cutting diagonally across where the existing corner of the fence is. Karen Smith suggested adding to that, that a plat be redrawn and approved by the Planning office prior to it's publication for a public hearing before the City Council. Al Blomquist said since the Master Plan shows the whole sewer plant property as open space, shouldn't the Master Plan then be amended to exclude this parcel? Karen said the State Statutes require that whenever any public building is proposed in an area that has been Master Planned, then the Planning and Zoning .Commission must approve that public building. It does not say that P&Z must amend the Master Plan. Al stated as the motion stands he will vote no, because it is pro- perly Park land and as the sewer plant is phased out it should be returned to Park land to be a part of the riverfront system. The,Master plan should be followed. and if this Commission passes the motion they are violating the intent of the Plan. • Karen suggested that Al is suggesting the "spirit" of that State Statutory Review, in other words that this Commission should be reviewing public buildings with respect to the Master plan. If the Commission finds that this is appropriate regardless of it's conflict with the Master plan, the motion could be more elaborate to give the rationale for why it is appropriate. ie. The Housing Action plan, which is also an adopted plan suggests finding ways of balancing the need for Parks -and employee housing. Roger again modified his motion to have a resolution written so it can be reviewed and approved in this case including Karen's above stated rationale. Also to be included in the motion are the Planning office recommendations as follows: 1) Existing trees will be preserved. 2) An effort will be made to improve the remaining greenway when snow dumping is terminated. 3) Stream margin review and floodplain considerations are sat- • isfactorily resolved. 4) The City Engineer's comments regarding on-site drainage and area stormwater treatment objectives can be met regardless of the dev- elopment. Perry amended his second. Olof asked for a roll call vote; Hedstrom - aye Pardee - abstain Harvey - aye Blomquist - nay Hunt - aye Tygre - aye The motion was carried. ✓The next approval is for subdivision exception for a four unit multi-family project. Karen noted this is not to approve the units for condominiumization. The City Engineer had recommended approval subject to 3 conditions; that the plat should show the proposed building site and include the following: 1) Existing and proposed fence around the existing treatment plant. • 2) Adjacent parcels including the Rio Grande alignment. 3) Mill St. right-of-way and proposed access including necessary easements. The above should be done prior to Council approval of the final plat. L,,hgoger moved to recommend subdivision exception for the short process review, where it shall re-enter final plat before City Council based on; 1) property be deed restricted to indicate that there shall be no condominiumization allowed. Conditions #2 through 4 being the same as numbers 1-3 above. Jasmine seconded. All in favor with the exception of Blomquist. Lee Pardee abstained. The motion was carried. Item number 3 is for SPA approval for area and bulk requirements in the Public zone. Karen noted this requires a public hearing because of the SPA. Olof opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Olof closed the public hearing. %.//Roger moved to recommend SPA approval and specifically approving the set backs, area and bulk parameters, parking, open space, height and FAR of .28 to 1 as indicated on the plat. Perry seconded. All in favor with the exception of Blomquist. Lee abstained. The motion was carried. Item mumber 4 is for special review approval of employee units. • Karen said the housing office recommended this project provided all four of the units rather than just 2 be deed restricted and deed restricted to the moderate income guidelines rather than the middle income guidelines. Further, this recommendation is con- tingent upon the understanding that these units are rental units only. Lee Pardee asked what the current rental rates of the employee units are? • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM sO C.F.NOECKFI.B.B.9 1.CO. — _SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1980 The applicant said the maximum they could be rented at (however, the District doesn't plan on charging this amount) are $630.00 for 2 bedroom per month and $375 - $380.00 for one bedroom per month. Roger moved to recommend approval of the special review application of the four employee housing units subject to the following: 1-6 month minimum lease restriction 2-moderate guidelines 3-not allowed to condominiumize to perpetuity Perry seconded. All in favor with the exception of Blomquist. Lee abstained. The motion was carried. Castelwood/Headgate Olof stated this is a continuation of 12-2-80 public hearing. He Preliminary Sub- summarized the attorney's recommendation's; The P&Z has three division courses of actions; 1) to approve 2) to disapprove 3) to approve with recommendations Olof stated that on 12-8-80 the P&Z Commission met with the mem- bers of the City Council and the applicant to further study this application. Sunny Vann, Planning office, stated that as a result of the meeting of 12-8-80, the applicant has requested a tabling of this issue or this public hearing for the preliminary plat until the meeting of 1-20-81. In the interim the applicant will decide whether to go back to conceptual stage, the preliminary plat issue or whether they should withdraw the application all-together. Olof asked the applicant if Sunny's statement is reflective of their wishes. The applicant answered yes, with the only addition being, whatever alternatives might be available. Sunny stated that prior to re-opening the public hearing he wanted to address some of the issues that were discussed at the joint meeting. Basically there were four issues discussed in detail; 1 - Site location - specific development envelopes for the free market portion of the project and the employee housing units of the project; where they should be on the Marolt property. The general concensus of opinion among everyone present was that the application be revised to relocate the employee housing portion to the extreme southern portion of the property - across the creek from the Water Plant Housing Project. The free market portion would remain in the same place. 2 - Density - the groups were relatively evenly split, with the majority feeling the dinsity as submitted at 114 units was somewhat high. 3 - Projected unit rental cost - (employee housing) general con- census of opinion was that based on the anticipated opening date in 1982 the projected costs were in the ball park. 4 - Free market portion exempted from 6 - month minimum lease restriction - 5 members felt it should be waived, 5 members felt it should be kept, and one member was undecided. Also, the Midland Right-of-way was discussed and only one member felt it should be preserved. 1 4 / dfF,ot i fe,416,6„ e(--/ /14t it A lic() 4 , Sep_ /7iLiL \v\ /1- -2{XK /‘ / 4 )JILL / to-zt, / . , --/-6,5L____ / & L AA e--:- i• 4 .,,,q7 ,A ; . ,,,-. , w 77/ / ,4-4- , 1" / /1 V i . 1 ■ .-- / rt,?,---C__ / 4 ., Le A 4' ) a I w w , 7/ / irYLe c)(.74k ?e) 07/C1:-/ /-t>1/U<) -9,k : i / ) , I i -_-,Ald; ,,/ ._,,e' ,,, 4 4,&E-7,() 1- c...a ; 0 I - Cie,d f\e il)7/ Jr 61 /7,,L54/ ( int7,1 2 ,t_ 6--e-i•-- / - 2 . --Ei _ . cd-2(1 ( (W2/1- 0 V7 Gli,/ ' f / ! f Ld: , pt, I\ 2 6-t3 ? 'I -ID ( Ai, f■ • S ) • I. i / i 2 ko ir)/iLIZI, -2 // 1 4fa- 1 3 •r �` °,, i \ ? i • ! Ar \ j' i t j v ! i „w I I v' , i _d \ i G n: X 1 ,'1 / rl '\ ,,1"� d 1 " •/ i t I <- • \ \ j 1\ - ..'"''',...„N„.\\ - _ o i , (\ I) ____ J if y / i �' \ V _ , 1-- (N /,,' \ /7 \ \ ,,K ,k+.`' "'e` ` t,,,,,,,,:....---- ' vSv �c , �. �v i v 3 L.� 1 = i !�/fig . t '. r_ ' «a, f Imo\' \\ ~a } \ :\ /� r CI i 5 _., i % '''',N-----' \ �� 4 v\ / , I �� ,. x.!'i t t c `F �\ - s-.'> ei ° Q • .rt£. • a "s ,r . E i -� i =N t r = r 6r ,,,,t1_4,_ a 16'' ca \v ■ z N,C F - i, t,, v .', - i A£tv 4 t '''''N''''.. s - ^, '! ,. a: m '' . Ap,"C J -i!•`�-�- ,„ q,-/ -z = x 1 ,f'4 4\4 °� n- r �i/a * e. a� `!. T w,K ^ a a $( ® -"'rr �] \ e �f I 4 c t.} '�T; t� C F, ..,-...0----,-4,s,2 , G f,.'• F 0 E ♦ ,_ \ /— °y'C 1 i " • f z \ 'tor' ._.5 \`-'ny . •_ c�,r 1r� e t t i', ;,r ' "°+/ f A� Lr f 1 \!_0/ ' - - s " t - ..v e r .�.`, .. , t- \" i .!{• / + � �... \ Ft � � r. �� � � sy.' *'a. I r fill ' " 1 `� -•�`y � r �1 ■ �* ,,- ar'' , rashtasters \ t \\ Specially► a> 5 r' A -,.' 1'1 err :, �_. �� f,� v r •;. I1Ft,x'r- " A Plantlef� �- , _� }N , .. {�• 4` -.te ,-r' .:? '• z-' .'.) ., •..-)' F a 3 \ a > :,4', a,..�, '1 'y t j. \ \ \ t I q ♦ �t ry L .1 , _ % \ T t ylr� J •''''.v � >> �k� •A"`f �, ..:'' � �. �t .� Lq • v 1 t fit , L 4 , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM•1 C.F.NOECK L B.B.h L.CO. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1980 Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order with members Anderson, Harvey, Hunt, Tygre and alternate member Al Blomquist present. Commissioner's Karen Smith introduced Alan Richman, the new planner, replacing Comments Jolene Vrchota. Roger restated his point concerning the bus stoppage last week • due to slippery roads. He expressed his concern as to how this halt in the transportation system can affect the GMP and application's such as the Aspen Metro Sanitation District Employee Housing ap- plication. He asked what the Commission would like to do about it. Olof asked for comments on this subject. The Commission members commented on this issue and came to the conclusion that the issue should be made known to the City. Perry suggested making the City enter into an agreement as a condition of approval that they will uphold their end of the bargain. ie. A condition not only on the applicant but also on the City. Karen ,agreed with this suggestion. Karen further suggested the Commission prepare a resolution and communicate the problem to Council, today, by citing examples from previous history where the P&Z has attached conditions and where these conditions have not been upheld by either the City or the • applicant. Also, to demonstrate through those examples, the plan- ning impacts that the Commission perceives occuring. ie. the de- terioration of the Master Plan. Olof commented that the meeting of 11-18-80 was a disaster. The agenda was outrageous. It couldn't possibly be accomodated in a D decent evenings work. Olof put the Planning office on notice that the Commission will examine every agenda before starting to work through it. He put a maximum time limit on the meetings of ap proximately 2 and one half hours. Aspen Metro Karen Smith, Planning office, stated that the focus of the public Sanitation Dist. hearing would be on the two zoning actions. These would be followed Employee Housing by numbers 2, 3, and 4 of the 12-1-80 Planning office memo. Karen proceeded to orientate the Commission to the parcel on the zoning map. She answered general questions from the members. Following the outline of the Planning office memo, dated 12-1-80, Karen then set up issues for consideration in the form of advantages and dis- advantages. Also, a summary of the pros and cons was stated. Olof asked the Commission if they feel comfortable with receiving the information in this packet at yesterday's late date? • Olof suggested in the interest of fair and adequate consideration for this application, the Commission have a site inspection. Olof entertained a motion to continue the public hearing at a special meeting next week, 12-9-80. Olof then opened the public hearing for those who had come to speak tonite. . • • Attorney for the applicant stated that the Aspen Metro Sanitation District is applying for four housing units, for employees of the district, and that they are doing everything to follow the City's recommendation. There were no further public comments. Welton moved on Olof's motion. Roger seconded. All in favor. This application was tabled until the Special meeting of 12-9-80. • . I EMPLOYEE HOUSING SUMMARY - ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT 1 . Applicant: Aspen Sanitation District; Officer in charge of project: Heiko Kuhn. 2. Experience of Developer: Construction and management of major sewage treatment facilities for the Aspen Sanitation District and the Aspen Metropolitan Sani- tation District. Construction and management for major recreational facilities for the Aspen Skiing Corporation and Aspen Highlands ski area. 3. Location of Development: 565 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 . 4. Types of Buildings: Factory-built frame, delivered and erected complete, in- cluding all plumbing, kitchen appliances and interior finishes. 5. Population Density: 10 residents projected. 6. Use of Project: Residential ; two units to be deed restricted to middle. income levels. • STERLING ASSOCIAATES ARCHI i" CTS WOOLW CREEK, COLORADO MEMBERS AIA I PO. BOX 97171P CODE 016501 PHONE 303 923-4510 October 6, 1980 OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS - ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT EMPLOYEE HOUSING FOUNDATIONS: Reinforced concrete stem walls on concrete spread footings. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION: Factory-built frame buildings Exterior Walls: 2 x 4's @ 16" o.c. with 31/2" batt insulation and 1" foam insulation on exposed exterior surfaces (R-20) . Structural steel truss bracing on overhang. Roof: 2 x 10's @ 16" o.c. with R-30 batt insulation. Roofing: Tapered foam insulation with 4 ply built-up roofing (tar and gravel ) . Total resultant R factor = 38 minimum. Roof Drainage: Interval roof drains to on-site dry-well . Exposed Floors: 2 x 10's @ 16" o.c. with 1" foam attached below (R-38) . Exterior Finishes: Siding: 3/4" cedar or redwood siding Decking: 2 x 6 redwood decking Soffits: 3/8" plywood, painted or stained. Windows & Doors: Wood sliding windows and doors, or double-insulated anodized aluminium. Stitching & Trim: Solid 2 x wood, stained dark. Interior Finishes: Walls & Ceilings: 1/2" gypsum wall board, painted. Floors: Carpeting in all areas except kitchens, baths and entries. Vinyl floor coverings in all other areas. Exposed concrete, sealed, in storage areas. Kitchens: Wood cabinets, appliances include 30" regrigerator-free:er, combination range-oven, exhaust hood :, garbage disposer, double compart- ment sink. Outline Specification_ Aspen Sanitation District Emp. jee Housing Page 2 Baths: Each bath contains tub-shower combination, tub enclosure, built- in lavatory-vanity, medicine cabinet and mirror. Heating: Electric resistance baseboard, zoned each room. Domestic Hot Water: Natural gas-fired water heaters, 40 gallon capacity. Landscaping: 12" washed gravel and/or grass areas within landscaped areas; railroad tie bordering; paved or concrete walkways, trees and shrubs where applicable. Parking: Tamped and graded road-base gravel in parking area. , - , . 4/444,104SM/ . - - . . tee., No- b{eft Z(<<C?-fo 4 . ,. _ TQ: _ Aftwt. ille ro _ ; «.( o-e ... �-trte6.__ /or..e._. . at)5, ._ __ Gib J e__. . P',`C 41)G,-►'L__4 ._. _ e..Gcc f_ reAtk64.) `on a. s I \0-rt, 4/A1.-k(2_, Y-?%11-,i. ---0 ite(4, 4/4-14) -/ty C0-0.1. :. . e.07 1 ,oatgreic6 .__. ..,, ,__. . .. _. .. ___ _ _IT___._______ _ .___ /_ �..._ " tt -In "Mt- -71raiyon.i-tr4o,t ne./60,91.4_ 0,,,t1, 4..a..._. 610-1.0,-,,.74-w-rt mhaek_ . ... . ._. �. ._...�_.. ._ _rVa . ..__. A I.6-0- ?nq_ _._l r ,2rcIs .. cut _ad d; ,(0-,R..Q1 let'�ei-42.e e„ r�o- ;n. __cam. /t' ' _ _Co-n t :41-4 c)-� . We ._ . __. _ _1_______ _ ._.____ rOf_ . - ,.__ l �u , ___ �. rro,hat.hty ( 17_ cre4=1-e_. 4-rok_C-ac, /0722Lbo )-n_ OceLf-Zel O-c 4,:t..-6- cre.4.44( (:)/ _ __.. ..___ ...___.._ __.___.______Tv.e.._. Jd . f rtt..s>0-.4__-_, ._. roJtk. 7., ir3r -crow h, old 01,"1,44A all Pie_ ito oan. .��( .-_ fb f344,7..0,__._.. .__ _ 0-i._- - -- ---------------------- -----q-(Ae- s'le - 1 ii\Q- 41(0-1,1 .spte,t,'(. i-v,rea.. . _ )G-‘4,016(,_. be., _ 4-,-JJ,,,__... _._ e� 5r: ` G dra a- r t a drs&rr�t'_.__ re v r rt-.t_ Y+'i.•�si e-rt. ell .._Lt __dra, aq(2— 414•\ ._.k -` ..__ co-rt.cLY/s, gc)4�e.c�,._%Lc( ._ �,.c�,4 .. .aA rtt.e..QA.L�y_. _ Wa/��Q ,._ ,o-t ,feels _ [CL_. - __C .._w(a'izy , Ciro-ht-& _ , -----ok. ,itytcvk [ \A , r cif v...stv oiA-- iik.c., 6 i- A IN-6(3,v, Colktv 442,-k_ ror-o —-17," '+: ...__ 7.�_.__! -¢_ oze� uJa1-tp,__ : e.uric.2, . ;'S )-A. ey.c of , � -4(. ►©O � -4.9...... . c;47 _.. = r�,�,..m., �.. _ (,-,,titer. o4 __ hta+`lt -`r� o-v,.._ e 0- f 0;r- _ wlrv...e,o_s_ C3.c. 0. ...._.---.�....__ __. ..... _ .___ _ UP i itt, •_ OltJCA(Q._. _ ,rv-A, ;Act;IN ._ r `r, - r/� t r A 1 1 ,Q_ 4 _rte.... � erz tom;c. io-s�_ _ C.r'e lut. by `f/A2.. �;e a110O&� 1 1 lJ 0i7 a/7 h.41.(41 ot44_61 e. `rwrnGaAwf-d( t4.3e-ei-61 pd-- `gQ, u/4 O �� Q. ;r< t- 'Clued �a retk. �- . ri1 v.6 i F 740 (q 1 , `_rk. arr,e. s ly 6e_ m9.0 -- ketv e- (Li& art' �rat k F( - to (71 9" r0. ..90o1/44. sce( / 17 / bur(o( 9 0-3z. ref(Or CA- u-vviak a.Lf G• . •• vvz.,4 Fr"-e, 16- 6e ✓^Q- /o eLt (a,Yt/ S'-ireovm mck-k re l e ) . c,.)a �� v ��( b� ret v. du-o___ -(p 7.-eio Gut.eO ni(, -49 042. _ roTa __ hvieg ray u o0 -te.t (oa.4_ 7)-74 c;i lam, acco..d).o-71,_ ey r , / � f -47 e. rk. framz,-.4(v2._ `-i rr ;2.-6 , ,_ o-j . a,012_ aimed/ � a s ,Lt 44J a-tto,_ , t}'.4.--P1 mod, _ .. . .' 04 }-vt_ Tai/_. r`E? 1u o h;4, ;,/ ;-3 1,0-6 civ,t1A. poli-pc(- 04, _ LitKa. et. " 00.00, / // / , oidsut patb c5och r(ctAtI , , « `I Q_. L/© c 44.c2... --� (re 47, ntabs., .Seed 74 A.4.1.44.1_4.7 60-y*0-y* o-n. (1'4 rSlYt A.flnhi/ t2' . o 72 ► )r 7, _ LoLcth.6-. ),_(tA ozio-4,10-7\. .... ....._. _ .-_. .... _...__. .. �/ 4(0-arz, e eri,�,i Q7'\` �,Gr+ Lj-1 C ". rk-1Q61 r\ rf%R,c.s2, -pr �,Q Cr y� Cat G-,, ;iz.o a A 6114,7 cjold - 70H-efk , r(0„-t. 4,2_, Tref a-t,Q.,& ),o`r.(611 AAA.d\. (3 k, s(,;) ((OA) . cttok p rot)aza 444.,et, an,o-trytd `111.12_. e. ..(:),-A.74 _ _ 4rett 6 irko4t- 7D(L-Z-. AA, l 01/4A241 -.6 ,raptx....e.,L , i KI _ Mil 5Acil 0 (.0 ovvtot firve_0( accp....0-1 , ,>... lucti--7 6041;:.Cire/7U4 ? . a .. _ /1 . , J , 4' pLe, ) ) , ,_,A j , k 3 10-k'1 ( 6-( (Ai.ULGL/Lt ,,,,,/ j P4A/ _ .._ (6 J - __ _ . - _ . , I I COVENANTS ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi municipal corporation ("covenantor") , for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby covenants with the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, that: 1. The ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT is the owner of the following described property together with the improvements consisting of four (4) apartment units to be constructed thereon, situate in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: A parcel of land located within the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 7 , Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian and being part of that land described in document No. 105230 filed in Book 181, Page 466 in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Said parcel is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the Southwest corner of that parcel described in document No. 105230 bears S 8°15 ' E, 275 . 00 ft. ; thence N 8°15 ' W, 171.50 ft. ; thence S 65°30 ' E, 167 . 00 ft. ; thence S 24°30 ' W, 48 .90 ft. ; thence S 86°00 ' W, 30. 87 ft. ; thence S 24°30' W, 50.31 ft. ; thence S 81°45 ' W, 56 .00 ft. to the point of beginning. 2 . The above-described property shall and hereby is restricted to use as moderate income employee housing under the guide-lines of the City of Aspen as lodging for employees of the ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT, and further, the said property shall not be condominiumized. 3 . The aforesaid units shall and hereby are restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. 4 . The covenants contained herein are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for the period of the life of the longest- lived member of the present City Council plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years, whichever period is less, from the date these covenants are recorded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration has been duly executed this ,92_2_ day of , 1981. ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT BY: C 4LJz-e.„.r- President Secretary i STATE OF COLORADO) ss. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of 1981, by -;-� _ and - r '� 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: / tary Public Approved as to form. , City Attorney - 2 -