Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Smuggler AH.A18-96 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET- CITY O�SPEN DATE RECEIVED: 3/15/96 CASE# A 18-96 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Dave Michaelson PARCEL ID# 2737-073-00>A 0 SZ" o s3 PROJECT NAME: Smuggler Affordable Housing Rezoning Project Address: 810 South Avenue,Aspen, CO APPLICANT: Doremus, John -acuticr paid$2800 altogether: $2270+$530 excess Address/Phone: 616 E. Hyman REPRESENTATIVE: Guy,Theodore&Guthrie, David Address/Phone: P.O. Box 1640,Basalt, CO 81621 9P 7-3lh? FEES: PLANNING $2400--.267,66'00 #APPS RECEIVED 20 ENGINEER $105 #PLATS RECEIVED 20 HOUSING $65 ENV HEALTH * 6 S TYPE OF APPLICATION: TOTAL $27$a,Yoo Two Step Review II(Wi, INfeeting Date Public Hearing ? P&Z --7 ©Yes ❑No CC ❑Yes ❑No CC (2nd reading) ❑Yes ❑No REFERRALS: ❑ City Attorney v/Z Aspen Fire Marshal ❑ CDOT IS City Engineer Z City Water ✓0 ACSD ❑ Zoning ❑ City Electric ❑ Holy Cross Electric ® Housing ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas ❑ Environmental Health ❑ Open Space Board ❑ Aspen School District ® Parks NiOther: 5Pe-c� ❑ Other: DATE REFERRED: 0/909(p INITIALS: VZ1+ DATE DUE: APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution# Date: Staff Approval Date: Plat Recorded: Book -, Page CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS: ROUTE TO: THEODORE K GUY SSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STF.. TURAL ENGINEERS :>,a1 May 16, 1996 n VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Suzanne Wolf Dave Michelson Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing Dear Suzanne and Dave: This letter shall serve as notification of my decision to withdraw my offer to purchase the property located at 810 South Avenue and withdraw my application for rezoning of the parcel. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Give me a call with any questions you may have. Sincerely yours, Theo ore tKGu5yv, AIA, PE, President THEODORE K. GUY ASSOCIATES PC 96106 L7 23280 TWO RIVERS ROAD P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 (970) 927-3167 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO John Bennett cc Suzanne Wolff From: Dave Tolen Postmark: May 16, 96 10:45 AM Status: Previously read Subject: Smuggler Affordable Housing (Guy & Guthrie) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message: The Housing Board talked about a scaled down project last night - 6 units and 12 BR's. As categroy 4 units, this would require subsidies exceeding $100, 000 per bedroom. However, I've looked at the possibility of an all RO project, or a single free market home and 5 one bedroom category units. This still needs a subsidy, but its down to $30, 000 to $50, 000 per bedroom. Question: is a subsidy for a mixed project or an RO project at all acceptable? Also, I'm exploring an interesting alternative site for the design which everyone says athey really like - I'll keep you posted. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Review and Rezoning, Resolution No. - Public Hearing i'3 DATE: May/ 1996 SUMMARY: The applicants are requesting to develop a 100% affordable housing project on two parcels in the Williams Addition which are located at the corner of South and Spruce Streets. The applicants propose to develop 13 deed-restricted affordable housing units (12 one-bedroom Category 2, 3 and 4 units and 1 two-bedroom Category 4 unit)within 4 structures. The application, current site plan, depiction, floor plans and elevations are attached as Exhibit A. APPLICANTS: Ted Guy and David Guthrie LOCATION: 810 South Avenue; Lots 13, 14, 15 & 16, Block 3, Williams Addition. The property is located on the corner of South and Spruce Streets, across from the entrance to the Smuggler Trailer Park. ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential LOT AREA: 13,465 square feet REQUEST: The applicants are requesting Conceptual PUD approval and approval to rezone the property to the AH1/PUD(Affordable Housing)zone district. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed the application on April 16 and May 7, 1996. The project was tabled by the Commission on April 16 pending resolution of issues regarding mass, scale, traffic impacts and the appropriateness of the site for affordable housing. The project was subsequently significantly revised: the number of buildings, number of units and total square footage were all reduced,the open space was improved to be more usable, the distance between buildings was increased, and the buildings were relocated to respect the R-6 setbacks,to the greatest extent possible. A comparison of the project from the initial submittal, including number of structures, units and FAR is summarized below: 1 i B 4 I I Original Submittal 7 15 .84:1 12,208 s.f. (3/15/96) (9437.5 s.f.) Revised Submittal 4 13 .50:1 9816 s.f. (5/7/96) (6732 s.£) Allowable FAR in the AHl/PUD zone district is 1.1:1,with Special Review required if the proposed FAR exceeds .85:1. On May 7,the Planning Commission recommended denial_of the rezoning to AH 1/PUD by a vote of 4-3. The resolution of denial is attached as Exhibit B. PROCESS: The project is being processed as a four-step application, as determined by the Community Development Director, based on the recommendation made by the Planning Commission at the work session on April 2, 1996. Rezoning of the property would not formally occur until the Final PUD Plan is approved; however, staff has included the rezoning criteria with this Conceptual Review consideration as a threshold issue. Special Review for parking and compliance with the Design Review standards will be considered during the Final PUD review. Public hearings will be held at Council during the Conceptual PUD Review, and at the Commission during the Final PUD Review. Per Section 26.100.060(C)(3)(b), all affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee, shall be exempt from growth management competition and scoring procedures by the City Council. If approved, the units will be deducted from the affordable housing pool. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Community Development Department received referral comments from the following departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit C with summaries as follows: Parks Department: Rebecca Baker noted that conifers should be planted at least 15 feet from buildings and sidewalks. A detailed landscape plan will be required to be submitted as part of the Final PUD Review. Ms. Baker also notes that sidewalk maintenance must be performed by the owners of the development. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District(ACSD): Bruce Matherly, District Manager, states that ACSD - - - - - currently has sufficient capacity to service the proposed development. Engineering: Chuck Roth notes that Race Street was originally platted as an alley between Spruce and Walnut Streets, however, it functions as a street, and several residences access only from Race Street. Roth notes that head-in parking off of Race Street is acceptable, and that access from Race Street is preferable to access from South or Spruce Streets, due to traffic volumes on those streets. He adds that the Final PUD application should discuss the increase in trip generation that would result from this project, and should include a trip generation report by a traffic/transportation engineer registered to 2 practice in Colorado. The applicant will be required to pay an impact fee for the Smuggler area roadway system improvements on the same basis as that required for the Williams Ranch project. Other comments from Engineering include: maintaining all drainage on-site; completion of the Spruce Street sidewalk; providing street lights at intersections and with maximum spacing of 150' between lights; and providing snow storage on-site. The applicants shall provide will-serve letters from utilities with the Final PUD application. A tap fee waiver may be granted by the Water Department for 100% affordable housing projects. Housing: The applicants met with the Housing Board on May 1, 1996, to show the Board the revisions to the project. The applicants have requested that the Board consider subsidizing the project by buying- down units to lower their sales price. -The Board has not taken any formal action on the project at this time, and will not take any action until the project has obtained approval of the Conceptual PUD Plan from the Commission and the Council. STAFF COMMENTS: The project must comply with the review standards for rezoning(26.92.020), PUD review(26.84.030), and the specific requirements of the AH1/PUD zone district. Staff's analysis is divided into two separate sections based on these requirements. PUD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a development application for PUD review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. General Requirements A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Response: One of the goals of the AACP is to create affordable housing throughout the metro area. The AACP includes several policies applicable to the proposal, including the following: • Develop small scale residential housing which fits the character of the community and is interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area and up valley from Aspen Village. • Encourage infill development within the existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural areas and allow more employees to live close to where they work. • Whenever appropriate, work with landowners whose property is well suited and well located to develop affordable housing projects. • The public and private sectors together should develop 650 new affordable housing units. Staff has researched the AACP and the technical reports, and found no reference to policies that would preclude additional affordable housing projects in the Williams Addition. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area Response: The lots to be developed are part of the Williams Addition, which is zoned R-6, and is comprised of approximately 19 single-family and duplex lots(including the two subject lots). The lots are directly across the street from the Smuggler Trailer Park which is zoned MHP,Mobile Home Park. 3 Williams Addition is bounded to the north and east by the Hunter Creek and Centennial projects, which are zoned R/MFA,Residential/Multi-Family. The applicant has submitted a drawing showing the building footprints of the entire neighborhood(page 2 of revised submittal). The proposed development does not represent a scale or massing that is excessive for the neighborhood. The development is consistent with the mixed residential character of the neighborhood, and the units will be owner- occupied, as are the majority of the residences in the Williams Addition and Smuggler Trailer Park. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: Based on the existing mixed single-family and multi-family residential development in the area, development of affordable housing on this site will not adversely affect future development in the area. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Response: Affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines is exempt from growth management competition and scoring procedures. Additional PUD Standards Density: The proposed units comply with the AH1/PUD requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit: at least 400 square feet for a one-bedroom unit and 800 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. Sufficient lot area is available to accommodate this density. The proposed one-bedroom units range in size from 500-575 square feet of floor area;the two-bedroom unit contains 850 square feet. No reduction in density is required due to the presence of slopes in excess of 20%. For comparison purposes,the existing R-6 zoning would allow construction of a single-family residence on the 5,965 square foot south parcel and a duplex on the 7,500 square foot north parcel;the allowed floor area for the single-family residence would be 3,240 square feet, and for the duplex would be 3,840 square feet. Assuming that each dwelling unit contained 4 bedrooms, and one attached studio ADU was developed on each lot, the combined parcels would accommodate two structures with a total floor area of 7,080 square feet, 14 bedrooms(including ADUs), and 8 parking spaces. The current AH1/PUD proposal includes 4 buildings containing 13 units with a total of 14 bedrooms. The following chart compares potential development under the existing R-6 zoning with the proposed development: R h B d 8 8 Buildings 2 4 1 +2 Bedrooms 14(including 2 ADU) 14 1 0 Parking Spaces 8 14 +6 (minimum required) I Proposed Floor Area * 7,080 s.f. 6,732 s.f. ! -348 s.f. (not including exempt s.£) (maximum) Total Square Footage ±11,500 s.f. 9816 s.f. -1684 s.f. (including exempt s.f. - (estimate) garage/ADU/subgrade space) 4 The total square footage of this project is actually less than the square footage that could be developed under a free-market scenario. 2. Land Uses: Multi-family dwellings are not permitted under the existing R-6 zoning. Under the AH1/PUD zoning, 70%of the units created are required to be deed restricted as category 1-4 or resident occupied units and 30% may be free-market units. The applicants do not propose any free-market or resident occupied units; all of the proposed units will be deed-restricted and sold through the housing office to qualified full-time employees. 3. Dimensional Requirements: Setback requirements for AH1/PUD are established through the PUD review. For comparison,the adjacent R-6 zone has the following minimum setback requirements: • Front yard- 10' • Rear yard- 10' • Side yard- 10' (each side) 0 Minimum distance between buildings- 5' Since the lot is located on a corner,the applicant may designate the front yard. The proposed setbacks are: • Spruce St. lot line to structure- 10' • South St. lot line to structure- 0' • Race St. lot line to structure- 12' & 17' • North lot line to structure- 10' & 13'4" • Minimum distance between buildings- 12' The only variance of the R-6 setbacks which would be required would allow a zero setback to the lot line along South St. for Buildings 3 and 4. However,the impact of the zero setback is lessened because of the distance between the lot line and the existing sidewalk: Buildings 3 and 4 will be located approximately 13' and 16', respectively, from the edge of the existing.' he proposed height of the structures complies with the 25' height requirement in the R-6 zone dis` ict 4. Off-street Parking: The maximum parking requirement in the AH1/PUD zone district is 1 space/bedroom or 2 spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is less, for affordable units. Therefore, 14 off-street parking spaces must be provided on-site for the proposed 13 units. 19 surface parking spaces are proposed on-site, 9 of which are covered spaces. 6 of the spaces are "stacked": 5 are reserved for guest parking and one is the second space for the 2 bedroom unit. No parking is allowed along South and Spruce Streets adjacent to the parcel. Special review is required during the Final PUD review to allow stacked parking. 5. Open Space: AH1/PUD does not have a specific open space requirement, however,the amount of open space should be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. The applicants represent that structures cover 48.5% of the lot. The R-6 zone district does not have an open space requirement, however, if the two parcels were developed separately,the smaller parcel would allow 40% site coverage and the larger parcel would allow 35% site coverage. Common open space is designated on the site plan in the central area of the development and adjacent to South St., and is accessible to all of the units. 6. Landscape Plan: A detailed landscape plan will be reviewed with the Final PUD application. 5 7. Architectural Site Plan: The architectural site plan will be reviewed with the Final PUD application. Compliance with the Design Review Standards will also be addressed during the Final PUD review. 8. Lighting: A detailed lighting plan will be reviewed with the Final PUD,application. 9. Clustering: The revised site plan divides the units into 4 separate structures without exceeding the 25' height limit. 10. Public Facilities: Existing facilities are adequate to service the project. The buildings have been arranged to allow emergency vehicle access to all buildings. H. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: The units are all linked to the adjacent public streets and the proposed parking area by a system of walkways through the common open space. No building is farther than 60' from the driveway area on Race Street. As noted in the comments from the City Engineer, access from Race Street is preferable to access from South or Spruce Streets, due to traffic volumes on those streets. The applicants will need to work with the City Engineer to ensure that the South Street/Race Street intersection is safe for pedestrians and that the sight lines are adequate for the increased traffic. The sidewalk on Spruce St. will be extended to the north property line to increase safety and convenience for pedestrians. A RFTA bus stop is located across South Street, and an existing paved sidewalk links the site to the Clark's Market/post office area and the trail along the Roaring Fork River. REZONING Purpose of AH11PUD Zone District: The AH1/PUD zone district is intended for residential use primarily by permanent residents of the community. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the AH1/PUD zone district should be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its working residents; at the same time,the AH1/PUD zone district can protect the City's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non-community oriented zone districts may produce. Further, lands in the AH1/PUD zone district should be located within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit routes. The City's AH1/PUD district only applies within the Aspen Municipal boundaries. Rezoning Requirements: Pursuant to Section 26.92.020, in reviewing an amendment to the zoning map, the City Council and Commission shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of the Municipal Code. Response: The proposal is consistent with the intent of the AH1/PUD zone district, which is specifically aimed at locating AH uses within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit routes. In addition,the AH1/PUD zone district was intended to encourage the scattering of such projects throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those types which are affordable to its working residents. 6 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Response: This criteria is addressed above with the PUD criteria. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: As noted above, the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is comprised of single-family and multi-family residential development. The subject lots are located on the edge of the R-6 zone district adjacent to the MHP zone district. The units will be owner-occupied,which is consistent with the residences in the Williams Addition and the Smuggler Trailer Park. The neighbors in the Williams Addition have expressed concern with the density of the project and the"infringement"of a multi-family project into their single-family neighborhood. However, staff conceptually considers the development to be compatible with the land use, character and scale of the Smuggler neighborhood. 4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The applicants propose to develop 13 units, of which 12 are one-bedroom units. Staff does not consider that this development will create unacceptable traffic generation due to its proximity to the bus route/stop and its location within walking distance to town. In 1994, a traffic study was produced by Leigh, Scott& Cleary, Inc. for the Williams Ranch project. Staff has attached the June 2, 1994 summary of the traffic study for the Council's reference(Exhibit D). As shown on Table 2 on page 3 of the memo, all intersections will operate at a peak hour Level of Service(LOS)of"A"following buildout of Williams Ranch(LOS of"A" represents free-flow conditions with minimal delays). Furthermore, all intersections have a reserve capacity far beyond the expected traffic generation of the proposed Smuggler Affordable Housing project:. Staff notes that a site- specific traffic study will be required at the time of Final PUD. For the Council's reference, staff has conceptually summarized the expected peak:period traffic generation for the Smuggler project, based on the same assumptions used in the Williams Ranch traffic analysis. AM Peak Hr2 PM Peak Hr3 4 of Units Trip Factor Total Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit 13 4.0 52 4 12 14 8 t The trip generation factor of four trips per day is consistent with the standards used by Pitkin County for affordable housing projects. 2 The rate of entering and exiting trips for the AM peak hour are.08 and.23 respectively,consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209),published by the Transportation Research Board. 3 The rate of entering and exiting trips for the PM peak hour are.27 and.15 respectively,consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual(Special Report 209). 7 Williams Ranch was required to pay impact fees to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and impacts of increased bus ridership. The $6,000 is to be paid to RFTA was intended to subsidize a larger bus for the Hunter Creek route. However, the recently developed RFTA Transportation Development Plan recommends using smaller buses on the route with more frequent headways to increase the convenience of this area and encourage greater use of public transportation. $100,000 is to be used by the City to implement improvements to the road system in the Smuggler area. The City Engineering Department is in the process of creating a master plan for the Smuggler area. S. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, water supply,parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: To staff s knowledge,the proposed development will not adversely impact public facilities. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts in the natural environment. Response: The site is surrounded by existing development, and will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment. Portions of the lot along South and Spruce Streets are mapped as containing soil lead contamination levels which require mitigation if disturbed; a permit will be required prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: The proposed rezoning to AH1/PUD is clearly consistent with the intent of the community to provide additional housing for the local work force. In addition, the location of the parcel is consistent with the intent statement of the AH1/PUD zone district, which states that AH1/PUD properties should be spread throughout the City, located within walking distance of the central core, and in close proximity to available transit. _ 8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: Improvements to the bus system and the roadway system in the Smuggler area are proposed, as noted above. 9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the intent of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Response: The provision of affordable housing near the central core is consistent with the both the interest of the Aspen community and all applicable portions of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports approval of the rezoning and the Conceptual PUD plan based on the project's consistency with the intent of the AHI/PUD zone district and pertinent portions of the AACP, and compatibility with the mixed residential character of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the project based on the following findings: 8 • The Plan is not consistent with all elements of the AACP, specifically with the intent of the AACP to disperse the impacts of affordable housing throughout the community, and not to burden one area with all of the community's density. • The Plan is not compatible with the character of the surrounding zone district, specifically the R-6 zoning of the Williams Addition. • The Plan would aggravate the existing traffic in the area,and would negatively impact the safety of South and Race Streets. Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, a resolution of denial by Council is included with this staff report. If the Council votes to approve the project, staff recommends that approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. A trip generation report prepared by a traffic/transportation engineer registered to practice in Colorado shall be provided with the Final PUD application. 2. Will-serve letters from utilities shall be provided with the Final PUD application. 3. A detailed landscape plan shall be provided with the Final PUD application. 4. The applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application or in public meetings or hearings, and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 1996, denying rezoning to AH1/PUD Plan for the Smuggler Affordable Housing project." ALTERNATE MOTION: "I move to approve the Conceptual PUD Plan for the Smuggler Affordable Housing project, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated May 13, 1996." Attachments: Exhibit A- Application,revised site plan, floor plans&elevations Exhibit B - Planning Commission resolution of denial Exhibit C -Referral Comments Exhibit D- Williams Ranch Traffic Study dated June 2, 1994, prepared by Leigh, Scott& Cleary, Inc. 9 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE REZONING FROM R-6 TO AH1/PUD OF THE SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT LOTS 13-16,BLOCK 3,WILLIAMS ADDITION Resolution No. 96- WHEREAS,pursuant to Sections 26.84 and 26.92 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicants, Ted Guy and David Guthrie, have submitted an application(hereafter the "Plan") to rezone a 13,465 square foot parcel from R-6 (Medium Density Residential) to AH1/PUD in conjunction with a request for approval of a Conceptual Planned Unit Development(PUD) Plan to construct a 100% affordable housing project consisting of thirteen deed-restricted units on the corner of Spruce and South Streets, on Lots 13-16, Block 3, Williams Addition; and WHEREAS, at regular meetings on April 16 and May 7, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission(hereafter"Commission")reviewed the Plan, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code,to wit, Section 26.84.030(B) (Planned Unit Development), Section 26.92.020 (Rezoning), and Ordinance 55, Series of 1995 (AH1/PUD zone district); and WHEREAS, the Commission recommended denial of the proposed rezoning by a vote of 4-3 at the meeting on May 7, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Plan under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing on May 13, 1996; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the Plan is not consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan(hereafter"AACP"), specifically with the intent of the AACP to disperse the impacts of affordable housing throughout the community; and Resolution No. 96-_ Page 2 WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the Plan is not compatible with the character of the surrounding zone district, specifically the R-6 zoning of the Williams Addition; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Plan would aggravate the existing traffic in the area, and would negatively impact road safety on South and Race Streets; and WHEREAS,based on the findings noted above,the City Council recommended denial of the proposed rezoning by a vote of at the public hearing on May 13, 1996. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,that it does hereby deny the rezoning to AHl/PUD of the Smuggler Affordable Housing Project. APPROVED, on May 13, 1996, at a public hearing before City Council. John Bennett, 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 on May 13, 1996. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REZONING FROM R-6 TO AH1/PUD OF THE SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT LOTS 13-16,BLOCK 3,WILLIAMS ADDITION Resolution No. 96- WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.84 and 26.92 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicants, Ted Guy and David Guthrie,have submitted an application(hereafter the "Plan") to rezone a 13,465 square foot parcel from R-6 (Medium Density Residential)to AH1/PUD in conjunction with a request for approval of a Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan to construct a 100% affordable housing project consisting of thirteen deed-restricted units on the corner of Spruce and South Streets, on Lots 13-16, Block 3, Williams Addition; and WHEREAS, at regular meetings on April 16 and May 7, 1996,the Planning and Zoning Commission(hereafter"Commission")reviewed the Plan, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code,to wit, Section 26.84.030(B) (Planned Unit Development), Section 26.92.020 (Rezoning), and Ordinance 55, Series of 1995 (AH1/PUD zone district); and WHEREAS,the Commission finds that the Plan is not consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan(hereafter"AACP"), specifically with the intent of the AACP to disperse the impacts of affordable housing throughout the community and not to burden one area with all of the community's density; and WHEREAS,the Commission finds that the Plan is not compatible with the character of the surrounding zone district, specifically the R-6 zoning of the Williams Addition; and WHEREAS,the Commission finds that the Plan would aggravate the existing traffic in the area, and would negatively impact the safety of South and Race Streets; and Resolution No.96-_ Page 2 WHEREAS,based on the fmdings noted above,the Commission recommended denial of the proposed rezoning by a vote of 4-3 at the meeting on May 7, 1996. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend denial to the City Council of the rezoning to AHl/PUD of the Smuggler Affordable Housing Project. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on May 7, 1996. Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission: Amy Schmid, Deputy City Clerk Sara Garton, Chair P.2 PFP 10 10:J6AM EXHIBIT C �aaoa�vea T0: Suzanne Wolff, C;==m .ty Development Dept. ?RCX: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DAT3: April 10, 1996 gg t SD(UG{, ,n R AFFORDABLE HCUS ING =/REZONING ISS48e The applicant is proposing to rezone from Medium Density Residertia= (R--6} to Affordable :lousing/Planned Unit Development AHl/PM) , which will consist of a total fifteen deed restricted affordable housing -- one Categoz-I 4 two-bedroom, 12 Catego-r'1 4 one-bedroo,as, and 2 Category 2 cne-bedroom units . gQr�rnserm�^r*cr: The Housing Bcard has met with the applicants twice with regards to this project. The second meeting, A'Pri_ 3 , :996 , the Board Beard comment3 from the applican=s with regar3 to their meeting with Planning and Zor ng. No Zonal act-cn was taken by the 3oard, but t.-.e Board did :eel t..at this was a good location fcr an AE project. Some of the Bcard members felt comfortable wi-h the density and score felt it was too dense. The Housing 3oard requested the applicants Free*_ with the neighbors and see i; they wcu_d be acceptable to any type of Ali project in that location. At .his time, a formal reco"mendation carnet be mace in conjunction with the density of the protect as some members felt the density was fine but others felt it could be less dense, but the Board did yike the idea of an AH project Jr this rotation. The applicants are meeting with Dave Tclen anti a couple of the Hot.ging Scars members ;.o discuss this prcjec_ fu=her. APR. 3 '% 4:34PM P.1 Memorandum TO- Sumnne Wolff, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: April 8, 1996 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing CC:: Rocs Sodernm m,Engineering Department We have reviewcd the application for the Smuggler Affordable Housing Project and offer the following comments. The sidewalk extension is the responsibility of the prope,-ty development and becomes their responsibility for maintenance. including snow removal in the wing. The City will no longer perform snow removal for any portion of the sidewalk that abuts this property. 'Ile sitellandscane plan shows two spruce trees close to the sidewalk extension. Both of these trees should be planted a minimum of 13 =cct from,he cdgc of dic sidewalk to allow for tree growth. Additionally the two c:sisting spruce trc 3 shown along the sidewalk may need to be pruned or relocatcd to allow for site distances and pedestrian flow. It also appears as though there arc trees planted within the walkway on the north side of the property. Conifers in particular should be planted 15 feet away from loth buildings and sidewalks to allow for growth.- N ✓aspen �_,)nsoldafea(cSanlfafron As. cf 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970)925-3601 FAX#(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly • Chairman E -•,S� Michael Kelly _Albert Bishop •Treas. Frank Louses Louis Popish Sccy. �C Bruce Mathcrly,Mgr. April 4, 1996 Suzanne Wo 1 f f Planning Department ._LOPWNT� 130 S. Galena �+ ,EM�P���\ Aspen, CO 81611 : Re : Smuggler Affordable Housing PUDiRezoning Dear Suzanne: The Aspen Consciidated Sanitation District currently has suf: _ _. ant camacity to serve this Drowsed development. There a minor downs-,ream line constraint that -ii ii be rehabiii -aced -;,roU3n Arora'ed a(]c4iL1Ona1 lees . Service for - the deveiopment !Ni1 be con'tintent Upcn compiiance W t'1 D1s-riCt rules . reguiat ions . and specif 41 cat�ons wIhic7 are cn , _ ie at the Dis .r i zt o= _ ice. he :esizn G: the an-si -Z colieC-ion sys-em wi . l be reauir-?Q -J Dc approved by our line superintenden- prior to cons-' ruction. '4e Wit : need to review more de-ailed Aians as they become aV311aD1 @. '.ve n:a':e met Wi -n a representative o the applicant to ofrer our preiiminary fee estimates and comment cn possible connec-ion scenarios. ! ease pail if you needm additionai inrormation. Sim:�reiv. Sruce i�a*_heriy District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 19 76 • 1986 • 1990 Regional and National -MEMO To: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Subject: Smuggler Housing-Parcel ID #2737-073-00-027 Date: March 27, 1996 Suzanne, This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to the installation of fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems where applicable. if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Enginee� From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer Date: April 17, 1996 Re: Smuggler Affordable Housing PUD/Rezoning - Conceptual Review (8 10 South Avenue: Lots 13 and 14. Williams Addition: Parcel ID No. 2737-073-00-027) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Parking - The application shows head-in parking off of Race Street. Citv Code limits curb cuts to 18' in width. however Race Street was actually platted as an alley between Walnut and Spruce Streets. Therefore the proposed head-in parking is acceptable and is preferred to driveway_ access off of either South Avenue or Spruce Street where traffic volumes are relatively high. The final development plans must indicate driveway and parking space slopes draining into the property and not onto Race Street. The application presents 17 parking spaces for a fifteen unit project. one unit of which is a two bedroom unit. The application is however unclear in that it states that 5 of the spaces are guest spaces. Perhaps the project covenants could provide for floating guest spaces for unused unit parking spaces. A minimum of one handicap parking space is required. 2. Site Drainage - City Code requires that only historic flows be permitted to leave the site, but not in concentrated discharge point(s). Final development plans must include drainage calculations and on-site detention design prepared by an engineer registered to practice in Colorado, as well as providing erosion and sediment control both during and after construction. As discussed above, the final development plans must indicate driveway and parking space slopes draining into the property and not onto Race Street. 3. Utilities -Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. There are existing aerial utilities adjacent to the parcel which are appropriate to be undergrounded when more of the neighborhood is undergrounded. The applicant should be 1 required to join any future improvement districts which are formed for improvements in the public right-of-way. All new utility service connections off the overhead lines must be required to be installed underground. The application states that there are sufficient utility capacities in place to serve the project. The final submission should include -will serve" letters from each of the utilities. There may be a 100% tap fee waiver for affordable housing. The applicant must provide separate meters for individual units and separate meter for irrigation water. The applicant must provide street lights at intersections and with maximum spacing of 150 feet in between. 4. Alley Paving- Race Street currently is paved. Alley paving was discussed with the applicant as a dust control measure addressing PM-10 issues. The existing pavement serving the parcel on Race Street is a chip seal surface which is requested to be improved to comply with practice standards. 5. Encroachments - The boulders which currently encroach into the public right-of-way of Race Street must be removed from the right-of-way. 6. Snow Storage - The site design needs to be revised to indicate snow storage spaces. The snow from the parking spaces shall not be plowed or shoveled into the Race Street right-of-way. 7. Sidewalk. Curb and Gutter - There is currently sidewalk. curb and gutter for much of the parcel's frontage on South Avenue and Spruce Street. The applicant must complete the sidewalk, curb and gutter for the remainder of the Spruce Street frontage and provide a five foot buffer space between the sidewalk and the back of curb. S. Transformer Easement - There is an unusually large space between the property line and the sidewalk on South Avenue. Since that space is available, the applicant need not be required to provide an easement for a transformer on their property. However the applicant may be required to provide a fence or landscape screen for a transformer if one is installed at the time of aerial utility undergrounding. 9. Traffic Imp - The application does not respond to Sec. 26.92.020.D regarding effect on traffic generation. The final submission must discuss the increase in trip generation that would result from granting the rezoning request. Final submission should include a trip generation report by a traffic/transportation engineer registered to practice in Colorado. 10. Landscaping in the Public Right-of-way - The final development plan must indicate proposed landscaping in the public right-of-way which must conform with City Code and without encumbrances such as boulders and fences or trees. Tree canopies extending into the right-of=way must be pruned up to maintain 9' minimum vertical clearance. 1) I. Easements - The improvement survey does not indicate the date of Title Policy as regards easement information. The final submission must include information no older than 12 months regarding any easements on the site. 12. Streets -The applicant must be aware of their and the City's snow removal needs. Snow from private property and parking areas and driveways may not be plowed into the street. It must be stored on site and hauled away. D. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way, parks department(920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department(920-5130) for street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development. including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the city community - development department. M96.133 3 EXHIr "T D L' 'H. SCOTT & CLEARY. INC. 'I i.ANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS L1889 York Street Denver. CO 80206 (303) 333-I10_ I FAY (303) 333-1107 June 2, 1994 ,W. Cauck Roth, P.E. Clty of Aspen Engineering Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Williams Ranch iraf--c (1-SC #94034) Dear .tifr. Roth: is accordance with cur Nfarch 31, 1994 proposal, we nave ccmnieted a -_i�.c imnac: anaiysis of :he crecesed Wiiliar s Ranch residennai project in Asuen, Coicrado. _lure 1, enclosed, iilus«ates the lccaricn cf .he -acre prciec: site. in genemi, the site is located within the nonheast corner of the Clty with acczss :ianred :o and trOm Par:{ Circe ,-la Smoggier Mountain Road. Frown Lane and Spruce Sheet .tie arciec:'s land LSD Ilan�.ny1SIGIIS a iCtal Or * homes including 1S singie-family acrneS, _()duniex homes and 16 `_ree mar-L.", ICT.S. - For curpeses of this analysis, the "tee mane," lots have been assumed to be developed with sin?le- am.' .homes. i ze rennainder of this report presents our rdings and recommeadations .elated :o the probabie zat:c :.:.pacts associated with buildout of the proposed development. :is�ir^ -r�^sccra:icr �'_dlities and T,atc ae .ansponation system which would se.-ie the Williams Ranch site is prima^ly c7arac:e ed by the somewhat deZC'"tic roadway ne work which generaily conior= to the hillside topography of the surrounding area. Road- ways in the vic:nivi of the site are ge neraily pave twc-lane routes with =0 or 25 muh posted speed limits. Exceptions include the nonhern section of Soruce Street, which is a narrow 6ravei route, and -,wo eastbound, one- way strees (ring Street and Nichoias Lane). i ae amount of existing teak-flour and ?4-lour =f`c activity is shown on Figire 1 for several s-,,:dv area iecanons. As noted, these counts were conducted during :nid-March of this year (data printouts are enclosed). inspection of these tragic acrviry levels and parterrs together with on-site cbse^vanons reveal that the Gibseni Park.avenue corridor functions as an imcortant coilec:or route between Red 'Nfountain Road and Coocer Avenue. Similarly, the South AvenueTark Circle route functions as a minor coile=r route for the surrounding neignbcr- hcod. Ail other nearbv streets function as local access roadways. F1pre 2 illustrates the major transportation e'.ements associated with travel, within the study are:.. in addition to the readwav system itself, intersection =ffic controls, designated pedestrian routes and bus stops are shown. it is toted that the Roarna Form Transit Agency CR TA) provides a high level of pudiic transit service to the neighbar.ccd via its Hunter Creek shurile with 20-minute headways between vehicles tom 7:00 AM to 12:00 midnight Mr. Quo";- Roth, P.-. Page = .tune 1994 Estima*e� _ c (;';ereraticn The preparation of traffic generation estimates for the Williams Ranch development requires an approach which takes int5 account the unique characteristics of the Aspen community. First of all, the majority of the proposed homes are intended to serve as employee housing. Secondly, the site and surrounding area is provided with e=!Ient sansit service with a track record of good rideship. In addition, the Town's plans for imulementation of a new on-s.,ee: pav paring program later this year is =petted to further promote the use of alternative (nen- automcbiie) modes of transuortation. As a result, we have anniied traffic generation rates to the Williams Ranch project which are significantly less than the ten and six vehicle-trigs per day which are typically anniied to single- and multi-family homes, respectively, based on national averages published by the Institute of Trans- portation =.^:7•ineers t1 ). i ue current Pitkin County Road Standards and Sceci ncations document suzoests average weekday gene ation rates of four trips per singie-iamiiv dweling and three tins -er multi-family dwe'.ling, assuming strong transit serrice. For the "uee mark,-;'' tots, we have increased :he siagie-famiiy -ate by an additional 19 daiiv trips as recommended by l I H for hour: olds with .more, than two ve is:es. :inaily, we save „aicuiated peak-:lour rates for e=h housing by acciving the Yeak-::cur :o avem2e wee::dav vatic _:ed under Categorr ?10 of the 177E Gene?,ar.Qn' deci::LenL For ,L'rroses �,f this analvsis, we divided the Site into the three tra%c access zones i Iusuated ' As indicae,t SI`: :ie 7rotec:'s site cian. one 'free marl"c' lot would lave access cLr of Scrace S- r7Cne Ight CllCie-, 1Crnes wouiu .access off of gown Lane (Lone and t7e r-Imaining 15 1Cmes wouic lave act-ess via Sr::L"dgie: Mountain Road Tonle i, znC:OSed, illus: ,tes the ,-°rooted trai-c generation c tame:,-:s.:cs oL each oI these zones. acs indicated, :-uildou: and full cccucanc.: Cf `Xillfai;is Ranch is proles:z^.: :0 ?? e ate average •yeeicca, vehici..-:Fps (1=1 in and 1121 out) Cf these, Io weuid e nte: and nine would e:tz dura_ the Peak-lour. 'r--„ : - !is 47Cuticn 1e direc^cnai dis:T.burion of pre'ec:-'Jenelated iaf±'c 's a key e:ement in the dete:-_:..inar:oa of i=ac:s oL a Teen deveiopme.L iae dismbution itself is influenc.°.d by a number of iac:ors including :he si:e's relative location within :he surrounding community, the :vre of proposed ;and use, e=ting roadways and :ravel pattems, and :he specincz of the proiecs acc:.ss plan. in :his panic:iiar insmn,, the traffic panems e Liibi:e in the er_s ng counts saown on =i�ire I give a good indication of the probable Williams Ranch dis:—l'cuticn. Figure 3 presents the pe:c,-atage traffic distribution which is e.,mec:ed to be appiicabie to this develepMIuenL Acs indicated, about 50 cerce^t of the Williams Ranch traffic is projected to be oriented towards the west .•a Gibson avenue with the :emaiate- :owards the south via Para and veaie Avenues. figure also iilus. ates the geaeral distribution of average weesdalr tramp onto the surrounding roadway system. As indicted the :naximum concentration of projec:-generated traff is is e.,pecred on Smuggler Mountain Road wtiere about 106 additional vehic.'e-trips per day in Baca direction are Forecasted. Estimated Tra;Sc Assicrment Figure 4 illustrates the assignment of peak-Hour traffic generated by Williams Ranch to several intersections throw out :he study area. These estimates were derived by application of the Fig-,ire 3 distrburcn percentages to die Table 1 generation estimates. YIr. Cauc:c Roth, P.E. Page 3 June 2, 1994 Prciec;ec' Trarnc Impacts i Fig-ire 5 illustrates the peak-hour, combination of project-generated traffic Figure 4) and existing traffic (Figure 1) at four key intersections in the vicinity of the site. In order to assess the impact of the proposed residential development, peak-hour capacity analyses have been prepared for the four key intersections for both existing and existing plus site-generated traffic conditions. The methodology used is that presented in the c-arrent edition of the ;iighway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209), published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academv of Sciences. The concept of Level of Service (LOS) is used as a basis for compuring combinations of roadway operaring conditions which accommodate various leveis of =affic activity. By definition, six different Levels of Service are used (A, B, C, D, E, and F) with 'A' being a free-flow condition and "E" representing the capacity of a given intersection or roadway. More detailed dennirions of the six Leveis of Se:;ice along with the threshold values apulicabie to this analysis are included on Page A-20 in the Appendix. i ne following tabulation summarizes the results of these LOS anaivses which are also included in :he Accend:° sec^en :o alis :eron. As indicated, all four intemec ions can be dxcec:ed :o ocemte a hiz Level of Service a&.-r full buildeut and eccupancv of the proposed development. rurhermore, these calc::iarons are some:vh-n*. conservative since e:dsting traffic activity has apt been reduced to account for anticipated ff—c decreases associated with the Paid Par. ng Plan Table 2 LE1/EL CF SER ACc CCMPARISCN Williams Ranc:t i AM Fe k - '-!cur :M Peak - ;cur - I Minimum Levei Minimum Level Reserve of P..eserve of intersection Assumed -raffic Cacaaty Serce " Caeaciry Sernca " i SpruceiParK Circe EAsting 204 A (4C4) 785 A (385) i E;astng - Project 815 A (415) 737 A (337) I Erown/Fark Circe EA ,n 8 , A (4, ; 812 A (4 12) EAsting + Project 871 A (471) Sc0 A (4C0) :CU$'/Gibson E.�a ng 656 A (256) 796 A ("19 6) E;dsting + Project 652 A (252) 783 A (383) Gibscn/Fark Circle EAsting 861 A (461) 810 A (410) EAsting + Project 855 A (455) 796 A (C96) " ;Note: Numbers in parenthesis represent the amount of peak-hour reserve cacacfi/ remaining (above 4C0) at each intersection in order fcr traffic operations to remain at Level of Service I !1 llr. Chuck Roth. P.7 Page 4 June ? I99a VMT Anahisis i Another perspective related to the traffic impact of Williams Ranch relates to its contribution :o total Vehicle vfiles of Travel (VNM within the Aspen Air Quality non-attainment area. In order to calculate such impac5, the following assumptions have been made based on our ezpeience with similar analyses for the Aspen area: • Average Daily Traffic = 90 perunt s (Average Weekday Traffic) • Ave-age one-way trip length in Aspen non-attainment area = 3.0 miles. • Average one-way tip length for Down-Valley employees within Aspen non-attainment. area = 4.9 miles. • Down-Valley employees who use bus = 30 percraL • Rio. of employees per emplovee home = 1._ • Down-Vailev emplovee auto occupancy = L� 3ased en '; e above assumnrions, the daily vti17 associated with Wiiliaris Ranch is calcuiatet as feilews: _. rree titaret :acme V7147 = 110 900'j X ?-cocsed 3moievee Hcusin4 V yf^- = 13= 7, 90 '0 x _.0 _. Down-Vailev 3:noiovee Less 'vtiiT = 3& a I. ;00'0 �i- X, =.9 - - 86 diet lv".M increase = 6- As it -elates :o this xojec:ed VN ' inc:lase, the feilowin7 calc::iations aoaiv to panic;aces ?ti1_, er ssiens asscc:ate- Nth ;v iiliams Ranch: 1. Manor Ar:erml = (30°.10 :r 16;) 0.006 = 0.c0 -- Minor Aren;ai = (400'0 =6 1) 0.0130 = ?-3 3. Locai Streets = (30010 -L057) 0.018-1 = 2.5_ `Nintertime Sanding = -6; 0.001 = 0.'^ Total Pounds of ?articulates added per day = 6.-3_ Pero ,merdc ' 1 r=.rsL-cr,,2t,,cn irrcrCverrer ij As discussed earlier in this report, present traffic patte:as in the vicinity of the study area indicate that the Cibson/Park Avenue route between Red Mountain Road and Cooper functions as a nei?lbori.eed coilec:cr C;-:der. Siaiiariy, the South Avenue;Park Circle -cute functions as a minor collector. Fizre 6 dlustrates these roadway mutes together-with various -ecc=.ended transportaricn improvements throughout the study area. Tat foLowing discussion presents these recommendations by catezorr of improvement. L South Avenue. The most obvious roadway deftency within the study area is the poor intersection designs found along South Avenue at Gibson and in the vicinity of Spruce Street. Vehicular paths through these intersections are poorly defined, and the Spruce intersection is further complicated by the adjacent Oak and Cottonwood roadwav connec ons. As a result, traffic ac-dent potential for both vehicles and pedestrians is hi7�er than it should be. ;;igire 7 illustrates three recommended projects which clearly Lir. Chuck Roth, P.E. 'age ?fine ?, 1994 define the prefer ed vehicular paths along South Avenue. Conceptual cost estimates for this work are 54,100, S4,=50 and 54,900 for projects 1, = and 3,f respec.iveiv. 2. Roadway Widths. i fie width of the two-lane, two-way rop dways within the studv area varies from about 1? fee: to about ?9 feet, with 24 being somewhat typical. Even though a 24-foot width is desirable 'under "ideal" conditions (without on-scree: parlsng), we recommend that a 1-0-foot minimum width be applied to the c:llector routes in the studv area, and an 18-foot minimum be applied to the remaining local streets. ri;are 6 identifies three. short roadwav sections where the 270-foot minimum does act oresentiv exist. Widening in these areas is estimated to cost about S-5,000. In addition. Scrscr Street adiacrnt :o Williams Ranch currentiv has a narrow unpaved cross-section of as little as L' feet. The Williams Ranca plan envisions one free •market lot to nave access via Spruce, and erne aencv access is also procesed off of this route. We recommend that this 600-foot re�ca of Soruc� be widened to an - cot cross-sec en. 3. Steed Limits. 'eve -vcc=end :hat a uniform =0-mph su_eed _ -rit be app_ iied tc ail srree:s north of :ire Cibson/Park .-eve rue corridor. -. Sc--d Burnout ?t the orese^.t ame, he onllr speed bump within :'.:e study area is located on : e east side of Scuth avenue at Cak and C,)rtcnwecd L:nest As nticated on i'rire it is ,eccrrnended io be :..:coated Ia addincn, :he -,,,c s a^rots located across the Spruce;Para Circe intersection ser-re :o slow through zaiz:c. No addirchai speed reduc cn measures are recommended at this t=e. Warning S!JIIS. k5 liidiG.ted On '�lre O. 3 'Stop Ahead" wa^1Ilg Si'`n :S ,er..,rrmeaded for installation aiorig Gibson in advance of Neale Avenue. Visibility of this time--way Step is somewhat res=:et for eastbound dr:vertu. No other warninz siziis are recommended. 6. ?tdes«:an =ac-,i.;ies. :adequate pedes. ;an acc:.ss is a key par of the 'ranspormtien syste,:n se^ring the Williams Rarch area. E.rsting cedestrian sidewalk rotation are shown On :figure I In addition, future sidewai'- -x:e^sicns are ,,ianned along the east side of Neale Avenue and the south site of Gibson. It 's strongiv recomrnenced that this expanding pedestrian :vaiti system be --ended into Williams Village along two routes: the north-rlv e-ensioa of Brown Lane and along the project's eastern act-ss road to Smuggler Mountain Road. Existing c,csswaik lecatictis across Sprite at South avenue and along Gibson at Lone Pine are adequate. 7. Srrnuogier Mountain RcadiPark Circle Intersec:ien. As of his ame, the scecific location and design of this kev access intetsec:ien has act vet been finalized. As indicated on rivlre 6, however, the two-lane acts road should intersect Park Circle at about a 90- degree angie and a Step sign should be posted facing southbound motorists. 8. Transit Service. \s previousiv indicated, public transit service is presently excellent within the study area. :-�h emsting pus stop, located along Pars Circle at Brown Lane, will =vide se-,rice within about a Quarter mile of the Williams Ranca site. i here have Mr. Chuck Roth, P.B Page 6 June ? 1994 been discussions with RF'I'A concerning the possibility of adding bus stops on Park Circle at Smuggler Mountain Road and at the traffic circle within the adjacent Centpanial residential deveiopment. However, RF A is also considering increasing the size of vehicle (from 30' to 40') which serves the Hunter Creek route in orders to meet the anticipated patronage increase resulting from implementation of the Paid Parking Plan. the aforementioned Centennial traffic circle, however, is not designed for the larger bus turning radius. Table 3, enclosed, summarizes the above projects and their estimated costs. Ccrc,usicrs Buildcut of the proposed Williams Ranch residential development is projected to increase average weelcdav traffic alone cordons of Park Circle and Gibson by 50 to 60 vehicle-trips in each direction. Such increases caa be safely accommodated by the area's e:asting -cadwav systetn, given implementation of the numerous imnrove- me"..0 recommended herein. fa addition to upgrades of the existing roadway system, the proposed deveiepment does provide ootenrial benefits related to provision of a substantial amount of new empiovee acusing. We :rust that *his re;,ort will assist with further discussions and :fanning for the Williams Ranch proccsal. Please tail if we can be of additional assistance. Respe=Uily submitted, LFiGr SCOT: & INC. Phifio N!Butt III;T.B. PNSiwd Enclosures: Tables 1 and 3 Figures 1 through 7 Traffic Counts Capacity Analyses (Pales A-1 through A-68) C-TRQTEC S9 Q�Wa-I xUSREV �r May 12, 1996 The Honorable John Bennett, City of Aspen Council Members 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Council: Previous commitments will prevent us from attending the presentation for the project to be discussed this evening with Ted Guy and David Guthrie. However, it is important to both of us that we be counted in the support column for the project (and any pro ect which will ultimately bring more permanent housing in the metro area for the working class). While we understand that the base of Smuggler has taken an extraordinary "hit" in terms of deed restricted housing, and that intolerable density must always be a concern,we do not feel that either argument holds water when faced with the concept of the "greater good", the goal to house a larger percentage of our workforce here. We happen to live in the other large concentration of worker-bee housing, the "Castle Creek ghetto". It is neither a ghetto nor do we consider it a disadvantage to be surrounded by colleagues with tricycles in the parking spaces. In fact, we feel privileged to be in an area that is vibrant year round. If the newspaper reports are accurate it appears that perhaps the major concern is the potential traffic impact on an already intensely used road system. With all of the commitment to auto-alternatives which we talk about incessantly, surely there is an imaginative solution out there to solve this dilemma. Mass-transit is immediately accessible and, by definition, the workforce goes to work, generally for most of any given day. And we wash our own windows and mow our own lawns (actually, come to think of it, who has one to mow?) so it would be our contention that the "daily trips formula" used to calculate impact has no basis in reality anyway. But then,we have never subscribed to the "numbers" approach to planning living conditions anyway. We would encourage you to dig hard in your attempt to find a solution which will allow this project to go forward. ,Shf ce ely, Ge rgia` a on and Andy Hanson 121 e Court P. O. Box 2717 MAY 13 1996 Aspen, CO 81612 OSV OSVeL MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson,Community Development Director Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff,Planner RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Review and Rezoning-Continued Public Meeting from April 16, 1996 DATE: May 7, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicants are requesting to develop a 100% affordable housing project on two parcels in the Williams Addition which are located at the corner of South and Spruce Streets. The project has been significantly revised since the original submittal. The project was tabled by the Commission pending resolution of issues regarding mass, scale, traffic impacts and the appropriatenesss of the site for affordable housing. A comparision of the project from the initial submittal, including number of structures,units and FAR are summarized below: Submittal #of Structures #of Units FAR (not including Total Square exempt s.f.) Footage (including exen 3/2/96- Work Session 7 15 .84:1 12,208 s.f. (9437.5 s.f.) 5/7/96- Public Meeting 4 13 .50:1 9816 s.f. (6732 s.f.) The current proposal would develop 13 deed-restricted affordable housing units (12 one-bedroom Category 2, 3 and 4 units and 1 two-bedroom Category 4 unit) within 4 structures. Allowable FAR in the AH1/PUD zone district is 1.1:1, with Special Review required if the proposed FAR exceeds .85:1. The revised site plan,depiction, floor plans and elevations are attached as Exhibit A. APPLICANTS: Ted Guy and David Guthrie LOCATION: 810 South Avenue;Lots 13, 14, 15 & 16, Block 3, Williams Addition. The property is located on the corner of South and Spruce Streets, across from the entrance to the Smuggler Trailer Park. ZONING: R-6,Medium Density Residential LOT AREA: 13,465 square feet REQUEST: The applicants are requesting Conceptual PUD approval and approval to rezone the property to the AH1/PUD (Affordable Housing) zone district. 1 PROCESS: The project is being processed as a four-step application, as determined by the Community Development Director,based on the recommendation made by the Planning Commission at the work session on April 2, 1996. Rezoning of the property would not formally occur until the Final PUD Plan is approved; however, staff has included the rezoning criteria with this Conceptual Review for the Commission to consider as a threshold issue. Special Review for parking and compliance with the Design Review standards will be considered during the Final PUD review. Public hearings will be held at Council during the Conceptual PUD Review, and at the Commission during the Final PUD Review. Per Section 26.100.060(C)(3)(b), all affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee, shall be exempt from growth management competition and scoring procedures by the City Council. If approved,the units will be deducted from the affordable housing pool. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments from the following departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "B" with summaries as follows: Parks Department: Rebecca Baker noted concerns with the distance of the existing and proposed spruce trees from buildings and sidewalks. A detailed landscape plan will be required to be submitted as part of the Final PUD Review. Ms. Baker also notes that sidewalk maintenance must be performed by the owners of the development. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District(ACSD): Bruce Matherly, District Manager, states that ACSD currently has sufficient capacity to service the proposed development. En ing eering: Chuck Roth notes that Race Street was originally platted as an alley between Spruce and Walnut Streets, however, it functions as a street, and several residences access only from Race Street. Roth notes that head-in parking off of Race Street is acceptable, and that access from Race Street is preferable to access from South or Spruce Streets,due to traffic volumes on those streets. He adds that the Final PUD application should discuss the increase in trip generation that would result from this project, and should include a trip generation report by a traffic/transportation engineer registered to practice in Colorado. The applicant will be required to pay an impact fee for the Smuggler area roadway system improvements on the same basis as that required for the Williams Ranch project. Other concerns include: maintaining all drainage on-site; completion of the Spruce Street sidewalk; providing street lights at intersections and with maximum spacing of 150' between lights; and providing snow storage on-site. The applicants shall provide will-serve letters from utilities with the Final PUD application. A tap fee waiver may be granted by the Water Department for 100% affordable housing projects. Housing: The applicants met with the Housing Board on May 1, 1996, to show the Board the revisions to the project. The applicants have requested that the Board consider subsidizing the project by buying- down units to lower their sales price. The Board has not taken any formal action on the project at this time, and will not take any action until the project has obtained approval of the Conceptual PUD Plan from the Commission and the Council. 2 STAFF COMMENTS: The project must comply with the review standards for rezoning(26.92.020), PUD review (26.84.030), and the specific requirements of the AHl/PUD zone district. Staff's analysis is divided into two separate sections based on these requirements. PUD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code,a development application for PUD review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. General Requirements A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan(AACP). Response: One of the goals of the AACP is to create affordable housing throughout the metro area. The AACP includes several policies applicable to the proposal, including the following: • Develop small scale residential housing which fits the character of the community and is interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area and up valley from Aspen Village. • Encourage infill development within the existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural areas and allow more employees to live close to where they work. • Whenever appropriate, work with landowners whose property is well suited and well located to develop affordable housing projects. • The public and private sectors together should develop 650 new affordable housing units. Staff has researched the AACP and the technical reports, and found no reference to policies that would preclude additional affordable housing projects in the Williams Addition. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The lots to be developed are part of the Williams Addition, which is zoned R-6, and is comprised of approximately 19 single-family and duplex lots (including the two subject lots). The lots are directly across the street from the Smuggler Trailer Park which is zoned MHP,Mobile Home Park. Williams Addition is bounded to the north and east by the Hunter Creek and Centennial projects, which are zoned R/MFA, Residential/Multi-Family. The applicant has submitted a drawing showing the building footprints of the entire neighborhood(page 2 of revised submittal). The proposed development does not represent a scale or massing that is excessive for the neigborhood. The development is consistent with the mixed residential character of the neighborhood, and the units will be owner- occupied, as are the majority of the residences in the Williams Addition and Smuggler Trailer Park. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: Based on the existing mixed single-family and multi-family residential development in the area, development of affordable housing on this site will not adversely affect future development in the area. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. 3 Response: Affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines is exempt from growth management competition and scoring procedures. Additional PUD Standards Density: The proposed units comply with the AH1/PUD requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit: at least 400 square feet for a one-bedroom unit and 800 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. Sufficient lot area is available to accommodate this density. The proposed one-bedroom units range in size from 500-575 square feet of floor area; the two-bedroom unit contains 850 square feet. No reduction in density is required due to the presence of slopes in excess of 20%. For comparison purposes,the existing R-6 zoning would allow construction of a single-family residence on the 5,965 square foot south parcel and a duplex on the 7,500 square foot north parcel; the allowed floor area for the single-family residence would be 3,240 square feet, and for the duplex would be 3,840 square feet. Assuming that each dwelling unit contained 4 bedrooms, and one attached studio ADU was developed on each lot,the combined parcels would accommodate two structures with a total floor area of 7,080 square feet, 14 bedrooms (including ADUs), and 8 parking spaces. The current AH1/PUD proposal includes 4 buildings containing 13 units with a total of 14 bedrooms. The following chart compares potential development under the existing R-6 zoning with the proposed development: ExistingR-6 Zoning AHI/PUDProposal Net Result Buildings 2 4 +2 Bedrooms 14(including 2 ADU) 14 0 Parking Spaces 8 14 +6 (minimum required) Proposed Floor Area * 7,080 s.f. 6,732 s.f. 348 (not including exempt s.f.) (maximum) Total Square Footage ±11,500 s.f. 9816 s.f. -1684 (including exempt s.f. - (estimate) ara a/ADU/sub rade space) 2. Land Uses: Multi-family dwellings are not permitted under the existing R-6 zoning. Under the AH1/PUD zoning, 70% of the units created are required to be deed restricted as category 1-4 or resident occupied units and 30% may be free-market units. The applicants do not propose any free-market or resident occupied units; all of the proposed units will be deed-restricted and sold through the housing office to qualified full-time employees. 3. Dimensional Requirements: Setback requirements for AH1/PUD are established through the PUD review. For comparison,the adjacent R-6 zone has the following minimum setback requirements: • Front yard- 10' • Rear yard- 10' • Side yard- 10' (each side) • Minimum distance between buildings- 5' Since the lot is located on a corner, the applicant may designate the front yard. The proposed setbacks are: 4 • Spruce St. lot line to structure- 10' • South St. lot line to structure-0' • Race St. lot line to structure- 12' & 17' • North lot line to structure- 10' & 15' • Minimum distance between buildings- 12' The only variance required would allow a zero setback to the lot line along South St. for Buildings#3 and 4; however, Building 3 will be located appoximately 13' from the edge of the existing sidewalk and Building 4 will be located approximately 16' from the edge of the sidewalk. The proposed height of the structures complies with the 25' height requirement in the R-6 zone district. 4. Off-street Parking: The maximum parking requirement in the AH1/PUD zone district is 1 space/bedroom or 2 spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is less,for affordable units. Therefore, 14 off-street parking spaces must be provided for the proposed 13 units. 19 surface parking spaces are proposed, 9 of which are covered spaces. 6 of the spaces are"stacked": 5 are reserved for guest parking and one is the second space for the 2 bedroom unit. Special review is required during the Final PUD review to allow stacked parking. 5. Open Space: AH1/PUD does not have a specific open space requirement,however, the amount of open space should be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. The applicants represent that structures cover 48.5% of the lot. The R-6 zone district does not have an open space requirement, however, if the two parcels were developed separately, the smaller parcel would allow 40% site coverage and the larger parcel would allow 35% site coverage. Common open space is designated on the site plan, and is accessible to all of the units. The open space has been improved with the reduction in the number of structures. 6. Landscape Plan: A detailed landscape plan will be reviewed with the Final PUD application. 7. Architectural Site Plan: The architectural site plan will be reviewed with the Final PUD application. 8. Lighting: A detailed lighting plan will be reviewed with the Final PUD application. 9. Clustering: The revised site plan divides the units into 4 separate structures without exceeding the 25' height limit. 10. Public Facilities: Existing facilities are adequate to service the project. The buildings have been arranged to allow emergency vehicle access to all buildings. 11. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: The units are all linked to the adjacent public streets and the proposed parking area by a system of walkways through the common open space. No building is farther than 60' from the driveway area on Race Street. As noted in the comments from the City Engineer, access from Race Street is preferable to access from South or Spruce Streets, due to traffic volumes on those streets. A RFTA bus stop is located across South Street, and an existing paved sidewalk links the site to the Clark's Market/post office area and the trail along the Roaring Fork River. 5 REZONING Purpose of AHI/PUD Zone District: The AHl/PUD zone district is intended for residential use primarily by permanent residents of the community. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the AHl/PUD zone district should be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its working residents; at the same time, the AHl/PUD zone district can protect the City's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non-community oriented zone districts may produce. Further, lands in the AHl/PUD zone district should be located within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit routes. The City's AHl/PUD district only applies within the Aspen Municipal boundaries. Rezoning Requirements: Pursuant to Section 26.92.020, in reviewing an amendment to the zoning map, the City Council and Commission shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of the Municipal Code. Response: The proposal is consistent with the intent of the AHl/PUD zone district, which is specifically aimed at located AH uses within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit routes. In addition, the AHl/PUD zone district was intended to encourage the scattering of such projects throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those types which are affordable to its working residents. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Response: This criteria is addressed above with the PUD criteria. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: As noted above, the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is comprised of single-family and multi-family residential development. The subject lots are located on the edge of the R-6 zone district adjacent to the MHP zone district. The units will be owner- occupied, which is consistent with the residences in the Williams Addition and the Smuggler Trailer Park. The neighbors in the Williams Addition have expressed concern with the density of the project and the"infringement"of a multi-family project into their single-family neighborhood. However, staff conceptually considers the development to be compatible with the land use, character and scale of the Smuggler neighborhood. 4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The applicants propose to develop 13 units, of which 12 are one-bedroom units. Staff does not consider that this development will create unacceptable traffic generation due to its proximity to the bus route/stop and its location within walking distance to town. In 1994, a traffic study was produced by Leigh, Scott&Cleary, Inc. for the Williams Ranch project. Staff has attached the June 2, 1994 summary of the traffic study for the Commission's reference (Exhibit 6 "C"). As shown on Table 2 on page 3 of the memo, all intersections will operate at a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) of"A"following buildout of Williams Ranch. Furthermore, all intersections have a reserve capacity far beyond the expected traffic generation of the proposed Smuggler Affordable Housing project. Staff notes that a site-specific traffic study will be required at the time of Final PUD. For the Commission's reference, staff has conceptually summarized the expected peak period traffic generation for the Smuggler project,based on the same assumptions used in the Williams Ranch traffic analysis. AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr #of Units Trip Factor' Total Trips Enter Exit Enter ExitPossia� grT 13 4.0 52 4 12 14 8 � i r1PROVEMc?A-r( The applicants will need to work with the City Engineer to ensure that the South Street/Race Street intersection is safe for pedestrians and that the sight lines are adequate for the increased traffic. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, water supply,parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: To staff's knowledge,the proposed development will not adversely impact public facilities. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts in the natural environment. Response: The site is surrounded by existing development, and will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment. Portions of the lot along South and Spruce Streets are mapped as containing soil lead contamination levels which require mitigation if disturbed; a permit will be required prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: The proposed rezoning to AH1/PUD is clearly consistent with the intent of the community to provide additional housing for the local work force. In addition, the location of the parcel is consistent with the intent statement of the AH1/PUD zone district, which states that AH1/PUD properties should be spread throughout the City, located within walking distance of the central core, and in close proximity to available transit. 'The trip generation factor of four trips per day is consistent with the standards used by Pitkin County for affordable housing projects. 2 The rate of entering and exiting trips for the AM peak hour are.08 and.23 respectively,consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209),published by the Transportation Research Board. 3 The rate of entering and exiting trips for the PM peak hour are.27 and.15 respectively,consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual(Special Report 209). 7 8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: An extension of the sidewalk on South Street is proposed, which will increase safety and convenience for pedestrians. Also, RFTA is considering expanding bus service to this neighborhood by increasing the frequency and/or offering a"reverse"Hunter Creek route, which will increase the convenience of this area and encourage greater use of public transportation. 9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the intent of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Response: The provision of affordable housing near the central core is consistent with the both the interest of the Aspen community and all applicable portions of the Land Use Code. Response to Staff Recommendtions of April 16, 1996: On April 16, 1996, staff recommended that the project be tabled to allow the applicant to restudy several elements of the project. Staff concerns, and the applicant's response are summarized below: 1. Minimize the impact of the project along the northern property boundary, by increasing the Sri setback and decreasing building height. The o ' inal site plan situated structures within 5' of the north property line; the current plan provides a 10' and 5' setback from the north lot line. The applicant has represented that the current alignment of the proposed structure on the northeast corner of the parcel has been in response to the concerns of the adjacent property owner. 2. Consolidate the units into fewer buildings. The current proposal has reduced the number of structures to four, as opposed to the original seven. 3. Orient the unit entrances,porches, decks, etc. toward the public streets. The applicant has modified the entrances and porches for the two structures on Spruce Street, consistent with the intent of Ordinance 30. In addition, the second story decks for the the structures along Race Street(alley) are oriented towards the more public spaces along the alley and Spruce. 4. Provide a minimum of 15 off-street parking spaces without "stacking"spaces. Since the number of units has decreased, a minimum of 14 spaces is now required. The "stacked" parking stalls are reserved for guest parking spaces. 5. Create more usable and maintainable open space. Consolidation of the units into 4 buildings has improved the usability of the open space in the central area of the development and adjacent to South St. 6. Increase distances between buildings. 8 Consolidation of the units into 4 buildings improved the space between the structures. The minimum distance between buildings is now 12'; the previous site plan had 6' between buildings. 7. Minimize the impacts along Race Street(actually a platted alley). All of the parking for the development is provided on-site, including guest parking. The structures on the alley are set back approximately 12' and 17' from the alley. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The project is consistent with the intent of the AH1/PUD zone district and pertinent portions of the AACP, and is compatible with the mixed residential character of the neighborhood, therefore, staff supports the rezoning and the Conceptual PUD plan. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A trip generation report prepared by a traffic/transportation engineer registered to practice in Colorado shall be provided with the Final PUD application. 2. Will-serve letters from utilities shall be provided with the Final PUD application. 3. A detailed landscape plan shall be provided with the Final PUD application. 4. The applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application or in public meetings or hearings, and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the Conceptual PUD Plan and the rezoning from R-6 to AH1/PUD for the Smuggler Affordable Housing project, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated May 7, 1996." Attachments: Exhibit A- Revised site plan, floor plans &elevations Exhibit B -Referral Comments Exhibit C -Williams Ranch Traffic Study dated June 2, 1994,prepared by Leigh, Scott&Cleary, Inc. 9 APR 10 '96 10-06AM P.2 EXHIBIT B MMIAMUK TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept. ftox: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: April 10, 1996 Sts SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD/REZONING ISSZM: The applicant is proposing to rezone from Medium Density Residential (R--6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development AH1/PUD) , which will consist of a total fifteen deed restricted affordable housing -- one Category 4 two-bedroom, 12 Category 4 one-bedrooms, and 2 Category 2 one-bedroom units. The Housing Board has met with the applicants twice with regards to this project. The second meeting, April 3, 1996, the Board heard comments from the applicants with regard to their meeting with Planning and Zoning. No formal action was taken by the Board, but the Board did feel that this was a good location for an AH project. Some of the Board members felt comfortable with the density and some felt it was too dense. The Housing Board requested the applicants meet with the neighbors and see if they would be acceptable to any type of AH project in that location. At this 'time, a formal recommendation cannot be made in conjunction with the density of the project as some members felt the density was fine but others felt it could be less dense, but the Board did like the idea of an AH project in this location. The applicants are meeting with Dave Tolen and a couple of the Housing Board members to discuss this project further. APR. 8 '96 4:34PM P.1 Memorandum TO: Su7annc Wolff,Community Development FROM: Rebecca Raker, Parks Department DATE: April 8, 1996 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing CC: Ross Soderatrom,Engineering Department We have reviewed the application for the Smuggler Affordable Housing Project and offer the following comments. The sidewalk extension is the responsibility of the property development and becomes their responsibility for maintenance,including snow removal in the winter. The City will no longer perform snow removal for any portion of the sidewalk that abuts this property. The site/landscape plan shows two spruce trees close to the sidewalk extension. Both of these trees should be planted a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of the sidewalk to allow for tree growth. Additionally the two emsting spruce trues shown along the sidewalk may need to be pruned or relocated to allow for site distances and pedestrian flow. it also appears as through there Are trees planted within the walkway on the north side of the property. Conifers in particular should be planted 15 feet away from both buildings and sidewalks to allow for growth. ✓�s,pen Gonso110Qfe0 VQniid l on -0/ 565 North Mill Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX#(970)925-2537 Sy Kelly • Chairman ,� Michael Kelly Albert Bishop Treas. ' ., Frank Loushin Vol Louis Popish Secy. �' Bruce Matherly,Mgr. April 4, 1996 e Suzanne Wolff rr Planning Department .=LOPMENT� 130 S. Galena � Aspen, GO 81611 -,;, Ep��P� Re : Smuggler Affordable Housing PUDiRezoning Dear Suzanne : The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currentiy has sufficient capacity to serve this proposed development. There is a minor downstream line constraint that will , be rehabilitated through prorated additional fees. Service for the development will be contingent upon compliance with District ruies. regulations , and specifications which are on file at the District office. The design of the on-site collection system will be required to be approved by our line superintendent prior to construction. We wiii need to review more detailed plans as they become available. We have met with a representative of the applicant to offer our preliminary fee estimates and comment on possible connection scenarios. Please tail if you need additional information. Sincerely. Bruce blather 1 y� District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1986 • 1990 Regional and National MEMO To: Suzanne Wolff,Community Development Department From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Subject: Smuggler Housing-Parcel ID#2737-073-00-027 Date: March 27, 1996 Suzanne, This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to the installation of fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems where applicable. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff,Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Enginee� From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer Date: April 17, 1996 Re: Smuggler Affordable Housing PUD/Rezoning - Conceptual Review (8 10 South Avenue; Lots 13 and 14, Williams Addition; Parcel ID No. 2737-073-00-027) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Parking - The application shows head-in parking off of Race Street. City Code limits curb cuts to 18' in width, however Race Street was actually platted as an alley between Walnut and Spruce Streets. Therefore the proposed head-in parking is acceptable and is preferred to driveway access off of either South Avenue or Spruce Street where traffic volumes are relatively high. The final development plans must indicate driveway and parking space slopes draining into the property and not onto Race Street. The application presents 17 parking spaces for a fifteen unit project, one unit of which is a two bedroom unit. The application is however unclear in that it states that 5 of the spaces are guest spaces. Perhaps the project covenants could provide for floating guest spaces for unused unit parking spaces. A minimum of one handicap parking space is required. 2. Site Drainage- City Code requires that only historic flows be permitted to leave the site, but not in concentrated discharge point(s). Final development plans must include drainage calculations and on-site detention design prepared by an engineer registered to practice in Colorado, as well as providing erosion and sediment control both during and after construction. As discussed above, the final development plans must indicate driveway and parking space slopes draining into the property and not onto Race Street. 3. Utilities -Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. There are existing aerial utilities adjacent to the parcel which are appropriate to be undergrounded when more of the neighborhood is undergrounded. The applicant should be 1 required to join any future improvement districts which are formed for improvements in the public right-of-way. All new utility service connections off the overhead lines must be required to be installed underground. The application states that there are sufficient utility capacities in place to serve the project. The final submission should include"will serve" letters from each of the utilities. There may be a 100% tap fee waiver for affordable housing. The applicant must provide separate meters for individual units and separate meter for irrigation water. The applicant must provide street lights at intersections and with maximum spacing of 150 feet in between. 4. Allcy Paving- Race Street currently is paved. Alley paving was discussed with the applicant as a dust control measure addressing PM-10 issues. The existing pavement serving the parcel on Race Street is a chip seal surface which is requested to be improved to comply with practice standards. 5. Encroachments - The boulders which currently encroach into the public right-of-way of Race Street must be removed from the right-of-way. 6. Snow Storage - The site design needs to be revised to indicate snow storage spaces. The snow from the parking spaces shall not be plowed or shoveled into the Race Street right-of-way. 7. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - There is currently sidewalk, curb and gutter for much of the parcel's frontage on South Avenue and Spruce Street. The applicant must complete the sidewalk, curb and gutter for the remainder of the Spruce Street frontage and provide a five foot buffer space between the sidewalk and the back of curb. 8. Transformer Easement - There is an unusually large space between the property line and the sidewalk on South Avenue. Since that space is available, the applicant need not be required to provide an easement for a transformer on their property. However the applicant may be required to provide a fence or landscape screen for a transformer if one is installed at the time of aerial utility undergrounding. 9. Traffic Impacts - The application does not respond to Sec. 26.92.020.D regarding effect on traffic generation. The final submission must discuss the increase in trip generation that would result from granting the rezoning request. Final submission should include a trip generation report by a traffic/transportation engineer registered to practice in Colorado. 10. Landscaping in the Public Right-of-way - The final development plan must indicate proposed landscaping in the public right-of-way which must conform with City Code and without encumbrances such as boulders and fences or trees. Tree canopies extending into the right-of-way must be pruned up to maintain 9' minimum vertical clearance. 2 11. Easements - The improvement survey does not indicate the date of Title Policy as regards easement information. The final submission must include information no older than 12 months regarding any easements on the site. 12. Streets - The applicant must be aware of their and the City's snow removal needs. Snow from private property and parking areas and driveways may not be plowed into the street. It must be stored on site and hauled away. 13. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering(920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way, parks department(920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department(920-5130) for street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the city community development department. M96.133 3 EXH I E C LF 3, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. Tk,ANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 i FAX (303) 333-1107 June 2, 1994 Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. City of Aspen Engineering Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Williams Ranch Traffic (LSC 940340) Dear Mr. Roth: In accordance with our March 31, 1994 proposal, we have completed a traffic impact analysis of the proposed Williams Ranch residential project in Aspen, Colorado. Figure 1, enclosed, illustrates the location of the 12.7-acre project site. In general, the site is located within the northeast comer of the City with access planned to and from Park Circle via Smuggler Mountain Road, Brown Lane and Spruce Street. The project's land use plan envisions a total of 54 homes including 18 single-family homes, 20 duplex homes and 16 "free market" lots. For purposes of this analysis, the "free market" lots have been assumed to be developed with-single-family homes. The remainder of this report presents our findings and recommendations related to the probable traffic impacts associated with buildout of the proposed development. Existing Transportation Facilities and Traffic The transportation system which would serve the Williams Ranch site is primarily characterized by the somewhat dendritic roadwav network which generally conforms to the hillside topography of the surrounding area. Road- ways in the vicinity of the site are generally paved, two-lane routes with 20 or 25 mph posted speed limits. Exceptions include the northern section of Spruce Street,which is a narrow gravel route, and two eastbound,one- way streets (King Street and Nicholas Lane). The amount of existing peak-hour and 24-hour traffic activity is shown on Figure 1 for several study area locations. As noted, these counts were conducted during mid-lvlarch of this year (data printouts are enclosed). Inspection of these traffic activity levels and patterns together with on-site observations reveal that the Gibson/ Park Avenue corridor functions as an important collector route between Red Mountain Road and Cooper Avenue. Similarly, the South Avenue/Park Circle route functions as a minor collector route for the surrounding neighbor- hood All other nearby streets function as local access roadways. Figure 2 illustrates the major transportation elements associated with travel within the study area. in addition to the roadway system itself, intersection traffic controls, designated pedestrian routes and bus stops are shown. It is noted that the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) provides a high level of public transit service to the neighborhood via its Hunter Creek shuttle with 20-minute headways between vehicles from 7:00 AM to 12:00 midnight Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 2 June 2, 1994 Estimated Traffic Generation i The preparation of traffic generation estimates for the Williams Ranch development requires an approach which takes into account the unique characteristics of the Aspen community. First of all, the majority of the proposed homes are intended to serve as employee housing. Secondly, the site and surrounding area is provided with excellent transit service with a track record of good ridership. In addition, the Town's plans for implementation of a new on-street pay parking program later this year is expected to further promote the use of alternative (non- automobile) modes of transportation. As a result, we have applied traffic generation rates to the Williams Ranch project which are significantly less than the ten and six vehicle-trips per day which are typically applied to single- and multi-family homes, respectively, based on national averages published by the Institute of Trans- portation Engineers (ITE). The current Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications document suggests average weekday generation rates of four trips per single-family dwelling and three trips per multi-family dwelling, assuming strong transit service. For the "free market" lots, we have increased the single-family rate by an additional 2.9 daily trips as recommended by ITE for households with more than two vehicles. Finally, we have calculated peak-hour rates for each housing category by applying the peak-hour to average weekday ratio cited under Category 210 of the ITE "Trip Generation" document. For purposes of this analysis, we divided the site into the three traffic access zones illustrated in Figure 3. As indicated on the project's site plan, one "free market" lot would have access off of Spruce Street (Zone 1), eight duplex homes would access off of Brown Lane (Zone 2), and the remaining 45 homes would have access via Smuggler Mountain Road. Table 1, enclosed, illustrates the expected traffic generation characteristics of each of these zones. As indicated, buildout and full occupancy of Williams Ranch is projected to generate 242 average weekday vehicle-trips (121 in and 121 out). Of these, 16 would enter and nine would exit during the peak-hour. Estimated Traffic Distribution The directional distribution of project-generated traffic is a key element in the determination of impacts of a given development The distribution itself is influenced by a number of factors including the site's relative location within the surrounding community, the type of proposed land use, existing roadways and travel patterns, and the specifics of the project's access plan. In this particular instan,e, the traffic patterns exhibited in the existing counts shown on Figure 1 give a good indication of the probable Williams Ranch distribution. Figure 3 presents the percentage traffic distribution which is expected to be applicable to this development. As indicated, about 50 percent of the Williams Ranch traffic is projected to be oriented towards the west via Gibson Avenue with the remainder towards the south via Park and Neale Avenues. Figure 3 also illustrates the general distribution of average weekday traffic onto the surrounding roadway system. As indicated, the maximum concentration of project-generated traffic is expected on Smuggler Mountain Road where about 106 additional vehicle-trips per day in each direction are forecasted. Estimated Traffic Assignment Figure 4 illustrates the assignment of peak-hour traffic generated by Williams Ranch to several intersections throughout the study area. These estimates were derived by application of the Figure 3 distribution percentages to the Table 1 generation estimates. Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 3 June 2, 1994 Projected Traffic Impacts i Figure 5 illustrates the peak-hour, combination of project-generated traffic (Figure 4) and existing traffic (Figure 1) at four key intersections in the vicinity of the site. In order to assess the impact of the proposed residential development, peak-hour capacity analyses have been prepared for the four key intersections for both existing and existing plus site-generated traffic conditions. The methodology used is that presented in the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209), published by the Transportation Research Board of the rational Academy of Sciences. The concept of Level of Service (LOS) is used as a basis for computing combinations of roadway operating conditions which accommodate various levels of traffic activity. By definition, six different Levels of Service are used (A, B, C, D, E, and F) with "A" being a free-flow condition and "E" representing the capacity of a given intersection or roadway. More detailed definitions of the six Levels of Service along with the threshold values applicable to this analysis are included on Page A-20 in the Appendix. The following tabulation summarizes the results of these LOS analyses which are also included in the Appendix section to this report. As indicated, all four intersections can be expected to operate a high Level of Service after full buildout and occupancy of the proposed development. Furthermore, these calculations are somewhat conservative since existing traffic activity has not been reduced to account for anticipated traffic decreases associated with the Paid Parking Plan. Table 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON Williams Ranch AM Peak - Hour PM Peak - Hour Minimum Level Minimum Level Reserve of Reserve of Intersection Assumed Traffic Caoacitv Service Caoacity Service Spruce/Park Circle Exsting 804 A (404) 785 A (385) E;dsting + Project 815 A (415) 737 A (337) Brown/Park Circle Exsting 877 A (477) 812 A (412) Exsting + Project 871 A (471). 800 A (400) South/Gibson E;dsting 656 A (256) 796 A (396) E;dsting + Project 652 A (252) 783 A (383) Gibson/Park Circle Existing 861 A (461) 810 A (410) E fisting + Project 855 A (455) 796 A (396) Note: Numbers in parenthesis represent the amount of peak-hour reserve capacity remaining (above 400) at each intersection in order for traffic operations to remain at Level of Service "A". Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 4 June 2, 1994 VMT Analysis i Another perspective related to the traffic impact of Williams Ranch relates to its contribution to total Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMI� within the Aspen Air Quality non-attainment area. In order to calculate such impacts, the following assumptions have been made based on our experience with similar analyses for the Aspen area: • Average Daily Traffic = 90 percent x (Average Weekday Traffic) • Average one-way trip length in Aspen non-attainment area = 3.0 miles. • Average one-way trip length for Down-Valley employees within Aspen non-attainment area = 4.9 miles. • Down-Valley employees who use bus = 30 percent. • No. of employees per employee home = 1.5 • Down-Valley employee auto occupancy = 1.5 Based on the above assumptions, the daily VMT associated with Williams Ranch is calculated as follows: 1. Free Market Home VMT = 110 x 9017o x 3.0 = +297 2. Proposed Employee Housing VMT = 132 x 90% x 3.0 = +356 3. Down-Valley Employee Loss VMT = 38 x 1.5 x 70% 1 1.5 x 2 x 5/7 x 4.9 = -186 Net VMT increase = +467 As it relates to this projected VMT increase, the following calculations apply to particulates (Pl1vi,o emissions) associated with Williams Ranch: 1. Major Arterial = (30% x 467) 0.0064 = 0.90 2. Minor Arterial = (40% x 467) 0.0130 = 2.43 3. Local Streets = (30% x 467) 0.0184 = 2.52 4. Wintertime Sanding = 467 x 0.001 = 0.47 Total Pounds of Particulates added per day = 6.32 Recommended Transoortabon Improvements As discussed earlier in this report, present traffic patterns in the vicinity of the study area indicate that the Gibson/Park Avenue route between Red Mountain Road and Cooper functions as a neighborhood collector corridor. Similarly, the South Avenue/Park Circle route functions as a minor collector. Figure 6 illustrates these roadway routes together with various recommended transportation improvements throughout the study area. The following discussion presents these recommendations by category of improvement. 1. South Avenue. The most obvious roadway deficiency within the study area is the poor intersection designs found along South Avenue at Gibson and in the vicinity of Spruce Street. Vehicular paths through these intersections are poorly defined, and the Spruce intersection is further complicated by the adjacent Oak and Cottonwood roadway connections. As a result, traffic accident potential for both vehicles and pedestrians is higher than it should be. Figure 7 illustrates three recommended projects which clearly Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 5 June 2, 1994 define the preferred vehicular paths along South Avenue. Conceptual cost estimates for this work are $4,100, $4,250 and $4,900 for projects 1, 2 and 3,1 respectively. 2. Roadwav Widths. The width of the two-lane, two-way ropdways within the study area varies from about 12 feet to about 29 feet, with 24 being somewhat typical. Even though a 24-foot width is desirable under "ideal" conditions (without on-street parking), we recommend that a 20-foot minimum width be applied to the collector routes in the study area, and an 18-root minimum be applied to the remaining local streets. Figure 6 identifies three short roadway sections where the 20-foot minimum does not presently exist. Widening in these areas is estimated to cost about $5,000. In addition, Spruce Street adjacent to Williams Ranch currently has a narrow unpaved cross-section of as little as 12 feet. The Williams Ranch plan envisions one free-market lot to have access via Spruce, and emergency access is also proposed off of this route. We recommend that this 600-foot reach of Spruce be widened to an 18-foot cross-section. 3. Speed Limits. We recommend that a uniform 20-mph speed limit be applied to all streets north of the Gibson/Park Avenue corridor. 4. Soeed Bumps. At the present time, the only speed bump within the study area is located on the east side of South Avenue at Oak and Cottonwood Lanes. As indicated on Figure 7, it is recommended to be relocated. In addition, the two cross-gutters located across the Spruce;Park Circle intersection serve to slow through traffic. No additional speed reduction measures are recommended at this time. 5. Warning Sia_ns. As indicated on Figure 6, a "Stop Ahead" warning sign is recommended for installation along Gibson in advance of Neale Avenue. Visibility of this three-way Stop is somewhat restricted for eastbound drivers. No other warning signs are recommended. 6. Pedestrian Facilities. Adequate pedestrian access is a key part of the transportation system serving the Williams Ranch area. Existing pedestrian sidewalk locations are shown on Figure 2. In addition, future sidewalk extensions are planned along the east side of Neale Avenue and the south side of Gibson. It is strongly recommended that this expanding pedestrian walk system be extended into Williams Village along two routes: the northerly extension of Brown Lane and along the project's eastern access road to Smuggler Nfountain Road. Existing crosswalk locations across Spruce at South Avenue and along Gibson at Lone Pine are adequate. 7. SmuiZgler Mountain Road/Park Circle Intersection. As of this time, the specific location and design of this key access intersection has not yet been finalized. As indicated on Figure 6, however, the two-lane access road should intersect Park Circle at about a 90 degree angle and a Stop sign should be posted facing southbound motorists. 8. Transit Service. As previously indicated, public transit service is presently excellent within the study area. An existing bus stop, located along Park Circle at Brown Lane, will provide service within about a quarter mile of the Williams Ranch site. There have Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 6 June 2, 1994 been discussions with RFTA concerning the possibility of adding bus stops on Park Circle at Smuggler Mountain Road and at the traffic circle within the adjacent Cents nnial residential development. However, RFTA is also considering increasing the size of vehicle (from 30' to 40') which serves the Hunter Creek route in orders to meet the anticipated patronage increase resulting from implementation of the Paid Parking Plan. The aforementioned Centennial traffic circle, however, is not designed for the larger bus - - - - turning radius. - - - - Table 3, enclosed, summarizes the above projects and their estimated costs. Conclusions Buildout of the proposed Williams Ranch residential development is projected to increase average weekday traffic along portions of Park Circle and Gibson by 50 to 60 vehicle-trips in each direction. Such increases can be safely accommodated by the area's existing roadway system, given implementation of the numerous improve- ments recommended herein. In addition to upgrades of the existing roadway system, the proposed development does provide potential benefits related to provision of a substantial amount of new employee housing. We trust that this report will assist with further discussions and planning for the Williams Ranch proposal. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. By:. - Philip iL/Scott III,-/P.E. PNS/wd Enclosures: Tables 1 and 3 Figures 1 through 7 Traffic Counts Capacity Analyses (Pages A-1 through A-68) C:SPROJECIS040340W LL"SREV 05/01/1996 12:45 9709274813 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC PAGE 01 -rHEODORE, K GUY ASSOCIATES K; ARCHITECTS '& STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PHONE- 970-927-3167 FACSIMILE: 970-927-4813 DATE:-- .......------I----TIME. I -, 4v t------------- - -- TO: PAY _ ft. ----------C 0 M P A N Y. -fwgvi!L---------PROJECT. ------------------------------------ FACSIMILE #:____Tj-jW_jyj_TELEPHONE ---------- FROM:--t------------------ ----------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE)__jQ_3_')------------- - Z&4- 40T ----------- ---------------- --------- ----------------- ------------------ cc: ----------------------------------------------------- IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 05/0111996 12:45 9709274913 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC PAGE 02 A50_�r�. �6MM111K��P!r�`+�►q�±!�t1'_.�_5lr+f-E'_ ...._.._ :. - -- . . . ... . .-- -- .- ---- - -- .. _ .. _..__-.�-'�`?'[�M.__ice., k}�' � } _3115 f. �.tiir►tC'._.. ����: . 32yn .-,MAU. wv-: p*_611L w wom - n►�'�hk _fir ���... ., . ...-_.._...- - 1-hf. . tfto"46'• ..-2556 4S. c G j/1+ rr be�w /wvr . _�.._._.,_•__ _.-, ... _, . ... .�_.r.._-T��` 1Oki . ...--__--- - ...''I�'(�h. brtt�•1' ���&;..- 'i'k�,��_. �?.� ',_�p�'1�'kii�M1�i 1 (rk5 ��. Wil.t,. !w ►_s�� r + N+K �?!{�e T�t'�4._!�t ► .�►'l�_.r �1+s- � '�;---— - ,. . coy qV ft* MT .._ . . . _....— ... _..•4wxU�1i. `�'�bt�t ._�f?�--�P'�.—�►!�� �_�k.*_u�►�1,►Y, w _a1C�+'r"!�_.. .M+M1�'"'� ...—.. ._ _ - '�_ �VtI�DIWr�i �f-tom w►��! e!�_ ��.._.�r__.� .Ll.'�._'lr+o-�DP'�A.h....,..�._....---. ... .,. .-- -._ , - --------.___.._ ..._ .._._ ., ._.. _. , . ...- r�l?Av�_�',.'�ip,s��f�_e�'w!,orsr►►''15;14��- - --- --- • __ �►t�!! .���(��+±�ix..�l'�'�!s�.�'�!��-.4._1_- � . �� it -� ��f•. �.. - - - 1312•s� F. M•w. 11401 44, ,► t,� i�...b�• .r►�► �,F,t .L t n� rr/ 't u fi+�'1P"K6�mw 05101/1996 12:45 9709274813 'THEODORE K GUY ASSOC PAGE 03 WE _. .. .._.. _ —___.. _.. ...�..~ . .. _ blopum v . mil_.-f/m w i to's#. #T. 4VWA 05964"t VA Vito 4 owfl4W) 4�4 _ . ._.. .._:,........,.._.._—_�};$Ii.1L+�t1��+-'—!'!�.��k"'�, '".,�lx'�.frNb'.!�EpPv01Ml'�. IrMD (l� '1�+�0. �5�'D��I+► 04!1911996 14:52 97092 74613 THEODORE K GU`,' ASSOC PAGE 02 Tr-iF-0001Rff K GU. PG ARG111TEGTB ARID GTRuc-i-URAL KN®INiFeR6 Memoranjuu TO John Dorwrnr3 FROM Ted Guy, THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC DATE = April 19, 1996 RE Smuggler Affordable How The current scheduled hearings for the Smugger AH project are as folkaws: May 7, 7996 Last P&Z hearing on Conceptual Review. We will get a re1G4r11rrletldatw for the Council. May 13, 1996 First Council meeting on Conceptual Review. This is at noticed public hearing whe the ne° h WIN be allowed to speak on the record. Atf6 and council members ell us this would be aplxdved by resolution at t Is meeting. This will oornplate the conceptual rem enr o e p e VAN then cam e e whatever refnemsnts are needed in the drawings to c ornply with the condtions of the approval. SWF "AS May 27, 1996 Worst case second council meeting for conceptual review. Most concerns and PMprr n.{o conditions vmxAd still be known prior to this meeting and most of the refinements in T piz rrv,rrsIA the drawl n wvuid still be started prior to this meeting. We and Staff do not CC*J6E tN,')CI elieve this meeting wik ben '5"PMzVaL June 3, 1996 Submission target for the Final devola meat review package. Gave Michelson �t Z OR' would schedule the project fora roe i 8th P&Z sawing for the final development review. ,b•�ssv► c,, C-C-PL-F-s 5v is" June 18, 1996 P&Z hearing far the final developrnent review. This should be focused on door and C44cr--MAL. window locations, architectural details, landscaping plant size and locations, and 6+'FZvA►,5 similar technical issues rather than conccptuaf or mass/scale issues. This would be a public hearing. June 24, 1996 Council hearing for final development review. Approval is with a two meeting two vote ordinance. Second reading would occur an July 8, 1996 with best scheduling_ July 8; 1996 Final council reading of ordinance of rezoning and PUB approval. Approvals do not becarne final untA 30 days alter publication in the paper. The publication would occur on Friday July I Z, 1 996. Full approval therefore in effect on August 12, 1996. We could still apply for the building permit and go through plan check during this period. The new building department procedures may allow us to break ground around Septernbes 1, 1996, Aug 12, 1996 Approval takes effect with best scenario. Aug Z6, 1996 Last probable date approval becomes effective if three council meetings are required. TKWtkg 96106 M7 23260 TWO RIVERS ROAO P.O 6ox 1844 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 [0701 927.3167 Chapter 4 The Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood The Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood lies north of Main Street,between Mill Street and Original Street. It is bounded on the south by the Roaring Fork River. See the attached map for more boundary details. A varied topography is a distinctive feature of the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood that has influ- enced street plans, building orientation and form. Flat hollows and benches are joined by rolling and sloping terrain in this neighborhood.This terrain has generated a winding,freeform layout of streets and lanes,many that dead-end,and has allowed for few alleys. The resulting lot and block configurations have unsymmetrical shapes and many lots have unique edge conditions along the Roaring Fork River and the base of Smuggler Mountain. 1 Because it is so varied,the area actually can be consid- ered to contain four to six subareas.When designing new buildings or considering alterations,designers should consider the specific context closely in order to respond to these changing conditions within the neighborhood. Since many buildings are at the base of Smuggler Mountain, there is a dominant building orientation The architecture of the Smuggler Mountain toward the south and west to take advantage of the Neighborhood is varied and includes historic houses. afternoon sun and down-valley views. The architecture is varied,including historic houses, mobile homes,log cabins and chalets from the 1950s. Except for some more recent apartment buildings, most structures are small in scale. Building forms vary, and roofs include gable and shed, some in exaggerated proportions.Balconies occur frequently. The materials are equally varied with a predomi- nance of stained clapboard wood siding,board and batten,logs,stone and concrete block. Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines Page 27 Overall,the Smuggler Neighborhood contains a rela- tively high density of smaller dwellings. A typical residential massing in this neighborhood is about 1,200 to 1,800 square feet in size. A few large vacant parcels remain that could be developed and other sites may redevelop.New dense, multifamily projects may be feasible,therefore,and since these buildings can significantly affect the char- acter of the neighborhood,they should be carefully reviewed. Goals for the neighborhood ••��:,,,,,�.x;���i ;�:s;", A greater sense of unity is needed.New development should appear morevisually cohesive with the neigh- borhood than some recent buildings have been and it shouldenhance the pedestrian experience.TheSmug- "' ` gler Mountain area should have a scale and character of a dense single family, residential neighborhood, even as it accommodates a variety of housing types. With this in mind,the city holds these design goals ' for the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood: New single family construction should appear similar in scale to that seen traditionally. This older house is Goal 1. To preserve a scale of single family residen- among those in the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood tial buildings that provides a context for the scale of new buildings. New single family construction should appear to be in scale with that seen traditionally in this neighbor- hood and in nearby residential areas. Goal 2. To encourage multi-family buildings to be p more compatible with the neighborhood character __ �' '`S.'•- Multi-family construction should be designed to in- clude elements similar to those seen traditionally, .. including a primary entrance oriented to the street,a distinct front yard,and similarity of form and mate- Divide larger structures, such as this, into building masses that appear similar in scale to those seen Goal 3. To establish a sense of visual integration in traditionally. the neighborhood Repeating the use of traditional building elements in future construction will result in a sense of visual continuity. Page 28 Smuggler Mountain Design Guidelines for Smuggler Mountain The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all projects in the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood,mi addition to the chapter of General Guidelines for All Neighborhoods.When considering the appropriate- ness of a project with respect to these guidelines,also ra. - ,. consider how the project will help to accomplish the design goals for the neighborhood. Mass &Scale 36. New buildings should be similar in sca le to traditional residential buildings of Aspen. a. Structures should be in modules of approxi- mately 1200-1800 square feet maximum.Divide �' ,".' 3 • s larger projects into building masses that are similar to those of buildings seen traditionally. Link separate building masses,with a"connec- tor."This will help reduce the perceived mass of the development. Use building forms that are similar to those seen b. No uninterrupted wall surface parallel to a street traditionally. should be more than 30'in width,to assure that buildings appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally <.}:::.<;;<:>:;.:<-:t;..;•<::: ;:::::::,.:�;,:.:.>:.: .}::...}:}}:<.: be sin to that d i -to-void ratio should m 'a>v:: }::>,..; :.,::::.:::�r:<}}}}<•,.::}::..::.:... c. The sol ::?:. :-:fi:•: ::h:: �:�>> .:}�=<�r `:;<.;.;><`yi<'N-�:�,�>-. :<.�..�}•x.;.�. reas f Aspen traditionally in r residential a ::.,. <">`o_:::,.:.:: to help establish a sense of scale. T+> Building form 37. Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in Aspen. a. Each building should have a simple form as its primary shape. b. Because many lots may have varied conditions, -� a variety of simple,yet even playful,building forms is appropriate. + c. A variety of roof forms,in a range of sizes and proportions, is appropriate.te.Gable, fl tared shed w roofs also are Gable roofs are appropriate on structures in the roofs are appropriate. Pro appropriate.Hip roofs are discouraged. Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood d. Eave depths should be similar to those seen `l traditionally in residential areas of Aspen;these j provide scale and a shadow line adds visual interest to the facade. e. Contemporary interpretations of traditional fea- tures,such as porches,are also encouraged. Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines Page 29 Site 121an 38. Provide aUearly defined front yard. a. This will provide a sense of open space and help f define pedestrian walkways and automobile f;... "w parking areas. b. This open space also will provide relief from dense development in the area. :.,.::< r f. . �.:,, `°.: �. � :� � • s...- - 39. Buffer edges of the site from adjacent properties with fences or hedges. a. Fences should be low in height,to allow views Avoid creating pull-in parking that is directly off the into front yards. street. This weakens the attraction of the street to b. Locate the primary floor at or near sidewalk pedestrians. grade;avoid sunken terraces that separate the main entrance from the street level. 40. Provide open space that is functional. =" a. The open space should be of a size that can be Y. used or that at least has a significant visual impact as a landscaped area. 41. Locate the primary entrance at or near the ground elevation. a. This app g including multi- ._ •�':�: ":�>::�>;.� � --;�"t�- :- lies to all buildings, > :>:.: ............ '..: � family construction. Buffer the edges of the site from adjacent properties with fences or hedges. ,.< , 1 Provide open space that is functional and that also serves as an amenity that can be seen from the street. Page 30 Smuggler Mountain Building aterials �--_ 42. A variety of building materials is appropriate in the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood. a. Use of natural, or native materials is encour- aged. b. Other finished materials, including wood and metal siding,may be considered. Architectural features I he use of natural or native materials in the Smuggler 43. Porches clearly identify the primary Mountain Neighborhood is strongly encouraged. entrance. a. Provide a porch, oriented to the street, and scaled to be similar to those seen traditionally in residential neighborhoods of Aspen. 44. The primary entrance should appear {7{ . � 1 r _ - similar in scale to those seen traditionally --- in residential neighborhoods of Aspen. a. Avoid"grand entries." b. Use doors similar in scale to those seen tradi- tionally in the residential areas of Aspen. C. Consider a central,shared entry for multifam- ily units such that it would appear to be a single, �a primary entry. 45. A variety of window and door designs Provide a porch, oriented to the street, and sized to be is appropriate in this neighborhood. similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the residential neighborhoods of Aspen. 46. At the street level,consider using win- dows similar in scale to those seen tradi- tionally in residential areas of Aspen. a. This will help to establish a sense of human scale. b. These windows may be arranged in new arrays, however. Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines Page 31 MEMORANDUM a TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Review and Rezoning DATE: April 16, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicants are requesting to develop a 100% affordable housing project on two parcels in the Williams Addition which are located at the corner of South and Spruce Streets. Fifteen deed-restricted affordable housing units (12 one-bedroom Category 4 units, 2 one- bedroom Category 2 units, and one two-bedroom Category 4 unit) are proposed within 7 structures. The application, proposed site plan, floor plans and elevations were provided to the Commission with the April 2 packet. [If you don't have a copy, please call Vicki Chavka at 920-5090.] APPLICANTS: Ted Guy and David Guthrie LOCATION: 810 South Avenue; Lots 13, 14, 15 & 16, Block 3, Williams Addition. The property is located on the corner of South and Spruce Streets, across from the entrance to the Smuggler Trailer Park. ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential LOT AREA: 13,465 square feet REQUEST: The applicants are requesting Conceptual PUD approval and approval to rezone the property to the AHl/PUD (Affordable Housing) zone district. PROCESS: The project is being processed as a four-step application, as determined by the Community Development Director, based on the recommendation made by the Planning Commission at the work session on April 2, 1996. Rezoning of the property would not formally occur until the Final PUD Plan is approved; however, staff has included the rezoning criteria with this Conceptual Review for the Commission to consider at this time. Special Review for parking and compliance with the Design Review standards will be considered during the Final PUD review. Public hearings will be held at Council during the Conceptual PUD Review, and at the Commission during the Final PUD Review. Per Section 26.100.060(C)(3)(b), all affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee, shall be exempt from growth 1 management competition and scoring procedures by the City Council. If approved, the units will be deducted from the affordable housing pool. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments from the following departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows: Parks Department: Rebecca Baker noted concerns with the distance of the existing and proposed spruce trees from buildings and sidewalks. A detailed landscape plan will be required to be submitted as part of the Final PUD Review. Ms. Baker also notes that sidewalk maintenance must be performed by the owners of the development. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD): Bruce Matherly, District Manager, states that ACSD currently has sufficient capacity to service the proposed development. En ineering: Chuck Roth notes that Race Street was originally platted as an alley between Spruce and Walnut Streets, however, it functions as a street, and several residences access only from Race Street. Roth notes that head-in parking off of Race Street is acceptable, and that access from Race Street is preferable to access from South or Spruce Streets, due to traffic volumes on those streets. He adds that the Final PUD application should discuss the increase in trip generation that would result from this project, and should include a trip generation report by a traffic/transportation engineer registered to practice in Colorado. The applicant will be required to pay an impact fee for the Smuggler area roadway system improvements on the same basis as that required for the Williams Ranch project. Other concerns include: maintaining all drainage on-site; completion of the Spruce Street sidewalk; providing street lights at intersections and with maximum spacing of 150' between lights; and providing snow storage on-site. The applicants shall provide will-serve letters from utilities with the Final PUD application. A tap fee waiver may be granted by the Water Department for 100% affordable housing projects. Housing: Cindy Christensen states that the Housing Board has discussed the project with the applicants, but has not taken any formal action. The Board agreed that the location is appropriate for affordable housing; however, the Board was divided on the issue of whether the density of the project was appropriate. The Board requested that the applicants meet with the neighbors to determine whether any type of affordable housing development would be acceptable in this location. Dave Tolen and a few members of the Housing Board met with the applicants on April 10, 1996, and recommended that the applicants scale down the project by decreasing the square footage and the number of units. STAFF COMMENTS: The-project must comply with the review standards for rezoning (26.92.020), PUD review (26.84.030), and the specific requirements of the AH1/PUD zone district. Staff's analysis is divided into two separate sections based on these requirements. 2 PUD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a development application for PUD review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. General Requirements A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Response: One of the goals of the AACP is to create affordable housing throughout the metro area. The AACP includes several policies applicable to the proposal, including the following: • Develop small scale residential housing which fits the character of the community and is interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area and up valley from Aspen Village. • Encourage infill development within the existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural areas and allow more employees to live close to where they work. • Whenever appropriate, work with landowners whose property is well suited and well located to develop affordable housing projects. • The public and private sectors together should develop 650 new affordable housing units. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The lots to be developed are part of the Williams Addition, which is zoned R-6, and is comprised of approximately 19 single-family and duplex lots (including the two subject lots). The lots are directly across the street from the Smuggler Trailer Park which is zoned MHP, Mobile Home Park. Williams Addition is bounded to the north and east by the Hunter Creek and Centennial projects, which are zoned R/MFA, Residential/Multi-Family. The proposed development is consistent with the mixed residential character of the neighborhood; however, staff is concerned with the scale and the number of buildings. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: Based on the existing mixed residential development in the area, development of affordable housing on this site will not adversely affect future development in the area. The existing single-family residence to the north is impacted considerably by Buildings 1 and 2 due to the height and minimum setbacks. The proposed Buildings 1, 6 and 7 do not address Race Street at ground level. The visual, noise and air quality impacts would affect the existing single-family residences to the west. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. 3 Response: Affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines is exempt from growth management competition and scoring procedures. Additional PUD Standards Density: The proposed units comply with the AH1/PUD requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit: at least 400 square feet for a one-bedroom unit and 800 square feet for a two- bedroom unit. Sufficient lot area is available to accommodate this density. The proposed one- bedroom units range in size from 700-729 square feet; the two-bedroom unit contains 1096 square feet. No reduction in density is required due to the presence of slopes in excess of 20%. Existing R-6 zoning would allow two detached single-family residences to be constructed. One lot is 5,965 square feet and the adjoining lot is 7,500 square feet, which would allow the construction of two residences of 3,240 square feet and 3,450 square feet of floor area, respectively. Assuming that each residence contained 4 bedrooms and an attached studio ADU, the parcel would accommodate two single-family residences with a combined FAR of 6,690 square feet, 8 bedrooms, 2 ADUs, and 6 parking spaces. The current proposal includes 7 buildings containing 15 units with a total of 16 bedrooms. The following chart compares potential development under the existing R-6 zoning with the proposed development: Existing R-6 Zoning AHI/PUD Proposal Net Result Buildings 2 7 +5 Bedrooms 8 + 2 ADU 16 +6 Parking Spaces 6 16 (minimum) +10 Proposed FAR 6,690 sf 11,250 sf +4,565 2. Land Uses: Multi-family dwellings are not permitted under the existing R-6 zoning. Under the AH1/PUD zoning, 70% of the units created are required to be deed restricted as category 1-4 or resident occupied units and 30% may be free-market units. The applicants do not propose any free-market or resident occupied units. 3. Dimensional Requirements: Setback requirements for AH1/PUD are established through the PUD review. For comparison, the adjacent R-6 zone has the following minimum setback requirements: • Front yard- 10' • Rear yard- 10' • Side yard- 15' (each side) • Minimum distance between buildings - 5' Since the lot is located on a corner, the applicant may designate the front yard. The proposed setbacks are: • Spruce St. lot line to structure - 10' 4 • South St. lot line to structure - 6'8" • Race St. lot line to structure - 10' • North lot line to structure - 5' • Minimum distance between buildings - 5' The proposed height of the structures complies with the 25' height requirement in the R-6 zone district. Staff recommends that the proposed side yard setback of 5' along the northern property boundary should be increased due to the proximity of the adjacent residence and the height of the proposed buildings. In addition, the distance and relationship between buildings appears to need further study. Due to the heights of Buildings 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, additional space between buildings is appropriate. 4. Off-street Parking: The maximum parking requirement in the AH1/PUD zone district is 1 space/bedroom or 2 spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is less, for affordable units. Therefore, 16 off-street parking spaces must be provided for the proposed 15 units. 19 surface parking spaces are proposed, at least 6 of which are "stacked" parking stalls, which will require special review approval by the Planning Commission during the Final PUD review. Staff questions whether allowing stacked parking for separate units is appropriate. A RFTA bus stop is located across South Street, and an existing paved sidewalk links the site to the Clark's Market/post office area and the trail along the Roaring Fork River. 5. Open Space: AHl/PUD does not have a specific open space requirement, however, the amount of open space should be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. The applicants represent that 44.5% of the property complies with the Code's definition of open space. The R-6 zone district does not have an open space requirement, however, if the two parcels were developed separately, the smaller parcel would allow 40% site coverage and the larger parcel would allow 35% site coverage. Common open space is designated on the site plan, and is accessible to all of the units. However, as proposed, there is no "meaningful" or usable open space, and the open space would appear to be difficult to maintain (if lawn area). 6 Landscape Plan: A detailed landscape plan will be reviewed with the Final PUD application. 7. Architectural Site Plan: The architectural site plan will be reviewed with the Final PUD application. Based on the initial conceptual review, the floor plans, orientation/inter- relationships, and storage areas need further study and refinement. 8. Lighting: A detailed lighting plan will be reviewed with the Final PUD application. 9. Clustering: The units have been divided into 7 separate structures. The scale of the project (2 1/2 story maximum) is generally very good. However, it may be advantageous to 5 consolidate more of the units into fewer buildings which would possibly create more usable open space and separation between structures. 10. Public Facilities: Existing facilities are adequate to service the project. The buildings have been arranged to allow emergency vehicle access to all buildings. 11. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: The units are all linked to the adjacent public streets and the proposed parking area by a system of walkways through the common open space. No building is farther than 60' from the driveway area on Race Street. As noted in the comments from the City Engineer, access from Race Street is preferable to access from South or Spruce Streets, due to traffic volumes on those streets. REZONING Purpose of AH1/PUD Zone District: The AHI/PUD zone district is intended for residential use primarily by permanent residents of the community. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the AH1/PUD zone district should be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its working residents; at the same time, the AH1/PUD zone district can protect the City's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non- community oriented zone districts may produce. Further, lands in the AH1/PUD zone district should be located within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit routes. The City's AH1/PUD district only applies within the Aspen Municipal boundaries. Rezoning Requirements: Pursuant to Section 26.92.020, in reviewing an amendment to the zoning map, the City Council and Commission shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of the Municipal Code. Response: The proposal is consistent with the intent of the AH1/PUD zone district, which is specifically aimed at located AH uses within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit routes. In addition, the AH1/PUD zone district was intended to encourage the scattering of such projects throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those types which are affordable to its working residents. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Response: This criteria is addressed above with the PUD criteria. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. 6 Response: As noted above, the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is comprised of single-family and multi-family residential development. The neighbors in the Williams Addition have expressed concern with the density of the project and the "infringement" of a multi-family project into their single-family neighborhood. However, staff conceptually considers the development to be compatible with the land use, character and scale of the Smuggler neighborhood. The subject lots are located on the edge of the R-6 neighborhood and provide an effective transition/buffer zone between the Smuggler Trailer Park and the single-family residences on Race and Spruce Streets. 4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The applicants propose to develop 15 units, of which 14 are one-bedroom units., Staff does not consider that this development will create unacceptable traffic generation due to its �t tii proximity to the bus route/stop and its location within walking distance to town. ' The applicants will need to work with the City Engineer to ensure that the South Street/Race Street intersection is safe for pedestrians and that the sight lines are adequate for the increased traffic. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: To staff's knowledge, the proposed development will not adversely impact public facilities. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts in the natural environment. Response: The site is surrounded by existing development, and will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment. 7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: The proposed rezoning to AH1/PUD is clearly consistent with the intent of the community to provide additional housing for the local work force. In addition, the location of the parcel is consistent with the intent statement of the AH1/PUD zone district, which states that AH1/PUD properties should be spread throughout the City, located within walking distance of the central core, and in close proximity to available transit. 8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. 7 Response: An addition to the sidewalk on South Street is proposed, which will increase safety and convenience for pedestrians. Also, RFTA is proposing to expand bus service to this neighborhood and offer a"reverse" Hunter Creek route, which will increase the convenience of this area. 9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the intent of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Response: The provision of affordable housing near the central core is consistent with the both the public interest and all applicable portions of the Land Use Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The project is consistent with the intent of the AH1/PUD zone district and pertinent portions of the AACP, and is compatible with the mixed residential character of the neighborhood. Staff agrees with the applicant that the site is suitable for an affordable housing development, however, staff recommends that the current conceptual site plan be revised to reflect the following: • Minimize the impact of the project along the northern property boundary, by increasing the setback and decreasing building height. • Consolidate the units into fewer buildings. �, • Orient the unit entrances, porches, decks, etc. toward the public streets. �""• Provide a minimum of 15 off-street parking spaces without "stacking" spaces. • Create more usable and maintainable open space. • Increase distances between buildings. • Minimize the impacts along Race Street. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to recommend that the Conceptual PUD Plan and the rezoning from R-6 to AH1/PUD for the Smuggler Affordable Housing project be tabled / until the revisions to the site plan as recommended in the Planning Office Memo dated / April 16, 1996, are incorporated into a revised conceptual plan." Attachments: L Exhibit A - Referral Comments ~ 8 APR 10 196 10:06AM P•2 EXHIBIT A m3MOVAMUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept. PROX.. Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: April 10, 1996 RE: SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD/REZONING ISSUE; The applicant is proposing to rezone from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development AHl/PUD) , which will consist of a total fifteen deed restricted affordable housing -- one Category 4 two-bedroom, 12 Category 4 one-bedroome, aad 2 Category 2 one-bedroom units . I The Housing Board has met with the applicants twice with regards to this project. The second meeting, April 3, 1996, the Board heard comments from the applicants with regard to their meeting with Planning and Zoning. No formal action was taken by the Board, but the Board did feel that this was a good location for an AH project. Some of the Board members felt comfortable with the density and some felt it was too dense. The Housing Board requested the applicants meet with the neighbors and nee if they would be acceptable to any type of AH project in that location. At this time, a tormal recommendation cannot he made in conjunction with the density of the project as some members felt the density was fine but others felt it could be leas dense, but the Board did like the idea of an AH project in this location. The applicants are meeting with Dave Tolen and a couple of the Housing hoard members to discuss this project further. APR. 8 '9e 4:34PM P.1 Memorandum TO: Suzanne Wolff,Community Development FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parkas Department DATE: April 8, 1996 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing CC: Pass Soderstrom,Engineering Department We have reviewed the application for the Smuggler Affordable Housing Project and offer the following comments. The sidewalk extension is the responsibility of the property development and becomes their responsibility for maintenance,including snow removal in the winter. The City will no longer perform snow removal for any portion of the sidewalk that abuts this property. The siteVlandscape plan shoves two spruce trees close to the sidewalk extension. Both of these trees should be planted a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of the sidewwk to allow for tree growth. Additionally the two existing spruce trees shown along the sidewalk may need to be prtmod or relocated to allow for site distances and pedestrian flow. It also appears as though there Are trees planted within the walkway on the north side of the property. Conifers in particular should be planted 15 feet away from both buildings and sidewalks to allow for growth. aspen Gonsojolafeo(cSanrfafron `UISfTICf 565 North Mill Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX#(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly • Chairman y y Michael Kelly Albert Bishop Treas. t Frank Loushin Louis Popish • Secy. �° Bruce Matherly,Mgr. s 6, uzann e Wo 1 r f i- larinir De par ument L._C) S . G l env HSrjr Tir ~LI Re Ilii_ly ier ATforaabl e ilousln,� 1''i.1DiRezoniny Dear uanne : T ii E' Aspean C7,n c+ 11aa to ci mac+,ni tat ion Di s t r 1Ct cur re-n t. iy has _xurricient- &r cl7Y tc, Serve this proposed development . There 1 = c-e minor downstream t ine :onstra.int that wi i i - be r'ehabi l itatr.d 1h.-0uC'41 I='rorated additic;nai Tees . Service tor the 1-1eVeI III C'nt 111 b e C OnT 1St'<; n '.J roll COmpi i�_inc_e with D1 t ic. r'1_1 iE=s . rE,u1 a t _!IIi s , and spe. ._,iT1Cc ..1 n zz Which arC' C.)11 TI I ct h DISI:r C _.ft Ce. the de s, i n of the on-- site col iectic•n system wi i i be r=qu41r_d 1-1e ay.proved b}.' _ ur IlilE' suF+erintendent rrior t0 ConStruc-tion. iJ11 i Ileecl t0 re'lliN617 m0r'e detai ie-d Mans as they become available. tole have tile". with a repreSE-'ilt_=+T_ ive of .1t.he a_pnlicant to Of Ter Ou:r �,reI im n a r Y fee estimates and omlllent cn possible ^onnCCt1L)n SCenarios . Piease e:aii if •✓ou need sad i i: 1 on,l) I inf0rnla,t1on. ,incerel �•, Bruce riat her 1 Y Li = rrict HEk11 _«r f s.t EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1986 • 1990 Regional and National MEMO To: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Subject: Smuggler Housing-Parcel ID #2737-073-00-027 Date: March 27, 1996 Suzanne, This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to the installation of fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems where applicable. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff,Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer /1-b Date: April 8, 1996 Re: Smuggler Affordable Housing PUD/Rezoning - Conceptual Review (810 South Avenue; Lots 13 and 14, Williams Addition; Parcel ID No. 2737-073-00-027) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Parking - The application shows head-in parking off of Race Street. City Code limits curb cuts to 18' in width, however Race Street was actually platted as an alley between Walnut and Spruce Streets. Therefore the proposed head-in parking is acceptable and is preferred to driveway access off of either South Avenue or Spruce Street where traffic volumes are relatively high. The applicant requested a meeting, and we discussed that the final development plans must indicate driveway and parking space slopes draining into the property and not onto Race Street. The application presents 17 parking spaces for a fifteen unit project, one unit of which is a two bedroom unit. The application is however unclear in that it states that 5 of the spaces are guest spaces. Perhaps the project covenants could provide for floating guest spaces for unused unit parking spaces. 2. Drainage - City Code requires that only historic flows be permitted to leave the site. Final development plans must include drainage calculations and on-site detention/retention design prepared by an engineer registered to practice in Colorado, as well as providing erosion and sediment control both during and after construction. As discussed above, the final development plans must indicate driveway and parking space slopes draining into the property and not onto Race Street. 3. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. There are existing aerial utilities adjacent to the parcel which are appropriate to be undergrounded when more of the neighborhood is undergrounded. The applicant should be 1 required to join any future improvement districts which are formed for improvements in the public right-of-way. All new utility service comlections off the overhead lines should be required to be installed underground. The application states that there are sufficient utility capacities in place to serve the project. The final submission should include "will serve" letters from each of the utilities. 4. Alley Paving - Race Street currently is paved. I discussed alley paving with the applicant as a dust control measure addressing PM-10 issues. The existing pavement serving the parcel on Race Street should be required to be improved as needed. 5. Encroachments - The boulders which currently encroach into the public right-of-way of Race Street must be removed from the right-of-way. 6. Snow Storage - The site design needs to be revised to indicate snow storage spaces. The snow from the parking spaces may not be plowed or shoveled into the Race Street right-of-way. 7. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - There is currently sidewalk, curb and gutter for much of the parcel's frontage on South Avenue and Spruce Street. The project must complete the sidewalk, curb and gutter for the remainder of the Spruce Street frontage and provide a five foot buffer space between the sidewalk and the back of curb. 8. Transformer Easement - There is an unusually large space between the property line and the sidewalk on South Avenue. Since that space is available, the applicant need not be required to provide an easement for a transformer on their property. However the applicant could be required to provide a fence or landscape screen for a transformer if one is installed at the time of aerial utility undergrounding. 9. Traffic Impacts - The application does not respond to Sec. 26.92.020.D regarding effect on traffic generation. The final submission must discuss the increase in trip generation that would result from granting the rezoning request. Final submission should include a trip generation report by a traffic/transportation engineer registered to practice in Colorado, and the applicant should be required to pay an impact fee for the Smuggler area roadway system improvements on the same basis as the Williams Ranch project. 10. Landscaping in the Public Right-of-way - The final development plan must indicate proposed landscaping in the public right-of-way which must conform with City Code and without encumbrances such as boulders and fences. Tree canopies extending into the right-of-way must be pruned up 9'. 11. Easements - The improvement survey does not indicate the date of Title Policy as regards easement informatiop. The final submission must include information no older than 12 months regarding any easements on the site. 2 12. Comments from other City Departments a. Water Department - There may be a 100%tap fee waiver for affordable housing. Provide separate meters for individual units and separate meter for irrigation water. b. Streets Department - The applicant must be aware of their and the City's snow removal needs. Snow from private property and parking areas and driveways may not be plowed into the street. It must be stored on site and hauled away. c. Electric Department - Provide street lights at intersections and with maximum spacing of 150 feet in between. 13. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way, parks department(920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the city community development department. M96.133 J April 4, 1996 ASPEN•PITKIN PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT { COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ted Guy and David Guthrie c/o Guy Associates Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing PUD and Rezoning Dear Ted and David: Staff has reviewed your request for a consolidated two-step review of this application, pursuant to Section 26.84.030(C)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code._ I have determined, based on the recommendation made by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on April 2,. 1996, that this application should be processed as a four-step review, which requires conceptual review and final development review by the Planning Commission and the Council. The conceptual review of the application by the Planning Commission is scheduled on April 16, 1996. City Council will review the application at a public hearing oil May 13, 1996. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very-Ti ours, a n Community Development Director City of Aspen cc: Project File Dave Michaelson,Deputy Director 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET :ASPEN,COLORAL)o 81611 PHONE 303.920.5090 FAx 303.920.5197 Printedo rnyddppe, DIRECT FAx LINE:303.920.5439 V MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing PUD Rezoning - Work Session DATE: April 2, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicants are requesting approval to rezone the property to AH1/PUD (Affordable Housing) in order to develop fifteen deed-restricted affordable housing units (12 Category 4 one-bedroom units, 2 Category 2 one-bedroom units, and one Category 4 two- bedroom unit). PUD review is a four-step review, which requires conceptual review and final development review by the Commission and the City Council. The applicants have requested to consolidate the conceptual and final development reviews into a two-step review. Staff is requesting a determination from the Commission as to whether consolidation of this application is appropriate, or whether the proposed project should be processed as a four-step review. Staff has scheduled the Commission's initial review of the application on April 16, 1996. The application is attached as Exhibit "A". APPLICANTS: Ted Guy and David Guthrie LOCATION: 810 South Avenue; Lots 13, 14, 15 & 16, Block 3, Williams Addition. The property is located on the corner of South and Spruce Streets, across from the entrance to the Smuggler Trailer Park. ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.84.030(C)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code allows consolidation of conceptual and final development review if staff determines that because of the limited extent of the issues involved in a proposed PUD in relation to the applicable review procedures and standards, or because of a significant community interest which the project would serve, a full four-step review would be "redundant and serve no public purpose." Staff has opted to forward this request to the Planning Commission for a determination. Staff agrees with the applicants that the project is consistent with the AACP and the intent of the AH1/PUD zone district by providing affordable housing for permanent residents of the comunity in close proximity to the downtown core. The project is also consistent with the mixed character of the surrounding area(single-family and multi-family development and the Smuggler Trailer Park). Water and utilities are already in place, and access and parking will be from the existing alley. However, staff notes that this project proposes 15 units within 7 structures, and the impact 1 on the existing neighborhood will be one of the most significant issues. Various neighbors in Williams Addition have already voiced concerns about the additional density this project will add to the neighborhood. 7 2 � c s 3 #�. �.:'•:. .:. # 7 ;: ::. r .,.� : '» 4 ;Yj�tix`x«'x6.. a - xx,.ec v :` z s A E •.`"rsi :s.:: �a� x ;,a .�a� ; u y�� ; a cz\ ,�>'' �h.> s«s 1::£a�ygr.c�.., s �.ya 4 3ga S 3..3 .s €'`.s sF a .. �s3 fix. �' ..:�' �.... ;: .. <; z :< .<.:: % � S.g' .: A. , � ..,:s m a��hero h � �a ,:S.Si e<..:: a 'x J; :'.• K;s Y3��?: f. .+.: .,; r+s .":•.?„x d�k .... x f, ::.:n e.o- r.<.' � ..;k:.:, e.<..,.:,; f�l�: y f � (From left): µ, STILL JUST AN EMPTY LOT Neighbors surround- ing this small parcel of ' land successfully pushed away an affordable hous- 7g project that proposed ` ,3 one-and-two bedroom units by private develop- • ers David Guthrie and Ted Guy. • x� NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD: The lot pro- . .::. posed for affordable housing is receiving some z s > negative criticism from the surrounding neigh- n borhood. Residents of the William's addition >” argue the neighborhood is already too dense for more employee housing. s • • T I M B Y I S .. .......---- mp1oyee housing popular until it hits close to home By Carolyn Sackarlason and Owl Creek Road, has many Meadow Ranch 12 one-bedroom units and a two-bedroom unit Aspen Daily News Staff Writer and Fox Run residents concerned it will ruin their on a 13,500-square-foot lot at the corner of quality of life. South and Spruce streets. Most everyone seems to agree that Aspen The project would sit on five acres of 22 The property is zoned as a residential dis- needs more affordable housing, but very few acres owned by the Snowmass Land Co., trict, but the proposal called for the lots to be people seem to want it in their neighborhood. Nearby residents argue that employee housing rezoned as affordable housing. That is certainly the case for at least two pro- doesn't fit into their residential neighborhood. Some people have called the opponents of jects in the Roaring Fork Valley where residents That is also the case for the William's addi- the project"NIMBYs" (not in my back yarders), are arguing their cases before the Snowmass tion residents, who successfully managed to but residents maintain they have far too much Town Council and Aspen City Council. convince the majority of Aspen City Council employee housing as it is and any more would Aspen Skiing Co.'s Sinclair Meadows members that an affordable housing project is ruin their quaint little neighborhood that they say employee housing project,proposed as an not appropriate in their Smuggler Mountain is already too dense. 3nsion of the Meadow Ranch subdivision, neighborhood as well. "Our quality of life has been greatly degrad- , been in the works for months and is still in Private sector developers David Guthrie and ed,"said William's addition resident Tony the conceptual stage. Ted Guy were proposing an estimated$2.5 mil- Rutgers at a city council meeting last week. The planned 42-unit housing development lion affordable housing complex, comprised of located at'the intersection of Meadow Ranch PEASE SEE HOUSING ON PAGE 10 Julie Stone Local Business 'rofile 1Ior#ga + R >telnant+ Pages 2..3 P 9 �'agc � Fagc f i 'i it d AF'F'ORDABLE HOUSING'S SOME LOCALS SAY NOT IN _MY BACKYARD HOUSING FROM PAGE 1 What's more, Sinclair Meadows may not fit into a residential neighborhood unless some "Maybe the city could find another place to put it. issues are addressed, like having the units be I feel We really need to reevaluate "it is the right idea in the wrong place," he for sale and not for rent. the housing component of the said. "Seasonal rental employee housing is not Aspen Area Community Plan. I am Whether it is an issue of ruining the quality of appropriate in that location," Hooker said. "They personally disappointed of W. e life;overcrowding, traffic congestion,decreasing don't have the same pride of ownership." , property values or placing affordable housing so Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Executive We are at Ih/S point. there is a balance of it in the community, it cer- Director Dave Tolen said labeling it NIMBYism is tainly can bE construed as NIMBYism not getting at the root of the problem. "I City councilwoman and housing board But is that bad? Don't people have a right to think it is still important to recognize that what member Rachel.Richards protect their quality of life and not feel guilty we call NIMBY stems from a whole host of other about it? issues," he said, adding you have to look at peo- "It is really not a matter of NIMBYism, ple's perception, beliefs, values and past experi- extinguish themselves by having the mindset of because we have supported the projects up until ences to understand where they are coming buying property just to make a profit, knowing now,"William's addition resident Jon Busch said. from. property owners will leave someday. "You would think it is a prime property location Another William's addition resident told the Richards said rather than thinking that way, but it is not." Aspen City Council last week that the politicians, the community, especially the younger genera- Busch and his neighbors contend there is a city planners and housing personnel are losing . tion' needs to look toward the future by planning major discrepancy in the number of employee credibility because they are not scattering afford- for it and taking a stand for what they want. housing units in the west end verses the east able housing around the community. Erik Skarvan couldn't agree more. end, where nearly half of the affordable housing City councilwoman and housing board mem- Skarvan is a 14-year Aspen resident ' �s inventory is. ber Rachel Richards said that it is political reali- paid nearly$100,000 in rent and wants� vn l Perhaps that is why Guthrie and Guy chose ty. Whenever you lean toward an issue that is to build on a lot in the Smuggler neighborhood not supported by the majority there will be criti- his own place, but can't because projects like the Smuggler Affordable Housing keep getting because it was $900,000 compared to a lot in cism. Richards said the lack of affordable housing rejected by people who already own their the west end which can sell for about$2 million, homes. the residents argue. is a real problem in the city and she would tike to , Aspen Mayor John Bennett said finding a see a full-force effort to change that so the `We all deserve a piece of the pie, he said. place to put employee housing is a constant younger generation has a viable, existing com- "It is real sad that every time one of these pro- place comes along, it is shot down. struggle. When the Cozy Point affordable hous- munity in the future. "if that isn't NIMBYism, I don't know what is," ing project was going on, the city really thought it "I-feel we really need to reevaluate the hous- Skarvan said. "They want to slam the door was the perfect place where nobody would "ing component of the Aspen Area Community saying we are in and you are out. oppose it. Plan," she said. "I am personally disappointed of Some people have even referred to employ- , The city was wrong, Bennett said. One per- where we are at this point." ee housing as the"ghetto"of Aspen. son said to him, "I can't see it, but I can smell it." The problem once again, is where it should Skarvan says if you want to see a ghetto, As for Snowmass and the Sinclair Meadows go. come over to his house. project, Mayor Jim Hooker said it is simply that Richards suggests working with the county "I have been out of college for a long time we are running out of room so it is affecting peo- more to obtain open space and start building ple closer to their homes. affordable housing before people begin to move and I am still living in college-style living,„ he "That is why we are getting into some con- away. said, adding the way most of these projects tention because we are running out of space,” "The problem is what is close to water and have been designed, they are far from being slum conditions. he said. "I don't think NIMBYism is necessarily sewer? There really isn't much left," Richards negative, I think it is people protecting their qual- said. The city council needs to start hammering these neighbors ity of life." "Termination communities" as some housing They need to go n someone's e's backyardhrough. experts have called them, are communities that ONWednesday, May 22, 1996 Page 6 HERS ing,and contributing to this community, and "safety" issues. Basically, they I thought "locals" really cared about don't want any more people .living in each other. I witnessed one resident their little"slice of paradise." after another oppose an affordable I wonder how many of them needed employee housing project. affordable housing at some stage of Once again, it was a well done, qual- their lives. I wonder how they would 'Locals' showed their true ity and desperately needed employee have felt if those already living in the housing project that was being proposed Smuggler area opposed their moving colors at housing meeting — this time by Mr. Ted Guy and Mr. into the neighborhood. Editor; David Guthrie, two private developers What about this density issue? I I'm not someone to write letters to (Can you imagine private developers understand the Smuggler area has had the editor to whine about some of the actually NOT building multi-million its share of employee housing. I also dollar condos or houses?). understand it's one of the few affordable negative aspects of Aspen life. Lord knows we have plenty to be These gentlemen should be y com- areas to build on and is zoned for such thankful for here in the Roaring Fork mended for not choosing the greed- building.Maybe the project can go to 6- Valley! However, I attended the city head" way. They obviously care about 8 units instead of the 13 units as pro- affordable local housing.They obvious- posed. council meeting last week dealing with ffordable Housing ly care about those of us struggling to Let's get something built folks! the Smuggler A raise some Pay rent in order to live in substandard, (By the way, is the gentleman who Project. Now, I must try l awareness to fellow renters here in rundown housing year after year(as we now owns the land really trying to make Aspen as to what goes on at some of wait for our lucky lottery number to be aA.spen?W certainly citizens of that these meetings. drawn).Once again, the so-called "locals" greedhead move to pay.off. That sets a What an eye opener this meeting was! I'm still somewhat in disbelief in from the involved neighborhood very dangerous precedent and takes the what occurred. Namely, I was shocked showed up in force to oppose the project word affordable right out of the pic- to hear some of the opinions and values that would once again be:"in their back ture. This guy should be ashamed of of some of e o fellow anions an yard." They spoke about density, himself!This kind of behavior is"lower " ualit of life," "traffic," "parking," Silly me.After 14 years living,work- q y Please see LETTERS next page LOCAL "O V looks for help with bus y summer HELP from page 5 ground-breaking concept, a : broad coalition of the community is joining Granite Lakes at .timberline. During forces to construct a new universally this three-day project, RFOV and th accessible trail adjacent to the Braille Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado will Trail _ in the Independence Pass construct reroutes and mitigate erosion Corridor. on an extremely wet and damaged 3/4- The Roaring Fork Discovery Trail, mile section of this forest service trail. with its crusher fines surface, easy Volunteers will camp just outside of grades, picnic and rest stops, and inter- wilderness and will have a steep hike pretive signs, will create a unique edu- of up to 1 1/2 miles to the work site. cational experience and quiet respite •Flat Tops Passport in Time—Aug. for everyone at 10,000 feet along the 19-25. upper Roaring Fork River. The Flat Tops Wilderness Area is ' South Rim Trail — Saturday and just north of Glenwood Canyon. As Sunday, Sept. 28-29. part of the Forest Service's efforts to The trail, which is on the east portal develop a management plan for this of Glenwood Canyon,will be extended area u��. a on the south side of the canyon for one a mile. The land will be cleared and delineated so a trail corridor can be cre- ated on a newly-acquired BLM trail easement. This trail segment provides the link which will eventually connect Glenwood Springs through BLM lands with Cottonwood Pass. The trail is perched on the south canyon rim, meandering through aspen and ever- - green groves and offering a spectacular panoramic view of the Flat Tops, the I Eagle Valley, the Gore Range, the 3 northern Sawatch range and across the Roaring Fork Valley to the Elk S Mountains. i Tot a IMBY, J u st see kn gJ ust ice officially works like this: A developer code: "The purpose of AH1,PUD Zone affordable-we did not oppose it.When submits an application to the Planning District" (affordable housing): "Lands mine shafts were found under a portion Office which reviews it and makes a in the AH1/PUD zone district should of the Centennial site, which we y` recommendation to the Commission. be scattered throughout the City to supported,the project was not reduced, The Commission then makes ensure,a mix of housing types." they just increased the density. modifications and sends the application The project before P&'L was said to Then came Williams Woods. When on to City Council. This body may conform to the land we grew concerned make changes and then sends it back to use code because it the concession was to P&Z which makes further revisions, was surrounded by reduce it from 22 ion Busch sends it back to Council again for final single family homes You don't see units to 18. And approval. on one side. Yet there these rising from the While those out there who think we are but 19 homes ground as you read Afull Council Chamber greeted the have,too much government might say surrounded by more developments this is Willia City Planning and Zoning this process is too long and convoluted, than 200 condos and proposed for the Ranch with Commission this past,Tuesday. they would have,a different opinion of rental apartments in employee-units plus The reason for such sudden interest should Y g y • exclusive {Nest it if the were being affected b it. the Centennial free market sites. We not have been unexpected, for the issue What's wrong here is that the public, complex, the huge End or Red worked with the before them was affordable housing being those being impacted by any project density of the Mobile Mountain. You developer who proposed for a small Aspen subdivision in have no right or voice,no input,until a Home park across the reoriented an access the midst of the highest density don't even see g tY employee ee P y project has already received conceptual street and Hunter road as a token housing in the valley.The greater area is approval(step one). Creek and Williams them in Mountain gesture in addressing referred to by the Planning Office as It was carefully pointed out to those Woods - do you get Valley or our concerns. My "Smuggler Mountain". assembled- that the P&Z meeting, the picture? There is $nO We've just has not The neighborhood consists of 19 though a public meeting, was not a no m V6�bUnn Y ix of housing , just taken a hit time single family and duplex residences, public hearing. By way of concession, types here, it's all done our part, its and again, it has almost all of which are owner they would bend the rules and allow employee and . time to put Some taken most of the occupied. Now I happen to live in this the audience to ask only questions of affordable housing. employee housing in subdivision called "Williams employee housing the developer to clarify the proposal. There are many Aspen. Addition" on historic City maps and We..would have our opportunity to legitimate arguments Somewhere else. There is some While I do oppose this newest address our issues before City Council against this particular sentiment for employee housing proposal, I found (step 2) only after the project has project on this site. affordable housing ` the public input restrictions received its preliminary approval - in The point is that none any cost. It's just distressingly wrong. the absence of considerations of any of these concerns were allowed to be bad that Aspen's least advantagea The P&Z meeting room was filled neighborhood concerns! heard. neighborhood gets hit again and again. with not only the residents of Williams Planning Office recommendations So, am I a NIMBY? Are those You don't see these developments Addition, but also residents of the are made through the guidance on the residents of Centennial or the Mobile proposed for the exclusive West End or Centennial Condominium complex and Aspen Area Community Master plan. Home Park NIMBYs? I say no. When Red Mountain. You 'don't even-*see the Smuggler Mobile Home Park. The Yet even here interpretations are made Jesse Madalone sold the trailer court them in Mountain Valley or room simply, was filled with familiar by the Planning Office which cannot be and the residents wanted to buy it, the Snowbunny. We've done our part, it's faces, people who live and work here, challenged at the formative stage of a County(at the time) allowed two more time to put some employee housing most for a long time. given project. Take this section of rows to be added to make purchase somewhere else. The..."Four Step" approval process r if,Guest editorials tram valle .residents are encoura god,as are lettere toe edrtcx .;Letters;will be` ©pin ons ex ressad are those of the u r antf do not necessa o ret7ect thnre of tha eq Q. News.sta y, g , published ort a space ava�abltr basis, 'is our G soon to p bl>sh ell letters wa;receive,;except those wfiict are libelous or arelunsigni d.preference will be given to typeatirritten letter$that.have not appeareei in other ptlications AN lelfeis trust include the author's name anti telephone numberfa purpa des of verification,and may ba mated or delivered to our ofiice,or faxed to 92001 8 AI!letters'and:guest eslttonals are sut>jeot'; to tent.I ouiri about guest editt�rlals�hpuld be trade to the�!rtor m wr�tmg %�. 8 The Aspen Times• Tuesday,April 23, 19% Letters Refuting Powers exemption for the mother's health Give Alex a home ashae Dear Editor: in partial-birth abortions in the Dear Editor: recent congressional abortion Hey, great photo! I just want Floral Arts &Gifts –Aspen &Basalt In her letter to The Aspen Y g p J P Times("A Stealth Campaign" ban bill, which is why President to correct one small misconcep- Clinton vetoed tion: Alex is not my do 4/10/96)State Senator Linda d it.) I bor- Specia Powers scolds Congressional rowed Alex for the K-9 Uphill Very "extremists"for not supplying The oil will run out from Seth Sachson out at the g overnment funds—an p erson- Dear Editor:d Aspen Animal Shelter. She is looking Sale nel—for abortions.She then This letter was originally sent g for a home and I recom- turns around and scolds them for to Mayor John Bennett. mend her to anyone who might Locals intervening in the matter.She I am following with great be thinking of adopting a dog. wants abortion to be a rivate Alex is a great dog. I would p interest your trip,along with EVERYTHING IN BOTH STORES ON S decision,except for its funding. many public officials to Switzer- adopt her myself if I could have a She wants to impose that on land,studying the wonderful dog where I live. After spending to/�O—I�/�/rJo 01JUTU everyone,privacy be damned. a couple of days with her I can "/ / "� rY �P Y Swiss transit systems. Linda Powers is upset that During the past few summers, say that she's smart, q uiet affec- cash or checks lease abortions are banned at military I have traveled extensively in tionate, housebroken, leash- pi hospitals.I'm not.We anti-Viet- trained and good around chil- One week only,April 17-24 p Europe using,whenever possible, , nam War"extremists"always wren. She minds well, isn't a 132 Midland Ave Y public transport.My last trip was 300 Puppy Smith wanted the army to resist baby- a Smithsonian Study Tour,from whiner or barker (she stayed Next to Clark's,Aspen Midland Avenue Mall,Basalt killing. do. quiet even when left tied up with 927-3551 g Vienna to Zurich by train.I a hundred other barking dogs), 920-6838 Linda Powers complains that found it was possible to go many and was patient with me even abortion will not be covered by places on side trips by either when I took her on a sled ride. federal employees health insur- train,trolley car,inclined railway She stayed close even when'off ance.Good.Our government is or cable car.Fortunately,most of supposed to defend the inalien- this wonderful transit system was her leash (she loved running able right to life,not ignore it. built before the auto took over, down Buttermilk after the race, The Double Duette® Sal e. Linda Powers moans that and unlike our country,it has chasing me in my sled) and Congress forbids Medicare to been care fully kept . obeyed voice commands. She y P t p The fact didn't even seem to mind that I Duettes®double honeycomb fund rape/incest abortions for the that it is all electric supports the shades roe you hundreds of r Fine.Discrimination is claim that it is nonpolluting. slowed her down on the climb anyone B y wrong.The circumstances of In travels in other countgries,.I the mountain! So to anyone decorating options and wrong. conception h ci not unmake a fetal thinking about getting a dog, go fantastic R value. have found that with few excep- check out Alex;she's eat! human beings full and equal tions,the automobile has all but And for a limited time. humanity.Just societies do not destroyed the charm of many Also, as long as I'm here, I L "solve"violent acts against inno- small and large cities.With the want to thank Eric organizing Skarvan for ���JJJ 65% Off, cent women with more violent exceptions of Zermatt,the central thinking of and organizing the 9 Uphill, all the volunteers who acts against their innocent off- part of Florence,Taormina and Hunterpo �8S helped out, and all the merchants _ ug� spring. Carcassonne,where the auto has `r,� •ti!y, I , „ , , , , ,., , Linda Powers wails that a been banned,it is safer to drive who donated the great raffle, ,� prizes. It was epic! It's great to , ,qln u ggler--- Sm i ) hr plan Four c itizens spoke in support and ho �°PP°- by ■nontlnued from P 1�1 and_ of the project, even- re �cued the developers that the density number of units could be reduced if teal newcomerssto the any units were added t°the PTO • s and 12 one- present hood. of project will zoning je si Guy' "I think this type P g design calls for 12 one-bedroom this a local neighb hard dor apartments and one two-bedroom iprice said David Brown. apartment that would rang The everyone to have been here forev- BY Robert Ward from $110,000 to $140,000 y Aspen Times Staff Writer prices er." were loathe to boost their p Such statements were far out- Claiming repeatedly to be pro affordable >n into the "resident-oc euP aim' weighed, however, by the united to$4 ,000 range, who repeatedly housing, members of the Aspen Planning ` $350,000 rents, and Zoning Commission nonetheless reject- ing there isn't as much demand for fTOn °p ngtime residency and an employee housing project Tuesday that such expensive homes. quality f the neigh- they themselves described as "well- "I don't see a need far RO honot borh�.The approached the sub- thg,"Guthrie said."$350,000 s but their designed"and"excellent." affordable to me" ject in different ways, ' nal density and auto traffic• 15 citizens,mostly neighbors opposed to the But commission members could �omments focused mainly on addi- After Listening to the comments of some not accept the project as proposed, re well maxed- project, the commission voted 4-3 against and voted against the recommenda- ` l&area is pretty Ted Guy and David Guthrie's Smuggler staff members. Chair out," said neighbor Ward Hauen- rions of city e r Affordable Housing Project,a 13-unit devel- Sara Garton admitted the design stein., have housed a hug this "excellent"but added"I really tion of affordable housing iart f oprmetts in Aspeeri Thheerneighbors complained, was town, and density in this p believe this area cant absorb any other area and a majority of the commission agreed, more:' Hunt said "I just hate this, town is denser than any that the so-called Williams addition area has because I like what you've done, of the valley" Guthrie dis- accepted more than its share of employee After the meeting, pointing to housing and should be spared too much addi- but it just doesn't work." argued puted such statements, p° g tional density. Guy and Guthrie have arg housing develop- uare footage is less than recent employee kins Avenue, The commission's vote does not kill the that their sq Sleeker project,which will go before the Aspen City what would be allowed for free_ West Hopkins, Street, market dwellings on the same p original Street. He was Council next Monday. The vote is a recom- cel, but commission members Street and Ordiscouraged the vote,but mendation that the council deny the project, noted that free-market homes same maintained the by egin was not chiefly for reasons of additional traffic and wouldn't g e mandate against the project. density in the area. amounts of traffic. The split ahug project supporters on hand at Mon- feelings about the project, and aired their vote reflected their con He also vowed to have a number o Several commissioners admitted to mixed over the tradeoffs of the develop- day>s council meeting. frustration at the difficulty of finding suitable com- ment. °� "They're going to hear adiffer- sites for employee housing. They also com- "This is a no-win situation, ent type of audience then,"he said. plained about the conflicting mandates of the Hunt groaned at one point. Aspen Area Community Plan, which calls for development of employee housing but also says it should be spread around town in different neighborhoods. "Since nobody wants it in their neighbor- hood, where are we going to put it?" asked an exasperated Marta Chaikovska, who ended up voting against the denial."I get the impression that any development there would be nixed by the public. I'm not sure by the input what would be acceptable." The neighbors weren't invited to answer her question directly. But commissioners Roger Hunt and Tim Mooney suggested to ■See Smuggler on page 14-A Neighbors don 't like it but Aspe n Housing Board does By Robert Ward lion was the exact opposite of last Tues- project has become a "dumping ground" reduced by 10-15 percent from its origi,__. Aspen Times Staff Writer day's melee before the Aspen Planning and for employee housing. 15-unit configuration—will earn approval Neighbors may say it's an eyesore and Zoning Commission, in which neighbors But without the neighbors present to from the city, although they're well aware an abomination, but local officials like the heaped contempt on the project and even argue the point, the developers and the that they'll never please some of the neigh- housing project planned across from the attacked the commission itself for refusing housing board took turns agreeing with bors. When Guthrie launched into a spirit each other about the appropriateness of the ed defense of the project, and disputed the Smuggler Mobile Home Park — and to take public comments. they're still tentatively planning to pur- "I think this is a great project," said site and the overall need for housing. At perception that the project d simply being chase it after city approval. housing board member Jackie Kasabach, the corner of South and Spruce streets,the "dumped" in the area,board members told him he was preaching to the choir. David Guthrie and Ted Guy, who are who lives nearby and plainly disagrees~ -development would be"across the street jointly developing the 13-unit project, met wi h some of .her vocal neighbors:... =from a bus stop, and would consistiof two "You'll never cure some people of the with the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing "Frankly I think it makes the neighborhood`'500-square-foot one-bedroom unfits, 19 perception that affordable Mousing is a Board on Wednesday for an update on the more interesting. At least-it's a neighbor_ 575-foot units and one 850466j,tvto-bed- dumping ground,"shrugged board member project, which the housing office hopes hood, room . dim True. . eventually to purchase.The meeting wasn't One of the major complaints leveled..�a., "The square footage is-actualcompa- Neighbors have said'they will continue all back-slapping and handshakes, by any against the project is that it will add densi- rable to what it would-have been i it was to fight the proJeet: Guthrie and Guy go means, but it was clear the developers and ty to an area that has already accommodat- free-market," Guy said. "We're bringing before the:planni�g and zoning commis- board members were in basic agreement on ed more than its share of affordable hous- ownership housing to an ownership neigh council approval and break ground this the importance of the project. ing. Neighbors complained to the board borhood." The friendly tenor of the half-hour ses-, that the area around the Centennial housing He and Guthrie hope the density — summer. A 12 Or Salurday,Sunday,Aprd 2421,1996- Opinion HAMMER MANAGEMENT A j Hark! It's the first e Inspections of property ,( lamebrain .of spring. • General & routine maintenance • Jacuzzi & plant maintenance f _ speak—or,as the case may be,to • Monthly statements rant and rave. • Personal dependable service i They demanded the right to speak—for no apparent reason Please contact Martyr Hammer other than the fact that they were there and they wanted to be heard. y Certified Property Manager* They could have simply said ; craftil Y slipping ski in inacomment 920-4304 Fax 925-2508 ( "We are opposed to this project for,. - marry good reasons.But,for stow, f .-we will sit and listen and learn exactly what it is that we are fight- , 1 in i gBut,hey,why learn,when you `, _ By Andy St" can scream instead? '"+ t t was actually a little refresh- So,they leapt to their feet and �,,.:•. ing to read about this week's raged.They denounced the project r JL t screaming match at an Aspen They denounced the head of they = K' planning&Zoning Commission P&Z for trying to insist that they mating. wait until the public hearings to Why"refreshing"? make their comments.They threat- Because—coming so soon ened to hire lawyers to force the after the Pitkin County recall elec- commission to hear them.They lion—it was a reminder that the ' declared they were not going to sit =x desire for government by temper down and they were not going to tantrum is evenly spread through- shut up and they were going to out the political spectrum. keep right on talking unless and The recall election was sparked until someone called the police to i by people who feel government haul them away. j has no right to restrict what they In short,they acted like a first- can build on private property. class bunch of lamebrained jerks. 5-Bedroom, 5-Bath Brush Creek Htc This week's hissy fit at the P&Z Their behavior was like that of a c was staged by people upset that the 6-year-old at a dinner party,who with Separate 1-Bedroom, 1-Bath Apartr government wasn't acting quickly keeps interrupting the conversation enough to block developers from and,when he is told to wait his Best views in Brush Creek from this pprivate, easily-accessed tw i even thinking about buildings pro turn,throws a temper tantrum Big decks Great lawn.This 4000+sq.ft.house with great neighbor t jest in Lheit heighbothood. - : : instead,rolling on the flooS wailing to sell I,, For bow lucky enough to miss A and screaming and kicking rmtil all '., v;x.4795,00`11:44 this ways I'll offers quick o6mersation comes t6 halt r 7 aI1 ' ? x� ' `" When a 6-year-old acts that ` r( 2$.6947 t ,YCaifvlichaelCooperat92020064� reap:- .. .. i A pair of longtime local resi- way,you'*drsappointod•When -X ` �7�rc dents are looking to build an it's a group of people who have ASPEN affordable-housing project near the 'dworetkxlly achieved adulthood;',n! " '' ' ti Smuggler mobile home park,at the you have to be disgusted. REAL ESTAZ E ` r base of SmugglerMotintain. After ill,.its,ttot as if the city of C+01 , The project came up for a"con= .rAspen is known for i'kv to - 4 t = cxptual"review at the planning developers,blithe! ?t 7 a ; 205 commission this week and a mob ;'ens and cuttingpff p��W.gilt �-� r)1 .u• '� '' ```' ' of angry neighborhood residents- "" H.;,.never heard any Imp t showed up to voice their oblec- about ahatage Qf*try3 _ _ lions. t (T In So fay so good.virtually Stan - about bv I AaYitg, i dard operating procedure in this let's go do a project in Aspen. NIMBY world of ours. They keep the public muzzled.It's The trouble started when the a developer's paradise!" head of the planning commission I have no opinion about this told the angry neighbors that the particular project.I don't know if meeting was not a public hearing. it's a good one or a bad one.I'm This early in the process,the idea not the least bit worried about the is for the developers to lay their developers.I've known one of cards on the table.They outline them for years,he's a nice guy arid' �1 their projet and answer questions boy.k hi can take he's al o a bigf. about the details,so the planning nstead,I am worried,once commission members,the city staff and members of the public again,about the utter lack of intel- can be clear exactly what's being ligence and civility being dis- : it played around here.Is there no fac- FFormal public hearings,at tion within this community capable t which the public is invited to shoot of behaving in a reasonable fash- i} off its collective mouth and tell ion. r ,. anyone and everyone exactly what Well,as I said,coming as the , people think about this project,are did,right on the heels of the nasty j... > scheduled later in the process.Two recall campaign,it was at least a , of them.At least reminder that there are lamebrains t But,at this oak's mating,the. scattered—in roughly equal num i neighbors refused to accept the hers—throughout the jwhtrcal` _ fact that it wasn't their turn to spectrum ,� 4 s P,vci PEN rant to state law, a sale will be held at AS , �1: „ . Nor, S mu ler 8 The As n Ames• ►. Pe .•nesday,April 17, 1996 • hbors SM neighbors 11 CMUhUeditM~l rip project this is absolute horseshit. 1 will stand here and I will under construction in the same general area,called for talk until you call the police" No one did, and Bush as many as,3,800 car trips per day. And because the John Colson ultimately sat down. Williams Ranch project is not built yet,she argued,the Aspen Times Stall Writer The object of all this heat was a Proposal actual impacts are still unknown. An angry group of neighbors on time resident David Guthrie,with the help of archit�t Several neighbors argued that the area, ranging Tuesday denounced plans for an Ted Guy, to build 13 units on 13,465 P around the base of Smuggler Mountain already affordable housing project near the land at the intersection of South acrd Spite streets. us-of home to the vast majority the city's employee h us- Smuggler Mobile Home Park,dur- Guy said the project represents about $2.5 million mg'and is already too dense. ing a conceptual hearing before the Of investment when eve everything is taken into considera- "The density of the area is so immense now said able"units instead of the more co city planning and zoning commis- don, and noted that it is made of"afford- Ward Hauenstein, this is an abomination.The oo t Sion. uP . of it doesn't fit with the neighborhood. And that The project calls for a group of mmon mix of deed- technical question ... it can only be rezoned if it is in restricted and free-market homes:• five buildings on:several city lots in In answer to a question from longtime resident keeping with the neighborhood." what is known as the Williams Brent Gardner-Smith,Guy said the homes would ran a Another neighbor, Addition, directly across the street who did not identify herself, from the entrance to the mobile g objected to the likelihood that the public hearings in price from somewhere around$110,000 to$115,000 regarding the project will be scheduled durin the a home park. for one-bedroom units with an uncovered parking g The members of the'P&Z, . P g season in May and early June, "when most of us are space, through $115,000 to $120,000 for one-bed- gone.This should only e rooms with a covered parking space, to around Y considered in hi expressing a number of tabled 0 to$140,000 a coo for a two-bedroom, These and other questions were peppered�season." tiers about the proposal,tabled fur- The units would range in size from 5. square feet and Guthrie until coinnrission chair og Guy ther consideration until May 7 to for the one-bedrooms to 850 lic comment, after which the p&Z voted m table allow the city planning staff to look square feet for the two matter until staff has had time to study the revisions over revisions made to the plans at bedrooms, which Guy said was a reduction from the int roduced on Tuesday, the last minute this week. original plans for units sized from 700 square feet to Garton also noted that the May 7 meeting 900 square feet.He also reduced the overall ro'ect b The neighbors, many of whom two units,from 15 down to 13. P 1 Y be a conceptual hearing, which is not a formal public have lived in the area for decades, The reductions in the sizes, he said, was made in hag'but that there will be two such public hearin Promised to return to take up their response to comments from the city planners about the soon. Neighborhood spokesman Bush responded b cry against the project. need for more open space and lower density. n1O tog t�nng an attorney to argue for the people's �d some of the project's oppo- pe PcoP nents also attacked the planning It was the density issue,as well as questions about additional automobile traffic in the neighborhood that Guthrie said he was unsure whether further changes commission itself.The revolt erupt- got the most attention from the neighbors. would be made to address the neighbors'concerns,g said after P&Z chair Sara Garton Diane Rutgers of the Smuggler We're not stonewalling creeps, said they would not be allowed to gg park noted that the ps,e b take everything voice their opinions about the pro- traffic studies for the Williams Ranch project, now of interested in eissin mg to do the best ears." . I'm Pissing people off for 50 years, posal� only ask'`technical ques- tions, because the meeting was not a formal public hearing. "This is a public meeting and you are trying to restrict what we have to say," an angry Jon Bush loudly declared to the table of offi- cials."I think this is wrong. I think ■See&medw on page 8 Rruly residents s p eak out.against project at P&Z iheeting rotyn Sackariason the corner of South and Spruce streets near the With the housing authority trying to achieve a goal aly News Staff Writer Smuggler neighborhood. of 60 percent of the workforce living in the Aspen Busch was lust one of dozens of upset residents community, projects like these are necessary, Guthrie rely William's Addition residents voiced outrage who packed the council chambers in City Hall to tell said. d the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission the commission exactly what they think of the project. The property is currently zoned as a residential dis- they were told they couldn't comment on a pro- But commission Chairperson Sara Garton said the trict,but the proposal calls for the lots to be rezoned as l affordable housing project in their neighbor- proposal is in the conceptual review stage and the pub- affordable housing. Tuesday. lic can only comment on technical aspects of the pro- As it is zoned now, the developers could build the equivalent think this is absolute horseshit,"said resident Jon ject since the meeting was not a public hearing. of two single-family homes up to 10,000 h."You either allow us to speak or call the police. But that didn't stop many residents from throwing square feet each, Guy said. act of the affordable housing proposal is wrong, you cannot say we are not allowed to in their two cents about the project,which they see as The imp would be much less than free market housing, the ;.This project should be dead tonight." the worst possible concept for the area. ;velopers Ted Guy and David Guthrie want to But Guthrie and Guy think it is exactly what the developers argue, because the four buildings in the complex would only take up 9,100 square feet. lop an estimated $2.5 million affordable housing neighborhood needs. rlex, comprised of 12 one-bedroom units and a "Philosophically,that is what we need for this com- please see SMUGGLER on page 5 wo-bedroom unit on a 13,500 square-foot lot at munity," Guy said. Sun Valley contingent wants to `Aspenize'their town Afk­w s V11-7 147 LOCAL Residents concerned about density SMUGGLER from page 1 But it is unclear if the development is included in that particular area. GUY and Guthrie also maintain that with an afford- The commission wants a detailed plan from the able housing project, the neighbors have a say in the developers so the proposal can be reviewed again con- design of the buildings through the public hearing ceptually at its May 7 meeting. process,whereas in a free market, they have none. "I guarantee we will look very,very hard at this par- Garton told the residents adding the commission But the residents didn't give the developers a eel, > chance to make their case since they kept interrupting, should physically examine the site. often screaming their displeasure about the proposal. Guthrie and Guy had originally submitted the pro- The neighbors are mostly concerned with the posal as seven buildings with 15 units,but redesigned increased traffic congestion in the area since the devel- the project to conform to the commission's concerns. opers are proposing 13 parking spaces for the occu- The one-bedroom units, which will be about 575 pants plus five additional guest parking on Race square feet, will sell for la out $115,000 800--square-foot he two- Street, which is platted as an will sell for $130,000, Guy. alley. One neighbor said Race said. Street is used as a street and he Residents are also con- The Aspen-Pitkin County is concerned about the social Ilou,:ing Authority is in favor effects the development will eerned about the high den- the project since it provides a have on the neighborhood since Sity of buildings in the mix of affordable housing children play there. neighborhood already and wi osal will only a residential neighbor- Garton said a traffic study is l being conducted for the area this p Y add But the density-issue is also a and the developers have said to the problem. concern for some members of they will put money toward the housing board. traffic improvements if neces- The developers are asking sary. the housing authority to sub- Residents are also concerned sidize the project with public about the high density of buildings in the neighbor- money. hood already and this proposal will only add to the They also want to make the development similar to problem. the Benedict Commons development. Commission member Roger Hunt agrees. The project will include a variety of income cate- "I think it is a beautiful project, it is just in the gories,with the majority being moderately affordable, wrong place,"Hunt said."That is my opinion now,but Guthrie said. . it could be persuaded otherwise." And if there are any profits made on the project,the The planning staff told the commission they feel the money would go back to the subsidies, Guy told the project is compatible wish the neighborhood, but the housing board last month. traffic concerns need to be addressed. Guy also said last month that he hopes to begin con- Hunt said if the area is going to be included in the struction in August and have the units available for Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, the project should sale in June 1997, but it could be a long road for the not be approved because the Aspen Area Community developers if they keep meeting strong opposition as Plan indicated that area was already too dense. they did Tuesday night. 03/15/1996 10:56 9709274813 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC PAGE 01 March 15, 1996 David Michaelson Aspen/Pitldn Community Development 130 S. Galena Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Smuggler Affordable Housing 810 South Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 SUBJECT: Development Application Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1/PUD) Dear David: This letter is to confirm that Theodore K. Guy and/or Assigns has a current contract to purchase Lots 13,14,15 & 16, Block 3, Williams Addition, As Owners and Seller of this property we hereby grant Theodore K. Guy and/or Assigns the authority to submit an application to rezone the property to AH1/PUD. Since yours, `ii7� Joh 41 6 ► S. Avenue Partnership o-A dwW9 F� tic of Title Insurarf`� - Y Issued By Nations Title Insurance Company O 176- 712247 SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE,THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, NATIONS TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Kansas corporation,herein called the Company,insures,as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A,against loss or damage,not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A,sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; 3. Unmarketability of the title; 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. The Company will also pay the costs,attorneys'fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title,as insured,but only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. Nations Title Insurance Company By: La44 President Attest: Secretary Count rs ned: By � ��)a Authorizer)Officer or Agent . . ' Iowa PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER TAX RECEIPT # 95011715132 506 EAST MAIN STREET DATE PAID 01 / 17/95 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TIME: 15: 13: 28 (303) 920-5170 SCHEDULE i-4014595 DISTRICT # 01 TAX YEAR 1994 iAND $20580 | INTEREST $. 00 TMPROV. $220 ; SEWER LIENS $. 00 TOTAL $20800 | CITY LIENS $. 00 TAXPAYER NAME: | UNDERGROUNDING $1 00 SKUFCA, ELLA ». \ ADVERTISING $. 00 P. O. BOX 124 &EES $. 00 ! TAX SALE REDEMPTION $. 00 ASPEN CO 81612 ! SUSPENSE/OVERPAYMENT 000 | _ PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM: | PCT#9432/SKUFCA | PAID BY: CASH $. 00 � CHECK: # 10651 $623. 60 | TOTAL PAID $623. 60 | TOTAL $623. 60 WILLIAMS ADDITION BLOCK 3 U0 13& 14 PREVIOUS SCHEDUL[<S> 004438 i. CPIECKS AND DRAFTS ARE ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO FINAL COLLECTION PITK7N COUNTY TREASURER TAX RECEIPT # 95011715130 506 EAST MAIN STREET DATE PAID 01 /17/95 ASPEy , COLORADO g1611 TIME: 15: 13: 08 (307> 920-5170 SCHEDULE #014596 DISTRICT # 01 TAX YEAR 1994 TNPROV,t ! SEWER LIENS 1UNDERGROUNDING 0(j P0- BOX 121- 1 FEES ! TAX SALE REDEMPTION $. 0o ASPEN CO 81612 | SUSPENSE/OVERPAYMENT $. 00 | pivots -will/vA 7 05: | PCT#9432/SKUFCA | PAID BY: CASH $. 00 | CHECK74 10651 $1 ,391 . 12 | TOTAL PAID $1 391 12 | TOTAL $1 391 12 NILLlAMS ADDITION BLOCK 3 LOT }5& 16 PREVIOUS SCHEDULE/S) V04439 � CHECKS AM DRAFTS ARE ACCEPT[D SU8 ECT TO FINAL COLLECTION 0 ~ a ._ les, /-/Y;x;78030 P•-771 P-71°t )1/12'/95 03:338 PG 1 OF REC DOC' a" SILVIA DAVIS Pl 1 KIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDS_ 10- 00 MPM FILING STAMP • M .Sl THIS DEED, Made this 5 day of ��G�/yI —Age— OCI 19 between ELLA V. SKUFCA of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado Colorado,of the first part,and HENRY J. PEDERSEN and DOREMUS&COMPANY PROFIT SHARING PLAN W and Pyjy�jF/V//#9)j7yj7// ch as to an undivided 1(3 z interest PI HMSTEIN INVESMU CORPORATION, A C0 MADO � CORPORATION whose legal address is 616 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 e.a of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado,of the second part: WITNESSETH,That the said party of the first part,for and in consideration of the sum of Ten dollars and other good and valuable considerations DOLLARS, -� to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby 1" confessed and acknowledged,has granted,bargained, sold and conveyed,and by these presents does grant,bargain, Q H A sell, convey and confirm, unto the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever, all the following W a A described lot or parcel of land,situate,lying and being in the Qt a County of Pitkin and State of Colorado,to-wit: ate' (See "EXHIBIT A" attached hereto and incorporated herein) SUBJECT TO: c� Reservations contained in United States Patent recorded in Book 55, at Page Z 116; Mineral reservation as set forth in Deed recorded in Book 280, at Page ( - w l- 665; Terms, conditions ,provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth `g H w in Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners recorded August 31, 1979 (y w in Book 375, at Page 159 as Resolution No. 79-101; Easement granted in Aspe w z Consolidated Sanitation District recorded May 24, 1988 in Book 564, at Page nn A 777; Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subje t En F" also known as street and number roperty recorded September 12, 1979 in Plat Book 8 at Page 39. H0 TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging,or in anywise apper- taining, and the reversion and reversions,remainder and remainders,rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate,right,title,interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the said party of the first part,either in law or equity,of, t in and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described,with the appurtenances,unto the said t o party of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever. And the said party of the first part, for himself, his heirs, executors,and administrators,does covenant,grant,bargain,and agree to and with the said party of the second part, \�J his heirs and assigns,that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents,he is well seized of the premises above conveyed,as of good,sure,perfect,absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance,in law,in fee simple,and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind or nature soever. l 1995 Real Property taxes payable in 1996 378418 B•-772 P--573. 01/26/95 12:31P. PG 1 OF 2 REG DOC SIL.VIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLE=RK & RECORDER 10. 00 0. 00 and the aboved bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the said party of the first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. The singular number shall include the plural,the plural the singular,and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said party of the first part has hereu"set his hand and steal the day and year first above written. C/ — Ella V. Skufca [SEAL]_ ------- [SEAL) STATE OF COLORADO ss. County of Me-56L The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19 q�,by Ella V. My commission it N gRfO —�v 19"l�.Witness my hand and official seal. ft G w fiNotary Public.. No.932A. WARRANTY ogra c Record.—Bradford Publishing Co.,1824-46 Stout Sheet,Denver,Colorado(573-501.1)-8-77 04040 378030 8-771 P-7, 01/12/95 03:33P PIG 2 Ul EXHIBIT A LOTS 13 AND 14 AS SHOWN ON THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLAT FOR SEPARATION OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 12, 1979 IN PLAT BOOK 8 AT PAGE 39 . TOGETHER WITH THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED JULY 29, 1983 IN BOOK 449 AT PAGE 391. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED JULY 29, 1983 IN BOOK 449 AT PAGE 390 . AND LOTS 15 AND 16 AS SHOWN ON THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLAT FOR SEPARATION OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 12, 1979 IN PLAT BOOK 8 AT PAGE 39 . COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 3*78418 B-772 P-571A 01/26/95 12:31F' PIG 2 OF NTI SCHEDULE A-OWNER' S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT-9432C3 01/12/95 @ 3:33 P.M. $ 654,750.00 0176-712247 1. NAME OF INSURED: HENRY J. PEDERSEN AND DOREMUS & COMPANY PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND HOLSTEIN INVESTMENT CORPORATION, A COLORADO CORPORATION, EACH AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 INTEREST 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: HENRY J. PEDERSEN AND DOREMUS & COMPANY PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND HOLSTEIN INVESTMENT CORPORATION, A COLORADO CORPORATION, EACH AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 INTEREST 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS 13 AND 14 AS SHOWN ON THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLAT FOR SEPARATION OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 12, 1979 IN PLAT BOOK 8 AT PAGE 39 . TOGETHER WITH THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED JULY 29, 1983 IN BOOK 449 AT PAGE 391. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED JULY 29, 1983 IN BOOK 449 AT PAGE 390 . AND LOTS 15 AND 16 AS SHOWN ON THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLAT FOR SEPARATION OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 12, 1979 IN PLAT BOOK 8 AT PAGE 39 . COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-1766 THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. SCHEDULE B-OWNERS CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER PCT-9432C3 01/12/95 @ 3 :33 P.M. 0176-712247 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, enchroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or , hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Water rights, claims or title to water. 6 . Taxes for the year 1995 not yet due or payable. 7 . Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded December 23, 1902 in Book 55 at Page 116 . 8 . Mineral reservation as set forth in Deed recorded in Book 280 at Page 665 . 9 . Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners recorded August 31, 1979 in Book 375 at Page 159 as Resolution No. 79-101 . 10 . Easement granted to Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District recorded May 24, 1988 in Book 564 at Page 777 . 11. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded September 12, 1979 in Plat Book 8 at Page 39 . 12 . Deed of Trust from : Henry J. Pedersen, Doremus & Company Profit Sharing Plan, and Holstein Investment Corporation, a Colorado Corporation To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : Ella V. Skufca Original Amount : $385, 000 . 00 Dated : January 12, 1995 Recorded : January 12, 1995 in Book 771 at Page 717 Reception No. : 378031 EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED NONE ARE HEREBY OMITTED. City of Aspcn Pre-Application Conference Summary FA Z-13-% manner Date Prc,jcc t SMv� _ us 14 Applicants Repleselflative Representative's I'hune C!ZI VV71 Owner's Name 'I'yI>c of Application (^ Description of the In Kill velopntcnl bell requested IL The'applicant has heeu regcreslcd to respond to the following items and provide (lie following reports: Lnod Use Code Section Comments GOM M� t 'Y r Iteferrnl Agencies The review is: (I'&Z onl y) (CC o ,lq)((1'&'L and CC G►, _ Public Hearing: (yes (no) • Sl L _ �ti S • �� __ Deposit for the A pill icatiotr K view: 2100 • — Referral agency flat fee ' l651- u y (Additional hours areiiile at a rate of G3%Trr.) '1'o Apply Submit file follmOlIg hrformnli;rn: I. Proof of ownership. 2. Signed fec al!re:cmcnl. 3. Applicanl's name, address ;wd telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which also stales the name, address and Me shone number of the representative. 4. 'total deposit for review of the application 5. ZO copies of the cumplele application packet and Wraps. G. Siiitiirtary letter explaining the request (existing conditions and proposed uses), including slice( address mid legal description of the property. 7. An 8 112" by I I" vicinity Wrap loc:aling the parcel within the City of Aspen. B. Site plan shall include properly boundarics, lot size, proposed access, and physical features (drainageways, slrcams, rivers, etc.) 9. These items need to be submitted if circled: a. List of adiacenl property owners within :300 feet of the subject property with addresses. b. Site photo s. C. Proof of legal access Io the parcel. d. IIistoric Preservation Commission review/approval. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD/REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen,to consider an application submitted by Theodore K. Guy,requesting approval for rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development(AH1/PUD). The proposed development will consist of a total of fifteen deed-restricted affordable housing units. The property is located at 810 South Avenue, and is described as Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16,Block 3,Williams Addition to the City of Aspen. For further information, contact Dave Michaelson at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen, CO (970) 920-5100. s/Sara Garton. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 30, 1996 City of Aspen Account ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX(970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Parks Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Aspen Fire Marshal Streets FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing PUD/Rezoning Parcel ID No. 2737-073-00-027 DATE: March 25, 1996 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by John Doremus. Please return your comments to me no later than April 5, 1996. Thank you. ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 FAX#(970) 920-5439 March 25, 1996 Re: Smuggler Affordable Housing PUD/Rezoning Case A18-96 Dear Mr. Guy, The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for Advisory Review on April 2, 1996 and then for review by by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, April 16, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Community Development Department. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case, Suzanne Wolff, at 920- 5093. Sincerely, l Rhonda L. Harris Administrative Assistant apz.ph ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 FAX (970)920-5439 March 21, 1996 Ted Guy Guy Associates Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing Rezoning Case#A 18-96 Dear Ted, The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is incomplete, and will not schedule the application until we receive the following information. 1. Please respond in writing to the following sections of the Aspen Municipal Code: • Section 26.84.030(B), PUD Review Standards • Section 26.84.030(C)(1), Conceptual Development Plan, including a statement regarding provision of utilities. • Section 26.92.020, Rezoning Review Standards 2. I have attached a copy of Ordinance 30, 1995, regarding the Residential Design Standards. Staff has noted the following issues: • The entrances to the structures are not oriented to the street; • The street-facing windows are not those of a living room, dining room or family room; • The structures do not have any one-story street facing elements; • The structures do not meet the inflection requirement. Please address the design standards. The Planning Commission may grant variances to the standards as part of the Final Development review,but will also consider the design standards during the Conceptual review. 3. Please complete and return the enclosed Agreement to Pay form. 4. Please specify which units are Category 2. Also, the application proposes 14 one-bedroom units; however, three of these units appear to be studios. Is this correct? 5. We will be processing this application as a four-step review, which required Conceptual and Final review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If you have any questions,please call me at 920-5093. Thank you. Sincerely, Suzanne L. Wolff Q it � Y f 41.- .�,,, ,• t' k I• 11 I,1 ty r� a A . t .'JT TT'' • br�:: f•f.r� F asE tb - �� i 1 +dEi'1•' w 601 .=�• .JG. I dr i I S I ■ • I . r . FIGURE GROUND 5MU66LER AFFORDABLE HORTH i SING 810 SOUTH AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO -F-AM MEMBERS: ARCH ITECT/ENGINMR: SURVEYOR: 501L5: MECHANICAL: SOLAR: DEVELOPER REPREWNTATNE: 1 NOLIRFS SHOULD BE DIRECTED THROUGH THE ARGHREGT THEODORE K.BUY ASBOC4 706 79260 rin R�6 ROAD LOIAS H.d1ET7NER TO BE DETERMINED TO BE DETERMINED TO BE DETERMINED BASALT,W.616]1 0040 HEST SOP"CREEK ROAD DAVID 6UTHERE BASALT,C.O.61621 P.O.EX 4704 ASPEN,CO.81612 (470H]1-5167 (MOM27-9611 MOM25-5531 d tL is n s -___ _ a 95 OL v� RE ✓mil i / TT G49 p p ryh m.t ury1(Dy ryr m�j ___. 2 F w 0 zJ p p r ® _ lu tu Y z pp p g g � k T� u `a<d �� • mmm® mmm 306 �� 5��$ ��E d� Ja aJ V st. RKag , oY a iFapd **�• I �a$FF ° n~ sir$ 000 3 b JJ z 000 LlaLa iflfi s4t:uE F����rHFF >�> iirf�� Vl z O SECTION 7, TOWMNIP 10 SOUTH, AA NGE N WEST OF THE Six"" ►RINCI►4L MERIO14M LOTS 15 , 16 & PART 0 F LOTS 13 , 14 BLOCK 3 WILLIAMS ADDITION l BID SOUTH AVE. SCALE 1'•10• • • 10 to >{ 4o so ' FOUND PLASTIC CAP PROPERTY MONUMENT YARNED, ALPINE 9184 j FOUND PLASTIC CAP PROPERTY MONUMENT MARKED, CITY Of ASPEN 13166 ' ___j - LOT 17 `1 389.20.003E 12S.00.OII 1224.97 ) \ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION NOTES FENCE A PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AMO OF THE 1.THE ■1319 Of `\ BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY WAS THE RECORDED BEARING OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH 99.20'00'EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY BOUNDARY, SOUTH, AND 81 WEST Of THE 61A ►R INC IAL ME RI CIAN, KNOwy AS LOTS IS, FOUND ALPINE(919 11 PLASTIC C•P PROPERTY MONUMENTS AT THE METWEL M 11, IS, •MO 1{, BLOCK S, WILLIAMS ADDITION; ANO D RTNEAST CORNERS OF LOT 16, BLOCK 3,MONUMENTS ADDIT IOM, ORTHW>EST \ 1l •Mp AM ADJICEMT TRACT Of LAND SITUATED IM THE ...TN.ESF QUARTER OF THE 2.THE BEARING! AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON WITH (RI ARE RECORD, \ I SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7, BEING BOUNDED ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY THOSE WITH (F) ARE YE A9URED BETWEEN THE FOUND YONUYEMTITIOM. 110E BY AN EXISTIMQ FEy CE ANO BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: C I BEGINNING AT A ►N:T OM THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF 3.UTILITY LOCATION(SERVISES) OTHER THAN THOSE SNOW. ARE UNKNOWN T. on \ LOT 1{ I THE SOUTHEAST QUA MTER wMEMCE THE CENTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION T SURVEYOR. •EARS N 01.02'42'! 1193.e1 FEET; 1. THIS PROPERTY 13 LOCATED ON THE PITKIy COUNTY, COLORADO AM THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 173.06 AREAS,NAT IONA 0 INCORPOQA TEO l FLOOD INSURANCE /ROOgAM, FL000 INSURANCE RATE yA,s ROCKS \ I •pO�' FEET A DISTANCE Of 26.14 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH CURVE BEARS COYYUMIT7-PANEL NUMBER N f2.37']9'[ 26.14 FEET TO • POINT ON SAID FENCE LIME; 08017 C 0204 C, DATED JUNE 4,1987. THIS • THENCE 327.21'46', IS.if FEET •LONQ SAID fEM CE LINE; PROPERTY I] WITHIN THE ZONE i', OR IN THE AREA OUTSIDE THE 300 ° THENCE l33•10'71'W 16.95 FEET ALONG SA"D fEMCE LIME; YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. TM INGE 16N 22'43'. 10•{7 FEET ALONG SAID FENCE LINE TO A POI MT ON THE 3.SURVEYOR RELIED ON THE TITLE COMMITMENT FROM PITrIN COUNTY TITLE,\ ' WEST LIME O► SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; (NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE Of MEW YORK INC.) CASE MIN 0. COUN LE,I C_ 750[0 SO.FT. THENCE M01•0142'E 17.95 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID N INFORMATION ABOUT EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY ON THIS,PROPERTY_ \ OU..TEN OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.ORTNWElT \ � W 6 THE CITY OF ASPEN PL♦MMIMO DEPT., ON OCTOBER 20, 1994 ADVISED TOGETHER NITX A PARCEL Of LAND SITUATED IN THE RDTHEAST QUARTER OF SURVEYOR THIS PROPERTY WAS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN, ZpyJE THE lOUTXW[ST QUARTER Of SECTION 7, TOW MIXIP r0 SOYTN, RANG! 1/ WEST OF DISTRICT 'R-i. THIS ZONE SETS FORTH THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM a111L�.�.G SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR Pit MCIPAL BUILDING. THE 119 ►,M„ III COUNTY WMEM C[ • 195♦ BRASS CAP FORMERLY MARK EO 41 TH[ C[NT[R Of SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE FRONT AND REAR YARDS] TOTAL 30 FEET O' \ ftA P.Y. MOW MARKED S.►.M, AMD D•TEO 1978 BEARS M01.02.41.E 1202.38 SIDE YARDS f: p 00 \ ` 3.it N FEET; THENCE 555.43.56-W 111.!8 FEET; LOT WIDTH 3 FEET LOT SIZE 60 FEET �_ s 0 • C o^ TMCMCC 11.4{ f[Ei •LONG Ty[ ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING • 9000 S0.FT. THEME AR[ CONDITIONS IN THE CODE THAT Y17 CNAM LOT Is :h RADIUS OF 417.06 FEET TMf CHORD WHICH BEAR! Y 57.Of'47'( 54,42 FEET INFORMATION. CE THE Af 0VE f ` f THENCE !01.02'12', 6.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ION. 9EFOR[ ANY DESIGN WORK THE ZONING REQUIRE YE MT G 0 [i C[ITiMG FROM THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY • •SHOULD BE CHECKED WITH THE CITY OF ASIEM, PLANNING DEPT. IN THE 0 THW[ST OU•RT[R Of THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER CEAt ' 7. THE RECORD PROPERTY 90UMDARV OESCIPTION FOR THIS PROPERTY QUARTEIt OF THE S The EST QUA CALCULATES AN AREA OF 13443.0420 SQ.FT. YORE OR LESS_ N RANGE •4 WEST 0► THE {11 P.Y., PITKIy ARE• LOTS LOTS 13 AND t _ COUNTY W. I TSOO SO.FT, MORE OR MORE J - ♦F34 , /ORYERLT MARKED A7 THE C[yTER Of SECTION 7, T AA EA PARTIAL LOTS 13 AND 14 3963.0420 SQ.FT. YORE OR LESS. • a B/WEST Of TM[ {19 ►,Y, YOW MARIAED 1.P.Y. AMO 0 THIS PROPERTY WAS APPROVED FOR A LOT !► •_ LIT IN 1979 BEFORE ANNEXATIQ- ♦.4 ii Y00.OB'S2'E IIf2.M ►E ETJ TN►Mfr 133"40•!4'• ta.Va , -________io_____-_._ TO THE CITY OF ASPEN. THE PRO►E RTT DIVISION WAS APPROVED ALOMO TKE THENCE S{4• BOU MOART BETWEEN LOTS 14 AMC IS A! SHOWN ON DOCUMENTS RECORDED Im n s I T _w THENCE N OI.02'42'E It 96 FEET; - - PLAT BOOK 0 AT PAGE 39 AND BOOK 775 AT PACE 159. I t I ) FENCE JJ ;; THENCE M{2•/0'44' Y e{0..n ( `` :;- 0f E 21.22 fClT TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE PARCEL! COULD BE: J •• 1 1 t"� 0' THE NORTHERLY PARCEL: 1 f f 1 ) 1 ` Y, LOTS IS AND 14 AS SHOWN ON THE'SPECIAL REVIEW PLAT FOR SEPARATION r 1 1 �� \ M'1 wo �n�nT Of SUBSTANDARD LOTS'AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOON D 1T PAGE ]f, IITrI� J d rii�i I 1 HOUSEY I 'O"t" I \ 1ir+o"�1 COUNTY, COLORADO. CONTAINING 7500 SQ.FT. MORE OR LESS. 1 I LOT 14 Jf THE SOUTMENLY PARCEL: - LOTS 13 AND 14 AS SHOWN ON THE'SPECIAL REVIEW SLIT FOR SEPARATION ) !O W 1 - Of SUBSTANDARD LOTS'AS RECORDED IM PLAT BOOK f AT PAGE 7D, PITKIs c c f� I �/ ///'''��� +4.e ►'� 1 NOTE:AN comours indicated Ara denied from the Cooper aerial photo - COUNTY. COLORADO. ° .t 1 ' \►oc. l tit• !- .tea _ map5 and Are not to be aleoaah d in any way with LOUIS Buettner. v y •°y TOGETHER WITH THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED.ON THE"DOCUMENT RECORDED IM BOOK 119 AT PAGE 311, 11 KIM COUNTY, COLORADO. NOTE:AN topography o between 0%and 205:Slope. 1 h EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED ON THE DOCUMENT RECO<=ED 1 39{3.012050�T. e ` y SURVEYOR'! CERTIFICATE IN BOOK 449.AT PAGE 390, PITKIy COUNTY, COLOR100. . 1 CONTAINING 1, LOUIS M. 1U ETTN ER, A REGISTERED � 59 65.0420 S0.FT. MORE OR LESS. Z\ -\ \ LAND SURVEYOR IN TXE STATE OF COLORADO, \ W I '•"t I - I .0 4\�,0\F % 00 HEREBY CONFIRM THAT THIS SURVEY PLAT WAS MADE FROM FIELD NOTES OF w - -•_J ` �t •..f, ,L\. / \ SURVEY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY MADE Br MYSELF, OR UNDER Yr C r v" �% \ DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY, SUPERVISION, AND CHECKING. THE MONUMENTATION \ ` S6y° A62 Ruct / SNO WX HEREON FOR THE PRO►Efl TY CORNERS WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY. O \ 165 / - ALL DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS SHOWN HEREON ARE CORRECT TO THE BEST O! ' •� i OF Mr KNOWLEDGE. 00 LOT I! Yv V I FURTHER CONFIRM THAT THIS SURVEY WAS COMMISSIONED FOR HENRY PEDERSEN, \ 11 •"Rue[ JOHN DOREMUS, AND THE PITKIy COUNTY TITLE, INC. \ 1 � A9 9��\\ L� �OJ,3613Ty T A'! r LOUIS/. BYETTMER LS 13166 I- I FENCC S6'•.]`ofi 'S7 DATE f 6^ NOW-20'00"W 47.23'(R) b� 4 M 82.20'37"W 47.30'(FI S �' Sv-YC�•_',.: \ eo•eR.n / � sv bFR '�e t ` COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER ' cvP1 .+• ov •�� '1 "I _ •A3 Y' \ DEPOSITED THIS 9 DAY OFfC� ,ti9�AT i=l'Y, IN BOOK-5-0 ST 1 •t OF TXE PITKIy COUATY LAND SURVEY PLATS/RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEYS AT FACE A! 1. \ RECEPTION HUMBER 50000 SOUTH � ' URVE DATA \ RECORD A•8.36',R•433:00. I CHORD FIELD A� 45',A•433.06',Lo.G CHORD 19]']5'25•w,8.45' COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER .�1 J z U I >LL U-O Z t(1 L m ldi A,A,4. . , . tjl<= s U / Q 1332LLS �7fTZJdS O z rrasN3lx2 +Mgals to�Oti�C� a- I I 1 I � ' -- -- - - - z As - --- - I I �I O N o m --� � _� • TIM '� Q OL�mp CL lu i �n • i I l � � uqg �Y� J 17a. J OL tn -- 1 -------------- g i L � L UIL IL j �, i/ II II II rQ I I \ A q j LIU d OF pa -------1 --- 4-------- ------ ----------- ------ --h R• I IL I I I F I [-- - ------ ----- -- --------- --- I --- - I - ...... -- -- -I - - I I I 1 I I IF L Rp di tit 8 �� i • �•p O n b a n g � � ii• t t � � � a ------------------------------------- VININC7 FOYER # BEDROOM THEODORE K GUY EiL BATH A550C-IATE5 PC o cg�R�l FOYF- ARCHITECT5 ANV "rig 20LXU 5TRUCTURAL EN61NEER5 PIS P.O.BOX 1640 LPVIN6 23260 wvw, IMF V 11"AISM-T(30�0�0 81627 PAX 0303)92l-4813 std range Mau ` DECK - LIVING L7 BEDROOM QL 511� L DECK 23— UPPER LEVEL PLAN •1/4"Z T-O" . . Q------------5TOIWI, At. v 5EVROOM Rerrlg 7 BEDROOM OATH f2olri!g ------ Foye 2&M --------------------------- .... r7ZI� i-4-4 fi�-------- ..... ............... 4-111D r/Z Krr. KIT. ----- --------------- FARKINQ7. ----- - ............. ............. °nom range SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE DINING HOUSING DININC7 A6FEN, COLORADO LPVIN6 LIVING Joe L------------------------------- ----- ORAY": SNE3 CHEOKW: PRINTED: PATIO SHEETTFLE BUILDING ONE UPPER LEVEL PLAN PARKING LEVEL PLAN A:2 . 1 •114"=T-O" X111 •1/4"=T-O" NORTM WF'YR614T THEODORE K GUY BUILDIN& ONE AEe"IATr=SflC, — _ _ _ ; '.��j , � I'11 IIII �:,�,I�I I f I'I III I I I 1-I ��, . I ll;,i�• _ IIII III I,I; . [pill, Ill, ■ I■ ■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■nllm `�' �■ � I I• I. :,I 1 II I li II ILI�I III i 'll II III!!III 11 IIII II Iil II IIII 1 111 i II �� ! i � Ih I! ( _ (i ( II I I III I) IIII IIII I tlllllll!I ICI II II II I I I( �II�I II Iii IIII: IJlill I 1 III li I f�lll IIII i I I I I I III I IIli III' it li iUl I:IIII IIII II I I.I I I nj ■ I - - �� _ I IIIIIIIII111111III 1I, - - - I I it III I II III►I I III = _ • it IIII I. II ! UI I, , 11 L:Ii VIII IIIIJIILIIIIIIVII IIIillllllilalllllJIIIIV IIIIIIIII IIII II.:,I,II I.� I. II I�, I.III.I,Illi(IIIVJ.II.�!L.IVIIIIIILIIIIIIIIII I,I IIL II III I IIIIIIIII �� .ILLII II I III I I,� I II ,I L �III L L . Ii l ,I I. ;I.(LI,: I I I I,II I,I, I' 'i J ii11 II•I,I... I' I !'.I, �i ..I III I;: I,,;I 1 i IIII I'll�', jell I I� n i I !I �. .IIIIIIiIllliillllllllllllllllll�ll,Illlililllllllilllilllllllil� IVIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!I'I ; III IIII�Iul,ll lll� _ I ;! 1 11!11111 �;L� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIII!I .- . . E I! . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . . ■ ■::i ■;i; Ilil II„ :II PEGK BEDROOM THEODORE K GUY A5500ATE5 PG LIVING \\ STRUCTURAL EN6INEER5 P.O.BOX 1640 23250 HNIY.82 PHONE 05) 316791621 FAX(BC3)927-4813 \ fiCQ 6upa range \ K 1 \� LIVING/DINING b q� UPPER LEVEL PLAN o 1/4'=1'-0" NO1`T" ------------ PATIO BEDROOM BEDROOM r LYING LIVING 26= BCMB85S 1 ' i-15-4 REZGNE FA IO — 8-23-?b REV.19E RE:ONE..- • BATH -. \ tOC'-0 BATH _ 4-11ib P.2... ....... A 1BEDROOM ... . ....... ... .. o p " © g ° BEDROOM ` 6`4 6 tinge rope jo-s SMUGGLER LIVING/DINING -- --- LIVING/DINING AFFORDABLE --- KIT oo'-o KIT HO�U15 NG --- ❑ COLORADO b u C )� BNB Q. LIVING/DINING CJ�I a�; LIVING/DMING PLANTED: _ ? SHEET TITLE: r--� FORCH BUILDING TWO PLANS -------------------------- I, 15-b� 6 le'v T GARDEN LEVEL PLAN MAIN LEVEL PLAN A:2 .5 ova t'-0" noierN r+olcrli o va°=r-0° COPYRIGHT BUILDING TWO TME°°°RF K GUY A550GATE5 PG \� e THEODORE K GUY \ A550GIATES PG ___________________________________ 11605 ___ _____—___ _ EN \\ ARCHITECTS AND -T 5TRUGlURAL GINEERS 116-0.5 ---_- -_ - P.O.BOX 1640 \72 BF6ALT,C.OLORPDO 8161 e e FAX(305)927-47613167 . . . . . . . . . . ow-0.5 . . . . . . . . . . a 1 ,Od-0 ❑ ❑ 12� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ -------- ----------- ------ -- - --- ------------ ----------� ----------- --- ---------- ------- - ------------------------. . ---- ----- -- 98 11.5 98-11.5 ----- a ---- T r -. r .- T El = ❑ o0 - -- T �J__________________________________________________________________________________L qp'-11.5 _____________________ - 90'-11.5 ___________ ________________________________-_______________________________� -- L_J L_J SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION �1 ,Z e ______ __----------_--------------------------------------------------__ _______ 1ffi'-09 ____ __•___S_•_•1_--L_'___1 _______________ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ -___ 7180. �\\ 9 REMARKS 3..... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . F= \ 4.7616. rJZ._..._...... .\ ..... ............... . . . . . . . . LLJ _________ 1 -0.9 - ___---____--____-____-_______ _______ 1 -0,5 ..... ..............- � is _ _ ________ _____________________________________________________________ _________ 06 lOd ❑ SMUOOLER �1 a , FFORDA�BLE HOU5INO ASPEN, COLORADO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ qd-714• 96-11.5 ,fig w 96109 DRaY'IV: B1.B :• •; a ,• i PRINTED: SHEFT TITLE: BUILDING TWO ELEVATIONS r----------------------------------------------------------1 r1 90'-17.5 ._ _______ ______ _______________________ 90'-11.5 L_J L_J L_J L_J L_J L_J L_J NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION A:2 .4 •1/4"=1'-0" ®1/4"=1'-0" 0 BUILDING T INQ COPYRIGHT THEODORE K GUY AEeOCAATES PG 17-6" THEODORE K GUY A5500ATE5 PG ARCHITECTS AND 5TRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ® i P.O.BOX HMK.y 5. 3780 X B� 5A5ALT,COLORADO 81671 PHONE(303)97T-3161 BATH =AX(303)97-1-4813 mov I 1 m II $EDROOM BEDROOM . - r•3• tra• UPPER LEVEL PLAN S'4 1S'E• 16'-6• ON 1 RNrig a =; I PYV iii , 1 I III DATE REMARKS _____ _______ __•_•__ KIT I �nl III 3.15-6 REZONE________ ATM I 3-25i!.6 REVSFD REZONE 1 "iSm 4I_q& PJZ........... 9Ld - I range 1 I 1 PATIO BEDROOM � I � ¢ 5M000LER LIVING LMNG AFFORDABLE HOU5ING ASPEN, COLORADO I I PORCH JOB+ A6103 I to-t I DRAYW; BNB GH `----------°-----------°------------ PRINTPJ7: 3•r•o- BUILDING FIVE PLANS AND ELEVATION5 GARDEN LEVEL PLAN MAIN LEVEL PLAN •1/4'=t'-0' NacrN s t/4'=t'-0' NQtTN A2 .5 BUILDING THREE THEODORE K GUY ASSOCATES PG THEODORE K&UY A550GIATE5 PG ------ to ------ ------ „ ------ ARGHITEGT5 AND ❑ ❑ ❑ STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ❑ P.O.BOX 1640 ❑ 23280 Hvi182 BA6ALr,G011RADO 81621 PHONE(303)427-�161 FAX(BOB)42T-1813 - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - __ _—-----3� Y T Y F-1 I E::1 LL---J1 Jim III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I L____________________________J I . ------------------- EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION O.1/4"=1'-0" 12 12 10 10 ----------------_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________________- {,+.Y�o}. r I i I .....❑ ❑ i1t6e,,�-O0�.55``�I'' _ ❑ 9gREZnNL ... ...b REN1'.hD' REZOI4: 4-?116 P/Z "-. _______________ --� ..-•- ---------------- - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - ----------�-Z , ❑ SMUGGLER ❑ AFFORDABLE EIL ❑ HOUSING A5PEN, ----- fla- - - COLORADO ------- --------------------- ------- ❑ - -10B$F: 4e105 ORAM�L BNB PRINTED: I I 1 I I I I I SHEET TIT LM ; I I BUILDING fIVG ELEVATIONS L_____ ----------------------------------------______J I T I L._________________________________________________ --- L-J L-J L-J L_J SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION �1 A:2 ,6 O 1/4"=1'-00 1/4 1'-0� BUILDING THREE IRTKGUY ASSOCdATES PG THEODORE K GUY A550GIATES PG ,a ARCHITECTS AND 5TRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O.BOX 1640 23280 HWY.82 BASALT,COLORADO 51621 PHONE(303)93'f-3161 r-------------------------------i .: FAX(303)921-0813 1 I I STOR. mi 1 I V I 1 ; I �jlg, © BEDROOM 1 I 1 I � I I ; STOR- I 1 I Q I PARKM6 STOR. I I�6 1 1 1 I � L " r----- I � DECK I I I LIVING I I STOR- 1 DECK _______________________________� _ r ---------------------- • 'i a I � of I , I 1 , I I I I I 4; p ns I I I c I LAUNDRY LIVING I ' - Q i PARKING Q :,�. � DATE RB•1ARK5 I 3-15% f�ZONE I i �25:9b 7iEY15Et7 AFJONF._ I 1 I I b DECK BEDROOM 5M0001 ER AFFORDABLE I I I f HOU5ING ------------------------------- AsF EN, COLORADO ,JOB s: 96109 DRANK: BNB CHECKED: PRINTED: SHEET TITLE: BUILDING THREE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS PARKING LEVEL PLAN UPPER LEVEL PLAN •1/4"•i'-0" HAeTH •1/4'=1'-0' NoRTN A:2 -1 BUILDING FOUR COPyRIGHT THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC z a � Iz \ THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PG - -------------------------------------- -- -------- ]4 ---- ------------------ - - 7� ARCHITECTS AND ❑ 5TRUGTU- ENGINEERS P . ■ ■ ■ ❑ .O.BOX 1640 40 2280 82 BASALT,COLORADO 81621 Li E:1 PHOt�=3)9273167 FAX(303)927-4813 1 4 ------ ______________ ---------- 8 —_______•_• .--------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- 95'S 5 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 11 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I JI ILL I I rJ1 1 1I IL I iI L_J L_J NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION = 1] 10 10 ❑ II_JI .. 26= RrF�ARKS F-1 I.I�uI�I 8 9-176 -RPSOr•IC___-.--. 3_2•i•44 R�VI'�D_R 4rT'ak Pl2 ------- ----- --------------- n-a I 0 0 5M000LER 1• AFFORDABLE �I HOUSING asP1=N, COLORAVO ._ -------------------------------------_____________ g5•s�,5 ,---------------_---_—_---_ • ----_ -------_—_--_--___—_—__—_-------__--_—-------_ I i I I ---------------- I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 •JOB#: 96103 I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I 11 I I 11 DRAWN: BFI ri 1 1 I 11 I I- i OaEGKiD: L_17 sHee-r nTLe: BUILDING THREE PLANS AND ELEVRl10N5 SOUTH ELEVATION /^` EAST ELEVATION O 1/4"=1'-0" / 1 O 1/4"= A:2 .5 BUILDIN& FOUR .. COPYWGHT THEODORE K GUY ASGOOATES PG SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AFFORDABLE HOUSING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CAH'I/PUD) MARCH 15, 1696 � � 1 �7. �;'. it �. �• �• �,_ � .� • ,/�%' ;cps �`�.� < �y=�.• �� `~`_rte�• 5s, �� t. +�\ THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO B 1 621 19701 927-3167 Table of Contents: Letter of Submittal 1 Minimum Submission Requirements: Letter of Consent from Applicant 2 Street Address and Legal Description 3 Certificate of Title (Warranty Deed) 4 Vicinity Map 5 Description of Development Application 6 Listing of Submittal Drawings 7 Dimensional and Off-Street Parking Requirements 8 Development Schedule Outline 9 Section 26.84.030 10-16 B. P.U.D. Review Standards Section 26.84.030 16-17 C. Procedure for Review Conceptual Development Plan Section 26.92.020 17-18 Rezoning Review Standards Exhibit 'C' - Listing of Category Units 19 TC-1 March 15, 1996 David Michaelson Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 S. Galena Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing 810 South Avenue Aspen, CO SUBJECT: Development Application Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1/PUD) Dear David: Herewith, please find the Development Application for the Planned Unit Development. The application also seeks an exemption from GQMS and an underlying zone district designation to Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD) zone. We have enclosed a check in the amount of $2,800.00 as total deposit for processing of the application. Please notify us of our scheduled hearing date. a Sincerely, uce Barth THEODORE: K GUY ASSOCIATES PC 96106 PS1 BB/jp 1 March 15, 1996 David Michaelson Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 S. Galena Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing 810 South Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 SUBJECT: Development Application - - - - Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1/PUD) Dear David: This letter is to inform you that I as the applicant, Theodore K. Guy, have authorized Theodore K. Guy Associates P.C. to act on my behalf in this development application. All questions regarding this application can be directed to: Theodore K. Guy Theodore K. Guy Associates P.C. P.O. Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 927-3167 *Sincereluy 2 STREET ADDRESS: 810 South Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 13 and 14, Block 3, Williams Addition to the City of Aspen, as shown on the special review plat for separation of Substandard Lots, Recorded September 12, 1979 in Plat Book 8 at Page 39. Together with that parcel described in deed recorded July 29, 1983 in Book 449 at Page 391. Less and Except that Parcel described in Deed Recorded July 29, 1983 in Book 449 at Page 390. AND Lots 15 and 16, Block 3, Williams Addition to the City of Aspen as shown on the special review plat for separation of substandard lots, recorded September 12, 1979 in Plat Book 8 at Page 39. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 3 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (WARRANTY DEED) See Exhibit B 4 VICINITY MAP Park a � � k QD sy� �► � �Q 4`\� � �eA�p'�' � pbM� ' INotmtsfn Pbw Di ego, in 5 blow tauty C o ) AW- sell - f pudituto bihl NutorC ; e a,B r T" F *in LT C musk � d 2 � 5 � 9� � Tsnl and k Cy . ii H�llmn 517E CfL-�kt Not an streets or roads "t ere shown on maps or In t_t / guides.Constructlon of Vine 6f streets and roads mey In progress In eertslnerees. Maroon Crtrok Rd � .y s ¢ Aspen n Mwle fa.... 2 3 M-t R..D.... �.sF Al C\.U..........p-1 ^ r Q Mvaw Ck Rd 0111.2 t Mlyr q hl•IChka Dr.............0-H-6 r of s S lid To pllmrou� As 61.ynown Cl.............:....H 7 ��r r Maroon Lake T d� Mrsklmmly Re........_Il i-1 has �pP �� .._......_ W d,.or............0-H-2 t a W A Dao11ak Clr,bc_. . H 2d Mr.&.,Rd...........F-0-3 Mal t ' \s1s F6 1► Dqr bc...._.._..... .B 1 1 Mldlrrd A ..6-y & F.. It Q' 9 Larkspur VX# Av._......__...... MITI SL ...0 1-! Rd in bc...._...... 17 11-1 SL. ....QH S r 21r Aerie CO.Pk ..........................H 67 •ffi_...._. .__ 0-1.6 MounW Vie Dr .....Jibl p6 Aj.A,. ..... .. .......... ..0.6 Red ln.......... ...: 467 Mm V I R Dr............._-12 Ahce........................... .l1.1 � 1{ed Sit—CL.. .061 Mm Od•R........................H2 ISIS'', Aln Yn•Dr..............................P2-] Oderu SL HJ Nnle Av.... ............. .........._..........N6 ;.. a,;.r Ardmore CI.Dr. .... ..111 : Ovmi•ee SL O 11-1-! Nidalu le.............................Q61 1 epn ve Aspen 31 .................. O RJ OiMoe A O-N S-6 NfgAlhrok Or ..................._.......E! I A p Aspen Alp,PI...... .........11.1 7 Oitben St .. ...:.... ..........HJ Nonh St...................._........_.........F-3 4 Rine R ...... B•mnud Pk C1............................0 3 011k"SL................................_F4 O•k le ........................... 0 6 Rivmide A•...._1........_...._.Hb i Bry 31-it........................................0.6 0—S L......._.............................H4 Ovilind$1.....................................H-16 Rlvmldc Dr........... ......_.._.161 B<nnea erth CL R.Rd............E-4! IIJWn S L................................OdJ Overlwk Dr..........._.:....................._B] Bled Birch Q.......................E-F-1) Hnentt ..............................0,11 2 FnIt Av,Ck.......................................H 6 Rowing Fod Rd.........___.�.JL/-1 a Bleder SO_.. o.................................E 4 Pearl 3L............................................F-4 It—Cl.............. all ..............................OJJ Nerrw ll i.....................D ,tiR ` E.Blrektt SL..........................0-H.}g � Hoiden _...........................a........0-7 Peck Rd................................_...........EJ S.M.R.............. D-E-6 Sash Ae..........Ob d Blur Mnnel T................................f1.7 Homo Dr.............................._E-2 Pihin Wy.......................................e-FJ S•tte C\..............�._....�......_..._._._E-I Spdng 3L..�,............._....:._.QH-1.6 r 4 Brown I.n.......................................0-6 j Hopkinq/Av.............................O-H-J-6 %akin Mau U..............................De2 S•Iv.tlw Cir......I......._..................E 2 Spras!S t........................................Q6 9- Bunny Ln..__......................_._..E-2.y HunteySSt........................................II S Pi—U.-...................................... 3 S•.Mill Cl.......i......_..............._AJ Summit SL..�................................HJ Y C. Cnek or...........................13 s:.-Hun Creek Rd........................E F 6 P.—PI•nt Rd............................P-O�1 Sn•me St........L......................O�N Ted CY.......................:....................0-6 C•nle Creek Rd.:...................0.1.1.1 Hy�en Ar...............................0 11-4.6 Pei—.P.111O ...............................H t Sh•do.and Dr......._._.............1-11.1 Tohy Ln.........................._.............II�7 Cenronni•I Cic..............................1 67 I 16•n 31..:.....................................11'4 1 p"L,Smith SI...............................0-S Study Ln...........J_.....................F-O-S T. .%..........._::._............E-F.1.2 1 82 CTnrieid Rd...................................E-2 /King 9t ........... Pynmle Rd...................................__F I Shun C1............_I...........................0 6 Twin Ride Dr............:.:..._.._.._.11-I Circuit Av....................................._.41 1—Cr.lr............................H-467 - Qunn S...........................................H-6 Sit—King Dr...{....:...._................E 2 Um A. .....................................t4 6 \_ ClevelandSO................................._H-6,Ld eAv.......................................F-O-1 R—Sl..............................................0.6 Slimming lw...._..........................111 Yne S1............................................0.6 Caeger Av...................................H-¢1 Wk,pm Ln....................................H-2 Red Bune Dr............._......._.....De27 Smupgltt SI......./...................P071 Wlnul SL......................................0.6 Connn«ad Cir.......................... k 1� Launl Ln........................................If 2 Red Mwmdn Rd....................D 0 3 6 Smupltt 0 ova Rd..............._.11-67 Worn Av.........................................t-6 4' \ pConnn«ad I a............ lone Rae Rd.............................QS-6 Red.Rd....................................D-El6 Smuggkr M—tin Rd.........&H66 West End SL....._.........................H-Ib � Cr)v.I Lake Rd.........:.................1.1 Lupine Dr.....................................Id 6 Rr2em SL...................................._N 61 S..k SL............. ..Hd Wntdc.Dr................................1 7 1 D•IC 31.......................... ...............11.6 Mngni(ica Rd..................................E/ Ridge%.Rd....................................E S 3i.dy Ln...........�..........._.........F-O-J Willoughby Wy........................E-F-77 To Twin Lakes, Dean 31..... ..............:...........11.3 Man St...................................O II 1-! RioOrude R............................O ft-3b M.Bunny Cy..........................E.) Wright Rd.......................................E-! Independence ass J&T--0-- Arlcroll II II II n i II pj ALnI\�IP.1'S n 5 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION The development application is requesting approval for-rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1/PUD). The proposed development will consist of a total of fifteen deed-restricted affordable housing units; one Category IV Two Bedroom, twelve CategorylV one-bedroom units and two Category II one-bedroom units without parking, contained in seven separate buildings. The application does not propose development of free market or Resident occupied units. The applicant is currently involved in discussions with the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority to identify final sales prices of these Category units. Detailed graphic description is included as a part of this application to illustrate how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 6 LISTING OF SUBMITTAL DRAWINGS Cover Sheet/Vicinity Map A1.0 Information Sheet Survey A1.1 Site/Landscape Plan A2.1 Building 1 Plans A2.2 Building 1 Elevations A2.3 Building 2 Plans A2.4 Building 2 Elevations A2.5 Building 3 Plans/Elevations A2.6 Building 4 Plans/Elevations A2.7 Building 5 Plans A2.8 Building 5 Elevations A2.9 Building 6 & 7 Plans/Elevations A2.10 Building 6 & 7 Elevations 7 DIMENSIONAL AND OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS 1) Minimum Lot Size 3,000 S.F./Actual Lot Size: 13,465 S.F. 2) Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling/Actual Lot Area Per Dwelling (1)Bedroom: 400 S.F (1)Bedroom: 897 S.F. (2)Bedroom: 800 S.F. (2)Bedroom: 1795 S.F. 3) Minimum Lot Width: 30 FT./Actual Lot Width 120 FT 4) Minimum Front Yard Setback/Actual Front Yard Setback Primary Building: 10 FT Primary Building: 10 FT ` Accessory Building: 15 FT Accessory Building: 15 FT 5) Minimum Side Yard Setback: 5 FT/Actual Sideyard Setback 5 FT T-r: 6) Minimum Rear Yard Setback/Actual Rear Yard Setback is Primary Building: 10 FT Primary Building: 10 FT Accessory Building: 5 FT Accessory Building: 5 FT 7) Maximum Height: 25 FT/Actual Height: 25 FT 8) Minimum Distance Between Buildings: 5 FT/Actual Distance Between Buildings: 6 FT Minimum r 9) Open Space Percent: By Special Review/Actual Percent of Open Space 44.5% 10) External F.A.R.: 1.1:1/Actual External F.A.R.: 0.84:1 11) No Internal floor Area Ratio Requirements 12) Off Street Parking Requirements: Least Of Either 1 Space/Bedroom or 2/Dwelling Unit Actual Off-Street Parking Provided: (17) Total Spaces - One Per Bedroom w/(5) Guest Spaces s 8 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE OUTLINE August 1, 1996 Begin Construction June 1, 1997 Complete Construction Proposed Public Facilities: The application proposes to construct the public sidewalk extension on Spruce Street and the common open space landscape as a part of the building phase. 9 B. SECTION 26.84.030 PUD REVIEW STANDARDS. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. 1. General Requirements a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development is currently zoned R-6; directly across the street from the Smuggler Trailer Park, zoned MHP/PUD, and is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed development is consistent with the character of the immediately surrounding area. c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The proposed development will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQs allotments are obtained by the applicant. The applicant is concurrently seeking approval for GMQS exemption for the proposed development. 2. Density a. General. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if: The applicant is concurrently seeking approval for rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AHI/PUD). (1). There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed development; All existing water and other utility services are in place and available to service the proposed development. (2). There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development; Existing roads are in place to service the proposed development. 10 (3) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of its slope, ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers; The site is suitable for the proposed development and not subject to extreme slopes, ground instability, mud flows, rock falls or avalanche dangers. (4) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff. The effects of the proposed development will not be detrimental to the natural watershed of the site. (5) The proposed development will have a deleterious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the city; or The proposed development will not have a deleterious effect on air quality of the surrounding area. (6) The design and location of any proposed structure, road driveway, or trail in the prosed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. The proposed development is compatible with the existing terrain and will not cause harmful disturbance to the natural features of the site. b. Reduction in density for slope consideration. (1) In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the underlying zone district; The existing site slope is less than 20 percent . (a). For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone districts. The applicant is concurrently seeking approval for rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R06) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1 1PUD). (b) For lands between twenty- one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district; N/A 11 (c) For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone district; and N/A (d) For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be allowed. N/A (2) Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit. See Item la above. (3) For parcels resting in more than one (1) underlying zone district, the density reduction calculation shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district. See Item la above. (4) Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Area. The lot area of the of the existing site is not reduced by lands dedicated to the City of Aspen for the public trail system however, it is reduced by a below surface sewer easement. 3. Land uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. The applicant is concurrently seeking approval for rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1/PUD). 4. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the Underlying zone district; provided that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; 5 FT./Actual Distance between buildings: 6 FT. b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); 25 FT./Actual Height: 25 FT. C. Minimum front yard; Primary Building. 10 FT/Accessory Building: 15 FT d. Minimum rear yard; Primary Building: 10 FT/Accessory Building: 5 FT. e. Minimum side yard; 5 FT 12 f. Minimum lot width; 30 FT./Actual 120 FT. g. Minimum lot area; (7) Bedroom: 400 S.F./Actual (1) Bedroom: 897 S.F. (2) Bedroom: 800 S.F./Actual (2) Bedroom. 1795 S. F. h. Trash access area; N/A i. Internal floor area ratio; and N/A j. Minimum percent open space. By Special Review/Actual Percent of Open Space 44.5% If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided the total area of all lots, when averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted shall be clearly indicated on the final development plan. 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations. a. The probable number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations. 72 cars b. The parking needs of an nonresidential uses. N/A C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. 1N/A d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile distinctive techniques in the proposed development. The site is currently on an active bus route. e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the city. The site is within a five minute walk to the Commercial Core and recreational facilities. Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the city shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change. 6. Open space.The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed planned unit development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space of the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed planned unit development (PUD) through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: a. It is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and Common open space has been provided and intended to be used for landscape purposes, refer to Sheet A1.1. 13 b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. The Common Open Space is accessible to all units. NOTE. A legal instrument insuring the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces together with a proportionate undivided interest in all common open space deeded in perpetuity to each dwelling unit within the PUD including deed restrictions against future development will be submitted as a part of the development application for final development plan. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. 7. Landscape plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. A landscape plan is included as a part of the graphic description of the application submittal, refer to Sheet A 1.1. 8. Architectural site plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the city. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. An Architectural Site plan as well as detailed floor plans and exterior building elevations are included as a part of the graphic description of the application submittal, refer to Sheets Al.I - A2.10. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glaze or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All site lighting shall be maximum 3'high walkway and landscape lighting. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encourage. The proposed development is designed to evoke the character of a small scale village of individual dwellings set in a pedestrian oriented common green space linked by walkways. 14 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Common public facilities with the exception of the landscape open space and the sidewalk extension on Spruce Street are not a part of the proposed development. The arrangement of buildings within the development will allow emergency vehicle access to all buildings from the street or the alley. 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. All dwelling units are linked to a public street by a system of walkways through the common open space. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the planned unit development (PUD) shall not be' connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. Auto traffic will access the proposed development from the existing alley. The development does not require new curb cuts to the existing public street. C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved sot that they will not be adversely affected. The proposed development is designed to utilize the existing vehicular alley access and will not adversely affect the surrounding road system. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. All buildings within the proposed development are a maximum 58'distance from the driveway area providing vehicular access to a public street via the existing alley. e. All nonresidential land uses within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. N/A f. Streets in the planned unit development may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances. N/A 15 The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this chapter and this title. C. 26.84.030 Conceptual Development Plan. Procedure for review. Prior to development as a planned unit development (PUD), an applicant shall receive approval for a conceptual development plan and then a final development plan pursuant to the procedures of this section and Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. 1. Conceptual development plan. a. Contents of application. The contents of a development application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following. (1) The general application information required in Common Procedures, Section 26.52.030; The general application information is provided in pages 1-9 of this submittal. (2) A conceptual description of the proposed planned unit development (PUD). This shall include but not be limited to a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the planned unit development and a conceptual description of proposed land uses, building heights and locations, landscaping, open space, natural features, and access ways; The development application is requesting approval for rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1 1PUD). The proposed development will consist of a total of fifteen deed-restricted affordable housing units; one Category IV two bedroom, twelve Category IV one bedroom units and two Category ll one bedroom units without parking, contained in seven separate buildings. The application does not propose development of free market or resident occupied units. The applicant is currently involved in discussions with the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority to identify final sales prices of these category units. Individual building heights will not exceed 25 FT and are arranged to evoke the character of a small scale village of individual dwellings set in a pedestrian oriented common green space linked by walkways. (3) A statement conceptually outlining how the proposed PUD development will be served with the appropriate public facilities, and how assurance will be made that those public facilities are available to serve the proposed development; and Common public facilities with the exception of the landscape open space and the sidewalk extension on Spruce Street are not a part of the proposed development. The common landscape open space is accessible to all units. A legal instrument insuring the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces 16 s together with a proportionate individual interest in all common open space deeded in perpetuity to each dwelling unit within the PUD including deed restrictions against future development will be submitted as a part of the development application for final development plan. (4) A conceptual site plan, illustrating: (a) Existing natural and manmade features. Refer to Sheet A 1.1 (b) General configuration of proposed land uses, access ways, and existing and proposed utilities. Refer to Sheet A 1.1 (c) A general landscaping plan and elevations or other architectural renderings of the proposed improvements, which at a conceptual level, depict general site design features, building mass and height, and relation to natural features of the site. Refer to Sheets A 1.1 -A2.10 b. Effect of approval of conceptual development plan. A development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless an extension is granted by the city council, failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan. The applicant will submit a development application for a final development plan once approval for a conceptual development plan is granted. Z6.9Z.020. REZONING REVIEW STANDARDS. STANDARD OF REVIEW A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. The proposed amendment for rezoning of the property for the development is not in conflict with the applicable portions of this title. B. Whether the prosed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment for rezoning of the property for the development is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. The proposed development site is currently zoned R-6; directly across the street from the Smuggler Trailer Park and is consistent with the character of the immediately surrounding area. 17 s w D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. The proposed development is designed to utilize the exiting vehicular alley access, does not propose new curb cuts to the existing public street and will not adversely affect the surrounding road system. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the prosed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. The proposed development will not exceed the capacity of the existing public facilities including those identified above. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site located within an existing subdivision, is suitable for the proposed development and, will not, as a result of its implementation significantly adversely impact the natural environment. G.. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. The proposed development is consistent and compatible with the "historic"small scale, wood frame dwellings typical of the community character in the City of Aspen. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. The rezoning of the adjacent Smuggler Trailer Park to MHP/PUD and the City's goal to house 60% of its work force within the city limits supports the proposed amendment for rezoning of the subject property. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. (Code 1971, 7- 1102). The proposed development is not in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Regulations. 18 s EXHIBIT 'C' - LISTING OF CATEGORY UNITS Memorandum TO Community Development Department FROM Bruce Barth, THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC, DATE March 22, 1996 RE Affordable Housing - - - The following and attached information is a response to the concerns expressed in your letter dated March 21, 1996, sent upon completion of your preliminary review. The layout of the units by category is as follows: Building 1: Unit la - 1-bedroom, Category 2 Unit 1 b - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Unit 1 c - 1-bedroom(loft), Category 4 Unit 1 d - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Building 2: Unit 2a - 1-bedroom, Category 2 Unit 2b - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Unit 2c - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Building 3: Unit 3a - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Unit 3b - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Building 4: Unit 4a - 2-bedroom, Category 4 Building 5: Unit 5a - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Unit 5b - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Unit 5c - 1-bedroom, Category 4. Building 6: Unit 6a - 1-bedroom(loft), Category 4 Building 7: Unit 7a - 1-bedroom(loft), Category 4 - - - - Please see the attached information as it pertains to other issues. BNB/bnb 96106 M3 19