Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Smuggler AH.A18-96f� I g . C% _ Smuggler Affordable Housing rezoning _ 810 S. Ave. 96 - 2737-073-00-052-053 rn o I N rl pd Me 71 �.j O M x ZI Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 City Land Use Application Fees 00113-63850-041 Deposit -63855-042 Flat Fee -63860-043 HPC -63885-268 Public Right-of-Way -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit - MR011 Use Tax County Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63800-033 Deposit -63805-034 Flat Fee -63820-037 Zoning -63825-038 Board of Adjustment Referral Fees: 00113-63810-035 County Engineer 00115-63340-163 City Engineer 00123-63340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health 00113-63815-036 County Clerk Sales: 00113-63830-039 County Code -69000-145 Copy Fees Other Name: k G L, ; , Address: 1�)6 Phone y Total Q ROD . C)c) �'rr Da�� ` 5/�! Check: �� Project: -- Case No: _ �— No. of Copies{_ CASIWAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY OJSPEN DATE RECEIVED: 3/15/96 CASE # A 18-96 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Dave Michaelson PARCEL ID # 2737-073-00->.4 O S Z o s3 PROJECT NAME: Smuggler Affordable Housing Rezoning Project Address: 810 South Avenue, Aspen, CO APPLICANT: Doremus, Johnpaid $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 7-3/h7 FEES: PLANNING $-2+60 S,6 - o O # APPS RECEIVED 20 ENGINEER $105 # PLATS RECEIVED 20 HOUSING $65 ENV HEALTH $& 6 S TYPE OF APPLICATION: TOTAL $22W4a800 Two Step ❑ City Attorney N City Engineer ❑ Zoning ® Housing ❑ Environmental Health ® Parks DATE REFERRED:(o (o APPROVAL CLOSED/FILED ROUTE TO: t\k- w I_t--- 6-0 Aspen Fire Marshal JJ City Water ❑ City Electric ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Open Space Board Di1 Other: 5 V, -e � INITIALS: V44 Ordinance/Resolution # Staff Approval Plat Recorded: DATE: 31 z.s, INITIALS: ❑ CDOT ✓,5 ACSD ❑ Holy Cross Electric ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas ❑ Aspen School District ❑ Other: DATE DUE: Date: Date: Book Page THEODORE K GUWSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND ST URAL ENGINEERS L4 May 16, 1996 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 K. Guy, AIA, PE, President THEODORE K. GUY ASSOCIATES PC 96106 L7 23280 TWO RIVERS ROAD P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 [9701 927-3167 • • TO John Bennett From: Dave Tolen Postmark: May 16,96 10:45 Status: Previously read Subject: Smuggler Affordable MESSAGE DISPLAY cc Suzanne Wolff AM 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. TO: THRU: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen City Council Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Development Directd- Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director Suzanne Wolff, Planner Smuggler Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Review and Rezoning, Resolution No. - Public Hearing 13 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: Allowable FAR in the AH1/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 AH1/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. Husin: 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. Staffs 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. 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 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: Buildings 2 4 -' 14 0 Bedrooms 14 (including 2 ADU) Parking Spaces 8 14 +6 (minimum required) Proposed Floor Area * 7,080 s.f. 6,732 s.f. _T -348 s.f. (not including exempt s.f.) (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) • 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. Ie proposed height of the structures complies with the 25' height requirement in the R-6 zone dis ict 4- 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. S. 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. 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. IL 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. Purpose of AH1/PUD 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: 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. 3 • 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 W PM Peak Hr3 # of Units Trip Factor Total Trios Enter Exit Enter Exit 13 4.0 52 4 12 14 8 ` 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 staffs 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. RECOMMMNDATION: Staff supports approval of the rezoning and the Conceptual PUD plan based on the project's consistency with the intent of the AH1/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: 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: A trip generation report prepared by a traffic/transportation engineer registered to practice in Colorado shall be provided with the Final PUD application. Will -serve letters from utilities shall be provided with the Final PUD application. 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. 0 • • 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 AH1/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 findings 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 Sciunid, Deputy City Clerk Sara Garton, Chair PPP, 10 ' J6 10: J6=;M P.? EXHIBIT C TO: Suzanne Wolff, Ccmtnun=ty Development Dept. IRM Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: April 10, 1996 Hg: SMUGG ZR AFFORDABLE HCUSING PUS/REZCNING ISSUR The applicant is proposing to rezone from Medium Density Residertia= (R--6} to Affordabla :lousing/Planned Unit De��e'_opment Ali"/PTJD) , which will cons_3t of a total fifteer. deed restricted affordable housing -- one Categonj 4 : roc ,vo-beflm, 12 C3Lego'1 4 ore-bedroo a, and 2 Category 2 cne-bedrecm units. RXC Nnn=: The F?cus-nq Bcard has net ,vita the applicants tKica wit; regards to this project. The secor;d meeting, Apr-= 3, �996, the Board Beard commant3 from the ap-liCa�=3 with regard tc the'z meet:ag wits Manning and Zon=ag. No fcr-al act-cn was taken by the 3oard, but t o Board d:d =ee1 that this was a gocd locat_on fcr an AF. project. Some of the Bcard members felt comfortable with the density and score `eir- :.t was too dense. Tr.e Heus_:z5 Board reqr:ested the a_ plicants meet with t.,Ie neigiIbcrs and see i- they wcu_d be accentabla to any t,]me cf Aci project in that location. At th; s time, a formal recc-mendation carnct he mace _n conjunction Wick the density cf the project as score members felt the density was f-ze but others felt it =ld be less dense, but the Bcard did li{e the idea of an AH Project in 'his=ocaticn. The applicants are meeting wife Dave Tclen and a couple of the Mousing Bcard mem]oers �o discuss t.14 3 prcj ec - further. . APR. 3 '% 4:34PM • • P. 1 Memorandum TO: Sursutne Wolff, Community DevelcImtent FROM: Rehecca Aaker, Parks Department DATE: April 8, 1996 RE: Smuggler -Affordable Housing CC: Rocs Soderstrom, Engineering De}mmnent We have reviewed the application for chc Smuggler affordable Housing Project and offer the following comments. T're 31deNvalk extension is the responsibility of the property dcvclepment and becomes their responsibility for mainteaancc. including Snow removal in the winTo;. The City w711 no longer perform snow removal for any portion of the sidcwaik that abuts this property. the sitellandscape plan shows two spruce trees close to the sidew-all: extension. Both of these trees ahouid be planted a minimum of l cct from the edge of the sidcwvaLk to allow for tree growth. Additionrlly, the two cuing spruce truss shown along the sidewalk matt' need to be pruned 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 shouid be planted 15 :cot away from both buildings and sidewalks to ulow for growth .- .-. ✓aspen �nsol c�afeo�cSanifafion �l�f 565 North Mill Street Aspcn, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly • Chairman Albert Bishop Treat. Louis Popish • Secy. April 4. 1996 Suzanne Wolff Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Y LOP NT � Re: smuggler Affordable Housing PUD Rezoning Dear Suzanne: h ichad Kelly Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has suf:i_fent capacity to serve this proposed development. There is a minor downstream line constraint that will be rehabili_atad thrcush prorated additional fees. Service for.the development will be con.ingent upon compliance with District rules. reguia=ions, and specifications which are an fiie at the District af:.:::e. The :esi;n ar the on -si.e connection system wii1 be required to be acoroved by our line superintendent prior to cons :ruction. we w i i i need tc review more detailed plans as they become avaiiable. we h�a•:e met with a representative of the applicant to otter our preiiminary fee estimates and comment on possible connection scenarios. Fiease caii if you need- additional information. 5incereiy. 'truce yatherly District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1986 • 1990 Regional and National • C7 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. E • MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer_"„ From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer Date: April 17, 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: I. 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. 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 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. 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. • • 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: M96.133 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. 3 EXH IIST D L H. SCOTT & CLEARY. INC. IONSPORTATION PLANNING & TR-kFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 1889 York Street Denver. CO 80206 (303) 333- I105 FAX (303) 333-1107 June 2, 1994 ,Ira. C'suck Roth. P.E. City of Aspen Engineering Department 130 South Galena Stre-.t Aspen, CO 31611 Re: Williams Ranch —ai :c (L.SC #940340) Dear Mr. Roth: in accordance with our viarch 31, 1994 procosal, we have ccmpieted a ,:acc impact analysis of :he -prcucsed Williams Ranch residennal project in Aspen. Colorado. =i_Tire 1, enclosed. illustrates the location of the 7-ace proiec: site. In general, the site is located within the northeast cornet of :he City with acczss cianned to ane f:cm Park Circle via Smugoier Mountain Road. Brown Lane and Soruce Street. The project's land usd plan envisions a total of 54 homes including 18 singie-family homes. _0 dupie:, homes and 16 'tee mar. --.et" lots. For :;ur;;oses of :his analysis, the "free mar es' lots have been assurned to be develored withsingie- amii-r homes. The remainder of this report presents our findings and recommendations related :o the -probable trail:c impacs associated with buildout of the proposed deveiopment. E.xisitr'c I ransccr'attcn Fadlitles and ! -�=--c ae .ransrortation system which would serve the Williams Ranch site is primariiv charac:e . ed by the somewhat dendinC rcadiway network{ which generally conforms to the biilside topography of the surrounding area. Road- ways in the vicinity of the site are generally pave two-lane routes with 20 or 25 mph posted speed limits. Hxcce-riens include the nonhem section of Soruce Street, which is a narrow ,ravel route, and two eastbound, one- way streets ({ing Street and Nicholas Lane). ine amount of existing peak -hour and 34-hour traffic activity is shown on Figure 1 Eor several study area lecanons. As noted.hese counts were conducted during :nid-wlarch of this "ear (data printouts are enclosed). Ias;,ec:icn of these -affic activity levels and patterns together with on -site obser vanons reveal that the Gibsoa Pare Avenue corridor functions as an important collector route between Red Mountain Road and Cooper Avenue. Similarly, the South AvenueTark Circle route functions as a minor collector route for the surrounding neighbor- hood. All other nearbv streets function as local access roadways. Figure 2 illustrates the major transportation elements associated with travel within the study arez. in addition to the roadway system itself, intersection traffic controls, designated pedestrian routes and bus steps are shown. It is noted that the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RF TA) provides a high level of public transit service to the neighboraced via its Hunter Creels shuttle with 2-10-minute headways between vehicles from 7:00 AIM to 12..00 midnight ti1r. ?une '�, ' Quck Roth, P.F. ?age 2 994 Estimated -remc Genereticn The preparadon of traffic generation estimates for the Williams Ranch development requires an approach which takes inta' 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 eapec:ed 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 nmicaily annlied to single- and multi -family homes, respectively, based on aational averages published by the Institute of Ttans- poration Engineers (ITc). T'ne current Pitkin County Road Standards and Specificarions document suggests average weekdav generation rates of four trips per single-family dwelling and three trigs r+er muiti-family dwelling, assuming strong transit service. For the "uee market" lots, we have increased the sia e-•family rate by an additional -_9 daily trips as recommended by I i � :or households with more than two ,reaicles. Finally, we have calculated peak -!hour rates for each housing cate,ory by auviving the peak -lour :o average weekday ratio cited ;ruder C.ttegorr 210 of the I : � "Trip Generarxf document. Fo,r ;urpeses of :his analysis, we divided the site into the three traffic access zones illustrated :n Figure _. As indicated on :he orojec:'s site plan, one "free market" tot would Save access of* of Soruce S eel (Zone 1!, eight duplex homes would access off of Brown Lane (Zone =;, and the remaining 45 homes would have access via Smuggler Mountain Read. Table I, enclosed, illustrates the ermecred traffic generation c a-ac:e: s.;cs or each of these zones. As indicated, buildout and full occupancy of Williams Ranca is projec= :o gennera:e _a: average weekcav vehicle -trips (1=1 in and 121 out). Of these, 16 would enter and nine would e—tt -during the peak -lour. Estme;ed-4 Traffic Disscuticn 7-ie direc^oval distribution of prc!ec:-generated saffic is a :rev element in the determination of impac:s of a given development. The distribution itself is influenced by a number of factors including :he site's relative location within the surrounding community, the rye of proposed ,and use, existing roadways and ;ravel paae.:ts, and :he specifics of the projec:'s access plan. In this particular instan-.r, the traffic partem.s exhibited in the e dsting counts shown on Figure I 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 -40 pen-e nt 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 surroundina roadway system. As indicated, he maximum concentration of project -generated traffic is expected on Smuggler !Mountain Road where about 105 additional vehicle -trips per day in each direction are forecasted. Estmated T rag, c Assignment Figure 4 iIlustrates the assignment of peak -hour traffic generated by Williams Ranch to several intersec-tons throughout 'he study area. These estimates were derived by application of the Figure 3 distribution perc. nra7es to the Table 1 generation estimates. Mr. Cauck Roth, P.E.Page 3 June ? 1994 P'Ciected 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 National 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 deanition. six different Levels of Service are used (A, B, C, D, E, and F) with 'A" being a free-Qow 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 Appendi:t. "'he following tabulation summarizes the results of these LOS analyses which are also included in the Appendix section :o this -epor.. As indicated. all four intersections can be expected to operate a high L--ve'. of _Ser>ice after full buildeut and occupancy of the proposed development. Furthermore, these calcularions are somewhat conservative since existing traffic activity has not been reduced to account for anticipated traffic decreases associated with the Paid Parking Plan. LE`/EL Table 2 OF SERVICE C"dMPARISCN Williams Ranch AM Peak - Hcur Phil PaJc i - Hcur _ Minimum Levei Minimum I Level Reserve of reserve of Intersec ;cn Assumed Traffic Caoac-.ty Service "' Cacadvi Service Spruce/Pan( Circle Existing 804 A (,44) 785 A (385) Existing + Project 815 A (415) 737 A (337) Srown/Park Circle Existing 8; 1 A (4, n 812 A (412) Existing + Project 871 A (471) 8C0 A (400) i ScuthiGibscn Existing 656 A (256) 796 A (396) i E;dsting + Project 652 A (252) f 783 A (382) Gibson/Park Circle EAsdng 861 A (461) 810 A (410) Existing + Project 855 A (455) 796 A (396) 't Ncte: 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• i Mr. Chuck Roth, P.F. Page 4 June 2, 199a VMT Andvsis i Another perspective related to the traffic impact of Williams Ranch relates to its contribution to total Vehicle \Miles of Travel (V1MT) 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 = 1.3 • Down-Vaiey employee auto occupancy = 1.5 Based on the above assumptions, the daily VtifT associated with Williams Ranch is calculated as follows: L Free Market Nome VitifT = ?-cccsed Employee Housing V'Yf' _ _. Do wn-Vailev cmciovee Loss VNf _ Vet VM increase = 110x90%x3.0=-29 132 90%x_.0=-3f6 38x1.5x701fo 1Sx=7, �/7x4.9=-'86 As it-eiates :o this projected Vtii:1 increase, the foilowing calcuiations apply to particulates ?tif., =issiens associated with Williams Ranch: 1. tifaior Arterial = (30% x 16,) 0.006-L = 0.90 ? Minor Arterial = (40% x 167) 0.0130 = 1-13 3. Local Streem _ (30% x 467) 0.0184 _ :_52 a. Wintertime Sanding = a6; x 0.001 = 0. , T otal Pounds of Particulates added per day = 6.32 aac^�.mme^ded Transncrtaticn lmcrcvemerts I .r 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 aeighborheed collector corr:der. Similarly, the South Avenue;Par.: Circle :cute functions as a minor collector. Fi-are 6 illustrates these roadway routes together with various :ecotnmended transportation improvements throughout the study area he 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 roadwav connections. As a result, traffic ac- dent potential for both vehicles and pedestrians is higher than it should be. Figure 7 illustrates three recommended projects which clearly E • Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 5 June 2, 1994 define the preferred vehicular paths along South Avenue. Conceptual cost esrimates for this work are 54,100, 54,Z`0 and 54,900 for projects 1, 2 and 3.t respec:iveiv. 2. Roadwav Widths. The width of the two-lane, two-way ropdways within the study area varies from about 12 feet to about 29 fee:, with 24 being somewhat typical. Even though a 24-foot width is desirable under "ideal" conditions (without on -street paring), we recommend that a 20-foot minimum width be applied to the collector routes in the study area, and an 18-foot minimum be applied to the remaining local streets. Fi;ire 6 identifies three short roadway sections where the 204cot minimum does not presently exist Widening in these areas is estimated to cost about S5,000. In addition. Spruce Street adiacent to Williams Ranch currently has a harrow 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-root cross-section. 3. Speed Limits. We recommend that a uniform 20-mph steed limit be appiied to all streets north of the Gibscni?ark Avenue corridor. 4. Sceed Bumps. At the present time, the only sueed burro within the studv area is located on :ire east side of South Avenue at Oak and Corenwoed Lanes. as r dicated on Figure 7, it is recor mended to ae reiecared. In addition, the two cross-slt err located across the Sor:ce;Park Circle inrersection se —'re to slow through tralfc. No addiricnal speed reduction measures are recommended at this time. _S. Warning Sighs. 1s indicated on Figure 6, a'Stoo Ahead" warning sign is recommended for installation along Gibson in advance of Neale Avenue. Visibility of this three-way Step is somewhat restricted for eastbound drivers. No other warning signs are recommended. - 6. ?edesn"an Facilities. Adequate pedestrian access is a key part of the transportation syste.:i se: -ring the Williams Rarch area. Existing pedestrian sideway locations are shown on Figure 2. In addition, future sidewalk extensions are pianned along the east side of Neale Avenue and the south side of Gibson. It is strongly recommended that this expanding pedestrian walk system be x:e-ded into Williams Village along two routes: the aorrheriv extension of Brown Lane and along the project's easte-a access road to Smuggler Mountain Road. Existing crosswaik locations across Spruce at South Avenue and aloe; Gibson at Lone Pine are adequate. 7. SmugsZ+e- Mountain Read/Park Circle Intersection. As of this time, the specific location and design of this key access intersection has not yet been finalized indicated on Figure 6, however, the two-lane access road should intersect Park Circle at about a 90- degree angle and a Stet) 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 vir. 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 Centp finial residential development. However, RFT3 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 radios. Table 3, enclosed, summarizes the above projec:s and their estimated costs. Ccndusicns Buildout of the proposed Williams Ranch residential development is projected to increase average weekday traif:c along :onions of Park Circle and Gibson by 60 to 60 vehicle -trips in each direction. Such increases caa 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 :otenrial 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. Respec:i.illy submitted, T 7TGi« SCOT: & CLEAR`:', INC. Bv: P'aihp V Short IlI,'P. . PNSiwd Enclosures: Tables 1 and 3 Figures 1 through 7 Traffic Counts Capacity Analyses (Pages A-1 through A-68) cTQaJECw.S4AO34aWu!IAMs.AEv 40 May 12, 1996 V 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 kand any 1;ro;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. ;ly, a, a on and Andy Hanson 121 Gfede Court P. O. Box 2717 Aspen, CO 81612 MAY 13 1996 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director p 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: 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. 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 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. 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. 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: E'xisting R-0 Zoning AH1/PUD Proposal 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. WM8 not includingexempt s.f.) (maximum) Total Square Footage ±11,500 s.f. 9816 s.f. -1684 (including exempt s.f. - (estimate) ara a/ADU/sub ade 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: El • Spruce St. lot line to structure - 10' 0 South St. lot line to structure - 0' 0 Race St. lot line to structure - 12' & 17' 0 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. S. 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. 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. 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 AH1/PUD 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 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 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: 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. 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 G1 "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 Hr2 PM Peak Hr3--Poss�a # of Units Trip Factor' Total Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit-, rA 13 4.0 52 4 12 14 8 ryP�v Hc�-T� 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 AH l/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. 1 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 ' *Dal 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. 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. • 0 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: 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. E APP. 1e 'S6 1© 06AM P'2 • � EXHIBIT B TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept, FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: April 10, 1996 RE: SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD/REZONIUTG I9stm.. The applicant is proposing to rezone from Medium Density Residential (R--6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development AH1/PIID), 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. RxCpJaQKffQLT=.* 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 aee iz 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. RPR. 8 '9e 4:34PM P.1 Memorandum TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Raker, Parks Department DATE: April 8, 1996 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing CC: Ross 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 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 existing spruce trees shown along the sidewalk may need to be pruned or relocated 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 both buildings and sidewalks to allow for e&rowth . ✓7S en �nSO11�Qfed cSanlfQflOn �IS�f P 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 Sy Kelly • Chairman Albert Bishop Treas. Louis Popish Secy. April 4. 1996 Suzanne Wolff Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 FAX #(970) 925-2537 Michael Kelly Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. n ,=LOPTVIENT 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 iine constraint that will be rehabilitated through prorated additional fees. Service for the development wili be contingent upon compliance with District rules. 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 will 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 call if you need additional information. Sincerely. Bruce Mather1y' District ManaiZer 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. • ace]J6,11NO u To: Suzanne Wolff, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer`"` From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer &W- Date: April 17, 1996 Re: Smuggler Affordable Housing PUD/Rezoning - Conceptual Review (810 South Avenue; Lots 13 and 14, Williams Addition; Parcel ID No. 273 7-073 -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 Vrainagc - 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. Sidewalli, 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. 5ON19-K EXHIU& C LII, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. T�ISPORTATION PLANNING & TR.AFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303)333-110- 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 ;r940340) 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. Existina Transcortatien Facilities and Traffic The transportation system which would serve the Williams Ranch site is primarily characterized by the somewhat dendritic roadway 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 ;ravel 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 -March 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 AIM to 12:00 midnight. Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 2 June 2, 1994 Estimated Traffic Generation The preparation of traffic generation estimates for the Williams Ranch development requires an approach which takes intb 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 GTE). 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 (Zane 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 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 National 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 E)dsting 804 A (404) 785 A (385) EAsting + Project 815 A (415) 737 A (337) Brown/Park Circle EAsting 877 A (477) 812 A (412) E;asting + Project 871 A (471) • 800 A (400) South/Gibson Existing 656 A (256) 796 A (396) EAsting + Project 652 A (252) 783 A (383) Gibson/Park Circle Existing 861 A (461) 810 A (410) Existing + 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' • i 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 (V,vM 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 V1*YIT associated with Williams Ranch is calculated as follows: 1. Free Market Home VMT = 2. Proposed Employee Housing VMT = 3. Down -Valley Employee Loss V iMT = Net VMT increase = 110 x 90% x 3.0 = +297 132 x 90% x 3.0 = +356 38 x 1.5 x 70% -/- 1.5 x 2 x 5/7 x 4.9 = -186 467 As it relates to this projected VMT increase, the following calculations apply to particulates (PM,o emissions) associated with Williams Ranch: 1. Nlajor Arterial = (30% x 4677) 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 Transocrtaticn 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,f 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-foot 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. Speed 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. Warniniz Signs. 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 Mountain Road. Existing crosswalk locations across Spruce at South Avenue and along Gibson at Lone Pine are adequate. 7. Smuggler 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 Cent- 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. Respectiiilly submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. r i1 i By: Philip ill, 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) Q\P ROJECISD40340\W a_L1AMSREV 05/01/1996 12:45 9709274813 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC PAGE 01 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS & STRUCTURAL ENGINEtRS PHONE_ 970-927-3167 FACSIMILE: 970-927-4813 DATE:--- 4 — - --�—�� -------------TIME:----i +a t--------------- TO:_ PAYS M • COMPANY:_ �Ultx PROJECT: _. --------------- FACSIMILE #:—__ Iil-)*— S TELEPHONE FROM:— — —___ ______ _ ____ _________ __________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE)__ 3 _ 40 C _Z_S.�7e1 1j+�__,__ —__-- ---------- ------ -1N - o @ ped1'i-)-U- _ % �-------- ---------------- -'•__7'_'�-*ice----------------- cc: -------------------------------_ IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL _____ AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 05/01/1996 12:45 9709274813 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC PAGE 02 ►l^ 1rir six. ... ... .-- _-__ ___. ____... _ . _..___.*' .'1'�'TM.__�`W�f•.. Itpfr� = t_31'�S/.��.vut�-=_ ��,� . 3Zy� ...++��►. Kok � ��. ��- ylu��t tUt . �►� �kx�_•r ���_.... .._._.___- -- -- _ .__.. __. _. ►Native . ....- � ----- ...'t8�h. belt 1' ga. fir,. _ �i'k� _. #�R_ _ . .u�►+M1_-_ _ .-___ .l- -- -- ..__.. _ _ ._. _ i�+. t.w�►�►�..__�i.e�._�tiy�a�rli_�r�s�s...l,�.a���.:�.� kew�c_.�`��s._... _ _ .. _.____ ... r�..� t�r�,rs . ��� V�G+w,�._���,i� � _� i.!.�!r►�+1►�C w�at'�_... �,,« .--- - - —._ ...... _ _-- - _....- �'�-- ��- /K�'�k1�i'�ia+��-� _t4cgrk�M,+,;s�t--t�l1�T L��M�. 1? b�lh+h►f _. .. _ _. _._._._... '1 #Y(4DINlh._�� l� w►s�4 --� � P?B'�Qo_�� _� .i13._7►+n.;P'p�'t�l s......__.._ ---. f — 'Mi�lorld!. -__? ► ;�.�1!�.!�►ti►.Il+lc .� uAtfWT ` lt5� s . 'l. s •E. t Rk� 1+% 'i lMl �u►11C �i(rrls!' 05/01/1996 12:45 9709274813 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC PAGE 03 j /T 1141 - - - _ s_. Tk �_ is illy ,w►,�_��4�.�Ms'�Ot �rtc �, �a� k,/ turf, yrce't - . _ _.V. _. _-_ �} �u►ub�1� _ % _k,� s - �(i ).eMr eoP�e,W�. h�a Ct� 1�. ftPRA AR4 ` L1�j�lir1114._lei tr-m Of114Y --- _ _� __ _..._. __ _. _ _�_ _ I of H�►1rrt'R? l d $b �.• ..__ _ .. . ix� iti _t♦ Wes 04 11� ~ ..-, 4W L4 S OWN-) M f °� CW94 s 4 10 04/19/1996 14:52 97@9274813 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC THEODDRZ! K GU0AhB80C1ATIMI3 RC • ARCHITECTR ^No ISTRUCTURAL 1KNOINIEe Rd PAGE 02 memorandum 10 John Dorerrrus FROM Ted Guy, TFEODORE K GUY ASSOMTES PC DATE = April 1 % 1996 RE Smuggler Affordable Housing The current scheduled hearings for the Smuggler AH project are as follows: May 7, 1996 Last P&Z hearing on Conceptual Review. We will get a reconmtendation for the council. May 13, 1996 First Council meeting on Conceptual Review. this is a noticed Public hearin whe the neisth�ors ya be allowed to speak on the record. tafl= and council members ell us this would be aplxived by resdution— at tills meeting. this will complete the coil pcep uaTe�new o e p e will there camp e e whatever refinements are needed in the drawings to taxnply with the conditions of the approval. K" May 27, 1996 Worst ease second council meeting for conceptual review. Most concerns and conditions would sUR be known prior to this meeting and mast of the refinements in the drawings would still be started prior to this meeting. We and Staff da not elie►ie this meeting y0 be nee-- �. MApg Z �o G`»�'csr lz r�,v tl .Tune 3, 1996 Submission target far the Final lent review package. Dave Miche.lsuch �t p� would schedule the project fur a rle 18th P&Z caring for the final development I" review. June 18, 1996 P&L hearing for the hnal development review. This should be focused on door and G4-AGr-- AL — window locations, architectural details, landscaping plant size and locations, and bF'x-ov►v..5 similar technical issues rather than conceptual 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 reacting would occur an July 8, 1996 with best schedWing_ July 8, 199E Final txacndi reading of 0rchnarrr:e of rezoning and PUU approval. Approvals do not become final untW 30 days after publication in the paper. The publication would occur on Friday July 12, 1996. 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 departrnent procedures may Am us to break ground viound SulAcombm 1, 1996. Aug 12, 1996 Approval takes effect with best scenario. Aug 26, 1996 Last probable date approval becomes effective if three council meetings are required. TKG/tkg 96106 M7 23200 TWO RIVERS ROAD P O 6OX 1R40 BASALT. COLOPADO 51621 (6701 927 3167 • :7 The architecture of the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood is varied and includes historic houses. 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. 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 toward the south and west to take advantage of the 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 LI New single family construction should appear similar in scale to that seen traditionally. This older house is among those in the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood that provides a context for the scale of new buildings. Divide larger structures, such as this, into building masses that appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally. 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 A greater senseof unity is needed. New development should appear more visually cohesive with the neigh- borhood than some recent buildings have been and it should enhance 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: Goal 1. To preserve a scale of single family residen- tial 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 more compatible with the neighborhood character 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- rials. Goal 3. To establish a sense of visual integration in the neighborhood Repeating the use of traditional building elements in future construction will result in a sense of visual continuity. Page 28 • • Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Gable roofs are appropriate on structures in the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood Smuggler Mountain Design Guidelines for Smuggler Mountain The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all projects in the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood, in addition to the chapter of General Guidelines for All Neighborhoods. When considering the appropriate- ness of a project with respect to these guidelines, also consider how the project will help to accomplish the design goals for the neighborhood. Mass & Scale 36. New buildings should be similar in scale to traditional residential buildings of Aspen. Structures should be in modules of approxi- mately 120G-1800 square feet maximum. Divide 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. No uninterrupted wall surface parallel to a street should be more than 30' in width, to assure that buildings appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally The solid -to -void ratio should be similar to that seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen to help establish a sense of scale. a. ro' 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. Gable, flatand shed roofs are appropriate. "Prow" roofs also are appropriate. Hip roofs are discouraged. d. Eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen; these 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 • • Avoid creating pull -in parking that is directly off the street. This weakens the attraction of the street to pedestrians. Buffer the edges of the site from adjacent properties with fences or hedges. Provide open space that is functional and that also serves as an amenity that can be seen from the street. Site 121an 38. Provide a'clearly defined front yard. a. This will provide a sense of open space and help define pedestrian walkways and automobile parking areas. b. This open space also will provide relief from dense development in the area. 39. Buffer edges of the site from adjacent properties with fences or hedges. a. Fences should be low in height, to allow views into front yards. b. Locate the primary floor at or near sidewalk 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 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 applies to all buildings, including multi- family construction. Page 30 • • The use of natural or native materials in the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood is strongly encouraged. Provide a porch, oriented to the street, and sized to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the residential neighborhoods of Aspen. Smuggler Mountain Building Materials 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 43. Porches clearly identify the primary 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 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, primary entry. 45. A variety of window and door designs is appropriate in this neighborhood. 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 Nye PPR) ��Xz uoop 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 920-5090.1 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. 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 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. 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 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, — � �CYIJ SCR respectively. Assuming that each residence contained 4 bedrooms and an attached studio ADU, r- r o F P Y• gr��. the parcel would accommodate two single-family residences with a combined FAR of 6,690 "^^'zK�-' r 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 AH1/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' il • 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 spacelbedroom 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: 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 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. 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. REZONING Purpose of AHINUD 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 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 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: 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. G6i 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. s l X 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. � l 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 AHl/PUD zone district, which states that AHl/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, RFFA 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: Exhibit A - Referral Comments ����' � .0 ° ��� �►� orb Sr �� srrzr�T f S APR 10 196 10:06AM P• EXHIBIT A M=RAMUK TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept. PROM: 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 -bedrooms, and 2 Category 2 one -bedroom unite. 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 waa 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 lees 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 Poard members to discuss this project further. Memorandum TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: April 8, 1996 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing CC: Ross Soderstmm, F.ngineering 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 sidewa& extension. Both of these trees should be planted a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of dv-sidmalk to allow for tree growth. Additionally the two existing spruce trees shown along the sidewalk may need to be pruned or relocated 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 both buildings and sidewalks to allow for growth. 0 57'spen Consojo'afe dsanrfafron tlrli7l 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly • Chairman Albert Bishop Treas. Louis Popish • Secy. April 4. 1996 Suzanne Wolff Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen. CO 81611 Re: Smuggler Affordable Housing PUDiRezoning Dear Suzanne: Michael Kelly Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently 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 rules. 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 will need to review more detailed plans as they become available. We Nave met with a representative of the applicant to offer our preliminary fee estimates and comment on possible connection scenarios. Please call if you need additional information. Sincerely. Bruce Mather1y� 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 Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer (7-p- 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. Parkin - 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 ?or 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 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 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. PJ 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: i M96. l33 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. 3 April 4, 1996 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: ASPEN • PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 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 oti May 13, 1996. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very"T ours, a n Community Development Director City of Aspen cc: Project File Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5090 . FAx 303.920.5197 P m,dnn-1,droper DIRECT FAx LIAE: 303.920,5439 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 • 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. 2 May 22 -May 28, 1996, Volume 6 #54 REAL ESTATE Published weekly by the Atpen Tartu News (From left): STILL JUST AN EMPTY LOT: Neighbors surround- ing this small parcel of land successfully pushed away an affordable hous- 10 9 project that proposed 3 one -and -two bedroom units by private develop- ers David Guthrie and Ted Guy. NOT IN MY NEIG, posed for affordabl( negative criticism f borhood. Resident argue the neighbor for more employee NIMBI employee housing popular until it hits close to home By Carolyn Sackarlason Aspen Daily News Staff Writer Most everyone seems to agree that Aspen needs more affordable housing, but very few people seem to want it in their neighborhood. That is certainly the case for at least two pro- jects in the Roaring Fork Valley where residents are arguing their cases before the Snowmass Town Council and Aspen City Council. Aspen Skiing Co.'s Sinclair Meadows employee housing project, proposed as an *nsion of the Meadow Ranch subdivision, been in the works for months and is still in the conceptual stage. The planned 42-unit housing development located at the intersection of Meadow Ranch and Owl Creek Road, has many Meadow Ranch and Fox Run residents concerned it will ruin their quality of life. The project would sit on five acres of 22 acres owned by the Snowmass Land Co. Nearby residents argue that employee housing doesn't fit into their residential neighborhood. That is also the case for the William's addi- tion residents, who successfully managed to convince the majority of Aspen City Council members that an affordable housing project is not appropriate in their Smuggler Mountain neighborhood as well. Private sector developers David Guthrie and Ted Guy were proposing an estimated $2.5 mil- lion affordable housing complex, comprised of 12 one -bedroom units and a two -bedroom unit on a 13,500-square-foot lot at the comer of South and Spruce streets. The property is zoned as a residential dis- trict, but the proposal called for the lots to be rezoned as affordable housing. Some people have called the opponents of the project "NIMBYs" (not in my back yarders), but residents maintain they have far too much employee housing as it is and any more would ruin their quaint little neighborhood that they say is already too dense. "Our quality of life has been greatly degrad- ed," said William's addition resident Tony Rutgers at a city council meeting last week. PLEASE SEE HOUSING ON PAGE 10 Julie Stone Local Business Profile Mortgage Rates Ellen James Martin C= Pages 2-3 Page 9 Page 6 Page 8 COMMENTARY: FINANCIAL EARLY RETIREMENT: (TAPPING INTO YOUR IRAmPENALTYFREE Downsizing! This word has become part of the vernacular of late as one after another some of the most solid names in corporate America announce cutbacks in staff. In all likelihood either you or someone you know well has been affected by this ongoing trend. In fact, according to a recent New York Times poll, nearly three - fourths of adult Americans have been touched to some degree by a layoff in the last 15 years. If you were offered a severance package, either voluntary, or invol- untary, would you know how to assess the economics of your situ- ation? Are you financially well off or are you at an age where you might consider this circumstance an incentive to push up your plans for retirement? Or, would you be filled with apprehension as you try to fig- ure out how you will support your- self and your family until you secure your next job? Whether you view your compa- ny's early retirement offer as a blessing or stroke of misfortune, along with your severance package you will most likely receive a lump - sum distribution from your employ- er's retirement or 401(k) plan. These funds could help you enjoy a comfortable early retirement or q 1 .`IC CHERRY CREEK MORTGAGE COMPANY By Julie Stone Senior Investment Consultant Smith Barney Shearson could provide a cushion for emer- gencies if you are between jobs. In either case, you should be aware of your options before this money is distributed to you. YOUR RETIREMENT PLAN DISTRIBUTION Many times, the money in your company's retirement plan repre- sents the largest sum of money you will receive at one time. Once Now Offering Fixed Rate Loans at: 41=0 Purchase or Refinance Rates are falling, take advantage of them now by calling Bonnie Tureotte 925-7800 'APR 8.49011 and is based upon a loan of 200,000. Rates and points are subject to change. CAROL DOPKIN REAL ESTATE INC. 122 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970)920-1186 800-920-1186 Choose a Realtor with Horse Sense! Specializing in relocation and complete knowledge of the real estate market. Call for our information packet on real estate and what's going on in the Roaring Fork Valley. If you love horses, you get an extra perk - see real estate with Carol and her fabulous string of guest horses. You'll love the Attention! Carol Dopkin and Fireworks you leave your present employer, you will have to decide how you will invest and preserve the value of these funds. In some cases, you will be able to keep your funds in your compa- ny plan; in other instances, you will have to or may want to move these funds into another tax -deferred account. Rolling your funds directly into a separate IRA Rollover Account can help you obtain several desir- able benefits: a Maintain the tax -deferred sta- tus of your funds. - Avoid the 20% mandatory withholding. a Achieve flexibility to make choices at a later date. a Retain "profitability," which allows you at any time in the future to place these funds in another employer's pension or profit-shar- ing plan. a Take advantage of penalty - free distributions from your account. PENALTY -FREE IRA WITHDRAWALS Your IRA assets are intended to provide you with retirement bene- This strategy of taking money from your IRA could be an attractive option if you are conteAD plating an early retire- ment or need funds in an emergency. fits; therefore, the tax laws discour- age distributions prior to age 591 /2 by imposing a 10% penalty tax in addition to ordinary income taxes. However, the penalties are waived if you are disabled or if you elect to receive "substantially equal pay- ments" from your IRA. This strategy of taking money from your IRA could be an attraift tive option if you are contemplal an early retirement or need funds in an emergency. Several ironclad rules apply if you elect to take substantially equal payments. First, annual distributions must continue until age 591 /2 or for five years, whichever is longer. You must select and adhere to one of Please see STONE on page 3 We finance... MOA 8 VA CATIONS!!! Mountain Mortgage is financing vacation and investment properties in Moab, Utah. If you are interested in residential loans in one of the premier vacation spots around, Give us a call. Lowest rates available, no points, fast loan approval. Marilyn Foss, 0%cncdh1anager HIGH COUNTRY REAL ESTATE Published veekiLliymnailtillents CIRCULATION: Throughout Aspen, Snowmass Village, Woody C reck, Basalt, El Jebel, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs: 12,800 copies. Mailings available upon request. Publisher................................................Dave Danforth Advertising ..... ........................................... Parke Eager General Manager. ........................................ Carl Ferrer Advertising ............................................ Brigitte Center Editor ..........................................................Mark Esper Advertising ............................................ Kendall Henry Reporter .....................................................Jon Burstein Advenising................................................ Darin Mille Reporter.......................................Carolyn Sackariason Advertising... ..................................... Rhonda Freeman Reporter..............................................Jason Auslander Advertising ...................................... Karen McNamara Special Sections Editor ..........................Lisa Goodman Advertising ............................................. Jennifer 7alko Design Director.......................................Steve Skinner Advertising (Down Valley) ....................Mark Modene Press Manager..........................................Jerry Sleeper Production Manager....................................: Cony Jones Press Operator..............................................Lest Fengel Production ........................................Jennifer O' Keeffe Pressroom Assistant..............................William Harris Production ......................................... Kathryn Hilchins Classified Ad Manager ........................ Suzanne Jacobs Production .................................................. Erin Rigney Classified Sales Rep..................................Kelley Flock Production ......................................... ... .Douglas Mazza Bookkeeper..........................................Alison Danforth Production .......................................... Michelle Sandler Sales Manager......................................Rays Furukawa HIGH COUNTRY REAL ESTATE Is Published each Wednesday by Ute City Tea Party, IM., d/b/a Aspen Daily News Maitiny, addms: P.O. Box DD, Aspen, CO 91612. Orrkec: 517 E Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO TO: (970) 925-2220; 24 Hour Tlpllne: 925-NEWS; Presoi—nn: 927-4597. PAGE 2, HIGH COUNTRY REAL ESTATE, WEEK OF MAY 22- MAY 28, 1996 A& LOCAL BUSINESS PROFILE Aspen Youth Center's Alpine Club: Sledding in The Great Sand Dunes Name/Type of Business: Aspen Youth Center (non- profit). Employee Housing for Sale May 22, 1996 *Midland Park Condominium. 212 Midland Park Place, 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath, approximately 772 s.f. CATS WELCOME, for $105,154. Monthly Condo dues $134. Property Taxes $323. Open houses will be held Wednesday, May 22nd and 29th from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Call John at 925-1714 for more informa- tion. Interested applicants must qualify according to Category 1- 4 under the Housing Office Guidelines. The two week bid period ends Wednesday, June 5th, 1996 at 4:00 p.m., with the lottery to be held Thursday, June 6, 1996 at noon at the Housing Office. *Centennial Condominium, 224 Teal Court, 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath, approx- imately 850 s.f., for $125,790. Monthly Condo dues $160, property taxes $397, Great views, washer/dryer, PETS WELCOME! Open houses to be held Wednesday, May 22 and May 29, 1996, form 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Call Jeffrey at 925-3777 for more information. Interested applicants must qualify according to Categories 1-4 under the Housing Office Guidelines. The two week bid period ends Wednesday, June 5, 1996 at 4:00 p.m., with the lottery to be held Thursday, June 6, 1996 at noon at the Housing Office. NOTE: LOTTERIES WILL NOW BE HELD ON THURSDAYS AT NOON INSTEAD OF FRIDAYS. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE WORKING FULL-TIME IN PITKIN COUNTY OR BE A QUALIFIED SENIOR CITIZEN AS DEFINED IN THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING GUIDELINES. Housing Office City of Aspen/Pitkin County ��530 East Main Street, Lower Level Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5050 Fax: (970) 920-5580 ATTENTION Employee Housing Purchasers Can You Afford An Affordable Housing Mortgage? YES! with Pitkin County Bonk's 0 Location/Phone: 455 Rio Grande Place, Aspen; 925- Aft n AFFORDABLE HOUSING: SOME LOCALS SAY NOT IN MY BACKYARD HOUSING FROM PAGE I "Maybe the city could find another place to put it. "It is the right idea in the wrong place," he said. Whether it is an issue of ruining the quality of life, overcrowding, traffic congestion, decreasing property values or placing affordable housing so there is a balance of it in the community, it cer- tainly can be construed as NIMBYism But is that bad? Don't people have a right to protect their quality of life and not feel guilty about it? "it is really not a matter of NIMBYism, because we have supported the projects up until now," William's addition resident Jon Busch said. "You would think it is a prime property location but it is not." Busch and his neighbors contend there is a major discrepancy in the number of employee housing units in the west end verses the east end, where nearly half of the affordable housing inventory is. Perhaps that is why Guthrie and Guy chose to build on a lot in the Smuggler neighborhood because it was $900,000 compared to a lot in the west end which can sell for about $2 million, the residents argue. Aspen Mayor John Bennett said finding a place to put employee housing is a constant struggle. When the Cozy Point affordable hous- ing project was going on, the city really thought it was the perfect place where nobody would oppose it. The city was wrong, Bennett said. One per- son said to him, "I can't see it, but I can smell it." As for Snowmass and the Sinclair Meadows project, Mayor Jim Hooker said it is simply that we are running out of room so it is affecting peo- ple closer to their homes. "That is why we are getting into some con- tention because we are running out of space," he said. "I don't think NIMBYism is necessarily negative, I think it is people protecting their qual- ity of life." What's more, Sinclair Meadows may not fit into a residential neighborhood unless some issues are addressed, like having the units be for sale and not for rent. "Seasonal rental employee housing is not appropriate in that location," Hooker said. "They don't have the same pride of ownership." Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Executive Director Dave Tolen said labeling it NIMBYism is not getting at the root of the problem. "I think it is still important to recognize that what we call NIMBY stems from a whole host of other issues," he said, adding you have to look at peo- ple's perception, beliefs, values and past experi- ences to understand where they are coming from. Another William's addition resident told the Aspen City Council last week that the politicians, city planners and housing personnel are losing credibility because they are not scattering afford- able housing around the community. City councilwoman and housing board mem- ber Rachel Richards said that it is political reali- ty. Whenever you lean toward an issue that is not supported by the majority there will be criti- cism. Richards said the lack of affordable housing is a real problem in the city and she would like to see a full -force effort to change that so the younger generation has a viable, existing com- munity in the future. "I feel we really need to reevaluate the hous- ing component of the Aspen Area Community Plan," she said. "I am personally disappointed of where we are at this point." The problem once again, is where it should go. Richards suggests working with the county more to obtain open space and start building affordable housing before people begin to move away. "The problem is what is close to water and sewer? There really isn't much left," Richards said. "Termination communities" as some housing experts have called them, are communities that `I feel we really need to reevaluate the housing component of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Lam personally disappointed of e we are at this point.' City councilwoman and housing board member Rachel Richards extinguish themselves by having the mindset of buying property just to make a profit, knowing property owners will leave someday. Richards said rather than thinking that way, the community, especially the younger genera- tion, needs to look toward the future by planning for it and taking a stand for what they want. Erik Skarvan couldn't agree more. Skarvan is a 14-year Aspen residenOn paid nearly $100,000 in rent and wants his own place, but can't because projects like the Smuggler Affordable Housing keep getting rejected by people who already own their homes. "We all deserve a piece of the pie," he said. "It is real sad that every time one of these pro- jects comes along, it is shot down. "If that isn't NIMBYism, I don't know what is, Skarvan said. "They want to slam the door -- saying we are in and you are out." Some people have even referred to employ ee housing as the "ghetto" of Aspen. Skarvan says if you want to see a ghetto, come over to his house. 1 have been out of college for a long time and I am still living in college -style living," he said, adding the way most of these projects have been designed, they are far from being slum conditions. "The city council needs to start hammering these neighbors and get these projects through. They need to go in someone's backyard." r1 LOCAL LJ RFOV looks for help with busy summer HELP from page 5 Granite Lakes at timberline. During this three-day project, RFOV and the Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado will construct reroutes and mitigate erosion on an extremely wet and damaged 3/4- mile section of this forest service trail. Volunteers will camp just outside of wilderness and will have a steep hike of up to 1 1/2 miles to the work site. - Flat Tops Passport in Time —Aug. 19-25. The Flat Tops Wilderness Area is just north of Glenwood Canyon. As part of the Forest Service's efforts to develop a management plan for this ground -breaking concept, a broad coalition of the community is joining forces to construct a new universally accessible trail adjacent to the Braille Trail in the Independence Pass Corridor. The Roaring Fork Discovery Trail, with its crusher fines surface, easy grades, picnic and rest stops, and inter- pretive signs, will create a unique edu- cational experience and quiet respite for everyone at 10,000 feet along the upper Roaring Fork River. - South Rim Trail — Saturday and Sunday, Sept. 28-29. The trail, which is on the east portal of Glenwood Canyon, will be extended on the south side of the canyon for one 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 Eagle Valley, the Gore Range, the northern Sawatch range and across the Roaring Fork Valley to the Elk Mountains. • LETTERS from previous page than low" — ripping off your own neighbors to reap a huge profit.) The other frequently mentioned issue in the meeting was "quality of life" of someone who has had to pay rent for 10, 20, 30 years or more, often times to live in a dump? Some people I talked to after the meeting had been raised in Aspen (these are the "real locals" folks). They've not been able to buy an afford- able place their entire lives! One native local, who lives at the end of Durant said he had no heat the past two winters. What about his "quality of life"? What about the residents who lived in the Smuggler area before all the NIM- BYS (not in my back yard people) moved in? Didn't the NIMBYS threaten to ruin THEIR "quality of life"? It's all relative. Haven't all of us who've been living here supporting this community and being forced to pay rent sacrificed enough? Haven't we paid our dues? I think we have. No, I know we have! When arc those who've been fortu- nate enough to purchase housing going to sacrifice for the good of the commu- nity as a whole? Why can't they be open-minded enough to realize their area is one of the few areas that is prac- tical to build affordable housing? They have their "piece of the pie," now they want to "slam the door" behind them. As a community we should all make sacrifices to promote and build more affordable housing. We should all work to preserve the very fabric of Aspen. We should all work to slow down this trend COMM! of downvalley movement, which is bit - by -bit deteriorating our community. I would encourage more long-time local renters such as myself to start coming to these important city council meetings dealing with employee hous- ing. Where are all you Benedict Housing lottery losers? We need a voice in our local government. Otherwise, the NIMBYS will continue to control these all-important meetings. The writing is on the wall, locals of Aspen. We need more affordable hous- ing — much more! If we don't get it built, and soon, the town we know as Aspen will simply be a place for those who bought places years ago, second and third homeowners, trust funders, and visitors to our resort area. It will cease to be a place for "real locals." Aspen will cease to be a fun, interesting, dynamic place to live. Erik Skarvan Aspen 'Locals' showed their true colors at housing meeting Editor; I'm not someone to write letters tc the editor to whine about some of the negative aspects of Aspen life. Lord knows we have plenty to be thankful for here in the Roaring Fork Valley! However, I attended the city council meeting last week dealing with the Smuggler Affordable Housing Project. Now, I must try to raise some awareness to my fellow renters here in Aspen as to what goes on at some of these meetings. What an eye opener this meeting was! I'm still somewhat in disbelief in what occurred. Namely, I was shocked to hear some of the opinions and values of some of my fellow Aspenites. Silly me. After 14 years living, work- ON Wednesday, May 22, 1996 Page 6 ERS Ing, and contributing to this community, I thought "locals" really cared abou each other. I witnessed one resident after another oppose an affordable employee housing project. Once again, it was a well done, qual- ity and desperately needed employee housing project that was being proposed — this time by Mr. Ted Guy and Mr. David Guthrie, two private developers (Can you imagine private developers actually NOT building multi -million dollar condos or houses?). These gentlemen should be com- mended for not choosing the "greed - head" way. They obviously care about affordable local housing. They obvious- ly care about those of us struggling to pay rent in order to live in substandard, rundown housing year after year (as we wait for our lucky lottery number to be drawn). Once again, the so-called "locals" from the involved neighborhood showed up in force to oppose the project that would once again be "in their back yard." They spoke about "density," "quality of life," "traffic," "parking," t and "safety" issues. Basically, they don't want any more people living in their little "slice of paradise." I wonder how many of them needed affordable housing at some stage of their lives. I wonder how they would have felt if those already living in the Smuggler area opposed their moving into the neighborhood. What about this density issue? I understand the Smuggler area has had its share of employee housing. I also understand it's one of the few affordable areas to build on and is zoned for such building. Maybe the project can go to 6- 8 units instead of the 13 units as pro- posed. Let's get something built folks! (By the way, is the gentleman who now owns the land really trying to make a $330,000 profit off the citizens of Aspen? We certainly cannot allow that greedhead move to pay off. That sets a very dangerous precedent and takes the word "affordable" right out of the pic- ture. This guy should be ashamed of himself! This kind of behavior is "lower Please see LETTERS next page • LOCAL RFOV do RFOV from previous workload previous page work with their hands and are provided With meals. Hamilton said the best thing about the projects is that they are designed for instant gratification. "All the projects are designed so the volunteers can have a sense of comple- tion and closure," he said. are always completed so the you meets ects can see what they have accomplished." IRFOV needs y BY Carolyn Sackariason The organization has grown into over 100 volunteers who give sweat equity into beautifying the area. But even more, the RFOV's mission is to give people a sense of accomplish- ment. "We want to make sure the volun- teers have a °� good experience Hamilton said. the to know their contribution makesant fra dif- ference." ►u this summer " "DwlyM sSt@BffW a Sunday Jul 13 If you want to become involved in Preserving the environment and give something back to the valley's outdoor Playground, the Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers has plenty for you to do. The nonprofit environmental organi- zation still has six projects to be com- pleted this summer. If any of these pro- jects interest you, call 544-9203. aturday • Ashcroft Ghost Town —S and Sunday, June &9, Relive the pioneer spirit b with RFOV, Y working Society" + ,� the Aspen Historical The trail connects the towns of Aspen and Snowmass Village, winding through Westands of aspen and evergreens. The trail is heavily used, especially by mountain bikers who enjoy the 10- mil single track. The project will involve ree routing three sections of steep, severely eroded trail. The project is a partnership with Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado, the Forest Service and the Aspen Skiin Company. g and Sunday, Lakes — Friday, Saturday Aug. 9-11. The Granite Lakes Trail is in the Hunter -Frying pan Wilderness Area 25 �acnL -ri Area, Warm SpInich Salad, Rissotto, i Great Pasta, Fresh Fish & Steaks ...it's the rig h7 E Lunch 7 days • Dinn, Patio ope PLOPPLU kI rest G C N C ,0 o N 'C U 0 a� a) O to G bq >, " N rn 0 C a 8 w `^ e) *• w by a) N G sl a 3 aNi U C C s cd ,= ... � 4p 2 C° W° c� c 3ER Q "� o. 3�0'� y.r�' bo o bfj ° V a- �aEcc a CO 14Gawoo�o3 T, a 0 p�> a ° 3 'O `" C (U CIS •� O y p w " .0 `° CC • •['Q 3 a C bq. �. N w 3 0 �. 4. b0 O C ._ cc N Q n eo cd [� u4-0 • w' w o" C Q y O H O 'n� °° u oc E o E o Lm., a�n"co N°Go>, ° O py'v�iOC .n0003 o ao�u�E� ,ion) �o8o°Da°���v.oE rn N •a G N u ^ Ln 00= '.7 >, ,�2 N y C' G c3 O y G C C G -M c E ,C E y C C.0 '— G r, Q 'y 0 es v v, ° z C O U omQ��ac°= °E� G_R =0�.�=_ate^�' GEE^ Gc G 3E6 o.a mow. u a u ;,-c o u o...�" o c o a "E4 �, a� �• 'a �•' ram- 'fl >+'D G N 4. >, ti cC N �--" G G `. • 5 •� a o ° u . c it C,.c G E a�� v 3 F" c °�' °°a.- u �Uz o u„ m a �vxu as p r� o cu ci G v� V a o.Ev a`"" N co o a cd •y U CUy O '� E v y••�°.-uv.❑Q� G bUo,op z, ,.N� (u° vo 0" ,xG , 'wiUCyc�CO.O � U O m% u a w = or co U �. �- bq of U CA G >, O >, �- a! •^ N c: ++ O v C U U a) >, n m w a� G C y O cz n cd ti O •2 u y by— 3 O cs U '^ C G oy a. °G .0u .vo a ° y °°c�")E18U. r0.Eo c°�= Ea`�O ca,o .u0Q ua Uu>° •E >="G E n Ua„yC a•-ou >,o VG.zY >O O" � � rou a a) o"�o NO C�-0LNU ti 0 to C-ie -o�bnwCaUp a , CA �G G? Ya,� >'>,p u3a�c-�acia .i- ,UE �w0- - V U°ccw0c•—.i8G�°UivCat > v ��r. U ;eo > oN m o.Ep o o2. o.4 g O Cd p C O > too,,u .0 3 C .U. G E p bD^C Ei� U O bD c" y c~C o.•Z b a c ti 04 U O q� N c C -0 O O.G G O C .., 3 C u 'C ^U E 3c38E UuU 30cc�oyi lC Q73 a „—t�.oU0G>b0 . c'oG>�=c600 >�r o„ „u3•2�-a-p •,A Nis. 3 U c'n U'i""a -3 aN .0 z 0O c> p 0.o •�r c.c .93�w caoZaaa FEoEay*C-u � C cvd" w O a �' 61 bA 'H ~' a >,.0 r � O G O a> �• 3 > a•E _ �n.G o r g� �_ E� v u E 3 v o u_acgj a y ti U cs r a^ a^ U rn a n U •, a> cs c:�•b��O^....cgCa_ on•^ .�Q,� ° � , =F o "y ° a U =°°o ovc=>,NE E a 4. 4 U U 9, (u C o v 'toc w '� 'n G a ".E a, c 'E �•� a� cz -o„a�oc,0 c� o �Q 3 (5 r-0 3QU•a °w Tuesdav, April 23, 1996 • The Aspen Times 7 Opinion The employee housing dilemma: Pick your poison By Hal Clifford Residents at the base of Smuggler Mountain are angry again, over employee housing, again. Been here, done this. In 1994 and 1995 a few of my neigh- bors and I fought the 54-home Williams Ranch development now going up behind Centennial. You can get a nice view of it driving into Aspen, when you're near the city golf course. The project was rammed through on the argument that this is "the last chance" for locals to live here. That was hooey, of course, and my making that point didn't sit well with developer Gary Wright and project director Tom Stevens. Once, before county commissioners, I asked Stevens who would end up owning the adjacent Smuggler Mine. He whirled on me in his chair. "That's none of your goddamn business!" he spat. Ah, what a pleasure being a neighbor to these projects can be. Now residents of Williams Addition, along lower Spruce Street, are up in arms over a proposal to build a dozen employee housing units on Ella Skufca's property, at the corner of Spruce and South streets. After the spite and bitterness of the Williams Ranch battle, forgive me if I missed the recent P&Z hearing on this lat- est development. I can understand their anger, and angry they are — threatening to bring in lawyers, to talk until they are arrested. Before the hearing I spoke to developer David Guthrie, who said he wanted to pattern his project after Benedict Com- mons. That's logical; he's got to cram a certain number of units onto the 13,500- square foot space to make the numbers work, since the property is listed at $1.1 million. But Benedict Commons is a volumi- nous, boxy, urban project. It is meant to honor the late Fritz Benedict, and in at least an ironic way, it does. Fritz — who I admired and liked — designed some of Aspen's most hideous buildings: North of Nell, Concept 600, Aspen Square. Bene- dict Commons isn't hideous, but its size and verticality echoes those structures. And that's not a great thing for the Skufca property. The question is, what is? Ella Skufca lived quietly in a tiny house on the southernmost extension of Williams Addition, a quirky agglomera- tion of a dozen free-market houses com- pletely surrounded by employee housing: Centennial, Smuggler, Williams Woods, Hunter Creek. So what should go there? Because something will. There's no point in spend- ing a million dollars of open space money to preserve such a small piece of land. Employee housing is a priority for this community, and that doesn't mean in Aspen Village. Would the Williams Addi- tion neighbors rather see something like the duplex monstrosity that replaced Mike Garrish's old yellow Victorian on Gibson Avenue? Or how about those fine starter castles springing up on Oklahoma Flats? I didn't think they could get so much square footage into that flood plain, but four big buildings went up last winter, further proof that money don't buy taste. Let's put a couple of those, at 10,000 squares a pop, on Ella's lot. Create a little perpetual shade for the next three houses north. If you believe a free market buyer will build a nice, small, tasteful cottage, go take a look at the spec homes erected along the river on Park Avenue, between the Hopkins Street footbridge and Dieter Bibbig's pale green house. They're easy to find: they have the trout mailboxes and those insufferable chainsawed cowboy statues out front. Maybe that is what the Williams Addi- tion neighbors want. Maybe they believe employee housing will drive down their property values (a little late for that, methinks). My friend Ward Hauenstein was quoted by this paper as worrying that the project was inappropriately dense. But, if memory serves, when Williams Ranch was being planned he supported it, because it was private development of employee housing — which is what David Guthrie and partner Ted Guy are propos- ing. You can't have it both ways. I don't claim to like this project. I'd much rather that property stay unchanged. But it won't. Ditto for the Mocklin proper- ty down the street, home to mountain bluebirds and a hillside of flax, soon to feel the deadening crush of Caterpillar. Infill of existing lots in the city is a lot better than sprawl up the mountains, which is what Williams Ranch, is. The people who live there will be close enough to spit on the Hunter Creek bus — unlike the Williams Ranch residents who all, I guarantee, will be driving to the post office and City Market. But employee housing there brings more density to an overcrowded neighbor- hood, more cars, more pollution. So what'll it be, folks? In this world where private property rights hold sway, all a community can do is pick its poison. Hal Clifford thinks a few Smuggler Mine ore trucks will blend right in with all the construction traffic. His column appears on Tuesdays in The Aspen Times. • • • 0 8 The Aspen Times • Tuesday, April 23, 19% Letters Refuting Powers Dear Editor: In her letter to The Aspen Times ("A Stealth Campaign" 4/10/96) State Senator Linda Powers scolds Congressional "extremists" for not supplying government funds — and person- nel — for abortions. She then turns around and scolds them for intervening in the matter. She wants abortion to be a private decision, except for its funding. She wants to impose that on everyone, privacy be damned. Linda Powers is upset that abortions are banned at military hospitals. I'm not. We anti -Viet- nam War "extremists" always wanted the army to resist baby - killing. Still do. Linda Powers complains that abortion will not be covered by federal employees' health insur- ance. Good. Our government is supposed to defend the inalien- able right to life, not ignore it. Linda Powers moans that Congress forbids Medicare to fund rape/incest abortions for the poor. Fine. Discrimination is wrong. The circumstances of conception do not unmake a fetal human being's full and equal humanity. Just societies do not "solve" violent acts against inno- cent women with more violent acts against their innocent off- spring. Linda Powers wails that a exemption for the mother's health in partial -birth abortions in the recent congressional abortion ban bill, which is why President Clinton vetoed it.) The oil will run out Dear Editor: This letter was originally sent to Mayor John Bennett. I am following with great interest your trip, along with many public officials to Switzer- land, studying the wonderful Swiss transit systems. During the past few summers, I have traveled extensively in Europe using, whenever possible, public transport. My last trip was a Smithsonian Study Tour, from Vienna to Zurich by train. I found it was possible to go many places on side trips by either train, trolley car, inclined railway or cable car. Fortunately, most of this wonderful transit system was built before the auto took over, and unlike our country, it has been carefully kept up. The fact that it is all electric supports the claim that it is nonpolluting. In travels in other countries, I have found that with few excep- tions, the automobile has all but destroyed the charm of many small and large cities. With the exceptions of Zermatt, the central part of Florence, Taormina and Carcassonne, where the auto has been banned, it is safer to drive Give Alex a home Dear Editor: Hey, great photo! I just want to correct one small misconcep- tion: Alex is not my dog. I bor- rowed Alex for the K-9 Uphill from Seth Sachson out at the Aspen Animal Shelter. She is looking for a home and I recom- mend her to anyone who might be thinking of adopting a dog. Alex is a great dog. I would adopt her myself if I could have a dog where I live. After spending a couple of days with her I can say that she's smart, quiet, affec- tionate, housebroken, leash - trained, and good around chil- dren. She minds well, isn't a whiner or barker (she stayed quiet even when left tied up with a hundred other barking dogs), and was patient with me even when I took her on a sled ride. She stayed close even when off her leash (she loved running down Buttermilk after the race, chasing me in my sled) and obeyed voice commands. She didn't even seem to mind that I slowed her down on the climb up the mountain! So to anyone thinking about getting a dog, go check out Alex; she's great! Also, as long as I'm here, I want to thank Eric Skarvan for thinking of and organizing the K- 9 Uphill, all the volunteers who helped out, and all the merchants who donated the great raffle prizes. It was epic! It's great to Floral Arts & Gifts - Aspen & Basalt Very Special Locals' Sale EVERYTHING IN BOTH STORES ON SALE 10%-75% OFF (cash or checks please) One week only, April 17-24 300 Puppy Smith 132 Midland Ave, Next to Clark's, Aspen Midland Avenue Mall, Basalt 920-6838 927-3551 The Double Duettee ,Sale. Duettes® double honeycomb shades give you hundreds of decorating options and fantastic R value. And for a limited time 65% Off Hunterpouglas V I■•. ■ 1 A 1. 1•■ 1 6-A The Aspen Times • Friday, May 10, 1996 Missing canyon country hikers survive on cactus, muddy water ■ Montrose couple located ,near Blanding, Utah From Wire Reports A Montrose couple who got lost while hiking in the canyon country 35 miles west of Blanding, Utah, sub- sisted on cactus and muddy water during their five-day ordeal, they said Thursday. Dr Richard Gin a 51 and his wife Suze Without food and water, the Gingerys resorted to eating skinned prickly -pear cactus and drinking from a muddy puddle. Clad in long -sleeve T-shirts and shorts, they huddled beside campfires at night when tempera- tures dipped into the 40s, they said. Several times, Suze Gingery said, they met hikers who gave them food and directions, but they made 47, were picked up y helicopter Wednesday "We seemed to have gotten after they met a hiker, who contacted authori- ties, up the wrong side canyon. The The Gingerys — both avid hikers and dis- tance runners — left Montrose on Friday. parking lot was not to be found.„ Authorities from San Juan County, Utah, as well as friends and family began searching for them late Monday. The search was hampered because nobody knew exactly where the couple had gone camp- ing. In an interview Thursday with the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel from a motel in Monticello, Utah, Suze Gingery said she and her husband became disoriented while returning from a daylong hike Saturday. "We seemed to have gotten up the wrong side canyon. The parking lot was not to be found," she said. The two hiked for days atop a mesa, looking for their vehicle, but finding only their own footprints. Their compass was broken, and they had no maps of the area, they said. - Suze Gingery more wrong turns and stayed lost. Because both are experienced outdoors enthusiasts and physically fit, the biggest challenge was to remain mentally strong, she said. On Wednesday, the couple decided to hike the 15 miles down into the canyon, hoping to reach the other side. They were found several miles from the trailhead. Suze Gingery said she and her husband want to return someday to see where they went wrong. Cactus pads, she said, "are not going to be on the menu for awhile." New law: Property tax break for Skico Aspen Times Staff Report Forest Service land last year, will be exempted from ., dinn of its oavment under the new law. Open Mother's Day 2 - 8 p.m Please call for reservations. ,��Xc K "s FINE DINING 710 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs 945-4771 OPEN FOR THE OFF1SEWN11 Lunch Dinner at T& Snowmaz LodgeClub Patio dining Sports Bor HAP HOUR 2-A DAILY $5.95 Burgers! 7am-9pm $1 Dogs! 200 Wings! $2.50 Lg.Microbrew Draft! 923-W3 (1st draft only, with food ourchr % Friday, May 10, 1996 • The Aspen Times rA The Aspen Times Editorial Creative thinking can save employee housing project It is generally accepted that Aspen and the upper Roaring Fork Valley are chronically, desperately in need of affordable housing for the local working class. The city of Aspen has made a firm commitment to meet this need, which has led to legislative enticements for private developers to build such housing, as well as a heavily financed government pro- gram to build as many units as possible. But even so, this week the Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission, after considerable debate and soul searching, felt compelled to turn down a private developer's proposal to build 13 affordable housing units in the neighborhood of the Smuggler Trailer Park at the base of Smuggler Mountain. The commission members agreed with the neighbors of the planned project, who argued stren- uously that their part of town already is far too dense, mainly because it is the focus for a major share of the existing stock of employee housing. Thus, despite statements by several commissioners that devel- opers David Guthrie and Ted Guy had put together a "well - designed" project, the P&Z rec- ommended that the proposal be rejected by the City Council. It cannot be denied that the area around the base of Smuggler Mountain has become a virtual employee housing "ghetto," con- taining as it does the Hunter Long - house, Hunter Creek, Centennial and Smuggler Trailer Park com- plexes, not to mention the Williams Ranch project, now under construction. Certainly, the Aspen Area Com- munity Plan calls for dispersion of worker housing around town to avoid intensification of exactly this "employee ghetto" syndrome. This point was among those cited by the neighbors, and despite their rude tactics and inexcusably infan- tile outbursts at an earlier meeting, the P&Z listened and concurred. Given all this, the P&Z decision regarding this project is under- standable. But the fact remains that there is an indisputable need for projects such as this, and it behooves local officials to do their best to enable them to be built. Toward this end, there may be creative options open to local gov- ernment that would take care of some of the objections. For instance, the city has a healthy affordable housing fund, part of which could be used to "buy down" some of the density of the project, reducing the number of units while preserving the pro- ject's financial feasibility. The City Council has discussed this technique before, and this might be a perfect time to use it. On another front, much of the neighbors' objections focused on the project's inadequate and pre- dictably troublesome provisions for parking. The plan called for stacked parking, one car behind another, and made virtually no room for guest parking. But, again, creative options might be found. Perhaps a "satel- lite" parking area could be found nearby for those residents, who for whatever reason, need more than one car per unit. Again, it may be necessary for the city to step in and help make such an arrange- ment happen, whether with money or some other form of assistance. But, if that turns out to be the case, so be it. The money is there to create such housing, the city is in desperate need of this housing, and no matter what the neighbors say, this project would not sound the death knell for that part of town. 0 0 Sm I.Doole r plan rejected by zoning panel By Robert ward Aspen Times Staff Writer Claiming repeatedly to be pro affordable housing, members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission nonetheless reject- ed an employee housing project Tuesday that they themselves described as "well - designed" and "excellent." After listening to the comments of some 15 citizens, mostly neighbors opposed to the project, the commission voted 4-3 against Ted Guy and David Guthrie's Smuggler Affordable Housing Project, a 13-unit devel- opment at the corner of Spruce and South streets in Aspen. The neighbors complained, and a majority of the commission agreed, that the so-called Williams addition area has accepted more than its share of employee housing and should be spared too much addi- tional density. The commission's vote does not kill the project, which will go before the Aspen City Council next Monday. The vote is a recom- mendation that the council deny the project, chiefly for reasons of additional traffic and density in the area. Several commissioners admitted to mixed feelings about the project, and aired their frustration at the difficulty of finding suitable sites for employee housing. They also com- plained about the conflicting mandates of the 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 0 See Smuggler on page 14-A Jinuggler ■ continued from page 1 A the developers that the density an number of units could be reduced i f Neighbors don't like it but Aspen Housing Board does reduced by 10-15 percent from its origw By Robert Ward Aspen Times Staff Writer Neighbors may say it's an eyesore and an abomination, but local officials like the housing project planned across from the Smuggler Mobile Home Park — and they're still tentatively planning to pur- chase it after city approval. David Guthrie and Ted Guy, who are jointly developing the 13-unit project, met with the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Board on Wednesday for an update on the project, which the housing office hopes eventually to purchase. The meeting wasn't all back-slapping and handshakes, by any means, but it was clear the developers and board members were in basic agreement on the importance of the project. The friendly tenor of the half-hour ses- sion was the exact opposite of last Tues- project has become a "dumping ground" day's melee before the Aspen Planning and for employee housing. Zoning Commission, in which neighbors But without the neighbors present to heaped contempt on the project and even argue the point, the developers and the attacked the commission itself for refusing housing board took turns agreeing with to take public comments. each other about the appropriateness of the "I think this is a great project," said site and the overall need for housing. At housing board member Jackie Kasabach, the corner of South and Spruce streets, the who lives nearby and plainly disagrees'- ..development would be'across the street with some of .her vocal neighborsL, -from a bus stop, and would consist pf two "Frankly I think it makes the neighborhood -500-square-foot one -bedroom un#ts, 19 more interesting. At least -it's a neighbor-'575-foot units and one 850-foot two -bed - hood. One of the major complaints leveled._. ' "The square footage is actuall�_compa- against the project is that it will add densi- rable to what it would have been ilt was ty to an area that has already accommodat- free-market," Guy said. "We're bringing ed more than its share of affordable hous- ownership housing to an ownership neigh- ing. Neighbors complained to the board borhood." that the area around the Centennial housing He and Guthrie hope the density — 15-unit configuration — will earn approval from the city, although they're well aware that they'll never please some of the neigh- bors. When Guthrie launched into a spirit- ed defense of the project, and disputed the perception that the project is simply being "dumped" in the area, board members told him he was preaching to the choir. "You'll never cure some people of the perception that affordable .housing is a dumping ground," shrugged board member Jim True. . Neighbors have said they will continue to fight the project. Guthrie and Guy go before the .planning and zoning commis- sion next Tuesday, and hope to gain city council approval and break ground th' summer. -12 Saturdgv,Smtday, April20-21, 199E Opinion Hark! It's the rirst lamebrain of spring speak — or, as the case may be, to rant and rave. They demanded the right to speak — for no apparent reason other than the fact that they were there and they wanted to be heard. They could have simply said (craftily slipping in a comment), "We are opposed to this project for many good reasons. But, for now, _we will sit and listen and learn exactly what it is that we are fight- ing." But, hey, why learn, when you By Andy Sloane 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. jjj screaming match at an Aspen They denounced the head of the 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 tion — it was a reminder that the '" declared they were not going to sit 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 by people who feel government haul them away. has no right to restrict what they In short, they acted like a first - can build on private property. class bunch of lamebramed jerks. This week's hissy fit at the P&Z Their behavior was like that of a was staged by people upset that the 6-year-old at a dinner parry, who government wasn't acting quickly keeps interrupting the conversation enough to block developers from and, when he is told to wait his even thinking about building a pro- ; turn, throws a temper tantrum ject in ;heft neighbodxxxi. . • instead, rolling on the floor, wailing For boat lucky enougb oo. miss : I and sawmung and kicking until all this week's sooty, I'll offers quick i aonvessati� comes to halt. recap_ _ - When a 6-year-old acts that — , A pair of longtime local rest- way, you'm disappointed. When _ k dents are looking to build an it's a group of people who have " affordable -housing project near the "theoretically achieved idultbood; ' Smuggler mobile home park, at the you have to be disgusted. base of Smuggler Mountain. for `bon= After ill,.it's,not as if the city of Aspen is known for t$vis�gg to to The project came up a o pdral" review at the planning ; :'developem blithely appnrHn vwi '. commission this week and a mob l:)ocis and cutting off public debatq r?fi r { I Babe never heard any eomptak.a����� of angry neighborhood residents showed up to voice their object- about shorb aAf h6atitO Wb 36 heir tiers.' So far, so good. Virtually scan- ent aliomtdevekspets aaying,"W69- ► � dard operating procedure in this NIMBY world of ours. let's go do a project in Aspen. They keep the public muzAod. It's The trouble started when the a developer's paradisel" bead of the planning commission told the angry neighbors that the I have no opinion about this particular project. I don't know if mating 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 and their project and answer questions about the details, so the planning I like him — but he's also a big boy. He can take cue of himself. commission members, the city instead, I am worried, once 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- proposed- played around here. is there no fac- Formal public hearings, at lion within this community capable which the public is invited to shoot of behaving in a reasonable fash- off its collective mouth and tell anyone and everyone exactly what ion. Well, as I said, coming as this people think about this project, are scheduled later in the process. TWO did, right on the heels of the nasty recall campaign, it was at least a of them. At least. reminder that there are lamebrains But, at this week's mating, the. scattered — in roughly equal num-. neighbors refused to accept the bers — throughout the political' - fact that it wasn't their turn to spectrum. Pursuant to state law, a sale will be held et ASPEN • Inspections of property • General & routine maintenance • Jacuzzi & plant maintenance • Monthly statements • Personal dependable service Please contact Martyn Hammer Certified Property Manager' 920-4304 Fax 925-2508 5-Bedroom, 5-Bath Brush Creek He with Separate 1-Bedroom, 1-Bath Apartr Best views in Brush Creek from this private, easily -accessed tw Big decks. Great lawn. This 4000+ sq. ft. housewith great neighbor to sell! yCal -Michael Cooper at920.2006�P-Q~�Cr(•jt��2.3,694i ASPEN REAL ESTATE jA'+-,, r ~,•COMP • ,kr . '`: ` �"'ft'•�.Yr1rr. 8 The Aspen Times • *esday, April 17, 1996 Smuggler_ ■ caMVxred from pogis 1 this is absolute horseshit. I will stand here and I will talk until you call the police." No one did, and Bush ultimately sat down. The object of all this heat was a proposal by long- time resident David Guthrie, with the help of architect Ted Guy, to build 13 units on 13,465 square feet of land at the intersection of South and Spruce streets. Guy said the project represents about $2.5 million of investment when everything is taken into considera- tion, and noted that it is entirely made up of "afford- able" units instead of the more common mix of deed - restricted and free-market homes. In answer to a question from longtime resident Brent Gardner -Smith, Guy said the homes would range in price from somewhere around $110,0(X) to $115,000 for onc-bedroom units with an uncovered parking space, through $115,000 to $120,000 for one -bed- rooms with a covered parking space, to around $130,000 to $140,000 for a two -bedroom. The units would range in size from 575 square feet for the one -bedrooms to 850 square feet for the two bedrooms, which Guy said was a reduction from the original plans for units sized from 700 square feet to 900 square feet. He also reduced the overall project by two units, from 15 down to 13. The reductions in the sizes, he said, was made in response to comments from the city planners about the need for more open space and lower density. It was the density issue, as well as questions about additional automobile traffic in the neighborhood, that got the most attention from the neighbors. Diane Rutgers of the Smuggler park noted that the traffic studies for the Williams Ranch project, now under construction in the same general area, called for as many as 3,800 car trips per day. And because the Williams Ranch project is not built yet, she argued, the actual impacts are still unknown. Several neighbors argued that the area, ranging around the base of Smuggler Mountain, already is home to the vast majority of the city's employee hous- ing, and is already too dense. "The density of the area is so immense now," said Ward Hauenstein, "this is an abomination. The concept of it doesn't fit with the neighborhood. And that is a technical question ... it can only be rezoned if it is in keeping with the neighborhood." Another neighbor, who did not identify herself, objected to the likelihood that the public hearings regarding the project will be scheduled during the off- season in May and early June, "when most of us are gone. This should only be considered in high season." These and other questions were peppered at Guy and Guthrie until commission chair Garton cut off pub- lic comment, after which the P&Z voted to table the matter until staff has had time to study the revisions introduced on Tuesday. Garton also noted that the May 7 meeting will still be a conceptual hearing, which is not a formal public hearing, but that there will be two such public hearings soon. Neighborhood spokesman Bush responded by promising to bring an attorney to argue for the people's rights to speak. Guthrie said he was unsure whether further changes would be made to address the neighbors' concerns. "We're not stonewalling creeps, we take everything into account. We're trying to do the best we can. I'm not interested in pissing people off for 50 years." Sm-diggler� neighbors rip project By John Colson Aspen Times Staff Writer An angry group of neighbors on Tuesday denounced plans for an affordable housing project near the Smuggler Mobile Home Park, dur- ing a conceptual hearing before the I city planning and zoning commis- sion. The project calls for a group of l five buildings on several city lots in what is known as the Williams Addition, directly across the street from the entrance to the mobile home park. The members of the P&Z, expressing a number of reserva- tions about the proposal, tabled fur- ther consideration until May 7 to allow the city planning staff to look over revisions made to the plans at the last minute this week. The neighbors, many of whom have lived in the area for decades, promised to return to take up their cry against the project. And some of the project's oppo- nents also attacked the planning commission itself. The revolt erupt- ed after P&Z chair Sara Garton said they would not be allowed to voice their opinions about the pro- 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 SnM4goer on page 8 Unrulyres ' ents speak out p B49 y Carolyn Sackarfason �n Daily News Staff Writer Unruly William's Addition residents voiced outrage toward the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission after they were told they couldn't comment on a pro- posed affordable housing project in their neighbor- hood Tuesday. "I think this is absolute horseshit," said resident Jon Busch. "You either allow us to speak or call the police. This is wrong, you cannot say we are not allowed to speak. This project should be dead tonight." Developers Ted Guy and David Guthrie want to develop an estimated $2.5 million affordable housing complex, comprised of 12 one -bedroom units and a one two -bedroom unit on a 13,500 square -foot lot at ainst project at P&Vree_I_in_g the corner of South and Spruce streets near the Smuggler neighborhood. Busch was just one of dozens of upset residents who packed the council chambers in City IIall to tell the commission exactly what they think of the project. But commission Chairperson Sara Garton said the proposal is in the conceptual review stage and the pub- lic can only comment on technical aspects of the pro- ject since the meeting was not a public hearing. But that didn't stop many residents from throwing in their two cents about the project, which they see as the worst possible concept for the area. But Guthrie and Guy think it is exactly what the neighborhood needs. "Philosophically, that is what we need for this com- munity," Guy said. Willi the housing authority trying to achieve a goal of 60 percent of the workforce living in the Aspen community, projects like these are necessary, Guthrie said. The property is currently zoned as a residential dis- trict, but the proposal calls for the lots to be rezoned as affordable housing. As it is zoned now, the developers could build the equivalent of two single-family homes up to 10,000 square feet each, Guy said. The impact of the affordable housing proposal would be much less than free market housing, the developers argue, because the four buildings in the complex would only take up 9,100 square feet. Sun Valley contingent wants to `Aspenize' their town Please see SMUGGLER on page 5 _,os LOCAL Residents concerned about density u SMUGGLER from page 1 Guy and Guthrie also maintain that with an afford- able housing project, the neighbors have a say in the design of the buildings through the public hearing process, whereas in a free market, they have none. But the residents didn't give the developers a chance to make their case since they kept interrupting, often screaming their displeasure about the proposal. The neighbors are mostly concerned with the increased traffic congestion in the area since the devel- opers are proposing 13 parking spaces for the occu- pants plus five additional guest parking on Race Street, which is platted as an alley. One neighbor said Race Street is used as a street and he is concerned about the social effects the development will have on the neighborhood since children play there. Garton said a traffic study is being conducted for the area and the developers have said they will put money toward traffic improvements if neces- Residents are also con- cerned about the high den- sity of buildings in the neighborhood already and this proposal will only add to the problem. sary. Residents are also concerned about the high density of buildings in the neighbor- hood already and this proposal will only add to the problem. Commission member Roger Hunt agrees. "I think it is a beautiful project, it is just in the wrong place," Hunt said. "That is my opinion now, but it could be persuaded otherwise." The planning staff told the commission they feel the project is compatible with the neighborhood, but the traffic concerns need to be addressed. Hunt said if the area is going to be included in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, the project should not be approved because the Aspen Area Community Plan indicated that area was already too dense. But it is unclear if the development is included in that particular area. The commission wants a detailed plan from the developers so the proposal can be reviewed again con- ceptually at its May 7 meeting. "I guarantee we will look very, very hard at this par- cel," Garton told the residents, adding the commission should physically examine the site. Guthrie and Guy had originally submitted the pro- posal as seven buildings with 15 units, but redesigned the project to conform to the commission's concerns. The one -bedroom units, which will be about 575 square feet, will sell for about $115,000 and the two - bedroom 800-square-foot unit will sell for $130,000, Guy said. The Aspen-Pitkin County Ilou,:ing Authority is in favor the project since it provides a mix of affordable housing with a residential neighbor- hood. But the density issue is also a concern for some members of the housing board. The developers are asking the housing authority to sub- sidize the project with public money. They also want to make the development similar to the Benedict Commons development. The project will include a variety of income cate- gories, with the majority being moderately affordable, Guthrie said. And if there are any profits made on the project, the money would go back to the subsidies, Guy told the housing board last month. Guy also said last month that he hopes to begin con- struction in August and have the units available for sale in June 1997, but it could be a long road for the developers if they keep meeting strong opposition as they did Tuesday night. 03/15/1996 10:56 9709274813 • THEOUOPE 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*)4 yours, r John-OorErruats or 8Z0 S. Avenue Partnership .e * ALTAUwners Policy F*icy of Title Insurar,* Issued By Nations Title Insurance Company Fq 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 bythe 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: L�4 President Attest: (L4 /�- Secretary Count rs ned: �0 By t- �J )�) a v Authorized Officer or Agent PITKlN COUNTY TREASURER 506 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 920-5170 SCHEDULE #014595 DISTRICT # 01 PROPERTY VALUATION _ LAND $20580 IMPROV. $220 TOTAL TAXPAYER NAME.: SKUFCA, ELLA V. P.O. BOX 124 ASPEN CO 81612 PAYMF�rr- ---------- PCT#9432/SKUFCA PAID BY: CASH $.00 CHECK:# 10651 $623.60 TOTAL PAID $623.60 LEGAL DESCRIPTION WILLIAMSPARTIAL ADDITION BLOCK J 0T lJ& 14 PREVIOUS SCHEDULE(S) 004438 TAX RECEIPT # 95011715132' DATE PAID 01/17/95 TIME: 15:13:29 TAX YEAR 1994 !INTEREST $.00 :SEWER LIENS $.00 |CITY LIENS $.00 1UNDERGROUNDING $.00 !ADVERTISING $.00 !FEES $.00 !TAX SALE REDEMPTION $.00 !SUSPENSE/OVERPAYMENT $.00 | | ( | � TOTAL $623.60 0 CHECKS AND DRAFTS ARE ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO FINAL COLLECTION 0 PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER 506 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 <303> 920-5170 PROPERTY VALUATION LAND $46400 IMPROV, _TOTAL $46400 SKUFCA, ELLA V. P.O. BOX 124 ASPEN CO 81612 PCT#9432/SKUFCA PAID BY: CASH $.00 CHECK:* 10651 $1,391.12 TOTAL PAID $1 391 12 PARTIAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION NlLLlAMS A0UlTl0N BLOCK J LOT 15& 16 TAX RECEIPT # 95011715130 DATE PAID 01/17/95 TIME: 15:13:08 TAX YEAR 1994 !INTEREST t.00 :SEWER LIENS $.00 !CITY LIENS $.00 |UNDERGROUNDING $.00 !ADVERTISING $.00 :FEES $.00 !TAX SALE REDEMPTION $.00 !SUSPENSE/OVERPAYMENT $.00 ' � � | | TOTAL $1,391.12 1� FwFCIIS AND DRAFTS ARE ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO FINAL COLLECTION 1�j 0 1.78030 B-771 P-71k 1/1'2/95 03:33P PG 1 OF SILVIA DAVIS P ,IN COUNTY CLERK & RECORD REC 10.00 FILING STAMP le5l //Y DOC MPM I a 3 O x O i- THIS DEED, Made this 5 day of 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 and *P�/j/1�i9�tl9��i�)�T as to an undivided 1/3 interest / At-*HLSMIN INVESTMENT CORPORATION, A C( CORPORATION whose legal address is 616 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 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 confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever, all the following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to -wit: (See "EXHIBIT A" attached hereto and incorporated herein) SUBJECT TO: Reservations contained in United States Patent recorded in Book 55, at Page 116; Mineral reservation as set forth in Deed recorded in Book 280, at Page 665; 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; Easement granted in Aspe Consolidated Sanitation District recorded May 24, 1988 in Book 564, at Page 777; Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subje also known as street and number property recorded September 12, 1979 in Plat Book 8 at Page 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, 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 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, 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. 1995 Real Property taxes payable in 1996 378418 B-772 SILVIA DAVIS P-57j. 01/26/95 12:31P PG i OF 2 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER REC DOC 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. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the said party of the first part has hereunto set his hand and spa] the day and year first above written. C/ -------------- Ella V. Skufca ----- --- ---- — [SEAL] -- -- ------ --- ----- [SEAL] STATE OF COLORADO 65. County of e-J The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �"�"'�� day of 19 14 by Ella V. My commission it `O -� 19q�. Witness my hand and official seal. y � ti Notary Public. Oak OCI No.932A. wARRAN Record. —Bradford Publishing Co., 1824-46 Stout Street. Denver, Colorado (573.5011)-8-77 Alm. R 378030 B-771 P-7V 01 / 12/95 03 :31 3P PIG ` 048 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. owe 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. 378418 B -772 P--571A 01 / �_6 / 9 5 1 ` : 31 P, PIG OF 2' NT1 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. 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. P 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 Aspen Pue-Application Conference Summary Project Applicant's Ri Represcnlative Owner's Namc Planner Dale Tyl►c of Applicalion % f �� S[•�1� '�2.a�ly!^ Description of the pro eci develolmlem beurg requesled -tY s��c-rues The applicant has been millested to respond to the following items and provide the following reports: Lend Use Code Sect iou Collurlents Allpopt — � GdMMtr r t; q+ 11'&Z and Iteferrstl A encies I'Irc review is: (1'&7 only) (LC onl ) ( Sc), Public I tearing: (yes (no) -- Deposit fur the Applicalion Review: Referral agency Ilat I'm -- TOTA L D1sl'OSIT 0$00.00 —_ - (Additional hours are IiiiieJ at a tale ul $TG:3%i►r.) 7b Apply Stibmil the Following hrformrrli:rrr: I. I'roof of ownership. 2. Signed Ice agicerttcnl. _l. Applic:tnl's moue, address ar.d telephone nurr►bcr in a letter Signed by Ilre applicant which also slates Ilse nan►c, mddress and Icle hone number of the represcnlative. d. "total depusi( fur review ol" the application _ 5. Z-0 copies of the cemplcle application pmcket alld lumps. G. Siiuiin;try leper explainint, the rrclriesl (exislink coliditions :u►tl proposed uses), including SIrcel address and Icgal desciiplion of the piopelly. 7. An 8 1/2" by I I" vicinity Mal) localink the parcel within the City of Aspcn. 8. Site 171a11 shall include properly boundaries, lot si,-.e, proposed access, and physical features (drihmgeways, slrcams, rivers, e1c.) 9. 10. These Hems need to be submitted if circled: a. List of acl.jaccnl properly owners within 300 feet of the subjecl property with addresses. b. Site pholos. c. Proof of legal access to the parcel. d. Ilisturic 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 A 18-96 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, 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. 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 I , io ]ME 5M066LER AFFORDABLE HOU51N6 • an ;-7 ■ Y' ■ I FIGURE GROUND HORTN 5MU66LER AFFORDABLE.HOUBIN6 510 SOUTH AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO EAM MEMBERS: ARCHMECT/EN&NEER: SURVEYOR: SOILS: MECHANICAL: 5OLAR: DEVELOPER REPRESENTATIVE: O LCM NaiRES SHOULD BE D4RE4TED THROIXsM THE ARGIRELT TN500R K 60Y A550CAATM17]DO TY0 RN RS KOAD H. ERS � ROAD TO DE DLTFJtMNED TO Be DETERMINED TO BE DETERMWED DAVID 6UfV1ERIE BASALT. CO. D7621 0040 BASALT, C.O. 61621 P 0. BX 4704 (41OH71-5161 (T70MI-9611 AEFEN, C.O. 51617 MIOA25-5371 o m IL frY z ° N. IL fr. l Q ~ CD c /-E _It _� �vf AL" f sfeE V 4VQ \__ate` _ -.- • - - ,•.�/ w 7 z• d � i J a y{ Z Z y k Q tR �j �G t d p < a C J! p K Y yR jp� py Jp i ► U i l <d�<�d• mm$mdimm ���6�3 ��tli10 ��f 00o i z J� i obo CC�iCaET¢ uic0000�:�5� F o '>S> tYe�� z O F s �$ 6 dh$ a &�• a I �-- z 0 0 • I f �Y o Q� 0CL cn r 0 Q `Y L/ s y 1• � LJ ] O W _ �• i ] I � V r>] i J o 2 -�� ' i w 0 z u O p O w i> i Y f i O= • • W O O♦ O i] fJ ] Z. i S O Y ^rwFiY O l • p i O W z f_ J � f W: •' w� W O w 3 t i J i S F W W O � q i i 0 ♦= f Q J w L r • O ] Z O F t F J Y s 0 F - ]_ 0 0 W ^•] W = o = o�pr i`_' 0 yu I `• >° `u� " x O' W : Z= O t =°oo i i i 0 0: i fop = O♦ V O F o o i - • : °w i o u u u o i�o^ ii . .:i i o f 3O .^ice ♦ oY o' O y V 3 W j•• O == O - w ° F V • w r = Y ,Op, t 000 • O W ' y - W i = = O Y t r ] O S F O O Y O y = t ^• O • f p Y _ = W O s •_ J f n f _ Y O= F Y Z Z~~ O y Y _ f w• r= O~♦ f r 3 f Y n f F n F O= p= F i W • w 0 J • O z O = W 3 i W O• O f y O • N i O W c M lit F i -^ w i f o-:wu O i . i 0•`• ♦� V O S W R^ � r � y • f OO w N y�:jO .■ =O OIZeJ i ° OAF �OF "w J::O u:FtOOtO OF♦F° W O O O F• i w O♦2 u J• S O i a= O ✓• ?f.03f ,O, n_ - f' p S YI W>> W O i I F .°• W f F Y w ^ W l 0♦ H i U• Y j V i w w t t F^ O M O W W W F Z N F y♦ ` o 0• • j Y F °O = O O Y F F W JOU Y • W FF -_ O r W n y V n W� F^ R• F ♦ w O w F 0 f Z O O S ^ r F• O r i 0 O F = ° i f f w♦ W i F 2 J V W Fs Y; O Y Z e O Y^ O t 0 f O 0 I o y 7 R S w z K i - f W•• p w i i: i o i o i t o V - ^ t i �- Y f �� GWo. Ro uJsjif .Yi 2Zuz z s•'_ ui : , z. - _ • i 2 070 V °j w Y Y R OV = V O Y J Y F W• S t O f 0 O 3• w♦ w F y w y^ F S '♦ F 2♦ p S i i O V W p^ G • W W i n : O] • f ozf a=y= Yiownw°ice niwow._fu ei �w •ice -� i u o u � • p W i y ii m i s i o i o : o♦ w w W o R i y o F• o r� ° f•' = O O w F V> F i O J f O Y F O O• O w" -° r !°• f f♦ p♦ y ^ i i i < t 0 W O p O y i G w f O F =_ F„ W J W 3= f : u F i : f f i W-♦ W o y w w Y i i 0 e o• u o► o^ o f W w o♦ W: n r z o o o i Y= Y F ^._ F ; Ffi .wlow u• S fuu•In o,-� i • « o f_o R 3 3= ti o i i : 3 f o a►:+ R W y f • w f i w zo J_ w W z o f i •'w' `z ^ cw w o o e„^; o W t I F .� ♦ 2`' w w u Y O w Y W I^ w=• Y W W: M W w A w W W Fy Oy `; z O O O Y : S S l w Y W♦ y W W V O i O F i i A O W V i w♦ •°i W F w S W w 2 F 2 w F 0 o i F w w, F 4, O f O W. 1S 3Dnads 141/v2 c,/L,Lf.00L - M•00,0..00E IY1 IIL I'i„000♦.00L w � w O O W W e � u z � 13 u o 0 i of ' e 11 9. .......... 1 o: }� •F• iii C 21Z w ; > U ,I ��� '••....' gay : ♦ t w F 3 : • O F AA, - u O u E A i 1. wo• �~ O G JZ 0 F F f F = Y o x wa. ♦• Qp £ r7 W� W o u] 2 Y t W r ^ q 2 O I O Z g ` ' Ste`„� _ s .o_° p i f u y'��t is. .f•..t �'��L `4 ti !f� g r �M w Y P w, C?, \w w P' ! 1 f i i es 1.. •1 1 1 1 I I 1 _ . 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 nn •.n I UPI Il ),Lf L 3./P,L 2.00M 11 ,L 0'Of 7..=,L0.10M I Y 1.0009 3.00.00,.00Y (Y),00'0 31 .00,0..00M I I J 11011100f s"Willim [ X2010 A]llY / 3 / o / • i/ _ ` o0 x 2 • orr N O O n n p ° � / . C f to 00 i I 1 I 99 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 !1 w w IL LL SIm � 0)<=dS Q �azus 3�(r�ds o NOIstGjxa XTo-Gals •J _ Tr- _ W_ . 1 Lit - I 11 1 1 II 1 I 11 1 I � u ii tr 1 i 0. I 1 II I I 1 II I 1 1 II I I 1 II I 1 II 1 I 1 u �1 — 1 ._....I.....-... I.. ....-. L..... .._ .. --------------- ----------- I..... ..- F a I I �lil �•® W Q 1 I I I I Gl I LLl 1 I I • 1 � I I I � 1 y 1 I I + I I I F v MjU Z U � mQ s a- go DO MI _�� w" (L J9 Lul z g O z i6ID LL Q dtn DAMU n .r v In LL L ■i z 0 F w -----r' i I ----�r Z • 11 11 �I �1 11 II II II II II II 11 II II 11 I� II 11 11 II II II II II II II II 11 11 11 I ------rl I (yJ� wQ� LL I 1 1 I 1 I rp r�,h rN' low]' - � = E-1-111`1 n z � J JCLU L WAl r ED LL 0 Z Q z OL w a J 1 ot t fj IL UA 4 m 4 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I rrl 1 I I I O F Q 0 1 .1 1. L I• I• •I •I , •I r IrI�� 1,'i,' I• 1• •I •I . J .I t i •I I• F I• 1• •I `I , •I r r J .I I. L ' I. I. .1 •I I• I• •I •I � •I r r 1• I• •1 •I , •1 r r 1• I• 1 1 •I • I• M 1 .1 I. L 1• 1• •1 •1 , •1 I• Ir I• 1. .I .I i •I I• � I• I` •I •I , '1 r I t I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 L, I I 1 1 z 0 W u� � w Lx n M Z Z r w < mm 0 In Y LL z lu In ED IL oar I z g J tH z W z Q m W z Lvu- Xx �J I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 F- I 1 1 1 tu ' 4 - I Q I LJ O r� I II 11 II II II II II II II 11 11 II II II II 11 11 11 II O j1 II II F II a 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I V Q w rl o �CL Q �� Wf�'n • 21 IL 1 4 QUl d� n )< S Q V 'f vtML P r b 4 IC I 11 I II II II I I I 11 I II II II I I I 11 I II I II II I I I II I II II II I I 11 n I I II 11 I I II 1 II 11 11 I I 1 II II � I 1 II n 1 I 11 11 I 1 II 1 II 11 II I 1 I it II I I 11 II I I 11 I 11 11 II I I I II I 1u1 II IUI I I I u I II I II u II II I I I I II I II II II II II I I Z 5 IL J Z_ 5Z d fL W J a CO }v Z W W mm pp J 0 pia .g -g w Y �U- gORmill 4 � I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 r h ryas � o= — r� X F Q to L J -----' LJ — 7 � SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AFFORDABLE HOUSING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (AH1/PUS) MARCH 15, 1696 A HEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT, COLORAOO e 1 621 (970) 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. i Sincerely, uce Barth THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC 96106 PSI BB/Jp 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 *ere uy 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 VICINITY MAP 1•10 .�. s SV R 1 \i v4"�b1 5 � fpM To PllmroeePe 4f •Maroon Lake n ft Wm � 6P tdwllnN Or, Dr.._. .. .._ H 7J DDrrSFP a .. E d 5 P Lereapue Ln Dy. A ...II . If Arnr 0Pk ..H67 Ai.e a .A 7 Alice 1. ...117 FFed Sit — it R .061 Ah• Vi lk P-1 1 OJm. St ../1 7 Ardmore (1 Ik .. ....IIJ Oumlz6 St 0 11 1 S A'I_ S Oib,_ A ... 01136 A.yen Alp R ... 111 7 OiRe+1 Sr .. _H S B.mW 1-1 C1 _0 ... 1 OIIk+pN B.y St .. ..0 6 0-1 h BenrwnR hRR Rd 61-1 IlJlun St .. ....Oaa Blx/ R h lk ... .. ... E F 3 1 Ile.rlx+ l O H 2 Bkdv 11 ... O 1 S - Hmae 11 ... __. E 1 e 11 h 0111 6 Holden O 1 Blur nn tly .._._ _H.1 H U .. &3 6 IlopkirA .. O IIJ 6 Bunny L &F If nrrlrre��� C'." C k Dr . F-1 lluntyf Creel C.nrte C k Rd .. 0111 I �v1A 01116 C'rmenni ICI .. 167 i /1 .n 11 .. .IIJ 1 (71-11ld Rd. .A 3 1 / I i 41 ... 11 6 Clrcufl A - ....I7 Ixe+n Ln ... 11-I.67 Clr.rl. d St .. 116 1 .1 A F 0.4 Cnrprr A H } S / LnkrFur I H 3 Cancm. d C R 4 Iiurcl L _.111 Conan. d 1 .. r''�0 6 lmre R Rd ... OJ 6 COmI (k Rd. .._.17 lupine lk .. ..Id1 UdeU.St ..... . 11 6 Mgnif Rd ... e / m St ...._. ... ...Ild M.in St ....... ..OIIJS AT0144roll II . A Aspen k%d ute Musk: Tent ood d Ln amme Hallam Is woo d Ci Lakc ;r b �.. 8 3 1 Not an sheets or roads are shown on maps or In guides. Construction of streets and roads cony In progress In certain areas. M 11 N. I63J Id.rnnn Cl D......P-1 MucsrnR 0 Rd.......1.1 r7 dryti� 0 $ P �+ epe`ysr M.yna.rrn........... :.../nJ Mdl .. R6...._ Metl.. n. fk............0 it � a Mr.dnn+Rd........... .P-OJ h11Hbl MITI11 S. St ....OJ 1 mall,qb, a41 6i t . Rd Mmr. h 1t 6H 1 M—W h Dr........ 831 Min V f R ... .. J M1 Aar.m mOk R H3 81 ` �L q Hkhol 1 a", 1 1 open w Hiahlh ►Dr.. Hmh St e1 P 11 Rim fk T A b.n a H _ O.k I.e .. Oritln 1 it .. ..a 6 H 1 6 EJ RlemldeA .. W6 Rlemlde D, I .. 1 -W .n Olook Dr H 1 11 t iod UK ..... 1 7 O �73 or Pnk A ('Ir .H 6 RoW t Fad Rd 11S .n ~ Si Prul Sr....... ........................ Peck It _F/ ....E S Rm.n _I.. .. S.Mn a 06 .DEG da 7Pd Saaft Ae..._....O`6 (. Pik:. W'y E RI S.�r 0 � .. _E 3 Sprint St. __ ......... ...6H S 6 Pimp M Dr D63 S. eul CI 1 .. . EQ 11+u! SI .0 6 pi lr P 1 S.. M 11 Ct . 0 1 Summit St . II 1 P... Pl.m Rd. III P th POJ . H 3 Same A L... Sh.dy cad a... 0117 114 1 TeJO Trrhy la 11 1 1 Pulp? O S Sh.dy Ln 1 FO S 7luxon R . E -F -I.I 82 yr.mld Rd Queen St. ..0 1 1116 Short cl 1 9il.er King Or 06 iwRld U _ 11.1 \ .. R.ce St .0 6 Sllmml 1 1 .. El ....IIJ U.I. A P� 17 6 Ya L ._ O 6 --� Red R n Dr ..b!-3J Sm.ttl S ..I _. P-0J-0 71 door A .. ....06 Red M 11n Rd DO-06 Smupl Oro Pd 1167 a'.te A ..16 Rrd'. Rd D EJ 6 Smu tk+ M 11 Rd .e if 61 N'rn End S. .A 16 Mtrm Sr ..11.6.7 Sn� St .. HJ W-A17... __I.7 1 Rids, 11Ill. .. ......E 7 7mdy Ia .. 1.... P O.1 Ilnuthhy Wy. .... E F 1 S To Twin L RioOrude R............... .. O IIJ3 Sm. Runny Cy_...... .. _.&1 watts Re.. ..... ......e_s Independence n a A II 11 fit\ �IP.I'S II 0 E' 91 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. 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 , j 0 (b"1'T 5) Minimum Side Yard Setback: 5 FT/Actual Sideyard Setback 5 FT 6) Minimum Rear Yard Setback/Actual Rear Yard Setback Primary Building: 10 FT Primary Building: 10 FTC Fu,r ��s tb %. �,, v� Accessory Building: 5 FT Accessory Building: 5 FT 5b , 7) Maximum Height: 25 FT/Actual Height: 25 FT 8) Minimum Distance Between Buildings: 5 FT/Actual Distance Between Buildings: 6 FT Minimum 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 1 1) 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 f r. 0 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. 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 concurTently 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 (AHl/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 (AH11PUD). (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 1 a 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 (1) Bedroom: (2) Bedroom: h. Trash access N/A i. Internal floor N/A area; 400 S.F./Actual (1) Bedroom: 897 S.F. 800 S.F./Actual (2) Bedroom: 1795 S. F. area; area ratio; and 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. 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. 12 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. N/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 A 1.1. 13 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. 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 1 1. 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/PUD). 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 11 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 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 A7.1 (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 A7.1 - 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. 26.92.020. 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 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 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 (I oft), Category 4 Please see the attached information as it pertains to other issues. BNB/bnb 96106 M3 19 v.tl. oM J* G',P - OnU•1F_KLY b.44-ZED A9 CJ=NTF.IZ OF'tam:)N -L riu5 R-54 W, (on-1 P.M. AND GATD 1994, KCW MAW ZC) 'S P. M.' AND VAT-0 ITM �i ( i 1 ( ( 1 (� I � f � 1 I � t= SPECIAL REVIEW PLAT FOR. SEPARATION OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS -4 OF R-193ZUPdE DISfRCT I C,mnMATM Of OfDIC/ 04 AW OWNEK5H P SIJRYEYO0 CESATE - - — ZIG - '---- ( ( • a x>.CA 8 ---------- 2.5� Hs�-2o•oo'w f2 00 t _ 10,M ALL iv N W iNESE PKE5D-M THAT r-LLA V. 9K1 o / 1 tJAt g F. REAR, iCETiISTEIeEt7 AtJO 5L1RVL`C71C, F#EkC1'ri� wo;Pf Tt MT T Fy�V2 FKEPARGD TF#g bPEC1AL K£VIEW z Nt7A. ; p �.rFy _ BEING Tt1£ GNER NOr-CCIZTAIN LANLb IN FITKIN GallfW CJJLOIC/ JJO, DE'_CRIPSCD A-, 1ZA101MT3 < FLAT FOR tC OUT`�IL7E PSOUNQ AND OR IEFAKATION Or � RAF ATLXtE- 6,ff TH C A PARTOF TML NmWAOT QLPgTEIC OF THEwL"Hwf�i THE I40MWC5T C>lt-1 Kn7. OF Ttf NCLVRATCL(ANDCtJRRFs'TLY `.*1oWN t t�El>'t, it -AT' T} IE RAFTED 5tT'� CDN11t7Rr�1, TO TNdT STAKED N Tt iK fIONCKM : N; 6 J t' QUAKTCR AND OF 'WUNEAM Qt1ARTM OF 9CM1014 7, TCMRC*lF 10 'JOUM, RAND 154 WL5T OF 7HC GT M PK*4cA L 6rMf41 t ��'�' 9� MERIDIAN, K1IOWN A3 LDTS 13 14,15 ANTS 16, MCCK 3, TN wt J IAYC 5ET FAY tO�AND'EAl- ' 5..3�8 WILLIA& ADDITTON: 9415 DAW(l Y /L_ �Iz-.4-53.o(o ��/ Qy CHOW: =J�IJ CWW' I� & JV AND AN ADJAGEPCT TRJ�.Tor LAND 9tTU�1T>=D IN THE .— //•' - , q NORTHWEST QLPXMK OF THE hOLM-IrAST QLPKMt� OF 5#40 9F.GT10I`J 7, OEING MING 00LWED ON TF-1E L At REg F. Rr5M, L h. 1104 21 44<o W 5OUTHCANERLY UOE ar AN MAMNS FLNC-E AND OCINE1 MORE FULLY DE'SCKICED M)FMOW5• BCGINNIN6 p f 9 AT A ftJiNT ON 1"E WENT LINE OF')AID NO"WESr I >� �! , i'•LC" �� QUARTER OF TFE'�O rABT QVAKMr_ ` "ENCt THE WARD OF CDUNW --------------i - - ' ,--------,�SCd.355Q. tT------- CPNTFK QUARTER CPRIvFR Or'�A1D Sr�rK7N 7 MAIM e Cal Y•'NCE APPROMAL N1 t}� --- - - - - - - - -- ftr O TFF13S1C.E NAN6 THE ART: of .A CtJIZS/E TO A G T (Rth--r `iAVIN� A RADIU?� OF 433.04 FCET A PIr�TA110E 7F 20.1b FEET THE Ct�ORD OF iF115 SPECJAL REVIEW RJCi PJR 'JCPARATIGN OP ( f J N i%.95 WHtC 1 OJKVE DEARS NG2'37'35E 28.14 FEEr ro A 5u05TAND RD tf>� HA' CEEN IRMVENWANR ew IN Of r v C & �N 3 �9�"� roc nTa�i�c,F D THEICC e27'21'4Gu + '9Y 7?. cn r.,gaN � TL11-1 � Av L1 r f ( •1 t C4 ; Y Q ` ° r FENCE LINE THENCE tJ33°4-'N* Af KOS, FEET ALONG eAID Tt N�� AF:'F�Nv_ ISY THC TWIN C7Lk7 OO�PD dF CDMMI ,C�YJ12R'� LYTE7 .dOr EXiFIdDTO UittIT1E5, NA7fCI?1')LSw'oT1EFi�, OK MY 5[RV FJK111T71'J• ' + -)(p4 *22 43 W 10-W FENCE LINE, rEWU UNE TO A R7INT ON Eti U NE J 1 OF 'aND NOKTH WE�r QLAKTrm OF 1"t f W j '�• �� SOtTTFiFAOI- QL.tgRTER. 714p4m N01'O2'42" 17.9�i FEET ALCNr, THE WE'7T P17KITf BQ4R>7 7F dMMA LINE _F 6aAID rx3RitiwE7T ?JARTt"1C OF THE 5CMHE45T " i All G LlgtziER T07HE POINT OF DE�iN " �j �^y _ Q r "DK� EG>< (( �C>v - f ----------------� * !AID TKAGT9 CONTAINING 15, 3GI.3b 5QUARE FEE- rroRe:,R Lim; �_�-__ NflT2MCOW yZ23 F1A5 BY THESE PRESENTS, AND 'N G3NFfJRtiVVVC.E W'17t1 Tt f£ F'TK1N wa,,r' C LAND uror MGTE, cx--ncN 7.22 -I�'SPEC'4iL Kfi/1C`.+! nN FOR SGPiuzi.T "�F �tLJ09 AN1a1RD L�j 1'5 AC^ PTI'_D tt7R FTUNG N -,W A9 AF 1CNDED B( ICE50LiLANC [ 1INTO W gFAMETCD 7HEA3ClVE i7E5✓WBrsD LANDS INTO TWO PARCELS, OFFCE TFif C1Et AND Kt7lL-_ 1x12G F'T1� CDIJNTV, fAOfeACY1, ,i��- E�►y cr P T= Hole. acov zr� eow�ex zr NnTn '� reEe+�¢ w vtiv�Ttr' aw rw v �a 9 s•+ TIi1' F"IRST Co":N5TIN6 7F aAtD LDT7 i3 AND 110, AND 1171, 1N PLAT eat<� _AT pAC-��- THE SEcaND coN�TTNG OF bvw LOPS 13 ANU 14 AND THE ACl- ACENT TRiCr ` l /Q f M y4-%8 2 0 B l0 20 30 47 bGFf CLPK1t AND KEWRDL� tRV • . '1'L�'L.... FAT,.• ,.- -- SOUTH. � ' �71E �t5� OFAR:N55? • :)orr.4dm*w N "JND IOONM => CkVMF Q OCK 'r A t TNC `�t1IHFAG*T — A TI-t N0KThFA jr CF TIDE•►, TF Y5OFF 197'► - THE A NEW to �= •AI64indiTn rrrlK P R IC 3JEROl' TiF t1 T'�IQCK 3 WIL[�PWty'�. , r. - - FITM593 - Alt Clyo[TAj r J F? CC PeTl't7dd"M AT Tt= --. - ; - -T 7ALSi.E 'a'�L`a1:S �ItiDtf'tT.1G�i.,R�C�''�' �� ,4y�T .. -. _ PLA1 lRC!>RI(t� ice, rv,_ �,: p 1T3a 4P ►FC�t�G� No STPUcTX�iTWkUNTY .'t'LitZJi Cr aClrMOLM =157-I - ig t oo 3 QN i C T 4. C +!V M wLnT TT+C 'L:yril V tYh`Y CH 40T' J1ri6 t1L�i93L1 t MtE T1 r Ow JF 1171 r4 ;y ME.VED 11:.�LD .tRG'EL' Tb. ki'!'TOkT�. "J A I f�. R!y''� cLL t5 lL ti�1�( �TtiJGT17RC,. 711G F i'gN %AL Bp( EI1 A V OKUFGA, ;. !c �T[r1CK . tRiX 1 TT>C 90U � � 1g EC. LC/115T T1VI.h1FY FSwT : Z�: " WITNt'b9 MY rVNVJ: tO �FY At7LL�- To �TK:IC F IQC ON Lr3T fs 1511E F:O F13�i ►t[ ybUttt C tl+L' O G T a�L w 471Xr1T55fON L7T i IRE 1 ff 17nMZ WILL iX iMO iLYTLPE 5UDf71V?51G ar ,W t rlyC r'_ JG ! " r E 51TE DATA: LAND USE: EXISTING PROPERTY, 5U5DIVIDED INTO A SINGLE FAMILY AND A DUPLEX LOT, TO BE REZONED TO AGGOMODATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. TWELVE ONE BEDROOM UNITS (CATEGORY 2,3 AND 4) AND ONE TWO BEDROOM UNIT (CATEGORY 4). DIMENSIONAL 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: 4005P. (1) BEDROOM: %1 S.F. (2) BEDROOM: 800 5.F. (2) BEDROOM: 1923 5.F. 3.)MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 3OFT/ACTUAL LOT WIDTH 120 FT 4.) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK/ACTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK PRIMARY BUILDING: 15FT PRIMARY BUILDING: O FT (® SOUTH AVENUE) ACCESSORY BUILDING: 10 FT AGE55ORY BUILDING: O FT (® SOUTH AVENUE) 5.) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK: 5 FT / ACTUAL 51DEYARD 5ET13ACK 10 FT 6.) MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK/ACTUAL REAR YARD SETBACK PRIMARY BUILDING: 10 FT PRIMARY BUILDING: 10 FT ACCESSORY BUILDING: 5 FT AGESSORY BUILDING: 5 FT 7.) MAXIMUM HEGHT: 25 FT - 30FT THRU SPECIAL REVIEW/ACTUAL HEIGHT: 25 FT MAXIMUM 5.) MINIMMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: 5 FT/ACTUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDIN65: 12 FT MINIMUM 9.) LOT COVERAGE: BY SPECIAL REVIEW/ACTUAL PERCENT OF LOT GOVERAGE:48.50k 10.) EXTERNAL F.A.R.: 1.1:1/ ACTUAL EXTERNAL F.A.R.: 0.50:1 11.) NO INTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS 12.) OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: LEAST OF EITHER 1 5PACE/BEDROMM OR 2/DWELLING UNIT ACTUAL OFF-STREET PARKING PROVIDED: (19) TOTAL SPACES - ONE PER BEDROOM(CATEGORY 4) WV(5) GUEST SPACES SQUARE FOOT CALCULATIONS: BUILDING ONE: (4) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT i - 577 S.F. UNIT 2 - 5i7 S.F. UNIT 3 - 550 S.F. UNIT 4 - 577 S.F. TOTAL - 2376 5.F. BUILDING TWO: (5) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - 455 S.F. UNIT 2 - 550 S.F. UNIT 3 532 5.F. UNIT 4 - 580 S.F. UNIT 5 - 580 5.F. TOTAL 2555 5.F. BUILDING THREE: (1) ONE BEDROOM UNIT (1) TWO BEDROOM UNIT UNIT 1 - 576 5 F. UNIT 2 862 5.F. TOTAL - 1456 5.1`. BUILDING FOUR. (2) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - 577 S.F. UNIT 2 - 572 5.1`. TOTAL - 1149 S.F. TOTAL OVERALL BUILT LIVABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE - i815 S.F. ADDITIONAL PARKING a STORAGE 5QUARE FOOTAGE - 1998 S.F. TOTAL BUILT SQUARE FOOTAGE - 9816 S.F. PLANT 5GHEDULE: Botanical Name/common Name Size Spacing Gona TT-ee5 �T 28 Clump-Populu5 tremloide5/Quaking Aspen 2.5"-3.0' cal PP 3 Picea pungens/Colorado 5pruce Existing trees as shown/indicated on survey 5hrub5 and G,oundcover5 CAR 55 Gornu5 5ervicea/Red-osier Dogwood 5 gal 4750 5.f. 50d a.5. 5$5 a.s. BdB a.5. Full Symbol f W w V , W LU WO WAY RES ES ENC' THREE GAR GARAGE A AREA ----- ------, � I I I eARKNG I I I I I I I _ , _-..-.._..-..-..-..-..-.._.._.._.-..-.._.._.._..-.._.._..-..-..-..-.._..-..-.._..-..-.._..-..-.._..-.._..-.._.._.._.. \--------=----------------------------------------- --- -------- - -------------- ----- N • o 00 I P'.2 0 r.L71T ml _../ : °jc= BEDROOM E1 \� P3 - BATH -- --- ----- E2 P4 I� 71 PS 0 LIVING -- - - - - - - I sron \ti ------------- IR pa-K I"� LIVING MMO SPG WALK -4 0�" STORM YVATER \ I PS I I Pcl tFFIG; I I IUQS / P10 L -- --- — — - - - - - - - - - - - E3 P / 11 E4 ' L / P12 i 1 LAUNDRY / I I 0000, ALL VEHIGULAR ACC 55 FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL BE FROM ALLEY ONTO SOUTH AVENUE AGGE55 RETENTION AREA j / / LIVING/DINING 6EDROOM GL Krr / I \ L. I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I \... I -- I COMMON GARDEN PORE" 5PAGE , 1 VA K I � ---------- - crl. i 7 0 E�CISTING 51��wp,LK 5 DENSITY INFO: 12 - ONE BEDROOM UNITS 1 - TWO BEDROOM UNITS 14 - TOTAL BEDROOMS 14 - REQUIRED RESIDENT PARKING 5PAGE5/GAR5 5 - GUEST PARKING SPACES/GARS PARKING KEY: P# = RESIDENT PARKING SPACE T# = TANDEM PARKING 5PACE(FOR TWO BEDROOM UNIT) E# = EXTRA OR GUEST PARKING 5PAGE TOTAL PARKING 5PAGE5 = 19 PHY5IGAL ADDRE55: 810 SOUTH AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO LEGAL DE50RIPTION: LOTS 15,16 AND PART OF LOTS 13,14 BLOK 3 WILLIAMS ADDITION i • e w LU z LU LU v X LU CL L11 _Q TO PARK GIRDLE SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN GRAPHIG SCALE 0 5 10 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PG ARCH ITEGTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1640 23250 HWY.52 BASALT, GOLORADO 81621 PHONE (305) c127-3167 FAX (303) 92-7-4513 PATE REMARKS 3-15-96 REZONE 3-25-96 REVISED REZONE -------------------- 4-i-96 P/Z SMUGOLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASPEN, GOLORADO JOB #: %103 DRAWN: BNB GHEGKED: PRINTED: SHEET TITLE: SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN COPYRIGHT THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PG RESDENGE P1 P2 , F ^ems=R P4 s=� FC)- --- --- W 5AT. — KIT I � WING DINING P n , 9EDROOM .- --�--- i- - - -- Pq p5cx LU ;P13 --AT� I !<1T - BE�ti00M I � NN^41LJ ----tit FOYER I LtV NG P 15 FOYER N;NG I J�I J T I AT - I ;P1-7:-- ,L ViNG � i s�oow i - - - - - - - - - - - - T4KEE GAR GARAGE TY / / / / / �>c15T1NG �1��wp,LK PAVED AREA �J / • 51 TE PLAN z 0 z w W Y 4 w Q LEGAL PF.5GRIPTION: LOTS 15,16 AND PART OF LOTS 13,14 BLOK 3 WILLIAMS ADDITION PHY510AL ADDRE55: 510 SOUTH AVENUE ASPEN, GOLORADO 51TE DATA: LAND U5E: 312,1194 EXISTING PROPERTY, SUBDIVIDED INTO A SINGLE FAMILY AND A DUPLEX LOT, TO 3E REZONED TO AGCOMODATE AFFORDABLE HOU51146. FOURTEEN ONE BEDROOM UNITS (12 - CATEGORY 4 AND 2 - GATEGORY 2) AND ONE TY40 BEDROOM UNIT (CATEGORY 4). DIMEN51ONAL REOUIREMENT5: 1.) MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 3,000 5.F./ACTUAL LOT 51ZE: 15,465 S.F. 2.) MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING/ACTUAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING (1) BEDROOM: 4005.F. (1) BEDROOM: 541 S.F. (2) BEDROOM: 500 S.F. (2) BEDROOM: 1652 S.F. 3.)MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 30FT/ACTUAL LOT WIDTH 120 FT 4.) MINIMUM FRONT YARD 5ETBAGK/AGTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK PRIMARY BUILDING: 15FT PRIMARY BUILDING: 15 FT AGGE55ORY BUILDING 10 FT AGE55ORY BUILDING: 10 FT 5.) MINIMUM 51DE YARD 5ETBAK: 5 FT/ACTUAL SIDEYARD 5ETBAGK 5 FT 6.) MINIMUM REAR YARD 5ETBAGK/ACTUAL REAR YARD SETBACK PRIMARY BUILDING: 10 FT PRIMARY BUILDING: 10 FT ACCESSORY BUILDING: 5 FT AGE55ORY BUILDING: 5 FT -1.) MAXIMUM HEGHT: 25 FT - 3OFT THRU SPECIAL REVIEW/ACTUAL HEIGHT: 30 FT TO MAX. POINT 3.) MINIMMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: 5 FT/ACTUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: 6 FT MINMUM 9.) OPEN SPACE PERCENT: BY 5PEOAL REVIEW/AGTUAL PERCENT OF OPEN SPACE: 44.5` - 10.) EXTERNAL F.A.R.: 1.1:1/ ACTUAL EXTERNAL F.A.R.: 0.54:1 11.) NO INTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMEN75 12.) OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: LEAST OF EITHER 1 SPACE/BEDROMM OR 2/DWELLING UNIT ACTUAL OFF-STREET PARKING PROVIDED: (1-7) TOTAL SPACES - ONE PER BEDROOM(GATEGORY 4) W/(5) 6UE5T 5PAGE5 5MARE FOOT CALCULATIONS: BUILDING ONE: (4) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - 721 S.F. UN 2 - '72-7 S.F. UNIT 3 - -127 S.F. UNIT 4 - -705 5.F. TOTAL - 2884 S.F. BUILDING TWO: (3) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - l00 S.F. UNIT 2 - -713 5.17. UN 3 - 711 5.F. TOTAL - 2124 S.F. BUILDING THREE: (2) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - 715 S.F. UN 2 - -715 S.F. TOTAL - 1430 S.F. BUILDING FOUR: (1) TWO BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL - 10% S.F. BUILDING FIVE: (3) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - 729 5.F. UNT 2 - -103 5.1`. UNIT 3 - i00 S.F. TOTAL - 2132 5.F. BUILDING SIX: (1) ONE BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL - 509 S.F. BUILDING SEVEN: (1) ONE BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL - -7-75 S.F. TOTAL OVERALL BUILT SQUARE FOOTAGE - 11250 5.1`. PLANT 5CHEDULE: 5ym. Oty. Botanical Name/Common Name Size Spacing Gond ymbol Trees PT 25 Clump-Populu5 tremloiae5/Quaking Aspen 2.5"-3.0" cal. a.s. 543 " PP 3 Picea pungens/Colorado Spruce 12'-13' a.5. 543 Existing trees as shown/indicated on survey Shrubs and 6roundcover5 GOR 55 Cornua servicea/Red-osier Dogwood 5 gal. 41.5. Full 4750 5.f, Sod in v Q 1— w 0) u 0) w Q N Ul i — -- •---------- I -----; -=--------- ----- WALK-- . I P2 P3 ------------------ I P4 P5 ' BUILDING 1 1 BLD6. HT. - 30'-0 -- --- — — — — — ------------I 1 P6 F-7 I i -- --- --`-- - - - - ---- - - - - A IL PS T- - - - - - - - - - - - I I BUILDING 7- BLD6_ I P10 I I P11 � - J i I , I -- — — — — — — — — — — I ;P12 i BU P14 I Bu I ------------ -BUILDING 6 ;P13 51_D6. HT. - 25-0 P16 ------- ---I �P15; P18 ILT_ I ----- I - - - - - - - - - J ;P1- P1q � _ 125, 1 YVALK 10'-0" SETBACK --------------------- ------------------- IRI BUILDING 2 i BLDG. HT. - 29'-O I I I OMMON OPEN SPACE BUILDING 3 i BLDG. HT. - 26-0 � I I I WALK EX � NG SIbEw��K GRAPHIC SCALE 0 5 1020 z o w Lu X u Y Q uj v N� ink NOTE: LIMITS OF EXGAVATION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL BUILDING NOT TO EXGEED 5-0" BEYOND THE EXTERIOR PERIMETER OF THE FOUNDATION 1NALL5 LEGAL DE5GRIPTI0N: LOTS 15,16 AND PART OF LOTS 13,14 BLOK 3 ^LLIAMS ADDITION PHY5ICAL ADDRE55: 510 SOUTH AVENUE ASPEN, GOLORADO SITE/LANDSCAPE FLAN ® 1" = 10'-0" THEODORE K GUY ASSOGIATES PG ARCH ITEGTS AND STRUGTURAL ENCGINEER5 P.O. BOX 1640 23280 H1NY. 82 BA5ALT, COLORADO 51621 PHONE (303) 92�-316i FAX (303) 92-7-4813 DATE REMARKS -------------------- 3-15-96 REZONE 3-25-96 REVISED REZONE SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASPEN, GOLORADO JOB #: 96103 DRAYNN: BNB GHEGKED: PRINTED: SHEET TITLE: 5ITE/LAND5CAPE PLAN GOPYRI6HT THEODORE K GUY AS50GIATE5 PG 51TE DATA: LAND USE: EXI5TIN6 PROPERTY, SUBDIVIDED INTO A SINGLE FAMILY AND A DUPLEX LOT, TO BE REZONED TO ACCOMODATE AFFORDABLE HOU51N6. FOURTEEN ONE BEDROOM UNITS (12 - GATE60RY 4 AND:2 - CATEGORY 2) AND ONE TWO BEDROOM UNIT (CATE60RY 4). DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 1J MINIMUM LOT 51ZE: 3,000 5 F./AGTUAL LOT SIZE: 13,465 S.F. 2.) MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING/AGTUAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING (1) BEDROOM: 4005.F. (1) BEDROOM: 541 S.F. (2) BEDROOM: 500 S.F. (2) BEDROOM: 1652 S.F. 3.)MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 3OFT/AGTUAL LOT WIDTH 120 FT 4.) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK/AGTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK PRIMARY BUILDING: 1OFT PRIMARY BUILDING: 10 FT AGGE55ORY BUILDING: 5 FT AGE55ORY BUILDING: 5 FT 5.) MINIMUM SIDE YARD 5ETBAK: 5 FT/ACTUAL 51DEYARD SETBACK 5 FT (b.) MINIMUM REAR YARD 5ETBAGK/AGTUAL REAR YARD 5ETBAGK PRIMARY BUILDIN6: 5FT PRIMAR" BUILDIN(5: 5 FT ACCESSORY BUILDING: 10 FT ACE55ORY BUILDING: 10 FT '1.) MAXIMUM HEGHT: 25 FT - 3OFT THRU SPECIAL REVIEW/ACTUAL HEIGHT: 30 FT TO MAX. POINT 5.) MINIMMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: 5 FT/AGTUAL D15TANGE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: 6 FT MINMUM 9.) OPEN 5PAGE PERCENT: BY 5PEGIAL REVIEN/AGTUAL PERGENT OF OPEN 5?AGE: 44.5% 10.) EXTERNAL F.A.R.: 1.1:1/ ACTUAL EXTERNAL F.A.R.: 0.84:1 11 J NO INTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO REOUIREMENT5 12.) OFF-5TREET PARKIN& REQUIREMENT5 LEAST OF EITHER 1 5PAGE/BEDROMM OR 2/DWELLIN6 UNIT AGTUAL OFF-5TREET PARKIN& PROVIDED: (1'1) TOTAL SPACES - ONE PER BEDROOM(GATEGORY 4) N/(5) &LEST SPACES 5OUARE FOOT CALCULATIONS: BUILDING ONE: (4) ONE BEDROOM uNIT5 UNIT 1 - '72'1 S.F. UN 2 - -727 S.F. UNIT 3 - 727 S.F UNIT 4 - -703 5.F. TOTAL - 2554 S.F. BUILDING TWO: (5) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - '700 S.F. UNIT 2 - -713 5.F. UNT 3 - -7 1 1 S.F. TOTAL - 2124 S.F. BUILDING THREE: (2) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - -715 S.F. UNT 2 - 715 5.F. TOTAL - 1430 5.F. BUILDING FOUR: (1) TNO BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL - 10g6 S.F. BUILDING FIVE (3) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - "129 S F. UN 2 - '703 S.F. UNIT 3 - 700 5.F. TOTAL - 2132 S.F. B1JILDIN6 SIX: (1) ONE BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL - 609 S.F. BUILDING SEVEN: (1) ONE BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL - "175 S.F. TOTAL OVERALL BUILT SQUARE FOOTAGE - 11250 S.F. PLANT 5CHEDULE: 5ym. Oty, Botanical Name/Common Name Size Spacing Cond. Symbol Trees PT 25 Clump-Populu5 tremloides/Quaking Aspen 2.5"-3.0cal. a.5. 154B PP 3 Picea pungen5/Colorado Spruce 12'-13, 3.5 545 Existing trees as shown/indicated on survey Shrubs and &roundcover5 GOR 55 Gornus servicea/Red-osier Dogwood 5931. a.s. FUI 4750 5.F. Sod W In W Lu Q m v 4 m F— W In --=--------- ----- Y-ALK-- P2 I P3 I --,---T-----------------I P4 I P5 BUILDING 1 -- I ————— — — — — — P6 I P7 I — — — — — — — — J a: I I BUILDING '7 - 51-1:?6. HT. - 29'-O I I Flo --————— — — — — — I I P11 — — J alu I I I I I I I I I ;P12 I I I ------------ ------------I I 'P13: P14 I ------T----- -BUILDING 6 I P15 P16 ------------------ I I I ;P1-7 ; P18 I I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J qW ♦ T T 125' 10'-0" SETBACK BUILDING 2 BLDG. HT. - 2G'-O I I I I I oil I COMMON j OPEN SPACE i BUILDING 3 i aLDG- HT. - 26-G WALK j I BUILDING 4 BLDG. HT. - 24'-0 (r' BUILDING 5 / :J� / BLDG- HT. - 24-0 n w 4- A I��yyp,LK • z 0 � z W Lu'1 t-L.�l LLI VI lU Q ,Ll V N� l.L_.. n LL ''l VI NOTE: LIMITS OF EXCAVATION FOR EAGH INDIVIDUAL BUILDING NOT TO EXGEED 5-0'' BEYOND THE EXTERIOR PERIMETER OF THE FOUNDATION WALLS LEGAL DE5CRIPTION: LOTS 15,16 AND PART OF LOTS 15,14 BLOK 5 WILLIAMS ADDITION PH1'51CAL ADDRE55: 510 SOUTH AVENUE ASPEN, GOLORADO 5ITE/LAND5Gt4PE FLAN THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PG ARGHI7EG75 AND 57RUG7URAL ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1640 232,50 HkNY'. 52 BASALT, C OLORADO 51621 PHONE (303) 92-1-316-7 FAX (303) G27-4813 T .1 SMU66LER AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASPEN, GOLORADO JOB #: 96103 DRAYVN: BNB CHECKED: PRINTED: SHEET TITLE: 5ITE/LAND5CAPE PLAN .ry E @ 1" = 1 O'-0" COPYRIGHT THEODORE K GUY ASSOGIA7E5 PG