HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20240507.amendedAGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION
May 7, 2024
4:30 PM, Pearl Pass Meeting Room
3rd Floor, 427 Rio Grande Pl,
Aspen
I.ROLL CALL
II.COMMENTS
III.MINUTES
III.A Draft Minutes 4-2-24
IV.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V.PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI.OTHER BUSINESS
VI.A Resolution XX, Series of 2024 - P&Z Recommendation to City Council – Provision of
required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu payment - 350 Lake Avenue, 360 Lake
Avenue, 434 East Cooper Avenue, 1050 Cemetery Lane, 1205 Red Butte Drive
VI.B Resolution XX, Series of 2024 - P&Z Recommendation to City Council – Provision of
required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu payment - 1212 E Hopkins Ave
VII.BOARD REPORTS
VIII.ADJOURN
minutes.apz.20240402.pdf
Round 2 fee-in-lieu_Staff Memo.docx
PZ Resolution XX Series of 2024.docx
Exhibit A - Title 26 Policy 01-2024 - Expedited provision of required affordable
housing via fee-in-lieu.pdf
Exhibit B - Letters from the applicants requesting to pay fee-in-lieu.pdf
Round 2 fee-in-lieu_Staff Memo_1212 E Hopkins.docx
PZ Resolution XX Series of 2024_1212 E Hopkins.docx
Exhibit A - Title 26 Policy 01-2024 - Expedited provision of required affordable
housing via fee-in-lieu.pdf
Exhibit B - Letters from the applicants requesting to pay fee-in-lieu - 1212 E
Hopkins.pdf
1
1
TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice
(affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of
staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public
comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close
public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by
applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission
and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among
commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the
discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met Revised January 9, 2021
2
2
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024
COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDNCE: Maryann Pitt, Tracy Sutton, Marcus Blue, Eric Knight, Jason Suazo,
Tom Gorman, Ken Canfield, Christine Benedetti, and Teraissa McGovern.
STAFF PRESENT:
Jeff Barnhill, Planner II
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney
Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None
STAFF COMMENTS: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
MINUTES: Mr. Knight mo�oned to approve the minutes for November 21st, 2023, Ms. Suton seconded.
Ms. McGovern asked for an all in favor vote, Ken Canfield abstained, all other commissioners agreed. 6-0
mo�on carried.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No Conflicts.
SUBMISSION OF PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that notice was provided.
OTHER BUSINESS: Kate Johnson brought forth the first agenda item, elec�on of new Chair and Vice
Chair. Ms. McGovern and Ms. Benede� both agreed to stay in their current posi�ons unless someone
else wanted to be nominated, no one spoke up. Ms. Benede� nominated Ms. McGovern for Chair. Ms.
McGovern nominated Ms. Benede� for Vice Chair. Mr. Canfield motioned to elect Ms. McGovern for
Chair and Ms. Benedetti for Vice Chair and the motion was seconded by Mr. Knight.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ms. Pit, yes; Ms. Suton, yes; Mr. Blue, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr.
Suazo, no; Mr. Gorman, abstained; Ms. Benede�, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. 7-1 vote, mo�on passes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Burlingame Early Childhood Educa�on Center - Major Public Project, Planned
Development and Related Reviews Recommenda�on to City Council
Jeff Barnhill, City Planner, explained that this is a major public project review and has many different
review criteria, including planned development reviews. It is a recommenda�on of P&Z to City Council;
P&Z is not the final decision-making body.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Glen Horn, Land Use planner represen�ng the City of Aspen
Mr. Horn introduced himself, he represents the applicant, the City of Aspen. He entered an affidavit to
the public record, exhibit D. He introduced his team, Andi Korber, the team lead and project architect,
Jen Phelan the project manager for the City of Aspen, Megan Monahan and Nancy Nichols of Kids first
whom they worked with to come up with a plan and concept for the center. They are seeking approval
for the Burlingame Early Childhood Center. They started the project several years ago with neighborhood
outreach and a survey of Burlingame residents and residents of the upper valley, they did research of
childhood centers around Colorado and held community mee�ngs. He described the loca�on of the site
and the Burlingame plat. The center will have 94 children including 16 infants, 20 toddlers and 58
preschool children. There is a low child to teacher ra�on that is lower than the industry standard. The
3
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024
building will have 15,260 square feet of floor are including mechanical and subgrade space. They are
seeking Land use approval for Planned Development, Growth management quota system allotment,
commercial design review, public projects approval, transporta�on and parking management,
subdivision boundary adjustment, and extended vested property rights for a 10-year term. He said they
have reviewed the staff report and condi�ons of approval, and they are acceptable to the applicant.
Mr. Gorman asked what age children will be eligible? Staff answered all ages, star�ng at 6 weeks old.
Mr. Gorman asked how big the geographic area is they intend to serve and if it constrained by geography
or is enrollment limited. Ms. Monahan said the residents of Burlingame could have priority but all
residents of the Colorado River Valley, if they work up here and there is space, could enroll.
Mr. Gorman asked how kids first is funded. Ms. Monahan said it is funded by a city sales tax passed in
1989 that is split between affordable housing and childcare.
Mr. Gorman asked if it is considered a city agency. Ms. Monahan replied yes, it is a department of the
city of Aspen. Ms. Johnson clarified that the city owns it and is the applicant but is not exempt from the
land use code, so like any other applicant they have hired Mr. Horn to represent them, but Mr. Barnhill is
staff like in any other applica�on situa�on.
Mr. Gorman asked how many children are served by kids first. Ms. Monahan replied 350-400 children in
Pitkin County. Ms. Nichols verified 350 children.
Mr. Gorman asked how big the annual budget of Kids First is. Ms. Monahan replied around 1.5 million
and most of it goes to suppor�ng the 13 childhood centers in Pitkin County, financial aid, professional
development, and grants.
Mr. Gorman asked if that includes financial aid. Ms. Monahan answered yes for those who qualify for
financial aid.
Mr. Gorman asked if they have oversight over mul�ple facili�es. Ms. Monahan replied they are not
oversight or regulatory they are a support organiza�on. They choose to par�cipate in the kids fist
programs and they must qualify.
Mr. Gorman asked about 10-year ves�ng and if there is a budget for this facility. Ms. Phelan said they
had some ini�al cost es�ma�ng and what she recalls is $15 million. Ms. McGovern said the 10 years
ves�ng sounds long and asked if they have a fundraising plan and if there a reason it is 10 years. Ms.
Phelan said 10 years is permited by code. In discussing with the city manager’s office, they asked that
we request the max allowed.
Ms. McGovern asked if there is a fundraising plan? Ms. Phelan said they have been looking at some grant
money and revenue streams, but she has not been party to that discussion.
Ms. Pit asked if there has been a sales tax since 1989, where is the rest of that money going or if it is lost
every year if not u�lized. Ms. Johnson said that is a legal ques�on, and that when they pass taxes there is
a purpose statement and the money can only be used for that purpose. To the extent that money is not
used it will roll over.
STAFF PRESENTATION: Jeff Barnhill-Planner II
Mr. Barnhill introduced himself and gave an overview of the site and project. Project consists of 3
parcels and sits on a litle over an acre of land. Applicant proposes an infant to preschool early
childhood educa�on center with gross floor area a 15,362 sq � and a max height of 39.5 �.
Accommodate roughly 94 children and a projected staff of 24. Playground for each age of children, 41
total parking spaces. Development will require realignment of the trail that runs through the parcel.
4
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024
Considered an essen�al public facility which is a facility that serves an essen�al public purpose, is
available for use by or benefit of the general public and serves the needs of the community. This project
is going through a streamlined review know as major public project review. An applica�on of this scope
generally goes to P&Z for recommenda�on and later to council for conceptual review. Following the
ini�al review the applica�on will be required to submit a second applica�on within 1 year from
conceptual approval for final review which goes to P&Z for final approval. For this project, conceptual
and detailed review are packaged into a single app to P&Z for recommenda�on and Council for final
approval. By structuring the review this way P&Z, council, and the public gain a beter clarity and
con�nuity as the en�re applica�on is discussed all at once and avoids a piece meal approval that can be
difficult for the public to engage with. He spoke about the dimension varia�ons and said staff finds the
proposed dimension are suitable for the project. This project has been contemplated in this loca�on
since at least 2011. He went over the other reviews including growth management, commercial design,
public amenity space, transporta�on impact analysis, and gave defini�ons for some of those. A typical
commercial facility would be required to provide 3 units of parking per 1000 sq � of net leasable area,
this comes out to 42.75 parking units for a similar size development. This is a public facility, so parking is
decided by special review. The 41 parking spaces meet the needs of the facility, in total the applicant
proposes 46 total spaces. Staff does not support the phase parking plan or the 5 on street parking spots
on Harmony Rd. Some recommenda�ons are to build all parking spaces in one phase, eliminate the 5 on
street parking spaces, build less parking and incorporate more mobility measures on site and
contemplate a shared parking agreement for some spots when the facility is not in use. Currently they
are providing 100% of the parking requirement with the 41 spaces. Staff recommends approval of the
project with the condi�ons outlined in the resolu�on. Addi�onally, they recommend the on-street
parking and phase parking be removed from the proposal and a shared parking agreement is
contemplated for some of the spaces outside of opera�ng hours.
Ms. McGovern said the numbering of parking spaces in the packet versus the presenta�on is different,
she asked if it 41 or 40 spaces. Mr. Barnhill said that is an error on the sheet, he confirmed before the
mee�ng it is 41 spaces.
Mc McGovern asked if those playgrounds are open to the public when not in use. Mr. Barnhill said it
doesn’t have to open to the general public. Ms. Johnson said the program itself provides a service open
to the public, the opening of the property to the public is not a requirement of a public facility.
Mr. Gorman asked if the number of trips per hour at the light cycle at that intersec�on on Highway 82
will have an adverse effect on traffic. Greg Schrader with McDowell Engineering, traffic, and
transporta�on engineers out of Eagle Colorado asked if the ques�on being asked is if we see degrada�on
at the traffic signal. Mr. Gorman said yes, if we add travel at peak hour to the traffic on 82 which is at
peak also will there be an adverse effect. Mr. Schrader replied the net difference is negligible. Mr.
Gorman said in the report it is stated mul�ple �mes that traffic delays are considered an offsite
deficiency beyond the scope of this project. Mr. Schrader replied that highway 82 is four lanes up to
where the project is and it narrows to two lanes, that is already causing delays and that represents a
regional issue to work on.
Mr. Gorman asked what the effect of adding more traffic to that problema�c intersec�on will be. Mr.
Barnhill replied that is what the traffic impact analysis and mi�ga�on measures are trying to get at, how
to try to reduce trips. Mr. Gorman said it is a complicated situa�on. Future traffic projec�ons say there
are no known land development projects in the vicinity of Harmony Road that will affect the
assump�ons of this this and the Lumberyard comes to mind, that will pour a bunch more traffic into that
stretch of 82. Mr. Schrader replied we defined our study area with the Harmony Rd intersec�on at
5
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024
Highway 82, side access, and the always stop at Burlingame. We acknowledge there is background traffic
which consists of traffic up and down the valley and those are modeled as background growth. Mr.
Gorman said he doesn’t see that in the 2045 projec�ons. Mr. Schrader replied they are included, the
calcula�ons in the 2045 backgrounds have a built-in growth factor.
Mr. Gorman asked how 73 trips per hour gets to 53. He said there are credits but are those realis�c
es�mates of changing usage paterns that will take off 20 hourly trips. Mr. Schrader replied it is based
upon the traffic toolkit. If there are certain elements in the site plan you get to deduct the credit, so you
don’t have the fee in lieu. Knowing there is a long ves�ng period and �me to find other solu�ons. Mr.
Horn said part of the 10-year vested property right term allows for �me to come up with new ideas to
mi�gate traffic. Mr. Gorman asked isn’t that specula�ve. Mr. Horn said yes but if it is a condi�on that
needs to be sa�sfied before you submit for building permit there is a hook to it. Ms. McGovern replied
that condi�on is in the memo already. They are required to work with engineering prior to issue of
building permit to get that number lower. Mr. Gorman asked how that is sa�sfied at post permit
issuance. Ms. McGovern replied that is not P&Z purview, it is their job to make sure that is writen in our
recommenda�on, and it is on page 4 or 5 of the resolu�on.
Ms. Benede� asked if they have a sense of how many families will be served from Burlingame. Mr.
Schrader replied about 27 % of the traffic generated at the site will be to and from Burlingame so they
would not access 82 for the sole purpose of taking children to the site. That is 27% of the facility size.
Ms. Benede� said she’s on the board of the Early Learning Commitee and it is the largest childcare
provider in the upper valley and have 97 students with 30 full �me and 4 part �me teachers. She’s
curious about the difference because they have to approve the FTE’s. Ms. Phelan clarified that this can
be designed for up to 94 children, mee�ng state requirements. The city of Aspen provides a higher level
of service than the state requires so even though the building could be designed for 94 children the
number will probably be more in the low 80s to provide that level of service. The number of teachers
would be based on the needs for each room. Ms. Monahan said the way they calculated the number of
teachers is that there would be 3 teachers for every classroom with 2 infant rooms, 2 toddler rooms, and
3 preschool rooms plus a couple of admins ending up with 24. Mr. Barnhill said APCHA has a condi�on
of approval for an audit of employees in 5 years.
Ms. Pit asked if someone could speak to the soils report, she is curious about the numbers, are they safe
levels for the kids. Mr. Horn said the soils report was to develop specifica�ons for the founda�on of the
structure, not looking at whether there are minerals that would adversely affect the kids. Typically, there
will be other surfaces over the soil. It is not a mining site like in town, so it has not been inves�gated.
Ms. Korber said the building has been designed for best prac�ces for child welfare. It has a good
ven�la�on system.
Ms. Pit asked what the defini�on of shared parking is and how many addi�onal units will there be. Mr.
Horn said the 2 units have parking requirements on site.
Ms. Pit ask if anybody has thought about underground parking. Ms. Korber said we brought three
schemes to council. One was underground parking and we moved forward with this one through a series
of mee�ng with our design group, council, and staff. The issue with underground parking is ge�ng your
toddler out of the car and then ge�ng in an elevator, it was imprac�cal.
6
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024
Ms. Pit asked if there were other parcels this facility would have poten�ally been built on. Ms. Monahan
replied this is a city owned parcel and that is why it was selected. Mr. Barnhill said the development of a
childcare center on this parcel has been contemplated since 2011.
Ms. Pit asked what other building use they were contempla�ng in this zone. Mr. Horn replied when the
Burlingame original plat was approved in 2011 the City of Aspen approved condi�onal use approval for
this site and said it would be a good site for an early learning childcare center, so it has always been
contemplated there and it is owned by the City.
Mr. Canfield said in his experience parking in Burlingame is always tricky and that having the five extra
spaces might be a benefit to not only this project but also visitors and residents at Burlingame. He’s
interested in knowing the city’s reason for disagreeing with the proposal to add those five spaces and is
the applicant fine with the city’s recommenda�on of removing the spaces. Mr. Barnhill replied that the
Parks department was concerned about those spaces in their rela�on to the shared use trail as they
would be directly adjacent to the trail. The Engineering department was concerned about how those
spaces would be used and accessed. Mr. Horn said they liked the original plan, but they don’t want to
hold the project up over 5 parking spaces.
Mr. Canfield asked if the mi�ga�on process is a formulaic process that if you add 5 bike spots it mi�gates
x number of trips or is there site-specific analysis that is done about the effect a par�cular mi�ga�on will
have on the number of trips in the area. Mr. Barnhill replied that the Engineering department controls
how much each mi�ga�on measure counts for, but essen�ally the toolkit is set up where you pick how
you are going to mi�gate and those are assigned certain values. The same values apply for all projects.
Mr. Canfield asked if there has been any considera�on for specific needs of a childcare center as opposed
to some other development that won’t trigger the same burdens. He said if you go by a school at pick up
�me it is a mess because of the par�cular burden. He asked if that has been considered. Ms. Korber said
that there are staggered drop offs for early childhood educa�on so it’s not like elementary where
everyone starts at the same �me. The considera�on is formulaic.
Mr. G orman asked if there is a trail that runs between the Lumberyard and Burlingame or if one is being
contemplated. Mr. Horn said there is a trail that goes along Deer Hill to the AABC and will be accessible
to the Lumberyard housing project. You can also go out on Harmony Road and get on the down valley
trail to the business center. Ms. McGovern said the reloca�on of the trail that cuts through the
Lumberyard is included in the Lumberyard development.
Mr. Gorman asked if cars going from the Lumberyard will have to go out on Highway 82 and come back
in. Ms. McGovern replied correct.
Mr. Gorman asked if the city would be willing to survey neighborhood residents and see if they want this
project there. Mr. Barnhill replied that this project has been contemplated in this loca�on for a long �me
and it meets the land use code. Mr. Horn said they have met with the people in the neighborhood and
sent 137 no�ces to all of them, none of the no�ces were returned no one is there to fight it. It has been
an extensive public process and fact that no one is here to comment or cri�cize is significant.
Mr. Gorman ask who from the city had studied the survey answers. Ms. Korber said the survey was
conducted by the design team, and something to keep in mind is that although the facility would give
priority to Burlingame it has a broader service area. The city went through this whole process, if it
7
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024
doesn’t move forward because of a concern about adding something to Burlingame that is different than
whether requirements of the land use code have been met.
Ms. McGovern said their purview is not whether the neighbors want it to be built but rather whether the
proposed building meets the land use code.
Ms. Korber said when they did the survey and heard the comments about parking and traffic, they were
trying their best to mi�gate those. They are designing to answer those ques�ons.
Ms. Pit asked how the surveys were sent. Ms. Korber said it was emailed, on the city website, sent to
the HOA, sent in the city Eblast, and posters were put up. People have been inundated with the
outreach. They put door knockers on every door in Burlingame for the open houses along with signs
along Paepcke Road. Ms. Pit asked what the overwhelming response was. Ms. Korber said the people
who showed up with kids were in favor. No one who came to the open house was opposed, a few survey
respondents were concerned with parking and traffic. Ms. Pit asked what the percentage of posi�ve
response versus nega�ve was. Ms. Korber said it was mixed.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Ms. McGovern said they were given a succinct overview of what they are being asked for. Please keep
the discussion centered around the recommenda�ons not just an opinion.
Ms. Suton said traffic is a bigger problem and her ques�ons had been answered.
Mr. Knight said it’s not perfect, but he is in support if the project and staff recommenda�ons.
Ms. McGovern asked what everyone thinks about the 10-year ves�ng.
Ms. Pit said she thinks three to 5 years would be beter.
Ms. Suton agreed and said fast tracking would be more advantageous all the way around.
Mr. Gorman agrees with them about 10-year vesting and said if the project is that necessary a fire
should be lit. Regarding transportation, with Lumberyard going in this project is going to make it worse,
that is his principal concern.
Mr. Blue is very much in support, he said it meets land use code. It is one of the most necessary things to
go in and as far as land use code, it has been met.
Ms. Pitt said it would be beneficial.
Ms. Benedetti said she’s thrilled this is finally coming and is willing to approve everything, but she is
concerned with the FTEs. She is glad the number is revisited in 5 years. She would be in favor of adding
the 5 parking spaces on the street and asked if there if there is a way to deed restrict some of the
housing for teachers, so they are not commuting.
Mr. Suazo said he brought that same conversation up with another project and staff is adamant no. Staff
has a history of saying no.
Ms. McGovern said this may be different as this is a public amenity not a private project.
Mr. Canfield said he’s in support of the project and he’s impressed with all the work that has gone into
it.
8
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024
Mr. Suazo said he thinks this is half baked and for such a dire need he thinks they are behind the eight
ball. He would like to see the vesting decreased by three years. He added that the FTE’s are probably
way off, traffic is being ignored and he doesn’t think Burlingame should have priority.
Ms. McGovern asked Jason if he would he support a recommendation to council?
Mr. Suazo said with some changes to the resolution, and he would defer to Tom about changes.
Mr. Gorman said getting this before Easter and having to digest before today was short. He would
appreciate more lead time.
Ms. Johnson said by law they only have to have it 24 hours in advance, and we do our best to get them
to you sooner. She said they can continue if they need more time to review it.
Mr. Gorman said with respect to traffic, mitigation can be applied only so far and then has to be paid
for. He asked if there is a cash in lieu option if they can’t get below 53 trip per hour.
Ms. Johnson said this is a unique review and council if the final decision maker, they can continue the
hearing, approve the resolution as written, approve the resolution and amend the language in the
resolution. They can decline to adopt the resolution and technically say they don’t recommend the
approval to council if they are not in favor of the project because their questions have not been
answered.
MOTION:
Mr. Canfield moved to adopt the resolution that has been proposed.
Ms. McGovern said she is not ready to vote. She thinks the 10 years vesting is too long. She said they
gave 10 years vesting to the lumberyard project. She would like to see the vesting changed to 5 years
and then come back and ask for an extension. She thinks it meets the land use code but would like to
see the vesting changed.
Ms. Johnson said vested property rights is solely council approval only, they don’t have to give your
recommendation any weight.
Mr. Knight seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Blue, no; Knight, yes; Canfield, yes; Mr. Suazo, no; Mr. Gorman, no; Ms. Benedetti,
no; Ms. McGovern, no. Motion not passed.
Mr. Blue motioned to accept with the amendment of a reduction of five years in the vesting.
Mr. Canfield seconded Mr. Blue’s motion.
Mr. Gorman motioned to amend the amended motion to further study the traffic mitigation for this
project.
Mr. Blue does not accept friendly amendment.
Mr. Suazo seconded Mr. Gorman’s motion to amend the current motion on the table to include an
addition condition of approval under section seven part two, to add to this section concerning final
mitigation that additional studies be performed on the available methods of mitigation.
9
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024
Ms. McGovern opened it up to the applicant for response.
Mr. Gorman withdrew his motion to amend.
ROLL CALL VOTE: On the motion to approve the resolution with the amendment to reflect a reduction of
5 years in the vesting. Mr. Blue, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Suazo, no; Mr. Gorman, yes;
Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 6-1.
Ms. McGovern requested a work session with council.
Ms. Johnson asked if the rest of the board is in support of that.
Unanimous yes
ADJOURN:
Mr. Blue motioned to adjourn; Mr. Canfield seconded. All in favor.
Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk
10
MEMORANDUM
TO:City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:Sophie Varga, Planner I
THROUGH:Bob Narracci, Interim Planning Director
MEMO DATE:April 26, 2024
MEETING DATE:May 7, 2024
RE:Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation to City Council
– Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu payment.
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) is asked to review, consider, and provide
a recommendation to City Council regarding the ability for five properties currently in the
building permit review process to pay affordable housing mitigation via fee-in-lieu (FIL).
This request is a response to the current shortage of available Affordable Housing
Certificates (Certificates) in the market.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Resolution,
providing Planning and Zoning Commission support for the identified projects to
pay fee-in-lieu.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
The City’s Growth Management Quota System regulations require affordable housing
mitigation of free-market residential development. Development that generates less
than 0.1 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) may mitigate via fee-in-lieu by right. Projects that
generate more than 0.1 FTEs may mitigate via Affordable Housing Certificates by right.
A full time equivalent (FTE) is defined in Section 26.470.020, Terminology – Growth
Management Quota System, as “a unit of measurement standardizing the workloads of
employees. In this Chapter, FTEs refer to the number of employees generated or
housed by development”.
This code was written to support the creation of affordable housing by private
developers. The Land Use Code offers a process for paying fee-in-lieu to mitigate over
0.1 FTEs. It requires a request and approval by Council, following a recommendation
from P&Z. Following is the code language that describes this process:
26.470.110.C. Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu
payment. The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time
Equivalents (FTEs) via a fee-in-lieu payment, upon a recommendation from the
11
Staff Memo, P&Z Recommendation
Page 2 of 3
Planning and Zoning Commission shall be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project
requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal
parameters of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the
character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed.
2) The applicant has made a reasonable, good-faith effort in pursuit of providing
the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling
units, the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing
status, or through the purchase of affordable housing certificates.
3) The applicant has made a reasonable, good-faith effort in pursuit of providing
the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment
will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units.
The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing
mitigation to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment, including all or none.
The Affordable Housing Certificates Program has been successful in incentivizing the
private sector to produce affordable housing units for over a decade. Since the
inception of the program, housing for more than 100 Full Time Equivalents has been
produced - without any public dollars being expended.
The program is dependent on two things: 1) the willingness of the private sector to
complete affordable housing projects, and 2) the demand for Affordable Housing credits
by free-market commercial and residential development to meet their mitigation
requirements. The City established Affordable Housing Certificates as the preferred
means of providing affordable housing mitigation for single-family and duplex
development in order to support the program. There are alternate means of mitigation,
such as voluntarily deed restricting the subject unit to Resident Occupied or buying a
free-market residential unit in town and deed restricting it. These options have been
unpopular and may be cost prohibitive. Mitigation may be paid with cash by right for
projects that generate 0.1 FTEs or less.
STAFF DISCUSSION:
Staff confirmed that there is an ongoing shortage of Affordable Housing Certificates. In
response to the Certificate shortage, staff established a policy and a process to facilitate
requests to pay FIL in a “batched” review. This policy was established in 2022 and was
written with the expectation that the requests would occur on a quarterly basis. Since
the policies creation, seven property owners were approved to pay fee-in-lieu in 2022 in
two batched requests. Two requests were approved on April 23rd, 2024 by City Council.
While the process was initially established for properties that generated mitigation below
12
Staff Memo, P&Z Recommendation
Page 3 of 3
1.5 FTEs, it has now been expanded due to the ongoing shortage of credits. The
batched policy now applies to projects that need to mitigate up to 2.0 FTEs (see Exhibit
A, Title 26 Policy 01-2024). At this meeting, P&Z is asked to consider requests from five
property owners to pay FIL for their affordable housing mitigation. The projects have
exhausted the avenues to obtain Affordable Housing Certificates. The projects are in
the final stage of building permit review prior to issuance.
With the confirmed shortage of Affordable Housing Credits, staff is supporting the
batched requests. Denying the requests would likely lead to suboptimal outcomes for
Community Development customers that have projects with mitigation requirements. It
is not reasonable to expect the property owners to pursue the other mitigation options
offered by the code for the relatively small employee generation related to their homes.
Below are the projects that are requesting to pay FIL in this round of review. The FTE
and fee-in-lieu calculations are estimates that will be confirmed and finalized as the last
step of the building permit process. A project cannot pay fee-in-lieu for more than 2.0
FTEs through this batched review. The Category 2 fee-in-lieu amount is currently
$424,288 per FTE. This rate was adopted via Ordinance 01, Series of 2024 on February
27th, 2024. The Category 2 fee-in-lieu rate is $408,362 per FTE for the projects below;
they predate the mitigation rate update.
350 Lake Avenue – 0.38 Category 2 FTEs / $15,517.76 (0012-2024-BRES)
360 Lake Avenue – 1.70 Category 2 FTEs / $694,215.4 (0013-2024-BRES)
1050 Cemetery Lane – 1.19 Category 2 FTEs / $485,950.78 (0051-2023-BRES)
1205 Red Butte Drive – 0.16 Category 2 FTEs /$65,337.92 (0049-2023-BRES)
The following project is a commercial use and calculated at the Category 4 fee-in-lieu
rate, $328,533 per FTE:
434 East Cooper Avenue – 0.96 Category 4 FTE / $315,391.68 (0036-2023-
BCOM)
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
On May 24, 2024, Council will consider the Planning and Zoning Commission’s
recommendation and decide whether to authorize FIL for the identified projects. If
Council approves the requests, the projects will pay the finalized FIL amount as part of
the permit issuance process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission
approve Resolution XX, providing support for payment of fee-in-lieu for the subject
properties.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Title 26 Policy 01-2024.
Exhibit B - Letters from the applicants requesting to pay fee-in-lieu.
13
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution #XX, Series of 2024
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION #XX
SERIES OF 2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE ABILITY OF CERTAIN
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO PAY FEE-IN-LIEU FOR REQUIRED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
26.470.110.C.
WHEREAS,the Affordable Housing Certificates Program has been established as the
preferredmechanism within the Land Use Code to provide required affordable housing mitigation;
and,
WHEREAS,the Land Use Code provides a process for an applicant to make a request to
Aspen City Council to provide affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
via a fee-in-lieu payment in Section 26.470.110.C; and,
WHEREAS,Community Development Staff has analyzed the current market conditions
for Affordable Housing Certificates and has determined that there is a shortage, making it
practically impossible to acquire Affordable Housing Certificates; and,
WHEREAS,Community Development has presented and discussed this issue with the
Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS,at a regular meeting on May 7, 2024, the Planning and Zoning Commission
considered the requests of five property owners to pay fee-in-lieu to meet affordable housing
mitigation requirements, and reviewed staff’s memo, and by a XX – XX (XX-XX) vote approves
Resolution #XX, Series of 2024, recommending Council consideration and approval of the
requests to pay fee-in-lieu.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1 Approvals:
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the following projects be allowed to pay fee-in-lieu
to meet affordable housing mitigation requirements:
350 Lake Avenue – 0.38 Category 2 FTE / $15,517.76 (0012-2024-BRES)
360 Lake Avenue – 1.70 Category 2 FTE / $694,215.4 (0013-2024-BRES)
434 East Cooper Avenue – 0.96 Category 4 FTE / $315,391.68 (0036-2023-BCOM)
1050 Cemetery Lane – 1.19 Category 2 FTE / $485,950.78 (0051-2023-BRES)
1205 Red Butte Drive – 0.16 Category 2 FTE /$65,337.92 (0049-2023-BRES)
The FTE mitigation calculation and valuations of the fee-in-lieu as presented are estimates only and
will be finalized prior to building permit issuance. This resolution does not approve fee-in-lieu
mitigation above 2.0 FTE for a single permit.
Section 2 Existing Litigation:
14
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution #XX, Series of 2024
Page 2 of 2
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3 Severability:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
FINALLY,adopted, passed, and approved this 7
th day of May 2024.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
________________________________________________________________
Katherine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Teraissa McGovern, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Tracy Terry, Deputy Clerk
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
April 11, 2024
Bob Narracci
Planning Director
City of Aspen
RE: 350 Lake Avenue; Lot 2, Erdman Partnership Lot Split
Affordable Housing Cash-in-Lieu Payment Request
Mr. Narracci:
Please accept this request to
meet affordable housing
mitigation requirements via cash-
in-lieu for the parcel at 350 Lake
Avenue.
The ariel view to the right shows
the 350 Lake Avenue property
The property contains an existing home with approval to be redeveloped with a new home.
The new home will be slightly larger and requires the mitigation of 0.38 FTEs of employee
housing. This amount exceeds the by-right allowance for a cash-in-lieu payment.
The property applied for and was approved for a building permit. The owner was in the
process of securing an affordable housing certificate when the certificate seller decided
against the sale. We appreciate your expeditious review of this request as certain
contractual obligations are at risk if this request is delayed.
While the building permit appears ready for issuance, please keep in mind that slight
discrepancies in measurements may still be realized that and/or a change order could be
submitted that affects the exact amount of housing mitigation due. We respectfully request
that any adjustments to the mitigation required for this project subsequent to the City
Council review be handled administratively and additional payments or refunds be
accommodated accordingly.
The property is legally defined as Lot 2, Erdman Partnership Lot Split. The property is
owned by Lake Avenue Partners, LLC; Ben Genshaft, Authorized Representative, who
24
360 Lake Ave
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
has authorized BendonAdams to represent their interests before the City of Aspen. The
applicants also own 360 Lake Avenue, located directly east of 350.
This request complies with Section 26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via
Fee-in-Lieu Payment. Detailed responses to this criterion are detailed below.
26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment
The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a
fee-in-lieu payment, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the
following criteria:
(1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project
requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters
of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood in which the project is being developed.
Response: 350 Lake is a 8,899 square foot lot situated in between Lake Avenue
and the 360 parcel, which is located on a bluff above Hallam Lake. This property
is subject to RDS requirements in addition to the R-6 zone district setbacks.
Development of an additional structure is impractical, given the constraints and
design requirements of the site, and would not adhere to neighborhood character.
(2) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the
required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the
deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the
purchase of affordable housing certificates.
Response: The prospect of pursuing an off-site development of a fraction of a
dwelling unit to house 0.38 employees is unrealistic. The land purchase alone
would be several million dollars and together with construction costs render this
option prohibitive. Properties eligible for “buy-down” to affordable rates are not for
sale and the costs of purchasing a 2 or 3 bedroom unit on the open market would
be drastically out of proportion to the impact of the home expansion. The
Applicants have made a good faith effort in securing affordable housing credits;
however, none are available at this time.
(3) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the
required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates
of Affordable Housing Credit.
Response: The Applicant has made good faith efforts to secure affordable housing
credits from known owners. Credit owners are not willing to sell and the market is
“dry.” In fact, an anticipated purchase of a .13 credit (on behalf of another
25
360 Lake Ave
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
applicant) fell through when the seller decided against selling the credit. No
affordable housing credits are available for purchase at this time
(4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will
result in the near-term production of affordable housing units.
Response: The City’s fee-in-lieu rate is based on actual development costs with
an annual adjustment to account for changing development costs. The fee-in-lieu
system is designed to enable the community to achieve its affordable housing
goals and result in the near-term production of affordable housing. The City’s
affordable housing development efforts are ongoing with various purchase and
new development opportunities. The provision of this cash-in-lieu will result in the
near-term production of affordable housing.
We respectfully request the City accept and approve this request to meet the affordable
housing obligation of the 350 property through a cash-in-lieu payment. Approving this
request will enable this residential project to move forward.
We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete and
competent review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward
to your review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Exhibits:
1. Land Use Application
2. Authorization Letter
3. Agreement to Pay
4. Pre-application
26
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
April 11 , 2024
Bob Narracci
Planning Director
City of Aspen
RE: 360 Lake Avenue; Lot 1, Erdman Partnership Lot Split
Affordable Housing Cash-in-Lieu Payment Request
Mr. Narracci:
Please accept this request to meet
affordable housing mitigation
requirements via a cash-in-lieu payment
for a redevelopment and expansion of the
home at 360 Lake Avenue.
The ariel view to the right shows the 360
Lake Avenue property
The property contains an existing home with approval to be redeveloped with a new home.
The new home will be slightly larger and requires the mitigation of 1.70 FTEs of employee
housing. This amount exceeds the by-right allowance for a cash-in-lieu payment.
The property applied for and was approved for a building permit. The owner was in the
process of securing an affordable housing certificate when the certificate seller decided
against the sale. We appreciate your expeditious review of this request as certain
contractual obligations are at risk if this request is delayed.
While the building permit appears ready for issuance, please keep in mind that slight
discrepancies in measurements may still be realized that and/or a change order could be
submitted that affects the exact amount of housing mitigation due. We respectfully request
that any adjustments to the mitigation required for this project subsequent to the City
Council review be handled administratively and additional payments or refunds be
accommodated accordingly.
The property is legally defined as Lot 1, Erdman Partnership Lot Split. The property is
owned by Lake Avenue Partners, LLC; Ben Genshaft, Authorized Representative, who
has authorized BendonAdams to represent their interests before the City of Aspen. The
applicants also own 350 Lake Avenue, located directly west of 360.
27
360 Lake Ave
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
This request complies with Section 26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via
Fee-in-Lieu Payment. Detailed responses to this criterion are detailed below.
26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment
The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a
fee-in-lieu payment, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the
following criteria:
(1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project
requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters
of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood in which the project is being developed.
Response: 360 Lake is situated on a bluff above Hallam Lake. This property is
subject to the development requirements as mandated by the Hallam Lake Bluff
Review, in addition to the R-6 zone district setbacks. Development of an additional
structure is impractical, given the constraints and design requirements of the site,
and would not adhere to neighborhood character.
(2) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the
required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the
deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the
purchase of affordable housing certificates.
Response: The prospect of pursuing an off-site development of a fraction of a
dwelling unit to house 1.70 employees is unrealistic. The land purchase alone
would be several million dollars and together with construction costs render this
option prohibitive. Properties eligible for “buy-down” to affordable rates are not for
sale and the costs of purchasing a 2 or 3 bedroom unit on the open market would
be drastically out of proportion to the impact of the home expansion. The
Applicants have made a good faith effort in securing affordable housing credits;
however, none are available at this time.
(3) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the
required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates
of Affordable Housing Credit.
Response: The Applicant has made good faith efforts to secure affordable housing
credits from known owners. Credit owners are not willing to sell and the market is
“dry.” In fact, an anticipated purchase of a .13 credit (on behalf of another
applicant) fell through when the seller decided against selling the credit. No
affordable housing credits are available for purchase at this time.
28
360 Lake Ave
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
(4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will
result in the near-term production of affordable housing units.
Response: The City’s fee-in-lieu rate is based on actual development costs with
an annual adjustment to account for changing development costs. The fee-in-lieu
system is designed to enable the community to achieve its affordable housing
goals and result in the near-term production of affordable housing. The City’s
affordable housing development efforts are ongoing with various purchase and
new development opportunities. The provision of this cash-in-lieu will result in the
near-term production of affordable housing.
We respectfully request the City accept and approve this request to meet the affordable
housing obligation of the 360 property through a cash-in-lieu payment. Approving this
request will enable this residential project to move forward.
We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete and
competent review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward
to your review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Exhibits:
1. Land Use Application
2. Authorization Letter
3. Agreement to Pay
4. Pre-application
29
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
April 17, 2024
Bob Narracci
Planning Director
City of Aspen
RE: 1050 Cemetery Lane;
Affordable Housing Cash-in-Lieu Payment Request
Mr. Narracci:
Please accept this request to meet affordable housing mitigation requirements via cash-in-lieu for
the parcel at 1050 Cemetery Lane. The property is legally defined as Lot 8, Block 2 of the Red Butte
Subdivision. The property is owned by SG Aspen1 LLC, managed by Sallie Golden, who has
authorized BendonAdams to represent their interests before the City of Aspen.
Figure 1: Aerial view of 1050 Cemetery Lane shaded green.
30
1050 Cemetery Lane
Page 2
The property is currently vacant, after the previous home was demolished, and a permit is pending
for a new single family home. The new home requires the mitigation of 1.19 FTEs of employee
housing. This amount exceeds the by-right allowance for a cash-in-lieu payment.
A building permit is pending for the property and there are no affordable housing certificates
available for purchase on the free market. Other affordable housing options were explored, but are
cost prohibitive based on the current market. We respectfully request the ability to pay cash in lieu
to satisfy the required housing mitigation.
Please keep in mind that slight discrepancies in measurements may still be realized and/or a change
order could be submitted that affects the exact amount of housing mitigation due. We respectfully
request that any adjustments to the mitigation required for this project subsequent to the City
Council review be handled administratively and additional payments or refunds be accommodated
accordingly.
This request complies with Section 26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu
Payment. Detailed responses to this criterion are detailed below.
26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment
The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a fee-in-lieu
payment, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be approved,
approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
(1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such
affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or
site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is
being developed.
Response: 1050 Cemetery Lane is a 22,010 square foot lot that is subject to R-15 zone
district requirements and Residential Design Standards The lot is located on a bench above
Red Butte Drive and has significant steep slopes to the west. Development of an additional
structure is impractical, given the steep slopes, site constraints, traffic patterns, and design
requirements of the site, and would be inconsistent with neighborhood character.
(2) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required
affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the deed restriction of
existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the purchase of affordable
housing certificates.
Response: The prospect of pursuing an off-site development of a dwelling unit to house is
cost prohibitive based on the current market inventory. The land purchase alone would be
several million dollars and together with construction costs render this option impossible.
Properties eligible for “buy-down” to affordable rates are not for sale and the costs of
purchasing a 2 or 3 bedroom unit on the open market would be drastically out of proportion
to the impact of the new home, which replaces a single family home. The Applicant has
31
1050 Cemetery Lane
Page 3
made a good faith effort in trying to secure affordable housing credits; however, none are
available at this time.
(3) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required
affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable
Housing Credit.
Response: The Applicant has made good faith efforts to secure affordable housing credits
from known owners. Credit owners are not willing to sell and the market is “dry.” No
affordable housing credits are available for purchase at this time.
(4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in
the near-term production of affordable housing units.
Response: The City’s fee-in-lieu rate is based on actual development costs with an annual
adjustment to account for changing development costs. The fee-in-lieu system is designed
to enable the community to achieve its affordable housing goals, and result in the near-
term production of affordable housing. The City’s affordable housing development efforts
are ongoing with various purchase and new development opportunities. The provision of
this cash-in-lieu will result in the near-term production of affordable housing.
We respectfully request the City accept and approve this request to meet the affordable housing
obligation of the 1050 property through a cash-in-lieu payment. Approving this request will enable
this residential project to move forward.
We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete and competent
review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward to your review and
will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Exhibits:
1. Land Use Application
2. Authorization Letter
3. Agreement to Pay
4. Pre-application
32
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
April 2, 2024
Bob Narracci, AICP
Planning Director
City of Aspen
RE: 1205 Red Butte Drive
Affordable Housing Cash-in-Lieu Payment Request
Mr. Narracci:
Please accept this request to meet affordable housing mitigation requirements via a cash -
in-lieu payment for an expansion of th e 1205 Red Butte Drive property.
The property contains an existing home
with a planned remodel and expansion.
The expansion requires the mitigation of
0.16 FTEs of employee housing. This
amount exceeds the by-right allowance
for a cash-in-lieu payment.
The map to the right shows the
1205 Red Butte property
The remodel and expansion permit has
been reviewed as is awaiting issuance.
We appreciate your expeditious review of
this request as certain contractual
obligations are at risk if this request is delayed.
While the permit appears ready for issuance, please keep in mind that slight discrepancies
in measurements may still be realized and/or a change order could be submitted that
affects the exact amount of housing mitigation due. We respectfully request that any
adjustments to the mitigation required for this project subsequent to the City Council
review be handled administratively and additional payments or refunds be accommodated
accordingly.
The property is legally defined as Lot 1 of the Red Butte East Subdivision. The property
is owned by Ensign I Ltd. Managing Partner Richard Finger has authorized BendonAdams
to represent the owner’s interests before the City of Aspen.
33
1205 Red Butte CiL
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
This request complies with Section 26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via
Fee-in-Lieu Payment. Detailed responses to this criterion are provided below.
26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment
The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a
fee-in-lieu payment, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the
following criteria:
(1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project
requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters
of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood in which the project is being developed.
Response: The 1205 Red Butte property is in the center of a single-family and
duplex neighborhood. The development of affordable housing on this property
would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and impractical given
the physical layout of the site.
(2) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the
required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the
deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the
purchase of affordable housing certificates.
Response: The prospect of pursuing an off-site development of a fraction of a
dwelling unit to house .06 employees is unrealistic. The land purchase alone
would be several million dollars and together with construction costs render this
option prohibitive. Properties eligible for “buy-down” to affordable rates are not for
sale and the costs of purchasing a 2 or 3 bedroom unit on the open market would
be drastically out of proportion to the impact of the home expansion. The Applicant
has made a good faith effort in securing affordable housing credits; however, none
are available at this time.
(3) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the
required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates
of Affordable Housing Credit.
Response: The Applicant has made good faith efforts to secure affordable
housing credits from known owners. Credit owners are not willing to sell and the
market is “dry.” In fact, an anticipated purchase of a .13 credit (on behalf of another
applicant) fell through when the seller decided against selling the credit. No
affordable housing credits are available for purchase at this time.
34
1205 Red Butte CiL
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
(4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will
result in the near-term production of affordable housing units.
Response: The City’s fee-in-lieu rate is based on actual development costs with
an annual adjustment to account for changing development costs. The fee-in -lieu
system is designed to enable the community to achieve its affordable housing
goals and result in the near-term production of affordable housing. The City’s
affordable housing development efforts are ongoing with various purchase and
new development opportunities. The provision of this cash-in-lieu will result in the
near-term production of affordable housing.
We respectfully request the City accept and approve this request to meet the affordable
housing obligation of the 1205 property through a cash-in-lieu payment. Approving this
request will enable this residential project to move forward.
We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete and
competent review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward
to your review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Exhibits:
1. Land Use Application
2. Authorization letter
3. Agreement to Pay
4. Pre-application summary
35
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
April 26, 2024
Bob Narracci
Planning Director
City of Aspen
RE: 434 East Cooper Ave. - Affordable Housing cash in lieu request
Dear Bob:
Please accept this request to amend the method for 3% of the total affordable housing mitigation
requirement for the 434 East Cooper Avenue project (PID # 2737-182-16-011). The property is
currently under construction and is owned by 434 East Cooper Avenue LLC, managed by Mark Hunt,
who has authorized BendonAdams to represent their interests before the City of Aspen.
434 East Cooper is under construction to complete an HPC approved project for a two story
commercial building with basement. The Phase I of the core and shell permit (0055.2020.BCOM)
is completed, and Phase II of the core and shell permit (0047.2022.BCOM) is currently underway.
The Phase III of the core and shell permit (0036.2023.BCOM) is pending final approval because
affordable housing credits are required prior to permit issuance. A tenant improvement permit is
currently being processed by the Building Department (0004.2023.BCOM).
434 East Cooper is required to mitigate for 28.51 FTEs at Category 4. MDev possesses 27.55 FTEs
in total for the 434 project. While MDev holds the largest number of housing credits in town, it is
still 0.96 FTEs short of the required 28.51. Over the past few years, based on encouragement from
the City, MDev sold housing credits to locals needing to mitigate for their projects and unfortunately
went a little too far and did not save enough for their own project. After the 434 project, MDev will
not have any housing credits remaining. There are no housing credits available on the market;
therefore, cash in lieu for the remaining 0.96 FTEs is proposed to enable issuance of the 434 permit
and keep the project on track. The cash in lieu amount is $327,692 (Category 4 rate for 0.96 FTEs)1
The ability to pay cash in lieu for more than 0.1 FTEs requires City Council approval pursuant to
Section 26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment, addressed below.
26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment
The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a fee-in-lieu
payment, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be approved,
approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
1 Adopted 2024 Cash in lieu rate for Category 4 is $341,346/ 1 FTE.
36
434 East Cooper
Page 2
(1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such
affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or
site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is
being developed.
Response: 434 East Cooper Street is located within the Commercial Core Historic District.
The project received a Development Order on May 4, 2017 for a 100% commercial project
per HPC Resolutions 35-2016, 15-2022. After an extensive review process by the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission and City Council for the project, affordable housing
mitigation was approved as affordable housing credits. The new building is currently under
construction – it is impractical to provide housing onsite at this point in the project.
(2) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required
affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the deed restriction of
existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the purchase of affordable
housing certificates.
Response: MDev has made a good faith effort in trying to secure affordable housing credits
and is constantly looking to construct housing projects like the fully entitled 611 West Main
Street.2 MDev has already completed affordable housing projects at 834 West Hallam
Street, 1235 East Cooper, and has purchased credits from Peter Fornell. The mitigation
amount for the 434 project exceeds the number of credits held by MDev, and there are no
credits available for purchase. There are other 100% affordable housing projects in the
MDev portfolio that will be forthcoming but are not in the planning review process yet.
(3) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required
affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable
Housing Credit.
Response: The Applicant has made good faith efforts to secure affordable housing credits
from known owners. All of MDev’s unused housing credits will be applied to the 434 project.
There are no affordable housing credits available for purchase at this time, which is the
same situation as many other projects awaiting permits that require housing credits.
(4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in
the near-term production of affordable housing units.
Response: The City’s fee-in-lieu rate is based on actual development costs with an annual
adjustment to account for changing development costs. The fee-in-lieu system is designed
to enable the community to achieve its affordable housing goals, and result in the near-
term production of affordable housing. The City’s affordable housing development efforts
are ongoing with various purchase and new development opportunities. The provision of
this cash-in-lieu will result in the near-term production of affordable housing.
2 MDev has a fully entitled 100% affordable housing project at 611 West Main Street for 7 new housing units
and 15.9 housing credits. A building permit is expected to be submitted prior to the expiration of vested
rights in November 2024.
37
434 East Cooper
Page 3
We respectfully request the City accept this request for cash in lieu for 0.96 FTEs which is 3% of the
total requirement of 28.51 FTEs.
We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete and competent
review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward to your review and
will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Exhibits:
1. Land Use Application
2. Agreement to Pay
38
MEMORANDUM
TO:City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:Sophie Varga, Planner I
THROUGH:Bob Narracci, Interim Planning Director
MEMO DATE:April 26, 2024
MEETING DATE:May 7, 2024
RE:Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation to City Council
– Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu payment.
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) is asked to review, consider, and provide
a recommendation to City Council regarding the ability for one property currently in the
building permit review process to pay affordable housing mitigation via fee-in-lieu (FIL).
This request is a response to the current shortage of available Affordable Housing
Certificates (Certificates) in the market.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Resolution,
providing Planning and Zoning Commission support for the identified project to
pay fee-in-lieu.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
The City’s Growth Management Quota System regulations require affordable housing
mitigation of free-market residential development. Development that generates less
than 0.1 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) may mitigate via fee-in-lieu by right. Projects that
generate more than 0.1 FTEs may mitigate via Affordable Housing Certificates by right.
A full time equivalent (FTE) is defined in Section 26.470.020, Terminology – Growth
Management Quota System, as “a unit of measurement standardizing the workloads of
employees. In this Chapter, FTEs refer to the number of employees generated or
housed by development”.
This code was written to support the creation of affordable housing by private
developers. The Land Use Code offers a process for paying fee-in-lieu to mitigate over
0.1 FTEs. It requires a request and approval by Council, following a recommendation
from P&Z. Following is the code language that describes this process:
26.470.110.C. Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu
payment. The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time
Equivalents (FTEs) via a fee-in-lieu payment, upon a recommendation from the
39
Staff Memo, P&Z Recommendation
Page 2 of 3
Planning and Zoning Commission shall be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project
requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal
parameters of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the
character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed.
2) The applicant has made a reasonable, good-faith effort in pursuit of providing
the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling
units, the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing
status, or through the purchase of affordable housing certificates.
3) The applicant has made a reasonable, good-faith effort in pursuit of providing
the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment
will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units.
The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing
mitigation to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment, including all or none.
The Affordable Housing Certificates Program has been successful in incentivizing the
private sector to produce affordable housing units for over a decade. Since the
inception of the program, housing for more than 100 Full Time Equivalents has been
produced - without any public dollars being expended.
The program is dependent on two things: 1) the willingness of the private sector to
complete affordable housing projects, and 2) the demand for Affordable Housing credits
by free-market commercial and residential development to meet their mitigation
requirements. The City established Affordable Housing Certificates as the preferred
means of providing affordable housing mitigation for single-family and duplex
development in order to support the program. There are alternate means of mitigation,
such as voluntarily deed restricting the subject unit to Resident Occupied or buying a
free-market residential unit in town and deed restricting it. These options have been
unpopular and may be cost prohibitive. Mitigation may be paid with cash by right for
projects that generate 0.1 FTEs or less.
STAFF DISCUSSION:
Staff confirmed that there is an ongoing shortage of Affordable Housing Certificates. In
response to the Certificate shortage, staff established a policy and a process to facilitate
requests to pay FIL in a “batched” review. This policy was established in 2022 and was
written with the expectation that the requests would occur on a quarterly basis. Since
the policies creation, seven property owners were approved to pay fee-in-lieu in 2022 in
two batched requests. Two requests were approved on April 23
rd, 2024 by City Council.
While the process was initially established for properties that generated mitigation below
40
Staff Memo, P&Z Recommendation
Page 3 of 3
1.5 FTEs, it has now been expanded due to the ongoing shortage of credits. The
batched policy now applies to projects that need to mitigate up to 2.0 FTEs (see Exhibit
A, Title 26 Policy 01-2024). At this meeting, P&Z is asked to consider requests from six
property owners to pay FIL for their affordable housing mitigation. The requests have
been separated into two memorandums and two resolutions due to a conflict of interest
for a member of P&Z on one of the properties. The project has exhausted the avenues
to obtain Affordable Housing Certificates. The project is in the final stage of building
permit review prior to issuance.
With the confirmed shortage of Affordable Housing Credits, staff is supporting the
batched requests. Denying the requests would likely lead to suboptimal outcomes for
Community Development customers that have projects with mitigation requirements. It
is not reasonable to expect the property owners to pursue the other mitigation options
offered by the code for the relatively small employee generation related to their homes.
Below is the project that is requesting to pay FIL in this round of review. The FTE and
fee-in-lieu calculation are estimates that will be confirmed and finalized as the last step
of the building permit process. A project cannot pay fee-in-lieu for more than 2.0 FTEs
through this batched review. The Category 2 fee-in-lieu amount is currently $424,288
per FTE. This rate was adopted via Ordinance 01, Series of 2024 on February 27th,
2024. The Category 2 fee-in-lieu rate is $408,362 per FTE for the project below; it
predates the mitigation rate update.
1212 East Hopkins Avenue – 0.23 Category 2 FTE / $93,923.26 (0096-2023-
BCHO)
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
On May 24, 2024, Council will consider the Planning and Zoning Commission’s
recommendation and decide whether to authorize FIL for the identified projects. If
Council approves the requests, the projects will pay the finalized FIL amount as part of
the permit issuance process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission
approve Resolution XX, providing support for payment of fee-in-lieu for the subject
properties.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Title 26 Policy 01-2024.
Exhibit B - Letters from the applicants requesting to pay fee-in-lieu.
41
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution #XX, Series of 2024
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION #XX
SERIES OF 2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE ABILITY OF A
CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO PAY FEE-IN-LIEU FOR REQUIRED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, PER MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 26.470.110.C.
WHEREAS,the Affordable Housing Certificates Program has been established as the
preferredmechanism within the Land Use Code to provide required affordable housing mitigation;
and,
WHEREAS,the Land Use Code provides a process for an applicant to make a request to
Aspen City Council to provide affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
via a fee-in-lieu payment in Section 26.470.110.C; and,
WHEREAS,Community Development Staff has analyzed the current market conditions
for Affordable Housing Certificates and has determined that there is a shortage, making it
practically impossible to acquire Affordable Housing Certificates; and,
WHEREAS,Community Development has presented and discussed this issue with the
Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS,at a regular meeting on May 7, 2024, the Planning and Zoning Commission
considered the request of one property owner to pay fee-in-lieu to meet affordable housing
mitigation requirements, and reviewed staff’s memo, and by a XX – XX (XX-XX) vote approves
Resolution #XX, Series of 2024, recommending Council consideration and approval of the
requests to pay fee-in-lieu.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1 Approvals:
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the following project be allowed to pay fee-in-lieu to
meet affordable housing mitigation requirements:
1212 East Hopkins Avenue – 0.23 Category 2 FTE / $93,923.26 (0096-2023-BCHO)
The FTE mitigation calculation and valuations of the fee-in-lieu as presented are estimates only and
will be finalized prior to building permit issuance. This resolution does not approve fee-in-lieu
mitigation above 2.0 FTE for a single permit.
Section 2 Existing Litigation:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
42
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution #XX, Series of 2024
Page 2 of 2
Section 3 Severability:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
FINALLY,adopted, passed, and approved this 7
th day of May 2024.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
________________________________________________________________
Katherine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Teraissa McGovern, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Tracy Terry, Deputy Clerk
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
April 2, 2024
Bob Narracci
Planning Director
City of Aspen
RE: 1212 East Hopkins Avenue
Affordable Housing Cash-in-Lieu Payment Request
Mr. Narracci:
Please accept this request to meet
affordable housing mitigation requirements
via a cash-in-lieu payment for a
redevelopment and expansion of the home
at 1212 East Hopkins Avenue.
The map to the right shows the 1212
E. Hopkins Avenue property
The property contains an existing home with
approval to be redeveloped with a new
home. The new home will be slightly larger
and requires the mitigation of 0.23 FTEs of employee housing. This amount exceeds the
by-right allowance for a cash-in-lieu payment.
The property applied for and was approved for a building permit. A change order to
accomplish various design changes is ready to be issued pending approval of this request.
The owner was in the process of securing an affordable housing certificate when the
certificate seller decided against the sale. We appreciate your expeditious review of this
request as certain contractual obligations are at risk if this request is delayed.
While the change order appears ready for issuance, please keep in mind that slight
discrepancies in measurements may still be realized that and/or an additional change
order could be submitted that affects the exact amount of housing mitigation due. We
respectfully request that any adjustments to the mitigation required for this project
subsequent to the City Council review be handled administratively and additional
payments or refunds be accommodated accordingly.
The property is legally defined as Lots 15, 16, and 17 of the Riverside Addition. The
property is owned by Joben Aspen, LLC. Manager Noah Shore has authorized
BendonAdams to represent the LLC’s interests before the City of Aspen.
52
1212 e Hopkins CiL
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
This request complies with Section 26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via
Fee-in-Lieu Payment. Detailed responses to this criterion are provided below.
26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment
The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a
fee-in-lieu payment, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the
following criteria:
(1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project
requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters
of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood in which the project is being developed.
Response: The 1212 east Hopkins property is in the center of a single-family and
duplex neighborhood. The development of affordable housing on this property
would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and impractical given
the physical layout of the site.
(2) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the
required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the
deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the
purchase of affordable housing certificates.
Response: The prospect of pursuing an off-site development of a fraction of a
dwelling unit to house .23 employees is unrealistic. The land purchase alone
would be several million dollars and together with construction costs render this
option prohibitive. Properties eligible for “buy-down” to affordable rates are not for
sale and the costs of purchasing a 2 or 3 bedroom unit on the open market would
be drastically out of proportion to the impact of the home expansion. The Applicant
has made a good faith effort in securing affordable housing credits; however, none
are available at this time.
(3) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the
required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates
of Affordable Housing Credit.
Response: The Applicant has made good faith efforts to secure affordable
housing credits from known owners. Credit owners are not willing to sell and the
market is “dry.” In fact, an anticipated purchase of a .13 credit fell through when
the seller decided against selling the credit. No affordable housing credits are
available for purchase at this time.
53
1212 e Hopkins CiL
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
(4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will
result in the near-term production of affordable housing units.
Response: The City’s fee-in-lieu rate is based on actual development costs with
an annual adjustment to account for changing development costs. The fee-in-lieu
system is designed to enable the community to achieve its affordable housing
goals and result in the near-term production of affordable housing. The City’s
affordable housing development efforts are ongoing with various purchase and
new development opportunities. The provision of this cash-in-lieu will result in the
near-term production of affordable housing.
We respectfully request the City accept and approve this request to meet the affordable
housing obligation of the 1212 property through a cash-in-lieu payment. Approving this
request will enable this residential project to move forward.
We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete and
competent review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward
to your review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Exhibits:
1. Land Use Application
2. Authorization letter
3. Agreement to Pay
4. Pre-application summary
54
LAND USE APPLICATION
Project Name and Address: 1212 E. Hopkins; Aspen, CO 81611
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
AFFLIIAN I:
2737-181-00-040
Name: 1212 E. Hopkins LLC: Todd Lindworth Manager
Address: 368 East Lupine Drive; Aspen, CO 81611
Phone#: 303.981.3053 email: cableguy@compuserve.com
IFPRFCF
Name: BendonAdams
Address: 300 So. Spring St #202; Aspen, CO 81611
Phone#: 970.925.2855 email: chrisCa)bendonadams.com
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Applicant is requesting affordable housing mitigation requirements for the subject property be
met through a cash -in -lieu payment.
Note: 1212 E. Hopkins LLC has purchased property from Joben Aspen. Transaction May
6th, 2024
Review: Administrative o <ED
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage na Lodge Pillows na Free Market dwelling units 1 (existing development right)
Affordable Housing dwelling units na Essential Public Facility squarefootage na
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $ 325
Pre -Application Conference Summary
x Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
GL� All items listed in checklist an PreApplication Conference Summary
April 2020 City of Aspen 1 130 S. Galena St. i (970) 920 5090
'x L
Bend®nAdams Z
May 6, 2024
Bob Narracci
Planning Director
City of Aspen
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 1212 E. Hopkins Ave.; Aspen, CO
Mr. Narracci:
Please accept this letter authorizing Chris Bendon of BendonAdams LLC and Noah Shore
of Joben Aspen LLC to represent our ownership interests in 1212 East Hopkins Avenue
and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals
for the property.
If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Property — 1212 East Hopkins Avenue; Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Description — Lots 15, 16, and 17; Block 2; Riverside Addition, City of
Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado.
Parcel ID — 2737-181-00-040
Owner-1212 E Hopkins, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
Kind Regard ,
To YCllh wo , Manager
1 12 E Hopkins, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company
368 E. Lupine Dr.
Aspen, CO 81611
cableguy@compuserve.com
303-981-3053
00 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611
970.926.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM
RECEPTION#: 702245, R: $23.00, D: $900.00, 05/07/2024 at 09:47:35 AM, Pgs 1 of 3, Ingrid K. Grueter, Pitkin County, CO
P\M�
LandId
cwwervrcecm,r..w
Spec[al Warranty Deed
(Pursuant to C.R.S. 38�0913(1)(b))
RETT
lie CITY or Aa Approved
k 2,1
State Documentary Fee
note; May 06, 2024
$900.00
This Deed, effective as of May 6th, 2024, signed on the date(s) acknowledged below; by Orantor(s), JOBEN ASPEN LLC, A
COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, whose street address is 1212 E HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611, City or Town of
ASPEN, County of Pitkin and State of Colorado , for the consideration of ($9,000,000.00) —Nine Million and 001100dollars, in hand
paid,. hereby sell(s) and convey(s) to 1212 E HOPKINS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, whose street address is
802 E COOPER AD, UNIT 1, ASPEN, CO 61611, City or Town of ASPEN, County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, the following real
property in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, t6 wit:
LOTS 15,16 AND 17,
BLOCK 2,
FINERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
also known by street and number as: 1212 EHOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611
with all Its appurtenances and warrants) the title to the same against all persons claiming under me(us), subject to Statutory Exceptions.
(SEE ATTACHED -SIGNATURE PAGE")
............................... _....—........ ......._.....------
When recorded return to: 1212 E HOPKIfdS, LLC, A GOLORA00 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
802-E COOPER RD, UNIT 1, ASPEN, CO 81611
Form 1090 closing /deeds/statutory/swd statttlary.html 620170/6
(7482573)
RECEPTION#: 702245, 05/07/2024 at 09:47:35 AM, Pgs 2 of 3, Ingrid K. Grueter, Pitkin County, CO
Special Warranty peed with Statutory Exceptions
SIGNATURE PAGE
JOBEtt A EA LLC, A yOt A t.4M177):O LIABILITY
COMPAN
NOAH SHC ,MANAGER
State of )
)$a.
County of }
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of by NOAH SHORE AS MANAGER OF
JOSEN ASPEN LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY .....
Witness my hand and official seat
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
g1 J
Form 1090 closing/deeds/statutory/swd_statutory.himl 62017016 (7482573)
RECEPTdON#: 702245, 05107/2024 at 09:47:35 AM, Pgs 3 of 3, Ingrid K. Grueter, Pitkin County, CO
CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDIOMENT CIVIL CODE g 1109
A notarypublic or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the dottiment
to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California t}
County of .......
On ...... c r rim
.. �...._.i.........._ before me . ..............-- Y...�vaa I-------------:- mat.
Dat Here Insert Name and Title of t/� fficer.
personally appeared ae^�5 ........t�gi °ar_........ ..... .....—._..........__..
Name(s) of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) Is/are subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(€es), anct that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity
upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
x �
! SARAM ANN PACJNO
A Notary Public • California
*251P
Los Angeles Ca oryCommisslon,f 2462624,_my Comm. Expires 5ep.10, 2027
Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph Is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
OPTIONAL
of Notary Public
Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or
fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: ...............
Document Date: t)
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:.
Capacity(les) Claimed by signer(s)
Signer's Name:.... _........._.,...... -- .................
❑ Corporate Officer— Title(s)a... ,,,,,,,_,,,._..................
❑ Partner — O Limited 11 General
O Individual fJ Attorney in Fact
❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other: ...... --- .... ..... ............... -- ...... ..........
Signer is Representing: _.,,,,,_._--................
02019 National Notary Association
e
of Pages:__
Signer's Name: _... _...__
a Corporate Officer — Tltie(s):
❑ Partner — ❑ Limited 0 General
❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact
❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other: ......_.._._..... -- _
Signer Is Representing;,,,,,,,,,,,,