Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Exhibit C - Application
LAW OFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.OKGKM.NET LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121 TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853 DAVID B. KELLY MARIA MORROW OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com STEPHEN R. CONNOR ANNE MARIE MCPHEE SARAH M. OATES STEPHANIE HOLDER February 12, 2020 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ben Anderson, Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Request for Amendment to Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, Interpreting the Subdivision Agreement and Plat for the Lacet Subdivision, 403, 406, 407, 410, 411, 414, 415 Barb’s Way, Aspen, Colorado, according to the Recorded Plat thereof” Dear Ben, Enclosed please find a land use application regarding the above-described matter. Lacet Homeowners’ Association (“Association”), and specifically the owners of Lot 1, Lacet Subdivision, Thomas R. Hext and Paulette D. Perkins, (“Applicant”) are requesting that City Council Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 (“Resolution 58”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, be amended such that Section 1 of the Resolution, prohibiting development in a 25’ buffer zone on Lacet Subdivision lots adjacent to Riverside Subdivision, is stricken and replaced with language which permits development consistent with the City of Aspen’s setback regulations. Lacet Subdivision was originally approved in 1993, as the East Cooper Subdivision. The subdivision name was changed to Lacet Subdivision at the time of the recording of the plat for the subdivision. Ordinance 18, Series of 1993 (“Ordinance 18”), attached hereto as Exhibit B, was the original approval for subdivision and development of the project. Lacet Subdivision was approved with thirteen (13) townhome/duplex affordable housing units, one (1) Resident Occupied single-family lot and six (6) free market single-family lots (“Free Market Lots”). The Free Market are located on Lots 1- 3 and 5-7. The neighbors residing in adjacent Riverside Subdivision attending the hearings during in the original approval process and voiced concerns about the project – particularly pertaining to development of the Free Market Lots including the density, house size and proximity to the Riverside Subdivision. OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ & KELLY P.C. Lacet Subdivision – Amendment to Resolution 58, Series of 1994 February 12, 2020 Page 2 Riverside Subdivision is located on Riverside Drive and Fred Lane, which is generally east and south of Lacet Subdivision. As part of the 1993 approval, there were building envelopes (rather than setbacks) established for each of the Free Market Lots. Additionally, the developer agreed to a 25’ buffer (“25’ Buffer”) on the Free Market lots bordering Riverside Subdivision lots on both Fred Lane and Riverside Drive. See the City Planning & Zoning Commission meeting minutes dated March 2, 1993, attached hereto as Exhibit C. The 25’ Buffer was not defined further in the subdivision approvals, nor is it a term of art in the City of Aspen Land Use Code (“Land Use Code”). Additionally, typically building envelopes are not used for smaller lots in the City – instead, setbacks are applied. Essentially, these building envelopes indirectly established front, rear and side setbacks, with the rear and side yards being adjacent to the Riverside Subdivision Lots. Both the building envelopes on smaller, denser lots and the 25’ Buffer are atypical for City lots. To my knowledge, the 25’ Buffer has not been used in any other subdivision in the City. The neighboring lots in the Riverside Subdivision are zoned R-6 and R-15. In the R-6 zone district, the rear setback is 10 feet and side-yard setback is 5 or 10 feet depending on the lot size; in the R-15 zone district, the rear setback is 10 feet and the side-yard setback is also 10 feet. Thus, the 25’ Buffer compares very favorably to the setbacks in the Riverside Subdivision. The Final Plat of Lacet Subdivision (“Plat”), attached hereto as Exhibit D, shows the 25’ Buffer on Lots 1-3 and Lot 7 (although it is not labeled as a buffer and is not defined on the Plat or any of the other approvals). Lacet Subdivision Lots 1-3 & 7 border Riverside Subdivision Lots 3, 6, 7 and 11 (“Riverside Lots”). A map of the Riverside Lots is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Riverside Lot 7 is still owned by the Stone Family, who owned the lot in 1993/1994 and who were involved in the public review process for the Lacet Subdivision. Lot 11 is owned by Cherie G. Oates, whose husband Leonard M. Oates, also appeared and spoke at public hearings regarding Lacet Subdivision in 1993 and 1994 during the discussion on the 25’ Buffer. The other two affected Riverside Lots have changed hands since 1993/1994. All of the existing property owners of the Riverside Lots have provided letters supporting amending Ordinance 58 and striking the language in Section 1. These letters are attached hereto as Exhibit F. When development commenced on the Lacet Subdivision Lots in 1994, the Riverside neighbors approached the City, objecting to development in the 25’ Buffer of items such as window wells, on grade patios, etc. City Council held a hearing on June 27, 1994, reviewed videotaped portions of the public hearing approving Lacet Subdivision, took public testimony, etc. and concluded the intent of the 25’ Buffer was to have no development between the Lacet Subdivision houses and Riverside Subdivision. Meeting memoranda and minutes for the June 27, 1994 meeting are attached hereto as Exhibit G. City Council directed City staff to draft a resolution to memorialize its decision. What resulted from the June 27, 1994 hearing was Resolution 58, which states: “No permanent improvements of any sort whatsoever, other than underground utility lines, may be built, constructed or placed in the twenty-five foot buffer spaces between the building envelopes on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 7 and Riverside Subdivision (all as shown on the Plat and the Subdivision Agreement). The buffer spaces may not be paved or improved other than by landscaping. Nor shall any of the following types (sic) items be allowed in the buffer spaces: building eaves, architectural projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls.” Resolution 58 was recorded and is part of the City’s records. OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ & KELLY P.C. Lacet Subdivision – Amendment to Resolution 58, Series of 1994 February 12, 2020 Page 3 Since the original approvals and Resolution 58, a number of improvements have been built and permitted by the City in the 25’ Buffer area on several lots including window wells, landscape walls, a hot tub, roof eaves, patios, utility boxes and fences. See attached Exhibit H for copies of surveys and a list of improvements approved by the City. As Resolution 58 has not been applied by the City, and the Riverside neighbors no longer object to these improvements, the Applicant is requesting that Section 1 of Resolution 58 be stricken, and replaced with language that would have the area within the 25’ Buffer be consistent with setback requirements in the Land Use Code. The setback requirements in the Land Use Code currently permit permanent improvements such as building eaves, architectural projections, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls that meet certain dimensional requirements. As the City’s Building Department has already granted approval for many of these items on the affected Lacet Subdivision lots within the 25’ Buffer, and as the Riverside Lot neighbors support the proposed amendment to strike this 25’ Buffer restriction, the best solution is for the City to repeal the prohibition language of Resolution 58, Series of 1994 and replace the 25’ Buffer with a 25-foot “setback” consistent with the City’s Land Use Code. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. By___________________________________________ Sarah M. Oates Enclosures EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 Y'. e". r~21~_'8 B--i~ c~~ F 68 1 07/15/'7'4 04.19P PG 1 OF 3 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER RESOLUTION NO. 53 Series of 1994 REC 15000 DOC A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, INTERPRETING THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT AND PLAT FOR THE LACET SUBDIVISION (F/K/A EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION), LOTS 1-7 OF THE LACET SUBDIVISION, 403, 406, 407, 410, 411, 414, 415 BARB'S WAY, ASPEN, COLORADO, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF. WHEREAS, By Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, the City Council ofthe City of Aspen approved the subdivision and rezoning of that certain real property (hereinafter referred to as Lacet Subdivision") described in the Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lacet Subdivision), recorded at Reception No. 359036, Book 718, Page 477 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County ("the Subdivision Agreement") and the recorded plat therefor ("the Plat"); and, WHEREAS, The Subdivision Agreement and the Plat indicate "building envelopes" on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 which were intended by City Council to create a buffer space between the Lacet Subdivision and the Riverside Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, The Subdivision Agreement and the Plat do not state any intent or restrictions regarding the uses permitted in the twenty-five foot buffer spaces outside of the building envelopes; and, WHEREAS, On June 27, 1994, after written notice to owners of affected real property and published notice to the public, the City Council held a public hearing to consider whether the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat required amendment or clarification to accurately reflect the actual terms of approval granted by Ordinance No. 18; and, WHEREAS, at that Public Hearing, the City Council reviewed videotaped portions of the Public Hearing at which Ordinance No. 18 was approved, heard the testimony of affected and interested landowners, and considered written comments submitted by interested parties; and, WHEREAS, Based on the evidence presented at the June 27, 1994 Public Hearing, and the recollections of the members of City Council, which is comprised of the same members as when Ordinance No. 18 was enacted, and review of the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat, City Council has determined that the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat do not reflect the nature of the restrictions on the uses allowed in the twenty-five foot buffer areas outside the building envelopes shown on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 in the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat ("hereinafter referred to as "the buffer spaces"), which restrictions were the subject of material representations to City Council at the time of adoption of Ordinance No. 18 and approval of the Subdivision and the Plat; and, WHEREAS, The Subdivision Agreement and the Plat require supplementation to clarify the scope of restrictions applicable to the buffer areas; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 1. No permanent improvements of any sort whatsoever, other than underground utility lines, may be built, constructed or placed in the twenty-five foot buffer spaces between the building envelopes on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and Riverside Subdivision (all as shown on the Plat and the Subdivision Agreement). The buffer spaces may not be paved or improved other than by landscaping. Nor shall any of the following types items be allowed in the buffer spaces: building eaves, architectural projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls. 2. All other spaces shown in the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat outside of the building envelopes shall be subject to those restrictions applicable to setbacks under the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, except as otherwise specifically indicated in the Subdivision Agreement or the Plat. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the �_ day of 1994. JcWn S. 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 the day hereinabove stated. Kath n S. Koch, City Clerk iga.res 372178 B- 55 P--683 O i / 15/9 4 04.— 19p PC; _i of 3 0 e"...... e 5 "? ~:;~ 1 i/. () 3 I L._ l,,J I (.~ Q "/' l-~ ~c; 'y_ 1,' L,ue "') 0.00 C'_._":".",::;:c:: L' ,,__-,,_,f. '". /, :~..; ..:.1. '_-' i J. ~.:,;!.' ').4 F~ [T! : I 1',1 CC:JU)\iT" i).<'l ; :.~'~? i:::' F' Ci J.C)i~:' j.F~t::L' j c UO D (~I \/ I ':::~C:L.E~=F:~::: .,::.: F~r~=C:Uh:D[:F:;.: QUIT CLAIM DEED Lacet Limited Liability Company ("Grantor"), whose address is P.O. Box 2152, Silverthorne, CO 80498, for Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby sells and quitclaims to East Cooper Limited Liability Company, whose address is P.O. Box 2152, Silverthorne, CO 80498, the following real property in pitkin County Colorado: Lot 8, East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded July 21, 1993 in Plat Book 32 at Page 15 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado and the Amended Plat of the Lacet Subdivision recorded July~, 1994 in Plat Book ~, at Page/JLL) of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado together with all its appurtenances and all the estate, right, title, and interest of Grantor. Dated: July ___, 1994 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me I, 1994, by E.J. Olbright as manager of East Cooper Limited ia 'lity Company. . My commission expires 0l~'-//94 witness my hand and official seal. No~/i/,L'~; y,,) o'Lbr,i ght\3qui tc lm_dee I ,_ . v'LI'i.J '.,1 J~) II ') "'") C\ d)~~A O~ I) u EXHIBIT B Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993 t,. 1&.". to. ,,-' 356441 0~;/03/93 09 ~ 40 F,ec: $50.00 Bf< 710 F'G 980 C,"Lv,'. D.Vl'~ Pit~jn Clerk Doc $~OO c:< Co... ...::!-, .. R '., ORDINANCE NO.18 SERIES OF 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM R-15 (PUD) MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AH (PUD) AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUBDIVISION, FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING,CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND VEST!D RIGHTS FOR THE EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION, AN 8 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 2.35 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, in September 1989, the (AH) Affordable Housing zone district was created to promote private sector development of deed restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market residential development within a project; and WHEREAS, C&G Mustardseed, Ltd. (Applicant) submitted an application (the "Plan") for rezoning of a 2.35 acre parcel on East Cooper Avenue from R-15 PUD (Moderate Density Residential) to AH PUD (Affordable Housing) in conjunction with an application for Conceptual PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission recommended approval of a conceptual PUD Plan for the subject parcel, with conditions, on September 15, 1992; and WHEREAS, the city Council reviewed the Conceptual PUD Plan and the Planning and Zoning commission's recommendations, for rezoning of the subject parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing and approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on November 9,1992; and WHEREAS, the Applicant then submitted an application for Rezoning,SUbdivision,Final PUD Development Plan,Growth Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special 1 lit', tit Ii; 356441 05/03/93 09:40 Rec: $50.00 Bf< 710 F'G 981 Silvia Davis~ Pitkin Cnty ~lerk, Doc SnOO Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, waiver of Park Development Impact Fees, and waiver of the Waterline Extension Moratorium for the development of 12 deed restricted affordable townhome units, one deed restricted lot, and six free market lots for single family residences; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission reviewed the development proposal in accordance with those procedures set forth at Section 24-6-205(A) (8) (c) of the Municipal Code and did conduct a public hearing thereon on March 16, 1993; and WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the plan, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division 9 of Article 7 Planned unit Development),Division 10 of Article 7, Subdivision), Division 4 of Article 7 (Special Review), Division 11 of Article 7 (Zoning Map Amendments), Section 8-104 (C) of Article 8 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions by city Council), the Planning and Zoning commission has recommended final approval of the East Cooper Subdivision subject to conditions, to the city Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted Special Review approval for parking and open space in an AH zone district; and WHEREAS, prior to final consideration by City Council, the Applicant increased the number of deed restricted townhomes from 12 to 13 in order to meet the deed restricted/free market percentage requirements of the AH zone district; and 2 1, l" " c'.. j*::~~)6L1.1i.:I. 05/0:3/9:3 09,4.0 R,.c $50.00 13f< 710 PC, 982 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc: $.00 WHEREAS, the waterline extension moratorium was no longer in effect at the time of final review by city council; and WHEREAS, the Aspen city council has reviewed and considered the Plan under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,considered thosereviewedandhas recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning commission, and has taken and considered public comment at public hearing; and WHEREAS, the city council finds that the Plan meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the Plan, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the city council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-903 B. of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions off approval as specified hereinafter, the City council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's planned unit development component: 1. The Developer's final plan submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval. 2. The Plan is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3. The Plan is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 4. The Plan will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 5.The Plan approval is being granted only to the extent to which 3 @.l w."'" 6 ,'I 4 j (-)~/(-'-'\l9:'\ 09,40 Hec $0:;0" 00 B1< i:I",)",) '1"'. _\oj N'... - -' 1 .1.' Doc D- .'. r~'.l..'.kin Cnt.y C.er'", Silvia dV1S, . ~ .- 710 PG 983 OO GMQS allocation/exemptions are obtained by the applicant. section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in section 1 above, the City Council grants Final PUD development plan approval for the East Cooper project subject to the following conditions: l. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the deed restricted townhomes, the Applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement financial assurances in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the completion of the affordable housing component of the project. The amount of th~ financial assurances shall be approved by the city Engineer and city Planning Director. A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added to the plat. Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. Add note to plat regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy.82: year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (state in condo documents also.) The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision's residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current city standards prior to dedication. The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy.82 to be installed by the Applicant. The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy.82 and Barb's Way. Amend note 2 on Sheet 5 to state that individual development on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. The drainage plan must address how the Hwy.82 intersection is handled. Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance, of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent. The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. The applicant shall consult the city Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. 15. Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 . 9 . 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. tit,If,,4 f.i, , i~5,-,LI.iJ.:I 05/0:J/'?c, 09,'1-0 F;;ec $:':iO.OO ElK 710 F"C:) 984QIJv,a Davls, ~itkin Cnty Clerk, Doc: $.00 Deed Restriction for the l3 deed restricted townhomes and one deed restricted lot shall be recorded with the county Clerk. Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shall execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction. The deed restrictions on the affordable units shall be as follows: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 1 - two bedroom category 4 unit 4 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units 1 - single family lot, Resident Occupied 16. The developer shall document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for the first round. of sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this information to the Housing Office on an annual basis. 17. All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units mus.t be qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental occupancy. 18. A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. . 19. Language regarding the sanitation system within the PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be approved by the Sanitation District prior to recordation. 20. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 21. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the parcel, the Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. However, failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eig~ty 180) days following approval by the City council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval by both the Commission and City Council is obtained before their acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. 22. Building heights for the townhomes shall be measured from the natural grade" as presented in the CTL Thompson, Inc. report, as supported by the Acting Building Official. 23. In the case of opportunities to underground existing primary and/or secondary aerial utilities where new trenches are. to be dug for new utilities work, the applicant shall work with adjacent property owners and with the subject utility companies to accomplish such utility undergrounding. 24. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 25. If, prior to the issuance of certificates of Occupancy and recordation of the individual deed restrictions for the 5 e 5:56441 05/03/'rj 09: 4.0 H,ec: $50.00 81< 710 Pi;) 'il~~ Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $QOO Resident occupied units or single family lot. the city has adopted changes to the RO regulations, these new regulations shall be incorporated into the individual deed restrictionS. section 3: Pursuant to section 24-7-1004 C. of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the city council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's subdivision development component: 1. The proposed subdivision in consistent with .the Aspen Area Community Plan and is, furthermore, consistent with the Character of existing land uses in the adjoining areas. 2. The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas and will be in substantial compliance with all requirements of chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. 3. The proposed subdivision is compatible and suitable with the topography of the area and will not present of create a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents or neighbors of the subdivision. The proposed subdivision does not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies , duplication, or premature extension of public facilitates or unnecessary public costs. section 4: Pursuant to section 24-8-104 C. of the Municipal Code, the city Council finds compliance in regard to the Developer's request for Growth Management Quota System development exemption for affordable housing and free market dwelling units in the Affordable Housing zone district. 4. section 5: Pursuant to section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code, the city Council finds as follows in regard to the zoning map amendment component of the Plan: 1. The proposed zoning amendment as set forth in the Plan are not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed zoning amendment is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land uses. 3.The proposed zoning amendment will not adversely traffic generation or road safety when taken consideration with the other aspects of the Plan. impact into 4.The proposed zoning amendment will promote the public interest 6 ei,rZ". tit."It i,\. 356441 05/03/93 09:40 Rec $50.00 BK Silvia Davis~ Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 710 PG 986 000 and character of the city of Aspen. Section 6: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 and 24-7-1103, and Division 2 of Article 5 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, and findings set forth in Section 5 above, the City council does grant the following amendment to the Official Zone District Map and does designate the following zone district for the development subject to the conditions as specified below: 1. Affordable Housing (AH) shall be applied to Lots 1-8 of the East Cooper Subdivision. Section 7: Pursuant to Section #24-7-1007 B. of the Municipal Code, the city Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's condominiumization component: 1. The 13 proposed townhomes to be condominiumized are not currently leased on a long term basis. 2. six month minimum leases shall be required for the condominium units. 3. The proposed condominiumization will not adversely affect the availability of affordable housing. section 8: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 7 above, and in accordance with Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, ~he City Council grants and awards condominiumization approval to ~he Plan as follows, subject to the conditions as specified herein:: 1. Thirteen proposed townhomes on Lot 8. 2. Affordable Housing Impact Fees shall not be required for these deed restricted condominium units. Section 9: The requested waiver of the Park Development Impact fee shall not be granted for the East cooper Subdivision. Section 10: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the Plan approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and zoning commission and or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended. by other specific conditions. 7 IeII,'" ,iJ; Wj~)6441. 05/03/9:_~ 09: 40 Rec $50.00 BI< 710 PG 987 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc: $.00 section 11: The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and is. hereby amended to reflect the rezoning action as set forth in section 6 above and such amendment shall be promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with section 24-5-103 B. of the Municipal Code. section 12: Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal code, the city council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the East Cooper Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows: 1.The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to; building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. 2. 3. 4. section 13: This Ordinance shall not effect 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 8 t\ WI' 1*::;56441 05/0:.)/93 09,40 Rec: '~C;O. 00 BI< 710 PG 98B Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc: $.00 under such prior ordinances. section 14: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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. section 15: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. section 16: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. section 17: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the <=?,c::;;" (fay Of~, 1993 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the city of Aspen. 9 l( e' 356441 05/03/93 09'4~ Rec: .$50:00. B~ D ... Pi.tkin Cnty C.leF"l,., Doc: Silvia av.l.S, 710 PG 989 00 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council 1993. 1.2.of the city of Aspen on the Hf(II~,. OF 4S"'"O~"""'-:' A. ~tA t'} 1. Katiiii''t)i~ :",,'Koch, city Clerk 1", L t3~- John Bennett, Mayor adopted, passed and approved this ~y: 1993. c__,,,.,.,., r''''''''.,,~ IHIII""", ~. I,ll '!: "" t c.. 11$ ,'1,/;". t. ". '~.',n-.;:;....e . '. '.... -,,;. Kathryn KGch, city Clerk OCUli':,'" .,/ coop.fin.ord t5~- John Be nett, Mayor 10 day of day of EXHIBIT C P&Z Minutes – March 2, 1993 PZM3 . 16. 93 David seconded the motion with all in favor. GORDON CALLAHAN RESUBDIVISION SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Leslie: This is to be tabled. We are bringing it back to you onApril20. There is a change in the application so there is notneedtoopenthepublichearing. It has to be renoticed. EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING, FINAL PUD SUBDIVISION, REZONING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT GMOS EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL REVIEWS Jasmine opened the public hearing. v-1Kimmadepresentationasattachedinrecord. p mr i Tom Stevens, applicant brought Commission up to date on theproject. Michael Gassman, architect gave a description of the dwelling unitsintheproject. Stevens: In terms of the actual site plan all access is now offHwy #82 . The conditions that CDOT put in access to the site is arightturnlane 'off Hwy 82 heading east out of town. That has beenincorporatedintotheplans. Once you are into the project theroadsareprivate. The main road that leads up to the free markethomesendsinacul-de-sac. We have reviewed the cul-de-sac withtheFireDept. It is in excess of their turning requirements. The road which leads into the deed restricted portion accesses theparkingaswellasfireaccess. Grading and drainage on the project really falls into 2 differentcategories. The free market lots will obviously be reviewed at thetimetheplansforhomesaresubmittedforbuildingpermit. OneoftheconditionsthattheEngineeringDeptwantedontheprojectwasthatthereisanoteontheplatthatalldrainagewithinthefreemarketlotsiscontainedonthatlot. We will comply withthat. Within Lot #8 of the deed restricted parcel all drainage is alsobeingselfcontained. The landscaping for the project will obviously revolve mostly 2 PZM3 . 16.93 around Lot #8 of the deed restricted parcel . There are a couple of things we need to accommodate. In trying to minimize the effects of Hwy 82 we went about it 2 different ways. One is we are fencing along Hwy 82 as well as adding considerable evergreen plants. We have a kid' s play area and the fence will provide some level of safety for that play area as well as sound and visual to the highway. Within the project we have got shade trees planted just outside the entries to the units. Then as we move out past the units we get back to native vegetation and as we get closer to the ditch we get more into riparian vegetation. We really had to make a decision as to how we were going to handle the ditch. Right now we are not comfortable with the ditch not leaking. So we want to line the ditch. We have met with the Riverside ditch representatives and cleared this with them. While we are going to the expense of lining this thing, we are also going to go to the expense of turning it into an amenity for the project. We also met with the Parks Dept in terms of acquiring tree removal permits when it comes to removal of trees. We will replace those trees on a caliper per caliper inch trees. The areas directly around the units are sod while as you move out beyond the units you get into more native areas. Easements on the property--all access and utility easements are contained within the appropriate easements. That has been reviewed with the Engineering Dept. The Parks Dept has requested a pedestrian easement which gets from Riverside Subdivision to Hwy 82 . We are willing to grant that easement. We would just like for them to say which of the 3 possibilities they prefer. A pedestrian easement and a walk will be constructed along the property line at Hwy 82 on our property but within the setback. At conceptual submission it was requested that we provide easement. At final it was requested that we actually build the walk. That is fine. We will comply with that. The setback along Hwy 82 has been increased to 12 and 1/2 feet per the Engineering Dept. Utilities to service the project--all the utilities are directly adjacent. We will be utilizing Aspen Water Consolidated San and one of the advantages of this project is that the water line that services the Riverside Subdivision is a dead end line and ends in the cul-de-sac directly adjacent to this project. As part of the construction of his project we propose to loop that line, connect from Riverside Subdivision to Hwy 82 resulting in a loop from Riverside and improving their service. One of the issues that came up at the last meeting was Homeowner' s 3 PZM3 . 16. 93 Association. We have taken a look a that. The deed restricted portion for the project units #1 through #12 will be in a separate association. Their responsibility will include exterior buildingmaintenance, court maintenance and snow removal, common area maintenance and taxes. The free market lots including the resident occupied lot #4 will be in a separate association from the deed restricted units and their responsibility will revolve around maintenance and snow removal. Regarding the issues that were brought up at the last meeting:First is density. This project received unanimous approval on a 16 and 7 program. 16 deed restricted and 7 free market. We are now at 13 and 6--Lot #8 to be deed restricted parcel is within the allowed FAR for the AH zone district. The AH zone district allows by special review for this FAR to be varied up. We are not askingforthat. Lots #1 through #7 are significantly larger than required by theAHzonewhichrequiresaminimumof3 , 000sgft. We have for thefreemarketportion9,700sgft and the RO lot is 6, 600sgft. So all aspects of this project propose less density than what is allowed. In order to look at FAR we really need to compare what is allowed vs what is allowble--not what is allowed on this project vs whatisinRiversideSubdivision. I think that we have all come to the realization that at some point in time Riverside Subdivision will probably expand to it's maximum allowed FARs. For this reason we think it would be poor planning to voluntarilyreducetheFARonthisprojectwhilenotlookingatasimilar situation on Riverside Subdivision. Essentially all we would do is in the future years create an enclave of small and perceptuallysubstandardhomes. We don't want to do that. We want to make this compatible--not segregated. The other issue that came up was the 70/30 ratio of deed restricted vs free market. We are currently at 68 and 28. We are not sure at this point whether Council has the ability to vary it down to68% or not. What it really comes down to is whether or not we have a 3-bedroom unit or we replace that 3-bedroom unit with 2 units and any other 2-bedroom configuration mumble What that does it gives us the same number of bedrooms so we house the same number of people. It will get us to the 70/30 split. Our concern is that it gets us away from what has consistently been told to us is the requirements for housing and that is family housing. We are willing to do either one. And we will rely on your recommendation and Council 's final judgement on this. It is our 4 f j PZM3 . 16.93 preference to house in 3-bedroom configuration because we think that that is what the community needs. But physically the change from that 3-bedroom to a 2-bedroom or 1-bedroom above can be handled within the current building footprint and parking footprint. So it is not a big deal. This project has gone above and beyond the requirements of the approval process and the specific zone district. I think we have demonstrated that throughout the course of this project. Meetings and discussions were held with the neighbors and it has produced a significantly changed plan for revisions to access, revisions to density, additions of open space. This project not only fits the intent of the AH zone district but it fits the dimensional requirements of the zone district. But more importantly it fits within the goals of the community. It fits the goals of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan exactly. It keeps density within the metro area. It keeps it along the established transit route, has minimal impacts to the community based on it's location. When looked at in terms of community good this project fits. The bottom line is that this project will realize no increase in free market lots. We have an allowed use by right of 6 lots on this piece of property via the current zoning. All that is being afforded by the rezoning on this project is deed restricted housing. That is a clear community asset. Bruce: Can you show me exactly where the Riverside Subdivision ends and begins in relation to your project. I know the Cresta Haus is on the bottom side. The applicants showed on drawings locations of these properties. Bruce: So east of your subdivision is all Cresta Haus, south and west is Riverside. What are these small lots right here? Tom: That is Buckwheat. Kim: Since we found that the ratio didn't quite meet the 70/30 I have had talks with Tom Baker about it. And he feels that the really close number to be making a call that the code establishes the minimum ratio and that the applicant is bound to meet those ratios as part of this project. And there are a couple of options available including breaking down one of the units into 2 units. It looks as though the density can be met by doing that a studio unit rather than 1-bedroom. But we should get together and double check my numbers. I think at this point so that we can get forward on this that we really can't be discussing 2% one way or the other. Tom: That' s fine. We are going to make that conversion very easily. 5 PZM3 . 16. 93 Tim: Because of what I understand about RO. It seems to me that they are not as restricted as say a category #3 would be. Or a category #4 3-bedroom. And it might be a proposal that, and I am for the restrictions, I am for having it as employee oriented as possible. Having the resale value restricted as much as possible. It may be instead of having resident occupied condominiums in the complex we ask them to change from RO designation which we really don't have a handle on, to the well-defined category #3 or category 4 3-bedroom, 3-baths. And that might be some way for us to restrict the project even more to keep the cost to potential buyers down even more, to keep qualified families focused on having the ability to have 3 bedrooms so that they can have kids or they can have whatever kind of space they need. This might be something we can propose in order to keep the 3 bedrooms which I think are more valuable in this project than studios or 1 bedrooms. To take an RO unit and make it a category #3 I think is going to make it more available to people who have less income or less assets or fit a lower income stereo type and make this available to a more unfunded buyer. Richard: I raised the trial balloon of further reducing your FAR caps and I think Michael Gassman raised the point "Well we will reduce it if Riverside will reduce it" . And I haven't seen a response from Riverside. They just keep asking for more without offering anything. And that debate is really outside of our purview. We were kind of involved in it just to try to keep everybody happy. Larry Fredericks point of the sidewalk--I think any improvement along the street there is helpful and if you do have to go out by the wall at the Cresta Haus--I walk up there or ride my bike up there frequently and just having another couple of hundred feet of sidewalk would be a major help. I hope we can continue improve- ments along Cooper Street as soon as possible. And the issue of the fence--I think you should do at least a thumbnail shading study to see if it would shade the sidewalk and you leave ice there. Look at the height and the setback of the fence and the materials you use so that it works to keep the kids in but doesn't block any more sunlight than necessary on the sidewalk. Tim: I am in favor of the AH zone. I think this is a good application of it. The debate between Riverside and this project I just don't see. The weight of the opinion from Riverside that it should be less dense--I think it balances for me. It has a basic compatibility for me. And I think with the other things that 6 Y PZM3 . 16.93 are in the neighborhood I live in that area this is very compatible. I think it is a great opportunity for the City to take advantage of the adventure of an investor to provide opportunities for people to have the ladder of affordable housing to climb. I think it is a good project. It fits. I think the houses that are in the free market side are going to be restricted in who lives there and how much they are worth because it is part of this project. I think those people are going to be local people and I think that helps balance it out. I like the project. Sara: I am so happy to see private parties come in and offer something like this instead of building Godfather estate homes. You are answering a community need. You are not ghettoizing employee housing. It is in with a mixed community in there and I think that is wonderful. It is going to be lively there. Jasmine: I agree with the members of the Commission. I think this is a very good project and I think this is the kind of project we were hoping to see when the idea of the AH zone was first proposed. I think the density is appropriate because of the location close to downtown. Part of the thing that is going to make it possible for local residents to be able to live near the City and be able to raise families near the City is to have greater density near bus routes so that people with children can still have their kids be adjacent to the City environment but also be a protected play area. I think the size of the units are built on a larger scale with greater width, greater liveability is certainly a wonderful thing. I think your responses to the concerns of the people who live in the Riverside Subdivision is very commendable. By increasing the setbacks on the Riverside Subdivision side and the fact that you have a completely different access. While you are adjacent they are really very much separated as far as the 2 communities are concerned. I think the applicant has addressed a great deal of the concerns of the neighborhood. I think this is a project that the neighborhood can live with and the community can be happy with too. I am very enthusiastic about it. Bruce: What is the square footage size cap for the homes in the free market? Tom: We haven't calculated them. There was some discussion on this. Bruce: So 3 , 660 is the outside cap. There is no guarantee that the homes that will be built will be that size. They could be 2 , 000. They could be 2 , 500. The price of the lot is going to be -. a function of what is going to determine the size of the house. 7 PZM3 . 16. 93 Tom: The 3 , 660 absolutely cap to the sliding scale. mumble So while this project is subject to that --- Leslie: Then you go up to 9, 000 and then that is it. But the road easement comes out of the lot size for allowable floor area and any other except the pedestrian easement. Bruce: So it is unlikely that there is going to be a 3 , 600sqft house. Jasmine: So all representations made by the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise stated. All material representation made by the applicant in the application and during the public meetings with Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions" . So that is Condition #23 . MOTION Richard: I make a motion to rezone the subject parcel from R-15 moderate density/residential PUD to AH Affordable Housing PUD. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Richard: I make a motion to recommend approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project final PUD development plan, Special Review for Open Space and Parking in the AH zone and GMQS Exemption for the 6 free market lots, 12 affordable town homes and one RO affordable lot as deed restricted per Housing Office's approval with the 23 conditions included in Planning Office memo dated March 2 and March 16, 1993 . Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. RIO GRANDE CONCEPTUAL SPA MASTER PLAN ADOPTION Leslie made presentation as attached in record. What we are going to be asking Council to do--we are asking for your recommendation to Council on this is to extend that deadline in the code that says conceptual plan only lasts for 2 years unless you do a final plan. And if you think about some of the uses that are being proposed for this site--the valley-wide rail, the trolley--will not take place in another 2 years. And I would hate to see all this Work that we 8 e PZM3 . 2 . 93 EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINAL PUD, SUBDIVISION REZONING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT GMOS EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL REVIEWS Jasmine opened the public hearing. David stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. Kim: There was an error in the public notice requirement. So this is not a bonified public hearing. What we are going to do tonight is have a brief introduction by the applicant and then try and get through the growth management exemption for affordable and free market housing and special reviews for open space and parking because those are aspects of this project that are not bound to public hearings. Tom Stevens: Based on the previous approval of 16 deed-restricted units and 7 free-market lots there was also a condition that we look at any means available to us to reduce the density on the site. What really worked best was actually reduce the numbers on the project. We got rid of an expensive parking garage but at the same time we started to get more of a site opening up and usable as open space. We started to get units pulling back off of Hwy 82 . The plan as proposed right now deals with 13 deed restricted units and 6 free market units. Of those 13 deed restricted units 12 are townhomes and 1 is a lot. Access to the project was approved by this Commission at that conceptual--coming off Hwy 82 . demonstrated on drawings) As we started to go through this what happened is that building these units into the hillside and taking advantage of that grade change worked really well. By reducing the numbers we were able to pull it completely off the Hwy. In addition to the parking garage and storage in what is essentially a basement there is also parking and it is oversized parking tandem behind on the road level. At conceptual this parking was really tight and began to infringe on the fire lane. With the reduction of units that has all been able to spread out. Now the units are loft by 25ft which is really generous for a parking space. As we did with the conceptual submission fire access can move through here with a gate with what is called a knox box which the Fire Dept has a special locking mechanism that only they can get out. This can only be used in emergency situations. It cannot be used for day-to-day traffic. 2 r. 0..• PZM3 . 2 .93 The access still comes up from Hwy 82. What we have done though is loosened all of this up from the 7 lots which are now 6. We have a deed restricted lot now which has moved down to the lower bench. This lot is 6, 600sgft where these average over 9,000. In addition to loosening the density up on these lots we have also provided a 25ft bumper that is identified by prescribed building envelopes that provides a bumper along the Riverside Subdivision. In order to accommodate this we need to relocate the ditch. We talked to the Riverside people. That is fine with them. We have coordinated construction schedules with them. We are going to turn the ditch into an amenity. These units all back out onto this as well as this home, this home and this home. And if done right really can be an amenity to the project. One point that I do want to make is that without the deed restricted component on this thing--this is 2 . 35 acres. At 15, 000sgft lots the zoning allows for 6.8 units. We are asking for 6. The rest of the project is deed restricted. Within the AH parameters these are significantly larger than need be. The AH specifies a 3 , 000sgft lot at minimum. These are over 9, 000ft. But we have had to try and match densities with the Riverside Subdivision as best as possible. They would like to see less up there. We can't do less up there. It is that simple. We are not asking for an increase in free market density. What we are asking for is an increase in deed restricted density. For us to go beyond the numbers that we have right here it means- right now lot and home, we are going to come on the market for 657 , 000 and that is considerably less than a million two. And the crowd that that has attracted are all locals. They are local working people. If the cost of the lot goes up via the number of I-/ - lots going down, that crowd disappears and we get in second home Wm/ e 4 buyers. And from day one that is just not something we are X` interested in doing. l7" r If you go down below the 6 lots it becomes much larger homes. if you are going to put a 3 , 600sgft house on a 20, 000sgft lot i , it is getting away from what the Affordable Housing Zone District was created for. Roger: I much like how this has evolved. I think you have been relatively sensitive to what we have had to deal with there. I like the project now whereas I had some real qualms about it before. 3 PZM3 . 2 .93 Jasmine: The 25 foot setback from Riverside Subdivision is something I am sure the neighborhood will be very happy about. You have proposed building envelopes for the free market houses. I assume there is going to be some mechanism for actually enforcing that to see that they are not exceeded. Tom: As a matter of procedure that building envelope goes on the plat and then the plat is reviewed against the drawings that are submitted to the Building Dept with the plans. So once this project is approved those building envelopes get platted and that n is it.ef& , 6 Jasmine then asked for public comment. 6 hem Doug McCullough: I am a resident of Riverside Drive. I grew up on Riverside Drive. First of all I would like to say I appreciate the efforts the developers have made in trying to reduce the density here. It has been our past argument of our concern to the size of the density. Unfortunately we are dealing with the difference between a 9, 000ft lot and a 2 ,500sgft house as compared to a 15, 000sgft lot and a 2 , 5005; ft house as compared to a 9, 000sgft lot and a 3, 50osgft house. And my concern is where does the house go. It doesn't go out. We are not talking about 3 , 500sgft single story dwelling here. I think this is going to be similar to what has happened at 1010 Ute. And another thing I think would be the best interest of the Housing Authority would be to take into consideration the unit that was just built on the back of the Cresta Haus. It is a 2 ,700sgft unit. It is an employee housing unit and multiply that by 1/3rd and then put 6 of those units up in that area. I just think it is going to be a huge development. I know that we talked in the interest of 5 units up there in that area which would expand the size of the lots and give a bigger envelope it might increase the height size. Lennie Oates: I am the owner of Lot #11 and some adjacent property. I agree with Doug. I would like to see you, between now and the real public hearing, go up and take a look at the free standing unit that was built up there as part of the Cresta Haus. He said multiply it by a third and I say multiply it by 1 and 1/3 and get the scale instead of going down to get the true perspective on it and then visualize--or 6 units going in there. From the standpoint of the neighbors I want to remind you that neither at the P&Z level or at the City Council level that we object to the size of the employee housing or the affordable housing aspect of this. They have cut back on that area. That has been their own choice. That is not what we have complained about. 4 m% PZM3 . 2 .93 It was the number of lots that were the free market lots. They have remained the same. There are 7 whether you call one resident occupied or not. The only restriction on a resident occupied is it requires a resident to live there. And that is the deed restriction and that is it pure and simple. They haven't changed the configuration to less than 7 . Also I think given the relative scale and the size of their lots which incidentally if you take the lots they include the road and the cul-de-sac. They are not out of it. So their roads in the cul- de-sac are parented in. You go back and look at Riverside, Riverside' s aren't included in. If you add them into the Riverside properties there is a hypothetical, you get a tremendous disparity. Leslie: Any roads or easements--surface easements come out of your allowable lot area for floor area purposes. Oates: I am saying for comparison sake with Riverside--you could make the other argument and say look at Riverside. Each one of these lots has an addition of area that they have shown on the map the area which counts for roads. Pete Stone: I live in Riverside. I think the changes that you have made in the affordable housing portion of the project are terrific. But I have come to a couple of other meetings and have some concerns too about the free market units. I feel very uncomfortable when I hear the developer say that the bottom line is now 6 free market lots, 1 RO lot and 12 units and that is the least that we can go or we are going to go broke. I don't if that is the case or not. But I think that that is putting pressure on you to tend to pass or recommend something that ought to really stand on it' s own. And I think that is what you have got to do. I think you have to take a hard look at that. I thought that the object of affordable housing was to create more affordable housing. And my objections have been over the free market portions. I feel like what is happening right now is that we have reduced the affordable housing which is exactly what the whole point of this was to develop. And we haven't met really at all on the free market portion. I don't think that when P&Z and City Council talked about reducing density in both the free market and affordable housing I don't think that has happened as much as perhaps it should. 7 I am actually one of the applicants. I would like to address A,f M""' some of the remarks. The model of our development has 2-story iWd free- market units built at the maximum allowable. And if you take a look at the upward visual impact it does not seem any greater than what is already in the neighborhood. I think addressing the 5 PZM3 .2 .93 density issue we have reduced voluntarily the FAR on the lots and what is allowed. We have opened up open space by putting 25 foot setbacks when we didn't have to but that again helps the project. I just think that visually when you look at this it does not seem like an impact like a 1010 Ute. I think that is an over-exaggeration. I think there is also 6, 000 and an 8, 000sqft lot in the Riverside neighborhood also. And across the street there are some very small lots. Jasmine: I think all of us on the Commission are aware of the fact that most of the homes in development of Riverside Subdivision occurred in days when people used to have smaller houses on larger lots. And that is the way people like to live. Especially people who lived here and had children and families. The trend as we all know now is to have the maximum size house on as small as possible lot with very little stuff around the edges so that you can have media rooms and things like that. So we know that that is the case. There are not people who are going to build the way they built Riverside anymore. That is just not the style. I think we have to try to see how this particular project is going to be less like 1010 Ute--everyone's favorite subdivision. It' s done a lot of good things for other developers because they can always point to 1010 Ute and say "See it is not as bad as that" . It would be interesting to see how this does tend to fit in with the other buildings in the neighborhood. Admittedly you are not going to get the same kind of ratio of building size to lot size that you did have and you still have in Riverside Subdivision. Tom: What we need to look at is allowed FAR vs allowed FAR--not allowed FAR vs what is right now. As soon as someone sells out here this could go to maximum FAR. And if history is any lesson it will go to maximum FAR.Maximum FAR in Riverside is considerably more than maximum FAR in here. So to talk about houses dwarfing houses I don't think is necessarily accurate. This map shows 1010 Ute. So rather than speculate as to how this project relates in terms of design and density to 1010 Ute you can see it. And right off the bat you can see it is nowhere close. So that ought to be a fairly easy reference. We didn't bring up economics because we don't want to talk about economics. We don't want economics to be a pressure in this thing. Everybody understands development is driven by economics. And we would rather not review this project based on economics. I don't think it is a viable tool in the evaluation of this. 6 PZM3 .2 . 93 Jasmine: We have heard this kind of thing before and we have always just put that aside in our deliberations. Economics is something that we just cannot consider. Whether the developer makes a profit or does not make a profit is not something that we have any determination in one way or the other. I live in Riverside too and I am not particularly passionate about the individual issues here. My comments are more an observation on the process that I have seen. I would like to nominate that we name the street Loophole Lane. The reason I would like to do that is it seems to me that he just made the comment The rules allow. The rules allow" . Well we have a community plan. We have a GMP. We have exemptions. We have a petition here to rezone. And clearly frankly the pawn in this little chess game, to my observation, we are going to use the pawn of employee housing to get what we want to get. Now you can develop this property and the current rules that exist subject to the growth management quotas and all the things that go on. But we are asked that we should bend those rules and rezone this and frankly all I have seen and all I have heard and it has been 6 or 8 months is "We will do this and we will do that but we will play the game of using this pawn of affordable housing to get the development that we want" . My observation is that this thing has been cut up and cut down. It has been billed as something good for the community. The fact is that we have a group of people that want to build houses on lots. The lots are there. They are zoned. They want to get rezoned. They want favorable treatment. And presumably it is to provide affordable housing. I, for one, am not convinced. Tom: I think we can eliminate all the affordable housing and stick with 6 lots. It is zoned for that right now. The loophole, if you want to call it that, is that the AH provides, if you do affordable housing you are exempt from GMQS. We have followed the rules on this thing from day one to the letter. We are not asking for anything special. Again this site is zoned right now, today, for 6. 8 lots. So we are asking for the 6 that are currently available on the site. We are going through the process that is designated for this thing. We are not asking for anything. The benefit to this community is only affordable housing because 6 lots are allowed there anyway. Jasmine asked if there were any further comments from the public. There were none. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: Did you try to build the model of the private home within the building envelope? 7 PZM3 . 2 .93 Tom: Yes, they are within the building envelope and they represent maximum square footage. They are all 2-story construction and conform with the height limit of the AH zone district. That is 25 feet available to 30 by special review. We have not asked for special review. Richard: FAR ratios what is the ratio of allowable FAR to the lot size compared to what you are doing over here? Leslie: On a 15, 000sgft lot in the R-15 zone district you can go 4 , 500sgft of floor area plus a 500sgft garage. Anything below grade doesn't count. Richard: And you are restricted to 35 here? Tom: A little less. Richard: So it is a little larger ratio than-- Tom: Yes. We are at about 38%. The resulting home will be a little less than 1, 000sgft less than allowable area. Richard: The AH zone does allow a little larger FAR ratio than the R-15. My main concern with this--within limits you have volun- tarily reduced it but it still creates a little more bulk for the given area than the adjoining neighborhood. Tom: We propose this right now is in accordance with the AH zone which allows a 38% compared with 33% that is allowed in R-15. Leslie: It is based upon the size of the lot. It is sliding scale. Tom: And again some of the lots in Riverside are not 15, 000ft. So the maximum allowed FAR on those lots is less than 45. So that is not something we want to try and represent. Some of the lots are bigger than 15, 000ft and can expand beyond 45. Tim: Is there a lot in Riverside that is for sale? And what is it listed for? There are no lots in Riverside for sale at this point. I would say that if there was a lot available in Riverside, 14 , 000sgft, would sell for more than these lots just because it is a larger lot and you are permitted larger FAR. Eventually you are going to see those lots selling for lot value, people are going to be tearing down their houses and building bigger houses. That is inevitable. Tim: I think there is some comparison to the relative value--a lot or a house in Riverside and a finished completed house on a lot 8 I PZM3 . 2 . 93 in East Cooper free market. I am trying to look for if this is going to distort your property values immediately and create a margin where there is going to be suffering on the part of Riverside homeowners and real estate owners, I don't know if I can figure that out. I see it the other way around. I think it is going to help the value of Riverside. Tim: One of my ideas about restricted covenants is that homeowners may want to consider the word that we throw around a lot is "mass" . And do you want very contemporary high-ceiling houses. What we all feel is disturbing us in the west end are some of the "Steve Marcus development houses" . They are very ill-created for the compatibility of the neighborhood. But are simply totally created for resale value. I would like to see the mass of the houses kept under control . Tom: The Steve Marcus house can't be built anymore because the City changed it's building codes. Something to keep in mind is that the majority of buyers in here are people who are going to live here. And as a result we are very concerned with not having the visual density of a 1010 Ute. I think that is a very important fact and we will address mass. It will be done. Tim: We want to do it. I think as a Commission we want to do it. So if you guys are going to do an RO--that's never been done. If you are going to try and do this project as uniquely as you say maybe that is something you can tackle for us also. I can tell you that when I first saw this I went out and immediately ran the numbers on it. And there is obviously profit here. There is obviously risk. So I don't know how to balance that out either. I am very aware of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that can be made in a project like this but I am also aware of the time, the effort, the capitol investment that has to come about in order to conceptualize the thing and really bring it up to what we see now. And I frankly think that venture capitalists should be rewarded for trying to do things like this in this community. With going through GMQS I am not an exemption person. I am a fairly exacting person. I think everybody should march by the rules here. Leslie, if it goes through GMQS it is going to have Ord. #1 restriction so if the affordable housing is eliminated-- Leslie: If it went through GMQS GMP competition they would be required to mitigate 35% of their employees generated. We figure that through GMP we get a 50/50 split in numbers of units. 50% free market units and 50% deed restricted units. That is one of the reasons why the AH zone is 70/30 because our feeling is that we get more deed restricted units for AH than we would if someone 9 PZM3 . 2 . 93 went throughout the GMP process. The second element about GMP is that this project meets threshold. You cannot say you have to reduce your numbers of units because we don't like how it looks on the site at threshold. And we haven't had a project in 4 years that has not met threshold. Tim: My point is I don't think we would be creating as comfortable and affordable living space if we required them to mitigate or them to do Ord #1. I think that the size of the spaces, the 3 bedroom configurations are going to give people a place to grow with families in the community. I think that the parking is better than having an ADU tacked onto the back of somebody' s house and that AdU having a party one night and 10 cars being there. I think this organizes it better. I think it gives a much more progressive scale of life improvement for people who want to grow in the community. I think that that is our reward for allowing these guys to take the risk. I think that this is a dangerous intersection and I really think that that landscaping is going to have to be unique here. It is a steep hill. People are turning as they come down the hill. I am always trying to creep out of Park Ave. I think that whatever happens in this open space should be very focused on the intensity of the traffic coming down the hill . Bruce: I am trying to get a handle on how to work this project through. I think all of us have similar kinds of goals. The folks who live in Riverside want their neighborhood to stay as nice as it possibly can be. You guys want to develop a nice project that will hopefully get some employee housing. I asked the hard question a while ago--"Is this the bottom line? Is there any more slack to be cut?" I want to ask the Riverside folks a similar kind of question. What is it going to take to get you guys to buy into this project? The reason I ask that question--back early on when we began reviewing this project and we all went on the site visit, I heard very little concern from the Riverside folks about density. The concerns I heard at that time were "We don't want the access through here. We don't want our kids getting run over" . And I feel like the developer has responded. So I ask you guys the hard question. What is it going to take to get you guys to buy into this project. Lennie Oates: I don't think that the density issue is a new issue from our standpoint. I think we expressed it to both P&Z and to 10 0.. PZM3 . 2 .93 the City Council. The City Council in their approving resolution asked the developer to go back and look at his density. I don't think we had a concern about the affordable housing density. The concern that we had was the density on the free market which was then 7 and I still say it is 7 even with the resident occupied. There are some things that we would like to ask them to do. They don't want to bring up tonight things like a vegetary screening and some of the utility concepts and things like that. What would make us happy would be to see this--the 6 lots up above be reduced to some lower number that still allows them to go forward with their project. Bruce: Do you have a number? Is it 4 or-- Oates: Yea, 4 . Bruce: So the money we are talking about is--I know we are not supposed to talk economics. But it is a reality. It is a fact of life here. Instead of 6 lots at $400, 000 each, we are talking about 4 lots at $600, 000 each. And the applicant is saying that changes the mix of the potential buyers. But 4 is the number that makes the Riverside folks happy? I feel a little different about that. My biggest concern was the access and I genuinely appreciate your having solved the access problem. And I say let them develop the property. I am a little bit apart from the neighborhood. I do not have as much a concern about the density as regards our neighborhood. I really think they showed deep concerns for the neighborhood when they solved the access problem and I am happy with that. I would leave the question of density on a more global scale of what is appropriate to the community. I may not agree with all my neighbors. I am not so adamant about the density. I counted on the process. I observe what is going on here--just how little employee housing can we build to get away with this deal. And I would want to make that as an observation. But on the density subject I think that the community scale should dictate the density and not the neighborhood scale. The neighborhood was saved in my opinion when they solved the access problem. Dottie Kelleher: I live in Riverside Subdivision and my comment actually goes back a little way. When I heard an awful lot of locking barns after horses were gone and what terrible things Steve Marcus did but he doesn't do them anymore. And how awful 1010 Ute is but we are not going to let that happen again. And my concern is just that you think this through very carefully before it gets approved and don't go driving up Hwy 82 a couple years from now and 11 PZM3 . 2 . 93 say "Oh my God, look at that! " . There is an awful lot of 20/20 hindsight type of thinking going on. Leslie: First off 1010 Ute was growth management project. It received the highest score of any growth management residential project. Secondly it had a PUD overlay. So because of the PUD overlay at the time it allowed them to trade their open space out of where the development is across the street to the park that is right across from the entrance there. So that is why you don't see a lot of open space in the 1010 Ute subdivision. It is all on the other side of the street. And the PUD allowed them--they have 5ft setbacks. There is 10feet in between each of those buildings and 5ft rear yard setback which looks bigger because there is the City property that goes down to the river. Those are 3 things that happened with 1010 Ute. So that is really different than the kind of setbacks you are seeing on this proposal and the open space that is required in the AH zone is integrated into this project. Roger: I have a problem with reducing the density of the lot assuming our gain here is to try to get more of the locals to purchase free market property. If we reduce the number of the lots and get it out of the affordability of the locals that is not accomplishing our mission. If we have 4 lots, think of the bulk of the individual units on those 4 lots. Then look at it from the other direction. If there were 1 or 2 more lots added there reducing the square footage of the lots that does necessitate reducing the bulk of the individual building. However the bulk of the whole project would probably increase. But the buildings would become smaller in that project. The smaller lots would probably be affordable by locals. So there is this balancing act we are playing with here. And now that access is no longer in Riverside. It borders on Riverside but it is not a social connection to Riverside. It is a different project than Riverside. I wouldn't have a problem with adding another RO lot in that upper section reducing the size of the rest of the lots so that it stays farther out of the realm of the second homeowner thereby achieving the goal of finding more residents to be able to live up here. Jasmine: I have been very impressed throughout this process that the Riverside neighbors have not been nearly as concerned with the affordable housing component. And have not started the not-in- my-back-yard, no-employee-housing-near-me thing. This has been very gratifying to this Commission.Their criticisms have been restricted to the free market units. What I have heard tonight is that the Riverside neighborhood has been appreciative of the additional buffering and the change of 12 PZM3 . 2 .93 access which really does tend to remove this project from being such an impact on the Riverside Subdivision. The size of the free market lots would seem to be the big issue. Or that the Commission should consider in terms of the community in general as well as the Riverside Subdivision. I think to that extent Roger's comments about the kind of development that you are likely to get are larger lots as opposed to smaller lots is something that we might want to have some more discussion on. This is not only an affordable housing district with many people in this valley who have lived here and worked here for a long time wanting to be a part of these units being developed up front. But the people who are buying the perspective lots in back are all people who live in this valley and work in this valley. They are opening up their units, which are not second homes either, to other people in this valley. So in essence we are creating 6 free market homes for residents and those 6 free-market homes or apartments that they are renting are now available to other people in this town who can afford it. I would add that for someone who wants to live there as far as affordable housing goes it is probably one of the nicest projects I have ever seen here. So for someone who can't afford to move into a full house it provides very comfortable living at an affordable price. Tim: I think that the homeowner's association should be focused on the long-term maintenance of what the employee or the affordable section of the development really looks like. Kim: As part of the condominiumization approval that will occur at the Council the applicant could propose any specific line items that their condo declarations will eventually establish. Richard: While I would really like to see more affordable housing that building backing onto #82 is really crammed in there. And on the free market lots I would like you to look at reducing the FAR cap to 3 , 000. You are looking for 6 locals to buy the lots. You probably aren't going to build them to the maximum so that if it were restricted to a slightly smaller FAR I think it would satisfy my concerns about neighborhood compatibility and be more in scale with the kind of community we want to maintain here. Sara: I think it is much improved. I am amazed at the size of the deed restricted apartments. I hear what Roger is saying. I also understand what Riverside is saying about the number of lots. But unless FAR were completely changed there is no way we wouldn't have very huge houses on 4 lots. That is the economics of the cost of building and the cost of land these days. 13 PZM3 . 2 .93 Tom: One thing that is happening on this thing is when you get out of the second home-buyer market and you get into local 's buyer market all of a sudden you are in a buyer's market who is on a budget and is going to be looking at a mortgage on these things. Our conceptual architectural plans have been kicked around already by people that are interested in the lots to see how they could figure homes on the lot that they are interested in. And they are all coming in at about 22 to 25 hundred square feet because that is what their budgets are. That is something that you don't see in a second home market. A second home market is how much can they get on. In this market it is how much can we afford. Sara: On an RO can the RO restriction goes with the deed forever? Leslie: It goes with the land. Kim: The Housing Office is still having on-going discussions about RO restrictions because they are so new. Tomorrow they are going to meet on RO restrictions. Some of the things they are kicking around are size limits to any RO structure, a yearly inflation count which could affect eventual levels of increased value. Pete: Bruce asked us about how to get the neighbors to buy in. I think the Riverside access was a big issue and we really appreciate everything that these people have done in that respect. I think the idea that a 3 ,000ft cap, the FAR, I think that that is a giant step. The last question is whether or not according to these October 13 minutes when Council persons Peters, Richards and Reno and also Mayor Bennett all stressed the idea of reducing density. And they weren't just talking affordable housing. I think they were talking about the free market portion of it. I think that is all it takes certainly for me. Gassman: I just want to expand about the housing categories. To get a category #1 or #2 takes a big public subsidy. I think on West Hopkins on the order $100, 000 a unit. So there is a big difference. You are getting affordable housing with no subsidy with this project. Oates: Basically we would like to see a commitment of no other structures like accessory buildings outside of the building envelopes. We would like to see a restriction against dogs in the affordable housing portion of the project--not the free market but the bigger buildings and a 25 foot setback should be revegetated. We would like to see some sort of landscaping plan since this is the last time everybody is going to get a chance to look at it and an opportunity to comment on that. 14 f PZM3 .2 .93 t I would like to see an explanation of why you would bury utilities which you propose to do right next to overhead power lines which you intend to leave there. Bruce: I don't have any direction to give the developer except to say to the developer and the neighboring homeowners that the rolY - that I feel I fill at this table is to try to get the best project. One of the residents actually said it himself--is try to get the best project we can for this community to meet all of our common goals. It looks like a great project. And it has come a long way from when we were talking about coming in on Riverside Drive. I think you have made a lot of improvements. Pulling it back off of #82 is a great improvement. Tim expressed a really good concern about the access off of #82 and making sure that that is safe. I like the project but I am not ready to buy off on it right now. One thing I do object to is your calling those free market lots because it doesn't sound like to me there is a free market. The market is already set and the prices already seem to be set. And they are not really free market. Tom: Non deed-restricted. Bruce: But they are not going on the market as it sounds to me. Jasmine: Well, free market is kind of an illusion anyway. Sara: I see that you have applied to CDOT for access but they haven't responded yet. Fo 7 : The answer is yes. We have a plan that they have signed off on for access on Hwy #82 . Tom: We do have to install a right turn lane coming from town east because that is where they consider the majority of traffic to be coming from. Jasmine: Some of my questions have more to do with what I need to ask the Housing Authority. I am beginning to think that the explanation is more appropriate that this location is more appropriate to have the higher categories. It is more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood and it will blend in better. I think you have made tremendous improvements in your site design. I thank the applicants for being very responsive. It has made this whole project a lot less acrimonious than it could have been. And 15 PZM3 . 2 . 93 I think we will get a better project out of it for everybody. TRELLISES Tim: I think that in letter K--this is my pet peeve through the whole thing--"Such approved structures shall not be considered additional floor area ratio" . I think in certain situations in the commercial core specifically for a restaurant it can be considered an asset to their floor area ratio. It is going to enhance their gross, their traffic, their ability to do business, their numbers of staff. Kim: Are you talking about existing restaurants outside or proposed restaurants outside. Tim: Both. Anybody who wants to restructure their patio with overhead structure to me they are creating a building site. They are enclosing it so that it is more compatible with their interior space. And I think it enhances their ability to merchandise their commercial venture. Kim: I don't really agree with that. If they can have a restaurant outside now currently and mitigated or pre-dated the mitigation requirements having an overhead structure isn't in any perceptible way that I could estimate increase growth--is that the basis to start calling something complete floor area. Leslie: The question is it considered net leasable. And if we start terming it net leasable shall we start requiring mitigation for their increased size as a restaurant which is an issue that when we start discussing growth management and exemptions in growth management process and what we define net leasable you look at the definition of net leasable in the code it is interior space. It is floor area in a structure that is completely enclosed. So this is not considered net leasable. Tim: This is basically enclosed on 3 sides. Kim: All we are talking about is an overhead structure. Sara: I am concerned too. I just think lawyers would have a field day. We would completely have to redefine floor area ratio. A lawyer would take that in and say "There is no way a trellis can be called a substantial building" . And a floor area ratio applies to substantial buildings. And there is where a lawyer would grab us and say "You can't do that" . David: I think you can easily do it by adding it to a definition of net leasable so that it describes seating outdoors. The Cantina does have a not very sizeable outdoor area but at least it is used. 16 EXHIBIT D Final Plat of Lacet Subdivision c'S tx3 «i u 1 xi G.Y q W � h ➢. u N G I TJ -C 4 N u en o f I _E N^x di !?vm"'uy.. �Umo Lt r i ui v! .r u pp unv} V uv <� m dro, m1 m"u mEit v,a u rn ' o E i _ ko oc� u R ua ' en u u c o ri rvJ t. m G u w x ro E O F- i u� av IY c Y u c v, LLI n 4 m w a lu r ro U u ro u t c. rJ 0 u I f _ rn ._ b C, W I c ID r� W tU N w U U y'1 CD _.. T _.. 'y m r- u �G1 fJ W > m rn .0 V _ 61 @y*�i. t . u �. u«c �..4. :r "'u. iv 3' 0 - 'I.-U)` tii rvj W 3 m r�r saw°' umv cm` o �u� E`er W' , GY Ul 'W . y ul.,l Ul N M1 :V ,v r C.J .. N d. N It) I') f, 61 N f V+ v ; v E 2 y u'cJ W cl rci n tl. �. (V ay °' ae u w LL v} ev b ti m c u �. rv? J U V _ V tl1 G I .1 N '. Y U (11 L Gl F u ro iJ o - Ct u U "�, f o b [l. C. S - _ :,. T 7: IJ N m Gs s x\ _ r >�. T CY IL ^' tu.l G,. r� rn r- J Lti i s 29 c CY u y :.v..rVIT [1.. Ui/1 tl LL N 1 = N 4 .,..., v cn to 'E:rr n t- u, c Wi - h u tL �... w C) �, w u v i.: _ LLi LLi y L, .'.i -c' �' u 'a " '' c .. <v ni a:r Arai m cJ '^ v LLI o ey h d N W N rti Aj ... Yi -: ., ^� V v u - u •u•« v C:A Ir') P Gy .`'y U W q ,�i1in .- iY i«.! U) i> N - ,rn..- d E ci 1 .- 17 _�Y_ ��9� <. 1 u (11 N v�i 2, r o ' N Tu Y) N y �: K1 0 o rv, �'� � tr V tYt 4 y ' �..J ,.,a . u rR c`i ° m T ` c uJ n ` sJ E m m y C) '++ "'.. f,�^s li z r, ry a o cJ -' _ ..- u 1) wue c w c> - w w E J e. 'C. ', t+J $ n n u E o to P^ n u c m o `{ ml �r c w W W Mw , g W u ai can+ S •ir W Ay ak � Q t, a ar f- t" w u r u .. v °' ` .. J ,n �" _,i i `- F (') U m o •1 ..ea 41 L li LL. c.> uJ F., F- �' 1- H a ^ J ulr r r v. v. y v ur n n.. - r°ar ram. w n u, " `zi y, t''i a a, .r G., s.Y s. tnl� _: cv rv> d a Y"" •li « ,a o '1" a �a,$,.. Fi iy _ A",,. ,A"J Ar, n x LLI u i dl sn C F� z ca ..Lu U1 pp"y�"y ! 0 Wr ! ('1W. eLI ds" c C it •`-�" o p F ' �'� � „ 4i � y � � y � I v Kr ti mr .KY � + . E u �x, a r f w N cr F 1] c 0 u n N 3t 01 �.J n � 4 d ro 1 G U r S _ .� a c. r •"� IY n C ri r lLL.r !` tlal ._ v: t_ w m u uEll j Tt V IY fa -r ,� v <` x mN , u .� r, U, t'U5 J b N Y 4r <r aY Iq w _ e Y. • �'' j m n cx LL Ci E E C ° `u:u1 C LL? Jai !'j - w ,J c I �:n = .w " v rh } �r J n i c J r ei Idi. w w i= 4I h = J r�a .� S F . _ d »_ = y I 1 'S UJ .., FJ ' U u F• „+. ... I rr _� Cl!" f- := r`y r i= d ` •- r c n 1' h i- '. F' la t,i u w N - U � h o n u � c ro cci lJ _ cu cm a v ypypuu _ � J Njl l o iA. it At 41 fp Irw i ti ro' to w rl � v 'n c k`" Z u lit c W Lt u s- IL rnw m cY yr a is !` cn".. I °1 4"� " m 'n '�,: a ru• {�M^M rr,; w ul .:k u. ., S.Y Y ^1 v o .r"•' u 4 U I!)rr \W V J 1`o y 1 ., . 1 C) J m F- F VY r `^ A:� tJ'� w tR .+ G �- d q t Iv. n l w IL, i c rc r m d •� 'a > Y "" i W'm 4 )': ) J J ID '� t0 P" ul IT u dl ± , u ., u n n'. ^Cy ".,, w ` <7 lu i) _ I LI tJ Vr�i ;' L ,r " t <o rY vl c L n m V C rt a aA n _I _ v, _�.+ �; D� a rid'. w o to "" S `•� Y Y f1, a.. - 1 W s. r: � (1 Cl + / ¢C 4 1• lb '- ""It,ll , s '^ <� `n In Ir ! \ 11 u I In 4W! �+ ui a mo,0 ix fY �'�'- N w I.j ^ ca u h a rc 5 - an p ,"z, kr m h- V J. W Z Ur rc e u- IY F _ly = 2 td W W c9 w u GI `3 G.i W r 2 IY IJI V F rc );V W LLI W / w a,; m cn / V w ` J/ ,- .. GI u w ftr. `T t- i`k "cr cJ z,. ei "i �,' ,L I� _I u> mw_wr' .ii��a , / /, /�•_ v ,, ._.h... IY N �1 s.�() ' h C7.H 1 r�i w. u t / �/ r"r` / r. „! �. 2V fl a+ W w.., 41Y 2 cZ r'J �' w m LL' uJ w h ` >-. w W J 1.VI C 1 C) lal -. C� G J w <t f1 LLI ul h „S `�-✓ > , cs �. / / :. w aI , r LJ rc " - GI z > x an y,i �/ ice✓ / ,- o 2 IJ LLI z 4- y Yi: ii - h t- Y W rc ,. a) w tt � .h I:S 1r_ )J.t- w w w> � Wf :h., h:. n w uae ^° - " w _) !- w m mh rc a'" �' rc ,....: �� ✓f , ° `�-�._,...� // y<: -': 2 A r w. ? C"J .;T r , C?. Lti tfr' F lal H �- t7 "3 >- (7 , z:Jl GY "1 �C h-w -'-.S ww / \r A �<r_.. %/eta .✓ �rs YY �. W 3s -.� cT ?' V.m lY �h:.. "T„;� rs ;' /// z f�l,.. a IxQ _a w ,:.% rJ &1., 'r�/ �. '_ ���•,.1 •e� l /.:�,. l l ) .-. U) _ F W T CJ: rY t- 1 fYJ <2„-W S: "1 :F CiW n.J a ym ucY"cJaJln��WuwcY wa xs arc <Yw n Y� - . r / vsue \ !. �,•: % r -1�/i /�,"r W In u f h- ca s u m . o w tV ::' -Vt F t()f h-(?rc 0;.rc air -I rc n> Gr to Q <T I >' W n /.,..,.✓i mom. h�Lw<a vYs1-z uW uu'G ._u! Cy `W W3:. �.. >' IY '- fY U) IY g) !- tW rc p.; 11 m of y W y W V f.. w _ V r+ f,) w.id w. "! 2. ur - m IJ: dJ W vl G`r 'rw ur -'., n h w Z W W IY t- Gr 1,� a 1 +.,. z m t u p. .. ' c m �tL.urn „'" _:>"z<4 iii' -.> w �c�>,. ,ri, �V //,rn n`, .,0�a/.4 `1 q... ey ,,c:u w _.: en _., cY . w �Y a^ - ^Y rr lA z W> f7 u ". n'. ¢u,wr �w.or w a� r rS-LL'� rmN. <at, w.' wwzw evtt of "n „ L,�..li♦i q""' /'f t,. _,-.r�.� `"- �� A w`;,�,_, rc LL ~`1 IY VJ > G W Q LL1 d d cr N UJ (1. 41 .C,s.Vw G) Iprca Clay ui COl r1rc il' tY Jf) w .... ,.! 2 c w 2 rc [Y I-. __ lJ r7c4 r 3. F h ?;G 7 w w >rn u w _.h- F-` W (> _ i w �. ur W > 1 w IYY . ii r / %, �, ,.� G,.r•` r i� l ?�'y " u9a i. -`'`r !.. °,. e. a rY <. '` £a W fA .- ur I W .... , `'' IxJ.. (Y Z E W W: f�t +") W W W +4 `2.0 C> 2 ` W �..� 4r. (9 (� .� lU UJ I- ,�..?I l - Ul : .r .. � mot::. � /, , "- ,> u ... ' I- _ ?: r5: crY arc c>: w ' ' ti:: ;w w r cn w:''! _' T." n n �..- u y S h..' / / - / n s a.'' a, W a- t-' rc. an.. <� I- a :4 w _ h u z " h- cs // t / J� �% '.i .. I I , ro7 a w w:ul ' , w y w "w w r� n x y r t-....-- _, N fJfi F- r'cn UY C3 w UJ %r.�( / W .. �; 2.c .,;:..o W _,n .. ,Z,4 (r W,Cfr a'F-__ ca 5 w IJ. „ w`,:) v1 la z u _LY:a. z ' ¢ J' w h s cl w:wx.1// - a h - ' �, LL n .q <,J rc <.�.w w Te'1 y `� h '1 r maz w uY rc ino... J .. � 1. , ,1' 4p. ! /.�y,•.. 1 J s..� _v � o. : i �/ 7 7 C -Y � � n u w /� - ... _�i v... 4Y til Wv r•^, F n �;> a cJ ri v Id w a al Ri 4 nma 1 ri LL / ?°i� '.r..J(ii //� : -`/�--'` ! />✓ �' rM U�krrt a i l� .,m�,.mm mm.,,.,.-,.,,�....*.+�e»,«�«•'re �., �n+a.«w«a �.w^�,w«I+.,�.+mrowwra,Y»»kn«�w�ww�w«....a.w+w.rw,+:r�.:x�µr.�,w.',rvww " �,w.».,M.,,,....�-.a.....»„��r�m�.n�mrn�w �..+wrm..,y«��r�;.m��wM��„w"ww:�w.r.w.x�nm•,rr,�.ww�,.,x+,w„cw.w,...w��..w^.«.�nmi+w�:,w.�; �mw:�.oa�r,.x �.mn, �xm�...:w.,�m��,�.�nwr.w.��.,"w,..w«o�o.^�..r�xwr::,�,wb„x+. �xYw"�s.�w i I i wwnr I a jai UN r ik Ix LLI Ld V < O L6 r, JCfa LIJ W1 IY A 4 <f I u I o < 13 F- < Lo 0 Q) C, LO Lo C) 1,� Ld '5 (\I P 6\ c) LLI u are (W) LIJ AI X\ /k( LUXI ' "'A OD 0I U) 7, 'o < be N m 0 (L X" I* 13 +1 jA A W. )A' 15" CC) cr, T L I < �) - ; Ld Ij 3 W e\ Lo 0 -J I I it to �.O Ixt j (7) \ �i;l y..,..,. fn`\ . I , ... Ir _>4' ) _ try c.'J n �� 4 Dry r) -W - - --w- v, .(-,H N M 10 t17 AIR C6 Ly :7 Lli ro LLJ Lo t, -1, 0 w U, �7, F2, -t �7` (\I r1t C\j 'o 'o t W fit lu 0 0 0' t3 N U") 0 A",` OL Z) D -A it-, 7H I N uj U) ------ to 11 0 1 111 0 jj77) +1 6, 10, -j- (Ir A U) w Lij +1 7 L.Li > C\j Q�, L-' ol V) :,- f-, UJ Cl) 0 Ill far Id' C\1 r al 'D C) o c.) LJJ —A LO U Lu I T, 0; o C� (7) ) V I L.L1 J- J t" 9 -1 'W'., d" iM 1\1 o.u'K6H, sc,01 (7), a, w ur. X 'r 'r, X to cr 0 +1 , U Ilt +1 oo n -1 Isl I. N Lij cm "J 1 j LLJ r t'l Q) d r LLJ it U) 1) cn (D I. IC < vo Al 0 ,Ira °6$4 N - tKWISVA Ail lliO 1 P111, H - M It7t, be s u, ft 1 Ld Ir L11 Ul n >- fl, LLJ fl 1,'r fL C) fL I0 < ut x ul a] (D NOISIAiuonS 3GISd3AId Lr n c `fin 3- 'r, o , Ld mo 0 * I EXHIBIT E Map of Neighborhood Blue Lots: Riverside Lots Red Lots: Lacet Subdivision Lots 1,128 188.1 Legend 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet0188.194.04 Notes Lacet/Riverside Neighborhood THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content represented. Map Created on 9:32 AM 02/04/20 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com State Highway Road Centerline 4K Primary Road Secondary Road Service Road Full Address Parcel Boundary Rivers and Creeks Continuous Intermittent River, Lake or Pond Town Boundary Federal Land Boundary BLM State of Colorado USFS EXHIBIT F Riverside Neighbor Letters January 7, 2020 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Amendment to Resolution No. 58, Series of1994 To Whom It May Concern: I am the owner of and live at 1205 Riverside Dr., Aspen, CO and my property is affected by Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 ("Resolution No. 58"), which prohibits certain improvements within a twenty-five foot buffer on properties in the Lacet Subdivision (f/k/a East Cooper Subdivision) which border lots in the Riverside Subdivision. Resolution No. 58 prohibits improvements in the setback between the Lacet and Riverside Subdivisions which would normally be allowed in setbacks on most other properties in the City of Aspen. As the property owner of 1205 Riverside Dr., I support a modification to or vacating Resolution No. 58 which would permit building eaves, architectural projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls and other improvements which are permitted in setback for properties located in the City of Aspen. Sincerely, Cherie Oates January 7, 2020 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Amendment to Resolution No. 58, Series of1994 To Whom It May Concern: I am the owner of and live at 611 Fred Lane, Aspen, CO and my property is affected by Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 (“Resolution No. 58”), which prohibits certain improvements within a twenty-five foot buffer on properties in the Lacet Subdivision (f/k/a East Cooper Subdivision) which border lots in the Riverside Subdivision. Resolution No. 58 prohibits improvements in the setback between the Lacet and Riverside Subdivisions which would normally be allowed in setbacks on most other properties in the City of Aspen. As the property owner of 611 Fred Lane, I support a modification to or vacating Resolution No. 58 which would permit building eaves, architectural projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls and other improvements which are permitted in setback for properties located in the City of Aspen. Sincerely, __________________________________ Ruth Stone on behalf of Fowler P. Stone III Family Trust DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FCB2636-AB05-4722-80DE-10B147EFB25A From:Gary A Wright gary@wrightlawaspen.com Subject:RE: Riverside - Lacet Date:January 27, 2020 at 3:42 PM To :Sarah Oates smo@okglaw.com Cc:Lennie Oates lmo@okglaw.com,Jena Wright jena@wrightlawaspen.com Dear Sarah, My client, 610 Fred, LLC, has informed me that subject to certain conditions, it does not oppose the modification of the City of Aspen resolution that imposed a 25-foot buffer for the lots in Lacet subdivision. The conditions are: 1) A 5-foot setback be maintained for the Lacet subdivision lots and that the setback have the same restrictions as the setback in the adjacent Riverside subdivision. 2) Any development that is currently within the 5-foot setback (for Lacet subdivision) is not approved unless a variance is obtained. Let me know if you have questions. Thank you. Gary Gary A. Wright Gary A. Wright, P.C. Wright Law Aspen, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 970 925-5625 gary@wrightlawaspen.com From: Sarah Oates <smo@okglaw.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:48 AM To: Gary A Wright <gary@wrightlawaspen.com> Cc: Lennie Oates <lmo@okglaw.com>; Jena Wright <jena@wrightlawaspen.com> Subject: Re: Riverside - Lacet Gary, I confirmed with the City that the proposed amendment would be to permit improvements in the setbacks of the Lacet Subdivision lots that are permiTed under the City Land Use Code for other zone districts/subdivisions in the City. So, the same improvements that are permiTed on Fred Lane in the setbacks and the rest of Riverside Subdivision would be permiTed in the setbacks for the Lacet Subdivision lots if the amendment is approved. Please let me know if you have ques[ons or if I can provide any addi[onal informa[on. Thanks, Sarah January 7, 2020 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Amendment to Resolution No. 58, Series of1994 To Whom It May Concern: I am the co-owner of and live at 1228 and 1230 Riverside Dr., Aspen, CO and my property is affected by Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 (“Resolution No. 58”), which prohibits certain improvements within a twenty-five foot buffer on properties in the Lacet Subdivision (f/k/a East Cooper Subdivision) which border lots in the Riverside Subdivision. Resolution No. 58 prohibits improvements in the setback between the Lacet and Riverside Subdivisions which would normally be allowed in setbacks on most other properties in the City of Aspen. As the property owner of 1228 and 1230 Riverside Dr., Aspen, CO, I support a modification to or vacating Resolution No. 58 which would permit building eaves, architectural projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls and other improvements which are permitted in setback for properties located in the City of Aspen. Sincerely, __________________________________ Joe Whatley A SIGNED LETTER WILL BE PROVIDED ONCE IT IS RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT EXHIBIT G Documents of June 24, 1994 Hearing TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AMY MARGERUM, CITY MANAGER FROM: JOHN WORCESTER DATE: JULY 5, 1994 RE: LACET SUBDIVISION (EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION) BUFFER SPACES Attached is a proposed resolution intended to embody the findings made by Council at its June 27, 1994 public hearing regarding the scope of activities and construction permitted in the 25 foot "buffer spaces" outside of the building envelopes shown on the plat for the Lacet Subdivision. The resolution prohibits construction of any permanent improvements in the buffer space. It also prohibits intrusions normally allowed in setbacks" , such as balconies and fire exits. If the resolution is adopted, it will be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder to provide record notice to present and future owners of the property. IL 6) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Leslie Lamont, Interim Planning Directo, , FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Lacet Subdivision (F. K.A. East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision) Clarification of Yard Areas in Single Family Lots - Public Hearing DATE: June 27 , 1994 Staff is bringing this issue back to City Council to interpret the scope of restrictions or activities and structures permitted outside the building envelopes shown for the single family lots on the Lacet Subdivision Plat . This issue came back to Council ' s attention because neighbors in the adjacent Riverside Subdivision are not in agreement with Planning and Zoning staff ' s determination that the building envelope lines on the subdivision plat are setbacks as defined by the land use regulations . The neighbors believe that the building envelope lines represent an impenetrable area of no development, to the extent that decks, patios, pools or other common yard amenities as allowed by the code could not intrude into this area. During the original review of the subdivision, Planning staff made no determination that the area between the property lines and the building envelope lines as proposed would be anything above or beyond that which is common to any other residential lots in the City such as setbacks defined in the Code. If staff understood that Council had intended at that time to restrict the activities or amenities of the new lots, staff may have objected on the basis that it would not be fair or equitable to treat one single family lot different from its adjoining neighbors . Alternatively, staff would have better defined the 25 ft. "buffer" as a prohibition against any development and labeled it so with notes on the subdivision plat and within the subdivision agreement thus making it very clear for potential property owners. Staff believes that the City ' s setback requirements are specific enough to protect, in a reasonable manner, a neighbor ' s rights to privacy as well as common usage of one ' s own property. As defined in the land use code, Section 24-3-101 - "Setback means an open space at grade between a structure and the property line of the lot on which the structure is located. The setback shall be unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward, except for fences or as 1 de otherwise provided in this chapter. In measuring a setback, the horizontal distance between the lot line and the closest projection of the principal or accessory building shall be used. " For guidance as to what is permitted in a rear, side or front yard setback the definition of a Yard is used. Section 24-3-101 defines Yard as "an open space which is not wholly or partially enclosed by buildings, not in an alley or street, unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground skyward, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, provided it meets the following requirements: A. Projections into required yards. Yards shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except for the following allowed projections: 1. Building eaves-Eighteen (18) inches; 2 . Architectural projections-Twelve (12) inches; 3 . Individual balconies not utilized as a passageway provided they do not project more than one-third 1/3) the distance from the exterior wall to the property line) -Four (4 ) feet; 4 . Fire escapes required by the Uniform Building Code- Four (4) feet; 5 . Uncovered porches , slabs, patios , walks and steps, which do not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below natural grade shall be permitted to project into the yard without restriction. Projections may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade if determined to be required by the chief building official for window egress; 6. Fences, hedges and walls less than six (6) feet in height-No restriction on location. " Attached is a memo previously distributed by Assistant City Attorney Dave Bellack as an information item to City Council . In addition to reviewing this memorandum, staff will ask Council to view a couple of minutes of a videotape of the final subdivision hearing before City Council so everyone may see the exact representations made by the development team. If it is Council ' s wish to establish a list of allowed or prohibited uses or structures for the yard areas outside of the building envelopes on the single family lots, it must be very specific. Something to consider would be which yard areas are affected (sides , rear, front) and on which particular lots. Recommendation: Planning staff recommends that the Council find that the City ' s setback regulations shall dictate what allowed uses and structures (ie. patios, decks, pools) may be located between the platted building envelope lines and the property lines on the single family lots in the Lacet Subdivision. 2 Attachments: Memo from Dave Bellack Public Notice Public Notice Affidavit of Mailing coop. 6 . 27 3 21 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER FROM: DAVE BELLACK, ASST. CITY ATTORNE CC: BILL EFTING, JOHN WORCESTER, ea, LESLIE LAMONT DATE: MAY 26, 1994 RE: EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION SUMMARY The PUD approval documents for the East Cooper Project are ambiguous regarding limitations on the uses allowed in the 25 foot spaces between the project and the Riverside Subdivision. We had initially anticipated that the Planning & Zoning Commission could perform an interpretation of the PUD approval documents to resolve these issues. The Municipal Code does not grant P & Z authority to perform such a function, requiring City Council to interpret the documents. We will schedule a City Council hearing on the subject as soon as public notice requirements allow, which will probably be June 27, 1994 . INTRODUCTION In response to concerns raised by neighbors in the Riverside Subdivision, I reviewed the Planning Dept. files on the East Cooper Project. The review focused primarily on two issues raised by the neighbors: 1) Limitations on the use of Riverside Drive for access to the project; and, 2) Limitations on the use of the 25 foot space outside the "building envelopes" shown on the recorded plat. Also discussed below are the procedures available under the Municipal Code for interpreting any ambiguous provisions of the recorded plat or subdivision agreement. 1. Limitations on the use of Riverside Drive for project access. The final recorded plat shows permanent access to all of the units in the project (free market & AH) from a private road connecting to Highway 82 . The ordinance approving the final submission for the project [Ordinance No. 18 , Series of 1993] requires that the site plan for the project must show a pedestrian easement to Riverside Drive. That easement appears only on the full size recorded plat, and not on the reduced plat attached to the recorded subdivision agreement. Neither the plat nor the subdivision agreement contain any mention of any prohibition against use of Riverside Drive during construction. The Subdivision Agreement, paragraph 23 , requires the project owner, and his successors, to be bound by "all material representations made by the Owner on the record to the City. " At a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission, Tom Stevens, the designated project manager for the applicant, made the following representation: "In terms of the actual site plan all access is now off Highway 82 . " This representation is reflected in the findings of the City Council supporting the resolution approving the conceptual PUD for the project: In consideration of the application and the concerns of the public, the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed that Riverside Drive should not be used as access into any portion of the proposed development. Resolution No. 55 (Series of 1992) . The verbal representations of Mr. Stevens, and the implied representation arising out of the recorded plat (showing access only from Hwy 82) can be fairly characterized as "material" under the terms of the subdivision agreement. These material representations provide a basis for prohibiting access to the property from Riverside Drive, except for the pedestrian access expressly required by the approving ordinance. 2 . Limitations on the use of the space outside of the 25 foot building envelopes. The recorded plat shows "building envelopes" on each of the approved lots. The space outside the envelopes is not labelled on the plat. Nothing in the subdivision agreement or any of the resolutions approving the final PUD discuss what uses are allowed in the space outside the building envelopes. "Building envelope" is not a defined term in the Aspen Municipal Code. During the approval process, the areas outside the building envelopes were variously referred to as "setbacks" or "buffers" . Nowhere in the record do either the developer or city staff make any statements regarding what, if any, improvements are allowable outside the building envelopes. In describing the "buffers" to the Planning & Zoning Commission, Mr. Stevens made the following comments: In addition to loosening up the density on these lots, we have provided a 25 foot buffer that is identified by prescribed building envelopes that provide a buffer along the Riverside Subdivision. At the same hearing, Mr. Leonard Oates made the following comments: Basically, we would like to see a commitment of no other structures like accessory buildings outside of the building envelopes. . . and a 25 foot setback should be revegetated. We would like to see some sort of landscaping plan. No commitment prohibiting structures outside the building envelope appears in the record. The East Cooper Final Submission states the following: "A 25 foot buffer has been provided between the free market lots and the Riverside Subdivision", without any explanation of any restrictions applicable to the buffer. " Final Submission, p. 23 . The Final Submission does provide that all areas disturbed by construction will be revegetated. It also contains a landscaping plan covering only the AH portion of the project. Based on the multiple, undefined terms used to describe the same 25 foot spaces, ambiguity exists as to what was intended by the developer and City Council in the approval process for the subdivision. 3. Interpretation of the PUD approvals. There are no specific provisions of the Municipal Code which address interpretation of PUD approvals and related plats and subdivision agreements. Section 4-101 of the land use section of the Municipal Code reserves to City Council power: To take such other actions not delegated to the [Planning & Zoning] commission, the historic preservation committee, the board of adjustment, or the planning director, as the city council may deem desirable and necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter. Under this section the City Council could conduct a hearing to resolve the uncertainty regarding the intended impacts of the building envelopes" and "buffers" identified in the approval. process for the East Cooper project. Such action would not be inconsistent with the "vested rights" provisions of the Municipal Code and Colorado state statutes. Both allow subsequent reviews to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the original approval, if such subsequent review is not inconsistent with the original approval. Here, the subsequent review is solely for the purpose of determining the intended meaning of undefined terms in the project approval documents. Any formal action by the City Council on these subjects should be conducted in careful compliance with prior council resolutions establishing procedures for quasi-judicial proceedings. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Paulson, Richards, Waggaman and Reno present. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Ralph Melville, Mountain Chalet, told Council the parking in front of the Mountain Chalet was changed to no overnight parking. Melville said he was told this was for the winter only for snow removal. Melville said he would like the overnight parking restored for the summer for the convenience of his guests. The parking department will review this and report back. 2. Ralph Melville, Mountain Chalet, said there was a party by the gondola saturday night. He called the police department and was told a permit was issued by the environmental health department. Tom Dunlop, environmental health department, told Council he cannot find a permit issued by his department or by the special event committee. Dunlop said his department does not issue a noise permit for beyond 9:30 p.m. Keith Ikeda, police department, said his officers have the power to revoke a special event permit if there is excessive noise. Ikeda said he will make sure the supervisors know this. Dunlop said he will report back to Council. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Paulson said he has received a number of calls from citizens concerned about the tree cutting on Independence Pass at Weller and Lost Man campgrounds. Councilman Paulson said the forest service is doing this because the trees are getting bigger and more room is needed to allow access to the campground parking lots by RVs and campers. Councilman Paulson said he feels this is an example of government gone awry. 2. Councilman Reno said he is putting together a slide presenta- tion on house sizes to show there are issues other than size of a structure. Councilman Reno said he will schedule this for HPC and P & Z and encouraged Councilmembers to attend. Amy Margerum, city manager, noted the planning office put together a slide show for this issue in the county and suggested they be contacted. Ms. Margerum said there is a work session scheduled for July 5th to discuss floor area ratios. 3. Amy Margerum, city manager, announced at the recent Colorado Municipal League conference the city received an innovative program award for the child care program. 4. Amy Margerum, city manager, thanked the police department and Barbara Umbreit for the quick response to the emergency situation with the phone lines at the Kraut property. This was outside the 1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 city's control and staff made sure people were covered with emergency services. 5. Amy Margerum, city manager, reminded Council the Commissioners are making their final decision about the intercept lot tomorrow night. CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Reno moved to adopt the consent agenda; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. The consent agenda is: A. Resolution *52, 1994 - Mayor's Deed Maple B. Resolution *53, 1994 - Defend and Indemnify Municipal Employees C. Resolution *54, 1994 - Authorizing Settlement of Centennial Lawsuit D. Resolution *55, 1994 - Hydrant Replacement Program Bid Award E. Resolution *56, 1994 - Notice of Award - Water Engineer- ing Services All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE *30, SERIES OF 1994 - Residential Permit Parking Program Randy Ready, transportation director, told Council since the beginning, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the Implementation Plan have seen residential permit parking as a means of compliment- ing the paid parking in the core area. If the disincentive of paid parking is to really work, parking control in downtown must go hand in hand with parking control in residential neighborhoods. Ready said the purpose is to make the streets more livable, more pedestrian oriented, safer and reduce the number of vehicles that currently park in the residential areas. This ordinance is not specific These are to be handled through be presented to Council later addition of "business vehicle" business vehicles located in authorizes business delivery neighborhoods when not in use as in terms of boundaries and fees. administrative policies, which will in the summer. Ready said the permit has been added to cover core businesses. This ordinance vehicles to park in residential delivery vehicles. The ordinance gives a mechanism to limit the number of non-resident owned vehicles parked long term in residential neighbors. Ready told Council permit parking programs have been tried successfully in other communities. Ready said this proposed program is a time limit exemption program which allows up to 2 hours of unrestricted parking for any vehicle. There are also 6 types of permits; resident, resident -guest; lodge -guest; HOV and car pool; all day oil Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 passes costing $5 per day; business vehicle permits. Ready told Council marked service and delivery vehicles will not have to acquire permits. The proposed boundaries need to take care of the spill over effects from the core but should not be so complicated as to take excessive staff time. There are 3 zones proposed; zone A which is west and north of Main extends to 5th on the west and Francis on the north. Zones B and C have the mountain to the south and the river to the east. Ready showed Council a chart of the types of permits. The resident permits will be issued annually and will be free the first year. Residents will need to give some proof of residency. There is a resident/guest permit for guests staying over 2 hours, will be issued to the resident for their guests and will have the same number as the resident's tag. The lodge/guest permits are disposable, good for up to 7 days for $1 and only for lodge guests. These permits will be sold to the lodges in bulk. There are HOV permits for vehicles with 3 or more persons and will be issued at the parking garage or intercept lot. Ready said there will also be a day pass as there is not enough off-street parking to accommodate all the vehicles coming into town. The permit is valid on a certain date for $5/day There is also a permit for commercial core delivery vehicles. Lisa McMonigle, transportation department, summarized the comments from the public meetings on the parking permit program. Residents on the east end beyond the boundary expressed concerns that there will be spill over into their neighborhoods; also the east end lacks the options of an intercept lot and good bus service. West end residents feel the boundaries should include the entire west end. Lisa said there were concerns about people needing their car for business, for meetings and not being able to afford to pay for permits everyday. Lisa said another suggestion is that business vehicles have the business license visible in the vehicle. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. Chuck Hall, west end resident, said the west and north boundary is artificial and cuts right across the community. Hall said this should follow the historic district boundary rather than splitting the west end. John Gates, east end, said he does not feel the 2 hour program will not work as the 90 minute parking does not work; people just come and move their cars. Kirk Scales, Francis between Fifth and Sixth, said this area is local residents with no garages. Jackie Kasabach, east end, said the biggest flaw of the plan is that it concentrates on the down valley commuter. The plan cannot be put into effect in the east end; there is no bus service beyond Mountain Valley and no intercept lot. 3 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Ann Ibbotson said she favors expanding this to all neighborhoods. The boundaries seem to be arbitrary. Ms. Ibbotson said she would prefer permit parking only and eliminate the timed -parking. This may be easier to enforce. Marie, Original and Hopkins, said they will need a space for tradespeople. Marie applauded Council for trying to do something with the residential parking problems. Marcia Corbin, west end, said outside zone A and the M.A.A. parking lot will have to be monitored for spill over problems. Anne Murchison, Fifth Avenue condominiums, said residents should not have to pay anything for their parking permits. Ms. Murchison suggested residential parking permits be extended to the entire town. Roy said this proposal is a government out of control, bureaucracy growing exponentially. Roy said government mandates do not cure things. David Ellis, zone A, said he would like to see an inclusion of residential non-profit guest permits. Staff said they would include this in the ordinance. Shelly Harper, TIC member, said the committee envisioned the core as the most expensive parking; the prices would slide as one gets out of the core. Ms. Harper said TIC is concerned the parking garage will be filled early in the a.m. and there will be no place for people who need a place for 2 to 3 hours. Molly Campbell, TIC, said this was a very difficult process. The Committee listened to a lot of residents, business owners and consultants. Ms. Campbell said this plan is part of a whole; there are to be several intercept lots, east/west shuttles. Ms. Campbell said everyone will have to learn to make a life style change regarding their vehicles. Dale Paas, Limelight Lodge, urged Council to keep the plan as flexible as possible for the first year and also to give staff leeway to make changes in the program. George Vicenzi said he feels there are ways to cheat on this system. The city needs to be ready to respond to these. Helen Klanderud said this plan seems to expanding the problem by moving it out of town rather than solving the problem. Jan Collins said this is creating an intercept parking lot in the west end. Councilwoman Richards said the boundaries of this plan should be able to be changed rapidly. It would cost too much to have the entire town restricted and there would not be any money left over for shuttles. Councilwoman Richards said the city cannot design a system that will catch everybody at first. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Randy Ready, parking director, agreed this plan should be flexible with prompt responses. Ready reminded Council the larger the parking district, the more administrative and enforcement personnel I Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 that will be required. Ready told Council staff is working on programs that will help with residents on the east side of town including east/west shuttle, dial -a -ride, increasing bus service. George Krazoff, consultant, told Council staff surveyed over 40 communities that have residential parking permit programs. Krazoff said these permit parking programs do work and are supported by the residents. Krazoff urged Council to keep the program as simple as possible; the present complexity is caused by mixed residential, lodging and business uses. Krazoff agreed the biggest problem right now is the traffic from the east side of town. Councilman Reno said he does not see that this program is tied to any incentives. Mayor Bennett asked about a kiosk on the east end to enable people to pick up parking permits. Ready said staff is trying to find a location. Councilwoman Waggaman agreed the price of parking in the garage and the price of parking in the neighbor- hoods has to be looked at. Councilwoman Waggaman said the residential permit should be a minimal price; if people have more than one car it should be a higher permit fee. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would prefer not to move the boundaries until there is experience with the permit system. Mayor Bennett said he would like to see business permits offered in several month increments. Mayor Bennett said the neighborhoods east of town have to have some alternative service, shared rides, dial -a -ride, something. Mayor Bennett said the boundaries can be changed with a 10-day notice and a public hearing. Mayor Bennett said he feels a $3 neighborhood pass makes sense; however, he can live with $5. Mayor Bennett said this is one step in a larger program. Councilman Paulson said he feels this program should cover the entire city limits. It will eventually and this should start out that way. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance *30, Series of 1994, as amended on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Ready reminded everyone that the residential parking program will not become effective until the intercept lots are functioning. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Reno, yes; Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE *29, SERIES OF 1994 - Collection of Delinquent City Charges Dave Bellack, assistant city attorney, told Council this is based on state statutes and allows the city clerk to prepare and sign a one page complaint to make liens for unpaid city charges. This only relates to items with a nexus to real property. 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance *29, Series of 1994, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Reno, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE *25, SERIES OF 1994 - Smuggler Superfund Site Institu- tional Controls Councilwoman Waggaman moved to table Ordinance *25, Series of 1994, to July 11; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE *31, SERIES OF 1994 - Aspen Institute Vested Rights Extension (Meadows SPA) Councilman Reno moved to read Ordinance *31, Series of 1994; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE *31 (Series of 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, EXTENDING THE VESTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THREE YEARS FOR THE ASPEN INSTITUTE AT LOT 1-A OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION was read by the city clerk Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council staff would like two conditions attached to this request. The applicant would like to extend their vested rights for 3 years for the last remaining 12 unit lodge building. Ms. Johnson told Council all the rest of the items in the 1991 SPA have been substantially completed. Ms. Johnson said staff requests two easements on lot 1A; (1) a revised trail alignment and (2) a storm water retention easement in the race track oval. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, stated the Aspen Instituted continues to oppose both of these requests. These were requested in the initial SPA approval. Council determined not to require the storm retention pond or the trail easement at that time. Councilman Reno said he would like the history of these requests before second reading. Sara Garton, P & Z member, said the Board felt the storm retention pond was an unfair exaction in a vested rights request. Councilman Reno agreed it seems to be unfair to change the philosophy from the previous approval just for a vested rights extension. I Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Charlie Marqusee said the neighborhood was strongly opposed to the retention pond at the original approval. Council voted not to require this pond and to leave the race track as open space. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance *31, Series of 1994, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Reno. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Paulson, yes; Waggaman, yes; Reno, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING LACET SUBDIVISION CLARIFICATION John Worcester, city attorney, requested clarification of a PUD approval. The issue is whether or not the plat is clear with respect to what can be built in a 25 foot area between the property boundary and the building envelope. Worcester told Council the record is ambiguous as to what was reviewed. The record discusses "setbacks" which is defined in the code and "buffer" which is not defined. Worcester said the applicant made representations and the adjacent property owners understood "buffer" to mean a wild, pristine area that would not be encroached upon. Staff heard "setback" and assumed this meant what is defined in the code. There are things that legitimately can be built in a setback. The neighbors have concerns about what is built in the area now. Staff is asking Council to clarify what they meant when they approved the plat with a 25 foot area. This area would have a 10 foot setback and for this subdivision it was expanded to 25 feet. Worcester told Council lots have been purchased with the notice of a 25 foot area, which is ambiguous. Staff showed a video of the Council meeting of the original PUD hearing process. Councilman Reno said a "buffer" is something in between and a "setback" defines where one can build. Councilman Reno recollected a buffer was to be an actual green space in between what would be built and the existing properties. Mayor Bennett agreed and said the phrase used on the video tape was "deed restricted open space". Councilwoman Waggaman said she heard this was to be more restric- tive than setbacks. The applicant also said "no building can happen in there". Councilwoman Waggaman said building means wall or anything else. Ms. Johnson said one house is being built. It originally had a sub -grade walkout patio to exit a basement. That exceeded even the definition of setback. The developer has agreed to reduce this to what is minimally allowed for egress. This will meet the defini- tion of setback but does not meet the spirit of "buffer". Lennie Oates, adjacent property owners, said everyone was clear with the concept that this would be an area that would not be built on. 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Ms. Johnson said staff feels if this was to be a wildlife area, this would have been made more of an issue at the time of approval because it is different from standard subdivision approvals. In this case, lots were be platted and a conservation "no man's land" was not discussed. Mayor Bennett said the confusion comes when the staff is familiar with the terms and Council is not. Councilwoman Waggaman said there has been a precedent of "creeping construction" and city codes are being interpreted in a more generous sense. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would prefer this be interpreted more strictly. Councilwoman Richards said she felt this area would be used as one's yard not for any development. David Muckinhirn, developer of lot 1, said he came across no language which would lead him to understand that these lots were restricted in any way other than any other subdivision. Muckinhirn said 5 out of 7 lots have changed hands and the purchasers of these lots probably do not understand there are any extraordinary restrictions on these lots. John McCormick, lot owner, sent a letter saying variations from regular setbacks in the Lacet subdivision would cause a harsh and undue burden on the homeowners in this area. Worcester said property owners have purchased these properties subject to PUD approvals which included a provision that they are subject to all material representations made by the applicant. Worcester said showing the videotape, the initial intent was a 25 foot buffer as the neighbors understand it. Worcester said it is also incumbent upon the city to clarify this and record it so that any potential purchasers will get notice of this. Pete Stone read a letter from Gerta Walls, 610 Fred Lane, support- ing no building in the 25 foot buffer. Peter Stone said he recalls very clear words about the buffer zone. Stone said the adjacent property owners need this buffer for privacy. Mayor Bennett said nothing that has not already been built can be built in this buffer zone. What is already there, as long as it is legal in a "setback", can remain. Glendenning said originally there was a 10 foot setback on two sides of the property. This was moved back an additional 15 feet. Glendenning said a patio or an eave might be important to a purchaser of one of these lots. Worcester suggested drafting a resolution which will be recorded to inform future purchasers of this buffer. Councilwoman Richards moved to direct staff to prepare a definition of the allowed uses or non -uses within the 25 foot buffer zone of the PUD of the Lacet subdivision for the next Council meeting, based on the minutes of this meeting; seconded by Councilman Reno. E' Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 All in favor, motion carried. WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Phil Overeynder, water department director, told Council this is in response to the water audit done in April. The water audit program was three parts; (1) a comprehensive leak survey of 55 miles of city water distribution system; (2) an evaluation of the metering program to check the accuracy of the metering, and (3) a review of customer service records to see if the city is getting a complete metering. Overeynder said the audit found in excess of 65 leaks which may constitute up to 19 million gallons per month being lost. Normal usage is 3.8 million gallons per day; June usage was 8 million gallons which would have been in excess of capacity of the old west plant. There are also a significant number of leaks in service lines. Overeynder said there are 2800 meters installed. The intent was to pull out and reinstall about 250 meters. The labor would be $9100. A significant number of these meters should be replaced rather than reinstalled and the recommendation is to replace them now rather than go through the ordinary asset replacement program. It will also be less inconvenient to the property owner. Overeynder requested $50,000 for the water meter replacement program for 1994. Overeynder said in order to address the 65 leaks, staff has a list of 7 leaks that are believed to be significant and early action should be taken. Overeynder requested $20,000 for preliminary engineering on this work. Overeynder told Council money is available for these requests from fund balance without changing the rate structure. Councilwoman Richards moved to approved $50,000 for water meter replacement program and $20,000 for engineering services from water fund balance; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST FOR FUNDS HOUSING OFFICE - Juan Street & East Hopkins Tom Baker, housing department director, said on Juan street there is a guaranteed maximum price/design build approach. On East Hopkins, a low bid has been received and there are preliminary budget figures. Baker said the intent is to have these projects out of the ground to the point where there will not be unexpected costs. Staff can then come to Council to set the price of the units and the subsidy. The East Hopkins units are $180,000 per unit for the 4 three -bedroom units. Juan street is anticipated at $175,000 for three -bedroom duplex unit, $190,000 for free standing I Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 single family unit and $150,000 for the free standing two -bedroom historically renovated unit. Baker requested funds for Juan street not to exceed $159,000 and for East Hopkins not to exceed $171,000. Baker said staff figures the subsidy for Juan street at $63,000 per bedroom and East Hopkins at $77,000 per bedroom. Councilwoman Richards asked if value engineering has been done with the architects on both of these projects. Baker said it has been done; it was most effective on Juan street. Councilwoman Richards moved to appropriate $159,000 from the housing day care fund for the Juan street affordable housing project; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Councilman Reno abstained due to a conflict of interest. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to appropriate $171,000 from the housing day care fund for the East Hopkins affordable housing project; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION *51, SERIES OF 1994 - Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement to Purchase the Denver Rio Grande ROW John Worcester, city attorney, reminded Council they have seen this IGA before. Worcester noted he raised two issues previously; one is the city's voting power is similar to that of Basalt's even though Aspen's contribution is 23 percent and Basalt's contribution is 2 percent. The other issue is whether the half cent sales tax can be used or not. Amy Margerum, city manager, said one reason Aspen's percentage was larger was that Aspen/Pitkin County have passed a use tax and were willing to spend that money for this purpose. Ms. Margerum noted an important issue to Garfield County was that the Rio Grande right-of-way be used as a transportation corridor all the way into Aspen and not cross over to the highway. Reid Haughey, county manager, told Council their comments have been considered by the Roaring Fork Forum. Aspen asserted the voting should be proportionally based on the financial contribution. Haughey said other communities felt if it were structured that way Aspen, Snowmass or Pitkin County, any two could be a majority. Haughey said the Forum felt a compromise was to require a 2/3 majority in order to pass any motion. 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Haughey said this IGA provides for negotiations of purchase of the Rio Grande right-of-way, provides for proceeding with a master plan, and authorizes a purchase for separate acquisition up to $2.9 million. The Forum codified what could be agreed upon. There is not an agreement to purchase the right-of-way without agreement from each individual jurisdiction. There is also additional protection of adoption of the master plan. Haughey said Garfield county is very concerned about participating in this if the right-of-way is used only for a trail and also that it not reach all the way into Aspen. Garfield County is interested in mass transit purposes for commuters. This agreement authorizes negotiation and for staff to come back if the price is less $2.9 million. Haughey said the price is limited by the funds raised by the use tax and by the energy impact grant of $500,000 that Garfield County received. If you take the proportional share of Garfield county, it arrives at $2.9 million worth of purchasing power for everyone. Mayor Bennett pointed out the upper valley would have a 56 percent vote if this were done by proportion of funding shares; 56 percent is not controlling interest. This agreement is giving the down valley controlling votes. Haughey said he does not see the upper valley/lower valley as being distinct voting blocks. Mayor Bennett said he has difficulty ceding control of an internal Aspen transportation to anyone else. Mayor Bennett said if the 8 miles of right-of-way is in Aspen and the terminus is within the city, this might be at total odds to the transportation system Aspen, Snowmass and Pitkin County are working hard and spending a lot of money on. Haughey said a master plan will have to be adopted, there is a real feasibility study being done, as well as the Aspen to Snowmass transportation project. Haughey said if Aspen does not want to use the right-of-way, the agreement would fall apart. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 9:35 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Reno. Motion carried. Councilwoman Richards asked if the master plan has to be adopted unanimously. If not, there could be a master plan with Aspen left out. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about putting in a large share of the funds and not having any control over what happens in Aspen. Ms. Margerum pointed out the last 8 miles of Rio Grande right-of-way are not part of this agreement. Ms. Margerum suggested this portion of property could be included in the master planning process. Mayor Bennett asked why the city's concerns were 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 not addressed by the other entities. Haughey said this agreement is the product of 9 months work and negotiations. Councilman Reno moved to direct John Worcester, city attorney, to be in contact with the other parties in the agreement to pass on Council's concerns; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Mayor Bennett said this agreement does not talk about what happens to the funds if this agreement is terminated. Mayor Bennett said those who put in the funds should get their funds back. Councilman Paulson said he want to buy the Denver Rio Grande right-of-way and hopes this will not kill the purchase. Councilwoman Richards said at the last Decision Makers meeting $100,000 was allocated for appraisal and work on this right-of-way. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would like to see the upper valley have slightly more votes for their larger financial participation. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................... COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ......................................... CONSENT AGENDA ................................................. ORDINANCE *30, SERIES OF 1994 - Residential Permit Parking Program................................................... ORDINANCE *29, SERIES OF 1994 - Collection of Delinquent City Charges................................................... ORDINANCE *25, SERIES OF 1994 - Smuggler Superfund Site Institutional Controls .................................... ORDINANCE *31, SERIES OF 1994 - Aspen Institute Vested Rights Extension (Meadows SPA) ................................... EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING LACET SUBDIVISION CLARIFICATION . WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ................................ REQUEST FOR FUNDS HOUSING OFFICE - Juan Street & East Hopkins .. RESOLUTION *51, SERIES OF 1994 - Approving an Intergovernmen- tal Agreement to Purchase the Denver Rio Grande ROW ....... 13 1 1 2 2 5 I 6 7 8 9 10 eoKiv,tbs: t i Dot\p\v,..flerEl (J kv, (A.:71J 0--tqc, ere' (j C rtaJ : cc( ) rP LiMilicsiti rOffre S z•-tigiff "7 1 t I f" 1 '' 6,71::1 •2 ILitlt. -Pc i2ger-gLyv\ r 4_ e 1144M.A.0 /11 0 Ltr")-1.C.I -- 5 est.t?eil) /27,14,-cHt. cr.:2 rj kele oNlc -ire/. 1 pro b/ern i-_— k-,•.) , de i • ,.. , . c „ at s•-61,6 -1 .144}1- is Npt--3a 2 LILA ci4 6.,;(3,5. exi4,,,,,kr,\ Sialicti cleaLtti 1,0^ c,t. - 0,-. 1errk C $ Lc %ie. 0-1774 kie4-t— A; realee iatinat-#' C elf"i''t( iii-zi el * A i 1 c r' ;tt.,(:......: lip(:t. L .(t,, 4-Y•4-- -hot 1,A.,,••c!co.! L,', .a.,-,kerif: 1„ tra>. /1r,c iffe' (Ate 6.44{t-tiv 7 I,( 77,..! ,..,:14,,,dc;;,,„ 1„,-Li6( 4f. b 4, kriat afelti— k4Ac tip rid hel4.: 17 7lie 44.6.tit: r i v ,iirs,o /Pp 0, :,"• ;:), .,i, -, k CLX; it..' V 1 Am €422. .„, ----v(rit; frr '3/4..41.,,re '' — ‘-,, 1-.,I herti:ttx t c"7 k4 / /1';f aSt I I 2 A 7 At( (6';_t7tALe,c,e( f i Pe rel. ,..c.•a c -/-6.c 1... 7f;) 90 M339039 07/21/93 11:18 Rec $290.00 BK 718 PS 477 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (LACET SUBDIVISION) THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation and home rule charter city (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and the Lacet Limited Liability, Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Owner") on the dates as indicated below. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recording a Final Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Plat (hereinafter referred to as the "Plat") pertaining to the development of a residential Project consisting of six free-market single-family lots, thirteen deed - restricted townhomes, and one deed restricted single family lot known as the East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lacet Subdivision)'(hereinafter collectively known as the 'Project") on real property owned by the Owner which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A%.as attached and incotporaW herein. A reduced copy of Plat is attached as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated herein. WHEREAS, the Project received approvals pursuant to the following sections in the Aspen Municipal Coder Rezoning from R-45PUD to AH (Affordable Housing) pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 7, Division 11; Subdivision pursuant to ,Chapter 24, Article 7, Division 10; ;Final Planned Unit Development pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 7, Division 9; Growth Management Exemption for Free Market Development in an AH Zone District pursmnt to Chapter 24, Article 8, Section 9-104 C. Le., Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 8, Section 8- 104.C.1.c.; Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 7, Division I0, Section 7-1008; Vested rights pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 6, Division 2, Section 6-207 and Exemption from Ord inane 1, Series of 1990 for the free market lots. WHEREAS, prior to entering this Agreement, the City fully considered the development applications dated June; 1992 and January, 1993, filed by the Owner with the City Planning Department, the plat for the Project and the anticipated benefits and burdens to neighboring or adjoining properties by reason of the Project. Further, the City has considered the requirements, terms and conditions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and such laws, rules and regulations as are applicable. WHEREAS, the City has imposed on the Owner conditions and requirements in connection with the approvals described above such conditions ant! requirements being necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare. Such conditions are set forth in Ordinance No. 18, (Series of 1993), attached as Exhibit "C" and Incorporated herein. WHEREAS, under Section 7-904 and 7-1005 of Article 7, Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "Land Use Regulations"), the City is entitled to assurance that the matters agreed to herein will be performed by the Owner and its successors or assigns. 4 1 0359038 07/21/93 11:18 Rae *290.00 8K 7181-P8 4781 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clark, Doc S.00 ;eY Wi3EPFP►S, the Owner is City. g to enter into such Agreement with theCity ity and to provide the i asaorancea set forth herein to Me City.. _ WUZIiE,1S, the City is Willing to approve, execute and accept for recordation the Plat. the final thIs Agreemem, the Plat and Ordinance No. 18, (Series of 1993), shall conetituta Chapter udevefl�pemeM pq and development regulations for the Project pursuant to Section 7 906, of Municipal Code. NOW, TEMREFIDRB, in consideration or the mutual cavit approval, exa:rtion and acceptance of the Plat for Fmrdatlon by the City,agreed it is contained heron and the grnxd as follows: I' the Project consists of ` for which are set forth on the attached Exhibit W - Lot sizes are as � )lots, the legal description #1 '- 9,626.76 sq. ft. 02 - 9.801.00 sq.ft. 03-'8,973.36 sq.ft. 147 6,708.24 sq.fL 05`- 9,539,64 sq.ft. 06 - 9.626.76 sq.ft. 17 - 11,194,92 sq.ft. #9 - 37,374 .48 sq.ft. Lots NI, +12, i�3, NS, +Ib, and r7 hav6 been approved as ftee•merket airtgte tao►ifY loss• •Lot /4 has been approved as s:deed restricted Resideot°Occunied siogle•family lot loot I8.sha11 eontaln thirteen (i3) affordable deod to ed;.coudomlohims.which vvUi;be:soid to gwUified buyers meting the buyer mix: ieuioas of dte AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines with the:totlowing devdapttmnt mix: A• CaftDry 9 Deed Restrictions: 1: Two (2) approximate $04 ad livable Square fora 000-bodroom condominiums. li. Two (2) approximate 960 net livable square fooe two bedroom condominiums. B• Category 4 Deed Restrictions: I. F*Ur►om)eaproximate 1,284 net livable square foot threebedmomtownA ii. One . (I) approximate 804 Oct livable s condominium. 9e foot one bedroom Oft (11) aPProximate' 9ti0 net livable sgaare foot two -bedroom Wndomi2 i. Three (3) approximate 1,294 net livable square foot three -bedroom townbomes. ii. One (1) approximate 6,708.24 square foot single family lot. 2. AAMtance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties berm, and upon approval of the final plat by the Engineering Department and Planning Office, the City agrees to approve, and execute the fatal plat for the Project submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Section 24-7-1004 of the Asper Municipal Code. The City agrees to accept the Plat for recording in the ofRcos of the Pitkin County Clark and Reeorder.upon payment of the recordation fee and cost to the City by (honer. Reduced size copies of the following documents, representing plats and plans that have beet approved as pat of this Subdivision Improvements Agreement, are attached as the following Exhibits: A. Legal *Description, Exhibit "A*, $. Reduced Copy of Plat, Exhibit'$'. C. Ordinance No. IS (Series of 1993),'Exhibit "C". D. Recordation Information of Master Deed Restriction of the AspaJPitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resdle Deed Restriction; Agreement, and Covenant, i Exhlbit ."D% 1. Legal description, Lot 09 Attachment I. 2. Categorization of Units and Net Livable Square Footage, Attaxtimam 2• 3. Reduced Site Plan, Attachment 3 I E. later from Colorado First Construction, Inc. for Townhome Construction Cost Estimated, Exhibit "E'. n F. Final PUD Devetopme t Plan, Exhibit "F". tot} G. Final Grading and Drainage Plan ad Can Estimate. Exhibit "G". H. Final landscape Plan and Ceat'Estinrats, Exhibit "H'. I- Private Utilities Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit 'I". I. Wow Plan end Cost Estimate. Exhibit "1". K. Sanitary Sewer Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit "K" L. garb's Way Road Plan, Lacs Court Road Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit M. Highway 82 laesectiom Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit'M", 3• Construction and Ehaxlny. The City and Owner mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be determined for the development on Lot #8 at this time. Therefore, per this Agreement, the Owner shall provide financial assurances to the City for the construction of the affordable housing situate on Lot #8 at the time of issuance of a Building Permit of tits foot free market residence within Lacat Subdivision in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit payable to Una City of Aspen in the amount of $1,172,135.01). A later from Colorado First Construction, Inc. is attached as Exhibit "E" verifying the estimated cost of construction for the affordable housing units located on Lot x 3 r r � . #359038 07/21/93 11:18 Rec $290.00 8K 710 Pa 4130 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt.y Clerk, Doc $.00 If comet action of the affordable housing units required under this Agreement by the Owner has not begun within two (2) years of recordation of the Final Plat, the City may redeem the Letter of Credit in order to construct the affordable housing units within one (1) year. All architectural and .agineering plans shall also transfer to the City. Said affordable housing units shall be sold by the City, or its Designee, to qualifying employees and so much of the net proceeds of the sales shall be delivered to Owner by the City as are necessary for the repayment of the Owner's promissory note to the bank issuing the Letter of Credit. 71he Owner acknowledges that the sole senhrce of repayment of the Letter of Credit shall be limited to the Net Proceeds derived from the We, lease or other disposition of Lot N8 or the affordable housing units constructed thereon, as more particularly described as follows: "Net proceeds" are hereby defined as any funds received by the City from the sale of Lot #8 or the affordable housing units to be constructed thereon, less all costs incurred by the City in the development and construction of said units, including, but not limited to, planning, legal, architectural, engineering, interest and financing costs, and all costs of construction including materials and labor. The City shall in no manner be responsible for Owner's obligations, if any, to reimburse funds drawn on the Letter of Credit. In the event that the City takes possession of Lot #8 and redeems the Letter of Credit in order to construct the �f affordable housing units, the Owner's obligations under this Agreement shall be deemed fully satisfied. 4. Parking. Owner agrees to construct thireen (13) surface parking spacee and seven (7) garage covered parking spaces as depicted on the Final PUD Development Plan, attacbed as Exhibit "F", as parking for the affordable townhome units of the Project. 5. 77he owner agrees that it shall landscape theProject in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "II', which plan shows the extent and location of plants to be installed, all landscape features, flowers and shrub definition, the proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (paving, sod,etc.), and the other elements ofthe landscape plan, including associateA irrigation systems and revegetation of all disturbed areas. The "seeping shall to be: installed no later than the first planting season for the type ofplants involved following the completion of the construction of the Project. The Owner or its successor homeowners' association will promptly replace any plams which have not survived for a period of oche growing season following the final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. 6. S%Urity for Landsca im r. The City is entitled to and requires the provision by the Owner of financial assurances for the landscaping of the Project. Prior to issuance of fu,e building permits for the Lot 8, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $37,545.00 securing to the City the installation of the landscaping described on Exhibit 'H", as attached. A letter from The Stevens Group, Inc, is attached as Exhibit "H" for the estimated costs of landscaping for the project. Such security document shall provide that in the event the Owner shall not fully have installed the landscaping as represented herein, the City shall withdraw funds against such securitysuffcient to complete auud pay for installation of sari landscaping. This security document shall provide that on completion of the landscaping, the Owner may obtain the release of the security document for the cost of landscaping. 7. Public Imnmv,y The Owner agrees to construct the following site improvements r in relation to its construction of the Project; 4 4 �o"�i �k.. t i sfi �s= +t #359038 07/21/93 11818 Rec $290.00 BK 718 PG 401 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 3.00 a. Scrarity for Public liniprovernmts (Water and Ses._O Inmdertosecuretheperformance of the construction and installation of the public improvements for Sanitary Sewer and Water System Improvements, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $135,944.00. Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Project. The documents shall give the City the unconditional right, upon default by the Owner in its obligations specified herein, to complete and pay for installation of such public improvements. As portions of the improvements are completed, the district representative of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and representative of the Aspen City Water Department shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance shalt authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed improvements. The Owner shall require all contractors to provide a warranty that all improvements were constructed to accepted standards of good workmanship for the benefit of the City for the installation of the public improvements described herein for one (1) year from Elie data of acceptance. In the event that any existing municipal improvements are damaged during the Project oo=ruction, on request by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and/or the = Aspen City Water Department, a bond or other suitable security for the repair of those municipal improvements shall be provided by Owner to the City. b. Sewer Tam Fees. Owner agrees to pay sanitary sewer tap fees to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) in the atwu n; of $26,380.00 for the development of the affordable housing project located on Lot 8 containing three buildings and thirteen ;nits ofone, two and three bedroom configuration.- Feet shall be provided by the Owner to ACSD prior to connection of -any sewer service book -ups to Lot 08. c. Water Tan Fees Owner agrees to pay to the Aspen Water Department a tap fee surcharge in the amount of to be determined at the time of Building Permit Plans Review for the development of the affordable housing projetx located on Lot N8 containing thirteen (13) iownhomes of one, two and throe bedroom configuration. Payment shall be paid by Owner to the Aspen Water Department at the time of issuance of ful I building permits for townhome units on Lot #8. 8. Private U4ilities_ 7%e Owner agrees to extend the utility lines to provide connections through the Project as shown on the Private Utility Plan, Exhibit "I" as attached. In order to secure the performance of the construction and irs lation of the private militias described hereto, the Owntr .hall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Mornay in the sum of 587,200.00, Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City prior to issuanceof any excavation, foundation or building permits for the total Project (deed restricted and free market). Said guarantee will give the City the unconditional right, upon default by the Owner in it%obligations specified herein, to oomplete and pay for the installation of such private utilities. As portions of the improvements are completed, a representative of the respective utility companies shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed improvements. 9. Site Dra V,_inaQe- The Grading and Drainage Plan, attached as Exhibit 'G" shall be submitted to the City in accordance with Section 24.7-IA04 (C)(4)(t) of the Aspen Municipal Code and shall be approved by the Engineering Department. The Owner will continue to coordinate drainage and snow storage design and plans with City staff. Any improvement work will be performed in accordance t��4a Q* F c ' tf35903e 07/21/93 1ir18 Rea $290.00 HK 719 pe 402 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc s.00 with the Aspen Municipal Code and City specifications. information: The Drainage Plan includes the following a. All proposed slopes in excess of 2:1 shall receive erosion control netting to minimize erosion, b. Drainage improvements on Lot N8 will consist of grading to allow the natural historic pattern to continue across the property. Swales will be created a minimum of 15 feet from the structures to allow for positive drainage away from the foundations. These swales will be vegetated and maintain a minimum of 2% gradient. The vegetation will minimize any erosion potential and create a natural percolation area for the roof runoff. The paved surfaces will be graded to allow a sheet flow drainage to the ditch adjacent to Highway 82. c. Prior to issuance of full building permits for the townbomes, the Owner shall satisfy the j City Engineer regarding storm drainage calculations. Storm drainage calculations m.at be provided for the free-market single-family homes at the time of individual buuding permit applications. d' 1n order to secure performance of the grading and drainage improvements described above, the Owner shall provide a bond, Witter of credit, cash or otter guarantee on 'a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $W,129.00. Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City pr•.or to issuanceoff(ull building permits for the Project. The documents will give the City thi- unconditional right , upon default by':the Oviner,in its.obligatious specified: herein, to complete and pay for. installation of such improvements. As portions of the improvements are wmpleted, The City Engineer shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance, the City Engineer shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated -costs for the completed improvements. 10. Private Boad I m I7is Owner agrees to provide private roads meeting City mad coustrtcetion specifications, identified on the Final Plat as Barb's Way and Lacet Court, providing access to Lots fl, f2, f3, f4, #5, f6,f7 and f8 from Highway 92. Prior to issuance of the first full building permit for Lots fl, f2, f3, f4, 05, f6, #7 or f8, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the amount of 538,400,00 securing to the City the inst^tlaGon'of the common private access roads. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for ".ors fl, through f8, the common access roads from Highway 82 to Lots f1 through f8 shall be comph''ed by the Owner. The security provided at issuance of the first full building permit for any lot shall provide that in the event the Owner shall not have fully completed the aj j common access private roads to the lots, the City shall withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete the proposed work. As portions of the Improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall Einspect tic same and, upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed road improvements. 11. v m The Owner agrees to provide Highway S2, ntersection improvements meeting City and State road construction specification, identified on the Highway 82 intersection Plan, Exhibit W. Prior to the issuance of full building permits on Los fit through f8, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form smisfattory to the City Attorney in the amount of $8,003.00. As all or portions of the improvements are LLa comphxed, the City Engineer shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize A �4 0359038 07/21/93 llsIS RQc $290.00 SK 718 PS 463 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc f,00 release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed improvements, TAKE I M=MU OF dF[:11RM FAtiMEM iMFAOVEMENr FEE TDAEPKAIAE C.ndomi.ium Ca".diea $1,177,135,00 ...Prior to i..unoe of Wudige PMA fw r,,g Ikea ru W bores on diner Ld 01, A, 03, 05, /E w Pubse in"V unrwds . A. SWANY WWW Dptm -7t,5aS.00 Prior to iw usrrse d( my buildiea psmilu. a. WMw sydan 571Ndoo Priw to lumor.s of ow buildiea perm+..... PiisMs thiliiu . _ 1T,20o.Oo . PAW b i..umre of W' build pcm ... -. Cameo. Amm R.66 (Pi-M.) 3a11oo.00 Prior to kwomwe of fun bUNkg psm ao, _. - omdkit aid i25,1"..e0 Pri.- m i..rrree aru - . 'pamfs. L. Anving 37.5".00 Prior # bassom of 1W1 buil ft pwrnb. Withav /2 InimvWion luptoram l •' .., I=L -00) Price to inumoe of fun kaft pam+.. : 7+M'AL. f1,6otA73.m TAR[L 7 <: -. Sewer T.P B.er t� Prior b mrmulioe 12. DIM Control Plan.- Prior to my construction, and sit a condition of building permit issuance, a Atgitive dog coanol plan Must be obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and the F.avironmemat } WI& Depai6nsm. 13. Park DMMWM ant impact Ftx. Pursuant to Section 5-WI, gam, of the Aspen Municipal Code, do City Is entitled to a park development impact fee for constmetion of the 11ew residential townhome'units. 7U Owner agrees to Pay a park dev"mer* impact fee in the amount in effect- at the time of Issuance at any building permits for the tuwaboam. Free market lot park development impact fees shall be payable at the time of individual building permits for each lot. 14. AffbAsble Housing Tma=Eee_ Pursuant to 5ectioa 24-7-IOD7 (a)(c)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the affordable housing impact fee applies to cordominiumization of am residential units. The townhome units on this "ad are to be condominiumized. However, the Owner has demonstrated the net offed of the Projed is to increase the number of units available as affordable' housing in the community and, therefore, the coildominiumization of this Project will have a positive 7 - J �s<-.tea •r r: ,x w ,,.� n-�a rr�u....sr'aa"ss-his ;;ice ;� a 3r i�ia,Gm v is -,U '4WA' 'I.Int nN t 5� ,n `+ir. e��`A:ra" sxr ,r s'�,.� a ¢zm i'rt-e'",�'�!�`wC'z i r• r.. I #359038 07/21/93 11:18 Rec 3290.00 BK 718 pe 484 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc f.00 impact on the availability of affordable housing in the community and the City has exempted the Projea from the affordable housing impact fee. 15.ordimillace] Series of t990 Pursuant to Ordinance 1, Series of 19^0, it is the determination of the City Planning Director that the proposed AH developmem will have multiple deed restricted units prior to or concurrent with the free market development and there will be no affordable housing mitigation (cash -in -lieu or accessary dwelling units) required of the individual single family Lots Nl, #2, N3, #5, #6, or V. I& Deed Restrictions Attached as Exhibit 'D" is the recorded Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction, Agreement, amid Covenant to be used for the thirteen (13) affordable townhotttes units and one (!)deed restricted lot execute an of the Project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Owner shall d record in the Pitkin County Real Property Records a Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Homing Authority's Resale Agreement and Deed Restriction. Prior to We of any individual dead restricted unit in the Project to a purchaser, such purchaser shall be required to execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Resale Agreement and Deed Restriction, which shall then be recorded in the Pitkin County Real Property Records and placed on file with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Nothing herein shall require the immediate sale of the thirteen (13) affordable housing townhome units amid one (1) single family lot.. The Owner may retain ownership of such units and rent them for a period not to exceed ome (1) year while the units are being marketed for We to qualified buyers. 1( the affordable housing eownhome units are not sold within one (1) year, they may be offered for sale by the APCHA to qualified buyers. While being marketed, the affordable townhome units may only be rented to persons who qualify under'tbe APCHAsguidelines as Category B3, i4. and Resident Occupied income residems, and such rentals shall be subject to the price and income guidelines. 17. y>'Qpd Burning Devices Any combustible devices shall be built in accordance with the regulations in effect at issuance of building permits. i8. The suhdivicirm resident: shall be responsible for expenses of any road improvements to City standards if the road is dedicated to the public (Ordinance 18, Condition 5). y 19. Byi]ding bWAM shall be measured per *natural grade",established per C7L Thompson 3 for Lot 8. 20. Harmsr Notifi K.. w,,. or removed to a site r Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized and revegetated acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Environmenta► Health Department. 21. CQndQMftdkML9fi= The City approves the exemption of condominiumization of the Project subject to the execution of deed restriction upon the condominiumized townhome units to the price, income, occupancy, and asset limitations imposed by the Master Housing Authority Deed Restriction (attached as Exhibit "D") of this Agreement. The master deed restriction shsli restrict the use and occupancy of the townhouse units as the sole and exclusive place of residency of qualified buyers or Initial Owner's renters. The towtduome units cannot be rented without prior written approval of the APCHA. 22. Cnndomi_�n;1 -MJJ? Upon substantial completion of the tOwnhomes, a condominium map and condominium declaration for the townhomes must be prepared, reviewed and approved by the 8 ,� t z, w k359038 07/21/93 11:18 Rec s290.00 BK 71a pG 485 ;+'^ Silvia Davisg Pitkin Cnty C1erkt Doc a.00 Engineering Department and the planning Office. The condominium map and declaration shall be approved and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the conveyance of any of the individual units within the project, { 23. Material Renracrsr:,� All material representations made by the Owner on record to the Pity in accordance with the approval of the Project shall be binding rs successors and assigns. upon the Owner, its ? 24• Notice. Notices to the parties shall be sent by the United States Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Postage Prepaid, to the addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing. Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of mailing of same. f To the City. C/o City Manager 130 S, Galen. Aspen, Colorado 81611 .. To the Owner: Law Limited Liability, Co. E.J. Olbright, Mansger Suite 204 f 1 IW Highway SilvertM o, CO W49S 25. This Agroornow shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Wilicipal Cade of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 26. iliLY. If any of the provisions of this Agreement'we determined to be invalid, it shall not effect the remaining provisions hereof. 27• Tire provisions of this Agreement shall run with and cowlift" € a burden on the land on which the Project is located and shell be binding on and erwfe to the betefn [. of the Owner, its successors and Assigns And the City, Us successors i "Sm. and 4 28. JAJMQM1ljL in the event the City determiap the Owner is not in mbauatial aompiiatce with the terms of this Agreement Or dte Hail play the City may serve a Notice of Moo - Compliance and request that the deficiency.be corrected within a period of six (6) months. In the event the Owner believes that it is in compliance or that the aontampliaoce is insubsuntial, the Owner may request a bearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged mm-compliance exists or whether any amendment, variance or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall naduct a bearing according to standard procedures and take such action As or than dorms apprnPriste. The City shall be entitled to all remedies At equity and at le ,v to enjoin, correct and/or receive daaaget for any non-compliance with the Agreement. �•t+a . r.cx,K•-.rww.o. ,� _.... �,..aaa1 � ti¢:.&�:�si s.s;sa;a..� „-,r (u ` m f 0359038 07/21/93 11:18 Rec $290.00 BK 716 PG 4K ' Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clark, Doc COO 29. Rom, WS AVftmcW "I be mwrded In die re000ds of the Pkkin Cooty Clerk and R000Ww s O!&x. 30. EffMbm Dab. 'ibisAFeemmt dWI beefrod efomdoIstmdwofspom as UN, below. a h?1fY .w 14 jM , Y E)O IBIT A 83E9036 07/21/93 llsi8 Rae $290.00 BK 710 PS 407 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 6.00 4*1 EXHIBIT B 4iI!!1 11..i ii,; ,; u,rl r tl 1� { ,1 II,_1 'fr f 1 •� 1 p;j j i �r��l. r ., ,hl rE` , , i : i,lr i E i , . i • i i 1• if1 :r ![ii �f :"jJl � � � 1 f�:� r I 4'i5i 1 . �,rrtr! ,i.r;rE y!I`�c,;�i"�ir,,,�:, ,� E�Jrr►r'g,;.r r' (, � � ''r ,�� .a AN F' M u O Y O� N • T IxY C m fJ IL A rite•. i I t m,4 n ' 9 4l0-1 iG,l i,[ #i tyrl v4k 4035903e 07/21/93 11118 Rec $290. oo BK 710 po 4W Silvia Davis, Pitkin CntV Clorkv Dar- 6.00 1-ima oil A mull 41 d !11; sit n EXHIBIT C #356442 05/03/93 09:40 Rec $50.00 HK 710 P5 WO Silvia Davis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 1.00 ORDINANCE N0.18 i (SERIES OF 1993) J AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM R-15 (PUD) MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AN (PUD} AFFORDABLE MOUSING, SUBDIVISION, FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN (All) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING,CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE EAST COOPER 81BDIViSI0N, AN 8 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 2.35 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, in September 1989, the (AH) Affordable Housing zone district was created to promote private sector development of deed restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market residential development within a project; and WHEREAS, C&G Mustardseed, Ltd. (Applicant) -submitted an application (the "Plan") for rezoning of a 2.35 acre parcel on East Cooper Avenue from R-15 PUD (Moderate Density Residential) to AH PUD (Affordable Housing) inconjunction with an application for Conceptual PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning ,Commission recommended approval of at Conceptual PUD Plan for the subject parcel, with conditions, on September 15, 1992;.and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Conceptual Pup Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, for rezoning Of the 'subject parcel to (AN) Affordable Housing and approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on November 9,1992; and WHEREAS, the Applicant then -submitted an application for Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan, Growth Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special V�Y "µ�`�+ T• f -. 4356441 05/03/93 09e40 keC $50.00 BK 710 PG 981 Silvia Davis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc f.00 Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, waiver of Park 1 Development Impact Fees, and Waiver of the Waterline Extension Moratorium for the development of 12 deed restricted affordable townhome units, one deed restricted lot, and six free market lots for single family residences; and aas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the it proposal in accordance with those procedures set forth i 24-6-205(A)(8)(c) of the Municipal code and did wonduct kearing thereon on -march 16, 1993;.and CAB, upon review and ; consideration `of the plan, agency and sent thereon, and those applicablestandards as contained 24 of the Municipal Code, ,to,wit, Division 9 of Article id Unit Development), Division fo of Article 7, On), Division 4 of Article:7 (Special`• Review), Division icle 7 (Zoning flap Amendments), Section 8-104 (C) oil (Growth Management Quota' system Exemptions by City the Planning and'Zoning Commission has recommended final f the East Cooper Subdivioion'subject to conditions, to ouncil; and ue, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted view approval for parking and open space in an AN zone and Its, prior to final consideration by City Council, the . increased the number of deed restricted townhouse from in order to meet the deed restricted/free market requirements of the-AH zone district; and 2 NNEREAS, the waterline extension moratorium was no longer in effect at the time of final review by City Council; and i 11EEREA6, 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 and,.approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at public hearing; and IMIMBAS, the City council .finds. that the Plan meets or exceeds all applicable developmentstandards and that the approval of the Plan, with conditions, is consistent with the goals -and elemarts of the Aspen Area Community Plan: and 11g8REAs, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and:is necessary for public health,` safety, and welfarQ. t4 ,. ]ION, TSEREPOMI._SE IT ORDAIM BY TAE:CITY ODUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF ACPM, COLORADO wi foilolrrs 8ectioa 1: Pursuant to section.24-7-903 B. of the Kanicipal;Code,, and subject to those conditions off approval as specified - � hereinafter, the Cite Council finds as follows in regard to the . y e9 Plan's planned unit development component: 1. The Developer's final_ plan submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval.' 2. The .Plan is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3. The Plan is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 4. The Plan will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 1. Pik' is 5. The Plan approval is being granted only to the extent to which •. 9 035903e 07/21/93 11118 Rec $290.00 HK 716 PS 492 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc s.00 - W,,ax�ta,.+:Hx+x:ww�s:,w .:q+a..w,:+•er- - - ' z" " J N �•i""�' �5-•t �i-,•S¢��i._ �t, .l,. �, '�''r s,'•*� _.. �i� �'�" � r�f���Y'�a "i ,.4h �i��'�k'�'.,,} �-'�w #356441 05/03/93 09:40 Rec stw.00 BK 710 PG 903 _ Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 4.00 t �s GMQS allocation/exemptions are obtained by the applicant. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1 above, the City Council grants Final PUD development plan approval for the } t 7 ,� 0 a East Cooper project subject to the S following conditions: 1• Prior to the issuance of an building g permits for the deed restricted townhomes, the Applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement financial assurances in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the completion of the affordable housing component of the project. The amount of the financial assurances shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Planning Director.,'I. 2. A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added to the plat. 3. Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from Bpi on capacity needs. 4. Add note to p1aY regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy-82: year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (state in condo documents also.) •:� 5. The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision's residents Will be res on ibl j for the expense of bringing the road up to current sCity standards prior to dedication.; , 6. The site plan must ,show the Pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive ='( r.o.w.-agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. 7. The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy.82 to be installed by the Applicant. 8. The site _plan must show the street light location at Hwy.82 and Barbs Way. 9.. Amend note 2 on Sheet to state that individual development on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic ' ~ 10. runoff rates. The drainage plan must address how the Hwy.82 intersection handled. is 11. Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable.' 12. Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement Whi13. er i h satisfy the City obeeincludedy and twith oemergency The access must the DOTeaccess permit. 14. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, withi:l the right-of-way. ; 15. Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements4 Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision 1 Plat, the Master - 4 0359038 07/21/93 11:18 Rea $290.00 BK 718 PO 493 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc s.00 {,�z 4356441 O5/03/93 09:40 Rec $50.00 BK 710 PG Silvia pavis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, boc $.Co 984 Deed Restriction for the 13 deed restricted townhomes and one deed \ J restricted lot shall be recorded with the County Clerk. Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shall execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction. The deed restrictions on the affordable units shall be as follows: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 1. - two bedroom Category 4 unit 4 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units 1 - single family lot, Resident Occupied 16. The developer shall docent buyer information for all the units/parcels within thisumdevelopment, for the first round of sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this 17. information to the Housing Office on an annual basis. All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must be qualified by the Housing Office to prior sale or rental occupancy. 18. A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. ( 19. Language regarding the sanitation system within the f PUD/subdivision Agreementshall be approved by the Sanitation District !j 20. prior to recordation. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 21. Prior to the:issuance;of any ;.building •permits on the parcel, the Final PUD'Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. However, failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall sender the i approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval wy both the Commission and City Council is obtained before_thtt*r ac•aptance and recording, or an extension or is j waiver granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. 22. Building heights for the townhomes shall be measured from the "natural grade" as presented in the CTL Thompson, Inc, report, As supported by the Acting Building official. 23. In the case of opportunities to underground existing primary and/or secondary aerial utilities where new trenches are to be dug for new utilities work, the applicant shall work with adjacent ddd property owners and with the subject utility companies to accomplish such utility undergrounding. 24. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 25, l If, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy and recordation of the individual deed restrictions for the 5 *359038.07/21/93 11:18 Rec $290.00 8K ?1g PG 494 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc a.00 i' fy_ i .» . , #356441 05/03/93 09:40 Rec $50.00 BK 710 PG 9g5 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 Resident Occupied units or single family lot the City has adopted changes to the RO regulations, these new regulations shall be incorporated into the individual deed restrictions. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1OD4 C. of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's g subdivision development component: f 1. The proposed subdivision in consistent with the Aspen Area Community Pian and is, furthermore, consistent with the Character of existing land 'uses in the adjoining areas. 2. The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas .and will be i.n substantial compliance with all ,requirements of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. 3. The proposed subdivision is compatible and 'suitable with the topography of the area and will not.present of create a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents or neighbors of the subdivision.' 4. The proposed subdivision does not create spatial patterns that J cause inefficiencies , duplication, or premature extension of public facilitates or unnecessary',public costs. Mien a: pursuant to Section 24-8-104 C. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds compliance in regard to the Developer's request for Growth Management Quota System development exemption for affordable housing and: free market dwelling units in the Affordable Housing zone district. Section 51 Pursuant to:. Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal code, the City Council finds :as . follows in -regard to the zoning -map amendment component of the Plan: 1. The proposed zoning amendment as set forth in the Plan are not II conflict with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. TheY proposed zoning amendment is compatible with the 3. The proposed zoning amendment will not adversely, impact traffic generation or road safety when taken into ( consideration with the other aspects of the Plan. } 4. The proposed zoning amendment will promote the public interest r i I r4'. {{{ #359O3B 07/21/93 11:U3 Rec $290.00 SK 716 PO 4'/5 , Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clark, Doc $.0O ;Y .� .*aha��a,.,r.,. �•„�•^yea 3 , #356441 05/03/93 09:40 Rec $50.00 HK 710 PS 986 Silvia. Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 4.00 and character of the City of Aspen. Hection 6• Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 and 24-7-1103, and Division 2 of Article 5 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, and findings set forth in Section 5 above, the city Council does grant the following amendment to the Official Zone District Map and does designate the following zone district for the development subject to the conditions as specified below: 1. Affordable Housing (AH) shall be applied to Lots 1-8 of the East Cooper Subdivision. Beotion 7z Pursuant to section 024-7-1007 H.•of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in ,:regard to the Plan's condominiumization component: I. The 13 proposed townhomes to be condomiai.umized are not currently leased on a long term basis. 2. Six month minimum leases shall be required for the condominium units. 3. The proposed condoniniumiaation will not adversely affect the availability of affordable housing. Beatien a: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 7 above, and in accordance with Section 24-7-10.07.of the Municipal Code, the City Council grants and awards'condominiumization approval `to -the Plan as follows, subject to the conditions';as'epecified herein: 1. 'thirteen proposed townhomes on Lot 8. 2. Affordable Housing Impact Fees shall not be required for these"' deed restricted.condoainium.units. 8e0tIRA 99: The requested waiver of the Park Development Impact fee shall not be granted for the East Cooper Subdivision. Section ie: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the Plan approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning commission and or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by \ other specific conditions. J 7 � �" `14 •ss �� �>�"��r t d��_ �� r � i : u; t��''"�r�'�y�g�Y'�� k fl'`, i��' i� #356441 05/03/93 09:40 Rec $50.00 BK 710 P6 987 a Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc #.00 Section il: The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen, ;4 1 Colorado, shall be and ishereby amended to reflect the rezoning action as set forth in section 6 above and such amendment shall be.,it promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 B. of the Municipal code. h Heetion 12: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, c4 the City council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the East Cooper Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows: ' 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance -shall remain vested for three (3) years fror the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure toabideby the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights: Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as, specified herein and or in the Municipal code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of \ referendum and, judicial review. 1 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site', specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the f general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided ! that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not ;§ preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land ,use` regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to; building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In thic regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in w.-iting. motion 131 i This Ordinance shall not effect 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 x,: s 1 0359038 07/21/93 tills Rcc E290.00 BK 719 Pp,4n Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc f.00 to Vy- v� #356441 OS/03/93 09:40 Rec 710 PG 9W Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Dx i.00 under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or Portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or I unconstitutional in :.court of competent Jurisdiction, s uch'portion E shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect.the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 8eati9n 1s: The City, Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of ]Aspen no later .than fourteen (14) days following final t adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following fora: { Notice is hereby given to the general public of the -approval' of a site specific development plan, and the trestion!of a k 1 vested property right. pursuant to Title a/, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following - described property: J The property shall be described ln`the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. 8aaties 193 That the City Clark is directed Y , Upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a c opy"of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and Recorder. bttiQn.-17s A public hearing an the Ordinance shall be held on the ESL day of , 1993 at.5:00 in the City council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a E public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. �., `A, .: •`t������"F,r 1;4,••; �`. •� i"aC �'�'A�r ,. 'AKi v. `f`�__'i �t�q� ^M ^'..1'MI �5¢2�§�� ':d'. EXHIBIT D j *358797 07/14/93 16:00 Rec $95.00 BK 717 PS 763 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Dot s.00 MASTER DEED RESTRICTION,OCCUPANCY .t AND RESALE DEED RESTRICTION, AGREEMENT, FOR EAST COOPER APPORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (LACET SUBDIVISION)';: TRIS MABTLR DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT_ (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this ;4 day of kn r.19�?, by Laoet Limited Liability, a Colorado part sh p ("Declarant"), for the benefit of the parties and enforceable by the ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY , ,,_ (hereinafter referred to as "APCHA"), a duly constituted Multi- x jurisdictional Housing Authority established pursuant to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (the "City") and Pitkin County, Colorado (the"County"), dated September 26, 1989 and recorded in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. W I T N E,S S E T H: WHEREAS, Declarant Owns the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporatedherein. For purposes of this Agreement, the real property ,and all dwellings, appurtenances, N ,' improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall hereinafter be referred .to as the "Property", and WHEREAS, as a condition of the approval granted by the City Council of Aspen,. Colorado for subdivision approval of the and `• Property, the Declarant is required to enter into this Agreement; WHEREAS, Declarant agrees' to restrict the acquisition or transfer of the Property to "Qualified Buyers," as that term is defined in this Agreement; who fall within the respective Categories 3, 4 and Resident Occupied income range established and adopted by the APCHA from time to time in its Affordable Housing Guidelines. In addition, the Declarant agrees that this Agreement shall constitute a resale agreement setting forth the maximum sale price for which the Property may be sold ("Maximum sale Price"), c j the amount of appreciation and the terms and provisions controlling the resale of any portion of the Property should Declarant's purchaser desire to sell its interest in the Property at any time after the date of this Agreement. Finally, by this Agreement, Declarant agrees to restrict the Property against use and occupancy inconsistent with this Agreement. i WHEREAS, "Qualified Buyers" are natural persons meeting the income, residency and all other qualifications set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines i ("the Affordable Housing Guidelines"), or its substitute, as de )� 41 adopted by the APCHA, or its successor, and in effect at the time of the closing of the sale from Declarant to the #' alified Bu and who must represent and agree pursuant to this Agreement yer to N359038 C-7/21/93 11216 Rec $290.00 SK 738;PG "dOC # Silvia. Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 :1. .1. N R23= . ,..w .. .'Yk-. ' YC. •L sA. Pr oeS.�ITv. " Wt'i"A "�'1� - 3 A A . #3- -8797 07/14/93 16:00 Rec $95.00 8j, 717 PG 764 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clark, Doc s.00 occupy the Property as their sole place of residence, not to engage r}i' in any business activity on the Property, other than that permitted in that zone district or by applicable ordinance, and not to sell or otherwise transfer the Property for use in a trade or business. WHEREAS, an "Owner" is a person or persons who is/are a Qualified Buyer who acquires an ownership interest in the Property in compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement; it being understood that such person or persons shall be deemed an "Owner" hereunder only during the period of his, her or their¢ ownership interest in the Property and shall be obligated hereunder` ' for the full and complete performance and observance of all , covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein during such k '' -1 period. WHEREAS, a "Unit"Is any of the units A1A through C4B which comprize the property. HOW THEREFORE, .for value received, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ,Declarant hereby represents, covenants and agrees as follows: 1. The use and occupancy of the Property and all units shall henceforth be limited exclusively to housing for natural _ persons who meet the definition of.Qualified Buyers and their families. 2. An Owner, in connection with the purchase of this Property or Unit, must, (i) occupy any Unit within the Property as his or her sole place of residence during the time that such unit is owned, (ii) not engage in any business activity on or in such Unit, other than that permitted. in that zone district or by applicable ordinance, (iii) sell or otherwise transfer such Unit only in accordance with this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Guidelines, (iv) not sell or otherwise .transfer such Unit for use in a trade or business, and (v) not permit any use or occupancy of such Unit except in compliance with this Agreement. 3.(a) It shall be a breach of this Agreement for an owner to default in payments or other obligations due or to be r' performed under a promissory note secured by a first deed of trust encumbering the Property or a Unit. Owner must �.... notify the APCHA, in writing, of any notification received from a lender, or its assigns, of past due payments or default in payment or other obligations due or to be performed under a promissory note secured by a first deed of trust, as described herein, within five calendar days of Owner's notification from lender, or its c assigns, of said default or past due payments. w r ' _2- V #359038 07/21/93 1191E Rec $290.00 9K 710 P6 501 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc s.00' �=W�ts�,°`� "'"' """"'w�!:a�wmw.zww,• .,t. rr..,. +c .. ..,...,.v.. �.., ... ... .. ,. ..« ........,,-. ,.� le A s1 n kY #3SB797 07/14/93 16:00 Rec $95.00 SK 717 PS 763 a Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 (b) Upon notification from a Owner, as provided above, or other notice of such default th w VN i' hK N "#35 B797 0 E 7J14/93 16100 Rec $95.00 BK 717 PG ' f Silvia Davis, Pitkin CntY Clerk, Doc $.Of) 766 i• v enforceable by the APCHA, and the Aspen City Council (they' "Council"), and their respective successors and assigns,.' as applicable, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to specific performance, injunction, 3% reversion, or eviction of non -complying owners and/or occupants. 5. In -the event that an Owner desires to sell the Property or Unit, Or,ner shall execute a standard Listing Contract on forms approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission with the APCHA providing for a IBC --day listing period, or such other time period as required by the APCHA Afford- R able Housing Guidelines in effect at time of Listing. The APCHA shall promptly advertise such Property or Unit s a for sale by competitive bid to Qualified Buyers. The so Owner shall, upon closing, pay a fee to the APCHA in an F amount 'equal to two percent (Zg) of the sales price. If u FNMA type financing is used there may be a fee charged by w u the APCHA, <_based on the amount financed. The ;amount of o a this fee to be paid by the subsequent.Owner Shall be as set forth in the current Affordable Housing Guidelines o s and will be distributed to the APCHA Mortgage Fund Account.. GF a MAXIMUM SALE PRICE m ❑ 6. In no event shall the Property or a Unit be sold for an c amount („Maximum Sale Price") in excess of the lesser of: .. v ~ +' , plus an increase of three per- Q d cent 3 ) of such price per year from the date of purchase to the date of Owner's notice of intent to N w sell -(prorated at the rate of .25 percent for each oa whole month for any part of a year); or 11 a (b) an amount (based upon the Consumer Price Index, All o .. Items, U.S. City Average, Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (Revised), published by the V.S, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor statistics) calculated as follows: the Owner's purchase price multiplied by the Consumer Price Index last pub- lished prior to the date of Owner's notice of intent to sell divided by the Consumer Price Index "w current at the date of this Agreement. In no event { shall the multiplier be less than one (1). For y purposes of this Agreement, "date of intent to sell" shall ne the date of execution of a listing contract when required by this agreement, or if a a **To be determined by a later recorded memorandum encumbering each individual unit. -4- '} rr. i 1f v i v" *&c . & Y 0Ak;4 #358797 07/14/93 16*00 Rac f95.00 BK 717 PG 767 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc f.00 listing contract is not otherwise necessary, the date shall be determined to be the date upon which a requirement for the Owner to sell is first applicable. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE BY THE APCHA, THE CITY OR THE COUNTY THAT ON SALE THE OWNER SHALL OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM SALE PRICE. 7. (a)For -the _purpose of determining the Maximum Sale Price in accordance with this section, the Owner may .add to the amount specified in Paragraph 6 above, fifty percent (50t) of the cost of Permitted Capital improvements, as defined in Exhibit "B„, attached hereto and incorporated herein, in a total amount not to exceed $** .which ig ten percent (10%) of the snit al listed purchase price set forth in; paragraph 6(a) above. All such Permitted Capital Improvements installedor constructed over the life of the unit shall qualify. However, the allowance permitted by this subsection is a fixed amount, which ,shall be calculated on:a cumulative basis applicable to the owner and,all,:subsequent purchasers, and shall not ..exceed the maximum dollar amount set forth in this subsection 7(a). (1>) Permitted Capital Improvements shall not include any changesor additions to the Property made by " the Owner during construction or thereafter, except in accordance with Paragraph 7(a) above. Permit4ed' Capital Improvements shall not be included in the APCHA's listed purchase price, even if made or installed during original construction. (c) In order to qualify as Permitted Capital Improvements, Owner must furnish to the APCHA the following information with respect to the improvements which the owner seeks to include in the calculation of mAvl.— a.,- „_,___ ON #359797 07/14/93 16100 Rec C95.00 SK 717 PG 768 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc S.00 7 f X,�s. (ii) Owner's affidavit verifying that the receipts .'A are valid and correct receipts tendered at the time of purchase; and ' (iii) True and correct copies of any building permit •z"t or certificate of occupancy required to be issued by the Aspen/Pitkin county Building Department with respect to the Permitted Capital Improvements. k: N, Yew (d) For the purpose of determining the Maximum Sale ' a Price in.accordance with this Section, Owner may ;N m o also add to the amount specified in Paragraphs 6 0 and 7(a), .the cost of any permanent improvements ~ w constructed .or installed as a result of any M U requirement imposed by any governmental agency, o provided that written certification is provided to 0 o the APCHA of both .the applicable requirement and c ac the' information required by Paragraph 7(c)(i)- N `o (ifi) . " u (a). In calculating the costs under Paragraphs 7(a) and ,, 7(d), only the Owner's actual out-of-pocket costs r and expenzes.shall be eligible for inclusion. Such m amount shall not include an ,amount attributable to Owner's "sweat equity" or to any. appreciation in -+ the value of the improvements. p a B. All disputes between Owner and the adiai.nistrative staff a of .the APCHA'shall be heard in accordance with the n grievance procedures set forth in the Affordable Housing c c Guidelines. r) e 9. Owner shall not permit any prospective buyer to assume .> :any or all of the Owner's customary closing costs nor .,, accept any other consideration which would cause an m m increase in the purchase price above the bid°price so as to induce the owner to sell to such prospective buyer. 10. In the event that one qualified bid is received equal to the Maximum Sale Price herein established, the Property 7 or Unit shall be sold to such bidder at the Maximum Sale Price; and in the event owner receives two or more such e bids equal to the Maximum sale Price, the Qualified Buyer shall be selected according to the priority for Sale i Units set forth in the Affordable Housing Guidelines; and, in the event that all such qualified bidders are of " Ei equal priority pursuant to the Affordable Housing Guidelines, the Qualified Buyer shall be selected by F1 44 lottery among the qualified bidders, whereupon the Property or Unit shall be sold to the winner of such �r i 'k v #358797 07/14/93 16s00 Rea $95.00 BK 717 PG 769 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc s.00 lottery at the Maximum Sale Price. If the terms of the proposed purchase contract, other than price, as initially presented to the owner, are unacceptable to the Owner, there shall be a mandatory negotiation period of three (3) business days to allow the Seller and potential a buyer to reach an agreement regarding said terms, including but not limited to the closing date and financing contingencies. If, after the negotiation a period is over, the Seller and buyer have not reached an agreement, the next bidder's offer will then be presented i to the Seller for consideration and a three (3) business a day negotiating period will begin again. The Seller may reject Y any and all bids, however, the Owner is subject to o the provisions in the Affordable Housing Guidelines o ❑ e pertaining to the listing fee. Bids in excess of the Maximum e x Sale Price shall be rejected. If all bids are below Maximum Sale Price, the Owner may accept the highest bid. i 'A u qualified If all bids are below Maximum Sale Price and two_or.more bids are for the same m ? price, the Qualified Buyer shall be selected by lottery from JX J among the highest qualified bidders, 0o U c 11• In the event that title toPropertyor a Unit vests by descent y y in .individuals and/or entities who are not ++ Qualified 'Buyers. as that term is defined herein, a P a (hereinafter "Non -Qualified Transferees)^), the Property or a Unit;-shallimmediately be listed for sale as provided in Paragraph above (including, the payment of o > the specified fee to.the_APCHA), and the 'highest bid by c a Qualified'Buyer,,.for 'not less than ninety-five percent m fors. f o the Maximum Sale Price or the appraised market value, whichever is less, shall be accepted; if all bids are below ninety-five percent (95s.) of the Maximum Sale * Price or the appraised market value, the Property shall continue to be listed for sale until a bid in accordance With this section is made, which bid must be accepted. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the Non - Qualified Transferee(s). + (a) Non -Qualified Transferee(s) shall join in any sale, conveyance or transfer of the Property or a Unit to 4. a Qualified Buyer and shall executean and al documents y 1 necessary to do so; and iy (b) Non -Qualified Transferee(s) agree not to (i) occupy the Property or a Unit, (ii) rent all or any part Of the Property or a Unit, ' ' except in strict compliance with Paragraph 15 hereof; (iii) engage in any business acti✓ity on or in the Property or a Unit, (iv) sell or otherwise transfer the Propertyb, or a Unit except in accordance with this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Guidelines, or (v) se?l 2.. II' r p. : A �AQU ry a k3Z8797 07/14/93 16:00 Ftec S95.00 $f.` 717 PG T7p Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt s Y Clerk, Doc $.00 or otherwise transfer the Property or a Unit for use in a trade or business. :3 (c) The APCHA, and the City, or their respective suocessors, as applicable, shall have the right and option to purchase the Property or a Uric, r4 I exercisable within a period of fifteen (15) calen- dar days upon notice of transfer, and, in the event $ f of exercising their right and option, shall purchase the Property or Unit from the Non-° ILQualified Transferees) for a price of ninety-five 7 percent (95%) of the Maximum Sale Price, or the r`" o appraised market value, whichever is less. Notice of option to purchase shall be made by the Non- =' j Qualified Transferee within fifteen (15) days of 0 acquisition of the Property or Unit. 0 (d) Where the provisions of this Paragraph 11 apply, :the APCHA may require the Owner to rent, the n a Property or Unit'in-accordance with the provisions uci of Paragraph ;15, below. OWNER RESIDENCE ro u 12. The Property -and all Units shall be and is to be utilized only as -the sole and exclusive place of residence of an - Y Owner. V o'� a 13. In the. event' an Owner changes domicile or ceases ,to utilize the Property or Unit as his sole and exclus1ze placesof residence, the Property or Unit will be offered n > for ,sale pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 11 of 0 M this Agreement. Owner shall be deemed to have changed 03 m <Owner's domicile by, becoming a resident elsewhere or ac- o cepting permanent employment outside Pitkin County, or resiiing on the Property or Unit for fewer than nine (9) * months per calendar year without the express written4 approval of the-APCHA. Where the provisions of this Paragraph 23 apply,the APCHA may require the ('•mer to rent the Property in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 15, below. 14. If at any time the Owner of the Property or Unit also owns any interest, alone or in conjunction with others in � ,a any developed residential property or dwelling unit(s) located in Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison or Pitkin counties, j Owner agrees to immediately list said other property or II unit for sale and to sell Owner's interest in such I property at a sales price comparable to like units or properties in the area in which the property or dwelling unit(s) are located. In the event said other property or �s; unit (120)has not been days of itssold by Owner li listing, then within OwnerOne allhundred immediateltwenty FCC.: list this Property or Unit for sale pursuant to the �A '�M1u .. - R Rac ateQ.UIJ 8K 717 PS 771 Silvia Davis, Pitfcin Cnty Clerk, Doc t.00 provisions of Paragraph li of this Agreement. It is understood and agreed between the parties hereto that, in the case of n Owner whose business is the construction and sale of residential properties or the purchase and resale of such properties, the properties which consti- tute inventory in such a Owner's business shall not constitute "other developed residential property" or "dwelling unit(&)" as those terms are used in this Paragraph 14. n RENTAL mo ..o i ti w 15. Owner may not, except with prior written approval of the ! APCHA, and ,subject to the APCHA's conditions of approval, m u rent the Property or Unit for any period of time. Prior a to occupancy any tenant must be approved by the a Homeowner's Association, if applicable, and the APCHA in o Y accordance with the -income, occupancy and all other N m qualifications established by the APCHA in its Affordable e w V Housing Guidelines. The APCHA shall not approve. any m rental if such rental is being made by Owner to utilize „ the Property or Unit as an income producing asset, except r U as -provided below, and shall not approve a lease pith a' m rental term in excess of twelve (12) months. A signed c copy of -the lease must be provided to the APCHA prior to r �y occupancy by any tenant. Any such lease approved by the APCHA shall be the greater of Owner's cost or the monthly a a rental amount specified in the Affordable Housing Guide- lines for units which were :onstructed in the year in r4 which the subject unit was deed restricted at the n > appropriate income category. Owner's cost as used herein p includes the monthly expenses for the cost of principal and interest payments, taxes, property insvr..nce, o.., condominium or homeowners assessments, utilities remain- in- ing in owner'- name, plus an additional twenty dollars � ($20.00) and a reasonaba (refundable) security deposit. s The requirements of this Paragraph shall not pr'•lude the Owner from sharing occupancy of the Property or Jnit with non -owners on a rental basis provided Cwner continues to meet the obligations contained in this Agreement, including Paragraph 12. y 16. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OWNER CREATE AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT, AS DEeINED IN THE PITXIN COUNTY OR CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE, IN OR ON THE PROPERTY. 17. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE APCHA TO PROTECT OR INDEMNIFY THE OWNER AGAINST ANY LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RENTAL INCLUDING (NOT BY WAY OF LIMITATION) NON-PAYMENT OF RENT OR DAMAGE TO THE 3 r i #358797 6 /14/93 16s00 Rec 495.u0 8K 717 PG M r Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, DOC 5.00 y. PREMISES; NOR TO REQUIRE THE APCHA TO OBTAIN A QUALIFIED TENANT FOR THE OWNER IN THE EVENT THAT NONE IS FOUND BY THE OWNER. BREACH IS. In the event that the APCHA has reasonable cause to believe the owner is violating the provisions of this Agreement, the APCHA by its authorized representative may inspect the Property or Unit between the hours of 8:00 A A.M. and ,5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, after W o providing the Owner with no less than 24 hours' written:t F p notice. p 19. The APCHA, in the event a violation of this Agreement is s, a o discovered, shall send a notice of violation to the Owner ' detailing the nature of the violation and allowing the i Owner fifteen (15) days to cure. said notice shall state K m that the Owner may request a hearing before the APCHA 0 within fifteen (15) days to determine the, merits of the, allegations. . If no hearing is requested and the ¢+�+ violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day m u period, the Owner shall be considered in violation of. this Agreement. If a hearing is held before the APCHA, C the decision of the APCHA based on the record of such y hearing shall be final for the purpose of determining if n a violation has occurred. N REMEDIES > m 20. There is hereby reserved to the parties hereto any and € o o all remedies provided by law for breach of this Agreement am n m or any of its terms. In the event the parties resort to o litigation with respect to any or all provisions of this yPi> Agreement,: the prevailing party shall be entitled to *cn recover damages - and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.` 21. In the event the Property or Unit is sold and/or conveyed without compliance herewith, such sale and/or conveyance shall be wholly null and void and shall_ confer no title whatsoever upon the purported buyer. Each and every conveyance of the Property or Unit, for all purposes, j shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this reference, the covenants herein contained, even without ` reference therein to this Agreement. �,. 22. In the event that the Owner fails to cure any breach, the APCHA may resort to any and all available legal action, including, but not limited to, specific performance of this Agreement or a mandatory injunction requiring sale of the Property or Unit by Owner as specified in Paragraphs 3, 11, 13, and 14. The costs of such sale shall be taxed against the proceeds of the sale with the IP i j -lo-- ,1 M, r 4 4358797 07/14/93 16:00 Rec $95.00 SK 717 PG 773 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc C.00r, balance being paid to the owner. ¢ 23. In the event of a breach of any of the terms or conditions contained herein by Owner, his heirs, )' successors or assigns, the APCHA's initial listed s purchase price of the Property or Unit as set forth in Section 6(a) of this Agreement shall, upon the date of such breach as determined by the APCHA, automatically cease to in.:rease as set out in paragraph 6 of this Agreement, and shall remain fixed until the date of cure p of said breath. % n EEcoo FORECLOSiJE2E i ►may, If. FNMA type financing is used to purchase the Property or = Y Unit, as determined by the APCHA, the APCHA and the Board may, S° o pursuant to that certain Option to Buy executed and recorded 0 0 of even date herewith, the terms of which are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth herein, agree to release and waive their ability to enfi,,)rce the resale m deed restrictions contained herein, in the event of foreclosure, provided that said option to Buy grants to the v APCHA and the Hoard, at the designee of the APCHA, the option to acquire the Property or Unit within thirty (30) days after to the issuance of a public trustee s deed to the holcier (includ- ing,aesigns of the holder) of the promissory note secured by c I first deed of trust for an option Y redemption p price not to exceed the p price on the last day of a7A statutory redemption Q period(s) and : he any additional reasonable costs incurred by t 77 ,-holder during the option period which are directly related he j{ N N th9 foreclosure.to N > In the event that the APCHA or the :Gard, as the designee of 0 o the APCHA, exercise the option pursuant to the terms of that j r) q certain.Option to Huy, described above, the APCHA and/or its I 0. designee,. a > 4 r. may sell the Property or Unit to Qualified Buyers as that term is defined herein, or rent the Property or ;Tnit to " qualified tenants who meet the income, occupancy and all other qualifications, established by the APCHA in its Affordable Housing -Guidelines until sale to a Qualified Buyer is effected;- ?; GENERAL PROVISIONS 24. No a_A. Any notice, consent or approval which is required to be given hereunder shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt re ~ properly addressed and with postage fully prepaid to any address provided herein or to an Y subsequent mailing s' address of the party as long as prior written notice of the change of address has been given to the other parties''' to this Agreement. i n-: �Y yN� 43S8797 07/14/93 16:00 Rec S95.n0 HK 717 PS 774 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 25. Said notices, consents and approvals shall be sent to the parties hereto at the following addresses unless otherwise notified in writing: To Declarant: Lacet Limited Liability, Co. c/o E.J. Olbright Suite 204 160 Highway 6 .� Silverthorne, CO 80498 n G To APCHA: Director .* o Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 530 East Main Street u Aspen, Colorado 81611 a To .Owner: To be determined by a later recorded memorandumencumbering each individual unit. (> i� 26. Exhibits. Exhibit A, attached hereto, is incorporated ~ U herein and by this reference made a part hereof. u 0: 4j 27. 5-eyaral l tv,.Whenever possible, each provision of this, m U Agreement and any other related 'document -shall be interpreted in :such manner as to be valid under �., applicable law; but, if any provision., of any. of the y foraagqoing,`shall be invalid or prohibited under said e applicable law, such provisions shall be ineffective „to the extent of such invalidity or prohibition without iv u invalidating the remaining provisions of such document. c e 28. Choice -of Law. This Agreement and each and every related e document is to be governed and construed in accordance with the •laws of the State of Colorado. o� h 29. successors: Except as otherwise provided herein, the s m provisfono and covenants captained herein shall inure to and be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties. 30. �otfon }igadinae. Paragraph or section headings within this Agreement are inserted solely for convenience of reference, and are not intended to, .and shall not, govern, limit .or aid in the construction of any terms or provisions contained herein. #358797 07/14/93 16100 Rec $93.00 9K 717 FG 775 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc i.00 32. Whenever the context so requires herein, the neuter gender shall include any or all genders and vice versa and the use of the singular shall include the N " n plural and vice versa. 33. anal Li_a_hilit owner agrees that he shall be personally liable for any of the transactions contemplated herein. „0 34• Further A-ti.,,,a, The parties to this Agreement agree to execute such further documents and take Y U 00 0 such further actions as may be reasonably required to carry out the provisions and intent of thie op Agreement or any agreement or document relating hereto or entered into in connection herewith. ox a. d ry 35. Modifiaatinns, The parties to this Agreement agree that any modifications of this Agreement shall be effective on y when made in wrtitinq signed by the Owner(s) applicable c m Unitof the APCHA or its s) and successors and recorded.with the Clerk and Records= of Pitkin county, Colorado. Notwithstanding the foregoing, APCHA reserves the right: x to amend this Agreement unilaterally where deemed e and intent of this Agreement, a where such unilthe ateral action does not materi..ily impair the owner's rights under this Agreement. 36. Owner and suaGWIRRZA,The term "owner" shall mean the pparson or.persons who shad acquire an ownership interest in the property or a Unit in compliance with the terms and. provisions of this Agreement; it -being understood that such.: person or persons shall he deemed a "Owner" hereunder ;.only during the period of his ownership interest in the Property and shall be obligated hereunder for the.full°and complete performance and observance of all,.:covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein during such period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this #358797 v7/14/93 16100 Rec $95.00 SK 717 PS 776 Silvia Davis, Pitki., Cnty Clark, Doc $.00 instrument on thpjja)�and year above first written. ATTAczKmr a The following is a list of approximate net livable square footage Of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Development Subdivision) Units Al through C5. (Lecet n n Additional3.y, the units shall include the affordable housing sales a • categories #: or #4 or R.O. to which either 1) qualified of Pitkin County, or 2) resident employees o seniors who have been of Pitkin County for two years, or, 3). a handicapped an employee parson or a 0 dependent therof shall be pre -qualified to condominiums. purchase the " Please refer to Attachment 12 to show the location of the units Y within the condominium buildings and Lot 4. I i UNIT# AFFORDABLE'HOUSIHG APPROX. NET MAXIMUM 1 SALES -CATEGORY LIVABLE S.F. SAT PRICE we *. ASA 3 950 1116 3 $116,500 Ur t m ^ _ 950 MA ] 804. $116,500 $106+50o 3 804 ' $106,500 Bl RO 1,284 BB3 ![arket N 4 1,284 .g19,500 wh r n > B4 R0 1.284 1,284 $19], 500 Market` \y C2 RO..1,284 s 4 Market . ., 1, 284 C3 4 $193;500 i p 1 ,, i84' C4A 950 $193,500 " �y in C58 804 $183,500 $173,500 Lot 4 RO 6,664.68 (lot) `Market < 'I i -iS- �YCR.�.. V Al - . __ Ir g y4 Y wa #338797 07/14/93 16:00 Rec $95.00 BR 717 Pe 778 Doc 5.00 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, i - LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 8 » EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT W ASPEN, COLOR+l,EIO Being a tract of land located in tract portion of Riverside Addition that was annexed to the m u City of Aspen, Colorado on :March 20, 1967 in the N/E tra of Section 18 Township 10' o South, Range 84 West, 6 Principal Meridian City of Aspen, County of pitkin Colorado said tract being a Part of Parcels A and B as set forth in Stewart Title of Aspen rnc. order <r a Y Number 00018642 dated 9/13l91 and which is mote particularly described as follows: N L w COMMENCING* at the southeast corner of the EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION whence corner No, 5 of Riverside Placer, M.S. No 3905 AM m C identical with corner No. 14 of Tract B, Aspen Townsite Addition, A.Bureau of Land ` c Mang;ement Brass Cap: 1954, bears N 50" 39' 40" W, 777,02 feet; N 'THENCE N 15" 37' 29" W, 91.96 feet; P THENCE N 140 03' 32" W, 122.12 feet; HENCE N IY 37' 41" E, 40.84 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 8 out of the EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIV[SION and the POINT OF o ee BEGINNING; to THENCE N 78* 3W 12" 1 , 33.23 feet; Q '> THENCE N 37° 36' 30" E, 56.28 feet; THENCE . N 68` 07' 54" E, 23.76 feet; MINN x N THENCE N 5W 35' 35" W, 49.01 feet; THENCE Northwesterly 217.86 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northwest with a radius of 140.5o.feet, a central angle of 09' 52' 06" and a chord beating N 54* 54' 13' W, 217.64 feet; THENMwutkwesterly 103.39 feet along the arc of a circular curve coneave to the southwest with'a radius of 945.25 feet, a central angle of 06" 16' 01" and a. chord bearing S 4W 16' 47" W, 103.34 feet; THENCE S 00" 15' 52" E, 66.97 feet; THENCE N 89" 37 27" E, 31.25 feet; j THENCE southeasterly 2.5 feet along the are of a circular culve concave to the southeast with a radius of 38.46 feet, a central angle of or 27' 01" and a chord bearing S 37" 44' 10" A 2.5 feet; THENCE S 38" 57' 40" E, 21.81 feet; F THENCE southeasterly 69.14 feet along the are of a circular curve Concave to the southeast with a radius of 190.31 feet, a central angle of 20" 48' 59" and a chord bearing S 28" 33' 10" E, 68.76 feet; THENCE N 89° 25' 46", E 120.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said Lotnp� ' 8 containing 0,858 acres, (37,374 square feet) more or less. s; wd«ws:wyure �" ' Ev q a w� 'i �,."°�� �, � Fb mil;^ � � rq �'�. ,•'4, #158797 07/14/93 16.00 Rec :95.00 Br4 717 PS Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc S-00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION �= LOT 4 EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ASPEN, COLORADO 7^i Being a tract of land located in tract portion of Riverside Addition that was annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado on March 20, 1967 in the N!S u4 of Section 18 Township 10 South, Ranot 84 West, 6" Principal Meridian City of Aspect, County of PiWn Colorado said tract being a part of parcels A and B as set forth iu Stewart Title of Aspen Inc. order Number 00018642 dated 9111191 and which is more particularly described as follows. 10 In COMMENCING at the southeast corner of the EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE a HORSING SUBDIVISION whence corner No. 5 of Riverside Placer, NI.S. No 3905 AM m 0 identical with corner No. 14 of Tract B, Aspen Townsitc Addition, A Bureau of Land Management Brass trap 1954, bears N 5T 39' 40, W 777.02 feet; sg Y ~ THENCE N 15° 37' 2V W, 91.96 feet; , 'THENCE N 14' 03' 32" W, 122.12 feet; � o Y THENCE N 11' 37' 41" E, 40.84 feet; t n `w THENCE N 78.30' 12" E, 33.23 feet; THENCE N 370 36' 30° E, 56.28 feet; t m > THENCE N 6r 07' 54" E, 23.76 feet; ' m 41 THENCE N'50- 35' 35° W, 49.01 feet; THENCE Northwesterly 217.86 feet, along the arc of a circular curve concave to the Y northwest with a radius of t407.50 feet, a central angle of 081 $2' 06" and a chord beating " V N W 54' IT W, 217.64 feet; P (L 'THENCE spttthweaterly 103.39 feet 210118 the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest with a radius of 945.25 feet, a antral angle of 06' 16' 01" and a chord=bearing S 46° 16' 47" W, 103-34 feet;. o ro fHF.NC13 S 00' 15' sr, E 66.97 feet; M THENCE N 890 37 27", E 31.25 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 4 out of the o EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION and the POINT OF rn '� BEGINNING; m THENCE southeasterly 2.5 feet along the are of a circular curve concave to the southeast with a radius of 58A6 feet, a central angle of 02" 27' 01" and a chord bearing S 37° 44' Ur E, 2.5 feet; y THENCE S 3r 57' 4W, E 21.81 feet; THENCE, southeasterly 69.14 feet along the are of a circular curve concave to the southeast with a radius of 190.31 feet, a central angle of 20' 48' 59" and a chord bearing S 28° 33' 10° Is, 68.76 fat; THENCE N 89° 25' 46", W 103.97 feet; Y' THENCE N 00° 15' 52", W 80.00 feet-, r THENCE N $90 37, 27", E $6.23 feet; to the POINT" OF BEGINNING, said Lot ' s 4 containing 0.154 acres, (6,708 square feet) more or less. y..aecdzseww�r. ;� I �.. ,��-. ATTIICEMEIIT 2 The following is a list of approximate net livable square footage Of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lecet Subdivision) Units Al through C5. h 1�1 Additionally, the units shall include the affordable housing sales a categories 03 or 04 or R.O. to which either 2) qualified employees of Pitkin County, or 2) resident seniors who have been an employee so of Pitkin County for: two, years, or 3) a handicapped person or a ti dependent therof shall be pro -qualified to purchase the M condosirsiums. ! $ Please rotor to Attachment f2 to show the location the unite o .of within the condominium buildings and Lot 4. m UNIT# AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPROX. NET MAXIMUM w SALES CATEGORY LIVABLE S.F. ,SALES PRICE " 950 $116,500 A 3 B C 950 $216,500 tD u A2A 3 004 4106,500 .. c A28 .3 804 $106,500 M •M RO . 2,284 Market c a B2 4 2,284 $193, 500 Q n a 83 1 1.284 $193,500 B4 RO 2,284 Market §� t ti CI fto 1, 284 Market M $193,500 i a C3 4 1,284 ,284 $193,500 C4A ? � w 4 950 $183,500 C58 k 804 $173,500 Lot 4 RO 6,664.6E (lot)Market A , � t r FdT 4 -15- s+��• ,s ` � "4 - x a f Drawer 7099 • 180 ►,y 8 •Suite 204 FirstBenk Center f • Sihbrthorns, CO e0198 • {30.3) IBs 6760 • FAx (30.3) Ma -am 4b •�� f t - � FY A � 11 1 ti. w u one LYL u ' IL C. ; k ti y y a Q _ N a u o M K n� �w EXHIBIT f � 2 m » < . . . • x : ©iw . N § � . \} '§ .1 ° /all �I I A - �t »� �. , \ §u� v 0359038 07/21/93 11:18 Rac $290.00 BK 710 PO 524 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty,Clank, Doc $.00 May 18, 1993 E.J. Olbright Lacet Limited Lisbility, Co. Suite 204 160 Highway 6 Silverthorne, CO 80498 Li x Dear E:J_ Puursuant to your request I have prepared;a coat estimate for landscape construction for the Oove refereoced project. This estimate is based on the Laodscapa Plan prepared by my office and inciudad as pan of the final submission approved by City Council on x1ij.�26; t993"by Ordinance 9348. 31 spruce a $3SWea. 33 aottunwood:0-1001e& 3:300 15`a*" 0 75/ea. 1,125 5 ash a 2501ea. 1,bD 27 dogwood a 201eL S40 17 poteatitla a 201ea. t` 340 . 12 cotoneaster a 20/ea. 210 25,000 s.L seed a .101s:f. 2,500 12,000 st sod a .3010. 3,600 37,000 st Irrigation (12 zones a 90ftm) 10,800 350 yd topsoil a 5.70/yd 2,000 5 outdoor lights a 2001a. TOUT 1 $37,50 Please Contact me if you have any questions or comments concerning this information. Sincerely, omas G. Stevens ASL/ kw4135903B 07/21/93 11i18 Rac 0290.00 BK TtO PS SM Silvia Davis, Pitkin City Clark% Doc 6.00 olorado iF algrucWn Ca MW 20, 1"3 Drawer loge • 180 49hway e • Saito 2O4 FlratB" Center • Sttwrtll m' CO80M • (303)468-SM • FAX (303) 488.8488 `tip i `\'�•�,` �J I � lJ����11i .�. zap. , ..., f ,.• . i ...., _.. JL11339038 07/21 /93 11118 Roc $290- 00 BK M P8 Wo Silvia t)rviw, Pitkin Cnty Cl4wk, Doc •.60 G ='rmt*KM First Ca !Nay 20, 1993 Mr. Tom Stevens THE STEMS 4ROUP 312;E`Airport H Asp* CO.81611 Re: East Com- Affordable Hausigg Dear Tom: t in Aqm- is "SUS.udion cost fcr tha aawer oLli fed a leoei end F.set Coma FC*Cts Plerse do aot bcdbft to'•cutl if l �x �!1' of rdqut a bather Sincerely, N u,' Mike cud6muon Pr"Onsbuctim Savw" NiRdo r Drawer 1 O69 - 180 Highway 8 • &ft 204 FjMdWnk Center 1 S4WrIWM C0 804W 1 M3 468$760 • FAX (303)46848488 T \1L {' % 3 "aI j ;3-GS � Fy ' J 4 f �.1 PA u 41, M,-� ti '. r.8 N359038 07/21/93 11:18 Rec •290.00 HK 710 PS =2 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clark, Doc f.00 Colorado First Construction Co, A$PhOh PXV4. 'MA&U1, and AW COW" for Ow wo* on Elighway 82 • $k*03 EV1=" I MR, EXHIBIT H Surveys/Site Plans of Lacet Subdivision Lots ZEcEi1!E NOV 14 2014 � LI II II r II O I II 51 I O i i �on9a�w z �^1�1nn� mmz �pZCOmt a^mar s�t� m Gj ��gg g7� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN i 6 � o 1 _£ m V �_ p5gk � r O i i a r O_ I cri & r 1 o r m Q _ C q ® O ® ■ ® O 10 M ® B iS ® ®O b b ills II glarIg 6 o af ll s'q q& €s x$R3 49a a a yg O ` ! Qr ki�+ ¢ g ° 9y gg �/ (/mil gill ll �36 ��$ Ma � �� ��gS� S �9 9 "d_ s� 01 9 wit > N SS-��OYd, sg Cy a A�4 P5.`` g (gyp _F• $ 33 . 9$@aS f # 7°cy- BuiT5 im �ra3§ /•� V O �', cW sa f g a m sso ES V +ow S tl'+y�s' S tg 9g sy pn a s' ng I? 5- � N � yL O E$ 5$$ 0 73 Q RIVERSIDE DRIVE D �r �< � N m O Cwn� O m m K: Z 1N3W3n� d 3� 3�a3 r Cn ZVZ -< CA -0 �C) w (W) ,00'08 M„Z5,51.00N �C-) II r— x > r� -i D Ul N m . �D 0 Uwin O Dz • rZ � (n G) ru �D mC I \ If m 56 �' / O // 6 z'9 io .o \ :, w01 \ CA 0.0, I / s z / a I 00 r / -� rn � C i C D J D �� I Owo �r com Q) -1 N cn O19 v nl ED m p cn / cncn -uK 4. D� \ 3 -r .3 � b O A m O \ `\ Cl)rO1i I Cwn > co 0000 ` �ZC oI m� y Cn �fr-r(29 I G�Z O I M 09./ O ZD�O w m Nol g M F \ N, Z 0 O z N r m 9 m m w / D rtao p� m �/ 00 miM o I o I ti'sz 0) - � L - - — - - � 0) IIIL teM on Dm I O <O (n t� r m 7zD J I CI1 � I-� DM I . Z . m Cn m FF D "3 w µ N m m D ,Z I / � D i m CO CA CA - c _ w-i - r CT, r � D C) r w �s'o8 _ cn 3„8 4,St�.Z0S (A n O m ^^� � `1 OC) — — � — Z — y CA - � - o � m �0 o Z r D � 0 � � D ao 22 r M �> o0 m Cn D J z m U) m Z Dc/) Dom- cnv Cl) zC,4 �� D N Cl) �r.. =ZZC nD Dom. `. �`. mm .. �r0 S OOC7m C�C� m 00 CO DDr M m zzom MmC) o� + O z_ D K= mm D D m��� - < -1 0 mD(n mmmC Co D O r <D O �t - �� - 00rr _ �mcn �mm ��] m 0 O Vic/) �� Z mOD n ZZ w r �LOz ��_ ] r- -u � �z D O< 00 0 Om 0w-j� Al x o O D m 0 0 0= `' �' C� C� C� 0 G7 O C7 m m fTl m C0 r Cn n p �� -Ti zz mmr _ 0� m D m� zz �n m 0 cm M -Ticoom - � z� ��� \ z czo z c c mo MM oN o�om Lan H 0-TioN 0-�1 (�� .Z7 G) fTl 0 pm 0 � m D po Z Om-O oho--F Cn zDN ��M 1��� D n n M D-< m D �7� K D CCU Z Cn �? �(�Z ^� w�NN 0r0 DDT /" M X C r 0 f�Tl C7 0 Z Z mZ C7 lb m0 CD o Zz c p rTl r cn Z 00 D=CD m ,z 0D�0 �0m m m 0 m Z m m Om C) Cn m C� m� m CD oD 0 C,a =0� mmW m M � _ � 0 co 0 D m K M0 OC U)0 v zmm mD1O� D v n 0 r zc° o = z =� 0 m mm cn N �mD m—iM n D 0 ^^Nn D r mC Can Z r0i� O I� �� ❑ z ZW Z �] V� 0 0 Z �1 00 D m� y mG) �] o O �C/ < � (� Z D O r rz0 m m r mm m m 0� � o n '=J 'mod C1 trJ CD m (n r i m Z m Z < m m D CD 0 Z 0 �/] C I < i- 4 t-' y O m c cn x m D m D D c M E-iNJ�� � �JDm�)0� � O �k � � _ (n � zm� mz z= � o Z m Om� m m z Cn Dz 0 m - O >D 0 Om C) m D Z m r bO�� �z22 WmDCCn m p Or c Z = pooOm 0� vD O ao Cl] =� M r z D D fTl C N 0 m (JO Z7 N g xJ 2id mcno D�z (� m m cn �o < 0 0, 0D �m mM C 2� j M mc)zmo � m ao m� a, o= �m zm CA M=C7 MKm m (n BCD 0 D m 9 J�� mood-<(�n O 0 o m cmnU m - CD -Ti c -i cn m N .0 cnm o�0 0 m p m oo mcn ,\ om w co`rG z�z C=z m 0 r � 0z Sri mo cNn �c w D z0 "a, �" RYOR r''�� o>= m m m Do N c< w �M v o D- m 0 D D r- m MC o zm D 0 nZ M-i� Z -< -i D 0 �< =D z cn mz cp- o°e Cm= (n 0 Ti mrm =m � � mC p � room ��� 0 O� p m = �� �En �m0 D � o� CDC cnm fT1Zo �_ r 0m .-Cm] r fT1 z Z m x D m m N o' 00 Z o � APPLICATION MATERIALS Pre-Application Conference Summary, Fee Agreement, Application, Title Opinion Letters, Authorization Letter from HOA PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 970.429.2765 DATE: January 20, 2020 PROJECT: Lacet Subdivision REPRESENTATIVE: Sarah Oates TYPE OF APPLICATION: Amendment to a Resolution DESCRIPTION: The Lacet Subdivision, previously known as East Cooper Affordable Housing Development, received subdivision and rezoning approval from Aspen City Council through Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993. As part of the subdivision, the free-market lots were subject to a building envelope that were notably defined by a 25-foot buffer on the rear and side lots that abutted neighboring lots in the Riverside Subdivision. This concession, not required by Aspen’s setback regulations at the time, seemed to be in direct response to neighbor concerns about the impacts of the new subdivision. Beyond the dimension of this buffer, there were no other requirements spelled out in the ordinance. The subdivision was further defined by a subdivision improvement agreement (Reception No. 359036). No detail on the buffer was provide in this document either. Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 was approved to given definition to the buffer on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7. Again – this was in response to the concerns of neighbors in the Riverside Subdivision. The following language was included in the resolution (Section 1) to provide definition: “No permanent improvements of any sort whatsoever, other than utility lines, may be built, constructed or placed in the 25-foot buffer spaces between the building envelopes on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and Riverside Subdivision, (all as shown on the Plat and Subdivision Agreement). The buffer spaces may not be paved or improved other than by landscaping. Nor shall any of the following types items be allowed in the buffer spaces: building eaves, architectural projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls.” Since 1994, improvements, including some of those specifically prohibited by Resolution No. 58, have been built within the buffer area. It is unknown to staff to what degree these improvements received building permits or not, but the reality on the ground is that things have been established in this area. Staff’s understanding however, is that most or all of the improvements that have been established are consistent with the Land Use Code’s limitations on improvements in the setback. In short, the improvements on the properties are generally consistent with the Land Use Code requirements, but not to the significantly more restrictive nature of the language cited above from the Resolution. The potential applicant proposes to amend Resolution No. 58, striking Section 1 (Included above), and replacing with language that would have the area within the buffer zone be consistent with setback requirements in the Land Use Code. Since Council approved the resolution, and due to the relationship of the issue to adjoining neighbors, this review will be considered by Council in a public hearing. Below is a link to the Land Use Application Form for your convenience: https://www.cityofaspen.com/191/Municipal-Code The City of Aspen Land Use Code can be accessed at: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1835/Land-Use-Application-Packet-2017 Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common development review procedures Review by: Staff for application completeness City Council for review of amendment Public Hearing: Yes, applicant will work with Planning Staff to meet notice requirements Planning Fees: $3,250 planning deposit for up to 10 billable hours. Additional/lesser hours billed/refunded at $325 per hour. Referral Fees: Parks ($975, flat fee) and Engineering (Deposit of $325. Additional hours are billed at $325) – these referrals are necessary to evaluate any possible concerns with existing trees, utilities, etc. that are present in the buffer area. Total Deposit: $ 4,550 To apply, submit one complete copy of the following information: Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcels on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. HOA Compliance form (attached to the Land Use Application). Letter from Lacet Subdivision showing support for the application. Staff highly recommends letters from the neighboring property owners in the Riverside Subdivision (and perhaps from the Riverside HOA) – providing support for the amendment Copies of Ordinance No. 18 (1993), Resolution No. 58 (1993), Lacet Subdivison Plat Summary of the public concerns/comments considered in the approval of Resolution No. 58 – this may include minutes from July 11, 1994 Brief Narrative of the amendment – including a description of the known improvements in the buffer zone and the purposes for the amendment Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: Total deposit for review of the application. A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $.___________flat fee for __________________. $.____________ flat fee for _____________________________ $.___________ flat fee for __________________. $._____________ flat fee for _____________________________ For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that addit ional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: ________________________________ Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director Signature: _________________________________________ PRINT Name: _______________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________City Use: Fees Due: $_______Received $_______ Case #___________________________ Please type or print in all caps Address of Property: ______________________________________________ Property Owner Name: __________________________ Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)_______________________ Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contact info for billing: e-mail: _______________________________________ Phone: __________________________ 1$325.00 Parks Dept.975 103250.00 tomandpolly@me.com 152 Haystack Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Sarah Oates & Lacet Homeowners Association Paulette Perkins, Thomas Hext 415 Lacet Lane & Lacet Subdivision DocuSign Envelope ID: B1937645-C95C-4FEA-9CF4-08BFA4AE75B6 Property Owner Paulette Perkins and Thomas Hext November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ___________________________ email: __________________________________ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________ Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______ Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________ CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project and Location ____________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ____________________________________________________________________________ Gross Lot Area: __________Zone Zone District: _______ Net Lot Area: __________ Please fill out all relevant dimensions Single Family and Duplex Residential Existing Allowed Proposed 1) Floor Area (square feet) 2) Maximum Height 3) Front Setback 4) Rear Setback 5) Side Setbacks 6) Combined Side Setbacks 7) % Site Coverage 8) Minimum distance between buildings Proposed % of demolition ______ Commercial Proposed Use(s)____________________ Existing Allowed Proposed 1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 2) Floor Area (square feet) 3) Maximum Height 4) Off-Street Parking Spaces 5) Second Tier (square feet) 6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet) Proposed % of demolition ______ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: **Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area Multi-family Residential Existing Allowed Proposed 1) Number of Units 2) Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10) 3) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 4) Floor Area (square feet) 4) Maximum Height 5) Front Setback 6) Rear Setback 7) Side Setbacks Proposed % of demolition ______ Lodge Additional Use(s)____________________ Existing Allowed Proposed 1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 2)Floor Area (square feet) 3)Maximum Height 4) Free Market Residential(square feet) 4) Front setback 5) Rear setback 6) Side setbacks 7) Off-Street Parking Spaces 8) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet) Proposed % of demolition ______ Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: Email: Phone No.: Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) □This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: _________________________ date:___________ Owner printed name: _________________________ or, Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________ Attorney printed name: _________________________ LAW OFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.OKGKLAW.COM LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121 TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853 DAVID B. KELLY MARIA MORROW OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com STEPHEN R. CONNOR ANNE MARIE MCPHEE SARAH M. OATES STEPHANIE M. HOLDER ATTORNEY’S TITLE CERTIFICATE By this letter, the undersigned, Sarah M. Oates, Atty No. 41647, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following: 1. The owner of the real property described as Lot 3, Lacet Subdivision, according to the Plat recorded July 15, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 10 (“Plat”), with a street address of 407 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO (“Property”) is Tarna Family Trust (“Owner”); 2. The ownership interest of the Owner is fee simple; 3. The Owner purchased the Property from Lacet No. 3 Inc., on March 23, 1998, as evidenced by a Special Warranty Deed recorded in the records of Pitkin County as Reception No. 414773; 4. Other than those items shown on the Plat, there are no mortgages, judgments, liens, easement, contracts or agreements affecting the Property; 5. Access to the Property is via Lacet Lane which abuts and is adjacent thereto; 6. Lacet Lane is maintained by the Lacet Subdivision Homeowners Association; 7. The Owner paid property taxes for the Property since 1998; 8. This Certificate is given solely for the purposes of the land use application for the Owner made with the City of Aspen Community Development Department to obtain development approvals for the Property; and, may not be relied on for any other purpose. OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. Attorney’s Title Certificate – 407 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO February 12, 2020 Page 2 Dated: February __, 2020. Very truly yours OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. /s/ Sarah M. Oates By:________________________________ Sarah M. Oates LAW OFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.OKGKLAW.COM LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121 TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853 DAVID B. KELLY MARIA MORROW OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com STEPHEN R. CONNOR ANNE MARIE MCPHEE SARAH M. OATES STEPHANIE M. HOLDER ATTORNEY’S TITLE CERTIFICATE By this letter, the undersigned, Sarah M. Oates, Atty No. 41647, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following: 1. The owner of the real property described as Lot 2, Lacet Subdivision, according to the Plat recorded July 15, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 10 (“Plat”), with a street address of 411 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO (“Property”) is the Harley K. Sefton Trust (“Owner”); 2. The ownership interest of the Owner is fee simple; 3. The Owner purchased the Property from Scott Samborski, on September 18, 1998, as evidenced by a Special Warranty Deed recorded in the records of Pitkin County as Reception No. 422169; 4. Other than those items shown on the Plat, there are no mortgages, judgments, liens, easement, contracts or agreements affecting the Property nor are there any outstanding mineral interests with respect to the Property; 5. Access to the Property is via Lacet Lane which abuts and is adjacent thereto; 6. Lacet Lane is maintained by the Lacet Subdivision Homeowners Association; 7. The Owner has paid property taxes for the Property since 1998; 8. This Certificate is given solely for the purposes of the land use application for the Owner made with the City of Aspen Community Development Department to obtain development approvals for the Property; and, may not be relied on for any other purpose. OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. Attorney’s Title Certificate – 411 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO February 12, 2020 Page 2 Dated: February __, 2020. Very truly yours OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. /s/ Sarah M. Oates By:________________________________ Sarah M. Oates LAW OFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.OKGKLAW.COM LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121 TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853 DAVID B. KELLY MARIA MORROW OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com STEPHEN R. CONNOR ANNE MARIE MCPHEE SARAH M. OATES STEPHANIE M. HOLDER ATTORNEY’S TITLE CERTIFICATE By this letter, the undersigned, Sarah M. Oates, Atty No. 41647, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following: 1. The owner of the real property described as Lot 7, Lacet Subdivision, according to the Plat recorded July 15, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 10, with a street address of 411 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO (“Property”) is the Sarten Investments LLC (“Owner”); 2. The ownership interest of the Owner is fee simple; 3. The Owner purchased the Property from Pole Position Limited, on June 5, 2014, as evidenced by a Special Warranty Deed recorded in the records of Pitkin County as Reception No. 611235; 4. There is a Deed of Trust on the Property benefitting JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. in the original amount of $3,390,000 recorded on August 29, 2014 as Reception No.612991. Other than those items shown on the Plat, there are no other mortgages, judgments, liens, easement, contracts or agreements affecting the Property nor are there any outstanding mineral interests with respect to the Property; 5. Access to the Property is via Lacet Lane which abuts and is adjacent thereto; 6. Lacet Lane is maintained by the Lacet Subdivision Homeowners Association; 7. The Owner has paid property taxes for the Property since 2014; 8. This Certificate is given solely for the purposes of the land use application for the Owner made with the City of Aspen Community Development Department to obtain development approvals for the Property; and, may not be relied on for any other purpose. OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. Attorney’s Title Certificate – 411 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO February 12, 2020 Page 2 Dated: February __, 2020. Very truly yours OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. /s/ Sarah M. Oates By:________________________________ Sarah M. Oates LAW OFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.OKGKLAW.COM LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121 TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853 DAVID B. KELLY MARIA MORROW OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com STEPHEN R. CONNOR ANNE MARIE MCPHEE SARAH M. OATES STEPHANIE M. HOLDER ATTORNEY’S TITLE CERTIFICATE By this letter, the undersigned, Sarah M. Oates, Atty No. 41647, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following: 1. The owner of the real property described as Lot 1, Lacet Subdivison, according to the Plat recorded July 15, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 10 (“Plat”), with a street address of 415 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO (“Property”) is Thomas R. Hext and Paulette D. Perkins (“Owners”); 2. The ownership interest of the Owners is fee simple; 3. The Owners purchased the Property from Charles F. Walker, on May 12, 2004, as evidenced by a Special Warranty Deed recorded in the records of Pitkin County as Reception No. 497652; 4. Other than those items shown on the Plat, there are no mortgages, judgments, liens, easement, contracts or agreements affecting the Property nor are there any outstanding mineral interests with respect to the Property; 5. Access to the Property is via Lacet Lane which abuts and is adjacent thereto; 6. Lacet Lane is maintained by the Lacet Subdivision Homeowners Association; 7. The Owners have paid property taxes for the Property since 2004; 8. This Certificate is given solely for the purposes of the land use application for the Owners made with the City of Aspen Community Development Department to obtain development approvals for the Property; and, may not be relied on for any other purpose. OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. Attorney’s Title Certificate – 415 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO February 12, 2020 Page 2 Dated: February __, 2020. Very truly yours OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. /s/ Sarah M. Oates By:________________________________ Sarah M. Oates January 29, 2020 Ben Anderson, Planner City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Land Use Application – Amendment to Resolution 58, Series of 1994 for Lacet Subdivision Dear Mr. Anderson: On behalf of the Lacet Homeowners’ Association (“Association”), I authorize homeowners Thomas Hext and Paulette Perkins, and their law firm, Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, P.C., to submit a land use application to the City of Aspen on behalf of the Association, requesting that Resolution 58, Series of 1994, be amended to eliminate the restriction that essentially no development can occur in a twenty-five (25) foot buffer zone on Lacet Subdivision lots that border Riverside Subdivision. I have discussed this request with the affected homeowners, who are all in support of the amendment to Resolution 58, Series of 1994. Sincerely, Maryanne C. Sefton, President of Lacet Homeowners’ Association DocuSign Envelope ID: F8E4A9EB-FEB4-47B4-A966-1D4DCB61E264