The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.Ranger Station Sub.0018.2015.ASLUTHE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0018. 2015.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2735124 28 004 PROJECT ADDRESS LOTS 4 & 5 RANGER STATION PLANNER JEN PHELAN CASED ESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION GMQS REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HOFFMAN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 05 /7/2015 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 12/12/2015 oolg •2o(S.R.SLU File Edit Record Navigate Farm Reports Format Tab Help 00 ,) kX R V %I -A I 6J��' II I , d]�plumpl C��j91© MainlCustotnFlelds IRoudng5bbirs'iFeeSummary IAchopm IRouUngHL4ory I Peamtttype Aspen Land Use Pemdi00182016 ASLU Address 10 LOTS 4 AND 5 RApIGER STATION SU wSudeI M ASPEN State CO ➢p B1611 - PermdNformation Masterpermil Roull queue aslal5 Appled 03106!2015 Project Status pending Approval Desorption APPLICATION FOR RANGER STATION GMOS Issued Closed/Final 0 Suhmttted h11KE HOFFMAN 5413442 Clock Running pays Expires 0229!2016 Submitted Aa DO (timer Last name UsGONFLY PARTNERS 3R0 First name GO h11KE HOFRMN 601 EHYMAN AVE SPEN C081612 Inane 19701544-�42 Address Applicant Q Owner is applicant? O Contractor is appiimnt? Lasiname ASPEN dAAGONFLY PARTf— First name CiO MIKE HOFFMANI 601 EHYMANAVE ASPEN C081612 Phone(770) 5443442 Custc 30016 Address Email Lender � �225,oa AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: �Of Lit alld Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ss. County of Pitkin 1, ' xclob (time, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado. hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice reqUil-Cal(fluS of Section 26.304,060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ,K Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice. By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. 1,g Ifte foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acl�uowleclged before me this +ay of L) 1 20111.�. by --I< L �k i aL WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBLIC NOTICE My commission expires: DCeCLOPMENTAPPINIVAL 11, nd�..,q.eg.,nenfed �fdl;l, VD IV ph�ndl ...... - ag�,�Vpa� no then—Ce Of , 111tal open, lan nn—sal te the �ad, Led, A Notary Public a. he Ct, of Aspen and Ted . Ared. 0 r a.. - of 1. Lea pnAx=VP. Ile j1ZtLt'od`Ld!1% Hanr, Slope, SudonvAd, On ana1 rents 'e"N" KA N R ED PATTERSON d;1!.t,2Zd as.%ld Ld.j�.-oqdp�,-t , ned a NOTARY PUBLIC .1 .. leaf Ided.11. all lo, Len I In on saledoped AIM a ang, nlnal�, leadence Fan 1.1ifflandandf.d. ATTACHMENTS, STATE OF COLORADO loaps lend. a, Phalan en Be, NOTARY 10 #19964002767 Cany M Aspen Community Bevelonnent Cann T30 � C.lan. it, Anne, ClAnd. 'El, .� r,,P My ConEENE&I Expe" Fetsuary 15,2016 Mlaospea. COPY OF7 HE PUBLICA TION , U , Ted Aspen Tdoes on May 14 2015 I , 11honad DEVELOPMENT ORDER City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter `Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site -specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. I he vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit application submittal is accepted and deemed complete by the Chief Building Official, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26,308.010, After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site -specific development plan as described below. Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number: Aspen Dragonfly III LLC and Aspen Dragonfly III LLC, c/o Michael Hoffman Garfield and Hecht, 601 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property: Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station Subdivision Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan: The approval grants a development allotment to each lot allowing for Lot 4 to be developed with a single family residence, duplex or two detached residences and for Lot 5 to be developed with a single family residence. City Council Ordinance No. 16, Series 2015. Effective Date of Development Order: May 14, 2015, (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) Expiration Date of Development Order: May 15, 2018 (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 14°i day of May 2015 by the City of Aspen Community Development Director sk�jr Phel u, eputy Planning Director for Community Development Director City of Aspen ORDINANCE NO. 16 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR LOTS 4 AND 5, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 273512428005 AND 273512428004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Dragonfly 111, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly IV, LLC represented by E. Michael Hoffman of Garfield and Hecht, requesting approval of growth management reviews for two residential development allotments, a Planned Development Amendment for the calculation of Floor Area and a five year vested property right; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned Medium Density Residential, R-6 with a Planned Development Overlay; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department did not support the requests as proposed and recommended in favor of the proposal with alternative conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090(3), City Council may accept a cash -payment -in -lieu for required affordable housing, may allow for variations within a Planned Development through Section 26.445.050 and may, at their sole discretion, allow a longer vested property right. during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public, and a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 4, 2015, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2015, by a four to zero (4 — 0) vote, approving the land use requests; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: RECEPTIONM 620207, 05/27/2015 at 12:19:34 PM, 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE Ordinance No 16, Series 2015 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Page I of 3 %W *10' Section l: Approvals Pursuant to the, procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code"), City Council hereby grants approval of two residential development allotments, one each for Lot 4 and Lot 5, of the Ranger Station Subdivision Such approval is conditioned on the following: A. A cash -in -lieu payment or a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit ("Certificate"), based upon the maximum allowable Floor Area permitted for a single family home on each lot, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for each lot. In the event a building permit for a duplex or two detached dwellings is ever sought for Lot 4, an additional cash -in -lieu payment or an additional Certificate will be due for the maximum additional allowable Floor Area permitted for those uses. The amount of mitigation currently required for each lot is calculated as follows, based upon subsection 26.470.070(b), Residential Development — sixty percent (60%) affordable, of the land use code: Max. Allowable Floor Area x .3 = AH Floor Area Required . All Floor Area Required / 400 = Full Time Equivalent Employees ("FTEs") FTEs' Category 4 Cash -in -Lieu Rate = Total Amount Due The amount of mitigation required, via a Certificate or cash -in -lieu, for each lot shall be determined at the time a building permit is requested. Any changes to the methodology provided in the land use code, as referenced above, and the cash -in -lieu rates of the APCHA Guidelines shall be applicable to the lots at the time of building permit application. D. The areas of steep slopes within Lots 4 and 5 are determined to be and deemed to be manmade and shall not be deducted from the lot size when calculating the net lot area of each lot. Other than the areas of steep slopes, the calculation of net lot area of each lot shall be calculated pursuant to the Code as it exists as if the date an application is made for a building permit for the particular lot. C. Lot 4 and Lot 5 may be developed separately. The requirements set forth above must be satisfied at the time a building permit is sought for each lot. Section 2: Vested Rights - The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a vested property right attaching to and running with each of the individual lots for a period of three (3) years. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted, by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval Ordinance No 16, Series 2015 Page 2 of 3 .. `w as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 3: Severability 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 4: Existing Litigation This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: Approvals All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 an authorized entity. Section 6: Public Hearing A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 4' day of May, 2015, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 27' day of April, 2015. ri Atte t --" '� Linda Manning, City C cek Steven Skadron, _ ayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 4'" day Of y 2015. Art t: z r ,1 1 inda Manning, Ci Clerk S[evkav5kadrd'n, ayor Approved as to for James R. True, City Attorney Ordinance No 16, Series 2015 Page 3 of 3 .,. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015 Councilman Romero moved to continue Ordinance 913, Series of2015 to June 22, 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2015— Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 4&5, Growth Management Allotments Jennifer Phelan, community development, said the application is for lots 4 and 5 of the Ranger Station Subdivision. It was submitted by Aspen Dragonfly Partners 3 & 4 LLC and is represented by Mike Hoffman. The request is to receive development allotments, one for each lot so each can be developed residentially. The property is zoned R6 with a PD overlay. The applicant is requesting to pay cash in lieu for affordable housing mitigation for receiving the allotments. They are also asking to memorialize to calculate floor area for each lot and five years vested rights. the history of the property starts with the forest service property and takes up most of blocks 9 and 10 excluding poppies. It includes a couple alleys that have been vacated and a portion of W Francis Street that was also vacated. The property as a whole was platted as the original town site lot. In 1940 the forest service gained ownership. The property is bounded by Smuggler, Hallam, Seventh and Eighth Street. It has operated as the forest service headquarters with housing on site. In 2011 the forest service began work on the redevelopment plan including new office facilities and salable lots to fund the project. Asa federal agency they represented to the City they would not participate with a city review. In May 2013 a plat was recorded to create five lots. The City did not consent or sign the plat. The City began receiving inquires on the lots after the plat was recorded and created a written summary in July 2013. The key issues recognize in the summary included the City would recognize the lots but they must meet city regulations. They have to take into consideration how to calculate and measure floor area. There might be issues with the SI Johnson ditch and none of the lots have development allotments. The properties went to auction in 2013 and all sold. With the five lots there are three owners. The applicant is requesting a development allotment for each lot. Lot 4 is a larger lot of 11,614 sq ft containing a former alley. There is also a utility easement The property is large enough for a duplex. Lot 5 is smaller at 7,490 sq ft. It includes part of the vacated W Francis Street and the SI Johnson ditch. It is large enough to accommodate a single family home. The requests being asked for include floor area. The request is to include the portions of lot 4 and 5 that were formerly the alley on lot 4 and formerly Francis Street on lot 5 to count towards the floor area. Under today's code there is a section called calculation and measurements and it requires deductions for steep slopes and water and site constraints. In regards to vacated right of ways it is a measure to reflect that there may be a portion of the right of way but there were never development rights associated with it. If you happen to gain additional square footage you can use it but you don't get additional development rights from something that was vacated by the City. On lot 4 the alley isjust over 1,600 sq ft and what that means in a deduction is it is 96 sq ft in floor area. For lot 5, a larger portion of Francis St., 2,500 sq ft represents 489 sq ft of floor area that would not be able to be developed. The applicant is requesting both the alley and Francis Street be counted towards floor area. There are yearly maximums for development allotments whether it is residential, lodging or commercial. There is cap per calendar year. Staffs position is the newly created lots do not have any development rights as they did not go through a City review process. The growth management for a project like this is 60 percent of the units should be affordable housing and 30 percent of the floor area at a category four income level. To meet the requirement when it can't be met on site include cash in lieu, affordable housing credit, physical units or combination. %W *400 Regular Meeting Aspen CitV Council Mav 4, 2015 For vesting the minimum requirement is three years and the applicant is asking for a five year vesting period. Mike Hoffman told the Council he is representing the applicant, Aspen Dragonfly Partners 3 LI.0 and Aspen Dragonfly Partners 4 LLC. The lots were owned by the US government and certain aspects did not apply and continue to do not apply. It is their believe these lots are entitled to development rights and should only have to go through an administrative review for growth management. I he maximum affordable housing mitigation cost is $573,283. He showed lots 4 and 5 with the town site overlay of lots K, L, M, N, and 0. He showed variances that were granted for non-comforming town site lots. He requested an immediate decision that this is handled administratively and not through City Council. Mr. True stated staff does not agree with Mr. Hofimannfs assessment that these lots do not have any development rights. When these two lots were sold to these two I,LC's it has been our position they had no development rights. There can be no question that the meets and bounds description of the parcels that they own was simply a creation of the forest service at the time. We agreed with the forest service we would not challenge this as an illegal subdivision. Ms. Phelan said if we are taking the position that the lots were never merged you have 34 lots. What the forest service conveyed was a meets and bounds description creating 5 lots that do not follow the individual town site lots. Councilman Frisch said there were the historical 34 lots and the forest service carved out 5 lots. Mr. True said we were careful with providing the forest service with information to pass onto buyers. There would be rules the buyers would have to go through to get development rights. Councilman Frisch said regardless of any map. the forest service started from scratch in 2013. Mr. True replied that has been our position. The property was sold with the description of lots 4 and 5 and the meets and bounds description. We were not asked to approve the survey and the sale was done. Councilman Romero asked if the attorney's office meet with Dragonfly prior to the purchase. Mr. True replied not prior to the auction, Representatives came to the City and asked for information. Councilman Romero asked if there is any case Is" to provide additional guidance. Mr. True said he is not familiar with my specific cases that would align with these circumstances. Mr. Hoffman said they are asking to complete all land use reviews and achieve a compromise on the cost of the affordable housing mitigation and to establish a binding consensus on the new lot area of each of the lots and to receive five year vesting. The maximum house size is dependent on the floor area ratio and the net lot area which equals the gross lot area less certain deductions required by code. There are two types of deductions; steep slopes and vacated streets and alleys. They believe there we steep slopes on the site that are man-made as a function of the St Johnson ditch. They went to the historical society for photos and showed photos of 8u, Smuggler and Francis indicating the flatness of the site prior to the ditch. They acknowledge there was a newly created access easement on the north side of lot four and there should be a deduction. Mayor Skadron stated he can agree to cash in lieu but he can't agree to memorializing what the number should be. It could be completely different in five years. Mr. Hoffman said he is willing to remove that. Mr. Hoffman said this is a unique situation and urged Council to accept the inclusion of vacated Francis Street into the area that can be used to create floor area. Ile asked them to approve the development Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015 allotments and the affordable housing mitigation using the cash in lieu at the regulations current at the time of application. Mayor Skadron said he can agree with some of it but not all. The allowable FAR is based on the lot as platted. Councilman Frisch said it is important to not treat these lots any different than if a private seller did the transaction. He said he is having a hard time supporting this because it seems like the government pulled out an eraser and redrew and lots. Councilwoman Mullins said maybe the road was there first. It is in the code currently and we should not go against it. Ms. Phelan said the right of way was never intended to have development rights associated with it. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. I. Peter Fennell said the applicant is not asking to pay money but to mitigate for a quantity of employees. If he buys certificates from me, he satisfy that, if he builds on site he satisfy it, if he builds off site he satisfy it, if he purchases a buy down he satisfy it, if he pays cash in lieu he will not satisfy that concern. 2. Marcia Goshorn said she is glad they did not suggest an ADO. She is not a big fan of cash in lieu she would rather see a unit built. One issue is treating projects fairly. Sky was given credit for a vacated right of way. 3. Tracey said she has been working closely with the lots since they were purchased. This is the west end. Every lot around it is being treated as a west end lot except these. Every part of the code refers to the 1800's map and shows these lots as originally there. She does not understand why we are here. It is a frustrating process. It should go back to the original town site. 4. Curt Sanders said he represents the other two lot owners. On behalf of the other owners it would go a long way if Council accepted the cash in lieu. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Romero said he is ok with the cash in lieu. Mr. Hoffman said they are proposing the cash in lieu to be determined at the rate described in the code at the time they submit a building permit application. Ms. Phelan reviewed the ordinance changes to include the slopes are man-made at the site and not to be deducted, the alley and West Francis Sheet shall be deducted from lot 4 and 5, the vesting period is three years, credits or cash in lieu at time of building permit issuance. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #16. Series of 2015 with amendments; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 417, SERIES OF 2015— 119 Neale Avenue Subdivision Amendment and Transferable Development Rights Amy Simon, community development, stated this is a proposed subdivision amendment and creation of TDRs. Around three years ago, Council approved the subdivision on Neale Avenue which took a I6,000 sq ft lot and landmarked it and allowed for a historic lot split. There is an 1800s log cabin on the fathering parcel that was moved here from outside of town that was rescued and restored. That was the reason for placing the landmark designation on the property. It allows the separation of property rights. It created a 3,000 sq If lot with the cabin and a 12,000 sq ft lot with an existing home. The lot with the existing home was allowed 4,200 sq ft of floor area. When Council approved the subdivision the larger house could have had a duplex but Council elected to restrict it to a single family home. The applicant, Floor Area and Cash -in -Lieu Calculations Reduction for Total Permitted Gross Lot Area Access Easement Net Lot Area Floor Area Lot 4 11,615 1,613 10,002 3,720 Lot 5 7.490 7.490 3.449 Maximum Affordable Housing Required Maximum Floor )30%of Total Area Permitted Floor Area} FTE Equir Lot 3,720 1,116 2.79 Lot 5 3,449 1,035 2.59 TOTALS 7,169 2,151 539 Maximum Cash- If a Development in -Lieu Allotment existed, the Requirement Maximum Employee {5144,393 per Housing Mitigation Fee FTE) Would Be: $402,869 5297,498 $373,465 $275,785 $776,335 $573,283 �S '✓ P 123 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Lots 4 & 5, Ranger Station Subdivision — Growth Management Allotments & Planned Development Amendment, 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 16 (Series of 2015). Public Hearing MEETING DATE: Mav 4, 2015 Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Hoffman, Garfield and Hecht PC LOCATION: Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station Subdivision CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Planned Development (PD) overlay PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting two development allotments for Lots 4 and 5, the ability to provide affordable housing mitigation via a cash payment -in -lieu, the ability to memorialize how to calculate Floor Area and a five year vested right period. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the development allotments request conditioned on I) the use of Affordable Housing Credits or providing off -site affordable housing units as mitigation for the allotments, 2) the lots being subject to all provisions of the land use code, and 3) granting a three year vested right period. f % R-6 PD r / t� i-- Mu C` t R/10F -.. D ` P/ IX.0 P124 `r/ 1X.0 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant has requested a combined review, in which all reviews and decisions are granted by City Council. The following land use approvals from the City Council are being requested: • Growth Management Quota System (GMOS) Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for free-market residential development and allotments. (As a combined review, the City Council is the final review authority.) • Planned Unit Development — Minor Amendment for the amendment of a site specific development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final review authority). • Vested Property Rights for the development proposal, which allows the development to be built after approval without meeting any zoning or land use changes during a prescribed time period, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308 (City Council is the final review authority). The Applicant is requesting a vesting period of five years rather than the standard three year period. The United States Forest Service (USFS) property is located in the West End of Aspen and the property is comprised of multiple lots and blocks as well as portions of alleys and W. Francis Street that were never improved (Figure 1). The property was originally platted as part of the Aspen Townsite Map of 1880 and the USFS came into ownership of the subject property in 1940. In 2012 USFS officials met with city officials in a series of meetings and discussed their intent to redevelop the administrative campus as well as sell off a portion of the property. As a federal agency, the officials represented that they were not subject to the city's jurisdiction. On May 22, 2013, the United States Forest Service (USFS) recorded a survey with the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Entitled `Ranger Station Subdivision', the survey (which was not approved and signed by the city) created five separate lots from the federal agency's property that is bounded by N. Eight Street, W. Smuggler Street and N. Seventh Street (Figure 2). x As a result of the filing of the survey, the community development department began to field inquiries on the lots. Staff provided a summary on the development issues associated with the lots prior to their sale, most notably the fact that the lots had not been approved through a city process and that the lots had not received growth management development allotments (Exhibit Q. During these discussions, it was made clear to the USFS and to potential buyers of the property that the city would not object to the subdivision of the property, although the USFS did not go through with a subdivision process. However, as noted above, the summary emphasized that each lot would require a GMQS allotment. Figure 1: A portion of the Aspen Townsite Plat, 1880 Page 2 of 7 v P125 IX.0 All of the lots have been purchased and a land use application has been submitted for two of the lots with the intent of receiving a development allotment for each. Figure 2: Ranger Station Subdivision, 2013 r'=atr hxJy Wpy WW � e,619Yfl � ws`_ xs Block 9 PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC (hereinafter Aspen Dragonfly) requests a total of two development allotments, one each for Lot 4 and 5 of the Ranger Station subdivision so that each lot can be developed residentially. Figure 3: Lot 4 and 5 4 Page 3 of 7 %W P126 1X.0 Both lots me located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Planned Development (PD) overlay and exceed the minimum lot size required for the zone district. The Applicant is asking 1) to pay a cash payment in lieu of any affordable housing mitigation associated with the two development a] lotments being requested, 2) that the land areas associated with W. Francis Street and the alley contained within each lot be included as part of the lot area when calculating maximum allowable Floor Area. and 3) that the vested rights period be five years. Land Use Reviews: Planned Development: The entire USFS property is designated with a PD overlay, inclusive of the newly created lots. A single family or duplex residence is permitted to be developed on a property, without a PD review, if the development is compliant with the underlying zone district requirements. Lot 4 can accommodate a single-family residence or duplex while Lot 5 can accommodate a single family residence. The Applicant is agreeing to conform to underlying zone district requirements but is requesting that both lots be exempt from a lot area deduction, Specifically, the land use code calculates the allowable Floor Area of a lot not by gross lot size but by net lot size. Net lot size is established by deducting certain areas of a lot such as steep slopes, vacated rights of way or vehicular easements. Lot 4 contains a portion of an access easement (formerly part of the alley of Block 9) while Lot 5 includes part of the W. Francis Street right-of-way. As outlined below in Table 1, the lot area deducted for the access easement and W. Francis is equivalent to 96 sq. ft. of Floor Area for Lot 4 and 489 sq. ft. for Floor Area for Lot 5. Tab!e !: A llkl� Pl— A,,� (musirr,wo rod with r-n-w deductions) . _ 1. _ 6ross Lot .--- - ____ I Max Allowable --- Net Lot Max Allowable Floor Area Size Floor Arm size Floor Area Difference (based on Gross lot (based on Net' lot si ) size SFR 7 Duplex SFR I Duplex Lot 11,615 sq. 3,816 sq. 4,236 sq. 10,002 sq. 3,720 sq. 4,140 96 sq. ft. 4 ft. ft. I ft. ft. 2 ft. sq. ft. Lot �_49_0 sq—ft SFR 4,9 sq. 19 SFR 489 sq. ft. 5 3 448 sq ft ft� gs ft �2,95 Staff Comment: All city lots are subject to potential deductions in lot size when calculating Net Lot Area if they contain steep slopes, easements, previously vacated rights of way, bodies qf water and similarfeatures. Staff does not support treating these lots differently when calculating deductionsfrom gross lot area when lots in the surrounding area are subject to the deductions. ' Steep slopes have been identified on the properties but may be marmade and were not included as a deduction. If shown and accepted as manmade slopes by the city, no deduction is required. The access easement (former alley) equals 1,613 sq. ft. in area. Former W. Francis Steel r-o-w equals 2,491 sq. ft. in area, Page 4 of 7 v 1.i P127 IX.0 Growth Manaeement Review for Affordable Housing: In most instances a multi -lot subdivision requires the development of affordable housing mitigation in the form of physical units. Examples of subdivisions that include a certain ratio of free-market to affordable housing development include Trainers Landing (Barbee PUD) near Koch Park and Alpine Cottages off of E. Cooper and Alpine Court. In this case, if the USES had gone through a city review a minimum of 60% of the units and 30% of the project's Floor Area would have been required to be developed as at%rdable housing. In cases where a "project consists of only one (1) free market residence, then a minimum of one (1) affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent of the project's total Floor area and deed -restricted as a Category 4 "for sale" unit' shall qualify to receive a development allotment. Based upon the previously quoted code language, the required affordable housing mitigation for each lot to receive a development allotment is 30% of the lot's maximum allowable Floor Area. Generally speaking, affordable housing is permitted to be developed on site, off -site, via the extinguishment of Affordable Housing Credits (AHCs), a cash payment in lieu, or through a combination of these methods. The intent of the mitigation requirement applicable to these lots is for a physical unit; however, four out of the five lots recorded by the USES do not permit more than one dwelling unit on the property. The Applicant is requesting to provide the required mitigation for each lot through payment -in - lieu. When calculating the payment, the Applicant is requesting to memorialize the payment -in - lieu fee at the 2015 Category 4 income level ($144,393.00 per employee) for a five year vesting period. Table 2 Payment -in -Lieu for a Single -Family Residence (AHU vs. ADU dollar difference) Mitigation required for a lot without a Mitigation Development Allotment for a lot with a Development Allotment Maximum AIR FTE Payment- Payment -in- Difference Floor Area Mitigation Conversion in -lieu for lieu (based on (30% of (AH FTEs (Maximum Gross — Maximum Mitigation / (FTEs x Floor Area x Table 1) Floor Area) 400) Category 4 $79.97) Cash -in - lieu, $144,393 Lot 3,816 s . ft. 1,144 s . ft. 2.86 FTEs $41%2 63.98 $305,165.52 $107,798.46 Lot 5 3,448 s . ft. 11034 s . ft. 1 2.59 FTEs $373,977.87 $275,736.56 $99,241.31 In looking at the cash -in -lieu payment it is important to consider that the amount represents a development allotment for each lot and the total mitigation required for the lot. A typical vacant lot in the West End with an allotment associated with the property is required to provide affordable housing through a number of options but is typically provided in the form of a physical accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or via a cash payment -in -lieu. The 2015 fee is $79.97 Page 5 of 7 III P128 IX.c per square Floor of Floor Area developed. As a comparison, the cash payment -in -lieu for Lot 5 to receive a development allotment is $373,977.87 based on gross lot area. If the property had a development allotment, built out the property, and paid a cash payment -in -lieu rather than developing an accessory dwelling unit the amount would be $275,736.56 (a difference of just over $98,000.00). Staff Comment: The intent of the mitigation requirement is a physical 'for sale" affordable housing unit. Although the majority of the lots cannot accommodate an additional dwelling based upon the lot size, other mitigation options include providing an off -site unit or extinguishing AHCs. Staffs preference is the latter. Vested Rights The Applicant is requesting a vested property right for a period of five (5) years rather than the standard three (3) year period. Vesting provides an applicant a timeframe in which the applicant can rely on the approvals granted in a site specific development plan. It allows the applicant to undertake and complete the development and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan. Once vested, a development plan shall not be required to be amended as a result of `any zoning or land use action by the city or by an initiated measure" during the vesting period. If the vested rights expire, the project will be subject to any new regulations that may impact the approval granted. Additionally, if the vesting expires the development allotments also expire, requiring an applicant to reapply for growth management approval. The Land Use Code typically provides for a three year vesting period and a variation from that period is at the sole discretion of the City Council. The City does have a process for extending or reinstating vested rights (Section 26.308. 101 C., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights). An extension, if granted would be approved by the City Council. Staff recommends that the longer vesting period not be granted, as it does not provide a community wide benefit. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The housing authority has been referred on this application, and the formal referral is attached as Exhibit E. The APCHA board recommends the use of Affardable Housing Credits (AHCs) as the preferred form of mitigation. RECOMMENDATION: The USFS represented that, as a federal agency, they were not subject to the city's jurisdiction and recorded a plat creating five lots without going through a city approval process. Prior to sale of the lots, the city provided an administrative summary clearly outlining that each lot would require a growth management development allotment. A growth management development allotment is being requested for both Lots 4 and 5. Typically, on -site affordable housing mitigation is associated with a multi -lot subdivision; however, in this case on -site affordable housing is not a practical solution given the density allowances associated with the lots (as four out of the five lots only permit a single-family residence). Other affordable housing mitigation options include: providing a cash -in -lieu payment, providing AHCs as mitigation or providing off -site physical units via a buy down or constructing new units. The intent of the required growth management review is to provide physical units, therefore staff recommends that the Applicant be permitted to provide mitigation Page 6 of 7 v P129 IX.c only in the form of AHCs or off -site units rather than a cash -in -lieu payment. Both of these options meet the intent of the requirement for physical units and recognizes the physical constraints on the lots by allowing off -site mitigation. Staff does not support the request to be exempt from standards associated with calculations of net lot area. Properties throughout the city are subject to deductions in lot area that affect the calculation of Floor Area. These include deductions for former rights -of -way, which were not originally intended to provide development rights, as well as deductions for site constraints, such as land under bodies of water and steep slopes. Staff does not support and exemption and recommends that these properties be subject to the same standards applicable to all properties within the city limits. With regard to the vested rights period, Staff recommends that the longer vesting period not be granted, as it does not provide a community wide benefit. The Applicant always has the option to request an extension of vested rights prior to their expiration. Vested Rights extensions are reviewed by City Council. PROPOSED MOTION: `9 move to approve Ordinance No 16 (Series of 2015) with the following conditions: 1) the use of Affordable Housing Credits or providing off -site affordable housing units as mitigation for the allotments, 2) the lots being subject to all provisions of the land use code, and 3) granting a three year vested right period. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A — Growth Management Review Criteria EXHIBIT B — Planned Development Review Criteria EXHIBIT C— Staff Development Summary EXHIBiTD— Application EXHIBIT E— APCHA Referral EXHIBIT F— Alternative, Staff Conditioned Ordinance Page 7 of 7 VA0 *AW P130 IX.c ORDINANCE NO. 16 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR LOTS 4 AND 5, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 273512428005 AND 273512428004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Dragonfly 111, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly IV, LLC represented by E. Michael Hoffman of Garfield and Hecht, requesting approval of growth management reviews for two residential development allotments, a Planned Development Amendment for the calculation of Floor Area and a five year vested property right; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned Medium Density Residential, R-6 with a Planned Development Overlay; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department did not support the requests as proposed and recommended in favor of the proposal with alternative conditions; and, WHEPEAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090(3), City Council may accept a cash-payment-m-lieu for required affordable housing, may allow for variations within a Planned Development through Section 26.445.050 and may, at their sole discretion, allow a longer vested property right during a duty noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public, and a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 4, 2015, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2015, by a _ to vote, approving the land use requests; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Ordinance No 16, Series 2015 Page I of 3 .We P131 IX.c Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the granting of two residential development allotments, one each for Lot 4 and Lot 5, via a cash -payment -in -lieu, exempting the two lots from a lot area deduction when calculating net lot area and permitting a vested property right of five years for each lot conditioned on the following: A. A cash -in -lieu payment based upon the maximum allowable Floor Area and maximum density permitted on each lot shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for each lot. To determine the amount of mitigation required for each lot the following calculation shall be used: Max. Allowable Floor Area x .3 = Floor Area required for mitigation Floor Area required mitigation / 400 = Number of employees required for mitigation A. The cash -in -lieu rate shall be at a Category 4 income level and locked in at the 2015 rate of $144,393 per FTE for the vesting period unless a lesser rate is adopted by the City Council in the future. B. The area of former S. Francis Street within Lot 5 and the former alley within Lot 4 shall not be deducted from the lot size when calculating the net lot area of each lot. Section 2: Severability If my section, subsection, sentence, clause. phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competernjurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof Section 3: Existine Liti2ation This ordinance shall not affect my existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Approvals All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuard to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 an authorized entity. Section 5: Public Hearing A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 4ffi day of May, 2015, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen 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. Ordinance No 16, Series 2015 Page 2 of 3 W V P132 IX.c INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 270 day of April, 2015. Attest: Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2015. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor Ordinance No 16, Series 2015 Page 3 of 3 `*.W 1.0 P 133 Exhibit A �X.0 Growth Management Review Criteria Sub Section 26.470.070(91 9. Residential development — sixty percent (60%) affordable. The development of a residential project or an addition of units to an existing residential project, in which a minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the additional floor area is affordable housing deed -restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the total additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the project's additional floor area shall be affordable housing. Multi -site projects are permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and shall average Category 4 rates as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. b. If the project consists of only one (1) free-market residence, then a minimum of one (1) affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the project's total floor area and deed -restricted as a Category 4 "for sale" unit, according to the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, shall qualify. Staff Findings: The projectfor each lot is the permitted use for each lot Of the two lots, Lot 4 may be developed with a single-family residence or duplex and Lot 5 may be developed with a single-family residence. The following table provides the floor area mitigation required based on a single family residence with a conversation to Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) and a corresponding cash -in -lieu payment. Applicant is requesting a cash payment - in -lieu. Gross Lot Employee Payment -in- Net Lot Size Employee Payment -in - Size Conversion lieu Mitigation Conversion lieu Mitigation (Category 4) (30% of (Category 4) (30% of Floor Area) Floor Area) Lot 4 1,144 s . ft. 2.86 FTEs $412,963.98 1,116 s . ft. 2.79 FTEs $402,856.47 Lot 5 1,034 s . ft. 2.59 FTEs $373,977.87 887 s . ft. 2.22 FTEs $320,552.46 The intent of the mitigation requirement is a physical 'for sale" affordable housing unit. Although the majority of the lots cannot accommodate an additional dwelling based upon the lot size, other mitigation options include providing an off -site unit or extinguishing AHCs. Staff does not find this criterion met. Sub Section 26.470.070(4) 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed -restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: ,%W P134 Exhibit A IX.O Growth Management Review Criteria a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Findings: The housing authority has been referred on this application, and the formal referral will be provided with the second reading memo. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off -site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-imlieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Findings: The Applicant is requesting that a cash payment -in -lieu be accepted for both lots by city council. Stafffinds this criterion mel. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Staff Findings: The Applicant is requesting that a cash payment -in -lieu be accepted for both lots by city council. As such, stafffinds this criterion is not applicable. d. The proposed units shall be deed -restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi -municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. *Ae 14.1 P135 Exhibit A Growth Management Review Criteria X Staff Findings. The Applicant is requesting that a cash payment -in -lieu be acceptedfor both lots by city council. As such, stafiffinds this criterion is not applicable, e. Non -Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non -mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Staff Findings: Applicant is not proposing affordable housing units that are not requiredfor mitigation. Stafffinds this criterion not applicable. Sub Section 26.470.090(3) 3. Provision of required affordable housing via a cash-m-lieu payment. The provision of affordable housing equal to or in excess of one (1) residential unit, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, via a cash -in -lieu payment shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or of the site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. Staff Findings: With the configuration of the lots, Lot 4 is large enough to be developed with a duplex, m hile Lot 5 can be developed with a single-family residence. In general almost of the lots only permit one primary residence, making physical on -site affordable housing units impractical. Suifffinds this criterion mer b. The applicant has made a reasonable good -faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units or the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status. Staff Findings: As noted in the application, the applicant has investigated the potentialfor a buy down and is concerned over the increased cost compared to a cash -in -lieu payment. c . The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the cash -in -lieu payment will result in the near -term production of affordable housing units. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a cash -in -lieu payment, including all or none, Unless otherwise required by this Title, the provision of affordable housing via a cash -in -lieu payment for a fraction of a dwelling unit shall not require City Council approval. Staff Findings: Accepting a cash payment -in -lieu will not.larther the production of housing compared to the buying down of a physical unit or purchasing Affordable Housing Credits. Staff does notfind this criterion met. V4W *A*# P136 Exhibit B 1X.0 Planned Development Standards 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The property is not subject to any regulatory plans. Stafffinds this criterion is not applicable. R. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, matchless, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The lots do not appear to include lands unsuitablefor development. Some steep slopes are present but may be a man-made condition affecting a portion of the lots that will not harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Overall, both of the lots can be developed Stafffinds this criterion is met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: I . The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual. or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways we arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. If P137 Exhibit B �X.0 Planned Development Standards Staff Findings(], 2 & 3): The lots are configured so that minimum lot sizes are met and that the lots are oriented towards public streets. Future development of the lots with residences will reflect the neighborhood context. Stafffinds this criterion met. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: I. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Findings: Applicant is requesting that certain areas of land that are typically deducted when calculating allowable Floor Area of a lot not be deducted. This variation will treat the two lots differently from other lots within the city. Staff does not believe allowing for additional Floor Area supports any significant community goal. Staff does not find this criterion met. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Findings: The permitted use is either a single-family residence or duplex depending on lot size for each lot. Not deducting the rights -of -way will result in a potentially larger residence. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Staff Findings: The permitted use is either a single-family residence or duplex depending on lot size for each lot. Not deducting the rights -of -way will result in a potentially larger residence. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Staff Findings: Parking is not part of this discussion and the parking requirement will be met when the lot is proposed for development. Stafffinds this criterion not applicable. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 — Amendments. Staff Findings: The applicant is not asking for design flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Stafffinds this criterion not applicable. V W P138 Exhibit B IX.0 Planned Development Standards E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: I. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Findings (I & 2). The development of each lot will be subject to the city's residential design standards. As a vacant lot the criteria are not applicable to this review. Stafffinds the review criteria not applicable. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: Single family and duplex development is exempt from developing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Stafffinds this criterion not applicable. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: When developed, the lots will comply with all requirements of Title 29 and the URMP. Stafffinds this criterion is not applicable. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: When developed, the lots will comply with all public infrastructure requirements. Stafffinds this criterion met. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned P139 Exhibit B �X.0 Planned Development Standards Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Findings: All lots have access to the public right -of --way. Staffftnds this criterion met. *40P 4000 P140 IX.c JURISDICTION: EFFECTIVE DATE: WRITTEN BY: CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: /jv� 4�1 �, Date: Jy-y 16,2013 City of Aspen July 16,20B Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director SUMMARY: The US Forest Service has recorded a survey with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office (reception number 599691) creating five separate lots from a Portion of the federal agency's property that is bounded by W. Hallam Street, N. Fighth Street, W. Smuggler Street and N. Seventh Street, The city has fielded some questions on the lots and this overview attempts to provide some additional clarity on the status of the lots. Oveffiew: City recognizes that the Forest Service recorded a survey which purportedly created five separate lots within the municipal boundaries. However, the subdivision was not approved by the city via a city review process. Thas, although the city will recognize that the lots were legally created, since they were created in 2013 development of the individual lots is contingent on meeting city regulations. All lots are located within the Medium —Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. Development within a SPA requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council unless the SPA overlay is removed. Staff recommends removal of the overlay if detached residential dwellings are the anticipated development. All lots are subject to reductions in lot area also known as a Net Lot Area for calculation of allowable Floor Area. Lots I through 4 require the subtraction of the area of the access easement within each lot. The area of vacated Francis Street is required to be subtracted from Lot 5. Topography has not been provided to determine if any steep slopes are present that are required to be subtracted to determine Net Lot Area. Lots 3, 4 and 5 are traversed by the Si Johnson Ditch which has been in place for over 70 years. Pursuant to laws related to ditches and ditch easements the City and the ditch company have an emement that runs through the property extending ten feet from the ceriterlino of the ditch or more as reasonably necessary to operate and maintain the ditch. No development may take place within this easement. In addition other required yard setbacks are applicable. ar .W P141 IX.0 There is a utility easement running through Lot 4, which most likely, must be rerouted prior to development commencing on the lot. As noted above, the subdivision did not go through city review. Therefore, the five lots have not received a growth management development allotment. Each lot is subject to review pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. y P142 IX.c OFFICE GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C. 6O,AE_`HI-.a Aspen, Comndo 91611 T,1 n,' et9tm925-1956 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1'aaimlle (9]01925J0OR Slew 1975 w%,v,A fieldhaht.wm E. Michael Hoffman E-mail: mhoKman(a7earbeldhecht.com Phone: (970) 544-3442 Revised March 24, 2015 Originally Submitted February 24, 2015 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: GMQS Application of Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC, for Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station "Subdivision" Ladies and Gentlemen: Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC is the owner of Lot 4 and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC is the owner of Lot 5, each as depicted and described on the survey of Ranger Station Subdivision recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado, in Plat Book 103 at Page 1, as Reception No. 599691 (the "Survey Plat"). (Lots 4 and 5 will be referred to in this application as the "Subject Lots." Together, the two owners of the Subject Lots are referred to herein as "Aspen Dragonfly.") Executive Summary: Aspen Dragonfly seeks Growth Management approval for development of a single family home on each of the Subject Lots. To resolve a disagreement concerning which section of the Growth Management code applies to the property, the applicant seeks the right to pay "cash -in -lieu" at the time a building permit is issued for each lot, calculated based on the regulations now in place or, if City regulations are changed to reduce the cost of employee housing mitigation, those in place at the time of building permit issuance. This application is filed for the purpose of securing from the City of Aspen all land use approvals which are prerequisite to the receipt of a building permit for each of the Subject Lots. The applicant seeks a vested right to pay a "liquidated sum" or to complete other defined performance so that it, or its successors in each of the Subject Lots, may file an application for a building permit and know with certainty what it must pay or what performance it must complete to receive the building permit. This includes, without limitation, the sum required to be paid or the performance required to satisfy the City's Growth Management regulations. Aspen Dragonfly \r 11.0 P 143 Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 2 recognizes that it will also need to satisfy the City's Building Code and other "design -specific" regulatory requirements to receive a building permit. Pursuant to Code § 26.304.060. B.I., Aspen Dragonfly asks that the various requests set forth in this application be combined and considered by Aspen City Council. The question of the type of employee housing mitigation to be provided by the Applicant is ultimately the decision of City Council, and it makes sense that it deal with all related aspects of this request in connection with that primary question. As described in the Pre -Application Conference Summary (the "Pre-App") dated January 6, 2015, the Aspen Land Use Code's Growth Management chapter is the essential element of Aspen Dragonfly's current request. Although the Applicant does not waive its argument that a less demanding section of the Code should apply,] this application is submitted to secure a growth management allotment pursuant to Code Section 26.470.070.9.b. This section of the Code allows an applicant to satisfy the affordable housing mitigation requirement through construction of newly -built units, buy -down of existing affordable housing stock, payment of cash -in -lieu (with conditions), use of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, or a mix of these methods. Once a Growth Management allotment has been granted and the relevant conditions satisfied, no additional affordable housing will be required in connection with construction of a home on either of the Subject Lots. The affordable housing impact of new construction is tied by Code to the size of the home to be constructed onsite. Generally speaking, the larger the home, the more employee housing mitigation required. Aspen Dragonfly is not currently seeking the right to build a structure of a particular size on either of the two Subject Lots. Instead, it seeks a vested right to mitigate the employee housing impacts through a particular methodology -- by payment of "cash -in -lieu" utilizing the lesser of the building permit is issued for improvements to each of the Lots. The amount of cash -in -lieu per 'TTE" currently found in the Code is $144,393. However, the "per FTE" cash -in -lieu requirement will likely be reduced based, at least in part, on the results of the Aspen Residential Employee Generation Study, dated March 4, completed for the City by RRC Associates. This study reported a substantial reduction in the number of employees "generated" residential development. If the information provided in the study, among other things, leads the City to adopt a lower "cash -in -lieu" payment requirement, that lower requirement should apply to the amount paid to develop the Subject Lots. The maximum floor area of a home which may be built on a particular parcel is limited by Code and depends on the size of the lot and the floor area ratio applicable in the zone district in which the property is located. ' The applicant's argument that a different part of the Growth Management section of the Land Use Code should apply to this application is articulated in a letter dated August 14, 2014, from Attorney Curtis Sanders to City Attorney lames R. True. A copy of the "Sanders Letter" is attached to this application as Exhibit A. IX.c %W S� P144 IX.0 Aspen City Council March 24. 2015 Page 3 A. History of Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Subdivision. 2 The Aspen Town Site Map dated March 25, 1880 as Reception No. 860, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "1880 Townsite Map") created the 121 separate blocks comprising the City of Aspen, with each block consisting of up to eighteen separate, 100 foot by 30 foot lots, together with certain streets and alleys also depicted thereon. By a final condemnation award dated May 16, 1940, all of the following lands located in the City of Aspen and depicted on the 1880 Townsite Map were adjudged and decreed to the use of the United States as Petitioner (collectively, the "Forest Service Lands"): All of lots A, B, C. D, E, F, G, H, 1, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, and S of Block 9, and Lots A. B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, and S of Block 10 of the Townsite and City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, together with abandoned alleys and streets adjacent thereto, more particularly described as follows: Francis Street in said Blocks 10 and 9 of said alley - between Seventh and Eighth Streets and also the alley in Block 9 between Seventh and Eighth Streets and alsothatpartofthe alley in said Block 10 lying between Lots C, D, E, F, G, H and I on the north thereof and M, N, 0, P, Q5 R, and S on the South in said Block 10. By confirmation quitclaim deed recorded May 20, 1940 in Book 157 at Page 633, Pitkin County, Colorado, Charles F. Garlington conveyed all of the Forest Service Lands to the United States. The alleys and streets contained within the Forest Service Lands were previously vacated and abandoned by the City of Aspen in a Resolution of the Aspen City Council dated March 3, 1937. The Forest Service owned the property from May of 1940 until September of 2013, when, over a six-month period, it conveyed the five lots of the "Ranger Station Subdivision" to three separate owners. As depicted on the Survey Plat, Lot 4 consists of portions of Lots K, L, M, N, 0, and P, Block 10, Townsite and City of Aspen, together with a portion of the vacated and abandoned alley lying immediately to the north of Lots K, L, M, N, 0, and P. As depicted on the Survey Plat, Lot 5 consists of portions of Lots K, L, M, N, and 0, Block 10, Townsite and City of Aspen, together with a portion of the vacated and abandoned Francis Street lying immediately to the south of Lots K, L, M, and N. The Aspen Dragonfly properties and the historic lots established by the Aspen Townsite Plat are each shown on Exhibit B. attached hereto. On August 27, 2013, the United States General Services Administration conducted an auction for the purpose of selling the five Ranger Station lots. Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC acquired Lots 4 and 5 pursuant to a Quitclaim Deed given by the United States as grantor, dated March 18, ' The information in this section is based on material prepared by attorney Curtis B. Sanders on behalf of Aspen Dragonfly and the other owners of lots within the Ranger Subdivision and is used with permission. ,%W P145 Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 4 2014 and recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado on May 1, 2014 as Reception No. 609963. On December 9, 2014, Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC conveyed Lot 5 to Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC; it retained ownership of Lot 4. B. Development Rights Associated with the Subject Lots. The physical area which is the Subject Lots was made a part of the City of Aspen by its inclusion in the 1880 Townsite Map. The U.S. Forest Service acquired title to the property through a condemnation proceeding completed in 1940. Both the condemnation award and the quit claim deed which memorialized the conveyance of the property to the USFS described the large parcel by reference to the lots and blocks of the 1880 Townsite Map. All of the Forest Service Lands were owned by the Forest Service for approximately 74 years. Aspen Dragonfly acquired a part of those lands, the Subject Lots, in May of 2014. Code Section 26.470.060.2.a.3) should apply to this application because the Subject Lots include portions of lots described in the 1880 Townsite Map. Each of the Subject Lots should be "Non- conforming Lots of Record" and processed under Code Section 26.312.050 A. That section provides as follows: A detached single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be developed on a lot of record if. 1. The lot of record is in separate ownership and not contiguous to lots in the same ownership; and 2. The proposed single-family dwelling can be located on the lot so that the yard, height, open space andfloor area dimensional requirements Of the zone district can be met or a variance is obtained from said dimensional requirements pursuant to Chapter 26,314. Aspen Dragonfly consents to the merger of the Townsite lots as they exist within each of the Subject Lots. With that merger, the two Subject Lots will fully comply with Code Section 26.312.050 A. As applicable to the Subject Lots, the Code provides a property owner two regulatory paths to receipt of a Growth Management allotment. If a lot has a pre-existing "development right," then the Growth Management process may proceed administratively and employee housing mitigation for a single-family home may accomplished by one of the six alternatives listed in Code Section 26.470.060.2.a.3). If a lot does not have pre-existing development right, a Growth Management allocation must be acquired through the "Planning and Zoning Commission application" process defined Section 26.470.070 of the Code. As discussed on Page 7, below, the cost of mitigating employee impacts under the Planning and Zoning Commission application process is substantially higher than the cost of doing so in an administrative process. Aspen Dragonfly believes that the Subject Lots are entitled to the development rights associated with the 1880 Townsite lots which continue to exist on the Subject Lots and, for that reason, an 1X.0 %W V P146 IX.0 Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 5 administrative Growth Management application process should apply to this application. City staff has not recognized the development rights associated with the Subject Lots and has required that Aspen Dragonfly seek Growth Management allotments though the more burdensome regulatory path. Aspen Dragonfly has submitted this application as requested by staff as a means of finally settling the issue. However, it reserves the right to assert the alternative interpretation if its request is denied or approved with unacceptable conditions. C. Application of Relevant Code Provisions to this Application. As set forth in the Pre-App, the following sections of the Code are applicable to this application: 26.304 Common development review procedures 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.070 (9)(b) Residential development— sixty percent (60%) affordable 26.470.070 (4) Affordable housing 26.470.090 (3) Provision of required affordable housing via a cash in lieu payment 26.470.100 Calculations 26.470.110 Growth management review procedures 26.710.040 Medium Density Residential (R-6) The common development review procedures govern the format of this application and the review process and are not separately discussed in this application letter. A discussion of how this application meets the other requirements of the listed Code sections is found below. In particular cases the relevant section of Code is found in italics, followed by a discussion of how the application addresses that regulation, in standard print. Code Section 470.070 (9): Residential development — sixty percent (60%) affordable. The development of a residential project or an addition of units to an existing residential project, in which a minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the additional floor area is affordable housing deed -restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pakin County Housing Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria.: b. If the project consists of only one (1) free-market residence, then a minimum of one (1) affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the project's total floor area and deed -restricted as a Category 4 'for sale" unit, according to the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, .shall qualify. To determine the amount of affordable housing required, it is necessary to begin with a review of the Lot Areas for each of the Subject Lots. As shown on Exhibits C and D, the Gross Lot Area of Lots 4 and 5 are 11,615 and 7,490 square feet, respectively. The calculations of Net Lot Area for each of the two Subject Lots are found in Exhibit E, attached hereto. Deductions in Net Lot Area a./ P147 Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 6 are required for sloes of greater than 20%. As shown on the exhibit, the Net Lot Area of Lot 4 is 10,586 square feet. As shown on Exhibit E, 900 square feet must be deducted from the Gross Floor Area of Lot 5 for steep slopes, which establishes a Net Floor Area for that lot of 6,590 square feet a Detached residential dwellings and Duplex structures are permitted uses within the R-6 zone district (which is applicable to the Subject Lots).' It is likely that each of the Subject Lots will be improved by the construction of a single residential dwelling. Both of the Subject Lots meet the minimum requirements for Gross and Net Lot Area (6,000 square feet and 4,500 square feet, respectively).' A private residence may be built on either Subject Lot in full compliance with the other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district. As shown on Exhibit E, the maximum floor area for a single-family residence is 3,755 square feet on Lot 4 and 3,405 square feet on Lot 5. If the largest dwelling unit permitted on each Subject Lot is reouested, the 30% affordable housing requirement of Code Section 470.070(9) will require the Applicant (or its successor in each lot) provide affordable housing mitigation of 1,127 square feet for Lot 4 and 1,022 square feet for Lot 5.t The Affordable Housing Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority ("APCHA") provide that "in order to calculate mitigation requirements, 400 square feet of affordable housing units shall be used to equate to one full-time employee ["FTE"] in determining the required affordable housing mitigation for the free-market component of a mixed use development.i8 As shown in Exhibit E, the maximum number of "Full Time Equivalents" which may be required for ' Lot 4 is currently bisected by an easement ten feet in width in favor of the City of Aspen for underground utility lines. The Code does not require a reduction in Net Floor Area for easements of this type. Pursuant to the language of the easement itself, the Aspen Dragonfly may "relocate the easement and the utility appurtenances) therein ... upon the payment of all direct and indirect costs of such relocation." " City staff previously asserted that the portion of Lot 5 which was once a part of Francis Street had to be deducted when calculating net lot area for that parcel. This application, at the insistence of staff, has been filed on the basis that the Townsite map is inapplicable to the Subject Lots. On that basis, the Applicant's property does not benefit from the development rights normally associated with lots described on the Townsite Map and neither should it be penalized for those portions of its property which were once the streets and alleys found on the Townsite Map. No deductions in Net Lot Area should be imposed on either of the Subject Lots due to this regulation. ' The Subject Lots, along with the balance of the property currently and formerly owned in the immediate vicinity of the Subject Lots was zoned R-6/SPA in City of Aspen Ordinance No. 86 (Series of 1981). A change in the Code adopted in 2014 converted all SPA areas to Planned Developments. Technically, the area is now zoned R-6/PD. The property owned by the US Forest Service was identified by its 1880 Townsite Map designations in the 1981 Ordinance. Permitted uses for the R-6 zone district are found at Code Section 26.710.040(8). ' Code Section 26.710.040(D) I. and 2. ' See Exhibit F. s APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines ("APCHA Guidelines"), adapted January 2015, Part VII, Section 8. IX.c P148 �X.0 Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 7 Lots 4 and 5 (depending on the floor area to be constructed on each lot) are 2.82 and 2.55, respectively. As mentioned above, Aspen Dragonfly is seeking the right to satisfy the affordable housing mitigation requirements for development of Lots 4 and 5 by payment of "cash -in -lieu," as provided in Section 26.470.090 (3) of the Code, set forth here: 3. Provision of required affordable housing via a cash -in -lieu payment. The provision of affordable housing equal to or in excess of one (1) residential unit, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, via a cash -in -lieu payment shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or of the site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. As a practical matter, it is not feasible to locate two residential dwellings on either of the two Subject Lots. The Net Lot Area of Lot 5 is inadequate (at 6,590 square feet) as a matter of Code for the establishment of a second structure on site. While Lot 4 meets the regulatory minimum Net Lot Area for two detached residential units (or two duplex units), the topography of the site does not lend itself to the construction and continuing existence of two separate homes. See Exhibits F and G for a graphical representations of the topography of Lot 4 and Lot 5, respectively. b. The applicant has made a reasonable good faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units or the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status. In the course of its investigation, the applicant found that the cost of constructing new offsite employee housing or buying down existing dwelling units to satisfy Growth Management requirements is well in excess of $1,000,000 for the two Subject Lots. As discussed in the letter from Attorney Curtis Sanders to City Attorney James R. True, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, Aspen Dragonfly and the other owners of lots within the Ranger Station Subdivision have a good faith belief that they should not be required to provide new affordable housing units in connection with the construction of homes on their lots. As described above, each of Lots 4 and 5 are made up of parts of lots defined by the 1880 Townsite Map. Those lots were 'legally described parcels prior to November 14, 1977" and should be processed under Section 26.470.060.2.a.3) of the Code. Under that section Aspen Dragonfly would be currently required to pay an "affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the [APCHA] Guidelines,i9 of $79.97 per ' Code, Section 26.470.060.2.a.3 r 1 P149 Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 IX.0 Page 8 square foot of new structure in full satisfaction of the affordable housing requirement.10 The cost of Affordable Housing mitigation under this regulatory scheme would be $572,605.99 if floor area were maximized on both Subject Lots. The additional cost of treating the Subject Lots as not existing prior to November 14, 1977 is over $200,000 if floor area is maximized on both lots under current Code. (If the cash -in -lieu affordable housing mitigation fee is reduced prior to the date a building permit is issued for either Lot, the lower fee should be passed on to the applicant.) c. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the cash -in -lieu payment will result in the near -term production of affordable housing units. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. The applicant encourages the City to immediately use the money to be paid at the time of building permit issuance for affordable housing purposes. City staff has informed Aspen Dragonfly that it supports the approach described in this application as it will produce substantial revenue to the affordable housing program and because it avoids litigation. Avoidance of litigation is also in the best interests of the Applicant. Conclusion For reasons which are not fully apparent to Aspen Dragonfly, the City and the U.S. Forest Service did not resolve the zoning and development issues related to the Ranger Station Subdivision at the time the Forest Service auctioned the lots in 2013. Even though the Subject Lots exist within the area defined by the City's 1880 Townsite Map, City staff has asserted that the lots are not entitled to the development rights normally associated with Townsite lots. As a compromise between the City's position and the regulations which the Applicant believes should apply to this application, Aspen Dragonfly requests that the Growth Management mitigation requirements for Lots 4 and 5 be satisfied through payment of cash -in -lieu as calculated at the lower of the rate found in current Code or that found in Code at the time a building permit is issued for each Lot. The actual amount of cash -in -lieu to be paid to the City shall be calculated based on the floor area requested in a building permit application and paid at the time required by the City regulation in force at that time. Aspen Dragonfly also requests that the net lot area of the Lots 4 and 5 be recognized as 10,586 square feet and 6,590 square feet, respectively. Sincerely, E. Michael Hoffman Table of Exhibits 1° APCHA Guidelines, Pan VII, Section 12, 3. sw WOO P150 �X.0 Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 9 Exhibit A - Letter dated August 14, 2014 from Curtis Sanders to City Attorney James R. True Exhibit B - Survey of Subject Lots and Townsite Map Overlay Exhibit C - Current Survey of Lot 4 Exhibit D - Current Survey of Lot 5 Exhibit E - Lot Area, Floor Area, FTE Calculations Worksheet Exhibit F - Topography of Lot 4 Exhibit G - Topography of Lot 5 law vw� P151 1X.0 SHERMAN4HOWARD 320 Wast Name Smen, Aspen, Calonado 81811-1657 Telephone 97092563W Fax WOV51181 �.shennanh�,cam Curtis B. Sanders, Shaman & Hannard LLC. Direct Dial Number. 970.300.0114 E-mail: casinders&hemamoseard.com August 14,2014 Ilia Hand Delivery James R. True, Esq. City of Aspen Attorney 130 South Galena Street, Second Fluor Aspen, Colorado 8 1611 Re: Communication Pursuant to C,R.E. 408; St. George Investments L.L.C., Todd Gardner, and Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC; Ranger Station Subdivision Lots 1 -5 Dear Jim: This firm represents St. George Investments L.L.C. ("St. Georg "� Mr. Todd Gardner ("GArdne "), and Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC ("Dragonfly") (St. George, Gardner, and Dragonfly are collectively referred to herein as the "Owners" and individually as arn "OwmcT I') as owners of certain lands (the "Forest Service Lot ") depicted and described on the "Ranger Station Subdivision" Survey Plat recorded May 22, 2013 in Plat Book, 103 at Page I (the "Survey Plat"). As you are aware, through various meetings and discussions between City of Aspen officials and the Owners and their representatives, the City of Aspen, through its representatives has indicated its belief that none of the parcels of land depicted and described on the Survey Plat have existing development rights. Therefore, each Owner is required to obtain a development right from the City of Aspen through the City of Aspen Growth Management Quota System as a prerequisite to the construction of residential improvements on such Ounces parcel of land. I have previously conummicaled with you the Owners'disagreement with the City of Aspen's position with respect to this matter, and the purpose of this letter is to set forth tiie legal basis of the Owners'position. 1, Facturd Background. St, George is the owner of Forest Service Lot I and Forest Service Lot 2. as the same we depicted and described on the Survey Plat. Gardner is the owner of Forest Service Lot 3, as the same is depicted and described on the Survey Plat. Dragonfly is the owner of Forest Service Lot 4 and Forest Service Lot 5, as the same are depicted and described on the Survey Plat. Bus-RE-1529405 1 P152 IX.c The Aspen Town Site Map dated Much 25, 1880 as Reception No. 860, Pitkin County, Colorado (the provided for the creation of 121 separate Blocks comprising the City of Aspen, with each Block comprised of up to eighteen separate, 100 foot by 30 four Lots. together with certain streets and alleys also depicted thereon. By a final condemnation award dated May 16, 1940, the following lands located in the City of Aspen and depicted on the 1880 Townsite Map were adjudged and decreed to the use, of the United States of America as Petitioner (collectivelyt the "Forest Service IAD "): All of lots A. B, C, D, F, F, G. IL 1, K, L, M. N, 0, P. Q� R, and S of Block 9t and Lots A, B, C, D, E, F. G, H. 1. M. N, 0, P. Q, R, and S of Block 10 of the Towitsite and City of Aspen, county of Pitkin, State of Colorado, together with abandoned alleys and streets adjacent thereto, mom particularly described as follows: Francis Street in said Blocks 10 and 9 of said alley - between Seventh and Eighth Streets and also the alley in Block 9 between Seventh and Eighth Streets and also that pan ofthe alley in said Block 10 lying between Lots C, D, E, F, G, H mid I on Elie north thereof and M., N, 0, P, Q, R, and S on the South in said Block 10. By confirmation quitclaim deed recorded May 20, 1940 in Book 157 at Page 633, Pitkin County, Colorado, Charles F. Garlington conveyed an of the Forest Service Lands to the United States of America. The alleysand streets contained within the Forest Service Lands were previously vacated and abandoned by the City of Aspen in a Resolution of the Aspen City Council dated Much 3, 1937. In 2011, the United States of America, as the owner of the Forest Service Lands, began soliciting comments from the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, Colorado for the potential sale of = appmximately one -acre portion of the Forest Service Lands pursuant to the Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act (P.L. 109-54). Bv letter dated January 19. 2012 to Kevin Warner on behalf of the United States Forest Service, �Iie City of Aspen provided a "staff memo" setting forth certain recommendations with respect to the sale and future redevelopment of an approximately one -acre portion of the Forest Service Lands, including a recommendation that such Inds be subdivided into three to five new lots. and which staff memo included diagrams depicting suggested lot configurations. After soliciting and receiving input from Pitkin County. Colorado, the City of Aspen, and members of the public, the United States of America provided for the preparation and recording of the Survey Plat in the real estate records of Pitkin County, Colorado which depicted the reconfigurtition of the approximately one -acre portion of the Forest Service Lands into five separate Forest Service Lots, and which conformed to one of the City of Aspens suggested lot configurations set forth in the City of Aspen's January 19, 2012 letter to Kevin Warma. For your convenience, a copy of the Survey Plat is attached, along with a Memorandum of Chris Bendon, City of Aspen Community Development Director dated January 17.2012 which depicts various suggested lot configurations, including the one that was eventually adopted by the United States Forest Service. As you are aware, Mr. Bendon has subsequently recused himself from this matter. Iftw I..f P153 [KIPM As depicted on the Survey Plat, Forest Service Lot I consists of all of Lots A and B, Block 10, Townsite and City of Aspen as depicted on the 1880 Townsite Map, together with an additional approximately 600 square feet of land consisting of a portion of the vacated and abandoned alley lying immediately to the south of Lots A and B. As depicted on the Survey Plat, Forest Service Lot 2 consists of all of Lots C and D, Block 10, Townsite and City of Aspen as depicted on the 1880 Towasite Map, together with an additional approximately 660 square feet of land consisting of a portion of the vacated and abandoned alley lying immediately to the south of Lots C and D. As depicted on the Survey Plat. Forest Service Lot 3 consists of all of Lots E and F, Block 10, Townsite and City of Aspen as depicted on the 1880 Toivnsite Map, together with an additional approximately 600 square feet of land consisting of a portion of the vacated and abandoned alley lying immediately to the south of Lots E and F. As depicted on the Survey Plat, Forest Service Lot 4 consists of portions of Lots K, L, M, N, 0, and P, Block 10, Townsite and City of Aspen, together with a portion of the vacated and abandoned alley lying immediately to the north of Lots K, L, M, N, 0, and P. As depicted on the Survey Plat, Forest Service Lot 5 consists of portions of Lots K, L, M, N, and 0, Block 10, Townsite and City of Aspen, together with a portion of the vacated and abandoned Francis Street lying immediately to the south of Lots K. L, M, and N. For purposes of confirming the relationship of the Historic City Lots to the current configurations of Forest Service Lots I - 5r please refer to the attached improvement Survey Plat prepared by Sopris Engintuiring, onto which I have highlighted the locations ofthe boundaries of Forest Service Lots 1 -5. On August 27, 2013, the United States of America General Services Administration conducted an auction providing for the sale of Forest Service Lots I and 2 to St. George, Forest Service Lot 3 to Gardner, and Forest Service Lots 4 and 5 to Dragonfly. St. George subsequently acquired title to Forest Scriice Lot I and Forest Service Lot 2 pursuant to that certain Quitclaim Deed given by the United States of America as grantor, dated September 24, 2013 and recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado on November 7,2013 as Reception No. 60539 1. Gardner subsequently acquired title to Forest Smice Lot 3 pursuant to that certain Quitclaim Deed given by the United States of America as grantor, dated September 24,2013 and recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado on September 27, 2013 as Reception No. 604268. Dragonfly subsequently acquired title to Forest Service Lot 4 and Forest Service Lot 5 pursuant to that certain Quitclaim Deed given by the United States of America as grantor, dated March 18. 2014 and recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado on Ma) 1, 2014 as Reception No. 609961 P154 %MOO �1&4 1X.0 In a July 16, 2013 memorandum prepared by Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director of the City of Aspen, the City of Aspen indicated that the United States Forest Service had recorded the Survey Plat, "creating" five separate lots from the Forest Service Lands. Further, the memorandum went on to state that the City of Aspen recognized the legal creation of the Forest Service Lots as a result of the Survey Plat, but that none of the Forest Service Lots was currently developable since the Forest Service Lots were not created as legally Separate properties pursuant to the City of Aspen subdi� ision regulations. and since such separate Forest Service Lots did not previously receive subdivision approval from the City of Aspen. Such memorandum goes on to provide that as a result, the Forest Service Lots can only be developed with residential improvements if such properties first obtain a City of Aspen "GrLwth Management Development Allotment" pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, of the City of Aspen Municipal Code (the "City C24o"). APParcatly- this memorandum was generated by the City of Aspen shortly before the August 27. 2013 auction of the Forest Service Lots as a result of confusion among members of the public, and perhaps the City of Aspen. recording the developability of the Forest Service Lots, Representatives of the City of Aspen have subsequently stated that while the City of Aspen could not regulate or prohibit the United States of America's subdivision Of POrtiOns Of the Forest Service Lands, nonetheless the United States of America's conveyance of such separate Forest Service Lots to the Owners was not a legal subdivision pursuant to the City Code since all of the Forest Service Lands, including the five Forest Service Lots. previously merged into a single parcel of land as of October 27. 1975- Based upon the foregoing, the City's position with respect to the proposed future re- development of all of the Forest Service Lots is therefore that: (1) the United States of America, as the legal owner of the Forest Service Lands (which included the Forest Service Lots as of October 27,1975) was subject to and bound by the provisions of the City Code then in effect regarding the ownership. use, and redevelopment of the Forest Service Lands, specifically including provisions of the City Code regarding the legal merger of Historic Lots; but that (2) the United States of America, as the owner of the Forest Service Lands. was not subject to provisions of the City Code regarding subdivision of the Forest Service Lands. 2. Analvsi . With respect to the City of Aspen's assertion that the City of Aspen Townsite Lots. and vacated and abandoned streets and alloys comprising Forest Service Lands previously merged into a single parcel of land as of October 27, 1975, Section 26.480.020 of the City Code provides in its entirety as follows: E Aspen Townsite lots. If two (2) or more lots within the Original Aspen Townshe or additi=v thereto have continuous jrontage and are in single ownership (including husband and wife) on October 27. 19 the Forest Service Lots shall be considered an undivided lot for the Purposes of this title and Conveyance of anyportion shall constitute subdivision. An Aspen Townsite lot or addition thereto includes all lands depicted an the Aspen incorporation plot of record dated 1880. plus any lot or parcel ann"ed to the Chy since that time which consiffides a nonconforming lot ofracord plus any lot or parcel which has ,` ,-wr P 155 IX.c not received subdivision approval by the City or County, but excludes any subdivided lot in the City which conforms to the requirements of this Title." (emphasis added) Prior to the conveyance of the Forest Service Lots to the Owners, the Forest Service Lots, together with the remainder of the Forest Service Land, were owned by the United States of America, and administered by the United States Forest Service. The Forest Service Organic Administration Act (Act of June 4, 1897) (16 U.S.C. §§ 473478, 479-482 and 551, June 4, 1897, as amended 1905, 1911, 1925, 1962, 1964. 1968, and 1976) is the original organic act governing the administration of National Forest Lands owned by the United States of America. The United States Forest Service was established in 1905 pursuant to the Transfer Act (Act of February 1, 1905) (16 U.S.C. 472), which transferred the responsibility for the management United States forest reserves from the United States Department of the Interior to the United States Department of Agriculture. Section I of the Transfer Act provided in part: "The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture Shall, from and after the passage of this .,let, execrate or cause to be executed all laws affecting public lands heretofore or hereafter reserved tinder the provisions of Section Twenty Four of the Act entitled 'An Act to repeal the limber -culture laws, and fir other purposes,' approved .March Third, Eighteen Hundred and Ninety -One, and Acts supplemental to and amendatory thereof, after such lands have been so reserved, excepting such laws as affect the surveying, prospecting, locating, appropriating. entering, relinquishing. reeonveyimg, cert�ing. or patenting ofany such lands." Although subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 94-579, title VIL § 704(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792. the text of Section 1 of the Transfer Act was valid and effective as of October 27, 1975. By Act as of March 3, 1925 (P.L. 68-575, Ch. 1 17, 43 Star. 1132, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 555, 557, 572), the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to purchase certain private lands as follows: "Where not suitable Government land is available for National Forest headquarters, ranger stations, dwellings, or other sites required for the effective conduct of the authorized activities of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to purchase lands our of the appropriation applicable to the purpose for which the land is to be used ... " At the time of the United States of America's taking title to the Forest Service Lands by confirmation quitclaim deed recorded May 20, 1940 in Book 157 at Page 633, Pitkin County, Colorado, the United States of Americas ownership of such lands was subject to the provisions of Section I of the Transfer Act which afforded the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture the exclusive right to "... execute or cause to be executed all laws affecting public lands heretofore or hereafter reserved. , . ", subject only to "....such lmvs as affect the surveying, prospecting, locating appropriating, entering, relinquishing, reconveying. certifying, or patenting of any such lands". %W *Mof P156 1X.0 As of October 27, 1975, the United States of America's ownership of the Forest Service Lands remained subject to the then -current previsions of Section I of the Transfer Act which afforded the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture the exclusive right to ". . . execute or cause to be executed all lawsqffeclingpublic lands heretofore or hereafter rese"ed_ . ".subject only to ".. . such laws as affect the surveying, prospecting, locating. appropriating, entering. relinquishing, reconveying, certilying, or patenting ofony such lands". The United States Constitution governs the relationship of the federal government to lands. Article IV, § 3. Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, commonly referred to as the "Property Clause", gives the United States Congress authority over the lands, territories, at other property of die United States. The Property Clause provides as follows: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make till needfid Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." The Properq Clause affords the United States broad authority for the Congress to govern the lands acquired by the United States as it sees fit. and to exercise exclusive authority to decide on whether or not to dispose of such lands. Article VI. Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, commonly referred to as the "Supremacy Clause" provides as follows: "This Constitution. and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which vital/ be made. under the authority mr the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land- and the j . udges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything In the constitution or laws qfany state to the contrary nottrithstanding." For the sake of cxpedience� I won't provide a detailed analysis of the doctrine of preemption in this letter. However, the law is clear that 177he power overfederal landgranted to Congress in the Property Clause ispienary and without limitations." California Coitsuil Comm'n v. Granite Rock C -, 480 U.S. 572. 580,107 S.Ct� 1419.1424-25,94 L.Ed,2d 577 (1987). Further, "[Tjhe Supremacy Clause invalidates state laws or local ordinances that 'hureifiere with'. or are contrary to,Jedcral Hillsborough Counts. Fla. v. Automated Medical Labs. I , 471 U.S. 707, 7127 105 S.Ct. 2371. 2374-75, 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) (quoting Gibbons v. O�,,de 22 U�S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 211, 6 L,Ed. 23 (1824) (Marshall, C.J.)). Finally. "[S]rate lou, can be pre�empied in either oj*tvvo general ways. If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a givenfield, any stoic lowfalling within tholfield is pre-empred. If Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in question, state law is stillpre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts wuhfederal low. that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state antifederal law or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment qfthe fulipurposes and objectives of Congress," Id. (citations omitted) (quoting Silkwood v. Kerr- McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238,248. 104 S.Ct. 615, 621, 78 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984))� Based upon the foregoing. provisions of the City Code in effect as of October 27, 1975 which were intended to provide for the merger of contiguous City of Aspen Historic Lots held in *.1 %We P157 1X.0 "single ownership" as of October 27, 1975 did not apply to the separate Historic Lots which comprised the Forest Service Lands and which the United States of America owricd on October 27, 1975. Furthermore, the current provisions of Section 26.480,020 of the City Code which also provide for the merger of separate City of Aspen Historic Lots as of October 27, 1975 also do not apply for the same reasons, As a result, all of the Historic Lots which currently comprise the remaining portion of the Forest Service Lands which am still owned by the United States of Amen" remain as legally separate Historic Lots, and all of the Historic Lots which currently comprise the separate Forest Service Lots also remain as legally separate Historic Lots, each of which retains its own development right under the City Code. In this regard, please: note that for purposes of the City Code, the Survey Plat is of no legal significance as to the creation of the Forest Service Lots. The Survey Plat was not approved by the City of Aspen and did not cftext my sort of subdivision of a portion of the Forest Service Lands into the five separate Forest Service Lots, and the Survey Plat did not "create" the Forest Service Lots. Rather, the Survey Plat merely provided a graphic depiction of the respective locations and configurations of the Forest Service Lots, and provided separate metes and bounds legal descriptions for each of the Forest Service Lots. For this reason, all of the deeds from the United States of America to the Owmers included metes and bounds legal descriptions of Forest Lots, in addition to referencing the lot designations on the Survey Plat. Therefore. a "subdivision" of portions of the Forest Service Land did not occur upon the recording of the Survey Plat. Furthermore, a merger of the Historic City Lots comprising each of the five Forest Service Lots also did not occur upon the recording of the Survey Plat. The latter is clear in light of the provisions of Section 26.480,020.B.2 of the City Code which provides: "[Ljois shall not be considered merged, or otherwise legally combined, by a stmclure spanning the property and shall continue to he separate ownership interests unless combined pursuant to this Chapter". (emphasis added). Since the Survey Plat does not constitute a subdivision plat under the City Code, and was not approved by the City of Aspen, the Historic City Lots comprising each of the five Forest Service Lots were not "legally combined" by the Subdivision Plat, and the Historic City Lou retained their status separately developable parcels of land. Thus, a formal "subdivision" of a portion of the Forest Service Lands in the Forest Service Lots never occurred, and instead, the United States of America simply conveyed each separaite Forest Service Lot to each Owner, with each Forest Service Lot comprised of un- merged Historic City Lots and vacated alleys and streets. The metes and bounds legal description of each of the Forest Service Lots used by the United States of America for purposes of conveying each Forest Service Lot in no way chmges the fact that regardless of how the Forest Service Lots me, described, Forest Service Lots I - 3 each includes two full Historic Lots in their exact historic locations and configurations, together with a portion of the abandoned adjacent afley, and Forest Service Lots 4 and 5 each also includes portions of Historic Lots, together with a portion of the abandoned Francis Street right of way- Since there was no prior merger of my of then Historic Lots, each Forest Semi" Lot is comprised of at least two Historic Lots, each of which, in turn, retains an existing development right. %so %W P158 IX.c 3. Conclusion. The significance of the above matters is that according to the City of Aspen. none of the Forest Service Lots is currently developable. Further, according to the City of Aspen, in order to develop a Forest Service Lot, such Forest Service Lot must receive City of As n GMQS pe approval. As part of that approval, each Forest Service Lot would be required to provide one affordable housing residence (which represents a minimum of 30% of a Forest Service Lot's Floor Area). with such affordable housing unit deed restricted as a Category 4 "for sale unit. The City of Aspen GMQS regulations contemplate that such affordable housing mitigation can be provided either: (1) by a cash-in-licu payment, which is subject to City Council approval; or (2) providing newly built or buy down units; or (3) providing Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits. Based on my prior discussion with City of Aspen Planning Department staff, it is my understanding that City Council will not accept a cash -in -lieu affordable housing mitigation arrangement for the Forest Service Lots. Providing on -site affordable housing mitigation is not a viable option for the Forest Service Lots since the lot sives rue too small to accommodate an ADU. This leaves itcm (3), providing Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, as the most viable option for providing the affordable housing mitigation which would be required under GMQS. Based on the applicable formulas provided for in the City Code, for a 6.000 square foot Forest Service Lot to develop all of its 3,240 square feet of FAR (Forest Service Lots 1, 2 and 3 an: all slightly larger than 6,000 square feet in size), these Forest Service Lots would need to purchase 2.43 Category 4 FTE's per Forest Service Lot. Assuming an approximatc purchase price of $175,000 for one Category 4 FTE certificate ($175,000 was the approximate going rate of a Certificate six months, ago), then the cost of purchasing sufficient FFE's to develop a 3.240 square foot residence on a Forest Service Lot would cost -aIJrqx_i m-ma—telY14—OO&N. if, on the other hand, a Forest Service Lot has an existing development right, then the Owner would not need to go through the City's GMQS process to obtain a development right, and could satisly� the City's affordable housing impact fees as follows: (1) Pay cash in lieu of $254,320 M Forest Service Lot, which is an automatic fight, and does not require City Council approval; or (2) Construct an on -site ADU of 300 square feet on such Forest Service Lot, which is deducted form the FAR available to the free market unit to be constructed (although, again, this approach is likely not available to the Owners since the City Code prohibits the construction of an ADU on lots with the dimensions of the Forest Service Lots); or (3) Purchase and provide an affordable housing mitigation certificate for one Category 4 FTE for each 3,000 square feet of FAR constructed on the Forest Service Lot. For a residence comprised of 3,240 square feet of FAR, and again assuming an approximate purebase price of $175,000 for one Category 4 certificate, then the cost of purchasing sufficient FTE's to develop a 3,240 square foot residence on such Forest Service Lot *W I..W P159 would cost approximately $200.000 which is half the amount of such costs if the Forest Service Lot does not have an existing development right. Applying this analysis to all five Forest Service Lots, the City of Aspen is effectively demanding an additional S 1,000,0000 of affordable housing mitigation fees from the Owners based on its faulty merger analysis. Again. this requirement is solely the result of the City of Aspen's determination that none of the Forest Service Lots has an existing development right, and as a consequence, the FTFs generated by a Forest Service Lot would be 2.43 FTE's instead of 1.0 FTE, which would be the amourit of FTFs if a Forest Service Lot was deemed to have an existing development right. As we have discussed, the Owmers believe strongly in their position that each of the Forest Service Lots has existing development rights, and the Owners are prepared to authorize my firm to undertake an action for declaratory relief in United States Federal Court in order to legally confirm such rights. However, ie; we have also discussed, the Owners feel that given the somewhat complex and unique history of the Forest Service Lots, there would be advantages to both the City of Aspen and the Owners to the extent that the parties can negotiate a resolution of this issue, o well as other issues relative to the Forest Service Lots. Specifically, if the City is willing to confirm the existing development rights associated with the Forest Service Lots which would result in a substantial reduction of the above-d=ribed affordable housing mitigation fees, the Owners would be prepared to work with the City in providing for the execution and recording in the real estate records of a proper Subdivision Plao of the Forest Service Lots which addresses the various requirements of the City Code, is acx:eptable to the City of Aspen Engineer, and properly establishes and dedicates rights of way for access and utilities. The Owners would also be willing to provide for the removal of the SPA zoning overlay from the Forest Service Lots. Since the United States of America provided for the creation of the separate Forest Service Lots without approval from the City of Aspen, perhaps there are other areas of concern that the City would like addressed. and which the Owners might be willing to accommodate. At your convenience, I would appreciate it if you "old review this matierwith appropriate City of Aspen personnel, including the Mayor and City Council, and provide me with some sort of substantive response not later than ten days from the date hereof. Sincerely. Eric. cc: SL George Investments, L.L.C. Todd Gardner Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC IX.c 0 a 01 V �C RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP SA SOOiH, VUlOEM WESTOF THE MN P.M. WHNIN POHHONSOF 9EOCES 9& lOOF THE ASPENTOWNSITE, OWMFYOF PMQK STATE OF COlORADO ffit1a 4 W » 4-W RANGER STATION SUBDMSION TOWNSH[P 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST, 6th P. M� SECrION 12, BLOCKS 9 AND 10, ASPEN TOWNSITE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO I..0, P161 19103 ?1 IX.0 Black 9 0 Block 10 *Ao P162 IX.c RANGER STATION SU13DIVISION TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST. 6th R M. SECTION 12, BLOCKS 9 AND 10, ASPEN TOWNSITE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ...P�s— �— T�v WTD�MTIONS 1.0 P163 IX.0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROP& Chris Bendo,4 Community Developmeml)=tor 40, RE: USFS Parcel DATE: January 17,2012 The US Forest Service has notified the City that a portion of the AsPeo 5=011 WW De solm Commmmty Development Department staff is providing City Council with basic background infemoafion about development scenarios to assist the Council develop a position regarding the sale or potential purchase. The sale parcel is approximately 40,000 squ am feet 1001W in the West End =ghborhood on the carrier of West Smuggler and North 8' SUMM The site contains a small single'fine"y hotne� which is not a historic resource. sufficient utilities and infiastructUm exist to support de -w large a u and a band of Mopmem of the parcel. The property contains a L veTgreen �es cottonwoods on the cast side of the property along the ditch. The parcel is zoned, R-6 with an SPA overlay. R-6 is the zoning for the West End and allows for single-family and duplex developmenL Ile SpA overlay allows for both use and dimensional variations and likely was; assigned to the property to acknowledge the headquarters station use and building sizes. The neighborhood contains primarily single- family and duplex homes on parcels between 3,000 and 12,ODO square feet- Homes range in size from 2,000 to 4,000 squaw feet OfFlOOr Area TwOmuld-femily bu"ding' centaining �- 10 units each am wtthin the immediate area as well w the existing USFS bunkbouse� Ile City expect, the remaining USFS site will also contain multi -family housing for staff. Staff believes the property is A good candidate for affordable housing development The property, is located in an established neilibborhood and enjoys sufficient irdrastructure. The w,em Boomerang approval may be seen as a good example for this site. An affordable housing plan for the property was discussed roughly 10 Y"M ago. The neighborhood will likely have concems; regarding character and build�out density — similar to the reception of my proposal in an �tablished neighborhood. If the property is to be developed according to the M zone district, staff suggests the property be subdivided into 3-5 lots to mom closdy fit with the cumem development Pattern ofthoneighbothood. A "a lot of'40,000 squaw feet would yield afloor Area ofS�270 for & singlc�farrffly home. A, tbree-parcel scenario would Permit homes of roughly 3,900 squarefeeteach. A five -parcel sconario would permit 3,500 square foot homes. Lae=hof these scenarios, duplex strucrota could be built with slWy higher Floor Area. Page I of I `/ P164 IX.c 7 y y P165 IX.c ME- �-6I fkv, 5-v?kd I l lvl TV(" 1?0 one 5•S tW44 l-2 v4k b-W WIV') k RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION AHIPARCEL OFtH,R SITUARANGE WESD IN SECTION12 TOWNSHIP TSOUTH,PANGSSIWEST OF THE BUR P.M WITHIN PORTIONS OF BLOCK 9 OF THE ASPEN TO W NSITE, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORA00 OPERTY \ n!\1� m -1-1 1�.El P— LOT 4, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION TOWNSH I P 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE Gth P. M N: STATE OF COLORADO WITHIN PORTIONSOF BLOCK90FTHE ASPENTOWNSITE, COIJN�OF PITKI S� QF I 'sn vi -.1 .1c IC-F— MZ ME M-C�z 1,102 T— .601- - 5028. Vr 5033' �l 131 "-,—""-F F' -\\" 11 5021 E 11A ...... 1 604� 10/7 6 Dar� '5 at 6W 1 1 T�- 5025 12 . ..... . .... T ... ..... ..... AFF11- 111—g_ T_ �TTF._._ F—T. �k - 007 -�.T�.%I'TF -�.-T �F, ............ ......... . . —Z T SOPRIS ENGI HE ERi NG - U-C AT-ll..—Tl oT. IFIFPLI�'==rl'IIUTA� k LOT 5, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION " APARCE SOUTH, RANGE WEST 0IN SECTIONII TOWNSHIP T SOUTH, RANGE SI WEST OF THE 6[H P.M. WITHIN PORTIONS OF BLOCK 9 OF THE ASPEN TO W NSITE, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLDRADO >� u 011—O"I i numx mrv� t`F`FZT=e. w� •^mrw. G—LLC Exhibit E Net Lot Area and Floor Area Calculations FA for Total Reduction for Steep Additional Permitted Gross Lot Area Slopes Net Lot Area Base Space Floor Area Lot 11,615 1,030 10,586 3,660 95 3,755 Lot 5 7,490 900 6,590 2,400 1,005 3,405 Reduction for Steep Slope Analysis Reduction for Steep Total Net Lot Gross Lot Area 0%-20%Slope 20%-30%Slope Over 30%Slope Slopes Area Lot 4 11,615 9,880 1,411 324 1,030 10,586 Lot 7,490 5,924 1,333 234 900 6,590 lffordable Housing Requirement and Cash -in -Lieu Calculation Payment of Cash -in -Lieu Affordable Affordable Housing Requirement Housing Maximum Floor Required (30%of ($144,393 per Mitigation Area Permitted Total Floor Area) FTE Equivalents FTE) Fee Lot 3,755 1,127 2.82 $406,660.86 $300,297.75 Lot 3,405 1,022 2.55 $368,757.70 $272,308.25 _--- _----- Total 7,160 --__------ 2,148 ------------ 5.37 --------- $775,418.57 ------ _-_- $572,605.99 Additlonal Cost of Paying Cash -in -lieu = $202,812.57 The cash -in -lieu figures shown above were calculated using the current Code. The Applicant seeks the right to pay the lower of the amounts calculated under the current Code or as calculated under the Code as it exists at the time of building permit issuance for each Subject Lot. 1 x c w LO_T4, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION A PARCFI OF IAND SITUATED IN SECTION 12 TOWNSHIP SO SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6[H P.M. a WITHIN PORTIONS OF BLOCK 9 OF THE ASPEN TOWNSITE, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 0 1 r i i • r LOT 5, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION A PARCEL OF LAND SITU RION 11 TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, PANGS 85 WEST OF THE 6Lh P.M. RHIN PORTIONS OF BLOCK 9 OF THE ASPEN TOW NSITE, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO mn. •� or-arO®[l -r 000�n om r e_l� �4e� AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY, 8 /eye I. I - 44, Aspen, CO t .- SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ttmnA" ffi" 4 1? 4IRM 2015 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin 1, 6c—�� marric, please print) being or representilig an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner- _IZ—Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Conimunity Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials,,which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15)days prior to the puliric �eafing on the _ day of 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Afaihng-:of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community De�;ellSlSrntnt Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.104.06%E)(2) of the Asp= J�and Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to t � the public hearing, ��tice was hAd delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the cument tax records of Pitkin County as they appearM no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method ofpublic notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on nextpage) VOW 1,110 Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial publiobearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral cstAte,owners shall be' those QJ the cturent tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new planned Unit Developments, an.d new Specialty Plawned Areas, me subject tirthis notfecrInquirerpent, Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in my way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of -an accurate survey map or other slufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of times and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. sc.—A"I Signaturi The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was fore me this-& day of R?Ak 2Q_!��,by ==. SIr 5�;� — WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My comniission expires: to .,.40nfly FaIln— III, LLC `a�d NO-1 ary PU he 1—o LLC KAREN REED PAZ r RSON ,I X'y—'a A NOT Y PU 'ZIIIA .=n.0 All LIC A STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID #19964002767 FACHMENTSAS APPLICABLE myc-m"WEXO-Fell-05,20161 LICA TION THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) VC 0 PLAO lAre ASW TIM.$ 01 APIII I II, M I ERSAND GOVERIVMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OFM17VERAL ESTAE OfffERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY CKS. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: TBD Eighth Street, Aspen, CO - Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station Subdivision (formerly part of the USFS property 816/896 W. Hallam St) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 4,2015 STATE OF COLORADO ) )as. County of Pitkin 1, E. Michael Hoffman, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy ofthe publication is attached hereto, X Posting of notice: By posting of notices on each of the lots which we the subject of the application, in the forms obtained ftorn the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing scheduled for the 0 day of May, 2015, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. Photographs of the posted notices (signs) are attached hereto. — Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The times and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no mom than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of The owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. — Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hewing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. %W *00, Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return mccipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create mom than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in my way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of times and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. owever, th roposedl 2pnin Jmap shall be available for public inspection in the planning i 2d;nm a us for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such Michael Hoffman — I/ The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 17� day of April, 2015, by Michael Hoffman. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: i o0e, 75A 0 410 (Jk a � � k Notary public — , I ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: - - - - - - - - - RACHAEL PUDLO PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE POSTED N077CES (SIGNS) Notary Public state at colonuto Notary 10 20144025126 MX Comission �gmui i,n 24.2018 ��4 •�a� ' +; y �d; 1 P PUBLIC NOTICE Date: May 4, 2015 Time: 4:00 PM Place: City Council Chambers. City Hall 130 S. Galena St Purpose: Aspen City Councovill consider an application submitted by Aspen j _Dragon y Partners III,LLC (c/o Garfield & Hecht,601 E. Hyman Ave, Aspen, CO 81611Lfor this site. To develop -the lot with a residence or duplex, applicant requests Growth Management Review, Planned Development Amendment and a vested property right. Contact Aspen Plannin Dept 97CW20-5090 for info 0 0 PUBLIC NOTICE Date: May 4, 2015 Time: 4 00 PM Place: City Council Chambers. City.Ha_II,_130 S. Galena St Purpose: Aspen City Counc&vill consider an application submitted by Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV,LLC (c/o Garfield & Hecht,601 E. Hyman Ave, - Aspen, CO 81611) for this site. To develop the lot with a residence applicant requests Growth Management Review. Planned Development Amendment and a vested propertyright._ Contact Aspen_ Planning Dept 970?0-5090 for info. %� %we AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: TBD Eighth Street, Aspen, CO - Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station Subdivision (formerly part of the USES property 816/896 W. Hallam St.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 4,2015 STATE OF COLORADO ) )as. County of Pitkin 1, Kayla S. Hall, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the __ day of 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A Photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant aftests that neighborhood outreach, sumnianized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy uf any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Iftw 1400 Mineral Estate Owner Nonee By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County, At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, am subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment, Whenever the official 7%ming district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental m or as pan of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Ka)�dg. Hall SigDature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 17th day of April, 2015, Kayla S. Hall. WITNTSS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL rZ Z2. My commission expires: 01 -24 - 17 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS AXPLICABLE: LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL ACENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL COPY OF THE NOTICE PAULA S. RICCERI NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORAOO NOTARY ID #20094002983 MyC=MftImEXPN.JaMxq2E00iJ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station Subdivision (formerly part of the USFS property 816/896 W. Hallam St.) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, May 4, 2015, at a meeting to begin at 4:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, in the City Council chambers, City Hall, to consider an application submitted by Mike Hoffman on behalf of Aspen Dragonfly Partners Ii1, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC (C/O Garfield and Hecht PC, 601 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen CO 81611). The Applicant requests two growth management allotments, a Planned Development Amendment and a five year vesting period to develop lot 4 with a single-family residence or duplex and lot 5 with a single family residence. For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City of Aspen Com minity Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920.5o90, Jennifer.Phelan@cityofwpen.com S/Steve Skadron Mayor Aspen City Council s/ City of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times on April 23, 2015 5 STRING LLC PO BOX 1709 GATLINBURG, TN 37738 ANDERSON ANGUS A 2A WILLITS LN BASALT. CO 81621 BI ANZ JAMES M 6344 NW 50TH ST CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33067 BOYE CAROL 7 TEPEE ST HAMPTON BAYS, NY 119461736 COHEN SANDRA REV TRUST 901 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 m 834 WEST HALLAM ASSOCIATES LLC 200 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BECKLEY JOHN W & MARY ANN P 16818 FALLS RD UPPERCO, M021155 BOSKO DANIEL A PO BOX 9171 ASPEN, CO 81612 BRADY KAREN KAY 15 CASTLE HARBOR IS FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 333086011 CRITERION HOLDING CO LLC 790 W HALLAM ST #10 ASPEN, CO 816111157 ECKART CHARLES F FARRELL EMILY 910 W HALLAM ST APT 5 790 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GARDNER TODD GILES NATHAN R 2140 AABC NOURIAN NABIM ASPEN, CO 81611 1380 W AUTO DR TEMPE, AZ85284 GORTAN TIZIANO&ENRICAU LIVING 260 COLUMBINE CT HTRUST 2GRUA 53 BASALT, CO 81621 LOS ANGELES, CA W077-1340 ..r 949 WEST SMUGGLER STREET LLC 3489 W 62 AVE DENVER, CO 80221 SENDON CHRISTOPHER J 920 W RALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BOURKE MICHAEL & JANINE 716 FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CHOUMAS JOHN DAMES & PATRICIA G 1601 E OLYMPIC BLVD STE 313 BLDG 300 LOS ANGELES, CA 90021 CROSSROADS CHURCH OF ASPEN 726 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FRANCIS STREET LLC PO BOX 1365 ASPEN, CO 81612 GOLD RUSH LOG 204 PARK AVE 91 K BASALT, CO 81621 HEATH SHANTA K 790 W HALLAM ST #9 ASPEN, CO 81611 HENDERSON CHRISTOPHER J & CHANTAL N HERMAN LLOYD KOSFIELD ASPEN LC 100 SE SECOND ST #2800 5342 HWY 133 320 N 7TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI, FL 33131 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 LED PROPERTY TRUST MADSEN GEORGE W JR&CORNELIAG MARKEY PETER & CHRISTINE 1100 CAMELLIA BLVD #201 931 W FRANCIS ST 927 W HALLAM LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MATKIN SALOISE PO BOX 5644 ASPEN, CO M612A644 MICROPLAS MGMT CO 790 W HALLAM #10 ASPEN, GO 81611 OTT JOHN & CAROL M 129 LITTLE ELK CREEK AVE SNOWMASS, CO 816549318 RATHER DENNIS F TRUST 1577 SPRING HILL RD # 500 VIENNA, VA 22162 5ANZONE SHERIA 920 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MOTAMANEY ROBERTA IN 2012 FAMILY MG DUPLEX LLC TRUST 825 W NORTH ST KUKIO 72124 LAE KIKAUA MAUKA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 KAILUA KONA, HI 96740 MILLER ANN F 716 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN, CO 51611 PAREI-WN ALLEN G REV TRUST 734 W SMUGGLER ASPEN, GO 81611 RUECKERT WILLIAM 860 HULLS FARM RD SOUTHPORT. CT 06890 SAXON FAMILY DELTA TRUST 6677 S EVANSTON GIB TULSA, OK 741W SCHWAB ROBERT AND LOUISE FAMILY TRUST SHANE STEVEN DAVID & CI -ARE EVERT 10940 WILSHIRE BLVD#2250 117 S MONARCH ST LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 ASPEN, CO 81611 SIMMONS W JUNE TRUST 55% BIXBY NEENA B 45% 4128 RHODES AVE STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 S I RASSBURGER SARAHE 910 W HALIAM ST APT 3 ASPEN, CO 81611-1158 WATERS SOMERSET 131 MILLBROOK SCHOOL RD MILLBROOK, NY 12545 WYLY CHERYL R MARITAL TRST 3905 BEVERLY OR DALLAS, TX 75205 SMUGGLER LLC 10" OLIVE ST DENVER, CO 80220 TALENFELD ELIZABETH G 915 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, GO 81611 WEINGART JAMES B & PATRICIA L 55 GREENTREE CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022 OK SMUGGLER LLC 735 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 POWELL WILLIAM EUGENE TRUST 04/1992 11 LYNN BATTS LN #100 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78218 SANCHEZ ANDY L & MICHELLE MAINS PO BOX 1801 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCHUHMACHER ASPEN PARTNERSHIP NO II LTD 505 N 8TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SHARP DESIGNS INC 936 W FRANCIS ASPEN, CO 81611 ST GEORGE INVESTMENTS LLC 601 POYDRAS STE 2625 NEW ORLEANS, LA 701306043 WAGAR RICHARD H PO BOX 9063 ASPEN, CO 81612 WEST HALLAM STREET LLC 210 AABC STE MM ASPEN, CO 816113513 1%W ,-Me Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27,2015 BOARD REPORTS 1. Councilman Frisch attended the CORE meeting strategic review. It was a great gathering and he will have a better report in two weeks. CONSENT CALENDAR Mike Kosdrosky, housing, said this is an APCHA policy study. It is the first guideline update in 10 years. There was an RFP at the beginning of the year. It w ill be collecting data through surveys and interviews. It will establish goals and objectives for now and longterm and make guideline recommendations. [twill include income and asset analysis. affordability and best practice analysis. The budget is not to exceed 60,000 dollars. They will be reaching out to the public, Councilman Frisch said they talked about this at Frontiers. It is well past its time. Councilwoman Mullins said the scope changed from extensive data to a more imperial basis. It does not seem to be the right direction. Mr. Kosdrosky said they wanted quantitative but there needs to be some qualitative, Mayor Skadron asked about timeframe. Mr. Kosdrosky said it will be kicking off next week through November. • Resolution#42. Series ol`2015 — Parks Dept. Toyota Prins Purchase • Resolution #45, Series of 2015 — Contract for Professional Services with Navigate LLC for the Affordable Housing Guidelines Policy Study • Minutes — April 13, 2015 • Resolution 444, Series of 2015 — 211 E. Hallarn — extension of AspenlModern Negotiation period Councilman Frisch move to adopt the consent calendar: seconded by Councilman Daily. Allinfavor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2015 - Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 4 & 5, Growth Management Allotments Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Council this is a requests for development allotments for both lots. In 2013 the forest service recorded a plat to create five lots. It did not have any City review or approval. It is the City's position no growth management allotments "ere granted. The application has been submitted to receive these allotments. Second reading is scheduled for May 4�. Mike Hoffman, representing the applicant, pointed out the application was not included in the packet. Ms. Phelan stated it was on the website. Mr. I lofficam said there is a disagreement between staff and the applicant. He said the allotments depend whether the Aspen town site allotments apply to the lots or if they were extinguished, Their position is they have not been extinguished, Councilman Frisch said five lots were created and this application talks about two. The other three are not in discussion at this time. Ms. Phelan replied that is correct. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like as much information to make the issue more clear about the mitigation and allotments. Mayor Skadron said generally speaking he would not support treating the lots differently and would need a compelling reason to the treatment of this lot. %NW 1%0 Reaular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 Councilwoman Mullin, moved to read Ordinance 416. Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor. motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 16 (SERIES OF 20 15) AN ORDINANCE OF THE Cl FY COUNCIL OF LHE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO� APPROVING GROW I H MANAGEMEN FREVIEWS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR LOTS 4 AND 5, RANGER STATEION SUBDIVISIONL CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Councilman Daily moved to adopt Ordinance 416, Seri es of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote, Councilmembers Mullins, yes: Frisch- yes; Dail), yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDFNANCE#15,SFRIESOF2015 Small Lodge Preservation Jessica Garrow, community development, said this would set up an incentive based program for small lodges. It is intended to provide benefits to better enable small lodges to continue and remain in operation. Support for small lodges was the number one priority from Council during policy resolution back in December. There are no dimensional changes proposed, Second reading is scheduled for May 26". Councilman Frisch asked which of these lodges could change use now by right from the chart on page two and three. Ms. Garrow said they w ould get in to more detail at second reading. Councilman Daily said he likes what Staff has created. This is the direction "a have been attempting to move the community forward for small lodge support for some time. There are no dimensional changes just encouragements. He is in favor. Councilman Frisch moved to read ordinance 4 15, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 15 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A PROGRAM TO ASSIST SMALL LODGES TO CON I INUE OPERATING AS SMALL LODGES. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2015 — HPC Work Sessions Code Amendment Amy Simon, community development. told the Council this code amendment will make two changes to the historic preservation section of the code. The first will remove the work session from the HPC process. It has been part of the process for around 25 years. Work sessions appear on the agenda but neighbors are not notified and at times not happy about it. For procedural reasons Staff " cold no longer like to hold work sessions at HPC. The second code amendment refers to specific building codes and staff would like to remove that to make it more generic. `We P70 VILa MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Lots 4 & 5, Ranger Station Subdivision — Growth Management Allotments & Planned Development Amendment, P' Readine of Ordinance No. --- (Series of 2015) MEETING DATE: April 27, 2015 APPLICANT/OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC and Staff recommends that the City Council approve Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC on first reading and set the public hearing date for May 4, 2015. REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Hoffman, Garfield and Hecht PC LOCATION: Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station Subdivision CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Planned Development (PD) overlay PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting two development allotments for Lots 4 and 5 via a cash payment -in -lieu, the ability to memorialize how to calculate Floor Area and a five year vested right period. j PD �( ways 1 MU, / RBMF IJ 1--.-.,, PD vicinity/zone district map of the site �fto P71 VILa LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant has requested a combined review, in which all reviews and decisions are granted by City Council. The following land use approvals from the City Council are being requested: • Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for free-market residential development and allotments. (As a combined review, the City Council is the final review authorit .) • Planned Unit Development — Minor Amendment for the amendment of a site specific development l2lan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final review authority). Vested Property Rights for the development proposal, which allows the development to be built after approval without meeting any zoning or land use changes during a prescribed time period, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308 (City Council is the final review authority . The Applicant is requesting a vesting period of five years rather than the standard three year period. BACKGROUND: The United States Forest Service (USFS) property is located in the West End of Aspen and the property is comprised of multiple lots and blocks as well as a portions of alleys and S. Francis Street that were never improved (Figure 1). The property was originally platted as part of the Aspen Townsite Map of 1880 and the USES came into ownership of the subject property in 1940. In 2012 FISTS officials met with city officials in a series of meetings and discussed their intent to redevelop the administrative campus as well as sell off a portion of the property. As a federal agency, the officials represented that they were not subject to the city's jurisdiction. On May 22, 2011 the United States Forest Service (USFS) recorded a survey with the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Entitled 'Ranger Station Subdivision', the survey (which was not approved and signed by the city) created five separate lots from the federal agency's property that is bounded by N. Eight Street, W. Smuggler Street and N. Seventh Street (Figure 2). As a result of the filing of the survey, the community development department began to field inquiries on the lots. Staff provided a summary on the development issues associated withthe lots priortotheir sale, most norablythe fact that the lots had not been approved through a city process and that the lots had not received growth management development allotments (Exhibit Q. During these discussions, it was made clear to the USES and to potential buyers of the property that the city would not object to the subdivision of the property, although the USFS did not go through with a subdivision process. However, as noted above, the summary emphasized that each lot would require a GMQS allotment. Figure 1: A portion of the Aspen Townsite Plat, 1890 %./ P72 VILa All of the lots have been purchased and a land use application has been submitted for two of the lots with the intent of receiving a development allotment for each. rigure 2: [anger station �V 3 Block 9 ` pp� ❑odtvision, 2013 PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC (hereinafter Aspen Dragonfly) requests a total of two development allotments, one each for Lot 4 and 5 of the Ranger Station subdivision so that each lot can be developed residentially. J: LVLY 111UJ Page 3 of 6 �hw %W4 P73 VILa Both lots are located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Planned Development (PD) overlay and exceed the minimum lot size required for the zone district. The Applicant is asking I)to pay acash payment in lieu of any affordable housing mitigation associated with the two development allotments being requested, 2) that the land areas associated with S. Francis Street and the alley contained within each lot be included as part of the lot area when calculating maximum allowable Floor Area, and 3) that the vested rights period be five years. Land Use Reviews: Planned Development: The entire USES property is designated with a PD, overlay, inclusive of the newly created lots. A single family or duplex residence is permitted to be developed on a property, without a PD review, if the development is compliant with the underlying zone district requirements. Lot 4 can accommodate a single-family residence or duplex while Lot 5 can accommodate a single family residence. Applicant is agreeing to conform to underlying zone district requirements but is requesting that both lots be exempt from a lot area deduction. Specifically, the land use code calculates the allowable Floor Area of a lot not by gross lot size but by net lot size. Net lot size is established by deducting certain areas of a lot such as steep slopes, vacated right of way or vehicular easements. Lot 4 contains a portion of an access easement (formerly part of the alley of Block 9) while Lot 5 includes part of the S. Francis Street right-of-way. As outlined below in Table 1, the lot area deducted for the access easement and S. Francis is equivalent to 96 sq. ft. of Floor Area for Lot 4 and 489 sq. ft. for Floor Area for Lot 5. T.kl, ]-A I Ft.., A a (nanximurn and with r-o-w deductions) Gross Lot Max Allowable Net Lot Max Allowable Floor Area size Floor Area (based Size Floor Area (based Difference on Gross) on N') Lot 11,615sq. 13-8116 F4,236sq. 10,002 sq. 3,720 sq. 4,140 96 sq. ft. 4 ft. sq. ft. I ft. ft.2 ft. sq. ft.. Lot 7,490 sq. 3,448 sq. ft. 4,999 sq. 2,959 sq. ft. 489 sq. ft. 5 ft. ft.3 Staff Comment: All city lots are subject to potential deductions in lot size when calculating Net Lot Area if they contain steep slopes, easements, previously vacated rights ofway, bodies ofivater and similar features. Staff does not support treating these lots differently when calculating deductionsftom gross lot area when lots in the surrounding area are subject to the deductions. Growth Manazement Review for Affordable Housing: In most instances a multi -lot subdivision requires the development of affordable housing mitigation in the form of physical units. Examples of subdivisions that include a certain ratio of free-market to affordable housing development include Trainers Landing (Barbee PUD) near I Steep slopes have been identified on the properties but may be marinade and were not included as a deduction. If shovoi and accepted as martmade slopes by the city, no deduction is required. 2 The access easement (former alley) equals 1,613 sq. ft. in area. Fourier S. Francis Street r-o�w equals 2,491 sq, ft. in area. Page 4 of 6 1� lft�# P74 VILa Koch Park and Alpine Cottages off of E. Cooper and Alpine Court. In this case, if the USES had gone through a city review a minimum of 60% of the units and 30% of the project's Floor Area would have been required to be developed as affordable housing. In cases where a "project consists of only one (1) free market residence, then a minimum of one (1) affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent of the project's total floor area and deed -restricted as a Category 4 "for sale" unit" shall qualify to receive a development allotment. Based upon the previously quoted code language, the required affordable housing mitigation foreach lot to receive a development allotment is 30% of the lot's maximum allowable Floor Area. Generally speaking, affordable housing is permitted to be developed on site, off -site, via the extinguishment of Affordable Housing Credits (AHCs), a cash payment in lieu, or through a combination of these methods. The intent of the mitigation requirement applicable to these lots is for a physical unit; however, four out of the five lots recorded by the USES do not permit more than one dwelling unit on the property. The Applicant is requesting to provide the required mitigation for each lot through a cash -in -lieu payment and memorialize the calculation based upon a 2015 Category 4 income level ($144,393.00 per employee) for a five year vesting period. Table 2 Payment -in -Lieu Based on a Simile-Familv Residence (AHU vs. ADU) Gross Lot Employee Payment -in- Payment -in- Difference Size Conversion lieu lieu Mitigation (Category 4) (if an (30% of allotment Floor Area) were associated with lots) 1, 144 sq. ft. 2.86 FTEs $412,963.98 $305,165.52 $107,798.46 ot 5 1,034 sq. ft. 2.59 FTEs $373,977.87 $275,736.56 $98,241.31 In looking at the cash -in -lieu payment it is imponant to consider that the amount represents a development allotment for each lot and the total mitigation required for the lot. A typical vacant lot in the West End with an allotment associated with the property is required to provide affordable housing through a number of options but is typically provided in the form of a physical accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or via a cash payment -in -lieu. The 2015 fee is $79.97 per square floor of Floor Area developed. As a comparison, the cash payment -in -lieu for Lot 5 to receive a development allotment is $373,977.87 based on gross lot area. If the property had a development allotment, built out the property, and paid a cash payment -in -lieu rather than developing an accessory dwelling unit the amount would be $275,736.56 (a difference of just over $98,000.00). Staff Comment: The intent of the mitigation requirement is a physical 'Jbr sale " affordable housing unit. Although the majority of the lots cannot accommodate an additional dwelling based upon the lot size, other mitigation options includeproviding an Qfif-site unit or extinguishingrAHCs. Staff's preference is the latter. Page 5 of 6 %W *00, P75 ViLa Vested Ri2hts The Applicant is requesting a vested property right for a period of five (5) years rather than the standard three (3) year period. Vesting provides an Applicant a timeframe in which the Applicant can rely on the approvals granted in a site specific development plan. It allows the Applicant to undertake and complete the development and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan. Once vested, a development plan shall not be required to be amended as a result of "any zoning or land use action by the city or by an initiated measure" during the vesting period. If the vested rights expire, the project will be subject to my new regulations that may impact the approval granted. Additionally, if the vesting expires the development allotments also expire, requiring an applicant to reapply for growth management approval. The Land Use Code typically providesfor a three year vestingperiod and a variationfton; that period is at the sole discretion of the City Council. The City does have aprocessfor extending or reinstating vested rights (Section 26.308. 101 C., Extension or Reinstatement of VestedRights). An extension, �f granted would be approved by the City Council. Staff recommends that the longer vestingperiod not be granted, as it does notprovide a community wide benefit. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The housing authority has been referred on this application, and the formal referval will be provided with the second reading memo. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the ordinance be approved upon first reading and a public hearing date be scheduled for May 4h. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the Planned Development Amendment and Growth Management Reviews for Lot 4 and 5on first reading and set the public hearing date of May 4th." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXIIJBITA— Growth Management Review Criteria EXHIBITB— Planned Development Review Criteria EXHIB[TC— Staff Development Summary EXHIBITD— Application Page 6 of 6 %..V *.w P76 ViLa ORDINANCE NO. 16 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR LOTS 4 AND 5, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 273512428005 AND 273512428004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Dragonfly 111, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly IV, LLC and, represented by E. Michael Hoffinart of Garfield and Hecht, requesting approval of growth management reviews for two residential development allotments, a Planned Development Amendment for the calculation of Floor Area and a five year vested property right; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned Medium Density Residential, R-6 with a Planned Development Overlay; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department did not support the requests as proposed and recommended in favor of the proposal with alternative conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090(3), City Council may accept a cash -payment -in -lieu for required affordable housing, may allow for variations within a Planned Development through Section 26.445.050 and may, at their sole discretion, allow a longer vested property right during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 4, 2015, the City Council approved Ordinance No. _, Series of 2015, by a _ to vote, approving the land use requests; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfine. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Ordinance No 16 , Series 2015 Page I of3 %W %d P77 V11.a Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council herby approves the granting of two residential development allotments via a cash- payment-in-licu, exempting the two lots being from a lot area deduction when calculating net lot area and permitting a vested property right of five years for each lot conditioned on the following: A. A cash -in -lieu payment for the maximum allowable Floor Area and maximum density permitted on each lot shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for each lot. B. The cash -in -lieu rate shall be at a Category 4 income level and locked in at the 2015 rate of $144,393 per IFTE for the vesting period unless a lesser rate is adopted by the City Council in the future. C. The area of former S. Fancis Street within Lot 5 and the former alley within Lot 4 shall not be deducted from the lot size when calculating the net lot area of each lot. Section 2: Severabili If my section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competcrujuriscliction, such pardon shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 3: Existing Liti2ation This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Approvals All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant Pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 an authorized entity. Section 5: Public Hearing A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 4� day of May, 2015, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 27� day of April, 2015. Aft�t: Ordinance No 16 , Series 2015 Page 2 of 3 .. './ P78 V11.a Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2015. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor Ordinance No 16 , Series 2015 Page 3 of 3 P79 Exhibit A Growth Management Review Criteria V11.a Sub Section 26.470.070(9) 9. Residential development — sixty percent (60%) affordable. The development of a residential project or an addition of units to an existing residential project, in which a minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the additional floor area is affordable housing deed -restricted in accordance with the Aspen[Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based On the following criteria: a. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the total additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the project's additional floor area shall be affordable housing. Multi -site projects are permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and shall average Category 4 rates as defined in the AspenfPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. b. If the project consists of only one (1) free-market residence, then a minimum of one (1) affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the project's total floor area and deed -restricted as a Category 4 "for sale" unit, according to the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, shall qualify. Staf f Findings. The project for each lot is the permitted use for each lot. Of the two lots, Lot 4 may he developed ii ith a single-family residence or duplex and Lot 5 may be developed with a single-family residence. The following table provides the flour area mitigation required based on a singlefiamily residence with a conversation to Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) and a corresponding cash -in -lieu payment. Applicant is requesting a cash payment - in -lieu. G... Let unpily" _j�et Lot —Size Employe� Rayment-in- Size Conversion lieu Mitigation Conversion lieu Mitigation (Category 4) (30% of (Category 4) (30% of Floor Area) Floor Area) _L_ot4 1,144 sq. ft. 2.86 FTEs $412,963.98 1, 116 sq. ft. 2.79 FTEs $402,856.47 Lot 5 1,034 sq. ft. 2.59 FTEs $373,977.87 887 sq. ft. 2.22 FTEs $320,552.46 The intent of the mitigation requirement is a physical 'for sale " affordable housing unit. Although the majority of the lots cannot accommodate an additional dwelling based upon the lot size, other mitigation options include providing an off -site unit or extinguishing AHCs. Staff does notfind this criterion met. Sub Section 26.470.070(4) 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed -restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: %�e *400 P80 VILa Exhibit A Growth Management Review Criteria a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Findings: The bowing authority has been referred on this application, and the formal reftrral will be provided with the second reading memo. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off -site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26,470,090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Findings: The Applicant is requesting that a cash paymeni-in-lieu be acceptedfor both lots by city council. Stafffinds this criterion met. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Staff Findings: The Applicant is requesting that a cash payment -in -lieu be acceptedfor both lots by city council, As such, stafffinds this criterion is not applicable. d. The proposed units shall be deed -restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the AspenfPitkin County Housing Authority, The deed restriction shal I authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended, The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a to= acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units, The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term, viability of the lodge. Units owned by the AspenfPitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pilkin County or other similar governmental or quasi -municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. P81 Exhibit A Growth Management Review Criteria VII.a Staff Findings: The Applicant is requesting that a cash payment -in -lieu be acceptedfor both lots by city council. As such, staffaids this criterion is not applicable. e. Non -Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470,070.4(a-d). The owner of such non -mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Staff Findings, Applicant is not proposing ciffordable housing units that are not requiredfor mitigation. Slafffinds this criterion not applicable. Sub Section 26.470.090(3) 3. Provision of required affordable housing via a cash -in -lieu payment. The provision of affordable housing equal to or in excess of one (1) residential unit, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, via a cash -in -lieu payment shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or of the site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. Staf f Findings. With the configuration of the lots, Lot 4 is large enough to be developed with a duplex, while Lot 5 can be developed with a single-family residence. In general almost Of the lots onlypermit one primary residence, makingphysical on -site affordable housing units impractical. Staffinds this criterion met. b. The applicant has made a reasonable good -faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units or the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status. Staff Findings: As noted in the application, the applicant has investigated the polentialfor a buy down and is concerned over the increased cost compared to a cash -in -lieu payment. c. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the cash -in -lieu payment will result in the near -term production of affordable housing units. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a cash -in -lieu payment, including all or none. Unless otherwise required by this Title, the provision of affordable housing via a cash -in -lieu payment for a fraction of a dwelling unit shall not require City Council approval. Staff Findings: Accepting a cash payment -in -lieu will not further the production of housing compared to the buying don n of a physical unit or par hasing Af c fordable Housing Credits. 5taff does notfind this criterion met. �W P82 VILa Exhibit B Planned Development Standards 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings. The property is not subject to any regulatory plans, Slaffinds this criterion is not applicable. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslicle areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings. The lots do not appear to include lands unsuitable for development. Some steep slopes are present but may be a man-made condition affecting a portion oJ the lots that will not harm the health, safety, or weh'are of the community. Overall, both of the lots can be developed Stafffinds this criterion is met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: I . The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. P83 Exhibit B Planned Development StandardsviLa Suiff Findings(], 2 & 3): The lots are configured so that minimum lot sizes are met and that the lots are oriented towards public streets. Future development of the lots with residences will reflect the neighborhood context. Stafffinds this criterion met. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: I . There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Findings: Applicant is requesting that certain areas of land that are typically deducted when calculating allowable Floor Area of a lot not be deducted. This variation will treat the two lots differently firom other lots within the city. Staff does not believe allowing for additional Floor Area supports any significant community goal, Staff does notfind this criterion met. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Findings: The permitted use is either a single-family residence or duplex depending on lot sizefor each lot. Not deducting the rights -of -way will result in apotentially larger residence. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Staff Findings: The permitted use is either a single-family residence or duplex depending on lot sizefor each lot. Not deducting the rights -of -way will result in a potentially larger residence. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a puking requirement. Staff Findings. Parking is not part of this discussion and the parking requirement will be met when the lot is proposed,for development. Stafffinds this criterion not applicable. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 — Amendments. Staff Findings: The applicant is not askingfor design flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Surfffinds this criterion not applicable. %Wf P84 VILa Exhibit B Planned Development Standards E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: I . The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic preservation. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Findings (I & 2)� The development oJ'each lot will be subject to the city's residential design standards. As a vacant lot the criteria are not applicable to this review. Stafffinds the review criteria not applicable, F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings. Single family and duplex development is exempiftom developing pedestrian, bicycle, and transitfacilifies. Staff.finds, this criterion not applicable. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: When developed, the lots will comply with all requirements of Title 29 and the URMP. Stafffinds this criterion is not applicable. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation tinvelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: When developed, the lots will comply with all public infrastructure requirements. Stafffinds this criterion met. 1. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned P85 Exhibit B V"�a Planned Development Standards Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Findings.' All lots have access to the public right-of-way. Staff finds this criterion met. 1� NNO, P86 VILa JURISDICTION: EFFECTIVE DATE: WRITTEN BY: CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: 6—ym� �, Date; JYIY 16,2013 City of Aspen July 16,2013 Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director JenniferPhelim, Deputy Planning Director SUMMARY: The US Forest Service has recorded a survey with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office (reception number 599691) creating five separate lots from a portion of the federal agency's property that is bounded by W. Hallam Street, N. Eighth Street, W. Smuggler Street and N, Seventh Street. The city has fielded some questions on the lots and this overview attempts to provide some additional clarity on the status of the lots. Overrview: City recognizes that the Forest Service recorded a survey which purportedly created five separate lots within the municipal boundaries. However, the subdivision was not approved by the city via a city review process. Thus, although the city will recognize that the lots were legally created, since they were created in 2013 development of the individual tots is contingent on meeting city regulations. All lots are located within the Medium —Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Specialty Planned Area (SPA) overlay. Development within a SPA requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council unless the SPA overlay is removed. Staff recommends removal of the overlay if detached residential dwellings are the anticipated development, All lots are subject to reductions in lot area also known as a Net Lot Area for calculation of allowable Floor Area. Lots I through 4 require the subtraction of the area of the access easement within each lot. The area of vacated Francis Street is required to be subtracted from Lot 5. Toi)ography has not been provided to determinc if any steep slopes are present that we required to be subtracted to determine Net Lot Area, Lots 3, 4 and 5 are traversed by the Si Johnson Ditch which has been in place for over 70 years. Pursuant to laws related to ditches and ditch easements the City and the ditch company have an easement that nins through the property extending ten feet from the centerline of the ditch or more as reasonably necessary to operate and maintain the ditch. No development may lake place within this easement. In addition other required yard setbacks are applicable. *�# P87 Vll.a There is a utility easement running through Lot 4, which most likely, most be rerouted prior to development commencing on the lot. As noted above, the subdivision did not go through city review. Therefore, the five lots have not received a growth management development allotment. Each lot is subject to review pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. fir' V THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: March 31, 2015 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application for a Ranger Station Subdivision, lots 4 & 5 — GMOS allotments reviewed it for completeness. ❑ Your Land Use Application is incomplete: Please submit the following missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. py Your Land Use Application is complete: ` If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete. Please submit the following to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. Thank You, ennifer P ela Deputy Planning Director City of Asp , Community Development Department For Office Use Only Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required New PD Yes_ _ No Subdivision, or PD (creating more than I additional lot)_ GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes K No __ _ Commercial_ _.. E.P.P. _Lodging ASPEN OFFICE 601 E�" fi, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. All ,,:�I.�.do 8161, 00, (97U) 925-1936 ATTORNEYS AT LAW F�111.11� (970) 925-108 Sin�c 1975 E. Michael Hoffman E-mail: mhoffman(agarrieldhechtcom Phone: (970) 544-3442 Revised March 24, 2015 Originally Submitted February 24, 2015 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen. Colorado 81611 Re: GMQS Application of Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC, for Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station "Subdivision" Ladies and Gentlemen: Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC is the owner of Lot 4 and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC is the owner of Lot 5, each as depicted and described on the survey of Ranger Station Subdivision recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado, in Plat Book 103 at Page 1, as Reception No. 599691 (the "Survey Plat"). (Lots 4 and 5 will be referred to in this application as the "Subject Lots." Together, the two owners of the Subject Lots are referred to herein as "Aspen Dragonfly.") Executive Summary: Aspen Dragonfly seeks Growth Management approval for development of a single family home on each of the Subject Lots. To resolve a disagreement concerning which section of the Growth Management code applies to the property, the applicant seeks the right to pay "cash -in -lieu" at the time a building permit is issued for each lot, calculated based on the regulations now in place or, if City regulations are changed to reduce the cost of employee housing mitigation, those in place at the time of building permit issuance. This application is filed for the purpose of securing from the City of Aspen all land use approvals which are prerequisite to the receipt of a building permit for each of the Subject Lots. rhe applicant seeks a vested right to pay a "liquidated sum" or to complete other defined performance so that it, or its successors in each of the Subject Lots, may file an application for a building permit and know with certainty what it must pay or what performance it must complete to receive the building permit. This includes, without limitation, the sum required to be paid or the performance required to satisfy the City's Growth Management regulations. Aspen Dragonfly %no *Ago Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 2 recognizes that it will also need to satisfy the City's Building Code and other "design -specific" regulatory requirements to receive a building permit. Pursuant to Code § 26.304.060. B. I., Aspen Dragonfly asks that the various requests set forth in this application be combined and considered by Aspen City Council. The question of the type of employee housing mitigation to be provided by the Applicant is ultimately the decision of City Council, and it makes sense that it deal with all related aspects of this request in connection with that primary question. As described in the Pre -Application Conference Summary (the "Pre-App") dated January 6, 2015, the Aspen Land Use Code's Growth Management chapter is the essential element of Aspen Dragonfly's current request. Although the Applicant does not waive its argument that a less demanding section of the Code should apply,1 this application is submitted to secure a growth management allotment pursuant to Code Section 26.470.070.9.b. This section of the Code allows an applicant to satisfy the affordable housing mitigation requirement through construction of newly -built units, buy -down of existing affordable housing stock, payment of cash-in-[ieu (with conditions), use of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, or a mix of these methods. Once a Growth Management allotment has been granted and the relevant conditions satisfied, no additional affordable housing will be required in connection with construction of a home on either of the Subject Lots. I be affordable housing impact of new construction is tied by Code to the size of the home to be constructed onsite. Generally speaking, the larger the home, the more employee housing mitigation required. Aspen Dragonfly is not currently seeking the right to build a structure of a particular size on either of the two Subject Lots. Instead, it seeks a vested right to mitigate the employee housing impacts through a particular methodology -- by payment of . cas . h-in- . lieu' utilizing . the le , s I set I of the building permit is issued for improvements to each of the Lots. The amount of cash -in -lieu per TTE" currently found in the Code is $144,393. However, the "per FTE" cash -in -lieu requirement will likely be reduced based, at least in pan, on the results of the Aspen Residential Employee Generation Study, dated March 4. completed for the City by RRC Associates. This study reported a substantial reduction in the number of employees "generated" residential development. If the information provided in the study, among other things. leads the City to adopt a lower "cash-m-licu" payment requirement, that lower requirement should apply to the amount paid to develop the Subject Lots. The maximum floor area of a home which may be built on a particular parcel is limited by Code and depends on the size of the lot and the floor area ratio applicable in the zone district in which the property is located. ' The applicant's argument that a different pan of the Groo,th Management section of the Land Use Code should apply to this application is articulated in a letter dated August 14, 2014, from Attorney Curtis Sanders to City Attorney James R. Two. A copy of the "Sanders Letter" is artached to this application as Exhibit A. VW 14W Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 3 A. History of Lots 4 and 5. Ramaer Subdivision.' The Aspen Town Site Map dated March 25, 1880 as Reception No. 860, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "1880 Townsite Map") created the 121 separate blocks comprising the City of Aspen, with each block consisting of up to eighteen separate, 100 foot by 30 foot lots, together with certain streets and alleys also depicted thereon. By a final condemnation award dated May 16, 1940, all of the following lands located in the City of Aspen and depicted on the 1880 Townsibe Map were adjudged and decreed to the use of the United States as Petitioner (collectively, the "Forest Serv, ice Land "): All of lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, and S of Block 9, and Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, and S of Block 10 of the fownsite and City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, together with abandoned alleys and streets adjacent thereto, more particularly described as follows: Francis Street in said Blocks 10 and 9 of said alley - between Seventh and Eighth Streets and also the alley in Block 9 between Seventh and Eighth Streets and also that part orthe alley in said Block 10 lying between Lots C, D, E, F, G, H and I on the north thereof and M, N, 0, P. Q, R, and S on the South in said Block 10. By confirmation quitclaim deed recorded May 20, 1940 in Book 157 at Page 633, Pitkin County, Colorado, Charles F. Garlington conveyed all of the Forest Service Lands to the United States. The alleys and streets contained within the Forest Service Lands were previously vacated and abandoned by the City of Aspen in a Resolution of the Aspen City Council dated March 3, 1937. The Forest Service owned the property from May of 1940 until September of 2013, when, over a six-month period, it conveyed the Five lots of the "Ranger Station Subdivision" to three separate owners. As depicted on the Survey Plat, Lot 4 consists of portions of Lots K, L, M, N, 0, and P, Block 10, Townsite and City ofAspen, together with a portion of the vacated and abandoned alley lying immediately to the north of Lots K, L, M, N, 0, and P. As depicted on the Survey Plat, Lot 5 consists of portions of Lots K, L, M, N, and 0, Block 10, Townsite and City of Aspen, together with a portion of the vacated and abandoned Francis Street lying immediately to the south of Lots K, L, M, and N. The Aspen Dragonfly properties and the historic lots established by the Aspen Townsite Plat are each shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. On August 27, 2013, the United States General Services Administration conducted an auction for the purpose of selling the five Ranger Station lots. Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC acquired Lots 4 and 5 pursuant to a Quitclaim Deed given by the United States as grantor, dated March 18, ' The information in this section is based on ruatenal prepared by attorney Curtis B. Sanders on behalf of Aspen Dragonfly and the other owners of lots within the Ranger Subdivision and is used with pomrission. %1110 lkwo Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 4 2014 and recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado on May 1, 20t4 as Reception No. 609963. On December 9, 2014, Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC conveyed Lot 5 to Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV. LLC; it retained ownership of Lot 4. B. Development Rights Associated with the Subject Lots. The physical area which is the Subject Lots was made a part of the City of Aspen by its inclusion in the 1880 Townsite Map. The U.S. Forest Service acquired title to the property through a condemnation proceeding completed in 1940. Both the condemnation award and the quit claim deed which memorialized the conveyance of the property to the USES described the large parcel by reference to the lots and blocks of the 1880 fownsite Map. All of the Forest Service Lands were owned by the Forest Service for approximately 74 years. Aspen Dragonfly acquired a part of those lands, the Subject Lots, in May of 2014. Code Section 26.470.060.2.a.3) should apply to this application because the Subject Lots include portions of lots described in the 1880 Townsite Map. Each of the Subject Lots should be "Non- conforming Lots of Record" and processed under Code Section 26.3 12.050 A. That section provides as follows: A detached single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be developed on a lot of record if. 1. The [of of record is in separate ownership and not contiguous to lots in the same ownership; and 2. The proposed single-family dwelling can be located on the lot so that the yard, height, open space andfloor area dimensional requirements Of the zone district can be met or a variance is obtained from said dimensional requirements pursuant to Chapter 26.314. Aspen Dragonfly consents to the merger of the Townsite lots as they exist within each of the Subject Lots. With that merger, the two Subject Lots will fully comply with Code Section 26.312.050 A. As applicable to the Subject Lots, the Code provides a property owner two regulatory paths to receipt of a Growth Management allotment. If a lot has a pre-existing "development right," then the Growth Management process may proceed administratively and employee housing mitigation for a single-family home may accomplished by one of the six alternatives listed in Code Section 26.470.060.2.a.3). if a lot does not have pre-existing development right. a Growth Management allocation must be acquired through the "Planning and Zoning Commission application" process defined Section 26.470.070 of the Code. As discussed on Page 7, below, the cost of mitigating employee impacts under the Planning and Zoning Commission application process is substantially higher than the cost of doing so in an administrative process. Aspen Dragonfly believes that the Subject Lots are entitled to the development rights associated with the 1880 Townsite lots which continue to exist on the Subject Lots and, for that reason, an V�l sme Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 5 administrative Growth Management application process should apply to this application. City staff has not recognized the development rights associated with the Subject Lots and has required that Aspen Dragonfly seek Growth Management allotments though the more burdensome regulatory path. Aspen Dragonfly has submitted this application as requested by staff as a means of finally settling the issue. However, it reserves the right to assert the alternative interpretation if its request is denied or approved with unacceptable conditions. C. Application of Relevant Code Provisions to this Application. As set forth in the Pre-App, the following sections of the Code are applicable to this application 26.304 Common development review procedures 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.070 (9)(b) Residential development — sixty percent (60%) affordable 26.470.070 (4) Affordable housing 26,470.090 (3) Provision of required affordable housing via a cash in lieu payment 26.470.100 Calculations 26.470.110 Growth management review procedures 26.710.040 Medium Density Residential (R-6) The common development review procedures govern the format of this application and the review process and are not separately discussed in this application letter. A discussion of how this application meets the other requirements of the listed Code sections is found below. In particular cases the relevant section of Code is found in italics, followed by a discussion of how the application addresses that regulation, in standard print. Code Section 470.070 (9): Residential development — sixty percent (60%) affordable. The development of a residential project or an addition en' units to an existing residential project, in which a minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the additional floor area is affordable housing deed-restricied in accordance with the Aspen1pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on thefollowing criteria: b. If the project consists of only one (1) free-market residence, then a minimum of one (1) affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the project's total floor area and deed -restricted as a Category 4 'fior sole" unit, according to the provisions o/ the AspenlPitkin Counly Affordable Housing Guidelines, shall qualify. ro determine the amount of affordable housing required, it is necessary to begin with a review of the Lot Areas for each of the Subject Lots. As shown on Exhibits C and D, the Gross Lot Area of Lots 4 and 5 are 11,615 and 7,490 square feet, respectively, The calculations of Net Lot Area for each of the two Subject Lots are found in Exhibit E, attached hereto. Deductions in Net Lot Area %NOV *41d Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 6 are required for slo es of greater than 20%. As shown on the exhibit, the Net Lot Area of Lot 4 is 10,586 square feet. F As shown on Exhibit E, 900 square feet must be deducted from the Gross Floor Area of Lot 5 for steep slopes, which establishes a Net Floor Area for that lot of 6,590 square Fect.4 Detached residential dwellings and Duplex structures are permitted uses within the R-6 zone district (which is applicable to the Subject LotSf5 It is likely that each of the Subject Lots will be improved by the construction of a single residential dwelling. Both of the Subject Lots meet the minimum requirements for Gross and Net Lot Area (6,000 square feet and 4,500 square feet, respectively).' A private residence may be built on either Subject Lot in full compliance with the other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district. As shown on Exhibit E, the maximum floor area for a single-family residence is 3,755 square feet on Lot 4 and 3,405 square feet on Lot 5. If the largest dwelliny unit permitted on each Subject Lot is requested, the 30% affordable housing requirement of Code Section 470.070(9) will require the Applicant (or its successor in each lot) provide affordable housing mitigation of 1,127 square feet for Lot 4 and 1,022 square feet for Lot 5.' The Affordable Housing Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority ("APCHA") provide that "in order to calculate mitigation requirements, 400 square feet of affordable housing units shall be used to equate to one full-time employee ["TTE"I in determining the required affordable housing mitigation for the free-market component of a mixed use development."' As shown in Exhibit E, the maximum number of "Full Time Equivalents" which may be required for ' Lot 4 is currently bisected by an casement ten feet in width in favor of the City of Aspen for underground utility lines. The Code does not require a reduction in Net Floor Area for casements of this type. Pursuant to the language of the tut�earaera itself, the Aspen Dragonfly may "relocate the easement and the utility appumcnance(s) therein ... upon the payment ofall direct and indirect costs of such relocation." ' City staff previously asserted that the fortion of Lot 5 which was once a pan of Francis Street had to be deducted when calculating net lot area for that parcel. 'this application, at the insistence of staff. has been filed on the basis that the Townsite map is inapplicable to the Subject Lots. On that basis, the Applicant's property does not benefit from the development rights normally associated with lots described on the Townsite Map and neither should it be penalized for those portions of its property which were once the streets and alleys found on the Townsite Map. No deduction, in Net Lot Area should be imposed on either of the Subject Lots due to this regulation. ' The Subject Lots, along with the balance of the property currently and formerly owned in the immediate vicinity of the Subject Lots was zoned R-6/SPA in City of Aspen Ordinance No. 86 (Series of 1981), A change in the Code adopted in 2014 corocred all SPA areas to Planned Developments. Technically, the area is now zoned R-6/PD. The property owned by the US Forest Service was identified by its 1880 Townsite Map designations in the 1981 Ordin.ncc. Permitted uses for the R-6 zone district are found at Code Section 26.710.040(B). ' Code Section 26.710.040(D)I. and 2. See Exhibit F. APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines F'APCHA Guidelines"), adopted January 2015, Pan Vil, Section 8. Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 7 Lots 4 and 5 (depending on the floor area to be constructed on each lot) are 2.82 and 2.55, respectively, As mentioned above, Aspen Dragonfly is seeking the right to satisfy the affordable housing mitigation requirements for development of Lots 4 and 5 by payment of "cash -in -lieu," as provided in Section 26.470.090 (3) of the Code, set forth here: 3. Provision of required affordable housing via a cash -in -lieu payment. The provision ofaffordable housing equal to or in excess of one (1) residential unit, as required by Chapter 26470, Growth Management, via a cash -in -lieu payment shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on thefollowing criteria, a. The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or of the site or would be inconsistent with the character ofihe neighborhood in which the project is being developed As a practical matter, it is not feasible to locate two residential dwellings on either of the two Subject Lots. The Net Lot Area of Lot 5 is inadequate (at 6,590 square feet) as a matter of Code for the establishment of a second structure on site. While Lot 4 meets the regulatory minimum Net Lot Area for two detached residential units (or two duplex units), the topography of the site does not lend itself to the construction and continuing existence of two separate homes. See Exhibits F and G for a graphical representations of the topography of Lot 4 and Lot 5, respectively. b. The applicant has made a reasonable good -faith effort in pursuit ofproviding the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units or the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status. In the course of its investigation, the applicant found that the cost of constructing new offisite employee housing or buying down existing dwelling units to satisfy Growth Management requirements is well in excess of $ 1,000,000 for the two Subject Lots. As discussed in the letter from Attorney Curtis Sanders to City Attorney James R. True, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, Aspen Dragonfly and the other owners of lots within the Ranger Station Subdivision have a good faith belief that they should not be required to provide new affordable housing units in connection with the construction of homes on their lots. As described above, each of Lots 4 and 5 are made up of pans of lots defined by the 1880 Townsite Map. Those lots were "legally described parcels prior to November 14, 1977" and should be processed under Section 26.470.060.2.a.3) of the Code. Under that section Aspen Dragonfly would be currently required to pay an "affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the [APCHA] Guidelines,"' of $79.97 per ' Code, Secti.n 26.470.060.2.a.3 %W *490 Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 8 square foot of new structure in full satisfaction of the affordable housing requirement." The cost of Affordable Housing mitigation under this regulatory scheme would be $572,605.99 if floor area were maximized on both Subject Lots. The additional cost of treating the Subject Lots as not existing prior to November 14, 1977 is over $200,000 if floor area is maximized on both lots under current Code. (if the cash -in -lieu affordable housing mitigation fee is reduced prior to the date a building permit is issued for either Lot, the lower fee should be passed on to the applicant.) a The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the cash -in -lieu payment will result in the near -term production of affordable housing units. A recommendation ftom the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority shall be consideredfor this standard The applicant encourages the City to immediately use the money to be paid at the time of building pcmnit issuance for affordable housing purposes. City staff has informed Aspen Dragonfly that it supports the approach described in this application as it will produce substantial revenue to the affordable housing program and because it avoids litigation. Avoidance of litigation is also in the best interests of the Applicant. Conclusion For reasons which are not fully apparent to Aspen Dragonfly, the City and the U.S. Forest Service did not resolve the zoning and development issues related to the Ranger Station Subdivision at the time the Forest Service auctioned the lots in 2013. Even though the Subject Lots exist within the area defined by the City's 1880 Townsite Map, City staff has asserted that the lots are not entitled to the development rights normally associated with Townsite lots. As a compromise between the City's position and the regulations which the Applicant believes should apply to this application, Aspen Dragonfly requests that the Growth Management mitigation requirements for Lots 4 and 5 be satisfied through payment of cash -in -lieu as calculated at the lower of the rate found in current Code or that found in Code at the time a building permit is issued for each Lot. The actual amount of cash -in -lieu to be paid to the City shall be calculated based on the floor area requested in a building permit application and paid at the time required by the City regulation in force at that time. Aspen Dragonfly also requests that the net lot area of the Lots 4 and 5 be recognized as 10,586 square feet and 6,590 square feet, respectively. Sincerely, E. Michael Floffman Table of Exhibits " APCHA Guidc lines, Pan VII, Section 12,3. ../ V Aspen City Council March 24, 2015 Page 9 Exhibit A - Letter dated August 14, 2014 from Curtis Sanders to City Attorney James R. True Exhibit B - Survey of Subject Lots and Townsite Map Overlay Exhibit C - Current Survey of Lot 4 Exhibit D - Current Survey of Lot 5 Exhibit E- Lot Area, Floor Area, FTE Calculations Worksheet Exhibit F - Topography of Lot 4 Exhibit G - Topography of Lot 5 %W *40 F;5TJb t �A I I SHERMAN6HOWARD 320 Wait Main Stneel A�n. C�101-JO 61611-1557 TelephonO 970 925 6300 F�� 970 M 1181 . ��rmanh�ard eiinn Curin; B. Sandem Shaman & Hoenard LL.C. Di,,,t Dial Number. 970MG.0114 E-mail; �andem@sh�anhoward.com August 14. 2014 Via fland Delivei"i, James R. True. Esq. City of Aspen Attorney 130 South Galena Street, Second Floor Aspen. Colorado 81611 Re: Communication Punuant to C.R.E, 408; St. George Investments L.L.C., Todd Gardner, and Aspen Dragonfly Partners ILI, LLC; Ranger Station Subdivision Lots 1 -5 Dear Jim: This rim represents St, George Imestments L.L.C. ("at. Georg "), Mr. Todd Gardner ("Gardne "), and Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111. LLC ("Draponfl� ") (St. George, Gardner, and Dragonfly are collectively rcferre� to herein as the "Ownc " and individually as an "Owme ") as owners of certain lands (the "Forest Service Lot ") depicted and described on the "Ranger Station Subdivision" Serve) Plat recorded May 22, 2013 in Plat Book 103 at Page I (the "Survev Plat") As ) ou are aware, through various meetings and discussions between City of Aspen officials ard the Owners and their representatives, the City of Aspen. through its representatives has indicated its belief that none of the parcels of land depicted and described on the Survey Plat have existing development rights. Therefore, each Owner is required to obtain a development right from (he City of Aspen through the City of Aspen Growth Management Quotei System as a prerequisite to the construction of residential improvements on such Owner's parcel of land. I have previously communicated with you the Ownem'disagreement with the City of Aspen's position with respect to this matter, and the purpose of this letter is to set forth the legal basis of the Ownelis' position. 1. Factual Backwround. St. George is the owner of Forest Senice Lot I and Forest Service Lot 2. as the same are depicted and described on the Sun ey Plat. Gardner is the owner of Forest Service Lot 3, as the same is depicted and d .... ibed on the Suncy Plat. Dragonfly is the owner of Forest Service Lot 4 and Forest Service Lot 5, as the same are depicted mid described on the Sunc,% Plat. BUS RM-194W I 1%01 The Aspen Town Site Map dated March 25, 1880 as Reception No. 860, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "1880 Towmsite Ma ") provided for the creation of 121 separate Blocks comprising the City of Aspen, with each Block comprised of up to eighteen separate, 100 foot by 30 foot Lots. together with certain strects and alleys also depicted thereon- Bv a final condemnation award dated May 16, 1940� the following lands located in the City of A�spen and depicted on the 1880 To%vnsite Map were adjudged and decreed to the use of the United States of America as Petitioner (collectively. the "Forest Service Land "): All of lots A. B, C. D, F, F, G. 14, 1, K. L, M, N, 0, P� Q, R, and S of Block 9, and Lots A. B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1. M, N, 0, P� Q, R, and S of Block 10 of the Toorisite and City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, together with abandoned alleys and streets adjacent thereto, mom particularly described as follo%Ns: Francis Street in mid Blocks 10 and 9 of said alley - b�twccn Seventh and Eighth Streets and also the alley in Block 9 between Seventh and Eighth Streets and also that part of the alley in said Block 10 lying between Lots C, D. E. F, G. I I and I on the north thereof and M, N, 0, P, Q. R, and S on the South in said Block 10. By confirmation quitclaim deed recorded Max 20, 1940 in Book 157 at Page 633. Pitkin County, Colorado, Charles F. Garlington conveyed all of the Forest Service Lands to the United States of America. The alleys and Streets contained within the Forest Service Lands were previously vacated and abandoned by the City of Aspen in a Resolution of the Aspen Cit) Council dated March 3, 1937. In 2011, the United States ofAmerim as the owner of the Forest Service Lands, began soliciting comments from the City of Aspenand Pitkin County, Colorado for the potential sale of an approximately one -acre portion of the Forest Service Lands pursuant to the Forest Service Faciliiy Realignment and Enhancement Act (P.L. 109-54)� By letter dated January 19, 2012 to Ke% in Warner on behalf of the United States Forest Servicc� tihe City of Aspen provided a "staff memo" setting forth certain recommendations with respect to the sale and future redevelopment of an approximately one -acre portion of the Forest Service Lands, including a recommendation that such lands be subdivided into three to five new lots, and which staff memo included diagrams depicting suggested lot configurations. After soliciting mid receiving input from Pitkin County, Colorado, the City of Aspen, and members of the public, the United States of America provided for the preparation and recording of the Survey Plat in the real estate records of Pitkin County, Colorado which depicted the reconfiguration of the approximately one -acre portion of the Forest Service Lands into five separate Forest Service Lots, and witich conformed to one of the City of Aspen's suggested lot configurations set forth in the City of Aspen's January 19, 2012 letter to Kevin Warner. For your convenience. a copy of the Survey Plat is attached. along with a Mcnionandurn of Chris Bendon. City of Aspen Community Development Director dated January 17, 2012 which depicts various suggested lot configurations, hicludina the one that was eventually adopted by the United States Forest Son ice. As you am aware, Mr. Bendon has subsequently recused himself from this matter. %W *4W As depicted on the Survey Plat, Forest Service Lot I consists of all of Lots A and 13, Block 10, Townsite and City of Aspen as depicted on the 1880 Townsite Map. together with an additional approximately 600 square feet of hald consisting of a portion of the vacated and abandoned alley lying immediatelv to the south of Lots A and B. As depicted on the Survey Plat. Forest Service Lot 2 consists ofall of Lots C and D. Block 10, Townsite told ChN of Aspen as depicted on the 1880 Townsite Map, together withan additional approximately 660 square feet ofland consisting of a portion of the vacated mid abandoned alley lying immediately to the south of Lots C and D. As depicted on the Survey Plat, Forest Service Lot 3 consists of all of Lots E and F, Block I VFownshe and City of Aspen as depicted on the 1880 Townsite Map, together with an additional approximately 660 square feet of land consisting of a portion of the vacated and abandoned alley lying immediately to the south of Lots E and F. As depicted on the Survey Plat, Forest Service Lot 4 consists of portions of Lots K. L, M, N, O� and P, Block io, 'rowmsite and City of Aspen. together with a portion of the vacated and abandoned alley lying immediately to the north of Lots K. L, M, K 0, and P. As depicted on the Survey Plat, Forest Service Lot 5 consists of portions of Lots K, L, M. and 0, Block 10. Townsite and City of Aspen, together with a portion of the vacated and abandoned Francis Street lying immetiiately to the south of Lots K. L. M. and N. For purposes of confirming the relationship of the Historic City Lots to the current configurations of Forest Service Lots I - 5. please refer to the attached Improxement Survey Plat prepared by Sopris Engineering. onto rhich I have highlighted the locations ofthe boundaries of Forest Sen ice Lots 1 -5. On August 27. 2013. the United States of America General Services Administration conducted an auction proN iding for the sale of Forest Service Lots I and 2 to St. George, Forest Service Lot 3 to Gardner, and Forest Sen ice Lots 4 and 5 to Dragonfly. St. George subsequently acquired title to Forest Service Lot I told Forest Service Lot 2 pursuant to that certain Quitclaim Deed given by the United States of America as grantor, dated September 24, 2013 and recorded in the real property records of Pitkin Countv. Colorado on November 7, 2013 as Reception No. 60539 1, Gardner subsequently acquired title to Forest Service Lot 3 pursuant to that certain Quitclaim Deed given by the United States of America as grantor. dated September 24, 2013 and recorded in the real prop", records of Pitkin County, Colorado on September 27. 2013 as Reception No. 604268. Dragonfly subsequently acquired title to Forest Service Lot 4 and Forest Service Lot 5 pursuant (c that certain Quitclaim Deed given by the United Slates of America as grantor. dated .Much 18, 2014 and recorded in the real property records ol'Pilkin County. Colorado on May 1, 2014 as Reception No. 6099633. %.W 1%04 Ina Jul), 16, 2013 memorandum prepared bylenniferPhdan, Deputy Planning Director of the City of Aspen. the City of Aspen indicated that the United States Forest Service had recorded the Sur-vey Plat, "creating" five separate lots from the Forest Service Lrards. Further, die memorandum went on to state that the City of Aspen recognized the legal creation of the Forest Service Lots as a result of the Survey Plat, but that none of the Forest Service Lots was cur-rem]v developable since the Forest Service Lots were not created as legally separate properties pursuant to the City of Aspen subilk ision regulatioms, and since such separate Forest Service Lots did not previous]) mcm c subdivision approval from the Cit� of Aspen. Such memorandum goes on to provide that as a result, the Fares( Service Lots can only be developed with residential improvements if such properties first obtain a City of Aspen "Growih Management Development Allotment" pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growili Management Quota System, of the City of Aspen Municipal Code (the "City Code"). Apparently. this memorandum was gencriacd by the City of.Aspen shortly before the August 27, 2013 auction of the Forest Service Lots as a result of confusion among members of the public, and perhaps the City of Aspen, regarding the developability of the Forest Service Lots. Representatives of the City of Aspen have subsequently stated that while the City of Aspen could not regulate or prohibit the United States of America's subdivision of portions of the Forest Service Lands, nonetheless the United States of America's conveyance of such separate Forest Service Lots to the Owners was not a legal subdivision pursuant to tire City Code since all of the Forest Service Lands. including the rhe Forest Service Lots, previously merged into a single parcel of land as of'Oetober 27. 1975. Based upon the foregoing, the City's position with respect to the proposed for= re- development of all of the Forest Service Ecos is therefore that: (1) the United States of America, as the legal owner of the Forest Service Lands (which included the Forest Service Lots as of October 27. 1975) Em subject to and bound by the provisions of the City Code then in effect regarding the ownership. use. and irde� elopment of the Forest Sen ice Lands. specifically including pro� isions of the City Code regarding the legal merger of Historic Lots: but that (2) the United States of Amerin� as the owner of the Forest Service Lands, was not subject to provisions of the City Code regarding subdivision of the Forest Service Lands. 1 Analysis. With respect to the City of Aspen's assertion that the City of Aspen Townsite Lots. and vacated and abandoned streets and alleys comprising Forest Service Lands previously merged into a single parcel of land as of Octob�r 27, 1975, Section 26-480.020 of the City Code provides in its entirety as follows: "E. Aspen Townsue lots. If m,o (2) or more lors within the Original Aspen Townsile or addirions thereto hm-e continuous frontage and tire at single ownership (includim-t hushand and wife) on October 27, 19 . the ForesrService l.ens shall be considered an undivided lot for the purposv�s of this title and convevairce of any portion shall constitute subdivision An Aspen Townsire lot or addition thereto includes all lands depicted on the Aspen incorporation plat of record, dated 1880, plus any lot or parcel annerved to the Ciiy since their finie ,�i hich conpinaes a noncoqforitoing lot of record, plus airri, lot or parcel ohich has N*00 %0*4 nor received subdivision approval by the Cov Or C011011Y. but excludes any subdivided lot in the Cily uhich confirms to the requirements oJ this Title." (emphasis added) Prior to the conveyance of the Forest Service Lots to the Owners, the Forest SCTVICC Lots. together with the remainder of the Forest Service Land, were owned by the United States of America, and administered by the United States Forest Service. The Forest Service Organic Administration Act (Act of June 4, 1897) (16 U.S.C, §§ 473-478. 479-482 and 55 1. Jusse 4, 1897, as amended 1905. 1911, 1925� 1962, 1964� 1968. and 1976) is the original organic act goveming the administration ofNational Forest Lands owned by the United States of America. The United States Forest Service was established in 1905 pursuant to the Transfer Act (Act of February 1. 1905) (16 U.S-C. 472). which transferred the responsobility for the management United States forest reserves from the United States Deparunent of the Interior to the United States Department of Agriculture. Section I of the Transfer Act provided in part; "The Secretarli of the Department of Agriculture Shall, from and after the passage of this Act, execure at- conexe to be executed all lans affecting public lands heretofore or herezfer i csc�ed tinder the provisions ofSection Twenry Four qf the ActenthledAn4ciairepealihe tunber-culture lau-s, and.for other purposes,' approved March Third, Eighteen Hundred and Ninery-One. and Acts sappleinenial it) and arnendalory thereof after such lands have been So reserl ed L=epfing such lasts as affect the surve ' ving. prospecting, locating, appropriating. entering. relinquishing, reconveying. certifying, orparenringot-anYsuch lands," Although subsequently repealed by Pub, L. 94-579, title VIL § 704(a), Oct, 21. 1976,90 Stat. 2792, the text of Section I of the Transfer Act was valid and effective as ol'Octobcr 27, 1975. Bv Act as of March 3, 1925 (P.L. 68-575. Ch. 117. 43 Stat. 1112. as arnended; 16 U.S.C. 555, 55i. 572), the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to purchase certain private lands as follows: "Where nor suitable Government land is available fior National Foresi headquarters, range? stations. threllings, or othershes required./or the coective conduct q/ the ainhorifed activities qf the Forest Semice. the Secretary (If Agriculture is hereby mahorized to purchase lands out q/ the appropriation applicable to the purposefor which the land is to he used, . , " At the time of the United States ofAmerica's taking title to the Forest Service Lands by confirmation quitclaim dccd recorded May X 1940 in Book 157 at Page 633, Pitkin County. Colorado. the United States of America's ownership of such lands was subject to the provisions of Section I ofthe Transfer Act which afforded the Secretary of the Deparonerst of Acriculture the exclusive right to " - , . execute or cause to be executed all laws affectingliublic lands heretifore or hereafter reserved. . , '. subject only to ". . . such lines as aftct the supTe3ing. pro.%peefing. localing. appropriating entering, relinquishing. reconveying. certifjing, or patenting of on), such lands". %W 1.00, As of October 27. 197i, the United Slates of America's ownership of the Forest Service Lands remained subject to the then -current provisions of Section I of the Transfer Act which afforded the Secretary ofthe Department of Agriculture the exclusive fight to " . . . execute or cause to be execuled ail laws affecting public lands herinqfisre or hereafter reserved. . . ". subject onIN to ...... vuch laws as iflect the su"eying, prospecting, locating, appropriating, entering, cell : nquishing, reconvel ing. certifying, or parenting of any such larultv". I he United States Constitution governs the relationship of the federal government to lands Article IV. § 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, commonly refeued to as the "Property Clause". gives the United States Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other propen " v of the United States. The Property Clause provides as follows: 'The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rates and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Propers�- belonging to the United Slates-" The Property Clause affords the United States broad authoritN for the Congress to goveirl the lands acquired by the United States as it sees fit. and to exercise exclusive authority to decide on whether or not to dispose at* such lands. Article VI. Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, commoniv relerred to as the "Supremacy Clause" provides as fiallows: "Thk Consioulion. and the Laws of the United s;uiles which shall be made in pursuance theiecs.t. and all treaties made. or which shall he made, tinder the mahorav at the Untied States. shall he the supreme hav of the land, and the iudge.� i : n everj state shall he bound lherehy� anything in the constitution or lails ofani state to the conli inji notii ithstandittg." For the sake of expedience, I won't provide a detailed analysis of the doctrine of premption in this letter. However, the law is clew that "[77he poii ei overfederal landgranted to Congress in the Property Clause is plenary and without limitations." California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 571 5M 107 S.Ct. 1419, 1424-25, 94 LEd.2d 577 (1987). Further. "[71heSupremavy Clause invalidates state laws or local ordinances that 'allerfeie it uh'. or tire contrary lo.'.fiederal /,a,."' Hilisborough County. Fla. v. Automated Medical Labs. Inc.. 471 U.S. 707, 712. 105 S.Ct- 2371. 2374-75, 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) (quoting Gibbon _y. O&deq� 22 U.S� (9 Wheat,) 1, 211, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824) (Marshall. C.J.)). Finally 1,511ale loss can be pre-empted in either oftivo general is ays If Congress evidences an intent to occulty a given field, aytl� state lau failing within thalfield is pre-empred IJ'Congress has not entirelydisplaced state regulation over the matter in question. state lou is still pre�plpied to the extent it actually conflicts it ithfiederal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal kiss, or where the state law stands as on obstacle to the accomplishment of the fillipurposes and objectives of Congress." Id. (citations emitted) (quoting Silkwood v. Kerr McGee Com.,464 U.S. 238. 248. 104 S.Ct. 615,621, 78 L.Ed-2d443 (1984)). Based upon the foregoing. proN isions of the City Code in effect asi of October 27, 1975 which were intended to pro% ide for the merger of contiguous City of Aspen Historic Lots held in %W %W "single owmers;hip" as of October 27, 1975 did not appPy to the separate Historic Lots which comprised the Forest Service Lands and which the Uniied States of America owned on October 27. 1975. Furthermore, the current provisions of Section 26.480.020 of the City Code which also provide for the merger of separate City of Aspen Historic Lots as of October 27, 1975 also do not apply for the same reasons. As a result, all of the Historic Lots which currently comprise the remaining portion of the Forest Service Lands which am still owned by the United States of America remain as legally separate Historic Lots. and all of the I listoric Lots which currently comprise the separate Forest Service Lots also remain as legally separate Historic Lots. each of which retains its own dc% clopment Tight under the City Code. In this regard, please note that for purposes of the Cit) Code, the Survey Plat is of no legal sign�ficance as to the creation of the Forest Service Lots. The Survey Plat was not approved by the City of Aspen and did not effect any sort of subdivision of a portion of the Forest Service Lands into the five separate Forest S�rvicc Lots. and the Survey Plat did not "create" the Forest Scrvicc Lots. Rather. the Sun ey Plat merely provided a graphic depiction of the respective locations and configurations of the Forest Service Lots, and provided separate nietes and bounds legal descriptions for each of the Forest Service Lots. For this reason. all of the deeds front the United States of America to die Owners included metes and bounds legal descriptions of Forest Lots, in addition to referencing- the lot designations on the Survey Plat. Therefore. a "subdivision" of portions of the Forest Service Land did not occur upon the recording of the Survev Plat. Furthermore. a merger of the Historic City Lots comprising each of the five Forest Service Lots also did not occur upon the recording of the Survey Plat. The latter is clear in light of the provisions of Section 26.480.020.B.2 of the City Code which provides: '[Ljors shall not be considered rnerged, or othera-ise legally combined by a structure spanning the property and shall continue to be separate menership interests unless combined pan. murt to this Chapter". (emphasis added). Since the Survey Plat does not constitute a subdivision plat under the City Code. and %%as not approved by the City of Aspen. the Historic City Lots comprising each of the rive Forest Service Lots were not "legally combined" by the Subdivision Plat, and the Historic City Lots retained their status separately developable parcels of land. I hus, a formal "subdix ision" of a portion of the Forest Service Lands in the Forest Service Lots never occurred, and instead. the United States of America simply con%eyed each separate Forest Service Lot to each Owner, with each Forest Service Lot comprised of on - merged Historic City Lots and vacated alleys and streets. The metes and bounds legal description of each of the Forest Service Lots used by the United States of America for purposes of conveving each Forest Service Lot in no way changes the fact that regardless of how the Forest Service Lots me described, Forest Service Lots I - 3 each includes two full Historic Lots in their exact historic locations and configurations, together with a portion ofthe abandoned adjacent alley. and Forest Service Lots 4 and 5 each Aso includes portions of Historic Lots. together with a portion of the abandoned Francis Street fight of way. Since them was no prior merger of any of these Historic Lots, each Forest Service Lot is comprised of at least two Historic Lots. each of which, in tion, retains an existing development right. NNW ,e 3. Conclusio . The silmificance of the above matters is that according to the City of Aspen, none of the Forest Service Lots is cumentIv developable. Further, according to the City of Aspen, in order to develop a Forest Service Lot, such Forest Sery ice Lot must receive City of Aspen GMQS approval. As part of that approval, each Forest Service Lot would be required to provide one affordable housing residence (which represents a minimum of 30% of a Forest Service Lot's FlocirArea). with such affordable housing unit deed restricted as a Category 4 "for sale unit. The City of Aspen G.MQS regulations contemplate that such affordable housing mitigation can be provided either: (1) by a cash-in-Imu payment, which is subject to City Council approval; or (2) providing neA% ly built or buy down units; or (3) providing, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits. Based on my prior discussion with City of Aspen Planning Department staff, it is my understanding that City Council will not accept a cash -in -lieu affordable housing mitigation arrangement for the Forest Service Lots. Providing on -site affordable housing mitigation is not a viable option for the Forest Service Lots since the lot sizes are too small to accommodate an ADU. This leaves item (3), proN icing Certificates of Affordable I lousing Credits, as the most viable option for prey iding the affordable housing mitigation which would be required under GMQS. Based on the applicable formulas provided for in the City Code, for a 6,000 square foot Forest Service Lot to din clop all of its 3.240 square feet of FAR (Forest Service Lots 1, 2- and 3 am all slightly larger than 6,000 square feet in size). these Forest Service Lots would need to purchase 2.4i Category 4 FTE's per Forest Service Lot, Assuming an approximate purchase price of $175.000 for one Category 4 FTE certificate ($175.000 was the approximate going rate of a Certificate six months ago), then the cost of purchasing sufficient FTE's to develop a 3.240 square foot residence on a Forest Service Lot would cost approximately $400.00 . If, on the other hand, a Forest Service Lot has an existing development right, then the Owner would not need to go through the City's GMQS process to obtain a development right. and could satisfy the City's affordable housing impact fees as follows: (1) Pay cash in lieu of $254,320 per Forest Service Lot. which is an automatic right. and does not require City Council approval; or (2) Construct an on -site ADU of 300 square feet on such Forest Service Lot, which is deducted from the FAR available to the free market unit to be constructed (although, again, this approach is likely not available to the Owners since the City Code prohibits the construction of an ADU on lots with the dimensions of the Forest Service Lots): Or (3) Purchase and pro% ide an affordable housing mitigation cerrificate for one Category 4 FTE for each 3,000 square fee( of FAR constructed on the Forest Service Lot. For a residence comprised of 3.240 square feet of FAR, and again assuming an approximate purchase price of $175,000 for one Category 4 certificate, then the cost of purchasing sufficient FTE's to develop a 3,240 square foot residence on such Forest Service Lot %We �40 would cost apk .. imtclv-�200,000, which is half the amount of such costs if the Forest Sen ice Lot does not have an existing development right. Applying- this analysis to all five Forest Service Lots, the City of Aspen is effectively demanding an additional S1,000,0000 of affordable housing mitigation fees from the Owners based on its faulty merger analysis. Again. this requirement is solely the result ofthe City ofAsperf s determination that none of the Forest Service Lots has an existing development right, and as a consequence. the FTE's generated by a Forest Service Lot would be 2.43 FTE's instead of 1.0 FTE. which would be the amount of FTE's if a Forest Service Lot was deemed to have an existing development fight. As we have discussed. the Owners believe strongly in their position that each of the Forest Sen ice Lots has existing development rights, and the Owners are prepared to authorize mv firm to undertake an action for declaratory relief in United States Federal Court in order to legaliv confinn such rights. However, as we have also discussed, the Owners feel that given tile some;vIen complex and unique history of the Forest Service Lots, there would be adA amages to both the City of Aspen and the Ownem to the extent that the parties call negotiate a resolution of this issue. as well as other issues relative to the Forest Service Lots. Specifically. if the City is willing to confirm the existing development rights associated with the Forest Service Lots which would result in a substantial reduction of the abovc-described affordable housing mitigation fees - the Owners would be prepared to work with the City in providing for the execution and recording in the real estate records of a proper Subdivision Plat of the Forest Service Lots which addresses the various requirements of (he City Code, is acceptable to the City of Aspen Engineer. and properly establishes and dedicates rights of way for access and utilities. The Owners would also be willing to pro% ide for the removal of the SPA zoning overlay from the Forest Sen ice Lots. Since the United States of America pro% ided for the creation of the separate Forest Service Lots without approval from the City of Aspen. perhaps them are other areas of concern that the Citv would like addres�sed. and which the Owners might be willing to accommodate. I At your convenience, I would appreciate it if Von would review this matter with appropriate City of Aspen personnel, including the Niavor and City Council, and provide me with some sort of substantive response not later than ten days from tile date hereof. Sincerclyl—�', �, Eric. cc: St. George Investments. L.L.C. Todd Gardner Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111. LLC J119NIU33N19N3SIUd0S wnwwSi'r' �� ......w.-..s.r.. ..w,x.ww.ww.w.r..w. Y' �1t � 00"01W 3031Y15'NININ lO U 00a'3USNMOL�NMW 3HL 30OT B 6SNJO103O SNOILUOd NIHLIM 'W-d 4193N1 dOLS3M%I 39NBU'N10050t d1NSNMOI 9N'I1,dQ-13)"d_V NOISIAiaanS NOIlb1S H39NVU Y RECOAAFAE NOiE' naf epjuosed ll�rouye suLd-nlvonyrocass RANGER STATION SUBDMSION TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST, 6ch P. M. SECTION 12, BLOCKS 9 AND 10, ASPEN TOWNSITE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO •Wnge.v �,usvu � �r.xe. ,No 1 1(n P1 V i wWw `rY _ vao --- -__` _ SFr Block 9 g `.n S Block /0 im cescwrnws ra w.^.z i�w'��»mwo r zz.•.a e.s: vm±oa ensRoeeGvrves n•muaraww nx nron•• c. . e.w.� a. eEae3 AL'CumaelAkLL 9.tma k.W aim' l.v' wA dnwu ' �dp•�,mR:..,:nmT ygmpw.ym.em>. a�ws Aqm ro.mwm.i. wmma�umr a,M z,. ms�.e«e.. e.w.w •I �xrts c• •rvwstu �,ur ui e'�nd�w�eea.ay v:��cswnrav xY1TvIX wSvnW IKFIE\'IS nli A•e`�lwnssenvrmmp' Ae LowmiEW e,a �,��. ,.., a Mph ��MJx t'SyF�wm SmwhuubNlts�b.w •^n++4av 4'. tAN"Wo•af Aac.W.SIOJIi mBt 9�', Pe.I,.Phin t'mvY CaMWa. ��{.un�en y �, m:.urroawati.na� �aa v,wamnM �enw�rrr. o.rv.r C..t __ •rtl1LLL _.__ %we RANGER STATION SU13DIVISION TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST. 6th P. M. SECTION 12, BLOCKS 9 AND 10, ASPEN TOWNSITE PITKINCOUNTY, COLORADO LOT DUCKIPTiONS 00-13 71. 0�4- F 1 —,0, a.,O 0— —11 1 �O, 111. 1.. 1- L -.1.1 1� Or—, L� 3. �u vrWR. 0 Of T-� 0000 vO PAM %or %0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Cornmucuty, Development Director RE: USFS Parcel DATE: iatmary 17, 2012 The US Forest Service has notified the City that a portion of the Aspen Station win be sola. Community Development Department staff is providing City council with basic background information about development scenarios to assist the Council develop a position regarding the We or potential purchase. The sale psreall is approximately 40,000 squ I are feet located in the West End neighborhood on the comer of West Smuggler and North 8� Streets. The site watains a small single-familY home, which is not a historic resource. Sufficient utilities and infrastructure exist to support developmem of the parcel. The property contains a few large evergrom trees and a hand of wtLonwoods on the east side of the property along the ditch. The parcel is zoned R-6 with an SPA overlay. R-6 is the zoning for the West Bad and allows for single-family and duplex development The SPA overlay allows for both use and dimensional variations and likely was assigned to the property to acknowledge the headquarters station use and building si� The neighborhood contains primarily single- family and duplex homes on parcels between 3,000 and 12,000 square ieet. HOmm range In sin from 2,000 to 4,000 square feet of Floor Area Two multi -family buildings containing �- 10 units each are within the immediate area as well as the existing USFS bunkhoum The City expects the remaining USFS site will also contain multi -family housing for staff. Staff believes the property is a good candidate for affordable housing development The property is located in an established neighborhood and enjoys sufficient irdiastlucture. The recent Boomerang approval may be seen as a good example for this sile. An affordable housing plan for the property was discussed roughly 10 years ago. The neighborhood will likely have concems regarding character and build -out density — similar to the T=PtiOn Of my proposal in an established neighborbood. If the property is to be developed woording to the R�6 zone district, staff suggests the property be subdivided into 3-5 lots to more closely fit with the current development pattern of the neighborluxxi. A single lot of 40,000 square feet would yield a Floor A= of 5,270 for a singl�fimffly home. A three-partel scenatio would pennit homes of roughly 3,900 square feet each. A five -parcel sconario would permit 3,500 square loot homes. In each of these scenarios, duplex structures could be built with slightly higher Floor Area. Page I of I %W .d of %W *00 0� G 3-�o ustii� 5•S ue�k, i-Z untk Rw �lm b-w wl�) RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 12 TOWNSHIP IO SOUTH RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M WITHIN PURL IONS OF BLOCK 9 OF THE ASPEN TOW NSITE, COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO 'HEET I012 LOT 4, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 12 F- TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th PM, WITHIN PORTIONS OF BLOCK 9 OF THE ASPEN TOWNSITE, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO P-T 101 1 mr 71 - - ......... ......... 1 TI 11. 6C06 F/ 20 '102 5033 5 .�2,L,35 603 5�21 I T. I I 5F22 T. L �0311 2� N, 5012 25 _T -UN-U-11 T' T;.4'T�'H.` T'T . ..... _ 111N T., NT= I 111N�T;- i �%IITCIIT.�'�'.' '-M TI -T I I SOPRIS ENGINEERING LUC Exhibit D LOT 5, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 12 TOWNSHIP 1TSOUTH,RANGE8f WEST OFTHE 6thP.M WITHIN PORTIONS OF BLOCK 90F THE ASPENTOWNSITE PI COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORA00 '� '°'""°v"" wun. ruwwm�mruu+ rwnun wm.00avnaw•nx.a LD � vmunv mmm�a�maoxo. L r. n wxum xow €�j wanrcvuu - - G- EEC ..wa°.<..�,a.....w..,,,....,.,� Exhibit E Net Lot Area and Floor Area Calculations FA for Total Reduction for Steep Additional Permitted Gross Lot Area Slopes Net Lot Area Base Space Floor Area Lot 11,615 1,030 10,586 3,660 95 3,755 Lot 5 7,490 900 6,590 2,400 1,005 3,405 Reduction for Steep Slope Analysis Reduction for Steep Total Net Lot Gross Lot Area 0%-20%Slope 20%-30%Slope Over30%Slope Slopes Area Lot 11,615 9,880 1,411 324 1,030 10,586 Lot 5 7,490 5,924 1,333 234 900 6,590 Affordable Housing Requirement and Cash -in -Lieu. Calculation Payment of Cash -in -Lieu Affordable Affordable Housing Requirement Housing Maximum Floor Required (30%of ($144,393 per Mitigation Area Permitted Total Floor Area) FTE Equivalents FTE) Fee Lot 3,755 1,127 2.82 $406,660.86 $300,297.75 Lot 5 3,405 1,022 2.55 $368,757.70 $272,308.25 Total ------------ 7,160 -___- _ - 2,148 ------------ 5.37 ------------ $775,418.57 ------------ $572,605.99 Additional Cost of Paying Cash -in -Lieu = $202,812.57 The cash -in -lieu figures shown above were calculated using the current Code. The Applicant seeks the right to pay the lower of the amounts calculated under the current Code or as calculated under the Code as it exists at the time of building permit issuance for each Subject Lot. w LOT 4, N N SUBDIVISION RANGER STATION _ X llbi� 'NnsITGAI IN SECTION 13 SOUTH, RANGE SS WEST OF THE 6th P.M. TOWNSHIP osEE A WITHIN PORTIONS OF BLOCK 9 OF THE ASPEN TO W NSITE, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO SOPRIS ENGINEERING -LLC I. w,gnww.n.newmm"vmm C—E COAL Iµ i/ w�w-...,�..�...,..._ r ITHINPORTIONSOFBLOIXHIP10S UTH,RANG ION SUBDIVISION L_O_T_5, R_A_N_GER SW ION PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 11 TOWNSHIP THE AS H RANGERS WEST OF Y OF PI P.M. - NSrtE, COUNTY OF PITNIN, STATE 0( LOIORADO P L SOPRIS ENGINEERING -LLC nm� wrzmRmiZAAl 4 IHIH Iftw *.e ASPEN OFFICE 601 E�,, H,—. A-- GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. A,,,�, C�].,.d,, 81611 Tcleph'on�(970)925 1936 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ful-11 070) 925-3.09 1—� 1971 ,—,,,tffiddh�ht,w. E. Michael Hoffman mhoffmanCi4arfield hechteom Direct Phone: (970) 544-3442 March 24, 2015 Jennifer Phelan Deputy Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Ownership and Encumbrance of Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station Subdivision, Aspen (the "Property"). Dear Ms. Phelan Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC is the owner of Lot 4 and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC is the owner of Lot 5, each as depicted and described on the survey of Ranger Station Subdivision recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado, in Plat Book 103 at Page 1, as Reception No. 599691 (the 'Sur,vey Plat"). (Lots 4 and 5 will be referred to in this application as the "Subject Lots." Together, the two owners of the Subject Lots are referred to herein as "Aspen Dragonny.") I have attached as Exhibit A of this letter a copy of the title insurance policy issued by Pitkin County rule, Inc., issued to Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC as of its purchase of the Subject Lots on May 1, 2014, 1 have reviewed the real property records of Pitkin County to determine if there have been any changes in the ownership or encumbrance of the Subject Lots since the date of the title policy. Other than the matters shown on the title policy, the following documents have been recorded- (1) a Right -of -Way Grant to SounceGas, as shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and (2) a Special Warranty Deed conveying Lot 5 to Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC. which was recorded on December 9, 20 14. There have been no other changes in the ownership or encumbrance of the Subject Lots since the date of the title insurance policy. I have been authorized to sign all documents and to file the application by both of the Aspen Dragonfly entities as "Special Manager" of each such entity. %NO Ms. Jennifer Phelan March 24, 2015 Page 2 Sincerely. rw E. Michael Hoffman 1400 Exhibit A PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3rd Floor ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-925-1766 1 970-925-6527 FAX June 3, 2314 Aspen Dragonfly Partners III C/o Miciael Hoff,,r,n Garfield and Hecht Hand Delivered RE PCT23882W2 ,JSA/ASPEN DRAGONFLY PAR rNERS III LOTS 4 & 5 RANGER STATION SUB Prkin County Title Inc is pleased to movide you with the owners policy along with the following endorsements relative to the above mentioned file Endorsement Form N/A Please review the policy in its entirety We at Pitkin County Title Inc believe In providing you, our customer with a quality product which will serve your needs In the event you do find a discrepancy, or if you have any questions or comments regarding your final policy please contact us and we will gladly handle any request you may have as efficiently and quickly as possible We have assigned the above number to your records to assure prompt processing of future title orders involving the property If you sell or obtain a loan On this property within 5 years ask you, broker or agent to contact our office to ensure re -issue rates whion may be available to you Thank you very much for gri Pitkn County Title Inc. the opportunity to serve you. Sincerely Tom Twachell Enclosures *4000 RECEPTIONO: 609963, 05101/2014 t 11:26:41 AM, I OF 6, R $36.00 DF $0 00 Dea Cod. QCD Jaoice K. Vos Caud,11 PlIkirl C.uoty, Co QUITCLAIM DEED ) Ilk _�Olq III IS QUI I CLAIIM DEED �,Faed,!Jo, da'.i by rd bemll,o thv UNIrED STATES OF AMERICA, acill fi�f,�and throlloghthe Forest Service, l)cplItjljejjj of Ag�],ultl,c. ,]led GRANTOR, o,d Aj, ;�IJD a Colo,.db Lib,iled Li.bilit, toj,j,,,S i, ,-, I 1,rn,ol A,� As�Lert CL) 8161 1. hemmaft�, .11e� GRANT FE. WITNESSE"I'll: 11olleocealent Aet ,fAsgtl,, 2, 2005 (PA- 109-54l, tit, ol,vis Ins of�ljicll 1�avc beeo met, ha,<M.P�, delerromed Cliat tire r0jj%ey;j:j,,c is III liblic il)tcrcsl NOWTITERFFORE. tire 0,aoro, I�I,rsd,rl �on�idmlioo crlth,e .o, of-'I-Wo DO b1c,11-1 lit �DRT_armjg�117],N 171100SA Cc 6 L JL\LL) JZ RTV �j N�y �0 L� DOL LA ��,S�2,iR 1_4 24P.00), the erel,t If —hi,l, i, he. ab, dtll, ek..vved,ed, d.a , s rler,by � lerolle, aod qoltdai... oob, Fill, or,,,j�e. assigns, all us right title hiscreal. ood �lann ill lord to llit, real PrOPery siWated ill the Coosty of flitkin, State of'colorjd�* d,,scnb,,d as WRIDIAN Lcts4.osd5uf lZarigerStat;onSubul��,�i(,�,,I,,c�'t.d "If'roll" m Asli�i,CowtltvolPit�in,Sl�lteoCC�ll�)lzl,l�,,S��t,., 12,T,,,,,,I,ip 10S,oto.fla.gall, �>l %Ne,,t FFTi L), P.g_ Smh ll'irle,pi,l Me ...... l. l's l`W ...... drd �T,) 22, 20i 3 ill Plbt Doop, ]()3 a No�,be, 599601 C) Col,tao,,o, 19.105 qoane feel. iess I N, dead aod ""'Velar", l, esp,a,,iy rl,ode ,bj,el k, 111, f(lll,,,vin, nolte,, th, the `1 le'll, �llt, vand arld rob,,,n,, ao�l ,ff,,l 1,e z z ea'a"lle'll �ell l�l I oll 1-4 It- R,olel St,oloo S,lbal 1 0 b) Art, oolsboodio, �],jel,ola, h-1I a�cted F. the ,,ners It the Si johr,,on Diteh� All e,,,isuo, p� ... �jt, eleelle-ts lod Hf;h,,-If-",,y f.. ptlbl�c suee!, ,,ad, aod highways, public ut:11tics, jectrrc vel ljoes, ocatria flcillcie" %�' Ifto WESTCOR POLICY NO, ()P-6-CO1045-3604477 AI:rA OWNER'S POLICY t6-17-06) ISSUED BY WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OWNER S POLICY OFTITLE INSURANCE Any notice of of.in, d any othe, ..tiov oe statement in writing required to be given to the Company nder thv� Polity Most be 9i,on to the Coonparlyat the addre�,y �hcovvn inseetiun 18 of I fie Donn] iti.,i,. COVERED RISKS SUB,WG'T TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROINI COVERAGE. THE EXCEPTION . S FRONT COVERAGE CONIAINED IN SCHEDULE B, AND THE CONDITION',3, WESTCOR LAND TTH,E INSURANCE CONIPANY - Cohfullot �th, Co,epar� ) -, of Ont, ot P,,I,,v nnd, tt, the extent, �t�mqj to Rk"F 9 "Ild 10, aft,,, Dotl'�lf P-I;ly, ngam.,t In,,,o drtun,qt,� unt "t hnlll�llll� "'I'Mrld 'n 11,11"i b, th,, fo�n,,d I,v � ..... .. o W 1. Tale b,ing utin, a- tat,d in S,hed,,�t A� 2 A., d,f,,t in n, ,ono u- fl, Tltll, Th,, C'o,oind R��k,ododn, lb-t l� not �jjjjjo,,] 1, lo",��n(n 'g',"T "i�' fonn Ad,fe,t in th, h, io"" h "'d nd", iefl��lcu. dnlc��g' incorl,otoncy lwap,CIC,� ul ollpvl�olnmnul' ,ii) finl."' ol any ""'n" (" Ent'l ' , 1, ,r,,,,jb .... j,,,j � . .... ... ...... in! "fo'u."r,t alfcOuIRTItle not pf')pc'tB cluntee. ex,cul,cf, w1te,,'e� '�',lod, vck,unvled,ed, nnt.,mnd )� d,fi,e,�d faki, , t" p", fie un thu— to �mt hu� i,,ed I'v a, I �wcnt,d ��,do� a fal"fied "�j ...... i, o' el" �nvaiid P"�v' "f wt"'n"y' �11 adocum, "t ron �'A'v d n' th, Publi� Rn,u,d,,��,] ... J,og fwljjn,,) t. p"' I", , I ""' �'t' " ch I t, 'nw ""a", oud 1, lr,' o' a dufud�', od,,nl �, .10A,, p,,,,,d,ng� Th' ",l f"al ',tat, t�w,cn Inlyn,nd ,,, th, Tol, I, , g,,,nnon,nt�d nntj,n,,, d', (�T pavank bla 11: ....... 1, Any cn(ioa�!jn,,ejjt, unct�,)hiancu. violanuun. vao,ntion. u� '�'n ..... . t"n.' �fhlm' o". T�tlo th,,, �,uuld h, d,,,k,,,d It, n a,��oao old ,nopl,te ],,.d InIlly ,flfi, Land. Tuo 1,.,, nt'.f'."t'npo'p ... .. and. uqt,th,.Land,,fc��,tin, leynt,,inn 4,wl 3, Unon,,kAjlA,T,tl,� COVERED RISKS C..ti..ed on n,.t p,ge [,,,.,,d Hy, WESICOR LAND TITLV IMIURANCE COMPANY C01045 * PCT23882VV Pitkin County TnJe ino wl�M 601 E Hopk os 93 Aspen CO 81611 )l � ; % 1. ; - �.(' ( �" ', , MWEI on NOWN!" V NI oroo,V,, to amf hnon 4, Will 5 Ti l I, ola I Ill . l I fIllic ... , hi ad[ � ... � lo" orliha ... a,- p't nort, 01 aaVV I alla( otal I CgU1,lWlr IK!UdU1g flaia I ( Ltlrg to hunalng and vowng I wMraknq urgakions pi Miltung. co MhUng Wh a I do, oaracit I ...... �' f"" ,, 'ran) tarot if (fit 1- 1, 1, 1 lfn� aal fatiat, di"a'a'alit" at ocat" o of any ow" "oviontIll t' if a. th, L� .... i, h, if,, "a"fi, ', .... .. t �ard; ot III, va, it "ar" aa] ,, 't(aloa I f a n " t rc , da. i a ng roo v pit, I " i th, 1-i ad, at tol-ordold � if t no Pa [i] " R ....... 1 , "'tti, t g P., if, z 1, � � lot at,, in at a I t' , 11: 1 to "Vorc, flat onl� to fill c,tIntnf thcoolat; ... lot rha,,rocai tr) ill 1 halnool c, G At, r a fat Virw n t r 1, wal , l a the %,,, ,,, if a gov, to a, � n I a i "o!oQ" po 11 w 1,11 t I'll " '� I b% ( to " Ii d R " 1, 5 ; i a not we of t 1, (, (,it f a r ,ra u o t aO I, v W�Aikg a, part of A tv laa n d, In i no rchd 0 9, P M ac H wvI bui ta the c avat I f thc In, to) ,, to ont i , tot , d to ,, I hat oto, 7 'r he c ion , so V� t ho i I , h I - A in man L " a = h D'a notim oh W exmcam% do,vnihing any par orne Wind, is n &ul ill tho PAto Rocoad, K An, t. W n, b, , ,,ch ran � o A bo A A at h ohanorred . d o Id in oil tho l: g Id,of i at art, to, , a I an vi it hou t Ki th, 1I 9� 'l:' bia., ad"li thi... ra -1 in h,, I It 1, Aw I ...... It dvivar,, a s a i V,u I L of tho ., , I Am, w Vv 40 . I p W. or n c na a us u 0 orAT p "a i & ng a a at u rm A % e ruawly. wl'a r a a to I o! a I I c) t ar, I ot T I W H , U 0 0 m a U mWm v H n A v Iom d mm mr, pm a W LK t m n w awn "A in g Title ,, 'ho"o , S,io'dow '\ lalali,t, that to .... ilar,lia cownt"I'd a haaddorat ... at ofioril a araV, Va"I't fal'old hinrl"opi 'fall, ,01"rI Ill ornalo, clatit", , light, la", ut (b, lo,co.si, in,, ioot ....... ant if tl,r,fla V,ang mti, a, iih,, lv� Saaaklo AVoniartuti, a p,hpa,,wad ron-fti uraka fi�dolal hankrophty stato "I w it ... [in "'dit"is lights Iz .. S U) Va'on 'arth, didn' od'ts louading, ,, thli, Pill.... Hau,d, 1t; tafa�lhaw:'(" IT An, Wain . Win (nuund,ar,v th, Totlen, othV, ... Won =Wd or Unekd a In. Wn End or a.Mod h. LN Niblic Word, Werf W DA, A Pahu wid ill Scholuln,"l I'llo ( 7wripart, , it al", pa� I [w ",t, Lit I V, ,, no f" " "no I, ,a sr" 1 "'u .... I i a lie I V nor if riatt", o"u"'d anion't by tho, Pal", not raly to the ihdorl. pr,vid,hi ho A, C,oahtion, EMAJIMS FROM IT ON ERACL A, h1W.g a.1hot, o, li,il AW bra 10 of 0 ... ... �� and 11" ( iohljolr� " iiin"I pay IV, I,, jarhwc� ""I'. atio, at,, fi�'. ,, fit,( of 1, W) Na' to ... .... ha"aw" I,, "norwano o-111'al, 11 ao�u." th�' "K"g 1. ril am '�nny GI w,fdat"o, sal"i .. 'I ,, "I'lia, ,, '' fi, ""al"ano, "', (a ano, ... na of 0o, I'lind ol) ho da"oo". d ... l ........ I""' ",lnoaohhor� an"c', I V,,wd at, ill, 1 3110, ka)ll" 'abd,'l ... 1 "t I'll,! '), I ,,, i .... l .... v'I jaowmoa I lit, 'Ah,tal"', 'i"Ihah'a ,It lIoQ11 Ila,. ollonalI ol golannolatill waidnioll, I It" E"loqr" I (,f) doo' ,,it hf� o' lowl ag,, aa,w,d .... d, ( ,,oaI Ri it, 5 1rh I'lown al I'llit till t(ollAU Pal Halo! UrwV1 cal "'U, RIM, 6 2 R',rjoiVf'ha'wat do"al", I ", I "lloo"'a"; ... taahjd� ... hoolL 111V ol��ItayV pa, idcd Loodla ('cVcjVd R,k 7 o l3 3 Da'r, "', "worlhnaw,' fajx'�' M.l, " "M" "M M, r) Lworld. jh,,d� � ...... aid. o, 1�, bf tht J r,uj,d I ],,r..t o' � �l [A , I (I (h, I a , io , I (M am i a how : Mwal m "Volds a W: NN" A l�i ... la"I '�flwb,aawd h ......... I 'nV' to th"aw fli la'a"d C oiroult t"'trocaa .."d oaho Ih, I ... 'C'. (c) r,L1111olf, III lo 10- (11 dlI to (lie Insult cd Clarriant: ph �! .... , ....... wd IV,,ownt h, Dro, nfllot,f (I ..... . � n. a,do,, VIA hfilk ... an"t th, '�,,wow o')"d,J und" ""I,l R,,k 1) riot Oh a; (1) "'Itaa,' all 11)" L" lbll,all Itot �Iooadl not 11111 blot ,awald 11 do Jr,wd ( tat a .... ! had prod all, o), lit, frl' A il� 11,1ano 1, ......... a fl1w,partwool IidoaV1 firnkapa,iosta, III al "hanno "lidit"it "Jit, a", that far hall ,,fin,, a, hill J, 11haal Ill (a,a firuldialsou aa,,�Vow� to foaaufl�al allow, a Oita on,fln"aloil u"na" F", .. VIA Ilard C ... �aod Rl�k 9 of till, Voli'� "'I"a lh� lit], to, �al 'aaw f'\, I I rlllnawllo� 1 "1 1 go� ..." "oh"n .0 ow,as . UwAbig kvo ., 1", at P'al�� ard 1w daw if "cood", It Ifi, dwA ,, olh" IlIaLall,lat al t 1111111 lit till "11111L 1�111 1111 flot 1I a1h ao M.. a QW&W "ll CONDHIONS %NDS111`1 I'm , l 1. DIFFIN I I -ION OF i IlAlak.ini I is,Ij-d, Irill, o, k of h, Lolled slie, D,,m,t ( ,,j (III A,� ....... t if les ... o,,e I be steel, III Sjh�dot,,.lt, 1,11) be I, d"J'a"d " ,Ill ...... il 11) [fit, h, of th'I, ditol", (111 D.Ie It PIII,v I h, d"I, 'Date ,I Poh" sl-fi,lfelc (1) 1 oll, , ""'looll 11, "1,,, oij holl,lej ' I l' I"II,,f ",,l ill s, I , jede:, � 0I I Ill crill 111i,red I ill, killes 11 t 11 1 l 1 111 t1i I I' � LfrCli ['I I, rell t Oil o I l .... ..... ch"', ...... l lost of kill, Im, I III I I , � " fell III I], s'll I I I I, i, le I Q , I I I - 1�1,J,,floo, dm, I ...... Ill, ,, if I "I'les'el' ill "I IiIIIIIIL kmd If Flut, (I ]) I It. l'ol" o I "I I I, I III d 11 1 d',- I let de [I l irel; I it i t lsil) "I'll[ of IllUtIl ..... ...... q,,,g Ill, to e 111 If I he I [')111. 11111111 1' 1 sill 'el 'h I 111, 111 (It le I ILIF1,11 "It .. �I' 'If 1111 ll III!C1 �111 1011111-11"lled (1) 111, III, left fit"oocd. ('s I "'I 'Itilleellholk "'Ill the IIIIIIIIII IIIILIIell, (,I t If the I - 1 I'lle, 11 Isill1k,... li,d b, ,,, affifiaed I ,III, I Ih . ...... led InIo,,d, ,,, jeed Iiii, affili'led I'mas L"Ill hh� IIIIIIIJ �N both Iholk- I, [he Ilfle oi,j,00 or I III, -'ll"I" I, I "I'le, ,, ""'ll If a lost oemed bN a , I Well lll�bli Cluthh1lic'] b% he InIlo"I i (Ill - .1,11IIIIA) (if),,( ).,od(D) ........ right, arld .... .. I,) an, ill, c ....... Iloold h... ,d ligtito,l e, rr,di,� ...... 1111"I'Ll (e) IIIIIIII f 11,111,1111 ' Ill, hillilld [;,I ,, - or I'l'all, I "i N ,t,, , I oo ml I "J" , I, " I lon't � le - I, s , kno, I �Ifffe 0 1 1 1,11:,e I1,11 I, al 1), , 1, 1 Ill ,,I I ed ll rc;e,IL1 (if 1111 PLJHhI Reeolds )i :,ls othl, ,old, fix .... pall 11s:11t,111111 o0t,,, "I li the I ill, de'Lr,bd ill S, hedw, I, Ill mt,,,I I s ai'sIttle ,It is ...... r" [ he Ill i d dol, i ... CILI& AIll )I011 besojj<j jll� 11 I'N 4 fle 11"llb'd "I `Jl�dflll � le'llIll �Ijll 11111, 11IL1111i, 11, all',s-IIIII, "I". 01 1 at ...... h... IcIesslillid hoillifel-iii oIwIdIts tilIpoliq Al I"(11,illeni, ,lod d h, [all PLIMI� helold' I'lold' 'ItIl'111111d IIIIIIII IWC ITItL(11 It l Polics hit fiell Inparimi-,sonstrumlIc ilohe� or,l �,Ilulli to I,Il Ill Ltrdla,er, Ill .... I llsle fol feuist[I'l Me" if" I"'I'd , [."old (if fill, flo,,Ia(, or uls,cm des.,ae,l I lill,1140i'llhe I'do lillItIl h, III .... It m1wr that soild pl,nua I p,o,peet,,e e,elh,es, ,, I ..... . A '11, lid"ll llld,� ,otIeTIleIobI,,I,f,eN l) pof�flls, 1,1,e le"o] I , . . ..... III, ddi, ,I 'llibli, till, 2 ( ON I INt � I [ON OF INSt RAN( E I Ill CLIIel,le� of llljS )()[jC% 111311 eolf I IIIIC Ill I jee il I,f 1),e III I'll, of.,,l bw o,flvIo ,,the main, "I Iffl,"It of III, I.,nd.ol "'I"d Is pordl eo,� 'I sloltg4l�l �'I�ll 1), it lillchlill, fill,, Ih, lf,�oi,d. It "Ill III Ing s the I Ij,hi It,,, Iti,ht, h, 'I sl " "ic, to if), Ill!, I p"I", 'J'ali ,,,It clot,111,1 III h"I:, ,I falo. 'It .111, IllodiCiell' flo Ille In'tIl, I ,Ir eitli fit in ,Itlf, Ir ill flh, LIA. ill (,,) ,,, Aflh,ff ...... %lIo, I ,, I e e to file I I'l , 'd 3, 10 IF U1 I N UO l RLD C I I NIA X I I he I ...... ed liall not, I, the Coni I,, Ill' pil, l ooe ( I I "I 1,11, of III') meat"i, It' Set Ilfl0f H S10.11 '(A) Ill (I'l, f o"dj- it')"' (I I "I cI,1 KIIIIIII'llue IIIIIII lo,l To �I, heo,ende, of I'll '[,I'll Ill"Ille 01 life"It 11,11 11 Ioll,ll,, it, ill, Title as ono,iej. ,nd thm nt,ht ...... . less I)' j,"'age lb, "llich (f, ( lotoy "to) he 121111 If ' I 1-f-lue Ill this Pk)hc�. ol (ItO it the Title, os IlItUred, is l,l,,,!,d ,, Fneial-kciAll, 1,dh,, it the Cl .... I, ) ill pij heel file 'I'lloo, ,I lh,� Insited Chl'"I"'I (" po),ole p ...... P, C,,IIjlIfW, filib,h, will, Ill ...... I Ck .... I,h, lo,de, fit, p,,I,, 1,,Il III, I"he'd to Ih, CIwIll If Ill, peiodicl, 4. PROOF OF LOSS In IIII, Qs lilt the orillplis is ill deel i the jiloolit Ill I)- d il""g, th, ..... I. ... ) li"I. I if ,,,I .... 1. ,1 , c ... low.... � I flitt III, I ...... .1 ( [,III',: ... I I ...... 11 t IIIII)CIFloll Ilioll de';,Illle file I ..... .. oth , I ..... te, I ...... edl I ..... IT Its th'i l thl'i oil 111, ill", Ill III" Ill ILIII Iffill III.101 ILIII� (11 it,, of Ii, Ill, ol it the oft, ,, di oi,, 5. DEFENSE IND PROM ( I l CIFAICTIONS 1 111 11 ill, I elites, t 1, , 1 1, lied ebe,, ,I I he ep t ...... -olliallcif ill qcctl,)Tl (If IIIL�Q (ondfilloll, the ( oll It I I I (Is, 11 ol: and ... t .ut in r 1,110 Ill I'll Ll I fill, Ilij [ I " 1111 1 ill I Ill ]I, the f"I Is I n je,.! ed ill I I I an.... ill "ll Ili, fied Pam -""!I Z '],fill 11'1�1111 hl this "Ll", illIC111 III (Ill 111loild Fit, , I'lleat"It, I If ..... ed I,, onI, if ..... . et"I sall", of I'll"to 11, illet, Isund aga""I b, lhi� pole, I he ( "In't", 'I'a I the I I,,[,, Ill 'ejell lo,i of it, de,71, "Ill to the I left ofil" Ill"I'ld to obl"t f"i- I ...... ff,bl, 'el", to the 111"'I'd 111 (11 011111 It,old 011111 11 ilboll, It 111,11 lot be 1,� hi,, III, alod Is ill let file file ic, ,I ,, efor I he Ciloipan,, I%:Il [it, III) III) fees orespeiscs ticloell Is ill, ll,o, d o, Lh, Millis, of those . . . . . . .. i I'st m ...... I lo I h, this i he ("� I"'� 'l IL111 the 11'JIf Ill Illfillotl Ill Ill, (toi'l'i, ,ow,eil,d 1, Seneo 7 11 ilhe,e � I 'k IIIIII 11)"L ILI Ill(] Pro�ccL;tc IcIll)" 1 pio�eccfing )r III Ifo in% thl't "I Is LI[Ill000 Ill oIlll1,111 Ill i'l"lil Isilkh,li ll�, Tah,, ll� I, es,et 1,, 1,,,, ",I l %W '"1110 ( ONDI I ION"; AN D Sri K LARONS - ( ON I M 11) d .... ..... To The Pistoled Hi, Conopon, im, nF, "'s "pi-nott Line ITT I I (In Inloo; the tcrill, Ili tl is poh,% ls.ici I let or not it shal I lo, klllj� (it tile ji,ilood file CxCTC,e Ili These IgIlls olsl� 11,11 he ,I id,,T ........ I ii hn,t],L, ., of oln, Irthi, po[,L�, it t To ( o"I"'n C.'i I, I gflhi� till libIte, non, It oli In ,, dinCenfl, I, I Nk I ...... I, I'LL ( olnpan� lion o, I ... r" a defel" I ,I ... I d ., par,,,, wil (,�, , 1, i l po I I, [in, ( no, pon I i noi, pinl,o, I I I, aut at, . , w a 5, I'll Into I ,I I "mi... h, a Iona TI "I'll "nisdiction. aild it expi-csol rcler,cs till I ight� ,I I IT life if,- lo I pf"'I In, aff"t" I Li"C"I C, "illn, 6. Di 11 OF INSLNED ( LAI A 01 rO A OOVIAIAFE (a I fit ill ease, It,,, ,, oelnin" the ( ol"i ...... IT 111111ILle Ill Inn' Ide 01 lie d1illol It 11ol .1 In"Ceedfin, Linj an, a,,,aK file I IT; Piell IT, if,, C on,patl� ill, ,,hl To ,, I ........ I, na P,ol,d, <i,l,,i,, ,, The IT ... ... I. 'CCd[i onclodin, he 1114111 to Llia� ot It' TrAllill 111C 11,111ell 1110 l"'unied P, ilic"putpo'e "Juti I,, The( oun,"no, (It, "'I'led, at theConipans [I'll gll,flh, C nl,n,� Ill "Iso."I'l, I'd 00 in "itnes". plineciPong ,, data ... I ... t, I he eol I, ,, ,(,,,,d ...... ... . H . ..... l lalll,,otat, ind Ili) I, ,,, tioril Le" that ,, file op,111011 ,I ([I, ( I .... . ... � no'A be ne"'I'll Ill d""able to emil,kh The lots, ,, ,I,, isle, nnal,, I, ou",ed, 11 file Cion'to ... , I, ,rej,do-ed be file in I Too o I (L it I Tooled ITT fattish fliT olnuct! an,,nnom, 1111 ( loll'i 'I Illilkilitnill Ill till 11111113 LIIllJlI I lie pol") If. 111" "Id"Ifine so, otbi I ill, o' obhuatin IT to .1cend, In osecutc, let colit I title all) I ttlInt [oil it III Coal J to the ,al ,, ll�llfell CIPITTIM, liell laolplltlfl)'l lit I lie ( onpa in, ....... fl, ,,It ... e the I ........ I ( on,lin to ILIblilit il IsonannatI.on IIIIIIII omh I,, an, notho"'d inialls"al Lie fille ( -,i,p,,,,y and In pnoluc, fto I I. ........ inspection. sid top, ng. at "! . ...... in,f[e !Intel, I'd pl,"C' a, Too. he d"Igaawd 1, he whe"'Id in fle Cl,n)p,n� ill e ..... Is, ,, What,,,, no.don I ....... t,,unl odl, bo,es. "I'lem di"k,me'l .... ..... IT. 111 111"I'di'lole I-epi'll ",ning ad.ill, bonti,ir-C(o, Doloi (Ito nan"ono'k "non 1, (1), "ol-d"no", I in I on , I I I eq it esea Ill, only Il Lithol I /ell I � [)I CSIJl I Cl I � C o I till ( '11111 Ill I I Y, I IT Q I o I I I I Ili C 1, 11 o all I sill, r ,, int I I I, PC ..... .. ("t, ,I "Ton-, I... at,, not ....... it I,,, C'entlet'I C of if,, (,)"lpao, in ,,,I lie, i,,spC,t. and Ill" 111 IfIl"In 11111116 ITT The 1.lflid� Ill ,l,00-olof;iIhndrla1A do-iree,o,ithl, "Li Ali ,if I. .... ivion d"itint'iff a, I Infidn"(11TI Ill Lt. 11111111d 1.1111,111i PILII Ilild Ili 1111 ( tIllially P,11111,111t to th�l C"no" 'holl I ne I,, other, ii it,, leo,lon, eltoltnin,im it I[ is le,i ileclaitil I I I L, I 111 t 111 C 11 � S it I C if ( ' 1 .11111111 tost[folll L)LC\,a000e(I,)oUCdoT L,th, I .. ... It" ITIA Cit rtinnnold jilloill,mon, ot ;,ino p . ..... I ...... to 000toolfl, ...... till 11 PIltlll a, I I'loiled "I hol ToolaIll'i'll u ,, It"Il'bir'd 1',, (,I otulato,o. hall ennione ;,,I, hahlit, of ( ollyall) tilde, this pnnn,� as to thal CITIT'll 7. Di JONS 10 PAN OR 0 1 IIFILAVISL SE I FLE ( I AINIS; I EFAIINA] ION OF LIABILI I ) In 't'se of . Cla .... ..... " flnI "'lic" do, onn� 'J'all ILI the Fill .... Lila ad,fitionel o,,t;,Ii,. P,s ,, tender till% notit of (lie \noluot of hountince to I'm it wildia pa�liocnr of file Artionto ol Ill indei thil olic, I, "ll", oid, III, ties Ind Aoenoe, In - I'll I'd I I , �ll,,,),, Ir , f, ILIIIII[ "I h, 11 ...... d C I ...... ill hal ildilo,,li Ill till ( 0111- 1'.1', To to the Title of F's o,w ,, end'i ,I Loo,"'n I ..... I Till LIT, oinpolI , olfl,ilad I,, ,i P, IT to, I ...... o b, Ili, I ill fill ,It 11 lwhilitI nod obl,l,luons lfilic ( inpi'l, ill Ili, hi,no"I We, ([,I, policl, oth" fl,ol to Illare lie pI,,I,i,,.l Cq ...... I ill till, ob ... int" 'In'll a"o, ng,, on'lloriol a", li"Ithtf ot L'bl"anoll ILL daka,,L Tolluillic ill, mpitoll b) I IT ]I,, ,, Othe's, I,, Salle sr� on Pool', Off,,, I hoo the no'"d CI V, th th, tion"d ( Wine f o F, l", n; oth", I,, settle " It], "HiC, parlic, I h, ,i T) I ln ( I Pit oj,� l]aljll no,led laollill undei 1", pohc� IT, ildrutal, tit, C"upon) v,fll ["I . ..... s 1,,t it ... 1 Ll d IT, if,, Ini ('itioll"' Thet "lie tod"i'll"d his 11" antreafy 11" To The I I ILL ....... it "'d Thof The jon,� obhtaloed ill I,,, 11: I Ill r) pe) on oll""is, "vol, lith III, I I cl; ... ill if,, [i .. . ... danalo, ,,Ill fled I let ill, logethen ,ah 1111 11111, 11111111111 flIl. allf 111111111S loill"d 111 Ill P11111d ( all1lint lkill Ill linill.1111d its Ila I olinIIIII till I,, ill, I .... . .. f Violent I,,d Plot the Cilyints l ohlipted it, pe, I Plot 111 C,11111's' I'� till ( lllnj'dn� of oI diL I ..... I ded In, ,, whl. . . Polls (W ol J). lit, ( ollljpalo*� obliCillonq to the h,ar,d nande, ill, oil,, to if,, Jann,L] I .... .. r L alle o0w, lh,IT The INVIIIIIIIII neq.1111i 10 he ailldl. 111,111 lellllfllll� 11111noillo, oa� inindo, ,, obligation to &Jnd. p ....... Lie, ,, Continue I... intention S. DIA lill MON AND EVI EN I OF LIABILI I % I !ill p0liCA 11 11 ellotlad Ill Indlaolls Inlin"t "PLI'd onein, III,, ,,, il�,Tlag, "ll I), anctoned ILA hi, lioned ( almo,w ,]I,, I... TLIff(l IT to djolage to, Colon if Inalits WIL31Cd ao4,nll�l [)I I I I I , [,I , I I , v 'll) the i hatithl, ILI The C,n,pc.,� to do IT ... In, Ill I. .... he, 11,11 ol s,,CL1 If, I .... r ,I 111 Oil kill,, it, ill kn,trol . . . . I I (it) I I I c It I I I 1, 1 c I le c be 1 L% c c I I I I I e I I hi o o I I I I c I I I I LL I A I I I s I I I Q if .1111 I ! T I I I 1111 111 till 1 01 Itibilli To The I I'll li IF anallIll Ill I'll, oll� 11, 1 111 he C o ,, , , ;IT, � I I I I hn, S PI ")I, A o I 11, C(lint I I ITT I l I lid I L it 1) s tIC e Cls 11, 1 1 Ll CII d 1111 Ill 1 It �' I lie I I I I e . is 1,1,,,j,d (it file Anion"I it I ...... IT no, 'Inji be ita'a"d F, O's, told 11 ) 111 C I IT I LIT If ( I 11 Ill all i sit T I 111 Ill C the I if In IT hall , the loss Ti dlil),oe ill Caller IT ofthe rill: file daii, so. 11"I'll III till 11IL11111 ( I . ...... it ,, I, of filed,,[, it , salled d I "'A Ili] Ike I'll thill, ,000 Troon,,, I .. � Laid "Ircinne, ill.nried III aecoTdalice onli `,loti(nis Li leol 7 of these ( nifil [',,I, 9. FLNJI IAIAON 01 LIARILI I N W 11 file Cl ... lr,a� asabhO,, Ili, I :it,, nr Tnnoe, if,, .]lose([ LilleCt, 1111I. Ill InillIllflo,onal oli the fill Ill alidloot al- ... A To ... IT o... th, Land , ,, Coal " till . .... . I � ontio Ireland, 1,11,. ill ,, touted, ,, a Ili ...... abl, l int .... C, b, To, m Ili IN." ;I'd .... I ,I, id I "l, 1, 1, "3, '1 tddh, c ... If 1� ilplxal, 'hall h ll� PoTil'i"I'd I, o all imp"I w 0,it ilott"' "I'd I'L l'� ll�lttlt` t0l lll� OS', I'l di IliI CaLlsed I, Ge hismcd, h) tl'e e"Col "fe'l Iti,Llt"Ili, m,lud,,I, muu,,l, b, Ih, C "'th tho � ...... I, , h, C.""pat", ShAl hlo f" los, ", di"ll wit'l tile I ha, "o" 11 (,,1,[ dele, ill"xio" 'i I �Illlll It Illintm,"I j ...... :'t .... 1, ",!d d ....... ,A all appeff,, od� , I, w tile [,it,. , tn�uo,d, fc) I III, ilh,11i Ili)[ he lable for I .... .. I, he lolll,iill I... "b'dr, �,lujlta,fl, i"um"! I ...... ed l,,� Ji ..... ... ,,it III, I ..... .... flfi, Hi RFIA I I ION OF INSt R,l I : RED1 ( I ION OR FERNIIN VI ION OF III Nal 1 '11 N A [ [ ", I, 'rit , " Id C, if ... .... I .... .... pt p.11 Ilelt, ',ilk Cie, �o,t, '111111ile, , flies, �I ... t ,p ....... ihll� "di" III' AIIILILllIT It 11I11:1,111,1 b, 1 1, 1 ......... t III ...... It I'll ) 7NOM I Nit I N I IN L I 1,� %o,lilll 'll ihA III duc,,d I ...... I'm the poh', .�Illlild Il, ,kjj, ,,,eteoj [,I ,I [I ...... ah" Dal, It fiflk� :III, "holl cI j ..... .. r I ... I ,I, ile [III,, nd III, Ili ") I)"" 'I""' 1)� dli""'d I "Iflillir 11) fle IIIIII"J Ill"I'l this "I'C' 11 PAN VIEN F OF LOS`4 hill I ... I :lie vi,m it I.,, ,, dam,le, flo'e b"'i jef let) h,W Ili ,%:,u,dLm,,,, ae, it,... .. ......... it �Jhall mad, Illi� 13. RIGH IS OF RE( ON FJO' I 110s VN) NIEST OR S L 1 -11 , F N I EN I 0 1 Will"I'l Ille Colop,11t, shall lw,� ,)d vid Ii 0,lin ... fit' I"' pol'i'� It "'I'll til loof 111"I'll III III 'If 01C h"Iteil ( iifi�ok "1 011 11111 Ilid ll� I)IJI11 ohI, 'I'll tell III leill"It I 'Till '["'I' I'll 1111 1111111d ( illllll�11L It I ig, �I ill,t .,,, pe -I,ti e, i ....... I i�. m thIi, ,te,,t ,I the jI III I,f all, ko, cllltl� iti'll lie" leei "'d p"j I, Ih, ( " ... J, .... If ue,led by thie ( 0"'Pa", Lho ( ""'itnt Aoll ""ite to evid"', Th" "o'le, T, tile ( pli, If 11 .... ... it i"'oe", I he In't"d CLin"aw 'I"ll Ilhe ( (IlIl k"t - �m I, "'ll', o' ,I i I , ��, hc ,a,l,,, 11',, 1 1 71i ... I"', I"d Ih, A e I IIIIIIIJ "I "It' 11 111 ltil-IIIII)II IIIII'11111� '-flhll IC ii pil"oe"I o" 1`,�Iloi ',I il Ai", fi", )II ufk C, I [I, 'I III' folillell if!' L'Ill"Ill IiIII[ M ll� ,dt wd fi� ,,u,J r,,,,,.led h) I lo ( ci,Ipa, , o,hI "I fi, iIIIIIIII III IIJ1111tililll �11�11,111,eI,. little pojl�ie, ,It I ...... 1'. nw, 11hil'i"fito", au� le"n, I,, eIrIlfifil"', Ili IhIse ilIti urncet,, That tildo,, ,broeimor, riI[m 14. NRBI I 14A I IO.N Lidill to ( 1, th, 111I,11,ed Illi, d,,,,,rW th,1 do, ,ollno,er,, h,11 h, -Hiii,d to ilhw,twi p,,,,iiin I to tile fW, A,biill.... Rld,� III to I li'd I I le A,`,111. [,,)!I I Rllk� )� I cl,pl I, pn�,,d,d ;,I the R, ],,� III,, 1 1, all be nda I., �I' Billidi'll"ll 11 1111 1 illIt', Ill )I "llo, `IIIIIIIIHII lialill, Ill, Il but it, I'll it, 1111) ci) tIL)IIiII) it cIllilo 1111111,11 to ( ollipall) �llil tile hls�od 3'"in, olit ol*o� relm ... g F) if,;, pclh',� iln, 'mi", In Ildt It' 1Iii,iIl1IioIt1IC IIIIII-11 'if I. P.11el IoIi Itlie, 101011)"111 "1 11111111 clHIIII, lILlt It f1l, lixi ... not, "Im, 'Isl, 10 fill Pit cl NIJ it 1111111,11 little', Iiholl till Al-i ....... I of ho,"Illille ,, S2 Will I�00 ,I ", hlH be arbmawd .1 tll� "pt"in If eal ... Ili, Cllillp.1,15 1�, [he li ... ied X) ilbiloibl, omwr, the -k .... t.... ,11 1111U1,111LI 1 111 11�ell of S2,0Io' 00() I'll"i IIIIII�11 ol fl� bill, Till, ( lild the '111�ldllt I,, till, I, 1,,� "d olidu the R'll'I '11,11 l" up"n III, J."I"Ient ,,,I... to "I"d ... I&I" I,, litt he II;l,vcI 11 111� c,)Ilit Is. IA kBIIA I I LINII I ED 10 1 Ills POLU POLK N LN I IRE (OXIEW r llhj� poll, togellhell iiab ah cildotil,jIlelit, jrajjl,� 11tached ii It Ll� theCel"PilM lithe ellill, pohl, a,,d �.,wlm ,Iv,,,l, he I Isured and (lie I 'cilipaiiii li IltelIllelit' lrl� )l411,II,toTl 011110 If,)] l�, , th , [ ... he, 'hilll " 'i d l, it (h) A", di"I" ,I III� ,I da"'." d].f i ...... . tt If lie III fi, I te ,, b, 11, '1 ..... ..... inn" ,,[I 'Im" Iliall ho III d ... ... L, . I, ...... itl'I"'oll"Ing , I I I. .... I ....... i"I't 111 011, ill't " o. I'lI!lllg lild ILlfllI:IILI1,II1II tI1 11, 1,1111111111 111 el,rc,,k "I",",oat'd b� S,I,cd,,Ie A If th, pohc, (0) Lild, ndol,eillIll III (111 '11111 1 l�ILIIII At �IIIN llll� 11 I,od, ,,III ftlli, p"hefI ind � ubjw 11, Ill[ )1 11, te'e" "od El,i- 111)", L11i;rM its till 111dolloolioll sllitc,, it d,,,, I ... I A,f) '1 7 f tile to ... :, I ... d ,, i,, I I I, of th, (") dd� "'y io, ... �tl. fill) o,wod it,, Date ,I P,)Ile,. rl� I the I of hn,le,ancl, 16. SEN ER ABILI El It, Hill, "') P,� ........ llf I],,, I ... lic, ,, ho], ,, ,I PI'l, I, held lll� 11 1 It ill llictifolcohlo ITI&I .1pplicIlhIc L'I'. th, [,,Ill b, d"I'lelf "It III lelud, ill", "oll i "'J, .m held ,I bl� 'I'lli'l bill 1,11 ... lie I ... . ...... l%i �1,ail it 1,,ji i,(k,l 1'. CHOK I OF LANA ; FORI NI (1) ( ,I Lil, I l d a,kol... ledgm thI., I Ila, tildcli, lici tile liI,k :o% coed hl� !hiI polli� MId LICICI Milled filet, ...... I I, Clo"Q.1 IIIIICII)t III Clliilli-� III)OFIllhe I;t%% I �l, I pjoj)w� aId ilipl,able to all, ritorpretatloo. .11-111111 -1llIe1lIii,,. oi elifl)i�l,norlt if policies I,� hile ii,it,ince ,If tlk, uI 'dim."'i III, Llil,d lo,al"I [h, ow i"'i it'lin"t �hidl Jpl� it,, la, ofth, I'llele h, [ ...... I , "%:"ed to ahfil, (I I I c I 11111 � I I,,l 111 �I t 11 , I I I I %i (till I el I c id , ot III, ti, i fIc I Ii � tire,] i tId (I) �I,,)rm ,, I it tile teT",, irill" ,Jj" 1, ""111,, ,,'o 'I"Ah h, "ba'aiii, ,!, 11, I, 'I't"will, the ppj"abl, la" (b) Chi,icc o I I I) I It Ili. A ji� J I I I oat i, I ii or other prIicoedi (I I, ill 0 I�llt ho, 0o i""I'd m,t 11, be filed I, III ,uxeo, tieJo"I c,,,i,l ghil, file 1, ,,(,d Stx,� MAIII'llcil "I "I 18. NOTICES, N% HERE SP, I All� loh�e 0' . 11,11it IIIII ilIll w1h,r ulee ot lawni; ... I ... .... I .... "Iti, I ice lo be , - , I I elt III I Ill, C 1,, 11 r,ill wild , Ifi, So l,c, III,[ h e " I " I To to I ol ........ � it Iii ...... I ind I ]lie [,I i "'Ilpan, Atill Chimil 87, ( Il,1o,,,,, ),,Ik,a) �oluth, Still, 20u, \je,fi,j, ri , I , "I 1 11 1,1 1 " 1, 0, - - Ill , P,- � 7 ALPA OWNER'S POLICY (6-17-66) WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE HOME OFFICE 875 Concourse Parkway South, Suite 200 Maitland FL 32751 Telephone(407) 629-5842 Owner's Policy of Title Insurance 5Shedul A Issued oy Name and Address of Title Insurance Company: Westcor Land Title Insurance Company, 201 N. New York Avenue, Suite 200, Winter Park, Florida, 32789 Slate: CO Countv: P1 FKIN Address Reference: EIGHTH. ASPEN. CO 81611 File No PCT23862W2 Policy No.: OP-6-CO1045-3604477 Amount of Insurance: $2,814,240 00 Premium: 5 5, 114.00 Date of Policy May 1. 2014 @ 1127 AM Smulianeoos #: Reinsurance N. HI 102652 1. Name of Insured ASPEN DRAGONFLY PARTNERS III LLC A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 2. The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. Title is vested in: ASPEN DRAGONFLY PARTNERS III LLC. A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 4. The Land referred to In this policy is described as follows. See Attached Exhibit "A" Issued By Authorized %W V41111111" EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 4 RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION According to the Survey Plat recorded May 22. 2013 in Plat Book 103 at Page 1 Also described as follows Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Block 9 of the Townsire and City of Aspen manumented with a 3/4 inch did steel pipe with cap marked'9" thence S 14'50'16 Al , a:ong tie westerly iine of said Block 9, a distance of 110 41 feet to the Point of Beginning, from which a 1 5 inch dia aluminum cap on 3/8 inch rebar bears IN W50 16 E a distance of 10 feet and a 1 1/2" dia aluminum cap on 3/8" dia tabor bears S W50'16 E a distance of 10 feet. thence S. 75'07'25"E a distance of 180 00 feet to tl�e Southeast corner of Lot 3 of this survey monumeited with a 1 V2 inch cia. aluminum cap on 3/8 inch rebar thence S 41'23'15 W a distance of 81,68 feet to 1 112 inch cia, alutrunium cap an 3�8 inch reter thence N,73'58'21 W a distance of 143.52 feet to a point on the westerly line of Block 9 manumented with a 1 1/2 inch dia aluminum cap on 3/8 reba( thence N. 14'50 15'E a distance of 70 20 feet to the Point of Beginning AND LOT 5, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION, According to the Survey Plat recorded May 22, 2013 in Plat Book 103 at Page I Also described as follows Beginning at the Southwest Corner of said Block 9 of the Aspen Townsite monumented with a 318 inch diameter rebar thence N 14'50'16"E. a distance of 40 20 feet to a point monumented with a 1 5 inch diameter aluminum cap on 3/8 inch diameter repar thence S 75'09'23 E a 143 52 feet to a 1 V2 inch cia a;uminum cap on 3/8 inch rebar, thence S 44'34'24'W a distance of 65 91 feet to a 1 1/2 inch da aluminum cap on 3�8 inch rebar thence IN 75'0923'VV a distance of 110 80 feet p a point an the westerly line of Block 9 monumented wit� a 1 112 inch aluminum cap on 3/8 inch rebar, thence N 14'50 16 E along said westerly line of Block 9 a distance of 20 00 feet to he Point of Beginning %"W 11.e SCHEDULE B-Cil CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER PCT23882W2 May 1, 2014 @ 11 27 AM OP-6-CO1045-3604477 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING 1 Any facts, rights interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land orwhich may be asserted by personsm possession, or Claiming to be in possession. thereof 2 Easements, liens encumbrances, 0, claims thereof which are not shown by the public records 3 Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation variation or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land, and that is not shown by the public records 4 Any lien, or right to a lien imposed by!aw for services labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished which lien or right to a lien is not shown by the public records 5 (a) Unpatented mining Claims (b) reservations or exceptons in patents or in Acts authorizing the issiarce thereof, (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights including but not limcted to easements or equitable servitudes or (d) water rights, claims or title to watensee additional information page regarding water rights), whether or not the matters excepted under (a). (b) (c) or (d) are shown for the public records. 6 Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on red property or by the public records proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments or notices of such proceecings whether or rot shown by the records of such agency or by the public records 7 Any service installation, connection, ma,ntenance or construction charges for sewer. water, electrioity, or garbage collection or disposal or other utilities unless shown as an existing lien by the public records SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 8 Taxes and assessments (not including condominium or homeowners association assessments or dues) for the yea, 2014 and subseciJent years only a lien not yet due and payable 9 Reservations and exception s as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 79 at Page 36,Book 59 at Page 328 Book 59 at Page 461 Book 59 at Page 336 Book 59 at Page 71 � Book 59 at Page 381 Book 59 at Page 105, Book 59 at Page 407, Book 59 at Page 273, Book 59 at Page 345 Book 59 at Page 36 Book 59 at Page 37 Book 59 at Page 21 providing as follows 'That no title shal be hereby acquired to any mine of gold silver cirnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws 10 Terms conditions provisions and obligations as set forth in Ditch map recorded December 17 1926 in Book 2 at Page 75 11 Terms, conditions provisions and obligatctrrs as set forth in Easement recorded June 6 1973 in Book 276 at Page 494 �2 Terms, conditions, provisions obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No 85 Series of 1982 by City Council of tre City cf Aspen recorded January 28 1982 in. Bock 420 at Page 459 13 Terms. conditions provisions and obligations as set north in Easement Agreement recorded March 4, 1987 in Book 530 at Page 678 14 Easements rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Land Survey Plat of subject property recorded June 6, 2011 in Plat Book 97 at Page 12 (Continued) POLICY NO. OP 6-001045-3604477 CASE NO. PCT23882bV2 SCHEDULE B-OWNERS —EXCEPTION S--CONTINUED-- 15. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of Ranger Station Subdivision (which is not an approved subdivision) recorded May 22. 2013 in Plat Book 103 at Page 1 and Plat of Lot 5, Ranger Station Subdivision recorded ApN 18.. 2014 as Reception No. 609556 in Book 106 at Page 74. 16. Terms of covenants and reservationsincluding reserved rights of access to the property as set forth in Quit Claim Deed from the United States of America to Aspen Dragonfly Partners III LLC recorded May 1. 2014 as Reception No 609963. EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED NONE ARE HEREBY OMITTED. %%"w .",w Ohhgaloi� hismance I land Stwcrncrl� Wean obhpwd by L'olomdo I aw (CIRS 14112Y in pio%ide the fbllo,�ing statement: It is unlawful In knowingly pimide I alse. incompletv or Inisjeadiro, tacts or infomiation to an insurance compam I ill the lonpose of de Amucli ng or attempting in denraud the couripwi; Ponallics an) include I a I pli"olluen I, fries, dclua I ot insurance and ci% i I darnages. Ali) insuounce cornpari� oi agni o I all in.' Uran cc wror�w� \Oo kno,�m�h pi ... ides falke, incomplete ol misleading tact� oi aflomiation to a policy holder or chhnwu Rr Me pmpisc MAWkWing or attempting to defraud the policy holder or chimarr; " Q rcgud to a wt(Icincta oI a"WA Pjawc From inswame proceed, Anil he lepolted to tile Colorado Dk ision ot Insurance N�itllln tile Dellaillnent ol,Rcgulatoly Agencies, 1111W, RECEPUMl 609964, 0"5/01/2014 at 11:26:42 AM, 1 013, R $21 00 Dod Cri EASEMENT Janice K. '/03 Caudill, Pitkin County, DO RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT SourceGas Distribution LLC KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS That Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (�Grani for itself, its heirs, successors and assigns, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10ZO), the receipt and adequacy of wtich is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, convey and confirm unto, SourceGas Distribution LLG, a Delaware limited liablity company whose address is 370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood, DO 30228, its successors and assigns ("Grarree'), a right -of way and easement to survey, constrict, install, inspect, maintain, renew, repair, remove, -elplace and operate an underground pipeline, in, on, over, under. upon and through the following described real property An 'Easement Area' located five feet (5) on either side of the gas ppetime which currently exists at the far northwest ccrinder of "Lot 4', as hereafter defined, which gas pipeline is identified as 'ng" on the excerpt from an improvement survey plat which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, Lot 4 is defined as Lot 4, as shown on the survey for Ranger Station Subdivision recorded in the real properly records of Piton County, Colorado on May 22, 2013, at Reception No 599691, more particularly described as follows Beginning at tie Northwest Comer of Block 9 of the Townsite and City of Aspen, monumented with a 3/4 inch dia. streel pipe with cap marked "9". thence S 14�53'16" W., along the westerly line of said Block 9 a distance of 110 Al feet to the Point of Begining, from which a 1 5 inch did aluminum cap on 3f8 inch rebar bears N. 14�5C'16' E a distance of 10 feet and a 1 1/2" did Aluminum cap on 3/8" dia, rotor bears S 14*50'16' E, a distance of IC feet: thence S. 75'07'25" E. a datnace of 180 30 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 3 of the survey morturrented with a 1 112 inch dia. aluminum cap on 3/8 inch rebar, thence SAI'2315" W a distance of 81 68 feet to 1 112 inch dia aluminum cap an 3/8 inch rebar. thence N 73'58'21" W a distance of 143 52 feet to a point on the westerly iine of Eflock 9, morcumented with a 1 1/2 inch cia. aluminum cap on 3/8' tabor, thence N. 1zl a distance of 70 20 feet to the Point of Beginning, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado This Rght�f-"Vay G-ant is subject to any and all other easements, rights-oll-way. varja�ces, memorandums and/or agreements of record TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said right-of-way and easement unto Grantee so long as such pipelines and appurtenances, c, any part thereof, shall be maintained. together with the right of ingress to and egress from the Easement Area over and across the access easement established within five (5) feet at the northern boundary of said Lot 4 for the purposes herein stated, at the will of Grantee. Grantor retains the right to use and enjoy the Easement Area, subject only to the right of Grantee to use the same to, the purposes herein expressed, and subject to the limitations contained herein G�antcr hereby acknowledges that the consideration received herewith is flui consideration 'or the rignW, way and easement granted hereir, and also for damages to both the Easement Area and growing �rojfis occasioned by the initial installation of Grantees facilities Grantor reserved the right to cuffivahe use and occupy the Easement Area for any purpose consistent with the rights and privileges herein granted, and which widl not interfere with or, in the sole judgment of Grantee endanger any of tie facilities thereon or Gtantee's use thereof Such reservation by Grantor shafl in no event include tne right: (i) to construct any buildings or struci�jres Df any k:fnd: (u) to ini retain, collect or store any waterl or (m) to plant any trees or shrubs upon the right-cf-way and easement granted herein withoun [tie express written consent of Grantee C,arfoa agree. to lay at Dipelhues at a ufficf.nt depth to avoid interfering witir cultivation of the soil, and to pay Grantor for damages to growing crops, fences or other improvements which may anse hour the operations of Grantee Any such damage, if not mutually agreed upon, shelf be ascertained and defernmired by three disinterested persions, one appointed by Grantor, one by Grantee, and the third chosen bv the two persons so appointed, The written award of a majority of such three persons shall De final and conclusive upon Grantor and Grantee It is agreed by Grantor that any payment of consideration due under the terms hereof may be made jointly to Grantor and any on)FIgageeS of record at the bme such payrrent becomes due. This Riqht�f-way Grant and the duties and obligations created herein shall run with the land and shall be bitting upon Grantor 3faniae and their respective rare, devirsees, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set [is hand this 18'n day of March, 2014, GRANTOR: ASPEN DRAGONFLY PARTNERS J1, LLC, a Colorad,�,itmited liabi; co , �n By lwf E Mobeel Hoffman Special Marager STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF PITKIN On this 18" day of March, 2314, before me, a notary pi in and for said county and state, personally appeared the above named E Michael Hoffman, as Special Manager of Aspen Dragonfly Partners 111, LLC, who is personally known to me, and known to me to be the Identical person whose name is affixed to rhe above instrument and has ackirownedgen the Instrument to be their voluntary act and dead. IN WITNESS �VHEREOF, I have hereunto setgy hand and affixed my notary seal the day and year last abovewn"en A�10,1,r 4A o, ame. SEAL Nctao'Puthro State My Commission expires. 1ILLL i KA.YLA LYNN SCHULER HALL AFE #: NOTARY PUBLIC -�RADO- STATE 'OF �COLORADO NOTARY ID #2012404447t5 L" �0" MyCemmj�Ion apj,,gjufyM,2D16 v %m r io'wrtnts�-oa�ua � JA— �'-- �� IY r 1151!SPROPCR _ i' TV