Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.gm.720 E Cooper Ave.A62-97
2737-182-27-003 A2 9 Bell Mountain LodgeGMQS,Change in Use S Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 City Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63850-041 Deposit -63860-043 HPC -63885-268 Public Right-of-Way -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit -MR0I I Use Tax 10000-67100-383 Park Dedication 15000-63050-480 AH Commercial 15000-63065482 AH Residential County Land Use Application Fees: 001 13-6380M33 -63820-037 -03825-638 Referral Fees: 00113-63810-035 00i 15-63340-163 62023-03340-190 00125-63340-205 00113-63815-036 00113-63812-212 Sales: 00113-63830-039 -69000-145 Name: ORO Address: _ c� D Phone: Deposit Zoning Board of Adjustment County Engineer City Engineer Housing Environmental Health County Clerk Wildlife Officer County Code Copy Fees Other Total__ Date: VI / Check: Project: Case No: No. of Copies BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES APPLICATION FOR CHANGE? IN USE, PUD, SUBDIVISION AND CONDITIONAL USE SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED BY ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES BOY 3613 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 926 1125 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL .................... 1 III. CHANGE OF USE GMQS EXEMPTION .......................... 14 IV. CONSOLIDATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ........ 22 V. SUBDIVISION REVIEW ....................................... 34 VI. i CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW .................................. 38 VII. VESTED RIGHTS ............................................ 39 VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................... 39 ATTACHMENTS # 1 Title Insurance Commitment #2 Letter Authorizing Submission of Application #3 Pre -Application Conference Summary #4 Engineering Report By Schmueser Gordon Meyer #5 Sub -Surface Soil Study By Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical Inc. LIST OF DRAWINGS I. Vicinity Map ..................................................... 2 2.Neighhorhood Plan ................................................. 3 3.Improvement Survey ................................................ 4 4.Site Plan ........................................................ 8 5. Garden Level Floor Plan ............................................. 9 6. 1st Level Floor Plan ............................................... 10 7. 2nd Level Floor Plan .............................................. 11 8. 3rd Level Floor Plan .............................................. 12 9. Street Front Elevations ............................................. 13 10. Utility Plan ..................................................... 18 11. Grading and Drainage Plan ......................................... 19 12. South and West Elevations ......................................... 25 13. North and East Elevations ......................................... 26 14. Alternate Elevations .............................................. 27 15.Landscape Plan ................................................. 29 16.Final Plat ...................................................... 35 I. INTRODUCTION This is an application for the re -development of the Bell Mountain Lodge. The property consists of approximately 20,073 square feet of land, zoned RMF/PUD/LP. It currently contains a nineteen (19) unit lodge. The location of the site in relation to neighboring properties is shown on two drawings - the vicinity map and the neighborhood plan. An improvement survey, depicting existing conditions on the property, has also been provided. This application is being submitted by Bell Mountain L.L.C., the owner of the property (hereinafter, "the Applicant"). Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by Attachment # 1, the title insurance commitment. Authorization for Alan Richman Planning Services to represent the property owner for this application is provided by Attachment #2. The Applicant intends to demolish the lodge and will replace it with seven free market dwelling units, built as two triplexes and one detached dwelling unit. Five of the units will also contain accessory dwelling units. A pre -application conference was held with representatives of the City (see Attachment #3, Pre -Application Conference Summary). Based on this meeting and subsequent contacts with City staff, it was confirmed that the following land development approvals are required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations to accomplish this project: Change of Use GMQS Exemption to convert the lodge into dwelling units; PUD, Subdivision and Residential Design Review for development of a multi -family residential project; Conditional Use Review for development of accessory dwelling units; and Vested Rights for the project. The following sections of this application identify the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations for these development approvals and provide a response to each standard. First, however, an overview description of our development proposal is provided. II. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The Bell Mountain Lodge was one of three properties that submitted applications for development allotments in the initial LP lottery, held in November, 1996. The Bell Mountain Lodge applied for an allocation in the residential lottery for three single-family residences, each to contain four bedrooms, (a total of twelve bedrooms) and also applied for an allocation in the commercial lottery for four thousand (4,000) square feet of commercial space. The Applicant was successful in obtaining both allocations at that time. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 1 ►i VON .. c�•r hc. Or •►� I. 1 R yMq '9y C Opp � __ ER AVE• -� _ R-MF L/TFi� _ A -� BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES II GIBSONlRENO VICINITY MAP O so /oo 2oorn ��� ASPEN SQUARE 00 j II HANNAH DUSTIN F- I � Il I BENED(CT COMMONS i i BUCKHORN j ~ I c I COOPER AVE. oQ �l Z_ o[ O i i GIBSON-REN, ,CHII�TI' CITY MARKET � w. as •w N � ro��n u.e / \ qt •M YM Y<RI DURANT MALL NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PLAN 2 L� ;2!5 Improvement Survey Bell JfounlaZn Townhomes Lots A 4 Jl, N, 0, P, and Q, Block 105 Town of .4spen, Pitkzn County, State of Colorado GRAPHIC SCALE 0 Sfrha L fVwx babg o #s�Y(~ lsW EM Sf°wfr°i�i nr WNo/ r bw �fo:TMy`°" t ' ` .� , sd tarraef ertny that dr. E+pr.ranarl. aA (Ae at~ `arias ysevf .+ to i e - zo n mr date Actebw 14 wA soot rfrry d...dctl..a ..tA.fy = was fAe Oau+abAla O/ thI pw YC�f .�" d d. *Moue sr are . c. ` a. dry dr° tit � a' 1' e/ wy r r >nrL ` � �f ar ��p wNY o/ Imo[ .eC�f a. AOfd SM-OdIN L DIZAS LS BRIM pA lE Rw6ar and Cap ell 2p� L.Pmd ow Nalm q / p�nf / 9 6 "' _ ` 79�5 - • kmwaf a heal .....w 1 a..wo•.a - Irdlrorr "I ara...art I6 rw wd f d Pomft • B..*V. s � m A.wd aaa. tw r ahem f ti D/ ,.„,... R . Sde.d. A Mb Q.wi.Ahnwt a.. Ala a5OW-C Aark:ng Are / ti / / / `arcs ey Ho.. Me�A.n AA.eq Liaso.Y aYt./ aytieVtiy f - �04 `t:..a.. A,ew d» /Yet J.x 7J Aaef Of Laf O o Zoe CWr .w Zoe -401 l l l Lit l l l Q l / Canty s+wYor. a.araoe+. M7 ffffwj Of o aaet --M.#so* y of ae comfy r. tad Dd fW / / % / / LW � r vAar. tyht- ftb ArW fffwy r7r. sacci.. W, 2p JS-sfiaz CarWaAr AYWe1 SAMafaA Parking .41ea N C—fysv»Jr l is Rib°`/ iv �lB.n! / 0 LEOEVD - \ r ter— .unm r4wu.t u. na. a moo hat i` 79�C � _ :— arfu rnnaa rar o ova nu[ — nlcrrt [K pd wrp w�. mIv o a novae gyp. o c u a®. _ pa ��— o.r+c.o unn as mwm : snw • afa.. ruanr Paw ..n u. m ❑ aerie` ..«�°... 7 6'lo�t • aRM. car low rAt[ A pasha Harr rYYYYI ra[[ u. SURYLYORS SC%/Af11fsrR 60RDON 'Ver-'R /NC. �� SVV ) BL O ck > 05Bell rllounlain TownfiomesC/inu[ood Spnnys, Colorodo B/60/ ots KL�l1V0P,~ 4 7+-— �'CHI724FR /f # 9IS-S9lB M _ /Sl0/ 9!S-.. - r [ • ... . ," ..Mr.r ...... I — [ o -n i nos a»> 1 Subsequent to receiving the allocations, the property was rezoned by the City as part of the citywide LP rezoning. Pursuant to Ordinance 2, Series of 1997, the property was zoned RMF/PUD, with an LP Overlay. This zoning will not permit the Applicant to develop the commercial allocation, but it allows the Applicant to consider a more dense project than was originally proposed. A denser project would be more consistent with the direction given to us by City staff. Therefore, this application is intended to accomplish the following: 1. Section 26.100.050 D.2.a of the Municipal Code provides the Planning and Zoning Commission with the authority to award remaining allocations or multi -year allocations through the change in use process. It reads as follows: "If the total number of free market units or non-residential square footage allowable under underlying zoning are not awarded through the change in use process, the last selected lodge can apply for the change in use process for these remaining allocations. Multi -year allocations can be awarded if the Commission approves a change in use process for the units that exceed the annual quota, and the following years allocations shall be adjusted accordingly. Any allocations left following all change in use applications shall be returned to the pool for future allocations." We hereby request that the Commission make a total allocation to this project of seven units, containing a total of fourteen bedrooms (an increase of four units, but an increase of only two bedrooms, over our initial allocation). It is our understanding that one unit/two bedrooms were not allocated in 1996 and that only two bedrooms were allocated in 1997, so there are more than enough units and bedrooms available to accommodate this request. During our pre -application meetings, the Community Development Director stated that the Applicant could apply for these additional units pursuant to this provision. 2. In conjunction with this allocation, we hereby agree to return to the lottery the four thousand (4,000) square feet of commercial space we were allocated in 1996. The zoning designation the City gave this property precludes us from using this allocation. The proposed development represents an innovative way to respond to the zoning that the City applied to this property. In pre -application meetings with City, we were asked to try to use the RMF/PUD zoning to accommodate greater density at this in -town location than we had originally planned. However, we did not want to create the type of "boxy" multi- family buildings that are found in the vicinity of our site and elsewhere in the downtown area (see vicinity map and neighborhood plan). We are sensitive to the need for surrounding properties to maintain views through our site and to the importance of retaining as many of the mature trees on the site as can reasonably be accomplished. We also recognize that this location provides a transition from the density and intensity of the commercial core to the multi -family residential neighborhoods to the east of this property. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 5 This proposal provides a balance between the desire for increased density and the sensitive aspects of the site and the neighborhood. As shown on the site plan and floor plans, seven free market dwelling units are proposed in a three building configuration. Five units contain accessory dwelling units (ADU's) in their lower level, for a total of twelve proposed units. The site plan and street front elevations also respond to directions given to us by staff following our submission of an initial application packet on August 5, 1997. Staff had a number of concerns with our original project design, which would have developed the seven units in a townhome configuration. Some of the changes we made in response to their comments are as follows: • The buildings have been moved forward on the site, establishing a "build -to" line approximately 28' from the property line, creating more of a street presence and pedestrian scale for the project. Shifting the buildings forward has also created additional room behind the structures, so all required parking can be accommodated within the property lines and so all setbacks can be met. The buildings have been kept back far enough, however, so we can preserve the vast majority of the mature trees located on our property. The parking and driveway areas behind the buildings will be covered with a structural grass mat surface, with irrigation, so this area will have an open space character, rather than adding to pavement along the alley. • Instead of proposing seven individual townhomes in a row, we instead propose two triplexes and a single unit, connected into a multi -family configuration below grade. This allows us to achieve a full ten feet of separation between the buildings, so that the spaces between them will be more usable. The walkways leading to the units have been consolidated for the triplexes, so more of the frontage can be undisturbed landscaping. The height of the proposed buildings has been reduced from 30' to 28'. • Street trees have been added along the Cooper Avenue and Spring Street frontages. Some evergreen (Spruce) trees have been added to the mix of on -site plantings. • Changes have been made to the materials along the street frontages, replacing some of the stone with stucco, so the buildings will have a lighter appearance and be more compatible with neighboring structures. • The two triplexes have been given their own design character, so they do not appear to be identical. One building has been given a "western" look, with exposed timbers and trusses, while the other has a "cottage" look, with shingles and arched openings. Table 1 provides a summary of the project's revised dimensional standards. It illustrates that with these revisions to the design, the project is now able to comply with all of the dimensional standards of the RMF zone district, except for the height standard, for which a PUD variation is being requested. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 6 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PROJECTS COMPLIANCE WITH RMF ZONE DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Requirement Code Standard Proposal Minimum Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 20,073 s.f. Minimum Lot Area Per 2,100 s.f. of land 7 x 2,100 s.f. = 14,700 s.f.; Dwelling Unit required per two 20,073 s.f. of lot area is bedroom unit available Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 200 feet Minimum Front Yard 10 feet 28 feet Minimum Side Yard 5 feet west side: 5.25 feet east side: 6.75 feet Minimum Rear Yard 10 feet 25 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 28 feet Minimum Distance Between 10 feet Not applicable Buildings on the Lot Percent of Open Space 35% 37% External Floor Area Ratio 1:1 (20,073 s.f.) Garden level: 2,486 s.f. First level: 4,377 s.f Second level: 6,616 s.f. Third level: 6,574 s.f. Total Area: 20,053 s.f. Off -Street Parking 19 spaces (2 spaces per 19 spaces two bedroom unit; 1 space per studio) Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 7 11- 9 12- 1�- ?T U) 0 z for U) 0- ri� Q a Alley Block 105 I'mir) 4 9, 75' 01' "MMW'M,21 �S T L- COOPER AVE. .SITE/ROOF PLAN GIBSON-REN, Aftc. IT It KI 1—UNIT 3—UNITS �r. i K'-6' �-- 3-UNITS n GARDEN LEVEL PLAN REF. ty Jp mo •r FLOOR PLANS lavuxm n L � n L , n L� n L -1 Jos No.: q�iS 0►T11: 12/s/97 rnCKZD: P{_ sUl1: kg,'a I rut m: oo►rour S u. iw7 O O O [WMI GIBSON-RENO A! C 2 1 T I C T 1 it, LLC. Ian GO%- 210 L NYWN %a m ♦W W COILtl00 sleu (rm) Ots-sees (m) sss-sae (FAX) f t..G& Oyy,e.: P.O. Imm rA 117 N. vublyw. Ne. S TZ LUG. COLOv00 81435 (s70) 725-4WT (WM) 720-0000 (►AZ) —4m.sreao.— —1' / 5 e- 1-UNIT -- -- 3-UNITS 3-UNITS 2 1ST LEVEL PLAN REF. FLOOR PLANS 7IBJONB L IZ-�•-�, n L-1 n L -1 n L � n L-1 JOB NO.: 91�9 DRAWN B7: JCN DAll: 12/11/07 eau: rux DY. corrsur,t cat 1M 9 O F O MWM F+M GIBSON-RENO - A B C B I t I O t t III L-LC. A.pm Off— 21D L BTYYt Me. BOB A.a. LO1OY00 81611 (e7O) 926-"" (e70) ese-eea (ram f.0 td. 0fj%..: r.0. BOX m 117 N. Baim Nu- e UJ TBIRIDB. COLORADO e 14M (970) 725-OW (970) 73e .ease (rAX) _jf►..alwo. smm / 6 O Q ww v v �, '-0• 7I'-0• - _ _ ar Y•0' 17'-0' s DMtVs � arpr °iyp.r / DININO DININS � °7ypy ■nar / D�•1� 'SG°iRR PL°t'R hY°i1R FL°Tp'. �7af�■ DaID1R' �J DR"I �7 DRG>e'I -7 OCaa` Q 4•-p M M —y n MAT. O e ® Orr, ° O ' t � I■ I LIVNO DN - ~ LIVINO LIVTd LNnd 1 L I 07� 9 o•. O•a Deol O-W4 OPMea Ona 77111T ITI PL°71t ■ — _ ■ Ll 1 11 I � __ 1, ` ' I 1 -UNIT ,}. - 3-UNITS >ill 3-UNITS -i 3 2ND LEVEL PLAN REF. FLOOR PLANS lammons L n -117 ID - T7 n L � n L n L � Lr� l0e NO.: R 713 DRAWN /7. !CN DATT-. I2/11/07 C11TC■TD r 9CAL[: nil ID 9 O ('7 8 O .1•�l 1•MM"1 F� GIBSON-RENO A. C 9 1 7 1 C T 1 )(1 LLC Awn Of/N-: LIO T. errAN No. TDIe ASPTN. COLORADO elell (070) wee -ease (a70) aze-59" (PAX) T4 uur'f4 Df)% : F.O. ■ox 27e 117 N. WDIDW No. T TTIlMMI. COIORADO 81436 (M) nYa-6"7 (970) 7E0-666e (rA=) Web Sib Add—: ...;+e.enrvno.00m SHErr / 7 1 1 1 1 rr 71'•0' TI'•C ttr 7!'•0' II'-0' ...'A .nr unr 1.a.r rn► w.► \J/7 \\ I QiN i DNMO rrlpr / Y \ I I I DATM g O ` eA„a \ O I // I \�`-P•�- Tom_—_r1l // I \�_' F UP, 1 - a a IL I NO 1-UNIT •}� - - - - 3NUNITS - ---- - �. 3-UNITS 4 3RD LEVEL PLAN l , tag' - 1._0.. REF. FLOOR PLANS NllAttORB ^ 11.19�g1 L � ^ L � ^ L 1 ^ L^ L1 JOD NO.: g113 DDAWI. WY: JON DATE: 1•/6/67 cnwm: rm scua: /b'• 1 r111 m DOPYMd6T & au 1M7 GIBSON•RENO - A A C D 17 A C T 6 LLC. A.p— Off{ — Ito 1. /TWN No. 609 ASM C010DAD0 61611 (670) on-6666 (670) M-611M (FAX) nu 4." o//1e.. P.O. DOI m 117 N. waw No. 6 T63JA7pD6, COIURADO $1435 (670) 726-un (670) 726-6666 (FAX) 1l.► S11. Add- ►►►.61Awnnno- SHM / 8 COOPER STREET NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED COOPER STREET SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED SPRING STREET WEST ELEVATION m W 2 O 2 z 3 O z z 3 O J J W m GIBSON•REN A I C Nll(1 Tt :me rmw rw w ww«cnorao wu ql of ffr rKY�I ql•]1 f1.1 f>a ]n i, waao« Rl i uM1 ChdIMO �iflf ql n• Not Kvl1 ql 1q W 9((T• 9 SPRING ST. - EAST ELEVATION STREET FRONTAGES III. CHANGE OF USE GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.100.050 D.2.a. of the Municipal Code authorizes the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant a GMQS exemption to change the use of any existing structure previously zoned LP to residential use. In order to qualify for the exemption, the Applicant must comply with the following standards: 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional employees generated by the change in use or expansion. This shall include an analysis and credit for existing employee housing and the incremental impact between the existing use and the proposed conversion. Response: In its review of two prior small lodge change in use applications, the City found that there is no established formula for the generation of employees for the conversion of lodge units to residential units. The staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission also found that the conversion of a 29 unit lodge to 6 residential units (the Brass Bed) and the conversion of a 20 unit lodge and restaurant to 4 residential units (the Fireside Lodge) represented a "significant reduction" in the requirement for affordable housing. The Applicant has relied on these past actions by the City with regard to the other projects that competed in the November, 1996 small lodge lottery. We also relied upon the findings made by the City in a memo dated August 12, 1996 from the Community Development Department to the City Council, to accompany second reading of Ordinance 29, Series of 1996, creating the lottery. On page 6 of that memo, the staff provided a methodology to evaluate the impacts on the community of the conversion of a lodge to residential use. The memo described a conversion formula that staff used to establish the quotas for the LP lottery, stating that 2.5 lodge units have an equivalent impact to a three bedroom residence, while 3.3 lodge units have an equivalent impact to a five bedroom residence. Considering this conversion formula, the 19 unit Bell Mountain Lodge could be converted into as many as 8 three bedroom units before it would begin to create a net increase in impacts (8 residential units x 2.5 lodge units per residential unit = 20 lodge units). This would appear to confirm the fact that the proposed conversion of the Bell Mountain Lodge into 7 two bedroom residential units will not increase the demand for affordable housing. Another way of evaluating whether this project should provide affordable housing is to consider whether the development of 7 new free market units generates the need for more employees than does the present use of the property. According to factors adopted by the Housing Authority, the present lodge generates 3.8 employees (19 lodge rooms @ 0.2 employees per room). The Housing Authority has not adopted a factor for the number of employees generated per free market unit. We are aware, however, of several studies, completed by and for the City of Aspen, that attempted to quantify this relationship. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 14 A study of property management companies compiled by the Planning Office in the late 1980's found that for each resident of a free market unit, there is a need generated for approximately 0.16 employees. This would mean that a two bedroom unit, which the City says houses 2.25 residents, generates the need for 0.36 employees. On this basis, our project would generate the need for approximately 2.5 employees (0.36 x 7 = 2.52), as compared to its credit of 3.8 employees. Another survey of local property management companies was conducted this year by a student and professor from the University of Colorado. They contacted several management companies, and found that these companies employ in the range of 0.15 to 0.50 employees for each unit they manage. These results are comparable to those compiled in the prior study, and are further evidence that this project is not a net generator of employees. Despite all of these findings, the Applicant recognizes the need for affordable housing in the community. Therefore, the Applicant has voluntarily included accessory dwelling units in five of the seven residences. These units will comply with the maximum size guidelines for such units (they each contain approximately 694 sq. ft.). Each unit also has its own off-street parking space, located off the alley, between the garages for the free market units. ?. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that sufficient parking spaces will be provided for the change in use or expansion or cash -in -lieu will be used. Response: Section 26.32.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code requires that multi -family dwellings in the RMF zone district provide 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for any unit containing 2 or more bedrooms and 1 space per studio unit. Therefore, a total of 19 spaces are required for this project. The site plan shows that each unit contains a 2 space garage, with alley access, and 5 spaces for the ADU's are located between the garages. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that the change in use or expansion is compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood. Response: This site is located at the eastern edge of the commercial core. Immediately to the east of this property, the zoning changes from commercial to residential. Therefore, the development of this site provides the opportunity to create a transition or bridge from the greater density and intensity of the commercial core to the quieter residential areas nearby. The proposed development creates this transition through its form and density. We propose a multi -family residential project, the same use as several surrounding developments. However, rather than proposing to use the RMF zoning to develop a traditional condominium complex, we have instead chosen to develop smaller scale residential buildings having features such as individualized front entrances with covered stoops, terraced garden areas, and distinctive walkways to create a link between the buildings and the streetscape. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 15 Table 2 provides a summary of surrounding land uses and zoning limitations. As shown, surrounding zoning and actual land uses provide for a mix of both resident- and tourist - oriented uses at relatively high densities, as compared to other City zone districts. The CL, NC and C-1 zone districts allow heights considerably in excess of that permitted in the RMF zone district. The CL and C-1 zone districts also allow a much greater maximum floor area than the RMF zone district. Furthermore, several existing buildings actually exceed these limitations. The peak height of these buildings has been measured in the field as follows: Aspen Square: 40.8' (flat roof) Durant Mall: 48.7' (measurement to mid -point of roof would be lower) Hannah Dustin: 34.0' (flat roof) Building height in the AH zone district is set by PUD. The Benedict Commons height was set at 30', "to make the units more livable and compatible with surrounding buildings". Research in the County Assessor's office also indicates that several of the surrounding buildings exceed their allowable floor area ratio, including the Durant Mall, with an FAR of about 1.8:1 and the Chateau Aspen, with an FAR of about 1.7:1. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING LIMITATIONS Zone Surrounding land use Typical Uses Allowed Max. Maximum Dist. having this zoning Height Floor Area CL Aspen Square; Commercial on ground 28' (32' by 2:1 (Buckhorn Buckhorn Lodge floor; lodge above spec. rev.) limited to 1:1) NC Durant Mall Food store, drug store, 28' (32' by 1:1 liquor store and similar spec. rev.) convenience stores C-1 Chateau Aspen; Commercial (but not 40' 1.2 comm.; Hunter Plaza primarily tourist uses) 0.3 AH O Hannah Dustin; Professional offices, 25' 0.85 comm.; A -Frame single-family, duplex 0.15 AH and multi -family residential uses AH Benedict Commons Affordable Housing Set via 1.1:1 PUD RMF The neighborhood to Multi -family and single- 25' 1:1 (1.1:1 by the east of Original family residential spec. rev.) Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 16 By comparison, the height to the 1/3 point of the roof of the subject project will be 28% the height to the peak of the roof will be 35'. The proposed height and FAR of this project are, therefore, less than that of several surrounding structures and quite compatible with what could be expected upon re -development of the Buckhorn and City Market properties. Moreover, the proposed site plan complies with the 35% open space requirement of the RMF zone district and allows us to preserve many of the site's mature trees, something that few of the surrounding commercial properties have accomplished. Additional support for the requested height variation is provided in the PUD section of this application. We have not attempted to emulate many of the design features of the neighboring buildings. As shown on the elevation studies we have prepared for surrounding blocks, these buildings represent an eclectic mix of designs, mostly from the 1950's through the 1970's. Features that we did not want to emulate included: (1) their use of flat roofs; (2) their lack of windows, decks and similar features that would create design interest, variety and human scale; and (3) their use of metal siding or other materials not indigenous to the mountains. We have instead: (1) used peaked roofs and gable forms; (2) provided windows, decks and covered stoops; and (3) used materials such as stucco, stone, wood, timber and shingles that are appropriate to Aspen and our alpine environment. We have also created a uniform build -to line for the development, given an individualized design to the three buildings, and limited auto access solely to the alley side of the property. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that adequate public facilities exist or will be provided for the change in use of the existing neighborhood. Response: Schmueser Gordon Meyer has prepared an engineering report (Attachment #4), utility plan, and grading/drainage plan that address the following services for this project: Water Supply: The proposed re -development will not create a significant new demand for services in the area, since it is expected to result in a nearly equal demand for water as the existing development. In addition, there are relatively new water mains in place in both Spring Street and Cooper Avenue that are in good condition. Service is available from either main and no particular improvements are needed in the immediate area. Sewage Disposal: There is a sewer main in the alley of Block 105 that is in good condition and does not need to be upgraded to serve this project. However, there are constraints on the downstream Galena Street line. ACSD is requiring applicants that will be served by that line to pay a tap fee surcharge toward its improvement. The Applicant agrees to make this payment that will contribute toward upgrading public sewer service in the neighborhood. Fire Protection: There are fire hydrants located at the southwest corner of Spring and Cooper and the northwest corner of Original and Cooper. No additional hydrants should be required. The property is located just 4 blocks from the Aspen Fire District station. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 17 t IN 11 4S' — XND SFAIR SERVICE IRCW 6UCDNG i3 GRADE ��e• PER /P�l 1/W i 01T SADCYf. MYf R,IYJf OR CQUIdUrNT PROFILE RAVSH GRADE — [ice fwnav I I//7" /ftlSC1C1�MC BOX c' CURB STOP GRAPHIC SCAM �\ fXSANG UALITY LOCATIAVS ARE BASED ON LlM/1£0 FIELD LOCATIONS AND I EXI AO&M SrZTL A S,� m 7K SERVICE SYSTEM MAPS CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR l-£R1F11NG FIELD SM4PS A IO &MDAIG tOCAAONS AND CONNECACN REOUIREMENIS WITH EACH UA[IIY AI CONS TRUCRON 2 DUE TO THE SEWER MAIN EL£VAnON. GARDEN LEVEL PLUMBING INLL REQUIRE I) AN -LANE WYf FOR ENS/PC STRUCTURES i EXCTOR PUMPS FOR EACH UNIT 7) M1F S40OLE FOR 07MW SERVICES _ 7M x. GAR J ELECTRIC PRIMARY IN CONDUIT TO BE RUN IN THE LOWER LEv£L Of THE STRUCTURE J) 84CKF4L OWCYR IrYE To 6E SCREENED ROCK OR CLASS 6 AGGREGATE, -� SERVICE LINE CONCRE,E 4. GAS SERVICE TO BE BURIED OUTSIDE THE STRUCTURE TO THE METERS 95X CO"PACRCN DENSITY PER ASTM D-6N (CONTANUDUS) BLOCK r) "TYIR.Y/ COVER - S FEET ---SERVICE SADDLE Of STANDARD SEWER 7 s`� M SERVICE CONNECTION DETAIL TYP. WATER SERVICE DETAIL ALLEY 4' DIA. PVC INDINDUA[— UNIT SEVER SERNCE(TYP.) /— — — El - - — — — — ELEC, &GAS (- - - - t lr _ SS T & TV In ME h y TV (REMOVE - - - - - - - SS h h G Ln (REMOVE)-t� b� - - - - - - -- � -MASTER WATER SER 11C£ VAULT wl mAN WAY RELOCATE ACCESS BACKFLOW PREVENAON, FIRE SYSTEM ELECTRIC I I I L - - F£ED, INDIODUAL UNIT S£RNCES METERS d STRUCTURE BELOW SHUTOFFS (SEE MECH PLANS) VAUL T I ti- I GRADE I G T& TV I E ELECTRIC PEDESTALS I DISCONNECT ME E[£C1R/C ELECTRIC T h TV DISCONNECTS DISCONNECTS T & T PFnFt TAI s & METERS & METERS PEDESTV ALS I jg25 EAST COOPER AVE. GAS MASTER WATER CURB BOX VA BOX VAL VE. PROPOSED MASTER WATER SERNC£ LINE SIZE PER MECH. DESIGN REO)IREMENTS. INSULATE WATER SERNCE LINE AT LIGHT WELLS D� - - -- -- -- - - - W - - - - - - - -- -- -W -- -- - - - -- -- - - -W - - 14 " D. l P WA JE R -'W - - - - - - - - - -W - - - -- - - - - - -H -- - -- - -- - - -W - - - - - - --- 4 -- 19lD - R[NSKXV a+,E er he Ra 90" a 3CHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. — __ __ UTILITY D9i^ y MP _ 1 G"° °'" Street, Sd1. 200 BELL MO UNTA IN TO WNHOMES - -- - - -- - - - M Glenwood Springs, Colorado 61001 Dw. 12-12-97- (070) 046-1004 (FAX 945-69/6) - --- -- - - PLAN 4w er JI nF % ,, 1-1 -scia"aEn n 1 Aspen. Coinredo 49701 926-8721 GRAPHIC SCALE r 1 -14T e 1 I - to n ,� NOTES 1 ARC/ rr 11 C TLRAL EL EVA AON 100' EOUAL S SURVEY EL L vA n0N 7923 �� I 2 ORYNEL L S ARE 5' L D x B' DEEP (4 EACH) t 3 ROUTE SLOT DRAINS AT GARAGE ENTRIES AND ROOF OR AREA DRAINS TO DRYN£LLS I EACH DRYNEL L TO HA VE AN OVERFL OW PUMP TO DA YL /C.+/T IN THE ALL £ Y S FOOTLR OR UNDERSLAB DRAINS (IF REQUIRED) SHALL ROUTE TO A LONER L EVFL SUMP (NOT DRYIIELL S) AND PUMP TO DA YLIC✓fT j ALLEY I �9yv 9-- __------------- - 01 -- — -- —_ 102.16 'I( 9995+ IOO ISt 7008+ 107.13+ + 101.61+ r01.93+ 1 10?JB+ � 1 I 101.�? 102 � Ijjl1 I too 10l lot -41 1Lw rot NOTE.' rRa Y/UCIS 910.M AVE AVAlAaLf /lA0 CoRa MO II.T lot fix AC. RYIF, CYt0 625-III2 (at 7X EQLW A-FMNW er fh"vfve) I l0067+ 9.i -- — 1i I� I I } . 100 I1 1+ � /RWC a OM/C l00J 1 2 _ J too 4 too S too too 99.67+ 100 99.67+ 99.67+ 99.67+ 9967+ I 0 1 0 IQO J00 0 . I0 O _-- t, n srar mur �aor DRAIN AT EACH I I I O90 SEMEN GARAGE ENTRIES -- (TYPICAL) POL YDRAIN OR slot APPROVED EQUAL. I � 1 !7 81102 I I (TYPICAL) IN II I `Q1 O 3 I I I ®702 ---s/02 -- +IOJ \�iy13101 I I I (10j) OR MELL (TYPICAL) (SEE DETAIL)—, M 102 Or. +1I s 10J lo+ SPECIAL PA NNG O90 slol 0102 ® IO2 + 104 _ +1I ®101 SPECIAL PA NNG t ®702 90 0cO ) _ DRYWELL DETAIL ' SCALE 1 ] - I -0 (1LN1 ` I EAST COOPER A l E. ('04) (105) (jp6) N1 ilJ WJ w -- to --- -- W---------�Y--- - ---- -µ'- - -- -- — -- ---- w — GM 3CHMUE3ER GORDON MEYER INC. 11e W. ern Street. Sul1. zoo BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES AM- - Afwsov --- -- - - - - - °i7 B' - GRADING & DRAINAGE -tD Ab 9090E — I--- - Glenwood Spring., Colo..do 111601 _ .__-___.___---- i abu 12-12-97 1 1- 1 (FAX 916-691 ) _ -� -jy PLAN — ppp�'ljt�p _ Aspen, Colorado (9701 926-0727 _ .- - b OF Storm Drainage: The existing lodge includes substantial paved areas used for parking and drop-off and a structure with no on -site roof drains or drainage retention system. As shown on the utility and landscape plans, the development will incorporate on -site drywells in the courtyards, at the subgrade garden levels, to maintain historic drainage patterns. Roads: Peak season traffic counts taken on Spring Street and Cooper Avenue as part of the Downtown Enhancement Plan demonstrate that traffic volumes on these streets are well below their design capacities (approximately 3,500 and 6,800 vehicles per day, respectively, versus a road capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day). Moreover, trip generation factors published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) indicate that the proposed dwellings will only generate about 70 trips per day (based on a trip generation factor of 5.86 trip ends per unit per day for residential condominiums/townhomes). This compares to the approximately 180 trips per day that are generated by the existing lodge at full occupancy (based on a trip generation factor of 8.7 trip ends per unit per day for lodge units). RFTA service passes directly in front of the property and the site is also within easy walking distance of the Gondola, City Market, and many other downtown shops and restaurants. Parks: The City of Aspen requires all residential and lodge developments that create additional bedrooms and all commercial developments that create additional square footage to pay a park development impact fee. In order to determine whether this project will be required to pay such a fee, it is necessary to determine the amount of the credit it has for the existing units, versus the impact caused by the new units. The existing Bell Mountain Lodge contains nineteen units. Sixteen of the units are studios, one is a one bedroom unit and two are two bedroom units. Following is an analysis of the park development impact fee credit due to these units: 16 studios x $1,520 per unit = $24,320 1 one bedroom x $2,120 per unit = 2,120 2 two bedroom x $2,725 per unit = 5,450 Total $31,890 This credit compares to the following fee due for the project: 7 two bedroom x $2,725 per unit = $19,075 5 studios x $1,520 per unit = 7,600 Total $26,675 Therefore, there should not be a park impact fee due for this project. Schools: The impacts of this project on schools are addressed in Section V. of this application, where calculations of the payment -in -lieu of the required school land dedication are provided. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 20 5. No zone change is required. Response: The subject property was zoned RMF/PUD with an LP overlay, pursuant to Ordinance 2, Series of 1997. The proposed use is allowed by this zoning and no zone change is requested. 6. The proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: One recommended action of the Aspen Area Community Plan was to convene a forum to address the economic problems being experienced by small lodge owners. The result of this forum was the adoption of Ordinance 29, Series of 1996 by the City Council. Ordinance 29 recognized that for some small lodges to remain viable, they would need to add rooms to their operation. Other lodges, however, because of the age of their buildings or their location, might be better suited to a re -development and change of use. Such is the case for the Bell Mountain Lodge, which is a 40 year old building that has reached the end of its economic life. Because of its location, residents of this property will be able to walk or use mass transit to get around town, which is also consistent with a major theme of the AACP. This proposal also creates a design that is more compatible with the historic design features of the community than would be a traditional multi -family block of apartments. Finally, this project is consistent with the statement in the AACP that "The public and private sectors together should develop 650 new affordable housing units, including employee -occupied accessory dwelling units...". The commitment to provide such housing exceeds the requirements of the Aspen Land Use Regulations for this type of change of use. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 21 IV. CONSOLIDATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW When this property was rezoned by the City earlier this year, a mandatory PUD designation was applied. We have, therefore, submitted the materials necessary to comply with the PUD procedure. As provided by Section 26.84.030 C.3 of the Regulations, the Applicant requests that conceptual and final PUD review be consolidated for this project. During our pre - application conference, the Deputy Planning Director concurred that consolidated review could be considered for this project. The review standards for PUD review and our responses are as follows: A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: Please see our response to this criterion in Section III of this application. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: Please see our response to this criterion in Section III of this application. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The re -development of this building will not have adverse neighborhood effects. Rather, it will replace a building that is approximately forty (40) years old and in need of renovation with a modern, attractive development. The two existing curb cuts on the property will be removed, which will have a positive impact on traffic flow in the surrounding area, and new sidewalks, curb and gutter will be installed. The utility pedestals and trash facilities that encroach into the alley will be moved on -site, out of the public right-of-way. Finally, the Applicant will contribute funds to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to help address a down stream constraint in the collection system. The approval of this proposal will also not adversely affect the future development of Independence Pass Plaza, should that project receive City approval. Independence Pass Plaza is projected to include at least seven free market residential units and these are intended to be located on the Bell Mountain Lodge side of the property. Therefore, if Independence Pass Plaza were to proceed, it would be expected to have a similar configuration to that proposed herein, with the principal difference being that the units would be built above the parking structure. Any other minor design changes necessary to accomplish Independence Pass Plaza would be processed as part of the final review of that project. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 22 D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: The proposed conversion of the existing units to dwelling units is exempt from the GMQS, pursuant to Section 26.100.050 D.2.a. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. E. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying Zone District. Response: As described in Table 1, the proposed density is less than the maximum allowed by the RMF zone district. This project proposes 14 bedrooms (7 two bedroom units); the site contains a sufficient amount of land area to permit 17 bedrooms (3 three bedroom units and 4 two bedroom units) to be achieved in a 7 unit project. Adequate roads and utilities are available to serve the proposed development. As demonstrated in the sub -surface soil study performed by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical Inc., (provided as Attachment #5), site conditions appear to be well suited for this development. No ground water was encountered in the soil borings and no evidence of underground mine works was found. F. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying Zone District. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying Zone District. Response: The RMF zone district lists multi -family units as an allowed use and accessory dwelling units as a conditional use. G. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying Zone District, provided that variations may be permitted in the following.- 1 Minimum distance between buildings; 2 Maximum height (including viewplanes); 3. Minimum front yard; 4. Minimum rear yard; 5. Minimum side yard; 6. Minimum lot width; 7. Minimum lot area; 8. Trash access area; 9. Internal floor area ratio; and 10. Minimum percent open space. Response: The project's proposed dimensional requirements are shown in Table 1. A variation in the maximum height limitation is requested, to allow a building height of 28', as measured to the 1/3 point along the roof. The Code provides that height is measured to this Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 23 point, since the roof has a steeper pitch than 8:12. The height variation is an essential element of the design we have tried to achieve. To illustrate what would happen if we were required to comply with the 25' height limitation, we have prepared an alternative elevations. It illustrates that in order to comply with the height limit, it would be necessary to sink the building further into the ground. This would have the following adverse effects: • The slope of the driveways off the alley would increase significantly, from a grade of approximately 10% to 24%. This would require the driveways to be heated and would make it impossible for them to be developed with a grass surface. They would lose their open space character, as viewed from the alley and neighboring properties. • The front entrance to the units would be stepped down from the street, instead of being stepped up with a covered front stoop. This would detract from the character of the design and from the interaction between the buildings and the street frontages. • The lower spaces would be unable to achieve as much light gain as we had hoped, making the accessory dwelling units much less desirable places in which to live. The proposed 28' height will comply with the standards that the development should be "consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding neighborhood" and should "not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area". As noted in Section III of this application, the actual height of surrounding buildings ranges from 34' to the peak of the Hannah Dustin Building (a flat top roof) to almost 41' to the peak of Aspen Square (also a flat top building) to over 48' to the peak of the Durant Mall. The Benedict Commons project was permitted, via PUD, to be developed to a height of 30' (as measured to the appropriate point along its roof). Not only are several existing buildings taller than ours, but the underlying zoning of other properties allows them to develop structures equal to the height of our proposed buildings. The Buckhorn Lodge is zoned CL, which has a height limit of 28'. City Market is zoned NC, which also has a height limit of 28'. Both of these zones permit applicants to apply for special review to obtain a height of 32'. We have used the 28' height limit of the adjacent properties as our design parameter, to ensure that if Independence Pass Plaza is developed and receives NC zoning, these residential units will be of a comparable height and mass. In fact, since this site lies at an elevation several feet below the City Market site, these buildings will actually appear to be lower than the eventual re -development of City Market. H. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying Zone District based on the following considerations. 1. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 24 Ridge He EL. 134' Buildm[I Plate Ijel EL 128'- 3rd Lew: EL. 120' 2nd Low EL. I10' Isl Level m EL. Iw- EL kWgeHegM EL.- 1364W 0 Bu Plate EL 128'-0' 3rd Uvd EL I N1-0' 2nd U ,I. EL Ile, 0-HIV Gmw Levej,l, WEST ELEVATION A SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION (CENTER BUILDING) b 10 4 R Rdgc Hc4w EL 139'.0' . --_ _Buillnt Hejtjt d= 28'-0' �EL 121� 84ancf or. �p Fl 121'-Ild EL 120'-0' lid Leal --- EL 11Q-0' Etmy Level EL I0443' T u Iw-r i - El 90'-0' Vt10m 1.CYt1 EL 90-0 ELEVATIONS Building H"ght cl=2A ;rU u.n M IG '77 CN<4D tUuf COrvRfwl (. �( 77 u GIBSON•REM A t C H I T I C T S 111 II.�NtlMM +v! .cata.00 Ml •It tfY MLsat Nl•I.tMI q .l7< IA i 1 M M{!pR wI tlLLl,lbf CQOIU00 nfR q> 1M r.r I@f♦1 WI 1>♦Y4 12 Ew EL EAST ELEVATION (EAST BULDING) NORTH ELEVATION b z,a >sa R EAST ELEVATION (WEST BUILDING) claw Hcgi Lt EL 128' I a a �� 8L 120' -0-0- 2nd Lc�d EL 110-0' In Irwd EL I00'-0' ELEVATIONS Building Height d- 28 0' .Yel�.l d�.l �Z— an CNCW�IULI M W 2 O Z 3 O Z Q Z 3 O J J W m GIBSON-REN A l C Il 1 l E C i S 111 01 wm�w A9lw COIOMOO nCY�• IO.OIt l,. wl null. MCUOM�O .iln wl r,. wor /.CfYaM 13 Ridgct EL 131'-6' Bwldiy 1luaht Plate Hcigk EL 125'-C" 3td level rt EL 117'-0" 2nd Levd n EL 107'-0- 1st Leal m EL 97-0- FL t7'0' EL 1FL31.4•t� PWe Sad Levd El 1l7'0' tadLcvcI _ !1 107'-0' EL 97 W 7 G-Im Lcvd EL 6— 7-0. ® .- - --- - - - - WEST ELEVATION —29 Y. SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION (CENTER BUILDING) Rq b sa R nn 12 it 1 7 Rd&e IIejM d 116'-0' B-m- Ho-f- d. 25'-W Ptae Heigk EL 125'-0' mma BE. EL IIB-2_ EL 117'-0' tad Ltwd _ Fetry Level El ICI•!S- -- Ist Level El 97' -0' 8 Gmdm Levd a E7•o• EL 133'-4F- 1 ' BmldoB iiri�A[ d= 25'-0' Pfue FL 125-0' 3rd levd i I ama, m `7 .--J ELInU-1_ 'n•-0. �I G�atd�m Itvcl i E1 81'0' ALTERNATE ELEVATIONS H-Alog li649N J= 25 0- GIBSON-RENC A IC III TtC Tl w »m rtuu.n �awro —Te 14 2. 77te parking needs of any non-residential uses. 3. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. 4. 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. S. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the City. 6. Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change. Response: No variation from required off-street parking is being requested. L The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying Zone District. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. Response: Open space on the property exceeds the 35% standard of the RMF zone district. A drawing illustrating the areas on the site that comply with the definition of open space has been provided to the Planning Office. It should also be pointed out that approximately 55% of the site will remain undeveloped, a remarkable achievement for a downtown project. The 55% calculation includes the parking and driveway areas at the rear of the property, that do not technically comply with the City's definition of open space, but will be covered with a grass mat and provide open space relief to residents and to surrounding properties. J. There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. Response: A detailed landscape plan has been prepared for the property by Kiernan Design Studio. The landscape plan identifies each of the existing evergreen trees and deciduous trees that will be preserved on the property. It also specifies the new deciduous and evergreen trees that will be installed to replace those trees that must be removed, as well as the shrubs, sod and flower gardens that will be established on the property. The landscape plan shows that we will plant 27 new trees, providing more than 100 caliper inches of replacement trees on -site, to compensate for the trees that must be removed. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 28 ALLEY BLOCK 105 L PLANT 5CM®ULt Key Common Name T1[ M 1 Maple 2 Aspen 3 Crab Apple 4 Colorado Spruce 5 Dwarf Pfitzer Juniper b Tam Juniper Blue Mist Spires 8 Dwarf Korean Liinc 9 Grootendorst Rose 10 Hanson's Yellow Rose 11 Peking Cotonea&tcr 12 Lilac 13 Froebel Spires 14 Bridal wreath Spires 19 Bishop's weed EAST COOPER 5TREET Botanical Name ON Size Neer freemanii 11 3" cal. Popuiu5 tremuloides 6 2-2 1/2' cal. Maiu5 140pa' b 2-2 1/2" cal. Picea pungens 4 10' ,Lniperus chinensis 55 5 ga Pfitzerana Glauca' sWina'Tamer iscifolIs' 42 5 gal. ,uniperus c4 rjopterl5 incana 54 5 gal. SyrkW meyeri 36 5 gal. Rosa WP. 8 5 gal. Rose harisonii 12 5 gal. Cot.onemter apkulats 50 5 gal. Syringa 5pp 24 5 gal. Spirses bummida Froebelli' 86 5 gal. 5piraes vanhouteii 8 1 gal. Aegopodwm podagraria 12 Flat/732 LEGEND ,•"�% EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES TO BE SAVED O EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREES TO BE SAVED SELL MT. TONNHOME5 LANr?5r,APE PLAN PREPARED BY KIERNAN MSS&N 5TUDIO SCALP: i' a 10' DATE: 12-12- n 15 The new trees have been concentrated along the Spring Street and Cooper Avenue street frontages, to soften the views to the buildings and to add to the "forest" that is being preserved along Cooper Avenue. There is a symmetry to the plantings in front of the two triplexes, but the plantings are not identical. Maple trees have been placed at regular intervals along both Cooper Avenue and Spring Street. The Applicant agrees to donate to the City those evergreen trees that must be removed from the site. The Applicant will work with the City to identify a location within the City to which they can be moved, and will pay for their relocation. K. There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmonv and proportion of the building with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Response: The Applicant has provided building elevations that depict the proposed architecture. Our design has been guided by two primary influences - the design guidelines of Ordinance 30, Series of 1995, and our desire to create a transition or bridge from the density and intensity of the commercial core to the multi -family residential areas nearby. As described above, the proposed development creates this transition through its use, density and form. The proposed multi -family residential use will be compatible with surrounding developments. However, rather than developing a block of apartments (a design that can be found in the vicinity of our property) we have instead chosen to develop three small scale residential buildings, containing intimate, pedestrian features that would more typically be found in single-family or duplex development. By separating the units into three buildings, we are able to provide visual relief between the buildings in the form of a ten foot open space separation. The buildings have been located sufficiently back from Cooper Avenue to ensure that we can preserve many of the mature trees on the site, and so replacement trees can be planted, which will effectively screen the buildings. We propose a contemporary design that uses peaked roofs and gable forms; provides windows, decks and covered stoops; and uses materials such as stucco, stone, wood, timber and shingles that are appropriate to our alpine environment. All of these features are in conformance with the City's residential design guidelines. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 30 The project also conforms with other aspects of the City's design guidelines by providing a build -to line along the street frontage, locating the project's garages off the alley, and enclosing the alley trash areas. The triplexes have been broken into primary and secondary masses, by using varying textures and by having the units set-off from one another. We have also followed the City's direction by giving the two triplexes their own character, so they do not appear to be identical. One building has been given a "western" look, with exposed timbers and trusses, while the other has a "cottage" look, with shingles and arched openings. The proposed light wells have been recessed behind the front plane of the buildings. L. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of anti kind to adjoining streets or lands. Response: Lighting will be kept to the minimum necessary for the safety of occupants and will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Lighting will consist of an entry pedestal light for each unit, low bollards along the walkways, and porch lights. Down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures will be used; those along the walkways will be set at no more than twelve inches above finished grade. M. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Response: The units are attached subgrade. The buildings have been separated above grade, to create more of a residential scale and open feeling for the site. N. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is con- structed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Response: As described in Section III of this application, public facilities are already in place to serve the existing conditions and new facilities are not expected to be required to serve the project. The buildings have been arranged to permit access by emergency fire or medical vehicles, with emergency access being available from Cooper Street, Spring Street or the alley. The longest distance to any portion of the proposed structures from an emergency vehicle on any of these rights -of way would be approximately 50'. O. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Response: Vehicular access to each dwelling unit is provided from the public alley in Block 105. Pedestrian access is also provided to Cooper Avenue and Spring Street. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 31 P. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor .streets within tine Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. Response: As the Site Plan illustrates, access to the project will be from the alley. This will have the benefit of removing the property's two existing curb cuts, located along Cooper Avenue and on Spring Street. Since traffic is being routed to the alley, the Applicant will place "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs at each end of the alley, located before traffic crosses the sidewalks when entering or exiting the alley. The Applicant will also improve the alley itself, by relocating onto our site the utility pedestals and electric switch gear that encroach into the alley. Q. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion oil the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. Response: The engineering report prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer (see Attachment #4) includes a discussion of access and traffic impacts from the project. The report concludes that "Traffic impacts will be significantly reduced by the change in use and revisions to curb cuts and on -street parking will also benefit adjacent streets". Factors which support this conclusion are as follows: 1. Trip generation factors indicate that the 21 room lodge generates as many as 183 trips per day when fully occupied (based on an ITE trip generation factor of 8.7 trips per day per occupied lodge room). The 7 free market and 5 accessory dwelling units will only generate approximately 71 vehicle trips per day (based on an ITE trip generation factor of 5.86 trips per unit per day). This factor has been selected based on the downtown location and multi -family configuration of these units 2. Traffic flow will benefit from the elimination of the curb cuts on both Cooper Avenue and Spring Street and the routing of traffic accessing the site to the alley. 3. 100% of the project's parking needs will be accommodated on -site, as compared to the present situation, where a 21 room lodge provides only 10 conforming spaces. Additional public parking spaces will be created on -street by the elimination of the existing curb cuts. R. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60') feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. Response: The proposed development complies with this standard. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 32 S. All non-residential land uses within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion nn any street. Response: There are no non-residential land uses within this PUD. T. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. Response: There are no streets contained within the PUD. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 33 V. SUBDMSION REVIEW By state and local definition, development of a multi -family project is a subdivision. A proposed final subdivision plat has been prepared for this project. Our responses to the standards contained in Section 26.88.040 C. of the Aspen Municipal Code are as follows: 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plat. Response: Please see our response to this criterion in Section III of this application. b. Tile proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Response: Please see our response to this criterion in Section III of this application. C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Response: Please see our response to this criterion in Section IV of this application. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title. Response: The subdivision will comply with all applicable requirements of Title 26. 2. Suitability of Land For Subdivision. a. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Response: No such hazardous or harmful conditions exist on or affect this property. The soil study provided as Attachment #5 demonstrates that subsurface conditions on the site make it suitable for development. b. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 34 Well 3foun lain Tozvnhomes Lots K L, Jl, N, 0, P, and Q, Block 105, City and Townsile of ,4.sy�en, Township >0 South, Range 85 Xest Section 18, 61h P.31. Pilkin Couniy, Colorado A S P E N SW WYURS CER rY7CA IF L Stphn L ENWs P/Ohss,md Lord Swwyor. do hrsby certify that Muir plot of the BELL Mp/NTAW rOWWIOWS tndy arid correctly rwesrvIs the results of a lwwy mode under my dW"f ra atisbl,ty, suprwsfon and chocesvq, ankh —my sos prpred n occrabvice afth the Cdrodo Rewsed Stofutes 197,E /ills JB. Arfide Sr. and that this plot cortons of the nhar 1— repuied by Cdrodo Re.rsed Statutes Jd-JJJ-209 By _____________---- —________—________________ Stphn (. CNrs Cdrodo Ragisfrsd P ol�saionsl Lord Slrrelor No 2003 PARKS LNRECTCW APPROVAL 7h,s Find Plaf of BELL ALOUNTA/N TOMNHOMES sas pprowd by the City of Ayn Po,*, Ok—for thu __------ day 19__. —City of Ayn Pvrhs Orectr------- arY £NGAi fR'S APPROVAL This Find Plot of BELL UOffVTAW rOMNNOYES eos pprorwd by the City £nysrer of the a'ty of Aspen thb _--- day of_ 19_. City £nyner PLANNING AND ZOVYJC CV0"fS9CVV APPROVAL Mks Fnd Rot of BELL MOUNTMN TOHNNOUES — pprowd by the City of Apr Pfmnirp avid Zanhp Commissim this __—__—__ day of---- f9_ --- ChoL; City of Asia— P'mnhp and Zmnp Ca Aisian -- COV4UNtrY O WLOoLt£Nr DIR£CTCR APPOVAL this Fe'.` Pat of BELL MOUNTAIN TOWWOIIES was gaprorad by Me Clty of Aspen Community Dewtgomnt Diectr fhb -_— day of----- 19__. City of AAort Cammunffy DemAw-ent Directr UnUrY APPROVALS Uldify Plans osso—ted a,th M,s Fnd Plot of the BELL MOUNWN 1OMNNOWES ere approved by the City of Aspen Water DVprtment this day of —. aty of AAori Water Dprfinenf Dkecfr f/tTity Plans associated wdh this Fhd Pot of the BELL 4V WTAKV TOWWOY£S eos gapwwd by Vie AAorr ConsaAdatod Swdtoffm D&I-1 We _____ day of 19 _ ______—_-_-_— Ayrr CnsaJdated Sanitation Obtrfcf Mmo9r Unify Plans associated with this Fhd Pat of the BELL AOOLWTAAV 10WHOWS vas gopromd ggroVed by the My of Apn E/ectrfc Opartment, this _ day of ---------------' /9 City of Atprt Decfric Sgornfendnf Utdily Plana ossocioted with (his Fnd Pat of the BELL MQ'AVTApV TOMNHOYES vas goprowd by U. S Mbst C—m cotim; Inc. this _------ day o/ 19____. US Mbsf Communications hc. Uiddy Plans os vted wth this Fnd Pot of the BELL MLYAV/ALN TOMNHOVfS aas gprowd by Ia Cabiewsan of Cntrd Cdrodo, hc. this day of 19_-- _ __—_________—_ ___—__—_____—__ Ia C.aWewsian of Cnfral Cdorodg nc. Uldvly Rors associated with this Fnd Mot of the BELL ~TAW rOMNVIaWS was ggrowd by KN Enryy, Inc. this —_-- day ___ ---- t9__ KN fnrptl tee. CERMCA 1101V Or OELYCA TiON AND OtNERSieP KNOW ALL or AeN or rhi-sr PA£.SENrs that __—_______—_ Oes+p ere sole oenrs n fee Fenpfa o/ titan lords in P.ffin Caenf,t Catrod i absarvb.e Cie kw — Lots K. L. M, N. a P. arid the Mbt 2a 75 Mt of Lof O hoc* 101 City and r—fir of Ayn Cofrodo Now by these pryrrts plotted and .subdivided the some into Inoi—t-1 Lots as sham hrem. ord desg1ofe that some m f-va' Rat of the FAEU A/OLAVrAlV rOW W10VES in the Gty of Apo Canty of Alin. State of Cdcrodq ord ab herby 9-1 to the City at Apn, Canty of PHA.% State of CCfroda he pudic use. the utsity arid roo~y sosemanfs amd aft~ ahhraon hr atilt, ord rood—, pwpow oW,[ ord so AA"hr state that Me Nf-i orris of fhs We hrab, woff" rtar o9-M to )bh ory Ad— s+soro wmnt detnc rs ehuah mo, Oe A—d Air crost—(— o/ rghl-of-say srprowmrtts h odpcvnt and neghbo hood pubhr rvblrfl-W-soy Esecuted thN — aby of — — — — 199 Oenr STATE OF CCYOPADO 7 1 s! COYITY Oc RIM the hrayohp itsbwnenf eos aotnodedged beArs me tha Mlthess by haltd avid o/F/cial sea. My commissfat eyiasNotary FUNAC SURW Y NOTES - Eosemrrfs shoen rA e #om Salrss/e A Tvffe Crrunttmreb tl Co— Na eaw-C vssued by Apn MA, Crprat-% Aso-, Cdaroob d0so 09/W,,V7 - Oesrptron: Lot! K, L, At. N. Ct P. and the 10=1 207J feet of Lot O Bloc* 10..E aty ord lb —arts of Ayr. do, o/ CITY APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE rh,s Fnd Pldt of the BELL MCY/NIA/N JOM11e/O&fS and the olydicntsams spasm and noted hasty ore hraby gawu.ed ord occipted by Of afy C.aetcs 01 Me City at Aye1 Nn day of — of to — By -- Attest Mayr aty Ciro - ACCEPTANCE FOR RLICOR VNC 7ba Final Pot of the BELL MOUNIAIN TOMNHL'.WS a accpfsd hr Niny n the Of— of the Owe and RecarGr of Pitsn GaftltK CdordA the —_ day of 19 it Rof Book —_ of Poises — ord Recpt- Na —_ By __ ark and Recrdr LNCANELRS SuRW YOBS -� GM SutMUt bER A•� - .rwDtw u[riR w--` SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC 118 W 61h Street. Sete 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-1004 (FAX 945-5948) Asprn, Colorado (970) 975-1i127 Bell Mo un talrl .To wnh om es 'Um AMSCW arE or Final Plat Aa "' 9p9pg J e OF 0- - rote 2&„o/97 _ _ --- ----- - — ------ _ - i GRAPHIC SCALE ( 01 rn?) 1 loch - m K .1 aso f C. X I-V lye// Jfoun la2n 70wrzhomes L o is K L, A,, 1V, O, P, and Q, Block 1 D,S Town of 4spen, Pilk n Counly, Slate of Colorado 0971, F -ArreP 200 may. ,o l Lor c l l moors' I l I l l Gor l l l l R l l l Cor l l l 42 � l l l N l Lor l l l l l l l r ,o l Lor 2po. �91 l I I / c�Qs f CooAer AZ e and Cap /Sar L S 2376' Oaewfc- M X1131 1 / I I I O / / Ban! /S Nedar ll Qj Leprld and Note: - • - cotu Adund monument os descftwd o odicotes set marwment /S rabor and Red Abstc Cqo (YPCA L S 201n - Be—gs a'e baled an found manum fn tf a! f�oen - fosemsnts sboon or@ banr Shed✓e A rOe Carr ,"wt Coss No 4030W-C Doled 67 Aspen ride Carporo(. . Aspen. Caaadlo doled 0 AVIV7 - PescrwNw Lots K. L. Y. N. 0. At and the Ibt 207J test of Lot O Stook 1011 City and roens:le of Aspen f NG1NE(H$ SSUR of I HS G18 M Hut,[ stR • • ` wouN uErtR SCHMUE SER GORDON MEYER INC. W 61h Street. Sude 200 f,:enwogd Springs. Colorado 81601 (970) 45- 1004 (FAX 945- 5948) Aspen. Colurodu (970) 925-6727 Bell Mountain To wnh om es Nun "�" LAz er — Final PIa t '10 A. 90" OF - a"" � D.N. 2&V0,97 — -- --- pro+ +e+. sr- Response: Not only will this proposal not cause the need for any extension of services, it will, actually result in a more efficient use of existing infrastructure. This is accomplished by locating new housing downtown, where necessary facilities and services are already in place. 14. Required Improvements and Design Standards. Response: The improvement and design standards listed in these sections are generally most applicable to a land subdivision; many do not apply to the re -development of an existing building in the downtown area. Other sections of this application have addressed all of the pertinent issues from these sections, including but not limited to curb, gutter and sidewalks; street trees and landscaping; utilities; fire hydrants; and storm drainage. 5. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System. Response: Please see our response to this criterion in Section III of this application. 6. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. Response: This newly enacted section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision, to ensure the current level of services to students in the Aspen School District is maintained. This small property does not represent an appropriate location for such a dedication. The formula for calculating the payment in lieu for each unit is: "market value of land x applicable land dedication standard x 0.33 = amount of cash payment". The market value of the land means the value of the land at the time of the payment, excluding the value of any structures on the property. When more than one unit is to be built, then each unit is assigned its proportionate share of the value of the lot. According to the most current records of the Pitkin County Assessor, the market value of the subject property (exclusive of improvements) is $2,000,000. To calculate the cash payment for the units, we must first establish the proportionate share of the value of the property attributable to each unit. Since each of the seven units are two bedroom units, each will be assigned a 1/7 share of the total value ($2,000,000/7 = $285,714.29). Considering this value, the cash -in -lieu formula per unit is as follows: $285,714.29 x 0.0095 x 0.33 = $895.71 per unit The Applicant agrees to make this payment prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 37 VI. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW The RMF zone district lists "Accessory Dwelling Units meeting the provisions of Section 26.40.090" as a conditional use. Therefore, our responses to the standards of conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Platt, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The consistency of this project with the AACP has been addressed in Section III of this application. The intent of the RMF zone district is "to provide for the use of land for intensive long term residential purposes, with customary accessory uses". The proposal to develop five accessory dwelling units on this site is consistent with this intent. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Please see our response to this criterion in Section III of this application. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: The proposed accessory dwelling units will have minimal or no impacts on views, circulation and the other concerns listed above. Their location will permit the project's occupants to easily walk to many of the City's amenities. One (1) parking space will be provided on -site for each accessory dwelling unit. Trash and delivery needs for the accessory dwelling units will be met as part of the rest of the development. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: Please see our response to this criterion in Section III of this application. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 38 Response: The conditional use does not generate employees; instead it is an approved form of housing mitigation for new residential development. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and all other applicable requirements of this title. Response: The proposal is otherwise in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Land Use Regulations. It complies with the following standards of Section 26.40.090 (e): 1. Each unit will contain approximately 694 square feet of net livable area and will have one designated parking space, located off the alley. The Applicant agrees to deed restrict these units as to occupancy, as required by this Section. 2. The buildings in which the units are to be located will comply with all other applicable dimensional requirements of the RMF Zone District (see Table 1, above), or are included in the request for a PUD height variation. 3. The accessory dwelling units will not be detached from the principal units. 4. The accessory dwelling units will have access from the alley. VII. VESTED RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant hereby requests that this development be granted vested rights status. VIII. CONCLUSION The Applicant has responded to all standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations applicable to the project, pursuant to direction given by the Community Development Department during pre -application meetings. Sufficient evidence has been provided of the project's compliance with said standards and the Applicant has made commitments in order to ensure that the proposed development will mitigate all of its impacts. Requests by any reviewing agency for additional information, or clarification of the statements made herein, will be responded to by the Applicant in a timely manner. Bell Mountain Townhomes Land Use Application Page 39 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT #1 ALAN M RIC HMAN C/O NICHOLAS J MDSRATH, ESQ. 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, OD 81611 1. Effective Date: August 8, 1997 at 7:00 AM Order No. 405000 --C JM/bi Customer Reference 2. ALTA Owner's Policy Amount: $ Proposed Insured: 3. ALTA Loan Policies Anoint: S Proposed Insured: Proposed Iris rredi : Amount: $ 4. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and Gamed herein is: FEE SIMPLE and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: BFT,T, MOUNTAIN LIMITED LIABILITY OD., a Colorado limited liability ccmpany Owner's Premium: $ Lender's Premium: $ Add' 1 Leber C hg: $ Add'1 Charges: $ Tax Certificate: $ Endorsement C hg: $ TBD Charges: $ 150.00 A • 62% issued by: ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE #305 ASPEN 00 81611 FAX 970-920-4052 PH 970-920-4050 DENVER 303-595-8463 COMMITMENT Plat id No. SCHEDULE A (ocnti mied) Order No. 405000 -C 5. The land referred to in the Commitment is cmFering the land in the State of Colorado, County of Pitkin , described as follows: Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P and the West 20.73 feet of Lot Q, Block 105, CITY AMID TOWNSITE OF ASPEN FIRST AN=CAN TITLE I NCE CQ-1PANY COMMITMENT 1 •• • • • ••• The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Canpany: Any loss or damage, including at=borney fees, by reason of the matters shown below: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could ascertained by an inspection of said land or by mak -ng inquiry of pis in possession thereof. 2. Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary limes, shortage in area, encroacmnents, and any other facts which a correct survey would disclose and which are not shoran by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, i by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable: and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. 7. Any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper, or any valid minim claim or possession held under existing laws, as reserved by M. G. Miller, County and Probate Judge of Pitkin County, Colorado, in the Deed to Ann Curran, Et Al recorded November 4, 1887 in Hook 59 at Page 78, November 5, 1887 in Book 59 at Page 79, December 2, 1887 in Book 59 at Page 117, December 9, 1887 in Book 59 at Page 186 and January 16, 1888 in Book 59 at Page 287. 8. All ores and mirerals bearing rock embraced within subject property, and so much of those portions of subject property beneath its surface as may be necessary for minim purposes, with the right to enter within said premises with underground workings and to mime, extract and remove the same, as granted in Deeds recorded May 21, 1891 in Book 93 at Page 97, May 29, 1891 in Book 93 at Page 117 and June 11, 1891 in Book 93 at Page 149, June 13, 1891 in Bode 98 at Pages 511, 518 and 521 and July 15, 1891 in Book 105 at Page 39, December 27, 1892 in Book 106 at Page 482, September 20, 1892 in Bode 125 at Page 1, January 26, 1894 in Book 131 at Page 81 and October 25, 1984 in Book 475 at Page 676. 9. Ordinance No. 37 (Series of 1993) of the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado recorded July 15, 1993 in Bode 718 at Page 47. 10. Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 1995) of the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado recorded May 31, 1995 in Book 782 at Page 358. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ATTACHMENT #2 BELL MOUNTAIN L.L.C. 720 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-925-3675 Ms. Julie Ann Woods Deputy Planning Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: APPLICATION FOR SMALL LODGE CHANGE IN USE Dear Julie Ann, I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to act as the designated representative of the Bell Mountain L.L.C. with respect to the land use applications being submitted to your office for the Bell Mountain Lodge. Alan Richman is authorized to submit those applications necessary to convert the Bell Mountain Lodge into a residential development. He is also authorized to represent the Bell Mountain L.L.C. in meetings with City of Aspen staff, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council. Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number are included in the land development application. Sincerely, i James Valerio Bell Mountain L.L.C. ATTACHMENT #3 CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Julie Arm Woods, 920.5100 DATE: 7/21/.97 PROJECT: Bell Mtn. Lodge REPRESENTATIVE: Allan Richman, 925-1125 OWNER: unknown TYPE OF APPLICATION: Change in use, subdivision (for multi -unit building), GMQS exemption, conditional use for ADU's (presuming ADU's are part of the proposal) DESCRIPTION: Will demolish existing lodge (22 units) and create up to seven 2-bedroom free market units, and some ADU's. Presumes net decrease in employees. Ord. 30 review of residences. Condo plat will follow. Land Use Code Section(s) # and Code sections 26.100.050.C.2.a. (change -in -use exemption), 26.88.040 (subdivision), 26.40.090 (accessory dwelling units) and 26.52.080 (vesting) Revie�% bv: Planning & Zoning, City Council Public Heariniz: Yes, Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 10 days prior to hearing, or at least 15 days prior to the public hearing if any federal agency, state, county, municipal government. school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency owns propem within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application . .-lpplicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing with a affidavit at the public hearing. Referral Agencies: Engineering, Housing. Environmental Health. Parks, Zoning, Fire Marshall, Water. ACSD Planning Fees: Planning Deposit Minor ($1080) Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($110), Environmental Health $155; Housing $70, Total Deposit: $1415.00 (additional hours are billed at a rate of S180/hour) To apply, submit the following information: l . Proof of ownership 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review of the application 6. 1LCopies of the complete application packet and maps. Upon review by the case planner, additional copies will be requested as follows: (HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff = 1) 7. An 8 1/2" by I I" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. For Residential Proposals (Ord. 30): a) Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' (available from City Engineering Department) Graphically show the front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet. Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory dwelling units along the alley. Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one living level). b) Site plan at I" = 10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed, and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site with 2' contours. c) All building elevations at 1/8" = 1'-0. d) Floor plans, roof plan, and elevations as needed to verify that the project meets or does not meet the "Primary Mass" standard. e) Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block. including present condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board. 11. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. 12. Copies of prior approvals Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. ENGINEERS SURVEYORS SGM (970) 925-6727 SCMMUESER P.O. Box 2155 FAX (970) 925-41 5' GORDONMEYER Aspen. CO 81612 December 11, 1997 ATTACHMENT #4 Mr. Alan Richman Alan Richman Planning Services P.O. Box 3613 Aspen, CO. 81612 RE: Bell Mountain Lodge Conversion Project Revised Engineering Report Dear Alan: This letter comprises an updated engineering report regarding relevant aspects of the proposed conversion of the Bell Mountain Lodge property at 720 East Cooper Avenue in Aspen, Colorado to residential use. The Bell Mountain Lodge owners are submitting an application to the City of Aspen for demolition and conversion to seven residential townhome units and five accessory dwelling units (ADU) under the lottery program established this year for LP lodges. I have endeavored herein to provide comments appropriate to the engineering -related criteria of the City of Aspen land use code. Introduction The Bell Mountain Lodge was originally built in the late 1950's and is located on Lots K, L, M, N, O and P the westerly 20.73 feet of Lot 0 of Block 105 of the Original Aspen Townsite. The property is on the northeast corner of Spring Street and Cooper Avenue and is zoned RMF/PUD with an LP overlay. The existing building contains 21 lodge rooms and the conversion to residential townhomes will result in a total of seven freemarket units configured as two -bedroom residences and five studio accessory dwelling units. The conversion will provide at -grade parking off the alley for 5 vehicles for the ADU units (1 per unit) as well as garage parking for 14 vehicles for the townhome units (2 per unit). This report focuses on the infrastructure, traffic and drainage jrequirements of the proposed lodge conversion. As a lodge conversion, we are generally anticipating that residential use will represent a decrease in the intensity of use and that utility service requirements and traffic impacts will be reduced accordingly. Utility service will be predominantly from the alley frontage or Cooper Avenue, where all utilities are currently under ground. Vehicular access will be from the alley of Block 105 and the existing loop drive through the site from Cooper Avenue to Spring Street (currently closed at Spring Street) will be eliminated. I have spoken with representatives of all the primary utilities and inspected the site with regard to the availability of all secondary utilities. I would offer the following comments based on the proposed conversion to residential use; Availability of Public Facilities and Services Water The project site is adjacent to the City water mains in both Spring Street and Cooper Avenue. 118 West 6th. Suite 200 • Glenwood Springs. Colorado • (970) 945-1004 December 11, 1997 Mr. Alan Richman Page 2 Both are relatively new (1980) large diameter mains in good condition. From discussions with the City of Aspen Water Superintendent, service is available from either the 12 inch diameter main in Spring or the 14 inch line in Cooper. Conversion from a lodge with 21 rooms to 7 two - bedroom townhomes and 5 ADU's represents a nearly identical water demand, however the older lodge building likely did not pay full tap fees at the time of construction (the City only began collecting tap fees in the late 1970's). Service to the townhome and ADU units would therefore require the full payment of tap fees for all of the new units. The conversion to residential townhomes could be served by a single tap entering a common utility room and manifolding to individual meters and shutoff valves, probably from the Cooper Avenue main. This single service connection would be sized to supply the needs of the entire project and minimizes the amount of excavation disruption into Cooper Avenue as well as limiting the main connection to one location. The common utility room would need to be accessible by City of Aspen Water Department staff for meter reading and valve access in the event of non- payment. An alternative would be to service each unit individually from its own service tap to the street with a buried valve box accessible from the outside of the structure. This option renders each water service line the responsibility of the individual unit and eliminates the need for a common utility room accessible by the Water Department. Disruption to the street is greater due to constructing multiple service lines and it requires more individual taps to the main. The Water Superintendent further indicated that no particular improvements are needed to the water system in the immediate area. The two mains are in good condition, fire hydrants are available at the southwest corner of the Spring and Cooper intersection and on the northwest corner of the intersection at Original and Cooper. The proposed development, therefore, can be handled by existing water mains in the immediate vicinity. Our proposed utility plan indicates a single service line along the east edge of the project site from the existing main in Cooper Avenue. A portion of the northeast corner of the below -grade structure will be used as a common water service vault housing the backflow prevention device, fire sprinkler system service and manifold to individual services, meters and shutoffs for each unit. Access to the water service room by Water Department personnel will be available from a manhole access at grade adjacent to the alley. Sanitary Sewer The project site is also adjacent to an existing sanitary sewer main in the alley of Block 105. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) Manager Bruce Matherly indicates that service is available to the proposed project via connection to the existing sewer line in the alley. The existing 8 inch diameter sewer main in the adjacent alley is in good condition and does not require upgrade to serve the Bell Mountain Lodge conversion project. Individual services for each townhome unit and related ADU are probably appropriate however a shared service line is permissible subject to a shared service agreement acceptable to the ACSD (sewer services are more subject to problems than water services depending on their use so problems with a shared line caused by one unit could shut down sewer service for all the units until repairs can SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC. December 11, 1997 Mr. Alan Richman Page 3 be made). We also know, from our work on the Benedict Commons project across the alley, that the sewer main in this area is fairly shallow, in the range of 51/2 feet below grade. Service for facilities in the level below grade will require sump vault systems to lift effluent to the main. Bruce also indicates that downstream constraints exist on the older Galena Street line downstream of this site. The Bell Mountain Lodge conversion project would be required to pay a tap fee surcharge toward the improvement of the Galena line by the ACSD. This development, therefore, will contribute toward an off -site sewer system upgrade that will improve the availability of public sewer service in the area. Storm Drainage All existing streets adjacent to the site are currently curbed and guttered and drain well to a storm inlet on the northwest corner of Block 105. Discussions with City of Aspen Street Superintendent Jack Reid indicate no problems related to drainage in the immediate neighborhood that might need to be addressed by the development. The existing lodge includes substantial paved areas and a structure with no apparent on -site roof drains or drainage retention system. The site plan design of the lodge conversion to townhomes will incorporate on -site drywells in the subgrade garden levels to maintain historic drainage patterns. The drywells will be equipped with overflow pump systems to lift any overflow to daylight in the alley if needed. Our drainage and grading plan anticipates slot drains at the alley garage entries to direct flow to the drywells. Flat roof areas and gutter systems should also be directed to the drywells for return of pre -development historic flows to the aquifer. Perimeter Tooter drains and any underslab drains (if required) should be directed to an independent sump vault and pumped to one of the drywells or to daylight. Footer drains should not be routed directly into the drywells due to the potential for storm flows to then back up into the footer and underslab areas. Fire Protection As indicated in the water service section above, fire hydrants exist at the southwest corner of the Spring and Cooper intersection as well as at the northwest corner of Original and Cooper. The project site is also just 4 blocks from the Aspen Fire District's station on Hopkins Avenue and is within a 3 to 5 minute response time. Fire equipment access is excellent with public rights -of -way on three sides of the project site including Spring Street, Cooper avenue and the alley to the north. The longest distance to any portion of the proposed structures from a fire apparatus on an adjacent right-of-way is about 50 feet. The Fire Marshal has indicated that no special provisions for fire protection or access are required beyond normal code requirements. All of the buildings will be sprinklered pursuant to code requirements based on their aggregate square footage. Access and Traffic Impacts Spring Street and Cooper Avenue adjacent to the site are benefitted by the site design both in terms of the elimination of one intersection conflict on Cooper Avenue, rerouting of the resident SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC. December 11, 1997 Mr. Alan Richman Page 4 traffic accessing the site to the adjacent alley and acquisition of additional on -street parking. Recent traffic count data contained in the Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan as prepared for the City of Aspen Community Development Department in 1997, indicates traffic volumes on Spring Street and Cooper Avenue of 3,500 and 6,834 vehicles per day respectively during early August (which is therefore probably higher than annual average vpd). These figures are well below the design capacities of the respective two-lane streets of approximately 10,000 vpd. Pitkin County, in their Pitkin County Road Management and Maintenance Plan as adopted in 1995, recommends using the trip generation figures from the publication Trip Generation by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). The ITE publication, 5th Edition, Section 230 offers a trip generation figure for Residential Condominiums/Townhomes at 5.86 trip ends per unit per day. While not specifically referenced in the ITE publication, condominium and townhome units represent lower trip generation factors than single family homes and tend to assume relatively high densities, relatively close available services and a transit option nearby. The Bell Mountain Townhomes site is adjacent to bus routes on Spring Street and four blocks from the Rubey Park Transit Center offering service throughout the valley. The site is across Cooper Avenue from City Market, one of the two major grocery stores in town, and within a few blocks of numerous restaurants and shops. With regard to the accessory dwelling units, the Aspen/Pitkin Housing office undertook its own traffic count analysis of affordable housing projects with reasonable transit options (within a block) in 1995. Their analysis showed that affordable housing trip generation was under 4 vehicle trips per unit per day for projects much further from the downtown core than the Bell Mountain site. Without further discounting the ITE trip generation figures due to these factors, the development's 12 additional units can be expected to result in about 71 vehicles per day impacting adjacent streets. This volume must be weighed against the lodge use that is being discontinued on the site, however, which according to the ITE publication may have generated as many as 183 vehicle trips per day when fully occupied (Section 310, 8.7 trip ends per day per occupied room x 21 rooms). Traffic impacts, therefore, will be significantly reduced by the change to residential use and revisions to curb cuts and on -street parking will also benefit adjacent streets. The applicant also proposes improvements to the alley of Block 105 including; • Relocation of utility pedestals and an electric switchgear, which currently encroach into the alley, into the site. Placement of "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs at each end of the alley before traffic crosses the sidewalks when exiting the alley. These improvements will render the alley access more attractive to residents and guests. Improvements proposed by this applicant will serve to improve all adjacent streets by eliminating the current access conflict on the more heavily travelled Cooper Avenue, removing utility encroachments from the alley and establishing additional on -street public parking where curb SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC. December 11, 1997 Mr. Alan Richman Page 5 cuts are being removed. This project, therefore, results in improvements to the condition, safety and use patterns of the adjacent street network. The existing site supports a 21 unit lodge with 10 actual on -site parking spaces (I am defining an on -site space as a parking space which is entirely on the property and which meets the dimensional requirements of a full parking space). The conversion proposal will provide a total of 19 on -site spaces including 2 per townhome unit and one space per ADU unit. Of the proposed total of 19 spaces, 14 spaces will be located in garages for the townhome units and 5 spaces will be located at grade off the alley frontage for the ADU units. On -site parking is entirely removed from public view from the street frontages and at -grade landscaping is significantly improved as a result. I hope these comments are adequate for submission purposes for the Bell Mountain Lodge project small lodge conversion to residential use application. I provide further information or assistance. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. .fay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office iwli, 9o90ER cc: Mr. David Gibson SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC. ATTACHMENT #5 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Glenwood Springs, CO 61601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE REPLACEMENT 720 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO JOB NO. 197 655 DECEMBER 4, 1997 PREPARED FOR: BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE, LLC C/O ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES ATTN: ALAN RICHMAN P. O. BOX 3613 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECBNICAL, INC. December 4, 1997 Bell Mountain Lodge, LLC c/o Alan Richman Planning Services Attn: Alan Richman P.O. Box 3613 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Job No. 197 655 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Bell Mountain Lodge Replacement, 720 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Richman: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed Bell Mountain Lodge replacement at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area consist of up to about 21/2 feet of man placed fill and '/z to 1 foot of topsoil overlying relatively dense coarse granular soils. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. The proposed building can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural coarse granular subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 psf. The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. David A. Youngs .E. Rev. By: SLP DAY/ksm TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY .............................. I PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ............................••••• I SITE CONDITIONS ......................................... 2 MINE SUBSIDENCE ........................................ 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................... 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................. 3 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ................................... 4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 4 FOUNDATIONS ...................................... 4 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS .................... 5 FLOORSLABS ....................................... 6 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ................................ 7 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS ......................... 7 SURFACE DRAINAGE .................................. 8 LIMITATIONS............................................ 8 FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 4 & 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS H-P GEOTECH PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed Bell Mountain Lodge replacement at 720 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Bell Mountain Lodge dated November 4, 1997. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The existing lodge building will be removed for the new construction. The proposed new building, to be located on the site as shown on Fig. 1, will consist of 7 townhome units. The structure will be 3 story over a relatively deep and finished basement level. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade at the approximate elevation shown on Fig. 2. Grading for the structure is expected to be considerable with cut depths up to about 15 feet. There may be some deeper cuts such as for elevator pits, etc. We assume generally moderate foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. H-P GEOTECH -2- SITE CONDITIONS The site is occupied by the existing Bell Mountain Lodge Building as shown on Fig. 1. The building is a two story structure with the lower level a partial basement. There is an existing outdoor swimming pool to the southeast of the lodge and underground utilities services. The ground surface is relatively flat with a slight slope down to the northwest. Elevation difference across the site is about 4 to 5 feet. Vegetation consists of grass with some trees in non -paved areas. There is an existing building, apparently over a basement level adjacent the east side of the property. MINE SUBSIDENCE Portions of the Aspen area are underlain by mine workings. The workings are primarily underground tunnels between Aspen and Smuggler Mountains southeast and east of the downtown area. Under certain conditions these workings may collapse and cause surface subsidence. Glory Hole Park, which is about 2 blocks south-southeast of the subject site, is believed to have been caused by the collapse of one or more tunnels. The subject site appears to be near or over the west side of these main tunnel works. The works consist of numerous tunnels beginning a few hundred feet below the ground surface becoming shallower to the south. Our borings were relatively shallow and for foundation design only, however, no indications of subsurface voids were found. We believe the risk of subsidence due to collapse of underground mine works throughout the service life of the proposed development is low. If further evaluation of the mine works subsidence potential of the site is desired, we should be contacted. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on November 12, 1997. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Access across the site was limited due to the existing facilities, landscaping and underground utilities. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck -mounted Longyear BK-51HD H-P GEOTECH -3- drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/8 inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. ?. The subsoils consist of up to about 21/z feet of man -placed fill and 1/2 to 1 foot of organic topsoil overlying relatively dense, sandy gravel containing cobbles and boulders. Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit at relatively shallow depths. The boring depths were limited to between 81/z and 14 feet due to the drilling refusals. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Figs. 4 and 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist. H-P GEOTECH -4- ENGINEERING AINALYSIS The natural coarse granular soils at the site posses moderate bearing capacity and relatively low settlement potential. Spread footings bearing on these soils should be suitable for foundation support. Shallow footing areas may require removal of existing fill to provide bearing on the natural granular soils. The relatively deep excavation for the proposed basement level should remove unsuitable materials from the existing development but should be carefully planned and designed. The cuts will need to be sloped back to a stable grade to reduce the risk of slope instability and potential undermining of the adjacent building, streets and underground utilities. If there is a potential for undermining of the existing facilities, shoring of the excavation sides or grouting of the cut slope soils may be needed. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 5,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. H-P GEOTECH -5- 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural granular soils. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the main building and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site granular soils. The backfill material should not contain debris, topsoil and plus 8 inch size rocks. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use H-P GEOTECH large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. Increasing the compaction to at least 98% standard Proctor density should help reduce the settlement potential. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be granular material compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly to moderately loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50 % retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required H-P GEOTECH -7- fill can consist of the on -site sands and gravels devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. Tile drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. Tile drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining Granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1'/z feet deep. EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS Excavation of the on -site soils should be feasible with conventional heavy duty equipment commonly used in the area. Boulders should be separated from stockpiled materials proposed for later use as structural backfill. Temporary cuts up to 15 feet high in the natural coarse subsoils should be no steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. Loose rock should be cleared from the cut faces or covered with wire screen for safety of personnel in the excavation. The building excavation may be adjacent existing facilities such as streets, underground utilities and a building. In these areas where a sloped cut face is not feasible, shoring or grouting of the slopes may be needed. If recommendations for shoring or grouting are needed, we should be contacted. We should review the site grading plans prior to construction. H-F' UEOTECH WN SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the building has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Granular wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of finer grained soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1 and to the depths shown on Fig. 2, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. H-F UEOTECH This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOT��HNICAL, INC. J David A. Young, P.E.= '13 • 32-216 r 'q �•.� 4`'': Reviewed By: 's�.s...�'�.�s�'� Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DAY/ksm cc: Gibson Reno Architects - Attn: Dave Gibson Schmueser Gordon Meyer - Attn: Jay Hammond H-V UEOTEGH APPROXIMATE SCALE 1' = 30' SPRING STREET 103 102 101 1 / ....... ......... 1 1 _o► — — —1 ..PR.flt?t]SE£>::::::::::::: 104 / :::61iJLDiNI.G:::::::::::... ... ................... • BORING 2 w I o LLJ > . I i Q O............................ ::::::::::�:::: w in '°� N w .... i w I I EX1TNG:::<::::::::: \� r 1 1 1 :` r l l PROPERTY 104 BOUNDARIES I 105 i w J J Q C� Z X w 1 197 655 I HE WORTH ICA AWLA I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Fig. 1 j BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 ELEV. = 104.5' ELEV. = 104' ELEV. = 103' 105 105 27/12 00. 19/4 4/0 c C'- ' Proposed Main so 68/12 Floor Level 100' 100 100 Wc �147 - 3-T 35/7.3/0 +4=4 T 13/6.30/4 -200-7 T •del WC=1.1 (U 18/2,4/0 +4-25 c e.- (D -200=12 WC=1.6 C 95 0 69/12 -200=13 95 c 0 .0 .0 0 > > Q> I .. 30/5.5/0 -�ml Proposed Basement 90 Floor Level 90' 10/1.5/0 90 L85 85 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. 197 655 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK LOGS OF I EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 I I GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LEGEND: IASPHALT PAVEMENT; about 2 inches thick. ®FILL; monplaced road base over silty sand and gravel with cobbles, slightly moist, mixed brown and black. TOPSOIL; organic sandy silt with scattered gravel, roots, slightly moist, dark brown. ;o• GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM —GP); with boulders, sandy, slightly silty, dense to very dense, slightly moist, light brown, subangular to subrounded rock fragments. �j Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch I.D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/8—inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D — 1586. Drive sample blow count; indicates that 27 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were 27/12 required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. Practical rig refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, indicates that multiple attempts Twere made to advance the boring. NOTES 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on November 12, 1997 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided and checked by instrument level. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve. —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. I 197 655 I HEPWORTH — PAWLAK I LEGEND AND NOTES I Fig. 3 I GEOTECHNICAL INC. HtDRONETFR ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 111E READINGS U.S STANOARO SERIES I CLEAR S(UARE OPENINGS 24 HR 7 MR 4J IAN. 15 LAN. 60 WN.19 IAN. 4 WIN. 1 NN. r200 /100 10 /30 /16 }t 3/6'1�2'J�4' 1 1�2� r 5�6' 60 100 90 60 70 0 _Z 50 1) In Q - 50 Z L'i U EC Li EL 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 0 W 40 Z Q L.I CC 50 Z W U EC LLJ 60 70 60 90 100 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •300 .600 1.19 2.36 4.75 9.5125 19.0 37.5 76.2 12752 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT ANO A COBBLES FINENEDIUM COARSE I FlNE I COARSE GRAVEL 31 % SAND 56 % SILT AND CLAY 13 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring 3 at 4.5 and 10 Feet Combined 197 655 1 HE WOR H — PAW AK I GRADATION TEST RESULTS I Fig. 5 LO LO cD U) J D (n W cn w F- C T T 1i cv ca O cn C7 C7 O vpi S T T T w' (n L > L Y L �p C7) C 0) C — = f0 = CO W (f) uo uo p z N N O LL U r Z O N � U u x � O a m W p z U o > N w N O n a Z d o r N M Z Cfl M CD c a i u i - 74' N M p Z 2 6 w Z p r 3 w cM Q O O Z M U C] Z 2 -_ rl- CD C 00 C O i � cz Q p C C C C o a O � O � i a z N cc o m N Cl) CA z-1jE'_UAD MJ-4 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-27-003 DATE RCVD: 8/11/97 # COPIEST 7CASE N A62-97 CASE NAME: Bell Mountain Lodge Mitch Haas PROJ ADDR: 720 E. Cooper Ave. CASE TYP: Change in Use, GMOS Exemption, Conditional Use for A OWN/APP: Bell Mtn. Lod e,LLC ADR 720 E. Cooper C/S/Zt; As en Co Ht ' REP: Alan Richman ADR: Box 3613 C/S2'" As en,Co PH FEES DUE: 1080+110+ .r 70+155=1415 FEES RCVt� 1080+110+70+155-1415 vu I� REFERRAL REF DU EV BODY PH DATE OF FINAL REMARKS BOCCE CLOSEDT B, HRG C PLAT SUBMITD: ,F— ;PLAT (BK, . ADI WDUOT .To�PtPPb�CArtT o►j 8�it lxb MEMORANDUM TO: The Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Amy Margerum, City Manager JUL S 0 IM John Worcester, City Attorney Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Plannerik RE: Information Item --- Bell Mountain Townhomes Insubstantial PUD Amendment. DATE: July 27, 1998 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department is processing an insubstantial PUD amendment for the Bell Mountain Townhomes PUD (Ordinance Number 7, Series of 1998). The original approval was for seven (7) free market units, built as two (2) triplexes and one (1) detached unit, along with five (5) attached, sub -grade accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The proposed Insubstantial Amendment includes the following provisions: (1) The Community Development Director, upon the advice of the City Attorney, interprets the Small Lodge Lottery ordinance such that Bell Mountain automatically receives the needed -6mchange in use allocations left over from the last lottery, thereby providing Bell Mountain with two additional allocations; and, (2) The Community Development Director determines that a reduction from seven free market units with five ADUs to five free market units with five additional units deed restricted as category affordable housing is not substantial and does not require further proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. The deed restrictions placed upon the five affordable category units would include the following stipulations: The Bell Mountain Lodge LLC homeowners' association (H.O.A.) will have first choice in filling the units with employees who qualify pursuant to housing authority guidelines; if the H.O.A. does not fill the units, Bell Mountain or its designee will have the second right to fill the units with its own similarly qualified employees; finally, if that still does not fill the units, Bell Mountain will refer the vacancy to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, which will supply a list of applicants to the H.O.A. for it to select among the qualified employees. STAFF COMMENTS: In order for this proposal to qualify as an Insubstantial Amendment to the PUD, the request must not violate any of the provisions of Section 26.84.080(A). The provisions of said section of the code follow, along with staff's response to each. 1. The proposed amendment does not change the use or character of the project; RESPONSE: The approved use in the Bell Mountain Townhomes PUD is multi -family residential, with ADUs. The proposed amendment would still result in multi -family residential use. Previously, the project contained seven free market units and five ADUs, for a total of twelve (12) residences. The amended project would include five (5) free market units and five category units, for a total of ten (10) units. The character of the project would not be substantially changed. 2. The proposed amendment does not increase the overall coverage of structures on the land by more than three (3) percent; RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not change the approved site coverage at all. The footprints of the structures as approved in Ordinance Number 7, Series of 1998 would remain exactly as approved, but fewer garages/parking spaces would be needed. 3. The proposed amendment does not substantially increase trip generation rates or the demand for public facilities; RESPONSE: Trip generation rates would most likely be reduced since the number of residences would be decreased by two. The proposed amendment would not increase the demand for public facilities either. 4. The proposed amendment does not reduce the amount of approved open space by more than three (3) percent; RESPONSE: As explained in the response to standard number two (2), above, the proposed amendment would not change the amount of approved open space, and would more likely result in additional open areas. 5. The proposed amendment does not reduce existing off-street parking or loading space by more than one (1) percent; RESPONSE: The proposal would not affect existing/approved off-street parking or loading zones, other than resulting in a decreased need for off-street parking. That is, the approved plan required 19 off-street parking spaces while the amended plan would require a total of 15 off-street parking spaces. 6. The proposed amendment does not reduce required pavement widths or rights -of - way for streets and easements; RESPONSE: The amendment, as proposed, would not have the affect of reducing required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. 7. The proposed amendment does not increase the approved gross leasable area of commercial buildings by more than two (2) percent; RESPONSE: The Bell Mountain Townhomes PUD is limited to residential use; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. 8. The proposed amendment does not increase the approved residential density of the development by more than one (1) percent; and, 2 RESPONSE: As explained above, the approved project contained seven free market units and five ADUs, for a total of twelve (12) residences. The amended project would include five (5) free market units and five category units, for a total of ten (10) units. This is a decrease in the actual density of the project. However, the Land Use Code does not consider ADUs as units of density. Under these terms, the amendment results in a change from seven (7) units of density (but really 12 units), to ten (1) units of density. This is a technicality, and the reality of the situation would be a reduction in the number of residential units on the site. The approved proposal contained the following density calculations: Since ADUs are not considered or counted as units of density, the approved density is less than that allowed by the underlying RMF zoning. The zone district requires 2,100 square feet of land per two bedroom unit. The proposal included fourteen bedrooms (seven two -bedroom units), and the zoning requires at least 14,700 (7 X 2,100) square feet of land to accommodate this density. The site has an area of 20,073 square feet. Thus, the approved density used 5,373 square feet less land area than the site contains (20,073 - 14,700). Pursuant to Section 26.28.090(D)(2), since 50% of the units in the amended plan would be deed restricted affordable units, the density calculations of the zone district provide that five four -bedroom free market units would need 10,000 square feet of lot area (@ 500 s.f. per bedroom) and the five affordable units would need 3,000 square feet of lot area (@ 600 s.f per bedroom). Thus, the total required lot area for the amended proposal would be 13,000 square feet, which would utilize 7,073 square feet less land area than the site contains (20,073 - 13,000). Consequently, staff concludes that the proposed amendment would result in a reduced residential density. 9. The proposed amendment is consistent with the conditions and representa-tions of the project's original approval and does not require a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not change the approved use of the subject parcel. Variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements are not needed, nor are any sought, for the proposed amendment. All conditions of the project's prior approvals would continue to be met. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Director intends to approve the proposed Insubstantial Amendment to the Bell Mountain Townhomes PUD with the following conditions: 1. All conditions of prior approvals, as described in Ordinance 7, Series of 1998, remain in full force and affect as conditions of this approval, with the exception of those conditions requiring that the additionally needed small lodge lottery allocations must be procured through the lottery process; and 2. All material representations made by the applicant in this application shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by the Community Development Director or City Council. 3 DENVER •ASPEN BOULDER • COLORADO SPRINGS DENVER TECH CENTER BILLINGS • BOISE CHEYENNE•JACKSON HOLE SALT LAKE CITY VIA HAND DELIVERY John Worcester, Esq. Aspen City Attorney 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear John: HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3200 555 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202-3979 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 8749 DENVER, COLORADO 80201-8749 June 4, 1998 Re: Bell Mountain Townhomes TELEPHONE (303) 295-8000 FACSIMILE (303) 295-8281 HARRY SHULMAN 970.925.3476 hchulman®hollandhart.com RECEsy+:D JUN 4 1998 A5f1tIV / rl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT As you know, on April 27, 1998 the City Council approved Bell Mountain Townhomes' change in use application, and granted certain variances, subdivision and PUD approvals, by Ordinance No. 98-7. The Ordinance gave vested rights to build three units, and contingent rights to build seven. The contingency required Bell Mountain to "win" an additional four change in use allocations in the next small lodge lottery. That lottery has been indefinitely postponed. Bell Mountain is aggrieved by this postponement, and believes it was promised the additional allocations by the City's Planning Department. I want to propose a meeting where we can explore a mutually beneficial resolution to this problem. Facts Regarding The Additional Allocations. The small lodge lottery process is codified at §26.100.050 of the Aspen City Code ("the Ordinance"). It establishes a maximum number of lodge units which may be so converted in any particular year. It then provides that, if fewer than this maximum number of conversions are requested by eligible lodges, "the last selected lodge can apply... for the [ ] remaining allocations" that went unused in that particular year. The Ordinance is not a model of clarity. For this reason, on July 8, 1997, Bell Mountain Lodge LLC's representative, Alan Richman, requested an interpretation of the Ordinance from the City's Assistant Planning Director Julie Ann Woods. Julie Ann rendered a preliminary opinion, but stated that she needed to run this by Planning Director Stan Clauson before it would be final. Both Ms. Woods and Mr. Clauson are specifically authorized by the Aspen Code to provide such interpretations. After consulting together, they informed Bell Mountain Lodge LLC that it, as the last selected lodge in the 1996 lottery, could John Worcester, Esq. June 4, 1998 Page 2 apply for the allocations which were unused until Bell Mountain Lodge LLC claimed them. They informed Mr. Richman of this in late July 1997. In reliance on this interpretation, Bell Mountain Lodge LLC began spending tens of thousands of dollars in design and development expenses. For reasons unknown to Bell Mountain Lodge LLC, the City's planners later reversed their interpretation, and denied Bell Mountain Lodge LLC the right to apply for the unused applications. Instead, they said they would put the unused allowances into another lottery. If this occurs, Bell Mountain Lodge LLC may lose the sums invested in reliance on the planning staff s interpretation. Furthermore, Bell Mountain will be irreparably harmed by being unable to convert the balance of the lodge to free market residences, since the City's code provides that 1998 is the last year for such conversion. I have researched the law of equitable estoppel, and believe that Bell Mountain Lodge LLC has a claim against the City based on the facts above. See generally The Committee for Better Health Care for all Colorado Citizens v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992): Jones v. City of Aurora, 772 P.2d 645 (Colo. App. 1988). I thus give you formal notice of such a potential claim, even though I don't believe such notice is required since equitable estoppel does not sound in tort. Notwithstanding this notice, Bell Mountain Lodge LLC believes it has a win -win solution that is far superior to litigation. What creates Bell Mountain Lodge LLC's problem is the City's interpretation of §26.100.050. That interpretation has not been tested in court and is therefore subject to change. Moreover, such change is hardly unwarranted or unexpected, given the confusion this ordinance has created for all people involved.' We request that the City reconsider its interpretation, and adopt the one originally proposed by Mr. Clauson and Ms. Woods. Once the City does so, it can provide Bell Mountain Lodge LLC with the additional change in use allocations it needs to complete its project. If the City does this, Bell Mountain Lodge LLC will provide the City with some very important benefits that it cannot otherwise get. Currently, the Bell Mountain townhomes project has a configuration of seven units. Bell Mountain will reduce the number of these units to five. You and Mr. Clauson have the authority, pursuant to City Code 26.84.080(a), to determine ' As planner Mitch Haas wrote in his March 9, 1998 memo to the mayor and City council: "While there are more than enough unused allocations from past lotteries to accommodate the requested increase in density, staff wrestled with determining the proper procedure for applying for these allotments and processing the submitted allocation." John Worcester, Esq. June 4, 1998 Page 3 that since this is a reduction in density, the proposed reduction is not substantial and need not go before P&Z and the City Council. Once this change is formally approved, Bell Mountain will agree to deed restrict the five ADU's which have been approved for the project. These five units will be deed -restricted as category affordable housing. The Bell Mountain Lodge LLC homeowner's association will have first choice on filling them with employees who qualify pursuant to the housing authority guidelines. If the homeowner's association does not fill the units, Bell Mountain or its designee will have the second right to fill the units with its own similarly qualified employees. If that still does not fill the units, Bell Mountain will refer the vacancy to the City housing office, which will supply a list of applicants to the homeowner's association for it to select among the qualified employees. I will summarize the main terms of this proposal. The City: (1) interprets the ordinance such that Bell Mountain automatically gets the change in use allocations left over from the last lottery; (2) provides Bell Mountain with two additional lodge allocations in accordance with this interpretation; and (3) determines that the reduction from seven units to five is not substantial and does not require further proceedings before P&Z or the Council. Bell Mountain: (1) reduces its seven unit project to five; (2) deed restricts its five ADU's, subject to the priorities outlined above. In short, this is a way for the City to get five employee housing units it did not previously have, on a project it has already approved. Jim Valerio and I would like to meet with you regarding this possibility. Any City Council members who are interested would be welcome to join us. Jim will be in town on Thursday, June 11, and we will both be available anytime between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. I would appreciate a call from you to try and set something up. Thank you. Very truly yours, ( 9a4L�� Harry Sh an OF HOLLAND & HART LLP cc: Alan Richman (by fax, 920-1125) Jim Valerio (by fax, 920-4615) �St"an Clauson (by hand delivery) ✓Mitch Haas (by hand delivery) MEMORANDUM APPROVE[ TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner A UG 1 4 1998 "*MUAUTY 0EVaopMW01RECT0p RE: Bell Mountain Townhomes Insubstantial PUD AmgklflffaDER DATE: August 7, 1998 SUMMARY: The original Bell Mountain Townhomes approval was for seven (7) free market units, built as two (2) triplexes and one (1) detached unit, along with five (5) attached, sub -grade accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The proposed Insubstantial Amendment includes the following provisions: (1) The Community Development Director, upon the advice of the City Attorney, interprets the Small Lodge Lottery ordinance such that Bell Mountain automatically receives the needed the change in use allocations left over from the last lottery, thereby providing Bell Mountain with two additional allocations; and, (2) The Community Development Director determines that a reduction from seven free market units with five ADUs to five free market units with five additional units deed restricted as category affordable housing is not substantial and does not require further proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. The deed restrictions placed upon the five affordable category units would include the following stipulations: The Bell Mountain Lodge LLC homeowners' association (H.O.A.) will have first choice in filling the units with employees who qualify pursuant to housing authority guidelines; if the H.O.A. does not fill the units, Bell Mountain or its designee will have the second right to fill the units with its own similarly qualified employees; finally, if that still does not fill the units, Bell Mountain will refer the vacancy to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, which will supply a list of applicants to the H.O.A. for it to select among the qualified employees. STAFF COMMENTS: In order for this proposal to qualify as an Insubstantial Amendment to the PUD, the request must not violate any of the provisions of Section 26.84.080(A). The provisions of said section of the code follow, along with staff s response to each. 1. The proposed amendment does not change the use or character of the project, - RESPONSE: The approved use in the Bell Mountain Townhomes PUD is multi -family residential, with ADUs. The proposed amendment would still result in multi -family residential use. Previously, the project contained seven free market units and five ADUs, for a total of twelve (12) residences. The amended project would include five (5) free market units and five category units, for a total of ten (10) units. The character of the project would not be substantially changed. 2. The proposed amendment does not increase the overall coverage of structures on the land by more than three (3) percent; RESPONSE: The footprints of the structures as approved in Ordinance Number 7, Series of 1998 would remain as approved except that the addition of a one-story element is required for compliance with the Residential Design Standards (this will not exceed the 3% limitation of this standard), but fewer garages/parking spaces would be needed. 3. The proposed amendment does not substantially increase trip generation rates or the demand for public facilities; RESPONSE: Trip generation rates would most likely be reduced since the number of residences would be decreased by two. The proposed amendment would not increase the demand for public facilities either. 4. The proposed amendment does not reduce the amount of approved open space by more than three (3) percent; RESPONSE: As explained in the response to standard number two (2), above, the proposed amendment would not change the amount of approved open space, and would more likely result in additional open areas. S. The proposed amendment does not reduce existing off-street parking or loading space by more than one (1) percent; RESPONSE: The proposal would not affect existing/approved off-street parking or loading zones, other than resulting in a decreased need for off-street parking. That is, the approved plan required 19 off-street parking spaces while the amended plan would require a total of 15 off-street parking spaces. 6. The proposed amendment does not reduce required pavement widths or rights -of - way for streets and easements; RESPONSE: The amendment, as proposed, would not have the affect of reducing required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. 7. The proposed amendment does not increase the approved gross leasable area of commercial buildings by more than two (2) percent; RESPONSE: The Bell Mountain Townhomes PUD is limited to residential use; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. 8. The proposed amendment does not increase the approved residential density of the development by more than one (1) percent; and, RESPONSE: As explained above, the approved project contained seven free market units and five ADUs, for a total of twelve (12) residences. The amended project would include five (5) free market units and five category units, for a total of ten (10) units. This is a decrease in the actual density of the project. However, the Land Use Code does not consider ADUs as units of density. Under these terms, the amendment results in a change from seven (7) units of density (but really 12 units), to ten (1) units of density. This is a technicality, and the reality of the,situation would be a reduction in the number of residential units on the site. 2 The approved proposal contained the following density calculations: Since ADUs are not considered or counted as units of density, the approved density is less than that allowed by the underlying RMF zoning. The zone district requires 2,100 square feet of land per two bedroom unit. The proposal included fourteen bedrooms (seven two -bedroom units), and the zoning requires at least 14,700 (7 X 2,100) square feet of land to accommodate this density. The site has an area of 20,073 square feet. Thus, the approved density used 5,373 square feet less land area than the site contains (20,073 - 14,700). Pursuant to Section 26.28.090(D)(2), since 50% of the units in the amended plan would be deed restricted affordable units, the density calculations of the zone district provide that five four -bedroom free market units would need 10,000 square feet of lot area (@ 500 s.f. per bedroom) and the five affordable units would need 3,000 square feet of lot area (@ 600 s.f per bedroom). Thus, the total required lot area for the amended proposal would be 13,000 square feet, which would utilize 7,073 square feet less land area than the site contains (20,073 - 13,000). Consequently, staff concludes that the proposed amendment would result in a reduced residential density. 9. The proposed amendment is consistent with the conditions and representations of the project's original approval and does not require a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not change the approved use of the subject parcel. Variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements are not needed, nor are any sought, for the proposed amendment. All conditions of the project's prior approvals would continue to be met. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Director intends to approve the proposed Insubstantial Amendment to the Bell Mountain Townhomes PUD with the following conditions: 1. All conditions of prior approvals, as described in Ordinance 7, Series of 1998, remain in full force and affect as conditions of this approval, with the exception of those conditions requiring that the additionally needed small lodge lottery allocations must be procured through the lottery process; and 2. A final set of plans (site plan, landscape plan, elevations and floor plans) showing all changes as well as the designs of the structures to be built shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for filing with the land use records of this project in the City Clerk's office; 3. There will be five (5) affordable one -bedroom units in place of the previously proposed five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The five affordable units will be deed restricted at Category 2 levels as described in the 1997 Affordable Housing Guidelines. One (1) of these five units will have an area of 602 square feet, and the other four (4) will each have an area of 645 square feet. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by the Community Development Director or City Council. The addition of a one-story element for compliance with the Residential Design Standards shall not be considered a material change affecting such representations. APPROVED: !,Lommunit�_yDevelopment Stan Cla so Director Date 4 RECEiVED DENVER • ASPEN BOULDER • COLORADO SPRINGS DENVER TECH CENTER BILLINGS • BOISE CHEYENNE • JACKSON HOLE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON, D.0 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Stan Clauson Aspen Planning Director 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Mr. John Worcester Aspen City Attorney 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS A.r LAW 600 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611-1953 July 21, 1998 l 1 l 1 21 1998 ASrciV i i,i i rdsl TELEPHONIQ0MMiJNhW DEVELOPMENT FACSIMILE (970) 925-9367 HARRY SHULMAN 970.925.3476 hshulman@hollandhart.com Re: Status Of Bell Mountain Lodge, LLC June 4, 1998 Proposal Dear Stan and John: I write regarding Bell Mountain Lodge, LLC's June 4, 1998 proposal. Shortly after I delivered this proposal to each of you, John called me to relay the city's acceptance of it. I never received any document to this effect, however. The matter was later set for the city council's consent agenda (first on June 22, and then on July 13), but both times was removed. Alan Richman and Jim Valerio questioned Stan about this removal, and Stan assured them that the proposal had been accepted and nothing had changed. Stan further told Jim that he had discussed this matter in a work session with council, and subsequently had conferred with John about the matter, and that both had concluded that formal notification would be provided by some means other than a consent agenda. Thus, we have twice been informed by authorized city personnel that the city has accepted our proposal, and that no further action by us is necessary. We would like to see a writing formally indicating this. The status quo is acceptable to us in the meantime, provided that you are on notice of the following: Bell Mountain Lodge LLC is about to begin spending approximately $250,000 in architectural and engineering fees. Bell Mountain Lodge LLC cannot put these expenditures off and still expect to obtain its building permit before it expires (city codes establish this deadline as November 5, 1998 based on the six month extension granted by the planning commission in HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Stan Clauson Mr. John Worcester July 21, 1998 Page 2 its Resolution 98-3). We formally notify you that we are relying on John's verbal acceptance of Bell Mountain Lodge LLC's proposal to me, and Stan's similar assurances to Alan Richman and Jim Valerio, in beginning these expenditures. If we have misinterpreted the city's acceptance of our proposal, please notify us immediately. If we do not hear anything from you, we will assume that you are in agreement with the above, and will seek to estop the city if it later changes position. Thank you. Let's get this matter documented. Very truly yours, r Harry Shulm OF HOLLA & HART LLP cc: Jim Valerio Alan Richman PLAT � —�__ xii�i�ili�i9�' � Ij''tt xe, nx-- -------- ------ - -- -------- 0 0 0 0 0 (D (D (D C9 8 G aeai i'.rL03 Ent '3,@V 1140.J111 O O G FINAL PLAT e G i l G� U Q i W � I O Q � •A .IY[ �-3 ,aK ♦ �_ GIBSON•RENG -c,x�wox �co:o ea Inc � L 1 —2 ELEVATION P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES THIS AGREEMENT is made this Z ( day of1�, 1998, between BELL MOUNTAIN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (the "Owner"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the "City"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Owner owns that certain real property located in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin legally described as: Lots K, L, M, N, O, P and the west 20.73 feet of Lot Q, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998, the City granted subdivision and consolidated conceptual/final planned unit development approval for the Bell Mountain Townhomes (the "Project"). The Project approvals granted in Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998 were subsequently modified in the form of an Insubstantial Amendment to P.U.D. set forth and described in that certain Memorandum approved by the Aspen Community Development Director on August 14, 1998 (the "August 14, 1998 Memorandum"); and WHEREAS, the City and the Owner wish to enter into a P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement for the Project; and WHEREAS, Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a final plat for the Project (the "Plat") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat at Owner's expense on the agreement of the Owner to the matters described herein, subject to the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the "Code") and other applicable rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to enter into such agreement with the City and to provide assurances to the City; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. Description of Project. The Project consists of a total of ten (10) dwelling units. There shall be five (5) free market units. There shall be five (5) affordable one -bedroom units deed restricted as category 2 level units as described in the 1997 Affordable Housing Guidelines. One (1) of the affordable I 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IS 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 1 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO one -bedroom units will have a floor area of 602 square feet, and the other four (4) will each have an area of 645 square feet. 2. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the City agrees to approve and execute the final Plat for the Project submitted herewith and reduced -size copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit " A " (11 sheets, numbered ► through ►z-l- ), which conforms to the plat requirements of the Code. The City agrees to accept such Plat for recording in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder upon Owner's payment of the recordation fee. 3. Development Requirements. The following development requirements will be satisfied by Owner pursuant to Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998 and the August 14, 1998 Memorandum; a. Wastewater and Surface Drainage. A manhole has been shown on the utility plan to provide access to the mechanical space. Oil and sand separators will be provided for any "slot drains" that are shown. Clear water connections such as foundation, roof and surface run-off drains are prohibited from the public wastewater system. Owner shall contribute funds to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to help address an existing downstream constraint in the collection system. A tap permit will be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. The site development will meet the runoff design standards of the Aspen Municipal Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application will include a drainage mitigation plan and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. b. Utility Connections. Utility meters and service connection points will be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and will not be obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or vegetation. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment will be installed on an easement provided by the Owner and not located within the public rights -of -way. The cost of relocating, re -wiring and energizing the electrical switch gear shall be borne by the Owner. The subdivision plat shall include easements for the relocated switch gear and all the vaults, pedestals and above and below ground appurtenances for these utility structures. C. Trash/Recycling Removal. Trash and recycling containers shall be located such that haulers have unobstructed, easy access for pick up and such that the containers and their enclosures do not encroach into the public rights -of -way. 1111 IN 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 2 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 2 d. Snow Removal. A snow removal and storage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. e. Bus Stop Easement. An easement for the placement of a bus stop bench has been granted along the East Cooper Avenue right-of-way, as shown on the Plat. f. Driveway, Sidewalk; Curb and Gutter Improvements. As determined necessary by the City Engineering Department, the existing sidewalks, curbs and gutters shall be repaired or replaced to meet the sidewalk standards before issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project. Any improvements or areas disturbed during construction will be restored to existing condition or better. The existing driveway curb cuts onto South Spring Street and East Cooper Avenue shall be replaced with curb and gutter matching the existing profile. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 12% where meeting a public right-of- way. g. Alley Improvements. A concrete apron with design standards acceptable to the City Engineer shall be constructed at the westerly end of the alley serving Block 105, although the alley itself shall not be paved. "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs shall be installed by Owner at each end of the alley in a manner that will not inhibit routine maintenance of the alley but will ensure visibility to vehicles before crossing the sidewalks when exiting the alley. h. Fence Line Relocation. The existing fence along the East Cooper Avenue frontage will be removed from the right-of-way. i. Street Lights. If the existing street lights are disturbed or damaged during construction, they shall be replaced in kind and in alignment with the other street lights along the subject street. j. Excavation Plans. Excavation and stabilization plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. k. Construction Parkin /g Staging. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Owner shall submit a traffic and parking plan acceptable to the City Engineer, Parking and Transportation Departments, Streets Department, and Utilities Department. The plan shall describe traffic detouring, parking, and staging areas for the several stages of construction of the project. Owner shall be required to rent on -street parking spaces if, due to the construction activities, any such spaces will be temporarily impacted or unusable for public parking. These plans and permits will also be coordinated with the Rights -of -Way permit for the utility and street frontage work. 111111111111 HIM 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 3 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 3 1. Dust Control. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, Owner shall obtain from the City approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Permit and provide an Erosion and Construction Drainage Plan. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan will include, as a minimum, plans for fencing, watering of roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property lines or causing a nuisance. M. Separate Utilities for Each Dwelling Unit. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general common elements and limited common elements shall be clearly labeled, dimensioned and identified on a condominium plat to be recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site development. As contemplated in Paragraph 7, below, the condominium plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the completed project. n. Future Improvement District(s). Owner agrees to join any future improvement district(s) formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrent with the recording of the subdivision plat. o. As -Built Drawinjzs. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project, Owner shall submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements. P. In the event required, Owner must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. q. Fireplace and Woodstoves. As part of the building permit application, Owner will file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental 111111111111 HIM 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 4 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 4 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Health Department. Wood burning fireplaces and heating devices that utilize coal as a fuel are prohibited. r. Asbestos Testing/Abatement. Prior to obtaining a building or demolition permit, Owner will have the existing building tested for asbestos, and if any is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement firm. S. Hours of Construction. During construction, noise will not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction will not occur between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. t. Deciduous Tress and Vegetation. Owner shall provide sufficient depth to the foundation wall and proper drainage to allow the aspen trees on the east side of the lot to survive and grow properly. The water line will enter the property from Spring Street so as not to conflict with the trees. The four proposed spruce trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. There shall be no vegetation within ten (10) feet of the electrical switch gear or in front of the garage entrances. The tree proposed near the Spring Street/alley intersection shall be relocated to a site that is acceptable to both the City Engineer and the Parks Department. U. Donation of Coniferous Trees. Owner shall donate to the City those evergreen trees that must be removed from the site, and Owner shall work with the City toward identifying a location within the City to which said trees can be moved. Once a location(s) is found, Owner will pay the costs associated with the relocation(s). V. Tree Removal Permits. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these driplines(s). W. Height Restriction. The building improvements shall have a height limit of twenty-eight (28) feet, as measured to the one-third point along the roof, this represents a variance allowing for three (3) additional feet of height beyond the maximum allowable height in the RMF zone district. X. Open Space. The Project shall have a minimum open space requirement of 33%; this represents a variance allowing for two percent (2%) less open space than the minimum allowable open space in the RMF zone district. Y. Exterior Lighting. All outdoor lighting within the PUD will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to an entry pedestal for each unit, low bollards along the walkways, and porch lights. 111111111111 HIM 111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 5 5 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures shall be used for screening of all outdoor lighting sources. Z. Cash in Lieu of School Land Dedication. Prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permit for the residential units, Owner shall pay a cash fee in lieu of School Land Dedication to the City of Aspen. Such cash in lieu payment totals $13,252.80 for all units. 4. Construction Schedule and Phasing. The City and the Owner mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be determined at this time. However, it is anticipated that construction of the Project will begin no later than three years from the vesting of the Owner's property rights in the Project. The anticipated construction on schedule is as follows: a. Complete demolition of existing structure by October 1, 1998. b. Commence excavation for foundation by October 1, 1998. C. Commence construction of improvements by November 1, 1998. d. Substantial completion of improvements by September 1, 2000. e. The public improvements identified in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement are expected to be under construction on or before November 1, 1998, and completed by September 1, 2000, and each element thereof shall be installed as soon as possible consistent with adjacent Project constructions. All such public improvements shall be completed by Owner and accepted by the City prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the Project or within three years of the date hereof, whichever first occurs. 5. Landscaping Improvements. In accordance with the Code, the landscaping improvements shall be installed as represented and shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit which plan shows the extent and location as well as the type of plants to be installed, and all landscape features, flower and shrub definition, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g. paving, sod, gravel, etc.) and other elements of the landscape plan. The landscaping shall be installed as soon as possible, no later than the first planting season following the completion of the construction adjacent to the area of planting. The Owner shall promptly replace any plants which have not survived for a period of two growing seasons following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project. 6. Security for Public Improvements and Landscaping. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the landscaping and public improvements described above, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 6 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 6 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO credit, cash or other guarantees in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $53,740. Said guarantee will be delivered to the City prior to the issuance to the Owner of a building permit for the Project. Exhibit "-a_" provides a list of the improvements that are being guaranteed and the cost of such improvements as estimated by the Owner's engineer and landscape architect and as accepted by the City. The guarantee documents shall give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default by the Owner in its obligations to complete the public improvements by the date specified in Paragraph 4(e), to withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation for such public improvements or Project landscaping. As portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, he shall authorize the releases of the agreed estimated costs for that portion of the improvements, except that ten -percent of the estimated costs of the improvements shall be withheld for the benefit of the City until the completion of all of the described public improvements, and the retainage for the landscaping shall be withheld until two growing seasons following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project. The Owner shall require all contractors to provide a warranty to the City that all improvements were constructed to accepted standards of good workmanship for the installation of the public improvements described herein for one year from the date of acceptance. In the event that any existing municipal improvements are damaged during Project construction, on request by the City Engineer, a bond or other suitable security for the repair of those municipal improvements shall be provided by Owner to the City. 7. Condominiumization. As soon as construction of the Project allows, Owner anticipates submitting the Project to a plan for condominiumization. The City agrees to process for approval and for recordation a condominium plat prepared in accordance with the Code. As the Owner has provided affordable housing pursuant to the Code, the Project is exempt from paying the Affordable Housing Impact fee. Owner shall record a condominium declaration and shall create a corporate non-profit condominium association and articles of incorporation and by-laws. The association shall be responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the Project common elements and keeping the open space in good repair and in a clean and attractive condition. Membership in the condominium association shall inure to a Unit owner on the transfer of title. The association board of directors shall consist of at least three unit owners in the Project. The association shall be required to ensure continued compliance with this PUD and Subdivision Agreement. 8. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent by United States certified mail to the addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing. I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN IN 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 7 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO V/ To the Owner: James Valerio, Managing Member Bell Mountain LLC Post Office Box 1376 Aspen, Colorado 81612 With copy to: Thomas J. Todd Holland & Hart LLP 600 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 To the City of Aspen: City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 With Copy to: City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 9. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the Project is located and shall be binding on an inure to the benefit of the Owner's and the City's successors, personal representatives and assigns. 10. Amendment. The Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by the parties. 11. Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are determined to be invalid, it shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof. 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 8 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO N. ATTEST: IVA Approved as to Form: City A torney STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation 2 �7 John iennet, Mayor OWNER: BELL MOUNTAIN LLC By: `�- (7es Valerio, Managing Member The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7::[_ day of 1998 by John Bennet, Mayor, and Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk. Witness my hand and official seal. Sion expires: 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 9 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 0 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /31,4 day of 064b *- 1998 by James Valerio, Managing Member of Bell Mountain LLC. hU:Witness my hand and official seal. 4' _M3bcflmmission expires: elk l y 9 �A n p ':, s�'�• .-.. ,,� Notary Public ASPEN: 0024284.03 I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 10 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 10 Bell Mountain Subdivision 9- PtlO Lots A, L, YP,, N, 0, P, and Q, Block 105, City and Townsile of Aspen, Township 10 South, Range 84 Xestf Section 18, 61h P.Jf Pitkin County, Colorado ASPEN Site Vicinity Map Not to Scale we°.ew.r Serer W q e Ov.req+ M ✓ > ).er M.i°e eM Cm�'vOrMr .er el.> =:r1rEY bR5 - _ mr.! Cos° nb rO.XNb-C .awns 0 ewr Poe Lo'w>�m. ss�a rue.wn rant gVM/9>. BFct lax Gry aM i°Tarsw. Or. � r av 10.>J raw d cr o - LorWwniwMm' ro °e! ;s nwrV ro a wrRlsM arM nadaM !a . o-q r�e�1 d on.yewl b eyn uMs. - -'aa � •• � lrm. Co-wwrH w. oaa>S � w 1w G aww +,.... ss� mmrnov � azr nw +.o ae�enss ,,,< er „ea• er »cQ � cars „„! 8{uRloown��l.Jyc L LC ,,,,q ,,., ,,,, ,,.,�, �++ M +Obnsa one rvWeewf Nr v�r Mr N ! w aro�r nwa'4 dlt MTMI S(6Y1SpY f /YD w !M Gry d .SYd� d Cobom p1° e t rvca..✓ .b av mM�.�Y me w.� n ✓f cr m09rL\) J a cyairyn oar srr:.'n�r / a� �y�s� wav q neN a+e rfm ae( rH .an.a4. , 6 W su+[ s mtWran J / m oLI4WY d plba / H1 awe y aa.a eea emwr �. y' reln nlrc �6t 5°wryr's Canraerr Ar6/fa.62� :. Slrpsan :. Lrary rla'aewvr °+a 5✓rpv. m nw> d � � A.9M4M f AtA a rub0. ewavy. pm. �w serer .m ovrrn.a° .n °R�ewr�e+laa a SNW� 9>1 tdrr Je wars 31: IM! rns ,w roMae d !ea m � ro Lebwb Aen✓ S rtw b .LLJ-aw crow ro .rGte r;lequ n .py pig! I - rane I, fltYr+b� l SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. 9lRlElv15 IIfi W. BtN St>eet. Suite 200 r aee.000 Sp vqx Col —do 61601 Bell Youn tain Subd. & PLD mete (970) 9C4,I { (FA% 945-5946) corms unm __ Aapan, Cdoroao (9 0) 925-6727 Flrfxt OMCIM .WW1a( Lf, r.rw ar. lYwta myEe i.v u' ,aw zOverc tYrur5.9Ur �rswJr�t Nv 4.eOr1lt9lw f i[O v awww 4 rM LM r .IIM ranee° :nw.«'�r ntusn+dr ae[cmr wrra�rc Ilb n.s d 9[i( .arrow SreCwRov a °ca w glsere° N r ml d •wr m.ana- urtm'.wrorls A.eWSRW f HO mis°w° 4 °M C.p r 40.E ELas oswtnsw. aey r a dt[t wwr SlsN+wr s H'.9 ae w mrole.: va.• om r.. da �e'ae>rRVnaa ar.e oaaMa! M !M Gry C + d aw u!�' d �m� CN +o n°(eMur°'d /sveiN.nem 'w� � al' b mrtinf m.� nLTmoaMT /UP RLL'ro]r.Y. _ ..r ar,! d m. �.owr stm�suv a no ..:aola !P irro � :•. .. r La�nN. Lmm r °„ d '9 ti FM Ber of r<Yaa m° Ma'rerw xa � dw arw aaaarur Final Pla t 1 OF j GRAPHIC SCALE A O Bell Mountain Subdivision & P11T Formerly Lots K % df, N, 0 P, and V. Block .>OS ^ity & Townsite of Aspen Pitkzn County, State of Colorado V ��Aer ALE,%jO. - mw.wr.rr. p rs�s ov .4�v asni � cm McA LS mf.aa �. GS IJl4 N.w - wr >'bY Gwmrennf C� Mw a15�bC ey .apr rryy CwyavrY� 4ywr, Cdwvm abHe /qV» • vwcw' m r �GY aq owzh W .1pr, FwnrY e/ bM ro wI GYwmw eacr/ m.aq mv. wvrcbry m bb.r 9gmrp m S/ mrr N aI BNe rRS elwro !�`.t0'w' E M1H dwN er. +af�rY Hrr Qae float !� nwrm 5 ]JD9Y�i' F a atrrewv w/ AlA /wr o wMI a m ONm� 0.[ ean�rS! Y'e9'w awe Bwa /0.[ Mwac� H >'JT/DYl' s �Jvrara� }pYf A /wI� avi B'W r[>5 ro eM owrrf a e.p.r.rq aof pwe� e/ bqY marenrp RNI ma mw� s Ma �faa:K.a - o bwf eo� �r wr f wo . � cwrorrra T om'rwr��,w'% ww� 6- 41b O OIL N � m F+W� N \ r �= C9 w m OD m mw� m'a z-u c� av ma= � M N N1 M M_ zr C) N� C z 03 YA57M WATFR, $ERYfF w- 6U1' YAL I£. I srRwcrE0 YASIFR EWER woR LAME. w PER YELN D£90M RFO'fflRELC]VTSti •o i amu�wnn. •rr .mr PROR7LE I '-ra4 M u .�.� ACY o-.t aAa ...ner•¢ :t ur CRAPFUC SCALE owe. .moo raac aua rpp AOIES eaur T. EaSTWD URUTY LOE RMNS ARE 9AsNR eo OY LTFD Seto LoCA RLWS AAO S,SIM YAPS Q]RRRACIOP 94LL BE RE9YE W9HFOR lv9"m Aw _ w J/�' aAw srw LOCAROW ANO Ct ECPOv REO AREYENTS WN EACH UPU1Y A LYWSMUCNCW ory warwar '�'� 1. " TO THE SEER YAW ELEVA"OV CAMYN LELEL Ptt"W AR REOARE E.ECTOR Pl.YMS TOR EAC}I GWT rq x ELECIMC .2LY}WARY M COVENT To 9C ROM M R�{ LOVER LEtG Cr W SR VC UW . .ruffs r rr mw smT Mt sa�R I CAS 5EPWC£ TO Le' BLOW O/,9DE TW STRUCTLRE rO TTf 4ETFRS. STANDARD SEWER T CITY OF ASPEN S PROPOSED HAN4ES TO TTE 9TE. UWTY. ORADWti arA.WAc£ OR LAAbX�MVO SERVICE CONNECTION DETAIL TYP. WATER SERWCE DETAIL wo PLµs L�.aA,� o0k-RR� �SC.�OaPLAN ER nx oYc wr: an .wr arPc sDeuvn 9wL wa rc uAs utas ALLEY i T- p a.r,�a.,.. • .Rr-Rw+ic .romvn a ev:cuTm I 6"aAlwoutpW' -------------�— _-----� YIIFR g'RN¢(rw.) i— —Ea-----_—p.--- --P--C --�' _ Lr A[awml i _ I k < x r' " . -Ot e awev Nrs ww w 107F. PEA,, OR REPLACE JAYAGEO SGEwAU'. sowA CTARB AND LLTTER AS RFaARED. I EAST COOPER AVENUE — w-- — — —— ——-- — — — — — — ---------_---_ TER .ME MIMyO1� � •GORDONINC. . .�. nQW�. "..d aprM C.1-ft BELL MOUNTAIN RESIDENCES �,ma M MM 94a W4 .am rarm Cokwa VAX w&,$M, A�.. arer.eo um anern UTILITY PLAN A O I I I }. I I I I I I I h I T� I I \ I I I I I I I I II I I 4 NOES 1. DNO[Sa?N4 MPY w &Mmv D AVOD , L i• sA, B t� am'nw.e'/a'Ha' wIR damesN'sworw_ GRAPHIC SCALE nv 4'� taw mr i 1' A4TR1:1A BlSE h - !M=M:yAM [Y�fpf-If rnw yw lntzwc cnrtg � • a�°"16ut"'ta�'> h,I ±I VIE 1M1IXM AAYPS 9WL [F 6' Rr•Or (XINCIBFIF � '�' +/ I. ARO#IFCRA& ELEVA MIN 100' Ea/ALS SfAPVEY ELEVA ROW M21 A(L OIAQ aYN04<lC MIRYNIY 9N{L L =' ?PCl._ 2 ORMIEUS ARE S' LD. A B' DEEP •EACH _` 6VNFG IC BA.Y >M �' CriA%iE /[A nD9r 9MGL •, ( l . X )' Ct]VPAC RD lT"aa' 6 ACOEp 1E 1. 11 �o _z J ROE SLor DRAWS A CARAOF EFVMY AND ROOF OR AREA DR—S niEus SECTION D-D _. E a DR"IFLL ro M1E AN OVERVLOW PUMP ID DA KIQIr LV DF % STANQ4RD 24" CURB & GUTTER .seMe 1'.:' =-� �`L awe wrim uwv AMEAS eETW .9e-Er AJOWK 70 RIE AUEY ew snwrr. � .Y" 3 FOOIER Or L"VEWMAO DRAWS (F PEOARED) -WAu ROVIE TO A LONER 8 lEMM SLIP AM I ro OPYI S DFa/CH OE,vA W S PROPOSED fNANGES r0 RIE 91F. VIX/n; O?Aa K OPAWAGE, OR L ALLEY HANDICAP RAMP PLANS M/Sr fAPSi $ APPROVED W AR WC BY RF L rY nE O t uvtiv[ERwC PLANS CON IRa OVEA IRE LANDSCAPWC PLANS —_� — -------------------�.._ --- -- — _tea_=---- —f — —_ dr Any — — rr _—_. —_--_ NV � — — — Gy / MffiAM� 51,75 Ja-1Rtl-w \.I / / INTtG o I 0 0 0 0 0 I� 000000 000000 000 000 t o 0 0 0 0 0 lrm, Mnav ' O O O O 0.0 ';- ar+am�v avnr c r--llwv-:--_ sr rr.e tL 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL\ O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o 7 o o o o o o DRYWELL DETAIL I �� rwc a .V01F' REPMR Lw IMAa DAM&ZD SMWA - _ CIV AND cwnER AS REOUIRW ---- E4ST COOPER AV£N(J _ _ - -so J eJ -- ---------_----«'------- � -- ---- ----- *---- - - - - - � ami= I SCHAl SER GORDON MEYER NC. M — .» .6.,1 PAI a.e e80 BELL MOUNTAIN RESIDENCES Ai C-Mr. o W701 924-O 7J ' & DWNACE * 9� 2 PLAN of 2 9- 0 0,� y+ w m N � r w� r C+ = ! m 00 m OD 0N= C9 m ,V C9 ma' M (/1 4 2K (_ O a Z - _ A O 1 GRAPHIC 9CrUL 4 Improvement Survey Bell ffountain Townhomes Lots K 4 J1, 11/; 0, P, and Q, Block 10, Town of ,4spen, Piticin County, State q Colorado a.`. i1 oeF 9g ' L rJJ' e. OxR Y 1� - ,.w�Mr. P ..ems � w✓ s�.nt .m Mt'A Li mr.0 - 9swp. A nrs a k.na mavnr.b m ro.n. n, =mw r Az— ry b-n-rm r. x.r.�i�serrd �� •a srb.. LECENO LIZ sriR7�oRt sC®IfUBsiR GORDOA' MBJ2'R /A'G r — r - -.. _ rwr�,vrnsr -I-- R . 6d SbwR .�. � Block 105 0.-....� 1 CMerv6e R160J Bell Jfouniain Towwhomes Lots ICL,dI,N, O, P, Q 9I5-lOY1t /FII/ P!J-S91B mRp N rlllw /Jpn Cola.nse /sfn/ srs-6ftf r A o� w— FINAL PLAT NW — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Nr� I OD _ C v ""`"Y LE6t7JD my � ro� Z r ` „/ 56H S 1PCAD3.N� ..lm.. j O abawM � \ar»e.L � � ..ne aRmne \ 2b/w..tm CC..Ca.1NTe — — — - - E�w a seeAlw lea a seeA.w �v.. Aw a eeeva.. �-rmi a Suva« _ — sRAL nussv_ nvi..v_ LrAve..v_ EAST aoopLR Avz9vE rvrn+raa.. re.nniLA ro+mr"" mr�+e.++ee r PANT SGNENAItl BOTANICAL - TNlS sr�r ONLY o-- BELL MT. RES I PENGES � cornaoN Ns,wrF - ,; -- Ab ILAA6U3TP' - _ LANP50APE d TREE REMOVAL PLAN 5 RL53/AN NAMT 'IyK/! C—IAEd(S -B/6U {j' TAL L, M -3 R /Re HHerr /eArvrr�av+ L-Lk * L.irT3xARPA 4-6''AU- Aie n-sTpa /4^RS fAR OW LFl9ERY 196M13 S .. MJRS AR' - I 13 AKR HAPLE AL6i! 6//YJJ.A 6: w n-S , ]O PEK/MS GOTG1'EA3TM LOTGME/ WR 3 6K. ��AI® T' KCOWI OGYON 511010 Im 10124lnLLA M07ZWn PR/MPOSE HEAIT" 3 &AL. IS .,AR/5OM YELLd ROSE ROSA NARISpWI S 6 b —OAW@ S A SPIRAEA AWU A —.own II' S 6AL N O R M SL70S@CIERY R/HE5 MRIELL(.Y rl-V L 3 6AL. ARTJYICGT 6 JIl' L/LAL SYR/—A —A A MIHS KIM 3 6AL. LRAAElRRY GOTpEA3)ER G4Td1`ASIER ARLLLAILS 36AL MlSDII�RGID ARCM n GG mw-92L Y 3YMf4^R/GARPIY. MW.L�K' SEAL T? OM MA ERRY A3q'f PARVIPLO,g/$ 6 NR6MHA LR@PEIP PARnCNxIj3(/, q.RAXEFLLIA S 64L. 60 OAYL./LY Il+ERA.KL/3 SL2 rSp PLRh/ 16AL.BtL 43 AfM/AT/G GRN�S�CL AIM MAG,•, fLRIZDALE GGTaIOI O. Ms SA^ �: HQ/D OLt*aDI+ 1Nl/E"R Jl. LO W6 DEPRE53A EfRfic 5 6 V '3 S=RBIAN HEIFLCER GAhTAI.L(A PO$LWARj<IA PLA l� b ON' AA®P/LAM ORAIQRRY VM'.RA m 3 6K. NOMS o ID b !D 1. ALL LGMOITENI5 MADE HY n¢ li`l2LGPER TO nE PARKS D[PT. Ppt 1Rtg Min6AllaV .S�IA(J. HE LGrR�TBJ LR RE.SGT.VID PR/LR O GGME�GEAEMTOP TIE LAA®gLAq' cpdneG nav A/O AKA,RD Of GERTIPILATE Q` LVG.PAIGY. SHEET L Se -ALE: i' = io' A O A _AST C�"�z AVL SITE PLAN FINAL PLAT J "^ vw,we n� u,.nco; -- NYI UM-,A.l. WPM ry:1...Ci aa. .ru _ r-- GIMON•REN ..�.16,.�r. iar.� mbw Inp I,r .4.Of0. ILLImL [Y.YR ImlTm 1�1 TdtiW (� A1.0 r A OD up O Old +t, W 10 - pi B N � r W� r � riot m OD 43N� m mw� mlu A O c 0 G o (a) m+Va 0 (D -- >Vt� Q i C� I BI h� � zl X FINAL PLAT Yd Md i � Lt r.x u[o r{ I 1 I t •aa or Xd I 77, ur I � I i � 1 -�-- C • Surg,ZM EVR Flog Pan w GdBSON-RENG L"'IM-51a) sacrr � A1.1 SUBGRADE LEVEL FLOOR PLAI: FINAL PLAT � 1e•IB.1� 0 su.n fr: eun. e/ane om�® I O O O O O @ Hd Kd V! elt` 1 eo � o I 1 1 1 I I 1 I-------------------f �W('mf------------------------------------� f..r : ,n• - rb NNAL PLAT (9C @@ O a L h) lob 0-- ® k' Nr� m Z � N � r W� m o0 v r� r gl 1 m a � ►y jA T1 Ic Ic Q®P9�1V ®t(� w.. 0 2 U W Z 0 �s W a GI BSON •RENO IeNI !-CM IMI qp-YO Q.II u.W �yJYc u n: rdw m.umc tmuec 1�1 TM.M. sReAA� � e�venon O ©@ ©® &' 00 � Ent Eloveft i O O O © O O O FINAL PLAT - .... 0 W z i W ' Q � � 8 8 O a w co GIBSON•RENO t 1 M. rWOr 1plDm[, COIaY00 '� imi ns-«or isn� �ruu�.a. nut sxaAr �� EXTERIOR ELEVATION EXHIBIT Schedule of Public Improvements Subject to Guarantee Improvements Relocation of electrical switch gear New sidewalk along Spring Street Replace 2 driveway curb cuts with curb and gutter Paving of bus stop and installation of bench Construction of concrete apron at westerly end of alley Installation of "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs Installation of landscaping per landscape plan Total I 111111111111111 HIM 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 423639 10/23/1998 12:13P PUD DAVIS SILVI 22 of 22 R 111.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Cost $15,000 $8,040 $2,000 $1,240 $2,000 $500 48 150 $75,930 ,AN 7 1999 ../// NORWEST BANKS eqq NORWEST BANK COLORADO, NA LETTER OF CREDIT DEPARTMENT 1740 BROADWAY ONE NORWEST CENTER DENVER, CO 80274-8685 TELEX NUMBER: 6737198 NORWEST NBC SWIFT ADDRESS: NWNBUS55 PHONE (303)863-4654 OR (303)863-4859 FAX (303)863-4898 IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT OUR REFERENCE NUMBER: S801761 JANUARY 05, 1999 TO:(BENEFICIARY) CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 ACCOUNT PARTY: BELL MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC 720 EAST COOPER AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 ^OMMUNITY DEVELO?MENT WE OPEN IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER S801761 WHICH IS AVAILABLE BY PAYMENT AGAINST BENEFICIARY'S DRAFT(S) AT SIGHT, DRAWN ON NORWEST BANK COLORADO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. IN FAVOR OF YOURSELVES EXPIRES AT OUR COUNTERS AT 3:00 P.M. DENVER TIME ON SEPTEMBER 01, 2000. THIS CREDIT ISIFOR AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF U.S. DOLLAR 75,930.001( SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY AND 00/100 U.S. DOLLARS). DRAFTS SUBMITTED MUST BE' ACCOMPANIED BY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: 1. BENEFICIARY'S SIGNED STATEMENT PURPORTEDLY SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED SIGNER FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF � ASPEN STATING THAT: "BELL MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC HASI ***CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE *** 1I►II //III NORWEV BANKS RIIII 11 N1I OUR REF. NO. S801761 PAGE 2 `AILED TO PERFORM THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THEO P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES.f 2. THIS ORIGINAL LETTER OF CREDIT FOR ENDORSEMENT.! PARTIAL DRAWINGS ARE PERMITTED. ALL DRAFTS MUST BE MARKED: DRAWN UNDER NORWEST BANK COLORADO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER S801761. CANCELLATION OF L/C PRIOR TO EXPIRATION: THIS LETTER OF CREDIT (AND AMENDMENTS) MUST BE RETURNED TO US FOR CANCELLATION WITH A STATEMENT PURPORTEDLY SIGNED BY THE BENEFICIARY STATING THAT: "THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IS NO LONGER REQUIRED BY US AND IS HEREBY RETURNED TO THE ISSUING BANK FOR CANCELLATION." WE HEREBY AGREE TO HONOR EACH DRAFT DRAWN AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS CREDIT IF DULY PRESENTED (TOGETHER WITH THE DOCUMENTS AS SPECIFIED) TO NORWEST BANK COLORADO, NA, 1740 BROADWAY, ATTN: LETTER OF CREDIT DEPARTMENT, DENVER, CO 80274-8685 ON OR BEFORE THE EXPIRY DATE. THIS CREDIT IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDITS (1993 REVISION), INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PUBLICATION NO. 500. NORWEST BANK COLORADO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION BY: (A HORIZED SIGNATURE) l (AUTHOR ZED SIGNATURE) MICHAEL C. IRELAND, P.C. Attorney at Law 225 North Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: 303 925-5358 Facsimile: 303 925-4220 October 19, 1998 Julie Ann Woods, Director City of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Dear Julie: P., V E D OCT 2 z 1998 I represent Bell Mountain Lodge LLC and Bell Mountain Construction Company LLC. The former, Bell Mountain Lodge LLC, is holder of a P.U.D. development approval from the City of Aspen. Bell Mountain Construction Company LLC is hereby authorized to process any further permits necessary for the construction of Bell Mountain Lodge and to post any necessary letters of credit for the construction. Bell Mountain Construction Company LLC hereby assumes the obligations of Bell Mountain Lodge LLC under the P.U.D. Please call me if you have any questions concerning this matter. Michael C. Ireland P.C. 97pV &16wrl Michael C. Ireland ;i c- MEMORANDUM TO: The Mayor and Aspen City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney i ` Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner. DATE: April 27, 1998 RE: Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision and Vested Property Rights. Second Reading of Ordinance Number 7, Series of 1998. Parcel I.D. No. 2737-182-27-003 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department has received a request involving the demolition of the Bell Mountain Lodge and replacement with seven (7) free market dwelling units, built as two (2) triplexes and one (1) detached unit, along with five (5) attached, sub -grade accessory dwelling units (ADUs). All of the units would be connected below grade, thereby making it a single multi -family structure. The request requires the allocation of four units (but only two bedrooms) of unused small lodge lottery allotments through the change in use process (see "Background" section of this memo, below). The requested Change In Use GMQS Exemption received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission with the condition that "only those portions for which allocations already exist (three units) could be issued building permits upon approval, while development of the remaining portions (four units) cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery," (see Exhibit D, Resolution 98-3). The Commission also approved the Conditional Use Review for five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), with the conditions outlined in Resolution 98-3. The applicant is requesting that the City Council grant final approval to the proposed Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD), including variance requests regarding the height limit and amount of required open space. The applicant is also requesting vested property rights status for a period of three years. Community Development Department staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions. Referral comments from Parks, Engineering, Sanitation, Housing, and Environmental Health are attached as Exhibit B. PRIMARY ISSUE: Housing mitigation requirements associated with the Small Lodge Change In Use provisions of the Land Use Code raised an issue for City Council with respect to review of the Fireside Lodge Change In Use application on July 28, 1997. Council characterized the ability to covert a lodge to free market residential units without requiring affordable housing as a "loop -hole." Council directed staff to begin working on closing this loop -hole before further similar applications could be brought forward. The timing of this directive is important in respect to the Bell Mountain Townhomes application. Representatives of the Bell Mountain LLC met with City staff in a pre - application meeting on July 21, 1997, a week before the Fireside review. Subsequent to the pre -application meeting, an application was submitted on August 9, 1997 for the conversion of the Bell Mountain Lodge to free market townhomes. Therefore, given the time and work required to formulate a response that would address Council's issue with respect to housing mitigation, no ordinance could be prepared and introduced in time to affect the Bell Mountain application. The Bell Mountain Townhomes application was "in the process" less than two weeks after the Fireside decision and directive was handed down. (For further assessment of housing mitigation issues related to the Bell Mountain Townhomes application, please refer to standard number 5, and staff s response thereto, of the Subdivision Review which is included on page F-2 of Exhibit F; also refer to pages 14-15 of Attachment 1, the application packet). Staff is preparing a response to Council issues which will be introduced prior to the third and final LP lottery. APPLICANT: Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services. LOCATION: The site is located on the northeast corner of Spring Street and Cooper Avenue in downtown Aspen. Surrounding structures include the Buckhorn Lodge to the east, the Chateau Aspen to the west, the Aspen Square building to the southwest, City Market and the Durant Mall to the south, the Hannah Dustin building and an A -frame structure to the north, and the Benedict Commons to the northeast. ZONING: Residential Multi-Family/Planned Unit Development with a Lodge Preservation Overlay (RMF/PUD with an LP overlay). LOT SIZE: The property contains a gross area of 20,073 square feet. FLOOR AREA: The allowable FAR in the zone district is 1:1 (or 20,073 square feet of floor area). Materials submitted to date indicate that the proposal would contain a total of 20,053 square feet of floor area, as calculated under the provisions of the Land Use Code. BACKGROUND: The Bell Mountain Lodge was one of three properties that submitted applications for development allotments in the initial LP lottery, held in November, 1996. The Bell Mountain Lodge applied for an allocation in the residential lottery for three single- family residences, each to contain four bedrooms (a total of twelve bedrooms), and also applied for an allocation in the commercial lottery for four thousand (4,000) square feet of commercial space. The applicant was successful in obtaining both allocations at that time. Subsequent to receiving the allocations, the property was rezoned by the City as part of the citywide LP rezoning. Pursuant to Ordinance 2, Series of 1997, the property was zoned RMF/PUD, with an LP Overlay. This zoning does not permit the development of the commercial allocation, but it allows the applicant to consider a more dense project than was originally proposed. Consequently, the applicant seeks to develop a total of seven units with fourteen bedrooms. To accomplish this more dense project, the applicant needs a total allocation of seven units, containing a total of fourteen bedrooms. As compared with the initial allocation, this represents an increase of four units, but only two bedrooms. The applicants relied on their reading of the following passage from the Land Use Code (Section 26.100.050(D)(2)(a)) in preparing and submitting their application: "If the total number offree market units or non-residential square footage allowable under underlying zoning are not awarded through the annual change in use process, the last selected lodge can apply for the change in use process for these remaining allocations. Multi year allocations can be awarded if the Commission approves a change in use process for the units that exceed the annual quota, and the following years allocations shall be adjusted accordingly. Any allocations left following all change in use applications shall be returned to the pool for future allocations. " While there are more than enough unused allocations from past lotteries to accommodate the requested increase in density, staff wrestled with determining the proper procedure for applying for these allotments and processing the submitted application. After careful consideration and upon the advice of the City Attorney, it was decided that the unused allotments get returned to the "bucket," and one must wait for the annual small lodge lottery to request allocation of the unused allotments. However, staff further agreed that an application for which some, but not all, of the needed allotments have already been granted can be processed with the caveat that only those portions for which allocations already exist can be given approvals, while the remaining portions could be approved with the condition that the development cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. Considering the foregoing, and in the interest of fairness, staff is also recommending adding the following clause to this condition of approval: "If the allocations are obtained through the lottery, they will not be subject to any forthcoming code revisions with respect to the provision of housing mitigation." Should the proposed conversion be approved, staff would recommend repealing the Lodge Preservation (LP) overlay designation from the site's zoning. Staff would further recommend that repealing of the LP designation should not occur until the proposal has received its final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) based on the presumption that all conditions of approval would be met by that time. The other reason for delaying the removal of the LP designation is tied to the discussion above. That is, it would not be wise to remove the LP designation before the applicant has secured all needed allotments through the Small Lodge Lottery since, without the LP designation, the applicant would not otherwise be eligible for the lottery. With the removal of the LP overlay, the site would revert to its underlying zoning of Residential Multi -Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay (RMF/PUD). REVIEW PROCESS: As a Subdivision and consolidated Planned Unit Development application, a two-step process is required with public hearings before, first, the Planning and Zoning Commission and, second, City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in its advisory capacity, recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Subdivision and PUD applications with the conditions enumerated in Resolution 98-3 (see Exhibit D). In recommending approval of the proposed PUD, the Commission supported the requested variance from the open space requirements of the underlying zone district, but made no recommendation with regard to the height variance request. City Council has final authority over the requested variances, and staff recommends granting both variances. For a complete explanation of the variances requested through the PUD process and staffs associated analyses, please refer to pages E-3 and E-4 of Exhibit E, attached hereto. DISCUSSION: The review criteria for Planned Unit Development and Subdivision applications as well as staffs evaluation of the application relative to these criteria are provided in the attached exhibits (Exhibits E and F, respectively). Section 26.84.030(B), Planned Unit Development Review Standardv For a complete staff review of each PUD review standard, please refer to Exhibit E, attached hereto. With the conditions outlined in the "Recommendation" section of this memo (below), staff finds that the proposal complies with each of the review standards enumerated in Section 26.84.030(B); therefore, staff recommends approval of the consolidated conceptual/final planned unit development request with conditions. Included in this recommendation, staff is in support of the requested variances to the twenty-five foot height limit and the 35% open space requirement. Section 26.88.040(C), Subdivision Review Standards For a complete staff review of each Subdivision review standard, please refer to Exhibit F, attached hereto. With the conditions outlined in the "Recommendation" section of this memo (below), staff finds that the proposal complies with each of the review standards enumerated in Section 26.88.040(C); therefore, staff recommends approval of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Subdivision request with conditions. Section 26.52.080, Vested Property Rights In order to preserve the land use approvals which may be granted to the Bell Mountain Townhomes application, the applicant has requested vested property rights status pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.52.080 of the Land Use Code. Such status can only be granted by ordinance of the City Council. Section 26.52.080 does not contain any specific submission requirements or review criteria, other than a public hearing, to confer vested property rights status. Consequently, staff recommends granting the requested vested property rights status, provided the ordinance approving the site specific development plan is adopted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Subdivision and Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD), with the following conditions: (Recommended by the Community Development Department specifically for this application:) 1. Of the proposed plans, only those portions for which small lodge lottery allocations already exist (three units) can be issued building permits upon approval and subject to those conditions enumerated below, while development of the remaining portions (four units) cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. If the allocations are obtained through the lottery, they will not be subject to any forthcoming code revisions with respect to the provision of housing mitigation. 2. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a height limit of twenty-eight (28) feet, as measured to the one-third (1/3) point along the roof, this represents a variance allowing for three (3) additional feet of height beyond the maximum allowable height in the RMF zone district. 3. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a minimum open space requirement of 33%; this represents a variance allowing for two (2%) percent less open space than the minimum allowable open space in the RMF zone district. 4. The Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district designation of the Bell Mountain Townhomes site shall be removed as of the date of the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the site. The subject site shall revert to the underlying zoning of Residential Multi - Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay (RMF/PUD) as of the date of the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the site. ►, All outdoor lighting within the PUD will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to an entry pedestal for each unit, low bollards along the walkways, and porch lights. Down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures shall be used for screening of all outdoor lighting sources. Prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units, the applicant shall pay a cash fee in lieu of School Land Dedication to the City of Aspen. (Recommended by the Parks Department:) 7. The developer shall provide sufficient depth to the foundation wall and proper drainage to allow the Aspen trees on the east side of the lot to survive and grow properly. The water line will enter the property from Spring Street so as not to conflict with the trees. The four proposed spruce trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. There shall be no vegetation within ten (10) feet of the electrical switch gear or in front of the garage entrances. The tree proposed near the Spring Street/alley intersection shall be relocated to a site that is acceptable to both the City Engineer and the Parks Department. 8. The applicant shall donate to the City those evergreen trees that must be removed from the site, and the applicant shall work with the City toward identifying a location within the City to which said trees can be moved. Once a location(s) is found, the applicant will pay the costs associated with the relocation(s). 9. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s); (Recommended by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District:) 10. A manhole shall be placed in the westernmost driveway in order to provide access to the mechanical spaces lying beneath the driveways. Oil and sand separators are required for the "slot drains" that are shown for each of the seven garage entries. Clear water connections such as foundation, roof and surface run-off drains are prohibited from the public wastewater system. The applicant shall contribute funds to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to help address an existing downstream constraint in the collection system. A tap permit must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Recommended by the Environmental Health Department:) 11. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the developer shall obtain a Fugitive Dust Control Permit and provide an Erosion and Construction Drainage Plan. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan must include, as a minimum, plans for fencing, watering of roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property lines or causing a nuisance; applications may be obtained from the Environmental Health Department and an approved plan is required before any building permits can be issued. 12. As part of the building permit application, the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department. Wood burning fireplaces and heating devices that utilize coal as a fuel are prohibited. 13. Prior to obtaining a building or demolition permit, the applicant must have the existing building tested for asbestos, and if any is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement firm. It is recommended that testing be done well ahead of time so that, if removal is required, delays will not be experienced. 14. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Recommended by the Engineering Department specifically for this application:) 15. The cost of relocating, re -wiring and energizing the electrical switch gear shall be borne by the developer. 16. The subdivision plat shall include easements for the relocated switch gear and all the vaults, pedestals and above and below ground appurtenances for these utility structures. 17. An easement for the placement of a bus stop bench shall be granted along the East Cooper Avenue right-of-way, and said easement shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat. 18. As determined necessary by the City Engineering Department, the existing sidewalks, curbs and gutters shall be repaired or replaced to meet the sidewalk standards before issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project. Any improvements or areas disturbed during construction will be restored to existing condition or better. The existing driveway curb cuts onto South Spring Street and East Cooper Avenue shall be replaced with curb and gutter matching the existing profile. 19. A concrete apron with design standards acceptable to the City Engineer shall be constructed at the westerly end of the alley although the alley itself shall not be paved. "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs shall be installed by the developer at each end of the alley in a manner that will not inhibit routine maintenance of the alley but will ensure visibility to vehicles before crossing the sidewalks when exiting the alley. 20. The existing fence along the East Cooper Avenue frontage shall be either removed from the right-of-way or relocated to within the property boundaries. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering and Parks Departments with detailed information regarding the feasibility and functionality of the proposed structural grass mat system intended for use on the driveways. (Recommended by the Engineering Department as standard conditions:) 22. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 23. Utility meters and service connection points must be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and must not be obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or vegetation. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not located within the public rights -of -way. 24. Trash and recycling containers shall be located such that haulers have unobstructed, easy access for pick up and such that the containers and their enclosures do not encroach into the public rights -of -way. 25. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 26. A snow removal and storage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 27. If existing street lights are disturbed or damaged during construction, they shall be replaced in kind and in alignment with the other street lights along the subject street. 28. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 12% where meeting a public right-of-way. 29. Excavation and stabilization plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 30. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit a traffic and parking plan acceptable to the City Engineer, Parking and Transportation Departments, Streets Department, and Utilities Department. The plan shall describe traffic detouring, parking, and staging areas for the several stages of construction of the project. The developer shall be required to rent on -street parking spaces if, due to the construction activities, any such spaces will be temporarily impacted or unusable for public parking. These plans and permits.will 6 also need to be coordinated with the Rights -of -Way permit for the utility and street frontage work. 31. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general common elements and limited common elements shall be clearly labeled, dimensioned and identified on a condominium plat to be recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site development. Said condominium plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the completed project. 32. The property owner(s) is required to join any future improvement district(s) formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrent with the recording of the subdivision plat. 33. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements. 34. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. (Standard condition for all applications:) 35. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance Number 7, Series of 1998." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: EXHIBITS: A - Open Space variance requested via PUD process. B - Referral memos from Parks, Engineering, Sanitation, Housing and Environmental Health C - Applicants' responses to referral comments D - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 98-3 E - Staff review of PUD application F - Staff review of Subdivision application ATTACHMENTS: 1 - Submitted application package ORDINANCE No. 7 (SERIES OF 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION AND CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL, INCLUDING A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT AND THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES, 720 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P, AND Q, BLOCK 105, TOWN OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application from the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company (hereafter "Applicant"), for Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) including requests for variances to the height limit and the minimum open space requirement; and, Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, said application also included requests for a Change In Use GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use approval for five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units, and a six (6) month extension to 1996 Small Lodge Lottery residential allocations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding requests for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, including certain variances to dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district; and pursuant to Section 26.88.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding requests for Subdivision approval; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council shall either approve, approve with conditions or deny requests for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, including certain variances to dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district; and pursuant to Section 26.88.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council shall either approve, approve with conditions or deny requests for Subdivision approval; and, WHEREAS, the Housing Office, City Engineering, Parks Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Environmental Health Department and Community Development Department reviewed the proposals and recommended approval of each with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the above referenced application was legally noticed for a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the application, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, to wit, Section 26.84.030 (Planned Unit Development) and Section 26.88.040 (Subdivision Approval), during a public hearing at a continued meeting on February 17, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 6-0 vote of both the request for Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a variance to the minimum open space requirement and Subdivision; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 98-3, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted a Change In Use GMQS Exemption with a condition; a six (6) month extension of 1996 small lodge Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998 Page 2 lottery residential allocations for three (3) units with twelve (12) bedrooms; and, Conditional Use approval for five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Bell Mountain Townhomes application under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in Resolution 98-3, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Bell Mountain Townhomes application to be consistent with the minimum requirements and review standards for both Planned Unit Development and Subdivision approval pursuant to Sections 26.84.030 and 26.88.040, respectively, of the Aspen Municipal Code provided the stipulated conditions of approval are met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 The Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Subdivision and Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) is hereby approved with the following conditions: l . Of the proposed plans, only those portions for which small lodge lottery allocations already exist (three units) can be issued building permits upon approval and subject to those conditions enumerated below, while development of the remaining portions (four units) cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. If the allocations are obtained through the lottery, they will not be subject to any forthcoming code revisions with respect to the provision of housing mitigation. 2. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 3. A manholes shall be placed in the westernmost driveway in order to provide access to the mechanical spaces lying beneath the driveways. Oil and sand separators are required for the "slot drains" that are shown for each of the seven garage entries. Clear water connections such as foundation, roof and surface run-off drains are prohibited from the public wastewater system. The applicant shall contribute funds to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to help address an existing downstream constraint in the collection system. A tap permit must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Utility meters and service connection points must be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and must not be obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or vegetation. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not located within the public rights -of - way. 5. The cost of relocating, re -wiring and energizing the electrical switch gear shall be borne by the developer. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998 Page 3 6. Trash and recycling containers shall be located such that haulers have unobstructed, easy access for pick up and such that the containers and their enclosures do not encroach into the public rights - of -way. 7. The subdivision plat shall include easements for the relocated switch gear and all the vaults, pedestals and above and below ground appurtenances for these utility structures. 8. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 9. A snow removal and storage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. An easement for the placement of a bus stop bench shall be granted along the East Cooper Avenue right-of-way, and said easement shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat. 1 1. As determined necessary by the City Engineering Department, the existing sidewalks, curbs and gutters shall be repaired or replaced to meet the sidewalk standards before issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project. Any improvements or areas disturbed during construction will be restored to existing condition or better. The existing driveway curb cuts onto South Spring Street and East Cooper Avenue shall be replaced with curb and gutter matching the existing profile. 12. A concrete apron with design standards acceptable to the City Engineer shall be constructed at the westerly end of the alley although the alley itself shall not be paved. "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs shall be installed by the developer at each end of the alley in a manner that will not inhibit routine maintenance of the alley but will ensure visibility to vehicles before crossing the sidewalks when exiting the alley. 13. The existing fence along the. East Cooper Avenue frontage shall be either removed from the right-of-way or relocated to within the property boundaries. 14. If existing street lights are disturbed or damaged during construction, they shall be replaced in kind and in alignment with the other street lights along the subject street. 15. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 12% where meeting a public right-of-way. 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering and Parks Departments with detailed information regarding the feasibility and functionality of the proposed structural grass mat system intended for use on the driveways. 17. Excavation and stabilization plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit a traffic and parking plan acceptable to the City Engineer, Parking and Transportation Departments, Streets Department, and Utilities Department. The plan shall describe traffic detouring, parking, and staging areas for the several stages of construction of the project. The developer shall be required to rent on -street parking spaces if, due to the construction activities, any such spaces will be temporarily impacted or unusable for public parking. These plans and permits will also need to be coordinated with the Rights -of -Way permit for the utility and street frontage work. 19. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the developer shall obtain a Fugitive Dust Control Permit and provide an Erosion and Construction Drainage Plan. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan must include, as a minimum, plans for fencing, watering of roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property lines or causing a nuisance; applications may be obtained from the Environmental Health Department and an approved plan is required before any building permits can be issued. 20. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general common elements and limited common elements shall be clearly labeled, dimensioned and identified on a condominium plat to be recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site development. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998 Page 4 Said condominium plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the completed project. 21. The property owner(s) is required to join any future improvement district(s) formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrent with the recording of the subdivision plat. 22. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements. 23. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 24. As part of the building permit application, the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department. Wood burning fireplaces and heating devices that utilize coal as a fuel are prohibited. 25. Prior to obtaining a building or demolition permit, the applicant must have the existing building tested for asbestos, and if any is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement firm. It is recommended that testing be done well ahead of time so that, if removal is required, delays will not be experienced. 26. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 27. The developer shall provide sufficient depth to the foundation wall and proper drainage to allow the Aspen trees on the east side of the lot to survive and grow properly. The water line will enter the property from Spring Street so as not to conflict with the trees. The four proposed spruce trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. There shall be no vegetation within ten (10) feet of the electrical switch gear or in front of the garage entrances. The tree proposed near the Spring Street/alley intersection shall be relocated to a site that is acceptable to both the City Engineer and the Parks Department. 28. The applicant shall donate to the City those evergreen trees that must be removed from the site, and the applicant shall work with the City toward identifying a location within the City to which said trees can be moved. Once a location(s) is found, the applicant will pay the costs associated with the relocation(s). 29. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s); 30. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a height limit of twenty-eight (28) feet, as measured to the one-third (1/3) point along the roof, this represents a variance allowing for three (3) additional feet of height beyond the maximum allowable height in the RMF zone district. 31. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a minimum open space requirement of 33%; this represents a variance allowing for two (2%) percent less open space than the minimum allowable open space in the RMF zone district. 32. All outdoor lighting within the PUD will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to an entry pedestal for each unit, low bollards along the walkways, and porch lights. Down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures shall be used for screening of all outdoor lighting sources. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998 Page 5 33. Prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units, the applicant shall pay a cash fee in lieu of School Land Dedication to the City of Aspen. 34. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Section 2• The Lodge Preservation (LP) overlay zone district designation of the Bell Mountain Townhomes site shall hereby be removed as of the date of the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the site. Since the Bell Mountain Lodge will be converted to residential use, the codified "Purpose" of the zone district, as stated in Section 26.28.320(A) of the Aspen Municipal Code, would no longer apply. Thus, the subject site shall revert to the underlying zoning of Residential Multi -Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay (RMF/PUD) as of the date of the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the site. Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code and C.R.S. 24-68-104(2), City Council does hereby grant the applicant Vested Property Rights status for the site specific development plan for the Bell Mountain Townhomes at 720 E. Cooper Avenue as approved by Ordinance Number 7, Series of 1998, for a period of three (3) years from the date said Ordinance is signed with the following conditions: 1. The rights granted by this site specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by the Municipal Code shall also result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication provided for in Section 26.52.080(D) 3. Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plan approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. 4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998 Page 6 Pursuant to Section 26.52.080(D) of the Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 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 7• A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1998 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published once 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 day of , 1998. John Bennett, Mayor IANIWIN Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: .Iohn Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998 Page 7 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1998. .John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk c:\home\mitchh\council\bellord2.doc r4l4a R&4i 4o Vex 3613 P44A"' ear 81612 February 3, 1998 Mr. Mitch Haas, Planner City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES Dear Mitch, EX+IAT A Pla�uuorg. Se�uKced (970) 920-1125 This letter is in response to the phone call I received from you today. You informed me that according to the way in which the City applies the definition of open space to our property, we technically do not comply with the requirement that 35 % of the site be open space. While considerably more than 35% of the site will be open and visible from the street, some of these areas are discontinuous from the principal open space area, so they do not meet the minimum frontage or minimum depth requirements of Section 26.04.100 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The open areas in the rear will be used for parking and also do not comply. According to your calculations, slightly in excess of 33% of the site meets all of the applicable requirements and is open space. Therefore, I hereby request a 2% open space variance, as authorized by Section 26.84.030 B.6. of the Regulations. The justifications for this variance are that: (1) approximately 55% of the site will be open or green space, including the parking areas at the rear that will have a grass mat cover; (2) it is important, in this downtown location, for the development to have a "build -to" line that is close to the front lot line, which makes it difficult to provide sufficient open space at the front of the lot; and (3) the "discontinuous" areas at the front of the property and between the property line and the sidewalk are visible and open and provide open space relief. Please let me know if there is anything else you require. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES Alan Richman, AICP EEE e Memorandum TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director DATE: January 22,1998 RE: Bell Mountain Townhomes Application CC: Engineering Department We have reviewed the application submitted by Alan Richman on behalf of the applicant. The following outlines our comments on the application. Landscape Plan: I met with Robin Kiernan on January 7 to discuss the details of the landscape plan. The Aspen trees shown on the east side of the lot are shown on top of the foundation wall for the lower levels. These trees may not be able to be accommodated there if the foundation wall is at grade. It may be necessary, if trees are desired in that location to buffer the neighbor, to obtain permission from the adjacent property owner to plant the trees on either the property line or on the neighbors lot. According to the garden level floor plan the foundation wall is only three inches (Y ) from the property line. • There is a water line shown entering the property from Cooper St. along the east side of the property. If this water line is connected from Cooper St., the trees that are shown to be saved in the front lawn area along the east property line, will be lost due to the excavation and installation of the water line. The four spruce trees shown on the plan should be removed. These trees will quickly out grow those spaces and there are a significant number of spruce and pines being preserved on the property by this building layout. It may be more appropriate to plant a few deciduous trees in these locations if the applicant desires. However, any trees or other vegetation planted near the electric vault must be a minimum of ten feet (10') away from the south side of the vault per OSHA standards for access to the vault. Also, the rose bushes and the lilac bushes shown on the east and west sides of the vault must be a minimum of three feet (Y) away from the sides of the vault. • The last tree proposed at the intersection of the alley and Spring St. is too close to the intersection and either needs to be moved south (minimum of 15 feet) or removed. i The proposed site and landscape plan works well and attempts to preserve numerous trees on the property, however the applicant is discouraged from attempting to over plant the lot in order to make up the caliper inches of trees being removed on the lot. The tree code requires comparable value mitigation, which is the value of the trees being removed is replaced in value on the property, not strictly caliper inches removed. • There are several rows of shrubs shown on the north side of the building by the garages. Per my conversation with Robin, these will not be included in the planting plan due to the conflict with the garages and entry doors for the ADU's. • The final comment on the landscape plan is in regards to the proposed use of the structural grass mat proposed for the driveways. While I would commend the applicant for proposing a creative and innovative alternative to concrete for these driveways, I would also caution them on the probable success of the grass surviving. There are a few factors which may create problems in the use of this material in this application. The first is the slope of the driveways and the traction necessary to constantly drive up and down a slope. Our experience on maintaining fields is that if vehicles (anywhere from 3000-60001bs avg. wt.) drive on turf, particularly in adverse conditions, it severely impacts the turf conditions. Even though the cells for the turf may help provide some traction, most likely there will at least be bare areas where the tires constantly travel due to compaction and tearing the grass to climb the slope. Another factor to consider is the heating of the turf mat. The applicant stated that the turf will be heated to help maintain the use in winter. The drawback of heating the grass is it "confuses" the grass and does not allow it to go dormant as in a natural environment. While I do not know what the eventual effect may produce, it may weaken the grass and be more susceptible to problems. If the driveways were level, the impacts may be less and I would be more inclined to encourage the applicant "to give it a try". However, with the slopes and the heating of the mat, I am more skeptical of its success. Park Dedication Fees: The application states that due to fewer bedrooms being built with the new development then, no park dedication fees should be due for this project. While the land use code does not address specifically lodge conversion, it does state that park dedication fees shall not be assessed if alteration or expansion of a structure does not create any additional bedrooms. It could be argued however, that this change in use actually increases demands on services and generates more employees due to higher service levels for free market homes and thereby generating a need for more parks and open space. While park dedication fees may not be assessed in this application, it may warrant evaluation of what the true impacts of the lodge conversion to the free market residences actually creates. N DEC 29 'G? 03: 13PM ASPEN HOUSING -',Fl_ P.1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: December 29, 1997 RE: Bell Mountain Townhomes Application Parcel No. 2737-182-27-003 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing lodge and replace it with seven free market dwelling units to consist of two triplexes and one detached dwelling unit. Five of the units are to contain accessory dwelling units. 13ACKGRQUND: The calculation that the applicant used to decide if any additional employee mitigation was required is appropriate. Therefore, this conversion would not require any additional employee mitigation: In regards to the accessory dwelling units, when the Housinq Office reviews plans for an accessory dwelling unit, there are partir.�dar areas that are given special attention. They are as follows: 1. The unit must be a totally private unit, which means the unit must have a private entrance and there shall be no other rooms in this unit that need to be utilized by the individuals in the principal residence; i.e., a mechanical room for the principal residence. Also, is the unit just an "additional bedroom" to the principal residence? 2. The kitchen includes a minimum of a two-bumer stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6- cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 3. The unit has natural fight into the unit; i.e., windows, sliding glass door, etc., especially if the unit is located below grade. After reviewing the plans for the accessory dwelling units, it is not shown how the units are entered, the plans show access to the mechanical room, and it is hard to tom! if the light wells fall under the definition of "natural light" to qualify these units as such. REGQMblEtV10ATIQN: Prior to approval, the Housing Office recommends the applicant provide documentation alleviating the concerns stated above. If the units are approved, a deed restriction for the accessory dwelling units shall be recorded prior to building permit approval. The Housing Office would also like to inspect the units prior to Certificate of Occupancy. RECEIVED MEMORANDUM FEB 1 9 1998 ASPtn i ri i KiN To: Mitch Haas, Project Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thru: Nick Adeh, City Enginee5/�j,-,��' From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer �JJJh��) b'.7 Date: February 13, 1998 (Revision) Re: Bell Mountain Townhomes - Change in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Conditional Use, and GMQS Exemption Reviews Physical Address: 710 E. Cooper Avenue, City of Aspen, CO Legal Description: Lots K, L, M, N, O, P, and the West 20.73 feet of Lot Q, Block 105, Townsite and City of Aspen, CO Parcel ID No.: 2737-182-27-003 This is a revised memorandum based upon the original application, memoranda of clarification from Mr. Alan Richman and Mr. Jay Hammond, conversations with Dave Gibson and additional site visits. I am reporting the combined comments made by the members of the DRC: [Site conditions at the time of site visit: December 26, 1997 and during subsequent site visits; 3 - 8 inches snow pack; some ground surface and features indistinguishable under snow and ice pack.] Discussion: The application and subsequent memoranda of clarification from the applicant's planner and engineer, improves upon the original application package although we have not seen a revised site plan reflecting the changes discussed in the memoranda. The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the several forms of development requested in the application. 1. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated December 16, 1997 and January 26, 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking or utility designs. 1 OF 6 DRC25A97.DOC Memo - Bell Mountain Townhomes: Change in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Conditional Use, and GMQS Exemption Reviews (Rev. I) 2. City Water Department: As amended, providing water service to the property from S. Spring Street and entering the westerly building appears to be a more easily constructed service and would provide better accessibility. From the original floor plans of the garden level units, it appears that some re -configuring of the ADU may be necessary to provide access to the mechanical space housing the water meters and valves. 3. Sanitary Sewer Service: The revised plan of three sanitary sewer services as described in Jay Hammond's memorandum (1/26/98) is a more practical plan for serving the property. To provide the access to the mechanical space to service the sanitary sewer pumps and sumps, it appears that manholes will need to be placed in the driveway and parking areas since the mechanical (crawl) space lies beneath the driveways. 4. Utilities & City Electric Dept.: As reported by the several utility providers, there is sufficient capacity in the distribution and collection systems for the proposed development and no significant up -grades or changes will be required in the systems of the several utility providers with the exception of relocating the electrical switch gear and possibly installing a new electrical transformer. The revisions and clarifications outlined in Jay Hammond's memorandum regarding the relocation of the switch gear and its vault and the possible new installation of another electrical transformer adequately covers the technical requirements of these installations. Again, some re -configuration of the westerly ADU may be necessary to locate the switch gear vault and provide exterior access to the mechanical (crawl) space since the electrical vault can not be used as a means of access to the mechanical space (NEC). Utility meters and service connection points must be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and not obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or vegetation. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not located within the public rights -of - ways. As a point of clarification, while the City's linemen will perform the splicing, re -wiring and energizing of the relocated switch gear, the developer will be billed for the linemen's time and materials. The developer should place bollards at the sides of the re -located electrical switch gear on the east and west alley faces so as not to obstruct opening of the cabinet doors. 5. Trash and Recycling Areas: The areas in the original site plan proposed for trash and recycling containers do not meet the requirements for a special review of these facilities. The requirements of special review include the concerns previously mentioned: easily movable by trash collection personnel, and adequate access, such as not being at the low end of an 8% grass-crete driveway restricted by designated parking in -front of them. There appears to be adequate space on the site for the trash and recycling containers which will meet the requirements of city code however the proposed locations and configurations of the trash and recycling containers will need to change from those proposed. An alternate location would also not obstruct emergency exiting routes from the below grade ADU light wells, and may provide some on -site snow storage. Relocation of the trash and recycling containers could be done without sacrificing any parking spaces. 6. Easements: The subdivision plat will include easements for the relocated electrical switch gear and all the vaults, pedestals and above and below ground appurtenances for these utility installations. 2OF6 DRC25A97.D0C Memo - Bell Mountain Townhomes: Change in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Conditional Use, and GMQS Exemption Reviews (Rev. 1) 7. Site Drainage and Conveyance of Overflow Drainage to Off -Site: The proposed dry -well system with overflow discharges are not acceptable. The design engineer must design this underground runoff discharge -type drainage system based on a soil percolation test on this specific lot to determine the feasibility of the ground injection of water through dry wells. The percolation test report must also list the seasonal high water table(s) during the Spring season. 8. Snow Storage Area: The site plan does not identify any areas along the northern exposure which would be suitable for snow storage. In order not to enclose the northerly lightwells between the buildings and to maintain the ADU parking spaces and driveway access to the garages, snow would need to be completely removed from the site or transported and stockpiled on the western or southern sides of the site out of the public right-of-way. Areas for snow storage should be part of the site plan and coordinated with the location(s) of the trash enclosures, parking areas, and utility cabinets and pedestals. 9. Aspen Fire Protection District: Depending upon the floor area and configuration of the buildings, the buildings will probably require fire sprinklering and the water service line(s) and valving should be sized accordingly. 10. Public Transportation: The applicant should be requested to grant an easement, approximately 2' W by 4'L, for the placement of a bus stop bench (probably without a shelter) behind the sidewalk along the E. Cooper St. frontage (preferably at the southeast corner of the property per RFTA to minimize traffic and street parking impacts) at a location that will not obstruct the traffic patterns at the intersection of E. Cooper Ave. and S. Spring St. 11. City Parks Department: Revisions to the utility plan may necessitate revisions to the landscaping plan and should be reviewed by the Parks Dept. in more detail. Another species of tree may be needed in place of the proposed maple trees along the street frontages. The applicant has not provided any technical information regarding the installation, operation nor maintenance of the proposed structural grass mat system intended for the driveway and parking areas. Apart from the apparent questions related to traction on a wet, snowy or icy inclined grass surface and under -drains of the mat system (four units at east end), it is not clear that this installation would meet the city's energy code since it was represented as maintaining a driveway surface warm enough to be free of snow and excessive moisture. The proposed scale and location of this installation needs additional supporting documentation. If the proposed building footprint or deep excavations (including over -excavation) may impact the root systems of existing trees as determined by the City Parks Dept., the contractor will use sheet piles or other techniques pre -approved by the City Parks Dept. to protect the tree root systems from the excavation. 12. Traffic Impacts: The proposed change in use from a nineteen (19) unit motel to seven (7) townhomes with five (5) interior ADUs, will result in a net decrease in vehicle trips per day based upon the standard vehicle trip per day values given in the ITE design manual for these different types of development according to the Environmental Health Dept. 30F6 DRC25A97.D0C Memo - Bell Mountain Townhomes: Change in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Conditional Use, and GMQS Exemption Reviews (Rev. I) 13. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repair and Replacement: As necessary, the existing side- walks, curbs and gutters will be repaired or replaced to meet the sidewalk standards before completion of the project. Any improvements or areas disturbed during construction will be restored to existing condition or better. The existing driveway curb cuts onto S. Spring St. and E. Cooper Ave. will need to be replaced with curb and gutter matching the existing profile. Along the S. Spring St. frontage the new sidewalk should be 6.5 ft wide to permit placement of street and parking control signs. If the sidewalk is detached from the back of the curb along this frontage, it may be reduced to five (5) ft in width and the landscape buffer should have adequate width to support landscaping (5 ft minimum) or as approved by the Parks Dept. Along the E. Cooper Ave. frontage, if the sidewalk is substantially removed, the replacement sidewalk should be 6.5 ft in width to permit placement of street and parking control signs. If the existing sidewalk is retained with replacement of selected sections, the unpaved 6" strip between the back of curb and the sidewalk should be paved with concrete to widen the sidewalk to approximately 5.5 ft width. The diagonal handicap ramp at the northeast corner of E. Cooper Ave. and S. Spring St. should be replaced with two (2) directional handicap ramps. A concrete apron will be required at the westerly end of the alley although the alley itself should not be paved due to the increase in drainage run-off and the added costs to utility companies to repair and replace their distribution and service lines. The "Stop for Pedestrians" signs proposed in the application should be installed by the developer at each end of the alley to be visible to vehicles before they cross the sidewalks when exiting the alley. The existing fence along the E. Cooper Ave. frontage must either be removed from the right-of-way and may be relocated within the property boundaries if the owners wish to retain it. 14. Street Lights: If the existing street lights are disturbed during construction, they should be replaced in alignment with the other street lights along the streets. To minimize the conflict of opening vehicle doors adjacent to the light posts, the sidewalks should be widened to provide a minimum five (5) ft wide walking area around the back of the light posts. 15. Parking: The proposed parking plan shows a parking space in front of the trash collection area located between the two triplex buildings. This is not an acceptable location since it prohibits access for trash collection. It appears that there is adequate space to relocate the trash and recycling containers on the site without losing a parking space. 16. Driveways: The proposed driveway at the far east end of the building exceeds the maximum permissible 12% slope of a driveway meeting a public right-of-way and needs to be adjusted to bring the slope into conformance with City code requirements. As discussed above, before approving the proposed garage driveways for the easterly triplex, we will need additional information about the feasibility and operation of the proposed structural grass mat system intended for the driveways. 4OF6 DRC25A97.130C Memo - Bell Mountain Townhomes: Change in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Conditional Use, and GMQS Exemption Reviews (Rev. I) 17. Lateral Support of Adjacent Properties: The proposed design requires excavating to within less than one (1) ft of the property lines on the east, north and west sides of the property. As briefly discussed in the geotechnical report, conventional excavation will not be feasible and an alternate support system will be necessary in order to provide lateral support to the neighboring property and the rights -of -way. Due to interruption of vehicular traffic and the need to maintain utility service during construction to the site and the neighboring properties, it is not advisable to close the alley during construction to permit over -dig into the alley width. 18. Improvement Securities: The developer will need to post financial securities, in a form acceptable to the City, to secure the integrity of the existing utilities during and after construction of the project, and installation and replacement of utility services for a warranty period of at least one (1) year (PUD 26.84.040.D and Subdivision 26.88.050.D). 19. Traffic and Parking Plan: The developer will need to provide a traffic and parking plan acceptable to the City Engineer, Parking and Transportation Dept., Streets Dept, and Utilities Dept. with the building permit. The plan should show traffic detouring, parking, and staging areas for the several stages of construction of the project. The developer will also need to rent on -street parking spaces if any such spaces will be temporarily impacted or unusable for public parking. These plans and permits will also need to coordinate with the Rights -of -Way permit for the utility and street frontage work. 20. Fugitive Dust Control, Erosion and Construction Drainage Plans: The developer will need to obtain a Fugitive Dust Control Permit and provide an Erosion and Construction Drainage Plan with the building permit plans. 21. Conditional Use - Accessory Dwelling Units: The proposed site plan needs to be revised to provide the required number of parking spaces while also providing acceptable access and serviceability for the trash and recycling containers on the site. The proposed locations of the trash containers encloses the north side of the lightwells which precludes the possible use of the lightwells for emergency exiting from the below grade ADUs. 22. Subdivision and Condominiumization: For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general common elements and limited common elements will be labeled, dimensioned and identified on the condominium plat recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site. If condominiumized, the condominium plat will be recorded prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the completed project. The abutting subdivisions and lots will also be shown on the subdivision plat as required by Aspen Municipal Code. 23. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the subdivision plat. 5OF6 DRC25A97.13OC Memo - Bell Mountain Townhomes: Change in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Conditional Use, and GMQS Exemption Reviews (Rev. 1) 24. As-Builts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements. 25. Work in the Public Rights -of -Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights -of -way; Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mail- boxes, street and alley cuts; and shall obtain permits for any work or develop- ment, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the City Com- munity Development Department (920-5090). DRC Meeting Attendees: Applicant: Alan Richman, planner for applicant Staff & Referral Agencies: Tom Bracewell, Mitch Haas, Rebecca Schickling, Ross Soderstrom 6OF6 DRC25A97.DOC Consol o(afeo(6ant1abbn s1rA71 - 565 North Mill StreS Aspen, Co�ora Tele. (970) 925-3601 Oc na l FAX #(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly • Chairman Paul Smith - Treas. Louis Pgpish • Secy. December 29, 1997 Mitch Haas Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: The Bell Mountain Townhomes Dear Mitch: Michael Kelly Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. We currently have sufficient collection and treatment capacity to serve this proposed development. As is noted in the application, we do have a downstream constraint in the Galena Street portion of our collection which we will eliminate through a system of prorated additional fees. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. From the plans included in the application it appears as through the units may be best served by a common service line (s), which would require the completion of a shared service line agreement. Oil and sand separators will be required for the "slot drains" that are shown for each of the seven garage entries. It is not clear if these drains will be connected to dry well or the public storm sewer system. Pumping systems will probably be needed to serve below grade improvements due to the depth of the public main in this area. As you know clear water connections such as foundation, roof, and surface run-off drains are prohibited from the public wastewater system. A tap permit needs to be completed at our office when detailed plans are available. We will be able to estimate fees at that time. Credits are applied in the exact amount that they were originally paid. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1986 • 1990 Regional and National MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department From: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director Ye C Date: December 19,1997 Re: Bell Mountain Lodge Townhomes Parcel ID #2737-182-27-003 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the Ci of Aspen, and has the following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 "It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device." The site is currently served by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and will continue to be served by them. We have no concerns about sewage treatment. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system." The existing facilities are served by city water and the new project will be as well. We have no concerns about provision of water. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted." A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be evaluated by the City Engineer. We have no concerns about the change in use and its impact on water quality. AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". The major air quality impact of development projects is the emissions resulting from the traffic they generate. The current use of the site generates 193 trips/ day using the standard trip generation rates in the ITE manual. The proposed development will result in 100 trips/day. Therefore the change in use is expected to reduce traffic generated by the site. The project therefore will have a negligible effect on air quality. Firellace/woodstove permits The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department as part of the building permit application. In the City of Aspen, each building may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. 1 Fugitive dust A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out (the most important measure), speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. Applications may be obtained in the Environmental Health Department offices. An approved plan is required before the building permit can be issued. Demolition Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant must have the building tested for asbestos, and if any is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement firm. Testing should be done well ahead of time so that, if removal is required, the building permit will not be delayed. NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels." During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. I It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant will need to be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. 2 ITV i:4TVto) ;i610vy TO: Mitch Haas, Planner FROM: Alan Richman Planning Services PCA--.- SUBJECT: Bell Mountain Townhomes - Response to Referral Comments DATE: January 26, 1998 The development team for the Bell Mountain Townhomes has reviewed all of the referral agency comments that have been provided to us (Engineering, Sanitation District, Environmental Health, Parks and Housing). We wanted to provide you with responses to the major concerns, before you finalize your memo to P&Z. Drawings depicting the changes will be presented at the hearing and will be available for detailed staff review between the P&Z and Council review steps. Following is an identification of these issues, and our responses. I would refer you to the attached comments from Jay Hammond for technical backup on the engineering issues. Issue 1: Relocation of Electrical Switch Gear We will revise the utility plan to provide sufficient room to relocate on -site the electrical switch gear that is currently located in the alley. We will also delete some basement space below the easterly dwelling unit to accommodate the switch gear's below grade needs. Issue 2: Electrical Transformer We will depict an easement for a new transformer south of the location of the relocated electrical switch gear. However, at this time, it is not clear whether a new transformer will actually be needed for this project, as there may be capacity in the nearby transformer to service this property. Issue 3: Water Service The water service plan will be revised, to show service coming from the 12" main in Spring Street into the northwest (rather than the northeast) corner of the site, on an alignment south of the relocated switch gear. The master back flow preventer, individual shut -offs and meters for all units will be placed in the mechanical space in the northwest corner of the building. Primary access to the mechanical space would occur from within the building; the manhole would provide secondary access, and be located in a flat portion of the driveway. The mechanical space will be ventilated to allow for safe use of the space for maintenance purposes. Issue 4: Sewer Service The sewer service plan will be revised, to show one service line "per building", with a duplex sump pump in each building to lift flows to the sewer main. There will be access to each pump from the mechanical spaces. Other changes we will make to the sewer plan will be to provide sand and oil interceptors where interior garage drains are routed to sanitary sewers and to route the exterior trench drains at the garage entries to the drywells. Issue 5: Site Drainage No changes are proposed to the drainage plan. As Jay Is memo explains, we have proposed a drainage plan that complies with the standards of the Aspen Municipal Code, "to maintain the historical rate of runoff for the 100 year storm from the undeveloped site". Issue 6: Street Lights We do not believe it is appropriate to relocate the street lights situated along Cooper Avenue. Jay Hammond has commented that the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission very purposefully located the street lights around town to create a pattern in which the lights would "line up". We would anticipate that upon further consideration, those responsible would continue to support the present locations of the street lights. Issue 7: Easements/Condominiumization Easements will be shown on the final plat for any utility features that are of a public nature or serve other properties (such as the switch gear and the transformer, if one is required). Easements are not typically provided for private water and sewer service lines. An easement will be granted for an improved bus stop along East Cooper Avenue. The proposed service plan already anticipates the possibility of future condominiumization of the project. Issue 8: Meter Locations The electric and gas meters will be located so they are parallel to the alley. The gas meters will moved away from the light wells. Issue 9: Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter The proposed sidewalk along Spring Street is designed to preserve the existing trees along this street frontage. Creation of a landscape buffer and detached sidewalk would cause these trees to be lost. We believe our original design is, therefore, preferable to that suggested by the Engineering Department. We will replace the ramp at the northeast property corner, as requested, and will repair or replace any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, including replacing the two existing driveways with curb and gutter. 2 Issue 10: Excavation to Lot lines The development team concludes that the construction methods proposed represent standard urban construction practices that are typically addressed in detail at the time of building permit. We do not propose any design changes in response to these comments. Issue 11: Mechanical Door to Accessory Dwelling Units The mechanical door connection to the ADU's will be eliminated. Issue 12: Parking Space in Front of Trash Area There is not another location on -site to which we can move either the trash area or the parking space. Therefore, there are three choices available to us. First, since there is no minimum standard for the trash area in the R/MF zone district, the City could determine that it is not necessary for there to be unobstructed access to both trash areas on the site. If this is not acceptable, then the City could, via PUD, reduce the parking required for this development. If this is also not acceptable, then we will have no choice but to delete one of the ADU's from the project. Issue 13: Changes to Landscape Plan We will provide sufficient depth to the foundation wall and proper drainage to allow the Aspen trees on the east side of the lot to survive and grow properly. The water line will enter the property from Spring Street, so it will not conflict with the trees. The four proposed spruce trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. The vegetation proposed around the electrical switch gear and in front of the garage entrances will be deleted. The tree proposed near the Spring Street/alley intersection will be relocated. Issue 14: Structural Grass Mat System We have carefully considered the staff comments regarding the structural grass mat system proposed for the driveways. As you know, this "green space" is not required to meet our open space requirements; rather, we felt it was an amenity for the project and for its neighbors. If the staff does not want us to pursue this innovative design, then there are two other options for this area. one would be for the City to direct us to install two snowmelted concrete strips down the center of the driveways, with the rest of the driveway being shade -tolerant grass. The other option would be for the City to direct us to build traditional driveways, but for us to install a band of grass-crete parallel to the alley to create a green edge. I believe the above comments address the major staff concerns with respect to our project. Please let me know if there is anything else you require from us as you complete your review. Thanks! 3 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS SG (970) 925-6727 SCHMUESEn M FAX (970) 925-4157 GORDON MEYER MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services Dave Gibson, Gibson Reno Architects FROM: Jay Hammond, P.E., SGM, Inc., DATE: January 26, 1998 RE: Bell Mountain Lodge Conversion, Utility Issue Meetings P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, CO 81612 As of late last Thursday, I have met with all of the City and utility representatives regarding the issues raised regarding the Bell Mountain Lodge conversion project by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and reflected in Ross Soderstrom's draft merno of January 6, 1998. Based on our site meetings and discussions, I would offer the following responses to the concerns of the DRC: Electrical Switchgear Ross raised a number of concerns about the technical requirements of relocating the electric system switchgear vault at the northwest corner of the property. We met on -site with City Electric Superintendent Bill Early on January 20th to review his concerns. One issue we dealt with at the outset was whether the City even wanted the switchgear relocated as part of the Bell Mountain project. Bill indicated that the City Electric Department does want to take the opportunity of the Bell Mountain redevelopment to relocate the switchgear and vault out of the alley right -of way and onto an easement on the property. Another issue related to the relocation was that of required clearances around the switchgear cabinet. Bill's requirements were that there be 10 feet of clear space adjacent to the cabinet doors (the north and south sides of the cabinet as currently positioned) and four feet from the fixed sides (east and west). In reviewing the site plan we had proposed for the switchgear, it is my position that the switchgear relocation as proposed meets these requirements provided some of the landscape elements near the vault are relocated. While it is necessary to move the switchgear cabinet and related subgrade vault entirely onto the property, there is no reason that the required setback clearance couldn't extend into the rights -of -way on the alley and Spring Street sides. Assigning a 10 foot setback to the north and south sides and a 4 foot setback to the east and west sides of the repositioned cabinet is feasible without modifying the above grade structure design as currently shown. It will be necessary to modify the building footprint below -grade to accommodate the switchgear cabinet relocation as we discussed with architect Dave Gibson this afternoon. From a landscape perspective, the shrubbery shown oil tho oast and west sides of the switchgear cabinet would need to be eliminated and the first tree 118 West 6th, Suite 200 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado • (970) 945-1004 - -- January 26, 1998 Mr. Alan Richman Mr. Dave Gibson Page 2 south of the cabinet moved about 5 feet further south (or eliminated). Logistically, relocating a major switchgear is a difficult task and will require close coordination between the Contractor and the City Electric Department. From our discussions, it May be feasible to relocate the switchgear using the available slack in the cables undor the current cabinet. If there is not sulficionl excess cable, splices may be required which will require more time to accomplish. Bill indicates that he has another switchgear cabinet in his storage yard that could be set up in advance to match the configuration of the switchgear at the Bell Mountain site. This would allow the Contractor to install the subgrade vault and a new switchgear at the relocated position with the current switchgear still in -place and operational. The transition to the new location could then be accomplished quickly and the old switchgear and vault salvaged after the new cabinet is operational. From the standpoint of the project developer, Bill felt that a budget of $15,000.00 should be sufficient to accomplish the switchgear relocation. The City would anticipate providing the replacement switchgear cabinet and vault anticipating that the old gear and vault would be salvaged and returned to their inventory. The City staff would also provide their manpower for changing over the cable connections as well as rerouting power feeds to accommodate the downtime associated with the work. 2. Electrical Transformer Ross and Bill both noted that a new transformer (independent of the switchgear) may be required to serve the electrical demands of the Bell Mountain project. It is also possible that one of the transformers already in place across the alley at the Benedict Commons property has the capacity to handle the additional load if the transformer core were changed out to a higher capacity. If that proves to be the case, a new transformer on the Bell Mountain property would not be needed. From our meeting today we determined that if a new transformer is required, it could be located on the northwest side of the property south of the relocated switchgear cabinet (beyond the 10 foot clearance requirement). From my conversation with Bill Early, a new transformer for the property could run between $5,000 and $10,000 depending on whether 3-phase power is required. 3. Electric Meters Bill Early indicated that it would be acceptable to gang the electric meters together at one location on each of the three above -grade structures. Our revision of the site plan will indicate the electric meters in a location where they are parallel to the alley permitting easy reading by Electric Department personnel. 4. Water Service I met yesterday afternoon with Phil Overeynder regarding the location and configuration of the water service into the building. As you know (based on prior comments by previous Water Superintendent Larry Ballenger) we had shown a single water servico line from the 14 it ich diameter water malt i III Cuuliei Aver lue. Uased ui i issues related to the location of the Cooper Avenue service line relative to the subgrade structure and light wells, Phil agrees that it makes sense to revise the water service SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. January 26, 1998 Mr. Alan Richman Mr. Dave Gibson Page 3 location to come off the 12 inch diameter main in Spring Street into the northwest (rather than northeast) corner of the building. Our proposal would be to enter the west side of the structure on an alignment south of the relocated switchgear and place the master backflow preventer and individual shutoffs and meters for all units in the mechanical space in the northwest corner. This location would still incorporate a manhole access in the driveway entry off the alley for direct access into the mechanical space by Water Department personnel if necessary. This manhole location is in a virtually flat driveway area which should respond to Ross's concern about having a manhole in a steeper driveway location. Phil indicates that their preference would be to acquire access to the mechanical space, if needed, from within the structure through the lower level basement or units. He views the manhole access as a secondary access option and feels that it is acceptable as such. This location is also in an area where there is less room for a car to park over the manhole and obstruct its use. It is also relevant to note that at -grade parking on the garage entries for the freemarket units off the alley is not proposed nor necessary to meet the parking requirements of the units (which is not to say it couldn't happen). Again, as a secondary access option, Phil was less concerned about a parked car blocking the manhole. He also stressed that the below -grade mechanical space must have alternate access and sufficient ventilation to avoid classification as a confined space. 5. Sanitary Sewer Service I spoke with Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) Superintendent Tom Bracewell earlier this week regarding the sewer service configuration for the Bell Mountain project. Tom indicated that, in an effort to minimize disruption to the alley and the many utilities located therein, they would prefer to see one service line per building (for the three "above -grade" structures) rather than the one line per unit originally proposed. Due to the relatively shallow nature of the main in the alley and the proposed below -grade occupied space in each building, a sump pump system for each building will be required to lift flows to the sewer main. Combining sewer service to one location for each building will require that there be common access to the sump location in the event of a problem. By the same token, it will reduce the number of sump systems required to achieve service for each below -grade unit individually. Based on my current understanding of the proposed configuration and depth of the mechanical spaces adjacent to the alley, it should be feasible to locate the combined sump in the mechanical space where it could be accessed by the maintenance staff without going through an individual unit. As a combined sump for each building, I would recommend a duplex pump arrangement to maximize reliability. I would also recommend routing the sewage from all of the above -grade units to the sewer by a gravity line with only the below -grade units routing through the sump system pumping into the gravity service through a check valve. In this manner, wear and tear on the sump system is minimized and a problem with the sump system would effect only the below- grado units. To the extent that interior garage level drains will be routed to the sanitary sewer, sand HMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. January 26, 1998 Mr. Alan Richman Mr. Dave Gibson Page 4 and oil interceptors will be required. Exterior trench drains at the garage entries shall be routed to the drywell system. 6. Gas Meters Gas meters are being relocated on the site utility plan to place them further from the proposed light wells. 7. Condominiumization The intent of the project design is to service each unit individually with the exception of sewer collection which will be through a common service. Tile Condominium Map will identify general and limited common elements as required. 8. Easements Easements will be indicated on the Condominium Map for those utility features that will be of a public nature or may serve other area properties. The relocated electric switchgear and a new electric transformer (if required) would be located on easements since they do or could serve other area properties and must remain accessible to the City Electric Department personnel. The water service, which serves only this development, would not require and easement within the property. 9. Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Repair and Replacement Ross's comments about replacing curb and gutter where the curb cuts are being eliminated are acceptable and reflect the intent of the site plan. We would defer to the Landscape Architect regarding his recommendations on sidewalk dimensions and placement and whether that would impact existing trees that were to be saved. 10. Parking I will confer with Dave Gibson regarding Ross's comments on the parking design. We were not involved in the proposal for grass pavers so we'll need to have the architects provide further information to the City. 11. Lateral Support of Adjacent Properties This item is perhaps best addressed by a prospective General Contractor or a Subcontractor handling shoring design and construction. Tom Bracewell has expressed concern over any drilled tieback system extending into the alley because apparently their sewer line was damaged by such work during the Benedict Commons project. During our meeting on January 20th, Ross indicated that the City probably would not be receptive to any significant overdig on the alley frontage due to the large number of buried utilities in that area. I think he felt that tieback systems associated with shoring work may be acceptable to the City subject to careful coordination with utility locations and depths. I would note that the sewer main is the significant concern as the only utility likely to be at depths where tieback work may need to occur. The sewer line should also be relatively easy to check for location and depth in that it can be accessed via the manholes at both ends of the alley. 12. Street Lights I would offer one comment regarding Ross's recommendation to relocate the light posts along the project frontage. It is appropriate to bear in mind that the placement of the street lights in the downtown core reflects a "pallern" oil each sheet. When viewed from the end of each street where the lights were installed, the lights will "line up" and represent an overall pattern in two dimensions. Moving individual light SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. January 26, 1998 Mr. Alan Richman Mr. Dave Gibson Page 5 poles, while probably benefitting the sidewalk use as noted in Ross's comment, may impact the alignment pattern which was important to the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission when the lights were installed back in the 1980's. 13. Site Drainage Ross is recommending that additional drywells be installed to contain any overflow from the drywell system proposed in the site plan rather than discharging such overflow to the street as is typically done. My response to this recommendation is that we are proposing an on -site drainage detention system that already meets or exceeds the requirements of the City of Aspen's Municipal Code to "..maintain the historical rate of runoff for the one -hundred -year storm from the undeveloped site." In theory it is fair to say that the undeveloped site, subjected to a 100-year storm event, would have discharged some water in a downslope direction even after surface absorption occurred. It is also fair to say that virtually any on -site detention design incorporating drywells for storage could overflow if subjected to a storm event beyond that for which it was designed. A system designed for a 100-year event will overflow if subjected to a 200-year or 500-year frequency event. A system designed for a 500-year frequency event will overflow if subjected to a 1,000-year event. This dilemma continues ad-infinitum. The Aspen Municipal Code, consistent with most engineering practice regarding drainage, requires a design to the 100-year level. The code therefore indirectly acknowledges that storm events beyond the 100-year frequency will result in additional impacts to the common storm drain system (a storm beyond the 100-year event would likely cause drainage problems throughout town that would dwarf any problem specific to the Bell Mountain Lodge site). Our position is that the drainage design for the Bell Mountain Lodge conversion project meets or exceeds the requirements of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and that additional drywells or expense to the developer is neither necessary nor appropriate. Call me if you have questions or further comments. Milh 9MAR1 cc: Robin Kiernan SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. rxh�bil- ►� RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR, A CHANGE IN USE GMQS EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR FIVE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THREE RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATIONS GRANTED THROUGH THE SMALL LODGE LOTTERY FOR THE BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND SUBDIVISION REQUESTS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SPRING STREET AND COOPER AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P AND Q, BLOCK 105, TOWN OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Resolution 98-y WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application from the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, for a Change In Use GMQS Exemption; Conditional Use Review for five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units; a six (6) month extension of three residential allocations granted through the 1996 small lodge lottery process; Variances to the "Building Elements" and "Volume" provisions of the residential Design Standards; Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) including requests for variances to the height limit and the minimum open space requirement; and, Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.100.050(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the change in use of an existing structure previously zoned LP to residential use can be exempted from the growth management competition and scoring procedures by the Planning and Zoning Commission; also pursuant to Section 26.100.050(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code, an extension of allocations granted through the small lodge lottery process can only be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission; pursuant to Section 26.60.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Conditional Uses may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; pursuant to Section 26.58.020(B) of the Municipal Code, variances to the provisions of the Residential Design Standards can be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding requests for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, including certain variances to dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district; and pursuant to Section 26.88.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding requests for Subdivision approval; and, WHEREAS, the Housing Office, City Engineering, Parks Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Environmental Health Department and Community Development Department reviewed the proposals and recommended approval of each with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the above referenced application was legally noticed for a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during the public hearing at a continued meeting on February 17, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a 6-0 vote the change in use GMQS exemption with a condition, and by a 54 vote the Conditional Uses with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing at a continued meeting on February 17, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 6-0 vote of both the request for Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a variance to the minimum open space requirement and Subdivision. 11111111111111111111111111111111 HIM 1111111111111111 414434 03/11/1998 02:55P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO NOW, THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED by the Commission: A. Change In Use GMQS Exemption: That the Change In Use GMQS Exemption for the conversion of the Bell Mountain Lodge to seven (7) free market townhomes (Bell Mountain Townhomes) is approved with the condition that only those portions for which allocations already exist (three units) could be issued building permits upon approval, while development of the remaining portions (four units) cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. B. Six (6) Month Extension of Small Lodge Lottery Allocations: That based on a good faith effort on the part of the applicant to file an application, a six (6) month extension of the 1996 Small Lodge Lottery Residential Allocation for three (3) residential units with twelve (12) bedrooms is granted, thereby moving the deadline for obtaining building permits from May 5, 1998 to November 5, 1998. C. Conditional Use: That the Conditional Use for Five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the Residential Multi -Family (RMF) zone district, at Bell Mountain Townhomes is approved with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: a. Verify with the Housing Office that the allowable floor area of each Accessory Dwelling Unit contains between 300 and 700 square feet; b. Verify with the Housing Office that each ADU will contain a kitchen having a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer; c. Provide the Housing Office with five (one for each unit) signed and recorded Deed Restrictions, copies of which must be obtained from the Housing Office; d. Clearly identify each of the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) on building permit plans as separate one -bedroom units with private entrances/exits, and no other rooms (i.e., mechanical rooms) that need to be accessible to individuals in the principal residences; e. Provide a minimum of one off-street parking space for each ADU (five total); these spaces shall be shown on the final plans. There shall not be any trash receptacles/enclosures located on or behind any of the parking pads; and, f. Verify that the proposed plans for each of the ADUs will comply with both the UBC requirements for natural light and the 1994 UBC Sound Transmission Control guidelines. 2. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval; and, 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 4. The applicant shall provide roof overhangs or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairways leading to the doors and the areas in front of the doors to each of the ADUs; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairways is also required. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. D. Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision: That a recommendation to approve the Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision requests, is forwarded to the City Council. That is, the Commission recommends to Council that the Bell Mountain Townhomes requests for both Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development, including the request for a variance from the minimum open space requirement, and Subdivision be approved by the City Council with the following conditions: 1. Of the proposed plans, only those portions for which allocations already exist (three units) could be issued building permits upon approval, while development of the remaining portions (four units) I IIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 414434 03/11/1998 02:55P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. 2. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 3. A manholes shall be placed in the westernmost driveway in order to provide access to the mechanical spaces lying beneath the driveways. Oil and sand separators are required for the "slot drains" that are shown for each of the seven garage entries. Clear water connections such as foundation, roof and surface run-off drains are prohibited from the public wastewater system. The applicant shall contribute funds to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to help address an existing downstream constraint in the collection system. A tap permit must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Utility meters and service connection points must be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and must not be obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or vegetation. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not located within the public rights -of - way. 5. The cost of relocating, re -wiring and energizing the electrical switch gear shall be borne by the developer. 6. Trash and recycling containers shall be located such that haulers have unobstructed, easy access for pick up and such that the containers and their enclosures do not encroach into the public rights -of - way. 7. The subdivision plat shall include easements for the relocated switch gear and all the vaults, pedestals and above and below ground appurtenances for these utility structures. 8. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 9. A snow removal and storage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. An easement for the placement of a bus stop bench shall be granted along the East Cooper Avenue right-of-way, and said easement shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat. 11. As determined necessary by the City Engineering Department, the existing sidewalks, curbs and gutters shall be repaired or replaced to meet the sidewalk standards before issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project. Any improvements or areas disturbed during construction will be restored to existing condition or better. The existing driveway curb cuts onto South Spring Street and East Cooper Avenue shall be replaced with curb and gutter matching the existing profile. 12. A concrete apron with design standards acceptable to the City Engineer shall be constructed at the westerly end of the alley although the alley itself shall not be paved. "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs shall be installed by the developer at each end of the alley in a manner that will not inhibit routine maintenance of the alley but will ensure visibility to vehicles before crossing the sidewalks when exiting the alley. 13. The existing fence along the East Cooper Avenue frontage shall be either removed from the right-of- way or relocated to within the property boundaries. 14. If existing street lights are disturbed or damaged during construction, they shall be replaced in kind and in alignment with the other street lights along the subject street. 15. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 12% where meeting a public right-of-way. 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering and Parks Departments with detailed information regarding the feasibility and functionality of the proposed structural grass mat system intended for use on the driveways. 17. Excavation and stabilization plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIII III IIIIIII III IIIII IN IN 414434 03/11/1998 02:93P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 5 R 26.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit a traffic and parking plan acceptable to the City Engineer, Parking and Transportation Departments, Streets Department, and Utilities Department. The plan shall describe traffic detouring, parking, and staging areas for the several stages of construction of the project. The developer shall be required to rent on -street parking spaces if, due to the construction activities, any such spaces will be temporarily impacted or unusable for public parking. These plans and permits will also need to be coordinated with the Rights -of -Way permit for the utility and street frontage work. 19. Kior to the issuance of any building permits, the developer shall obtain a Fugitive Dust Control Permit and provide an Erosion and Construction Drainage Plan. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan must include, as a minimum, plans for fencing, watering of roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property lines or causing a nuisance; applications may be obtained from the Environmental Health Department and an approved plan is required before any building permits can be issued. 20. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general common elements and limited common elements shall be clearly labeled, dimensioned and identified on a condominium plat to be recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site development. Said condominium plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the completed project. 21. The property owner(s) is required to join any future improvement district(s) formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrent with the recording of the subdivision plat. 22. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit as - built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements. 23. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of - way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 24. As part of the building permit application, the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department. Wood burning fireplaces and heating devices that utilize coal as a fuel are prohibited. 25. Prior to obtaining a building or demolition permit, the applicant must have the existing building tested for asbestos, and if any is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement firm. It is recommended that testing be done well ahead of time so that, if removal is required, delays will not be experienced. 27. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 27. The developer shall provide sufficient depth to the foundation wall and proper drainage to allow the Aspen trees on the east side of the lot to survive and grow properly. The water line will enter the property from Spring Street so as not to conflict with the trees. The four proposed spruce trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. There shall be no vegetation within ten (10) feet of the electrical switch gear or in front of the garage entrances. The tree proposed near the Spring Street/alley intersection shall be relocated to a site that is acceptable to both the City Engineer and the Parks Department. 28. The applicant shall donate to the City those evergreen trees that must be removed from the site, and the applicant shall work with the City toward identifying a location within the City to which said I 1111111111111111 A114434 03/11/1998 02:55P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 4 of 5 R 2e.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO trees can be moved. Once a location(s) is found, the applicant will pay the costs associated with the relocation(s). 29. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s); 30. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a minimum open space requirement of 33%; this represents a variance allowing for two (2%) percent less open space than the minimum allowable open space in the RMF zone district. 31. All outdoor lighting within the PUD will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to an entry pedestal for each unit, low bollards along the walkways, and porch lights. Down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures shall be used for screening of all outdoor lighting sources, and those fixtures set along the walkways will be set at no more than twelve (12) inches above finished grade. 32. Prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units, the applicant shall pay a cash fee in lieu of School Land Dedication to the City of Aspen. 33. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. APPROVED by the Commission at its continued meeting on February 17, 1998. Attest: Pie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: -"_=L1' Sid Hoefer, Assistant Civy Attorney IIIIII Hill IIIIII IIIIII till III IIIIIII III IIIII lill IN 414434 03/12/2998 02:55P RESOLITI DAVIS SILVI 5 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Planning and Zoning Commission: Sara Garton, Chairperson W_ EXHIBIT E Staff Review of Bell Mountain Townhomes Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application In early 1997, the subject property was rezoned by the City and a mandatory PUD designation was applied. Therefore, any development of the property must first obtain PUD approval. Pursuant to Section 26.84.030(C)(3) of the Land Use Code, the applicant has requested that conceptual and final PUD reviews be consolidated for this application. The Deputy Planning Director concurred that consolidated PUD review would be acceptable and appropriate for this proposal. The review criteria for Planned Unit Development applications and staff s evaluation of the application relative to them are provided below. ]a The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: One of the AACP's recommended actions was to convene a forum to address the economic problems experienced by small lodge owners. This forum resulted in City Council's adoption of Ordinance 29, Series of 1996, which provided recognition of the need for some small lodges to expand by adding rooms. It was also recognized that other small lodges might be better suited to a change of use and redevelopment. The Bell Mountain Lodge is an example of a lodge that is better suited to a change of use and redevelopment, as it is a forty year old building that has reached the end of its economic life. Largely due to its location, the proposal is consistent with a major theme of the AACP that calls for the ability for residents to walk or use mass transit to move around town, thereby reducing day-to-day dependence upon the automobile. The proposal includes the development of five voluntary ADUs, and one of the stated themes of the AACP with regard to "revitalizing the permanent community" is to "increase resident housing." To that end, the proposal is consistent with the following purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the AACP: • "Promote, market and implement Cottage Infill and Accessory Dwelling Unit programs;" • "Develop small scale resident housing which fits the character of the community and is interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area and up valley of Aspen Village;" and, • "The public and private sectors together should develop . . . employee -occupied accessory dwelling units, to achieve the identified unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents." 1 b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: The site in question is located on the northeast corner of Spring Street and Cooper Avenue at the eastern edge of Aspen's commercial core. Surrounding structures include the Buckhom Lodge (lodge with ground -floor commercial) to the east; the Chateau Aspen (another lodge) to the west; the Aspen Square building (condominiums and lodge units with ground -floor commercial) to the southwest; City Market and the Durant Mall to the south (commercial); the Hannah Dustin building (offices) and an A -frame structure (office) to the north; and the Benedict Commons (affordable housing/residential) to the northeast. - Thus, the surrounding area is made up of a diverse mix of uses including lodges, commercial, residential (multi -family) and offices. E-1 EXHIBIT E The wide range of uses described above reflects the nature of the zoning in the area. Immediately to the east of the subject property, the zoning changes from commercial to multi -family residential. Therefore, it is fair to say that the proposed development of the Bell Mountain Lodge site represents an opportunity to transition from the adjacent C-1, commercial district (to the west) to quieter residential areas (to the east). Staff concludes that the proposed use (multi -family residential) and its proposed design are compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood. 1 c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: Staff does not anticipate any adverse affects to the surrounding neighborhood to occur as the result of the redevelopment of the Bell Mountain Lodge site. Rather, it is expected that the proposed redevelopment would have positive affects on the potential for future re/development of the surrounding area. For instance, the two existing curb cuts on the property would be removed, having a positive impact on traffic flow in the surrounding area, and new sidewalks, curb and gutter would be installed. In addition, the utility pedestals and trash facilities that encroach into the alley would be moved onto the subject site, out of the public right-of-way. Also, the applicant would contribute funds to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) to help address an existing downstream constraint in the collection system. Lastly, any utility upgrades completed by the applicant would serve to aid in the re/development of the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to the ongoing Independence Pass Plaza (IPP) considerations, the applicant maintains that approval of the Bell Mountain Townhomes application would not adversely affect its development potential. IPP is projected to include at least seven free market residential units and, instead of scattering these units throughout the IPP project, they would be located on the Bell Mountain side of the property. That is, as currently contemplated, the IPP development would contain up to a maximum of 25,000 square feet of free market residential floor area, and the Bell Mountain Townhomes application proposes to utilize 20,053 square feet of this floor area, leaving a total of 4,947 square feet of free market residential floor area available for use in the IPP development. Id. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: The proposed conversion of the existing lodge units to dwelling units is exempt from GMQS pursuant to Section 26.100.050(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. However, to accomplish the development as contemplated, the applicant needs a total allocation of seven units, containing a total of fourteen bedrooms. As compared with the existing allocation, this represents an increase of four units, but only two bedrooms. That is, the existing allotments are not enough for the entire proposal. Consequently, staff believes this standard can be met if PUD approval is granted with the condition that only those portions for which allocations already exist (three units) could be issued building permits upon approval, while development of the remaining portions cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. 2. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. E-2 EXHIBIT E RESPONSE: Since ADUs are not considered or counted as units of density, the proposed density is less than that allowed by the underlying RMF zoning. The zone district requires 2,100 square feet of land per two bedroom unit. The proposal includes fourteen bedrooms (seven two -bedroom units), and the zoning requires at least 14,700 (7 X 2,100) square feet of land to accommodate this density. The site has an area of 20,073 square feet. Under the provisions of the RMF zone district, the site can accommodate nine and a half (9.5) two - bedroom units (20,073 - 2,100), or seventeen bedrooms in a seven unit project. Therefore, the proposal is three bedrooms shy of the maximum allowable density allowed in the RMF zone district and complies with this criterion. 3. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: The RMF zone district lists multi -family units as a permitted use and accessory dwelling units as a conditional use. 4. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district; provided, that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); c. Minimum front yard; d. Minimum rear yard; e. Minimum side yard; f. Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash area access; i. Internal floor area ratio; and, j. Minimum percent open space. RESPONSE: To develop the project as proposed, the applicant would require variations to the maximum height and the minimum percent open space. A variation to the maximum height limitation of twenty-five (25') feet has been requested (see Attachment 1) in order to allow a building height of twenty-eight (28') feet, as measured to the 1/3 point along the roof. The code provides that height is measured to this point since the roof has a pitch steeper than 8:12. Also, a variation of two percent to the minimum percent open space (35%) is requested in order to allow a development with 33.4% open space. Staff supports both of these requests for the reasons provided below. Height Variance: While the height of the proposed structure (with or without the variance) will undoubtedly affect someone's views and staff is sympathetic to these concerns, staff finds justification for supporting the height variance request on many accounts. First, in looking at the zoning map, it is evident that the subject site is completely surrounded by zone districts that allow for greater building heights (none of the surrounding parcels are zoned RMF), with the exception of the O, Office zone district to the north. However, the structure immediately to the north (Hannah Dustin building) is zoned Office but has a height of approximately thirty-four (34') feet to the top of its flat roof. To the northeast, the Benedict Commons development is zoned AH-1/PUD and its maximum height was set at thirty (30') feet through the PUD process in order "to make the units more livable and compatible with surrounding buildings." Immediately to the east is the Buckhorn Lodge, which is zoned CL with a maximum permitted height of twenty-eight (28') feet, but thirty-two (32') feet by E-3 EXHIBIT E Special Review. The Durant Mall, across the street to the south, is zoned NC and has a height of approximately forty (40') feet. The Aspen Square building to the southwest is zoned CL but has a height of forty (40') feet. To the west, the Chateau Aspen is zoned C-1 and has a maximum permissible height of forty (40') feet. By comparison, the requested variance would allow the Bell Mountain Townhomes to have a height of twenty-eight (28') feet to the 1/3 point of the roof, while the height to the peak of the roof would be thirty-nine (39') feet. The proposed height of the Bell Mountain Townhomes is lower than that of several surrounding structures and is compatible with what could be expected upon redevelopment of the Buckhorn and City Market properties. Next, the applicant has provided "Alternate Elevations" (see Attachment 1) to illustrate the effects of complying with the twenty-five (25') foot height limitation. The alternate elevations illustrate that in order to comply with the height limit, it would be necessary to sink the building further into the ground, resulting in the following: • The slope of the driveways off the alley would increase from a grade of approximately 10% to approximately 24%; • The front entrances to the units would be stepped down from the street, instead of being stepped up with a covered front stoop, as currently proposed. This would detract from the character of the design and from the perceived street presence of the buildings; and, • The lower spaces would be unable to achieve as much natural light gain, making the ADUs much less desirable living spaces. Lastly, staff agrees with the notion that the twenty-eight foot height would comply with the standards requiring that the development be "consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding neighborhood." As explained above, the actual height of surrounding buildings ranges from thirty-four feet (Hannah Dustin) to almost forty-one feet (Aspen Square) to over forty-eight feet at the peak of the Durant Mall. Further, if the Benedict Commons was permitted to build up to thirty feet at the appropriate point along its pitched roofs in order "to make the units more livable and compatible with surrounding buildings," then it would follow that the same would be true for the Bell Mountain Townhomes. Percent Open Space Variance: The RMF zoning requires that a minimum of 35% of the site must remain as open space meeting the definition of "open space" as provided in Section 26.04.100 of the code. As currently proposed, 33.4% of the site would meet the definition of "open space." The applicant has, thus, requested a 2% variance (to 33%) from this requirement in order to accommodate the proposed plan and the possibility of calculation or rounding errors. Again, staff is in support of granting the requested variance for the following reasons. First, the areas located between the property lines and the sidewalks cannot be counted towards open space calculations, but to the viewer/passer-by/user will be indiscernible from and contiguous to the rest of the open areas; if this area were figured into the site, the percentage of open space provided would be 37.6% of the site area. Furthermore, without the area between the property lines and the sidewalks, approximately 55% of the site will appear as open area, but 22% of this does not meet the parameters of the definition. In summary, staff believes that a variance from 35% to 33% would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD as the variance would be completely indiscernible to the viewer/user. 5. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on ... [six enumerated] considerations. E-4 EXHIBIT E RESPONSE: The applicant is not requesting any variation from the number of required off- street parking spaces. Nineteen spaces are required, and nineteen spaces are proposed. 6. The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed planned unit development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "response" to standard 4, above. 7. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. RESPONSE: A detailed landscape plan has been prepared by Kiernan Design Studio as part of the application (see Attachment 1). Also, please refer to the Parks Department's memorandum included with Exhibit 13, as well as the applicant's responses to that referral memo (Exhibit Q. The submitted landscape plan identifies each of the site's existing trees that will be preserved. The landscape plan provides for generous plantings including a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs, perennials and other groundcovers, and ornamentals. The species selected are considered to be appropriate for the Aspen area climate. The landscape plan commits to the planting of twenty-seven (27) new trees, providing more than 100 caliper inches of replacement trees on -site, which will more than compensate for the trees that must be removed. The plan includes concentrations of plantings along the street frontages as well as formally spaced street tree plantings which, together, will greatly aid in enhancing the pedestrian experience, and softening the views and street presence of the structures. While not identical, there is a definite symmetry to the plantings proposed in front of the two triplexes. As noted in Exhibit C, a few minor changes will be made to the landscape plan in response to concerns put forth in the referral memorandum from the Parks Department (included as part of Exhibit B), including replacement of the proposed spruce trees with deciduous trees, elimination of the vegetation proposed around the electrical switch gear and in front of the garage entrances, and relocation of the tree proposed near the Spring Street/alley intersection. In addition, on page 30 of the written application (part of Attachment 1), the applicant has committed to donating to the City those evergreen trees that must be removed from the site. The applicant states a willingness to work with the City toward identifying a location within the City to which these trees can be moved. Once a location is found, the applicant has committed to paying the costs of the relocation. 8. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the city. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is E-5 EXHIBIT E based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. RESPONSE: The application package includes a site plan as well as architectural elevations (see Attachment 1). While variances to two (2) of the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 are needed, staff is comfortable with both the designs and the level of architectural consistency in the proposed development. The structures have been designed to be compatible with one another, but not identical or repetitive. The triplexes have been broken into primary and secondary masses by varying their textures and wall planes, and by employing dormers to vary the roof forms. One building has been given a "western" look, with exposed timbers and trusses, while the other attempts to capture a "cottage" feel, with shingles and arched openings. In general, the designs are of a contemporary nature yet compatible with each other and the visual character of the city. They use peaked roofs and gable forms, provide windows, decks and covered stoops, and use materials appropriate to the alpine environment, such as stone, wood, stucco, timber and shingles. In staff s estimation, the proposed designs would be successful in creating an appropriate transition from the density and intensity of the commercial core to the multi -family residential areas to the east. This transition results from the combination of the proposed uses, density and forms. While helping to ease the above described transition, the proposed development would be compatible with surrounding developments in use and proportions. In addition, by providing a build -to line along the street frontage, the buildings would be located sufficiently back from Cooper Avenue to ensure the ability to preserve many of the mature trees on the site and provide plantings which would effectively buffer the pedestrian spaces from the buildings. The build -to line also provides for adequate room at the rear of the property to locate the garages and enclosed trash areas on the alley. 9. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. RESPONSE: The applicant has committed to meet this criterion. Specifically, page 31 of the written application booklet, included in Attachment 1, states that "Lighting will be kept to the minimum necessary for the safety of occupants and will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Lighting will consist of an entry pedestal light for each unit, low bollards along the walkways, and porch lights. Down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures will be used." Staff is satisfied with this commitment, and would include it as a condition of approval. 10. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. RESPONSE: It is staff s opinion that this criterion does not presuppose sites of just 20,073 square feet. Staff does not feel that "clustering" would be appropriate for downtown sites, where there are not valuable open spaces or other environmental resources to be preserved. Rather, this criterion would be appropriately applied to the development of undeveloped acreages on the periphery of the city. IL The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is E-6 EXHIBIT E constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. RESPONSE: According to the City Engineering Department (see Exhibit B), there is sufficient capacity in the distribution and collection systems for the proposed development, and no significant upgrades or changes will be required in the systems of the several utility providers, with the exception of relocating the electrical switch gear. The relocation of the electrical switch gear will be carried out at the applicant's expense and in conjunction with the City of Aspen Electric Department. While the memorandum from the Engineering Department expressed some concerns, subsequent meetings between the applicant's engineer, city staff and representatives of the utility providers have allayed these concerns sufficiently to make the City Engineering Department comfortable with the proposal's revised utility plans. In general, public facilities are already in place to serve the existing structure, and no new facilities are expected to be required. The costs of any necessary upgrades to existing systems and facilities will be borne by the applicant. The buildings have been arranged in a manner that would permit access by emergency fire or medical vehicles, with emergency access available from Cooper Street, Spring Street or the alley. The longest distance to any portion of the proposed structures from an emergency vehicle on any of these public rights - of -way would be approximately fifty (50') feet. 12a.Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. RESPONSE: Vehicular access to each dwelling unit is provided from the public alley of Block 105. Pedestrian access is provided from both Cooper Avenue and Spring Street. 12b.Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the planned unit development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. RESPONSE: Vehicular access to the development would be gained via the alley. This allows for the removing of the property's two existing curb cuts, one along Cooper Avenue and the other along Spring Street. Since vehicular traffic would be routed to the alley, the applicant has offered to place "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs at each end of the alley. These signs would be strategically placed such that they would be seen by drivers before crossing the sidewalks when entering or exiting the alley. The applicant would also improve the alley by moving the existing utility pedestals and electrical switch gear from their current locations, which encroach into the alley right-of-way, onto the Bell Mountain property with appropriate easements. There are no minor streets within the PUD. 12c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. E-7 EXHIBIT E RESPONSE: The referral memorandum from the Environmental Health Department (see Exhibit B) states that, based on standard ITE manual trip generation rates, the current use of the site generates an average of 193 vehicle trips per day, while the proposed development would result in an average of 100 vehicle trips per day. Therefore the change in use is expected to reduce traffic generated by the site by over 48%. In addition, traffic flows around the site will be enhanced by the removal of two existing curb cuts (see response to 12b, above). The removal of these curb cuts will, in effect, increase the amount of available on -street parking on Cooper Avenue and Spring Street. Furthermore, the development would accommodate 100% of its parking needs on -site, as compared with the present situation where a 21 room lodge provides only 10 conforming spaces. 12d.Every residential building shall be not farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: As proposed, the development would comply with this standard. 12e.All nonresidential land uses within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. RESPONSE: There are no nonresidential uses proposed within this PUD. 12f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. RESPONSE: There are no streets proposed within this PUD. E-8 EXHIBIT F Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Subdivision Application Pursuant to state and local definitions and Chapter 26.88 of the Municipal Code, land which is divided into two or more interests for purposes of transfer of ownership and/or development is, by definition, a subdivision and, as such, is subject to the City's review and approval. This development includes the development of a multi -family structure/project. As the applicant proposes to create a seven unit multi -family structure, subdivision review in accordance with Section 26.88.040(C) is required. The various review criteria and staff s analysis of the proposal's compliance therewith, are summarized below. la. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the AACP. For a complete explanation of this finding, please refer to Exhibit E, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes PUD Application, specifically standard number "la." lb. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. For a complete explanation of this finding, please refer to Exhibit E, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes PUD Application, specifically standard number "1 b." Ic. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF RESPONSE: Compliance with this standard is also required in connection with PUD review. Staff finds that the proposal will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. For a complete explanation of this finding, please refer to Exhibit E, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Consolidate Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application, specifically standard "lc." Id. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title. STAFF RESPONSE: The proposed subdivision will comply with all applicable requirements of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. 2a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF RESPONSE: The site of the proposed development does not contain lands unsuitable for development, nor is it affected by any natural hazard areas. The application package (Attachment 1) includes a soil study which demonstrates that the subsurface conditions of the site are suitable for development. F-1 EXHIBIT F 2b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF RESPONSE: No governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary public costs would occur as a result of the provision of public services to the proposed development. All required utilities are currently available in the immediate site area. For more information related to this criterion, please refer to the staff response to criterion number eleven (11) of Exhibit E. 314. Required Improvements/Design Standards, respectively. RESPONSE: In addition to compliance with the preceding review criteria, the subdivision regulations also require that various improvements be provided in connection with the proposed development, and that specific engineering design standards be adhered to. The applicant is not proposing any variances from these standards, and their compliance with said standards will be reviewed by the Engineering Department and the various utility providers. 5. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System. RESPONSE: This standard requires that affordable housing be provided in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System. The standard in Chapter 26.100 that applies to the Bell Mountain Townhomes application is located at Section 26.100.050(D)(2)(a)((1)), and reads as follows: "The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional employees generated by the change in use or expansion. This shall include and analysis and credit for existing employee housing and the incremental impact between the existing use and the proposed conversion." The required analysis of the incremental impact between the existing use and the proposed conversion has been conducted, and the Planning and Zoning Commission determined at a public hearing that the proposed change in use resulted in a net decrease in employee generation (see Resolution 98-3, attached as Exhibit D). A summary of this analysis and the rationale behind the Commission's decision is provided in the ensuing paragraphs. On pages 14-15 of the written application booklet (Attachment 1), the applicant makes a strong case that no employee housing mitigation is required. The memo from the Housing Department (attached as part of Exhibit B) states that "the calculation that the applicant used to decide if any additional employee mitigation was required is appropriate ... Therefore, this conversion would not require any additional employee mitigation." The Application Packet prepared by staff, as directed by Section 9 of Ordinance 29, Series of 1996, provides the following conversion factors/equivalences between lodge units and free market residences for purposes of determining employee generation and mitigation: 1.7 Lodge Units = 1 Bedroom/Studio Residence 2.1 Lodge Units = 2 Bedroom Residence 2.5 Lodge Units = 3 Bedroom Residence 2.9 Lodge Units = 4 Bedroom Residence 3.3 Lodge Units = 5 Bedroom Residence F-2 EXHIBIT F Based on these equivalences, the nineteen (19) lodge units of the Bell Mountain Lodge would have an equivalent impact to nine (9) two bedroom dwelling units (19 lodge units 2.1 lodge units per two -bedroom residence = 9.0 two -bedroom residential units). Since the applicant is proposing only seven (7) two bedroom units, this formula indicates that the proposed conversion would result in a net decrease in the demand for affordable housing. In reviewing two prior small lodge change in use applications, staff and the Commission found that the conversion of a 29 unit lodge to 6 residential units (Brass Bed), and the conversion of a 20 unit lodge and restaurant to 4 residential units (Fireside Lodge) represented a "significant reduction" in the requirement for affordable housing. In reviewing these conversions, the above described methodology was used to evaluate the impacts on the community, stating that 2.5 lodge units have an equivalent impact to a three bedroom residence, while 3.3 lodge units have an equivalent impact to a five bedroom residence. 6. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. RESPONSE: This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. As the property in question contains only 20,073 square feet of land and is located in downtown Aspen, the dedication of land would not be appropriate and the payment of cash -in -lieu represents a more fitting option. Based on the formula for determining per unit fees, as stipulated in Section 26.88.040(C)(6) of the Land Use Code, the market value of the unimproved site must first be determined. According to the most current records of the Pitkin County Assessor, the market value of the subject property (exclusive of improvements) is $2 million. To calculate the cash payment due to each unit, it is necessary to establish the proportionate share of the value of the property attributable to each unit. Since the seven proposed units would each contain two bedrooms, each unit is assigned a 1/7 share of the total value ($2,000,000 - 7 = $285,714.29). Consequently, the cash -in -lieu formula per unit is as follows: $285,714.29 X 0.0095 X 0.33 = $895.71 per unit Where, pursuant to Section 26.88.040(C)(6)(c)((1)), 0.0095 equals the applicable land dedication standard for two -bedroom units, and the 0.33 figure is factored in since "because of the cost of subdivided land in the City of Aspen, the School District and Aspen have decided to require payment of a cash -in -lieu amount which is less than the full market value of the land area." The applicant has agreed to make this payment prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units. Staff recommends inclusion of this requirement as a condition of approval. F-3 DENVER •ASPEN BOULDER • COLORADO SPRINGS DENVER TECH CENTER BILLINGS • BOISE CHEYENNE•JACKSON HOLE SALT LAKE CITY VIA HAND DELIVERY John Worcester, Esq. Aspen City Attorney 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear John: HOLLAND & HART ux ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3200 555 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202-3979 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 8749 DENVER, COLORADO 80201-8749 April 3, 1998 Re: Bell Mountain Townhome Appeal Rights TELEPHONE (303) 295.8000 FACSIMILE (303) 295-8261 HARRY SHULMAN 970.925.3476 hahulman®hollandhaA.00m Bell Mountain LLc ("Bell Mountain") was scheduled to go before the Design Review Appeal Board on March 12, to appeal staffs finding that Bell Mountain's townhome land use application was -inconsistent with two provisions in the Residential Design Guidelines. Immediately prior to that appearance, Mitch Haas removed Bell Mountain from the Design Review Appeal Board agenda, apparently on grounds of advice from you. We have reviewed the applicable code provisions, and do not understand what the basis of such advice could be. We therefore request clarification from you. As far as we can see, there are only two land use provisions which could apply to this issue, and both permit the appeal Bell Mountain seeks. Section 26.58.020 B.1 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations is the first of these, and is particularly clear. It provides: "If an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs finding to the Design Review Appeal Board pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board". Staff found that Bell Mountain's application is inconsistent with two items in the Residential Design Guidelines. Bell Mountain wishes to exercise its right to appeal that finding to the Design Review Appeal Board. Such appeal is clearly and explicitly authorized by Section 26.58.020 B.1. The other applicable code section, 26.58.10 B., states: "All residential development in the City of Aspen requiring a building permit from the City of Aspen, except for residential development in the R-15B zone district, shall comply with the residential design standards as specified in the Administrative Checklist, unless otherwise granted a variance by the Design Review Appeal Board as established in Chapter 26.22, or unless granted a variance through some other required review process by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission." Again, Bell Mountain has elected to seek the variance from the Design Review Appeal Board, as expressly authorized by the ordinance. HOLLAND & KART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW John Worcester, Esq. April 3, 1998 i�'age 2 The only potential basis we can think of for your ruling on the issue is that you want the issue to proceed in only one forum, and you have determined that forum is P&Z. We can understand why you might rule this way. We believe, however, that there are certain facts which you may not have known in deciding how to treat Bell Mountain. First, Bell Mountain did not request to be heard by P&Z. The City unilaterally consolidated the variance issue with Bell Mountain's other applications before P&Z. Second, during the hearing on Bell Mountain's applications, P&Z decided to take no action on the variance issue. This is reflected in Resolution 98-3. Thus, Bell Mountain's variance request was (a) involuntarily consolidated with other matters before P&Z, and (b) then sidestepped. P&Z cannot be the forum for resolving the variance issue when it has expressly determined not to do so. Bell Mountain objects to going back before P&Z on the variance issue, and asserts its right to proceed before the Design Review .appeal Board, in accordance with 26.58.0::0 B.1. Importantly, it cannot be denied that proceeding before the Design Review Appeal Board Bell Mountain's right. There is no provision in the City's Common Development Review Procedures (Chapter 26.52 of the Land Use Regulations) which requires consolidated processing of an application. Throughout Chapter 26.52, the procedures provide that applications "may" be consolidated. If Bell Mountain chooses not to consolidate and to proceed on the variance issue before the Design Review Appeal Board, it is permitted to do so. Bell Mountain made exactly This choice. David Gibson, Bell Mountain's architect, submitted the variance request to Mitch Haas on February 4. In this submission, Mr. Gibson did not request hearing by P&Z. Assignment to P&Z was an administrative decision made by the staff, and not a request by Bell Mountain. Bell Mountain should not be required to proceed in a forum which it did not choose, and which has already indicated it will not decide the variance issue. We therefore request that you issue a written statement as to the basis of the determination to preclude Bell Mountain from appealing staffs inconsistency findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Alternatively, we request that you instruct Mitch Haas to reschedule Bell Mountain on their agenda. Thank you. Very ly yours, Harry Shul an OF Ho & HART LLP CC' Jim Valerio Alan Richman Stan Clauson Mitch Haas Nick McGrath V11%t7 MEMORANDUM TO: The Mayor and Aspen City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner .44k DATE: March 23, 1998 RE: Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision and Vested Property Rights. First Reading of Ordinance -11, Series of 1998. Parcel I.D. No. 2737-182-27-003 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department has received a request involving the demolition of the Bell Mountain Lodge and replacement with seven (7) free market dwelling units, built as two (2) triplexes and one (1) detached unit, along with five (5) attached, sub -grade accessory dwelling units (ADUs). All of the units would be connected below grade, thereby making it a single multi -family structure. The request requires the allocation of four units (but only two bedrooms) of unused small lodge lottery allotments through the change in use process (see "Background" section of this memo, below). The requested Change In Use GMQS Exemption received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission with the condition that "only those portions for which allocations already exist (three units) could be issued building permits upon approval, while development of the remaining portions (four units) cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery," (see Exhibit D, Resolution 98-3). The Commission also approved the Conditional Use Review for five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), with the conditions outlined in Resolution 98-3. The applicant is requesting that the City Council grant final approval to the proposed Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD), including variance requests regarding the height limit and amount of required open space. Community Development Department staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions. Referral comments from Parks, Engineering, Sanitation, Housing, and Environmental Health are attached as Exhibit B. PRIMARY ISSUE: Housing mitigation requirements associated with the Small Lodge Change In Use provisions of the Land Use Code raised an issue for City Council with respect to review of the Fireside Lodge Change In Use application on July 28, 1997. Council characterized the ability to covert a lodge to free market residential units without requiring affordable housing as a "loop -hole." Council directed staff to begin working on closing this loop -hole before further similar applications could be brought forward. The timing of this directive is important in respect to the Bell Mountain Townhomes application. Representatives of the Bell Mountain LLC met with City staff in a pre - application meeting on July 21, 1997, a week before the Fireside review. Subsequent to the pre -application meeting, an application was submitted on August 9, 1997 for the conversion of the Bell Mountain Lodge to free market townhomes. Therefore, given the time and work required to formulate a response that would address Council's issue with respect to housing mitigation, no ordinance could be prepared and introduced in time to affect the Bell Mountain application. The Bell Mountain Townhomes application was "in the process" less than two weeks after the Fireside decision and directive was handed down. (For further assessment of housing mitigation issues related to the Bell Mountain Townhomes application, please refer to standard number 5, and staff s response thereto, of the Subdivision Review which is included on page F-2 of Exhibit F; also refer to pages 14-15 of Attachment 1, the application packet). Staff is preparing a response to Council issues which will be introduced prior to the third and final LP lottery. APPLICANT: Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services. LOCATION: The site is located on the northeast corner of Spring Street and Cooper Avenue in downtown Aspen. Surrounding structures include the Buckhorn Lodge to the east, the Chateau Aspen to the west, the Aspen Square building to the southwest, City Market and the Durant Mall to the south, the Hannah Dustin building and an A -frame structure to the north, and the Benedict Commons to the northeast. ZONING: Residential Multi-Family/Planned Unit Development with a Lodge Preservation Overlay (RMF/PUD with an LP overlay). LOT SIZE: The property contains a gross area of 20,073 square feet. FLOOR AREA: The allowable FAR in the zone district is 1:1 (or 20,073 square feet of floor area). Materials submitted to date indicate that the proposal would contain a total of 20,053 square feet of floor area, as calculated under the provisions of the Land Use Code. BACKGROUND: The Bell Mountain Lodge was one of three properties that submitted applications for development allotments in the initial LP lottery, held in November, 1996. The Bell Mountain Lodge applied for an allocation in the residential lottery for three single- family residences, each to contain four bedrooms (a total of twelve bedrooms), and also applied for an allocation in the commercial lottery for four thousand (4,000) square feet of commercial space. The applicant was successful in obtaining both allocations at that time. Subsequent to receiving the allocations, the property was rezoned by the City as part of the citywide LP rezoning. Pursuant to Ordinance 2, Series of 1997, the property was zoned RMF/PUD, with an LP Overlay. This zoning does not permit the development of the commercial allocation, but it allows the applicant to consider a more dense project than was originally proposed. Consequently, the applicant seeks to develop a total of seven units with fourteen bedrooms. To accomplish this more dense project, the applicant needs a total allocation of seven units, containing a total of fourteen bedrooms. As compared with the initial allocation, this represents an increase of four units, but only two bedrooms. The applicants relied on their reading of the following passage from the Land Use Code (Section 26.100.050(D)(2)(a)) in preparing and submitting their application: "If the total number offree market units or non-residential square footage allowable under underlying zoning are not awarded through the annual change in use process, the last selected lodge can apply for the change in use process for these remaining allocations. Multi year allocations can be awarded if the Commission approves a change in use process for the units that exceed the annual quota, and the following years allocations shall be adjusted accordingly. Any allocations left following all change in use applications shall be returned to the pool for future allocations. " While there are more than enough unused allocations from past lotteries to accommodate the requested increase in density, staff wrestled with determining the proper procedure for applying for these allotments and processing the submitted application. After careful consideration and upon the advice of the City Attorney, it was decided that the unused allotments get returned to the "bucket," and one must wait for the annual small lodge lottery to request allocation of the unused allotments. However, staff further agreed that an application for which some, but not all, of the needed allotments have already been granted can be processed with the caveat that only those portions for which allocations already exist can be given approvals, while the remaining portions could be approved with the condition that the development cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. REVIEW PROCESS: As a Subdivision and consolidated Planned Unit Development application, a two-step process is required with public hearings before, first, the Planning and Zoning Commission and, second, City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in its advisory capacity, recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Subdivision and PUD applications with the conditions enumerated in Resolution 98-3 (see Exhibit D). In recommending approval of the proposed PUD, the Commission supported the requested variance from the open space requirements of the underlying zone district, but made no recommendation with regard to the height variance request. City Council has final authority over the requested variances, and staff recommends granting both variances. For a complete explanation of the variances requested through the PUD process and staff s associated analyses, please refer to pages E-3 and E-4 of Exhibit E, attached hereto. DISCUSSION: The review criteria for Planned Unit Development and Subdivision applications as well as staffs evaluation of the application relative to these criteria are provided in the attached exhibits (Exhibits E and F, respectively). Section 26.84.030(B), Planned Unit Development Review Standards For a complete staff review of each PUD review standard, please refer to Exhibit E, attached hereto. With the conditions outlined in the "Recommendation" section of this memo (below), staff finds that the proposal complies with each of the review standards enumerated in Section 26.84.030(B); therefore, staff recommends approval of the consolidated conceptual/final planned unit development request with conditions. Included in this recommendation, staff is in support of the requested variances to the twenty-five foot height limit and the 35% open space requirement. Section 26.88.040(C), Subdivision Review Standards For a complete staff review of each Subdivision review standard, please refer to Exhibit F, attached hereto. With the conditions outlined in the "Recommendation" section of this memo (below), staff finds that the proposal complies with each of the review standards enumerated in Section 26.88.040(C); therefore, staff recommends approval of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Subdivision request with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Subdivision and Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD), with the following conditions: (Recommended by the Community Development Department specifically for this application:) 1. Of the proposed plans, only those portions for which small lodge lottery allocations already exist (three units) can be issued building permits upon approval and subject to those conditions enumerated below, while development of the remaining portions (four units) cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. If the allocations are obtained through the lottery, they will not be subject to any forthcoming code revisions with respect to the provision of housing mitigation. 2. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a height limit of twenty-eight (28) feet, as measured to the one-third (1/3) point along the roof; this represents a variance allowing for three (3) additional feet of height beyond the maximum allowable height in the RMF zone district. 3. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a minimum open space requirement of 33%; this represents a variance allowing for two (2%) percent less open space than the minimum allowable open space in the RMF zone district. 4. All outdoor lighting within the PUD will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to an entry pedestal for each unit, low bollards along the walkways, and porch lights. Down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures shall be used for screening of all outdoor lighting sources. 5. Prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units, the applicant shall pay a cash fee in lieu of School Land Dedication to the City of Aspen. (Recommended by the Parks Department:) 6. The developer shall provide sufficient depth to the foundation wall and proper drainage to allow the Aspen trees on the east side of the lot to survive and grow properly. The water line will enter the property from Spring Street so as not to conflict with the trees. The four proposed spruce trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. There shall be no vegetation within ten (10) feet of the electrical switch gear or in front of the garage entrances. The tree proposed near the Spring Street/alley intersection shall be relocated to a site that is acceptable to both the City Engineer and the Parks Department. 7. The applicant shall donate to the City those evergreen trees that must be removed from the site, and the applicant shall work with the City toward identifying a location within the City to which said trees can be moved. Once a location(s) is found, the applicant will pay the costs associated with the relocation(s). 8. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s); (Recommended by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District:) 9. A manhole shall be placed in the westernmost driveway in order to provide access to the mechanical spaces lying beneath the driveways. Oil and sand separators are required for the "slot drains" that are shown for each of the seven garage entries. Clear water connections such as foundation, roof and surface run-off drains are prohibited from the public wastewater system. The applicant shall contribute funds to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to help address an existing downstream constraint in the collection system. A tap permit must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4 (Recommended by the Environmental Health Department:) 10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the developer shall obtain a Fugitive Dust Control Permit and provide an Erosion and Construction Drainage Plan. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan must include, as a minimum, plans for fencing, watering of roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property lines or causing a nuisance; applications may be obtained from the Environmental Health Department and an approved plan is required before any building permits can be issued. 11. As part of the building permit application, the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department. Wood burning fireplaces and heating devices that utilize coal as a fuel are prohibited. 12. Prior to obtaining a building or demolition permit, the applicant must have the existing building tested for asbestos, and if any is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement firm. It is recommended that testing be done well ahead of time so that, if removal is required, delays will not be experienced. 13. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Recommended by the Engineering Department specifically for this application:) 14. The cost of relocating, re -wiring and energizing the electrical switch gear shall be borne by the developer. 15. The subdivision plat shall include easements for the relocated switch gear and all the vaults, pedestals and above and below ground appurtenances for these utility structures. 16. An easement for the placement of a bus stop bench shall be granted along the East Cooper Avenue right-of-way, and said easement shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat. 17. As determined necessary by the City Engineering Department, the existing sidewalks, curbs and gutters shall be repaired or replaced to meet the sidewalk standards before issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project. Any improvements or areas disturbed during construction will be restored to existing condition or better. The existing driveway curb cuts onto South Spring Street and East Cooper Avenue shall be replaced with curb and gutter matching the existing profile. 18. A concrete apron with design standards acceptable to the City Engineer shall be constructed at the westerly end of the alley although the alley itself shall not be paved. "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs shall be installed by the developer at each end of the alley in a manner that will not inhibit routine maintenance of the alley but will ensure visibility to vehicles before crossing the sidewalks when exiting the alley. 19. The existing fence along the East Cooper Avenue frontage shall be either removed from the right-of-way or relocated to within the property boundaries. 20. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering and Parks Departments with detailed information regarding the feasibility and functionality of the proposed structural grass mat system intended for use on the driveways. (Recommended by the Engineering Department as standard conditions:) 21. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 22. Utility meters and service connection points must be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and must not be obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or vegetation. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not located within the public rights -of -way. 23. Trash and recycling containers shall be located such that haulers have unobstructed, easy access for pick up and such that the containers and their enclosures do not encroach into the public rights -of -way. 24. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 25. A snow removal and storage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 26. If existing street lights are disturbed or damaged during construction, they shall be replaced in kind and in alignment with the other street lights along the subject street. 27. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 12% where meeting a public right-of-way. 28. Excavation and stabilization plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 29. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit a traffic and parking plan acceptable to the City Engineer, Parking and Transportation Departments, Streets Department, and Utilities Department. The plan shall describe traffic detouring, parking, and staging areas for the several stages of construction of the project. The developer shall be required to rent on -street parking spaces if, due to the construction activities, any such spaces will be temporarily impacted or unusable for public parking. These plans and permits will also need to be coordinated with the Rights -of -Way permit for the utility and street frontage work. 30. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general common elements and limited common elements shall be clearly labeled, dimensioned and identified on a condominium plat to be recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site development. Said condominium plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the completed project. 31. The property owner(s) is required to join any future improvement district(s) formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrent with the recording of the subdivision plat. 32. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements. 33. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. (Standard condition for all applications:) 34. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. PROPOSED MOTION: "With the conditions recommended in the Community Development Department staff memorandum dated March 23, 1998, I move to approve the Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Subdivision and Consolidated Planned Unit Development. I also move to grant vested property rights status for a period of three years effective on the date that the applicable ordinance is signed." EXHIBITS: A - Open Space variance requested via PUD process. B - Referral memos from Parks, Engineering, Sanitation, Housing and Environmental Health C - Applicants' responses to referral comments D - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 98-3 E - Staff review of PUD application F - Staff review of Subdivision application ATTACHMENTS: 1 - Submitted application package, including the following: • Written application booklet; and, • Full-size drawings/bluelines. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ORDINANCE No. (SERIES OF 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION AND CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL, INCLUDING A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT AND THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES, 720 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P, AND Q, BLOCK 105, TOWN OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF CKIhl1 ' • 1 13 WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application from the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company (hereafter "Applicant"), for Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) including requests for variances to the height limit and the minimum open space requirement; and, Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, said application also included requests for a Change In Use GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use approval for five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units, and a six (6) month extension to 1996 Small Lodge Lottery residential allocations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding requests for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, including certain variances to dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district; and pursuant to Section 26.88.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding requests for Subdivision approval; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council shall either approve, approve with conditions or deny requests for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, including certain variances to dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district; and pursuant to Section 26.88.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council shall either approve, approve with conditions or deny requests for Subdivision approval; and, WHEREAS, the Housing Office, City Engineering, Parks Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Environmental Health Department and Community Development Department reviewed the proposals and recommended approval of each with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the above referenced application was legally noticed for a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the application, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, to wit, Section 26.84.030 (Planned Unit Development) and Section 26.88.040 (Subdivision Approval), during a public hearing at a continued meeting on February 17, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 6-0 vote of both the request for Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a variance to the minimum open space requirement and Subdivision; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 98-3, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted a Change In Use GMQS Exemption with a condition; a six (6) month extension of 1996 small lodge Ordinance No. -7 , Series of 1998 Page 2 lottery residential allocations for three (3) units with twelve (12) bedrooms; and, Conditional Use approval for five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Bell Mountain Townhomes application under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in Resolution 98-3, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Bell Mountain Townhomes application to be consistent with the minimum requirements and review standards for both Planned Unit Development and Subdivision approval pursuant to Sections 26.84.030 and 26.88.040, respectively, of the Aspen Municipal Code provided the stipulated conditions of approval are met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: The Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Subdivision and Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. Of the proposed plans, only those portions for which small lodge lottery allocations already exist (three units) can be issued building permits upon approval and subject to those conditions enumerated below, while development of the remaining portions (four units) cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. If the allocations are obtained through the lottery, they will not be subject to any forthcoming code revisions with respect to the provision of housing mitigation. 2. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 3. A manholes shall be placed in the westernmost driveway in order to provide access to the mechanical spaces lying beneath the driveways. Oil and sand separators are required for the "slot drains" that are shown for each of the seven garage entries. Clear water connections such as foundation, roof and surface run-off drains are prohibited from the public wastewater system. The applicant shall contribute funds to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to help address an existing downstream constraint in the collection system. A tap permit must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Utility meters and service connection points must be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and must not be obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or vegetation. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not located within the public rights -of - way. 5. The cost of relocating, re -wiring and energizing the electrical switch gear shall be borne by the developer. Ordinance No. �, Series of 1998 Page 3 6. Trash and recycling containers shall be located such that haulers have unobstructed, easy access for pick up and such that the containers and their enclosures do not encroach into the public rights - of -way. 7. The subdivision plat shall include easements for the relocated switch gear and all the vaults, pedestals and above and below ground appurtenances for these utility structures. 8. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 9. A snow removal and storage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. An easement for the placement of a bus stop bench shall be granted along the East Cooper Avenue right-of-way, and said easement shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat. 11. As determined necessary by the City Engineering Department, the existing sidewalks, curbs and gutters shall be repaired or replaced to meet the sidewalk standards before issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project. Any improvements or areas disturbed during construction will be restored to existing condition or better. The existing driveway curb cuts onto South Spring Street and East Cooper Avenue shall be replaced with curb and gutter matching the existing profile. 12. A concrete apron with design standards acceptable to the City Engineer shall be constructed at the westerly end of the alley although the alley itself shall not be paved. "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs shall be installed by the developer at each end of the alley in a manner that will not inhibit routine maintenance of the alley but will ensure visibility to vehicles before crossing the sidewalks when exiting the alley. 13. The existing fence along the East Cooper Avenue frontage shall be either removed from the right-of-way or relocated to within the property boundaries. 14. If existing street lights are disturbed or damaged during construction, they shall be replaced in kind and in alignment with the other street lights along the subject street. 15. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 12% where meeting a public right-of-way. 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering and Parks Departments with detailed information regarding the feasibility and functionality of the proposed structural grass mat system intended for use on the driveways. 17. Excavation and stabilization plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit a traffic and parking plan acceptable to the City Engineer, Parking and Transportation Departments, Streets Department, and Utilities Department. The plan shall describe traffic detouring, parking, and staging areas for the several stages of construction of the project. The developer shall be required to rent on -street parking spaces if, due to the construction activities, any such spaces will be temporarily impacted or unusable for public parking. These plans and permits will also need to be coordinated with the Rights -of -Way permit for the utility and street frontage work. 19. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the developer shall obtain a Fugitive Dust Control Permit and provide an Erosion and Construction Drainage Plan. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan must include, as a minimum, plans for fencing, watering of roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property lines or causing a nuisance; applications may be obtained from the Environmental Health Department and an approved plan is required before any building permits can be issued. 20. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general common elements and limited common elements shall be clearly labeled, dimensioned and identified on a condominium plat to be recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site development. Ordinance No. 1, , Series of 1998 Page 4 Said condominium plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the completed project. 21. The property owner(s) is required to join any future improvement district(s) formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrent with the recording of the subdivision plat. 22. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements. 23. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 24. As part of the building permit application, the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department. Wood burning fireplaces and heating devices that utilize coal as a fuel are prohibited. 25. Prior to obtaining a building or demolition permit, the applicant must have the existing building tested for asbestos, and if any is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement firm. It is recommended that testing be done well ahead of time so that, if removal is required, delays will not be experienced. 26. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 27. The developer shall provide sufficient depth to the foundation wall and proper drainage to allow the Aspen trees on the east side of the lot to survive and grow properly. The water line will enter the property from Spring Street so as not to conflict with the trees. The four proposed spruce trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. There shall be no vegetation within ten (10) feet of the electrical switch gear or in front of the garage entrances. The tree proposed near the Spring Street/alley intersection shall be relocated to a site that is acceptable to both the City Engineer and the Parks Department. 28. The applicant shall donate to the City those evergreen trees that must be removed from the site, and the applicant shall work with the City toward identifying a location within the City to which said trees can be moved. Once a location(s) is found, the applicant will pay the costs associated with the relocation(s). 29. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s); 30. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a height limit of twenty-eight (28) feet, as measured to the one-third (1/3) point along the roof; this represents a variance allowing for three (3) additional feet of height beyond the maximum allowable height in the RMF zone district. 31. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a minimum open space requirement of 33%; this represents a variance allowing for two (2%) percent less open space than the minimum allowable open space in the RMF zone district. 32. All outdoor lighting within the PUD will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to an entry pedestal for each unit, low bollards along the walkways, and porch lights. Down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures shall be used for screening of all outdoor lighting sources. Ordinance No. , Series of 1998 Page 5 33. Prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units, the applicant shall pay a cash fee in lieu of School Land Dedication to the City of Aspen. 34. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Section 2• Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code and C.R.S. 24-68-104(2), City Council does hereby grant the applicant Vested Property Rights status for the site specific development plan for the Bell Mountain Townhomes at 720 E. Cooper Avenue as approved by Ordinance , Series of 1998, for a period of three (3) years from the date said Ordinance is signed with the following conditions: The rights granted by this site specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by the Municipal Code shall also result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication provided for in Section 26.52.080(D) Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plan approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. 4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. UffnMisil Pursuant to Section 26.52.080(D) of the Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Section 4• Ordinance No. , Series of 1998 Page 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: 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. A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of April, 1998 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published once 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 24th day of March, 1998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 11998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk c:\home\mitchh\council\bcllord2.doc THE CITY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY May 8, 1998 Harry Shulman, Esq. Holland & Hart 600 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Bell Mountain Townhomes Dear Harry: This is in response to your letter dated May 6, 1998, in which you request that I confirm that a PUD/Subdivision Agreement will not be required in the above. referenced land use proceeding. I would prefer that we. have a recorded document even if it is only one page long which references the relevant land use approvals. If one is not recorded some folks in the future may wonder if one was ever prepared and what it might contain as the Land Use Code requires that one- be prepared and recorded. Sincerely, John P. Worcester City Attorney cc: Mitch Hass MAY 1 1 1998 Comm UNITY r rd t niN OEVELOPA4ENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 31611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5055 • FAx 970.920.5119 Printed on Re cded Paper DENVER•ASPEN BOULDER •COLORADO SPRINGS DENVER TECH CENTER BILLINGS • BOISE CHEYENNE • JACKSON HOLE SALT LAKE CITY Mayor John Bennett Ms. Rachel Richards Mr. Jim Markalunas Mr. Jake Vickery Mr. Terry Paulson 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 600 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 104 ASPEN. COLORADO 61611-1953 DISTRISUTED TO: TELEPHONE (970) 925-3476 FACSIMILE (970) 925.9387 HARRY SHULMAN Re:- Bell Mountain Townhomes Subdivision/PUD Application Dear Mayor Bennett and Members of the City Council: I write on behalf of Bell Mountain Lodge LLC, which has submitted an application for PUD and subdivision approval for the Bell Mountain Townhomes project. I will address the substance of this application in a moment. Before doing so, I hasten to note that Bell Mountain's application is not mutually exclusive with the "Superblock" issues also under current discussion. Bell Mountain is submitting this application now because the change in use ordinance has strict timing requirements, and if Bell Mountain does not pursue its application now, it could lose its right to do so. To avoid this risk, and to hedge against the further risk that the city ultimately determines not to proceed with Superblock, Bell Mountain must now proceed with this application. The Planning & Zoning commission approved Bell Mountain's application for a change in use, from lodging to free market housing, by Resolution No. 98- 3. This resolution, dated February 17, 1998, was made pursuant to city code §26.100.050(D)(2)(a). P&Z's actions left only the PUD and subdivision issues for approval by the city council. The first reading of Bell Mountain's application on these issues was scheduled for March 9, 1998. At the last minute the reading was delayed until March 23 by Amy Margerum. We understand the reason for this delay was to permit staff to address certain affordable housing concerns expressed by the city council in its determination of the Fireside Lodge conversion issue. Those concerns have led to this letter, and our purposes herein are twofold. First, we want to remind the council of the many features of the Bell Mountain Townhomes application which are in the public interest, many of which go beyond code requirements. Second, we want to demonstrate that HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Letter to Mayor Bennett and City Council Members March 19, 1998 Page 2 Bell Mountain has fully complied with existing affordable housing requirements, as the Planning & Zoning Commission has already found. I. The Bell Mountain Townhomes Project Is In The Public Interest Generally. P&Z did an especially thorough job of reviewing the Bell Mountain project. It unanimously approved the change in use Bell Mountain requested, which is a one-step process vested exclusively with P&Z. Further, it recommended council approval of the PUD and subdivision aspects of the application, subject to some 33 conditions covering several single-spaced pages. The conditions impose significant public exactions on Bell Mountain, but are nonetheless acceptable in full. The public benefits Bell Mountain will provide, in addition to consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan, include but are not limited to: • The project generates approximately one-half the number of vehicle trips per day as compared to the current lodge use, reducing them from 193 trips to 100 (staff calculation). • The project will contribute funds to help alleviate an existing problem with the public sewer system. • Bell Mountain will grant an easement to the city for a bus stop on its property, which is very uncommon for a residential property. • Bell Mountain will relocate an electrical switchgear, which serves the entire east end of the city, from its existing location on city property (within the alley), onto Bell Mountain's property. This will improve access to and safety of the equipment. • The project will save most existing big trees, and calls for the installation of 27 additional trees. It contains an extensive and expensive landscaping plan which will beautify the entire surrounding area. Any trees that must be removed will be donated to the city. • Bell Mountain will put in a new sidewalk on Spring Street, where there currently isn't one. The ADU's. Bell Mountain is also building five ADU's, which are not required under the existing code. Each ADU complies with maximum size HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Letter to Mayor Bennett and City Council Members March 19, 1998 Page 3 guidelines (they are approximately 694 square feet) and has its own off-street parking place. This design minimizes parking impacts and is responsive to local needs. Bell Mountain is building these units for two reasons: first, because the council expressed concerns in this regard in its determination of the Fireside change in use application; and second, because ADU's interspersed with free market housing are consistent with one of the stated themes of the AACP, promoting resident housing. The first reason bears further mention. In proceedings on the Fireside Lodge conversion, certain council members expressed the view that the conversion process should require employee mitigation. The minutes from the July 28, 1997 proceedings bear recitation in this regard: Mayor Pro Tern Richards said [the Fireside] project seems to be in compliance with the city code. Mayor Pro Tern Richards said she feels the code is inadequate. There may have been a mistake or misrepresentation when the small lodge ordinance was passed. Mayor. Pro Tern Richards said there was a lot of discussion about converting an existing lodge or total demolition of a lodge. A total demolition should require adhering to current code regulations. Mayor Pro Tern Richards said vacant property would be required to put in ADUs if they were building 4 townhouses. Mayor Pro Tern Richards said Council should re-examine requiring mitigation for growth when a small lodge is entirely demolished rather than converted. First of all, the only "inadequacy" in the code which was noted by a few council members was that ADUs should have been required. The Bell Mountain project voluntarily includes five ADUs to meet that very concern; we have gone beyond the Ordinance as is, and did not wait for a revision to do so. Second, if this truly is a code inadequacy, it is one that was considered and accepted by the council. The legislative record underlying the change in use ordinance is replete with statements to the effect that "the conversion of a lodge to residential units may represent a decrease in actual impacts to the community" (Michaelson [the drafter of the Ordinance] to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, minutes, July 16, 1996, p.6), see also, "The conversion of a lodge to residential units may represent a decrease in impacts to the community. HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Letter to Mayor Bennett and City Council Members March 19, 1998 Page 4 Michaelson said staff work on conversion has concluded that 2.5 tourist accommodations units for each 3 bedroom unit is a reasonable conversion factor." (Aspen City Council Minutes, August 12, 1996, p. 13). In sum, council clearly envisioned that a few lodges would apply for complete conversion, and if approved, would be exempt from GMQS, with mitigation under the small lodge ordinance only. This was part of the benefit to be given to ailing small lodge owners. Such conversion is particularly appropriate for the Bell Mountain Lodge, which is a marginal operation, with a structure that has reached the end of its useful life. It is a building that needs destruction, not conversion. Under the applicable mitigation provisions, your staff has concluded that there will be fewer employees generated by seven townhomes than by the existing lodge, and they used generally applicable formulas employed by the City in other contexts and in two other applications under this very ordinance. Notwithstanding this history, council directed staff to evaluate further the affordable housing issue. Even though Bell Mountain believes that nothing has been proposed or implemented with respect to employee mitigation for lodge conversions, Bell Mountain has nonetheless complied with the very concerns the council expressed by voluntarily building five ADUs. Bell Mountain's application should be expedited, not delayed, because it has taken the lead with respect to employee mitigation. Moreover, even if there were an issue as to affordable housing, for the reasons that follow, that issue has already been decided and is not properly before the council. II. The Affordable Housing Issue Has Already Been Decided Applicable Code Provisions. While it is not my intention to be overly legalistic in this letter, analysis of applicable municipal code sections plainly demonstrates that there is no longer any affordable housing issue for the council to consider. First, city code §26.100.050(D)(2)(a) ("the Ordinance") provides that the change in use application is to be determined exclusively by P&Z. As noted above, this is a one-step procedure. In order to approve a change in use application, P&Z must make a number of findings, including: (1) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional employees generated by the change in use or expansion. This HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Letter to Mayor Bennett and City Council Members March 19, 1998 Page 5 shall include an analysis and credit for existing employee housing and the incremental impact between the existing use and the proposed conversion. . [Code §§26.100.050(D)(2)(a)(1)]. P&Z made this finding in approving Resolution 98-3. In the Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Subdivision Application, at page F-2, staff found that "the proposed conversion of the Bell Mountain Lodge into seven two -bedroom residences will not increase the demand for affordable housing." The Housing Department, in an exhibit to the staffs findings, reached the same conclusion (see Christensen to Haas memo, dated December 29, 1997). Since the conversion determination is exclusively for P&Z to make, and part of that determination required a finding that affordable housing requirements are met, the determination that Bell Mountain has no employee housing obligation has already been made, and conclusively made. Any effort now to impose such an exaction would fail the constitutional requirement of a reasonable nexus between the exaction and the impact. There is thus no basis for this issue to be before the city council. A review of the municipal code buttresses this conclusion. The only ;provision in either the Subdivision or PUD regulations that refers to affordable housing is section 26.88.040(C)(5). That provision refers to chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System, regarding affordable housing requirements for new dwelling units. As demonstrated above, Bell Mountain has no affordable housing obligation under GMQS, and P&Z has already so found. There is nothing for city council to do. Employee Mitigation Has Been Considered. Second, in the course of adopting the lodge lottery provisions, §26.100.050(D)(2)(a), the city considered and adopted affordable housing mitigation provisions. The Ordinance itself considers and contemplates that some new projects would generate less employees and thus not be required to have on -site employee housing or pay cash in lieu ("[P&Z's employee mitigation analysis] shall include an analysis and credit for existing employee housing and the incremental impact between the existing use and the proposed conversion"). Bell Mountain, as P&Z found, meets those requirements. In addition, Bell Mountain is voluntarily providing five ADU's. Fairness. Third, it would be fundamentally unfair to change the rules on Bell Mountain when it has spent thousands of dollars in reliance on the existing HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Letter to Mayor Bennett and City Council Members March 19, 1998 Page 6 statutory scheme. City council may wish that its generally applicable Ordinance were different. It may wish to institute changes. In either case, there are currently no new rules for Bell Mountain to comply with, and it is entitled to have its application ruled upon as is, and not have the rules changed in the middle of the process. Parties or landowners "have a right to rely on existing zoning regulations when there has been no material change in the character of the neighborhood which may require rezoning in the public interest." Roosevelt v. City of Englewood, 176 Colo. 576, 492 P.2d 65, 68 (1971). This old rule is as true today, in these circumstances, as it was when written. In summary, the only matters properly before council are the PUD and subdivision issues on which P&Z has made a favorable recommendation. With this background, we respectfully submit that the council should promptly approve the Bell Mountain's pending application. Very truly yours, 044r4�, Harry Shul an OF HOL ND & HART LLP --cc: Jim Valerio Nick McGrath Alan Richman John Worcester c %A. MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direc&�ft Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director v FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner ' DATE: February 17, 1998 RE: Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Lodge Conversion/Change In Use, Conceptual/Final PUD, Subdivision, Conditional Use and Residential Design Review Variances. Parcel I.D. No. 2737-182-27-003 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department has received a request involving the demolition of the Bell Mountain Lodge and replacement with seven (7) free market dwelling units, built as two (2) triplexes and one (1) detached unit, along with five (5) attached, sub -grade accessory dwelling units (ADUs). All of the units would be connected below grade, thereby making it a single multi -family structure. The request requires the allocation of four units (but only two bedrooms) of unused small lodge lottery allotments through the change in use process. In addition, the proposed development requires Planned Unit Development (PUD) review including variance requests regarding the height limit and amount of required open space, as well as Conditional Use review for the five ADUs, Subdivision review, and variances from two of the Residential Design Standards. Community Development Department staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions. Referral comments from Parks, Engineering, Sanitation, Housing, and Environmental Health are attached as Exhibit B. APPLICANT: Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services. LOCATION: The site in question is located on the northeast corner of Spring Street and Cooper Avenue in downtown Aspen. Surrounding structures include the Buckhorn Lodge to the east, the Chateau Aspen to the west, the Aspen Square building to the southwest, City Market and the Durant Mall to the south, the Hannah Dustin building and an A -frame structure to the north, and the Benedict Commons to the northeast. ZONING: Residential Multi-Family/Planned Unit Development with a Lodge Preservation Overlay (RMF/PUD with an LP overlay). LOT SIZE: The property contains a gross area of 20,073 square feet. { FLOOR AREA: The allowable FAR in the zone district is 1:1 (or 20,073 square feet of floor area). While the exact amount of floor area contained in the proposal is still subject to verification by the City's Zoning Officer during review of building permit application materials, the materials submitted to date indicate that the proposal would contain a total of 20,053 square feet of floor area, as calculated under the provisions of the Land Use Code. BACKGROUND: The Bell Mountain Lodge was one of three properties that submitted applications for development allotments in the initial LP lottery, held in November, 1996. The Bell Mountain Lodge applied for an allocation in the residential lottery for three single- family residences, each to contain four bedrooms (a total of twelve bedrooms), and also applied for an allocation in the commercial lottery for four thousand (4,000) square feet of commercial space. The applicant was successful in obtaining both allocations at that time. Subsequent to receiving the allocations, the property was rezoned by the City as part of the citywide LP rezoning. Pursuant to Ordinance 2, Series of 1997, the property was zoned RMF/PUD, with an LP Overlay. This zoning does not permit the development of the commercial allocation, but it allows the applicant to consider a more dense project than was originally proposed. Consequently, the applicant seeks to develop a total of seven units with fourteen bedrooms. To accomplish this more dense project, the applicant needs a total allocation of seven units, containing a total of fourteen bedrooms. As compared with the initial allocation, this represents an increase of four units, but only two bedrooms. The applicants relied on their reading of the following passage from the Land Use Code (Section 26.100.050(D)(2)(a)) in preparing and submitting their application: "If the total number of free market units or non-residential square footage allowable under underlying zoning are not awarded through the annual change in use process, the last selected lodge can apply for the change in use process for these remaining allocations. Multi year allocations can be awarded if the Commission approves a change in use process for the units that exceed the annual quota, and the following years allocations shall be adjusted accordingly. Any allocations left following all change in use applications shall be returned to the pool for future allocations. " While there are more than enough unused allocations from past lotteries to accommodate the requested increase in density, staff wrestled with determining the proper procedure for applying for these allotments and processing the submitted application. After careful consideration and upon the advise of the City Attorney, it was decided that the unused allotments get returned to the "bucket," and one must wait for the annual small lodge lottery to request allocation of the unused allotments. However, staff further agreed that an application for which some, but not all, of the needed allotments have already been granted can be processed with the caveat that only those portions for which allocations already exist can be given approvals, while the remaining portions could be approved with the condition that the development cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. dL REVIEW PROCESS: As a Subdivision and consolidated Planned Unit Development application, a two-step process is required with public hearings before, first, the Planning and Zoning Commission and, second, City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission maintains final review authority over the requests involving the Change In Use GMQS Exemption, the Conditional Use review for the five ADUs, and the Variances to two of the Residential Design Standards. In contrast, the Planning and Zoning Commission acts in an advisory nature to the City Council with regard to the Subdivision application and PUD proposal, including its requests for variances to the height limit and open space requirements. Section 26.100.050(D) (2) (a), Change of Use GMQS Exemption For a complete staff review of each applicable standard, please refer to Exhibit D, attached hereto. Staff finds that the proposal complies with each of the six standards outlined in Section 26.100.050(D)(2)(a) and, therefore, recommends approval of the change in use GMQS exemption request, with the condition that only those portions for which allocations already exist can be acted upon, while the remaining portions are granted approval with the condition that the development cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. Section 26.84.030(B), Planned Unit Development Review Standards For a complete staff review of each PUD review standard, please refer to Exhibit E, attached hereto. With the conditions outlined in the "Recommendation" section of this memo (below), staff finds that the proposal complies with each of the review standards enumerated in Section 26.84.030(B); therefore, staff recommends approval of the consolidated conceptual/final planned unit development request with conditions. Section 26.88.040(C), Subdivision Review Standards For a complete staff review of each Subdivision review standard, please refer to Exhibit F, attached hereto. With the conditions outlined in the "Recommendation" section of this memo (below), staff finds that the proposal complies with each of the review standards enumerated in Section 26.88.040(C); therefore, staff recommends approval of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Subdivision request with conditions. Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses and Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units For a complete staff review of each review standard applicable to Conditional Uses and Accessory Dwelling Units, please refer to Exhibit G, attached hereto. With the conditions outlined in the "Recommendation" section of this memo (below), staff finds that the proposal complies with each of the review standards enumerated in Sections 26.60.040 and 26.40.090; therefore, staff recommends approval of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Conditional Use request for Five Accessory Dwelling Units, with conditions. Section 26.58.040(B)(1) and (F)(12), Residential Design Standards For Building Elements and Volume, respectively For a complete staff review of each standard applicable to requests for variances to the Residential Design Standards, please refer to Exhibit H, attached hereto. Staff finds that both of the requested variances are justified on the grounds that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem that the given standard or provision responds to; therefore, staff recommends approval of the Bell Mountain Townhomes requests for variances to both the "Building Elements" and "Volume" provisions of the Residential Design Standards. RECOMMENDATION: First, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant final approval to Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Change In Use GMQS Exemption with the condition that only those portions for which allocations already exist (three units) can be acted upon, while the remaining portions (four units) are granted approval with the condition that the development cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. Next, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant final approval to Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Conditional Use Review of Five Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: a. Verify with the Housing Office that the allowable floor area of each Accessory Dwelling Unit contains between 300 and 700 square feet; b. Verify with the Housing Office that each ADU will contain a kitchen having a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer; c. Provide the Housing Office with five (one for each unit) signed and recorded Deed Restrictions, copies of which must be obtained from the Housing Office; d. Clearly identify each of the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) on building permit plans as separate one -bedroom units with private entrances/exits, and no other rooms (i.e., mechanical rooms) that need to be accessible to individuals in the principal residences; e. Provide a minimum of one off-street parking space for each ADU (five total); these spaces shall be shown on the final plans. There shall not be any trash receptacles/enclosures located on or behind any of the parking pads; and, f. Verify that the proposed plans for each of the ADUs will comply with both the UBC requirements for natural light and the 1994 UBC Sound Transmission Control guidelines. 2. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval; and, 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 4. The applicant shall provide roof overhangs or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairways leading to the doors and the areas in front of the doors to each of the ADUs; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairways is also required. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Thirdly, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant final approval of the Bell Mountain Townhomes requests for variances to both the "Building Elements" and "Volume" provisions of the Residential Design Standards (see Exhibit A for description of requested variances) based on a finding that both of the requested variances are justified on the grounds that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem that the given standard or provision responds to. Lastly, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission advise City Council to approve the Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Subdivision and Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD), with the following conditions: Of the proposed plans, only those portions for which small lodge lottery allocations already exist (three units) can be acted upon subject to all of the conditions outlined below, while development of the remaining portions cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery process. 2. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 3. Manholes shall be placed in the driveways and parking areas in order to provide access to the mechanical spaces lying beneath the driveways. Oil and sand separators are required for the "slot drains" that are shown for each of the seven garage entries. Clear water connections such as foundation, roof and surface run-off drains are prohibited from the public wastewater system. The applicant shall contribute funds to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to help address an existing downstream constraint in the collection system. A tap permit must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Utility meters and service connection points must be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and must not be obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or vegetation. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not located within the public rights -of -way. 5. The cost of relocating, re -wiring and energizing the electrical switch gear shall be borne by the developer. 6. Trash and recycling containers shall be located such that haulers have unobstructed, easy access for pick up and such that the containers and their enclosures do not encroach into the public rights -of -way. 7. The subdivision plat shall. include easements for the relocated switch gear and all the vaults, pedestals and above and below ground appurtenances for these utility structures. 11 8. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 9. A snow removal and storage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. An easement for the placement of a bus stop bench shall be granted along the East Cooper Avenue right-of-way, and said easement shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat. 11. As determined necessary by the City Engineering Department, the existing sidewalks, curbs and gutters shall be repaired or replaced to meet the sidewalk standards before issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project. Any improvements or areas disturbed during construction will be restored to existing condition or better. The existing driveway curb cuts onto South Spring Street and East Cooper Avenue shall be replaced with curb and gutter matching the existing profile. 12. A concrete apron with design standards acceptable to the City Engineer shall be constructed at the westerly end of the alley although the alley itself shall not be paved. "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs shall be installed by the developer at each end of the alley in a manner that will not inhibit routine maintenance of the alley but will ensure visibility to vehicles before crossing the sidewalks when exiting the alley. 13. Final locations and design of sidewalks shall be coordinated with and approved by the City Engineering and Parks Departments with deference to the preservation of significant trees. 14. The existing fence along the East Cooper Avenue frontage shall be either removed from the right-of-way or relocated to within the property boundaries. 15. If existing street lights are disturbed or damaged during construction, they shall be replaced in kind and in alignment with the other street lights along the subject street. 16. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 12% where meeting a public right-of-way. 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering and Parks Departments with detailed information regarding the feasibility and functionality of the proposed structural grass mat system intended for use on the driveways. 18. Excavation and stabilization plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 19. Pursuant to Sections 26.84.040(D) and 26.88.050(D) of the Land Use Code, the developer shall post a financial guarantee, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to secure the integrity of the existing utilities during and after construction of the project, and installation and replacement of utility services for a warranty period of one (1) year. 20. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit a traffic and parking plan acceptable to the City Engineer, Parking and Transportation Departments, Streets Department, and Utilities Department. The plan shall describe traffic detouring, parking, and staging areas for the several stages of construction of the project. The developer shall be required to rent on -street parking spaces if, due to the construction activities, any such spaces will be temporarily impacted or unusable for public parking. These plans and permits will also need to be coordinated with the Rights -of -Way permit for the utility and street frontage work. 21. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the developer shall obtain a Fugitive Dust Control Permit and provide an Erosion and Construction Drainage Plan. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan must include, as a minimum, plans for fencing, watering of roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property lines or causing a nuisance; applications may be obtained from the Environmental Health Department and an approved plan is required before any building permits can be issued. 22. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general common elements and limited common elements shall be clearly labeled, dimensioned and identified on a condominium plat to be recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site development. Said condominium plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the completed project. 23. The property owner(s) is required to join any future improvement district(s) formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrent with the recording of the subdivision plat. 24. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements. 25. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 26. As part of the building permit application, the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department. Wood burning fireplaces and heating devices that utilize coal as a fuel are prohibited. 27. Prior to obtaining a building or demolition permit, the applicant must have the existing building tested for asbestos, and if any is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement firm. It is recommended that testing be done well ahead of time so that, if removal is required, delays will not be experienced. 28. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 29. The developer shall provide sufficient depth to the foundation wall and proper drainage to allow the Aspen trees on the east side of the lot to survive and grow properly. The water line will enter the property from Spring Street so as not to conflict with the trees. The four proposed spruce trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. There shall be no vegetation within ten (10) feet of the electrical switch gear or in front of the garage entrances. The tree proposed near the Spring Street/alley intersection shall be relocated to a site that is acceptable to both the City Engineer and the Parks Department. 30. The applicant shall donate to the City those evergreen trees that must be removed from the site, and the applicant shall work with the City toward identifying a location within the City to which said trees can be moved. Once a location(s) is found, the applicant will pay the costs associated with the relocation(s). 31. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s); 32. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a height limit of twenty-eight (28) feet, as measured to the one-third (1/3) point along the roof; this represents a variance allowing for three (3) additional feet of height beyond the maximum allowable height in the RMF zone district. 33. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have a minimum open space requirement of 33%; this represents a variance allowing for two (2%) percent less open space than the minimum allowable open space in the RMF zone district. 34. All outdoor lighting within the PUD will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to an entry pedestal for each unit, low bollards along the walkways, and porch lights. Down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures shall be used for screening of all outdoor lighting sources, and those fixtures set along the walkways will be set at no more than twelve (12) inches above finished grade. 35. Prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units, the applicant shall pay a cash fee in lieu of School Land Dedication to the City of Aspen. 36. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "With the conditions recommended in the Community Development Department staff memorandum dated February 17, 1998, I move to approve the Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Change In. Use GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use Review for Five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units, and Variances to the "Building Elements" and "Volume" provisions of the Residential Design Standards. I further move to recommend that the City Council approve the Bell Mountain Townhomes application for Subdivision and Consolidated Planned Unit Development, with the conditions recommended in the Community Development Department staff memorandum dated February 17, 1998." EXHIBITS: A - Submitted application package, including the following: • Written application booklet; • Full-size drawings/bluelines; • Open Space variance requested via PUD process; and, • Request for variances to Residential Design Standards. B - Referral memos from Parks, Engineering, Sanitation, Housing and Environmental Health C - Applicants' responses to referral comments D - Staff review of Change In Use GMQS Exemption application E - Staff review of PUD application F - Staff review of Subdivision application G - Staff review of Conditional Use application H - Staff review of request for variances to Residential Design Standards EXHIBIT D Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Change In Use GMQS Exemption Application Pursuant to Section 26.100.050(D)(2)(a) of the Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission is empowered to approve, approve with conditions or deny a GMQS Exemption (from competition and scoring procedures) to change the use. of an existing structure previously zoned with an LP to residential use. In order to qualify for this exemption, an applicant must meet six (6) standards specifically outlined in the above cited section of the code; these standards and staff s evaluation of the application relative to them are provided below. 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional employees generated by the change in use or expansion. This shall include an analysis and credit for existing employee housing and the incremental impact between the existing use and the proposed conversion; RESPONSE: In the written application booklet (attached as part of Exhibit A), the applicant makes a strong case that no employee housing mitigation is required. The memo from the Housing Department (attached as part of Exhibit B) states that "the calculation that the applicant used to decide if any additional employee mitigation was required is appropriate... Therefore, this conversion would not require any additional employee mitigation." In reviewing two prior small lodge change in use applications, the City found that there is no established formula for the generation of employees for the conversion of lodge units to residential units. Further, staff and the Commission found that the conversion of a 29 unit lodge to 6 residential units (Brass Bed), and the conversion of a 20 unit lodge and restaurant to 4 residential units (Fireside Lodge) represented a "significant reduction" in the requirement for affordable housing. In reviewing these conversions, staff provided a methodology to evaluate the impacts on the community; this methodology included a conversion formula used to establish the quotas for the LP lottery, stating that 2.5 lodge units have an equivalent impact to a three bedroom residence, while 3.3 lodge units have an equivalent impact to a five bedroom residence. Applying this conversion formula, the 19 unit Bell Mountain Lodge could be converted into as many as eight (8) three -bedroom units before it would begin to create a net increase in impacts (8 residential units X 2.5 lodge units per residential unit = 20 lodge units). This formula dictates that the proposed conversion of the Bell Mountain Lodge into seven two - bedroom residences will not increase the demand for affordable housing. 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that sufficient parking spaces will be provided for the change in use or expansion or cash -in -lieu will be used; RESPONSE: Both the underlying RMF zone district and Section 26.32.030, Off -Street Parking, require a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit for units with two or more bedrooms, and one parking space for studio or one -bedroom units. Given the fact that EXHIBIT D the proposal includes seven two -bedroom units and five one -bedroom ADUs, a total of 19 (14 + 5) spaces are required. The proposal (see site plan in Exhibit A) includes seven two - car garages for the free market units and five parking pads for the ADUs, for a total of 19 off-street parking spaces accessed from the alley. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that the change in use or expansion is compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood; RESPONSE: The site in question is located on the northeast corner of Spring Street and Cooper Avenue at the eastern edge of Aspen's commercial core. Surrounding structures include the Buckhorn Lodge (lodge with ground -floor commercial) to the east; the Chateau Aspen (another lodge) to the west; the Aspen Square building (condominiums and lodge units with ground -floor commercial) to the southwest; City Market and the Durant Mall to the south (commercial); the Hannah Dustin building (offices) and an A -frame structure (office) to the north; and the Benedict Commons (affordable housing/residential) to the northeast. Thus, the surrounding area is made up of a diverse mix of uses including lodges, commercial, residential (multi -family) and offices. The wide range of uses described above reflects the nature of the zoning in the area. Immediately to the east of the subject property, the zoning changes from commercial to multi -family residential. Therefore, it is fair to say that the proposed development of the Bell Mountain Lodge site represents an opportunity to transition from the adjacent C-1, commercial district (to the west) to quieter residential areas (to the east). Staff concludes that the proposed use (multi -family residential) and its proposed design are compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that adequate public facilities exist or will be provided for the change in use of the existing neighborhood; RESPONSE: According to the City Engineering Department (Exhibit B), there is sufficient capacity in the distribution and collection systems for the proposed development, and no significant upgrades or changes will be required in the systems of the several utility providers, with the exception of relocating the electrical switch gear. The relocation of the electrical switch gear will be done at the applicant's expense and in conjunction with the City of Aspen Electric Department. While the memorandum from the Engineering Department expressed some concerns, subsequent meetings between the applicant's engineer, city staff and representatives of the utility providers have allayed these concerns (see Exhibits A and C) sufficiently to make the City Engineering Department comfortable with the proposal's revised utility plans. 5. No zone change is required; and, EXHIBIT D RESPONSE: Pursuant to Ordinance 2, Series of 1997, the subject property is zone RMF/PUD with an LP Overlay. The proposed use is permitted under the zoning and no zoning changes or code amendments are requested. 6. The proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: One of the AACP's recommended actions was to convene a forum to address the economic problems experienced by small lodge owners. This forum resulted in City Council's adoption of Ordinance 29, Series of 1996, which provided recognition of the need for some small lodges to expand by adding rooms. It was also recognized that other small lodges might be better suited to a change of use and redevelopment. The Bell Mountain Lodge is an example of a lodge that is better suited to a change of use and redevelopment, as it is a forty year old building that has reached the end of its economic life. Largely due to its location, the proposal is consistent with a major theme of the AACP that calls for the ability for residents to walk or use mass transit to move around town, thereby reducing day-to-day dependence upon the automobile. The proposal includes the development of five voluntary ADUs, and one of the stated themes of the AACP with regard to "revitalizing the permanent community" is to "increase resident housing." To that end, the proposal is consistent with the following purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the AACP: • "Promote, market and implement Cottage Infill and Accessory Dwelling Unit programs;" • "Develop small scale resident housing which fits the character of the community and is interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area and up valley of Aspen Village;" and, "The public and private sectors together should develop . . . employee -occupied accessory dwelling units, to achieve the identified unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents." EXHIBIT E Staff Review of Bell Mountain Townhomes Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application In early 1997, the subject property was rezoned by the City and a mandatory PUD designation was applied. Therefore, any development of the property must first obtain PUD approval. Pursuant to Section 26.84.030(C)(3) of the land Use Code, the applicant has requested that conceptual and final PUD reviews be consolidated for this application. The Deputy Planning Director concurred that consolidated PUD review would be acceptable and appropriate for this proposal. The review criteria for Planned Unit Development applications and staffs evaluation of the application relative to them are provided below. 1 a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the AACP. For a complete explanation of this finding, please refer to Exhibit D, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Change In Use GMQS Exemption Application, specifically standard number six. Ib. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. For a complete explanation of this finding, please refer to Exhibit D, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Change In Use GMQS Exemption Application, specifically standard number three. Ic. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: Staff does not anticipate any adverse affects to the surrounding neighborhood to occur as the result of the redevelopment of the Bell Mountain Lodge site. Rather, it is expected that the proposed redevelopment would have positive affects on the potential for future re/development of the surrounding area. For instance, the two existing curb cuts on the property would be removed, having a positive impact on traffic flow in the surrounding area, and new sidewalks, curb and gutter would be installed. In addition, the utility pedestals and trash facilities that encroach into the alley would be moved onto the subject site, out of the public right-of-way. Also, the applicant would contribute funds to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to help address an existing downstream constraint in the collection system. Lastly, any utility upgrades completed by the applicant would serve to aid in the re/development of the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to the ongoing Independence Pass Plaza (IPP) considerations, the applicant maintains that approval of the Bell Mountain Townhomes application would not adversely affect its development potential. IPP is projected to include at least seven free market residential units and, instead of scattering these units throughout the IPP project, they would be located on the Bell Mountain side of the property. That is, as currently contemplated, the IPP development would contain up to a maximum of 25,000 square feet of free market EXHIBIT E residential floor area, and the Bell Mountain Townhomes application proposes to utilize 20,053 square feet of this floor area, leaving a total of 4,947 square feet of free market residential floor area available for use in the IPP development. Id. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: The proposed conversion of the existing lodge units to dwelling units is exempt from GMQS pursuant to Section 26.100.050(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. However, to accomplish the development as contemplated, the applicant needs a total allocation of seven units, containing a total of fourteen bedrooms. As compared with the existing allocation, this represents an increase of four units, but only two bedrooms. That is, the existing allotments are not enough for the entire proposal. Consequently, staff believes this standard can be met if PUD approval is granted with the condition that only those portions for which allocations already exist (three units) could be issued building permits upon approval, while development of the remaining portions cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery. 2. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: Since ADUs are not considered or counted as units of density, the proposed density is less than that allowed by the underlying RMF zoning. The zone district requires 2,100 square feet of land per two bedroom unit. The proposal includes fourteen bedrooms (seven two -bedroom units), and the zoning requires at least 14,700 (7 X 2,100) square feet of land to accommodate this density. The site has an area of 20,073 square feet. Under the provisions of the RMF zone district, the site can accommodate nine and a half (9.5) two - bedroom units (20,073 _ 2,100), or seventeen bedrooms in a seven unit project. Therefore, the proposal is three bedrooms shy of the maximum allowable density allowed in the RMF zone district and complies with this criterion. 3. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: The RMF zone district lists multi -family units as a permitted use and accessory dwelling units as a conditional use. 4. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district; provided, that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); c. Minimum front yard; d. Minimum rear yard; e. Minimum side yard,• f. Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; EXHIBIT E h. Trash area access; i. Internal floor area ratio; and, j. Minimum percent open space. RESPONSE: To develop the project as proposed, the applicant would require variations to the maximum height and the minimum percent open space. A variation to the maximum height limitation of twenty-five (25') feet has been requested (see Exhibit A) in order to allow a building height of twenty-eight (28') feet, as measured to the 1/3 point along the roof. The code provides that height is measured to this point since the roof has a pitch steeper than 8:12. Also, a variation of two percent to the minimum percent open space (35%) is requested in order to allow a development with 33.4% open space. Staff supports both of these requests. Height Variance: While the height of the proposed structure (with or without the variance) will undoubtedly affect someone's views and staff is sympathetic to these concerns, staff finds justification for supporting the height variance request on many accounts. First, in looking at the zoning map, it is evident that the subject site is completely surrounded by zone districts that allow for greater building heights (none of the surrounding parcels are zoned RMF), with the exception of the O, Office zone district to the north. However, the structure immediately to the north (Hannah Dustin building) is zoned Office but has a height of approximately thirty-four (34') feet to the top of its flat roof. To the northeast, the Benedict Commons development is zoned AH-1/PUD and its maximum height was set at thirty (30') feet through the PUD process in order "to make the units more livable and compatible with surrounding buildings." Immediately to the east is the Buckhorn Lodge, which is zoned CL with a maximum permitted height of twenty-eight (28') feet, but thirty-two (32') feet by Special Review. The Durant Mall, across the street to the south, is zoned NC and has a height of approximately forty (40') feet. The Aspen Square building to the southwest is zoned CL but has a height of forty (40') feet.. To the west, the Chateau Aspen is zoned C-1 and has a maximum permissible height of forty (40') feet. By comparison, the requested variance would allow the Bell Mountain Townhomes to have a height of twenty-eight (28') feet to the 1/3 point of the roof, while the height to the peak of the roof would be thirty-five (35') feet. The proposed height of the Bell Mountain Townhomes is lower than that of several surrounding structures and is compatible with what could be expected upon redevelopment of the Buckhorn and City Market properties. Next, the applicant has provided "Alternate Elevations" (see Exhibit A) to illustrate the effects of complying with the twenty-five (25') foot height limitation. The alternate elevations illustrate that in order to comply with the height limit, it would be necessary to sink the building further into the ground, resulting in the following: • The slope of the driveways off the alley would increase from a grade of approximately 10% to approximately 24%; • The front entrances to the units would be stepped down from the street, instead of being stepped up with a covered front stoop, as currently proposed. This would detract from the character of the design and from the perceived street presence of the buildings; and, • The lower spaces would be unable to achieve as much natural light gain, making the ADUs much less desirable living spaces. EXHIBIT E Lastly, staff agrees with the notion that the twenty-eight foot height would comply with the standards requiring that the development be "consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding neighborhood." As explained above, the actual height of surrounding buildings ranges from thirty-four feet (Hannah Dustin) to almost forty-one feet (Aspen Square) to over forty-eight feet at the peak of the Durant Mall. Further, if the Benedict Commons was permitted to build up to thirty feet at the appropriate point along its pitched roofs in order "to make the units more livable and compatible with surrounding buildings," then it would follow that the same would be true for the Bell Mountain Townhomes. Percent Open Space Variance: The RMF zoning requires that a minimum of 35% of the site must remain as open space meeting the definition of "open space" as provided in Section 26.04.100 of the code. As currently proposed, 33.4% of the site would meet the definition of "open space." The applicant has, thus, requested a 2% variance (to 33%) from this requirement in order to accommodate the proposed plan and the possibility of calculation or rounding errors. Again, staff is in support of granting the requested variance for the following reasons. First, the areas located between the property lines and the sidewalks cannot be counted towards open space calculations, but to the viewer/passer-by/user will be indiscernible from and contiguous to the rest of the open areas; if this area were figured into the site, the percentage of open space provided would be 37.6% of the site area. Furthermore, without the area between the property lines and the sidewalks, approximately 55% of the site will appear as open area, but 22% of this does not meet the parameters of the definition. In summary, staff believes that a variance from 35% to 33% would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD as the variance would be completely indiscernible to the viewer/user. 5. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on ... [six enumerated] considerations. RESPONSE: The applicant is not requesting any variation from the number of required off- street parking spaces. Nineteen spaces are required, and nineteen spaces are proposed. 6. The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed planned unit development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "response" to standard 4, above. 7. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. RESPONSE: A detailed landscape plan has been prepared by Kiernan Design Studio as part of the application (see Exhibit A). Also, please refer to the Parks Department's EXHIBIT E memorandum included with Exhibit B, as well as the applicant's responses to that referral memo (Exhibit Q. The submitted landscape plan identifies each of the site's existing trees that will be preserved. The landscape plan provided for generous plantings including a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs, perennials and other groundcovers, and ornamentals. The species selected are considered to be appropriate for the Aspen area climate. The landscape plan commits to the planting of twenty-seven (27) new trees, providing more than 100 caliper inches of replacement trees on -site, which will more than compensate for the trees that must be removed. The plan includes concentrations of plantings along the street frontages as well as formally spaced street tree plantings which, together, will greatly aid in enhancing the pedestrian experience, and softening the views and street presence of the structures. While not identical, there is a definite symmetry to the plantings proposed in front of the two triplexes. As noted in Exhibit C, a few minor changes will be made to the landscape plan in response to concerns put forth in the referral memorandum from the Parks Department (included as part of Exhibit B), including replacement of the proposed spruce trees with deciduous trees, elimination of the vegetation proposed around the electrical switch gear and in front of the garage entrances, and relocation of the tree proposed near the Spring Street/alley intersection. In addition, on page 30 of the written application (part of Exhibit A), the applicant has committed to donating to the City those evergreen trees that must be removed from the site. The applicant states a willingness to work with the City toward identifying a location within the City to which these trees can be moved. Once a location is found, the applicant has committed to paying the costs of the relocation. 8. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the city. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. RESPONSE: The application package includes a site plan as well as architectural elevations (see Exhibit A). While variances to two (2) of the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 are needed (see full discussion in Exhibit H), staff is comfortable with both the designs and the level of architectural consistency in the proposed development. The structures have been designed to be compatible with one another, but not identical or repetitive. The triplexes have been broken into primary and secondary masses by varying their textures and wall planes, and by employing dormers to vary the roof forms. One EXHIBIT E building has been given a "western" look, with exposed timbers and trusses, while the other attempts to capture a "cottage" feel, with shingles and arched openings. In general, the designs are of a contemporary nature yet compatible with each other and the visual character of the city. They use peaked roofs and gable forms, provide windows, decks and covered stoops, and use materials appropriate to the alpine environment, such as stone, wood, stucco, timber and shingles. In staff s estimation, the proposed designs would be successful in creating an appropriate transition from the density and intensity of the commercial core to the multi -family residential areas to the east. This transition results from the combination of the proposed uses, density and forms. While helping to ease the above described transition, the proposed development would be compatible with surrounding developments in use and proportions. In addition, by providing a build -to line along the street frontage, the buildings would be located sufficiently back from Cooper Avenue to ensure the ability to preserve many of the mature trees on the site and provide plantings which would effectively buffer the pedestrian spaces from the buildings. The build -to line also provides for adequate room at the rear of the property to locate the garages and enclosed trash areas on the alley. 9. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. RESPONSE: The applicant has committed to meet this criterion. Specifically, page 31 of the written application booklet, included in Exhibit A, states that "Lighting will be kept to the minimum necessary for the safety of occupants and will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Lighting will consist of an entry pedestal light for each unit, low bollards along the walkways, and porch lights. Down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures will be used; those along the walkways will be set at no more than twelve inches above finished grade." Staff is satisfied with this commitment, and would include it as a condition of approval. 10. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. RESPONSE: It is staffs opinion that this criterion does not presuppose sites of just 20,073 square feet. Staff does not feel that "clustering" would be appropriate for downtown sites, where there are not valuable open spaces or other environmental resources to be preserved. Rather, this criterion would be appropriately applied to the development of undeveloped acreages on the periphery of the city. IL The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. RESPONSE: Public facilities are already in place to serve the existing structure, and no new facilities are expected to be required. The costs of any necessary upgrades to existing systems and facilities will be borne by the applicant. The buildings have been arranged in a manner that would permit access by emergency fire or medical vehicles, with emergency EXHIBIT E access available from Cooper Street, Spring Street or the alley. The longest distance to any portion of the proposed structures from an emergency vehicle on any of these public rights - of -way would be approximately fifty (50') feet. Also, see response to criterion number four in Exhibit D. 12a.Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. RESPONSE: Vehicular access to each dwelling unit is provided from the public alley of Block 105. Pedestrian access is provided from both Cooper Avenue and Spring Street. 12b.Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the planned unit development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. RESPONSE: Vehicular access to the development would be gained via the alley. This allows for the removing of the property's two existing curb cuts, one along Cooper Avenue and the other along Spring Street. Since vehicular traffic would be routed to the alley, the applicant has offered to place "Slow, Pedestrian Crossing" signs at each end of the alley. These signs would be strategically placed such that they would be seen by drivers before crossing the sidewalks when entering or exiting the alley. The applicant would also improve the alley by moving the existing utility pedestals and electrical switch gear from their current locations, which encroach into the alley right-of-way, onto the Bell Mountain property with appropriate easements. There are no minor streets within the PUD. 12c.The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. RESPONSE: The referral memorandum from the Environmental Health Department (see Exhibit B) states that, based on standard ITE manual trip generation rates, the current use of the site generates an average of 193 vehicle trips per day, while the proposed development would result in an average of 100 vehicle trips per day. Therefore the change in use is expected to reduce traffic generated by the site by over 48%. In addition, traffic flows around the site will be enhanced by the removal of two existing curb cuts (see response to 12b, above). The removal of these curb cuts will, in effect, increase the amount of available on -street parking on Cooper Avenue and Spring Street. Furthermore, the development would accommodate 100% of its parking needs on -site, as compared with the present situation where a 21 room lodge provides only 10 conforming spaces. 12d.Every residential building shall be not farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: As proposed, the development would comply with this standard. EXHIBIT E 12e.All nonresidential land uses within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. RESPONSE: There are no nonresidential uses proposed within this PUD. 12f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. RESPONSE: There are no streets proposed within this PUD. EXHIBIT F Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Subdivision Application Pursuant to state and local definitions and Chapter 26.88 of the Municipal Code, land which is divided into two or more interests for purposes of transfer of ownership and/or development is, by definition, a subdivision and, as such, is subject to the City's review and approval. This development includes the development of a multi -family structure/project. As the applicant proposes to create a seven unit multi -family structure, subdivision review in accordance with Section 26.88.040(C) is required. The various review criteria and staff s analysis of the proposal's compliance therewith, are summarized below. ]a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the AACP. For a complete explanation of this finding, please refer to Exhibit D, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Change In Use GMQS Exemption Application, specifically standard number six. 1 b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. For a complete explanation of this finding, please refer to Exhibit D, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Change In Use GMQS Exemption Application, specifically standard number three. Ic. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF RESPONSE: Compliance with this standard is also required in connection with PUD review. Staff finds that the proposal will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. For a complete explanation of this finding, please refer to Exhibit E, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Consolidate Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application, specifically standard "lc." Id. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title. STAFF RESPONSE: The proposed subdivision will comply with all applicable requirements of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. 2a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. EXHIBIT F STAFF RESPONSE: The site of the proposed development does not contain lands unsuitable for development, nor is it affected by any natural hazard areas. The application package (Exhibit A) includes a soil study which demonstrates that the subsurface conditions of the site are suitable for development. 2b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF RESPONSE: No governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary public costs would occur as a result of the provision of public services to the proposed development. All required utilities are currently available in the immediate site area. For more information related to this criterion, please refer to the staff response to criterion number four of Exhibit D. 314. Required Improvements/Design Standards, respectively. RESPONSE: In addition to compliance with the preceding review criteria, the subdivision regulations also require that various improvements be provided in connection with the proposed development, and that specific engineering design standards be adhered to. The applicant is not proposing any variances from these standards, and their compliance with said standards will be reviewed by the Engineering Department and the various utility providers. 5. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System. RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be in compliance with this criterion. For a complete explanation of this finding, please refer to Exhibit D, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Change In Use GMQS Exemption Application, specifically standard number one. 6. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. RESPONSE: This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. As the property in question contains only 20,073 square feet of land and is located in downtown Aspen, the dedication of land would not be appropriate and the payment of cash -in -lieu represents a more fitting option. Based on the formula for determining per unit fees, as stipulated in Section 26.88.040(C)(6) of the Land Use Code, the market value of the unimproved site must first be determined. According to the most current records of the Pitkin County Assessor, the market value of the subject property (exclusive of improvements) is $2 million. To calculate the cash payment due to each unit, it is necessary to establish the proportionate share of the value of the property attributable to each unit. Since the seven proposed units would each contain two EXHIBIT F bedrooms, each unit is assigned a 1/7 share of the total value ($2,000,000 _ 7 = $285,714.29). Consequently, the cash -in -lieu formula per unit is as follows: $285,714.29 X 0.0095 X 0.33 = $895.71 per unit The applicant has agreed to make this payment prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units. Staff recommends inclusion of this requirement as a condition of approval. EXHIBIT G Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Application for Conditional Use Review of Five Accessory Dwelling Units The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct five (5) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The proposed ADUs would be below grade and attached to the corresponding, primary residences. The proposed ADUs are completely voluntary as they are not required for housing mitigation or a GMQS Exemption. The applicant is NOT seeking any FAR bonuses; therefore, the housing office shall not have the right to fill the units if they left unoccupied for extended periods. Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units As proposed, the ADUs would each contain 694 square feet of net livable area and would have their own kitchens, bathrooms, and accesses, as required by code. Also, each ADU would be provided with its own designated off-street parking space off the alley. In addition, the applicant understands that the ADUs shall be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Therefore, the proposal complies with the requirements of Section 26.40.090(A)(1). Pursuant to Section 26.40.090(A)(2), the ADUs are subject to all of the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district, Multi -Family Residential (RMF), because they will be attached to the principal residences. An evaluation of the proposal against these requirements is provided as part of the staff review of the consolidated PUD application, attached as Exhibit E (see staff responses to criteria 2-6). Also, since the ADUs will be attached to the primary residences, Section 26.490.090(A)(3) is not applicable. Section 26.40.090(A)(4) states that "an attached accessory dwelling unit shall utilize alley access to the extent practical. " The proposed ADUs and their corresponding off-street parking spaces would be accessed from the alley. Section 26.40.090(B), Development Review Standards, contains the development review standards for detached accessory dwelling units and, therefore, does not apply to this application. Regardless, the proposed ADUs would appear as part of the primary residence, and they would be below grade; thus, the ADUs would be compatible with and subordinate in character to the primary residences. The proposed ADUs would be compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood and would not create a density pattern incompatible with that already established in the area. Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, a development application for a conditional use approval shall meet the following standards: (A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. ' EXHIBIT G RESPONSE: The stated purpose of the RMF zone district "is to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term residential purposes, with customary accessory uses. " The proposal to develop five ADUs on the site is consistent with this intent. ADUs are allowed as conditional uses in the RMF zone district, and the proposal will be required to meet or exceed all of the dimensional requirements associated with the zoning. Furthermore, one of the stated themes of the AACP with regard to "revitalizing the permanent community" is to "increase resident housing." To that end, the proposal is consistent with the following purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the AACP: • "Promote, market and implement Cottage Infll and Accessory Dwelling Unit programs;" • "Develop small scale resident housing which fits the character of the community and is interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area and up valley of Aspen Village;" and, • "The public and private sectors together should develop . . . employee -occupied accessory dwelling units, to achieve the identified unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents." Staff finds that this conditional use application for five ADUs complies with Section 26.60.040(A). (B) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. RESPONSE: Staff finds that the proposed conditional uses are consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity and surrounding land uses. For a complete explanation of this finding please refer to Exhibit D, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Change In Use GMQS Exemption Application, specifically standard number three. Also, please refer to Exhibit E, Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Consolidated PUD Application, specifically standards lb., lc., 4 and 8. (C) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. RESPONSE: As mentioned earlier in this Exhibit, the proposed ADUs would be sub -grade and will appear as part of the principal residences; thus, their location, size and design would minimize any potential adverse visual impacts. Like all of the surrounding properties, the ADUs' parking and trash service would be accessed from the alley at the rear of the property. No noise, vibration, or odor related impacts are anticipated. The proposed ADUs would operate like any other residences or ADUs found in the neighborhood, and it is anticipated that their impacts would be negligible. (D) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. EXHIBIT G RESPONSE: There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the proposed use. It will be within an existing, well -established neighborhood. See referral comments, attached as Exhibit B; the applicant's responses to these referral comments, attached as Exhibit C; staff s responses to criterion four in Exhibit D; staff s responses to criteria 1 c., I I., 12a., 12b., and 12c. of Exhibit E; and, staffs responses to criteria 2b., 3., 4., and 6. in Exhibit F. (E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. RESPONSE: While the proposed development of five ADUs will not generate an increase in the employment base, the applicant will be supplying these ADUs which, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(A)(1), will be deed restricted, registered with the housing office, and available for rental to an eligible working resident of Pitkin County for periods of not less than six months in duration, thereby having the potential to serve the need for increased affordable housing in the City of Aspen. (F) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Community Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title. RESPONSE: The proposed conditional uses will comply with all additional standards imposed on it by the AACP and by all other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. For instance, as explained in the referral memorandum from the Housing Office (see Exhibit B), all ADUs are required to be totally private units, meaning that each ADU must have a private entrance, and that there shall be no other room(s) in the units that need to be accessed or utilized by the individuals in the principal residence (i.e., mechanical rooms for the principal residence). The applicant's response to the Housing memo (see Exhibit C) explains that the mechanical rooms' door connections to the ADUs will be removed, and are no longer a part of the proposed floor plans. Also, each ADU kitchen will contain a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a six cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. The ADUs will be required to meet UBC requirements for natural light. EXHIBIT H Staff Review of the Bell Mountain Townhomes Application for Variances to the Building Elements (26.58.040(B)(1)) and Volume (26.58.040(F)(12)) Provisions of the Residential Design Standards The applicant is requesting variances from the "Building Elements" and "Volume" standards (described below) in order to allow for approval of the architectural designs as proposed. See Exhibit A, letter from Gibson -Reno Architects requesting variances from the requirements of Ordinance 30. Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board [DRACJ pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board. " Furthermore, "if any other review is required by other provisions of the code, and that review determines that certain items of the Residential Design Guidelines should be waived, then the applicant shall not be required to submit to further review by the Design Review Board of Appeal." Therefore, since the Bell Mountain Townhomes application is required to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission is empowered to review requests to variances from the Residential Design Standards associated with said application. Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to construct a multi- family structure on the site of the Bell Mountain Lodge for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (see Exhibit A). In staff s review, it was determined that the proposed designs violate both the "Building Elements" standard and the "Volume" standard. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Section 26.58.040(B)(1), Building Elements The "Building Elements" standard mandates that "all residential buildings must have a one- story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width." According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the intent of the "Building Elements" provisions "is to ensure that each residential building has street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." EXHIBIT H The above described intent of the "Building Elements" provision explains the issue or problem to which the standard is a response. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan and is not necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that the proposed design more effectively provides street - facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Building Elements" standard. Given the fact that the proposed design attempts to make the most efficient utilization of the space available by incorporating garden level living areas (58.3% of the 170' of Cooper Avenue frontage), the exact letter of the standard becomes very difficult to apply. The standard would mandate that of the 170' of frontage, thirty-four (34) feet would have to be comprised of a one-story element. With the garden level design, a one-story element would have to, in reality, be a one and a half story element. Staff feels that the proposed design, with its garden level, one-story entrances, human -scale doors and first floor decks (above garden level) combined with the proposed landscape plan and walkways more effectively provide street -facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Building Elements" standard. In accordance with this assessment, staff finds sufficient justification to recommend approval of the requested variance from the "Building Elements" provision of the Residential Design Standards. Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed design contains multiple violations of the "Volume" standard (please refer to the letter and graphic from Gibson -Reno Architects, included with Exhibit A). The standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi -circular or non - orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the floor (plate height). As proposed, each of the four elevations contain at least one violation of the "volume" standard (for exact locations of these violations, please refer to the letter and graphic from Gibson -Reno Architects, included with Exhibit A). Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two -to -one (2:1) floor area penalty while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR EXHIBIT H penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board, or in this case the Planning and Zoning Commission. Rather than accept the floor area penalty (the design utilizes all but twenty square feet of the allowable floor area for the site) or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria outlined above (on page one of this exhibit). According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the intent of the "Volume" standard, like the "Building Elements" standard, "is to ensure that each residential building has street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Furthermore, the pending revisions recommend changing the standard to read as follows: "Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first floor." The above described intent of the "Volume" standard explains the issue or problem to which the standard is a response. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan and is not necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that the proposed design more effectively provides street -facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. Staff does not feel that the proposed glazing interferes with the ability of the architecture to accomplish the intent of the "Volume" standard. Furthermore, staff finds that many, or indeed most, of the windows for which a variance is required, would not violate the proposed revision to the "Volume" standard since most of the violating windows are not on the first story and none of the violating windows found on the lower levels appear to span through the area where a second floor would typically exist. Staff feels that the proposed design, with its garden level, one-story entrances, human -scale doors and first floor decks (above garden level) combined with the proposed landscape plan and walkways more effectively provide street -facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard as currently written. In accordance with this assessment, staff finds sufficient justification to recommend approval of the requested variance from the "Volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards. FACSIMILE MEMORANDUM TO: Bell Mountain Townhomes File FROM: Alan Richman Planning Services SUBJECT: Chronology of Bell Mountain Townhomes Application DATE: February 10, 1998 I have been asked to summarize the chronology of events surrounding the application for the Bell Mountain Townhomes. Following is the summary, based on file notes and the recollection of members of the project team. 1. November 1, 1996: Applications submitted for initial small lodge lottery. Applications submitted for 3 four bedroom dwelling units and for 7,250 sq. ft. of commercial space. Applications are based on memo from Planning Office, dated 8/12/96, which stated that the City would be rezoning the Bell Mountain Lodge to Office (0). 2. November 5, 1996: Small lodge lottery is held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Bell Mountain Lodge is allocated 3 four bedroom dwelling units and 4,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. 3. January 13, 1997: Ordinance 2, Series of 1997 is adopted by the Aspen City Council, rezoning the small lodges to underlying zoning with an LP overlay. Bell Mountain Lodge is rezoned Residential Multi -Family (RMF/PUD), not Office (0). 4. July 8, 1997: AR holds pre -application conference with Julie Ann Woods and Bob Nevins. AR requests an interpretation of the language on page 674 of the Land Use Regulations and also asked how many allotments were unallocated from the 1996 and 1997 lotteries (Note: a lottery was held in spring, 1997, for which there were no applicants). 5. Later in July, 1997: AR receives a phone call from Julie Ann Woods. She states that she has read the section in question and does not believe it would allow us to apply for the unused allotments. She believes it says that the P&Z would have had to have selected an additional lodge during the 1996 lottery and that lodge would have been "the last selected lodge", as described on page 674. That lodge could apply for units after the other lodges have gone through the change in use process, provided that the higher -priority selected lodges applied for fewer units through change in use than they actually received in the allocation process. Julie Ann says she still needs to talk to Stan Clauson to confirm this interpretation. 6. Later still in July, 1997: AR speaks to Julie Ann Woods during a visit to the Planning Office. She states that she and Stan Clauson have discussed the language on page 674 and concluded that we are eligible to apply for the units as part of the change in use process. Julie Ann also mentions that the Planning Office has been focusing on the public/private partnership to develop Independence Pass Plaza, and that granting allotments for all seven units would address the growth management quota system requirements of the residential component of that project. 7. August 5, 1997: Bell Mountain Townhomes change in use application submitted, precisely 9 months after the date the initial allotment was received. On page 2 of the application (copy attached), we request the additional 4 allotments through the change in use process. We also agree to give up the 4,000 sq. ft. commercial allocation as an inducement to receiving the additional 4 residential allotments. 8. August 21, 1997: Mitch Haas, the planner assigned to review our application, submits back to us a "red -lined" version of the application. The submission includes a very detailed review of both the application maps and the text. The staff makes no comment regarding the request for additional units through the change in use process. 9. October 7, 1997: AR, Jim Valerio and Dave Gibson hold meeting with Mitch, Stan and Bob to discuss how we should respond to the staff red -lined comments. It is agreed that we will make the application sufficiently detailed to obtain final OU Nol approval. We remind the staff that we will need additional Tt6 allotments from P&Z and staff encourages us to proceed with>Uscuss1"'' that part of the application as originally submitted. It is also agreed that we will hold a work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get their input on the project and to raise any key issues they may want us to address. 10. October 21, 1997: Work session held with P&Z. P&Z is very enthusiastic about the proposal, calling it a "courageous" concept. No concerns were raised about the request for additional units through the change in use process. Immediately after this meeting, the project team begins to work seriously to re -design the development, to comply with the red -line comments and the P&Z comments. 11. December 18, 1997: Revised application for Bell Mountain townhomes submitted. On page 5 of the application (copy attached), we make the identical request for the additional 4 allotments through the change in use process. Staff certifies the application as complete that day, refers it to other review agencies and assigns it a public hearing date of February 3, 1998. 2 12. December 24, 1998: AR attends Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting with Mitch Haas and representatives of several review agencies. Various comments are received regarding the application, but staff makes no comment regarding the request for additional units through the change in use process. 13. January 1 - January 25, 1998: AR, Dave Gibson and Jay Hammond make multiple contacts with Mitch and with representatives of referral agencies to work through their comments and concerns. 14. January 26, 1998: Based on direction from staff, the project team prepares a detailed response to each of the concerns raised and submits a comprehensive memo to Mitch on the subject. However, on the day the memo is completed, Mitch, for the first time, raises concerns regarding the request for additional units through the change in use process. He states that he has seen this language for the first time today. AR responds that the request has been part of our application since August of the prior year and was discussed in detail with the staff during pre -application meetings. Mitch states that until he receives policy direction from Stan and John Worcester, he will be unable to prepare a memo to P&Z and, therefore, our hearing the following week will be tabled. 15. January 28, 1998: Mitch formally notifies AR that the February 3 hearing has been tabled to February 17. 3 RSO i \ _ 11 MINUTES.....................................................................................................................................................................3 CODE AMENDMENT - REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE 30..................................................................................4 ASPEN PLANNING v. ZONING COMMISSION FEBR 'ARY 3, 1998 Sara Garton, Chair, called the regular City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. with Steve Buettow, Dave Johnston, Tim Mooney and Jasmine Tygre present. Bob Blaich, Marta Chaikovska and Roger Hunt were excused. Staff members present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Chris Bendon, Stan Clauson and Julie Ann Woods, Mary Lackner, Community Development Department and Kevin Dunnett, Parks Department. mmul_CO M REEW Mina WOR Tim Mooney noted that the public contacted him very upset about the North Forty project. He said the application on the table now is much different than the original presentation. He stated that employee housing is this artificially created market, and now the developers that tweak the underlying principals for their own benefit, will really make it a can of woi-ins. Stan Clauson replied that P&Z Resolution 98-01 was hand -delivered to the BOCC on 01/27/98. Mooney requested stop sign at the corner of (Hwy. 82) Park Avenue and Hopkins by the footbridge for pedestrian safety especially with the snow and parked cars on the streets. He said the buses seem to be traveling fast through the area of Park Avenue and Park Circle. Garton agreed the intersections in that area needed to be reviewed. Clauson said that sidewalks were being considered. Mooney asked about the curb and gutter plans for the west side of Park Avenue. Garton said that Councilwoman Richards asked engineering for some of those same improvements. Garton questioned the "Los Amigos" food operation in the Marolt Employee Housing. Clauson recalled some catering operation but not bringing in the public. Garton noted take-out requires traffic. Clauson will research the problem. Julie Ann Woods said there will be a second Aspen -Mass meeting on 02/12/98. The AACP group would meet 02/19/98 in council chambers and on 03/12/98 at the Given Institute. The Burlingame stake holders meeting is on 02/26/98. Woods explained that the consulting team could only be here on those days. She said the 2/17/98 meeting would be lengthy. Stan Clauson said the west end debriefing has been completed. The city manager's office will continue to work with RFTA on scheduling and the engineer's office was asked to do design concepts for field staking showing bus traffic impacts on 4th and 6th streets. Garton asked if dial -a -ride would happen. ASPEN PLANNIN" & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 1998 Clauson replied that it would be business as usual, but since he was not the transportation department, he could only report that dial -a -ride was a threshold issue, depending upon hiring of staff. Garton asked about the number of busses used upon the start up, which was the last item on the list and that was a divided issue. Clauson answered the number would be what was provided, and the 4th street shuttle was unclear. Garton noted that police would be part of the staffing. Clauson stated the biannual review was in June and the staking issues would be brought forth at that time. Garton asked if the citizen task force would meet before June. Clauson replied that when engineering had the staking ready; a meeting would be called. PUBLIC COMMENTS: George Vincenzi, west end, expressed extreme disappointment in the planning staff because the citizens were to be involved with the 4th street shuttle; which never happened. The 4th street shuttle ran in a loop with just a few riders. He stated that the west end requested a copy of the plan prior to P&Z so that they could respond and that did not happen. The status of the opening routes was very important, per P&Z request. Vincenzi wanted the task force re -grouped becauser decisions were being made that effect the west end without the chance for input. Vincenzi stated the dial -a -ride was another issue that never had a chance for citizen input. He said they did not want the shuttle or lights to be implemented without input. Clauson said there was eagerness from that last meeting for dial -a - ride to be implemented. Clauson noted Randy Ready was the city contact person. Jan Collins said there was a good consensus on alternating routes. Before it could be presented in an unbiased form (the newspapers report other meetings suffer from staff stone -walling also). She said the difficulty coming before the board was that staff argued roads can't be widened, busses can't travel, police can't get there. Collins said one of the issues that has kept this before P&Z so long, is that staff said there is no consensus in the west end, but when there is consensus, they are undermined and stone -walled by staff. She requested staff be unbiased for a can do review and for the right-of-ways to be clearly staked. Garton explained the city process and reminded Ms. Collins that Clauson was head of land use planning with other departments having different budget constraints. She said P&Z was to review every 2 years, but P&Z has been ' ► ' 1 1I \ ! involved much more than that. She stated that it was important for the staking to be done with a walk through. Garton said that Ready would be the person to contact. She commented that P&Z and staff has done what was in the mitigation plan, so if the west end needs to call the task force together, then do so before the June staking. Vincenzi said in the debriefing a request was made to re -convene the task force, and wanted the board to review now. Garton said the west end was responsible for this review. Collins said that they were not represented properly now and asked who was their official representation. Mooney said if they want a meeting with a can do attitude, let's get staff and their group together. Garton noted that the neighborhood group should meet with the players. Vincenzi wanted a member of the Planning staff to coordinate the task force meeting so that it has validity. The discussion continued for forty minutes. Hoefer suggested that if a satisfactory resolution was not accomplished at the meeting, then set up a meeting with Randy Ready. Clauson stated that Lick Adeh, Engineering, understood there would be a plan by spring showing how the streets needed to be altered to safely carry busses. There will be field visits and staking input from the west end along with a plan for lighting from the electric department. Clauson said that was the extent of community development involvement because transportation was not under his jurisdiction. Garton asked about the tent replacement procedure. Clauson replied that it was a public issue and the SPA comes under the HPC jurisdiction. The applicant clearly understood the need for an HPC hearing, with design, material, access, etc. being considered. Mooney asked if the tent could be expanded and a plan for the additional parking. Clauson answered there was no ability to physically expand the footprint of the tent but the seating and aisle arrangement could be reconfigured with up to 300 additional seats. Mooney said the transportation, parking and other impacts from a commercial entity operating in a residential neighborhood need to be addressed with an addition of 300 more people. Garton noted the additional seating was part of the 1990/1991 SPA approval. MOTION: Jasmine Tvgre moved to approve the minutes from 12/02/97 and 12/16/97.v Dave Johnston second. APPROVED 5-0. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 1998 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (contd. from 12/2): CODE AMENDMENT - REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE 30 David Hoefer stated that staff requested continuance to February 17, 1998. There was no public comment. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the public hearing on ordinance 30 until February 17, 1998. Tim Mooney second. ALL IN FAVOR, APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES CHANGE IN USE, PUD & SL:BDIVISION David Hoefer stated the legal notice was provided by Alan Richman and met the requirements allowing the commission to proceed. He requested the public hearing be continued until February 17, 1998. There was no public comment. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the public hearing on Bell Mountain Townhomes until February 17, 1998. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. INFORMATION ITEM: Mary Lackner explained the GIS mapping system and that it stores data about parcels. She said that the geographic information is stored as a line, a point or an area. An example of a point would be a street light, manhole, fire hydrant, valves, etc... with data attached called attributes. Lines could be streets, sidewalks, property lines, etc.. with attributes. Areas could be parcels, structures, parks, etch... with attributes. Lackner circulated a parcel map with colored areas showing the historic structures with attributes. There can be photographs attached which can be pulled up with the file. Queries can be done by types of housing, lodge inventory, with 2' 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBR ARY 3 1998 contours. They are also working on tracking parcels including past approvals or actions taken place with restrictions. Lackner asked the commission to bring questions or requests to her. Garton asked how the mapping was done, satellite or physically. Lackner responded that initially in 1991 the city and county did a fly -over which account for the physical features (improvements since then will not be shown). Garton inquired how often updates would occur. Lackner replied that the city and county budget process has begun for the next fly -over. Historic designations, zoning have been added and kept current. Some utility information is available. Eric Hillmuth is community development's public sales person for GIS marketing and sales. Lackner said this was a tool for P&Z to utilize as well as the public. Tygre noted the Aspen Board of Realtors had a new system to provide information which was a helpful tool. NEW BUSINESS: Sara Garton noted this was not a public hearing, but after the presentation, the public was welcome to comment. Chris Bendon distributed a memo regarding the property not currently in the City of Aspen and the applicant has not petitioned the City for annexation. The City Attorney has stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission may proceed with the review with the understanding that any recommendations to City Council is contingent upon the eventual annexation of the property. Bendon introduced Dave Tolen, applicant, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office, applied for approval of the Snyder affordable housing project located at 210 Midland Avenue. Bendon said the zoning was County Zoning R-15 similar to City R-15 but does not allow duplexes. City Jurisdiction is on 3 sides of the property. There was a joint City/County P&Z worksession on this property with a general acceptance of 15 units and a discussion allowing the smaller units the ability to add on a bedroom. That discussion included adding to the park and the site plan posed the garage doors problematic. A related concern was the walking distance from the garages to the units in back and the proximity of the carport structure to the pond and park. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 1998 Sara Garton explained the 4 step process: I City P&Z Conceptual PUD City Council Conceptual PUD (a noticed public hearing) Oa City P&Z Final PUD (a noticed public hearing) rJ City Council Final PUD (a noticed public hearing). Tolen noted that some projects have consolidated review but this project has been around since 1994 and provided history of the property. Many different scenarios have been proposed with ponds, heavily wooded area and housing portions of the property. A large part is park, purchased with open space funds. In 1996 the neighborhood became involved with a series of studies on unit development, parking, access, egress, roads, garden area, playground, common space, heights of structures, relationship to neighborhood, impacts, number of bedrooms. Tolen explained that the one bedroom and three bedroom units were the most needed (attracting 100-150 buyers). The physical configuration was being studied with consideration of the water and unit sizes. Tolen said the twin objective of housing and park have been worked on, re -configured and considered for this project with the neighborhood process. He requested addressing the expandable unit idea at final to meet neighborhood concerns and housing needs. Tolen noted the walk to the back units was a trade-off for common area without automobiles balanced with accessibility to each unit. He said the focus was an internal one with the boundary for the neighborhood park. The common ground was a good example of the central focus of units bringing life to the community with open space. Buettow said considering the spaciousness of the site, the one bedroom units were limiting flexibility even with the detached status. He felt that two bedroom units would be better suited and re -configured with a better bedroom mix enlarging the one bedroom single family houses and moving the one bedrooms to duplex units. Tygre said the placement of one bedroom in back was less impactive to the neighbors. Tolen agreed that was the biggest concern (neighbors) and the highest point on the site was on that portion of the property. Johnston stated concern for parking in relation to the one bedroom units with relation to stairs and sidewalks, which could be quite nice, with consideration of privacy and access. 0 ASPEN PLANNING o, ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3 1998 Mooney asked if Ardmore Drive would also be annexed into the city. Tolen replied that Ardmore was a private road and the owners of that subdivision expressed no interest in that aspect. Mooney stated dislike for the project's "campus" feel with a large slab of asphalt for parking. He suggested the driveway be a "T" with housing along the sides and top; the park would not be disturbed. He said the horror of mass and scale of Lacet Subdivision brought bad memories and asked for the Ardmore neighbors to be part of this neighborhood. He favored the small house and separate garage .fitting into the grid or on a line with what the rest of the town was built upon. Garton disagreed on the east end being the same as the historic grid but rather meandering wandering streets. She said Ardmore was just one street that fit into the grid. Mooney said WaterPlace fit into that area because it was separate but this project needed to fit with the proximity of town. This project was expanding the city; and parking was created first and the units laid out on the site as an after thought. He questioned 900 sf one bedroom units being feasible and asked about basements being included. Garton noted there were many constraints on the property. Mooney continued that sidewalks, curb and gutter improvements were needed in the area. Tolen responded that the project addressed the pedestrian connections and sidewalk construction. Kevin Dunnett, Parks, said there was a trail easement on the southeast side of the property and a portion along the irrigation ditch to the cull-d-sac connection at Highway 82. Tolen said discussions could be re -opened. Tygre noted more interesting site possibilities with the Ardmore access; but it was not an option. She said the amount of paving and parking dominate the plan was a deterrent but the clustering of development away from the park area was good. She favored the one bedroom units along Ardmore and felt the mix of bedroom units worked. She agreed with Mooney on the suburbia look, which she did not like. Tygre said a re -design with a more liner and better access might be better because carrying groceries distances was difficult especially with grade changes. Tolen said that would be considered. Mooney added disappointment with the drawings stating the character of the community and could not consider voting without the detail needed. Buettow stated the general approach to this project was not what ordinance 30 wanted with the focal point of the garages from the access. If Ardmore was an option, he wanted to hear from that neighborhood. Garton noted parking was for the park but hoped that pedestrian access would be the way to enter the park. VA Heidi Hoffmann, architect, asked if parallel parking was what was to be considered along Midland Avenue. She said the 5 foot buffer was needed because of the proximity to the sidewalk placement. Dan Sadowsky, public, said it was a one lane street now, with parking it would not be passable. He invited the commission to walk, bike or drive down Midland and experience the threatening traffic. Mooney agreed that the street was tragic. Garton agreed about the parking problems and stated that engineering needed to make the recommendations concerning these issues. Geno, public, noted that about 20 feet of Midland was encroached on by the adjacent land owners. He agreed with Mooney on finishing the project (construction) at a certain time instead of leaving it as an on -going remodel project. Evan Gull, public, not speaking for the Ardmore Subdivision, said the Ardmore subdivision contained lots under the by-laws of the subdivision and some not under the subdivision. He said the fence construction along mascot road and aspen view may give an idea that the owners in this subdivision were not open to the option of entry- from that end of the property. Gull noted there was a substandard road, with blind corners and kids; not annexed to the city, which he would not grant access to by the public or this project. He stated the group did not want to be annexed into the city and that most roads privately owned.r Garton expressed that she was happy with the site and hoped the asphalt would change and agreed with Johnston with different corridors into the commons area. She said there was elevation on site and had only heard positive from the people at common ground, even carrying groceries. across the open space. She said Midland Park (where she lives) would love to grass over the asphalt and move the cars, but that won't happen, and would not be fair to neighbors. Garton felt the 800 sf one bedroom was spacious, compared to her 670 sf and Tygre concurred. Garton was concerned about the heights of the three bedroom units. She commended the feeling of the drawings keeping the ranch look. She said although a nice idea, the ability to expand at a later date would cause impacts on the neighborhood and would be daunting adding on bedrooms at a later date. Garton wanted to encourage people to walk. She noted that in order to approve the final for the project, there should be a final design for Midland Avenue. Tolen stated that funds were set aside for the project but wasn't sure if there would be enough for the project. Bendon said there were improvement district contracts with the city for other projects which should be discussed for this project. Garton said for good land use planning to happen the improvements to Midland must be accomplished. Bendon said it was unfair to hold up an applicant because of city improvements not finished. Garton re -stated the position: that the improvements were necessary before people moved into the project. Mooney added that stop signs were needed on Midland. Geno said the commission was being sensitive to the same issues which puts this back into limbo and many other things needed to be addressed. Mooney said this moved it forward to revisit the street design review. Dan Sadowsky reminded the commission that there have been three years of process in this project with a lot of good intention. He said there were wildlv differing opinions with very good minds and there may be the same argument with fine tuning and better design in the end. y Gull said the addition of bedrooms beyond conceptual should not be left unresolved because it encumbers the process. It was an issue of fairness to all constituents of the area. He proposed in order to make the project effective in the community, a consensus must be built up front to balance the needs of the citizens in the community with the new residents. Tolen asked for direction from the board on revisions to this particular site plan. He said the issues were the access to the units, restructuring the parking with less visual impacts, mass and height of the units. Buettow said the plans were not very clear. The disparity of the single family units; and the mass, shapes and functions of the townhome do not fit with the park -like atmosphere. He preferred more unity of design utilizing cabin type structures. Tygre said guidance on the number and mix of units could be decided tonight. Garton explained the commission has gotten burned voting on conceptual when drawings come back to final very different from the originals that were approved. Tygre stated that even being a proponent of affordable housing with the need more intense than ever; this plan could not gain her conceptual approval tonight. The commission agreed on the number of units at 15 acceptable and the mix of one and three bedrooms acceptable, with the exception of Buettow who felt that I two bedrooms and more density was needed. Tygre said the housing office would know the mix needed. Garton reiterated the access needed work as well as the height and massing of the three bedrooms. Mooney wanted better drawings showing the mass and scale to view the project. Buettow asked for the topo lines to be included. Tvgre added the construction and addition completion dates needed to be defined. Basements were not FAR and made storage space possible utilizing the above grade living space as living space. The Midland and Park Avenue improvements also needed to be tied in the project construction. Woods reminded the commission that city council had the final decision on the road improvements being tied to the project. Bendon noted that capital improvements can be requested from the developer but then the funds have to be used within a certain date for those improvements. Mooney asked that the applicant be committed to the improvements during the same construction period. The commission continued the Snvder Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD meeting to March 3, 1998. Meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 10 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS --'--------'-----------'---'-'-------'----.----.-..l BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES CHANGE IN USE, PUD & SUBDIVISION ...............................................^ REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE #30 ---_'---------------''-'------.---.-.----_------..7 11 III 1'! _' i !.l 1.' 1! J' 111! 1! ' 11 Ili Sara Garton, chairman, called the meeting to order at 4:30 with members Steve Buettow, Bob Blaich, Tim Moony, Jasmine Tygre and Dave Johnston present. 1. Steve Buettow reported he attended the brown bag lunch where there was a discussion about Williams Ranch and Ordinance #30. Buettow said the city attorney made an interpretation that this subdivision was exempt from Ordinance #30. Buettow said he understood in the approval that there was a condition that these houses be under Ordinance #30. Buettow requested a copy of the city attorney's interpretation and minutes of those meetings to find out the status of these houses and whether they are exempt or not. David Hoefer, assistant city attorney said he will have a report for the next meeting. 2. Bob Blaich brought up an article in USA Today about large businesses like Wal-Mart coming into small, rural towns. Blaich said he will make copies available to Commission members. 3. Jasmine Tygre said there were P & Z members who felt strongly that night time use at the sundeck should not be approved. The county P & Z gets to make the formal recommendation to the BOCC. Ms. Tygre said she would like the opinions of the city P & Z to be forwarded to the City Council Tygre moved to forward the referral comments on nighttime use of Sundeck to the City Council; seconded by Blaich. All in favor, motion carried. u• 1 : 1 • .• 1 -I:�lifhii7•y_ 1 David Hoefer noted this item is continued from February 3 at which time Alan Richman provided proof of notice. Mitch Haas, community development department, said this application is for demolition of the Bell Mountain Lodge and replacement with 7 free market units as 2 triplexes and one detached unit and 5 attached, subgrade ADUs. this request requires an additional allocation beyond those in the small lodge lottery process. The Bell Mountain Lodge currently has an allotment for 3 residential units with 12 bedrooms and needs an allocation for 4 additional units and 14 additional bedrooms. Haas told the Commission staff recommends processing the entire 1 A.T.1 1'! c I f f' 1! 1 11 1 1 i application, however only 3 units can be moved forward to building permit process and the other 4 units have to wait for the lodge lottery process May 5. Haas noted the change in use is reviewed and approved by P & Z; conditional use is also reviewed and approved by P & Z. There is a variance from two of the residential design standards. P & Z will make recommendation to Council on the PUD and subdivision. Haas showed the Commission the site, adjoining properties. Haas pointed out the zoning is different on every property surrounding the site. The Bell Mountain site is zoned RMF with the PUD overlay. Change in Use. Haas told the Commission for change in use, all the standards in the Code have been met as long as this is conditioned on when this can happen parallel with the allocation. The applicant's provide an argument for why affordable housing is not required on the site. The housing office has reviewed this and concurs with the analysis. The required amount of off street parking spaces are being provided. Haas noted with all the surrounding uses, multi -family is compatible with the neighborhood. Conditional Use for 5 Accessory Dwelling Units Haas said these units will all be located sub -grade. Haas said the main concerns from the housing office were doors to the mechanical rooms access through the ADU. Another access has been added and the doors through the ADU has been omitted. The natural light for these units will be dealt with through the building permit process. Each unit will be 694 square feet. The plans do not show any internal connections between the ADUs and the residences. The ADUs are all privately entranced and exited. The applicant is not requesting and FAR bonus; these units are not required for mitigation or a GMQS exemption and are completely voluntary. The ADUs all have their own off-street parking space accessed from the alley. Staff recommends approval of the ADUs. Request for Variance from the Residential Design Standards Haas said the first request is with the building elements which states that 20 percent of the street facing elevations have to be comprised of a one-story element. The intention of the ordinance is for pedestrian scale and architectural interest. Haas pointed out in this building the first floor is half below grade. To do a one-story element would read as a one and a half story element. Haas said staff feels the intent of the standard is being met through other design considerations, like extensive landscaping. Staff is comfortable waiving this requirement. 7 F4V11141NWF1111111FWVA 1! 1 1!! 11 1 MUT1.0 Haas said the second request is the volume standard, windows between 9 and 12 feet of floor height. Haas told the Commission the intent is for architectural integrity. This standard is recommended to be revised to address only windows on the first floor. Haas said this request is almost entirely for windows on the second floor. Haas said with the landscaping plan, the pedestrian walkways, the setbacks and other architectural considerations, staff feels the intent of the design standard is being met or that the proposed design addresses the issues the standards are trying to get at. Planning Unit Development Haas said the main issues in the PUD were request for height and minimum required open spaces variances. Haas said it is important to look at the surrounding heights and zoning. The height limit in RMF is 25 feet; the request is to go to 28 feet measured to the 1 /3 point of the pitched roof, with a peak at 35 feet. The height limit in the surrounding zone districts is 28 feet or higher all the way around; to the north, the building is 34 feet to a flat roof. The affordable housing project was allowed to build to 30 feet through a PUD process. The rationale was to make the units more livable and to be compatible with the surrounding buildings. The Chateau Aspen and Aspen Square are at 40 feet. The NC zone, Durant Mall 40 feet; Buckhorn 32 foot limit by special review. The starting height limit for this property is lower than surrounding buildings. Staff feels the height variance is justified. The RMF zone district has a requirement that 35 percent of the site meets the city's definition of open space. This proposal is to have 33.4 percent meet the definition of open space. Haas showed the Commission areas that do not meet the definition of open space but will be open space. The area between the sidewalk and property line will read as part of the property but is not able to be counted as open space. If you were to add this area in, there is a total of 40 percent open space. Haas said staff feels the open space as provided does not meet the definition but pedestrians will not know the difference. Alan Richman, representing the applicant, reminded the Commission they had a pre -application meeting in October and received comments about the project. Richman said they will show the Commission where they have responded to these comments. Buettow asked why this is in front of the Commission when they do not have a growth management allocation yet for all 7 units. Richman said as the process has gone on, the staff feels less comfortable that they recommend that P & Z has 3 the authority to borrow unused allocations. Richman said he thought there was language allowing P & Z to authorize borrowing from unused allocations. Staff concludes P & Z does not have that authority. Richman noted they have spent since July 1997 in pre -application, revisions and this issue only came up a week before the public hearing two weeks ago. Richman said not one is disadvantaged because there is not a competitive lottery; names are picked out of a hat. If Bell Mountain gets the allocation in May, they proceed. Hoefer told the Commission, any approval would be conditioned on the allotment of these 4 units. This is not a merit based lottery; it is a request for a certain amount of allotments and is not comparing one project to another. P & Z's review of this project does not prejudice the applicant getting any units. Richman said when this project originally competed in 1996, they apply in both the residential conversion lottery and the commercial lottery and were successful in both. The project received a 4,000 sf commercial allocations as well as 3 residential units. The assumption was this would be a mixed use project. Subsequently when this project was rezoned, it was rezoned RMF, which does not allow the commercial lottery. Dave Gibson, architect for the project, told P & Z they have been refining the design since their initial meeting. One is to break down the scale and to create vertical element. They are also differentiating the buildings. The easternmost building is characterized by hip roofs, shingle work and bracket work. The center building has gables, exposed tress work. The floor plans will be similar but the exteriors will have variations. The corner building is a smaller mass. Gibson said there are 50 foot spruce trees on site which will be preserved. The height of the buildings will correspond to the trees. Gibson said the dripline is beyond the structure. The landscape architect feels comfortable with the proposal. They are working on the bond requirements is any trees need to be replaced. Gibson said they cannot excavate into city property and will have to excavate vertically. Gibson showed entry to the ADUs off the alley and 1 entry off of Spring. The free market units will have entries from Cooper Avenue. The light wells are 10 feet by 10 feet. These units will be deed restricted to rental. Garton said she is sorry to see all the second story windows as that gives a face of glaring glass. Garton said she likes that the mass is broken up. Garton said A9 111011 1 1 1' 1 fill I l •I-ITURTM1 1 she is willing to approve the variances. Blaich said P & Z should not be judging anything on ordinances not yet adopted. Blaich said he feels the use of heavy stone around the doors is heavy and baronial. Blaich suggested any lessening of this effect would make it more friendly. Mooney said he does not favor granting variances to a monumental design like this. The windows are beyond necessary. Mooney said he does like the separation of the buildings, the treatment of the corner building, but does not want higher buildings. Mooney said he feels the ADUs will be converted into marketable space rather than affordable housing units. Garton said currently the city codes do not require ADUs be rented. Haas told the Commission the design standards state windows cannot be between 9 and 12 feet above the height of the floor. Haas said only portions or tops of these windows are not fitting within the regulations. Mooney said he does not feel this design is human or pedestrian scale. Gibson said this is a 200 foot long site and the building will be smaller and shorter than most of its neighbors. Gibson said he feels this will fit in with the adjacent buildings. There were no public comments. Johnson said an issue with him is that this is a 4 story building. The garden level is a 15 foot basement. Johnson questioned any natural light in the light wells. Johnson said he would favor the height variance in order to get natural light into the light wells. Johnson said he is not in favor of a lot of windows and glass surfaces. Blaich said he wants to see the ADUs as livable as possible, which may be a good reason to vote for the height variance. Tygre said the mature trees will help to cover up the building. Tygre said if the building is lowered 3 feet so as not to require a height variance, less livable ADUs will result. Tygre said she would rather see a smaller building than ADUs that no one will live in anyway. Tygre said too much window will create glare that not even trees can hide. Tygre said she is not in favor of the variance for extra windows either. Alan Richman, representing the applicant, said the pre -application meeting with P & Z in October 1997 resulted in positive feedback and a lot of enthusiasm about the project. The height variance has been added since that meeting. P & Z members have indicated they will not be approve the window variance and Richman said he will rework this. 5 P401VINUMMIRWAr1.1 1' 1111! Tygre moved that P & Z grant final approval to Bell Mountain Townhomes applications for change in use GMQS exemption with the condition that only those portions for which allocations already exist (three units) be issued building permits upon approval, while development of the remaining portions cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery; seconded by Blaich. All in favor, motion carried. Blaich moved that P & Z grant final approval to Bell Mountain TOWNHOMES for conditional use of 5 ADUs with the five conditions listed in staff memo dated February 17, 1998; seconded by Johnston. All in favor, with the exception of Mooney. Motion carried. Blaich moved to approve the requested variance in the building element standard of the residential design standards based on finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem that the given standard or provision responds to; this is the one story element requirement, that 20 percent of the facade must be a one story element. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Tygre moved that P & Z recommends approval to Council for the Bell Mountain Townhomes for subdivision and consolidated PUD with 36 conditions listed in staff memorandum of February 17, changing #1 to read only those portions for which allocations already exist (three units) could be issued building permits upon approval, while development of the remaining portions cannot commence unless and until the necessary allotments have been procured through the annual small lodge lottery; changing #3 to read, "A manhole shall be placed in the westernmost driveway in order to provide access to..."; condition #13 can be deleted as final locations of the sidewalks have been determined with the engineering department in order to save trees; condition #19 can be deleted as the sections referred to are not germane to what staff is trying to accomplish; delete condition #32; seconded by Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. Richman said as a result of bifurcating this project into 3 and 4 units allocation, the original allocation granted was November 5, 1996. Eighteen months from that date, the applicants are required to have a building permit in hand. That deadline will be May 5, 1998. P & Z has the sole authority to extend the requirement to obtain a building permit. The criteria is based on good faith effort Gl to obtain said permit. Richman requested an extension of this deadline in order to get the additional 4 units. Tygre moved to grant a 6 month extension pursuant to Section 26.100.050; seconded by Blaich. All in favor, motion carried. Amy Guthrie, community development department, told the Commission she did an advertising campaign and a brown bag lunch to discuss changes to Ordinance #30. There were about 7 people in attendance. A lot of items to be clarified were brought up. Ms. Guthrie recommended continuing this code amendment while staff works on these clarifications. Ms. Guthrie presented a slide show of buildings built before any design standard ordinance, predominant garages. excess windows; some houses that demonstrate what design standards are trying to accomplish; some structures that went through Ordinance #30 design review. Ms. Guthrie pointed out that fences are a new standard. The secondary mass is also new. A significant new item is the materials standards. Blaich moved to continue this to Nlarch 17; seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded the Commission this public hearing is continued from January 20th. Staff is proposing changes to the SCI zone district to bring it into compliance with how it was originally intended and to confirm the zone district with Council so they can make a decision on enforcement in the SCI zone district. The intent of the district is to "encourage and preserve uses and activities that reinforce Aspen as a town and to provide for uses that may be inappropriate in other locations in the city". Bendon presented proposed language with some areas that need further discussion. There is also a summary of uses from the January 20th meeting. Home occupation and residential uses have not been decided on yet. The Commission also has to discuss dimensional requirements. 7 Home occupation is a permitted use and staff is recommending these remain a permitted use. Staff presented the current definition of "home occupation". The Commission agreed with leaving this in the SCI district as a permitted use. Bendon noted the first 3 residential uses exist in the code; dwelling units accessory to an artist studio is permitted as a free market unit; another permitted use is an affordable dwelling unit accessory to any permitted use. A conditional use is a free market dwelling unit accessory to any permitted use. Bendon suggested the free market units may be too big of a draw and may be driving some uses in the zone. Bendon said affordable units should be encouraged to provide housing and to keep lease rates reasonable. These units should meet the current net minimum livable square footage, should be located above natural grade, and should be located above non-residential uses. These units should be category 1, 2 or 3. Bendon said although these are recommended to be permitted uses, they will have some attendant review, like GMQS exemption. Bendon explained that "accessory" means smaller than the permitted use. Tygre said the language seems to read that as long as a unit is accessory to the business, it does not have to be deed restricted unit. Staff said they will tighten up the definition. The commission indicated they are in favor of this definition of residential use as a permitted use. Garton opened the public hearing. Howard Bass, Mountain Valley, told the Commission he owns a building in the SCI zone, and only found out this code amendment by reading it in the paper. Bass said most of the uses in his building would not be allowed under the proposed code amendment. Bass suggested the owners of property in the SCI zone meet with staff and discuss uses. Bass said the proposed uses do not meet for the existing uses in the block. Bass pointed out the uses in his building are very building contractor oriented. Garton noted most of these uses already exist as permitted or conditional uses in the SCI zone. The Commission is trying to define these uses better. Charlie Tarver said if this zone is not maintained as service, offices and peripheral retail move to this zone without mitigating for additional employees. Tarver said a secondary effect is when an office relocates in the SCI zone, it's space in the CC zone is replaced with a much higher intensity use, also without mitigation. Garton entered into the record a letter from Mike Wampler, Aspen Velo. Tom McCabe asked about furniture making or woodworking as permitted or conditional uses in the SCI zone. McCabe pointed out the code amendment states "no fumes, noise, dust" and businesses working in service or industry are likely to have machines, noise, dust. McCabe said the intent and that statement seem to be at odds. McCabe pointed out ADUs and service/industry can cause conflicts. Bendon said that language is to prevent off -site impacts out of the ordinary. Garton agreed this would be a different housing experience. Aspen has always had housing in the commercial core, mixed with bars, businesses. Bendon said the Commission can look at this through the density of housing allowed as well as having housing be a conditional use in order to judge whether the housing would be appropriate. Tygre said with the pressure on this zone, there will be potential conflicts so the housing should be a conditional use review. Margot Pendleton, representing Splash, asked how the 20 percent retail was arrived at. Bendon said this portion of the code amendment has not yet been discussed. Pendleton said beside accessory dwelling units and housing, the town also has a need for "Mom and Pop" stores. Pendleton said 20 percent retail does not seem realistic for what is actually happening in the SCI zone. Vince Galluccio, Aspen Repair, said the original SCI zone was for auto repair, appliance repair, manufacturing, welding. The uses for which the zone was originally intended have become incompatible with uses that have moved in down there. Blaich asked if the staff has a list of current non -conforming uses in the SCI zone. Bendon said he has done a walk through and has an idea of what is conforming and what is not. Bendon said he does not have the history of how these businesses got there, whether they may have legal protection as a non- conforming status. Janet Garwood said other city departments beside P & Z have allowed uses to locate in this zone. Garwood said the intent of this zone will be better served by making residential units conditional to make sure they are accessory to a use or beneficial to the zone. Garwood said the community believes in the intent of this zone; however, city departments will need to stick with this intent and not allow non -conforming businesses to get into the zone. G0 Bendon noted all of P & Z's discussions have been about uses, not dimensions. These are two different issues for the SCI zone. Bendon said the dimensional issue is to allow larger buildings, eliminate the open space requirements, eliminate some setback requirements, have lesser parking requirements, expand the FAR for affordable housing, and a dimensional percentage for retail. Blaich said P & Z is trying to protect the integrity of the SCI zone. Aspen and circumstance in Aspen have changed. This code amendment and its implications is very complex. Tygre moved to continue the meeting to March 10; seconded by Blaich. All in favor, motion carried. The Commission left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. 6C�v K'Ythryn S. Koc ity Clerk 10 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN USE, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 3, 1998, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, requesting approval of their application for a change in use from lodging to residential, a conditional use approval for five (5) accessory dwelling units, a consolidated conceptual/final planned unit development, and subdivision. The property is located at 720 E. Cooper Avenue. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/Sara Garton. Chairperson Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 17, 1998 City of Aspen Account MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THROUGH: Stan Clauson, Community Development irect4_� Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner 4k�_ RE: Work Session for the Bell Mountain Townhomes --- Re -Development of the Bell Mountain Lodge. DATE: October 21, 1997 SUMMARY: The Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, owner of the Bell Mountain Lodge which is located at 710 E. Cooper Avenue, has submitted a re- development plan to the Community Development Department. Staff has reviewed the application and provided a significant number of comments to the applicant. The applicant has since begun to revise the plans accordingly and would like to informally review their (applicant and representatives) ideas with the Commission. The applicant has not yet completed the new plans; thus, the intent of the work session is for the applicant to obtain some general feedback from the Commission members with regard to the concepts of the re -development plan before large sums of money are invested. The proposal calls for demolition of the Bell Mountain Lodge and development of seven (7) free market residential units and five (5) ADUs in its place. To follow through with such a proposal, the applicant will need to apply for a Lodge Change In Use, Conditional Use review, and GMQS Exemptions. The applicant's representatives will be present to explain the concept of the proposal, to answer questions and to explain how this re- development plan would fit in with the ongoing Independence Pass Plaza project. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman Planning Services P& SUBJECT: Bell Mountain Townhomes DATE: October 14, 1997 On August 5, 1997, the Bell Mountain LLC submitted an application to the City to develop seven (7) townhomes to replace the Bell Mountain Lodge. The application was submitted in compliance with the City's small lodge change in use process, following the residential allocation awarded to the Bell Mountain Lodge in the 1996 lottery, and the City's subsequent rezoning of the property to RMF/PUD, with an LP overlay. The staff's initial review of the application uncovered several areas of concern, both technical and substantive. Therefore, before spending considerable money to fully revise the application, project representatives met with a group of Aspen Community Development Department staff members. We presented them the outlines of a major change to our application. We received excellent feedback from the staff and it was agreed that we should next hold a work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission before we formalize our application. It is our hope to submit a consolidated conceptual/final PUD application to the City, so it is particularly important that we get some input before we prepare detailed architectural, engineering and landscape plans. As will be more fully described in site plans we will present at the meeting, the development is proposed to consist of a single building connected below grade, that will appear as three buildings above grade, to soften its massing. Two of the buildings will each contain three free market units and two ADU's, while the third building will contain one free market unit and an ADU. Therefore, the project total will be seven free market units and five ADU's. The buildings are being designed so that they can be developed either as a distinct project or as part of Independence Pass Plaza (the "mini -block"). If the project becomes part of the mini -block, then the basement would be eliminated from the design and the building would be developed on top of the parking garage. In neither case would there be commercial space on this side of the development. This is a decision made by the landowner following this summer's design charrette and based on preliminary findings from the Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (DEPP), which have concluded that Cooper Avenue should remain a through street. This conclusion leads us to believe the development of commercial space on this side of the street would be a poor economic risk. We request your feedback on our site plan, which has been designed with a build -to line about 20' back from the property boundary. This allows us to save many (but not all) of the large trees at the front of the property. It provides enough room for there to be parking off the alley for 2 cars for each free market unit and 1 car for each ADU. The staff has told us they feel the existing trees located in the alley should be removed by the City. We haven't been able to ascertain why the property received a mandatory PUD designation during the small lodge rezoning action. At this time, it does not appear that we will need to use the PUD designation to vary any of the property's dimensional standards. It appears that we can comply with the City's height, open space, setback, floor area and other standards. We will even be providing a 10' separation between each of the buildings above grade, although this is not required since the units are connected below grade. Please advise us if you feel that any of these elements should be varied in order to improve the overall site plan. We look forward to informally discussing this proposal with you on October 21, so that we can complete our formal application. mod. MEMORANDUM TO: The Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Stan Clauson, Community Devel pme t Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director 14ECEIVED FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner ilk— r 1999 DATE: September 22, 1997 ASPEN / PITKIN C 0 P""'m UN,ITY DEVELO�J",1Z.,;T RE: Bell Mountain Lodge Extension of GMQS Allocations and Vested Rights Parcel I.D. No. 2737-182-27-003, First Reading of Ordinance No., Series of 1997 SUMMARY: Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company (the applicant) is requesting another six (6) month extension of their 1993 Lodge GMQS allocation and vested rights status pursuant to Section 26.100.100. Approval of the applicant's request would extend the Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS allocations and vested rights from August 22, 1998 to February 22, 1999. The applicant also requests that Council waive the land use application fee in consideration of their continued willingness to cooperate with the City in studying Independence Pass Plaza, a potential public/private development project. The GMQS allotment and vested rights application is attached as Exhibit A. Community Development staff recommends that the requested six (6) month extension of the GMQS allocation and vested rights status for the Bell Mountain Lodge be approved; and the land use application fee be waived. APPLICANT: Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services. CURRENT STATUS OF INDEPENDENCE PASS PLAZA PROJECT: Economic and Planning Systems of Berkeley, California has completed a draft financial analysis of the Independence Pass Plaza development. They, along with Design Workshop, Inc. (DWI) and Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects, Ltd. (CGY) are under contract with the City to prepare the urban design studies and fiscal analysis necessary for the proposal to be brought before the City electorate. Final recommendations will be forthcoming. BACKGROUND: A GMQS allocation of twenty-two (22) lodge units was awarded to the Bell Mountain Lodge via Ordinance 3, Series of 1993 adopted on February 22, 1993. The allocation was based on the accumulation of ten (10) lodge units from the 1992 GMQS competition; ten (10) lodge units from the future 1993 GMQS competition; and r two (2) lodge units from the future 1994 GMQS competition. Vested rights were granted retroactively to the project via Ordinance 37, Series of 1993, adopted on July 12, 1993. The applicants have since been granted five (5) extensions of the GMQS allocation and vested rights (see Exhibit A). The last extension of the GMQS allocation and vested rights is to expire on August 22, 1998, five (5) years and six (6) months from the date they were originally granted. The current request is for an extension of the GMQS allocation and vested rights to February 22, 1999. The applicant explains their reasons for the current request as follows (see Exhibit A): "Almost immediately after the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company purchased this property in 1993, the Applicants agreed ,to work together with the City as a partner in an effort to realize a joint public/private partnership to create municipal parking beneath their property and the adjoining City Market and Buckhorn Lodge properties. The Applicants remain interested in achieving a project that can be of benefit to the community and that is economically viable. The City has recently completed an urban design analysis of that project and is also evaluating its economic implications. The Applicants continue to express their willingness to working with the City in these endeavors. The Applicants want to ensure that the timetable for their private development options does not interfere with the potential for realizing this valuable public/private partnership. Approval of this extension should give the City time to complete its ongoing studies." By approving this extension to February 22, 1999, further exploration and refinement of the Independence Pass Plaza proposal can be undertaken without jeopardizing the potential of the approved redevelopment project or applicant's GMQS lodge unit allocation. Although not directly related to the current request, in order to avoid confusion it may be worth noting that the applicants have also received approval for a three (3) four -bedroom residential unit allocation and 7,250 square feet of commercial space through the 1996 small lodge lottery. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.100.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code states that a development allotment and all other development approvals shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the latest date of project approval, unless a building permit is obtained and project is developed, or unless an exemption from or extension of the approval is obtained. For developments other than a subdivision, an application for extension shall be submitted prior to the third anniversary of the date of approval of a site specific development plan which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of City Council that: (a) Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its final approval which were to have been met as of the date of application for exemption have been complied with; and 41 RESPONSE: Any conditions of approval are required to be met prior to the issuance of any building permits. To comply with those requirements at this time would be premature as no plans have been submitted for building permit. (b) Any improvements which were required to be installed by the applicant prior to construction of the project have been installed; RESPONSE: No public improvements were required for this project prior to the issuance of building permits. (c) The project has been diligently pursued in all reasonable respects, and the extension is in the best interest of the community. RESPONSE: The applicant, along with the City, has been pursuing the Independence Pass Plaza redevelopment project for the past three -to -four years. It is in the community's interest for the project planning and feasibility studies to proceed forward at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development staff recommends approval of a six (6) month extension of the 1993 GMQS lodge unit allocation and vested rights for the Bell Mountain Lodge at 720 E. Cooper Avenue. The six (6) month extension shall begin on August 22, 1998 and shall expire on February 22, 1999. Staff also recommends that, as in the past, due to the applicant's participation and continued involvement in the Independence Pass Plaza project, the land use application fees be waived for this extension request. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. NO, Series of 1997, which extends the expiration date of the 1993 GMQS lodge unit allocation and vested rights status for the Bell Mountain Lodge at 720 E. Cooper Avenue from August 22, 1998 to February 22, 1999 and to waive the land use fees for this application." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: EXHIBITS: Exhibit A --- Application for Extension of GMQS allocation and vested rights .• ;4e4o R<oac c Tdx 3613 ,44Aeic, 94&v ed4 Y1612 July 9, 1997 ;ve"� se 4"* ,P4aW^>ax (970) 920-1725 Mr. Stan Clauson, Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RECF1VF_D YON MEW ASPEN' E�01P COMMUNIV U� RE: EXTENSION OF BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE GMQS ALLOCATION Dear Stan, This letter is submitted on behalf of my client, the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company (hereinafter, "the Applicants"), requesting an extension of their lodge GMQS allocation and the associated vested rights. The request is submitted pursuant to Section 26.100.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code, "Expiration of Development Order". This section states that development allotments awarded to a project shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of final development approval, unless a building permit is obtained and the project is developed. The section goes on to authorize the extension of an allotment, for a period not to exceed six (6) months, and also authorizes granting of additional extensions. Background The Bell Mountain Lodge was awarded a Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) allocation of twenty-two (22) lodge units via Ordinance 3, Series of 1993, adopted on February 22, 1993. Vested rights were granted to the project retroactively via Ordinance 37, Series of 1993, adopted on July 12, 1993. The GMQS allocation and vested rights were to expire three (3) years from the date they were granted, that being February 22, 1996. The Applicants have since been granted five (5) extensions of the GMQS allocation and vested rights. Ordinance 51, Series of 1994, adopted on October 11, 1994, extended the GMQS allocation to August 22, 1996. Extension of the vested rights was not addressed at that time. However, Ordinance 15, Series of 1995, granted a second extension of the GMQS allocation, including extension of the vested rights, to February 22, 1997. Ordinance 16, Series of 1996, extended the allocation and vested rights to August 22, 1997; Ordinance 39, Series of 1996, extended the allocation and vested rights to February 22, 1998; and Ordinance 12, Series of 1997 extended the allocation and vested rights to August 22, 1998. Mr. Stan Clauson July 9, 1997 Page Two Request The Applicants hereby request an additional six (6) month extension of the GMQS allocation and vested rights, which would extend the allocation and the vested rights to February 22, 1999. Our reasons for submitting this request are as follows. Almost immediately after the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company purchased this property in 1993, the Applicants agreed to work together with the City as a partner in an effort to realize a joint public/private partnership to create municipal parking beneath their property and the adjoining City Market and Buckhorn Lodge properties. The Applicants remain interested in achieving a project that can be of benefit to the community and that is economically viable. The City has recently completed an urban design analysis of that project and is also evaluating its economic implications. The Applicants continue to express their willingness to working with the City in these endeavors. The Applicants want to ensure that the timetable for their private development options does not interfere with the potential for realizing this valuable public/private partnership. Approval of this extension should give the City time to complete its ongoing studies. The Applicants request that as has been done for our prior extension applications, the City waive the fee for this application. We feel that this extension is necessitated only because of the Applicants' willingness to cooperate with the City to achieve a public purpose, and that there should not be a charge for processing this relatively simple matter. You have in your files a letter from Jim Valerio authorizing me to submit an application on behalf of the Bell Mountain LLC. Please call me if there is anything else that you require. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES Alan Richman, AICP MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development DirectoZiY r FROM: Bob Nevins, Long Range Planner RE: Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS Extension Independence Pass Plaza (formerly Independence Place) Update DATE: 13 October 1997 BACKGROUND: The concept of a "superblock," an east end parking garage with additional Neighborhood Commercial (NC) space above, was described in the adopted 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan. For the past four years, the City in cooperation with the owners of the Bell Mountain Lodge and City Market have been pursuing the financial and urban design feasibility of a scaled -down redevelopment project referred to now as Independence Pass Plaza. The consultant team retained by the City of Aspen to provide financial and urban design analysis of the proposed Independence Pass Plaza (IPP) redevelopment program includes Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) of Berkeley, California and Design Workshop, Inc./ Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects(CGY) of Aspen. EPS assessed the economic value created by the proposal. The EPS study evaluates the justification and benefits of public participation, and estimates potential private economic returns and need, if any, for public involvement. Design Workshop, Inc. (DWI) and Cottle Graybeal Yaw (CGY) of Aspen were commissioned to provide an objective, design -based understanding of what the physical form of IPP may be based on the established development program. Two public charettes, participatory workshops, were conducted to better understand the critical height, mass and scale of the buildings that could result from the proposed program. The public domain and urban design opportunities were also explored. In addition, the Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) Task Force reviewed the proposed development. The Task Force agreed that the proposed massing, scale and land use allocations "fit" within the context of downtown Aspen and that the location is appropriate for an intercept east end parking garage, neighborhood commercial uses, affordable housing and free-market units. CURRENT STATUS: The reports from both EPS and DWI/CGY have been reviewed by staff. The consultants are in the process of finalizing their reports. Staff is preparing to bring the financial and urban design findings to City Council for consideration on 10 November. Depending upon Council's concurrence, staff is recommending that a citizen roundtable be appointed to review the proposal from a community perspective. It is anticipated that two public roundtable sessions would be required in order for the citizens to formulate their findings and report to Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the GMQS allocations for the Bell Mountain Lodge be extended in order for the potential merits of the Independence Pass Plaza project to be evaluated by Council and the citizens of Aspen. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Project Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: February 13, 1998 (Revision) Re: Bell Mountain Townhomes - Change in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Conditional Use, and GMQS Exemption Reviews Physical Address: 710 E. Cooper Avenue, City of Aspen, CO Legal Description: Lots K, L, M, N, O, P, and the West 20.73 feet of Lot Q, Block 105, Townsite and City of Aspen, CO Parcel ID No.: 2737-182-27-003 This is a revised memorandum based upon the original application, memoranda of clarification from Mr. Alan Richman and Mr. Jay Hammond, conversations with Dave Gibson and additional site visits. I am reporting the combined comments made by the members of the DRC: [Site conditions at the time of site visit: December 26, 1997 and during subsequent site visits; 3 - 8 inches snow pack; some ground surface and features indistinguishable under snow and ice pack.] Discussion: The application and subsequent memoranda of clarification from the applicant's planner and engineer, improves upon the original application package although we have not seen a revised site plan reflecting the changes discussed in the memoranda. The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the several forms of development requested in the application. 1. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated December 16, 1997 and January 26, 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking or utility designs. 1 OF 6 DRC25A97.DOC Memo - Bell Mountain Townhomes: nge in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Conditiona e, and GMQS Exemption Reviews (Rev. 1) 2. City Water Department: As amended, providing water service to the property from S. Spring Street and entering the westerly building appears to be a more easily constructed service and would provide better accessibility. From the original floor plans of the garden level units, it appears that some re -configuring of the ADU may be necessary to provide access to the mechanical space housing the water meters and valves. 3. Sanitary Sewer Service: The revised plan of three sanitary sewer services as described in Jay Hammond's memorandum (1/26/98) is a more practical plan for serving the property. To provide the access to the mechanical space to service the sanitary sewer pumps and sumps, it appears that manholes will need to be placed in the driveway and parking areas since the mechanical (crawl) space lies beneath the driveways. 4. Utilities & City Electric Dept.: As reported by the several utility providers, there is sufficient capacity in the distribution and collection systems for the proposed development and no significant up -grades or changes will be required in the systems of the several utility providers with the exception of relocating the electrical switch gear and possibly installing a new electrical transformer. The revisions and clarifications outlined in Jay Hammond's memorandum regarding the relocation of the switch gear and its vault and the possible new installation of another electrical transformer adequately covers the technical requirements of these installations. Again, some re -configuration of the westerly ADU may be necessary to locate the switch gear vault and provide exterior access to the mechanical (crawl) space since the electrical vault can not be used as a means of access to the mechanical space (NEC). Utility meters and service connection points must be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and not obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or vegetation. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not located within the public rights -of - ways. As a point of clarification, while the City's linemen will perform the splicing, re -wiring and energizing of the relocated switch gear, the developer will be billed for the linemen's time and materials. The developer should place bollards at the sides of the re -located electrical switch gear on the east and west alley faces so as not to obstruct opening of the cabinet doors. 5. Trash and Recycling Areas: The areas in the original site plan proposed for trash and recycling containers do not meet the requirements for a special review of these facilities. The requirements of special review include the concerns previously mentioned: easily movable by trash collection personnel, and adequate access, such as not being at the low end of an 8% grass-crete driveway restricted by designated parking in -front of them. There appears to be adequate space on the site for the trash and recycling containers which will meet the requirements of city code however the proposed locations and configurations of the trash and recycling containers will need to change from those proposed. An alternate location would also not obstruct emergency exiting routes from the below grade ADU light wells, and may provide some on -site snow storage. Relocation of the trash and recycling containers could be done without sacrificing any parking spaces. 6. Easements: The subdivision plat will include easements for the relocated electrical switch gear and all the vaults, pedestals and above and below ground appurtenances for these utility installations. 2OF6 DRC25A97.DOC Memo - Bell Mountain Townhomes: ge in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Conditiona , and GMQS Exemption Reviews (Rev. 1) 7. Site Drainage and Conveyance of Overflow Drainage to Off -Site: The proposed dry -well system with overflow discharges are not acceptable. The design engineer must design this underground runoff discharge -type drainage system based on a soil percolation test on this specific lot to determine the feasibility of the ground injection of water through dry wells. The percolation test report must also list the seasonal high water table(s) during the Spring season. 8. Snow Storage Area: The site plan does not identify any areas along the northern exposure which would be suitable for snow storage. In order not to enclose the northerly lightwells between the buildings and to maintain the ADU parking spaces and driveway access to the garages, snow would need to be completely removed from the site or transported and stockpiled on the western or southern sides of the site out of the public right-of-way. Areas for snow storage should be part of the site plan and coordinated with the location(s) of the trash enclosures, parking areas, and utility cabinets and pedestals. 9. Aspen Fire Protection District: Depending upon the floor area and configuration of the buildings, the buildings will probably require fire sprinklering and the water service line(s) and valving should be sized accordingly. 10. Public Transportation: The applicant should be requested to grant an easement, approximately 2' W by 4'L, for the placement of a bus stop bench (probably without a shelter) behind the sidewalk along the E. Cooper St. frontage (preferably at the southeast corner of the property per RFTA to minimize traffic and street parking impacts) at a location that will not obstruct the traffic patterns at the intersection of E. Cooper Ave. and S. Spring St. 11. City Parks Department: Revisions to the utility plan may necessitate revisions to the landscaping plan and should be reviewed by the Parks Dept. in more detail. Another species of tree may be needed in place of the proposed maple trees along the street frontages. The applicant has not provided any technical information regarding the installation, operation nor maintenance of the proposed structural grass mat system intended for the driveway and parking areas. Apart from the apparent questions related to traction on a wet, snowy or icy inclined grass surface and under -drains of the mat system (four units at east end), it is not clear that this installation would meet the city's energy code since it was represented as maintaining a driveway surface warm enough to be free of snow and excessive moisture. The proposed scale and location of this installation needs additional supporting documentation. If the proposed building footprint or deep excavations (including over -excavation) may impact the root systems of existing trees as determined by the City Parks Dept., the contractor will use sheet piles or other techniques pre -approved by the City Parks Dept. to protect the tree root systems from the excavation. 12. Traffic Impacts: The proposed change in use from a nineteen (19) unit motel to seven (7) townhomes with five (5) interior ADUs, will result in a net decrease in vehicle trips per day based upon the standard vehicle trip per day values given in the ITE design manual for these different types of development according to the Environmental Health Dept. 3OF6 DRC25A97.DOC Memo - Bell Mountain Townhomes: nge in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Condition e, and GMQS Exemption Reviews (Rev. 1) 13. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repair and Replacement: As necessary, the existing side- walks, curbs and gutters will be repaired or replaced to meet the sidewalk standards before completion of the project. Any improvements or areas disturbed during construction will be restored to existing condition or better. The existing driveway curb cuts onto S. Spring St. and E. Cooper Ave. will need to be replaced with curb and gutter matching the existing profile. Along the S. Spring St. frontage the new sidewalk should be, 6.5 ft wide to permit placement of street and parking control signs. If the sidewalk is detached from the back of the curb along this frontage, it may be reduced to five (5) ft in width and the landscape buffer should have adequate width to support landscaping (5 ft minimum) or as approved by the Parks Dept. Along the E. Cooper Ave. frontage, if the sidewalk is substantially removed, the replacement sidewalk should be 6.5 ft in width to permit placement of street and parking control signs. If the existing sidewalk is retained with replacement of selected sections, the unpaved 6" strip between the back of curb and the sidewalk should be paved with concrete to widen the sidewalk to approximately 5.5 ft width. The diagonal handicap ramp at the northeast corner of E. Cooper Ave. and S. Spring St. should be replaced with two (2) directional handicap ramps. A concrete apron will be required at the westerly end of the alley although the alley itself should not be paved due to the increase in drainage run-off and the added costs to utility companies to repair and replace their distribution and service lines. The "Stop for Pedestrians" signs proposed in the application should be installed by the developer at each end of the alley to be visible to vehicles before they cross the sidewalks when exiting the alley. The existing fence along the E. Cooper Ave. frontage must either be removed from the right-of-way and may be relocated within the property boundaries if the owners wish to retain it. 14. Street Lights: If the existing street lights are disturbed during construction, they should be replaced in alignment with the other street lights along the streets. To minimize the conflict of opening vehicle doors adjacent to the light posts, the sidewalks should be widened to provide a minimum five (5) ft wide walking area around the back of the light posts. 15. Parking: The proposed parking plan shows a parking space in front of the trash collection area located between the two triplex buildings. This is not an acceptable location since it prohibits access for trash collection. It appears that there is adequate space to relocate the trash and recycling containers on the site without losing a parking space. 16. Driveways: The proposed driveway at the far east end of the building exceeds the maximum permissible 12% slope of a driveway meeting a public right-of-way and needs to be adjusted to bring the slope into conformance with City code requirements. As discussed above, before approving the proposed garage driveways for the easterly triplex, we will need additional information about the feasibility and operation of the proposed structural grass mat system intended for the driveways. 4OF6 DRC25A97.DOC Memo - Bell Mountain Townhomes: ge in Use, Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Conditiona , and GMQS Exemption Reviews (Rev. I) 17. Lateral Support of Adjacent Properties: The proposed design requires excavating to within less than one (1) ft of the property lines on the east, north and west sides of the property. As briefly discussed in the geotechnical report, conventional excavation will not be feasible and an alternate support system will be necessary in order to provide lateral support to the neighboring property and the rights -of -way. Due to interruption of vehicular traffic and the need to maintain utility service during construction to the site and the neighboring properties, it is not advisable to close the alley during construction to permit over -dig into the alley width. 18. Improvement Securities: The developer will need to post financial securities, in a form acceptable to the City, to secure the integrity of the existing utilities during and after construction of the project, and installation and replacement of utility services for a warranty period of at least one (1) year (PUD 26.84.040.D and Subdivision 26.88.050.D). 19. Traffic and Parking Plan: The developer will need to provide a traffic and parking plan acceptable to the City Engineer, Parking and Transportation Dept., Streets Dept, and Utilities Dept. with the building permit. The plan should show traffic detouring, parking, and staging areas for the several stages of construction of the project. The developer will also need to rent on -street parking spaces if any such spaces will be temporarily impacted or unusable for public parking. These plans and permits will also need to coordinate with the Rights -of -Way permit for the utility and street frontage work. 20. Fugitive Dust Control, Erosion and Construction Drainage Plans: The developer will need to obtain a Fugitive Dust Control Permit and provide an Erosion and Construction Drainage Plan with the building permit plans. 21. Conditional Use - Accessory Dwelling Units: The proposed site plan needs to be revised to provide the required number of parking spaces while also providing acceptable access and serviceability for the trash and recycling containers on the site. The proposed locations of the trash containers encloses the north side of the lightwells which precludes the possible use of the lightwells for emergency exiting from the below grade ADUs. 22. Subdivision and Condominiumization: For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general common elements and limited common elements will be labeled, dimensioned and identified on the condominium plat recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site. If condominiumized, the condominium plat will be recorded prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the completed project. The abutting subdivisions and lots will also be shown on the subdivision plat as required by Aspen Municipal Code. 23. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the subdivision plat. 5OF6 DRC25A97.130C =I Memo - Bell Mountain Townhomes: ge in Use, Consolidated PUD. Subdivision, Conditiona , and GMQS Exemption Reviews (Rev. I) 24. As-Builts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements. 25. Work in the Public Rights -of -Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights -of -way; Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mail- boxes, street and alley cuts; and shall obtain permits for any work or develop- ment, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the City Com- munity Development Department (920-5090). DRC Meeting Attendees: Applicant: Alan Richman, planner for applicant Staff & Referral Agencies: Tom Bracewell, Mitch Haas, Rebecca Schickling, Ross Soderstrom DRC25A97.DOC 6OF6 ''ommunity Development Department " + aE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 " I =#t_ CiENI)ER F'�:D 0. ? �1: z;�Pw A kETURN TO SENDS NO LONGER AT T �R H. c � .4bpRES � BERSCH BLANCHE C AS TRUSTEE OF BERSCH TRUST 4 1 i a<:) c qs FEB 04 199 FC ` 8 PUBLIC NOTICE �Ev 'o RE: BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN UgeVN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 3, 1998, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, requesting approval of their application for a change in use from lodging to residential, a conditional use approval for five (5) accessory dwelling units, a consolidated conceptual/final planned unit development, and subdivision. The property is located at 720 E. Cooper Avenue. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/Sara Garton. Cha_ person Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 17, 1998 City of Aspen Account )mrnunity Development Departmem 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 x FAN4CHAEL E OU LUES C/O I OBOX 944 DEERFIELD BEACH FL 33443 War 10 VA '�Lull VIAA ALWAYS 8,11 ' 63Z ENVE , PP-Ikro- JF 0 1 0 ofD �7 l".EENC?44 334433009 1997 25 NOTIFY SENDER OF NEW ADDRESS K,EENAN 63 COMMONWEALTH AVE APT I-F BOSTON MA 02116-2326 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN USE, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 3, 1998, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, requesting approval of their application for a change in use from lodging to residential, a conditional use approval for five (5) accessory dwelling units, a consolidated conceptual/final planned unit development, and subdivision. The property is located at 720 E. Cooper Avenue. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, Li0 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. /Sara Garton Chairperson Asper. Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 17, 1998 City of Aspen Account RECEIVED J ANi 2 7 1998 ASPEN 1 PITKIN •_• T ommunity Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 UJA MINI INC CANADIAN CORPORATION 2880 CARLING AVE OTTAWA ONTARIO K2B M CANADA ri - WAYS !'IS; LIP r0D -- PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BELL MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN USE, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 3, 1998, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, requesting approval of their application for a change in use from lodging to residential, a conditional use approval for five (5) accessory dwelling units, a consolidated conceptual/final planned unit development, and subdivision. The property is located at 720 E. Cooper Avenue. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/Sara Garton, Ch *_erson Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 17, 1998 City of Aspen Account 1N3ryd0j3A3Cj -LI N NnWW po 9661 z z Ndr 0-3ilQ �� LO `2 v (n _ N a a N N r N n n O N OD r r c0 r r co Op N OD M O N r In r N co r N O J j co a N_ n LO N r N O r N N N O O N f0 � r r r r S(o N O r n tF N S N co Cl) O c0 (o Co r N (o r O I� O co O N O N O n to to cO N M CO co r (O tD t0 t0 tD f0 f0 J Q) OD g n M aD co lA m r 0� N OD Y OD OD OD O coo 00 1� N N O m CO co c0 O OD OD oD a0 OD cD 00 OD 00 a 0 oC O O O— a Z a 0 O O a 0 0 o a O O xOlz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y Mio¢ 0 Q a U V Z O U WU Q g w z F-ccJ w Cl) J O O w Y = z (n O m O 0 J J w w z J O w o 0a�a 0 m Y O U) �mw 0 z Og¢��z}}0 z U 2= 0 V Z zzZ ozC O¢ w J Y Qaaw-3�aaD W W xg0� Iw- O} cn W W w¢ 0 Q W cL 3 003a�O8>>Ugg3aaaax00(n U W (n Y O w w fOn m m J W W HIZIM W WppOirU)0- cncns¢w cncnO�cn¢zF-wv)020ww� wcncncnwwF- -Jaac-j� QUJzn.a¢m0a>0wz¢xmamin4- z¢Qaa 0 CD N �} a O W C~o '- r z S (n W J m r W F- W > W > ¢ Y j LO m } } a 3 a w >_ w > w w w w w W w w > >mw W (n as ao m W w w W m z m oac > aacnaaaaaa > F- > > > > > Q (n F- m= x w U 2 w oC w F- N>I w 0 r LL J Q LL O� O z F- cn F- Z F- Z F- Z F- Z F- Z F- Z F- Z F- Z F- Z J z J c w n Q a Q 0 n a C7 J Q 0,> J co Y w m (n 0) N rn N w F- J M a O :.) U( U Y Z_ Y M U w aD aD m Q 2 Q O M w QX>>>>> o 0 0 0 0 7>>> 0 0 0 0 fn a p U) O m z W W N O¢ m n U p m g 0> m n O m ((> N N U O m O$ m W W W W W W W W W o n o n n a a g a a rn a Ln g `m a a¢ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a (o co � 3 Co t coo v 0 m w 2 2 x m J to } Uz cc W m F- OU m O a[ m m Q¢ x x z cc w a U)¢ Ir oCCl) Cl) 00[ w0wwwwwww Fz- Q Fz- H H Fz- H Z 1Z- O z = a O w a w m w � F- J x F_- x¢ m x¢ m w �w aU cn mw x� ~F-w0 m w w m a:m F-U mm ¢¢ aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaw cc O Z F- W z ir W :� z F F- m O U J= W U Cl) w J o J m o w V o w 0 w 0 w w w o w w a.c^r U 0[ U Cl) J Z ¢ w m 0° ~~ Z W VVVV V J a a c N D} Z _Q Q Q w m x Q U w x wm O J 2 J J J J J J J OU) x 3 O o m w r Y z J_ z wam J> z m z a> D F- oC �OD¢ax O w w U O LL O W w -� O J O O(n owaoo00oo O O O O O O O ¢z w z m x U m aw J 0 O} �ww T QOU(c� x Lu oo ¢> m z Q¢¢ m m m m Q ¢ Q w Q cr a F- z 3 Q O F- O J w N Y o m m (L Z 2} J cn J > x J J W m 0 X O X> O O U z O X S ZZ Q 2 W F- co a Q m¢ Q O O z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o z m 0 x W o O m w a z z m w p m ,n m O 06 ap m Y W F- w m O 0 O W O O O pp U 0 0 0 U z ,� p U Q z z a wa w (� n O O w N cxn O cr cn O U w U U U U U g a a m a m U U a¢ Q x x F- 8 W w WZ Um z = D a w2 D w Ircr m m (L a W oF-J w m z S Q m cr m J w m co Q J W W> m U U) W J (n d Z W U O w fn W m W U w m W m W m w cn w cn w U) w 22a F- mz U)rn a 2 m ad z ��2U) g F- m a cnw2_ > F- z UU �� aaaaQ¢Q_aa F- J 00= J z } m OJ OJ w~ Q CL CC m m— a cc J W ,..� w W U z J J U U U U 8 8 U U U cc cc CL 0am¢a00F -0�mzwUw��=zQ°Ca:C—) cca w LU ZQ zQ m cnYcOnv�ivOivOivOivOicO00 x m m m m m m m ncww w w w < F Ui w w a Z Z Z W m~ 0 U Q Z Q I q Y w a~ W z z ¢ Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q zzmF-0 0003OmUUaw_J��O¢���ammLLQO~Ca(c�i(S�(g(c�(S(g(So -1 J ►w- 00(na co M m (n m J zu)(nu) O cc W m W m W Z O mom J w z W -u J m' W C3 m 3 w m J F- m>O�.3Zss O .e rL Y O Y Q i U (n U (n O x a a Q a x U rr Y U Y U Y U rrrrrr Y U Y U Y U Y U Y U Y U N n Q a¢ w o 0 0 m a F- m x o m J J x OC o J J J m J m m m m w m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 conQQQ¢QQQZQQQaQmcommmcommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm T N N O) M N 01 r M M aO N M M ao O Of O O O O e} O N o H (o O co n O co CO n m 8 (o N n M Cl) OOOppp w ao u'� N M _� C9 n cfl r O 0 O n 0 O Co N 0 O w M_ m n (n to r N M OD M O M M M (O co 00 p Np W Op din 00 w CO N M O O S O S S ap 8 8 S S p 8 S O S 88 O 88 O 88 8 o S S O S S O S O O O � O cr�� O cc�� cr Q O Q O cr� O Q � O Ir� O cr cc O cc. cc a: O cc Q O m O m m O m m 0 m 0 cc m cc cr m� m m m m m S N S N S aD IA O r O O r N O 00 O O Q) M O S (O (o S O N O ((/ O O rn S v M O n O WM O O N O WN O O M O M S O n O �n 0 O N S M� r O O O O N n O n 4 N O S n M O O N O S O w O O O O M O (O tr' OD N pp M OD N N M r co M r r O N r N co 0? CO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 00 N M N 00 N OD N OD N M N 00 N DD N DO N 00 N N N CO N 00 N 00 N OD r N 00 r N 00 r N 00 r N OD r N 00 r N 00 r N OD N OD N OD N OD N N N OD 00 N CO N OD N M N CO N 00 N OD N 00 N 00 N 00 N 00 N 00 N 00 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N cm N N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N nInln N N N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N n N � N N CO r c0 r r r r T r T r GD (p O N (O In T _6 N 6 r 6 co N co n M N O n M +- r h cn 10 CV 0 O N O r r r r r r- ILr r co (o to to cD QOi co co (O T S c0 r O n to r n o t0 T N 0 co T N T N O to T co r o 0 r O co C� v f0 r f0 T f0 r f0 r CO T T T T T T Oo 0o Go Go ao Go m m Go m aD m r ao n aD K) T M w M aD T a0 a0 ao n GO Q) ao ao O OD O a0 CD ao OD O GO GO GO G0 GO O O O O O O O O O O O O Ojj� O J O¢ O O O a 0¢ 10,0 o 0010,0 0 O O O O O pw Z Y} Z cc-iouccoc000 w F. W F- Y Y cn 0 w O p 0 w Z w zLLJ III -j 2 a U U O U OYC Z 0 z LLI W O} Ca z z z z z z z z } p U Z z } p z} O F- J F- z 2 o cn 3 z > cn Z J Y 0> as w z z Z w O as Q W O z z z z z z z z z z z z z z W aaaaaan.5- W W W W W W W W aga3cn�aF-¢F-aJar0zma.-�a W Q cn W U ar Q W 0 W W 0 Z m J �a.aaaaaaaaaaaaa w w W W w W w w w w w W W W w w w w w w w w cn cn w a O cn O D cn ¢ Q ac w cn cn O aC O w w w w o w w cn cn cn cn cn cn a a a a a a a a 3 3 a Q Z m 2 a 2 cn w a a U m a < < 0 C7 m m Q Q a a a a a a a a a N O N 0 W j j j j j j j j w W } ¢ z 2 W W w w W W w W W W W W W w a aaaaa a a a a J x 'a F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- C7 1— a CO w > g F- F- w w Z Z Z z z z z Z Z o z cn ao z Z u) cn a} 0 z O z z Z Z z z Z Z z z z z z z a ar s as a Cr N w n a 2 k M °T' o J Q r Y wCC ~ a Q a i a a a a a a a a¢ a¢ > D > O > D > D > D > D > O > D X> X } S cA X> Q } S X 3 cn x z Z) 0 w X p J } 2 } 2 } 2 } 2 } S } S } 2 } 2 } 2 } 2 } 2 2 } 2 } 2 wwwwwwwwm�m w3co 0 O mx W w 2 U m3wwwwwwwwwwwwww LUCoF-xu� r _o 0 0 r O o O cn �n N O w N �n O e� c'� �n O u� O co M o M rn M U 0 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N n T. n n n n n n a rn a n cr) a M n a T v n a N W a T n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Ocoaic2naiaiaic= z z U m w x w x w m w x w m w x w FW- c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Q z z z Z z z Z ' CC U U U U U U U U U U U U F- CC F- CC F- ar F- ar F- CC F- ar F- ar 3° cn S z z Z Z Z z z Z Z Z Z z Z ~ Ci '7 U 0000000000000 60000000 s an¢a�aa Z N w Wad w w as as M M M M x w w w as U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e C.)W Z J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F- Z F- w F- W F- W F- W F- W F- W F- 0 O Z a F- 2 J Q J Q¢ J J Q¢ J J Q¢ J J Q J Q J Q J a J a J a w g g Q Z OCl) a.3 w} w w 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J J J J J J Jcc 0 Vi Z w x Z aC olf oil otS aiS aZS a2S aiI aiS aiS aiS aiS aZ1 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Z w it Z U U ZQ w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w >¢a 0 0 0 0 QaQaar 0 0 0 Q co N 0 aZU 2 co NWO22SW Q Z_ (n 0 O N n Y W ara:cra:a:a:aracoca:ccacac W W W W W W W W W W W W Z W cr O J ar O J O J ar O J as O J CC O J as O J W (D X O Fw- Z Z a cn w X O W J J_ a W w m O Q X O Z W D W O W Cl) W O W cn 0 W 0 W 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 W 0 W 0 W a 0 0 Q O o 0 0 } Q m 3 O U J¢ �. m 0 CC aC GD 2 Q r ar w m W ¢¢¢¢ F- F- �LLJ F- F- a F- Q¢ F-F- Q¢ Q¢¢ a 'n UUUUw O o arQO 0cr¢MSN20J 000000000o600 cn a co m U 0 m U r, U w U a 0 U U U 0 F- Q z O w w w w w w w w w QQ 0 o O Q z W W Cr JY a 0 xx���»�>»�n�->> 0 w CC CC CC CC CC CC CC w w x M M M F- 0 k 0 Ov 0 z Q = LL ~ ~ Q (a�ca(a�ca(Q_��(a�C¢_��(ca_��Qm O o O o O O U O 0 F- xxxOCCaJ2zpcna0 ~~ J } w LL adz a Z CC W U}g Z J U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U S U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC W m w m w m w Q 3 Y tr Q < F- O O [] Z O¢ cn w} W 0 J 2 O J m 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 a a 0 ap acpp ap a a w m O o o ¢ Q W Q S c r C` 0} � -D (� Q 0 ' -� cn O U a ~ LL F J W J W J W 1 W J W J W J W J W J W J W J W J W J W J W c¢cpp c¢cpp c¢cpp _ c c O c _O _o O T o as Y m Z m Z} W W p ar 0 0o z Q fn o J 3 Z as W¢� z_ w Y O CC z z z z z z z z z z z z z z Z W N W W m W Z Z ar Z a cn 3 J W m M Q z W O 0 W 0 w 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 w 0 W 0 w Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y J J W Z a�F- < O o O O o 0 0 0 o z 3 3 3 a w O O J 2 z oC ar as a a¢ w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m U U U U U U U U U 10 U U U 10 10 U 10 10 10 10 010101010 0101 O M Lo S a co n Cl) U MMMSrcAttM co co to S N O 0 CD M co n w O T O n V T O N CA h N W CD cn <O r N a0 M M d' N O n N N_M W O W w n n n N M M W W O CD N w O M w w M M T c0 _ O O N O O CD CD 00 CD CD CD GD CD CD W w w w w ll I w m wm x as as m w w as w aC as as aC ar as aC as as aC as aC as ar as as ar as ar aC ar X ar as as ar as as ar CA O n O N N O M N O r T O 0 N O N O W M O W) O O) S o n O O O N N O N O O O N O N O r n 0 T N n N M O CO O 0 CO O N N M w N N OOO� O� w N w O n O w w N O �f ON M O 9N Q . N 00 M N et M In N T T OD M M M 07 M OD O N 1 r r r T r T r T r T ? r T r T r r r T T r T r T r r r r N O N M N OD N M N W N OD N 00 N M N O N GD N W N 00 N M N C' N 00 OD N O N M N 00 N O N 00 N O N O CV O N O N OD N OD N OD N OD N O N N N O N OD N O N O N GO N GO N GD N O N O N W N O T N O T CV O T M M M M Cl) M M M M M M M M is M M M M 0 M � M . M M M M M n M M M M M lc*.) M M M � M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Cr I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cli O N co N N N O O COrD rCCDO rCO CrO rCD rCO rCO r(O N_N(p� CO MO M N 9- O _ o M M W n W O O N O M w MN W n r 0 NN O M M O n O C\j N OM 0N rc0p _cp rn LMnN N N OO od CD 0O 0r0 0r0 W to n 0)m) w O 0 ro a 0 M 0 w w w ao O 0181010100 O Q Z U O O O a a O O O a F- ¢ O — O a O a s} p J Z �¢ J J Z J J J W J w 0 J = LL m J p m O z Ir =300 = p J 0 U O z aQaYC¢poQ w a zzzzzzzzmw`"z`nzzQzw �(L g w wzm g z}c7zcFnz�zmoz�zm�wQw�zo�¢¢O 0in (n O w o U. co W w w w w w w w w z w w U w> w w w m z w R w m a.0 Cl)a. U U cal)c°ncancancancCD(n(anwz¢awc¢cancan=can¢wwcanwww0vai0¢wwwJviWwU) a¢aaa¢aam�0c�oaaUac�mm z0am<LL(5CC0 ma3UaU Uiw-iw¢__¢ 3C)Z2UUa m m 0 C7 F- > o� > fw0 g J o w > w > w > w > w > w > w > w > m r o w 3 m 3 w > Q Q Z w C7 Z F (~j Z a Z a 3 ¢ w a o 3 a z a z a z a z a¢ z z a z a z a z W U 2 a z m o o a �o � z a w o o CO w Co z p a a Q a Q a a a Q g O N C 55>- N W g i w� O a z m cr LL o a }}}}}}}}Qcnz m} 0wcrO8►_- mxw08U) x az OQ wx YF-mW CCmWU m c°iOpr` �ao U Ill w w w w w w w 3 J w m w Q O o m m w O W o 0 4 w a v z woo Z m w U z V o o 0 u', m a m z m in n o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 _N M M Cn L) Lo w r r W a M CO N N N O c`Ma co o r o Cn Lo r r W N n n n n N N n M (no co n N v v n Lo 000 a.. M n m a r O U d F- LL 0 0 OO (n W z 2 H z_ > Z m z Z oM O O O N a W Q W O oU) N w� W w S U F- 0 0 0 S O U S 2 H Y U J � U M = m Q Q 3 Q O 0 m U � m F- 7 w z S z m Cl) W ad w OC 0 cc 2 Z z z m F- W jr ¢ C7 U z xsoexs 3g W U_ z� w ao 8(L �w 5J ¢> �J craF-S w>Q m o �Q �m 000 C7 Z J M W m$ W LL W } m M a Z z } W m m m aw 3 a a¢ Z LL _iir D a w n Z z a F- z Z O 8 p Z ¢oC p www F- F- F- W LL Sopawg�W CC J `�' w m m Qw W S Zg�oa W W O J m 0 U >- O Q O Q O Q O o m a.. 0 } J m J u~> O N (� N F- Q J m M~ Cn W OU Z v a cc S co U 0 0) 0 w O 0 N LWL n O ~ m LL C7 LNn Q) W Z Q J � W O m w D a s W w a F O O O Fw- D w Q J U) Z u CC F- W m � a 06 a w a z O Q U r a O z � orf m 2 m m m m m m m m F- cr)CC ILLIr pC w C7 r .6 Z cn J a 0 U U p z J LL OJ 0 m o 0 O C7 z U U U U U U U U OW m W U F- Z mww uJ Y M a> } (} mm0, J > a ��_} Z cr wZ= a a =0WUU Q m 2 C7 2 C7 S C7 S C7 2 C7 S C7 2 C7 2 C7 w F- z z m g W W U S J m :51 p m= O w m W m; m Z a Z m 0 a g 2 a 0 F- U S J g J H J W J W J w J W J W J W J W J w o Q W= M O w J ¢ z J 0 Y a. J Q S O J Y ~ O z U 0 w S LL 0¢ Z m> Z ILL Z m m w S z Q z Z z z Z z z Z 0 Z 0-1 J Q w J ?y Z p m Q U J m a O W V Z m m O a z w m o q a Z Z m M m W¢> m m o Z Q J 0 Q a F- Q U J W p J M W M w (n w M w M W fn w fn W fn w¢ w z w m w w m} U U >- LL >- W z J W S U m¢ Li- W W Z 0 0 Z z O W Q J Z U W m w} m m J F- W S W 3 Q 2 m O U Z O (j Z m W m w Y U p m Z- W> Q O O O O O O O O O O m U¢¢ a w m-- O>>>-j z z w w w O m-J-i O w m D a m � O O m m U U U U U U U U U 01010 0 0 0 0 0 Cl. 0 0 0 0 0 W W W LL LL LL U. LL LL LL LL w LL LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 .M} O �N�}} O 9, O 10 0 O) M 0 U) 7 n O Cn n— N M r CCC'��� O tt) to M m M W M CO ��}} O M M N O M O) f0 N CO O O O 00 � Epppp M M OD Cf) t0 CO U) N GD M n g 0 n �0) f0 r� le�� O N M O tMCI M M �Nry n M O� COO O M N N w W w O M O w w r r S r N In Q O 00 T p r Q O O00 O 00 8 Q 8 N In T r 8 r p O O p O p O p 8 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O 8 8 O z5 0 0 o O 0 O o O O O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m I m I CC I m m I m I m I m m CC o O m O a M N a0 r� nr M M� o mrNy$ M O NNO M� mMM) Wr LNo 0)� 0)pppp 0 Oa rn� NO rn� OM o z; ro� N 0M8 I-�p Lo L�n M L�o MO 00 Lo M O ON O O O O O O O MT O OMq O O 1N O O CM O O � D AN DN pp T �m� AN 0M M M N O N O N CD N O N CD T Cil w T N 00 T N OD T N OD r N OD r N 00 N 0_D N CO N "' N CO a0 N OD N aD N OD N OD N CO r N CO r N CD T N CO N C0 _ N 0_D N 00 N OD N aD r N a0 r N N N OD N G0 _ N CO N C7D N C_0 N 0_D N 00 N OD N a0 N GO N OD N a0 r N aD r Cl) Cl) Cl) M M M M M M M M r; M n M t` M M t` M t` M n M r M n M f: M t; M t` M t` M t` M n M t` M t` M M- r; M f` M r` M r` M f` M n MINIM r` M n t` M n M t` M n M r` M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N I,- N NN N N N N N C'7 OD c0 r N CtDV N p In N N CA N r r N r; Co n MOO O CNO N N N 0 F- co Cn co N N G CM CO Cn CO N Cp to cb 6 -L T' a r 6CV O -O N j -L CO N NTrCO �fAD � 6 Ce.�9t{ rCO �c0 N�NO TCO NO11101AA'11 '-'CO Otor T n N MO ���CO OD Oo rr CD co co r` 0 w o m o D CO CD m w v It 0 0 CO CO o w w w CD N m 0 w w m 0 w N o c0 CO et o0 W 0) CD CO 00 z0anOJ— OZ a000¢00 ¢ OOaO O Q 0> z m Y LL Z Z Z LL Cc) U U W (� Q 0 0 JLil H W tr a Z 0 U J J a Y w 0 LLQUi m O COi¢�F-LLJ w ar wza JJ 0Uw x0 z Q m z x p C7 J a¢ 0 LL W W z Z cr 0 0 > w O W J J o Oatw-Ow¢~ran�wUcn Q w 0 a w a Z W 0 W 2 Z W Z Y O a a Z W x W x w o (�} o (j Z W Z¢ W Z W Z W Z W a. g x W J a Q U Z W Z W m o LL x Z W Q W H Z O Z W Z W W z Z W O IrwwvaiUU¢Qnmm�Cl) Cl) pxcancan¢wcan¢w¢�Ovaivai�canw a m O z m¢ H 3 a o m 0 C m m LL LL¢ a ¢ x J J U Q a a 0 N U a cn Q ¢ x o S LO x rn } w N S >v w `n X m Y m W m p x T cl Z J Y H x x J J o D a I w w a 0 0 > Q 00?JOcn oa cr w NU CO Cn (nlncnQH}m¢�m U m8�n 0 J mg J a cr } zN—< N w a �w x H cn— LL Z J > zz H CO Z YYYxxll Z Z Z U x DJawx w a w1-�rriuj x N < ar UOw�ma co ON -10 c) Y ww J OOOmF- Z(n aw°)�ci�3� SN O X x W Y Z X a g >> Z Z 2 x x S W U J x o0c¢ 0> J Z z X= m 2 U X U m U cc 0 m a) n It fn W W W N U O U w Cl) O CD O M m o r N w C) w r` m W Cn CD O co r CC) S O 8 O_ r CD U')OD CD p O rn N Q r a. N N 7 a W N N N OD COO CO N r r h O r N a M CO CO a. In H 0 F-W cn U 1p cn ¢ O T Q w w LL 0=C w z >> x H x H ~ x F- w v T r x W U) O J W W U. j > cc m x (j ~ cr -OR O� 0-0 U x m F- U 0 Z= ¢ Q Q O W z F- U) W CNO x¢()� zV a U. LL O 0 U W Z LLI Z W �gi� lLLL CLLL W O z x ¢z a x rr z m CC Z w a z Q 0= (n Cn Q x U w x -� ~O W W Q Q U J Er w 0 a z CC 0 Z w M C' Q 3 C7 r LL x w x N LL 0 LL>> 0 Z Q Z Q Er Z Z z w rn CO M °� z 0 x x wLLI¢ 0 Z Q Z Q U Q N N X t� X a 0 J r X w 0= In 0 g Cn CO X w w W w= Q Q o 2 F- } Q Z W !n co z a LL w J J rn X O z w W Y }} Y z J J m W m m m Z z m - w Q O 0 W 0 LLI m J¢ to x �- O Ux»¢xooxaOwO,, H x OxmvvL2 0 0 LO ago F- Qow w x w x w xasa.a xa.xLL a co CDrlO U) YaY Y H W ~ J a H 0 z co cc LL �� J W 0 O x o zcn 0 fn w �w m ¢U H x 0 } J 0 w¢ v' m 0J F- CL J Z Z U W> O LL 0 0 z w u~izix Q¢m Q� w `o" f' } O Cx70 z�zLL x -ma.g�J> o=ZQ jr °�a z W as cncn-,� O0 wog ww�w� c~i> > Din ¢ x z in g O z ¢ 2 z O a Q u -, x Z z U U z z Q to m m z 0 k a x'Qa F- w ►- m U U J w w Q f=JxxxO _J 3 F- z a o m Q F- cn u~icnxm�wx0-)zz00 (r z a a LL Z Z 0 U w a a F- J F- J QN d }QaQQi lL LL m O m o O 2 x W Z Z Q x Q >i J o U U M Q 0 x U z 0 x Z Z w x~ x w o U W z Z H x W F' U} o x Q z O 0 J Q x Q x 0 Z J 0 D x U x C7 C7 O m w Na Cl) Y fn Y} LL Z LL Z x Q x Q 7 a 0 p x F- x F- 2 H 0 Z 0 O Z 0 — Z Y z— J -Z m ¢ Q Y J Q m O m x W J Q w m a w Q z m W x Q z w 0 J w g C'3 z 0 m U x U m x¢¢ g U w U¢ w m m w z z z z U} m m O m w w¢? U m z Q cn p W z 0 m 0 cn 2 U z Q 0 m wwwww00»>»c0j��00=}Vzuxi~LU Lu x¢ 000 iLLJ rxDDQ¢aQQQ Q Q a� O O 0� 0 O C7 (9 x x x 2 x x x 2 x x x x x 2 x x x x x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O co O^^ g n w w _O LO CO 0 M CO Q) m p00 Cn N m O m qT C) O w O Cp M ppp N Cpp W N N Cp Cpaapp M r` O T O N pppp 0 p N CP) m O 'a rr N r` w lD N O M lt7 Op ppp O 2 CO o o A 0 N CO cg c� 0) Cp 0 CO O r` co CO h 0) Ln CCpp et CCCAI N CC�� d CCAA _O v O CO Cppn M 2 r` CY) M r` C9 O � O v lA CD N T T T N N "M M N N_ M S� S O S O O S S S O� pO S O S S S S S S S 88 0 0 0 S O O O S Sh O S O S r O S O SN O S O m m O x m O x m O m O m m O x mO x O x O m m O m m x m m x x O m x x m m m m m m m m x x x x x x x x I x x I x x 0) Cl) o$ N m co o S CO o r� S CO O O O CD o r, S N o N CD N M o O `S V N o Cn o CO S LO S O `S O N r` g CD r` N o CC) N o S T o 0 W O 0 CO CO 0 LO In 0 O 0 co N 0 r 0 CO o C9 ll)o 0 0 N 0 o N Q 0 w N N w 0 r` Cn ao W Cp pp Cp W CO N r T N CO N Cn N N M N N M N N CO N CO N CO N Cn N CD N CD N O N v N CO N CD N v N CO N CO N N v O N CC) N CD N CD N CD N CD N CO N m N CO N O T N W T N W T N O N W N C_O N N i N CD N CD N O N OD N CD T N CO T N co T N p T N CD T N co T N CO N p N CO r; M r; f7 r; C9 N C7 r; CO N CO r; Ch N f0 � M N Ch N Q9 N fh N C7 r; C9 M r` p rL M r; M n M r. M r; C7 r; M r; Cr) r; Co n CM r� M r; CO ►� Ch r; m i C r; C7 r; M r; M r; CO r; M r; C9 r` cl, ►� C9 n C9 r� co CO C7 CO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 8 02 a N V N (7 tp O N_ V7 b N N M (V N r W M O00 (0 N(0 N ppO� O 0 www� COi OOi 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONi 0 r OTO ONi Obi ^ W O�i OOi 00 N t00 OOi a0 N c00 oD aD QNi r > O Q a Q¢ O° 0 0— 2 0 0 0 O O O z Q O Z O Q¢ O— ¢ Q O z Q O Q O O¢}- J - J — J — ¢ Q U m O ZO J J Cc a aQ CD x d Z N ° Z 0 J J x Q Z g U W Z z z z J J J J H Z S a. a 0 g U w W Q 2 Q 2 C) z 0 Z J Y J cc Z C3 Z a. c_ O } (7 O z (n O W a (n x (n x (n x (n x W a W a W a¢¢ Z z W a W a W a W a W a W a W s O m J W} (L 3 W a O!- Z z W a O J J J J W d Z Z Z Q> W W a. w O W a W a J 3 W rr M Q Q Q¢ U) (n (n x x U (n U U U U w J a (n W w ¢ g U J O 0 (n x W (n J J to (n a W x cc a. a:<<a a as aaamaazag(na.amo00oC ism amaQazm J W Z O U 0 o 0 p r Fw- ° > x W m a w> j O w ¢ w w x w » w w > w » w w > w > w > Q > a ¢ ° x Q cc cr Cl z O > H cr w Q F H h rn a Z Q¢ Z z Q z Q ZZ Q z Q Z O a z 0 ¢ z �- w ° } ¢ Z cn cc () 2 0 Y (n ¢ Z m W O Z_ W > n— N 2 p M (n (+� (n (+� (n (+� N Cl)V a Q a¢ Q ¢ Q J 8 2 J J¢ ¢ a. Q a 2 0 co )< N N N 0 m 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 U) 2 N r 2 U J Q U Q Q x 2 V U Cai m W m W W W m ^ W W W w W W W N W W w m O O Q Q W W LL O O O O O 0 0 O CO co O O O r O r O r O O W O) C(V� O O M (o � O t` O O (0 co w (� (� r` �' O T (n u) N N N co a w a m D) W a. cD M (0 (0 t0 (0 co (0 (0 r` U) r` Ln n a. T N 00 W co N 0) W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U (ncn°UU(nU } } } } } } } w Z V w w w w w w w > O (` r W w OZC 0 0 OZC 0 OZC 0 OZC 0 OZC 0 OZC 0 > x Q 0 O f- N U z(n cn ������� ~ z— oa�a cc w D a x ° Q¢¢ Q¢¢ a x rn a ¢ gm¢ ¢ 0¢ O �9 w ��f—rr�� xxxxxxxv �¢ a: C) x �- ¢O 2 wa.cr z¢° cr ° U cn a H Z U U U U U U U F- -J x ¢ W W 4o z o z (n W Z Z Z Q Z g 2 x oi3 2 atS 2 a(i x aiS x atf x a(S x °if x ♦- x a (L° Q O U W Z N O) x ¢ Y 2 ° W 0 ° �D �(`Q�p M Q QQ W§ J ° 0 m Q 44 J J V Q J O N W O a z O Z M Nmk:c }¢ <a. wwwwwww� W Jw J zv° 0 z_° W° x8 } a (o ¢> rL0 x x z a W > W (n N c�c� LL 2 Qa¢QQQ¢Na¢ LL 2 LL 2 LL 2 LL 2 LL 2 LL 2 p N tt ° 000 M (,) g > JQQ0000 Q Z W W m cn W z U (0 (n 0�00 U O m = O oDw8r25 0) U J r C3 C7 C3 C7 C7 2 2 U U m (L a u) r- cn W w M M W 2 ° Q LL 0 ° U U z a Z Q m Cl) ° ¢ W Z O w J U Z} ¢ 0[ ¢ J } o W g W � O � as H 0 J ~ O w F cn om 2 H a a(y � H ¢ w a. O a U w ¢ c7 ° U Z w ad O W ¢ W M J W J W J W J W Z M} m Z °_ > a}}}}}}} ° x J 0 ¢ ° x U 2 H W Z J J_ Q a S W° ir Q W H W (� � f- m U) W 2 U U (n x Z ¢ x a C3 � a a a¢ r J w Z} o° JQ¢a¢¢¢¢ Z z z Z z z z a z Q W� W z a a.(L w F Wm g O ¢ ° ° x J-� a a °° Z x U a. wm ¢ rr w J Q W x U x _U x U x U od ° Q w oC w z 0 Q aC a 2 a a a 2 a 2 a 2 a 2 w x W w U W Z J m 0 z Z z x m = 00 0 U CW'S Z =) Z H (n J } ° a H F- wc7000UUUU�Jw0wza° W O O O o 0 0 0 m W W > Y¢ O cc O O —0¢°w0acW00wa W (n U} z° J° 0( 3 U) W W W W D r- 2 O O m m m m m m m W Y Q J O W J Z Z Z rZ U z (n J O J �'+ ¢ z a W W W W W W W O xf ot3 �tf �f otS 0E aif Q a¢ a a U U U Y_ J Z O O O O cn W W W_ Q Q Q W x a Y J i J J J J J J J J J J 2 2 2 2 2 M 2 r2 M Lr 2 22 2 2 2 2 z z z z m m m m m m W W co W N N n co r- MW (Dn M O W O co W O 0) r v o W h (0 M N v W o W W 0 W 0 W o r N m W )o )o w MO n O T O N uO 0 P�C%j W W N n 'V m W l n WW m m rrS r\ wo (52 MO8 8 000888508088 W m O W ON88M O 880O8 �5 O8M r02O0 888888E m la: la: mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0) S 0) O O Now O O O W N O (D CO O O N O O N Q W f` W N N N O O O O M O M N M O O O 8 O (n O W O O N O 8 O O M O O O O r 2 O Q Np Q O O O O O 00 N N N N Y O u N N (7 N )A 0cpp C7 00 00 to )A W W )A W W to W W N W M 00 N to N C) C7 q 00 O ((''�� C7 u N co M 00 M r,,, N W N W N W N W N W N W N W N W T N W T N W T N W T N OD T N CO r N N N CO CO r N W T N W T N W T N W T N 00 T N CO T N W T N 00 T N OD T N CO T N W r N W T N 00 T N W T N N 00 -_ N 00 T N W T N W T N W T N W T N 00 T N 00 T N W T N OD T N W T N W T N 00 N 00 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M .co M M M n M r; M r: M M M r: M M M r; M n M M � M ), M r; M r, M N M r� M r; M � M r� M � M � M 77 r, M r; M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N IN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ACV N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N O) 8 CD N CO N (O N f0 d) (Np OON O tD N CVO CD .= fD r (D CO n n n n n n r fD ' N O M CD N CO O O O r �O N CO Q aM� r f0 CO r f0 f0 O CO (O O to r �O CO O ^ O Go S Mr(v� M a0 N N �N N 0 � N CD a0 CO O W DD CO a0 M r r CO t0 n n M CD CO O aD (O N N O aD r aD aD O to 0) ao a0 aD O ao ao ao U O O O�Iz x¢— 0 0 0 Z}} O O Z a a O O }— O a 8 O O a 0 0 0 J LL 1 O I Y J = J O O 0 go ¢ a w c O cc m0 z LU a: D m Ir ° Dz cc (� z z z z z z a Z F- o z z z z J J J J J J z 3 o F- Z N p O m a C7 a w Z 2 w m O o w w w w W w w p a ac w w W �waaa� 0 �aaaa���a_jz a g gJJwa¢�On.araJ30aaaazaaazaa� 0 0 ac w x Z g} Z LL cr CA (n m O W co m m m W W W to — Q F- F- x p if Ir — p a(0¢ w J (n (A p f0 a cO fA Ir a (n cn 0 m C7 Q ¢ m p a a 2 i i m p m U m Q O Q> Q U a a z m Q Q Q Q (n Q¢ C7 p Q a m M W co m _N co N N N M O (n U) (n r u Cl) 0 0 a ak Qa Z -J p CCp » 7 W m W N� Cc ¢ p w F- O F- F- ~~ 0 0 0 �` U cc p > J J z� U ai z ¢ Q¢¢ W w U W J Q U F- Z F- Z F- Z F- Z C7 0 a Z ~ Z cc Z L] O p p} m U �t r p cc F- F- z F- Z F- Z N Z U ¢ z 3 8Y O Q OC Q OC Q OC Z F- Z H Z H Q g :a'3 p O Ur p Z Z Z F j= u�i p0 ~w Z } = t~n az oC Q aC Q oC Q oC v) m m ¢x0 rx 30111 az>>>>zzz}pJwgggLLF-wrote D >=g0 ¢a L—L x to J J »>>�nx0 0acl n }Q =_ 0OCO 0co0- wxxxw3U3(nOOJwco03cn ug ¢ wwww ( )0 wp O CO U 0 nM CO N S O O O O Ill Z Z z to �oMaaO 0 0 Ln N(�M N U CD M S CA 3 O_ O m 0 0 N M O to N W O) ao r a a N M Cn r N N n N n N n N n 010 _O n M ' O 1 M M v O N M M M M n Cn r n O r a M N M n M CD _O IN _O n IN n It a a M n N F- a Q m U z z z H z Q cc F- F-Z a _a a_ a_ _a ~ F- p w o z x x x x x F- Ill J Cl)r w w w W W z Or m W ErF' a a U F- F- a`arxa` F- F- F- Y z a a 0 O :� J J W Y 2 H cc r w wZ� Q Z a ar d a a a a a z H w} UZcc a x Y O m F- F- W a¢ J a J J J J x ~ D W w cr W U Q U z to m U) U} (~!) a: N awo `�a_z a` ¢a¢aQ arc Y N go�w a 25 g �3 33a� z cc z z� z acc 0 J J �o �LL F-F-F-Z w z m W it ca F- J_ G` W�, LL F- a O Y a cc n¢ xF- w C` Ill F-F-z m Ill g CC F- W (0 U a x W a�x U p O W J QQ zzzF- QQ Q Q a= o J z w (n U (nz J W 3 p wx J Op z O z z z ar W w Z a: 0 a 0 cc U ??=? a 0 0 O w: Q Q W O p U 0 0 O 60 w z M O J U) naaacaa pa00 0 o` xcc cc p cOccS (na UU(nD 1 11 o)a I w F- D ¢ m w cn LU O U U ILLLL_ O} Z w Ir U w ¢ w p CO cn 0 z ¢a�[a F- Z(~i)¢ F-CC Z a = �2 -1 z p U) Y Y Y Y a a a 5 D m m w cc 0 p 0 ZzO w F- 0 >' W m z N ALL} c� Zmacacacacacmm wp 0000000xF-oar J p xw C7z agoc za0 0 p(nagzZ p F- W� =0ZW¢ a azg�acacocacx -.)zQ p3 a c�zww J}pc <ccm T 0CC(L O m M Jmmmmaaaacw a= W W W W a C7 ¢ z LL Z W } 3 N x Z Y U p p p p x LL F- LL F- w cc J J Q xoa=gwOaaQ¢ p W J W m Z F- F- F- F- W W W U}(nU¢z U x >" ¢ Z W (g Up Q U O � 4�ac¢w Z J �� J J �� J F- Qw LL F- az m LL �w0 CC 3¢xYa¢�mF-F-F-F-333�0(0�3xc�F-zz M M M to O O O W O J M O Z xwQ LL W Z Z~ wN� CC z W W W W F- Q z 0 F- z_ F= m a�z ' z a:wwwwJJJO-+zaa p z000 0z >mc7c7c7c7 z z ac�oaca3 N 0 Q U J J J Y a w V ar °� w p J Q J Q J Q J a LL L] U- O U- p W p w W 'U O w w Cl) O m m 0 m (n O�} w m x W U a m J p Z J U Y F- W x z x Z x x }}}}>> Q Q Q Q 0 C7 W LL (7 J J J a 3 w cc Q x cc W 2 V a O a U a O a 0 a ar a oc a cc W cc W ac W cr W ac W x W cc w x ar ¢ x U x x Cr ar ¢¢ CO Q w Q m a CO Q p U CO U m U CO U (n W m W cn W Cl) W w W cn W (0 W m W (n W (n c0 cn m CO M n Cn 0) N O O pp N aD �aap N M M aCpp O O C+ CO S Ow n N 0) r r O N r r^ N% r M tSo N r r aD CA (h 0) CO N M r r LO N n CO O r_ CO 0) M CD n Cl) N CO r Cl) n O N 8 M O n O O N O n S CO O M N et n CMO O n pp O pp n CO r CD 0 0 O N CO r r O) S O S S O O S S S S S S S S S O O S O O S S O S 8O O �ppgj O S S O O O S S O O S O O O S S O O m m CC ac m ar Cr m mo m m T m m w w m m m m m m W m w m w cc: a= ac ac ac m cc m cc cc a` cc ac cc cc cc Q N Cl) O ((vv�� M O �p p O N S N O M S C N n C 0) M N C N C pp 8 O, nF. n O O N n p� N g 0 0 Cn O M n 0 8 w 8 W S w n g w N O n o 0 aD 0 n 0 0) CO o M N O w (o s 4 5 M 0 n o n O r Q to O r o o M Q, o O N CO M CCpp M CV et CO O Cp M CV '�' N er N e� N qlqM CD S N Cp S M M Cn CCpp N (7 CCpp M N N N N M I M N N N CO O CD N DD N ao N M N M N ao N aO N CO N CO N Cp N Cp N M N Cp N CO N N N CO CD N M r N CO r N CO N . N W N M N W N W N CO N CO N CO N CO N CD N C_0 N N CD N CD N CO N CO N CO r N CD r N CO r N CO r N CD N CO N CD N CD N CD N CD M M M M M M M M M M M M M M CO M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ACV N N N N N I N 1N N N N N N N io N N N N p O N r O r N N r pppp M Cp r O N C(V� O (O cb to t0 aD N O c0 N 00 t` coo h Ih N O N O N O o N 6� N LO N 6 c0 r r CO O (O (O R pp (O t0 O N N N N N et• IOIC. <D co M 00 00 0N) co 00 co n co a0 OD m Co O COD ao 0N) 0N) ao aD m ao ao N CD 0)) w n P, G G c^O o m m O h eaNt �i O 0 0 0 0¢ 00 0 O8 8} z O< 0 0 o a ¢ O a= 00 a 0 a z co co 0 cr 0 a o 0 0 Z Y z 0 0 w U m_ J F U J aC w F- 0 a z a w m F- Q z Q zo CO z O QQ rn a J 0 m O w Q 'm w cr W �wUtzwwm7wmF-aw J p U 2 -iP-1 J Ow w J 0ww}°Cwa 0� m g m F- F- F- J z O 0 0 Q D a a a a m a a= ir 2 a (n � a D a m Z a a� W Q a� -� __mwgw�-mjZw U U U w Y a m W° 5 Ja m° a a a Q a o n0 ' `� om n g g a° a zo ° a a z a z o 0 3 3cc o a m 0 `� 0 N O r W it O N z W J > F U j FW U g W jr ¢ cn Q C) a w > Z Q 0 Z C4 w ar (3 H cn O 0 o F- ar Z V Z H= (n F Lo J J 0 U W ~ U m> w > a O co NN M Z Q O Z� Q Q > Q Z ir z Q n N CD N Z O Q z Z W 2 w O m � Y > ¢ J z Q M z Q 0 N n n > Z J J Q aC N N O Fn r m >Q 1= It Cj Z~ CC 0= 2 V < = m x 0 x 0 ¢ m x� o c~Qi� H x 0 Q m 0¢ Q } m 8CD O O i m W Z Q 2 (n 0 p 5 Q 0 Z r�i N¢ W= w x 0 _z Q p w N CO a] O m w W< cn n w m W W m a] O (OCO n M m O j' 0 `n m � 00) O O O o t2 8 O t2 I, N `t Oo O O N o cc 0 co N O G N vtt v 0 CD N N a a m (O t\ M a O CO M 01 n a a n a t0 to r n c0 a r to r h a O) n F- cn Z r z rn cr F- W F- Q Z zQ z D o w (L z F- w 2 cn QJ 0 a O O F- F- F- a _ z_ Y } Y z C Q U z CO ¢ F- 0. O U U Q m W Z J Y 6~ w to z CC Z J w c7 Qw U Q F- ,� Z <? 0 m z cr w Q }> W Ill Q w W w U 3 Q ir Z Z Q Y 2 W m z tr IllZ¢ Za it J> mLLJ Q¢ cop 0 Q Z (� N 0 = c m W IF m Y Y V' > Z Z m Q J () m k W m Ill z N w O } z z Q Q Q z a a Z a 0 Q z x 0 z z O z a 3 x 0 cn w = w — F- W J w U w Q x w 0 C7 2 Z 2 Z 0 O J ¢ T 0 W Q W S 0 0r ¢ a M a a (O '++ Q w too too F- Cl) V M 0 a 2 U cn N U a P > > ao C7 M a cn r r >W> a W H z lJj M J D F- N F- C7 Z Q cc } ~ Z m Z D Z F- CC U F- 0Q Z J r D m 0 ocz F- a >-Q 2 cn J a` it zF- > 0 W W¢ m J W rn 0 ad cr w lL Z w Z O W ¢ Q a g co W („) Z W a Z z g 0 m i J Q m J Q F- W cr J Y 2 a M a O o M J W z a� ¢ a a °a s W ar a= 0 Z Q Q m .J 0 a J � 0 Q a 2 O (n W W m¢ N cr Z Q J m J} m aC O W J Z= U W Qt w Q F- W cc W Cl) W Cl) m F- m W F- m W} Q Ill m U Q U O m D W c7w3W(D0)cccn Z Z � =ooJazm=(nmarU F' O J O U Q�00 -0 J m Q 0 v~_i W F- i z 00zZZUO 3 m _¢ u,U W m Z U' Z W N } J pp U m C7 z W a w Y U 0= ar o w z cn a m a m Q ar m W x a W x m tr 0 F- Z } Y z O w 0 F' CC a Z w Y (n a[ fn a[ D Z D Z O Z Z a m cr w Z Q 0 0 U¢ z ►- Q 0 CC O Z } m J w U a U Q W m J Q 0 w F- U J W J� F- F- ¢¢ C7 C7 a C7 z J� X~ O Q 2 J 0 co W __ m m O Q a m a� w P 0 Q¢ a m w O m O m O W m z Z> Q z Q CL Q > Q a` w O a Q Q Q¢¢ w w w w w w= 0 0 m m m (n m m (n F- F- F- F- F- F- > > > > > > > > > > 3 3 � � 3 3 O O N O N N r LO M co O t0 CO N N to 0) M O N M aNa M � (C+D� (� w M N M O r (O r r M r to CD N N 0) M �p CO O LO I, 'o h co r 0 M 0 N M W n O M N Q M to O to st M � [Y O tD O M r b CMD to M -0 O ggogoa�SoS co 88 s 0, CCal:¢Qa: a: cc cc cc cc,cc,a:,a:,a: jr cc cc cc cc cc a:, cr a: cc cc cr cr,jr cc a: cc jr cr cc cc cc cc cc CC. cr a: jr Ir CC cr M w $ N N O g r o tt N to o$ N M M O O M o M O a0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 M r 0 0 M O W n o It 0 W n o O O M O o 0 N 0 r N M o o CO Mr*- OD N o N 0 n Cn 0 0 8 M 00 to N o (S 11. CD o M 0 9 q N a0 (h p N 0 to CCpp c0 to q 2 q N 7 q CO 00 N (O to q( 4 7 ao a0 1 g 97 04 tl') q M to N N I N T� O N� N M� 7 7� M g N� 7 1 N� r M N M M N Y N N a0 N M N CD N M N OD N CO N CO N CD N CO N CD N lD N CO N CD N N N CO OD N 00 N CO N CO N CD N a0 N 00 N M N 00 N OD N 00 N CD N CO N CO N CD N N CD _. N CO N CD r N co r N co r N 00 r N m r N w N w N w N co N w N co N CO n Cl) n Cl) M m r M m M M m M m m M M m m M m M m M n M m M > n Cl) h M M n M r M n M n M r M r M M t` M C M h M ►� M I ri M r M n M M M r M h M N M h M N M ri M n M r M m M N N N N N N- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IN N N N N N N N N N N N N N ar ch 0 0 V ro L (O N fD �O CO f0 N co O> c0 a0 m aD ar 00 <0 00 u In w w w a o z O z z z z z Q w z w w w w Q a.waaaacnz LL Q Q Q S c0 N F_ M w C07 S w 0 Z W N = w 13 J In Cl)cn W Q z M� �� Y Q CD O J_ J_ _J 0 O W O O m O Cl)co(n fn (n S m N 0 O O O Q U) ad D Q cr F— O H N ar J W Q Z v Q 7 � Q M= W 7 Z 04 3 O Q m E W LL _ cr Z cr W J Z H Q w a n m — z z Q C7 w W E LL Za Z z o w z c —_ W Z = = 0 Z ' -� Y Q= Y Y Y `1 � W NN f Z Z Z Z rR a W LL W U- LPL F U) co w coQ W 0 0 0 0 W co E�O8888mz Z Zt 3: 3: 3:N Cl r- 3 N - I_ m L S 0 0 0 0 0 §S U w w w Q U) N P r O N c0 N N O 7 0 0 0 O S �o7rrr7gco z N N N N N N N N Z aD a0 ap O a0 ap a0 O N M M M M M M M M d N N N N N N N N co