Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.special.20030804 TH~ QTY OF ASPEN AGENDA ASPEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2003 5:00 Ordinance #36, 2003 - Burlingame Ranch Lot 3 6:30 Executive Session To: The City Council FROM: John McBride DATE: August 5, 2003 Today, the ABC Architectural Review Board met for the first time to review the site and the plans for Parcel D, which were submitted to us on July 15. Members of the Board who met included: Ellie Brickham, Chris Ridings, Jim Petrie, John Galambos. Dick Byme, Richard Seedorf and myself ~ 5 architects and 2 builders. The Board realized they could review only one building as the rest of the project is outside the ABC. Concerns and issues expressed were as follows. Re~ardin~ the Site. We had to locate the building by guestimates as there are no comer pins. Also, we had to try to envision the height as there are no story poles for Building A. In any case, we reached a general consensus on a couple of issues: A) There are many beautiful trees on the North side of the site. We would like to see them saved either in place or if they have to be moved, placed along Ventnor on the site. We will work with you on relocating. If there is no way to keep them there, we will find another location within the ABC. B) Since we cannot exactly determine the ground floor elevation, we would require that the lowest floor of Building A be no higher than 2' above the first floor of Building 210 which is right across the street. Regardin~ the Building. Everyone was surprised to see that the plans for Building A were different from the model. Everyone liked the model better, for several reasons: It is lower; the roofs are broken up, the facade is more broken by the balconies, and Unit A26 does nor exist. ASPEN BUSINESS CENTER · 303 E · ASPEN. CO 81611 - 970-925-2102 · FAX 970-925-2104 We would like to see the plans revisited to make the building reflect the model. We would like Unit A26 eliminated as n is over 30' (it is not on the model at all). The stairwell is also over 30' but perhaps it could stay if it is made)light, more porous, Iike a mine Tower - i.e. kind of a unique design element. Of course, it's height is not necessary without A26, but architecturally it might serve to break up and improve a very 10ng north facade, es/eh if it were a little higher. Balconies like on the model would help as wei1 The roof must be black or very dark - not rusted metal. Vent, stacks and all mechanical equipment on the roof must be painted the sams color. Windows where possible should align oyer egch other verucally (Ellie Brickham!) The guest parking for Building A is not at Building A. It was very important to the committee that said parking be clearly signed so that guests not park at Building 210 or on Ventnor. We understand and approve the siding material. Colors can be approved later. We request no white clad windows or white facias. The plans show no large trees on Ventnor only shrubs. We would like spruce, Aspen or cottonwoods planted along Ventnor (if it is not possible to save and transplant existing trees on the site. Finally, everyone felt that generally and sooner rather than later something is going to have to be done to create a better access at the south end of the ABC to Highway 82. 3 access points could be and probably should be combined into one in the furore. But that's for a later discussion. Also, the Board felt it would make sense in the future to fold the project (Parcel D)' into the ABC and be under the Covenants for future maintenance; landscape care, etc. And oh....by the way isn't there a better identifier than "Parcel D"?! JMcB:.~mr ~ To: City Council From: Ed Sadler Subject: Parcel "D" Covenant issues Date: Aug. 5, 2003 Sorry for the brevity, but here goes with the issues in the order they a~e presented: 1 ) Save trees on the North Side of the site: The staff has already considered this in their planning. With that in mind, they consulted with the staff from Parks and were told that the roots on these trees Would be too large to transplant successfully. If Council wishes, we can consult with Parks again on the issue. 2) Comparison of floor height in building "A" to the floor height of bldg. 210 across the street: We have no readily available elevations on the 210 Bldg., so I can not comment on this issue at this time. 3) Plans are different than the model: In the last two weeks, the staff received plans for the project. There are some changes in the plans, which were presented to Council last week and which we were planning to address with council at its next meeting when we were going to discuss the budget for the project. Some changes would not surprise me in that we gave all of the competitors a very short time to prepare their CONCEPTUAL designs. Change was inevitable as the winning team finalized designs. 4) Have the plans reflect the model: "Option 1'~ presented to council last night would flo pretty much this as it was recommended that one unit is eliminated to reduce the roof height. A redesign could look "MORE" like the model, but not exactly so as again, the project has evolved. ASW may have some ideas which would save the unit and get the bldg. under 30'. 5) Stairwell height: at one point, ASW proposed, "opening" up the stair towers and the city staff objected as the conceptual designs had shown them enclosed. The staff felt that enclosed stair towers would reduce wind and snow, which would decrease maintenance costs to the tenants. 6) Roof must be black: I believe that when the covenants were originally proposed, that most of. the roofs were flat and therefore "black" was no big deal. As the AABC has gotten away from all flat roofs, black becomes less practical for heat loading if nothing else. If this were adopted, I would think that it would look silly for one bldg. In the complex to have a black roof. The flip side would be to make all of the roofs black, which would drastically change the appearance of the project. 7) Windows should align vertically: The windows are in the. same position for each unit, but since the various levels step back into the hill, the windows are offset accordingly which I believe is appropriate and that this comment is more a matter of personal taste. The windows are proposed to be white clad (as shown on the model), but trimmed in a color to match the rest of the bldg. 8) Siding material approved, but not colors: Colors for the project are already selected and available, so I am unsure why they are not being approved at this time by the committee. The model was presented to the committee for their meeting today, and the :olors are the same as on the model. 9) No trees on Ventnor Avenue: I am unsure whether the committee wants the trees they mentioned planted along Ventnor Avenue, or whether they want the trees transplanted from the north part of the site. Either way, the project has already drastically increased the number of trees on the site and more trees will increase the costs even more. Drainage on the site will also be run~ing to this area. 10) New Access for south end of AABC: I do not believe that this falls within the committees purview and should the A_ABC wish to pursue this with CDOT they should do this at their earliest possible convenience. 11) Fold the project into the AA.BC and make the entire project subject to AABC covenants: This site is already proposed to have a homeowners association to take care of maintenance issues for the property. I see no good reason to put the property under the auspices if the AABC when so little of the project is in the AABC and to the contrary, the vast majority of the project is within the City. 12) Better Id than "PARCEL D": the parcel is now referred to as Burlingame Lot 3 officially and no doubt the project will get a more appropriate name at a future date. 13) Prioritize A_ABC employees: This issue has already been addressed and will be taken up as soon as possible by the Housing Board, Council and the BOCC. Memorandum om e TO: John McBride (Fax: 927-3991) and Lennie Oates (Fax: 920-1121) FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: August 1, 2003 RE: Burlingame Parcel D Thank you for meeting with the City Manager, the Mayor and myself this morning ~n an effort to resolve issues surrounding the proposed Burlingame Parcel D Affordable Housing Project and the Protective Covenants that burden the old Qwest property. This is to confirm a potential resolution of all outstanding issues regarding the project that those in attendance agreed to present to the City Council on Monday night. In exchange for a favorable approval by the declarant of the ~mprovemenrs proposed to be built on the old Qwest property (including approval by the architectural review committee of the t design elements of the improvements proposed for the property and any necessary modifications), the City will agree to the following: 1. All structures proposed to be built on the old Qwest property shall be re-designed so that none of them exceeds a 30 foot height limit. This may reqmre the elimination of one or more affordable housing umts. The City will ask, therefore, that you review the existing designs to ensure that the higher structures do not violate the intent of the covenants. 2. The City will agree to deed restrict the larger Burlingame Ranch parcel ro forever preclude the construction of a road behind Deer Hill connecting To the AABC. The deed restriction shall not preclude the construction of a pedestrian trail that may be used in the future for electric vehicles (including golf cart type vehicles), provided the motorized vehicles are physically prohibited access to the public streets within the AABC from the end of the trail. 3. The City shall agree to your interpretation of that certain Agreement recorded in Book 244, Pages 883-887, relating to the reimbursement for the construction of the water line serving the AABC. The amount of reimbursement has been agreed to by the parties to be $35,478.37. 4. In recognition of all of the past expenses associated with public amenities provided to the public within the AABC, including sidewalks, trails, road and intersection improvements, that ~' ' .... eei ta~h~tBrUerclionngs~ectiPoa~nCe}~3 t~eff°~Cla~t~lce ~°vUeS. mg ei~jgehC;;~ll8b2enien~;rfsre°c~/oa~n dn~eceePss°~tea~;?IfbYa~d iin~ ;~s~,~i~;inthrienc~veingAg aa bCu~l~hine gC~Yr~iht!l reimburse the Aspen Business Center h 5. The City shall closely study the feasibility of using the trail alignment (connecting the proJecT to the City trail system along Highway 82 to the East of the project) for a temporary construction access to the project rather than the Ventnor Ave. access road during ail phases of the construction of the affordable housing project. If the use of a temporary construction access road is determined to be feasible by the City, it shall not use Ventnor Ave. for construction traffic. 6. In the event that Ventnor Ave. is used for construction traffic, the city guarantees to repair any damage caused to Ventnor Ave. by the construction traffic Irepairs shall bring the road ro the same or better standard it is in prior to any construction activity.) 7. At the meeting this morning we discussed John's desire to give a priority to the sale of units within the project to employees who are employed within the AABC. While those of us in attendance representing the City acknowledged the logic of John's request, we explained that such a request would require amending the Affordable Housing Guidelines. The City has entered into an intergovernmental agreemem With Pitkin County that covers the process required to amend the guidelines. The process is somewhat time consuming, but will be initiated by the City. While we do not hold any hope that the guidelines would be amended to accommodate John's suggestion, the City will initiate the process so that a full discussion of the pros and cons for such an amendment can be had by the Housing Authority Board, the County Commissioners and the City Council. Please let me know whether these terms are acceptable at your earliest convenience so that Council can make a decision to proceed with the Burlingame Parcel D Affordable Housing Project or postpone construction for a season to re-design the improvements proposed upon the old Qwest property. cc: City Manager Memorandum To: Mayor Klanderud and City Council City of Aspen, Colorado From: Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager Troy Rayburn, Project Manager Steve Bossart Construction, Manager Date: Monday, August 4, 2003 RE: Burlingame Ranch Subdivision, Lot 3 Summary / Previous Council Action: This is a continuation of Community Development's Final PUD land use hearing from Monday, July 28. Council directed City Asset staff and the Developer, ASW Realty Partners, to review possible solutions to John McBride's exactions that were submitted to the City on July 28. City Asset staff met on Wednesday, July 30 without the assistance of the Developer tc review solution options to Mr. McBride's requests. The Developer was asked to estimate the cost of the three option~ below. The Developer's response was to ask for an undetermined amount of additional money as an additional cost to them. Not being m a position to approve such an expense, the work was not authorized and the numbers below were calculated without the Developer's input. (Late note: I believe now that ASW may indeed present Council with cost estimates/. Staff has proposed three options for the City Council's review and consideration. Please.~ote that the following are basic assumptions and approximate costs to assist the City Council in sorting through a short list of possible solutions. In addition. Mr. McBride met with City Staffto discuss resolution of his concerns late last week. Those discussions are summarized in John Worcester's memo to Mr. McBride and that memo is attached. Mr. Worcester's memo would necessitate implementation of Option 1 below as part of that solution. Therefore, at this time, it would appear that Council has the option to agree with what the City Attorney has outlined in his memo, or can look into the other redesign options listed below to avoid the issues associated with the AABC covenants. Discussion: Option 1 - Redesign the Roof ldine: This option involves losing 10' o-f roofing height on Building A. Unr{er this option the project loses one one-bedroom unit (revised unit count equal 39) and the roofline would not match the original roofline design of Building Complex A and the other two building complexes. Project Savings - · $100,000 - lose one unit and save approximately $I00,000 (per unit) · parking is unaffected · current building complexes' location unaffected · landscaping is unaffected Aspen City Council Memo Burlingame Ranch Subdivision, Lot 3 Monday, August 4, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Project Costs - Approximately $40,000 to redesign the roof and other items associated with the loss of a unit. Cost Savings or Loss - Approximately $60,000 Savings Option 2 - Drop Part of Building A This option involves eliminating pan ofBuilding A from th~ project. There is a loss of seven one-bedroom units, bring the project to a revised site plan containing 33 one-bedroom units spread across three building complexes. It is imporram to note that the seven units lost are located on the North East comer of Building Complex A at the intersection of the entrance into the affordable housing project and Ventnor Avenue. Project Savings - · $700.000 - lose seven one-bedroom units and save approximately $100,000 per un, it · $40,000 due to decreased parking spaces, but maintain parking ratio of at least 1'.75 for the entire project Project Costs - · $30,000 ~ minimal redesign fee · $ 5,000 - landscaping. Project Savings or Loss - Approximately $705,000 savings Option 3 - Move a Portion of Building A to Opposite End of the Project Option 3 is the most involved and expensive of the three possible solu~tions. This option involves moving the portion of Building Complex A, which includes seven units and pan of the parl(ing garage, down to the opposite end of the project. The primary issues are the time costs associated with the redesigning the site plan and the topography of the land next to Building Complex C. This area has steeper slopes and a narrower building envelope. In addition, the revised site plan would place the moved units closer ro the neighboring Iurnberyard. Under this option, the Developer would begin construction'on the approved 33units while redesigning the remaining seven units and parking at the south end. Project Savings - None Burlingame Ranch Subdivision, Lot 3 Monday, Augus~ 4, 2003 Page 3 of 3 Project Costs - · $100,000 + for redesign move seven unita · $100,000 + for site development and utilities · $ 50,000 parking · $ 25,000 soft costs · $ 15,000 landscaping · $ 13,000 development fees Project Savings or Loss - approximately $303,000 in additional cost. Option # Description # of Units Cost Difference New Contract Cost (to date) I Lower Bldg. A 39 $60,000 savings* $6,6459650 2 DeletePart Bldg. A 33 $705,000 savings* $6;000,650 3 Move 7 Units 40 $303.000 addition* $7,000.650 ~ ro $6,705,650 contract mount for actual construction in part 2 of corm:act Pitkin C0unty 76 Service Center Roaa Aspen. Cotorado 8161 I Steve Barwick, City of Aspen, Manager 130 SoUth Galena Aspen. CO 81611 FAX: 920-5119 July 30, 200~3 Dear Steve, This letter is to provide the City of ASpen with Pitldn Cotinty's commitment to maintain th~ Aspen Airport Business Center's (AABC) roads at'the highest service level as listed in the.County's Asset Managemem Plan. Recently the City provided the County with $105,000 as a road impact fee for'the development ofBuflingame D affordable housing project. The County may choose to access these funds to expedite the capital replacement plan for the AABC roads based on their overall condition index. Road conditions are evaluated afinually and the capital replacement plan is adjusted accordingly. The c6ndition of the AABC roads will continue to be monitored along with the rest of the County's infrastructure. Maintenance and improvements will be conducted as budget allows. Please call.me if you'have any questions o~ comments about the management or maintenance of the AABC roads or any other asset of the County. Director of Public Works cc. Hilary Sn'iith 970/920-5390 . (970/920-5393 (970~ 920-5214 fax 920-5374 f~x 920-5764 fax 920-5374 The C:i~ orflsuen CiIT [llmrne¥'~ TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: A!~gnst 4, 2003 RE: John McBride I spoke with Mr. McBride this morning regarding my memo to him dated August 1, 2003. He suggested some relatively minor changes to the agreement: In the third paragraph: In exchange for a favorable approval by the declarant of the improvements proposed to be built on the old Qwest property (including approval by the architectural review committee of the design elements of the *"'~ ........ ao improvements proposed for the property and any necessary modifications), the City will agree to the following: In paragraph numbered 7: 7. At the meethig this morning we discussed John's desire to give a priority to the sale of units within the project to employees who are employed within the AABC. While those of us in attendance representing the City acknowledged the logic of John's request, we explained that such a request would require amending the Affordable Housing Guidelines. The City has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Pitldn County that covers the process required to amend the guidelines. The process is somewhat time consuming, but co'Md will be initiated by the City. While we do not hold any hope that the guidel/nes would be amended to accommodate John's suggestion, the C~ty ...... will initiate the process so that a full discussion of the pros and cons for such an amendment can be had by the Housing Authority Board, the County Commissioners and the City Council. At the end of our conversation, Mr. McBride agreed with these conditions. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klandemd and City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Joyce A. Allgaiar,~uty Director RE: Burlingame Ranch, Lot 3 Affordable Housing, (aka Parcel D) Final PUD Public Hearing-2na Reading of Ordinance No. 36. Series of 2003 DATE: August 4, 2003 Attached for your continued Burlingame Lot 3 public hearing on August 4th is a revised Ordinance No. 36. This ordinance contains only one change, clarifying the FAR for the project based on information staff provided on July 28th. Please bring your staff report from the July 28th to the meeting. In that I will be on vacation next week, James Lindt will attend the public hearing, assist Council and make any changes to the approval documents that are deemed necessary. -]- ORDINANCE NO. 36 (SER~S OF 2003) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING FINAL LAND USE APPROVALS AND GRANTING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR BURLINGAME RANCH LOT 3, (AKA PARCEL D) AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, INCLUDING FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, REZONING TO RfMF/PUD, SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A 40 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 89, Series of 2002, adopted September 23, 2002, determined eligible for the City's development for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) review process the development of certain real property (hereinafter the "Project") owned by the City of Aspen, for the purpose of providing condominiumized deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the City Council according to said Section, to evolve an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest, and assembling a Burlingame Parcel D COWOP Task Force Team, providing recommendations directly to City Council', and, WHEREAS, the Burlingame Parcel D COWOP Task Force Team was comprised of residential and business neighbors of the Project, representatives of the City of Aspen City Council, representatives of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, a representative of the AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority Board, a representative of Pitkin County Planning Commission, a representative of the Aspen Valley Land Trust, a representative of the physically challenged, a member of CORE, and members of the general public. The City of Aspen Community Development Director assigned the Deputy Director to serve as the chair of the Task Force Team, in compliance with the requirements of Section 26.500 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The responsibilities of the COWOP Task Force Team were approved by the City of Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution 89, Series of 2002; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP review process enabled the planning and design of the Project to reflect essential community goals and values, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points-of-view from neighbors, the land owner, and citizens; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process does not and has not lessened any public hearing, public noticing, or any critical analysis or scrutiny of the project as would otherwise be required; and, WHEREAS, the Burlingame Parcel D COWOP Task Force Team met three (3) times, each time for approximately three (3) hours, at legally noticed public hearings, to Burlingame Ranch, Lot 3 Ord. No. 36, Series of 2003 Page 1 identify the site's opportunities and constraints, to finalize specific elements of the development program, and to prepare a site plan, after considering technical advise from various professional staff of essential City, County, and utility and service providers. The COWOP Task Force Team forwarded a recommendation to the City Council who adopted the recommendation and sketch site plan through Resolution No. 112, Series of 2002 on November 25, 2002, at a regular meeting; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Asset Management Department conducted a "DesigrffBuild' competition in order to find a capable developer and appropriate project design of the Project and in such competition the Aspen City Council chose ASW Realty Partners giving a conceptual approval of their winning entry, so that ASW could proceed with final land use approvals. ASW entered into a contractual agreement with the City of Aspen to gain the project approvals and construct the project and is considered the applicant for the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Project is of higher quality as a result of the Burlingame Parcel D COWOP Task Force Team and the use of the Design/Build developer model allowing for more thoughtful and interactive discussions than may have otherwise resulted if the Project had not been reviewed as a COWOP application; and, WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Goals ai~d Objectives of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, especially those goals relating to allowing developmem, especially affordable housing, to be built within the Urban Growth Boundary and within proximity to transit and other services to address the needs of the new residences; and, WHEREAS, the Project meets with the development standards as required by the Aspen Municipal Code unless waived or altered through the PUD process and part of the site specific development plan as put forth in the application dated June 2, 2003 with the Application Addendum from Design Workshop Inc. dated June 24, 2003 and included in the plan set dated June 2, 2003, (as amended through this approval); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.304 and 26.500 of the Land Use Code, City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny all requisite land use approvals necessary'to grant a development order for a proposed development determined eligible for COWOP land use rewew upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director and consideration of comments offered by the general public at a duly noticed public heating; and, ¥/ttEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Development Director has reviewed the proposed development in consideration of the recommendations of the COWOP Task Force Team, the requirements of the land use code, and comments from the City Engineer and applicable referral agencies and has recommended approval of all necessary land use approvals for granting a development order for the proposed Project including Final approval of a COWOP Land Use Review, Final PUD, Rezoning of Lot 3 to Residential Multi-Family with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay, Subdivision and Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization, Residential Design Review, Final Growth Management Exemption, and Special Review for Affordable Housing Parking subject to conditions of approval as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development Burlingame Ranch, Lot 3 Ord. No. 36, Series of 2003 Page 2 proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Burlingame Parcel D COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: The Burlingame Ranch Lot 3 Affordable Housing COWOP Project is hereby granted a development order for a site specific development plan and granted all necessary land Use approvals including Final approval ofa COWOP Land Use Review, Final PUD, Rezoning of Lot 3 to Residential Multi-Family with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay, Subdivision and Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumizafion,' Residential Design Review, Final Growth Management Exemption, and Special Review for Affordable Housing Parking subject to conditions of approval as described herein. Section 1: Rezoning The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans, amended by the Community Development Director to reflect the following property as included in the Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) zone with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay, on all portions of said land: Lot 3 of the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision Section 2: Approved Prolect The Project shall include forty (40) deed restricted affordable housing units as described on the Final PUD Plans. Each unit will be configured as a one-bedroom unit clustered in three multi-family buildings. The units will be deed restricted in accordance with Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Guidelines. Twenty-five (25) of the units shall be deed restricted as for-sale Category 2 units of no less than 677 square feet in size and fifteen (15) of the units shall be deed restricted as for-sale Category 3 units of no less than 765 square feet in size. Each trait shall have one (1) associated enclosed parking space conveyed with the ownership interest of the residential unit. There shall be thirty (30) additional surface parking spaces. A private roadway will serve the development leading from Ventnor Avenue and will be maintained by the homeowners association. All physical improvements including landscaping, storm water facilities, utility infrastructure, etc. is to be maintained by the. homeowners association. Open space will account for approximately 75% of the lot. A public trail leading from the surface parking area and sidewalk will be installed by the developer and connect the project to the public trail on Burlingame Ranch, Lot 3 Ord. No. 36, Series of 2003 Page 3 Highway 82. The name of the new street serving the development is approVed as PassGo Lane. Section 4: Approved Proiect Dimensions The following approved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: ~ln)li~llm:~<'<>i+: :<: 5.6 Acres (243,936 sq. ft.) ~ 40 deed restricted AH urdts (7.1/acre) ~lfi~l*'io~f~[rdTSetliack 0: , ~?~, ~*: Variable-According to Final PUD Plan ~;i'llit 9.5 Feet ~mum Site ~overage: ::; ?' ', '"' -:* ,;r ~ 25 Percent )~l/ia~rlt~l~h~'' : ~,~ ~:, ~ 40 feet as measured by City Land Use Code ,.<~, 10 Feet ~!l~I~, P~en~ ~ ~l~en.~ace .,, 75 Percent ~it,l!~i~l~i~ :' : .~:1 ( ~ S,:O0 s~nare feet) 1.75 spaces per unit (70 spaces for 40 Units) ~ sIiie fli~l~'D,~{g i~ds ..... :,, Accordins to Final PUD architectural plan Section 5: Impact Fees Fark Impact Fees will be waived for this project in that the project contains approximately 75°/6 open space, a public trail is being installed and is adjacent to recreational public trails. School Impact Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of Aspen will need to verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project fi.om recent transactions, an appraisal and/or information from the Pitkin County Assessor. One-third of this value divided by the proposed 40 units would constitute the required payment that would be due prior to Building Permit issuance. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted, All School Impact Fees will be payable at a time prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit. Traffic Impact Fees have been paid to Pitkin County based upon vehicular traffic trip generation by the development for improvements to the road network and intersections serving this development in the vicinity of the AABC. Section 6: Landscape Plan The proposed landscape plan shall provide a number, type, and quality of plant material acceptable to the City Parks Department. Sufficient mitigation shall be provided, in a form acceptable to the City Parks Department, to offset the removal of existing trees on the site. The Landscape Plan sheet(s) of the Final PUD Plans shall include an acceptable Burlingame Ranch, Lot 3 Ord. No. 36, Series of 2003 Page 4 / tree replacement and mitigation plan with a signature line for approval by the City Parks Department. The Subdivision?PLrD agreement shall include provisions guaranteeing the successful implementation of the landscape plan and ongoing mmntenance of landscape. The Subdivision/PUD Agreement shall include provisions for initial establishment of improvements and ongoing maintenance of the landscape and pedestrian ways as general common elements. Section 7: Water Department Requirements A separate water meter and billing account will be needed for each residence. An additional tap for landscaping will be needed. The design of the fire sprinkler system must consider the pressure surges that occur in the AABC. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Fire Marshal and evidence of such approval provided to the Water Department. All requirements of the Water Department as described in the Development Review Committee memorandum, dated June 16, 2003, shall be complied with. Section 8: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District All requirements of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, as described in the Development Review Committee memorandum, dated June 16, 2003, shall be complied with. Section 9:PM10 Mitigation and Transportation Options Program The City of Aspen considers the following elements of the project properly mitigating the increases in PM10: Close proximity to a transit stop, close proximity to such residential services as groceries, banking, and restaurants, close proximity to school bus stops, proposed pedestrian trail connections to a main trail corridor into Aspen, provision of one parking space per residence with additional parking spaces available, bike racks, and covered and secure storage serving the residents of the development. One parking space shall be designated for a car-share program vehicle, should the development participate in such a program at some time in the future. Section 10: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. Section 11: Condominiumizafion Condominiumization of the project, once it is constructed, shall be approved upon meeting the condominium plat requirements. Such condominium plat shall meet with both state and local recordation requirements. Such plat shall be reviewed, and if found to be acceptable, approved administratively by the Community Development Department and recorded in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office at the expense of the developer Section 12: Subdivision Plat & Final PUD Plan Requirements Burlingame Ranch, Lot 3 Ord. No. 36, Series of 2003 Page Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and a Final PUD Development Plan. Such plat and plan shall meet with the required submittal requirements pursuant to the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. For Subdivision Plat: I. Public access and pedestrian easements coinciding with the trails within the project and "PassGo Lane" labeling the development's roadway. 2. All new easements for utility, fire and any other public purposes as shown in the PUD plan. 3. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of OccUPancy for any of the residential units. The Final PUD Plans shall include: I. The PUD title and "PassGo Lane" street name. 2. An illustrative site plan with dimensioned building locations. Adequate snow storage areas shall be depicted. 3. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department, This should include any movable planters/pots within pedestrian areas. 4. Design sPecifications for the trail connection between the development and the trail along Highway 82. 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character of each building depicting materials, fenestration, projections, and dimensions and locations of elevator shaft heads, skylights, mechanical equipment, etc. 6. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. The City Water Department requires one meter and one billing account for each unit. 7. Construction details for improvements to the public rights-of-way, including utility improvements, retaining wall and road profiles. 8. A grading/drainage and storm water management plan with any off-site impacts and improvements specified. Such plan shall be reviewed by and meet with the approval of the City of Aspen Community Development Department Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. The applicant shall work with the City Utility Department Director and the City Parks Planner to determine the number of and location for streetlights within the development for safety and access reasons. These Shall be depicted in the Illustrative plan of the Final PUD Plans. Burlingame Ranch, Lot 3 Ord. No. 36, Series of 2003 Page 6 Section 13: Subdivision/PUD Agreement Requirements Within 180 days a~er final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision/PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. Thc Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070 and 26.480.070, in addition to the following: 1. The PUD agreement shall state the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the common areas, roadway, parking, landscaping, utility, storm water, retaining wall, and any other utility or common improvement of the project. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city/county streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, and other affected parties. Section 14: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A letter fi'om the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been read and understood. 2. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. 3. A fugitive dus! control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including access roads, perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of-way, speed limits within and accessing thc site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nmsance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris fi'om the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. The applicant shall provide phone contact information for on-site project management to address construction impacts to the City of Aspen Building Department and Pitkin County Engineering Department. 4. A cunstruction management and parking plan meedng thc specifications of the City Building Depamnent. 5. Evidence that the development project scores 130 points or better on the Efficient Building Program score sheet. 6. Evidence that all utility, including water, sanitation fees are paid. 7. Evidence that the retaining walls, both MSE and boulder have been engineered by a licensed structural engineer. Section 15: Project Amendments Amendments to the Project shall be reviewed according to the procedures and limitations of the Land Use Code for amending a Final PUD Plan; however, unless the amendment can be handled administratively, the review authority shall rest with the City Council. Section 16: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, as presented in public hearing or Burlingame Ranch, Lot 3 Ord. No. 36, Series of 2003 Page 7 I documentation before the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 17: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 18: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 19: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 20: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 28thth day of July, 2003, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14th day of July, 2003. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 28th day of July, 2003. Burlingame Rancl~ Lot 3 Ord. No. 36, Series of 2003 Page 8 Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Burlingame Ranch. Lot 3 Ord. No. 36, Series of 2003 Page 9