Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20170124 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission SPECIAL MEETING January 24, 2017 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. January 3, 2017 Draft Meeting Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1411 Crystal Lake Rd - Special Review; Top of Slope Determination B. 331-338 Midland Ave - Aspen Hills Condos Affordable Housing Project VII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 4, Series 2017 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for January 3, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Brian McNellis, Skippy Mesirow, Ryan Walterscheid, Spencer McKnight and Keith Goode. Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre, and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; James True, Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Phillip Supino, and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow wished everyone a happy new year. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated a letter addressed to the board had been submitted regarding 404 Park Ave. She provided a copy to each board member (Exhibit: Public Comment A). She noted there is a working lunch scheduled for January 17th and she will send out an email where this will be located. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Mr. McNellis motioned to approve the minutes of December 13th. Mr. Walterscheid seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 427 Rio Grande Pl (Aspen City Offices) – Major Public Project Review Mr. Goode asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, replied it appears adequate (Exhibit M). Mr. Goode then opened the public hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner, then reviewed application for the new city office building. He stated the expected agenda for the hearing tonight would include an overview from both Staff and the applicant, initial public comment and initial P&Z discussion and comment. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 2 He then displayed an image of the site and reviewed the current site conditions noting it includes all or portions of three lots. • Lot four is the smallest lot and includes the Rio Grande building • Lot two which includes Galena Plaza, the underground parking garage, Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) offices and the new expansion to the library • Lot one is the largest lot and includes everything from the Rio Grande right-of-way (ROW) and the Roaring Fork River and a portion of the surface parking lots just south of the Rio Grande ROW and Mill St. Only a portion of this lot is part of the proposed project. The proposed development combines lots two and four along with a small portion of lot one, demolishes the existing ACRA offices and constructs the new City office building. There is also a proposal to redevelop the interior of Galena Plaza and the front entry to make it more accessible and the Galena Plaza landscape to accommodate the new development. He stated this application is being reviewed as a major public project. The City is eligible to utilize this process as an alternative review in line with a state statute requirement which a combined process as a two-step review process. This will not come back to P&Z for a final decision so all aspects of their typical reviews will be done at one review. He also noted this project is not eligible for the 60-day review limit. 1. P&Z providing a recommendation to City Council 2. City Council makes the final decision He then discussed the four areas of reviews and what the applicant is proposing. 1. Subdivision • Lots two, four and a portion of one will be merged for a total of 75,053 sf • A view corridor approximately 75 ft wide which follows the Galena St ROW and extends the entire distance from north to south on the lot to preserve the views is included • A redeveloped staircase will be in the view corridor 2. Planned Development (PD) combined project and detail review • This is zoned Public (PUB) which has no underlying dimensions so they will be established in this review • The applicant is requesting flexibility for the new structure gross sf to be increased up to 10% which would make the new value of approximately 41,300 sf. This would not increase other dimensions such as height or setbacks, but would allow them to fill in the interior spaces if necessary. This would increase the total gross sf to 185,561 sf which includes the parking garage and the Rio Grande building as well. • This review does not establish floor area calculations which can be challenging on a sloped lot so it is being reviewed for an establish gross sf for the entire project. He stated this is similar to what was done with Aspen Valley Hospital. • There were a number of issues identified in the DRC review a. The Parks Department is concerned for the number of trees to be removed and wants to see more preserved if possible b. There is no identified snow storage on property P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 3 c. The Engineering Department has asked for additional information regarding the stormwater and bioretention areas. d. The Engineering Department has also noted the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is eight trips short of the requirement based on the development and requests further discussion. e. The Engineering Department has noted a couple of design guidelines that have not been met in terms of the sidewalks widths and the Complete Street improvements related to Mill St. f. The Environmental Health Department (EH) has concerns with trash locations. The current proposal has the trash pickup through the alley behind the Library. Both EH and the Fire Department do not support this design and have requested the applicant review having the trash access off the revised surface parking area. g. The Fire District has concerns related to the parking garage access. Currently the northwest portion is accessed from a surface parking lot and the new development may have implications. They have requested further discussion to ensure adequate safety and fire access to garage. 3. Commercial Design combined conceptual and final reviews • Staff would like to see more second floor height variation, particularly on the Rio Grande side of the building. Staff feels there is adequate variation on the Galena Plaza side. • Staff is concerned with the materiality. The current proposal includes brick, stone tiles and metal. Staff feels this is a transitional area from the Commercial Core to the River Approach area and Staff would lie to see more river-based or industrial-based materials incorporated. This is a prominent location to showcase Aspen’s unique topography and surrounding environment. A couple of recent projects Staff suggest to look at for inspiration include the Rio Grande restrooms and the Aspen Sanitation District building. 4. Growth Management review • Essential public facility – Applicant is requesting 37,443 sf or 41,300 sf with the additional 10% requested. He noted there is no annual limitation on this allotment so there is availability in the 2016 year based on the submission date of the application. • P&Z is tasked to determine the actual generation for the employees of the site. There is a reference in the code of 5.1 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for this type of development in the PUB zone district. He added this is similar to the Aspen Police Department in how they calculated the actual employees which Staff feels is an appropriate method. He noted there are 14 FTEs related to the existing ACRA offices which can be counted as a credit. • The applicant is proposing 100 FTEs (actual generation determined by P&Z) with an increase of 86 FTEs. • The proposed mitigation is at 60% (51.6 FTEs) which will be mitigated through existing City housing that has not previously been used for mitigation. • He noted City Council will determine the required mitigation, but P&Z needs to look at the actual generation. He then reviewed the discussion points for P&Z. Subdivision 1. Proposed lot combination P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 4 2. Proposed view corridor PD 1. Established and proposed dimensions including the requested 10% increase 2. Multiple site planning issues raised from the DRC meeting 3. The overall design of the building including both conceptual and final reviews Growth Management 1. Allotments 2. Employee Generation He concluded stating Staff recommends continuing to allow the commission time to discuss and provide initial comments for the applicant to respond to at the next meeting. Mr. Goode asked for questions of Staff. Mr. Goode asked how they calculated 100 employees. Mr. Barker stated it was based off an actual count of the number of employees that would be moved into this building based on projections including the current total for the departments plus expected growth to be housed here going into 2030. Mr. Goode asked with no underlying height restrictions, they could have proposed higher heights. Mr. Barker stated they can propose any height, but the applicant compared their building to surrounding buildings. He added they did provide the heights of surrounding buildings, noting it is a broad range including the Community Bank, County Courthouse, the new County building and the County Library. He stated the proposed building height falls within the range of neighboring buildings. Mr. Mesirow asked what buildings the employees would be relocated from to this building. Mr. Barker stated he could look into it for the next meeting. Mr. McNellis asked how this project came to be in recent history. He believed the focus was reversed by City Council to look at the existing City Hall for the location for expansion of City offices instead of the location under review at tonight’s hearing. Mr. Barker replied the applicant has a presentation covering the history. Mr. Mesirow asked for the zoning of the new Mill St building. Mr. Barker replied it is a bit unique and zoned as Mixed Use. Mr. Mesirow asked for a chart identifying what would be allowable in regards to height and FAR for the surrounding properties based on its zoning. Mr. Goode turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Charles Cunniffe, Charles Cunniffe Architects, introduced the applicant team. • Rich Pavcek, Charles Cunniffe Architects • Darla Callaway, Design Workshop • Jim Kehoe, Charles Cunniffe Architects • Reed Langhofer, Charles Cunniffe Architects • Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning Services P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 5 • Richard Goulding, Civil Engineer for the project • Seth Saul, MV5 • Jack Wheeler, City Project Manager • Jeff Pendarvis, City Property Manager Mr. Cunniffe then reviewed the history of the project as described in the application submittal (pp 62-65 in the agenda packet). 2000 – The citizens and staff acknowledged the City space needs were a problem and initiated work on the Civic Master Plan. 2001 – The City purchased the Zupancis property. 2006 – The Aspen Civic Master Plan published after five years of work based on input from a citizen’s group appointed by City Council. It states in recent years, both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have remodeled and renovated the interior of their primary office buildings continually creating small offices for staff. In some cases, staff is working out of what used to be closets. At the same time, both the City and County moved staff to other locations based on the lack of space. This creates inefficiencies internally regarding customer service. The plan also states the City of Aspen’s space limitation requires a long term solution to ensure the quality of service. 2014-2015 – The City began researching a long term location solution and selected a design team to work on the Civic Master Plan. The City Capital Asset Department worked to identify what was needed for each department and the relationships between departments. They initially identified between eight and 12 scenario combinations. They conducted at least 20 informational public meetings and stakeholder input meetings since 2014. 2016 - From their efforts, four scenarios were identified and then Council narrowed those down to two. One with the armory and Galena and the other moving everything to Galena. City Council initially pursued the Galena one roof option and then reverted back to keeping the armory building as City offices with a smaller building at Galena. The team then put together the design being presented now. The Master Plan identified the following for the Galena site. • Creating great people places • Current meeting space is inadequate and doesn’t reflect the importance of the decisions being made in City Hall. • A long-term solution to ensure the quality of service. • The Galena Plaza is under-utilized and deemed appropriate for meeting space. • Create a greatly improved pedestrian way from Main St to Galena St, down to Rio Grande Park. Mr. Cunniffe provided a slide showing a corridor from Aspen Mountain to the river and noted it is a great opportunity to connect the mountain to the John Denver Sanctuary at the river. The idea is to utilize Galena St as a pedestrian corridor. He noted the steering committee and the City of Aspen Staff have been involved in the development since the beginning. They have looked at Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 6 sustainable design for the building. He stated the public and City Council have been involved in every step of the process from August 2014 to present. In regards to the FTE calculation, he commented a lot of the building is public meeting space, which isn’t the same as office space. He stated the office spaces are quite a bit smaller than what is considered standard office space. Ms. Darla Callaway then reviewed the landscape design provided slides describing the proposed project area, existing buildings, and other projects under construction. She then provided a slide of the existing and proposed offices from Galena Plaza level and stated the plaza would knit all the civic uses together. The new city office building at this level is one story above the plaza level and serves primarily as a pedestrian entry. The proposed design extends the plaza out further. The new building will connect to the existing Rio Grande building with the existing entries. There will be a new Galena staircase larger than the existing staircase. It will not be covered, but will be snow melted. Going down to the Rio Grande Pl level, this will be three stories above the roadway. The building entry on this side is designed as a front entry facing the park. The proposed entry is about two and a half ft above the existing roadway and will have both a staircase and a ramp leading to the entry. The existing parking lot on the corner will be used as short term parking. They also want to maintain the on-street parking currently available. They are proposing the restaurant remain in its current location. The design team is looking at curb extensions to shorten the distances pedestrians would be in the crossing of Rio Grande Pl. She provided a slide of the corridor, noting it is about an 80 ft wide corridor responding to public input. She provided a view of the plaza today and a slide with the proposed one story in the same view. She noted of the proposed entry from Rio Grande Pl, there is about a two ft increase in grade. They are looking at using the area in front as a stormwater filtration zone. They are also planning to include bike racks and typical urban design features typically available around a public building. Mr. Pavcek then reviewed the building design including the orientation of the building, layouts as well as the elevations and massing. He noted the whole design backs up to existing parking garage. He stated the basement level is one level below the street and will include mechanical and storage. This may be one area they may consider expanding the interior sf without a change in mass. The main level faces Rio Grande Pl and includes the current parking garage entrance, a main lobby area providing access to the other levels, and mostly office space with some storage, and showers. The existing garage entrance and restaurant remains unchanged. The middle level will be on the same level where the existing uncovered parking spaces in the garage exist today. There is a secondary entrance on this level from garage. There will be a new internal corridor to connect to the Rio Grande building. This level includes office space as well. P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 7 The Galena plaza level will include a main entrance from the plaza, a meeting room identified as a replacement for the existing Sister Cites meeting room. This will serve as Council Chambers when the current City Hall is being refurbished. There is also a new public meeting room to replace the meeting room in the Rio Grande building. This meeting room could be used for public use for both indoor and outdoor functions. He also pointed out the location of the expanded staircase. Mr. Pavcek then provided slides depicting the building elevations from all directions, noting the height will be kept at or below the height of the surrounding buildings. He also pointed out the portion of the building on the plaza level has been set back from the edge of the portion of the building below it. He also identified the area that wraps around the outside of the building on the Rio Grande Pl side of the building. On the south elevation, he pointed out the height matches the library. Mr. Cunniffe stated the plaza itself which is the garage roof, will be extended almost 80 ft toward the Rio Grande Park to allow for a greater connection of the plaza with the park. The stairs will also be considerably wider. Mr. Goode asked for questions of the applicant. Mr. Walterscheid asked them to describe the worst case in height. Mr. Pavcek stated the proposed height is where the stairs are located on the plaza level entrance. He added this is to historic grade which is below the current street level, so the perceived height from grade at this location is about 44.8 ft. Mr. Walterscheid noted this portion of the building appears to be set back a bit from the perimeter and Mr. Pavcek agreed and stated it is inside from the other building elements. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the height on the Rio Grande side represents the parapet wall noting Staff is requesting variation in this area. Mr. Cunniffe agreed and stated there may be an opportunity to vary the height somewhat and will look into it if directed by P&Z. Mr. McNellis asked Ms. Callaway to speak to what information was captured from the public regarding the existing Galena Plaza. She responded the primary public comment heard was to open up the view. In terms of activation, they did not hear much. Part of the design was already established with the library renovation. They feel by bringing the city office here, they expect more people to be utilizing the plaza. Mr. McNellis asked about the amphitheater and she stated it will be maintained as designed by another project and it is planned to become slightly larger. Mr. Mesirow asked if the creation of the view corridor was in response to public comment and if this is currently a view plane to which Mr. Cunniffe responded no, but feels this is an opportunity to protect the natural connection of the mountain to the river. Mr. Goode asked if the design provided for future expansion. Mr. Cunniffe responded the building is planned for 2065 and noted the facilities master plan identified about 33,000 sf for growth. He stated the next phase will be looking at the armory to determine if the space there can be more functional. He thought some of the meeting space could be converted to office space if necessary. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff if they designed for year 2065, why was appropriate to use the 2030. Mr. Barker stated they had not heard the year 2065 used before so they have been evaluating base on the year 2030. Mr. Cunniffe added the 2065 was a year within the relocation project. The master plan was a 25 to 30-year projection. He stated they could also look at remodeling or enlarging the Rio Grande building which is currently 6,800 sf now and the holding capacity of the site is approximately 20,000 sf. P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 8 Mr. McNellis asked from a programming standpoint, were any other uses proposed for Rio Grande space and wondered if a retail or food space could be possible on the plaza level. Mr. Cunniffe stated right now they are subject to the current location and were limited to what the ask is for today. This could change in the future. This was tested in the public meetings and the majority of people did not want a restaurant at this location. The design does not preclude it for the future. Mr. Mesirow asked about the applicant’s request to possibly utilize 10% additional space. Mr. Pavcek responded it is mostly a margin to address situations so they don’t need to come back to ask for more sf. Mr. Mesirow asked if they would be open to limiting where the 10% would be. Mr. Cunniffe stated one issue they face is that the building will be built and then temporarily occupied until the armory renovation is completed which may take four years. They are asking for flexibility to allow for possible changes in the future. The plan is to build as an office building which may need to have its offices moved around. Mr. Goode asked if Staff has any issues with the 10% request and Mr. Barker replied they want to be careful how it is worded going forward to include appropriate approvals going forward and suggested specific language be added to ensure changes in height or massing would require another review. Mr. Mesirow asked if the assumption is the 10% would be underground or in other areas. Mr. Cunniffe stated they can’t predict it at this point, but want to be prepared. Mr. McKnight asked about how they designed the exterior and selected the materials. Mr. Cunniffe stated the brick identified is representational right now. They have a preference for a more lineal, contemporary brick material that may be stone. Their intent was to show where different materials may occur, but it is still in the study phase. They would like to hear from P&Z, but want to consider durable materials. They also feel some element of metal or steel would be appropriate as well. He pointed out the Obermeyer building which is primarily brick. He reiterated they are open to input, but the placement of glass and windows supports the interior layout. He added the building is intended to be LEED and WELL. Mr. Mesirow asked what level they are trying to design to and Mr. Cunniffe responded hopefully gold, but nothing less than silver. Mr. Mesirow stated he likes the extension of the green space, but asked if there were broader discussions regarding activation. Ms. Callaway stated they tested a couple of areas with the public. • Should the new city office retain a restaurant space which was not favored by the respondents • Should city offices have a coffee shop which had slightly more favorable response Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Toni Kronberg handed out a copy of Ordinance 46, Series 2006 and a copy of a newspaper article for the record (Exhibit O). She read from the ordinance and believes it requires that any applications on this property must be judged by the master plan. She also stated the newspaper article points out the parking lots were purchased with the 7th penny transportation tax money and any change in use must go to a vote. She feels over the years, the City has tried to put large buildings in this area and there have been three referendums to prevent the City from constructing the buildings. She also believes P&Z previously prevented the Police Department from utilizing a small area for parking their vehicles. She believed this is cherished area and the citizens want an open area with possible seating to view the park. She stated she was going to email the Civic Master Plan to all the board members and noted a City Hall was not one of the uses recommended for the parking lots. The allowable uses include performing arts, P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 9 SEI or affordable housing. She asked if story poles and a site visit could be accommodated. She is also investigating public noticing for this project and the community outreach. Mr. Goode then closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. McNellis asked Staff to respond to the public comment. Ms. Phelan stated the City Attorneys may have a different opinion concerning the 7th penny and stated Staff will respond in more detail. She added the Civic Master Plan includes information regarding the edge on the north side of Galena Plaza can be used for a range of civic use of which a city hall is a civic use. It also states if something does not fit in perfectly with the master plan, there are core principles the boards need to determine if something different needs to happen. She stated there are many sections which discuss the uses that may occur with the area. Mr. Barker noted Staff’s response to the five sections of the Civic Master Plan and their findings is included on pp 26 & 27 of the packet. Mr. Mesirow asked if any substantive changes were being made to the parking structure to which Mr. Barker replied no and the only change was the spaces currently open will be enclosed. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff to confirm if this is relevant or not and if so, how should it be considered. Mr. Cunniffe stated he served on the master plan committee and noted it was discussed to utilize the area for city offices. He stated Galena Plaza was the main focus and how to bring life to it. He reiterated the Civic Center is not a park. Mr. Goode opened for discussion. Mr. Goode stated he is agreement with Staff regarding the variation on the north side. He asked if story poles could be placed. Mr. Cunniffe stated they could but it may not appear relevant to the plaza. Mr. McNellis feels a site visit would be worthwhile and others agreed. Mr. McKnight likes the overall design including the view path. His biggest concern is about the design and materials. He would like to see something special and feels the look presented is a bit institutional. Perhaps breaking it up may help but he recognizes it is a transitional area and feels it could almost appear as two different buildings. He feels P&Z can come to an agreement on the mitigation. Mr. Mesirow agrees regarding material and would like the building to express warmth and be inviting. He believes Staff recommendations regarding the materials makes sense. He also feels it would be good to add something to activate the plaza space. Mr. Mesirow asked other commissioners about the affordable housing, noting his concern. Mr. McKnight likes the simplicity of their approach. Mr. Mesirow feels the City should set an example of what they expect to put in there. Mr. Goode asked if there was an audit of the review for the library. Ms. Phelan stated they actually did a review of the existing employees and a layout of the proposed library identifying where offices and employees would be located in a graphical representation. Mr. Pendarvis noted the City’s 505 program implemented by Council to develop housing for City employees. Currently, the inventory has about 45 units and is actively growing. He stated they constantly mitigate for employee generation. He stated they have sufficient credits for this project and a surplus for future projects. He added the other city locations have already been mitigated. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. McKnight want to ensure history and perception are addressed. Mr. Pendarvis noted APCHA issues the credits and audits the inventory. APCHA is a joint department between the City and County and acts independently. Mr. Barker stated APCHA will meet regarding this project prior to the next P&Z meeting. P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 10 Mr. Wheeler reiterated they are in the housing business and have funds to increase housing every year. They are not saying this because it is the City, but noted how this board and other regulatory agencies treated the County applications, for example, for essential public facilities and asked to be treated equally. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Wheeler to draw a similarity between this proposal and other nonpublic uses. Mr. Wheeler feels they are addressing the code requirements. Mr. Walterscheid asked when discussing flexibility, it may be helpful to know how the employees were allocated such as the number of desks or seats. He also understands the current discussion regarding how credits are allowed and would like to understand Staff’s and the City’s thoughts. Ms. Phelan stated this can be vetted more thoroughly in the next memo. Mr. Mesirow asked to have information regarding how the percentage of mitigation is related. Mr. Goode asked for an update on progress from the other departmental reviews. Mr. McNellis would like to see how the character can be pushed a bit more. He likes the building but feels there are things to be done to push the design envelope along with the landscape. Mr. Cunniffe agrees, but stated they are in a town that often compromises based on some voices. He noted they heard frequently from the public it should be an exemplary, sustainable building. Mr. Mesirow stated some of coolest buildings he has seen ties the historical and modern look together, noting one across from Wrigley Field. He feels there is a great amount of history in town to draw from. Mr. Walterscheid feels the proposed building blends in well with surrounding buildings and is okay regarding mass and height. Mr. McNellis likes how they opened it up visually and widened the stairs. Mr. Cunniffe reminded P&Z the green space wraps around the building and they want entice circulation around the building as a destination. Mr. McKnight motioned to continue the hearing until January 17, 2017 and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motioned passed. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) – Land Use Code (LUC) Coordination Process Update Ms. Garrow, Community Development Director, stated they have included all the draft ordinances related to the moratorium and the coordination of the AACP into the land use code. They want to focus on affordable housing mitigation, second tier commercial spaces and parking. They have a check-in on the commercial design guidelines scheduled for January 17th. P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 11 She stated Staff has been working on some development scenarios based on the proposed code amendments to see what impacts may occur. They are still working through this, but wanted to share them with P&Z. In terms of affordable housing mitigation, currently the code requires 60% mitigation of the net new FTEs generated by commercial or lodging development. There has been discussion to change the rate to 40% for second tier commercial spaces and 80% of prime commercial spaces to create an incentive for second tier spaces. As they ran through scenarios, they discovered the incentive is negligible. In most cases, the required mitigation actually increases. At this time, maintaining the 60% for all spaces makes the most sense. She then asked for P&Z’s feedback as listed in question one on p 247 of the packet. Mr. Mesirow noted he is not in favor of lowering the incentive if it is found to be negligible. Mr. Mesirow asked if the 60% is tied to the workforce housing in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and Ms. Garrow responded it came about from the 1993 AACP. Before that, it was about 30%. The goal in 1993 was to house 60% of the workforce in the upper valley which created a rationale for the code. She noted the current AACP does not have this goal. Mr. Mesirow asked with the possible increase of units occupied by non-working individuals, how should this be managed to handle this change in reality. Ms. Garrow replied this is one of the arguments to increase it to 80%. She stated as they looked at the scenarios, the increase in conjunction with the potential of not getting credit for existing spaces makes any redevelopment or remodel unlikely. She stated 60% is probably the sweet spot. Mr. Walterscheid asked what the current level is and are we close to 60% of employees living in Aspen. Ms. Garrow responded based on the research compiled by the Housing Department, the 60% goal will not be met in the near future so they are focused on managing the existing stock and ensuring any new development meets the needs. Mr. Supino stated there are often policies that are not met, but the value of the policy is more a legal standpoint. Ms. Garrow noted a lot of fees are actually a percentage of the required amount as to not be punitive. Ms. Garrow noted they ran the Butchers Block building through the changes and if you assume a redevelopment of the site and maxing the floor area; • At 60% for all the spaces, the mitigation is about $860,000 if adding 3.84 FTEs, and • with the 40% vs 80%, the mitigation goes down to 2.2 FTEs or just under $500,000. She stated this results in less affordable housing. They also ran scenarios of remodeling the old Daily News building: For a remodel adding just under 400 sf of net leasable. • At 60% is $249,000 with just over 1 FTE, and • with the 40% and 80%, it’s increased by about $100,000 because it generates about 1.5 FTE. In this scenario, more housing would result. If it was a complete redevelopment, there would be less housing. In conclusion, she stated the proposed changes do not help meet the housing goals and does encourage second tier spaces in most scenarios. At this point, Staff is recommending to not move forward. P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 12 The commissioners stated they were in favor of keeping it at 60%. Ms. Garrow stated the third question in the memo asks about the ability to establish housing credits. Council wants to see the commercial zone districts focus on commercial spaces to create more opportunities for second tier spaces for locally serving businesses and to not incentivize the creation of housing. Mr. Supino added it is important to consider this in light of the reduced FAR available for affordable housing in commercial and mixed use projects which is proposed to be capped at 0.75 total for affordable housing. Ms. Garrow stated this asks should a builder be able to build affordable housing and sell the credits to another developer. Council supports it, but not in the Commercial Core (CC), C1 or down by Clarks Market. This states they want affordable housing, but to not push out commercial uses. Ms. Garrow stated Council backed off having no housing, but they don’t want to encourage additional affordable housing. Mr. Goode likes the messiness of having people living in the commercial areas. He asked if it was feasible for a developer to do this. Ms. Garrow noted Mr. Hunt found it feasible at 517 E Hopkins Ave partly because he has so many other mitigation needs. He converted the second floor space to affordable housing. Mr. Walterscheid is in favor of employees living downtown and would be in favor of affordable housing downtown that follows a traditional live/work arrangement. He would also encourage RO, but understands the complications. Ms. Garrow asked with limiting all buildings to two stories, would P&Z be in favor of the second floor for affordable housing as credits or actual housing. Mr. McNellis understands the factors and how we arrived at this question. There are differences between those who want affordable housing and those purchasing free market residential. He feels housing adds vitality, especially affordable housing. He cautioned there are many corners cut during the construction of affordable housing and wants the architecture downtown to be paramount. He would like a standard for construction to be set. Mr. Walterscheid agrees with his concerns. Ms. Garrow noted Staff has the same concerns regarding the level of quality but recognizes this is more of a responsibility of APCHA. Mr. Mesirow stated he would be in support of continuing to allow credits. Mr. Walterscheid stated he would be in favor of no credits downtown, but not capping affordable housing. He would be in favor of an entire floor becoming housing. The other commissioners agreed with no cap and no credits. Ms. Garrow then discussed mitigating for commercial space (p 247 of the packet). Currently the code allows for a redevelopment to receive credit for existing commercial space. Council has expressed interest in removing this for the affordable housing noting if a building did not previously mitigate for its sf, it’s placed a burden on the affordable housing program that needs to be recognized. For new development triggering demolition should mitigate for the net new and anything not previously mitigated. Ms. Garrow reminded them demolition is triggered at 40.1%. P12 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 13 After running through the scenarios, Staff found if a building has not previously mitigated, the applicant will do anything to not trigger demolition, sometimes to detrimental results. She added anything built pre-1985 will fall into this situation. • In the Butchers Block example, there are portions of the building with six ft ceilings. This has never been mitigated. At 60%, the difference is $2.5 million or 11 FTEs. • At 517 E Hopkins Ave, the difference would be $6.8 million. • For 100 E Main St, the difference is $3.1 million or 4.1 FTEs for an increase of 225 sf Staff has heard from the consultants and representatives of the development community that this is the most significant impact. Staff is not sure it is a good policy. Mr. Supino noted this will capture a lot of historic buildings which will probably need signification mitigation, especially if they haven’t mitigated since 1985. Mr. Mesirow understands the intent, but for certain situations, asked if the trigger could be set to 80%. Ms. Garrow asked for ideas to allow for older historic buildings to be upgraded. Mr. Mesirow suggested mitigation to be set based on sf. Mr. Supino stated you can cap the overall rate or set the triggers for mitigation. Mr. McNellis feels anything over 40% creates that many more truckloads, workers and need for affordable housing. He likes what Mr. Mesirow’s suggested adjusting the trigger to be higher. Mr. Walterscheid stated if a developer knows they trigger the 40%, then they will demolish 100%. However, he noted the massive fees generated will be passed along to the lessees and a second tier space becomes very expensive. He feels the fee is too high. Mr. Supino noted a consultant concluded having the policy would incentivize remodel over scrape and replace. Staff plans to review this with Council. Ms. Garrow noted this will have huge impacts when a building has existing affordable housing. She noted the building next to Casa Tua has existing affordable housing units so they would be looking at mitigating approximately 52 FTEs which makes redevelopment totally infeasible. Ms. Garrow pointed out the Golden Horn building because much of it is located on public ROW so it is not probable for this to be redeveloped. This property would have numbers similar to the Butchers Block Building. Mr. Mesirow feels the scenarios draw out the actual cost to the community for a remodel or a redevelopment. He feels for redevelopment the mitigation should be the current rate. Mr. McKnight suggested adding a set of criteria to be met to allow for demolition greater than the 40% when it is deemed necessary for the building to be structurally sound, for safety or other similar necessities. This would give P&Z the option to allow for it as necessary. Ms. Garrow noted Staff would investigate possible exemption scenarios to address specified situations. Mr. Walterscheid suggested taking the percentage of demolition and applying it toward the credit. He added this calculation is already required. He noted there are certain things that don’t count toward P13 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 14 demolition such as below grade spaces and glazing. He believes roofing may need to be exempted. He noted there are cases when a developer is not planning to exceed the demolition percentage, but upon initiating the demo, the need to demo more is uncovered. He believes the intent may also need to play into it. Mr. Goode motioned to continue the meeting for seven minutes and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion approved. Mr. Goode want to touch on number six, noting he would support second tier spaces as a means to support small and locally supporting businesses. He feels the fees are preventing small businesses as well. Mr. McKnight is in favor of it and believes there needs to be a stricter line, provide for fees to be waived and add in restrictions for franchises. He feels City Council has false hopes in regards to what can be done. Designing smaller spaces and making alley spaces available is the right idea, but it may not provide what they are looking to provide for smaller businesses. Mr. Goode noted the City of Golden has done a lot to incentivize local people and businesses. He likes the idea of limiting chains, but feels it will lower property values and could take 20 years to impact the situation. He also feels defining locally serving needs to be less grey. Mr. McKnight believes currently there is not a lot of space for new businesses to go and this may help open up space if there is an incentive to do so. Mr. Walterscheid believes there are a number of basement and second floor spaces already existing and wonders what is expected to happen with these changes. He asked what the requirements would be for second tier space other than it is not on the ground floor. Ms. Garrow replied it is everything except ground floor, street level, prime space. They are currently proposing 30% of the overall space be second tier space which can be met utilizing basement or second floor space. Mr. Walterscheid asked why wouldn’t this happen already. She noted Mr. Hunt is building one story buildings and using the basement space as storage and no new retail space. With the proposed changes, the basement space would have to provide the second tier business space. Mr. Supino added the changes would prevent a one story on slab development that only provides the necessary affordable housing along with the business. Ms. Garrow noted P&Z is supportive, but with additional incentives and teeth. Mr. McKnight moved to continue the meeting for elections and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion approved. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2017 Mr. McKnight motioned to nominate Mr. Mesirow for chair and was seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion approved. Mr. McNellis nominated Mr. Walterscheid as vice-chair and was seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion approved. P14 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 15 Mr. Goode then closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P15 IV.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director MEETING DATE: January 24, 2017 RE: 1411 Crystal Lake Road; Special Review – Top of Slope Determination APPLICANT /OWNER: H. Rodes Hart of Valley Group, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn of Davis Horn, Inc. LOCATION: Street Address: 1411 Crystal Lake Road; Parcel Identification Number: 2737-181-00-018 CURRENT ZONING & USE The parcel is located in the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) zone district contains a single family home, and is subject to the Stream Margin ESA overlay. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting an alternative top of slope determination from that specified by the City of Aspen’s Stream Margin Map. This review is in anticipation of a complete Stream Margin Review of a future redevelopment of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed alternative Top of Slope determination for 1411 Crystal Lake Road. SUMMARY: The Applicant and representatives have worked with the City of Aspen Engineering Department to re-evaluate the top of slope for this parcel established by the City’s adopted Stream Margin Map. The top of slope established by the official map would be very restrictive for future redevelopment potential and is inaccurate when considering site topography and the relationship to the Roaring Fork River. This new top of slope determination will be the basis for a complete Stream Margin Review that would be required for future redevelopment of the property. Figure 1. Location of project and footprint of existing residence. The dashed red line shows the top of slope determination as specified by the City of Aspen’s Stream Margin Map. Source: City of Aspen GIS. P16 VI.A. BACKGROUND: The existing single family residence was built in 1971, pre-dating the existence of Stream Margin Review within the Land Use Code or the adopted Stream Margin Map. The subsequent adoptions of Stream Margin Review standards and Stream Margin Map (that establishes Top of Slope) now apply to this property. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following review: • Special Review, ESA Stream Margin (26.435.040.E) to establish an alternative Top of Slope determination from the adopted Stream Margin Map. The Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct this review. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: The applicant will eventually be redeveloping the property with a new single family residence. Because of the property’s relationship with the Roaring Fork River, the redevelopment will be subject to a Stream Margin Review. The adopted Stream Margin Map (2002) that established the Top of Slope along both sides of the river, identifies a Top of Slope that would make the redevelopment of this property practically difficult. As a first step in the Stream Margin review process, the applicant’s engineering consultant proposed an alternative Top of Slope based on the site conditions and consulted with City Engineering staff to gain confirmation and approval of this alternative Top of Slope. In essence, the new Top of Slope follows natural site conditions (contours, vegetation, etc.) until it runs parallel to the existing house, 15 feet from the existing deck structure. This will prevent the new development from being any closer to the Roaring Fork River than the existing development. If approved, this new Top of Slope will set parameters for any new development as it relates to the Roaring Fork River, the adjacent riparian habitat, and the standards for Stream Margin Review. Figure 2. Existing Top of Slope Designation from the Stream Margin Map. The dotted line above the blue box shows the existing Top of Slope as it crosses the property. Currently, the entirety of the existing development sits between the Roaring Fork River and the existing Top of Slope. P17 VI.A. Figure 4. Proposed alternative Top of Slope, proposed Improvement Survey/Plat. The blue line identifies the alternative Top of Slope proposed by the applicant and supported by the City Engineering Department. The area shown in green depicts the existing residence. Figure 3. Existing Top of Slope from adopted Stream Margin Map, excerpt from full map depicted in Figure 2. The blue line follows the adopted Top of Slope as is crosses the subject property. The existing residence is depicted in green. P18 VI.A. STAFF COMMENTS: Planning staff conducted a site visit with the applicant’s representative to evaluate the site conditions and view the proposed Top of Slope that had been flagged. While this Top of Slope seemed intuitively correct, staff is relying on the site evaluation by the applicant’s engineer and the approval of the alternative Top of Slope by City Engineering staff. The alternative top of slope, approved by City Engineering and depicted on the proposed Improvement Survey/Plat meets the primary criteria for the Special Review (please see Exhibit A for more detail on the review criteria and staff findings). Staff is confident that this new Top of Slope determination combined with the requirements of the future Stream Margin Review will protect important riparian resources and observe the 100-year floodplain. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the alternative Top of Slope as proposed by the Site Improvement Survey submitted with this application. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. ____, Series of 2017, to approve an alternative Top of Slope determination for the property at 1411 Crystal Lake Road. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application Exhibit C – Site Improvement Survey Exhibit D – City of Engineering e-mail supporting the alternative Top of Slope Determination P19 VI.A. Resolution No. XX (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TOP OF SLOPE DETERMINATION FOR A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1411 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD. Parcel No. 2737-181-00-018 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Davis Horn Inc., on behalf of H. Rodes Hart of Valley Group, LLC requesting Special Review approval for an alternative Top of Slope Determination for the property at 1411 Crystal Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Engineering Department provided consultation to the applicant and approved the proposed alternative Top of Slope; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Special Review for an alternative Top of Slope; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 24, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meet either applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approves the request; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. P20 VI.A. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Special Review (for Top of Slope) Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves an alternative top of slope determination via Special Review as identified in the attached Exhibit A. The applicant shall record a Site Improvement Survey/Plat depicting the alternative Top of Slope within 180 days of this approval. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on January 24, 2017. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Attachments: Exhibit A: Site Improvement Survey/Plat Identifying Alternative Top of Slope Exhibit B: Full legal description of property P21 VI.A. Exhibit A Staff Findings 26.435.040.E E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and Staff Finding: The application provides a Site Improvement Survey, from a licensed surveyor, that depicts the alternative Top of Slope Determination. The location of this Top of Slope has been approved by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff Finding: This application is not responding to a finding of denial. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. P22 VI.A. P23 VI.A. P24 VI.A. P25 VI.A. P26 VI.A. P27 VI.A. P28 VI.A. P29 VI.A. P30 VI.A. P31 VI.A. P32 VI.A. P33VI.A. P34VI.A. P35VI.A. P36 VI.A. P37 VI.A. P38VI.A. P39VI.A. P40 VI.A. P41 VI.A. P42 VI.A. P43 VI.A. P44 VI.A. P45 VI.A. P46 VI.A. P47 VI.A. P48 VI.A. P49 VI.A. P50 VI.A. P51 VI.A. Exhibit C Site Improvement Survey P52VI.A. Exhibit D City of Aspen Engineering Approval From: Hailey Guglielmo Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:13 AM To: Ben Anderson Subject: RE: 1411 Crystal Lake Rd - Engineering Referral Ben, The Engineering Department approves of the proposed top of slope. The property does not have a clearly defined bench. The location of top of slope 15’ from the existing structure protects further disturbance and encroachment into the riparian area. Within the second part of the stream margin review, I will be looking for a proposed vegetation plan that further strengthens and enhances the riparian area. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Hailey Guglielmo, EIT Civil Engineer 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 429-2751 Hailey.guglielmo@cityofaspen.com _____________________________________________ From: Ben Anderson Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 1:47 PM To: Hailey Guglielmo <hailey.guglielmo@cityofaspen.com> Subject: 1411 Crystal Lake Rd - Engineering Referral Hi Hailey – I am a requesting an Engineering referral on this application. The applicant is pursuing the first step of a two-step process in gaining approval of a Stream Margin Review. In this first step, the applicant is seeking P&Z approval of a new Top of Slope Determination that is different from the City’s Stream Margin Map. The applicant’s representative, Glenn Horn, has stated that Engineering Department staff have been consulted and assisted in determining this new Top of Slope. P&Z is scheduled for 1/24. It would be helpful to have comments back by January 4, 2017 at the latest. P53 VI.A. The application can be found at the link below: X:\City\Ben_Anderson\1411 Crystal Lake Rd Could you let me know who is being assigned the referral? Thanks, Ben Ben Anderson, Planner City of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2765 Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or ma y not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> P54 VI.A. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner THROUGH: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director MEETING DATE: January 24, 2017 RE: 331-338 Midland Ave, aka Aspen Hills Condominiums APPLICANT /OWNER: Heidi and Patrick Gorbitz (#331), Jean Delynn (#332), Drew Goodman (#333), Matt Grubbs (#334), Margaret Jane McGavock Trust (#335), Alix Samuelson (#336), 337 Midland Ave LLC (#337), and Sharon Elizabeth Wells (#338). REPRESENTATIVE: William Boehringer, WEB2 Capital LLC LOCATION: 331- 338 Midland Avenue CURRENT ZONING & USE: Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District with eight free-market residential multi- family units. PROPOSED LAND USE: Conversion to deed-restricted multi-family housing. SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to convert the eight existing multi- family residential units that make up the Aspen Hills Condominiums into eight affordable housing units in exchange for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. There are currently six 2- bedroom units and two 1-bedroom units. The applicant is proposing to convert the two one bedroom units into two-bedroom units, and is requesting to vary the additional parking space that is required with the addition of the bedrooms. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the parking variation and continuation of the hearing for additional information related to parking and trash location. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Commission: Figure A: Recent image of subject property. P55 VI.B. 2 Figure B: Location of subject site. • Affordable Housing per Section 26.470.070(4) related to the creation of eight affordable housing units; • Growth Management per Section 26.470.050(B) for growth management allotments related to the creation of affordable housing units; • Affordable Housing Credit per Section 26.540.070 for the number of affordable housing credits generated by the units; • Dimensional Variance per 26.314.040(A) to vary the amount of parking required on-site. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final authority for all above reviews. LOCATON/BACKGROUND: The subject site is located in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district, at the intersection of Midland Avenue and Midland Park Place. The development consists of a multi- family residential building containing eight free-market residential units that was constructed in 1965. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The eight residential units range in size from 807 sq. ft. to 866 sq. ft. with an average size of 854 sq. ft. Each unit is split level with the kitchen and living room areas above grade, and the bedroom(s) and bathroom below grade. Six of the eight units are two-bedroom; one unit was legally converted from a two– to a one-bedroom in the 1990’s, while another unit was converted to a one-bedroom unit at some unknown time. No building permit was found for this second unit, which may be a result of conversion without a permit or due to the purging of historic records. Over the years, owners have made improvements to their individual homes, so each unit has unique characteristics. For instance, one unit has electric in-floor heating in the bathroom, another has a gas fireplace, and some units have skylights. At least three units have upgraded the size of the egress windows from the subgrade bedrooms. Unit 332, the smallest of all units, lacks storage space, while the other seven units have 45 sq. ft. of storage on the upper level. There are numerous non-conforming conditions related to the structure and the site. Portions of the building extend to the rear property line, where the RMF zone district requires a five-foot rear yard setback. There is also a sidewalk on the property’s south side that is used to access the decks and units which is beyond the property line. Staff has no knowledge of any existing encroachment easement to allow for this condition. The mail pedestal and trash area are located on a portion of land belonging to Midland Park Condominiums, the multi-family units that are located directly north of the subject site. Neither element has an existing encroachment easement for placement in their current location. Midland Park Place P56 VI.B. 3 Lastly, there are eight parking spaces at the front of the site. The residents have historically parked in tandem style, allowing a second car to be parked for each unit; however, the tandem parking is not on the site but rather is primarily located on land owned by the Midland Park Condominiums. Tandem parking does not count towards parking requirements. Staff recognizes the on-site parking as eight spaces, with a six space deficit that may be maintained upon the proposed conversion to affordable housing based on the current conditions. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to convert the eight free-market residential units into Category 2 or 3 affordable housing units in exchange for 18 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, at the approved category rate. The applicant has proposed a mix of rental and for-sale units. The following table outlines the affordable housing credits generated based on current and proposed conditions. Unit Number Unit Size (sq. ft.) Number of Bedrooms, existing Associated Housing Credits Number of Bedrooms Proposed Proposed Housing Credits 331 852 1 1.75 2 2.25 332 807 2 2.25 2 2.25 333 861 2 2.25 2 2.25 334 861 2 2.25 2 2.25 335 861 2 2.25 2 2.25 336 861 1 1.75 2 2.25 337 866 2 2.25 2 2.25 338 866 2 2.25 2 2.25 Totals 14 17 16 18 Figure C: Site plan. • Orange = property line • Red = area owned by Midland Park Condominiums (to orange line) • Yellow = area of on-site parking. • Blue = trash/recycling and mail pedestal • Green dashed line – edge of walkway P57 VI.B. 4 The following table indicates the monetary worth of a credit or Full-Time Equivalent at APCHA’s different categorical rates. Category 2 rate Category 3 Category 4 1 Credit or FTE $320,186 $286,495 $223,072 The applicant is requesting to memorialize the non-conformities on the site associated with the mail, trash, and sidewalk locations. The applicant is proposing to convert both one-bedroom units to two-bedroom units, and is seeking a variance from the additional parking space that is required by the addition of the second bedrooms. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has evaluated the applicant’s requests against the relevant review criteria, as discussed by topic, below. The criteria associated with each subject can be reviewed in Exhibit A, Staff Findings. Reviews for Affordable Housing. The applicant is proposing to add a 52-year-old multi-family residential building into the City’s affordable housing inventory. APCHA has provided a referral for this proposal, but the P&Z is the final authority that will decide whether the housing proposed meets the criteria for conversion to affordable housing (a Growth Management Review), as well as grant housing credits for the proposal. The proposed affordable housing meets the criteria of being at least 50% above finished grade, it is not a requirement of mitigation, and it is compatible with the uses on the surrounding parcels. There is no limit on the amount of affordable housing that may be developed yearly within the city. The units, however, are substandard in size. The applicant is proposing all eight units as two bedroom units. At 807 – 866 sq. ft. none meet the 900 sq. ft. size requirement. APCHA guidelines allow for a reduction up to 20% of the required unit size should the applicant successfully demonstrate at least some of the following criterion are met: • Significant storage space located outside unit; • Above average natural light (i.e. more windows than required by code); • Efficient, flexible layout with limited hall and staircase space; • Availability of site amenities, such as pool or proximity to park or open space; • Unit location within the development (i.e. above ground location vs. ground level or below grade; and/or • Possibility that project can achieve higher density of deed-restricted units with a reduction variance. APCHA requires a minimum of 700 sq. ft. for a one-bedroom unit. The APCHA Board, in their January 18th meeting recommended approval of the conversion to two-bedroom units, despite the substandard size. In 2016 the APCHA Board adopted a document entitled “Supplemental Guidance – Marketability Standards APCHA Guidelines (2016)” (Exhibit I). This document outlines guidance for converting and P58 VI.B. 5 improving older free market dwelling units into newly renovated deed restricted affordable housing. These guidelines are intended to supplement the APCHA standards already in place. Based on the requirements outlined in the guidelines the applicant has submitted a Physical Needs Assessment (Exhibit G) and Energy Audit (Exhibit H) for the site; however, an engineer’s report is still required to provide a complete image of the building’s condition. Both submitted reports provide visual inspections of the building with recommendations. An engineer report(s) is a more intrusive review which better assesses the condition of the major components and systems of the building. As an Engineer’s Report was not submitted by the applicant, the Housing Authority contracted with Phil Vaughan from PVCMi Construction Management, Inc. to provide a complete scope of work outlining investigations that must be performed to clearly understand the current condition of the building. Mr. Vaughan’s report is attached as Exhibit K to this memo. Staff is concerned with the potential deferred maintenance and life safety issues associated with the building. Additionally, this is proposed as new affordable housing stock so significant improvements may be required to bring the units up to current standards. Included as conditions of approval is a requirement that the applicant enter into an agreement with APCHA to address the issues raised in the various reports. A building permit will be required to rectify all issues required by APCHA’s Supplemental Guidance, and Housing Credits cannot be issued until a Letter of Completion for all required work is issued. Creation of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. The proposed affordable housing is not a requirement of mitigation, and the applicant intends to deed-restrict these units as for-sale and for-rent with APCHA to qualified buyers. The applicant has not indicated which units will be for-sale and which may be rental units, nor is there a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure permanent affordability of the units. The applicant is required to provide such an instrument prior to any units being accepted as affordable rental or for-sale units. Staff suggests the project maintain the two one-bedroom units (see the parking discussion, below). If the units are not converted to 2 bedrooms, 17 credits would be approved. If they are converted to 2 bedrooms then 18 credits could be approved. Parking Variance. As previously discussed, there are eight parking spaces at the front of the property. Unit owners have historically parked in a tandem fashion to gain one extra parking space per unit; however, the code does not recognize tandem spaces towards meeting the parking requirements for multi- family housing (see Figure A and Figure C, above). The code requires the lesser of one parking space per bedroom, or two parking spaces per unit. There are six two-bedroom and two one-bedroom units on the site, creating a parking requirement of 14 spaces. With eight on-site parking spaces there is an existing deficit of six spaces that may be maintained. The applicant is proposing to convert the two one-bedroom units to two-bedroom units. The addition of these new bedroom triggers the code’s requirement to increase the on-site parking by one space per bedroom, or two total spaces. The applicant is requesting a variance from this parking requirement, stating there is no reasonable way to implement additional parking on the site, and that the site has operated with eight parking spaces historically. P59 VI.B. 6 Approval of the applicant’s request requires the Commission to find that a variance is the only reasonable method by which the applicant can be afforded relief, and furthermore to deny the variance would cause unnecessary hardship such that the property would be rendered practically undevelopable, rather than merely an inconvenience. Staff finds that the need for additional on-site parking to be a self-created hardship only necessary due to the addition of the extra bedrooms to existing one-bedroom units. If the units were to remain one- bedroom, no additional parking is required. Denial of the variance does not create unnecessary hardship, nor does it render the property practically undevelopable. Staff recommends the Commission deny the applicant’s request for a parking variance and maintain the one-bedroom units. Non-conformities. Staff does not support memorializing the existing non-conformities. As previously discussed, the mail station and trash/recycling area are current off-site. The area where they are located is owned by the Midland Park Condominium Association. There is no agreement in place to allow this condition. Staff finds these elements should be moved onto the site. Furthermore, the trash/recycling area is substandard in size, according to the Environmental Health Department, and should be updated to reflect the size required for the density on the lot. The applicant should work with the Environmental Health Department to achieve a code-compliant trash/recycling area for the site. The tandem parking is also on property belonging to Midland Park Condominiums, and there is no known agreement or encroachment license that permits this activity to occur (See Figure C, above). The tandem parking condition should discontinue unless supported by the Midland Park Condominium Association through a formalized agreement. Lastly, the application depicts a walkway on the property’s south side that is located on the adjacent property. The applicant should either move the walkway onto the site or pursue an encroachment easement for this condition. REFERRALS: The following is a summary of referral comments received from various departments. Please refer to Exhibit B for referrals in their entirety. • APCHA: APCHA has granted a conditional referral of approval for eight two-bedroom units at a Category 3 rate. The Housing Authority contracted with Phil Vaughan of PVCMi Construction Management, Inc. who provided a detailed scope of work that will need to be completed prior to APCHA accepting the building into the City’s affordable housing inventory. The recommendations are extensive, and the report is attached as Exhibit K to this memo. APCHA outlines 18 specific recommendations, including completion of the work outlined in the aforementioned PVCMi report. • Building: The Chief Building Officer has worked in conjunction with Housing’s consultant Phil Vaughan of PVCMi to create an acceptable scope of work (Exhibit K) which must be finalized as part of the conditional acceptance of this project. The Building Dept. will review the plans to ensure the satisfaction of the scope of work is complete. • Engineering: If the trash enclosure is enlarged or modified it is required to be moved onto private property. If the trash enclosure remains untouched, the Engineering Department still strongly suggests it be moved onto private property. All parking should also be moved onto the site. P60 VI.B. 7 • Environmental Health: The current trash area is too small to adequately serve the waste needs of residents. It detracts from the visual appearance of the property and is accessible to wildlife. Since the applicant is proposing to add this to the inventory of the City’s affordable housing, it should conform to standards to the extent possible. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes the benefits of affordable housing, but is concerned with potential unresolved issues arising from this circa 1965 development. The housing stock that the City accepts and issues housing credits for should be of acceptable quality and competitive with new development. The referral comments from APCHA and the Building Department also recognize this issue and are incorporated as conditions. Staff recommends denial of the requested parking variance, and maintenance of the two existing one- bedroom units, which negates the need for a parking variance and would generate 17 housing credits. In addition, staff recommend continuation to address the existing non-conformities and parking, specifically: a) Upgrade the trash/recycling area to meet current standards; b) Move the trash/recycling and mail pedestal onto the site and show their proposed locations; c) Move the walkway onto the site or procure an encroachment easement to allow its current location; and The Resolution has been written in the affirmative, requiring the applicant to address these issues as a condition of receiving a Letter of Completion and the associated Affordable Housing Credits. RECOMMENDED MOTION (All motions are worded in the affirmative): “I move approval of Resolution No __, Series 2017 the request for Affordable Housing, Growth Management, Affordable Housing Credits, and Parking Variance at 331 – 338 Midland Ave, aka Aspen Hills Condominiums.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings – Growth Management Exhibit B – Staff Findings – Affordable Housing Exhibit C – Staff Findings – Affordable Housing Credit Exhibit D - Staff Findings – Variance Exhibit E – Referral Comments Exhibit F – Application Exhibit G – Physical Needs Assessment Exhibit H – Energy Audit Exhibit I – APCHA Marketability Standards Exhibit J – APCHA Memo Exhibit K – PVCMi Report P61 VI.B. 1 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, A DIMENSIONAL VARIANACE, AND THE ISSUANCE OF CERTFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ASPEN HILLS SUBDIVISION, UNITS A-1 THROUGH A-8, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 331 – 338 MIDLAND AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel IDs: 273707405801, 273707405001, 273707405008, 273707405002, 273707405007, 273707405003, 273707405006, 273707405004, 273707405005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from WEB Capital LLC (Applicant), represented by Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Growth Management Reviews for Affordable Housing, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, and a Dimensional Variance related to parking requirements at 331 – 338 Midland Ave; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.050(B) of the Land Use Code, Growth Management for affordable housing allotments may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.070(4), Affordable Housing may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.070, the number of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.314, a dimensional variance related to varying on- site parking may be combined with other reviews and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Director has recommended continuation of the application and the denial of the request for a dimensional variance allowing for the conversion of two one-bedroom housing units into two two-bedroom affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, Engineering, Building, and Environmental Health Departments, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on January 24, 2017, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2017 by a ___ to ___ (_-_) vote, approving the applicant’s requests for Growth Management, Affordable Housing, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, and Dimensional Variance; and, P62 VI.B. 2 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Affordable Housing. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request to develop Affordable Housing via the conversion of eight free-market units (six two-bedroom units and two one-bedroom units) into eight affordable housing units (all two-bedroom units) with the following conditions as outlined herein. A. A development agreement shall be formulated between Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority and the Applicant incorporating the conditions that the APCHA board recommended in its letter dated January, 19, 2017. No building permits may be accepted for improvements to this property until a development agreement is approved and signed between the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority and the Applicant. B. A building permit shall be submitted to complete the work necessary to upgrade the units to meet the requirements of APCHA’s Supplemental Guidance requirements approved by the APCHA Board on July 6, 2016. The permit shall include the following information: a. The Applicant shall provide the information, studies, and reports required in the report by Phil Vaugh Construction Management, Inc, dated January 13, 2017, to provide the information required by the Supplemental Guidance requirements approved by the APCHA Board on July 6, 2016. b. The Applicant shall remedy any and all deficiencies identified by the information, studies, and reports submitted. c. A scope of work shall be developed by the Applicant and shall be approved by the City addressing any and all deficiencies that are identified by the information, studies, and reports submitted. C. A Letter of Completion for each unit (as well as a core and shell if necessary) shall be required to verify completion of the scope of work to the city’s satisfaction. Section 2: Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. The applicant has been approved to receive 18 Housing Credits in exchange for eight two- bedroom affordable housing units. The units will be deed-restricted as for-sale or rent Category 3 units with the Housing Department. Prior to issuing the credits, an appropriate deed restriction shall be approved by APCHA and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder for each dwelling unit. If the units are finalized at a mix of for-sale and rental units, a legal instrument in the form acceptable to the City Attorney must be presented to ensure the permanent affordability P63 VI.B. 3 of the rental units. Additionally, a Letter of Completion shall be required to be issued for each dwelling unit (as well as a core and shell if necessary) prior to the issuance of any credits. Section 3: Dimensional Variance. The on-site parking is currently eight spaces, with an existing deficit. Conversion of the one- bedroom units to two-bedroom units requires addition of two parking spaces per the current land use code. The applicant has received approval for a reduction in required on-site parking by two-spaces, maintaining eight spaces on-site for this specific land use request. Any future redevelopment of the property shall comply with the off-street parking code in place at the time of that application. Section 4: Non-conformities. The trash/recycling area and mail pedestal is located off-site, on property owned by the adjacent Midland Park Condominium Association. These elements must be relocated on to the subject parcel in a place approved by the Planning Department. The tandem parking is located on land owned by the Midland Park Condominium Association. This parking condition should cease or an agreement and encroachment easement must be obtained. The walkway accessing the building’s southern decks encroaches onto the neighboring property. The applicant must obtain an encroachment easement for this condition or move the walkway on to the site. Section 5: Trash/Recycling. The trash/recycling area is substandard in size and must be brought up to code-compliance as indicated by the Environmental Health Dept. Section 6: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 7: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. P64 VI.B. 4 APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 24th day o f January, 2017. ______________________________ Skippy Mesirow (Chair) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager P65 VI.B. 1 Exhibit A Staff Findings Growth Management 26.470.050.B General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Response: There is no limit to the amount of affordable housing growth management allotments that may be granted in a year’s time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Response: The development is currently free-market multi-family residential and the applicant is proposing to change this property to affordable housing multi-family residential. The same units will be utilized without demolition and replacement. The surrounding development is also multi-family residential housing. The proposed use is found to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Response: There are two non-conformities associated with the existing building, which include not meeting the rear yard setback, and a walkway along the building’s south side that is over the property line, and which is used to access the decks and unit entrances. These are existing conditions that do not conform with the R/MF zone district’s setback requirements. Upon redevelopment of the structure or that particular feature, the building will need to meet all setback requirements. Staff recommends the applicant be required to either move the walkway on the site or obtain an encroachment easement to allow the walkway to continue in its current location. Additional non-conformities associated with the parcel include the trash/recycling and mail pedestal’s location off of the parcel, within the right-of-way. Staff is requiring these elements to be moved onto the subject site. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. P66 VI.B. 2 Staff Response: The site is not subject to HPC nor Commercial Design Review approval, and is not a Planned Development. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Response: There is no commercial or lodge development associated with this project. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Response: The proposed project involves the conversion of every free-market unit into affordable housing. There are no other uses associated with the site. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Response: Since all of the multi-family housing units exist, Staff does not anticipate any additional demand on public infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P67 VI.B. 3 Exhibit B Staff Findings Affordable Housing 26.470.070.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Response: The proposed project does not currently comply with APCHA’s Marketability Standards. The Housing Dept. has contracted with Phil Vaughan of PVCMi Construction Management Inc. to complete a scope of work that includes requirement for a more invasive investigation into the major systems and components of the building. APCHA has provided a referral of approval conditioned upon the applicant’s completion of the recommendations, and have created a development agreement. Staff finds this criterion to be conditionally met. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a fee- in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a fee-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Response: The proposed affordable housing units are not a requirement of mitigation. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Staff Response: The finished first level of each unit is at least 50% above finished. Grade. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P68 VI.B. 4 d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Response: The applicant has stated the intent to deed-restrict the units as for sale units to be sold to APCHA qualified buyers, with the possibility of some units remaining rentals. The applicant has not indicated which units will be for-sale and which may be rental units, nor is there a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The applicant is required to provide such an instrument prior to any units being accepted as affordable rental units. Staff finds this criterion to be conditionally met. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Staff Response: The proposed affordable housing units are not required for mitigation and have been found to meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d), as answered previously. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P69 VI.B. 5 Exhibit C Staff Findings Affordable Housing Credit 26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review. A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). Staff Response: Staff has found the proposed affordable housing units to comply with these review standards, as answered previously. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. Staff Response: The proposed units are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not a mitigation requirement of any sort. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P70 VI.B. 6 Exhibit D Staff Findings Variance 26.314.040.B Standards applicable to variances. In order to authorize a variance from the permitted uses of Title 26, the appropriate decision - making body shall make a finding that all of the following circumstances exist: 1. Notice by publication, mailing and posting of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a.—c. Staff Response: Proper notice has been provided by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the applicant relief, and to deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship such that the property would be rendered practically undevelopable, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. Staff Response: The need for an additional on-site parking is a self-created hardship that is triggered by the applicant’s proposal to convert two one-bedroom units into two-bedroom units. Denial of the requested variance does not cause unnecessary hardship or hinder the use of the property. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 3. The temporary off-site storage or construction staging can be undertaken in such a manner so as to minimize disruption, if any, of normal neighborhood activities surrounding the subject parcel. Staff Response: This proposal does not involve the demolition and/or reconstruction of any structure on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 4. If ownership of the off-site parcel subject to the proposed variance is not vested in the applicant, then verified written authorization of the parcel's owner must be provided. Staff Response: There is no off-site parcel involved in this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 5. Adequate provision is made to restore the subject parcel to its original condition upon expiration of the variance, including the posting of such financial security as deemed appropriate and necessary by the appropriate decision-making body to ensure such restoration. Staff Response: The applicant’s request involves a variance from the addition of required on-site parking. There is not restoration of the subject parcel required. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. P71 VI.B. 1 Exhibit E Referral Comments A. APCHA: Final acceptance of this project must be approved by APCHA and the City of Aspen prior to and as a condition of issuance of a Development Order and Building Permit by the City of Aspen. A Development Order shall not be issued by the City of Aspen until the APCHA and the applicant enter into a binding development agreement containing the following requirements: 1. Final acceptance and approval is subject to APCHA’s and the City of Aspen’s complete satisfaction of the scope of work based on additional reports and standards spelled out in the Housing Guidelines, the SGMS, and PVCMI’s report of recommendations to APCHA dated January 13, 2017. 2. Approval is further subject to the applicant providing to APCHA sufficient third party reports detailing the current physical conditions of the building and units and proposed upgrades necessary to satisfy APCHA requirements in APCHA’s sole subjective discretion, which requirements will later be specified by APCHA for the applicant. 3. Any amended or additional reports shall be reviewed by APCHA, its consultants, and the City of Aspen. Any third party consultant hired by APCHA to review or make recommendations on this project shall be reimbursed by applicant. 4. The APCHA, its consultants, and the City of Aspen, shall work with the applicant to establish agreeable technical specifications for the required upgrades. 5. The applicant shall reimburse APCHA for any third party inspections and reports, including legal consultation associated with drafting and approving a Development Agreement. This shall be incorporated into the Development Agreement. 6. The building permit for the required upgrades shall not be issued by the City of Aspen unless the permit demonstrates the required upgrades are in accordance with the agreed-upon specifications, which will necessitate a third party construction consultant to review the building permit application on behalf of APCHA. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion for the required upgrades and rehabilitation work shall not be issued unless the improvements have been made in accordance to the scope of work and specifications agreed to prior to Building Permit. APCHA will rely on third party consultant and the City’s Building Department to inspect and accept the improvements and standards set forth by APCHA for affordable housing conversion at the expense of the applicant. 8. Prior to APCHA formally accepting the units and authorizing the City of Aspen to issue Housing Certificates, the applicant must complete upgrades to the building and units and establish new Association documents and appropriately fund reserves in order to meet the satisfaction of APCHA staff. 9. Per the Housing Guidelines and applicant’s request, all converted units will be Category 3. P72 VI.B. 2 10. Applicant shall convert Unit #331 (one-bedroom unit) that is illegally non-conforming to a two-bedroom unit. 11. A final Capital Reserve Study completed by a certified third party will be required upon acceptance of the project after any rehabilitation and construction for HOA designated common area components and systems. The report shall be given to the HOA and to APCHA by a certified reserve specialist at the time of Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Completion, or within one month of either. Housing Credits shall not be issued by the City of Aspen until the Capital Reserve Study is completed and accepted by APCHA. 12. The applicant and the APCHA shall enter into a development agreement outlining the use of and cost allocation for any third party reviews or inspections. APCHA reserves the right to bill applicant for direct costs attributable to project review and legal fees with no additional administrative charge. Housing Credits shall not be issued by the City of Aspen Community Development Department until all outstanding costs and fees are reimbursed to or paid on behalf of APCHA for third party review services. 13. The applicant has the option of retaining the units as rental units or selling the units through the lottery system. Once a unit has been sold to a qualified employee, the unit will remain as an ownership unit and shall be sold through APCHA has stated in the deed restriction. 14. The applicant has the option of maintaining three of the units for current owners, either as rentals or ownership. The current owners shall be allowed to remain in the units, shall not be required to meet the minimum occupancy requirements, and shall not be required to meet the maximum assets. However, at such time the current owner (which shall be known as an Exempt Tenant or Exempt Owner) makes the decision to sell or vacate their unit, it shall be opened up to fully qualified, top priority households only per the Housing Guidelines. Also, the applicant shall only be eligible to collect 1.75 FTE Housing Credits for any two-bedroom unit occupied by a single-person household. The applicant may be issued the outstanding balance of .5 FTE Housing Credits once the unit has been occupied by a qualified 2-person household. 15. If at any time a rental unit is found to be out of compliance, and upon completion of APCHA’s Notice of Violation (NOV) process, any remaining units occupied as rentals shall be listed for sale with APCHA and sold through the lottery system. 16. The developer shall obtain approval of all condominium documents to APCHA for review prior to acceptance. These shall include, but may not be limited to, the following: a. Articles of Incorporation b. By-Laws c. Condominium Declaration d. Condo Plat Map P73 VI.B. 3 e. Nine required governance policies required by the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). f. Budget 17. At the closing on all units, the developer shall provide to each new homeowner a binder that will include, but may not be limited to, the following: a. All condominium documents stated above; b. All mechanical warranties, all warranties for appliances, etc., that are available from any additional work completed by the developer 18. The Development Order shall provide the APCHA the reasonable right to not accept the project into the affordable housing inventory if the applicant fails to prove to APCHA’s complete satisfaction that the physical condition is safe and acceptable under the standards agreed to, and/or has sufficient capital reserve funds to help safeguard the future affordability and replacement cost of common area components by the Association and its homeowners. A. Building Dept: The Housing Authority’s Marketability Standards document is intended to create a scope of work for this project. Once the scope of work is created and the applicant has submitted for a building permit this department will then become involved in the plans to satisfy the intent of the housing board. At this time the department defers to the Housing Department’s expert consultant to identify the information required to fulfill the requirements of the APCHA guidelines. B. Engineering: The engineering department will require that the trash enclosure be relocated to private property if the project enlarges it. If the trash enclosure does not get touched, the engineering department strongly suggests the trash enclosure be relocated to private property. We also strongly suggest the parking be relocated onto private property as well. C. Environmental Health: The current trash and recycling area is not only in the right of way, but it is far too small to adequately serve the waste needs residents, detracts from the visual appearance of the property, and is exposed to access by wildlife. All of these conditions do not meet the current code standards and would not be approved if the development were being proposed today. Since the applicant would like to add this property to the inventory of affordable housing in the City, we believe it should conform as much as possible to the standards the City requires. 1. The area designated for trash and recycling containers should be located within the property boundaries. This location must be ADA accessible, as well as provide access to the waste haulers. 2. The area should be delineated to indicate it is a space dedicated to the storage of waste and no other materials. Ideally, this would result in a wildlife secure enclosure. P74 VI.B. 4 3. The code requires 120 square feet for trash and recycling (Municipal Code 12.10.050 (A)a) for this size of multi-family development, but we recognize the constraints of this property may result in a smaller area. Although there is a high need for affordable housing in the upper valley, residents in the employee housing system should be provided the same safety and quality of life in their housing circumstance as those on the free market. The existing conditions discourage waste diversion (i.e. recycling) by not providing adequate space or easy access to the containers. There is a consistent hazard presented by the open storage of the waste receptacles in the right of way, both by impeding traffic and attracting wildlife. Finally, the exposed waste receptacles are an eyesore. Until these conditions are remedied, our recommendation would be to deny accepting this property into the City’s inventory. P75 VI.B. October 24, 2016 Mr. Justin Barker, AICP Senior Planner City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Aspen Hills Affordable Housing 331-338 Midland Avenue Mr. Barker: Please accept this application to convert this existing eight-unit free-market residential building into local affordable housing and the creation of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. The Aspen Hills Condominiums is an existing eight-unit residential building located in the Smuggler neighborhood along Midland Avenue. It is addressed as 331-338 Midland Avenue. The building was constructed in 1965 with all two-bedroom units and condominiumized in 1969. The 15,160 s.f. property is located in the RMF Zone District. The building is not on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Although free-market, the units have served a local population as either owner-occupied or rental units. It is exactly these types of units that slowly drift out of the local housing inventory as property values increase and employees are priced-out. This application utilizes the City’s award-winning Credits program to intervene and permanently secure these units as employee housing. WEB2 Capital, LLC, is the contract purchaser of all eight units and has been granted authority to submit this application by the owners and by the Aspen Hills Condominiums homeowner’s association. Bill Boehringer is the Chief Executive Officer of WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, and has authorized BendonAdams to represent his interests. This application requests growth management approvals, including allotments for eight affordable housing units, recognition of existing non-conformities, exemption from the City’s Residential Design Standards, a variance for one parking space, and authorization for the issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits. P76 VI.B. Page 2 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has recently adopted “Marketability Standards” on July 6, 2016, which clarify and provide guidance on physical capital needs for existing units to be accepted into the affordable housing inventory. A Physical Capital Needs Assessment (PCNA) and an Energy Audit have been performed and will be provided under separate cover. These reports will enable APCHA and the owner to determine what improvements must be accomplished in the near term and the extent of initial funding for a capital reserve account. This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code: • 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures • 26.410 Residential Design Standards • 26.470.070.2 Growth Management – Change-in-Use • 26.470.070.4 Growth Management – Affordable Housing • 26.515 Parking • 26.540 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit • 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements • 26.710.080 Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District The application is divided into three sections: Section I describes the existing conditions of the project site and environs. Section II outlines the applicant’s proposed development and Section III addresses the proposed development’s compliance with review criteria. Exhibits are provided as follows: • Exhibit 1: Land Use Application and Dimensions Form • Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map • Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary • Exhibit 4: Proof of the Applicant’s Ownership and Authority • Exhibit 5: HOA Compliance Form • Exhibit 6: Authorization for BendonAdams LLC to represent the applicant • Exhibit 7: Fee Agreement • Exhibit 8: Mailing addresses for property owners within 300 feet of the property • Exhibit 9: Existing conditions drawings • Exhibit 10: Site improvement survey The applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application. Upon request, BendonAdams will gladly provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Sincerely, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC 300 So. Spring St. #202 Aspen, CO chris@bendonadams.com 970.925.2855 U P77 VI.B. Page 3 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Section I: Existing Conditions The Aspen Hills property is a 15,160 square foot site on Midland Avenue in the Smuggler neighborhood. The property is developed with one building containing eight residences and eight on-site parking spaces. The building has been condominiumized into eight separate ownership interests, plus a common area. The property is posted as 331-338 Midland Avenue. The property was originally part of the Mascotte and “99” lode claims. A roughly 1-acre portion was conveyed by deed to the Aspen Construction Company in 1965. The entire 1-acre property was conveyed to John Villari in 1969. The southern portion of the property, roughly 28,622 square feet, was conveyed back to the Aspen Construction Company in 1970, creating the basis for the property boundary today. The property to the South is developed with a multi-family building commonly known as Aspen View. The building was constructed in 1965, originally as all two-bedroom units. One of the units, Unit 336, was converted into a one-bedroom unit according to permit records on file with the City of Aspen Building Department. Other improvements on record are typical interior upgrades and egress window improvements. Another unit appears to have been converted to a one-bedroom without a building permit. This application proposes reverting the illegal improvements to reinstate a two-bedroom unit. Two parcels, noted on the survey as parcel 1 and parcel 2, were conveyed to the Board of Commissioners of the Pitkin County Housing Authority in 1978 for “roadway purposes.” This conveyance appears to have been in-lieu of condemnation proceedings. For the purposes of this application, these parcels have been considered public right-of-way. Access to the property is from Midland Avenue. Eight on-site parking spaces are located in front of the structure, entirely within the property. Each parking space has a second, tandem space located within the right-of-way. For purposes of this application, only the eight on-site spaces have been counted as legitimate existing parking. Parking requirements for this property, according to Chapter 26.515 of the City’s land use code, are the lower of one unit per bedroom or two per unit. Seven two-bedroom units and 1 one-bedroom unit therefore require 15 parking spaces. The existing condition, counting only those spaces entirely on-site, represents an existing parking deficit of 7 spaces. A few of the units have been upgraded with newer windows/doors and larger egress windows for the lower level bedrooms. Other units maintain vintage conditions and will likely require upgrades Parcel ID Numbers Unit Parcel ID A1 2737-074-05-001 A2 2737-074-05-006 A3 2737-074-05-002 A4 2737-074-05-008 A5 2737-074-05-007 A6 2737-074-05-003 A7 2737-074-05-005 A8 2737-074-05-004 Common Area 2737-074-05-801 P78 VI.B. Page 4 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing by the applicant prior to acceptance into the housing inventory. Clarification on these conditions will be contained in the pending PCNA and Energy reports. The property was originally part of the Mascotte Lode and 99 Lode (mining claims) which extend onto the face of Smuggler Mountain. Transfer by warrantee deed of approximately 1 acre to the Aspen Construction Corporation in 1965 pre-dated County subdivision standards, as did the transfer by warrantee deed to John Villari of the entire one-acre parcel in 1969. Villari condominiumized the 8-unit building and the property in 1969 and conveyed at least one unit. Transfer back to the Aspen Construction Company of the southern, approximately 28,622 s.f., portion of the 1-acre parcel occurred in 1970, also pre-dating City/County subdivision standards. This is the basis for the property today. The title commitment documents these transfers. The 1970 transfer established the southern and eastern boundaries along the edge of existing improvements as reflected in the survey. The southern boundary traces the balcony, including the stairs. The eastern boundary traces the building footprint, including the below grade utility area. These property boundaries created non- conforming setback conditions, diagrammed in the attached drawing set and highlighted to the right. Floor Area and Net Livable measurements have been provided by Alius Design according the Calculations and Measurements section (26.575.020) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The Floor Area of the building is approximately 5,040, well below the allowable of approximately 11,369 s.f. (not accounting for potential slope reduction). The existing trash/recycle area is accessed off Midland at the corner of the property. It is within the right-of-way but outside the roadway. This is also the location of the mail pedestal and several utility connection pedestals. U Aspen Hills As-Built Information Unit Beds Baths Net Livable s.f. 331 2 1 852 332 2 1 807 333 2 1 861 334 2 1 861 335 2 1 861 336 2 1 861 337 2 1 866 338 2 1 866 P79 VI.B. Page 5 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Section II: Project Description/The Proposal The application proposes repurposing the Aspen Hills building as affordable housing. Eight two- bedroom affordable housing units, according to the standards of Section 26.470.100.A.2, will house eighteen employees. (2.25 FTEs/unit). The application proposes these units to be rentals and for sale units, restricted to affordable rental rates and sale prices. The rental/sale mix is to respect ongoing purchase discussions and account for potential hold-over owners/tenants. The applicant is suggesting these units be Category 2 or Category 3, or combination thereof. This property, while free-market, serves as local employee housing and vacation rentals. It is exactly these types of units that slowly transition out of local usage due to escalating prices, increasing demands on the affordable housing inventory. This proposal counters this trend by utilizing the City’s Credits program and permanently securing these units as affordable housing. All forms of affordable housing are desperately needed in the upper valley. Affordable rentals are in significant demand. The proposal locates affordable housing within an existing neighborhood, walking/biking distance to downtown, with great access to transit, and with very little construction impacts. The building and its units are in good working order and minimal improvements will be necessary. Interior work contemplates improvements to systems, fixtures, finishes, and appliances. Each unit is different, so some units will maintain current status or have minimal upgrades while other units will be more-substantially overhauled. Energy improvements contemplate window, door, and sealing/insulation upgrades. Exterior work contemplates refurbishment or potential replacement of the existing decks, and installing larger egress window wells for the lower level bedrooms. Installing larger window wells will have a marginal impact on Floor Area. But the property is currently well below the maximum allowance. Units average approximately 854 s.f. of net livable area each. This is only 5% below the APCHA standard of 900 s.f. for a two-bedroom unit but well within the 20% tolerance for acceptance. The units provide comfortable living conditions with the living/dining/kitchen areas on the main level and bedrooms below. Each unit has ample natural light, is 50% or more above grade, and has a washer/dryer. Each unit enjoys storage and one dedicated on-site parking space. The site is walking/biking distance to downtown, parks and recreation amenities, and is well-served by transit. The applicant has previously presented this opportunity to the APCHA Board on March 2 and August 3, 2016; at both meetings, the Board expressed their support of the project. The applicant is requesting APCHA accept these units at their current size. Allowing these units to be slightly below the 900 s.f. requirement enables them to be two-bedroom units (instead of one-bedroom units) thereby providing more local housing towards a significant community need. The application proposes correcting the illegal construction by reinstating a two-bedroom unit. The one unit that was legally converted into a one-bedroom is proposed to be returned to a two- bedroom unit. An extensive capital assessment and an energy audit is being performed and will have been completed prior to review by the Housing Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The results of this analysis will indicate the required upgrades to be accomplished prior to deed restriction and acceptance into the affordable housing inventory. The analysis will provide a capital improvement schedule for future improvements and a basis for initial funding of a capital reserve account for the property. P80 VI.B. Page 6 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing The applicant is requesting the capital assessment and energy audit information be translated into a pre-occupancy work program and capital reserve fund to be reviewed by APCHA staff, endorsed by the Housing Board, and ultimately adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a series of conditions that must be met prior to APCHA accepting the units into the affordable housing inventory. The project fully complies with the RMF Zone District, excepting those existing setback non- conformities stated above. The applicant is requesting that the Planning and Zoning Commission recognize the existing non-conformities, grant the requested growth management approvals, exempt the project from the City’s Residential Design Standards, and authorize issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit for 18 FTEs at the Category rate finally set by the applicant. The applicant is contemplating a future expansion utilizing the northern vacant section of the property. This expansion would be a separate free standing building of affordable housing. At this time, no specific designs are proposed and the applicant is not requesting consideration or approval. If an expansion is proposed, the applicant understands the expansion must comply with the requirements effective at the time of submission and be reviewed according to the then process. Pursuant to prior discussions with the APCHA Board, the applicant is willing at this time to commit that the future phase be 100% affordable housing, and with the Category designation to be determined by the applicant at the time of application for that approval. P81 VI.B. Page 7 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Section III: Review Requirements A. Common Development Review Procedures This land use application is submitted pursuant to and subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.304 – Common Development Review Procedures – of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. B. Residential Design Standards RDS This application is subject to the City’s Residential Design Standards and the applicant is seeking exemption under exemption provision 26.410.010.C.1 – An addition or remodel to an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; and, provision 2 – A remodel of a structure where the alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by any of the residential design standards. Expected interior improvements will be to fixtures, finishes, and equipment to meet the expectations of the Aspen/Pitkin County housing authority and their Marketability Standards adopted July 6, 2016. These interior improvements clearly fall under exemption 1. Exterior improvements are expected to be some recladding of the deck surface, upgrades to windows and doors for energy efficiency, upgrades to egress windows for life/safety, and other minor improvements for aesthetic and durability purposes. The minor level of exterior changes do not afford the opportunity to re-orient the building or make major changes to the mass of the building. And, the changes are not addressed by the Standards, falling under exemption provision 2. C. Growth Management Review. The project proposes to refurbish and re-use the existing Aspen Hills building. Demolition is not proposed to be triggered. Upgrades include interior renovations, building envelope improvements for energy efficiency, and improvements to aesthetics and existing egress conditions. The eight existing residences are free-market (unrestricted) and the application proposes these units be deed restricted as affordable housing, rental and/or for sale, Category 2 or Category 3. Responses to relevant growth management criteria are as follows: 26.470.040.3 Remodeling or expansion of existing multi-family residential development. The remodeling of existing multi-family residential dwellings shall be exempt from growth management provided that no additional Floor Area is added to the property and provided demolition of a unit or structure does not occur. When an expansion of Floor Area occurs, see Section 26.470.060, subsection 2. When demolition occurs, see Paragraph 26.470.070.6, Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. (Also see definition of demolition, Section 26.104.100.) Response – The application proposes refurbishment of these existing units and conversion to affordable housing. A minimal increase to the property’s Floor Area may occur as a result of improving egress conditions from subgrade bedrooms. As the property is proposed as affordable housing, the mitigation requirements do not apply. P82 VI.B. Page 8 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing 26.470.050.B General Requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year allotments, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Response – This application requests eight allotments of affordable housing. According to section 26.470.030.D, no annual limit applies to affordable housing. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Response – This multi-family residential building is intended to be re-used with minimal changes to its aesthetic character. The neighborhood is a mix of single-family, duplex and multi-family housing – both free-market and affordable housing. The property is consistent with this mix and the conversion from free-market to affordable represents minimal if any change to its compatibility with the neighborhood. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Response – The development conforms to the RMF Zone District, except for existing non- conforming setback conditions along the south and east property boundaries. These appear to be a result of the ownership conveyance which affected a subdivision of the property in 1970. (Please refer to the conveyance deed rescored at 143387 with Pitkin County Clerk.) The proposal maintains and does not worsen these setback conditions. Contained in this application is a request for a one-space parking variance. This would allow one unit that was officially converted to a one-bedroom unit to be officially returned to a two-bedroom configuration. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval, and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Response – The development proposed is a re-use of an existing building and has not been required to be reviewed as a Planned Development. The property is 100% residential and is not historically designated. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County P83 VI.B. Page 9 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Response – Not applicable. The development contains no commercial or lodging components and does not generate employees according to section 26.470.100.A. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Response – Not applicable. The proposal is to re-purpose all eight free-market residential units as affordable housing. No additional free-market residential square footage is proposed. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Response – The proposal re-purposes and an existing residential building that is already served. Minimal interior upgrades are proposed and no changes to service requirements are expected. No changes to existing fixture counts are proposed. The applicant commits to mitigating any additional demands on the public infrastructure as required by City Codes. 26.470.070.2 Change in use. A change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 (irrespective of direction), for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. No more than one (1) free-market residential unit may be created through the change-in-use. P84 VI.B. Page 10 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Response – See below for response the general requirements. The proposal does not involve creation of an additional free-market unit. 26.470.070.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Response – A complete capital assessment and energy audit of the building is underway, the results of which will be used to address the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority’s recently adopted “Marketability Standards.” These standards were adopted as an extension of the Guidelines by the Housing Board to ensure existing housing units proposed for deed restriction are of a sufficient quality and have a sufficient capital reserve for long-term success. The proposed units are high quality but are expected to require upgrades to meet the Marketability Standards. A recommendation from APHCA regarding these studies and the newly adopted standards is expected. The units are slightly below the minimum net livable size specifications stated in the Guidelines but well within the acceptable tolerance. The Housing Guidelines allow for up to a 20% reduction in size. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a fee-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a fee-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Response – The proposed affordable housing units utilize an existing eight-unit building, “buying-down” the units to affordable status in exchange for affordable housing certificates. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. P85 VI.B. Page 11 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Response – The eight existing units were developed in a townhome configuration with the entry, living room and kitchen on the upper level, and with two bedrooms, a bathroom, and laundry on the lower level. The units along the front of the building (facing Midland) are developed with walk-out capability on the lower level. One of the two units on this end has been retrofitted with a sliding door. The lower level of the units along the rear of the property (east side) are nearly subgrade, making the units come close to the 50% limitation. Please refer to the drawing set which shows site and building sections. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi- municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Response – These units are proposed as affordable rentals and/or for sale units. The rental/sale mix is to respect ongoing purchase discussions and account for potential hold- over owners/tenants. The applicant is suggesting these be limited to a mix of Category 2 and 3. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Response – The application proposes these non-mitigation units in exchange for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. The eight two-bedroom units house 18 employees, according to Section 26.470.100.A.2. (2.25 employees housed for each two- bedroom unit). The application requests the issuance of a Certificate in the amount of 18 Category 2 or Category 3 FTEs upon completion of the required improvements and APCHA’s acceptance of the units into the affordable inventory. P86 VI.B. Page 12 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing 26.470.070.5 Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second-home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and the City's tourist-based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.): 1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market multi- family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a free-market multi-family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. a. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi- family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed- restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section. P87 VI.B. Page 13 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed- use development. b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing. When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free- market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.7, New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. c. One-hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one-hundred-percent of the free-market multi-family housing units are demolished and are solely replaced with deed-restricted affordable housing units on a site that are not required for mitigation purposes, including any net additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing; all of the units in the redevelopment are eligible for a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Any remaining unused free market residential development rights shall be vacated. 2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this Section involves a fraction of a unit, cash-in-lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3, Provision of required affordable housing via a cash-in-lieu payment. 4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement P88 VI.B. Page 14 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. 5. Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed-restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free- market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on site or off site. 6. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for noncompliance. The agreement shall be recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. 7. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Subparagraph d, Location requirement. 8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi-Family Housing Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from compliance with any other provisions of this Title: a. The replacement of Multi-Family Housing Units after non-willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the building was in-fact non-willful. To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning, design standards, or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 – Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. b. The demolition of Multi-Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including, but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety, or general welfare of the public. c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi- Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations P89 VI.B. Page 15 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing or by non-working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and building codes.) d. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi- Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as “Bandit Units”). Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to current requirements of this Title including zoning, growth management, and building codes. Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority e. Any development action involving demising walls or floors/ceilings necessary for the normal upkeep, maintenance, or remodeling of adjacent Multi-Family Housing Units. f. A change order to an issued and active building permit that proposes to exceed the limitations of remodeling/demolition to rebuild portions of a structure which, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, should be rebuilt for structural, safety, accessibility, or significant energy efficiency reasons first realized during construction, which were not known and could not have been reasonably predicted prior to construction, and which cause no or minimal changes to the exterior dimensions and character of the building. Response – The applicant is not proposing demolition of the structure; rather, conversion of the units from free-market housing to affordable housing. The applicant is proposing replacement option C – “One-hundred percent affordable housing replacement.” No net loss of density will occur and all units will be deed restricted as affordable housing. As the units are not required for mitigation purposes, they are eligible for issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540 (criteria address below). The free-market residential redevelopment rights will not be replaced. D. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit 26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit. An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review. A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). Response –These standards are addressed above. B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. Response – The proposed units are not committed by a Development Order and are not needed to satisfy mitigation requirements for any other development. P90 VI.B. Page 16 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing E. Parking Code Section 26.515.030 states the on-site parking requirement as the lesser of one space per bedroom or two per unit. The existing 7 two-bedroom units and 1 one-bedroom unit require 15 parking spaces. The existing development has eight on-site spaces along the front of the building, head-in accessed from Midland Avenue. Each space has a second, tandem space located within the right-of-way. This second row of parking has served the property without conflicting with travel patterns. For the purposes of this application, only the first eight on-site spaces have been counted as meeting the parking requirement. This leaves the property with a seven space deficit. This deficit will be carried-forward with the repurposing of the building as affordable housing. The reconfiguration of one unit (#336) back to a two-bedroom unit requires the addition of one parking space on-site. This is not physically practical or logistically needed. The project was originally constructed with eight two-bedroom units and eight parking spaces. Each unit will continue to have one official on-site space and be eligible for neighborhood parking according to City policy. The property is easy walking distance to downtown via the Hopkins Avenue pedestrian bridge and the Hunter Creek bus stop is one block away. The property is ideally situated for minimal daily auto needs and the existing parking is currently typically used for long-term car storage. E. Variance for One Parking Space 26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or P91 VI.B. Page 17 of 17 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. B. In order to authorize a variance from the permitted uses of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that all of the following circumstances exist: 1. Notice by publication, mailing and posting of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a.—c. 2. A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the applicant relief, and to deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship such that the property would be rendered practically undevelopable, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. 4. The temporary off-site storage or construction staging can be undertaken in such a manner so as to minimize disruption, if any, of normal neighborhood activities surrounding the subject parcel. 5. If ownership of the off-site parcel subject to the proposed variance is not vested in the applicant, then verified written authorization of the parcel's owner must be provided. 6. Adequate provision is made to restore the subject parcel to its original condition upon expiration of the variance, including the posting of such financial security as deemed appropriate and necessary by the appropriate decision-making body to ensure such restoration. Response: The property was originally developed with eight two-bedroom units, according to the development standards at the time. The property was developed with and still has eight head- in on-site parking spaces and another eight tandem spaces located in the public right-of-way. This second set of spaces are out of the travel way and do not infringe on traffic movements. The applicant understands these spaces exist at the City’s discretion. The property functioned this way for roughly 40 years. Roughly 10 years ago one unit was officially converted (via building permit) into a one-bedroom unit by removing a demising wall between bedrooms. The application seeks to return the two-bedroom status to the unit, thereby triggering the technical additional parking space requirement. There’s no reasonable, practical way to implement this additional space. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a significant achievement to be gained. The project will essentially be the same project. The impact of not approving the variance, however, is to restrict this one unit to a one- bedroom, housing fewer employees locally, and causing another commuter car on the highway. Many of the condominium complexes in this neighborhood do not have on-site parking or have inadequate on-site parking. This is an outcome of the development standards at the time of initial construction. Overall, the neighborhood parking situation has reached an equilibrium. There are adequate street parking spaces available on any given day. The variance would allow continuation of the original development scenario for this property – eight two-bedroom units, each with one legal parking space and a second informal space currently in the right-of-way. P92 VI.B. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 2 – LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Location:_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Please check all that apply): EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements – including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Condominiumization) Mountain View Plane Final SPA (&SPA Commercial Design Review Lot Split Amendment) Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Conditional Use Other: Aspen Hills Condominiums 331-338 Midland Avenue; Aspen, CO 81611 Chris Bendon, AICP; BendonAdams 300 So. Spring Street St. 202; Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.2855 WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, William Boehringer, CEO. 917.977.0541 Seven 2-bedroom, One 1-bedroom individually-owned, free-market residences in one multi-family building. Maintain existing building, aesthetic and capital improvements as required by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Conversion to affordable housing for certificates of AH credit. Units: 2737-074-05-001 through 008. Common area: 2737-074-05-801. - Change in use, replacement Certificates of AH Credit, parking variance PO Box 3807; Aspen, CO 81612 5,200 Exhibit 1 P93 VI.B. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: ______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________ Location: ______________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: _______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Area: _______________________________________________________________________________ (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________ Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________ Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________ On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________ Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed: _____________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Aspen Hills Affordable Housing WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Bill Boehringer, Chief Executive Officer 331-338 Midland Avenue; Aspen, CO Residential Multi-Family (RMF) 15,159 s.f. 15,159 s.f. 0 8 15 0 8 16 5,040 5,04011,369 -25'25'no change na 25'na 8 16 8 approx. 24%na no change approx 50%na no change approx. 30'5'5'0-5'no change no change 0-30'na no change 0'5'no change approx. 30'5'no change 0-30'na no change na na no change 0' side and rear yard along south and east property lines. Under-parked by 7 spaces. Acknowledgment of existing side/rear yard and parking conditions. Variance for one parking space to allow reinstatement of two- bedroom unit yep nope no change P94 VI.B. Exhibit 2 Aspen Hills Condominiums 331-338 Midland Avenue – Vicinity Map P95 VI.B. ASLU 331 Midland Growth Management 273707405801 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Justin Barker, 970.429.2797 DATE: 8/25/16 PROJECT: 331-338 Midland Avenue REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Boehringer, 917.977.0541 DESCRIPTION: The applicant is interested in converting an existing structure into affordable housing units to create Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. The property is located at 331-338 Midland Avenue (Aspen Hills Condominiums) and is zoned as Residential Multi-family (RMF). The structure currently contains 8 existing two-bedroom free-market condominium units. It appears that the existing structure may contain non-conformities. Any non-conformities may be maintained or reduced as long as demolition is not triggered, but may not be expanded. No new non-conformities may be created as a result of this project. The conversion of residential multi-family to affordable housing requires growth management review by P&Z, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.070.5, Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing, and Chapter 26.470.070.2, Change in use. The development of affordable housing units will need to meet the criteria as outlined in Chapter 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing. The creation of Credits also requires review by P&Z. APCHA will need to approve units as both APCHA and the City have minimum design standards. It appears that some of the units are located subgrade. The standards require affordable housing to be a minimum of 50% above grade, or approved through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. As a 100% affordable housing project, the units may be either for-sale or for-rent. All of these are one- step reviews with P&Z and may be consolidated at the same public hearing. If any exterior changes are proposed to the building, they will need to comply with the multi-family development requirements of Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. If proposed exterior changes do not meet the RDS, a variation from P&Z will be required. Additional considerations include off-street parking requirements and trash/recycle storage. An existing deficit of parking may be maintained. The proposed site plan will clearly need to indicate all parking spaces and the designated trash/recycle area that will be used to meet the required standards. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.430 Special Review 26.470.070.2 Change in use 26.470.070.4 GMQS – Affordable Housing 26.470.070.5 GMQS – Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing 26.515 Off-Street Parking 26.540 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.080 Residential Multi-family (RMF) zone district Municipal Code Section Exhibit 3 P96 VI.B. 2 12.10 Space allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use%20app%20form.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations APCHA, Environmental Health for referrals P&Z for GMQS and Creation of AH Credits. Special Review and RDS (if necessary) Public Hearing: Yes, at P&Z Planning Fees: $3,250 Deposit for 10 hours of staff time (additional planning hours are billed at a rate of $325/hour) Referral Fees: $975 Flat fee for APCHA $975 Flat fee for Environmental Health Total Deposit: $5,200 To apply, submit the following information:  Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form (Attached)  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 and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.  Scaled drawings of the proposed site plan and all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.  Net livable square footage and proposed Category Designation of sale or rental restriction for each unit.  If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net minimum livable square footage requirements are requested according to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.  Proposed employees housed by the affordable housing units in increments of no less than one one-hundredth (0.01) according to Section 26.470.100.2. P97 VI.B. 3  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  1 Complete Copy of all application materials. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  5 additional copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings.  Total deposit for review of the application.  A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P98 VI.B. Form 5011000 (6-22-10) Page 1 of 2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6-17-06) Title Insurance Commitment ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company Commitment INFORMATION The Title Insurance Commitment is a legal contract between you and the Company. It is issued to show the basis on which we will issue a Title Insurance Policy to you. The Policy will insure you against certain risks to the land title, subject to the limitations shown in the Policy. The Company will give you a sample of the Policy form, if you ask. The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or you as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/. The Commitment is based on the land title as of the Commitment Date. Any changes in the land title or the transaction may affect the Commitment and the Policy. The Commitment is subject to its Requirements, Exceptions and Conditions. THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PART OF THE TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT. YOU SHOULD READ THE COMMITMENT VERY CAREFULLY. If you have any questions about the Commitment, contact: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 1 First American Way, Santa Ana, California 92707 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY 1 CONDITIONS 2 SCHEDULE A Insert 1. Commitment Date 2. Policies to be Issued, Amounts and Proposed Insureds 3. Interest in the Land and Owner 4. Description of the Land SCHEDULE B-I - REQUIREMENTS Insert SCHEDULE B-II - EXCEPTIONS Insert AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY We agree to issue policy to you according to the terms of the Commitment. When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A. If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B-I. The Exceptions in Schedule B-II. The Conditions on Page 2. This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections I and II of SCHEDULE B. (This Commitment is valid only when Schedules A and B are attached) This jacket was created electronically and constitutes an original document Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Exhibit 4 P99 VI.B. Form 5011000 (6-22-10) Page 2 of 2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6-17-06) CONDITIONS 1.DEFINITIONS (a) "Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b) "Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting your title according to the state statutes where your land is located. 2.LATER DEFECTS The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment. 3.EXISTING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing. 4.LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to: Comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B - Section I or Eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B - Section II. We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you. 5.CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be based on this Commitment and is subject to its terms. P100 VI.B. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: October 3, 2016 at 07:45 AM 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount Premium A.ALTA Owners Policy (06/17/06)$5,600,000.00 $4,845.00 Proposed Insured:WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Certificate of Taxes Due $200.00 Endorsements: CO-110.1 (Delete 1, 2, 3, 4)$75.00 Additional Charges:$ 700.00 B.ALTA Loan Policy (06/17/06)$4,480,000.00 $150.00 Proposed Insured:TBD, its successors and/or assigns as their interests may appear Endorsements: ALTA Endorsement 4.1-06 (Condominium)$802.00 ALTA Endorsement 6-06 (Variable Rate Mortgage)$30.00 ALTA Endorsement 8.1-06 (Environmental Protection Lien)$50.00 CO-100 (Comprehensive Improved Land)$50.00 Additional Charges:$0 Total $6,902.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is Fee simple. 4. Title to the Fee simple or interest in the land is at the Effective Date vested in: Jean J. Delynn and John Ian Taylor (as to Unit: A-1), The Margaret Jane McGavock Trust dated January 15, 2016 (as to Unit: A-2), Matt Grubbs (as to Unit: A-3), Heidi Gorbitz and Patric Gorbitz (as to Unit:A-4), Drew I. Goodman (as to Unit: A-5), Alix Samuelson (as to Unit:A-6), 337 Midland Ave LLC (as to Unit: A-7) and Sharon Elizabeth Wells (as to Unit:A-8) 5. The land referred to in the Commitment is described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO For informational purposes only, the property address is: 331-338 Midland Avenue, Units: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, Aspen, CO 81611. P101 VI.B. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC By: Winter VanAlstine Authorized Officer or Agent FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES OR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS COMMITMENT, CONTACT: Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC,715 West Main Street, Suite 202, Aspen, CO 81611, Phone: 970 925-7328, Fax: 970 925-7348. P102 VI.B. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B 1. Requirements: 1.Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured. 2.Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. 3.Documents satisfactory to us creating the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured must be signed, delivered and recorded. 4.You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions. 5.Payment of all taxes, charges and assessments, levied and assessed against the subject premises which are due and payable. 6.A Certification of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or an authorized agent (pursuant to Senate Bill 92-143, CRS 10-11-122). 7.Receipt by the Company of the appropriate affidavit as to new construction and indemnifying the Company against any unfiled materialmen's or mechanic's liens. 8.Deed of Trust from WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of TBD, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $4,480,000.00. 9.Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State for WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. 10.A copy of the properly signed and executed Operating Agreement if written, for WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to be submitted to the Company for review. 11.Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172. 12.Evidence to the Company that all assessments and liens due under the Declaration referred to in Schedule B have been paid. 13.This Title Commitment is subject to underwriter approval. P103 VI.B. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 Requirements 14-15 below affect Unit: A-1 only. 14.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Jean J. Delynn and John Ian Taylor to WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 15.Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior to closing. Requirements 16-20 below affect Unit: A-2 only. 16.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from The Margaret Jane McGavock Trust dated January 15, 2016, to WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 17.Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior to closing. 18.A true and correct copy of the Trust Agreement which creates The Margaret Jane McGavock Trust dated January 15, 2016, providing, among other things, the designation of the trustee(s) and specification of the trustee(s) powers under that trust. 19.Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of The Margaret Jane McGavock Trust dated January 15, 2016, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172. 20.Evidence furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following real estate taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and; (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990); pursuant to the Quit Claim Deed recorded March 10, 2016, as Reception No. 627681. P104 VI.B. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 Requirements 21-24 below affect Unit: A-3 only. 21.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Matt Grubbs, to WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 22.Release of the Deed of Trust from Matt Grubbs to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Washington Mutual Bank, FA, a federal association, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $327,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated April 9, 2003, and recorded April 18, 2003, as Reception No. 481610, and Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust, dated March 14, 2014, and recorded March 20, 2014, as Reception No. 608768. 23.Release of the Deed of Trust from Matthew F. Grubbs to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of David G. Sweiderk and Robert Bystrowski, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $50,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated June 24, 2004, and recorded September 10, 2004, as Reception No. 501794. 24.Evidence furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following real estate taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and; (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990); pursuant to the Personal Representative's Deed, dated January 17, 2001, and recorded March 22, 2001, as Reception No. 452641, and Quit Claim Deed dated February 14, 2001, and recorded March 22, 2001, as Reception No. 452642. Requirements 25-27 below affect Unit: A-4 only. 25.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Heidi Gorbitz and Patric Gorbitz, to WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 26.Release of the Deed of Trust from Heidi Gorbitz and Patric Gorbitz, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Pinnacle Mortgage Group Inc. to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $272,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated February 2, 2012, and recorded February 7, 2012, as Reception No. 586552, and re-recorded February 9, 2012, as Reception No. 586633. P105 VI.B. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 27.Release of the Deed of Trust from Patric Gorbitz and Heidi Gorbitz to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Alpine Bank, a Colorado Banking Corporation, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $50,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated March 13, 2012, and recorded March 30, 2012, as Reception No. 587876. Requirements 28-30 below affect Unit: A-5 only. 28.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Drew I. Goodman to WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 29.Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior to closing. 30.Pay 2nd half of 2015 taxes. Requirements 31-32 below affect Unit: A-6 only. 31.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Alix Samuelson to WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 32.Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior to closing. Requirements 33-37 below affect Unit: A-7 only. 33.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from 337 Midland Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company to WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 34.Release of the Deed of Trust from Jordan Nemirow to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Ally Bank Corp. f/k/a GMAC Bank to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $374,262.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated February 23, 2011, and recorded March 3, 2011, as Reception No. 578037. P106 VI.B. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 35.Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State for 337 Midland Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. 36.Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of 337 Midland Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172. 37.A copy of the properly signed and executed Operating Agreement if written, for 337 Midland Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to be submitted to the Company for review. Requirements 38-41 below affect Unit: A-8 only. 38.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Sharon Elizabeth Wells, to WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 39.Release of the Deed of Trust from Sharon Elizabeth Wells, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $338,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated May 1, 2006, and recorded May 18, 2006, as Reception No. 524179, and Assignment of Mortgage dated November 29, 2013, and recorded December 2, 2013, as Reception No. 606004. 40.Release of the Open-End Deed of Trust from Sharon Elizabeth Wells, an Unmarried Person, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $50,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated November 20, 2006, and recorded December 11, 2006, as Reception No. 532062, and Modification to Home Equity Line of Credit, dated April 5, 2007, and recorded May 4, 2007, as Reception No. 537391, and Modification to Home Equity Line of Credit, dated July 31, 2007, and recorded August 27, 2007, as Reception No. 541345. 41.Release of Notice of Election and Demand for Sale by Public Trustee as Sale No. 12-033, filed in regard to the Deed of Trust dated May 1, 2006, and May 18, 2006, as Reception No. 524179, encumbering an original principal amount of evidence of debt of: $338,000.00, with a current outstanding Principal Balance of: $316,890.68, recorded May 3, 2012, as Reception No. 588762. 2. Schedule B of 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 Company: 1.Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the Public Records, but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2.Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records. P107 VI.B. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 3.Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the Land would disclose, and which are not shown by the Public Records. 4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown in the Public Records. 5.Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales. 6.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 7.Taxes and assessments for the year 2015 and 2016, and subsequent years, a lien not yet due or payable. 8.All mineral rights underlying the subject property. 9.The premises hereby granted, with the exception of the surfact, may be entered by the proprietor of any other vein, lode or ledge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or intersect or extent into said premises for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or ledge; and right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent, recorded June 28, 1892, in Book 39 at Page 78, as Reception No. 047892, and in the United States Patent, recorded May 20, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 170, as Reception No. 096346. 10.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations and rights of ingress and egress, specified under the Warranty Deed, dated January 21, 1965, and recorded April 12, 1965, in Book 212 at Page 322, as Reception No. 120355. 11.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Warranty Deed dated February 17, 1969, and recorded February 18, 1969, in Book 239 at Page 441, as Reception No. 134173, and in the Warranty Deed dated July 30, 1969, and recorded September 12, 1969, in Book 243 at Page 246, as Reception No. 136991, and in the Warranty Deed dated November 25, 1970, and recorded December 3, 1970, in Book 252 at Page 218, as Reception No. 143387, and in the Warranty Deed dated December 30, 1971, and recorded January 12, 1972, in Book 260 at Page 712, as Reception No. 149529. 12.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Condominium Declaration for Aspen Hills (a Condominium) dated July 2, 1969, and recorded July 2, 1969, in Book 241 at Page 877, as Reception No. 136011, and First Amendment to Condominium Declaration for Aspen Hills (a Condominium) dated September 2, 1969, and recorded September 5, 1969, in Book 243 at Page 83, as Reception No. 136864. 13.Any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the recorded Condominium Map of Aspen Hlils Plat, recorded July 15, 1969, in Plat Book 4 at Page 8, as Reception No. 136131. P108 VI.B. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 14.Any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the recorded Aspen Hills Annexation Plat, recorded June 14, 1971, in Plat Book 4 at Page 200, as Reception No. 146061. 15.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Agreement, dated July 10, 1978, and recorded July 12, 1978, in Book 351 at Page 229, as Reception No. 205645. 16.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Decree Quieting Title, dated December 5, 1983, and recorded December 27, 1983, in Book 457 at Page 888, as Reception No. 255947. NOTE: This exception affects Unit: A-2 only. 17.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Grant of Easement, dated April 1, 2006, and recorded May 22, 2006, as Reception No. 524387. 18.Any existing leases or tenancies, and any and all parties claiming by, through or under said lessees. P109 VI.B. ALTA Commitment 16003559 Exhibit A First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Condominium Units A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8, ASPEN HILLS, A CONDOMINIUM, according to the Map thereof recorded July 15, 1969 in Plat Book 4 at Page 8 as Reception No. 136131 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Aspen Hills, a Condominium, recorded July 2, 1969 in Book 241 at Page 877 as Reception No. 136011 and First Amendment thereto recorded September 5, 1969 in Book 243 at Page 83 as Reception No. 136864, Pitkin County, Colorado; EXCEPT that portion of the common area conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of the Pitkin County Housing Authority by Agreement dated July 10, 1978, and recorded July 12, 1978, in Book 351 at Page 229, as Reception No. 205645. P110 VI.B. First American Title Insurance Company P111 VI.B. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) First American Title Insurance CompanyP112 VI.B. TELEPHONE 970 925-7328 FACSIMILE 970 925-7348 ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, LLC 715 West Main Street, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC Privacy Policy Notice PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE Title V. of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or through it affiliates, from sharing non-public personal information about you with a nonaffiliated third party unless the institution provides you with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the categories of persons or entities to whom it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with this document, which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC. We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources: Information we receive from you, such as on application or other forms. Information about your transactions we secure from out files, or from our affiliates or others. Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender. Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information will be collected about you. We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customer to our affiliates or to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law. We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonaffiliated companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing agreements: Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finance, securities and insurance. Non-financial companies such as envelope stuffers and other fulfillment service providers. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY LAW. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. P113 VI.B. ASLU Planned Development 310 & 330 E. Main Street PID # 4 Bill Boehringer, Chief Executive Officer WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com Aspen Hills Condominiums 331-338 Midland Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 (917) 977.0541 Bill Boehringer, Chief Executive Officer WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 10-21-2016Owner representative: Printed name: Exhibit 5 P114 VI.B. P115 VI.B. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM October 21, 2016 Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Aspen Hills Condominiums (331-338 Midland Avenue) Ms. Garrow: Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams, LLC, to represent our ownership interests in Aspen Hills Condominiums and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Aspen Hills Condominiums Units: A1 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-001 A2 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-006 A3 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-002 A4 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-008 A5 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-007 A6 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-003 A7 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-005 A8 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-004 Common Area – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-801 Kind Regards, William Boehringer Chief Executive Officer WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company PO Box 3807 Aspen, CO 81612 (917)977.0541 WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com Exhibit 6 P116 VI.B. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Property Phone No.: Owner (“I”): Email: Address of Billing Property: Address: (Subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $.___________flat fee for __________________. $.____________ flat fee for _____________________________ $.___________ flat fee for __________________. $._____________ flat fee for _____________________________ For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that addit ional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director Name: _______________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________ City Use: Fees Due: $____Received $_______ WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; William Boehringer, Chief Executive Officer (917) 977.0541 WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com Aspen Hill Condominiums 331-338 Midland Avenue 975 975 APCHA Env. Health 3,250 10 William Boehringer Chief Executive Officer WEB2 Capital LLC, a Colorado limited liability company WEB2 Capital LLC PO Box 3807 Aspen, CO 81612. Exhibit 7 P117 VI.B. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273707405801 on 09/30/2016 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit 8 P118 VI.B. BROWN RUTH H ASPEN, CO 81611 410 N MILL ST #B11 BEYER ALAN R ASPEN, CO 81611 410 N MILL ST #B11 BERNARD RANDY ASHEVILLE, NC 28805 18 PLATEAU RD COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA CARSON CITY, NV 89702 PO BOX 1927 PIERCE ROBERT KING ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3118 MERZBACH NINA SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 195 SHEFFIELD DR SILVER LAKE FAMILY TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR TH 1 GOLDBERG DANIEL J ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR # 3 HUA VINH ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2439 LUU VINH ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8513 SCHUR JACOB A ASPEN, CO 816112498 424 PARK CIRCLE #TH5 MOYER MARY ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR #6 HEYMAN BRUCE QPR TRUST OGDENSBURG, NY 13669 PO BOX 5000 MS-10 HEYMAN VICKI QPR TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60614 2035 N MAGNOLIA ROCKY MTN PROPERTY LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 73 SMUGGLER GROVE RD FAT CITY APARTMENTS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 402 MIDLAND PARK BIBBIG DIETER ASPEN, CO 81611 333 PARK AVE HEMMING GREGG S & KAREN S ASPEN, CO 81611 311 MIDLAND AVE GOLDEN SALLIE ASPEN, CO 81611 325 PARK AVE 1208 EAST HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 623 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #202 KNUTSON RODNEY D ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX YY SNELL NANCY L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX YY WELLS SHARON ELIZABETH BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 3100 GREENHILL MICHAEL LOUIS REV TRUST HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035-1909 30 RIPARIAN RD GREENHILL DEBRA MERLE REV TRUST HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 30 RIPARIAN RD CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST CASTLE PEAK ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 600 E MAIN ST #104 TAYLOR JOHN IAN ASPEN, CO 81611 331 MIDLAND AVE DELYNN JEAN J ASPEN, CO 81611 331 MIDLAND AVE P119 VI.B. GRUBBS MATT ASPEN, CO 81611-2412 333 MIDLAND AVE #3 SAMUELSON ALIX BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 4324 DEVANNY EARL H III & ELIZABETH H DENVER, CO 80218 177 HAMBOLDT ST DUNIGAN PATRICK A DALLAS, TX 75205 4245 N CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY STE 460 CHAZEN DAVID FRANKLIN II NEW YORK, NY 10155 150 E 58TH ST 27TH FL HTM PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 43 A SMUGGLER GROVE RD 337 MIDLAND AVE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 559 MCGAVOCK MARGARET JANE TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 533 HERMELIN ASPEN LLC FRANKLIN, MI 48025 32205 BINGHAM RD KALTENBOCK ERNST CANADA M4B 3A4, 1612 WOODBINE HEIGHTS BLVD TORONTO ONTARIO IBARA RON CAYUCOS, CA 93430 PO BOX 776 MEBEL GREGORY E PAIA, HI 967799723 30 KUPONO ST COERDT CLINTON CLAUSS ASPEN, CO 816111595 726 VINE ST ARNAL ALVARO JOSE ASPEN, CO 816111595 726 VINE ST VICENZI HEATHER L TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2238 MCDONALD FRANCIS B ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4671 WHITE WILLIAM P ASPEN, CO 81611 326 MIDLAND AVE #204 TUSHINGHAM DARREN ASPEN, CO 81611 326 MIDLAND AVE #205 OLDFIELD BARNEY F GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816014395 2701 MIDLAND AVE #8312 PHILLIPS ARTHUR R & HELEN B ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8245 MOHWINKEL CLIFF ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 9457 RESTAINO BECKER TRUST SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 72 ALDER AVE KELLEY BRAD BUCKLEY & SHARI L EDEN, UT 84310 1736 N 6250 E PITKIN COUNTY ASPEN, CO 81611 530 E MAIN ST #302 SMITH JACK L & DIANE M EVERGREEN, CO 80439 434 COTTONWOOD DR ASPEN ASSET LLC GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816014395 2701 MIDLAND AVE #8312 FERLISI MARY SANDRA LIVING TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 326 MIDLAND AVE #307 CAVE DERYK ASPEN, CO 81611 1195 E COOPER #B GORBITZ HEIDI & PATRIC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 647 K & W PROPERTIES I LLC BLACKSBURG, VA 24060 PO BOX 744 P120 VI.B. LOUTHIS PETER ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4254 NAGLE MELINDA LEE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 914 EPLER ANDI E ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 785 MUNROE KRISTIN EPLER TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 785 CALAMARI MICHAEL METAIRIE, LA 700053469 317 RUE SAINT ANN NARAT APSARA ASPEN, CO 81611 415 PARK CIR #5 KEARN ROBERT & ORENE FAMILY TRUST HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010 1831 WILLOW RD DAVIS D STONE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8904 RUSSELL LYNN C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8904 MANUEL CATHERINE & LINCOLN ASPEN, CO 81611 409 PARK CIR #2 AES INVESTMENTS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 500 PARK CIR ANDRULAITIS FIONA MCWILLIAM & TIMOTHY A ASPEN, CO 81611 409 PARK CIR #4 GARTON SARA B ASPEN, CO 81611 110 MIDLAND PARK PL JOHNSTON PEGGY REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 111 MIDLAND PARK PL BROOKS KERRI L ASPEN, CO 81611 112 MIDLAND PARK PL LACROIX TIMOTHY ASPEN, CO 81611 113 MIDLAND PARK PL STEAR RONALD A & MARIA F ASPEN, CO 81611 121 MIDLAND PARK PL #A21 BIRACH KAREN ASPEN, CO 81611-2414 122 MIDLAND PARK PL HAGEN CATHERINE ANNE ASPEN, CO 81611 210 MIDLAND PARK PL HOUBEN CYNTHIA MICHELE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9616 WINKLER JILL C ASPEN, CO 81611 212 MIDLAND PARK PL HUMPHREY JESS ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1775 HANSEN BETH ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1775 DODINGTON SUSAN M ASPEN, CO 81611 221 MIDLAND PARK PL SPONAR ANTON K & JUDY ASPEN, CO 81611-2486 222 MIDLAND PARK PL BESTIC JEFFREY B ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 2267 FUENTES DAVID & KATHARINE D ASPEN, CO 81611 302 MIDLAND PARK PL HIGGINS PAUL ASPEN, CO 81611 303 MIDLAND PARK PL #C-3 KOCH KATHRYN S & JOHN F ASPEN, CO 81611 304 MIDLAND PARK PL C-4 MCPHEE JAMES MICHAEL & ANNE MARIE ASPEN, CO 81611 401 MIDLAND PARK PL P121 VI.B. FORNELL PETER J ASPEN, CO 81611 402 MIDLAND PARK PL MACCRACKEN SCOTT R & MARISA POST ASPEN, CO 81611 403 MIDLAND PARK PL #D3 CHAUNER RONALD & JACKIE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8782 KOLBERG JUDITH A ASPEN, CO 81611 501 MIDLAND PARK PL SMITH DONALD NELSON ASPEN, CO 81611 501 MIDLAND PARK PL CUNNINGHAM PAMELA M ASPEN, CO 81611 502 MIDLAND PARK PL WELDEN TODD E & DEBORAH C ASPEN, CO 81611 503 MIDLAND PARK PL #E3 GRIFFITHS THOMAS W ASPEN, CO 81611 504 MIDLAND PARK PL BAKKEN JOHN & LIZA N ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12064 BLOMQUIST JENIFER L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12155 PERLEY PAUL S ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12155 NICHOLS SCOTT A ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3035 BIRRFELDER BRIGITTE T ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3035 STEIN DEBORAH ASPEN, CO 81611 710 MIDLAND PARK PL JEFFERSON GREG ASPEN, CO 81611 711 MIDLAND PARK PL GLEASON AMY ASPEN, CO 81611 712 MIDLAND PARK PL EVERETTE JOHN ASPEN, CO 81611 712 MIDLAND PARK PL JOHNSON SHAEL ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3549 WEBSTER DAVID H ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10362 CALK LAURA E ASPEN, CO 81611-2472 722 MIDLAND PARK PL WILLCOX DENNIS ASPEN, CO 81611 722 MIDLAND PARK PL PATTEN DAVID N ASPEN, CO 81611 810 MIDLAND PARK PL LEVIN AMY ASPEN, CO 81611 811 MIDLAND PARK PL #H11 HECK JAMES C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8416 SEMPLE SASHA L ASPEN, CO 81611 601 E HYMAN AVE GRAHAM MARGOT ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2254 WERTZ LIMOR ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9227 HOLLINGER JONATHAN ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #3 MCLAUGHLIN KEVIN ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #4 HENDRICKS LYNDELL B ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11152 P122 VI.B. BALLOU JONATHAN ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #6 HELBING ATHENA ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #6 MCINTYRE GEOFF & LEE AMORY ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #7 BURGESS HILARY ASPEN, CO 81611 1020 E COOPER AVE KURNOS TIMOTHY A ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #9 MCKNIGHT SPENCER ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #10 MCPHERSON GREGORY J ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2073 HACH STEPHEN C ASPEN, CO 81611 23 SMUGGLER GROVE RD AMES MARTHA E ASPEN, CO 81611 23 SMUGGLER GROVE RD PHILLIPS JESSICA ASPEN, CO 81611 407 PARK AVE #A VANGARDEREN TEJAY ASPEN, CO 81611 407 PARK AVE #A LOWE SARA M & CORY J ASPEN, CO 81611 407 PARK AVE #B FEINSTEIN JEROME FAM TRUST LONGBOAT KEY, FL 34228 1211 GULF OF MEXICO DR #901 KROMELOW BASIL M & LAUREANNE L CHICAGO, IL 60610 55 W DELAWARE PL LEE JONATHAN O TRUST BROOKLINE, MA 02445 35 FISHER AVE LEE BARBARA C TRUST BROOKLINE, MA 02445 35 FISHER AVE TERKUN MARK ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 329 HITCHCOCK SAMANTHA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 329 ASPEN VIEW CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 326 MIDLAND AVE TAILINGS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR 315-317 PARK AVE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 315 PARK AVE 328 PARK/327 MIDLAND CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 328 PARK AVE MIDLAND PARK PLACE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 112 MIDLAND PARK PL JACOBIE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA PARK CIR SMUGGLER GROVE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 23 SMUGGLER RD MARTHINSSON NOSTDAHL CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE PARK AVENUE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 102 PARK AVE PARK AVENUE TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 407 PARK AVE UNIT A EPSTEN BRADFORD M QPR TRUST KANSAS CITY, MO 641122757 5038 WALNUT ST EPSTEN VIRGINIA H QPR TRUST KANSAS CITY, MO 64113 1030 W 66TH TERRACE P123 VI.B. MOONEY TIMOTHY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8931 DP ASPEN LLC SYOSSET, NY 11791 300 ROBBINS LN GOODMAN DREW I GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80121-1336 5721 GREEN OAKS DR SUNIER ALAIN BRONXVILLE, NY 10708 29 VILLAGE LN SHERIDAN MARGARET BRONXVILLE, NY 10708 29 VILLAGE LN 165 PARK CIRCLE CONDO ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA P124 VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TITLE SHEET 1.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS ASPEN HILLS EXISTING CONDITIONS P125VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GENERAL INFORMATION 1.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. The Contract Documents include: (1) general notes; (2) architectural, mechanical, and structural drawings. All additional specifications, details, drawings, clarifications, or changes shall automatically become part of the Contract Documents. Any discrepancy between any components of any of the drawings shall be reported to the Architect immediately for clarification. 2.Alius Design Corps, LLC, shall not be liable in any way for problems which arise from failure, by any third party or any party to this Contract, to follow the design plans. The Contractor shall obtain and/or request guidance of Alius Design Corp., with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or conflicts or unclear information which may be discovered or alleged. 3.The Plans and Specifications are the intellectual and other property of the Architect and shall not beused without the permission of same. 4.All work shall comply with all state and local codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of building officials or authorities having jurisdiction. All work shall be performed to the highest standards or craftsmanship by all tradesman. Alius Design Corps, LLC., shall not be responsible for overseeing third party work, nor shall Alius Design Corps, LLC., be liable for any errors or omissions of third parties who perform work on the Project. 5.The Contract Documents represent the finished structure. They do not indicate the method of construction. The Contractor shall provide all measures necessary to protect the structure during construction. Observation visits to the site by the Structural Engineer or Architect shall not include inspection of the ____________, nor will the architect or structural engineer be responsible for the contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and the techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or any safety precautions. The Contractor and not the Architect shall be responsible for all Federal and OSHA regulations. 6.THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. Written dimensions must be used. In the event of a discrepancy in dimensions, the Architect should be timely notified for clarification. All dimensions on the drawings shall be verified against the existing conditions. All dimensions are to rough framing or face of concrete unless noted otherwise. 7.The Construction Documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to bring to the attention of the Architect any conditions which will not permit construction according to these Construction Documents. 8.The Building Inspector shall be notified by the Contractor if there is need of an inspection as required by the I.R.C., or by any local code or ordinance. 9.LOT STAKED: The Contractor shall arrange for the building to be located and staked after demolition or site clearing, to be approved by the Architect. The Contractor shall review the lot staking and verify, to the best of his ability, its accuracy. The Contractor shall also check the grade where it meets the building to evaluate the consistency with the drawings during excavation. All work to be done by a certified surveyor. 10.RECORD DRAWINGS: Contractor shall maintain a complete set of blue/black-line prints of contract drawings and shop drawings for record mark-up purposes throughout the Contract time. Mark-up drawings during course of the work shall show changes and actual installation conditions, sufficient to form a complete record for Owner's purposes. 11.SOILS AND CONCRETE: The General Contractor shall arrange for a visual site inspection at the completion of excavation by a soils engineer, and the required concrete testing prior to any foundation work. 12.Property lines, utilities and topography shown is representative of information taken from a survey. Contractor shall notify Architect of any discrepancy or variation between the Drawings and actual site conditions. ABREVIATIONS A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ADJ. ADJUSTABLE ALT. ALTERNATE A.B. ANCHOR BOLTS & AND ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL @ AT BM. BEAM BM. PKT. BEAM POCKET BRG. BEARING BLK’G. BLOCKING BOT. BOTTOM BLDG. BUILDING B.O. BY OWNER CLG. CEILING CL.CENTER LINE CLR. CLEAR COL. COLUMN CONC. CONCRETE CONN. CONNECTION CONT. CONTINUOUS DTL. DETAILS DWL. DOWEL E.W. EACH WAY ELEV. ELEVATION EXISTG EXISTING EXT. EXTERIOR FLR. FLOOR FTG. FOOTING FND. FOUNDATION GA. GAUGE G.L. GLU-LAM G.W.B.GYPSUM WALL BOARD HORIZ. HORIZONTAL INFO. INFORMATION INSUL. INSULATION JST. JOIST N.I.C.NOT IN CONTRACT O.C. ON CENTER OPP. OPPOSITE PERF. PERFORATED PL. PLATE PLY. PLYWOOD PROP. LINE PROPERTY LINE REINF. REINFORCEMENT REQ. REQUIRED REV. REVISED SIM. SIMILAR S.F. SQUARE FEET STD. STANDARD THK. THICK T.P. TOP OF PLATE T.L. TOP OF LEDGE T.W. TOP OF WALL TOT. TOTAL TYP. TYPICAL U.N.O.UNLESS NOTED UTHERWISE V.I.F.VERIFY IN FIELD 033 LBB CLIENT BendonAdams 300 S. Spring Street #202 Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com ARCHITECT Alius Design Corps 1331 East Sopris Creek Rd. Basalt, CO 81611 719.331.9211 Michael@aliusdc.com GENERAL RENOVATION NOTES 1.0 All existing conditions must be verified by the contractor in the field. Unknown and varied conditions may be found. Notify the structural engineer and/or architect of any structural or architectural conditions found to vary from that indicated from the drawings. Design revisions may be required, and are to be expected as a process of remodel work. 2.0 All new work, details, surfaces, or finishes shall match adjacent existing surfaces unless noted or directed otherwise by the owner or interior designer. Contractor to verify with architect any conflict between existing and new conditions. 3.0 All electrical modifications and/or additions to be as directed by owner/lighting designer during construction. Contractor/lighting designer to verify electrical capacity and review new designs or alterations with architect, prior to implementation. 4.0 All interior electrical fixtures, plumbing fixtures and trim, cabinet design, and other finishes to be at the directive of the owner or interior designer unless noted otherwise in the drawings. Contractor to provide all necessary prep work for installation of any materials as required. 5.0 Structural engineering – if any modifications to the existing structural system are deemed necessary beyond these shown in the drawings, all existing conditions are to be verified in the field by a registered structural engineer before proceeding. The architect will not be responsible for any structural modifications not verified or approved by a structural engineer. 6.0 Contractor will verify and coordinate all openings through floors, ceilings, and walls with all architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical design and construction. ARCHITECTURAL 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 SURVEY 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 5.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 TITLE SHEET GENERAL INFORMATION FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS SITE PLAN 1/4” LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1/4” MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/4” ROOF PLAN 1/4“ ELEVATIONS 1/4“ ELEVATIONS ¼” BUILDING SECTIONS SITE PHOTOS SITE PHOTOS SITE PHOTOS 5.1A PROJECT LOCATION ASPEN HILLS REFERENCE GRID LINE SPOT ELEVATION WINDOW MARK DOOR MARK ROOM NUMBER DRAWING REVISION ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT SECTION CUT EXTERIOR ELEVATION DETAIL CALLOUT INTERIOR ELEVATION ROOM 100 F11 1 T. O. RIDGE BEAM 123'-6 1/2" 4.4 1 1 7.1 8.1 1 2 3 4 VICINITY MAP SYMBOL & MATERIAL LEGEND DRAWING INDEX PROJECT DIRECTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES ABBREVIATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS 09/30/2016GENERAL NOTES 8 P126VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.3 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS 12 sq ft 12 sq ft 12 sq ft 12 sq ft 46 sq ft 48 sq ft 48 sq ft 48 sq ft 48 sq ft 47 sq ft 47 sq ft 405 sq ft 406 sq ft 402 sq ft 403 sq ft 402 sq ft 403 sq ft 408 sq ft 414 sq ft 1,754 sq ft deck STORAGE AREA ABOVE STAIR; TYP. NO STORAGE HERE UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 454 sq ft 456 sq ft 450 sq ft 451 sq ft 450 sq ft 451 sq ft 462 sq ft 458 sq ft UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 787 TOTAL WALL AREA 412 TOTAL WALL AREA 787 TOTAL WALL AREA 334 sq ft 310 sq ft 313 sq ft EAST WALL FULLY BURIED 412 TOTAL WALL AREA 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 LOWER LEVEL AREA LOT SIZE: 15,159 sq.ft. ALLOWABLE FAR: 11,369 sq.ft. FAR CALCULATIONS LEVEL MAIN DECK LOWER TOTAL GROSS 3,575 1,754 3,632 8,961 NET 3,575 49 1,416 5,040 NOTES 15% OF ALLOWABLE FAR = EXEMPT DECK AREA (.15*11,369) 39% OF LL WALLS EXPOSED (3,632*.39) TOTAL P127VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS 1.4 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS 8 sq ft 8 sq ft 8 sq ft 12 sq ft 45 sq ft 45 sq ft 45 sq ft 45 sq ft 45 sq ft 45 sq ft 45 sq ft 382 sq ft 382 sq ft 382 sq ft 382 sq ft 382 sq ft 382 sq ft 389 sq ft 389 sq ft UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 425 sq ft 434 sq ft 434 sq ft 432 sq ft 425 sq ft 434 sq ft 434 sq ft 432 sq ftUNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL NET LIVABLE 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 LOWER LEVEL NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS MAIN LEVEL NLA : 3,385 sq.ft. LOWEL LEVEL NLA : 3,450 sq.ft. TOTAL PROJECT NLA : 6,835 sq.ft. ****36 sq.ft. of area found in exterior storage areas are not addressed in the calculation as their necessary allocation is unknown**** UNIT UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 852 807 861 861 861 861 866 866 NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS UNIT BREAKDOWNP128 VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PLAN 2.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY DEMONSTRATES EXIST. NON-CONFORMITY W/ BUILDING DIRECTLY ON PROPERTY LINE BEYOND 5' SETBACK LINE OF SETBACK P129VI.B. P130VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED LOWER LEVEL PLAN 3.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS A A B B 2 2 1 1 UP UP UPUP UP UP UPUP UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 A5.1 A5.1 B5.1 B5.1 D5.2 24.1 14.1 24.1 14.2 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL PLANP131 VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MAIN LEVEL PLAN 3.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS A A B B 2 2 1 139'-3"92'-8" A5.1 A5.1 B5.1 B5.1 D5.2 24.1 14.1 24.1 14.2 STORAGE ABOVE STAIRS TYP. UNIT 1 LIVING ROOM KITCHEN DN DN KITCHEN DN DN KITCHEN DN DN KITCHEN DN DN UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 DECK DECK DECK 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLANP132 VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROOF PLAN 3.4 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS A A B B 2 2 1 1 A5.1 A5.1 B5.1 B5.1 D5.2 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLANP133 VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NORTH &SOUTH ELEVATIONS 4.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 1 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL LINE ASSUMED GRADE LINE OF GRADE LINE OF WINDOW BEYOND LOWER LEVEL WALL BEYOND HATCHED AREA OF EXPOSED LL WALLS; SEE SHEET 1.3 1 2 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL LINE OF GRADE LINE OF WINDOW BEYOND LOWER LEVEL WALL BEYOND SLOPED GRADE BEYOND GRADE @ SIDEWALK HATCHED AREA OF EXPOSED LL WALLS; SEE SHEET 1.3 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATIONP134 VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS 4.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS A B 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL LINE ASSUMED GRADE HATCHED AREA OF EXPOSED LL WALLS; SEE SHEET 1.3 B A 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL LINE ASSUMED GRADE 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATIONP135 VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SECTIONS 5.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 2 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL B A 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"B SECTION 'B' 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A SECTION 'A'P136VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PHOTOS 6.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONSP137 VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PHOTOS 6.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONSP138VI.B. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PHOTOS 6.3 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONSP139 VI.B. P140VI.B. P141VI.B. P142VI.B. P143VI.B. P144VI.B. P145VI.B. P146VI.B. P147VI.B. P148VI.B. P149VI.B. P150VI.B. P151VI.B. P152VI.B. P153VI.B. P154VI.B. P155VI.B. P156VI.B. P157VI.B. P158VI.B. P159VI.B. P160VI.B. P161VI.B. P162VI.B. P163VI.B. P164VI.B. P165VI.B. P166VI.B. P167VI.B. P168VI.B. P169VI.B. P170VI.B. P171VI.B. P172VI.B. P173VI.B. P174VI.B. P175VI.B. P176VI.B. P177VI.B. P178VI.B. P179VI.B. P180VI.B. P181VI.B. P182VI.B. P183VI.B. P184VI.B. P185VI.B. P186VI.B. P187VI.B. P188VI.B. P189VI.B. P190VI.B. P191VI.B. P192VI.B. P193VI.B. P194VI.B. P195VI.B. P196VI.B. P197VI.B. P198VI.B. P199VI.B. P200VI.B. P201 VI.B. P202 VI.B. P203 VI.B. P204 VI.B. P205 VI.B. P206 VI.B. P207 VI.B. P208 VI.B. Aspen Hills Condos Affordable Housing Land Use Review Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Nadolny, Community Development Planner FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director DATE: January 19, 2017 RE: Proposed Aspen Hills Condos Affordable Housing Project 331-338 Midland Avenue, Aspen, CO PROJECT The applicant for WEB2 Capital LLC is seeking approval to convert an existing 52-year old residential free market multifamily building into deed restricting affordable housing under the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit (Housing Credits) program (Chapter 26.540 City of Aspen Land Use Code). BACKGROUND The Aspen Hills Condominiums are located at 331-338 Midland Avenue. The building was constructed in 1965 with eight two-bedroom units later converted into condominiums in 1969. The site is 15,160 square feet and is located in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone. The applicant is requesting growth management approvals, recognition of existing non - conformities, exemption from the City’s Residential Design Standards, a variance for one parking space, and authorization for the issuance of H ousing Credits. Under Part III, Section 3B of the Housing Guidelines, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) is authorized to inspect affordable housing projects under construction or conversion for compliance with APCHA Guidelines. APCHA adopted Supplemental Guidance to Marketability Standards (SGMS) found in the Housing Guidelines on July 6, 2016, for the purpose of identifying physical capital needs and improvements (immediate, short-term, and long-term) for existing free market structures/units before accepting them into the affordable housing inventory. P209 VI.B. Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Land Use Review Page 2 Previously, Marketability Standards had been broadly interpreted to include building, livability, and marketability standards under APCHA Guidelines. Existing Marketability Standards within the Housing Guidelines, however, provide insufficient guidance for staff and decision makers to successfully evaluate proposed conversion or buy-down projects, particularly older structures and dwelling units. In response, APCHA developed SGMS to help decision makers more effectively evaluate conversion and buy-down projects for mitigation or Housing Credits projects. The Aspen Hills Condos Affordable Housing Project is the first conversion project brought forward under the Housing Credit program (Chapter 26.540). This is also the first conversion project evaluated under the SGMS adopted last year by APCHA. Both APCHA staff and the applicant are working through this type of conversion process for the first time. Housing Guidelines Marketability Standards (Part III, Section 5) Part III of the Housing Guidelines establishes policies and procedures for affordable housing development and redevelopment. Part III, Section 5A of the Housing Guidelines further establishes Net Minimum Livable Square Footage for affordable housing units for construction and conversion as listed below: TABLE VII MINIMUM NET LIVABLE SQUARE FEET (SF) for Affordable housing Per Unit Size (standardized) Unit Size Minimum Square Footage Studio 500 1-Bedroom 700 2-Bedroom 900 3-Bedroom 1,200 Single-Family Detached 1,500 The Housing Guidelines also permit a reduction in square footage if and only if an applicant can demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so, and if certain livability criteria and/or amenities will be met. Specifically: • Significant storage space located outside unit; • Above average natural light (i.e. more windows than required by code); • Efficient, flexible layout with limited hall and staircase space; • Availability of site amenities, such as pool or proximity to park or open space; • Unit location within the development (i.e. above ground location vs. ground level or below grade; and/or • Possibility that project can achieve higher density of deed -restricted units with a reduction variance. P210 VI.B. Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Land Use Review Page 3 The Housing Guidelines state that “under no circumstances shall a reduction of more than twenty percent (20%) of the square footage required for the applicable category be permitted.” The Housing Guidelines require that all new affordable housing development must include a capital reserve study as part of the initial HOA documents, as well as a separate capital reserve fund; and that all HOA documents require the establishment and maintenance of a capital reserve fund. APCHA requires a written pre-occupancy inspection by a certified building inspector, architect and/or engineer confirming that any construction or conversion is compliant with applicable codes. The Housing Guidelines’ Marketability Standards, Part III, Section 6B, also require new and converted housing units to be in marketable condition and approved by APCHA prior to rental or sale: “The applicant shall bear the costs and expenses of any required upgrades to meet the standards below, as well as any structural/engineering reports required by APCHA to assess the suitability for occupancy, as follows:  All interior walls must be freshly painted;  Interior appliances must be less than five years old and in good condition and repair;  Carpets must be less than five years old, in good condition and repair, or replaced if in lesser condition;  Windows, heating, plumbing and electrical systems, fixtures and equipment must be in good condition and working order and brought up to the current code utilized by the Community Development Department;  All exterior walls must be freshly painted within the previous year;  Landscaping and yard must be in satisfactory condition;  Roof must be in good repair with remaining useful life of at least ten (10) years; and  HOA documents; i.e., Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Condominium Declarations, must be approved by APCHA.” Supplemental Guidance to Marketability Standards (SGMS) The Supplemental Guidance to Marketability Standards (SGMS) were adopted in July 2016 by the APCHA Board of Directors for affordable housing conversion and buy-down projects either for mitigation. As the name suggests, the SGMS is in addition to and reaffirms the Housing Guidelines Marketability Standards (Part III, Section 5) mentioned above. The SGMS expects conversion or buy-down projects to achieve a reasonable remaining useful life, an acceptable level of affordability, and an appropriate level of health and safety, P211 VI.B. Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Land Use Review Page 4 particularly for older residential projects. The SGMS established the following evaluation criteria for conversion/buy-down projects before final:  Should be structurally sound;  Meet original building codes, at minimum;  Achieve and overall general physical condition rating of “very good” by a certified construction inspector;  Obtain an effective age no more than 10 or 15 ye ars old for major components (the estimated age of a building component that considers actual age as affected by maintenance history, location, weather conditions, and other factors. Effective age may be more or less than actual age. ASTM E2018 -15 Section 2.3.14);  Have an expected useful life (EUL) of 75% or more for all major and essential items, components and systems (EUL is the average amount of time in years that an item, component or system is estimated to function without material repair when installed new and assuming routine maintenance is practiced. ATSM E2018-15 Section 2.3.15);  Meet minimum net livable square footage requirements found in Table VII of the Housing Guidelines (Part III). The overarching goals listed above are meant to give APCHA and decision makers some objective criteria to evaluate conversion and buy-down projects. To meet these goals, APCHA created a list of requirements – or check list – for applicants interested in redeveloping projects for Housing Credits. 1. Completing a Physical Needs Assessment (PCNA) – also known as a Property Condition Assessment (PCA). According to ASTM International, the objective or purpose of a PCA is to observe and report, to the extent feasible, on the physical condition of a subject property. 2. 3rd Party Energy Audit (e.g. Community Office for Resource Efficiency - CORE). 3. Engineer’s Report commenting on the structural integrity of the project and expected useful life of the major building systems and components. The engineer’s report should include these type of items:  Overall General Description of Site (e.g. topography, storm and water drainage, access and egress, paving and parking, etc.);  Structural Frame and Building Envelope (e.g. foundation, building frame and facades, roof and roof drainage);  Mechanical and Electrical Systems (e.g. plumbing and heating systems, HVAC, and electrical systems);  Vertical Transportation (e.g. conveyance systems);  NFPA – Life Safety Systems (e.g. sprinklers and alarm systems);  Interior Elements (e.g. common areas, tenant spaces/dwelling units);  Additional/Out of Scope Considerations (e.g. code and environmental issues, accessibility issues, owner proposed improvements);  Repair and Reserve Study. P212 VI.B. Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Land Use Review Page 5 4. Capital Reserve Study and Savings Plan prepared by a certified, independen t professional reserve specialist or engineer, establishing:  A capital reserve fund balance containing the depreciation or replacement cost of any major components listed within the capital reserve study prior to approval;  That all critical and non-critical repairs have been identified;  A corrective action plan for any accessibility deficiencies identified;  Funds to cover the total cost of any items identified in the reserve study or engineer's report that need to be replaced within 5 years from the date of the study must be deposited in the HOA's reserve account, in addition to the amount stated immediately above; and  A utility contingency of at least 10% of the previous year's utility costs if the utilities are not separately metered. Finally, the SGMS requires that any conversion project applicant correct deficiencies identified by the various inspections above, or at the discretion of the APCHA Board and/or the City of Aspen, and that all conversion rehabilitation work is completed in a professional and acceptable manner. DISCUSSION Existing Conditions The existing project consists of a total eight units (seven two-bedroom units and one one- bedroom unit (illegally non-conforming)) requiring 15 or 16 parking spaces with a deficit of 7 or 8 spaces. The SGMS recommends adequate on-site parking for all units. The units, as built, are: S.F. Difference Between Min. Unit Beds Baths Net Livable S.F. and Actual 331 1 1 852 48 SF or 5.3% 332 2 1 807 93 SF or 10.3% 333 2 1 861 39 SF or 4.3% 334 2 1 861 39 SF or 4.3% 335 2 1 861 39 SF or 4.3% 336 2 1 861 39 SF or 4.3% 337 2 1 866 34 SF or 3.7% 338 2 1 866 34 SF or 3.7% APCHA Guidelines state that the minimum square footage for a two -bedroom is 900 square feet. All units are below the current minimum square footage requirements, but less than the P213 VI.B. Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Land Use Review Page 6 20% maximum square foot reduction allowed under Part III, Section 5A based on specified conditions and board approval, as mentioned previously. Proposal The applicant proposes converting all eight free market units into permanently deed restricted for-sale and rental affordable housing. The applicant is asking that several of the current owners remain in their units as renters for a n unspecified period of time. According to the standards of Growth Management, Section 26.470.100.A.2, Employee Generation, the building could house 18 employees (8 units X 2.25 FTE’s/unit). APCHA Review APCHA reviewed the applicant’s application and any due diligence reports submitted under the Guidelines and SGMS. APCHA appreciates the applicant’s due diligence and efforts to date, but deems that it has not yet met the necessary requirements for a full and effective evaluation of the project. As required under the Housing Guidelines and SGMS, the applicant submitted a PCNA (Physical Needs Assessment – Aspen Hill Condos by RD3) and a 3rd Party Energy Audit (Energy Audit of the Aspen Hills Building by Confluence). The applicant, however, did not submit a reasonable or comprehensive scope of work and third party engineering report evaluating the integrity and remaining useful life of the project’s essential and major components. To help review the Aspen Hills Condo Affordable Housing Project, APCHA contracted the services of a construction management profession al, Phil Vaughan Construction Management Company, Inc., or (PVCMI). Attached to this memo is PVCMI’s official report to APCHA reviewing and recommending minimum standards for the project. Without repeating PVCMI’s official report here, staff requests that that the APCHA Board of Directors take the time to read, review and understand its recommendations before next Wednesday’s board meeting. As expected with a 52-year old building, the applicant’s PCNA and 3 rd Party Energy Audit have generated more questions than answers. APCHA recognizes that not all questions will be answered before a full evaluation and scope of work is completed. In order to move the project forward and give the applicant an opportunity to purchase the units under contract and complete his due diligence, APCHA will recommend conditional approval based strictly upon certain future expectations and approvals as outlined and detailed under the “Recommendations” section of this memo. The board should also be aware that in addition to the concerns expressed by APCHA and its paid consultant, both the City’s Community Development and Building Departments have expressed concerns about certain health and safety and building code elements . P214 VI.B. Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Land Use Review Page 7 Category of the Units The applicant proposes that the converted units be Category 2 or Category 3, or a combination thereof. Part III, Section 4C of the Housing Guidelines, however, does not permit anything below a Category 3: Conversion/buy-down requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the City, County and/or APCHA and shall be considered and approved only for Category 3 or higher units located in an existing free market development. Notwithstanding the Housing Guideline rules, it is helpful to understand that qualified Category 2 income households may bid on and purchase for-sale Category 3 units. Number of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits and Estimated Minimum Market Value The applicant is requesting the use of t he Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits for the project. These units would create the following number of FTE’s: Two-Bedroom: 8 units X 2.25 = 18 FTE’s Under Section 26.540 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, a credit can be established for Category 4 and lower units . However, as indicated, the Housing Guidelines do not permit the creation of Category 1 and 2 units by converting or buying-down existing free market dwelling units. The estimated minimum market value for credits is based on the established Fee-In-Lieu (FIL) rates per Full-Time Equivalent employee (FTE) found in the land use code. Fee-In-Lieu (per FTE): Category 1: $356,433 Category 2: $320,186 Category 3: $286,495 Category 4: $223,072 Using Category 3 designation for this project, for example, the following calculation shows an estimated minimum market value for the 18 FTE’s in the Housing Credit market: Category FTEs X FIL Rate = Est. Minimum Market Value All Category 3: 18 FTEs X $286,495/FTE = $5,156,910 Because of regulatory limitations set by the land use code for mitigating affordable housing using FIL, plus the high cost of mitigating affordable housing through on- and off-site development within the City of Aspen, it is not unreasonable to assume that the market value for any Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit will be higher. P215 VI.B. Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Land Use Review Page 8 RECOMMENDATIONS The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held January 18, 2017, and recommends approval of the Aspen Hills Condo Affordable Housing Project. The APCHA Board also recommends that the Planning and Zoning Committee approve this project for the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit program based strictly on the following conditions. Final acceptance of this project must be approved by APCHA and the City of Aspen prior to and as a condition of issuance of a Development Order and Building Permit by the City of Aspen. A Development Order shall not be issued by the City of Aspen until the APCHA and the applicant enter into a binding development agreement containing the following requirements: 1. Final acceptance and approval is subject to APCHA’s and the City of Aspen’s complete satisfaction of the scope of work based on additional reports and standards spelled out in the Housing Guidelines, the SGMS, and PVCMI’s report of recommendations to APCHA dated January 13, 2017. 2. Approval is further subject to the applicant providing to APCHA sufficient third party reports detailing the current physical conditions of the building and units and proposed upgrades necessary to satisfy APCHA requirements in APCHA’s sole subjective discretion, which requirements will later be specified by APCHA for the applicant. 3. Any amended or additional reports shall be reviewed by APCHA, its consultants, and the City of Aspen. Any third party consultant hired by APCHA to review or make recommendations on this project shall be reimbursed by applicant. 4. The APCHA, its consultants, and the City of Aspen, shall work with the applicant to establish agreeable technical specifications for the required upgrades. 5. The applicant shall reimburse APCHA for any third party inspections and reports, including legal consultation associated with drafting and approving a Development Agreement. This shall be incorporated into the Development Agreement. 6. The building permit for the required upgrades shall not be issued by the City of Aspen unless the permit demonstrates the required upgrades are in accordance with the agreed-upon specifications, which will necessitate a third party construction consultant to review the building permit application on behalf of APCHA. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion for the required upgrades and rehabilitation work shall not be issued unless the improvements have been made in accordance to the scope of work and specifications agreed to prior to Building Permit. APCHA will rely on third party consultant and the City’s Building Department to inspect and accept the improvements and standards set forth by APCHA for affordable housing conversion at the expense of the applicant. P216 VI.B. Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Land Use Review Page 9 8. Prior to APCHA formally accepting the units and authorizing the City of Aspen to issue Housing Certificates, the applicant must complete upgrades to the building and units and establish new Association documents and appropriately fund reserves in order to meet the satisfaction of APCHA staff. 9. Per the Housing Guidelines and applicant’s request, all converted units will be Category 3. 10. Applicant shall convert Unit #331 (one-bedroom unit) that is illegally non- conforming to a two-bedroom unit. 11. A final Capital Reserve Study completed by a certified third party will be required upon acceptance of the project after any rehabilitation and construction for HOA designated common area components and systems. The report shall be given to the HOA and to APCHA by a certified reserve specialist at the time of Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Completion, or within one month of either. Housing Credits shall not be issued by the City of Aspen until the Capital Reserve Study is completed and accepted by APCHA. 12. The applicant and the APCHA shall enter into a development agreement outlining the use of and cost allocation for any third party reviews or inspections. APCHA reserves the right to bill applicant for direct costs attributable to project review and legal fees with no additional administrative charge. Housing Credits shall not be issued by the City of Aspen Community Development Department until all outstanding costs and fees are reimbursed to or paid on behalf of APCHA for third party review services. 13. The applicant has the option of retaining the units as rental units or selling the units through the lottery system. Once a unit has been sold to a qualified employee, the unit will remain as an ownership unit and shall be sold through APCHA has stated in the deed restriction. 14. The applicant has the option of maintaining three of the units for current owners, either as rentals or ownership. The current owners shall be allowed to remain in the units, shall not be required to meet the minimum occupancy requirements, and shall not be required to meet the maximum assets. However, at such time the current owner (which shall be known as an Exempt Tenant or Exempt Owner) makes the decision to sell or vacate their unit, it shall be opened up to fully qualified, top priority households only per the Housing Guidelines. Also, the applicant shall only be eligible to collect 1.75 FTE Housing Credits for any two- bedroom unit occupied by a single-person household. The applicant may be issued the outstanding balance of .5 FTE Housing Credits once the unit has been occupied by a qualified 2-person household. P217 VI.B. Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Land Use Review Page 10 15. If at any time a rental unit is found to be out of compliance, and upon completion of APCHA’s Notice of Violation (NOV) process, any remaining units occupied as rentals shall be listed for sale with APCHA and sold through the lottery system. 16. The developer shall obtain approval of all condominium documents to APCHA for review prior to acceptance. These shall include, but may not be limited to, the following: a. Articles of Incorporation b. By-Laws c. Condominium Declaration d. Condo Plat Map e. Nine required governance policies required by the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). f. Budget 17. At the closing on all units, the developer shall provide to each new homeowner a binder that will include, but may not be limited to, the following: a. All condominium documents stated above; b. All mechanical warranties, all warranties for appliances, etc., that are available from any additional work completed by the developer 18. The Development Order shall provide the APCHA the reasonable right to not accept the project into the affordable housing inventory if the applicant fails to prove to APCHA’s complete satisfaction that the physical condition is safe and acceptable under the standards agreed to, and/or has sufficient capital reserve funds to help safeguard the future affordability and replacement cost of common area components by the Association and its homeowners. P218 VI.B. P219VI.B. P220VI.B. P221VI.B. P222VI.B. P223VI.B. P224VI.B. P225VI.B. P226VI.B. P227VI.B.