Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930302A G E N D A f F .------- -- ---------------------- - - -- ----- - - - - �- ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING I March 2, 1993, Tuesday i 4:30 P.M. E 2nd Floor Meeting Room City Hall C I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARING A. East Cooper Affordable Housing Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning to Affordable Housing Zone District, GMQS Exemptions, and Special Reviews, Kim Johnson IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Zaluba 8040 Greenline, Leslie Lamont IV. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne,Wolff, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: March 2, 1993 Special Meeting - March 9" Worksession with HPC - Parking and Dimensional Requirements Special Meeting - March 15, 5-7 PM Worksession with City Council - Implementation of AACP Regular Meeting - March 16 Transierra Accessory Dwelling Unit (KJ) Schermer Hallam Lake Review (KJ) Gordon/Callahan PUD Amendment (LL) Regular Meeting - April 6 Superblock Study Worksession (LL) a.nex Is 2 �wlA4 A&L ��� t)n,,l w0;1- S ��� flF, MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: .- � East Cooper Affordable Housing Project - Rezoning to AH (Affordable Housing) , Final PUD Development Plan, 1 G AAW, Sub ivision, GMQ Exemption for A ordable and Free LLarket a� ing, and Special Review for Open Space and Ho harking (public hearing) DATE: March 2, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of rezoning to AH, Final PUD Development Plan, -Subdivision, and the associated reviews with conditions. The Planning Office and Parks Department to not recommend waiver of the Park Development Impact fee. During Conceptual review of this project, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council supported the proposed rezoning to AH as a threshold issue. Council passed Resolution 55, 1992 (Exhibit "G" in the application booklet) which granted Conceptual PUD approval and outlined the conditions required of the Final PUD submission. APPLICANT: C&G Mustard Seed, Craig Glendenning, represented by Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group, Inc. LOCATION: The 2.35 acre parcel is located on Highway 82, about one-half mile east of the Cooper Street Bridge. This vacant site is just west of the Crestahaus Lodge. ZONING: The current zoning of the parcel is R-15 PUD. The requested zoning is AH (Affordable Housing). �tA 0 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The project seeks subdivision of the site tkinto six free__market single family lots, one lo_t.___.restricted to /k Resident Occupancy (R.O.), and one lot designated for twelve deed restricted townhomes. The developer will sell the free market lots for in iv�idua development but will construct the deed restricted townhomes within three multi -family structures. The R.O. lot is reserved for the developer's residence. This assortment of lots and units has been reduced from the Conceptual PUD proposal of `1A seven free market lots and sixteen restricted townhomes. The affordable units will be a mix a 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms for a total of 33 bedrooms. The ratio of deed restricted to free market units will be 70:30. Each free market lot is capped at three bedrooms each. The bedroom ratio will be 65:35 restricted to free market. � 1 o) 6f�A 1�� The complete application booklet is attached for your -reference. PROCESS: The 4 step PUD review process including associated reviews is as follows: Step 1 - P&Z Conceptual PUD and review of rezoning as a threshold issue. (9/15/92) Step 2 - Council Conceptual PUD, public hearing; and review of rezoning as a threshold issue. (11/9/92) Step 3 - P&Z Rezoning recommendation, public hearing; Final PUD recommendation, public hearing; Subdivision recommendation, public hearing; GMQS Exemptions for Free Market and Affordable Housing recommendation; Special Reviews for parking and open space for the affordable housing, one step. Step 4 - Council Rezoning, public hearing; Final PUD; Subdivision; Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Free Market and Affordable Housing Units; Vested Property Rights; Waiver of Park Development Impact Fees and Waiver of Water Line Extension Moratorium. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments from the following departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows: Enaineerin Sheet 1. A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added. Sheet 2. Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. Add note regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy.82: year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (State in condo documents also.) If the road were ever dedicated to the City in the future, City specifications require the cul-de-sac to be 100' in diameter (not 70' as proposed). The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision's residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current City standards prior to dedication. - The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy.82 to be installed by the Applicant. The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy.82 2 and Barb's Way. Sheet 5. Amend note 2 to state that individual development on lots 1- 7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. The drainage plan must address how the Hwy.82 intersection is handled. Calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. Sheet 6. Must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Sheet 7. It appears that the CTV junction box is in the parking lot of the townhouses, causing potential problems. Sheet 8. Language must be included detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent. Sheet 11. The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. General Condition: The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. Housing Office: The Housing Board approved the following housing mix: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 5 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom R.O. units 1 - single family lot, R.O. The Housing Board requests that the developer document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for both first round and second round of sales (including free market lots). This reporting to the Housing Office will provide valuable information regarding this new generation of mixed housing project. All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must be qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental occupancy. Water: The Water Department is working with Banner Associates on engineering and design requirements. All construction shall 3 be done in accordance with City standards. Fire Marshall: The cul-de-sac radius meets A Knox Box lock system is access. fire equipment requirements. recommended for the emergency All weather maintenance of the emergency access is required. Parks: - Parks staff has no involvement with the Riverside Ditch Co. who controls the ditch. - Council has directed sidewalk construction along the highway frontage per the Pedestrian Plan. (Applicant has agreed to construct a sidewalk since the application was submitted.) - A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any building permits. - The proposed evergreens on the south side of the townhomes will eventually shade the townhomes, blocking southern windows. Sanitation District: Suggests revised language for PUD/Subdivision Agreement per 2/12/93 memo (Exhibit "KL"). A formal request for line extension and a collection system agreement shall be completed once the final submission plans are approved. The District Engineer shall inspect construction, 'costs of which will be added to the applicant's total connection fees. Environmental Health: A fugitive dust permit and proper dust control measures are required. Building Department: Regarding natural vs. existing grade of the gravel pit area, the ground level indicated in the soils report to be filled should be considered existing grade for purposes of measuring heights of the townhome structures. PROPOSAL: The site will be developed into two areas. The upper bench will be platted as 6 single family free market lots averaging 9,721 s.f. Each home will be limited to no more than three bedrooms per the project's compliance with AH zone bedroom percentages. Access for the entire subdivision lots will come off of Highway 82 on the northwest corner of the parcel. There will also be an emergency egress driveway with a breakaway barrier further east onto Hwy. 82. The lower portion of the site will consist of one R.O. lot of 6,665 s.f. Twelve deed restricted condominiumized townhomes within three 4 buildings will occupy the remaining 37,549 s.f. lot. The unit mix has been changed from the Conceptual submission. Currently proposed are two 1-bedroom units, two 2-bedroom units and eight 3-bedroom units. Including the three bedroom R.O. lot, restricted bedrooms total 33 for the project. STAFF COMMENTS: This is the second AH project proposed by the private development sector to formally reach the P&Z since the AH zone was adopted in 1989. During Conceptual review, the applicant listened to concerns voiced by the neighbors regarding vehicle impacts, construction impacts, densities, open space, and building size. The Final PUD submission has revised the site plan to include more landscaped play/open space. The total number of units has been reduced by four (one free market lot, three restricted townhomes). One townhome structure was eliminated by rearranging the units. The free market lots have increased slightly in size, with the Applicant establishing extra deep 25' rear setbacks abutting the Riverside Subdivision to buffer those properties. Rezoning from R-15 (PUD) to AH (Affordable Housing) (PUD): The criteria for rezoning is attached as Exhibit "B". Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council considered rezoning to AH as a threshold issue during Conceptual review pursuant to the review criteria in Section 7-1101. The rezoning request received favorable responses from both groups and staff, hence the Final PUD application was submitted. Based on application of the review criteria, staff recommends rezoning the East Cooper parcel to AH (Affordable Housing) concurrent with approval of the Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat. RESPONSE TO CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL CONDITIONS: 1. The CDOT must grant an access permit for the project's access driveway and emergency drive. response: The CDOT*has received the access permit application. Full acceptance of the project's access by CDOT is required prior to the Streets Department issuing permits for work in the right- of-way. 2. The parking design for the townhomes shall be re -worked to eliminate conflicts with the emergency access corridor. Parking spaces shall be indicated on the Final PUD submission. response: The entry drive to the townhomes has been reconfigured to provide more maneuvering room between parking spaces and the emergency access lane. Parking spaces have been added to the PUD Plan. 3. Any curbs, gutters, streets, and parking areas must be 5 designed and constructed to City specifications. response: There are no curbs or gutters within this project. Per agreement with the City Engineering Department, if the private road is ever contemplated to be dedi^ated to the City, it must be upgraded to meet City standards at the expense of the owners within the subdivision. 4. There shall be utility easements over all underground utility installations. response: The final plat indicates the easements as required. 5. The Riverside Ditch Company must enter into an agreement with the developer including but not limited to reconstruction and relocation, maintenance, and general liability. Maintain contain with Parks staff regarding these items. response: Per the application, the ditch company has reviewed and accepted the proposed plans and construction schedule. 6. Holy Cross shall provide more information on what easements it is interested in acquiring. Each utility must be specific as to its easement requirements. response: Holy Cross has reviewed the proposed easements. The overhead line along the west boundary will be undergrounded where possible. 7. Calculations/methodology for slope density reductions must be provided. These shall be prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor or registered architect. response: Banner Associates, Inc. has prepared the slope analysis. The recorded prints will contain the original engineer's stamp. 8. A complete drainage plan and calculations must be submitted with the Final PUD Development application. Each free market lot will have to provide the same with submission of building permit applications. response: The application, contains drainage information provided by Banner Associates. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement stipulates that individual lots shall provide drainage plans to Engineering within building permit applications. 9. The grading plan and report by CTL/Thompson must be finalized regarding fill material removal/replacement. The project shall then be designed around their specific recommendations. response: Information specifying fill material is included in the application. 10. In addition to standard Final following must be addressed or - designated common areas - parking spaces - trash access areas - snow storage areas 6 submission requirements, the included: exterior site lighting response: These items have been included in the PUD Plan drawings. 11. All required easements must be recorded prior to the City Engineer approving plats for recordation. response: The Plat indicates easements for Engineering's review. 12. Any changes to deed restriction category mixes resulting from P&Z or City Council review must be reconsidered by the Housing Office prior to Final PUD Plan approval. response: The revisions to the affordable housing proposal were reviewed and unanimously approved by the Housing Board on 1/20/93. The Resident Occupied deed restriction is gaining familiarity and acceptance for use on a limited basis. Three of the eight 3- bedroom condominiums and one single family lot are proposed to be restricted to R.O. The Applicant commits to provide sales documentation for all properties in the development through two rounds of sales. Documentation of second round sales seems problematic however as the developer will have little connection with the project years into the future. Prior to final approval by Council, the Applicant and staff should work out a more definitive reporting method and timeframe for the sales documentation. 13. If necessary for a water line extension, the developer must receive a waiver of the Water Mainline Extension Moratorium from City Council concurrent with Final PUD Plan approval. response: The application contains the waiver request. The Water Superintendent indicates that this waiver should be granted as the new service does not promote growth beyond existing waterline service areas, serving only the limited number of units within this specific subdivision. - Y 14. The proposed 8" waterline from Riverside Dr. to Lot 4 shall be extended to Hwy. 82 to complete a loop. All installations shall be according to established City standards. response: This loop has been provided. .15. The Applicant is responsible for all tap fees, water right dedications, and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. response: The Applicant acknowledges this requirement. 16. Trees must be at least 30' from the Hwy.82 intersection. response: The landscape plan indicates that this condition has been accomplished. 17. Connection fee surcharges will be required to address two downstream constraints in this drainage area. response: The Applicant acknowledges this requirement. 18. Connection to Sanitation District system must be approved prior to review of final plans. If site collection system 7 will be deeded to the district for maintenance/repair, it must meet District specifications. response: The system will be deed to the district, and all service plans have been included in the application. 19. Submission of a Final 'PUD Development Plan must be submitted within one year of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to do so will nullify the Conceptual approval unless an extension is granted by the City Council. response: This condition has been met. 20. Within the Final PUD submission, the Applicant shall include appropriate assurances guaranteeing construction of affordable units. response: The Applicant has provided a draft Subdivision Improvements Agreement which provides for a letter of credit in the amount necessary to construct the deed restricted townhomes. All architectural and engineering documents will go to the City in case of default by the Applicant. Final City approval of the SIA will occur prior to its recordation with the County Clerk concurrent with the Plat and Final PUD Development Plan. 21. Engineering reserves the right to further review the Highway 82 right-of-way with the Applicant and the CDOT. response: Per the application, the application represents the requirements of the Engineering Department to date. If further requirements are needed, the Applicant will review them and make comments. 22. The Applicant shall include in the Final PUD submission a parking and service plan which will address keeping vehicle impacts off of neighboring roads and properties. response: Riverside Drive is no longer proposed as access to this project so overflow parking is not critical to this neighborhood. Two guest spaces are provided for the townhome parcel. 23. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. response: The Applicant acknowledges this statement. 24. The impacts of the East Cooper AH Development shall be reduced by incorporating any or all of the following methods (but shall not be limited to) : reduction of density, FAR, setbacks, or .height . response: Density on the 2.35 acre parcel has been reduced by four units. This has allowed one townhome structure to be eliminated, increasing green space and play area along the frontage of the parcel. The site now has a more open arrangement with the revised site plan. Six lots are now arranged on the upper bench compared 8 to seven lots proposed during Conceptual review. The FAR on the townhome lot has been reduced by over 10% since Conceptual review and meets the .32:1 limit established in the AH zone without Special Review approval. Rear setbacks adjacent to the Riverside Subdivision have been expanded to 25' (the AH zone requires 10' minimum rear setbacks). Pedestrian access has been improved by the Applicant's commitment to construct a sidewalk along the highway frontage and by providing a pedestrian easement between Lots 1 and 7, and following the southern property line of Lot 1 to the Riverside Drive right-of-way. (The sidewalk and easement was agreed upon between staff and the Applicant after the Final Plan was submitted.) ---------------------------- Planned Unit Development (PUD)_: The proposed rezoning to AH will retain the PUD overlay already existing on the property. Approval of a Final Development:Plan is required for each PUD proposal. The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings. B. Improves the design, character and quality of development. C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable. Y E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic features. Through the Conceptual review process, it was found that - these goals have been met or will be met upon satisfaction of 24 conditions for Final PUD submission. Please refer to Exhibit "C" for the review standards and responses for Section 7-903, Planned Unit Development Approval. In summary, Planning staff believes that the PUD standards have been met by this Final PUD submission. Based on referral comments, staff proposes conditions of approval to be met before or during development of this project. -------------------------------- SUBDIVISION: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following general requirements. The technical aspects of 9 the subdivision review are attached as Exhibit "D". In summary, staff finds that the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the code. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. response: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the development and housing goals adopted within the Aspen Area Community Plan adopted in early 1993. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. response: The single family lots are consistent with the adjoining Riverside Subdivision. The multi -family development is consistent with the lodge and apartment developments adjacent to and across the highway from the proposed subdivision. C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. response: This is the last remaining vacant parcel in the vicinity, so future development will not be adversely impacted. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. response: The proposal is following through with all required land use and technical approvals. All conditions of approval must be addressed before recordation of development documents of prior to issuance of building permits, whichever is applicable. GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN AH (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) ZONE DISTRICT: Free Market Units:- Up to 14 free market units In the City are exempt from Growth Management per year as per Section 8-104 (C)(1)(e) which was amended by Ordinance 59 / 1989. This proposal includes 6 free market units. For the rest of 1993, there will be 8 units remaining units available under this code section. The actual exemption will be a Council action at Final PUD. Pursuant to Section 8-104 C.1(c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with'the housing guidelines. The Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units propo0sed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the 10 dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. Response: The Housing Office and Planning staff recommends approval of the housing package for the deed restricted apartments and the one single family lot. Please refer to the amendments pertaining to housing contained in Exhibit "A". SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OPEN SPACE AND PARKING IN AN AH (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) ZONE DISTRICT: Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to Special Review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. Sections 7-404.A.1 and 2: (open space) 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone District. response: The Final PUD Plan shows substantially more open space than the Conceptual Plan due mainly to the elimination of one townhome structure. As viewed from Hwy.82, the site appears more open. Increased landscaping on this development will meet or exceed landscaping of the surrounding area. The elevations of the townhome buildings are well articulated to provide visual interest and lessen the bulk of the structures. The increased rear setbacks of the free market lots lessens impacts to the Riverside neighbors. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed developmelht will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those. impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane. response: The only anticipated impact under this section is some shading onto the highway right-of-way. However, property owners are already required by law to keep sidewalks cleared of snow during the winter. The townhomes comply with the parking requirement for the AH zone (not to exceed 2 spaces per unit) with 2 additional spaces for guest parking. 7-404 . B. 2 : (,parking) 2. In all other zone districts where the off street, parking requirements are subject to establishment or reduction by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, its proximity to mass transit routes and the 11 downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of rezoning the subject parcel from R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) PUD to AH (Affordable Housing) PUD. The Planning office recommends approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Final PUD Development Plan, Special Review for Open Space and Parking in the AH zone, and GMQS Exemption for the six free market lots, twelve affordable townhomes and one affordable lot as deed restricted per the Housing Office's approval. The following conditions shall apply: 1. A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added to the plat. 2. Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. 3. Add note to plat regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy.82: year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (State in condo documents also.) 4. The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision's residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current City standards prior to dedication. 5. The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. 6. The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy.82 to be installed by the'Applicant. 19 7. The site plan must show the street light location at- Hwy.82 and Barb's Way. 8. Amend note 2 on Sheet 5 to state that individual development on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. 9. The drainage plan must address how the Hwy.82 intersection is handled. 10. Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. 11. Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the,City Attorney and Water Superintendent. 12. The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. 13. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. 14. Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master 12 Deed Restriction for the deed restricted townhomes and lot shall be recorded with the County Clerk. Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shall execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction. 15. The developer shall document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for both first round and second round of sales (including 'free market lots) and shall forward this information to the Housing office on an annual basis 16. All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must be qualified by the Housing office prior to sale or rental occupancy. 17. A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 18. Language regarding the sanitation system within the PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be approved by the Sanitation District prior to recordation. 19. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 20. The Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the Plat within a period of one hundred and, eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the Plat invalid. Exhibits: Application Booklet and Blueline Prints "A" - Complete Referral Memos "B" - Rezoning Review Criteria "C" - PUD .Review Criteria "D" - Subdivision.Review Criteria cooper .fin . memo 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APPROVED ► 19 BY RESOLUTION • MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Department FROM: Cindy -Christensen, Housing Office DATE: January 25, 1993 RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Development Revisions The Housing Board reviewed the changes that Tom Stevens proposed for the East Cooper affordable housing project on January 20, 1993. The following unit mix.was approved by the Board.: 2 one -bedroom Category 3 Units 2 two -bedroom Category 3 Units 5 three -bedroom Category 4 Units 3 three -bedroom Resident Occupied Units 1 single-family lot Resident Occupied Lot The only condition that the Housing Board requested was that the developer document buyer information for all the types of units -- deed restricted units, resident occupied unit and lot, and the free market units. This will provide the Housing Office with valuable information as this is the first time a project containing this type of unit mix has been attempted. This information is to be provided on the first round of sales and on the second round. of sales for all the units, including the free market lots. The developer agreed to provide a memo to the Housing <Office summarizing information on these units. The information is to include purchase price, income, residency information, and any other pertinent information requested by the Housing Office. The deed restricted units will be qualified by the Housing Office per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. ecah.mem ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Department Parks Department Zoning Administration Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ,aspen Fire Protection District Holy Cross Electric Rocky Mountain Natural Gas FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Submission/Final Plat Parcel ID No. 2737-181-00-014 DATE: February 1, 1993 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by C&G Mustard Seed, Ltd. Please return your comments to me no later than February 15, 1993. The Design Review Committee will be meeting on &Thursday, February 4, at 3:00 p.m., 1st floor City Council Chambers. Thank you. (o mor f .V 7:� A -5 S A�-n e iq 5 L L) S 74 Try -"? % Z) �-./ MEMORANDUM TO: 1CM JOHNSON, PLANNING FROM: LAR.RY BALILENGER, WATER op DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1993 SUBJECT: EAST COOPER AFFORDAVIL HOUSING AND RESMENML DEVEMPMENT -- FINAL SUBMISUON/F NAL PLAT The City of Aspen Water Department has several concerns regarding the West Cooper Housing DeveWment. Our concerns are related to engineering and design requirements that can be easily worked out with Banner Engineering. As requested in the December 2, 1992, letter to Mr. Bob Daniel, Principle Engineer with Banner, all construction shall be in accordance with City Standards. We are confident that Tricor Resources will instruct their engineers to be in compliance with our request. e hwuwAwl .aft MESSAGE DISPLAY TO KIM JOHNSON From: Larry Ballenger Postmark: Feb 25,93 2:40 PM Subject: EAST COOPER HOUSING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message: The water main for E.Cooper Housing will costitiue a main line extension. The water line will serve only the E.Cooper Housing and will in no way provide a means for additional growth. It is my opinion that City Council does not have to review this as water extension under the Extension Ordinance. The Planning Dept can.also varify that this extension will not promote growth in this area and its sole purpose is for E. Cooper Housing. Council has previously approved the housing. Water service was an understood/prescriptive part of that approval. 19 ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORAWDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department Date: February 18, 1993 `c- -- - Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing PUD Final Submission/ Final Plat Parcel ID No. 2737-181-00-014 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above -mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: This project is to be served by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD). There is a ten -inch -sanitary sewer main in the Highway 82 right-of-way with the capacity to accommodate the anticipated sewage flows from the project. Further, the applicant plans to construct a mew manhole. on the existing central collection line and extend the on -site collection system from this point into the project. All project sewer lines are to be designed and constructed according to the ACSD specifications and deeded in perpetuity to the District when construction of the utilities is completed. IR This plan conforms with policies of this office. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The project is to be served by the city water system.* There is a fourteen -inch water line in the highway directly in front of the site. There is sufficient capacity to serve the units at the flows anticipated. The applicants plan to install the interior 8-inch water lines of the project to City of Aspen standards and loop the connection into Riverside Drive, providing an additional connection to this area of town, a benefit to the entire neighborhood. The water mains are to be granted to the City Water Department in --perpetuity. -- - - This plan conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system" and conforms with policies established by this office. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, C 0orado 81160M 303✓000-5070 mcyckd Pap- East Cooper Affordable Housing PUD Final Submission/ Final Plat February 18, 1993 Page 2 AIR QUALITY: The location of the proposed development provides easy access to town by walking, biking, or riding the bus. This development will only have a minimal effect on air quality. No woodburning fireplaces are allowed anywhere in the metro area, but woodstoves and gas log fireplaces are still allowed, and the application has not addressed or prohibited these on the free market units. The plans for the deed -restricted employee units do not show any devices at all. Other measures to reduce the air quality impacts are not addressed, including the energy efficient construction methods and appliances. The applicants are reminded of the requirements for a fugitive dust permit and proper dust control measures during the initial site preparation and excavation work. In summary, while air pollution impacts have been or can be mitigated. The project location close to town and the bus route should lessen its air quality impacts. NOISE: Noise generated during construction will have an impact on the immediate neighborhood. However, long term impacts are not anticipated given the residential use of the property. Should this office receive complaints, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in the investigation. :aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 7ble. (303) 925-3601 y Kelly - Chairman John J. Snyder - Treas. Louis Popish : Secy. February 12, 1993 Kim Johnson Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Submission Dear Kim:. v FAX N(303) 925-2537 Albert Bishop Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient capacity to provide service for this project. Total connection charges for the development can be estimated once detailed plans for the dwelling units are available. I would suggest that the PUD/ Subdivision agreement item 8. part b. be revised as follows: Sewer Tap Fees. Owner agrees to pay sanitary sewer total connection charges to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) in the amount equivalent' to, EQR's. Preliminary calculation for the total connection charges shall be provided by ACSD once,detailed construction plans are available and fees shall be provided by the Owner to ACSD at istuance of building permits. The preliminary calculations will be; verified with a final inspection of completed construction. Fees associated with downstream constraints will be determined from the approved final submission development plans and fees shall be provided by the Owner to ACSD prior to issuance of building permits. Building lots approved at final submission will be charged a stand-by service charge once service lines are stubbed to the lots. The applicant states that the on -site collection system will be deeded to the District for future maintenance and repair. A formal request for. a line extension and a collection system agreement need to be completed once the final submission plans are approved. The plans attached to the final submission for the on-s-Ite- -cd0 l ed-t3 on system- -appear o meek —Di stri ct. sped f Ytat ions. The District's engineer will inspect the construction of the on - site system to ensure compliance with the District's specifications. The costs of this inspection will be added to the applicant's total connection fees. EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976 - 1986 - 1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Sub. February 12, 1993 page 2 All other District concerns appear to have been adequately addressed in the application. Please cal; if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Mather] District Manager MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer FS'_ Date: February 12, 1993 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Submission/Final Plat Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. Application Drawings: Sheet 2: a. The parcel immediately adjacent to the northwest property line of the subject property needs clarification. Is this part of the of the Buckwheat Subdivision? h. A note descrihinul the are�i and conditions of the R.O.W. reservation must be added. Sheet 3: 4 a. As a general comment the dumpster enclosure should be sized to meet the needs of the project. In addition, consideration should be given for sizing the enclosure to include recycle containers. b. A note must be added stating the emergency fire access route must be maintained and free of any blockages at all times, i.e. snow removal, from the parking area to S.H. 82. This should also be stated in the condominium documents. c. The cul-de-sac shows a turn around diameter of 70 feet. The municipal code states that all streets must be built in accordance with the city specifications, which means a cul de sac diameter of 100 feet. At this time the road is to remain private. However, there is the possibility that future residents may want to dedicate the road to the City. The Fire Department has indicated that they can turn around in the cul-de-sac as it is currently sized. Therefore, the subdivision agreement should state something to the effect that, if there is ever a request for dedication of this road as public right-of-way the current residents adjacent to the road, excluding; the deed restricted units, will be responsible for the expense of bringing the cul-de-sac and road to current code prior to dedication. d. The site plan must show the agreed upon pedestrian easement. e. The site plan must show the required sidewalk along S.H. 82 to be installed by the applicant. f. The site plan must show a street light at the intersection of Barb's Way and S.H. 82 to be installed by the applicant. Sheet 5: a. Amend note two indicating it is the residents of lots 1-7 responsibility to maintain any storm runoff above the historical rate of runoff for the developed lot, generated by any development they might add. h. The drainage plan must address how the drainage is handled for the intersection of the �iccess road and S.H. 82. c. The calculations provided in the application must be stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. In addition, must also include the sizing of the drywells. Sheet 6: a. As stated in the application this sheet must be stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. Sheet 7: 1W a. A general comment, it appears the CTV could have a junction box in the parkin0 areal of the deed restricted units that could cause problems. Sheet 8: �i. There must he languayiye on this plan detailing the conveyance of the water line to the City of Aspen, and the conditions of the easement, that meets the satisfaction of the City of Aspen's Water Superintendent and the City Attorney. Chapt 1 1 a. The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. It is recommended that the applicant make the above corrections and/or changes and review with the engineering department prior to signature of final plat. It is preferable that this be a condition before final approval, however, if this is unreasonable then definitely prior to issuance of any permits. 2. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). 3. Prior to issuance of any permits for lots 1-7, storm drainage plan and calculations must be provided and approved by the engineering department. cc Chlick Roth, City Engineer ,MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Stephen Kanipe Postmark: Feb 23.93 5:06 PM Subject: East Cooper Subdivision ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message: We reviewed the issue of natural vs. existing grade and the gravel pit area on this site plan. I agree with the proposal to fill the shaded area as indicated in the soils report and let that level establish the height measurements for the multi -family units. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT .8 , APPROVED r 19 BY RESOLUTION • EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL Rezoning from R-15 PIID to Affordable Housing BAH) PIID Zone District: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the following review criteria and responses must be considered. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: This rezoning is not in conflict with the provisions of the Land Use regulations. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The 1973 Land Use Plan map shows this site and the area across Hwy.82 as single family homes. Latest discussions within .the Housing Subcommittee for the Aspen Area Community Plan indicates that this parcel is a desirable location for affordable housing development. It also is in agreement with the purpose statement of the AH zone as it: is within walking distance to the commercial core; is on a mass transit route; and lends itself to infill on small neighborhood scale rather than being a major housing project. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: The AH zone is intended to be used as infill zoning scattered throughout the community within residential neighborhoods. Site design is critical to the compatibility of a proposed development and its immediate surroundings. This project proposes single family development adjacent to the existing Riverside Dr. neighborhood which is zoned R-15. Zoning to the west is R-61 but the area is developed as a mix of multi -family (Aspen Edge Condominiums) and single family residential. The property to the east is zoned LP (Lodge Preservation) and is occupied by the Crestahaus Lodge. Across Hwy.82 is the Alpine Lodge zoned LP and single family homes zoned R-15A. Following the site's topography, the proposed multi -family structures are placed in the lower portion of the site along the highway frontage. This is closer to multi-family/lodge developments on the west, north and east sides and is less desirable for single family development. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The proximity of this site to the downtown area will promote walking to the core, especially by employee occupants of the townhomes. Access for the entire parcel is from Hwy.82. based predominately on concerns of the Riverside neighborhood. An access permit for the main entrance and emergency access from Hwy.82 has been submitted to CDOT. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: The Water Department has indicated that water capacity is sufficient for this project but that a waiver of the Water Main Extension Moratorium must be granted by Council. The Applicant's engineer has been in contact with the various utility providers regarding "will serve" letters. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: The rezoning will not, on its own, have a negative effect on the natural environment. Sensitivity of the site development is a function of PUD review. The major issue affecting the natural state of the parcel is the access road cutting through the hillside to serve the free market lots. Please refer to the PUD review criteria below. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: This rezoning meets the location criteria 'for AH properties, those being "within walking distance to the cebter of the city or on transit routes". The character of much of the east end is that of a mix of residential types. This rezoning requires a mix of deed restricted housing to accompany the free market development. This Applicant is providing different ownership opportunities as well as a mix of housing types: single family and multi -family. The other details of the project such as the specific affordable/free market ratios, dimensional requirements, etc. shall be considered within PUD review. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: As mentioned above, the 1973 Land Use Plan map shows the subject parcel and extensive area surrounding it as single family residential. Since then, one finds that two lodges have been zoned LP in an effort to retain smaller accommodations in the community. In more general terms, the affordable housing market has gotten much tighter hence the creation of this particular zone district. Also, traffic has increased on the highway which lessens the applicability of single family development adjacent to the road. Since 1973, mass transit has been established and now serves this site regularly. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: Rezoning this site will not be in conflict with the public interest nor with the Land Use Regulations. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT _��_I APPROVED ► 19 BY RESOLUTION Planned Unit Development Approval Pursuant to Section 7-903 if the Land Use Regulations, a PUD development application shall comply with the following standards and requirements: 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: As presented in the rezoning section above, the 1973 Plan is not reflected by actual development and zoning in this vicinity. Growth patterns and affordable housing deficits are guiding more pro -active measures for the AACP update currently being finalized. This proposal more accurately reflects current conditions rather than the 1973 Plan. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: Mixed types of residential and lodge accommodations in varying degrees of density within the neighborhood is consistent with the proposed single family and townhome development proposed in this application. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: This is the last developable parcel in the direct vicinity, so future development will not be compromised. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: Free market development associated with AH projects are .exempt from GMQS up to fourteen units per year as an incentive to AH development by the private sector. There have been no free market units approved in 1993 under the AH GMQS exemptions. The deed restricted affordable housing units are also exempt upon City Council approval. 2.Density. Response: The maximum density is no greater than that permitted in the AH zone district. The application booklet provides development data and density reduction on pages 6 and 8. The site does contain sloped areas which have been subtracted from land area for density calculation purposes. Staff finds that further density reductions are not necessary for 1 the following concerns: insufficient water pressure or other utilities; inadequate roads; ground instability; mud flow; rock falls and avalanche dangers; natural watershed quality; air quality; or that the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. 3. Land Uses. Response: The land uses proposed are those allowed in the AH zone district. 4. Dimensional Requirements. Response: The dimensional requirements 'submitted in the Conceptual Plan are those established for the AH zone district. Variations may be permitted within PUD development. The Applicant requests that the elevation of the existing terrain not be used to establish heights of the townhome buildings because of the peculiarities of the existing topography. The site was used decades ago as a gravel pit, lowering the natural elevation by approximately 8' in the center of the pit. Exhibit "O" of the application booklet includes a topographic sketch of the approximate area of the old gravel excavation. Pursuant to the Land Use Code definition of "natural grade", the building inspector shall establish what had been natural grade prior to disturbance, and measure (structures) from that grade. Stephen Kanipe, the Acting Building Official, has reviewed the application and has determined that the original natural grade was approximately as the level shown in the shaded area on the sketch in the soils report by CTL Thompson, Inc. For purposes of measuring building heights, the applicant shall be bound to this report and its findings. Please see Exhibit "A" (referral comments) for 1r. Kan ipe' s memo. FAR for the townhome lot as allowed in the AH zone is .36:1. The FAR for Lot 8 per the application is .32:1. Due to response from -some of the neighbors at the August 27, 1992 meeting, the Applicant has created 25' setbacks along the perimeter of the parcel adjacent to the Riverside Drive properties. S. Off-street parking. Response: The number of required off-street parking spaces for the AH zone is one space per bedroom with a maximum of two spaces per dwelling unit, approved by' Special Review. Two spaces are provided for each of the three bedroom affordable units. One space is provided for each one and two bedroom unit. Two guest spaces are provided on La Cet Court. The project is located on a RFTA route and is within walking distance to- downtown. Parking for the individual free market homes will be assessed by Zoning when building permits are issued. ■ 0 6. Oven Space. Response: The proposed open space for the AH zone is established by Special Review. For Lot 8, the townhome lot, all owners will be granted a proportional undivided interest in the open space on that lot. 7. Landscape Plan. Response: The Final Development Plan submission includes a landscape plan. The Parks Department has made comments regarding this plan. Overall, the townhome lot has adequate landscaping for visual interest and buffering between parcels and the highway. 8. Architectural Site Plan. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of -a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the building with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Response: The application contains sketches of the proposed exterior and floor plans of the townhomes. They will be wood and brick structures and will be of a level of quality and detail to compliment the proposed free market lots on the bench above. The buildings are tucked into the existing hillsides to reduce their overall bulk and to provide semi -underground and surface parking and storage for the units. .. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to "prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Response: Exterior low -voltage lighting has been included on the landscaping plan. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Response: The number of townhome buildings has been reduced to three from four as submitted in the Conceptual application. The structures are clustered to the north of the irrigation ditch. The "brownstone court" concept readily applies to the clustering concept. The proposed free market lots are located unto themselves �n the upper bench, with the building envelopes situated away from the adjacent Riverside subdivision in order to provide a density buffer. 11. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to 3 accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Response: No additional public facilities will be required because of this development. The Applicant is aware of the Sanitation District's requirement for funding for improvements to be made downstream of this development. The Fire Marshal has approved the provision of the emergency access driveway. The.proposed cul-de- sac meets emergency vehicle turn -around requirements. The subdivision will be responsible for road upgrades if the private road is ever dedicated to the City. 12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation. a. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. Response: The access off of Hwy.82 shall comply with the CDOT. No looped streets are created to allow through traffic. b. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. Response: Impacts to Hwy.82 will be negligible becausevof the relative limited density proposed. C. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60' ) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. Response: This is accomplished within the Final PUD Plan. d. All non-residential land uses within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. Response: Not applicable. e. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be .dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. 4 Response: The proposed road off of Hwy.82 is a private road. Per Engineering's comments, if the road is ever dedicated to the City, the property owners will be responsible for any costs required to upgrade the road to City standards. 5 �LANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT _ D , APPROVED ► 19 BY RESOLUTION • SUBDIVISION REVIEW STANDARDS East Cooper AH Subdivision/PUD 1. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable ,for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed sub- division. There are no unsuitable lands proposed for development within this subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. No duplication of public facilities will result from this subdivision. 2. Improvements. The following improvements shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. The Applicant and the consulting engineer have been working with staff to finalize the locations for the following items where needed within the proposed subdivision: (1) Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins. (2) Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements foe paving and improvements -of a collector street. (3) Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. (4) Paved alleys. (5) Traffic -control signs, signals or devices. (6) Street lights. (7) Street name signs. (8) Street trees or landscaping. (9) Water lines and fire hydrants. (10) Sanitary sewer lines. (11) Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers. (12) Bridges or culverts. (13) Electrical lines. (14) Telephone lines. (15) Natural gas lines. (16) Cable television lines. 3. Design standards. The following design standards shall be required for all subdivisions: Streets and related improvements. The access road within the subdivision will be private, so many of these standards do not apply. The Applicant understands that if the road is ever contemplated for dedication to the City, it must be upgraded - to City Standards at the property owner's expense. (1) Conform to plan for street extension. (2) Right-of-way dedication. (3) Right-of-way width. (4) Half -street dedications. (5) Street ends at subdivision. (6) Cul-de-sacs. (7) Dead end streets. (8) Centerline offset. (9) Reverse curves. (10) Changes in street grades. (11) Alleys. (12) Intersections. (13) Intersection grade. (14) Curb return radii. (15) Turn by-passes and turn lanes. The turn lane into the parcel from the highway has been designed in compliance with CDOT. (16) Street names and numbers. The roads in the subdivision are named Barb's Way and La Cet Court. (17) Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalks, or driveways. (18) Sidewalks. The Applicant has agreed to construct a sidewalk along the Hwy.82 frontage according to the Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan. (19 ) City specifications for streets. (20) Range point monuments. (21) Street name signs. (22) Traffic control signs. (23) Street lights. (24) Street tree. a. Easements. All necessary easements have been entered onto the plat except for the pedestrian easement to Riverside Dive, which must be included on plat before recordation. b. Lots and blocks. c. Survey monuments. d. utilities. All utility plans have been reviewed by the appropriate utilities. e. Storm drainage. f. Flood hazard areas. 2 TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: March 2, 1993 RE: Zaluba 8040 Greenline Mr. Zaluba has failed to comply with condition (b) of the Findings and Order agreement entered into December. 15, 1992. Condition (b) stated that if the contract purchaser of the property fails to close on or before February 24, 1993, and no substitute Letter of Credit is submitted by or on behalf of the applicant from an institution and in a form approved by the City Attorney on or before said closing date, the 8040 Greenline Approval shall automatically expire and the applicant shall be deemed to have waived the right to any further hearings before the Commission. Therefore, staff has attached a Resolution for the Chairperson's signature to close this file. Please see attached Resolution for your review. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVOKING THE 1990 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL FOR LOT 3 OF THE HOAG SUBDIVISION, ASPEN COLORADO Resolution No. 93- WHEREAS, on December 15, 1992, the applicant Mr.. Joseph Zaluba entered into a Findings and Order agreement regarding his 1990 8040 Greenline approval for Hoag Subdivision Lot 3; and WHEREAS, condition (b) of the Order stated that if the contract purchaser of the property fails to close on or before February 24, 1993, and no substitute Letter of Credit is submitted by or on behalf of the applicant from an institution and in a form approved by the City Attorney on or before said closing date, the 8040 Greenline Approval shall automatically expire and the applicant shall be deemed to have waived the right to any further hearings before the Commission; and WHEREAS, the applicant has failed to comply with condition (b): the contract purchaser did not close on the property on or before February 24, 1993, and a substitute Letter of Credit was not submitted to the City Attorney before the close of the business day February 24, 1993; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Findings and Order of December 15, 1992, the 1990 8040 Greenline Approval has expired on February 25, 1993. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission affirms that pursuant to the Findings and Order of December 15, 1993, the January 2, 1990, 8040 Greenline approval for Hoag Subdivision Lot 3, .Aspen Colorado is revoked. Any further development of the property shall require an 8040 Grbenline approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Entered this day of March 2, 1993. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By ATTEST: Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson (from memo to City Council for first reading, 3/8/93) RECOMMENDATION: Both the HPC and P&Z wished to broaden the applicability of the amendment', allowing any required open space the opportunity for Special Review of this type of architectural embellishment. The proposed code text changes are: Section 3-101 (definitions): "Open Space means any portion of a parcel or .area of land or water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky (with the exception of permitted architectural projections such as. building eaves or overhead landscape structures as further described in Subsection "K" below) and shall include areas maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the buildings." (criteria A. through J.-unchanged) K. Overhead Coverage. Any proposed overhead landscape structure shall be approved by Special Review pursuant to Section 24-7-404 A.1-3. Such approved structures shall not be considered additional floor area ratio (FAR) or reduced open space on the parcel. Section 7-404.A. (review standards for Special Review): "A. Dimensional Requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping, and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in such manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding land uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking or blocking of a designated viewplane. 3. When an overhead landscape structure is proposed within an open space area, it shall be demonstrated that the structure a) does not appreciably impact the view into the open space from the street at the pedestrian level, b) maintains visual relief from the mass of adjacent buildings, and c) 'does not otherwise adversely affect the public's enjoyment of the open space. -3-.4. For .the reduction of required open space in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district only, the applicant demonstrates that the provision of less than the required amount of open space on -site will be more consistent with the character of surrounding land uses than would be the provision of open space according to the standard. As general guidelines, the applicant shall take into account the following. It amy be appropriate to have open space on the site when the building is located on a street.corner, or the open space can be linked to neighboring pedestrian amenities, or the open space provides relief intended to maintain the prominence of an adjacent historic landmark, or the open space is intended for a particular functional purpose, such as dining or the protection of an existing tree. It may be inappropriate to have open space on the site when other buildings along the street front are built to the property line, especially along public malls, or when the open space is configured in such a manner as to serve no public purpose. When the Commission determines open space is inappropriate on the site, it may reduce or waive the requirement if the applicant shall make a payment -in -lieu according to the following formula: "Appraised value of the unimproved land, multiplied by the percentage of the site required to be open space which is to be developed, equals value of payment." The appraised value of the property shall be determined by the submission of a current appraisal performed by a qualified professional real estate appraiser. The payment -in -lieu of open space shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit. All funds collected shall be transferred by the building inspector to the finance director, for deposit in a separate interest bearing account. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the purposes within or adjacent to the Commercial Core. (CC) zone district. Fees collected pursuant to this section may be returned to the then present owner of property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which case the council may extend the time period by up to three (3) more years. To obtain a refund, the present owner must submit a petition to the finance director within one (1) year following the end of the seventh (7) year from the date payment was received. For the purpose of this section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the basis of the first payment in shall be the first payment out. Any payment made for a project for which a building permit is cancelled, due to non -commencement of construction, may be refunded if a petition for refund is submitted to the finance director within three (3) months of the date of the cancellation of the building permit. All petitions shall be accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement that the petitioner is the current owner of the property and by a copy of the date receipt issued for payment of the fee. When the HPC approves the on -site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space, such that the amount of open space on -site is reduced below that required by this code, the requirements of this section shall be waived. 4—.5. For the Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF) zone district only, increases in external floor area shall only be permitted on sites subject to the requirements of Article 5, Division 7, Replacement Housing Program. To obtain the increase, the applicant shall demonstrate a minimum of two-thirds (2/3) of the additional floor area allowed is used to increase the size of the affordable housing units beyond the minimum size standards of the city's housing designee and the development complies with the standards of Section 7-404 A.1. and 2.