Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.regular.20171211
P1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA December 11, 2017 5:00 PM I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #167, Series of 2017 - Wheeler Fund Advance to Water Utility Fund b) Resolution #166, Series of 2017 - Updated Financial & Investment Policies c) Resolution #168, Series of 2017 - Wheeler Booking Broker d) Resolution #171, Series of 2017 - Temporary Use Extension, 101 Founders Place Units 104 & 105 e) Resolution #172, Series of 2017 - BLM Lease for Hunter Creek Communications Site f) Resolution #159, Series of 2017 - Contract with Holy Cross Energy - Highlands Pump Station Electrical Service/Supply g) Resolutions #169 & #170, Series of 2017 - Cozy Point Ranch Lease Extension h) Resolution #162, Series of 2017 - 2018 Mill Levy i) Minutes - November 27, 2017 VII. Notice of Call -Up VIII. First Reading of Ordinances IX. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #34, Series of 2017 - S. Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision - PD Amendment b) Ordinance #31, Series of 2017 - 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing - Major Public Project X. Action Items XI. Executive Session a) C.R.S. 24 -6 -402(4)(a) -purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; (b) - Conference with an attorney for the local P2 public body for the purpose of receiving legal advice; (e) - determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiation XII. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting December 18, 2017 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES • Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision • Tone and Tenor Matter • Remember Where We're Living and Why We're Here COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. P3 MEMORANDUM VLa TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director MEETING DATE: December 11, 2017 RE: Resolution #167, Series of 2017 - Wheeler Fund Advance to Water Utility Fund REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The proposed resolution provides for an interfund advance of $2,515,000 between the Wheeler Opera House Fund and the Water Utility Fund. Said advance would equate to the remaining balance associated with the acquisition of the Woody Creek parcel as a future municipal water storage site. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the Council meeting held November 13, Staff received direction to proceed with the acquisition of the Woody Creek parcel utilizing an internal loan from the Wheeler Opera House Fund. DISCUSSION: November 7 election results reflected public sentiment to not issue general obligation bonds to finance the Woody Creek parcel acquisition. In order to cover the total $2,815,000 associated with due diligence work and final purchase price of the parcel, City Council has directed staff to initiate an internal advance (or loan) from the Wheeler Opera House Fund to the Water Utility Fund. Said advance of $2.515 million will allow for the preservation of the targeted annual 25% reserve requirement within the Water Utility Fund by spreading the cost of the acquisition over multiple years. The proposed advance would be re -paid by the Water Utility Fund over a 10 -year period, at an internal borrowing rate set equal to the 10 -year Treasury yield (2.325% is the current estimated rate), with equal annual payments of $284,770. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes the internal borrowing between the Wheeler Opera House Fund and Water Utility Fund be approved. ALTERNATIVES: The Council can revise this recommended action as it sees fit. The Water Utility Fund can cover the remaining cost of the acquisition, but will do so by depleting a significant amount of its targeted reserve balance. Future Council action would then be needed to restore the balance within a 3 -year period per the City's financial policies, as current revenue expectations would not achieve this alone. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #167, Series of 2017 which approves the use of an internal advance of $2,515,000 between the Wheeler Opera House Fund and Water Utility Fund, as proposed." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page -1 VLa RESOLUTON NO. 167 (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INTERFUND ADVANCE BETWEEN THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND AND THE WATER UTILTY FUND FOR PURPOSES OF ACQUIRING LAND FOR FUTURE MUNICIPAL WATER STORAGE. WHEREAS, there has been a proposal brought before City Council to acquire parcels R003161 and R015286 located within Woody Creek; and WHEREAS, the City Council has evaluated these parcels to be the best existing alternative solution relative to current water storage rights held in the upper Castle and Maroon Creek valleys; and WHEREAS, Government Accounting and Auditing Financial Regulations do not consider an asset being transferred between City funds as an investment nor the repayment liability as debt, because they are purely internal to the governing entity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this criterion, interfund loans remain as allowable transactions relative to the City's financial and investment policies; and WHEREAS, the City can utilize internal borrowing between the Wheeler Opera House Fund and Water Utility Fund to distribute the financial burden of this acquisition over time and thereby avoid any direct impact to utility rates as a result, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by City Council, that the City of Aspen hereby approves an internal advance of $2,515,000 between the Wheeler Opera House Fund and the Water Utility Fund, with the following conditions: • The principal amount will be paid back in equal installments over a ten- year period commencing 2018, • The interest rate applied to the internal advance will be set equal to the 10 - year Treasury rate at the time of the initial advance, and • There shall be no pre -payment penalty in the event the Water Utility Fund repays the remaining outstanding principal prior to the full 10 -year period. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on December 11, 2017. Linda Manning, City Clerk P5 MEMORANDUM V1.b TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director MEETING DATE: December 11, 2017 RE: Resolution #166, Series of 2017 - Updated Financial & Investment Policies REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The proposed financial and investment policies for the City of Aspen have been prepared to include parameters relative to interfund lending, and are submitted for Council approval. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council last adopted revisions to the financial and investment policies in October 2016 to reflect changes to higher reserve requirements (from 12.5% to 25.0%) for the two utility funds. DISCUSSION: During its November 13 meeting, City Council discussed the opportunity to solidify parameters around interfund advances, in order to maintain a level of consistency for these types of financial arrangements. Below are the proposed modifications to the City's financial and investment policies to achieve this base set of criteria: INTERFUND ADVANCES (INTERFUND LOANS) General Accounting Auditing and Financial Reporting (GAAFR) regulations denote that interfund advances, because they occur purely within a single governmental entity, do not regard the asset as an investment nor the liability as debt. This distinction qualifies these transactions as independent and unrelated to the traditional indebtedness and investment policies otherwise established in these financial policies. Therefore, with this clarification, interfund advances shall be a permissible mechanism for short-term "borrowing" between City funds, with the following parameters unless otherwise specified by City Council: • An internal borrowing rate shall be established and benchmarked to the treasury yield (for the applicable term) at the time of the initial loan arrangement. This will be a fixed rate for the duration of the advance. • A term will be established at the commencement of an interfund advance. The term shall be set such that the borrowing fund can manage the annual debt service payments in tandem with meeting the financial reserve target as outlined in the City's financial policies. The maximum term shall not exceed 10 years. There shall also be no pre -payment penalty for early repayment of the advance. • The principal amount of the loan shall be established such that the existing 10 - year operational and capital plan for the lending fund is not adversely affected. The principal amount will be shown as an expense (as a transfer out and ultimately a reduction to fund balance) in the lending fund and will appear as a revenue (transfer in) for the fund receiving the advance. Page -1 V1'b RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes that the updated financial and investment policies be adopted. ALTERNATIVES: The proposed revisions to the financial and investment policies may be amended by the Council as it deems necessary. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #166, Series of 2017 which approves the updated financial and investment policies for the City of Aspen, as proposed." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page - 2 0 RESOLUTON NO. 166 (SERIES OF 2017) P7 Vl.b A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO UPDATING CITY OF ASPEN FINANCIAL POLICIES TO INCLUDE GENERAL PARAMETERS FOR INTERFUND ADVANCES. WHEREAS, the financial and investment policies represent the best practices of governmental financial management and establishment of guidelines for financial planning, expenditures and revenues; and WHEREAS, the financial and investment policies help to ensure the City maintain sufficient reserves, maximizes the effectiveness of its expenditures and preserve the safety of the City's public funds, and WHEREAS, the Governmental Financial Officers Association (GFOA) recommends establishment of formal financial policies to guide government decision making, develop approach to achieve goals, develop a budget consistent with achieving those goals, evaluate performances and make adjustments, and WHEREAS, based on Council input, financial policies should establish the base criteria around internal advances between City funds to create reasonable expectations for the duration, principal amount, and interest rates associated with these internal transfers and repayments. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by City Council, that the City of Aspen hereby adopts the attached financial and investment policies, effective for the year beginning January 1, 2017, adopted this 11th day of December 2017. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on December 11, 2017. Linda Manning, City Clerk V1.b THE CITY OF ASPEN Financial and Investment Policies December 11, 2017 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES Vl.b Table of Contents FINANCIAL POLICIES.............................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3 FINANCIALGOALS............................................................................................................... 3 FINANCIAL REPORTING AND AUDITING........................................................................... 4 BUDGETPOLICIES.................................................................................................................. 4 BUDGETOVERVIEW............................................................................................................ 4 BUDGET PHILOSOPHY........................................................................................................ 5 BALANCEDBUDGET............................................................................................................ 5 BUDGETADOPTION............................................................................................................ 7 AMENDMENTS AFTER ADOPTION..................................................................................... 7 ADMINISTRATION OF BUDGET.......................................................................................... 8 INDEPENDENT AUDIT.......................................................................................................... 8 ASSETS................................................................................................................................. 9 EXPENDITURE POLICIES...................................................................................................... 10 EXPENDIURE OVERVIEW................................................................................................. 10 PAYMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS PROHIBITED................................................................. 10 DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY........................................................................................... 11 INTERFUND ADVANCES (INTERFUND LOANS)............................................................... 13 FUND BALANCES AND OPERATING RESERVES............................................................ 14 CARRYFORWARD SAVINGS............................................................................................. 15 REVENUEPOLICIES.............................................................................................................. 16 INVESTMENT POLICIES........................................................................................................ 16 2 V1.b FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P10 Cl THE CITY OF ASPEN - FINANCIAL POLICIES MR&A INTRODUCTION The City of Aspen ("City") is a Colorado home rule municipality operating under its City Charter ("Charter"). The City functions under the direction of a City Manager ("Manager") who is appointed by a Mayor and four -member City Council ("Council"). The State Constitution and the City Charter provide the basic legal requirements and timelines for policies, while Council approves goals, ordinances and resolutions that provide more specific direction that responds to the needs of the City. The City of Aspen Staff ("Staff") has an important responsibility to carefully account for public funds, to manage municipal finances wisely and to plan and provide for the adequate funding of services desired by the public and as required by laws, rules or regulations, including the provision and maintenance of public facilities and improvements. The financial goals and policies set forth in this document are intended to establish guidelines for the continued financial strength and stability of the City. FINANCIAL GOALS Financial goals are broad, timeless statements of the financial management the City seeks to maintain. A fiscal policy that is adopted, adhered to and regularly reviewed is recognized as the cornerstone of sound financial management. The financial goals for the City of Aspen are: 3 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P11 V1.b • To promote cooperation and coordination within the City in the delivery of services. • To provide full value for each tax dollar by delivering quality services efficiently and on a cost- effective basis. • To preserve quality of life by providing and maintaining adequate financial resources and capital assets necessary to sustain the desired level of municipal services and meet long-term needs. • To respond to changes in the economy, the priorities of governmental and non-governmental organizations and other changes that may affect financial well-being. • To minimize financial risk in providing services and maintain a strong credit rating in the financial community. • To annually prepare a budget, submit it to Council for approval and publicly issue a budget document. • To identify costs and funding sources before recommending approval of capital and operating budgets. • To view the budget as a dynamic rather than static plan requiring periodic adjustments as circumstances change. FINANCIAL REPORTING AND AUDITING The City will establish and maintain a high standard of accounting practices. Accounting standards will conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") as outlined by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board ("GASB"). Accounting standards will reflect Best Practices recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association ("GFOA"). After each fiscal year, a comprehensive annual financial report will be prepared for the City and a certified public accounting firm will conduct an audit of the City's records. The comprehensive annual financial report will include an independent audit opinion regarding presentation of the financial statements, taken as a whole, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. This report shall be made available to Council, staff, bond -rating agencies and the general public. The accounting firm will also issue a communication to City Council regarding the important observations arising from the audit. The City will complete periodic reports as needed and requested by the City Manager and Council, which may include monthly revenue and expenditure reports, quarterly forecast reports, sales tax reports and an annual budget report. Multi-year capital improvement projects shall be reported on a multi-year basis, comparing original budgets, amendments to the budget and all costs over the life of the project. In the case of housing projects, the original anticipated subsidy and changes to the subsidy over the life of the project shall also be tracked and reported. BUDGET POLICIES BUDGET OVERVIEW The preparation and adoption of the annual budget is an important exercise for the entire 4 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P12 V''b rganization. Sound financial practice and the desire to maintain a strong credit rating dictate that the budgets be balanced, constantly monitored and responsive to changes. The process encompasses an extended period of planning, review, forecasting and priority setting. The City's annual budget is a comprehensive fiscal plan which spells out how services will be provided and community improvements will be achieved. Upon its adoption by Council, it becomes a controlling mechanism by which to measure the resources receipted and expenditures made to meet approved objectives. The annual budget is a plan which provides the Council and City Manager with the financial information necessary for the allocation of resources to accomplish the goals and objectives of the City. The provision of municipal services is accomplished through the budget. The budget, along with the annual appropriation ordinances, provides the basis for the control of expenditures and sets the financial guidelines for the City. The basic legal requirements and budget process are defined by the State Constitution and the City Charter. Council approves the budget objectives. BUDGET PHILOSOPHY The City is committed to developing a sound financial plan. The City provides a wide variety of services to the residents of the community, and it is the responsibility of Council to adopt a budget and manage the available resources to best meet the service needs for the overall good of the community. To achieve this, the City: • Utilizes conservative growth and revenue forecasts; • Prepares multi-year plans for operations and capital improvements; • Establishes budgets for all Funds based on Council approved budget assumptions; • Appropriates the budget in accordance with the City Charter and State Constitution; and • Develops a budget that provides service levels which reflect the needs of the community. The City manages a bottom line budget. Funds and Departments are required to allocate resources and manage operations to achieve their core mission within the funding level provided. Changes in service level requirements mandated by law, directed by Council or influenced by other factors (changes in technology, annexations, reorganizations of Departments, etc.) provide a basis for changes in base level funding. Increases in funding are requested as supplemental or new program appropriation requests. If a Fund or Department experiences a decrease in needs, resources can be reallocated within the City as needed. BALANCED BUDGET Ficral Vpnr The fiscal year of the City shall begin on the first day of January and end on the last day of December. Submission of Budget and Budget Message The City Manager, prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, shall submit to Council the budget for said ensuing fiscal year and an accompanying message. The City Manager's message shall explain the budget both in fiscal terms and in terms of the work programs. It shall outline the proposed Financial Policies of the City for the ensuing fiscal year, 5 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P13 describe the important features of the budget, indicate any major changes from the current year i V1'b Financial Policies, expenditures and revenues, together with the reasons for such changes, summarize the City's debt position and include such other material as the City Manager deems desirable or which the Council may require. Budget Content The budget shall provide a complete financial plan of all Funds for the ensuing fiscal year and, except as required by law or the Charter, shall be in such form as the City Manager deems desirable or Council may require. In organizing the budget, the City Manager shall utilize the most feasible combination of expenditure classification by Fund, Department, Program and Object. It shall begin with a clear general summary of its contents and shall be so arranged as to show comparative figures for actual and estimated revenue and expenditures of the preceding fiscal year. It shall indicate in separate sections: • Anticipated revenues classified as amounts to be received from taxes and fees and miscellaneous revenues; • Proposed expenditures for current operations during the ensuing fiscal year, detailed by Departments and Funds in terms of their respective programs and the method of financing such expenditures; • Required expenditures for debt service, judgments and statutory expenditures; • Proposed capital expenditures during the ensuing fiscal year, detailed by Departments and Funds when practicable and the proposed method of financing each such capital expenditure; • Anticipated beginning and ending balances or deficit for the ensuing fiscal year for all Funds. The total of proposed expenditures and provision for contingencies shall not exceed the total of estimated revenue and use of fund balance consistent with provisions of this Financial Policy unless necessitated by emergency situations. Long Range Plans Staff will develop Long Range Plans ("LRP's") which forecast the fiscal condition of every major City Fund over a ten-year horizon. These plans are to be used to analyze the long term financial impact of changes in revenue streams, funding levels, programmed services and capital improvements during the current fiscal year. Years two through ten are for planning purposes only; years one through five will be submitted as part of the budget proposal to City Council for their review. LRP's are used as financial models throughout the year to assess financial impacts as policy issues arise and are relied upon for estimating the fiscal impact of budgetary changes. Asset Management Plan An Asset Management Plan ("AMP") will be developed for a period of ten (10) years. The AMP will be reviewed and updated annually. Years two through ten are for planning purposes only; years one through five will be submitted as part of the budget proposal to City Council for their review. The City's AMP includes the purchase, renovation or upgrade of new and existing municipal facilities, properties and equipment. The AMP is funded from multiple sources depending on the type of project and the use of the asset. V1.b FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P14 To be considered in the AMP, a project must have an estimated cost of at least $10,000. Certain assets below that cost may be included for informational and planning purposes at Council's discretion. Staff will identify the estimated costs and potential funding sources for each capital project prior to inclusion in the AMP. The operating costs to maintain capital projects shall be considered prior to undertaking the capital projects. The impacts of capital assets are budgeted for in the operating budgets. BUDGET ADOPTION Budget Hearing The City of Aspen's budget is adopted at a public hearing by resolution. The public hearing will be held at least fifteen (15) days prior to the County's deadline of December 15th for the certification of the tax levy. Public notice is published seven (7) days prior to the hearing. See Section 9.6 of the Charter. Council Amendments After the public hearing, Council may adopt the budget with or without amendment. In amending the budget, it may add or increase programs or amounts and may delete or decrease any programs or amounts, except expenditures required by law or for debt service or for estimated cash deficit. Council Adoption The Council shall adopt the budget by resolution on or before the final day established by law for the certification of the ensuing year's tax levy to the county. If it fails to adopt the budget by this date, the amounts appropriated for the current operation for the current fiscal year shall be deemed adopted for the ensuing fiscal year on a month-to-month basis, with all items in it pro -rated accordingly, until such time as Council adopts the budget for the ensuing fiscal year. Property Tax Levy The City of Aspen's mill levy is adopted at a public hearing by resolution. The property tax mill levy establishes the amount of property tax that will be collected in the ensuing year. The City's general property tax (not including the Stormwater Fund mill levy) is the only revenue source subject to the Tax Payers Bill of Rights "TABOR." In 1992, the voters of Colorado amended Article X, Sec. 20 of the Colorado Constitution to the effect that any revenue increase resulting in the increase of governmental revenues at a rate faster than the combined rate of inflation and growth in property would be refunded to taxpayers. Voters may authorize City retention of revenues in excess of TABOR limits by ballot. Public notice of the mill levy hearing is published at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing. The County's deadline for the certification of the tax levy is December 15t". See Section 9.9 of the Charter. Public Records Copies of the budget and the included capital program as adopted shall be public records and made available to the public in the municipal building and on the City's website at www.aspenpitkin.com. AMENDMENTS AFTER ADOPTION Supplemental Appropriations If during the fiscal year the City Manager certifies that there is funding available for appropriation, the Council by ordinance may make supplemental appropriations for the year. If additional appropriations are requested of council prior to a supplemental ordinance, Council may approve the expenditure and 7 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P15 authorize spending prior to the ordinance. The Clerk's Department will provide to the FinancV1'b Department the memo presented to Council with the affirmative action by council with decision summary and stated dollar amount. Emergency Appropriations To meet a public emergency affecting life, health, property or the public peace, Council may make emergency appropriations. Such appropriations may be made by emergency ordinance in accordance with provisions of Section 4.11 of the Charter. Reduction of Appropriations If at any time during the fiscal year it appears probable to the City Manager that the funds available will be insufficient to meet the amount appropriated, the Manager shall report to Council indicating the estimated amount of the deficit, any remedial action taken by him and his recommendation as to any other steps to be taken. The Council shall then take such further action as it deems necessary to prevent or minimize any deficit and for that purpose it may by ordinance reduce one or more appropriations. Transfer of Appropriations Any time during the fiscal year the City Manager may transfer part or all of any unencumbered appropriation balance among programs within a Department or Fund. Transferring appropriation balance between Funds requires Council approval. The City Manager may give authority to Staff to authorize the transfer of unencumbered appropriations between line items within a Department or Fund. Unencumbered appropriations may be transferred from all line items without approval from the Finance Director except payroll. In order to transfer unencumbered appropriations dedicated to payroll, approval must be obtained from the Finance Director. Capital project appropriations may not be moved from one project to another. Any appropriation balance within a project may not be used for any other purpose unless the City Manager gives authority to Staff to change the scope of the project or to move that budget authority to another expenditure account. Limitation No appropriation for debt service may be reduced or transferred and no appropriation may be reduced below any amount required by law to be appropriated or by more than the amount of the unencumbered balance thereof. The supplemental and emergency appropriation and reduction or transfer of appropriations authorized by this section may be made effective immediately upon adoption. ADMINISTRATION OF BUDGET As required by Section 9.13 (c) of the Charter, a monthly budget report will be created to provide a snapshot of the City's budgetary and investment status for the current year. This report is intended as a policy -level document for overall review of the City's fiscal condition and how that condition relates to major budget issues. This report will be submitted to Council for review. In addition, it is intended for the use of City Staff with budget management responsibilities. This report will show the status of the revenue and expenditure compared to the current year's budget authority. INDEPENDENT AUDIT n. FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P16 W.b n independent audit shall be made of all City accounts at least annually and more frequently if deemed necessary by Council. Such audit shall be made by certified public accountants, experienced in municipal accounting, selected by City Council. Copies of such audit shall be made available for public inspection at the municipal building and on the City's website at www.aspenpitkin.com. ASSETS Capital Assets and Capitalization Threshold The City qualifies a capital asset as having a cost of $5,000 or more, a useful life of one year or more and a use in operations and not for resale. A capital asset is to be reported and depreciated in government -wide financial statements. In the government -wide financial statements, assets that are not capitalized are expended in the year of acquisition. Infrastructure assets are long-lived capital assets that normally can be preserved for a greater number of years than most capital assets and are normally stationary in nature. Examples include roads, bridges, tunnels, drainage systems, water and sewer systems and dams. Infrastructure assets do not include buildings, drives, parking lots or any other examples given above that are incidental to property or access to the property. The capitalization threshold is based on the cost of a single asset. Assets that do not meet the capitalization threshold will be recorded as expenditures. Capital assets that meet the minimum capitalization threshold will be recorded at historical cost. The cost of a capital asset includes capitalized interest in accordance with GAAP and ancillary charges necessary to place the asset into its intended location and condition for use. Classes of Assets The City establishes the following major categories of capital assets: • Land and Land Rights (including Water Rights) • Land Improvements (Improvements other than Buildings) • Buildings and Building Improvements • Construction in Progress • Vehicles • Machinery and Equipment (Including Office Equipment) • Infrastructure (Roads, Bridges, Trails, Drainage, Water, Sewer, Dams and Lighting Systems) Capital Asset Costs The City establishes the following as capital asset costs: • Ancillary charges necessary to place the asset into its intended location and condition of use • Ancillary charges include costs that are directly attributable to asset acquisition: o Freight and transportation charges 0 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P17 o Installation costs V1'b o Site preparation costs o Professional fees (attorney, architect, surveyor, engineering and tap) • Direct charges of staff time Depreciation In order to be depreciated, an asset must be classified as a capital asset. Capital Assets (excluding land) are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: Buildings 25 — 50 years Infrastructure and Improvements other than Buildings 10 — 65 years Machinery and Equipment 3 — 49 years Assetlnvento The City shall inventory all capital assets. An inventory of all assets is maintained in a database by the Finance Department. The inventory record will identify the responsible Department or Fund, in addition to description, year of acquisition, method of acquisition, funding source, cost or estimated cost, and estimated useful life. The City shall assess the condition of all major capital assets. This information will be used to plan for the ongoing financial commitments required for major repairs or replacement to be funded. Operation and Maintenance Capital assets shall be maintained in working condition and properly safeguarded. These assets will be maintained at a level that protects capital investment and minimizes future maintenance and replacement costs. Budgets should provide sufficient funding for operations, maintenance, replacement and enhancements of capital assets. A high priority will be placed on maintenance where deferral results in greater costs to restore or replace. Maintenance of existing capital assets should be given priority over acquisition of new assets unless the available funding cannot be used for maintenance of existing capital assets. The City will avoid deferral of scheduled capital maintenance to achieve a balanced budget. JIL. 9 EXPENDITURE POLICIES EXPENDIURE OVERVIEW Expenditures are a rough measure of a local government's service output. While many expenditures can be easily controlled, emergencies, unfunded mandates and unanticipated service demands may strain the City's ability to maintain a balanced budget. The City is committed to ensure the proper control of expenditures and provide for a quick and effective response to adverse financial situations. PAYMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS PROHIBITED No payments shall be made or obligation incurred against any allotment or appropriation except in accordance with appropriations duly made and unless the manager first certifies that there is a 10 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P18 V''b ufficient unencumbered balance in such allotment or appropriation and that sufficient funds there from are or will be available to cover the claim or meet the obligation when it becomes due and payable. Any authorization of payment or incurring of obligation in violation of the provisions of this document shall be void and any payment so made illegal; such action shall be cause for removal of any officer who knowingly authorized or made such payment or incurred such obligation, and the officer shall also be liable to the City for any amount so paid. However, except where prohibited by law, nothing in this document shall be construed to prevent the making or authorizing of payments or making of contracts for capital improvements to be financed wholly or partly by the issuance of bonds or to prevent the making of any contract or lease providing for payments beyond the end of the fiscal year, provided that such act was made or approved by ordinance. DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY Debt is an effective way to finance capital improvements or to even out short-term revenue flows. Properly managed debt preserves the City's credit rating, provides flexibility in current and future operating budgets and provides the City with long-term assets that maintain or improve quality of life. Limitation of Indebtedn The City shall not become indebted for any purpose or in any manner in an amount which, including existing indebtedness, shall exceed twenty (20) percent of the assessed valuation of the taxable property within the City, as shown by the last preceding assessment for City purposes; provided, however, that in determining the limitation of the City's power to incur indebtedness there shall not be included bonds issued for the acquisition or extension of a water system or public utilities; or bonds or other obligations issued for the acquisition or extension of enterprises, works or ways from which the City will derive a revenue in accordance with Section 10.5 of the Charter. Forms of Borrowing The City may borrow money and issue the following securities to evidence such borrowing: Short -Term Notes The City, upon the affirmative vote of the majority of the entire Council, may borrow money without an election in anticipation of the collection of taxes or other revenues and to issue short-term notes to evidence the amount so borrowed. Any such short-term notes shall mature before the close of the fiscal year in which the money is borrowed. General Obligation Bonds No bonds or other evidence of indebtedness payable in whole or in part from the proceeds of general property taxes or to which the full faith and credit of the City are pledged, shall be issued, except in pursuance of an ordinance, nor until the question of their issuance shall, at a general election, be submitted to a vote of the electors and approved by a majority of those voting on the question; qualified electors of the City shall mean those duly qualified to vote at a general election in the City of Aspen unless the Council for sufficient reason shall by ordinance calling the election, restrict or limit such classification of electors to taxpaying electors as may be defined by ordinance adopted by the Council, provided, however, that such securities issued for acquiring utilities and rights thereto, or acquiring improving or extending any municipal utility system, or any combination of such purposes, may be so issued without an election. 11 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P19 Revenue Bonds V1'b The City may borrow money, issue bonds or otherwise extend its credit for purchasing, constructing, condemning, otherwise acquiring, extending or improving a water, electric, gas or sewer system or other public utility or income-producing project provided that the bonds or other obligations shall be made payable from the net revenues derived from the operation of such system, utility or project and providing further that any two (2) or more of such systems, utilities and projects may be combined, operated and maintained as joint municipal systems, utilities or projects in which case such bonds or other obligations shall be made payable out of the net revenue derived from the operation of such joint systems, utilities or projects. Such bonds shall not be considered a debt or general obligation of the City for the purposes of determining any debt limitation thereof. The City shall, in addition, have the authority to issue revenue bonds payable from the revenue or income of the system, utility or project to be constructed or installed with the proceeds of the bond issue, or payable in whole or in part from the proceeds received by the City from the imposition of a sales or use tax by the State of Colorado or any agency thereof. No bond shall be issued until the question of their issuance shall, at a general election, be submitted to a vote of the electors and approved by a majority of those voting on the question. Refunding Bonds The Council may authorize, by ordinance, without an election, issuance of refunding bonds or other like securities for the purpose of refunding and providing for the payment of the outstanding bonds or other like securities of the City of the same nature or in advance of maturity by means of an escrow or otherwise. Special or Local Improvement District Bonds The City shall have the power to create local improvement districts and to assess the cost of the construction or installation of special or local improvements against benefited property within designated districts in the City by: • Order of Council, subject, however, to protest by the owners of a majority of all property benefited and constituting the basis of assessment as the Council may determine. • A petition by the owners of more than fifty (50) percent of the area of the proposed district provided that such majority shall include not less than fifty (50) percent of the landowners residing in the territory. In either event, a public hearing shall be held at which all interested parties may appear and be heard. Right to protest and notice of public hearing shall be given as provided by Council by ordinance. Such improvements shall confer special benefits to the real property within said district and general benefits to the City. The Council shall have the power by ordinance to prescribe the method of making such improvements, of assessing the cost thereof and of issuing bonds for cost of constructing or installing such improvements including the costs incidental thereto. Bonds shall be authorized for issuance after approval by the registered electors in the district at a regularly scheduled election. Where all outstanding bonds of a special or local improvement district have been paid and any monies remain to the credit of the district, they shall be transferred to a special surplus and deficiency fund and whenever there is a deficiency in any special or local improvement district fund to meet the payments of outstanding bonds and interest due thereon, the deficiency shall be paid out of said 12 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P20 Vi'b urplus and deficiency fund. Whenever a special or local improvement district has paid and cancelled three-fourths of its bonds issued and for any reason the remaining assessments are not paid in time to take up the remaining bonds of the district and the interest due thereon and there is not sufficient monies in the special surplus and deficiency fund, then the City shall pay said bonds when due and the interest due thereon and reimburse itself by collecting the unpaid assessments due from said district. In consideration of general benefits conferred on the City from the construction or installation of improvements in improvement districts, the Council may levy annual taxes on all taxable property within the City at a rate not exceeding four (4) mils in any one year, to be disbursed as determined by the Council for the purpose of paying for such benefits, for the payment of any assessment levied against the City in connection with bonds issued for improvement districts or for the purpose of advancing monies to maintain current payments of interest and equal annual payments of the principal amount of bonds issued for any improvement district hereinafter created. The proceeds of such taxes shall be placed in a special fund and shall be disbursed only for the purposes specified herein, provided that in lieu of such tax levies, the Council may annually transfer to such special fund any available monies of the City, but in no event shall the amount transferred in any one year exceed the amount which would result from a tax levied in such year as herein limited. Long Term Installment Contracts, Rentals and Leaseholds In order to provide necessary land, buildings, equipment and other property for governmental or proprietary purposes, the City is hereby authorized to enter into long term installment purchase contracts and rental or leasehold agreements. Such agreements may include an option or options to purchase and acquire title to such property within a period not exceeding the useful life of such property and in no case exceeding forty (40) years. Each such agreement and the terms thereof shall be approved by an ordinance duly enacted by the City. The Council is authorized and empowered to provide for the payment of said payments or rentals from a general levy imposed upon both personal and real property included within the boundaries of the City, or by imposing rates, tolls and service charges for the use of such property or any part thereof by others, or from any other available municipal income or from any one or more of the above sources provided that nothing herein shall be construed to eliminate the necessity of voter approval of a tax or levy if otherwise required by this Charter. The obligation to make any payments or pay any rentals shall constitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of the Charter limitation on indebtedness. Property acquired or occupied pursuant to this Charter shall be exempt from taxation so long as used for authorized governmental or proprietary functions of the City. See Ordinance 12-1975. INTERFUND ADVANCES (INTERFUND LOANSI General Accounting Auditing and Financial Reporting (GAAFR) regulations denote that interfund advances, because they occur purely within a single governmental entity, do not regard the asset as an investment nor the liability as debt. This distinction qualifies these transactions as independent and unrelated to the traditional indebtedness and investment policies otherwise established in these financial policies. Therefore, with this clarification, interfund advances shall be a permissible mechanism for short-term "borrowing" between City funds, with the following parameters unless otherwise specified by City Council: • An internal borrowing rate shall be established and benchmarked to the treasury yield (for the applicable term) at the time of the initial loan arrangement. This will be a fixed rate for the duration of the advance. 13 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P21 • A term will be established at the commencement of an interfund advance. The term sha-V''b be set such that the borrowing fund can manage the annual debt service payments in tandem with meeting the financial reserve target as outlined in the City's financial policies. The maximum term shall not exceed 10 years. There shall also be no pre- payment penalty for early repayment of the advance. • The principal amount of the loan shall be established such that the existing 10 -year operational and capital plan for the lending fund is not adversely affected. The principal amount will be shown as an expense (as a transfer out and ultimately a reduction to fund balance) in the lending fund and will appear as a revenue (transfer in) for the fund receiving the advance. FUND BALANCES AND OPERATING RESERVES Adequate reserve levels are a necessary component of the City's overall financial management strategy and a key indicator of the City's financial health. A fund balance policy is necessary to ensure that City programs and current service levels are protected from changes in revenue growth or expenditure requirements. The GFOA recommends the establishment of a formal policy on the level of fund balance that should be maintained in the General Fund and encourages the adoption of similar policies for other types of Governmental Funds. It is the policy of the City to maintain a reserve in the General Fund of no less than twenty-five (25) percent of annual appropriated expenditures, including reoccurring transfers, at year end as identified in the LRP. The General Fund reserve may be drawn upon on recommendation of Staff with Council approval to compensate for an expected shortfall. A minimum reserve of five (5) percent of annual appropriated expenditures must remain at all times. Staff's recommendation to draw upon this reserve must include a replenishment schedule to begin within twelve months of the draw and result in full replenishment of the reserve requirement within thirty-six months of the draw. It is the policy of the City to maintain a reserve in the Wheeler Opera House Fund of no less than twenty-five (25) percent of annual appropriated expenditures, including reoccurring transfers, at year end as identified in the LRP. The Wheeler Opera House Fund reserve may be drawn upon on recommendation of Staff with Council approval to compensate for an expected shortfall. A minimum reserve of five (5) percent of annual appropriated expenditures must remain at all times. Staffs recommendation to draw upon this reserve must include a replenishment schedule to begin within twelve months of the draw and result in full replenishment of the reserve requirement within thirty-six months of the draw. It is the policy of the City to maintain a reserve in the Water Utility Fund and the Electric Utility Fund of no less than twenty-five (25) percent of annual appropriated expenditures, including reoccurring transfers, at year end as identified in the LRP. Water Utility Fund and Electric Utility Fund reserves may be drawn upon on recommendation of Staff with Council approval to compensate for an expected shortfall. A minimum reserve of five (5) percent of annual appropriated expenditures must remain at all times. Staff's recommendation to draw upon 14 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P22 V''b nese reserves must include a replenishment schedule to begin within twelve months of the draw and result in full replenishment of the reserve requirement within thirty-six months of the draw. It is the policy of the City to maintain a reserve in all other City Funds except for certain funds listed below of no less than twelve and a half (12.5) percent of annual appropriated expenditures, including reoccurring transfers but excluding large capital expenditures, at year end as identified in the LRP. The funds that are not part of this policy include: Asset Management Plan Fund, Housing Development Fund, Employee Housing Fund, City Tourism Promotion Fund, Aspen Public Education Fund, Debt Service Fund, Employee Health Insurance Fund and Information Technology Fund. These funds are excluded from the policy because they are capital project funds, Internal Service Funds or have a policy of having a zero fund balance. The reserve may be drawn upon on recommendation of Staff with Council approval to compensate for an expected shortfall. A minimum reserve of five (5) percent of annual appropriated expenditures must remain at all times. Staff's recommendation to draw upon this reserve must include a replenishment schedule to begin within twelve months of the draw and result in full replenishment of the reserve requirement within thirty-six months of the draw. GASB Statement No. 54 established fund balance classifications for governmental funds. The Statement requires the adoption of policies surrounding those fund balance classifications. In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund balance classifications including nonspendable resources, restricted amounts, committed amounts and assigned amounts. Only the General Fund reports unassigned amounts that have not been restricted, committed, or assigned to specific purposes within the General Fund. However, it may be necessary for other governmental funds to report negative fund balance as unassigned. The City Council must take formal action through resolution or ordinance to establish, modify or rescind committed fund balance amounts. The City Council has the authority to establish, modify or rescind assigned fund balance to a specific department or project within a fund. Fund balance classifications with the highest level of constraint are spent first; such that restricted fund balance is spent before unrestricted fund balance when an expenditure is incurred for which both restricted and unrestricted balances are available. Likewise, committed and assigned fund balances are spent before unassigned fund balance when an expenditure is incurred for which any such unrestricted fund balances are available. CARRYFORWARD SAVINGS The purpose of allowing carryforward savings is to provide an additional incentive for frugality by operating departments. Unlike traditional governments, which have a "use it or lose it" approach to annual operating budgets, Aspen's policy encourages departments to create savings in their annual operating budgets. Savings in annual operating budgets are distributed as follows: 50% of the savings are carried forward into the appropriate department's savings account. 10% is allocated to a Central Savings account. 40% is returned to the appropriate fund balance. 15 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P23 Carryforward Savings represent 50% of the previous year's operating budget savings from individu V1'b Departments or Funds. Departments and Funds are allocated these amounts as a reward to finding efficiencies in their operations that allow them to meet their operating goals while spending less than their appropriations. Prior year savings that are not expended are maintained in full and appropriated every year unless directed otherwise by the City Manager. These appropriations can be spent on items related to the Department's or Fund's mission but may not be used for ongoing expenditures. In addition, if a particular expenditure was denied as part of the budget process, departmental savings may not be used for this purpose without City Manager approval. If the expenditure is to exceed $10,000, the City Manager must authorize the expenditure. Departments and Funds can accrue these savings to a maximum of 15% of their operating budgets. Departments are expected to use their carryforward savings to fund small expenses needed to meet City Council's and citizen requests as is consistent with our "just say yes" management philosophy. In conjunction with the City's Outcome Measure program, the creation and use of operating savings is designed to emulate the incentives found in management of American small businesses. Department managers are expected to understand and measure their success in meeting customer expectations, and, through the carryforward savings program, have enough management flexibility to reasonably meet those expectations. Central Carryforward Savings represents 10% of the previous year's operating budget savings from all Departments and Funds. These appropriations are allocated to the City Manager's office for addressing issues with city-wide implications or to address unusual but necessary departmental expenses. 5 REVENUE POLICIES '� 5 5 The City maintains a balanced and diversified revenue structure to protect the City from fluctuations in any one source due to changes in local economic conditions, which may have an adverse impact. In order to maintain a stable level of services, the City shall use a conservative, objective and analytical approach when preparing revenue estimates. The process includes an analysis of probable economic changes and their impacts on revenues, historical collection rates and trends in revenue shortfalls. To ensure the City's revenues are balanced and capable of supporting the desired levels of services, the City has adopted the following revenue policy statements: • Revenue forecasts shall be conservative, using generally accepted forecasting techniques and appropriate data. • Each year, major revenues will be projected for at least the next ten (10) years. • The City will establish and maintain revenue sources that are diversified. Highly variable revenue sources shall be earmarked for uses that are flexible in timing and/or discretionary in need. • Each year and whenever appropriate, existing revenues will be re-examined and possible new sources of revenues will be explored to ensure that the City is balancing its revenue potential. • Each year and whenever appropriate, intergovernmental revenues will be reviewed to determine their short and long-term stability, to minimize the impact of any adverse changes. Intergovernmental revenues shall be used as legally prescribed or otherwise set forth by policy. • One-time revenues shall be used only for one-time expenditures and will not be used to 16 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P24 V1'b authorize on-going expenditures or programs. • The City will carefully and routinely monitor any amounts due. An aggressive policy of collection will be followed for all receivables, including taxes and fees. The City will fairly and uniformly administer the provisions of all tax and fee ordinances among citizens and businesses. This includes businesses located outside the City limits, but making regular deliveries into the City, home occupations, seasonal vendors and individual owners of short term rental accommodations. • Each year and whenever appropriate, the City will review its schedule of fees and related administrative procedures. The amount of a fee shall not exceed the overall cost of providing the facility, infrastructure or service for which the fee is imposed. In calculating that cost, direct or indirect costs may be included. That includes costs that are directly related to the provision of the service and support costs that are more general in nature but provide support for the provision of service. The City reviews all fees for licenses, permits, fines and other miscellaneous charges as part of the annual budgetary process. For programs where the City subsidizes operations, the revenues will be sufficient for the minimum stated recovery rate and/or dollar amount of subsidy. The recovery rate is defined as revenue as a percent of expenditures. The dollar subsidy is defined as expenditures less revenue. INVESTMENT POLICIES Purpose The purpose of this investment policy is to provide a guideline by which the funds that are not otherwise needed to meet the cash flow demands of the City of Aspen (the City) can best be invested. The objective of the investment portfolio is to earn the highest return for the City within the risk guidelines designed to provide maximum security, while maintaining sufficient liquidity to meet fluctuations in the City's cash flow needs. II. Scope This investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City as identified in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and all funds managed for the benefit of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). Investment income will be allocated to the various funds of the City and APCHA based upon their respective participation and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Interest will be allocated on a monthly basis. III. Standards of Care 1. Prudence: Investments shall be made with judgment and care — under circumstances then prevailing — which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment. The standard of prudence to be used is Standard IV A.1 of the Standards of Practice Handbook of the Association for Investment Management and Research (Appendix A). The Finance Director or his designee must exercise diligence and thoroughness in making investment recommendations or in taking investment actions; have a reasonable and adequate basis, supported by appropriate research and investigation, for such recommendations or actions; make reasonable and diligent efforts to avoid any material misrepresentation in any research 17 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P25 report or investment recommendation; and maintain appropriate records to support th V1'b reasonableness of such recommendations or actions. The investment officer shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes if he/she has acted in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy. 2. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest: The standard governing Ethics and Conflicts of Interest shall be Standard III(C) of the Standards of Practice Handbook of the Association for Investment Management and Research (Appendix B). The Finance Director, investment officer, or other must disclose to the City all matters, including beneficial ownership of securities or other investments that reasonably could be expected to interfere with their duty to the City or ability to make unbiased and objective recommendations. The receipt of gifts, gratuities, and travel expenses is governed by the guidelines of the Ethics Policy as adopted by the Aspen City Council on what they or other City Staff may accept from securities dealer firms. 3. Assignment of Responsibilities: Article VI, Section 6.8 of the Charter of the City of Aspen grants authority and ultimate responsibility for the investment management activities of the City to the Finance Director. The Finance Director may delegate any of the investment functions to another officer of the City (Investment Officer). The Finance Director shall establish written policy procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this policy. The procedures should include reference to; safekeeping, repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, banking service contracts and collateral/depository agreements. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Finance Director. The Finance Director will establish the day-to-day operating procedures for conducting the City's investment activities. He or she will be responsible for understanding the risks of the Investment Portfolio and establish the risk measurement and management process. In addition, he or she is responsible for making certain that a system of checks and balances is in place between the purchase/sale decision-making process and the settlement/reconcilement functions. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the investment activities, the Finance Director may employ outside vendors to make periodic appraisals of the City's investment program or to suggest specific investment alternatives. The Finance Director or his/her designee is authorized to execute security transactions for the City's Investment Portfolio within the limitations established by this policy. Should unexpected market conditions arise, the Finance Director or his designee may approve a transaction, which would not be in accordance with the Investment Policy but is necessary to protect the safety and liquidity of the City's investment portfolio, and is guided by Section 111.1 of this policy. Such transactions must be reported to the City Council at their next meeting. All securities transactions will be made in accordance with the City's overall interest rate risk profile and policy. Liquidity needs/constraints will also be taken into account when investment decisions are made. IV. Objectives 1. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the City shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall investment portfolio. To attain this objective, the City will diversify its investments by investing funds among a variety of securities and security types offering independent returns and financial institutions. 2. Liquidity The City's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which may be reasonably anticipated. A prudent reserve shall be maintained 18 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P26 V1'b to meet unanticipated cash requirements. 3. Return on Investments The City's investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a benchmark rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the City's investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. V. Safekeeping and Custody 1. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions The Finance Director or designee will maintain a list of authorized securities firms that have been approved for investment purposes. This list will include the established limits on unsettled trades, safekeeping arrangements, repurchase agreements, securities lending and borrowing, total credit risk with dealer, and any other transaction with default risk. This list of authorized securities dealers and their established limits will be reviewed annually, by Finance Staff. The Finance Director or designee will be responsible for obtaining sufficient knowledge about securities firms and personnel. Files will be maintained for all firms with which the City transacts investment business. These files will include: a) Financial data, annual reports and credit reports. b) Background data of the dealer's sales representative(s) with whom business will be conducted. C) Any information available from State or Federal regulators or securities industry self- regulatory organizations concerning any formal enforcement actions against the dealer, its affiliates, or associated personnel. d) Public deposit shall not be made except in a qualified public depository established by Colorado law. 2. Internal Controls The Finance Director or designee is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or misuse. The internal control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. Accordingly, the Finance Director or designee shall establish a process for an annual independent review by an external auditor to assure compliance with policies and procedures. The internal controls shall address the following points: e) Control of collusion f) Separation of transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping g) Custodial safekeeping h) Avoidance of physical delivery securities i) Clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members j) Written confirmation of transactions for investments and wire transfers k) Development of a wire transfer agreement with the lead bank and third -party custodian 3. Delivery vs. Payment All trades where applicable will be executed by delivery vs. payment (DVP) to ensure that securities are deposited in an eligible financial institution prior to the release of funds. Securities will be held by a third -party custodian as evidenced by safekeeping receipts. 19 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P27 VI. Performance Standards V1'b 1. Benchmark The City's investment strategy is active. Given this strategy, the basis used by the Finance Director to determine whether market yields are being achieved shall be to identify a comparable benchmark to the investment portfolio. Examples of benchmark rate return are the 90 day US Treasury Bill, 6 month US Treasury Bill or the average Federal Funds Rate. 2. Reporting Consistent with the City Charter, the Finance Director will provide monthly investment reports, to the City Manager and City Council, which provide a clear picture of the status of the current investment portfolio. The report should include comments on the fixed income markets and economic conditions, discussions regarding percentages of investments by categories, possible changes in portfolio structure and strategy going forward. VII. Statutory Investment Guidelines (Statute: Section 24-75-601, C.R.S.) 1. Custody of Investment Securities Unless otherwise stated, all investments must be held in the City's name, or in the custody of a third party on behalf of the City, or in a custodial account with an eligible public depository or securities firm on behalf of the City. 2. Maximum Maturity The maximum maturity date for all securities shall be no more than five years from the date of purchase unless otherwise authorized by the City Council, with exceptions noted under limitations included in Section VII, 4 of this policy. 3. Coupon Rate Fixed at Settlement Public funds shall not be invested in any security on which the coupon rate is not fixed from settlement until maturity, other than shares in qualified money market mutual funds, unless the coupon rate is established by reference to specified rate indices, such as the U.S. dollar London interbank offer rate ("LIBOR") of one year or less, or the rate for a U.S. Treasury security with a maturity of one year or less, or the rate of a municipal bond index, or to the cost of funds index, or the prime rate. (Section 24-75-601.1(1.3), C.R.S.) 4. Legal Investments of Public Funds (Statute: Section 24-75-601.1, C.R.S.) a) U.S. Treasury Bills and Notes b) Federal Farm Credit Bank c) Federal Land Bank d) Federal Home Loan Bank e) Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation f) Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) g) Export -Import Bank h) Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) i) Obligations of any other U.S. agency if control of agency by U.S. is at least as extensive as those investments mentioned above. j) Obligations of the World Bank, Inter -American Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, and the African Development Bank. k) Bonds of any state, District of Columbia, U.S. Territory, or any of their subdivisions. (This includes the State of Colorado and its related entities and Colorado Local Governments and their related entities.) Colorado based security must carry at least two credit ratings at or above "A" or its equivalent from nationally recognized statistical rating organizations; all other allowable non -Colorado based securities must carry at least two credit ratings at or above "AA" or its equivalent from such organizations at time of purchase. 20 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P28 V1'b 1) Bankers Acceptance issued by a state or national bank. Security must have a rating of "Al, P1, or F1" or their equivalents from at least two nationally recognized statistical rating agencies at the time of purchase. The bank must have combined capital and surplus of at least $250,000,000. Deposits must be FDIC insured. m) Commercial Paper. Security must have a rating of "Al, P1, or F1" or their equivalents from at least two nationally recognized statistical rating agencies at time of purchase. n) Any obligation, certificate of participation, or lease -purchase of the City of Aspen. o) Any interest in any local government investment pool pursuant to Section 24-75-701, et seq., C.R.S. See below. p) Repurchase Agreements in securities listed in a) through i). Securities of the U.S. Government or its agencies as listed above which must have a coupon rate that is fixed from the time of settlement until its maturity and must be marketable. Title or perfected security interest in securities must be transferred to the City or custodian. Securities must be actually delivered to the City or third -party custodian or trustee for safekeeping. Collateral securities must be collateralized at no less than 102% and marked to market no less than monthly. These investments may have a maturity in excess of five years. A master repurchase agreement must be signed with the bank or dealer. q) Money Market Funds. Must be registered as investment company. Fund investment policies include seeking to maintain a constant share price. No sales or load fee can be added to the purchase or redemption price. The fund invests only in securities that have a remaining maximum maturity as specified in rule 2a-7 of the federal "Investment Company Act of 1940," as long as such rule or amendment to it does not increase the maximum remaining maturity to a period greater than three years. The fund has assets of $1 billion or more, or has the highest credit rating from one or more nationally recognized rating agency. If the fund has assets of less than $1 billion or has a rating less than the highest credit rating from one or more nationally recognized rating agencies, then the fund's investments must consist only of securities listed a) through q) above; or perfected reverse repurchase agreements of less than 30 days relating to securities listed in a) through p) above; or securities not listed in a) through q) above that are tax-exempt if these do not exceed 15 percent of the investments of the fund; and the dollar -weighted average portfolio maturity of the fund meets the requirements of rule 2a-7 or amendments to it, so long as such rule or amendment to it does not increase the dollar -weighted average portfolio maturity to a period greater than 180 days. r) U.S. dollar-denominated corporate or bank debt. Must be issued by a corporation or bank organized and operated within the United States with a net worth in excess of $250,000,000; the notes must mature within three years and must carry at least two credit ratings not below "AA- or Aa3" or their equivalents; the book value of investment in this type of debt shall at no time exceed 30 percent of the book value of the City's investment portfolio, and not more than 5 percent of the book value of the City's investment portfolio if the notes are issued by a single corporation or bank. s) A securities lending agreement using securities authorized in a) through i). Must be entered into with a qualified provider that provides and maintains collateral with a mutually agreed upon custodian. Such collateral shall be in the form of cash or securities that are authorized investments for the public entity and have a value equal to 102% of the value of the securities lent by the public entity plus accrued interest. Corporate securities collateral shall have a value equal to 105% of the value of securities. Either the custodian or the qualified provider if verified by the custodian marks to market daily the value of the collateral. If all of 21 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P29 the collateral is cash, the difference in valuation need only be resolved if the collateral Yl.b less than 100% of the value of the securities. A minimum of 20% of investments purchased with cash collateral matures or is redeemable on any business day; an instrument guaranteed by the US government that has a variable interest rate set off of a money market index readjusted every 95 days has a maturity equal to the period remaining until the next readjustment of the interest rate; instrument issued by a corporation that has a variable rate of interest set off of a money market index readjusted every 95 days has a final maturity 30 days or an unconditional put back to the issuer 95 days; the maturity of fixed rate investments or repurchase agreements does not exceed 190 days; the investment maturity or reset date is not greater than 95 days. The securities lending agreement is approved and designated by written resolution duly adopted by a majority vote of the City Council, which resolution shall be recorded in its minutes. Securities that have been downgraded to levels below the minimum ratings required for purchase may be held or sold at the Finance Director's discretion. VIII. Collateralization will be required on purchases of certificates of deposit and repurchase (and reverse) agreements. In order to anticipate market changes and provide a level of security for all funds, the collateralization level will be 102% of par value of principal and accrued interest. Collateral will be held by an independent third party with whom the City has a current custodial agreement. A clearly marked evidence of ownership must be supplied to the City and retained. IX. Liquidity is the ability to generate cash at a reasonable cost to meet both expected and unexpected demand for funds from both the City and its vendors without disrupting routine operations or raising adverse questions from funds providers. Maintaining adequate liquidity is essential when conducting normal municipal activity and when providing for potential emergency situations. The City's liquidity position is measured by its capacity to generate funds. Adequate capacity is demonstrated by the ability to raise sufficient levels of cash promptly and at a reasonable cost. This can be accomplished through disposing of liquid assets, increasing short-term borrowing, issuing additional liabilities, decreasing holdings of non -liquid assets, increasing longer-term liabilities, or raising taxes. The goal is to maintain an adequate level of liquidity without impairing the long-term efficient use of the City's assets. 1. Measurement Since no single ratio can define adequate liquidity, the Finance Department will study several ratios to construct the most accurate picture of the state of the City's liquidity position. It is the City's intention to balance the need for liquidity with the need for interest income. The following are measures to assess trends in liquidity: In order to plan for and manage seasonal liquidity needs, liquidity measures will be monitored monthly. The Finance Director or designee will look at cash flows going forward and prepare best/worst case scenarios for funds necessary to meet the City's obligations. On a daily basis, the Finance Director or designee will review local and national economic factors that may affect the City's liquidity or funding needs. This review will include changes to the local economy, interest rate environment, local employment projections, and projected population changes. 22 V1.b FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P30 2. Administration The liquidity ratios are to be monitored at least monthly (if not weekly or daily). This will ensure that the City has adequate liquidity at all times and assist the Finance Director or designee in assessing trends which could adversely affect the liquidity of the City. 3. Sources of Liquidity The City's primary sources of liquidity are listed below: a) Available Cash Balances. b) Money Market Funds. Excess liquidity will be placed in Money Market Funds in compliance with and monitored under the Investment Policy. c) Maturing securities. The City will ladder its Investment Portfolio to make certain that securities are maturing in accordance with anticipated cash flow needs. The Finance Director or designee will be responsible for establishing a maturity ladder appropriate for the City. d) Investment Portfolio. Securities will be monitored for market value changes to identify viable options to be liquidated for liquidity needs. e) Maximum Maturities. To the extent possible, the City will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than five years from the date of purchase. However the City may collateralize its repurchase agreements using longer -dated investments not to exceed ten years to maturity. Reserve funds may be invested in securities exceeding ten years if the maturity of such investments is made to coincide as nearly as practicable with the expected use of the funds. 4. Liquidity Contingency Plan In the event that the Finance Director or designee anticipates changes in normal municipal operations, it must respond to potential liquidity problems in a thorough and organized manner. By developing a liquidity contingency plan, the City will be able to deal with a potential or real liquidity problem. Asset and liability management procedures should be followed to ensure that adequate cash sources are available and that minimal cash outflows occur. Also, any measures taken to manage liquidity should be in accordance with the parameters regarding interest rate risk. In the event of a liquidity shortfall, the City will generate cash to meet its obligations by undertaking one or all of the following steps (in this order): a) Utilize Available Cash Balances. Liquidate money market positions b) Utilize funds from maturing investments c) Liquidate investments provided their market value is close to book value The City Manager and City Council must be informed of any liquidity shortfall and provided with the details of the contingency plan. S. Other Considerations The liquidity management of the City must be made in harmony with the City's Interest Rate Risk Management processes. Any liquidity funding decisions made will directly affect the City's interest rate risk profile. The potential liquidity management decisions should be considered when evaluating the interest rate risk profile of the City. 23 FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT POLICIES P31 As mentioned above, the City's Investment Portfolio will be laddered to have sufficient maturities t V1'b match off against potential maturing liabilities. On an ongoing basis, the Investment Portfolio will be managed within the parameters of both the investment policy and the liquidity management needs of the City. 24 Vl.0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gena Buhler, Wheeler Executive Director THRU: Sara Ott, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: November 30, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 11, 2017 RE: Approval of Contract #2017-122: Wheeler Booking Broker REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approval of professional services contract between the City of Aspen/Wheeler Opera House and Professional Facilities Management (PFM) for annual booking broker services. Contract is in the amount of $100,000 (plus reimbursable expenses), with annual escalation of 3% over the preceding year should parties exercise option to renew (contract includes 3 one-year renew options). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: November 27, 2017 City Council approval of supplemental project as part of the on-going base operations budget beginning 2018. BACKGROUND: Due to growth of diverse programs at the Wheeler, Wheeler staff sought out services of a booking broker to support the large task of sourcing live acts for annual programming. Wheeler Executive Director maintains all authority over the budget and specific offers/deals and will curate the programming, via the services and support of the booking broker. Staff contracted with Professional Facilities Management for a pilot program in July 2017. The outcome of the pilot program included the successful booking of the upcoming Aspen Laugh Festival. DISCUSSION: An RFP was issued for these services in October 2017. Two qualified applicants submitted proposals: • Belly Up Aspen • Professional Facilities Management (PFM) The RFP committee (comprised of Wheeler staff and a member of the Wheeler Board of Directors) recommended that PFM be awarded the contract. PFM received the top score between both proposals. About Professional Facilities Management (PFM): Page 1 of 3 P32 P33 VI.0 PFM has been in operation since 1989 and is a boutique management, programming and consulting company with a very diverse client list. They operate, program, present, and book talent in 12 venues across the country — booking over 1,200 events annually. The events that they present and book cross all genres of programming including theatre (musicals and plays), concerts (pop, blues, rock, alternative, jazz, etc), comedy, family entertainment, and classical music. Their corporate philosophy is that events drive venues and that artistic expression and cultural experience are essential to a vibrant community. Top clients include: • Barbara B Mann Performing Arts Hall (Fort Myers, FL) I State subsidized I Capacity 1,753 • Coral Springs Center for the Arts (Coral Springs, FL) City Facility I Capacity 1,456 • Providence Performing Arts Center (Providence, RI) 1928 Historic Facility I Capacity 3,200 • North Shore Center for the Performing Arts (Skokie, IL) I Municipal Facility I Capacities 860 & 350 • Vilar Performing Arts Center (Beaver Creek, CO) Non -Profit Facility I Capacity 557 Top management of PFM bring over 35 years of experience in programming and venue management to the services of the Wheeler Opera House. All booking operations are handled out of their corporate office (Providence, RI), giving them the advantage of booking and presenting a volume of entertainment. This often results in first calls on limited tours and better pricing on acts since PFM has a larger scope of knowledge on pricing across its markets. PFM has an influential booking department, but it makes no independent decisions on programming without the research/analysis of historical data on acts, current marketing research on the act, and total buy -in from the Wheeler Executive Director. PFM attends industry booking conferences (at no extra cost to the Wheeler) to discuss programming for the upcoming seasons. Conferences include regional and national conferences. Belly Up Aspen & Wheeler Relationship Following the decision of the RFP committee, both entities discussed formalizing their relationship as it relates to working in a non-competitive and collaboration way. Both entities agree that a relationship of collaboration is beneficial not only to both business models but to the Aspen community at large. The missions of each entity are different, the common goal of bringing quality music to Aspen and the great Roaring Fork Valley is a shared goal. Working together instead of against each other limits direct competition between public and private venues, and dissuades artist agents/representatives from creating a bidding war between each venue. This understanding is currently being finalized and will be presented to Council in the coming weeks. RFP Committee Decision The vast industry experience of PFM, as well as programming in a similar Colorado market, will bring expertise to the Wheeler that will help the programs to continue to grow, while providing key support and due diligence. Belly Up Aspen is well respected within the concert and comedy industry (as well as by Wheeler staff), but the experience with more similar diverse performing arts programming is better provided by PFM. Page 2 of 3 Vl.0 FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: This contract is competitive within all applications. The full contract will be paid out of the Wheeler Base Operations budget as approved beginning January 1, 2018, with no additional funding increase being requested. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of the professional services contract with Professional Facilities Management (PFM). ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives are limited. Should Council not choose to approve this contract, staff would issue another RFP to search for a new qualified candidate. PROPOSED MOTION: Approval of Contract #2017-122. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Page 3 of 3 P34 P35 Vl.0 RESOLUTION # 168 (Series of 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PROFESSIONAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for performing arts focused programming/booking and contracting services, between the City of Aspen and Professional Facilities Management Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for performing arts focused programming/booking and contracting services, between the City of Aspen and Professional Facilities Management Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of December 2017. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, December 11, 2017 Linda Manning, City Clerk Vl.c CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT V 2009 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The City olAspen City of Aspen Contract No.: 2017-122. AGREEMENT made as of I Ith day of December, in the year BETWEEN the City: The City of Aspen c/o Wheeler Opera House 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920-5079 And the Professional: Professional Facilities Management Inc. c/o Norbert Mongeon 220 Weybosset Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Phone: 401-421-2997 For the Following Project: Contract Amount: Total: $100,000.00 If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. City Council Approval: Date: December 11, 2017 Resolution No.: Performing arts focused programming/booking and contracting services for the Wheeler Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: Scope of Work. Exhibit B: Fee Schedule. The City and Professional agree as set forth below. Agreement Professional Services Page 0 P36 1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than December 31 2018 with three one-year options to renew. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. PMMent. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set forth in Exhibit B. 4. Non -Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub -Contracting is not authorized. 5. Intentionally Omitted 6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, . and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with Agreement Professional Services Page 1 P37 Vl.0 V' .0 respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indernnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, to the extent and for an amount represented by the degree or percentage such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the wrongful act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands of parties other than the City. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims -made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of ONE DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each accident, ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) disease - policy limit, and ONE MILLION DOLLARS Agreement Professional Services Page 2 i ($1,000,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) each occurrence and TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non - owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided to the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be Agreement Professional Services Page 3 P39 aM 4V, V I . C repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $350,000.00 per person and $990,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper- ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Risk Management Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 12.., Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above. 13. Non -Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) Agreement Professional Services Page 4 Z1 following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. Illegal Aliens — CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101_ (a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. (b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. "Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. "Public Contract for Services" means this Agreement. "Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. (c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and (ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not illegal aliens. (d) Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. Agreement Professional Services Page 5 P41 Vl.0 Vl.0 (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional's violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. Agreement Professional Services Page 6 P42 P43 (ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 16. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Professional warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Professional for the purpose of securing business. (b) Professional agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (d) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Professional, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Professional; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 17. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. Agreement Professional Services Page 7 1, t1ti Vl'C (b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. 18. Electronic Signatures and Electronic Records This Agreement and any amendments hereto may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on the Parties, notwithstanding the possible event that all Parties may not have signed the same counterpart. Furthermore, each Party consents to the use of electronic signatures by either Party. The Scope of Work, and any other documents requiring a signature hereunder, may be signed electronically in the manner agreed to by the Parties. The Parties agree not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of the Agreement solely because it is in electronic form or because an electronic record was used in its formation. The Parties agree not to object to the admissibility of the Agreement in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic documents, or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on the ground that it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in its original form or is not an original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date first written above. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: [Signature] By: [Name] Title: Date: Title: 1 , c, Date: Agreement Professional Services Page 8 P45 VI.0 Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office Agreement Professional Services Page 9 Vl'C EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Professional Facilities Management Inc. (PFM) will provide performing arts focused programming/booking and contracting services (live acts) for Wheeler Opera House (WOH) programming and comedy festivals. Annually PFM will book a minimum of 36 mainstage events from September to August, plus a smaller fall and summer series of an estimated 12 acts, plus an additional mix of 14 —16 comedians for the annual Aspen Laugh Festival. More specifically, PFM will be responsible for: • Offering, on a timely basis, a broad range of programming opportunities as needed based on the programming and series calendars (including targeted series completion dates). Services include recommendation of appropriate opportunities in the form of budgets reflecting risk/reward for a particular act/show along with information on the act's past performance when applicable and PFM's history with the act in other facilities. Upon request from WOH, PFM staff will also pursue requested acts and perform a similar analysis. • Use and make available (at no additional cost) its proprietary event software system (Oz), providing access to the WOH Executive Director and appropriate staff to track events and access all required digital documents (act offers, correspondence, confirmations, contracts, etc). • Provide contract/rider review of each confirmed act, returned to the Wheeler in a timely manner for final approval and signature. ■ Provide administrative support for agency contacts for marketing collateral, VIP ticketing agreements, and any other deal specific points as needed (can be via database system or via direct staff support). • Provide ongoing support through settlement of each event, including being available on holidays/weekends as needed should an act cancel or want to re- negotiate terms on the event / festival day. The PFM programming team will communicate with the Wheeler Opera House staff regularly by email or phone and will, upon request of WOH Executive Director, travel to Aspen to meet with staff or be on site for key events. PFM will schedule monthly recap/discussion calls to review any open items that may be of concern to either party. Agreement Professional Services Page 10 P47 EXHIBIT B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT V' .0 Fee Schedule The City shall pay PFM $100,000 annually for services provided. Billing will be on a monthly or quarterly basis. Payment due Net 30. First payment will be on February 1, 2018 for $10,000. Subsequent billing of $10,000 per month on the first of each month, ending November 1, 2018. If travel is requested, the City will reimburse the out-of-pocket air, ground, lodging, and meals required for travel. Travel expense estimates will be provided to the Wheeler Opera House Executive Director for advance approval. Should the City and PFM choose to exercise the option to renew the contract for an additional year, the fee will increase 3% over the preceding year. Notice to renew will be given no later than September 1 each year. There are three (3) one-year options to renew. Agreement Professional Services Page 11 VIA MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Resolution #171, Series of 2017 - Temporary Use Extension Obermeyer Place, 101 Founders Place Units 104 & 105 MEETING DATE: December 11, 2017 SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Capital Asset Department is requesting an extension of a temporary use approval granted by City Council in 2014 via Resolution No. 103, Series of 2014. A condition of the approval allows annual extensions to be granted by motion of City Council. DISCUSSION: In September 2014, City Council approved a Temporary Use Review to allow the Aspen Police Department offices in two of the units at Obermeyer Place (Units 104 & 105). Office uses are not a permitted use in these spaces under the current zoning and Planned Development, requiring a temporary use approval. The original approval was granted for three years, and upon conclusion of the three years, annual extensions may be granted by motion of City Council. Extensions shall not require additional public hearings unless so determined by City Council. It is anticipated that the new police station will be completed by summer of 2018. The Asset Department is requesting to extend the temporary use until March 2020 to allow for continued use by the police department through construction and to allow use of that space by other City departments during the duration of construction for the new City offices at Galena Plaza. It is anticipated that once the new City offices are complete that this space will no longer be needed for city operations. RECOMMENDATION: City use of the space as an office has been ongoing for approximately 3 years. The use has not resulted in any complaints and has operated in conformance with the applicable temporary use review criteria. Staff recommends approval of the request, as the continued use as offices is consistent with the original temporary use approval. 1 210 W. Main Street Staff memo 12.5.2017 MR RESOLUTION NO. 171 (SERIES OF 2017) VIA A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT EXTENSION AT 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNITS 104 & 105, ASPEN, COLORADO. ParceIIDs: 2737-073-05-010, 2737-073-05-011 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.450 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant, The City of Aspen, a municipal corporation, has submitted an application for a Temporary Use Permit extension to operate a portion of the Police Department and other City department functions at 101 Founders Place, Units 104 & 105; and, WHEREAS, the location is a commercial condominium partially located in the Service Commercial Industrial Zone District and partially located in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council previously granted a temporary use permit via Resolution No. 103, Series of 2014 for a period of three years, of which annual extensions may be granted by motion of City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the temporary use application, finds it to be in compliance with the review criteria of Chapter 26.450, and recommends that the City Council approve the temporary use permit extension; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the temporary use extension request 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 public hearing; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the proposed temporary use is consistent with the character and existing land uses of the surrounding parcels and neighborhood and that granting an extension of the temporary use permit will not adversely impact the community or the neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the temporary use extension request meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Aspen City Council Resolution No. 171, Series 2017 Page 1 of 2 VIA Section 1: Temporary Use Extension In accordance with Section 26.450.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, does hereby grant a temporary use permit extension to operate a portion of the City of Aspen Police Department, or other City of Aspen departments at 101 Founders Place, Units 104 and 105 through March 31, 2020. Section 2: Approval Conditions 1. Signage allowance shall be in accordance with City of Aspen Signage regulations and applicable regulations of the Obermeyer Place Condominium Association. 2. Upon conclusion of the approved temporary use time period, annual extensions of the temporary use may be granted by motion of City Council, not to extend beyond September 8, 2024. Extensions shall not require additional public hearing unless so determined by the City Council. Section 3: Severability 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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. 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. FINALLY, Adopted, Passed, and Approved on this l I th day of December, 2017. APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, City Attorney ATTEST: Linda Manning, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Steven Skadron, Mayor Aspen City Council Resolution No. 171, Series 2017 Page 2 of 2 P50 P51 VLe MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tyler Christoff P.E., Deputy Director of Utilities THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities Jim True, City Attorney DATE OF MEMO: December 1, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 11, 2017 RE: Resolution #172, Series of 2017 - BLM communications use lease approval — Hunter Creek REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council approval of the Bureau of Land Management communication use lease for the Hunter Creek communications site. BACKGROUND: In 2014, the Communications Board, made up of representatives from the mid to upper valley public safety agencies identified major issues in coverage and interoperability in the Public Safety Radio System. Based on recommendations from the Communications Board, the City and County, in partnership with the State of Colorado committed to migrating to the state-wide digital trunked radio system (DTRS) by 2017. Through this process, Aspen's Hunter Creek Water Treatment facility was identified as a logical location for communication infrastructure as it provides in -town coverage to the City of Aspen and beyond. While, Aspen currently holds a long-term lease with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for this parcel it does not cover use of the site for communications infrastructure. The BLM requested the City enter into a specific rent exempt "communications use lease" agreement to memorialize the new site infrastructure. DISCUSSION: Staff and the City attorney have reviewed this agreement (Exhibit A) and believe that the City and its partner Pitkin County meet the outlined responsibilities of the lessee. If this facility continues to be utilized for the public benefit of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County the Bureau of Land Management have agreed to a rent exempt agreement. This lease agreement specifically permits the following installations and use on the BLM site: • A 3 -foot diameter microwave dish attached to side of existing structure Page 1 of 2 VLe • Use of the existing 40 -foot -wide by 16 -foot -long existing structure with 80 square foot communication room. • 50 kW natural gas fired back-up generator • Ancillary 1" gas line to service generator • Ancillary access road Staff believes that this agreement properly memorializes the use of communication infrastructure on the existing Hunter Creek site. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approval of Resolution 172, Series 2017, approving a communication use lease between the City of Aspen and the Bureau of Land Management for the Hunter Creek communications site. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Bureau of Land Management — Communication Use Lease Page 2 of 2 P52 P53 VLe RESOLUTION # 172 (Series of 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID LEASE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a lease for communications use, between the City of Aspen and Bureau of Land Management, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that a lease for communications use, between the City of Aspen and Bureau of Land Management, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of December, 2017. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, September 11, 2017. Linda Manning, City Clerk P54 VLe Form 2800-18 (Revised March 2004) City of Aspen (Lessee Name) (Billing Address -2) THE UNITED STATES Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management COMMUNICATIONS USE LEASE Aspen CO (City) (ST) Issuing Office LLCON04000 Serial Number COC 78639 of 130 S. Galena Street (Billing Address - 1) 81611 (Zip Code) THIS LEASE, dated this day of 12017, by and between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting through the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior (hereinafter called the "United States" or "Bureau of Land Management"), as authorized by the Act of October 21, 1976, and implementing regulations (90 Stat. 2743; 43 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.; 43 CFR 2800), and City of Aspen, its agents, successors, and assigns (hereinafter called the "Lessee"). The United States and the Lessee are jointly referred to herein as the "Parties." As used herein, the "Authorized Officer" refers to the Bureau of Land Management official having the delegated authority to execute and administer this lease. Generally, unless otherwise indicated, such authority may be exercised by the Field Manager or District Manager for the public lands wherein the following described lands are located. The United States, for and in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein and the payment to the United States of a rental in advance by the Lessee, does hereby grant to the Lessee a lease for the following described lands in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado T. 10 S., R. 84 W., sec. 7, lot 22. (hereinafter called the "property"). The Lessee accepts this lease and possession of the property, subject to any valid existing rights, and agrees not to use the property, or any part thereof, except as a site for only the construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of a communications facility. The location of the property is shown generally on the site plan for the Hunter Creek Communications Site, which is attached and made part hereof as Attachment A. The facilities specifically authorized under this lease are shown on the plat contained in Attachment B. Facilities specifically authorized by this lease are: • 1 (1) three (3) foot microwave dish attached to side of existing structure • 40 foot wide by 16 foot long existing structure with 80 square foot communication room. • 50 kW natural gas fired back-up generator • Ancillary 1" gas line to service generator • Ancillary access road The dated and initialed exhibit(s), attached hereto, are incorporated into and made a part of this instrument as fully and effectively as if they were set forth herein in their entirety. The parties agree that this lease is made subject to the following terms and conditions. P55 VLe I. TENURE, RENEWAL AND TRANSFERABILITY A. This lease will terminate at one minute after midnight on 12/31/2046. Termination at the end of the lease term occurs by operation of law and does not require any additional notice or documentation by the Authorized Officer. This lease is not renewable; but the Lessee has the right to request a new lease pursuant to paragraph "C" below. B. The Lessee will undertake and pursue with due diligence the operation that is authorized by this lease. To the extent specified in Attachment A, B, and stipulations. This lease will terminate if operation does not commence by that date, unless the parties agree in writing, in advance, to an extension of the commencement date. C. If the Lessee desires a new lease upon termination of this lease, the Lessee must notify the Authorized Officer accordingly, in writing. The notice must be received by the Authorized Officer at least one year prior to the end of the lease term. The Authorized Officer will determine if the use should continue and, if it is to continue, if a new lease should be issued to the Lessee and under what conditions. The Authorized Officer will require payment of any amounts owed the United States under any Bureau of Land Management authorization before issuance of another authorization. D. This lease is assignable with prior written approval of the Authorized Officer. Renting of space does not constitute an assignment under this clause. II. RENTAL A. The Lessee must pay in advance an annual rental determined by the Authorized Officer in accordance with law, regulation, and policy. The annual rental will be adjusted by the Authorized Officer to reflect changes in fair market value, annual adjustments using the Consumer Price Index -Urban (CPI -U), changes in tenant occupancy, or phase-in of rental, if applicable. B. After the initial rental period rental payments are due at the close of the first business day after January 1 of each calendar year for which a payment is due. Payments due the United States for this use must be received at the Bureau of Land Management office as noted on the billing statement in the form of a check or money order payable to Bureau of Land Management/DOI. Credit card payments (VISA and MasterCard) can be made in person, through the mail, or by telephone. This lease will terminate automatically if accrued rent is not received by the Bureau of Land Management within 90 calendar days after the initial due date for the payment of such rent. C. Pursuant to the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 3717, et seq, regulations at 7 CFR Part 3, Subpart B and 4 CFR Part 102, an interest charge will be assessed on any amount due but not received by the due date. Interest will accrue from the date the payment was due. Administrative costs will also be assessed in the event that two or more billing notices are required for unpaid accounts. In addition, an administrative penalty at a percentage rate prescribed bylaw or regulation will be assessed for failure to pay any portion of the debt that is more than 90 days past due. This paragraph survives the termination of this lease, regardless of cause. Other late fee charges may be assessed in accordance with standard BLM accounting procedures and policy D. Disputed rentals are due and payable on or before the due date. III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LESSEE A. The Lessee is authorized to rent space and provide other services to customers and/or tenants and must charge each customer/tenant a reasonable rental without discrimination for the use and occupancy of the facilities and services provided. The Lessee must impose no unreasonable restrictions nor any restriction restraining competition or trade practices. By October 15th of each year, the Lessee must provide the Authorized Officer a certified statement, listing all tenants and customers, by category of use, located within the facility on September 30th of that year. B. All development, operation and maintenance of the authorized facility, improvements, and equipment located on the property must be in accordance with stipulations in the communications site plan approved by the Authorized Officer. If required by the Authorized Officer, all plans for development, layout, construction, or alteration of improvements on the property as well as revisions of such P56 VLe plans, must be prepared by a licensed engineer, architect, and or landscape architect. Such plans must be approved in writing by the Authorized Officer before commencement of any work. After completion, as -built plans, maps, surveys, or other similar information will be provided to the Authorized Officer and appended to the communications site plan. C. The Lessee must comply with applicable Federal, State, county, and municipal laws, regulations and standards for public health and safety, environmental protection, siting, construction, operation, and maintenance in exercising the rights granted by this lease. The obligations of the Lessee under this lease are not contingent upon any duty of the Authorized Officer, or other agent of the United States, to inspect the premises. A failure by the United States, or other governmental officials, to inspect is not a defense to noncompliance with any of the terms or conditions of this lease. Lessee waives all defenses of laches or estoppel against the United States. The Lessee must at all times keep the title of the United States to the property free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. D. Use of communications equipment is contingent upon the possession of a valid Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or Director of Telecommunications Management/Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (DTM/IRAC) authorization (if required), and the operation of the equipment is in strict compliance with applicable requirements of FCC or IRAC. A copy of each applicable license or authorization must at all times be maintained by the Lessee for each transmitter being operated. The Lessee must provide the Authorized Officer, when requested, with current copies of all licenses for equipment in or on facilities covered by this lease. E. The Lessee must ensure that equipment within his or her facility (including tenant and customer equipment) operates in a manner which will not cause harmful interference with the operation of existing equipment on or adjacent to the communications site. If the Authorized Officer or authorized official of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determines that the Lessee's use interferes with existing equipment, the Lessee must promptly take the necessary steps to eliminate or reduce the harmful interference to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer or FCC official. F. When requested by the Authorized Officer, the Lessee must furnish technical information concerning the equipment located on the property. IV. LIABILITIES A. The Lessee assumes all risk of loss to the authorized improvements. B. The Lessee must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and standards, including but not limited to, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Control, and Liability Act, 42 U.S. C. 9601 et seq., and other relevant environmental laws, as well as public health and safety laws and other laws relating to the siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of any facility, improvement, or equipment on the property. C. The Lessee must indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless for any violations incurred under any such laws and regulations or for judgments, claims, or demands assessed against the United States in connection with the Lessee's use or occupancy of the property. The Lessee's indemnification of the United States must include any loss by personal injury, loss of life or damage to property in connection with the occupancy or use of the property during the term of this lease. Indemnification must include, but is not limited to, the value of resources damaged or destroyed; the costs of restoration, cleanup, or other mitigation; fire suppression or other types of abatement costs; third party claims and judgments; and all administrative, interest, and other legal costs. This paragraph survives the termination or revocation of this lease, regardless of cause. D. The United States has no duty, either before or during the lease term, to inspect the property or to warn of hazards and, if the United States inspects the property, it will incur no additional duty nor any liability for hazards not identified or discovered through such inspections. This paragraph survives the termination or revocation of this lease, regardless of cause. E. The Lessee has an affirmative duty to protect from damage the land, property, and interests of the United States. F. In the event of any breach of the lease by the Lessee, the Authorized Officer may, on reasonable notice, cure the breach at the expense of the Lessee. If the Bureau of Land Management at any time pays any sum of money or does any act which requires payment of money, or incurs any expense, including reasonable attorney's fees, in instituting, prosecuting, and/or defending any action or proceeding to enforce the United States rights hereunder, the sum or sums so paid by the United States, with all interests, costs and damages will, at the election of the Bureau of Land Management, be deemed to be additional rental hereunder and will be due from the Lessee to the Bureau of Land Management on the first day of the month following such election. P57 VLe V. OTHER PROVISIONS A. Nondiscrimination. The Lessee must at all times operate the described property and its appurtenant areas and its buildings and facilities, whether or not on the property, in full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the regulations issued thereunder by the Department of the Interior and in effect on the date this lease is granted to the end that no person in the United States will, on the grounds of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any of the programs or activities provided thereon. B. Termination and Suspension. 1. General. For purposes of this lease, termination and suspension refer to the cessation of uses and privileges under the lease. "Termination" refers to an action by the Authorized Officer to end the lease because of noncompliance with any of the prescribed terms, abandonment, or for reasons in the public interest. Termination also occurs when, by the terms of the lease, a fixed or agreed upon condition, event, or time occurs. For example, the lease terminates at expiration. Termination ends the Lessee's right to use the public land for communication purposes. "Suspension" is a temporary action and the privileges may be restored upon the occurrence of prescribed actions or conditions. 2. This lease may be suspended or terminated upon breach of any of the terms or conditions herein or upon nonuse, or when in the public interest. Nonuse refers to a failure to operate consistently the facilities on the property for any period during the term in excess of 180 days. When suspended or terminated in the public interest, the Lessee will be compensated subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Compensation will be based upon the initial cost of improvements located on the lease, less depreciation as allocated over the life of the improvements as evidenced by the Lessee's Federal tax amortization schedules. 3. Except in emergencies, or in case of nonuse, the Authorized Officer will give the Lessee written notice of the grounds for termination or suspension and a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days, to complete the corrective action. After the prescribed period, the Bureau of Land Management is entitled to such remedies as are provided herein. 4. Any discretionary decisions or determinations by the Authorized Officer on termination or suspension are subject to appeal in accordance with the regulations in Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations. C. Restoration 1. In the event the Authorized Officer decides not to issue a new lease, or the Lessee does not desire a new lease, the Lessee must, prior to the termination of this lease, restore and stabilize the site to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer. 2. In the event this lease is revoked for noncompliance, the Lessee must remove all structures and improvements within a reasonable period as determined by the Authorized Officer, except those owned by the United States, and must restore the site as nearly as reasonably possible to its original condition unless this requirement is otherwise waived in writing by the Authorized Officer. 3. If the Lessee fails to remove all structures or improvements within the prescribed period, they will become the property of the United States and may be sold, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of without any liability to the United States. D. Members of Congress. No member of or Delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner may benefit from this lease either directly or indirectly, except when the lease provides a general benefit to a corporation. E. Reservations. This lease is granted subject to the following reservations by the United States: 1. The right to all natural resource products now or hereafter located on the property unless stated otherwise herein, and the VLe right to obtain, utilize, or dispose of such resources insofar as the rights and possession of the Lessee are not unreasonably affected. 2. The right to modify the communications site plan as deemed necessary. 3. The right to enter upon the lease and inspect all facilities to assure compliance with the conditions of this lease. 4. The right of the United States to use or to authorize the use of the property for compatible uses, including the subsurface and air space. In the event of any conflict between any of the proceeding printed clauses or any provisions thereof and any of the following clauses or any provision thereof, the preceding printed clauses control. ACCEPTED this day of accept the terms and conditions of this lease. Mi , 20 , I, the undersigned have read, understand and Lessee IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bureau of Land Management, by its Authorized Officer, has executed this lease on the day and year first written above. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Signature of Authorized Officer) Gloria Tibbetts (Printed Name of Authorized Officer) Acting Field Manager (Title of Authorized Officer) (Date) P59 VIJ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Andy Rossello, Project Manager II THRU: Ryan Loebach, Senior Project Manager Tyler Christoff, Deputy Director of Utilities Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities DATE OF MEMO: December 4, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 11, 2017 RE: Resolution #159 of 2017 Contract with Holy Cross Energy - Highlands Pump Station Electrical Service/Supply REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City staff requests approval of a contract with Holy Cross Energy (HCE) in the amount of $53,900.00 to fund electrical infrastructure that provides electricity to the City's Highlands Pump Station (PS). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On October 9th, 2017 City Council approved a construction contract with Gould Construction Inc. via Resolution #134 of 2017 for the Highlands PS. Construction began on October 16th, 2017 with the addition of a concrete and masonry superstructure which is nearing completion. BACKGROUND: A site specific bid -ready project was created in collaboration with Merrick & Company, to modify the existing infrastructure from a pressure regulating valve vault to a pump station, and add a superstructure to house pumps and electrical controls. During the design of this project, City and HCE staff concluded that sufficient three-phase power was available at a nearby splice vault. During initial site work, City staff and Gould Construction Inc. personnel contacted HCE to install electrical infrastructure as discussed. At that time, HCE determined that three-phase power would be unavailable from the splice vault, and a new three-phase power source would be required. This new power source will be provided from an existing transformer located at an adjacent property near the Highlands PS. A new looped, electrical cable and conduit system is required to transmit that power to the Highlands PS for the budget amount requested. DISCUSSION: The City proposes utilizing HCE's existing system to accomplish this electrical installation, but additional wiring and transformers are costs borne by the customer. Three-phase power is a necessary requirement for pumping that will ultimately increase water system reliability and redundancy by providing multiple delivery routes of water through the system. Page 1 of 2 VIJ FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: HCE is the local electric utility provider for the area in question. HCE have provided staff a contract/cost estimate (Attachment A) and a Trench, Conduit, Vault Agreement (Attachment B). The initial cost estimate is $49,000. City staff proposes utilizing remaining project funds along with remaining funds from the Storage Tank and Pump System Maintenance budget to fund these electrical improvements. Proposed Expenditures HCE proposal for three-phase electric service $49,000.00 Contingency $4,900.00 Total $53,900.00 Proposed Funding Project 50136 —Highlands PRV to Pump Station Conversion $43,900.00 Storage Tank and Pump System Maintenance $10,000.00 Total $53,900.00 RECOMMENDED ACTION: City staff requests a contract with HCE in the amount of $53,900.00 to fund electrical infrastructure that provides electricity to the City's Highlands Pump Station Facility. ALTERNATIVES: Potential alternatives for electric service include extending City power to the site from the Aspen Recreational Center with preliminary cost estimate of approximately $ 500,000. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #159, Series of 2017. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A. Contract with Holy Cross Energy B. Trench, Conduit, and Vault Agreement C. Resolution Number 159, Series of 2017 Page 2 of 2 '.1 P61 VIJ RESOLUTION #159 (Series of 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND HOLY CROSS ENERGY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for Highlands Pump Station Electrical, between the City of Aspen and Holy Cross Energy, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for Highlands Pump Station Electrical, between the City of Aspen and Holy Cross Energy, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of December 2017. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, December 11, 2017. Linda Manning, City Clerk I November 13, 2017 City of Aspen Attn: Andy Rossello 130 S Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Glen Eagles City 3 Phase Dear Mr. Rossello, P62 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • P.O. DRAWER 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081 Holy Cross Energy has completed a design and cost estimate for providing electric service to the above referenced project, hereinafter the "Project". Our facilities will be installed as shown on the attached sketch. The owner or developer of the subject Project is hereinafter referred to as the "Owner". The estimated cost of construction is as follows: Total estimated cost of underground construction $ 50,000.00 Construction deposit consisting of equivalent overhead credits (refundable) $44,000.00 Standard Construction Allowance $0,000) Contribution in aid of construction (non-recoverable) $ 6,000.00 Estimates Cost - Amount Due After Final Account Calculations $49,000.00 The above figures are only estimates. After the job has been completed, the actual cost of construction will be determined. The Owner's contribution and deposit will be adjusted to reflect the actual cost by making a refund or further assessment. Execution of this document constitutes the Owner's agreement to pay any further assessment in a timely manner. Adjusted construction deposits are available for refund over a ten year period as specified by Holy Cross Energy's Line Extension Policy. Refunds will be paid to City of Aspen unless otherwise directed in writing. Our power facilities will be installed in the Glen Eagles Right -of -Way, which is in the jurisdiction of Pitkin County. Please provide written approval showing that Pitkin County is in agreement with the transformer being located in their road right-of-way. If not, the transformer will need to be located within the 5' lot line easements on Lot 20. The following conditions are hereby noted: A "General Services Load Form" must be submitted for this project. This form is available on-line and can be found by visiting www.holycross.com. Holy Cross Energy has implemented a policy which requires that the Owner provide all excavation, backfill, compaction and cleanup needed for installation of the underground power system extension to serve the Project. The Owner must also set all vaults and install all conduits as specified by Holy Cross Energy's design for the Project and the enclosed construction specifications. Holy Cross Energy will supply all material which can be picked up by the Owner at A Touchstone Energy® Cooperative*`)k` City of Aspen November 13, 2017 Page Two the appropriate storage yard. The cost of this material is included in the job cost estimate. The attached Trench Agreement must be properly executed by the Owner and returned prior to the start of excavation. No excavation will be undertaken within five (5) feet of existing underground power lines except under the on-site supervision of a Holy Cross Energy employee. 4. It shall be the Owner's responsibility to ensure that splice vaults, switchgear vaults and transformer vaults installed hereunder for the Project are accessible by Holy Cross boom trucks and other necessary equipment and personnel at all times. The use of such access by Holy Cross shall not require removal or alteration of any improvements, landscaping, or other obstructions. The ground surface grade shall not be altered within ten (10) feet of said splice, switchgear and transformer vaults, nor along the power line route between the vaults. The ground surface grade at said transformer and switchgear vaults shall be six (6) inches below the top of the pad. The ground surface grade at said splice vaults shall be even with the top of the pad. The manhole opening of said splice vaults shall be uncovered (excluding snow) and accessible at all times. Improvements, landscaping or any other objects placed in the vicinity of said transformers and switchgear shall be located so as not to hinder complete opening of the equipment doors. The ground surface within ten (10) feet of said transformer and switchgear doors shall be flat, level and free of improvements, landscaping, and other obstructions. Improvements, landscaping and other objects will be kept a minimum of four (4) feet from non -opening sides and backs of said transformers and switchgear. Owner hereby agrees to maintain the requirements of this paragraph and further agrees to correct any violations which may occur as soon as notified by Holy Cross Energy. Said corrections will be made at the sole cost and expense of Owner. 5. Secondary voltage available will be 277/480v, three-phase. 6. Secondary facilities shall be installed in accordance with National Electrical Code and Holy Cross Energy specifications. All meter locations must be approved. Any service over 200 amps or 240 volts must have prior written approval from Holy Cross Energy. 7. It will be the Owner's responsibility to extend underground secondary entrance conductors from the pad -mounted transformer to points of power usage. 8. All underground services shall be installed in conduit ahead of the meter. All underground services must be in conduit beneath roads, driveways, and other areas of difficult excavation. 9. Low voltage starting will be required on all three-phase motors larger than 25 HP and all single- phase motors larger than 10 HP. 10. Motor protection from phase loss and other voltage problems should be provided. This equipment shall be installed and maintained at the expense of the Owner. 1 1 . The above mentioned cost estimate does not include connect fees or meter deposits, if required. Arrangements for payment of these items and for scheduling the actual meter installation should be made through the local Holy Cross Energy office. 12. We attempt to complete all projects in a timely manner. However, highest priority is given to maintaining service to our existing consumers. This fact, along with inevitable construction delays, will not allow us to guarantee a project completion date. 13. All Holy Cross Energy rules and regulations will be followed. P63 VIJ V' ■f City of Aspen November 13, 2017 Page Three 14. When Holy Cross Energy is in receipt of the executed trench agreement, a letter from Pitkin County giving permission to put the transformer in the road right-of-way, a completed "general services load form", and the signed original of this letter agreement (below), the job can be scheduled for construction. Per our Franchise agreement with the City of Aspen, no prepayment will be required. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY Libby Cowl' g, Engin` r' Department lcowli n ciftolycross.com (970) 947-5428 LC:MM The above terms and conditions are hereby agreed to and accepted By: Title: Date: W/O#1 7-22981 :90-56:GLEN EAGLES CITY 3 PHASE 17-22981 Rossello = P65 Lf VIJ TRENCH, CONDUIT, AND VAULT AGREEMENT (Non -Recordable) This agreement is made and entered into this day of , 20 , between City of Aspen, whose mailing address is 130 S Galena, Aspen, CO 81601, hereinafter called "Owner", and Holy Cross Energy, a Colorado corporation whose mailing address is P. O. Box 2150, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602, hereafter called "Holy Cross". WHEREAS, Holy Cross has been requested by Owner to provide underground electric facilities, hereinafter called "Facilities", to serve a project known as Glen Eagles City 3 Phase, hereinafter called "Project"; and, WHEREAS, Owner is required to provide all excavation, conduit and vault installation, backfill, compaction and cleanup needed to construct said requested Facilities; and, WHEREAS, Owner is doing work on the real property described as follows: Road Right -of -Way for Glen Eagles Dr. situate in Section 14, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6`" P.M., as more fully described in that particular plat of Aspen Highlands Subdivision recorded by Plat Book 2A at Page 256 in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office, Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter called "Property", which Property is the real property where the Project is being developed; and, WHEREAS, installation of Facilities to serve the Project may require trenching or other excavation on certain real property adjacent to the Project described as follows: Lot 20, Aspen Highlands Subdivision, hereinafter called "Adjacent Land". NOW, THEREFORE, Owner and Holy Cross agree as follows: 1. Owner shall provide all excavation, conduit and vault installation, backfill, compaction and cleanup necessary for installation of Facilities to serve the Project. Such excavation shall be located as shown on the construction plans approved by Holy Cross, and performed in accordance with Holy Cross Vault Installation Specifications, Construction Specifications and inspector requirements. Any deviation from the approved construction plans will not be made unless approved by Holy Cross in advance. All Facilities installed hereunder shall be inspected during construction by Holy Cross and shall meet all Holy Cross requirements prior to acceptance of such Facilities by Holy Cross. a. Prior to commencement of any work hereunder, Holy Cross shall furnish to Owner its Vault Installation Specifications and Construction Specifications and such specifications are made a part hereof by reference. b. All Facilities installed within the Property and Adjacent Land shall be within dedicated or conveyed and recorded utility easements. c. The top of all conduits installed hereunder shall be located a minimum of 48" below the final grade of the ground surface. d. A twelve -inch (12") minimum separation will be maintained between conduits installed for the Facilities and all other new or existing underground utilities. Wherever possible, this separation will be horizontal. The Facilities conduit separation from plastic gas lines shall be greater than this minimum wherever practicable. e. Holy Cross will supply the necessary conduit and vaults for installation by the Owner upon completion of contractual arrangements. Owner assumes responsibility for all material lost or damaged after such material has been issued to and signed for by Owner or by an agent of Owner. Alternatively, Owner may provide its own conduit and vaults meeting Holy Cross specifications for use on the Project and convey such provided material to Holy Cross with an acceptable Bill of Sale. After installation by the Owner and acceptance by Holy Cross, Holy Cross shall continue as the owner of the conduit, vaults and related structures and facilities. f. If conduit and/or vault installation provided by Owner for the Project are found to be unusable or improperly constructed, irrespective of whether such discovery is made during or after installation, Owner will be responsible for correcting said problems at its expense as specified by Holy Cross and Owner shall reimburse Holy Cross for all additional costs resulting from conduit and/or vault installation being unusable or improperly constructed. 2. Despite the fact that Holy Cross reserves the right to specify acceptable work performed hereunder, Owner shall perform work hereunder as an independent contractor, including, but not limited to, the hiring and firing of its own employees, providing its own tools and equipment, payment of all wages, taxes, insurance, employee withholdings, and fees connected with its work on the Project. 3. Owner shall obtain all necessary digging permits and utility locations prior to excavation for work performed hereunder. Owner shall repair all damage caused during excavation promptly and at its expense. No excavation will be undertaken within five (5) feet of existing underground electric facilities except under the on site supervision of a Holy Cross employee. W/O#17-22981:90-56:Glen Eagles City 3 Phase 11/13/17 17-22981 LC Page 1 of 3 Revised 12/18/15 P67 VIJ 4. Owner shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless Holy Cross, its employees and agents, against any and all loss, liability, claims, expense, suits, causes of action, or judgments for damages to property or injury or death to persons that may arise out of work performed hereunder, or because of a breach of any of the promises, covenants and agreements herein made by the Owner. Owner shall promptly defend Holy Cross whenever legal proceedings of any kind are brought against it arising out of work performed hereunder by the Owner and/or work performed at the direction of the Owner. In the event Owner shall fail to promptly defend Holy Cross, it shall be liable to Holy Cross, and shall reimburse it, for all costs, expenses and attorney fees incurred in defending any such legal proceeding. Owner agrees to satisfy, pay, and discharge any and all judgments and fines rendered against Holy Cross arising out of any such proceedings. Owner also agrees to promptly satisfy and pay any monetary settlements of disputes that arise hereunder, provided Owner has been given the opportunity to join in such settlement agreements. The above indemnification clause shall not apply to state and local governments or local service districts. In lieu thereof, whenever Owner is a government or district it shall procure and maintain in effect at least $1,000,000 of public liability insurance covering the acts, damages and expenses described in the above indemnification clause. Upon Holy Cross' request, such an Owner shall furnish a Certificate of Insurance verifying the existence of such insurance coverage. 5. Owner shall repair, at its expense, any excavation settlement and damage to asphalt paving or other surface improvements caused by such settlement resulting from work performed hereunder within the Property and Adjacent Land for a period of two (2) years beginning on the date backfill and cleanup are completed. 6. Owner, at its expense, shall stop the growth of thistles and/or other noxious weeds in all areas disturbed by excavation performed hereunder for a period of two (2) years beginning on the date backfill and cleanup are completed. 7. In the event Owner shall not promptly complete all of the obligations hereinabove agreed to be performed by Owner, Holy Cross may give written notice by registered or certified mail demanding Owner to complete the work and obligations undertaken by Owner herein, and if such is not completed within 30 days after receipt of such notice by Owner, Holy Cross may complete the work and obligations hereof. If Holy Cross shall be required to complete the work, all costs of completion shall be chargeable to and collectible from Owner. 8. As set forth in paragraph 1 above, Owner covenants that the trench, and all Facilities within the trench installed hereunder shall be located within dedicated or conveyed and recorded utility easements and at the proper depth below finished grade. It shall be the obligation of Owner to properly locate and construct the Facilities within the easement. Should it ever be discovered that such Facilities have not been properly located within dedicated or conveyed and recorded utility easements, or at the proper depth, it shall be the obligation of Owner to provide new easements for the actual location of the Facilities, or to relocate the Facilities within the easement, all of which shall be at the sole cost and expense of Owner. 9. It shall be Owner's responsibility to ensure that splice vaults, switchgear vaults and transformer vaults installed hereunder on the Property are accessible by Holy Cross boom trucks and other necessary equipment and personnel at all times. The use of such access by Holy Cross shall not require removal or alteration of any improvements, landscaping, or other obstructions. The ground surface grade shall not be altered within ten (10) feet of said splice, switchgear and transformer vaults, nor along the power line route between the vaults. The ground surface grade at said transformer and switchgear vaults shall be six (6) inches below the top of the pad. The ground surface grade at said splice vaults shall be even with the top of the pad. The manhole opening of said splice vaults shall be uncovered (excluding snow) and accessible at all times. Improvements, landscaping or any other objects placed in the vicinity of said transformers and switchgear shall be located so as not to hinder complete opening of the equipment doors. The ground surface within ten (10) feet of said transformer and switchgear doors shall be flat, level and free of improvements, landscaping, and other obstructions. Improvements, landscaping and other objects will be kept a minimum of four (4) feet from non - opening sides and backs of said transformers and switchgear. Owner hereby agrees to maintain the requirements of this paragraph and further agrees to correct any violations that may occur as soon as notified by Holy Cross. Said corrections will be made at the sole cost and expense of Owner. 10. All Holy Cross meter locations must be approved in advance. Notwithstanding such advance approval, it shall be the Owner's responsibility to maintain acceptable access, as determined solely by Holy Cross, to all Holy Cross meters at all times. At anytime in the future, should access to any Holy Cross meters be determined by Holy Cross to be unacceptable, then it shall be the Owner's responsibility, at the Owner's sole cost, to correct the access and make it acceptable, as determined solely by Holy Cross. 11. Owner covenants that it is the owner of the above described Property and that said Property is free and clear of encumbrances and liens of any character, except those held by the following: All those of Record. The promises, agreements and representations made by Owner herein shall be covenants that run with the Property and shall be binding upon the successors in interest, and assigns, of the Property. W/O#1 7-22981:90-56:Glen Eagles City 3 Phase 11/13/17 17-22981 LC Page 2 of 3 Revised 12118/15 VIJ The individual signing this Trench, Conduit and Vault Agreement hereby represents that he/she has full power and authority to sign, execute, and deliver this instrument. Holy Cross Energy, a Colorado corporation Bv: David Bleakley - Vice President, Engineering STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by as WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: STATE OF By: Title: day of of City of Aspen. Address: City of Aspen Notary Public 20—, ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_, by David Bleakley - Vice President, Engineering Holy Cross Energy, a Colorado corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Address: W/O#17-22981:90-56:Glen Eagles City 3 Phase 11/13/17 17-22981 LC Page 3 of 3 Revised 12/18/1 5 Trench, Conduit and Vault Agreement Holy Cross Energy V1.g TO: FROM: THRU: THRU: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: RE: CC: PARKS &RECREATION PEN MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Austin Weiss, Parks and Open Space Director Sara Ott, Assistant City Manager Jim True, City Attorney Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager December 4, 2017 December 11, 2017 Resolution #169 and 170, Series of 2017 - 2017 Cozy Point Ranch Lease Extension with Cozy Point Ranch, LLC and AspenTREE Steve Barwick, City Manager REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking approval of 2 month Lease Agreement extensions with Cozy Point Ranch, LLC and AspenTREE. The extension of these two leases will insure the continued operations at Cozy Point Ranch while staff completes negotiations and finalizes long term leases with both tenants. BACKGROUND: In 2015, Parks staff began a 2 year effort to develop a comprehensive management plan for Cozy Point Ranch. Through this period of management plan development, the City of Aspen entered into lease agreements on a 1 year basis with both Cozy Point Ranch, LLC and AspenTREE in order to continue to provide their services to the community. The Cozy Point Ranch Management Plan was finalized and approved by City Council in March of 2017. Vl.g In May of 2017, City staff advertised a Request for Proposals in order to secure operators for both the equestrian operation, and a sustainable agriculture/education operation. After a thorough review process, the Cozy Point Ranch RFP Selection Committee made a recommendation to award both Cozy Point Ranch, LLC and AspenTREE with long term leases for the Ranch operations. DISCUSSION: Parks staff have been negotiating with both Cozy Point Ranch, LLC and AspenTREE to finalize the language of each long-term lease. Staff scheduled a discussion with City Council on November 14, 2017 to discuss the details of each lease. It was brought to our attention that morning, that there were still some questions regarding the actual lease areas and their intended uses. Staff pulled the Cozy Point Lease discussion from the City Council Work Session at that time and has since clarified the uses of those leased areas. Staff has re -scheduled our long-term lease discussion with City Council for January 9, 2018 and as a result, needs to extend the current existing leases to insure continued operations through to the point that City Council reviews the new long-term leases. Cozy Point Ranch is home to the only public equestrian facility in the Roaring Fork Valley. Cozy Point Ranch, LLC has managed this equestrian operation for over 15 years and has a proven track record of providing excellent service as well as gaining community support. When ownership of Cozy Point Ranch, LLC changed hands from Monroe Summers to Patti Watson, staff felt that continuing to work with Patti Watson as the lease holder was in the best interest of the ranch and that this decision would continue providing excellent service to the public which is something the public was used to. In 2015, after Patti Watson took over the lease, she not only continued to provide the past services of the ranch but more importantly, she elevated and grew these services to an even higher level than has been seen before at the ranch. For instance, in 2015, Patti achieved the highest horse boarder rate than the ranch has ever seen before and she currently has 20 boarders more than she had last year at this same time. Patty also continues to provide excellent services to the youth of the valley by providing ever growing equestrian programming and horse camps for kids of all ages that are often filled to capacity. Most impressively, Patti has also grown the high school equestrian team into one of the largest high school equestrian teams in the region. Overall, the equestrian facility has seen roughly 26,000 user days in 2016. Additionally, Patti has continued to work closely with City's onsite ranch manager for Cozy Point, to identify improvements needed at the equestrian facilities. As a result of these efforts, City Staff has implemented several new pasture management practices as well as making significant improvements to riding facilities and employee housing. The AspenTREE program is also operated on the Cozy Point Ranch property, and provides educational opportunities, sustainable agriculture resources, and food production program on site. AspenTREE continues to offer year round programs for the community in sustainable agricultural education and they regularly include the local school districts in their programming. They also offer an affordable summer camp program as a child care alternative for both working families and visitors to the valley which teaching hands-on skills in farm stewardship, 2 P70 environmental citizenship, and environmental leadership. AspenTREE runs their operation on the concept of a "Farm Park" and they keep it open to the public at any time similar to a town park. AspenTREE, estimates that they have nearly doubled their program enrollment since they began their operations at Cozy Point in 2001 and in the summer of 2016 they estimate that they had roughly 9,000 user days at their facility. AspenTREE has also increased participation at their annual Community Meal that they host each fall and they served over 1,200 people at this year's event. AspenTREE also grows produce, and provides organic eggs and poultry for sale to CSA and cooperative members, as well selling these items as at the Aspen Saturday Market. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: If City Council approves the Extended Lease Agreements with Cozy Point Ranch, LLC, and Aspen TREE, funds will be collected during the first two months of 2018 based on the fact that Cozy Point Ranch, LLC will be paying one half of their net profits to the City of Aspen. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Extended Lease Agreements with both Cozy Point Ranch, LLC and AspenTREE. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose not to approve the recommended Extended Lease Agreements with Cozy Point Ranch, LLC and AspenTREE, however, this action could result in reduced services and/or a deterioration in operations at Cozy Point Ranch. PROPOSED MOTIONS: I move to approve Resolution #169, Series 2017, approving the Amended Lease Agreement between the City of Aspen and Cozy Point Ranch, LLC for operational management of Cozy Point Ranch equestrian facility. I move to approve Resolution #170, Series 2017, approving the Lease Agreement between the City of Aspen and AspenTREE for the operation of its permaculture and educational facility. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Amended Lease Agreement with Cozy Point Ranch, LLC and Resolution of Approval Exhibit B — Amended Lease Agreement with AspenTREE and Resolution of Approval 3 P71 V1.g Vl.g RESOLUTION # 169 (Series of 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE COZY POINT RANCH AND EQUESTRIAN CENTER BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND COZY POINT RANCH LLC AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO LEASE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a proposed Amendment to the Long -Term Stewardship Lease Agreement for the Cozy Point Ranch and Equestrian Center between the City of Aspen and Cozy Point Ranch LLC, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Amendment to the Long -Term Stewardship Lease Agreement for the Cozy Point Ranch and Equestrian Center between the City of Aspen and Cozy Point Ranch LLC, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of December 2017. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, December 11, 2017. Linda Manning, City Clerk P72 P73 V1.g RESOLUTION # 170 (Series of 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND ASPEN TREE FOR ITS FARM PARK EDUCATION AND PERMACULTURE FACILITY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO LEASE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a proposed Lease Agreement between the City of Aspen and Aspen TREE, for its Farm Park education and permaculture facility, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Lease Agreement between the City of Aspen and Aspen TREE, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of December 2017. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, December 11, 2017. Linda Manning, City Clerk Vl.g AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION TO LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE COZY POINT RANCH EQUESTRIAN CENTER THIS AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION TO LONG TERM STEWARDSHIP AND LEASE AGREEMENT entered into at Aspen, Colorado, this day of , 2017, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home - rule city ("City"), and COZY POINT RANCH, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Tenant") amends and extends the amended Long -Term Stewardship Lease Agreement for the Cozy Point Ranch and Equestrian Center as follows: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the Cozy Point Ranch and Equestrian Center in Pitkin County, Colorado, which property is described on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Ranch"), consisting of approximately 32 acres; and WHEREAS, on or about April 15, 2010, the City and Tenant entered into the Long -Term Stewardship Lease Agreement for the Cozy Point Ranch Equestrian Center (hereinafter the "Lease"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the entry of the lease Tenant was a Colorado Limited Liability Company consisting of two members, Monroe Summers and Glenda Summers; and WHEREAS, following the unexpected and untimely death of Monroe Summers on April 26, 2104, Cozy Point Ranch, LLC was acquired in full by Patricia K. Watson, a former employee of the Tenant; and WHEREAS, Patti Watson has experience in equestrian center management and desires to continue the operation of that part of the prior tenancy and terminate and release the LLC from obligations to City for certain provisions of the previous Long -Term Stewardship Lease Agreement for the Cozy Point Ranch Equestrian Center; and WHEREAS, on or about December 12, 2016, the City and Tenant entered into an Amendment to the Long -Term Stewardship Lease Agreement for the Cozy Point Ranch Equestrian Center, which amended and extended the agreement to September 30, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the City and Tenant are desirous of amending and extending the Amended Long -Term Stewardship Lease Agreement for the Cozy Point Ranch Equestrian Center on the terms and conditions set forth herein. P74 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms, covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Term. The term of the Lease is hereby extended to February28, 2018. The parties may extend the term set forth herein for such time and on such terms as the parties may agree at any time prior to the end of the Lease. Except as amended herein, all terms and conditions of the Amended Long -Term Stewardship Lease Agreement for the Cozy Point Ranch Equestrian Center shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The premises to which this lease pertains are hereby amended to include that portion of the Ranch specifically described in Exhibit A. The remainder of the Ranch shall be managed or leased by the City. 3. Tenant shall provide and allow access to and parking for the parcel reserved by the City and depicted on Exhibit A for Aspen T.R.E.E., as has been traditionally provided. If the Tenant and City disagree as to the area of access or parking, the City shall designate such area, at its sole discretion, on an amended Exhibit A. In addition, Tenant shall provide access to a bathroom facility designated by the City for use by Aspen T.R.E.E. and its guests during summer camps when the building is open for public use (8:OOam to 5:OOpm June, July and August). Aspen T.R.E.E. or the City shall pay Tenant $150 per month for the maintenance and upkeep of the bathroom facility related to Aspen T.R.E.E's use of the facility. 4. Paragraph 7. c., of the Amended Long -Term Stewardship Lease Agreement for the Cozy Point Ranch Equestrian Center is hereby deleted in its entirety. WHEREFORE, the parties, through their duly authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement upon the dates as set forth herein. ATTEST: Linda Manning, City Clerk LESSOR: THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: Name: Stephen Barwick Title: City Manager LESSEE (Tenant): COZY POINT RANCH, LLC By: Name: Patricia K. Watson Title: Manager 2 P75 V1.g P76 V' . g LEASE AGREEMENT EXTENSION BETWEEN ASPEN T.R.E.E. AND THE CITY OF ASPEN THIS LEASE AGREEMENT entered into at Aspen, Colorado, this day of , 2017, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home -rule city ("City"), and ASPEN T.R.E.E., a Colorado Non Profit corporation, concerns and specifies the following: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the Cozy Point Ranch and Equestrian Center in Pitkin County, Colorado, which property is described on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Ranch"), consisting of approximately 93.5 acres; and, WHEREAS, ASPEN T.R.E.E., also doing business as Earth Keepers, is) a 501 (c)((3) nonprofit (hereafter referred to as "Aspen T.R.E.E. "), whose mission on site is to engage the greater community about environmentalism and sustainable land stewardship and agriculture, empower youth to be stewards of their community and nature while providing an affordable child care program, grow produce, eggs, and vegetables for the community, bring young farmers together to share best practices and provide operational support, and demonstrate high altitude sustainable farming strategies that are financially sustainable, productive, and replicable; and, WHEREAS, the City and Aspen T.R.E.E. are desirous of leasing a portion of the Cozy Point Ranch on the terms and conditions set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City and Aspen T.R.E.E. entered into a lease agreement on January 1, 2017 (hereinafter the "Lease"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms, covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows: DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The City hereby leases to Aspen T.R.E.E. that portion of the Cozy Point Ranch and Equestrian Center set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto. The City shall provide access to the premises as designated on Exhibit A, including, use of the "Farm Park" plot (area delineated on attached map), its buildings, fencing, infrastructure and gardens within the existing area currently utilized by Aspen T.R.E.E. . TERM The term of this lease extension shall be for a period of two (2) months commencing on January 1, 2018 and ending on February 28, 2018. The parties may extend the Lease for such time and on such terms as the parties may agree at any time prior to the end of the Lease. RENT Rent for the "Farm Park" for the Leased period will be $1.00. Use of the bathroom facilities operated by Cozy Point Ranch, LLC for the lease period shall be an additional $150.00 per month which shall be paid to Cozy Point, LLC by the City of Aspen. CONDITIONS P77 V1.g The conditions for both parties regarding the use of the property are hereby defined and agreed to as follows. The City will provide the following_ 1. Use of the "Farm Park" plot (area delineated on attached map), its buildings, fencing, infrastructure, gardens and within the existing area currently utilized by Aspen T.R.E.E. 2. Utilities necessary to operate the "sustainable farmyard" including electricity and water. 3. Aspen T.R.E.E. shall be allowed to park vehicles on the site that are necessary for Aspen T.R.E.E. 's regular farm and program operations as agreed upon between Aspen T.R.E.E. and the City's site manager. Aspen T.R.E.E. will provide the following_ I. A supervisor whose on-site responsibilities are: daily supervision of the children entrusted to their care during the yearly agreed to times allotted including sign -in and registration with parents; scheduling daily activities; developing the daily learning plan; dispensing and enforcing the "sustainable farmyard rules"; supervising additional staff or volunteer help; and communicating and cooperating with ranch management about issues germane to a safe, successful, educational and enjoyable camper experience. 2. On and off-site management of the Aspen T.R.E.E. Programs includes monthly bookkeeping and yearly accounting records, donor/client billing and collections, advertising and marketing, accounts payable and good credit relations, payroll expenses and taxes, employee records and benefits, Tax return preparation, insurance for general liability and workman's compensation 3. Aspen T.R.E.E. will provide its own tools and equipment necessary to maintain and operate the gardens, and the poultry house. If extra tools or labor is required, it will be charged by Cozy Point Ranch at the attached rates (see attachment). 4. Aspen T.R.E.E. will provide daily cleaning and maintenance of all mutually agreed upon areas under its responsibility including trash collection and disposal, manure collection and composting, tool storage and tidying up of all areas of the "sustainable farmyard". ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS 1. Aspen T.R.E.E. will identify the City of Aspen as additionally named insured on its general liability and workman's compensation policies and will furnish copies of the policies or riders to the City. 2. Rules of the "Farm Park" will be conspicuously posted by Aspen T.R.E.E. so that all parents and children will be aware of and will abide by them. 3. Aspen T.R.E.E. will notify The City of any events 30 days in advance or volunteer or community service work days at least 7 days in advance in writing (robert.covington@cityofaspen.com). 4. Any and all new improvements, fencing, or changes to existing infrastructure (with the exception of gardens) must be reviewed and approved in advance in writing by the City of Aspen. 5. City reserves the right to undertake any mutually agreed upon changes or improvements within the sustainable farmyard area with its own personnel, equipment and supplies and be reimbursed for same in a timely manner. Any requests for Cozy Point, LLC equipment, supplies, tractor time, and labor will be handled separately by agreement between Cozy Point, LLC and Aspen T.R.E.E. 6. Any improvements made by Aspen T.R.E.E. may be removed at Aspen T.R.E.E's expense as long as it is done in a timely manner if the lease is terminated at any time. 7. Aspen T.R.E.E. shall not be obligated to board animals with Cozy Point Ranch, LLC or its successor, but may do so if arrangements satisfactory to Aspen T.R.E.E. are agreed upon with Cozy Point Ranch, LLC. 8. Proper animal husbandry practices are required for all livestock and poultry and proof of current vaccinations for goats and alpacas. Premises and livestock to be examined three times a year or as needed if deemed so by the City by a certified veterinarian approved by the City. If conditions are not met, all livestock shall be removed upon request by the City of Aspen. "ity shall be entitled to enter upon the Premises at all reasonable hours for the purpose of inspecting the V1'g ame, preventing waste or loss, or enforcing any of City's rights hereunder. Aspen T.R.E.E. shall insure that the facilities and the property covered under this lease agreement are open and safe for the enjoyment of the public. Employees, volunteers and visitors to Aspen T.R.E.E. shall be allowed access at all hours to the farmyard facility, including reasonable access with motor vehicles (except as expressed in section 11 of extra stipulations. In addition, Aspen T.R.E.E. employees, approved volunteers, and visitors shall be allowed access to the public restroom facilities at Cozy Point Ranch (building A on map) during summer camps when the building is open for public use (8:00am to 5:00 pm June, July and August). Use of the Cozy Point Ranch, LLC operated restroom facilities by Aspen T.R.E.E. programs shall cost Aspen T.R.E.E. an additional $150.00 per month as previously outlined in the Rent portion of this agreement. The City may also elect to provide use of a temporary porta potty on the Aspen T.R.E.E. leased space for all other times. 10. Aspen T.R.E.E. will respect the behavior of horses as unpredictable by containing the animals of the farmyard to the farmyard with the exception of walking the alpacas to the river or alpaca trailer, but never near the horses mounted or un -mounted, or the arenas when in use by horses. Horses will spook at the alpacas and other animals and could cause serious injury to themselves or the people around them. 11. For the safety of the horses and boarders, Aspen T.R.E.E. will be escorted through the mare pasture (at no extra charge) with a minimum of one-hour notice as needed for truck access by staff of the Ranch. Ranch staff is on site 24 hours a day and arrangements can be made by calling Patti's cell phone. 12. Aspen T.R.E.E. shall have the right to purchase hay for its animals from Cozy Point Ranch, LLC on terms mutually agreeable to the parties. Alternatively, Aspen T.R.E.E. shall also have the right to purchase hay from third parties, should Aspen T.R.E.E. deem that such other hay providers would be in the best interests of Aspen T.R.E.E. 's animals. All hay, feed and bedding products to be stored on Aspen T.R.E.E. 's leased area unless other arrangements are made. 13. Aspen T.R.E.E. is encouraged to plan and provide for community events that attract a wide demographic to Cozy Point Ranch. 14. The City of Aspen and Aspen T.R.E.E. shall work together as part of the planning process to design a specific signage plan that clearly and specifically identifies that the leased property is owned by the City of Aspen and that the members of the community are welcome to observe Aspen T.R.E.E. 's operations and participate in Aspen T.R.E.E. 's programs. The signage plan shall be designed to provide information to the public about general directions, hours of operations, emergency contact information, recreational opportunities, and other specific information about Aspen T.R.E.E. and its operations and programs as appropriate. 15. Aspen T.R.E.E. will insure that its Board of Directors, employees, volunteers and donors are fully apprised of its relationship with the City and the terms and intent of this agreement. 16. Aspen T.R.E.E. agrees to indemnify and hold the City of Aspen harmless from liability for claims for damages arising directly or indirectly out of, or in connection with, any of its programs or activities, and from liability from injuries suffered by any employee or other person in connection therewith. This indemnification and hold harmless provision shall extend to and include all attorney's fees and costs incurred by the ranch or the City of Aspen in connection with such actions or claims. Aspen T.R.E.E. agrees to defend any suits that are brought against the Ranch or the City of Aspen in connection with the "sustainable farmyard" or this agreement. WHEREFORE, the parties, through their duly authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement upon the dates as set forth herein. LESSOR: THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: Name: Title: ATTEST: Linda Manning, City Clerk Stephen Barwick City Manager LESSEE (Tenant): ASPEN T.R.E.E. by: Eden Vardy P79 Vl.g P80 4 • vi.g F �i h.�;„,�_ :: -�. Exhibit A r. • � ��� ” � ,-I;r 1- •;� Lease Area Cozy Point Ranch LLC' - Lease Area - 1 � et +� �� S l�•�. ���y�r {�4 .7 � �- 4-, _ moi. - r VWil' �+ r IF 1.4 dip Aspen TREE+.' Lease Area f� r '� :• Oe Cozy Point Ranch Parcel Boundary 4 Cozy Point Ranch, LLC Lease Area Pitkin County 1 inch = 375 feet N W+ E S V1.h MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director MEETING DATE: December 11, 2017 RE: Resolution #162, Series 2017 - 2018 Mill Levies REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo outlines information for City Council to consider when adopting the general purpose and Stormwater property tax mill levies for 2018. Adoption of the proposed 2018 mill levy resolution is required to be submitted to Pitkin County no later than December 15, 2017. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council adopted the 2018 budget on November 27, 2017 which included revenue assumptions regarding property tax revenue for the General Fund, Asset Management Plan Fund and Stormwater Fund. These estimates were based on preliminary figures on assessed valuations from the County Assessor published in August 2017. BACKGROUND: The General Fund and Asset Management Plan mill levy is, by law, subject to the TABOR restrictions. TABOR provides that the amount of revenue from property taxes cannot grow by more than the amount attributable to inflation plus new construction — this formula is intended to mitigate excessive fluctuation in total property tax revenue that could otherwise result from assessed valuations rising or falling. As assessed valuations rose in prior years, the City reduced its tax yield to the TABOR limits by implementing a temporary mill levy credit. In years past, the Council also applied the TABOR restriction to the separate Stormwater mill levy. Based on discussions during this year's budget process, the Council directed staff to revised the application of the TABOR restriction on this mill levy, and rather to assess the full 0.650 mills going forward. This move is in line with voter approval of the initial property tax for Stormwater and is expected to generate an additional $150,000. DISCUSSION: For 2018, the general purpose mill levy is calculated at 4.410 mills, or 1.000 mills below the maximum 5.410 mills. For the stormwater mill levy, based on voter approval given at the inception of this taxing authority, the maximum levy of 0.650 mills will be enforced for 2018. The expected collections from the above mill levies equate to roughly $8.2 million and are closely mirrored by the values assumed in the 2018 Budget that was adopted on November 27. V1.h RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes that the 2018 mill levies be adopted. ALTERNATIVES: The proposed mill levies may be amended downward as City Council deems necessary. PROPOSED MOTION: Move adoption of the resolution attached which approves the 2018 mill levies as proposed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: im 2018 Max Mills 2018 Mill Credit 2018 Mill Levy General Property Tax 5.410 1.000 4.410 Stormwater Fund 0.650 0.000 0.650 Total 6.060 1.000 5.060 2017 AV Mill Levy Rate 2018 Taxes General Fund $1,619,859,390 1.102 $1,785,085 Asset Management Fund $1,619,859,390 3.308 $5,358,495 Total General Mill Levy 4.410 $7,143,580 Total Stormwater Mill Levy $1,619,859,390 0.650 $1,052,909 Refund/Abatements $1,619,859,390 0.036 $58,315 Total 2018 Property Tax 5.096 $8,254,803 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes that the 2018 mill levies be adopted. ALTERNATIVES: The proposed mill levies may be amended downward as City Council deems necessary. PROPOSED MOTION: Move adoption of the resolution attached which approves the 2018 mill levies as proposed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: im .m V1.h RESOLUTON NO. 162 (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO SETTING THE 2018 MUNICIPAL MILL LEVY RATES AND CERTIFYING SAME TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PITKIN COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepare the budget, has prepared and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2018 and ending December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of the taxable property for the year 2017 in the City of Aspen returned by the County Assessor of Pitkin County was certified on November 29, 2017, is the sum of $1,619,859,390; and WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of taxable property in Aspen increased approximately 9.2% between 2016 and 2017 assessment years; and WHEREAS, under section 9.9 of its Home Rule Charter, the City of Aspen shall constitute a levy of the property taxes incorporated into its adopted budget; and WHEREAS, a general purpose mill levy has been established at an amount not to exceed 5.410 mills, and is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of $8,763,439 for collection year 2018; based upon the assessed valuation as determined by the County Assessor, and WHEREAS, a temporary reduction in general property tax collections is desired by the City Council in order to reduce the tax burden on owners of taxable property within the City of Aspen while preserving the City's ability to increase property taxes to levels previously authorized by City of Aspen voters as described above, and WHEREAS, C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5 authorizes a local government to certify a refund in the form of a temporary property tax credit or a temporary mill levy rate reduction, provided that the certification includes the gross mill levy, the temporary property tax credit or temporary mill levy rate reduction expressed in mill levy equivalents, and the net mill levy and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(4), the Assessor shall, concurrent with delivery of tax warrants to the Treasurer, itemize duly certified temporary property tax credits or temporary mill levy rate reductions in the manner set forth in C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(2), and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(5) the tax statements shall indicate by footnote which local government mill levies reflect a temporary property tax credit or temporary mill levy rate reduction for the purpose of effecting a refund; and WHEREAS, voter approval on November 6, 2007 established the separate City's Stormwater Fund mill levy rate at an amount not to exceed 0.650 mils upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the City annually with no date of Vl.h expiration, permitting collection of property tax revenues in excess of the mill levy limitation provided in Article X, Section 20 or the Colorado Constitution for property tax collection in all future years beginning in 2008; and WHEREAS, said mill levy rate is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of $1,052,909 for collection year 2018; based upon the net assessed valuation of the City of Aspen as determined by the County Assessor; SECTION 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado for the purpose of balancing the 2018 budget, and providing a reasonable closing fund balance for said fiscal year, levies the following taxes upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the City of Aspen for the year 2017; that a temporary mill levy rate reduction is authorized; and that the individual mill levies are expressed in terms of the gross mill levy, the temporary mill levy rate reduction shown in mill levy equivalents, and the net mill levy as shown below, which includes a temporary credit of 1.000 mills for the General Purpose mill levy: 2018 Max Mills 2018 Mill Credit 2018 Mill Levy General Property Tax 5.410 1.000 4.410 Stormwater Fund 0.650 0.000 0.650 Total 6.060 1.000 5.060 2017 AV Mill Levy 2018 Taxes General Fund $1,619,859,390 1.102 $1,785,085 Asset Management Fund $1,619,859,390 3.308 $5,358,495 Total General Mill Levy 4.410 $7,143,580 Total Stormwater Mill Levy $1,619,859,390 0.650 $1,052,909 Refund/Abatements $1,619,859,390 0.036 $58,315 Total 2018 Property Tax 5.096 $8,254,803 SECTION 2 V1.h The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify and deliver this Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners for Pitkin County on or before December 15, 2017. ADOPTED THIS 11 day of December 2017 Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on December 11, 2017, which Resolution was adopted subsequent to public hearings on the City of Aspen's 2018 Proposed Municipal Budget and prior to the final day established by law for the certification of the tax levy to Pitkin County, all was required by the Sections 9.8 and 9.9 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Linda Manning, City Clerk VIA Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 CITIZENCOMMENTS...............................................................................................................................2 COUNCILCOMMENTS............................................................................................................................. 2 BOARDREPORTS...................................................................................................................................... 2 AGENDA ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS.............................................................................................. 2 CONSENTCALENDAR............................................................................................................................. 2 ❑ Resolution #160, Series of 2017 — amendment 2 TO THE third supplemental agreement for purchase of Wind -generated energy between Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska and the City of Aspen ........... 3 ❑ Resolution #161, Series of 2017 — Amendment 1 to the Supplemental Agreement for purchase of landfill gas energy environmental attributes between Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska and City of Aspen............................................................................................................................................................ 3 ❑ Resolution #164, Series of 2017 — Approval of BLM CO Community Fire Assistance Grant/Modification #1 to cooperative agreement......................................................................................... 3 ❑ Resolution #151, Series of 2017 — APCHA and Component Unit Funds Budget ................................ 3 ❑ Resolution #152, Series of 2017 — 2018 Budget for Aspen Country Inn AH fund, component unit.... 3 ❑ Resolution #162, Series of 2017 — Burlingame Pump House — Change Order #001 ........................... 3 ❑ Resolutions #163, Series of 2017 — Burlingame Single Family Homes — Construction Change orders 2-7 3 ❑ Minutes — November 13, 2017.............................................................................................................. 3 ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2017..........................................................................................................4 ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2017 — 2017 Fall Supplemental Budget...................................................4 ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2017 - 2018 Municipal Fees....................................................................4 ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2017 — Amend Title 25 Utilities — Electric and Water Rates ................... 5 RESOLUTION #150, SERIES OF 2017 — 2018 Budget.............................................................................. 6 ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2017 — Truscott Phase II Buy Out............................................................ 7 RESOLUTION #158, SERIES OF 2017 — 315 E Dean St — St. Regis Temporary and Seasonal Use......... 7 RESOLUTION #157, SERIES OF 2017 — 305 S Mill Street — Grey Lady — Temporary Use ..................... 8 ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2017 — 488 Castle Creek Drive — Major Public Project Review ........... 13 ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2017 — Adding an Alternate Position to the Composition of the Wheeler Boardof Directors.......................................................................................................................................16 WHEELER BOARD OF DIRECTORS — BOARD APPOINTMENTS....................................................16 1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 VU � � At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Hauenstein, Frisch and Mullins present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Christy Vedder, Burlingame Phase II home owner and board member stated they are concerned about the delay with the irrigation. Following the removal of two city members from the board, we were given invoices for water that was not budgeted for. The bill is over 8,000 dollars. She said she feels like she can't go to her fellow home owners for the funds. Mayor Skadron asked for a memo about this issue to Council. 2. Elizabeth Milias commented on the 488 Castle Creek project. She commended the City on the effort on create, build and subsidize rental units. Her opposition is based purely on the density up there. It is unlike anything this valley has seen. The AACP ensures the city and county codes are consistent regarding house size and density. This is located in the urban growth boundary and the AACP states where density is concentrated in the commercial core and tapers towards the county line. This proposal flies in the face of the AACP. She is concerned we are not understanding the density issue. 3. Mike Johns, Aspen entrepreneurs and maker + place said the opening was supported by council and start up Colorado. They are excited about the new space which will open December 1" NICL11L,rei moIG a lu M, I M1 Councilwoman Mullins said she hopes everyone had a happy Thanksgiving. Start praying for snow. Town looks great. Councilman Hauenstein said he skied for a few runs. It was enjoyable and skiing. Make the best from what we have. He received a few comments on how bright some of the Christmas lights are down town. We are working on that. There is a workshop that ACRA is putting on Dec 5th at the Limelight from 10:30 to noon on financial controls for small businesses and non -profits. Councilman Frisch wished everyone a happy belated Thanksgiving. The snow will come. Mayor Skadron said the City of Aspen has a new website. There is a community discussion around Justice Snow's space. There will be an RFP and we want your comments. Go to aspencommunityvoice.com to share your thoughts. The mountain opened. Thanks to Ski Co. Happy and safe ski season. BOARD REPORTS Councilman Hauenstein said the Sister Cities meeting is moving meeting days to Wednesday night. AGENDA ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Add ordinance #32 — Truscott phase 2 buyout option. Change ordinance #27 — utility rates to before resolution #150 CONSENT CALENDAR Reso 161 — landfill gas Councilman Hauenstein said it looks like this is less than 1 percent of our energy needs. The rate is 6.797 cents per KW hour. Do we even need this. Dave Hombacher, utilities, said at the time Council decided to help promote that technology on a very small scale. The key is the wind contract. That is what makes 2 ':: V' �; Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 us whole every month to meet the 100 percent renewable. Councilman Hauenstein said this is coming all the way from Iowa. Mr. Hornbacher replied just the energy. Councilman Frisch asked is it something that we need going forward. Not all 100 percent renewal is as efficient in all categories. Mr. Hornbacher replied the contract is year to year. If Council wishes to look at changing it we could. He said we would still be supportive of it now. We do need to monitor it. Councilwoman Mullins said she would be interesting to hear if we can get more credits out of Ridgeway. Where is the wind coming from. Mr. Hornbacher replied Nebraska and Iowa. Councilman Frisch asked for an update on the portfolio at the beginning of next year. Reso 163 — BG single family homes Councilman Hauenstein asked why was the sewer not dug deep enough in the first place. Sounds like four of the items are necessary because there needs to be a pump. Jack Wheeler, asset, said he can't explain why the sewer is located where it is. During the planning we knew we were close. People want to finish their basements. We needed to put the pits in to facilitate a bathroom in the basement for the homes. Councilman Hauenstein said it seems like there was a flaw when it was run in the first place. Is there a way to recoup these costs. Chris Everson, asset, said two home are connecting to a sewer that was put in place during phase I and two homes to phase II. The elevation of sewer lines is highly regulated. The last thing on anybody's mind when the sewer was installed was the injector pumps. The change orders in general, are about 3.5 percent of the total contract. From that perspective, it is not unreasonable. The contingency included was the leftover money from the 40 million condo project about 60,000 dollars. More contingency would have been through a supplemental budget request. We have the funds in the current budget for these change orders. Councilman Hauenstein asked if this is included in the contingency. Mr. Everson stated it is in addition to the overall contract sum but still falls within the current budget. Reso — 151 and 152 APCHA and ACI Councilwoman Mullins asked how the relationship to the budget works. Pete Strecker, finance, replied there is the City budget resolution and one for ACI and APCHA. APCHA is a separate government entity. We don't have any financial responsibility other than the 150 fund. Councilwoman Mullins said both the city and county adopt this. Mr. Strecker replied yes. The city is the general partner in ACI and we have more of a financial responsibility there. This is that piece of the city oversight. • Resolution #160, Series of 2017 — Amendment 2 to the third supplemental agreement for purchase of Wind -generated energy between Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska and the City of Aspen • Resolution #161, Series of 2017 — Amendment 1 to the Supplemental Agreement for purchase of landfill gas energy environmental attributes between Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska and City of Aspen • Resolution #164, Series of 2017 — Approval of BLM CO Community Fire Assistance Grant/Modification #1 to cooperative agreement • Resolution #151, Series of 2017 — APCHA and Component Unit Funds Budget • Resolution #152, Series of 2017 — 2018 Budget for Aspen Country Inn AH fund, component unit • Resolution #162, Series of 2017 — Burlingame Pump House — Change Order #001 • Resolutions #163, Series of 2017 — Burlingame Single Family Homes — Construction Change orders 2-7 • Minutes — November 13, 2017 Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 VU ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2017 — S. Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision — PD Amendment Jen Phelan, community development, told the Council this is a PD amendment for Lot 1 of the S. Aspen PUD. The request is to vary three setbacks for a wall. The property is a two lot subdivision. The project is close to completion and ready for COs. As part of the inspections, staff checked heights and setbacks and concluded that two setbacks for the wall and building have three points that don't meet the plan that was submitted. The project is for 15 affordable housing and 5 free market units on the site. The western building was built less than a foot closer to the property line that was called out. There is a retaining wall surrounding on Juan Street that is also off by less than a foot. It still meets the underlying requirements for the zone district. The applicant is suggesting a dimensional variation on the two setbacks that will still meet underlying zoning but allow for a CO. Second reading is scheduled for December I Ifli. Mayor Skadron asked if these issues are insignificant. Ms. Phelan replied yes. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #34, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 34 (SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR LOT 1, SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD/SUBDIVISION Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #34, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2017 — 2017 Fall Supplemental Budget Mr. Strecker said they have lowered the numbers since first reading and the new request is 3.6 million dollars. 300,000 are for expenses to date on the Woody Creek Parcel. 22,000 is for a crisis intervention grant for the police department. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the permit overpayment. When will we be repaying. Jessica Garrow, community development, said they have been working on processing the payments. Once this is approved it will continue and payments issued between now and the end of the year. Councilwoman Mullins also asked about the Red Brick and the 20,000. Did we look at the 60,000. Mr. Strecker said 20,000 is for the executive director. 60,000 is the city has taken over the payments of the facility itself. The recreation department is making the payments for utilities. The rents will offset those expenses. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #29, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2017 - 2018 Municipal Fees Mr. Strecker said these are targeted fee changes with the most impact happening to golf and recreation areas, police for dog vaccinations and licensing, engineering fees, parking garage reduction to the daily pass and increase to the fourth hour of street parking. There have been two changes since first reading rd '•1 V' �; Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 including the interior fixture removal fee and a request for a new delineation for temporary structure review fees. Councilwoman Mullins said for parking, there has been a discussion recently for coordinating meter fees with garage fees. Is that represented here. Mr. Strecker replied it is not in the fee ordinance. Barry Crook, managers office, said we don't need to amend the fee ordinance to do that. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2017 — Amend Title 25 Utilities — Electric and Water Rates Lee Ledesma, utilities, stated this ordinance will modify rates and add one fee. There are three main components to the changes; adjusting electric rate approximately 5percent, modify water rates 15 percent and adding an electric investment fee. Councilwoman Mullins said we talked about a rebate program for not penalizing people for charging electric vehicles. Ms. Ledesma said when we present the rate study in March we will make recommendations on an offset. Councilman Frisch said he is fully supportive of us trying to capture full cost. He made some grumblings about a double digit increases. He wonders if we should not try to smooth out the increases. Not so much the percentages but the dollar flow out on a monthly basis is just a few dollar increase. He wants to make sure we are not sticking a small group with a big percentage. It needs to be more leveled out. We have a well run utility. We are wisely trying to replace and catch up maybe sooner than we should. We have a few options, from a percentage basis if we want to stay away from a double digit increase the alternative option may make more sense. All the options do not take into consideration the pending mall upgrade. Mr. Hornbacher said it also does not include Red Mountain east of Aspen water. Councilman Frisch said he is glad we are better late than never in planning for the long term. Even at 13 or 15 percent increases a lot of residences will only see a few dollar increase. Mr. Hornbacher said from 2017 to 2018 the average residential increase will be 6 dollars per month and the commercial increase will be 15 using the 15 percent increase. Councilman Frisch said it is not a lot in the dollar term but seeing a double digit increase there should be a reason, a past mistakes or something on the horizon. We can stick as planned knowing if we do hear from people it is 5 or 10 dollars a year. Mayor Skadron said this is a Council policy that started in 2007 to move us to cost of service. For 30 years we did not change the rates. Ms. Ledesma said we've had the rate consultant on board and they recommended a larger increase and then leveling it. We took their recommendation and that is what we presented during the work session. Mayor Skadron said the prudent financial management is to recognize the consultants direction. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. P91 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 v' J Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #150, SERIES OF 2017 — 2018 Budget Mr. Strecker told the Council there have been eight meetings on this. The total request net is 128 million dollars. It is comprised of a few components. 66 million base operating from last year goes to 68 million. Capital outlay is 15 million. Reappropriations include 17 million for city offices. Affordable housing is a big slice and arts and recreation are as well. They all recognize key components and values of the city. Utilities and asset management are also big pieces. Capital projects are 49 million in total. City offices and affordable housing are the majority of it. Debt service is the last piece of budget components and includes 1 million in debt service payments for city offices year over year. We are still in a good position. Councilwoman Mullins said you have done such a good job it is down to the details. She asked if the mill levy on December 1 Vh is the storm water. Mr. Strecker said we are waiting for the county to distribute final assessed valuations. Councilwoman Mullins said on the food tax refund we talked about increasing it. Mr. Strecker said that is at Council direction. 2017 disbursements were 169,000. Councilwoman Mullins said she is not sure we ever discussed it. Councilman Frisch said one option was to go back when we installed it and see what inflation would be or just picking a number. Mr. Strecker said we have not done any work on that. Councilwoman Mullins said it had come up a few times and not sure it has been addressed. Don Taylor, finance, said we can put anything in the spring supplemental. He will send out his research on this. It is tied to what the sales tax increase at a point in time that would be applied to todays food prices. He will share the math. For most people, the 50 dollars covers it. Mayor Skadron said he would like the history on this. It will not be address it in this budgeting. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the citizens academy has become a permanent program. Mr. Strecker said that is the request. Councilwoman Mullins said she would support that. Councilman Hauenstein asked about the FTE for increased tax auditing efforts. He is not sure how we want to address the STRs with BRBO. He is not sure adding a tax enforcement officer is far reaching enough. We need a further discussion. Mr. Taylor said there are other things we are working on including an RFP for some software that addresses these kinds of issues. One of the companies has software that scrapes data from the various STR sites. It is a thorny problem since there is not a clear link to what Airbnb shows as available to what the assessor's office shows. We will be back once we narrow down what the best options are. Councilman Hauenstein asked if you anticipate the additional officer will collect more tax revenue than the cost of FTE. Mr. Taylor replied over time yes. The first year or two will be ramping up a curve. Over the years it will more than pay for itself. Councilman Hauenstein said this goes beyond a budget discussion. We need to know what impact STRs will have on Aspen, socially and economically. Councilman Frisch said he fully supports continuing to work on this. We put into place a short term rental discussion with the focus of it will happen so might as well manage it. He argues it has worked out very well from a community standpoint. Can we collect a lot more money, yes. The displacement of locals was not a discussion 5 years ago. We should check in. He is leery about trying to ban something that is going to happen. Mike Miracle stated Ski Co partnered with a program at University of Colorado to study this very issue. They will present the findings on Friday and I will be there. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Mick Ireland talked to engineering about a suggestion for the Castle Creek Bridge. The problem as a bike rider it is very awkward to use the underpass if you are coming out of town on the highway. In order to get down to the underpass you have to stop and flip your bike around in the 11 P92 V' �; Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 dirt. The alternative is the round about or attempt a left turn from the traffic lane and go up the Overeynder driveway. He has been asking for the city to consider some type of ramping to make the turn or make a ramp at the east end of the bridge to get off the highway and on to the sidewalk. The sidewalk is narrow. Trish Aragon, city engineer, said the Castle Creek Hallam project stops at the west end of the bridge. It does not mean we can't continue to look at better connectivity. Mayor Skadron asked to talk about this when we continue to talk about the bridge. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Hauenstein said this was his first budget review and it is a massive undertaking. Thanks for walking me through it a few times. Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve Resolution #150, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2017 — Truscott Phase II Buy Out Mr. Strecker said it was Councils direction to buy out the partnership. The request is 350,000 dollars this year. There will be future decisions for Council to make regarding how to group the property in the future. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #32, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #158, SERIES OF 2017 — 315 E Dean St — St. Regis Temporary and Seasonal Use Garrett Larimar, community development, said the request is a temporary use application for various special event tents for the St. Regis. The property is located in the lodge zone with a PD overlay. The applicant is requesting 40 days per year with annual recurrences, ideally 10 years with a minimum of 5. 32 days have been indicated in the fountain courtyard. There are a handful of other days in the mountain plaza and pool deck. 5 days have not been indicated but requested for flexibility. This request is temporary and seasonal and requires design review and growth management review. Council must review any request of more than 7 days per calendar year. Staff has reviewed this and finds it meets the review criteria and what you would find in a lodge. The majority of the event tents will be located in the central sunken courtyard will have minimal effect to the surrounding area. Staff would like input on the annual recurrences. Staff is recommending approval. Alan Richman, representing the applicant, said they are comfortable with the staff recommendation. They would like council to approve it for 10 years. Councilman Frisch said he would love to try to sign off on multi year things that are appropriate. Maybe after 5 years they can check in on an administrative level. He would love it to be as simple as possible for someone who has behaved for 5 years and is happy to have that as an admin level. Ms. Garrow said they would need to add that to Section 1 of the resolution. Councilman Frisch said he would suggest that. Councilman Hauenstein asked if these are mostly summer usage days. Mr. Richman replied there is some winter usage. Councilman Hauenstein said one of the top ten goals is to focus on green house gas emissions. He would like to see something other than propane used for heating. Tobias Rimkus, St. Regis, said that is a valid point. We are just looking at the set up and aesthetically it is not the nicest set 7 P93 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 v' J up with gas and something we should have a conversation about. Ms. Garrow said it is tough because the rental companies are not set up to use electric heat. It would be an industry shift rather than something to put into these reviews. There is not the ability for the city to do an energy audit at this point. Councilman Frisch said he is happy to have that discussion but does not want to implement anything. He is not sure if we instilled it now we could do anything. Councilman Hauenstein said he can support the 5 year with 5 year admin option. He likes that most of the tent usage is out of sight from the public. He does not have a problem other than the green house gas heating. Councilwoman Mullins agrees but does not think we can make restrictions until there are other options. Will the tents have an impact on public space. Mr. Larimar said they will do temporary loading from the alley. The application did not indicate any temporary structures on the right of ways. Councilwoman Mullins said the mitigation is triggered by the year and the 5 year agreement would be recalculated each year. Ms. Garrow said yes, depending on if the cash in lieu amount changed. Councilwoman Mullins said she would support Adams idea of an admin review after 5 years. Mayor Skadron said it will occur in the sunken courtyard that results in little or no visual impact. Do the approvals back in the day allow for public access to these spaces and does this impede that access. Mr. Richman replied they are private spaces. In general, hotels function that the general community ends up on sight using the site. Mayor Skadron said this generates an additional 4,000 square feet of usable space. What are the GM implications and are we generating mitigation. Mr. Larimar replied as part of the growth management section you get 14 days where GM does not apply. We credited the 14 days to this. We calculated the usage for each of the tents at each of the locations. Ms. Garrow said the first 14 days are exempt from mitigation. Mayor Skadron asked are there any properties similar who would be desirous of the same request. Ms. Garrow stated we will see one to two more requests in December. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Hauenstein asked the applicant for a way to put electric over propane where available. Mayor Skadron said that is a broader policy discussion. Councilman Hauenstein asked the applicant if they can ask their vendors to use electric rather than propane. Mr. Rimkus replied yes. Councilwoman Mullins move to adopt Resolution #158, Series of 2017 with amendment for administrative review after five years and updated growth management calculations; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #157, SERIES OF 2017 — 305 S Mill Street — Grey Lady — Temporary Use Hillary Seminick, community development, said the request is for temporary use approval for 305 S Mill st, Grey Lady restaurant. This is the fourth annual request to place a temporary enclosure over the existing trellis. The request is for 120 days. The tent is made of canvas and transparent material and will be used for a Saturday like market during the day and evening dining. It is 788 square feet of net leasable and would generate 5,280 dollars in mitigation fees. Staff does not support the enclosure since it does not meet design guidelines. If Council choses you could support a shorter duration of 14 days. There is an alternate resolution for 120 days for 2017-2018 season as well as 2018-2019 season. We received public comment after the packet was finalized from Wheeler Square condo association. They are supportive of staff's recommendation of denial. Mayor Skadron asked what is the Saturday market component. Ms. Seminick replied a number of different vendors for a number of hours on a Saturday. H. = V' �; Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 Ryan Chadwick and Ian Perry applicants. Mr. Chadwick stated they are only asking for 90 days since the lease expires in March. This year we want to make a few changes. We want to utilize power from the restaurant for heat. We reached out to Saturday market vendors to see if they would be interested in using the space during the daytime. Mr. Perry said they are trying to evolve the proposal to the best and highest purpose of the public amenity space. Would the best use be to store snow or involve local businesses. We have had a great number of interest from vendors. Mr. Chadwick stated they will use a clear top this year. Mr. Perry said you already know the fate we stand in on the building. We are left in limbo. We don't know if our lease will be extended. Every year it is a surprise to get a lease. Mr. Chadwick said we do want to dress up the outside with a more natural look. Mr. Perry said with a longer proposal we can put the capital in the space. We would like more semi permanent to address the aesthetic quality. Mayor Skadron asked does the space have access. Mr. Chadwick replied yes, there is a side door between the building and trellis. Councilman Frisch said when you came the first time I recommended to give you your two weeks in perpetuity. Hats off to working on bringing in the Saturday market component. Regardless of how great the tent looks there is a discussion if we want to have a tent there all winter. I appreciate you don't want to put up a tent every Saturday. You are suggesting the whole winter. Mr. Perry suggested we are investing in the business community as opposed to the aesthetic quality of a vacant lot. Councilman Frisch said the vast majority of restaurants have gone under because the landlord has determined there is a higher and better use. One is the aesthetic. We were pitched a few years ago about a Christmas market from the CCLC. It did not pan out to us. He is interested in having a market indoors to do that. Is this the best place, not sure. There is something about being the first people to show up with the suggestion. Councilman Hauenstein said the proposed tent will cover approved public amenity space. Ms. Seminick said the space is intended to be open to the sky. It does not ensure the public has access to the space but more open space to the property. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Siam Castillo said she served on CCLC for a number of years. The board has been wanting a winter market for years. This could be the beginning of something really important. They have the right idea. Small businesses are being pushed out in every way possible. The looks is a much smaller issue. We can try this for a time then review it. A season is a fair request. Mr. Chadwick said they would like to have it open Saturday and Sunday, open to demand. He has a lot of vendors who are interested. We are not serving food there during that time. The market would close around 4 then we would set up for dinner. Mr. Perry said if there was greater demand we would expand to that. 2. Yana Blacy said she is a vendor at the Saturday market in the summertime. I very much want for this to happen for us. We tried last year and couldn't find a location. 3. Peter Fornell said the city unfortunately because of the cost of commercial space we have consistently lost space to sit down and have a bite of food. Our restaurants are busy and overcrowded because we have lost so many of them. A public benefit is coming. The perception in the community is we have a lot of vacant space. That is wrong. I would like to see a funky space contributing than doing nothing. An empty space there all winter can contribute to that bad perception. A funky looking space is more attractive than an empty one. If they knew 5 years ago they were going to be here for another 5 years I'm certain you would have seen a more comprehensive plan. Penalizing them is not their fault. Mayor Skadron said a vendor inside the Grey Lady space sells something that directly competes with 520 grill. We have to consider the town comprehensively. Mr. Fornell said he agrees that competition is competition. The community will benefit through the collection of sales tax. 4. Julie Levin, leaf people skincare, said she is a small business owner and in the Saturday market. She agrees with some comments already said. The empty space situation is an issue. There is a way to bridge the gap and work together. One to two days a week will not be a huge impact. If it 0J P95 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 VU is an issue it is a conversation to have. There are ways to make it work and not be such competition but where we are helping each other. It is unfortunate to not see the local made goods here. All of my other locations outside of Aspen all come from people who visit the town. Several locations in town are carrying my products. Councilman Hauenstein said the other places that are selling their products, what is their reaction to you being in direct competition with them. Ms. Levin said it gives my clients a chance to buy my products every day if they can't buy from me directly. We have fed each other during the summer. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Mr. Perry said the public outlined it beautifully. We are asking for the season to try it. The fate of the building is so unsure. We wish like Peter we could have come back with a more stable plan. The only hang up as we understand is the aesthetics. Making the space looks good reflects good on our restaurant. Ms. Seminick said the market days could be added as part of the resolution. Mr. Chadwick said he understand the point of competition. There are restaurants open all around us. It brings vitality to the area. Councilman Frisch said if this was publically noticed as a discussion of a Saturday market there would be dozen of brick and mortars in here to counter your argument. I'm very concerned to zip in and out businesses. On one hand, it is better that locals are doing it but there are still people coming in and out. He appreciates their enthusiasm and is willing to explore it. Now there is an aesthetic issue and the business thing. If we want to try it one day a week or two during the spring then have a discussion. It took a long time to get the market a well oiled machine. If we want to try it for a day a week and see what happens, otherwise stick to the 14 days. We will have to let the brick and mortar people know it is a trial. Ms. Garrow said if Council is inclined to support the longer period we should keep in the resolution the April date. Councilwoman Mullins said she is sympathetic to the uncertainty to your lease. She does believe they would have done something more substantial if you knew you were going to be here. It is unattractive and taking away a public amenity. Here is the value of public comment. CCLC and the market people made a really good case. I don't particularly like the tent but it also did not look that great when it was down and not used. The incubator space would be really fun, especially if it can go both days. It will take a fair amount of work. The competition with the brick and mortar, I think a lot of times people are off base with that. These businesses feed each other. She is not sure there is that threat to existing businesses. She will support the 120 days to try something new and see if it works. She would like to know that we have some recourse if it doesn't work the first few weeks then it is dropped. Ms. Garrow said you would have to word the resolution in a way that you are comfortable with it. You could add the applicant can end at any time if the market is not profitable or working. Councilman Hauenstein said public comment has shown its worth here for me. How does staff feel about the top being clear. Ms. Garrow said she is not sure it really makes a difference to us. Councilman Hauenstein said the vacant spaces in town are vacant by design. The idea of being able to support local businesses is persuasive to me. I don't want the market to be a detriment to brick and mortar stores. To the extent it can serve as an incubator to support local businesses and also your businesses. Another one of our top 9 goals is to support local businesses. They are disappearing with the price of rents and pressures of the market. He will support this to the extent as possible it is not in competition with businesses in town. Initially I was against this but the arguments to support local small business have been persuasive to me. 10 V' �; Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 Mayor Skadron said nothing is easy often because we have clashing community values. Optimizing a public amenity space is desirous to Council. What we weigh that against is creating an unfair competitive environment. We have to manage the dynamics of the entire community. He thanked Siam, Yanna and Julie for their comments. He always embraced flexible government thinking. It is part of our character to be open. He can support this direction with conditions. Before we move forward with this I want you to present to ACRA at tomorrows meeting. He wants the business community to know exactly what you are doing. I want you to have contact with Aspen entrepreneurs and maker + place and know that you are communicating with each other. Thirdly, I want you to reach out to the team at Aspen Tree. I want them to put you in touch with the agriculture group that is supplying valley wide CSAs. That is how we start supporting our valley players. I can ask this because we are allowing use of public space. I am not requiring collaboration but the opportunity to present to those already in the market. Ms. Garrow said they could add a section to the resolution addressing the Saturday market space. Mayor Skadron said he is open to having Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Ms. Garrow recommend one day a week minimum. Councilman Frisch said he is concerned with running during the 12 days of Christmas as competition. We need to be careful with over the two weeks that you originally asked for. There is no doubt they could fill up 14 spaces for the 14 days. He is willing to have Saturday and Sunday during peak weeks then minimum of one day per week after January 1. Mr. Chadwick said during the holiday week we could do just twice a week. Councilman Frisch said he wants the last two weeks of December protected. Mayor Skadron said he wants to honor Adam's request. Councilman Frisch said Saturday and Sundays in December, after that have at it. Motion with amendments. Ms. Garrow suggested at applicants option if it is 90 days or 120 days plus the Mayor's conditions in a new section. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #157, Series of 2017 with conditions; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 2017 - Justin Barker, community development, said the application is for an affordable housing project by Aspen Housing Partners in partnership with the City of Aspen. It is a 9,000 square foot lot zoned as R15 currently containing a single family home. The proposal is to rezone to AHPD and contain 10 affordable housing units. All will be one bedroom. There will be 10 parking spaces in the Main St right of way. This falls under the major public projects review process. On October 3rd it was reviewed by P&Z with approval with conditions. The AHPD zone is intentionally meant to be scattered through town. There are a few examples within close range to this. For the PD, the AHPD requires all dimensions are established within the PD. Overall the dimensions fit with in the realm of the RMF and R15 zone. There are some concerns with parking at one space per unit. They are proposed in the Main St. right of way. Typically it would be on site or off the alley. The rational was due to a lot of public feedback to not locate traffic and cars in the alley way. Staff would like to maintain the area off the alley as a parking easement for future parking, if needed. There are a few structures in that area and are all easily moved. For growth management, it requires 10 affordable housing allotments. There is no annual limit for this type of project. All the units fall below the minimum net livable area within the APCHA guidelines. They can approve up to 20 percent below. APCHA is comfortable with the proposed sizes. Categories are not yet officially established. This project is meant to be coordinated within the three city housing projects. There would be a minimum 15 year rentals as part of the federal tax credit. As multi family, the project is subject to the residential design standards. There is good street presence and interaction between public and private spaces. It meets those standards. The outstanding issue is the materials. Staff recommended reducing the prominence of the composite panels. Council supported this. We worked with the applicant and they proposed a change to the roofing materials. Staff is supportive of this as it is more traditional and helps cap the building. One other minor change discussed with the applicant is changing the size of the panels. Staff is comfortable with either option. Other issues relate to impact fees to waive some of the fees, parking and air quality. Those were requested for Park Circle and council did not recommend those waivers. Vested rights is requested at 5 years instead of the traditional 3. Staff is comfortable with 5 since it is the same as Park Circle. 11 P97 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 VU Since the packet went out three letters have been received. Herb Klein and Bill Guth with concerns about the parking. Neal Segal and Villas of Aspen are fully supportive. Adam Roy, representing the applicant, said the right of way will look very different than a residential neighborhood. We feel we can very much minimize that with landscaping. With screening and a bulb out all that can be managed well. Jason Bradshaw, representing the applicant, said with the exception of the head in parking it is the same plan we landed on coming out of the work session. Mayor Skadron said a majority of the neighborhood supports it. Mayor Skadron opened public comment. 1. Peter Fornell said he is a huge advocate of affordable housing. He is also a developer and lived in it for 20 years. He is in support of the community's goal to get as much as we can. The responsibility of the stewardship of the property. The project will be funded and cashed out through the federal tax credits. We are going to get that building back in 15 years. It also needs to submit a capital improvement timeline. All of those things will need to be outlined and managed. He does not want a project that has a ton of deferred maintenance once the city gets it. Someone has to closely manage the ongoing maintenance of the building so when year 15 comes we can be proud of it and don't have to pull a bunch of money out of the housing fund. Our community wants as much affordable housing as we can get. We only permit multifamily development in two zone districts in town. There is not a lot of vacant land in there. We need to increase the size of the circle or permit housing in zone districts where we didn't use to permit it. He asked Council to make affordable housing a conditional use in the R15 zone. Ms. Garrow said you can develop affordable housing in R6, RMF and R15 at single family or duplex. You cannot do multi family without going through a PD. 2. Michael Miracle, Ski Co, said on behalf of Ski Co we do support this project as presented. Mick Ireland said he supports this project. We are losing the younger generation because they are having difficulty staying. The people less likely to stick with the community are younger. Between 20 and 40 and about 40 percent left. The same is true in affordable housing. It doens't matter much if ownership or rental. The 65 plus group is leaving at about the same rate as everyone else. A project like this has a lot of benefit. You are not building housing to increase the population but to keep it from declining drastically. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Mr. Roy said he is comfortable with the roofing change. He would like to hold on to the wider panels. The window size matches up to the paneling. It is more effective than the broken up panels. Mayor Skadron said he supports that. Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve Ordinance #28, Series of 2017 with the fees and vesting consistent with park circle and option one for panel size. Councilman Frisch said the larger panels make more sense. The parking has been the focus and I know it is not ideal but it is the best option. He does think there is some design work that will play out better in reality. Councilman Hauenstein said consistently people have praised the outreach and open houses. Hats off to that. 12 V' �; Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #28, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2017 — 488 Castle Creek Drive — Major Public Project Review Ms. Seminick said this is the final of three affordable housing projects the city is applying for with Aspen Housing Partners to create affordable housing within the urban growth boundary. The property is located up Castle Creek Road, across the street from Castle Ridge. It is a two lot subdivision that is 35,000 square feet and zoned R15 A with a PD overlay. The current PD limits development to three single family residences. The proposal is for a 28 unit affordable housing complex with 18 one bed room and 10 two bedroom units. The building will be three stories with a consolidated fourth story element. As seen from Castle Creek the elevation would appear to be 32 feet and on the Marolt side the maximum height is just over 45. 34 parking spaces, bike facilities and on site storage are also proposed. They will be rental units for at least 15 years as part of the federal tax credit program. This falls under the major public process review. It is a two step process with P&Z being the first. They granted approval with conditions. There is a subdivision review to merge the two existing lots into one. The new dimensions would conform with the underlying zoning. The project requires 28 growth management allotments and there is no annual limit to affordable housing units. There is also an 8040 green line review since a small portion is located within the review area. The project meets all criteria for the review. The residential design standard review is to ensure a street presence and a public private relationship to the street. The principal window standard would need a variation due to substantial glazing. This is a flexible standard so staff is supportive of the variation. Rezoning review from R15A-PD to AHPD is also requested. The project is surrounded by a number of affordable housing projects and proximate to transit as well as other public services. Affordable housing is scattered through town to ensure diversity within the housing mix and add to vitality of the residential fabric of town. The dimensions are overall within what would be allowed in a comparable zone with the exception of parking and height. For RMF, 38 parking spaces would be needed and a maximum height of 32 feet. The project with the 4 story element is 45.5 feet tall and 34 on street parking spaces equivalent. At first reading Council expressed concerns with the number of parking spaces on site. The applicant can accommodate five more spaces on the site. The ordinance includes options to meet the four space deficit. The last is an option for four shared spaces within the urban growth boundary. We received a memo from APCHA that Marolt could include four spaces there through a shared parking agreement. Council also had concerns with mass and height. The 4th story massing has four one bed room units. The proposed height from Castle Creek does not exceed 32 feet. The applicant looked into studies as to what it would look like if the 4th story massing were removed. Looking up valley from the bike path the applicant has provided scenarios. Main discussion points for Council include dimensions and site planning. The AACP provides an outline for these projects. It is a guiding document, not regulatory. Staff is supportive of the parking solutions but looks to Council for direction on the 4"' story massing. Two letters of public comment were received after the packet deadline from the Castle Creek Caucus and Joe Wells. Both in opposition to the project. Mr. Roy said they are still proposing the 28 unit scenario. There is some surrounding precedent that the rezoning is appropriate. The property was acquired in 2007 with funds from the housing fund. In 2016, an RFP was issued and the applicant team selected to utilize low income housing tax credits. It followed the same process with public outreach as the Main Street project. Over 500 people participated in the open houses. It went through a three iteration process during the open houses. Following January outreach and suggestions to increase the density we increased it to a full 4 story building. We felt it was too much for the site and beyond what it can handle. In April we proposed almost what we are proposing today. Following P&Z and first reading comments we considered all options for increasing on site parking. The conclusion was to revise the site plan to accommodate more parking and use four of the Marolt spaces. We also changed the sidewalk to a multi modal trail. He showed images of renderings from various directions. 13 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 v' �; Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Joe Wells said he supports housing on the site. He would like to see a project that is more in scale and similar density and height to the others that exist. The density is vastly greater than other affordable housing in the area. The height as proposed violates the height limit of every zone district that has a height limit. He encouraged council to remove the four one bed room units on the 4th floor. He would like to encourage council to provide some offsite parking. He thinks there is more at Marolt to provide. He encouraged council to look for other offsite alternatives. 2. Graham Means, Pitkin county open space and trails board and lives in the neighborhood, said this project is more dense than the neighborhood would support comfortably. He urged council to eliminate the 4th floor. It would help with the aesthetics. The 10 foot wide vegetated strip along Castle Creek is extremely important. The open space boards are working on a trail to the music school campus but there is no decision on it yet. The vegetation strip is within the right of way of the road. There is no room for a trail. There will be a lot of demand for that land. He does not think the right of way should be used to screen the project. We need to eliminate some of the units to decrease the parking demand. 3. Cliff Weiss, president of Twin Ridge affordable housing complex. He said it is a 27 year old complex. There is a little less than one parking space per bedroom. It has been a source of tremendous conflict particularly when there is snow. We still don't have enough parking. He wants to make sure there is a minimum of one space per bedroom plus guests. Adding another complex impacts the parking on all neighbors. 4. Karen Rheiman said Cliff is right. The density is four times bigger than the density of Castle Ridge. The height is too obstructive. 5. Dick Butera said this is a serious proposal with long lasting effects. It is a complicated and unusual project. After studying the proposal he still finds it difficult to understand. The plan is for 28 apartments on just over .5 acres of land. The county zoning is one house per 10 acres. The AACP says to ensure smoother cross boundary connections. The developer is asking relief for FAR, height and parking restrictions. 6. Michael Miracle, Ski Co, read a letter from Mike Kaplan. We are aware of the affordable housing shortage and how it impacts businesses. Dedicated rental units need to be part of the solution. The scale feels appropriate and the proximity to transit will result in fewer vehicles. The height is at the back and density is an efficient use of space. He urged council to approve the project. 7. Mick Ireland said he doesn't grasp this as a visual disaster when driving down the road. The units that are being asked to be sacrificed will be used well into the future by someone who could be commuting from down valley. The four units are dear. Mr. Bradshaw said with regard to leasing to the developer for 10 dollars a year it should be noted while that is accurate for the 15 years that we would be involved, after that time the city has the right to step in to the project at no additional compensation to the developer. Barry Crook, managers office, said the partnership saves us money over being the developer ourselves. Mr. Bradshaw said regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the tax credit deals, the house version of the tax bill discluded the private activity bonds. They are in the current senate bill. Councilwoman Mullins asked them to talk about the potential trail. Mr. Bradshaw said it could go in the buffer area. Unfortunately, our process and their process have not lined up for planning purposes. Both sides have elected to allow for the housing project and trail project to run independently knowing they will eventually have to meld together. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the impact and how you would accommodate a trail while retaining a buffer. Heather Henry, landscape architect, said it is not the case the two might not align in the future. The hope would be they can meet. You would see impacts if the trail were to be on our side. The trail alignment on the opposite side of the street does not shift the surface. Two of the three options do leave room for vegetation. 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 VU Councilman Hauenstein said Joe Well's letters raise valid points. The most concerning element is the access to Castle Creek Road and how narrow it is at that point. It would be a better development if it were on a level next to the Marolt housing. They are valid concerns. He does not think this will put a strain on parking in the neighborhood. The density, there are cases where it is good. It is more dense than the neighborhood. He supports more density and the 4th floor. It would be a better development if it was closer to the seasonal housing. The 4th floor units are barely visible. The lot cost is disturbing but not the deciding factor. Mr. Roy said the original plan had a traditional curb and gutter system. The new plan is for a multi modal trail that is detached from the Castle Creek Road pavement area but work its way back into the connection of the Marolt trail near the cross walk. Ms. Seminick said there is no development potential on the Marolt property at this time. Councilman Hauenstein said he will support this with a 4th floor if it is not possible on Marolt Lot 3. Councilman Frisch said after the site visit and tonight, it reaffirmed his belief that we need to lose the four units on top. It is not worth the 45 foot height on a project sponsored by the City of Aspen. What we get is 24 units. He does not think the four units are worth the trade offs. I do not want 45 on an application I'm part of. On the trail, there are a few different options. What I've heard is run it up the east side of the road. Planter or bollards will go in to protect the trail users. He is not sure he wants to cut off the highest probable start to the trail. He appreciates not having a buffer is not as tranquil or ideal. On density, the numbers look a bit bad but on the site it is a two story building that is not very long. There is a lot of undeveloped land. The density issue is not nearly as scary on paper as when I look at the visual of what will be built there. He appreciate Wards concerns on the safety on the corner. I think it is safe now. We also need to consider the financing going pear shaped. Councilwoman Mullins said it is unfortunate about the trail that it is not part of this project. On the traffic, I'm satisfied with the studies. There are a lot of different mobility options there already. It is appropriate for affordable housing but a bit too dense. It does support having a less dense project and losing the 4th story. It will help alleviate some of the parking problems. The 4th story is quite impactful. It would fit in better with current and future development if 24 units. Mayor Skadron said both Adam and Ann made compelling arguments as well as what Joe sent us. This is a difficult project. My goal at this table is to preserve and improve the elements of Aspen that make it such an alluring and fascinating place to live and visit. We have a sustainable community and a mix of people that bolsters a viable workforce, preserves a healthy social balance and allows people to stay as long as they want where they want. Government shares a responsibility of providing housing. We have to carefully weigh community benefits against height, density and all the neighborhood impacts. The criteria are satisfied to support the development with the 28 units at this time. Ms. Garrow said you could chose to call a vote or continue the meeting. Jim True, city attorney, said a two to two vote is considered no action. It would need to be continued to a date for the fifth member or to continue discussion. Councilman Frisch said the four units on top is the only difference. How do we want to handle the trail. Is there room for the trail and minimal to no screening. Ms. Henry replied yes. This project allows for any of the trail alternatives to be in place. The key will be if it is on the east side how we tie construction elements together with a retaining wall. Councilwoman Mullins asked can we get this on our schedule before the end of the year. Ms. Garrow replied yes. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 2017 with the 4th floor in place; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, no; Frisch, no; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Skadron, ye. 2 to 2 vote, no action. Mr. True said the matter is still on the table and recommend continuation to December 11. Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue Ordinance #31, Series of 2017 to December 11, 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. 15 P100 P101 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 2017 v' J ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2017 — Adding an Alternate Position to the Composition of the Wheeler Board of Directors Ms. Manning stated this is the ordinance to add an alternate member position to the Wheeler Opera House Board of Directors, per Council direction. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. WHEELER BOARD OF DIRECTORS — BOARD APPOINTMENTS Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve the board appointments of Ziska Childs as an Alternate member moving to a regular member in January 2018 and Peter Greeney as the alternate member in January 2018; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adjourn at 10:40 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk 16 IX.a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD — PD Amendment to existing approvals 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 34 (Series of 2017) — Public Hearing MEETING DATE: December 11, 2017 APPLICANT /OWNER: ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC c/o Todd Emerson REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams LOCATION: Lot 1, South Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof filed December 19, 2014 in Plat Book 108 at Page 60 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Lodge (L) zone district with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. Lot 1 contains 15 affordable housing units and 5 free-market units. SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to amend the existing entitlements for Lot 1 by modifying setbacks associated with two structures that were part of the site- specific approval for this project. Each request is about a foot or less than approved and meets underlying zone district requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the amendment. Vicinity map of the site P102 P103 IX.a LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the City Council to facilitate the issuance of multiple Certificates of Occupancy: • Planned Development — Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval (Chapter 26.445) is an amendment found "to be generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Project review approval." (City Council is the final review authority.) BACKGROUND: Lot 1 of the S. Aspen Street Subdivision and PUD was approved for the development of three buildings as well as a subgrade garage containing Skico parking, AH parking and guest parking. The three residential buildings include an eastern building (Building A) that contains five free- market units, a middle building (Building B) containing three affordable housing units, and a western building (Building C) containing twelve affordable housing units. Lot 2 (the upper lot) will contain 3 FM triplexes and 1 AH single family residence (4 bedroom). The fifteen affordable housing units will be `for -sale' units. Figure 1: S. Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision I I ITR I Ewux ' , � Rousixc ® $corvcRcrzaAhKc i �E�xo 0 �soxnLrPAyxArcoeaaErecoxs Y Building C NS(ENSIIONSPLAN SHEE 10 HEREOF FOR PLAN DI 21 SEE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHTHNTERPOLATED GRADE PLAN SHEET 44 HEREOF FOR BUILDING DIMENSIONS 3)SEEE HIBITD OF ORDINANCE NO. 23(SERIES OF O13♦ RECORDED AS RECEPTION NUMBER 6WiG FOR APPROVED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 3)CHANGES MAY EPROTECTI ASA STRICT OFFINAL ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHALL, CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ASPEN PARKS DEPARTMENT, AND CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS All of the dwelling units on Lot 1 are close to completion or completed and ready for either a Letter of Completion or a Certificate of Occupancy so that the units can be legally occupied. As part of the final inspections the City has been verifying that buildings were constructed to the maximum height and minimum yard setbacks approved by the City Council. It has come to staff's attention that three yard setbacks are not compliant with the approvals and the applicant is requesting a modification of the dimensions. Page 2 of 4 Ma STAFF FINDINGS: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) — PROJECT REVIEW (EXHIBIT A) When Lot 1 was approved, the entitlements included a setback plan as well as architectural drawings of all the buildings. The setback plan had dimension call -outs that staff verified when the project was under review which showed distances of structures from the property line. As noted in the Application (Exhibit B), two different firms worked on the landscape/setback plans and the architectural plans. Unfortunately, there was a slight discrepancy between the two sets of drawings and Building C was built to the architectural plan rather than the setback plan as shown below. Figure: Z Setback Plan PARKIHt3 ELE+lA.TOf# r1YFOH_7A�{.t i FI. ';INC, }� t i i I �GAR,4GE AGC -ESS 1 a ' AFFORCAPAE HOUSING, 1 GREEN SPACE 1 r 17'-11" - /,� ."77777. S. GARMLSCH STREET ulmtn�un AT GRADE DIMEN150 TO CAWM LEVER A110VE GRADE P JUAN ATREET "0USING " -V WALL; 7'�" WOM PROPERTY UNE TO FACE F� iAINIaw / OF Wf%LL rrtJfE: WM-LS IH THIS AREA APoE SIWACT TO 1WERPR$TA_nQN OF HEIGHT RESMCTION WALLS PARAtLELTOJLIAN ST HELD INTERIOR TO THE W -S' SETBACK OF THE AM IBUILDING +r- e' W AL+r- 8-0` M P.L. TO i FACE OF A.: This property is located within the Lodge zone district and the minimum front yard setback required is five feet. Both as built conditions exceed this minimum requirement as shown in Table 1, below. Table 1: Setback conditions Page 3 of 4 P104 Lodge zone Approved As Built Difference Building C — front yard S feet 66 feet 3 inches 65 feet — 6 inches 9 inches Page 3 of 4 P104 REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: No referral comments were requested for this minor request. An engineering representative was at the site inspections when the setbacks were discussed and had no concern on the setback amendment. RECOMMENDATION: The Lodge zone district provides for a minimum setback of five feet. Fifteen affordable housing units are ready to be issued Certificates of Occupancy and physically modifying both setbacks will add significant delay and cost to the project. The three requests are minimal and the resulting setbacks still exceed the minimum required in the Lodge zone district. The wall exceeds the setback requirement by at least 20 inches, while the building exceeds the setback by more than 60 feet. Staff recommends approval of the amendments. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 34 (Series 2017), Planned Development Amendment for Lot 1 of the S. Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A — PD Review Criteria EXHIBIT B — Application Page 4 of 4 P105 IX.a Lodge zone Approved As Built Difference setback Building C -site S feet 7 feet — 9 inches 6 feet — 8 inches 13 inches wall and and and 8 feet 7 feet — 6 inches 6 inches REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: No referral comments were requested for this minor request. An engineering representative was at the site inspections when the setbacks were discussed and had no concern on the setback amendment. RECOMMENDATION: The Lodge zone district provides for a minimum setback of five feet. Fifteen affordable housing units are ready to be issued Certificates of Occupancy and physically modifying both setbacks will add significant delay and cost to the project. The three requests are minimal and the resulting setbacks still exceed the minimum required in the Lodge zone district. The wall exceeds the setback requirement by at least 20 inches, while the building exceeds the setback by more than 60 feet. Staff recommends approval of the amendments. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 34 (Series 2017), Planned Development Amendment for Lot 1 of the S. Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A — PD Review Criteria EXHIBIT B — Application Page 4 of 4 P105 IX.a IX.a ORDINANCE NO. 34 (SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENTAMENDMENT FOR LOT 1, SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD/SUBDIVISION Parcel ID: 273513139001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC represented by BendonAdams requesting three amendments to the approvals granted via Ordinance No. 23 (Series of 2013); and, WHEREAS, the request is to modify three setbacks on the property associated with Building C by less than a foot each; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, the Community Development Director's recommendation, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves a Planned Development — Minor Amendment to a Project Review to modify the two setbacks as noted below. Table 1: Approved setback modification Ordinance No. 34, Series 2017 Lot 1. S. Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision Page 1 of 3 P106 As Built Building C — front yard setback 65 feet — 6 inches Building C -site 6 feet — 8 inches and 7 feet- 6 inches Ordinance No. 34, Series 2017 Lot 1. S. Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision Page 1 of 3 P106 P107 IX.a wall 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 Historic Preservation Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 27th day of November 2017. Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Manning, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11th day of December, 2017. ATTEST: Steven Skadron, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Linda Manning, City Clerk James R. True, City Attorney Ordinance No. 34, Series 2017 Lot 1. S. Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision Page 2 of 3 Ma Lxhib>t A: Approved areas of setback mocl tication DWENSION AT GRADE T7 DI MF NSI TO CAPM- JUAN LEVIER STREET ABOVE HWXJ6 MCi GRADE L -w WALL; 1?' -11" T-9" FROM PROPERTY LINE TO FACE OF WALI WALLS 1N T1-IISAREA ARE — - SUBJECTTOINTERPR$TATIONOF HEIGHT RESTRICTIOm S. GARmLSUH STREET WALLS PARAMEL. TO JLMN ST HELD INTERIOR TO THE 9-S' SETBACK OF THE AN BUILDING #5' MP.L.TO FACE OF Ordinance No. 34, Series 2017 Lot 1. S. Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision Page 3 of 3 P108 PARKING ELEVATORFR � F i.:,,' ;INC ' 4 M -r 8 ' M NMI[ i a .CZ&E AC{:CESS ■ ■ ` GREEN P SPACE J DWENSION AT GRADE T7 DI MF NSI TO CAPM- JUAN LEVIER STREET ABOVE HWXJ6 MCi GRADE L -w WALL; 1?' -11" T-9" FROM PROPERTY LINE TO FACE OF WALI WALLS 1N T1-IISAREA ARE — - SUBJECTTOINTERPR$TATIONOF HEIGHT RESTRICTIOm S. GARmLSUH STREET WALLS PARAMEL. TO JLMN ST HELD INTERIOR TO THE 9-S' SETBACK OF THE AN BUILDING #5' MP.L.TO FACE OF Ordinance No. 34, Series 2017 Lot 1. S. Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision Page 3 of 3 P108 P109 Ma Exhibit A Planned Development - Project Review Standards 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The proposed development is not subject to a regulatory city document. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The lot currently contains development and was previously reviewed for potential hazards such as mud flow. The construction includes required mitigation techniques. Staff finds this criterion met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. IX.a 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Findings: The lot was previously reviewed for compatibility with the neighborhood. All buildings are oriented towards a public street. Staff finds these criteria met. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 — Amendments. Staff Findings: The applicant is requesting that three setbacks that were memorialized in the site-specific approval be modified by about a foot or less. The lot is located within the Lodge zone district and the front yard setback required is five feet. The minor modification of the setbacks is still greater than the minimum setback required in the Lodge zone district and will allow the completed project to be issued Certificates of Occupancy. Staff finds these criteria met. Pilo Lodge zone Approved Proposed Building C — front 5 feet 66 feet — 3 inches 65 feet — 6 inches yard setback Building C -site wall 5 feet 7 feet — 9 inches 6 feet —8 inches and and 8, feet 7 feet — 6 inches Pilo Pill IX.a E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Findings: The City Council previously reviewed the design of the project and no changes are proposed with regard to materials. Staff finds this criterion met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: No changes to any pedestrian or bicycle facilities are proposed. The project includes sidewalks as well as a bicycle lane along Juan Street. Staff finds this criterion met. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: Lot I is near completion and was issued a building permit based upon meeting of city standards. Staff finds this criterion met. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The applicant has been upgrading any public infrastructure as required by the city to construct this project. Work is ongoing. Staff finds this criterion met. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned IX.a Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Findings: All of the multi family residential units have legal access to a public way. Staff finds this criterion met. P112 P113 IX.a November 20, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: South Aspen Townhomes Lot 1, Building C, Setbacks Please accept this request to amend the approvals for Lot 1 of the South Aspen Street Townhomes project to modify the required setbacks for "Building U and a site wall south of the building. Building C is located at the far western portion of Lot 1 and contains twelve affordable housing units —10 one -bedroom units and 2 studio units. The units are complete and in the final inspection process to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). The adjacent building is also affordable housing, containing 1 two- bedroom unit and 2 three-bedroom units. During the CO inspection process, the City's Zoning Officer identified two setback discrepancies — Building C's front yard setback, measured from Juan Street to the building's front door, measures 65.6 feet. The approvals require this distance to be 66 feet, 3 inches — a difference of roughly 9 inches. A site wall south of Building C is also off by about 10 inches — the approved setback is 7 feet, 9 inches while the built condition is 6.9 feet. The minimum front yard setback in the Lodge Zone District is 5 feet and both elements easily comply with this minimum. Because larger dimensions were cited in the Planned Development application and documented in the approvals, a modification is required to enable the as -built condition. This application respectfully requests a modification of the Planned Development to accept the as - built condition. Specifically, a 65.6 front yard setback for Building C and a 6.9 -foot front yard setback for the site wall along Juan Street. Granting these two modifications will not change the project in any material way and will clear the way for occupancy of the affordable housing units. 300 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM Ma Background The original land use application for this project appears to have contained an error. The plans for the proposed project were inconsistent, showing two different versions of a "bump -out" along the southern fagade of Building C. Documents from the 2011 land use application, maps and plans attached to Ordinance No. 23, 2013 (the approving ordinance), the recorded PUD Plan set for the project, and building permit submittals all appear to contain the inconsistency. It appears that the site plan and the building plans were prepared by different parties within the applicant's design team and contained conflicting information. The landscape sheets of the application, and copied through later documents, reflect a very minimal bump -out for the south entrance of Building C. The architectural sheets reflect a larger bump -out, placing the outside wall closer to Juan Street. The landscape sheets, with the minimal setback, were used to diagram setbacks in the planning application and eventually became a sheet in the PUD Plans set — sheet 10 "Setbacks Exhibit Plan." Below is the site plan from the 2011 planning application. Refer to page 1244/1254 of case file 0065.2011.ASLU. This document is tough to read but appears to dimension the setback as 66'-3" from the south property line to the face of the affordable housing building at the entry door. Mop , a -PMI ...., AgR6' iI WALL FEGNiS OJ HOT IHCLLCf OLIA)10 RWKdHEICgH R S race SfRUC iI.� Pify% uoGinM%F MOM.. y MnH1T ILS AAE BAND& ca 1e L L AIICNIiFOTl1Ml AND EIR RAH%.ALL SETBAfX OXMMGSEO011 TFIIS APPRORWNTE%NEFi ME. SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD / SUBDIVI° CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Also from the 2011 planning application are architectural plans for the basement and ground floor of Building C. Please refer to page 1257/2254 of case file 0065.2011.ASLU. The entry of the main building massing is larger than shown on the landscape sheets. 300 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM P114 i C.. t� 7 E__4� i i i i fj I \ Basement Level jI Y1 a) I Ued— Unh (3.5 FTE) Private Pmp 121 Salvo unid L2.h REI - 1` Lawll SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD / SUBDIVISION - AMENDMENT COU CEPTO AL Of$ I C N , PARCE41. DEAN SI. AM.- 3A5ENT11T Lr4FLLIIYEII m The discrepancy carried forward through final approvals by City Council and was documented in the official PUD Plans set. The image below is from therecorded PUD Plans Set, Sheet 10 — Setback Exhibit Plan, and shows a very minimal bump -out for the entry section along the south fagade of Building C. 1 2 7' 4$ TO CANTl- •'� JUAN J :EVER STREET ABOVE HOUSING GARAGE ACCI GRADE Ew„�r 1 .. fl TRASH 1Y'•1T RECYCLING ENCLOSURE gyr S. GARMISCH STREET ®NESIiN M, .! :11.11:21 NN kr:: :FFs11 1.1 I GREEN I SPACE t t � RETAM WALLS Puss Archilac[um + Planning F{l: FML IV- S .. :yY4 CO w 61' :TIN +1-' WALL; T P FROM PROPERTY LINE TO FACE OF WALL NOTE: WALLS IN THIS AREA ARE S118JEOT TO I NTE RPRETATIO N OF HEIGHT RESTRICTION WALLS PARALLEL TO JUAN ST HELD INTERIOR TO THE 7 S SETBACK OF THE AH BUILDING +L 6' WALL; +l-8'-0' FROM P.L. TO FACE OF WALL 300 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM P115 IX.a Ma The footprint of the building shown on the recorded setbacks exhibit conflicts with the footprint of the building shown in the architectural drawings. The image below is also from the recorded PUD Plans Set, Sheet 20 — Basement and Level 1, and shows a more pronounced bump -out along the south fagade of Building C. M rl F��qM I - 41"M I tJ!M W 'M Basement Level SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD / SUBDIVISION - A Pa$S ARCIUT[CTII RE P AJNIrvG (D ""� 1.071, DEAN ST A, N, U„ BASEMENT LEV The image below is a close -in view of the discrepancy, comparing the landscape sheet and the architecture sheet. Enlarged Setback Plan Level 1 Building C Level Plan B] CHANGED MAY RESULT A3 A 300 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM P116 P117 Ma Subsequent to the approvals, it appears that construction drawings were prepared using the approved architectural sheets as the basis of the approved building. The image below is taken from a permit drawing submitted to the City for review, clearly showing a setback dimension of 65.6 feet. 300 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM IX.a It appears that the required setback, as shown on the Setback Exhibit Plan, sheet 10 of the PUD Plan set, conflicts with the architectural plans for Building C, sheet 20 of the PUD Plan set. This conflict, internal to the applicant's plans, went undetected through all the various reviews and was solidified in the official PUD Plan set. It appears that the applicant's design team did not detect this conflict as it was carried into the construction drawings, which proceeded through reviews and became the basis for the issued permit. It also appears that the built structure was constructed to the issued permit. When the City's Zoning Officer requested an as -built survey, the conflict was finally realized. (The image to the right is from a field survey of the completed structure.) Unfortunately, the building is complete and ready for occupancy. Correcting the setback condition now would be complicated and time-consuming. Fortunately, the actual built setback condition, the building as it sits today, is entirely compliant with the minimum setback requirement of the Lodge Zone District. At 65 feet, the building easily complies with the 5 -foot setback requirement. 300 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM P118 Attachments: Kind Regards, 1. Review Criteria 2. Application Form 3. Pre -Application Summary 4. Agreement to Pay Form Chris Bendon, AICP 5. HOA Form BendonAdams, LLC 6. Authorization to Represent 7. Proof of Ownership 8. Vicinity Map 9. As Built Setbacks 10. City Council Ordinance 13, Series 2013 11. Civil Plans: Retaining Wall 12. Final Plat Drawings at Building C 2 13. Final Plat Drawings at Building C 14. Permit Submittal Setback Plan 15. Setback Exhibits 16. Public Notice: Mailing List 300 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM P118 P119 IX.a 300 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM IX.a Exhibit 1 Review Criteria Minor Amendment to a Project Review Approval An amendment found by the Community Development Director to be generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Project Review Approval or which otherwise represents an insubstantial change but does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial change but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council, pursuant to 26.445.040.B.2— Step Two. An Applicant may not apply for a Detailed Review if an amendment is pending. Response – The use and character of the project will remain the exact same. During the Certificate of Occupancy inspection, the City's Zoning Officer identified two minor setback discrepancies. • Building C: Approvals require the setback to be 66 feet and 3 inches. As built, the setback measured from Juan Street to the building's front door is 65.6 foot. The discrepancy is roughly 9 inches. • Site Wall south of Building C: Approvals require the setback to be 7 feet 9 inches. As built, the setback measures 6.9 feet. The discrepancy is roughly 10 inches. Within the Lodge Zone District, required front yard setbacks are 5 feet from the property line, which both the Building and the site wall easily meet. These discrepancies are resultant of internal inconsistencies within the original land use application. The original Land Use application, the recorded PUD plan sets, and the building permit plan sets all contain the inconsistencies, with the discrepancy lying between the landscape sheets and the architectural sheets. These setback discrepancies are illustrated in Exhibits 10-15, which contain the setback plans, the civil drawings for the retaining wall, the final plat drawings, and the permit submittal. A. Insubstantial Amendments. An insubstantial amendment to an approved Project Review or an approved Detailed Review may be authorized by the Community Development Director. An insubstantial amendment shall meet the following criteria: 1. The request does not change the use or character of the development. Response – The use and character of the project will remain the exact same. The request for the modification of approvals to accept the as built conditions will update the PUD dimensional approvals and memorialize existing setbacks, but will still comply with the underlying Lodge Zone setback requirements. 2. The request is consistent with the conditions and representations in the project's original approval, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change. P120 P121 IX.a Response —The amendment is limited to modifying the approved setback for Building C (from Juan Street) to 65.6 feet from the original approval of 66 feet 3 inches; and modifying the approved setback for the site wall south of Building C to 6.9 feet from the original approval of 7 feet 9 inches. These modifications represent a minor change, the project is otherwise consistent with the conditions and representations in the project's original approval. Through memorializing the as -built conditions, the project can move forward into obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable housing units. 3. The request does not require granting a variation from the project's allowed use(s) and does not request an increase in the allowed height or floor area. Response — This minor PD Amendment request does not require granting a variation from the project's allowed uses, nor does it request an increase in height or floor area. 4. Any proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are limited to a technical nature, respond to a design parameter that could not have been foreseen during the Project Review approval, are within dimensional tolerances stated in the Project Review, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change. Response — The request is limited to amending a minor project detail that could not have been foreseen during the review process. The close examination of the design, and review by the City's Zoning Officers led to the identification of the setback discrepancy amongst the plan sets and the as -built conditions for Building C and site wall to the south. Building C is located at the far western portion of Lot 1 and contains twelve affordable housing units — 10 one -bedroom units and 2 studio units. The units are complete and in the final inspection process to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). Building C's front yard setback, measured from Juan Street to the building's front door, measures 65.6 feet. The approvals require this distance to be 66 feet, 3 inches. A site wall south of Building C is also slightly less than the approved setback is 7 feet, 9 inches, at 6.9 feet. The minimum front yard setback in the Lodge Zone District is 5 feet and both elements easily comply with this minimum. Because larger dimensions were cited in the Planned Development application and documented in the approvals, a modification is required to enable the as -built condition. Documents from the 2011 land use application, maps and plans attached to Ordinance No. 23, 2013 (the approving ordinance), the recorded PUD Plan set for the project, and building permit submittals all appear to contain the inconsistency. The landscape sheets of the application, and copied through later documents, reflect a very minimal bump -out for the south entrance of Building C. The architectural sheets reflect a larger bump -out, placing the Ma outside wall closer to Juan Street. The landscape sheets were used to diagram setbacks in the planning application and eventually became a sheet in the recorded PUD Plans set—sheet 10 "Setbacks Exhibit Plan." These discrepancies carried forward through final approvals by City Council and were documented in the official PUD Plans set. Subsequent to the approvals, it appears that construction drawings were prepared using the approved architectural sheets as the basis of the approved building. This conflict, internal to the Applicant's plans, went undetected through all the various reviews and was solidified in the official PUD Plan set. It appears that the Applicant's design team did not detect this conflict as it was carried into the construction drawings, which proceeded through reviews and became the basis for the issued permit. It also appears that the built structure was constructed to the issued permit. When the City's Zoning Officer requested an as -built survey, the conflict was finally realized. Fortunately, the actual built setback condition, as the building sits today, is entirely compliant with the minimum setback requirement of the Lodge Zone District. At 65 feet, the building easily complies with the 5 -foot setback requirement. 5. An Applicant may not apply for Detailed Review if an amendment is pending. Response —The project is fully entitled, with Building C fully constructed, and the amendment does not require application for Detailed Review. P122 Exhibit 2 P123 Ma ATTACHMENT 2 - LAND USE APPLICATION YKUJM1 : JOUin Aspen Jireex FVU Amendment Name: South Aspen Street Townhomes Subdivision & PUD: Amended & Restated Location: —South Aspen Street, Aspen CO 81611 Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273 13139 001 and 004 APPLICANT: Name: Todd Emerson, ASV Aspen Street, LLC c/o Bald Mountain, LLC Address: _132 West Main Street, Suite C, Aspen CO 81611 Phone #: 925-2114 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Chris Bendon. BendonAdams Address: 300 So Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone#: 925-2855 0 GMQS Exemption Q GMQS Allotment Special Review 0 ESA-8040Greenline,Stream 0 Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, 0 Mountain View Plane 0 Commercial Design Review 0 Residential Design Variance 0 Conditional Use Q Conceptual PUD ® Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Subdivision (Insubstantial Amendment) Q Subdivision Exemption (includes Condominiumization) 0 Lot Split 0 Lot Line Adjustment 0 Temporary Use 0 Conceptual SPA 0 Final SPA (&SPA Amendment) Q Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Other: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PUD -approved residential townhomes consisting of Lots 1 and 2, which contain both free-market and affordable housing residential units. PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Amend setbacks on western portion of Lot 1 to accommodate built conditions. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 0 Pre -Application Conference Summary 0 Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement na Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form 0 Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements – including Written Responses to Review Standards na 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. IX.a Exhibit 4 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An a>;reement between the City of Aspen ("Citv") and Property ASV Aspen Street Owner, LLC; c/o Phone No.: 925-2114 Owner ("I'T Bald Mountain, LLC Email: temerson@baldmountainllc.com Address of Lots 1 and 2 Billing Todd Emerson Property: South Aspen Street Subdivision & PUD: Address: Bald Mountain, LLC (Subject of Amended & Restated (send bills here) 132 W Main Street, Unit C application) Aspen Colorado 81611 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. $. 0 flat fee for $. 0 flat fee for $. 0 flat fee for $. 0 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 additional 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. $ 173e& tbd deposit for * tbd hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ -325-- tbd deposit for +- tbd hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $_Received $ Pr pert Owne I Name: Tad Emerson Title: Project Manager, Bald Mountain, LLC P124 Exhibit 5 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed bV the propertV owner or AttorneV representinq the property owner. Name: Todd Emerson, ASV Aspen Street Owner, LLC; c/o Bald Mountain, LLC Property Owner ('I'T Email: temerson@baidmountainllc.com Phone No.: 925-2114 Address of Lots 1 and 2 Property: South Aspen Street Subdivision & PUD: Amended & Restated (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) ❑x This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this docpment is a public docu ent_ Owner signature: 41slf� Owner printed name: _Todd Emerson, Project Manager or, Attorney signature: Attorney printed name: date: P125 K.a IX.a P126 Exhibit b February 13, 2017 September 18, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Phelan, AICP Community Development Deputy Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: South Aspen Street Townhomes PUD & Subdivision Insubstantial Amendment (Parcel ID 273 131 39 001 and 004) Ms. Phelan: Please accept this letter authorizing Chris Bendon of BendonAdams, LLC to represent our ownership interests in the South Aspen Street Townhomes project and act on our behalf on matters regarding the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to call. Property: Lots 1 & 2, South Aspen Street PUD & Subdivision: Amended & Restated Owner: ASV Aspen Street Owner LLC; c/o Bald Mountain, LLC Kind Regards, To d Emerson, Project Manager Bald Mountain, LLC 132 West Main Street, Suite C Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-2114 COMMITMENT for TITLE INSURANCE issued by TITLE COMPANY of the rockies as agent for FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Reference: Commitment Ordered By: Todd Emerson Bald Mountain LLC 132 W. Main St. Ste. C Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970-385-2114 Fax: email: temerson@baldmountainllc.com P127 Exhibit 7 IX.a Commitment Number: 0704905-C3 Inquiries should be directed to: Susan Hass Title Company of the Rockies 132 W. Main Street, Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 920-5352 Reference Property Address: TBD South Aspen Street, Aspen, CO 81611 SCHEDULE A I. Effective Date: October 26, 2017, 7:00 am Issue Date: November 03, 2017 2. Policy (or Policies) to be issued: ALTA Owner's Policy (6-17-06) Policy Amount: Amount to be Determined Premium: Amount to be Determined Proposed Insured: A Buyer to be Determined 3. The estate or interest in the Land described or referred to in this Commitment is: Fee Simple and Title to said estate or interest is at the Effective Date vested in: ASV Aspen Street Owner LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 4. The Land referred to in this Commitment is located in the County ofPitkin, State of Colorado, and is described as follows: FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE SCHEDULE A CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule A IX.a LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Land referred to herein is located in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD/SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof filed December 19, 2014, in Plat Book 108 at Page 60. TO BE KNOWN AS: Unit , according to the Condominium Declaration for SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD NORTH CONDOMINIUM, recorded , 2017, at Reception No. , and the Condominium Map recorded , 2017, at Reception No. NOTE: Upon compliance with Requirement No. 1 the legal description will be amended accordingly. P128 P129 IX.a Commitment No. 0704905-C3 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B - SECTION I REQUIREMENTS THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH: Schedule B -I Requirements Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: 1. Duly executed and acknowledged Condominium Map of South Aspen Street PUD North Condominium. 2. Duly executed and acknowledged Condominium Declaration for South Aspen Street PUD North Condominium. NOTE: The Company reserves the right to make additional requirements and/or exceptions upon review of the Plat and Declaration contemplated by Requirements No. 1 and 2. 3. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County releasing subject property from the lien of the Deed of Trust from ASV Aspen Street Owner, LLC for the use of TPG RE Finance, LLC, to secure $75,000,000.00, dated May 22, 2015, and recorded May 22, 2015, at Reception No. 620109. NOTE: Assignment of Leases and Rents recorded May 22, 2015, at Reception No. 620110, given in connection with the above Deed of Trust. NOTE: Disburser's Notice by TPG RE Finance, LLC, recorded May 22, 2015, at Reception No. 620111. NOTE: Security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code affecting subject property, notice of which is given by UCC Financing Statement, from ASV Aspen Street Owner LLC, to TPG RE Finance, LLC, as agent, secured party, recorded May 22, 2015, at Reception No. 620112. NOTE: Collateral Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Notes, Liens and Loan Documents recorded March 31, 2017, at Reception No. 637231. 4. Articles of Organization for ASV Aspen Street Owner LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, disclosing the names of all Managers of said limited liability company and otherwise complying with C.R.S. 7-80-101, et seq., as amended, and evidencing the existence of said limited liability company prior to the time it conveys title to subject property, must be filed in the office of the Secretary of State for the State of Delaware, but need not be recorded. 5. Resolution or Statement of Authority by ASV Aspen Street Owner LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, authorizing the transaction, executed by the managers or members set forth in the Operating Agreement. NOTE: Review Operating Agreement for authority of party(ies) to act on behalf of said limited liability company and complete the transaction contemplated herein. Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B -I Requirements IX.a Commitment No. 0704905-C3 Schedule B -I Requirements (continued) 6. Deed from ASV Aspen Street Owner LLC, a Delaware limited liability company to A Burer To Be Determined. NOTE: Duly executed real property transfer declaration, executed by either the Grantor or Grantee, to accompany the Deed mentioned above, pursuant to Article 14 of House Bill No. 1288 -CRA 39-14-102. 7. Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent that all dues and/or assessments levied by the Homeowners Association have been paid through the date of closing. 8. Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent either (a) that the "real estate transfer taxes" imposed by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979), and by Ordinance No. 13, (Series of 1990), of the City of Aspen, Colorado have been paid, and that the liens imposed thereby have been fully satisfied, or (b) that Certificates of Exemption have been issued pursuant to the provisions thereof. THE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL SEARCH OF THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER FOR Pitkin COUNTY, COLORADO FOR JUDGMENT LIENS, TAX LIENS OR OTHER SIMILAR OR DISSIMILAR INVOLUNTARY MATTERS AFFECTING THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES, AND TO MAKE SUCH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY, AFTER THE IDENTITY OF THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE COMPANY. NOTE: THIS COMMITMENT IS ISSUED UPON THE EXPRESS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICABLE PREMIUMS, CHARGES AND FEES SHALL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT IF THE APPLICANT AND/OR ITS DESIGNEE OR NOMINEE CLOSES THE TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED BY OR OTHERWISE RELIES UPON THE COMMITMENT, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND SCHEDULES OF RATES ON FILE WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE. Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B -I Requirements (continued) P130 P131 IX.a Commitment No. 0704905-C3 Schedule B -II Exceptions COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B - SECTION II EXCEPTIONS 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. Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason of the matters shown below: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2. Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any created, first appearing in the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. Right of the Proprietor of a Vein or Lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 26, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 298. 8. Restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, as contained in instrument recorded July 26, 1978, in Book 351 at Page 940, Book 351 at Page 942 and Book 351 at Page 944. 9. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Lease Agreement Between John H. Roberts, Jr. and the Aspen Skiing Company, a Colorado general partnership, recorded December 2, 1985, in Book 500 at Page 605, as amended by instrument recorded October 21, 2014, at Reception No. 614729. 10. Resolution No. 3 ( Series of 2001 ) recorded February 15, 2001, at Reception No. 451526. 11. Ordinance No. 32 ( Series of 2003 ) recorded August 4, 2003, at Reception No. 486407. 12. Notice Of PUD Designation as contained on Page 8 in Ordinance No. 27 ( Series of 2007 ) recorded August 8, 2007, at Reception No. 540761. 13. Amended and Restated Subdivision/PUD Agreement for South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD recorded December 19, 2014, at Reception No. 616165, as amended by instrument recorded July 1, Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B -II Exceptions IX.a Commitment No. 0704905-C3 Schedule B -II Exceptions (continued) 2016, at Reception No. 630425 and September 22, 2017, at Reception No. 641690. 14. Easements, rights of way and all other matters as shown on the Plat of South Aspen Street PUD/Subdivision, filed December 19, 2014, in Plat Book 108 at Page 60 as Reception No. 616166. 15. Notice of PUD Designation recorded July 10, 2007, at Reception No. 539750, August 8, 2007, at Reception No. 540693 and November 12, 2007, at Reception No. 543983. 16. Contribution Agreement recorded August 2, 2007, at Reception No. 540625. 17. Resolution No. 96 (Series of 2009) by the Aspen City Counsel recorded April 1, 2010, at Reception No. 568178. 18. Resolution No. 68 (Series of 2012) by the Aspen City Counsel recorded August 21, 2012, at Reception No. 591518. 19. Resolution No. 18 (Series of 2012) by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recorded October 22, 2012, at Reception No. 593257. 20. Ordinance No. 23 (Series of 2013) by the City of Aspen City Council recorded December 2, 2013, at Reception No. 606010. 21. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Cost Sharing And Licence Agreement recorded August 18, 2015, at Reception No. 622523. 22. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Notice Of Approval recorded April 21, 2016, at Reception No. 628736. 23. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Notice Of Approval recorded July 1, 2016,at Reception No. 630424. 24. Easement and right of way for underground electric transmission or distribution line and related appurtenances, as granted by ASV Aspen Street Owner LLC to Holy Cross Energy, a Colorado corporation, by instrument recorded August 12, 2016, at Reception No. 631392, said easement being more particularly described therein. 25. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Trench, Conduit, And Vault Agreement recorded August 8, 2016, at Reception No. 631249. 26. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Agreement For Temporary Construction Easement And Subsurface Encroachment Easement recorded December 29, 2016, at Reception No. 635044. 27. Easements, rights of way and all other matters as shown on the Condominium Map of South Aspen Street PUD North Condominium, recorded 2017, at Reception No. 28. Those covenants, conditions, obligations, easements and restrictions which are a burden to the Condominium Unit described in Schedule A, and set forth in the Condominium Declaration for South Aspen Street PUD North Condominium, recorded 2017, at Reception No. Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B -II Exceptions (continued) P132 P133 IX.a Commitment No. 0704905-C3 Schedule B -II Exceptions (continued) Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B -II Exceptions (continued) IX.a Note 1: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII, requires that "Every Title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the Title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." (Gap Protection) Note 2: Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of this Commitment maybe deleted from the Owner's Policy to be issued hereunder upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The Land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single-family residence, which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials may have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purpose of construction on the Land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 13 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's and materialmen's liens. D. Any deviation from conditions A though C above is subject to such additional requirements or Information as the Company may deem necessary, or, at its option, the Company may refuse to delete the exception. E. Payment of the premium for said coverage. Note 3: The following disclosures are hereby made pursuant to § 10-11-122, C.R.S.: (i) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district; (ii) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent; and (iii) Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Note 4: If the sales price of the subject property exceeds $100,000.00, the seller shall be required to comply with the disclosure or withholding provisions of C.R.S. §39-22-604.5 (Non-resident withholding). DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note 5: Pursuant to C.R.S. §10-11-123 Notice is hereby given: (a) If there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate then there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property, and (b) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. Note 6: Effective September 1, 1997, C.R.S. §30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half inch the clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform. Note 7: Our Privacy Policy: We will not reveal nonpublic personal customer information to any external non-affiliated organization unless we have been authorized by the customer, or are required by law. Note 8: Records: Regulation 3-5-1 Section 7 (N) provides that each title entity shall maintain adequate documentation and records sufficient to show compliance with this regulation and Title 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes for a period of not less than seven (7) years, except as otherwise permitted by law. Note 9: Pursuant Regulation 3-5-1 Section 9 (F) notice is hereby given that "A title entity shall not earn interest on fiduciary funds unless disclosure is made to all necessary parties to a transaction that interest is or has been earned. Said disclosure must offer the opportunity to receive payment of any interest earned on such funds beyond any administrative fees as may be on file with the division. Said disclosure must be clear and conspicuous, and may be made at any time up to and including closing. " Be advised that the closing agent will or could charge an Administrative Fee for processing such an additional services request and any resulting payee will also be subjected to a W-9 or other required tax documentation for such purpose(s). Be further advised that, for many transactions, the imposed Administrative Fee associated with such an additional service may exceed any such interest earned. Therefore, you may have the right to some of the interest earned over and above the Administrative Fee, if applicable (e.g., any money over any administrative fees involved in figuring the amounts earned). Disclosure Statements Note 10: Pursuant to Regulation 3-5-1 Section 9 (G) notice is hereby given that "Until a title entity receives written instructions pertaining to the holding of fiduciary funds, in a form agreeable to the title entity, it shall comply with the following: 1. The title entity shall deposit funds into an escrow, trust, or other fiduciary account and hold them in a fiduciary capacity. 2. The title entity shall use any funds designated as "earnest money " for the consummation of the transaction as evidenced by the contract to buy and sell real estate applicable to said transaction, except as otherwise provided in this section. If the transaction does not close, the title entity shall: a. Release the earnest money funds as directed by written instructions signed by both the buyer and seller; or b. If acceptable written instructions are not received, uncontested funds shall be held by the title entity for 180 days from the scheduled date of closing, after which the title entity shall return said funds to the payor. 3. In the event of any controversy regarding the funds held by the title entity (notwithstanding any termination of the contract), the title entity shall not be required to take any action unless and until such controversy is resolved. At its option and discretion, the title entity may: a. Await any proceeding; or b. Interplead all parties and deposit such funds into a court of competent jurisdiction, and recover court costs and reasonable attorney and legal fees; or c. Deliver written notice to the buyer and seller that unless the title entity receives a copy of a summons and complaint or claim (between buyer and seller), containing the case number of the lawsuit or lawsuits, within 120 days of the title entity's written notice delivered to the parties, title entity shall return the funds to the depositing parry." P134 ss a FirstAmerican TideTM DISCLOSURE STATEMENT P135 IX.a Pursuant to C.R.S. 30-10-406(3)(a) all documents received for recording or filing in the Clerk and Recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half of an inch. The Clerk and Recorder will refuse to record or file any document that does not conform to the requirements of this section. NOTE: If this transaction includes a sale of the property and the price exceeds $100,000.00, the seller must comply with the disclosure/withholding provisions of C.R.S. 39-22-604.5 (Nonresident withholding). NOTE: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title insurance company shall be responsible to the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the title commitment, other than the effective date of the title commitment, for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title insurance company, or its agent, conducts the closing and settlement service that is in conjunction with its issuance of an owner's policy of title insurance and is responsible for the recording and filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed. Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, the company will not issue its owner's policy or owner's policies of title insurance contemplated by this commitment until it has been provided a Certificate of Taxes due or other equivalent documentation from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent; or until the Proposed Insured has notified or instructed the company in writing to the contrary. The subject property may be located in a special taxing district. A Certificate of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent. Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. A. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B. That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2, Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material -men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un -filed mechanic's and material -men's liens. D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium, fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. NOTE: Pursuant to C.R.S. 38-35-125(2) no person or entity that provides closing and settlement services for a real estate transaction shall disburse funds as a part of such services until those funds have been received and are available for immediate withdrawal as a matter of right. NOTE: C.R.S. 39-14-102 requires that a real property transfer declaration accompany any conveyance document presented for recordation in the State of Colorado. Said declaration shall be completed and signed by either the grantor or grantee. NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado division of insurance within the department of regulatory agencies. NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of an ALTA Closing Protection Letter which may, upon request, be provided to certain parties to the transaction identified in the commitment. Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied. IX.a South Aspen I ownhornes — Vicinifi Exhibit,8 Ell 01i Yea' Y Gallery The Red Onion Wagner Park is StRegis - :Pcn Resort SCnrrr"f Si 0 Asnp.n Condn Rental 212 Gz Belly LIP Rla Adwqlure, A- ASPE Aspen Mountain Ski Resort -Aspen... P136 LOCATION VERIFICATION MAP OF. E,Khibil9 SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD SOUTH LOT 1 ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED FINAL PLAT OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISIONIPUD RECORDED DECEMBER 19, 20141N PLAT BOOK 106 AT PAGE 60 AS RECEPTION NO. 616166 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS. SHEET OF SITl( � GPSSFWND54ALDMINDM CAPMARCINGPSCOMROL \\'/I ATTHEAPPRO%IMATE INTERSEC110N OFDUWJRAVENUE PNO GAAMISCHSiREEf GPSBFWNDI VAlUMINUMCAPMARCINGPSCONTROL _ EMIR AT THEAPPROXIMAIEIHTERSECTIONOF HOPKINS AVENUE AND GWMISCHSTREET GRAPHIC SCALE VICINITY MAP 20 SCALE =1000 1inch=20k. - U.S. SURVEY FEET s PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT 1 ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED FINAL PWT OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD RECORDED DECEMBER 19,2014 IN PLAT UnuTrusEmExTVER p- BOOK 106 AT PAGE 60 AS RECEPTION NO. 616166 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS. CITY AND TOW NSITE OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. IxA�xm�Fq PEACEaw Axo 9ooxas�PncEaABAxo 9roxas PaoEaaa N.s'vFxsFtenauNBrtvwnl DEAN STREET Iw,s'lEP-ACx Ex TPUNI S75° 09' WE 330.00' Tt. v AcxUPPER —EfiNIeNmAp 4PRwAEEu,IEwP PTAEEFExIXAT:,REETxoE GENERAL NOTES LOT `s EuvnTlox-IXiv�iyx P4IERET%Aana — I[xx aipwN x w m I A) DATE OF SURVEY: AUGUST 7 - 9 AND SEPTEMBER 7, 8,12 AND 21 AND OCTOBER 4, 5, 13,16,18 - 20 AND NOVEMBER 3, 6,10,13 AND 16,201T WIL01 8 BI DATE OF PREPARATION: AUGUST- NOVEMBER, 2017. _ C) BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF N 14°55'31" E BETWEEN THE FOUND 3.5" ALUMINUM CAP DREXEL BARBELL GPS CONTROL AT THE APPROXIMATE - INTERSECTION OF DURANT AVENUE AND GARMISCH STREETAND THE FOUND 3.5" ALUMINUM CAP DREXEL BARBELL GPS CONTROL ATTHE APPROXIMATE 0 �1 u•wauxewxrvxom mxcxErzroeoTromcav ? INTERSECTION OF HOPKINS AVENUE AND GARMISCH STREET. ser DI BASISOFSURVEY: THE OFFICIALMAP OFTHE CITY OF ASPEN, PREPAREDBYG.E.BUCHANAN, DATED DECEMBER15, 1959; THE CITY OF ASPEN - GPS CONTROL lu.r veasETaux BUILDINGA '3 MON UMENTATION MAP, PREPARED BY MARCIN ENGINEERING LLC, DATED DECEMBER 2,2009; THE AMENDED AND RESTATED FINAL PWT OF SOUTH ASPEN WILOINGB pwnl STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD RECORDED DECEMBER 19, 2014 AS RECEPTION NO. 616166; VARIOUS DOCUMENTS OF RECORD; AND THE FOUND MONUMENTS, AS laexx" PT x I FxxISO SHOWN. ISi..ev pz>s SE I vuxl EI BASIS OF ELEVATION: THE 1998 CITY OF ASPEN DREXEL BARREL CONTROL DATUM, WHICH IS BASED ON AN ELEVATION OF 7720.88'(NAVD 1988)0N THE NGS °1a"I x pf STATION "S-159". THIS ESTABLISHED A LOCAL SITE BENCHMARK OF 7931.8' FEET ON THE N0. 5 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP (L.S. 28643) MONUMENTING THE Se usxox xoxrxsmEENom uxoscArlxccmvsToropmxcxErzwnu pcpyyylNORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS SHOWN HEREON. 3 F) THE LINEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS SURVEY IS THE US SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINED BYTHE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY. GI ALL RECORDING INFORMATION REFERENCED HEREIN IS PER THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EntIt J + H) SETBACKSSHOWN ARE PER THE SETBACKS EXHIBITS PIAN PROVIDED BYTHE CLIENT'S ARCHITECT. )S°09'll'W 195.20' Ie.B VERSETBnIX 16.s' ALL IXXlxrt wnI11T I—i"LiANI Ew Fxxl wxl xt slTv0.nvExsETancx T- F" IXxlBrtvuxl JUANBTREET ooxast pacEwa CROSS LOWER UPPER IAC Eplxo SECTION WALL WALL 3x• IEa^XI ERom CSNU TEwAuia .1 aPcaNFRETEwuE NO. HEIGHT HEIGHT pERpuilxaTcx[ol [x L 9r' 79' SU RVEYOR'S STAJWENT 0 RE0 3 g T9' SOPRIS ENGINEERING LLC I, MARK S. BE P TA TETHATTHISSIIRVEY WAS PREPARED BYSOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC FORASVASPEN STREETOWNERS, LLC RE 4 7'1" 7' LIMITED LIAB MPA THAT IT 15 TRUE BIND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 5 4xa' 6' CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 ■ CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 MARKS. BECI.— (970) 704-0311 NH LANG L 7 Exhik 10 1M16OF EIIBORIIC4 lP I /si�tL WWI- NPIa YfROU /NOP611YlWE" rtiwpNtlt wNlllEdlrt •rY At NlLLL141Wrt N.Y --- PARImq � AITACIIED [DNCMEIE WVI N[IONT.r IT AT PO4fT ]ASPEN ]lAlEt \p(5yrL1{ `41FY•.la P1bPlRIY'lw6 >.r rROY MOPERIYIW[ YPafPTV 4WE ■ —_- — wAAr,E L\Rrs otJ-rwlwlN .rV F FACFBOY►L 70 ' fncEaYPUL I I YQ I qe' 1 IryL {tLL I � + I PrNrFt PAA<ELi _ - I I TOP R13[R OF dIE " NiOPOAdE J 6TNR 1'/AOY L" INR✓;WLI dTL' xklu J PPOPlRIY IwE C YELL �� S li M I—LWFI—IPI TO LIAIU3UPL I - ( COILPEA OF WLLl IGN roRATO— L t 1>•n\ ADt� a I!- Irr OI{ADE ..IY swu. 1 _ �a -- - xr rleouPL ro /1YIIa10 OOPNFP G<raV L I y r®o IO MLL WIFR dbIE EPO El[WT011- G{LNRL! AT AFF [ •151U,G y,� •IeQ"10• N1011 PL TO rAC! a f 1-1 —ac—E. 1'AVIM: C[ •F17 MYIEL �„ Ulute lE PAwq #4..::_. oawn Awl . DT.r MNPL OIDA f 1 K E, NOTL]I TOrI W—L �ywTPAW101f PKJ1ETE {:WO I a cPLlce .rF Fa•R011PC TO Of 3 4111E � bPlbLLTY PANq{t\OI I � 14ALOU\MId10 1 NF0110AIN! . tOOOYPI NOTES: {a¢EN 1) WALL HEIGHTS 00 NOT INCLUDE GUARD araC ' wlAanx� RAIL DIMENSION lruv 1 Ir . wu{s T.WM1; 2) OIN E SIONSARE TO FACED. STRUCTURE T�P FNOY ffl{Y911Y ME TO FACE UNLESS OTHER WISE NOTED. PEGYGI{O OF 111N1 clPawuNE _ w)rE wnuaw iMNaA ARE 7) SETBACKS ARE BASED ON CONCEPTUAL .,. " . IRiAecnowrFAPAeuTloNa ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLANS: ALL rluDlrt ua11eT1oD SETBACKS AS DEPICTED ON THIS SHEET ARE APPROXIMATEPAMU,. a Iwanlul , ` ■ GII4ET IWAO WTEA"T TOLE IT 1 1' GET WX OF 11 TO TIDE RD BE6 OF 111f AR O.FL0 - M-t51ALV .r TQFROY P L TO FACE OF WLLL SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD / SUBDIVISION - AMENDMENT 4- ASPEN.CQLORADO . '.•" 4 , — CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SETBACKS EXHIBIT PLAN p C • NO"BER 11.2013 1 V �•W W W 6$GM 118 Wl5itlh Stt, Sire 200 Glmwood8pnngs, CC 81601 RToeas.looa w,sgmyw,aam axJro mr:'WJ I' m�asm FFE CML 2B IJ N••v O 0 ••- \ memmm Lot 1 GradinBuilding ,s o sore (^RCH zeI-I/z7 I FOOIINC FAP STEft ENO PoS1 INSTALL H9NAWL ° 3 Exhibit 11 ' NOTES' I. MUO FLOW RETAINING WALL AT 5 P(IX eEcrN aErNNINc wAu srrnw +r.° mar � �, [ur eN,1" IXIdJ °WM of SmMltx ttw/.o.r Po.wi awn(1ri m Gas/ °^ 0 un M BrTAxenn suz. ran AT GasT xaW au ttTa Salt, C1,. ¢r,F M.eun. '�� M am,,,,.a ag ugag m comma map m zuTN�wcxc rto- „uxtom wu rme .vom se m a °seam ns rns»r uw'/x M av[ a[Tavwis wu. ssr s,nu'nam /`� mnxv +hzo rtm CMsmwave u+mseN[ trem+,R J.J m<wreti'Ws um emt Xmox ra xw,vn' U [Ge,w%M. wt Mw+'[Jx aPou %w (en.'Cr w)Mamw aM.aw trap Mw%e MGv[tt ... mean wt av,rz.w.ww mNorawtrom+.s umm'sroxx ammmr¢r [w rattw 5� k _ Facraew sa,awsca�[s[amw h a, NW 2 MUD F[OW R£%IN/NC WALL AT GREEN SPACE xmwe aaw[n [Nnrc uMm M we -m nmsroxu srermxsisu Lar awmenaz rRy.+nro z/, z, rnv w,rnv<s an am vmow °wL rurttwve"ov sa[I nar /w ruwxu. ' ... J. /rtw [c (nmum av l M BJw lda-tr "ln' J [IMmv w m[,n,w s,a[[ awaAw.¢ una-A'[ m',aws llC Scale wu reran re REw2w Ar mmmnm L nr,�r .•.mx,:, ry mrm zOa ' _ ..... I • - 4p ... � In k°: I 10 ......... ............ '� neje 4 xrmmiv LavLmn DAMP ..... zea H �.va" azv � .�. m m xi,„..•, �:. n UNOSGPE BLOCK rPETAINbVG WALL - la' RICH s rows M ,et ere. eH ma'n's. Tav PROPOSED RETAINING t[�, nla. ma Am - Ae xsut One'rG rrwsx M mm w[.t m[ t PROPOSED NOR Ca RACE FOUNDATION W L iu/mwn launuwt Alm Amm[[ !T[w M U a'as/H ' nm''wmm / ' 50 amen mmm,r INSTALL N4NOR.NL mmrms� � I °m ro kew RF/ INC WAfL PFR wum,a I _ OS W PUNS PERNOUS RIVERS ° mw QEANE STREET EE . M wuL aT zeas' onax Mal[rttu .weer viT roe a£Tunra wut v azMum Br 1Y0'SC1£A�0' - PERRWOODUS PA✓ERS iL \ u ...Aim �r[?Z. ....... EaWLz m Wtz s t& � � 6G � >• c l amw xNm xfl :aK SECINM•2. CIJi -- vRovLRiY �'m'6Nv P,NLraAaoCM�oMm>MMNm[aw" M T,w r ro m a PUBLIC R.0A CONNE 7 LOW U a as NrT,M mMR wM. cn�orx " m ,aa �ma m a comm M� --- — ,ar ------------------ -- — — — x..�m 4 M area Scaling and Calibration of the Civil plans show the dimensional setbacks and proposed building W 6$GM 118 Wl5itlh Stt, Sire 200 Glmwood8pnngs, CC 81601 RToeas.looa w,sgmyw,aam axJro mr:'WJ I' m�asm FFE CML 2B IJ N••v O 0 ••- \ memmm Lot 1 GradinBuilding ,s o sore (^RCH zeI-I/z7 MUD a RETAI NG 3 ,.a ' WAL .mrt/ con an eEcrN aErNNINc wAu srrnw +r.° mar � �, [ur RETS [ININGW LL BLDG.0 su s¢aWnarL use �I n.wn�varT tt am,,,,.a ag ugag m comma map m zuTN�wcxc [ aw Facraew sa,awsca�[s[amw h a, NW (.._ _ s cAr I $ I aaac vama, Nm co. "aJ-asamnnm, m � .�. m m xi,„..•, �:. n STAIRS e axuBs o a- Z” v nia � .71 u _ �pq r (Rcn. -a I/27 cn�orx " comm mm °p o w w g M area Scaling and Calibration of the Civil plans show the dimensional setbacks and proposed building w aa.mm ma,„,,, u location consistent with what is represented in the approved permit submittal setback plans / B ,SrAas "mm"mS�a Y; ' and verification that the building footprint has ;, seaTe o. ° `®z „ MUFLOW RETAINING WALL ? been built and located as per the original PUD SKYLIGHTS �i. Frao 2w crosMtc�axv (� Al AROO UND PATIO crns � rr.o approval documents. (Note that these fx£ CIYM 4)B] s� flz dimensionsdonotaccount for finish.) FAmw —ore sore sore— eo (ARCH. 41" B% +rr w'm These dimensions can be further verified by 416] cawn ^ `NGAROEN 'i:� using the northern and eastern locating CML 4/.6] m[maw-uvNN[CTIDN (RCN. 41 -BJ I ARG coordinates provided throughout the plan. Rfle10 Yu� (ARGn. 41'-B' ° ms[T MTM w sxeTT eIr Arvo A m CML 31.10 (ARCH. Jl' (. %1O aassr xru "cmun p Y OLwGs , .aro 1 tw SH[LI �. C12. Aar.rm ovv � "rmm'"xmai _ u ....13 ua tea.. ^ o u v NORTH AlkylG WALL AT ` 6$GM 118 Wl5itlh Stt, Sire 200 Glmwood8pnngs, CC 81601 RToeas.looa w,sgmyw,aam L'i ONEASPEN —PHASE 1 O 0 ARCHITECTURE, 620 main street, sails a PLANNING, Frisco, Co 80443 INTERIORS Tel: 9]0.668.1133 P. 0. Box 2773 Fo"_ 9]o.66fl2316 GRE SPACE T�q w� Lot 1 GradinBuilding ,s o sore Drawn by TLB MUD a RETAI NG r J - atAg WAL .mrt/ con an « '”?°NdC /UD FLOW RETAI,'eS - WALL AT 5 -FLEX t � c ag ugag rv� [ aw R3S m J.� 6$GM 118 Wl5itlh Stt, Sire 200 Glmwood8pnngs, CC 81601 RToeas.looa w,sgmyw,aam L'i ONEASPEN —PHASE 1 O 0 ARCHITECTURE, 620 main street, sails a PLANNING, Frisco, Co 80443 INTERIORS Tel: 9]0.668.1133 P. 0. Box 2773 Fo"_ 9]o.66fl2316 �j O'BRYAN ppR7NERSHIP, INC. NRwi,Ec*s - n.iIN, Lot 1 GradinBuilding Drawn by TLB Date: 1/O/1�8/24/1 SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD/ SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO checked b RM/W$ >' Project No: 2000-236.007 cn�orx L - LOT 1 / BLDG.A ;, seaTe o. MUFLOW RETAINING WALL ? SKYLIGHTS �i. Frao 2w crosMtc�axv (� Al AROO UND PATIO crns � rr.o �8j�l411 fk — fx£ CIYM 4)B] s� flz maw FAmw STEP —I -- °V— PUBLIC R.OW. (ARCH. 41" B% +rr w'm 416] cawn � ARCH. 4!'-B J CML 4/.6] m[maw-uvNN[CTIDN (RCN. 41 -BJ �gCML aum.rr Aar.rm cc�m�wmr "s°�• 8 �>.sl " 4 rrawal xr 1 §I Imo' mmmmm mw.ra „® m gym" a 1.5' RETAINING WALL n sTares srG none ,/L a.s M Lawn � uzmxiu �*r.^ s+s" sun mm mex. am+c•.n maw cmzar. mmnr uu.us ,s"oa s'ore s"ore s' oa .' ou is ore- •" ore STAIRS NUD FLOW RETAINING R=te sa N.var s <-rs/STAT[�S MININCUD FLOW RLTA !°]la,Y raT[ /r nl6 N e Y MUD FLOW RETAINING WALL qT PLEX lr ms slaT ag s¢ a ug �[c /_ ug m°.9 ugh u9 e !r/ieU9 JUAN STREET n Revisions: Sanitary Sewer Revisions, No Changes a. 0epartK.,t Permit Revisions: ++/n/ts. Building Devallment Permit R<vlslons: 12/04/M 6$GM 118 Wl5itlh Stt, Sire 200 Glmwood8pnngs, CC 81601 RToeas.looa w,sgmyw,aam L'i ONEASPEN —PHASE 1 O 0 ARCHITECTURE, 620 main street, sails a PLANNING, Frisco, Co 80443 INTERIORS Tel: 9]0.668.1133 P. 0. Box 2773 Fo"_ 9]o.66fl2316 �j O'BRYAN ppR7NERSHIP, INC. NRwi,Ec*s - n.iIN, Lot 1 GradinBuilding Drawn by TLB Date: 1/O/1�8/24/1 SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD/ SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO checked b RM/W$ >' Project No: 2000-236.007 W Cfl Exhibit 12 , I I I0 0 0 0 , I O I I W0. El., Opt. Laundry M.h. Equip. Lobby I Storage up Storage I — — — — — _ _ — — — — —,.. I I I I I I I ��. Basement Level I ��------•-------...-.1 SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD / SUBDIVISION - AMENDMENT ASPEN,COLORADC pOSS ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING SCYE:=1'�V O� LOT 1, DEAN ST. A.H.U., BASEMENT LEVEL & LEVEL 1 J iii srorsss arse liirsia `sio oisso o B1 , Ir. a April 25, 2014 o Q LIMITS OF SUBGRADE PARKING TOP RISER OF SITE STAIR 1' FRON PROPERTY LINE I TRASH/ I RECYCLING ` i ENCLOSURE DIMENSION LIMITS AT GRADE OF SUBGRADE 14-9 12 PARKING ELEVATOR AFFORDABLE EXISTING HOUSING GRAVEL PAVING ACCESS DETACHED ATTACHED CONCRETE WALL S'FROM PROPERTY LINE CONCRETE WALL HEIGHT+/-51AT WALL HEIGHT+/-15'AT POINT WALLHEIGHT+/-6' S. ASPEN STREET SIDEWALK SIDEWALK POINT 8'-8'FROM B'.'FROM PROPERTY LINE AT POINT V FROM PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 32'-8' LIMITSOF2 I RETAINING - , SUBGRADE WALL PARKING +/-10' WALL; 2'-3" FROM P.L. TO FACE OF WALL LOWER TRIPLEX 5 0 g.-0. L'PER MIDIJL_ R1 -LEX a +/-10' WALL � TR PLEX +/-2' WALL; + i +/-1'A"FROM P.L. TO FACE is' 2" OF WALL w 5' RETAINING WALL a +1-6' WALL; 30' FROM P.L. TO w --, CORNER OF WALL +/-5WALL; 29'-1" FROM P.L. �. TO FACE OF WALL DIMENSIO GREEN 15' __ TO CANTI- SPACE plan with regard to the 1 foot bump out at LEVER the south elevation of building C. There +/-8' WALL: ABOVE 7'-9" FROM PROPERTY LINE TO FACE GRADE ( what is represented in the setback plan. RETAINING OF WALL DIMENSION —Archure+ Planning Pass Mainitecttect nuen,welsn WALLS NOTE: WALLS IN THIS AREA ARE AT GRADE 000 SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION OF DIMENSIO _--_ -_� HEIGHT RESTRICTION TO CANTI- � 00 JUAN LEVER 0000 STREET ABOVE 0 000 HOUSING GRADE +/- GREEN WALLS PARALLEL TO JUAN ST Enlarged Setback Plan building footprint as it shown on the Level 1 SPACE plan with regard to the 1 foot bump out at e17 the south elevation of building C. There +/-8' WALL: TRASH/ 11" 7'-9" FROM PROPERTY LINE TO FACE RECYCLING ( what is represented in the setback plan. RETAINING OF WALL ENCLOSURE —Archure+ Planning Pass Mainitecttect nuen,welsn WALLS NOTE: WALLS IN THIS AREA ARE 0 000 SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION OF -- _--_ -_� HEIGHT RESTRICTION +/- The setback plan does not represent the WALLS PARALLEL TO JUAN ST Enlarged Setback Plan building footprint as it shown on the Level 1 vO U 0 0 0 plan with regard to the 1 foot bump out at the south elevation of building C. There SETBACK OF THE AH BUILDING appears to be a discrepancy between what is shown on the overall level plans verse 0 ( what is represented in the setback plan. _E rr —Archure+ Planning Pass Mainitecttect nuen,welsn 0 000 000 � 00 NCRETE CURB 0000 +/- S. GARMISCH STREET WALLS PARALLEL TO JUAN ST Enlarged Setback Plan vO U 0 0 0 HELD INTERIOR TO THE V-5" CO~ SETBACK OF THE AH BUILDING +/- 6' WALL; +/- 8'-0" FROM P.L. TO 0 FACE OF WALL —Archure+ Planning Pass Mainitecttect nuen,welsn 0 O 0 0 +/- - I � vO U 0 0 0 CO~ _ 0 III 0 O 0 0 00 00 NCRETE CURB 0 000 � ISD,wPLAN FOR NAL J n 7 N FOR BUILDING OF STRUCTURE D. LUDE GUARD z W � O L/ 0 i HEREON WERE J D 0 O O CIL DURING A BACKS 00 O UBJECT TO THE 00 OFT E CITY OF Level 1 Building C Level Plan 6) CHANGES MAY RESULT AS A PART OF FINAL ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHALL, CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ASPEN SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD/SUBDIVISION - AMENP. NT ASP[ X ORA -11 11 SETBACKS EXHIBIT F APRIL 25, 201 Exhibit 14 �ZI E F If Y T T A I� I I I EE E _ PROPeRm urve �f ,yam c o E F � enry n � __ exa+eucE I I I I I I I I I I LL I I I � I oor---foo ,I II I I I t — — —"1171 T-= cix 1P17 ^°LL PRIVATE DRIVE z Fe-- cae.uvuc '��uan� I I I I Fes` � Ase I I� I I I F nc �^ -- -- - - - 17- - - I m,�m F AHU'� BUILDING 'A' I I FIVE FLEX Lccek rte. The roved Permit submittal docume tlts indicates iR im 1B \ d-osio imension of 66'-8716"from � \ face of building veneer to = _ \ A pEcivi Property line. '\ tt W FACEICP sruo S 9v FACE CFF � � I S E \ LL \ om I ro � I I I I II"e"�9R CF I a .uuaxert I I I FvesExrrc� e�srAilm nrw ASPEN STREET- PHASE\BUILDING A\SAS PHASE I - BLDG OVERALL SITE PWd.DWG JUAN STREET (2)OVERALL SITE PLAN B D A71 I". �•.®• ©COMICM MM 2A.RCI x �1 IN HrrECTS-AIA NJ P.O. Box 2773 6zo saes, sues Telco,— CO 3 668.. 13 Tel: 970. 1133 Fmc 970b68.2316 LJ Date: O5ID82O14 Projea No: 2538IDO Drawn by: BKT Checked by: KAO A2.1 OVERALL SRE PLAN N Exhibit 15 L&MOF.➢.➢IU➢E I6,AG1E0 WALL k'ilW.i rAOPfRTT URB CWKHf Ik rrfllKlO,rt N.J AT ►ARIOq4AV"..fT A� xWNEWI! SnEw.l r. NPFT r�rR PR .TvI / K"5fAlnll AifF.ii lu _j I x I II A— --4a Inv ni P H[,FI TOP AISfA OF WE 4TAw 1' /ACIA FgOPkAtt lwE I T U411/ I ac i ENC105UR1: TdUOE OTGMDEI A MIB - K IT I _ 5➢w]MOE _ I � PAPI(wO Y{MTM AFIOAOA4lE '.191uA: IAAAmq IUVEi 'ANNti Jl WAIL MbWIT N� P T POUT E' Illdl 1•AOP[11TVlK P.WMYq I 1 I MW N/11f: rd rOF V r170 sncaorvru,L iWlKkk I I HI1Ie �� ' •' > mwAEk Faau I + I I G r ArroPn+neE -. .giro- •- J uln�.rLl °i y J S � `•1f 1W141VfROY P. IU _ C011M1A pF WLLl MO".lr I I — l ro FACE NWEyROY P 1. TO CAND LEM L ANOW y w r 1m F TO COR /fll OF11O OORrWALL i&%M • AIO1•fOf; M'1I[AWIr Ifl:lRU l lw.w Frill Pl Tof." Or WMIf ■ CTrWE11 040T�M :MrVA f1; ttWfAelf rANlq ��. lot.m. Aful Alr.rrllmTrieenREe Lt." $,METIq TOFIl6OFVW" ADM ��� AbPIW IPAlY101 t/wCJIf IELIwr GRADE .NE"PtL' .Art FAOEtPL iOfllflp - W11t1 � }Pk,31lTY YA♦.Ml llrDl I"� .'..�.PfNVW4PAWq J NOTES: t) WALL HEIGHTS DO NOT INCLUDE GUARD RAIL DIMENSION. 2) DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7) SETBACKS ARE BASED ON CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLANS: ALL SETBACKS AS DEPICTED ON THIS SHEET ARE APPROXIMATE. SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD / SUBDIVISION - AMENDMENT ASPEN,COLORADO CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SETBACKS EXHIBIT PLAN 10 _A TfOVFYBER 11.3011 V' � T y AIFGNIW4[ IIUi'R!P• 41@EH srAf I _ NEIAwrIG 1RA8111. r WAILS .Ir AW FFROM fi1W931iY Ir1E TO FACE RfCYCIrq OF WAll OF (IK.[06URE u NO ATAT" 4141ECT TO W TfRPAf1AT10N OP aj&" TONM ,^ TS IIFlO1rt RE4iRLTg1 P r1A111LLn"n P1REkT i Av WTEA T 7 r 61 IAY➢ WTEAgR TO OIE rr 1 _ __!+ BtlVLX OF 111E AR WlOW➢ MP WLL�•Ar4FR0YPLTO _ WALL WE— ®u�sicK oaf �W..P�,.WE J NOTES: t) WALL HEIGHTS DO NOT INCLUDE GUARD RAIL DIMENSION. 2) DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7) SETBACKS ARE BASED ON CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLANS: ALL SETBACKS AS DEPICTED ON THIS SHEET ARE APPROXIMATE. SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD / SUBDIVISION - AMENDMENT ASPEN,COLORADO CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SETBACKS EXHIBIT PLAN 10 _A TfOVFYBER 11.3011 V' � T y I I I0 0 0 0 I o I W0. El., Opt. Laundry V.h. Equip. Lobby I Storage up Storage I — — — — — _ _ — — — — —,.. I I I I I I I ��. Basement Level I ��------•-------...-.1 SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD / SUBDIVISION - AMENDMENT ASPEN,COLORADC pOSS ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING SCYE:=1'�V O� LOT 1, DEAN ST. A.H.U., BASEMENT LEVEL & LEVEL 1 J iii.turaA`.', s,, li ",i a%oisso o B1 , Ir. a April 25, 2014 LIMITS OF SUBGRADE PARKING TOP RISER OF SITE STAIR 1' FRON PROPERTY LINE I TRASH/ I RECYCLING ` i ENCLOSURE DIMENSION LIMITS AT GRADE OF SUBGRADE 14-9 12 PARKING ELEVATOR AFFORDABLE EXISTING HOUSING GRAVEL PAVING ACCESS DETACHED ATTACHED CONCRETE WALL S'FROM PROPERTY LINE CONCRETE WALL HEIGHT+/-51AT WALL HEIGHT+/-15'AT POINT WALLHEIGHT+/-6' S. ASPEN STREET SIDEWALK SIDEWALK POINT 8'-8'FROM B'.'FROM PROPERTY LINE AT POINT V FROM PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 32'-8' LIMITSOF2 I RETAINING - , SUBGRADE WALL PARKING +/-10' WALL; 2'-3" FROM P.L. TO FACE OF WALL LOWER TRIPLEX 5 0 g.-0. L'PER MIDIJL_ R1 -LEX a +/-10' WALL � TR PLEX +/-2' WALL; + i +/-1'A"FROM P.L. TO FACE is' 2" OF WALL w 5' RETAINING WALL a +1-6' WALL; 30' FROM P.L. TO w --, CORNER OF WALL +/-5WALL; 29'-1" FROM P.L. �. TO FACE OF WALL DIMENSIO GREEN 15' __ TO CANTI- SPACE plan with regard to the 1 foot bump out at LEVER the south elevation of building C. There +/-8' WALL: ABOVE 7'-9" FROM PROPERTY LINE TO FACE GRADE ( what is represented in the setback plan. RETAINING OF WALL DIMENSION —Archure+ Planning Pass Mainitecttect nuen,welsn WALLS NOTE: WALLS IN THIS AREA ARE AT GRADE 000 SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION OF DIMENSIO _--_ -_� HEIGHT RESTRICTION TO CANTI- � 00 JUAN LEVER 0000 STREET ABOVE 0 000 HOUSING GRADE +/- GREEN WALLS PARALLEL TO JUAN ST Enlarged Setback Plan building footprint as it shown on the Level 1 SPACE plan with regard to the 1 foot bump out at e17 the south elevation of building C. There +/-8' WALL: TRASH/ 11" 7'-9" FROM PROPERTY LINE TO FACE RECYCLING ( what is represented in the setback plan. RETAINING OF WALL ENCLOSURE —Archure+ Planning Pass Mainitecttect nuen,welsn WALLS NOTE: WALLS IN THIS AREA ARE 0 000 SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION OF -- _--_ -_� HEIGHT RESTRICTION +/- The setback plan does not represent the WALLS PARALLEL TO JUAN ST Enlarged Setback Plan building footprint as it shown on the Level 1 vO U 0 0 0 plan with regard to the 1 foot bump out at the south elevation of building C. There SETBACK OF THE AH BUILDING appears to be a discrepancy between what is shown on the overall level plans verse 0 ( what is represented in the setback plan. _E rr —Archure+ Planning Pass Mainitecttect nuen,welsn 0 000 000 � 00 NCRETE CURB 0000 +/- S. GARMISCH STREET WALLS PARALLEL TO JUAN ST Enlarged Setback Plan vO U 0 0 0 HELD INTERIOR TO THE V-5" CO~ SETBACK OF THE AH BUILDING +/- 6' WALL; +/- 8'-0" FROM P.L. TO 0 FACE OF WALL —Archure+ Planning Pass Mainitecttect nuen,welsn 0 O 0 0 +/- - I � vO U 0 0 0 CO~ _ 0 III 0 O 0 0 00 00 NCRETE CURB 0 000 � ISD,wPLAN FOR NAL J n 7 N FOR BUILDING OF STRUCTURE D. LUDE GUARD z W � O L/ 0 i HEREON WERE J D 0 O O CIL DURING A BACKS 00 O UBJECT TO THE 00 OFT E CITY OF Level 1 Building C Level Plan 6) CHANGES MAY RESULT AS A PART OF FINAL ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHALL, CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ASPEN SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD/SUBDIVISION - AMENP. NT ASP[ X ORA -11 11 SETBACKS EXHIBIT F 0 7001 � APRIL 25, 201 90 I I C Dr B E F If Y T T ?T I I � I m DI I I I I I I I I \I I a. N A I i uaoecesE Exa rte. uhc - - - - T PROPERm urvE rc o w nnry i roroie LL IF I I oor---foo ,I II --- I. 1aa7 PRIVATE DRIVE P.�E� I � FEahou I I I I w.0 Cs GI Fes` i nae I I I I I I �ErB E 7 7 I I MA �AFN BUILDING 'A' ._+ FIVE FLEX i I I The approved permit submittal - - 1t documents indicate a \ \ dimension of 65'-8718"from face of building veneer to \� npEcivi property line. ------------------------------------------------ \ \_\ 2 .W,i I I FACEIW sno I I I I \ E Cid E \ w \ \ �-� - woeuw�c �: civiu I I I Fccsaxrr int Sca S.ailm rTn, JUAN STREET v,acE a 6lIalGT. r ja fn v J - D ASPEN STREET- PHASE\BUILDING A\SAS PHASE I - BLDG OVERALL SITE PWd.DWG (2)OVERALL SITE PLAN B D ©C0MICM 2A., x �1 IN HrrECTS-AIA I P.O.Bmc2773 620 A0 She.. Seika Fri— CO B 3 Tel: 970.W. 133 Fath 970AIA2316 • LJ Date: O5ID82O14 Projea No: 2538IDO Drawn by: BKT Checked hy: KAO A2.1 OVERALL SRE PLAN W 6$GM 11BW.ISMhS1r,,.,Srik200 GlenwoodSprings, CC 81601 RToeas.l ooa w,,.vgmyw,aam axJro mr:'WJ I' m�asm FFE CML 2B IJ N••v O 0 ••- \ memmm Lot 1 Grading T�q w� (^RCH zeI-I/z7 I FOOIINC FAP STEft ENO FOS1 3 ,.a ' NOTES, 5 xo[ rtemMnx[Rrn:PesE R'°ta[ v[ws uhrM I[2x.o„D mwsW EvNtC.£s4n t[. OoowwOm Wrtw[W woauro"u sa-aA a'mxxwxq.wawu Ma%, u� SxmUC�1W,. 0 0NmY M xTApeaxc�� Itosxv [�Ac . /UD FLOW RETAI,'eS - WALL AT 5 -FLEX comma a m vJrMwGnmv.¢r,vc aeW urcAwsL sAemewA [(aew U/\ c _... +a mtma(CErIXsroNa+munr KGtwwsuiraswsRu w'IWMx xsmxM .ueaa M'x wMaim mmmwwwrzwa cmntenxrar+x¢txTrmxitX _................... w,MRSx mMerwxuUvU' meOemLKo tt xMnT,rA%rcpn4srsImNrzIr)A+sJ ta rimtwT k [ aw rFxnFaLyLe+Lw-NTM s.sC.M Nu[nI:wN MAmare»<mxrtwn rom R/xMJNwGa.v�Cww Tm PunEe rRy.+<ro z/I z, rnv wmws,un am vmow °wL rurttwve' ov sa[r iter .w xvuzu. ' ... J. /ttxrro(nmumW lMavlda-tr kln'J[IMmvw m[,n,w s,a[[awaAw.¢reREw2w attnnww' [t su < s nGraphic Scale wu reran sr mmmAm L nr,�r .•.mx,:, U � a A ry mrm zOa ' _ -...... • 4p ... � In k°: I 10 ......... ............ '� neje 4 xrmmiv LavLmN PE 2 DAMP ..... zea H �.va' azv UNOSGPE BLOCK rPETAINbVG WALL - la' RICH s rows M rat ere. eH Mawr Tav PROPOSED RETAINING t[�, nla. ma Am - Ae xsut One'r[ rLw',x w mw wa[.t m[ c PROPOSED NOR Ca RACE FOUNDATION W L /unxw4a wueluwt Alm [ lTa M u ' H ' nm''wmm / ' 50 mmm,r INSTALL N4NOR,NL mmrmm� � I _ °m ro kew RF/ INC WAfL PFR wum,a I :W PUNS PERNOUS RIVERS ° Awro EE QEANE STREET . viT roe a£Tunra wu[ v uvatlum Br - PERRWOODUS PA✓ERS \ u � m Itz s t& we � 6G � >• c l amw xNm pq :gy rzl SECINM•2. CIJi -- vRovLRiY �'m'6Nv II m[ E K a P,,,NwA1CM�M�>MMRm[�w' IMT,� r m ..� a PUBLIC R.iL 0 7 CONNE LOW U a as NST,M mMR w . cn�oex " m ,aa m " a comm M� --- — ,ar — -- — — — -----------------14 x..�m w g M area Scaling and Calibration of the Civil plans show the dimensional setbacks and proposed building W 6$GM 11BW.ISMhS1r,,.,Srik200 GlenwoodSprings, CC 81601 RToeas.l ooa w,,.vgmyw,aam axJro mr:'WJ I' m�asm FFE CML 2B IJ N••v O 0 ••- \ memmm Lot 1 Grading T�q w� (^RCH zeI-I/z7 12/OS/1�8/24/15. 3 ,.a ' Project No: 2000-236.007 eEcrN aErNNINc wAu cxwn � �a mr RETS [ININGW LL BLDG C su ,x[aWnau use �ra.wa�vaeT tt mma,.a /UD FLOW RETAI,'eS - WALL AT 5 -FLEX comma a wmmm rv� [ aw m s STAIRS e N.uBs o a- Z' v nia � .71 u _ �pq r (Rcn. -a I/27 cn�oex " comm mm °p o w w g M area Scaling and Calibration of the Civil plans show the dimensional setbacks and proposed building w aa.mm ma,„,,, u 9< ' location consistent with what is represented in the approved permit submittal setback plans / B,SrAas Y; ' and verification that the building footprint has ;, seaTe o. ° `®z „ MUFLOW RETAINING WALL ? been built and located as per the original PUD SKYLIGHTS �i. F� �Irory (� Al AROO UND PATIO crns � rr.o approval documents. (Note that these fx£ CIYM 4)B] m� sz dimensionsdonotaccount for finish.) FAttw -ore sore core- eo (ARCH. 41" B% +rr w'm These dimensions can be further verified by 416] �n ^ `NGAROEN 'i:� using the northern and eastern locating CML 4/.6] m[maw-uvNN[CTIDN (RCN. 41 -BJ I ARG coordinates provided throughout the plan. R Yu� flq (ARGn. 41'-B' ° mvC/ MTM w sxc[T cIr nrvo A m CML 31.10 (ARCH. Jl' (. %1O aassr xrm "cmmn p Y a[xvGs , ,aro 1 tw SH[[I �. C12. Aar.rm ovv � "rmm'"xmai _ u ....13 ua tea.. ^ o u v NORTH AlkylG WALL AT ` GRE SPACE 6$GM 11BW.ISMhS1r,,.,Srik200 GlenwoodSprings, CC 81601 RToeas.l ooa w,,.vgmyw,aam L'i ONEASPEN —PHASE 1 O 0 ARCHITECTURE, 620 main stret,sanDate: PLANNING, Frisco, Co 80443 INTERIORS Tel: 9]0.668.1133 P. 0. Box 2773 Fo"_ 9]o.66fl2316 �j O'BRYAN ppR7NERSHIP, INC. nRai,Ec*s - n.i.n. Lot 1 Grading T�q w� ,s o sore 12/OS/1�8/24/15. SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD/ SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO MUD a RETAI NG r Project No: 2000-236.007 J - atAg WAL .mrt/ reps a[T « '”?°NdC /UD FLOW RETAI,'eS - WALL AT 5 -FLEX t � c ag ugag rv� [ aw R3S m J.� 6$GM 11BW.ISMhS1r,,.,Srik200 GlenwoodSprings, CC 81601 RToeas.l ooa w,,.vgmyw,aam L'i ONEASPEN —PHASE 1 O 0 ARCHITECTURE, 620 main stret,sanDate: PLANNING, Frisco, Co 80443 INTERIORS Tel: 9]0.668.1133 P. 0. Box 2773 Fo"_ 9]o.66fl2316 �j O'BRYAN ppR7NERSHIP, INC. nRai,Ec*s - n.i.n. Lot 1 Grading 12/OS/1�8/24/15. SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD/ SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO checked b RM/W$ >' Project No: 2000-236.007 cn�oex L - LOT 1 / BLDG.A ;, seaTe o. MUFLOW RETAINING WALL ? SKYLIGHTS �i. F� �Irory (� Al AROO UND PATIO crns � rr.o �8j�l411 fk - fx£ CIYM 4)B] m� sz maw FAttw STEP —I -- °V— PUBLIC R.OW. (ARCH. 41" B% +rr w'm 416] �n � ARCH. 4!'-B J CML 4/.6] m[maw-uvNN[CTIDN (RCN. 41 -BJ �gCML aum.rr Aar.rm ter^"�wmr "s°�• 8 �>.sl rrawa� 4 xr §I Imo' mmmmm mw.ra „® m gym" a 1.5' RETAINING WALL n sTAws str arae r/t a� M Lawuaw[ ttw aumxim �*r.•, m,m amen mm encu. am+c•.n maw cmzar. mmnr uu.ms ,s"oa s'ore s"ore s' oa .' ou is ore— •" ore STAIRS NUD FLOW RETAINING R=te sa Nsws s <-rs/STAT[�S MUD FLOW RLININCA !°]la,Y raT[ /r itis N a Y MUD FLOW RETAINING WALL qT PL lr ms slaT ag s¢ a ug �[c r_ ug w°.9 ugh u9 s !r/icU9 JUAN STREET n Revisions: Sanitary Sewer Revisions, No Changes Building 0epartK.,t Permit Revisions: U/1T/1s. Building Devarlment Permit R<vlslons: 12/04/M 6$GM 11BW.ISMhS1r,,.,Srik200 GlenwoodSprings, CC 81601 RToeas.l ooa w,,.vgmyw,aam L'i ONEASPEN —PHASE 1 O 0 ARCHITECTURE, 620 main stret,sanDate: PLANNING, Frisco, Co 80443 INTERIORS Tel: 9]0.668.1133 P. 0. Box 2773 Fo"_ 9]o.66fl2316 �j O'BRYAN ppR7NERSHIP, INC. nRai,Ec*s - n.i.n. Lot 1 Grading 12/OS/1�8/24/15. SOUTH ASPEN STREET PUD/ SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO checked b RM/W$ >' Project No: 2000-236.007 IX.a Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273513139001 on 11/18/2017 ITKINT 6 CO UN Instructions: 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. Disclaimer: 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. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit 16 W HOTEL DURANT 122 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 BERHORST FAMILY REV TRUST 7161 LINDENMERE DR BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 TYDEN FAMILY FARMS PTNP 19331 BEACH CLIFF BLVD ROCKY RIVER, OH 44116 HATCHER HUGH S 205 E DURANT AVE APT 2E ASPEN. CO 81611 SCHAYER JANET A 2601 S QUEBEC ST #17 DENVER, CO 80231 LIFT ONE 105 LLC 7268 S TUCSON WY ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112 CHU FAMILY TRUST 42 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926604234 GOLDREICH ELIZABETH & HILTON 2204 BRADBURY CT PLANO. TX 75093 FARR BRUCE K & GAIL H 589 SOCIETY HILL CIR THE VILLAGES, FL 321626128 DOLINSEK JOSEPHINE 619 S MONARCH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 LIFT ONE LLC 24 LINDENWOOD LN LITTLETON, CO 80127 FAULKNER JOHN L 2433 ROCKINGHAM ST ARLINGTON, VA 22207 HENRY WAYNE SCOTT 100 E DEAN ST 3C ASPEN, CO 81611 DONCER ASPEN LP 9651 W 196TH ST MOKENA, IL 60448 CABELL JOSEPH TRUST 1765 ALA MOANA BLVD HONOLULU, HI 96815 SKY BLUE LLC 5743 CORSA AVE # 101 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 GROOS NICHOLAS D 210 N INDUSTRIAL PARK RD HASTINGS, MI 49058 CARSON LLC 1562 S 187TH CIR OMAHA, NE 68130 SCHAYER CHARLES M III 2601 S QUEBEC ST #17 DENVER, CO 80231 P149 IX.a GREGORY NEIL MARTIN & LYNETTE 1801 PITTWATER RD MONA VALE NSW 2103 AUSTRALIA, SHEFFER BARBARA MACDONALD KENNETH HUGH REV TRUST PO BOX 2763 44 W HANNUM BASALT, CO 81621 SAGINAW, MI 48602 LU NANCY CHAO TRUST NAP1 HOLDINGS LLC 15 ANSON RD PO BOX 8907 HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010 ASPEN, CO 81612 RINGSBY GRAY CZAJKOWSKI MICHAEL & SANDRA J 220 APUWAI ST 100 E DEAN ST #31D HAIKU, HI 967084821 ASPEN, CO 81611 LLOYD JAMES QTIP TRUST DOLINSEK JOHN PO BOX 1845 619 S MONARCH ST WILSON, WY 83014 ASPEN, CO 81611 JRD 2004 IRREV TRUST SPACCARELLI SELMA 1 510 BERING DR #455 300 S POINTE DR #2403 HOUSTON, TX 77057 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 P150 IX•a ,REDIT KINGSBURY FAMILY TRUST ONEAL PROPERTIES LLC TRUST LLOYD ZOE W EXEMPT TRUST ELLIS PAUL DAVID 300 S POINTE DR #2403 PO BOX 1845 100 E DEAN ST #2F MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 WILSON, WY 83014 ASPEN, CO 81611 EVANS DAVID COURTNEY ROARING FORK RIVER MANAGEMENT LLC IMREM SUE GORDON REVOC TRUST PO BOX 952 1233 EDLIN PL 1240 N LAKE SHORE DR #27B ASPEN, CO 81612 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 CHICAGO, IL 60610 TRESTMAN EVAN F TRUST HEIM WILLIAM D TELEMARK ASPEN LLC 111 VETERANS BLVD #1700 124 E DURANT AVE #1 55 SECOND ST METAIRIE, LA 70005 ASPEN, CO 81611-1769 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 BRIGHT GALEN CJM INVESTMENTS LLC BRYAN HELEN 205 E DURANT AVE #3D 1340 W HENDERSON ST #2W 2011 LAKE SHORE DR ASPEN. CO 81611 CHICAGO. IL 60657 AUSTIN. TX 78746 KOSTER DEREK N KINGSBURY FAMILY TRUST ONEAL PROPERTIES LLC 100 E DEAN ST #2E PO BOX 198 8100 E CAMELBACK RD #31 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOLDERNESS, NH 03245 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251 TAROCH HOLDINGS LTD TELEMARK APT 2 LLC CHAPIN ANZLE TRUST 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 4950 E PRESERVE LN 1887 STILLWATER ST ASPEN, CO 81611-2909 GREEENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80121 ST PAUL, MN 55110-8507 GLENOCK INVESTMENTS LLC KULLGREN NANCY A NOBLE GUY T 400 E MAIN ST #2 205 E DURANT AVE UNIT 2-C PO BOX 9344 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 GILLUM ANNE VANDER WALL ASSET PRO TRUST CLYNE VICTORIA 205 E DURANT ST #1 B PO BOX 189 7630 115TH PL NE ASPEN, CO 81611 LONE PINE, CA 935450189 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 WINDLE BRIAN AVERITT DON R PASCHALL BARBARA 7630 115TH PL NE 6918 LUPTON 6918 LUPTON DR KIRKLAND, WA 98033 DALLAS, TX 75225 DALLAS, TX 75225 FOUR JLM LLC CROW MARGERY K IMHOF FAMILY TRUST 101 DESTIN LN 46103 HIGHWAY 6 2409 GREEN ST RIVER RIDGE, LA 70123 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 P151 BISSET KAREN I VISCONSI DOMINIC A JR IX'a SOUTH POINT CONDO LLC LACY ROANE M JR & ANN MINYARD MCKENZIE PAIGE PARAVANO 150 N MARKET PO BOX 21625 4133 33RD RD NORTH WICHITA, KS 67202 WACO, TX 76702 ARLINGTON, VA 22207 WAYNE TIMOTHY & JILL C EDH TRUST HILL EUGENE D B III & JOAN L TRUST 965 PEARL ST 505 GREENWICH ST #9F 505 GREENWICH ST #9F DENVER, CO 80203 NEW YORK, NY 10013 NEW YORK, NY 10013 JLH TRUST LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST SILVERMAN MARC & MARILYN 505 GREENWICH ST #9F 421 WARWICK RD 937 DALE RD NEW YORK, NY 10013 KENILWORTH, IL 60043-1145 MEADOWBROOK, PA 19046 MCKENZIE BART BRYAN CAIN CONSTANCE M & DOUGLAS M BARNES ROBERT M 4840 30TH ST 1960 HUDSON ST 6445 SENECA RD ARLINGTON. VA 22207 DENVER. CO 80220 MISSION HILLS. KS 66208 BISSET KAREN I VISCONSI DOMINIC A JR ROSE JON E & RITA L 6445 SENECA RD 30050 CHAGRIN BLVD #360 333 TRISMEN TER MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 CLEVELAND, OH 441245774 WINTER SPRINGS, FL 32789 GINSBURG ANNE C & ROBERT B PETERSEN CRISTINA CORTES LANE DAVID 11206 BOCA WOODS LN MONTE CHIMBORAZO 559.3 4807 W LOVERS LN BOCA RATON , FL 33428 MEXICO D F 11000, MEXICO DALLAS, TX 75209 WOODING PAMELA G THREE REEDS LLC ROARING FORK PROPERTIES 2601 SHELTINGHAM DR 2224 VIA SEVILLE RD NW N 9242 SOUTH SHORE DR WELLINGTON, FL 33414 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87104-3096 EAST TROY, WI 55120 SPAULDING RICHARD W & THOMPSON ELE) PATERSON JOHN JOHNSTON MARGARET S 200 WHEELER RD FL 2 88 GRANGE RD SANDRINGHAM 30 DEXTER ST BURLINGTON, MA 018035501 MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3191, DENVER, CO 80220 SEVERY CHARLES LAMB SEVERY FAMILY TRUST SEVERY RICHARD L 30 DEXTER ST 8815 YUBA CIR #1103B 30 DEXTER ST DENVER, CO 80220 HUNINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 DENVER, CO 80220 HANKIN STUART W & BRITNEY P CASPER MARY LYNN SOUTH POINT CONDO ASSOC 124 E DURANT AVE # 7 124 E DURANT AVE #8 PO BOX 4100 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 P152 IX•a 1SAN MARIE SCHAPIRO PATRICIA GOZON BENJAMIN & HEIDI Z LVG TRUST 500 S ORANGE AVE 1685 TAMARAC DR 8606 W FREISTADT RD SARASOTA, FL 34236 GOLDEN, CO 80401 MEQUON, WI 53097 BECKLEY KATHERINE RUDERMAN ERIC P & MIMI E TAYLOR FAMILY PROP LLC 100 EAST DEAN STREET #3A 3773 E CHERRY CREEK N DR #575 5920 E WATERFORD RD ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 802093825 HARTFORD, WI 53027 UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP VANTONGEREN LIDIA NORTH LAUDERDALE PETROLEUM LLC 210 AABC #AA 2000 E 12TH AVE BOX 8 6318 23RD ST NW ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80206 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 ZEFF CAPITAL LP MAGES ELIZABETH J MAGES LAWRENCE M & MARY K 555 E DURANT AVE 2828 HARRISON ST 216 LINDEN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 EVANSTON , IL 60201 WILMETTE, IL 60091 GREINER JERRY M & TERESA U WOLF FAMILY TRUST SOUTH POINT 2J LLC 323 HOLMECREST RD 1221 MYRTLE AVE 15 S WILLOW CT JENKINTOWN, PA 19046 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOW LIFT ONE LLC YEWER ELISABETH B YOMAC MANAGEMENT LIMITED 4824 E MARSTON DR 6259 HWY 83 410 GILES BLVD E PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 852534054 CHENEQUA, WI 53029 WINDSOR ONTARIO CANADA N9A4C6, GILLESPIE JOHN E REV TRUST LOCHHEAD FAMILY TRUST 08/05/2009 ICAHN LIBA 775 GULFSHORE DR #4219 PO BOX 1216 PO BOX 11137 DESTIN, FL 32541 TEMPLETON, CA 934651216 ASPEN, CO 81612-9627 FREIRICH MARK A PASCO PROP COLORADO LLC GOLDSMITH ADAM D PO BOX 774056 360 SOUTHFIELD RD PO BOX 9069 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO 80477 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ASPEN, CO 81612 SMITH RONA K JOHNSON KERRI & DEREK LUNDHOLM KERSTIN M PO BOX 9069 117 JUAN ST #1 115 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MORGAN MICHAEL L CHILES CHARLES DWIGHT III FLETCHER JAY R 115 JUAN ST 113 JUAN ST #3 111 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRISTENSEN CINDY 109 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DUNN STEVEN G 107 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 JUAN STREET HOA 119 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN LARKIN THOMAS & MARYANN HBN FAMILY TRUST 130 S GALENA ST 1 SHELDRAKE LN 9420 WILSHIRE BLVD 4TH FLR ASPEN, CO 81611 PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33418-6820 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 HANSEN JULIA S TRUST KAPLAN BARBARA CHAPLIN ARLENE & WAYNE 255 SEASPRAY AVE 3076 EDGEWOOD RD 54 LAGORCE CIR PALM BEACH, FL 33480 PEPPER PIKE, OH 44124 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141 TOWNE PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO ASSOC Il� BARBEE MARY K LIV TRUST GARMISCH LLC 200 E DURANT AVE 625 SKYLINE DR 2560 LORD BALTIMORE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CODY, WY 82414 WINDSOR MILL, MD 21244 603 SOUTH GARMISCH LLP BRETTMANN KILLEEN CONNOLLY MICHAEL M & ASHLEY 603 S GARMISCH ST 38 TRAINORS LANDING 48 TRAINORS LANDING RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KUHLMAN CARI D & JEFFREY W MURRAY DENIS WRIGHT LISA 58 TRAINORS LANDING PO BOX 3770 PO BOX 3770 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 BRENNAN JOHN PATRICK HINES THOMAS M & CAROLYN E MACHUCA YANIRA R FUNES 31 TRAINORS LANDING 21 TRAINORS LNDG 11 TRAINORS LANDING ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1652 ASPEN, CO 81611 TRAINORS LANDING CONDO ASSOC PINES LODGE DEV LLC 415 SOUTH ASPEN ST LLC COMMON AREA 2353 IRVINE AVE 162 WEST MEADOW DR #2 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 VAIL, CO 81657 WHITE JALEH REV TRUST PINES LODGE CONDO ASSOC TOWNE PLACE CONDO ASSOC 960 E DURANT AVE #7 152 E DURANT AVE 730 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 816112053 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TIMBER RIDGE CONDO ASSOC TELEMARK CONDO ASSOC AZTEC CONDO ASSOC 100 E DEAN ST 611 S MONARCH ST 601 S MONARCH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 P153 IX.a '^•a CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 131 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN TOWNHOUSES CENTRAL COMMON AREA 124 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC 0115 BOOMERANG RD #5201 B ASPEN, CO 81611 SOUTH POINT CONDO ASSOC 205 E DURANT AVE #31D ASPEN, CO 81611 LIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN LLC 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD LOS ANGLES, CA 90024 DANCING BEAR RES CONDO ASSOC 411 S MONARCH ST ASPEN, CO 81612 MARK KENNETH A 10 KATH CT SAYVILLE, NY 117821537 ASV ASPEN ST OWNER LLC 1 POST OFFICE SQ #3150 BOSTON, MA 021092109 P154 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Skadron and City Council FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner I THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: 488 Castle Creek Road — Major Public Project Review Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2017, Second Reading DATE: December 11. 2017 APPLICANT: Aspen Housing Partners, LLC OWNER: City of Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Method Planning + Development LOCATION: 488 Castle Creek Road CURRENT ZONING: Moderate Density Residential (R - 15A) w/ Planned Development (PD) overlay PROPOSED ZONING: Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD) SUMMARY: The applicant requests City Council approval to merge two lots, rezone the property to AH/PD, and develop twenty-eight (28) affordable housing units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve with conditions. Locator Map Current 488 Castle Creek Drive — Staff Memo December 11, 2017 Page 1 of 10 P155 IX.b IX.b NOTE At the Second Reading of Ordinance, City Council's primary concern was regarding the maximum allowed height associated with the fourth floor and the interface between the project and the potential Castle Creek Trail. As directed at First Reading, the Applicant provided additional renderings of the proposed affordable housing project, with and without the fourth floor massing, as viewed from the Marolt Bike path. The Applicant did not have the dimensions of the project with regards to floor area and height available at the November 27th meeting. Council was split on the decision, and the Applicant was directed to provide adequate detail for an approvable three-story project for Council's consideration at the next meeting. The memo has been updated to reflect the current proposal, which includes both a four story and a three story option. For the sake of clarity in the memo, the project with the fourth story massing is referred to as Option A, and the three story project is referred to as Option B. Option A would include 28 units, and Option B would include 24 units. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Aspen City Council: 1. Major Public Project Review — (Chapter 26.500) for development proposed by a governmental entity. (See "Staff Evaluation" for full description of this review process). This is a two-step process, with P&Z making recommendation to Council. Council has the final decision-making authority, The Major Public Project Review process consolidates the following Land Use Code reviews: o Subdivision — (Chapter 26.480) to merge two existing lots. o Rezoning — (Chapter 26.310) for rezoning the property from R-15A/PD to AH/PD. o Planned Development — (Chapter 26.445) to establish the dimensional requirements for the proposed development. 0 8040 Greenling — (Chapter 26.435) for development within 150 feet horizontally of the elevation 8040 feet above mean sea level. o Growth Management — for the development of affordable housing. o Residential Design Standards — for residential multi -family development. BACKGROUND' The triangular-shaped project site is comprised of a 11,255 sq. ft. lot (Lot 1) and a 24,640 sq. ft. lot (Lot 2) for a total project area of 35,895 sq. ft. Both vacant lots are located in the 488 Castle Creek Rd. PUD and are zoned Moderate -Density Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (R-15A/PD). The current PD allows for a single family free market residence on Lot 1. Lot 2 is permitted two dwelling units, one being a single family free market residence and the second a Category 7 affordable housing unit. The project site gently slopes away from Castle Creek Road and then drops dramatically down to the Marolt Open Space and Marolt Employee Housing. The existing topography associated with the site, and surrounding area have been maipulated over time. There is a bus stop to the north of the project site, in addition to access to the Marolt Bike Path at the Castle Creek Road crossing. A variety of land uses are proximate to the site, include Aspen Valley Hospital and Pitkin County Health and Human Services. A mix of residential types are near the developent including single family homes and several affordable housing projects including Castle Creek 488 Castle Creek Drive — Staff Memo December 11, 2017 Page 2 of 10 P156 P157 IX.b Affordable Housing, Marolt Ranch Employee Housing, Waterplace Affordable Housing, and Whitcomb Terrace Assisted Living. The project is near both public and private educational facilities and is adjacent to Marolt Open Space. Prior to submittal of the Application, the Applicant conducted a public outreach campaign over six months, in addition to attending City Council work sessions. Over 500 participants attended the open houses. Exhibit M includes the project outreach schedule, a list of stakeholders, and email communications with residents of the Castle Creek valley. In response to public feedback, the building was moved away from Castle Creek Road and the building was sited with one story into the slope to minimize the perceived height of the building from Castle Creek Road. Additionally, the fourth -floor massing was reduced and pushed back to minimize perceived height. �....�= =Vim.:.. ... Figure]. Current Subdivision Plat PROJECT SUMMARY: This is one of three affordable housing projects that Aspen Housing Partners LLC is currently developing in partnership with the City of Aspen. The other two locations include 802 W. Main Street and 517 Park Circle. The applicant proposes to merge the two lots, rezone the property to Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD), and amend the Planned Development to develop affordable housing units. 488 Castle Creek Drive — Staff Memo December 11, 2017 Page 3 of 10 IX.b Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan Figures 3 and 4: Left. One -Bedroom Layout Right: Two -Bedroom Layout P158 Figure S. Perspective from Castle Creek Road, Option A Figure 6. Perspective from Castle Creek Road, Option A Figure 7. Perspective from Castle Creek, Option A STAFF EVALUATION: Public Project (Exhibit A): The proposed project is subject to Major Public Project review. The Public Project review process was adopted by City Council in December 2015 to bring the Land Use Code into compliance with Colorado Revised Statute §31-23-209. Public Project review is an alternative process for development projects submitted by governmental entities, quasi -municipal organizations, or public agencies providing essential services to the public. The review process includes a requirement to provide a decision within 60 days of application; however, this time limitation is not applicable to City of Aspen projects. The following sections of the Land Use Code apply to the proposed project: Subdivision, Rezoning, Planned Development, 8040 Greenline, Growth Management, and Residential Design Standards. Staff responses to each section are detailed in Exhibits B -G, with specific highlights noted in the sections below. The goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) are considered in the analysis of the project; however, it should be noted that the AACP is not a 488 Castle Creek Drive — Staff Memo December 11, 2017 Page 4 of 10 P159 IX.b regulatory document, rather, it is an aspirational plan that provides guidance to meet specific community goals. Planned Development (Exhibit D): The existing property contains a Planned Development Overlay. The applicant is requesting to amend the Planned Development as part of the rezoning for this project. Typically, Planned Development is a two-step process including Project Review (uses, layout, mass scale, dimensions) and Detailed Review (landscape, fenestration, materials, lighting). As a Public Project, Project Review and Detailed Review are consolidated into one review, with a recommendation from P&Z and final approval on all aspects of the project from City Council. All dimensional requirements in the AH/PD zone district are established through the adoption of a Final PD Development Plan. Architecture The design of the site is intended to be a reference to Bauhaus design, which focuses on simple geometric forms, flat roofs, asymmetrical arrangement, connection to the outdoors and monochromatic schemes. The L-shaped building is of simple rectangular form offset by sweeping asymmetrical windows. The materials and form both relate to Aspen's modern design history while creating a connection to the natural environment. The proposed material palette includes a spectrum of siding and roofing materials including rusted Corten metal siding, stucco, and wood screening to break up massing. The rusted Corten siding was selected to allow the building to blend into the surrounding earthen materials of Red Mountain and Red Butte, and the stucco base of the structure anchors the building to the ground. Options A (four story option) and B (three story option) are very similar, with the most subtinative change being the removal of the fourth floor massing. This resulted in amendments to the fenestration on the Castle Creek -facing elevations, and is most evident in Figures Al, A2, B1, B2. Vingettes of the project with and without the fourth floor are compared below, and the full planned development set for Option B is included as Exhibit U to this memo. It is important to note that the graphics shown below are not to scale, and minor massing differences may be percieved in the design. Figure Al: South Elevation, Option A Figure A2: South Elevation, Option B Figure BI: West Elevation, Option A Figure B2: West Elevation, Option B 488 Castle Creek Drive — Staff Memo December 11, 2017 Page 5 of 10 IX.b P160 Figure Cl: North Elevation, Option A Figure CI: North Elevation, Option B Figure Dl: East Elevation, Option A Figure D2: East Elevation, Option B Site Planning During the last public hearing, City Council raised questions regarding the interface between the project and the potential Castle Creek Trail. Throughout the planning process, the Applicant has dilligently coordinated with Open Space and Trails regarding the Trail project. The preferred Castle Creek Trail alignment has not been determined, and it is unlikely a final alternative decision will be reached prior to March 2018. Regardless of the decision on this project, an eastern alignment of the Castle Creek Trail could be fully accomodated within the existing right- of-way. To accommodate the potential trail, the Applicant would like to reserve adequate flexibility with the site plan to provide vegetative screening to protect the Castle Creek corridor viewshed, the trail user experience, and to enhance the livability of the project. This could in part or in all potentially be accomodated by trail design solutions or vegetated buffered areas within the righ- of-way area between the property line and Castle Creek Road and/or within the proposed parking area. The impacts to on-site parking is further described in the parking narrative below. Parking This project is located within relative walking distance of town, is easily bikeable, and has access to public transit. Regardless of the density, a minimum of one parking space per bedroom will be provided and each option meets the code requirement. Each option is described more fully below. Option A Option A includes the forth story, with 28 units and 38 bedrooms. The Applicant proposed to meet the 38 parking impact units with 34 on-site parking spaces and 4 off-site parking spaces, through shared parking at Marolt Employee Housing. Parking Requirements for Option A are 38 488 Castle Creek Drive — Staff Memo December 11, 2017 Page 6 of 10 P161 IX.b units, which can be accomodated by various methods, including on-site parking, off-site shared parking. Fee -in -lieu, and additional transportation impact improvements. Option B The Applicant requets flexibility to allow for a minimum parking requirement of 30 on-site spaces and 4 off-site parking spaces. This minimum requirement would provide one space per bedroom and allow design flexibility for vegetative screening should the Castle Creek Trail be constructed on the east side of Castle Creek Road. Parking Requirements for Option B are 34 units, which can be accomodated by various methods, including on-site parking, off-site shared parking. Fee -in -lieu, and additional transportation impact improvements. Dimensions The Applicant has provided an updated dimensional table reflecting Option B, as detailed in Table 1. The project as currently proposed, Option A, is a 28 -unit affordable housing multi- family building. The fourth story contains four one -bedroom units, removing these units would result in a 24 -unit project. Option A would house 54 FTEs, and Option B would provide housing for 47 FTEs. Removal of the fourth floor would result in a reduction of 7 FTEs housed. The maximum height of Option A is 45'8.75", and Option B would have a maximum height on the Marolt elevation of 42'; therefore the project would lose 3' of height as measured from the corner of the building. The reason the height on the rear corner of the building remains at 42' is that this area of the site is the most constrained by the steep sloping nature of the rear corner of the property. The result of this constraint is an exposed foundation wall approximately six to eight feet (6'-8') in height above finished grade and below the lower level floor. This exposed foundation area provides no usable benefit and results in a height of conditioned area measured from lower level floor to the roof of the three-story element of approximately 34' to 36'. The The Castle Creek -facing elevation for Option A measures at 32 feet, and Option B would be 25 feet tall. Applicant will be prepared at Second Reading to address why a greater height reduction could not be achieved with the removal of the fourth floor on the Marolt elevation. All of the other dimensions established by Planned Development, such as setbacks, have not changed with the removal of the four units. The full dimensional table is included as Exhibit A to the draft ordinance. Tahle 1: Pronosed Dimensional Reauirements Dimensions Proposed Proposed Existing R- RMF (Four -Story) (Three -Story) 15A/PD Maximum Height (Castle Creek 32,2 25' 25 ft. 32 ft.' Road Facing Elevations) Maximum Height (Marolt Employee 45'8.75"' 42" 25 ft. 32 ft.' Housing Facing Elevations) Minimum Percent Open Space 45% 45% n/a n/a 19,684 sq. ft. 8,359 sq. ft. 28 units: 44,869 sq. ft.2 Maximum Allowable Floor Area 22,515 sq. ft. 24 units: 26,921 sq. ft. 2 488 Castle Creek Drive — Staff Memo December 11, 2017 Page 7 of 10 IX.b Maximum Allowable Deck Area 7,707 sq. ft. 6,621 sq. ft. 1,254 sq. ft. 6,730 sq. ft. Minimum Off-street Parking 38 spaces 34 spaces 6 spaces 38 spaces FTEs Housed 54 FTEs 47 FTEs -- 'As measured from finished grade 2 Based on parcel density RMF provides a sliding scale of height and floor area, encouraging increased density 'May be achieved through a menu of on-site parking and TIA options as detailed in the draft ordinance Other Required Land Use Reviews: Staff finds that the Application meets the applicable review criteria for Major Subdivision. The applicant is requesting this amendment on behalf of the City of Aspen to merge the two -lot subdivision and supersede the approvals on the original subdivision plat, in conjunction with a Planned Development Amendment. The property is currently zoned as Moderate -Density Residential (R -15A) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD) in conjunction with a Planned Development Amendment to permit the development of affordable housing units. The project meets the review criteria for Rezoning the property. There is no required mitigation in association with the development Growth Management Review or allotments, and the project meets the criteria for a GMQS review. The APCHA Board of Directors reviewed this proposal at their meeting on October 18, 2017. The APCHA Board supported the proposed reductions, stating that the livability of the units meets their needs of an exceptional project and warrants a Net Livable Floor Area reduction. The project meets the criteria for a Residential Design Standard variation to the principal window standard, and the criteria for an 8040 Greenline Review. All applicable review criteria are included in Exhibits B -G of this memo. REFERRAL DEPARTMENTS: The application was reviewed by Engineering, Building, Zoning, Parks, Environmental Health, Sanitation District, and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). The APCHA Board of Directors reviewed the application at their October 181h meeting and recommended approval. All received comments from referral departments are included in Exhibit H, with applicable comments included in the draft ordinance. PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING (OCTOBER 24,2017): The Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 14, Series of 2017, recommending City Council grant approval of the project, with conditions. Specifically, the P&Z requested the Applicant consider parking solutions to accommodate additional on-site parking. This included exploration of a parking garage, additional TIA improvements such as a Car -to -Go space, or parking storage technologies such as a car stacking system. Staff requested direction on the proposed height of the structure and the Commission expressed support of the dimensions outlined in Table 1 of this memo. Public comment was also received at the meeting. The 488 Castle Creek Drive — Staff Memo December 11, 2017 Page 8 of 10 P162 P163 IX.b majority of the public comment focused on project density. The meeting minutes detailing these comments can be found in Exhibit J. PITKIN COUNTY REFERRAL: The project was formally referred to Pitkin County on October 26, 2017. Comments are attached as Exhibit O. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Overall, staff is supportive of the housing project. Staff is supportive of the Major Subdivision Amendment to merge the two existing lots, the RDS variation to the Principal Window standard, the granting of up to 28 affordable housing Growth Management Allotments, and the 8040 Greenline Review. The Planned Development Review process often must consider weighing community benefits against allowing additional height, mass, or density, while considering impacts to the neighborhood. Staff recognizes the benefit of affordable housing to the community; however, development projects need to be sensitive to the scale and character of the neighborhood where they are located. The removal of the fourth story represents a loss of four units that could house seven FTEs but only results in a three foot reduction in height due to the unique topography. Because removal of these units doesn't achieve a significant height reduction, nor a reduction of perceived visual impact from the Marolt Trail, Staff can support either Option A or Option B. Additional considerations need to be made regarding the community benefit of the Castle Creek Trail. The trail can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way regardless of the decision on this project; however, the Applicant would like to provide the Castle Creek Trail team with design flexibility to provide vegetative screening. To accommodate this, the Applicant requests that a minimum parking requirement be established for Option B that would meet the parking requirement but allow for additional vegetative screening to enhance the trail and Castle Creek corridor experience. Staff supports and recommends approval of the parking solution, as each option meets the Code requirements. If Council supports Option A (the four-story building), a proposed motion to approve the project has been included in the memo. If Council supports Option B (project without a fourth story element), an alternative motion to approve the three-story project has also been provided. Draft ordinances for each option are attached. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 37, Series of 2017, approving an affordable housing project, as proposed, located at 488 Castle Creek Road." (Option A) ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2017, approving a three-story affordable housing project at 488 Castle Creek Road." (Option B) 488 Castle Creek Drive — Staff Memo December 11, 2017 Page 9 of 10 IX.b EXHIBITS (PROVIDED IN PRIOR PACKETS UNLESS BOLDED): A. Review Criteria — Public Project B. Review Criteria — Subdivision C. Review Criteria — Rezoning D. Review Criteria — Planned Development E. Review Criteria — 8040 Greenline F. Review Criteria — Growth Management G. Review Criteria — Residential Design Standards H. DRC Comments I. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 14, Series 2017 J. Draft Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes, October 24, 2017 K. Application L. Application updates M. Public Outreach N. Public Comment O. Pitkin County Referral Comment P. Public Notice Q. Public Comment Received Since First Reading R. Updated Planned Development Plan Set S. Applicant Memo I Responses to City Council First Reading T. Updated Application Materials U. Updated Planned Development Plan Set I Three Story Option B V Public Comment Received Since November 27, 2017 488 Castle Creek Drive — Staff Memo December 11, 2017 Page 10 of 10 P164 ORDINANCE NO. 31 (SERIES OF 2017) P165 IX.b A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF MAJOR PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS FOR 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 & 2, 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD & LOT SPLIT, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 AS RECEPTION NO. 529046, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-123-09-033 & 2735-123-09-034 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for 488 Castle Creek Road (the Application) from Aspen Housing Partners LLC (Applicant) with consent from the City of Aspen (Owner) for Major Public Project Review; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application — August 17, 2017, as applicable to this project; and, WHEREAS, as the property is owned by a governmental agency and this is an affordable project developed by the City in conjunction with a private developer, the Applicant has requested this Application to be reviewed as a Public Project, pursuant to Chapter 26.500.030 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received comments on the Application from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and Public Works Department, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting held on September 6, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors reviewed the Application on October 18, 2017, and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on October 24, 2017, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and recommended approval with conditions by Resolution No. 14, Series of 2017, by a vote of five to zero (5 — 0). WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, a summary of public outreach was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided full access to review the Application; and, 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 1 of 11 IX.b WHEREAS, the Applicant conducted additional public open houses to obtain feedback on the proposed application on January 5, 2017, January 11, 2017, March 2, 2017, and March 8, 2017, and work sessions to obtain feedback from City Council on February 14, 2017 and March 28, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the Application was referred to Pitkin County for comments due to the property's proximity to Pitkin County; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, the Planning & Zoning Commission, Pitkin County, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on November 13, 2017, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2017 on First Reading by a five to zero (5-0) vote; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on , the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2017, by a to (_ — vote, approving Major Public Project Review and associated land use reviews; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council grants 488 Castle Creek Road Major Public Project review approval and the associated land use reviews for Rezoning, Planned Development, Growth Management, 8040 Greenline Review, Subdivision, and Residential Design Standards, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. The proposed project includes merging the two -lot subdivision into one lot and rezoning the property to Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD), and development of twenty eight (28) affordable housing units. The approved dimensions are attached as Exhibit A to this ordinance. The approved design and material palette are attached as Exhibit B. Minor design changes as a result of refinement to internal programming or to meet Building, Engineering, or Utility code requirements may be approved as part of the building permit review. Minor changes to material and fenestration arrangements or other insubstantial changes may be approved as part of the building permit review. 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 2 of 11 P166 P167 IX.b Section 2: Rezoning The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the Amended Subdivision/PD Amendment Plat, amended by the Community Development Director to reflect the following property as included in the Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD) zone district, on all portions of said land: Lot 1, Re -subdivision lots 1 & 2, 488 Castle Creek Rd. PUD & Lot Split, September 27, 2006 in Plat Book 81 at Page 48 as Reception No. 529046, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Section 3: Residential Design Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the request for one Residential Design Standard variation that will permit a variation from the Principal Window Standard, and as depicted in Exhibit 2. The Aspen City Council has found the proposed design to meet the requirements of the review criteria for a Residential Design Standard variation. Section 4: Approval Documents In accordance with Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, a final approved plan set shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The plan set shall at a minimum include the following information: 1. Subdivision/PD amendment plat, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.A. 2. Planned Development — Project Review and Detailed Review approval plans, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(3) & (4). These may be combined into one plan set. 3. Illustrative Site Plan, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(8). 4. Transportation Management Plan, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(10). 5. Landscape Character Plan, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(13). 6. Site Topography and Drainage Plan, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(15). 7. Public Infrastructure Plan, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(17). In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") shall be entered into with the City. All approval documents, plats, plans, and agreements shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within one (1) year following issuance of a Development Order. Section 5: Affordable Housing City Council hereby approvals of twenty-eight (28) affordable housing units. The unit types shall be as follows: 1. Eighteen (18) 1 -bedroom units and ten (10) 2 -bedroom units (54 FTEs) 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 3 of 11 IX.b As represented in the application, the proposed units are granted a reduction in the Net Minimum Livable Square Footage, pursuant to the APCHA Employee Housing Guidelines ("Guidelines") as follows: Unit Proposed Minimum % Deficit 001 681.5 700 11.6% 002 780.3 900 13.3% 003 628.21 700 10.5% 004 636.93 700 1.4% 005 636.93 700 2.2% 006 783.34 700 2.6% 007 782.85 700 1.4% 008 618.49 700 10.5% 101 661.89 700 1.4% 102 818.16 700 2.2% 103 661.89 700 5.4% 104 661.89 700 5.4% 105 661.89 700 5.4% 106 819.52 900 8.9% 107 819.52 900 8.9% 108 661.89 700 5.4% 201 686.66 700 1.9% 202 844.3 900 6.2% 203 842.77 900 6.4% 204 661.89 700 5.4% 205 661.89 700 5.4% 206 818.02 900 9.1% 207 842.7 900 6.4% 208 686.66 700 1.9% 301 662.89 700 5.3% 302 662.96 700 5.3% 303 654.28 700 6.5% 304 661.68 700 5.5% Any further reduction in Net Livable Square Footage for any of the units shall require approval from APCHA. All units shall meet the requirements of the Guidelines regarding closets, kitchen appliances, etc. in place at the time of building permit. Each affordable housing unit shall be individually metered for utilities. This project is approved as rental units with the future option to convert to ownership units. Depending on the type of tenancy (100% renter -occupied, 100% owner -occupied, or a mix of renter -occupied and renter -occupied) the following conditions shall apply: 100% Rental Project: 1. Minimum occupancy in accordance with the Guidelines is required for all units. 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 4 of 11 am P169 IX.b 2. All new tenants shall be approved by APCHA in accordance with the Guidelines prior to signing a lease and occupying the unit. 3. All leases shall be provided to APCHA and state the length of the lease, the amount of rent, and signed by both the tenant and the landlord. 100% Ownership Project: 1. A Capital Reserve Study shall be provided to the homeowners' association (HOA) and to APCHA by a certified reserve specialist at the time of sale of the property (either individually or as a whole). 2. The developer shall obtain approval of all condominium documents and provide 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 3. 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 in #5 above; b. All mechanical warranties, all warranties for appliances, etc. Mixed Ownership/Rental Project: 1. All criteria stated under 100% Ownership Project shall apply to all ownership units. 2. All criteria stated under 100% Rental Project shall apply to all rental units. 3. The rental units shall not exceed 49% of the total units within the project. 4. One entity/owner shall not own more than 10% of the total units within the project. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the completed project, deed restrictions for the units that reflect the requirements of this Ordinance shall be approved by the City Attorney and APCHA and recorded. Final Category designations for all units not subject to the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit requirements shall be memorialized as part of the Agreement. Section 6: Parking Impact Requirement The project is required to provide 38 parking impact units. Changes to parking to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) may be reviewed and approved administratively. A minimum of 34 on-site parking spaces are approved and the four (4) remaining impact units may be met by one of the following or a combination thereof, at the discretion of the applicant, are required: 1. One (1) TIA credit, and three (3) physical parking spaces provided in a shared parking agreement at a location within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 2. One (1) TIA credit, and three (3) additional TIA credits that match or exceed a monetary value of $114,000 (3 spaces x $38,000), to be approved by the Engineering and Transportation Departments. 3. One (1) TIA credit, and a cash -in -lieu payment of $114,000 (3 spaces x $38,000). 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 5 of 11 IX.b 4. One (1) TIA credit, and provide an additional three (3) parking spaces on-site. 5. Four (4) physical parking spaces in shared parking agreement at a location within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Section 7: Zoning This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning regulations of the City of Aspen's Land Use Code, including, but not limited to Section 26.575.020, Calculations and Measurements. Section 8: Engineering 1. The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. 2. The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. 3. A major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards is required with building permit submittal. 4. The water distribution main that cuts through the property requires an updated waterline easement of 30ft centered on the pipe. 5. A sidewalk shall not be required in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way. 6. A multi -modal, eight (8) foot wide, ADA -accessible path connecting the project to the existing Marolt Bike Path is required, as approved by the Parks Department and the Engineering Department. 7. The project will provide a partially improved, non -ADA accessible trail connection from the northern section of the property to Marolt Bike path. Section 9: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 10: Parks 1. Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 13.20. 2. Remaining trees to have fence protection at driplines of trees and must be inspected prior to any activity. 3. Aspen native seed mix to be used in City right-of-way. 4. Irrigation in City right-of-way required. 5. The construction of the retaining wall on property line by Castle Creek Road will require coordination with the City Forester. A proposed tree preservation method for the large cottonwood near the wall must be presented to Parks prior to sidewalk detail and parking lot plans. This tree will also require tree protection fencing at dripline. 6. This project is subject to the Water Efficiency Landscape Standards, Municipal Code Chapter 25.30. 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 6 of 11 P170 P171 IX.b Section 11: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) 1. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. 2. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. 3. Connection to the ACSD sewer system will require installation of a pumping system. 4. One tap is allowed for each building. 5. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 6. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. 7. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. 9. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). 10. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage Section 12: Water/Utilities 1. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. 2. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assessed per applicable codes and standards. Utility and transformer placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. 3. An updated easement for the water distribution main will be provided. The current water distribution standards call for a water line easement of 30ft centered on the pipe. If any grading takes place in this easement, it will be required that 7ft of cover is maintained. 4. If a service line that is greater than 2in. it will be reviewed as a main line. Section 13: Outdoor Lighting and Signage 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 7 of 11 IX.b All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. Section 14: Building Department All applicable building and accessibility codes in place at the time of building permit submission shall be met. Section 15: Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) The approved project is required to mitigate 28.69 trips. Final TIA mitigation methodology will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department and Transportation Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Section 16: Impact Fees and School Land Dedication The Parks Development and TDM/Air Quality impact fees as required by Section 26.610 of the Land Use Code and School Land Dedication as required by Section 26.620 of the Land Use Code shall be required in entirety for the development of this project. Any applicable fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 17: Environmental Health Department The Applicants shall obtain Special Review approval from the Environmental Health Department in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 12.10 for the trash and recycle area, prior to issuance of building permit. Section 18: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance of a development order. Section 19: Representations Preserved 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 Community Development Department, the Planning & Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 20: Existing Litigation This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 21: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 8 of 11 P172 P173 Mb deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 22: Public Hearing A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the day of , 201_, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 23: 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 Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 24: 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 25: 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13 day of November, 2017. 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 9 of 11 IX.b Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2047. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements Exhibit B: Approved Plans and Elevations 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 10 of 11 P174 Exhibit A — Approved Dimensional Requirements Dimensions Proposed Minimum Gross Lot Area 35,895 sq. ft. Minimum Gross Lot Area per Unit 1,282 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Density 28 units Minimum Lot Width 70 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. Maximum Site Coverage 21% Maximum Height, Marol (rear of bldg.) Maximum Height, Castle Creek Elevation (front of bldg.) „2,3 45, 8.75 32 52,3 Minimum Percent Open S 45% Minimum Trash Access Area 150 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Floor Area 22,515 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Deck Area 7,707 sq. ft. Minimum Parking 38 Parking Impact Units (34 physical spaces on - site, 4 units pursuant to Section 6 of this Ordinance) P175 IX.b 'Retaining features, decks and balconies are permitted to encroach into the setback in addition to the allowed projections listed in Section 26.575.020.E(5), as amended. 2 As measured from finished grade 3 Subject to 26.575.020.F.4, Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations from the effective date of application through expiration of vesting. 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 11 of 11 488 CASTLE CREEK - AH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DRAWING INDEX EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DRAFT PLAT IMPROVEMENTSURVEY DRAFT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SURVEY PLAT SITE PLANNING Et LANDSCAPE PLAN SET L1.00 - DEMOLITION, VEGETATION AND TREE REMOVAL PLAN L2 GO - ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN L.3.00 - LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE STUDIES L4.00- PLANTING AND RESTORATION PLAN 1-5.00 - MOBILITYIMULTIMODAL DIAGRAM L6.00 - MOBILITY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS DIAGRAM 1-7.00 - EXTERIOR LIGHT PLAN ENGINEERING PLAN SET C-0 O1 - NOTES AND LEGEND C-101 - EXISTING CONDITIONS C-102 - SITE LAYOUT C-103 - DRAINAGE BASINS C-104 - GRADING AND DRAINAGE C-105 - UTILITY PIAN ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SET A1.03 - ROOF PIAN OVER TOPOGRAPHY A1.04- FIRE RESISTANCE B EGRESS Al.05 - ACCESSIBIUTY TYPE A UNIT A1.06 - ACCISSIBILIIY DIAGRAM A1.07 - FAR A1.08 - NET LIVABLE PLANS A1.14 - FLOOR PLANS A1.15 - FLOOR PLANS A1.16 -FUO RPLANS AM 7 - FLOOR PLANS A1.18 - ROGF PLANS A2.01 - ELEVATIONS A2.02 - ELEVATIONS A2.03 - ELEVATIONS A2.1- ELEVATIONS A2A5 - 3D VIEWS A2.06 - 3D VIEWS PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER ARCHITECT PLANNER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER CITY OF AS David Johnston Architects Method Planning + Development McDowell Engineering, LLC City Hall 119 South Spring St. 119 South Spring St. Suite 102 P.O. Box 4259 130 S. Galena St Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 Eagle, 0081631 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 P: 970.274.0890 P: 970.623.0788 P: 970.920.5000 P: 970.925.3444 atlam®methoMd com kar'l�mMowellena com F: 970.920.2186 brig n riadlareh itects.com APPLICANT LANDSCAPEARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER Aspen Housing Partners, LLC Connect One Design Roaring Fork Engineering Jason Bradshaw 0123Emma Rd. 592 Highway 133 228 Eastwood Drive Suite 2. Carbondale, CO 81623 Aspen, CO 81611 Basalt, CO 81621 P: 970.340.4130 P: 970-319-9298 P. 970.279.1030 F: 866.876.5873 iebmdshaw) 0maccomhhT�ronneMoned� Oe{esL$oO.comom richarda0rfena.1, PROJECT INFORMATION LOCATION..............................................................................................488 CASTLE CREEK RD. ASPEN, CO 81611 LOTSIZE.................................................................................................................................11,255 S.F. Et 24,640 S.F. PARCEL ID#.........................................................................................................273512309033 Et 273512309034 SUBDIVISION: ............................................................................................................................................................. NIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ...................................................... 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD Et LOT SPLIT Lot: 1 Et 2 LLL. a Uj L ■ ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY LOT'S 1 & 2,488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD FINAL P.U.D. AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO uNG1 CO I \� �M¢;E� �TR� — FM 9 xert �RMANH _ s'9 ¢<] b T5 I i -LOT-� I II sssa S GRAPHIC SCALE (wems) 6)¢EVAilON9ARE.0A'�oRTHODA'NM)YIELDIIIGI oN91IEELEVATONOEMM,IsoN ra'rvoR'Ixwfs'I'[ux mxrvER AS sxOwx. Cmfmva mmFJtvu. Epuu.s l tnm. 51� mEaARARP0.0RIMArzty 1E^Of SNOa umiCEONnIEGRONm ATTNEni.NOF e�ACCOROwG io ¢MA PAN¢ mql] W wC HATED NNE 4, 1111 SUBIFG! fROPmtt , ERROROE CIAEGREEOR THIS ALEaNSRe tANnifH.E 9oRVeY IS LESSIHAN I'.15,Gm. IONACCDRUINGNwECm' Of A— 3. OSITE]HISPROPERtt M W¢NEo 11. II) WenAnD eOUNOARYDeuNEAnON WAervmRROvmmAxo NO VIS®LEMARKS WERE SUR—OHS CER nElcA I IONS pEw.oen�mtMim. aaRT,1,terolrenrvvarowep®aa,x®,ro.xwswG.wpuxenn uEREp xuuFMEx sEo�SFD wEpE 90nvevS.>Own e6ine1.6lnonnv no0 ®nt-innxorvSeS nnv wCumeSlnw61.2Ags. Nq. NEl la, ll, -,Il I], Ie Aim I9oa TAH¢Aixexeonixen¢owoRRanscotulal'm 011 oAi V e✓SgNNA! lANH50o-, OO E® il a0 ®0 a0 a0 • a0 a0 0® a0 a0 a0 00 ®0 BBm BBm 00 00 00 BBm 00 ®0 00 00 00 00 a0 �0 �m0® �m0® ®m00 4 CASTLE CREEK Rmo`D FINIAL P-U-Dn AND LOT SPLIT SD Cu s V 1 . ( O N E XE MPTHIN PLAT '� P1S.� ,a.. ``���� --' �� The purcose lots of 20M) of t Icr far r ,den+ NI AaY Ch I 26 nd UD ppr r. o an c 'c o =fl o- she ubj sf p Perty info Two eLordaice , Pn '.I yy -II Ord once Na, 5 (Series (2) /S ord ar -r0 end cf' (her FF cl...e —q e�„ s r., �h.. AsFEN Land Use Cod,. _ i l..Ec RM1SeE a5 XEEB of ixEECIIP AI11AT. FA .SPA iNCNSL LWIAEANICN 13 OE 0 10 AA wNi AIN( CA SY 11_ NTY OF PITH 4 T AYiNCH roz o sryL NBN ) 7E BgN91AOL OVINE S CERTIFICATE O _b 11: la -AS 0x5 _...... MAROu ROADIY" 1 S I of NhOry ALL n[1 OROED , IN OF. fifAAOY OF GNDST f "'� IHE -•-.-.-. :. .-' POIN1 �Fd9EG IhIN IXc `®'• _ 6.os 101 (TIE iO 'A H6EALY D T lore a,L n_ B-cTlal oquEa '\ ^ / nl neae6En, \ j 1 r AFT I LOT i �- II LEGEND AND NOTES 0 POVVD art 5Ei suaJEr ncnuMENr As oEscR aEo IgED 25gtll ,5. \ L T 2 \ D sugvEv ccxTq POEVAi ONS 8o E akB . \ _ r TLE INFOAttIi ON FURM1 ISHEO Bv. � ` P 5Y5x N COUNTY i TLE, \� oAYE0M10 ea..D6FFt nC V 25 2006 \ \ 8 BLM BRAES CAP �\ \� \0 C\ IIE s' S h48'f' 1/ �n SO Ene•p BIo�IPI a' Far einWt �.N q d YIO°i'1pAe�0! I^on :nd L II ;u I ''. F ciYP �Y�E10a d�Loi s rOS FeiINuab.r 09 2aOS. vnd he d ela l°IC�oeN9 1 ad 0. E 'P 1° 1 eNear Re Ao lu l�i a" d..N ° °• f h d N ally p 0o^ic6o� LIP 12 Sn.e.a .m.p 6f uS vP 'Pm r II b. :NV I- d i eiaiaWl. c a. a .a AT }G 9 N a p ° and cI InN A°i. BSS 9 h r�Y °ladl n9 on A _ 6 a p a L �t b r ai7e.e e�•nB ai 7 I 191 AYE i l i r a l F e A l a iiae:::° °„a 6° p d lira 6ADI Id' av9 oL n an a F djilndord�hae I 0 rP Ih° coda. u° ny ."r °Ice duly lF.rB IM1 II ° lcr lhB� IugdH re i,i 1 6p Wii �5�60 �v��Nvn n .IiM1aa e I "� A'iM1.ii iayui A emp 11 ScFp�e iUAIy . 6 iha 0 I - a° la°a r hAo.WYh. Ag'+.n.ollbu ^�ean90c�r"•an dY�M1oa I lo! VICINITY MAP r' -i00' SOVII, RAN. RE PEII 1F THE 51 5 INN IND AT P01 NT. A HONEST 5 RE?AA ON 1. EAs-ly sl of OF iNE ,00" ApAO ftIGNT OF vAY WHENCE THE CONN01I CORNER. OF SEcil ON9 (t. Ix 3 ANo 1a YEARS solrtM voa'aEsi (Ola.xo TfEi. THNOATN Bl fi'EAsi EEi.dR FEET: I.EW Y.IRST 1W6daPFEEiiT THE EAATEALY SIDE OE SHE COUNTY ROAD A,GOT GCVEP ION SHOWN HfAEON SUCH WAiEA LINE G ES FUArXE - BASIN CIIY of AlBOD THAT of 4 TE. -I 1N Wx11 o EBIT, INiIf",A P AND THE Lei SPLIT F%EMPTIGN 11X1 - u.0. ANO NYEOTHI. 111 11 MTHAE THEA q F STEEL PABTH- LT) —1, DIOBTY IF 1- N _ NO ME 11 IL 1 F Gco BEF RE HE TH1 '"�O STIEEL PA NEII1'} TO N Cnnfl En A. SECAE A E MP PENH 951 tl�NDP/,AP Nf �."..a pa ! NOt TITLE CERTIFICATETll 'I RED, f ,RTfREDPIiN IYESH.TE A ytLE. CE0.(IFY THAT TO PB AERSON`LYS LI IT. AD B60EHI OY ME FLAT DO HOLD FEE "I'Ll TITLE TO THE PEA Y AEE k, CLEAR ^ALL LIEYS AND ,-HE E%CERT MASS LIS ON 1HE OvttnR . TEll LTANUGN WE TREE JHA FASTS 6iAACD ON THIS PLAT ARE opUE M" CERT FItATE IS NOT 10 BE IN 1 OF TITLED A NI ON OF TI tIE, NOA A GllAAANTEE i%IN ttUNTY TITLE. IN” NEITHERFASSYMES HIM WILLABE CHANGEDAWITH ANY NANCIAL CBL IGAi ION OA L}TY WHASSOEVEA OBY ANY STAiEHFNT coN-AINEO HEREIN. DITER STAFF of COLORADO 1 A JUGA LEC it FIA A AS ACNN9'y4EQGEo BEF9P P° a _r, I p tYtlf �14 tOMHI IONSFAD[[A: nL SEAL rel SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE Df wa'� xDDe. NC. EEq AD FNA A D LOi SPLIT KION_ Dh FN E SND 7 "D OG AY C qNk CITY OF AEIMAIEPfV NBTH \ , NM1O A CCM1DETI RE ENpiQON NO £— i� iNE REAL E Y E Ec NNiT til ED S - DAY OF E p0 YES CITY I Ii HID uXy. cnF IsrL) CITY ENGINEER S APPROVAL III � 0. R L 1j, AND E vLoi 11BBuVI I EX HPi ON. x.s N`1NE55 I.M. DAY )F ^� 9TH Y. T4006, TY Enc REEq 0 IE iHIS �'T` r CITY EXG INEEAr� c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL T- PLAT IT i s BDIVI$IGN EXEMPTION. AEVI EM1Eo AND APPA RIVED BY qE NO UN ELUFMEyIr_ Z BE E r iNE C iY AS EN ON iH 5 OAYAOF '^ic -ta+ 006. _r. i ISD R [oF1' 0. 5 nCC,o A\CE A q O p 1 XE v vAE4AREv By T L T 5 11 oxpnvreEanEgn Yn in,_",p II Ip) D ASPEN SURVEY AID I..�EN�INEERS. INC. zDa x4 h .i .�, flld �I YII (I III (III VIII III IIII II A'!9, BIB IRISH. EOLDRAID E Ax IRIA gzs 6LEi .S 37 P. IR T 9 d'A R T DATE doq AMENDED AND RESTATED FINAL PLAT 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD - LOT 1 - PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-033 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD LOT 2 PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-034 - - ER1;u nafau �:"iswn ..�� �`\'"�\ �qs�E � dA• � vEE—xf _ _ �somass*e"u�•. L— SI �I faaNclssr � � t Dw.emAi x—xwovs — — T ` \ � 1 At Toy %M, '3 yl VICINITY MAP CASTLE rnEExaoaD COMMUMTY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL: LANDDIS rT1c IIT CERIIFlCATE OF OWNERSFBP: eaarlcuuly DracvlEDae eolows. pa4°BPDmarvoBemMoae sreAca—s o a Y �gNOBb vacpaYY NxeI *J soaaPfsl��EAws sNl,,roNTaps. —11 owGroix PMu aTu ll.PAA955QUAST fSLIMOREOR cecOivliK eaE u�mED —E—m DDT, PLATT. AND SAND, a 9>,1.11 I re 1.111 -CA. naaow =o — AS I IS / "\ m l m C._ mEoeapD. EucvrwENa paror_an..ron. SHEET INDEX SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET 2 RESULTING LOT LAYOUT �I SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: cauE� m`I I 111-11IN fAAEeeENf 3 I ro rviui lxl1Asex� " ID I LID NIT, I IND w�`0.w l No owNEa. cnvof AsvEx. ce wnB AND—STS Al T.S \� 3411 I g �� In mss srnrc xaND aND SE1 — a xanwa a PPFouNeTxls oar f�e s frc01AIIEN. AS Eclnor a \ II esvEN. wmaEssmvxaNDumofnau.sw.mvcoem.°ssloNEwl s N 311 EV CY; O n � I� NOTes: II PEAxspavEvnsc.lc ITTLEeUaeasEofiws amENDEonxaIZS ro vacaiE'ixE witwfaEIwfENtorsI zAxDuc unix IASEUENis ANDaDIDlcsereAcxs As sxowN. cae TITLE EXAMINER'S TE xmisamENDED A1minaimfma,vEAT sxu.EleEacE umswEasEDEEnEaee 4w.EcmEE CERTIFICA: 1-1 NoraaY vc°uc CITYOFASPENENGINEER'SREV— v,ma[mt s. rxls pav of u ri x" coeeaannfNisuavev "V r 'S v sEErtwmE�a z11i,zw wfeureooee�eac wirs INNITTrv� i� rmeExam 2-11aoeEanrssulEtTroaEsfavanorrs,vfsmlcnoxs,rovENANfs,DulED1c Eof TlTDlecAsne CxEvxaoaDvuNNEDDEvlovxlm',am ExcE1 W n a 9° E DA,EoeffECm T'roaEazazElE. wAarEns.EEo1TNDS,fD.ENo.°111— DIEAemAso,l ilr,aaaawN.P.E. aaanoEasEENENOEVEea n xn noASlsoFaEAaD��foaTxlsSQa�EVISA��MNcofs�..rowEDE�e�NTxE -� YI �,��N� aNp��aaoiauo,�MpNE<aaYL�NaaNp aS)1-0xEafafsaM aTNIS-1aSamaA�ax,pNEa,S,CaE°E6S.«IalofocNDINfracE. a DA veep 6muNiYoIePKANDE1N9.EsOFFs10EANDE'S" CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTDICAIE: � 11° 1B0 lm n TUIssUR1EYISBasEDON 1HEaASCASTLECPEEKROADFwu P.VD. AND IafsPWi '.'AT I II I srnwam'ImE mABArvY s11 ENAnoNSAREBasED ONANDS—ESVA ITIUEMcs'xEwP SNCol.oaIN. UND—INCANON-SITEEIE —INof Bms.u'oN vPrnPilon CLEOKAtma1'URDm GRAPHIC SCALE GRAPHIC NS_ cavx.s.alm° 'scam"` wasaPeaoxmuTEsr 1x•of sNowaNDlcEonixEcaelmoaTTTwTEnEw pwlT I wcE 2U 1L lmaccoapwcrofn4a vaNu."swzc°x°zcpATEARIT..,1PazTlsuewcrPapPean 11.E "" cinofasveN U) esaoa�oF P.OSMExeoarws.DaAm'6e6utmnr � vev�teb5rxw I:I;O°a 1x)accoaDwcroixecfrc TS"A. fsw�fu WaN\ QCRK �1YVe joe mwoee N0. Dau Revisi ISY eomuEoeEueeDwowlixronPNOEVESwMeuErrrvuoaroSAim`vuwNx c�°sicNoa P.O. Box 1]46 <p°ai mlamurnoN. wkco P1650 — Peonc (9]03 6251954 <: CITY OF ASPEN Pr°jen NO. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO �u AMENDED & RESTATED FINAL PLAT Z 11) 5 -AND EDUxDaaYDID-TIoN was NOT —11 ANDNo 11511E mAaxs wEl F"x 19]0)5]9-]150 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD arEOAT rIrafEof suavEv. AUGUST 13, 201] wxm.Pakswvep488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD 488 CASTLE AMENDED AND RESTATED FINAL PLAT CREEK ROAD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT a ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD - LOT 1 - PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-033 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD - LOT 2 - PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-034 Cm Of ♦SeElu — — � wl].9s — — toMGSEfBac—K ]p= — weA�Nas s1 6 Al -_ I Hs I o.swas�/� I 4�q,, LOTI I �� `4�� \ \ 9ABCA4n CR[IXROnn I \\ II I G� I RE°AR\ LP ms \ I PCOM \ I 6 II rnvOfnsrcx \s\� 4 a Jia � o li In ° iveYi, S° a W no a E v 4 S 3 GRAPHIC SCALE �M PST 1 111'WITNEssc RT s,3,'V¢ 1 °nom NQ Dei< Rc�i.i,�i, 4eaK Ioe. e,� CITY OF ASPEN P j<o1N0. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO P.O. Box 1]46 161190 wn<, co e16m �^ AMENDED & RESTATED FINAL PLAT enon« 9]o362s 1954 ^� 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD P"x (YIO)Yl9-]150 AUGUST 13,2017 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD 20F2 since 2007 �, r,9pampwG w u Aspen A,— F2-1 "Aspen High whom488 Castle Creek Rd El R F9 C context map sheetindex shoot number sheet name -.COVER cover L.1.00 demo, vegetation, ,tree removal plan -.2.00 site plan -.3.00 perspective sketches -.4.00 planting plan -.5.00 multimodal diagram I L.6.001 pedestrian directness diagram I L.7.001 lighting plan 0 UJ LU o 0 I Uj 0 L) J Z� L (n U L) 00 CO ItT LANDSCAPE 1 )v Cr 00 preconstruction coordination is required with the city forester/parks department to mitigate impacts to root systems of the trees that are in proximity to the retaining wall. any excavation within the driplines of trees will be approved by the city forester per city code 13.020. this includes providing evidence of depth of excavation in proximity to the retaining walls LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE -ATING DECIDUous TREE TO REMAIN E%ISTAG DELI DUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO SE REMOVED TREE MITIGATION SCHEDULE # MAROLT RANCH ACTION VALUE 1 2 S'OEC 12" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN 3 4 9 F PRESERVE PRESERVE 5 8" UK — _ 612 — tree protective fence, typ. REMOVE E LIN 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 8 P� 5. SETBACK — REMOVE $528.00 '4" EG REMOVE $528.00 10 3" EG REMOVE _ 11 _ REMOVE z 12 10' DK PRESERVE 13 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 10 6' OEC PRESERVE II 15 6' EG l CA 16 6' DEC REMOVE $1188.00 17 8" EG REMOVE §2111.00 18 19 B" EG 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE $2111.00 BELOW -VALUE 2D II'F REMOVE $2111.00 21 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 22 14' DEC � vw 23 12' DEC REMOVE $4]59.00 24 fi" DEC REMOVE $1188.00 25W DEC REMOVE $2111.00 26 10' DK REMOVE $3299.00 27 'UK REMOVE BELOW MrT VALUE 28 4" DK REMOVE BELOW -VALUE 294" DK REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 30 31 4" DEC 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE BELOW MR VALUE 324" EG REMOVE $528.00 33 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 34 4" EG REMOVE $520.00 354' EG REMOVE $528.00 36 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 37 fi' EG REMOVE $1188.00 30 393' fi' EG EG REMOVE REMOVE $1108.00 BELOW MIT VALUE 40 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 41 A PRESERVE 42 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 43 44 6" EG S. EG PRESERVE PRESERVE 45 46 15" DEC 20" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 4T 3" EG REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 40 \ REMOVE $2111.00 II tree protective fence, typ. REMOVE $2111.00 :0 51 \ REMOVE PRESERVE $2111.00 52 6' DEC PRESERVE MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN maintain all native vegetation to the I I greatest extent possible to maintain existing buffer from castle creek road I w C, 9 IPA OP FF�Ro 90 I \ II \ I I LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE -ATING DECIDUous TREE TO REMAIN E%ISTAG DELI DUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO SE REMOVED TREE MITIGATION SCHEDULE # SPK CBM' ACTION VALUE 1 2 S'OEC 12" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 3 4 12' DEC B" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 5 8" UK PRESERVE 612 DEC REMOVE $4750.00 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 8 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 '4" EG REMOVE $528.00 10 3" EG REMOVE BELOW -VALUE 11 ]0' DEC REMOVE $3299.00 12 10' DK PRESERVE 13 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 10 6' OEC PRESERVE 15 6' EG REMOVE $1188.00 16 6' DEC REMOVE $1188.00 17 8" EG REMOVE §2111.00 18 19 B" EG 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE $2111.00 BELOW -VALUE 2D 8" DEC REMOVE $2111.00 21 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 22 14' DEC REMOVE $6465.00 23 12' DEC REMOVE $4]59.00 24 fi" DEC REMOVE $1188.00 25W DEC REMOVE $2111.00 26 10' DK REMOVE $3299.00 27 'UK REMOVE BELOW MrT VALUE 28 4" DK REMOVE BELOW -VALUE 294" DK REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 30 31 4" DEC 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE BELOW MR VALUE 324" EG REMOVE $528.00 33 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 34 4" EG REMOVE $520.00 354' EG REMOVE $528.00 36 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 37 fi' EG REMOVE $1188.00 30 393' fi' EG EG REMOVE REMOVE $1108.00 BELOW MIT VALUE 40 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 41 8" EG PRESERVE 42 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 43 44 6" EG S. EG PRESERVE PRESERVE 45 46 15" DEC 20" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 4T 3" EG REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 40 0' EG REMOVE $2111.00 49 B' EG REMOVE $2111.00 :0 51 8' DEC 1D' EG REMOVE PRESERVE $2111.00 52 6' DEC PRESERVE TOTAL VALUE $53,840.00 Q O UJDo Wo Q U o LW ° I Z IL Na N Q Q U M0 WIII DEMOLITION, VEGETATION, + TREE REMOVAL PLAN L.1.00 X 00 N ADA compliant a (6' width) provides ai marolt trail and AVH t preserve existing cotto 4' retair bear proof trash enclosure v & recycling race) 20' driveway with firetruck retaining wall (-1') and minimal site lighting for safr to mark ant supplemental plar provide screening from Crer parking lot wl 29 spaces (including parking 19 head -in 10 parallel retain existing ROW be all existing vegetatim greatest extent p SCALE: 1"=16' u®.� trail to existing marolt bike path elevator/stair core with internal storage and mail area raised perennial garden sod sculpted landscapel lounging lawn bike parking (typ.) raised perennial garden light well for lower units (typ.) ADA ramp sod sculpted landscape/ lounging lawn coven walls/layered planting to create personal patio spaces, typ elevator/stair core with internal storage and mail area shade tree within tree well (at grade), typ. at grade sod rear deck/patio(s) with access to proposed trails emaced retaining wall(s) i" curb vegetative screening ehicular turnaround anow storage zone tD W O Q O J U U Z W a N Q (ILLUSTRATIVE SITE IF l :4 10 Cr 00 W View One View from the sidewalk looking north at the the courtyard and building View Three View from the hillside looking south toward the most southern portion of the building deck with trail access View Two View from the central access path looking northeast towards the elevator/stair core View Four View from the sidewalk looking east into the courtyard and private patio areas 0 Q O Y W W U W J H N U 00 00 1* m 0 0 a 0 0 U Z W N a PERSPECTIVE SKETCHES L.3.00 00 maintain all native vegetation to the greatest extent possible to maintain existing buffer from castle creek road reseed with native revegetation mix for all areas of disturbance within row additional proposed planting to supplement existing vegetation and strengthen buffer along Castle Creek Road MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN T RANCH E HOUSING CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE " SHADE TREES • Acer truncatum'Nonvegian Sunsef l Maple LARGE EVERGREEN • Abies concolor / White Fir MED EVERGREEN • Cercocarpus ledifolius l Cud -Leaf Mountain Mahogany SMALL DECIDUOUS SHRUB • Ribes aureum l Golden Currant DARK LARGE EVERGREEN ' • Chamaecypads nootkatensis / Alaskan Yellow Cedar DECIDUOUS SHRUB • Rhus trilobata/ Skunkbush Sumac ANTI -EROSION SHRUB • Rhus glabra "Laciniata' / Cutleaf Smooth Sumac NATIVE MIX LAWN PERENNIAL + SHRUB MIX Q MO I.L W� /W 0 Li Q U 0 W° LU W Na N Q Q U 00 co PLANTING AND RESTORATION F 10 a 00 existing sidewalk crossing with access to AVH bus stop enhanced pedestrian access point transit system information enclosed bike locker storage on every level transit system information enclosed bike locker storage on every level enhanced pedestrian access points bike parking bike parking ADA ramp (typ.) bike parking enclosed bike locker storage on every level transit system information effective walkway width 5' MULTIMODAL DIAGRAM L.5.00 X 00 M MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN 7 , PROPettTy LINE 5. SETS CALE: 1"=16' T RANCH E HOUSING 0 LLJ 00 LLI o 0 1 W 0 J Z� u L NU) co 00 R* PEDESTRIAN DIRECTNESS lo cr 00_1 proposed bear proof trash & recycling receptacles LCALE: 1"=16' L MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN 4E Prtto�pevzTy Lit All ---------- --s,SET'B -------------- ---- --- — -- ------------- - :::7 — — -------- ------ ---- --------------------- ------ ------ ----- - ----- ----- ------- ------- W, ------------------------------- T RANCH E HOUSING LEGEND WAC GATE' LED BOLLARD PATH LIGHT; 115 LUMENS AT 24" ABOVE GRADE WAC'INVISILED PRO OUTDOOR' 24V o OUTDOOR LED TAPE LIGHT; 12 LEDS PER FOOT AT 18" ABOVE GRADE, W/IN RECESSED CHANNEL LIGHTING PLAN _2 L.7.00 X 00 00 R Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C-00/ TITLE C-007 NOTES AND LEGEND C -/O/ EXISTING CONDITIONS C-102 LAYOUT C-103 BASINS C-I&I GRADING AND DRA/NAGE C-105 UTILITIES yPp00 tICF CHECHED BYRBG DRAWNBYDCS -. 0*50 NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION - x iE T ir oi00 an•/omanMaatt _ eh+rem , p rN vmrez Wr n rt�0eanttamT'un � ��^muw nvmse mM1m m aso&ymiiµvemrel[we ^N�n BVts=ginniryvmi,al [uiw. n U4tt�g0u�'rtnuualawlM = a rt•I �mM x _ - nnN WT-ronErmfine e wm�are" smme - . ,- na"roe - _ - 5Y=SAuerevarm ¢FWmNWaarte - nwmolomm - a-FbgeNparememLN- Mrtmma- - pmten"nnsenry _ ,5umrra'waFry� rs au"mlGaWnisVn.onum xsr+n"splsu^er � z,4ronxmamluram Wmarge -- _x�lgemv�� -- wqm- mre a.,o - snots - vp-vammw ABBREVIATION LEGEND ENG1EERM11EPARTT4Nr C-OFASPEN 517 E HOPKMS STREET STANDARDDETAILS ASPEN, C081611 O PHONE: (970) 9205080 Si.M GENERAL PROVISIOXS SPECIAL PROVISION$ fXGMEFR% GSPECIFICATION$ RFVlSl0X5 /0 STANDARD SPEC/FICA//ONS ANO SUPPLEMFNIAL SPFC)F/CAI)ONS. L IN[rFBlINENCO'SR//YOTHA/[OrtSHIN ens``oNDw.1NHIBBY NF -111 "HER 4 N 1 5 S INE CONIRAC/ORLSNALLOB/AIN I'M—I'M—PLAFM PRIOR IO COHHfNCING CONS/RUC/ION 4 I BLE INFORMAIIONAI NERI/MEOFOFSIGN.L/IN£ LONIRACIOF SNA[[ FEVIEW ANO V£RIFYEXISTING PNYSICALAI! FEATURES ANO E(EVAIIONS OF NFCON01/IONS IO BF FxCOUNIEFFBOURING CONS/RUC!ION. IH£CON/RAC/OR SHA[[ LIMIT ALL wOFN ANB STORAGE AFEA5I0 IxF PFOJECISIIE. ANYWOFN INSIDE PURL/C FORTH W)[[ RfOUIRE APPROVAL FROH !NEC)/Y PRIOF IO CONSIRUCl/ON. USFOF ANY PRIVATE AREAS FOR IH/SPFO✓ECI BY THECONNACIORHUSI BEAPPNOVEO/N WR/T/NG BY IHFPROPFNIYOWNEN W/THALOPY OF /HIS APPROVAL PROV10F0 /O --- IO USAGE. 4 ALL TODRISHE CCONA—AMONNISIVORALLONSAV THE UN/TPR/LERE[AIEO WON/TEH. A ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE ID IHFL/NFS GNAOFSSECT/ONS AND ELEVA IONS SHOWN ON —ANS UNLESS O/NEFWISE NO_ OR APPROVER, r/NEFN6/NEER.l4 A BWOFKHANSH/P SHALLNSVR✓£CI IORRENCT/ONANOAPPROVAL BY/HELI/YOFASPFNANO IHC EN6% EER. IXE EN6/NEER SHA[[ BE NOTIf/EO WITNINpNOUR PFIOR TO THE LOMHENCFHENT OF ANY CONSIRUCIION. "' "TH111OR 1111111111 11 ""T"' 'a1101111141 11-1171 IF I ANIIIN /DES OF SLOPE AS SX OWN ON r."".ANYOIS/URBANo, BEYOND TNESElIMIIS SHA!( BE RESTORED IO ORIGINAL CONO/1/ONS BY TXF CONTRACTOR A/ IXE/R OWNEXPENSE l] THE CONIRACIOR SHALL NOT BEHOVE ANO SNALL PROTECT FROHOAHALE ALL TREE$ BUSHES ANO EXISIfNG / R Li NO TREES SHALL HE BEHOVED OR IR/HHEO W-1 PRIOR ACKNOWLFOLf1fN/OF rNf PROPER/Y OWNER —I— IS THE CON IRA CTOR SHALL PRO TECI THFFX/Sr/NG DRAINAGE SIRUCIUFFS ANO RFRONEANYRUNOFFAS rION AS PREVENT FEOSO IS IN 'HE C111HIC111 SHALL""' "I '1A VI 1111 11111111T 11E LEAVING TNF PROJ£CFFIC ONIRO[15N£10£OIOACLOHHOOA IE LONSERUC'/OM ACIIV/IY ENTER/NG ANO l4 WXFFE PAVEHENIlS IO ABUIEXlSI1N6 PAVEMENT,NEEXISI/NGPAVEHENISXAL[ BEREHOVEO IIA -1 VfR/ICA[ [INF BYIS[OW SEIIfNGI PNIOR IO PAV/NG OPERA/IONS VFR/ICA[ EOLf55HA[[ NOT RFHAIN ANBONEPARIWAIEF.EHU[5/F/FO ASPNA[ rFOF IACKCOAI SHA[[ EONS/SIOFONFPAFT FHU[SIFIEO ASPNA[ I Evisti Conditions Proposed Conditions pm^Vmu IIrTn Sums M.,nl"anrm�; WymNwn w -- sa"urvsenn unel6reenl weu ry 1 — vmmsewnumlereenl— wsu"e WNwl mre ryelwl wOAue uneneuawl �n L"`wMss• — ennelAebl xlgn[vreume�asumryeA"wl — — — — nnalnml — — — — enlaelAem euaeigebl—m—®—m— e 'mplwrgel �G�lowlel le —.—.—.— seam = - - - xne,ow�nm reliW�— A—m—m— UnetypNotes: Mainsantl knlmmM1arreproper pipesiresaM ,0krehrenntl�InOirMnllnerypePap Ma[enal antlS roYeflkre rvaluble AumSAb WWe ryNAspen fnglneKing OeW am meet l9 WTERSHRLL BEUSEOASAOUSIPAMTIVEWXEREREOU/RFO[OCAT/ON55XA[[ BFASONERE4 N£MTW WATER SHA([ BE INC/BEN/A[ IRONER BIO IIEHS SWEEPING ANO LL£AxlN6 ADJACENT STREETS 1x05/OEWALKS DURING CONSIRUC/LOX WI(! BF PFRFORMFO AS NECESSARY ANO 150/FECTfO BY INE FNG/NEER SWFFP/xG ANO OUSTH/I/GAT/ON /s CONS/OFREO TO B£/NL/0£NTA( IO NE WORK oINI$ TIE$ B£NINNANII ANO/OR SURVEY CON/FOL NHSr5 WHICH MA Y BE 015/RIB -OROFSIROYEO BY LOxS/FUC/ION. SU INHH/5 SNA[(BEFEFfRfNCFO 1. .111— If HONU r BYARFLISIfRFO PROFESS/DNA[LAMB SORVILLH J7 EHECONrRICTORSNALO[ XAVEACO rWdiLAPPLLCAB(/ESTANOAROSANOAPPROVEOCONSNUC/IOXPLANSANO R ANLAYER PLA ---I LL COHPLE/FOFU(LTWIO/N BEFORFY/CCEEOINL LAYER IS P[ACE0.0/N A BENHERAL£HFNIOFTHFIACKCOAI, THE LONIRACTOF SNAIL LEAN IX£PF£SFNI ROADWAY 150/R E0. C[EAxING WI![ NOI BE PAIR FOR SFPAFAIELY, BUI SNA[L BE INCLUDED/N NF COSIOF THE PROJECT. A A —I— .1---A— !FOR TACK COAT SNA((COx 1 OF (PARI FHU[SIFIEO ASPxA(E ANO !PAN/WATER. A ENE CONrRACIOR SHALLFORMISM INSTALL ANOMALNIAINIEHPORARY IRAFFICCONIROL OfVLCES NECESSARY WILMIN INESENINSENION .-111 INE -111-1 ANO WORKSNAL( SNP UN//( /NEO/SLREPANLY[56/SLUssE0 AN06£L/5/ONS/AGREFHENTS NAVEBEEN HARE. Water Symbols Dry Utility & Traffic Symbols fxishn Proposed Description Existing Proposed Des'lle io0 A 'MMM—o e em «, • 0 0 rem M P.cemd'v ® ® omrcler cb pf[ r a'A f .. r. 2 zaaR�•una to J/1 y ra ox ,mw c m °� & Nanmrep Sanitary Sewer/ Storm Drain Symbols a e= maam. Existing Proposed Description Subsurface/Surface Symbols V ase Symbol Description aa�e�t ra e e ♦•,� mmkre�u Trrea Pr;Y/ Busty m mr as urve« m "im � rmlmrt" SYMBOLLEGEND DEPARTMENT CITY OF ASPEN 517EH PMS 51]EHOPKMS STREET ASPEN,C081611 PHONE (9]0)9205080 STANDARD DETAILS Q A,., —111MI—VINNINA—SLORSINOMINE 5/ART Of CONSTRUCT/ON UN/IL ALC£P/AXLE BY IXE.//Y IRAFF/C ENGINEER. Z A RAFF/C SIONN NVEHENT HARK/NG$ANO IRAFF/L SIGNALSSNA[[HFE/OR EXLEEO HANUA[ON UN/FORH TRAFFIC CONTROL OE — IM U r CD.15 /ASH ROS. Z /MELON/NAC/ORSHA([ PREPAFE AOEIAHLO TRA—M MAN, SUBHITTO MNCIrrNRAPPROVA[,ANO OB/IIAPPROPRIAIE PERMITS. L /NECON/RACIOR SHA([BF RESPONSIBLEFOR A(L WOFN ZON£IFAFFICCONTRO[. CONTRACTOR SNAIL BE RFSPONS/B[f FOR FURNISH/NG, INSTA[[lN4 ANO fIAINTAIXINB !NE IEHPORARY TRAFFICCONTRO[ BFVICfS L INVCON/RdC/OR-CdOSE00AMAGE IO OMIIYANOiORSERVICE(INESSXOWNORNOTSHOWNONNFP[dNS ALL BE—IREOONREP[ACEOAT NOCOSI TO !HEC/TY RE ASPEN ANO SNA[! BE ACCOHP[/SHED BY III IRSHALL HE RESPONSIB[EFORNOTIFYING ILL 111L111--10— WOBXIN R/THE PBOJEC/NFd. LIKEWISE, IXECONIRACIOR IS RfSPOMERLEFORCOOROINAIMGX/SWORKANOINATOFTNFINVOLM Z U 3 THE CONTRACTOR ONIRM SHALL CONTACT LII.YNO OFYIEROFCONAOATI IWOROOMESSBIYS INADVANCrOFAYEXCAVATIONORCRAOIN ANY DAMAGFSHALL BE REPIIRFO ANBRESIOREB /0 1, SAIISFACIION OF TNECIIYOF ASPEN. NECON/FICTORIS RESPONS/B[f FORINE[OCATIONANBPROIECTIONOF A[[UI/[/I/ESOUR/NGCONSNUCIfOX INFCONIRACIOR GAS CONOUII.�F/NISNGBAOEHUSIBEAI[EASILSFEEIANO NO MORE IHAN{FEEIOYEBSTNEGASCONOUI/ /HF S EXISTING UNONGFOUNO TELEPHONE, F/BFR ANB LAB(FfE(FV/s/ON FAL/(/T/ES HAYBE(OLAfEO /N CLOSE VISIONr"PANY PROXIMITY IO IHEWOFN. INECONIRACTOF MAY, IF NECESSARY /EMPORARI[YOISP[ACE NFCABLES BUR/NG CONSTRUCT/ON AMB RfINSIA([ INEHINACCOROANCf WIIN INE APPROPR/AIF IELFPHONF, FIBER OR CAB[F PEOVIFEO rO BE ONE BY INECON/FACTOR./ONW/TNBOTN NE TE[EPNONE ANO LN[FTE[FVIS/ONCOHPANY/s ALI OF E INSPECIORO/HE COxIRdCIORIS REOUIN11I0N0/IFY THE CIIY OF ISPFN TWO WONIING OR YS PF/OF I0 BEGINN)NG CONSIRUC//ON. 11 4 INF CON/RACIOR SHA[[ AT TNfIR EXPENSE. SUPPORT ANO PNOTfCI A([ WA/ER HA%S SD lNAI IHEYWI([ IE CUSIOHERS. SxOU[0 ARWATER MA/MEAT[ AS ALRFSUOIOF IHECONIRACIOR'SOPFRAIIONS 1I WILL BF REPAIRED /1110/ATEL YBYE/THER IXE CONIRACION OF TNEWAIFR FESOURCFS OFPARIHENI AI INE FULL 1111111ABOR 11011111 VALVE BOx£$ LLFAx0u/S HANNNES GUY W/FE$ SHALL BE IOJU - LI NAVAL GRI BF. I EN/$HUB, ANO CONSIRUCIIONOEBRIS lNAI MAY ACCUHU 1INIH£FLOL/NES ANO PUBLIC RILNIWAY SA RfSULTOF PRO✓EC/ THISCOMSIRUCI/ON ....REMOVAL SNAL[ BECONOUCTFOIMA NATIHF[Y H GI/Tl£S IS 1 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECIALL SIORH SEWER/ACILEAO✓ACENII ANILOCATHINO WHERE P4 VEMENT CUTTLAN OPERA TION, AN Vat VOW WMEN n/N4 51 w tu/nx" ON dBRA51VF WATER JUST CUT TING ARE TO INF PACE. ME CON/FAC/OR SHA([ REMOVE All PROPERLY 0/SPO 01,11L.11FPR000CTSGFNFRAIEOBYSAIOCUT/MGOPERAIIONSONAOAIL '.- INEIRSCHIROENFARY IOIHES/ORHSFWERISPROXC0NTA.MIN/EOBYWASIFPROBUC/SFROHCUII/NGOPERAI/ONS Z TFLONIRACIOF HUSIKFEP A[[PO[[UTAN/$/NCLUO/NG IRENCNBACKF/[(HA/ER/A(, FROH WASHING IN/0 INE S /OFH SEWER SYSTEM. I. R a CHECKED SYRBG DRAWNBYOCS JOBR:101&50 NOTFOR NOTESAND LEGEND O GRAPHIC SCALE i ��nfEm n. CHECHEDSYRBG DRAWN BY..DCB JOBk:10*50 NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION lNG C 70A 0 1 CD bV4 W/6 AM H.P.STA.Isdd.03 H.P.S TA.2, 6.55 H.P.ELEV.WI216 L.P.STA.1.99.79 H.P.ELEV.012N PVISTA.1-51.33 L.P.ELEV.WH.01 PVI STA.2a9..9 PVl ELEV.&31L01 PVI STA.I,V.% PVI ELEV.0126d K.3&Bd K -11.d9 PVI ELEV.00I0.86 L P.STA.3,9..15 1.P.FLEV&110.05 PVI STA.3+B1.Id OR 23x 2.2 3f RI 3x50 I'm w Of b710 NK WHIC SCALE lincliFE.tl/It. M n.mr c A vc 1.@1r \` GRAOF BREAK iA.Ix1[BI —� __ A GRA EBREAK STA.- 7/ nATBxAt sT� x Bo. FNO El EVPWI % OR 23x 2.2 3f RI 3x50 I'm w Of b710 NK WHIC SCALE lincliFE.tl/It. M 100 Year Peak Discharge Developed Calculations njIHXUZ418V7 ti Sub -amine Peaknoea Ci 1HwgPJ Mtum Period 133 100 91m 10)6.0) N0).w 0.m IM0) BUIn ID Ton- Im .Ana Im Mous CValue nm dC Inn," Qdm seelml IN'I IN'I Inl F -91e ITJ Iaem,/Iload'm' INekW 1 13993.00 12133.00 07.44N 0.781 5 6.33 1.58 1 Ill 00 11513.00 93.16% 0.831 5 6.33 L49 3 1597.00 am am am s 6.33 a12 A 3391.00 1813.0) @.8691 as. s 633 Qn 100 Year Peak Discharge Pre Development Calculations am1,LI%I.8 IHmnPJ Aetum Period L13 an W. 11), Neo Im .Area U.1pll 1 I Im Moue CVBIue N) rmmTeble rime olC ITJ Imemi pAW 1a ,AWJ- Rel -0 1 13993.00 am am 0.50) 5 6.33 IR E 14304.0) am am 0.50) 5 6.33 a% 1@B 3 1591.00 am DAO% 0.50) 5 6.33 813 A 3391.00 am aM a- 5 6.33 a. ft,slam njIHXUZ418V7 ti Sub -amine Peaknoea Ci A Al1.3 91m 10)6.0) N0).w 0.m IM0) QmAlLA . - CHECNEO BYRBO DRAWNBYOCS 0.mA3LL3,lA 0.0mA @.BS% 100.00% )6894 91.16% 3 p 6mL6 0.0EA53,11,1.51.6 0.mA6 adAIlb am1,LI%I.8 amA91.101918 amAM1.6,1.T,18.19,L1QL11 0.13AllL,LI;A 183112,11,1 1@B Bl13 am841;1.3 amB3i,13,4.A am13,4A4.5 a.3,10.1.5,1.6 amB6 0.0B),1A,45,4.fi,4.) .14BB,18,30 153.,4.8,30 153 Onsite Piping Capacity Onsite Sub -Basin Data Entry 0.00 140.00 am am A).1B% am yPP00 tICF Sim an) 96m 11.5094 am 90.5T19 _ 'osr'�p'�� 91m 10)6.0) N0).w 0.m IM0) 90.aBi 9609% 100.00% Q00% 586014 . - CHECNEO BYRBO DRAWNBYOCS 0.00 Nb.00 208m 313.00 63R.m 0.0mA @.BS% 100.00% )6894 91.16% 3 p Dry -11 storage II Basins danmmr Sm 4 mdmal volume Eedmal 18"Mxreened volume Tomlp Re ulreda (Hemel IDI D N n•N• D n 0.3•naN' D 31 '- D' fl fl 11„3 LO 1 6 1 ]3 I 350 I 138 505 1110 ft -114,S 1 L3 I 6 I ]fi I A@ I 120 @3 SLI -.016-50 0f&50 NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION X NSA -0 0%.W Onsite Piping Capacity cnw a CHECKED SYRBG DRAWN BYDCS ro GhADING AND DPA/NAGl C -10l GRAPHIC SCALE IinICATFIDt tt. CNEC BYRBG DRAWN BYDCS `k E o y K � U p �IIIIII JOB 8:101&50 NOTFOR CON Mwrm 488 CASTLE CREEK - AH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SYMBOL LEGEND ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT AEfERENCE GRIP LINE I $j 1 .G. K. - - SPOT ELEVATION _ 110.. EGGS BEAM CGERIOR ELF-IIGN LNINGORNMARK as LBB � POOR MARK OOETAILCALLOUi CAB. CABINET ttG. CEILING CL CENTER UNE ROOM SECTION DETAIL CALLOUT ROOM NUMBER B61L RESILENT HEV REVISED S.M. SHEET METAL .1 INTNOR EIEVARON • B.1 x DRAWING REVISION 1 MATERIAL LEGEND GYPSUM WALL I- - CONCRETE E _ E BOARD AAW FRAMING -� STONE WOOD BLOCKING c-_ FRAME WALL RDCK - NDN L_ COMPACTED FLLIBRICK BATF INSULATION RIGID INSULARON I� —Do FINISHED WOOD ABBREVIATIONS ALF. AG04 FINISH FLOOR ADI. A"UAABLE `LTINSUL FORD HORRONTAL INFO.INPORMARON INSULATION A, ANCHORBOLTS A AND ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL 1ST. ]DIST LL WELOAD Up OFT, LONGITUDINAL ® AT BM. PAT. BE1m HERE i BTG. BEARING N.LC. NOT IN CONTRACT O.C. ON CENFER DPP. OPPOSITE OVEM AIX'G. BLOCKING GOT, BOTTOM A.L BOTOM OF FOOTING BLDG. BUILDING B.0. BYowNER L1 D. ED PERF. PERFORATED IHE N., PLYWOOD PROP. LINE PFFENHIY UNE CAB. CABINET ttG. CEILING CL CENTER UNE REINF. REINFUACEMENT REAND REDWOOD REQ'D REQUIRED C.i, CEAAMICRLE CTR. CLEAR COL COLUMN B61L RESILENT HEV REVISED S.M. SHEET METAL LUNO CONCRETE CO N.CONNECTION SIM. SRI— IMILACONN. I.F. SGUANI FEET CONI CONTINUOUS 'TL65TL DBL DOUBLE DWL DUWEL STD. STANDPAD STEEL STD.. SNDS THK. THICK E.W. MCH WAY ETF/. ELEVATION F%ISTG IXISTING EM. IXfERIOR F.H. ROOT IOILT T.F. IOP Of PoDTING I 1 -TE IL IOP Of.LLDOE i.W. TOP OF WALL TG. No NG END. PoON- N GA. GAUGE G GLU-LAM OUP . GYPSUM WALL BOARD Hf. HEIGHT HK HOOK TOT. TOTAL T.B. TOWEL BM TRANS/ 1RANSVFARE TYP. IYPICAL U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED UTHERWISE V.I.F. VERILY IN FIELD _w P CREEK FRONT PERSPECTIVE PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER ARCHITECT PLANNER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER CITY OFASPEN David lohnsmn Architects Method Planning+Development McDowell Engineering, LLC City Hall 119 South Spring St. 119 South Spring St Suite 102 P.O. Box 4259 130 S. Galena St Suite 203 Aspen, C081611 Eagle, C081631 Aspen, C091611 Aspen, C081611 1:1 : 9]0.2]4.0890 P: 9]0.623.0]88 P: 9]0.920.5000 P: 9709253444 atlamlafine[hotlod rom kairdmcdowellenN rom F: 970.920.2186 bdjamh'tech rom APPLICANTIANDSCAPEARCHTTECT CIVIL ENGINEER Aspen Housing Partners, LLC Connect One Design Roaring Fork Engineering Jason Bradshaw 0123Emma Rd. 592 Highway 133 228 Eastwood Drive Suite 29711 Carbondale, C011121 Aspen, C081611 Basalt, C081621 P: 9]0.340.4130 P:910-319-9298 P. 970.2]9.1030 F: 866.8]6.58]3 m 'ebrxdshaw®mac ronil r'chartln®rtena b'z GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES yrcmga,a.. e amail.I axxwavcew,e any ......... m�worlrvrseeaumenn anauonascerrcM1nalanraonamo.s.n�m wal nolpnm lmnswaw. pam na. Jlh,- mrseodl e„epouem me n,mn,ammm,aamyoaa,musm.. euxmllnm wuemneanor.Nm merzlsnem aa„impernm m„p.,lrz9wm,IxCwwemlowl rymrpdAemsxnim eesehcm Blluremmlpmtce M'Aom, niummalM1e mfewm dem Mlo,ap PMam KwM repermame,mxomissions, mmnmlm.�rxorm�mm.m�m mrwemm.�m w,ii�. �• °ih 1a Iwm�nie.. Alsmrsma cepemwmmmsce g s[nawmsoremnmagiipgpu nmmorsce ppwamsrnes. m 1 w mw em.rylan 11 d- aomamµummarearoaomeY PmepxeaPOrvepamnNraw.nowoanPwnRnewauia unw srmr n 11 mPmeer axequae�enwwsmmaruly PN urt pnantlammM1nmmarwuwunwBl aPe Iscomma ageaeettu+ltnauratkwttr•orcr, mpm,d,mrallramralaee wm rzmee,amm, m md,mm,M, meaamr,wlle, P P y wrzw arII-Plnma .mm wamll Il w- 9 the 9 Tema Aleimensims 11 m n nprvyskx is w mwnimm a. 1, N.lh A,dmm�dam ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SET A1.03 - ROOF PIAN OVER TOPOGRAPHY A1.04 - FIRE RESISTANCE REGRESS A7.05 - ACCESSIBILITY TYPE A UNIT A1.06 - ACCISSIBILITY DIAGRAM A1.97 - FAR A1.08 - NET LIVABLE PLANS A1.14 - FLOOR PLANS A1.15 - FLOOR PIANS A1.16 -FLOOR PLANS A1.17 - FLOOR PLANS A1.18- ROOF PIANS A2.01 - ELEVATIONS 112.02 - ELEVATIONS A2.03 - ELEVATIONS A2.04 - ELEVATIONS A2.05 - 3D VIEWS A2.(HF - 3D VIEWS PROJECT INFORMATION LOCAHORN _...... _....................... _...... _...... _............... _......_......_..........488 CASTE CREEK RD. ASPEN, CO 81611 LOT SIZE 11,255 .'G 24,640 S.F. PARCELIDp.... ....................................._.............._.....-......-.......................-2]3512309033 Et 2]3512309034 SUBDIVISION:....................... -...... -...... -............... -...... -...... -....... ................ -...... -................ ....... - ...... - ........ ........ . NIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ........................._..............._.......488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD E LOT SPLIT Lot: i E 2 W z LL� li J H V Lu u I..1. M CL 2 I` a6 v ID IGH NST0N H AR CH IT E C T Src 119 South ERR, St Sud, 209 Aspen, CO Nal Fu 9]iD 9m at6e ,�w„egWm e�wy� m0eapnifidpoFn None do w0..,oat.n��ArzMxm,x moon W W U W o J z Q /U�A /�aF�0 W Rt DRAWING ISSUE LAND USE 111101201] COVER SHEET ARCH SHEET No. 1' -7995'_- ----------- E F \ G B': 8034'-2' °" DC 8034'-2' °' 8000' 1 __ _1_ ___ _34,2314' ____ _I____ _ 34'41' 4 21' _ _ Fl: 8C 3 +•_ : 4— 1jA 8031'-9'14• 42'-7'1+' ___ 40'-10' �fj —--8 18005'_8044''0 E 8041 I I I I I I I I I I I �4 \\ 1: 8034'-2'1°" _55 0'I�T 2 1\ DAVID JOHNSTON \ I \ I \ ARCHITECTS,, tt9 wuU Spring SC G 8044' -Ola H: 6042'- 0' 3 42-8\a+p<wo. co °eas u442 1 —92- 56:: 8~59' 10 7990 7985' \ w 97M 021H -- I I `a II I 19'-'14'3" 34-2 I I I I I A''8034'-9" 1 22'-9" 1 P: 6041'-5114' 37'-4314 -_ _____!____ D:8041'-4 -- - --- - --i 5 I --- - - -- _ 2g_g91+' _ I_ _ _ 29'-5' K': 8041'-5' K : 8044'-0" 41'-7114^ 50'-2" 29'-5314' - 44'-10314" 1 C: 8044'-0" E': 8044-0 53'-6' 64'-731"" 6 32'-0" 43'-3" -8010\ b b b b 2-0. 8041'-0 0" L":112' 32' 42' 11" r� 49.7'. 64'-4tl<' I ' I 8041'-4°la_ IM :8044' 0" o- 29'-4i14' _ _ _ _ _ 45-8314' 4 J HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY \ I 52'1`2"4'-4114- I 1 9 N°: 8044'-0' 32'-0" - 45-611 9 1 51'-0314• \ ' I I— I II I I 183$^-B _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6034'-2'la'I 42'-9" \ \ \ 31F 'I. \ . I 11 \ - - - - D': 8034•_I.. _ _ 22•-y„ - G°:18031'-3" \ 39'41+' 36'-1'n' 49'-02• I I I -- \ \ I II\ \ \ +8232'-0" 0. \ II I �� :111 1 :1•• I � '®: \^s \ \ 14 ------ \- W 8033^3„__ Re 1369„214 I\�, 35'_T' I 41'-2314' L- _ -i 1950s HISTORIC GRADE i \s \ L_ FINISH GRADE \ \ 15 -\\ - r. soli' -91 5 I \ \ 1 - - I- r: 8A034'_9— - - - - - - ��- \ \ I 52'1`2"4'-4114- I 1 9 N°: 8044'-0' 32'-0" - 45-611 9 1 51'-0314• \ ' I I— I II I I 183$^-B _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6034'-2'la'I 42'-9" \ \ \ 31F 'I. \ . I 11 \ - - - - D': 8034•_I.. _ _ 22•-y„ - G°:18031'-3" \ 39'41+' 36'-1'n' 49'-02• I I I -- \ \ I II\ \ \ +8232'-0" 0. \ II I \^s \ \ 14 ------ \- W 8033^3„__ Re 1369„214 I\�, 35'_T' I 41'-2314' L- _ -i 1950s HISTORIC GRADE i \s \ L_ FINISH GRADE \ \ 15 -\\ - r. soli' -91 5 I \ \ 1 - - I- r: 8A034'_9— - - - - - - 22'_9” \ v '-931°' \ \ dl \ \o 33'-Z'14^ \O 31 00 \ \0, 1 3s'N -1314'\ II \ AA A°mss \'o. \ V I �O'� PROJECT NORTH nROOF PLAN HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY �3 S IE:IIB' = 11 ins "c mA” onad� '"ape mMvdmn.a"w" m"a.u,00m.,am�x ua � LU LU U LU O J � w a UM W 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE uxo us[ 111191n ROOF PLAN OVER TOPOGRAPGHY 40JR7W: 1149 oanwx ar: cn x �� ■ -2I A 2 HR HRE WALL ■ 2HAAAiE0A55E— 3 HR NAEWALLBELOW EpiACCE55iAAVELOISI— MAIN LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN SECOND LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN SCAIE: 1116'- 1'-0" nTHIRD LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN ROOF PLAN FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN ® J SCALE 1116". I'-0' ® Y SCAIE: 1116 10 ail V viD JOHNSTON AR CH ITECTSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 w W-21. �a<rr �z mA� aaa� 0ewm„e,.,a�s� Meeap W..d. meH�ass� m,wp:�oaa� Y Lu Lu/ LL U Lu 0 J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us, 11110117 FIRE RESISTANCE ROJECfW 1N) 6AAWN BY: Cff V 00 MAIN LEVEL ACCESSIBILITY PLAN I TYPE A UNIT S IE: 113' _ 1'-0' &I LEVELACCESSIBILITY PLAN A :11,6 = ,'-0' 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 m9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt rxtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercAyMlxussmem Ne«km ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i Lu Lu I� U Lu o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —61 11110117 ACCESSIBILITY TYPE A UNIT ROIECfW 1N3 OAAWN BY: Cff LOWER LEVEL ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAM -1 -E: 1116. 10 n MAIN LEVEL ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAM SGLLE: 1116"= I'-0' ail V viD JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 363 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt urxtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercAyMlxussmem �/meNm ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i LU LU U LU o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —61 11110117 ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAM ROJECfW IM3 OAAWN BY: Cff � N � O O F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE LEVEL USE AREA LOWER LEVEI, 351.62 AH UNIT 5,992.13 DECK 2,563.33 STAIR 297.40 STORAGE 194.34 STAIR 9,047.20 sq ft MAIN LEVEL, 174.99 AH UNIT 6,214.45 DECK 1,415.72 STAIR 269.01 STORAGE 351.62 8,250.80 sq ft SECOND IEVEI, AH UNIT 6,513.42 DECK 1,429.32 STAIR 313.86 STORAGE 174.99 8,431.59 sq ft THRID LEVEL, AH UNIT 2,844.00 DECK 1,091.76 STORAGE 171.72 4,107.48 sq ft 29,837.07 sq ft F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA SfA1E:1116= 1.0" MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA ® scgff: 1116= 1'-0 n SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA L SCAD:: 1116'• 1'-0" ® �% SfAD:: 1116"• E 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, n95ouU Spring 51 h203 Aspen, CO 81611 to -92— odder ��gwoan.rmMvd��iwo� aaenexom,a„��,em me.mm ass�uro�y�� �d� Y Lu Lu U Lu 0 J z V) Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ 11110117 FAR ROJECfW 1N) OAAWN BY: Cff T v I O NET LIVABLE FLOOR AREA UNIT AREA LOWER LEVEL, AN UNIT 5,476.85 MAIN LEVEL, AN UNIT 5,766.65 SECOND LEVEL, AN UNIT 6,044.89 THRID LEVEL, AN UNIT 2,641.81 19,930.20 sq ft �I NLA SCHEDULE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA SCALE: 1116"= I'-0' ® � SCAIE: 1116'= I'-0" SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA ^( THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA 2 AE:llt6"= I'-0' v SCALE:111- — ail viD V JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc n95ouU Sp,i, 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9213494 addons npeYnmiWXnt �wmtlgWmMVm�A'd6rgA�Mrwon aaenexom,a„��,em Y Lu Lu U Lu o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —USI 11110117 NET LIVABLE FLOOR AREA ROJECfW — R.N .. IT � N � O N U \ � I LOWER LEVEL srAx: tle° - 1 0 I I — I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH IT ECTSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Azp<o, co elsx u9)0.9313494 ww�nwomMva�ad. �zrca�ee �W..d. m,�.u„00m7a,�� ax sw LU LU U W O J V� w ^ 1 U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ x110117 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN VROIECW 1N3 osawx sr: cn ir w \ U U U U MAIN LEVEL -V8. - 1--o' ail V viD JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt wmtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercAyMlxussmem NeNm ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i LU LU U LU o J z V) a U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —61 1110117 MAIN LEVELFLOOR PLAN PAOJECf Noy 1N) OAAWN BY: Cff I � N � O FA I I I I I I I I I I I SECOND LEVEL SCA -16" . p 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH IT ECTSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt wmtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercAyMlxussmem Ne«km ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i LU LU U LU o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PROIECW iro3 oeawx er: cn FA THIRD LEVEL --f. - i o ail V viD JOHNSTON ARC HI T EC TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt wmtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercAyMlxussmem Ne«km ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i LU LU U LU o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —M Nli01n THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PAOJECf Noy iN) OAAWN BY: Cff 1 T I NV O 07 ROOF PLAN SCA1: tle° - 1 0 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt wmtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercbPMlxussmem NeNm ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i LU LU U LU o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ 1110117 ROOF PLAN PAOJECfW 1N) OAAWN BY: Cff T v a O I �� SOUTH ELEVATION —111 1- ail V viD JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 Lu Lu U Lu o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ 11110117 SOUTH ELEVATIONS ROJECf Noy 111) OAAWN BY: Cff ryO� W 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH IT ECTSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9213494 iQ Q2 3Q Q4 QS Q6 Q7 QR 9Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 _ �ti.0�aa� owzeprco ee°mn,vam.�a.ad. ne.Nomea..em WEST ELEVATION Y w w U w o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ 11110117 WEST ELEVATIONS ROJECf Noy 1113 OAAWN BY: CIT ,'a N O Cfl 0 P QN QM QL QK 1 H Q Q Q Q Q Q Q iI A>"w1�6hpa NORTH ELEVATION 1 su 4— 1 a ail V viD JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 W W U LU o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ 1110117 NORTH ELEVATIONS ROJECf Noy 1N) OAAWN BY: Cff V � N � O EET No. b." wmm�w j ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING A ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING B a QI viD N ION NSTON AR CH ITE CTSrc llgkutn5pn, St Suite 209 Aspm, CD 01611 rtt 9]0.915-9M4 W W U W g J Z l%i a Q U 00 00 DRAWING ISSUE PROIEUF 9)09 DMWN BY: CPF � N � N ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING E ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING F 1Y IIS —� i ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING C A ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING D 0 DAVID IO H N S T ON ARCH TECTSrs Aspen.N 81611 1. i LL LL ni U Lu o J Z l%i a Q U 00 00 It DRAWING ISSUE L� PAOIER Np: 1.1 RMWN BY: CPE To, ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING C A ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING D 0 DAVID IO H N S T ON ARCH TECTSrs Aspen.N 81611 1. i LL LL ni U Lu o J Z l%i a Q U 00 00 It DRAWING ISSUE L� PAOIER Np: 1.1 RMWN BY: CPE To, IX.b ORDINANCE NO. 31 (SERIES OF 2017) A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF MAJOR PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS FOR 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 & 2, 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD & LOT SPLIT, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 AS RECEPTION NO. 529046, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-123-09-033 & 2735-123-09-034 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for 488 Castle Creek Road (the Application) from Aspen Housing Partners LLC (Applicant) with consent from the City of Aspen (Owner) for Major Public Project Review; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application — August 17, 2017, as applicable to this project; and, WHEREAS, as the property is owned by a governmental agency and this is an affordable project developed by the City in conjunction with a private developer, the Applicant has requested this Application to be reviewed as a Public Project, pursuant to Chapter 26.500.030 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received comments on the Application from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and Public Works Department, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting held on September 6, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors reviewed the Application on October 18, 2017, and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on October 24, 2017, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and recommended approval with conditions by Resolution No. 14, Series of 2017, by a vote of five to zero (5 — 0). WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, a summary of public outreach was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided full access to review the Application; and, 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 1 of 11 P214 P215 IX.b WHEREAS, the Applicant conducted additional public open houses to obtain feedback on the proposed application on January 5, 2017, January 11, 2017, March 2, 2017, and March 8, 2017, and work sessions to obtain feedback from City Council on February 14, 2017 and March 28, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the Application was referred to Pitkin County for comments due to the property's proximity to Pitkin County; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, the Planning & Zoning Commission, Pitkin County, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on November 13, 2017, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2017 on First Reading by a five to zero (5-0) vote; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on , the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2017, by a to (_ — vote, approving Major Public Project Review and associated land use reviews; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council grants 488 Castle Creek Road Major Public Project review approval and the associated land use reviews for Rezoning, Planned Development, Growth Management, 8040 Greenline Review, Subdivision, and Residential Design Standards, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. The proposed project includes merging the two -lot subdivision into one lot and rezoning the property to Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD), and development of twenty eight (28) affordable housing units. The approved dimensions are attached as Exhibit A to this ordinance. The approved design and material palette are attached as Exhibit B. Minor design changes as a result of refinement to internal programming or to meet Building, Engineering, or Utility code requirements may be approved as part of the building permit review. Minor changes to material and fenestration arrangements or other insubstantial changes may be approved as part of the building permit review. 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 2 of 11 IX.b Section 2: Rezoning The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the Amended Subdivision/PD Amendment Plat, amended by the Community Development Director to reflect the following property as included in the Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD) zone district, on all portions of said land: Lot 1, Re -subdivision lots 1 & 2, 488 Castle Creek Rd. PUD & Lot Split, September 27, 2006 in Plat Book 81 at Page 48 as Reception No. 529046, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Section 3: Residential Design Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the request for one Residential Design Standard variation that will permit a variation from the Principal Window Standard, and as depicted in Exhibit 2. The Aspen City Council has found the proposed design to meet the requirements of the review criteria for a Residential Design Standard variation. Section 4: Approval Documents In accordance with Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, a final approved plan set shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The plan set shall at a minimum include the following information: 1. Subdivision/PD amendment plat, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.A. 2. Planned Development — Project Review and Detailed Review approval plans, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(3) & (4). These may be combined into one plan set. 3. Illustrative Site Plan, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(8). 4. Transportation Management Plan, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(10). 5. Landscape Character Plan, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(13). 6. Site Topography and Drainage Plan, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(15). 7. Public Infrastructure Plan, pursuant to Section 26.490.040.D(17). In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") shall be entered into with the City. All approval documents, plats, plans, and agreements shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within one (1) year following issuance of a Development Order. Section 5: Affordable Housing City Council hereby approvals of twenty-eight (28) affordable housing units. The unit types shall be as follows: 1. Eighteen (18) 1 -bedroom units and ten (10) 2 -bedroom units (54 FTEs) 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 3 of 11 P216 P217 IX.b As represented in the application, the proposed units are granted a reduction in the Net Minimum Livable Square Footage, pursuant to the APCHA Employee Housing Guidelines ("Guidelines") as follows: Unit Proposed Minimum % Deficit 001 681.5 700 11.6% 002 780.3 900 13.3% 003 628.21 700 10.5% 004 636.93 700 1.4% 005 636.93 700 2.2% 006 783.34 700 2.6% 007 782.85 700 1.4% 008 618.49 700 10.5% 101 661.89 700 1.4% 102 818.16 700 2.2% 103 661.89 700 5.4% 104 661.89 700 5.4% 105 661.89 700 5.4% 106 819.52 900 8.9% 107 819.52 900 8.9% 108 661.89 700 5.4% 201 686.66 700 1.9% 202 844.3 900 6.2% 203 842.77 900 6.4% 204 661.89 700 5.4% 205 661.89 700 5.4% 206 818.02 900 9.1% 207 842.7 900 6.4% 208 686.66 700 1.9% Any further reduction in Net Livable Square Footage for any of the units shall require approval from APCHA. All units shall meet the requirements of the Guidelines regarding closets, kitchen appliances, etc. in place at the time of building permit. Each affordable housing unit shall be individually metered for utilities. This project is approved as rental units with the future option to convert to ownership units. Depending on the type of tenancy (100% renter -occupied, 100% owner -occupied, or a mix of renter -occupied and renter -occupied) the following conditions shall apply: 100% Rental Project: 1. Minimum occupancy in accordance with the Guidelines is required for all units. 2. All new tenants shall be approved by APCHA in accordance with the Guidelines prior to signing a lease and occupying the unit. 3. All leases shall be provided to APCHA and state the length of the lease, the amount of rent, and signed by both the tenant and the landlord. 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 4 of 11 IX.b 100% Ownership Project: 1. A Capital Reserve Study shall be provided to the homeowners' association (HOA) and to APCHA by a certified reserve specialist at the time of sale of the property (either individually or as a whole). 2. The developer shall obtain approval of all condominium documents and provide 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 3. 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 in #5 above; b. All mechanical warranties, all warranties for appliances, etc. Mixed Ownership/Rental Project: 1. All criteria stated under 100% Ownership Project shall apply to all ownership units. 2. All criteria stated under 100% Rental Project shall apply to all rental units. 3. The rental units shall not exceed 49% of the total units within the project. 4. One entity/owner shall not own more than 10% of the total units within the project. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the completed project, deed restrictions for the units that reflect the requirements of this Ordinance shall be approved by the City Attorney and APCHA and recorded. Final Category designations for all units not subject to the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit requirements shall be memorialized as part of the Agreement. Section 6: Parking Impact Requirement The project is required to provide 34 parking impact units. Changes to parking to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) may be reviewed and approved administratively. A minimum of 30 on-site parking spaces are approved and the four (4) remaining impact units may be met by one of the following or a combination thereof, at the discretion of the applicant, are required: 1. One (1) TIA credit, and three (3) physical parking spaces provided in a shared parking agreement at a location within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 2. One (1) TIA credit, and three (3) additional TIA credits that match or exceed a monetary value of $114,000 (3 spaces x $38,000), to be approved by the Engineering and Transportation Departments. 3. One (1) TIA credit, and a cash -in -lieu payment of $114,000 (3 spaces x $38,000). 4. One (1) TIA credit, and provide an additional three (3) parking spaces on-site. 5. Four (4) physical parking spaces in shared parking agreement at a location within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Section 7: Zoning 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 5 of 11 P218 This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning regulations of the City of Aspen's Land Use Code, including, but not limited to Section 26.575.020, Calculations and Measurements. Section 8: Engineering 1. The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. 2. The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. 3. A major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards is required with building permit submittal. 4. The water distribution main that cuts through the property requires an updated waterline easement of 30ft centered on the pipe. 5. A sidewalk shall not be required in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way. 6. A multi -modal, eight (8) foot wide, ADA -accessible path connecting the project to the existing Marolt Bike Path is required, as approved by the Parks Department and the Engineering Department. 7. The project will provide a partially improved, non -ADA accessible trail connection from the northern section of the property to Marolt Bike path. Section 9: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 10: Parks Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 13.20. 2. Remaining trees to have fence protection at driplines of trees and must be inspected prior to any activity. 3. Aspen native seed mix to be used in City right-of-way. 4. Irrigation in City right-of-way required. 5. The construction of the retaining wall on property line by Castle Creek Road will require coordination with the City Forester. A proposed tree preservation method for the large cottonwood near the wall must be presented to Parks prior to sidewalk detail and parking lot plans. This tree will also require tree protection fencing at dripline. 6. This project is subject to the Water Efficiency Landscape Standards, Municipal Code Chapter 25.30. Section 11: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) 1. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. 2. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 6 of 11 P219 IX.b IX.b 3. Connection to the ACSD sewer system will require installation of a pumping system. 4. One tap is allowed for each building. 5. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 6. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. 7. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. 9. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). 10. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage Section 12: Water/Utilities 1. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. 2. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assessed per applicable codes and standards. Utility and transformer placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. 3. An updated easement for the water distribution main will be provided. The current water distribution standards call for a water line easement of 30ft centered on the pipe. If any grading takes place in this easement, it will be required that 7ft of cover is maintained. 4. If a service line that is greater than 2in. it will be reviewed as a main line. Section 13: Outdoor Lighting and Signage All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. Section 14: Building Department All applicable building and accessibility codes in place at the time of building permit submission shall be met. Section 15: Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 7 of 11 P220 P221 IX.b The approved project is required to mitigate 28.69 trips. Final TIA mitigation methodology will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department and Transportation Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Section 16: Impact Fees and School Land Dedication The Parks Development and TDM/Air Quality impact fees as required by Section 26.610 of the Land Use Code and School Land Dedication as required by Section 26.620 of the Land Use Code shall be required in entirety for the development of this project. Any applicable fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 17: Environmental Health Department The Applicants shall obtain Special Review approval from the Environmental Health Department in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 12.10 for the trash and recycle area, prior to issuance of building permit. Section 18: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance of a development order. Section 19: Representations Preserved 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 Community Development Department, the Planning & Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 20: Existing Litigation This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 21: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 22: Public Hearing A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the day of , 201_, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 8 of 11 IX.b Section 23: 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 Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 24: 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 25: 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13 day of November, 2017. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of 92017. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 9 of 11 P222 Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements Exhibit B: Approved Plans and Elevations 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 10 of 11 P223 IX.b IX.b Exhibit A — Approved Dimensional Requirements Dimensions Proposed Minimum Gross Lot Area 35,895 sq. ft. Minimum Gross Lot Area per Unit 1,496 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Density 24 units Minimum Lot Width 70 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. Maximum Site Coverage 210/(o Maximum Height, Marol (rear of bldg.) 43 2,3 Maximum Height, Castle Creek Elevation (front of bldg.) 25,2,3 Minimum Percent Open Space 45% Minimum Trash Access Area 150 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Floor Area 19,684 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Deck Area 6,621 sq. ft. Minimum Parking 34 Parking Impact Units (30 physical spaces on - site, 4 units pursuant to Section 6 of this Ordinance) 'Retaining features, decks and balconies are permitted to encroach into the setback in addition to the allowed projections listed in Section 26.575.020.E(5), as amended. 2 As measured from finished grade 3 Subject to 26.575.020.F.4, Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations from the effective date of application through expiration of vesting. 488 Castle Creek Road Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 31, Series 2017 Page 11 of 11 P224 LOWER LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN 1 MAIN LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN SME:1116'= I'-0' SECOND LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN ROOF PLAN FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN L SCPlE: 1116"• I'-0' ® J SCAIf'. 1116'- 1'-D" 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119 Swtn Spn, SC Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtt 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx�rtme mueapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSronVNNwe I,,/ Lu Lu (= U Lu g J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE ANDUSE 121112DI7 FIRE RESISTANCE PRDIEU%N — DMN RY: CPF y LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA SCALE 1116'= I'-0' ® - SCAIf:1116'= I'-0" � F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE 2 UNNLK LLVLL FLOUK AKLA SCALE: 1116'• 1U ' a01 N viD IOH NSTON AR CH IT E CTSrc 119kutn5pn, SC Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtt 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx„rtme m0eapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSrw,VNNwe I,,/ Lu Lu U Lu o J z Ln Q U M0 W Rt DRAWING ISSUE -UV 12111212 FAR PRD9ECT%o 1203 DMWN RY: CPF 1 N 07 F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE LEVEL USE AREA LOWER LEVEL, AH UNIT 5,992.13 DECK 2,563.33 STAIR 297.40 STORAGE 194.34 9,047.20 sq ft MAIN LEVEL, AH UNIT 6,214.45 DECK 1,415.72 STAIR 269.01 STORAGE 351.62 8,250.80 sq R SECOND LEVEL, AH UNIT 6,513.42 DECK 1,473.18 STORAGE 174.99 8,161.59 sq ft 25,459.59 sq ft � F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE 2 UNNLK LLVLL FLOUK AKLA SCALE: 1116'• 1U ' a01 N viD IOH NSTON AR CH IT E CTSrc 119kutn5pn, SC Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtt 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx„rtme m0eapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSrw,VNNwe I,,/ Lu Lu U Lu o J z Ln Q U M0 W Rt DRAWING ISSUE -UV 12111212 FAR PRD9ECT%o 1203 DMWN RY: CPF 1 N 07 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA NET LIVABLE FLOOR AREA UNIT AREA LOWER LEVEL, AN UNIT 5,476.85 MAIN LEVEL, AH UNIT 5,766.65 SECOND LEVEL, AH UNIT 6,044.89 17,288.39 sq ft NLA SCHEDULE MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA 1 90ALE 1p6= ,' UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 2 SCALE: 1116= 1'A' 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119South Spn, SC Suit, 201 k 61611 76L 910.92E -3M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx„rtme m0e,pnifidpoen None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSrw,VNNwe i Lu Lu U Lu o J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —USE 121112017 NET UVABLE FLOOR AREA PROJECTNo: 1703 DMN sr: CPF LOWER LEVEL SME:119' - 1-0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I jl I I I I I I I I I I I I a01 N viD ION NSTON ARCH I T E CTSrc 119kutn Spn, SC Suite 203 Aspen, CO 01611 rtL 9]0.925-3M4 Lu Lu U Lu O J � Z Ln " Q U00M W Rt DRAWING ISSUE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PRD3EU%N 1)03 DMWN RY: CPF SHEET No. Al .. J MAIN LEVEL SCALE: 119' - l'-0- 0 0 0 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119kutn Spn, SC Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtL 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx�rtme m0eapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSronVNNwe LSI Lu U wo J z l/1 Q U 00 Rt DRAWINGISSUE —USI 12111.11 MAIN LEVELFLOOR PLAN PRD9EU%N 1)09 DMWN BY: CPF a N N t0 UPPER LEVEL SCA1E:116' - l' -0 - UPPER 0 a01 N viD IOH NSTON AR CH IT E CTSrc 119kutnspn, st Suite 201 Aspen, CO 01611 rtL B—M-B- mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx�rtme m0eapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSronVNNwe Lu Lu U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWINGISSUE —us, 121112011 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PROIECT%o 1)01 BMWN BY CpF m lCwI-oljo:, Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ROOF PLAN SMlE:118' - 1--T 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119kutn Spn, SC Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtt 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx�rtme m0eapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSronVNNwe Lu Lu U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWINGISSUE —u5F 12111.11 ROOF PLAN PRD9EU%N 1)09 DMWN RY: CPF I I v b 0 � �F ' N a � Y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTH ELEVATION srus:sne+ �o a01 N viD ION NSTON AR CH IT E CTSrc llgkutn5pn, St Suite 203 Aspm, CO 01611 rtL B—M-B- Lu Lu U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE I'll- 12�112017 SOUTH ELEVATIONS PBOIECT%: — BMWN BY: CpF rV N 1Q 2Q Q3 Q4 6 6 Q7 Q8 Y 10 11 12 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119kutnspn"st Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 rtL B-1-3M4 L—------------ tWEST ELEVATION s�N.,nl- — Lu Lu U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us, 12111411 WEST ELEVATIONS PBOIECT%o 1)01 BMWN BY CpF a N W W Q P Q Q Q Q H I$ Q Q Q '•, I I I I I '. I I I I I Q Q Q I I I i i ------------- 201 N viD ION NSTON AR CH IT E CTSrc 119kutn5pn, St Suite 209 Aspm, CO 01611 rtL 9]0.925-9M4 W W U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWINGISSUE L.Nc tsF 12/11411 NORTH ELEVATIONS PRO9EC %N 1)09 DMWN BY: CPF � N � W 15 14 13 12 11 10 9Q Q8 Q7 Q6 Q5 Q4 3Q 2Q Qi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L— — — —_— _—_---_—__—_—_ —_— L----s—_— EAST ELEVATION 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119kutn5pn, St Suite 209 Aspm, CD 0,611 rtt 9]0.925-9M4 Lu Lu U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us, 12111411 EASE ELEVATIONS PRDJEU%N 143 DMWN BY: CPF a IX.b EXHIBIT A PUBLIC PROJECT 26.500.070 General review standards The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects: The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible with neighborhood context; and Staff Findings: The project site is currently located in the R -ISA zone district with a PD overlay. The applicant proposed to rezone the property to AH/PD. The purpose of the AH/PD zone district is to provide for the use of land for affordable housing. These properties are intended to be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types. All dimensional requirements are established through the Planned Development review process, though some are recommended, including density and Allowable Floor Area. The proposed project is easily within these recommended dimensions. Surrounding land uses include several affordable housing projects including Castle Ridge, Water Place Housing, Marolt Employee Housing, and the Whitcomb Terrace assisted living facility. Other adjacent uses include public facilities such as Aspen Valley Hospital and Pitkin County Health and Human Services. Multi family housing falls within this range of development and is compatible with these uses. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and Staff Findings: The proposed project supports several community goals found within the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). These goals include Transportation, Housing, Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails, Environmental Stewardship, and the Lifelong Aspenite. Specific goals within the Transportation category include: using TDM tools to accommodate additional person trips in the Aspen Area and reduce traffic, continue to limit Average Annual Daily Trips to 1993 levels at the Castle Creek Bridge, improve the availability, convenience, and access to the regional transportation system. Below is a list of AACP housing policy statements that this project supports: I.2. Deed -restricted housing units should be utilized to the maximum degree possible. I.3 Deed -restricted housing units should be used and maintained for as long as possible, while considering functionality and obsolescence. 11.1 The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity. III.] Ensure fiscal responsibility regarding the development of publicly funded housing. II12 Promote broader support and involvement in the creation of non -mitigation housing inventory. IV] Affordable housing should be designed for the highest practical energy efficiency and livability. Exhibit A — Public Project Page 1 of 2 P236 P237 IX.b IV 2 Affordable housing must be located within the Urban Growth Boundary. IV.S The design of new affordable housing should optimized density while demonstrating compatibility with the massing, scale, and character of the neighborhood. IV 6 The residents of affordable housing and free-market housing in the same neighborhood should be treated fairly, equally, and consistently with regard to any restrictions or conditions on development such as parking, pet ownership, etc. The AHIPD zone district purpose is intended to be scattered throughout the City and serve as protected areas that provide deed -restricted housing for year-round employees. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code; and Staff Findings: See detailed responses to applicable Code sections in Exhibits B -G. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. 4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Findings: The proposed project is requesting allotments for up to 28 affordable housing units. There is no annual limit for affordable housing units. See detailed responses in Exhibit F. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A — Public Project Page 2 of 2 IX.b EXHIBIT B SUBDIVISION 26.480.040. General subdivision review standards. All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and limitations in addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision: A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Findings: The proposal is to merge two lots. The resultant lot will still retain access from Castle Creek Road, a public right-of-way. No legal access points are proposed to change as part of this proposal. No streets are retained under private ownership. There are no security gates, existing or proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to accommodate significant features of the site may be approved. Staff Findings: The project site is located outside the Original Aspen Townsite area. Alignment with the Townsite is not necessary within this area and would be difficult given the existing lot alignments. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with subdivision review. Staff Findings: The two subject lots are proposed to be rezoned from R1 SA -PD to AH/PD. The dimensions are set during the Planned Development review process; therefore, any new dimensions of the merged lots would be conformance with all zone district requirements. All changes to these properties will be documented within the Planned Development Approval Documents. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non -Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or increase the non -conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism to correct the non -conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently. In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision, the structure need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to application for subdivision. Exhibit B —Subdivision Page 1 of 4 P238 P239 Mb If approval of a subdivision creates a non -conforming structure or use, including a structure spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until recordation of the subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain assurance that the non -conformities will be remedied after recordation of the subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a development agreement or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be time -bound or secured with a financial surety. Staff Findings: The proposed development will not create any nonconformities. All dimensional requirements will be established through the Planned Development Approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 26.480.070.A. Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating individual lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards: The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 — General Subdivision Review Standards. Staff Findings: See responses above. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the use of the limited amount of land available for development. Staff Findings: The proposed lot merger allows the housing project on a single lot. Having all development on one lot simplifies the approval and legal documents as well as the building, zoning and other development review requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Findings: There are no important geological, cultural or historic resources on the site. One mature cottonwood exists on the site, in addition to a vegetated buffer that Staff looks to Planning and Zoning for a recommendation as detailed in the Staff memo. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted with specific design details and timing of implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. Exhibit B —Subdivision Page 2 of 4 IX.b Staff Findings: The project site does not contain any land that is unsuitable for development due to hazards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The applicant has indicated that the proposed development will meet the requirements of the URMP and the Engineering Design Standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Findings: The application includes ability to serve letters from utility providers. The applicant believes there is adequate capacity for the development and will provide upgrades if' determined necessary at building permit. The Applicant will provide a Level 2 TIA improvement, including a multi -modal, ADA -accessible path between the development and the existing Marolt Bike Path, providing connectivity to existing bike and pedestrian infrastructure and transit facilities. Staff finds this criterion to be met, with conditions. 7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management Quota System, including compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement development as applicable. Staff Findings: The housing project to be located in the subdivision is being reviewed for growth management concurrently as part of a consolidated application through the Public Project review process. Staff findings for Growth Management are located in Exhibit F. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter 26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance pursuant to said Chapter. Staff Findings: Affordable Housing development is subject to School Land Dedication requirements; however, the project does not propose any land for dedication. Staff finds this criterion does not apply. 9. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. Staff Findings: The application includes a draft subdivision plat to be recorded upon final approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 10. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. Exhibit B —Subdivision Page 3 of 4 P240 P241 IX.b Staff Findings: The applicant has indicated that a Development Agreement will be drafted upon final approval and will be recorded. Staff finds this criterion to be met, with the condition that a Development Agreement is provided to Community Development for review and approval following Council approval. Exhibit B —Subdivision Page 4 of 4 IX.b EXHIBIT C REZONING 26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Findings: The project site is currently located in the R -ISA zone district with a PD overlay. The applicant proposes to rezone the property to AH/PD. The purpose of the AH/PD zone district is to provide for the use of land for affordable housing. These properties are intended to be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types. All dimensional requirements are established through the Planned Development review process, though some are recommended, including density and Allowable Floor Area. The proposed project is easily within these recommended dimensions. Surrounding land uses include several affordable housing projects including Castle Ridge, Water Place Housing, Marolt Employee Housing, and the Whitcomb Terrace assisted living facility. Other adjacent uses include public facilities such as Aspen Valley Hospital and Pitkin County Health and Human Services. Multi family housing falls within this range of development and is compatible with these uses. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. 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. Staff Findings: In general, the included ability to serve letters from utility providers express that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed development, or that required upgrades will be undertaken by the corresponding utility provider. An email from the Water Department states that it is unknown if there is capacity within the existing water mains to serve the development. If there is not enough capacity, the applicant is responsible to upsize the mains as part of this development. As additional housing units, it is expected this development will likely result in increased use of the parks, schools, transportation facilities and emergency medical facilities, however 18 to 22 additional units from what could be built today is unlikely to represent a significant impact on these facilities. The applicant is proposing several alternative transportation improvements to help offset and diversify the transportation options available to future residents of this development. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Findings: This property is located within the 8040 Greenline review area, which contains review criteria that evaluates the impacts of the proposed development on the natural Exhibit C — Rezoning Page 1 of 2 P242 P243 IX.b environment. Detailed responses to those criteria are in Exhibit E. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed project supports the community goal of developing affordable housing, which can be found within the Aspen Area Community Plan (AA CP). The AH/PD zone district is intended to be scattered throughout the City and serve as protected areas that provide deed -restricted housing for employees. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit C — Rezoning Page 2 of 2 IX.b EXHIBIT D PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: This property is not subject to any adopted regulatory plans. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The Geotechnical Report in the application states that the property is suitable for development. No natural or manmade hazards exist on the site, including mine waste or deposit or other potential contaminants occasionally encountered in former mining towns. One-third (1/3) of the site contains slopes greater than 3001o, the portions of the lot with the steepest slopes are on the northern and eastern portions of the lot. There is a flat shelf on the portion of the lot that fronts Castle Creek Road. The proposed development will utilize the steep slopes to allow the lower and main level units to include walk out patios and access to the adjacent Marolt Bike Path and Open Space. Adequate soil stabilization and retention methods will be used to ensure stability of the steep slopes surrounding the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 1 of 14 P244 P245 IX.b 1. The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. Staff Findings: The existing site topography contains a flat bench on the portion of the lot nearest to Castle Creek Road. The lot contains slopes greater than thirty (3001o) percent on the northern and eastern portions of the property. The proposed development intends to use the significant slope to provide walk out conditions for the main level on the Castle Creek Road - facing units and walk out lower level units on the Marolt Employee Housing facing units. Since the steep slopes are located on the northern and eastern property boundaries, the flat bench on the Castle Creek Road facing portion of the lot is where the parking lot is proposed. The applicant intends to incorporate significant planting to act as a buffer between the road and proposed development to reduce the perceived impact of the development as seen from the road. The topography between Castle Creek Road and the proposed parking lot would allow for the parking lot to be located a few feet below the street level and help to further reduce the visual impacts of the development as viewed from the street. There are no waterways or other hazards on site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Findings: The site is situated on an area that was filled between the 1960s and 1970s as the Marolt Open Space and Employee Housing were developed, therefore, is lacking any important geologic features that warrant preservation. The proposed project preserves the existing topography and mature vegetation to the extent possible. The Applicant will work with the Parks Department to ensure adequate tree protection is used on site. All new plantings will be native species. The property is within 150 feet of the 8040 Greenline and is to 8040 Greenline Review. Visual impacts have been considered throughout the public outreach process conducted prior to the submittal of this Application. In response to public comments and City Council work sessions, the L-shaped building was pushed to the far northern and eastern edges of the property and utilizes the existing bench to help minimize the visual impacts to the Castle Creek Road corridor. A story pole exercise was conducted in concert with the public outreach process in spring of 2017 to assess impacts to the Marolt Open Space and CO -82. The visual impacts have been reduced to the greatest extent possible while retaining the applicant's preferred unit density and on-site parking, which addresses Aspen Area Community Plan Goal IV.5. "The design of new affordable housing should optimize density while demonstrating compatibility with the massing, scale and character of the neighborhood". There are no other features that have historic, cultural or ecological importance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Findings: The proposed development is oriented to Castle Creek Road and sited to reflect the surrounding neighborhood context, which includes the Aspen Valley Hospital, multifamily residential, and affordable housing developments. The majority of the existing development Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 2 of 14 IX.b along the Castle Creek Road corridor is setback from the road, preserving a rural driving and cycling experience. The siting of the project with a 25' building setback is context appropriate. An existing curb cut on the northwest corner of the property will be retained to allow emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Findings: The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-1 SA to Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD). The AH/PD zone district establishes all dimensional requirements for a project through the adoption of a Planned Development approval, with some recommended dimensions. The proposed project dimensions are in the table below, related to existing zoning and a similar use zone district. Table 1: Proposed Dimensional Requirements DimensionsProposed Existing R- RMF 15A/PD Minimum Gross Lot Area 35,895 sq. ft. 35,895 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Total Net Lot Area 24,050 sq. ft. 24,050 sq. ft. 24 050 sq. ft. Minimum Gross Lot Area per Unit 1,282 sq. ft. n/a n/a Lot 1: 1 unit n/a Maximum Allowable Density 28 units Lot 2: 2 units Minimum Lot Width 70 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft. Lot 1: 10 feet 5 ft. along west property line Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 ft. Lot 2: 25 feet for buildings Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 3 of 14 P246 P247 IX.b ' Lot 1 and Lot 2 are aggregated for the purposes of this comparison 2 Retaining features, decks and balconies are permitted to encroach into the setback in addition to the allowed projections listed in Section 26.575.020.E(5), as amended. 2 As measured from finished grade 4 Based on parcel density RMF provides a sliding scale of height and floor area, encouraging increased density Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 4 of 14 Lot 1: S feet along 5 ft. north and south property lines Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft.2 Lot 2: 5 feet along north property line; 55 feet along south property line Lot 1: 10 feet 5 ft. along east property line Lot 2: 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft.2 along east property line and property lines adjoining Lot 1 Maximum Site Coverage 21% n/a n/a Maximum Height (Castle Creek Road 3292 25 ft. 32 ft.3 Facing Elevations) Maximum Height (Marolt Employee 45'8.75i3 25 ft. 32 ft.' Housing Facing Elevations) Minimum Percent Open Space 45% n/a n/a Minimum Trash Access Area 150 sq. ft. n/a 147 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Floor Area 22,515 sq. ft. 8,359 sq. ft. 44,869 sq. ft.4 Maximum Allowable Deck Area JL 7,707 sq. ft. I 1,254 sq. ft. 6,730 sq. ft. Minimum Off-street Pai IL 1 34 spaces 6 spaces 38 spaces ' Lot 1 and Lot 2 are aggregated for the purposes of this comparison 2 Retaining features, decks and balconies are permitted to encroach into the setback in addition to the allowed projections listed in Section 26.575.020.E(5), as amended. 2 As measured from finished grade 4 Based on parcel density RMF provides a sliding scale of height and floor area, encouraging increased density Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 4 of 14 IX.b Since all dimensional requirements are established through the approval process, the application does not require any variations. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Findings: The primary use of the project is multi family affordable housing. The proposed Affordable Housing (AH)/Planned Development(PD) Zone District does not have dimensional requirements. This dimensional flexibility allows for context -appropriate design and for projects to respond to community needs. Therefore, Staff compared the dimensional requirements to the most similar zone district, Residential Multi -Family (RMF). The maximum allowed height in the RMF Zone District is 32 feet. The proposed structure, as viewed from Castle Creek Road is primarily depicted as a two-story L-shaped structure with a third story on the aspects of the structure furthest from Castle Creek Road. These street facing elevations measure at a maximum of thirty-two (32) feet from finished grade. As viewed from the north, or from Marolt Employee Housing and the Marolt bike path, the proposed building is primarily a three story structure with a consolidated fourth story element that steps back from the lower faVade to reduce the bulk and mass. At its tallest point, this aspect measures at fourty-five feet and eight and three quarter inches (45'8.75") from finished grade. While the maximum height is higher on the top floor element, the majority of the structure is perceived at 32 feet from the public realm. Furthermore, the additional height allows for four additional one -bedroom units to be included in the development. At 25 feet, the front yard setback proposed is much greater than the five feet required in the RMF Zone District. This restrictive setback location is in response to the extensive public outreach that directed the Applicant team to site the building as far from Castle Creek Road as possible. This was in effort to retain the rural character of the corridor, in addition to allowing the structure to include walkout units on the lowest level, which maximizes the density of the project while retaining on-site parking. The side and rear yard setbacks are within five feet of the property line and the decks. The project proposes a maximum floor area of 22,515 sq. ft., which is well below the maximum floor area of 61,979 sq. ft. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Staff Findings: The development in this area is mix of public, multi family residential, and affordable housing. The proposed development, as viewed from the street, has similar scale and massing of other nearby structures. Trees and other brushy native vegetation is being both retained and planted along Castle Creek Road to provide a buffer to help to reduce the visual impacts and maintain the rural character of the corridor. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 5 of 14 am P249 Mb disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement Staff Findings: Although the parking requirement is established through the Planned Development review process, the parking requirements in Section 26.515 are used as a guide for comparative uses. This property is located outside the Aspen Infill Area, which requires the lesser of I parking unit per bedroom or 2 per dwelling unit for multi family residential. The proposed project includes 18 one -bedroom units (18 parking units) and 10 two-bedroom units (20 parking units) for a total of 38 parking units. The Code allows for residential zone districts outside the Aspen Infill Area to provide up to 40% of the parking requirement (38 x 0.4 = 15.2) through a cash -in -lieu payment of $38,000 per space. These funds are used for the construction of public parking facilities, transportation and mobility improvements, transportation demand management facilities or programs, shared automobiles or programs, and similar transportation or mobility -related facilities or programs as determined appropriate by the City. The parking requirement total may also be reduced by I unit through the provision of excess Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) credits beyond the required amount. This can be in the form of on-site or nearby off-site mobility improvements. With cash -in -lieu and mobility improvements, the minimum parking units on site could be 24 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide 34 parking spaces on-site and other excess transportation improvements such as bike parking, semi -improved trail access to Marolt bike path, and a multi -modal path accessing the property from the Marolt Bike Path. Other proposed multimodal/Mobility plan improvements include improved pedestrian experience through large scale landscaping, enhanced access points from the ROW, improved ADA access points, a pedestrian directness factor of less than 1.5. The proposal also includes improved access to existing A VH bus stop and the Marolt Trial. Typically, the code would require a cash -in -lieu payment of $114,000 for the balance of three (3) spaces. The applicant is requesting a waiver from any remaining cash -in -lieu fees that would be required. Their request is based on the affordable nature of the project, the area context and parking precedent for multifamily properties in the surrounding properties, and the multimodal and TDM strategies designed into the site. The applicant asserts that the proposed parking of is consistent with the average parking ratios of other multifamily properties in the neighborhood. The City's parking requirements were recently modified with the moratorium Code amendments in order to encourage more alternative transportation improvements and decrease the reliance on the automobile. The project is located close to a variety of alternative transportation options. Staff recognizes the constraints of the site and any additional parking would require a reduction in on site amenities. Resolution No. 14, Series of 2017, provided a condition that the Applicant consider alternative parking solutions. These included a parking garage, additional TIA measures, parking storage solutions such as a car stacking system. The Applicant provided in a memo dated October 31, 2017 initial analysis of each of the proposed parking solutions. Preliminary analysis found that a parking garage would be cost prohibitive and would not provide adequate parking due to site constraints. The car stacking system would need to be placed at grade, and likely result in greater visual impacts and additional massing along Castle Creek Road. Additional TIA measures, such as a Car -to -Go, would be the easiest Exhibit D Planned Development Review Page 6 of 14 IX.b to implement and the Applicant would commit to providing both a space on site and purchase a vehicle to add to the City -run program. Lastly, the Applicant considered providing additional parking on-site by expanding the existing lot, which are incorporated into the second reading proposal. Staff recommends that if the applicant is not able to come up with alternative parking solutions, the additional TIA improvements above the requirement should match or exceed the cash -in -lieu requirement of $114,000. If the cash -in -lieu alternative is not met, the remaining amount should be paid to the City as a cash -in -lieu fee for the future benefit of transportation in the City. The monetary valuation of the improvements would be verified by the Engineering and Transportation Departments. Alternatively, shared parking in a location elsewhere within the UGB could be considered. Staff finds this criterion to be met with the conditions that one of the following three items is provided: offsite parking of at least 4 spaces, excess TIA improvements with an equivalent or greater value than $114,000, or cash -in -lieu for the remaining balance less than $114,000 after excess TIA improvements. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 — Amendments. Staff Findings: As a Major Public Project, Project Review and Detailed Review are combined at City Council. The applicant has requested a 10% increase in Site Coverage from what is currently designed to accommodate potential minor changes as the design progresses. The applicant is also requesting the Open Space area is established at 10% less that what is currently calculated in the application. There is no required maximum for Site Coverage or minimum for Open Space. Staff recommends the Site Coverage limitations incorporate the 10% increase and Open Space incorporate the 10% decrease. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Findings: This project is subject to the Residential Design Standards. See responses in Exhibit G. The proposal requires one variation from the Standards, specifically 26.410.040.5, Principal Window. As a Public Project, this variation requires a recommendation for approval with or without conditions, to City Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission per Land Use Code section 26.410.020(C). The project is not located on a historically designated property, nor does the project include a commercial component, therefore, the design is not Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 7 of 14 P250 P251 IX.b subject to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, nor Chapter 26.415 Historic Preservation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Findings: See responses in Detailed Review Standards, Section D, below. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The proposed design improves alternative transportation facilities through a number of methods. A new multi -modal path connecting the project to the Marolt Bike Path will provide access to the existing Castle Ridge/Aspen Valley Hospital bus stop. The project also includes a semi -improved trail to the north of the property from the walk -out level to access the existing Marolt Bike Path. Bike parking and storage is proposed on site. The proposal is using an existing curb cut to access the property and there are no existing sidewalks on site that would be affected by this existing curb cut. The Transportation Department determined that the TIA submitted does not meet the minimum requirements regarding the TDM measures. Final details of these improvements will require Engineering and Transportation approval and should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. It is a recommendation that the applicant is require to pay cash -in -lieu fees for the remaining fees that would be paid due to the reduced onsite parking provided (See section four (4) of the project Review Criteria). Staff finds this criterion to be met, with conditions. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: Engineering design and mitigation techniques are identified in the Preliminary Engineering Report and Preliminary Drainage Report. Engineering has provided comments regarding the proposed techniques in the DRC comments (Exhibit H). The Applicant will update the drainage design to reduce the number of drywells as requested in the Engineering Department comments prior to Council review. All additional comments will be included in the ordinance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 8 of 14 IX.b techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: In general, the included ability to serve letters from utility providers express that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed development, or that required upgrades will be undertaken by the corresponding utility provider. A letter from the City of Aspen Utilities Department indicates the Water Department has sufficient capacity to service the development, but there is no guarantee of the existence or condition of the water service line. Any existing service lines may not be adequately sized for the development and may require upsizing to accommodate the development. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District also confirmed there is sufficient wastewater collection and treatment capacity to serve this project, however, there are downstream constraints in the District's sanitary sewer collection system in the area that will need to be upgraded at the expense of the owner. The additional housing twenty-eight (28) units provided will result in increased use of the parks, schools, transportation facilities, and emergency medical facilities. The proposal includes improvements to a variety of multimodal transportation improvements; however, it is the recommendation of staff that the applicant pay impact fees to offset the increase use on the burden the improvement will likely have on existing public services and infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Findings: The project proposes to retain unobstructed vehicular access through a curb cut at the northwest corner of the property accessing Castle Creek Road. There are no proposed gates at this location and no streets will be under private ownership. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 26.445.070. Detailed Review Standards. Detailed Review shall focus on the comprehensive evaluation of the specific aspects of the development, including utility placement, and architectural materials. In the review of a development application for Detailed Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Project Review Approval. The proposed development, including all dimensions and uses, is consistent with the Project Review approval and adequately addresses conditions on the approval and direction received during the Project Review. Staff Findings: As part of the Public Project review process, Project Review and Detailed Review are combined for City Council final review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Growth Management. The proposed development has received all required GMQS allotments, or is concurrently seeking allotments. Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 9 of 14 P252 P253 Mb Staff Findings: The project requires twenty-eight affordable housing allotments. There is no annual limit for affordable housing units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Site Planning and Landscape Architecture. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: The landscape plan exhibits a well-designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Vegetation removal, protection, and restoration plans shall be acceptable to the Director of Parks and Open Space. Staff Findings: The proposed landscape plan preserves an adequate amount of existing mature vegetation, specifically the large cottonwoods on the northwest corner of the property and along Castle Creek Road. The re -vegetation plan includes ample plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. The applicant will be required to coordinate with the Parks Department prior to construction to ensure adequate tree protection is in place. Much of the revegetation will happen along the Castle Creek Road buffer and southeast corner of the lot as shown on Appendix C — Part 2. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Buildings and site grading provide simple, at -grade entrances and minimize extensive grade changes along building exteriors. The project meets or exceeds the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable requirements for emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Adequate snow storage is accommodated. Staff Findings: The proposal looks to minimize grading on site by positioning the structure so there are walk out conditions for the main and lower levels. The curb cut and parking lot entrance is located along the portion of the lot with the least amount of slope, and therefore would require the least amount of grading. The slope on southeast corner of the lot between Castle Creek Road and the proposed parking become more pronounced. Significant fill is currently on site from previous development. Three stairwells are located throughout the two buildings to provide access to the second and third level units. One elevator is shown between the two units that would provide access to the second and third level. During DRC review, the Building Department noted a number of accessibility concerns that will need to be addressed prior to Council review. Snow storage is provided on site and must accommodate snow removal from all sidewalks, trails and parking areas. Snow storage will be confirmed prior to permit submittal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into the landscape in a manner that enhances the site. Staff Findings: There are currently no energy efficiency or production features proposed in the landscape for this project. Any such features contemplated in the future are anticipated to be located on the structure and integrated into the architecture. All solar features shall be subject to 26.575.020.F.4, Allowed Exceptions to Height, as amended. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 10 of 14 IX.b 4. All site lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. Staff Findings: The proposed site lighting includes six bollard path lights at the corners of the parking area and strip lighting along the walkways to the units. This represents minimal lighting that is only located to identify site entrances and for safety purposes. The applicant has stated that all exterior lighting will comply with the City's standards at building permit submittal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Findings: The applicant has indicated that all site drainage will be accommodated on site and will meet the requirements of Title 29. Engineering has provided initial comments on the project drainage in the DRC comments (Exhibit H). Staff finds this criterion to be met with the condition that Engineering comments are addressed prior to City Council review. D. Design Standards and Architecture. The proposed architectural details emphasize quality construction and design characteristics. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The project architecture provides for visual interest and incorporates present-day details and use of materials respectful of the community's past without attempting to mimic history. Staff Findings: The design of the site is intended to be a reference to Bauhaus design, which focuses on simple geometric forms, flat roofs, asymmetrical arrangement, connection to the outdoors and monochromatic schemes. The L-shaped building is of simple rectangular form offset by sweeping asymmetrical windows. The proposed material palette includes a spectrum of siding and roofing materials including rusted Corten metal siding, stucco, and wood screening to break up massing. The rusted Corten siding was selected to allow the building to blend into the surrounding earthen materials of Red Mountain and Red Butte, and the stucco base of the structure anchors the building to the ground. The materials and form both relate to Aspen's modern design history while creating a connection to the natural environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Exterior materials are of a high quality, durability, and comply with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Findings: Proposed exterior materials include predominately wood rain screen siding, stucco with concrete texture accent walls, and rusted Corten metal panels. These are proven durable materials in Aspen and represent a combination modern historic design and current residential building materials. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Building entrances are sited or designed to minimize icing and snow shedding effects. Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 11 of 14 P254 P255 IX.b Staff Findings: There are circulation areas and building entrances that are below pitched roofs that may shed snow. The proposed roof is a 1/12 pitch and snow shed should be minimal but snow stops may need to be installed per Building Code Requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into structures in a manner that enhances the architecture. Staff Findings: There are no energy efficiency or production features that are proposed at this time. There is a consideration for photovoltaic solar panels introduced into the architecture. If these features are incorporated they will be subject to the height limitations established in the Land Use Code, as amended. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 5. All structure lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. Staff Findings: Walkway lighting is provided to meet code minimum requirements for pathway lighting and to indicate entrance pathways. Wall sconce down lighting is proposed to be integrated into the buildings architecture at areas of function, circulation, and building entry. Any proposed lighting on the building will be required to meet the City's outdoor lighting requirements, as amended. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Common Parks, Open Space, Recreation Areas, or Facilities. If the proposed development includes common parks, open space, recreation areas, or common facilities, a proportionate, undivided interest is deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned Development. An adequate assurance through a Development Agreement for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a prohibition against future development is required. Staff Findings: On-site open space will be provided, but will not be prorated between residential units at this point, as they will be rental units. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program requires that the maintenance and upkeep of the open space and common elements will be the responsibility of the property management entity. The LIHTC program requirements have been included in the Operations and Maintenance Letter as provided in Exhibit 7 of Appendix B of the Land Use Application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any new vehicular access points minimize impacts on existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of the Project Review and as otherwise required in the Land Use Code. These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements and to determine any Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 12 of 14 IX.b required cost estimating for surety requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Findings: The proposed design improves alternative transportation facilities through a number of methods. An eight foot wide multi -modal trail will provide a connection from the project to the Marolt Bike Path. There is additional access on the north property boundary to the Marolt trail. The applicant has indicated an interest in installing a WE -Cycle station on site and provides multiple bike parking and bike storage areas on site. Engineering has indicated the project will need to coordinate all trail improvements with the Castle Creek Trail project. Final details of these facilities will require Engineering and Transportation approval and should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Findings: Engineering design and mitigation techniques are identified in the Preliminary Engineering Report and Preliminary Drainage Report. Engineering has provided comments regarding the proposed techniques in the DRC comments (Exhibit H). Staff finds this criterion to be met with the condition that Engineering comments are addressed. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Findings: In general, the included ability to serve letters from utility providers express that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. A letter from the City of Aspen Utilities Department indicates the Water Department has sufficient capacity to service the development, but there is no guarantee of the existence or condition of the water service line. Any existing service lines may not be adequately sized for the development and may require upsizing to accommodate the development. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 13 of 14 P256 P257 IX.b also confirmed there is sufficient wastewater collection and treatment capacity to serve this project, however, there are downstream constraints in the District's sanitary sewer collection system in the area that will need to be upgraded at the expense of the owner. The additional housing twenty-eight (28) units provided will result in increased use of the parks, schools, transportation facilities, and emergency medical facilities. The proposal includes improvements to a variety of multimodal transportation improvements; however, it is the recommendation of staff that the applicant pay all impact fees associated with the project to offset the increased burden on the existing public infrastructure and facilities the improvement will likely have. The engineering design and mitigation techniques will need to comply with the requirements outlined in the Engineering URMP. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. I. Phasing of development plan. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Phasing shall insulate, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. All necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the Planned Development, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures shall be completed concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Findings: The applicant does not propose phasing as part of this development plan. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. Exhibit D — Planned Development Review Page 14 of 14 Mb EXHIBIT E 8040 GREENLINE C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Staff Findings: The Geotechnical Report in the application states that the property is suitable for development. No natural or manmade hazards exist on the site, including mine waste or deposit or other potential contaminants occasionally encountered in former mining towns. One-third (1/3) of the site contains slopes greater than 3001o, the portions of the lot with the steepest slopes are on the northern and eastern portions of the lot. There is a flat shelf on the portion of the lot that fronts Castle Creek. The proposed development will utilize the steep slopes and allow the lower and main level units a walk out condition and access to the adjacent Marolt Bike Path and Open Space. Adequate soil stabilization and retention methods will be used to ensure stability of the steep slopes surrounding the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. Staff Findings: All items are addressed in the Geotechnical Report and compliance with adopted standards is addressed in the Preliminary Drainage Report. Engineering has requested modifications to the design related to drainage and grading (Exhibit H). Staff finds this criterion to be met with the condition that Engineering comments are addressed. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Staff Findings: The proposed project does not have any significant adverse affect on the air quality. Alternative transportation amenities are proposed to help reduce the amount of vehicle trips associated with this development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff Findings: The proposed development is compatible with the parcel's terrain by utilizing the existing topography, siting the building within the bench to maximize density and retain on-site parking while minimally grading the rest of the site. Parking is located forward of the building, near Castle Creek Road in effort to reduce grading. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit E — 8040 Greenline Page 1 of 3 P258 P259 IX.b 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff Findings: The proposed development minimizes grading as mentioned above. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Findings: There are no additional roads proposed. The proposed project utilizes an existing curb cut that will reduce the amount of grading and maintain open space. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Findings: By building the structure into the hillside, the height of the building is limited on the Castle Creek Road facing aspect of the building while better blending into the topography. Staff does have some concerns regarding the height of the fourth story element, and a third story option has been proposed reducing the overall height and massing related to the project; however, this only reduces the height by 3 feet due to the site topography. The height has been minimized in either development scenario. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Findings: The Engineering Report and a letter from the City of Aspen Utilities Department dated July S, 2017 confirms that there is sufficient water pressure to serve the project site. The letter does not guarantee the existence or condition of the water service line, which is the responsibility of the property owner. The water lines in the Castle Creek corridor may need to be upsized to accommodate the development. The City will require a model flow analysis to confirm the mains are adequately sized. This model flow will be required prior to building permit. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Findings: The property is currently accessed by one curb cut from Castle Creek Road, that is maintained by the City of Aspen. No additional roads are proposed for this development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Findings: The applicant proposes to retain ingress and egress through one curb cut on the north edge of the property along Castle Creek Road. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Exhibit E — 8040 Greenline Page 2 of 3 IX.b Staff Findings: There are no regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board that apply to this property. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. Exhibit E — 8040 Greenline Page 3 of 3 P260 P261 IX.b EXHIBIT F GROWTH MANAGEMENT 26.470.080. General Review Standards. All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. A. Sufficient Allotments: Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040.13. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.A shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments are requested. Staff Findings: The proposed development requires allotments for up to twenty-eight (28) affordable housing units. There is no annual limit for affordable housing units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Development Conformance: The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development — Project Review approval, as applicable. Staff Findings: The project site is currently located in the R -ISA zone district with a PD overlay. The applicant proposed to rezone the property to AH/PD and amend the Planned Development. The purpose of the AH/PD zone district is to provide for the use of land for affordable housing. These properties are intended to be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types. All dimensional requirements are established through the Planned Development review process, though some are recommended, including density and Allowable Floor Area. This property is not subject to any regulatory master plans and the previous approvals are to be amended with this proposal to accommodate the new development. Planned Development — Project Review is being consolidated with Growth Management as part of the Public Project review process. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. 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 Findings: The applicant has provided ability to serve letters from all of the utility providers. Most have stated that there is available capacity within the existing infrastructure to accommodate the development, with the exception of the Water Department. Any necessary upgrades to existing water lines will be required of the applicant as part of this development. Any required upgrades to other utility lines will be undertaken by the respective utility provider. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit F — Growth Management Paget of 5 IX.b D. Affordable Housing Mitigation. a. For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26.470.050.13, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Staff Findings: There is no commercial component to this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. b. For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050.13, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Staff Findings: There is no lodge component to this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. c. For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously mitigate (see Section 26.470.0701), the mitigation requirements for affordable housing shall be phased at 15% beginning in 2017, and by 3% each year thereafter until 65% is reached, as follows: Development Order applied for during calendar year - Mitigation required (percent of employees generated by the existing space that has previously not mitigated) 2017 15% 2018 18% 2019 21% 2020 24% 2021 27% 2022 30% 2023 33% 2024 36% 2025 39% 2026 42% 2027 45% 2028 48% Exhibit F — Growth Management Page 2 of 5 P262 P263 IX.b 2029 51% 2030 54% 2031 57% 2032 60% 2033 63% 2034 65% Staff Findings: There is no existing commercial development. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. d. Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between development categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space, outlined in subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units are being converted to commercial space, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for commercial space, outlined in subsections 1 and 3, above. Staff Findings: There is no change of use required or proposed in this project. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. e. For free-market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free- market residential net livable area. Staff Findings: There is no free-market residential component to this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. f. For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined based on Section 26.470.110.D. Staff Findings: This project is not considered an essential public facility. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. g. For all affordable housing provided as mitigation pursuant to this chapter or for the creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540: i. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. ii. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of methods outlined in this chapter, including newly built units, buy down units, certificates of Exhibit F — Growth Management Page 3 of 5 IX.b affordable housing credit, or cash -in -lieu. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard, and the approved forms of mitigation methods shall be based on this recommendation. iii. Affordable housing that is in the form of newly built units or buy -down units shall be located on the same parcel as the proposed development or located off-site within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.B. When off-site units within City limits are proposed, all requisite approvals shall be obtained prior to approval of the growth management application. iv. Affordable housing mitigation in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, shall be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.540.120, Extinguishment and Re -Issuance of a Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.0501, Employee/Square Footage Conversion. V. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is less than .25 FTEs, a cash -in - lieu payment may be made by right. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is .25 or more FTEs, a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.C. vi. Affordable housing units shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100.1), 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. vii. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430 Staff Findings: The proposed units are not required as mitigation or proposed for the development of Affordable Housing Credits. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. h. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed -restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied (RO). Staff Findings: The proposed units are being provided absent a requirement. The applicant has not identified what categories the units will be at this time. It is anticipated that the categories will be memorialized as part of the development agreement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. 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 general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080. 1) 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 Exhibit F — Growth Management Page 4 of 5 P264 P265 IX.b 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 Findings: The proposed project is expected to be financed in part using the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. As such, the project will be deed -restricted and rented to qualified employees based on the APCHA and LIHTC requirements. The project will be owned and operated by Aspen Housing Partners for a period of 15 years minimum while the land remains under City ownership. At that time, the applicant anticipates either reestablishing the LIHTC financing, operate the facility solely under the APCHA guidelines, or converting the units to for -sale to qualified APCHA purchasers. The units will remain deed -restricted in perpetuity regardless of the direction chosen after the 15 year period. At this time, the applicant has not proposed category designations for any of the units. It is expected that these will be memorialized as part of the Development Agreement once all of the City housing projects are finalized. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit F — Growth Management Page 5 of 5 IX.b EXHIBIT G RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.410.040. Multi -family standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all multi -family development. B. Design standards. 1. Building Orientation (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. Designs should prioritize the visibility of the front fagade from the street by designing the majority of the front fagade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible from the street. Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed to have a strong and direct relationship to the street. c) Standard. The front fagade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front fagade of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street -facing fagades of a building shall be parallel to each street. See Figure 30. (2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front Strong facade of a building shall face the street. On a Mcdwo e corner lot, one street -facing fagade shall face each intersecting street. Figure 30 The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: Exhibit G — Residential Design Standards Page 1 of 5 P266 required front lot outside the Option 1: setback 25 feet No lot curvilinear? No Infill Area? No Option 1 Strong or greater? orientation ES vEs rEs requirement Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 Option 2: Moderate OR OR OR orientation Option 2 Option 2 Option 2 requirement Staff Findings: The project area is located on a curvilinear lot outside the Aspen Infill Area, therefore can meet the standard through Option I or 2. The L-shaped building is moderatley oriented to the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Garage Access (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain, opaque and unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the Alley street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is available, which is No Yes most common in the Infill Area. Yes r_� I I c) Standard. A multi -family building that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. See Figure 31. Street Figure 31 Staff Findings: The proposed project does not have access from an alley or private street. Staff' finds this standard to be not applicable. 3. Garage Placement (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so Exhibit G — Residential Design St Page 2 of 5 _ .o_. - __ P267 IX.b Mb that the front fagade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front fagade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front -most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front fagade of the principal building. See Figure 32. Staff Findings: The proposed project does not include any garages in the design. Surface parking is proposed on the flat bench between the structure and Castle Creek Road. Staff finds this standard to be not applicable. 4. Entry Connection (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. There shall be at least one (1) entry door that faces the street for every four (4) street -facing, ground -level units in a row. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the entire door. See Figure 33. (2) Open Front Porch. There shall be at least one (1) porch or ground -level balcony that faces the street for every street -facing, ground -level unit. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct Exhibit G - Residential Design Standar Page 3 of 5 ragure ss am P269 Mb visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. See Figure 34. Staff Findings: The proposed design includes five (5) street facing ground -level units, therefore a minimum of two street facing entrances are required. There are a total of seven entry doors that face the street, the proposal satisfies Option I of the standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Principal Window (Flexible] a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front fagades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front facade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front fagade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. At least one (1) street -facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street -facing fagades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street-FacingPrincipal Window. The front fagade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of three 4' min (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling 3' min❑ unit. See Figure 35. R� (2) Window Group. The front fagade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when 4' min measured as a group has dimensions of three (3) 3' min ffa feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. See Figure 36. Figure 35 Figure 36 Staff Findings: The proposed design includes eighteen units that face the street on the front facade. Each unit on the second and third level contains a window that meets the minimum dimensions of this standard. The ground level units have windows that measure roughly 2'x18 : The proposal does not satisfy the criteria and will require a request Exhibit G — Residential Design Standards Page 4 of 5 IX.b for a variance from the Planning and Zoning Commission per Land Use Code section 26.410.020(0). Staff finds this criterion not met. D. Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints Staff findings: The smaller window groupings on the first floor/ground level are associated with the following interior programing elements: bedrooms, kitchens and mudrooms. The windows are either located above the kitchen cabinetry or above washer/dryer hookup locations. The long, high, narrow window placement is appropriate for a bedroom facing a courtyard within an apartment complex, as the window will be able to supply light to the units while not compromising privacy of the occupant. The intent of the standard is to ensure a street presence and to prevent large blank walls facing a street. The windows are maximized to the extent possible given the interior programming, and are further complimented by glass doors, which provide an additional glazing and fenestration element. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit G — Residential Design Standards Page 5 of 5 P270 P271 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing IX.b Development Review Committee (DRC) Comments September 27, 2017 — updated November 2, 2017 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. 1. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. 2. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. 3. Connection to the ACSD sewer system will require installation of a pumping system. 4. One tap is allowed for each building. 5. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 6. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. 7. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. 8. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. 9. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). 10. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. 11. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Page 1 of 4 IX.b 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Development Review Committee (DRC) Comments September 27, 2017 — updated November 2, 2017 APCHA 1. Recommendation forthcoming after the October 4, 2017 board meeting. Building 1. 2nd level shows 8 units with access to a single exit. The maximum number of units allowed to access a single unit per story is 4. Max travel distance is 125'. 2015 IBC 1006.3.2 2. 3rd story shows 4 units served by a single exit. Travel distance must be 125' or less. To achieve this, the stair will need to be an enclosed interior exit stair. The storage rooms and elevator may not open into the exit enclosure on any of the levels and the level of protection must be maintained at the lower level to a point outside the building. 2015 IBC 1006.3.2, 1023. Storage closets may not be in the exit enclosure stairway- this is a problem on all levels. The exit enclosure must be 2 hour fire rated, which will be challenging with wood frame construction as the walls do not stack. 3. Distance from property line will restrict percentage of allowable openings (openings in the wall, not just glazing). Currently you appear to exceed allowed amount of openings. 2015 IBC 705.8 4. You have 28 units. This requires at least one of the units to be a Type A unit. Provide accessible routes to all units. 2015 IBC 1107.6.2.2 5. This building is considered an elevator building and does not meet any exemptions- this requires all units to be Type B. 2015 IBC 1107.7.1 6. If the elevator is deleted, main level units must be type B accessible. Lower level units may also require type b accessibility which would require a ramp; demonstrate if you can meet the exception. 2015 IBC 1107.7.1.2 The applicant needs to provide detailed drawings demonstrating that they meet the exceptions. Until then we are assuming that the lower level units must be Type B accessible, which will require a ramp or elevator (but if an elevator is installed, then every unit in the building must be Type B accessible). 7. 30 parking spaces requires 2 of them to be accessible (1 van space, 1 car space). 2015 IBC 1106.1 8. The lower level stairs at each end aren't shown connecting to walkways to the right of way on the site plan- this is needed for them to count towards your egress plan. Clarification added now: If these are not in place, the lower level will be considered to have a single exit, which will limit it to 4 units total max. Environmental Health Page 2 of 4 P272 P273 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing IX.b Development Review Committee (DRC) Comments September 27, 2017 — updated November 2, 2017 1. Since this project does not have alley access for the trash and recycling, the applicant could go through Special Review with the Environmental Health department to get approval for their trash and recycling space (municipal code 12.10.080 (B). 2. The current proposal does not specific what the dimensions of the trash and recycling space will be (pg. L.2.00 & L.7.00). Code (12.10.050 (A) b) requires a minimum of 147 square feet. The proposed location meets other parts of the code requirements (i.e. ADA access, hauler access, etc.). 3. Table 03 (pg. 36 of the application) indicates there will be 150 SF of space for trash and recycling, but this is not shown on any of the drawings. 4. The narrative indicates the enclosure will meet the wildlife protection requirements of 12.08.020. 5. Please submit revised drawings showing how the project will meet code or set up a meeting with Liz Chapman to show how they can meet the waste needs of this development without meeting code requirements (Special Review). Engineering These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting and are required at detailed review. Public Improvements: 1. A minimum 8ft multimodal trail from the project to the Marolt trail is required to safely allow bicycle and pedestrian traffic access to existing trail infrastructure. 2. Snow storage, drainage, and pedestrian safety must be accommodated in coordination with the sidewalk and trail. Drainage Improvements: 1. The Urban Runnoff Management Plan requires drywells to be used as a last resort. This project has proposed the use of 5 drywells to accommodate total detention. Find alternative solutions to accommodate onsite drainage. Utilities: 1. There is a water distribution main that cuts through the property that needs an updated easement. The current water distribution standards call for a water line easement of 3Oft centered on the pipe. 2. If any grading takes place in this easement, it will be required that 7ft of cover is maintained. 3. If a service line that is greater than tin. it will be reviewed as a main line. Page 3 of 4 Mb 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Development Review Committee (DRC) Comments September 27, 2017 — updated November 2, 2017 Transportation Impact Analysis: 1. Coordinate all trail improvements with the Castle Creek Trail project. Coordinating and installing a trail would count as a major bicycle improvement. 2. This project does not qualify for a landscape buffer mitigation. 3. Show a trail connection to the lower section of the Marolt Trail. This can be crusher fines and non -ADA accessible. 4. No curb and gutter are proposed. 5. The new landscaping will not improve the pedestrian experience. 6. The multi -modal path connecting the development to the Marolt Bike Path is considered a major improvement. Parks 1. A tree removal permit will be required from the Parks Department. 2. Native Vegetation protection fencing will be required around the perimeter of the project. 3. A proposed tree preservation method for the large cottonwood must be presented to Parks prior to sidewalk detail and parking lot plans. This tree will also require tree protection fencing at dripline. 4. City ROW needs to be irrigated. 5. This project will need to adhere to the new Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. Planning and Zoning 1. Staff is concerned that the lack of parking is going to be an issue, particularly related to guest parking opportunities. Staff recommends pursing alternate methods to provide additional parking for this project. Some suggestions include working with Pitkin County to designate a few spaces in the Health and Human Services lot for this project. 2. Staff is concerned regarding the layout of the site and that the parking lot dominates the front yard of the site. Considerations should be made to minimize this to the maximum extent possible to preserve the Castle Creek Road corridor. This could include screening with vegetation or a carport to reduce these visual impacts. 3. Staff is concerned with regards to site design and feels that the building does not address the street. Page 4 of 4 P274 P275 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing IX.b Development Review Committee (DRC) Comments September 27, 2017 — updated November 2, 2017 4. Staff feels there perhaps too many different materials on the building. 5. Unit sizes — Minimum net livable areas are 700 sq. ft. for 1 -BR and 900 sq. ft. for 2-13R. The of the proposed units average 7.6% less than these minimums. Staff recommends that as a City project, these should meet the minimum requirements established by APCHA. City projects should set an example of desired development, particularly when it comes to livability of AH units. 6. Provide a historic grade survey given that the notes state there is 4' to 5' of manmade fill 7. Stair and deck are located within a setback. 8. Height is most challenging on the downhill side of this proposal. This proposal lacks a height chart. Provide a height over topography chart, like what's shown below. Height Over Topography Ci6x ofPspen Model Zonin-g Submission EWutJw cfr Na-uml EMWIIMLi GrWe EffVabM0FProp0ee'J Grade r MOitAdtcth'a Roar FtIgrAOver Toppgrww A0=1RootHeight mW WAtRMh1CITW 1 F_28 7328' NAr31 -3E'-2 7C 11 2 7925 ?328 Nat - 79WI 3 iff 11'-3 iff 3 7926' -3.2 NALL al 7948-1I7 if4' 14'-16 11m, 4 792T = NAlai 713E-1010 91-1 D W 5 7927 = Nardi 7942-5 14'-T 6 79M = = 794D'� ilQ' 2V-9 UT 7 792.5' = N3krdi 713E-1155 17-115r 8 7925 - = -t 29-4 10 10-410 9. Height measurements should be from most natural or finished grade, whichever is most restrictive. The height measurements, particularly on the east side of the building, do not appear to be from most restrictive grade. 10. Please provide a maximum height line on the elevations. 11. Roof appears to be without penetrations, hence provide accurate roof detail, venting, solar panels, mechanical and any other whatnot. Again a height chart is helpful to understand if items meet height exception. 12. Please contact Claude Salter to discuss addressing and mail delivery. 13. Outdoor lighting details - need cut sheet of lighting spec. 14. Applicant is encouraged to set up a meeting with the Zoning Officer as soon as possible to review calculations. Page 5 of 4 IX.b 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Development Review Committee (DRC) Comments September 27, 2017 — updated November 2, 2017 Transportation 1. The TIA as submitted meets minimum requirements regarding TDM measures. Page 6 of 4 P276 RESOLUTION NO. 14 (SERIES OF 2017) P277 IX.b A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT APPROVAL OF MAJOR PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS FOR 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 & 2,488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD & LOT SPLIT, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 AS RECEPTION NO. 529046, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-123-09-033 & 2735-123-09-034 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for 488 Castle Creek Road (the Application) from Aspen Housing Partners LLC (Applicant) with consent from the City of Aspen (Owner) for Major Public Project Review; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application — August 17, 2017, as applicable to this project; and, WHEREAS, as the property is owned by a governmental agency and this is an affordable project developed by the City in conjunction with a private developer, the Applicant has requested this Application to be reviewed as a Public Project, pursuant to Chapter 26.500.030 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received comments on the Application from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and Public Works Department, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting held on September 6, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, a summary of public outreach was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided full access to review the Application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on October 24, 2017, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of five to zero (5— 0). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: 488 Castle Creek Road Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 14, Series 2017 Page 1 of 5 IX.b Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council grant 488 Castle Creek Road Major Public Project review approval and the associated land use reviews for Rezoning, Planned Development, Growth Management, 8040 Greenline Review, Subdivision, and Residential Design Standards, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. The proposed project includes rezoning the property to Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD), and development of twenty eight (28) affordable housing units. The recommended dimensions are attached as Exhibit A to this resolution. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Public Project Review approval from the City Council. Prior to second reading of the ordinance by the City Council, Applicant shall: 1. Revise drawings to meet the Building Department's requirements. 2. Include a detailed height plan with historic and finished grade measurements. 3. Provide a revised Transportation Impact Analysis in response to Engineering comments. 4. Work with Pitkin County to determine if shared parking is possible at the Health and Human Services parking lot. If it is determined that shared parking is not a viable option, the applicant shall determine the estimated monetary value of excess Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) improvements. 5. Explore alternative parking solutions including, but not limited to: a parking garage, additional TIA improvements, such as an additional Car to Go space, or parking storage, such as a car stacking system or other similar systems. Section 3: Affordable Housing The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of twenty-eight (28) affordable housing units. The unit types shall be as follows: 1. Eighteen (18) 1 -bedroom units and ten (10) 2 -bedroom units (54 FTEs) As represented in the application, the proposed units are recommended to be granted a reduction in the Net Minimum Livable Square Footage, pursuant to the APCHA Employee Housing Guidelines ("Guidelines") as follows: Unit Proposed Minimum % Deficit 001 681.5 700 11.6% 002 780.3 900 13.3% 003 628.21 700 10.5% 004 636.93 700 1.4% 005 636.93 700 2.2% 006 783.34 700 2.6% 007 782.85 700 1.4% 008 618.49 700 10.5% 488 Castle Creek Road Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 14, Series 2017 Page 2 of 5 P278 101 661.89 700 1.4% 102 818.16 700 2.2% 103 661.89 700 5.4% 104 661.89 700 5.4% 105 661.89 700 5.4% 106 819.52 900 8.9% 107 819.52 900 8.9% 108 661.89 700 5.4% 201 686.66 700 1.9% 202 844.3 900 6.2% 203 842.77 900 6.4% 204 661.89 700 5.4% 205 661.89 700 5.4% 206 818.02 900 9.1% 207 842.7 900 6.4% 208 686.66 700 1.9% 301 662.89 700 5.3% 302 662.96 700 5.3% 303 654.28 700 6.5% 304 661.68 700 5.5% P279 IX.b Section 4• 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 Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 5• 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 6• 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. 488 Castle Creek Road Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 14, Series 2017 Page 3 of 5 IX.b FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of October, 2017. Approved as to form: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Attest: Cindy HIob, Records Manager Approved as to content: Skippy Mesirow, Chair Attachments: Exhibit A: Recommended Dimensional Requirements 488 Castle Creek Road Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 14, Series 2017 Page 4 of 5 Exhibit A — Recommended Dimensional Requirements Dimensions Proposed Minimum Gross Lot Area 35,895 sq. ft. Minimum Gross Lot Area per Unit 1,282 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Density 28 units Minimum Lot Width 70 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. Maximum Site Coverage M 21% Maximum Height M 45'8.75" Minimum Percent Open Space 45% Minimum Trash Access Area 150 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Floor Area 22,515 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Deck Area 7,707 sq. ft. Minimum Parkin 29 spaces P281 IX.b 'Retaining features, decks and balconies are permitted to encroach into the setback in addition to the allowed projections listed in Section 26.575.020.E(5), as amended. 2 As measured from finished grade 488 Castle Creek Road Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 14, Series 2017 Page 5 of 5 P282 IX.b Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the October 24, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Mr. Keith Goode, Mr. Spencer McKnight, Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury and Mr. Skippy Mesirow. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid and Mr. Rally Dupps were not present. Also present from City staff; Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Jessica Garrow, Director of Planning and Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow wanted to thank Mr. Jesse Morris, who decided to resign, for his positive, wonderful work on the commission. Ms. Tygre feels it is a good time for the City to address the slush pits that form on every corner during the winter. Ms. Garrow will touch base with engineering and let them know for the yearly detailed plans. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Garrow stated the P&Z Commissioners from the Town of Breckenridge will be in town the next week and wanted to see if Aspen's P&Z would be interested in a meeting with them. She suggested options for the meeting and it was decided a breakfast meeting on Friday, November 3rd would work best. Mr. McKnight and Ms. Tygre agreed they could attend. Ms. Garrow then introduced Mr. Garrett Larimer as the City's new planner tech for the department. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES Mr. McKnight motioned to approve the October 3rd minutes and Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 488 Castle Creek Rd - Major Public Project Review Mesirow opened the hearing and noted for the record and audience that he observed parking had been a recurring concern with recent applications before P&Z so he researched parking alternatives. He found some interesting material and will provide information as part of the discussion for the hearing. He added this effort in no way indicates he has an opinion on the application. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to staff. P283 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 IX.b Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, stated this is the final of three projects the City is working on as part of a public\private partnership to create affordable housing within Aspen. She stated significant outreach has been conducted over a six-month period for each of the projects and as part of the refinement, Council indicated the density at the other sites should be reduced and this site should be considered for additional density. Each project was further refined based on the outreach. She noted this project is located on Castle Creek Rd near Aspen Valley Hospital, Castle Ridge affordable housing, Marolt Ranch employee housing, Health and Human Services, hospital housing, and Whitcomb Terrace. The project is also adjacent to the Marolt Open Space and within walking distance of a We - Cycle station and the Castle Creek bus station. She then provided the following details of the project. • 2 lot subdivision • 35,895 sf for both lots • Currently vacant • Zoned R -15A with a Planned Development (PD) overlay • The PD limits the subdivision to three single family residences The applicant is proposing the following. • Rezone the subdivision to Affordable Housing (AH) with a PD overlay • 28 units: 18 1 -bedroom units and 10 2 -bedroom units • 29 parking spaces including one per unit and one guest parking space • 3 -story building with a consolidated 4 -story element along the side facing the Marolt housing • 2 -story building along the Castle Creek Rd side of building • Bike parking and maintenance areas • On-site storage Ms. Seminick stated the application is part of a Major Public Project Review which is a consolidated review process. She explained the project review dealing with the massing, floor area, height and site programming reviews is combined with a detailed review dealing with landscaping, architectural details and the refined elements of the project. The project also falls in the 8040 Greenline area. Additional reviews include rezoning, growth management, design standards and subdivision. She noted Council has the final decision on the project. She added the 60 -day statutory -required review process does not apply to the City's application. Rezoning Ms. Seminick then discussed the rezoning review. She stated staff finds the application meets the applicable review criteria and supports this request noting the compatibility with surrounding zone districts. She displayed a map showing neighboring properties and their zoning noting extensive AH projects close to the project including Castle Ridge, Water Place, Twin Ridge, Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) AH and Marolt Ranch employee housing. She pointed out the project is on a transit line and within easy biking distance of the City's core. She added the AH zoning is scattered throughout town to MW IX.b Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 reinforce diverse housing and provide protected areas for affordable housing. She provided another picture of affordable housing locations with the City and the urban growth boundary (UGB). Planned Development Review Ms. Seminick stated this review considers the dimensional requirements of the parcel. She displayed a matrix showing dimensions as proposed, existing and a similar zoning of the Residential Multi -Family zoning (RMF) as shown on p. 16 and 17 of the agenda packet. With regard to this project, the maximum allowable floor area is approximately 22,500 sf. The suggested floor area for a parcel of this size is approximately 28,000 sf. It is also well below the maximum allowable floor area of the RMF zone district. The project is proposing allowable deck area of about 7,000 sf to allow each of the units to have some degree of outdoor space. This amount is also well below the allowable threshold amount allowable. In regards to the maximum height which as measured along the Marolt Employee Housing facing side would 45 ft 8.75 in as measured from a finished elevation. The height along Castle Creek Rd will be 32 ft. The proposed 29 parking spaces is below the 38 spaces required by the RMF zoning. Staff does have concerns with the parking as well as the mass and height of the structure. She noted the applicant has requested 10% flexibility in the floor area, deck area and open space design which is well below the allowable thresholds. Parking Review She stated parking can be set through the PD process, which is a Council decision. Recent code changes to combine and coordinate transportation and parking impacts have been considered by Council. The City has transformed the process to focus on the promotion and expansion of mobility options taking a more comprehensive look at transportation solutions instead of just parking solutions. She stated while the number of spaces may be appropriate for the site, there are still some unmitigated transportation impacts of which staff is concerned. Staff is proposing three options to ensure full mitigation of the transportation impacts. 1. Explore shared parking options with the urban growth boundary or nearby facilities such as the nearby Health and Human Services lot. 2. Provide additional transportation impact improvements such as better pedestrian and bike connectivity facilities. 3. Cash -in -lieu for the required parking Mass and Height Review She stated Staff has concerns regarding the proposed height of the structure on the side facing the Marolt housing. Staff supports measuring from finished grade noting this is a triangular shaped parcel that has not been manipulated since the 1950's. A lot of fill has been placed on the site likely associated with the construction of Castle Creek Rd so this site has been in its existing condition for almost 70 years. The code typically measures the height from the more restrictive of the finished or natural grade helps prevent over -manipulation of the existing site. The finished grade is used on sites with similar issues including AVH, the Aspen Club, and Lift One Lodge. P285 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 IX.b She stated staff's concern is limited to the fourth floor, noting again the site programming is in direct response to the public comment. The applicant has pushed back the four-story element to reduce the appearance of massing from the Castle Creek fagade. The project considers a balance of how all three housing projects balance the needs of the community and respond to neighborhood context and feedback received. As units were removed from the other two projects, they were captured in this project. The applicant has taken steps to minimize the fourth -floor impacts, but staff continues to have concerns for this element. If P&Z shares these concerns, there are four options for P&Z to consider as included on p 26 of the agenda packet under staff's recommendation. Trails and Landscape Review Ms. Seminick noted some of the issues identified in staff's memo have since been resolved. At this point, the project proposes the following. A multi -modal connection to the Marolt bike path includes a semi -improved path connecting the walk -out units down to the Marolt bike path Methods have been identified to preserve a cottonwood tree staff previously had concerns regarding its preservation and the elimination of a new sidewalk along Castle Creek Rd. 8040 Greenline Review Ms. Seminick stated a very small portion of the property is located above the 8040 Greenline as she pointed to on a site map. Staff finds the application meets the applicable review criteria. Growth Management Review Ms. Seminick noted with affordable housing, there is no annual limit. The unit sizes averaged 7.6% below the minimum net livable area. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) reviewed the project on October 18th and approved the reduction in net livable for the project. She stated the categories have yet to be identified so the applicant can respond to community need. Because this is a community project, there are no restrictions on what the units be designated. This project is seeking assistance from a tax credit program which would require the units to be rental for the first 15 years and then there is a potential for ownership. Residential Design Standards (RDS) Review Ms. Seminick stated this project is subject to the RDS to ensure street presence and a public-private relationship between the development and the street. She stated the project met all but one of the design standards. It needs a variation for the principal window standard for five of the ground floor units. This is a flexible standard which allows for a variation when the intent is met. She added there are plenty of windows on the street facing fagade and the taller and narrower windows are responding to the interior programming which includes mud rooms or kitchens exist. Staff supports the variation to the standard. 4 IX.b Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 Subdivision Review Ms. Seminick stated the applicant would like to merge the existing two lots into one. The new lot conforms with the underlying zoning and dimensions and meets all the criteria for a major subdivision. In closing, she reviewed the main discussion points staff would like for P&Z to address. She stated staff recommends approval with conditions. Dimensions, specifically the height in the four-story element Parking as presented for the project Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of staff. Mr. Goode asked if Council directed the expansion of the project. Ms. Seminick replied it would be best if the applicant replied to his question. Ms. Garrow stated the applicant team did meet extensively with Council before the application was submitted and there were comments from the neighbors on all three projects which led to modifications to the projects such as reduced bedrooms. Mr. Mesirow asked if the other projects are conditional to this one. Ms. Garrow replied no, but stated the applicant team can respond to the question more appropriately. Ms. Tygre asked staff to explain a multi -modal connection. Ms. Seminick replied this type of connection addresses bikes and pedestrian forms of transportation. As multi -modal path is eight ft in width instead of a standard sidewalk width which is six ft. This allows for two passing uses at differing speeds and widths on the same path. Mr. Mesirow asked if staff's suggestion to work with AVH is a suggestion or is there something more there already. Ms. Seminick replied it is just a suggestion at this time. Ms. Garrow stated it is similar to staff's recommendation on the 517 Park Cir project where it was suggested the applicant work with Pitkin County regarding parking. She added Council approved this project last night and noted the language had been expanded to look for expanded parking within the urban growth boundary. Staff is suggesting the same for this project. Mr. Mesirow noted his understanding was the public outreach was well lauded for the other projects but wanted to know if the public outreach for this project was different in any way. Ms. Garrow replied it would be appropriate for the applicant to respond. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for additional information regarding measuring from the finished grade and the disruption previously mentioned. Ms. Seminick replied the code has two ways to measure height. It is from the finished or natural grade depending on which the way that is most constrictive. In this case, there is a finished condition of a triangular site built up in the middle. The applicant has provided information to identify an interpolated grade showing the more natural condition before it was disturbed based on old aerials or old topo information. The applicant was able to identify the condition prior to the 1950's which was prior to the construction of the road. Staff feels measuring from the finished grade will ultimately be perceived more important than measuring it based on the property conditions from 1950. Ms. Garrow noted other similar sites that have been disturbed or are greatly sloped have approvals measuring the height from the finished grade. P287 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 IX.b Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Jason Bradshaw, Aspen Housing Partners and Mr. Adam Roy, Method 1 Planning and Development, were present to represent the applicant, which is a partnership between the City and Aspen Housing Partners. Mr. Roy then reviewed the history and background of the property noting the location and neighboring properties. He had a picture of an existing driveway to the property and noted the bench structure of the property. Additional views of the property were provided showing views of the property from multiple angles. He then displayed the improvement survey as it exists today and pointed out the flat bench and the steep slopes down toward the boundaries of the property. The intent has been to minimize the disturbance of the bench. He then provided a picture of the area and described neighboring properties. Mr. Roy noted the property was acquired by the City in 2007 through the housing fund with the intent of developing affordable housing. In 2012, a broad strategic analysis identified the need for 657 units with the urban growth boundary over the next ten-year period. In response, the City conducted more specific outreach in 2015 including all three properties currently in the process of being developed. The takeaway from this suggested long-term housing of roughly 24 units, primarily one bedroom, dormitory style, one-to-one parking and possibly employer participation. In response to this, the City put out an RFP in 2016 resulting in the selection of Aspen Housing Partners. The property is being developed with Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LITHC) program which reduces the overall capital and operational requirements the City would have to carry by itself. He noted the LITHC is one of the most successful affordable housing programs in the country. The City has used LITHC for other projects including Aspen Country Inn, Truscott and Maroon Creek in part or all. He then displayed a project plan and described the public outreach and noted the time spent on outreach. He noted between the open houses, there was quite a bit of time slated for neighborhood and stakeholder outreach. He wanted to note this because there was not a lot of direct contact with the key stakeholders in the area. There was a little communication and one face-to-face meeting with a neighbor. A few comments were received on the website and a few letters or emails directed to the City that were then forwarded to the project team. He then reviewed the key takeaways from the commentary and the open houses which included over 500 participants overall. • Strong support for rezoning and development • Request to explore potential density increases against the constraints of the site • Review the architectural style which some felt was too modern and progressive for the area • He noted there is a parallel trails project and he noted there were suggestions to coordinate with the group on the consistency with the project and possible trail projects. • Potential life and safety concerns raised regarding traffic and the location of the property on a sweeping curve. 11 IX.b Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 He provided a slide showing the design progression through the five plus month outreach and the check -ins with Council. He then reviewed the iterations of the stories, units, parking as well as mass, scale, coloring and style. They ended up with a 28 -unit project, 29 parking spaces with a mix of three and four stories. He then displayed a current site plan and noted the access comes off Castle Creek Rd on grade. There are ten parallel parking spaces along the boundary adjacent to Castle Creek Rd and 19 additional head -in parking next to the building. A key consideration in the design is maintaining the vegetative buffer on the property boundary adjacent to the road. They are proposing to enhance the buffer beyond how it exists today. The parking will be four -five ft below the base of the buffer. He pointed to a sculpted green area for bike parking and some private courtyard patios for the lower level units. Mr. Roy then displayed the floor plans. First, he showed the main level consisting of five one -bedroom units and three two-bedroom units. All units have one bathroom per bedroom, 75 sf of non -unit storage. The second -floor plans have similar dimensions and storage. He displayed typical floor plans showing an open floor plan, ample lighting, lots of windows and outdoor decks and patios. Mr. Roy then displayed elevations, architectural renderings from the different aspects for the project. Mr. Roy then displayed a map showing the use and zoning within the context of the area noting the applicant feels the rezoning is compatible with the area. Mr. Roy then displayed a matrix showing density measures of comparable multifamily properties including the following. He noted the proposed project falls within a reasonable comparison of the projects. • Number of units • Units per acre • Bedrooms per acre • Parking per unit • Parking per bedroom He noted the nearby affordable housing projects and stated this project is more dense than them but less dense than other projects located throughout the city. If you look at total unit count or total sf of the projects, this project is less than them. 1. Marolt seasonal housing 2. Castle Ridge 3. Twin Ridge —located in Pitkin County 4. Water Place He stated the average density in the area is 12.9 units per acre. The projects density is 24 units per acre. If they maintained the 28 units on land the same as those with 12.9, the size of the property would be three times what it is now. In order to make this happen, the project would have to occupy 2.2 acres of what is predominantly open space as a graphic example. Sometimes a denser project lends itself to preserving open space. 7 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 IX.b Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of the applicant. Mr. Mesirow feels there are two critical ways to look at density, one is the impact to open space and the environment or units per acre and two, the impact regarding the living conditions or number of units per sf. He then asked if they have numbers on his second method. Mr. Roy responded they have not made this calculation but suspect the unit is smaller and would be more efficient from floor area construction standpoint. He added the goal was to create a balance between a livable environment for the tenants and the environment. Mr. Mesirow feels the information requested would be interesting going forward. Mr. Mesirow asked for more details on the public outreach. He believes all three projects went through the same outreach, but there are a lot of folks attending the hearing suggesting the outreach wasn't as effective as it was for the other two projects. Mr. Bradshaw stated the same process was pursued for all three sites. He feels one difference experience with the Park Cir and Main St sites versus the Castle Creek Rd site was there were more constructive comments on what they would like to see instead of what was being shown. There were fewer comments on the Castle Creek site and less focused on what would be acceptable and more about a critique of what was shown. Mr. Mesirow asked about the makeup of the those responding. Mr. Roy replied it was a much broader area and comments were received from submitters located all the way up Castle Creek Rd and on to Little Annie's Rd. There were more breakout meetings with stakeholders on the other projects resulting in changes to the them. The same outreach efforts were made for each of the projects. He suggested it may have been this way because it is a broader area. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there is a recommended standard for guest parking. Ms. Seminick responded the code does not specify anything. Mr. Mesirow asked if the applicant has any insight into possible parking at AVH or another location. Mr. Bradshaw stated the same topic came up with Park Cir and the applicant is open to reaching out to surrounding locations including hotels or other facilities with excess parking. The applicant is hesitant to guarantee these options are available at this time or for the length of time necessary. Mr. Bradshaw wanted to clarify in the prior hearings may have indicated a predetermined number of units, but this is not the case. They started with an independent view of each of the sites and the changes at each site was based on the public outreach received. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment. Mr. Dick Butera, Castle Creek Rd, feels P&Z has protected the natural and manmade treasures safe from the ravages of progress including the Marolt property. He comes before the board with 55 years of experience in developing subdivisions across America. He explained how came to live in the Castle Creek Valley. He feels it is a treasured resource with constant threats, most that were repelled by prior P&Z and County commissioners. He feels threatened by the current proposal and wanted to pose questions to P&Z. He continued stating the City paid $5.4 million 10 year ago for the site which a little over .5 acre usable or 24,000 net usable space. This represented a $2 million profit in 10 months for the previous owner. N IX.b Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 1. Density - He said this is equivalent to a density of 51 apartments per acre which would be a record in Pitkin County or anywhere to Denver. 2. Parking - He believes when it is snowing there will not be 28 spaces available. 3. Density —The employee housing units across the road average six units per acre with 1.8 parking spaces per unit. 4. Fill — The applicant has determined there is four to five ft of fil on the site which must be removed below the buildings. The code states you can't build on fill. 5. County Boundary — The property shares a boundary with the County. The zoning on the County side is one house per 10 acres. He then quoted from the Polices Management Growth Community and Economic Sustainability section of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) stating 'Urban density should be located within the commercial core of Aspen and appropriate increases in density should only occur if they result in the preservation of land in the proximity of the urban growth boundary through TDRs or other land use tools'. It goes on stating 'protect the visual quality of neighborhoods by minimizing site coverage, mass and scale'. The applicant is requesting relief in site coverage, FAR, height, parking and the fees. 6. Lease —The lease to the developer is $10 per year for 40 years. The lease also states if the developer is short of capital, the City will put up the difference. He estimates this to $9 million. The City will lend this to the developer at less than two percent for 40 years. 7. Financial Statement — It states the cost will be $14,922,000 for the project which doesn't include the cost of the land. He feels the cost is $20,322,000 or $725,000 per unit which doesn't include any cost overruns. He questions why so many units are being placed on this property at such a high cost. Ms. Kristi Ferraro, attorney representing members of the Castle Creek Caucus, stated she reviewed the application on their behalf and has identified several challenges and concerns with the application and staff's recommendation. They disagree with staff's findings the review standards have been met. 1. Standards regarding compatibility with the neighborhood — She does not believe staff has considered the Marolt open space, urban growth boundary and rural 10 acre zoning just across the County border. 2. With respect to review standards requiring they support Community Goals — staff mentions the project meets goal related to transportation and housing but does not consider other community goals such as those called in Joe Well's letter such as concentrating density in the commercial core and maintaining the rural nature of Aspen near the urban growth boundary and its borders with the County. 3. They believe the project is not sensitive to the scale and character of the neighborhood. In closing, they ask P&Z to look very closely at the application to see if it really does meet all the review standards per the land use code. They ask the board to consider all the surrounding areas, full neighborhood context and all the stated community goals. Mr. Mesirow asked if she had any communication from the people she represents as to why they sent her rather than show up at the public outreach meetings. Mr. Butera claimed he did not receive any notice because he lives in the County. He added the nature of his neighbors is that they are not here a lot. Ms. Bryan added her review of the notice for the hearing appears to be proper. Mr. Joe Wells, Castle Creek resident and coordinator of the Castle Creek Caucus, mentioning his letter previously submitted which was included in the agenda packet. He noted he has no problem with lAJ P290 P291 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 IX.b affordable housing on the site. He is concerned with the height, density and the parking solution. He stated he attended the site visit today. He does not think it is reasonable to dismiss the fact the building is being built on fill just because it's been there for 70 years. It is obvious it will have greater impact if built on the fill instead of the natural grade. In regards to density, he tried to compare it to several surround affordable housing projects. He used the gross acreage of the sites because he did not have slope reduction information on the other sites. His calculations indicate 34 units per acre. Castle Creek Ridge project is 9.6 units per acre, Twin Ridge project is 3.83 units per acre and the Water Place project is 6.5 units per acre. He is concerned in order to get the amount of parking proposed, the site is being developed right up to the property line with no setbacks. In his letter, he suggested perhaps tenants could be prevented from having cars since it is a rental project. He hopes they pursue opportunities to get some of the parking offsite or other methods to allow for a buffer on the site. Ms. Karen Ryman, Twin Ridge resident for 27 years, wanted to note a couple of items. In regards to shared parking, she knows the neighboring lots have signs posted stating no parking for anyone other than their customers. She stated the hospital claims their parking lots are full. She met on an ambulance program last week which is also sliding in parking. She does not believe the project can rely on parking at neighboring facilities. She is concerned where the snow will be placed because they have to have it hauled away from their project at times. She believes all who live in employee housing have side jobs to be able to live which requires visitors. The project does not allow enough parking for this and many places will have two cars. She does not feel the entrance has good sight lines both ways and will cause additional traffic. She stated she attended the site visit today, noting the planners were there, but no one attended from P&Z. She asked why P&Z members did not attend the site visit, were you working or interested. Mr. Mesirow asked that she not impugn the entire commission for not attending the site visit. She responded the commission is her representatives in her government. Mr. Mesirow responded they take their roles very seriously. Mr. John Wallach, Twin Ridge resident, noted Twin Ridge is single family homes and affordable housing condominiums. He feels the whole project fed to the commission and everyone else has been sugar coated. He attended the first outreach meeting where amount of parking was way out of line and at the next meeting, they reported not much was said at the previous meeting. He does not feel the project allows enough space for snow storage or service vehicle parking or turn around space. He noted one trash company refused to work for Twin Ridge because of they could not turn their trucks around. They now use smaller trucks. He stated parking at the neighboring properties is not an option and believes more people will drive than ride a bus. He also feels the average density is bazaar. The zoning requested is 25-30 times more dense than the zoning approved in 2004. He does not feel it is worth it. Mr. Mesirow then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant or the staff to clarify the plan for snow removal. Ms. Garrow stated plowing on a private development will be a private agreement. She noted Burlingame is another private location and plowing is dealt with by the HOA. Mr. Roy stated snow storage is an item in the review criteria. He pointed out areas on a site plan designated for snow storage. He added if there was a large snowstorm, like most parking lots in town, there could be some hauling of snow. 10 P292 IX.b Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 Mr. Mesirow asked about for clarification about delivery trucks. Mr. Roy pointed out a designated hammer -head turnaround spot for delivery trucks. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked to look at the broader neighborhood context as it relates to density if easily available. Mr. Mesirow noted P&Z could mentioned for Council to look at further. Ms. Garrow replied staff could look for one to display now while deliberations continued. Mr. Mesirow stated in reviewing this project, it is not inconsistent with the other projects reviewed by the commission and felt comfortable with the other projects. He wished the public outreach would have been more effective. He wondered if folks were out of town. He viewed the feedback from the outreach requesting more density instead of less and now he is hearing for less at this hearing. He would say those that were not at the outreach meetings missed an opportunity. He feels they need to pass on recommendations to Council going forward. Mr. McKnight agreed with him and personally does not have much sympathy for those who are not in town enough to be part of the discussion. Tonight, he feels the commission needs to make recommendations to Council so as much information is available as possible for their decision. He loves the idea of the project and we should do whatever we can to do to find employee housing. He feels regardless of where employee housing is proposed, people are not going to want it there. He added he not unsympathetic to the public comment but struggles identifying the real issues. He understands the parking, but wonders if the density issues are a community or personal issues. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Tygre about a City project bordering the County since he has yet to see a project with this since he joined the commission. Ms. Tygre replied the density of the county is not all that close because they are not within 300 ft. She is not sure the best method for defining the neighborhood. She feels Mr. McKnight made a good point. She doesn't' recall anyone wanting the Twin Ridge project going in when it was proposed. Mr. Mesirow asked the others if they have a concern with the density. Mr. Goode feels the comment made regarding having the density in the core was a good point but at the same time, doesn't feel the proposed buildings will be in anyone's face or the back yard. He feels it is a good project, but is concerned with the negative comments this late in the process. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels there are competing goals for this property and while all valid, how does the City address the 657 unit deficit if we say no to projects that help reach the goals. For her, she feels there are elements to this project that are very good and perhaps it is a good candidate for underground parking. She is not sure if this has been considered for this project. She feels the commission sees these projects a bit late in the game and is not sure how feasible it is to change the project. Mr. Mesirow agrees there are competing needs between housing, density, massing and parking that are fighting with each other. He feels if there are ways to increase the density of parking, it could reclaim land for open space, allow for additional units. He feels there are parking systems readily available that allow for automated, two -layer parking. When he looks at this property from a bird's eye view, he sees equal land between units and parking spaces which makes the statement the car is as important as the 11 P293 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 IX.b worker which he feels is wrong. He suggested passing along alternative parking solutions be considered and what could be done with the reclaimed space is up to Council. Ms. Tygre responded this is a good suggestion. Although she is generally in favor of the project, the main problem is the parking, which impacts the density. When looking at the impacts to the neighborhood, the height is not an issue from Castle Creek Rd. She walks the existing path and does not think the view from the Marolt housing will be that much either. This project will not be anywhere near the supermarket so a car will be needed. Even if parking was available at Health and Human Services or the hospital, she does not feel that would be a good solution either. She feels if the parking can't be addressed, you can't have the density in this particular project. She suggested alternative solutions be evaluated such a car -to -go that are specific to this project or parking lifts. She also thinks it's important to allow space for deliveries. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any other areas to make recommendation. Ms. Garrow then provided a map of the City zoning in relationship to the Greenline, City boundary and urban growth boundary. She noted in much of the county, it is zoned single family. She added staff will look into providing additional information regarding density to Council for their consideration. Mr. McKnight feels it is time to look into other parking solutions. Parking has been an issue with every project that comes before P&Z. He feels it would be good to get these issues in front Council and to everyone who showed up tonight, he suggested them to do their research and provide the information to Council in advance so they are not hit with it at the meeting. It is challenging to digest the information if it is dropped on them at the hearing. Mr. Mesirow stated there has been a tremendous amount of public outreach for this project and while these projects are never perfect, but input is best received from the public members instead of sending a lawyer. Mr. McKnight also suggested they come in with solutions and not just the complaints. Ms. Garrow noted staff failed to list 8040 Greenline and Subdivision as two of the review, so they need to be added. She continued stating based on P&Z's conversation, where items in section two are listed to be completed or reviewed by Council, she suggested adding to bullet four or add bullet five to explore alternative parking solutions which could include a subgrade garage, other parking storage, or additional TIA improvements such as car -to -go. She noted based on past conversations with the Transportation department, there is a car -to -go at the hospital and they probably will not want to see one added to this project, but they may be open to adding an additional car at the hospital. Mr. Mesirow would like to see something specific to automated parking solutions added. He asked for a review including, but limited to a car stacker system allowing for double height parking be added to the resolution. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this effort would be to achieve parking spots on site or to achieve additional density. Mr. Mesirow feels this will evaluate the use of the land. Ms. Garrow suggested using a new bullet (#5) stating to explore alternative parking solutions including a sub -grade garage, parking storage including but not limited to a car stacker system and additional TIA improvements such as car -to -go. Mr. Roy clarified this additional language is a supplement to what is already there with respect to their understanding, the project is parked per code and they have the ability to pay a fee -in -lieu along with other TIA requirements. Ms. Tygre stated she would personally hate to see cash -in -lieu used. 12 IX.b Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 14, Series 2017 with the stated amendments. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll call: Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McKnight; yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes; for a total of five (5) yes votes and zero (0) no votes. The motion was approved. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. A motion was made to adjourn and seconded. All in favor, motion passed. Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager 13 P294 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Development Public Project Application for Rezoning to Affordable Housing Planned Development and Related Reviews Method Planning + Development 119 South Spring Street, Ste. 102 Aspen Colorado 81611 P295 IX.b IX.b Public Project Review of an Application for Rezoning to Affordable Housing Planned Development including Planned Development, Subdivision. Growth Management, 8040 Greenline, Transportation & Parking and Residential Design Reviews for the Property at 488 Castle Creek Road in Aspen, Colorado Submitted on behalf of: City of Aspen in Partnership with Aspen Housing Partners, LLC (970) 319-9298 August 14, 2017 Prepared by: Method Planning + Development 102 South Spring Street, Ste. 102 Aspen, CO 81611 970.274.0890 P296 PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER City of Aspen Chris Everson 130 S. Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 P: 970.429.1834 Chris.everson@cityofaspen.com PLANNER Method Planning + Development 119 South Spring St. Suite 102 Aspen, CO 81611 P: 970.274.0890 adam@methodpd.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Connect One Design 0123 Emma Rd. Suite 200A Basalt, CO 81621 P. 970.279.1030 hh(a-)_connectonedesign.com TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER McDowell Engineering, LLC P.O. Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 P: 970.623.0788 kari a@mcdowelleng.com APPLICANT Aspen Housing Partners, LLC Jason Bradshaw 228 Eastwood Drive Aspen, CO 81611 P: 970-319-9298 jebradshaw@mac.com ARCHITECT David Johnston Architects 119 South Spring St. Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 P: 970.925.3444 F: 970.920.2186 brian@djarchitects.com CIVIL ENGINEER Roaring Fork Engineering 592 Highway 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 P: 970.340.4130 F: 866.876.5873 richardg(a-)_rfeng.biz P297 IX.b IX.b TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1 11. PROPERTY HISTORY & EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................3 A. History and Background...........................................................3 B. Existing Approvals....................................................................4 C. Existing Property Conditions ................................................... 5 D. Public and Neighborhood Outreach ........................................ 6 III. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................. 8 A. General Project Summary.........................................................8 B. Site Planning and Landscape Design......................................9 1. Site and Landscape Design..............................................................10 2. Site Calculations............................................................................... 13 3. Site and Exterior Lighting............................................................... 14 C. Civil Engineering Design........................................................15 1. Utilities.............................................................................................. 15 2. Stormwater and Drainage............................................................... 16 3. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter............................................................. 16 D. Building and Architectural Design.........................................17 1. Sustainability....................................................................................17 2. Main Level........................................................................................ 18 3. Lower Level...................................................................................... 19 4. Second Level..................................................................................... 20 5. Upper Level...................................................................................... 21 6. Floor Area Calculations.................................................................. 22 7. Building Mass, Scale and Architectural Character ...................... 25 E. Transportation and Parking Management .............................29 W= P299 IX.b 1. Transportation Management.......................................................... 29 2. Proposed Off -Street Parking Management ................................... 31 F. Area Land Use and Property Rezoning.................................32 G. School Land Dedication and Impact Fees ............................ 37 IV. REGULATORY REVIEW REQUIREMENTS......................................39 A. Public Projects Review (Chapter 26.500) .............................. 39 1. Major Public Project Review (26.500.040.C) ................................ 39 2. General Review Standards (26.500.070) ........................................ 39 B. Amendments to Official Zone District Map — Rezoning (Chapter 26.310)..............................................................................40 1. Rezoning — Procedure for amendment (26.310.060) ..................... 40 2. Rezoning - Standards of review (26.310.090) ............................... 40 C. Subdivision (Chapter 26.480) .................................................42 3. General subdivision review standards ........................................... 42 4. Major subdivisions (26.480.070)..................................................... 43 D. Planned Development (Chapter 26.445) ................................ 46 1. Project Review Standards (26.445.050) ......................................... 46 2. Detailed Review Standards (26.445.070) ........................................ 52 E. Growth Management Quota System (Chapter 26.470) ......... 58 1. General Review Standards (26.470.080) ........................................ 58 2. Planning and Zoning Commission applications (26.470.100) ...... 59 F. Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Chapter 26.435).............................................................................................. 60 3. 8040 Greenline Review Standards (26.435.030.C) ........................ 60 G. Transportation and Parking (Chapter 26.515) ...................... 63 1. Parking Requirements (26.515.040) ............................................... 63 IX.b 2. Meeting Parking Requirements (26.515.050) ................................ 64 3. Off -Street Parking Requirements (26.515.070) ............................. 65 H. Residential Design Standards — Multi -family (Chapter 26.410)..............................................................................................68 1. Building Orientation (Flexible)....................................................... 68 2. Garage Access (Non-Flexible)......................................................... 68 3. Garage Placement (Non -Flexible) .................................................. 69 4. Entry Connection (Non -Flexible) ................................................... 69 5. Principle Window (Flexible)........................................................... 69 Appendix A —Application Documents .................................................. A Appendix B — Reports, Studies & Letters ............................................. B Appendix C — Planned Development Plan Set (24X36 Formatting) .... C P300 I. INTRODUCTION P301 IX.b The purpose of this application is to request approval for the development of a multifamily affordable housing facility (the "Proposed Project") on the property at 488 Castle Creek Road (the "Property") in the City of Aspen, (Legal Description — LOTS 1 & 2, 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD FINAL P.U.D. AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO). A vicinity map showing the location of the Proposed Project is provided as Exhibit 1 in Appendix A of this application. This application is submitted pursuant to Title 26, Land Use Regulations, of the 2017 Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code") by Aspen Housing Partners, LLC (the "Applicant"), in partnership with and on behalf of the current ownership of the property, the City of Aspen (the "Ownership"). In accordance with the Code and as outlined in the Pre -Application Conference Summary (Exhibit 2, Appendix A), this application is requesting to rezone the Property to AH/PD by way of amending the existing Subdivision Exemption and Planned Development Agreement attached as Exhibit 3 of Appendix A and the creation and adoption of a Final PD Development Plan pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Code and subsequent Planned Development Agreement for the Property. The adopting Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006 for the existing Subdivision and PUD is attached as Exhibit 4 in Appendix A in this application. The existing PUD and Subdivision Plat for the Property, which is attached as Exhibit 1 of Appendix C, will also be amended to reflect the merging of the two (2) existing lots into one (1) single lot for the Proposed Project. A draft of the amended Subdivision Plat is provided as Exhibit 3 in Appendix C. As an affordable housing project developed by a private developer in conjunction with the City of Aspen, the Applicant is also requesting review as a Major Public Project. In addition to the reviews for rezoning the property and Planned Development, the Proposed Project will also require approval through the following reviews: ■ Rezoning ■ Planned Development ■ Major Subdivision ■ Growth Management Quota System (for Affordable Housing development standards) 1 IX.b ■ 8040 Greenline ■ Transportation and Parking ■ Residential Design Standards (Multifamily) The application also addresses the proposed approach to school land dedication and impact fees along with any other standards or related review requirements within the Code. A signed letter from the City of Aspen Attorney, disclosing the Ownership of the property as the City of Aspen and giving the right to the Applicant to apply for the development review on its behalf is included as Exhibit 5 in Appendix A. A signed letter by the Applicant, authorizing Method Planning + Development to represent the Applicant in the application development, submittal and proceedings of the land use review is provided as Exhibit 6 in Appendix A. The Land Use Application Form, the Agreement for Fee Payment Form, the Dimensional Requirement Form, and signed HOA Compliance are also provided in Appendix A as Exhibits 7- 10 respectively. As the Proposed Project is being developed in partnership with the City of Aspen, the Applicant is requesting a fifty percent (50%) waiver for Community Development review fees as allowed for under the Code for any City Projects that are Non -General Fund Projects (Exhibit 11, Appendix A). The application deposit will be provided at the point of determination that the application is complete. Lastly, as the Proposed Project will be reviewed before the Planning and Zoning Commission (the "P&Z") and the City Council (the "Council"), a signed and notarized Affidavit of Public Notice Form will be furnished, along with an accompanying list of all property, mineral rights owners and government agencies to be noticed by mail, at the point of posting, publishing and mailing of the required noticing pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Code. Exhibit 12 in Appendix A is a signed letter outlining the process undertaken to confirm that no minerals estates owners are required to be noticed as part of this land use application and associated reviews and public hearings. This application packet is organized in sections to provide the reviewer(s) with easy reference to the requested material included in the following sections: ■ History and Existing Conditions on the property and any previous approvals as well as the documentation of any correspondence that has occurred between the Applicant and the Community Development Department and other City Departments; 2 P302 P303 Mb ■ Proposed Project Description outlining the scope of the proposed development and how the requested rezoning relates to the surrounding neighborhood and all supporting descriptions, calculations and illustrations relevant to the application review; and ■ Regulatory Review Requirements identifying how the rezoning and development proposed through this application are compliant with the relevant Chapters of the Code, and that satisfy the Public Project review before P&Z and Council. Where otherwise not embedded in the body of this application, all related material, site and design documents for the reviews are included in appendices at the back of this packet. Specifically, the proposed Planned Development Plan Set, including the draft PD Survey Plat in accordance with Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form of the Code, are located in Appendix C of this application. II. PROPERTY HISTORY & EXISTING CONDITIONS A. History and Background Situated on the northeast side of Castle Creek Road, approximately one-half (1/2) miles for the traffic circle at the entrance to Aspen, the 488 Castle Creek road property has seen modest residential development beginning in the late 1970s, which is no longer present today. In 2007 the City of Aspen acquired the Property with funds from the Housing Fund for the purpose of developing affordable housing. Since purchasing the Property, the City has gone through numerous studies and conducted extensive outreach in order to assess the needs and type of affordable housing that would ultimately be best suited for the Property. Specific to this initial outreach, the community was presented with three (3) comparative development scenarios entailing thirty-two (32) units, twenty-four (24) units and sixteen (16) units — all 1 -bedroom rental apartments of 700 square feet each. The results showed little to no pushback on the higher density scenarios from the overall public, but it was suggested that there may be some concerns from residents further up Castle Creek Road who may be sensitive to the appearance of the development as they pass by on Castle Creek Road. In 2016, the takeaways from these studies and outreach efforts culminated with the City's issuance of a request for proposals (RFPs) from qualified developers for the 3 Mb planning, design and construction of the Property into affordable rental housing. The RFP noted that a request for re -zoning should include information for use by City Council, which would provide an understanding of the increased amount of residential floor area and quantity of dwelling units above the maximum allowed under the Property's current zoning. In addition to the rezoning considerations, the REP required the presentation of a thoughtful design that would allow the 488 Castle Creek Road Property to be utilized for a high level of taxpayer value, while also addressing the concerns of nearby neighbors by complementing the fabric of the existing neighborhood. The proposals were also encouraged to demonstrate considerations related to increased neighborhood density, such as access, parking, transportation and any other impacts. The Applicant's proposal and project team were selected first by an RFP committee and then approved by City Council to enter into the outreach and planning phases for carrying out the development of the Property into affordable rental housing in partnership with the City of Aspen. B. Existing Approvals The 488 Castle Creek Road Property went through Lot Split proceedings and the adoption of a Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement in 2016, in order to create two (2) legal lots from the previously existing single lot. These prevailing governing approvals are were granted through Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006 and memorialized through the Subdivision and PUD Agreement provided as Exhibits 4 and 3 in Appendix A respectively. The current PD Agreement is a site-specific development plan that allows for a 3,344 square foot single-family residence on the 11,255 square foot Lot 1. Lot 2 is 24,640 square foot and is limited to a 3,515 square foot single family free-market residence, while also requiring a deed restricted, for sale Category 7 detached single-family residential unit with a minimum floor area of 2,000 sf. The maximum combined floor area of Lot 2 is 5,015 square feet. Vehicular access for both lots is required be provided by a shared driveway easement. In order to develop the proposed affordable housing project, the Applicant is requesting to rezone the Property to Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD), along with other land use reviews required under the Code. Rezoning to AH/PD requires lH P304 P305 IX.b the adoption of a Final PD Development Plan through a Planned Development review pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Code. Rezoning to AH/PD requires the adoption of a Final PD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445, which includes both Project Review and Detailed Review. This includes a public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council review for Project Review and an additional public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission for Detailed Review. Additionally, and concurrent to the two step review process for rezoning to AH/PD, the two lots would need to undergo Major Subdivision review in order to merge them back into one lot. The abandonment of vehicular access easement will also be considered as part of the Planned Development and Subdivision reviews. Upon approval of the proposed Planned Development, a drafted and agreed upon Planned Development Plat, PD Plan Set and Planned Development Agreement will be recorded with Pitkin County Clerk. These recorded documents will become the prevailing governing land use entitlements for the Property, superseding all existing approval documents, and used for building permit review and any other necessary reviews associated with the development, including financing and operations of the Proposed Project. C. Existing Property Conditions The 488 Castle Creek property is currently zoned R -15A, Moderate -Density Residential and is located near the edge of the City of Aspen boundary, but within the urban growth boundary. The Property is 35,895 square feet of total land area and is currently vacant. A single curb cut providing prior access at the northwest portion of its triangular shape is accessed off of a broadly sweeping curve in Castle Creek Road. Evidence of clearing and grading the Property dates back to the 1950s, while it is generally known to have contained modest residential development, consisting of a single level residence with a garden unit below, starting in the late 1970s. The existing topography of the site consists of a relatively flat bench comprising two-thirds (2/3) of the Property that fronts Castle Creek Road. The Property then steeply slopes away to the north and south, with approximately one-third (1/3) of the total lot area comprised of slopes steeper than thirty - (30) degrees. The front yard facing Castle Creek Road is relatively flat, unvegetated and unimproved, however a significant stand of gable oak and other tree species provides a G IX.b buffer of approximately fifteen (15) feet in width between the edge of the road and the front property line. The side and rear yards facing the north and east and oriented towards the Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing complex ("Marolt Ranch") are within the steep slopes that fall away from the upper bench of the Property adjacent to Castle Creek road. The vegetation of these areas is predominantly scrub oak and similar low growing tree species. The Geotechnical Engineering Report conducted by H-P/Kumar and provided as Exhibit 4 in Appendix B, concludes that the soil structure and percolation qualities of the existing soil composition at the Property are adequate for development. It is noted that the site's subsoils consist of approximately four to five (4 -5) feet of man -placed fill overlying silty sandy gravel and cobbles and boulders. The Report also provides recommendations for structural design and civil engineering design based on the current design and building location of the Proposed Project. The Phase I Environmental Assessment conducted by H -P Kumar and provided as Exhibit 5 in Appendix B, concludes that the assessment revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (REQ in connection with the Property. The context of the surrounding area is a mix public, affordable residential and multifamily uses. These area uses are comprised of zone districts including but not limited to Public (PUB), Residential Multifamily (RMF) and Moderate Density Residential (R-15), many of which have PD overlays to allow for a variety of uses including affordable housing. The specific surrounding area properties are the Aspen Valley Hospital complex, the affordable rental Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing facility, and the Castle Ridge, Mountain Oaks Water Place and Oak Ridge affordable housing complexes. Section III.F of this application includes a Neighborhood Zoning and Land Use Context map that depicts and further describes the extensive amount of multifamily and affordable residential uses that surround the Property. D. Public and Neighborhood Outreach Prior to the submittal of this land use application, the Applicant has conducted a public outreach campaign over the previous six (6) months. As the 488 Castle Creek project is one (1) of three (3) affordable housing projects being proposed by the Applicant, the open houses addressed the other two (2) properties as well. The Outreach Process, 31 P306 P307 IX.b Goals and Schedule area attached as Exhibit 1 in Appendix B of this application (note: although the outreach process was followed and completed in its entirety per the attached Exhibit, certain dates adjusted as well as additional meetings before City Council in work session format occurred above and beyond the process and schedule outlined). In summary, and pursuant to Section 26.304.035 of the Code, the project team hosted four (4) informational meetings and open houses with the community at large, which were advertised in local papers, on public radio and byway of Grassroots broadcasting. Posters and flyers were also hung around town and flyers distributed announcing the events. The outreach entailed a real-time informational website that was updated throughout the process and allowed visitors to provided comment, feedback or contact the project team directly by email of phone. Mailings and notices were furnished to all neighbors within proximity to the project sites. In total, over 500 participants attended the community wide open houses. Intermittently and as requested, the team also hosted breakout meetings and site visits with key neighborhood stakeholders associated with each of the properties. Specific to the 488 Castle Creek Road project, additional meetings and material exchanges occurred with certain area stakeholders that engage the project team for additional dialogue and information. As the amount of presentation material and various means by which it was provided are significant, the Applicant, upon request by the reviewers of this application, can furnish any/all of said material. Following each major milestone of the outreach process, the project team, along with a representative from City staff, presented the findings to City Council during work sessions. The presentations included the data gathered from the various events and meetings, and an analysis of the takeaways and findings. City Council then provided the project team and City staff with specific direction for next steps in the outreach process in advance of the development and submittal of this land use application. As the amount of data and reporting documentation is significant, the Applicant, upon request by the reviewers of this application, can furnish any/all said material. 7 Mb III. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section of the application presents and describes all aspects of the Proposed Project as it relates to the relevant Code standards and requirements, including the scope of the proposed development and how the requested rezoning relates to the surrounding neighborhood, as well as all supporting descriptions, calculations and illustrations relevant to the application review. A. General Project Summary The Proposed Affordable Housing Project at 488 Castle Creek Road is a ten (10) -unit deed restricted apartment complex that is to be financed and operated under the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit ("LIHTC") program. The Project is to be developed under a joint Public Private Partnership (the "PPP") between the City of Aspen, the Owner, and the private development entity, Aspen Housing Partners LLC, the Applicant. The Applicant will form an entity to develop and operate the project (the "Development Entity") that will be funded with equity that is sourced through the Federal Affordable Housing Tax Credit program, as well as all required construction and permanent debt. The City of Aspen, through its affordable housing fund, will supply any gap funding necessary as a subordinate loan to the Development Entity. The Development Entity will be responsible for constructing, leasing — in a to be determined partnership with APCHA — operating and maintaining the Project for 15 years. During that time, members of the Applicant will provide all necessary financing guarantees as well as all cost over -runs / operating shortfalls. In addition, all units that are set aside as tax credit units will be restricted to tenants making no more than 60% of the Pitkin County median income. After this initial period, the City has the right to reestablish the LIHTC financing through an extension of the PPP, initiate the right reserved to operate the facility solely under the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (the "APCHA") guidelines, or initiate the right reserved to convert the units to deed restricted condominium units for sale to qualified purchasers under the APCHA guidelines. The deed restriction regarding affordability will be a perpetual and will not be affected by the options outlined above. The City and the Applicant will establish all deed restrictions and categorical designations at a point following land use reviews, approvals and the issuance of a P309 IX.b development order. The details of the deed restriction and categorical designations will be memorialized through the Planned Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant in accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, of the Code. To accomplish the development of the Proposed Project, the R -15A zoned Property with a PD overlay will need to be rezoned to a zone district that allows for a multifamily land use. The subdivided lots that comprise the Property will also need to be merged back into one (1) lot. The following subsections of this application section present and describe the details of the Proposed Project in accordance with the applicable standards, guideline and calculations as provided for in the Code. In turn, and following review and approval, the project details proposed herein will become the governing development standards and limits for the Property as established through the Planned Development review and adoption. Lastly, the final subsection of this application section presents and describes how the proposed details and resulting multifamily project are compatible with surrounding land use patterns, zone districts and neighborhood characteristics, ultimately providing the basis for rezoning the Property to Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD). B. Site Planning and Landscape Design The most notable site characteristic of the 488 Castle Creek Road Property is the considerable steep slopes at the north and east facing sides of the triangular shaped Property. As depicted in the Property Improvement Survey (provided in Exhibit 1 of Appendix C) the existing topography of the site consists of a relatively flat bench adjacent to the existing curb cut to the north off of Castle Creek Road. Moving away from the front property boundary, the site drops away towards the north and east property boundaries, down to the equivalent elevation of Marolt to the east and the pedestrianibicycle path to the north. As it is generally understood that the sloping areas above Marolt are partially manmade and partially naturally occurring, the site plan is designed to make use of the sloping area and take advantage of the upper and lower areas of the site for efficient walkout conditions and access to grade, while also preserving portions of the site for open space and outdoor areas. 7 IX.b Situated between portions of the Marolt Open Space, the Marolt Housing complex and the scenic Castle Creek Road, the site design and building location seeks to integrate the proposed affordable housing complex and related elements into the site and especially the surrounding existing conditions and area contexts to the greatest degree possible. An illustrative site plan and technical site plan for the Proposed Project are provided for reference in Exhibits 2 and 3 of Appendix C of this application respectively. 1. Site and Landscape Design The triangular lot encourages a multifamily building location in a manner that acknowledges the importance of a significant front setback off of the scenic Castle Creek Road right-of-way to the west. With the intent of setting the building away from Castle Creek Road and minimizing the mass and scale from this perspective, the building footprint is pushed to the far northeastern corner of the Property. Equally important, is the building's relationship to the Marolt Ranch seasonal housing complex below and to the east. These predominant considerations have resulted in a site design the pushes the building down into the sloping features of the Property. This integration of the building into the sloping portions of the site reduces the mass and scale of the building's west -facing fagade. Utilizing the existing sloping features of the Property, the positioning of the building down the slope, establishes a more appropriate relationship with the Marolt buildings to the east. With pedestrian access to an at -grade walkout condition and entry decks/porches from the lower level units, the east -facing lower portion of the building functions more as a front door to Marolt Ranch, addressing the existing neighboring buildings at a human scale as well as any future redevelopment that may occur on the Marolt property. With the location of the building footprint to the rear corner of the triangular lot away from Castle Creek Road, the site design creates an inner courtyard condition to the west of the building footprint, with pedestrian circulation and private outdoor areas adjacent to the on - grade unit entrances, and parking oriented towards the road and in proximity to the existing curb cut from the public right-of-way. Guided by the Code standards for typical multifamily projects, along with the described site conditions and patterns of development in the surrounding area, the 10 P310 P311 Mb building footprint is oriented towards the back of the site away from the Castle Creek Road right-of-way, maintaining the existing twenty-five foot (25') front yard setback. As currently proposed, the actual building is setback over fifty feet (50') from the front setback. As a result of the steep slopes to the northeast of the Property and the depth of the building setback, the only feasible location for parking is between the front property boundary and the building footprint. To maintain and enhance the vegetative buffer between Castle Creek Road and the parking area, a curb and site wall have been incorporated into the site design in order to retain the existing grade change between the buffer and the existing flat bench below. This will allow for the parking to be located as much as ten feet (10') below the street level and provide for adequate area to maintain the existing vegetation and further enhance the visual buffer with additional native revegetation mix and extensive new tree plantings. This planting restoration and enhancements are presented as part of Exhibit 2 in Appendix C. The specific details, arrangement and the associated planning and design of the parking area is described in Section III.E and presented in Exhibit 6, 7 and 8 of Appendix B and Exhibits 2 and 3 of Appendix C of this application. As depicted in the illustrative site plan in Exhibit 2 of Appendix C, the vehicular access to the site is maintained from the existing single curb cut off of Castle Creek Road. Upon entry to the site, an architectural trash and recycling structure provides easy access for residents as well as service vehicles. Ten (10) parallel parking stalls are positioned adjacent to the site wall and curb along the front property line. Nineteen (19) additional stalls are parked head -in across a (20') drive lane from the parallel spots to the northeast. A curb and ADA compliant five-foot (5') wide sidewalk provides uniform pedestrian access from the parking area to the front courtyard of the site design. As this sidewalk extends west it transitions from an ADA compliant five-foot (5') wide sidewalk to a six-foot (6') wide sidewalk and engages the Castle Creek right-of-way in order to provide formal and safe pedestrian access down Castle Creek Road to the trail cross walk and bus stop to the north. It should be noted that the project team understands that the details of this right-of-way sidewalk may change depending on input from City of Aspen Engineering Department. Furthermore, the 11 Mb Project team has held numerous meetings with City of Aspen and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails discussing the potential Castle Creek Road trail alignment and design. If/when a trail alignment supersedes the need for the currently proposed right- of-way sidewalk or any other considerations related to off-site improvements adjacent to the Property, the Project team will continue to work with other City and County Departments to modify said off-site improvements to accommodate a new trail adjacent to the Property. From the circulation sidewalk adjacent to the parking area, the courtyard is penetrated by secondary pathways that are ADA compliant and provide access to the building's primary circulation core and individual access to each of the ground level units. On approach to the building from the parking lot, the landscape features mimic the architecture of the building byway as a reference to a Bauhaus landscape design that entails an organic combination of natural features and programmatic elements such as pathways, patios and communal areas. Corten walls in combination with sculpted landforms pay homage to the Bauhaus inspired landscape, while also providing the function of creating individual patio areas for the homeowners and communal lawn area for lounging and picnics. Raised planters provide mass plantings of seasonal interest and create privacy for homeowners and additional screening. Additional trees are proposed in the landscape areas, to provide shade to the proposed private patio areas and are intentionally positioned to further screen the building from Castle Creek Road and enhance the natural character of the site similar to that of the surrounding area. Similarly, to the northwest and southeast of the front site area, significant new tree plantings are proposed on the downhill side of the parking and courtyard area. These tree plantings will also screen any required site retaining walls as well as the broad sides of the building ends from Castle Creek view lines approaching the building from either direction. With only three (3) property boundaries to the triangular shaped lot, a five foot (5') set back along both the side yard to the north and the rear yard to the east are maintained as currently provided in the existing subdivision plat for the Property. Both of these areas are at the toe of the sloping condition along each of these property 12 P312 P313 Mb lines. As described previously in this application, a critical design consideration at each of these areas is to create pedestrian access to an at -grade walkout conditions for the lower level, partially buried units. The intent of this design consideration is to allow the mass of the building to recess into the sloped areas of the site, reducing the height and scale from both the Castle Creek Road and the Marolt Ranch perspective. Furthermore, With generous front decks and walkways, and the opportunity for connecting these lower level units to the Marolt Open Space and trail to the north, this lower side of the site design serves as a secondary front door of the building as it address Marolt Ranch today and any potential future redevelopment that may occur on the Marolt property. 2. Site Calculations As noted, the overall site area of the Property is 35,895 sq. ft. To provide detail to the proposed AH/PD development standards, the following calculations have been established in accordance with the Code. Due to the steep slopes at the north and east portions of the site, the gross lot area is reduced by areas over twenty percent (20%) and thirty percent (30%) in accordance with Section 26.575.020.0 of the Code. Initial site calculation shows that approximately 11,845 square feet of lot area is more than 20% and/or 30% slope in accordance with the calculation provided in the referenced section of the Code. As a result, the net lot area for the purposes of determining allowable floor area is reduced in accordance to the following calculation: 35,895 sq. ft. (gross area) — 675 sq. ft. (fifty percent of sloped areas between 20% and 30%) —11,170 sq. ft. (100% of sloped areas steeper than 30%) 24,050 sq. ft. Net Lot Area For the purposes of determining maximum allowable floor area, the net lot area has been preliminarily calculated at 24,050 square feet. 13 IX.b Pursuant to Section 26.575.020.G, the Site Coverage of the Project is 6,966 sq. ft. which is approximately 19.4% of the gross lot area. As the project is at a conceptual design level for the purposes of land use reviews, this application is requesting that a ten percent (10%) increase be allowed and memorialized as the maximum limit for Site Coverage. As a result, the requested Site Coverage is proposed at 7,663 sq. ft. or 21 % of the total site area. Establishing a standard for the amount of Open Space to be provided, as part of the Proposed Project's AH/PD development standards, is also required. In accordance with the definition of Open Space in Section 26.104.100 of the Code, the current conceptual site design results in approximately 18,104 sq. ft. of Open Space, or 50% of the site area. Similar to and for the same reasons as the above request for Site Coverage flexibility, the Applicant is requesting that the Open Space area is established at an amount 10% less than currently calculated at this conceptual level. The resulting Open Space area to be proposed as part of the AH/PD development standards is 16,294 sq. ft. or 45% of the total site area. 3. Site and Exterior Lighting Minimal site lighting is proposed in accordance with the requirements in the City's lighting code. With the intent to respect the current experiences of the neighboring properties, the Proposed Project strongly complies with the City's night sky initiatives. Positioned along a significant scenic corridor, a minimal amount of building and site lighting have been introduced in order to meet code -minimum requirements for building and pathway lighting. The exterior lighting plan is provided in Exhibit 2 of Appendix C. The building is outfitted with minimal wall sconce down lighting, all of which meet Code compliant standards, which are integrated into the building's architecture for the purposes of providing convenience lighting at areas of function, circulation and building entry. Within the site design, two bollard lights are proposed to define the access point off of the parking area and circulation sidewalk, serving the dual purpose of safety and adequate pedestrian way finding. Additional down lit pathway strip lighting is proposed within the courtyard and along each of the individual access 14 P314 P315 Mb pathways for the primary purpose of providing safety and defining the courtyard circulation. C. Civil Engineering Design The Project's Civil Engineer has completed preliminary utility assessments, obtained letters to serve where applicable, and has completed a preliminary drainage report, engineering report and design in accordance with City of Aspen Engineering standards and Land Use Code requirements. The following section describes the takeaways of the reports provided as Exhibit 2 and 3 of Appendix B and the Engineering Plan set provided as Exhibit 3 in Appendix C. 1. Utilities The Property currently has a water service connection from the main water line within the twenty-five (25) foot water service easement on the Property. It is assume that this existing service line can be abandoned and a new eight (8) inch service line take its place in order to provide adequate service to the building, a fire hydrant and any other service requirements. No additional offsite water infrastructure upgrades are understood to be necessary at this point. If determined that any upgrades to the water utility are required, the Applicant will take responsibility for those upgrades at its sole cost. Individual meters and shutoff valves will be installed for each unit per the energy conservation goals of this project. No sewer service connection line currently exists on the Property, and a new service line will be required to be installed and connected to the main service line in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way. Lower level units will be required to be pumped to the main level elevation and the project service line can be gravity fed into the main line in the right-of-way. If determined that any upgrades, line extensions or existing secondary line upgrades are necessary to provide service to the Proposed Project, the Applicant will take responsibility for those upgrades at its sole cost. In terms of electrical, communication and gas utility service, the nearest transformer and utilities pedestals are located near the intersection of Doolittle Drive 15 Mb and Castle Creek Road. A common trench with all shallow utilities will be constructed along Castle Creek road to the north, and tie into the existing utilities at this location. The Project Civil Engineer expects that the existing transformer will need to be upgraded. If confirmed that any upgrades to these utilities are required, the Applicant will take responsibility for those upgrades at its sole cost. Individual gas meters and shutoff valves will be installed for each unit per the energy conservation goals of this Project. 2. Stormwater and Drainage The City of Aspen Engineering standards require that properties that are not connected into the storm system curb and gutter to have capacity for either a 100 year storm with an overflow or full detention. This site does not connect to the storm system, however it is uphill from the existing Marolt Ranch seasonal housing structures. Due to these structures downhill of the site, full detention capacity will likely be necessary. Capacity for full detention of the proposed surfaces would require multiple large drywells. Alternative or a combination of alternative options will be considered, such as Silva Cell detention systems, pervious patios and parking, and large infiltration beds in order to meet full detention on the Property. 3. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter All sidewalks and walkways associated with the Project will be ADA compliant. The sidewalk entering the site from Castle Creek Road is proposed as an attached six- foot (6') wide concrete sidewalk with a two -and -one -half -foot curb and gutter. This six-foot (6') wide section of sidewalk will connect the Proposed Project to the bus stop and multiuse Marolt trail approximately two hundred feet (200') to the north of the site. The on-site parking area of the Proposed Project will be surrounded by one - and -one -half -foot (1.5') spill curb and gutter as all drainage will be collected in a valley pan in the parking area. On the building (east) side of the parking area, a five- foot (5') wide concrete sidewalk will be attached to the back of curb. All interior site walkways will be four -feet (4') wide and constructed of pervious pavers. 16 P316 P317 Mb D. Building and Architectural Design The building and architectural design of the Proposed Affordable Housing Project has been guided by the existing site conditions, the area -wide context and the uses of the immediate properties surrounding the Property. The proposed building consists of twenty- eight (28) residential units — ten (10) two-bedroom units and eighteen (18) one -bedroom units — along with storage, circulation and mechanical areas. This program is spread across a three (3) -story above grade "L" shaped building configuration, with a partially buried lower level below. The primary storage and mechanical areas of the building are within the three vertical circulation cores, the central of which also has a elevator for convenience and ADA accessibility. It is important to note that the building's architecture and layout overall and the individual units specifically, are designed to be flexible between a variety of user groups. All pathways, walkways and access points meet or exceed ADA requirements and the elevator provides full access to all but four (4) units in the building. With close proximity to the hospital complex and senior services, the building's design takes into consideration the potential for elderly or retirees to make residence at the Proposed Project. The building design also provides amenities for convenience for all other potential user groups, from single tenants to young families. As described in the above Section ILC of this application, the surrounding area is comprised primarily of deed restricted affordable multifamily residential uses. The architectural character of the surrounding area is varied, consisting of a mix of era architectural styles on the properties to the west, north and east. The Property borders Pitkin County to the south, which begins a pattern of large lot single-family residences further up Castle Creek Road. South of the All building and architectural design material is provided as Exhibit 4 in Appendix C. The following subsections describe the building layout and the architectural style of the Proposed Project. 1. Sustainability The Proposed Project will achieve a high-level of sustainable design and obtain recognition through a variety of potential accreditation programs. Included in the general design approach, along with the commitment the project team is making during the detailed design and construction phases, the site and building designs will 17 IX.b take advantage of any/all multimodal design best practices, passive design opportunities, and include as appropriate any high efficiency and non-fossil fuel mechanical systems, low VOC paint and materials, photovoltaic arrays and any other sustainable building practices that can be implemented. The project team will work closely with the City of Aspen Building Department during construction and permit document preparation in order to select the most appropriate and preferable systems designs, implementation and respective programs to follow. 2. Main Level The Main Level of the Proposed Project, which is on the grade with the Castle Creek Road public right-of-way, is organized towards the rear of the site, as described in greater detail in Section III.B above. The main level serves as the "front door" of the Project from the public realm and parking area perspective, with direct and clear access to unit entries as well as vertical circulation areas. Pedestrian access off the sidewalk occurs at three (3) primary locations each oriented towards the vertical circulation cores. The central circulation area that serves as the main common area of the building is effectively open with deck above and contains stairs to the upper levels and lower level as well as an elevator to all levels, along with storage areas and other common elements. The remaining balance of the Main Level consists two (2) additional stair, storage and mechanical cores, and eight (8) residential units — three (3) two-bedroom and five (5) one -bedroom units. Each unit facing the interior courtyard has a front entry porch area or stoop that faces Castle Creek Road, reinforcing a connection between the front doors of each unit and the public realm to the west. Each unit also has an elevated deck to the north or east, maximizing the quality of life and outdoor living opportunities for the residents. As depicted in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C, the interior design of each of the individual Main Level units are designed with open floor plans, taking advantage of the two well -fenestrated exterior walls to maximize day -lighting and ventilation in the primary living areas of the units. Designed with generous bedroom layouts, two (2) bathrooms, mud/laundry rooms and ample in -unit storage, IN P318 P319 IX.b these units will provide the residents with exceptional living experiences, which is a key tenet and guiding principle of the Proposed Project. The floor areas for the Main Level consist of 5,767 sq. ft. of net livable area and a total floor area of 6,931 sq. ft. spread between the interior building uses of this level and applicable to the floor area definition pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Code. A more detailed floor area summary is provided in the below subsection III.D.6 of this application. 3. Lower Level The Lower Level of the Proposed Project is one of the most important design considerations with the building's architecture and the related site design. As described elsewhere in this application, the architecture and building location is integrated into the steep slopes at the north and east of the Property in order to achieve a front door condition and access to an at -grade walkout condition for the units on the Main Level as well as the Lower Level. Recessing the building into the site also presents the Lower Level as a secondary front to the building as it addresses the Marolt Ranch buildings. The layout of the Lower Level matches that of the Main Level with three (3) two-bedroom and five (5) one -bedroom units. The remaining area of this level consists of the three (3) vertical circulation cores along with storage areas and mechanical area. The central circulation area is enclosed and contains the elevator and general circulation providing ADA accessibility to the front doors of each of the Lower Level units. The front doors of each of the units on this level are connected by a combination of on grade walkways and front porches. This important connection element serves multiple purposes — it provides circulation, interest and appeal from the north and east directions, and allows for generous front porches at the entry of each of the units. The at -grade walkout locations also allow a secondary connection point from the Lower Level units to the Marolt open space and trail to the north. The design team focused on this opportunity and adjusted finish floor elevations elsewhere to ensure that this connection could be achieved in order to encourage the use of the trail and bus stop instead of vehicular transportation to and from the Property. 19 IX.b As depicted in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C, the interior design of each of the Lower Level units are designed with open floor plans, orienting the main living area and bedroom adjacent to the north and east fenestration walls in order to maximize day - lighting and ventilation in the primary living areas of the units. The organization and relationship to the outdoor courtyard beyond are key considerations in overcoming the partially buried nature of the Lower Level units. The two-bedroom units will have a light well to provide day -lighting as well as emergency egress from the second bedroom. Designed with generous bedroom layouts, one (1) bathroom, mud/laundry rooms and ample in -unit storage, these units will provide the residents with exceptional living experiences, which is a key tenet and guiding principle of the Proposed Project. The floor areas for the Lower Level consist of 5,477 sq. ft. of net livable area and a total floor area of 7,106 sq. ft. spread between the interior building uses of this level and applicable to the floor area definition pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Code. A more detailed floor area summary is provided in the below subsection III.D.5 of this application. 4. Second Level Similar to the Main Level, the Second Level consists of eight (8) units. Access to this level is provided via the three (3) vertical circulation cores, with the central circulation area providing elevator access to half of the units on this level. To achieve the City and community's goals of including a balanced mix of two-bedroom units in the building program, the Second Level presented an opportunity to include four (4) two-bedroom units in addition to four (4) one -bedroom units. This consideration eliminated the ability to get elevator access and circulation to all eight (8) units on this level, however all units are Code compliant for access and emergency egress. The central circulation area providing access to the four (4) middle units also contains storage areas and front entry deck conditions facing the courtyard below and the Castle Creek Road public realm. The secondary stair cores providing access to the four (4) remaining units are also outfitted with storage areas specific to those units. 20 P320 P321 IX.b As depicted in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C, the interior design of each of the individual Second Level units are designed with open floor plans, taking advantage of the two well -fenestrated exterior walls to maximize day -lighting and ventilation for the bedroom and primary living areas. An elevated deck is located of the living areas of each of the units, maximizing the quality of life and outdoor living opportunities for the residents while providing exceptional views in each of the respective directions. Designed with generous bedroom layouts, one (1) bathroom, mud/laundry rooms and ample in -unit storage, these units will provide a high quality of life for the residents, which is a key tenet and guiding principle of the Proposed Project. The floor areas for the Upper Level consist of 6,045 sq. ft. of net livable area and a total floor area of 7,231 sq. ft. spread between the interior building uses of this level and applicable to the floor area calculation definition pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Code. A more detailed floor area summary is provided in the below subsection III.D.5 of this application. 5. Upper Level The floor plate of the Upper Level is recessed into the building mass, setback from the side and rear elevations in order to minimize the perception of flat multistory building fagades in these areas. As a result, the Upper Level consists of four (4) one - bedroom units, all adjacent to and accessed from the central vertical circulation core, satisfying all Code requirements for ADA accessibility and emergency egress. Similar to the lower levels, the central circulation area also provides non -unit storage for the use the residents on this level. Each unit is accessed by an exterior circulation deck that provides generous outdoor living areas, while also further breaking up the upper level fagades, adding visual interest from the surrounding area perspectives. As depicted in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C, the interior design of each of the individual Second Level units are designed with open floor plans, taking advantage of the two well -fenestrated exterior walls to maximize day -lighting and ventilation for the bedroom and primary living areas. An elevated deck is located of the living areas of each of the units, maximizing the quality of life and outdoor living opportunities for the residents while providing exceptional views in each of the respective 21 Mb directions. Designed with generous bedroom layouts, one (1) bathroom, mud/laundry rooms and ample in -unit storage, these units will provide a high quality of life for the residents, which is a key tenet and guiding principle of the Proposed Project. The floor areas for the Upper Level consist of 2,642 sq. ft. of net livable area and a total floor area of 2,915 sq. ft. spread between the interior building uses of this level and applicable to the floor area calculation definition pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Code. A more detailed floor area summary is provided in the below subsection III.D.5 of this application. 6. Floor Area Calculations The following floor area calculations for the Proposed Project are based on the current architectural floor plans provided in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C. The floor area diagrams in this Exhibit for determining floor area ratio (FAR) and net livable area (NLA) are based on the measurement methodologies provided in Sections 26.575.020.D and 26.575.020.I of the Code respectively. The FAR calculations will be used to establish the maximum residential floor area allowed under the proposed Planned Development. The NLA calculations are provided to establish a basis for the amount of non -mitigation affordable housing full time equivalents (FTEs) that will be created out of the Proposed Project. As the project is at a conceptual design level for the purposes of land use reviews, this application is requesting that a ten percent (10%) increase be allowed and memorialized as the maximum limit for both FAR and NLA floor area. The request is made due to the conceptual level of the current design and the fact that any final and detailed determinations of floor area applicable to FAR calculations have yet to be determined beyond a conceptual level. It should be noted that the 110% request for floor area would still render those amounts significantly below the allowed FAR for the Property under the AH/PD zoning standards. As described above, a summary of the total building floor area calculations broken out across the four (4) levels of the Proposed Project, pursuant to the definition of floor area in Section 26.104.100 of the Code, are as follows: 22 P322 P323 IX.b • Lower Level Building Floor Area: 7,106 sq. ft. • Main Level Building Floor Area: 6,931 sq. ft. • Second Level Building Floor Area: 7,231 sq. ft. • Upper Level Building Floor Area: 2,915 sq. ft. • Total Building Floor Area: 24,183 sq. ft. These calculations are measured from the outside of any exterior wall of the building and contain all floor area within each of the four (4) levels. As described above, this application is requesting an approval for a floor area amount ten percent (10%) above this current conceptual level calculation. Although not specifically a standard under the proposed AH/PD, the relative building floor area of the Proposed Project would not exceed 26,601 sq. ft. The total allowable floor area is limited by the prescribed FAR of 1:1 under the AH/PD zone district standards. With a gross site area of 35,895 sq. ft., and a net site area of 24,768 sq. ft., the respective allowable floor area for the Property is 24,768 sq. ft. The following floor area summary is broken out by building use and takes into account the methodology for calculating the Project's applicable allowable floor area pursuant Section 26.575.020.D of the Code: • Affordable Housing Unit Floor Area: 19,139 sq. ft. • Interior Stair/Circulation/Mechanical Area: 2,476 sq. ft. • Storage Area: 606 sq. ft. • Area of Overhangs beyond 4': 318 sq. ft. • Decks. Balconies. Exterior Stairways and Porches: 0 sa. ft. • Total Floor Area Applicable to FAR: 21,659 sq. ft. As described above, this application is requesting an approval for an allowable floor area that is ten percent (10%) above this current conceptual level calculation. It is therefore requested that the allowable floor area of the Proposed Project's AH/PD be limited to 23,824 sq. ft. or a FAR of 0.99:1 per net lot area. The following Table 01 provides a detailed calculation summary of the respective building floor area and allowable FAR floor area calculations for the Proposed Project. 23 IX.b Table 01. Proposed Floor Area Calculations Proposed Zoning: AH/PD Property Zoning & Existing Conditions Total Area (sq. ft.) Gross Site Area 35,895 Net Site Area 24,050 Allowable Overall FAR (1:1) 24,050 Percentage of exposed Lower Level Area 60% 15% of FAR floor area for decks, balconies, exterior stairs & porches 3,607 Building Levels Building Use Sq. Feet Level #-1 (Lower Level) AH Residential 5,983 Interior Stairs/Circulation/Mechanical 880 Storage 243 Overhangs beyond 4' 78 Decks, Balconies and Porches 119 Lower Level Building Floor Area 7,106 Level # -1 Floor Area including exteror elements 7,303 Level #1 (Main Level) AH Residential 6,201 Interior Stairs/Circulation/Mechanical 533 Storage 197 Overhangs beyond 4' 240 Decks, Balconies and Porches 450 Level # 1 Building Floor Area 6,931 Level # 1 Floor Area including exteror elements 7,621 Level # 2 (Second Level) AH Residential 6,499 Interior Stairs/Circulation/Mechanical 535 Storage 197 Overhangs beyond 4' 0 Decks, Balconies and Porches 1,088 Level # 2 Building Floor Area 7,231 Level #2 Floor Area including exteror elements 8,319 Level # 3 (Upper Level) AH Residential 2,849 Interior Stairs/Circulation/Mechanical 0 Storage 66 Overhangs beyond 4' 0 Decks, Balconies and Porches 1,107 Level # 3 Building Floor Area 2,915 Level # 3 Floor Area including exteror elements 4,022 Total Building Floor Area 24,183 Total Area of Overangs beyond 4' 318 Total Decks, Balconies, Exterior Stairways and Porches 2,764 Total Floor Area 27,265 Building Floor Area Summary* Use Floor Area Percentage of (sq. ft.) Total Affordable Housing Residential Floor Area 21,532 89% Interior Stairs/Circulation/Mechanical 1,948 8% Storage 703 3% Total Building Floor Area 24,183 100% Total Gross Floor Area + 10% 26,601 110% *does not adjust for partial subgrade FAR reduction or 15% for exterior areas IN - Applicable Floor Area Summary for FAR Use Floor Area Percentage of (sq. ft. Total Affordable Housing Residential Floor Area** 19,139 88% Interior Stairs/Circulation/Mechanical Area** 1,596 7% Storage Floor Area** 606 3% Area of Overhangs beyond 4' 318 1% Applicable Decks, Balconies, Exterior Stairways and Porches*** 0 0% Total FAR Floor Area 21,659 100% Total FAR Floor Area + 10% 23,824 110% **includes reduction of each respective Level #1 floor areas based on % of subgrade condition ***the total floor area for these elements does not exceed 15% of allowable FAR and therefore does not apply 24 P324 P325 IX.b The Net Livable Area for the Proposed Project is based on the methodology for calculating NLA pursuant to Section 26.575.020.I of the Code. The following summary provides the NLA for each of the three (3) levels of the Proposed Project: • Lower Level Net Livable Area: 5,477 sq. ft. • Main Level Net Livable Area: 5,767 sq. ft. • Second Level Net Livable Area: 6,045 sq. ft. • Upper Level Net Livable Area: 2,642 sq. ft. • Total Net Livable Area: 19,930 sq. ft. As described above, this application is requesting an approval for a net livable floor area that is ten percent (10%) above this current conceptual level calculation. It is therefore requested that the allowable floor area of the Proposed Project's AH/PD be limited to 21,923 sq. ft. For determining the total FTE count that this project would have the ability to offset for any applicable new development, the conversion factor of 400 sq. ft. per FTE is used: At Current Conceptual Level: 19,930 sq. ft. / 400 sq. ft. = 49.8 FTEs With 10% Increase: 21,923 sq. ft. / 400 sq. ft. = 54.8 FTEs 7. Building Mass, Scale and Architectural Character The Proposed Project's building mass, scale and architectural character have been developed to be compatible with surrounding area, site and environmental contexts, while achieving the communitywide goal of creating new affordable housing in areas that have appropriate land uses and zoning patterns for such developments. Specific to the Property's immediate surrounding influences, the massing and architecture have been designed to complement the multifamily residential character of the areas to the west, north and east, the institutional character to the north, as well as minimize the impact on the natural landscape that is the gateway to the scenic Castle Creek Road corridor. The architectural styling is generally modern, with clean lines and geometric forms not only referencing the natural forms of the surrounding and distant landscapes, but also making a slight gesture back to the Bauhaus movement in Aspen 25 IX.b in the 1940s and 1950s. To illustrate the various considerations related to building mass, scale and height, Exhibit 4 of Appendix C contains architectural roof plans, building elevations and perspective renderings to better understand the details described herein. As described in previous sections, the existing site topography presents an opportunity to utilize the sloping nature areas facing the north and east in order to recess the building into the hillside and reduce the overall mass and scale facing the primary Castle Creek Road public realm. This design approach allows the Castle Creek Road elevation of the building to be limited to thirty-two feet (32') from the perspective of the primary public realm adjacent to the Property, which is the height limit in the multifamily RMF zone district. As multifamily is a consistent land use in the surrounding area, there is also height, scale and mass precedent to the north on Castle Creek Road. Aspen Valley Hospital is up to four plus (4+) stories and 54 feet in height, and is located upon a hillside with unobstructed views from Castle Creek Road, Highway 82, the traffic circle and Marolt Open Space below. Similarly, the Aspen Valley Hospital employee -housing complex is situated on the crest of a hillside facing Highway 82, the traffic circle and Marolt Open Space and Castle Creek Road, with no screening or buffering. These structures are also 3 -stories and 33'-6" in height, scale and mass. A primary goal of the Project design team is to minimize the visual impact of the Proposed Project from the Castle Creek Road right- of-way. In doing so, the height of the building is stepped down at both of the west - facing ends of the "L" shaped building footprint to a height of approximately twenty- three feet (23') facing Castle Creek Road. Every attempt has been further made to minimize the form and mass of the building from Castle Creek Road so to not encroach on the horizon lines of Red Mountain and Smuggler Mountain in the background from this perspective. The street -facing fagades of the building are broken up in both the horizontal and vertical planes from this perspective in order to create interest and movement in the architectural design. Horizontally, the building has proud and recessed elements along both lengths of the street -facing building fagades. Similar movement occurs in the 26 P326 P327 IX.b vertical direction, with varied roof forms and heights across the fagades, and with the building stepping down to a two-story form as the lengths of the building approach Castle Creek Road. The materials and vernacular of the building is predominantly a mix of either wood siding or wooden rain screen, treated with a natural warm gray earth tone along with rust colored or painted corrugated metal siding that mimics the colors and tones of the far off Red and Smuggler Mountains. The entire base of the building, including the front Castle Creek Road perspective, is finished with either concrete or stucco with concrete texture, serving as an earthen plinth that supports the building forms above. The fenestration pattern is consistent and rhythmic, with large expanses of curtain wall glass on the prominent forms across the elevations, and understated horizontal openings on the secondary recessed forms. The rear -facing, downhill side of the building is also three -stories in height, with a recessed fourth story that makes up the third level on the front side of the building. Due to the sloping nature of the site, the downhill perimeter height of the building reaches a height of 42'-3" at the most restrictive northeast corner, while the two flanks of the building have a fairly consistent perimeter height of approximately thirty-six feet (36'), stepping down below thirty feet (30') at the two far ends of the building to the west and south. Where the building steps up to the recessed fourth story from this rear perspective, the Code compliant height measurement is approximately forty-three feet (43') as measured from the perimeter grade of the building. It is most critical to note that the actual perception of this height is much lower, due to the steep sloping nature of the site in this location. From preexisting grade directly below the fourth story, the actual height is only approximately thirty- six feet (36'). In other words, the perception of the height from the existing conditions would appear as thirty-six feet (36') higher than what exists today at that point on the site. Furthermore, from the downhill perspective at Marolt Ranch, the fourth level is only thirty-two (32') above the crest of the hill that makes up the bench of the Property, matching the height limit on the west facing Castle Creek Road side of the building. The roof plan provided in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C provides detailed heights at each area around the building as measured using the Measuring Building Heights methodology pursuant to 26.575.020.F of the Code. The height call outs on the 27 IX.b building elevations also provided in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C refer to the actual building heights above relative grade. The architectural character on the rear triangle sides of the building follows the same themes, style, materials and vernacular on the front side of the building. The lowest partially buried level is treated with the same concrete and stucco with concrete texture, to again serve as an earthen base to the building structure above. The walkout decks and walkways are cantilevered slightly above the sloping grade with open steel balustrades allowing for visual connection to the areas below. The rear north and east facing fagades are broken up in both the horizontal and vertical planes in order to create interest and movement in the architectural design. Horizontally, the building has proud and recessed elements along both lengths of the rear building fagades. As noted, before, to minimize the appearance of a four-story structure, the upper level is recessed and setback from the main building line below. Similar movement occurs in the vertical direction, with varied roof forms and heights across the fagades, with three-story forms at the northeast corner and as the lengths of the building approach the south and west. The materials and vernacular of the rear elevations are the same as the front, consisting of a mix of either wood siding or wooden rain screen treated with a natural warm gray earth tone along with the rust colored or painted corrugated metal siding. The upper level is predominantly veneered with the corrugated metal siding to offset it further from the building form below. The fenestration pattern is also consistent and rhythmic as on the front side, with large expanses of curtain wall glass on the prominent forms across the elevations, and understated horizontal openings on the secondary recessed forms. The due south and west facing side elevations of the building are two-story and step down the hill to three-story. As described previously, the heights at these building -end locations are approximately twenty-two feet (22') from the interior courtyard perspective and no more than thirty feet (30') from the downhill side at each end. Similar to elsewhere around the building, the lower, partially buried level is of the concrete and stucco composition, blending into the surrounding terrain, while the upper levels are predominantly veneered with the corrugated metal siding. The P328 P329 IX.b lower portions of the building are heavily landscaped with trees and other plantings to further blend the ends of the building into the surrounding landscape as passersby approach in either the southerly or northerly directions on Castle Creek Road. E. Transportation and Parking Management The 488 Castle Creek Road Property is required to complete a Major Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The Project's Traffic Engineering consultant has worked with the project team to produce a Multimodal/Mobility Plan (Exhibit 2 in Appendix C), and a Traffic Impact Analysis and detailed calculations (Exhibit 6 of Appendix B) that in combination satisfy all requirements from the TIA Guidelines and Chapter 26.515 of the Code. In addition, and in response to heightened concerns regarding traffic impact along this stretch of Castle Creek road from area neighbors, the Project's Traffic Engineer has conducted further analyses related to traffic flow above and beyond the requirements of a Major TIA. The results and conclusions of these analyses and studies are discussed in the following sections, and address the area impact concerns that came out of the neighborhood outreach process, meetings with relevant City Departments and check -ins with City Council. 1. Transportation Management As illustrated in the Multimodal/Mobility plan presented in Exhibit 2 of Appendix C, the site design implements Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) strategies to offset the Project's anticipated trip generation. Specific to applicable design elements of the site design, all sidewalks and walkways meeting Engineering Department standards and maintain a slope of less than five percent (5%) and a cross -slope of less than two percent (2%). The sidewalk design leaving the Property and connecting to the crosswalk and bus stop to the north on Castle Creek Road includes a six-inch (6") curb and improves pedestrian safety and vehicular visibility for this important connection. The vegetation along the sidewalk and on the Property and as it connects to Castle Creek Road is a combination of sod and native upper big mountain sage mix, which will provide visual interest, while also reducing water requirements with the native mix. The one (1) curb cut provides vehicular access to the parking area, while ensuring a safely marked pedestrian crossing that will maintain a two percent (2%) or less cross slope. 29 IX.b The Property is in close proximity to the RFTA bus stop to the north, and transit system information will be provided in the primary circulation area of the building. Extensive bike racks are proposed in anticipation of a very active tenant demographic and as an attempt to minimize vehicular traffic. The Proposed Project is anticipated to add a small amount of traffic and trip generation volumes to the area, as calculated utilizing the City of Aspen's Trip Generation methodology and presented in Exhibit 6 of Appendix B of this application. Using the City of Aspen's trip generation methodology, the Proposed Project will generate an additional twenty-five (25) vehicle trips at peak hour. Using an alternative industry standard methodology for determining added traffic impact, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate an additional seventeen (17) vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and twenty (20) vehicle trips per hour during the evening peak hour. To offset these vehicle trips in the form of Credits, the following strategies have been implemented into the Multimodal/Mobility Plan: a. TDM Strategies • Transit Access Improvement • Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program b. MMLOS Strategies • Landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width. • Slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%. • Curbs equal to or less than 6 inches. • New large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience. • Pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility will be undisturbed by the new development. • Grade where pedestrians cross on cross -slope of driveway has a grade of 2% or less. 30 P330 P331 IX.b • Enhance pedestrian access points from the ROW (including improvement to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street). • Pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5. • New bike path that allows access without crossing a street or driveway • Bicycle parking. Per the Traffic Report and City of Aspen calculations, the proposed TDM and MMLOS Strategies mitigate 28.25 vehicle trips. This mitigation is an excess of 3.35 TIA Credits beyond the 24.90 trips per hour that the project will generate. 2. Proposed Off -Street Parking Management The Proposed Project includes twenty-nine (29) parking stalls, one per each of the twenty-eight (28) units, and one (1) guest parking space. Pursuant to Section 26.515.040 of the Code, the property would otherwise be required to provide thirty- eight (38) parking units in order to accommodate two (2) units per each of the two- bedroom units. As provided for in Table 26.515-2 of the Code, the ability to reduce the number of parking units by the provision of one (1) additional TIA credit would reduce the required parking units to thirty-seven (37). The proposed twenty-nine (29) on-site units accommodate over seventy-eight percent (78%) of the required parking units for the Project, which is above the sixty percent (60%) minimum prescribed in Table 26.515-2 of the Code. The application is requesting for the twenty-nine (29) off-street parking stalls to satisfy all parking requirements, and for a waiver of any remaining cash -in -lieu fee that would otherwise be required. The basis for the waiver request is a combination of the affordable nature of the Project, the area context and parking precedent for multifamily properties in the surrounding properties, and most importantly the extensive multimodal and TDM strategies designed into the site. As calculated in Table 02 below, the per unit and per bedroom parking ratio that results from the proposed twenty-nine (29) off-site stalls are in line with the average parking ratios of other multifamily properties in the neighborhood. Secondly, with a surplus of 3.35 31 IX.b TIA Credits and the strong likelihood the residents of the Project will utilize the myriad options for non -vehicular alternative transportation, it is reasonable to waive any fee -in -lieu for satisfying the parking unit deficit for the Proposed Project. Table 02. Castle Creek Road Area Multifamily Parking Comps Area Multifamily Residential Properties Parking per Unit Parking per BR Marolt (AH) 0.6 0.3 Castle Ridge (AH) 1.9 1.3 Water Place (AH) 1.7 0.9 Average of Area Multifamily Properties 1.4 0.8 488 Castle Creek Road 1.0 0.8 F. Area Land Use and Property Rezoning The 488 Castle Creek Road Property is currently zoned R -15A, Moderate Density Residential, with a PD overlay allowing a lot split for single family development. The Property is situated adjacent to the City of Aspen Boundary as well as the Urban Growth Boundary, making in an appropriate site for affordable housing within the City of Aspen. As described in the proceeding sections of this application, a consistent land use pattern exists in the surrounding area, consisting of a mix of affordable multifamily residential uses. Also relevant to the consideration for rezoning to an affordable multifamily use is the existence of the Aspen Valley Hospital and Pitkin County Health and Human Services complexes within a one-quarter (1/4) quarter miles radius from the Property. These campus properties add to the mix of higher intensity uses in the area, including the on-site affordable housing complex on the Aspen Valley Hospital campus. Further to the south on Castle Creek Road is the Aspen Country Day and Music School campus. Although in Pitkin County jurisdiction, this institutional use adds to the mix of land use patterns along this portion of Castle Creek Road, before becoming homogenously single-family residential in use further to the south. Specific to the affordable multifamily uses surrounding the Property, each property has a distinctively different character and style, ranging from attached dwelling units to 32 P332 P333 IX.b higher -density multilevel complexes. The numerous affordable multifamily properties within a quarter (1/4) mile radius from the Property are as follows: • Marolt Ranch Affordable Housing — Affordable Multifamily with PUB base zone district and PD overlay • Castle Ridge Affordable Housing — Affordable Multifamily with R-15 base zoning and a PD overlay • Water Place Affordable Housing — Affordable Multifamily with PUB base zone district and PD overlay • Aspen Valley Affordable Housing — Affordable Multifamily with PUB base zone district and PD overlay • Mountain Oaks Affordable Housing — Affordable Multifamily with RMF base zone district • Twin Ridge Affordable Housing — Affordable Housing in Pitkin County The prevailing pattern surrounding the Property provides the basis of compatibility for the Proposed Project's multifamily land use and the associated site, landscape and architectural designs, with that of the surrounding zone districts, land uses and neighborhood characteristics. The Neighborhood Zoning and Land Use Context map provided on the following page illustrates the area land uses and highlights the significant amount of multifamily residential properties that surrounds the Property. In accordance with the review requirements for a Property's rezoning under Chapter 26.310 of the Code, the compliance for which is presented in Section IV.B of this application, the rezoning of the Property to accommodate the Proposed Project is compatible with surrounding zone districts, land uses and neighborhood characteristics. In addition to the compatibility of the proposed multifamily use of the Property from an area zoning and land use pattern standpoint, the other primary development standards for consideration include but are not limited to density, floor area, FAR, height, and parking requirements. Specific to the multifamily uses in the surrounding area, the proposed standards related to density, floor area, FAR, height and parking are in line and compatible 33 IX.b with the characteristics found elsewhere in the surrounding area. The following Table 03 on page 36 provides the proposed standards and limits for the rezoning of the Property to AH/PD in order to accommodate the Proposed Project. 34 P334 35 P335 IX.b R a C T E � ._ N � tY N N � T — v T c O a $ o < o m c = ffiJ v m a V C T r`c M U w v m n a a OI 4z I \ jq�. ruft —ter i 1 \ czst�e"A. / _ 1. ♦ a♦ 1 _ 1 / a m ___- 3 •c CL � 1 ��- 1 � I 1 a 1 1 I 1 I N t Ql m j C O In N U1 sZ c O N N> o on ON> r m y c O L E o C O i �p O !6 N .� u CL O Y C E m L rr C LI) 4 Ol N � m O N O h Yt Z 35 P335 IX.b IX.b Table 03. 488 Castle Creek Road - Rezoning Comparison and Proposed AH/PD Development Standards # AH/PD Zoning Dimensional Requirements 1 Minimum Gross Lot Area (sq. ft.) Underlying Zoning: R-1 5A w/ PD Standard/Dimension Similar Use Zoning: RMF Standard/Dimension Proposed Rezoning: AH/PD Standard/Dimension 15,000 6,000 35,895 2 Steep Slope Site Area Reduction 11,845 11,845 11,845 3 Actual Net Lot Area 24,050 24,050 24,050 4 Minimum Net Lot Area per Unit (sq.ft.) n/a n/a 859 5 Maximum Allowable Density (# of units) 2 n/a 28 6 Maximum Density (units per acre) n/a n/a 34.0 7 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet 75 feet 8 Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 5 feet 25 feet 9 Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 10 Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 11 Maximum Site Coverage n/a n/a 21% 12 Maximum Front Height* 25 feet 32 feet 32 feet 13 Maximum Rear Perimeter Height` 25 feet 32 feet 43 feet 14 Maximum Rear Internal Height* 25 feet 32 feet 45 feet 15 Public Amenity Space n/a n/a n/a 16 Minimum Distance between Buildings 10, n/a n/a 17 Minimum Percent Open Space n/a n/a 45% 18 Minimum Trash Access Area (sq. ft.) n/a n/a 150 19 Allowable Floor Area (FAR) sq. ft.** 4,500 11,250 24,050 20 Proposed Floor Area (FAR) sq. ft.** n/a n/a 23,824 21 Proposed Maximum FAR** 0.50 1.25 0.99 22 Proposed Net Livable Area sq. ft. n/a n/a 21,923 23 Minimum off-street parking stalls 2 38 29 24 Maximum Unit Size sq. ft. FAR dependent 2,500 990 *These are maximum heights for these building orientations. Specific heights will be determined by the roof plan height study and zoning standards table associated with the Project PD. **Based on standads in 26.710.090.D.10.d. 36 P336 P337 Mb G. School Land Dedication and Impact Fees As the Proposed Project is residential development that adds additional floor area beyond and an amount preexisted the current ownership of the Property, any net increase would typically require in-kind contributions or impact fee payments related to School Land Dedication, Parks and TDM/Air Quality. However, as an affordable housing development, Section 26.610.100 provides for the ability for City Council to waive said impact fees as follows: Whenever the City Council determines that any part of a proposed development constitutes an affordable housing development or an essential public facility, as defined by this Title, and wishes to subsidize the construction, the City Council may exempt that part of the development from the application of the impact fees or may reduce by any amount the fees imposed by this Chapter. As descried in the introduction of this application, the development and construction of affordable housing on the Property at 488 Castle Creek Road is being carried out and financed through a public private partnership between the City of Aspen and the Applicant, Aspen Housing Partners, LLC. The final funding subsidy from the City of Aspen for the development of the Proposed Project will be derived from the LIHTC financing described in the Introduction of this application. As the origination of this financing will not occur until 2018, it is currently undeterminable what any fee exemption would entail in terms of percent of project cost or calculable real dollars. In accordance with the above referenced Code language, this application is requesting an exemption from the School Land Dedication fee, and the Parks and TDM/Air Quality impact fees, on a pro rata basis derived from the final cost allocations between the City of Aspen and Aspen Housing Partnership, LLC. In other words, this application is requesting that School Land Dedication and Parks and TDM/Air Quality impact fees be assessed exclusively on the equivalent proportionate costs contributed by the Applicant and that all equivalent subsidized costs provided by the City be exempted from the final pro rata cost analysis for determining the said impact fees. The Applicant is not intending to provide any lands dedications to meet the standards of the School Land Dedication requirement, but is rather committing to utilizing the fee 37 IX.b schedules pursuant to Chapter 26.610 that are current at the point of this land use application submittal. The final impact fees will be based on the pertinent floor areas provided at the point of building permit submittal, at which point a determined pro rata cost contribution between the City of Aspen and Applicant will have been determined and memorialized. P338 P339 IX.b IV. REGULATORY REVIEW REQUIREMENTS As an affordable housing project developed by the City in conjunction with a private developer, this application is requesting review as a Major Public Project, pursuant to Chapter 26.500. In accordance with Subsection 26.304.060.B.1 of the Code, and as determined by the Community Development Director, the review material for this Major Public Project is combined and submitted as one (1) application, including the following reviews: Public Projects; Rezoning; Planned Development; Subdivision; Growth Management; 8040 Greenline; Transportation and Parking; and Multifamily Residential Design Standards. A. Public Projects Review (Chapter 26.500) 1. Major Public Project Review (26.500.040.C) Pursuant to Subsection 26.500.040.0 of the Code, the Community Development Director has determined that this Proposed Project meets the criteria of a Major Public Project and shall be reviewed accordingly. The proposed Major Public Project requires two (2) public hearings — one at the Planning & Zoning Commission and one at City Council — rather than a typical three (3) -step review process, finishing with P&Z, which would otherwise be required under a Major Planned Development review. 2. General Review Standards (26.500.070) The Proposed Project meets all of the following review standards as required. c. The Proposed Project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible with neighborhood context The Proposed Project is being considered as a Planned Development and is consistent with the surrounding zoning, land use patterns and character of the surrounding neighborhood context. As described in the above section III.F of this application, the majority of the surrounding land uses consist of multifamily projects. As such, this Proposed Project has managed all standards and design considerations that are to be compatible with the limits of the surrounding property zone districts. Furthermore, great care has been taken to mitigate any impacts with surrounding land uses within the unique contexts and patterns of the surrounding neighborhood. d. The Proposed Project supports stated community goals 39 IX.b As affordable housing is one of, if not the highest priority stated community goal generally and specifically in the AACP, this project supports this goal. e. The Proposed Project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code All applicable and relevant requirements for the review of this project under the Code are consolidated and presented for compliance within this application. It is the opinion of the Applicant's representative and project team that the Proposed Project complies with regulations under the Code. f. The Proposed Project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System As an affordable housing project not being developed for mitigation or certificate purposes, no development allotments are required. B. Amendments to Official Zone District Map —Rezoning (Chapter 26.310) The Property is currently zoned R -15A with no other governing approvals affecting the development of the Property. To develop the affordable housing project, the zoning will need to be amended to a zone district allows for multifamily residential use. Through conference with Community Development, rezoning the project to AH/PD will both accommodate the multifamily affordable housing and lock -in the approval standards specific to the project being proposed through this application. 1. Rezoning — Procedure for amendment (26.310.060) As provided for in Section 26.310.060 of the Code, the City of Aspen, as ownership of more than 50% of the property, is initiating an amendment to the Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) for the Property to AH/PD. Under Public Project Review, Rezoning will be a two-step process — first a public hearing before the P&Z and then before City Council. The review standards are as follows: 2. Rezoning - Standards of review (26.310.090) The Proposed Project meets each of the following standards of review for consideration, and as presented in Section III of this application and through other review criteria: a. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. .O P340 P341 Mb As presented in Section III.F of this application and presented in response to other review standards herein, the proposed rezoning of the Property to AH/PD is appropriate based on the surrounding area zone districts, land use patterns and characteristics. In all directions from the Property surrounding 488 Castle Creek Road, the majority of properties in the area are of a multifamily land use type and varying between RMF and AH/PD, both of which accommodate the properties' respective multifamily uses. The proposed design for this development also provides for an architectural vernacular that is contextually appropriate in that it attempts to blend into the natural surrounding landscape and loosely references the Bauhaus era architecture that remains a significant contribution the Aspen design vernacular. The forms and rooflines of the building generally match the horizon line and color scheme, while matching many of the native colors aesthetic palates of the area. b. 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. As evidenced through letters to serve furnished from all utility providers (Exhibits 2, Appendix B), and all other public facility demands, as assessed through other review standards and reports provided as part of this application, the added demand of this Proposed Project would not exceed the respective capacities nor would the demand be out of line with the character of the neighborhood and area development patterns otherwise. c. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed rezoning and respective Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The Proposed Project associated with the rezoning request has maintained, to the greatest degree possible, the existing flat topography of the Property. Any vegetation removal will be replaced or enhanced at least at a 1:1 ratio as required for tree mitigation. Great care will be taken to protect the existing vegetative buffer between the Property and Castle Creek Road and any required enhancement to the tree plantings will be a primary commitment of the site and landscape design. d. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title. As an affordable housing project that meets the criteria and design goals described in this section of and throughout the overall application, the requested zoning amendment is consistent and compatible with the character of the 41 IX.b neighborhood and larger community as well as in harmony with the public interest, AACP, City Council goals and the intent of the Code. C. Subdivision (Chapter 26.480) The Property's existing Subdivision Exemption Agreement consists of the creation of two (2) lots byway of a lot split in 2006. The Property was previously developed as a multiunit residence and has since been razed. The lot split subdivision appears to have had no intent for development and was merely a process for creating two (2) separate legal lots out of the fathering 35,895 sq. ft. parcel. As may be the case, the Proposed Project requires that the previously split lot be remerged to its original boundary lines and dimensions to accommodate the contemplated affordable housing project. As a result, this application requires review under as a Major Subdivision in accordance to Subsection 26.480.090.D of the Code. As such, the proposed project will be reviewed as a new subdivision. 3. General subdivision review standards The proposed project conforms to the following general standards and limitations. a. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. The proposed project on the vacant Property will retain unobstructed legal vehicular access, as it currently exists today, via a curb cut off of Castle Creek Road. b. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to accommodate significant features of the site may be approved. No change in or creation of a new lot will occur, and therefore, no adjustment to the existing alignment or orientation will result from this Subdivision amendment. c. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be 42 P342 P343 IX.b located in more than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with subdivision review. This Major Subdivision is submitted concurrently to other land use reviews, including Rezoning and Planned Development. As such, the application is also requesting a rezoning review for the entire property along with a new Planned Development approval. d. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non -Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or increase the non -conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism to correct the non -conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently. The Property is currently vacant with no existing structures, uses or non - conformities present. 4. Major subdivisions (26.480.070) In accordance with Subsection 26.480.090.D of the Code, this application is requiring a Major Subdivision review in order to remerge the lot split of the Property that occurred in 2006, which had no apparent intent for development of the Property and was merely a process for creating two (2) separate legal lots out of the fathering 35,895 sq. ft. parcel. As a result this application is subject to review as a subdivision of land and conform to the following review standards: a. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 — General Subdivision Review Standards. As identified in the above responses, this proposed amendment to the existing subdivision lot complies with each of the General Subdivision Review Standards of Section 26.480.040 of the Code. b. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the use of the limited amount of land available for development. The proposed reversal of the previously subdivided property through a lot split enables the particular use and structure proposed in this application to utilize the lot in a most efficient pattern of development and protecting existing features and topography of the site. The proposed project associated with this amendment also adheres to the design guidelines, best practices and engineering standards to maximize the efficiency and pattern of the development of the surrounding area and community goals. c. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, 43 IX.b cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. The Proposed Project associated with the Subdivision review accommodates a development that preserves, to the greatest extent possible, the existing topography, geological features and surrounding contexts that are preexisting in this area of town. No existing structures exist on the property. d. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted with specific design details and timing of implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. As noted previously and as provided for in the HP Kumar Geotechnical Report and Phase I ESA (Exhibits 4 and 5, Appendix B) there is no expectation for the presence of mine waste deposit or other contaminants on the Property. These reports also concluded that no other natural or man-made hazards impact the site that must be taken into consideration, nor should any be present that harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. The presence of the slopes over thirty percent (30%) are a combination of naturally occurring and manmade features, posing no hazard to their utilization for building placement. In fact, the soil composition of the Property is well suited for the proposed excavation and construction. It should be noted that the proposed utilization of the sloped areas is a direct result of the design intent to utilize the features of the existing topography in the site and building design associated with this application. As prescribed by HP Kumar, provided for in this Code criterion and within the Engineering Standards, all appropriate mitigation measures will be taken, and appropriate excavation/construction techniques will be employed. e. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented within a Development Agreement. P344 P345 IX.b The engineering design and mitigation techniques of the Proposed Project associated with this subdivision review will comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen URMP. As provided for in this application as Exhibits 2 and 3 of Appendix B, a Preliminary Engineering Report for the Property as well as a Preliminary Drainage Report, identify how grading drainage and stormwater will be designed and managed per the URMP have been completed. Any additional and specific designs, mitigation techniques and implementation timelines required by the City Engineer will be defined and documented within the final Development Agreement for the Proposed Project. L The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer. Letters to serve provided in Exhibit 2 of Appendix B have been furnished by each of the utility providers pertinent to the site and the scope of this proposed development, acknowledging that the adequate capacity is available within each of the respective systems to service the project. Any localized improvements or localized upgrades to public infrastructure and facilities in order to gain service access to the property will be at the sole cost of the developer. g. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management Quota System, including compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement development as applicable. As the proposed project consists exclusively of affordable housing and no Certificates of Affordable Housing are being/or can be sought, no additional growth management approvals are required. Section IV.E of this application does identify how the proposed project is compliant with the standards for development of new affordable housing. h. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter 26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance pursuant to said Chapter. The proposed project will generate a requirement for a School Land Dedication cash -in -lieu based on the standards of Section 26.620.070 of the Code. Refer to Section III.G of this application for more detailed discussion of School Land Dedication related to the Proposed Project. i. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. 45 IX.b A draft of the amended subdivision plat has been included with this application in Exhibit 1, Appendix C. Upon final approval of this application, a final plat meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 of the Code will be submitted to the City for review and approval. j. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. Upon approval of this application, a final Development Agreement will be drafted and submitted to the City for review in accordance with Chapter 26.490 of the Code. Upon approval the Agreement will be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. D. Planned Development (Chapter 26.445) The subject Property is current zoned R -15A with a PD overlay. In order to rezone the property to AH/PD, a Planned Development must be approved and adopted pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Code. The Planned Development Agreement and Plat will establish and memorialize the new development rights and dimensional standards associated with this Proposed Project. The requirements for both the Project Review and Detailed Review are submitted concurrently in this application. Likewise, both the Project and Detailed Reviews will occur over a two-step process, first before the P&Z and lastly before the City Council. 1. Project Review Standards (26.445.050) The Proposed Project is compliant with each of the following standards as required by the Planned Development Review Standards: a. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. The Proposed Project complies with all related adopted regulatory plans. The project accommodates the residential design standards for integration and appropriate scale and orientation into the surrounding area context. Most relevant is the Proposed Project's compliance with numerous criteria of the Aspen Area Community Plan. As an affordable housing development, the Proposed Project responds satisfies perhaps the most critical goal in the AACP along with other stated goals and priorities of the City of Aspen. Furthermore, the project is financed as a PPP through the federal LIHTC program, providing for subsidized funding to reduce the cost, liability and responsibility to the City. Ent P346 P347 Mb b. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. As noted previously and as provided for in the HP Kumar Geotechnical Report and Phase I ESA (Exhibits 4 and 5, Appendix B) there is no expectation for the presence of mine waste deposit or other contaminants on the Property. These reports also concluded that no other natural or man-made hazards impact the site that must be taken into consideration, nor should any be present that harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. The presence of the slopes over thirty percent (30%) are a combination of naturally occurring and manmade features, posing no hazard to their utilization for building placement. In fact, the soil composition of the Property is well suited for the proposed excavation and construction. It should be noted that the proposed utilization of the sloped areas is a direct result of the design intent to utilize the features of the existing topography in the site and building design associated with this application. As prescribed by HP Kumar, provided for in this Code criterion and within the Engineering Standards, all appropriate mitigation measures will be taken, and appropriate excavation/construction techniques will be employed. c. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: i) The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. The Site Plan provided as Exhibit 2 in Appendix C is compatible with the area context, visual character and general goals of outlined in this Code and other adopted regulatory plans related to site planning and design. As described in the above Section III of this application, the Proposed Project utilizes the existing site features to best blend into and complement the site 47 Mb specific natural features as well as the features, character and context of the surrounding area. ii) The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. The Proposed Project accommodates a development that preserves, to the greatest extent possible, the existing topography and mature vegetation. The proposed location of the building, integrated into the sloping areas of the site, does not regrade the sloped area, but rather situation the building into the hillside, without significantly altering the relationship of the upper bench and the area below the sloped areas. No existing structures exist on the Property that warrants preservation for historical or cultural reasons. iii) Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. The site plan of the Proposed Project ensures that the building and access to the building is oriented towards the street to the greatest extent possible. As described in greater detail in the above Section I1I, the building is located to the rear of the site with access, circulation and parking located adjacent to the Castle Creek Road right-of-way. However, the building entrances and fagades oriented toward the road address the right-of-way. This site organization is consistent with the greater area and neighborhood context. The site design and proposed parking arrangement provides appropriate access to all areas of the site for emergency vehicles, along with service and maintenance vehicles such as trash/recycling removal and snow plowing. d. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: i) There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Affordable housing development is a significant community goal. Designed to best conform to the character and existing conditions in the surrounding area, the proposed variations in dimensional standards associated with the Proposed Project accommodate a high quality living experience for the residents, while also complementing the mass, scale and general character of the neighborhood. ii) The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. im P349 IX.b As noted above and represented in the site planning and architectural material in Appendix C, the proposed dimensions represent a character, style, massing and scale that is indicative of the multifamily use of the Property and consistent with the multifamily and institutional uses in the surrounding area. iii) The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. The pattern of development in and around this portion of Castle Creek Road is a mix of uses, including a significant amount of affordable multifamily uses as well as institutional uses. As noted above and represented in the site planning and architectural material in Appendix C, the Proposed Project complements the mass, scale and general character of the neighborhood. Specifically, the perspective of the building from the public realm is limited to thirty-two feet (32') and steps down to below thirty feet (30') in the areas closest to the right-of-way. These heights and the related mass and scale is in line with precedent found elsewhere in the surrounding area. iv) The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. With a mix of one (1) and two (2) bedroom units proposed for the project, parking is provided to accommodate one (1) vehicle per unit, with one (1) extra guest spot for the building. The Property is located in an area with extensive multimodal opportunities, including a bus stop, We -cycle station and will have direct access to the Marolt Open Space trail that will encourage pedestrian connectivity to downtown Aspen. Biking racking and storage will also be provided on site to further reduce the reliance on vehicle usage. The Mobility Plan and TIA results provided for in the appendices of this application conclude the extent to which alternative transportation means are accommodated in the design of the Proposed Project. The TIA calculations provide an excess of over three (3) TIA Credits. These described results along with the opinion of the Project's transportation engineer provide the basis that the number of off-street parking spaces is appropriate for the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature EEG IX.b of the proposed uses. Lastly, as a rental housing facility, the property will be managed to ensure that only one car is permitted per residential unit. v) The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 —Amendments. As a Major Public Project, this application is consolidated to include both Project Review and Detailed Review material. The application does request a ten percent (10%) increase to all proposed floor area and site area calculation standards to be implemented under the AH/PD zoning. It should be noted that at this point of conceptual design that the requested 110% of dimensional increases are well within the governing and related zoning standards for the Property. e. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: i) The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. The Proposed Project is exclusively multifamily in use and not historic or within a historic district. It therefore conforms to the Residential Design Standards for multifamily development. The site and architectural designs meet all of the criteria of these standards. The compliance with these standards can be found in Section IV.H of this application. Furthermore, and in addition to these standards, the project design takes cues and guidance from the character and context of the surrounding neighborhood, unique site conditions and other best practices that are applicable to this Proposed Project, on this site, and in the area surrounding this portion of Castle Creek Road. ii) The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. As described previously and presented in the architectural plan set provided in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C, the cladding material and architectural character of the Proposed Project references the Aspen's midcentury Bauhaus movement that is appropriate for a multifamily use and the context of the surrounding area. Aside from this guiding approach to the the design and material selections, the mass and scale of the proposed design also reflect the 50 P350 P351 IX.b character and style indicative of the surrounding area and is cohesive with the surrounding landscape. E Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. The proposed design improves pedestrian, bicycle and access to transit facilities. The Project will construct a new sidewalk and curb and gutter at the along Castle Creek Road, which is currently non-existent. If the contemplated Castle Creek trail is realized, the Project will work to integrate the goals of the trail planning into the design of this sidewalk area in the right-of-way. The dimensions of the curb cut, geometry and detailing of the single access curb cut meet the requirements of the Engineering Department to enhance pedestrian and bicycle ease of use and connectivity, as well as the standards of the Fire Department. The Proposed Project is designed with ample storage for residents' material items, including bike storage, in order to encourage bicycle transit rather than vehicular use. Additional considerations related to multi -modal aspects of the project are presented in Section IV.G, Transportation and Parking, of this application as well as the Transportation Impact Analysis in Exhibit 6 of Appendix B. g. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. The engineering design and mitigation techniques of the Proposed Project associated with this subdivision review will comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen URMP. As provided for in this application as Exhibits 2 and 3 of Appendix B, a Preliminary Engineering Report for the Property as well as a Preliminary Drainage Report, identify how grading drainage and stormwater will be designed and managed per the URMP have been completed. Any additional and specific designs, mitigation techniques and implementation timelines required by the City 51 IX.b Engineer will be defined and documented within the final Development Agreement for the Proposed Project. h. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Letters to serve provided in Exhibit 2 of Appendix B have been furnished by each of the utility providers pertinent to the site and the scope of this proposed development, acknowledging that the adequate capacity is available within each of the respective systems to service the project. Any localized improvements or localized upgrades to public infrastructure and facilities in order to gain service access to the property will be at the sole cost of the developer. i. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. As described in Section III.E of this application, vehicular parking will be provided on-site and the Proposed Project will retain unobstructed legal vehicular access, byway of continuing to utilize the existing curb cut off of Castle Creek Road. This location, the layout and dimensions meet the Engineering Department as well as the Fire Department standards to ensure adequate emergency access. There are no streets or security gates associated with this proposed Planned Development. 2. Detailed Review Standards (26.445.070) The Proposed Project is compliant with each of the following standards as required by the Planned Development Detailed Review Standards: a. Compliance with Project Review Approval. The proposed development, including all dimensions and uses, is consistent with the Project Review approval and adequately addresses conditions on the approval and direction received during the Project Review. As a Major Public Project, both the Project Review and Detailed Review are consolidated and consistent throughout this one (1) application for review by the P&Z and City Council. 52 P352 P353 Mb b. Growth Management. The proposed development has received all required GMQS allotments, or is concurrently seeking allotments. As an affordable housing project not being developed for mitigation or certificate purposes, no development allotments are required as there is no annual limit on affordable housing allotments. c. Site Planning and Landscape Architecture. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: i) The landscape plan Exhibits a well-designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Vegetation removal, protection, and restoration plans shall be acceptable to the Director of Parks and Open Space. The Proposed Project accommodates a development that preserves, to the greatest extent possible, the existing topography, mature vegetation. Any mature vegetation that must be removed will be replaced in equal amounts or exceed the replacement mitigation requirement. The landscape and planting plan introduces ample quantity and variety of plant species that are suitable to the climate as well as appropriately introduced to this Property and the surrounding context of the neighborhood. ii) Buildings and site grading provide simple, at -grade entrances and minimize extensive grade changes along building exteriors. The project meets or exceeds the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable requirements for emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Adequate snow storage is accommodated. As previously described and depicted in the design drawing sets in Appendix C, the site and grading plan utilize the existing upper bench condition to arrange on grade access to units off of the main outdoor amenity and parking area. The lower level units make use of the sloping character of the site to allow for on -grade access points to the lower portions of the site and pathway access to the Marolt Open Space. This design consideration both minimized the need for excessive grading, while providing access to grade either directly from all units, or nearby access to for the lower level units. All access to these units exceeds ADA requirements and has been initially reviewed by the Building Department for compliance. The Fire Department has also reviewed the vehicular access for emergency purposes. Areas adjacent to the driveway, drive lane and parking stalls have been retained for adequate snow storage. iii) Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into the landscape in a manner that enhances the site. 53 Mb No energy or production features are present within the site plan and landscape design. It has been contemplated that energy systems infrastructure such as photovoltaic panels will be introduced into the building architecture of the Proposed Project. If such systems are incorporated during mechanical design, any surface or building mounted elements will be integrated and/or screened in to the respective designs to ensure enhancement and visual appropriateness. iv) All site lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. All lighting will meet the City's outdoor lighting standards, and screening from other properties has been considered in the site plan and landscape designs to mitigate any fugitive light. The compliant lighting plan is presented as part of the site planning and landscape design documents in Exhibit 2 of Appendix C. v) Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. All site drainage stormwater will be accommodated entirely on the Property, as reported in the Preliminary Drainage Report, meeting Engineering Design Standards and the City's URMP. d. Design Standards and Architecture. The proposed architectural details emphasize quality construction and design characteristics. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: i) The project architecture provides for visual interest and incorporates present-day details and use of materials respectful of the community's past without attempting to mimic history. As described previously and presented in the architectural plan set provided in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C, the architectural character of the Proposed Project references the Aspen's midcentury Bauhaus movement that is appropriate for a multifamily use and the context of the surrounding area. Aside from this guiding approach to the design and material selections, the mass and scale of the proposed design also reflect the character and style indicative of the surrounding area and is cohesive with the surrounding landscape. The design includes present-day detailing and features to enhance the performance, function and livability of the building to the greatest degree possible. ii) Exterior materials are of a high quality, durability, and comply with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, 54 P354 P355 Mb Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. As described previously and presented in the architectural plan set provided in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C, the cladding material is modern but timeless in application and style. All materials are of high quality and durability. Aside from the historic references with the design and modern material selections, the mass and scale of the proposed design also reflect the character and style indicative of the surrounding area influences and natural landscape. The proposed design also conforms to the Residential Design Standards for multifamily development. The site and architectural designs meet all of the criteria of these standards. iii) Building entrances are sited or designed to minimize icing and snow shedding effects. All building and unit entrances are design to minimize icing and snow shedding at primary access and circulation areas. iv) Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into structures in a manner that enhances the architecture. No energy or production features are present within the site plan and landscape design. It has been contemplated that energy systems infrastructure such as photovoltaic panels will be introduced into the building architecture of the Proposed Project. If such systems are incorporated during mechanical design, any surface or building mounted elements will be integrated and/or screened in to the respective designs to ensure enhancement and visual appropriateness. v) All structure lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. All lighting will meet the City's outdoor lighting standards, and light fixture locations and screening have been considered in the site plan, landscape design and building design to mitigate any fugitive light upon surrounding properties and streets. The compliant lighting plan is presented as part of the site planning and landscape design documents in Exhibit 2 of Appendix C. e. Common Parks, Open Space, Recreation Areas, or Facilities. If the proposed development includes common parks, open space, recreation areas, or common facilities, a proportionate, undivided interest is deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned Development. An adequate assurance through a Development Agreement for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, 55 IX.b and shared facilities together with a prohibition against future development is required. Onsite open space will be provided, but will not be prorated between residential units at this point, as the units are rental and will not be identified as individual legal real property interests. The maintenance and upkeep of open space and common elements will be the responsibility of the property management entity, as required by the Development Entity under the LIHTC program. This program further requires annual audits for operating and maintenance reserves and the diligent use of those respective funds. The Operations and Maintenance letter furnished by the Applicant as Exhibit 7 in Appendix B details the required maintenance protocols for the Property under the LIHTC program. f. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any new vehicular access points minimize impacts on existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of the Project Review and as otherwise required in the Land Use Code. These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements and to determine any required cost estimating for surety requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. The proposed design improves pedestrian, bicycle and access to transit facilities. The Project will construct a new sidewalk and curb and gutter at the along Castle Creek Road, which is currently non-existent. If the contemplated Castle Creek trail is realized, the Project will work to integrate the goals of the trail planning into the design of this sidewalk area in the right-of-way. The dimensions of the curb cut, geometry and detailing of the single access curb cut meet the requirements of the Engineering Department to enhance pedestrian and bicycle ease of use and connectivity, as well as the standards of the Fire Department. The Proposed Project is designed with ample storage for residents' material items, including bike storage, in order to encourage bicycle transit rather than vehicular use. Additional considerations related to multi -modal aspects of the project are presented in Section IV.G, Transportation and Parking, of this application as well as the Transportation Impact Analysis in Exhibit 6 of Appendix B. 56 P356 P357 IX.b g. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. The engineering design and mitigation techniques of the Proposed Project associated with this planned development will comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen URMP. As provided for in this application respectively as Exhibits 2 and 3 of Appendix B, a Preliminary Engineering Report for the Property as well as a Preliminary Drainage Report, identifying how grading drainage and stormwater will be designed and managed per the URMP have been completed. Any additional and specific designs, mitigation techniques and implementation timelines required by the City Engineer will be defined and documented within the final Development Agreement for the Proposed Project. The Engineering Plan set provided as Exhibit 3 in Appendix C provides full design detail of all Engineer and URMP standards. It. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Letters to serve (Exhibit 2, Appendix B) have been furnished by each of the utility providers pertinent to the site and the scope of this proposed development, acknowledging that the adequate capacity is available within each of the respective systems to service the project. As noted above is Section III.0 of this application, the Project Engineer has confirmed that all utilities are available and reasonable proximity to the site. At this point, there is no expectation for a need to upgrade utility infrastructure beyond the localized improvements to get respective service to the Property. If determined necessary, any localized improvements or 57 IX.b localized upgrades to public infrastructure and facilities in order to gain service access to the property will be at the sole cost of the developer. The engineering design and mitigation techniques of the Proposed Project associated with this planned development will comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen URMP. As provided for in this application as Exhibits 2 and 3 of Appendix B, a Preliminary Engineering Report for the Property as well as a Preliminary Drainage Report, identifying how grading drainage and stormwater will be designed and managed per the URMP have been completed. Any additional and specific designs, mitigation techniques and implementation timelines required by the City Engineer will be defined and documented within the final Development Agreement for the Proposed Project. i. Phasing of development plan. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Phasing shall insulate, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. All necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the Planned Development, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures. No phasing is contemplated for the Proposed Projected associated with this Planned Development. E. Growth Management Quota System (Chapter 26.470) The Proposed Project at 488 Castle Creek Road consists entirely of affordable housing. As such, the Proposed Project does not require the allocation of allotments as there is no annual limit for affordable housing development pursuant to Section 26.470.040.13 of the Code. Certain Sections of Chapter 26.470 are required for review with respect to the development of affordable housing. Those pertinent Chapter 26.470 Sections are addressed as follows: 1. General Review Standards (26.470.080) As noted above, only certain standards of this Chapter are applicable to the review for affordable housing development. The Proposed Project is compliant with each of the standards in this Section 26.470.080, which are either not applicable to the project WO P358 P359 IX.b as an affordable housing project, or are addressed elsewhere in this application. One subsection standard in this Section does require specific addressing as follows: a. Affordable Housing Mitigation (26.470.080.D.7.g). 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 All of the affordable units provided as part of this Proposed Project are designed such that fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission applications (26.470.100) The Proposed Project is a newly built affordable housing facility that is not for the purposes of mitigation or the creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Therefore the only applicable standards within 26.470.100 are found in subsection D of the Code as follows: a. 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 general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080. i) 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. 59 Mb The Proposed Project is in partnership with the City of Aspen and financed using the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. As such, the project will be deed restricted and rented to renters qualified under both the APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines and the federal LIHTC guidelines for income levels and respective rental rates. F. Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Chapter 26.435) The 488 Castle Creek Road property is located within 150 linear feet of the 8040 Greenline (8040 feet above mean sea level), and therefore the Proposed Project is subject to the 8040 Greenline Review pursuant to Section 26.435.030 of the Code. This is the only required ESA review of this Chapter for the Proposed Project. 3. 8040 Greenline Review Standards (26.435.030.C). No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth in this Subsection. It should be noted, that the Proposed Project's location is not of a typical property characteristic attributable to the 8040 Greenline review, as it is not located on a steep valley/mountain slope, but rather along a significantly developed roadway. The Proposed Project at 488 Castle Creek Road complies with each of the following 8040 Greenline review standards as follows: a. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. As described previously in this application and documented in the Geotechnical Report and Phase I ESA (Exhibits 4 and 5 of Appendix B respectively), the Property is suitable for development with respect to slope, stability and any other geotechnical considerations. There is no indication of the presence of any soil contamination associated with the four to five feet (4' — 5') of upper level fill. All resulting disturbed areas will be brought back to original grade and revegetated as necessary. P360 P361 IX.b b. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. The Proposed Project does not have any adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. All runoff, drainage soil stabilization considerations are addressed in the Geotechnical Report and compliance with Engineering and URMP standards addressed in the Preliminary Drainage Report (Exhibits 2 and 3 of Appendix B respectively). Any related improvements to the site will only improve the water quality of the site as it relates to the natural watershed. c. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. The Proposed Project does not have any adverse affect on the air quality in the City. The project's construction management plan will ensure the elimination of all fugitive dust, in particular during any excavation periods. Furthermore, as the project is required to house employees within the City of Aspen, it can be inferred that reduced commuter vehicle trips in and out of town will result. Lastly, with the Property's close proximity to multimodal options such as mass transit, bike share and a walkable/bikeable distance to town and essential services, residents will minimize vehicular trips and therefore reduce emissions in the City. d. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. The design and location of the Proposed Project, including the building footprint location the proposed stepping of the building down the topography, minimizes the impact on the existing terrain and topography of the Property. This design consideration has minimized the alteration of the site terrain to the greatest degree possible, while accommodating the building construction, the drive access and the parking area. e. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. The design and location of the Proposed Project, including the building footprint location and stepping, and the location of the parking, minimizes the requirement for any major alteration to the existing topography, terrain, mature vegetation and natural land forms of the Property. The integration of the building into the preexisting sloping condition minimizes the need for excessive alteration of the site terrain and existing grading to the greatest extent possible, while accommodating the building construction, the access drive access and the parking area. 61 Mb f. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. As described in the responses to the above two standards, the site design minimizes the need for cut and fill grading of the Property and the location and grading of the access driveway minimizes significant cutting and is located in a preexisting area that maintains open space between the parking area and the building footprint. There is no attribute of the Property that is warranted as a "mountain" and therefore requiring preservation as a scenic resource. Rather, the Property is located along a significantly developed portion of Castle Creek Road and provides complementary land use and development pattern to the area. g. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. As described in the response to the above standard, there is no attribute of the Property that is warranted as a "mountain". From the public realm along Castle Creek Road, the architectural design minimizes the verticality of the building and consists of materials, detailing, form and massing that blends into the surrounding landscape and backdrop of the Property. The design team has taken great care to minimize the building's visual impact through the design of the massing, scale and materials selection. As previously described in greater detail in Section III above, the stepping of the building down the sloping portion of the site allows for reduced mass and scale from the public realm along Castle Creek Road, as well as the traffic circle and Highway 82. h. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. The Engineering Report and related letters to serve provided as Exhibit 2 of Appendix B in this application confirm that sufficient water pressure, along with other utilities are available and of appropriate capacity to service the Proposed Project. i. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Castle Creek is an adequate road, available and properly maintained by the City. j. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. The Proposed Project on the vacant Property has adequate ingress and egress via an existing curb cut off of Castle Creek Road. This location, the layout and dimensions have been verified with the Engineering Department as well as the 62 P362 P363 IX.b Fire Department to ensure adequate emergency access and maintenance equipment, including snow removal. k. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Although no other Open Space and Trials regulatory plans are understood to be applicable to the development of this Property, the Project team has held numerous meetings with City of Aspen and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails discussing the potential Castle Creek Road trail alignment and design. If/when a trail alignment supersedes the need for the currently proposed right-of-way sidewalk or any other considerations related to off-site improvements adjacent to the Property, the Project team will continue to work with other City and County Departments to modify said off-site improvements to accommodate a new trail adjacent to the Property. G. Transportation and Parking (Chapter 26.515) As described in greater detail in Sections III.E, Transportation and Parking, and IV.D, Planned Development, of this application, transportation and parking provisions are being requested for review as part of the Planned Development. A Minor Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) has been completed for the Proposed Project and is included as part of the Mobility Plan, each of which are provided for as Exhibit 6 of Appendix B and Exhibit 2 of Appendix C. The responses to the standards of this Chapter are included to provide a baseline requirement and justification for any variations from those requirements to be approved through the Planned Development. 1. Parking Requirements (26.515.040) a. General requirements. All development shall accommodate its projected parking impacts as provided in this Chapter. The Proposed Project accommodates the projected parking impact and needs of the use, management considerations and other mitigating factors such as location, access to multimodal transportation options and other on-site factors. b. Parking Requirement Minimums and Maximums. Through the proposed Planned Development, this application is requesting approval for a number of parking units that meets the Code requirements in terms of quantity of units created, and is not below the minimum or above the maximum, as prescribed in Table 26.515-1 of this Section. The parking units are 63 IX.b provided off-site as described in Section III.E above and presented in Exhibit 2 in Appendix C of this application. c. Parking Requirement Calculation. Parking Requirements shall be met for each use according to Table 26.515-1, where requirements are calculated as Parking Units (defined in Section 26.515.010.13): Table 26.515-1 of this Section prescribe the accommodation of twenty-nine (29) Parking Units by way of the following calculation: (18 — one -bedroom units * 1 Parking Unit) + (10 — two-bedroom units* 2 Parking Units) — (1 — parking unit reduction for TIA Credits) = 37 Parking Units d. Parking Requirement when Fractional Requirement Computed. When any calculation of Parking Requirements results in a fractional unit, that fractional unit may be paid through a cash -in -lieu payment, or satisfied through one whole additional on-site parking or mobility commitment credit. There is no fractional unit that results in the required parking calculation for this Proposed Project. 2. Meeting Parking Requirements (26.515.050). In accordance with the criteria of this Code Section, the Proposed Project's Parking Requirement is subject to establishment of a Planned Development final development plan, and therefore the review is subject to Chapter 26.445, Planned Development, of the Code. Through the Planned Development Review, Parking Requirements will be satisfied through the following provisions: a. Cash -in -lieu. Cash -in -lieu payments may be made to satisfy Parking Requirements as outlined by zone district in Table 26.515-2, and according to Section 26.515.090. No Cash -in -lieu payments are requested for any parking deficit associated with the Proposed Project. b. On -Site Parking. May be provided on-site in applicable zone districts, with Reserved and Accessory spaces not to exceed the Parking Maximums outlined below in Table 26.515-1. Shared parking may be counted provided that a Shared Parking Agreement and a shared - parking analysis, as approved by the Community Development Director, is executed. P364 P365 IX.b The Proposed Project is providing twenty-nine (29) on-site parking spaces, which equates to and will be managed for providing one (1) parking space per unit, regardless of bedroom count, plus one (1) guest space. As the project would otherwise require the provision of thirty-seven (37) parking units, twenty-nine (29) on-site parking spaces does not exceed the minimum of parking units provided at sixty percent (60%) or the maximum of one hundred (100%), or thirty-eight (38) parking spaces. The provision of twenty-nine (29) on-site parking spaces equates to seventy- six percent (76%) of the Requirement, which is allowed for in the Property's location pursuant to Table 26.515-2 of this Section. c. Off -Site Parking. Off-site parking may be counted toward the requirement, provided that a Shared Parking Agreement and a shared - parking analysis, as approved by the Community Development Director, is executed. No off-site parking is associated with the Proposed Project. d. Mobility Commitments. Mobility Commitments, as defined in Section 26.515.010.13, may be provided, as follows: i) Where projects are TIA exempt, pre -approved alternative mobility measures may be provided to satisfy Parking Units as outlined by zone district in Table 26.515-2. This project is not TIA exempt. ii) Where projects are TIA subject, pre -approved alternative mobility measures generated over minimum requirements may be provided to satisfy Parking Units as outlined by zone district in Table 26.515-2. The TIA provided as Exhibit 6 in Appendix B presents the generation of 28.25 total points resulting from MMLOS and TDM strategies as described in Section III.F of this application. The Project only requires 24.90 points, resulting in a surplus of 3.35 points, or TIA Credits. It is requested that this surplus of Credits be considered, along with the other factors born out of the neighborhood outreach process and guidance from City Council, as offsetting the on-site the parking deficit and any fee -in -lieu requirements. 3. Off -Street Parking Requirements (26.515.070) a. Applicability. Where off-street parking spaces are provided as part of a Mobility Plan, the regulations in Sections 26.515.070.(B — I) apply. As the Proposed Project is subject to establishment by adoption of a Planned Development final development plan pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned Development, any variations to the following off-street parking requirements as described below will be addressed through the Planned Development Review. 65 IX.b b. General. Each off-street parking space shall consist of an open area measuring eight and one half (812) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long and seven (7) feet high with a maximum longitudinal slope of twelve percent (12%) and a maximum cross slope of five percent (5%). Each parking space, except those provided for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings, shall have an unobstructed access to a street or alley. Off-street parking provided for multi -family dwellings which do not share a common parking area may be exempted from the unobstructed access requirement subject to special review pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and the standards set forth at Section 26.515.040, Special review standards, below. Off-street parking must be paved with all- weather surfacing or be covered with gravel. For residential development, a grass ring or grass -paver -type surface may be used. All parking shall be maintained in a usable condition at all times. All development or redevelopment must be in conformance with, or bring existing parking into conformance with, Engineering Design Standards, including but not limited to the access requirements outlined in Chapter 4 Transportation Design. The parking spaces provided as part of the Proposed Project satisfy each of the above standards for park space dimensions, clearances and slopes. Each of the parking spaces provided has unobstructed access to a street. The parking surface will be outfitted with -weather surfacing and will be maintained in a usable condition at all times. The development will be in compliance with all Engineering Design Standards including but not limited to the access requirements outlined in Chapter 4, Transportation Design, or will have been approved by Engineering under the considerations of a Planned Development review. c. Use of off-street parking. Parking spaces shall be used for the parking of vehicles and shall not be used for non -auto related uses such as storage units or trash containers. No off-street parking area shall be used for the sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, nor shall any such activity adjacent to off-street parking spaces obstruct required access to off-street parking areas. The proposed parking spaces will be exclusively used for parking of vehicles and no other uses or activities at all times. d. Location of off-street parking. Off-street parking shall be located on the same parcel as the principal use or an adjacent parcel under the same ownership as the lot occupied by the principal use. For all uses, parking shall be accessed from an alley or secondary road, where one exists unless otherwise established according to this Chapter. All off-street parking will be located on the same parcel as the principal use with access from the only road with adjacency to the Property. P366 P367 IX.b e. Detached and duplex residential dwelling parking. Off-street parking provided for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings is not required to have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but shall not block access of emergency apparatus to the property or to structures located on the property. This allows for "stacking" of vehicles where a vehicle is parked directly behind another. As the Proposed Project is not a detached or duplex residential use, but rather multifamily, this standards is not applicable. E State Highway 82 off-street parking. All parking required for uses fronting State Highway 82 shall, if an alley exists, be accessed from the alley and shall not enter from or exit onto State Highway 82. The Property is not fronting State Highway 82, and therefore this standard is not applicable. g. Surface parking. Surface parking is prohibited or requires conditional use review as a principal use of a lot or parcel in some Zone Districts (See Chapter 26-710). Where surface parking is permitted and eight (8) or more spaces are provided, the parking area shall include one (1) tree with a planter area of twenty (20) square feet for each four (4) parking spaces. Planter areas may be combined, but shall be proximate to the parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning Commission may waive or modify this requirement on a per case basis. Parking within structures is exempt from this landscaping provision. As described in greater detail in the above Section III.E of this application, the proposed parking spaces are in a shared surface parking condition at the front of the Property. To accommodate the one (1) tree and twenty (20) square foot planter area per every four parking spaces, significantly more trees and planted area will be located in proximity to the parking area to enhance screening and buffering of the building from the public right-of-way. Similarly the existing vegetated buffer between the edge of Castle Creek Road and the property line will be significantly enhanced to screen and soften the presence of the parking area from passersby on Castle Creek Road. This design is presented in Exhibit 2 of Appendix C of this application and will be reviewed under the Planned Development review. h. Restrictions on drainage, grading and traffic impact. Off-street parking spaces shall be graded to ensure drainage does not create any flooding or water quality impacts and shall be provided with entrances and exits so as to minimize traffic congestion and traffic hazards. The off-street parking spaces will be graded and meet all Engineering Design Standards to ensure drainage does not result in flooding or other water quality impacts. The entrance to the parking area will be designed minimize traffic congestion and related hazards and will be in compliance with all Engineering and Fire Department standards. 67 IX.b i. Restrictions on lighting. Lighting facilities for off-street parking spaces, if provided, shall be arranged and shielded so that lights neither unreasonably disturb occupants of adjacent residential dwellings nor interfere with driver vision. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the outdoor lighting regulations, Section 26.575.150. All outdoor lighting associated with the parking area will be screened and shielded to avoid light pollution impact on the public roadway and neighboring properties. All lighting throughout the Proposed Project will meet all dark sky and any other outdoor lighting regulations pursuant to Section 26.575.150. H. Residential Design Standards — Multi -family (Chapter 26.410) The Proposed Project sufficiently responds to the intent and purpose of the Multi- family Residential Design Standards (26.410.040) of this Chapter. A completed Residential Design Standards Checklist is provided as Exhibit 13 of Appendix A in this application. Specific and detailed responses to each standard provided for in the RSD Checklist, along with the Code Standards provided for in Section 26.410.040 are as follows: 1. Building Orientation (Flexible) The building orientation of the Proposed Project satisfies the intent and requirements of this standard. The triangular-shaped Property is located on a long sweeping curve of Castle Creek Road, with the long edge of the triangle adjacent to the right-of-way. The inside fagades of the "L" shaped building are oriented towards the road, with landscaping and outdoor amenity area within, creating an engaging relationship between the building and the public realm. As depicted in the site plan and landscape material in Exhibit 2 of Appendix C, the front fagade faces the street with the front porches and doors of the ground level units engaging the street and sidewalk at a pedestrian scale. As a result the proposed design fulfills this standard by achieving Strong Orientation with the front fagade of the building oriented parallel to the street. 2. Garage Access (Non -Flexible) This standard is not applicable to the Proposed Project, as the Property does not have vehicular access from an alley or private street. im P369 Mb 3. Garage Placement (Non -Flexible) No garage or covered structure is included as part of this Proposed Project. In meeting the intent of this this standard otherwise, parking is located below the elevation of Castle Creek Road, and the front fagades of the building are well articulated and provide visual interest from the public right-of-way. 4. Entry Connection (Non -Flexible) The building design and site design reinforce a strong connection between ground level entrances and Castle Creek Road, resulting in the accommodation of this standard. Furthermore, the building and site designs achieve both options for fulfilling this standard with all ground level entrances being Street Oriented Entrances, as well as all of the ground level entrances opening to the street -facing site design with Open Front Porches. 5. Principle Window (Flexible) The intent of this standard is accommodated through fenestration patterns of the Castle Creek Road -facing building fagade contains multiple windows and groupings of windows associated with each of the street facing units. Specifically, each unit on the ground and upper levels present a Street -Facing Principle Window and/or a Window Group that meet the required dimensional minimums. IX.b APPENDIX A -APPLICATION DOCUMENTS Exhibit 1. Property Vicinity Map Exhibit 2. Pre -Application Conference Summary from 05.01.2017 Exhibit 3. Existing Subdivision Exemption and PUD Agreement Exhibit 4. City Council Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006 Exhibit 5. Disclosure of Ownership (Letter from City Attorney) Exhibit 6. Letter to Represent Exhibit 7. Land Use Application Exhibit 8. Application Fee Payment Agreement Form Exhibit 9. Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit 10. HOA Compliance Form Exhibit 11. Community Development Fee Waiver Request Form Exhibit 12. No Mineral Estates to be Noticed Letter Exhibit 13. Multifamily Residential Design Standards Checklist 0 P370 T W Gillespie St Aspen Snowmass �� ' . ` Vy Mar�dre t %rfh 5t f r Trails z p 7 `D rn Aspen Condo vocation i +Rental .J► x'. •- Ili f - 'r ki Isti+.. 140 UJ � r J " , s 488 Castle Creek lo C 61611 +w Rd, Aspen, r � � �u sr '� �• ''J •-; The St. Regis, dw Mound RA J RL rr �D • O i '41 Aspen Festival arrd school IX.b CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY P372 PLANNER: Justin Barker, 970.429.2797 DATE: 5.1.17 PROJECT: 488 Castle Creek Road REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Everson, Adam Roy DESCRIPTION: The subject property is composed of Lots 1 & 2 of the 488 Castle Creek Lot Split Subdivision and PUD. The Castle Creek Lot Split Subdivision and PUD was approved by Ordinance No. 5, Series 2006. The plat, which includes easements and dimensional requirements for the subdivision, can be found at Plat Book 81, Page 48. The subdivision agreement was recorded at Reception No. 52045. The lots are outside the Infill Area and underlying zoning is Moderate -Density Residential (R -15A) and surrounding zone districts include Public (PUB)/Planned Development (PD) and Moderate Density Residential (R-15). The current PD Agreement is a site-specific development plan that allows for a 3,344 sf single family residence on the 11,255 sf Lot 1. Lot 2 is 24,640 sf and is required to have both a 3,515 sf single family free market residence and a deed restricted, for sale Category 7 detached single family residence unit with a minimum floor area of 2,000 sf. The maximum combined floor area of Lot 2 is 5,015. The Agreement requires egress for both lots be provided by a shared driveway easement. The applicant is proposing to develop the site with affordable housing. As an affordable housing project developed by the City in conjunction with a private developer, the applicant is requesting review as a Major Public Project, pursuant to Chapter 26.500. Major Public Project review requires two public hearings, one at the Planning & Zoning Commission and one at City Council. The applicant shall respond to the review standards for Public Projects, as well as the other reviews listed below to ensure a robust consideration of the proposal and to meet one of the general review standards for Public Projects (26.500.070 (3)). The review criteria include all sections of the Land Use Code that would otherwise be applicable to the project in a standard review process, which are listed below. The following reviews will be combined into a two-step process, with a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and final decision at City Council. Planned Development/Rezoning The applicant would like to rezone the property to Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD). Rezoning to AH/PD requires the adoption of a Final PD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445, which includes both Project Review and Detailed Review. For AH/PD, the dimensional allowances for this property are established through the PD review process, with suggested dimensions related to unit density and FAR noted in Section 26.710.110.D. The applicant will be required to respond to the review standards in Sections 26.310.080, 26.445.050, and 26.445.070 as part of the application. Major Subdivision Additionally, the two lots would need to undergo Major Subdivision review, pursuant to Section 26.480, to merge them back into one lot. Combination of the lots eliminates the need for the existing vehicular access easement. Abandonment of the vehicular access easement may be reviewed as part of the Subdivision review. A draft plat will be required as part of the application. ASLU 488 Castle Creek Major Public Project Parcel IDs 273512309033 & 4 P373 Growth Management IX.b The development of affordable housing requires Growth Management Review, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4. Each unit is required to provide 50% or more of the unit's net livable area at or above grade. This requirement may be varied through Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430. Parking & Transportation The parking impact requirement for this property is the lessor of one space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit. The requirement may be satisfied through a variety of options outlined in Section 26.515.040. A reduction in the number of required spaces may be reviewed through the Planned Development process. The applicant is also required to submit a complete Level 2 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), pursuant to Section 26.515.030. All proposed TIA and parking impact mitigation shall be included in a complete Mobility Plan. Residential Desian Standards Affordable housing is subject to the multi -family design standards located in Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. Any requested variations from the standards should be included within the application. Environmentally Sensitive Area The property is located within 150 feet of the 8040 Greenline (8040 feet above mean sea level) and is therefore subject to 8040 Greenline review, pursuant to Section 26.435.030. Additional Rea u irements/Li mitations This project will require Neighborhood Outreach, in addition to traditional public noticing requirements. Pursuant to Chapter 26.600, redevelopment will require compliance with all adopted Impact Fees, including School Lands, Parks, and TDM/Air Quality, as well as the trash and recycle requirements from Municipal Code Section 12.10. This project is not eligible to receive Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits pursuant to Chapter 26.540, as it will be developed in conjunction with a public entity. Section 26.540.030 expressly prohibits Certificates from being established when the City of Aspen or other public entities develop affordable housing. REVIEW PROCESS (ASSUMING COMBINED REVIEWS) Step One (Planning & Zoning Commission) Major Public Project Review recommendation, combined following reviews: • Planned Development • Rezoning • Major Subdivision • Growth Management • 8040 Greenline • Residential Design Standards • Optional: Special Review Step Two (City Council) Major Public Project Review approval, combined following reviews: • Planned Development Review • Rezoning • Major Subdivision • Growth Management • 8040 Greenline 2 P374 IX.b Residential Design Standards • Optional: Special Review Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.310 Rezoning 26.340.035 Neighborhood Outreach 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.430 Special Review 26.435.030 8040 Greenline Review 26.445 Planned Development 26.470.070.4 GMQS — Affordable Housing 26.480.070 Major Subdivision 26.490 Approval Documents 26.515 Transportation and Parking Management 26.575.020 Calculations & Measurements 26.600 Impact Fees 26.710.110 Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD) And Municipal Code 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: Land Use Application Land Use Code: Land Use Code Review by: Staff for complete application DRC P&Z for recommendation to Council City Council for approval Public Hearing: Yes, at P&Z and City Council Planning Fees: $10,400 Deposit for 32 hours of staff time (additional hours are billed at a rate of $325/hour). Referral Fees: $1,625 flat fee each for APCHA, Parks, Environmental Health $325 deposit for 1 hour Engineering (additional hours are billed at a rate of $325/hour). Total Deposit: $15,600 (50% _ $7,800) (Note that as a city project, this project qualifies for a 50% fee waiver, which should be included as part of the application) To apply, please submit one copy of the completed of the following information: ❑ Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. ❑ Pre -application Conference Summary (this document). P375 IX.b ❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. ❑ 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 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. ❑ 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. ❑ An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ A draft plat, meeting the plat requirements of Chapter 26.490 — Approval Documents. ❑ A description, and depiction as necessary, of the proposed development including a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the Planned Development and a description of the proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, parking, open space areas, landscaping, and infrastructure improvements. ❑ An architectural character plan showing the use, massing, scale and orientation of the proposed buildings, and outlining the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, and other attributes which may significantly represent the proposed development. ❑ A grading and drainage plan showing all grading and how drainage and stormwater is accommodated, and that meets the Conceptual Drainage Plan and Report requirements in the Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). ❑ For development subject to 8040 greenline review, a plan of the proposed development which shall depict at a minimum the following information: o The boundary of the property o Existing and proposed improvements o Significant natural features o Existing and proposed grades at two -foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades over ten percent (10%) M P376 IX.b o Proposed elevations of the development o A description of proposed construction techniques to be used ❑ A statement specifying the method of maintaining any proposed common areas on the site, including but not limited to common parking areas, walkways, landscaped areas and recreational facilities and what specific assurances will be made to ensure the continual maintenance of said areas. ❑ A description of any proposed project phasing detailing the specific improvements within each phase. ❑ "Ability -to -serve" letters from public and private utility providers that will service the proposed subdivision with potable water, natural gas, electricity, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and roads stating they can service the proposed subdivision. Ability -to -Serve letters shall be substantially in the following format: The [utility provider] has reviewed the proposed [subdivision name and date of application] subdivision and has adequate capacity to serve proposed development, subject to compliance with the following adopted design standards [reference] and subject to the following adopted tap fee or impact mitigation requirements [reference]. ❑ A statement prepared by a Colorado registered Professional Engineer, and depiction or mapping as necessary, regarding the presence of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Areas with slopes in excess of 30% shall require a slope stability study reviewed by the Colorado Geologic Survey. Also see Chapter 29 — Engineering Design Standards regarding identification and mitigation of natural hazards. ❑ A narrative prepared by a Colorado registered Professional Engineer, and depiction or mapping as necessary, describing the potential infrastructure upgrades, alignment, design, and mitigation techniques that may be necessary for development of the site to be served by public infrastructure, achieve compliance with Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards, and achieve compliance with the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). ❑ A statement regarding School Land Dedication requirements of Section 26.620.060 and a description of any lands to be dedicated to meet the standard. ❑ A complete Mobility Plan, including proposed parking impact mitigation and documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenUPlanning-and-Zoning/Recent- Code-Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the application. ❑ If a residential project only: Completed copy of the Residential Design Standard Checklist: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/businessnav/BuiIdorRemodeI/RDS°/o2OAppIication%20Pac ket.pdf If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: ❑ One additional copy of the entire application packet. ❑ Total deposit for review of the application. ❑ A digital copy of all application materials provided in pdf file format. ❑ A 3D model will be required for the public hearing. P377 IX.b 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. 31 P378 IX.b 529045 Pago: 1 of 11 1II�I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111109/27/2005 08;48F )ANICE K V05 CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 55.00 D 0.00 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AGREEMENT FOR THE 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD PUD AMENDMENT AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION THIS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND PUD AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made this 2_ day of, 2006, between STEEL PARTNERS, LTD, a Delaware Corporation (th "Owner") and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the "City"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Owner owns that certain real property (the "Property") located at 488 Castle Creek Road (Parcel Identification Number 2735-123-00-024) in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as: A tract of land located in Sections 12 and 13 of Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point, a number 5 re -bar on the Easterly side of the county road right-of-way whence the common corner of Sections 11, 12,13 and 14 bears S 87°06' W1016.20 feet; thence N 81'56' E 257.42 feet; thence S 06°42' E 308.07 feet; thence West 11.48 feet to the Easterly side of the county road right-of-way; thence along a fence line N 31'21' W 73.89 feet; thence along the fence line N 44°55' W 133.57 feet; thence along the fence line N S2°30' W 184.31 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.824 acres +/- (35,895 square feet +1-), City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. WHEREAS, Owner applied to the City of Aspen for approval of a PUD Amendment and a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption and associated growth management approvals (collectively, the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, on January 17, 2006, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") approved Resolution Number 04, Series of 2006 (the "Resolution") recommending that City Council approve a PUD Amendment and Lot Split, creating Lots 1 and 2 of the 488 Castle Creek Road PUD and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2006, the City Council of the City of Aspen granted approval of a PUD Amendment and Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split on the Property pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, P379 IX.b Subdivision Exemption do PUD Agreement 529045 488 Casile Creek Road page: 2 of 11 11111111111111111111111111111 oil Page 2 of 11 111111111111 09/27/ JRNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 4 0.00 g 48p WHEREAS, the approval of the Project was conditioned upon Owner complying with certain requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006 (the "Ordinance", recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder as Reception Number 528820), including entering into a Subdivision Exemption and PUD Agreement for the Property; and, WHEREAS, Owner has submitted to the City, for approval, execution and recordation, a plat and final PUD plan for the Property (together, the "Plat") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat (Owner shall pay all applicable recordation fees) on the agreement of the Owner to the matters described herein; and, WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat, which matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and the Owner is prepared to enter into a Subdivision Exemption and PUD Agreement incorporating such conditions and requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and the approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: L Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all partics hereto, and upon approval of the final Plat by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director, the City agrees to approve and execute the final Plat for lot split subdivision exemption submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Chapter 26.480 and all other applicable requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code. Said Plat and this Agreement shall be recorded (Owner pays all applicable recordation fees) in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of August 17, 2006 (the day an extension to the recordation deadline was approved by the Community Development Director), 2. Plat Requirements, At a minimum, the Plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Sections 26:480 and 26.445.070(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code; however, the PUD Plan portion of the Plat will not include an architectural character plan, a landscape plan, a grading and drainage plan, or a utility and public facilities plan. These elements will be provided with individual building permit applications for development of the resulting lots. The illustrative site plan will include only a delineation of the applicable setbacks and access easement. b. Contain a note stating that, no further subdivision of the subject properties may be granted nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. e. Contain a note stating that all new development on the subject lots wiII conform to the dimensional requirements established in the Ordinance (and reiterated Mb Subdivision Exemption & PUD Agreement 488 Castle Creek Road Page 3 of 11 529045 II IIS Illll �Il � (II IIII 09112712005 08:489 I JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PMIN COLWY CO R 58.00 D 0,00 below), unless said dimensional requirements are approved for amendment by the City. f. The following dimensional requirements of the Project are approved, as contained in the Ordinance, and shall be printed on the Plat: Lot 1. 11,225 Square Feet s, v Lot 2: 24,600 Square Feet 6,300 Square Feet (after Lot Area reductions) � -�:4 '�'2" tri ' � �l�{ ia, � ��.� ' !I�'rsr"'c>-E;� ,.� }�' !�l* � -• � ti - � g e#tt 75 feet ...... r x g Lot 1: 10 feet aloe west property line Lot 2: 25 feet for buildings, and 0 feet for grading/retaining associated with driveway m Lot I : 5 feet along north and south property lines Lot 2: 5 feet along north property line-, 55 feet along south property line g RE a- Lot 1: 10 feet along east property line �� Sx� k z `� ' { 51ti1 ���SC} k �r F r _ x Lot Z: 10 feet along ast property line and property lines adjoining Lot 1 'f'r,r,! :T's�cY =�,�, �"�'i'-�;ik��??.�;a'„�-:�.i:�fi:y..:s:i1�'z^�i;.��-`:'; x,=�',' N0ZCtllrereniW}' ,,'�i',Z:..i7.-.r4',•`9 a-TE� .�-n•�� f�.a1�4ii�iPSSiG�=�:�`.r.::oe 1” ani 25 feet �1 10 feet # ➢R l; 1�'�ii-� =�F. eiyR..Mir.-r1-'f:^aSir ri'� .i•• �:;s!';i:�•T.-, r.'��.:.',.x� Tc7' rrrr,_t 3 No requirement c• -4.'.,..�.ar�2�i.�� MAN i::il.rr.':'•''�'�- r.. fh947:.=;ra.er`sa ;i-,_ ! . ._- .-„�...•'::,. -„ '?� M� nr�,r L Lot 1: 3,344 Lot 2: 5,015sf, where the free market residence is R-11 allowed up to 3,515sf, and the Category 7 unit �ya:G::o.�•:•.i-"_'-�I��iiii:-t="k:<.�_i'.:i?';�:~. must Cal east , 5 O net livable ares. .zr. o-..^ t t li r81tr 1r 31 , � Lesser of one spacc&edrootn or two spaces/unit .nom 3. Buildinir Permit Application. In addition to such requirements enumerated elsewhere herein and otherwise required by the City of Aspen Building Department, the building permit application for each of the residential units shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance; b. The conditions of approval, as contained in the Ordinance, printed on the cover page of the building permit set; c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD); P381 IX.b Subdivision Exemption & PUD Agreement 1111111 IIIA 11111111111111111 IIIA 1111111111111 III] Illi 529045 488 Castle of 1 ! Page 4 of Creek Road 11!111111!1111111!11 fill 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 09/27/2005 011 8! 48A JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 58,00 D 0.00 d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees; e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility; £ A Construction Management Plan (CMP) pursuant to the requirements of the Community Development Department at the time of building permit application (a list of requirements is available in the offices of the Community Development Department). The CMP shall include a noise, dust control, and construction traffic and construction parking management plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following issues; i. Defining the construction debris .hauling routes and associated impacts on local streets; and ii. Construction parking mitigation, except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The city encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport parking area. iii. Recognition that the applicant and the contractors have been notified that there will be no construction materials or dumpsters stored in the public right- of-way unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City Engineer. iv. Tracking of mud onto City streets during construction is prohibited and a washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. g. A fugitive dust control plan which includes proposed construction fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads, construction speed limits, and other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property lines. h, Geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified, Colorado licensed engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development, and that required excavation may be performed without damaging the adjacent street. i. Building permit applications shall include a letter from the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. j. Building permits will not be issued until all tap fees, impact fees and building permit fees have been paid; if an alternative agreement to delay payment of the water tap and/or parks impacts fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to such agreement. k. As a condition of the building permits, all noise ordinances shall be abided by. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7a.m. and 7p.m. on Monday through Saturday. 4. Asbestos and Demolition, The Applicant shall complete (prior to any demolition) the Building Department's asbestos checklist, and if necessary, a person 4 IX.b Subdivision Exemption & PUD Agreement 488 Castle Creek Road 529045Page S of II 1111111 Page: 5 of 11 111111111111111111111 09/27 /2008 08 .46A JANICI COUNTY CO R 58.00 D 0.00 Iicensed by the State to do asbestos inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until submittal of this report. If there is a finding of no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 5. Residential Design. All development within the PUD shall comply with the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410 unless variances from said standards are granted. With the exception of solar panels, there shall be no reflective roof materials used on any structure. b. Exterior Liubti1112. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's Lighting Code Requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. 7. Water Service. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. See also #11, below. 8. Sewer Service. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) shall be allowed to ACSD lines. Also, the Applicant shall execute a shared sewer service line agreement prior to application for a building permit. See also #11, below. 9. Access. Lots 1 and 2 of the PUD/Lot Split shall share a driveway meeting the City Engineering Department Design Standards to be accessed off of Castle Creek Road, and in the approximate location shown on the Plat. 10. Fire Protection. Owner shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Marshal, including but not necessarily limited to installation of a fire sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the Aspen Fire Marshal in any residential unit that is of 5,000 square feet or more in area. 11. Utility Connections, All utility connections shall be buried. The Applicant shall submit financial assurance in an amount and form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Water Department Director for excavation in the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall also schedule the abandonment of the existing water tap prior to requesting a new water tap. 12. Environmental Health. The Ordinance contained conditions of approval related to a) disposal of contaminated soils or solid waste, to the extent that either are found to exist on the Property, b) abandonment of the existing septic system, c) fireplaces, and d) outdoor trash and recycling enclosures: P382 P383 IX.b Subdivision Exeinptior, & PUDAgreetnerrt 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 529045488 Castle Creek Road Page: 5 of iiPage 6 of II 09/27/2006 08: 48A JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 58.00 D 0.00 a. Disposal of Contaminated Soils or Solid Waste. To the extent that any contaminated soil or solid waste are found to exist on the site, no such contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. b. Septic System. The applicant shall provide a handling and disposal plan that complies with City Environmental Health Department requirements for the abandonment of existing septic system. c. Fireplaces. New residential buildings are limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant must file a fireplace permit with the Building Department before a building permit will be issued. New homes may not have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device utilize coal as fuel. d. Trash & RecyclingEnclosure(s). All outdoor trash and recycling storage enclosures shall meet with the City of Aspen's wildlife protection regulations that specify closures for dumpsters and other containers. 13. Affordable Housing. Development of a detached single-family residence on Lot 1 shall be subject to the requirements of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(1), Single-family, and compliance with said Section shall satisfy all growth management requirements for development of Lot 1. Development of Lot 2 with a free market, detached single-family residence and a detached Category 7 single-family residence in accordance with the following requirements shall satisfy all growth management requirements for development of Lot 2, including those of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26..470.040(B)(1), Duplex. a. Affordable Housing Unit B on Lot 2 shall be a deed -restricted, for -sale unit with at least 2,000 square feet of net livable area, designated Category 7. Unit B will be sold through the Housing Office lottery as a completed residential unit. b. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership in the decd restricted affordable housing units. c. A deed -restriction shall be placed on Unit B, Lot 2 prior to Certificate of Occupancy. d. The ADU on Lot I shall be decd -restricted prior to building permit approval; if the ADU is not constructed, the housing impact fce will also be due prior to building permit approval, pursuant to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. If built, the ADU shall be detached, pursuant to Section 26.520 unless special review approval is obtained to vary the requiremcnts of the ADU design standards. 14. Landscaping Improvements. The following requirements are applicable to development of the Project. a. All landscaping in the public right-of-way shall meet the requirements set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 21.20, Trees and Landscaping on Public Right -of -Way. Any landscaping in the public right-of-way shall be approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall obtain a revocable Mb MW Subdivision Exemption & pUD Agreeme�at 5 ��4�J 488 Castle Creek Road 529045 Page 7 of 11 + Page: 7 of I I III 111111111111111111111111111111111111109/27/2006 JPNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 10 008.4BA encroachment license from the City Engineering Department prior to installation of any landscaping or improvements in the public right-of-way. b. The Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of any tree(s) to be saved or at other points associated with the limit of the foundation as approved by the Parks Department, i. The Parks Department must inspect and approve tree saving construction fence locations before any construction activities commence. ii, No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within a fenced drip line. 15. Subdivision. No further subdivision of the Property may occur without receipt of applicable and required approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter "Code") and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470 of the Code, unless the Code is amended in a manner that otherwise allows for further subdivision. 16. IMPact Fees. Park Development Impact Fees shall be assessed on each residential unit con tructed on Lots I and 2 at the time of building permit issuance. The park development impact fees shall be calculated by the City Zoning Officer at the time of building permit issuance using the fee schedule in place at said time. In addition, cash- in-Iieu of School Land Dedication shall be due prior to building permit issuance. The amount due in lieu of school land dedication shall be calculated by the City Zoning Officer at the time of building permit issuance using the fee schedule in place at said time and the information provided by the Applicant with regard to market value of the land including site improvements but excluding the value of the structures on the site. Only the proportionate amount of all applicable impact fees shall be due at the time of building permit issuance for each residence. 17. Colorado Common Interest Owilershl Act CCIOA , As soon as construction on Lot 2 practically allows, Owner anticipates submitting the Lot 2 development to a plan for condominiumization created pursuant to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) in order to facilitate the separate conveyance of ownership in the free market unit and the Category 7 employee housing unit. The City agrees to process for approval and for recordation a condominium map prepared in accordance with the Code and CCIOA. As the Owner will have provided affordable housing pursuant to the Code, the Lot 2 is cxenYpt from paying an Affordable Housing Impact fee. This provision is not in conflict with those provisions of the Ordinance or of this Agreement restricting the property from further subdivision. 1$. Vested Pro ert Rights. The approved Ordinance, Plat and this Agreement, collectively, constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of development order issuance. P385 IX.b Subdivision Exemption & PUD,1greetne,,t 529045488 Castle Creek Road Page 8 of 11Page; 8 of 11 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 9/27/2 0068 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 4 0,00 48A 19. Financial Security for Public Improvements. In order to secure the Performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public right-of- way, including landscaping, the Owner shall provide the City with a financial security for the proposed improvements. The financial security shall take the form of a letter of credit, cash or other guarantees in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney and shall be submitted to the City prior to the initiation of construction or the issuance of any building permits. Pursuant to this Agreement, the Owner shall provide a detailed cost estimate of the improvements for approval by the City. The amount of the required financial security shall be 110% of the estimated cost of the improvements. The guarantee documents shall give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default by the Owner in its obligations to complete the public improvements, to withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation for such public improvements, or to withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation for such public improvements. If the improvements have not been completed to the satisfaction of the City within one year of the cost estimate, the City may require the Owner to adjust the amount of the financial security for local increases in construction costs. As portions of the improvements are completed, the City shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for that portion of the improvements, except that ten percent (10%) of the estimated costs of the improvements shall be withheld for the benefit of the City until (i) all of the improvements have been inspected and accepted by the City, (ii) a two-year maintenance bond has been provided by the Contractor, and (iii) as-builts have been provided (if required). Separate financial securities and maintenance bonds are required for civil R.Q.W. improvements (i.e, pipelines, sidewalks, and curbs) and landscaping R.O.W. improvements. 20. Material Representations. All material representations made by the Owner on record, whether in public hearings or in documentation presented before City Council or the P&Z, shall be binding upon the Owner. 21. Enforcement. In the event the City determines that the Owner is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or of the Final Plat, the City may serve a notice of noncompliance and request that the deficiencies be corrected within a period of forty-five (45) days. In the event the Owner believes that s/he is in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial, the Owner may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or where any amendment, variance, or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to its standard procedures and take such action as it deems appropriate. The City shall be entitled to all remedies at equity and at law to enjoin, correct and/or receive damages for any noncompliance with this Agreement. IX.b MW Subdivision E.xempliora & pVD,Qgreement 488 Castle Creek Road 529045 Page 9ofII Page: 9 of 11 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 88/272 JANICE K VO5 CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 00.0008 48R 22. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent in .writing by U.S, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of the mailing of the same. To the Owner: Steel Partners, Ltd. C/O Warren Lichtenstein, President 590 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10022 With Copy to; J. Bart Johnson Otten Johnson Robinson Neff & Ragonetti 420 East Main Street, Suite 210 Aspen, CO 81611 Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 To the City: City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 23. Bind * Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall nun with and constitute a burden on the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Owners, their successors and assigns, and to the City and its successors and assigns. 24. Ameadmeut. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by all parties hereto, with the same formality as this Agreement was executed. 25. Severability, If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Subdivision Exemption and Planned Unit Development Agreement the day and year first written above. [remainder of page intentionally left blank] Subdivision Exemption & PUD Agreeinent 488 Castle Creek Road Page 10 of]] P387 IX.b I I 529@45 Page: 10 of It II�/ 08 08.48 A R JANICE K V06 CALUILL PITK]N COUNTY CO R 36.00 0 0.00 OWNER: STEEWARTNERS LTD, a Del v re corporation By: Na :Michael Falk Title: Secretary and STATE OF N\ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF N ) foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this 21 day of !RLA(A2006, by Michael Falk, in his capacity as Secretary and Treasurer for Steel Partners Ltd. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires �U-Aga lEifJAt1No+ery Pbtic, state of taw N.OME-6113647 N ' Qualified in New York Cou Term EXPFres August 2, 20( 8 [remainder of page intentionally left blank] 10 IX.b Subdivision Exemption & PUD Agreement 488 Castle Creek Road Page 11 of 11 APPROVED; I 1111111111 JRNICE K orcester, City Attorney THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO a municipal corporation By: Helen Ka -lin Klanderud, STATE OF COLORADO 529045 Ilill�llllllPage: It IIS 1 11 09/27/200608:489 couNTY co R 56.00 n 0.00 ATTEST: Kathryn Kocb;'City Clerk ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this a&Aday of 2006, by Helen Kalin Klanderud and Kathryn Koch, as Mayor and it Clerk, respectively, of the City of Aspen, a Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and o€'ficiial�eal. My commission expires CAly DoeumciAsTity ApphcationsM8 Castle Crmk/City Docs\SEMUD Agreement 11 Va��A� # fa %M IX.b ORDINANCE NO.5 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512300024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Steel Partners Ltd., represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting approval of a PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 488 Castle Creek Road; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 17, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and recommended by a vote of 5-0 that City Council approve the proposal; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development proposal meets or exceeds all of the applicable development standards; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 • Approval of the Development Plans Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves the 488 Castle Creek Final PUD, which includes application for PUD, Subdivision (condominiumization), subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the following: a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(0). 2. A Final PUD/Subdivision Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the Community Development Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements, and the location of utility pedestals. 528820 Page: 1 of 7 09/21/2006 09:00 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.00 Mb M Section 2• Dimensional Approvals The following dimensional requirements of the PUD are approved and shall be printed on the Final PUD Plan: Section 3: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the development is hereby approved by the City of Aspen subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current plat requirements in place at the time of filing. Each plat for condominiumization shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and approval by the Community Development Engineer prior to recordation. The cost of recordation shall be borne by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of ownership of the condominium. The condominium declarations shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department Director to ensure that condominimum dues are balanced, reasonable and fair especially with regard to the deed -restricted Unit B on Lot 2. Section 4: Building Permit Submittal The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded ordinance. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. C. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated „.. Sanitation District. a 528820 Page: 2 of 7 09/21/2006 09:00 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL VITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.00 P390 P391 Mb d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. e. A fugitive dust control plan which includes proposed construction fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads, construction speed limits, and other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line. f. The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified, licensed engineer to the Community Development Department Engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development, and that required excavation may be performed without damaging the adjacent street. g. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 3. The Applicant shall complete (prior to any demolition) the Building Department's asbestos checklist, and if necessary, a person licensed by the State to do asbestos inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until submittal of this report. If there is a finding of no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 4. All development within the subdivision shall meet the Residential Design Standards as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410, unless variances from said standards are granted. 5. No reflective roof materials shall be used, with the exception of solar panels. 528820 Page: 3 of 7 09/21/2006 09:00 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.00 IX.b P392 Section 5: Utility and Service Conditions of LvRroval The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with TitPlumb 25, and with applicable Code)tofdthes of Aspene 8 Muniater cipal Conservation and $ Advisory Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) shall be allowed to ACSD lines. 3. The Applicant shall execute a shared sewer service line agreement prior to application for a building permit. 4. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a driveway meeting the City Engineering Department Design Standards to be accessed off of Castle Creek Road, and in the approximate location shown on the Final PUD plans. 5. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal. b. All utility connections shall be buried. Owl' Section 5: Engineering Re uirements and Conditions: The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. The Applicant and contractors are hereby notified that there will be no construction material or dumpsters stored on the public rights-of-way unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City Engineer. 2. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan as part of the building permit application, and the management plans shall include a noise, dust control, and construction traffic and construction parking management plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following issues: a. Defining the construction debris hauling routes and associated impacts on local streets; and b. Construction parking mitigation, except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The city encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport parking area. C. The Construction Management Plan shall comply with City requirements at the time of building permit application. 3. The Applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 528820 Page: 4 of 7 09/21/2008 09:00 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.00 P393 IX.b 4. The Applicant shall submit financial assurance in an amount and form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Water Deepartthment alDirector for excavation in the public right-of-way. The Applicant ule the abandonment of the existing water tap prior to requesting a new water tap. 5. The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Monday thru Saturday. Section 7: Environmental Health The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. To the extent that any contaminated soil or solid waste are found to exist on the site, no such contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. 2. The applicant shall provide a handling and disposal plan that complies with City Environmental Health Department requirements for the abandonment of existing septic system. 3. New residential buildings are limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant must file a fireplace permit with the Building Department before a building permit will be issued. New homes may not have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device utilize coal as fuel. All outdoor trash and recycling storage enclosures shall meet with o dtiun City � $ andAoother containers. protection regulations that specify closures P Section 8: Li htin all meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in All exterior lighting sh Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, as maybe amended from time to time: Section 9: Lan dsca in Im rov Men ts The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. All landscaping in the public right-of-way shall meet the requirements set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 21.20, Trees and Landscaping on Public Right -of -Way. Any landscaping in the public right-of-way shall be approved by the City Parksencroent Prior to achment licensesfromlon. The the City Applicant shall obtain a revocable Engineering Department prior to installation of any landscaping or improvements in the public right-of-way. g of JANICE K Vo5 GpyyplLL PITKtN COUNTS Go R 36.00 glZ1 D 0 00 g :00 Mb 2. The Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of any trees to be saved or at other points associated with the limit of the foundation as approved by the Parks Department, . The Parks Department must inspect and approve of the fence location before any construction activities commence. b. No excavation, storage on backfillafoot or vehQconstruction equipment, construction traffic shall be allowed within the fenced drip line. Section 10: Em to eegouSin The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. Affordable Housing Unit B on Lot 2shall be a ded-rericted, for -sale edesignated Category�it with at least 2,000 square feet of net liveable area Unit B will be sold through the Housing Office lottery as a completed residential unit. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or Housing Authority similar charges related to ownership in the deed restricted affordable housing units. 3. A deed -restriction shall be placed on Unit B, Lot 2 prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The ADU on Lot 1 shall be deed -restricted prior to building permit approval; If the ADU is not constructed, the housing impact fee will also be due prior to building permit approval, pursuant to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The ADU shall be detached, pursuant to Section 26.520. Section 11: School Lands Dedication Fee ool Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, S jaerm nds i� issuance. The Cithe itty of Aspen pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to building P n methodology and fee Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculatio schedule in effect at the time of building permit rovements, but excltal. The uding hshall value of the market value of the land including site p structures on the site. Section 12: Park Develo Ment IM act Fee rk Development P Applicant licant Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Paof Aspen Zoning Officer shall shall pay a park development impact fee. The City p calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. 528820 Page: 6 of 7 09/21/2006 09:00 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.90 0 0.00 P394 P395 528820 Mb 09/21/2006 09:00 '^� JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COl1NTY CO R 36.00 D 0.00 Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant tot e whether in public hearing or development proposal approvals as herein awarded, documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 1S: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin county Clerk and Recorder. Section 16: "* A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of February, 2006, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of February, 2006. 'A Attest: Kathryn Ko -W City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by the Aspen City Council on this day, February 27, 2006. Approved as to form: e Helen KLnnder d, Mayor IX.b August 9, 2017 TILE CTFY OF ASPFN Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO. 81611 Re; Affordable Housing Development at 488 Castle Creek Road — Public Project Review of Planned Development Application Dear Jennifer: The purpose of this letter is to confirm that the City of Aspen is the current owner of the Property located at 488 Castle Creek Road in the City of Aspen, CO. The Property is comprised of two (2) separate legal lots with legal descriptions as follows: LOTS 1 AND 2,488 CASTLE CREED ROAD FINAL P.U.D. AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, according to the Plat thereof recorded September 27, 2006 in Plat Book 81 at Page 48. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. In addition, the City has entered into a partnership with Aspen Housing Partners, LLC to develop the 488 Castle Creek Road Property into an affordable housing facility. Therefore, this letter is also to serve as authorization for Aspen Housing Partners, LLC to proceed as the Applicant representing the City of Aspen as the Property Owner in the Land Use Application submittal and subsequent proceedings for the development approval of the Property accordingly. Sincerely, James R. True, Esq, City Attorney City of Aspen 130 SOUTH GALHNA STREET - ASPEN, COLORADo 81611-1975 • PtioNE 970.920,5000 , FAX 970.920.5197 WWW. aspenpVxOm Printed on Rerycled hape, P396 aspen housini August 2, 2017 Jessica Garrow Director of Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 488 Castle Creek Road — Affordable Housing Planned Development Dear Ms. Garrow: P397 IX.b partners, Ilc This letter is to serve as authorization for Method Planning + Development to represent Aspen Housing Partners, LLC with the application submission and subsequent proceedings for the Land Use Reviews associated with the development of the property at 488 Castle Creek Road, Aspen, CO 81611. The legal description of the subject property is described as: LOTS 1 & 2, 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD FINAL P.U.D. AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Aspen Housing Partners, LLC is serving as the Applicant on this matter on behalf of the City of Aspen, the Owner of the subject property, as authorized by the accompanying letter from the City Attorney of the City of Aspen. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions regarding this authorizing letter. Sincerely yours, Jason Bradshaw, Manager Aspen Housing Partners, LLC 228 Eastwood Drive Aspen, CO 81611 970.319.9298 IX.b Name: Location: Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: Address: Phone#: GMQS Exemption GMQS Allotment Special Review ATTACHMENT 2 - LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: ESA —8040Greenline,Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, 0 Mountain View Plane 0 Commercial Design Review Q Residential Design Variance 0 Conditional Use Conceptual PUD Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Subdivision Subdivision Exemption (includes Condominiumization) Lot Split Lot Line Adjustment :XISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Temporary Use Conceptual SPA Final SPA (&SPA Amendment) Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Other: Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 0 Pre -Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form 0 Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements — including Written Responses to Review Standards 0 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. m P399 Mb 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 additional 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: Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $ Received $ Property Owner: 5--LeL Name: Title: IX.b Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM (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: Number of residential units: Existing: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: 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: am P401 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Name: City of Aspen Property Owner ("I" ). Email: jim.true@cityofaspen.com Phone No.: 970.920.5055 Address of Property: 488 Castle Creek Road, Aspen, CO. 81611 (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) ® This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document Owner signature: kt. �i%f� '�� date: Owner printed name: SA "e- 'Y."w; or, Attorney signature: '---F date: Attorney printed name: A -,._,,,,.;, K . Trti---- Lb IX.b Fee Waiver Request Form THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department This form must be submitted to the Community Development Director. You will be notified when a decision has been made. For what fees are you requesting waiver? ❑ BUILDING ❑ PLANNING Applicant Name: Contact Ph.# Department or Mailing address: E-mail address: Project address: Project description: Fee Breakdown: Total of Request: $ Reason for Waiver: ❑ City General Fund Department — 100% waiver ❑ City Capital or Other Department — 50% waiver ❑ Waived or decreased by City Council (please provide documentation) ❑ Other— Please explain with attached letter of request Apr ant Signature Date For office use only: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DISAPPROVED Community Development Director Total fees waived: $ Date P402 Fee Description Fee Amount Requested Fee Description Waiver Fee Amount Requested Waiver Energy Code Fee REMP Fee Excavation Foundation Fee Zoning Review Fee Inspection Fee Planning Application Fee Permit Fee HPC Application Fee Plan Check Other: Total of Request: $ Reason for Waiver: ❑ City General Fund Department — 100% waiver ❑ City Capital or Other Department — 50% waiver ❑ Waived or decreased by City Council (please provide documentation) ❑ Other— Please explain with attached letter of request Apr ant Signature Date For office use only: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DISAPPROVED Community Development Director Total fees waived: $ Date P402 P403 IX.b WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON &VELASQUEZro August 8, 2017 Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 J. Bart Johnson 970.544.4602 johnson@wcrlegal.com Re: 488 Castle Creek Rd. — Notification of Surface Development pursuant to C.R.S. § 24- 65.5-101 et seq. To Whom it May Concern: We represent Aspen Housing Partners, LLC with respect to a land use application that it has submitted for an affordable housing project it is pursuing on behalf of the City of Aspen for the property located at 488 Castle Creek Rd., Aspen, CO 81611. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101 et seq., the owners of mineral estates that have been severed from surface ownership of a parcel of land must be given notice of an application for development in certain circumstances. This statute applies to any mineral estate owner who either (a) is identified as a mineral estate owner in the county tax assessor's records, if those records are searchable by parcel number or other certain means; or (b) has filed an appropriate notice in the office of the applicable Clerk and Recorder pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(3). Please be advised that: (a) we have searched the Pitkin County Assessor's records for the property located at 488 Castle Creek Rd. and have found no mineral estate owner identified in such records; and (b) have examined Schedule B-2 of the title insurance commitment issued for the subject property by Stewart Title on June 8, 2017 and have found no notice filed by a mineral estate owner in the offices of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. We have therefore concluded that there are no eligible mineral estate owners to whom notice is required to be delivered in connection with the application for the land use application submitted for the property located at 488 Castle Creek Rd. Sincerely, Bart Johnson for WAAS CAMPBELL RivERA JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP 2g19*011.&II*J:14lLill III VIEIMD14HY141. 1611111 dyfeia ilit] :I.iEfG1 420 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 210 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 m970-544-7006 F866-492-0361 WCRLEGAL.COM Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Multi -family Development Address: Representative: Parcel ID: Email: Zone District/PD: Phone: r� a Tq cmnr n— Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. � Alterna� EnVandaOrd Complies Compliance B.1.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.2.Garage Access (Non -flexible) B.3.Garage Placement (Non -flexible) BA.Entry Connection (Non -flexible) B.5Principle Window (Flexible) Page 1 of 1 p P405 IX.b APPENDIX B — REPORTS, STUDIES & LETTERS Exhibit 1. Public Outreach Process, Goals and Schedule Summary Exhibit 2. Engineering Report Exhibit 3. Drainage Report Exhibit 4. Geotechnical Engineering Report Exhibit 5. Phase I ESA (report only; appendices provided upon request) Exhibit 6. Mobility Plan/Transportation Impact Analysis — Major Exhibit 7. Property Operations and Maintenance Protocol Letter 193 IX.b Aspen Housing Partners and City of Aspen PPP for the Development of Affordable Housing — Community and Stakeholder Outreach Process, Organization and Goals The following outline describes the various processes and tools that will be utilized throughout the public outreach process for the development of affordable housing on the thee City owned subject properties — 802 Main Street, 517 Park Circle and 488 Castle Creek Road. The projected timeframe for the public outreach process is estimated to be approximately three (3) months, commencing in early January 2017 and completing in March 2017. I. Initial Community Wide Open House A. Dates: January 5, 2017 from 3 to 7 pm; January 11, 2017 from 11-1 pm and 4 to 6 pm. B. Venue: Limelight Hotel Conference Room C. Details: Food and beverages will be served to participants on behalf of Aspen Housing Partners D. Purpose, Goals and Intended Outcome: The purpose of the initial community wide open house is to reintroduce the public the efforts made and data collected thus far and to solicit input on the scope of the designs for each of the three properties at this point in the process. The intended outcome is to establish general awareness and to obtain critical feedback on the project concepts established throughout the RFP and partnership establishment process to date, including but not limited to objective data as well as subjective input on such items as appropriateness to neighborhood context, mass, height, density, scale, parking, architectural, style, character, landscape site improvements and unit mix. The takeaways will inform the next round of design and programming modifications and then be used to present to key neighborhood stakeholders in more intimate breakout meetings and settings. E. Venue Setup and Process The organization of the initial community wide open house will be to provide extensive education on the background of the effort to date and the community input that has formed the basis for the establishment of the PPP to develop affordable rental housing. Additionally, the initial open house will present the background and education on each of the three sites — both what was pubic input to date on the three sites and specifically what the vision is for each of the three sites in greater detail. 'm P407 IX.b The conference room at the Limelight Hotel will be organized into multiple stations where participants can casually gain whatever level of education/information they would like to learn as well as provide anonymous and objective feedback and/or very detailed input and commentary regarding the current conceptual designs and processes being undertaken. 1. Background and History An informational station will be devoted to providing background on the history of prior public outreach on the matter and the purpose and functioning of the PPP. It will cover all matters related but not limited to the background, process, team, LIHTCs, timeline, entitlement process, construction, property management, etc. Specifically, this station will provide information on: a. Charts, tables and graphs - showing the historic public outreach data on the topic of developing new affordable housing. b. Organizational chart — highlighting the structure and purpose of the PPP and related team members. c. Broad timeline — identifying the key phases from partnership establishment through lease -up and operation. d. LIHTC background — describing the program, how it works, and how the PPP relationship benefits the City. e. Guiding principles —the key principles and commitments the development team in partnership with the City has made in seeing the projects through completion as outlined in the original RFP proposal material and providing additional description. 2. Site Specific Material and Information (x3) Each of the three (3) properties will have its own station to highlight the history of the site under consideration for affordable housing development, through the current design concepts that have been established for each. The material at each property's station will start from a broad look at the proposed development within the context of town and the surrounding area and continue through a detailed look at planning, site, and building design details. The material presented will be done so in a manner to be able to obtain objective data and input from the participants as well as subjective thoughts, comments and opinions of the material presented. This input will then be used to further refine and adjust the design concepts as the process moves forward. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx IX.b a. Background and Prior Input — each station will have a board/material showing the considerations to date that established the current concepts, support by previously obtained data and input. b. Area context and surrounding precedent — each station will have a board/material showing the surrounding context and character including use -types, zoning, architectural and site design character, parking and traffic patterns, etc. c. Site plan and surrounding site pressures — each station will have a board/material highlighting the current design concept as well as design considerations made to alleviate and site pressures such as neighboring property relationships, views, access, parking, screening, etc. d. Architectural character studies — each station will have a board/material depicting a variety of architectural character both present in the surrounding area as well as appropriate to the area context and greater history of the neighborhood and greater community. e. Building design and proposed architectural character— each station will have a board(s)/material that highlights the following as it relates to the design of the buildings: L Massing ii. Height iii. Architectural style iv. Material character This information will be communicated through architectural renderings and perspectives of the buildings within the context of the sites and surrounding and neighboring areas and buildings. f. Building floor plans, typical unit plans and unit mixes — each station will generally show each floor plan to highlight unit layouts, amenities, non -unit area, decks, etc. typical units and the related mix of units sizes will also be represented for each property. II. Neighborhood -wide and Individual Key Stakeholder Meetings A. Dates: as required from mid-January to end of February 2017. B. Venue: casual settings such as at the respective properties, meeting rooms, living rooms or cafes. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 3 MW .m Mb C. Details: the needs and expectations of the neighborhood stakeholder will determine the details such as coffee meetings, smaller group presentations and discussions, etc. D. Purpose, Goals and Intended Outcome: The purpose of the neighborhood and key individual stakeholder meetings is to solicit specific input and individual concerns regarding the design of the three projects as they relate to surrounding neighbors, properties, roads, alleys, etc. Participants will be contacted via mailings, sign- ups from other prior events, emails, website and known and identified stakeholders surrounding each of the three properties. The goals of the neighborhood and stakeholder meetings will be to discuss individuals' concerns in a smaller intimate setting — whether that be over coffee at a coffee shop with a table full of neighbors, on-site to look and review specific concerns, or one-on-one meetings with immediate surrounding homeowners. The intended outcome of this phase of public outreach will be to specifically address design considerations, traffic/parking concerns or any other factors that are most critical and concerning to the most vested community stakeholders. Achieving any amount of greater neighborhood buy -in will be the ultimate outcome goal from the neighborhood stakeholder engagement. E. Venue Setup and Process The venue setup and engagement process will be very organic in nature, depending on the needs and desires of the neighborhood residents and key stakeholders. The expectation is a mix of meetings, consisting of larger group settings in a casual atmosphere to discuss questions and concerns that may be prevalent throughout the neighborhood. This phase of public outreach will also offer key stakeholders the opportunity to meet with members of the development team to specifically discuss questions and concerns on an individual level. III. First City Council Work Session Check -In and Presentation A. Dates: February 14, 2017 Following the Community -wide and Neighborhood -wide stakeholder public outreach phases, the project team will reconvene with City Council at a work session to present the findings and takeaways at this point in the process. This check-in will give Council the ability to review and provide any direction deemed appropriate based on the public feedback received and documented. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx IX.b IV. Final Community Wide Open House B. Dates: March 2, 2017 from 3 to 7 pm; March 8, 2017 from 11-1 pm and 4 to 6 pm. C. Venue: Limelight Hotel Conference Room D. Details: Food and beverages will be served to participants on behalf of Aspen Housing Partners E. Purpose, Goals and Intended Outcome: The final community -wide open house will be a consolidated version of the initial open house, with the intent of focusing on the refined design details for each of the three properties. The purpose will be to present the design modifications that have come about from the input and data gathered from the prior two phases of the public outreach process. The takeaways will further inform the final round of design and programming modifications that will provide the basis for the land use application material and process. F. Venue Setup and Process The organization of the final community wide open house will be to present and obtain final feedback from the community on the more detailed site and building designs for each of the three properties. The conference room at the Limelight Hotel will be organized into multiple stations where participants can casually gain whatever level of education/information they would like to learn as well as provide anonymous and objective feedback and/or very detailed input and commentary regarding the final designs leading into the land use review process. 1. Background and History To accommodate any new attendees to the open house, a consolidated version of the initial open house informational station will be devoted to providing background on the history of prior public outreach on the matter and the purpose and functioning of the PPP. It will cover all matters related but not limited to the background, process, team, LIHTCs, timeline, entitlement process, construction, property management, etc. Specifically, this station will provide information on: a. Charts, tables and graphs - showing the historic public outreach data on the topic of developing new affordable housing. b. Organizational chart — highlighting the structure and purpose of the PPP and related team members. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 5 P410 P411 IX.b c. Broad timeline — identifying the key phases from partnership establishment through lease -up and operation. d. LIHTC background —describing the program, how it works, and how the PPP relationship benefits the City. e. Guiding principles —the key principles and commitments the development team in partnership with the City has made in seeing the projects through completion as outlined in the original RFP proposal material and providing additional description. 2. Site Specific Material and Information (x3) Each of the three (3) properties will have its own station to highlight the history of the site under consideration for affordable housing development, through the current design concepts that have been established for each. The material at each property's station will start from a broad look at the proposed development within the context of town and the surrounding area and continue through a detailed look at planning, site, and building design details. The material presented will be done so in a manner to be able to obtain objective data and input from the participants as well as subjective thoughts, comments and opinions of the material presented. This input will then be used to further refine and adjust the design concepts as the process moves forward. a. Background and Prior Input — each station will have a board/material showing the considerations to date that established the current concepts, support by previously obtained data and input. Additionally, the background will identify the modifications that have been made to each of the properties throughout this public outreach process. b. Area context and surrounding precedent — each station will have a board/material showing the surrounding context and character including use -types, zoning, architectural and site design character, parking and traffic patterns, etc. c. Site plan and surrounding site pressures — each station will have a board/material highlighting the refined site designs as well as design considerations made to alleviate and site pressures such as neighboring property relationships, views, access, parking, screening, etc. d. Architectural character studies — each station will have a board/material depicting the architectural character and precedent Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx IX.b imagery that was informed and refined throughout the public outreach process. Opposed to presenting character variations and options at the initial public open house, this study for the final open house will show the character and styles that the design team arrived at through public and stakeholder input. e. Building design and proposed architectural character — each station will have a board(s)/material that highlights the following as it relates to the design of the buildings as revised throughout the public outreach process: L Massing ii. Height iii. Architectural style iv. Material character This information will be communicated through architectural renderings and perspectives of the buildings within the context of the sites and surrounding and neighboring areas and buildings. f. Building floor plans, typical unit plans and unit mixes — each station will more specifically show each floor plan to highlight unit layouts, amenities, non -unit area, decks, etc. typical units and the related mix of unit sizes will also be represented for each property. This presentation will show greater detail and more firmed up layouts following the incorporation of public input. V. Final City Council Work Session Check -In and Presentation A. Dates: March 28, 2017 Following the last Community -wide open house, the project team will reconvene with City Council at a work session to present the final findings and takeaways leading into the land use application development and review process. Council will have the opportunity to review the revisions made throughout the process and make any final recommendations leading into the land use process. VI. Additional Tools and Process for Public Input To complement the open houses and direct stakeholder engagements that will be undertaken, the project team will also implement the following tools for soliciting and obtaining additional public and community input: B. Website — a user-friendly public engagement website platform similar to the Aspen Community Voice site. The team may also utilize the Aspen Community Voice website exclusively for the online outreach effort or in addition to a standalone website for these specific projects. The website will Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx P412 P413 IX.b function to provide additional material and information, post details such as event dates, and most importantly solicit, track and capture input data from subscribers to supplement the input and data captured through the various public outreach events and meetings. C. Email Blasts — informational email blasts to key lists of community members and employees of significant employers such as area school districts, ACRA, City of Aspen, SkiCo, Aspen Valley Hospital, valley non -profits, hotels, etc. The email blasts will primarily foucs on announcements such as event dates and details and any information related to the website or alternatives means for asking questions and providing input. D. Mailings — informative mailings will be sent out to all residents within the most appropriately determined radius from each of the project sites. The mailings will function similar to email blasts for informing neighbors of key events, and opportunities to ask questions, set up meetings and/or ask provide critical input to the project designs. E. Key Technical Stakeholder Meetings and Interviews — meetings with government and agency stakeholders that have technical insights and considerations with the development of each of the three properties. F. Newspaper and Radio Informational Ads — periodic newspaper and radio ads providing information on events and updates throughout the public outreach process. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx IX.b Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx P414 N U !6 .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... � M � C� .......................... 44 w eN .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ........._.......... ..................... ..... .......................... n .............................. yy, dMR .......................... 44 .......................... .......................... a � .......................... .......................... ......................... .......................... .......................... 7 L 44 44 ......................... LL 44 n : rel:............................... N ..........~..... 44 ~.......... .......................... .. .......................... ................ . ................. ................. N W.......................... 4 .......................... iAy .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... W = U N 4a c Ql a O A[0 W L ❑ Q1 Q Y c H `1 CL C W c i 0. [6 E a# sx _ _ N9 7U c O W O z U a) U c E V0 v Ql o •H rn p QJ O O 0 Q E E g a ato a�_ E E o a _ = Z LL o LL o L LL 1.1 a _ g. .- - ... ._ . ... .= ... -.' .... -.' ... .> Q :x ri N M Rt Ln %0 N Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx P414 P415 Mb Preliminary Engineering Report CASTLE CREEK AFFORDABLE HOUSING Ogg CASTLE CREEK RD. ASPEN, CO August 10, 2017 Prepared by Daniel Stewart, P.E. Roaring Fork Engineering 592 Highway 133 Carbondale, CO ROARING FORK ENGINEERING Mb Preliminary Engineering Report CASTLE CREEK AFFORDABLE HOUSING 488 CASTLE CREEK RD. ASPEN, CO DANIEL STEWART; P.E. RFE Project # 2016-50 Castle Creek Affordable Housing Preliminary Engineering Report P416 P417 IX.b Table of Contents 1.0 General................................................................................................................................................... l 1.1 Existing Site.....................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Proposed Conditions......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Potable Water......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Existing.............................................................................................................................................2 2.2 Proposed........................................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Sanitary Sewer........................................................................................................................................2 3.1 Existing.............................................................................................................................................2 3.2 Proposed........................................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Electric....................................................................................................................................................3 4.1 Existing.............................................................................................................................................3 4.2 Proposed........................................................................................................................................... 3 5.0 Gas..........................................................................................................................................................3 5.1 Existing.............................................................................................................................................3 5.2 Proposed........................................................................................................................................... 3 6.0 Communications.....................................................................................................................................3 6.1 Existing.............................................................................................................................................3 6.2 Proposed........................................................................................................................................... 3 Castle Creek Affordable Housing Preliminary Engineering Report IX.b List of Appendices Appendix A — Ability to Serve Letters Castle Creek Affordable Housing Preliminary Engineering Report MW P419 IX.b 1.0 General 1.1 Existing Site 488 Castle Creek Rd. is currently owned by the City of Aspen. The property is comprised of a currently vacant parcel of land 0.823 acres in area. The property is located up Castle Creek Rd., bounded by Marolt housing to the east and north of the property and Castle Creek Rd to the west and south. The site is located at an approximate elevation of 8010 feet. All major utilities are located on or near the site. There is an existing water service tap on the property but no sewer service is known. Overhead electric is available on site as well as buried telephone. Ability to Serve Letters are provided for water, gas, electric and sanitary sewer, included in Appendix A. 1.2 Proposed Conditions The site will consist of a proposed four -level structure of one and two bedroom condominiums. The front of the structure will have at grade access from the second(main) level with direct connection to parking and front court yard. The lower level will have egress access to the back of the structure and trail system off the sides of the building. The upper levels of the structure will have no direct egress to at grade levels. New pathways in the courtyard will be four feet wide pervious pavers. Attached concrete sidewalk will run along the length of the parking area. A six -foot -wide sidewalk will exist the property and be attached to Castle Creek Rd for approximately two hundred feet down the hill to the existing bike bath and bus stop. All sidewalks will meet the current Engineering Standard for construction in the public right -of - Castle Creek Affordable Housing Preliminary Engineering Report IX.b way. Sidewalk cross -slopes meet the American Disabilities Act (ADA) maximum of two percent, curbs ramp meet the ADA maximum of 8.33 percent, and all access needed for ADA compliance into the building is under five percent. Storm water infrastructure is designed to detain and infiltrate one hundred percent of the impervious area of the proposed site. Routing of storm water runoff will be through a series of area inlets and trench drains in the courtyard and valley pan inlets in the parking area. Parking lot drainage will be routed to two CDS treatment structures to dropout sediments and hydrocarbons before being directed to five drywells sized to detain the 100 -year storm event. Pervious pavers and other infiltrating hard surfaces will be used in accordance with the Low Impact Design criteria provided in the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan. 2.0 Potable Water 2.1 Existing There is an existing twenty -inch water main on site that is one of the main service lines for the City of Aspen. This line has been previously taped for a water service and hydrant but the material of the line is unknown at this time. This line may be suitable to use for proposed conditions, but a contingency plan is described below if it is not. 2.2 Proposed The proposed water service to the new structure would involve extending an eight -inch ductile line that runs along Castle Creek Rd down the hill to the north approximately one -hundred feet from the site up to the property in the roadside ditch. This line could then be tapped for water service and a new fire hydrant. The old service line and hydrant will be abandoned and removed. Preliminary sizing of the service line indicates that a 2 -inch or 4 -inch ductile iron water service will be sufficient for the multi -family housing building demands. This line sizing would include fire flows required for an in -building sprinkler system. The fire flows have not been calculated but will be done prior to final design. 3.0 Sanitary Sewer 3.1 Existing The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District owns a sanitary sewer main in Castle Creek Rd. The site is currently not served by any known sanitary service line. The condition of the eight -inch sewer main in Castle Creek is suitable and sized properly to handle the additional flows from the new development. 3.2 Proposed A new service tap will be made into the existing main in Castle Creek Rd. A four -inch sewer service line will gravity feed from the proposed structure to the main. A will serve letter from the Sanitation Department is attached in Appendix A. Castle Creek Affordable Housing Preliminary Engineering Report P420 P421 IX.b 4.0 Electric 4.1 Existing An existing electric service is provided to the proposed site but it inadequate for the proposed conditions and will be abandoned. 4.2 Proposed There is an existing transformer located down the hill in the Marolt Housing that is adequately sized to pull new electric service up to the site. A new transformer will be provided on-site. Holy Cross Energy has confirmed this plan will work. A will serve letter from Holly Cross is attached in Appendix A. 5.0 Gas 5.1 Existing Black Hills Energy owns and operates a 2 -inch steel gas main along Castle Creek Rd. This utility has not been potholed to verify size but will be prior to final design. 5.2 Proposed A new service connection will be installed to the site and will be used for the proposed structure provided the size is adequate. A will serve letter from Black Hills Energy is attached in Appendix A. 6.0 Communications 6.1 Existing Telephone services are located on the site. There is also cable service provided via overhead lines to the site but will be abandoned. New cable service will be provided by an alternate route. 6.2 Proposed Telephone service will be connected to the existing pedestal on the site. Cable service will be ran from an existing box approximately two -hundred feet down Castle Creek Rd and installed in a common utility trench with the water line up to the site. A new cable box will be installed on-site. Castle Creek Affordable Housing Preliminary Engineering Report IX.b Castle Creek Affordable Housing Preliminary Engineering Report Appendix A - Ability to Serve Letters P422 Danny Stewart Roaring Fork Engineering 592 HWY 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 P423 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • P.O. DRAWEE IX■b GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO o i uvc (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081 July 10, 2017 RE: 488 Castle Creek RD Aspen Dear Mr. Stewart: The above-mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy Holy Cross Energy has existing power facilities located on or near the above-mentioned project. These existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, Chris Bilby Engineer II Holy Cross Energy A Touchstone Energy° CooperativeKIA P424 IX.b Black Iffis Carprahan July 6, 2017 From: Matt Raper Black Hills Energy 0096 County Rd. 160 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-928-0407 To: Danny Stewart, 592 Highway 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 Email: dannys@rfeng.biz Phone: 970-340-4130 / 970-629-5876 RE: Castle Creek/ 26 Unit Affordable Housing Dear Danny: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Black Hills Energy. Black Hills Energy has existing natural gas facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. At this time it appears that these existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide natural gas service to your project, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any upgrading of our facilities necessary to deliver adequate service to and within the development will be undertaken by Black Hills Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please contact us with any questions regarding this project, and with a timeline of when you would like to proceed with your project. Sincerely, Matt Raper I Construction Coordinator I Black Hills Energy Matt.raper@,blackhillscorp.com 1970-928-0407 1 P425 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Ix.b John Keleher - President Stoney Davis - Mernber Joe Zanin - Vice President Jeff Yusezn - Member Roy Holloway - Secretary/Treasurer Bruce Matherly - Manager July 7, 2017 Danny Stewart Roaring Fork Engineering 592 Hwy 133 Carbondale, Co 81623 RE: Castle Creek AH Richard, The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient wastewater collection and treatment capacity to serve this project. Service is contingent upon compliance with the district's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. There are downstream constraints in the District's sanitary sewer collection system in this area that will need to be corrected at the applicant's expense. The total connection charges due the District must be paid prior to the issuance of a foundation and/or infrastructure permit. Once detailed plans are made available to the district, we will be able to comment specifically about this proposed project. Sincerely, Thomas R. Bracewell Collection Systems Superintendent CC Bruce Matherly, ACSD District Manager 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970.925.3601 FAX 974.925.2537 IX.b July 5, 2017 Danny Stewart, PE Roaring Fork Engineering 592 Highway 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 Subject: 488 Castle Creek Road - Affordable Housing Project water service Dear Mr, Stewart: Tim Cin (w Asr[n In response to your recent request, this letter will service as written verification that the City of Aspen Water Department has sufficient capacity to service the above -referenced location. This letter, however, in no way guarantees the existence or condition of each individual property's water service line, which, in accordance with the City of Aspen Municipal Code, is the property and responsibility of the property owner. In this circumstance the water lines in Castle Creek area may not be sufficiently sized to accommodate the scope of this project and may require upsizing to accommodate the development. The City requires a modeled flow analysis to confirm that mains are adequately sized for both domestic water service and fire suppression needs of the development. Additionally, the applicant should be aware that existing City transmission mains are on or adjacent to this parcel. Any development planning exercise shall contemplate this infrastructure and associated easements. If you need additional information concerning the City of Aspen water availability and service, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-920-5118. Sincerely, Tyler Christoff, P.E. Deputy Director of Utilities, City of Aspen P426 P427 IX.b Preliminary Drainage Report CASTLE CREEK AFFORDABLE HOUSING 488 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO August 7, 2017 Prepared by Daniel Stewart, P.E. Roaring Fork Engineering 592 Highway 133 Carbondale, CO FROARING FORK j ENGINEERING IX.b Preliminary Drainage Report CASTLE CREEK AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4$8 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO I HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THIS REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS AT 488 CASTLE CREEK RD. WAS PREPARED BY ME FOR THE OWNERS THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROVED VARIANCES AND EXCEPTIONS LISTED THERETO. 1 UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF ASPEN THAT THE CITY OF ASPEN DOES NOT AND WILL NOT ASSUME LIABILITY FOR DRAINAGE FACILITIES DESIGNED BY OTHERS, DANIEL STEWART, P. E. RFE Project # 2016-50 488 Castle Creek Preliminary Drainage Report im P429 IX.b Table of Contents 1.0 General..................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Existing Site........................................................................................................................................ l 1.2 Proposed Conditions........................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Previous Drainage Studies.................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Offsite Drainage & Constraints........................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Proposed Drainage Basins and Sub-basins........................................................................... 2 2.1 Developed Drainage Basins................................................................................................................2 2.2 Peak Discharge Calculations............................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Low Impact Site Design........................................................................................................4 3.1 Principles.............................................................................................................................................4 4.0 Hydrological Criteria............................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Storm Recurrence and Rainfall........................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Peak Runoff and Storage Volume Methodology................................................................................ 5 5.0 Proposed Facilities................................................................................................................ 6 5.1 Proposed Inlets.................................................................................................................................... 6 5.2 Pervious Pavers................................................................................................................................... 6 6.0 Operation and Maintenance.................................................................................................. 6 6.1 Bioswales............................................................................................................................................ 6 6.2 Pervious Pavers................................................................................................................................... 7 6.3 Pervious Pavers................................................................................................................................... 7 6.4 Drywells..............................................................................................................................................7 488 Castle Creek ii Preliminary Drainage Report IX.b 1.0 General 1.1 Existing Site The property under evaluation is located at 488 Castle Creek Rd. in Aspen, Colorado. The property is currently vacant with exception of various utility stubs. Marolt is to the east and north of the property and Castle Creek Rd to the west and south. There is existing access to the site from Castle Creek Rd. from a primitive drive that comes in off the northwest of the property. The property is relatively flat due to the site being filled to a mostly level condition in the past. The north and east sides of the site drop off quickly to the Marolt housing development approximately thirty feet below. The site consists of mostly native grass, gravel patches, and minimal tree coverage of various types of trees. Runoff from Castle Creek Rd. sheet flows onto the site but no other off-site drainage impacts the property. Runoff generated on site sheet flows to the east away from Castle Creek Rd. down the hill to Marolt housing. From there it is captured in Marolt housings system and eventually drains into Castle Creek. The geotechnical report completed by HP Kumar observed that the soil consists of approximately five feet of silty clayey sand and gravel underlain with gravel cobbles and boulders with fifteen percent passing the no. 200 sieve. Ground water was not encountered in the geotechnical borings. 488 Castle Creek Preliminary Drainage Report P430 P431 IX.b 1.2 Proposed Conditions This project is classified as a `Major Project' as per Table 1.1 of the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The proposed development is over 1,000 sf and disturbs an area of approximately 33,300 square feet. The intent of this report is to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the City of Aspen URMP. The Low Impact Design (LID) Principles in the introduction of the manual were used as a guide throughout the design process. The site will consist of a proposed four -level structure of one and two bedroom condominiums. The front of the structure will have at grade access from the second(main) level with direct connection to parking and front court yard. The lower level will have egress access to the back of the structure and trail system off the sides of the building. The upper levels of the structure will have no direct egress to at grade levels. The team has met with the City of Aspen Engineering Department to discuss Low Impact Design (LID) strategies early in the design process. Many of the proposed patios and access walk ways around the structure will be pervious pavers. All impervious areas will be conveyed through a series of area drains and trench drains to two drywells located in the parking area. Runoff from driving surfaces will first pass through a CDS sediment and hydrocarbon contaminant removal system prior to entering the drywells for infiltration. The drywells are sized to detain and infiltrate one -hundred percent of the generated runoff from the one -hundred -year storm event. The drywells in the parking area will have solid lids to ensure no runoff enters without treatment. 1.3 Previous Drainage Studies The parcel is not located within the City of Aspen Drainage Master Plan area. There are no proposed offsite improvements to the drainage infrastructure serving the site as part of this project. No previous drainage studies have been found for this site. If a previous drainage study is discovered prior to final drainage report its finding will be analyzed and included in the final drainage report. 1.4 Offsite Drainage & Constraints Currently, offsite drainage basins consist of runoff from Castle Creek Rd and areas between the road and property line. The project intends to treat one hundred percent of the runoff generated on-site as not to impact adjacent properties. 2.0 Proposed Drainage Basins and Sub -basins 2.1 Developed Drainage Basins There are two major drainage basins and two basins that contribute runoff to the drainage system. The two basins are similar in size and divide the site into two. Basin and Basin 2 conveys all flows from within the property and Basin 3 and 4 are uphill off site basins from Castle Creek Rd. All basins are fully detained with the proposed drainage system. 488 Castle Creek Preliminary Drainage Report IX.b 2.2 Peak Discharge Calculations The peak flows were calculated for each Major Basin for 5 -year and 100 -year storm events. Rainfall intensity was calculated using a Time of Concentration (Td) of 5 minutes. Actual Time of Concentration on the site is significantly less than 5 minutes, but according to the City of Aspen URMP, equations used to calculate rainfall intensity are only valid for a Time of Concentration of greater than 5 minutes so the smallest valid Time of Concentration value was used. The 1 hour Rainfall depth (P1), given in Table 2.2 as 0.64 inches for a 5 -year event and 1.23 inches for a 100 -year event. Equation 2.1 was referenced when solving for the Rainfall Intensity (1). I = 88.8P1/(IO+Td)1.052 Runoff Coefficients (C), a function of the Soil Group (in this case C) and the percentage of impervious area within each sub basin were developed using Figure 3.2. The Runoff Coefficient (C) was then multiplied by the Rainfall Intensity (I) and the acreage of each Major Basin (A) to determine the peak discharge for each Major Basin. QP = CIA QP = Peak Discharge (cfs) A = Area (Acres) I = Rainfall intensity (inches per hour) C = Runoff Coefficient These peak flow values are used to calculate the size of the proposed detention and conveyance structures, such as drywells, inlets and piping. The tables below contain the peak flows for developed and undeveloped conditions for the 100 -year storm events. 488 Castle Creek Preliminary Drainage Report P432 P433 Mb 100 Year Peak Discharge Developed Calculations 3.0 Low Impact Site Design Low Impact Development (LID) aims to mimic the natural pre -development hydrologic pattern. The goal is to manage storm water as close to its source as is possible. By using bioswales and pervious pavement, storm water will be infiltrated to the maximum extent feasible. 3.1 Principles Principle 1: Consider storm water quality needs early in the design process. An initial meeting with Engineering took place at the beginning of civil design to discuss storm water concepts. The grading and drainage design is being coordinated between the architect, landscape architect and civil engineering teams throughout the process. Principle 2: Use the entire site when planning for storm water quality treatment. The site design has planting boxes used to treat and detain stormwater as well as water quality treatment units and drywells to detain and infiltrate runoff. Principle 3: Avoid unnecessary impervious area. Pervious pavers and landscaped areas will be implemented where possible. Principle 4: Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. All pervious runoff from the site will be conveyed and infiltrated on site. Principle 5: Integrate storm water quality management and flood control. 488 Castle Creek 4 Preliminary Drainage Report 1 Hour(P1) Return Period 1.23 100 Basin ID Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max See(Dl) (ft2) (ft2) M From Table Rd) I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1•052 (ft3/sec) 1 13993.00 12233.00 87.42% 0.780 5 6.33 1.58 2 12342.00 11513.00 93.28% 0.830 5 6.33 1.49 3 1 1597.00 1 0.00 1 0.00%0.500 5 6.33 0.12 4 3397.00 1813.00 42.86% 0.580 5 6.33 0.29 100 Year Peak Discharge Pre Development Calculations 1 Hour(P1) Return Period 1.23 100 Basin ID Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max See(Dl) (ft2) (ft2) (%) From Table (Td) 1=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec) 1 13993.00 0.00 0.00% 0.500 5 6.33 1.02 2 12342.00 0.00 0.00% 0.500 5 6.33 0.90 _ 3 1597.00 0.00 0.00% 0.500 5 6.33 0.12 _ 4 3397.00 0.00 0.00% 0.500 5 6.33 0.25 3.0 Low Impact Site Design Low Impact Development (LID) aims to mimic the natural pre -development hydrologic pattern. The goal is to manage storm water as close to its source as is possible. By using bioswales and pervious pavement, storm water will be infiltrated to the maximum extent feasible. 3.1 Principles Principle 1: Consider storm water quality needs early in the design process. An initial meeting with Engineering took place at the beginning of civil design to discuss storm water concepts. The grading and drainage design is being coordinated between the architect, landscape architect and civil engineering teams throughout the process. Principle 2: Use the entire site when planning for storm water quality treatment. The site design has planting boxes used to treat and detain stormwater as well as water quality treatment units and drywells to detain and infiltrate runoff. Principle 3: Avoid unnecessary impervious area. Pervious pavers and landscaped areas will be implemented where possible. Principle 4: Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. All pervious runoff from the site will be conveyed and infiltrated on site. Principle 5: Integrate storm water quality management and flood control. 488 Castle Creek 4 Preliminary Drainage Report IX.b Lanscaped areas will act as bio treatment from runoff as well as CDS units for areas of vehicular traffic. Principle 6: Develop storm water quality facilities that enhance the site, the community and the environment. Landscape areas that double as water quality treatment will greatly enhance the site aesthetically. Principle 7: Use treatment train approach. All pervious runoff areas that are not associated with the access drive or parking lot first convey through vegetated areas before entering the storm system. All site runoff is treated by two CDS units prior to infiltration. Principle 8: Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained. All facilities have at grade access in convenient locations with low slope angles. Principle 9: Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind. The drop off from the sidewalk will not exceed more than a standard 6" curb. All area drains are outside of walking paths and grates used for trench drains meet all pedestrian standards. 4.0 Hydrological Criteria 4.1 Storm Recurrence and Rainfall The property is not in the commercial core and will not be served by the City Storm System. The site shall meet the conveyance requirements of the 5 and 100 -year storm events. The 1 hour Rainfall depth (P1) is given in Table 2.2 as 0.64 inch for the 5 -year event and 1.23 inches for the 100 -year event. The Intensity in inches per hour for different storm duration (Td) is calculated using the Equation 2.1 from the Aspen URMP. 4.2 Peak Runoff and Storage Volume Methodology The storage requirements for this site were calculated using the total impervious area along with the historic and developed peak runoff rates that were established in section 2.2. Based on the requirements in the URMP for this development, the total storm water storage volume for this site must satisfy both the Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) and the modified FAA storage volume. Since a method to control the discharge rate from the proposed drywell and depression was not feasible for this location, the storage facilities were sized to meet full detention requirements instead. The table below shows the calculation for the full detention volume for Basins 1 and 2. Basin 4 has been added to Basin 1 and Basin 3 has been added to Basin 2 in the table below due to those off site basins flowing into Basin 1 and 2 respectively. 488 Castle Creek Preliminary Drainage Report P434 P435 IX.b Full Detention Storage Basin Total Area Impervious Area Impervious Full Detention Depth Factor of Safety Required Storage BMP (ft2) (ft2) (%) (in) F.O.S. (ft') H (ft) 1 17390.00 14046.00 80.77% 1.23 1 1440 Drywell 2 13939.00 11513.00 82.60% 1.23 1 1180 Drywell The storage requirements for each drywell are shown in the table below. 3 drywells are required for Basin 1 and 2 drywells for Basin 2. Drywell Storage Drywell Basins Diameter Storage Depth Internal Volume External (18" of Screened Rock) Volume Total Capacity Required Capacity (Name) (#) D (ft) H (ft) n*H*(D/2)2) (ft) 0.3*n*H*((D/2)+1.5)2 - (D/2)2) (ft) (ft) (ft) Drywell 1,2,3 1&4 6 13 368 138 505 1440 Drywell 4,5 28,3 6 16 452 170 622 1180 5.0 Proposed Facilities 5.1 Proposed Inlets Area drains in the courtyard will be 8-12 inches in size with grated inlets at low points in the vegetation and patios. These inlets will capture any runoff from walkways, roofs or vegetated areas. Four -inch trench drains will also be used to capture runoff in patio areas and interior walk ways. Two type 13 valley pan inlets will capture all runoff from the access drive and parking area. These inlets will send runoff to the CDS treatment manholes before being routed to the drywells. 5.2 Pervious Pavers All walk ways in the courtyard will be pervious pavers, this does not include the parking lot sidewalk or patio areas within five feet of the building. 6.0 Operation and Maintenance 6.1 Bioswales Bioswales are generally considered a low -maintenance stormwater management approach. Bioswales should be vegetated with native grasses and plants to the extent possible. Plant maintenance will occur as needed, including mowing, irrigation (if necessary), and pruning. Required Action Maintenance Objectives Frequency Inspections Inspect drywells to determine if the soil Routine — Annual inspection of is allowing acceptable infiltration. hydraulic performance. Lawn mowing and vegetative care Occasional mowing of grasses and Routine — Depending on aesthetic weed removal to limit unwanted requirements. vegetation. Maintain irrigated turf grass as 2 to 4 inches tall and non- irrigated native turf grasses at 4 to 488 Castle Creek Preliminary Drainage Report IX.b Debris and litter removal Remove debris and litter from detention area to minimize clogging of the sand media. Routine — Depending on aesthetic requirements. Landscaping removal and replacement The sandy loam turf and landscaping Every 5 to 15 years, depending on layer will clog with time as materials infiltration rates needed to drain the accumulate on it. This layer will need to WQCV in 12 -hours or less. May need be removed and replaced to rehabilitate to do it more frequently if exfiltration infiltration rates, along with all turf and rates are too low to achieve this goal. other vegetation growing on the surface. 6.2 Pervious Pavers Annual inspection should occur to determine if the material between the joints has become clogged with finer material and is no longer performing as expected. If paver have become clogged or damage it will be reset in clean material. 6.3 Pervious Pavers 6.4 Drywells Drywells must be inspected and maintained quarterly to remove sediment and debris that has washed into them. Minimum inspection and maintenance requirements include the following: • Inspect drywells at least four times a year and after every storm exceeding 0.5 inches. • Dispose of sediment, debris/trash, and any other waste material removed from a drywell at suitable disposal sites and in compliance with local, State, and Federal waste regulations. • Routinely evaluate the drain -down time of the drywell to ensure the maximum time of 24 hours is not being exceeded. If drain -down times are exceeding the maximum, drain the drywell via pumping and clean out the percolation area (the percolation barrel may be jetted to remove sediment accumulated in perforations. If slow drainage persists, the system may need to be replaced. 488 Castle Creek Preliminary Drainage Report P436 P437 H—R�XLJMAR 5020 County Road 154 IX. b Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Geotechnical Engineering I Engineering Geology Phone: (970) 945-7988 Materials Testing I Environmental Fax: (970) 945-8454 Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com Office Locations: Parker, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO PROJECT INTO. 17-7-171 MARCH 14, 2017 PREPARED FOR: ASPEN HOUSING PARTNERS, LLC ATTN: JASON BRADSHAW 288 EASTWOOD DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (iebradshaw(a mac.com) IX.b TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY........................................................................... - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.................................................................................... - 1 - SITECONDITIONS....................................................................................................... - 1 - FIELDEXPLORATION................................................................................................ - 2 - SUBSURFACE -SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..................................................................................... - 2 - FOUNDATION -FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS.................................................................. - 3 - DESIGN - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS _ 3 - FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................................ - 3 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS........................................................... - 4 - FLOORSLABS.......................................................................................................... - 5 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM......................................................................................... - 6 - SURFACE DRAINAGE............................................................................................. - 6 DRYWELL...................................................................................... 7 - LIMITATIONS - LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................... - 7 - FIGURE - FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE 2 - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS H-PtKUMM Project No. 17-7-171 im P439 Mb PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed affordable housing project to be located at 488 Castle Creek Road, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Aspen Housing Patners, LLC dated November 22, 2016. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed affordable housing project will consist of two buildings. The buildings will be three to four story structures with a Nvalkout lower level. Ground floors will be slab -on -grade. Grading for the structures is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 10 feet. We assume relatively light foundation Ioadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The vacant property is located on the north side of Castle Creek Road and had about 1 % feet of snow cover at the time of our field exploration. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds with H-P-zKUMAR Project No. 17-7-171 IX.b -2- scattered cottonwood trees and brush. The ground surface slopes gently down to the northeast in the building area. Castle Creek is located below and southeast of the site. We understand the site was previously occupied with a l story wood frame residence above a garden level basement and with an attached garage. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on February 28, 2017. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure i to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck- mounted CME -45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of I-i-P/Kumar. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils consist of about 4 to 5 feet of man -placed fill overlying silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders. Drilling in the dense granular soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1'/z inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on Figure 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. H -Pi KUMAR Project No. 17-7-171 im -3- No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The natural granular soils encountered below the fill materials are adequate for support of spread footing foundations. Between 4 to 5 feet of fill was encountered in the borings and the depth and condition of the fill likely varies across the property. The man -placed fill should be completely removed from beneath proposed building areas. The City of Aspen requires an engineered excavation stabilization plan if proposed foundations are within 15 feet of a neighboring structure or public travel way. The plan is not required if excavations are less than 5 feet below existing grades or further than 15 feet from travel ways and less than 15 feet deep. Slope bracing through use of a variety of systems such as chemical grouting, micro piles and soil nails should be feasible at the site. A shoring contractor should provide design drawings to support the proposed excavation slopes where needed. Other City requirements may also be applicable. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the buildings be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. H -P' KUMAR Project No. 17-7-171 P441 IX.b Mb -4- 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) The existing fill, debris, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural granular soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The lateral earth pressure recommended above assumes drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. H -P-: KUMAR Project No. 17-7-179 P442 -5- Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 pc£ The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site granular soils encountered below the rill are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements far joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. H -Pk KUMAR Project No. 17-7-171 P443 IX.b IX.b -G- All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on- site granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum I% to a suitable gravity outlet, sump and pump or drywell. Free -draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1 V2 feet deep. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the affordable housing project has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 H -P'€ KUMAR Project No. 17-7-171 -7- inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on-site finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 5 feet from foundation walls. DRYWELL We understand that a drywell or bio swale will be used for site runoff detention and disposal. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has identified four hydrologic soil groups (HSG) in the Aspen area. The area is mapped as lying in HSG C. Results of a percolation test performed at Boring 2 are shown on Table 2. The subsoils encountered and the percolation test results indicate the HSG is B with a moderate infiltration rate. The groundwater level and bedrock are generally known to be relatively deep in this area and should not impact drywells. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. H-P� KUMAR Project No. 17-7-171 P445 IX.b IX.b -s- This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully Submitted, H -P: KUMAR ouis E. Eller Revie«-ed by: Steven L. Paw LEE/kac cc: Method Planning + Development — Adam Roy (adam method d.com) _- KUtVM Project No. 17-7-171 im MA P448 BORING I BORING 2 x x x 14/12 14/12 WC=10.2 xWC=10.1 DD=86 x- Da=87 x -200=22 -200=2 5 x 50/5 56/12 5- WC=2.0 +4=53 -200=14 L6 io 66/12 50/5 10 WC=2.4 +4=45 - 200= 16 15 15 50/5 20 20 17-7-17 0. H-P3,kklJMAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 P448 IX.b LEGEND ®FILL: SILTY CLAYEY SAND AND GRAVEL WITH COBBLES, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, MIXED BROWN. GRAVEL (GM) WITH COBBLES AND BOULDERS, SANDY, SILTY, SLIGHTLY CLAYEY, DENSE, ' MOIST, REDDISH BROWN TO BROWN. h RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. DRIVE SAMPLE; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT), 1 3/8 INCH I.Q. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE, ASTM D-1586. 14/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 14 BLOWS OF A 140 --POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA OR SPT SAMPLER 12 INCHES. NOTES 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON FEBRUARY 28, 2017 WITH A 4—INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS PLIGHT POWER AUGER. 2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE NOT MEASURED AND THE LOGS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS ARE PLOTTED TO DEPTH. 4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED. 5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL. 6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. 7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS: WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM 0 2216); OD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216); +4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 422); —200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140). 17-7-171 1 H --P% KUMAR I LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 IX. b TIME READING! U.S. STANDARD SERi[S hfaR SOU+UIL OIENINCS Sa HRS 7 HR} {¢ '} so IN NI{1__ tNIX rtlX 1200-! OD _ /lDyJ<0 /Sa�� a=0 2a �! 7 HR3 A S 6°41 uN esus 111 t4o �SOjaJ3° t9—/ ° HYDROMETER ANALY535 SIEVE ANALYSIS T+IrE RLaDING! U.S. s7ulaaRo siRlLS CLEM lgVaAE OPENINGS $CC Ulm 0 !0 10 60 20 70 30 .DDI .aos .009 .ate .oar .07] .too soD 1 .9Do T.te t L]9 — a,7s 9.9 DIAMETER 6F PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS n eD e0 4 e0 60 AO SO 30 70 $0 67 1D 90 ° loo SAND GRAV�COA CLAY TO SILT BBLES FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE GRAVEL 45 X SAND 39 % SILT AND CLAY 16 X LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 1 O 10' IDD 0 9a 1D so 20 .oat— .Das .oDs .ou .Ds7 .ms .Iso .]Da 1 aoD yeses I s31 — a.n 9s n 391 7e.: Ila DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS tsx x4p CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES 70 LF 00 40 so as eD ]0 70 10 eo t° t0 ° ice25 d S GRAVEL 53 X SAND 33 X SILT AND CLAY 14 X LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX r SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sandy Grovel FROM: Baring 2 O 5' These leaf rosu0s apply only Is leo sample: whkh wen toiled. The izi.a ,.part shall not be roppradueed, ese.pl In full, wlthout the wrltten S� appprevol of Kumar & Ass.elales, Inc. Slove S d analysis 1n8n Is performed in accardanco wOh ASTM 0423, ASTM 0136 and/or ASTM 01140. �R ` 17-7-171 H-P-��/qR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 aot TIME READING! U.S. STANDARD SERi[S hfaR SOU+UIL OIENINCS Sa HRS 7 HR} {¢ '} so IN NI{1__ tNIX rtlX 1200-! OD _ /lDyJ<0 /Sa�� a=0 2a �! 7 HR3 A S 6°41 uN esus 111 t4o �SOjaJ3° t9—/ ° .DDI .aos .009 .ate .oar .07] .too soD 1 .9Do T.te t L]9 — a,7s 9.9 DIAMETER 6F PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS n sa.t re.x tz7 xD ts3 HYGROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS DDI TIME READING! U.S. STANDARD SERi[S hfaR SOU+UIL OIENINCS Sa HRS 7 HR} {¢ '} so IN NI{1__ tNIX rtlX 1200-! OD _ /lDyJ<0 /Sa�� a=0 .oat— .Das .oDs .ou .Ds7 .ms .Iso .]Da 1 aoD yeses I s31 — a.n 9s n 391 7e.: Ila DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS tsx x4p CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES P450 [!J H cn W F-� co W F- } Ix O T Q J 0 m F— J LL O P451 IX.b w IL U U U U C) U va C7 � � C7 iii W WaT aco wZ ix Lua ZOO U ~ U Np gz -I 0 a Imw W �F F� U N > W N - N UJ U) CL C] z M N H d O � U' W Q a kn M kn T J a Ix h a Z V D�0 OHO a w z _I LU N rii zoo zz s H C rt �n F a c N CV U 0 1 Lu J (� CL Z FX 0 P451 IX.b IX.b "-P�KUMAR TABLE 2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS P452 PROJECT NO. 17-7-171 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MINANCH) B-2 116 2 461/2 42% 3% 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 1 2 2 42% 40 2% 40 36% 3% 36'/2 33% 2% 33% 31 23/4 31 29 2 29 28 1 28 27 1 27 26 1 2 2 26 25 1 Note: The percolation test was conducted in the completed 4 -inch diameter borehole on February 28, 2017. P453 H - P -� KU MAR 5020 County clog ' " r " `�- Glenwood Springs, Colorado � IX■b Geotechnical Engineering I Engineering Geology Fax: (970) 945-8454 Materials Testing I Environmental AC E G Phone: (970) 945-7988 MEMBER Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs Parker and Summit County, Colorado PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT LOTS 1 & 2,488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD & LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO Prepared by: ! tv vz_ Max J. Ty er,' Environmental Scientist Reviewed by: Jason A. Deem Jason A. Deem, Project Geologist PREPARED FOR: ASPEN HOUSING PARTNERS, LLC ATTN: JASON BRADSHAW 228 EASTWOOD DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0ebradshaw(a)-mac.com Project No. 17-7-171.01 May 22, 2017 IX.b TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE....................................................................................................................................2 DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES..............................................................................................2 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS....................................................................................................3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS...............................................................................................3 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.........................................................................................4 USERRELIANCE.........................................................................................................................4 SITEDESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................4 USER AND CURRENT OWNER PROVIDED INFORMATION....................................................5 RECORDSREVIEW.....................................................................................................................6 SITE RECONNAISSANCE...........................................................................................................7 FINDINGS.....................................................................................................................................7 OPINION....................................................................................................................................... 8 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................ 9 CONTINUED VIABILTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT.......................................9 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL............................................................10 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCES APPENDIX A-1 -TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS APPENDIX A-2 - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX A-3 - PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSOR'S RECORDS APPENDIX A-4 - FIRE INSURANCE MAP INFORMATION APPENDIX A-5 - CITY DIRECTORY INFORMATION APPENDIX B -AGREEMENT LETTER APPENDIX C - RADIUS REPORT APPENDIX D - SITE VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS P454 1 SUMMARY This report presents the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted by Kumar and Associates, Inc. dba H-P/Kumar of a property currently owned by the city of Aspen at the time ofour assessment. Specifically, the 'Property' hereinafter refers to the entire area undergoing the assessment. The Property iscomprised ofoparcel ofland that isdivided into two lots /1 and 2\. Lot 1 is 11.255 square feet and currently vacant. Lot is 24.480 square feet formerly with one residential structure but currently vacant. The Property and immediate surrounding area were assessed for this report. This evaluation was initiated byJason Bradshaw of Aspen Housing Partners, LLC, who will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Uaer', to investigate potential environmental concerns at the Property. The site location iashown below. P456 Mb K This assessment, which was conducted in accordance with ASTM 1527-13, revealed no evidence of potential recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property and no additional review is recommended at this time. PURPOSE The purpose of this assessment is to identify, to the extent feasible pursuant to the scope of services described below, any recognized environmental conditions (REC) in connection with the Property. ASTM Standard E 1527-13 defines recognized environmental conditions as: "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions." This practice is intended for use on a voluntary basis by parties who wish to assess the environmental condition of commercial real estate taking into account commonly known and reasonably ascertainable information. While use of this practice is intended to constitute all appropriate inquiries for purposes of the Landowner Liability Protection, it is not intended that its use be limited to that purpose. This practice is intended primarily as an approach to conducting an inquiry designed to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with a property. No implication is intended that a person must use this practice in order to be deemed to have conducted inquiry in a commercially prudent or reasonable manner in any particular transaction. Nevertheless, this practice is intended to reflect a commercially prudent and reasonable inquiry. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES In an agreement dated November 30, 2016, Jason Bradshaw of Aspen Housing Partners, LLC contracted with H-P/Kumar to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Property. H-P/Kumar performed the following services in accordance with our proposal. • Site Reconnaissance • Records Review of Federal and State Databases • Research of Current and Historical Records • Preparation of Report H-P/Kumar performed the following scope of services in accordance with the ASTM E 1527-13 Phase I Standard and All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI). H-P/Kumar conducted a site visit to observe the Property and adjacent land for current use. The records review consisted of reviewing the H-P/Kumar P457 3 IX.b history of the site using reasonably ascertainable property records, historical topographic maps, directories and other information. In addition, commercially available aerial photographs were reviewed for visual information on the historic development and usage of the site and adjacent properties. Reasonably ascertainable records from federal, state and local agencies were also reviewed to evaluate the compliance with regulations concerning the generation, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials or wastes at the site and adjacent properties, records of spills, disposal activities and permit violations which could result in site contamination. H-P/Kumar prepared this report which summarizes the data obtained and presents conclusions concerning the potential for contamination as the result of previous or current site activities. Copies of relevant documents obtained during the Phase I are presented in the report appendices. SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS It is assumed that the direction of surface water flow beneath the Property is generally in a topographically down -gradient direction to the east towards Castle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. This assumption is based on our observation of the surface topography and review of available topographic maps. Localized geologic or other subsurface conditions could alter the expected groundwater flow direction. Furthermore, we assume that previously conducted environmental cleanups for which no further action (NFA) letters were issued were conducted within current industry standards. LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS The information presented in this report is compiled from a variety of sources over which H-P/Kumar has neither affiliation nor control. Although considered reliable, the accuracy and completeness of the data obtained from these sources cannot be confirmed and is beyond the scope of this report. H-P/Kumar makes no claim as to the authenticity, accuracy or completeness of the data obtained from sources contacted or referenced in the preparation of this report or of any warranties or guarantees, whether expressed or implied, derived from them. In addition, as per the scope of this assessment, this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment does not include an assessment of the following: asbestos, radon, lead based paint, lead in drinking water, regulatory compliance, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor and outdoor air quality, cultural and historical resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, wetlands or analytical testing of the soil, groundwater or air. Available historic resources date back to 1893. Physical setting sources are provided in Appendix A. Historic topographic maps dated 2013, 1987, 1960, 1909 and 1893 are included in Appendix H-Mumar um IX.b rd A-1 and historic aerial photographs dated 2015, 2013, 2005, 1999, 1990, 1983, 1979, 1969, 1962, 1958 and 1951 are included in Appendix A-2. We also reviewed available Pitkin County Assessor's records. The information from the County is provided in Appendix A-3. There are no available Fire Insurance Maps for the property. The "No Coverage" sheet from GeoSearch is provided in Appendix A-4. City Directory information was also reviewed and is provided in Appendix A-5. Historical use data from the large time gaps between when the aerial photographs were taken and topographic maps were produced is not reasonably ascertainable because the information does not exist. Due to the large time gaps which exist in the standard historical sources we were not able to determine the history of the site in five year intervals dating back to the first developed use. The data gaps in the standard historical sources are significant but in our opinion did not affect our ability to identify REC. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Our terms and conditions for performing the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment are presented in our proposal to Aspen Housing Partners, LLC. A copy of the signed agreement letter is provided in Appendix B. USER RELIANCE This report is prepared in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of environmental consulting, using the most current information available. H-P/Kumar is not responsible for independent conclusions or recommendations made by others based on the data presented in this report. In addition, reliance on this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report is limited solely to the User. SITE DESCRIPTION LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Property consists of a triangular parcel of land located southeast of the intersection of Castle Creek Road and Doolittle Drive in Aspen, Colorado. The Property is located within the Aspen, Colorado USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle. The Property location is indicated in the Radius Report provided in Appendix C. According to the Pitkin County Assessor, the Property is a total of 35,895 square feet in size. The Assessor has assigned Parcel Numbers 273512309033 (Lot 1) and 273512309034 (Lot 2) to the Property. H-P/Kumar P459 5 IX.b SITE AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS Based on the most recent USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle, the Property has an average surface elevation approximately 8,000 feet above sea level. Based on review of FEMA floodplain mapping the Property is located in a Zone X area. We also reviewed US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps and no indication of wetlands were found on the Property. CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY Based on Assessor's records, Lot 1 is currently vacant and there is one residential building on Lot 2. At the time of our site visit, there were no longer any structures on the Property. According to the Assessor's records, the building was a three-bedroom residence consisting of 1,963 square feet of living space and a 440 square feet finished garage. The actual year built is listed as 1959 and the effective year built is listed as 1972. The last remodel of the building occurred in 1999. CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES The Property is located within a residential area within the Aspen city limits. Properties in the near vicinity consist of single and multi -family residential developments. Aspen Valley Hospital is located nearby to the northeast of the Property. No other industrial uses were observed in the immediate vicinity. USER and CURRENT OWNER PROVIDED INFORMATION TITLE RECORDS The User did not provide H-P/Kumar with historical chain of title documentation for the Property; however, it is our opinion that this did not inhibit our ability to identify RECs connected with the Property. ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS We are unaware of any environmental liens or activity and use limitations connected to the Property. COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION We are unaware of any commonly known reasonable ascertainable information within the local community about the Property that is material to REC in connection with the Property. VALUATION REDUCTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES We are unaware of any valuation reductions in the Property for any environmental related issues. OWNER, PROPERTY MANAGER, AND OCCUPANT INFORMATION The Property is currently owned by the city of Aspen according to current Assessor's records. H-PIKumar 'm IX.b X The contact information for the Owner is provided below. Owner: City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 REASON FOR PERFORMING THE PHASE I The User requested that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed in an effort to identify and investigate any REC at the Property to satisfy the requirements of ASTM 1527-13 and AAI for use in association with the purchase and future development of the Property into an affordable housing complex. RECORDS REVIEW STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES On May 8, 2017, H-P/Kumar requested a search of available Federal and State environmental records from GeoSearch. The ASTM E1527-13 Phase I standard minimum search distance requirements were met or exceeded for the Property. The standard environmental records sources applicable to the Property and researched by GeoSearch are shown in the Radius Report in Appendix C. The Property was not listed in the Radius Report. PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCES As previously mentioned H-P/Kumar performed a site reconnaissance and reviewed USGS topographic maps, aerial photographs, fire insurance maps and Pitkin County Assessor's records for the Property to determine the physical setting. Physical setting sources are provided in Appendix A. HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON THE PROPERTY and ADJOINING PROPERTIES Based on review of available resources, the Property appears to have been undeveloped and forested in 1951. There is evidence of grading and clearing of parts of the Property in the 1958 aerial photograph. A structure is roughly visible starting in the 1979 aerial photograph and ending in the 1999 aerial photograph. It is no longer readily visible in the 2005 aerial photograph. Adjacent properties remained primarily undeveloped until around 1979. Prior to this point, the primary land use appears to have been ranching. The Aspen Valley Hospital is visible starting in the 1979 aerial photograph. Development of the adjacent properties is visible in the 1983 aerial photograph. H-P/Kumar 7 SITE RECONNAISSANCE BACKGROUND INFORMATION H-P/Kumar previously prepared a Subsoil Study for Foundation Design for the Property in a report dated March 14, 2017, Project No. 17-7-171. Four to five feet of man -placed fill soils was encountered in the borings completed for the study. We are unaware of the nature and source of the fill soils. Uncontrolled fill of an unknown source has the potential for contamination; however, we are unable to determine if contamination is present under the scope of this study. If the User is concerned with potential contamination from uncontrolled fill, we can provide additional analysis. METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS On May 10 and 16, 2017, a representative of H-P/Kumar conducted a site reconnaissance of the Property. The site reconnaissance included a walkover and examination of the property and the adjacent properties. Field reconnaissance is limited to physical and visual observations made while observing the project site and the surrounding properties. The site photographs taken during the site reconnaissance visits are presented in Appendix D. OBSERVATIONS OF THE PROPERTY The Property is currently vacant. The Property is generally flat to gently sloping, with steep slopes to the east and north. There is evidence of site grading on the Property. There is a small pile of clean gravel on the west side of the Property. Vegetation consists of landscaped areas, grasses, aspen, willows, cottonwood and pine. Based on our site reconnaissance, no obvious signs of contamination were observed that would constitute a REC in connection with the property. FINDINGS Based on our review of reasonable ascertainable information, our findings are discussed below. The database findings were searched for us by GeoSearch. Three individual sites were found within a '/2 mile radius of the Property with eight individual database listings. One additional site and one individual database listing were found within the 1/2 to 1 mile radius. The Radius Report provided by GeoSearch is provided in Appendix C. Descriptions of individual sites are provided below with a discussion of the potential impacts on the subject Property. LST, UST, AST and RCRAGR08 Site (Map ID#1) — Aspen Valley Hospital There are several listings associated with the Aspen Valley Hospital located 0.11 miles northwest and up -gradient of the Property. The Leaking Storage Tank Facilities (LST) listing is currently listed as "Closed" by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety. The Aboveground Storage Tank Facilities (AST) listings are also currently listed H-PIKumar P461 IX.b P462 IX.b 1.1 with a status of "Closed." There is one "Open" tank associated with the Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST) listing. This underground storage tank is a 20,000 gallon capacity diesel tank with no associated violations. Based on the current statuses and the lack of violations, these listings do not constitute a REC in connection with the Property. The Resource Conservation & Recovery Act — Generator (RCRAGR08) listing currently refers to the hospital as a "conditionally exempt small quantity generator." There are no violations associated with this listing. Due to the nature and amount of waste generated and the lack of associated violations, this listing does not constitute a REC in connection with the Property. MRDS Site (Map ID#2) — Pride of Aspen Mineral Record Data Sites (MRDS) refer to a collection of reports describing metallic and non- metallic resources throughout the world. The listed sites do not constitute a REC in connection with the Property. VCRA Site (Map ID#3) — Little Amax PUD The Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Sites (VCRA) listing refers to contaminated properties that work with the Colorado Division of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to facilitate redevelopment. Due to the distance from the Property (0.42 miles) and lower elevation of the site, it does not constitute a REC in connection with the Property. RCRAC Site (Map ID#4) — Cleaner Express This Resource Conservation & Recovery Act — Corrective Action Facilities (RCRAC) listing refers to a coin-operated laundromat and/or dry-cleaners. It is classified as a small quantity generator. There are several violations associated with the site including soil, groundwater and indoor air releases, however the most recent corrective action (CA) events state that the CA process is complete and performance standard have been attained. The site also has a LST listing with a status of closed. The site is located downgradient and at a lower elevation than the subject property as well as being on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River. Based on the topographic barriers, small quantity generator status, the completed CA status and the lower elevation of the site, it does not currently constitute a REC in connection with the Property. OPINION Based on the results of the site reconnaissance and review of available resources, H-P/Kumar found no significant evidence of present or historical recognized environmental conditions associated with the Property. No additional testing or analysis is recommended at this time. This H-Mumar P463 9 IX.b opinion is based on the research and examination of available information, our site reconnaissance and experience in the area. CONCLUSIONS H-P/Kumar performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E-1527-13 and AAI of the Property located in Aspen, Colorado. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in the Limitations and Exceptions section of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (REC) in connection with the Property. DEVIATIONS The Phase I was conducted with no deviations from ASTM Practice E 1527-13 or AAI. ADDITIONAL SERVICES No additional services were requested or provided for this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. CONTINUED VIABILTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT In accordance with Section 4.6 of the Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (ASTM 1527-13) this report is subject to the continued viability requirements of the practice. This environmental site assessment is considered valid if the assessment was completed less than 180 days prior to the date of acquisition of the property or the date the intended transaction is presumed to be valid. If during this period the environmental site assessment will be relied upon by a different user than the original user for whom the assessment was prepared, the new user must satisfy the User Responsibilities in Section 6 of ASTM 1527-13. For a period of up to one year prior to the date of acquisition of the property or for the date the intended transaction is presumed to be valid this environmental site assessment is considered valid provided that the following components were completed within 180 days of the date of purchase or the date of intended transaction: (i) searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens (ii) reviews of federal, tribal, state and local government records; (iii) visual inspection of the property and of adjoining properties; and (iv) the declaration by the environmental professional responsible for the assessment or update. H-P/Kumar .m IX.b 10 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed in accordance with the generally accepted practices in the field of environmental consulting. The analysis and recommendations indicated in this report are based upon the best currently available information. H-P/KUMAR assumes no liability for independent conclusions or recommendations made by others in conjunction with the data presented in this report. We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, the representative of H- P/Kumar (Jason A. Deem, P.G.) that reviewed this report meets the definition of an Environmental Professional as defined in section 312.10 of 40 CFR 312. Mr. Deem has the specific qualifications based on education, training and experience to assess the nature, history and setting of the subject property. We have developed and performed the appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any further questions or need further assistance. H-PIKumar August 8, 2017 Mr. Jason Bradshaw Aspen Housing Partners 228 Eastwood Drive Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Traffic Analysis Summary Aspen, CO Mr. Bradshaw: Aspen Housing Partners is proposing to develop 28 affordable housing apartments at 488 Castle Creek Road. The project site is located south of HWY 82 and east of HWY 15 near the Aspen Valley Hospital. The site is currently vacant. This project is anticipated to add a small amount of traffic to the nearby area. Trip generation volumes were calculated the City of Aspen's Trip Generation spreadsheet. The proposed development is anticipated to generate 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 20 trips during the evening peak hour. The applicant will implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) strategies to offset the site's anticipated trip generation. Refer to the attached Traffic Report for detailed calculations utilizing the City of Aspen's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. TDM Strategies 1. Transit Access Improvement. 2. Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program. MMLOS Strategies 1. Landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width. 2. Slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%. 3. Curbs equal to or less than 6 inches. 4. New large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience. 5. Pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility will be undisturbed by the new development. 6. Grade where pedestrians cross on cross -slope of driveway has a grade of 2% or less. 7. Enhance pedestrian access points from the ROW (including improvement to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street). CDOWELL ENGINEERINGaL *rc.poron—rior CNO-C&Q-0 00.9—r.n" EAGLE + BROOMFIELD . GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 ■ MCDOWELLENG.COM P465 IX.b um IX.b 8. Pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5. 9. New bike path that allows access without crossing a street or driveway 10. Bicycle parking. Per the Traffic Report and City of Aspen calculations, the proposed TDM and MMLOS Strategies mitigate 28 vehicle trips. This is an excess of 3 trips per hour over the traffic that the project will generate. The project traffic will not require the construction of a southbound left turn lane at the site access. The additional traffic will not significantly impact the traffic operations on Castle Creek Road. The roadway is anticipated to operate at a Level of Service A through Year 2040 with or without the addition of project traffic. McDowell Engineering is looking forward to continued coordination with the City through the entitlement process. Please call if you would like any additional information or have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, McDowell Engineering /�// OIJ14V-4 Kari McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE Professional Traffic Operations Engineer IC DOWELL NGINEERINGaL 7-moron—rior CNO-C&Q-0 00.9—r.n" EAGLE + BROOMFIELD . GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 . MCDOWELLENG.COM P467 IX.b 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Transportation Impact Analysis Aspen, Colorado August 5, 2017 PREPARED FOR: Aspen Housing Partners, LLC 228 Eastwood Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Contact: Jason Bradshaw PREPARED BY: McDowell Engineering, LLC PO Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 970.623.0788 Contact: Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE Project Number: M1264 IX.b Statement of Engineering Qualifications Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE is a Transportation and Traffic Engineer for McDowell Engineering, LLC. Ms. McDowell Schroeder has over twenty years of extensive traffic and transportation engineering experience. She has completed numerous transportation studies and roadway design projects throughout the State of Colorado. Ms. McDowell Schroeder is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado and has her certification as a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing July 21, 2017 Page 2 MW Traffic Impact Study for 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................................7 2.2 PROJECT APPLICANT............................................................................................................................................7 2.3 TYPE AND SIZE OF DEVELOPMENT..........................................................................................................................7 2.4 LOCATION MAP..................................................................................................................................................7 2.5 SITE PLAN.........................................................................................................................................................7 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................ 9 3.1 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM................................................................................................................................9 3.2 EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES AND FACILITIES..............................................................................................................9 3.3 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES.........................................................................................................9 3.4 TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION..................................................................................................................................9 3.5 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR...........................................................................................................................9 3.6 YEAR 2017 AND YEAR 2018 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................................................10 3.7 HISTORIC CRASH DATA......................................................................................................................................10 3.8 EXISTING HCM LEVELS OF SERVICE......................................................................................................................13 4.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS....................................................................................................14 4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................14 4.2 MULTIMODALTRIP REDUCTION...........................................................................................................................14 4.3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION................................................................................................................................14 4.4 PROJECT -GENERATED DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION..................................................................................................15 4.5 PROJECT -GENERATED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT..........................................................................................................15 4.6 YEAR 2018 TOTAL TRAFFIC (YEAR 2018 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT) ..........................................................15 4.7 FINDINGS OF PROJECT IMPACTS...........................................................................................................................19 4.8 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION DESIGN.......................................................................................................................19 5.0 FUTURE YEAR 2040 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS.......................................................................20 5.1 TRIP GENERATION FOR APPROVED BACKGROUND PROJECTS.....................................................................................20 5.2 CASTLE CREEK ROAD HISTORIC TRAFFIC GROWTH...................................................................................................20 5.3 YEAR 2040 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC FORECASTS......................................................................................................20 5.4 FORECASTED BACKGROUND YEAR 2040 HCM LEVEL OF SERVICE..............................................................................22 6.0 FUTURE BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS...............................................................................23 6.1 TRIP GENERATION.............................................................................................................................................23 6.2 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION...............................................................................................................................23 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 3 am IX.b P470 'X. b 6.3 YEAR 2040 TOTAL TRAFFIC (YEAR 2040 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT) ..........................................................23 7.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION PROGRAM.......................................................................................................25 7.1 TDM AND MMLOSTOOLKITSPREADSHEETS ........................................................................................................25 7.2 TDM MEASURE DETAILS...................................................................................................................................28 7.3 MMLOS MEASURE DETAILS..............................................................................................................................28 7.4 ENFORCEMENT AND FINANCING..........................................................................................................................28 7.5 SCHEDULING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES.........................................................28 7.6 PROPOSED SIGNIFICANT IMPACT MITIGATION........................................................................................................28 8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................30 8.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS, FINDINGS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................................30 9.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................31 9.1 VEHICLE TRIP DATA COLLECTION.........................................................................................................................31 9.2 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES....................................................................................................31 9.3 IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES.......................................................................................................................31 9.4 ANNUAL REPORT SUBMITTAL..............................................................................................................................31 10.0 APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................................32 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 4 Figures and Tables FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP.................................................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN.......................................................................................................................................... 8 TABLE 1: HISTORIC CRASH DATA ON CASTLE CREEK ROAD.................................................................................10 FIGURE 3: YEAR 2017 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC (WITH SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR)....................................11 FIGURE 4: YEAR 2018 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC (WITH SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR)....................................12 TABLE 2: EXISTING AND YEAR 2018 BACKGROUND HCM LEVELS OF SERVICE......................................................13 TABLE 3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION................................................................................................................14 TABLE 4: EXISTING AND YEAR 2018 BACKGROUND HCM LEVELS OF SERVICE......................................................15 FIGURES: PROJECT -GENERATED DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION...........................................................................16 FIGURE 6: PROJECT -GENERATED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT.....................................................................................17 FIGURE 7: YEAR 2018 TOTAL TRAFFIC................................................................................................................18 FIGURE 8: YEAR 2040 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC (WITH SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR)....................................21 TABLE 5: YEAR 2040 BACKGROUND HCM LEVELS OF SERVICE.............................................................................22 TABLE 6: YEAR 2040 TOTAL TRAFFIC HCM LEVELS OF SERVICE............................................................................23 FIGURE 9: YEAR 2040 TOTAL TRAFFIC................................................................................................................24 TABLE 7: TDM TOOLKIT SPREADSHEET...............................................................................................................26 TABLE 8: MMLOS TOOLKIT SPREADSHEET..........................................................................................................27 TABLE 9: TDM AND MMLOS MEASURE DETAILS.................................................................................................29 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August 5, 2017 Page 5 P471 IX.b P472 IX.b 1.0 Executive Summary The proposed 28 -unit affordable housing project is anticipated to be successfully accommodated into the greater roadway system. The applicant is proposing to construct a 28 -unit affordable housing apartment building. A 20% multimodal trip reduction factor was applied to the project - generated traffic. The site will be connected via sidewalk and trails to the regional trail and transit systems. Based upon the applicant's proposed land uses, the project can be anticipated to generate 149 vehicle trips per day (vpd) on the average weekday. Peak hour traffic on a weekday at project buildout is anticipated to be 17 vehicles per hour (vph) during the morning peak hour and 20 vph during the evening peak hour. The applicant is proposing to implement multiple TDM and MMLOS strategies in an effort to reduce the number of vehicle trips to/from the site. They are improving access to the existing bus stop at the Aspen Valley Hospital and implementing a trip reduction marketing program for residents. In addition, the applicant is proposing to include large scale landscaping improvements to improve the pedestrian experience and provide soft surface trails connecting directly from the units to the Marolt Trail. The project traffic will not require the construction of a southbound left turn at the site access. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 6 2.0 Introduction/Background 2.1 Project Description The applicant is proposing to develop a 28 -unit affordable housing apartment building at 488 Castle Creek Road in Aspen, Colorado. The purpose of this Level Two Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is to forecast and analyze the impacts of the additional traffic volumes associated with this proposed affordable housing project on the surrounding roadway network. Recommendations to mitigate any traffic impacts are also included. This analysis complies with the City of Aspen's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. 2.2 Project Applicant The applicant on this project: Aspen Housing Partners, LLC 228 Eastwood Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Contact: Jason Bradshaw 2.3 Type and Size of Development The proposed affordable housing development will include 28 apartments. 2.4 Location Map Refer to the location map in Figure 1. Figure 1: Location Map 2.5 Site Plan Refer to the site plan in Figure 2. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 7 P473 IX.b P474 1X.b Figure 2: Site Plan _ "e i� 2 4rCi � k d $ 488 CASTLE CREEK ROADDESIGN connect'ne m � — _ ASPEN, CDL�RA DO 61611 m 3.0 Existing Conditions 3.1 Existing Roadway System Castle Creek Road: Castle Creek Road is a two-lane paved roadway that connects parcels in Pitkin County southwest of Aspen to Highway 82 at the Maroon Creek/Castle Creek roundabout. The roadway largely parallels Castle Creek. It is classified by the City of Aspen as collector street and is posted at 30mph. 3.2 Existing Transit Routes and Facilities There is an existing bus route on Castle Creek Road from downtown Aspen to the Aspen Valley Hospital. The bus stop at the Aspen Valley Hospital is located across Castle Creek Road from the affordable housing project site. 3.3 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The multimodal Marolt Trail runs from west Aspen to the Aspen Valley Hospital on the north side of the affordable housing project site. 3.4 Traffic Data Collection Traffic data was collected at the study area intersections on Thursday April 6, 2017. Twenty -four-hour directional traffic data was collected south of the Aspen Valley Hospital. Turning movement counts were collected from 7:00 — 9:OOam and 4:00 — 6:00pm. 3.5 Seasonal Adjustment Factor The peak traffic volumes in Aspen and on State Highway 82 occurs in July. Therefore, a seasonal adjustment factor was determined for to adjust for the April counts. Historic data from CDOT's Automated Traffic Recorder (ATR) along State Highway 82 near Snowmass was reviewed. The ATR data confirmed the summer traffic peaks. The average AADTs by month were averaged over 24-25 years to determine the seasonal factors of State Highway 82 traffic. This methodology was used to arrive at a seasonal adjustment factor of 1.29 for the April data. Calculations for this derivation can be found in the Appendix of the report. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 9 P475 IX.b P476 IX.b 3.6 Year 2017 and Year 2018 Background Traffic Volumes The Year 2017 background traffic was calculated by applying the seasonal adjustment factor described in Section 3.5 to the existing Year 2017 traffic counts. The background Year 2017 traffic is shown in Figure 3. The project is anticipated to be constructed and fully occupied in Year 2018. Year 2018 background traffic volumes were calculated by forecasting the Year 2017 background traffic volumes with an annual growth rate that is described in Section 5. Background Year 2018 traffic is shown in Figure 4. 3.7 Historic Crash Data Historic crash data for Castle Creek Road was compiled and analyzed. There were two hit and run crashes, two crashes involving cars backing onto Castle Creek Road from private driveways, one rear end crash at the pedestrian crossing due to icy conditions, and two non -injury crashes without reports filed. Table 1: Historic Crash Data on Castle Creek Road Historic Crash Data on Castle Creek Road Location Date Time Crash Type Description 275 Castle Creek Rd. 2/17/2016 12:19 Hit & Run No report filed. 400 Castle Creek Rd. 12/27/2016 13:33 No injury No report filed. 401 Castle Creek Rd. 11/28/2016 19:58 No injury No report filed. 401 Castle Creek Rd. 5/6/2015 11:05 Backing 2 veh. both backing into roadway. 405 Castle Creek Rd. 1/28/2015 16:31 Hit & Run j No report filed. 405 Castle Creek Rd. 8/18/2016 12:48 Backing 2 veh. Backing from private drive. Castle Creek Rd. 1/25/2017 15:30 Rear End First car stopped for pedestrian in crosswalk. Icy road. Second car failed to stop. Data collected from City of Aspen's Accident Locations Application. (From north of the Aspen Valley Hospital to 500' south of the project site.) The proposed site is not anticipated to increase the crash rate on Castle Creek Road. The internal site parking lot allows for vehicles to turn around and not have to back onto Castle Creek Road. There is no on -road parking near the project site. There is adequate sight distance at the site access. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 10 P477 Figure 3: Year 2017 Background Traffic (Seasonally Adjusted to July Volumes) ■ a Aspen_ ValleX-Hospitai �.: �`. 0 LEGEND : AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes = XX/XX vehicles per hour Turning Movements = *11 r Project Number: M1264 Prepared by: KJS Aspen Affordable Housing Partners 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable HousingOWFLLA-(�D EAspen,CO,,..a..,.,.....,............,,.. 1 L n I I Ln N QD August 6, 2017 IX.b 'm Figure 4: Year 2018 Background Traffic (Seasonally Adjusted to July Volumes) ■ �. a WF Aspen_ Valley-Hospitai o LEGEND : AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes = XX/XX vehicles per hour Turning Movements = *11 r Project Number: M1264 Prepared by: KJS Aspen Affordable Housing Partners 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable HousingOWFLLA-(�D EAspen,CO,,..a..,.,.....,............,,.. 1 n I I N QD August 6, 2017 3.8 Existing HCM Levels of Service Current Year 2017 traffic and background Year 2018 traffic was evaluated for the anticipated Level of Service (LOS) using Highway Capacity Manual 20102 (HCM) analysis procedures. The delay and LOS for the site access is summarized in Table 2. Castle Creek Road and Site Access This intersection is currently operating at an acceptable LOS. Table 2: Existing and Year 2018 Background HCM Levels of Service Year 2017 Background Traffic Intersection Intersection Control Movement Level of Service (Seconds of Delay) AM PM Castle Creek Road & Site Access WB Stop WB NB SB A (0) A (0) A (0) A (0) A (0) A (0) Year 2018 Backeround Traffic Intersection Intersection Control Movement Level of Service (Seconds of Delay) AM PM Castle Creek Road & Site Access WB Stop WB NB SB A (0) A (0) A (0) A (0) A (0) A (0) 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 13 P479 IX.b am IX.b 4.0 Existing Plus Project Conditions 4.1 Project Trip Generation Analysis The applicant is proposing to construct a 28 -unit affordable housing apartment building. Weekday trip generation analysis was prepared based upon ITE's Trip Generation Manual data for land use #220 Apartment. Peak hour trip generation analysis was prepared based upon the City of Aspen's trip generation data for affordable housing. The trip generation calculations in Table 3 summarize the anticipated traffic volumes that will be generated by the development. 4.2 Multimodal Trip Reduction The applicant is providing multiple measures of TDM and multimodal improvements that will allow the residents to utilize Aspen's excellent multimodal network. These are detailed in Section 7. Therefore, a 20% multimodal trip reduction factor was applied to the project generated traffic. 4.3 Project Trip Generation Based upon the applicant's proposed land uses, the project can be anticipated to generate 149 vehicle trips per day (vpd) on the average weekday. Peak hour traffic on a weekday at project buildout is anticipated to be 17 vehicles per hour (vph) during the morning peak hour and 20 vph during the evening peak hour. Table 3: Project Trip Generation 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Aspen, CO Estimated Proiect-Generated Traffic 1 Values obtained from Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012. Land Use Code#220 Apartment. Z Val ues obtai ned from TIA Guidelines. City of Aspen, Apri 12015. DU = Dwelling Units 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 14 Trips Generated Average Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak HourZ I weekda 1 Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Avg. AM Peak PM Peak Trips ITE Code Units Weekday Hour Hour (v d) %Tri s Trips % Tri s Trips Trips %Tri s Trips %Tri s Trips_ Trips Proposed Land Use Expansion 28 DU 6.65 0.75 0.89 186 48% 10 52% 11 21 55% 14 45% 11 25 AffordableHous ingApartments Multimodal Reduction -20% -37 -2 -2 -4 -3 -2 -5 Proposed New Tris 149 8 1 9 17 11 9 20 1 Values obtained from Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012. Land Use Code#220 Apartment. Z Val ues obtai ned from TIA Guidelines. City of Aspen, Apri 12015. DU = Dwelling Units 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 14 NM IX.b 4.4 Project -Generated Directional Distribution The anticipated directional distribution of the project -generated traffic is largely based upon the location of the residential apartments relative to amenities in Aspen. Therefore, the project's directional distribution is anticipated to be: • 90% of site traffic will come from/head to the north. • 10% of site traffic will come from/head to the south. The anticipated directional distribution of project -generated traffic is depicted in Figure S. 4.5 Project -Generated Traffic Assignment When the trip generation expected for this site is applied to the estimated trip distribution, the result is the anticipated assignment of trips on the roadway system. Figure 6 depicts the new vehicle trips that are anticipated from the project. 4.6 Year 2018 Total Traffic (Year 2018 Background Traffic Plus Project) The Year 2018 total traffic is the sum of Year 2018 background traffic (Figure 4) with the project -generated traffic assignment in Figure 6 and can be seen in Figure 7. Forecasted Year 2018 total traffic conditions were evaluated for the anticipated Level of Service (LOS) using Highway Capacity Manual 20102 (HCM) analysis procedures. The delay and LOS for the site access is summarized in Table 4. Castle Creek Road and Site Access This intersection is anticipated to continue operating at acceptable LOS through Year 2018 with or without the addition of project -generated traffic. Table 4: Existing and Year 2018 Background HCM Levels of Service Year 2018 Total Traffic Intersection Intersection Control Movement Level of Service (Seconds of Delay) AM PM Castle Creek Road & Site Access WB Stop WB NB SB A (8.5) A (8.6) A (0) A (0) A (0.6) A (0.9) 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August 5, 2017 Page 15 IX.b 'm Figure 5: Site -Generated Directional Distribution LEGEND: 1 Inbound % (Outbound %) Volumes = XX% (XX%) L 0% (90%) Turning Movements 0% (10%) U 0 0 Project Number: M1264 0 Prepared by: KJS Aspen Affordable Housing Partners 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing ENGINE L ENGINEERING, Aspen, CO �` ""'""""" `"","""' °...... '. August 6, 2017 Figure 6: Site -Generated Traffic Assignment Aspen Valley HOspltal LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes = XX/XX vehicles per hour Turning Movements = 011 fm* Project Number: M12f Prepared by: K Aspen Affordable Housing Partners 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Aspen, CO am IX.b August 6, 2017 IX.b .m Figure 7: Year 2018 Total Traffic LEGEND: 1 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes = XX/XX vehicles per hour o L g g Turning Movements = 0 X1/1 tr L.0 —i N \ Project Number: M1264 1O Prepared by: KJS Aspen Affordable Housing Partners 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing �CDOWELL ENGINEERIhiG�« Aspen, CO �` """"'"'"""" `""". °'"'""""" August 6, 2017 4.7 Findings of Project Impacts The proposed 28 apartments are anticipated to generate 10vph making the southbound left turn movement into the site during the evening peak hour. The northbound right turn is anticipated to have 1vph. With a posted speed limit of 30mph on Castle Creek Road, a southbound left turn lane is not required for a left turn volume of 10vph. The project is anticipated to have minimal impact on the vehicular Level of Service of Castle Creek Road. All movements are anticipated to continue operating at a LOS A through Year 2040 with or without the addition of project -generated traffic. 4.8 Access and Circulation Design The available sight distance at the site access is 250 feet looking south and 375 feet looking north. The posted speed of Castle Creek Road is 30mph. available sight distance exceeds the minimum 200 -foot sight distance requirements for a 30mph roadway.3 The 250 -foot distance meets the 250 -foot sight distance requirement if the roadway were posted at a higher speed of 35mph. However, current 85th percentile speeds on Castle Creek are near 40mph. Therefore, it is suggested that signage or an additional speed hump is added to the roadway, south of the project site. The access is located 190 feet south of the Aspen Valley Hospital's south access and 2,500 feet north of the nearest neighborhood access to the south. There are no adjacent developments that have the ability to share access with this site. The project is only proposing one access to Castle Creek Road. The internal circulation plan allows for direct access from each unit to a sidewalk. The sidewalk connects the site to the Marolt Trail and pedestrian crossing of Castle Creek Road to the north. The sidewalk is located on the east side of the site's parking lot, allowing pedestrians to reach the trail network without crossing the parking lot or driveway. The maximum queue length at the site access is not expected to exceed one foot through Year 2040. Residents can access transit facilities, CAR TO GO, and We -cycle facilities at the Aspen Valley Hospital. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August 5, 2017 Page 19 'm Mb am IX.b 5.0 Future Year 2040 Background Traffic Conditions 5.1 Trip Generation for Approved Background Projects There are no projects on Castle Creek Trail that have been approved but unbuilt. Pitkin County is currently in the process of developing the Castle Creek Trail along Castle Creek Road and/or Castle Creek. The trail alignment has yet to be determined and does not impact the current site plan. 5.2 Castle Creek Road Historic Traffic Growth Pitkin County provided historic traffic count data for Castle Creek Road. Their data was recorded north of the Aspen Valley Hospital. Volumes were slightly below 1,000vpd for the five-year average. Volumes peaked at 1,400vpd in August 2016. Peak volumes during special events have reached 2,400-3,000vpd. The calculations for the Castle Creek Road annual growth rate are included in the Appendix. The resulting growth rate from the County's historic data is 2.11% growth per year. 5.3 Year 2040 Background Traffic Forecasts The resulting seasonally -adjusted Year 2017 background traffic volumes were forecasted to Year 2040 traffic volumes on Castle Creek Road using the annual growth rate described above. Year 2040 background traffic volumes can be found in Figure 8. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 20 'm Figure 8: Year 2040 Background Traffic (Seasonally Adjusted to July Volumes) ■ a Aspen_ ValleX-Hospitai �.: �`. 0 LEGEND : AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes = XX/XX vehicles per hour Turning Movements = *11 r Project Number: M1264 Prepared by: KJS Aspen Affordable Housing Partners 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable HousingOWFLLA-(�D EAspen,CO,,..a..,.,.....,............,,.. I I I August 6, 2017 MW IX.b 5.4 Forecasted Background Year 2040 HCM Level of Service Background Year 2040 traffic was evaluated for the anticipated Level of Service (LOS) using Highway Capacity Manual 20102 (HCM) analysis procedures. The delay and LOS for the site access is summarized in Table 5. Castle Creek Road and Site Access This intersection will continue operating at an acceptable LOS through Year 2040. Table 5: Year 2040 Background HCM Levels of Service Year 2040 Background Traffic Intersection Intersection Control Movement Level of Service (Seconds of Delay) AM PM Castle Creek Road & Site Access WB Stop WB NB SB A (0) A (0) A (0) A (0) A (0) A (0) 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August 5, 2017 Page 22 6.0 Future Background Plus Project Conditions 6.1 Trip Generation The project is anticipated to be fully constructed an occupied by Year 2018. Therefore, the Year 2040 trip generation does not change. Refer to the trip generation calculations in Section 4. 6.2 Directional Distribution There are no major transportation infrastructure changes anticipated by Year 2040. Therefore, the project -generated directional distribution assumptions are anticipated to remain unchanged through Year 2040. Refer to the directional distribution information in Section 4.4. 6.3 Year 2040 Total Traffic (Year 2040 Background Traffic Plus Project) The Year 2040 total traffic is the sum of Year 2040 background traffic (Figure 8) with the project -generated traffic assignment in Figure 6 and can be seen in Figure 9. Forecasted Year 2040 total traffic conditions were evaluated for the anticipated Level of Service (LOS) using Highway Capacity Manual 20102 (HCM) analysis procedures. The delay and LOS for the site access is summarized in Table 6. Castle Creek Road and Site Access This intersection is anticipated to continue operating at acceptable LOS through Year 2040 with or without the addition of project -generated traffic. Table 6: Year 2040 Total Traffic HCM Levels of Service Year 2040 Total Traffic Intersection Intersection Control Movement Level of Service (Seconds of Delay) AM PM Castle Creek Road & Site Access WB Stop WB NB SB A (8.5) A (8.7) A (0) A (0) A (0.4) A (0.6) 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 23 am IX.b IX.b Figure 9: Year 2040 Total Traffic LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes = XX/XX vehicles per hour Turning Movements = 011 fm* Project Number: M12f Prepared by: K Aspen Affordable Housing Partners 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Aspen, CO _ 'D0WELL �. ENGINEERINGI« .m August 6, 2017 7.0 Proposed Mitigation Program 7.1 TDM and MMLOS Toolkit Spreadsheets The applicant is proposing to implement multiple strategies to promote travel demand management and multimodal travel. Refer to the attached TDM Toolkit Spreadsheet in Table 7 and Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Toolkit Spreadsheet in Table 8 for details. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August 5, 2017 Page 25 P491 IX.b P492 Mb MMLOS Input Page Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. n put .alculculation category Sub. Measure Number I Question Answer Points c a+ Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached 1 sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer No 0 a ° 0 meet standard minimum widths? vL the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard YIs 3 c 2 minimum width? No 0 .3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the W 0 standard minimum width? Yes 5 Subt c Y Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent 0 4 block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard No 0 0° 0 minimum widths? Y v Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block 3 S greater than the standard minimum width? No 0 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than v ¢ o c i^ 0 6 the standard minimum width? No 0 IL Subtotal 0 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 7 5%? Yes 0 d 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches? Yes 0 00 r Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample w 9 area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in Yes 5 a this cateqory. Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must 70 et City approval before receiving credit. No 0 C to M N 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street? No 0 4 a Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or c 12 column? Yes 0 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross -slope of driveway 2% T Y 13 or less? Yes 0 d 72 a '� Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from � , v 14 the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new Yes 5 M access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist is interaction with vehicles at driveway areas? No 0 5 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5? Yes 0 m3 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the C v pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an E 17 existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive No 0 u credit in this cateqory. w 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a No 0 F a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved 19 plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?* No 0 Subtotal no Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the 20 pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Yes 3 c u w Aspen staff? ii 0 o Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the Q ° £ 21 pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of No 0 Aspen staff? Subtotal Category Sub. Measure Number IQuestion Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design? No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed? No 0 O°23 30 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street orIM No 0 31 driveway? Yes 5 E Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to x �++ s 24 an existing bicycle path? No 0 }r 0 R a Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements V o 25 which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 �1 v V w CO Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements No 0 i 26 which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop? -a N No 0 � C 27Is the project providing bicycle parking? Yes 5 'm a Bicycles Total* No 10 Category Sub. Measure Number I Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed? No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed? No 0 a 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed? No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed? No 0 E R 32 Is enhanced pedestrian -scale lighting proposed? No 0 }r CO to 33 Is real-time transit information proposed? No 0 C H34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use? No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed? No 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop? -a N No 0 d •� Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway c E 37 operations proposed? No 0 W Q 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)? No 0 Subto Transit Total* 0 P493 Mb IX.b Um 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed -used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail TDM Input Page - yr !4 lift OIL Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of Project location and future use. Category MeasureStrategy Number Sub. Question Answer VMT Reductions 94 _ 1 Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented? Onsite Servicing Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? No 0.00% \ a a 2 Shared Shuttle Service Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented? NA What is the degree of implementation? What is the company size? 0.00% What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented? No 0.00% W 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions 4 Network Expansion Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented? No 0.00% What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a %of total daily trips? E E 5 Service Frequency/Speed Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented? No What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a% of total daily trips? 0.00% What is the level of implementation? E 6 Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented? Transit Access Improvement What is the extent of access improvements? yes Within Project Only 1.00% — 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented? No 0.00% Reduction in rMaximum Allowed Category 1.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions 8 Participation in TOP Will there be participation in TOP? What percentage of employees are eligible? NA 0.00% 9 Transit Fare Subsidy Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented? No 0.00% What percentage of employees are eligible? What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? 10 Employee Parking Cash -Out Is an employee parking cash -out strategy being implemented? What percentage of employees are eligible? No 0.00% 11 Workplace Parking Pricing Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented? No 0.— What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? 12 Compressed Work Weeks Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented? No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? — 13 Employer Sponsored Vanpool Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented? No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? ,Eo 14 Is a carpool matching strategy implemented? Carpool Matching What percentage of employees are eligble? No 0.00% c — 15 carshare Program Is carshare participation being implemented? No How many employee memberships have been purchased? 1100 What percentage of employees are eligble? EWhat 16 Bikeshare Program the Is participation in the bikeshare program WE -cycle being implemented? No How many have been purchased? 1100 percentage of employees/guests are eligble? E r' 17 End of Trip Facilities Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented? No 0.00% What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? 18 Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented? Self-funded Emergency Ride Home What percentage of employees are eligible? No 0.00% 19 Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented? No 0.00% What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? 20 Private Employer Shuttle Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented? No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? 21 Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Is a p reduction marketing/incentive program implemented? Program Whattripercentage of employees/guests are eligible? Yes 0.00% Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions 1AU2 1.W�� 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed -used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail 7.2 TDM Measure Details The applicant's proposed travel demand management details are described in detail in Table 9. 7.3 MMLOS Measure Details Details of the applicant's proposed multimodal improvements are described in detail in Table 9. MMLOS site plan requirements are also detailed in Table 9. 7.4 Enforcement and Financing Details of the enforcement and financing for the TDM and MMLOS measures are detailed in Table 9. 7.5 Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Details of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed mitigation measures are detailed in Table 9. 7.6 Proposed Significant Impact Mitigation The project traffic will not require the construction of a southbound left turn at the site access. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 28 P495 IX.b IX.b MM Summary and Narrative: DATE: 7/25/2017 PROJECT NAME: 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing PROJECT ADDRESS: 488 Castle Creek Road, Aspen APPLICANT CONTACT Jason Bradshaw Aspen Housing Partners, LLC INFORMATION: 228 Eastwood Drive Aspen, CO 81611 NAME, COMPANY, 970-319-9298 ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL jebradshaw@mac.com SUMMARY Trip Generation Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 24.9 28 0.25 1 28.25 0.00 A minimum of five TDM measures must be utilized for major projects. Please return to Sheet "3. TDM" and select a minimum of five measures. Narrative: Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. Aspen Housing Partners is proposing the construction of 28 new affordable housing apartments. The site is currently vacant. MMLOS In the space provided desicribe what new landscaping is proposed and how the proposed landscaping plan enhances the pedestrian experience. This measure is only applicable to large scale projects and requires more extensive landscaping then a few plantings or lawn area. The project shall establish extensive landscaping which significantly benefits the site and improves the pedestrian comfort and experience. The project is proposing large-scale landscaping improvements on the north and south sides of the building, as well as in the courtyard and along Castle Creek Road that will improve the pedestrian experience. Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street, improvements to the project's ADA ramps in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points. The site does not currently have a sidewalk within the Castle Creek ROW. The proposed site plan connects the length of the building to a new sidewalk. The new sidewalk directly connects to the existing Castle Creek Trail on the east side of Castle Creek Road. The applicant is also proposing to construct a soft surfaced trail along the north and east sides of the building that will access the Marolt Trail to the east. Due to the topographical constraints, this trail will be soft surfaced and not be ADA compliant. Explain any additional minor improvements which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff. The site plan proposes direct access from each unit via the courtyard to the proposed sidewalk. Describe how the proposed new bike path allows access without crossing a street or driveway. The proposed site plan connects the facility to the existing Castle Creek Trail on the east side of Castle Creek Road with a new sidewalk. The applicant is also proposing to construct a soft surfaced trail along the north and east sides of the building that will access the Marolt Trail to the east. Due to the topographical constraints, this trail will be soft surfaced and not be ADA compliant. P497 IX.b Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. TDM A transit access improvement strategy will be implemented. Provision of safe and comfortable access to transit service is important for generating and maintaining transit ridership, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful project will improve pedestrian access to a transit stop via formalization of trails, addition and/or improvement of sidewalk, installation of lighting and/or way finding or other measures. Explain the proposed transit access improvement strategy below. The site does not currently have a sidewalk within the Castle Creek ROW. The proposed site plan connects the length of the building to a new sidewalk. The new sidewalk directly connects to the existing Castle Creek Trail on the east side of Castle Creek Road. This connection will allow pedestrians to access the existing bus system at the hospital's transit stop. The sidewalk will be ADA compliant. Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting. The applicant will provide an orientation to specific alternative transportation modes with each lease agreement. This will include a description of the benefits and bike/walk route maps. The facility will also post the bus schedules, WE -cycle, and Care to Go information in the common area of the apartment complex. Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. It appears that the City's TDM measures are largely aimed at employers. In addition, the Aspen Valley Hospital provides carhare and bikeshare stations. Installing similar facilities for this project would be redundant. The applicant is working with the Engineering Department to determine other acceptable mitigation measures for this residential project. One suggested alternative was providing a charging station for electric vehicles. MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk Landscape Plan 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Additional Minor Pedestrian Improvement New bicycle path which provides access without crossing a street or driveway Bicycle Parking Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The MMLOS measures (sidewalk enhancements, trail construction, and landscaping) will be paid for by the applicant. The TDM measures will be included in lease agreements and reviewed with the tenants. Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. All MMLOS items will be completed during the construction phase of the project. They will be part of the plan set submitted to the City of Aspen Building Department for Engineering review. The applicant understands that issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy is contingent upon satisfactory installation of the MMLOS improvements, as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. These items will be the responsibility of the applicant. TDM measures will be implemented when tenants sign lease agreements. Monitoring and Reporting Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. MM Mb ..e applicant will collect vehicle trip data at the site access annually for three years, starting one year after tenants occupy the building. This data will be compared to the anticipated trip generation in this report. In addition, the applicant will provide a tenant survey of to determine if the current MMLOS and TDM measures are being maintained and participation levels. The traffic counts and survey results will be assessed to determine if measures are having the intended effects. If not, the mitigation measures should be modified in consultation with the Transportation and Engineering Departments for the next year. The assessment will be reported to the City. The monitoring and reporting requirements will continue for a period of five years. The monitoring and reporting requirements are tied to the property and must be provided regardless of change in ownership. Traffic counts and analysis will be paid for by the applicant. 8.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 8.1 Summary of Results, findings, and mitigation measures The proposed 28 -unit affordable housing project is anticipated to be successfully accommodated into the greater roadway system. The applicant is proposing to construct a 28 -unit affordable housing apartment building. A 20% multimodal trip reduction factor was applied to the project - generated traffic. The site will be connected via sidewalk and trails to the regional trail and transit systems. Based upon the applicant's proposed land uses, the project can be anticipated to generate 149 vehicle trips per day (vpd) on the average weekday. Peak hour traffic on a weekday at project buildout is anticipated to be 17 vehicles per hour (vph) during the morning peak hour and 20 vph during the evening peak hour. The applicant is proposing to implement multiple TDM and MMLOS strategies in an effort to reduce the number of vehicle trips to/from the site. They are improving access to the existing bus stop at the Aspen Valley Hospital and implementing a trip reduction marketing program for residents. In addition, the applicant is proposing to include large scale landscaping improvements to improve the pedestrian experience and provide soft surface trails connecting directly from the units to the Marolt Trail. The project traffic will not require the construction of a southbound left turn at the site access. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August S, 2017 Page 30 UM Mb P500 IX.b 9.0 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 9.1 Vehicle Trip Data Collection The applicant shall collect traffic data at the site access on an annual basis for five years, starting one year after the apartments are occupied. 9.2 Assessment of Compliance with Guidelines The traffic data will be assessed by a Professional Traffic Operation Engineer to determine if the TDM and MMLOS strategies are reducing vehicular trips as anticipated. 9.3 Identify Additional Strategies A survey of the residents may also be prepared to determine their modes of transportation and participation in TDM measures. 9.4 Annual Report Submittal A summary of the above findings will be reported to the City on an annual basis for five years, starting one year after the apartments are occupied. 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August 5, 2017 Page 31 10.0 Appendix Reference Documents 1. OTIS Traffic Data. Colorado Department of Transportation. http://apps.coloradodot.info/dataaccess/ 2. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, 2010. 3. State Highway Access Code. State of Colorado, 2002. 4. Trip Generation Manual, 91h Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012. 5. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The City of Aspen, 2015. Included Documents 1. Traffic Study Scoping Correspondence with City 2. Traffic Counts 3. Seasonal Adjustment Factor Calculations 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing August 5, 2017 Page 32 P501 IX.b Printed: 04/14/2017 at 15:20 TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 IX.b Daily Vehicle Volume Report Study Date: Wednesday, 04/05/2017 / Thursday, 04/06/2017 Unit ID: Location: Castle Creek Road PicoCount 2500 V2.30 (s/n# 1! P502 Page 1 Southbound Northbound Volume Volume Total Volume 17:00 - 17:59 58 19 77 18:00 - 18:59 31 11 42 19:00 - 19:59 12 7 19 20:00 - 20:59 12 4 16 21:00 -21:59 3 2 5 22:00 - 22:59 6 0 6 23:00 - 23:59 3 0 3 00:00 - 00:59 0 0 0 01:00 - 01:59 0 0 0 02:00 - 02:59 0 0 0 03:00 - 03:59 0 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 2 0 2 06:00 - 06:59 81 0 8 07:00 - 07:59 35 4 39 08:00 - 08:59 65 5 70 09:00 - 09:59 29 13 42 10:00 - 10:59 33 33 66 11:00 - 11:59 40 32 72 12:00 - 12:59 561 33 89 13:00 - 13:59 36 41 77 14:00 - 14:59 48 46 94 15:00 - 15:59 111 56 167 16:00 - 16:59 59 26 85 Totals 647 332 979 AM Peak Time 07:48 - 08:47110:15 - 11:14107:48 - 08:47 AM Peak Volume 76 39 83 PM Peak Time 14:54 - 15:53 14:45 - 15:44 14:45 - 15:44 PM Peak Volume 118 70 184 PicoCount 2500 V2.30 (s/n# 1! P502 Page 1 P503 IX.b Seasonal Adjustment Factor Calculations State Highway 082A (Continuous Count Station Id: 000236 ON SH 82 NW/0 SNOWMASS CREEK RD, CRS 11 & 16, SNOWMASS) 236 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 236 2017 18550 18921 19443 236 2016 18612 18613 18878 16828 17254 21393 22397 20902 20479 18174 16340 18813 236 2015 17908 17741 18317 16451 15838 20486 22141 20765 20084 18002 16160 18790 236 2014 16786 16586 17062 15332 15302 19047 20643 19455 18461 16665 14287 17401 236 2013 16471 16387 15888 13074 14574 17789 19205 18535 16845 13969 12114 14336 236 2012 16266 15875 16306 14115 14832 17835 19174 19048 17124 15655 14824 15915 236 2011 16703 15716 16399 13695 13876 17634 18818 18620 17543 15235 14378 16553 236 2010 16309 15908 16508 14295 14115 17727 18957 18342 14489 16566 236 2009 17545 17067 16855 15097 14805 18291 19416 18236 17741 15681 14839 16267 236 2008 18043 17945 18408 16378 16098 19157 20581 19852 18648 17649 15681 16153 236 2007 18475 17921 18854 16740 16936 19847 20828 21227 18998 18296 19537 18597 236 2006 16925 17517 17585 20900 16223 19271 19695 20076 18422 16744 16081 17722 236 2005 16542 16885 17329 15008 14987 18501 19511 18953 17653 15863 15462 16004 236 2004 15436 15162 16432 14645 14291 17552 18662 18313 17147 15253 14902 17026 236 2003 15323 15142 15032 14088 13892 16483 18147 17357 15852 14843 13149 15086 236 2002 15380 15353 15607 15067 14721 16659 18206 17893 15925 14900 13701 15101 236 2001 15577 15884 16343 14956 14816 17190 18174 18152 15902 15552 14421 14725 236 2000 15727 14405 14985 236 1999 14071 14653 15639 14126 13567 15945 18030 17850 16675 15075 13560 14860 236 1998 13980 14555 14565 13773 14789 16221 17939 17116 15857 14335 13342 14621 236 1997 12665 14260 14975 13245 13020 17119 17569 16904 15308 14305 12669 14307 236 1996 12552 13486 14143 12940 12905 15130 16994 16940 14983 13652 12674 13187 236 1995 12659 12633 13298 11569 12212 15020 16118 16631 14294 13487 12782 13338 236 1994 12417 12542 13796 11727 11962 14544 15342 15753 14325 12891 11852 12973 236 1993 11220 11305 12595 10817 10720 13181 14669 14557 13431 12159 11547 12812 236 1992 236 1991 average 15684 15752 16261 14559 14423 17479 18749 18325 16895 15396 14300 15672 1.2 1.19 1.15 1.29 1.3 1.07 1 1.02 1.11 1.22 1.31 1.2 IX0 Castle Creek Road Growth Rate Calculation Growth Rate per Historic County Data Historic Year 2016 Historic Traffic* 950 Current Year 2017 Current Traffic** 970 Growth Rate/Year 2.11% 25 Bed hospital = 700 ADT. Assume only partial capacity, therefore, reduce 500vpd * Pitkin County August AADT of 1450vpd taken north of hospital - 500ADT for hospital. ** April 2017 ADT taken south of the hospital P504 Printed: 04/14/2017 at 15:20 TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Daily Southbound Classes Report Study Date: Wednesday, 04/05/2017 / Thursday, 04/06/2017 Unit ID: Location: Castle Creek Road PicoCount 2500 V2.30 (s/n# 1! P505 Truck Summary: Total Trucks: 118 % Trucks: 18.2 AM % Trucks: 18.9 Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1) #1 #1 1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 Total 17:00 - 17:59 0 41 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 18:00 - 18:59 0 20 4 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 19:00 - 19:59 0 9 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20:00 - 20:59 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 21:00 -21:59 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 22:00 - 22:59 01 4 11 0 11 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 6 23:00 - 23:59 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 00:00 - 00:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 -01:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 - 02:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 - 03:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 06:00 - 06:59 01 3 31 01 2 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 8 07:00 - 07:59 0 29 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 08:00 - 08:59 0 49 5 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 65 09:00 - 09:59 0 17 7 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 10:00 - 10:59 0 16 7 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 11:00 - 11:59 0 22 12 0 51 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 12:00 - 12:59 0 36 8 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 13:00 - 13:59 0 23 5 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 14:00 - 14:59 01 34 41 1 8 1 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 48 15:00 - 15:59 1 83 12 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 16:00 - 16:59 1 43 3 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 Totals 2 447 80 8 104 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 647 Percent of Total 0.3 69.1 12.4 1.2 16.1 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Percent of AM 0.0 64.6 16.5 0.91 16.01 1.41 0.01 0.5 0.01 .01 0.01 0.0 0.01 100 Percent of PM 0.5 71.3 10.3 1.4 16.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Truck Summary: Total Trucks: 118 % Trucks: 18.2 AM % Trucks: 18.9 Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1) #1 Motorcycles - 2 Axles #6 Single Unit Truck - 3 Axles #2 Passenger Cars - 2 Axles #7 Single Unit - 4 Axles #3 Pickup Trucks, Vans - 2 Axles #8 Single Unit - 4 Axles or Less #4 Buses #9 Double Unit - 5 Axles #5 Single Unit - 2 Axles, 6 Tires #10 Double Unit - 6 Axles or More PM % Trucks: 17.9 #11 Multi -Unit - 5 Axles or Less #12 Multi -Unit - 6 Axles #13 Multi -Unit - 7 Axles or More IX.b Page 1 Printed: 04/14/2017 at 15:20 TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 IX.b Daily Northbound Classes Report Study Date: Wednesday, 04/05/2017 / Thursday, 04/06/2017 Unit ID: Location: Castle Creek Road PicoCount 2500 V2.30 (s/n# 1! P506 Truck Summary: Total Trucks: 31 % Trucks: 9.3 AM % Trucks: 9.2 PM % Trucks: 9.4 Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1) #1 #1 1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 Total 17:00 - 17:59 0 14 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 18:00 - 18:59 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 19:00 - 19:59 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20:00 - 20:59 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 21:00 -21:59 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22:00 - 22:59 01 0 01 0 01 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 0 23:00 - 23:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00:00 - 00:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 -01:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 - 02:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 - 03:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 - 06:59 01 0 01 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 0 07:00 - 07:59 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 08:00 - 08:59 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 09:00 - 09:59 0 5 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 10:00 - 10:59 0 24 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 11:00 - 11:59 0 22 7 0 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 12:00 - 12:59 0 22 6 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 13:00 - 13:59 0 23 11 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 14:00 - 14:59 01 33 101 0 3 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 46 15:00 - 15:59 0 47 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 16:00 - 16:59 0 22 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Totals 0 240 61 3 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 332 Percent of Total 0.0 72.3 18.4 0.9 7.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Percent of AM 0.0 66.7 24.1 0.01 6.91 2.31 0.01 0.0 0.01 .01 0.01 0.0 100 Percent of PM 0.0 74.3 16.3 1.21 7.31 0.81 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0 ---0.01 O.OF 100 Truck Summary: Total Trucks: 31 % Trucks: 9.3 AM % Trucks: 9.2 PM % Trucks: 9.4 Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1) #1 Motorcycles - 2 Axles #6 Single Unit Truck - 3 Axles #2 Passenger Cars - 2 Axles #7 Single Unit - 4 Axles #3 Pickup Trucks, Vans - 2 Axles #8 Single Unit - 4 Axles or Less #4 Buses #9 Double Unit - 5 Axles #5 Single Unit - 2 Axles, 6 Tires #10 Double Unit - 6 Axles or More #11 Multi -Unit - 5 Axles or Less #12 Multi -Unit - 6 Axles #13 Multi -Unit - 7 Axles or More Page 2 Printed: 04/14/2017 at 15:20 TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Daily Total Classes Report Study Date: Wednesday, 04/05/2017 / Thursday, 04/06/2017 Unit ID: Location: Castle Creek Road PicoCount 2500 V2.30 (s/n# 1! P507 Truck Summary: Total Trucks: 149 % Trucks: 15.2 AM % Trucks: 16.1 Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1) #1 #1 1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 Total 17:00 - 17:59 0 55 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 18:00 - 18:59 0 30 4 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 19:00 - 19:59 0 15 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 20:00 - 20:59 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 21:00 -21:59 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 22:00 - 22:59 01 4 11 0 11 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 6 23:00 - 23:59 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 00:00 - 00:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 -01:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 - 02:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 - 03:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 06:00 - 06:59 01 3 31 01 2 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 8 07:00 - 07:59 0 33 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 08:00 - 08:59 0 52 6 0 10 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 70 09:00 - 09:59 0 22 13 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 10:00 - 10:59 0 40 14 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 11:00 - 11:59 0 44 19 0 71 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 12:00 - 12:59 0 58 14 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 13:00 - 13:59 0 46 16 1 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 14:00 - 14:59 01 67 141 1 11 1 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 94 15:00 - 15:59 1 130 18 5 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 16:00 - 16:59 1 65 5 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 Totals 2 687 141 11 128 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 979 Percent of Total 0.2 70.2 14.4 1.1 13.1 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Percent of AM 0.0 65.2 18.7 0.71 13.41 1.71 0.01 0.3 0.01 .01 0.01 0.0 100 Percent of PM 0.3 72.4 12.5 1.31 12.91 0.61 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0 ---0.01 O.OF 100 Truck Summary: Total Trucks: 149 % Trucks: 15.2 AM % Trucks: 16.1 Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1) #1 Motorcycles - 2 Axles #6 Single Unit Truck - 3 Axles #2 Passenger Cars - 2 Axles #7 Single Unit - 4 Axles #3 Pickup Trucks, Vans - 2 Axles #8 Single Unit - 4 Axles or Less #4 Buses #9 Double Unit - 5 Axles #5 Single Unit - 2 Axles, 6 Tires #10 Double Unit - 6 Axles or More PM % Trucks: 14.9 #11 Multi -Unit - 5 Axles or Less #12 Multi -Unit - 6 Axles #13 Multi -Unit - 7 Axles or More IX.b Page 3 Printed: 04/14/2017 at 15:20 Traffic\/i.-.r Pro v1.6.4.124 IX.b Daily Southbound Speeds (MPH) Study Date: Wednesday, 04/05/2017 / Thursday, 04/06/2017 Unit ID: Location: Castle Creek Road Picocount 2500 V2.30 (s/n# 1 P508 Posted Speed: 30 Standard Deviation: 5- 14 15- 19 20- 24 25- 29 30- 34 35- 39 40- 44 45- 49 50- 54 55- 59 60- 64 65- 69 70- 74 75- 79 80- 99 Total 17:00 - 17:59 0 0 1 9 17 22 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 18:00 - 18:59 0 0 1 2 12 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 19:00 - 19:59 0 0 0 2 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20:00 - 20:59 0 0 1 0 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 21:00 -21:59 0 0 Ol 1 11 Ol 0 11 0 Ol 0 Ol 0 Ol 0 3 22:00 - 22:59 01 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 23:00 - 23:59 01 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 00:00 - 00:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 -01:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 - 02:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 - 03:59 0 0 01 0 01 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 06:00 - 06:59 01 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 07:00 - 07:59 0 0 1 4 15 13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 08:00 - 08:59 0 0 1 16 22 20 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 09:00 - 09:59 0 0 11 4 131 71 3 11 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 29 10:00 - 10:59 0 0 0 0 13 14 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 11:00 - 11:59 0 0 0 3 8 24 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 40 12:00 - 12:59 0 0 0 3 13 26 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 13:00 - 13:59 0 0 0 0 18 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 14:00 - 14:59 01 0 1 2 17 19 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 15:00 - 15:59 0 1 11 10 351 49 15 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 111 16:00 - 16:59 1 0 2 7 20 23 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 Totals 1 1 11 63 221 251 80 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 647 Percent of Total 0.2 0.2 1.7 9.7 34.2 38.8 12.4 2.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 100 Percent of AM 0.0 0.0 1.4 12.7 34.4 38.7 8.0I .3 0.91 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 100 Percent of PM 0.2 0.2 1.8 8.3 34.0 38.9 14.51 1.8 0.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Standard Deviation: 5.7 MPH Mean Speed: 35.5 MPH Median Speed: 35.5 MPH Modal Speed: 37.5 MPH Ten Mile Pace: 30 to 39 MPH Percent in Ten Mile Pace: 73.0% 85th Percentile: 40.1 MPH 15th Percentile: 30.5 MPH 90th Percentile: 42.1 MPH 95th Percentile: 44.1 MPH Page 1 Printed: 04/14/2017 at 15:20 TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Daily Northbound Speeds (MPH) Study Date: Wednesday, 04/05/2017 / Thursday, 04/06/2017 Unit ID: Location: Castle Creek Road PicoCount 2500 V2.30 (s/n# 1 PrJ09 - ) Posted Speed: 30 Standard Deviation: 5- 14 15- 19 20- 24 25- 29 30- 34 35- 39 40- 44 45- 49 50- 54 55- 59 60- 64 65- 69 70- 74 75- 79 80- 99 Total 17:00-17:59 0 0 1 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 18:00-18:59 0 0 0 2 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 19:00-19:59 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20:00 - 20:59 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 21:00 -21:59 0 0 Ol 0 21 0 Ol 0 Ol 0 Ol 0 Ol 0 Ol 2 22:00 - 22:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 - 23:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00:00 - 00:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 -01:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 - 02:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 - 03:59 01 0 01 0 01 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 - 06:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 - 07:59 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 08:00 - 08:59 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 09:00 - 09:59 01 0 01 6 71 01 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 13 10:00 - 10:59 0 0 0 5 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 11:00 - 11:59 0 0 0 6 17 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 12:00 - 12:59 0 1 1 6 15 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 13:00 - 13:59 0 1 2 11 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 14:00 - 14:59 0 1 1 6 25 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 15:00 - 15:59 01 0 11 19 241 11 11 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 56 16:00 - 16:59 0 0 2 6 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Totals 0 3 9 76 163 77 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 332 Percent of Total 0.0 0.9 2.7 22.9 49.1 23.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Percent of AM 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 52.9 25.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Percent of PM 0.0 1.2 3.7 23.7 47.8 22.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Standard Deviation: 4.4 MPH Mean Speed: 32.2 MPH Median Speed: 32.4 MPH Modal Speed: 32.5 MPH Ten Mile Pace: 30 to 39 MPH Percent in Ten Mile Pace: 72.3% IX.b 85th Percentile: 37.0 MPH 15th Percentile: 27.5 MPH 90th Percentile: 38.1 MPH 95th Percentile: 39.1 MPH Page 2 Printed: 04/14/2017 at 15:20 Tr�ffir•\/ionior Pro v1.6.4.124 IX.b Daily Total Speeds (MPH) Study Date: Wednesday, 04/05/2017 / Thursday, 04/06/2017 Unit ID: Location: Castle Creek Road PicoCount 2500 V2.30 (s/n# 1 P51.0 ) Posted Speed: 30 Standard Deviation: 5- 14 15- 19 20- 24 25- 29 30- 34 35- 39 40- 44 45- 49 50- 54 55- 59 60- 64 65- 69 70- 74 75- 79 80- 99 Total 17:00 - 17:59 0 0 2 15 23 28 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 18:00 - 18:59 0 0 1 4 19 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 19:00-19:59 0 0 0 4 8 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 20:00 - 20:59 0 0 2 0 4 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 21:00 -21:59 0 0 Ol 1 31 0 Ol 1 Ol 0 Ol 0 Ol 0 Ol 5 22:00 - 22:59 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 23:00 - 23:59 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 00:00 - 00:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 -01:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 - 02:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 - 03:59 01 0 01 0 01 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 06:00 - 06:59 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 07:00 - 07:59 0 0 1 4 18 14 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 08:00 - 08:59 0 0 1 17 23 23 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 09:00 - 09:59 01 0 11 10 201 71 3 11 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 42 10:00 - 10:59 0 0 0 5 31 24 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 11:00 - 11:59 0 0 0 9 25 32 4 1 0 0 0 01 0 0 1 72 12:00 - 12:59 0 1 1 9 28 36 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 13:00 - 13:59 0 1 2 11 41 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 14:00 - 14:59 0 1 2 8 42 31 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 15:00 - 15:59 01 1 21 29 591 60 161 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 01 167 16:00 - 16:59 1 0 4 13 33 28 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 Totals 1 4 20 139 384 328 84 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 979 Percent of Total 0.1 0.4 2.0 14.2 39.2 33.5 8.6 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100 Percent of AM 0.0 0.0 1.0 15.1 39.8 34.8 6.0 2.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 100 Percent of PM 0.1 0.6 2.5 13.8 39.0 32.9 9.7 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Standard Deviation: 5.5 MPH Mean Speed: 34.4 MPH Median Speed: 34.2 MPH Modal Speed: 32.5 MPH Ten Mile Pace: 30 to 39 MPH Percent in Ten Mile Pace: 72.7% 85th Percentile: 39.3 MPH 15th Percentile: 29.4 MPH 90th Percentile: 40.3 MPH 95th Percentile: 43.2 MPH Page 3 aspen4 • , August 2, 2017 Jennifer Phelan Deputy Director of Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3 d Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 488 Castle Creek Road — Property Operations and Maintenance Protocol Dear Ms. Phelan: P511 IX.b partners, Ilc This letter is intended to describe the operations and maintenance protocols that are required under the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit ("LIHTC") program. Aspen Housing Partners, LLC, as the Development Entity, is required under the LIHTC program to employ a property management company that is credentialed and qualified by the Colorado Housing Finance Authority ("CHFA") to conduct all operations and maintenance matters including the compliance of tenants to both the LIHTC and APCHA qualification standards. Property operations will include maintaining all physical improvements to the property including all buildings, mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and landscape and irrigation. The property management company will hire local contractors to handle all ongoing building and site maintenance requirements, including but not limited to: trash service; landscape service; and snow removal of the driveway, parking lot and walkways. As part of the financial underwriting and LIHTC regulations, the Development Entity will be required to establish both CAPEX and operating reserves. These reserves are overseen and set aside on a monthly basis to ensure regular and necessary building and site upkeep. The property will also be subject to periodic audits by a CHFA representative to ensure reserves are being utilized to maintain the property. These audits will be shared with the City to confirm appropriate maintenance measures are upheld. Furthermore, the general partner to the Development Entity will be required to provide operating shortfall and maintenance guarantees which provides another layer of motivation to keep the property operating in an efficient manner. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions on the matter. Sincerely yours, N—f�W Jason Bradshaw, Manager Aspen Housing Partners, LLC 228 Eastwood Drive Aspen, CO 81611 970.319.9298 IX.b APPENDIX C - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET (24X36 FORMATTING) Exhibit 1. Existing Conditions and Draft Plat • Improvement Survey • Existing PUD and Subdivision Plat • Draft Planned Development Survey Plat Exhibit 2. Site Planning & Landscape Plan Set • Demolition, Vegetation and Tree Removal Plan • Illustrative Site Plan • Landscape Perspective Studies • Planting and Restoration Plan • Mobility/Multimodal Diagram • Mobility Pedestrian Access Diagram • Exterior Light Plan Exhibit 3. Engineering Plan Set • Notes • Existing Conditions • Site Plan Layout • Drainage Basins • Grading and Drainage • Utility Plan Exhibit 4. Architectural Plan Set • Floor Plans • Roof & Height Plan • Floor area (FAR) Diagrams & Calculations • Net Livable Area Diagrams & Calculations • Building Elevations • Perspective Building Renderings I P512 488 CASTLE CREEK - AH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DRAWING INDEX EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DRAFT PIAT IMPROVEMENT SIINEY DRAFT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SURVEY PLR SITE PLANNING EL LANDSCAPE PLAN SET L1 DO- DEMOLMON, VEGETATION AND TREE REMOVALPW4 1-2D0-ILLUSTMTNE SITE RAN LU LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE STUDIES LAD D-PLANTNG AND RESTORATION PLAN LSD'- MO BIDTY/MULTIMAM ODAL DIAGRAM -G. MOBIDIY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS DIAGRAM L740-EXTERIORLIGHT PLAN ENGINEERING PLAN SET C -001 -NOTES AND LEGEND C -101 -EXISTING CONDITIONS C -102 -SITE LAYOUT C -103 -DRAINAGE BASINS C -104 -GRADING AND DRAINAGE C-105-Utl PLAN ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SET AIM -FLOOR PLANS ALAI -FLOOR PIANS AIM _ FLO A PLANS AIM_ FLOOR PIANS A1D4-Roo F PIANS At D5 -FAR At D6 -NET DVALE PLANS A2DI - ELEVATONS A2D2-ELEVATONS A2D3-3D VIENS PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER ARCHITECT PLANNER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER CITY OF ASPEN David Johnston Architects Method Planning +Development McDowell Engineering, LLC City Hall 119 South Spring St 119 South Spring St. Suite 102 P.O. Box 4259 130 S. Galena St Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 Eagle, CO 81631 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 P: 970.274.0890 P: 970.623.0788 P: 970.920.5000 P: 970.925.3444 adamrlmethoQpd com kar'rdmcdowellenocom F: 970.920.2186 hrian ®diarchiterts.com APPLICANTLANDSCAPEARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER Aspen Housing Partners, LLC Connect One Design Roaring Fork Engineering Jason Bradshaw 0123Emma Rd. 592 Highway 133 228 Eastwood Drive Suite 200A Carbondale, CO 81623 Aspen, CO 81611 Basalt, CO 81621 P: 970.340.4130 P: 970-319-9298 P. 970.279.1030 F: 866.876.5873 iebradshawAamaccom bbAconnectonedeian om richarda(&rfena.biz PROJECT INFORMATION LOCATION..............................................................................................488 CASTLE CREEK RD. ASPEN, CO 81611 LOTSIZE ............................................... .............................................................. .................... 11,255 S.F. Et 24,640 S.F. PARCEL IDB.........................................................................................................273512309033 EL 273512309034 SUBDIVISION: ............................................................................................................................................................. NIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ...................................................... 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD EL LOT SPLIT Lot:1 Et 2 W 0 z J r a z J W ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY LOT'S 1 & 2,488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD FINAL P.U.D. AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RF GM rt PE ¢ <] IA— TI TI n TI \� / u~ n\ / rvLOT3 114 q 2 \ no ] S GRAPHIC SCALE (wems) 6)¢EVAilON9ARE.0A'�oRTHODA'NM)YIELDIIIG' oN91IEELEVAioNOEMM,IsoN ra'rvoR'Ixwfs'I'[ux mxrvER AS sxOwrv. Cmfmva mmFJtvu. Epuu.s l tnm. 51� mEaARARP0.0RIMArzty 1E^Of SNOa umICEONnIEGRONm ATTNEnANOF e�ACCOROwG io ¢MA PAN¢ m W ] W wC HATED NNE 4, 1111 SUBIFG! fROPmtt , ERROROE CIAEGREEOR THIS ALiaNRRe uNnifH.E 9oRVeY IS LESSIHAN I'.15,Gm. IONACCDRUINGNwECm' Of A— 3. 051TE]HISPROPERtt M W¢NEo 11. II) WenAnD eOUNOARYDeuNEAnON WAervmRROvmmAxo NO VIS®LEMARKS WERE SUR—OHS CER nElcA I IONS pEw.oen�mtMim. waRi,,,>srolrenrvvarowery®aa,x®,ro.rvwswG.wrvuxenn ut REp rvuuFMEry sEOBnSFD wEAEwmms.0 90nvevS.>Own e6inee6]nonnv no0 ®ntxnnxorvSeS nnv wtumet m'w61.2Ags. Nq. NEl v(y, e, 9, la(nJ, Il, la, ll, 1a, 16, 1], Ie Alm I9oPiAH¢AIHE¢OP IHEn¢oWORK WARCOtAIFI'Eo011 oAi V e✓SAONA! lANH50o-, OO —0 V 1 E® il 0®® a0 ®0 a0 a0 • a0 a0 0® a0 a0 a0 00 ®0 BBm BBm 00 00 00 BBm 00 ®0 00 00 00 00 a0 �0 �m0® �m0® ®m00 —0 V 1 488 CASTLE BE= IVG AT A PO I IT.P APNUNOEA 5 AE?AA ON TME E,ASr y sl of OF THE LE CREED ROAD S I .� S A S L hE R.N. si11- THEWR LINFEEi TNI ALONG THE FENCE L xE 0._ ELFT l0 rNE v01xr cIITIAIMN NG n ARES - 113 111 10Ill Y AN D LOT SPLIT ANE 01111 MEAEOY OEO to Ds To i n NE 5 rb' GD ENIOB SHOWN Hf AEON I PATiEN LINE EREM II FURFXEA 'E'R1' L D AAD of C IY of AIRIIS THA`RM9 NHAT RECdSMAI 1N (ANJUACL INEWITH ENI SWiWfFNAIWNEP AND }XE Lei SPLIT E%EM Pi IDN 11A1. .0. ANO SD Cu s V 1 . ( O N E XE MPTHIN o J o D 0 PLAT {( 7 --' �L .�� T TITLE CERTIFICATE RO The �ureose lots of 200fi] of t Ic! far r .den+ OI AaY NIP— Cb nd UD pr r. o Jn c 'e o =fl o- �'ne ubj sf p party info Two to nT eLordaice I Pn '.I y -II Ord once Na, 5 (Series (21 TIN iR JHA FnNIn 6inACD ON THIS Pl1AN1 M1AN opUE iN It LEAL FIOATE Is NOF i0 HE TR F rITED B OF TITLE, NOR A 6JAAANTEE rn E i B ANION IL . ANO I NDE STOJo rN AEE N _ A ITN it! ttUNTY TIiLF, IN^ NEAIHER A66UME5 NBR WILL BE CHARNEL WITH ANY FINANCIAL GBL IGAi ION OA IL}TY Q Z x� WHASSOE4EP OHS ANY SIATEMENI cox -A INE HEREIN. t gIIT- I'd -JO end c!' +her FF c,...e —q—FI—Iii, r., 'h.. AOFEN Land Use Code. C OOMHI`10�� A InL SEAL _ i L..Ec NoiAgT PtlBL c \\ ansae es Ln=e°ohne IIIJA. D., °I'i SEaincND.i NWIREANILu to cr roB;uxlP.i°,.ten. 'G 1.. NOH, HDWPECi cYEAEOY -Illy THAI IN JLLY 3006 A SUR4 Y p NN XE f N Df "I tB-0ppAGnl PAOP.gW N n IFs'NE BO'iHE EA4EXFNV AMISTN N THEos N, OF PI TN INANE All U WN NIFH FAME 1NE ON 8 L ,,LL BqSq ,SL PE N Nry T ,,`Lp L -,.IED Tl 03 ANff W H CAA In" D \I LE00B .,AYFLCLE-SB A9 HEA FROM TIME YO TME! i� D xJ A NI51 ISM III':TW ASPO 99 RVFV'fNGIh.EPt INS. wN,IA'NING s AGBES •J� 115.vl . r -Y , COCIJ TpOF 1.11M, , Nw.M. LAP 1 oNiROL Y 'BMi)W1E�69 OWNER CERTIFICATE 3Yi _ _Za 00 035- _. ..... MANOu ROAD Y"1$A�� _�: "` �� %1NC0 ME6 NEx BY AE1 OWM1'1 DF. ti rAACY OF GNDS rY.ESE PgEs_Nis THAT t f ' STEEL PAAINERB. LrO.. BEIN4 IRE REO, x594] - c i01N1 OF 9P3 hNl4e `®'� DE vAP'. SEr� � ° T - RB'E 1414.05 AVER(f— ED,, SOE TO I 9 r E T4 1 ie a,L n. 4_cila+ uEa\ / n4ae 4f �» \ � I Z4DP i LEGEND AND NOTES 0 DVMO art SET SNa r nEnNYENr AB 4EAL: aE4 IgEO 35gA,I \ L O T Z \ D svPVET CGXTq \ E FURS •/ \ \>p voEVAr 4N5 eo E All' 1N )911.56 �'\ \ t\ r SLE INFOPMIi ON NRA ISHEO Bv. \ ` ia9. dJ .\ AO may'\ I 55x M cN1E11 i TLE, \� MATEOM1O eaun9D6R.. xC V 3A 2006 \ \ 8 BLX BRAES CAR '�\ \� \U C\ s' G \ / 11-1 111 1. N', d F 0 P (.0 d E p' I NIN YI T fl a. P �$ d L N b E 0 6 d h L e'IWriONM1e E- 1 adI° Ae valor," d N "• f A d N "II" p l cbl. 0o"rdi cao� E e '2 r. M1 I A.P.n. rn d "• .."",r, SN.e..l6' 181a AqT.".e"r. � , ,r ,n r n.0 �" .nd .h. I. in, "A R hT p d L E6,11Ih I� J x4 ] .al 7, i..,1, .WA:a F I r�.• r.ar ";A a"3 °" L""a u,.��.d. B.. -", 5 a. a OAI ra,'A..''.nl d.l 11 lfy i erN.r end cfi"r dad l"1 re b ,"A rvd on Acb)?a3k�>": w •6, ±"m'.i °I'e�ir oeia�nou'I'h'<ae��i ��°In:' "I sr.Ae.,a• v0 rt rhe coda Ru" ..• "ny .or "rc. , it duly TFerc ,M1 II a Icr lha, .uAdA re i,l I 6p Pii'S�bd �v���vn n .IiM1ac e A'�M1.Ci mmyui " v .ee amp 11 ScFp�e iUA,, 6 iha o rl"f 1- a° Ivo. r NAo.erM1, Agr"�eantOcer"•dn er'M1ea r ro! '.Nci hvr , r..o.d.e n• r v" "o. s a5r 1 C N r T Y M F I a' -i00' _r,_irK AID RECORDER S FCC�PTAII {` IME OT I -I %E v wNDArgE oxncp ttrt,� Pr x�E,iL r N'-" ox x BFa 7 EfR AD FNA A D LOT SPLIT rlox_ Dh FW E ANO 7 -DR AD C FNk CIN OF LRPfM NIH Y�E pM10 IICOADE-0"DIIINDI OF YAS PEN ION NO £— N P INE REAL E Y E TIG EDS NN DAY OE i p0 _ i I L@Y NLN h�ry, .Itt CLC0.K a ALNH. cnP 3sYB) CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL Ill � 0. AO F xAL P U D AND LOt 6vLoi 11 FDu1IT110D ER HPi 41 x.s wcitlEss iogNEA DAY BF EpE ^p 9ZNTiEGs, TY Enc xEEq IF nE c ` r CI IY rTEXG INEr EA� c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THIS FREE'IT i IL IVISION E%ENPTION, A6 SlPLAT EAEo AND APPA MOVED BY inE o DECiO SAF IX nNo Up M OF Ex THE C iY 11 AS EN ON THIS DAY OF '^ic--ta+ moo. 111111E BY 111111I����IIIII1111111���1111111111111���111��Iiix6290SO, Eav ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC A CHOA.NO ::OUT SHEET 1 0 g 2 0 935 Joe /06 INUSE SOM,AMUPAINCIRALSDFNiDFnx. PI TN IA mxUNTrl CA IP STAT 11 1OF THE SIM BE= IVG AT A PO I IT.P APNUNOEA 5 AE?AA ON TME E,ASr y sl of OF THE cENY A'AO I GHr OF .1 +HENCE iNE XH N ISINEE of 6ESIIIII I,. Fx S ANO14 BEnres 'I'M 11 AE$T 1011.21 111 HFNc4E NDPTN Bl°�fi EAsi 351 dR FEE UIH IN•ds EAsi SOB 0] FEET vFIT iHEN<Y 11 as EEEr T4 THE E SHE IDIITI ROAD A, Ill INN&. ALOME THE FENC£ LINE N00. H t RI EST YJ L hE R.N. si11- THEWR LINFEEi TNI ALONG THE FENCE L xE 0._ ELFT l0 rNE v01xr cIITIAIMN NG n ARES - 113 111 10Ill Y SiAieYFFF3olTPMO POES HEREBY TDDLAT III MEAL PA0IPIERi IN LP TSU D1111All6TYLE OF 480 FCASDEN 11 N COUNtt �c V "EMPEN C I, ANE 01111 MEAEOY OEO to Ds To i n NE 5 rb' GD ENIOB SHOWN Hf AEON I PATiEN LINE EREM II FURFXEA 'E'R1' L D AAD of C IY of AIRIIS THA`RM9 NHAT RECdSMAI 1N (ANJUACL INEWITH ENI SWiWfFNAIWNEP AND }XE Lei SPLIT E%EM Pi IDN 11A1. .0. ANO ON 19 IN I 1 11 HIPHAEL 1111 x0 TREASURER. F STEEL PABTNEAN LT) oANEO. 11 IL% "ITAII CO111 IMTY OFN _ M L Oqv 1 Qty & Gco BEH AE NE THISI H SECAE A E OiYEL J SIT A NEF} TORON ,,,1jIDPRAP MY fONM Af � ...•P _ pa ' ! NOt Y PUBLIC L L_. , IL? �,r rn '� TITLE CERTIFICATE RO ... HNfIN TfTO6 C 0 i DO B PIiN tauihxE A TILE cFIREFT iHNNE THE INSWMIT9 LISTED AS T' 'I C A Ill. FNIS PLAT DO HOlO FEF PEP Y AEE kA CLEAB A ALL LIfNL AND LTNNUGN WE BO�MB�RNEES E%CEAs THAIS LISTED IN THE DIME! 7 TIN iR JHA FnNIn 6inACD ON THIS Pl1AN1 M1AN opUE iN It LEAL FIOATE Is NOF i0 HE TR F rITED B OF TITLE, NOR A 6JAAANTEE rn E i B ANION IL . ANO I NDE STOJo rN AEE N _ A ITN it! ttUNTY TIiLF, IN^ NEAIHER A66UME5 NBR WILL BE CHARNEL WITH ANY FINANCIAL GBL IGAi ION OA IL}TY Q Z x� WHASSOE4EP OHS ANY SIATEMENI cox -A INE HEREIN. t gIIT- OF CDLOAADO 1 mI A JUGA LEC iI FIOANE� s ACPN9'y4EyGEo >ifF9P �Pr C OOMHI`10�� A InL SEAL [IY E " I' NoiAgT PtlBL c \\ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I 1.. NOH, HDWPECi cYEAEOY -Illy THAI IN JLLY 3006 A SUR4 Y p NN XE f N Df "I tB-0ppAGnl PAOP.gW N n IFs'NE BO'iHE EA4EXFNV AMISTN N THEos N, OF PI TN INANE All U WN NIFH FAME 1NE ON 8 L ,,LL BqSq ,SL PE N Nry T ,,`Lp L -,.IED Tl 03 ANff W H CAA In" D \I LE00B .,AYFLCLE-SB A9 HEA FROM TIME YO TME! i� NI51 ISM III':TW ASPO 99 RVFV'fNGIh.EPt INS. _r,_irK AID RECORDER S FCC�PTAII {` IME OT I -I %E v wNDArgE oxncp ttrt,� Pr x�E,iL r N'-" ox x BFa 7 EfR AD FNA A D LOT SPLIT rlox_ Dh FW E ANO 7 -DR AD C FNk CIN OF LRPfM NIH Y�E pM10 IICOADE-0"DIIINDI OF YAS PEN ION NO £— N P INE REAL E Y E TIG EDS NN DAY OE i p0 _ i I L@Y NLN h�ry, .Itt CLC0.K a ALNH. cnP 3sYB) CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL Ill � 0. AO F xAL P U D AND LOt 6vLoi 11 FDu1IT110D ER HPi 41 x.s wcitlEss iogNEA DAY BF EpE ^p 9ZNTiEGs, TY Enc xEEq IF nE c ` r CI IY rTEXG INEr EA� c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THIS FREE'IT i IL IVISION E%ENPTION, A6 SlPLAT EAEo AND APPA MOVED BY inE o DECiO SAF IX nNo Up M OF Ex THE C iY 11 AS EN ON THIS DAY OF '^ic--ta+ moo. 111111E BY 111111I����IIIII1111111���1111111111111���111��Iiix6290SO, Eav ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC A CHOA.NO ::OUT SHEET 1 0 g 2 0 935 Joe /06 INUSE AMENDED AND RESTATED FINAL PLAT 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT a ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD - LOT 1 - PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-033 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD LOT 2 PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-034 - - nafau �:"iswn ..�� �`\'"�\ �45�E � dA• � vEE—xf _ _ �tomass*e"u�•. ¢nor °e �I faaxclssr � � t Dw.emai x—x�wovs — — T � ` \ � 1 . k �aS WA_ J � assag7uecaeere0an y a Toy %M, '3 yl VICINITY MAP rnEExaoap COMMUMTY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL: \\ ��y '��iayy Il � rss¢c CERTIFICATEOFOWNERS- eaarlcuu¢v DracxlEEDaE eo¢ows. pa4°'1BPDxfAEm.arvoBemoMoae ssreacav�xes*J o a Y �gNOBb acv�paY NI PNT P P soaaP¢I��tawss ,.ro os. p°�`o� owcroix[PMu aTu s955QuaaEf—MOREOR cecOiniK --,vta„sparvop msp»res Msa9slps. I mow �TROap =�—Evafa — �\V%% B1�g � / "\ m l m suEDof mtoeapo. rucvrwExa paror_an..ron. SHEET INDEX SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET 2 RESULTING LOT LAYOUT �I 9URVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: cauE� m`I I clttofasvcx �AsenErvr 3 ICOW ro ivi¢xlseui w�`0.w vA l ry �^cE owrvEa. cnvof asvEx. wnx aemc�mts xsomAl \� 34II I mss s¢nrc xarvD axD SEu. 0f�a wa a e¢nuMeTxls oar xane s g �� In a — \ II frc0-1.,. E¢nov es N S V C Y ; O n �j R � I� NOTes: II >sAxsuavEvmc.mc sl snEelmeosEofiwsaMErvDEonxateurEt io vacaiE s'xEtoitEm s¢wEErvtorsl zaxnuc unix IASEMExis,vmauunwcsereacxs As sxowx. car TITLE EXAMMERTE: xmisamEvoEp almaesraiEofmatvursxatEaeeucE umswEasEDEExEaee «atEcmtE 'S CERTIFICA oxaEcvapeo wmaEssmvxalmumofnau.sw.mvcoemassloxEwl s xoraaYP.- CITYOF ASPENENGMEER'SREVRM1Y: r,ma[mt s. rxls� pav or x ri x" coeeaannfzaisuavev 'S v sEErtwm."'. wfeureooee ATA A irsf0°imun i� rmeExam Elrws eaoeEanrssusxrerroazsfavanorrs, usifucnoxs,rovzrvaufs, DlnEomcEof T.TD eca—P—DEv¢orte•.m',am Ex¢Pr W n a 90 E Da,EOEffEcmEOEioaEa«s.zElE. waar,n,.Ecox�ax,•.fmErvo.°In°9«M o�maso,l i¢r,aaaawx.v.r. aa¢novasrExErvcE.EEa na M noaslsoeaEAaD��foaTMlsspavEVls.��Mrvcofs�..ro�EaE�e �TME -� YI Erv¢�aarv� axp��aaora¢o,�MpxE<aaYL�rvaaxp a rDEsoprxEarafEaM arvNc a�«raEanamaA�ax,pmDa,E,oav°c65.«I:vlofocrvpm•vracE. DA IAll PEEP 6CouxiYOCIPPKANDEMCoanERSOFFSICEANDCoaN6xRs CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTDICAIE: ZIn 190 D. n snlssoRVEYISDasEOON 1HEaAscASTLECPEEKRoaDFwu P.VD. ANp IafsPWi I srnwam'ImE mABArvY� roxuxDweuCE sII�NAnoNsaREDasEooN ACR0e5ERVanoN ciltlZMc'1'HEwfsTERH Cotoaaoo uM) nEtDMc AN oN�sliE El£vanoN of Bms.16' ON v.P.CfPilon CLEOKatma¢CRDE0. GRAPHIC SCALE N_. I`— caex.s.«Imo 'sl)T—wasavvaoxmur¢r Irofsxowary ICE..EcaclmpAT—T.Ecf pwn ( IN P4.T 1 I m«n 20 n Imaccoapwcrof¢4a varve.oewicaxwcpaiwnmf..,lvair�nsuelrcrvaoeran II,� "" cinofasvex II) esaoa�oa P.OSMExeoarws.Daam'6>6utmnr � vEr�teb5ixw .1'A. P-— P—tvzorvEoa-Isa. 4ypK 5fIFVE joE �' °n'""sr N0. Dau Revisi P.o. Box 1]46 CITY OF ASPENPDj-0. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO 16090 vnixcoMM¢nnD_.,MExreuoaroaxveuxxwc DEswxoa mxsmurnorv. wnc, co e1650 �^ DwEnAxp EauxoaavD¢mEnnoxwasxoiraovmEoaxDrvovls¢tEMaaxswExE PM1onc (11h) 1.1954 <: F" x(9]0)5]9-]150 AMENDED & RESTATED FINAL PLAT 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD aiEoar i'xmnMEof suavEv. AUGUST 13,2017 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD 1 OF 2 8i. , 2007 �, reo-FP.DwG 488 CASTLE AMENDED AND RESTATED FINAL PLAT CREEK ROAD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD - LOT 1 - PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-033 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD - LOT 2 - PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-034 Cm Of ♦SeElu — — � wl].9s — — toMGSEfBac—K ]p= — weA�Nas s1 6 Al -_ I Hs I o.swas�/� I 4�q,, LOTI I �� `4�� \ \ 9ABCA4n CR[IXROnn I \\ II I LP ms \ I PCOM \ I 6 II rnvOfnsrcx \s\� 4 a Jia � o li In ° iveYi, S° a W no a E v 4 S 3 GRAPHIC SCALE ra�s.e� no �M PST I 111'WITNEssc RT plll'VB 1NQ Dei< Rc-u,� Pmjem NO. 4<°K ISP. >ary CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO P.O. Box 1]46 u wn<, co K- 16m �^ AMENDED & RESTATED FINAL PLAT Z - enon« v]) 519115s <. 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD P"x (YIO)Yl9-]150 AUGUST 13, 201] � Wxm.PaYswvep°�'""°'" 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD since 2007 �, r,9pampwo Aspen A,— F2-1 "Aspen High whom488 Castle Creek Rd El R F9 C context map sheetindex shoot number sheet name -.COVER cover -.1.00 demo, vegetation, ,tree removal plan -.2.00 site plan -.3.00 perspective sketches -.4.00 planting plan -.5.00 multimodal diagram I L.6.001 pedestrian directness diagram I L.7.001 lighting plan 0 UJ LU o 0 I Uj 0 L) J Z� L (n U L) 00 CID ItT LANDSCAPE COVER L.COV 00 preconstruction coordination is required with the city forester/parks department to mitigate impacts to root systems of the trees that are in proximity to the retaining wall. any excavation within the driplines of trees will be approved by the city forester per city code 13.020. this includes providing evidence of depth of excavation in proximity to the retaining walls LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE -ATING DECIDUous TREE TO REMAIN E%ISTAG DELI DUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO SE REMOVED TREE MITIGATION SCHEDULE # MAROLT RANCH ACTION VALUE 1 2 S'OEC 12" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN 3 4 9 F PRESERVE PRESERVE 5 8" UK — _ 612 — tree protective fence, typ. REMOVE E LIN 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 8 P� 5. SETBACK — REMOVE $528.00 '4" EG REMOVE $528.00 10 3" EG REMOVE _ 11 _ REMOVE z 12 10' DK PRESERVE 13 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 10 6' OEC PRESERVE II 15 6' EG l CA 16 6' DEC REMOVE $1188.00 17 8" EG REMOVE §2111.00 18 19 B" EG 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE $2111.00 BELOW -VALUE 2D II'F REMOVE $2111.00 21 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 22 14' DEC � vw 23 12' DEC REMOVE $4]59.00 24 fi" DEC REMOVE $1188.00 25W DEC REMOVE $2111.00 26 10' DK REMOVE $3299.00 27 'UK REMOVE BELOW MrT VALUE 28 4" DK REMOVE BELOW -VALUE 294" DK REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 30 31 4" DEC 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE BELOW MR VALUE 324" EG REMOVE $528.00 33 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 34 4" EG REMOVE $520.00 354' EG REMOVE $528.00 36 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 37 fi' EG REMOVE $1188.00 30 393' fi' EG EG REMOVE REMOVE $1108.00 BELOW MIT VALUE 40 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 41 A PRESERVE 42 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 43 44 6" EG S. EG PRESERVE PRESERVE 45 46 15" DEC 20" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 4T 3" EG REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 40 \ REMOVE $2111.00 II tree protective fence, typ. REMOVE $2111.00 :0 51 \ REMOVE PRESERVE $2111.00 52 6' DEC PRESERVE MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN maintain all native vegetation to the I I greatest extent possible to maintain existing buffer from castle creek road I w C, 9 IPA OP FF�Ro 90 I \ II \ I I LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE -ATING DECIDUous TREE TO REMAIN E%ISTAG DELI DUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO SE REMOVED TREE MITIGATION SCHEDULE # SPK CBM' ACTION VALUE 1 2 S'OEC 12" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 3 4 12' DEC B" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 5 8" UK PRESERVE 612 DEC REMOVE $4750.00 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 8 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 '4" EG REMOVE $528.00 10 3" EG REMOVE BELOW -VALUE 11 ]0' DEC REMOVE $3299.00 12 10' DK PRESERVE 13 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 10 6' OEC PRESERVE 15 6' EG REMOVE $1188.00 16 6' DEC REMOVE $1188.00 17 8" EG REMOVE §2111.00 18 19 B" EG 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE $2111.00 BELOW -VALUE 2D 8" DEC REMOVE $2111.00 21 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 22 14' DEC REMOVE $6465.00 23 12' DEC REMOVE $4]59.00 24 fi" DEC REMOVE $1188.00 25W DEC REMOVE $2111.00 26 10' DK REMOVE $3299.00 27 'UK REMOVE BELOW MrT VALUE 28 4" DK REMOVE BELOW -VALUE 294" DK REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 30 31 4" DEC 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE BELOW MR VALUE 324" EG REMOVE $528.00 33 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 34 4" EG REMOVE $520.00 354' EG REMOVE $528.00 36 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 37 fi' EG REMOVE $1188.00 30 393' fi' EG EG REMOVE REMOVE $1108.00 BELOW MIT VALUE 40 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 41 8" EG PRESERVE 42 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 43 44 6" EG S. EG PRESERVE PRESERVE 45 46 15" DEC 20" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 4T 3" EG REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 40 0' EG REMOVE $2111.00 49 B' EG REMOVE $2111.00 :0 51 8' DEC 1D' EG REMOVE PRESERVE $2111.00 52 6' DEC PRESERVE TOTAL VALUE $53,840.00 Q O UJDo Wo Q U o LW ° I Z IL Na N Q Q U M0 WIII DEMOLITION, VEGETATION, + TREE REMOVAL l X 10 T a ADA compliant s (6' width) provides ai marolt trail and AVH t preserve existing cotto 4' retair bear proof trash enclosure v 8, recycling race) 20' dnveway with firetmck retaining wall (-1') and minimal site lighting for safr to mark ant supplemental plar provide screening from Crer parking lot wl 29 spaces (including parking 19 head -in 10 parallel retain existing ROW be all existing vegetatioi greatest extent p trail to existing marolt bike path elevator/stair core with internal storage and mail area raised perennial garden sod sculpted landscapel lounging lawn bike parking (typ.) raised perennial garden light well for lower units (typ.) ADA ramp sod sculpted landscape/ lounging lawn coven walls/layered planting to create personal patio spaces, typ elevator/stair core with internal storage and mail area shade tree within tree well (at grade), typ. at grade sod rear deck/patio(s) with access to proposed trails emaced retaining wall(s) i" curb vegetative screening ehicular turnaround >now storage zone Q MO I.L W� MW o Li Q U o W0 Z W Na N Q Q UM MW W ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=16' L•2.00 01 N 0 View One View from the sidewalk looking north at the the courtyard and building View Three View from the hillside looking south toward the most southern portion of the building deck with trail access View Two View from the central access path looking northeast towards the elevator/stair core View Four View from the sidewalk looking east into the courtyard and private patio areas D Q O Y W W U W J H N U 00 00 1* 0 0 a 0 0 U Z W N a PERSPECTIVE S4 '_....7S LX) aN maintain all native vegetation to the greatest extent possible to maintain existing buffer from castle creek road reseed with native revegetation mix for all areas of disturbance within row additional proposed planting to supplement existing vegetation and strengthen buffer along Castle Creek Road MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN T RANCH E HOUSING CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE " SHADE TREES • Acer truncatum'Nonvegian Sunsef l Maple LARGE EVERGREEN • Abies concolor / White Fir MED EVERGREEN • Cercocarpus ledifolius l Cud -Leaf Mountain Mahogany SMALL DECIDUOUS SHRUB • Ribes aureum l Golden Currant DARK LARGE EVERGREEN ' • Chamaecypads nootkatensis / Alaskan Yellow Cedar DECIDUOUS SHRUB • Rhus trilobata/ Skunkbush Sumac ANTI -EROSION SHRUB • Rhus glabra "Laciniata' / Cutleaf Smooth Sumac NATIVE MIX LAWN PERENNIAL + SHRUB MIX Q MO I.L W� /W o Li Q U o W° LU W Na N Q Q U 00 co PLANTING AND RESTORATION PLAN L.4.00 N N existing sidewalk crossing with access to AVH bus stop enhanced pedestrian access point transit system information enclosed bike locker storage on every level transit system information enclosed bike locker storage on every level enhanced pedestrian access points bike parking bike parking ADA ramp (typ.) bike parking enclosed bike locker storage on every level transit system information effective walkway width 5' MULTIMODAL C � .M 10 R N W MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN 7 , PROPettTy LINE 5. SETS CALE: 1"=16' T RANCH E HOUSING 0 LLJ 00 LLI o 0 1 W 0 J Z� u L NU) co 00 R* PEDESTRIAN DIRECTNESS DIAGRAM L.6.00 proposed bear proof trash & recycling receptacles LCALE: 1"=16' L MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN 4E Prtto�pevzTy Lit All ---------- --s,SET'B -------------- ---- --- — -- ------------- - :::7 — — -------- ------ ---- --------------------- ------ ------ ----- - ----- ----- ------- ------- W, ------------------------------- T RANCH E HOUSING LEGEND WAC GATE' LED BOLLARD PATH LIGHT; 115 LUMENS AT 24" ABOVE GRADE WAC'INVISILED PRO OUTDOOR' 24V o OUTDOOR LED TAPE LIGHT; 12 LEDS PER FOOT AT 18" ABOVE GRADE, W/IN RECESSED CHANNEL LIGHTING lx 10 T i7 N) Ul R Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C-00/ TITLE C-007 NOTES AND LEGEND C -/O/ EXISTING COND/TIONS C-102 LAYOUT C-103 BASINS C-I&I GRAD/NG AND DRAINAGE C-105 UTILITIES R a yPp00 tICF CHECHED BYRBG DRAWNBYDCS -. 0*50 NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION TITLE T C-00 6 an•/omanMaatt _ eh+rem , p rN vmrezZ. mr n rt�OeNnttamT'un^muw nvmre mM1m m o&ymiiµvemrel[we ^P�n BV6=ginniryvmi,al [uiw. n U4tt�g0u�'rtnuualawlM = a rt•I �mM x _ as- m,N Wfa-ronErmfine - _ - 5Y=SAuerevarm ¢FWmNWaarte - nwmolomm - a-Fbgenparemem pmten"nnsenry _ r5umrrn,waFry� rs au"mlGaWnisVn.onum xsr+n"splsu^er � z,4roMxmamluram Wmarge -- _x�lgemv�� -- wqm- mre a.,o AI- - snots - vp-vammw ABBREVIATION LEGEND ENGMEERMG OEPARTA4Nf CDY OF ASPEN 517 E HOPKMS STREET STANDARDDEIAILS ASPEN, C0lust l O PHONE: (970) 9205080 Si.N GENERAL PROVISIOXS SPECIAL PROVISION$fXGMEFR% GSPECIFTCA"'MI RFVlSl0X5 /0 STANDARD SPEC/FICA//ONS ANO SUPPLEMFNIAL SPFC)F/CAT)ONS. L 11 SNA![ BE INE COX!RAC/OR'SRFSPONS/BI(/IY TO ENSURE MA/ A[[ WORrt/SEEOREOIN NONCCOROANCF eomwsr`RwAnox mslHiaA/RFs xBREeueanoxsds sEIEOR/Ber NF ofcuPAll IsAEE/rA FALX 4 N 1 5 S INE CONIRAC/RRL-11RBIAINANAPPROVEOLER AFFIC I'MIROLO PLAFM PRIOR IO COHHfNCING CONS/RUC/ION AIIIVI- 4 I BLE INFORMATION AT NERI/MEOFOFSIGN.L/IN£ LONIRACIOF SNA[[ FEVIEW ANO V£EFYEXISTING PNYSICAIAI! FEATURES ANO E(EVAIIONS OF NFCON01/IONS IO BF FxCOUNIEFFBOURING CONS/RUC!ION. IH£CONTPACIOR SHA[[ (lMl/ ALL wORKANBSIOBAGE—I. -PRO✓ECISIIE. ANYWORK/NSIOEPUB!/C RIGHI-OF-WAYS W)[I--. FROM IHf C)/Y PRIOF IO CONSIRUCl/ON. USFOF ANY PRIVATE AREAS FOR PRO✓ELI BY rNECONTRALI0R HU5I BE APPROVED /NWR/r/NG BY INFPROPFRIYOWNER W/THALOPY OF /HIS APPROVAL PROV10F0 IO --- IO USAGE. 4 A MPA[IIONANONNISHORANN6/N IHEUN/r PR/LERE[AIEO WOE/TEH. A ALL WORK 5HALL BE DONE TO IHFL/NE$6RAOF$SECTION$AND E[EVA//ONS SHOWN ON IHFPLANS UNLESS O/XEFWISE NO/FO OR APPROVER Br -- Is IHEFNGINEEB.l4 A B W SHALL NSUR✓ELI/0/NSPECTIONANOAPPROVA[ BY IHECl/YOF45PENANB THE ENG! EER. IHE ENGINEER SHA[[ BE NOTIf/EO WITNINpHOUR PFIOR TO THE LOMHENCFHENI OF ANY CONS/RUC/ION. "' 'o'1NI1IOR 1111111111 IINSIR111111 11 ""T"' 'a1101111141 11-1171 IF I ANIIIN IOESOF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON r."" S ANYOISIURBANo, BEYOND TNESF!lMIIS SMALL BE RES10RF0 IO ORIGINAL CONO/1/ONS BY THF CONTRACNR A I IHE/R OWNEXPENSE l] THE COMIRAC/OR SNAL[NOT REMOVE ANO SNALI PROTECT FROHOOuOf ALL TREE$ BUSHES ANO EXISTING Li NO TREES SHALL/BE SHOVED OR IR/NMEO W/IHOUI PRIOR ACKNOWLEOGEMEN/ OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AANOiOR —I— IS THE CON IRA CTOR 5111(PRO rECI THEFX/sr/NG DRAINAGE 5IRUCIUFFS ANO RFRONEANYRUNOFFA5 rION AS PREVENT FEOSO IS IN 'HE CIIINACIII "III""' "I '1A VI 1111 11111111T IIE FFIC ONIRO[15X£10£010 ACLOHHOOA IF LONSNUCT/OM ACTI1 ENTE1/N6 ANO I.— TNF PROJ£C l4 WXFRE PAVEMENIlS IO ABUIEXlSI1NL PAVEMENT,NEEXISIINGPAVEMENISM11 NREHOVEO IIA -1 VfR/ICA[[INF BYIS[OW SETTING!PRIOR IO PAV/NG OPERA/IONS VFR/ICAL EOGf5_I NOIREMAIN ANBONEPARTWAEV EHU[5/F/FO1SPHA[ 1FOR IACKCOAI SHA[[ CONS/Sr OFONFPARIEHUL5IF1E01-1I Evisti Conditions Proposed Conditions p�n^�mu I�IrTn Sums NymNwn w -- sa"urvsenn unelOreenl weu ry 1 — vmmsewnumlereenl— wsu"e WNwl mre ryelwl wNAue uneneuawl �n L"`wMss• — ennelAeal xlgn[vreume OasumryeA"wl — — — — nnalnml — — — — enlaelAem euaeigebl—m—®—m— e 'mplwrgel �G�lowlel le —.—.—.— seam = - - - xne,on�nm reliN�— A—m—m— UnetypNotes: Mainsantl knlmmM1arreproper pipesiresaM ,0krehrenntl�InOirMnllnerypePap Ma[enal antlS roYeflkre rvaluble AumSAb WWe ryNAspen fnglneKing OeW am men l9 W IERSHAIL BEUSEOASAOUSIPA MTIVEWXEEEOU/RFO[OCAT/ON55HA[[ BFASOROERE4 TH£L05IE WA IER SHA([ BE INCIBEN/A[/01— 10 /ISMS SWEEPING ANOCL£ANING AOJACENI SIBEEISANOSIOEWA(KS DURING CONSIRUC/IDX WILL BF PERFORMEOASNfCESSARY ANOASOIRECTEO BY IHEENG/NfFR. SWEEP/NG ANO OUSTH/I/6AI/ON /s CONS/OFFER TO B£/NL/0£NTA( IO NE WORK OINI$11"I B£NINMAHII ANO/OR SURVEY CONTROL POINTS WHICH MA Y BE 015/RIB - OROFSIROYEO BY LOxSIRUC/ION SUCHPO/NIS SNA[( HEREFfRfNCFO NBRfPLAC .11 APPROPR/A Ef HONUENI 111 RFGISTfRFO PROFESSIONAL LAMB SLAVILLH O THE 1. LE I SLASHANLI J7 ENFCONTRACIORSXALO[ HAVEACO rWdiLAPPLICAB(/ESTANOAROSANOAPPR0VE000N5NUC/IOXPLANSANO R ANLAYER PLACED !HEREON SNA LL BE —1--L XT. BEFORFY/CCEEOlN6(AYER IS P[ACE0.0/N A BENHENAC£HFNIOFTHFTACKCOAI, THE LONTRACIOF SNA(L CLEAN IX£PF£SFNI ROADWAY 150/R E0. C[EAxING WI![ NOI BE PAIR FOR SEPARATELY, BUI SNA[! BE INCLUDED/N NF COSIOF IHE PROJECT. A A IMPROVE BOXB. OILUEEOEHULSfFIEOASPHAL IFOR TACK COAT SNA(L COx 1 OF (PARI FHU[SIFIEO ASPxA(E ANO !PARI WATER. A ENE CONTRACTOR SHAILFORMISN INS—, ANOMWMruN IEHPORARY IRAFFICCONTROL OFFICES NECESSARY ANO WORKSXALL SNP UNI/( INEO/SLREPANLYI50/SLUssE0AN00£L/5/ON OREFHENNHAVEBEEN.".. Water Symbols Dry Utility & Traffic Symbols fxishn Proposed Description Existing Proposed Description A • 0 (D w rem M P.cemAry ® ® omrcler cb 114[ r -e va q�;( �( ren fgbr f F .. r. zaN�•una 2 to J/r y ra ox ,mw c m °� & Nanmrep n s mssram ® ® 5 Sanitary Sewer/ Storm Drain Symbols INI a a maam. Existing Proposed Description Subsurface/Surface Symbols V ase Symbol Desaiption .— pc xa�fnesm�m '^ ar�e�t ra e e ♦•,� mmkre�u Trrea lam/ Busty m mr as urre« m "im • Tmlmrt" SYMBOLLEGEND DEPARTMENT CITY OF ASPEN 517 E HOPKMS STREETRMG 51]EH ASPPN,CO3IAII PHONE (9]0)9205080 STANDARD DETAILS Q 511BIOf CONSTPUe—SAN/IL NC£PIANEBY -111 -- Z FNFICEN6INFFR.L A RAFF/C SIGN$ N VEHENT HARK/N6$ANOIRAFF/CSI6NALs5XA[LHEEr OREXCEEOHANUALONUN/FORH TRAFFIC CONMILI OEwCFS LMUTCD.ISIASHRBS. ] IXE[OMNACIOBSHAL[ PREPARE AOCIAHEO IRAFF/CCOHMNAN, SOBHITTO IXECIrrNRAPPROVA[,ANO OB/AINNPROPRIAIEERMIIS. L IECON/NACIOBSOAL[BF RESPONSIBLEFOR A([WOFK ZON£IFAfFICCONTRO[. CONTRACTOR SNA!! BE RFSPONS/B[f FOR FURNISH/MG, INSTA[[lN4 ANO fIAINTAIXING !NE TEMPORARY TRAFFICCONTRO[ BFVICfS 1. INYCON/RACIOB-OLSE00AMAGE IO UMITY NO/ORSERVICELINESSHOWNORNOTSHOWNONEH NJM ALLBE—IREOORREP[ACEOAINOCOSI IN IHEC/IYOFASP !.SHALL BE ACCOE[/SHED BY IME ORSHfitt HE RESPONSIB[EFORNOTIFYINGILLUI/(IIYCOMPIN/ES PRIOR 10— WORXRIN/TRAF JEC/MEd. CIENTE,IXECONIRACIORIS RfSPDXS(B(EFORCOOROINAIMGX/SWORKANOI TWIHEINVOM L U I THE CONTRACTOR LONIACr III.YNO I/F/CATION fENIEROF COLORADO AT bII IWORIALAR ISLAY5 INAPVACrOfANYEXCAVATIONORCRAOIN 1111RICIMNEIIF "' ANY OAMAGFSNA!( BE REPAIRED ANBRESIOREB IO INF SAIISFACIION OF TNECIIYOF ASPEN. NECON/FACTORIS RESPONS/B[f FORIXE[OCATIONANBPROTECTIONOFA[[UI/L/I/ESOUR/NGCONSNUCT/OX INFCONIRACIOR GAS CONOU1I.rF/NISHGBAOEHUSIBEAI[EASILSFEEIANO NO MORE IHAN{FEEIOVEBSTNEGASCONOUI/ /HF S EXISTING UNONGFOUNO TFLFPXONF, F/BFR ANB LAB(FTE(FV/s/ ONFAIRIT/ESHAYBE(OLATEO /N CLOSE PROXIMITY IO !MENDEN. INECONIFACTOR MAY, IF NECESSARY /EMPORARI[YOISP[ACE NFCABLES BUR/NG VISIONr"PANY CONSTRUCT/ON AMB RfINSIA([ INEHINACCOROANCf WIIN INE APPROPR/AIF IELFPHONF, FIBER OR CAB[F PEOVIFEO IS BE ONE BY INECON/FACTOR./ONW/THBOTH NE TELEPHONE ANO LN[FTE[FVIS/ONCOHPANY (s ALI OF E INSPECIORO/HE COxIRdCIOBIS REOUIF11/0X0/IFY THE CIIY OF ASPEN TWO WONKING OR YS PF/OF IO BEGINN)NG CONSIFUC//ON. R INF CON/FACTOR SHA[[AT TNfIR FXPFNSF. SUPPORT ANO PROTECT A([WA/ER HA%SSD !NAI INEYW/([ 11 CUSTOMERS. SNOU[0 ARWATER MA/MEAT[ AS ALRFSUOIOF IHFCONIRACIOR'SOPFRAI/ON$ lI 111 BF REPAIRED 111111A T" YBYE/1HER IXE CONIRACIOR OF 1NEWAIFR FESOURCFS OEPARIHENI AI INE FUL11111111 ABOR 01111111 VALVE BOx£$ CLFAxOu/S MANHOLES GUY W/FE$ SHA(( BE dO rEO TOFINAL ORNE. I ENT$ -Z WA0 CONSIRUCIIONO—CO.,—,yST RUCTION1IH£FMOW(/NES ANO CONN RIGHISA WAY SA RfSULTOF THISCOMSIRUCI/ON PRO✓EC/ SA)O REMOVAL SNAL[ BECONOUCTFOINATIHF[Y L H GCRACRETE / E 1 THE CONTRACTOR SNALLPROTECTALLSIORH I[ SEWER FAC/TIESAO✓ACENI I ANIL OCASLOW WHERE P4 VEMENT CUTIONY OPERA TION, AN Vat VN6 WMEN n/N4 51 w tulnx6 ON dBRA51VF WAIER JUST CUT TING ARE TO TAKE PACE. ME CONTRACTOR —I BEHOVE All PROPERLY —01,111 THEILISCHIRGENFARY /EOBYNSIEPROOUCrSFROHCUII/NGOEEI/ONS < TFLONTRACIOF HUS! KEEP A[(PO[(UTAN/$/NC(UO/N6 IBENCHBACKF/[(HA/EB/A(, FROM WISHING IN/0 INE S IOFM SEWER SYSTEM. CHECHED SYRBG DR ft sYOCB JOB1:101&50 NOTFOR CD Mwrm AND ND -0 a OLCn GRAPHIC SCALE i ��nfEm n. R a CHECHEDBYRBG DRAWN BY..DCB JOBk:10*50 NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION EXISTING CONOIT�OA N 1, w bV4 W/6 (Z H.P.STA.Isdd.03 H.P.S TA.2, 6.55 H.P.ELEV.WI216 L.P.STA.1.99.79 H.P.ELEV.012N PVISTA.1-51.33 L.P.ELEV.WH.01 PVI STA.2a9..9 PVl ELEV.&31L01 PVI STA.I,V.% PVI ELEV.0126d K.3&Bd K -11.d9 PVI ELEV.00I0.86 L P.STA.3,9..15 1.P.FLEV&110.05 PVI STA.3+B1.Id OR 23x 2.2 3f RI 3x50 I'm w Of b710 NK WHIC SCALE lincliFE.tl/It. M n.mr c A vc 1.@1r \` GRAOF BREAK iA.Ix1[BI —� __ A GRA EBREAK STA.- 7/ nATBxAt sT� x Bo. FNO El EVPWI % OR 23x 2.2 3f RI 3x50 I'm w Of b710 NK WHIC SCALE lincliFE.tl/It. M 100 Year Peak Discharge Developed Calculations n amimti Sub -amine Pe 11n Ci 1HmmPJ Aetum Period 123 1m 1.2 BUIn ID Total Ma Imp.Ana Im Mous Cvalue Timed[ Inn" cl- LA seelDq Ifl'I Ifl'I 1%I PMTAI, ITJ Iaem,/Ilml - INekW LLL3,lA 1 1998300 12233.00 81.62% 0.]81 5 6.33 1.58 L6 2 1231200 11513.00 93.26% 0.831 5 6.33 L49 1,13,14,1.51.6 3 1591.00 am am am 5 6.33 an d 3391.00 1813.00 @.86% 0.500 5 6.33 an 100 Year Peak Discharge Pre Development Calculations am AB IHmrPJ Aetum Period 123 an Iml,H) TOmI Ma Imp.Area smica) 1 I Im Ivmus I CVBIue 1%I Dom Table Timedc ITJ I-Ity GAIm Ia Pifi j- (fel-0 AM 1 13993.00 am am 0.500 5 6.33 1AD L,LI;1 2 12312.00 am 0.00% 0.500 5 6.33 Q90 1@ 3 1597.00 am DAO% 0.500 5 6.33 0.12 4 339).00 a00 ami 0.500 5 6.33 0.25 n e5 dm n amimti Sub -amine Pe 11n Ci A Al 1.2 Qm . - A2 LA am 0.0mA @.BS% 100.00% )6R% 92.16% Al LLL3,lA 0.01 A4 L6 0.w A5 1,13,14,1.51.6 am A6 am A7 lb am AB 1.1,LIO,lb am A9 1.1 1.101918 am AM LZl.3,IA,1.S,1.6,1.T,18.19,L1aL11 0.13 All L,LI;1 183 Al2 1,11,1 1@ B Bl 13 am 82 12,2.3 am B3 1i,13,2.A am Ba 2.413,2A2.5 a. BS 2.;13,10.2.5,2.6 am B6 2.1 0.0 B) 2.;23,24,25,2.6,2.) .14 BB 2,2.8,30 153 B9 2.,2.8,30 153 Onsite Piping Capacity Onsite Sub -Basin Data Entry R a 0.00 140.00 am am 4).1B% am yPP002ICF Sim OBO 96m 11.5n4 am 90.5T19 _ 'osr'�p'�� 92m 700600 N00.w OAO 12600 90.aB9 9609% N0.0mf Q00% 586014 . - CHECNEO BYRBO DRAWNBYOCS 0.00 200.00 208m 323.00 63R.m 0.0mA @.BS% 100.00% )6R% 92.16% 3 p Drywell storage II Basun dameter 5[0 4 mdmal vdume Dldmal 18"dkree"I Totalp Re ulreda (Neoral IDI D N D•N• D fl 0.3•D•N• D 31 '- D'1*.)fl II „3 M4 1 6 1 ]3 I 350 I US 505 0010 ft -11 AS 1 ass I 6 I ]fi I 152 I 1)0 @2 1180 -.016-W 016.60 NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION BASINS C-10% W O Onsite Piping Capacity cnw Z W Lij Wei Le 2O rc` ` � 4 O yyPpaO t/CF CHECKED BYRBG DRAWN BYDCS 0 Y P W to K � U O W U U QGo CO GkADING D AGES OL cil W GRAPHIC SCALE IinICATFIDt tt. R a CNEC BYRBG DRAWN BYDCS `k E o y K � U p �IIIIII JOB 8:101&50 NOTFOR CON Mwrm UTILITIES C-10% w N 488 CASTLE CREEK - AH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SYMBOL LEGEND ASSEMBLY DETAIL CIT 1F >-- REFERENCE GRID LINE VV' Fj SECTION CUT : ------ SPoTEl—IION _ ItIRIDGE BEAM 123'-6'U ERTERIOR ELEVATION INDOW MARK IBB OETAILCALLOUf ' '. �I DOOR MPAK City Hall 119 South Spring St. SECTION GETRL CALLOUT ROOM NUMBER ROOM Fi—.1 INTERIOR ELEVATION s<Gl DRAWING PENSION Aspen, CO 81611 MATERIAL LEGEND BYKUM WALL CONCRETE C DARD NM FARMING F STONE WOOD BLOCKING L`- _ FRAME WALL mom TOCK -NON _ COMPACTED FILL BRICK WIM BAR INSUTATON RIGID INSULATION F 4�� PLYWOoO FINISHED WOOD ABBREVIATIONS AFF. ABOM FINISH FLOUR HOAR. HOAIGNIAL ADI. ADIUSTsELE INPo. INFOPMAIION IT ITIRIATIINSUL INSULATION AB. PNCHOA BOLTS ISf. IOIST 8 AND LL LME LOAD ARCH. ABCHITCNAAL LONGINi. ONGITUDIN4L Ai N.I.I NOT IN CONIRALT D.C. ON CENTER BM. PKI. BEAM PoCKET OAP. OPPOSITE BAG BEARING OI GREG BU. BLOCKING D. ED BOT.BOTOM PERF. PETPoPATED B.F. BOTTOM OF FOOTING BLDG. BUILDING PLY. N.... B0. BYOWNER ZOE ONE PNO—LINE CAB. C l BE AEINF AEINFOACEMENT CLO. CEILING ADWO. REDWOOD CL CENTERLINE AEDD AEOUIRED IT. CEN4MIC TITS FEEL REST OR CLR CNAAREV. REVISED COL COWMN SM. SHEET METAL CONI CONCRETE SIM. SIMILAT CONN. CONNECTION F. 6oIlARE FEET COM. CONTINUOUS STD. STANDARD DI CIA ST L STEEL DBL DOUBLE SIDS. SNUB DWL OOWEL THK. THICK 6W. TACH WAY iLi. En LET EL. ETEVATON TF. TOP OF FOOTNG EGETG NOW B T.P. TOP OF PUTS Ett. EKTERIOA IL TOP OFLEDGE FLA. FLOOD T.W. TOP OF WALL FIG. POUTING TR. — ENO. wON- N LB. TOWEL BAA GA GAOGE TAANSV. TATUR. SI C.L.GLU-IAM M. TYPICAL G A. GYPSUM WALL -RD U.N.O. UNLES511 GOIHERWISE HT. HEIGHT V.I.E. VERIFY IN FIELD HK. HOOK PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER ARCHITECT PLANNER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER CITY OF ASPEN David Johnston Architects Method Planning + Development McDowell Engineering, LLC City Hall 119 South Spring St. 119 South Spring St Suih 102 P.O. Bax 4259 130 S.Galena St Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 Eagle, CO 81631 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 P: 9]0.2]4.0890 P: 9]D.623.0]08 P: 970.92DGOOO P: 9]0.325.3444 atlam®methutloticom kar'ldmMowelleno cum F: 9]0.920.2186 br'a^lAd.arch'tec[zcom APPLICANT LANOSCAPEARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER Aspen Housing Partners, LLC Connect One Design Roaring Fork Engineering Jason Bradshaw 0123Emma Rd. 592 Highway 133 228 Eastwood Drive Sol. ZOLA Carbondale, CO 81623 Aspen, CO 81611 B-Ift, CO 81621 P: 970.340.4130 P:9]0-319-9298 P. 9]0.2]9.1030 F: 866.8]6.58]3 'ebratlshaw(LAmaccom hh®connecmnedes' m khRudooDuft.oba GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES n nserylmp�ea lnsapneauema �m¢srvaxaawpq�mas uoogry rwryttwn�arcl. au. nMesnepa nbnwnnap anob guue mnnuo.sxueseeonmme earuon ormennanenanym�emnswmm.�l apewlrm.m.mon pamatkemngs Nellhepomtlw lrven2ninn�mmM�neryb�aawkano-. emeoruemanm all benoMxegmemnvaemwknmxlsnnaolan'mspnnm esrcpulntl lrymelxf., o,ganylael �alorm nPsenitaw rc.,mm xsnnmene,mrs,oninnx meomimmesumimxaxmemm�neeismrc,eeoralkgm. que anN mN a. mem,v P wmwa,eexpmgeryatnearslnneneaxmtm esineximnttneexmnwndnme gamofim w urnetsuen 9 mnueanvnmwmm rrce 9 9 ran Wwvmeeaoe soimn. ul moms epe mreense gwm.m,mosmrm.as pMlu mrenaseapp pasemec q mnM=en �n rrype or,¢xnnm appmprvsery�la e�nuixsa qp ulosq aaaaneam ma.penamnu�aa amge»esettxnrvaunenpapmm�. rm,msuebrall hamlana OSNAxqulaxona p,nauuoneane me p,q,ams,nerlentmenm. The Cmmew,mellk xmemonattneamplemnolnowtionwa mils as 9 9 nammrenun exmta Omenn. Y Nl eim an�repnnorwsemneeneenme � anua aneomrona Yn M1wnawxn. rbeNanmtetdanr DRAWING INDEX ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SEF A1A0-FLOOR PLANS A101- FLOOR PIANS fid.) FLOOR PLANS A10 FLOOR PLANS Al LO ROOF PVNS At LO FAR At A6 -NET BVABLE PIANS ADA1-ELEVAIONS A2A2-ELEVAIONS A203 -3D VIEWS PROJECT INFORMATION LOCATION.....- ....................... -...... -...... - ....................... - ...... -.............488 CASTLE CREEK RD. ASPEN CO 81611 LOTSIZE _...... _....................... _...... _...... _....................... _...... _................ ......._......_........ .... 11255 S.F. a 24640 S.F. PARCELIDB.-....................... -...... -...... .......................- ......-.......................-...2]3512309033 Et 273512309034 SUEDNISION:.......... .......... _...... _......_......................._......_......................._......_....... ......... ....... _...... _........ ........ .... NLA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ......... -...... -...... .......................... 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD Et LOT SPLIT Lot:1 Et 2 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARC H ITECTSrc 119 South Spring SC h203 Aspen CO 81611 TELL FAK 610-620 2166 eMdam xpeY.+ndWMiumnWrewe �MgatlmxMp,gmyaOrq.W won aMeercbP� s,moNm �ii,e.lm ckv �wplo,rs mee DRAWING ISSUE LAND USE 8114117 488 ARCH COVER SHEET 8 I I I LOWER LEVEL rc-Iv ail V vID JOHNSTON ARC HI T EC TSrc 119 S A Spring st h 203 Aspen, CO 61611 fAx W-21. deav 6614 ns ormn amdam naWr`ni xawre� ��iwzrc��vdora.wwo� eercAyMlormonem me.lm aevs^x ���� aab^r W W U W O J � z l/1 Qa U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 6114117 BASEMENT FLOOR PIAN PAOIEC W IN) OAAWN BY: Cff I I MAIN LEVEL — l 11 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119 S A Spring SC h203 Aspen, CO 61611 fRx V-21. aMdam npeY.madWMiuMnWrewe �wmtlgWmMV�roMVdOrq.Wwon wAeercbPMlo�monem NeNm ckv➢�x w�ion��mm nwplorrs i W W W O J � z l/1 Qa U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 6114117 FLOOR PLANS PAOJECf Noy 1N) OAAWN BY: Cff I ` V CA) Cal 0 SECOND LEVEL —w . ", NO SDIO ail viD JOHNSTON V AR C H IT EC TSPc 119 S A Spring SC h203 Aspen, CO 61611 u 9)0.9213494 aMdam npeY.madWMiuMnWrewe �wmtlgWmMV�roMVdOrq.Wwon wAeercbPMlo�monem Ne«km ckv➢�x w�ion��mm nwplorrs i W W U w0 J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 6114117 FLOOR PLANS PAOJECf Noy iN) OAAWN BY: Cff ISM—, 0 LTID LEVEL N sola 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 1795 A Spring SC h 203 Aspen, CO 61611 u 9)0.9213494 aMdam npeY.madWMiuMnWrewe �wmtlgWmMV�roMVdOrq.Wwon wAeercbPMlo�monem Ne«km ckv➢�x w�ion��mm nwplorrs i W W U w0 J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 6114117 FLOOR PLANS PAOJECfW iN) OAAWN BY: Cff Vw T I ` v ■ C31 1 ROOF PLAN ail V viD JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc 119 S A Spring SC h203 Aspen, CO 61611 u 9)0.9213494 aMdam npeY.madWMiuMnWrewe �wmtlgWmMV�roMVdOrq.Wwon wAeercAyMlo�monem Ne«km ckv➢�x w�ion��mm nwplorrs i W W U LU o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 61+4117 ROOF PLAN PAOJECf Noy iN) OAAWN BY: Cff W F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE LEVEL USE AREA LOWER LEVEL, 6,498.64 AH UNIT 5,982.94 DECK 119.26 OVERHANG 78.15 STAIR 879.53 STORAGE 243.16 AH UNIT 7,303.04 fiq ft MAIN LEVEL, 1,106.84 AH UNIT 6,201.31 DECK 449.68 OVERHANG 239.91 STAIR 533.31 STORAGE 197.28 7,621.49 sq ft SECOND LEVEL, AH UNIT 6,498.64 DECK 1,087.71 STAIR 534.74 STORAGE 197.28 8,318.37 sq ft THRID LEVEL, AH UNIT 2,849.44 DECK 1,106.84 STORAGE 66.08 4,022.36 sq ft 27,265.26 sq ft F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA -1 SCAIE: 11, 6.= ,.-0. 1 SCAIE: 11, 6= 1..q• SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA SCA0: jl- ,'-0" THRID LEVEL FLOOR AREA 3 SCALE: 111 fi'= 1'-0' 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH IT ECTSrc 119 S A Spring SC h203 Aspen, CO 81611 21. �ndwMonaaoM � e,�wre� ��pw�n.r�vam�n.wwo� aaen2.xom,a,,,�o�em ceu�aevs��„��� aae�rs Y Lu Lu/ LL U Lu o J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 6114117 FAR ROJECfW 1N) OAAWN BY: CIT W t0 NET LIVABLE FLOOR AREA UNIT AREA LOWER LEVEL, AN UNIT 5,476.85 MAIN LEVEL, AN UNIT 5,766.65 SECOND LEVEL, AN UNIT 6,044.89 THRID LEVEL, AN UNIT 2,641.81 19,930.20 sq ft �I NLA SCHEDULE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA SCALE: 1116"= I'-0' ® � SCAIE: 1116'= I'-0" SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA ^( THRID LEVEL FLOOR AREA 1116"= I'-0' v SCALE:111- — ail viD V JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc 119 S A Spring SC h203 Aspen, CO 61611 u 9)0.9213494 aMdam npeY.madWMiuMnWrewe �wmtlgWmMV�roMVdOrq.Wwon aaen2.xom,a��o�em ceu�aevs� ���� ade�rs Y Lu Lu U Lu o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 6114117 NET LIVABLE FLOOR AREA ROJECfW — R.N .. IT 1 O IN mi mimmmilmlim"I'll II�I�I�I�IIIIII 1�011O111A1 iil■MIIICi■■■ EFT No. i -M ■III ��i1��= pi �i 11111 ---- In 11 I� MINES millimill-Imm AIN SHEET No. ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING A ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING B 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH IT ECTSrc 119 S A Spring SC h 203 Aspen, CO 61611 u 9)0.9213494 aMdam npeY.madWMiuMnWrewe �wmtlgWmMV�roMVdOrq.Wwon wAeercAyMlo�monem Ne«km ckv➢�x w�ion��mm nwplorrs 'i1 1 Lu U Lu o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 61191" ELEVATIONS ROJECfW iN) OAAWN BY: Cff TIwo ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING E ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING F ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING C ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING D ail V viD JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc 119 S A Spring SC h203 Aspen, CO 61611 u 9)0.9213444 aMdam npeY.madWMiuMnWrewe �wmtlgWmMV�roMVdOrq.Wwon wAeercAyMlo�monem Ne«km ckv➢�x w�ion��mm nwplorrs i Lu Lu U Lu g J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 8114117 ELEVATIONS ROIECfW — OAAWN BY: CIT 517 Park Circle - Net Livable Area Unit Proposed Min % Deficit 001 654.7 700 6.5% 002 639.7 700 8.6% 003 629.2 700 10.1% 101 847.7 900 5.8% 102 842.5 900 6.4% 103 846.6 900 5.9% 104 848.7 900 5.7% 201 653.4 700 6.7% 202 653 700 6.7°% 203 651.2 700 7.0% 204 655.7 700 6.3% Average 6.9% 802 West Main Street - Net Livable Area Unit Proposed Min % Deficit 101 684.91 700 2.2% 102 690.62 700 1.3% 103 626.47 700 10.5% 104 690.62 700 1.3% 105 681.88 700 2.6% 201 684.91 700 2.2% 202 690.62 700 1.3% 203 626.47 700 10.5% 204 690.62 700 1.3% 205 681.88 700 2.6% Average 3.6% 488 Castle Creek Road - Net Livable Area Unit Proposed Min % Deficit 001 618.5 700 11.6% 002 780.31 900 13.3% 003 628.21 700 10.3% 004 636.93 700 9.0% 005 628.22 700 10.3% 006 783.34 900 13.0% 007 782.85 900 13.0% 008 618.49 700 11.6% 101 661.89 700 5.4% 102 818.16 900 9.1% 103 661.89 700 5.4% 104 661.89 700 5.4% 105 661.89 700 5.4% 106 819.52 900 8.9% 107 819.52 900 8.9% 108 661.89 700 5.4% 201 686.66 700 1.9% 202 844.3 900 6.2% 203 842.77 900 6.4% 204 661.89 700 5.4% 205 661.89 700 5.4% 206 818.02 900 9.1% 207 842.7 900 6.4% 208 686.66 700 1.9% 301 662.89 700 5.3% 302 662.96 700 5.3% 303 654.28 700 6.5% 304 661.68 1 700 5.5% Average 7.6% P546 IX.b Method Planning + Development Memorandum NO. Planning — 01 DATE: October 5, 2017 BY: Adam Roy TO: Hillary Seminick CC: Chris Everson Jason Bradshaw SUBJECT: 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing —Revised Floor Area Calculations Dear Hillary: The purpose of this Memo is to provide update floor area calculations to the application submitted on August 14, 2017 for the affordable housing project at 488 Castle Creek Road. The updated calculations are in response to DRC comments from planning and zoning as well as a meeting with zoning officials regarding an adjustment to the methodology for calculating certain floor areas of the building. Attached to this memo as Exhibit A, is an updated section of the originally submitted application that provides and describes the floor area calculations. Within this section is a table that presents the breakdown of the proposed floor area calculations, including maximum allowable floor area and maximum allowable deck area. Also attached as Exhibit B, is an updated floor area calculation architectural sheet, illustrating the breakout of the various floor areas in the calculations. A subsequent memo will be furnished to provide the responses and any revised design material related to the DRC comments. A new and updated AH/PD Development Standards Table will be provided at that time, including updates to the maximum floor areas. 119 South Spring Street, #102 1 Aspen Colorado 81611 (p) 970.274.0890 1 (e) adam@methodpd.com P547 Updated Section III.D.5, Floor Area Calculations, of the 488 Castle Creek IX.b Road Land Use Application Submitted on August 14, 2017 6. Floor Area Calculations The following floor area calculations for the Proposed Project are based on the current architectural floor plans provided in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C. The floor area diagrams in this Exhibit for determining floor area ratio (FAR) and net livable area (NLA) are based on the measurement methodologies provided in Sections 26.575.020.13 and 26.575.020.I of the Code respectively. The FAR calculations will be used to establish the maximum residential floor area allowed under the proposed Planned Development. The NLA calculations are provided to establish a basis for the amount of non -mitigation affordable housing full time equivalents (FTEs) that will be created out of the Proposed Project. As the project is at a conceptual design level for the purposes of land use reviews, this application is requesting that a ten percent (10%) increase be allowed and memorialized as the maximum limit for both FAR and NLA floor area. The request is made due to the conceptual level of the current design and the fact that any final and detailed determinations of floor area applicable to FAR calculations have yet to be determined beyond a conceptual level. It should be noted that the 110% request for floor area would still render those amounts significantly below the allowed FAR for the Property under the AH/PD zoning standards. As described above, a summary of the total building floor area calculations broken out across the four (4) levels of the Proposed Project, pursuant to the definition of floor area in Section 26.104.100 of the Code, are as follows: • Lower Level Building Floor Area: 6,252 sq. ft. • Main Level Building Floor Area: 6,424 sq. ft. • Second Level Building Floor Area: 6,721 sq. ft. • Upper Level Building Floor Area: 2,946 sq. ft. • Total Building Floor Area: 22,343 sq. ft. These calculations are measured from the outside of any exterior wall of the building and contain all floor area within each of the four (4) levels. As described above, this application is requesting an approval for a floor area amount ten percent (10%) above im IX.b Updated Section III.D.5, Floor Area Calculations, of the 488 Castle Creek Road Land Use Application Submitted on August 14, 2017 this current conceptual level calculation. Although not specifically a standard under the proposed AH/PD, the relative building floor area of the Proposed Project would not exceed 24,577 sq. ft. The total allowable floor area is limited by the prescribed FAR of 1:1 under the AH/PD zone district standards. With a gross site area of 35,895 sq. ft., and a net site area of 24,768 sq. ft., the respective allowable floor area for the Property is 24,768 sq. ft. The following floor area summary is broken out by building use and takes into account the methodology for calculating the Project's applicable allowable floor area pursuant Section 26.575.020.D of the Code: • Affordable Housing Unit Floor Area: 19,737 sq. ft. • Storage Area: 730 sa. ft. • Maximum Allowable Floor Area for FAR: 20,468 sq. ft. As described above, this application is requesting an approval for an allowable floor area that is ten percent (10%) above this current conceptual level calculation. It is therefore requested that the maximum allowable floor area of the Proposed Project's AH/PD be limited to 22,515 sq. ft. or a FAR of 0.94:1 per net lot area. The total Deck, Breezeway, Exterior Stairway and Porch Area for the proposed project is 7,006 sq. ft. spread across all levels of the building. Similar to the total allowable floor area, a ten percent (10%) increase above this amount is being requested, establishing the maximum allowable Deck Area to be 7,707 sq. ft. The following Table 01 provides a detailed calculation summary of the respective building floor area and allowable FAR floor area calculations for the Proposed Project. P549 Updated Section III.D.5, Floor Area Calculations, of the 488 Castle Creek IX.b Road Land Use Application Submitted on August 14, 2017 Table 01. Proposed Floor Area Calculations Proposed Zoning: AH/PD Property Zoning & Existing Conditions Total Area (sq. ft.) Gross Site Area 35,895 Net Site Area 24,050 Allowable Overall FAR (1:1) 24,050 Percentage of exposed Lower Level Area 70% 15% of FAR floor area for decks, balconies, exterior stairs & porches 3,607 Building Levels Building Use Sq. Feet Level #-1 (Lower Level) AH Residential 5,983 Storage 269 Decks, Breezeways, Exterior Stairways and Porches 2,839 Lower Level Building Floor Area 6,252 Level # -1 Floor Area including exteror elements 9,091 Level #1 (Main Level) AH Residential 6,201 Storage 223 Decks, Breezeways, Exterior Stairways and Porches 1,713 Level # 1 Building Floor Area 6,424 Level # 1 Floor Area including exteror elements 8,137 Level # 2 (Second Level) AH Residential 6,499 Storage 223 Decks, Breezeways, Exterior Stairways and Porches 1,335 Level # 2 Building Floor Area 6,721 Level #2 Floor Area including exteror elements 8,057 Level # 3 (Upper Level) AH Residential 2,849 Storage 97 Decks, Breezeways, Exterior Stairways and Porches 1,119 Level # 3 Building Floor Area 2,946 Level # 3 Floor Area including exteror elements 4,065 Total Building Floor Area 22,343 Total Decks, Breezeways, Exterior Stairways and Porches 7,006 Total Floor Area 29,350 Building Floor Area Summary* Use Floor Area Percentage of (sq. ft.) Total Affordable Housing Residential Floor Area 21,532 96% Storage 811 4% Applicable Decks, Balconies, Exterior Stairways and Porches 7,006 31% Total Building Floor Area 22,343 100% Total Gross Building Floor Area + 10% 24,578 110% *does not adjust for partial subgrade FAR reduction or 15% for exterior areas Maximum Allowable Floor Area Summary Use Floor Area Percentage of(sg. ft.) Total Affordable Housing Residential Floor Area** 19,737 96% Storage Floor Area** 730 4% Total Floor Area for FAR 20,468 100% Total Deck, Breezeway, Exterior Stairway and Porch Area 7,006 100% Maximum Allowable FAR Floor Area (+10%) 22,515 110% Maximum Allowable Deck, Breezeway, Exterior Stairway and Porch Area (+10%) 7,707 110% P550 IX.b Updated Section III.D.5, Floor Area Calculations, of the 488 Castle Creek Road Land Use Application Submitted on August 14, 2017 The Net Livable Area for the Proposed Project is based on the methodology for calculating NLA pursuant to Section 26.575.020.I of the Code. The following summary provides the NLA for each of the three (3) levels of the Proposed Project: • Lower Level Net Livable Area: 5,477 sq. ft. • Main Level Net Livable Area: 5,767 sq. ft. • Second Level Net Livable Area: 6,045 sq. ft. • Upper Level Net Livable Area: 2,642 sq. ft. • Total Net Livable Area: 19,930 sq. ft. As described above, this application is requesting an approval for a net livable floor area that is ten percent (10%) above this current conceptual level calculation. It is therefore requested that the allowable floor area of the Proposed Project's AH/PD be limited to 21,923 sq. ft. For determining the total FTE count that this project would have the ability to offset for any applicable new development, the conversion factor of 400 sq. ft. per FTE is used: At Current Conceptual Level: 19,930 sq. ft. / 400 sq. ft. = 49.8 FTEs With 10% Increase: 21,923 sq. ft. / 400 sq. ft. = 54.8 FTEs LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA SCP1E 1116= 1'-0' ® Sf/If:ll16'= 1'-0" SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA L SCPlE: 1116'- 1'-0' ® J TVRFLOOR AREADLE 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 11950 I, Spn"51. Suite Sal Aspin,M 61611 rtL 9)6-915-34H Y Lu Lu U W g J z V) Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 1aa1, FAR PROIERNo: 1M DM— CPF � T y ' Cn FAR. AREA SCHEDULE LEVEL USE AREA LOWER LEVEL, All UNIT DECK STAIR STORAGE 5,982.94 2,599.51 239.73 268.68 9,090.86 sq ft MAIN IEVEI, All UNIT DECK STAIR STORAGE 6,201.31 1,426.27 286.70 222.80 8,137.08 sq ft SECOND LEVEL, All UNIT DECK STAIR STORAGE 6,498.64 1,265.34 70.15 222.80 8,056.93 sq ft THRID IEVEI, AH UNIT DECK STORAGE 2,849.44 1,118.63 96.73 4,064.80 sq ft 29,349.67 sq ft � F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA SCP1E 1116= 1'-0' ® Sf/If:ll16'= 1'-0" SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA L SCPlE: 1116'- 1'-0' ® J TVRFLOOR AREADLE 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 11950 I, Spn"51. Suite Sal Aspin,M 61611 rtL 9)6-915-34H Y Lu Lu U W g J z V) Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 1aa1, FAR PROIERNo: 1M DM— CPF � T y ' Cn P552 IX.b Method Planning + Development Memorandum Planning — 03 October 18, 2017 Adam Roy Hillary Seminick Chris Everson Jason Bradshaw 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing — Revised Height Calculations, Roof Plan and Development Standards Table Dear Hillary: The purpose of this Memo is to provide revised height calculations, PD development standards and related documentation to the application submitted on August 14, 2017 for the affordable housing project at 488 Castle Creek Road. The updated height calculations and related material are in response to DRC comments from planning and zoning as well as a meeting with planning and zoning staff regarding an adjustment to the methodology for calculating certain heights of the building over both historic grade and finished grade. Please note that additional PD plan set material is still being generated and a fully updated PD Plan Set will be submitted by Friday, October 20, 2017. The following information, descriptions and the attached exhibits shall supersede any conflicting information provided in the originally submitted land use application. Updated Building Height Limits and Calculations: In response to DRC comments provided by planning and zoning, updated building height measurements and calculations have been completed. Specifically, the methodology for measuring height has been verified and slightly adjusted from that which was presented in the originally submitted land use application. In addition, the project team has since identified historic grade for the property that dates back to 1950. It should be noted that this historic topographic information was generated by interpolation from aerial photography of the area and may contain variations and inconsistencies due to vegetation and other skewing surface conditions. In summary, this historic grade, dating back over 60 years, suggests a predevelopment site condition that is significantly different from what exists on the property today. As provided as Exhibit A to this memo, an overlay of the 1950 historic grade with the current topography of the property shows a potential fill condition where non-native soil to the property may have been imported, creating the bench and steep slopes that define the site today. As identified in the soils report and environmental site assessment provided by the project team's consulting geotechnical engineer, there is 4-5 feet of surface topsoil fill overlaying good quality structural soil material below (both reports provided in Appendix B of the original land use application). For this reason, and if the fill on the property is truly non-native in part or in all, it likely came from a nearby civil project that occurred after 1950 and prior to the development of the previously existing residence that was constructed around 1960. With respect to any concerns over the constructability of the proposed project, the soils investigation concludes good 119 South Spring Street, #102 1 Aspen Colorado 81611 (p) 970.274.0890 1 (e) adam@methodpd.com P553 488 Castle Creek Road Planning Memo 03 - Revised Building Height Calculations. docx I X. b October 18, 2017 quality subsurface conditions for building foundation and structure, as well as civil considerations such as percolation. In terms of building height measurement methodology, the applicant and project team will continue to establish proposed maximum building heights over finished grade for three primary reasons: 1) the existing site topography is the condition that has existed for over 50 years; the existing site topography was the condition when the property was previously developed around 1960; and 3) the existing site topography is the condition that exists today and is familiar to today's Aspen community. The height over topography table provided as Exhibit B to this memo identifies the proposed maximum building heights over finished grade. These building heights, along with the heights over the 1950 historic grade are also depicted on the updated roof plan attached to this memo as Exhibit C. Lastly, an updated development standards table for the proposed project, including the updated building height limits and floor area calculations provided in Planning Memo 01 for this property, are provided in the attached Exhibit D. Page 12 HISTORIC CONTOUR EXHIBIT LOT'S 1 & 2,488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD FINAL P.U.D. AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO sT. .ei _� J to nt i. n=,�D r °IATI . � D9 N »o Jtaey4, n S R W ° E S p GRAPHIC SCALE 46 r 21 i y ,E ♦'�� lubl r" � � i 1v � ,%\\ ' � SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT y`l ��s\ •`{t,\_ '\\ j eons®L¢CHARaeNm'INATrtl9'IAueA"y M...f'ro 11AR sQ jbYY¢ 1 N0. Dau Revision 4eaK ID¢. e, CITY OF ASPEN Project NO CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO 16090 P.O. Bo.1746 Itin<,coel6m rRN HISTORIC TOPO EXHIBrTB )Yl9 ehon<(920) N, 1114 LOTS 1&2 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD Pu (Yl9-]150 OOTOBER 16, 201] 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD 1 OF I sine¢ 2007 �, o9onwa V 1 CYl P555 IX.b 488 Castle Creek Road - HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY Elevation Label on Roof Plan 7Elevf Historic Grade Elev of Finished Grade Site Roof Height Roof Height over Finished Grade Roof Height over 1950 Historic Grade Aa 7997'-4.25" 8012"-0" 8034'-9" 22'-9" 37'-4.75" Ab 7992'-5" 8000'-0" 8031'-9.75" 31'-9.75" 39'-4.75" Ba 7989'-0.25" 8012'-0" 8031'-3" 19'-3" 42'-2.75" Bb 7991'-7" 8000'-0" 8034'-2.25" 34'-2.25" 42'-7.25" Ca 8000'-9" 8012'-0" 8044'-0" 32'-0" 43'-3" Cb 7993'-7" 8000'-0" 8041'-0.5" 41'-0.5" 47'-5.5" Da 7999'-9.5" 8012'-0" 8041'-4.75" 29'-4.75" 41'-7.25" Db 7993'-1.5" 8000'-0" 8044'-0.25" 44'-0.25" 50'-10.75" Dc 7993'3.75" 8000'-0" 8034'-2.25" 34'-2.25" 40'-10.5" Ea 8002'-3" 8012'-0" 8044'-0" 32'-0" 41'-9" Eb 7990'-10.75" 8000'-0" 8041'-0.5" 41'-0.5" 50'-1.75" Fa 7991'-3.25" 8012'-0" 8041'-5.25" 29'-5.25" 50'-2" Fb 7994'-1.25" 8000'-0" 8044'-0.25" 44'-0.25" 49'-11" Fc 7992'-11.75" 8000'-0" 8034'-2.25" 34'-2.25" 41'-2.5" G 7987'-3.75" 8000'-0" 8044'-0.25" 44'-0.25" 56'-8.5" H 7982'-8.25" 7999'-3.5" 8042'-0" 42'-8.5" 59'-3.75" J 7979'-1.25" 7992-1.75" 8034'-2.5" 42'-0.75" 55'-0.75" Ka 7987'-11.75" 8012'-0" 8041'-5.75" 29'-5.75" 53'-6" Kb 7979"-4.25" 7999'-1.25" 8044'-0" 44'-10.75" 64'-7.75" La 7994'-5" 8012'-0" 8044'-0" 32'-0" 49'-7" Lb 7976'-7.75" 7998'-1.5" 8041'-0.5" 42'-11" 64'-4.75" Ma 7989'-3.5" 8012'-0" 8041'-4.75" 29'-4.75" 52'-1.5" Mb 7979'-7.25" 7998'-3.25" 8044'-0" 45'-8.75" 64'-4.75" Na 7992'-11.25" 8012'-0" 8044'-0" 32'-0" 51'-0.75" Nb 7979'-10" 7995'-6.25" 8041'-0.5" 45'-6.25" 61'-2.5" Pa 7994'-0.25" 8012'-0" 8030'-8" 18'-8" 36'-7.75" Pb 7999'-9.75" 7991'-5.25" 8034'-2.25" 42'-9" 34'-4.5" Qa 7995'-2.75" 8012'-0" 8034'-9" 22'-9" 39'-6.25" Qb 7992'-1.5" 7993'-1.5" 8031'-3" 38'-1.5" 39'-1.5" Ra 7995'-8" 8012'-0" 8031'-3" 19'-3" 35'-7" Rb 7992'-11.75" 7997'-5.25" 8034'-2.25" 36'-9" 41'-2.75" Ta 8001'-6.25" 8012'-0" 8034'-9" 22'-9" 33'-2.75" Tb 7992'-5" 8000'-0" 8031'-9.75" 31'-9.75" 39'-4.75" 7995'_ � \ - - /- / � � � _ _ \ -A \ -- A — E F \ G 34v'- 4_'08000'--- — — — — — _ � 1 \ \ I R: 8034' IIIIIIII / IIIIIIIII _ _ _ � _ _ II D`: 80o� �rIIIIIIII — — \-2.11 34'214^ �I^34'21° 34 2'-7114 4'-1'1 '-2n' 551-0I4•` 78031'-9 31'-9314. 39'4' :4 41 5. E-. iiIPA;y 05018005. az—e 47Su- 0 49- 13': \ \ 8031'-3' — — — — 1— — 19�-3• 34'-231v A'�8034'-9" I / � I I I ��l 22 -9" I 5 37'-431m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l_ _ _ _ D': 8041'-41<_ I_ _ P: 804 _ _ J-----1--—iL---- 21'_4114^ —I 250' 6 � —4- � I I a. I 41'-7v°• 17 � " 1 50'. 1 C . 8044-0 32'-0' E . 8044-0 1 \ 32'-0' b3 -b --80101 43'-3' 11 \ -9" \ b b b b b\ b \ P: 8030'-a"_ \ o- — L': 8044'I-0" — 32'-0" 6-7'1 �I• 49'-7- 9'_7"o- \ \ 11 \ — — �\ — T: 8 34. 9't_ 22'-914. o64 C8 1� HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY \ \ I I 52,_1113' 1 I 9 •8 7990' 8044-0" P: 8030'-a"_ \ E 6-7'1 �I• \ \ 11 \ — — �\ — T: 8 34. 9't_ 22'-914. o64 1� ��•8044-0 4S 4 9 -� � :1 E 45 L � 19504 HISTORIC GRADE \ 11 EEE _ FINISH GRADE _ J \ \ 15 _\\ _ `P; 9034' \ \ I I 52,_1113' 1 I 9 •8 7990' 8044-0" P: 8030'-a"_ \ E 6-7'1 �I• \ \ 11 \ — — �\ — T: 8 34. 9't_ 22'-914. o64 1� ��•8044-0 4S 4 9 -� � :1 E 45 L � 19504 HISTORIC GRADE \ 11 EEE _ FINISH GRADE _ J \ \ 15 _\\ _ `P; 9034' 20'-0" 33?p914• \ d 0 \ \� U \0°0. \ S`J \ \ \ \ \ 10-s \0-0. \00 \ \s ROOF PLAN I HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY SCAIH:116" _ 1._1. rQ': 1 '-3 38'-111' 1 4I'-1113^ \I, I -1- / 1z / I I I �/ I \I Rb: 8034'-281• I \ I 416 2914^ I\I\ Tb: 8031'-9314^5 I 1 31,9", I \ N \ 39'-4 0 314' 1 \ E90. �! \ \ PROJECT NORTH a QI V v,D 10H NSTON AR CH IT E C T Src 1195puth5pnng St. Suite 301 Aspin, (V 81611 fax 97119]0 396 Lu Lu U w� J z QQ M0 W Rt DRAWING ISSUE 10118117 ROOF PIAN OVER TOPOGRAPGHY PROIEUNo: 1703 oRAw— CPF SHEET No. Al 9 •8 7990' E O �I• o64 1� ��•8044-0 4S 4 9 -� � :1 E 45 20'-0" 33?p914• \ d 0 \ \� U \0°0. \ S`J \ \ \ \ \ 10-s \0-0. \00 \ \s ROOF PLAN I HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY SCAIH:116" _ 1._1. rQ': 1 '-3 38'-111' 1 4I'-1113^ \I, I -1- / 1z / I I I �/ I \I Rb: 8034'-281• I \ I 416 2914^ I\I\ Tb: 8031'-9314^5 I 1 31,9", I \ N \ 39'-4 0 314' 1 \ E90. �! \ \ PROJECT NORTH a QI V v,D 10H NSTON AR CH IT E C T Src 1195puth5pnng St. Suite 301 Aspin, (V 81611 fax 97119]0 396 Lu Lu U w� J z QQ M0 W Rt DRAWING ISSUE 10118117 ROOF PIAN OVER TOPOGRAPGHY PROIEUNo: 1703 oRAw— CPF SHEET No. Al P557 Updated Table 03. 488 Castle Creek Road — Rezoning Comparison and IX.b Proposed AH/PD Development Standards Table 03. 488 Castle Creek Road - Rezoning Comparison and Proposed AH/PD Development Standards # AH/PD Zoning Dimensional — Requirements 1 Minimum Gross Lot Area (sq. ft.) Underlying Zoning: R-1 5A w/ PD Standard/Dimension Similar Use Zoning: RMF Standard/Dimension Proposed Rezoning: AH/PD Standard/Dimension 15,000 6,000 35,895 2 Steep Slope Site Area Reduction 11,845 11,845 11,845 3 Actual Net Lot Area 24,050 24,050 24,050 4 Minimum Net Lot Area per Unit (sq.ft.) n/a n/a 1,282 5 Maximum Allowable Density (# of units) 2 n/a 28 6 Maximum Density (units per acre) n/a n/a 34.0 7 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet 75 feet 8 Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 5 feet 25 feet 9 Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 10 Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 11 Maximum Site Coverage n/a n/a 21% 12 Maximum Front Height* 25 feet 32 feet 32 feet 13 Maximum Rear Perimeter Height* 25 feet 32 feet 43 feet 14 Maximum Rear Internal Height* 25 feet 32 feet 46 feet 15 Public Amenity Space n/a n/a n/a 16 Minimum Distance between Buildings 10, n/a n/a 17 Minimum Percent Open Space n/a n/a 45% 18 Minimum Trash Access Area (sq. ft.) n/a n/a 150 19 Allowable Floor Area (FAR) sq. ft.** 4,500 11,250 24,050 20 Proposed Maximum Floor Area (FAR) sq. ft. n/a n/a 22,515 21 Proposed Maximum FAR** 0.50 1.25 0.94 22 Proposed Maximum Deck Area (sq. ft). n/a n/a 7,707 23 Proposed Net Livable Area sq. ft. n/a n/a 21,923 24 Minimum off-street parking stalls 2 38 29 25 Maximum Unit Size sq. ft. FAR dependent 2,500 990 *These are maximum heights measured from finished grade for these building orientations. Specific heights will be determined by the roof plan height over topography table associated with the Project PD. **Based on standads in 26.710.090.D.10.d. IX.b Aspen Housing Partners and City of Aspen PPP for the Development of Affordable Housing — Community and Stakeholder Outreach Process, Organization and Goals The following outline describes the various processes and tools that will be utilized throughout the public outreach process for the development of affordable housing on the thee City owned subject properties — 802 Main Street, 517 Park Circle and 488 Castle Creek Road. The projected timeframe for the public outreach process is estimated to be approximately three (3) months, commencing in early January 2017 and completing in March 2017. I. Initial Community Wide Open House A. Dates: January 5, 2017 from 3 to 7 pm; January 11, 2017 from 11-1 pm and 4 to 6 pm. B. Venue: Limelight Hotel Conference Room C. Details: Food and beverages will be served to participants on behalf of Aspen Housing Partners D. Purpose, Goals and Intended Outcome: The purpose of the initial community wide open house is to reintroduce the public the efforts made and data collected thus far and to solicit input on the scope of the designs for each of the three properties at this point in the process. The intended outcome is to establish general awareness and to obtain critical feedback on the project concepts established throughout the RFP and partnership establishment process to date, including but not limited to objective data as well as subjective input on such items as appropriateness to neighborhood context, mass, height, density, scale, parking, architectural, style, character, landscape site improvements and unit mix. The takeaways will inform the next round of design and programming modifications and then be used to present to key neighborhood stakeholders in more intimate breakout meetings and settings. E. Venue Setup and Process The organization of the initial community wide open house will be to provide extensive education on the background of the effort to date and the community input that has formed the basis for the establishment of the PPP to develop affordable rental housing. Additionally, the initial open house will present the background and education on each of the three sites — both what was pubic input to date on the three sites and specifically what the vision is for each of the three sites in greater detail. P558 P559 IX.b The conference room at the Limelight Hotel will be organized into multiple stations where participants can casually gain whatever level of education/information they would like to learn as well as provide anonymous and objective feedback and/or very detailed input and commentary regarding the current conceptual designs and processes being undertaken. 1. Background and History An informational station will be devoted to providing background on the history of prior public outreach on the matter and the purpose and functioning of the PPP. It will cover all matters related but not limited to the background, process, team, LIHTCs, timeline, entitlement process, construction, property management, etc. Specifically, this station will provide information on: a. Charts, tables and graphs - showing the historic public outreach data on the topic of developing new affordable housing. b. Organizational chart — highlighting the structure and purpose of the PPP and related team members. c. Broad timeline — identifying the key phases from partnership establishment through lease -up and operation. d. LIHTC background — describing the program, how it works, and how the PPP relationship benefits the City. e. Guiding principles —the key principles and commitments the development team in partnership with the City has made in seeing the projects through completion as outlined in the original RFP proposal material and providing additional description. 2. Site Specific Material and Information (x3) Each of the three (3) properties will have its own station to highlight the history of the site under consideration for affordable housing development, through the current design concepts that have been established for each. The material at each property's station will start from a broad look at the proposed development within the context of town and the surrounding area and continue through a detailed look at planning, site, and building design details. The material presented will be done so in a manner to be able to obtain objective data and input from the participants as well as subjective thoughts, comments and opinions of the material presented. This input will then be used to further refine and adjust the design concepts as the process moves forward. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx IX.b a. Background and Prior Input — each station will have a board/material showing the considerations to date that established the current concepts, support by previously obtained data and input. b. Area context and surrounding precedent — each station will have a board/material showing the surrounding context and character including use -types, zoning, architectural and site design character, parking and traffic patterns, etc. c. Site plan and surrounding site pressures — each station will have a board/material highlighting the current design concept as well as design considerations made to alleviate and site pressures such as neighboring property relationships, views, access, parking, screening, etc. d. Architectural character studies — each station will have a board/material depicting a variety of architectural character both present in the surrounding area as well as appropriate to the area context and greater history of the neighborhood and greater community. e. Building design and proposed architectural character— each station will have a board(s)/material that highlights the following as it relates to the design of the buildings: L Massing ii. Height iii. Architectural style iv. Material character This information will be communicated through architectural renderings and perspectives of the buildings within the context of the sites and surrounding and neighboring areas and buildings. f. Building floor plans, typical unit plans and unit mixes — each station will generally show each floor plan to highlight unit layouts, amenities, non -unit area, decks, etc. typical units and the related mix of units sizes will also be represented for each property. II. Neighborhood -wide and Individual Key Stakeholder Meetings A. Dates: as required from mid-January to end of February 2017. B. Venue: casual settings such as at the respective properties, meeting rooms, living rooms or cafes. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 3 P560 P561 Mb C. Details: the needs and expectations of the neighborhood stakeholder will determine the details such as coffee meetings, smaller group presentations and discussions, etc. D. Purpose, Goals and Intended Outcome: The purpose of the neighborhood and key individual stakeholder meetings is to solicit specific input and individual concerns regarding the design of the three projects as they relate to surrounding neighbors, properties, roads, alleys, etc. Participants will be contacted via mailings, sign- ups from other prior events, emails, website and known and identified stakeholders surrounding each of the three properties. The goals of the neighborhood and stakeholder meetings will be to discuss individuals' concerns in a smaller intimate setting —whether that be over coffee at a coffee shop with a table full of neighbors, on-site to look and review specific concerns, or one-on-one meetings with immediate surrounding homeowners. The intended outcome of this phase of public outreach will be to specifically address design considerations, traffic/parking concerns or any other factors that are most critical and concerning to the most vested community stakeholders. Achieving any amount of greater neighborhood buy -in will be the ultimate outcome goal from the neighborhood stakeholder engagement. E. Venue Setup and Process The venue setup and engagement process will be very organic in nature, depending on the needs and desires of the neighborhood residents and key stakeholders. The expectation is a mix of meetings, consisting of larger group settings in a casual atmosphere to discuss questions and concerns that may be prevalent throughout the neighborhood. This phase of public outreach will also offer key stakeholders the opportunity to meet with members of the development team to specifically discuss questions and concerns on an individual level. III. First City Council Work Session Check -In and Presentation A. Dates: February 14, 2017 Following the Community -wide and Neighborhood -wide stakeholder public outreach phases, the project team will reconvene with City Council at a work session to present the findings and takeaways at this point in the process. This check-in will give Council the ability to review and provide any direction deemed appropriate based on the public feedback received and documented. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx IX.b IV. Final Community Wide Open House B. Dates: March 2, 2017 from 3 to 7 pm; March 8, 2017 from 11-1 pm and 4 to 6 pm. C. Venue: Limelight Hotel Conference Room D. Details: Food and beverages will be served to participants on behalf of Aspen Housing Partners E. Purpose, Goals and Intended Outcome: The final community -wide open house will be a consolidated version of the initial open house, with the intent of focusing on the refined design details for each of the three properties. The purpose will be to present the design modifications that have come about from the input and data gathered from the prior two phases of the public outreach process. The takeaways will further inform the final round of design and programming modifications that will provide the basis for the land use application material and process. F. Venue Setup and Process The organization of the final community wide open house will be to present and obtain final feedback from the community on the more detailed site and building designs for each of the three properties. The conference room at the Limelight Hotel will be organized into multiple stations where participants can casually gain whatever level of education/information they would like to learn as well as provide anonymous and objective feedback and/or very detailed input and commentary regarding the final designs leading into the land use review process. 1. Background and History To accommodate any new attendees to the open house, a consolidated version of the initial open house informational station will be devoted to providing background on the history of prior public outreach on the matter and the purpose and functioning of the PPP. It will cover all matters related but not limited to the background, process, team, LIHTCs, timeline, entitlement process, construction, property management, etc. Specifically, this station will provide information on: a. Charts, tables and graphs - showing the historic public outreach data on the topic of developing new affordable housing. b. Organizational chart — highlighting the structure and purpose of the PPP and related team members. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 5 P562 P563 IX.b c. Broad timeline — identifying the key phases from partnership establishment through lease -up and operation. d. LIHTC background — describing the program, how it works, and how the PPP relationship benefits the City. e. Guiding principles —the key principles and commitments the development team in partnership with the City has made in seeing the projects through completion as outlined in the original RFP proposal material and providing additional description. 2. Site Specific Material and Information (x3) Each of the three (3) properties will have its own station to highlight the history of the site under consideration for affordable housing development, through the current design concepts that have been established for each. The material at each property's station will start from a broad look at the proposed development within the context of town and the surrounding area and continue through a detailed look at planning, site, and building design details. The material presented will be done so in a manner to be able to obtain objective data and input from the participants as well as subjective thoughts, comments and opinions of the material presented. This input will then be used to further refine and adjust the design concepts as the process moves forward. a. Background and Prior Input — each station will have a board/material showing the considerations to date that established the current concepts, support by previously obtained data and input. Additionally, the background will identify the modifications that have been made to each of the properties throughout this public outreach process. b. Area context and surrounding precedent — each station will have a board/material showing the surrounding context and character including use -types, zoning, architectural and site design character, parking and traffic patterns, etc. c. Site plan and surrounding site pressures — each station will have a board/material highlighting the refined site designs as well as design considerations made to alleviate and site pressures such as neighboring property relationships, views, access, parking, screening, etc. d. Architectural character studies — each station will have a board/material depicting the architectural character and precedent Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx IX.b imagery that was informed and refined throughout the public outreach process. Opposed to presenting character variations and options at the initial public open house, this study for the final open house will show the character and styles that the design team arrived at through public and stakeholder input. e. Building design and proposed architectural character — each station will have a board(s)/material that highlights the following as it relates to the design of the buildings as revised throughout the public outreach process: L Massing ii. Height iii. Architectural style iv. Material character This information will be communicated through architectural renderings and perspectives of the buildings within the context of the sites and surrounding and neighboring areas and buildings. f. Building floor plans, typical unit plans and unit mixes — each station will more specifically show each floor plan to highlight unit layouts, amenities, non -unit area, decks, etc. typical units and the related mix of unit sizes will also be represented for each property. This presentation will show greater detail and more firmed up layouts following the incorporation of public input. V. Final City Council Work Session Check -In and Presentation A. Dates: March 28, 2017 Following the last Community -wide open house, the project team will reconvene with City Council at a work session to present the final findings and takeaways leading into the land use application development and review process. Council will have the opportunity to review the revisions made throughout the process and make any final recommendations leading into the land use process. VI. Additional Tools and Process for Public Input To complement the open houses and direct stakeholder engagements that will be undertaken, the project team will also implement the following tools for soliciting and obtaining additional public and community input: B. Website — a user-friendly public engagement website platform similar to the Aspen Community Voice site. The team may also utilize the Aspen Community Voice website exclusively for the online outreach effort or in addition to a standalone website for these specific projects. The website will Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx P564 P565 IX.b function to provide additional material and information, post details such as event dates, and most importantly solicit, track and capture input data from subscribers to supplement the input and data captured through the various public outreach events and meetings. C. Email Blasts — informational email blasts to key lists of community members and employees of significant employers such as area school districts, ACRA, City of Aspen, SkiCo, Aspen Valley Hospital, valley non -profits, hotels, etc. The email blasts will primarily foucs on announcements such as event dates and details and any information related to the website or alternatives means for asking questions and providing input. D. Mailings — informative mailings will be sent out to all residents within the most appropriately determined radius from each of the project sites. The mailings will function similar to email blasts for informing neighbors of key events, and opportunities to ask questions, set up meetings and/or ask provide critical input to the project designs. E. Key Technical Stakeholder Meetings and Interviews — meetings with government and agency stakeholders that have technical insights and considerations with the development of each of the three properties. F. Newspaper and Radio Informational Ads — periodic newspaper and radio ads providing information on events and updates throughout the public outreach process. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx IX.b Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx P566 N U !6 .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... � M � C� .......................... 44 w eN .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ........._.......... ..................... ..... .......................... n .............................. yy, dMR .......................... 44 .......................... .......................... a � .......................... .......................... ......................... .......................... .......................... 7 L 44 44 ......................... LL 44 n : rel:............................... N ..........~..... 44 ~.......... .......................... .. .......................... ................ . ................. ................. N W.......................... 4 .......................... iAy .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... W = U N 4a c Ql a O A[0 W L ❑ Q1 Q Y c H `1 CL C W c i 0. [6 E a# sx _ _ N9 7U c O W O z U a) U c E V0 v Ql o •H rn p QJ O O 0 Q E E g a ato a�_ E E o a _ = Z LL o LL o L LL 1.1 a _ g. .- - ... ._ . ... .= ... -.' .... -.' ... .> Q :x ri N M Rt Ln %0 N Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx P566 488 Castle Creek—2017 Public Outreach aspen housing artnershi °�' p p ark pn castle creep I I a rartnershifr with the City of flsreL for aford b& housing AHP Conducted a series of community and neighborhood outreach events from January through April of 2017 with reoccurring City Council check -ins AHP/PPP: Completed Community Outreach Schedule Cr # Meeting / Audience January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 1 2 3 I. Initial Community -Wide Open House #1 I. Initial Community -Wide Open House #2 II. Neighborhood -wide and Individual Key Stakeholder Meetings 5 -Jan . 11 -Jan . 14 -Feb ...... . 2 -Mar 4 5 III. First City Council Work Session Check -In and Presentation IV. Final Community Wide Open House #1 ;8 6 IV. Final Community Wide Open House #2 T . -Mar 7 8 V. Second City Council Work Session Check -In and Presentation VI. Additional Neighborhood Outreach and Design Revisions VII. Third City Council Work Session and Further Direction on 488 Castel Creek Rd . 4 -Apr . . 9 25 ^�. Cr |X.b im ; � \\ §� 6 « . � � I ; « C ) $ )\ { ■ $- \� ` � cr • - . . ƒ j ■ ; \ . - ( / \ - \rg = ®/a:Eoi §«- ) o E � . � \ y . � � ... . .\ \ -E � � 6 im P569 IX.b v o a N E 41 I N. C 6 T. �N y 0 'dp N � a 451 a d us' a S ¢ H z }, W a a - O C O C a d N C Y.I 7 m P FLwu T T w 6 d C a m g C C W N d 4' C C 1 _ w a � I o a =Z AI W H L N_ L 4 ■ |X.b P570 : 2 '76 § � ® - � tA j §j\\\ \ - ) { / , . � - > • . \ \ � ■ / � ` � - \ ! \ � \ ■ \\ \ \ \ k k P570 a W C m N n ¢ N W O a C � N a 9 C w a ' � v O a N Z C W - a 0 O � E C L lJ v m a E 5 O W C O u O % a w w c a O � ` E w R Q O d % a a i I i � v a ¢ I _ ¢ o a I I r — J r v a C m � P571 IX.b IX.b 00DCD�D�W-1Dm>DOzxD -_A rC2C7zn-� �� r-Xx000 ;)oz o�jyrr zzmC—zr omcor-ZOm cn mz0m;_zDzDT.>mzW=Twzm ODG��_�mo��O �00> cnZKG�o o ;i] 0 z W o o r Sp D 5 Dm mr--C m mOD 0 nC yzmC�mmzW'�0C-nDM7f7 >TK zcn�?o�OE0 r -E z m002 00m -m-<c- >S?To�D 90 ->;i7 D mC- mU) IC)> 0Dmo -<D r- -�� z �r- C-mQ°z c=i} �D Amo s?°Zm�z�z z m 7C x� z D m O D 0 z�z 0 z y m co C: x z D z 0 D A W N�NwCWOO—Cn�I -Q 000).A4h, N -1-I0 mmmma.. wCDCDW DG�11m� >>>--IcDnWxoo�zz� mmm>�cmv'i>��o� .. TT -im -< x0o omm000 y'-'rx��X�C)0qtmm M m o 0 0 mm � o0 N O O co C7wM;uO0r'0z*Tr-m00z O -< cr- - 0 x m m m m O z D D m omwK rnC-Ozzp�oJ°�D�Comm Woz OME�:W,�m,�]ozcmm� *ZO;U;u>5c mKm-nzo F9-:5mcn DDZm�r�-O C: co A mz3.�C)Z-gym m o n 90 >D 0 z Uri �> �Az r-0) z �0 Spcnz D Oy �m mom n zm z z m 1 1 M 3(D� M Ul4h, W O N O 0 0 .A O A 0 0 CD w w O °��� XSEEzzzm 66R50000 z mO n m o 0 0 0 o m ;10 ;10 O o 0;u70�u79�u �u �oxxxx0m x00000000000xw 4�,CCCCCCCCCCCWW � m m m m m m m m m m m "' D D D D D too D D D M D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D W O cn[ncncncnccncncnDcncncn[ncncncncn[ntnrncncncntn�ntntn�cncncncncncn-�� m m m m m m m m m D m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m z zzzzz�zzzr-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz O O O C m 00000 000000000000000000000000000000n i m w w m w w m w m m m w m m w 0o 0o 00 m m w o7 0o w w m m m m m w m m m m w m N 3 1 3 CO .1 J 1 J .1 i N W W W W a CO c P572 P573 0 "DEomm>=g:-n-I>��o:�co Mob � z�° o� o z m x ©o x p m x zo -m5omnmxmzmo>z o��->zpXpp�CQ� ..gym NN {7 cn oo r � � D Z _ 0 Dom l �miDz����� zOzzCcom m -ID p> nCDor=� -m55M z0x90zyzDz1w np zD���=C-z�� �` ov cn O P- --•1 x -i �Mm cn ��zsp� mzO 0 m bD`DmLD C DD �G) rND � Z � Y Om m m m 1 1 ,p, 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 ...1 .._a " M y M-0 W N U7 M- -4 MM .A W N y C) :Emmmmmmmmmmmo D<�—ni-n-��mmmr�nmmmmmMM— z {7 j M,, 7u x x x x iq �7 u -d'l7 'U N MM � C)mr 00 m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 rn rn rn rn rn rn rh di :si of ch � ai rn rn rn rn rn 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W 1 1 OD P574 IX.b :MAIL #1 FROM ANTHONY BATTAGLIA DATED JANUARY 11, 2017. TOPIC ADDRESSED IS TRAFFIC IMPACT. RESULTED IN INVESTIGATION OF ACCESSING THE SITE THROUGH THE MAROLT OPEN SPACE BELOW AND HIRING MCDOWELL ENGINEERING TO COMMENCE TRAFFIC STUDY. P575 IX.b From: Kathleen Wanatowicz kathleen@prstudioco.com Subject: Aspen Housing Partnership "Castle Creek" Date: January 17, 2017 at 9:24 AM 0 To: Chris Everson chris.everson@cityofaspen. com, Jason Bradshaw jebradshaw@mac.com, Adam Roy adam9method pd.com From: "[Aspen Housing Partnership]" <info@aspenhousingpartnership.com> Date: January 15, 2017 at 3:01:20 PM MST To: <info@aspenhousingpartnership.com> Subject: Aspen Housing Partnership "Castle Creek" Reply -To: <info@aspenhousingpartnership.com> From: Anthony Battaglia <anthonydbattaglia@gmail.com> Phone:9703152750 Message Body: Looks like access to parking will be directly via Castle Creek Road. That is a very poor spot for the kind of traffic likely from 30 housing units. It is a somewhat dangerous corner to navigate in the winter as is just before the crosswalk speedbumps. Consider moving the housing closer to the road, having the "V" face the Marolt units and olacing parking between the two with access via the existing roadway into Marolt. This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Aspen Housing Partnership (hiip://www.aspenhousingpartnership.com) IX.b EMAIL # FROM SIMON PINNIGER DATED JANUARY 11, 2017. TOPIC ADDRESSED IS TRAFFIC IMPACT. RESULTED IN INVESTIGATION OF ACCESSING THE SITE THROUGH THE MAROLT OPEN SPACE BELOW AND HIRING MCDOWELL ENGINEERING TO COMMENCE TRAFFIC STUDY. P576 P577 IX.b From: Kathleen Wanatowicz kathleen@prstudioco.com Subject: Aspen Housing Partnership "Castle Creek" Date: January 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM 0 To: Chris Everson chris.everson@cityofaspen. com, Jason Bradshaw jebradshaw@mac.com, Adam Roy adam9method pd.com From: "[Aspen Housing Partnership]" <info@aspenhousingpartnership.com> Date: January 15, 2017 at 2:49:41 PM MST To: <info@aspenhousingpartnership.com> Subject: Aspen Housing Partnership "Castle Creek" Reply -To: <info@aspenhousingpartnership.com> From: Simon Pinniger <Simon@USAgri.com> Phone: 925 3200 Message Body: This development is next to a very dangerous curve and often a congested section of Castle Creek Rd. Under no circumstances should access or egress to this project be permitted along this stretch of Castle Creek Rd. All traffic should come/go via Marolt Place. This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Aspen Housing Partnership (hiip://www.aspenhousingpartnership.com) IX.b EMAIL # FROM MARSHALL HALL DATED JANUARY 17, 2017. TOPIC ADDRESSED IS TRAFFIC IMPACT AND CASTLE CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT. REPLIED ON JANUARY 30, 2017 AND RESULTED IN MEETING WITH MARSHALL ON FEBRUARY I, 2017 AT WHICH MARSHALL MADE US AWARE OF HIS THOUGHTS ON THE CASTLE CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT AND MOVING THE DEVELOPMENT SITE TO THE MAROLT OPEN SPACE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THE MAROLT TRAIL. P578 From: Kathleen Wanatowicz kathleen@prstudioco.com Subject: Aspen Housing Partnership "Castle Creek" Date: January 17, 2017 at 2:31 PM To: Chris Everson chris.everson@cityofaspen. com, Adam Roy adam@methodpd.com Begin forwarded message: P579 IX.b 0 Jason Bradshaw ,�-bradshaw@mac.com From: "[Aspen Housing Partnership]" <info aspenhousingpartnership.com> Date: January 17, 2017 at 1:22:41 PM MST To: <info aspenhousingpartnership.com> Subject: Aspen Housing Partnership "Castle Creek" Reply -To: <info aspenhousingpartnership.com> From: Marshall Hall <marshall@wildernet.com> Phone: 925-1825 Message Body: Access to this project should be from the existing Marolt Housing and should not come off of Castle Creek Road. This is a dangerous curve with limited sight visibility and a lot of congestion. The alignment of the proposed bike path to the Music School needs to identified on the site plan, particularly if it is to be located between your site and the existing Marolt Housing site. This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Aspen Housing Partnership (http://www.aspenhousingpartnership.com) Mb From: Jason Bradshaw jebradshaw@mac.com Subject: Aspen Affordable Housing - Castle Creek Site Date: January 30, 2017 at 2:55 PM To: marshalI@wildernet.com Cc: Adam Roy adam@methodpd.com, Chris Everson chris.everson@cityofaspen.com Marshall - Thanks for the email and your interest in the proposed development on Castle Creek. If you are open to it, I would like to meet with you to discuss in more detail the comments made in your email submitted through the project website. We are also interested in discussing further your thoughts on the bike path route. If you would be up for a meeting, please let me know of your availability. Thanks Jason Bradshaw The Aspen Housing Partnership MM P581 IX.b EMAIL # FROM BOB RAFELSON DATED JANUARY 11, 2017. ADDRESSED DESIRE TO LIMIT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ON CASTLE CREEK ROAD. TOPICS INCLUDE TRAFFIC IMPACT AND POTENTIAL TO MOVE ACCESS TO SITE FROM CASTLE CREEK DOWN TO THE E ISTING MAROLT HOUSING ACCESS ROAD. REPLIED ON JANUARY 30, 2017 WITH AN OFFER TO MEET. NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION. P582 IX.b From: Kathleen Wanatowicz kathleen@prstudioco.com Subject: castle creek Date: January 19, 2017 at 12:02 PM 0 To: Chris Everson chris.everson@cityofaspen. com, Jason Bradshaw jebradshaw@mac.com, Adam Roy adam@methodpd.com From: Bob Rafelson -curly_@aspennights.com> Date: January 18, 2017 at 6:33:08 PM MST To: info@aspenhousingpartnership.com Cc: Joe Wells <joewells.@me.com>, dick butera <dickbutera@sopris.net> Subject: castle creek Your website is impossible to read, or send a message on. Remember those of us who live on Castle Creek have no high speed internet. My comments: I've lived on Castle Creed Road a couple of miles past the hospital for 45 years. It's signified as a rural safe guarded road for the beauty of its creek and mountains. The hospital itself is an intrusion. Way bigger than necessary and presently lit to guide the blind. Instead of fireworks this New Years eve i took my children to the Emergency Sign. Then had them blink a few times. It's also got a difficult access. There are respected reports 6 people have died trying to get there. Now you want to add More Buildings, More lights, More roads. It's madness. My suggestion would be to bring the affordable housing project down to the Marolt Housing Level. Access it from Highway 82. Where one can access the Garden Space. Keep Castle Creek one of the remaining few sanctuary roads. Joe Wells has the same thoughts. But more Articulate. Bob Rafelson P583 Mb From: Jason Bradshaw jebradshaw@mac.com Subject: Aspen Affordable Housing - Castle Creek Site Date: January 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM To: curly@aspennights.com Cc: joewells@me.com, dickbutera@sopris.net, Adam Roy adam@methodpd.com, Chris Everson chris.everson@cityofaspen.com Bob - Thanks for the email and your interest in the proposed development on Castle Creek. If you are open to it, I would like to meet with you to discuss in more detail the comments made in your email submitted through the project website. If you would be up for a meeting, please let me know of your availability. Thanks Jason Bradshaw The Aspen Housing Partnership IX.b EMAIL # THIS EMAIL STRING WAS INITIATED BY ME IN ORDER TO COMMENCE A DIALOGUE WITH THE CASTLE CREEK CAUCUS. THE FIRST EMAIL FROM ME WAS DATED 3/7/17 AND WAS ADDRESSED TO DICK BUTERA, JOE WELLS AND BOB RAFELSON. IN THE EMAIL I OFFERED TO MEET WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT AND MADE SURE THEY WERE AWARE OF THE UPCOMING PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES. I RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM JOE WELLS ON 3/7/17 CLARIFYING THAT HE HAD ATTENDED THE PUBLIC OUTREACH SESSION IN JANUARY AND ASKED ME TO DESCRIBE MY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN WHICH I DID IN A RESPONSE DATED 3/7/17. IN THAT RESPONSE I ALSO AGAIN VOLUNTEERED A MEETING. MY 3/7/17 EMAIL WAS REPLIED WITH ANOTHER SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT I WAS NOT ABLE TO ANSWER AS THEY DEALT WITH DUE DILIGENCE ITEMS THAT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED. THIS CONCLUDED THE DIALOGUE. im P585 IX.b From: Jason Bradshaw jebradshaw@mac.com Subject: Aspen Affordable Housing Public / Private Partnership Date: March 7, 2017 at 2:25 PM To: joewells@me.com, dickbutera@sopris.net, curly@aspennights.com Cc: Chris Everson chris.everson@cityofaspen. com, Adam Roy adam@methodpd.com Joe, Dick and Bob - My name is Jason Bradshaw and I represent the private side of the public / private partnership for developing affordable housing in Aspen. I am reaching out to you to propose a meeting to discuss both the Castle Creek site as well as the overall project. I don't recall speaking to you at any of the prior public open houses in January or last week and would welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue in which your concerns can be heard and the partnership's process and thoughts on the project(s) can be expressed. Alternatively, we are holding two public meetings tomorrow (3/8) and would welcome your presence at either should it work for your schedules. Location: Limelight Lodge Times: 11 am- 1 pm & 4 pm - 6 pm I also wanted to make sure you were aware that we have received the following emails from owners in the Castle Creek area and have included them in entirety as part of a report on this project to the Aspen City Council which was submitted in connection with the February 14 work session: Simon Pinnenger (1/15) Anthony Battaglia (1/15) Marshall Hall (1/17) Bob Rafelson (1/19) I look forward to hearing from you. Jason Bradshaw Aspen Housing Partnership 214-683-0571 IX.b From: joseph wells joewells@me.com Subject: Fwd: Housing Proposal for Castle Creek Road Date: March 7, 2017 at 2:52 PM To: jebradshaw@mac.com Cc: Dick Butera Jickbutera@sopris.net, Bob & Gaby Rafelson curly@aspennights.com Jason, I have attended a session during both open houses. Can you tell me more about your relationship with the City—what you are under contract to do, what disciplines are on the team, is the team made up of existing local firms who came together to submit a proposal for these three projects and how you are being compensated, for example. Is it anticipated that the Aspen Housing Partnership will design, build and operate the rental units on one or all of these sites or are you just under contract to conduct these open houses? I am attaching a copy of an e-mail that I sent to the Castle Creek Caucus members after attending one of the original sessions. Begin forwarded message: From: joseph wells <joewells@me.com> Subject: Housing Proposal for Castle Creek Road Date: January 15, 2017 at 2:28:20 PM MST To: Bob & Gaby Rafelson <curly aspennights.com>, Joe Wells <joewellsC@me.com>, Carrie Wells <carriePcarriewells.com>, "Michael (Mike) Tanguay" <mtanguay aspenconstructors.com>, Simon Pinniger <simon@usagri.com>, Linda Sandrich <Iinda205@mac.com>, Julia Rowland <juliaarowland@gmail.com>, "Nate (Nathan) Rowland" <nathanrowlandP mail.com>, Alice Davis <adavis@rof.net>, Glenn Horn <ghorn@rof.net>, Christopher Shearer Cooper <chris2sc3.net>, Chris Shearer Cooper <chris@sc3.net>, Marcella Larsen <marcellalarsenpme.com>, George Zachar <george greensward.com>, Cliff Weiss <Cliffweiss492gmail.com>, Tony Battaglia <anthonydbattaglia gmail.com>, Michael Lipkin <mlipkin lipkinwarner.com>, Ed Zasacky <EdZasacky@usa.net>, Pete Stouffer <hpstoufferPsopris.net>, Graeme Means <gdmarchitect@gmail.com>, Tom Barron <tabarronPtabarron.com>, Joachim Diedrich <jsd(@the1backoffice.com>, Sue Diedrich <sued(@the1backoffice.com>, "Tom Kurt, MD" <tomkurtmd@comcast.net>, Gary Wright <gaw wrightlasalle.com>, Ron Morehead <rmorehead@aspensnowmass.com>, Andy &Lisa Poole <Andyptaspen.com>, Randy Gold <randy-gaspen gmail.com>, Katie Schwoerer <kschwoerer@aspennature.org.>, Karen Ryman <kryman@msn.com>, Marisa Silverman <marisa@silvermanmuseum.com>, John Doyle <johndoylesculpture gmail.com>, Catherine Anne Provine<catherineanne(@aspenchapel.org.>, Chris Lacy <clacy rof.net>, Sandra Eskin <sandreskin@aol.com>, Lois Harlamert-Teegarten <hapsmtnmama@aol.com>, Alan Hassenflu <ahassenflu@frpltd.com>, Dennis Vaughn <vaughndennis58C@gmail.com>, D Stone Davis <dstonedPcomcast.net>, Sue Smalley <SuePsuesmalley.com>, Kevin Wall <Kwall@controlroom.com>, Trent Palmer <trentPwtp-Iaw.com>, Steve Busky <smbusky(@gmail.com>, John Duficy <domePsopris.net>, Elaine Pagels <epagels princeton.edu>, Dawn Shepard <dawn@dawnshepard.com>, Terri Sharp <tlsharp sopris.net>, Jordan Greengrass <jhg3787@gmail.com>, Dan Bunta <victor@sopris.net>, Christie Addison <likesartsupplies55 gmail.com>, Chuck Frias <chuck@friasproperties.com>, Bruce Gordon <bsgordon@earthlink.net>, Aspen <scotthicksPaspencountryday.net>, Hawk & Shelley Greenway <hawkgreenwagmail.com>, Mac Coffey <maccoffevPcomcast.net>, Bruce Coffey <bcoffey3Pearthlink.net>, Annie Katz <anniekatz@me.com>, Jim True <Jim.True@cityofaspen.com>, Todd & Nikola Freemen <freemans5(@sbcgloba1.net>, Joe & Sue Diedrich <Jsd@the1backoffice.com>, Dick Butera <dickbutera@sopris.net>, Michael Katz <mdk@katzbarron.com>, Gregg Lowe <greg.glowe@me.com>, Sebastian Wanatowicz <swmidnightmine gmail.com>, Polly & Murry Bowden <pbowdenPhanoverco.com>, Patti and Mike Morgan <pattim(@morgangroup.com>, John Walla <john jwalla.com>, Tripp Adams<trip.D@truenorthmanagement.net>, John Perko <johnptruenorth@gmail.com>, Marshall Hall <marshall@wildernet.com>, Alfred LaFave <alfred. lafave@gmail.com> To Castle Creek Caucus Members: I attended one of the Open Houses recently held by the City of Aspen and the Aspen Housing Partnership to present the concepts for three rental housing projects on separate City -owned sites. The project of most concern to me is the proposal to build 24 units with 30 parking spots on the triangular site at 488 Castle Creek Road. The site is on the east side of Castle Creek Road, across from the hospital bus stop. Many of you will recall that the site was previously a single-family home site. At some point in the past, the site which was previously part of the topography of the Marolt Ranch was filled in to create a flat bench more or less at the same elevation of Castle Creek Road. Access to the single-family home was off of Castle Creek Road, in a location with poor sight lines. I would prefer to see some of the fill removed from the site, so that development can be integrated with the existing rental housing project on the Marolt Ranch property. Parking and access to the parking should be from below, in my opinion, and not in such a dangerous location off of Castle Creek Road, as proposed. The link to more information about the three projects is http://www.aspenhousingpartnership.com/castle-creek/. I don't know if you will have the same problem with this link that I do, but my computer freezes when I open this, so I would suggest that you close out of everything else before you open it. You should be able to make comments about all of the projects on this webpage, provided that you don't encounter the same problem that I have had. Let me know if you have questions/concerns. Sincerely, 1— %Amu. P587 IX.b From: Jason Bradshaw jebradshaw@mac.com Subject: Re: Housing Proposal for Castle Creek Road Date: March 7, 2017 at 3:27 PM 0 To: joseph wells joewells@me.com Cc: Dick Butera dickbutera@sopris.net, Bob & Gaby Rafelson curly@aspennights.com, Adam Roy adam@methodpd.com, Chris Everson chris.everson@cityofaspen.com Joe I have a background in developing affordable housing utilizing the federal affordable housing tax credit program. I responded to an RFP issued by the City of Aspen in December 2016 to develop all three sites. I moved to Aspen with my family last year to pursue this project. My role is as the lead developer and operator of the project. In this capacity, I will lead the three projects through he entitlement process, oversee all design and planning, oversee a TBD general contractor in constructing improvements on each site and operate the projects, which will include oversight of a property management function, for a minimum period of 15 years. In addition, I will arrange both equity and debt financing and provide any and all financing guarantees related to debt and tax credit equity. My company's compensation is comprised of a development fee that is governed by the federal affordable housing tax credit program plus any excess cash flow from the developments. The City of Aspen will be providing the land at each site on a long term ground lease basis as well as a TBD financial contribution from the City's affordable housing fund. My team consists of the following: Aspen Housing Partners, LLC - Jason Bradshaw (lead developer) David Johnston and Associates - Architect Method Planning + Development - Land planning consultant Connect One - Landscape planning Roaring Fork Engineering - Civil Engineering Again, I am happy to sit down with you to discuss in more detail. If you are able to attend one of the sessions tomorrow, please flag me down. Thanks Jason Bradshaw Aspen Housing Partnership 214-683-0571 On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:52 PM, joseph wells <joewells@me.com> wrote Jason, I have attended a session during both open houses. Can you tell me more about your relationship with the City—what you are under contract to do, what disciplines are on the team, is the team made up of existing local firms who came together to submit a proposal for these three projects and how you are being compensated, for example. Is it anticipated that the Aspen Housing Partnership will design, build and operate the rental units on one or all of these sites or are you just under contract to conduct these open houses? I am attaching a copy of an e-mail that I sent to the Castle Creek Caucus members after attending one of the original sessions. Begin forwarded message: From: joseph wells <joewells@me.com> Subject: Housing Proposal for Castle Creek Road Date: January 15, 2017 at 2:28:20 PM MST To: Bob & Gaby Rafelson <curly asp ennights.com>, Joe Wells <joewells@me.com>, Carrie Wells <carrie@carriewells.com>, "Michael (Mike) Tanguay" <mtanguay aspenconstructors.com>, Simon Pinniger <simon@usagri.com>, Linda Sandrich <Iinda205@mac.com>, Julia Rowland <juliaarowland@gmail.com>, "Nate (Nathan) Rowland" <nathanrowland@gmail.com>, Alice Davis <adavis@rof.net>, Glenn Horn <ghorn@rof.net>, Christopher Shearer Cooper <chris@sc3.net>, Chris Shearer Cooper <chris@sc3.net>, Marcella Larsen <marcellalarsen@me.com>, George Zachar <ggorge agreensward.com>, Cliff Weiss <Cliffweiss49@gmail.com>, Tony Battaglia <anthonydbattaglia gmail.com>, Michael Lipkin <mlipkin Iipkinwarner.com>, Ed Zasacky <EdZasacky@usa.net>, Pete Stouffer <hpstouffer@sopris.net>, Graeme Means <gdmarchitect@gmail.com>, Tom Barron <tabarron@tabarron.com>, Joachim Diedrich <jsd@the1backoffice.com>, Sue Diedrich <sued@the1backoffice.com>, "Tom Kurt, MY <tomkurtmd@comcast.net>, Gary Wright <gaw wrightlasalle.com>, Ron Morehead <rmorehead@aspensnowmass.com>, Andy & Lisa Poole <Andy@ptaspen.com>, Randy Gold IX.b From: joseph wells joewells@me.com Subject: Re: Housing Proposal for Castle Creek Road Date: March 8, 2017 at 10:43 AM 0 To: Jason Bradshaw jebradshaw@mac.com Cc: Bob & Gaby Rafelson curly@aspennights.com, Joe Wells joewells@me.com, Carrie Wells carrie@carriewells.com, Michael (Mike) Tanguay mtanguay@aspenconstructors.com, Simon Pinniger simon@usagri.com, Linda Sandrich linda205@mac.com, Julia Rowland juliaarowland@gmail.com, Nate (Nathan) Rowland nathanrowland@gmail.com, Alice Davis adavis@rof.net, Glenn Horn ghorn@rof.net, Christopher Shearer Cooper chris@sc3.net, Chris Shearer Cooper chris@sc3.net, Marcella Larsen marcellalarsen@me.com, George Zachar george@greensward.com, Cliff Weiss Cliffweiss49@gmail.com, Tony Battaglia anthonydbattaglia@gmail.com, Michael Lipkin mlipkin@lipkinwarner.com, Ed Zasacky EdZasacky@usa.net, Pete Stouffer hpstouffer@sopris.net, Graeme Means gdmarchitect@gmail.com, Tom Barron tabarron@tabarron.com, Joachim Diedrich jsd@thelbackoffice.com, Sue Diedrich sued @thel backoff ice.com, Tom Kurt, MD tomkurtmd @ comcast. net, Gary Wright gaw@wrightlasalle.com, Ron Morehead rmorehead@aspensnowmass.com, Andy & Lisa Poole Andy@ptaspen.com, Randy Gold randygaspen@gmail.com, Katie Schwoerer kschwoerer@aspennature.org, Karen Ryman kryman@msn.com, Marisa Silverman marisa@silvermanmuseum.com, John Doyle johndoylesculpture@gmail.com, Catherine Anne Provine catherineanne@aspenchapel.org, Chris Lacy clacy@rof.net, Sandra Eskin sandreskin@aol.com, Lois Harlamert-Teegarten hapsmtnmama@aol.com, Alan Hassenflu ahassenflu@frpltd.com, Dennis Vaughn vaughndennis58@gmail.com, D Stone Davis dstoned@comcast.net, Sue Smalley Sue@suesmalley.com, Kevin Wall Kwall@controlroom.com, Trent Palmer trent@wtp-law.com, Steve Busky smbusky@gmail.com, John Duficy dome@sopris.net, Elaine Pagels epagels@princeton.edu, Dawn Shepard dawn@dawnshepard.com, Terri Sharp tlsharp@sopris.net, Jordan Greengrass jhg3787@gmail.com, Dan Bunta victor@sopris.net, Christie Addison likesartsupplies55@gmail.com, Chuck Frias chuck@friasproperties.com, Bruce Gordon bsgordon@earthlink.net, Aspen scotthicks@aspencountryday.net, Hawk & Shelley Greenway hawkgreenway@gmail.com, Mac Coffey maccoffey@comcast.net, Bruce Coffey bcoffey3@earthlink.net, Annie Katz anniekatz@me.com, Jim True Jim.True@cityofaspen.com, Todd & Nikola Freemen freemans5@sbcglobal.net, Joe & Sue Diedrich Jsd@thelbackoffice.com, Dick Butera dickbutera@sopris.net, Michael Katz mdk@katzbarron.com, Gregg Lowe gregglowe@me.com, Sebastian Wanatowicz swmidnightmine@gmail.com, Polly & Murry Bowden pbowden@hanoverco.com, Patti and Mike Morgan pattim@morgangroup.com, John Walla john@jwalla.com, Tripp Adams tripp@truenorthmanagement.net, John Perko johnptruenorth@gmail.com, Marshall Hall marshall@wildernet.com, Alfred LaFave alfred.lafave@gmail.com, Karen & Brian Boyd boyd@btcappartners.com Jason, Thanks for that information. I have some additional questions initially regarding the Castle Creek site 1. Obviously, the site is entirely fill. Have you conducted a soils analysis to determine the suitability of the fill material for both its suitability for conventional construction and to determine whether there is any mine waste in the material which may be toxic and pose risks if disturbed? If not, what firm are you planning on using for such a study and when would the study be undertaken? 2. Have you undertaken a traffic study that considers the impacts on Castle Creek Road, including impacts on emergency egress to and from the hospital? If not, what firm are you planning on using for such a study and when would the study be undertaken? 3. Have you prepared a topographic study of the full site and is that availablele for review? If not, what firm are you planning on using for such a study and when would the study be undertaken? 4. Have you undertaken a tree survey of existing vegetation on the site, as well as any existing vegetation off-site which may be threatened by required improvements? 5. Could I obtain a copy of the report that you provided to the Aspen City Council which you mentioned that you submitted in connection with the February 14 work session? Thanks, Joe Wells On Mar 7, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com> wrote Joe - I have a background in developing affordable housing utilizing the federal affordable housing tax credit program. I responded to an RFP issued by the City of Aspen in December 2016 to develop all three sites. I moved to Aspen with my family last year to pursue this project. My role is as the lead developer and operator of the project. In this capacity, I will lead the three projects through he entitlement process, oversee all design and planning, oversee a TBD general contractor in constructing improvements on each site and operate the projects, which will include oversight of a property management function, for a minimum period of 15 years. In addition, I will arrange both equity and debt financing and provide any and all financing guarantees related to debt and tax credit equity. My company's compensation is comprised of a development fee that is governed by the federal affordable housing tax credit program plus any excess cash flow from the developments. IX.b EMAIL #6 THIS EMAIL STRING WAS INITIATED BY ME IN RESPONSE TO AN EMAIL FROM JOE WELLS THAT WAS FORWARDED TO ME FROM JESSICA GARROW (ASPEN COMMUNITRY DEVELOPMENT) WANTING CLARIFICATION ON THE STORY POLES THAT WERE VOLUNTARILY ERECTED BY THE APPLICANT. NO FURTHER DIALOGUE AFTER MY RESPONSE. P590 IX.b From: Jason Bradshaw jebradshaw@mac.com c Subject: Castle Creek Question Date: May 31, 2017 at 4:10 PM To: joseph wells joewells@me.com Cc: Adam Roy adam@method pd.com, Chris Everson chris.everson@cityofaspen.com Joe - I received an email from Jessica with a question regarding the story poles at the Castle Creek site. The story poles that are currently up represent building heights at various points of the building as currently designed and are reflective of the material presented at the Council work session held on April 4. They were erected to inform us about site context relative to our design efforts leading into land use. I have attached an image of the design that one would see from from a perspective that is roughly equivalent to 10 ft. above Castle Creek Road. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Jason Bradshaw The Aspen Housing Partnership P591 IX.b EMAIL #7 THIS EMAIL WAS INITIATED BY ME AFTER SEEING JOE WELLS AT THE PUBLIC SITE VISIT THAT PRECEDED THE P&Z HEARING ON 10/24/17. IT RESULTED IN A RETURN PHONE CALL FROM JOE. DURING THE PHONE CALL I ASKED JOE TO ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CASTLE CREEK CAUCUS AS HE HAD STATED IN HIS SPEECH TO P&Z THAT HE WAS NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE. HE REITERATED HIS ISSUES (HEIGHT, DENSITY AND PARKING) BUT DEFERRED TAKING A POSITION AS TO WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE UNTIL HE COULD SPEAK WITH DICK BUTERA. HE IS TO CALL ME BACK ONCE HE HAS HAD THIS DISCUSSION. IX.b From: Jason Bradshaw jebradshaw@mac.com Subject: 488 Castle Creek Date: October 25, 2017 at 12:54 PM To: joseph wells joewells@me.com Joe - Thanks for attending the site visit yesterday and the P&Z meeting last night. Would you mind giving me a call at your convenience at the number below? Thanks Jason Bradshaw Aspen Housing Partnership 970-319-9298 P592 P593 IX.b Joseph Wells P O Box 4259 Aspen, CO 81612 joewells@me.com 31 March 2017 Steve Skadron, Mayor (Steve.Skadron@cityofaspen.com) Adam Frisch, City Council (Adam.Frisch@cityofaspen.com) Art Daily, City Council (art. daily@cityofaspen. com) Ann Mullins, City Council (ann.mullins@cityofaspen.com) Bert Myrin, City Council (bert.myrin@cityofaspen.com) Dear Mayor and City Council: I am writing to pass along my observations regarding the proposal to build affordable housing at 488 Castle Creek Road. Several fellow members of the Castle Creek Caucus have kindly assisted me with their input for this report. I attended both of the recent open houses conducted by the Aspen Housing Partnership, the development group that the City has retained to present concepts for additional rental housing on three City -owned sites. I was disappointed to see that the proposed concept for 488 Castle Creek Road was not more creative. At the first open house, the concept that was presented for the 0.82 acre site at 488 Castle Creek Road was for 24 multi -family units with a total of 19,795 sq. ft. of floor area and thirty surface parking spots adjacent to the structure. At the second open house, the proposal had increased to 32 units with 29,000 sq. ft of floor area. This represents a range of density for the site of 29 to 39 units per acre, a considerably higher density than that of other existing affordable housing projects in the vicinity, as discussed in more detail in Section V of the attached report, below. I attempted on several occasions to comment online on the proposal for 488 Castle Creek Road, but each time the website created to present the concepts caused my computer to freeze, so I eventually abandoned the thought of submitting a comment through that website. I hope that you will consider an alternative to building a large number of residential units in this difficult location in close proximity to Castle Creek Road. The alternative that I would like to suggest would involve the Marolt Ranch property, adjacent to the 488 Castle Creek Road parcel. In addition to the 25.13 acres of the Marolt Ranch parcel which the City purchased in 1983 (with open space funds, as I recall), Opal Marolt also donated an additional 10.1 acres of land by separate deed, as discussed in Section III, below. The separate deeds transferring the two parcels include legal descriptions of each of the two parcels. These two parcels were apparently illustrated on a proposed Plat Amendment, referred to as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance 28, Series of 1983, but I do not find a recorded version of the Plat Amendment, nor have I been able to locate a drawing which indicates where the IX.b 31 March 2017 Mayor and City Council Page two of two 10.1 acre parcel is located within the Marolt Ranch property. I did not find anything that suggests that the use of the parcel was restricted. The 10.1 acre parcel may, in fact, include the site of the existing rental housing. I am suggesting that the City merge the 0.82 acre parcel at 488 Castle Creek Road into the adjacent Marolt Ranch property, and that an alternative site be identified within the 10.1 acre parcel which was donated by Opal Marolt which would be a more appropriate site for the development of additional rental housing, utilizing the existing access, which is in a far more suitable location than the existing access to the triangular parcel. If you are unwilling to pursue a more suitable alternative site within the Marolt Ranch property for housing, I hope that you will at least consider requiring that the existing fill material underneath the proposed building footprint(s) on the 488 Castle Creek Road site be excavated, so that the buildings can be built on a bench approximating the original grade of property, rather than locating the buildings on top of the fill material, which is some twenty feet higher in elevation than natural grade along the north and east sides of the triangular parcel. This would mitigate the appearance of a multi -family structure when viewed from Castle Creek Road and would have the added benefit for renters of sheltering some of the units from the traffic noise of passing cars, trucks and buses. While there would obviously be a cost for removing the fill material, there may be a significant reduction in the cost of the structural system for the building that offsets the cost of removing the fill. The definition for building height under the City Land -Use Code still requires that the height of a proposed building be measured vertically from natural or finished grade (whichever is lower) at any point around the perimeter of the building to the highest point or structure. This requirement should not be ignored when considering an appropriate height for a structure on this parcel. The attached report includes more detailed information about various matters that relate to the proposal. Thank you for your consideration of this information. Sincerely, Joe Wells Cc: Mike Kosdrosky, Housing Director(mike.kosdrosky@cityofaspen.com) Jim True, City Attorney (Tim.True@cityofaspen.com) Jessica Garrow, City Planning Director(jessica.garrow@cityofaspen.com) George Newman, Chairman BOCC (george.newman@pitkincounty com) Patti Clapper, BOCC(patti.clapper@pitkincounty.com) Rachel Richards, BOCC (rachel.richards@pitkincounty com) Greg Poschman, BOCC (greg.poschman@pitkincounty com) Steve Child, BOCC (steve.child@pitkincounty com) P594 P595 IX.b Background Regarding the Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and Neighboring Properties I. The Proposed Housing Site at 488 Castle Creek Road: The parcel at 488 Castle Creek Road is a triangular-shaped parcel of 35,895 sq. ft. (0.82 Ac.). The site is currently zoned R -15A. The site is made up almost entirely of fill material which has been imported to the site. Almost one-third (32 percent) of the site (11,555 sq. ft.) along the north and east sides of the parcel presently includes slopes in excess of 30 percent as a result of the past filling activities. The fill material is twenty feet deep in some portions of the site. The portion of the site with slopes less than 30 percent amounts to only 24,340 sq. ft. (0.56 Ac.) of the triangular site. The site is the most remote of the three sites currently under consideration for housing. It is the only one of the three located outside of the Highway 82 roundabout, a part of the local road network that currently experiences very low levels of service throughout the day during both the summer and winter months. The Marolt Ranch property wraps around the north and east sides of the site. The south boundary of the Marolt Ranch, which was annexed into the City in 1979, forms the City Limits in this area, and is also the boundary of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Therefore, the southern tip of the 488 Castle Creek Road parcel is only approximately 75 feet inside the boundary of the UGB. To the south of the City Limits lies the Rural area of Pitkin County. A large majority of the land along the Castle Creek valley floor outside of the UGB is zoned AR -10, with an allowable density of one single-family residence per ten acres of land, although actual densities in much of the area is considerably less than that, due to other County land -use regulations that have affected approved density. The entry to the site is on an S-shaped curve on Castle Creek Road which first bears to the left before the entrance and then back to the right after the entrance in both directions. Sight lines are restricted, with visibility to the existing entrance of approximately 275 feet for those approaching from the north (downvalley) side and approximately 350 feet for those approaching from the south (upvalley) side The site is in close proximity to Castle Creek Road. The long side of the triangular property is within ten feet of the edge of pavement at times along the east side of the road. Traffic is very heavy to the Music School campus during the morning arrivals and afternoon departures during the fall, winter and spring, when the campus is used by Aspen Country Day School, and moderate throughout the day during the summer, when the music school students and faculty are in residence. There is no escaping the traffic noise from Castle Creek Road on this site, as the farthest point away from the edge of the Castle Creek pavement (the farthest corner of the triangular site) is only 190 feet to the east. It is not an ideal situation for prospective tenants. There is a narrow band of evergreens, aspen and mature gambel oak, serviceberry and choke cherry currently which presently screens the parcel along the east side of Castle Creek Road. A single row of mature cottonwoods lines the west side. Some portion, IX.b Background Regarding the Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and Neighboring Properties Page two of six or perhaps all, of this existing vegetation would be lost if a traffic analysis for the proposal concludes that additional lanes of traffic, such as a merge lane for traffic entering Castle Creek Road, or a left -turn lane for traffic entering the site to avoid blocking up -valley traffic, are required. These traffic alternatives were suggested as possibilities by a traffic consultant at the second open house. Some of you will recall that the site at 488 Castle Creek Road was previously a single- family residence occupied by Celia Marolt for many years. By 2006, the property had been acquired by Steel Partners Ltd. Steel Partners Ltd submitted an application to the City for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval and for Subdivision Exemption for a lot split. The City Council granted approval to the PUD and Lot Split under Ordinance No 5, Series of 2006. Lot 1 is 11,225 sq ft and Lot 2 is 24,600 sq ft. The following limitations were established for the development of the two lots: Both Lots: A maximum height of 25 feet. Minimum parking was the lesser of one space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit. Lot 1: Maximum building square footage of 3,344 sq. ft. Lot 2: Maximum building square footage of 5,015 sq. ft., of which 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area must be developed as a Category 7 deed -restricted unit. This maximum buildout for the 488 Castle Creek Road property of a total of 8,359 sq. ft. established by the City under Ordinance 5 / 2006 is a clear indication by the City regarding the maximum buildout which is appropriate on the property. On October 6, 2006, a Warranty Deed was recorded transferring ownership from Steel Partners LTD to WF Castle Creek LLC. The property was purchased by WF Castle Creek LLC for $3,400,000. I don't recall the circumstances regarding WF's brief ownership of the property ---for instance, they may have been seeking to modify the prior approvals granted to Steel. In any case, on June 29, 2007, only nine months after WF Castle Creek acquired the property for $3.4 millions, a Warranty Deed was recorded transferring ownership of the two lots from WF to the City of Aspen. The property was purchased by the City for $5,400,000. Because the site is entirely on fill, the developer needs to conduct extensive soils tests of the property early on in the review process to determine whether conventional construction techniques can be employed on the site, or whether it will be necessary to extend the structure down through the fill, into the original undisturbed slope underneath the fill. The fill also needs to be investigated to determine whether there is P596 P597 IX.b Background Regarding the Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and Neighboring Properties Page three of six any mine waste in the material which may be toxic and therefore pose risks to the population if disturbed. The presence of extensive fill on the site raises an interesting dilemma for the City. While the AH zone district, which the City would unquestionably have to utilize to accommodate the scope of the project conceptually presented to the Community, allows for the establishment of virtually all dimensional requirements by PUD, is the City really going to take the position that a multi-level structure sited on top of the existing fill, and which would therefore measure forty to fifty feet in height to the natural grade underneath the fill, when calculated as required by current Code language, appropriate on this site at the very boundary of the UGB? That would seem to be a difficult position for the City to take. II. The Aspen Area Community Plan: The concepts presented for the parcel at 488 Castle Creek Road are not in compliance with the following provisions of the adopted Aspen Area Community Plan: Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability" (Page 19 of the AACP) The Urban Growth Boundary: "We continue to support an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) where density is concentrated in the commercial core and gradually tapers to the boundary (in other words, the Urban Growth Boundary, not the County boundary) and rural area of the County. The UGB was first adopted in the 2000 AACP, and provides an important tool against sprawl. Additional density within the commercial core should result in preservation of rural lands and must not erode our small town character. (See also the West of Castle Creek Corridor chapter). " The Policies for the "Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability" Section of the AACP include the following: II. The Urban Growth Boundary: "71.2 Urban densities should be located within the commercial core of Aspen, and appropriate increases in density should only only occur if they result in the preservation of land in the proximity of the UGB through TDRs or other land use tools." III. Residential Sector: "III.1 Protect the visual quality and character of neighborhoods by minimizing site coverage, mass and scale." IX.b Background Regarding the Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and Neighboring Properties Page four of six "III.2 Control and limit the mass and scale of homes..." "III.3 Ensure City and County codes are consistent in the vicinity of City/County boundaries to prevent shifts in the character of neighborhoods, and encourage smoother cross -boundary transitions regarding house size and density." The "Implementation Steps" for "Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability" include the following language under Section III, the "Residential Sector" (Appendix -7): "III. 3.a Amend City and County Land Use Codes to implement the policy, including a smoother transition in house sizes from the city to the county." "II.3.b Establish an Inter -Governmental Agreement regarding an annexation policy in the area within the UGB." "III.3.c Explore mechanisms for a joint review by the City and County Planning & Zoning Commissions of development in the UGB." "III.3.d Amend City and County Land Use Codes to make variance criteria more stringent in order to limit the impact of those variances on neighborhoods." III. The Marolt Ranch Property: Under Ordinance 79, Series of 1979, the City annexed the 35.278 acre parcel known as the Opal Marolt Property and zoned the property R-15 A PUD / SPA, with a stipulation that at least 70 percent of the proposed development of the land consist of deed - restricted employee housing units. As Sunny Vann of the City Planning Office explained in a memo dated July 18, 1980, R -15A was recommended for the property "in view of the surrounding zoning patterns". After considering the mandatory PUD density reduction criteria of the Land Use Code at the time, Mr. Vann concluded that a net developable land area for the property was in the range of 20 to 25 acres and, as a result, a density in the range of 90 to 110 dwelling units on the Marolt property "was generally appropriate for the property". In September, 1981, a Final Plat was recorded in Plat Book 12, Pages 1-10 which documented the subdivision of the Marolt Ranch property into 6 lots, 5 open space parcels, a right-of-way for the extension of Main Street and a right-of-way continuation for Holden Road, across the adjacent Thomas Property. A seventy/ thirty residential development was anticipated on the property, with at least 70 percent of the residential units developed on the property being deed -restricted employee housing. A PUD and Subdivision Agreement for the Marolt Ranch was also recorded on September 14, 1981 (Book 413, Pages 980 through 999, and Book 414, pages 01 through 18). P599 IX.b Background Regarding the Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and Neighboring Properties Page five of six Later that year, Amendment No. 1 to the Plat that had been recorded in 1981 (Plat Book 12, Pages 1-10) was recorded in Plat Book 27, Pages 35-36. The amendment created a 15 foot wide easement for a non -motorized trail and buried utilities as constructed and created Lot 1, a 1.84 acre parcel for use by the Aspen Historical Society. By letter dated May 4, 1983, Robert Joyce, attorney for the Marolt family, requested City consideration of a Subdivision Exception application for the Marolt Ranch Property. Under the request, the Marolts offered to donate a parcel of approximately 10.1 acres and to sell, for the purpose of open space, the remaining land within the Marolt Ranch, consisting of approximately 25.5 acres to the City. The purchase price for the 25.5 acres was established as $2,100,000. Under Ordinance 28, Series of 1983, dated 25 July, 1983, the City approved an Amendment to the 1981 Plat discussed above which was contingent upon the City's purchase of the property. The Amended Plat was referred to as Exhibit "A" in the body of Ordinance 28 / 1983, but there is no reduced copy of the amendment attached to the ordinance, and there is no indication that the Plat Amendment was recorded in the County Clerk's records. The donated parcel was identified as Parcel III. Zoning of the Marolt Ranch property remained R -15A PUD / SPA, as it still zoned today. On July 18, 1983, two deeds transferring the Marolt Ranch property from Opal Marolt to the City of Aspen were recorded. The first, recorded in Book 449, Pages 577-579 transferred Parcel I, the 25.13 acre parcel purchased by the City for $2.1 million. The second, recorded in Book 449, Pages 580-581, transferred Parcel II, the 10.1 acre parcel donated to the City by Opal Marolt. It is believed that Parcel I was acquired with open space funds, but because Parcel II was donated, no open space funds were necessary to acquire that parcel. In 1994, Amendment No. 2 to the Plat that had been recorded in 1981 (Plat Book 12, Pages 1-10) was recorded in Plat Book 33, Pages 51-55. The amendment created a Lot 3, a 4.30 acre parcel for use for employee housing and established an easement for the access and parking, to the north of Lot 3. The remainder of the Marolt Ranch property was designated as Lot 2 on that amendment. IV. The Thomas Property: The Thomas Property is an hourglass -shaped property, with an inverted triangular shape to the north located mostly to the east of Castle Creek Road which is contiguous with the Marolt Ranch property. There is a separate block of land to the south lying to the west of Castle Creek Road. The City acquired 35.117 acres of the Thomas Property in 1972, as indicated on the Deed of Sale dated 12 December, 1972. Under Ordinances 58 and 59, Series of 1982, a portion of the Thomas Property (believed to be all or a portion of the property located on the east side of Castle Creek Road) was annexed into the City and was zoned Conservation. The parcel to the west of Castle Creek Road includes the City water treatment plant and an affordable housing project, among other improvements. IX.b Background Regarding the Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and Neighboring Properties Page six of six A Subdivision Exception Plat for the Thomas Property was recorded on 10 March, 1983 in Book 14, Pages 41 through 44 which shows three parcels on the triangular parcel east of Castle Creek Road (Lot 2, Lot 2A and Lot 2B), as well as a road right-of-way of approximately 100 feet in width for Holden Road, extending from a location at Highway 82 across from Cemetery Lane south some 1,200 feet to the western boundary of the Marolt Ranch Property. The significance of this road right-of-way through the Thomas Property is that both existing and proposed traffic from the affordable housing projects could be re-routed to the Cemetery Lane traffic signal utilizing this existing right-of-way, if the City should conclude that it would be advantageous to do so, to alleviate some of the traffic through the roundabout as well as traffic on Castle Creek Road, which includes emergency access to the hospital. V. The Density of Other Projects in the Immediate Vicinity: A. It is my understanding that the Marolt Housing project includes approximately 100 dormitory -style rooms which do not include full kitchens and baths. There is a communal dining hall for the project. As such, the "density" of the project is not a straightforward discussion. The project and one existing single family residence are currently the only residential units on the 35 -acre Marolt Ranch property. B. The Castle Ridge Apartment site, located between Doolittle Drive and Castle Creek Road, is a parcel of 8.31 acres, and includes a total of 80 multi -family residential units. The density of this rental project is therefore 9.6 dwelling units per acre. C. The Twin Ridge project, to the west of and further up Doolittle Drive, is a parcel of 6.53 acres, and includes a total of 25 residential units (13 single family units and 12 townhouse units). The density of this existing affordable housing project is therefore 3.83 dwelling units per acre. D. Water Place, the affordable housing project still further up Doolittle Drive near the City Water Plant, is a parcel of 3.83 acres, and includes a total of 22 residential units. The density of this project is therefore 5.74 dwelling units per acre. P601 IX.b IX.b Joseph Wells P O Box 4259 Aspen, CO 81612 joewells@me.com 18 October 2017 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c / o Hillary Seminick, Planner, Aspen Community Development Department Delivered by E -Mail to hillary.seminick@cityofaspen.com Dear City Planning and Zoning Commission Members: I am writing as a resident of the Castle Creek valley and a member of the Castle Creek Caucus to object to the overall height, the density and the parking solution proposed for the affordable housing project at 488 Castle Creek Road and to call to the Commission's attention the proposal's non-compliance with important provisions of the currently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan. The attached report includes more detailed information about various matters that relate to the proposal. Thank you for your consideration of this information. Sincerely, Joe Wells Cc: Mike Kosdrosky, Housing Director(mike.kosdrosky@cityofaspen.com) Jim True, City Attorney (Tim.True@cityofaspen.com) Jessica Garrow, City Planning Director(jessica.garrow@cityofaspen.com) George Newman, Chairman BOCC (george.newman@pitkincounty com) Patti Clapper, BOCC(patti.clapper@pitkincounty.com) Rachel Richards, BOCC (rachel.richards@pitkincounty com) Greg Poschman, BOCC (greg.poschman@pitkincounty com) Steve Child, BOCC (steve.child@pitkincounty com) P602 P603 IX.b The Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and its Relationship to Neighboring Properties I. The Proposed Housing Site at 488 Castle Creek Road: The parcel at 488 Castle Creek Road is a triangular-shaped parcel of 35,895 sq. ft. (0.82 Ac.). The site is currently zoned R -15A. A significant portion of the site includes areas with slopes in excess of 20 percent, resulting in a net lot area of only 24,050 sq. ft. (0.552 Ac.). The site is the most remote of the three sites currently under consideration for new rental housing. It is the only one of the three located outside of the Highway 82 roundabout, a part of the local road network that currently experiences very low levels of service throughout the day during both the summer and winter months. The Marolt Ranch property wraps around the north and east sides of the site. The south boundary of the Marolt Ranch, which was annexed into the City in 1979, forms the City Limits in this area, and is also the boundary of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Therefore, the southern tip of the 488 Castle Creek Road parcel is only approximately 75 feet inside the boundary of the UGB. To the south of the City Limits lies the Rural area of Pitkin County. A large majority of the land along the Castle Creek valley floor outside of the UGB is zoned AR -10, with an allowable density of one single-family residence per ten acres of land, although actual densities in much of the area is considerably less than that, due to other County land -use regulations that have affected approved density. The entry to the site is on an S-shaped curve on Castle Creek Road which first bears to the left before the entrance and then back to the right after the entrance in both directions. Sight lines are restricted, with visibility to the existing entrance of approximately 275 feet for those approaching from the north (downvalley) side and approximately 350 feet for those approaching from the south (upvalley) side. The site is in close proximity to Castle Creek Road. The long side of the triangular property is within ten feet of the edge of pavement at times along the east side of the road. Traffic is very heavy to the Music School campus during the morning arrivals and afternoon departures during the fall, winter and spring, when the campus is used by Aspen Country Day School, and moderate throughout the day during the summer, when the music school students and faculty are in residence. There is no escaping the traffic noise from Castle Creek Road on this site, as the farthest point away from the edge of the Castle Creek pavement (the farthest corner of the triangular site) is only 190 feet to the east. There is a narrow band of evergreens, aspen and mature gambel oak, serviceberry and choke cherry within the Castle Creek Road right-of-way which presently screens the parcel along the east side of Castle Creek Road. Some portion, or perhaps all, of this existing vegetation will be lost if the Applicant is permitted to build the parking area and construct a retaining wall on the property line, as currently proposed. IX.b The Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and its Relationship to Neighboring Properties Page two of six Some of you will recall that the site at 488 Castle Creek Road was previously a single- family residence occupied by Celia Marolt for many years. By 2006, the property had been acquired by Steel Partners Ltd. Steel Partners Ltd submitted an application to the City for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval and for Subdivision Exemption for a lot split. The City Council granted approval to the PUD and Lot Split under Ordinance No 5, Series of 2006. Lot 1 is 11,225 sq ft and Lot 2 is 24,600 sq ft. The following limitations were established for the development of the two lots: Both Lots: A maximum height of 25 feet. Minimum parking was the lesser of one space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit. Lot 1: Maximum building square footage of 3,344 sq. ft. Lot 2: Maximum building square footage of 5,015 sq. ft., of which 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area must be developed as a Category 7 deed -restricted unit. This maximum build -out approved for the 488 Castle Creek Road property of a total of 8,359 sq. ft. established by the City under Ordinance 5 / 2006 is a clear indication by the City regarding the maximum build -out which is appropriate on the property. On October 6, 2006, a Warranty Deed was recorded transferring ownership from Steel Partners LTD to WF Castle Creek LLC. The property was purchased by WF Castle Creek LLC for $3,400,000. I don't recall the circumstances regarding WF's brief ownership of the property ---for instance, they may have been seeking to modify the prior approvals granted to Steel. In any case, on June 29, 2007, only nine months after WF Castle Creek acquired the property for $3.4 millions, a Warranty Deed was recorded transferring ownership of the two lots from WF to the City of Aspen. The property was purchased by the City for $5,400,000. II. The Aspen Area Community Plan: Sec. 26.445, Planned Development of the City Land -Use Code includes Project Review Standards for Planned Development proposals (Sec. 26.445.050). Sec. 26.445.050.A requires that Planned Development proposals demonstrate compliance with the City's adopted regulatory plans. The Applicant states that the proposed development, as an affordable housing development, "satisfies perhaps the most critical goal in the AACP....". The site is, however, at the boundary of both the Urban Growth Boundary and the boundary of the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen. The extremely dense development currently proposed for the parcel at 488 Castle Creek Road is not in .m P605 IX.b The Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and its Relationship to Neighboring Properties Page three of six compliance with other, equally important, provisions of the adopted Aspen Area Community Plan. These criteria should not be ignored when considering the level of development appropriate for the site: "Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability" (Page 19 of the AACP) The Urban Growth Boundary: "We continue to support an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) where density is concentrated in the commercial core and gradually tapers to the boundary (in other words, the Urban Growth Boundary, not the County boundary) and rural area of the County. The UGB was first adopted in the 2000 AACP, and provides an important tool against sprawl. Additional density within the commercial core should result in preservation of rural lands and must not erode our small town character. (See also the West of Castle Creek Corridor chapter). " The Policies for the "Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability" Section of the AACP include the following: II. The Urban Growth Boundary: "II.2 Urban densities should be located within the commercial core of Aspen, and appropriate increases in density should only only occur if they result in the preservation of land in the proximity of the UGB through TDRs or other land use tools." III. Residential Sector: "III.1 Protect the visual quality and character of neighborhoods by minimizing site coverage, mass and scale." "III.2 Control and limit the mass and scale of homes..." "III.3 Ensure City and County codes are consistent in the vicinity of City/County boundaries to prevent shifts in the character of neighborhoods, and encourage smoother cross -boundary transitions regarding house size and density." The "Implementation Steps" for "Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability" include the following language under Section III, the "Residential Sector" (Appendix -7): "III. 3.a Amend City and County Land Use Codes to implement the policy, including a smoother transition in house sizes from the city to the county." Mb The Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and its Relationship to Neighboring Properties Page four of six "II.3.b Establish an Inter -Governmental Agreement regarding an annexation policy in the area within the UGB." "III.3.c Explore mechanisms for a joint review by the City and County Planning & Zoning Commissions of development in the UGB." "III.3.d Amend City and County Land Use Codes to make variance criteria more stringent in order to limit the impact of those variances on neighborhoods." III. The Density and Building Heights of Other Projects in the Immediate Vicinity: While it is correct to state that the proposal is in an area with several other multi -family affordable housing projects, it is not accurate to say that the proposal for 488 Castle Creek Road is similar in terms of its density or overall height to these nearby projects. The definition for building height under the City Land -Use Code requires that the height of a proposed building be measured vertically from natural or finished grade (whichever is lower) at any point around the perimeter of the building to the highest point or structure. This requirement should not be ignored when considering an appropriate height for a structure on this parcel. The proposal for 488 Castle Creek Road is a four -level L-shaped structure measuring 42 feet 3 inches at its tallest point at the northeast corner, according to the Applicant's representation in the application. The fourth level of the proposal for the building includes four one -bedroom units. Although the drawings suggest that the fourth floor units are set back significantly from the level below, the extent to which these units are set back is actually very minimal. As one approaches the building from the north, the building will read as a four level building where these one -bedroom units are proposed to be located. These four units should be removed from the proposal to reduce the building mass to more closely approximate other projects in the vicinity. A building of over 42 feet in height, when measured as required by current Code language, is not appropriate on this site at the very boundary of the UGB, and violates the clearly stated intent of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Applicant is proposing 28 residential units on a parcel with a gross lot area of 35,895 sq. ft. (0.824 Ac.) and a net lot area, after slope reduction calculations, of 24,050 sq. ft. (0.552 Ac.). This represents a rather astounding density of almost 51 dwelling units per acre on the site. For comparison purposes, since information about the effect of slope reduction on the acreage of other affordable housing projects in the vicinity is unavailable, if we use the gross acreage figure for the 488 Castle Creek Road site of 0.824 acres, even though that is not how the calculation is to be performed under the Code requirements, the density is still 34 dwelling units per acre, far in excess of the density of other affordable housing projects in the area where I have been able to determine site acreage for those sites. 'm P607 Mb The Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and its Relationship to Neighboring Properties Page five of six The two affordable housing projects closest to 488 Castle Creek Road are the Marolt Ranch Housing project and the Castle Ridge Apartments. A. It is my understanding that the Marolt Housing project includes approximately 100 small dormitory -style rooms in two-level structures which do not include full kitchens and baths. There is a communal dining hall for the project. Because the residential units are dormitory units, the density of this project is not a straight -forward discussion. It would not be reasonable, for instance, to say that the density for this project is 100 units divided by the acreage of the site. The project and one existing single-family residence are currently the only residential units on the 35 -acre Marolt Ranch property. B. The Castle Ridge Apartment site, located between Doolittle Drive and Castle Creek Road, is a parcel of 8.31 gross acres, and includes a total of 80 multi -family residential units, all of which are in two-level structures. The density of this rental project, prior to slope reduction, is therefore 9.6 dwelling units per acre. Other nearby affordable housing projects include the Twin Ridge project and Water Place: C. The Twin Ridge project, to the west of and further up Doolittle Drive, is a parcel of 6.53 gross acres, and includes a total of 25 residential units (13 single family units and 12 townhouse units). A large majority of the structures are one- and two-level structures. There are one or two structures internal to the project which are not visible from off-site which include three levels. The density of this existing affordable housing project, prior to slope reduction, is 3.83 dwelling units per acre. D. Water Place, the affordable housing project still further up Doolittle Drive near the City Water Plant, is a parcel of 3.83 acres, and includes a total of 22 residential units. The units are a mix of one- and two-level buildings. The density of this project, prior to slope reduction, is therefore 5.74 dwelling units per acre. It is clear, from this analysis of other affordable housing projects in the vicinity, that the 488 Castle Creek Road proposal is considerably taller and includes far greater density than these existing projects. IV. On -Site Parking: The Applicant proposes to provide 29 parking spaces, but in order to accommodate that amount of parking in the space remaining on the west side of the L-shaped building, 10 parallel parking spaces are proposed to be located along the western property line. A retaining wall is proposed along the length of that property line adjacent to the public right-of-way. It is, of course, impossible to build a retaining wall without first excavating beyond the outer edge of the wall (to build the footing, for instance), so at Mb The Site at 488 Castle Creek Road and its Relationship to Neighboring Properties Page six of six least some of the existing vegetation within the public right -of way which presently screens the site would have to be removed in order to build the proposed wall. The proposed parking area extends to within 100 feet of the southern (upvalley) end of the property. At the southern end, the elevation of the planned parking area appears to be approximately 8011 feet. The adjacent natural grade at the property line is 8017 feet, so the proposed retaining wall will be approximately six feet high along the property line. It will be necessary to excavate an additional 4 feet or so, down to elevation 8007, in order to pour the footing for what will be a 10 -foot high wall above the footing. There are no other residential projects, or projects of any sort for that matter, in the vicinity of the site where the developer has been permitted to build to the property line, without any sort of landscaped buffer within the setback area of the property. This is particularly problematic for a project fronting on a major road noted for its scenic attraction. As a rental affordable housing project, presumably with on-site management, within close proximity of available frequent public transit service and immediate access to the trail system, it should be possible to take an alternative approach to parking and limit, if not totally eliminate, parking for residents, providing only a limited number of parking spots for loading and unloading and for guests of the residents. As an example, perhaps residents are encouraged to not keep a car on-site through a policy of lower rents. For those insisting on keeping a car on-site, the rent charged would be greater. Surely, there is a creative alternative that will result in adequate parking for this project that will not require building to the limits of the site and beyond. 'm IX.b From: Ellen Sassano To: Hillary Seminick; Cindy Houben; Castle Creek Caucus - Joe Wells; Jessica Garrow Subject: Pitkin County Comments Regarding Proposed Housing at 488 Castle Creek Rd. Date: Friday, November 10, 2017 11:19:59 AM Hillary, At a worksession on November 8, 2017, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners directed County Staff to forward the following comments for consideration by City Council in their review of the 488 Castle Creek Road Project: 1. Height The County supports affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary. However, at four stories and 45+ feet, the height of the proposed structure is out of character with the rural neighborhoods in close proximity to the development site, and results in visual impacts, particularly from the Marolt side of the project, that are not appropriate. We recommend that the most restrictive height measurement be enforced to limit the visual impact to the greatest extent possible; that height be reduced to coincide with the most appropriate comparable multi -family zone district in the City; and/or that the four units on the fourth floor be eliminated, or relocated to reduce height and visual impact. 2. Parking We concur with the City P&Z and Planning Staff that at 29 parking spaces, the project is "under -parked." Unfortunately, the City P&Z recommendation for consideration of shared parking at the County Health and Human Services Building as a solution, cannot be accommodated. That parking lot is at, or over -capacity, and will be losing spaces due to the pending construction of the new Ambulance Barn. It is recommended that all parking be accommodated on-site. A reduction in the unit count may be necessary to achieve that outcome. In the longer term, the City may wish to explore expenditure of funds to locate and build an "off-site" parking/storage solution for residents who don't use their vehicles on a daily basis. 3. Access Given the location of the property access on a curve in Castle Creek Road, and concern about sight lines expressed by the public, the BOCC requests that consideration be given to providing access to the site via the Marolt affordable housing site. 4. Traffic Analysis Recognizing that the portion of Castle Creek Road from which access is gained, is not owned by the County or within the County's jurisdiction, we nonetheless recommend that the traffic analysis completed for the project be expanded to consider impacts to the intersection of Castle Creek Road and the Highway 82/Roundabout intersection, particularly at peak hours. The intent is to avoid any further reduction in the level of service at that key intersection and within the Roundabout. Thank you for bringing our comments forward for City Council consideration. P610 IX.b Ellen Ellen Sassano Senior Long Range Planner Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado, 81612 970-920-5098 ellen.sassono@pitkincountv.com P611 IX.b AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY- * ROPERTY: Z *6-6 �'�S� �2 C r� � k- ,' SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 27 (6) 5,'oy 4Qnn 92017 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) Aspen, CO 1,(name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to th6'City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) ofthe seen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section.of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from. the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted . prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) IX.b 28 affa nd Use Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PVDs that create more than one. lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and, new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signa e The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled ed before me this 10 day of &k V , 20 l-7 , by NOTICE theAt oil' . PUB HEAPING ss[ie,teek Rd. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL W.& My commission expires: eek Rd it Book V of As. metge: l.ordabte levet- Notary Pub is act Ram �° �ip�q�' )etallecrKAREN ���6 PA 1 t ��ISO V Makin.. spona, OTARY F'�.)BLIC, ndards TE OF COLORADO AVRCI- mass: FdY ID #9:002767 er ma-:: ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE;on Ex ims Fabruo 15, 2020 �' 2ze' THEPUBLICATION e,� JRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN} ci y'of THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED °R N°Vember 9 INT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE �UIRED BY C.R.S §24-65.5103.3 P612 P613 IX.b AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 488 Castle Creek Road , Aspen, CO�, fD SCHEDULED PUBLIC HE, DATE: tEC �i November 27th , 20 17 NOV 14 2017 STATE OF COLORADO ) CITY OF ASPEN ) ss. COWMn Di&C N' County of Pitkin ) 1, Adam R(name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: X Publication of notice; By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X Posting of notice; By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height, Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the 8tday of November , 20jZ to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach sunniat); including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Neighborhood Outreach Summary was provided as Exhibit in the land Use Application IX.b Mineral Estate Drvner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. _X Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the plannin agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public arang on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this9i��day of _lele rY.�a , 20 by BARBARA J. D'AUTRECHY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public State of Colorado r� commission expires: LoNotary ID # 20074042687 My my Commission Expires 06-11-2021 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BYC.R.S §24-65.5-103.3 P614 P615 aspen housing partnership artnershi IX.b �park I main ( castle creek a rartriershir with the Cit y of r9stmm for a6fordahee housin Affordable Housing Project: 488 Castle Creek Road Posting of City Council Hearing Notice on November 8, 2017 P616 IX.b 10 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p: (970) 920.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 w: www.aspenpitkin.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 488 Castle Creek Rd. Public Hearing: November 27, 2017 5:00 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Council Chambers 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 488 Castle Creek Rd. PID #273512309033 & 273512309034, Lots 1 & 2, 488 Castle Creek Rd PUD & Lot Split, September 27, 2006 in Plat Book 81 at Page 48 as Reception No. 529046, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Description: The applicant is proposing to merge the two lots and rezone the property to Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD), and develop twenty-eight affordable housing units. Land Use Reviews Requested: Major Public Project Review, Rezoning, Consolidated Project and Detailed Planned Development Review, Major Subdivision, Growth Management, 8040 Greenline, Transportation & Parking, and Residential Design Standards Review Decision Malting Body: City Council. City Council's Project Review addresses land uses, mass, scale, height, floor area, site planning and other major aspects of the proposal. City Council's action is by ordinance and is binding. Applicant: Aspen Housing Partners, LLC 228 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, CO 81611 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Hillary Seminick at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2741, Hillary.Seminich@cityofaspen.com. aspen housing partnership ,.-O a rart,ersh;r,park I main I castle creek ,,ifh the cEy oJtq pe m for afordab& housr,y Affordable Housing Project: 488 Castle Creek Road City Council: November 27th I A I s Schematic perspective from Castle Creek Road 488 Castle Creek Road is a proposed 28 unit affordable housing project being developed by Aspen Housing Partners, LLC in partnership with the City of Aspen. The proposed project will be heard before the Aspen City Council on November 27t', 2017 at 5:0o pm in City Council Chambers in City Hall at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO. 8-16-1-1. For additional project information, please visit the partnership website at: www.aspenhousingparnership.com For more information orto submit a comment and request additional information, please email or call the following: E: info(a)aspenhousingpartnership.com P: 97o -6i8-5379 P617 .b IX.b Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273512309033 on 11/02/2017 �t1'KIN COU1vT� Instructions: 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. Disclaimer: 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. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com WACHS EDWARD H JR 801 ASBURY DR BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089 MS 4610 LLC ONE LANDMARK SQUARE 22ND FL STAMFORD, CT 06901 CASTLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES LTD PO BOX 95 ST ANN, MO 63074 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 P619 IX.b IX.b Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273512309034 on 11/02/2017 �tTKIN Cou1vTI� Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 6160 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. Disclaimer: 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. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore,com P620 P621 IX.b WACHS EDWARD H JR 801 ASBURY DR BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089 MTN OAKS EMPLOYEE HSING 200 CASTLE CREEK RD CASTLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES LTD PO BOX 95 ST ANN, MO 63074 MS 4610 LLC ONE LANDMARK SQUARE 22ND FL CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 0401 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 STAMFORD, CT 06901 ASPEN, CO 81611 IX.b iw n Op C Y R R V m o c a r a �' m p' Z• m u m w E s Z 'o 'Y3 r i = v a rn m m u s m° m to d v v'1313 N Rol Y LLI 0 u+=m • ti �u 4 T ?�t� _�.�• 4 rnL L % CL �O z co 'v 0 0Na' U f) CN N ti' ,� O ai api O L V" •� N C E 2 Cf wcc 03 E N LL cl) CL cA z o C ¢ p C ti o LLj co � p �• bL P v �, `� . ,��- -. Vii; ►r rL vAC -' til � �.y x•11 r d 1 N a -4 a i P622 P623 IX.b WAAS CAMPBELL. RIVERA JOHNSON &.VEL.ASQUEZ9 August 8, 2017 Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street, Third FIoor Aspen, CO 81611 J. Bart Johnson 970.544.4602 johnson@wcrlegal.com Re: 488 Castle Creek Rd. --Notification of Surface Development pursuant to C.R.S. § 24- 65.5-101 etseq. To Whom it May Concern: We represent Aspen Housing Partners, LLC with respect to a land use application that it has submitted for an affordable housing project it is pursuing on behalf of the City of Aspen for the property located at 488 Castle Creels Rd., Aspen, CO 81611. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101 et seq., the owners of mineral estates that have been severed from surface ownership of a parcel of land must be given notice of an application for development in certain circumstances. This statute applies to any mineral estate owner who either (a) is identified as a mineral estate owner in the county tax assessor's records, if those records are searchable by parcel number or other certain means; or (b) has filed an appropriate notice in the office of the applicable Clerk and Recorder pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(3). Please be advised that: (a) we have searched the Pitkin County Assessor's records for the property located at 488 Castle Creek Rd. and have found no mineral estate owner identified in such records; and (b) have examined Schedule B-2 of the title insurance commitment issued for the subject property by Stewart Title on June 8, 2017 and have found no notice filed by a mineral estate owner in the offices of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. We have therefore concluded that there are no eligible mineral estate owners to whom notice is required to be delivered in connection with the application for the land use application submitted for the property located at 488 Castle Creek Rd. Sincerely, Bart Johnson for WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JoHNsoN & VELAsQuEz LLP 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 450 DENVER COLORADO 80202 m720-351-4700 F720-351-4745 420 EAST MAIN STRLET SUITE 210 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 m970-544-7006 F866-492-0361 WCRLEGAL.COM P624 IX.b -Jry Seminick From: Christopher Everson Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:19 AM To: Hillary Seminick Subject: FW: Affordable Housing Proposal for 488 Castle Creek Road Hillary: Also FYI... Thank you. Chris Everson Affordable Housing Project Manager City of Aspen, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970.429.1834 / Email: chris.everson@cityofaspen.com -----Original Message ----- From: Adam Frisch Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:14 AM To: Linda Manning <linda.manning@cityofaspen.com> Cc: Christopher Everson <chris.everson@cityofaspen.com>; Barry Crook <barry.crook@cityofaspen.com> Subject: FW: Affordable Housing Proposal for 488 Castle Creek Road On 11/16/17, 9:13 AM, "Adam Frisch" <adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com> wrote: Randy - Thank you for reaching out and hope you are enjoying the great late fall weather—looks like winter mode start tomorrow (. All noted below. Staff is working on a few different options, with some fewer units and some parking options. BMC is on future plans as we remain focused on these 3 parcels, including 488. We will be back in a few weeks for more public meetings. Enjoy Thanksgiving. -a On 11/14/17, 11:50 AM, "Randy Gold" <randygaspen@gmail.com> wrote: HI Adam. Hope you are doing well. Not sure if you have seen this site or where you stand on this project today, but there have been many issues voiced that are of great concern. These issues include, among others, its 28 unit density, height, lack of adequate on-site parking, and safety onto Castle Creek Road to access the project. I don't really understand why this site is suitable for P625 this kind of density while the BMC property that the City bought over 10 years ago for $18.25M is ideally suited to a abundance of units and yet there is no plan to develop it? I recognize that something will happen on this 488 CC Rd ix.a property, but 10-15 units would be much more palatable and appropriate to the site. Thanks Adam. I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this. Randy Gold -----Original Message ----- From: Adam Frisch [mailto:adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 9:19 AM To: joseph wells Cc: Bob & Gaby Rafelson; Carrie Wells; Michael (Mike) Tanguay; Simon Pinniger; Linda Sandrich; Julia Rowland; Nate (Nathan) Rowland; Alice Davis; Glenn Horn; Christopher Shearer Cooper; Chris Shearer Cooper; Marcella Larsen; George Zachar; Cliff Weiss; Tony Battaglia; Michael Lipkin; Ed Zasacky; Pete Stouffer; Graeme Means; Tom Barron; Joachim Diedrich; Sue Diedrich; Tom Kurt; Gary Wright; Ron Morehead; Andy & Lisa Poole; Randy Gold; Katie Schwoerer; Karen Ryman; Marisa Silverman; John Doyle; Catherine Anne Provine; Chris Lacy; Sandra Eskin; Lois Harlamert-Teegarten; Alan Hassenflu; Dennis Vaughn; D Stone Davis; Sue Smalley; Kevin Wall; Trent Palmer; Steve Busky; John Duficy; Elaine Pagels; Dawn Shepard; Terri Sharp; Jordan Greengrass; Dan Bunta; Christie Addison; Chuck Frias; Bruce Gordon; Aspen; Hawk & Shelley Greenway; Mac Coffey; Bruce Coffey; Annie Katz; Jim True; Todd & Nikola Freemen; Joe & Sue Diedrich; Dick Butera; Michael Katz; Gregg Lowe; Sebastian Wanatowicz; Polly & Murry Bowden; Patti and Mike Morgan; John Walla; Tripp Adams; John Perko; Marshall Hall; Alfred LaFave; Karen & Brian Boyd Subject: Re: Affordable Housing Proposal for 488 Castle Creek Road Joe - Thank you for reaching out on this pending affordable housing project on Castle Creek Road. I appreciate your thoughts and concerns, let alone the I can imagine the time and effort needed to put your thoughts on paper. I am fairly constrained in commenting on live land use applications outside of public meetings, even ones that have the City as the applicant. I am sure you will stay involved in the public process. Regards, -a ----------------------------------------- adam b. frisch council member the city of aspen 130 s. galena street aspen, co 81611-1975 p.970.925.5199 f. 970.920.5119 adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com P626 IX.b )n 3/31/17, 4:50 PM, "joseph wells" <joewells@me.com> wrote: Attached are comments regarding the architectural concepts presented for the housing proposal at 488 Castle Creek Road. Thanks, Joe Wells P627 IX.b From: Christopher Everson To: Hillary Seminick Subject: FW: 488 Castle Creek Rd. Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:09:52 AM Hillary: FYI Thank you. Chris Everson Affordable Housing Project Manager City of Aspen, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970.429.1834 / Email: chris.everson@cityofaspen.com -----Original Message ----- From: Adam Frisch Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:01 AM To: Linda Manning <linda.manning@cityofaspen.com>; Barry Crook <barry.crook@cityofaspen.com>; Christopher Everson <chris.everson@cityofaspen.com> Subject: FW: 488 Castle Creek Rd. For files........ -a On 11/16/17, 8:59 AM, "Adam Frisch" <adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com> wrote: Ed - Thanks for reaching out. I hear your concerns. Staff is working on a few different options on density of project and parking—separate but realted issues. We will hear back from them in a few weeks........ Awesome job in Spamalot and enjoy Thanksgiving...... -a On 11/14/17, 4:47 PM, "Ed Zasacky" <edzasacky@usa.net> wrote: Hi Adam: I saw the meeting the other night and felt your gut reaction, it's too high and should not be under parked on that corner, is correct. The 4 one bedroom penthouses don't house many people but poison the well for the rest. 45 feet is excessive, particularly at the City County border where the ACAP calls for a transition to lower density. I walk that trail a lot and Anne Mullins is right on. If those 4 were eliminated there would be a few extra parking spaces for guests. Unless the City is planning on banning guests ... there will be guests. The benefit to 4 people is not worth the cost to all residents for all time. Density isn't the only consideration. Please go with your instincts. Get it right the first time, there is no second chance. Should significantly reduce costs too as those penthouses are the most expensive to build and there won't be a need to do extraordinary measures for IX.b parking. Thanks Ed Z 488 CASTLE CREEK - AH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DRAWING INDEX EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DRAFT PLAT IMPROVEMENTSURVEY DRAFT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SURVEY PLAT SITE PLANNING Et LANDSCAPE PLAN SET L1.00 - DEMOLITION, VEGETATION AND TREE REMOVAL PLAN L2 GO - ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN L.3.00 - LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE STUDIES L4.00- PLANTING AND RESTORATION PLAN L5.00 - MOBILITYIMULTIMODAL DIAGRAM L6.00 - MOBILITY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS DIAGRAM L7.00 - EXTERIOR LIGHT PLAN ENGINEERING PLAN SET C-0 O1 - NOTES AND LEGEND C-101 - EXISTING CONDITIONS C-102 - SITE LAYOUT C-103 - DRAINAGE BASINS C-104 - GRADING AND DRAINAGE C-105 - UTILITY PIAN ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SET A1.03 - ROOF PIAN OVER TOPOGRAPHY A1.04- FIRE RESISTANCE B EGRESS Al.05 - ACCESSIBIUTY TYPE A UNIT A1.06 - ACCISSIBILIIY DIAGRAM A1.07 - FAR A1.08 - NET LIVABLE PLANS A1.14 - FLOOR PLANS A1.15 - FLOOR PLANS A1.16 -FUO RPLANS AM 7 - FLOOR PLANS A1.18 - ROGF PLANS A2.01 - ELEVATIONS A2.02 - ELEVATIONS A2.03 - ELEVATIONS A2.1- ELEVATIONS A2A5 - 3D VIEWS A2.06 - 3D VIEWS PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER ARCHITECT PLANNER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER CIN OF AS David Johnston Architects Method Planning+Development McDowell Engineering, LLC City Hall 119 South Spring St. 119 South Spring St. Suite 102 P.O. Box 4259 130 S. Galena St Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 Eagle, 0081631 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 P: 970.274.0890 P: 970.623.0788 P: 970.920.5000 P: 970.925.3444 atlam®methoMd com kar'l�mMowellena com F: 970.920.2186 brig n riadlareh itects.com APPLICANT LANDSCAPEARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER Aspen Housing Partners, LLC Connect One Design Roaring Fork Engineering Jason Bradshaw 0123Emma Rd. 592 Highway 133 228 Eastwood Drive Suite 2. Carbondale, CO 81623 Aspen, CO 81611 Basalt, CO 81621 P: 970.340.4130 P: 970-319-9298 P. 970.279.1030 F: 866.876.5873 iebmdshaw) 0maccomhhT�ronneMoned� Oe{esL$oO,comom richarda0rfena.1, PROJECT INFORMATION LOCATION..............................................................................................488 CASTLE CREEK RD. ASPEN, CO 81611 LOTSIZE.................................................................................................................................11,255 S.F. Et 24,640 S.F. PARCEL ID#.........................................................................................................273512309033 Et 273512309034 SUBDIVISION: ............................................................................................................................................................. NIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ...................................................... 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD Et LOT SPLIT Lot: 1 Et 2 Uj L ■ Irk z , U 1�LU \ V) LU aN Cfl ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY LOT'S 1 & 2,488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD FINAL P.U.D. AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RF GM rt PE ¢ <] IA— TI TI n TI \� / u~ n\ / rvLOT3 114 q 2 \ no ] S GRAPHIC SCALE (wems) 6)¢EVAilON9ARE.0A'�oRTHODA'NM)YIELDIIIG' oN91IEELEVAioNOEMM,IsoN ra'rvoR'Ixwfs'I'[ux mxrvER AS sxOwrv. Cmfmva mmFJtvu. Epuu.s l tnm. 51� mEaARARP0.0RIMArzty 1E^Of SNOa umICEONnIEGRONm ATTNEnANOF e�ACCOROwG io ¢MA PAN¢ m W ] W wC HATED NNE 4, 1111 SUBIFG! fROPmtt , ERROROE CIAEGREEOR THIS ALiaNRRe uNnifH.E 9oRVeY IS LESSIHAN I'.15,Gm. IONACCDRUINGNwECm' Of A— 3. 051TE]HISPROPERtt M W¢NEo 11. II) WenAnD eOUNOARYDeuNEAnON WAervmRROvmmAxo NO VIS®LEMARKS WERE SUR—OHS CER nElcA I IONS pEw.oen�mtMim. waRi,,,>srolrenrvvarowery®aa,x®,ro.rvwswG.wrvuxenn ut REp rvuuFMEry sEOBnSFD wEAEwmms.0 90nvevS.>Own e6inee6]nonnv no0 ®ntxnnxorvSeS nnv wtumet m'w61.2Ags. Nq. NEl v(y, e, 9, la(nJ, Il, la, ll, 1a, 16, 1], Ie Alm I9oPiAH¢AIHE¢OP IHEn¢oWORK WARCOtAIFI'Eo011 oAi V e✓SAONA! lANH50o-, OO E® il 0®® a0 ®0 a0 a0 • a0 a0 0® a0 a0 a0 00 ®0 BBm BBm 00 00 00 BBm 00 ®0 00 00 00 00 a0 �0 �m0® �m0® ®m00 488 CASTLE BE= IVG AT A PO I IT.P APNUNOEA 5 AE?AA ON TME E,ASr y sl of OF THE LE CREED ROAD S I .� S A S L hE R.N. si11- THEWR LINFEEi TNI ALONG THE FENCE L xE 0._ ELFT l0 rNE v01xr cIITIAIMN NG n ARES - 113 111 10Ill Y AN D LOT SPLIT ANE 01111 MEAEOY OEO to Ds To i n NE 5 rb' GD ENIOB SHOWN Hf AEON I PATiEN LINE EREM II FURFXEA 'E'R1' L D AAD of C IY of AIRIIS THA`RM9 NHAT RECdSMAI 1N (ANJUACL INEWITH ENI SWiWfFNAIWNEP AND }XE Lei SPLIT E%EM Pi IDN 11A1. .0. ANO SD Cu s V 1 . ( O N E XE MPTHIN o J o D 0 PLAT {( 7 --' �L .�� T TITLE CERTIFICATE RO The �ureose lots of 200fi] of t Ic! far r .den+ OI AaY NIP— Cb nd UD pr r. o Jn c 'e o =fl o- �'ne ubj sf p party info Two to nT eLordaice I Pn '.I y -II Ord once Na, 5 (Series (21 TIN iR JHA FnNIn 6inACD ON THIS Pl1AN1 M1AN opUE iN It LEAL FIOATE Is NOF i0 HE TR F rITED B OF TITLE, NOR A 6JAAANTEE rn E i B ANION IL . ANO I NDE STOJo rN AEE N _ A ITN it! ttUNTY TIiLF, IN^ NEAIHER A66UME5 NBR WILL BE CHARNEL WITH ANY FINANCIAL GBL IGAi ION OA IL}TY Q Z x� WHASSOE4EP OHS ANY SIATEMENI cox -A INE HEREIN. t gIIT- I'd -JO end c!' +her FF c,...e —q—FI—Iii, r., 'h.. AOFEN Land Use Code. C OOMHI`10�� A InL SEAL _ i L..Ec NoiAgT PtlBL c \\ ansae es Ln=e°ohne IIIJA. D., °I'i SEaincND.i NWIREANILu to cr roB;uxlP.i°,.ten. 'G 1.. NOH, HDWPECi cYEAEOY -Illy THAI IN JLLY 3006 A SUR4 Y p NN XE f N Df "I tB-0ppAGnl PAOP.gW N n IFs'NE BO'iHE EA4EXFNV AMISTN N THEos N, OF PI TN INANE All U WN NIFH FAME 1NE ON 8 L ,,LL BqSq ,SL PE N Nry T ,,`Lp L -,.IED Tl 03 ANff W H CAA In" D \I LE00B .,AYFLCLE-SB A9 HEA FROM TIME YO TME! i� D xJ A NI51 ISM III':TW ASPO 99 RVFV'fNGIh.EPt INS. wN,IA'NING s AGBES •J� 115.vl . r -Y , COCIJ TpOF 1.11M, , Nw.M. LAP 1 oNiROL Y 'BMi)W1E�69 OWNER CERTIFICATE 3Yi _ _Za 00 035- _. ..... MANOu ROAD Y"1$A�� _�: "` �� %1NC0 ME6 NEx BY AE1 OWM1'1 DF. ti rAACY OF GNDS rY.ESE PgEs_Nis THAT t f ' STEEL PAAINERB. LrO.. BEIN4 IRE REO, x594] - c i01N1 OF 9P3 hNl4e `®'� DE vAP'. SEr� � ° T - RB'E 1414.05 AVER(f— ED,, SOE TO I 9 r E T4 1 ie a,L n. 4_cila+ uEa\ / n4ae 4f �» \ � I Z4DP i LEGEND AND NOTES 0 DVMO art SET SNa r nEnNYENr AB 4EAL: aE4 IgEO 35gA,I \ L O T Z \ D svPVET CGXTq \ E FURS •/ \ \>p voEVAr 4N5 eo E All' 1N )911.56 �'\ \ t\ r SLE INFOPMIi ON NRA ISHEO Bv. \ ` ia9. dJ .\ AO may'\ I 55x M cN1E11 i TLE, \� MATEOM1O eaun9D6R.. xC V 3A 2006 \ \ 8 BLX BRAES CAR '�\ \� \U C\ s' G \ / 11-1 111 1. N', d F 0 P (.0 d E p' I NIN YI T fl a. P �$ d L N b E 0 6 d h L e'IWriONM1e E- 1 adI° Ae valor," d N "• f A d N "II" p l cbl. 0o"rdi cao� E e '2 r. M1 I A.P.n. rn d "• .."",r, SN.e..l6' 181a AqT.".e"r. � , ,r ,n r n.0 �" .nd .h. I. in, "A R hT p d L E6,11Ih I� J x4 ] .al 7, i..,1, .WA:a F I r�.• r.ar ";A a"3 °" L""a u,.��.d. B.. -", 5 a. a OAI ra,'A..''.nl d.l 11 lfy i erN.r end cfi"r dad l"1 re b ,"A rvd on Acb)?a3k�>": w •6, ±"m'.i °I'e�ir oeia�nou'I'h'<ae��i ��°In:' "I sr.Ae.,a• v0 rt rhe coda Ru" ..• "ny .or "rc. , it duly TFerc ,M1 II a Icr lha, .uAdA re i,l I 6p Pii'S�bd �v���vn n .IiM1ac e A'�M1.Ci mmyui " v .ee amp 11 ScFp�e iUA,, 6 iha o rl"f 1- a° Ivo. r NAo.erM1, Agr"�eantOcer"•dn er'M1ea r ro! '.Nci hvr , r..o.d.e n• r v" "o. s a5r 1 C N r T Y M F I a' -i00' _r,_irK AID RECORDER S FCC�PTAII {` IME OT I -I %E v wNDArgE oxncp ttrt,� Pr x�E,iL r N'-" ox x BFa 7 EfR AD FNA A D LOT SPLIT rlox_ Dh FW E ANO 7 -DR AD C FNk CIN OF LRPfM NIH Y�E pM10 IICOADE-0"DIIINDI OF YAS PEN ION NO £— N P INE REAL E Y E TIG EDS NN DAY OE i p0 _ i I L@Y NLN h�ry, .Itt CLC0.K a ALNH. cnP 3sYB) CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL Ill � 0. AO F xAL P U D AND LOt 6vLoi 11 FDu1IT110D E% HPi 41 x.s wcitlEss iogNEA DAY BF EpE ^p 9ZNTiEGs, TY Enc xEEq IF nE c ` r CI IY rTEXG INEr EA� c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THIS FREE'IT i IL IVISION E%ENPTION, A6 SlPLAT EAEo AND APPA MOVED BY inE o DECiO SAF IX nNo Up M OF Ex THE C iY 11 AS EN ON THIS DAY OF '^ic--ta+ moo. 111111E BY 111111I����IIIII1111111���1111111111111���111��Iiix6290SO, Eav ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC A CHOA.NO ::OUT SHEET 1 0 g 2 0 935 Joe /06 INUSE SOM,AMUPAINCIRALSDFNiDFnx. PI TN IA mxUNTrl CA IP STAT 11 1OF THE SIM BE= IVG AT A PO I IT.P APNUNOEA 5 AE?AA ON TME E,ASr y sl of OF THE cENY A'AO I GHr OF .1 +HENCE iNE XH N ISINEE of 6ESIIIII I,. Fx S ANO14 BEnres 'I'M 11 AE$T 1011.21 111 HFNc4E NDPTN Bl°�fi EAsi 351 dR FEE UIH IN•ds EAsi SOB 0] FEET vFIT iHEN<Y 11 as EEEr T4 THE E SHE IDIITI ROAD A, Ill INN&. ALOME THE FENC£ LINE N00. H t RI EST YJ L hE R.N. si11- THEWR LINFEEi TNI ALONG THE FENCE L xE 0._ ELFT l0 rNE v01xr cIITIAIMN NG n ARES - 113 111 10Ill Y SiAieYFFF3olTPMO POES HEREBY TDDLAT III MEAL PA0IPIERi IN LP TSU D1111All6TYLE OF 480 FCASDEN 11 N COUNtt �c V "EMPEN C I, ANE 01111 MEAEOY OEO to Ds To i n NE 5 rb' GD ENIOB SHOWN Hf AEON I PATiEN LINE EREM II FURFXEA 'E'R1' L D AAD of C IY of AIRIIS THA`RM9 NHAT RECdSMAI 1N (ANJUACL INEWITH ENI SWiWfFNAIWNEP AND }XE Lei SPLIT E%EM Pi IDN 11A1. .0. ANO ON 19 IN I 1 11 HIPHAEL 1111 x0 TREASURER. F STEEL PABTNEAN LT) oANEO. 11 IL% "ITAII CO111 IMTY OFN _ M L Oqv 1 Qty & Gco BEH AE NE THISI H SECAE A E OiYEL J SIT A NEF} TORON ,,,1jIDPRAP MY fONM Af � ...•P _ pa ' ! NOt Y PUBLIC L L_. , IL? �,r rn '� TITLE CERTIFICATE RO ... HNfIN TfTO6 C 0 i DO B PIiN tauihxE A TILE cFIREFT iHNNE THE INSWMIT9 LISTED AS T' 'I C A Ill. FNIS PLAT DO HOlO FEF PEP Y AEE kA CLEAB A ALL LIfNL AND LTNNUGN WE BO�MB�RNEES E%CEAs THAIS LISTED IN THE DIME! 7 TIN iR JHA FnNIn 6inACD ON THIS Pl1AN1 M1AN opUE iN It LEAL FIOATE Is NOF i0 HE TR F rITED B OF TITLE, NOR A 6JAAANTEE rn E i B ANION IL . ANO I NDE STOJo rN AEE N _ A ITN it! ttUNTY TIiLF, IN^ NEAIHER A66UME5 NBR WILL BE CHARNEL WITH ANY FINANCIAL GBL IGAi ION OA IL}TY Q Z x� WHASSOE4EP OHS ANY SIATEMENI cox -A INE HEREIN. t gIIT- OF CDLOAADO 1 mI A JUGA LEC iI FIOANE� s ACPN9'y4EyGEo >ifF9P �Pr C OOMHI`10�� A InL SEAL [IY E " I' NoiAgT PtlBL c \\ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I 1.. NOH, HDWPECi cYEAEOY -Illy THAI IN JLLY 3006 A SUR4 Y p NN XE f N Df "I tB-0ppAGnl PAOP.gW N n IFs'NE BO'iHE EA4EXFNV AMISTN N THEos N, OF PI TN INANE All U WN NIFH FAME 1NE ON 8 L ,,LL BqSq ,SL PE N Nry T ,,`Lp L -,.IED Tl 03 ANff W H CAA In" D \I LE00B .,AYFLCLE-SB A9 HEA FROM TIME YO TME! i� NI51 ISM III':TW ASPO 99 RVFV'fNGIh.EPt INS. _r,_irK AID RECORDER S FCC�PTAII {` IME OT I -I %E v wNDArgE oxncp ttrt,� Pr x�E,iL r N'-" ox x BFa 7 EfR AD FNA A D LOT SPLIT rlox_ Dh FW E ANO 7 -DR AD C FNk CIN OF LRPfM NIH Y�E pM10 IICOADE-0"DIIINDI OF YAS PEN ION NO £— N P INE REAL E Y E TIG EDS NN DAY OE i p0 _ i I L@Y NLN h�ry, .Itt CLC0.K a ALNH. cnP 3sYB) CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL Ill � 0. AO F xAL P U D AND LOt 6vLoi 11 FDu1IT110D E% HPi 41 x.s wcitlEss iogNEA DAY BF EpE ^p 9ZNTiEGs, TY Enc xEEq IF nE c ` r CI IY rTEXG INEr EA� c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THIS FREE'IT i IL IVISION E%ENPTION, A6 SlPLAT EAEo AND APPA MOVED BY inE o DECiO SAF IX nNo Up M OF Ex THE C iY 11 AS EN ON THIS DAY OF '^ic--ta+ moo. 111111E BY 111111I����IIIII1111111���1111111111111���111��Iiix6290SO, Eav ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC A CHOA.NO ::OUT SHEET 1 0 g 2 0 935 Joe /06 INUSE AMENDED AND RESTATED FINAL PLAT 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT a ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD - LOT 1 - PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-033 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD LOT 2 PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-034 - - nafau �:"iswn ..�� �`\'"�\ �45�E � dA• � vEE—xf _ _ �tomass*e"u�•. ¢nor °e �I faaxclssr � � t Dw.emai x—x�wovs — — T � ` \ � 1 . k �aS WA_ J � assag7uecaeere0an y a Toy %M, '3 yl VICINITY MAP rnEExaoap COMMUMTY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL: \\ ��y '��iayy Il � rss¢c CERTIFICATEOFOWNERS- eaarlcuu¢v DracxlEEDaE eo¢ows. pa4°'1BPDxfAEm.arvoBemoMoae ssreacav�xes*J o a Y �gNOBb acv�paY NI PNT P P soaaP¢I��tawss ,.ro os. p°�`o� owcroix[PMu aTu s955QuaaEf—MOREOR cecOiniK --,vta„sparvop msp»res Msa9slps. I mow �TROap =�—Evafa — �\V%% B1�g � / "\ m l m suEDof mtoeapo. rucvrwExa paror_an..ron. SHEET INDEX SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET 2 RESULTING LOT LAYOUT �I 9URVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: cauE� m`I I clttofasvcx �AsenErvr 3 ICOW ro ivi¢xlseui w�`0.w vA l ry �^cE owrvEa. cnvof asvEx. wnx aemc�mts xsomAl \� 34II I mss s¢nrc xarvD axD SEu. 0f�a wa a e¢nuMeTxls oar xane s g �� In a — \ II frc0-1.,. E¢nov es N S V C Y ; O n �j R � I� NOTes: II >sAxsuavEvmc.mc sl snEelmeosEofiwsaMErvDEonxateurEt io vacaiE s'xEtoitEm s¢wEErvtorsl zaxnuc unix IASEMExis,vmauunwcsereacxs As sxowx. car TITLE EXAMMERTE: xmisamEvoEp almaesraiEofmatvursxatEaeeucE umswEasEDEExEaee «atEcmtE 'S CERTIFICA oxaEcvapeo wmaEssmvxalmumofnau.sw.mvcoemassloxEwl s xoraaYP.- CITYOF ASPENENGMEER'SREVRM1Y: r,ma[mt s. rxls� pav or x ri x" coeeaannfzaisuavev 'S v sEErtwm."'. wfeureooee ATA A irsf0°imun i� rmeExam Elrws eaoeEanrssusxrerroazsfavanorrs, usifucnoxs,rovzrvaufs, DlnEomcEof T.TD eca—P—DEv¢orte•.m',am Ex¢Pr W n a 90 E Da,EOEffEcmEOEioaEa«s.zElE. waar,n,.Ecox�ax,•.fmErvo.°In°9«M o�maso,l i¢r,aaaawx.v.r. aa¢novasrExErvcE.EEa na M noaslsoeaEAaD��foaTMlsspavEVls.��Mrvcofs�..ro�EaE�e �TME -� YI Erv¢�aarv� axp��aaora¢o,�MpxE<aaYL�rvaaxp a rDEsoprxEarafEaM arvNc a�«raEanamaA�ax,pmDa,E,oav°c65.«I:vlofocrvpm•vracE. DA IAll PEEP 6CouxiYOCIPPKANDEMCoanERSOFFSICEANDCoaN6xRs CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTDICAIE: ZIn 190 D. n snlssoRVEYISDasEOON 1HEaAscASTLECPEEKRoaDFwu P.VD. ANp IafsPWi I srnwam'ImE mABArvY� roxuxDweuCE sII�NAnoNsaREDasEooN ACR0e5ERVanoN ciltlZMc'1'HEwfsTERH Cotoaaoo uM) nEtDMc AN oN�sliE El£vanoN of Bms.16' ON v.P.CfPilon CLEOKatma¢CRDE0. GRAPHIC SCALE N_. I`— caex.s.«Imo 'sl)T—wasavvaoxmur¢r Irofsxowary ICE..EcaclmpAT—T.Ecf pwn ( IN P4.T 1 I m«n 20 n Imaccoapwcrof¢4a varve.oewicaxwcpaiwnmf..,lvair�nsuelrcrvaoeran II,� "" cinofasvex II) esaoa�oa P.OSMExeoarws.Daam'6>6utmnr � vEr�teb5ixw .1'A. P-— P—tvzorvEoa-Isa. 4ypK 5fIFVE joE �' °n'""sr N0. Dau Revisi P.o. Box 1]46 CITY OF ASPENPDj-0. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO 16090 vnixcoMM¢nnD_.,MExreuoaroaxveuxxwc DEswxoa mxsmurnorv. wnc, co e1650 �^ DwEnAxp EauxoaavD¢mEnnoxwasxoiraovmEoaxDrvovls¢tEMaaxswExE PM1onc (11h) 1.1954 <: F" x(9]0)5]9-]150 AMENDED & RESTATED FINAL PLAT 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD aiEoar i'xmnMEof suavEv. AUGUST 13,2017 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD l OF 2 8i. , 2007 �, reo-FP.DwG 488 CASTLE AMENDED AND RESTATED FINAL PLAT CREEK ROAD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD - LOT 1 - PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-033 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD - LOT 2 - PARCEL NO. 2735-123-09-034 Cm Of ♦SeOu — — � wl].9s — — toMGSEfBac—K ]°= — weA4Nae s1 6 Al-_ I Hs I o.swas�/� I 4�q,, LOTI I �� `4�� \ \ 9ABCA4n CR[IXROnn I \\ II I G� I R5BAR\ LP ms \ I PCOM \ I 6 II rnvOfnsrcx \s\� 4 a In < rveYi, S° a W n9 a E v 4 S 3 GRAPHIC SCALE ra�s.e� no I � �) I ivcE— 20 (L ass wmrEsac N' Spry CVlp 19c '� mw° NQ Dex Rr�iu��o C� s IRN CITY OF ASPEN P j-0, =peer. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO P.O. Box u 1]46 P co 1746 �^ AMENDED & RESTATED FINAL PLAT Z Pnoncl9]01625.1954 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD Pu C9]0)5'1150 AUGUST 13,201] 0" k<""'<n°�'"". 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD 8ipce.1 Aspen A,— F2-1 "Aspen High whom488 Castle Creek Rd El R F9 C context map sheetindex shoot number sheet name -.COVER cover -.1.00 demo, vegetation, ,tree removal plan -.2.00 site plan -.3.00 perspective sketches -.4.00 planting plan -.5.00 multimodal diagram I L.6.001 pedestrian directness diagram I L.7.001 lighting plan 0 UJ LU o 0 I Uj 0 L) J Z� L (n U L) 00 CID ItT LANDSCAPE COVER L.COV 4�- preconstruction coordination is required with the city forester/parks department to mitigate impacts to root systems of the trees that are in proximity to the retaining wall. any excavation within the driplines of trees will be approved by the city forester per city code 13.020. this includes providing evidence of depth of excavation in proximity to the retaining walls LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE -ATING DECIDUous TREE TO REMAIN E%ISTAG DELI DUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO SE REMOVED TREE MITIGATION SCHEDULE # MAROLT RANCH ACTION VALUE 1 2 S'OEC 12" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN 3 4 9 F PRESERVE PRESERVE 5 8" UK — _ 612 — tree protective fence, typ. REMOVE E LIN 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 8 P� 5. SETBACK — REMOVE $528.00 '4" EG REMOVE $528.00 10 3" EG REMOVE _ 11 _ REMOVE z 12 10' DK PRESERVE 13 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 10 6' OEC PRESERVE II 15 6' EG l CA 16 6' DEC REMOVE $1188.00 17 8" EG REMOVE §2111.00 18 19 B" EG 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE $2111.00 BELOW -VALUE 2D II'F REMOVE $2111.00 21 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 22 14' DEC � vw 23 12' DEC REMOVE $4]59.00 24 fi" DEC REMOVE $1188.00 25W DEC REMOVE $2111.00 26 10' DK REMOVE $3299.00 27 'UK REMOVE BELOW MrT VALUE 28 4" DK REMOVE BELOW -VALUE 294" DK REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 30 31 4" DEC 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE BELOW MR VALUE 324" EG REMOVE $528.00 33 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 34 4" EG REMOVE $520.00 354' EG REMOVE $528.00 36 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 37 fi' EG REMOVE 1 30 393' fi' EG EG REMOVE REMOVE $1108.00 BELOW MIT VALUE 40 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 41 A PRESERVE 42 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 43 44 6" EG S. EG PRESERVE PRESERVE 45 46 15" DEC 20" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 4T 3" EG REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 40 \ REMOVE $2111.00 II tree protective fence, typ. REMOVE $2111.00 :0 51 \ REMOVE PRESERVE $2111.00 52 6' DEC PRESERVE MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN maintain all native vegetation to the I I greatest extent possible to maintain existing buffer from castle creek road I w C, 9 IPA OP FF�Ro 90 I \ II \ I I LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE -ATING DECIDUous TREE TO REMAIN E%ISTAG DELI DUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO SE REMOVED TREE MITIGATION SCHEDULE # SPK CBM' ACTION VALUE 1 2 S'OEC 12" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 3 4 12' DEC B" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 5 8" UK PRESERVE 612 DEC REMOVE $4750.00 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 8 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 '4" EG REMOVE $528.00 10 3" EG REMOVE BELOW -VALUE 11 ]0' DEC REMOVE $3299.00 12 10' DK PRESERVE 13 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 10 6' OEC PRESERVE 15 6' EG REMOVE $1188.00 16 6' DEC REMOVE $1188.00 17 8" EG REMOVE §2111.00 18 19 B" EG 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE $2111.00 BELOW -VALUE 2D 8" DEC REMOVE $2111.00 21 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 22 14' DEC REMOVE $6465.00 23 12' DEC REMOVE $4]59.00 24 fi" DEC REMOVE $1188.00 25W DEC REMOVE $2111.00 26 10' DK REMOVE $3299.00 27 'UK REMOVE BELOW MrT VALUE 28 4" DK REMOVE BELOW -VALUE 294" DK REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 30 31 4" DEC 3' EG REMOVE REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE BELOW MR VALUE 324" EG REMOVE $528.00 33 6" EG REMOVE $1188.00 34 4" EG REMOVE $520.00 354' EG REMOVE $528.00 36 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 37 fi' EG REMOVE $1188.00 30 393' fi' EG EG REMOVE REMOVE $1108.00 BELOW MIT VALUE 40 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 41 8" EG PRESERVE 42 4" EG REMOVE $528.00 43 44 6" EG S. EG PRESERVE PRESERVE 45 46 15" DEC 20" DEC PRESERVE PRESERVE 4T 3" EG REMOVE BELOW MR VALUE 40 0' EG REMOVE $2111.00 49 B' EG REMOVE $2111.00 :0 51 8' DEC 1D' EG REMOVE PRESERVE $2111.00 52 6' DEC PRESERVE TOTAL VALUE $53,840.00 Q O UJDo Wo Q U o LW ° I Z IL Na N Q Q U M0 WIII DEMOLITION, VEGETATION, + TREE REMOVAL lX10 T a W ADA compliant s (6' width) provides ai marolt trail and AVH t preserve existing cotto 4' retair bear proof trash enclosure v 8, recycling race) 20' dnveway with firetmck retaining wall (-1') and minimal site lighting for safr to mark ant supplemental plar provide screening from Crer parking lot wl 29 spaces (including parking 19 head -in 10 parallel retain existing ROW be all existing vegetatioi greatest extent p trail to existing marolt bike path elevator/stair core with internal storage and mail area raised perennial garden sod sculpted landscapel lounging lawn bike parking (typ.) raised perennial garden light well for lower units (typ.) ADA ramp sod sculpted landscape/ lounging lawn coven walls/layered planting to create personal patio spaces, typ elevator/stair core with internal storage and mail area shade tree within tree well (at grade), typ. at grade sod rear deck/patio(s) with access to proposed trails emaced retaining wall(s) i" curb vegetative screening ehicular turnaround >now storage zone Q MO I.L W� MW o Li Q U o W° Z W Na N Q Q UM MW W ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=16' L•2.00 0) W a® 07 View One View from the sidewalk looking north at the the courtyard and building View Three View from the hillside looking south toward the most southern portion of the building deck with trail access View Two View from the central access path looking northeast towards the elevator/stair core View Four View from the sidewalk looking east into the courtyard and private patio areas D Q O Y W W U W J H N U 00 00 1* 0 0 a 0 0 U Z W N a PERSPECTIVE S4 '_....7S LX) aW maintain all native vegetation to the greatest extent possible to maintain existing buffer from castle creek road reseed with native revegetation mix for all areas of disturbance within row additional proposed planting to supplement existing vegetation and strengthen buffer along Castle Creek Road MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN T RANCH E HOUSING CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE " SHADE TREES • Acer truncatum'Nonvegian Sunsef l Maple LARGE EVERGREEN • Abies concolor / White Fir MED EVERGREEN • Cercocarpus ledifolius l Cud -Leaf Mountain Mahogany SMALL DECIDUOUS SHRUB • Ribes aureum l Golden Currant DARK LARGE EVERGREEN ' • Chamaecypads nootkatensis / Alaskan Yellow Cedar DECIDUOUS SHRUB • Rhus trilobata/ Skunkbush Sumac ANTI -EROSION SHRUB • Rhus glabra "Laciniata' / Cutleaf Smooth Sumac NATIVE MIX LAWN PERENNIAL + SHRUB MIX Q MO I.L W� /W o Li Q U o W° LU W Na N Q Q U 00 co PLANTING AND RESTORATION PLAN L.4.00 /W W existing sidewalk crossing with access to AVH bus stop enhanced pedestrian access point transit system information enclosed bike locker storage on every level transit system information enclosed bike locker storage on every level enhanced pedestrian access points bike parking bike parking ADA ramp (typ.) bike parking enclosed bike locker storage on every level transit system information effective walkway width 5' MULTIMODAL C R .M 10 W Cfl PROpFp,TYLINE ---5. SETS -AO — Q MO cc Wro W O Q U o W ° U Z w Na N /Q a V co 00 R* PEDESTRIAN DIRECTNESS DIAGRAM L.6.00 0 proposed bear proof trash & recycling receptacles LCALE: 1"=16' L MAROLT RANCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING CITY OF ASPEN 4E Prtto�pevzTy Lit All ---------- --s,SET'B -------------- ---- --- — -- ------------- - :::7 — — -------- ------ ---- --------------------- ------ ------ ----- - ----- ----- ------- ------- W, ------------------------------- T RANCH E HOUSING LEGEND WAC GATE' LED BOLLARD PATH LIGHT; 115 LUMENS AT 24" ABOVE GRADE WAC'INVISILED PRO OUTDOOR' 24V o OUTDOOR LED TAPE LIGHT; 12 LEDS PER FOOT AT 18" ABOVE GRADE, W/IN RECESSED CHANNEL LIGHTING lx 10 T 0) i7 4�- --- N. R Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C-00/ TITLE C-007 NOTES AND LEGEND C -/O/ EXISTING COND/TIONS C-102 LAYOUT C-103 BASINS C-I&I GRAD/NG AND DRAINAGE C-105 UTILITIES R a yPp00 tICF CHECHED BYRBG DRAWNBYDCS -. 0*50 NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION TITLE T C-00 cy) N an•/omanMaatt _ eh+rem , p rN vmrezZ. mr n rt�OeNnttamT'un^muw nvmre mM1m m o&ymiiµvemrel[we ^P�n BV6=ginniryvmi,al [uiw. n U4tt�g0u�'rtnuualawlM = a rt•I �mM x _ as- m,N Wfa-ronErmfine - _ - 5Y=SAuerevarm ¢FWmNWaarte - nwmolomm - a-Fbgenparemem pmten"nnsenry _ r5umrrn,waFry� rs au"mlGaWnisVn.onum xsr+n"splsu^er � z,4roMxmamluram Wmarge -- _x�lgemv�� -- wqm- mre a.,o AI- - snots - vp-vammw ABBREVIATION LEGEND ENGMEERMG OEPARTA4Nf CDY OF ASPEN 517 E HOPKMS STREET STANDARDDEIAILS ASPEN, C0lust l O PHONE: (970) 9205080 Si.N GENERAL PROVISIOXS SPECIAL PROVISION$fXGMEFR% GSPECIFTCA"'MI RFVlSl0X5 /0 STANDARD SPEC/FICA//ONS ANO SUPPLEMFNIAL SPFC)F/CAT)ONS. L 11 SNA![ BE INE COX!RAC/OR'SRFSPONS/BI(/IY TO ENSURE MA/ A[[ WORrt/SEEOREOIN NONCCOROANCF eomwsr`RwAnox mslHiaA/RFs xBREeueanoxsds sEIEOR/Ber NF ofcuPAll IsAEE/rA FALX 4 N 1 5 S INE CONIRAC/RRL-11RBIAINANAPPROVEOLER AFFIC I'MIROLO PLAFM PRIOR IO COHHfNCING CONS/RUC/ION AIIIVI- 4 I BLE INFORMATION AT NERI/MEOFOFSIGN.L/IN£ LONIRACIOF SNA[[ FEVIEW ANO V£EFYEXISTING PNYSICAIAI! FEATURES ANO E(EVAIIONS OF NFCON01/IONS IO BF FxCOUNIEFFBOURING CONS/RUC!ION. IH£CONTPACIOR SHA[[ (lMl/ ALL wORKANBSIORAGE—I. -PRO✓ECISIIE. ANYWORK/NSIOEPUB!/C RIGHI-OF-WAYS W)[I--. FROM IHf C)/Y PRIOF IO CONSIRUCl/ON. USFOF ANY PRIVATE AREAS FOR PRO✓ELI BY rNECONTRALI0R HU5I BE APPROVED /NWR/r/NG BY INFPROPFRIYOWNER W/THALOPY OF /HIS APPROVAL PROV10F0 IO --- IO USAGE. 4 A MPA[IIONANONNISHORANN6/N IHEUN/r PR/LERE[AIEO WOE/TEH. A ALL WORK 5HALL BE DONE TO IHFL/NE$6RAOF$SECTION$AND E[EVA//ONS SHOWN ON IHFPLANS UNLESS O/XEFWISE NO/FO OR APPROVER Br -- Is IHEFNGINEER.l4 A B W SHALL NSUR✓ELI/0/NSPECTIONANOAPPROVA[ BY IHECl/YOF45PENAN6 THE ENG! EER. IHE ENGINEER SHA[[ BE NOTIf/EO WITNINpHOUR PFIOR TO THE LOMHENCFHENI OF ANY CONS/RUC/ION. "' 'o'1NI1IOR 1111111111 IINSIR111111 11 ""T"' 'a1101111141 11-1171 IF I ANIIIN IOESOF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON r."" S ANYOISIURBANo, BEYOND TNESF!lMIIS SMALL BE RES10RF0 IO ORIGINAL CONO/1/ONS BY THF CONTRACNR A I IHE/R OWNEXPENSE l] THE COMIRAC/OR SNAL[NOT REMOVE ANO SNALI PROTECT FROHOOuOf ALL TREE$ BUSHES ANO EXISTING Li NO TREES SHALL/BE SHOVED OR IR/NMEO W/IHOUI PRIOR ACKNOWLEOGEMEN/ OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AANOiOR —I— IS THE CON IRA CTOR 5111(PRO rECI THEFX/sr/NG DRAINAGE 5IRUCIUFFS ANO RFRONEANYRUNOFFA5 rION AS PREVENT FEOSO IS IN 'HE CIIINACIII "III""' "I '1A VI 1111 11111111T IIE FFIC ONIRO[15X£10£010 ACLOHHOOA IF LONSNUCT/OM ACTI1 ENTE1/N6 ANO I.— TNF PROJ£C l4 WXFRE PAVEMENIlS IO ABUIEXlSI1NL PAVEMENT,NEEXISIINGPAVEMENISM11 NREHOVEO IIA -1 VfR/ICA[[INF BYIS[OW SETTING!PRIOR IO PAV/NG OPERA/IONS VFR/ICAL EOGf5_I NOIREMAIN ANBONEPARTWAEV EHU[5/F/FO1SPHA[ 1FOR IACKCOAI SHA[[ CONS/Sr OFONFPARIEHUL5IF1E01-1I Evisti Conditions Proposed Conditions p�n^�mu I�IrTn Sums NymNwn w -- sa"urvsenn unelOreenl weu ry 1 — vmmsewnumlereenl— wsu"e WNwl mre ryelwl wNAue uneneuawl �n L"`wMss• — ennelAeal xlgn[vreume OasumryeA"wl — — — — nnalnml — — — — enlaelAem euaeigebl—m—®—m— e 'mplwrgel �G�lowlel le —.—.—.— seam = - - - xne,on�nm reliN�— A—m—m— UnetypNotes: Mainsantl knlmmM1arreproper pipesiresaM ,0krehrenntl�InOirMnllnerypePap Ma[enal antlS roYeflkre rvaluble AumSAb WWe ryNAspen fnglneKing OeW am men l9 W IERSHAIL BEUSEOASAOUSIPA MTIVEWXEEEOU/RFO[OCAT/ON55HA[[ BFASOROERE4 TH£L05IE WA IER SHA([ BE INCIBEN/A[/01— 10 /ISMS SWEEPING ANOCL£ANING AOJACENI SIREEISANOSIOEWA(KS DURING CONSIRUC/IDX WILL BF PERFORMEOASNfCESSARY ANOASOIRECTEO BY IHEENG/NfFR. SWEEP/NG ANO OUSTH/I/6AI/ON /s CONS/OFFER TO B£/NL/0£NTA( IO NE WORK OINI$11"I B£NINMAHII ANO/OR SURVEY CONTROL POINTS WHICH MA Y BE 015/RIB - OROFSIROYEO BY LOxSIRUC/ION SUCHPO/NIS SNA[( HEREFfRfNCFO NBRfPLAC .11 APPROPR/A Ef HONUENI 111 RFGISTfRFO PROFESSIONAL LAMB SLAVILLH O THE 1. LE I SLASHANLI J7 ENFCONTRACIORSXALO[ HAVEACO rWdiLAPPLICAB(/ESTANOAROSANOAPPR0VE000N5NUC/IOXPLANSANO R ANLAYER PLACED !HEREON SNA LL BE —1--L XT. BEFORFY/CCEEOlN6(AYER IS P[ACE0.0/N A BENHENAC£HFNIOFTHFTACKCOAI, THE LONTRACIOF SNA(L CLEAN IX£PF£SFNI ROADWAY 150/R E0. C[EAxING WI![ NOI BE PAIR FOR SEPARATELY, BUI SNA[! BE INCLUDED/N NF COSIOF IHE PROJECT. A A IMPROVE BOXB. OILUEEOEHULSfFIEOASPHAL IFOR TACK COAT SNA(L COx 1 OF (PARI FHU[SIFIEO ASPxA(E ANO !PARI WATER. A ENE CONTRACTOR SHAILFORMISN INS—, ANOMWMruN IEHPORARY IRAFFICCONTROL OFFICES NECESSARY ANO WORKSXALL SNP UNI/( INEO/SLREPANLYI50/SLUssE0AN00£L/5/ON OREFHENNHAVEBEEN.".. Water Symbols Dry Utility & Traffic Symbols fxishn Proposed Description Existing Proposed Description A • 0 (D w rem M P.cemAry ® ® omrcler cb 114[ r -e va q�;( �( ren fgbr f F .. r. zaN�•una 2 to J/r y ra ox ,mw c m °� & Nanmrep n s mssram ® ® 5 Sanitary Sewer/ Storm Drain Symbols INI a a maam. Existing Proposed Description Subsurface/Surface Symbols V ase Symbol Desaiption .— pc xa�fnesm�m '^ ar�e�t ra e e ♦•,� mmkre�u Trrea lam/ Busty m mr as urre« m "im • Tmlmrt" SYMBOLLEGEND DEPARTMENT CITY OF ASPEN 517 E HOPKMS STREETRMG 51]EH ASPPN,CO3IAII PHONE (9]0)9205080 STANDARD DETAILS Q 511RIOf CONSTPUe—SAN/IL NC£PIANEBY -111 -- Z FNFICEN6INFFR.L A RAFF/C SIGN$ N VEHENT HARK/N6$ANOIRAFF/CSI6NALs5XA[LHEEr OREXCEEOHANUALONUN/FORH TRAFFIC CONMILI OEwCFS LMUTCD.ISIASHRBS. ] IXE[OMNACIORSHAL[ PREPARE AOCIAHEO IRAFF/CCOHMNAN, SOBHITTO IXECIrrNRAPPROVA[,ANO OB/AINNPROPRIAIEERMIIS. L IECON/NACIORSOAL[BF RESPONSIBLEFOR A([WOFK ZON£IFAfFICCONTRO[. CONTRACTOR SNA!! BE RFSPONS/B[f FOR FURNISH/HG, INSTA[[lN4 ANO fIAINTAIXING !NE TEMPORARY TRAFFICCONTRO[ BFVICfS 1. INYCON/RACIOB-OLSE00AMAGE IO UMITY NO/ORSERVICELINESSHOWNORNOTSHOWNONEH NJM ALLBE—IREOORREP[ACEOAINOCOSI IN IHEC/IYOFASP !.SHALL BE ACCOE[/SHED BY IME ORSHfitt HE RESPONSIB[EFORNOTIFYINGILLUI/(IIYCOHPIN/ES PRIOR 10— WOBKRIN/TRAF JEC11— LIEWIE,IXECONIRACIORIS RfSPDXS(B(EFORCOOROINAIMGX/SWORKANOI TWIHEINVOM L U I THE CONTRACTOR LONIACr III.YNO I/F/CATION fENIEROF COLORADO AT bII IWORIALAR ISLAY5 INAPVACrOfANYEXCAVATIONORCRAOIN 1111RICIMNEIIF "' ANY OAMAGFSNA!( BE REPAIRED ANBRESIOREB IO INF SAIISFACIION OF TNECIIYOF ASPEN. NECON/FACTORIS RESPONS/B[f FORIXE[OCATIONANBPROTECTIONOFA[[UI/L/I/ESOUR/NGCONSNUCT/OX INFCONIRACIOR GAS CONOU1I.rF/NISHGBAOEHUSIBEAI[EASILSFEEIANO NO MORE IHAN{FEEIOVEBSTNEGASCONOUI/ /HF S EXISTING UNONGFOUNO TELEPHONE, F/BFR ANB LAB(FTE(FV/s/ ONFAIRIT/ESHAYBE(OLATEO /N CLOSE PROXIMITY IO IHEWOFN. INECONIRACTOR MAY, IF NECESSARY /EMPORARI[YOISP[ACE NFCABLES BUR/NG VISIONr"PANY CONSTRUCT/ON AMB RfINSIA([ INEHINACCOROANCf WIIN INE APPROPR/AIF IELFPHONF, FIBER OR CAB[F PEOVIFEO IS BE ONE BY INECON/FACTOR./ONW/THBOTH NE TELEPHONE ANO LN[FTE[FVIS/ONCOHPANY (s ALI OF E INSPECIORO/HE COxIRdCIORIS REOUIF11/0X0/IFY THE CIIY OF ASPEN TWO WONKING OR YS PF/OF IO BEGINN)NG CONSIFUC//ON. R INF CON/FACTOR SHA[[AT TNfIR FXPFNSF. SUPPORT ANO PROTECT A([WA/ER HA%SSD !NAI INEYW/([ 11 CUSTOMERS. SNOU[0 ARWATER MA/MEAT[ AS ALRFSUOIOF IHFCONIRACIOR'SOPFRAI/ON$ lI 111 BF REPAIRED 111111A T" YBYE/1HER IXE CONIRACIOR OF 1NEWAIFR FESOURCFS OEPARIHENI AI INE FUL11111111 ABOR 01111111 VALVE BOx£$ CLFAxOu/S MANHOLES GUY W/FE$ SHA(( BE dO rEO TOFINAL ORNE. I ENT$ -Z WA0 CONSIRUCIIONO—CO.,—,yST RUCTION1IH£FMOW(/NES ANO CONN RIGHISA WAY SA RfSULTOF THISCOMSIRUCI/ON PRO✓EC/ SA)O REMOVAL SNAL[ BECONOUCTFOINATIHF[Y L H GCRACRETE / E 1 THE CONTRACTOR SNALLPROTECTALLSIORH I[ SEWER FAC/TIESAO✓ACENI I ANIL OCASLOW WHERE P4 VEMENT CUTIONY OPERA TION, AN Vat VN6 WMEN n/N4 51 w tulnx6 ON dBRA51VF WAIER JUST CUT TING ARE TO TAKE PACE. ME CONTRACTOR —I REMOVE All PROPERLY —01,111 THEILISCHIRGENFARY /EOBYNSIEPROOUCrSFROHCUII/NGOEEI/ONS < TFLONTRACIOF HUS! KEEP A[(PO[(UTAN/$/NC(UO/N6 IRENCHBACKF/[(HA/ER/A(, FROM WISHING IN/0 INE S IOFM SEWER SYSTEM. CHECHED SYRBG DR ft sYOCB JOB1:101&50 NOTFOR CD Mwrm AND -ND� a OL W GRAPHIC SCALE i ��nfEm n. R a CHECHEDBYRBG DRAWN BY..DCB JOBk:10*50 NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION EXISTING cCD��n bV4 W/6 (Z H.P.STA.Isdd.03 H.P.S TA.2, 6.55 H.P.ELEV.WI216 L.P.STA.1.99.79 H.P.ELEV.012N PVISTA.1-51.33 L.P.ELEV.WH.01 PVI STA.2a9..9 PVl ELEV.&31L01 PVI STA.I,V.% PVI ELEV.0126d K.3&Bd K -11.d9 PVI ELEV.00I0.86 L P.STA.3,9..15 1.P.FLEV&110.05 PVI STA.3+B1.Id OR 23x 2.2 3f RI 3x50 I'm w Of b710 NK WHIC SCALE lincliFE.tl/It. M n.mr c A vc 1.@1r \` GRAOF BREAK iA.Ix1[BI —� __ A GRA EBREAK STA.- 7/ nATBxAt sT� x Bo. FNO El EVPWI % OR 23x 2.2 3f RI 3x50 I'm w Of b710 NK WHIC SCALE lincliFE.tl/It. M 100 Year Peak Discharge Developed Calculations n amimti Sub -amine Pe 11n Ci 1HmmPJ Aetum Period 123 1m 1.2 BUIn ID Total Ma Imp.Ana Im Mous Cvalue Timed[ Inn" cl- LA seelDq Ifl'I Ifl'I 1%I PMTAI, ITJ Iaem,/Ilml - INekW LLL3,lA 1 1998300 12233.00 81.62% 0.]81 5 6.33 1.58 L6 2 1231200 11513.00 93.26% 0.831 5 6.33 L49 1,13,14,1.51.6 3 1591.00 am am am 5 6.33 an d 3391.00 1813.00 @.86% 0.500 5 6.33 an 100 Year Peak Discharge Pre Development Calculations am AB IHmrPJ Aetum Period 123 an Iml,H) TOmI Ma Imp.Area smica) 1 I Im Ivmus I CVBIue 1%I Dom Table Timedc ITJ I-Ity GAIm Ia Pifi j- (fel-0 AM 1 13993.00 am am 0.500 5 6.33 1AD L,LI;1 2 12312.00 am 0.00% 0.500 5 6.33 Q90 1@ 3 1597.00 am DAO% 0.500 5 6.33 0.12 4 339).00 a00 ami 0.500 5 6.33 0.25 n e5 dm n amimti Sub -amine Pe 11n Ci A Al 1.2 Qm . - A2 LA am 0.0mA @.BS% 100.00% )6R% 92.16% Al LLL3,lA 0.01 A4 L6 0.w A5 1,13,14,1.51.6 am A6 am A7 lb am AB 1.1,LIO,lb am A9 1.1 1.101918 am AM LZl.3,IA,1.S,1.6,1.T,18.19,L1aL11 0.13 All L,LI;1 183 Al2 1,11,1 1@ B Bl 13 am 82 12,2.3 am B3 1i,13,2.A am Ba 2.413,2A2.5 a. BS 2.;13,10.2.5,2.6 am B6 2.1 0.0 B) 2.;23,24,25,2.6,2.) .14 BB 2,2.8,30 153 B9 2.,2.8,30 153 Onsite Piping Capacity Onsite Sub -Basin Data Entry R a 0.00 140.00 am am 4).1B% am yPP002ICF Sim OBO 96m 11.5n4 am 90.5T19 _ 'osr'�p'�� 92m 700600 N00.w OAO 12600 90.aB9 9609% N0.0mf Q00% 586014 . - CHECNEO BYRBO DRAWNBYOCS 0.00 200.00 208m 323.00 63R.m 0.0mA @.BS% 100.00% )6R% 92.16% 3 p Drywell storage II Basun dameter 5[0 4 mdmal vdume Dldmal 18"dkree"I Totalp Re ulreda (Neoral IDI D N D•N• D fl 0.3•D•N• D 31 '- D'1*.)fl II „3 M4 1 6 1 ]3 I 350 I US 505 0010 ft -11 AS 1 ass I 6 I ]fi I 152 I 1)0 @2 1180 -.016-W 016.60 NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION BASINS C-10% rn Onsite Piping Capacity cnw Z W Lij Wei Le 2O rc` ` � 4 O yyPpaO t/CF CHECKED BYRBG DRAWN BYDCS 0 Y P W to K � U O W U U QGo CO GkADING D AGES a o` GRAPHIC SCALE IinICATFIDt tt. R a CNEC BYRBG DRAWN BYDCS `k E o y K � U p �IIIIII JOB 8:101&50 NOTFOR CON Mwrm UTILITIES C-10% 00 488 CASTLE CREEK - AH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SYMBOL LEGEND ASSEMBLY DETAIL CEO �/��/ (1. 1-- REFERENCE GRIG LINE I $j SCIION CNS - - SPOT G-IIGN _ 1/.23. 6100E BEAM EXTERIOR EIEVATIGN WINDOW MARK as LBB � pOOP MARK OOETAILCALLOUi CAO. CABINET ttG. CEIUNG CL CENTER ONE ROOM SECTION DETAIL CALL00T ROOM NUMBER B61L ALERT GEV REMSED S.M. SHEET METAL .1 INIWOR EIEVARON • B.1 x OBAWING PENSION 1 MATERIAL LEGEND BY SUM WALL 1- - CONCRETE E _ E BOARD AAW FRAMING -� STONE WOOD BLOCKING c-_ FRAME AALL Eomm RDCK - NON L_ COMPACTED FILL BRICK BAR INSUTADON RIOIDINSULARON —Do FINISHEDWOOD ABBREVIATIONS ALF. AGOVEFINISHNOOR ADI. ADIUSTABLE FORD HORRONTAL INED.INPoRMARON INSUL INSULATION AK ANCHOPBOLTS A AND ARCH. ARCHIIECTLPAL IST. IDIST LL LOSE LOAD ONGINi IDNGRUDINAL ® AT BM. NOT BEAM FOCKEi BGG. BEARING N.LC. NOT IN CONTRACT O.C. ON CENFER DPP. OPPoSITE OVEM RIX'G. GIOCKING BOT BERED 6L BOTTOM OF FOOTING BLDG. BUILDING B.O. BYowNER L1 D. ED PERF. PERFORATED II RY. PL.- PROP. LINE PGEN-UNE CAO. CABINET ttG. CEIUNG CL CENTER ONE REINF. REINFUACEMENT ROWD. REDWOOD PEQ'D REQUIRED C.i, CEAAMICRLE CTP. CLEAR COL COWMN B61L ALERT GEV REMSED S.M. SHEET METAL LUNO CONCRETE CO N.CONNECON SIM. SRI - IMILACONN. I.F. 'CLARE FEET CONI COWNUOUS ITL1116 DBL DOUBLE DWL DOWEL STD. STANDPAD 5TL STEEL STD.. SND' 1HK THICK E.W. EACH WAY ETF/. ELEVATION .1- EXISTING EM. DGEROR F.G. RUGA TOILET T.F. IOP Of PoOTING I 1 -TE IL IOP Of.LEDGE i.W. TOP OE WALL FTG. FOONNG END. PoON- N GA. SALES G GLU-LAM BAN 1 GYPSUM WALLBOARD HT. HEIGHT HK HOOK TOT. TOTAL TU, TOWEL BM TRANS/ TNANSVFARE TYP. 11 - PICALG.W.B. U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED UTHEAWISE V.I.F. 4ERIPI IN FIELD CREEK FRONT PERSPECTIVE PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER ARCHITECT PLANNER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER CITY OFASPEN Davidlohnsmn Architects Method Planning + Development McDowell Engineering, LLC City Hall 119 South Spring St. 119 511th Spring St Suite 102 P.O. Box 4259 130 S. Galena St Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 EGO, CO 81631 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 1:1 : 9]0.2]4.0890 P: 9]0.623.0]88 P: 970.920.5000 P: 9709253444 adamlydme[hotlod rom kairdmcdowellenN rom F: 970.920.2186 bdjamh'tech rom APPLICANTIANDSCAPEARCHTTECT CIVIL ENGINEER Aspen Housing Partners, LLC Connect One Design Roaring Fork Engineering Jason Bradshaw 0123Emma Rd. 592 Highway 133 228 Eastwood Drive Suite 2WA Carbondale, C0 81623 ASpen, CO 81611 Basalt, CO 81621 P: 9]0.340.4130 P: 910-319-9298 P. 970.2]9.1030 F: 866.8]6.58]3 m 'ebrxdshaw amac ronil r'chartln®rtena b'z GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES yrcmga,a.. e amail.l axxwavarw,e any .........m�worlrvrseeaumenn anauonalcerrcM1nalaMaonamo.s.n�m wal nolpnm lmnswaw. pam na. Jlh,- mrsmo ry1.memsdl a„epouem me n,mn,m�,aanyoaa,musm.. auxmllnm wuemnean,r.xm Bxrzlsnem aa„impean,n m„p.,lrz9we.IxCwweml,wl rpmxnim ensehcm Blluremmlpmtce M'u,m, niummalM1e mfewrc dem Mlo,ap PMam KwM repermame,mxomissions, mmn:alm.�rxorw�mm.m�m mrwer=m:�w,ii�. �• °ih 1a Iwm,rne.. ul.wrsma cepemv.mmsce s cerz•mmsoreammagiipglp� nm.. orsce ppwansrnes. m 1 w mw M1m.rylan aomamµnmmarearoaomeY pmM1pxeaParvepamnNrmaw.nowoanPwmm�awmauia 11 d- unwslwrnn mPieeer 11-11 e0nllesmmaruiy Pxnmi rte pnantlamnanmmarwuwunwBl a PM1 Is comma ageaeettu+ltnaumtkwttr•orcr, mponnblemrall-1 anaalw,equlamm 11. pnoueonsantlmepwnmuememmemo.lMmnlmamrswll be 41 p y nsprzwnartlemmplmm aa.mmnwa veils as w m dan.meunessnoteaanemse P Alaimensms Evmanwwn,mm Emmen 1h,c 9 a' 1, common mwnlmm asunn Norh A,dmm�dam ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SET A1.03 - ROOF PIAN OVER TOPOGRAPHY A1.04 - FIRE RESISTANCE REGRESS A7.05 - ACCESSIBILITY TYPE A UNIT A1.06 - - ACCISSIBILITY DIAGRAM A1.0] FAR A1.08 - NET LIVABLE PLANS A1.14 - FLOOR PLANS A1.15 - FLOOR PIANS A1.16 -FLOOR PLANS A1.17 - FLOOR PLANS A1.18- ROOF PIANS A2.01 - ELEVATIONS 112.02 - ELEVATIONS A2.03 - ELEVATIONS A2.04 - ELEVATIONS A2.05 - 3D VIEWS A2.(6 - 3D VIEWS PROJECT INFORMATION LOCATION _...... _....................... _...... _...... _............... _......_......_..........488 CASTLE CREEK RD. ASPEN, CO 81611 LOT SIZE 11,255 S.F. N 24,640 S.F. PARCELIDp.... ....................................._.............._.....-......-.......................-2]3512309033 Et 2]3512309034 SUBDIVISION:....................... -......-......-...............-......-......-....................... -......-.......................- ...... - ........ ........ . NIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ........................._..............._.......488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD E LOT SPLIT Lot:I E 2 H W z LL� li J H V Lu u I..1. r) CL 2 I 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119 South ERR, St Sud, 209 Aspen,C0 NRIl M. 9]m 9m 2t66 „w„egWm e�wy� m0eapnifidpoFn None do w0..,oat.n��ArzMxm,x moon W W U W o J z Q /U�A /�aF�0 W Rt DRAWING ISSUE LAND USE 111101201] COVER SHEET ARCH PROIECTNo: 1]03 OMWN BY: CPF v a -7995'_— A ���— _ _ _ E F \ G E -I---_—_I B : 8034'-2' °" DC 8034'-2' +' 8000' 1 __ _I_ ___ _ 34'21 ____ _I____ _ 34'-211+' 1 __ _ _ Fl: 8( 34 -'�t3'91: 1+. 42' 40' 10'A"� 41 8031'-9' _ _ _ o- 11 _ 3 HiI �fl k 8005'__ : 80411'20 D . 8044''+0 E : 8041'-W : 81 i \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I '�_ ' \ 1: 8034'-2'1°" 42'-031x• 1 \ I — � 55'-011x• I G 8044' -Ola H: 8042'-0'`l I \I \ 44' -0y -b r 42'ur 6II, 5'-813° 59'-31° \ 7990' 7985' A -- I I B': 6031'_3"_ 1 `a 4' 231 A''8034'-9" 34'-2'1<' 22'-9" I 1 P: 6041'-511<' 37-431+ _ _____!____ D:8941'-4 --- 1+ 1 --- - - - i � 5 I I 1- - - - - 2g-431+' - I- - - 29'-5' K': 8041'-53 K : '8i 0 -10 0" 41'-711°^ 50'-2" 253'-1 - 44'-1014+° 1 C: 8044'-0 E': 8044'-0 53'-fi" 64-731+" 6 32'-0" \ 32'-0" '1 \ -\ 8\01 0—\43'-3" b\\\ \ b41'-9' F ii j 8044' -U.- Ls: 32_0" 80- 42' 49'_7' 64'431-4"0' 13' r� I ' M': 8041'41x'_ _ I Ml�: 8044' 0" C8 29'-4i1+, _ _ _ _ _ -I 45'-8314" 4 � I HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY \ I 52'-1"64'-431°" I 1 9 N°: 8044'-0' _ _ 32'-0" - N°: 8041-_0112I ^ I^I I - 9 1 \ 51'-011+• 615 �I1 I \ ' I I_ I II I I IP°: 18380-8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 60344-211x'4 42'-9" \ \ \ \ 31F'Pro^ 54'-4'12 . \ 11 - - - - D': 8034•_9" _ _ 2Y.-9.. - G°:18031'-3" \ 39'41+^ 36'-Pn' I I I \ \ 8202 \ \ W8031'3„- Re�1369'„2I° I\�, \ \ \ \1 35�_7� I 41'-231+• 1950s HISTORIC GRADE L_ FINISH GRADE - rv: 3031'-91`5 I \ \ 1 r: 8034'_9” - - - - - - - ��- \ \ I 52'-1"64'-431°" I 1 9 N°: 8044'-0' _ _ 32'-0" - N°: 8041-_0112I ^ I^I I - 9 1 \ 51'-011+• 615 �I1 I \ ' I I_ I II I I IP°: 18380-8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 60344-211x'4 42'-9" \ \ \ \ 31F'Pro^ 54'-4'12 . \ 11 - - - - D': 8034•_9" _ _ 2Y.-9.. - G°:18031'-3" \ 39'41+^ 36'-Pn' I I I \ \ 8202 \ \ W8031'3„- Re�1369'„2I° I\�, \ \ \ \1 35�_7� I 41'-231+• 1950s HISTORIC GRADE L_ FINISH GRADE - rv: 3031'-91`5 I \ \ 1 r: 8034'_9” - - - - - - - 22'-9" \ v V-9"\ N \ 33 dl \ \o33'-2'14" \OOO \ ��S 1 39'-f" 4\ II U (77 \ AA A01 A'0. 190, PROJECT �• NORTH nROOF PLAN HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY �3 S IE:118' = 11 ail vID 10 H N STON V ARC H ITECTSrc tt95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 asp<n, co e1s11 w s;o-sza —21. a�cns "c mA" onad� gap emMv W..adw" m"a.u,0em.,am�x ua � Lu Lu U Lu O J � w a UM W 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE 11x0 us[ 11110117 ROOF PLAN OVER TOPOGRAPGHY vRolEcr xo: 1ro3 0snwx sr: CH 1 �1 Cal O A 2 HR RRE WALL ■ 2HA AAiE0A55E- 3 HR RRE WALL BE- -11—ISI- 291 Millif ELOWEpiACCE55iAAVELOISI— MAIN LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN SECOND LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN SCAIE: 1116'- 1'-0" nTHIRD LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN ROOF PLAN FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN ® J SCALE 1116". I'-0' ® Y SCAIE: 1116 10 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARC H ITECTSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 w W-21. �a<rr �z mA� aaa� ndwm„e,.,a�s� Meeap W..d. meH�ass� m,wp:�oaa� Y Lu Lu/ LL U Lu 0 J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us, 11110117 FIRE RESISTANCE ROJECfW 1N) 6AAWN BY: Cff v MAIN LEVEL ACCESSIBILITY PLAN I TYPE A UNIT S IE: 113' _ 1'-0' &I LEVELACCESSIBILITY PLAN A :11,6 = ,'-0' ail V viD JOHNSTON ARC HI T EC TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 m9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt rxtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercAyMlxussmem Ne«km ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i Lu Lu I� U Lu o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —61 11110117 ACCESSIBILITY TYPE A UNIT ROIECfW 1N3 OAAWN BY: Cff I V 1 N LOWER LEVEL ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAM -1 SIXE: 1116 . 1 0 n MAIN LEVEL ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAM SGLLE: 1116"= V., 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH IT ECTSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 363 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt urxtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercAyMlxussmem �/meNm ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i Lu Lu U Lu o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —61 11110117 ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAM ROJECfW IM3 U.— CIT F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE LEVEL USE AREA LOWER LEVEI, 351.62 AH UNIT 5,992.13 DECK 2,563.33 STAIR 297.40 STORAGE 194.34 STAIR 9,047.20 sq ft MAIN LEVEL, 174.99 AH UNIT 6,214.45 DECK 1,415.72 STAIR 269.01 STORAGE 351.62 8,250.80 sq ft SECOND IEVEI, AH UNIT 6,513.42 DECK 1,429.32 STAIR 313.86 STORAGE 174.99 8,431.59 sq ft THRID LEVEL, AH UNIT 2,844.00 DECK 1,091.76 STORAGE 171.72 4,107.48 sq ft 29,837.07 sq ft F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA SCAIE:1116= 1.0" MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA ® scnN: 1116"= 1'-0 n SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA L SCAIE: 1116'• 1'-0" ® �% SfAIE: 1116"• E ail viD V JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 81611 u-92— odder ��gwoan.rmMvd��iwo� aaenexom,a„��,em me.mm ass�uro�y�� �d� Y Lu Lu U Lu 0 J z V) Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ 11110117 FAR SHEET No. Alig NET LIVABLE FLOOR AREA UNIT AREA LOWER LEVEL, AN UNIT 5,476.85 MAIN LEVEL, AN UNIT 5,766.65 SECOND LEVEL, AN UNIT 6,044.89 THRID LEVEL, AN UNIT 2,641.81 19,930.20 sq ft �I NLA SCHEDULE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA SCALE: 1116"= I'-0' ® � SCAIE: 1116'= I'-0" SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA ^( THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA 2 AE:llt6 V-0' v SCALE:111- — 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, n95ouU Sp,i, 51 h203 Aspen, CO 3— m-92— addons npeYnmiWXnt �wmtlgWmMVm�A'd6rgA�Mrwon aaenexom,a„��,em Y Lu Lu U Lu o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —USI 11110117 NET LIVABLE FLOOR AREA ROJECfW — OAAWN BY: CIT a U LOWER LEVEL srAx: tle° - 1 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �I I I I I I I I I I I I I ail V viD 10H NSTON AR C H IT E C TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Azp<o, co elsx u9)0.9313494 ��ww�nwomMva��anPon m,�.u„00m7a,�� ax sw LU LU U LU Ln U 00 Rt DRAWING 155UE —us[ x110117 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN VROIECW 1N3 0sawx sr: cn SHEET No. Al \ U U U U MAIN LEVEL SCA1: tle• 1 0 0 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH IT ECTSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt wmtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercAyMlxussmem NeNm ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i LU LU U LU o J z Ln U 00 Rt DRAWING ISSOE —us[ 1110117 MAIN LEVELFLOOR PLAN PAOJECfW 1N) OAAWN BY: Cff T FA I I I I I I I I I I I SECOND LEVEL SCALE f.. p ail V viD JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt wmtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercAyMlxussmem Ne«km ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i LU LU U LU o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ROIECW iro3 OAAWN BY: Cff � rn� THIRD LEVEL --f. - i o 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH IT ECTSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt wmtlgWmMVm�A'dpr..d. wAeercAyMlxussmem Ne«km ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i LU LU U LU o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —M Nli01n THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PAOJECf Noy — OAAWN BY: CIT a ROOF PLAN --i.- - i 0 ail V viD JOHNSTON AR C H IT EC TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 addons npexnmiWXnt �wmtlgWmMVm�A'dprgA�Mrwon wAeercAyMlxussmem Ne«km ckv➢�x mmn��mm�uwdmrs i LU LU U LU o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ 11110117 ROOF PLAN SHEET No. Al I �� SOUTH ELEVATION —111 1- 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH IT ECTSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 Lu Lu U Lu o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ 11110117 SOUTH ELEVATIONS ROJECfW 111) OAAWN BY: Cff a ail V viD JOHNSTON ARC HI T EC TSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9213494 iQ Q2 3Q Q4 QS Q6 Q7 QR 9Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 _ �ti.0�aa� owzeprco ee°mn,vam.�a.ad. neeomea..em WEST ELEVATION Y w w U w o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ 11110117 WEST ELEVATIONS ROJECf Noy 111) OAAWN BY: Cff TV I VTJ /R\ N 0 P QN QM QL QK 1 H Q Q Q Q Q Q Q iI N>"w1�AhpA NORTH ELEVATION 1 su 4— 1 a 6 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH IT ECTSrc n95ouU Spring 51 Suih 303 Aspen, CO 61611 u9)0.9313494 W W U LU o J z V) a Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us[ 1110117 NORTH ELEVATIONS ROJECf Noy 113 OAAWN BY: CIT a w SHEET No. ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING A ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING B 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, llgkutn5pn"St Suite 206 Aspm, CO 01611 rtt--BM-2- W W U W g J Z l%i a Q U 00 00 It DRAWING ISSUE L� p6Dtecr No: I., BMN BY Cpp a al ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING E ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING F IY IIS —� i ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING C A ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING D a01 o j0H NSTON U ARCH I TECTSps 119 S.lhSpp, 95 Aspen.N 81611 1. i LL LL ni U Lu o J Z l%i a Q U 00 00 It DRAWING ISSUE L� SHEET No. A219 ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING C A ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING D a01 o j0H NSTON U ARCH I TECTSps 119 S.lhSpp, 95 Aspen.N 81611 1. i LL LL ni U Lu o J Z l%i a Q U 00 00 It DRAWING ISSUE L� SHEET No. A219 P667 Method Planning + Development IX.b Memorandum NO. Planning — 05 DATE: November 17, 2017 BY: Adam Roy TO: Hillary Seminick CC: Chris Everson Jason Bradshaw SUBJECT: 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing— Responses and Updates from First Reading before City Council Dear Hillary: The purpose of this Memo is to provide updates and responses to items raised by City Council during the First Reading of the Ordinance for the proposed project. Additional supporting design material will be provided prior to the Second Reading on November 27, 2017. The final PD Plan Set will be submitted following any last updates that are necessary pending the outcome and conclusions of Second Reading. The updates leading into Second Reading are as follows: PARKING AND TIA Following the discussions and takeaways with City Council regarding additional parking solutions for the proposed project, the applicant and project team have concluded the following: • Parking Garage: The project team does not see a subgrade parking garage as a efficient or cost effective method for providing any additional parking and/or minimizing the physical improvements on the property and visual impacts from the Castle Creek Road public realm. • Car Stacking Storage System: The project team does not view a car stacking storage system as a solution that balances the other pressures and constraints associated with the context of the property and the proposed project. • Accommodating additional on-site parking spaces: The project team was able to accommodate five (5) additional parking spaces on the property, increasing the number of spaces from 29 to 34. The parking area has been expanded to the south by increasing the height of the retaining walls below the parking surface, which have been kept out of the five-foot (5') side yard setback. The hammerhead turnaround area at the end of the expanded parking area has also been enlarged with a longer turning radius to more easily accommodate a three-point maneuver for cars as well as delivery/service trucks. The trash and recycling enclosure has been intentionally relocated to the end of the hammerhead turnaround to make trash pickup easier as well as relocate the trash enclosure from the front of the property between the building and the road. The attached Illustrative Site Plan (Exhibit A) reflects these modifications. • Off -Site Parking and/or additional TIA improvements to offset the parking space deficit: As previously recommended by Community Development as a potential solution to the onsite parking deficit, the project team is proposing that the following items, in some combination or order of priority, satisfy the deficit: 119 South Spring Street, #102 1 Aspen Colorado 81611 (p) 970.274.0890 1 (e) adam@methodpd.com x. b 488 Castle Creek Road Planning Memo 05 - Responses to City Council First Reading. docx November 17, 2017 • Establish a management plan for the building where 4 of the one -bedroom units are leased as carless units, limiting the total required parking to 34 parking spaces. • Construction of the new trail connection from the property to the Marolt Trail to the north. As the construction cost of this element will exceed the cost of a typical curb, gutter and six- foot (6') sidewalk, the net additional cost shall be applied to satisfy the fee -in -lieu otherwise. Identify and secure off-site parking spaces for car storage. The applicant and project team are working to identify other City controlled parking spaces such as those at the Marolt Seasonal Housing facility that could be utilized to overcome the onsite parking space deficit. These parking spaces could then be managed to provide additional parking storage beyond the one space per unit allocation, freeing up onsite spaces for guest parking. Once such management technique could provide two-bedroom unit tenants who choose to have more than one car with an option to rent an offsite space for a second vehicle. ADDITIONAL CONTEXT STUDIES AND BUILDING HEIGHT MODIFICATIONS In response to input from certain City Council members during First Reading, the following additional design material is provided for review and discussion during Second Reading: • Additional Context Studies — comments from City Council suggested a need to better understand the context of the proposed building from the Marolt Trail and Seasonal Housing perspective. The project team is in the process of generating building renderings of the proposed four-story building from the eastern perspective, looking towards the site and Castle Creek Road beyond. The project team continues to stand behind the appropriateness of the proposed building within the surrounding context as a result of the unique attributes of the site and the placement of the lowest level of the building into the hillside. • Removal of Upper (4th) Level — also as a result of input from City Council during First Reading, the project team is working to create design material showing the removal of the proposed building's upper (4th) level. This will result in a uniform two-story building from the Castle Creek Road perspective and a three-story building from the Marolt Trail and Seasonal Housing perspective. This material is still being generated with a goal of submitting it prior to the Second Reading on November 27, 2017. Page 12 preserve existing future trail alignme marolt bike path to be with parks and ADA coral minimal site lighting to m 20' driveway with fir retaining wall supplemer provide scmenir SCALE: V=16' ®, trail to existing marolt bike path elevator/stair core with internal storage and mail area raised perennial garden sod sculpted landscape/ lounging lawn raised perennial garden bike parking (typ.) ADA ramp sod sculpted landscape/ lounging lawn light well for lower units (typ.) corten walls/layered planting to create personal patio spaces, h elevator/stair core with internal storage and mail area shade tree within tree well ;at grade), typ. rear deck/patio(s) with access b proposed trails enaced retaining wall(s) y' curb ✓egetative screening vehicular turnaround mow storage zone �MMM II 1 1ICTRATIVE SITE L Xa 0 � preserve existing cottonwoods future trail alignment to existing marolt bike path to be coordinated with parks and engineering , department Cq Sr! F ADA compliant sidewalk (6- width) minimal site lighting for safety and to mark entrances 20' driveway with fretruck access retaining wall (height varies) + 6" curb supplemental planting to provide screening from Castle Creek road SCALE: 1"=16' parking lot w/ 34 parking spaces (including 2ADA parking spaces) 24 head -in parking spaces 10 parallel parking spaces retain existing ROW berm and all existing vegetation to the greatest extent possible retaining wall (heights vary) + 6" curb bear proof trash enclosure wt trash & recycling receptacles 7 trail to existing marolt bike path elevator/stair core with internal storage and mail area - raised perennial garden sod sculpted landscape/ lounging lawn raised perennial garden bike parking (typ.) ADA ramp sod sculpted landscape/ lounging lawn - light well for lower units (typ.) corten walls/layered planting to create personal patio spaces, ty elevator/stair core with internal storage and mail area shade tree within tree well (at grade), typ. rear deck/patio(s) with access tc proposed trails terraced retaining wall(s) 6" curb vegetative screening vehicular turnaround snow storage zone P671 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Project IX.b Table 01. Proposed Floor Area Calculations -Alternative 01 (3 -story option) Proposed Zoning: AH/PD Property Zoning & Existing Conditions Total Area (sq. ft.) Gross Site Area 35,895 Net Site Area 24,050 Allowable Overall FAR (1:1) 24,050 Percentage of exposed Lower Level Area 75% 15% of FAR floor area for decks, balconies, exterior stairs & porches 3,607 Building Levels Building Use Sq. Feet Level #-1 (Lower Level) AH Residential 5,992 Storage 194 Decks, Breezeways, Exterior Stairways and Porches 2,861 Lower Level Building Floor Area 6,186 Level # -1 Floor Area including exteror elements 9,047 Level #1 (Main Level) AH Residential 6,214 Storage 352 Decks, Breezeways, Exterior Stairways and Porches 1,685 Level # 1 Building Floor Area 6,566 Level # 1 Floor Area including exteror elements 8,251 Level # 3 (Second Level) AH Residential 6,513 Storage 175 Decks, Breezeways, Exterior Stairways and Porches 1,473 Level # 2 Building Floor Area 6,688 Level #2 Floor Area including exteror elements 8,162 Total Building Floor Area 19,441 Total Decks, Breezeways, Exterior Stairways and Porches 6,019 Total Floor Area 25,460 Building Floor Area Summary* Use Floor Area Percentage of (sq. Total Affordable Housing Residential Floor Area 18,720 96% Storage 721 4% Applicable Decks, Balconies, Exterior Stairways and Porches 6,019 31% Total Building Floor Area 19,441 100% Total Gross Building Floor Area + 10% 21,385 110% "does not adjust for partial subgrade FAR reduction or 15% for exterior areas Maximum Allowable Floor Area Summary Use Floor Area Percentage of (sq. Total Affordable Housing Residential Floor Area** 17,222 96% Storage Floor Area** 672 4% Total Floor Area for FAR 17,894 100% Total Deck, Breezeway, Exterior Stairway and Porch Area 6,019 100% Maximum Allowable FAR Floor Area (+10%) 19,684 110% Maximum Allowable Deck, Breezeway, Exterior Stairway and Porch Area (+10%) 6,621 110% P672 IX.b 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Project Table 03. Rezoning Comparison and Proposed AH/PD Development Standards - Alternative 01 (3 -story option) # AH/PD Zoning Dimensional Requirements 1 Minimum Gross Lot Area (sq. ft.) Underlying Zoning: R-1 5A w/ PD Standard/Dimension Similar Use Zoning: RMF Standard/Dimension Proposed Rezoning: AH/PD Standard/Dimension 15,000 6,000 35,895 2 Steep Slope Site Area Reduction 11,845 11,845 11,845 3 Actual Net Lot Area 24,050 24,050 24,050 4 Minimum Net Lot Area per Unit (sq.ft.) n/a n/a 1,496 5 Maximum Allowable Density (# of units) 2 n/a 24 6 Maximum Density (units per acre) n/a n/a 29.1 7 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet 75 feet 8 Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 5 feet 25 feet 9 Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 10 Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 11 Maximum Site Coverage n/a n/a 21% 12 Maximum Front Height* 25 feet 32 feet 25 feet 13 Maximum Rear Internal Height* 25 feet 32 feet 42 feet 14 Public Amenity Space n/a n/a n/a 15 Minimum Distance between Buildings 10, n/a n/a 16 Minimum Percent Open Space n/a n/a 45% 17 Minimum Trash Access Area (sq. ft.) n/a n/a 150 18 Allowable Floor Area (FAR) sq. ft.** 4,500 11,250 24,050 19 Proposed Maximum Floor Area (FAR) sq. ft. n/a n/a 19,684 20 Proposed Maximum FAR** 0.50 1.25 0.82 21 Proposed Maximum Deck Area (sq. ft). n/a n/a 6,621 22 Proposed Net Livable Area sq. ft. n/a n/a 17,288 23 Minimum off-street parking stalls*** 2 38 38 24 Maximum Unit Size sq. ft. FAR dependent 2,500 990 *These are maximum heights measured from finished grade for these building orientations. Specific heights will be determined by the roof plan height over topography table associated with the Project PD. **Based on standads in 26.710.090.D.10.d. ***34 onsite with at least 4 additional spaces provided offsite LOWER LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN 1 MAIN LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN SME:1116'= I'-0' SECOND LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN ROOF PLAN FIRE RESISTANCE PLAN L SCPlE: 1116"• I'-0' ® J SCAIf'. 1116'- 1'-D" 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119 Swtn Spn, SC Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtt 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx�rtme mueapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSronVNNwe I,,/ Lu Lu (= U Lu g J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE ANDUSE 121112DI7 FIRE RESISTANCE PRDIEU%N — DMN RY: CPF y W LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA SCALE 1116'= I'-0' ® - SCAIf:1116'= I'-0" � F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE 2 UNNLK LLVLL FLOUK AKLA SCALE: 1116'• 1U ' a01 N viD IOH NSTON AR CH IT E CTSrc 119kutn5pn, SC Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtt 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx„rtme m0eapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSrw,VNNwe I,,/ Lu Lu U Lu o J z Ln Q U M0 W Rt DRAWING ISSUE -UV 12111212 FAR PRD9ECT%o 1203 DMWN RY: CPF Tvv T V/ F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE LEVEL USE AREA LOWER LEVEL, AH UNIT 5,992.13 DECK 2,563.33 STAIR 297.40 STORAGE 194.34 9,047.20 sq ft MAIN LEVEL, AH UNIT 6,214.45 DECK 1,415.72 STAIR 269.01 STORAGE 351.62 8,250.80 sq R SECOND LEVEL, AH UNIT 6,513.42 DECK 1,473.18 STORAGE 174.99 8,161.59 sq ft 25,459.59 sq ft � F.A.R. AREA SCHEDULE 2 UNNLK LLVLL FLOUK AKLA SCALE: 1116'• 1U ' a01 N viD IOH NSTON AR CH IT E CTSrc 119kutn5pn, SC Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtt 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx„rtme m0eapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSrw,VNNwe I,,/ Lu Lu U Lu o J z Ln Q U M0 W Rt DRAWING ISSUE -UV 12111212 FAR PRD9ECT%o 1203 DMWN RY: CPF Tvv T V/ LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA NET LIVABLE FLOOR AREA UNIT AREA LOWER LEVEL, AN UNIT 5,476.85 MAIN LEVEL, AH UNIT 5,766.65 SECOND LEVEL, AH UNIT 6,044.89 17,288.39 sq ft NLA SCHEDULE MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA 1 90ALE 1p6= ,' UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 2 SCALE: 1116= 1'A' 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119South Spn, SC Suit, 201 k 61611 76L 910.92E -3M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx„rtme m0e,pnifidpoen None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSrw,VNNwe i Lu Lu U Lu o J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —USE 121112017 NET UVABLE FLOOR AREA PROJECTNo: 1703 DMN sr: CPF ■ �1 LOWER LEVEL SME:119' - 1-0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I jl I I I I I I I I I I I I a01 N viD ION NSTON ARCH I T E CTSrc 119kutn Spn, SC Suite 203 Aspen, CO 01611 rtL 9]0.925-3M4 Lu Lu U Lu O J � Z Ln " Q U00M W Rt DRAWING ISSUE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PRD3EU%N 1)03 DMWN RY: CPF SHEET No. Al J MAIN LEVEL SCALE: 119' - l'-0- 0 0 0 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119kutn Spn, SC Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtL 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx�rtme m0eapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSronVNNwe LSI Lu U wo J z l/1 Q U 00 Rt DRAWINGISSUE —USI 12111.11 MAIN LEVELFLOOR PLAN PRD9EU%N 1)09 DMWN BY: CPF �1 UPPER LEVEL SCA1E:116' - l' -0 - UPPER 0 a01 N viD IOH NSTON AR CH IT E CTSrc 119kutnspn, st Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtL 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx�rtme m0eapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSronVNNwe Lu Lu U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWINGISSUE —us, 121112011 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PRD9EU%N 1)09 DMWN RY: CPF JC44) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ROOF PLAN SMlE:118' - 1--T 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119kutn Spn, SC Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtt 9]0.925-9M4 mssnndWhlrsemwiyue o�kMyMlx�rtme m0eapnifidpoFn None ¢wdors usMgo�EsiaNSronVNNwe Lu Lu U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWINGISSUE —u5F 12111.11 ROOF PLAN PRD9EU%N 1)09 DMWN RY: CPF I I v b 0 � �F a � Y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTH ELEVATION srus:sne+ �o a01 N viD ION NSTON AR CH IT E CTSrc llgkutn5pn, St Suite 203 Aspm, CO 01611 rtL B—M-B- Lu Lu U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE I'll- 12�112017 SOUTH ELEVATIONS PBOIECT%: — BMWN BY: CpF lcca000:), 1Q 2Q Q3 Q4 6 6 Q7 Q8 Y 10 11 12 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119kutnspn, st Suite 209 Aspen, CO 01611 rtL 9]0.925-9M4 L—------------ tWEST ELEVATION s�N.9nl- — Lu Lu U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us, 12111411 WEST ELEVATIONS P6D9EU%N 1)09 DMWN BY: CPF Q P Q Q Q Q H I$ Q Q Q '•, I I I I I '. I I I I I Q Q Q I I I i i ------------- 201 N viD ION NSTON AR CH IT E CTSrc 119kutn5pn, St Suite 201 Aspm, CO 01611 rtL B—M-B- W W U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWINGISSUE L.Nc tsF 12/11411 NORTH ELEVATIONS PROIECT%o 1)01 BMWN BY CpF lr-Noo)) 15 14 13 12 11 10 9Q Q8 Q7 Q6 Q5 Q4 3Q 2Q Qi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L— — — —_— _—_---_—__—_—_ —_— L----s—_— EAST ELEVATION 6 DAV ID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS,, 119kutn5pn, St Suite 209 Aspm, CD 0,611 rtt 9]0.925-9M4 Lu Lu U wo J z Ln Q U 00 00 Rt DRAWING ISSUE —us, 12111411 EASE ELEVATIONS PRDJEU%N 143 DMWN BY: CPF 70,-0 .M IX.b -Jry Seminick From: Jessica Garrow Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 7:56 PM To: Barry Crook Cc: Linda Manning; Christopher Everson;jebradshaw@mac.com; Hillary Seminick Subject: Re: Email from our website We will include in the council packet. Thanks for forwarding. Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 S Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2780 Sent from my iPhone Please excuse any typos On Dec 1, 2017, at 10:21 PM, Barry Crook <barry.crook@cityofaspen.com> wrote: I've forwarded it to the Clerk and to Com Dev -- they can get it in the packet Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com> Date: December 1, 2017 at 9:24:34 PM MST To: Barry Crook <barry.crook@cityofaspen.com>, Chris Everson <chris.everson@cityofaspen. com> Subject: Email from our website See email received from the AHP website. This is a voice that was not present at the council table. Can I send directly to council members? From: [Aspen Housing Partnership] Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 8:33:19 PM (UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada) To: Aspen Housing Partnership Subject: Aspen Housing Partnership "Castle Creek" From: Jesse Vieira da Rocha <]essevieiradarocha@gmail.com> Phone:6155987570 Message Body: When I moved to Aspen, I lived a tiny one bedroom apartment on the east side of town. At $2150 a month, this free market rental was very much out of my budget, but it was plain and simply all that I could find. When I first met my husband, he was sharing a 2 bedroom apartment in Snowmass with 5 other boys -two were on the couches in the living room, and two stayed in each of the bedrooms. When my lease was up, we moved Mb in together into yet another free market apartment. Our rent was $2400 a month before utilities. It was not properly insulated, and we paid hundreds of dollars a month in electricity to keep the house above 40 degrees. Needless to say, this was an enormous strain on our budget. After 2 years in that apartment, a unit at the LITE became available to us as St. Regis employees. With affordable rent and a manageable heating bill, the weight was lifted off our shoulders. The demand for skilled hospitality workers in Aspen is constantly growing with the amount of high end clientele we have visiting. However, it truly feels like there is no where for us to go. APCHA's plan to build this housing unit is a step in the right direction to help passionate, long term workers put down roots and continue to contribute to our wonderful community. This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Aspen Housing Partnership (http://www.aspenhousingpartnership.com) Sent from my iPhone Hillary Seminick From: joseph wells <joewells@me.com> Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 12:50 PM To: Steve Skadron;Adam Frisch;Ward Hauenstein; Ann Mullins; Bert Myrin Cc: Barry Crook;Jim True;Jessica Garrow; Hillary Seminick Subject: 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Proposal Attachments: 2017 (12-08) 488 Castle Creek Road Corres.pdf; 1983 (05-04) Letter from Marolt Attorney.pdf; 1983 (05-04) Letter from Marolt Attorney.pdf;The Marolt Ranch Parcels,pdf Please review attached information. Thanks, Joe Wells t Joseph Wells P O Box 4259 - Aspen,CO 81612 joewells@me.com 08 December 2017 Steve Skadron, Mayor (Steve.Skadron@cityo aspen.com) Adam Frisch, City Council (Adam.Frisch@cityofas�en.com) Ward Hauenstein, City Council (ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com aspen.com) Ann Mullins, City Council (ann.mullins@cit�Lofaspen.com) Bert Myrin, City Council (bert.myrin@cityyofaspeT.com) Re: 488 Castle Creek Road Dear Mayor and City Council: I am writing to follow up on a topic that Ward Hauenstein raised during the public hearing discussion regarding the 488 Castle Creek Road affordable housing proposal. Council Member Hauenstein noted something to the effect that the site in that section of Castle Creek Road seems very constrained and he was asking staff whether there might be an alternate site on the adjacent Marolt Ranch property that might be a more suitable site for the development of the proposed level of density. Planning staff presented drawings of the existing 4.30-acre seasonal affordable housing site from the second plat amendment of the Marolt Ranch property to demonstrate that there are limited opportunities for additional development on that parcel. Assistant City Manager Crook also commented that he and then head of the Housing Office McCabe had looked into possible additional development on the seasonal housing parcel about five years ago and had also concluded that there was limited potential. In my March 31 letter to City Council, I was not suggesting that the Council consider relocating the housing currently proposed on the 488 Castle Creek site to the parcel where the seasonal housing is located. I was suggesting that it be relocated to an alternate site somewhere within the balance of Marolt Ranch property. Please allow me to explain my reasoning. Some time in the early 1980's, the Marolt family proposed to develop the Marolt Ranch property. The plan which was eventually approved for the property in 1981 and which was documented by a Final Plat, as recorded in Plat Book 12 at pages 1 through 10, created a 6.925-acre parcel for the development of 30 free-market condominiums and a 4.325-acre site for 70 affordable housing units. Lot 3, a 0.54-acre site was established for the City's use and three lots ranging in size from 0.337 acres to 1.322 acres were created for use by the Marolts to increase the size of adjoining lots that they owned. Rights-of- way were established for the extension of Main Street across the property and for an extension of Cemetery Lane into the property. Finally, six open space parcels were designated within the property. 08 December 2017 Re: 488 Castle Creek Road Page two of three By 1983, development of the Marolt property had apparently been stopped by a pending lawsuit. By letter dated May 4, 1983 (see attached), the attorney representing the Marolts wrote to the City and offered to donate to the City 10.10 acres within the Marolt Ranch and to sell the remainder of the ranch, a parcel of 25.5 acres to the City. This latter parcel, to be purchased by the City, presumably with open space funds (but not the gifted parcel), was for the stated purpose of open space. These two parcels were later conveyed to the City by separate deeds on August 2, 1983. Both parcels continue to be zoned R-15A at the present time, I believe. Aspen Survey Engineers has located the 10.1-acre parcel and it is located in the southwestern part of the Marolt Ranch property. The south boundary of the 10.1-acre parcel coincides with the north boundary of the 488 Castle Creek Road site. See attached drawing which indicates the relationship of the 10.1 acre parcel to the Marolt seasonal housing site and adjacent parking area. It does not appear that a Plat Amendment was recorded to document the changes that were being made as the result of the transfers of the two parcels to the City. There was some discussion in the May 4, 1983 letter indicating that the earlier approved development was no longer planned for construction (whether that was intended to mean the free-market development, or both the free-market development and the affordable housing is not clear from the letter, but perhaps that is clarified elsewhere in the record). I have only located two recorded amendments to the original Marolt Ranch Plat. Plat Amendment No. 1 recorded in 1991 in Book 27 at Pages 35 and 36 created the 1.84-acre lease parcel for the Museum site operated by the Aspen Historical Society. Plat Amendment No 4 recorded in 1993 in Book 33 at Pages 51 through 55, created the 4.30 acre parcel for the now existing seasonal affordable housing site. In 2007, City of Aspen voters approved the removal of Lot 2a and Lot 3, a total of 1.493 acres from the Marolt open space parcel, for use in association with the then proposed power plant, reducing the size of the parcel presumed to be purchased with open funds from 25.5 acres to 24.007 acres. So far as the 10.1 acre gift parcel is concerned, it appears that somewhat more than one half of the existing seasonal affordable housing site (approximately 2 to 2-1/2 acres) is within the boundary of the 10.1 acre gift parcel, as well as the existing parking area and a portion of the access to the housing site (an additional acre to 1-1/2 acres). The existing parking area and the access are both located to the north of the existing 4.30- acre parcel for the housing. The portion of the 10.1-acre site which has been developed is therefore in the range of 3 to 4 acres, leaving 6 to 7 acres remaining within the parcel gifted to the City. I would urge City Council to further investigate whether at least a majority of the proposed affordable housing can be moved to the acreage remaining within the 10.1-acre site. 08 December 2017 Re: 488 Castle Creek Road Page three of three The 488 Castle Creek Road site could either be merged into the Marolt Ranch property and retained as an open space parcel, it could be developed with a reasonable amount of affordable housing, say twelve or so dwelling units, given the constraints of the site or it could be sold as a free-market single family site, so that the City is able to recover a portion of its investment in this difficult development site. Thanks for your consideration of this information. Joe Wells Cc: Barry Crook, Asst. City Manager (barru.crook@citUofaspen.com) Jim True, City Attorney (lim.True@cit!Lo aspen.com) Jessica Garrow, City Planning Director (Jessica.garrozo@citrijo,faspen.coin) Hillary Seminick, Planner (hillary.seminick@cih�aspeT.com) Robert J.Joyce, P.C. Anorneys&Counselors at Law (� Deaver National Bank Plaza t 1� RobertJ.Joyce 1125 Seventeenth Street,Suite 2160 1g$3 y Lynn S.Jordan Deaver,Colorado 80202 ' Karen S.Burn (303) 534-6276 CO. - ASPEN. ,fir ofna . of pn.h� May 41 1983 Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ret The Resubdivision of the Marolt Property A4TN: Collette Penne,Planner Dear Ms. Penne: This letter constitutes'our"formal-written'rer}uest-for-sutidi'visibn exce on 1per.Section 20-19(a) of the Municipal Code,for_the Ctty.of.Aspen: I understand that this procedure is a shortened subdivision procedur3re,"in that conceptual review before City Council is waived, as well as a preliminary plat before Planning and Zoning. Conceptual review will be before the Planning and Zoning Board and final plat before the City Council. I believe a brief description of-the,parcels to be conveyed and the history of ,the transaction is in order. {Approximately six weeks ago, the Maiolts`approachedi_ !the City and gaestion daeveral city officials as to. whether or not the City '-Aspen might,be inteiested,,in a,donation;'-}The-City indicated .an.interest„and , thereafter the Marofs offered-Cc donate to' the City approximately 10:10 acre_s� This particu lar.parcel is delineated as parcel III on the legal-desciiption attached to this letter and'on the plat. The City ythee_offered to purchase the- remaGng,25.5,/ `acres,from-the-,Meeolts. -As has been acknowledged by ill-p-arties, this is a bargain sale In that-offers to purchase the Marolt property previously were in_the-range of ' $4 million. Thus, the transaction_ is as follows: .Th-eMarolts will donate-to the City; coq or before July 1, 1883, those 10.10 acres delineafed,in,parcel la 6n the,attached7 `legal desc"ription.-On-,or,before August 1,.1983, the Miirolts_will sell to the.City:of ,Aspen,-for pugposestof open space, that particular parcel. of propertydelineiti d.'67 ,the plat'and on the attached legal description.as Parcels I'and;II Upon delivery,of deed to all of-the acreage composing what has been commonly known as,the Marolt_R_anch, the City as licensor and Mrs. Opal limit as' licensee' w111 execute a eeetatn License Agreement: The erea-covered by_this; lAgreement-is depicted as parcel'II on the' attached legal description but will not be) .shown is a•sepirate parc&on.the'piitl Commencing upon the date of-delivery of. deed of the acreage to the City and-comm eneingif&a.&riod of three years, Opal [Marolt_will"have-the,exciuAije.right to occupyAfie,'acreao-depicted as parcel 114, During these three years, Mrs. Marolt will be allowed appropriate ingress and egress, furnished water and sewer and will pay only for gas and electricity used . solely by her. Mrs. Maroit has agreed to indemnify the City and hold it harmless for any acts of herself or her invitees, etc., and further will carry a public liability Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office May 4, 1993 Page 2 policy in the amount of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00). During the terms of this license agreement, Opal Marolt will pay no charges to the City, for rent or any other such fees. Lastly,kt-this time iI:would-request-an-amendment-of'the SPA/PITI) plan in f-�r__ _ ^that the eakier-.approved development:is no longer-planni6d for, construction and'no development .proposal,currently-eadsts• on the newly formed parcels delineated'on the attached legandesc'rlppons. I understand that the zoning _wiII,remain R-15A; YUD/SPA, 1 believe this letter sets forth all those items necessary for formal application. As I know you are well aware, we are under a very tight time deadline and therefore if you have any questions or concerns or if I may be of any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Lypb S.Jor an Duly Authorized ttorney at Law for Marolt Associates LSJ:clt Enclosure cc: Mrs. Opal Marolt Ms.Vicki M. Buchanan Mr. Keith Marolt Ms.Peggy Marolt Eldridge Ms. Judy Marolt Robert J.Joyce, P.C. An e &Counselors at Law Deaver National Bank Plaza Q Robert J Joym 1125 Seventeenth Street,Suite 2160 1g83 i Denver,Colorado 80202 ' �Y 5 Lynn S.Jordan pt Karea S Bum (303) 334-6276 PtTV�1N CO- ASPEN. NC OFFICE May 4, 1983 Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: The Resubdivision of the Marolt Property AWN. Collette Penne,Planner Dear Ms. Penne: This letter constitutes-our-formal-written-re_%mst'f� subdivision_exception per-Section-20-19(a) of•the-Municipal_Code,for-the City of.Aspen: Iimderstand that this procedure is a shortened subdivision procedure, in that conceptual review before City Council is waived, as well as a preliminary plat before Planning and Zoning. Conceptual review will be before the Planning and Zoning Board and final plat before the City Council. I believe a brief description of-the,pareeis to be_conveyed and the history of_ ,the transaction.is in.order. fApproximately,six weeks ago, the Maeolts approached_ �thhe,-City and.questioned several city officials as to whether or not the City of ,� '-Aspen "might,be nterested_in .a. donation_:;The City indicated .an interest,end thereafter .the Marolts offered"to donate to the City approximately 10.10 acres.,. This partici lar parcel is delineated as parcel III on the legal"description attached to tliis`_letter and�on the plat. The City thea offered to.purchase the_remeining.25.5j acres,frdm the Meroits.--As has been acknowledged by all parties, this is a bargain sale in that offer's to purchase the Marolt property previously were in.the,range_of ' $4 million. Thus, the transaction_ is as follows: -The,Marolts will donate-to the_City ion-or before July 1,1989, those 1010 agres delineate'd,in,parcel III.onitii:attached/ legal.description.--On:or-before August 4 1983, the M&61ts,will�sell to;the,City-.of Aspen, for-purposeslof open space, that particular,parcelof property delineated.on:/ the plat and on'the attaciied legal description,as Parcels Irand-II. pon delivery, of .deedto_all of..the acreage composing what has been commonly known as the Marolt Ranch,_fhe City as licensor anpal d Mrs.A 'Merolt as' licensee will ,execute a certain License Agreement'. TM Brea-covered by .thliC Agreemeat;is depicted as parcel II oh.the attached legal .description but will not be Cihown is a.seperate parcel.on'the plat! Commencing upon the date of.delivery of: deed of the acreage to the City and_commencingifoi a.period of_three•years, Opal,I Marolt will"have' the,ekcliLdve:riot-to`occupy the, acreage depicted as Parcel II: During these three years, Mrs. Marolt will be allowed appropriate ingress and egress, furnished water and sewer and well pay only for gas and electricity used solely by her. Mrs. Marolt has agreed to indemnify the City and hold it harmless for any acts of herself or her invitees, etc., and further will carry a public liability Aspen/Pitidn County Planning Office May 4, 1983 Page 2 policy in the amount of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00). During the terms of this license agreement, Opal Marolt will pay no charges to the City, for rent or any other such Pees. TLastiy`,-at this time.1 would,request-an-am endment-of'the SPA/PUD plan in °that the.earlier,approved developin nikjs rib"longer-planned for,gnstruction,and no' *"development proposal currently eadsts on the newly formed parcels delineated on tthe'attached legal desciiptions.. I understand that the zoning wiII remain R-15A; TUD/SPA: I believe this letter sets forth all those items necessary for formal application. As I know you are well aware, we are under a very tight time deadline and therefore if you have any questions or concerns or if I may be of any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LyFM S.Jordan Duly Authorized ttorney at Law for Marolt Associates LSJ:c1t Enclosure cc: Mrs. Opal Marolt Ms.Vicki M. Buchanan Mr. Keith Marolt Ms.Peggy Marolt Eldridge Ms. Judy Marolt 1� tv Y p hhNNh N p : '� •\\\ �� .,tea � A � N ? . . 4a^$ P Q S Y�✓ M� 1A€A 91It ' Hilt �1 a i § c t nh ZiaY � a\?, apptE f $ E iga P I iC A41 1 Z pan \ / b a z} 3i 5a •/�' � 5� baE B ¢s E+ RIiI ¢3 & b t$7 It F 11HIA !p aFP E2 Nib i^ C yee �aip t a ga; Fd Pika�p; Ila �aa a € ggg$ pa a is b e $ pgZ. }F pp a a" gg BBaa as $ Ea € i At i t F a3x @9 € Y $ 6 a S€a ? MPH 'R'M Fgia"F g A pa 11 as � s6` di €ltilal 3 it4aggE pp at'A€ ala tq Aillt P Ni ['k 3yag a--'4� Ea c hi 1, a $EE3 a a }Iaa Cz aas „ ts � d ^� at fi 3Fg5; 3 EEYgF€S;S II�IR !Inanal Hillary Seminick From: Bert Myrin Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:50 PM To: Linda Manning Cc: Jim True;Jessica Garrow, Hillary Seminick Subject: FW:488 castle Creek Attachments: 20171113 Minutes.pdf For the public record for 488. Thank you. Bert From: Bert Myrin Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:27 PM To: 'Ilona' <ilona.n@gmail.com> Subject: RE:488 castle Creek Good Afternoon Ilona, Thank you for your emails. In the first reading (pg 13 of attached PDF), I supported removing the four units on the top floor and supported working on figuring out how to maximize the parking on site. Ideally 2 of the 4 units would go to the Main Street site where I wanted a tree removed and a new one planted but the old tree won over the rest of council and, in my opinion that development is short 2 units. Tonight I will ask the City to separate 488 from the other two proposals so any litigation on 488 doesn't slow down the other two. It is very important to the city to get the mystical tax incentives to reduce the cost of these three developments and if one of the three hangs that up it would be poor planning on our part to let it hang all three up. That said, I don't expect I will have support to separate 488 tonight which means tonight could be the final opportunity to voice an opinion to city council. Because I supported removing the 4th floor at the first reading I suspect the city and the developer will present that as an option tonight. I remain concerned about any off site impacts from the number of bedrooms, number of cars and as you mentioned the noise. I'm less concerned about the traffic in hopes free mass transit combined with expensive parking in the core of Aspen will discourage occupants from driving. I'm also concerned about approving this density at the county line which is where the City should be transitioning to a more rural character. Density at the county line could be used to justify the 4 Seasons at the end of Hopkins which the entire council nixed. Even with those concerns I'm leaning toward a yes vote with the 4th floor removed if the parking and other off site impacts can be resolved. . Thank you. - Bert Please share your solutions for Aspen 8r let's meet #" Bert.Myrin(a)cityofaspen.com r, 970-925-8645 ®o® To access City meeting material: http//www aspenpitkin com/Departments/Clerk/City-Web-Cast-SIRE/ To access City departments: http,/Avww.aspenpitkin.com/Dei)t-Lists/All-Departments/ItemID/2/ Join us 2nd & 4th Mondays 5p @ City Council Aspen City Council.2015-2019 t From: Ilona [mailto:ilona.n@gmail.coml Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 12:06 PM To: Bert Myrin <bert.myrin@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Re: 488 castle Creek Hello, I'm hoping that you received this message about today's vote, although I'm still hoping to hear if there is another public opportunity to voice.Thanks, On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Ilona <ilona.n@smail.com>wrote: Dear Councilmember Myrin, Please advise if there is another opportunity for public comments and to discuss the proposed development at 488 Castle Creek. Since this proposal and its details have become more well-known recently,there have been increasing comments against various elements of the proposal. I understand there will be another vote on Dec 11-will this be an opportunity for the community and neighbors to comment? I refer back to your campaign platform including: Our representative government is a government with certainty in the land use code. Our representative government enacts fair laws that apply to everyone based on a long term vision that everyone can rely on. ... Our representative government doesn't negotiate land deals; it follows the rules and changes the rules for everyone if needed. ... to encourage responsible governance, where one-off negotiations for land use approvals become a thing of the past. Given all the various waivers and exceptions required to move this proposal forward, it smacks of one-off negotiations, where developers make profit on the back of taxpayers who already overpaid for the land purchase. On top of that, the taxpayers would be helping to finance the construction. Numerous others have commented on parking, density, height and traffic.There.is also a noise consideration -the neighborhood currently is usually quiet, and adding 20-28 units would undoubtedly also add considerably to noise. The site is zoned for TWO single-family homes+ 1 CDU,for good reason, which has its basis in, as you pointed out, 'certainty in the land use code'. Yes there is need for more affordable housing construction, but not in violation of governing principles nor irrational usage of taxpayer monies nor on an unsuitable plot of steep land. Thanks, Ilona N Ilona N Ilona N 2 P87 Regular Meetinl! Aspen City Council November 13, 2017 V11.h CITIZENCOMMENTS...............................................................................................................................2 COUNCILCOMMENTS.............................................................................................................................2 BOARDREPORTS.............................................;........................................................................................3 CONSENTCALENDAR......:.......................................................................................................................3 11 Resolution 4143, Series of 2017—Timberline On-Call Contract.........................................................8 0 Resolutions#144, Series of 2017—Transformer as-needed Contract..................................................8 0 Resolutions#146, Series of 2017—EOTC 2018 1/2%Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget....................8 11 Resolution#153, Series of 2017—WAPA Purchase Power Agreement..............................................8 0 Resolutions 4 154, Series of 2017—Sunrise Contract Extension for Building Permit Review.............8 [I Resolution 4148, Series of 2017—Engineering Contract for Aspen Mobility Lab..............................8 0 Resolutions 4155, Series of 2017—Temporary Modification to the agreement between the Red Brick Center for the Arts and the City of Aspen .....................................................................................................8 0 Resolution 4156, Series of 2017—Justice Snow's lease amendment...................................................8 11 Minutes—October 23,2017...........................................................................................—....................8 ORDINANCE#30, SERIES OF 2017...........................................................................................................8 ORDINANCE#29, SERIES OF 2017—2017 Fall Supplemental Budget...................................................9 ORDINANCE 432, SERIES OF 2017—Supplemental Appropriation for Option to buy Truscott 11 .......10 ORDINANCE#27, SERIES.OF 2017—Amend Title 25 Utilities—Electric and Water Pates.................10 ORDINANCE 428, SERIES OF 2017—802 w. Main Street, Major Public Project Review.....................I I ORDINANCE#31, SERIES OF 2017—488 Castle Creek Drive Affordable Housing.............................12 ORDINANCE#21, SERIES OF 2017—500 w. Hopkins Ave. (Boomerang Lodge), PD Amendment....14 RESOLUTION 4149, SERIES OF 2017—500 Doolittle Dr. (Water Treatment Plant Site)—Temporary Use..............................................................................................................................................................15 P88 v".h Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13,2017 At 5:00 p.m.Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin,Mullins, Hauenstein and Frisch present. CITIZEN COMMENTS I. John Miller discussed reporting of illegal construction. Currently you have to fill out a complaint form and drop it at the city. It becomes public knowledge. The city informs the people who reported it and it is resulting in retaliation. He has had rocks thrown at his vans and workers insulted. He is asking for an anonymous process. The illegal construction is resulting in permit fee loss and potential safety issues. He has no problem with putting his name on a piece of paper but does not want it reported to the person he made the complaint against. Jim True,city attorney, said it is a legal issue. Pitkin county had the exact issue. They tried to protect the person making the complaint and the'County lost in court. The Court of Appeals said the County could not maintain confidentially of the report. You could accept anonymous complaints and there would be no evidence to address the complaint. We are in a bind that has been created by the laws. Depending on the anonymous complaint we may or may not be able to investigate it. We can't guarantee confidentiality of a report. Councilman Myrin said as policy makers we should lean towards the most anonymous process we can. Mr. True said we would need a discussion on how much staff we put on those. We can't follow up and find out the facts. It is difficult to move forward with a tip when it comes in anonymously. 2. Bill Schaefer stated he is unhappy with not sophisticated financial controls of the city. He assumes the city has an audit each year. Don Taylor,finance,said the audit determines if they can rely on transactional information. It is not an internal control audit. If the financial auditors notice controls that need strengthening they will make recommendations. We had an internal audit two years ago. In terms of how the money is spent the auditors don't care. Mr. Schaefer said his concern started with the housing finances a few years ago where the city would not approve funds to take care of the buildings. When the parking card matter came up it was a situation where there was not much control. The problems with the Red Brick he had the same question. Why is someone not looking monthly or quarterly as to how the money is being spent. There is a similar problem with Justice Snow's. It is a management problem of the city to have controls in place. The responsibility lies with the city not the council. 3. Jackie Kasabach said last week she was working at the chamber kiosk. She discovered the meters in town said no fees it's a holiday. She then heard from someone if it is a holiday here why do I have to pay at the garage. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Hauenstein said 99 years ago there was an armistice to end World War I. We celebrate it as Veterans day. He would like to honor all that have served and hopes we can find a way not to send people in uniform to fight our wars. We are 10 days away from Thanksgiving. He is thankful for the honor people have given him to represent them on Council. On December 5"ACRA will be holding a workshop on financial controls. They are still working on the curriculum. He encouraged members of non-profits to attend. Councilman Myrin thanked John for the discussion on anonymous complaints. We should try to implement that. Retaliation is not acceptable. Ward and I went to the Wheeler board meeting last week. Read the coverage in the Daily News. Voters voted no on the GO bonds for water storage in Woody Creek. I did not support that. There are solutions that don't require open storage there. Councilman Frisch talked about the recent election on the board of education. He thanked Margo, Susan, Susie and Dwayne. Hats off to Johnathan Nichols. It was great to see the tobacco tax pass, by a high 2 P89 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13,2017 V"eh percentage. While it is not fun to raise taxes,he is sure the funds will be paid back in spades to educate. This is a great step for the community. Councilwoman Mullins congratulated the school board members who were reelected and newly elected. She is happy about the tobacco tax but sad about CMC. John brought up an interested thing. You should have a right to face your accuser. Maybe the city can look at better monitoring so we don't have to depend on people debating on being anonymous. She missed the work session for a tiered approach to financial oversight. She noticed a large number of outreach efforts the city does. Mall, stormwater,lift IA all had numerous open houses. All interactive engaging outreach efforts. The city is doing a good job but there are still people who come late to the table. Mayor Skadron said financial oversight is a key and he appreciates Bill's comments. 10 days is also the opening of the mountain. BOARD REPORTS Councilwoman Mullins said RFTA met last Thursday. There were lots of congrats on the completion of the bridge on time and budget. They are finishing up some land transfers and gave an update on the integrated transit plans. They also adopted the 2018 budget. The Red Brick has been dealing with challenges but are making sure the core programs are continuing without interruption. Mayor Skadron said CAST met in Silverton.They heard from the Mayor and Jen Brill,owner of the ski lift. They also heard from a designation on the superfund site. The leak into the Animis river effected a . lot of business there. There was a report on how teams went into action to protect the community. They heard from Lyft who are expanding to mountain towns. They also heard from the Recreation department on how small towns invest in themselves. It was really quiet even with the train. CONSENT CALENDAR Reso#144—Transformer as needed contract Councilwoman Mullins said the contract amount is zero. Why do we look at it now not when the purchases come up. Tyler Christoff, utilities, stated there is a lot of lead time on transformers so we want to have a contract in place to purchase as they come up. Reso#153—WAPA purchase power agreement Councilman Frisch said we are being asked to sign a contract six years from now. He worries about that. He wants to make sure we don'tjump the gun because the world can change a lot. Phil Overeynder, utilities, replied this will extend the existing agreement that expires in 2024 to 2057 under similar terms. When you compare the current rates for wind to other energy there is a substantial savings. We need to look at the business we are in and why we plan so far into the future. MEAN handles many contracts that include federal energy that is pooled. They have to do an integrated resource plan looking into the future. - Even though we weren't looking at the contracts dropping out it happens that MEANS contracts drop out and they just planned for eight years out. Councilman Frisch said he thought he heard a complete different reason in an email you sent to me. Why not nine or three years out. Mr. Overeynder said the last time the contract came up was 1999. There are several contractors that have these MEAN contracts. When that occurred,there was some lead time. WAPA heard there was not enough lead time during that process. That is why they came forward with six years. Also, because it is below market rate. If that difference were to go away it would mean we would need to look at other sources of power. The ability for long term planning necessitates the six years. Councilwoman Mullins said the most important part,is do we keep Aspen electric 100%renewable. She is more concerned with the 2057 date. We need to keep some diversity in the resources we are using. Her other concern is with hydro there has been some proven inefficiencies with dams. She want to make sure the hydro we are getting from Glen Canyon dam is still there 40 years from now. Mr. Overeynder said if 3 P90 v".h Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13, 2017 that happened we would need to amend the contract. There are ways to deal with that within the contract. Dave Hornbacher, utilities,said the WAPA contract is more like an anchor. We have others that are shorter and more flexible like the wind contract. Councilman Hauenstein said this is hydro and wind. One of the justifications is an increase in fuel prices. How do they increase. Mr. Overeynder said if you compare this to federal electric energy from coal fire. Over time the cost of fuel will inflate. There is none of that with hydro. Councilman Hauensteih said how does the cost from WAPA compare to Ridgeway and can they supply the kind of energy needed. Mr. Hornbacher stated our contract with Ridgeway allow us to buy eight months of 12. Should it become available we are in line to purchase it. It would offset shorter term more variable contracts. Councilman Myrin said it is two cents a kilowatt for the term. Mr. Overeynder said that is the current price but it is adjusted over time in small increments. Councilman Myrin said he has the opposite feel than on the police station. Dams were not the best but it saves a lot of money. He will support this when he did not support that. Mayor Skadron said he is concern was the binding. How this council can bind a future council for 40 years. That is not happening. This commits WAPA selling to us. Mr. Overeynder said he thinks there is a commitment to purchase a minimum amount of energy over that time. Mr. True said this is treated differently than binding future councils. It is different in other contracts that are required to terminate on appropriations. Mr.Hornbacher gave an example of the long term contract with MEAN. Mr. True said the State constitution allows this. If the appropriation is not made than the contract is terminated. Reso 4154 building permit review Councilman Myrin asked are the results of sub contraction the same as when staff does it. Stephen Kanipe, building,replied yes. We have worked with this company for about four years. They are informed of our systems and what to be aware of. Councilman Hauenstein said his concern is we have staff to look overall the plans. The justification in supplemental help is there was an unexpected absence of employees. His concern is if we have staff hired to do these tasks why are we paying contractors to do this. Jessica Garrow, community development, stated we had an FMLA issue that was unexpected and unanticipated at the beginning of the year. There are requirements in the small lodge program that there is an expedited permit review and we need to lean on these groups. Mr. Kanipe said some of the projects we are seeing,this outfit is more able to examine them. We have the capacity to do it but it would take up a huge amount of staff time to do it. It would be an unweighed allocation of resource. They have the capacity. Councilwoman Mullins said even with the$15,000 it is still much less than an employee. Within the consultant group there is expertise that the city may not have. If it helps encourage more participation in the small lodge program that is great. Reso#148—Aspen Mobility tab Ashley Pert, environmental health,stated the contract is for help with the lab on engineering aspects of the project. They are required to have a full construction design that requires a full engineering design. Typically, we have an outside firm do this. Councilwoman Mullins asked how are they integrating with design workshop. Ms. Pert replied they will pass the designs along to Alta. It is a requirement of the Design Workshop contract. Councilwoman Mullins asked what did we approve and how far are we. Ms. Perl said Council approved$125,000 and that will be depleted with this contract. We are asking for additional funds to continue some contracts into phase two. Councilman Frisch said he is still trying to figure out what we are doing. If we end up doing less do we need everything in this contract. Ms. Pert replied this.is the bare minimum. Reso#155—Red Brick temporary modification to the agreement with the City Councilman Frisch said he is fully supportive of this. Without a doubt the Red Brick building and the programming, artist residencies and studio are vital to the community. We need to have a tighter connection to the City with this important building. He would rather see the Red Brick Council concerned with the arts than the building. We might look to the Yellow Brick or Wheeler. He has been pitching for some time that the financials come in but there is a closer reporting line and the director becomes a city 4 P91 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13, 2017 V"eh employee. There should be some type of citizen board. The 90 days will give us an idea of what that looks like. We should be careful about the City Council getting involved in the arts. There is discussion on how the board is appointed in the future. This allows the executive director and board to work on what we want them to. Councilman Frisch is questioning if this is a segue into anew model for the offloading of the facility to the city. Councilman Frisch said as it was pitched they need three months to regroup and the programming stays. Jeff Woods, recreation,and Sara Roy,new city interim employee and prior executive director of the Red Brick said the 90 day window is to do an operational assessment and is there a better model to run the building. There is plenty of money to run the building. The rent easily covers the operational part. The arts council is looking at where it will go long term. We are looking at other models like the Yellow Brick and Wheeler. We are also looking at strategy models. It is a simple model that is setting up the long term health of the organization. We have 13 tenants that were to have their lease renewed as of October 1". We would like to extend them for another year so the tenants are locked in to their lease. There is some angst with the tenants and it is not their fault. Councilman Hauenstein stated he can support that. Councilwoman Mullins said she can support it if Jim looks at the leases. Mr. True replied I've looked at them before and assisted Ms. Callen in preparing them in the past. I will review them with Jeff. The goal is to make sure the tenants intending to stay can do so. Councilman Myrin asked if the leases are all identical. Ms. Roy said there are two different ones,non- profit and artist lease. The artists have specifications about participating in openings and teaching classes. Councilman Myrin said he would support the extension and prefer all the leases come up at the same time. Councilman Hauenstein said at the end of 90 days are we looking at a different model or handing back operations to the center. Mr. Woods said this is ajoint effort working with the community,"arts council, you and us to come up with that. We just don't know right now. We will come back with alternatives for you to make that decision. It is not a dollar decision but a philosophical one. Councilman Frisch said when this first happened I said I want to keep as much status quo for the people on the ground. He is fully supportive of the extension. We need to have two boiler plate leases for the non- profits and artists. He has no interest to decide who goes in there. That should be left to the red brick. Mr. Woods said we are asking to modify the agreement with the Red Brick Council and Aspen to hire Sara for 90 days to be an interim employee and suspend the current agreement with the Red Brick. We will pay her salary. We are asking for$60,000 for operations. It is all covered by rent revenue. Councilman Myrin said page 118 has an amendment for the agreement. You also want direction on the lease extension. He would extend the leases all to September of 2018 so they all come up at the same time. Mayor Skadron said the goal to keep the Red Brick a vital asset to support the arts and non-profits. If extending the leases is appropriate to do that then I support it. Mr. True said we will amend the resolution to reflect the changes. To fix the resolution he would add the City Council of Aspen approves the amendment between the City of Aspen and the Red Brick Center of the Arts and hereby authorize the City Manager to authorize the agreement with approval of the City Manager and City Attorney. Mayor Skadron asked about the difference between the Red Brick Center and the Red Brick Council. Ms. Roy stated the Red Brick hired me. The arts council is the 501 C3 and has been in a relationship with the city to manage the building. The arts center is who initially hired me. You can use center and City of. Aspen interchangeably. Mr. True said he is not sure he agrees with her 100 percent. Jackie Kasabach,president of the Red Brick Council, said as far as the governing board,the council is what had a management agreement with the city. The center is the building. You might want to make some changes and one of the reasons we haven't signed it yet. These agreements should be between the City of Aspen and the Red Brick Council for the Arts. Mr. True said the resolution as I amended it did not correct the statement about the Red Brick Center for the Arts because that is what the agreement says. It may be my lack of understanding on how these two entities were formed. One was for receiving donations and supporting the arts and then there was an entity created to manage the building. Ms.Kasabach said her understanding is the city went to the citizens to purchase the red brick center and the building. The city chose not to manage it directly and an existing council would manage the building. The Red Brick 5 P92 VI Lh Regular Meetin¢ Aspen City Council November 13, 2017 Center hired the Red.Brick Council to manage the building. I think there is a difference and suggest this agreement fix this problem. Mr.True said it does need to clarify the actual party that is involved in this. Ben Schadeva,parks, said as the terms of operating entities the Red Brick Center of the Arts handles all the operational costs and the council directs that. Mayor Skadron asked does the 90 day suspension consider a review of these issues. Mr. True said we will have 90 days to address everything. There is an agreement and the one adopted in 2015 was with the Red Brick Center of the Arts and this resolution amends that. I think you can pass the resolution with the language I used and we will finalize that amendment. Reso#156—Justice Snow's lease Mr. True said before he and Sara left the country we had discussions with Kiley about this agreement and she executed it conditioned on approval of Council. Councilman Frisch said under background the last sentence is the addition of payment of all rents due. There is still some outstanding rent in the over and above percentage basis. Has that been collected. Mr. True said his understanding is in February of this past year there was due payment for 2016 percentage rent. That was spread out over the year. They payment made would have paid through October. There would be an additional payment due for the next couple of months. Under this agreement that would roll to February of next year. Councilman Frisch said none of the 2017 percentage base has been paid. It is not due until next February. When is the rent for the amendment due. Mr. True said Section 2 of the agreement sets forth when everything is to be paid. Commencing on November I'the base rent will not be due. Rent for November and December 17 as well as the percentage rent, will be due at the remainder of the gross sales percent rent on January 3 Pt. Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of that. What are we doing with 2017 above and beyond the base rent. Mr. True stated it is due January 31, 2018. Councilman Myrin said the affordable hamburger stays in. Mr. True said this proposal does not have any restrictions on menu prices for the remainder of the lease. There is no requirement for the hamburger. Councilman Hauenstein said the amendment is 8 percent of gross without a breakeven point and is due on January 31. Mr.True replied yes. Michelle Kiley, owner of Justice Snows, said she wants to ensure Council that she views the extension as a secure and viable operator for that space for the future. For the timing of the RFP request, she recognizes the imperative for you to protect the continue operation and viability of that space. She is asking council for consideration that if she successfully operates this winter if council will consider right of first negotiation and the city give concise criteria for measuring the success of her operation. Councilman Frisch said his understanding is Council is being asked two things, the lease amendment and the RFP proposal. If we approve the terms of the lease will you be up and running on November 17d. Mr. True said that is one of the reasons it is on the consent. Councilman Frisch said at some point staff will propose RPP suggestions. Now Kiley has added new points. Kiley said she would like the specific criteria the city wants so she can fulfill it then ask for consideration in renewing the lease. Councilman Myrin said that is fair and the community would have an idea of what we are looking for in the RFP process. Kiley said for the last five years everyone has an idea of what the space should look like and no one can agree on that. She would like to base success on council's expectation. If it is simply meeting the financial obligations that is what landed us in this difficulty in the first place. Mayor Skadron asked do we have a statement from five years ago that speaks to this. Barry Crook, manager's office, said there was an RFP and an agreement. Mayor Skadron said the original agreement had the bullet points. Mr. Crook suggested there is no need to finalize what she wants tonight to approve this agreement. Councilman Frisch said there has been some support from Council to get going. What I don't want to do is a one year process. I think it can be done in four to six weeks. We can have a fully well oiled machine in thereby Food and Wine. He is worried about the lingering effect and trying to get to the punch line. Mr. Crook said he wouldn't recommend developing criteria for the RFP. Councilman Frisch said he took the memo that we have checked off the lease to get Kiley in there and are to start the 6 P93 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13,2017 V11.h RFP process. When would you propose to have that discussion. Mr. Crook replied he would like to discuss that with Sara,the city manager and the Mayor. Councilman Frisch said as far as I'm concerned,I would rather have staff take notes. I suggested that staff hear from Council six weeks ago. 1 was told by staff to wait. I was surprised to get this memo asking what you want us to do when I thought we would get some direction. Now you want us to wait. Kiley said she is here to petition the timeline for the RFP and give us a chance to,be successful. She would like council to consider we went through the RFP process and it was a long one. Councilwoman Mullins asked is part of the problem that Sara was planning to be here and is not. Mr. True said we were focusing on we have an agreement with Kiley that was approved prior to November 17. We worked with her and created what is in the amendment. The goal for the consent was it was appropriate as a resolution to approve the lease. Sara wished if Council was going to approve the lease then it would contemplate an RFP process and we wanted some guidance on initiating that process with a work session or staff to come back with its proposal. What Kiley is asking is she have some priority in the process. Sara and I did not support that. She needed to rely on her previous four years in responding to the RFP. Mayor Skadron asked does Council support Fiercely Local in having priority in the RFP process. Mr. True said Kiley is requesting that now. What is the next step. Do you want staff to bring back a proposal or set a work session. Councilman Frisch said there is a big difference in hammering out details and seeking direction and input about the RFP. Time is of the essence for the community. If we want someone up and running by the start of summer we need to get going. Councilman Hauenstein said Kiley has a try out period. It is totally reasonable for her to ask what our measures of success are. We are at the point of having a restaurant in there for the winter. We next need an RFP process to have someone in there for the winter..The RFP process needs to be defined as quickly as possible. She is asking for first consideration,you have five months and a head start on everyone else. You've had five years. It is really important to start the process as soon as possible so you know what the measures of success are. As a community and a different Council,we have ideas of what we want in the space at the end of your temporary lease. I don't want to get involved in setting menus. Council agrees we want the restaurant opened as much as possible. A family and affordable restaurant. We should consider having the restaurant in there doing catering for the Wheeler events. There should be someone in there with several years of restaurant business. That gives you a head start. We want.whatever restaurant is in there to meet our expectations and we need to define those quickly. I want to give you every opportunity to succeed. I can't tell you that you will get first consideration but you have a head start. Councilwoman Mullins said at this time, I support the short term lease. She does not support giving you priority in the RFP process or pushing that date out. She would like to have an in depth discussion for the 28'". Councilman Myrin said the priority should be neutral. What we should do is define what we think success is. It is different than looking at the old RFP and say do that. Mayor Skadron said he would have to look at the old criteria. Councilman Myrin said ideally someone would want to operate for the winter with the new criteria so we can say it is working. That would be the advantage for the current operator. He leans towards the least restrictive, open and highest bidder who wants to do that. It should be open 365. Beyond that I don't want to get.into tinkering with the menu or prices. Last time it was too detailed. I don't think we are willing to have free rent and there is not enough room in the 8 percent to give subsidized food. Councilman.Frisch said he is fully supportive of the lease amendment. The food is great the service is. great and there is a lot of arts going through there. On November 17`', I hope you have a financial model that allows you to run the place. As long as you stay open I think you know enough to stay open. The rest of the affordable restaurants other than yours or Little Annie's all went because the landlord had a higher and better use. It was not at serving food at an affordable price point. He does not want to get involved in how you want to run it. Going forward, we need a higher bar of experience. He is hoping that we can get a theme idea and concept and not have to get into any menu pricing. There were some things that were objective that were not met including paying rent and opening hours. 7 P94 V�f•� Re2ular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13, 2017 Mayor Skadron said Council.does not support priority in the RFP process. We do support getting the RFV out as soon as possible. Mr. True said the key is adopting resolution 156 which authorizes the lease extension agreement. lie also stated he can clarify the Red Brick Center for the Arts may be the current title of the entity or at least a trade name for it. This entity that was created in 1972 was the Aspen foundation and went through a bunch of name changes to the Red Brick Center for the Arts. We still need to fix the draft but the name in the reso is correct. • Resolution 4143, Series of 2017—Timberline On-Call Contract • Resolutions 4144, Series of 2017—Transformer as-needed Contract • Resolutions#146, Series of 2017—EOTC 2018 %2%Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget • Resolution 4153, Series of 2017—WAPA Purchase Power Agreement • Resolutions 4154, Series of 2017—Sunrise Contract Extension for Building Permit Review • Resolution 4148, Series of 2017—Engineering Contract for Aspen Mobility Lab • Resolutions 4155, Series of 2017—Temporary Modification to the agreement between the Red Brick Center for the Arts and the City of Aspen • Resolution 4156, Series of 2017—Justice Snow's lease amendment • Minutes—October 23, 2017 Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the consent calendar except for Resolution 4155; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, notion carried. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Resolution 4155 with amendments outlined by city attorney; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 430, SERIES OF 2017—2018 Fee Ordinance Pete Strecker, finance, stated tab 5 of the budget books outlined the changes proposed. There is some clean up for Recreation and Golf,Comdev and Engineering. There are also changes to dog vaccinations and licensing under Police. For Parking a new pass for the business group and business permit is proposed as well as an increase on 01 hour of on street parking. Councilman Myrin said for parking fees for 2018-2019 there is the idea of a year from now residences and business permits going to zero for EV vehicles. The fees are going up for carbon emitting vehicles for a carbon emission credit. It would zero out carbon for those vehicles requesting permits. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance#30, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 30 (SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO ADJUST CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES INCLUDED UNDER SECTION 2 AND 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance#30, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Myrin. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch,yes; Hauenstein,yes;Myrin, yes;Mayor Skadron,yes. Motion carried. 8 P95 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13, 2017. VB 1.h ORDINANCE#29, SERIES OF 2017—2017 Fall Supplemental Budget Mr. Strecker stated the supplemental includes 6.7 million in total. 3 million is for the Woody Creek parcel. The actual purchase of the land would happen in 2018 so we can table that discussion for the budget request for that item. 1.7 million in appropriation authority for items you have seen year to date. There is also 1.7 million in new requests including contract support for Comdev and others including Red Brick for 80,000 to be off set by revenue. Councilman Frisch said the permit overpayment is two or three years back. Ms. Garrow stated it is a combination of human and software error. It was caught by Rebecca Wallace in Comdev. It has taken us a great deal of time to go back and make sure we have the right amounts for those permits. In October, we started sending letters out and a good bunch of folks want refunds. There are also those that underpaid and we are working on getting those funds. Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of the historic preservation.sheets. Ms. Garrow said that is scheduled for the January 29 work session. Councilman Frisch asked what is the IGA with the animal shelter. Mr. Strecker said it is an agreement on net income revenues. Any excess is split back to the county that they hold in the animal shelter fund. We get the other 50 percent and contribute it to capital expenditures. Mr. True said the city and county have an agreement with Seth to manage the facility. Councilman Frisch asked is the mobility lab new. Mr. Strecker said.125,000 is an earlier request and additional money is requested. Ms. Pert stated this is not the first time you are seeing the 125. The new amount is 345,000 and includes the contract for the air sage data previously approved through transportation. Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of the lab and we are putting chunks of money in to get us to a point. When do we get a plan of the next steps? Ms. Pert stated a meeting with Council is scheduled for December 12 on what is the lab, budget and fundraising options. January 23`a will be the final decision. This money will get us through till January. Councilwoman Mullins asked why is it 470 and 300 dollars..Ms. Pert said it is one of the administrative contracts. Councilman Hauenstein said the permit for 190,000 was over collected. Where did that money go. Mr. Strecker stated it went to the general fund and now we must give it back. Councilman Hauenstein said page 181 for old powerhouse maintenance for 40,000,where is that coming from. Mr. Strecker said when asset moved to the old power house we did not increase the budget to account for that. Councilman Hauenstein said 380,000 for the purchase of employee housing units. Four units requiring the refinishing. Mr. Strecker replied three of the four were held by some long term city employees. There is some work that needs to be done. Don Pergande, finance,said when we purchased the units we put them into inventory for resale. When we sell them we put in the purchase price. Mr. Strecker said there is 95,000 for the renovation. Jack Wheeler, asset, said it depends on the unit, appliance replacement, repainting, floor covering and window coverings. Councilman Hauenstein said it is 95,000 for the four units. Mr. Wheeler said we had high turnover this year so it is more than four units. Councilman Hauenstein asked about the grey water treatment for Burlingame for 187,000. Are we irrigating yet. Mr. Crook said this is for a project that is partially for the park and the HOA. It is a pumping station to pump the raw water. The HOA provides irrigation water. It is split between parks and the HOA. Councilman Myrin said the water storage is in here so I will oppose it for that reason. Mr. Crook suggested the 3 million be removed and discussed tomorrow. Mayor Skadron said the 3 million for the water utility fund will be removed at second reading. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance 429, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor except Councilman Myrin. Mayor Skadron then moved to read Ordinance#29, Series of 2017 with an amendment to remove the funding for the Woody Creek parcel; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 29 (SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING A DECREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND EXPENDITURES OF$553,492, AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $1,099,346,AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $316,468,AN INCREASE IN THE 9 P96 Vf'.h Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13, 2017 TRANSPORTATION FUND OF$597,300,AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $764,830, AN INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $350,000,AN INCREASE IN THE STORMWATER FUND OF $252,100,AN INCREASE IN THE WATER UTILITY FUND OF $3,040,000,AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND OF $100,000,AN INCREASE IN THE PARKING FUND OF $289,920, AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND OF $6,000,AN INCREASE IN THE MAROLT HOUSING FUND OF $8,000,AN INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND OF$475,820. Mayor Skadron moved to adopt Ordinance 429, Series of 2017 with an amendment to remove the funding for the Woody Creek parcel; seconded by Councilman Myrin. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein,yes; Mullins,yes; Frisch,yes; Myrin,yes; Mayor Skadron,yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE#32, SERIES OF 2017—Supplemental Appropriation for Option to buy Truscott II Mr. Strecker said this is just buying out the tax credit equity. It gives us better options for the future. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance 432, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 32 (SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT PHASE II AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND OF$350,000 Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance#32, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch,yes; Hauenstein,yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin,yes; Mayor Skadron,yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE#27, SERIES OF 2017—Amend Title 25 Utilities—Electric and Water Rates Lee Ledesma, utilities, told the Council there are three main components including a proposed electric rate increases of 5 percent average, water rate increases of 15 percent and a new electric community investment fee for new and expanded services. Councilman Frisch said the electric tap fee is because there is a capacity issue and a cost to the system. How far out can we plan these. The headline in the paper will be 15 percent increase. How can we plan so there is smaller more incremental costs. Mayor Skadron said the overriding goal is to get to 100 percent cost of service. Mr. Hornbacher said we look out at a few different stages. For near term,we are seeing many utilities with aging infrastructure. That is starting to increase on maintenance and we are trying to be proactive to have those things in our near term planning. Councilman Frisch said it is like building up a capital reserve fund. I'm trying to figure out how we can charge a few percentages each year. He hopes we can have more of a smoothing effect when we increase rates..Ms.Ledesma said in the rate studies we are still in the 5h lowest. Councilman Frisch said if we are asking for 13 percent it is not in our interest to get 5 over 3 years..There is a need to get all of it now because we need it in the next year or two. Mr. Hornbacher said the capital asset plan and the fund balance will fluctuate in the next few years. Councilman Frisch said a slow steady climb is prudent. Mr. Hornbacher replied some of the capital projects are more expensive than others. Councilman Frisch said he is fine with expenses being up and down but the revenue collection should be steady. Ms.Ledesma said when we went with lower amounts we had the maximum fund balance for the three years. The thought was to do a bigger increase now and level out so we stay within the fund balances. Councilman Frisch said he.wants to make sure we don't forget and there is a plan to get back on normal track. 10 P97 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13,2017 V1 f.�1 Councilman Myrin said we need to keep an eye on these bumps. Is there a way to have a smaller incremental change leveled out over time and the city absorb the costs. It applies to everything. We spend way too much time at council on annual adjustments. He will support this with the provision of the tap fee and increasing the service for good use would get a credit for that use. Councilman Hauenstein said it looks like it was 5 years ago for water and 7 for electric. Ms.Ledesma said water was the last rate study. Councilman Hauenstein said how far to go before we have 100 percent recapture. On electric,we are below 100 on residential and availability charge. Small commercial is slightly above and large commercial is right at 100. On water, raw water is well below and so is the pumping and fire charge. Councilwoman Mullins said back to cost of service were we subsidizing this or behind due to capital I projects. Mr. Hornbacher said it is looking at the rate classes and how much they use the system and how much they pay. Overall you collect sufficient money to operate the fund. We are trying to create equity for each class. Councilwoman Mullins asked when will we get the new enhanced meters. Ms. Ledesma said we plan to have a work session in February or March for the rate study and the AMI information. Councilman Frisch said they were in the budget for 2019 and we asked to move it up to 2018. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance 427, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 27 (SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T14E CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING AND ADDING TO TILE 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN—UTILITIES 121 —SPECIFICALLY CHAPTERS 25.04 ELECTRICITY;25.12 UTILITY CONNECTIONS,25.16 WATER RATES AND CHARGES AND 25.28 WATER SHORTAGES. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance#27, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein,yes; Myrin,yes; Frisch,yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 428, SERIES OF 2017—802 w. Main Street,Major Public Project Review Justin Barker, community development, said this is one of the three affordable housing projects in partnership with Aspen Housing Partners and the City of Aspen: The project is located in the NW corner of the 7'i'and Main intersection. Currently the property is zoned as R15 with a single family home. The proposal is to demolish and rezone to AH and build a 10 unit affordable housing structure. This falls under the major public project process that combines all reviews including rezoning, planned development to establish dimensions,growth management and residential design standards. Staff is supportive of the design but would like input on the design specifically. At P&Z we included two recommendations on materiality and details that were included in P&Z recommendation. Overall the board was not in alignment with staff but kept the recommendation in the resolution. Staff is recommending approval as long as Council is comfortable with the design elements. Councilwoman Mullins said she does not support enclosing the balconies. Mr.Barker suggested adding some sort of projectingelement and relate it to the residential scale. Councilwoman Mullins said she would not support that. Any additional enclosure will only increase the mass. Primarily it is the visual. She wants to make sure in the NE corner with the.open space there is no physical barrier or vegetation to the other open space. When will the units convert to ownership. Adam Roy, representing the applicant, replied after 15 years. Mr. Crook said it is an option that we may or may not pursue. It is a possibility. 11 P98 V11.h Rellular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13, 2017 Councilman Frisch said minimally the developer is 15 years rental then there is a discussion to be had. Who owns it is one option and the second option is rental versus ownership. Mr. Crook said at the end of 15 years we will have the option to buy out the tax credit partnership then should we retain them as rentals or for sale. Councilman Hauenstein asked have we talked,about closing off the alley onto 7"Street. Mr. Crook said there has been conversations but it is not in the application. That is something engineering can talk to you about. Councilman Hauenstein said at the end of Main the city owns the easement and to be able to use that for open space and parks. Mr. Crook replied that would be somebody else having that conversation. Councilman Myrin said he is concerned about large composite panels. Mr. Barker said they can reduce the prominence of panels. There is precedent for them to be used in residential but not to that scale. Councilman Myrin stated he would support that. On page 233 upper floor balconies, he would support where Ann is with that. Councilman Frisch said the tradeoff is livability. Jason Bradshaw,representing the applicant, stated it does create more mass. They could become a storage area. We don't feel that not having an overhang would make the decks less usable. Mayor Skadron is concerned with the additional enclosure and component panels. The recommendation is to address the materials breaking up the panels. P&Z supported the staff recommendation but mixed in responses. Mayor Skadron said Council is supporting addressing the large scale panels but not the overhangs. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance#28, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO 28 (SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING MAJOR PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS FOR 802 W. MAIN STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS Q, R,AND S,BLOCK 12, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance 428, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch,yes; Hauenstein,yes; Mullins,yes; Mayor Skadron,yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE#31, SERIES OF 2017—488 Castle Creek Drive Affordable Housing Hillary Seminick and Jessica Garrow, community development. Ms. Seminick stated this is one of three affordable housing projects that the City of Aspen and Aspen Housing Partners have. The property is located on Castle Creek road heading up valleyjust past the Marolt bike crossing. It is near Castle Ridge and March affordable housing. Currently it is a vacant lot. The applicants are proposing a 28 unit affordable housing project with 29 parking spaces. The project is referred to Pitkin County since it is in the marron and castle creek valley. Those comments will be included in the 2°d reading packet. The application is processed as a major public project with subdivision, 8040 greenline, growth management, residential design standard, rezoning from R15 PD to AH and PD review. The dimensions for AH are set during the PD process. Staff is supportive but has concerns with the maximum height and onsite parking. P&Z did not echo the concern in regard to height but did support staff with onsite parking concerns. The applicant is requesting council provide feedback on a parking garage on site or additional TIA improvements, parking storage technologies or additional onsite parking spaces. 12 P99 . Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13,2017 V9@eh Mr. Roy said they looked into stacked parking briefly. In this case it would be on grade so visual impact would decrease. It would also have to be enclosed. We think it is an intriguing concept but not a lot of merit. Councilman Hauenstein asked how many flights of stairs to access the 4°i floor single unit. Mr. Roy replied three levels. The height is off the back of the building. Where the parking area is the height of the upper level is 32 feet. Councilwoman Mullins said we need to make it clear there has been plenty of outreach and we are not trying to sneak it by anyone. This is a trade of between community benefit and aesthetic and density. It looks enormous from the Marolt side, height and size. If there is some way to minimize that. We may be making a mistake the way it is laid out now. Previously it hasn't appeared so large. On the parking, it would be good to explore more parking on site. I don't think we have given everyone what they need. Councilman Frisch said this is hidden. If the 2"'and 3 floor aren't working we have a whole other can of worms than the 4"floor. Councilwoman Mullins said you do need to make some tradeoffs. It is very large and out of context. Councilman Frisch said it is a pretty contemporary design but does it make it took bigger than it is. Councilwoman Mullins said she thinks the design is great. Councilman Hauenstein said this is where the rubber meets the road with contradictions with the AACP. We don't want density we want open space. It is difficult especially when you add on to the high cost of the land. I can live with more density and height to weigh those contradictory values. Housing more of the workforce at the expense of density and getting more out of land costs. Maybe there are some visual things you can do. For me it is a value I can live with to house more people. Councilman Frisch said it is a great location for affordable housing. Does the 4'h floor work for you. Councilman Hauenstein replied it does. Councilman Frisch said from the castle creek side it is a two story element. Can you see any of the 4"floor from the castle creek side. Mr.Roy replied it is the 3"story element in the middle. Councilman Myrin said on the 8"Street project there is demand for housing and space was removed where we could have fit in another unit. Here we received a letter from the county and they have asked us to eliminate the 4'h floor or relocate those units. This is us trying to figure out what we should build on our land. 1 would support removing those four units on the top floor: If we need to do the stacked parking of the 2-bedroom units it would get us there. Mr.Roy said part of what we heard was it would be a visual from the road and that is something we were trying to minimize. Managing that could be an issue as well. We can probably get some more surface parking but it would increase the retaining walls. Councilman Myrin said the county doesn't seem to want us to park on their property. Councilman Frisch said there is something to be said about a 45 foot height. We should look at it if those units are not the top floor. I have no problem if those units are spread across the property. We need to explore the option of it-being gone. I like the design and I think there is a way to get the same FAR with smaller looking. The parking discussion currently has parking for 29 cars when there is 38 bedrooms. It is one space per unit. The 2 story parking is interesting but opens something we have never looked at. We need to be sensitive to'construction and running costs. Have we looked at parking on Marolt. Mr. Crook said we could enter into an agreement with them but I thought you had decided it was too far away. Councilman Frisch asked what is the supply and demand of parking over there. Mr. Crook stated it depends on the season but there is parking to be had. Councilman Frisch said he would like to have a discussion about the parking at Marolt. Mr. Crook said we looked at a number of comparable developments and we are above the average of the parking spots per bedroom. Councilman Frisch said we need to find already built parking spots. Councilman Hauenstein said on the parking for 802 and 517 they are one parking spot per unit. 13 P100 �"�hRegular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13, 2017 Councilman Myrin said the parking per bedroom chart has most of them with parking off site. It is very different when talking about parking with access to street parking. He suggested possibly Castle Ridge parking. Ms. Garrow said we could add a shared parking agreement. Councilwoman Mullins said she brought up the parking because we don't have it set up as smoothly as we can. There is no overflow or offsite like there is at 802 and Park Circle. Maybe we should look at Marolt with the potential to give it up in a number of years when we have built up alternative infrastructure. Mayor Skadron said generally what we are hearing is a desire to have similar FAR but a smaller looking building and get the parking to a 1 to I ratio. Guarantee there is enough parking for residents and visitors and reduce mass on Marolt side. The nature of the parcel lends itself to greater density. He can support a reduction in density but would be desirous in maintaining density as much as possible. Councilman Myrin moved to read Ordinance 428, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 31 (SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF MAJOR PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS FOR 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS I &2, 488 CASTLE CREEK RD PUD& LOT SPLIT, SEPTEMBER 27,2006 IN PLAT BOOK 81 AT PAGE 48 AS RECEPTION NO. 529046, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Ordinance 431, series of 2017 with conditions discussed above; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins,yes; Hauenstein,yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch. yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 1121,SERIES OF 2017—500 w. Hopkins Ave. (Boomerang Lodge), Pb Amendment Ms. Garrow stated there is a request to continue to December 18th. Chris Bendon is here and there is a letter in the packet requesting the continuance. Councilman Frisch said besides this space and Lift IA he is not sure where the city will see any lodges of substance. It is important for us to try to activate those sites as true lodge inventory. A four story 200ft building will be challenging. He is worried about the highest and best use. Depending on push come to shove it would be nice to know what the residential possibilities are for the site. It has been pitched that there is an approval where someone can start digging to maximum the FAR. At some point,there is an affordable housing discussion as well. Ms. Garrow replied from the land use perspective there is some unwinding for it to convert to single family free market use. This is a very large lot so there is likely discussion about subdivision. Part of the property is designated and that would need to stay unless council supports delisting. There is some level of review that would come to Council before it could revert to single family residence. Councilman Frisch said he is worried about the single family scenario playing out and not being able to stop it. Ms. Garrow said at minimum it goes through a Council level review to convert. There is some discussion with the attorney what is the underlying right if the lodge were not pursued. Ms. True said currently you have an application to amend the current approved project. Chris Bendon, representing the applicant,said it is 47 keys,46,000 square feet all in approval. It will be four stories for much of the property with parking below. Wholly owned condos that are Ibdging. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to see it as a lodge. Councilman Hauenstein said it has a history of being a lodge. Four stories.for the length of the property is a stretch for me. The key factor is what is vested and what do you have the right to build. 1 like the idea of a lodge there and to be hot beds. Mayor Skadron said he thinks there is enthusiasm for a lodge. 14 P101 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13, 2017 V11eh Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue to December 18, 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION#149,SERIES OF 2017—500 Doolittle Dr. (Water Treatment Plant Site)—Temporary Use Ms. Garrow introduced Garrett Larimar. Mr. Larimar said capital asset submitted a land use application for temporary use for a temporary mobile job office trailer for temporary offices during the renovation. The site is a 54.36 acre plot of land bordered to east by Castle Creek Rd. and by Pitkin county properties. West is the Moore family PD and Water. Place housing. Zoning is public. The review is impact to the neighborhood, compatibility with neighborhood character,compatibility with underlying zone district and if the request would enhance or diminish the general public health,safety or welfare. The applicant requests use for more than,seven days requiring Council approval with annual occurrences up to 10 years. The job trailer would be on the southern end of the facility. They are requesting use for four years. Staff has reviewed the application and has determined the location and trailer would have a limited impact of surrounding area, it is compatible with the zone district. It would comply with the dimensional requirements and is outside of the 100 foot set back and must be under 25 feet. The structure would comply. Staff is looking for input on the annual occurrences. Staff is recommending approval Mayor Skadron said it has limited impact,no increase to traffic or noise or on surrounding neighborhoods. The structure is permitted per the PUD,and complies with the dimensional requirements. Councilwoman Mullins asked why will it take four years to renovate the office. Evan Pletcher,asset,said this trailer is an alternative to do a renovation that has got approval. This is in lieu of doing a renovation before a renovation. It provides office space now at a reduced cost before a full renovation can be completed. Councilwoman Mullins said the renovation will not start for three to four years. Mr.Pletcher said the need is present right now. This will add the offices now for the current needed space then the full renovation will start in three to four years. Mr. Wheeler said we have cut up the current building four times in the last five years. We were going to do it again but this solves the use more efficiently and cheaper. When we figure out what is needed long term we will come back. We don't know the timing of that. Councilman Myrin said it is all good. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution 4149, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. True said staff recommends Council go in to executive session pursuant to C.R.S.24-6-402(4)(b)— conference with attorneys regarding pending litigation,Water Covet Cases Nos, 14CW3096,Application of Stillwater Ranch; 15CW3050,Application of Twin Lakes; 15CW3110,Application of Red Mountain Willoughby et al.; 16CW3063,Application of Maroon Creek Club,LLC; Castle and Maroon Creek Diligences Cases 13CW3128 and 13CW3129 and 16CW3110 Hines Diligence Case. At 10:10 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. At 11:20p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue the regular meeting until the next day,November 14, 2017 for purposes of continuing the executive session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor,motion carried: 15 P102 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 13, 2017 V".h On Tuesday,November 14, 2017 at 6:45 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting back in to order. Councilman Hauenstein moved to go back in to executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. At 7:45p.m. Councilwoman Mullins moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adjourn the continued regular meeting; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk ` 16 .Hillary Seminick From: Bert Myrin <bert@myrin.com> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:49 PM To; Linda Manning cc: Jim True;Jessica Garrow; Hillary Seminick Subject: FW: Thanks For the public record for 488. Thank you. - Bert -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Milias [mailto:elizabeth.milias@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 6:25 PM To: Bert Myrin <bert@myrin.com> Subject:Thanks Bert I really enjoyed today.The tour,the time,the catch-up! Hoping you and Walt can squeeze me in for a holiday cocktail chez moi -would love to show you my place. Let's figure it out...soon. Thanks for your ear and your brain today, especially re 488. Off the record, WH wants a time-out/continuance on the 488 decision for proper due diligence. He doesn't realize that they're bundled. He will absolutely support a separation of the approved two and 488. Win, even if you lose. Go for the separation so this community doesn't miss a second or a lose dollar on the approved two.Then,with 488, let's do the proper and thorough due diligence. Still may end up a yes. Might end up a no. But wherever it ends up, it doesn't jeopardize the other two, nor does it slow anything down except 488. It will be an informed and properly vetted decision. Please be bold.The yes/ no precedes the 24 v 28. It's neither yes nor no for lack of full disclosure and information. The city is the applicant which makes it tricky, but not really.You're on the board of directors and you can help make it a good decision vs a rushed non-informed thing!! E Sent from my iPhone 1 Hillary Seminick From: Bert Myrin Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:49 PM To: Linda Manning Cc: Jim True;Jessica Garrow; Hillary Seminick Subject: FW:Affordable housing projects For the public record for 488. Thank you. - Bert t , Please share your solutions for Aspen & let's meet Bert.Myri n(ilcityofaspen.corn 970-925-8645 To access City meeting material: http:/Avww.asoenl)itkin.com/Departments/Clerk/City-Web-Cast-SIRE/ To access City departments: http:/Avww.aspenpitkin.com/Dept-Lists/AII-Departments/ItemlD/2/ Join us 2nd & 4th Mondays 5p @ City Council Aspen City Council 2015-2019 From: Christine Benedetti [mailto:christinebenedetti9@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 27,2017 4:41 PM -To:Steve Skadron<steve.skadron@cityofaspen.com>;Ann Mullins<Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Bert Myrin <bert.myrin@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>; Adam Frisch <adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com> Subject:Affordable housing projects Hi, I'm writing in support of both affordable housing projects at 802 W. Main St. and on Castle Creek Rd. on tonight's agenda. I think the development group has done an excellent job at community outreach and amended the projects to meet the community's needs when there was criticism.These 1-and 2-bedroom rentals are needed in the community, and the density is appropriate. I think this private-public partnership is a great example of what could be used moving forward as well. Thanks, Christine Christine Benedetti 206.349.5212 1 From:joseph wells<joewells@me.com> Date: November 24, 2017 at 1:50:43 PM MST To:Ward Hauenstein <ward.Hauenstein@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Re: 488 Castle Creek Road Affordable Housing Proposal Ward, Very nice of you to get back to me. I appreciate your taking the time to pen a response, particularly over a holiday weekend. I chose to not mention your name in my letter because I did not think it was fair to single you out, and perhaps provoke others to direct comments directly to you. Regards, Joe Wells Sent from my iPhone On Nov 24, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Ward Hauenstein<ward.hauenstein@citvofaspen.com>wrote: Thank you for your email regarding 488 Castle Creek Road. At the first reading I was not advocating that the Basalt housing project was suitable for the Castle Creek site. I invited people to compare the two buildings. I think the Basalt building is too big and would never be seriously considered in Aspen. If I gave you the impression that I felt the Basalt building was a fit for 488 it was not my intention. It is possible that I am an outlier on the subject of density. I believe the discussion of density in workforce housing is worth having. Higher density increases utilization of lot size. Higher density also decreases sprawl. I understand and appreciate your valid point of concentrating density closer to the core. As you represent the Castle Creek Caucus I would expect you to advocate their desires. I also believe that it is reasonable to expect benefactors of tax subsidized housing may have to modify their behavior as it relates to mobility. Specifically I think parking spaces should be the minimum required. In return bus and trail access should be easily and quickly available. I will carefully consider all of your points. Ward Hauenstein Sent from my iPad -Aspen City Council use only. All emoils to this account may be subject to release pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act. MAKE IT A GREAT DAY word.hauenstein@citVofaspen.com 970-618-2116 On Nov 24, 2017, at 9:05 AM,joseph wells<loewells@me.com>wrote: Please review the attached letter regarding the 488 Castle Creek Road affordable housing proposal. Thanks, Joe Wells Please review the attached letter regarding the 488 Castle Creek Road affordable housing proposal. Thanks, Joe Wells <488 Castle Creek Road .pdf>