The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.pu.Burlingame Ranch.0035.2006.ASLU f:ie r;:dit!i.ecOl1:lttJ'liQate FsJmP.epcwU; forDl.Klab!;!<lip N', "/ Gt~ ~) ~J I!Il iii g. .'M;;:R':'>I~~~llt.::I'~.S~ FIlIl] :CultomFjekh ,P~~ ~ SubEermts ~,RoWwJJ:!i>t"'l' I r;~~VP'! fill.}'"":: . --< I lIMN! ,~ ~ I r:~ IASPEN'--.-.---------. tl~IN~ z ~ - .106Ii1i12ll Pwtil;!- !W\_~.;;:4~Efui3t'#i1i :c[ Ap<IS""I~~-.~~~----- s~far .":.:j ~ ~'i;;I;'-" ... 'M Clccl:.!~.Day.lr...iiE"lli!>S ,"',.; Al:Il.h1OQueue;~ s,~ 0_ .._._--~-- lactN_\ClTYCf'A9't:NClTYHAl.L Pl>ooejTs7iJi32l}ID)J- ~O_rhA~? -.. lllrtNamelOTYOFMPENCtTYHALl .if] rnlN~1 Phone!l970192Q.5OC(l Custll~ L.... ~SGAlENAST IASPENCOB1G11 )130SGAlE~ST ,ASPEN COB1611 ..,< .::.J' ~ Ret:Old'J"f] F>[,(bQ'~ q~b~ pu/~uat;~!- to? LlJd I .3 0) Sev^/<2S c)-Q '2~J C/I\ 7/Zlf/O(?; '"-,,, '" --" I' . DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. City of Aspen/Burlingame Lot Owners. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen. CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Single-Family Lots in Phase I of Burlingame Ranch SubdiyisionIPUD Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property PUD amendment approyal for a min. rear yard setback of 5 feet for accessory structures. amendment to building height calculation methodology Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan City Council Ordinance No. 30. Series of 2006. Approyed 7/24/06 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) August 27. 2006 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) August 28. 2009 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 27th day of August, 2006, by the City of Aspen Community Development Deputy Director. ~ Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ,. ..,~ , PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Single-family lots in Phase 1 of the Burlingame Ranch SubdivisionIPUD, City and Townsite of Aspen by ordinance of the Aspen City Council numbered 30, Series of 2006, approved on July 24, 2006. Approval was granted to allow a minimum rear yard setback requirement of 5 feet for accessory buildings and to amend the building height calculation methodology for certain single-family lots within the PUD. For further information contact Chris Bendon, at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/ City of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times on August 27, 2006 " . , Appvo\JI 1-/2J rh ORDINANCE NO. 30 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A SUBDIVISION/PUD AMENDMENT TO BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen Asset Management Department, with consent to apply from the single-family residential lot owners, requesting approval of subdivisionlPUD amendments to the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD to amend the rear yard setback requirement for accessory structures on the single-family residential lots in Phase 1 to five (5) feet, to amend the allowable floor area for the single-family residential lots in Phase I to allow for 2,500 square feet of floor areas as measured by the City Land Use Code's calculation methodology plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, to establish an allowable maximum height of thirty (30) feet on the single-family residential lots in Phase 1, and to amend the PUD to delete the fire sprinkler requirement for the single- family residential lots in Phase I; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Series of 2000, determined Burlingame Ranch PUD (hereinafter the "Project") eligible for the process of the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) for the purpose of developing deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the Aspen City Council according to said Section, to conduct an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest, and assembling a Burlingame Affordable Housing Task Force Team, providing recommendations directly to Aspen City Council; and, WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 120, Series of 2004, conceptual approval with conditions to a three-phase development plan as proposed by the applicants in the "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal", dated after September 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the development standards as required by the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicants gained Final PUD and Subdivision approval and land use entitlements for the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Phase 1 of the Project through City Council Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, approved April II, 2005; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series of 2005, the entire Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project, including amendments to Phase 1, shall remain active as a COWOP land use review until determined concluded by the Aspen City Council. City Council may stagger the conclusion of the COWOP review on a phase-by-phase basis. Once the COWOP review is concluded for a particular phase, amendments to development within Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006. Page 1 the phase shall be subject to the processes and standards of the Land Use Code unless other provisions are established as applicable; and, WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, the final review and entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be subject to the COWOP land use review process pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public. This step shall consist of a review of the amendment or final development plan for each phase by the Aspen City Council and shall incorporate all required land use actions to gain entitlement for the particular amendment or phase of the project. Final entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be by Ordinance. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, and in consideration of the phased aspect of the entire project, the City Council exempted the development from the limitations of Conceptual Development Plan approval as specified in Section 26.445.030.D of the Land Use Code. No prescribed limit or timeframe for submitting a final development plan for the project, or phases thereof, are applicable and amendments may be made. Components of the Conceptual PUD plan shall be confirmed or amended in conjunction with the final approval of each phase or amendments to the plan. Development features of future phases may be amended by the Aspen City Council, in conjunction with final approvals for each particular phase or amendments to phases; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have filed an application for the amendment to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Final PUD and Subdivision Phase I and the Conceptual Plan, and for related land use actions. Such application addressed the application requirements and applicable review standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the PUD and Subdivision Amendment proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has found the amendment to be consistent with the final approval and recommendation of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, approval of this ordinance does not complete the COWOP process, but constitutes another step of the COWOP review process. Future steps may include applications for amendments and Final PUD Plans of Phases II and III of the development and/or Conceptual PUD revisions, followed by land use entitlement by the Aspen City Council, pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the PUD and Subdivision Amendment proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the PUD and Subdivision Amendments for Phase I, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, especially those goals relating to the development of affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary and the preservation of open space; and, Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006. Page 2 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and IS necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section I: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves a Subdivision/PUD Amendment to the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD, amending the minimum rear yard setback requirement for accessory structures on the single-family residential lots in Phase I to five (5) feet and allowing for the provisions of Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(B)(2), Building Heights: Exceptions for Buildings on Slopes. to extend from the front yard setback to the rear yard setback on those single-family lots in Phase I in which pre-construction (prior to construction of the residential units) grade slopes away from the primary street that the lot borders, with the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Amended Approved Dimensional Requirements Amendments to the Phase I dimensional requirements are identified in the table below: POO Amenllmelit'VtlfthisOl'llhiance 97 Deed-Restricted Units 15 I-bedroom 302-bedroom 52 3-bedroom ex andahili will effect bedroom count 44% for total subject area 45% for individual lots .33:1 (176,948 sq. ft.) .36: I (195,508 sq. ft. wi possible expansions) 154,738 sq. ft. for multi-family buildings 5,570 sq. ft. for commons building 3,161 sq. ft. for transit stops 28,600 sq. It. for single family homes (2.200 per lot) (last four numbers above show maximum sq. ft. with ex andabili 34 feet for multi-family and community buildings 25 feet for single family lot buildings in Phase 1 *(Please see height provisions established in Section 1 of this ordinance) 25 feet for sin Ie famil lot buildin s in Phases 2 and 3 Maximum Allowable Maximum Site Coverage Allowable FAR Allowable Height As represented on the Final PUD Plans 10 feet front, 5 feet side, 10 feet rear. Lots 9 & 10, Block I: 5 feet front, 10 feet side, 5 feet rear. All Phase 1 lots: 10 feet front, 5 feet side, 10 feet rear for rind al residence, 5 feet rear for accesso structures. Minimum 32 foot width and 3,000 sq. ft. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings 21 feet for multi-family buildings 20 feet between multi-famil and transit buildin s 1.67:1 Parkin S aces erUnit, 162 total Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006. Page 3 1""""", \.... .'.... -- Section 2: Subdivision/PUD Al!:reement Amendments The Applicant shall prepare and record an amendment to the subdivision/PUD agreement representing the amendments approved herein. Section 3: Desil!:ll Guideline Amendments The Applicant shall prepare and record an amendment to the design guidelines representing the amendments approved herein. Section 4: Phase 1 Sinl!:le-familv Lot Floor Area The allowable floor area for the single-family lots in Phase I of the development shall be 2,200 square feet plus a garage exemption of 500 square feet as measured by the calculation methodology set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.020, Calculations and measurements. Section 5: Applicability of Ordinance No. 24. Series of 2005 and Ordinance No. 55. Series of 2005 The requirements and conditions of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, granting final subdivision and PUD approval to Phase I of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Development, and Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, amending the final approvals granted in Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, shall remain in full force and effect except as otherwise specifically amended by the provisions of this ordinance. Section 6: All material representations and commitments made by the developer 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. Section 7: This Ordinance shall not affect any eXlstmg litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this 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 9: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Ordinance No. 3D, Series of 2006. Page 4 , , Section 10: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of July, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published 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 10th day of July, 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of July, 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006. Page 5 '. , ,... VIII e. MEMORANDUM DATE: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director~ James Lindt, Senior Planner .:::rL- Second Reading of Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006- Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendments- Public Hearinl!: July 24, 2006 TO: THRU: FROM: RE: PROJECT: BURLINGAME RANCH pun AMENDMENTS REQUEST SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Asset Management Department is requesting amendments to the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD. The amendments being requested include a reduced rear yard setback on the single-family residential lots within the subdivision, an increased allowable floor area (as measured by the City Land Use Code methodology) for the single-family residential lots of 2,500 square feet plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, an increase in the maximum building height for the single-family residential lots of thirty (30) feet, and the deletion of the fire sprinkler requirement for the single-family lots. ApPLICANTS: City of Aspen Asset Management Department, with consent to apply from the Phase I Lot Owners. Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUO. . PROPERTY: STAFF Staff is recommending approval of the setback amendments, but is RECOMMENDATION: recommending denial of the remaining requested amendments. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Project received final approval in April of2005, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005. The project was approved as a three (3) phase project in which Phase I is to contain 97 deed-restricted affordable housing units. Thirteen (13) of the 97 units in Phase I were approved to be constructed on single-family lots. The City has sold many of these lots in Phase I and the purchasers of the lots are preparing to build on the lots. Purchasers of the lots have worked with the Asset Management Department to propose several amendments to the Phase I PUD approvals that the lot purchasers have argued are necessary to keep the construction of the units affordable for the purchasers amid rising construction costs. Specifically, the Applicants have proposed an amendment to the building setback requirements for the single-family lots in Phase I to reduce the rear yard setback on these lots for accessory structures (garages and sheds are examples of accessory structures) from ten -1- " '--- (10) feet to five (5) feet. The Applicants have also proposed to amend the allowable floor area on the single-family lots in Phase I to allow for a floor area of 2,500 square feet with a 500 square foot garage exemption as measured by the City Land Use Code's calculation methodology. Finally, the Applicants would like to increase the maximum height limit for single-family residences in Phase I to thirty (30) feet and delete the requirement for fire sprinkler systems to be installed in the single-family residences. REVIEW PROCESS: The Applicants are requesting amendments to the original PUD for the development. This action would amend the land use entitlements for the development and include the following land use actions: . Planned Unit Development Amendment Typically, a PUD amendment requires approyal by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. In the case of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing PUD, Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, established that any substantial amendments to Phase I of the PUD would be reviewed by City Council without first obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission since the original development was reviewed through the COWOP process, which did not include a Planning and Zoning Commission review. Review of this amendment proposal by City Council without first obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission is also consistent with the process undertaken when the Burlingame Ranch PUD was previously amended to add several single-family residential lots in Phase I of the development. STAFF COMMENTS: REAR YARD SETBACK AMENDMENT: As was briefly introduced above, the Applicants have proposed to amend the rear yard setback for the single-family residential lots for accessory structures like garages/sheds from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet so that they have adequate room to construct their garages. The lot owners have expressed that they believe the setbacks as approved in the original PUD are too tight on some of the lots to permit a garage to be built. Staff has evaluated the claim and concurs that it will be pretty tight on many of the lots to include a garage without pushing a considerable amount of the allowable floor area for the main residence to an upper floor. The proposed setback amendment is also consistent with the R-6 Zone District's rear yard setback requirement, which is the zone district that contains lots that are most similar to the lots subject to this amendment. Staff further believes that the amendment will have minimal impact on other properties in that all of the single- family lots in Phase 1, with the exception of two (2) of the lots, back up to considerable amounts of open space and will have vehicular access from the rear. Staff supports this proposed amendment. - 2- r~' "'--' " --' ALLOWABLE FAR: The Applicants would like to amend the allowable floor area for the single-family residential lots in Phase I to allow for 2,500 square feet as measured by the City Land Use Code's calculation methodology established in Land Use Code Section 26.575, Calculations and Measurements, plus a garage exemption of 500 square feet. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, establishes a total floor area of24,200 square feet for all of the single-family residential lots in Phase I, but does not specifY how it was to be allocated on a per lot basis. In speaking with the design team, the original concept was to have a massing envelope, in which the setbacks and the height limit would limit the overall developable square footage. The total floor area of 24,200 square feet was put into the ordinance to give Council an overall idea of what the total buildout would be. The massing envelope concept was confusing to many of the lot purchasers and was apparently misrepresented to the lot purchasers in marketing the lots. Also, conflicting unit size caps in the Employee Housing Guidelines that set a unit size cap of 2,200 square feet plus a five hundred (500) square foot garage apparently further provided confusion in marketing the lots. In response to the confusion, the Community Development Director issued an administratiye PUD amendment (attached as Exhibit "C") clarifYing that the allowable floor area for the single-family lots is 2,200 square feet (24,200 square feet identified in the ordinance divided by 13 single-family lots in Phase I) plus a 500 square foot garage exemption (derived from the provision in the Employee Housing Guidelines that allowed for a 500 square foot garage in addition to a 2,200 square foot unit). This was done as an effort to give the lot purchasers a consistent standard to work from in designing their residences given all the confusion that had occurred in marketing the lots. The request for 2,500 square feet of floor area per lot appears to be derived from a comment that Leslie Lamont (member of the Burlingame Ranch design team) made asserting that with the massing envelope concept that the design team originally had, some of the larger lots may have received approximately 2,500 square feet of floor area. However, Lamont has indicated that the massing envelope concept was considered only on early iterations of the project and would have provided a gross floor area (including garage space) of 2,500 square feet on only some of the larger lots. Staff is of the opinion that the 2,200 square feet of floor area (as measured by the City Land Use Code's calculation methodology) plus a 500 square foot garage exemption that was established in the administrative amendment is a good compromise between the provisions of the Employee Housing Guidelines and the allowable floor area that was provided in the approving ordinance. Staff further feels that an allowable floor area of 2,500 square feet plus the 500 square feet garage exemption that is being requested is not even feasible to build given the setback limitations, height limit, and site coverage requirements on most of the single-family lots in Phase 1. Therefore, Staff does not support the floor area amendment request. The proposed ordinance represents the requested 2,500 square feet of floor area plus a 500 square foot garage exemption. If City Council agrees that it is not appropriate to increase the allowable -)- '-'-" , \",.,..c , floor area, Staff would recommend that City Council remove the 2,500 square foot floor are from the ordinance and replace it with the currently approved 2,200 square feet. HEIGHT LIMITATION AMENDMENT: The Applicants have proposed an amendment to increase the height limit for the single- family residential lots in Phase I from twenty-five (25) feet to thirty (30) feet. The Applicants have expressed that the existing height limit of twenty-five (25) feet does not easily accommodate standard modular construction given the grade change on the single- family lots. It has further been argued that a thirty (30) foot height limit is necessary for standard modular construction to be used that does not have to be considerably altered or specially designed. An argument has also been made by the Applicants that the lots subject to the amendment application are unique and should not be constrained by the typical height requirements for single-family residential development in the remainder of town, in that there are not minimum roof pitch requirements on houses elsewhere in town as there are in the Burlingame Ranch PUD. Contrary to some of the statements in the application, Staff does believe that stick built houses could be designed and some modular designs could be modified to step down with grade and meet the twenty-five (25) foot height requirements on the sloped lots, regardless of the roof slope requirements in the PUD. Houses are frequently designed with steeply sloped roofs that meet the twenty-five (25) height limit throughout town on steeper lots than the ones at Burlingame. For this reason, Staff does not support a height increase on the single-family lots. However, the Applicants' contention that standard modular designs would have to be altered to step down with grade to meet the twenty-five (25) foot height limit, and that this would increase the construction costs of the residences to be constructed on these lots is a dynamic that City Council should consider. A principle goal of this project was affordable housing opportunities and the manner of construction plays a certain role in total cost. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AMENDMENT: The original PUD approvals require that all of the structures within the Burlingame Ranch development install sprinkler systems meeting the requirements of the Aspen Fire Marshal, Ed Van Walraven. The Building Code is written such that all structures of 5,000 gross square feet are required to have sprinkler systems meeting the requirements of the Aspen Fire Marshal. However, because the lots are within a PUD, the Fire Marshal requested that the all of the structures including the single-family residential lots that are to contain residences below 5,000 square feet should be fitted with fire sprinkler systems. This adheres to the philosophy ofthe Housing Authority to further enhance the life safety of the occupants. The Fire Marshal has indicated that many of the municipalities throughout the country and many cities and counties in Colorado are changing their residential standards to require all structures regardless of size to be sprinkled. Typically, the Fire Marshal encourages all residences to be constructed with fire sprinkler systems and he has expressed that he believes - 4- ~"',.,' it necessary to maintain the requirement at Burlingame Ranch because of the distance from the existing fire station and typical fire behavior. In addition many of the residences in Burlingame Ranch will likely be constructed well before the new fire station at North Forty is completed. Staff cannot support the proposed amendment to eliminate the fire sprinkler requirement if the Fire Marshal is not comfortable with deleting the requirement. Ed Van Walraven will be present at the public hearing on July 24th if Council has questions on this matter. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed PUD amendment related to amending the rear yard setbacks as proposed. Staff further recommends that City Council not adopt the proposed PUD amendment that would establish a 2,500 square foot floor area and a 500 square foot garage exemption, the height revisions, or the amendment that would delete the fire sprinkler requirements for the single-family residences in Phase I of the development. If Council agrees with Staff's recommendation, Staff would suggest that Council remove these elements from the proposed ordinance. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006, approving amendments to the Burlingame Ranch PUD to establish five (5) foot rear yard setbacks for accessory structures, establishing an allowable floor area of 2,500 square feet as measured by the City Land Use Code's calculation methodology plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, establishing a 30 foot height limit, and removing the fire sprinkler requirement for the single-family lots within Phase I." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B - Application (Attached in I st Reading Packet) Exhibit C - Administrative Decision Notice (Attached in I st Reading Packet) Exhibit D - Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005 (Attached in I $I Reading Packet) Exhibit E - Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005 (Attached in I $I Reading Packet) -5- r -- /'",", .....-' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 24, 2006 5:00 P.M. 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 on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Mayor's Comments b) Councilmembers' Comments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #56, 2006 - Contract Purchase of the Wheeler Orchestra Pit Cover b) Resolution #57, 2006 - Contract Replacement Caterpillar Wheel Loader c) Resolution #58, 2006 - Contract Replacement Dustless Street Sweeper d) Resolution #55, 2006 - Contract Golf Course Pump House e) Minutes - July 10, 2006 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #33, 2006 - Impact Fees Withdrawn VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #24,2006 -1001 Ute Consolidated PUD b) Ordinance #27,2006 - Code Amendments TDRs Continue to 8/14 c) Ordinance #28, 2006 - Lift One Condominium Consolidated PUD d) Ordinance #29, 2006 - Ajax Mountain Building Subdivision e) Ordinance #30,2006 - Burlingame PUD Amendment IX. Action Items a) 434 East Cooper - Call Up of HPC Decision X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting Auqust 14, 2006 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A IS MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. $'",., , ......./,' ORDINANCE NO. 30 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A SUBDlVISION/PUD AMENDMENT TO BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen Asset Management Department, with consent to apply from the single-family residential lot owners, requesting approval of subdivisionlPUD amendments to the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD to amend the rear yard setback requirement for accessory structures on the single-family residential lots in Phase I to five (5) feet, to amend the allowable floor area for the single-family residential lots in Phase I to allow for 2,500 square feet of floor areas as measured by the City Land Use Code's calculation methodology plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, to establish an allowable maximum height of thirty (30) feet on the single-family residential lots in Phase I, and to amend the PUD to delete the fire sprinkler requirement for the single- family residential lots in Phase I; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Series of 2000, determined Burlingame Ranch PUD (hereinafter the "Project") eligible for the process of the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) for the purpose of developing deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the Aspen City Council according to said Section, to conduct an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest, and assembling a Burlingame Affordable Housing Task Force Team, providing recommendations directly to Aspen City Council; and, WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 120, Series of 2004, conceptual approval with conditions to a three-phase development plan as proposed by the applicants in the "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal", dated after September 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the development standards as required by the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicants gained Final PUD and Subdivision approval and land use entitlements for the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Phase I of the Project through City Council Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, approved April 11, 2005; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series of 2005, the entire Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project, including amendments to Phase I, shall remain active as a COWOP land use review until determined concluded by the Aspen City Council. City Council may stagger the conclusion of the COWOP review on a phase-by-phase basis. Once the COWOP review is concluded for a particular phase, amendments to development within Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006. Page 1 c the phase shall be subject to the processes and standards of the Land Use Code unless other provisions are established as applicable; and, WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, the final review and entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be subject to the COWOP land use review process pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public. This step shall consist of a review of the amendment or final development plan for each phase by the Aspen City Council and shall incorporate all required land use actions to gain entitlement for the particular amendment or phase of the project. Final entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be by Ordinance. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, and in consideration of the phased aspect of the entire project, the City Council exempted the development from the limitations of Conceptual Development Plan approval as specified in Section 26.445.030.D of the Land Use Code. No prescribed limit or timeframe for submitting a final development plan for the project, or phases thereof, are applicable and amendments may be made. Components of the Conceptual PUD plan shall be confirmed or amended in conjunction with the final approval of each phase or amendments to the plan. Development features of future phases may be amended by the Aspen City Council, in conjunction with final approvals for each particular phase or amendments to phases; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have filed an application for the amendment to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Final PUD and Subdivision Phase I and the Conceptual Plan, and for related land use actions. Such application addressed the application requirements and applicable review standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the PUD and Subdivision Amendment proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has found the amendment to be consistent with the final approval and recommendation of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, approval of this ordinance does not complete the COWOP process, but constitutes another step of the COWOP review process. Future steps may include applications for amendments and Final PUD Plans of Phases II and III of the development and/or Conceptual PUD revisions, followed by land use entitlement by the Aspen City Council, pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the PUD and Subdivision Amendment proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the PUD and Subdivision Amendments for Phase I, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, especially those goals relating to the development of affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary and the preservation of open space; and, Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006. Page 2 1'" '-' WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section I: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves a Subdivision/PUD Amendment to the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD, amending the rear yard setback requirement for accessory structures on the single-family residential lots in Phase I to five (5) feet, amending the allowable floor area for the single-family residential lots in Phase I to allow for 2,500 square feet of floor area as measured by the City Land Use Code's calculation methodology plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, establishing an allowable maximum height of thirty (30) feet on the single-family residential lots in Phase I, and deleting the fire sprinkler requirement for the single-family residential lots in Phase I, with the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Amended Approved Dimensional Reauirements Amendments to the Phase 1 dimensional requirements are identified in the table below: Allowable Height Minimum front, sid.. rear yards for Multi-family Mini" um Off-Street kill b S e<;laJ Review Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006. Page 3 1P'UU.iAmertdnlellt:YiJitl1ls'Ordimtu.ce 97 Deed-Restricted Units 15 I-bedroom 302-bedroom 52 3-bedroom ex andabili will effect bedroom count 44% for total subject area 45% for individual lots .33:1 (176,948 sq. ft.) .36: I (195,508 sq. ft. wi possible expansions) 154,738 sq. ft. for multi-family buildings 5,570 sq. ft. for commons building 3,161 sq. ft. for transit stops 32,500 sq. ft. for single family homes (2,500 per lot) (last four numbers above show maximum sq. ft. with ex andahilit 34 feet for multi-family and community buildings 30 feet for single family lot buildings in Phase I 25 feet for sin Ie famil lot buildin s in Phases 2 and 3 As represented on tbe Final PUD Plans 10 feet front, 5 feet side, 10 feet rear. Lots 9 & 10, Block I: 5 feet front. 10 feet side, 5 feet rear. All Phase 1 lots: 10 feet front, 5 feet side, 10 feet rear for rinci al residence, 5 feet rear for accesso structures. 32 foot width and 3.000 sq. ft. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings 21 feet for multi-family buildings 20 feet between multi-famil and transit buildin s 1.67:1 Parkin S aces erUnit, 162 total ,.... '- " .."., Section 2: SubdivisionIPUD Al!:reement Amendments The Applicant shall prepare and record an amendment to the subdivisionIPUD agreement representing the amendments approved herein. Section 3: Desi2l1 Guideline Amendments The Applicant shall prepare and record an amendment to the design guidelines representing the amendments approved herein. Section 4: Phase 1 Sinl!:le-familv Lot Floor Area The allowable floor area for the single-family lots in Phase I of the development shall be 2,500 square feet plus a garage exemption of 500 square feet as measured by the calculation methodology set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.020, Calculations and measurements. Section 5: Fire Sprinklers Sprinkler and fire alarms are required in all buildings within the development, except for the single-family residential lots in Phase I of the development. Section 6: Applicability of Ordinance No. 24. Series of 2005 and Ordinance No. 55. Series of 2005 The requirements and conditions of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, granting final subdivision and PUD approval to Phase I of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Development, and Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, amending the final approvals granted in Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, shall remain in full force and effect except as otherwise specifically amended by the provisions of this ordinance. Section 7: All material representations and commitments made by the developer 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. Section 8: This Ordinance shall not affect any eXlstmg 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 9: 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. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006. Page 4 I"" ~ Section 10: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 11: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of July, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published 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 10th day of July, 2006. Attest: Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FIN ALL Y, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ,2006. Attest: Helen K Klanderud, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2006. Page 5 c " EXHIBIT A PHASE I PUD AMENDMENTS: STAFF FINDINGS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. I. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED. Staff feels that the original development approvals were consistent with the AACP. Staff also believes that the proposed amendments are proposed with the intent of keeping the costs associated with constructing the affordable housing units low. However, Staff feels that the request to remove the fire sprinkler requirement is a safety hazard that is not consistent with the objectives of the AACP. Staff finds this criterion met be all of the requests except the fire sprinkler amendment. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED. Staff feels that the proposed dimensional amendments with the exception of the floor area amendment are consistent with the character of development originally approved. Staff believes that the floor area amendment would somewhat oyerwhelm the lots and change the character of the single-family lots that were originally approyed. Staff finds this criterion to be met by all of the dimensional amendments, except the proposed floor area amendment. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? 1 YES Staff really does not feel that these amendments will significantly impact deyelopment in the surrounding area since these amendments only apply to the single-family residences in Phase 1. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. ,-. '-" "'." J STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? 1 YES The appropriate growth management exemptions were previously granted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. I. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED Staff believes that the proposed height and setbacks are appropriate, but feels the proposed floor area is somewhat excessive given the small nature of the lots. Staff does not believe that the increased allowable floor area will efficiently fit on the lots given the setback and site coverage limitations. Staff finds this criterion to be met by the proposed dimensional changes with the exception of the proposed floor area amendment. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED Staff believes that the proposed height and setbacks are appropriate, but feels the proposed floor area is somewhat excessive given the small nature of the lots. Staff does not believe that the increased allowable floor area will efficiently fit on the lots given the setback and site coverage limitations. Staff finds this criterion to be met by the proposed dimensional changes with the exception of the proposed floor area amendment. 2 !"""'- '~ ./'''^, ........-.-/ 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) 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. d) The proximity ofthe proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The arking is not bein amended. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The permitted density is not being amended. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. 3 ~ " ....... -,"", STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The permitted density is not being amended. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan <AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: I DOESITCOMPLY?] N/A The permitted density is not being amended. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff does not feel that any of the proposed amendments impact natural or man-made features. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed amendments do not impact the clustering of structures that was approved in the original PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4 - '-' " 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed amendments will not impact street orientation or the rural context. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Emergency access will not be impacted by the proposed amendments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? Pedestrian and handicapped accessibility will Staff finds this criterion to be met. I YES not be impacted by the amendments. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES A detailed drainage plan has been submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer. The proposed grading a drainage plan accommodates all of the site drainage within the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed amendment does not impact this requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample 5 I"" "-' " ./ quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The landscape guidelines are not proposed for amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon 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, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED Staff belieyes that all of the dimensional amendments comply with this criterion except for the amendment to the allowable floor area. Staff feels that the proposed allowable floor area will overwhelm the lots and will not respect the floor area of the neighboring single-family lots to be built in Phases II and III. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 6 r' '-' ,...., .......,I 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All Ii tin must meet the Cit 's exterior Ii ting standards. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The location, design, or amount of common park is not proposed to be amended. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified fmancial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 7 ,-. ......., ,.." --./ 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Public infrastructure and utilities are not impacted by the proposed amendments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. l. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed deyelopment has adequate access to each building. Emergency yehicle access has been fine-tuned since the conceptual approval was provided and the City of Aspen Fire Marshal has indicated that sufficient emergency access is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? TYES The approved trail plan is not proposed for amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, 8 " "'"'\ -- '<.- ~..,... and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The approved trail plan is not proposed for amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The ownership and dedication of streets is not being amended. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed development will not have a security gate or guard posts. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted fmal PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the 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 PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed phasing plan allows Phase I to stand alone regardless of whether Phase II and Phase III are ever developed. These amendments only apply to the single-family lots in Phase I. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9 , ~II\ f't' v~A {'VlfG 1/ .acuVCt'OVl July 10, 2006 7/Z9/Cb '. John Laatsch Burlingame Lot Owners Mayor Klanderud & Council Members From: Mare Wolfer & Chad Jenkins Wolfer/Jenkins 68 Forge Road Cat 6 Cap $454K In response to the Burlingame Subdivision/PUD Amendments; We have signed the amendment, so that it may be heard before council. However, we have the following comments and concerns: To: 1. The rear setback of 5 feet versus 10 feet would allow us to build 5 feet closer to the parking lot directly behind us. Leaving a total of 5 feet from the parking lot to our home. We will not be utilizing this regardless of the decision. 2. Increasing the square footage to 2,500 - with our strict cap limit, we do not foresee being able to build out to that size. Please note that the R.O. lots have a $640K cap limit and the Category 6 have a $454K cap limit. The purchase price of the R.O. lots were approximately $30K more, however the R.O. cap limit is $156K greater. 3. The increased height request will not adversely affect the R.O. lots as they all back up to open space and have the benefit of no homes being built directly in front of their views. Our lot is located on the opposite side of the street of the R.O. lots. Our concern is that we will loose our views with the increased height allotment. One could argue that we too could build to the 30 foot requested. Once again with our tight cap limit, this is very difficult. We do ask that if the additional height is granted, we may revisit and adjust accordingly. 4. In regards to the fire sprinkler system, this is a priority for our family. We have four children and value this greatly. We will budget accordingly and install. Thank you for your time. ; July 18, 2006 6+-e v~d I ~-I-o fecw& ~ ~:;Y:;I'f~ ft{~<<2 h VI C!J We are writing to you to express our support of the Burlingame PUD amendment request, ordinance # 30 and appeal to you for your support. c '" .;' Dear Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Members: As Burlingame lot owners, we are thrilled to have the opportunity to build our own home in Aspen and would like to thank the city for the possibility to do so. We see this as an opportunity of a life time and a chance to stay in Aspen, raise a family, and continue to grow as vested, contributing members of this community. After months of research we have, however, determined that to build affordably in this affordable housing project several factors are making it very difficult to do so. We therefore, ask you to please consider our request and to support ordinance # 30. Our primary concern is construction cost. Since winning the lottery in February, we have determined that modular construction is the most cost effective method for us to build. Modular construction provides, but is not limited to, the following: superior quality; ability to construct in a controlled protected environment not susceptible to weather delays or materials compromised by adyerse environmental conditions; green building technology and practices that generate less waste and impact on-site; quality workmanship provided by trained craftsman; and structures built with great strength (necessary to withstand lengthy shipping) that produce sound homes to stand the test of time. Our primary pun amendment request related to affordable construction cost is the height limitation, Having obtained cross sections from modular companies demonstrating the simplest, most cost effective 4 box construction (2 "boxes" or "modulars" on the bottom and 2 on top) it has been determined that the 25' maximum height limitation is possible with the 6:12 roof pitch requirement, however because of the 4' downslope on our lot and the fact that city code measures from the lowest natural point, modular construction can not maintain the 25' height limitation on the entire lot. (See attached diagram.) We hope that you had an opportunity to read our amendment request that identifies the height challenges in detail. We would like to submit the following points in support of our request: 1.) Affordable construction. a.) The price per square foot is far more affordable with modular construction. After conversations with modular contractors vs. stick built contractors, modular homes can be built for $130-$150 sq. ft. vs. $200- $250 & even up per sq. ft. (EX: Ifa 2,200 sq. ft house is constructed modular @ $150 sq. ft. = $330,000. vs. stick-built at the low-end of $200 sq. ft. = $440,000 it is $110,000 more to stick build the same size house!) b.) Not increasing the height will require property to be "stepped -down" resulting in increased construction costs Modular companies offer existing, workable, free home plans. Hiring an architect to design "stepped-down" construction increases costs by approximately $11,000 (Architects quote - design fees start at $5 per sq. ft.) .r- ....... '"' ,..,; In addition, modular companies charge at least a further $4,000 drafting fee to accommodate changes made to a standard plan and/or to customize plan made by an architect. (Please also note: "Stepped -Down" construction also does not support Americans with Disabilities "Vistability" design standards. As we plan to grow old in this house, we would like to build a home that could support our aging needs as well as accommodate relatives in wheelchairs. Tim's father is in a wheelchair; we personally see the needs of universal design and benefits of life-span design planning.) c.) Less time required to build modular saves money. Stick building requires a longer construction schedule. Moying in sooner results in less money spent carrying our land payment, construction loan, and current mortgage combined. (Please note due to the challenges we've faced with the sales of these lots, we will not be able to build starting July 31 as many owners had hoped. In fact, we have most likely missed this building season all together. We also will not be able to start building in the fall because the falV winter season significantly increases construction costs, modular or stick-built, due to cold climate challenges. We will be required to wait until spring.) d.) Stick built is vulnerable to environmental delays resulting in increased costs. Modular construction is done in a protected indoor environment. e.) Modular Construction provides set building cost once design has been finalized and contract has been signed. Site-built construction often incurs higher expenses due to fluctuating prices of materials, inconsistent sub-contractor quotes, cost over- runs, etc. Modular construction is not subject to these on-site types of price changes. f.) If height variance is not granted, additional costs will be incurred to re-grade and engineer: four foot drops in the front with retaining walls; drainage plans; and stable foundation/basement with neighboring lots. (Extreme cooperation and planning with neighbors will also be required to accommodate these changes due to the very close proximity oflots to each other.) 2.) The foremost reason for our height increase request is the sloping topography of our lots combined with the 6:12 pitch design guideline requirement If the lots were flat, modular construction would be able to maintain the 25' height limitation on the entire lot and/or if the aesthetic roof pitch design of6:l2 were not required, flatter roof structures could accommodate the grade change with modular construction. ,..... ...... - ~ 3.) AHlPUD Zone district does not contain a height limitation Burlingame is AHlPUD zone. We understand that the city can take into consideration the lot constraints to establish an appropriate height to accommodate these topographical challenges. Please consider our challenges. 4.) Rural Residential Zone Height Limitation is 28' We believe that Burlingame is very rural in nature and has been referenced as rural throughout the approval process. We therefore feel that a 28' height limit minimum is applicable to Burlingame Ranch. S.) Pitkin County's Height Limitation is 28' We understand that Burlingame was originally in Pitkin County before it was annexed to the city for the Burlingame affordable housing project. As Pitkin County's height limitation is 28', we feel this further supports a minimum of28'. 6.) Additional height granted by variance will not block the views of category six lots across the street or multi-family units 25' height limit will largely be maintained on front facade, measured increase will be from the rear of our house. Rear opens up to open space and does not block views. Multi family units are 35' & sit primarily higher on the development. They will not be affected by our request. Cat. 6 lots will not be affected by our increase because in addition to sitting higher up on the deyelopment than us, the front of our house will remain at 25'. 7.) Design team originally planned single family lots height limitation to be higher. Recognizing the site constraints and challenges of the lots; we have been informed that the design team originally planned the height limitation to be higher. We feel this greatly supports our request. 8.) Exhibit A Phase I PUD Amendment: Staff Findings - Appears to find the height increase request in compliance with the listed standards & requirements After reviewing staffs findings of Exhibit A, the height limitation request is noted as being in compliance of each standard & requirement. In particular we would like to highlight its compliance with B. "Appropriate and Compatible Dimensional Requirements" and E. "Architectural Character." We interpret this to signifY that our height increase request is not unfavorable to the development over-all. (Please know that we are not looking to create large, over-whelming masses but to respect the character of the development while being able to create liveable homes.) "...... ,....'" ~ . . "'-,,,....- In regard to the other requests to the pun amendment, we offer the following: 1.) 5' rear yard set-back for accessory structure We support the 5' rear yard set-back. Decreasing the rear yard set-back from 10' to 5' would allow us to not have to build the garage in the main footprint of the house which would take up yaluable I st floor square footage. 2.) Fire Sprinklers While we do not oppose the safety aspect, we are concerned with the requirement from an affordability stand point. We have been told these systems will cost $10,000 - $15,000. Free market homeowners in Aspen who can afford to build with sprinklers are not required to install them in homes less than 5,000 sq. ft. Our homes are less than 5,000 sq. ft. There is also a fire station scheduled to be built in the North Forty that will be able to service our development much easier than the downtown station. Perhaps an alternative to deleting the fire sprinkler requirement is some type of subsidy to help cover the cost of this requirement similar to the reimbursement council has approved to cover the green building requirements mandated by the city. 3.) 2,500 Square Foot FAR This request was made in an effort to clarify the confusing information we received from a variety of city sources and combination of Burlingame Design Guidelines, Housing Guidelines, and Land Use codes. Our goal was to clarify & achieve 2,200 liveable square feet as was stated to us at time of purchase. (Please note that due to the down-sloping topography of our lots, all of the exposed foundation walls will be counted towards FAR, Our primary request for the 2,500 sq. ft. of FAR was to accommodate the loss of sq. footage absorbed by the exposed foundation in an effort to actually achieve 2,200 liveable sq. ft. in our interior rooms.) While we would like this opportunity, we accept the administrative decision of2,200 square feet FAR as made by community development. We apologize for the length of our letter but we are passionate about our request and felt it important to share with you this information. This is our chance to stay in Aspen, please consider our challenges and support our request! Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues with you further. ,~~ ~.. O/J- /C ~&Ti~/Burlrng~erS'Oo~ (D.~s ~I~/ ~t $ ~""7- ') /0 1,-'0 , ~ '~:::l ~~;:: ~ 2I'-57/r FROY TOP Of P.T. SlllO IO)f" SI01HIG !!.l8cl::t:i - T'" ~ 1Q'-8J."lriIOOlI.EtC\'. la ~~~i 9'-ll/8"'IM1.HGT. '1 S'-Il .... ... ~!li~~h ; ~~~iC~~ ~ ~~~~ ~I~~ i 'ii. :j ~~ ~~ ~-=.:::;; ~n:, '" ~~ ~ ~(") ~ !!,~ :"n:, "'n:, !l'~ .... :::t:: ~C:l r-- ~~ ~ - ~ ~n:, r 10 C'" [~ ."\- S"~ "" ~ ~....... ~ ....;:::: v ~ ~ n~ ! . ~ ~ . !i i I I ~ ~ '" ~ > ~ ~ ~ "i . -;; -t. Ii: . . ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ OJ ) i ~ 11 t'-t 1 "'IW1./tGT. 8'-11 ....... r ,.... ."lIKXXlEtGT. 11'-7 II 11" lQllE ter. m ZS'-77/8'FlOITOPCfP,T.Sl.LTOROCf'SlEAnK )>~ . . 01. ~; '-" o --J ~ ~'~J --:!~ <1-1 ~ ~ ~~:i ~ ..,f~ ~ ~ o(../,. ~ M{t: ~ ..~~ \ ~'" \;7t ~; 1'- j~J ~ l<1 ~ ~ ~ -'3-~\ 0 ~ ..-- ( I I ) I I I ( I" I ~ I I / / ,- i !! I 1: I' ;i ;1 'I ii r: , I ~I I II Ii ~.... -.......,.,."...:-'--.. - -~ 1 ,I 'i I \ - ), , i ! -\ ~ - ~~- ' ~ .------ -tl~ ~~3 1! ~1 ~ ~ ~~ . :s --4-~::S ! ~ ~ .111 ~ -~ ~ --->,-~~ ,... :!~~ \ ( .. ~ .L-- (~ t"" "'"'" 1~v<V'J;V\~C(Wl~ 4~eMd CSo/;u", ~rA)!5C0 - - R acM~j - PtA611c COlM.tN!{V\fs j~V\V\I\r'eV Cq\fVl~Y-, ~ c: M I?,V\C~ or Q II P~f ilM. "\ _ all qbvJ amvJah'J,A) - rite+- (II'YI'I/1.9:, fO cf'<e-qk . (a~~ loujJJ"\A3 __ VV\eaul~ V'--wl()V~ a mvdQ~J(Q -all 0/ ODD ;V1CV~'?-S~ (JlJevq J I LU/ [1 I ,11\ li-1-0 ~ t- .- S) < CA.I fal5 1/1Jv1'e- ~ chQII-e~C\ I.C oM lot;:; -- 2~ I ~vV(JJu) cd I;JDV'f-<-.. I"'. 1""'\ {J /q 1I\e{ Gll/\fj -e V' ~ 11 () ~ 'I!!j C{ ~CJ!vJ<tS - CO$!; - i1J~~d q -O;~{Jfo/~ - tAIla-!'^7() V :l~ ~ - a 'd,'r,~II\Ci{} -Jroor kJ~0-tL/\.. (!X) '^ - 4 -Pf slop~ cJ,.al/\!J~ . OtA (or - [ co~ oJ-- h~i\~~ ~ - v\Of go /V1s to Qrcp~/- ,~,Q5S/V13 C) bo U,)) u [ Y'\ C?) r-- sp If\ ilt\{c( ~ V" - rv pJ CQ / ) y A ^ &Ji' V ~lbU I VlL S;6to J;?[ UV\~ '~~. V\ ~r - Sl{PfYYi!\~ Q V/l~\A&!)A~!Ilb C6/AV\ci {CAll-iAW1lCilLf5 - ~(') \;lA ~ tM ~d s fo (SeJ Qdd,' ~ ICJvtQ( ~Vldl' 1)\9 L~sl ~ -t - d ,'s.c-4 s~ed 0 M tliAd II,^, 5 iI\ ~ ~V\t ~ f ~. , . J/. .(' _I ',......\ _ rkood ~ J _ \ - a.GlI.~-e. 'V'1. \. II 'CQ K' Y\~tJCAn J'~ sfV'I '^ '- -e. v's \ ~ A \ _I .1 cv\'-t- - '-'V,,\Q\ V\1C\'y\.\~( *" \. -I ll\l^fC-e. QdlJ\l~fl1et(l; ~ . ,AMil IAm\,1\. 11I'..t~'; ,(Jf oV'o \1, ,,.. -,- I-' I ~ I "-lA - ~ (i \A k / {> I i-; ---- VeC\V' valid se-lhQck -01< ~ 1/10 /)1-R- I ~CJl'<f!OS~ - sUjfJovf- /it e ~ hf ifCf'eQ5:ct Iv 2CO( JD.d:: - Veqy Q vel yes Vlo ~I\-R sprit!\k:Je /1-- Yes -- Vt ~ 8 hf- aJ'v1€Yld ~Y2l/t + - Ok t~ch,,-\ - Je5\~~&, vJ) q~ Q~J-,t ~ \ ovJfv^ ~V\0f Jl\~~~V\.to) (S... . ~ - s::-eHucck - y f/5 - (AI<-41o . - fl\t~ ~V',\^-k leV" ~ //to (~V'~ y~V'd ~~JlXtc"( "'\ N (ok slow awaV(ce~~ht ~ ~ FA~ r~\M.QIV\. OcS(wvoJ:d ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: jlt.\y,j ;'~o../;i.{C(' ~VC:lA~<; , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: G U \ ~ z-- L\- /', 20l)(., STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, G~ ~~ U '- ___ (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: A 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 widi 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) day)) prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, 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 (IS) 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. "- "-' (continued on next page) ,.'" """ 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 reyision of this Title, or wheneyer 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 01: 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 waiyed. Howeyer, 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. ~~~L The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ac of ~J , 200lo, by J '2V'). wledg~d before me this ~ day WITNEss MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBUC NOTICE My ~;;:;iri . Notary Public ~~ HE: BURLINGAME RANCH SUBDlVlSION/ PUD AMENDMENTS N?TICE IS HERERY~rv ' Ihat II puhlic hearing wrll be hl'ld 01) MondllY, uly 24, 2006, at II m~,_ Ing to '"-'.gin lit 5:00 p. . belore the Mpe.n City Co"ooll, Cooooll Ch '" CIIy H.II. 130 S. G.. lena St, Aspen, to consIder an applfcation sub- mllted by. the City of Aspen Asset Management Department requesting approval of amendmenL~ to the BurHngamf' Ilancll Subdfvl5Jon/ PUD Spe- clfJeally, PUO amendments are being reQ~eSled '{' (~ \ ....::-' ~h~wOuJdaUowth<lSff\gle-famIlYreSldentlaJlots ATTACHMENTS: ))'Y ",'""" ( I) avearearyardsetbllckofflve(5)leelforllr_ ,', ..A ' "''' ".J L ',. tessorystruetures, 11 2,5()(lsquarefool allowable , ('. '{"~' _. ::>:./ f'ARwlth a 500 square fnot garageexemphon, a COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION ()r cn, 0" 30 /001 heIght requIrement, and an amendment -. ",:'P;77' that would delete the fire sprInkler requirement 'lIfy Comrr, for the :dngle-famlly Jots The properUes subject IISS194'l.ExPJres OWo to the proposed amendments are the slngle-faml_ TOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (S/tJN) '1<.5/2lY).; JyresldentJallolsIn lhe BUrlJngllme Ranch SubdJ. ~~jon/ POD. The contact Information for the Ap- P can/lsMlollows: Cllyo/AspenAsseIManage-IERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED ~ent Department C/o John Laalsch, 455 Rio GrandePlace,Aspen,C081611. BY MAIL for f~rther in/ormation, con/act James wndt al the Ctty of Aspen Community Development De- partment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2763, (or by emaiJ jamesl@ci.aspen .co.us). s/~nderlJ(i,Mayor Aspen City COllncU Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on Jul 2 2006.(3854) y, ~ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304,060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Aspen, CO ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ~C-tl;V\.eS L, 'v1d ~ (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: -4:'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 heming. 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 ofletters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of ,200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearinr. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. I... _ Mg~~c of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Dej;'Pment Department, which contains the information described in Section 76.304.060(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 ai/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": (continued on next page) -- ....'"" 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. ~<lGl '- Y;A,_di~ gnature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this ~ay of -rO/ , 200b , by ~~ L..,"'Pr WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUB CNOTICE RE: BURLlNGAME 'ell SUBDIVlSIONjPUD AMENDMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY EN that a pubJi~ hearIng will he heJd on Mond ,July 24, 2006, al a meet. lug 10 begin at 5:00 p.m. bi:'fore the Aspen City Council, CouncU Cblllllbers, City Hall, 130 S. Ga- lena St" A~pen, to consider an application sub- mitted by the City of Aspen Asset Management Department requesting appravaJ 01 amendments to the BurHngame Randl Subdivision/PUI} Spe- cifically, PUD amendments are being requested that would allow thesingle-Iarnily residentfal Jots to have a rear yard setback of live (S) feel forac- ces5orystruclures, a 2.500 square foot aHowable FAR with a SOO square foot garage exemption, a 30 foot height requireme!lt, and an amendment that would delelp the fire sprinkler requirement fur thesingle-Iamilylols, The properties subject lO the propnsed amendments are thesingle-fami_ lyresidentiallolsintheBurlinga.rneRanchSubdi" vis;on!PUD The contact information for theAp- plicant is as follows: City of Aspen Asset Manage- ment Department C/o ,fohn Laatsch, 455 Rio GrandePlace,Aspen.CUclJ611 For further informatioll, contact James Lindt at the Cily oj A.~pen Community Development De- lJartlllent, no ~. {;'_dena St.. Aspen. CO 97n429276k (e> by emo" iom",@""p", OTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) CO-US) My commission expires: ;re.~ rJ4/rf /2oot I I ~'. ..-," ......,.' \~\ I 1,.... ATTACHMENTS: " , COPY OF THE PURL/CArrON siHeltnKalinKlallderud,YJavor AspenCityCoUI1l'if I'llhlishecf ill IiV' Aspel' lCS Weeklv on ,Iufy 9. lNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED 211(fo,(:\ilGI', BY MAIL ~." Vita. MEMORANDUM DATE: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council /J I. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director eM Wl James Lindt, Senior Planner:J1-. First Reading of Ordinance No.~, Series of 2006- Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendments- Public Hearinl!: scheduled for Julv 24. 2006 July 10, 2006 TO: THRU: FROM: RE: PROJECT: BURLINGAME RANCH PUD AMENDMENTS REQUEST SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Asset Management Department is requesting amendments to the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD. The amendments being requested include a reduced rear yard setback on the single-family residential lots within the subdivision, an increased allowable FAR for the si~ami~~dential lots of 2,500 square feet plus a 500 square fi t/l- ~ 'lilcr s~'in the maximum building height for the single-family residential lots of thirty (30) feet, and the deletion of the fire sprinkler requirement for the single-family lots. ApPLICANTS: City of Aspen Asset Management Department, with consent to apply from the Phase 1 Lot Owners. PROPERTY: Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD. STAFF Staff is recommending approval of the setback amendments, but is RECOMMENDATION: recommending denial of the remaining requested amendments. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Project received final approval in April of2005, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005. The project was approved as a three (3) phase project in which Phase I is to contain 97 deed-restricted affordable housing units. Thirteen (13) of the 97 units in Phase I were approved to be constructed on single-family lots. The City has sold many of these lots in Phase I and the purchasers of the lots are preparing to build on the lots. Purchasers of the lots have worked with the Asset Management Department to propose seyeral amendments to the Phase 1 PUD approvals that the lot purchasers have argued are necessary to keep the construction of the units affordable for the purchasers amid rising construction costs. Specifically, the Applicants have proposed an amendment to the building setback requirements for the single-family lots in Phase 1 to reduce the rear yard setback on these lots for accessory structures from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet. The Applicants have also proposed to amend the allowable FAR on the single-family lots in Phase I to allow for an FAR of 2,500 square .feet with a 500 square foot garage exemption. Finally, the Applicants would -1- r'''-'" " .... like to increase the maximum height limit for single-family residences in Phase I to thirty (30) feet and delete the requirement for fire sprinkler systems to be installed in the single- family residences. REVIEW PROCESS: The Applicants are requesting amendments to the original PUD for the development. This action would amend the land use entitlements for the development and include the following land use actions: . Planned Unit Development Amendment Typically, a PUD amendment requires approval by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. In the case of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing PUD, Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, established that any substantial amendments to Phase I of the PUD would be reviewed by City Council without first obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission since the original development was reviewed through the COWOP process, which did not include a Planning and Zoning Commission review. Review of this amendment proposal by City Council without first obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission is also consistent with the process undertaken when the Burlingame Ranch PUD was previously amended to add several single-family residential lots in Phase I of the development. STAFF COMMENTS: REAR YARD SETBACK AMENDMENT: As was briefly introduced above, the Applicants have proposed to amend the rear yard setback for the single-family residential lots for accessory structures like garages/sheds from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet so that they have adequate room to construct their garages. The lot owners have expressed that they believe the setbacks as approved in the original PUD are too tight on some of the lots to permit a garage to be built. Staff has evaluated the claim and concurs that it will be pretty tight on many of the lots to include a garage without pushing a considerable amount of the allowable FAR for the main residence to an upper floor. Staff further believes that the amendment will have minimal impact on other properties in that all of the single-family lots in Phase 1, with the exception of two (2) of the lots, back up to considerable amounts of open space and will have vehicular access from the rear. Staff supports this proposed amendment. ALLOWABLE FAR: The Applicants would like to amend the allowable FAR for the single-family residential lots in Phase I to allow for 2,500 square feet of FAR, plus a garage exemption of 500 square feet. Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, establishes a total FAR of 24,200 square feet for all of the single-family residential lots in Phase I, but does not specif'y how it was to be allocated on a per lot basis. In speaking with the design team, the original concept was to have a massing envelope, in which the setbacks and the height limit would limit the overall developable square footage. The total FAR of 24,200 square feet was put into the ordinance to give - 2- r' "'. ~ / Council an overall idea of what the total buildout would be. The massing envelope concept was confusing to many of the lot purchasers and was apparently misrepresented to the lot purchasers in marketing the lots. Also, conflicting unit size caps in the Employee Housing Guidelines that set a unit size cap of 2,200 square feet plus a five hundred square foot garage apparently further provided confusion in marketing the lots. In response to the confusion, the Community Development Director issued an administrative PUD amendment (attached as Exhibit "C") claritying that the allowable FAR for the single- family lots is 2,200 square feet (24,200 square feet identified in the ordinance divided by I3 single-family lots in Phase 1) plus a 500 square foot garage exemption (derived from the provision in the Employee Housing Guidelines that allowed for a 500 square foot garage in addition to a 2,200 square foot unit). This was done as an effort to give the lot purchasers a consistent standard to work from in designing their residences given all the confusion that had occurred in marketing the lots. The request for 2,500 square feet of FAR per lot appears to be derived from a comment that Leslie Lamont (member of the Burlingame Ranch design team) made asserting that with the massing envelope concept that the design team originally had, some of the larger lots may have received approximately 2,500 square feet of FAR. However, Lamont has indicated that the massing envelope concept was considered only on early iterations of the project and would have provided a gross FAR (including garage space) of2,500 square feet on only some of the larger lots. Staff is of the opinion that the 2,200 square feet of FAR plus a 500 square foot garage exemption that was established in the administrative amendment is a good compromise between the provisions ofthe Employee Housing Guidelines and the allowable FAR that was provided in the approving ordinance. Staff further feels that an allowable FAR of 2,500 square feet plus the 500 square feet garage exemption that is being requested is not even feasible to build given the setback limitations, height limit, and site coverage requirements on most of the single-family lots in Phase 1. Therefore, Staff does not support the FAR amendment request. HEIGHT LIMITATION AMENDMENT: The Applicants have proposed an amendment to increase the height limit for the single- family residential lots in Phase I from twenty-five (25) feet to thirty (30) feet. The Applicants have expressed that the existing height limit of twenty-five (25) feet does not easily accommodate standard modular construction given the grade change on the single- family lots. It has further been argued that a thirty (30) foot height limit is necessary for standard modular construction to be used that does not have to be considerably altered or specially designed. An argument has also been made by the Applicants that the lots subject to the amendment application are unique and should not be constrained by the typical height requirements for single-family residential development in the remainder of town in that there are not minimum roof pitch requirements on houses elsewhere in town as there are in the Burlingame Ranch PUD. Contrary to some of the statements in the application, Staff does believe that stick built houses could be designed and some modular designs could be modified to step down - 3- ""....... " '~. with grade and meet the twenty-five (25) foot height requirements on the sloped lots, regardless of the roof slope requirements in the pun. Houses are frequently designed with steeply sloped roofs that meet the twenty-five (25) height limit throughout town on steeper lots than the ones at Burlingame. For this reason, Staff does not support a height increase on the single-family lots. However, the Applicants' contention that standard modular designs would have to be altered to step down with grade to meet the twenty-five (25) foot height limit, and that this would increase the construction costs of the residences to be constructed on these lots is a dynamic that City Council should consider. A principle goal of this project was affordable housing opportunities and the manner of construction plays a certain role in total cost. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AMENDMENT: The original PUD approvals require that all of the structures within the Burlingame Ranch development install sprinkler systems meeting the requirements of the Aspen Fire Marshal, Ed Van Walrayen. The Building Code is written such that all structures of 5,000 gross square feet are required to have sprinkler systems meeting the requirements of the Aspen Fire Marshal. However, because the lots are within a PUD, the Fire Marshal requested that the all of the structures including the single-family residential lots that are to contain residences below 5,000 square feet should be fitted with fire sprinkler systems. This adheres to the philosophy ofthe Housing Authority to further enhance the life safety of the occupants. The Fire Marshal has indicated that many of the municipalities through out the country and many cities and counties in Colorado are changing their residential standards to require all structures regardless of size to be sprinkled. Typically, the Fire Marshal encourages all residences to be constructed with fire sprinkler systems and he has expressed that he believes it necessary to maintain the requirement at Burlingame Ranch because of its distance from the existing fire station and typical fire behavior. In addition many of the residences in Burlingame Ranch will likely be constructed well before the new fire station at North Forty is completed. Staff cannot support the proposed amendment to eliminate the fire sprinkler requirement if the Fire Marshal is not comfortable with deleting the requirement. Ed Van Walraven will be present at the public hearing on July 24th if Council has questions on this matter. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON: Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed PUD amendments related to amending the rear yard setbacks as proposed. Staff further recommends that City Council not adopt the proposed PUD amendment that would establish a 2,500 square foot FAR and a 500 square foot garage exemption, the height revisions, or the amendments that would delete the fire sprinkler requirements for the single-family residences in Phase 1 of the development. If Council agrees with Staffs recommendation, Staff would suggest that Council remove these elements from the proposed ordinance. - 4- ,r'''', .,. " '.." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.3D, Series of 2006, upon first reading, approving amendments to the Burlingame Ranch PUD to establish five (5) foot rear yard setbacks for accessory structures, establishing an allowable FAR of 2,500 square feet plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, establishing a 30 foot height limit, and removing the fire sprinkler for the single-family lots within Phase 1." A TT ACHMENTS Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B - Application Exhibit C - Administrative Decision Notice Exhibit D - Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005 Exhibit E - Ordinance No. 55, Series of2005 -5- r' ......... ORDINANCE NO. ~ (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A SUBDIVISION/PUD AMENDMENT TO BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen Asset Management Department, with consent to apply from the single-family residential lot owners, requesting approval of subdivisionlPUD amendments to the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD to amend the rear yard setback requirement for accessory structures on the single-family residential lots in Phase 1 to five (5) feet, to amend the allowable FAR for the single-family residential lots in Phase I to allow for 2,500 square feet of FAR plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, to establish an allowable maximum height of thirty (30) feet on the single-family residential lots in Phase I, and to amend the PUD to delete the fire sprinkler requirement for the single-family residential lots in Phase 1; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Series of 2000, determined Burlingame Ranch PUD (hereinafter the "Project") eligible for the process of the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) for the purpose of developing deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the Aspen City Council according to said Section, to conduct an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest, and assembling a Burlingame Affordable Housing Task Force Team, providing recommendations directly to Aspen City Council; and, WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 120, Series of 2004, conceptual approval with conditions to a three-phase development plan as proposed by the applicants in the "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal", dated after September 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the development standards as required by the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicants gained Final PUD and Subdivision approval and land use entitlements for the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Phase 1 of the Project through City Council Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, approved April II, 2005; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series of 2005, the entire Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project, including amendments to Phase 1, shall remain active as a COWOP land use review until determined concluded by the Aspen City Council. City Council may stagger the conclusion of the COWOP review on a phase-by-phase basis. Once the COWOP review is concluded for a particular phase, amendments to development within the phase shall be subject to the processes and standards of the Land Use Code unless other provisions are established as applicable; and, Ordinance No. _' Series of 2006. Page 1 - - WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, the final review and entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be subject to the COWOP land use review process pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public. lbis step shall consist of a review of the amendment or final development plan for each phase by the Aspen City Council and shall incorporate all required land use actions to gain entitlement for the particular amendment or phase of the project. Final entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be by Ordinance. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, and in consideration of the phased aspect of the entire project, the City Council exempted the development from the limitations of Conceptual Development Plan approval as specified in Section 26.445.030.D of the Land Use Code. No prescribed limit or timeframe for submitting a final development plan for the project, or phases thereof, are applicable and amendments may be made. Components of the Conceptual PUD plan shall be confirmed or amended in conjunction with the final approval of each phase or amendments to the plan. Development features of future phases may be amended by the Aspen City Council, in conjunction with final approvals for each particular phase or amendments to phases; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have filed an application for the amendment to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Final PUD and Subdivision Phase I and the Conceptual Plan, and for related land use actions. Such application addressed the application requirements and applicable review standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the PUD and Subdivision Amendment proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has found the amendment to be consistent with the final approval and recommendation of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, approval of this ordinance does not complete the COWOP process, but constitutes another step of the COWOP review process. Future steps may include applications for amendments and Final PUD Plans of Phases II and III of the development and/or Conceptual PUD revisions, followed by land use entitlement by the Aspen City Council, pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the PUD and Subdivision Amendment proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the PUD and Subdivision Amendments for Phase I, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, especially those goals relating to the deyelopment of affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary and the preservation of open space; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance No. _' Series of 2006. Page 2 -,',,", ......- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves a SubdiyisionlPUD Amendment to the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD, amending the rear yard setback requirement for accessory structures on the single-family residential lots in Phase I to five (5) feet, amending the allowable FAR for the single-family residential lots in Phase I to allow for 2,500 square feet of FAR plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, establishing an allowable maximum height of thirty (30) feet on the single-family residential lots in Phase I, and deleting the fire sprinkler requirement for the single-family residential lots in Phase 1, with the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Amended Approved Dimensional Reauirements Amendments to the Phase 1 dimensional requirements are identified in the table below: 1':l.lD~~41ii~~*;~1-t~mal.3~~:t;.;;;. 97 Deed-Restricted Units 15 I-bedroom 30 2-bedroom 52 3-bedroom ex andabili will effect bedroom count 44% for total subject area 45% for individual lots .33:1 (176,948 sq. ft.) .36:1 (195,508 sq. ft. wi possible expansions) 154.738 sq. ft. for multi-family buildings 5,570 sq. ft. for commons building 3,161 sq. ft. for transit stops 32.500 sq. ft. for single family homes (last four numbers above show maximum sq. ft. with ex andabili 34 feet for multi-family and community buildings 30 feet for single family lot buildings in Phase I 25 feet for sin Ie famil lot buildin s in Phases 2 and 3 As represented on the Final PUD Plans 10 feet front, 5 feet side, 10 feet rear. Lots 9 & 10, Block I: 5 feet front, 10 feet side, 5 feet rear. All Phase I lots: 10 feet front, 5 feet side, 10 feet rear for rinei al residence, 5 feet rear for accesso structures. 32 foot width and 3,000 sq. ft. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings 21 feet for multi-family buildings 20 feet between multi-famil and transit buildin s 1.67:1 Parkin S aces erUnit, 162total Ordinance No. _, Series of 2006. Page 3 '" - Section 2: SubdivisionIPUD A2reement Amendments The Applicant shall prepare and record an amendment to the subdivisionlPUD agreement representing the amendments approved herein. Section 3: Desilm Guideline Amendments The Applicant shall prepare and record an amendment to the design guidelines representing the amendments approved herein. Section 4: Phase 1 Sin21e-familv Lot FAR The allowable FAR for the single-family lots in Phase I of the development shall be 2,500 square feet plus a garage exemption of 500 square feet as measured by the calculation methodology set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.020, Calculations and measurements. Section 5: Fire Sprinklers Sprinkler and fire alarms are required in all buildings within the development, except for the single-family residential lots in Phase I of the development. Section 6: Applicability of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005 and Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005 The requirements and conditions of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, granting final subdivision and PUD approval to Phase I of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Development, and Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, amending the final approvals granted in Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, shall remain in full force and effect except as otherwise specifically amended by the provisions of this ordinance. Section 7: All material representations and commitments made by the developer 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. Section 8: 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 9: 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. Ordinance No. _' Series of 2006. Page 4 ;,,,., ...... Section 10: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 11: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of July, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published 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 10th day of July, 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ,2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Ordinance No. _. Series of 2006. Page 5 I"'" - EXHIBIT A PHASE I PUD AMENDMENTS: STAFF FINDINGS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. I. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED. Staff feels that the original development approvals were consistent with the AACP. Staff also believes that the proposed amendments are proposed with the intent of keeping the costs associated with constructing the affordable housing units low. However, Staff feels that the request to remove the fire sprinkler requirement is a safety hazard that is not consistent with the objectives of the AACP. Staff finds this criterion met be all of the requests except the fire sprinkler amendment. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED. Staff feels that the proposed dimensional amendments with the exception of the PAR amendment are consistent with the character of development originally approyed. Staff belieyes that the PAR amendment would somewhat overwhelm the lots and change the character of the single-family lots that were originally approyed. Staff finds this criterion to be met by all of the dimensional amendments, except the proposed PAR amendment. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff really does not feel that these amendments will significantly impact development in the surrounding area since these amendments only apply to the single-family residences in Phase 1. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. "....., - , ....... STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The appropriate growth management exemptions were previously granted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. I. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED Staff believes that the proposed height and setbacks are appropriate, but feels the proposed FAR is somewhat excessive given the small nature of the lots. Staff does not believe that the increased allowable FAR will efficiently fit on the lots given the setback and site coverage limitations. Staff finds this criterion to be met by the proposed dimensional changes with the exception of the proposed FAR amendment. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate an~ favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, AS NOTED Staff believes that the proposed height and setbacks are appropriate, but feels the proposed FAR is somewhat excessive given the small nature of the lots. Staff does not believe that the increased allowable FAR will efficiently fit on the lots given the setback and site coverage limitations. Staff finds this criterion to be met by the proposed dimensional chan es with the exc tion of the roposed FAR amendment. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: 2 - - , a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) 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. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I N/ A The parkin!! is not bein!! amended. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/ A The permitted density is not being amended. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: The ermitted densit N/A 3 c 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The permitted density is not being amended. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff does not feel that any of the proposed amendments impact natural or man-made features. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open . spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed amendments do not impact the clustering of structures that was approved in the original PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4 ,".... ....... STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed amendments will not impact street orientation or the rural context. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: 1 DOES IT COMPLY? T YES Emergency access will not be impacted by the proposed amendments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: 1 DOES IT COMPLY? T YES Pedestrial1 and handicapped accessibility will not be impacted by the amendments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES A detailed drainage plan has been submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer. The proposed grading a drainage plan accommodates all of the site drainage within the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: 1 DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed amendment does not impact this requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated 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. 5 r '- 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The landscape guidelines are not proposed for amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon 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, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED Staff believes that all of the dimensional amendments comply with this criterion except for the amendment to the allowable FAR. Staff feels that the proposed allowable FAR will oyerwhelm the lots and will not respect the FAR of the neighboring single-family lots to be built in Phases 2 and 3. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 6 ,.,..... ......., , 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the rmal PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All Ii tin must meet the Cit 's exterior Ii tin standards. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users ofthe PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The location, design, or amount of common park is not proposed to be amended. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified rmancial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 7 /..'.... , - - 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost ofthe developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Public infrastructure and utilities are not impacted by the proposed amendments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. l. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed development has adequate access to each building. Emergency vehicle access has been fine-tuned since the conceptual approyal was provided and the City of Aspen Fire Marshal has indicated that sufficient emergency access is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The approved trail plan is not proposed for amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, 8 - - ...., -" and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The approved trail plan is not proposed for amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The ownership and dedication of streets is not being amended. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development will not have a security gate or guard posts. Staff finds this criterion not to be a licable to this a lication. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted fmal PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the 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 PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed phasing plan allows Phase I to stand alone regardless of whether Phase II and Phase III are ever developed. These amendments only apply to the single-family lots in Phase I. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9 o o &0t'kJt'f i~f . THE CITY OF ASPEN Chris Bendon, Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Burlingame pun Amendment June 23, 2006 Dear Chris; The City of Aspen Engineering / Asset Management department requests your consideration for favorable approval of the following modifications to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing PUD. I. Amend the PUD so that the building envelopes as defmed by the building setback requirements are changed by the modification of the rear yard requirement to read (5) five feet minimum for garages and related accessory structures only. 2. Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has an allowable maximum FAR of 2,500 square feet based on the City's Land Use Code methodology and a garage exemption of up to 500 square feet. This would include a basement only limited to the extent that it counts towards the allowable F A:R of2,500 sq\jare feet for the parcel. 3. Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has a maximum building height of 30 feet. Height determination will be consistent with the existing city Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(B) Methods of Measurement for Varying Types of Roofs. 4. Amend the PUD to delete the requirement that each single-family residence be required to install a fire sprinkler system. In the effort to achieve incentives for the development of affordable single-family residential homes it appeared that one of the tools used was the development of small and restrictive lots that they themselves would demand a level of affordability. Well, the best intentions of the planning process never could have anticipated the rapid escalation of construction cost and the inability to capture home contractors in a competitive climate. Today, the lot owners are faced with utilizing the services of modular builders from out of the valley and in some cases even out of the State. This effort does not provide much financial comfort since the costs of construction are 'Still very high, however; it does achieve goals of constructability and relative affordability. With modular construction comes some limitations and while it is true that you can change the limitations, those changes come with increas~d cost. 130 SOUTH GALE:--JA SHEET . ASPEN, COlORADO 81611-1975 . PUOJ\E 970.920.5000. FAX 970.920.5197 www.aspengov.com PrinlfclonRecyd"dP"per r", \....-' ~ The reality is that we have small lots and in most cases they are grade challenged, size challenged and shaped challenged with cost caps and the desire to make these high energy efficient and high building efficient homes. We maybe were asking too much from our lot owners. It is clear that from their perspective we are asking too much and maybe even asking the impossible. While many of the lot owners believe in the fire sprinkler system, the high cost associated with the system creates a major financial burden. Included herewith are portions of the lot owner's research and thoughts about our requests. Ovv.NERSCO~ENTS I. Amend the pun so that the building envelopes as defined by the building setback requirements are changed by the modification of the rear yard requirement to read (5) five feet minimum for garages and related accessory structures only. . We would also like the PUD amendment to include a request to change the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for garages/accessory structures to pell'l1it us adequate room to construct our . garages and related infrastructure. Five (5) feet is a common setback for properties in -the city for accessory buildings and we feel that this setback is appropriate for om garages. The Burlingame housing project is considered a "New urbanist development." Small setbacks are consistent with the strategy in this type of development, which is to use land more wisely. We feel that this is in the spirit of the Burlingame Affordable Housing project. Furthermore, the "Ranch Manager Road" behind lots 1-5 will be an unpaved, low usage road used exclusively for rear dJ,iveway access, the ranch manager unit on --IX, and emergency fire access. A 5' setback will not impede these uses. 2. Amend the pun so that each single-family residential lot has an allowable maximum FAR of 2,500 square feet based on the City's Land Use Code methodology and a garage exemption of up to 500 square feet. This would include a basement only limited to the extent that it counts towards the allowable FAR of 2,500 square feet for the parcel. Leslie Lamont represented to Owners at an Owner-City staff meeting that the developer had requested 2500 square feet ofF AR in order to achieve the 2200 square feet ofliveable space as set forth in the Housing Guidelines. Chris Bendon confirmed that it would take approximately 2500 square feet ofF AR to achieve 2200 liveable square feet under the guidelines. Community Development has confirmed that it was the intent of the approvals to permit Owners to build the permissible square footage subject to lot constraints and setbacks, and that by giving the entire project a single family FAR rather than any given lot, some lots would theoretically be able to utilize more FAR based on lot considerations. Because liveable square footage as defined in the guidelines is measured from the interior dimensions ofthe house rather than the exterior, and excludes areas that would be included in FAR calculations, such as mechanical rooms, interior starwells and landings, and unfinished basements, and the lots were marketed as constructable to 2200 square feet under the guidelines, we feel the 2 ""'" --""""",' City should permit lots that have the capability of building the full 2200 liveable square feet to build to capacity by permitting all lots to have 2500 square feet of FAR. Lots with special constraints would still be limited by their constraints to a lesser FAR. Community Development has taken the position that basements should be excluded per Code except to the extent that they would be included under FAR, i.e. where the foundation is exposed for window wells or due to the sloping nature of the lots (further described under height considerations). Unfinished basements are the key concern here. In order to accommodate modular construction, lot owners must have a basement or crawl space for the entire area of the foundation, which is not possible under an FAR reduction scenario. Most owners cannot afford to finish their basements, but desire economic efficiency by having a full basement instead of some partially engineered basement and partially engineered crawl space. This is the primary reason for the additional FAR request. 3. Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has a maximum building height of 30 feet. Height determination will be consistent with the existing city Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(B) Methods of Measurement for Varying Types of Roofs. A 25' Height Restriction was applied to Burlingame based on a standard set for other areas in tbe City without taking into consideration the special requirements ofthe P.U.D. that advocate for a unique height in character with these requirements and the City's flexibility with addressing these issues in a Planned Unit Development Community Development, although it initially recommended a variance to a 28' height to address the Burlingame Owner's needs with respect to modular construction on the lots, changed its position, citing a reluctance to grant a variance from the "standard" 25' height limitation in the Code. However, Burlingame is zoned AH/PUD, and the AH/PUD zone district, defined by Code Section 26.710.110, does not contain a 25' height restriction; in fact it contains no height restriction, and the City is permitted to establish a height restriction in the P.U.D. based on all of the factors applicable to that P.U.D. Thus forcing us into a height restriction found in any different zone district and not taking into account the special needs, goals and requirements of this project and its occupants is inequitable and unrealistic. For instance, many of the zone districts in the City with a 25' height limitation are essentially flat, contain view plane issues that do not apply to Burlingame, and are not subject to the same lot size, slope, and affordability and design constraints as Burlingame. Because Burlingame is a specially created, unique, "affordable," stand-alone community situated in the midst of a number of conservation easements and bounded by Deer Hill, if all single family homes in Burlingame were permitted a 29' height, and since the multi-family units are 35' in height, a height increase to 29 ' would be beneficial to all single family owners and harmful to none. We believe the City applied the 25' height standard without taking into consideration the uniqueness ofthe Community and the lot constraints, which are detailed herein and provide support for a greater height standard. In addition, we have also been informed that the original development team recommended a higher height in the initial application. We believe this significantly supports the need for a PUD amendment to increase the height. Ifthere needs be further substantiation for the height issue to put forth to Community Development, we offer the following. Code Section 26.710.130 establishes a 28' height limitation for the Rural 3 /",--, .--" Residential (RR) zone district. In terms of those properties within the City limits that might qualifY for a "Rural Residential" classification, we would argue that Burlingame Ranch is about as rural residential as the City of Aspen gets, and therefore, at a minimum, the 28' height limitation applicable to that zone district should likewise be applicable to Burlingame Ranch. The POD and approval documents include many references to the rural nature of the project, even though it is fairly high density to accommodate affordable housing. Our request is a revised height limitation of not less than 29'. We are only seeking one additional foot of height above the Rural Residential height requirements due to topographic and economic considerations. The primary reason for this reqnest is due to the small scale and sloping topography of our lots combined with the 6/12 roof pitch design guideline requirement and setbacks. Each of Lots 1-7 are between approximately 3500 and 4300 square feet in size. Five out of seven of these lots are narrow at the front (40-46 feet), wider at the rear (roughly 50-60 feet), and longer from front to rear (e.g. 70 feet). With building setbacks, houses will be approximately thirty to thirty-six feet wide at the front, and sixty feet long. Generally, garages need to be placed in the rear of each lot. These measurements along with setbacks and build-to lines will result in generally long, narrow houses with a the garage off-set at the rear of the house to maximize square footage and views. Each lot's topography slopes down at a diagonal, resulting in a down-slope from front to back for the R.O. lots of at least four feet and a side-slope of approximately two feet, creating a challenging cross-slope within the building envelope. Building height is measured from the building's lowest point. Each lot owner is permitted to build up to 2200 square feet of above-grade livable area, and a 500 square foot garage. Due to ten-foot front and rear setbacks, garage location requirements, front build-to lines, and the relatively small lot size in proportion to square footage, the lot size and building envelopes are very restrictive. As a result, two story construction is required to achieve the allowable maximum of 2,200 livable square feet, leaving a building envelope that is approximately 1100 square feet for the primary structure, plus a 500 square foot garage, for a total of 1600 square feet of total lot space. This footprint encompasses nearly the entire building envelope for any given lot, resulting in a total grade change of approximately four feet for each lot (and a two-foot grade change from side-to-side at the front fayade of each house). Unlike many other lots in the City (many of which are flat), there simply is nowhere to relocate within the lot or building envelope to maintain a two-story house at twenty-five feet. A house built within these constraints will thus be required to (1) be uniformly only as high as would be permitted at the lowest point on the lot (thus a uniform pitched house will need to be built twenty-one feet in height rather than twenty-five feet to accommodate the grade change; this would result in sub-par living spaces); (2) have a front (or in some cases rear) fayade ofthe house four feet sub grade to permit the twenty-five foot height to be maintained as the lot elevation drops four feet; or (3) be constructed in diminishing steps so that at any given point on the lot, the house will not be greater than twenty-five feet tall. We will attempt to demonstrate how these options are not in keeping with the City's plan for an affordable and aesthetically pleasing community. We believe the only realistic and equitable option I This memo primarily addresses R.O. Lots 1-5 for ease of reference to direction of slope and applicable Code provisions. 4 ~., ..... would be for the City to amend the PUD to permit an up to five and one-half foot height variance for any lot in accordance with the topographical variance within each lot's building envelope. The following information supports the need and our request: 1) Lot owner's have obtained cross-section samples from several modular manufacturers indicating that a 25' height is required for standard floor plans with minimum roof pitch requirements. A minimum 6: 12 roof slope is required for Burlingame single family homes. Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Design Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), p. 17. The Cross- Sections attached hereto depict that a typical house built with the 6:12 roof pitch, standard nine-foot first floor ceilings and eight-foot second floor ceilings require a minimum of twenty-five feet in height to the mid-point of the roof (where the height measurement would be taken at this pitch under the Code). Community Development ("ComDev") has reviewed the samples for accuracy. Building a twenty-one foot house rather than a twenty-five foot house to accommodate elevation loss on the lot would result in lowered first floor ceilings and lowered second story walls, resulting in a substantial loss of use able livable square footage due to downward-sloping roofs. This would also minimize or completely eliminate the Owner's option to have attic space for storage, since vaulted upstairs ceilings would be required to maintain minimum interior height standards per the Code. Alternatively lot owners would be required to construct dormers to maximize available square footage and usability of upper story space. These types of design modifications greatly increase costs for lot owners in that 1) owners will not be able to utilize existing free/affordable floor plans; 2) some modular companies may not be able to make these modifications; 3) Lot owners will be required to engage the services of architects and professional engineers to modify plans accordingly; and each new design element results in an increased cost to the Owner.2 2) Down-sloping topography of approximately 4 feet prohibits Owners from maintaining a 25' height on entire structure; side-slope of approximately 2 feet prohibits Owners from maintaining a 25' height from front fa~ade without sub-grading a portion of the front fa~ade. Under the City of Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code"), height limitations are calculated from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. Code S26.575.020(B) (1) (b) &(c). Given the four- foot downslope in the topography of our building envelopes, as depicted in the engineered plans provided by Shaw (samples are attached hereto), the height ofa uniform, level twenty-five foot structure from the BACK of the lot line exceeds the twenty-five foot height limitation by approximately four feet, resulting in a measurement closer to twenty-nine feet. After examining the modular cross-sections & calculating the height with the Code (as referred to in ComDev's 5/23/06 memo,) ComDev has indicated that maintaining the 25' height limit on the entire structure is not possible without "stepping" down the house height one or more points as the elevation drops or subgrading the portion of the house which is higher in elevation. (See attached example with Chris Bendon's notes.) In addition, the Code mandates that the front fayade of each house will be measured at the lowest point at the front of the house. Due to the two-foot side-slope at the front fayade of each house, a twenty-five foot house would need to be sub-graded approximately two feet to maintain the 25' height regulation from the front fayade. 2 According to modular manufactures, the less "modular'slboxes" required in the design, the more cost effective. For example: simple 4 box constructiou, 2 ou the bottom & 2 placed directly ou the top. Dormers and creative roof configurations will be an added expense to owners. 5 r ') The Guidelines require that each single-family residence construct a street facing front porch of a minimum 60 square feet with a minimum depth of six feet. Guidelines p. 18. This will be extremely difficult (if not impossible given the extremely tight ten-foot front lot setbacks) to achieve if half of the front fayade is sub-grade. A partially sub-grade fayade on a thirty-six foot wide house with at least a ten foot wide porch makes design challenging and affects the aesthetics of the front fayade ofthe house. In order to affordably construct the required front porch and fayade in an aesthetically pleasing manner, the house would need to sit flat on the lot from the higher point, not be set sub-grade3. This would result in a front fayade of approximately twenty-seven feet in midpoint height, and would increase the height required at the rear of each lot to thirty-one feet to accommodate for the four-foot grade change. Additionally or alternatively, if the City will simply consider re-grading our lots flat and requiring that grade to be the starting point for our height, this would greatly assist in resolving height, FAR and some affordability issues. For instance, if lot owners are forced to live with the sloping lots depicted in our surveys, we will lose some height since height is measured at the lowest point, we will lose some FAR since our basements will be exposed due to the slope, and/or we will be forced to spend a great deal of money re-grading our lots flat and engineering retaining walls to address slope differentials between our yards and our neighbors' yards, in addition to other challenging design issues IfShaw/DHM/ the City were to grade our lots flat, the twenty-five foot height limitation would be more attainable with modular construction. However, we have been informed that the engineering of flat lots would be too complex for the developer and too costly to the City, so this task will be left to the individual owners to figure out, and the cost will be passed on to the employee housing beneficiary. If each owner is left to re-grade its lot, this will require extensive engineering to maintain proper drainage, and extensive coordination with other neighbors, again, adding significant costs to the homeowner and making development of the single-family lots yet more unaffordable. 3) 6/12 Roof Pitch (Aesthetic Requirement) combined with down-sloping topography is prohibiting maintaining 25' height limitation As previously stated, the Guidelines require a roof pitch of not less than 6/12. All cross section samples from modular manufacturers are drawn at 6/12 or greater roof pitch. In order to maintain the minimum 6/12 roof pitch as required in the Guidelines, in combination with the down sloping topography, it is not possible to maintain the twenty-five foot height limitation with a uniform structure built at grade on the higher point on the lot, which for five out of seven released lots is the front fayade of the house. (*Note: Although the Code imposes a 25' height limitation on single/amily homes throughout the majority o/town, this is not a uniform requirement, and the Code DOES NOT require a 6/12 roofpitch. Thus, sinJlle familv homeowners elsewhere in the Citv could address manv of the issues we are dealinfl with such as slope and required ceilinfl heiflhts bv buildinfl flat or lower- pitched roofs) 3 Alternatively, substantial re-grading would need to occur, at the cost ofhiting an engineer, possibly importing fill dirt, and the required construction of retaining walls due to the narrow lot size and the high slope differentiaL 6 .r'.... L ... 4) Affordability. Code Section 26.575.020(B)(2) addresses the special needs of down-sloping lots. This section permits the twenty-five foot height at the front facade of a single family home on a down-sloping lot to extend for the first thirty feet of the building's depth. However, due to the fact that our lots are configured as long and narrow (40-46 feet wide) rather than wide and short, each Owner will need to build back further than thirty feet to attain even a modest amount oflivable square footage. After the first thirty feet, the building height would be required to step down four feet to match the building height required at the back ofthe slope. The effect would be essentially splitting the sixty foot house in half and dropping the floors by four feet in the middle of the house.4 Additionally, due to the side-slope, each Owner would need to build part of the front fayade two feet sub-grade to maintain the 25' height limitation on the front fayade (this would still result in a two foot drop at the middle of the house). It is NOT affordable nor efficient to build at varying. steoped-down heights from the front to the rear facade of the house (as demonstrated on Chris Bendon's example) nor to have to excavate four feet lower to build sub-grade or employ architects and engineers to creatively, and more expensively, address the height issue. Burlingame is an affordable housing development. Given the high costs of construction in the Roaring Fork Valley, stick-building is not an option for most or all lot owners. Modular (or Pre- Fabricated) housing is the only way most of us we will be able to afford to build, especially given the construction cost caps. Whether stick-built or modular, our expenses will increase greatly if we need to engineer floor plans which drop four feet after the first thirty feet from the front fayade of the house, engineer creative floorplans, dormers and differentially pitched roofs, and/or to excavate further and re-slope our lots to make functional facades and porches four feet sub grade. 5) Our intent is to respect the streetscape and not to create a large, over-whelming mass. A majority of the increased height will be measured from the BACK of the lot, which is Open Space on R.O. lots, and will not impede other's views. Weare not asking for the ability to build mansions. Weare trying to create livable homes with a good quality of life. A slight increase in the front fayade height will accommodate the front porch requirement and maintain the sense of community and character Burlingame is striving for. A majority of the increased height will be located at the back side oflots, because ofthe down sloping topography.s Because these lots are on the edge of the project and the back side of the houses will face an Agricultural easement, increased height at the rear of the lots will not affect or impede any neighbors or view planes. 6) Multi-family units are 35' High and will not be affected by our variance request. An increase in height will not result in units that are higher than the multi-family units, which have a thirty-five foot height limitation. In addition, the multi-family units primarily sit higher on the 4 See Bendon diagram attached hereto. S Again, this reference is to R.O. lots I-S. Category 6 lots will have a greater challenge because these lots slope up from the front fa9ade rather than down, and arguably the Code height variance found in ~26.S7S.020(B) (2) would not benefit these lots. 7 ~ 1"'"', development than the single-family lots (since the lots are on the down-sloping side of the Project). For most of the lots, the front fayade, visible to the multi-family units and the rest of the Project, will remain twenty-five feet in height and the "additional height" granted by the variance will only be measured by the elevation drop at the rear of the lots, thus creating no actual "additional height" from the perspective of the remaining units. 7) Burlingame Design Intent favors a height variance. The City and the Project designers were obviously very concerned with the aesthetic appearance of the Project, and thus created stringent Design Guidelines for the single family homes. However, it seems that a model was not created using the Guidelines and considering the topography ofthe site and the mandated design of the houses. A variance from the twenty-five foot height requirement supports the Design intent, and does not deviate from it. The Guidelines require single family homes to be built within fifteen feet of the front lot line, front porches are required, front dimensions are strictly monitored, garages are primarily required to be located at the rear of the house to maintain the aesthetics of the front fayade, a 6/12 roof pitch is required, along with a "Ranch Vernacular" design and materials (which incorporates a very simple architectural style). In order to meet all of these requirements for a two-story, 2200 square-foot house with standard ceiling heights, and a basic, standard design per the attached diagrams, the house structure needs to be approximately twenty-five feet high. In order to accommodate the two-foot front side-slope and construct the required front porch and to address the four foot slope from front to rear, a reasonable increase in height to the structure is required. Due to the drop in grade and height limitation, a uniformly constructed house with a level floor plan rather than split levels or creatively engineered dormers and floor plans (i.e. an affordable house) would need to be built sub-grade. This would result in a steep four-foot drop within the ten to fifteen foot front yard area and substantial grading and/or steps leading down to the front door, and a sub-grade front porch. This does not seem to be the design intent for the front facades of the single family homes. Nor does a drop in house elevations of four feet after the first thirty feet from the front fayade, which would result in awkward angles and unmanageable multi-level floor plans with stairs leading down in middle rooms, in addition to differentially elevated basements, none of which seems in line with the simple lines of "Ranch Vernacular" style architecture that have been depicted and described to us by the City, Design Review Committee, and City Staff. In addition, stepped-down construction does not lend itself to compliance with Americans with Disabilities "Visitability" Standards. Although "visitability" is suggested but not required for single family lot owners, many lot owners are looking to build these homes to be their homes for the rest of their lives and would like to design to accommodate aging owners or handicap childrenl& or relatives by making them "visitable," which will require wheelchair access at one entrance and not through the garage. Subgrade front doors and porches with a two to four foot drop from street level do not lend themselves to being wheelchair accessible. Finally, if we are not granted a height variance, each owner could address the complex task of meeting the twenty-five foot height limitation differently, thus resulting in homes of differing heights at the front fayade and differing structural accommodations, a veritable mish-mash of designs and accommodations. 8) Quality of Life/Equity with Multi-family Units: Although this is an affordable project, the cap of $640,000 is a significant amount of money for us. Ifwe are spending this much, we would like to be able to build a Good Quality oflife for ourselves 8 1""'" "-- which includes 9' ceilings on the first floor, and a small yard. We do not believe these are unreasonable requests. A slight height increase will allow us to build modular & to do so affordably. We have also been informed that the multifamily units have 9' or higher ceilings to increase their quality oflife. As single family lot owners we are asking for the same consideration. CONCLUSION AS TO BUILDING HEIGHTS Whether we build modular or stick-built, the design and lot constraints, cost considerations, minimal impact on surrounding units, and the Design intent favor a variance from the Code's twenty-five foot height limitation for Burlingame Single family lots of one foot for each foot of grade change within a single family lot building envelope. In this manner, Burlingame single family lot owners would be able to design twenty-five foot houses without being forced to manipulate their front facades and grading to build four feet sub-grade or to engineer complex, unsightly and expensive four-foot drops in our building elevation or creatively designed lowered roofs with dormers at a compromise to existing free/inexpensive modular pre-designed plans and affordable and comfortable interior layouts and attic storage areas. As to zoning, the zoning designation for Burlingame is AHlPUD as set forth in the ordinance that approved the PUD. The property was rezoned as a part of the PUD approvals. First and foremost, Burlingame was handled as a PUD which is a very common land use tool used in the city. It allows developers and the city to look at the development project individually and set the dimensional standards (i.e. height, setbacks, density, and floor area) specifically for the development. That is exactly what happened with Burlingame, except we do not believe the City looked closely enough at the Design requirements in conjunction with the sloping lots and other lot limitations in placing a 25' height limitation, as we are doing now in planning our houses. Community Development tells us that it is common for developments to come back in for PUD amendments (both administratively and by council), so we do not feel our request for a height variance is unusual. We feel that the dominant reason for changing the single family height limit is AFFORDABILITY-modular construction is the most cost effective and timely type of development that allows the project to be affordable. Therefore, we appeal to the City of Aspen City Council to enact a PUD and Guideline amendment permitting a variance from the twenty-five foot height limitation for Burlingame Single family lots of one foot for each foot of grade change within a single family lot building envelope, side-to-side and front-to-back, as needed and determined on a case-by-case basis based on house size and design, to permit us to build twenty-five foot houses in an affordable and aesthetically pleasing manner. This amendment could alternatively be couched in terms of an extension of the twenty-five foot height limitation for the length of the house from the front fac;:ade ofthe house, similar to Code Section 26.575.020(B)(2), combined with a modification of the measurement standard at the front fac;:ade to be measured from the higher point of the building at the front fac;:ade (which would eliminate the requirement of sub-grading of the front fac;:ade to address the side- slope). 9 r; "'"" Alternatively, we request the City to take on the task of engineering and re-grading the lots and having the height stem from the City's grade so Owners are not forced to deal with the expense of tackling the challenging grade changes on these lots, and height differential will no longer be a consideration. 4. Amend the PUD to delete the requirement that each single-family residence be required to install a fire sprinkler system; or in the alternative, subsidize the sprinkler system costs to make this safety requirement not required of other houses in the City smaller than 5,000 square feet affordable for lot owners. Finally, we have received estimates for sprinkler systems for our houses ranging from $10,000 to $15,000. The City of Aspen does not typically require single-family homes ofless than 5,000 square feet to be constructed with fire sprinklers, and Burlingame homes will at most be up to 2,500 square feet, but the P.D.D. requires Burlingame Owners to install these systems at a significant cost to Owners. While we do not object to the safety reasons behind the installation of sprinkler systems, we object that we are being asked to comply with Code requirements elsewhere in the City but we are being asked to spend an extra $10,000 to $15,000 to install a system that is not required of houses elsewhere in the City, at our own expense and within the very tight $640,000 (or less for Category 6) construction cap placed upon Burlingame Lots. Therefore, we respectfully request that the City consider either removing the sprinkler system requirement or providing a subsidy to Owners to compensate for this safety requirement. End of Comments It is with these owner comments that Asset Management makes this submission for your approval of our proposed amendments and to begin the formal POD amendment process. Very Truly Yours, J. ~d"~( Jo . Laatsch, ASLA roject Plarmer Engineering / Asset Management 10 [;x~1 ~/f \\c (( MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: James Lindt, Senior PlannercrL- Burlingame Ranch Insnbstantial PUD Amendments RE: DATE: June 20, 2006 APPLICANTS: City of Aspen Asset Management Department with consent to apply from the Phase I, Burlingame Ranch Lot Owners. LOCATION: Burlingame Ranch SubdivisionIPUD. ZONING: AH/PUD REVIEW PROCEDURE: Insubstantial amendments to an approved PUD may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445 .100(A), PUD Insubstantial Amendments. REQUESTS: The City of Aspen Asset Management Department ("Applicant") with consent to apply from the individual lot owners have applied for an insubstantial PUD amendment to the Burlingame Ranch PUD to clarity some discrepancies in the approvals that were granted to the subdivision. Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2006, which approved an amendment to the Burlingame Ranch PUD that added two (2) single-family dwelling lots to the subdivision, allocated a total FAR of 28,600 square feet for the all of the single-family residences. However, the ordinance did not describe how this allowable FAR was to be allocated for the lots within the development Part of this amendment request is to clarity how the allowable FAR is to be allocated amongst each of the single-family lots within Phase I of the development. Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2006, also established a minimum op~.: space requirement for the individual single-family lots within the development. Typically, a miruIl1,.ln.1 op~n spce requirement is used in the downtown core area for commercial or mixed-use buildings "-,,d i, defined in a manner that significantly limits the portion of a lot that can be counted towards open space. Therefore, the Applicant has requested to replace the minimum open space requirement with a maximum site coverage requirement that is more traditionally been used in the City of Aspen to limit the amount of building coverage for residential structures. The Applicant has also requested an amendment to the PUD approvals to set the minimum efficient building score required for the single-family lots at 70 points. Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, established the minimum efficient building score at 145 points. The reduction is requested because the 145 points is not realistic for a single-family residence of the size allowed in the development The score requirement of 145 points was meant for the I multi-family residential units. Finally, the Applicant has also requested to amend the right- of-way landscaping responsibilities adjacent to the single-family residential lots and shift the responsibility to the City. The Applicant has requested this part of the amendment to shift some of the costs away from the individual lot owners so that the units remain affordable to build. STAFF COMMENTS: Maximum Allowable FAR: As was described above, the Applicant is proposing to allocate the FAR allowed for the single-family lots on a per lot basis to better clarity for the individual lot owners what they can build on the lots that they have purchased. These amendment requests related to the allowable FAR further stem from some contradiction between the RO unit size requirements in the Employee Housing Guidelines and the allowable FAR approved in the PUD, which added to the confusion experienced by the individual lot owners in trying to develop their properties. Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, allotted a total allowable FAR of 28,600 square feet for all of the single-family residences within the development and Part VII, Section 7 of the Employee Housing Guidelines places a maXimum gross floor area of 2,200 square feet plus a maximum garage size of 500 square feet and a maximum basement size of 800 square footage. It was argued by the lot owners that some of them relied on the FAR allowance in the PUD and some relied on the housing guideline requirement for the size of RO units in purchasing their lots. In an effort to clear up the confusion, the Applicant has proposed an allowable FAR of 2,200 square feet for each of the single-family lots to evenly distribute the allowed FAR amongst the lots (28,600 square feet allocated in Ord. 55 divided by 13 single-family lots= 2,200 square feet). The Applicant has further proposed that a 500 square foot garage be exempt from the allowable FAR of 2,200 square feet because the requirements in the RO guidelines allowed for a garage of 500 square feet in addition to the 2,200 gross floor area requirement (Part VII, Section 7 of the Employee Housing Guidelines). Additionally, the Applicant has proposed to clarity that the basement space is counted towards the allowable FAR to the extent that it counts elsewhere in the City pursuant to the calculation methodology set forth in City Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(A)(4), Calculations and measurements: Subgrade areas. Staff believes that the proposed amendments to clarity the allowable FAR of the individual lots is appropriate and can be reviewed at an administrative level as an insubstantial PUD amendments because they simply further clarity the dimensional requirements approved in the original PUD and do not provide"lt substantive change to the approved project. Staff also feels that the allowable FAR amendments described herein are necessary to allow for the individual lot owners to commence designing their residences. Most importantly, Staff believes that the proposed amendments to the allowable FAR meet the review criteria for approving an insubstantial amendment to an approved subdivision/PUD pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100, Insubstantial PUD Amendments. Minimum FAR: Currently, the Burlingame Ranch PUD has a minimum FAR requirement of 1,900 square feet for each of the individual single-family lots. The Applicant has requested that the minimum FAR be amended to 1,200 square feet for each of the individual lots in order to allow the lot owners the possibility to build a smaller unit initially and then subsequently expand the unit in the future. This amendment is intended to allow for expandability as a lot 2 "'~ ., "',.,....' owner moves through different life stages. Additionally, this proposed amendment may yield more affordability in the units in the long run in that it will not force the first lot purchasers to build out to the maximum allowable FAR for their lots. Staff supports this proposed amendment and believes that it is consistent with one of the significant themes of the Burlingame Ranch POD design, which is to incorporate potential for expandability amongst the units. Oven Svace to Site Coveraze: As was discussed in the description of the amendment requests above, the original POD approvals establish a minimum open space requirement of 55% for the single-family lots. The Applicant has proposed to amend the PUD to convert this requirement into a maximum site coverage requirement of 45% because open space is a term of definition in the land use code that is meant primarily for the commercial core area of town. Open space is defined in a manner that significantly limits the portion of a lot that can be counted towards open space. For example, open space as defmed by the City's Land Use Code would only include space that is open from the ground to the sky that you can see from the adjacent street at a pedestrian leveL That said, if open space were maintained as the requirement that is applicable to the single-family lots within the PUD, the back yards for the lots would not be able to be used to meet the minimum open space requirement because they would not be able to be viewed from the street. Staff believes the intent of the open space requirement that was placed in the ordinance was to provide a mechanism in addition to the setback requirements to limit the amount of building footprint on a site. Therefore, Staff feels that the most appropriate requirement to fit this intent is the maximum site coverage requirement as defmed by the calculation methodology in the City Land Use Code. Staff agrees with the Applicant that if a maximum site coverage is to be used rather than a minimum open space requirement, the maximum site coverage percentage should be the inverse of the minimum open space requirement since one requirement is a maximum and the other requirement is a minimum. Efficient Buddinz Points: The Applicant has requested an amendment to the approved PUD to reduce the required number of efficient building points from 145 points down to 70 points for the single-family lots. Staff believes that the requirement of 145 points was incorrectly applied to the single- family lots and is not a realistically achievable requirement for the single-family lots. The Building Department has indicated that it would be very difficult for a single-family residential structure with an allowable FAR of 2,200 square feet to achieve a score of 145 points and that publicly funded affordable housing that is under 2,500 gross square feet is typically required to provide a minimum 70 points. Therefore, Staff feels that this is another clarification amendment that is not substantive in nature and should be enacted. Rizhl-of- Wav Landscavinz: The Burlingame Ranch Design Guidelines require the lot owners to plant one tree and three (3) shrubs in the right-of-way adjacent to their property. The Applicant has requested an amendment to the POD that shifts the responsibility for these plantings from the lot owners to the City of Aspen. This amendment is intended to help lower the construction costs on the lots to keep the units affordable for the purchasers. The Planning Staff feels that this is a positive step towards keeping the construction costs down without sacrificing the level of ., ~ ~. .'<., "'-;.,."'- landscaping that was envisioned in the original PUD. Staff believes that this amendment is not substantive in nature and will not change the character of the approved development because the landscaping standards are not being amended, only the responsibility for installing the landscaping is being altered through this amendment request RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed amendments detailed herein meet the review standards for approving an insubstantial PUD amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26A45.100(A), PUD Insubstantial Amendments. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve the proposed amendments, clarifying that the allowable FAR for the single-family lots in Phase I of the Burlingame Ranch POD is 2,200 square feet each plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, and clarifying that basement space on the single-family lots is only limited to the extent that they count towards the allowable FAR for the properties using the subgrade exemption methodology established in Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(A)(4), Subgrade areas. Staff recommends that the Community Development Director also approve the requested amendments establishing the minimum FAR for the single-family lots in Phase I as 1,200 square feet, changing the millimum open space requirement of 55% on the single-family lots in Phase I to a maximum site coverage of 45%, establishing a minimum efficient building score of 70 points for the single-family residences in Phase 1, and switching the responsibility for the landscaping in the right-of-way adjacent to the single-family lots in Phase I from the lot owners to the City of Aspen. ApPROVAL: I hereby approve this insubstantial PUD amendment, clarifying that the allowable FAR for the single-family Jots in Phase I of the Burlingame Ranch POD is 2,200 square feet each plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, and clarifying that basement space on the single- family lots is only limited to the extent that they count towards the allowable FAR for the properties using the subgrade exemption methodology established in Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(A)(4), Subgrade areas. This amendment also establishes the millimum FAR for the single-family lots in Phase I at 1,200 square feet, changes the minimum open space requirement of 55% on the single-family lots in Phase 1 to a maximum site coverage of 45%, establishes a minilnum efficient building score of 70 points for the single-family residences in Phase I, and amends the responsibility for the landscaping the right-of-way adjacent to the ,;ogl,[=;I, 10" ill Ph.., 1 from ~ ~'i~~'()"'"'1 ~ nly of ""'"r" ", r1 . I~JVV V u! l)U Date UI ((;t'lAlj Chris Bendon, Community Development Director APPROVED JUN 2 1 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOP~N I LilMt~ IlAi CITY OF ASPEN 4 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A --Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B --Application Letter Exhibit C --Ordinance No. 55, Series of2005 Approving an Amendment to Burlingame PUD Exhibit D --Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005 Approving the Burlingame PUD 5 Exhibit A Review Criteria and Staff Findings Insubstantial PUD Amendment. 1. A change in the use or character oj the development. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed amendments change the use or character of the development in that they are primarily for clarification purposes. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage oj stroctures on the land. Staff Finding: The proposed amendments will change the approved coverage of structures. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates oj the proposed development, or the demand Jor public Jacilities. Staff Finding: Trip generation and demand for public infrastructure are not affected by these amendments. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent oj the approved open space. Staff Finding: The amount of open space will not be reduced by the amendment. The proposed amendment related to changing the minimum open space requirement to a maximum site coverage requirement simply applies the appropriate method of measuring vacant land required to be on a single-family residential parceL Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent oJthe off-street parking and loading space. Staff Finding: The Applicant is not requesting an amendment to the number of approved parking spaces. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights-o.fway Jor streets and easements. Staff Finding: The Applicant is not proposing changes to adjacent right-of-way widths. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. Staff Finding; The Applicant is not proposing to increase the gross leasable floor area of a commercial building. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. Staff Finding; The Applicant is not proposing a change in the approved residential density. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the projects original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Staff Finding; Staff does not believe that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with a condition of approval or representation made in the property's original approval. The proposed amendments are also not establishing new dimensional requirements, but instead clarifYing the existing dimensional requirements that are currently in place or that were intended to be put in enacted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ,- .. ",,, ~.. .. r-- 'li ll" to .... N -~c ('I) Qj~ ,.... .., I!) ... 0..... .. ~ 0: ~ ~ - ~ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!o ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<> -,. =~ _2 -=> -0 =<> - _2 -;; =~ -- -"- ~~ -> =a ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;0 -a ===;: -", !!!!!!!!!!!!!!- -~ ~-- '- "'..... . &~\'~ I' f \/fJr ,",,/' ORDINANCE NO. 24 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR 97 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS (PHASE I), GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH), GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ACCESSORY USES IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AH PARKING, . REZONING TO AH/PUD, CONDITIONAL USE, VESTED RIGHTS AND APPROVING THE REVISED CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR ALL PHASES OF THE BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcellD No. 27350-03-100805 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Series of 2000, determined Burlingame Ranch PUD (hereinafter the "Project") eligible for the process of the Conyenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) for the purpose of developing deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest 'Nhen determined necessary by the Aspen City Council according to said Section, to conduct an iteratiye process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of intercst, and assembling a Burlingame Affordable Housing Task Force Team, proyiding recommendations directly to Aspen City Council; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP reyiew process enabled the planning and design of the Project to reflect essential community goals and values, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points-of-Yiew from neighbors, the land owner, citizens and city staff; and, WHEREAS, the Project is of higher quality as a result of the Burlingame Affordable Housing COWOP Task Force Team review process and its thoughtful and interactive discussions, than may haye otherwise resulted if the project had not been reyiewed as a COWOP application; and whereas, the COWOP land use review process does not and has not lessened any public hearing, public noticing, or any critical analysis or scrutiny of the project as would otherwise be required; and, WHEREAS, the Burlingame Affordable Housing COWOP Task Force Team met nine (9) times, at legally noticed public hearings, to identify the site's opportunities and constraints and to deyelop guidelines for the development of the property. The COWOP Task Force Team forwarded a recommendation to the Aspen City Council who adopted the recommendation through Resolution No. 98, Series of 2003, at a regular meeting; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Asset Management Department conducted a Burlingame Ranch "Design/Build" competition in order to find a capable development Burlingame Ranch Final pun Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page J ",..J ... team to design and build an exemplary affordable housing development. The designs submitted for the competition were publicly displayed at the Pitkin County Library and public comments were taken on the designs at public meetings of the Aspen City Council on October 25 and November 8, 2004. On November 8, 2004, the Aspen City Council chose the proposal submitted by Shaw Builders, LLC, Poss Architecture, and DHM Design. This group seryes as agents for the owners, the City of Aspen, in this development proposal and together these two entities are referred to as the "Applicants"; and, WHEREAS, on Noyember 22, 2004, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 120, Series of 2004, conceptual approyal with conditions to a three-phase deyelopment plan as proposed by the applicants in the "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal", dated after September 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the development standards as required by the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicants haye proceeded to gain approvals and land use entitlements for Phase I of the Project by submitting a final development plan application entitled, "Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing", dated February 14, 2005. Such application addressed the application requirements and applicable review standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Deyelopment Director has reyiewed the proposed deyelopment in consideration of the recommendations of the COWOP Task Force Team, the conditions of the conceptual approyal, the requirements of the land use code, and comments from applicable referral agencies and has recommended approval of the Final PUD subject to conditions of approval as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners and the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority conducted meetings to discuss the development project and provided input and recommendations to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the deyelopment proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Deyelopment Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, approyal of this ordinance does not complete the COWOP process, but constitutes another step of the COWOP review process. Future steps may include applications for Final PUD Plan of Phases 11 and ill of the deyelopment and/or Conceptual PUD revisions, followed by land use entitlement by the Aspen City Council, pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council fmds that the deyelopment proposal meets or exceeds all applicable deyelopment standards and that the approyal of the Final PUD plan for Phase I, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, especially those goals relating to the development of affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary and the preservation of open space; and, Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, Page 2 1- ... "'., .. .. ..... ...",3 (00:& N N~Q ('f) ti2 T"" :;0 It) o."Z ..; -" '" o ___u ~ a u ~2 ;;: ... 0: '" -; g ---" - ,. ;l -'" ~ ! ......" .... WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Amended Conceptual Plan Approved The Burlingame Ranch project (all phases) may include up to 236 deed-restricted employee housing units, community buildings, parks and recreational facilities, transportation facilities, and other infrastructure and amenities as described in the Shaw/Poss/DHM Conceptual PUD submittal dated, September 7, 2004 and revised through the Final PUD (phase I) Submittal dated, February 14, 2005 and including revisions to address any conditions of approyal. Conceptual approval is applicable to all phases with each phase subject to final approval and entitlement pursuant to the standards and processes of the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the Municipal Code, and as specified herein. Page L-l, Phasing Plan, of the Final PUD submittal shall be updated to reflect the final PUD approval of Phase I and shall be retitled to, "Revised Conceptual Master Plan & Phasing Plan". Components of the Conceptual PUD plan shall be confirmed or amended in conjunction with the final approval of each phase. Deyelopment features of future phases may be amended by the Aspen City Council, in conjunction with final approvals for each particular phase. " In consideration of the phased aspect of the entire project, City Council hereby exempts the development from the limitations of Conceptual Deyelopment Plan approyal as specified in Section 26.445.030.D of the Land Use Code. No prescribed limit or timeframe for submitting a final deyelopment plan for the project, or phases thereof, shall apply. Section 2: Process for Gaininl! Final Approyals for Each Phase The final reyiew and entitlement for each phase shall be subject to the COWOP land use review process pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public. 'Ibis step shall consist of a reyiew of the final development plan for each phase by the Aspen City Council and shall incorporate all required land use approyals necessary for the particular phase, such as GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Condominiumization, etc. and other necessary land use actions to gain entitlement for the particular phase of the project. Final entitlement for each phase shall be by Ordinance. The entire Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project,t including Phase I, shall remain aCliye as a COWOP land use reyiew until determined concluded by the Aspen City Council. City Council may stagger the conclusion of the COWOP review on a phase-by-phase basis. Once the COWOP review is concluded for a particular phase, amendments to deyelopment within the phase shall be subject to the processes and standards of the Land Use Code unless other proyisions are established as applicable. Burlingame Ranch final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, Page 3 .... .. "'''' -.,., t--- ~:g~ CD .,., N ~~c ('I) .~ T"'" ::;0 LD Do 55 ., ~ 0: 8 ~ _z ;s o - _Z ;;: ... c: :': -" lS -" - " d _VI r.... ',,,,~... .. ~ The Applicant for each phase shall submit application materials, as listed below, for all required land use actions to gain full entitlement of each phase of the development, including a draft Subdiyision plat and PUD plans along with agreements meeting the land use code requirements established in Sections 26.480 - Subdivision, 26.445 - Planned Unit Development, 26.470 - Growth Management (exemption), and other Sections and Chapters of the Land Use Code as applicable. . Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans . PUD/SIA Agreement . Architectural Character Plans . Detailed Priyate and Public Utility Plans . Detailed Phasing Plan . Detailed Parking Plan . Detailed Landscaping Plan . Detailed Street Lighting Plan and Exterior Lighting Plan for Multi- family Buildings . Detailed Trails and Recreation Plan . Detailed Vegetation Restoration Plan . PM-I 0 Mitigation Planffransportation Plan . Accessibility Plan (site only, not building interiors) . Homeowner's Association Documents and initial budget Each of the aboye submission components shall be reyiewed by the applicable referral agencies prior to submitting for final PUD approval. A pre-application conference with the Community Deyelopment Department is required prior to submission of a land use application for entitling each phase. The required land use reviews and the application materials and criteria of future reviews are subject to change, Applicants of future phases of Burlingame Ranch shall submit final applications pursuant to the submittal requirements in place at the time of the final application. Section 3: Phase I Final PUD Plan Approyed The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing deyelopment is hereby granted a deyelopment order for a site specific development plan as described in the ShawlPossIDHM Phase I Final PUD/Subdivision Development Plans, dated 2/14/05 and granted all necessary land use approvals including Final PUD, Rezoning of the subject property to the Affordable Housing PUD (AH/PUD) Zone District, Subdivision, Subdiyision Exemption for Condominiumization, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption for Affordable Housing, GMQS Exemption for Accessory Uses in Mixed Use Development, Special Reyiew for AH Parking, Conditional Use, and Vested Rights, subject to conditions of approval as described herein. , Section 4: Rezoninl! The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the Subdiyision plats and Final PUD Plans associated with the Project, amended by the Community Development Director to reflect the following property as included in the Affordable Housing/PUD (AH/PUD) Zone District on all portions of said land: Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, Page 4 '" .. '"" ~&.. I' ....10$ c.oo:& N ....~D ('I) (; ~ .,... r;; LO Q." Z ui -'" 0: - - o " -> >- ~ =" - _2 ;; =0- c: _:!l > a Q -a ;; --' -- -'" - u o Lot 2A of the Exemption Plat, Burlingame Village Lot 2 of the Final Subdivision Plat of Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption Section 5: Phase I Approved Final Proiect Dimensions Phase I dimensional standards are identified below: ...... I 97 Deed-Restricted Units 14 I -bedroom 31 2-bedroom 52 3+ bedrooms ex andabilit will effect bedroom count 56% for total subject area 55% for individual!ots .32: 1 (169,957 SF) .35: I (187,669 SF wi possible expansions) 144,738 for multi-family buildings 5,570 SF for commons building 3,06 I SF for transit stops 24,200 SF for single family homes on lots nwnbcrs show maximum with ex andabili 34 feet for multi-family and community buildings 25 feet for sin Ie famil lot buildin s As represented on the Final PUD Plans JO feet front, 5 feet side, 10 feet rear 32 fOOl width and 3,000 sq. ft. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings 21 feet for multi-family buildings 20 feel between multi-family and transit buildin s 1.67:1 Parkin S aces er Unit, 162 total Section 6: Phasin!! Phase I of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing deyelopment shall consist of 97 decd-restrictcd residential units, the commons building, parks, trash/recycling facilities, three transit stops, trails, and basic utility infrastructure including access roads to serve Phase l. Phase 1 will be developed as a whole in terms of infrastructure and the readiness of lots for development as multi-family structures and lots for single-family development. Phase Il and Phase 111 may be deyeloped in the future in accordance with Section 2, aboye. Section 7: Parkin!! Phase I parking ratio is 1.67: I. Three (3) spaces shall be reserved and designated for car- share program uses. All parking spaces shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements as stipulated within the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2oo5, Page 5 " ~ "'" -.... t---- "inS CD o~& N U')~o ("'J .. ill ~ "" '^ . '" ~I Q.&CijJ .. ~ '" - o u >- I- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~ 8 z -- " -I- -- "- '" -- ~ _0 =a :; .! -'" , '.-. Section 8: Affordable HODsin!! and Accessory DwelJin!! Units (ADUs) The 97 housing units in Burlingame Ranch Phase I shall be 100% affordable housing units. As this project relates to the Stage Road PUD/Subdivision, the number of affordable housing units within the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing development meets the 70% to 30% ratio requirement for affordable housing bedrooms to free market housing bedrooms as required in the AH/PUD Zone District. Specifically, the bedroom count for the Stage Road PUD/Subdiyision is sixty (60) bedrooms, which requires that one hundred forty (140) affordable housing bedrooms be proyided. The Phase I bedroom count for the Burlingame Ranch AH project is 232, exceeding the one hundred forty (140) bedrooms to meet the AH/PUD zoning. The proyision of affordable housing at Burlingame Ranch is in conformance with the 4th Amended and Restated Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Aspen and Bar/X Ranch, allowing for the development of the Stage Road PUD/Subdivision approved through Ordinance No.6, 2005. The determination of the specific maximum income Categories of the AspenlPitkin County Housing Guidelines shall be finalized prior to Certificate of Occupancy by the City Council after recommendation from the Housing Board. Designation of categories shall take into consideration unit size, type, cost and other factors that establish yalue and affordability. The general goal for the categories of Phase I of the development is as shown below, but final designations of categories may deviate from this schedule at the discretion ofthe City Council. Cat. 1 &2 Cat.3&4 Cat. 5 & 6 Cat. 7 & R.O. Totals Up IBr 8 2 4 0 0 14 (I bath) 2 Br 5 13 12 1 0 31 (I bath) 3 Br 0 15 19 7 0 41 (2 bath) Lots 0 0 2 3 6 11 (3.5 baths) Totals 13 30 37 11 6 97 Six of the eleven (I I) single-family lots are designated as Resident Occupied with a maximum sales price to be established by the City Council. Accessory Dwelling Units are not allowed within the Project. Section 9: Expandabilitv of Units A maximum of sixty-six (66) units of the eighty-six (86) multi-family units within Phase I are eligible for yertical expansion. Prior to the signing of the Final PUD Plans and Subdiyision Plat, the specific units designated for expansion shall be identified and maximum allowable floor area of expandability per unit shown. This information shall also be included in the SWPUD Agreement and in the Homeowners Documents. The expansion of these units will be at the cost of the unit owner but will be considered as a capital improvement into the price of the unit for resale purposes. All expansions require Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, Page 6 ... <- on.. ~" r-- ... on Z U) 0 ~& ...., ION ., ,0 l"l .... .'" ..- co, LO ... a...", '" iiiiiiiiiiiiiiim ~... -"' ~ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; - ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; =8 -~ =0- _z ~6 =u - _z -;; =0- -- _0. ~~ -;;: ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;0 -tt ===; -d _u> ~. , #'.- ......- - building permits. The expansion of any unit shall not affect the unit's designation in the affordable housing inventory or category, such that if another bedroom has been added into a two-bedroom unit, it remains in the inventory as a two-bedroom unit. Section 10: Conditional Use The Park and Open Use Recreation Sites, Transit Facilities and Child Care Center are hereby approyed uses in accordance with the approved PUD plan specifications for size, location and architecture. Conditional use approval is necessary for these uses in the AH/PUD Zone District. The Child Care Center shall gain a final Conditional Use approyal from the City Council prior to the occupancy of the commons building for this use. The operational characteristics and potential impacts of the use shall be eyaluated and approved separately with conditions, if necessary, in accordance with the conditional use review criteria. The child care facility shall meet the State of Colorado licensing requirements and shall comply with Land use Code Section 26.575.080, Child care center. In addition Conditional Use Application plans shall address fencing, required outdoor play space and its grading, access (walkway and vehicular), adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities for childcare operations and after school programming. Section 11: Architectural Character and Residential Desi!!n Guidelines: Reliance is placed on the architectural standards and illustrations contained within the Final PUD Plan submittal as establishing a cohesive architectural vernacular for the deyelopment. The development shall be in general compliance with the "Architectural Character" drawings contained in pages, A-lOl-Alll in the application. The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Design Guidelines shall apply to and goyem all residential design. The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410 shall not apply to this deyelopment. The Residential Design Guidelines shall not be amended without the approyal of the City Council. Such guidelines are a component of the applicatiOli and. are herein incorporated into this ordinance by reference and shall be recorded with the Final PUD plans. Prior to recordation, the Guidelines shall be amended to state the building heights for multi-family (34 feet) and single-family dwellings (25 feet) and specify how height is measured. Section 12: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the development is hereby approved by the City of Aspen subject to recordation of a condominiurnization plat in compliance with the current plat requirements in place at the time of filing. Each plat for condominiurnization shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and approval by the Community Deyelopment Engineer prior to recordation. The cost of recordation shall be bome by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of ownership of the condominium. ........ Section 13: Homeowner's Responsibilities The Final Homeowner's documents shall ensure that the maintenance and operations of the following components of the development are the responsibility ofthe HOA. "0.-,.' Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 7 r- ot ",<0 ~., ,..... '+-11): ,^ 0$ . '"" .,&/ (\jr-N ('t) ..;, C T- &~ Lf) · <0 Q, &/: ui ~r- a: o " >- ~ ~~ u z " ~ a: on -- -> =a _0 -a ;: " -'" - r r'-' - ....... . Storm water facilities, including drainage ponds, outside of the public right of way; . Irrigation system; . Parking courts and priyate and public sidewalks; . Landscape area maintenance (where the City of Aspen is not responsible) and weed management; . Bluff Trail; . Agreement for common water line leading into multifamily; and . Common open space, play areas and park areas. The HOA document shall also include a detailed plan specifYing what duties, or additional duties for later phases, the Homeowner's Association will be responsible for and projected monthly Homeowner Association dues. The documents shall also address the mechanism for integrating future phases into the HOA. Section 14: Roads The roads contained within the deyeJopment shall be dedicated as public right of way and are approyed as to general design and dimensions contained within the Final PUD Plan submittal and must meet with the technical standards of the City Engineering Department. The roads will be public and will be available for all public purposes including, but not limited to, those associated with the provision of utilities, maintenance, transportation, pedestrian, recreation and emergency seryices. The City of Aspen reserves the right, for itself and the utility districts and companies serving the development, to use the roadways and parking areas to provide services. In addition, Mining Stock Parkway may be used by the City of Aspen and service proyiders in a dual directional way for official business on the one-way road. Roads will be maintained by the City of Aspen. Section 15: Landscape Plan The Final PUD Landscape plan shall specify the areas for stockpiling of soil outside of the limits of Phase I, as being those in the northwest and southwest comers of the intersection of Mining Stock Parkway and Range Road. The plan shall also show the grading and reseeding plan for the stockpiled soil that meets with the approval of the City of Aspen Parks Department. Final Landscape plans shall include details and standards for seeding, mulching of seeded areas, soil replacement and depth, and soil type. As addressed on Page L-8 #15 of the PUD plans, protection of off-site vegetation shall be designed and installed to City of Aspen standards. A native vegetation protection fencing system shall be installed at the edge of the construction limits. This fencing shall consist of a type of barrier fencing. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing installed to standards. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, or yehicle traffic is allowed outside of this protection fencing. The fence is required to be erected and inspected prior to any construction activity on the property. As addressed on Page L-8, # 18 of the PUD plans, the seed detail shall include the covering of the seeded area with certified weed free straw and meet this standard as follows; City of Aspen Seeding Requirements l. Soil Preparation, top soil 6" deep 2. Hand broadcast seed, this is the preferred method of seeding Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 8 ,.. . """ ".... f'. -.. It) Q (.() 0:$ N IO~C C") U ~ ..- ,"' ,^ ... ..,.. "Z ----ui ~,.. '" - ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ~8 - -> ... _z -=> -0 =" - _Z ===~ =0- -- _D. =", ;: =a Q -a =;: -.: -'" - .......'" ....-" ",..---- 3. Rake into area 4. Fertilize area (Boise is recommended) 5. Mulch with weed free straw Changes to the seeding protocol may be approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Detailed landscape maintenance guidelines for the Homeowner's Association and future property management personnel shall be developed and recorded prior to the sale of any unit. Section 16: Irril!ation The source of irrigation waters for Burlingame Ranch shall be from ditch water rights associated with the property and/or domestic sources. The irrigation plans of the POD plan shall be revised to show additional detail including head spacing, main line locations and secondary line locations. This plan shall include and show temporary irrigation for the natiye restoration of the disturbed areas and open space areas. The deyeloper shall provide an as-built drawing to the Parks Department showing the irrigation system for the parks areas. Section 17: Water Department Services The follow items shall be shown on final plans. 1. Final fee schedule for the development, 2. Grading plan for Forge Road, 3. Utility plans for sewer crossings must show depth of greater than seyen feet so that there is no conflict with water, 4. Service line locations, 5. Trust blocks, 6. Additional in-line control yalyes with distances no further than 500 feet apart, 7. Pressure reducer valve vault, and 8. Seryice line locations on pages, KI, DI, CI, G2 & K2 need reeyaluation by applicant and possible relocation. A separate water meter and billing account is required for each residential unit. The Final PUD submittal shall include a detail of proposed fire hydrant locations within the development. All requirements of the Water Department shall be complied with. The applicants shall work with the Water Department in planning for a water reclamation system that would utilize treated wastewater for the purposes of irrigation. Section 18: Sanitary Sewer and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) The following items shall be shown on final plans. I. Final depths of sewer lines and width of easements shall be approved by the ACSD prior to plat and POD plan recordation. 2. Other Samtation District Requirements: . Seryice is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 9 t- . "''' ~.... I'- '-- If') &II tOo:. N m~o ~.." ,., ... ...... ...... ... ltb" "z .. _t- o< o _u ~ _z 5 u z " e- o: :2 0> g -" :: d _VI -..,.''''" "....... -"'''- ..,. .# 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. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is seryed by a single seryice line. Permanent built improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. The HOA documents shall include a provision that puts the owners on notice that any private or HOA landscaping that is placed within an ACSD or other utility easement is subject to damage or remoyal by utility proyiders in the course of installation, repair or replacement at the owner's expense and loss. . All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. . r".'. ~ ....... . . . . Section 19: Enyironmcntal Healtb New residential buildings are limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decoratiye gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant must file a frreplace permit with the Building Department before a building permit will be issued. New homes may not haye wood buming fireplaces, nor may any heating device utilize coal as fuel. 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. ',~. Section 20: TranSPortation Manal!ement and Plan Burlingame Ranch is a transit-oriented deyelopment with transit stops, car sharing, bike racks and trails/sidewalks connecting to key pedestrian!bikeways of the city. The Final PUD Plan submittal includes three (3) mobility plan options that meet the standards of the PUD/Subdiyision requirements of the city to adequately address new automobile trips generated by the development. The mobility plans go beyond mitigation of the new trips by adding capacity to the transit program which address some existing transit needs in the yicinity. The City Council will further evaluate the options and select a preferred . altematiye for implementation. The City Council shall determine and commit to a detailed mobility plan for the project within six (6) months of the effective date of this ordinance. Such plan shall be recorded as an addendum to the PUD/SIA Agreement. All bus capital, service and operations shall meet with the approval of the Transportation Options Program through the Assistant City Manager. Additionally, transit support facilities such as pull-outs, curb and gutter shall be constructed to RFTA's construction specifications. Section 21: Snow Storae:e The snow storage areas are expected to accommodate 100% of the snow storage required by the deyelopment on the site. Snow-storage areas shall be designed to filter run-off prior to discharge into the storm drainage system and may be planted with yegetative types in quantities and locations that will not impede plowing, storage or water flow. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2DDS, Page 10 r- .. Ul' "" ..... ...... 0 an Q \0 ..lll.; N -~o ('f) ~ ~ ~ ." ".. ." y, D..S>. .. ~ 0: - ;;;;;;;;;;0;;; o ____u >- .... ~ 8 - _Z -;;; =.... -- Q. :!! -'> g -a - '> d -'" r ."..,.- ........ ,"" ,,"'. ...... Section 22: Exterior Liehtine The Final PUD plan shall include an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting fixture specifications for all of the multi-family buildings that demonstrate compliance with the City of Aspen Lighting ordinance at the time of Final PUD submission pursuant to and meeting the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Prior to issuance of building permits for single family residences, compliance with the above- noted section shall be demonstrated. Section 23: Street Liehtlne Phase 1 street lighting is acceptable with lights located at key road intersections and at major community-oriented locations such as the commons building and transit stops. Conduit for future street lighting shall be set in place in conjunction with Phase I infrastructure. Section 24: Trails The Applicant shall install a pedestrian trail that is three (3) feet in width and made of crusher fine material that runs along the top of the Roaring Fork River bluff, connecting with the parking court at World Cup Court and the southernmost transit stop on Forge Road. The trail will be open to the public and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. This trail shall be installed in conjunction with Phase I of the deyelopmenL r Section 25: "Efficient Buildinl!" Each building shall achieve a minimum 145 points within the City of Aspen Building Program. ...... Section 26: Impact Fees Park Imoact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610.080, Impact Fees-Affordable Housing, City Council hereby waives the Park Development Impact Fees for the Burlingame Affordable Housing Development finding that approximately 195 acres of land are being preseryed as open space in conjunction with the Bar/X and Burlingame Affordable Housing Deyelopments. School Land Dedication in Lieu Fees The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Development shall proyide a cash in lieu fee to the Aspen School District based on the formula contained within Section 26.630 of the Land Use Code. The Aspen School District has indicated their interest in haying land dedicated to the district for the purpose of housing district employees, for other district purposes, or selling land dedicated to them within Burlingame Ranch for reyenue. The intended purpose of the Burlingame Ranch development is to provide affordable housing and not to create a public facility such as a school would encourage. The City Council may provide to the Aspen School District, with their agreement. a subdiyided residentiallot(s) in Burlingame Ranch at a yalue equal to the fee. Fees are assessed based on one-third the yalue of the unimproved land diyided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of Aspen yerifies the unimproyed land value of the lands underlying the Project to be $12,448.62 per acre from Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 11 ,.. <t on. -.. to ~ ., ...... 0 In& ,- .,. <D ... QIS> N _N ,0 ('t') (,; = .... .., LO ... a..... .. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiui !!!!!!!!!!!,.. ==='" ~ === - - ..... !!!!!!!!!!!o .....UU~~ -~ =u - _z ===;;2 =... -- _0. =VI ===; ~g ===a ==-= - iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~ !!!!!!!!!!!!!- -VI ( '- /.--.. ""'" recent transactions and information from the Pitkin County Assessor. This value divided by the land dedication standard for the number of units in each of the bedroom categories results in a total impact fee of$157,517.41. House size Land Dedication Per unit Fee Standard One bedroom .00 I 2/acre $153,06 Two Bedroom .0095/acre $1,211.77 Three .01 62/acre $2,066.38 Bedroom Four Bedroom .0248/acre $3,163.33 TOTAL for 97 units $157,517.41 Amendments to the project shal.\ include an adjustment to this fee according to the above calculation methodology. Section 27: Fire Safety Mitil!ation All buildings within the deyelopment shall include fire sprinkler and alarm systems meeting the requirements of the Aspen Fire District. Fire hydrant locations and spacing, as well as the location and dimensions of all fire lane and twn-around areas for fire apparatus shall meet with the approyal of the Aspen Fire Marshal. '-. Section 28: Coordination witb BarIX The Applicant shall coordinate with the Bar/X deyeloper to ensure, that where the projects are related, utility installation, storm water management facilities and construction management are as efficient as possible and minimizes enyironmental impacts. Section 29: Vested R1l!bts The land use approvals contained within this ordinance shall constitute a site-specific deyelopment plan and yest for a period of three (3) years as provided by law. An extension may be applied for under the land use code provisions in place at the time of request. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: "Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approyal of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Reyised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Development (Phase I)." Section 30: Final Plat and PUD Plans Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.070(A) and Section 26.445.07O(B), Recording a Final PUD Development Plan, the Applicant shall prepare llI1d record a final PUD Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 12 ... ... "' .. -'" ... .. ... ...... 0 anQ l.O N~" N "'~Q (t) .~ ..- 01.... lJ) . '" ........ ... ~ =.. --- - ===s: o _u ~ =='" -~ 8 - _z ==;;;: =", a: =", ~ ~ _0 -" -; -' =:;; - > , ... ~ - ~'- ......... development plan and applicable subdivision plats at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of adoption of this ordinance. The Applicant shall also prepare and record a SubdivisionIPUD agreement at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.070(C), PUD Agreement, within 180 days of adoption of this ordinance. No building permits shall be applied for or issued prior to recording the documents described herein. " ..~ Section 31: Accessflnfrastructure Permit Upon adoption of this ordinance, the Applicant may submit an application for an Access/Infrastructure (All) permit with the City of Aspen Building Department in order to commence grading and construction of the roads and utilities within the development. An access/infrastructure permit may be applied for and issued, upon the ordinance becoming effectiye, and prior to the recordation of the Final PUD plans and agreements, proyided that sufficient plans accompany the All permit application as. shall be determined by the Chief Building Official. The All permit application shall include the following: a. Site Improvement Survey that contains topography at 5' contours, all existing structures and improyements, location of existing trees, and all easements and right-of-ways. b. Detailed Grading Plans showing existing conditions and proposed improvements. c. Detailed Drainage Plans that include erosion control measures. d. State Storm Water Management Permit. e. Construction Management Plan, f. Road Profiles. g. Tree Remoyal Permit. h. Dust Suppression Plan. ~ . Section 32: BuUdinl! Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approying ordinance has been rcad and understood. b. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. c. A completed tap permit for seryice with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. Copies of the executed PUD plans and agreement. e. A construction management plan meeting the Community Development Department's requirements. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reyiewed and approyed by the Environmental Health Department, which addresses watering of disturbed areas. Section 33: Annexation All approyals contained within this ordinance shall be subject to the successful armexation of the subject property into the City of Aspen. All approvals contained herein shall be null and yoid should armexation not occur. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 13 .. .. "' .. ~" ....... ....... 0 It) S . - ... l.O ... ~..NN.......C1 ('t) .= T"" ..' ." It) a. Qs .. ~ '" ;;;;;;;0;;;;;;; o u -> !Z '" -0 u - -"' ;;: >- -~ -"- UI -;: -g -a ~ :; -~ _U1 r,\- .....~~ """"- , - ....- Section 34: Order of Recordation Filing of the plats, plans, documents and agreements associated with this approval shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in the following sequence unless determined necessary to be changed by the Community Development Director; I. Agreements with Utility Providers 2. Final Subdivision Plat of the two-lot subdiyision of Burlingame Ranch Lot I 3, Final Subdivision Plat of the two-lot subdiyision of Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption 4. Burlingame Ranch Subdivision, Filing No. I, Final Plat 5. PUD Plans (Improyement Survey, Engineering Site Plan, Utility, Grading, Drainage, Phasing Plan, Site Plan, Accessibility Plan, Landscape Plans, and ArchitecturaJ Character Plans 6. PUD/SIA Agreement 7. Master Homeowner's Association Documents 8. Residential Design Guidelines 9. Other plans or documents, as deemed necessary by the Community Deyelopment Director Section 35: All material representations and commitments made by the applicants pursuant to the deyelopment proposal approyals as herein awarded, as presented in public hearing or documentation before the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approyals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. ,.. Section 36: 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 yirtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded dnder such prior ordinances. Section 37: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held inyalid 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 38: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance and exhibits in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 39: That the Community Development Director is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to cause the Official Zoning Map of the City of Aspen to be amended to reflect the rezoning of the subject property as herein described. Section 40: Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 14 t- .. In .. -.. " ...... '010: UJ.:. N -N '0 ('I') .... ... ..... '"' LD '" ....Z ~ .. - o " ~ ~ <.> " ;; =... ;;: UI -~ ~ 0iiiiiiIii " ~" ~ _UI '*~ I "-"' .~. " '"--, r' A duly-noticed public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 25th day of April, 2005, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11 th day of April, 2005. Attest: FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 25th day of April, 2005. Attest: Approyed as to form: ''- ~//J/']';~ orcester, City Attorney Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page ]5 ,. .. '" .. ~'" so . so ...... 010 $: ,- so' (QlnQs N"'!:!c (t) ti: .... <>'" ... LO o..ll5Ill5I so .; -" =.. - - ~ o ~u -> =>- _z <l -u =z !!!!I!!!!!!!!!;; =>- -~ -~ ~~ -~ ~" -" ==== ;: ~ -~ -'" .'" ""I. ~ .......... \ . &hlb'+ lee! ORDINANCE NO. 55 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND SUBDIVSION, GMQS EXEMYfION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (All), GMQS EXEMYfION FOR ACCESSORY USES IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, SUBDMSION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR All PARKING, VESTED RIGHTS AND APPROVING THE REVISED CONCEYfUAL PLAN OF THE BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID No. 27350-03-100805 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Series of 2000, determined Burlingame Ranch PUD (hereinafter the "Project") eligible for the process of the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) for the purpose of developing deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use reyiew process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the Aspen City Council according to said Section, to conduct an iteratiye process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest, and assembling a Burlingame Affordable Housing Task Force Team, proyiding recommendations directly to Aspen City Council; and, WHEREAS, on Noyember 22, 2004, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 120, Series of 2004, conceptual approval with conditions to a three-phase development plan as proposed by the applicants in the "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal", dated after September 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the development standards as required by the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicants gained Final PUD and Subdivision approyal and land use entitlements for the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Phase I of the Project through City Council Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, approved April II, 2005; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series of 2005, the entire Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project, including amendments to Phase I, shall remain active as a COWOP land use review until determined concluded by the Aspen City Council. City Council may stagger the conclusion of the COWOP review on a phase-by-phase basis. Once the COWOP reyiew is concluded for a particular phase, amendments to deyelopment within the phase shall be subject to the processes and standards of the Land Use Code unless other provisions are established as applicable; and, Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series of2005, Page I /llllm 1111111111111I11111111111 ~~;~~:;! ~9: 53 JANICE K vas CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.10 -..''''" ..._--- . '. ..."....,. WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, the final reyiew and entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be subject to the COWOP land use review process pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public. This step shall consist of a review of the amendment or final deyelopment plan for each phase by the Aspen City Council and shall incorporate all required land use actions to gain entitlement for the particular amendment or phase of the project. Final entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be by Ordinance. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, and in consideration of the phased aspect of the entire project, the City Council exempted the development from the limitations of Conceptual Development Plan approval as specified in Section 26.445.030.D of the Land Use Code. No prescribed limit or timeframe for submitting a final deyelopment plan fur the project, or phases thereof, are applicable and amendments may be made. Components of the Conceptual PUD plan shall be confirmed or amended in conjunction with the final approyal of each phase or amendments to the plan. Deyelopment features of future phases may be amended by the Aspen City Council, in conjunction with final approyals for each particular phase or amendments to phases; .and, WHEREAS, the applicants haye filed an application for the amendment to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Final PUD and Subdivision Phase I and the Conceptual Plan, and for related land use actions. Such application addressed the application requirements and applicable reyiew standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Development Director has reyiewed the proposed PUD and Subdiyision Amendment in consideration ofthe recommendations of the COWOP Task Force Team, the conditions of the final approval, the requirements of the land use code, and comments from applicable referral agencies and has recommended approyal of the PUD and Subdivision Amendment subject to conditions of approval as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the PUD and Subdivision Amendment proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has found the amendment to be consistent with the final approval and recommendation of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Deyelopment Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, approyal of this ordinance does not complete the COWOP process, but constitutes another step of the COWOP review process. Future steps may include applications for amendments and Final PUD Plans of Phases II and ill of the deyelopment and/or Conceptual PUD reyisions, followed by land use entitlement by the Aspen City Council, pursuant to proyisions of the Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council fmds that the PUD and Subdiyision Amendment proposal meets or exceeds all applicable deyelopment standards and that the approval of the PUD and Subdivision Amendments for Phase I, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of tha '1fll1n A onpn A"". rommllnitv Plan. esoeciallv Burlingame Ranch pun Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series of2oo5, Page 2 1/111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111 :~~;~~:;! ~g: 53 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 0 0.00 r'" .,' " ......,,...... "' those goals relating to the development of affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary and the preseryation of open space; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Amended Conceptual and Final Plan Approved The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Conceptual and Final PUD Plan and Subdiyision is hereby amended and approyed through this PUD and Subdivision Amendment. The amended PUD and subdiyision plats and documents shall serve to confirm the amendment to the Conceptual Plan as it was approyed through Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005. The approved amendment includes the creation of Lots 9 & 10 of Block I and the designation of those lots for single family dwellings; the addition of Building D-3 to Phase I and its designation as a 5 unit, multi-family building; revisions to the Residential Design Guidelines; finalization of the third transit stop; and the addition of right of way area to Harmony Road. Section 2: Development Order for Amendment The Amendment to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing development is hereby granted a development order for a site specific development plan as described in the Shaw/Poss/DHM Final PUD/Subdivision Phase I Application Development Plans, dated Noveber, 2005, and granted all necessary land use approvals including Final PUD Amendment, Subdiyision, Subdiyision Exemption for Condominiumization, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption for Affordable Housing, GMQS Exemption for Accessory Uses in Mixed Use Development, Special Review for AH Parking, and Vested Rights, subject to conditions ofapproyal as described herein. Section 3: Applicabilitv of Ordinance No. 24. Series of 2005 The requirements and conditions of Ordinance No 24, Series of 2005, granting Final PUD and Subdivision approval to Phase I of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing development, shall remain in full force and effect except as otherwise specifically amended by the provisions of this ordinance and the approved plans. Section 4: Amendments to Phase I Approved Proiect Dimensions Amendments to Phase I dimensional standards are identified below on the following page. l'I.','J.','~t::~~:,.. Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, Page 3 o .._-~ u 97 Deed-Restricted Units 15 I-bedroom 30 2-bedroom 52 3-bedroom ex andabili will effect bedroom count 56% for lotal subject area 55% for individual lots .32:1 (173,048 sq. ft.) .35:1 (191,608 sq. ft. wi possible expansions) 154,738 sq. ft. for multi-family buildings 5,570 sq. ft. for commons building 3,161 sq. ft. for transit SlOpS 28,600 sq. ft. for single family homes (Iasl four numbers above show maximum sq. ft. with ex andabili 34 feet for multi-family and community buildings 25 feet for sin Ie famil lot buildin s As represented on the Final PUD Plans 10 feel front, 5 feet side, 10 feet rear Lots 9 & 10, Block I: 5 feet front, 10 feel side 5 feet rear 32 foot width and 3,000 sq. ft. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings 21 feet for mulli-family buildings 20 feet belween multi-family and transit buildin s 1.67: I Parkin S aces r Unit, 162 total Seclion 5: Parkin!! With this PUD/Subdiyision Amendment, the Phase I parking ratio shall continue to be 1.67: 1. Section 6: Architectural Character and Residential Desi!!R Guidelines & Hei!!ht: The Residential Design Guidelines shall be amended 10 allow for side-loaded garages for Lots 9 & 10 of Block 1. The Guidelines shall specifically notc that the applicability of this proyision is only for the aboye-noted lots. The height of the new single family lots shall be limited to 25 feet and the multi-family building D-3 shall be limited to 34 feet. Section 7: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the development is hereby approyed by Ihe 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 Deyelopment Departmcnt for cvaluation and approyal by the Community Deyelopment Engineer prior to recordation. The cost of recordation shall be bome by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of ownership of the condominium. Burlingame Raneh PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, Page 4 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ~~;~~:;~ ~9: 5< J~NICE K VOS CRUOILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 C 0.00 -----~_/""" Section 8: Homeowner's Documents The HOA documents shall be amended to reflect any necessary provisions !bat arise from this PUD and Subdivision Amendment as determined by the Community Deyelopment Director. Section 9: Water Department Services The water service lines that are to serve the new single family lots in Block I, Lots 9 & 10 are to be taken off of a new looped 4" line that connects to the Water Department main line in Forge Road. Such 4" water line shall be located on private property of the HOA and be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association and the maintenance and ownership requirements shall be included in the HOA documents. Section 10: "Efficient Buildinl!" Each building shall achieve a minimum 145 points within the City of Aspen Building Program. Section 11: Impact Fees Park Imaact Fees In keeping wi!b Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005 and pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610.080, Impact Fees-Affordable Housing, City Council hereby waives the Park Deyelopment Impact Fees for !be Burlingame Affordable Housing Development finding that approximately 195 acres of land are being preseryed as open space in conjunction with the Bar/X and Burlingame Affordable Housing Developments. School Land Dedication in Lieu Fees The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Deyelopment shall provide a cash in lieu fee to the Aspen School District based on !be formula contained within Section 26.630 of !be Land Use Code and consistent with the yalues and calculations contained with Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005. The Aspen School District has indicated their interest in haying land dedicated to the district for !be purpose of housing district employees, for other district purposes, or selling land dedicated to them within Burlingame Ranch for revenue. The intended purpose of the Burlingame Ranch deyelopment is to provide affordable housing and not to create a public facility such as a school would encourage. The City Council may proyide to !be Aspen School District, with their agreement, a subdivided residentiallot(s) in Burlingame Ranch at a yalue equal to the fee. Fees are assessed based on one-third the yalue of the unimproyed land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of Aspen yerifies !be unimproved land value ofthe lands underlying the Project to be $12,448.62 per acre from recent transactions and information from the Pitkin County Assessor. This yalue diyided by !be land dedication standard for !be number of units in each of the bedroom categories results in a revised total impact fee of $160,361.11. The following fees are due for the entire Phase I as amended. and take the place of the calculations contained in Ordinance No. 24. Series of2005. Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55. Series of 2005, Page 5 11111111111\ 11I111I11111111111111111111111111111I11111I ~~~~:;~ ~9: s. JANICE I< ~s CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.08 D 0.08 "". ... " "..,"" House size Laud Dedication Per unit Fee Standard One bedroom .OOl2/acre $153.06 Two Bedroom .0095/acre $1.211.77 Three .0162/acre $2,066.38 Bedroom Four Bedroom .0248/acre $3,163.33 TOTAL for 97 units $160,361.11 Further amendments to the project shall include an adjustment to this fee according to the above calculation methodology. Section 12: Vested Rh!bts The land use approvals contained within this ordinance shall constitute a site-specific deyelopment plan and vest for a period of three (3) years as provided by law. An extension may be applied for under the land use code provisions in place at the time of request. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approYal of a site specific deyelopment plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: "Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific deyelopment plan. and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Development (Amendment to Phase I and the Conceptual Plan)." Section 13: Amended PUD Plans and Subdivision Plats Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.070(A) and Section 26.445.07O(B), Recording a Final PUD Development Plan. the Applicant shall prepare and record an Amended POD deyelopment plan and applicable subdivision plats at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of adoption of this ordinance. The Applicant shall also prepare and record a revised SubdivisionlPUD agreement at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.070(C), PUD Agreement, within 180 days of adoption of this ordinance. Building permits may be applied for, but not issued prior to recording the documents described herein. Section 14: All material representations and commitments made by the applicants pursuant to the development proposal approyals as herein awarded, as presented in public hearing or documentation before the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan deyelopment approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, Page 6 111111111111111111111111111/1111 IIIIIIIIIII~IIIII /III ~~~~~! ~9 5' JRNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.08 .... ;< .... /'''' " , Section 15: 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 16: 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 17: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance and exhibits in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 18: A duly-noticed public hearing on this ordinance will be held on the 9th day of January, 2006, at 5 :00 p,m, in the Council Chambers of Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of December, 2005, 4~ Attest: FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9th day of January, 2006. Attest: Approved as to form: "I~{;~ ....' ... '., <.:. , \ 1111111111111111111111111111 :~~~~:~~ ~9: 53, 'ANICE K VOS CAuDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36,D0 D 0.DD ~"" " ,~~>>~ v Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No, 55, Series of 2005, Page 7 &Vv\dl')-ed ~o "~ t'\ V\ Lo~ ~sc h PUBLIC NOTICE b~ 0- BURLINGAME RANCH SUBDlVISION/PUD AMENDMENTS 0 l/l ~ Db RE: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, July 24, 2006, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S, Galena SI., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the City of Aspen Asset Management Department requesting approval of amendments to the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD. Specifically, PUD amendments are being requested that would allow the single-family residential lots to have a rear yard setback of five (5) feet for accessory structures, a 2,500 square foot allowable FAR with a 500 square foot garage exemption, a 30 foot height requirement, and an amendment that would delete the fire sprinkler requirement for the single- family lots. The properties subject to the proposed amendments are the single-family residential lots in the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD. The contact information for the Applicant is as follows: City of Aspen Asset Management Department Clo John Laatsch, 455 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611. For further information, contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena SI., Aspen, CO 970.429.2763, (or by email jamesl@cLaspen.co.us). slHelen Kalin Klanderud. Mavor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on July 2, 2006 City of Aspen Account ....._, ,r-' Chris Bendon, Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Burlingame PUD Amendment June 23,2006 Dear Chris; The City of Aspen Engineering I Asset Management department requests your consideration for favorable approval of the following modifications to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing PUD. 1. Amend the PUD so that the building envelopes as defined by the building setback requirements are changed by the modification of the rear yard requirement to read (5) five feet minimum for garages and related accessory structures only. 2. Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has an allowable maximum FAR of 2,500 square feet based on the City's Land Use Code methodology and a garage exemption of up to 500 square feet. This would include a basement only limited to the extent that it counts towards the allowable FAR of 2,500 square feet for the parcel. 3. Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has a maximum building height of 30 feet. Height determination will be consistent with the existing city Land Use Code Section 26.575,020(8) Methods of Measurement for Varying Types of Roofs. 4. Amend the PUD to delete the requirement that each single-family residence be required to install a fire sprinkler system. In the effort to achieve incentives for the development of affordable single-family residential homes it appeared that one of the tools used was the development of small and restrictive lots that they themselves would demand a level of affordability. Well, the best intentions of the planning process never could have anticipated the rapid escalation of construction cost and the inability to capture home contractors in a competitive climate. Today, the lot owners are faced with utilizing the services of modular builders from out of the valley and in some cases even out of the State, This effort does not provide much financial comfort since the costs of construction are still very high, however; it does achieve goals of constructability and relative affordability, With modular construction comes some limitations and while it is true that you can change the limitations, those changes come with increased cost. r--.. --.. The reality is that we have small lots and in most cases they are grade challenged, size challenged and shaped challenged with cost caps and the desire to make these high energy efficient and high building efficient homes. We maybe were asking too much from our lot owners. It is clear that from their perspective we are asking too much and maybe even asking the impossible. While many of the lot owners believe in the fire sprinkler system, the high cost associated with the system creates a major financial burden. Included herewith are portions of the lot owner's research and thoughts about our requests, OWNERS COMMENTS 1. Amend the PUD so that the building envelopes as defined by the building setback requirements are changed by the modification of the rear yard requirement to read (5) five feet minimum for garages and related accessory structures only. We would also like the POO amendment to include a request to change the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for garages/accessory structures to permit us adequate room to construct our garages and related infrastructure. Five (5) feet is a common setback for properties in the city for accessory buildings and we feel that this setback is appropriate for our garages. The Burlingame housing project is considered a "New urbanist development." Small setbacks are consistent with the strategy in this type of development, which is to use land more wisely. We feel that this is in the spirit ofthe Burlingame Affordable Housing project. Furthermore, the "Ranch Manager Road" behind lots 1-5 will be an unpaved, low usage road used exclusively for rear driveway access, the ranch manager unit on --IX, and emergency fire access. A 5' setback will not impede these uses. 2. Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has an allowable maximum FAR of 2,500 square feet based on the City's Land Use Code methodology and a garage exemption of up to 500 square feet. This would include a basement only limited to the extent that it counts towards the allowable FAR of 2,500 square feet for the parcel. Leslie Lamont represented to Owners at an Owner-City staff meeting that the developer had requested 2500 square feet of FAR in order to achieve the 2200 square feet ofliveable space as set forth in the Housing Guidelines, Chris Bendon confirmed that it would take approximately 2500 square feet ofF AR to achieve 2200 liveable square feet under the guidelines. Community Development has confirmed that it was the intent of the approvals to permit Owners to build the permissible square footage subject to lot constraints and setbacks, and that by giving the entire project a single family FAR rather than any given lot, some lots would theoretically be able to utilize more FAR based on lot considerations. Because liveable square footage as defined in the guidelines is measured from the interior dimensions of the house rather than the exterior, and excludes areas that would be included in FAR calculations, such as mechanical rooms, interior starwells and landings, and unfinished basements, and the lots were marketed as constructable to 2200 square feet under the guidelines, we feel the 2 ~"'" /, City should permit lots that have the capability of building the full 2200 liveable square feet to build to capacity by permitting all lots to have 2500 square feet of FAR. Lots with special constraints would still be limited by their constraints to a lesser FAR, Community Development has taken the position that basements should be excluded per Code except to the extent that they would be included under FAR, i,e. where the foundation is exposed for window wells or due to the sloping nature of the lots (further described under height considerations). Unfinished basements are the key concern here, In order to accommodate modular construction, lot owners must have a basement or crawl space for the entire area ofthe foundation, which is not possible under an FAR reduction scenario. Most owners cannot afford to finish their basements, but desire economic efficiency by having a full basement instead of some partially engineered basement and partially engineered crawl space. This is the primary reason for the additional FAR request. 3, Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has a maximum building height of 30 feet. Height determination will be consistent with the existing city Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(8) Methods of Measurement for Varying Types of Roofs. A 25' Height Restriction was applied to Burlingame based on a standard set for other areas in the City without taking into consideration the special requirements of the P.U.D. that advocate for a unique height in character with these requirements and the City's flexibility with addressing these issues in a Planned Unit Development Community Development, although it initially recommended a variance to a 28' height to address the Burlingame Owner's needs with respect to modular construction on the lots, changed its position, citing a reluctance to grant a variance from the "standard" 25' height limitation in the Code. However, Burlingame is zoned AHIPUD, and the AHIPOO zone district, defined by Code Section 26.710.11 0, does not contain a 25' height restriction; in fact it contains no height restriction, and the City is permitted to establish a height restriction in the P.U.D. based on all of the factors applicable to that P.U.D, Thus forcing us into a height restriction found in any different zone district and not taking into account the special needs, goals and requirements of this project and its occupants is inequitable and unrealistic, For instance, many of the zone districts in the City with a 25' height limitation are essentially flat, contain view plane issues that do not apply to Burlingame, and are not subject to the same lot size, slope, and affordability and design constraints as Burlingame. Because Burlingame is a specially created, unique, "affordable," stand-alone community situated in the midst of a number of conservation easements and bounded by Deer Hill, if all single family homes in Burlingame were permitted a 29' height, and since the multi-family units are 35' in height, a height increase to 29 ' would be beneficial to all single family owners and harmful to none. We believe the City applied the 25' height standard without taking into consideration the uniqueness ofthe Community and the lot constraints, which are detailed herein and provide support for a greater height standard. In addition, we have also been informed that the original development team recommended a higher height in the initial application. We believe this significantly supports the need for a POO amendment to increase the height. If there needs be further substantiation for the height issue to put forth to Community Development, we offer the following, Code Section 26.710.130 establishes a 28' height limitation for the Rural 3 /'""- ,........ Residential (RR) zone district. In, terms of those properties within the City limits that might qualify for a "Rural Residential" classification, we would argue that Burlingame Ranch is about as rural residential as the City of Aspen gets, and therefore, at a minimum, the 28' height limitation applicable to that zone district should likewise be applicable to Burlingame Ranch, The POO and approval documents include many references to the rural nature of the project, even though it is fairly high density to accommodate affordable housing, Our request is a revised height limitation of not less than 29'. We are only seeking one additional foot of height above the Rural Residential height requirements due to topographic and economic considerations. The primary reason for this request is due to the small scale and sloping topography of our lots combined with the 6/12 roof pitch design guideline requirement and setbacks. Each of Lots 1-7 are between approximately 3500 and 4300 square feet in size. Five out of seven of these lots are narrow at the front (40-46 feet), wider at the rear (roughly 50-60 feet), and longer from front to rear (e.g. 70 feet). With building setbacks, houses will be approximately thirty to thirty-six feet wide at the front, and sixty feet long. Generally, garages need to be placed in the rear of each lot. These measurements along with setbacks and build-to lines will result in generally long, narrow houses with a the garage off-set at the rear ofthe house to maximize square footage and views. Each lot's topography slopes down at a diagonal, resulting in a down-slope from front to back for the R.O. lots! of at least four feet and a side-slope of approximately two feet, creating a challenging cross-slope within the building envelope. Building height is measured from the building's lowest point. Each lot owner is permitted to build up to 2200 square feet of above-grade livable area, and a 500 square foot garage. Due to ten-foot front and rear setbacks, garage location requirements, front build-to lines, and the relatively small lot size in proportion to square footage, the lot size and building envelopes are very restrictive. As a result, two story construction is required to achieve the allowable maximum of2,200 livable square feet, leaving a building envelope that is approximately 1100 square feet for the primary structure, plus a 500 square foot garage, for a total of 1600 square feet of total lot space. This footprint encompasses nearly the entire building envelope for any given lot, resulting in a total grade change of approximately four feet for each lot (and a two-foot grade change from side-to-side at the front fayade of each house). Unlike many other lots in the City (many of which are flat), there simply is nowhere to relocate within the lot or building envelope to maintain a two-story house at twenty-five feet. A house built within these constraints will thus be required to (I) be uniformly only as high as would be permitted at the lowest point on the lot (thus a uniform pitched house will need to be built twenty-one feet in height rather than twenty-five feet to accommodate the grade change; this would result in sub-par living spaces); (2) have a front (or in some cases rear) fayade of the house four feet subgrade to permit the twenty-five foot height to be maintained as the lot elevation drops four feet; or (3) be constructed in diminishing steps so that at any given point on the lot, the house will not be greater than twenty-five feet tall. We will attempt to demonstrate how these options are not in keeping with the City's plan for an affordable and aesthetically pleasing community. We believe the only realistic and equitable option 1 This memo primarily addresses R.O. Lots 1-5 fOf ease offefefence to direction of slope and applicable Code provisions. 4 ...~"''''' - would be for the City to amend the PUD to permit an up to five and one-half foot height variance for any lot in accordance with the topographical variance within each lot's building envelope. The following information supports the need and our request: 1) Lot owner's have obtained cross-section samples from several modular manufacturers indicating that a 25' height is required for standard floor plans with minimum roof pitch requirements. A minimum 6: 12 roof slope is required for Burlingame single family homes. Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Design Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), p, 17, The Cross- Sections attached hereto depict that a typical house built with the 6:12 roof pitch, standard nine-foot first floor ceilings and eight-foot second floor ceilings require a minimum of twenty-five feet in height to the mid-point of the roof (where the height measurement would be taken at this pitch under the Code). Community Development ("ComDev") has reviewed the samples for accuracy, Building a twenty-one foot house rather than a twenty-five foot house to accommodate elevation loss on the lot would result in lowered first floor ceilings and lowered second story walls, resulting in a substantial loss of use able livable square footage due to downward-sloping roofs. This would also minimize or completely eliminate the Owner's option to have attic space for storage, since vaulted upstairs ceilings would be required to maintain minimum interior height standards per the Code, Alternatively lot owners would be required to construct dormers to maximize available square footage and usability of upper story space, These types of design modifications greatly increase costs for lot owners in that I) owners will not be able to utilize existing freelaffordable floor plans; 2) some modular companies may not be able to make these modifications; 3) Lot owners will be required to engage the services of architects and professional engineers to modify plans accordingly; and each new design element results in an increased cost to the Owner.2 2) Down-sloping topography of approximately 4 feet prohibits Owners from maintaining a 25' height on entire structure; side-slope of approximately 2 feet prohibits Owners from maintaining a 25' height from front fac;ade without sub-grading a portion of the front fac;ade. Under the City of Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code"), height limitations are calculated from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. Code 926.575.020(B) (1) (b) &(c). Given the four- foot downslope in the topography of our building envelopes, as depicted in the engineered plans provided by Shaw (samples are attached hereto), the height ofa uniform, level twenty-five foot structure from the BACK of the lot line exceeds the twenty-five foot height limitation by approximately four feet, resulting in a measurement closer to twenty-nine feet. After examining the modular cross-sections & calculating the height with the Code (as referred to in ComDev's 5/23/06 memo,) ComDev has indicated that maintaining the 25' height limit ou the entire structure is not possible without "stepping" down the house height one or more points as the elevation drops or subgrading the portion of the house which is higher in elevation. (See attached example with Chris Bendon's notes.) In addition, the Code mandates that the front fa93de of each house will be measured at the lowest point at the front of the house, Due to the two- foot side-slope at the front fac;ade of each house, a twenty-five foot house would need to be sub-graded approximately two feet to maintain the 25' height regulation from the front fac;ade. 2 According to modular manufactures, the less "modular's/boxes" required in the design, the more cost effective, For example: simple 4 box construction, 2 on the bottom & 2 placed directly on the top, Dormers and creative roof configurations will be an added expense to owners. 5 -. ~ The Guidelines require that each single-family residence construct a street facing front porch of a minimum 60 square feet with a minimum depth of six feet. Guidelines p. 18. This will be extremely difficult (if not impossible given the extremely tight ten-foot front lot setbacks) to achieve if half of the front fayade is sub-grade. A partially sub-grade fayade on a thirty-six foot wide house with at least a ten foot wide porch makes design challenging and affects the aesthetics of the front fayade of the house. In order to affordably construct the required front porch and fayade in an aesthetically pleasing manner, the house would need to sit flat on the lot from the higher point, not be set sub-grade]. This would result in a front fayade of approximately twenty-seven feet in midpoint height, and would increase the height required at the rear of each lot to thirty-one feet to accommodate for the four-foot grade change. Additionally or alternatively, if the City will simply consider re-grading our lots flat and requiring that grade to be the starting point for our height, this would greatly assist in resolving height, FAR and some affordability issues. For instance, iflot owners are forced to live with the sloping lots depicted in our surveys, we will lose some height since height is measured at the lowest point, we will lose some FAR since our basements will be exposed due to the slope, and/or we will be forced to spend a great deal of money re-grading our lots flat and engineering retaining walls to address slope differentials between our yards and our neighbors' yards, in addition to other challenging design issues If ShawlDHMI the City were to grade our lots flat, the twenty-five foot height limitation would be more attainable with modular construction. However, we have been informed that the engineering of flat lots would be too complex for the developer and too costly to the City, so this task will be left to the individual owners to figure out, and the cost will be passed on to the employee housing beneficiary. If each owner is left to re-grade its lot, this will require extensive engineering to maintain proper drainage, and extensive coordination with other neighbors, again, adding significant costs to the homeowner and making development of the single-family lots yet more unaffordable. 3) 6/12 Roof Pitch (Aesthetic Requirement) combined with down-sloping topography is prohibiting maintaining 25' height limitation As previously stated, the Guidelines require a roof pitch of not less than 6/12. All cross section samples from modular manufacturers are drawn at 6/12 or greater roof pitch. In order to maintain the minimum 6/12 roof pitch as required in the Guidelines, in combination with the down sloping topography, it is not possible to maintain the twenty-five foot height limitation with a uniform structure built at grade on the higher point on the lot, which for five out of seven released lots is the front fayade ofthe house. (*Note: Although the Code imposes a 25' height limitation on single family homes throughout the majority of town, this is not a uniform requirement, and the Code DOES NOT require a 6/12 roof pitch. Thus, sinr!le familv homeowners elsewhere in the Citv could address manv of the issues we are dealinJ! with such as slope and required ceilinJ! heiJ!hts bv buildinll flat or lower- pitched roofs) 3 Alternatively, substantial re-grading would need to occur, at the cost of hiring an engineer, possibly importing fill dirt, and the required construction of retaining walls due to the narrow lot size and the high slope differential. 6 .1"".-. 4) Affordability. Code Section 26.575.020(B)(2) addresses the special needs of down-sloping lots, This section permits the twenty- five foot height at the front facade of a single family home on a down-sloping lot to extend for the first thirty feet of the building's depth. However, due to the fact that our lots are configured as long and narrow (40-46 feet wide) rather than wide and short, each Owner will need to build back further than thirty feet to attain even a modest amount oflivable square footage. After the first thirty feet, the building height would be required to step down four feet to match the building height required at the back of the slope. The effect would be essentially splitting the sixty foot house in half and dropping the floors by four feet in the middle of the house.4 Additionally, due to the side-slope, each Owner would need to build part of the front fayade two feet sub-grade to maintain the 25' height limitation on the front fayade (this would still result in a two foot drop at the middle of the house). It is NOT affordable nor efficient to build at varying, stepped-down heights from the front to the rear facade of the house (as demonstrated on Chris Bendon' s example) nor to have to excavate four feet lower to build sub-grade or employ architects and engineers to creatively, and more expensively, address the height issue. Burlingame is an affordable housing development. Given the high costs of construction in the Roaring Fork Valley, stick-building is not an option for most or all lot owners. Modular (or Pre- Fabricated) housing is the only way most of us we will be able to afford to build, especially given the construction cost caps. Whether stick-built or modular, our expenses will increase greatly if we need to engineer floor plans which drop four feet after the first thirty feet from the front fayade of the house, engineer creative floorplans, dormers and differentially pitched roofs, and/or to excavate further and re-slope our lots to make functional facades and porches four feet sub grade. 5) Our intent is to respect the streetscape and not to create a large, over-whelming mass. A majority of the increased height will be measnred from the BACK of the lot, which is Open Space on R.O. lots, and will not impede other's views. Weare not asking for the ability to build mansions. Weare trying to create livable homes with a good quality of life. A slight increase in the front fayade height will accommodate the front porch requirement and maintain the sense of community and character Burlingame is striving for. A majority of the increased height will be located at the back side oflots, because of the down sloping topography.5\ Because these lots are on the edge of the project and the back side of the houses will face an Agricultural easement, increased height at the rear of the lots will not affect or impede any neighbors or view planes, 6) Multi-family units are 35' High and will not be affected by onr variance request. An increase in height will not result in units that are higher than the multi-family units, which have a thirty-five foot height limitation. In addition, the multi-family units primarily sit higher on the 4 See Bendon diagram attached hereto, 5 Again, this reference is to R.O. lots 1-5. Category 6 lots will have a greater challenge because these lots slope up from the front fal'ade rather than down, and arguably the Code height variance found in ~26.575,020(B) (2) would not benefit these lots. 7 """' ~ development than the single-family lots (since the lots are on the down-sloping side of the Project). For most of the lots, the front fayade, visible to the multi-family units and the rest ofthe Project, will remain twenty-five feet in height and the "additional height" granted by the variance will only be measured by the elevation drop at the rear ofthe lots, thus creating no actual "additional height" from the perspective of the remaining units. 7) Burlingame Design Intent favors a height variance. The City and the Project designers were obviously very concerned with the aesthetic appearance of the Proj ect, and thus created stringent Design Guidelines for the single family homes, However, it seems that a model was not created using the Guidelines and considering the topography of the site and the mandated design of the houses. A variance from the twenty-five foot height requirement supports the Design intent, and does not deviate from it. The Guidelines require single family homes to be built within fifteen feet of the front lot line, front porches are required, front dimensions are strictly monitored, garages are primarily required to be located at the rear of the house to maintain the aesthetics of the front fayade, a 6/12 roof pitch is required, along with a "Ranch Vernacular" design and materials (which incorporates a very simple architectural style). In order to meet all of these requirements for a two-story, 2200 square-foot house with standard ceiling heights, and a basic, standard design per the attached diagrams, the house structure needs to be approximately twenty-five feet high. In order to accommodate the two-foot front side-slope and construct the required front porch and to address the four foot slope from front to rear, a reasonable increase in height to the structure is required. Due to the drop in grade and height limitation, a uniformly constructed house with a level floor plan rather than split levels or creatively engineered dormers and floor plans (i.e, an affordable house) would need to be built sub-grade. This would result in a steep four-foot drop within the ten to fifteen foot front yard area and substantial grading andlor steps leading down to the front door, and a sub-grade front porch. This does not seem to be the design intent for the front facades of the single family homes. Nor does a drop in house elevations of four feet after the first thirty feet from the front fayade, which would result in awkward angles and unmanageable multi-level floor plans with stairs leading down in middle rooms, in addition to differentially elevated basements, none of which seems in line with the simple lines of "Ranch Vernacular" style architecture that have been depicted and described to us by the City, Design Review Committee, and City Staff. In addition, stepped-down construction does not lend itselfto compliance with Americans with Disabilities "Visitability" Standards. Although "visitability" is suggested but not required for single family lot owners, many lot owners are looking to build these homes to be their homes for the rest of their lives and would like to design to accommodate aging owners or handicap children/& or relatives by making them "visitable," which will require wheelchair access at one entrance and not through the garage, Sub grade front doors and porches with a two to four foot drop from street level do not lend themselves to being wheelchair accessible. Finally, if we are not granted a height variance, each owner could address the complex task of meeting the twenty- five foot height limitation differently, thus resulting in homes of differing heights at the front fayade and differing structural accommodations, a veritable mish-mash of designs and accommodations. 8) Quality of LifelEquity with Multi-family Units: Although this is an affordable project, the cap of $640,000 is a significant amount of money for us, Ifwe are spending this much, we would like to be able to build a Good Quality oflife for ourselves 8 ~""""'" which includes 9' ceilings on the first floor, and a small yard. We do not believe these are unreasonable requests. A slight height increase will allow us to build modular & to do so affordably. We have also been informed that the multifamily units have 9' or higher ceilings to increase their quality of life. As single family lot owners we are asking for the same consideration. CONCLUSION AS TO BUILDING HEIGHTS Whether we build modular or stick-built, the design and lot constraints, cost considerations, minimal impact on surrounding units, and the Design intent favor a variance from the Code's twenty-five foot height limitation for Burlingame Single family lots of one foot for each foot of grade change within a single family lot building envelope. In this manner, Burlingame single family lot owners would be able to design twenty-five foot houses without being forced to manipulate their front facades and grading to build four feet sub-grade or to engineer complex, unsightly and expensive four-foot drops in our building elevation or creatively designed lowered roofs with dormers at a compromise to existing freelinexpensive modular pre-designed plans and affordable and comfortable interior layouts and attic storage areas. As to zoning, the zoning designation for Burlingame is AHIPUD as set forth in the ordinance that approved the POO. The property was rezoned as a part of the PUD approvals, First and foremost, Burlingame was handled as a POO which is a very common land use tool used in the city, It allows developers and the city to look at the development project individually and set the dimensional standards (i.e. height, setbacks, density, and floor area) specifically for the development. That is exactly what happened with Burlingame, except we do not believe the City looked closely enough at the Design requirements in conjunction with the sloping lots and other lot limitations in placing a 25' height limitation, as we are doing now in planning our houses. Community Development tells us that it is common for developments to come back in for POO amendments (both administratively and by council), so we do not feel our request for a height variance is unusual. We feel that the dominant reason for changing the single family height limit is AFFORDABILITY -modular construction is the most cost effective and timely type of development that allows the project to be affordable. Therefore, we appeal to the City of Aspen City Council to enact a PUD and Guideline amendment permitting a variance from the twenty-five foot height limitation for Burlingame Single family lots of one foot for each foot of grade change within a single family lot building envelope, side-to-side and front-to-back, as needed and determined on a case-by-case basis based on house size and design, to permit us to build twenty-five foot houses in an affordable and aesthetically pleasing manner. This amendment could alternatively be couched in terms of an extension of the twenty- five foot height limitation for the length of the house from the front fa9ade of the house, similar to Code Section 26.575,020(B)(2), combined with a modification of the measurement standard at the front fa9ade to be measured from the higher point of the building at the front fa9ade (which would eliminate the requirement of sub-grading of the front fa9ade to address the side-slope). 9 /'~"" .- Alternatively, we request the City to take on the task of engineering and re-grading the lots and having the height stem from the City's grade so Owners are not forced to deal with the expense of tackling the challenging grade changes on these lots, and height differential will no longer be a consideration, 4. Amend the PUD to delete the requirement that each single-family residence be required to install a fire sprinkler system; or in the alternative, subsidize the sprinkler system costs to make this safety requirement not required of other houses in the City smaller than 5,000 square feet affordable for lot owners. Finally, we have received estimates for sprinkler systems for our houses ranging from $10,000 to $15,000. The City of Aspen does not typically require single-family homes ofless than 5,000 square feet to be constructed with fire sprinklers, and Burlingame homes will at most be up to 2,500 square feet, but the P.U.D. requires Burlingame Owners to install these systems at a significant cost to Owners. While we do not object to the safety reasons behind the installation of sprinkler systems, we object that we are being asked to comply with Code requirements elsewhere in the City but we are being asked to spend an extra $10,000 to $15,000 to install a system that is not required of houses elsewhere in the City, at our own expense and within the very tight $640,000 (or less for Category 6) construction cap placed upon Burlingame Lots. Therefore, we respectfully request that the City consider either removing the sprinkler system requirement or providing a subsidy to Owners to compensate for this safety requirement. End of Comments It is with these owner comments that we make this submission for your approval of our proposed amendments and to begin the formal POO amendment process, Very Truly Yours, John C. Laatsch, ASLA Proj ect Planner Engineering / Asset Management Lot Owners of Record Block 1 Lot 1: 0053 Forge Road JJo lo~ OWlA.'e \/ Block 1 /. Lot 2: 0065 Forge Road; Tim & Jennifer Carney( 4 Block 1 Lot 3: 0073 Forge Road; Diana & Jared Ettlinger 10 Block 1 Lot 4: 0083 Forge Road; Madeleine Osberg~ 'R;~ ~0 ~D~~ Block 1 Lot 5: 0095 Forge Road; Joyce Allgaier Block 2 Lot 1: 0068 Forge Road; Mare Wolfer & Chad~~~ ~b'v;f\ l.(b..~-Ia-- Block 2 Lot 2: 0088 Forge Road; Joanne Walpole 11 I / . THE CITY OF ASPEN Chris Bendon, Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Burlingame PUD Amendment June 23, 2006 Dear Chris; The City of Aspen Engineering / Asset Management department requests your consideration for favorable approval of the following modifications to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing POO. -1. Amend the POO so that the building envelopes as defined by the building setback requirements are changed by the modification of the rear yard requirement to read (5) five feet IDinimum for garages and related accessory structures only. 2. Amend the POO so that each single-family residential lot has an allowable maximum FAR of 2,500 square feet based on the City's Land Use Code methodology and a garage exemption of up to 500 square feet. This would include a basement only limited to the extent that it counts towards the allowable FAR of2,500 square feet for the parcel. 3. Amend the POD so that each single-family residential lot has a maximum building height of 30fe"et. Height determination will be consistent with the existing city Land Use Code Section 26.575,020(B) Methods of Measurement for Varying Types of Roofs, 4. Amend the POO t6delete the requirement that each single-family residence be required to .install a fire sprinkler system. In th~ effort to achieve incentives. for the development of affordable single-family' residential homes it appeared that one of the tools used was the development of small and restrictive lots thanhey themselves would demand a level of affordability. Well, the best intentions ofthe planrllng process never could have anticipated the rapid, escalation of construction cost and the inability to capture home contractors in a competitive climate. Today, the lot owners are faced with utilizing the services of modular builders from out of the valley and in some cases even out of the State. This effort does not provide much' financial comfort since the costs of construction aTe-still very high, however; it does achieve goals of constructabi1ity and relative affordabi1ity. With modular construction comes some limitations and while it is true that you can change the limitations, those changes come with increas6d cost. 130 SOUTH GALE:-.JA STREET ' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970,920.5000. FAX 970.920.5197 www.aspengov.com Prinl~donRecycledP'~r ~ -- The reality is that we have small lots and in most cases they are grade challenged, size challenged and shaped challenged with cost caps and the desire to make these high energy efficient and high building efficient homes. ' We maybe were asking too much from our lot owners, It is clear that from their perspective we are asking too much and maybe even asking the impossible. While many of the lot owners believe in the fire sprinkler system, the high cost associated with the system creates a major financial burden. requests. Included herewith are portions of the lot o_wner's research and thoughts about our OWNERS COMMENTS 1. Amend the PUD so that the building envelopes as defined by the building setback requirements are changed by the modification of the rear yard requirement to read (5) five feetminimum for garages and related accessory structures only. ' We would also like the POO amendment to include a request to change the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for garages/accessory structures to permit lis adequate room to construct our . garages and related infrastructure, Five (5) feet is a common setback for properties in the city for accessory buildings and we feel that this setback is appropriate for oirr garages. The Burfingame housing project is considered a "New urbanist development." Sn:mll setbacks are consistent with the strategy in this type of development, which is to use land more wisely. We feel that this is in the spirit of the Burlingame Affordable Housing project. Furthermore, the "Ranch Manager Road" behind lots 1-5 will be an unpaved, low usage road used exclusively for rear dtiveway acc'ess, the ranch manager unit on --iX, and emergency fire access. A 5' setback will not impede these uses. 2. Amend the Pl!D so that each single-family residential lot has an allowable maximum FAR of 2,500 square feet based on the City's Land Use Code methodology and a garage exemption of up to 500 square feet. This would include a basement only limited to the extent that it counts towards the allowable FAR of 2,500 square feet for the parcel. Leslie Lamont represented to Owners at an Owner-City staff meeting that the developer had requested 2500 square feet ofF AR in order to achillvethe 2200 square feet ofliveable space as set forth in the Housing Guidelines. Chris Bendonconfirmed that it would take approximately 2500 'square feet of FAR to achieve 2200 liveable square feet under the guidelines, Community , Development has confirmed that it was the intent of the approvals to permit Owners to build the permissible square footage subject to lot constraints and setbacks, and that by giving the entire project a single family FAR rather than any given lot, some lots would theoretically be able to utilize more FAR based on lot considerations. ' Because liveable square footage as defined in the guidelines is measured from the interior dimensions of the house rather than the exterior, and excludes areas that would be included in FAR . calculations, such as mechanical rooms, interior starwells and landings, and unfinished basements, and the lots were marketed as constructable to 2200 square feet under the guidelines, we feel the 2 City should permit lots that have the capability of building the full 2200 liveable square feet to build to capacity by permitting all lots to have 2500 square feet ofF AR. Lots with special constraints would still be limited by their constraints to a lesser FAR. Community Development has taken the position that basements should be excluded per Code except to the extent that they would be included under FAR, i.e. where the foundation is exposed for window wells or due to the sloping nature of the lots (further described under height considerations), Unfinished basements are the key concern here. In order to accommodate modular construction, lot owners must have a basement or crawl space for the entire area of the foundation, which is not possible under an FAR reduction scenario. Most owners cannot afford to finish their basements, but desire economic efficiency by having a full basement instead of some partially engineered basement and partially engineered crawl space. This is the primary reason for the additional FAR request. 3. Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has a maximum building height of 30 feet. Height determination will be consistent with the existing city Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(B) Methods of Measurement for Varying Types of Roofs. A 25' Height Restriction was applied to Burlingame based on a standard set for other areas in the City without taking into consideration the special requirements of the P.U.D. that advocate for a unique height in character with these requirements and the City's flexibility with addressing these issues in a Planned Unit Development Community Development, although it initially recommended a variance to a 28' height to address the Burlingame Owner's needs with respect to modular construction on the lots, changed its position, citing a reluctance to grant a variance from the "standard" 25' height limitation in the Code. However, Burlingame is zoned AHlPUD, and the AHlPOO zone district, defined by Code Section 26.710.110, does not contain a 25' height restriction; in fact it contains no height restriction, and the City is permitted to establish a height restriction in the P.U.D. based on an of the factors applicable to that P,U.D. Thus forcing us into a height restriction found in any different zone district and not taking into account the special needs, goals and requirements of this project and its occupants is inequitable and unrealistic. For instance, many of the zone districts in the City with a 25' height limitation are essentiany flat, contain view plane issues that do not apply to Burlingame, and are not subject to the same lot size, slope, and affordability and design constraints as Burlingame. Because Burlingame is a specially created, unique, "affordable;" stand-alone community situated in the midst of a number of conservation easements and bounded by Deer Hill, if all single family homes in Burlingame were permitted a 29' height, and since the multi-family units are 35' in height, a height increase to 29 ' would be beneficial to an single family owners and harmful to none. We believe the City applied the 25' height standard without taking into consideration the uniqueness of the Community and the lot constraints, which are detailed herein and provide support for a greater height standard. In addition, we have also been informed that the original development team recommended a higher height in the initial application. We believe this significantly supports the need for a POO amendment to increase the height. If there needs be further substantiation for the height issue to put forth to Community Development, we offer the following. Code Section 26.710.130 establishes a 28' height limitation for the Rural 3 f'-"', ,- Residential (RR) zone district. In terms of those properties within the City limits that might qualifY for a "Rural Residential" classification, we would argue that Burlingame Ranch is about as rural residential as the City of Aspen gets, and therefore, at a minimum, the 28' height limitation applicable to that zone district should likewise be applicable to Burlingame Ranch. The POO and approval documents include many references to the rural nature of the project, even though it is fairly high density to accommodate affordable housing. Our request is a revised height limitation of not less than 29'. We are only seeking one additional foot of height above the Rural Residential height requirements due to topographic and economic considerations. The primary reason for this request is due to the small scale and sloping topography of our lots combined with the 6/12 roof pitch design guideline requirement and setbacks. Each of Lots 1-7 are between approximately 3500 and 4300 square feet in size, Five out of seven of these lots are narrow at the front (40-46 feet), wider at the rear (roughly 50-60 feet), and longer from front to rear (e.g. 70 feet). With building setbacks, houses will be approximately thirty to thirty-six feet wide at the front, and sixty feet long. Generally, garages need to be placed in the rear of each lot. These measurements along with setbacks and build-to lines will result in generally long, narrow houses with a the garage off-set at the rear of the house to maximize square footage and views. Each lot's topography slopes down at a diagonal, resulting in a down-slope from front to back for the R.O. lots of at least four feet and a side-slope of approximately two feet, creating a challenging cross-slope within the building envelope. Building height is measured from the building's lowest point. Each lot owner is permitted to build up to 2200 square feet of above-grade livable area, and a 500 square foot garage. Due to ten-foot front and rear setbacks, garage location requirements, front build-to lines, and the relatively small lot size in proportion to square footage, the lot size and building envelopes are very restrictive. As a result, two story construction is required to achieve the allowable maximum of2,200 livable square feet, leaving a building envelope that is approximately 1100 square feet for the primary structure, plus a 500 square foot garage, for a total of 1600 square feet of total lot space. This footprint encompasses nearly the entire building envelope for any given lot, resulting in a total grade change of approximately four feet for each lot (and a two-foot grade change from side-to-side at the front fayade of each house). Unlike many other lots in the City (many of which are flat), there simply is nowhere to relocate within the lot or building envelope to maintain a two-story house at twenty-five feet. A house built within these constraints will thus be required to (I) be uniformly only as high as would be permitted at the lowest point on the lot (thus a uniform pitched house will need to be built twenty-one feet in height rather than twenty-five feet to accommodate the grade change; this would result in sub-par living spaces); (2) have a front (or in some cases rear) fayade of the house four feet subgrade to permit the twenty-five foot height to be maintained as the lot elevation drops four feet; or (3) be constructed in diminishing steps so that at any given point on the lot, the house will not be greater than twenty-five feet tall. We will attempt to demonstrate how these options are not in keeping with the City's plan for an affordable and aesthetically pleasing community. We believe the only realistic and equitable option 1 This memo primarily addresses R.O. Lots 1-5 for ease of reference to direction of slope and applicable Code provisions. 4 would be for the City to amend the POO to permit an up to five and one-half foot height variance for any lot in accordance with the topographical variance within each lot's building envelope. The following information supports the need and our request: 1) Lot owner's have obtained cross-section samples from several modular manufacturers indicating that a 25' height is required for standard floor plans with minimum roof pitch requirements. A minimum 6: 12 roof slope is required for Burlingame single family homes. Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Design Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), p. 17. The Cross- Sections attached hereto depict that a typical house built with the 6:12 roof pitch, standard nine-foot first floor ceilings and eight-foot second floor ceilings require a minimum of twenty-five feet in height to the mid-point of the roof (where the height measurement would be taken at this pitch under the Code). Community Development ("ComDev") has reviewed the samples for accuracy. Building a twenty-one foot house rather than a twenty-five foot house to accommodate elevation loss on the lot would result in lowered first floor ceilings and lowered second story walls, resulting in a substantial loss of use able livable square footage due to downward-sloping roofs. This would also minimize or completely eliminate the Owner's option to have attic space for storage, since vaulted upstairs ceilings would be required to maintain minimum interior height standards per the Code. Alternatively lot owners would be required to construct dormers to maximize available square footage and usability of upper story space. These types of design modifications greatly increase costs for lot owners in that I) owners will not be able to utilize existing free/affordable floor plans; 2) some modular companies may not be able to make these modifications; 3) Lot owners will be required to engage the services of architects and professional engineers to modify plans accordingly; and each new design element results in an increased cost to the Owner.2 2) Down-sloping topography of approximately 4 feet prohibits Owners from maintaining a 25' height on entire structure; side-slope of approximately 2 feet prohibits Owners from maintaining a 25' height from front fa"ade without sub-grading a portion of the front fa"ade. Under the City of Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code"), height limitations are calculated from the natural or finished graile, whichever is lower. Code S26.575.020(B) (1) (b) &(c). Given the four- foot downslope in the topography of our building envelopes, as depicted in the engineered plans provided by Shaw (samples are attached hereto), the height of a uniform, level twenty-five foot structure from the BACK of the lot line exceeds the twenty-five foot height limitation by approximately four feet, resulting in a measurement closer to twenty-nine feet. After examining the modular cross-sections & calculating the height with the Code (as referred to in ComDev's 5/23/06 memo,) ComDev has indicated that maintaining the 25' height limit on the entire structure is not possible without "stepping" down the house height one or more points as the elevation drops or subgrading the portion ofthe house which is higher in elevation. (See attached example with Chris Bendon's notes.) In addition, the Code mandates that the front fayade of each house will be measured at the lowest point at the front of the house. Due to the two-foot side-slope at the front fayade of each house, a twenty-five foot house would need to be sub-graded approximately two feet to maintain the 25' height regulation from the front fayade. 2 According to modular manufactures, the less "modular's/boxes" required in the design, the more cost effective. For example: simple 4 box construction, 2 on the bottom & 2 placed directly on the top. Dormers and creative roof configurations will be an added expense to owners, 5 ,.-.. """'" The Guidelines require that each single-family residence construct a street facing front porch of a minimum 60 square feet with a minimum depth of six feet. Guidelines p. 18. This will be extremely difficult (if not impossible given the extremely tight ten-foot front lot setbacks) to achieve if half of the front fa<;ade is sub-grade. A partially sub-grade fa<;ade on a thirty-six foot wide house with at least a ten foot wide porch makes design challenging and affects the aesthetics ofthe front fa<;ade of the house. In order to affordably construct the required front porch and fa<;ade in an aesthetically pleasing manner, the house would need to sit flat on the lot from the higher point, not be set sub-grade3. This would result in a front fa<;ade of approximately twenty-seven feet in midpoint height, and would increase the height required at the rear of each lot to thirty-one feet to accommodate for the four-foot grade change. Additionally or alternatively, if the City will simply consider re-grading our lots flat and requiring that grade to be the starting point for our height, this would greatly assist in resolving height, FAR and some affordability issues. For instance, if lot owners are forced to live with the sloping lots depicted in our surveys, we will lose some height since height is measured at the lowest point, we will lose some FAR since our basements will be exposed due to the slope, and/or we will be forced to spend a great deal of money re-grading our lots flat and engineering retaining walls to address slope differentials between our yards and our neighbors' yards, in addition to other challenging design issues If ShawIDHMI the City were to grade our lots flat, the twenty-five foot height limitation would be more attainable with modular construction. However, we have been informed that the engineering of flat lots would be too complex for the developer and too costly to the City, so this task will be left to the individual owners to figure out, and the cost will be passed on to the employee housing beneficiary. If each owner is left to re-grade its lot, this will require extensive engineering to maintain proper drainage, and extensive coordination with other neighbors, again, adding significant costs to the homeowner and making development ofthe single-family lots yet more unaffordable. 3) 6/12 Roof Pitch (Aesthetic Requirement) combined with down-sloping topography is prohibiting maintaining 25' height limitation As previously stated, the Guidelines require a roof pitch of not less than 6/12, All cross section samples from modular manufacturers are drawn at 6/12 or greater roof pitch. In order to maintain the minimum 6/12 roof pitch as required in the Guidelines, in combination with the down sloping topography, it is not possible to maintain the twenty-five foot height limitation with a uniform structure built at grade on the higher point on the lot, which for five out of seven released lots is the front fa<;ade of the house, (*Note: Although the Code imposes a 25' height limitation on single family homes throughout the majority of town, this is not a uniform requirement, and the Code DOES NOT require a 6/12 roofvitch. Thus, sinf!le familv homeowners elsewhere in the Citv could address manv of the issues we are dealinf! with such as slove and required ceilinf! heif!hts bv buildinf! flat or lower- vitched roofs) 3 Alternatively, substantial re-grading would need to occur, at the cost of hiring an engineer, possibly importing fill dirt, and the required construction of retaining walls due to the narrow lot size and the high slope differential. 6 4) Affordability. Code Section 26.575.020(B)(2) addresses the special needs of down-sloping lots. This section permits the twenty-five foot height at the front facade of a single family home on a down-sloping lot to extend for the first thirty feet of the building's depth. However, due to the fact that our lots are configured as long and narrow (40-46 feet wide) rather than wide and short, each Owner will need to build back further than thirty feet to attain even a modest amount of livable square footage. After the first thirty feet, the building height would be required to step down four feet to match the building height required at the back of the slope. The effect would be essentially splitting the sixty foot house in half and dropping the floors by four feet in the middle of the house.4 Additionally, due to the side-slope, each Owner would need to build part of the front fayade two feet sub-grade to maintain the 25' height limitation on the front fayade (this would still result in a two foot drop at the middle of the house). It is NOT affordable nor efficient to build at varying, stepped-down heights from the front to the rear facade of the house (as demonstrated on Chris Bendon's example) nor to have to excavate four feet lower to build sub-grade or employ architects and engineers to creatively, and more expensively, address the height issue, Burlingame is an affordable housing development. Given the high costs of construction in the Roaring Fork Valley, stick-building is not an option for most or all lot owners. Modular (or Pre- Fabricated) housing is the only way most of us we will be able to afford to build, especially given the construction cost caps. Whether stick-built or modular, our expenses will increase greatly if we need to engineer floor plans which drop four teet after the first thirty feet from the front fayade of the house, engineer creative floorplans, dormers and differentially pitched roofs, and/or to excavate further and re-slope our lots to make functional facades and porches four feet sub grade. 5) Our intent is to respect the streetscape and not to create a large, over-whelming mass. A majority of the increased height will be measured from the BACK of the lot, which is Open Space on R.O. lots, and will not impede other's views. Weare not asking for the ability to build mansions, Weare trying to create livable homes with a good quality of life. A slight increase in the front fayade height will accommodate the front porch requirement and maintain the sense of community and character Burlingame is striving for. A majority of the increased height will be located at the back side oflots, because of the down sloping topography.5 Because these lots are on the edge of the proj ect and the back side of the houses will face an Agricultural easement, increased height at the rear of the lots will not affect or impede any neighbors or view planes. 6) Multi-family units are 35' High and will not be affected by our variance request. An increase in height will not result in units that are higher than the multi-family units, which have a thirty-five foot height limitation. In addition, the multi-farnilyunits primarily sit higher on the 4 See Bendon diagram attached hereto. 5 Again, this reference is to R.O. lots 1-5. Category 6 lots will have a greater challenge because these Jots slope up from the front fa,ade rather than down, and arguably the Code height variance found in g26,575.020(B) (2) would not benefit these lots. 7 ".., development than the single-family lots (since the lots are on the down-sloping side of the Project). For most ofthe lots, the front fayade, visible to the multi-family units and the rest of the Project, will remain twenty-five feet in height and the "additional height" granted by the variance will only be measured by the elevation drop at the rear of the lots, thus creating no actual "additional height" from the perspective of the remaining units. 7) Burlingame Design Intent favors a height variance. The City and the Project designers were obviously very concerned with the aesthetic appearance of the Project, and thus created stringent Design Guidelines for the single family homes. However, it seems that a model was not created using the Guidelines and considering the topography ofthe site and the mandated design of the houses. A variance from the twenty-five foot height requirement supports the Design intent, and does not deviate from it. The Guidelines require single family homes to be built within fifteen feet of the front lot line, front porches are required, front dimensions are strictly monitored, garages are primarily required to be located at the rear of the house to maintain the aesthetics of the front fayade, a 6/12 roof pitch is required, along with a "Ranch Vernacular" design and materials (which incorporates a very simple architectural style). In order to meet all of these requirements for a two-story, 2200 square-foot house with standard ceiling heights, and a basic, standard design per the attached diagrams, the house structure needs to be approximately twenty-five feet high. In order to accommodate the two-foot front side-slope and construct the required front porch and to address the four foot slope from front to rear, a reasonable increase in height to the structure is required. Due to the drop in grade and height limitation, a uniformly constructed house with a level floor plan rather than split levels or creatively engineered dormers and floor plans (i.e. an affordable house) would need to be built sub-grade. This would result in a steep four-foot drop within the ten to fifteen foot front yard area and substantial grading and/or steps leading down to the front door, and a sub-grade front porch. This does not seem to be the design intent for the front facades of the single family homes, Nor does a drop in house elevations of four feet after the first thirty feet from the front fayade, which would result in awkward angles and unmanageable multi-level floor plans with stairs leading down in middle rooms, in addition to differentially elevated basements, none of which seems in line with the simple lines of "Ranch Vernacular" style architecture that have been depicted and described to us by the City, Design Review Committee, and City Staff. In addition, stepped-down construction does not lend itselfto compliance with Americans with Disabilities "Visitability" Standards. Although "visitability" is suggested but not required for single family lot owners, many lot owners are looking to build these homes to be their homes for the rest of their lives and would like to design to accommodate aging owners or handicap children/& or relatives by making them "visitable," which will require wheelchair access at one entrance and not through the garage. Sub grade front doors and porches with a two to four foot drop from street level do not lend themselves to being wheelchair accessible. Finally, if we are not granted a height variance, each owner could address the complex task of meeting the twenty-five foot height limitation differently, thus resulting in homes of differing heights at the front fayade and differing structural accommodations, a veritable mish-mash of designs and accommodations. 8) Quality of LifelEquity with Multi-family Units: Although this is an affordable project, the cap of $640,000 is a significant amount of money for us. Ifwe are spending this much, we would like to be able to build a Good Quality of life for ourselves 8 which includes 9' ceilings on the first floor, and a small yard. We do not believe these are unreasonable requests. A slight height increase will allow us to build modular & to do so affordably. We have also been informed that the multifamily units have 9' or higher ceilings to increase their quality of life. As single family lot owners we are asking for the same consideration. CONCLUSION AS TO BUILDING HEIGHTS Whether we build modular or stick-built, the design and lot constraints, cost considerations, minimal impact on surrounding units, and the Design intent favor a variance from the Code's twenty-five foot height limitation for Burlingame Single family lots of one foot for each foot of grade change within a single family lot building envelope. In this manner, Burlingame single family lot owners would be able to design twenty-five foot houses without being forced to manipulate their front facades and grading to build four feet sub-grade or to engineer complex, unsightly and expensive four-foot drops in our building elevation or creatively designed lowered roofs with dormers at a compromise to existing freelinexpensive modular pre-designed plans and affordable and comfortable interior layouts and attic storage areas. As to zoning, tIle zoning designation for Burlingame is AHIP1JD as set forth in the ordinance that approved the POO. The property was rezoned as a part ofthe POO approvals. First and foremost, Burlingame was handled as a POO which is a very common land use tool used in the city. It allows developers and the city to look at the development project individually and set the dimensional standards (i.e. height, setbacks, density, and floor area) specifically for the development. That is exactly what happened with Burlingame, except we do not believe the City looked closely enough at the Design requirements in conjunction with the sloping lots and other lot limitations in placing a 25' height limitation, as we are doing now in planning our houses. Community Development tells us that it is common for developments to come back in for POO amendments (both administratively and by council), so we do not feel our request for a height variance is unusual. We feel that the dominant reason for changing the single family height limit is AFFORD ABILITY -modular construction is the most cost effective and timely type of development that allows the project to be affordable. Therefore, we appeal to the City of Aspen City Council to enact a PUD and Guideline amendment permitting a variance from the twenty-five foot height limitation for Burlingame Single family lots of one foot for each foot of grade change within a single family lot building envelope, side-to-side and front-to-back, as needed and determined on a case-by-case basis based on house size and design, to permit us to build twenty-five foot houses in an affordable and aesthetically pleasing manner. This amendment could alternatively be couched in terms of an extension ofthe twenty-five foot height limitation for the length of the house from the front fayade of the house, similar to Code Section 26.575.020(B)(2), combined with a modification of the measurement standard at the front fayade to be measured from the higher point of the building at the front fayade (which would eliminate the requirement of sub-grading of the front fayade to address the side- slope). 9 " "",,", Alternatively, we request the City to take on the task of engineering and re-grading the lots and having the height stem from the City's grade so Owners are not forced to deal with the expense of tackling the challenging grade changes on these lots, and height differential will no longer be a consideration. 4. Amend the PUD to delete the requirement that each single-family residence be required to install a fire sprinkler system; or in the alternative, subsidize the sprinkler system costs to make this safety requirement not required of other houses in the City smaller than 5,000 square feet affordable for lot owners. Finally, we have received estimates for sprinkler systems for our houses ranging from $10,000 to $15,000. The City of Aspen does not typically require single-family homes ofless than 5,000 square feet to be constructed with fire sprinklers, and Burlingame homes will at most be up to 2,500 square feet, but the P .U.D. requires Burlingame Owners to install these systems at a significant cost to Owners. While we do not object to the safety reasons behind the installation of sprinkler systems, we object that we are being asked to comply with Code requirements elsewhere in the City but we are being asked to spend an extra $10,000 to $15,000 to install a system that is not required of houses elsewhere in the City, at our own expense and within the very tight $640,000 (or less for Category 6) construction cap placed upon Burlingame Lots. Therefore, we respectfully request that the City consider either removing the sprinkler system requirement or providing a subsidy to Owners to compensate for this safety requirement. End of Comments It is with these owner comments that Asset Management makes this submission for your approval of our proposed amendments and to begin the formal POO amendment process. Very Truly Yours, .&d~(. Jo . Laatsch, ASLA roject Planner Engineering / Asset Management 10